Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Bat Sh#t Hits the Fan: Bachmann Races To Erase Slavery Reference In ‘Marriage Vow’
It use to be kind of fun covering Michele Bachmann when she was just a lowly Congresswoman with a vote to send your kid to war and how our money gets spent.
But now that she is aiming to get in a position to obtain our nuclear launch codes, the level of fun has gone from man getting hit in the crotch to getting his head blown off. Even if Bachmann hopes that the unemployed remain unemployed so as to fulfill their patriotic duty in giving Michele something other than bat sh#t to toss at President Obama, it’s totally impertinent and frivolous culture wars that this girl-next-door-to-an-insane asylum is looking to fight.
After all, the crop of Republican contenders has been relegated to a serial adulterer, a flip-flopping Mormon Macy’s Mannequin, a pizza man, a total cipher of an ex-governor who may or may nor be made of vanilla, a walking anal butt joke, and Ron Paul. So if criminally inexperienced and uniformed Bachmann wishes to remain viable to rabid tea party primary voters, she has to pull out the big guns. My apologies for using Bachmann and guns in the same sentence.
And that’s precisely what she did earlier this week when she became the first presidential candidate to sign a pledge, vowing to support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between a man and a woman, and which calls for a ban on all pornography.
“The Marriage Vow – “A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family,” sponsored by the Family Leader, an Iowa-based conservative organization, equates same-sex marriage with bigamy and polygamy and calls on candidates to promise to be faithful to their spouses.
Perhaps a certain walking anal butt joke (Rick Santorum) didn’t sign it since it fails to include equating same-sex marriage to marrying your dog. And how could Newt Gingrich sign it when he’s too busy signing off on divorce papers.
Much like with everything with this deranged demagogue in a dress, Bachmann’s massively blind ignorance and hatred of gays got in the way of some very basic human oversight. The document, for example, encouraged a baby boom and called homosexuality a choice (blah, blah, blah), but the most disquieting piece was its insinuation that African American babies may have somehow been better off under slavery.
“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet 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, according to the document”
Early Saturday, Bachmann’s spokeswoman Alice Stewart said that the she had only endorsed the 14-point “candidate vow,” which did not include the slavery passage. Politico reports that Stewart said that “in no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible.” She added Bachmann “stands behind the candidate vow – which makes absolutely no reference to slavery.”
While it’s hard to say if whether this huge oversight was accidental, the language that was deliberately used is far more offensive. In fact, it sounds more akin to, ahem, Sharia Law- the dogmatic and stupefyingly oppressive form of Islamic law. Curiously enough, the pledge that Bachmann signed also calls for a ban on Sharia law (as if that’s a reality in America!) despite the fact that Sharia Law also bans pornography. But trying to explain contradictions and scholarly inaccuracies to a woman whose entire political existence has been predicated on botching every major piece of American history would be like trying to explain to Stevie Wonder that rainbows aren’t some kind of black haze.
Although those of us with fully functional cerebral cortex don’t regard Michele Bachmann as a credible candidate, polls are showing her to be neck in neck with Republican Frontrunner Mitt Romney in the Iowa Caucuses. More disconcerting, a survey released on Friday by the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling firm in the key swing state of Pennsylvania, a state that Obama handily won in 2008 but is now faltering in, showed Michele Bachmann was right behind Mitt Romney in the GOP race. Romney and Obama are tied at forty-four percent in a theoretical general election showdown. Obama leads the rest of the GOP field by significant margins. Of the others, Michele Bachmann provides the next closest match-up though she still trails him by a 50-43 margin.
While it is enormously difficult to imagine the democratic-leaning blue state of Pennsylvania giving the crazed, wide-eyed darling of the Tea Party their vote, the very notion of her potentially performing well there is more frightening than a scenario in the Saw horror franchise movies.
In short, the issue shouldn’t be over whether Bachmann intended to include the slavery reference in the Marriage Vow document. Rather, why she did intend to include fringe religious lunacy that’s constitutionally irrelevant and socially backwards.
