I'm back...after being battered and beaten with the anti-mind epidemic which currently exists, I knew I had to get back on here before my head blew up

Well it's literally been about 2 months since I've posted on the good old site. School got absolutely insane and I ended up dropping this right when I was actually starting to get some serious hits.

What's important, is that I'm back. Right?

So here I am, back to posting. Of course I'm pleased with the election results, but I have a warning for the GOP and for the American who is currently feeling hopeful; No victory has been won yet.

I suppose politically speaking that the above comment is inaccurate. Yet the battle which must be fought and must be won is for logic and reason to be reestablished here in America. The thing I revere more than anything in life is truth. I believe in absolutes. I believe that every single shade of gray that exists, with enough digging, thinking, and researching, can be classified as black or white. I do not believe in apologies to those who do not want to respect truth and are offended when they hear it.

When I started this blog 3 months ago I was just starting out here at University of North Carolina at Wilmington. The contempt shown for America on a consistent basis, or statements like "99.9% of the world's problems can be attributed to England!" run rampant. Students wear US Army Alpha blouses as style statements, and third world countries are consistently spoken of as the ones that have systems which "make more sense" and have things "figured out better than we do." Other than the belief in God, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and former President Bush, nothing is actually classified as right or wrong. (Yes, the above things are classified as wrong...)

Today one of my professor's told a story in which she spoke with a parent of one of her former high school students. Without going into details, the professor was basically saying how she handled the situation poorly. She pointed out things logically to which the parent responded with superficial bumper sticker type statements. Yet the professor told this to us, saying how she had goofed up and how the parent had handled herself so well.

I raised my hand. I asked her why she was telling the story with an apologetic tone when she used reason and only received platitudes in response. The professor wasn't exactly sure how to respond, but told me that she was lucky the parent didn't hit her or something like that. So basically, in the years since her story took place, the professor has succumbed to political correctness.

There is a disease in this country which does have a cure. In Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged a progressive makes a comment about how "the age of the mind is past. This is the age of the heart." This revolting philosophy is ruining us as a civilization. Certainly I believe in "having a heart," yet it isn't for free. It's for those who have earned it. Yet this anti-mind disease is taking over. It is making us sick. Students and professors alike are refusing to use logic. Reason is frowned upon while inability is looked at as an asset. Successful marriages that provide a good home life for children are mocked, while single parent and dysfunctional homes are praised and romanticized.

There is a cure for the anti-mind disease. The cure is patriotism. With love of country, which most liberals and progressives lack, comes the desire to improve it. To improve one must think. To think, people will rely on their minds and discard the constant use of the heart.

The liberals have always targeted conservative Christians, but do they themselves have a God complex?

A couple of weeks ago while flipping through the channels on TV I stopped on Countdown with Keith Olbermann to hear what the old blowhard had to say. After hearing him and some guest of his talking about how evil Glenn Beck is for a few moments I decided to change the channel. (I asked MSNBC today on their facebook page why they feel the need to constantly report on Fox News or any of it's pundits, and that if I wanted to see what they were up to I would simply put Fox News on...so far no touchy liberal has responded.)

But then last night before I went to sleep I turned on BookTV on CSPAN and recognized the man reading an excerpt from his book. Within seconds I could tell that this book was all about Glenn Beck and what an evil, rich, Christian, racist opportunist he is. Not being at all interested in his liberal jargon, and not particularly being a huge Beck fan either, (nothing personal, just have never really gotten into either of his shows) I almost changed the channel again. Then right before I did, I realized I recognized this dude from somewhere.

He was the "some guest" on Olbermann's show about a month ago prattling on about how evil Glenn Beck was. For some reason I got sucked in, and watched this yokel read some more of his book, and then conduct a Q&A session for another 10 or 15 minutes. As I said, I'm no huge Beck fan, yet it struck me that this guy took a year of his life and wrote 500 pages about how much he dislikes Beck.

Early this afternoon, I don't know, perhaps out of slight boredom, I found that original interview between this guy and Olbermann on an extremely liberal blog, laprogressive.com. The guy's name is Alexander Zaitchik, and it seems that he's making his money(all the while accusing Beck of being money hungry) writing about Beck. The interview was ho-hum; the usual liberal prattle about racism and bashing of Fox News which has a nightly viewership of about 300% of MSNBC's. What caught my attention however was their explanation of Beck and Fox's "extremism." They claimed that since Beck's show is "hemorrhaging" money and ratings that they feel the need to take such "drastic" measures.

