Congressman Hunter Statement on Evolution:

DHgrassrevolt ^ | 7/31/07 | Duncan Hunter

[pissant]

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 Congressman Hunter Statement on Evolution:

The Declaration of Independence begins with these simple words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Self-evident. Patently obvious. Completely clear. It is self-evident that “all men are created equal.” Not equal by government edict or by an act of a king or monarch. We are not equal by virtue of any particular article of the Constitution – we are created equal.

The Declaration continues…. “and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” This is a vital component of what makes us a free society. We are raised from childhood in this country to accept the concept of human rights. That we as Americans are a free people. Included in those freedoms are freedom of speech, of the press… and freedom of religion. But, we often fail to teach our children why we are secure in those rights or should be. Why, as an American, you should expect the freedom to live your life as you see fit with a minimal of government interference. Why you should expect to be able to worship in the church of your choice without fear. What gives us the confidence that this is our heritage, our birth-right as Americans?

Freedom only works if we acknowledge what is so clearly set forth in the Declaration of Independence… that our rights come from the hand of Almighty God. If government gives you your rights… then government can just as easily take those rights away. Democracy easily turns to mob rule without the fundamental understanding that government of the people, by the people and for the people only works if an individual’s rights are unalienable … only if we, each, have a fundamental worth and dignity as a human being. And, that fundamental, unalienable worth only has validity if one acknowledges the true source of that worth and dignity…God.

When Chris Matthews asked one of my fellow candidates if he believed in evolution, the question was designed to embarrass my fellow Republicans. Whether or not, at some level, created beings adapt to their surroundings, or change to some degree over generations is not the right understanding of that question. The real question is this: Does God exist and did he create us? The liberties of every American citizen, including those of Chris Matthews, hang in the balance if we get the answer to that question wrong.

[A_Tradition_Continues]

If you wish to address me please utilize my handle. Your childlike behavior and comments are borish.

Hunter's voting record is not in question. He's simply another professional politician, no different than most of the other professional politicians. Our founding fathers established a citizens legislature, not a career path. Hunter has no spirit of our Constitution.

He's no better nor any worse than any other professional politician campaigning for the office of President, but face it, the man doesn't have enough confidence in his own campaign to resign his current office to campaign.

[pissant]

For claiming to know more about politics than I ever will, you certainly are ignorant about Hunter. I’ll let you fact check your own post.

[pissant]

And its boorish, not borish, MENSA

[b9]

For the record, sir, ‘that activity’ came ‘direct’ from YOUR EXAMPLE, not DU.
If you have a problem with me, take it up with JimRob.

You can impugn my motives all you want, call me a troll, a lib, a DUmpster or any other smarmy name, but you are dead wrong.
JimRob knows exactly who I am and what I stand for.

And as for your remark that I am never truly ‘curious’, I have a question for you.

How is it a diehard Hunter supporter would brag about membership on WideAwakes, a site notorious for despising conservatives?

[RasterMaster]

For the record, your “activity” speaks volumes about your character and motives:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1850224/posts?page=158#158
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855261/posts?page=58#58
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855261/posts?page=53#53
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855261/posts?page=42#42
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855261/posts?page=27#27
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1863474/posts?page=66#66
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1869501/posts?page=3#3
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1869766/posts?page=7#7

Changing the subject or calling in a mod won’t help you...and it is your empty smears on conservatives, which I am replying to.

[b9]

I’m proud of the links you posted. THANK YOU for reposting them!
What exactly do you think you’re proving?
What began as a puzzlement has become a pretty solid observation.

Are you hoping folks won’t actually click the links to see for themselves?

Do you actually believe my comments about Lynne Hunter are an attempt to smear conservatives? I don’t think you believe that at all. You know they have merit, or you wouldn’t be so upset.

I did not ping a mod, I pinged JimRob, the forum owner.
He might be curious as well as to why you would brag about membership on WA.

