As evidence he pointed out, rightfully, that he “watched a peaceful crowd indulge their First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, hand out political literature, and petition their government for redress of grievances.” However, as many in the paleomedia often do, he misses – or ignores – the point of the bigger picture.Politicians, pundits and the paleomedia would love you to focus on the micro instead of the macro. They would love for you to concentrate on the fact that you are freely exercising your First Amendment rights by gathering here today unmolested by government, or that you might exercise your Second Amendment rights by using your concealed carry permit to take a weapon into a local park, because as Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, “. . . all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable. . .” They know that as long as you concentrate on your own little corner of the world, the micro versus the macro, evil will remain sufferable for most.

Do you think that everyone in 18th Century America drank tea and were directly impacted by the tea tax? Or, is it more likely that some were concerned with the big picture versus just their own little corner of the world and problems?

No, they don’t want you to concentrate on the fact that you have a constitutional right to a republican form of government – a republic, and have certain protections against the tyranny of democracy and out-of-control government, but those protections have been broken.

They don’t want you to focus on the fact that you have a Tenth Amendment right to a limited federal government and the rule of law, but that on June 16th the president called a CEO on the carpet, circumvented a law that established BP’s liability for the Gulf oil spill at $75 million, and extorted over $20 billion from BP to be administered by an “independent counsel,” before any court rulings, any judicial findings, or even an investigation as to how the Gulf oil spill occurred and was allowed to worsen. It wasn’t even a settlement in lieu of a lawsuit.

Yielding to a presidential arm twisting, a private corporation agreed to not pay out dividends to share holders for the rest of 2010, in the absence of any investigative findings or court rulings. Funny how BP had asked Louisiana officials for permission to drill in 500 feet of water, where a spill could have been repaired in days versus months, received that permission, but the federal government vetoed the deal and forced BP to dill in 5,000 feet of water.

While claiming your constitutional rights are just fine, the paleomedia would love for you to forget the Supreme Court ruling that allows government to seize your property not for public use as intended, but for the public good as modern collectivists wish, thereby circumventing your Fifth Amendment rights.

Oh yes, our local Florida Today columnist would like you to forget many things with respect to the attacks on your constitutional rights. He would like you to forget that the only method by which our federal government obtains new or expanded powers is by delegation from the people through the amendment process, and not judicial fiat, legislation or elections. He would like you to forget that as recently as the 1920’s, changes such as Prohibition, tax laws and voting rights actually took constitutional amendments, unlike the judicial and legislative fiat used today, because that is all evidence that you here today are right.

With all that is going on in our nation today, what is it that makes that Florida Today columnist believe his right to a free press is inviolate? I hear the Obama administration may be making their move against the paleomedia right now under the guise of another bailout.

Read more:
Orlando Sentinel – Tea Party Cand. To File Ethics Complaint vs …

So why can’t the tens of millions who love the Constitution and our founding principles inspire two million ex-military people, bikers, athletes, conservative Christians, and like-minded “average Americans” to march and shout in a grand circle around the Capitol in D.C, banging pots and pans and yelling, “Hey hey , ho ho, Socialism’s gotta go! If our servants in the Congress cower with fear that we might charge the building, so much the better. Not that we would, but it wouldn’t hurt if they thought we might.

I wrote that (with some now updated editing) six years ago, and though there’s always hope, I was never really sure we’d bring it off.

But this past Saturday, we did.

All of us, even those who couldn’t go to Washington but turned out at the various rallies here in Brevard, were part of the first certain evidence that the sleeping giant is awake now and filled with a terrible resolve.

When we arrived at Freedom Plaza, 9AM, the crowd was already huge. The atmosphere was electric with an energy that had to be felt. But it was not angry, it was the energy of a ballplayer who has sat on the bench for too long and now has the chance to show what he can do, and is determined to make the most of it.

Very few of the signs people carried were directed at the President, despite the accusations of the paleo-media, who have opined that the rally was about the color of his skin.

Most of them were about the corruption of our Constitutional Republic by the men and women in Washington. Maybe more than anything they called for returning to the wisdom of our founders.