I went to check the ratings at tvbythenumbers.com. Sure enough, Beck has roughly about 400% the viewers that Chris Matthews does over at MSNBC at the same hour. In total, it was close to 2 million viewers. Now, not being one of those 2 million viewers, I don't care too much about all this other than the fact that, I suppose I would rather people be watching a conservative pundit than a progressive one. However, I am one of those people that does not like being lied to. Just because you say something, it does not mean that it is true! Telling me that 2+2 is 5 does not make the answer 5. In the words of Ayn Rand, (certainly not someone I see eye to eye with and a vehement atheist) "A is A."

And that's just it. In a world where we are constantly being told by liberals and progressives that there are no absolutes, we are also living in a world where a socialist President tells us that the economy is getting better because of a stimulus bill that he signed, which is simply not true. We are lied to by progressives about the nature of the planet and the non-existent global warming. We are assured that we owe them our money because it is theirs to decide what to do with it.

In a day and age where Christians are attacked constantly, (at least here in America) or even those who aren't Christians but simply profess to believe in a God that isn't Allah, it seems that it is no coincidence that progressives look at themselves as the one and only creator and master. As someone who doesn't really go to church all that much I can say one thing: I have no desire to bow down to or worship a liberal progressive either.

Progressives continue to stay silent over human rights issues taking place in islamic countries

Today, Jihadwatch.org reported on a story about a man named Hector Aleem, a Christian, in Packistan. Feel free to click on the link to read about him. You can read about his plight easily enough by googling his name, checking out the "free Hector Aleem" facebook page. To sum up the story, police stormed his home, savagely beat him and his family, and have thrown him in prison for being blasphemous to Allah, where he and his family still sit today.

This story makes me causes me to continue to wonder just how our President goes to islamic countries and tells them how much they contribute to the world. I guess that's technically a true statement. 90% of the world's human rights violations come from these islamic countries after all. So why do we continue to pander to these countries? Why do we continue to allow ourselves to be fooled that islam is religion of peace?

Here in the United States, many became obsessed with overturning proposistion 8, and to stop "violating human rights." (Even though I stilldon't understand how anyone is being treated unequally if no one can marry someone of the same sex and anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex.) Yet no one is demanding that the United States call the islamic regimes of the world who torture and imprison those who practice their religion of choice, oppressive and tyrannical regimes.

Our current liberal administration, stocked full with marxists and progressives seems to have a never ending interest in limiting an American's freedom, and a never ending pattern of doing nothing about countries abroad that limit it's citizens freedoms.

I can handle a crackhead stealing my bike...I'm having trouble handling the liberals stealing my country though

On Monday afternoon I enjoyed the relatively cool day, (it was in the 80's and not the high 90's) and rode around the neighborhood on my bike. I came back to my apartment, hopped off my bike, and left it unlocked right in front of my door. Now if it's daytime I don't worry about my bike sitting there. I can it see while sitting on the couch. I'll keep it there so if I want to use it again I don't have to mess with taking it out of my apartment again. Once it gets dark I bring it inside so it doesn't get stolen. Yet on Monday I forgot all about it. I sat on the couch watching the tube, got tired, and went to bed. When I came downstairs yesterday morning the bike was gone.

The thief didn't have to break in, didn't have to attack me or use any type of violence or destruction whatsoever. I was more angry with myself than I was with the thief. After all, everybody knows that bikes are one of those things which people love to steal. Everybody knows that in a perfect world people wouldn't steal, but that we live in this world. Everybody knows what thieves do, they steal. It was my responsibility to keep my bike secure. Obviously I failed to do so, and now I'm without a bike.

Yesterday the council in NYC voted to allow a mosque to be built on the sacred ground of ground zero. This is troubling, for I understand what the intentions of these muslims are. Muammar al-Gadaffi, a Muslim from Libya has been quoted as saying There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists. We don't need homicide bombers. The fifty plus million muslims (in Europe) will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades." Are we the next target? I am not advocating that we ban them from migrating here. I do believe we must be vigilant though. Clearly, this is a victory for Islam, and a defeat to the United States. We have allowed a group which has vowed to take over the world, to build a monument to themselves on a site which claimed almost 3,000 American lives.

