What Michelle Bachmann's submission theology really means

Salon ^ | Monday, Aug 15, 2011 08:40 ET | By Sarah Posner

[TSgt]

When the Washington Examiner’s Byron York asked Michele Bachmann if she was submissive to her husband at the Fox News GOP debate Thursday night, the crowd gasped and booed. That’s because wifely submission -- also known as complementarian theology -- is central to the faith of many evangelicals. York’s question wasn’t about religion per se, but was an attempt to probe whether, if Bachmann became president, America would be getting Marcus' decisions and not hers.

It’s common for Christian politicians questioned about their adherence to submission theology to dodge a scriptural explanation, as Bachmann did. After all, while dominionist-minded evangelicals like Bachmann intentionally set out to bring their "biblical worldview" into politics, they recognize that it’s bad 21st century politics -- especially for a female candidate -- to admit to a theology that could cause the same gasps and boos from voters who would recoil at the image of an obedient wife as president of the United States.

Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL), the target of then-Rep. Alan Grayson’s "Taliban Dan" ad because of his commitment to submission theology in the 2010 midterm election, similarly refused to explain to his constituents what the theology really is. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor, was questioned about his denomination’s official adherence to it, although he never really explained it either.

Bachmann has reached out to evangelical voters by emphasizing her adherence to a "biblical worldview," but when questioned about it -- particularly about the "biblical" view of gender roles -- Bachmann wasn’t a very good evangelist. Whatever happened to proudly expressing her faith?

* Continue reading

On Thursday, Bachmann smiled and talked about how in love she is with Marcus and maintained that their relationship is based on respect. Pundits described it as a "human" moment, a deeply committed spouse describing a loving partnership. But if Bachmann had explained her interpretation of the theology, we would have gotten a lesson in far more than her relationship with Marcus. We would have received greater insight in what her "biblical worldview" means for her understanding of law and policy.

The video that inspired York’s question is a perfect example of why Bachmann appeals to evangelicals and alarms other voters. She was speaking at Living Word Christian Center, a Minneapolis area megachurch, in 2006. She was running for Congress for the first time, and was describing, in distinctly evangelical terms, her path to politics. Bachmann recounted how as a college student she decided to marry Marcus not because of a "romantic surge," but because God had given her a vision that she was to marry him. God "began to create in us and to perfect for us what his plan was for us," she added. Bachmann the college student didn’t want to go to law school, but nonetheless she said God led her to Oral Roberts University, the first "Christian" law school "where they taught law from a biblical worldview." When Marcus told her she should get an additional degree in tax law, she exclaimed, "Tax law? I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says, be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands."

Later, Bachmann added, about her decision to pursue the additional degree at William and Mary Law School: "By faith, I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband."

Submission theology is built around the notion that God has a "design" for men and for women; that they are unique from each other and have their designated, God-given roles. The husband is the spiritual head of the household, the wife his obedient "helpmeet," the vessel for their children, devoted mother, and warrior for the faith. By committing themselves to those gender roles, evangelicals believe they are obeying God’s commands. They see the wife’s obligation to obey her husband’s authority as actually owed to God, not her husband.

But the obligation falls on the woman to be obedient, even when the husband doesn’t love her as evangelicals believe God commands. As Kathryn Joyce, author of "Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement," explained during the flap over Grayson’s ad:

Submission is a contentious and tricky issue even within conservative evangelical churches. Most churches promoting submission make certain to couple demands for submissive wives with those for loving, servant-leader husbands. But at the end of the day, it's women who bear the brunt of the principle; their obligations are to God, not to a husband who may or may not keep his end of the contract. Accordingly, the message is impressed by countless women's ministries and leaders that women must continue submitting even when their husband doesn't show love, because they owe their obedience, above all, to God.

While not all interpretations of submission theology are alike, and some are far more severe than others, women who have experienced its harsher iterations described it as "I gave up my rights to be who I was" and compared escaping to "getting out of hell."

