The movie is set in 2016 as the United States is on the brink of economic disrepair, eerily paralleling the current U.S. economic crisis. Young executive, Dagny Taggart, runs one of the largest remaining railroads. To save the railroad from financial ruin, Dagny seeks out entrepreneurial industrialist Henry Rearden, whose super-strength metal holds the promise of the future.  As government interference cripples economic growth, the country’s most competent and productive workers systematically disappear, expanding the realm of government influence and control. Dagny fights back against the growing influence of socialism.

Below you will find a short Q&A with Harmon Kaslow, producer of the film:

Q: Can you provide some opening comments about Atlas Shrugged: Part 1?

A: We are extremely proud of Part 1. We put together an amazing team and had an incredible experience adapting the novel. We learned a lot through the process and are very excited about proceeding with Part 2.

Q: Did the production time impose any constraints on the film? Were there any things you wished you could have done but weren’t able to?

A: John Aglialoro’s journey from acquiring the rights in 1992 to financing the production in 2010 is a fascinating story that is consistent with the novel’s themes of individualism. This is one of America’s greatest novels, yet no one but John had the courage to finance its production. So we had to proceed as an independent production and use our limited financial resources wisely. We also had a ticking clock that forced us to start production prior to June 15, 2010 or risk losing the rights. All the while, we had in our hearts a desire to adapt faithfully the book into a movie that would be entertaining and true to Ayn Rand’s message. Given these variables, my focus was on getting all of the moving parts that go into producing a motion picture in place so that the production team had what they needed to remain as faithful to Ayn’s vision as possible under the circumstances. John and the rest of the team were supportive and up to the challenge. We’re never going to be able to please everyone but one thing we know for sure: we did what everyone said was absolutely impossible – MADE ATLAS SHRUGGED INTO A MOVIE. Opinions vary but again, we are extremely proud of Part 1 and have every intention of making a great Part 2.

Q: Was the film tailored at all to tap into recent political events?

A: We wanted to adapt faithfully the book. So when you see things relating to what’s happening today, those are events that we thought could occur. What’s interesting is that many of the events we thought might happen … are happening. You have to go back and remember what the world was like in April/May 2010 when we were writing the screenplay. While there were conflicts in the Middle East, the implosion we’re experiencing now was not happening. The book is prophetic, and if you understand its message and add a bit of creativity and thought, Brian O’Toole and John Aglialoro, the screenwriters, did an excellent job in setting the foundation and context of where and when the events in our adaptation were taking place and gave us an authentic view of what the near future might look like. We dated the film September 2, 2016 and many of the things we projected might happen are happening now. A lot of these things are coming to fruition a lot sooner than any of us expected, which shows that Atlas Shrugged remains an incredibly relevant piece of literature.

Q: Do you think the message is crucial given our current political and policy environment?  

A: When it comes to the politics of Atlas Shrugged, the message really hits a wide group of people who believe that self reliance is the key to happiness and true liberty. This is about a movement back to the role of reason in human life, and the role of government and the citizen. I believe the movie does a great job of illustrating the power of the individual.

Q: Do you believe that Rand was actually prescient or just possessed a preternatural understanding of human behavior?  

A: Ayn Rand was not born in America. Apparently, she had some life-changing experiences in Russia before coming to America which inevitably impacted and shaped her view of this great country and all that it offered. She had experienced, first hand, a different form of government, which most likely affected her view of the role of the government and the individual. She seemed to have a very sound understanding of America’s greatness. It seems like immigrants see the opportunities we tend to take for granted and she saw that opportunity was being quashed by the government and was courageous enough to tell us a story that would inspire us to not stand idle and let it happen.  What’s important to John and me is that the movie inspires people to read the book.

Q: How do you respond to critics of some of the Rand’s more salacious beliefs — her atheism, the extra-marital affairs, the “greed” — all of which appear to have been represented in the film?

A: We feel no way about Ayn Rand being an anything. We are very proud to have the opportunity to bring Ayn Rand’s magnum opus to the silver screen. It’s an incredible honor that we take very seriously, and we hope to do her justice. When John and I embarked on producing Part 1 staying true to book was of primary importance. So, there was never any reason to explore Ayn Rand’s personal position on the issues you mention above. More importantly, I think people of faith will find that the film, like the story, emphasizes cardinal virtues such as self-reliance, integrity, honesty, strength of character, liberty and justice.

