We're destroying the universe!

I have found an example of what happens when scientists are allowed to build a proverbial house of cards. They end up with amazing theories that, when taken to an extreme, produces stupidity. Now let me just begin by saying that I am not a scientist, and that while I am definitely of above average intelligence, I usually leave science to smarter people than me. But at this point, I must point out an error in logic that even a kindergartner could spot. According to recent findings from two respected scientists, we are destroying the universe simply by looking at it (here is a link to a page where you can download the PDF, but I must warn you that 99% of people will be completely confused by it). Well, not destroying it exactly, but shortening it lifespan. So let me get this straight, an insignificant species, on an insignificant planet, orbiting an insignificant star, is capable of destroying everything that has ever existed, and ever will exist, simply by looking at it. Huh? This is like global warming all over again. To put it bluntly, we're not that important. First, how can we possibly affect anything simply by staring at it? This idea doesn't even pass the laugh test. Secondly, even if we could destroy the universe by looking at it, wouldn't we have figured it out by now? After all, humans have been stargazing for millennia. Seriously, this "science" has gotten out of hand. Someone needs to stop these people before they start influencing government policies. Oops, too late, Al Gore already has.

Stem Cell Breakthrough

There has been a huge breakthrough in stem cell research. Before I go into detail however, I must first explain the backstory to those of you who haven't kept up on political issues. Stem Cells are cells found in human embryos, which are capable of developing into just about any type of cell. Over the last decade or so, people had been doing research to see if they could be used to regenerate limbs, organs, and other things for people with diseases. Shortly after President Bush took office, he tried to put a stop to it. He did this because, in order to do this research, the embryo must be destroyed. It was essentially the same as the abortion debate. Though the stem cell research was slightly different, while abortion destroys unborn babies, stem cell research must first create life for the sole purpose of destroying it. There was a lot of controversy, and argumements, but the president got the final say, and he tried to devise a compromise. While he didn't declare stem cell research to be illegal, as many conservatives wanted, he did cut off the government funding, and and instead put that money towards alternate ways of doing the research. This angered everyone and pleased no one.
That brings us to today's story. You see, all of that research has finallly paid off. A few days ago, researchers at the University of Wisconsin, were experimenting with skin cells as part of the president's program. They found that when you change the genetic code of the skin cells only slightly, they miraculously become stem cells. Thus giving them stem cells to experiment on WITHOUT KILLING ANYTHING! Not only is this new method more ethical, it is also cheaper and easier. While the old methods of research required huge labs and expensive equipment, this new method can be done at almost any university with a decent science lab. So, while a few years ago, President Bush was labeled as being anti-science, his programs have now created one of the most important scientific breakthroughs in the history of Biology.

Huckabee gaining

I know. I shouldn't be writing yet another blog on the same guy. However this post is important. New polling data shows that Huckabee is up to 22% in Iowa, only 2% behind Romney. Only two months ago, Huckabee was at 4%, that was a whopping 18% behind Romney. And guess what? He got this huge surge of momentum without a single television ad, as opposed to Romney who has spent $100,000 on TV ads. This just goes to show you that the American people are intelligent, and don't just vote for the guy that runs the most ads. America wants a real conservative, and the flip-flopper Mitt Romney is not that guy.

Consensus?

In Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," he claimed that he had an almost unanimous consesus of scientists that supporting his global warming claims. Well, today I found an article written by the founder of the weather channel (I'm guessing he knows more about weather than Al Gore), saying that global warming is a hoax. He says it better than anyone I've heard so far, so here is a link to his article.