So, just as I was more disgusted with myself for leaving my bike out to be taken than I was with whatever dirtbag junkie who stole it, I am more disgusted with America for putting up a white flag than I am with a known enemy.

I am not as involved with the Church as I used to be, and my relationship with God probably leaves something to be desired. However, I can't help but feel that our country needs to be prayed for. I can't imagine what the families of the 9/11 victims are feeling, but I do know how I felt yesterday. I felt righteous anger, and extreme sorrow. I hope this country stays great, yet I can not help but feel that there are dark clouds on the horizon. We have sworn enemies around the world which we refuse to do anything about and simply try to appease. We allow hard working individualists to be victimized while we reward those who are weak. We fight a war in Afghanistan in which we tell the enemy when we are leaving, making us a bad ally to those fighting with us over there. We have borders which are barely existent, which are necessary by very definition for a state to exist. Now, we allow the liberals and progressives to raise a white flag on our very own soil.

Progressives in America; The Guilty Party of Eugenics, Racism and Psuedoscience

When Americans think of the terms “genocide, forced sterilization, or even master-race” most understandably think of Nazi Germany, and the bone chilling images we’ve all seen of the millions of bodies being bulldozed into mass graves upon the arrival of the allies in 1945. Americans think of Hitler lashing out against the Jews, and successfully turning a nation, (with exceptions of course,) against a religion and ethnic group. After Nazi Germany, the next most common thing Americans most likely think of are the purges in the early 50’s in the Soviet Union. Many may think about the tribal warfare that tragically still goes on in Africa today. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this country overlooks one major detail. Despite America’s exceptionalism, there has been a band of people who have done everything but defend freedom. For the past hundred years or so, progressives have focused on a very real and threatening practice called eugenics. Through bigotry, racism, and a general dislike for the concepts of religion and God, progressives have sought to control people right here in America through this practice. Although the practice has taken on numerous names such as genetic engineering, ecoscience, or just plain science, it is still alive and well today, just as dangerous as ever, and must be stopped.

Eugenics is the attempt by man to influence the evolution of man. This can be attempted by numerous different ways. Genetic enhancement is the most common method in modern times. Other methods that have been used throughout history are the forced sterilization of people, (often times people who are “mentally unfit,”) selective breeding, and abortion. Although abortion itself is not a form of eugenics, when used to target selective ethnic groups or races in order to eliminate them as a society, it most certainly is. In the worst case scenarios, there are government sponsored programs overseeing all these things mentioned.

The most common method used here in the United States in the early part of the twentieth century was forced sterilization. In his book War Against the Weak; America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, Edwin Black informs us of the nation’s largest center for forced sterilization, (or sterilization mill as they were often called,) and how it was located in Lynchburg, Virginia. Native Americans, Blacks, recent immigrants, Jews, and young poverty-stricken white boys and girls were brought in, sterilized and sent on their way. What makes this even more immoral is the fact that many of these people, especially the younger ones, were misled or not told at all about what the procedure they were going through was actually doing to them. Many were simply told that it was “for their health” (Black, pg 6)

There were those involved in the practice of eugenics who undoubtedly were misguided and surely had good intentions. Kate Bolton, a retired county welfare director stated when interviewed by Black, “If you’ve seen as much suffering and depravity as I have, you can only hope and pray no one else goes through something like that. We had to stop it at the root”(5). Although these words attempt to justify the actions taken, and show that some peoples’ hearts were in the right place, there is much evidence showing that many people who were perfectly capable of providing for themselves and future children were also rounded up and sterilized. In another interview from Black’s book, one man explains that he simply can not understand why the government deemed him incapable of taking care of children. He noted that he had held the same job for over a decade, had never missed a day, never been late, and was one the workplace’s most dependable workers. The only explanation is that he lived in a day and age where in Virginia, much of the “polite society” looked down upon people that lived in the hills as “hillbillies” or “white trash.” Clearly a bigoted view not unlike the Nazis contempt for the Jews.