Q: What has been your response to the Atlas Shrugged reviews?

A: We believe the successes and failures of Part 1 are entirely on us. We are extremely proud of the work we did on Part 1. We had an amazing team, and it was truly an incredible experience. We’re never going to be able to please everyone but one thing we know for sure… we did what everyone said was absolutely impossible – MADE ATLAS SHRUGGED INTO A MOVIE. Opinions vary but again, we are extremely proud of Part 1 and have every intention of making a great Part 2.

Q: With the upcoming elections in 2012, do you believe the film can provide any guidance for Americans?

A: Absolutely, Ayn Rand’s core message really revolves around respecting the rights of the individual – that’s where I think voters will find a real connection between the book and their political beliefs.

Q: Ayn Rand’s thoughts, as conveyed in Atlas Shrugged, have caused debate and discussion around the world and next to the Bible it’s one of the most widely sold books.  Why do you think it’s so important for the book to become a movie and for people to see it? 

A: These films are our best hope for bringing Ayn’s view to a culture that has never needed it more. Since 1957, Atlas Shrugged has inspired those who are intent on rationally living their lives for their own sake and, in the process, bettering the world around them. Since today’s generation gets most of their messaging from visual and sensory presentation rather than from the written word, this generation is ripe to experience the morality of individual responsibility and achievement through the medium of film.

Q: What would satisfy you most in terms of reception for the DVD/Blu-Ray release of the film?

A: People get their friends to watch the movie and then they buy the book and their lives are changed for the better.

Q: Will there be an Atlas Shrugged Part 2?

A: Without question. We know there’s been a lot of speculation as to whether or not we’d continue – all of it due to our own mixed messages – but I can tell you now, beyond a shadow of a doubt, we are fully committed on every front to getting part 2 done. It’s all systems go, and there’s no turning back.

There are Republicans that will only vote Republican and stand behind the nominee no matter who it is.

There are Democrats that believe in unicorns, double rainbows, and “Yes we can!” that will vote for Obama no matter how much his actions suggest “Oh no we didn’t!”.

Then there are the the rest of us who will vote for the guy (Sorry Michele and Sarah but you gals don’t have a chance… how’s that feel coming from a Ron Paul supporter?) that actually agrees with us on approximately 80 to 100% of what we believe in.

If Ron Paul were the GOP nominee Obama would be forced to attack from the right on foreign policy, alienating those liberal voters who are ignorantly sympathetic to the drone-bombing fetishist, Nobel Peace Prize winner. Obama would be compelled to “let-me-be-clear” his way out of not being very clear on why there are still troops in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and maybe Syria and “Pock-ih-stohn”.

Now where would those voters turn after being stabbed in the back by their warmonger-in-chief? That’s right, the only other candidate in the race with years of truth and integrity spilling out of him: Ron Paul.

Nearly every question Paul received during the debate last week on MSNBC was obviously aimed at scaring people who have become dependent on the federal government. Even the CNN “Tea Party” debate earlier this week had some of this as well. Don’t fall for their magic markers. Paint your own picture of who Ron Paul is and what he believes (this video is a great start).

Newsflash: Hey MSNBC viewers, everything you despise about FOX News is exactly what MSNBC does except the paint dries blue, not red.

You have to take the crazy out of yourself before you will notice that Ron Paul is just not crazy. He is the candidate with the most common sense. I’m sure that one of Paul’s trusted advisers said to him prior to the debate, “Ron, if you look at the rest of the candidates on that stage, and you can’t find the sane one, then YOU are the sane one.”

It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. We keep electing the same clowns over and over again and expect different results. But here is Ron Paul, once again, offering America new solutions to ancient problems.

He’s the only one that can truly beat Obama. Do you want four more years of recession, desperation, broken promises, and apologies? Vote Perry, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, or Obama.

But if you want four years of prosperity, integrity, honesty, liberty, and peace. Vote Paul. He’s just the kind of crazy America needs.

“I don’t think my friend should be able to kill herself,” pontificated a fellow classmate. “Because then I will be sad and this will affect me negatively.”
For whatever reason, the concept that one can do something to themselves but not others was ungraspable for many of my fellow students. Mill argued that people must have control of their own lives and be free to do whatever they wish with it as long as it does not hinder the rights of others to do whatever it is they wish with their lives. In a society that is becoming increasingly collectivist, it may be surprising to some people that victimless crimes actually exist. They include prostitution, smoking marijuana, not wearing a seat belt among others.