Some called for term limits. Others stated the Constitutional idea that “the government is not your nanny”. Some children had signs that said “keep your hands off my piggy bank”.

And my favorite: a reference to the Revolutionary war conflict between the patriots and the Tories (supporters of the King) and the treatment sometimes given to the Tories. The hand written signs said “TEA today, TAR tomorrow.

They came in all ages and colors and stations in life. They were white, black, Hispanic and Asian. One of the men I spoke with was a new citizen from Indonesia.

They were Doctors, ex-military, bikers, an history teacher, students and from the looks of them every other trade you could imagine.

Those of us who are more “seasoned citizens” can rest a little easier because the crowd was filled with men and women in their 20’s, 30’s and 40’s. They will carry on the struggle for freedom in the years ahead and they are every bit as committed to freedom and limited government as we have been. They are in the fight for the long haul.

The most touching of all to me was a 90 year old man, frail and determined, who had to be helped from time to time by his grandsons, themselves in their 50s.

He had waited for this outpouring of patriotism for over fifty years and walked all the way from the Plaza to the Capitol. His grandson’s eyes welled with pride and tears as they talked about him.

The Capitol and DC police I talked to said it was the most well-behaved crowd they’d ever seen and by the way, unlike the crowds that have attended other demonstrations, left the grounds as clean as they found it.

Whether the March was a half million, a million or two million, one thing is certain, all who came will return to their homes all over this great land as prophets for the cause of freedom and limited government.

Saturday was just the beginning.

But I am troubled by some of what seems to be on the agenda for the march this Saturday. Most references on the website for the march still speak in terms of lower taxation and individual fights on legislation as it appears in the Congress.

These are critical battles, of course and we must stay ever vigilant against the sneaks in the power grid in DC.

But, to my mind, there is an even more important aspect to this struggle. The restoration of the Constitution as originally written and interpreted in 1787 is the ONLY issue that will solve all problems at once. Whether it is taxes, spending, growth of government into areas where it doesn’t belong, the solution to all is strict “originalism.”

Alexis De Toqueville said “For every man hacking away at the root of a problem, there are a hundred hacking away at the branches.”

The branches are the individual issues we fight. The root of every problem is the twisting and ignoring of delegated powers.

We must begin to make arguments that do not speak in terms of adversarial legislative issues (politics) and begin to focus on a restoration of the one issue that overides and underlies every other one, the glorious simplicity of the concepts of the Constitution (philosophy).

Limited power. Separation of powers. State power versus Federal power. These are the issues we must sell to the American public to gain the consensus needed to revive the spirit of the founders and restore the Constitutional Republic.

I hope we will be able to train ourselves to become salesmen for the founders and not just advocates or opponents of lower taxes, this bill or that “reform”.

We must sell the ideas of the founders, not just to the politicians, but to the American people. To quote Samuel Adams, we must become the “irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in men’s minds”.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

Read more…

 We are born with a “fight or flight” system that aids our body when we are in danger to either immediately escape the threat or defensively respond. Either way, this threat is to be dealt with and ended in the immediacy for us to then move forward to carry on with our daily life. However, in our present culture there are so many stressors that cannot be resolved expeditiously or in which we may feel little to no control so that we are unable to quickly fight or flea the situation (i.e. financial strains, job loss, unhealthy relationships, unwanted political changes). With this continued stress, our bodies will eventually express and alert us to the need for healthy changes whether we are aware of the need or not and whether the outlets for emotional release are available or not. When we continue to be inundated with this emotional strain our bodies may then physically pay a price. Unfortunately, many people do not realize the extent of their stress until physical ailments arise (i.e. headaches, ulcers, compromised immune system, elevated blood pressure, etc.) You may also find that you have sleep or appetite changes, shortened temper, concentration difficulties, increased illnesses, loss of interest in activities that were formerly of interest, increased consumption of alcoholic beverages, tobacco or recreational drugs.

