According to The Philadelphia Inquirer:

The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines exceeded their retention goals last year and this year despite the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Army met 124 percent of its goal last year, compared with 102 percent in 2001.

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

- Ayn Rand

Rand offers a counter-attack to this type of argument: “moral certainty”. Only when Americans once again proudly assert their God and/or nature-given (whatever your particular theology dictates) rights, can public policy discussions be safe from the disastrous recommendations of moral-crusaders bereft of ideas based on reality.

Nancy Pelosi once again dazzles us with her economic brilliance:

What boost to investment capital will unemployment insurance provide that is not offset by taxation or wealth erosion through inflation? None. This is, at best, robbing Peter to pay Paul. At worst, it is a devious distortion of economic truths to justify the redistribution of wealth, at a devastating cost to the ability of producers to create jobs.

When a politician is in opposition he is an expert on the means to some end; and when he is in office he is an expert on the obstacles to it.

- G. K. Chesterton

While I certainly don’t agree with everything Chesterton has said, he did seem to have some helpful insight at times. During a political campaign, all the problems faced by an incumbent are purported, by his adversaries, to have such clear-cut solutions. But the challengers’ plans never seem to unfold as intended once they have bested the incumbent. It is up to us to shoulder the responsibility of the policies that so drastically effect our lives – which means educating ourselves on relevant issues.

Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups.

- Dr. Thomas Sowell

Racism (a form of collectivism) is undoubtedly one of mankind’s greatest evils. As such, it should never be codified into a society’s laws – even for the most altruistic of reasons. Any trace of racism in a nation’s laws is a cancer that will inevitably rear its ugly head.