CNN joins in attacking Bachmann and her Christian faith

This quote is the reason Anderson Cooper has decided to join in attacking both Bachmann and Christianity, just as ABC did:

But some observers claim that the mission of the practice includes counseling homosexuals in an effort to “ungay” them. “It is absolutely sincere,” adds former school board member Cecconi. “They specialize in ‘reparation’ regarding sexual orientation.”

Marcus Bachmann, who is also 50, denies that is part of his clinic’s practice. “That’s a false statement,” he says, refusing to answer any questions that don’t have to do with Bachmann and Associates. “Am I aware that the perception is out there? I can’t comment on that.” Still, Bachmann offers, “If someone is interested in talking to us about their homosexuality, we are open to talking about that. But if someone comes in a homosexual and they want to stay homosexual, I don’t have a problem with that.”

Cooper says that you can agree or disagree with Bachmann’s beliefs, but that’s not the reason for this story. It’s only because Marcus Bachmann lied in 2006 to a newspaper that this warrants the 12 minutes of attention he’s giving it.

So how did Marcus Bachmann lie exactly? He was responding to what he said was a false statement that indicated he specialized in reparative therapy. But it seems to me that there could be any sort of basis for him saying that’s a false statement. Even by definition, reparative therapy is:

psychotherapy aimed at changing a person’s homosexuality and based on the view that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

Funny, but it doesn’t sound at all to me from the descriptions people have given it this really matches up. From what I’ve heard expressed through these smear segments, it simply sounds like they are encouraging someone to seek God to change them through reading the Bible and through prayer. Where is psychotherapy in curing it as a mental disorder? I never heard anyone in these clips espouse that. They are essentially asking someone to practice their Christian beliefs with a focus on praying for God’s healing in this regard. There’s probably more to it in actuality that involves discussing past events and how they might have contributed to the person’s current condition, but that’s just normal counseling. Nothing ground breaking here.

So based on this one line of reasoning it seems plausible to me for Marcus Bachmann to suggest that they aren’t practicing what is known as in psychology circles as reparative therapy.

But this type of intensive research and analysis isn’t apparently something that Anderson Cooper does, so on with the smear campaign! After all we have a lie told in 2006 by someone who isn’t running for President to expose!

***



So this is the excuse Cooper uses as rationale to air this left-wing smear job. In the ABC piece I wrote yesterday, I focused only on the condescending elitism because I was quite appalled at what I had just seen. But this gives me a chance to go down another road, a road of absurdity.

Think about it. CNN and ABC are attacking a Christian counselor for attempting to counsel someone based on Christianity. How ridiculously absurd is this? There is no forced Christian counseling here. It involves a willing counselor and a willing participant based on Christian principles at a Christian counseling clinic. If someone doesn’t agree with it, they can leave.

Even Marcus himself said this in the quote from 2006:

If someone is interested in talking to us about their homosexuality, we are open to talking about that. But if someone comes in a homosexual and they want to stay homosexual, I don’t have a problem with that.

That’s because if they are unwilling to change, then there is nothing he can do. That’s normal counseling! What, is he going to force them to change? That’s even more absurd if not impossible. And from the descriptions of the people who have been to this clinic, it doesn’t sound like he is doing all that much other than talking to them and encouraging them to seek God.

***

So why go down this road after all? Why attack Bachmann for her religious beliefs? Would Cooper have us believe that it was all because he was exposing a so-called lie that had such little context in the original interview that it’s difficult to really even call it a lie?

No, all we are left with is two reasons. The first one is simply that they want to protect Obama from any real threats on the campaign trail. She can draw a crowd and the MSM knows it.

But secondly we are once again staring at the condescending elitism from those on the left who don’t understand people who believe in God and are willing to attack it in hopes of destroying it. They think those of us who cling to our guns and our God are back-wood hicks who lack the mental fortitude to really change our lives without some fantasy helping us do it. They think we believe in fairy tales and they treat us as though we have a mental disorder.

You know, if I cared about what people think about me this might really get to me. But I know in my heart that it’s the people who are willing to seek God and be found by Him, that those people who really know Him are the ones who experience life to its fullest and are happy beyond measures than I can even describe. For their happiness isn’t found in this world, but in the One who created them, who knows them inside and out and loves them dearly.

And it’s because of those very people that I can believe that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God and respect those who disagree. It’s because of those very people that I can live in a nation that’s free and I can prosper from my own accord. It’s because of those very people that the United States of America exists at all.

Otherwise, Anderson Cooper might simply be a court jester before the queen instead of a news reporter at a huge media outlet. Ah well, there’s not much difference these days I suppose.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

94 thoughts on “CNN joins in attacking Bachmann and her Christian faith

  1. I see we have a few closet fags and reprobates on this thread stirring up hate against godly Christian prinicples.

    Only those completely devoid of conscience and logic can justify defending homosexuality.

    It’s a colossal waste of time debating these psuedo-intellectuals who are completely oblivious of their impending damnation. I would suggest they all take advantage of the Bachmann conseling therapy.

    It’s turn or burn, baby!!

  2. ITS A CHOICE -.- like ice cream or chocolate cake?? really? this guy is a doctor? i received my Masters in Civil Engineering. i do more Science than these bozos who call themselves doctors.

  3. This is why people don’t believe the Tea Party about being a strictly constitutionalist party. Constitution clearly states that all american civilians have the right to their own privacy and their own body. And why do people think that a small government means government should be involved in peoples personal preferences. Small government means… STAY OUT. I mean who thinks this is a government issue, not a church issue?????

