Female Firebrands - Fools for Christ
Posted: November 16, 2009- 20:43 CT
For almost a decade, liberals have been suffering from a disease
known as Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). A couple of years
ago, many came down with a bad case of Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS).
It must have been highly contagious, because now we're seeing an
wide outbreak of a migratory strain which could be called
Conservative Female Derangement Syndrome (CFDS). Common
symptoms appear to range from paranoia and anger to outright fear
and craziness. So, what is it about conservative women that
tends to drive liberals up the wall. An article in the
Observer of London examines the subject with a bit of the usual liberal slant.
Paul Harris from New York writes an article in the London Observer today entitled The new wave of female firebrands striking fear into liberal America. The reader would not automatically suspect a hit piece from the title, but in the byline, "Right-wing radicals are already pinning presidential ambitions on a mother-of-five from Minnesota who calls herself a 'fool for Christ' and condemns Obama as a socialist at the head of a gangster regime”, Mr Harris removes all doubt as to his intentions. The article begins:
She is a striking brunette with a decidedly outspoken attitude. She lambasts President Barack Obama as a socialist and has become the darling of America's right-wing activists who flock to her appearances. She is hated by liberals and loved by conservatives.
Sarah Palin? Not quite. Meet Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman from Minnesota who is being hailed as a new and increasingly powerful voice in American politics. Bachmann, at 53, is a darling of the so-called Tea Party movement, which has campaigned vociferously against healthcare reform, the economic stimulus package and legislation to combat climate change. Her followers have been behind mass rallies in Washington and smaller ones all over the country. She has emerged as one of the most visible politicians in America, frequently appearing on the conservative Fox News channel, whose hosts often champion her causes.
She is part of an increasingly visible "female brand" of conservatism that is rising in America in the wake of the election of Obama. They include notable syndicated commentators such as Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, whose dislike for liberals has grown ever more shrill in recent months. And, of course, Palin herself. She is still a giant of the political and media landscape and next week embarks on a book tour to sell her autobiography. It has already sparked a media frenzy, with a heavily hyped appearance on Oprah Winfrey's show, and become a huge bestseller on pre-orders alone.
He then writes, "All these women express a mood of conservative discontent that is becoming increasingly vocal and, some experts warn, extreme." Some of us might be contemplating just who these “experts” might be. Mr Harris doesn’t actually name any experts, or offer any clues as to what actually qualifies them to be an expert, so we’re left to speculate. We can only assume he’s referring to those who he might consider a mainstream moderate such as Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Al Sharpton, Keith Olbermann, or possibly the fine reporters from the NY Times.
We could also ask, “What is it about these conservative females, as opposed to conservative males, which drives liberals crazy?” I believe the primary factor is that liberals consider themselves as representing the “typical” woman’s perspective on the issues (mainly abortion), and owning the women’s vote as a result. Thus, any conservative female is seen as a traitor to the cause. The liberal’s partners in the media typically depict conservatives as being exclusively white, religious and male, so a conservative woman is portrayed as being insignificant, then assailed if she becomes too popular to write off or ignore. A few months ago, just after Ms Palin announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska in order to spend more time in the lower 48 states campaigning against Mr Obama’s socialist agenda, I was walking through the magazine section of Sam’s Club when I noticed the bold title on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine, “SARAH PALIN: The Lies, the Meltdown and the Moose-Size Ambitions”. To be fair, I must admit that there was some truth contained within this title. The article was full of lies and Vanity Fair suffered a meltdown of what little credibility they had left. The article did however, fall short of the publisher's moose-size ambitions of destroying Ms Palin's career.
Returning to the perception by liberals that conservative women are traitors, we witness a similar viewpoint against conservative blacks and Hispanics. For example, we see this attitude behind attacks on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, from references to him being an “Uncle Tom” to denial that he is even a black man. We also watched the media virtually ignore the fact that George Bush chose Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as the first and second black Secretary of State, and minimize the presidential candidacy of Alan Keyes.
We might next wonder what positions held by Ms Bachmann are considered “extreme” by the liberals. Mr Harris provides the answer.
