Mr. Galt, who is 97 years old, has become a symbol for laissez-faire capitalism, and specifically for Ms. Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, in the years since the novel’s publication. Objectivism calls for a completely unobtrusive role by government in business. Mr. Galt’s character leads a shutdown of industry as a means of avoiding succumbing to what he sees as a socialist government agenda. He then attempts to begin a new society, based on his philosophy, with all the world’s titans of industry.

An assisted living facility in Evanston, Illinois, specifically constructed to provide low-income housing for elderly Illinois residents.

Asked about the apparent contradiction between his role in the book and his current living situation, Galt said, “Well, I lost my job. After the whole shutdown, we tried to make our own thing, our own society, but it failed, because we all wanted a bigger piece. So I shut it down and came back to the U.S. But I didn’t have my business anymore. It was all gone.”

Mr. Galt said he did find a job, as an engineer with Arcon Petroleum. He worked for Arcon for 31 years. Then, in 1992, he was fired.

“I couldn’t believe it. I had given my life to that company, and they threw me out, like I was nothing,” he said. “I started drinking then, lost a lot of people who were close to me, and then the whole meltdown happened.”

The “meltdown” Galt is referring to is the current economic recession, which began in 2007. He says that his pension, like the pensions of millions of Americans, was wiped away in the blink of an eye.

“It gets me disgusted, even talking about it,” he said. “I had my money with one of these banks, and they took all these risks with it, and poof! It’s gone. Just like that. And I had nothing.”

And that is when, after much hesitation due to what he calls “an immense amount of pride,” he looked into filing for assistance from the government.

“It was the last thing in the world that I wanted to do, but I didn’t have any choice. I needed to eat, I needed to live. So here we are.”

Galt acknowledges that if Ms. Rand were to somehow learn of his current situation, she would be shocked and appalled.

“She’d probably turn over in her grave,” he said. “But by herself. Not with any help from anyone.”

“I hope something will come through soon,” Daniel said, sitting in his living room with his wife, Ernestine. “We’re down to our last little bit here.”

But what keeps Daniel going is the performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The type of day the benchmark indicator has can lift Daniel’s spirits or drag them down. It all depends on where the Dow is as the closing bell sounds.

“If the Dow moves up, I get very happy, very content,” Daniel said. “It’s as if I don’t have any problems anymore.”

Ernestine agreed that a good day on Wall Street can sometimes make the couple forget all about Daniel not having a job, about the difficulty of the past several months.

“None of it matters when we watch CNBC and see that the Dow has closed up,” Ernestine said, looking at Daniel, who nodded in agreement. “For those few minutes, it’s okay that Daniel got laid off, that we’re struggling financially, because the Dow is okay. As long as the Dow is okay, I can go to sleep with a sound mind.”

Ernestine said there are times where one of their three young children will wake up crying during the night. She used to try to rock them back to sleep, or read them a story.

“Now I’ll go to their room and cradle them and say, ‘The Dow was up 120 points today. What are you crying about?’”

Of course, there are bad days for the market, too, and for the Dow specifically. Daniel said the bad days do hurt a lot, and can dull some of the optimism he feels about his prospects of finding work in the near future.

“It’s like, even if I have an interview lined up, if the Dow drops a good amount, like a hundred points, then I feel like all hope is lost, it doesn’t even matter,” Daniel said. “Last week I had an interview scheduled in the evening, but after the Dow dropped a bunch, I didn’t even bother to go. What’s the point?”

Asked how they are affording cable television with Daniel being out of work, Ernestine said, “Well, we really can’t afford it. We should really be buying food and clothes and things. But we have to watch the Dow.”

A view of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, currently filling with thousands of gallons of oil per day.

New York – With oil from a blast-damaged rig continuing to flow into the Gulf of Mexico, the price of a gallon of the Atlantic Ocean’s water rose 5.4 cents Friday, reaching a record high $2.79. It was the largest single-day increase in nearly 27 years.

Investors heartened by the release of a BP-sponsored study showing the ocean is now 3/5s crude oil also brought Atlantic Ocean futures up $1.50, to close at $76.39 a barrel on the New York Stock Exchange.

“Once the study’s results were announced, it was like a switch was thrown,” said J.J. Thomasy, a consultant with Richards and Richards Investment Group, based in New York. “Everyone realized, ‘Wow, the ocean is an incredibly valuable commodity, when it has all that oil in it.’”