[RasterMaster]

When did I brag about it? I post in many places...what's it to you?

By the way, many of your fellow FRedheads who post here also post there, so keep diggin', surely you can do better.

[b9]

None of MY FRedhead FRiends would be caught dead posting on WideAwakes!

Even lurking there requires a shower.

Talk about lack of character ~ that place is a cesspool.

[RasterMaster]

Any thread where you appear requires defunkifying....

[b9]

Go back to your antiFReep conservative hating WAnkers.

[RasterMaster]

And they know when they have been B10.

[gondramB]

I’ve read this twice and can’t tell where he stands on evolution. Although i don’t doubt him that Chris Mathews intent was to ask an embarrassing question, its still an important question. I don’t think I could vote for someone for President who didn’t believe in evolution. But I thought Hunter answered that he did believe in evolution - so the tone of article surprises me.

[dschapin]

Why couldn’t you vote for someone who didn’t believe in evolution. I know lots of intelligent people who simply do not find the scientific arguments for evolution persuasive. The amino acid strings for proteins are quite complex and the probability that a protein, which performs a specific function for the organism, would evolve by chance is very low. Remember that natural selection will not favor a mutation untill after the mutation provides some benefit to the organism.

[Paul Ross]

The more I hear the more I become determined to see this man as the President.

Bump!

[Paul Ross]

Excellent find!

[Paul Ross]

BTW...my I.Q. is 142

Then you are likely one of the weaker intellects on this thread to be blunt. I would not be advertising your lack of mental acuity if I were you.

and I probably know more about US politics and elections than you'll ever know.

Let's see if you can prove any such knowledge superiority over gifted bloggers, conservatives with history and track records of accomplishment.

Bye-bye one percenter.

Let me guess...you are for whoever the MSM tells you is the front-runner?

'Lessee, can you say Richard Viguerie? I thought not.

If you have been following the debate it looks like Viguerie has scored a decisive series of punches and finished with this knockout punch. The Fred Thompson candidacy is revealed for what it is...and that was better than the other 3 RINOs!!!

Richard Viguerie: Defenders of Thompson Just Like Defenders of Bush
Jul 30 03:02 PM US/Eastern

MANASSAS, Va., July 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by Richard Viguerie of ConservativesBetrayed.com:

The defenders of Fred Thompson's troubling record have not attempted to explain, mitigate, or refute any of the concerns expressed in my article, "Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson."

Rather, they've attacked the messenger.

That's exactly what President Bush's political appointees -- Peter Wehner and William McClay -- did in response to my article in the Washington Post, "Bush's Base Betrayal" and my book, Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books, 2006).

That's an additional warning sign that Thompson may be a lot like Bush. Remember when Bush was running, a lot of good people thought he was a conservative.

Boy, were they taken in!

We've got to make sure we don't go down that road again -- not with Thompson or anyone else.

With Thompson, there are some definite warning signs. He was not actively pushing conservative legislation when he was in the Senate. The only issue he displayed any leadership on was -- are you ready? -- the McCain-Feingold Bill, which he cosponsored. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said the bill could not have been passed without Thompson's tremendous help.

In defending his support of this horrible legislation, Thompson has said he did not realize how the law would actually work.

Really? How exactly did he think it would work?

The Los Angeles Times discovered that, before Thompson was elected to the Senate, he had been a lobbyist for an abortions right group. Thompson denied it. Then, the New York Times located the billing records, thereby providing "the smoking gun." This raises significant questions about either Thompson's honesty or his mental abilities to recall significant information.

Sure, people change their mind on issues, including abortion. We welcome converts to the pro-life side. Thompson could have said, "I regret being a lobbyist for the abortion industry. But because I was once in a leadership position in support of abortion, I'm better able now to combat that point of view."

Instead, he demonstrated that, at best, he might need medical attention to correct serious lapses in memory. I don't know anyone who could forget about doing 20 hours of work for a pro-abortion group. At worst, Thompson may have gotten caught trying to "pull the wool over our eyes."

