“If you have courage and convictions, your new soulmate will be Steve Deace. He delivers.” —Mike Huckabee

Radio shows

The Case for Michele Bachmann

by Barb Heki

To give you a little history, my husband and I met privately or in small meetings with most of the presidential candidates last winter. All of these candidates, then-unannounced, were very, very nice people. I don’t want to minimize that at all. But our solid conclusion after our meetings was that there were only two who were by far the most Biblically and Constitutionally conservative. Those two were Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Judge Roy Moore. Moore later decided not to run.

Michele Bachmann is the only candidate out there who has led the charge on conservative issues without gathering worrisome baggage that contradicts our beliefs or that President Obama can use to shoot her down. She has gone to Washington and Washington has not changed her. She has remained the highly principled, fiery Congresswoman that sacrificed leadership opportunities for not cow-towing to the Republican establishment in Congress, but gained a huge following of Christian conservatives and tea party activists. As the founder of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress, Bachmann knows that the Tea Party is not a small faction that holds signs at rallies; it is you and me and a massive cross-section of citizens, from evangelical Christians to conservative Democrats who are outraged at the government takeover of our U.S. Constitution and private businesses and the lives of we the people. She is focused on serving the people, not the party. That’s what people want today — a leader who will fight for their rights, not another establishment Republican.

As conservative Christians, my husband and I talked with Congresswoman Bachmann about women in leadership in secular government. To our delight, we learned that she shares our Biblical beliefs of male leadership in the home and the church. As a leader in our secular government, she views herself as a servant in the jurisdiction that God has placed her. We went on to study Scripture more in-depth and saw that while God instructed men to lead in the home and church, there are examples in Scripture where He raised up women to lead in powerful ways, including judicially and militarily. We believe, without a doubt, that with her children now adults, and her husband fully in support of her candidacy, that God has raised up Congresswoman Bachmann “for such a time as this.”

It is striking how truly focused she is on seeking God’s direction. In two separate instances, friends of ours who have visited her in Congress have told us that she got down on her knees on the floor and prayed with them. Our first priority in choosing a leader is someone who fears God and looks to Him first for direction. The reason is — if you fear God, you don’t fear man; and you will do the right thing rather than the expedient thing. Congresswoman Bachmann has proved herself time and again in this area, from her days of fighting federally mandated education in Minnesota as a homeschooling mom before she ever ran for any office, through her years in the Minnesota Senate, and now into her third term in Congress and a candidate for the presidency.

It has been heartwarming to hear candid stories from the various candidates – stories that touch our emotions. But we need to make sure we look at records and consistency because all of us have emotionally gripping situations in our lives that we can relate, that will make people cry, but that doesn’t make us qualified to be president.

So, I’ve looked at the pro-life records of Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Congresswoman Bachmann has a very clean record of consistently being pro-life, without exception, from conception to natural death. She believes we should fight abortion at all levels. From my research, she is stronger in this area than Rick Santorum.

Sen. Santorum endorsed pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter and pro-partial-birth-abortion Gov. Christine Todd Whitman

He has contradicted himself on whether he should or should not have endorsed Specter. He said on Dec. 18, 2010, that he wouldn’t have supported Specter if he had known what Specter would do. He said Specter’s opponent, Pat Toomey, was a better representative for conservatives, but his decision to endorse Specter was “a strategic decision.” Then less than 4 months later, on April 27, 2011, he said that he would appoint Specter again.

In supporting former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, he stated:

I wish I could clone me and campaign only for people like me.’ But the fact of the matter is that Governor Whitman and I agree on 90 to 95 percent of the issues. And when I find someone I agree with on 90 to 95 percent of the issues, I enthusiastically campaign for them because they’re heading this country in the right direction.”

Also, Sen. Santorum has contributed to more than a dozen Republican supporters of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Through his former Fight-PAC, now known as the America’s Foundation PAC, he has steered more than $100,000 to Republican candidates known to support the pro-abortion position and embryonic stem cell research.

Santorum Endorsed Romney in 2008

Sen. Santorum endorsed pro-abortion, pro-homosexual-marriage, pro-government-health-care Gov. Mitt Romney for president in 2008. He did this while Gov. Mike Huckabee was still in the race. Sen. Santorum actually initiated his endorsement of Gov. Romney by telephoning the Romney campaign. Why would he do this? Another “calculated political decision,” he said, “that Romney was the stronger horse and had a better chance to win Super Tuesday with the resources he had.”

Things changed in March of this year when Sen. Santorum decided to run for president. He withdrew his past support for Romney, saying this election is “A different field; a different set of issues.”

If Sen. Santorum could state that Gov. Romney was a “true conservative” in 2008, and then believes he’s not a true conservative today, I believe that Sen. Santorum has the wrong priorities on what we need to look for in a candidate. Gov. Romney was just as objectionable to evangelical Christians in 2008 as he is today. Why, then, would we want to support a candidate like Sen. Santorum who endorsed Romney in the most recent presidential election?

