The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Liberal Head-Explosion Warning VIDEO: Michele Bachmann Testifies for Jesus

Posted on | August 7, 2011 | 30 Comments

SIOUX CITY, Iowa
Friday at the rain-soaked Midwest Spirit Christian Music Festival in West Des Moines, I recorded this eight-minute video, but didn’t upload it immediately because the WiFi connection was so crappy at my hotel in Des Moines. But now I’m on a good WiFi link and it’s Sunday, so it seems appropriate to post this video that is guaranteed to make liberals run screaming from the room:

People who weren’t raised in the evangelical culture are necessarily unfamiliar with the phenomenon of testimony, wherein the speaker recounts how it was that he or she came to faith in Jesus Christ, a narrative usually accompanied by declarations of what awesome — indeed, miraculous — signs and wonders have attested the power and love of the Savior.

What’s strange is that liberals find this type of narrative perfectly acceptable when what is being testified to is some appropriately secular conversion: “Why I became a lesbian feminist” or “When I learned the undenjiable scientific truth of global warming” or “How I discovered that my Republican parents are closet Nazis.” It is only the conversion narrative of Bible-believing Christians that liberals find obnoxiously repellant. And the idea that a Bible-believing Christian might think themselves called to high public office . . .

Well, liberals just can’t handle that — at least when the self-identified Christian is a pro-life conservative Republican. It was OK for John F. Kennedy to be Catholic, it was OK for Jimmy Carter to be a Baptist, and it was OK for Barack Obama to be whatever it is you want to call devotees of what Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches. But let a conservative Republican speak in public about his or her Christian faith, and liberals immediately start screaming about “theocracy.”

It’s like Ann Coulter says in Godless: Liberalism is a religion and abortion is its sacrament. Any Republican testifying to the gospel truth of Jesus Christ obviously isn’t a member of the Church of Liberalism, and so Michele Bachmann’s unapologetic expression of her faith is anathema to the liberal brain.

Of course, as Coulter elsewhere observed: If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • http://thatmrgguy.wordpress.com/ Mike

    That was a good non political speech and you’re right…liberal heads will ‘splode over it.

  • http://getalonghome.com/ GAHCindy

    Praise God and pass the fried chicken. That was a *testimony*!

  • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie@Maggiesnotebook

    Bachmann does indeed have a titanium spine and she knows from where it comes. Between Bachmann and Perry this weekend, we have a lot of prayer going up for this Nation. Great video Stacy. Thanks.

  • Pingback: Michele Bachmann Gives Her Testimonial « Truth Before Dishonor

  • Anamika

    Hmmm. 

    I reckon that if all Christians become aware of the political subtexts within many of the messages here, that we would all be in much better shape.

    While it may seem mandatory to embed allusions to one’s value system into the message, or even clever to do so, all or at least most such attempts succeed only in muddying what ever topic is being discussed.

    If one takes a stand for something while at the same time, literally disproving said assertion by means of what is being attempted by what is said (eg, political maneuvering), such stand is seen as on shifting sands, and indeed, perhaps quicksand.

    This is the problem with amateurs, who attempt to take the moral high ground while at the same time, judge others (liberals etc) as being below them.

    We have seen this ploy in action on a massive scale, during the last USA general election. Strangely, the more flames were directed, the quicker the flamer went up in a blaze of putrid smoke. But the reader may not identify the goings-on here, as being of the same sort as I describe above. 

    A general question which may be asked by one, of oneself, is this: Am I really sure that what I am assuming, is in fact true?

    But this question presupposes that there are any ‘facts’ in question. It is safe to assume that ‘facts’ are being foisted in a manner which resembles foot-holds being hacked into a steep hill; that the ‘proving of a point’ is being done in order to gain advantage, to gain leverage, to move along, to cover ground, and to arrive at a point different than the start.

    But if I believe my own point, above; what then is the alternative, if ‘facts’ are not forthcoming, and in fact do not exist? Such is the dilemma of the Other McCainiac, who must tolerate an entirely subjective universe, as opposed to say, a computer tech forum, wherein ‘facts’ are the actual currency, with the subjective relegated only to issues of ‘taste’. 

    So, we have to confront our tendency to convert issue of ‘taste’, into facts. It is certain that ‘we all’ do not have identical or even similar tastes. But to assert that one’s tastes translate to ‘accurate judgment’ is utter folly, and this is in fact the basis of most of the ‘discord’ we see here. (If in fact is ‘discord’ and not simply normal human interplay.) 