Regardless of the Bachmanns' relationship, candidate Bachmann's policy initiatives, as they relate to issues like gay marriage, abortion, and funding for Planned Parenthood, stem directly from her "biblical" view of gender roles. "God’s design" for gender roles is not limited to the issue Bachmann usually applies it to (opposition to gay marriage). God’s design, in her view, is for (Christian) men and women to get married to serve God, and for the woman a mother and a fierce defender of the "biblical worldview." Bachmann’s worldview, which she sees as under siege by secularists, feminists, imaginary socialists, and other bogeymen, must be defended for future generations. "An arrogant corrupt Washington elite," Bachmann insisted earlier this year, has “declared war on marriage, on families, on fertility, and on faith."

In the 2006 campaign appearance, Bachmann talked about how people told her that only a "fool" would spend so much time running for a job with a two-year term. To emphasize how she was obeying God in her quest for higher office and defense of her "biblical worldview," she exclaimed, "you’re now looking at a fool for Christ."

[TSgt]

Funny, I never heard the media ask Obama about how Islam treats women? In fact, I never hear the media question Islam's highly demeaning view of women.

I was livid when she was asked this question.

[ClearCase_guy]

Tolerance and acceptance is mandated for all religions -- except Christianity which is weird and yucky and all right-thinking journalists enjoy making fun of it's bizarre beliefs.

I hate the MSM.

[Tax-chick]

Obama is submissive to a dominant male, too. More than one, probably.

(Note, no personal comment on Rep. Bachmann - I’m just playing with the concept ;-).

[ken21]

yes, the washington examiner’s female questioner

raised a storm that will generate legions of

feminist essays and books on el collegio campi.

[Calm_Cool_and_Elected]

What about the Clinton “co-Presidency”?

[Mr. K]

What about Obama’s sitting in Rev. Wriight’s church for 20 years?

Talking about hating Whitey???

That seems worse than submitting to your husband

[Perdogg]

I think that was part of the GOP landslide in 1994.

[AliVeritas]

This is why you have so many as single mothers and women who think they’re men.

Only men can be men... period. A man should be head of the household. Do you think those kids in London would be wilding if their fathers were there and disciplined them from the beginning (with the exception of the islayutes)?

Boys are out there with no direction; Not knowing how to be male, a boyfriend, husband, father, provider, protector, etc.. They watch videos with hoochies, naked women, violence and listen to their boys, who also have no clue, on what a man means. Hint: It isn’t being a sperm donor without any responsibility. They go to prison and get turned out. Of course either they will never tell (did what they had to do to survive), will go on the down low (sleeping with a guy on the side, when the women hasn’t a clue... accounts for a lot of the rise of hetero AIDS), or will say “Hey, guess i’m gay”, I can’t be a man after that happened to me... even though I fought or whatever. You ever wonder why prisons never spread out to prevent rampant rape (or at least put a damper on it)? But hey, Hillary and Schumer gave Viagra to inmates in NY; They should have been accessories to rape.

Girls have no clue what a man is. With a father, they know what a man is to be and what to look for in a man (as well as what not... pops will clue her in on that early, he was once a young man).

No matter how great a mom is, they can’t be a dad. There will be a missing piece. God forbid if Manny, Moe and Jack do the revolving doors with mom... then to the son, that’s what women are for and about.

We have the feminization of boys in schools, media; The attempt to squash the Boy Scouts while pushing birth control and feminist memes in Girl Scouts. The forced teaching of homosexuality as ‘natural’, to imprint doubts into kids minds... made easier with no dad around.

We have more than one generation that has no idea what a family/marriage/regular home life means; Their parents probably had no clue either. There’s children that have never set eyes on a church, not for Christmas, Easter, anytime. They think right and wrong is what works for me now... no ethics or morals. Trust me, this is how the red and godless want it. History tells of this beast who pops up under different names.

As Yuri Bezmenov said, the Soviets will have the West so brainwashed that if you show them the truth with their eyes... they’ll deny it.

Here we are.

[Perdogg]

I don’t think it is unfair per se. What makes it unfair it seems only Republicans are asked about their beliefs.

[Migraine]

The REAL Christian position on husbands and wives is that they become ONE. He becomes more “her”, while she becomes more “him”. It is expressed best in this phrase from Ephesians 5: “He that loves his wife, loves himself; for no man ever yet hated his own flesh.” And if a secularist looked into it with an open mind, he would find there the very sort of selfless empathy between two people that the whole civilized world is searching for.