  4. Cooper is nothing more than a left wing limp wrist and a liberal hack. Like the vast majority of homos, its his way, or the highway, and if you don’t support homosexuality, there’s something wrong with YOU. I would expect nothing better from a biased gay, and nothing more from a network that caters to that crowd, and that type of employee.

  5. You won’t see them attacking Obama’s faith Islam, and the fact that they hang homosexuals will you.

  6. You won’t see them attacking Obama’s faith Islam, and the fact that they hang homosexuals will you.

  7. How do they keep calling the Right anti-feminist, when they never stick up for smears against Ingraham, and run hit pieces on Bachmann and Palin?

    On the counseling itself, I am no expert in that, but I understand that many times, voluntary counseling sessions with gays involves talking about sexual traumas they experienced as young people and helping them through love, prayer, Bible studies, etc.

    No screaming. No shock therapy. Love. Prayer. Bible studies. Dangerous stuff to the extreme left.

  8. How do they keep calling the Right anti-feminist, when they never stick up for smears against Ingraham, and run hit pieces on Bachmann and Palin?

    On the counseling itself, I am no expert in that, but I understand that many times, voluntary counseling sessions with gays involves talking about sexual traumas they experienced as young people and helping them through love, prayer, Bible studies, etc.

    No screaming. No shock therapy. Love. Prayer. Bible studies. Dangerous stuff to the extreme left.

      1. Yes, that’s true enough. Just like not all criticism of a black man means it is racist in motivation.

        Not my point though.

        Aggressively attacking both of the female frontrunners in the conservative movement is not helping advance women’s rights. If it is being done in balance with the male frontrunners, it’s all fair in love and war. Are similar pieces being done on Romney? Pawlenty? They are some of the male frontrunners.

        1. In battle you don’t aim to take out the smallest regiments — you aim for the one that can do the most damage while keeping the smaller regiments in you peripheral vision.

          In other words, Palin and Bachmann currently have what can be perceived as the heaviest following, so naturally their political opponents will be focusing their most frenzied political attacks on them. No point in going after the little guy if you’re trying to gain political ground. Nothing sexist or anti-feminist about that. It’s just politics as usual.

          1. That is true, but why not Mitt? He’s a big threat too, isn’t he? (Correct me if he is getting pounded too) It seems to me that conservative women do not tow the feminist line and are therefore considered foolish or threatening. Did NOW stick up for Ingraham when Schultz said degrading things about her?

            1. I guess they don’t perceive him to be too much of a threat. He’s still leading in polls, but Bachmann has gained a lot of ground. “Leapfrogged” is what one recent report called it, and recent polls place her just behind Romney in 2nd place, coming from near last among potential contenders just 3 months ago. Romney got out on the campaign trail early, which is why he still enjoys a lead in the polls, but I think you, I, and everyone else knows that the lead is short-lived, especially since in recent polls, Bachmann is the only Republican candidate to gain ground, even despite her very public gaffes.

              I’m sure they’ll be keeping their eyes on Mitt, but Bachmann is the current focus because of the charge she has been making through the polls. Republicans seem first to be concerned with finding a candidate that can beat Obama and Bachmann seems to fit that description. And the Democrats know it.

              NOW may not have stuck up for Ingraham, as far as I know, but women’s groups did apparently speak out against Schultz’s snafoo, which may have been part of the driving force behind the suspension. They may not have specifically defended Ingraham — if that’s what you’re looking for — but instead targeted Schultz’s words.

      2. Yes, that’s true enough. Just like not all criticism of a black man means it is racist in motivation.

        Not my point though.

        Aggressively attacking both of the female frontrunners in the conservative movement is not helping advance women’s rights. If it is being done in balance with the male frontrunners, it’s all fair in love and war. Are similar pieces being done on Romney? Pawlenty? They are some of the male frontrunners.

  9. MB says she is a co-owner of the clinic and talks about how “we” created jobs, etc. So, it’s fair game. But, my problem is that she lied about the amount of federal money their clinic is receiving. To me, that is an issue particularly since she is presenting herself as a conservative.

    1. anderson blooper is the real “teabagger” since he’s a gay. If anybody relies on cnn (communist nihilist no nothings) for their news, then they’re already left leaning. The independent label is one of convenience when someone wants to sound cool or relevant, more than likely they are democrats in disguise who wouldn’t vote for a republican even if jesus was on the ballot & ran against a despotic figure on their side.

          1. He didn’t confirm or deny when asked about it, that in itself shows admission.

            No that doesn’t show admission — otherwise standing mute in court would be construed as a guilty plea. Did you ever consider that it’s a question that is not and should not be a concern for anyone else? And it sounds like even if he were to deny it, you and a lot of other conservatives would just call him a liar. You’ve already made up your mind that he’s gay and no amount of denial on his part would change that. Am I correct? And based on your statement above, your refusal to answer this question gives me right to assume I am correct.

            And again, where has Anderson Cooper himself admitted to being homosexual?

            1. He wasn’t in a sharia court. Wait, I thought for the left the LGBT community was a blessing, a godsend. Sounds to me you are ashamed of his gayness or you see it as a crime and that bothers you even in 2011. Embrace it, the LGBT community is like the sacred cow of india. He was born that way, right? If someone asked me if i was something other than what i really am I would deny it and rightfully so. If you say “no comment” to a question that’s an admission. Again, not that there’s anything wrong with that, gay that is, right??? For the left it’s good to be gay when convenient and not otherwise. Wasn’t the left accusing Breitbart of being gay in order to deride him?