Rick Santorum Voted for No Child Left Behind

Education is another reason my husband and I support Congresswoman Bachmann over Senator Santorum. As homeschooling parents, we prize our God-given right to educate our children the way we see fit, and we know that, according to the Constitution, the federal government may NOT get involved in education. Yet Sen. Santorum has worked against parents on at least two big-government education initiatives:

1. He has advocated IEPs (Individual Education Plans) for children. That means more federal government oversight into the lives of families. Also, Sen. Santorum doesn’t want to get rid of “all” of the Federal Department of Education. We support the candidate who does — Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. The federal DE is unconstitutional; it’s intrusive; and it usurps states’ rights. Leaders have to make tough decisions and Congresswoman Bachmann is willing to abolish this illegal department, not hang on to pieces of federal regulation, in violation of our Constitution, as Sen. Santorum proposes we do.

2. Sen. Santorum voted for No Child Left Behind, saying that it was good because it would show us how bad we are in education and give us a measuring point. That shows a deep lack of understanding by Sen. Santorum of the depth of government intrusion into education and families that was given an open door through No Child Left Behind.

Congresswoman Bachmann opposed NCLF, and even before she was elected to the Minnesota Senate, she took the fight across the state to successfully reject Goals 2000, making Minnesota the only state to overturn this federal educational intrusion.

Congresswoman Bachmann has first-hand experience in all forms of education – homeschool, private school and public school. Because Minnesota law prohibited homeschooling for foster children, the Bachmanns were able to experience first-hand the problems in public schools, so Michele did what she always does – she attacked the problem and founded a charter school that would give parents who had to use public schools more control over the teachers and curriculum.

Bachmann Refused to Raise the Debt Ceiling

We also appreciate Congresswoman Bachmann’s consistency on refusing to raise the debt ceiling. As a former tax attorney and a member of the House Financial Services Committee, she understands economics and this is just one more example of how the firm stands she takes in opposing the establishment when the establishment is wrong.

Meanwhile, Sen. Santorum voted multiple times to raise the debt ceiling, adding $3 trillion to our debt. Here’s a blog with roll-call votes.

Bachmann Shines on Foreign Policy

In foreign policy and national security, Congresswoman Bachmann outshines everyone. Even Speaker Gingrich, as well as Sen. Santorum, have been out of the information loop for a very long time. As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Congresswoman Bachmann is privy to classified information that very few know. She deals daily with various threats to our nation and, very importantly, she knows the mindset of terrorists because she understands that their behavior emanates from the teachings of Islam.

She also understands the threats of international law as she sees it being used by our courts and she has acted to protect us in that arena as well. She is an original co-sponsor of the Parental Rights Amendment in Congress (along with Iowa Congressmen Steve King and Tom Latham and Sen. Chuck Grassley) and she has made an unprecedented commitment: she will remove the United States as a signatory from a very insidious treaty – the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Bachmann is Strongest on Border Security

Immigration and border security are closely connected to our national security, as well as our economy. Congresswoman Bachmann is the ONLY candidate who has signed the Americans For Securing the Border pledge to build a date-certain double-fence across our entire southern border.

Bachmann is Electable

When Bachmann won the Iowa Straw Poll she proved that she can win against a slate of male competitors. She’s won every state and national election she’s entered. She is the one most uniquely positioned to defeat President Obama. An establishment Republican won’t defeat him, and a candidate with personal or political baggage won’t defeat him. Congresswoman Bachmann has a track record of winning elections and has the uncanny ability to rally conservatives of all stripes, tea party activists and conservative Democrats to support her because she is serving them.

We need someone like her, who will not buckle under and compromise our Constitution or God’s Word for short-term gain, because that is long-term loss. We have this ONE opportunity to get a true conservative in the presidency.

If we really want to keep Gov. Romney out of the race, we need to coalesce evangelicals and the tea party behind one candidate. We have an impenetrable case for supporting Congresswoman Bachmann. While the other candidates have been busy doing damage control as the media uncovers multiple problems in their past and present records, Congresswoman Bachmann is the only candidate who will not have to take things off the table when pitted against President Obama.

More importantly, she makes decisions the same way many of our Founding Fathers made decisions– on her knees.

Before deciding to run for congress in 2006, the Bachmanns sought counsel from the same Counselor as our Founding Fathers, as has been their practice for nearly four decades:

“… We took three days and we fasted and we prayed, and we said, ‘Lord is this what You want? Is this Your will?’ And after the fast, about the afternoon of day two, He made that calling sure.”

As a conservative Christian voter, I believe my responsibility is twofold:

1. Choose the most Biblical, Constitutional candidate whose life and record consistently attest to that fact.

2. Carry them to victory by supporting, promoting, endorsing and VOTING for them.

While all the candidates deserve credit for various conservative accomplishments, Michele Bachmann has remained a steady force with a solid, principled, conservative record. The Democrats fear her because she alone is the candidate who can defeat President Obama because she is the only one with no skeletons; no surprises.

Several thousand years ago, a young shepherd was overlooked in the search for a great warrior to defeat the giant Goliath. Nobody was capable of the challenge, and when the young shepherd came forward, he was ridiculed. But he was persistent because he knew he was the one who could do this. Five smooth stones later, Goliath was dead and the young shepherd eventually became the leader of the nation. (1 Samuel 17). Today, we have another “shepherd/warrior” — Michele Bachmann. She is the one who can defeat our “Goliath” of anti-Christian, socialistic, big-government intrusion on private families.