However, the Bible also says that the natural mind cannot comprehend the things of God; hence the rank illiteracy we perceive whenever they try. Even knowing this, though, I still get crazy when they use “quotes” when explaining Christian positions. The quotes always signify “so-called”, which always means the writer is cringing, holding her nose, and saying “dear reader, please don’t think I believe any of these children’s stories”.

[Pan_Yan]

I think the best answer when the Biblical view of the family is questioned is simply “show me in history a secular alternative that has led to a sucessful society.”

[CitizenUSA]

From the article: “But at the end of the day, it’s women who bear the brunt of the principle; their obligations are to God, not to a husband who may or may not keep his end of the contract.”

This is a lie. The husband is directed to love his wife like Christ loves the Church. Christ literally gave his life in sacrifice for the Church. That is a very heavy obligation for husbands and is owed to wives whether or not their wives submit. Husbands are also responsible to God for how they treat their wives. In other words, wives do not bear the “brunt” of the submission doctrine.

The submission doctrine means both husband and wife serve each other. According to scripture, the husband is supposed to make that decision (and is responsible for it) but a loving husband would first consult and value their wife’s opinions. That should be completely uncontroversial for anyone well versed in scripture, but I suppose leftists can’t accept that someone has to be in charge. That’s not a surprise, because they generally deny God’s authority, too.

[ngat]

article by Sarah Posner, Religious Bigot

[AliVeritas]

Thanks for the idea. I’m going to make a video of Hillary and Bill, all the cheating clips and Hill’s bashing of other women.

Of course, ‘Stand by your man’, will be the soundtrack.

Let’s see what the fembots will do with that.

I forgot, doesn’t count... she was ‘carrying Bill’, you see, not the other way around. /s

She was powerful in stomping down her ravished sisters, because ‘obviously’ they were weak for submitting to him (in most cases not), in the first place. But ummm, Hillary’s not... and... that’s that you chavinist, um, er, pig. /s

Hey, there’s no logic involved.

I’ll get started on the campaign posters. Hillary with a bra in one hand (hold your food down), and a black power fist pick in her hair and a um... device that needs batteries (or Huma), in the other hand. (Kidding Hillary, I really scared of you and don’t want to be found with a 30-06 that I shot myself in back of the head with, cough).

BTW, men should know... even if you are submissive or a fool with a cheating husband, as long as you kill babies you’re in.

[freespirited]

Ya think that maybe some lefty out there would give Marcus credit for encouraging his wife to get an advanced degree?

[jacknhoo]

It is a good thing she was asked it, in hindsight. Also, it is a perfect answer she gave...very articulate and Christian.

Michele Bachmann’s administration will be the perfect replacement for the atheistic socialist Democratic Party of America administration in office today.

[skeeter]

But at the end of the day, it's women who bear the brunt of the principle; their obligations are to God, not to a husband who may or may not keep his end of the contract.

I'd be interested to hear how the writer came to this conclusion, since he stated it with such authority.

[Albion Wilde]

Preach it, AliVeritas!

[Da Coyote]

It appears that conservative women make it on their own; Bachman, Palin.

Lib women have to screw themselves into money (sorry for the rude description, but it’s true) so that they can purchase a senate seat...a la Boxer, Pelosi.

And libs have the gall to criticize our women?

Shove it up your collective smelly Obamas, Salon.

[StonyBurk]

IMO the central point to what the Bible teaches of submission is to NEVER NEVER NEVER forget our submission is based upon and springs from submission to GOD. The Apostle Paul ,formerly known as Saul of Tarsus trained a Pharisee—
spoke of “submission” in ! Corinthians,and in the letters to the Called out at Ephessus and again to those at Colosse.
In his letter to the Believers at Corinth I think he spoke of the Household of Stephanus and their missionary work and the submission due such people .Ephesians and Colossians speak of holy matrimony ( submission to God is mentioned )

[Old Teufel Hunden]

One thing I’m pretty sure of. A president Bachman will not be attending any Iftars during Ramadan, will not talk about the sweet sound of the Muslim call to prayers. I wonder why reporters don’t thoroughly question Obama on his beliefs??