Another thing progressive eugenicists were able to take advantage of in the twentieth century in order to advance their agenda was the economy. From about 1890 to the post World War I era, progressives were very involved in economics, and the reform of industry. In many ways they did things that helped many people and could be considered social advancements. For instance, they regulated child labor and eventually banned it, they set a minimum wage to making sure women and children weren’t working all day for a few pennies, and they regulated safety and working conditions in order to protect peoples’ lives and health. Yet just as it did in the foothills of Virginia, eugenics reared it’s ugly head by the hand of the progressives.

African Americans, Native Americans, Catholics and Jews were time and again banned from working in factories and getting jobs. As more and more white, Protestant workers began fearing for their jobs, the more the suppression of equality came to business and the more economists began looking to the ideas of eugenics in order to make a more thriving economy for non-minorities.

Thomas Leanard documents in his journal Journal of Economic Prospectives, how Irving Fisher, the President of the Eugenics Research Association and an economist, stated his fears when he addressed the association, saying that immigrants were “defectives, delinquents, and dependants” (209). Fisher and many of his economists colleagues believed that white, protestant workers were more apt to working in agrarian society, and that the only way for them to compete with Jews, Asians, Native Americans, African Americans, Slavs, or Catholic immigrants would be the eugenics route. To regulate the selective breeding of these workers, to force sterilization upon them, and to attempt, (although never successfully) to make laws about who could have children was the eugenicists solution to an economic problem.

Ultimately, the easiest way to defeat non protestant whites, and to defend against them from taking jobs in an ever urbanizing and industrializing environment, was to limit the non white protestant population. This was no easy goal to attain. Business owners liked employing Jews, slavs and other ethnic minorities because they would work for relatively low wages. You couldn’t just remove them from the cities; that would cause an uproar. Limiting their birth was the most logical conclusion.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who is often times heralded as a hero in modern society wrote a “Baby Code,” (found in the online database Life Education and Research Network.) In her Baby Code, Sanger included eight articles. To paraphrase these articles, Sanger proposed that marriage licenses do not give couples the right to reproduce, that men and women do not have the inherent right to have children, that permits given by the government must be required to have a child, (each permit only authorizing one child,) and finally, that those who are feebleminded, prone to being criminals, and those with disease don’t have the right to have children. Although Sanger’s “Baby Code” includes no terminology regarding race or ethnicity, it was written about urban environments where the problem was minorities having children. Furthermore, only a few years later she participated in a outrageously racist project called the Negro Project.

While involved in the Negro Project, during a moment of complete candor, Sanger wrote a letter referencing the project’s push for African American abortions through an organization soon to operate under the banner “Planned Parenthood” to a Dr. Clarence Gamble. She wrote, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” This quote clearly shows, how tragically, America not only has racism as part of it’s past, but an ugly attempt at eugenics driven genocide to oppress that race.

Yet today many American people are convinced that eugenics is only an ugly stain on our history which is fortunately only part of our past and that has no place in our present or future. However, the progressive movement to decide and control who and what types of people are born and allowed to be a part of society has only disguised itself and taken on a new tactic; genetic engineering. Once one looks into just what exactly “genetic engineering” really is, it is not hard to tell that there is little if any difference between it and the eugenicists strategies. What was once called “selective breeding” by the progressives is now called Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, prenatal testing, or genetic testing, (a procedure done on the adults.) New fancy names are used to hide what they really are; slightly more advanced methods used to defend against the “feebleminded” or “unfit” becoming a part of our society, by deciding which fetuses should be allowed to continue life.

In fact, the goal of germline genetic engineering, (a branch of genetic engineering) is absolutely no different than the goal of eugenics when put into words. Just as eugenics has the ultimate goal of man controlling the evolution of man, germline genetic engineering gives man the ability to control his evolution or to “control his destiny.” This is done by controlling the genes in the sperm and the ova cells. Although the intentions may sound good, one must wonder, what are these scientists really trying to achieve? One of the two discoverers of DNA, Dr. James Watson has publicly approved of germline genetic engineering, but this same man has publicy expressed his contempt for “ugly” women, and unintelligent people. He’s gone on to say things paralleling Margaret Sanger’s quotes when speaking to the Times of London. In 2007 Dr. Watson bluntly stated that “there are many people of color who are very talented,” but went on to say that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.” Fortunately the rest of the legit scientific community quickly denounced his words in the October 2007 issue of Scientific America. The sad truth of the matter is that Dr. Watson is not the exception in the community of progressive scientists, eugenicists and genetic engineers; he is the rule. The community has been attempting to mask their general distaste for people different than them, (whether it be of color, ethnicity, culture, intelligence, or simply their personal looks,) as science for the better part of the last century.