              1. During an arraignment in a US court, when the judge asks how you plead, you can say “guilty” or “not guilty”, or you can stand mute. By your statements, standing mute should mean “guilty”, whereas standing mute is always equivalent to “not guilty” — if you stand mute the judge will enter a plea of “not guilty”. “Pleading the Fifth” is also not construed as an admission of guilt. That is to what I was referring, not a Sharia court.

                And if you want to construe “no comment” or remaining silent as an automatic admission of the affirmative, be my guest. I prefer giving people the benefit of doubt.

                1. You are taking this discourse where it doesn’t need to go. Why do people who watch court tv or nancy grace think they are experts in the law? Besides what’s criminal about being gay in 2011 USA? If he was in the islamic world where they stone & collapse walls on gays that’s when he should be mum and play it down, not here.

                2. Ugh… I was only trying to make an analogy, one that appears to have been lost on you. I guess this is what I should have just said:

                  Give him the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming that because people have asked or outright assumed he is gay, and he hasn’t answered that satisfactorily (assuming that is possible), that he must be. Instead presume he is not unless and until he says otherwise or some seedy pictures surface involving him and a male lover.

            2. He wasn’t in a sharia court. Wait, I thought for the left the LGBT community was a blessing, a godsend. Sounds to me you are ashamed of his gayness or you see it as a crime and that bothers you even in 2011. Embrace it, the LGBT community is like the sacred cow of india. He was born that way, right? If someone asked me if i was something other than what i really am I would deny it and rightfully so. If you say “no comment” to a question that’s an admission. Again, not that there’s anything wrong with that, gay that is, right??? For the left it’s good to be gay when convenient and not otherwise. Wasn’t the left accusing Breitbart of being gay in order to deride him?

        1. Independent news media have reported that Cooper is gay,[34] and in May 2007, Out magazine ranked him second behind David Geffen in its list of the fifty “Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America.”[35] When asked about his sexuality, he stated, “I understand why people might be interested. But I just don’t talk about my personal life. It’s a decision I made a long time ago, before I ever even knew anyone would be interested in my personal life.

        2. Independent news media have reported that Cooper is gay,[34] and in May 2007, Out magazine ranked him second behind David Geffen in its list of the fifty “Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America.”[35] When asked about his sexuality, he stated, “I understand why people might be interested. But I just don’t talk about my personal life. It’s a decision I made a long time ago, before I ever even knew anyone would be interested in my personal life.

  10. This is why I don’t like the media. They target a good woman like Michelle Bachmann because they hope to score political points and sway the independent vote toward the left. The right isn’t going to abandon her, and the left is never going to embrace her. It’s the independents that CNN is speaking to, saying “hey, can you believe this dope?” It’s shameful of CNN and I hope Bachmann wins the nomination so she can kick these leftists right in the teeth by winning the White House!

  11. These hit pieces on conservatives by LSOM (lame stream obama media) isn’t going to make a chink in bachmann’s armor. Either you love or or you don’t. If these Boll weevils think this will disillusion bachmann supporters, they are kidding themselves. Even with the state run media working around the clock doing free PR for the marxist-in-chief, oblamer can’t get over 45% approval rating. If you are black or gay, odds are you will vote democrat, which is the sad truth. So pandering to these groups is a waste of time since they have an unholy allegiance to the demoncrat party.

  12. “Otherwise, Anderson Cooper might simply be a court jester before the queen”

    I think he is a jester AND a queen.

  13. Wonder how the liberal medias favorite region, Islam, treats homosexuals?
    Naa, that’s different.

    1. Wonder how Christianity and Christian law treat homosexuals, when actually enforced? Nah, don’t want to think about that, because then you’d be in a similar boat with Islam.

      1. You know absolutely nothing about Christianity and are of the same elitist mentality that I fight against with this post.

        Either learn what the heck you are talking about or go away.

        1. Elitist mentality? Right…. you keep telling yourself that.

          But let’s address the “know absolutely nothing about Christianity” bit, as it sounds like you need to re-read your Bible.

          Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

          In other words Christian law calls for those who commit homosexual acts to be put to death. The method is not stipulated, but the punishment certainly is.

          And don’t try to pull the abrogation argument on me either, as I don’t buy it.

          1. since we are on the topic of homosexuality, tell me one major religion that condones it? I’m against persecuting anybody for their beliefs but do you know what mooslims do to their gays? If I had to to pick being a gay in a christian society vs. islamic, guess which one i’ll pick? Hint: i’m not a masochist.

            1. Oh, they’ll string you up in the mooslim countries if you like floral arrangement. They don’t mess around. Although, the irony is that it’s practiced widely among men because of restrictions and perceptions of female virginity. My aunt is a nurse in Saudi Arabia. She’s seen a lot of men who’ve had “accidents” in that regard.

            2. By “Christian society” I’ll presume that you are referring to countries with a predominantly Christian population — i.e. the US and much of Europe. Many of those countries have also become much, much more liberal compared to where they were before the Renaissance. So certainly you have a point there.

              And yes, I know how fundamentalist Islam treats homosexuals. More liberal Muslims (yes, they do exist) are a little more accepting of homosexuals even if they don’t agree with what they do.

              And true that the *major* religions don’t condone it, but is condonation necessary?

