Michele Bachmann and her family are officially leaving the Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, Minn., which had been her home church for several years because it has come as a shock to her (and at least to her campaign) that the Church, particularly the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church (WELS) synod it belongs to, thinks the Pope is the Anti-Christ.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Bachmann had no idea her WELS church taught the pope was the Anti-Christ. One rarely these gets sermons or taught lessons about what their individual faiths actually believe. After all, if it’s true, as several polls show, many in U.S., one of the if not THE most religious country in the West, really don’t know a lot of information about the Bible itself, it’s not too much of a stretch to think WELS pastors and lay persons weren’t giving too many anti-Pope sermons in church.
This issue has never come up in her past political races, largely because few reporters and or voters in Minnesota felt it necessary to pry into the tenants of her faith, what to many Midwesterners is a private affair. However, she has not made her faith a private matter. It is an essential part of her persona and for the first time, it’s tripping her up politically and you can tell she doesn’t know what to do. So feigns ignorance, ignorance at her church’s beliefs (and probably its history too give the WELS is mostly German centric while she’s originally Norwegian before marrying one Marcus Bachmann from the German town of Waumundee, Wisconsin) and ignorance of the very pledge she signed. Now she supports only half of it, the good parts, not the bad parts. She supports the parts she normally hears in church.
This is just my opinion, but I have a gut feeling that while Bachmann is leading the polls she doesn’t quite have the fervor of support Mike Huckabee did among the Religious right. She’s the flavor of the month right now but in so being it only makes her a target. And given the fact that Huckabee, while a Baptist preacher, isn’t exactly a Jonathan Edwards-type firebrand, its hard to see the pool of evangelical Protestants in Iowa having a religious connection to Bachmann outside of just politics.
The University of California is cutting back on many things, but not useless diversity programs.
HEATHER MAC DONALD, 14 July 2011
California’s budget crisis has reduced the University of California to near-penury, claim its spokesmen. “Our campuses and the UC Office of the President already have cut to the bone,” the university system’s vice president for budget and capital resources warned earlier this month, in advance of this week’s meeting of the university’s regents. Well, not exactly to the bone. Even as UC campuses jettison entire degree programs and lose faculty to competing universities, one fiefdom has remained virtually sacrosanct: the diversity machine.
Not only have diversity sinecures been protected from budget cuts, their numbers are actually growing. The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time “vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.” This position would augment UC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center.
It’s not surprising that the new vice chancellor’s mission is rather opaque, given its superfluity. According to outgoing UCSD chancellor Marye Anne Fox, the new VC for EDI “will be responsible for building on existing diversity plans to develop and implement a campus-wide strategy on equity, diversity and inclusion.” UCSD has been churning out such diversity strategies for years. The “campus-wide strategy on equity, diversity and inclusion” that the new hire will supposedly produce differs from its predecessors only in being self-referential: it will define the very scope of the VC’s duties and the number of underlings he will command. “The strategic plan,” says Fox, “will inform the final organizational structure for the office of the VC EDI, will propose metrics to gauge progress, and will identify potential additional areas of responsibility.”
A powerful post by Hunter Wallace on the Occidental Dissent blog analyzes the political (strictly speaking, racial) economy of the near-trillion dollar Obama stimulus package. Unlike FDR’s Depression-era WPA (which, amazingly, it dwarfed in inflation adjusted terms), the Obama stimulus has not produced visible infrastructure results because, Wallace argues, looking at the microcosm of Alabama,
…it turns out that 39.79 percent went to health and human services, 18.13 percent to education, 17.76 percent went to workforce, 12.77 percent went to transportation and infrastructure, 2.2 percent to housing, 4.7 percent to public safety, 2.47 percent to energy, and 2.17 percent to environment.
Unlike the New Deal, that is why Obama’s “stimulus package,” which was 4.5x the size of FDR’s spending on the WPA, is simultaneously wildly unpopular and yet completely invisible to ungrateful White people in Alabama.
It is because the lion’s share of the “stimulus package” was channeled directly to African-Americans in the form of EBT cards, Medicaid, TANF welfare, Section 8 housing, and unemployment benefits…the “stimulus package” in Alabama seems to be nothing more than a thinly disguised bailout for African-Americans designed to forestall the total financial collapse of black households.
Former Rep. Steve Stockman is considering seeking Ron Paul’s congressional seat. This is good news from our perspective. Stockman was a solid Congressman during his one term.
During the scramble to find someone to head off an Alan Keyes nomination, Stockman was rumored as a possible Constitution Party Presidential nominee. At the time there was some concern about whether or not Stockman was a non-interventionist. Eric Dondero seemed to think he wasn’t. (How Eric got involved in that conversation I do not recall.)