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Is Marcus Bachman going to become the new Dick Cheney? The evil puppet master behind the power (Bush). Someone needs to check if Marcus Bachman has any connections to Haliburton.

[combat_boots]

The most peculiar feature of this story is that Salon considers ‘discussing’ a disbeliever’s guide Christian doctrine as appropriate. It’s like mistranslating whatever it was that ended up with Michaelangelo putting horns on the statue of Moses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_(Michelangelo)

[ETL]

What Barack Obama's "Black Liberation Theology" means. (in case the a-holes at Salon missed it) ...

"Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal".--James (Jim) Cone,
African American Religious Thought: An Anthology (Paperback)
by Cornel West (Editor), Eddie S. Glaude Jr. (Editor)
____________________________________________

SEAN HANNITY: But Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not backing down and has not for years and in his strong stance on the teaching of black liberation theology is nothing new. He had the same things to say last spring when he appeared on "Hannity & Colmes:"

WRIGHT: If you're not going to talk about theology in context, if you're not going to talk about liberation theology that came out of the '60s, systematized black liberation theology that started with Jim Cone in 1968 and the writings of Cone and the writings of Dwight Hopkins and the writings of womynist theologians and Asian theologians and Hispanic theologians, then you can't talk about the black value system.

HANNITY: But I'm a — reverend

WRIGHT: Do you know liberation theology, sir?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354158,00.html
____________________________________________

Obama's Church: Gospel of Hate
Kathy Shaidle, FrontPageMag.com
Monday, April 07, 2008

In March of 2007, FOX News host Sean Hannity had engaged Obama’s pastor in a heated interview about his Church’s teachings. For many viewers, the ensuing shouting match was their first exposure to "Black Liberation Theology"...

Like the pro-communist Liberation Theology that swept Central America in the 1980s and was repeatedly condemned by Pope John Paul II, Black Liberation Theology combines warmed-over 1960s vintage Marxism with carefully distorted biblical passages. However, in contrast to traditional Marxism, it emphasizes race rather than class. The Christian notion of "salvation" in the afterlife is superseded by "liberation" on earth, courtesy of the establishment of a socialist utopia.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=30CD9E14-B0C9-4F8C-A0A6-A896F0F44F02
____________________________________________

Catholics for Marx [Liberation Theology]
By Fr. Robert Sirico
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, June 03, 2004

In the days when the Superpowers were locked in a Cold War, Latin America seethed with revolution, and millions lived behind an iron curtain, a group of theologians concocted a novel idea within the history of Christianity. They proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Marx as a way of justifying violent revolution to overthrow the economics of capitalism.

The Gospels were re-rendered not as doctrine impacting on the human soul but rather as windows into the historical dialectic of class struggle. These "liberation theologians" saw every biblical criticism of the rich as a mandate to expropriate the expropriating owners of capital, and every expression of compassion for the poor as a call for an uprising by the proletarian class of peasants and workers.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=460782B7-35CC-4C9E-A2C5-93832067C7CD
____________________________________________

"Their founding document [the Weather Underground's] called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements[1] to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism."..."-Berger, Dan (2006). Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity. AK Press, 95.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_Underground#cite_ref-Berger_0-0

Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity (Paperback) by Dan Berger
http://www.amazon.com/Outlaws-America-Underground-Politics-Solidarity/dp/1904859410
____________________________________________

From the New York Times, August 24, 2003

"they [the Weather Underground] employed revolutionary jargon, advocated armed struggle and black liberation and began bombing buildings, taking responsibility for at least 20 attacks. Estimates of their number ranged at times from several dozen to several hundred."