          2. Yo! Ding dang dingleberry! Leviticus is in the Old Testament.

            Christianity begins in Matthew 🙂

            What you are speaking of is Ancient Judaism. It was undoubtedly Christianity that moderated them. The entire world is much better, much more compassionate because of Christianity.

            Do you have a crazy response to this?

          3. Yo! Ding dang dingleberry! Leviticus is in the Old Testament.

            Christianity begins in Matthew 🙂

            What you are speaking of is Ancient Judaism. It was undoubtedly Christianity that moderated them. The entire world is much better, much more compassionate because of Christianity.

            Do you have a crazy response to this?

              1. That’s your response? Judaism is not Christianity. You lose. Your post is meaningless mischaracterization. It is an outright lie from stem to stern.

                Leviticus has NOTHING to do with Christianity. It’s OK to be wrong.

                1. Then why do Christians defend and quote the Old Testament? Not just Leviticus, but Deuteronomy and Exodus (in which we have the Ten Commandments). Why is Genesis so vehemently quoted in the science arena (creationists, intelligent design proponents, flood geologists) and also with regard to homosexuality (“It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”)?

                  You hold the full abrogation point of view, which is perfectly fine. However other Christians, such as possibly some of those reading this thread, disagree with it. Most Christians advocate for only partial abrogation (with differences of opinion on what parts), while other Christians do not believe that any of the Pentateuch has been abrogated by the New Testament (including, but not limited to, the WBC).

                  So are the majority of Christians wrong then as well?

                2. Because they respect Judaism and they know good teachings when they see them I suppose. There is nothing wrong with the 10 Commandments. In the Old Testament people would have to offer burnt sacrifice for forgiveness of sin. When Jesus was crucified, he at that moment took on all sin at once. He offered Himself once for all. it is up to the individual to accept His gift of salvation.

                  Here is some more “abrogation” for you. I am not responsible for Jeffrey Dahmer’s crimes.

                  I’m just giving you the Biblical facts Kenneth. If you want to know about individual Christians and their behavior as well as Christians as a group and their behavior, you might have to interview them. I’ll bet there are many who have very little understanding or knowledge of the Old or the New Testament…ask them.

                  I also think you are guilty of confusing messengers with the message itself. Messengers are human. The Holy Scriptures are not.

                3. I expect you are trying to stir up controversy, rather than trying to get an answer. I also find you using a Muslim term with regard to Christianity to be offensive.

                  That’s my caveat. Now, I’ll attempt an answer.

                  Yes, there is a notion in Christianity that many things changed in the New Testament. We still accept the OT and consider it to be God’s Word. But much of it (Leviticus, for example) was the Law. Christ said He did not come to destroy, but to fulfill the Law. We have been given a new law in Christ, one that holds a higher standard, but does not deal in bloodshed. We are told that God will repay, is the ultimate Judge.

                  I believe this is because Christ’s death and resurrection made a way for forgiveness and salvation that did not exist. People have a chance to turn from their sin, even on their death beds!

                  We still hold the idea of sin to be serious (the wages of sin is death), and we now have an even higher demand that our very hearts and thoughts be clean. But death is an eternal spiritual separation from God and the salvation He provided. Previously, putting sinners to death was to save the community from their influence. Now, mercy overrules judgement.

                4. Abrogation. It’s most often used in reference to later passages of the Quran abrogating earlier ones.

                5. It’s an English word, though, with origins in Latin and applies to much more than the Qur’an and the Bible. For example, there is an abrogation doctrine in Constitutional law. Another example is abrogating a law — another way of saying repealing a law.

                  Dictionary.com: abrogation

                  So with regard to the Bible, the abrogation point of view is that the Mosaic laws have been repealed in the New Covenant/New Testament, either in part or in full.

                  It’s far from being a “Muslim term”.

                6. It’s an English word, though, with origins in Latin and applies to much more than the Qur’an and the Bible. For example, there is an abrogation doctrine in Constitutional law. Another example is abrogating a law — another way of saying repealing a law.

                  Dictionary.com: abrogation

                  So with regard to the Bible, the abrogation point of view is that the Mosaic laws have been repealed in the New Covenant/New Testament, either in part or in full.

                  It’s far from being a “Muslim term”.

                7. Happy to concede on the word, but will you please note that you got off on a tangent to start another argument? I still think you’re just going out of your way to start a fight.

                8. Actually wasn’t trying to start another “argument” so to speak. I’ve actually never conversed with someone who advocated what he appeared to be, so the conversation was actually becoming intriguing and I wanted to see how he defended his point of view. It was actually a little insightful — if you can believe that.

                  Looking back I can see how you can interpret my motives as trying to start a fight, but that wasn’t my intent. Believe it if you will.

                9. Actually wasn’t trying to start another “argument” so to speak. I’ve actually never conversed with someone who advocated what he appeared to be, so the conversation was actually becoming intriguing and I wanted to see how he defended his point of view. It was actually a little insightful — if you can believe that.

                  Looking back I can see how you can interpret my motives as trying to start a fight, but that wasn’t my intent. Believe it if you will.

                10. No no, I do. Actually, I just popped back on here because I thought it over and decided it would have been wiser of me just to make my point instead of trying to defend my own ruffled feathers. I am a Christian and I am instructed to let Christ’s light shine. When I put my own “caveats” up first, I miss the mark.

                  So, I hope you’ll forgive my error in that regard. The rest of my post was an honest attempt to share what I feel is an appropriate point of view on the topic you brought up, which I found to be challenging.

