My initial impression, about 20 percent into the book, was that the author is a political conservative who is justifiably disturbed at the takeover of the GOP by the anti-science, right-wing fundamentalist crowd.Unfortunately, the remainder of the book has absolutely nothing to do with the premise implied in the title and rapidly devolves into an Objectivist polemic where in the author demonstrates that he does not understand the difference between socialism and communism, conflates progressive politics with both concepts simultaneously, and then proceeds to rant about a great many completely unrelated topics.He states opinions as though they are facts and excuses his failure to cite sources because "my logic is impeccable." For example, he states that the Aid for Dependent Children program was designed as an incentive to entice "single women on welfare to breed children as a cash crop." That is a direct quote from the middle of this "essay"; it was on approximately page 35 on my eReader and yours may vary. Further, this man who claims advanced degrees in biology maintains that the Endangered Species Act should be done away with and that "antiquated" species should be allowed to die regardless of mankind's intervention in causing their diminished numbers. He also equates vegetarianism with communism, of all things.I got to the point where I didn't even trust his biology data, which may well have been plagiarized from some textbook -- after all, according to his "impeccable logic," there is no need to cite sources.Here's the thing: Objectivists believe that once they've arrived at a Truth(TM), they don't need to have any citations for their sources. It's The Truth(TM), for goodness sake. Can't the reader just see that?At the end of the day, this book has nothing to do with the premise outlined in the title. I like to read books with points of view that differ from mine, because that's how I learn things. However, this book is just a man's screed about things and people he doesn't like.