This election is too important to pick the wrong warrior. We don’t have to settle for less when we can gain the most. Remember the test of leadership:

If we fear man, we will act strategically; if we fear God, we will act Biblically. 

  • Me

    Congresswoman Bachmann also missed a TEA Party gathering to go back to Washington to vote FOR the extension of the PATRIOT Act when anyone with a respect for you your rights and freedoms would have voted against the unconstitutional piece of trash. Also, she in the debates voiced her support of torture…

    Oh yeah she’ll be a great president… not…

    • Anonymous

      Do you hold this same thing against Steve King? Would you vote for him after he voted for this? The very narrow aspects of the Patriot Act that she (and he) voted for are constitutional, and a part of one of the true purposes of our government- protecting our citizens.

      • Me

        Yes, I do hold the same thing against King. If he was primaried by someone who either did or would stand against it and I were right on all of the other major issues, I would primary for the other guy. If King would in the future vote against it or speak out that he made a mistake he may get my support in a primary. Also, If King was the best in the primary he would likely get my vote, as would he in the general election. But until he moved to eastern Iowa or I move west, or he runs for senate its a moot point.

        “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” -Ben Franklin

        “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” -James Madison

        In the primary/caucuses you should always vote for the best candidate(In the traditional conservative mindset, not the neoCon abomination). If Bachmann was the best I would support her, but she isn’t. If you choose to vote for the lesser of two evils later that is fine, sad that it had to happen but fine.

        Which brings up the question of 2008, McCain or Obama? Who is the lesser of two evils, both have terrible records. I personally could not justify voting for either of the scumbags.

  • PastorRayScott

    Rick Santorum endorsed Arlen Specter so he is bad and not christian enough. But Barb Hecki stole a list from NICHE to use to benefit Bachmann. Is stealing or endorsing one of the commandments? 

    • jeremiah1

      Santorum, 2012….. 

      • Anonymous

        I like Santorum, but his numbers are too low to have a reasonable shot at this point, but then so were Newt’s three weeks ago.  I value his voice in the debates. :)

  • http://profiles.google.com/coscottevans Scott Evans

    Michele Bachmann would sign child killing regulations if they cross her desk. That makes me wonder which part of “Thou shall not murder” she doesn’t understand.

  • jeremiah1

    so Bachmann believes in separation of church & state if she thinks women can’t be leaders in the home or church but can a “secular government”…. if that is true, then doesn’t that mean she’ll separate her religious beliefs from her governing philosophy?

  • jeremiah1

    Bachmann proved she can beat males by winning the straw poll… Really? The same straw poll that required a $30 ticket to vote, of which Bachmann herself paid for 6,000 tickets…. Interesting…. You mean the candidates who spent the most money (Bachmann & Paul) finished first and second… Weird….. Cue the Twilight Zone music…. Not to mention her paying Randy Travis to come and perform, and only allowing those who voted to enter his concert… Problem for Michele is people don’t need other people to pay for their votes come caucus night

  • Brian Symonten

    Several
    thousand years ago, a young shepherd was overlooked in the search for a
    great warrior to defeat the giant Goliath. Nobody was capable of the
    challenge, and when the young shepherd came forward, he was ridiculed.
    But he was persistent because he knew he was the one who could do this.
    Five smooth stones later, Goliath was dead and the young shepherd
    eventually became the leader of the nation. (1 Samuel 17)
    Well. Goliath, today his name is ROMNEY.  Michelle needs to take the smoothest stone she can find and aim it right at his forehead (metaphorically of course).  Michelle needs to stop telling us what she would do and instead SHOW US what she will do.

    • Anonymous

      I was thinking Romney is David and Obama is Goliath…

      • Jill

        Romney must be totally destroyed on stage by Bachmann.  She needs to SHOW US SHE IS OUR WARRIOR!

    • Anonymous

      Better yet, we are all David and Obama is Goliath.

      • Alex

        Romney is a RINO.  I will never vote for a RINO.

        • Anonymous

          RINO is a pejorative term.  “Republican In Name Only.”  Romney is not only a Republican, but a conservative businessman.  He’s achieved the American dream and is running to give back, serving 300 million Americans and future generations by fixing the economy, and he’s willing to do it for free.  If you don’t think that is a good thing I suggest you are an AINO, American In Name Only.

          MITT 2012!

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1247616156 Jared Mills

            He’s willing to do it for free? What does that mean? He’s willing to take a pass on the paycheck?

          • PaulT

            Mitt Romney is a known liar and political chamelion.  What is commendable about these characteristics?

  • James

    We so need a “I paid for this microphone” moment from Michelle Bachmann.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE

  • Michael

    This election is too important to pick the wrong warrior.

    Warriors ACT.  Bring us the head of Milt Romney (metaphorically) and then we will talk.

    Several
    thousand years ago, a young shepherd was overlooked in the search for a
    great warrior to defeat the giant Goliath. Nobody was capable of the
    challenge, and when the young shepherd came forward, he was ridiculed.
    But he was persistent because he knew he was the one who could do this.
    Five smooth stones later, Goliath was dead and the young shepherd
    eventually became the leader of the nation. (1 Samuel 17).
    The shepherd Came Forward.  He just didn’t talk about coming forward he CAME FORWARD.SO, come forward then Michelle Bachmann. Goliath – he now goes by the name Milt Romney, slay him in the field of combat (metaphorically speaking), prove your worthiness to join the line of IMMORTALS we call Presidents of the United States. For in the end, there can be only One.And you don’t get to be the one just by just talking about coming forward.COME FORWARD.  We have been waiting for you to do so!