                11. One of the downsides of engaging others online is you lose some of the all-important non-verbal cues that allow you to properly or more completely interpret what someone is saying.

                  On that mark, there is no error to forgive. You interpreted my intentions as to stir up controversy. Without any non-verbal cues to help, you were left with a wide berth for interpretation and selected the one that made the most sense to you at the time.

              2. That’s your response? Judaism is not Christianity. You lose. Your post is meaningless mischaracterization. It is an outright lie from stem to stern.

                Leviticus has NOTHING to do with Christianity. It’s OK to be wrong.

              3. Because Christianity has it’s roots in Judaism, think of the Old Testament as the backstory, or prequel. The coming of Christ was also foretold in the Old Testament many times and in many places. Christianity is also known as the New Covenant. Judaisim is the Old Covenant.

        2. Elitist mentality? Right…. you keep telling yourself that.

          But let’s address the “know absolutely nothing about Christianity” bit, as it sounds like you need to re-read your Bible.

          Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

          In other words Christian law calls for those who commit homosexual acts to be put to death. The method is not stipulated, but the punishment certainly is.

          And don’t try to pull the abrogation argument on me either, as I don’t buy it.

      2. I know you seriously wonder, seriously, with tender love and a lot of prayers hoping that a person whether gay ,lesbian,straight or curve or yellow may willingly allow him/herself and welcome the love that Christians God can ever bless one with.
        Now, at least that is what my own eyes have been witnessing through many, many years in many people.
        What ever violent and harsh treatment a gay may receive from Moslem religion,that is from their policy and bylaws, stoning, hanging among many other form of punishments and are justified in most of their teaching.
        On the other hand,many non Christian and even atheist also do mistreat gay folks.Christians do NOT have a LAW about homosexuals. It is the BIBLE that have the last saying about homosexuals and no different Bible for Gays and a different Bible for non gays. Sin is Sin, period.You are allowed to disagree…!!

  14. I want say this as eloquently as possible.

    Scoop, you done did it agin’! I love reading and listening to articulate Christians.

    Dat’s at least two really good scoops in as many days on the same subject.
    Now that I can count to two scoops, I’m going in for some Raisin Bran…just as soon as I’m done cooking this thick-sliced bacon.

    Then, I’ll be flipping through the channels looking for someone doing an expose on the left cramming their amorality and immorality down our throats 24/7. If anyone can find one like that, let me know at BR 549. If I find it first I’ll reciprocate right here, at TheRightScoop!!! Don’t hold your breath though. That’ll make you blue 🙁

  15. Set up by the leftists. What kind of homosexual goes to Christian Counseling expecting to be praised for what Christianity considers an immoral act. Maybe the undercover gay can try to get counseling from the local mosque next.

  16. well…. everything she said about the lifestyle is true facts don’t lie

    Ramirez…you don’t have to give into the desire…unless…you are an animal and can’t control your self and in that case your a danger to the community and need to be committed, which is it…a animal in need of control or a human and can control your self…animal….human

    also these people in the mental health system who say these things are the same ones who found nothing wrong with the Eugenics of the nearly 1900s or abortion and all the other deprived garbage going on in the world

  17. This is an hyperbolized non-story presented by Anderson “ARAB SPRING” Cooper…. and what IS IT CNN’s freaking business to handle this story as though it is a kangaroo court with code language and their FATUOUS, fake, investigatory posturing?

  18. I wouldn’t mind a culture war being brought on by this attack on Bachmann. The philosophy of the left needs to be attacked on all fronts. their lack of morals is appalling and everything wrong about how they would/ do govern flows from their core beliefs.

    A core principle of conservatism is that a free society is inseparable from a moral society. Freedom doesn’t work very well without it. Which is why libertarianism is such a failure. It is not that we want to impose our views on someone else, but a good leader is going to have a good moral foundation and good ideas come from the well spring of a sound philosophy.

    1. A core principle of conservatism is that a free society is inseparable from a moral society. Freedom doesn’t work very well without it. Which is why libertarianism is such a failure.

      Oh, yes, libertarianism is such a failure because we always need to have a government around to tell us what is moral and how to behave. Lord forbid that there actually might be differing views on certain questions of morality, questions it is not up for the government to be the answer.

      Libertarianism is not a failure because it has never been tried. Or it once was tried, back in the very early days of this republic. Then it was quickly eroded as government started being the answer to the questions that people didn’t want to fire off a few neurons to answer for themselves. Or they saw something they didn’t like, heard of something going on that they didn’t like, and started calling for laws to be made against it, and the government gladly acquiesced.

      Why must we have government imposing one answer to all questions of morality? Why must government be telling the people what is best for us?

    2. A core principle of conservatism is that a free society is inseparable from a moral society. Freedom doesn’t work very well without it. Which is why libertarianism is such a failure.

      Oh, yes, libertarianism is such a failure because we always need to have a government around to tell us what is moral and how to behave. Lord forbid that there actually might be differing views on certain questions of morality, questions it is not up for the government to be the answer.

      Libertarianism is not a failure because it has never been tried. Or it once was tried, back in the very early days of this republic. Then it was quickly eroded as government started being the answer to the questions that people didn’t want to fire off a few neurons to answer for themselves. Or they saw something they didn’t like, heard of something going on that they didn’t like, and started calling for laws to be made against it, and the government gladly acquiesced.

      Why must we have government imposing one answer to all questions of morality? Why must government be telling the people what is best for us?

      1. Neal didn’t say he wanted government to impose morality. He said just the opposite. No need to stir up a fight for something that wasn’t even an issue.