The oil spill, the largest in the nation’s history, began April 20 when an explosion aboard the oil tanker The Deep Sea Horizon caused thousands of gallons of oil to gush into the gulf. Government estimates of the amount of oil flowing into the gulf have been revised upwards to 60,000 barrels a day. The spill has greatly harmed sea life and the commercial fishing industry. The long-term health and environmental effects may not be fully understood for years to come.

But on the bright side, says John Klanke of Merriweather Financial Holdings, you can now power your car with ocean water.

“I mean, it’s horrible to say it, but my friends and I ran a test and found that a gallon of water from the Gulf of Mexico got our car to the grocery store and back,” Merriweather said. “That’s big. You want to talk about energy independence, how about we don’t need Middle East oil anymore because the whole ocean to the east and south of us is made of oil? Can Saudi Arabia top that? I don’t think so. Talk to me when the Red Sea is black, my friends. Black and slick.”

Asked why BP commissioned the study of the percent of oil in the Atlantic Ocean’s water, company spokesman Brian Turney said, “Well, we wanted to show that the spill wasn’t all bad. I mean, yes, of course there are negative aspects to it. But you have to look at it from a new and different perspective. You have to think outside the box. Think about it: who would have thought of using the ocean to power our automobiles, had this incident not occurred? Sometimes great ideas happen from terrible accidents. Like the chocolate falling into the peanut butter in that commercial. And look what came from that — deliciousness.”

“I am voting yes on this bill because on an issue such as this, I felt I must vote my conscience. Or whatever that thing’s called. The thing that tells you what’s right and wrong. Your, your moral center. Whatever they call doing what that thing tells them to do when they vote, that’s what I’m doing.”

Mr. Armon denied that he is now voting for the bill because he has been promised a spot on the House Ethics Committee.

“My vote has nothing whatsoever to do with promises or deals or anything of that nature,” he said. “Unless you count the promise I made to the American people, and the people of Virginia’s 12th district. And my conscience. Then it is about promises. Because when I promise my conscience something, boy, I deliver. I don’t disappoint my conscience. Because, you know, when you disappoint your conscience… you… um… Look, all I know is I’m voting my conscience. Unless that doesn’t mean what I think it means, in which case I’m not doing that.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would neither confirm or deny that Armon has been offered a spot on the Ethics Committee. She would only say that he was voting for the bill because he thought he was doing the right thing.

“Representative Armon is voting for health care reform because he believes in health care reform,” Pelosi said. “He believes in health care reform in his heart. Or wherever people believe in things.”

Kabul, Afghanistan – The Defense Department announced Friday that one of its many Predator drones will take over command of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, effective immediately.

The drone, or unmanned aerial vehicle (UVA), replaces General Stanley A. McChrystal, who had been in charge of U.S. and Nato forces in Afghanistan since June of 2009. Gen. McChrystal could not be reached for comment.

Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell explained the thinking behind Friday’s decision, saying that Defense Secretary Robert Gates had not lost confidence in General McChrystal; he had gained confidence in the unmanned drones.

“The role of unmanned drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan has continued to increase to the point where it was mutually agreed by the Pentagon leadership that they are now experienced enough and battle-tested enough to take command of the war effort in Afghanistan,” Morrell said. “It will be a fresh approach. I don’t think anyone can deny that.”

Morrell said the particular Predator drone chosen to lead the U.S. forces would not be appearing before the press or answering any questions about possible changes in war strategy.

“It’s a drone,” Morrell said. “It won’t be giving any press conferences.”

Praising the career and service of General McChrystal, Morrell said the decision was a difficult one for Secretary Gates to make, but that he had the full support of the Pentagon leadership.

“Secretary Gates made the decision after intense discussions with military leadership and in-depth analysis of the current state of the war effort,” Morrell said. “General McChrystal did an outstanding job in his time as commander in Afghanistan. It was just time, Secretary Gates thought, for a commander who was not human. Who was an aircraft of some type.”

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin posted what is being hailed as a “masterpiece” of the genre of Facebook status updates Tuesday, wowing both literary critics and fans alike. The post has received millions of views and sparked questions about Palin’s political future.

“Today is a day for freedom,” Palin’s post began. “Isn’t that what’s so great about America?!!?! Freedom! I love freedom. And I know you do, too. You know who doesn’t? The Washington bureaucrats. They don’t see freedom the same way you and I do. They don’t value it. They just say the word, but they don’t feel it down deep inside.”

The post was part an expression of thanks to her many fans in the social networking community, and part mission statement.

“I’m going to do everything in my power to see that your freedoms are protected,” she wrote. “I may not be a governor anymore, but that doesn’t mean I’ve stopped working for you. I haven’t. And I never will. I’ll keep fightin’ till the sun don’t shine.”

