Huntsman Disses Christians, Shoots for Zero in Polls

Huntsman Disses Christians, Shoots for Zero in Polls

There are a number of areas where I disagree with Rick Perry (HPV vaccinations, Islam, illegal immigration and border control, and hate crimes to name a few) and I don’t believe he is the best candidate for president (Rep. Michele Bachmann is the most consistently conservative candidate, and the “mainstream” media positively gnashes their teeth at her, which is a resounding endorsement), but at least he isn’t afraid to act like a Republican in public.

At least a couple of the GOP candidates for president, like Mitt “RomneyCareRomney and Jon “I Should Be Running as a Democrat Too” Huntsman, seem ashamed to be associated with foundational Republican beliefs and doesn’t want to be anywhere near the opinions of most Republicans.

But when a liberal woman sent her “human shield” son out ahead of her to do her dirty work at a Rick Perry campaign stop, Perry answered that the theory of evolution told the boy that the theory had some holes in it, and that both creation and evolution should be taught.

Perry has also said that he doesn’t drink the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) Koolaid either.

Jon Huntsman says

To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.

Spoken like a true follower, Mr. Huntsman. Where ever the herd is perceived to be going, that’s where you’re going to position yourself, right? Even if it’s going over a cliff…like the theories of AGW and evolution?  Ooookay.

As recent polls show, including the one mentioned in the video below,  though the “mainstream” media and the rest of the liberal elite want you to believe the herd believes in evolution and AGW, that is not the case at all.  I’d never recommend following the herd for the sake of appearing to be trendy, but if you truly want to be a follower, Mr. Huntsman, you should ditch the beliefs in nutty, politically correct theories.

Call you crazy? Okay, as if I needed your permission. It is pretty crazy to consider that climate change has been going on for thousands of years in greater extremes than today, and now because a bunch of Marxists and out-of-work communists need a new vehicle to rob you of your money and your freedom, you’re going to buy a bunch of scientifically unfounded guesswork and fudged computer models‘ claims that evil capitalist activity is causing the planet to warm up?

Spare me.  The AGW hypothesis is so flimsy, it’s no wonder belief it it has been plummeting for years, to the point that only about 1/3 of the people are buying it and the vast majority believe “scientists” have been cooking the books to convince us it’s real.

That’s almost as crazy as believing an unproven and scientifically contradictory theory that everything in the universe (including the universe itself) “just happened.”  When scientific observation and experimentation has proven that (a) matter doesn’t spontaneously come into existence from nothing, (b) disorganized matter does not spontaneously organize itself into higher, more dense, more complex forms, (c) life does not come from lifeless materials, (d) organisms do not gain new and more complex genetic information that is passed on from one generation to the next, and (e) organisms have never been observed in the field or in the laboratory changing from one kind of organism into another kind of organism…when you consider that science contradicts several key tenets of materialist/evolutionist doctrine, this renders the theory of evolution an illogical and unworkable theory within the framework of its own assumptions. Anti-science?  Yes, that’s what evolutionists are.

Of course, the only reason the “mainstream” media and other Leftists bring these issues up (especially the creation/evolution one) is to create the opportunity to make a Republican look like an anti-science, primitive, knuckle-dragging Neanderthal in public. They are counting on the public to fail to realize that believing in these nonsense theories is actually the anti-science position.

Me?  I’m counting on the public, as it moves further away from the “dinosaur media” and establishment forms of information, to do more independent thinking and less following the herd. I’m also counting on Republican candidates to also do some thinking for themselves, as well as leading instead of following.

How about you?

22 Responses to “Huntsman Disses Christians, Shoots for Zero in Polls”

  1. Faith in God and belief in the Biblical account of creation does not make one “anti-science”. “Science” is not monolithic. There are different scientific theories as to the origins of life, our solar system, the universe, etc. Scientists are busy trying to ”prove” their theories, and from time to time their latest discoveries may make certain theories popular, but they remain theories.

    For Huntsman to say he “trusts” science is meaningless because of the disagreement between scientists on questions such as AGW and evolution, and the fact that scientific positions change as more information becomes avaiable. The error of “science” is when popularly held theories are taught as fact. There remain many scientific difficulties proving AGW and evolution.