Related Posts :
Stephen Colbert took on Michele Bachmann on Comedy Central yesterday for her signing of the FAMILY LEADER ...
America is more than familiar by now with the infamous “Marriage Vow” - “The Marriage Vow – “A Declaration ...
According to the latest PPP poll Michele Bachmann is on a roll, but all that could change if Sarah Palin ...
Michele Bachmann hates the government that she wanted to become a part of so bad when she ran for office ...
Would anyone have noticed The Marriage Vow if it didn't express a desire to ban pornography? In an in ...
15 Responses to Bat Sh#t Hits the Fan: Bachmann Races To Erase Slavery Reference In ‘Marriage Vow’
Public Service Advertisements
Larry
Jul. 12th, 2011 at 9:03 am
The American Taliban.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 12th, 2011 at 9:12 am
I read this slavery statement as a black child was less likely to be born and brought up with both parents under slavery then he was after an African-American president was elected. Quite frankly this is true before Obama was elected as well and has been true for some time. And all appearances to me this was blaming Barack Obama for all of the ills found in the black culture. And worse, the statement didn’t even have to be put in their vow.
And then of course Michelle Bachmann lies about it saying that she did not sign off on the slavery statement. She signed that statement well before the slavery statement was taken out. She did exactly what she’d been brought up to do and that is follow directions and sign the paper regardless of what it said.
if you disseminate this marriage vow document it is obviously one that sooner or later the Republican signers are going to regret. and I will lay you odds that Michelle Bachmann will not have any idea why it caused her so much trouble
Boscoe
Jul. 12th, 2011 at 9:57 am
You’ve got that right. I guarantee you they all thought the slavery references were positive and showed how deeply they care about the plight of the “negroes”. I’m sure they’re perplexed at the reaction to it.
But that’s a good thing! It guarantees an endless stream of gaffes as the campaign moves forward. If we’re lucky, Romney will duplicate McCain’s suicidal mistake and take Michelle on as VP…
Songstar
Jul. 12th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
She appears to have a sucker cramp?
Lenticular
Jul. 12th, 2011 at 10:00 am
The slavery statement is false. The citation she signed off on says that slavery strip the role of husband and father from black men.
” Orlando Patterson has eloquently argued that slavery and Jim Crow scarred male-female relations among African Americans in ways that continue to shape current marriages — particularly in the ways that slavery denuded Black men of their proper role as husbands and fathers, fostered promiscuity, and wove violence and domination into the fabric of male-female sexual relations among Blacks (and interracial relationships).202 This cultural legacy, and the unique sex ratio of African Americans, may help explain why studies suggest that infidelity, domestic violence, and mistrust of the opposite sex are particularly salient problems in the African American world, even after taking into account the effects of economic factors.203 In Patterson’s words, “The nation as a whole, and Afro-Americans in particular, are still paying the ethnocidal price of slavery and the neo-dulotic Jim Crow system.”204 Households Family Economic
Some scholars have focused on understanding why marriage rates are low among African Americans. They have noted that the practices of slavery, as well as subsequent poverty and discrimination, have cultivated conflictual gender relations and undermined the formation of stable, married-couple families in the African American community.22 A lack of economic opportunities for Black men has steadily reduced the number of marriageable Black men over the course of the twentieth century.23 Other thinkers have combined these approaches, arguing that African American family structure represents a critical link in the chain between the structural disadvantage Blacks face and the generally poorer outcomes they experience. First articulated by W.E.B. Dubois in The Negro American Family (1908), this theory became both famous and infamous in 1965 as a result of the Moynihan Report, which argued that father absenteeism in the African American community — along with racism and unemployment — drives a “tangle of pathology” that conspires to keep Blacks from improving their circumstances. Still other scholars have contested this position. They have argued that the single-parent, extended, and foster families more common among Black Americans are not necessarily negative, and are in many ways positive: They reflect African cultural-familial norms24 and have allowed Blacks to cope with the hardships they have faced in America.25 Many of the same scholars argue that it is not so much family structure that is important for African Americans’ well-being as it is the quality of family interaction, socioeconomic status, and other factors.”