Article: Quieter Lives for 60's Militants, but Intensity of Beliefs Hasn't Faded
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E4DE1539F937A1575BC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
____________________________________________

Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright and Dr. William Ayers
are greeted by Rebekah Levin with the Committee
for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine.
(Chuck Berman/Chicago Tribune / May 17, 2009)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ayers_wrightmay18,0,6689521.story

[ETL]

The Real Story Behind Rev. Wright's Controversial Black Liberation Theology Doctrine
Monday , May 5, 2008
FoxNews/Hannity's America
[special Friday night edition--original airdate May 2, 2008]

(some key excerpts)

["(Jose) Diaz-Balart is the son of Rafael Diaz-Balart y Guitierrez (a former Cuban politician). He has three bothers, Rafael Diaz-Balart (a banker), Mario Diaz-Balart (a US Congressman) and Lincoln Diaz-Balart (also a US Congressman). His aunt, Mirta Diaz-Balart, was Fidel Castro's first wife."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Diaz-Balart]

JOSE DIAZ-BALART, TELEMUNDO NETWORK: "Liberation theology in Nicaragua in the mid-1980's was a pro-Sandinista, pro-Marxist, anti-U.S., anti-Catholic Church movement. That's it. No ifs, ands, or buts. His church apparently supported, in the mid-'80s in Nicaragua, groups that supported the Sandinista dictatorships and that were opposed to the Contras whose reason for being was calling for elections. That's all I know. I was there.

I saw the churches in Nicaragua that he spoke of, and the churches were churches that talked about the need for violent revolution and I remember clearly one of the major churches in Managua where the Jesus Christ on the altar was not Jesus Christ, he was a Sandinista soldier, and the priests talked about the corruption of the West, talked about the need for revolution everywhere, and talked about 'the evil empire' which was the United States of America."

REV. BOB SCHENCK, NATIONAL CLERGY COUNCIL: "it's based in Marxism. At the core of his [Wright's] theology is really an anti-Christian understanding of God, and as part of a long history of individuals who actually advocate using violence in overthrowing those they perceive to be oppressing them, even acts of murder have been defended by followers of liberation theology. That's very, very dangerous."

SCHENCK: "I was actually the only person escorted to Dr. Wright. He asked to see me, and I simply welcomed him to Washington, and then I said Dr. Wright, I want to bring you a warning: your embrace of Marxist liberation theology. It is contrary to the Gospel, and you need, sir, to abandon it. And at that he dropped the handshake and made it clear that he was not in the mood to dialogue on that point."

Source: The Real Story Behind Rev. Wright's Controversial Black Liberation Theology Doctrine:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354158,00.html

[jocon307]

“An arrogant corrupt Washington elite,” Bachmann insisted earlier this year, has “declared war on marriage, on families, on fertility, and on faith.”

Thanks to Salon for providing this small commercial for Bachmann, because she is 100% right about that.

[Maverick68]

Attention Leftist shills: PLEASE, pretty please, let’s make religion an issue in this campaign.....

[Coldwater Creek]

Thank You!

If Christian husbands loved and treated their wives like Christ loves the Church, wives would have no problem being under their husband’s umbrella.

[semaj]

We as conservatives need to stop playing by the rules dictated to us by the left and media elite. Since when has the left been in a position to question anyone's moral or religious beliefs? The left needs to be reminded of how immoral and unethical their own behavior is at every opportunity. COnservative candidates should not deign to even dignify such questions coming from the leftist corner.

What happened to calling out bad behavior? Again, we are caught playing by their rules of "gotcha." Let's refuse to play by their rules and start playing hardball back at them by calling them out on and shi9ning a light on their hypocrisy whenever they attempt these kinds of attack scripts.

[semaj]

We as conservatives need to stop playing by the rules dictated to us by the left and media elite. Since when has the left been in a position to question anyone's moral or religious beliefs? The left needs to be reminded of how immoral and unethical their own behavior is at every opportunity. COnservative candidates should not deign to even dignify such questions coming from the leftist corner.

What happened to calling out bad behavior? Again, we are caught playing by their rules of "gotcha." Let's refuse to play by their rules and start playing hardball back at them by calling them out on and shi9ning a light on their hypocrisy whenever they attempt these kinds of attack scripts.

[cricket]

Was equally incensed over question but thought Michelle handled response well.

That said, while a Christian, think - particularly - when you are in or running for, public office, think the 'messenger IS the message' - that one's actions and example, speak louder than words and see no reason to go to Biblical referencing to make political case.