The post transcends the normal limitations of the Facebook update genre, says Earl Ablenon, Professor of English at Duke University and an author of several biographies of famous American authors.

“She has done something quite unusual here, even for her,” Ablenon said. “She has combined the simple, conversational tone with…well, with more simple, conversational tone. It’s like nothing I’ve seen in all my years studying literature.”

Ablenon cited specific parts of the post as examples.

“This right here,” he said, pointing to a particular point within the post, on his computer monitor. “This is a type of phrasing I have never seen before: ‘When the bureaucrats run things, that means more of the same, for sure, for ever. For sure.’ I mean, the repeated use of ‘for sure,’ and the off placement of ‘forever.’ Extraordinary.”

United Airlines flight 1110 was beginning its descent into O’Hare when a ticketed passenger, and a self-described member of an al-Qaeda training school, stood up and told everyone aboard they were witnessing a “dry run” of a terror attack he and his group hoped to repeat soon. He did not harm or attempt to harm anyone, according to witnesses. He said he merely wanted to, “See if we could do this, and just as I thought, we can.”

At that moment, he opened 12 of the plane’s overhead storage compartments, and out of each came one of his partners. The 12 men had apparently been in the overhead bins for nearly the entire nine and a half-hour flight from Frankfurt. Adding to the confusion of the rest of the passengers, the men took several moments to stretch and massage their aching and tight muscles while the leader yelled, “Stand up! Stop stretching! We’re supposed to look tough!”

The group’s apparent leader, whose name has not yet been released to the media, then addressed the rest of the passengers.

“See?” he said. “The guys back at school said, ’12? You’ll never do 12. The record is five!’ Well, here we are, infidels. 13 al Qaeda students, 12 of whom you didn’t know were here until two seconds ago!”

In addition to the 12 men he was able to smuggle aboard the flight in his bag, there were also 15 hand grenades, two rocket-propelled grenade launchers and 24 sub-machine guns hidden in various places on his person.

Apparently, however, the men were not well prepared for what would happen when they landed at O’Hare. When the leader of the group realized this, he said, according to witnesses, “Adeel, tell me the getaway plans aren’t on the kitchen table. Tell me that, Adeel!”

Meanwhile, the plane’s flight crew alerted airport and TSA personnel on the ground of the situation, and several dozen officers from the Chicago Police Department and agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation were ready and waiting when the plane landed.

The 13 men were arrested, and the passengers held for questioning. Some seven hours after the flight, many passengers have been released, but some are still being questioned by authorities.

Representatives from the Transportation Security Administration and the Office of Homeland Security are frantically searching for answers.

“Obviously, this is a major breach of our security system, and we’re investigating how it could have occurred,” said Nathan DeMilt, a TSA spokesman. “At the current time, it appears that the man with a ticket successfully got through security with a bag full of his classmates. This man was also on the no-fly list, although that’s almost beside the point. The size of his carry-on alone should have aroused suspicion somewhere along the line.”

According to Mr. DeMilt, the TSA plans to institute strict new rules regarding carry-on baggage on flights into the United States.

“No passenger will be allowed to carry anything on board any flight into the United States,” DeMilt said. “Not a newspaper, not a baby, not even guilt. If you’re carrying some kind of heavy burden, you’ll have to check that at the gate.”

TheNationalProtrusion.com presents NightNite, an in-depth look at the issues most important to Americans. Tonight, an examination of the difference between military spending and domestic spending.

Transcript:

Host: Good evening. President Obama has announced he will add 30,000 American troops to aid the war effort in Afghanistan. The estimated cost is $30 billion for the first year. Luckily, that money is not counted towards the national budget deficit, nor is any spending on any matter related to the Defense Department. The amount owed in these cases is written in an invisible ink, and after a few weeks, it fades away, so that the lender in question, usually China, can’t see the amount. Unfortunately, domestic priorities like education and health care reform use regular ink, which doesn’t disappear, so they add to the deficit.

When we come back, new fighter jets commissioned by the Defense Department can’t be seen by radar, by satellite, or unfortunately, by any of the United States military personnel charged with maintaining their whereabouts.

Transcript:

Magnanimous: Good evening. Is President Obama taking too long to make a decision on troop levels in Afghanistan?

Joining us now is someone who thinks he is. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio. Congressman Boehner, thank you for joining us.

Congressman Boehner: Thank you for having me.

Magnanimous: So why do you say the president is taking too long?