So to clear this up I went to the source. Stockman was involved in this thread on Facebook, so I just asked him “Rep. Stockman, are you a non-interventionist like Paul?” This was his reply:
Of course…but I do want to keep our military strong. I’ve known Paul for years.. Helped him in 1988 in his race for pres. we almost got arrested for campaigning on UHCL campus. However, I doubt Ron will endorse anyone in the race.
How’s that for a little blog journalism?
As I have said before, I’m not crazy about the “strong military” language, but that is likely the price you have to pay to be competitive in a GOP primary. You”re not likely to go very far in a GOP primary suggesting we dismantle our standing army and return to well-regulated state militias. But Stockman is about as close to Ron Paul as we are likely to get. So I hope he does well.
This video was sent to me by the Moore campaign. It is well done, IMO. Moore has a very compelling personal story even beyond the well know Ten Commandment stuff. I still think, however, that Judge Moore would be better off declaring for the Constitution Party nomination. Ron Paul is sucking up all the “far-right” air in the GOP primary, and to a lesser extent Bachmann is probably sucking up a lot of the “religious right” vote. But if he could secure the CP Presidential or Vice-Presidential nomination, that would assure us of a strong paleo voice in the general assuming Paul doesn’t get the GOP nomination.
Judge Napolitano asked Ron Paul directly about a potential third party run yesterday on Freedom Watch. Surprisingly, Paul did not dismiss it out of hand. He commented about how sore loser laws might keep him off the ballot in certain states, and spent a lot of time talking about the unfairness of our current two party system.
If Republicans in Congress trying to keep the debt ceiling from being raised would take in little Mario Savio instead of looking like they’re trying to preserve the tax break for some CEO’s corporate jet, then maybe they wouldn’t be at such a disadvantage in negotiations with President Obama. As Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com pointed out in his column today, all they’re doing is just allowing the Machine lurch forward again to spend on empire and entitlements with phony money, as a car goes forward with a gulp of gas. Instead they need to say this:
“History will record the legislative record of Ron Paul as an extraordinary one – perhaps unparalleled. There probably has never been a more consistent believer in limited government in Congress. America deserves a statesman like Ron Paul as her president, a man I am proud to call my father.” ~ Senator Rand Paul
That being said, it does open the possibility, however unlikely, a third party could spring forth from his campaign. I say “party” rather than “bid” because there no reason to go this route unless it is an effort to create another major party, on the ballot in all 50 states, not just another spoiler, sore-loser campaign which would be a waste of time and money and serve no ultimate purpose both historically and for the long-run.
People say all the time they want another political party to choose from. But the question still remains do they really mean it and is there a cultural base to such a party which make people vote for it automatically? That’s what a major party is. I do believe the Ron Paul movement does have those characteristics and possibilities worthy enough to be explored and could take from both parties, not just one.
Utah’s laws against polygamy, says this man who’s married to four women, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
So now that same-sex “marriage” is considered respectable, people are trying to push the envelope even further. Who could’ve possibly seen that coming? I’m as surprised as a government economist stumped by the latest unemployment numbers!
For a short introduction to the mischief based on the 14th Amendment, check out this post.
After toying around with Forum software, we have decided to re-impliment comments, under a new system. All the old rules apply—some new ones, too. For more information, please see the text just about the comment section at the bottom of new articles. Let there be endless speculation as to our sinister motives.
And, oddly enough, comments are closed on this post.
I have come up with a name for the hysterical distraught overreaction that Cultural Marxist feign anytime there is some deviation from PC rightthink they think they can exploit to their advantage. I call it the PC freak out. Here is a textbook example. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum signed a pledge regarding the family and traditional marriage that contained a passing reference to slavery. Cue the hysterical PC freak out. Here is my comment.
“sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”
That statement is either factually true or factually false. If it is true, then the point is to condemn the modern welfare state which has wreaked havoc on the black family, not endorse slavery. What kind of knee-jerk, hair-trigger, thin-skinned politically correct thought policer do you have to be to read that as any kind of endorsement of slavery? Grow up PC freak outs.
Update:I added this comment which was already about 5oo comments away from my last one. The problem with commenting at Yahoo is that there are so many comments your comment disappears under a pile within minutes.
Please spare me the feigned outrage. The statement was not an endorsement of slavery and all the hysterical PC thought policers on here KNOW IT and are just attempting to exploit this for political advantage, or if they don’t know it they are dumb as a bag of rocks.