From Forbes.
” I decided to ask one of the study’s authors, Dr. Lorraine Blackman, what she thought of The Family Leader’s “pro-family” interpretation of slavery.
“That’s just wrong,” she said. “It is a serious error.”
Blackman, an associate professor at Indiana University’s School of Social Work, pointed out that she wouldn’t have objected if, instead of 1860, the pledge Bachmann endorsed had selected a year sometime after slavery ended.
“As soon as they could,” Blackman said, “former slaves rushed to get married.” This led to a relatively high — and quickly growing — rate of marriage among African Americans.
According to the study Blackman co-wrote, by 1880, 56.3 percent of Black households were what we now call “nuclear families.” (For Whites, that figure was 66.9 percent.) By 1950, nearly 80 percent of Black families were headed by married couples. By 1996, that figure had dropped to just 34 percent.
This is a serious problem, argues Blackman, but it won’t be solved by rewriting history to make slavery appear to have any redeeming qualities.
“
Sally
Jul. 12th, 2011 at 10:40 am
She knew exactly what she was signing. And if she didn’t bother to read it all first, what dies that say about her as a lawyer, let alone a member of Congress who thinks she can be Queen?
Cathy
Jul. 12th, 2011 at 11:32 am
Right on target!
Songstar
Jul. 12th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Ditto on your second Cathy.
Sarah Jones
Jul. 12th, 2011 at 11:33 am
She defended it to Fox, told Politico she didn’t know it was there or didn’t agree with it, doh — but she signed it anyway. Yes, vote for her.
Anna Boudreaux
Jul. 12th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
How in God’s Holy name could children born under slavery be so blessed. Children were ripped from their mother’s arms to be sold and that mother never got to see that child again or visa verse. The subject of slavery and how one felt is one subject that no white person can speak on who never had to live under such an in humane law.In all of Human history this was one the worst time ever in America.A blot that will forever be on this land.
Basheert
Jul. 12th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
I was under the impression that slaves were NOT allowed to marry. Also, many of the children of the slaves were children of the slave owners (insert Thomas Jefferson here).
She’d blind stupid – she is NOW claiming that she didn’t read it before she signed. Well isn’t that just totally responsible of her?
Meanwhile Gaydar has gifted her darling flaming Marcus with a lifetime membership in Gay Dating.
Dennis
Jul. 13th, 2011 at 12:11 am
With all of this insanity fully reported, John Cassidy in NewYorker.com said “Liberals aren’t laughing—they’re terrifiedbecause she’s an attractive woman with a compelling storyand a dynamic speaker. With $13.6 million in campaign funds , Bachmann is a serious threat to the other Republicans and the Democrats.” I pray he’s wrong. My country does not need her at the helm. The 1600′s were not very nice, and I do not want to go back.
Anne
Jul. 13th, 2011 at 9:31 am
She reminds me so much of Sarah Palin, only she is in a much stronger position than Palin would be to win the GOP nomination. Only a total and complete fool would pretend that there were any redeeming qualities about slavery, with its well-documented record of what Frederick Douglass called “revolting barbarity.” And there were many slaves who never knew their parents or barely remembered them because they were sold off as infants or children. There were times when their parents were sold, and in either case, they usually never saw each other again. Then there’s the ugly issue of how slave women and girls were taken advantage of by male members of the slavemaster’s family, and had children under those circumstances. In most of those cases, the fathers didn’t feel any obligation to legally claim those children, and often sold them off. It all goes to show that there are Americans who are poorly educated about American history, and the fact that one of these ignoramuses is even considered as a viable candidate for the GOP nomination should be disquieting to any thinking human.
As for Mitt Romney, if folks in Pennsylvania think he would be their savior, they only have to look at his record as Massachusetts governor. Under him, that state was 47th in job creation out of 50 states. They are also suffering under a Republican governor, so they are deluding themselves if they think any GOP candidate has their interests at heart.
omomma
Jul. 13th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
She reminds me of Sarah Palin except she speaks standard American English. Other than that, same lady, possibly crazier.