        On the matter of Libertarianism, knock yourself out. The rest of it, you’re just getting on a soapbox.

      2. Notice how i am the only person who likes your message.

        That is because RS is becoming strictly more and more about social conservatism and not economic conservatism. Notice how many people here tie in the problems democrats have with spending money to their social beliefs as if it must be one or the other. Libertarianism is simply being economically conservative (free market capitalism) and socially liberal (government not taking away your liberties/freedoms). Why do social conservatives talk about small government yet they want them to step in to teach us moral behavior??? As if you have to be christian to be a moral person. I do not understand how people can believe in having government stay out of our lives but if two gay people want to be married government must step in, or if someone wants an abortion government must step in. Then social conservatives blame our economic state on having too many social freedoms because homosexuality has such an impact on how we spend too much money. Unbelievable

        Libertarianism leads to true liberty, and true liberty leads to true happiness.

        If history has taught us anything, it is that hatred is easier to teach and learn, than acceptance.

        1. Your question is valid: “Why do social conservatives talk about small government, yet they want them to step in to teach us moral behavior?”.

          You seem to believe that we human beings have the power within ourselves to be “moral” people. I agree that the government is not responsible to teach us moral behavior. But we diverge on the question of where we should learn moral behavior and on what moral behavior actually is. You see, the standard for morality is found in that book I’m sure you’re familiar with, the one that was written as the story of the Creator and His creation. I’m not sure whether you believe in that book–the Bible–or hold to its standards. But, it is the standard, and to be moral is to live according to its teachings. For humans to do that within ourselves is impossible; that’s why Christ came… to live through us.

          The reason that RS and other social conservatives seem to be leaning more strongly in that direction is that they are fully dependent on the Bible as the standard for life. I’m not saying that every Christian is perfect or demonstrates Christ’s love perfectly. But I am saying that we strive to follow Christ, and on those social issues that go against the teachings of Scripture, there’s no getting around what the Bible says.

          “Then social conservatives blame our economic state on having too many social freedoms because homosexuality has such an impact on how we spend too much money.” I must have missed something in this argument because I’m not sure exactly where it came from, so I can’t speak to it directly.

          What I do know is that both the homosexual agenda and abortion issue (which are two that you mentioned) have been pushed so strongly in recent years that social conservatives have stepped up to push back. And that’s why the government got involved… Should the government be involved? It would be great if it weren’t. But if a social conservative stands on a Biblical foundation (thus opposing homosexuality & abortion), and homosexuals as well as women’s rights advocates are pushing the government to put stamps of approval on their lifestyle choices, it seems the only option is for the social right to request the government to withhold that endorsement on both fronts.

          1. You seem to believe that we human beings have the power within ourselves to be “moral” people.

            No we believe that human beings have the power to self-regulate. We believe that where one person is not causing harm to another, it is outside the scope of morality and outside the scope of government. Something is immoral because it causes demonstrable harm. As an example, how are two consenting adults engaging in sexual behavior (be it homosexual or heterosexual behavior) harming anyone else or each other?

            You can point to the Bible and say that, within the scope of what is written in the Bible, consensual heterosexual activity between two unmarried individuals is immoral. Within the scope of my morality, I say that as long as those two individuals are not harming anyone else or each other in the process, what business is it of mine, yours, or even of God’s (granting temporarily the presumption that the God of the Bible exists)?

            Now if you honestly believe that society is better when it conforms to the rules provided in the Bible, then use something other than the blunt instrument called government to enact it over society. This means you and other like-minded individuals need to convince people to willingly accept it for themselves rather than getting people in office who may force it upon everyone through legislation.

            1. “No we believe that human beings have the power to self-regulate.” We human beings have very little power to do anything outside of Christ. We tend to make a pretty big mess when left to ourselves.

              I completely agree that it would be better if people willingly accepted a society based on Biblical principles. The fact is that not everyone will. And if non like-minded individuals will use a “blunt instrument like the government” to impose anti-Biblical principles on everyone, then it seems logical to oppose that in the same means based on the grounds of solid conviction about the principles.

              Why would someone who is under the authority of the government in which country they live not prefer that government to operate on the same principles which they hold? Isn’t it true that we both hope to have leadership that we can follow… you prefer freedom to do whatever you’d like as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. I’d prefer freedom to honor God in all that we do and have laws that reflect what honors Him.

              1. Why would someone who is under the authority of the government in which country they live not prefer that government to operate on the same principles which they hold? Isn’t it true that we both hope to have leadership that we can follow…

                You do make a point, one that is definitely reflected in what we see in history: people want whatever their point of view happens to be made into the laws of the land. The persuasion of power, so to speak.

                you prefer freedom to do whatever you’d like as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. I’d prefer freedom to honor God in all that we do and have laws that reflect what honors Him.

                And how exactly would laws that impose one particular point of view on the entire populace honor God? Would you support a law requiring everyone to attend church, with the enactment of criminal sanctions for those who refuse? Would such a law honor God? Just trying to calibrate my barometer on that idea.

                And you might not think that you are capable of much “without Christ”, but I’ve done plenty without Christianity. I keep to my own, I earn a pretty good living, and I’m an honest person. All of this without God or Christ. And I know plenty of people who are good without God.

                And if non like-minded individuals will use a “blunt instrument like the government” to impose anti-Biblical principles on everyone, then it seems logical to oppose that in the same means based on the grounds of solid conviction about the principles.