When these feelings and symptoms of depression, anxiety, agitation or anger are at levels that are persistent, intense and disruptive, it is an indication of a need for some reprieve, if not resolution. It is healthy to find constructive outlets to release these emotions. It may take some time and experimentation to find what works for you, but many people find emotional relief with exercising, talking with likeminded individuals, voting, supporting politicians or a political group that represents your views or volunteering with other groups that are of interest to you. The point is to not continue to take in the information that is disturbing to you without having a release, a constructive action. If you do not have any outlets of stress reduction or do not desire to seek out any, then it may be appropriate to limit or completely cease exposure to political media. If you experience this stress at levels that are interfering with your ability to function, it may also be time to seek professional assistance with a mental health provider or your physician.

It is understandable to want to stay politically aware and to know what is going on in the world around you. However, to be healthy in this, steps should be taken so that it is not so disruptive that you are unable to function, that you are getting involved at a level you desire and/or that you are utilizing healthy coping skills to maintain your own emotional and physical health. For many, the current political situation is stressful and your emotional and physical health is critical in order to be the most effective in your present day-to-day life and in working on political issues that you think may ultimately impact you and your loved ones. Be sure to take care of yourself today, so that, if you desire, you can then assist in addressing and resolving issues for tomorrow!

We are hearing a lot about the Democrats’ health care reform plan(s), which consists of a full-blown government takeover of the industry, but what about other proposals? Other than bromides like “the party of no” and “Republicans have no solutions”, you don’t hear anything about the suggestions made by Republicans and non-partisan think tanks. Is Obamacare really the only game in town? Or is this just another example of the mainstream media being in the tank for the administration? I’ve been doing some research and was surprised to learn there are other proposals out there.

One proposal comes from the Republican Study Committee, the Empowering Patients First Act, HR 3400. Let’s take a look:

Pillar #1: Access to Coverage for All Americans
Makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all – Extends the income tax deduction above the line) on health care premiums to those who purchase coverage in the non-group / individual  market. And, there is an advanceable, refundable tax credit (on a sliding scale) for low-income  individuals to purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market.

Covers pre-existing conditions – Grants states incentives to establish high-risk / reinsurance pools. Federal block grants for qualified pools are expanded.

Protects employer-sponsored insurance – Individuals can be automatically enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan. Small businesses are given tax incentives for adoption of auto-enrollment.

Shines sunlight on health plans – Establishes health plan and provider portals in each state, and these portals act to supply greater information, rather than acting as a purchasing mechanism.

Pillar #2: Coverage Is Truly Owned by the Patient
Grants greater choice and portability – Gives patients the power to own and control their own health care coverage by allowing for a defined contribution in employer-sponsored plans. This also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered.

Expands the individual market – Creates pooling mechanisms, such as association health plans and individual membership accounts.

Individuals are also allowed to shop for health insurance across state lines.

Reforms the safety net – Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries are given the option of a voucher to purchase private insurance. And states must cover 90% of those below 200% of the federal poverty level before they can expand eligibility levels under Medicaid and SCHIP.

Pillar #3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure
Institutes doctor-led quality measures – Nothing suggested by the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research can be finalized unless done in consultation with and approved by medical specialty societies. It also establishes performance-based quality measures endorsed by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (PCPI) and physician specialty organizations.

Reimburses physicians to ensure continuity of care – Rebases the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) and establishes two separate conversion factors (baskets) for primary care and all other services.

Promotes healthier lifestyles – Allows for employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.

Pillar #4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs.
Reforms the medical liability system – Establishes administrative health care tribunals, also known as health courts, in each state, and adds affirmative defense through provider-established best practice measures. It also encourages the speedy resolution of claims and caps non-economic damages.

Pays for the plan – The cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies (reduce DSH payments), ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non-defense discretionary spending step down.

Now let’s do a side by side comparison on some of the issues:

PATIENTS FIRST – CHOICE AND PORTABILITY
RSC Plan (H.R. 3400)
Offers new innovate solutions for individuals to shop across the state lines and make insurance companies responsive to patients.  And employers can offer a “defined contribution” to individuals to purchase a plan which they can keep if they change jobs.

House Democrat Plan (H.R. 3200)
Bless individuals to “choose” from a host of plans approved by the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, a new government bureaucracy (and that’s if choices remain after the new government-run plan gets to “compete.”.