Have big problem with Rick Perry, for doing same. Think he would be wiser in remembering what Office it is, that he is running for. Inspirational speaking, one thing. Christian proselytizing another. . .

(All to say, more or less ; 'character is destiny - per Heraclitis - and needs no scripting per public-political Biblical messaging.)

And yes, vapid, errant/absent Media while attacking all things 'Christian' - and Jewish, for that matter) never fail to overlook and excuse the viral aspects of Islam - those who carry it; and the civilization destroying jihad it gives rise to.

[bray]

Didn’t Gloria Steinem sleep with a few millionaires to fund NOW? Sounds like she made it the old fashioned way, on her back. Then she criticizes Palin and Bachmann.

Pray for America

[JDW11235]

I too felt that CitizenUSA’s analysis was spot on. That having been said, this is false:

“If Christian husbands loved and treated their wives like Christ loves the Church, wives would have no problem being under their husband’s umbrella.”

While it SHOULD be true, it is PRECISELY what the leftists have been fighting against (since the dawn of time, but their efforts have redoubled to destroy the family), in order to teach women in today’s society that men are bad, evil, violent, oppressive, and, if you watch television sitcoms, stupid. Another poster previously mentioned Yuri Bezmenov (AKA Edward Griffen). He was a KGB defector who warned the U.S. of the tactics that the leftists would use to infitrate the U.S. to bring down our Republic.

No matter how wonderful and loving a Christian husband, all of conventional society will berate him and try to destroy him, while at the same time telling women to belittle him and assert her equality (they mean dominance of him), which is part of why the divorce rate is skyrocketing. When men and women understand their proper roles in God’s plan, as Bachmann says she does (I’m not her judge, one way or another, but I do believe she tippy toed, though understandably, around the doctrine during Thursday’s debate), then they live happy, healthy lives together.

There are plenty of examples of men and women who live together in love and harmony, but each successive generation, of late, seems to have less and less of it, as culture drives for men to be effeminate and women to be masculine. The deal is that man submits to God, and woman submits to man. Men are to love their wives as Christ so loved the church, as CitizenUSA mentioned. Thus, women are still supposed to submit to their imperfect husbands, and men are still to love their imperfect wives. An imperfection, or sin does not mean that harmony and balance is to be thrown out the window, and that man suddenly doesn’t need woman, or that woman doesn’t need man, for neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. It’s also why we are directed to not be unequally yoked.

So while a true Christian wife may “have no problem being under their husband’s umbrella,” not all wives are (and if fact I believe the vast majority would not be) willing to submit to their husbands, even if he “loved and treated their wives like Christ loves the Church,” simply because they’re indoctrinated away from everything Christlike that there is. There is a war on families, upon both men and women equally, but on the surface it appears to benefit women over men (it does not, but this promotion, is what causes a lot of resenment among men), because leftists claim it impowers women and improves their status (the same tactic used in the Garden), all the while destroying both man and woman. It’s the same theology as Social justice, just using gender rather than race.

[Bigg Red]

Well said!

[JDW11235]

I agree with you 100%. There is a saying that the wicked use laws to oppress the righteous, which I fully agree. Good (in the sense that they can be) people already to things in a righteous good way (to the best of their ability), and the bad don’t follow their own laws (rules), or anyone elses. It’s the same argument used for gun control, and results in the same consequence. The good obey (or try to) even the immoral laws, to be law abiding, and the criminals don’t care what laws you pass, anyway.

Thus, the Leftists hold conservatives to a degree of perfection because they say that otherwise they are liars and hypocrits. Yet, if the same leftist was caught does whatever they accuse the right of, it would be no problem, because they’re not bound by morals, and would ignore it. The good thing is that enough people are getting tired of it, and it’s starting to grow. People really hate “do as I say and not as I do,” and when they’re already oppressed, they really dislike the hypocrisy (ala Geitner, Frank, Weiner, et al.).

[stayathomemom]

Hear hear!

[JDW11235]

Excellent post, and I’m grateful you brought up Bezmenov. This has been foretold (even secularly) for decades (And even Christ and Paul, and others, foretold of it, so, so long ago!), but people mostly didn’t care and didn’t listen.

Your analysis is spot on, thank you.