In fact, we need look no farther than the current “science czar,” (officially called the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,) of the current presidential administration to find another pseudo-scientist attempting to use science to hide his ill feelings toward “undesirables.” In the 1977 book which John Holdren, the “science czar” co-authored, Ecoscience: Population, Rescources, Environment, he proposes many disturbing wishes for this country. He proposes forced abortions with no regard to the mother’s wishes. He proposes sterilizing the population at large by putting drugs into drinking water and food. Finally he proposes forcing “people who contribute to social deterioration,” (783) or undesirables, to have abortions or to be sterilized. How does Mr. Holdren propose that we enforce these proposals? In his own words he calls for an “International Planetary Regime,” which would be an “armed international organization” (782). Clearly, this same strategy of having and armed organization was shared by the ultimate eugenicists, Adolph Hitler. Obviously, although the progressive eugenicists have changed there language, they haven’t changed their goals.

If we take a moment to study the philosophy of progressives, we will find that really and truly, they do little to hide their contempt for mankind. As most are atheists, and in turn existentialists, (and in more recent years have taken on the title “humanists”) they have no regard for human life, and see no problem with manipulating it whether by forced abortion, or in a lab somewhere. In his book God And Reason; A Historical Approach to Philosophical Theology, ED L Miller exposes the true meaning of Jean-Paul Satre’s words, a leading existentialist, who wrote in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century summed up his existentialist beliefs in a few words. “Subjectivity must be the starting point”(151). Satre also gravitates to the idea that life is nothing but a series of absurdities, which is only another way of stating that to the existentialists, humanists, and of course the progressives, life is simply meaningless. Many thinkers who have ideals based on some sort of moral compass, (ie; members of numerous different religions or agnostics) believe in a “big box” (152). This box has reference points based upon which provide a rational view of the world.

Progressives have been for a little more than the last century, operating with no regard or belief in this box and with no tolerance for those who do. With no sense of morality, progressives here in the United States have roamed the foothills of Virginia looking for “feebleminded” to sterilize. They have attempted to force abortions in urban industrial centers with the sole goal of eliminating the African American population. Their ideology has spread oversees to the Third Reich where Hitler, (who had been closely following the Eugenics movement here in the United States) avidly ran with the idea, and proceeded to kill eleven million “undesirables.” Margaret Sanger’s of the “Baby Code” has spread to communist China which strict laws about how many children a couple may have. The progressive-eugenics movement has changed it’s name in recent years and taken on the titles of genetic engineering or ecoscience. Yet whether one-hundred years ago in sterilization mills, half a century ago in concentration camps, or today in labs or the office of the “science czar,” progressives have sought and continue to control population, families, and individuals’ freedom here in the United States and all over the world. American exceptionalism is a very real thing. We have given millions the opportunity to live free lives. We have spread democracy to other nations, toppled tyrannies and made advancements in science and medicine unprecedented by any other country. We as a nation have unbelievable influence upon the rest of the world. Therefore we must prevent the progressives from taking over our country and spreading their ideas to the rest of the world before their pseudoscience kills more people, and violates the rights of people of all colors, ethnicities, socio-economic statuses, beliefs, and cultures.


Works Cited

Black, Edwin. War Against the Weak; America’s Campaign to Create A Master Race.
New York City: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003. Print.

Leanard, Thomas C. “Retrospectives; Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 19.4 (2005): 207-24. Print.

Miller, ED L. God and Reason. New York City: MacMillan, 1972. Print.

Nugent, Helen. “Black people ‘less intelligent’ scientists claims.” Times Online. The Times of London, 17 October. 2007. Web. 25, November. 2009.

Abrams, Joseph. “Obama’s Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solution.” Foxnews.com. Fox News, 21 July, 2009. Web.
28 November. 2009.