    Similar to the “reasonable doubt” standard in law, those scientific difficulties should mean the jury is still out on those issues. But popular thought puts “faith” in those scientific theories, and if people are honest, one’s faith or opinions in such matters shouldn’t be what a political campaign focuses on. But that’s what you get when candidates, political parties and the media are AGENDA driven, rather than guided by principles. They pull the discussion away from freedom for all and push it toward a to do list for special interests.

    We aren’t going to have a decent President (or any elected official) until and unless he or she is willing to rise above a narrow agenda and appeal universally to all freedom-loving individuals, regardless of their particular stand on social issues.  

  2. Replace “theories” with “hypotheses” in your post and you’re right on!

  3. You’re right. I tend to use them synonymously when hypothesis would be most accurate for both of these.

  4. The definitions of theory and hypothesis are actually very similar.  Both words mean an unproven assumption.

  5. I know, but calling evolutionism a “theory,” especially in the scientific (rather than popular) sense of the word, is giving it WAY too much credit.

  6. You’re absolutely right. My bad.

    Bob Ellis/Dakota Voice
    Sent from my smartphone

    —– Reply message —–

  7. Huntsman is immediately impeached because I hear numerous liberal Democrats lauding him.  He might as well just cross the aisle and quit lying.

  8. I can only think of one reason a Democrat would want to run as a Republican: because, currently, a lot of people are automatically not going to vote Democrat!

  9. I can only think of one reason a Democrat would want to run as a Republican: because, currently, a lot of people are automatically not going to vote Democrat!

  10. We have a lot of Democrats running in South Dakota for that very reason. SD is a very conservative state, so we have a bunch of people who would otherwise be in the Dem Party running as Republicans. So we end up with a bunch of RINOs in our state capitol because the average voter is too lazy to look at their positions and their record.

  11. Reminds me of the fake “Tea” Party candidates that Democrats were putting on the ticket in some places in an attempt to divide the opposition.

  12. That poll only shows the lack of intelligence of Americans. 83% of Icelanders believe in evolution, 80% in France, 78% in the UK. ONLY 40% in the US. You post this as something to be proud of when it’s really an embarrassment. The US is not taken seriously on so many levels now. Your fav candidate figures that God is sending messages with earthquakes and floods to make you reduce government spending. Go ahead, vote for her fools.

  13. Too true.  The Democrat brand is a little spoiled and smelly nowadays.

  14. Too true.  The Democrat brand is a little spoiled and smelly nowadays.

  15. You speak as if Iceland and these Eurotrash socialist utopias were somehow the benchmark.  Actually, they should be embarrassed that they would espouse an unproven hypothesis as fact, bastardizing science and intelligence with one fell swoop.  THEY should emulate US.

  16. Actually the poll shows the intelligence of Americans, being able to reject an illogical and contradictory hypothesis that is anti-science, despite said hypothesis being foisted on them for decades by the so-called intelligentsia.

    The figures you cite would seem to indicate either a lack of intelligence (I don’t really believe that) or a sad predisposition to follow the herd instinct (far more likely) among Europeans.

    You can go on thinking poorly of your own country while lauding the sheeple of other lesser nations, but America has been leading the world in freedom, innovation, prosperity and strength for 200 years. Looks like you’re in denial about more than just the unscientific hypothesis of evolution, eh?

  17. Well said, ‘Spouse!

  18. I have to note how your statement (typical of those made by creation deniers) assumes, as though there is no need for it to be actually demonstrated, that “creatorless creation” was at some point firmly proven to be a fact — something which, of course, has never actually happened and never actually will!

  19. I realize you’re probably new around here, Jay, but I’ve been leading the herd for many years. I was an AGW skeptic before AGW skepticism was cool.

    You’re absolutely right that the scientific method isn’t based on opinion or opinion polls. What a shame most AGW disciples fail to realize this.

    Science is based on facts, and the facts point overwhelmingly to natural and cyclic climate change going back for thousands of years.

    You’re also right about not assuming. Assuming and confusing assumptions with facts is a mistake most evolutionists and AGW disciples make.

  20. “If the Scientific Method were based on public opinion polls, you’d still believe in a flat earth.”

    Nonsense. Contrary to popular misconception, belief in a flat earth was never widespread, and certainly didn’t have any Biblical basis. “Round earth” is not doubted by much of anybody because the evidence for it is clear. Evolutionism, on the other hand, is doubted by many because the evidence for it is highly questionable and inadequate.