IF YOU LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE, YOU CAN KEEP IT
RSC Plan (H.R. 3400)
Grants power to individuals and their families with no fear that existing coverage will be deemed unacceptable by Washington.

House Democrat Plan (H.R. 3200)
Outlaws private insurance on the individual market and requires employers to change their current health care plans if they do not comply with new stringent government requirements.

PRESERVE THE EMPLOYER – BASED SYSTEM
RSC Plan (H.R. 3400)
Keeps intact the current pre-tax benefits while permitting employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.  And tax incentives are granted for auto-enrollment programs.

House Democrat  Plan (H.R. 3200)
Implements a host of new government mandates on employer-sponsored coverage, increasing the costs for businesses and employees while taking away innovation and flexibility.  And don’t forget more than 80 million Americans would lose their coverage.

MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM AND REINING IN COSTS
RSC Plan (H.R. 3400)
Reduces frivolous lawsuits by establishing health courts in each state and adding affirmative defense through best practices set by physicians, not trial lawyers chasing a buck in lottery courts.

House Democrat  Plan (H.R. 3200)
Nothing.  Estimates peg the cost of defensive medicine between $70 billion to $124 billion per year, or around 10% of all health care dollars.  If there were less interest in blaming “greedy doctors” and protecting trial lawyers,  they’d actually address the problem.

LOWER TAXES
RSC Plan (H.R. 3400)
Gives Americans back their own hard-earned tax dollars, through credits and deductions, to purchase the quality health insurance of their choice.  It makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all Americans.

House Democrat  Plan (H.R. 3200)
Taxes business (pay or play) the wealthy (surtax) and the middle class – you know, those making less than $250,000 a year (individual mandate).

LIMITATIONS ON ABORTIONS
RSC Plan (H.R. 3400)
No funds may be used to pay for an abortion or cover any part of the costs of  any health plan which includes coverage of abortions.

House Democrat Plan (H.R. 3200)
Permits taxpayer dollars to be spent on abortions and does not prevent the Health Benefits Advisory Committee from mandating coverage of abortions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another alternative proposal written by John Mackey, co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market and can be found on his blog http://www2.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jmackey/.

John Mackey writes: “While we clearly need health care reform, the last thing our country needs  is a massive new health care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new  unfunded deficits and moves us much closer to a complete governmental takeover of our health care  system.  Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the exact opposite direction-toward less governmental control and more individual  empowerment.”

The following are the eight reforms proposed by Mr. Mackey:

1. Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans
and health savings accounts.

2. Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned
health insurance have the same tax benefits.

3. Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from copeting across state lines.

4. Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

5. Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurances costs of
hundreds of dollars per year.

6. Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.

7. Enact Medicare reform: we need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading
towards bankruptcy and move towards greater patient empowerment and responsibility.

8. Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deduction donation
to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t coverd by Medicare, Medicaid or
the State Children’s Insurance Program.

If we are going to reform health care, we should take the time to explore and discuss all of the options. Unfortunately, with the Obama administration constantly throwing out arbitrary deadlines, this probably won’t happen.

“On every question of construction, (let us) carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying (to see) what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, (let us) conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

One of the most dangerous philosophical and patriotic heresies facing the American Republic is the argument that the Constitution is a “living document” designed to be flexible enough to assign to the federal government the power to apply “new solutions to new problems.”

This stunningly ignorant idea willfully and corruptly ignores the first two hundred years of our understanding of the primary principle that the Founders wrote into the Constitution.

It is a simple principle containing what the Founders understood as a part of the “wisdom of the ages”, many of the profound truths of history and the nature of mankind. In the 19th century Lord Acton defined that wisdom in nine words: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

The solution to the flaw in human nature that allows power to corrupt was enshrined in the Constitution in one simple and overriding idea. It was to proscribe and limit – severely limit – the authority of the central government to the powers delegated to it and to assign all others to the states and the people. Putting aside for the moment the absurdity of even having to make this argument at this time in our nation’s history, how did that rare and inspired group of men achieve that goal?