“Racist and Eugenicists Statements by Margaret Sanger, the Founder of Planned Parenthood.” The Black Informant. The American Life League. Web. 28 November. 2009.

Sanger, Margaret. “The American Baby Code.” Life Education and Research Network. Heritage House, 1976. Web. 26, November. 2009. http://www.abortionfacts.com/learn/sanger_and_planned_parenthood.asp

“Genetic Technology and Eugenics.” Med India, Networking for Health. Health Watch, 4 April. 2007. Web. 28 November. 2009.

Stein, Lisa. “World Renowned Geneticists Draws Fire for Claims that Africans are Intellectually Inferior.” Scientific American. American Scientific Publishers, 17 October. 2007. Web. 28 November, 2009.

Ehlrlrich, Paul R. Anne H. Ehlrlich. John P. Holdren. Ecoscience, Population, Resources, Environment. San Francisco: W.H. Freemen and Company, 1977.
http://www.questia.com/. Web. 27 November. 2009.

Embracing logic could save this country

When I was about eight years old I read a book for the first time which changed the way I've looked at things forever. Since then I've reread this book multiple times, (including in my adult years) and seen the relatively recently made movie version of it. The book is called "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" and is written by CS Lewis.

Oh, and for the record, the movie they made a few years ago is nowhere even close to as good as the animated version that came out in the 80's.

Back to the topic at hand though; How did this novel, written for pre-adolescents, change the way I think?

I'm sure about 75% of people are at least vaguely familiar with the general story one way or another. Early on in the story, a young girl named Lucy stumbles upon another world in which animals and trees speak, magic is abundant, and things such as gnomes, fairies, witches, giants, dwarfs and trolls exist. She does this by way of a magical wardrobe she finds in a forgotten room of her Uncle's mansion. Although she spends the better part of an afternoon in this place, (Narnia) she finds to her dismay, that when she returns to our world, only a few seconds have passed. She attempts, in vain, to explain the bizarre events to her two brothers and one sister. Unsurprisingly they think she's making it up. After a while, as she continues to insist that her story is real, they begin to genuinely worry about her state of mind. They decide to ask the wise old professor, who is also their great uncle, for advice.

Here's where Mr. CS Lewis put something into such painfully simple logic that it amazes me to this day that more don't use this thought process...yet it's so simple, and so logical, that this line of thinking still blows me away from time to time when I really sit and think about it. The professor puffs on his pipe and mulls over the scenario that the children have presented him with. Finally he asks them if Lucy has a history of lying. The kids tell him that no, she's always been an honest person. After a few more minutes go by, he asks them if she has ever shown signs of being mad. Once again the kids tell him that no, her mind has always seemed quite sane. The professor points out that since she apparently has no history of dishonesty or mental instability, that the most probable answer is that Lucy is telling the truth. He then wonders aloud why they don't teach logic in school these days.

And there it is. Over the last couple of years I've really taken those words more to heart than ever before. When trying to figure out a problem, situation, or scenario, I try to apply logic on the subject, and to figure out what the absolute best explanation is for whatever is going on.

So today when I saw that the district judge pretty much struck down Arizona's immigration law, (she struck down the 3 main points which all but made up the bill in total) I used the old tried and true method which CS Lewis taught me to assess the situation. After all, after reading the bill, it is clear that Arizona's law which was supposed to go into effect at midnight tonight, is only reiterating the federal law which already exists. It is common knowledge that it is simply illegal to be in America without going through the legal process, that Mexico would never even consider giving an illegal American immigrant the rights the illegal Hispanic population is demanding here in the states, and that racial profiling is specifically prohibited in the bill. So why is this a partisan issue? Why would any judge strike this down?

I decided I would try to apply logic to the situation. I decided to look for the most probable and absolute explanation for this:

1) Are the liberals and progressives who are such avid opponents of this bill plain stupid? - I don't think so. Sure there are dumb libs, but there are dumb conservatives too. Besides, with some exceptions of course, people don't rise to prominent positions without having at least SOME smarts.

2) Am I the one who is wrong? - No. I'm never wrong about anything. No but seriously, after already reading the bill, thinking it over logically, and personally knowing people who have immigrated to the United States legally who support this bill, I do not consider my opinion the problem here.