    If frustrated, one sniffling blue-nose can do nothing but sniff louder. In a group, the sound of sniffling becomes the anthem of taste, no matter how stifling and retrogressive it is. I find it amusing to see how often it is that sound, which attracts the chronically obstructed and confused, to join such a group of losers, in the futile hope that feelings of powerlessness can be jettisoned in favor finding solidarity in numbers.

    The inevitable outcome is what we had seen in 2008, in the form of the losing US ‘GOP’ tearing itself to shreds, because it has attached itself to non-sustainable ‘values’. So it is with sniffling blue-noses, or those who use them to gain leverage; what are represented as ‘facts’, are actually the ‘values/tastes’ of those whose awareness has not progressed beyond the basest mob-mentality, no matter how fancy the accruements.

    So it is, and the patterns are well known, but apparently this ploy is still attractive to non-aware types. And yes, it is that profound lack of awareness, which enable such individuals to adopt that fractious strategy, which fractures inevitably lead to utter disintegration.

    Given all of the above, how are we to ‘judge’ anything or anyone? Solely on the basis of law-breaking? Or should it be on some other basis? If that is to be the case, can it be more than subjective? And if not, how can such a ‘judgement’  be honored as being more than mere individual taste?

    The GAAT factor (‘generally accepted as true’) can instantly degenerate into mob-mentality if not treated gently and with utter honesty. It should be remembered that resort to the GAAT, as basis for anything at all, is fraught with hazard, and can very quickly leave behind each and every individual who asserts it. This is the fatal flaw of attraction to the ‘popular’; it is a ghost whose disappearance leaves one utterly naked at just the wrong moment.

    There is a clue here, as to what is most profitably left behind; dependence upon popularity, finding security in shared subjectivity, and the attempt to use for leverage, a fulcrum made of marshmallow.

  • Pingback: Sunday Faith News/Views 8-7-11: Political Prayer and Witness Edition | Maggie's Notebook

  • https://plus.google.com/114041580398058374552/posts McGehee

    Why am I not surprised to see another wall-o’-text from the troll?

  • Tony

    This is the problem with amateurs, who attempt to take the moral high ground while at the same time, judge others (liberals etc) as being below them.

    Right on.

    A general question which may be asked by one, of oneself, is this: Am I really sure that what I am assuming, is in fact true?
    It is safe to assume that ‘facts’ are being foisted in a manner which
    resembles foot-holds being hacked into a steep hill; that the ‘proving
    of a point’ is being done in order to gain advantage, to gain leverage,
    to move along, to cover ground, and to arrive at a point different than
    the start.

    Nice metaphor.

    Such is the dilemma of the Other McCainiac, who must tolerate an
    entirely subjective universe, as opposed to say, a computer tech forum,
    wherein ‘facts’ are the actual currency, with the subjective relegated
    only to issues of ‘taste’.

    So, we have to confront our tendency
    to convert issue of ‘taste’, into facts. It is certain that ‘we all’ do
    not have identical or even similar tastes. But to assert that one’s
    tastes translate to ‘accurate judgment’ is utter folly, and this is in
    fact the basis of most of the ‘discord’ we see here. (If in fact is
    ‘discord’ and not simply normal human interplay.)

    Yes again.

    Maybe there is a conundrum insofar as say:- I might believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is my personal Saviour and yours too and that He died to save all sinners. I believe this with all my heart and know this to be the absolute truth.

    Yet I might also acknowledge that this absolute belief is my own preference and taste, and that others do not think this way but have their version of the absolute truth like “Everything is Consciousness” or some such.

    So many absolutes, so little time. :)

    As the Red Queen said:- “Everyone has won and all shall have prizes.”

    It would behoove us to acknowledge the essentially subjective nature of ‘taste’, and to stop foisting it as fact. The only facts which pertain to taste, are those which indicate personal opinion regarding something, and must be “in fact” entirely subjective

    The inevitable outcome is what we had seen in 2008, in the form of the
    losing US ‘GOP’ tearing itself to shreds, because it has attached itself
    to non-sustainable ‘values’. So it is with sniffling blue-noses, or
    those who use them to gain leverage; what are represented as ‘facts’,
    are actually the ‘values/tastes’ of those whose awareness has not
    progressed beyond the basest mob-mentality, no matter how fancy the accruements.