The Washington Post's investigation found that, before his election, Thompson worked as a lawyer who argued against the government's authority to regulate drug paraphernalia. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Thompson.

In another case, Thompson tried to challenge U.S. Customs' right to search a boat on which 28,000 pounds of marijuana was found. Fortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed.

In addition to his work as a criminal lawyer, Thompson has filed a lot of civil suits. As a result, the political action committee of the plaintiff lawyers gave him the maximum $10,000 donation to each of his two Senate campaigns.

The Post reported, "Thompson defied Republican orthodoxy almost as soon as he arrived in Washington in 1995 as a freshman senator."

To be fair, Thompson's lifetime voting record in the Senate from the American Conservative Union was 86.1%. That's not too bad. But it's not as good as a lot of Republican senators, especially those from "red states."

Conservatives need to take a good look at all of the candidates. We need to ask hard questions. If there's a problem, we need to find out about it now, not later.

By raising issues of concern to conservatives, the campaigns can be forced to address our issues, rather than playing defense on the liberals' terrain.

Obviously, Thompson would like to capitalize on his television persona as far as it can take him without having to take specific stands on tough issues. The truth is he's no different from a lot of other candidates who'd like conservative support without firmly committing to conservative positions.

I'm going to do my best to see that doesn't happen.

I hope conservatives will not be "climbing on board" the Thompson bandwagon or anyone else's bandwagon without getting good answers to our questions and concerns.

Thompson can use the questions that have been raised about his record to try to establish a real bond with grassroots conservatives. If he does, he can win the nomination and the election. But if he comes across as a Bush- type Big Government Republican, I can tell you how this movie will end.

SOURCE ConservativesBetrayed.com

[Paul Ross]

... but face it, the man doesn't have enough confidence in his own campaign to resign his current office to campaign.

Your ignorance is showing. In fact, he is leaving the House at the end of the term. He is keeping it because his VOTE IS VITAL to prevent the continued onslaught of liberalism. He is there fighting the good fight, leading the charge against the Illegal Alien Shamnesty, the North American Union skullduggery, the underfunding of Defense, and the attempted forced withdrawal and surrender of Iraq to Al Quaeda. To name just a few. He has a lot of irons in the fire. His sticking to the House is in fact a sign of honor...and principle...and shows he is one who with his last gasp is trying to protect this country if he can at all do anything for it and its troops.

He...with his life's testimony...proven to have fidelity.

Can...and more importantly with your tender years....will you?

[gondramB]

>>Why couldn’t you vote for someone who didn’t believe in evolution. I know lots of intelligent people who simply do not find the scientific arguments for evolution persuasive. The amino acid strings for proteins are quite complex and the probability that a protein, which performs a specific function for the organism, would evolve by chance is very low. Remember that natural selection will not favor a mutation untill after the mutation provides some benefit to the organism.<<

I don’t think I could vote for someone for President who does not believe that life stated from tiny similar life and developed over billions of years to diverse life and that the common name for that is evolution.

That is just so clear from the science that it takes a person either who has not been to school or who is deluded to not believe in it.

They can be deluded on other things but some are important - basic science, basic sovereignty, basic freedoms - speech - religion, press, self defense etc., basic capitalism, basic constitutionality and general American principles are litmus tests for me - not necessarily in that order. There may be other but those come to mind.

For the record, I may well be deluded myself on some issues but I’m not running for President.

[gondramB]

>>He’s no better nor any worse than any other professional politician campaigning for the office of President, but face it, the man doesn’t have enough confidence in his own campaign to resign his current office to campaign.<<

He’s chairman of the armed services committee - why on earth would you want him to resign?

Not to mention he’s not running again, assuming they let his son run - there is the slight issue of him being recalled to Iraq and serving bravely.

[Sun]

“And its boorish, not borish, MENSA”

Thanks for the chuckle.