3) Are the liberals and the progressives who are fighting this law simply liars, who are actively trying to make this country weaker? - Possibly, to an extent. I do think that by their very nature, liberals do not believe in American exceptionalism, or absolutes. Without absolutes, it is impossible to believe in limits, (explaining their thirst for power, and total lack of self control when it comes to spending) or boundaries, (which explains their total lack of respect for this countries borders.) While I do believe there are MANY leftists who ARE liars, and who believe that the ends always justify the means, I don't believe this accounts for all of them.

4) Do the liberals and progressives who fight this law refuse to use logic and reason, and lack any sense of patriotism or American exceptionalism? - Yes. In the words of James Taggert, a progressive character of Ayn Rand's in her novel Atlas Shrugged "You can't use logic at a time like this! This is a crisis!" The libs keep refusing to use logic, which is why it should be no surprise that they are also completely unpatriotic. This country was born promoting ideals of logic and of reason! This country is a nation of absolutes, of right and wrong! Libs have no love for this country. They don't recognize borders or absolutes. They are the anti-logic.

Today, barely a day goes by where I don't use the example Mr. CS Lewis displayed in his book for me, to decipher a day's events. With a very basic understanding of logic, I can easily spot a lack of logic. I hope this nation embraces logic and reason, for I truly believe it is what makes us human. America still fundamentally stands for logic, which makes it the greatest nation on earth. We seem to be heading down a dark road, and I think that now more than ever, we must remember to think.

Letting the liberals think for you has disastrous results.

When JoBi calls Republicans "out of step," does he really mean to tell the American people that WE are out of step?

(Click on title for the story at McClatchydc.com)

Yesterday JoBi made a high dollar speech here in North Carolina, right over at UNC Chapel Hill, or, as my girlfriend's father likes to call it; Berkley East. The essence of his speech was to reassure his Democrat followers that the Dems have everything under control, that November is nothing to worry about for the left, and that Republicans are "out of step." What were his words really saying though? Was their purpose to make the Dems at his rally feel better? Was their purpose to make a statement against all the elected Republicans in the House or the Senate? While I'm sure their are pieces of truth in both of these first two options, I am convinced his words had a much darker and menacing undertone to the people of the United States..."Remember your place...don't get out of line..."

With pretty much all polls predicting that the Republicans will make some significant gains in November, it's hard to tell what's been going on in JoBi's head of late. He has been claiming that the Dems are in absolutely no trouble in the fall. Of course Joe making questionable statements is hardly a new phenomenon. Make no mistake, I am leery of getting overconfident about November, and feel it would be a huge mistake for the GOP and conservative base to underestimate the left, (as I pointed out in my previous post.) Yet to say that the Dems are going to win huge...Now Joe, that just sounds silly. On top of that, when the every poll shows that the vast majority of the American people disapprove of the job the current administration is doing, including the spending, the handling of the oil spill, the war in Afghanistan, it's hard to think that the term "out of step" would be used for any party BUT the Democrats.

JoBi said yesterday at Chapel Hill, "They want us to throw on the brakes, but what they really want us to do is throw us in reverse. As the President said, they drove the car in the bridge."

Now wait a second Joe. This is a Republic. We elect men and women to represent us in Washington. Granted, currently the Democrats hold the majority. Yet, maybe instead of turning a blind eye to the possibility of a major left-wing loss in November, you could take note of what we are saying. Biden's quote about the car gives the American citizen a glimpes into the mind of a liberal. He's not speaking about elected GOP officials. He's talking about anyone who disagrees with him, even if those who do outnumber him. He's directly telling us; "WE KNOW BETTER THAN YOU. REMEMBER YOUR PLACE. DO AS WE SAY."

The current administration has always been socialists as far as I'm concerned. Yet know they are truly starting to throw in some elements of fascism. Not only that, but they don't even seem to be competent at it. They seem to be in the constant state of being frighteningly out of touch. Or are they out of touch at all? Do they simply not care what we, the American people, have to say?

Ignoring facts and claiming ludicrous things, having the media in the tank for your agenda, and blatantly telling the citizens of a country to behave, or that they are "out of step" have all the qualities of a dictatorship or a despot. Always remember, words have meaning - and JoBi's latest words have given this American a very clear understanding of his meaning.

