Army Bob: Must we replace science with socialism?

by Robert M. Traxler

In a recent editorial, the owner of this esteemed publication, a man we all need to thank for his darn near single-handed labor of love, the Town Broadcast, wrote, “Our inertia very well could cost us in dealing effectively with very serious issues such as climate change, systemic racism, voter suppression, wealth inequality.”

Three of the four are the foundation the American socialist movement rests upon.

So just what is “Systemic Racism?” Asked to name what in our system of laws, regulations or ordinances is racist and can be changed, and you will receive a litany of pejoratives. In the 1965 Civil Rights legislation, laws, rules and regulations were changed, literacy tests and poll taxes were outlawed, as were other laws designed to limit African Americans from voting, some dating back to the 1870s. Today the term “systemic racism” is tossed around liberally, so please cite the laws, rules and regulations that are designed to suppress African American voting.

Please do not confuse voting integrity laws like actually knowing who is voting with voter suppression. One person, one vote is and must be law in a nation with our Constitution in place.  If more people vote in a precinct than there are people who live in the precinct, that is a problem.

“Wealth inequality” is a bedrock socialist concept, in which all earn an equal amount of money regardless of effort; the amount is set by the government, not the marketplace. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” Karl Marx, Gotha Program, 1875.

OK, Marx is a sexist for using the term ‘his’ and the cancel culture should ban his works from libraries and Amazon. Of course, that will never happen. Once you remove the motivation to work hard, hard-working people who resent others benefiting from their work will stop working, and the system collapses.

Climate change (and the money-making offshoot the Green New Deal) is a bedrock concept of the American red-feathered socialist. We must, must believe the science of climate change and spend trillions on the Green New deal as preached, or be called a science denier, as a way as to say you are stupid, and then the cancel culture descends on you.

According to the United Nations, and that bastion of science and the American sage of all wisdom Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the world will end in nine years and counting unless the world cuts carbon emissions drastically. The increase of carbon emissions in the Asian sub-continent and in Asia far outweigh the reduction in carbon in the United States and Western Europe.

The carbon going into the atmosphere is increasing disproportionately, so the end is near, right? Not so fast: as with global cooling predicting a new Ice Age by 2000, the hole in the ozone layer frying all green life, 1985, global warming, inundating the worlds coasts with water by now and world famine by 1975 to 1985, due to population increase and loss of food production, we can question the concept. The death of the oceans by 1980 and the resulting elimination of atmospheric oxygen, the oceans would be beyond saving by now. We also need to remember the science that guaranteed us acid rain was going to kill all life by no later than 30 years ago.

Our new Climate tzar, John Forbs Kerry, said a few days ago that he was heartened after talking with The Peoples Republic of China, that they maybe/could be carbon neutral by 2050. Ah, Senator Kerry, according to the United Nations and Representative Ocasio-Cortez the world will be destroyed 20 years before that. Is he a science denier?

Question the experts like former Vice President Al Gore who got and are getting filthy rich off the global warming/global climate change scam and Representative Ocasio-Cortez, and you are a science denier. That term is a bludgeon used by the leftists to shout down dissent, even debate in the public square. The socialist movement uses climate change to paint anyone not properly leftist; how many times have we heard climate change is settled science and cannot be questioned?

If you question science, according to some folks who scribble in the pages of this paper, you should not receive treatment for cancer — the ultimate cancel culture. As my friend Ranger Rick has said several times, science is never settled, and it is part and parcel of the scientific process to question. No rational believer in the scientific process would be arrogant enough not to allow questions and peer review.

This is all about people control and enriching the wonks, and a rush to socialism, not science or climate or income equity.  My opinion.