    • Brian

      The whole question with Michelle Bachmann is whether or not she has the “Stones” to slay Goliath.

      What Bachmann has to understand is that we hate Milt Romney as much if not even more than Obama.

      Every time she doesn’t attack Romney we imagine her not attacking Obama. Every time she backs off attacking Romney we imagine her backing off an attack against Obama.  If she can’t destroy Romney (metaphorically) there is no way we can imagine her destroying Obama (metaphorically) or for that matter Ahmadinejad (hopefully more than metaphorically).

      Every time she sees Milt Romney she should be thinking Obama because that is what we think when we see him.  When we see her playing “softball” with Romney we imagine her playing softball with Obama. And then she wonders why we don’t trust her to be our warrior?  It’s because we see otherwise in these debates!

  • Anonymous

    Mitt Romney is NOT pro-abortion or pro-homosexual.

    He is pro-life, with possible exceptions in case of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother, and for traditional marriage 100%.

    Mitt is against discrimination in the workplace against anyone, but when it comes to marriage, he is very traditional and demonstrates that with his 42 year model marriage to Ann Romney.

    • Nathan

      Milt was strongly pro-choice.  That is BEFORE he decided to run for President.

      Kind of like how Al Gore was strongly pro-life. That is BEFORE he decided to run for President.

      So really the truth is that Milt doesn’t really have a personal position on the Life issue. To him, he sees even Life Itself in political terms.

      Don’t need someone so crassly political like that.

      Oh, as for his “model marriage”, the one thing you can’t say about Obama is that he doesn’t have a model marriage yet he is still a bad president.

      • Anonymous

        Yet his record as Governor of Massachusetts is perfect on the side of pro-life.  His conversion to be pro-life happened while he was Governor and was faced with a stem cell research bill, not when he decided it was time to run for President.  Convenient?  Is his glass half full or half empty?  Who cares!  He’s pro-life and a good example for those who ought to rethink pro-choice positions.  People like the early Ronald Reagan.

        I’ve met Mitt three times, and he is a VERY good and humble person.  He wants to be President so he can help 300 million Americans and future generations by fixing the economy.  No one else on the stage is going to do as good a job of it, and most would fail.

        It’s that simple.

        Mitt 2012!

        • Gregg Jackson

          Jed u gotta get off the Ronet cool aid.

          Romney is “pro life?”

          R u kidding me?

          He signed 50 abortions into law.

          He is as pro death as they come.

          Get off the cool aid Jedster…

          Give it a rest.

          Nobody of sound mound actually believes that Romney is conservative socially or economically.

          He is Barack Obama in a Reagan costume…

    • Anonymous

      And I will never, ever vote for Newt Gingrich.  And I am not the only one who believes that way.  Does that make him unelectable?

      I like Bachman, and while it doesn’t look like she will get the momentum to be President, she’d make a great VP!  We all want a conservative purist, but Mitt is running to be President of the United States, not President of the right vs the left.  He knows that.

      There are real reasons (a cousin who died from an unsafe abortion) why Mitt thought what he did about abortion before he was Governor of Massachusetts, but faced with the reality of signing legislation that would have allowed it, he took the side of life consistently and now argues for life regularly.  That’s better than the other way around!

      Trust his rightward conversion or not, Mitt really is a conservative and probably the most consistent conservative overall in this race other than maybe Santorum.

      • Jill

        There are real reasons (like the unlikelihood of a pro-life candidate being elected in Massachusetts) why Mitt thought what he did about abortion before he was Governor of Massachusetts.

        If one can even be political about LIFE that says all you need to know about a candidate.  I actually respect Obama much more because he says flat out that he’s my enemy!

        The wolf in sheep’s clothing is always THE GREAT OF THE TWO EVILS.  If we had listened to you four years ago the Tea Party would not exist!

        • Anonymous

          If Romney had run for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-life candidate, he would have lost, and there would be a lot more abortions in Massachusetts today than there are.  Romney vetoed legislation that would have allowed stem cell research out of concern for life.  His Democrat opponent would not have done so.  Sounds like a hero to me…  Has any candidate saved more lives to date?  How many more lives will he save as a pro-life President with a legal background that could help overturn Roe v Wade?  Mitt 2012.

        • Anonymous

          Also, if we had listened to me four years ago we would not need a tea party, because we would not have Obama! The Tea Party is a reaction to his extremism, and I am a proud member of it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1247616156 Jared Mills

      Romney signed legislation that authorized $50 co-pay abortions. Also Pro-life with exceptions is Pro-choice with fewer choices.

      He also demonstrated his support of traditional marriage by signing over a hundred gay marriage licenses. He didn’t have to do this, but chose to do it because the courts OPINION was to ask the Mass. legislator to pass a law allowing gay marriage. They did nothing, and that would have been the end of it but Romney had to bow to their wishes.

      How do you explain these things? As well as his stance on global warming, department of education and others? Those are the reasons I cannot vote for Romney.