    Could you expand a bit?

    There is a clue here, as to what is most profitably left behind;
    dependence upon popularity, finding security in shared subjectivity, and
    the attempt to use for leverage, a fulcrum made of marshmallow.

    Ok. Then one maybe realizes that one is alone and has been all along and no amount of shared subjectivity, popularity, or agreement will make one iota of difference.

  • Tony

    Sorry for the bad formatting. An extra open “blockquote”  tag messed it up.

  • Anamika

    And why am I not surprised to read another bland predictable comment from you?

  • Anamika

    I just noticed, someone  who reads TOM liked my comment in question and they responded in good taste, for a change!

  • Anamika

    Thanks for taking interest in my comment, Tony. I liked what you said about Lord Jesus Christ.

    Putting aside for the moment, the possibly futile search for ‘absolutes’, it is observed that ‘truth’ is true, only within ‘a given context’.

    If you say ‘this is true, Anamika’, and I am thinking in a context which differs from the one you are ‘coming from’, then, what you say is true, is not true, for me.

    So the actual factor of governance in the issue of ‘truth’, is not so much the stated ‘truth’ itself, but the (assumed) context in which that truth is actually embedded.

    And the real wrestling-match around ‘truth’, is this; WHO controls the context? If I can masterfully wrangle all of the contexts which are ‘in play’, and make my context the one which portends, it will be MY ‘truth’ which obtains.

    So, while the dweebs and amateurs argue over the specifics, the ‘master’ will simply impose the very context which must by effect, deliver a ‘chosen’ version of the ‘truth’.

    Masterful argument needs only deliver a sequence of contexts, for the picture to eventually resolve into the one which will serve the ends determined by the ‘master’.

    During episodes of cross-examination in Court, the real battle between defense and prosecution is to succeed in imposing a chosen context; it is the context which will qualify as ‘true’ or ‘false’, in any testimony. And quite predictably so; whose context maintains until the jury goes to deliberation, determines which side ‘wins’.

  • Anamika

    The exploration of another’s viewpoint might expand one’s own too, I suppose. (Does the ‘other’ offer such viewpoint, or does it have to be inferred, from sparse and sketchy data? )

    Some are in the habit of assuming, that the short-term ploy of garnering instant agreement from the cheap-seats, will dispose of the issue, never realizing that the ‘issue’ will remain alive until resolved by actual and logical processes.

    Maybe there is a conundrum insofar as say:- I might believe that the
    Lord Jesus Christ is my personal Saviour and yours too and that He died to save all sinners. I believe this with all my heart and know this to be the absolute truth. 

    Yet I might also acknowledge that this
    absolute belief is my own preference and taste, and that others do not
    think this way but have their version of the absolute truth like
    “Everything is Consciousness” or some such. 

    So many absolutes, so little time. :)

    Yes… the problem of ‘many absolutes’! Ha ha ha…

    No matter if 17 pages of agonized self-justification are writ and posted; no matter how much spittle flies in ‘righteous indignation’; the actual context maintains, for better or worse; it hangs like a bedsheet on the line, flapping and attracting attention, no matter how often attempts are made to direct attention ‘elsewhere’.

    Sure, go ahead (I say) and whip out that ‘switchblade of the absolute’ and take a stab. That weapon has no substance, no matter how fervent its wielder.

    As the Red Queen said:- “Everyone has won and all shall have prizes.”

    Is she the queen of a ‘republic’?

  • Nokia

    “This is the problem with amateurs, who attempt to take the moral high ground while at the same time, judge others (liberals etc) as being below them.”

    I think this is what’s most loathsome about the Leftist mindset – how circular it is.  You conservative people can’t judge everyone because your beliefs are wrong. My Leftist beliefs (and judgments) are right because they’re my beliefs. If they were wrong then I wouldn’t believe them.  

    Then the weird postmodern rambling about the subjectivity of facts (as applied to the troll’s opponents.  Opinions that happen to coincide with the troll’s personal biases are, of course,  beyond question). Hmmm…persuasive, eh?

    “The inevitable outcome is what we had seen in 2008, in the form of the losing US ‘GOP’ tearing itself to shreds, because it has attached itself to non-sustainable ‘values’. ”

    Such altruistic concern for the GOP! Perhaps our resident 0bamites might consider the sustainability of their own political coalition – hate filled minorities, deviants, and 60′s retreads all united by a yearning for Other People’s Money to solve their problems.