The most important freedom

We always hear about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to vote, the right to privacy, and how important they are. While they are important, I'd argue that there is one freedom that is more important than all of the others. It is important because it encompasses all of them. Yet you won't find it written in the Constitution, any law, or any philosophical work. No, despite being so vital to freedom, this important right is by far the most under appreciated right.
I am speaking of course, of the right to be stupid. You see, every American has the freedom of self-determination, the right to control their own destiny, and with that right, comes the ability to ruin your life if you so desire. I believe that the government should never ever interfere with this fundamental right in any way.
The most common infringement on this right is socialism. For example, the government already mandates that drivers buy car insurance and, depending on who gets elected next year, they may do the same for health insurance. This is infringing on the freedom of stupidity, because the government would be forcing me to do something smart that I would rather not do. And when you think about it, it's my health and my car we're talking about, not the government's. It's not the government's job to ensure that I make the right decision.
When the government stops us from being stupid, it is the beginning of tyranny. After all, if the government can stop me from taking an action that it believes is dumb, what happens when my definitions of smart and stupid are different than the government's. Could the atheistic government stop me from going to church? After all, many atheists think that that action is stupid. Could a Democrat-controlled government stop me from voting for a Republican? Many Democrats would think that that would be stupid. So you see, when you infringe on he right to be stupid, you infringe on every right that Americans hold dear. It may seem like a joke, but the most important right that we as Americans have is the right to be stupid.

Dream Election: Huckabee vs. Edwards

As you know, I support Mike Huckabee for President. I do so because, as I said in an earlier post, he's the only Conservative.
On the Democratic side, I also have a favorite. I use the term "favorite," only because I can't think of a better term, in reality, I scream in terror at the thought of any of these liberals becoming President. But, my relative "favorite" is John Edwards. The reason for this is simple: I want America to have a real choice, a real conservative against a real liberal. John Edwards perfectly personifies everything that the liberals stand for, in the same way that Huckabee does for the conservatives. I want an election in which the differences are clear. I don't want an election where Hillary changes her position everyday, so you can't tell where she stands. I don't want Guliani who is some sort of odd Republican-Democrat hybrid. I want America to be able to see the candidates, listen to their ideas, and be able to make a decision about which way our country should go in the future. That's what Huckabee vs. Edwards would give us: two polar opposite candidates with no middle ground. The voters could make their decision once and for all. That's what the founding fathers intended, not politicians pandering to get votes, or competing to see who can raise the most money, but real people, with real ideas, that give people a real choice.

Huckabee's surge in Iowa

Mike Huckabee is surging again. His most recent gain brings him up to second in Iowa. He's still a big distance behind Romney, but he can make it up fast with how quickly he's gaining support. In national polls, he's running between third and fifth, depending on the poll. That doesn't sound like much, but it's a big deal for someone who no one had ever even heard of a few months ago, and as I've said before, once you win Iowa, anything can happen.

Make up your mind!

For those of you who missed it, there was a Democratic presidential debate last week. As usual this consisted of the candidates competing to see who can insult President Bush the most times. The funniest moment of the night was Hillary Clinton's non-answer to a question about the New York Governor's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens. This video illustrates the point quite nicely. In the two minutes and fifteen second video, she goes from yes to maybe to no to yes and then maybe again.
First Tim Russert asks her a question about a statement that she had made a few weeks ago, saying that the plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens "makes a lot of sense." She then wavers, saying that it isn't really good, but necessary because of President Bush's failures. Later, after being challenged by Chris Dodd (which is cut out of the video), she claims that she never even said that it was a good idea. Then she changes her mind again, reiterating that the plan "makes a lot of sense," and explains that she agrees with the governor's extremely bureaucratic plan to have three different types of licenses. She then realizes that she has made a mistake, and tries to cover it up by blaming the whole immigration problem on President Bush, and then says that the plan is good for New York but not for all of the other states. At this point John Edwards says the only correct thing he's ever said in his life, as he criticizes her for the flip-flop. Just to remind you, this sequence takes place in the span of two minutes and fifteen seconds! Not even John Kerry flip-flopped that fast!
Now whether you agree with Governor Spitzer's plan or not (I personally don't for a variety of reasons), I don't see how you can justify voting for someone who won't take a side. I mean, if she would actually make a decision, at least then I could clearly see whether I agree with her or not. Right now, I still don't know what her position is. Hillary Clinton hurt herself at the debate. She conveyed the image of being a very conflicted person, and that is not what America wants in a President.