Just some quick thoughts on the topic of words

When sifting through the day's top headlines, I am reminded of a quote from the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, which I am currently reading. One of the major characters, Francisco D'Anconia asks another key character, James Taggart, "When are you going to understand James, that words have meaning?" This conversation takes place while both of these characters are children, after Francisco has shown up James in something, (I want to say it was swimming if memory serves me correctly.) James is complaining that Francisco shouldn't act as if he is better than he is, simply because he is more successful. Without going any more into the novel, I will simply say that James goes on to become quite the progressive, and has a major part in bringing the country to it's knees.

Words have meaning. I can't help but think that this oversimplified statement is being forgotten on a regular basis. At what point did we as a people forget that words have meaning, start to be dismayed over consequences of actions, and abandon the concept of thinking things through logically before speaking? It certainly isn't that our culture lacks words; but we seem to be caught up in a never ending black hole of pseudo intellectualism and shallow, silly phrases. Just turn on the radio and you will hear Eminem singing about how he is "not afraid to take a stand." Go to your nearest college campus and you will see plenty of students with false senses of righteousness and superiority wearing "live strong" bracelets. What has eminem ever taken a stand on? As far as I can tell, nothing. Yet it is constantly being talked about as an inspirational song. Why do these students wear "live strong" bracelets? Do they mean it literally concerning their health? From their constant diet of institutionalized food and beer we know that's not true. Have they faced major adversity? Well, with the government paying for so many people's school now, and the vast majority of these kids not being Vets, we know that isn't true either.

I remember shortly before Obama won the nomination for the Democrat Party, Dennis Kucinich telling the media that the word "change" wasn't just a word, that it had meaning, and that too many people were getting caught up in it. He pointed out that the word itself had neither positive or negative implications. Needless to say, the media didn't take very kindly to him clearly referring to their favorite, Obama, but it would have done them some good to consider what the man was saying. Not being a Kucinich fan, I must at least tip my hat to the man for acknowledging that what we do and say has consequences. Now today, the first rig in the gulf has taken off for Egypt, starting the inevitable decline in jobs there. One can see first hand that words have meaning. Denouncing oil companies and prohibiting them from doing their work has had an effect. It is no longer something which environmentalists, progressives, and liberals can rally around and get the warm fuzzies over; it is something which has caused consequences which they must actually deal with.

And yet, more and more people forget that words have meaning, and that it would help their own cause to think things through rationally and logically before opening their mouths. Minutes ago I got off the phone with my good friend and fellow Marine, Gary Grant. As we are both students our conversation turned to our experiences at our respective colleges. We found that both places have a prevailing attitude of thinking that it's the cool thing to come from a poor family, a family with only one parent, a bad neighborhood, and most of all, a family that has no white collar workers in it. When did America stop thinking rationally so much, and begin to think that one is actually expected to be more proud of an unsuccessful background than one that is full of success and triumph? When did it become OK to disrespect a family with a doctor or a businessman as the head of the household, which includes a happy marriage and financial security, and yet expected to revere and to champion the household of financial irresponsibility, crime, dependence on welfare and lack of marriage? Even in the military, an organization which I love, I witnessed the tones and glances of a few people saying, "heh, you're from the suburbs" or "yeah, you had money didn't you?" My answer was always a proud, "YES!" Of course this surprised people who were raised to think that I would be ashamed of my parent's or anyone's success.

I would be willing to bet, that if I were to ask these students and these military men who had come from a more humble background than I, if they wished to be successful or unsuccessful they would choose successful every time. I very much doubt that their goal is to end up living in the projects or the ghetto, that they wish to enter a life of crime, or to end up on welfare. I am sure they would rather have money than being constantly strapped for cash. I am sure the college students hope to have decent jobs and to provide for their future children with the degrees they will attain from the university. I am sure the few guys I came across in the Marines who had the attitudes I just wrote about, will strive for promotion, and work hard in their field to provide for their families, or use the skills they've attained in the military for future jobs in the civilian sector to do so.

So why then, is it becoming common for so many people in America to say these absurd things, and to embrace this bumper sticker ideology and shallow liberal drivel? I think the answer is clear. They have forgotten that words have meaning.