There’s a good article in Sunday’s Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel about how a Wisconsin institution, M&I Bank, which has been around 1847, dropped its Midwestern conservative ethos when it came to lending money and went for the quick buck in Florida and Arizona real estate. Now its going to be swallowed up by the Bank of Montreal.
Some other articles for you to consider:
“How will Liberals keep youngsters contributing to Social Security?” by J.J. Jackson at Liberty Reborn
The Cultural Marxist thought police at One People’s Project have their eyes on the upcoming “White Supremacist” H.L. Mencken Club meeting. My advice to the H.L. Mencken Club is to change the venue to a public one now before the OPP Gestapo has a chance to intimidate the hotel into canceling. The OPP article clearly points out that the meeting is currently scheduled to meet at a Holiday Inn. I suspect this is a message.
Bachmann is, what should be called a “Curser” (to go along with Birthers and Truthers). That’s a person who believes that U.S. foreign policy should be based around the old line in Genesis where God says to Abraham “I will bless those that bless you and curse those that curse you.” So the U.S. must support Israel not just because is it in our foreign policy interest but because if we don’t God will curse us.
Now I wouldn’t say this is exactly Dispensationalism because her religion is Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), which is a very fundamentalist Protestant sect (they believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ) but is made up largely of conservative German Lutherans (the Bachmann clan is originally from Wisconsin in a little German-dominated farming village called Waumundee in Buffalo County). They’re not the kinds of people who buy into the flights of fantasy of Dispensationalism (they’re Lutherans after all). Dispensationalism is a British import from dissenter sects which fits more in with the more charismatic Scots-Irish than the more reserved German or Scandinavian Lutheran sects
But you can see the evangelical influence given their born-again conversion in the mid-1970s. If she and her husband Marcus had done nothing they still would have been fairly conservative by the tenants of their faith. Being born-again however, transformed them down more activist and more millenarian paths as anyone who was “born again” during this period of time would have been whether they watching the movie How Should We Live Then? or reading the book The Late Great Planet Earth. The Jesus Freaks like Marcus and Michele were looking for something more punchy than “Eine grossen berg ist ein Gott.” Being born again in the 1960s and 70s and early to mid-80s was statement of rejection against the conventional, mainstream religion of that time. It was their own counter-cultural rebellion.
Because she expresses the “Curser” rhetoric, she already has the Dispensationalist market-cornered. Thus, attacking Iran is consistent with her viewpoints which are religiously orientated. Iran threatens Israel, ergo Iran must be dealt with. Libya on the other hand, is no threat to Israel nor is Afghanistan so it’s easy for her to say bring the troops home because neither has anything to do with Israel’s security which would be the centerpoint of her foreign policy.
So to sum it up, a Bachmann Presidency would akin to electing Netanyahu as President. Hordes of neocons and other hawks will be called back from exile to staff the Pentagon and this time the State Department (John Bolton for Secretary of State anyone?) Will we attack Iran if Bachmann becomes President? In two words: hell yes.
Every time the subject of budget cutting comes up, such as with the debt ceiling debate, you can expect a bunch of articles and blog posts at “conservative” websites warning about the dire consequences of cutting defense. This post by John Guardiano is typical. Defense cuts will “endanger” America you see. What I always wonder is do people like Guardiano, who is presumably reasonably intelligent, actually believe the nonsense they write, or are they just shilling for the defense industry.
Here is what I want to know. How does cutting defense “endanger” America? If we cut our defense spending even dramatically, who would invade us? Is China going to invade us? Russia? Iran? If they will invade us at the slightest sign of “weakening” then why aren’t they invading Switzerland right now?
What cutting “defense” really endangers is not America proper, but our ability to play global hegemon. But global hegemon is not a necessary or proper role for the US. It is the mental construct of a bunch of interventionist ideologues.
Last year, John Médaille posted a dubious article at Front Porch Republic arguing for a strange, ahistorical marriage of monarchy and egalitarianism. (I commented here.) In a similar vein, Jeremy Beer has posted a piece on the limits of localism — at, mind you, a site dedicated to localism. Guess what the limiting factor might be? Apparently, immigration. Regarding Arizona’s brave anti-immigration SB 1070, Beer “did not support the law’s passage.” He claims he doesn’t want “to give more power to the state, including megalomaniacs like Joe Arpaio.” (So much for decentralist states’ rights.) Beer curiously downplays the mestizo invasion taking place in Arizona (andall theproblemsitbrings) and ignores whatever interests the local white Arizonans might have, and instead jumps to the implicit conclusion that localism should limit itself to cute things like softball and organic gardens and ignore the deeper problems that are destroying localities. After all, we don’t want those decentralist whites in Arizona to be poisoning the “good relations that exist between Arizona’s white and Hispanic communities.”