In his address to 2008’s Campaign for Liberty, former New Mexico Governor Gary E. Johnson joked, “When I go out on my motorcycle, I wear protection from head to toe. However, if someone doesn’t want to wear a helmet when riding their motorcycle, that should be their choice. There is a donor shortage in this country.”

The idea behind victimless crimes is simple. You have a right to your life. You have a right to make decisions, and yes even obviously stupid ones, because it is your life and yours alone. The idea that government intervenes on your behalf even with the best of intentions is a tragic and corrupting suggestion and one that should be abandoned. Only when you do something that would hinder the rights of others should the law involve itself.

The most important figure in the libertarian movement is the individual. If collectivists are allowed to control aspects related only to the individual, even in an effort to good on the part of the individual, than libertarianism has no chance at surviving and flourishing. Mr. Mill understood the benefits of individual liberty and warned in his timeless manuscript that if victimless acts are allowed to be crimes, than the individual, for all other factors of liberty, cannot be free.

Here is his GMA appearance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQFV9nN91Oc

Here is his interview with Hannity on the radio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i0LbuS5KkM

Go, Rand, go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctsja3awrD4

Here is the CNN embed with the rest of the interview:

During Trump’s speech there were some vocal activists shouting out Ron Paul’s name, among other things. At one point when Trump mentioned there were no good GOP candidates the shouts of Ron Paul became too much for him. The video below shows what happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_-0hMID67A

Yes, the out-of-touch celebrity with lots of money reacts by telling the crowd that Ron Paul has zero chance of winning. I immediately said something that was later echoed by Rand Paul, “Trump has an even less of a chance of winning than Ron Paul”. That was only the beginning.

Next, Rand Paul delivered his excellent speech highlighted by the following quote, “If you refuse to acknowledge that there’s any waste in the military budget, you are a big government conservative.” Watch Rand Paul’s entire speech here.

Immediately following Rand Paul’s speech, it was time for the presentation of the Defender of the Constitution award to none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Giving Rummy this award is the equivalent of giving Ron Paul the Warmonger of the Year award. It truly boggles the mind. This was, naturally, not lost on the Ron Paul faithful still in the ballroom. Some loud boos were heard. Some shouts of “war monger” were heard. And a great number of people just stood up and walked silently out of the room in protest.

My initial take on this is that it’s OK to boo and shout from the point of introduction up to the point where the speech begins. Then the respectful thing to do would be to be silent or walk out silently. The minute you interfere with their speech you are being a thief of free speech and that’s not very libertarian is it?

However, this is Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld we are talking about. Do they deserve respect? Perhaps if they respected human liberty and actually defended the Constitution those boos today would have been cheers instead.

After dinner we attended the Liberty Forum with Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jack Hunter, and Thomas Woods. It was a laid-back affair and enjoyable but was without the fiery speeches that marked last year’s Liberty Forum at CPAC when Judge Andrew Napolitano brought the house down with his great speech. I for one missed the Judge tonight.

Day 1 of CPAC was quite eventful. I’m sure tomorrow will bring more interesting moments. Ron Paul speaks in the main ballroom tomorrow afternoon and the cerebral strategists and the balls-to-the-wall activists will be there to applaud, cheer, or jeer. No matter what the media writes or other conservatives say, the goal will always be to promote liberty in the best way they as individuals see fit. And no matter the results, at least they are out here doing something for the cause of freedom.

The stated goal of the “Year of Youth” is:

…to identify, train, and mobilize thousands of youth activists for a massive wave of youth campaigns across America in 2012.

• IDENTIFY: recruit 25,000 constitutionalists
• TRAIN: teach 1,000 committed activists
• MOBILIZE: endorse 100 campaigns in 2012 (through a YAL affiliated PAC)

This is a lofty but totally worthy goal. Please take some time to check out the “Year of Youth” web site and help out the project in any way you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0oha3Ntfnc

Let’s face it, cigarette packaging has become a tad too stodgy what with basic lettering, models holding cigarettes, camels, and smiling people. These new visually-stunning graphics should help spark sales and, finally, we’ll have packaging worthy for other uses other than being tossed into the recycling bin.

