Article's on the site; I have warned you that Rand is sort of . . . notoriously crazy. I think the best thing I can do with asking you to do this blog is a standard summary/response one, mostly because it'll give you another fairly well-structured piece that you can put in the portfolio, if you like.
So, first paragraph - give me Rand's message. Even though this is an analytical essay, not a narrative, it still might be a challenge to get to the root of her argument. I would suggest that you wait until you get to the end of the piece before you try to make a claim about what her point is, and think carefully about what she's saying on that last page. What does she want to happen? The legislation she's talking about, incidentally, is here:
It might help to have the context for it.
Second paragraph, you can once again respond in any way you see fit - approval, disapproval, questions about some of her references. But what I'd be most interested in seeing is whether you can pick up on any of the article's flaws. Are there any points Rand makes that seem strange, or poorly supported?