Well, for one thing, the Founders were so careful in the assignment of the delegated powers that instead of saying what the federal government could not do, which would have left anything not specifically prohibited to that government to the discretion of those in power. The Founders wrote in Article 1, Section 8,(and in large part, elsewhere) that the Congress had specific, delegated powers, thereby prohibiting the use of any non-delegated ones, as James Madison, universally known as the “father of the Constitution”, clearly said in Federalist 45, “”the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are FEW and DEFINED.

A century later, one of the great Supreme Court justices of the 19th century, Joseph Story, echoed Madison; “The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.” The same limitation on power was assigned to the Executive branch in Article 2 and to the Judiciary in Article 3.

Thomas Jefferson put it more informally, “Let no more be heard of trust in men, but bind them down from ‘mischief’ by the chains of the Constitution.”

By 2009, Madison’s view in Federalist No. 45 has become regarded as quaint and unpopular, for a literal interpretation would indict much of the federal government’s activities at that point as unconstitutional.

As a consequence, Madison’s view is all but unknown among Americans. James Madison notes taken during the Constitutional Convention may be found at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

There are several reasons the Founders were so careful to limit the power of the central government.

The first, and most obvious, is the prevention of a deliberate tyranny. The Founders were generally well-schooled in world history and applied that understanding to the crafting of the new government. They used the knowledge of historical tyrannies to limit that possibility through the new Constitution. Jefferson could read Latin, Greek, French, Italian and Spanish and was likely to have read Caesar’s commentaries in the original Latin from his own extensive library. He could also “calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice (in, fact, in1976, the American Institute of Architects chose Jefferson’s design for the University of Virginia as the greatest architectural achievement of America’s first two hundred years) try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, play the violin and write better than anyone in the Continental Congress”.

Is there anyone in power today with such understanding and ability?

The second is a much more subtle and in many ways a much more dangerous one. It is the creeping and gradual falling away from the idea of limitation on government and an increase in the acceptance of the idea that the federal government is a benign servant of the people, and as long as government serves those needs, the strict adherence to the Constitution is unnecessary or irrelevant. But power created for a good purpose may be easily turned to power used for a bad one. Thus may tyranny begin with good intentions. To paraphrase Jefferson, without the constraints of the Constitution, good mischief may easily become bad mischief.

There are many “educated“people today who hold the view that as long as the “mischief “is for the good of the people, the meaning of the Constitution can be stretched, even until it is unrecognizable and the power of the central government should acknowledge no restraint.

With as little respect as possible for the people who believe that alien idea, it should be argued that the federal government was formed by the states primarily to conduct international relations, fight wars, keep states from fighting with each other, and to protect the natural rights of the people from anyone who would dare attempt to usurp those rights, but the serving of the needs of the people is given to the states, the counties, and the cities and the representatives who are closest to the people they serve.

Again, James Madison in Federalist 45…”the powers reserved to the several states will extend to all objects which…concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.

To believe the modern “progressive” view of the federal powers contained in the Constitution, it is necessary to ignore not only virtually all the historical knowledge of the relationship between man and power, but to put aside all knowledge of the people who seek the expanded power today.

The simplest comparison between the intellectual power and decency of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, their desire to create a nation in which every individual should be free to pursue his or her dreams so long as they do not infringe on the rights of all other individuals to do the same and the clever but slovenly, anti-intellectualism of the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Murtha and President Obama should make it self-evident that the power of government must be controlled by the chains of the Constitution if we are to survive as a truly free people. Against the philosophy of the progressives we must engage and argue, against the moderate and the uninformed we must teach if the great experiment called America is to survive.

As Lord Acton also said, “Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.”

The quote at the beginning of this piece? Thomas Jefferson.

Hollywood could soon be going Objectivist.

After decades in development hell, Ayn Rand’s capitalism-minded “Atlas Shrugged” is taking new steps toward the big screen — with one of the film world’s most prominent money men potentially at its center.

Ryan Kavanaugh’s Relativity Media is circling the Baldwin Entertainment project and could come aboard to finance with Lionsgate, which got involved several years ago.

Rand’s popular but polarizing book — it’s derided by many literary critics but has a huge public following — tells the story of Dagny Taggart, a railroad executive trying to keep her corporation competitive in the face of what she perceives as a lack of innovation and individual responsibility.