But even a cursory glance at her career reveals that this rising star has long trafficked in some extreme positions. In October last year Bachmann called some of her fellow congressmen anti-American. She has said Obama holds socialist views. She has attacked global warming by saying that carbon dioxide emissions are a natural part of the atmosphere. "Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas," she said. She has fed into fears of a violent backlash against Obama by saying that "having a revolution every now and then is a good thing". She has spoken of "gangster government" in a speech viewed more than two million times on the internet. She has dubbed Obama's plans to increase AmeriCorps – a government volunteer service group – as a plan to forcibly indoctrinate young people. "I believe there is a very strong chance that we will see young people put into mandatory service... there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people," she told an interviewer. Her language in opposing healthcare reform has been bloodcurdling. At a recent event in Colorado she told her audience: "What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass." She is also extremely socially conservative, strongly opposing abortion and gay marriage, and deeply religious. She has described herself as a "fool for Christ".
Such extreme statements and beliefs have made Bachmann a figure of both fun and fear among liberal Americans, especially in her home state of Minnesota. "It is hard to think that people take her seriously. But on a national level it is happening. It scares me," said Aaron Landry, a senior correspondent at MNpublius.com, a Minnesota-based politics blog.
So, according to liberals, an extremist is any person opposing socialism, the junk-science of global warming, the well-documented gangster mentality of the czars and other officials in the current administration, youth indoctrination camouflaged as public service, a government takeover of the health industry, unrestricted murder of innocent babies, or the redefining of traditional marriage. By antithesis, the liberal must consider anyone supporting these positions to be normal, or in Mr Obama's words, someone who is uniting the country, rather than those opposed who are dividing the country by impeding progress toward the new world order. In the last paragraph, we can also note a favorite technique often used by the media, passing off a biased liberal organization as an independent resource. After overdosing on the “extreme” tag and the C-word (conservative) throughout the article, Mr Harris fails to acknowledge MNpublius as a liberal blog which regularly praises BHO and Al Franken, while attacking Governor Tim Pawlenty.
In spite of the subtle attacks, thinly disguised as journalism which permeates his article, we must give Mr Harris credit for offering a few sentences of balance.
Indeed, to examine the impact of both Palin and Bachmann is to see an America split firmly into two different worlds. The first is a liberal one where such politicians make outlandish comments that become the butt of jokes on the Daily Show or Saturday Night Live. The other is one where Palin and Bachmann are the victims of a liberal media that hates its own country.
Mr Harris closes the article with:
Palin's legacy could be to place the 2012 nomination in the hands of the people who supported her. Could that recipient be Bachmann? It is an outside bet. But Bachmann has spoken of it, couching the question in religious terms that are deeply familiar and beloved of her followers. "If I felt that's what the Lord was calling me to do, I would do it," she told one conservative website of her potential presidential ambitions. Such comments have filled liberals with scorn and fear. "Most people don't think she can have presidential ambitions. She's too crazy," said Landry. "But a lot of people in Alaska thought that about Sarah Palin."
Judging by his byline and closing paragraph, the reality of Ms Bachmann being "deeply religious” appears to upset her adversaries even more than her political viewpoints. As a public service to Mr Harris and his liberal friends, we should point out that when Ms Bachmann calls herself a "fool for Christ”, she is actually endorsing the words of the Apostle Paul, who wrote that the message of Christianity is foolishness to unbelievers (1Cor 18-31). Essentially, she is humbly acknowledging her need for a Savior, but also confirming that unbelievers would consider her foolish for trusting in Christ. She is also implying that those who worship their own intelligence and wisdom will consider her foolish for seeking the will of God.
The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent."
So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.
Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God.
God has united you with Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made him to be wisdom itself. Christ made us right with God; he made us pure and holy, and he freed us from sin.31 Therefore, as the Scriptures say, "If you want to boast, boast only about the Lord." (1 Cor 1:18-31 NLT).
When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead, we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. (1Cor 2:13-14 NLT).