                Actually the best approach to take in this instance is to find the common ground and work within that, and there is plenty that virtually everyone can agree upon with regard to government and laws. Plus what kind of “anti-Biblical” principles have been imposed on you or society? Try to avoid making the mistake that legalizing something is the same thing as endorsing or condoning it.

                If you want to live by the Bible, then by all means, be my guest. I’m not going to stop you. But once you start trying to say I must live by the Bible, and you intend to use the persuasion of power (i.e. the government) to get me to do so in increments, that is where we start to have issues.

                1. “Would you support a law requiring everyone to attend church, with the enactment of criminal sanctions for those who refuse? Would such a law honor God?”

                  No to both. We’ve already established that I would prefer that people willingly abide by Biblical principles. The problem is that our society is currently headed in a very anti-Biblical (and thus anti-moral) direction. We obviously differ in perspective on this matter, but without a Scriptural foundation for morality that keeps human beings centered, our society will fall apart very quickly.

                  For example, the argument for gay marriage, which is so prominent these days, is really an argument for being able to marry whomever we choose. Take that to it’s logical conclusion, and you have all kinds of immorality… adults married to kids, one person with three husbands & two wives, and someone else married to an animal.

                  Abortion is not so different. It’s the argument to make a choice about who should live or not live. I’m sure you can follow that to it’s ultimate conclusion.

                  And I’m not sure how you can say that legalizing something isn’t endorsing it… legalizing is definitely a stamp of approval in my estimation.

                  “But once you start trying to say I must live by the Bible, and you intend to use the persuasion of power (i.e. the government) to get me to do so in increments, that is where we start to have issues.” Makes perfect sense… on the same token, when an agenda that is anti-Biblical is being forced on me by “the persuasion of power (i.e. the government)”, I have issues as well.

                  “Actually the best approach to take in this instance is to find the common ground and work within that, and there is plenty that virtually everyone can agree upon with regard to government and laws.” I agree.

                2. And I’m not sure how you can say that legalizing something isn’t endorsing it… legalizing is definitely a stamp of approval in my estimation.

                  To borrow on words I wrote in another blog article in which I addressed this, legalizing something does not mean you are going to sit by and let something happen. It just means you won’t throw someone in jail for doing it.

                  The most common argument on this is illicit substances. If we legalize drugs, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that drug use will go down. But does that mean all of the DARE and anti-drug campaigns and interventions will stop because we legalize it? Nope. It just means that we won’t be throwing people in jail because they like to smoke a little dope every now and then. But it’s hardly a government endorsement, in my opinion.

                  For example, the argument for gay marriage, which is so prominent these days, is really an argument for being able to marry whomever we choose. Take that to it’s logical conclusion, and you have all kinds of immorality… adults married to kids, one person with three husbands & two wives, and someone else married to an animal.

                  I don’t share this observation, and I think you’ll be hard pressed to find people who do, but I’ll speak only for myself. I believe that government’s involvement in marriage should go no further than to act as a registrar while still allowing consenting (human) adults to marry another consenting (human) adult. I feel that anything above a monogamous marriage would only complicate the hell out of that, so I consider it reasonable to limit the legal definition of marriage to just two people.

                3. 2 gay people getting married is not comparable to a person an animal getting married i mean an animal isn’t even a person.

          2. So you believe that without the teachings of jesus, we as humans would have no understanding on how to live moral lives. How do you explain people like Ghandi, who lived his entire life as absolutely moral as possible and was not a follower of the Catholic Church.

            And your argument on “both fronts” is opposing to the American Dream, which has many different specific meanings. One is that we are able to live in a society with freedom of religion, and yet your “front” is to have “Biblical foundations” part of our laws, enforced by our government. Forcing religious foundations (no matter what religion) onto others was one of the reasons America fought for its independence.

            1. Biblical foundations are already a part of our laws. The rule of law, which is a standard most would agree is a solid basis for our legal system, is straight from the Ten Commandments.

              I’ll give that to you… that Ghandi lived a solid life and had a positive impact on the world. Would you not agree that he is a rare exception? We humans know very little about true goodness or morality. Without Christ, it’s impossible to achieve it.

              1. Yes, the ten commandments have moral teachings, but im pretty sure atheists don’t believe its okay to just start walking around murdering and robbing people. It is common knowledge not to do those things.

                and

                You agree that Ghandi had morality. Then you say, “We humans know very little about true goodness or morality. Without Christ, it’s impossible to achieve it.”

                I wonder if anything you say makes sense. How did any civilization before the birth of Christ operate then if morals are impossible without Jesus’s teachings. Actions are based on our conscious which we feel when we go against our morals; therefore without morals we act as basic as animals, strictly living off of instinct. Thats weird because the last time i checked there were people who grew up without the teachings of jesus and they seem to be able to act with a conscious.

                No matter what religion you believe in or don’t believe in we all have morals.

                1. “You agree that Ghandi had morality. Then you say, ‘We humans know very little about true goodness or morality. Without Christ, it’s impossible to achieve it.’

                  I wonder if anything you say makes sense. How did any civilization before the birth of Christ operate then if morals are impossible without Jesus’s teachings.”

                  Morals are impossible without Christ because He is the source of morality.

                2. Thanks for not answering any of my questions about how civilizations before the birth of Jesus were able to operate if Jesus’s teachings are the only source to learning morals.

