Former Congressman and candidate for President Ron Paul has endorsed Cynthia Dunbar for Congress in the 6th district. Paul said:
“I have given my life to fight for liberty. It is always refreshing to encounter others with the same passion, conviction, and understanding necessary to defend our Constitution. Cynthia not only encapsulates these traits, but also has the integrity and fearlessness to stand up to politicians who wish to expand our government and infringe upon our rights. I have known Cynthia for over a decade now and she has always proved herself to be a stalwart defender of the freedoms guaranteed to us as Americans. Her voice will be heard loudly and clearly across the nation in defense of liberty, and she is the best candidate to represent our shared values in Congress. I am pleased to give her my endorsement and full support in her campaign to represent Virginia’s 6th district.”
18 comments
Jesus weeps everytime Cynthia flaunts her sinful “marriage” in her campaign photos.
Are you saying she isn’t married ?
(Not that I actually care, I’m just curious what you are insinuating)
Her husband was her student when she taught at liberty
The sensible response to yesterday’s Wisconsin results — if you haven’t perused them, you should — is a move towards the center. Leadership knows it and they’re regearing for its pursuit. Unfortunately for the RPV, the tail is disconnecting from the head in an effort to maintain the course, fragmenting the team into two or more.
Cynthia Dunbar demands we teach creationism, not evolution. She speaks loudly against Republican leadership. She believes public schools are unconstitutional, bringing her Texas two-step to our Commonwealth. She downplayed the role of Thomas Jefferson while in Texas, but now expects his home to give her a welcome.
We are watching Republicans relive the role of Democrats in the time of Jesse Jackson. The fringe is defining the center, and in this case it isn’t pretty, it isn’t sensible, it isn’t articulate. It is increasingly desperate. She is one lawyer who knows that if the facts are on your side you argue the facts, if the law is on your side you argue the law, and when neither are on your side you pound on the table.
She is a table-pounder, I’ll give you that.
What are you talking about re: Dunbar on Jefferson? I’ve not heard that.
According to sources, her textbook work in Texas in part sought to de-emphasize the role of TJ in favor of his predecessors. An example (but not limited to, because this is a cursory exam):
https://www.texastribune.org/2010/03/22/sboe-removes-thomas-jefferson-blames-media/
Hmmm.. this does not please me. Thanks.
Umm … I’m not some Christian kook, and I think life was created. I don’t know what created it, or why, but I don’t see how anyone can think life happened randomly in light of the research that has happened in biology and genetics in the past 10 to 15 years. I absolutely believe in evolution, but I do not believe that DNA and the basic mechanisms of life just happened, I believe they were engineered. I don’t know how you could look at kinesin, ATP synthase, bacterial flagellum, etc, and believe that it was not created. I know how that sounds … I used to be that person, the one who thinks only crazy religious people believe life was created … but I don’t see how you can reach any other conclusion after really looking at it. What created life, where, how, why ? I have no idea, and it obviously begs the question what created the thing that created life, but I do not believe that life arose spontaneously and evolved from mud and water, etc, I just don’t believe that anymore. I understand why people believe that, especially if they are over the age of 20, because that’s the “enlightened” thinking they were taught in school, that old religious beliefs about creation were stupid, that anyone who believes in science believes in evolution, etc, but I’m to the point now where I think anyone who still believes that life wasn’t engineered is as backward as the paradigm that idea replaced. I think the commonly held belief that life arose by chance is outdated, but I also think it is dangerous to question openly in much the same way that it was once dangerous to talk about the earth going around the sun. You won’t be physically hurt for talking about it, but so called “scientifically mind” people will label you as someone who doesn’t “believe in science”. These are strange times we live in.
Reposting because my original response got marked as spam.
