June 17, 2011 A.D.
The other title of this post could be "Michelle Goldberg's Unrivaled Stupidity And How She Uses it as a Career Tool". Ms. Goldberg writes an article at the Daily Beast about an event that happened about six years ago to then state senator Michelle Bachmann. Bachmann, as the politically astute know, is now running for president of the United States. I found the article at the Lew Rockwell website. It provided the hyperlink. More about that later.
Bachmann was apparently frightened by two homosexual women who accosted her in a bathroom. And that just won't do. And Christianity must be "hatefully" attacked for it.
In a heathen society such as our own things like this are likely to happen more and more when people think something is appropriate (but is not) and someone else is appalled or frightened by it. This appears to be the case in the story in question as we find no place in the Goldberg article that has even the slightest acknowledgment that toilet facilities are not an appropriate place to engage strangers in political topics of a sexual nature or not.
I don't know if Bachmann knew if the women were homosexuals, but if I were cornered alone in a bathroom with two strangers accosting me, I might be screaming my head off too. What else is one to think? It's a BATHROOM for crying out loud. And it's leftist dirt-bags. It's a perfect storm of creepiness, bullies, and toilets.
We soon learned after this event that people indeed use a bathroom to bring down Republican politicians. I'm remembering the Larry Craig scandal and how the senator was destroyed by a he said/he said unprovable allegation of goings on in a bathroom. I'm not saying that Craig wasn't looking for sex in a bathroom, I'm saying there was no evidence of it. One cop's word about it and no other evidence is NO evidence.
Having once recognized the inappropriateness of having people who are sexually attracted to each other half stripping and urinating together in the same room, our society made sure those attracted to each other had separate toilet facilities. That protection is now gone in a sense. Yes, yes. I know about the response we get from the homosexuals: "Well we have ALWAYS peed with you." (Wink). There is a perverse pleasure sometimes taken in giving out this information which tells you a lot about what kind of people they are.
But now that we know what they are up too and, that they are so darn prideful about it, normal women are not comfortable having to share quarters with them (our feelings don't matter to them).And normal women are not comfortable sharing quarters with strange men while we do our business in the bathroom. Which is why a civilized society separated the two in the first place. Homosexuals are bold now and demand the right to that which men do not have: access to half naked people they are sexually attracted to. So much for equality on the left.
Concern for equality ends when it might deny them some special privileges. Have you noticed also how silent the normally big-mouthed homosexuals are about the "civil rights" violations of homosexual women who must be frisked by female TSA agents? Imagine if virtuous heterosexual women were being frisked by those who were sexually attracted to them. The bat guano would surely hit the fan. Are there NO virtuous homosexual women appalled they are being frisked by those who might be sexually attracted to them? The left sure had big mouths when they demanded bathrooms for the handicapped. But where are they now? Silent. Why? Because of the advantages? Oops.
And just where should they go to the bathroom now that they have complicated things? I have no idea. This is their problem. And apparently mine. And Ms. Bachmann's as well. They created this problem. And it is certainly not my fault. Nor Ms. Bachmann's. Granted, men are more violent and obnoxious (for now). And obviously women stand a better chance against women attackers than men, but that is besides the point.
What is at issue here is normal people do not gang up on and corner strangers in bathrooms to "chat" about issues, let alone chat about issues related to sex. As far as what is customary for speaking with ones representative in the legislature, most semi-intelligent people know that one can use the telephone (for something other than dirty phone calls), snail mail (for something other than sending porn), or email (for something other than sending photos of ones "junk").
Normal people know how to contact their state representatives and I don't understand Ms. Goldberg's not giving a nod to these normal channels of communications in her post. It is to be expected of a leftist "hate" monger like her to gloss over the inappropriateness of the women's conduct. I believe that at the state level one might even be able to get an appointment with a legislator during business hours and outside of the toilet area.
At a minimum Ms. Goldberg could have discussed the unfortunate choice the homosexual women made. And she could have indicated to us if they were sorry. As far as we know they were not. Or she could have explained to us how they realize it was a dumb thing to do. And she could have stated that maybe the senator did over react but it is understandable. (Think Grabrielle Giffords). But no. None of these relevant issues were discussed about the encounter. The main point was to express Christophobic feelings.
I have, what I feel are, as strong opinions about abortion as the bullies who approached Ms. Bachmann in the toilet might have had about the homosexual marriage issue or any other subject. But I don't believe I ever thought it proper to corner a politician in a room where one partially disrobes to go to the bathroom or change a sanitary napkin. And I have no idea what Mrs. Bachmann was doing in the bathroom except washing her hands and trying to escape creepy people.