      • Anonymous

        Romney did not sign legislation that authorized $50 co-pay abortions.  RomneyCare did not include any government insurance, only private sector insurance.  The court in Massachusetts decided that state sponsored insurance like Medicare would cover abortions, something RomneyCare had nothing to do with and Mitt Romney was against.

        You can learn more about this and Romney’s opposition to gay marriage at http://www.WhyRomney.com/

        Global warming? He says he doesn’t know how much humans contribute, if at all, and he won’t spend trillions, let alone pass a Cap and Trade program, without real numbers and proof it won’t harm the economy.

        Department of Education?  He supports turning over more if not all control to the states over curriculum.  He agreed with Jeb Bush that competition for school funds was a good idea to increase innovation in schools.  Jeb Bush is a Republican.  If anyone can improve American schools from the Presidency, it would be Mitt, who knows a thing or two about American education having graduated at the top of his class in both law and business at Harvard.

        Sounds like you got your reasons for not supporting Romney from his Primary opponents who are also trying to get elected.  Nothing wrong with that, but you can’t believe every generalization you hear about every candidate.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1247616156 Jared Mills

          OK, don’t even pretend to me that he has been consistent on global warming. I don’t have short term memory loss and I heard him say it with my own ears. Frankly, it’s insulting. Evidence that he once believed that man caused global warming:

          http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-04/news/29685848_1_global-warming-climate-change-greenhouse-gases

          http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/06/15/gore-romney-right-on-climate-change.html

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/is-flip-flopping-really-the-problem-with-romney-not-on-climate-change/2011/11/01/gIQAQDO6cM_blog.html

          http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20127273-503544/mitt-romneys-shifting-views-on-climate-change/

          On Education, this is what he said in a debate in 2007:

          “And as Senator McCain did, as he mentioned the flag issue — I have
          issues that take me in the same direction. One is No Child Left Behind.
          I’ve taken a position where, once upon a time, I said I wanted to
          eliminate the Department of Education. That was my position when I ran
          for Senate in 1994. That’s very popular with the base.

          As I’ve
          been a governor and seen the impact that the federal government can have
          holding down the interest of the teachers’ unions and instead putting
          the interests of the kids and the parents and the teachers first, I see
          that the Department of Education can actually make a difference. So I
          supported No Child Left Behind. I still do. I know there are a lot in my
          party that don’t like it, but I like testing in our schools. I think it
          allows us to get better schools, better teachers; allows us to let our
          kids have the kind of hope that they ought to have.
          I think, by
          the way, the civil rights issue of our time is not what’s going on on
          this stage right here, but what’s going on in the schools in the inner
          cities of America, because the kids are not getting the education they
          need for the jobs of tomorrow.

          And so I’m very proud of the position I’ve taken. I support the president in that regard, and that’s where I stand.”

          http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html?pagewanted=all (Near the bottom)

          I’ll post more on the other things later when I have time.

          • Anonymous

            I was brought up on global warming myself, but there is now enough evidence against it that I can’t agree with it.  Just last year a 20 year study came out that says greenhouse gasses can escape into space, so Earth has a safety valve.  Probably many.

            To me, Mitt’s positions are nuanced, not totally contradictory.  He demonstrates that he can see both sides of most issues and picks a position that involves conservative principles, like putting the economy first and, in this case, requiring more information, not just propaganda from Al Gore who has $100 million in green stock options, before making a substantial investment as a nation.  Mitt opted out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative when all but one other Governor in the area signed the compact.  That’s conservative.

            Government interference in education is becoming a serious liability for our kids.  No Child Left Behind means well, but what if the wrong principled people get a hold of the national program and start trying to redefine families, etc like ABC Family is doing on TV?  Responsibility for education belongs first to parents, then to states, and rarely if ever to a tyranical (in the wrong hands) federal government.  Of course, you are right that education is the civil rights issue of our time.  Mark Victor Hansen suggests that lack of awareness is the only real poverty.  (Something like that.)  We can solve poverty with awareness, IF schools were well equipped to teach it.  In some areas they are, in others not.

            Mitt is still our strongest candidate and I believe he would help make our schools better.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1247616156 Jared Mills

            I actually disagree that with you and Romney that education is the next civil rights. Education is not a right any more than health care or marrying who ever you want is. The real civil rights issue is the rights of the unborn to life. I can not trust Romney on this because of Romneycare. Yes, it didn’t include $50 co-pay abortions originally but the courts said he the “had to” include it. So did he stand up to the courts and say “no, you’re wrong”. No, he bowed to their wishes, just as he did with gay marriage. Romney can’t stand up to the courts on the important conservative issues and if he can’t do it in Mass he can’t do it on the national stage. Romney clearly won’t get rid of the department of education, and it will continue to grow and destroy the education system (what little is left that hasn’t been destroyed).

            The fact that Romney feels that education is a civil rights issue is disturbing. What else does he think is a right? The idea that we are entitled to so many things is the very issue we are fighting against. How can we trust a man who doesn’t even understand what is a right or not?

            Also, he won’t make our schools better by supporting No Child Left Behind which has done extreme damage to our school system.

          • Anonymous

            The failure of education is the reason #OWS is on the streets.  If our schools and communities were doing their jobs, we would all have a fair shake at success and no one would need to be envious of Wall Street or anyone else providing value to society.

