An Article from CreationEvolutionHeadlines website
As you will see, these "science" reporters are politically biased- of course their politics always plays a role from evolution to global warming to abortion & even homosexuality...this stuff is a RELIGION to secular humanists
"What on earth are science reporters doing promoting communism by “framing” the language of redistributive tax policy?One might hope that science should steer clear of political ideology. But look at this headline that appeared on both Science Daily and PhysOrg: “Want to influence support for redistributive tax policies? Choose your words carefully.” This sounds like naked advocacy for income redistribution, a key element of communism. The articles are unmodified echoes of a press release from the Association for Psychological Science, making these two leading science media sites complicit in advocating a communist principle.
The article described supposed experiments that showed conservatives less likely to oppose income redistribution if the questions were phrased in terms of how much the rich made over the poor, versus how much less the poor made with respect to the rich. The pseudo-empiricism of this “experiment” was undermined by a clear goal of figuring out how to soften the opposition to redistribution.
Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of communism. Perceiving the distance between poor and rich, Marx built his system as a means of taking from the rich and giving to the poor (income redistribution), with the revolutionary government taxed with punishing the bourgeousie to reward the proletariat, to achieve a utopia of equality of outcome. Capitalists, instead, believe in equality of opportunity. They believe that the free market motivates the entrepreneur to take risks with the hope of reward. The capitalist is further incentivized to please customers by lowering prices and creating better products. Wealth is not seen as a zero-sum game. Instead, the economy grows, the pie enlarges, and everyone benefits when free market competition creates wealth. Capitalism is built on initiative, responsibility and reward rather than class envy.
The psychologists at Carnegie Mellon employed the euphemism “income inequality,” a phrase conjuring up class warfare. That the researchers were interested in softening opposition to the communist principle of redistribution of wealth is seen in the statement that the research suggested “a simple manipulation of language might be able to influence support for policies aimed at addressing income inequality.” But should scientists create tools of psychological manipulation to enable the efforts of political idealogues?
In another example of trying to influence the election, Live Science used scare tactics to suggest, “Could Romney Overturn Roe v. Wade?” If this were a simple neutral question answered with facts and probabilities, it might claim to be scientific. The language, however, described Roe v. Wade as “the Supreme Court decision that protected a woman’s right to have an abortion” instead of “the decision that denied an unborn baby’s right to life” (life being one of the inalienable rights deemed self-evident in the Declaration of Independence). In other words, the article scares the reader that Romney could reduce an alleged right, not that Obama is reducing a more fundamental right. Further evidence of advocacy is seen at the end of the article: “Pass it on: It’s possible Roe vs. Wade could be overturned if a new Supreme Court judge is appointed who takes a stance against abortion rights.” Should a science report tell its readers to pass it on? Should it use the phrase “abortion rights” instead of “right to life”?"
But though we, or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than
that which we have preached unto you,
let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:8