A number of stars have expressed serious interest in playing the lead role of Taggart. Angelina Jolie previously had been reported as a candidate to play the strong female character, but the list is growing and now includes Charlize Theron, Julia Roberts and Anne Hathaway.

Although it was written a half-century ago, producers say that the book’s themes of individualism resonate in the era of Obama, government bailouts and stimulus packages — making this the perfect moment to bring the 1,100-page novel to the big screen.

“This couldn’t be more timely,” said Karen Baldwin, who along with husband Howard is producing, with film industry consultant John Logigian advising on the project. “It’s uncanny what Rand was able to predict — about the only things she didn’t anticipate are cell phones and the Internet.” Baldwin may be on to something — love it or hate it, “Shrugged” is seeing a resurgence, with book sales spiking as debates rage in Washington and around the country about the government’s role in a faltering free-market economy.

The author’s final novel offers an embattled railroad company as a metaphor for a society that Taggart (and Rand) sees as succumbing to socialism at the expense of individual creativity. Its backbone is a 50-page speech by the mysterious but major character John Galt in which he lays out the Rand principles of Objectivism, which argues for an aggressive free market and against government activism. Let’s just say it’s probably not on the president’s nightstand.

With all the long speeches and with plot points often a Trojan Horse for Rand’s ideas, it’s not an easy writing or directing gig, but producers believe they’ve got the man who could do it. Randall Wallace, the writer on other crisis-era, politically themed works such as “Braveheart” and “Pearl Harbor,” has written the latest draft of the screenplay and is also interested in coming on to direct.(He would follow in the steps of “House of Sand and Fog” director Vadim Perelman, who had been attached to direct and fell off; we like Perelman, but would have been quite the transition for him.)

The project would likely land in the $50 million-budget range but could go higher depending on talent.

Producers are looking to shoot next year, driven in part by the timeliness, as well as by a clause in the option. A high net-worth individual with whom the Baldwins have partnered controls the option, but that option would revert to the Rand estate if production doesn’t begin by the end of 2010.

An “Atlas Shrugged” movie has gone through endless development fits and starts. Faye Dunaway and Clint Eastwood had been attached to earlier versions — if that doesn’t give you an idea of how far back it goes, we don’t know what will — but with both Rand and the Rand estate very particular about how the story was handled, those iterations didn’t get traction.

This decade, Howard Baldwin and Philip Anschutz were on board to produce at their Crusader Entertainment banner, but that effort didn’t take flight. The Baldwins took the project with them when the “Ray” producers split from Anschutz several years ago and pacted with the high net-worth figure, who is said to especially like the timeliness of the book’s message.

Producers also say that while Relativity and Lionsgate are in the pole position to finance and distribute, other studio and financier suitors could yet materialize.

Still, Karen Baldwin praised Lionsgate and Michael Burns, who has championed the project at the studio, and also said Kavanaugh would be an appropriate partner. “The subject of the book would seem to fit with the kind of people who are willing to step up and take big chances,” she said.

The Rand involvement on earlier versions — along with the verbiage-heavy sections — is probably why there hasn’t been a Rand project on the big screen in 60 years, not since Gary Cooper played Howard Roark in Warner Bros.’ “The Fountainhead.” With some big-time entrepeneurs potentially coming board, there now may be a lot less shrugging and a lot more shooting.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., had the most conservative voting record in 2008 according to the American Conservative Union (ACU), and was a “taxpayer hero” according to the National Taxpayer’s Union (NTU), but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says his 2008 record was less pro-business than Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton.

Similarly, Texas libertarian GOPer Rep. Ron Paul—the most steadfast congressional opponent of regulation, taxation, and any sort of government intervention in business—scored lower than 90% of Democrats last year on the Chamber’s scorecard.

Liberal Democrats often accuse conservative Republicans of being pawns for Big Business, but the 2008 scorecard for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—the largest lobbying organization in the country and the official Washington voice of business—provides convincing evidence to the contrary. In fact, the policy agenda of big business can be very different from that of limited-government conservatives and libertarians.

Read more…