                  I guess this is where people like myself should be frustrated. You see, i grew up in a heterosexual Christian family. And one thing that i am very happy to have been taught was to be a critical thinker. Critical thinking is simply the action of disregarding one’s opinion for a new opinion. For instance, Twix was once my favorite candy now Snickers is my favorite candy. Yet, a Critical thinker can do this with anything, which is the most rational way to think/argue since we all obviously cannot be right all the time.

                  With your last response or lack there of, it is obvious that you do not have the ability to critically think about the questions i arose because you cannot answer, for if you did you would have to come to realize that maybe your opinion on where morals come from is wrong.

                3. Thanks for not answering any of my questions about how civilizations before the birth of Jesus were able to operate if Jesus’s teachings are the only source to learning morals.

                  I guess this is where people like myself should be frustrated. You see, i grew up in a heterosexual Christian family. And one thing that i am very happy to have been taught was to be a critical thinker. Critical thinking is simply the action of disregarding one’s opinion for a new opinion. For instance, Twix was once my favorite candy now Snickers is my favorite candy. Yet, a Critical thinker can do this with anything, which is the most rational way to think/argue since we all obviously cannot be right all the time.

                  With your last response or lack there of, it is obvious that you do not have the ability to critically think about the questions i arose because you cannot answer, for if you did you would have to come to realize that maybe your opinion on where morals come from is wrong.

                4. You’re assuming that Christ did not exist before He was born on earth. But He did. Morality has existed as long as Christ has existed… and He is eternal and immortal. If anyone has any hint of morality, it is because Christ imbued him with it (whether or not the person acknowledges that fact).

                5. But you believe we as humans can not find morality within ourselves but need Jesus’s teachings do this for us. You are back tracking over your own words sir. Even if what you are saying is true, that “if anyone has any hint of morality, it is because Christ imbued him with it” then you believe hat Jesus picks and chooses who is to be given morality, and because there are people who do not belong to the Catholic Church yet are still moral, this “truth” of yours proves that humans do not need Jesus’s teachings to become a moral person. In fact, if what you just said is true, it proves that Jesus favors all of us the same and favors/punishes no body due to their religious beliefs.

                6. But you believe we as humans can not find morality within ourselves but need Jesus’s teachings do this for us. You are back tracking over your own words sir. Even if what you are saying is true, that “if anyone has any hint of morality, it is because Christ imbued him with it” then you believe hat Jesus picks and chooses who is to be given morality, and because there are people who do not belong to the Catholic Church yet are still moral, this “truth” of yours proves that humans do not need Jesus’s teachings to become a moral person. In fact, if what you just said is true, it proves that Jesus favors all of us the same and favors/punishes no body due to their religious beliefs.

          1. Last October, I encountered an individual on YouTube who tried to argue the same — only he said that without God we have no liberty. I wrote a rebuttal to that on my blog, and I invite you to read my arguments regarding that. I’ve also embedded the original video, so you can hear the original arguments to which I’m replying.

            Article: “Source of liberty

            1. Thanks. I did check it out…

              “If you believe in God, you believe in a government, a supernatural government whose will, authority, and tyranny you have no choice but to accept and to which you are eternally subject without any hope or possibility of escape.” (Source of Liberty, as linked above)

              You’re absolutely right. But we have completely different perspectives about that statement. You see, if God is “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin”(Exodus 34:7,8), it’s not so difficult to imagine willingly subjecting to His authority. He is the only being in existence who’s wise enough, strong enough and loving enough to rule our lives. Of course, there is the next statement: “He doesn’t leave the guilty unpunished”, guilty being so by His standards. I suppose that’s more difficult for many to swallow. But wouldn’t you agree that perfect love would also invoke perfect justice?

              Human beings were made to worship the One who created them. When we understand and willingly worship (thus subjecting to His authority), that is when we find true freedom (no matter what earthly government is in place).

  19. I need to say up front that I am not a big Michele Bachmann fan. But give me a break. Marcus Bachmann isn’t running for President. Michelle Obama never got this kind of scrutiny in 2008.

    Anderson claims that this story is not about the Bachmann’s religious beliefs, but the clinic practices. I think the exact opposite is true. CNN is using the pretext of the clinic story to attack Bachmann’s religious beliefs. The left would love to have a culture war to deflect attention away from Obama’s horrible record.

    1. “Anderson claims that this story is not about the Bachmann’s religious beliefs, but the clinic practices.”

      Here’s some info on Michelle Obama

      Obama Camp Has Many Ties to Wife’s Employer

      By Joe Stephens
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Friday, August 22, 2008

      A few years ago, executives at the prestigious University of Chicago Medical Center were concerned that an increasing number of patients were arriving at their emergency room with what the executives considered to be non-urgent complaints. The visits were costly to the hospital, and many of the patients, coming from the surrounding South Side neighborhood, were poor and uninsured.

      Michelle Obama, an executive at the medical center, launched an innovative program to steer the patients to existing neighborhood clinics to deal with their health needs.

      That effort, in time, inspired a broader program the hospital now calls its Urban Health Initiative. To ensure community support, Michelle Obama and others in late 2006 recommended that the hospital hire the firm of David Axelrod, who a few months later became the chief strategist for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

      There are 5 pages at this link.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103646.html?sid=ST2008082103653&s_pos=

      Here’s a little more info.

      Michelle Obama’s Patient Dumping Plan

  20. I am sorry, I agree with Bachmann 100 percent it is not right it is bondage and it isn’t of God! Therefore I don’t want to condemn someone for having urges I don’t agree that they have to act on in!

Comments are closed.