And while the FDA’s at it, why not do something about those dreadfully dull names cigarette companies slap on their products, names like Kool, Winston, Camel, Marlboro. What’s that about? If you want to get sales a-popping throw in a little danger. Fill those store shelves with brands like Death Stick, Lung Destroyer, Widow Maker, Cancer Maggot, and so on. Now that’s something worth asking for at your local grocery store, a whole lot more exciting than asking meekly for a pack of Benson & Hedges.

But why should the FDA stop there. Hell, if you’re going to run the entire retail system in this country, make McDonald’s put an x-ray of clogged arteries on the side of their Big Mac box; stick a coffin photo next to the mileage tag of every Smart Car waiting to be sold; affix a drawing of a retching man on Budweiser bottles; etch a broken toe graphic onto bowling balls; put baby pictures on condom packs; and, finally, place a picture of a dewy-eyed horse on every hot dog package sitting in grocery store coolers in this country.

Will sales go through the roof or what?

While many may think of this activity as nagging adults, in reality this is nothing more than plain, old-fashioned concern, the kind of concern you would have heard in your mother’s voice as she would shout out at you in your youth: “Get off that fence, you’re going to fall off!”, “Let that dog go, he may have rabies!”, “Stop playing with those matches!”, and the one that always got my attention as a boy, “Quit playing with your father’s loaded gun!” Our government is really an anxious mother looking out for its head-strong kids.

If this isn’t a brilliant stroke of genius coming out of the Obama Administration to get the economy going, to put Americans to work, to create an unending stream of new jobs, well I don’t know what else it could be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8URI8-BlRI

LM: Your recent op-ed in USA Today discussing libertarianism and conservatism where you deemed yourself “not quite” a libertarian seemed to be another (rather successful in my view) effort to unite conservatives and libertarians by focusing on where there are agreements. Is one of your fundamental campaign strategies to foster agreement between these groups?

Rand Paul: Yes, it is. The views that unite many conservatives and libertarians are grounded in deference to the Constitution and its principles, and a belief in limited government. These ideals have not been acted upon by many in Washington recently, and that’s why I’m running. It’s also why the Tea Parties exist – frustration with a lack of accountability on spending and the size of government.

These ideals – and the joining of all limited government advocates — form the basis for my campaign this year, one that has struck a chord with Republicans, independents, libertarians, and Tea Party activists. For the country’s sake I hope we can keep these groups in agreement and united against those who do not hold the same respect for those Constitutional principles.

Yes. I believe that about sums up why Rand Paul was successful. He united all flavors of voters. The Republicans, libertarians, independents, conservatives, and tea partiers joined together to support him. He also united progressives pretty well too. They were downright venomous for some reason. I guess that’s the way they roll when they disagree with someone.

A little less than a year ago I posted an article entitled, “Why Rand Paul Will Win“. I listed three reasons: public sentiment, fund raising, and the “it” factor. In retrospect it was mostly public sentiment that turned the tide in his favor in both the primary and general.

Also of note, Rand Paul’s father Ron, won his race. There’s a slight chance Ron Paul could be in line for a committee or sub-committee chairmanship now that the House is changing control to the GOP. It’s likely we’ll all be seeing more of the always-entertaining hearing sessions with Ben Bernanke tap dancing around Ron Paul’s questions. I also believe it to be quite likely we’ll see Ron Paul running for president in 2012 given the results and public opinion. Fox News even threw some love Ron’s way by mentioning him as the catalyst for his son’s and the tea party’s victories. Prepare your bank account for an onslaught of money bombs next year and in 2012.

As for the meaning of this election…

I don’t think I could describe it any better than Scott Rasmussen in a recent article from the Wall Street Journal.

Voters don’t want to be governed from the left, right or center. They want Washington to recognize that Americans want to govern themselves.

This isn’t a GOP victory nor a Democrat loss. This is yet more evidence that America doesn’t like either major party but it still doesn’t quite know what to do about it so they vote out the party in power (at least in the House). Likely incoming House Speaker John Boehner’s speech echoed this same sentiment. He even showed off some Glenn Beck-style emotional tears. Hopefully these words and tears are backed up with action.

We’ll soon find out.