Boehner: Well, Sheila, the fact is, we’re not Communists in this country. We don’t deliberate, listen to opposing points of view, consider our options. We decide. Quickly and decisively.

Magnanimous: But–

Boehner: Even if the decision is a bad one. In fact, I would say we’re especially good at making quick terrible decisions. We excel at that. For example, this morning, I made a decision to leave my house without pants. Now, some would say that was a bad decision. My neighbor, in fact, told me he thought it was a bad decision, in no uncertain terms.

Magnanimous: Um–

Boehner: But I made the decision. I committed to it. I made it decisively, and let me tell you, I made it quickly. Because as an American, that’s what I do. I make terrible decisions quickly. And the president needs to do that. He needs to make a decisive decision.

Magnanimous: Congressman, are you wearing pants now?

Boehner: I have just made a decisive decision not to answer that question.

Play/Download Quicktime version

Transcript:

henry: Yes, this is The Henry “Mack Truck” Harvey Show. welcome.

Like to take a call right now from Robert in Culver City. Robert, go ahead. you’re on with The Mack Truck.

caller: Yeah, I’d like to know what you think of the Attorney General’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other suspects in New York.

henry: What do i think? I think it’s a terrible idea. An awful idea.

caller: Why do you think it’s an awful idea?

henry: Because it unnecessarily endangers the lives of Americans, the lives of New Yorkers. It’s a terrible idea.

caller: But these are maximum security prisons, they hold the worst kind of criminals. Why can’t they hold a middle-aged terrorist? They hold–

henry: I don’t care if they hold The Incredible Hulk and King Kong at the same time.

caller: Those are fictional characters.

henry: These guys are different. they’re terrorists. They’re terrorists. They’re different. They have terror powers that regular criminals don’t have.

caller: But what can this guy possibly do? I mean, he’ll be in handcuffs and there’ll be armed guards all around–

henry: I don’t know what he could do. He could say a Muslim prayer that turns the handcuffs into sand and the guards into husks of corn. And then, you know what? He’s free to go hook up with his radical Islamist buddies and wage joyous jihad on the streets of new york. Okay?

caller: So you really think these guys have, like, super powers? Something…

henry: I think that’s kind of obvious. I mean, why do you think bin Laden’s been free for so long? Because he can probably shape shift into, like, a hawk or something and fly away from the guys chasing them.

caller: If they have super powers, then why wouldn’t they have escaped already?

henry: Because they were biding their time. They wanted to wait till they got to New York, which is, like, the ultimate prize, before they wage this, like, ultimate jihad plan.

caller: But how did they know Holder would send them to New York?

henry: Uh, the same way they can turn handcuffs to sand and guards to husks of corn.

caller: Which they can’t.

henry: You’d better watch it, buddy. One of these days you’ll be walking along, thinking you’re about to pass some nice, innocent Muslim woman and say hello, and suddenly, you’re a horned toad.

The amendment, written by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, states, “no government funds pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where two or more women are at risk of death, such as a multi-victim car accident.”

The new amendment does not make any mention of cases of rape or incest being exempted, so the assumption is those cases will no longer be eligible for any government funds.

Stupak said that after reviewing the original amendment, which passed by a vote of 240 to 194, he concluded there was a need for greater restriction.

“Well, it just seemed like, one woman who may die, that seems a rather common occurrence,” Stupak said. “Women die all the time. I thought we needed to make the language tougher, say we’re not going to cover any old abortion, willy-nilly. It’s got be a particular circumstance. You got three dying women? Okay, we’ll think about it.”

Update: The revised amendment passed the House 239-195 late Thursday.

“We think Mr. Gonzalez will do a splendid job taking over for Lou Dobbs, though those are not easy shoes to fill,” said CNN spokesman Brad Longfrey. “Mr. Gonzalez knows the ins and outs of the immigration debate very well, being an illegal immigrant himself, and he has built up a large and loyal following on his internet radio program, ‘Luis in the Morning.’ We are very excited.”

Mr. Dobbs had no comment when reached at his office.

When asked why the show will retain the title ‘Lou Dobbs Tonight’ when Mr. Dobbs is no longer part of the show, Mr. Longfrey said, “It’s name recognition. Why build up a whole new name brand with Gonzalez, when you can have him come in and take advantage of all the hard work Mr. Dobbs has already done?”

“Ms. Palin, being fond of communicating on the social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook,” the statement read, “is hereby ordered to be put to death in a manner befitting the social networking community. She will be inundated with 140-character tweets, until unable to sustain life.”

