I touched on this issue a couple of months ago, but inasmuch as the phenomenon has continued to develop, it definitely bears revisiting. We’re well aware that the establishment press (liberal or “mainstream” media) continues to act as the propaganda arm for the Obama administration, no matter how incredulous and surreal it appears, and that dedicated liberals evidence increasingly deeper delusion as they continue to advocate for our Marxist in chief. I suppose that this is to be expected, as pathetic and craven though it may be.

What I’m speaking of here (and did earlier, as I said) are those Americans who appear to be possessed of enough information to make intelligent decisions, but who nevertheless seem to be unable to do so. I am not talking the so-called “low information” voters; most of these are either laughably dim by nature or pitifully ignorant due to deep indoctrination.

For example, it does not take any advanced training in economics to make the determination that the Obama administration is as fiscally irresponsible as it could possibly be. This is not a wild accusation; the 1974 Budget Act requires Congress to pass a budget each year. Considering just this one instance, it ought to be fairly easy for the informed American of reasonable intellect to infer that there is something dreadfully amiss with a government that has not passed a budget in four years, yet has increased the national debt by trillions of dollars and allows its president to authorize billions in additional spending on an almost weekly basis.

We could also discuss Obamacare, which was sold to America as saving money and ameliorating the problem of lack of health care among uncovered Americans; there is ample evidence that it will in fact cost billions and that millions of Americans are already losing medical coverage as a result of its pending implementation.

If this hypothetical informed American of reasonable intellect were to take advantage of the unbiased raw data available, he would quickly come to the conclusion that my charge of unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility is indeed accurate.

These instances entirely leave aside the deliberate nature of this “fiscal irresponsibility” (that being, the administration’s design for crippling America economically), by the way.

Another case in point: The widely-publicized debate within the Boy Scouts of America’s leadership as to whether or not they will maintain their ban on admitting homosexuals into their organization. As reported in WND, on Nov. 28, 2012, former Scoutmaster David Watkins of Virginia was arrested for sodomizing a boy in his troop. One would think this a no-brainer; they need to continue to keep gays out of the BSA.

Private organizations that ostensibly have the right to discriminate all they like have been placed under tremendous pressure in recent years by a militant homosexual lobby that wishes to normalize the popular perception of homosexual behavior. I am convinced that many of its “true believers” aren’t even aware they are merely pawns of the radical left, but given the latter’s tenacious modus operandi, otherwise intelligent, conscientious people have nonetheless subscribed to the prevailing propaganda proffered by an agenda-driven press and the homosexual lobby.

Then, there’s the ongoing discussion and legislation relative to homosexual “marriage.” Like black Klansmen and male sorority sisters, “gay marriage” simply doesn’t exist. Oh, we have monogamous homosexual couples playing house, and certain states issuing marriage licenses to them, but there’s no marriage there. This is because marriage is not a civil union; it’s an ordained one.

I continue to find this amusing, despite the clear and present danger it represents to our culture. Here we have the opponents of this farcical instrument of societal destruction actually engaging in the debate over whether or not to “allow” something that simply doesn’t exist.

In the case of the Boy Scouts of America, they have simply bought into – or very nearly bought into – the aforementioned pro-homosexual propaganda. Here, we have the fact that homosexuals do not account for the percentages that activists tout; in reality, 1 to 3 percent of the overall population is probably fairly accurate. The entertainment media and the press would have us believe that it is closer to 10 percent, and if you watch television, you’re likely to surmise that every third person you set eyes on is homosexual.

There’s much more, of course: The widespread myth that homosexuality is normal rather than aberrant, that it is hard-wired into individuals rather than being a persuasion or choice, that it is not harmful to society, and that it is not harmful to children. One particularly dangerous fallacy advanced by homosexual activists is that pedophiles (such as those who have been charged with molesting Boy Scouts over the years) are not homosexuals.

These submissions against better judgment are analogous to capitulating to a developmentally disabled child who wants to play with matches simply because they have been persistent in their requests to do so. Obviously, the child does not know better; as the developmentally sound individual present, it is that person’s responsibility to refuse his or her requests, not defer to them.

Everything I have described here is indicative of a very dangerous intellectual indolence that reflects either a weak moral constitution on the part of many Americans, or a kind of acknowledged apathy wherein individuals realize we are on the road to ruin, but have reconciled themselves to helplessness. They are as yet unaware that the stakes encompass far more than civil rights or the economy; they will determine our very survival.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.