  • Anamika

    Could you expand a bit? –Tony

    OK. Those who throughout their lives, have found their ‘identity’ via group consensus/feedback, are the laziest of all of us. An example is the British ‘Royalty’, whose ‘identity’ is assigned, not earned.

    Choose your group; your choice will lead to the very sort of identity you are ‘awarded’. It is more than being known by the company you keep; it is the social power of that company, and how that power is deployed. Loyalty to a winning group, will provide security; loyalty assures continual winning and thus security ‘forever’.

    Problem is, the ‘winning group’ syndrome is indeed based in numbers. If such a group is set-upon by several other groups, the numbers-game becomes a formula for defeat. And so it goes; weak-minded individuals seek identity in group; but a group of weak-minded individuals, can deploy only defective strategies; thus my example of the GOP’s 2008 defeat.

    Is it true, that people are generally insecure, and will automatically move to a place which is considered to be ‘more secure’, regardless of the long-term fate of that area? What of the lack of actual consideration of the factors involved? That is what I mean by ‘weak-minded’.

    The USA ‘homeland security’ strategy, under Bushco, so rapidly undermined our ‘actual’ security, that we had to reject the entire shebang and start over. How can ‘they’ not see how this works, in the ‘real world’?

    But all of that, is still the ‘numbers game’, and no matter how it is juggled, there MUST be losers, if there are winners. How can this not be seen? Is it still the ‘law of the jungle’, but now, with lipstick?

  • Anamika

    No irrevocable ‘truth’ out there that some have gotten and others have not, but rather different points of view that some may like and others do not according to taste, experience and preference.

    If somebody does not like another s point of view, and then says they are ‘wrong’ it assumes they are playing the same enlightenment game and do not know the rules and you do.

    Some bugger reckoned that all of us are in free fall between birth and death. We cling to each other because we reckon there is safety in numbers.

    No such luck.

    Indeed; but the numbers are here anyway. Closely packed like this, what choice do we have but to pass our time, ‘grooming’ each-other, like our hairy primate cousins?

    Nit-picking, anyone?

    Maybe by the sheer wonder and curiosity that another’s viewpoint stimulates can keep us going in this game. Yes, there is that. But to play the judging game, without an established disclaimer, would be to go down with the rest, when the rug of subjectivity is yanked out from under the feet of certainty. So to speak.

  • Anamika

    Ok. Then one maybe realizes that one is alone and has been all along and
    no amount of shared subjectivity, popularity, or agreement will make
    one iota of difference. –Tony

    Well, it does make for an ‘interesting’ life experience, at least in the Chinese context of ‘interesting’.

  • Anonymous

    Do it again, do it right, and in about 20% of the space, and maybe I’ll leave it up this time. Not promising anything, mind you.

  • Pingback: Sunday Faith News/Views 8-7-11: Political Prayer and Witness Edition | FavStocks

  • Nokia

    Good job with the cleanup.  The 0bamists’ amateur psychoanalysis-cum-postmodern babble did not impress in 2008 and it does not impress now.  In fact it reminds me of my conversations with a Chinese friend who had relatives still living under Communism – dissent, ideological, or otherwise, was a sign of mental illness and punished by institutionalization.  Why? Because Maoism was so self-evidently right that no sane person could disagree with it, of course!

    Funny how the Chicoms and their Western comrades are, as Orwell would say, Tweedledee and Tweedledum.  Granted, the American Hopenchange jackboots are a little more media savvy than their Chinese pals – what with their “bright, articulate, clean” photogenic moron.

  • Pingback: Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » If you want to know why you get Newsweek Covers like this:

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    One reason that I will never be a Protestant: too much public whupping it up and testifyin’. 

    The Catholics are much more civilized: go to confession in a nice quiet church and then head off for whiskey and cigars.

  • Pingback: Sioux City: Herman Cain Begins Iowa Bus Tour With Noon Speech to Jewish Group : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: Who is Herman Cain (Video); Candidate Cain on the Campaign Trail | REPUBLICAN REDEFINED

  • Pingback: Young Minions of the Sith Lord of Texas : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: Do You Want America’s Future Decided by the MSM or by The People? — 1389 Blog – Counterjihad!

  • Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Roam : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: Michele Bachmann and the Media Scrum : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: Michelle Goldberg and ‘The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Evangelicalism’ : The Other McCain