Ayn Rand Institute on Glen Beck

McCain-Feingold Act tells you when when no one is allowed to speak or some groups aren't allowed to speak

Finally, someone on TV understands the nature of Objectivism, and has been bringing speakers to his program from the Ayn Rand Institute. Its director has been on the show. Last week Glen Beck had Onkar Ghate, a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute.

Condensed transcript from the program, Feb. 20, 2009

Tonight, we have a very special edition of "The Glenn Beck" program.

We're going to play out some of the worst-case scenarios with some of the greatest minds around, asking ourselves one simple question: What if?

And tonight, we're going to think it out with the help of former CIA agents, some of the best money people around, military analysts, survival experts. We're going to try to show you how to prepare for the worst while everybody else is sitting back and hoping for the best. And I want you to know — everybody involved in this show is also hoping for the best.

In mid-January, the government "war-gamed" a scenario where American cities were subjected to a coordinated two-day attack. Why? Are they saying that an attack is imminent like that? No. They just understand that planning for the unthinkable will allow them to act rationally while everybody else is panicking.

The truth is — that you are the defender of liberty. It's not the government. It's not an army or anybody else. It's you. This is your country.

So, ask yourself: What kind of sentry do you want to be as you stand there at the gate?

We're making decisions right now, and I don't think we're really thinking them through. Let that not happen to us. Let's make the unthinkable thinkable for 60 minutes.

Onkar, tell me a little bit about what you see happening with freedom of speech in a scenario like this. Does the government need to keep people muted in a situation where things have really fallen apart?

GHATE Yes, I think so. In this kind of night player scenario that you're envisioning, what would happen is that the government wouldn't tolerate any kind of objections and dissent. And what would happen is, that there would be a clampdown on free speech, particularly, I think, political speech.

And we've seen precursors of that with, say, McCain-Feingold Act which is an assault on the First Amendment rights which tells people, you can't spend your money to advocate for views you want. It tells you when you can do it. It puts periods when no one is allowed to speak or some groups aren't allowed to speak and we would see a real extension of that so that the people in political power can hold on to their power, to get a real collapse in a dictatorship, it's a one-party rule.

But to get that, you really have to silence other people, and that — and you can only do that by infringing on their free speech rights and making a mockery of the First Amendment.

BECK: All right. I'm not sure if you — and I don't mean to insult you by any stretch of imagination, we just haven't had a chance to talk beforehand. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the history of Woodrow Wilson or Franklin, but — or even Truman. We've done this before, and it was always wrapped in Uncle Sam and the flag. We have clamped down on people. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, back in the early 1900s, we had 150,000 people that were political prisoners that were in jail for speaking out against World War I.

So, this isn't a crazy scenario.

GHATE: No, I don't think it is.

BECK: This has happened before. What would be the signs, the road signs along the road to 2014 that we should be aware of?

GHATE: I think extensions of McCain-Feingold, extensions of — if there are some political speeches that is OK and other speeches isn't, and it's the government that gets to decide which is which. So, if we start seeing as we've seen stimulus czars, regulatory czars, if we start seeing speech czars, we're down the road to a real dictatorship.

BECK: OK.

GHATE: And that would be really scary.

Onkar Ghate's comments Copyright (c) 2009 Ayn Rand(R) Institute. All rights reserved.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the ^sm of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and

The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,

are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ^tm
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

Beck on Obama

Why Does Obama Use the Language of Marxism--

If He is No Marxist?

What, according to Barak Obama, was the fundamental failure of the civil rights movement?

At the time he made the statements below, in 2001, Obama was the Illinois senator from the 13th district and a senior lecturer from the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: "...the victories and failures of the civil rights movements and its litigation strategy in the court [ ] succeeded [in vesting] formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples..."

Now, that's a good thing. The Constitution was meant to vest people with their rights. It is one of the reasons the Supreme Courts of some States have overturned the laws as written on gay marriage. But if the laws are written otherwise, as in the State of Michigan, the Court can do nothing about it.

A Court that does what it can is not an "activist Court." An "activist Court" is one that goes beyond what either a "common reading" or an "originalist" reading would render. see Power Reserved to the People, Respectively

OBAMA: "...but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
"The Warren court -- wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and Warren interpreted it in the same way that generally is a charter of negative liberties." [italics added]

How many times must the evidence demonstrate
that Obama uses the words of Marxism? If he is no Marxist, why use the language
of Marxism? Obama is lying--by ommission. When he, or Joe Biden, are asked about
Obama's Marxism, no one deny's that he is. They deflate the question by saying
what it is that Obama is trying to accomplish and they do it using words that
everyone likes to hear--but they don't deny it.

The redistribution of wealth is socialism. Marx did write the phrase spoken by that Florida newscaster when she questioned Biden: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs." That means take from those who can be taken from; give it to those from whom nothing can be taken. This is the doctrine of economic justice Obama spoke of.

Obama says that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. In other words, we (the government) are not going to take your guns, we're not going to take your speech. This is what the Progressive movement tried to do under FDR. They want to get rid of those things and tell you what they will do for you. Universal housing, universal healthcare, universal jobs. This is a fundamental change. This destroys the work of the founding fathers. This takes us from a small government to an oppressive government. All liberties come from them. All blessings come from them. It is only negative liberties for the state. It is putting restrictions on the state, not on people. He's flipping power.

It is no longer We the People. He also says something that doesn't make sense. In one breath Obama talks about the essential constraints placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution and at the same time suggests that the Court should have broken free of the essential constraints, constraints put there in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers specifically to prevent men such as Obama from attempting to subvert the individual sovereignty they called unalienable.

Adapted freely from Glen Beck: Frightening Obama. Thank you, Glen. I know you won't mind a little assistance in your good fight.




The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/