Goldberg found no criticism whatsoever in the rude and crude behavior by Bachmann's constituents. That says a whole lot about her lack of fairness and character (and/or poor writing skills).
Goldberg's attack on Bachmann is purely Christophobic and "hate filled", because honestly, there is no sin that I know of against being afraid of strangers accosting ones self in a bathroom. And I don't know any violation of Christian principles in this story which would lead the extremist Goldberg to attack Bachmann by bringing up Christianity. Bringing up the Christianity was just
The real story here is Goldberg's "hate".
And I don't get Lew Rockwell linking a story about harassing someone in a toilet facility with "war-mongering". But that is what Rockwell did. He gave a lead-in to the story of Bachmann not getting accosted in a bathroom, but about being a war-monger! What does being bullied by creepy strangers in a bathroom have to do with being a war-monger?
Rockwell provides the link to the Daily Beast story in such a fashion as to suggest it is about Bachmann's viewpoint of war. I mean real war: guns. ammo. soldiers. etc. But when we get to the linked article over at the Beast we find it is merely a "hate" mongering rant (perhaps of an unrivaled type) that completely ignores the inappropriate conduct of the homosexuals in question and suggests that Bachmann opposes the "war" in Libya. I'm stunned by it all.
Rockwell writes:
The Daily Beast attacks neocon warmonger Michele Bachmann's Christian right religion. You know, the theology that holds that a foreign government is God walking on earth, and that it is the job of Americans to cosset it, fund it, kill its enemies, etc. for ever and ever,
Then he mentions that Bachmann violates a central tenet of Christianity. That's about it. You are then supposed to link over to the Beast and read the article (which is supposedly about the war-mongering by Bachmann, but actually says she opposes the war in Libya!).
But what central tenet of Christianity is Rockwell referring to that Bachmann violates? The one that says we Christians are not supposed to be frightened by creepy people trying to engage us in unsolicited conversations in toilet facilities?
That central tenet?
Finally Goldberg brings up Bachmann's quoting the bible (yes, apparently it has something to do with being accosted in a bathroom). I kid you not. Goldberg writes:
On Monday, Bachmann didn't talk a lot about her religion. She didn't have to—she knows how to signal it in ways that go right over secular heads. In criticizing Obama's Libya policy, for example, she said, "We are the head and not the tail." The phrase comes from Deuteronomy 28:13: "The Lord will make you the head and not the tail." As Rachel Tabachnick has reported, it's often used in theocratic circles to explain why Christians have an obligation to rule."
What the Dickens does that mean? I don't think even Goldberg knows. First of all, that verse applies to the country of Israel specifically and only when it is fully devoted to Jehovah. And it isn't speaking to Christians who are, by-the-way, never told anywhere in the New Testament to run a theocracy anywhere on the planet.
Read the whole chapter of Deut. 28 and you will see clearly who that passage applies to and you will see for yourself that it isn't Christians. I don't know why Bachmann mentioned it, but Goldberg suggests it means crazy people like Bachmann want to rule the world. Right, and the dangerous, extremist, and subversive evil-doer Obama doesn't? Obama always uses scripture, but I suppose that is okay.
I don't know what Bachmann was implying. And I suspect Goldberg really doesn't know either. Besides IF this is Bachmann's true feelings about Israel (or ignorant Christians like Pastor John Hagee) then Bachmann would support Obama's attack on Libya. But in fact (and even according to Goldberg's article) Bachamann is criticizing what is essentially Obama's (PRO-ISRAEL) attack on Libya.
Bachmann says he shouldn't be attacking Libya because there is no evidence that it is in our national interests to do so. The president is attacking one enemy of Israel after another and it's Bachmann who is doing the religious war-mongering thing by opposing the attack on Libya?
Goldberg is a nincompoop.
Bachmann is not being a war-monger in this instance regarding Libya and Rockwell says she is one and then links us to an article in which a critic says Bachmann is NOT behaving in a war-mongering fashion but is trying to rule the world?
Is that it? Did I get that correct?
And all this has to do with creepy people frightening Bachmann in a bathroom?
Sheesh. Leftists are too dumb to be as smart as they think they are. And Lew Rockwell looks to be losing a few marbles.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/14/michele-bachmanns-unrivaled-extremism-gay-rights-to-religion.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/bachmanns-unrivaled-extremism/