Umm … I’m not some Christian kook, and I think life was created. I don’t know what created it, or why, but I don’t see how anyone can think life happened randomly in light of the research that has happened in biology and genetics in the past 10 to 15 years. I absolutely believe in evolution, but I do not believe that DNA and the basic mechanisms of life just happened, I believe they were engineered. I don’t know how you could look at kinesin, ATP synthase, bacterial flagellum, etc, and believe that it was not created. I know how that sounds … I used to be that person, the one who thinks only crazy religious people believe life was created … but I don’t see how you can reach any other conclusion after really looking at it. What created life, where, how, why ? I have no idea, and it obviously begs the question what created the thing that created life, but I do not believe that life arose spontaneously and evolved from mud and water, etc, I just don’t believe that anymore. I understand why people believe that, especially if they are over the age of 20, because that’s the “enlightened” thinking they were taught in school, that old religious beliefs about creation were stupid, that anyone who believes in science believes in evolution, etc, but I’m to the point now where I think anyone who still believes that life wasn’t engineered is as backward as the paradigm that idea replaced. I think the commonly held belief that life arose by chance is outdated, but I also think it is dangerous to question openly in much the same way that it was once dangerous to talk about the earth going around the sun. You won’t be physically hurt for talking about it, but so called “scientifically minded” people will label you as someone who doesn’t “believe in science”. These are strange times we live in.
I don’t know how anyone could say with finality that Christians are wrong about a God creating life for the simple reason that nobody has any idea what created life. Space aliens doesn’t explain it any better. I believe something engineered it.
Not denigrating discovery and open-minded exploration in any way, but frankly your video makes the point: We are teaching a generation that will live with CRISPR and the work it entails, literally applying a word processor to genetic code. We cannot hold back in confronting the global challenge this presents. It requires a focus on known science.
My point, even though I didn’t make it directly in my post, is that we need to be careful that we aren’t arguing against including something like creationism in an educational curriculum simply because the prevailing attitude of the day is to favor anti-theism.
What I mean by that is that there are classes in social “science” (I put quotes around it to signify my general disdain) about all kinds of leftist ideas and “study classes”, etc, that are completely baseless in any actual scientific sense, but we allow them to continue on in the spirit of open mindedness. There’s really no reason, in my opinion, to essentially be overly hard on creationism (or it’s more scientific cousin “intelligent design”) in a way that we wouldn’t be for whatever other underwater basket weaving classes are being taught at modern universities.
I’m not defending teaching this to children in elementary school, even high school, but I would like to see universities open their doors to these kinds of ideas so that their is more ideological diversity on college campuses. And I don’t mean allow them in only as religion classes … if we look at it in the context of all the feminist claptrap that ends up in what should be legitimate social science and psychology, I don’t see the harm in adult students seeing some creationism. I believe this was what your post was really about – not putting creationism in elementary schools, and my response to you was not to debate that point but to challenge what is a commonly held belief that people who believe life may have been created are all believe that for religious reasons.
We are in agreement. My mind is very open, there is a time and place for these discussions and it’s not high school and younger:
A choice quote from Cynthia Dunbar’s book:
“Public education is tyrannical, unconstitutional and the Satan-following Left’s “subtly deceptive tool of perversion.” And parents who surrender their children to government-run schools are “throwing them into the enemy’s flames even as the children of Israel threw their children to Moloch.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history
Let’s just skip the sideshow and run Corey Stewart on a ticket with Cynthia Dunbar. Get them out front, let them lead the rallies. Get it out of your system. Review the results. Then recommit to growing the party from the center for the average Virginian.
What does the “center” mean to you ?
If by “center” you mean some negotiated middle ground between the “right” and the “left” (whatever that means) then you do not have an ally here, at least not in me. That’s what the establishment Republican party was all about.
If by “center” you mean a more liberty oriented position that eschews the extreme “right” and “left” (the authoritarians in both parties), then okay.
I think we’re talking about the latter, but this is very subjective territory. There will be elements of each in everything, in part because the parties need to work together to address our problems and yet I trust neither of them to substitute their judgment for ours.
“I don’t see how anyone can think life happened randomly in light of the research that has happened in biology and genetics in the past 10 to 15 years. I absolutely believe in evolution, but I do not believe that DNA and the basic mechanisms of life just happened, I believe they were engineered.”
I have never considered evolution and a supreme intelligence to be mutually exclusive. Just because life came to be through rather mundane natural processes does not mean that God did not have a hand someplace along the way. Science should do its best to discover and describe the processes. Religion (or belief) can tackle the presence or absence of God in that process. Since God relies on belief (to sustain free will perhaps?) his role can not ever be truly discerned and can not be scientifically tested. The two arenas need to stay separate, imo.
Sure you want to nationalize these races. See WI SD-10 results. Looks like VA was not an isolated event.
She is one sensible and articulate woman. An outstanding conservative Republican candidate.