In a post on Facebook reacting to the panel’s ruling, Palin wrote, “You see?!?! I told you there were death panels!!!! I was right!!! And they’ve targeted me!!! Your favorite gov!! Help!!!!”

The panel is manned by anonymous bureaucrats whose sole purpose is to euthanize large swaths of the U.S. population, particularly elderly Americans and disabled children and adults, by denying them medical care. However, in Palin’s case, the panel ruled that further action must be taken beyond the usual denial of necessary treatment.

“We must look at a person’s value to society when deciding whether they live or die,” the panel’s statement explained. “And in the case of Gov. Palin, she is not only of no use to society, but she is actually a negative drain on society. Each time she posts a ‘tweet’ or updates her Facebook page, the collective intelligence of the country’s population is lowered significantly. This must stop. She must stop. Her next update will be her last.”

Palin has made headlines throughout the health care reform debate, speaking out against the lack of choice such reform will bring, and most notably, warning Americans about precisely the type of death panel that has just determined her fate.

“Seriously, this isn’t a joke,” Palin wrote on Twitter Monday afternoon, after receiving multiple tweets. In the next post, or tweet, she managed to send, she wrote, “Stop!! Stop tweeting me!! I can’t take much more!!! Pleeeeeaaaassee!!!”

She did not tweet again.

Transcript:

Anchor: Shouts of “Kill the bill” led to the shooting death of a man named Bill, outside the Capitol Building Saturday during an anti-health care reform protest.

Police say the victim was this man, Bill Abernathy, a shoemaker from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They say he arrived late to the rally, just as protesters were well into one of many rounds of the chant, “Kill the bill.” And then, tragedy.

Detective: What we think happened was the victim approached the crowd, announced his name was Bill, and was promptly shot in the face.

Anchor: Police say Mr. Abernathy was shot not once, but multiple times, by multiple shooters. They have not released the names of any suspects, but say they have several men in custody.

The “bill” the crowd was talking about killing was of course the health care reform legislation being debated inside the Capitol by members of the House of Representatives.

Quickly realizing the mistake they had made, the shooters themselves rushed to aid the wounded man. By the time the ambulance arrived at the scene, he was dead.

When asked how members of the crowd could have made such a mistake, some tea-partiers said it wasn’t that surprising.

Rolland (protester): To me it makes total sense. If they’re yelling, “Kill the bill,” and you show up and say, “Hi, my name is Bill,” you’re going to get shot in the face.

If they were yelling, “Kill the Randall! Kill the Randall!” And I showed up and said, “Hey, my name is Randall,” I might shoot myself in the face.

“First of all, why shouldn’t corporations be allowed to vote?” Sen. Inhofe asked rhetorically. “It makes no sense. They’re entities, just like people are entities. But they’re bigger entities. They have sometimes thousands upon thousands of people working for them. So, if anything, they should get several votes, not just one.”

Corporations are considered “legal persons” and are already afforded several rights under the U.S. Constitution, including a limited right to free speech and to sue and be sued. They are not, however, allowed to vote in elections or to contribute directly to political campaigns.

Inhofe’s proposal suggests that in a given election, a corporation would have all its employees vote internally first. Those votes would then be tallied, and whichever candidate garnered the most votes would receive the one vote of the corporation.

“I mean, you don’t know how the corporation will vote,” Inhofe said. “You may have the CEO vote one way, but the corporation as a whole says, ‘No, you know what? I feel this way.’ Now, you’re saying, ‘Well, Senator, it wouldn’t say it, because it’s a thing, not a person.’ But I say to you, one of these days, I wouldn’t be surprised if corporations started talking. I can see it. I really can. And you know what? If it’s within my power to try to make that happen, I certainly will.”

Inhofe, one of the most outspoken gay marriage opponents in the U.S. Congress, feels that homosexuals in America should not be allowed to vote because of the risk of their thinking being “clouded and confused.”

“When you’re a homosexual, you see everything through that prism,” Inhofe said. “You can’t escape it. So when you walk up to the voting booth, if the curtains are a really pretty color, a homosexual man might be sidetracked by that, and then be unable to focus when it comes time to actually enter his vote. He’s all discombobulated and seeing three of everything because his mind is still on the fabric of the curtains. I’m telling you, this type of thing is well-documented.”

Inhofe envisions a future where corporations have rights that more closely resemble those of actual people, while the freedoms homosexuals enjoy are scaled back significantly.

“I hope to one day see two corporations marrying one another,” Inhofe said, “while on Capitol Hill, a law is passed barring homosexuals from visiting each other in the hospital. That’s the dream.”