            If we can fix education, we are well on our way to fixing poverty, without handouts.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1247616156 Jared Mills

            But how long is it till everything is a right is what I’m asking? And NCLB has made things WORSE. If Romney supports this, how is he going to help education? As far as it being a civil rights issue:

            “I think, by the way, the civil rights issue of our time is not what’s going on on this stage right here, but what’s going on in the schools in the inner
            cities of America, because the kids are not getting the education they
            need for the jobs of tomorrow.”

          • Anonymous

            Civil right is probably a poor choice of term, but education in the above context (inner cities) IS an extension of the actual civil rights movement.  I think as a nation we have all of the “rights” we need right now and perhaps too many as opposed to too few.  We are blessed to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and property.  The problem comes when we think entitlements are rights.  Entitlements come at the expense of the liberty of others.  Good education helps us enjoy our life, liberty, and pursuits of happiness and property.  Bad education makes us think we deserve these things without doing the work and taking advantage of the same opportunities successful people do.  America must remain a land of opportunity, not a land of entitlements, which is another reason Romney, whose father was a paint salesman before he became Governor of Michigan, is a good example for the kids of America, including those in inner cities.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1247616156 Jared Mills

            My point is, what Romney says indicates that he thinks good education is a right. What is next that he’ll think is a right? I choose not to find out what that is.

          • Anonymous

            No Child Left Behind fails because it is a federal program dictating to the states and to parents.  What is a good idea is making schools compete for funds through innovation, something that has been lacking in schools for decades.  Even Obama gets that, but he still fails on education because he is beholden to Teacher’s Unions and believes the Department of Education is smarter than parents and States.

        • Jill

          If Romney’s the Republican Candidate I am voting OBAMA.

          If our country is going to be destroyed I rather the Democrats do it.

          By the way, I hear that Romney is trying to get Bush’s support. That alone proves he is an enemy to America!

          • Jill

            I was talking about Daddy Bush.

            But you mentioned Jeb Bush. You said he is a Republican. No, Jeb Bush is a Bush. If you want the Republican party to be just about the Bushes change the name from the Republican Party to the Bush Party.

            Wow, the way you worship the Bushes makes you sound like you are some kind of Cult. Well you may be trying to shove that kool-aid down my throat but I am not swallowing it.

            You are nothing but a BUSH BOT!  A McCAINIAC.  And now a Romneytron.  You just do whatever the party elite tells you to do. 

            Go hop on a comet!

          • Anonymous

            Never voted for McCain.  I wrote in Romney in 2008 because he should be President.  (Would not have made a difference in my state, anyway.)

            I did support Bush in 2004 and he was better than Kerry or Gore, but I, too, was disappointed by a few of his actions.  You don’t declare eternal, open ended wars.  If you do go to war, you get your objectives done and that’s it, with only minimal presence afterward.  You make promises you can keep and you keep them, which builds trust among those you are there to help.

            Jeb Bush is also a good person who probably has no chance at President after George, but he is still doing some good in the world.

            To me, Gingrich is the new McCain, and Romney is to his right by a lot, whether you give Mitt credit or not.

  • Susan Hanson

    Barb Heki has brought up the “warrior analogy”.

    So, yeah, lets talk about this metaphorically.

    Don’t tell us you are a “Warrior Princess”. SHOW US. Show us by destroying our enemy Milt Romney (metaphorically of course).

    SHOW US!

    You haven’t been showing us that in the debates! In fact every time we see you play “softball” with Romney we imagine that this is how you would handle Obama.

    Five smooth stones later, Goliath was dead and the young shepherd eventually became the leader of the nation.But that’s the whole question about Bachmann isn’t it. Does she have the stones?Goliath’s name at this point in time is Milt Romney.  No one is stopping you from proving to be the warrior you claim to be (metaphorically).But don’t tell us… SHOW US!

  • Larry T.

    The second that Michelle Bachmann gives us a “I paid for this Microphone” moment this whole campaign will move to her favor.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE

  • Matt

    You don’t defeat Ivan Drago on points.

    Not when it’s “Russian Judges” rating the score cards.

    No the only way to defeat Ivan Drago is by KNOCKOUT!

    Going the distance just isn’t enough.

  • Bill H

    I simply cannot vote for Mrs. Bachmann because she is a women. To justify one’s position for a women president from biblical examples, one has to use extremely poor hermeneutics. First, this goes against God’s created order and many other points afterwards. I have heard of every argument from Debra to the deaconess in Romans. These are two examples of women fulfilling rolls within the church government not civil government. Women never wielded the sword which is the primary purpose of civil government. Can anyone offer me an example from the Bible where a women fulfills a civil office that is blessed by God?

    • Ron

      I would agree with Bill H – there are other issues that also must be addressed — biblically a woman’s role, i.e. her jurisdiction, is to be a ‘household manager’ see Titus 2 – the consequences of not obeying God’s Word here is to ‘blaspheme’ His Word.  This is exactly what is occurring – it is tremendously sad and disappointing that women neglect in mass the commandments of God – and undermine the authority of Scritpure and rather than honor His Word and rejoice in their jurisdiction as home manager, identify rather with the Proverbs woman – whose feet do not stay at home.  Remember Prov. 28:9 – “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer [shall be] abomination.”