Rangel's tax "reform" plan

Congressman Charlie Rangel announced his new tax plan recently. This plan is called a "reform" measure, but it isn't. What this measure essentially does is raise taxes on everybody. It would raise taxes by a total of $1.3 trillion (no that's not a typo, trillion, with a t). This would be the largest tax increase in American history.
Now, this isn't something you need to worry about, it has a trillion to one odds of becoming law. First off, Congress will not pass it, even though the Democrats control Congress, the moderate Democrats would never vote for this big of a tax increase. Even if they do somehow manage to get it through Congress, Bush will veto it. The only way this bill is relevant is that it shows what the world will be like if the Democrats get control of the White House, and strengthen their holds on Congress. If they gain congressional seats in 2008, then the moderate Democrats might be swayed into voting for this extreme tax hike and a Democratic president wouldn't veto it. When you couple this $1.3 trillion tax increase with the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, it would result in a total of $3.5 trillion in tax increases.
While they say that this tax burden would fall on only the wealthy, this is an old liberal trick that they always use to garner support for these tax hikes. Nobody ever bothers to realize that by overtaxing the rich, you're punishing success, thus encouraging laziness. They also never realize that when you raise taxes on the wealthy business owners, they then raise prices on their products to compensate, thus making everybody suffer. The people that come up with this stuff are either extremely malicious, or very short-sighted.
So this is what you have to look forward to if you elect Democrats, huge tax increases. Are we really surprised?

Real Conservative

At the Republican presidential debate on Sunday night, the so-called "big-four" candidates spent most of their time attacking each other over the issue of who is the "real conservative." After listening to the debate and doing a little research, I've come to the following conclusion: none of them are. Guliani's positions on gay marriage (he supports a "domestic partnership" cop-out), abortion, and gun control are well documented, and definitely not conservative. McCain, while he talks a good game, has been the driving force behind such infamous legislation as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (which essentially restricts freedom of speech for 60 days before an election), and the failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. Romney and Thompson, who at first glance appear to be conservatives, also have problems. Thompson voted against convicting President Clinton of perjury. Romney seems fine, until you realize his flip-flops on gun control, abortion, and just about everything else (I found a great article on this subject entitled "Romney vs. Romney".)
So if you're looking for a conservative Presidential Candidate, the "big four" are out of the picture. Then who is there? Of the eight candidates running (Brownback dropped out recently), there are only two conservatives, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter. So I support Huckabee for four reasons:
1. Of the two conservative candidates running, Huckabee has a better chance. Huckabee is running fifth in the national polls, and third in Iowa, which gives him a chance at winning the "first in the nation" caucuses, and as John Kerry showed us in 2004, once you win Iowa, you almost always get the nomination. Hunter on the other hand, is doing so bad he probably doesn't even know where Iowa is. He's doing equally bad nationally.
2. Mike Huckabee just got the endorsement of the toughest guy in the universe. For those of you who've been hiding under a rock for the last few decades, I am referring, of course, to Chuck Norris. I mean, with that guy's roundhouse kicks behind you, how can you not win. Seriously though, Chuck Norris is a really smart guy, if he says this is the best guy, he's probably right.
3. He's a fantastic debater. I don't know how many of you have seen the debates, but Huckabee rocks. They usually don't give him that much time to speak, since he's one of the "minor" candidates, but when he does talk, he's eloquent, funny, and very classy (he made a point of staying out of the mudslinging contest on Sunday night).
4. He's a real conservative. I can't stress this enough. Our country needs conservative leaders, ones who will stick up for America, and not let the liberals kill it. Mike Huckabee is that kind of leader. We need him.