Michele Bachmann and Praying Away the Gay

Woohoo! The MSM has picked up the story of Michele Bachmann's hub Marcus's Pray Away the Gay biz, with undercover footage proving that the Bachmanns are telling porky pies.

And. Also. She's a great big whiney titty-baby. Call the cops! Her house was egged! Twice!

And that Marriage Vow she signed with the paragraph on how Jim (Crow) Dandy Great slavery was for black families? Well, apparently she did ^NOT read that bit.

Which is now beside the point as the wingnuts who issued it have removed the offending bit.

Mother Jones is staying on it, though. They're compiling The Michele Bachmann Guide to Slavery.

But, hey, not to worry. There's no fucking way she can be elected, right? Bill Maher is ^NOT complacent.

In related Canadian news, the New Democratic Party has heeded the campaign started by our pal Mark at Slap Upside The Head to remove charitable status from bogus Pray Away the Gay groups.

Good on ya, Mark, and all the others who got involved in the Slap into Action campaign!

ADDED: MoJo still on it.

Image source

Slavery Bad. No. Slavery Good. Wait. I'm Confused.

In the Excited States, they really like to punch those hot buttons, but really you gotta hand it to the odious Tea Baggers for rolling so many of them into one gigantic nookular flustercluck.

Again, today, we present the malignant confluence of racism, abortion, and homophobia.

Fetus fetishists have used race to present the case for fetal 'personhood' and to assert that the abortion 'industry' is perpetrating a racist genocide on duskier hued USians.

They have a history of such shenanigans.

For example, in 1976, journalist William F. Buckley wrote, “One hundred years from now Americans will look back in horror at our abortion clinics, even as we look back now in horror at the slave markets.” That same year, Dr. Jack Willke, founder of the National Right to Life Committee, compared Roe v. Wade to the 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford in his book Slavery and Abortion: History Repeats. This argument continues to resurface even as recently as January of this year, when Rick Santorum argued on Fox News that Roe denies fetuses “personhood” the same way Dred Scott denied African Americans “personhood.”

But Ms. Magazine goes on to point out that they have it bassackwards.

The slavery analogy makes much more sense as an argument for choice, not against it. Slavery is about losing one’s freedom and personal autonomy over one’s body and life. As Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, so eloquently put it: “No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.”

In addition, laws prohibiting or restricting access to abortion treat women as chattel, enslaving them physically by controlling their bodies and ideologically by subjecting them to the tyranny of an imposed morality.
. . .
We must turn the anti-abortion movement’s use of the slavery analogy on its head. Let’s remind the world that even though we may never agree about the personhood or rights of the “unborn,” the personhood and rights of living women are indisputable.

OK, got that? Slavery bad. Abortion = slavery of fetuses. Or something.

But wait. No. Slavery good.

Recently, there was the spectacle of the Fetus Fetishist Pledge to be signed by all ReThuglican presidential candidates.

Now, there's a new one: The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY, also to be signed by ReThug hopefuls (link to PDF of whole nauseating thing there).

A quote from the document:

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.

Take your time blinking at that.

Now to commentary from Jack & Jill Politics, which bills itself as 'A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics':

Given that families were broken up regularly for sales during slavery and that rape by masters was pretty common, this could not be more offensive. I mean, putting aside the statistics on this, which are likely off-base, I could not be more angry. When will Republicans inquire with actual Black people whether or not we’re ok with invoking slavery to score cheap political points? It has to stop. It is the opposite of persuasive and is another reason Republicans repel us. It’s hard to believe that Michele Bachmann would be foolish enough to sigh this pledge.

Oh yeah, Crazy Eyes is the first -- no doubt of many -- to sign it.

I read the whole thing. It's really really difficult to pinpoint the MOST offensive and/or stupid bit of it. Go read and consider yourself.

But hands down, this is the creepiest bit (italic in original).

Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.

Robust? 'Robust' seems to be a dog whistle to Christianists. Indicating just what, I'm not sure. But I am pretty sure that these opportunistic ignoramuses would not approve of 'robust' reproduction among the OTHERS: non-Christians, Blacks, gays, Latinos, progressives. You get the idea.

Or as commenter The Mound of Sound put it here on another post about Crazy Eyes: 'Three words: crazy - shit - bat. Rearrange and repeat and repeat.'

ADDED: Go read Anthea Butler. Seems this 'slavery good' gonna bite ReThugs BIG TIME.