      • Erik Goodale

        So please explain:

        Deborah, prophet and judge of Israel who went with Barak to the battlefield.  Given your interpretation of Titus, the battle should have been lost and Deborah’s judgements cursed for she was stepping outside her role of household manager.  And to contrary to Bill’s assertion, the judges of Israel were the civil government not church government (priests and Levites).

        Huldah, the prophet whom King Josiah (the most devout of the kings since David) consulted when the Law of Moses was rediscovered.  Given your interpretation, the king never should have consulted her.  Her prophecy also should not have come to pass for she was outside of her role as household manager.

        Esther, advocate for the Hebrew people risking death in the process.  Given your interpretation, God should have used Mordecai, not Esther, for she should have simply remained within her jurisdiction as household manager and not meddled in political affairs.

        Priscilla, evangelist along with her husband, Aquila.  However, Priscilla is always referred to first in the book of Acts and Paul’s letters and in that culture and time period one always referred to the more important individual first.  Given your interpretation, Priscilla should have been referred to secondarily if at all.  This is assuming of course that she even became an evangelist as that naturally steps out of her jurisdiction as household manager, especially given that she would correct Apollos (a man) regarding baptism.

        Phoebe, deacon of the church of Cenchreae.  I use the term “deacon” as opposed to “deaconess” as the Greek uses the masculine form of “diakonos” for her title.  Given your interpretation, Paul should not be telling the Romans to receive her kindly but to expel her as a heretic for stepping outside of her jurisdiction as household manager.

        Mary Magdalene, Mary (the mother of James), Joanna, Salome, and the other unnamed women who went to Christ’s tomb.  Jesus told them to go and tell the disciples despite the fact that Jewish law said a woman’s testimony was to be ignored.  Given your interpretation, Jesus should have praised the disciples for not believing their testimony as they were following the law.  Instead he scolded them.

        • Bill H

          Thank you Erik, for responding to me. You have listed some very honorable women in the bible. Out of the ones you listed, I still do not understand how you can determine they fulfilled a civil office. Deborah is first described as a prophet then a wife who was performing the act of judging. The position of prophet and wife are obviously not offices in the civil government. The act of judging does not make one a judge. I know I judge every day, but I am not a judge. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines “a judge as a civil officer who is invested with authority to hear and determine causes, civil or criminal, between parties”. The key factor in this definition is one who is invested with authority. Does the bible say God raised her up to be a deliverer or savior? The typical pattern of the judges is evil in the sight of our LORD, people cry, God raises (appoints), the sword is wielded. Does Deborah wield the sword? What pattern do we see with Deborah? It appears to me that the people of Israel never cried out for mercy and was still in rebellion when Deborah was judging. Also, because Barak was passive (not unless you go with me) Deborah told Barak that his actions will not bring him glory. (Sounds like the Fall, She made me eat.) So, what does this say about today? The President wields the sword, just ask anyone in the military, past or present. Will God bless us if we have a woman wielding the sword?
          Huldah –  the prophet, Ester – advocate, Priscilla – evangelist, Phoebe – deacon(ess), Mary Magdalene , Mary (the mother of James) , & other unnamed women – gave testimony.  All these women are directly mentioned as a wife or mother with the exception of Phoebe. So the normal, expected, preferred state is marriage. Marriage is to produce Godly offspring for God’s glory. This is not to say that a woman’s soul purpose is wife and mother, Proverbs 31, but this is her primary role or household manager. Which goes back to Genesis and God’s created order and brings me back to my original question, can anyone offer me an example from the Bible where a women fulfills a civil office that is blessed by God?

          • Erik Goodale

            You are welcome.  I am going to focus on Deborah and should clarify that I mentioned the other women not as examples of women in civil government, but as examples of Biblical women who were not solely limited to the jurisdiction of household as Ron argued.

            1.)  Was Deborah really a judge?
            The Bible specifically states that Deborah was serving as a judge of Israel and that the people would come to her for her decisions.  Deborah was the one who sent for Barak and told him that the Lord would give him victory.  So we are not just talking about a woman who engaged in the act of day to day judging.  We are talking about a woman who was in a position of authority both in hearing cases from the people (just like our present day judges) and giving commands (unfortunately also like our present day judges, but also like governors and presidents).  Remember, we are talking about a culture/society that was far more patriarchal than ours so if Deborah had not possessed that authority, Barak would not have even given her the time of day.

            2.)  Typical pattern:  Evil in God’s sight, then people cry out, God appoints, sword is wielded…
            In the book of Judges it states that after Ehud died the Israelites
            sinned and were allowed to be conquered by the Canaanites.  Then the
            people of Israel cried to the Lord for help.  It then goes on to talk about Deborah.  So the first part of the pattern is consistent.  Now, I will grant you that Scripture does not have Deborah directly wielding the sword.  However, she did wield the sword in the sense that she summoned Barak, gave him specific orders regarding how many troops to take and from which Israelite tribes, and went to the battlefield with Barak when he doubted and wanted her presence as assurance.  This is very similar to what our president does.  Also, if Deborah not directly wielding a sword disqualifies her then Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Eli, and Samuel must be disqualified as well, for the Bible makes no reference that during their times as judges did any of them directly wield the sword, lead troops to battle, or in the case of Tola, Jair, Isban, Elon, and Abdon that there even were any battles.

