Posted by
Bloelfed on Friday, March 27, 2009 12:48:21 AM
The best question asked during the election elicited nothing but ridicule on all fronts. Some may recall the question posed by a woman anchor with a Florida television station. She asked Joe Biden if Senator Obama was indeed a Marxist. Joe laughed, ha ha ha, that was absurd he said, Obama isn’t even a leftist, he is a centrist yadda etc.
She based her question on actual research; she knew that Obama had more or less never held a real job in his life. He worked for a few Alinsky organisations and has based most of his political life on the plans laid out by Saul Alinsky in his book “Rules for Radicals”
Alinsky isn’t a ‘socialist’ or a ‘progressive’ he is, like Bill Ayers, a Marxist. In 1973 he saw that those who like Ayer’s thought that America could be over-thrown by violent revolution, were obviously wrong. Ayer’s is a Marxist-Leninist. Obama is a Marxist-Alinskyite.
In “Rules for Radicals” one sees the plan that has been executed over the past 35 years in America. Education has been taken over by a post-modernist philosophy, the idea of ‘truth’ has been eliminated. Truth has been replaced by relativism.
‘Truth’ is a necessary condition of knowledge. There is no knowledge without it, and as such, knowledge has been replaced in all areas of our society. Science itself is no longer rooted in truth.
John P. Holdren has been named President Obama’s science advisor. Dr. Holdren is a very political fellow. Holdren holds MS and PhD degrees in aerospace engineering and plasma physics from MIT and Stanford.
However he is famous for his endless blather in a field that he seems to be self-accredited in. Global climate change, nuclear arms control and nonproliferation, and science and technology policy.
During the election campaign he gave an interview with the UK press in which he asserted that the ‘debate’ about climate change was over, and that anyone who did not agree with this was either a ‘moron’ or a ‘Republican.’
The ‘debate’ is not by any stretch over, with easily as many scientists directly involved in climate science opposed to Holdren’s views as are in support of them.
The scary thing though is that the “Chief Science Guy for the President” does not believe that scientific proof of a ‘thing’ is necessary. Only an opinion poll of interested observers is necessary. He and those like him are responsible for the loss of academic freedom in the investigation of these scientific issues and others.
It is essentially impossible for researchers to get funding for projects that look at the data and conclude something outside the conventional wisdom. So it is no wonder at all that more and more ‘evidence’ will be found to support these politically charged scientific issues.
Holdren is the epitome of post-modern science and education. He is the ‘bleeding’ edge what constitutes ‘scientific enquiry’ in America. He is emblematic of the far left agenda and its long path of destroying freedoms of all sorts long held as inalienable by the American public.
What’s next; just read “Rules for Radicals.” It calls for ‘nationalisation’ of all sorts of private industry and replacing economic freedoms with government dictate.
The banking industry will be nationalised within a year. Oil and Gas will be the next ‘crisis’ that will need the government to step in and save us all. The result is going to be tragic for what was once the most free people in the entire history of the world.
Reading “The Road to Serfdom” by Frederick Hayek tells you what the true role of a free government is. It is not to own the means of production by any means, yet that is exactly what Obama and the Congress are doing.
If the words “means of production” sound familiar, it is because they are from “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.
As more and more of Obama’s policies become known, more and more of them will be shown for what they are; hard-left, hard socialist, and at the least semi-Marxist.
The result is inevitable and history has always shown on result of such policies; loss of freedoms for individuals and more centralised power in the hands of a few hundred politicians.