            3.)  Barak’s “passivity” will God bless us?
            I would not use “passive” to describe Barak, but “doubtful/fearful” hence his request for Deborah to accompany him as an assurance of God’s promise as opposed to simply trusting God to give him victory.  I believe this to be the real sin in this story for if the sin was to have a woman on the battlefield the battle should have been lost.  As it was, the battle was won and the glory of killing Sisera went to a woman (Jael) due to Barak’s lack of faith.  The story concludes that there was peace in the land for forty years so I would say that Deborah’s service to Israel was blessed by God.

          • Bill H

            Erik, evidentially my response didn’t  get posted.  Shalom, my brother!
            1.)  Was Deborah really a judge?I agree she is serving as judge (similar to present day judges), but is this office equivalent to the office of ruler or our terminology, President. Did she really command Barak to get the army of men together from a specific tribe, or did she simply remind Barak of something God had already commanded him? This is a big difference.
            2.)  Typical pattern:  Evil in God’s sight, then people cry out, God appoints, sword is wielded…After the people cry out in the story of Deborah, please show me were God’s Word has anything about raising up/appoints anyone especially someone that saves Israel. The argument “wielding in a sense” can be used in every husband/wife relationship, but who is the God appoint as head? The specific order comment all hinges on whether Deborah is simply reminding Barak or issuing commands.  The bible says she is a prophetess and wife judging not one who is to save Israel. I really don’t understand how anyone can stretch God’s Word and make her hold an office of judge or leader. As far as the rest, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Eli, and Samuel are all males that could have been used in battle and wield the sword according to the Law, but women never were allowed in the army.   
            3.)  Barak’s “passivity” will God bless us?Yes, agreed. The sin is the disobedience of Barak in failing to trust God at his word as it is with me.  The land had rest and that is very different from peace. Peace is a blessing.  

          • Erik Goodale

            Thank you and peace be with you as well!

            1.)  As there were no kings during that time I would say that yes the Judges were the closest thing to rulers/governors/presidents in that period of Israel’s history.  Regarding did she really command Barak, this gets ticklish as King James has it written as “Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded…” which I agree sounds more like a reminder.  However, the NIV and NRSV has: “The Lord [the] God of Israel commands you…”  (the bracketed “the” is in NRSV but not NIV) which is much more commanding.  As I don’t know Hebrew I can’t say which is more accurate.  However, I also know that even a reminder can have a command within it such as when I have said to my nieces, “Didn’t your mother/father tell you to do X?”  I was not just reminding them, I was also telling them to do “X”.
            2.)  Scriptures states she was judging/leading (depending again on translation) Israel.  As a prophet she by definition had to be appointed by God or he would not have spoken through her.  Does Scripture specifically say God appointed her as judge to save Israel?  No.  But again to require such a specific statement of Deborah you must also apply it to the aforementioned male judges thereby eliminating them as well.  Furthermore, another leader/judge who actually served in a military capacity (Jephthah) must be eliminated as well because Scripture does not have God appointing him, but the people turning to him as their leader.  Regarding the literal use of the sword, the simple fact is the
            3.)  Again a translation issue but I will disagree with you in that I do not see a meaningful difference between the two.  For the land to be at rest then there must be peace.  “the land had rest” is also used following Ehud’s time as judge, while “the country was in quietness” is used for Gideon.  I think it is safe for both of those to be translated to peace as well.  Regardless, to say that God blessed either man’s service as judge means you have to say Deborah’s service was blessed as well.

    • Mike

      I can hardly believe what I’m reading, you cannot vote for a person however qualified they may be constitutionally and morally because that person is a woman? Does the name Margaret Thatcher mean anything to you? She was a strong leader that came along right when her country needed one. You would rather vote for a two-faced political chameleon and a proven (Unbeknownst to Me There Was a Hidden Camera in the Console) bald-faced liar who single-handedly brought homosexual marriage to America by violating his states Constitution to do it Romney merely because Bachmann is a woman!

       
      In case you haven’t been following history supporting these two-faced establishment moderate to liberal Republicans is why we were are always losing ground in restoring our constitutional republic, it’s insane to keep doing the same thing over and over and honestly expecting a different outcome. We are at the precipice of becoming a socialist nation are turning back from it and you’re actually going to make probably the most important decision in modern American politics based on a person’s gender?

       
      God truly help us when the blind are leading the blind.

  • Jacob T. Johns

    If Michelle Bachmann doesn’t have a “Nashua Moment” and soon her campaign will be over.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE

  • Gregg Jackson

    This “Jed Merrill” is REALLY drunk on the Romney Kool Aid!

    Jed, everything you have said publicly here in defense of Romney being solidly “pro-life” and “pro-marriage” is a bald faced lie.

    Here is the documentation that proves the exact opposite Jed! You have to stop guzzlng the Romney Kool Aid brother…You are drunk on the stuff!

    http://greggjackson.com/blog/?p=471

  • Ethan

    Since my first Reagan-Bush campaign 30 years ago, I’ve been told to pray for a Born-again, Bible-believing Christian with a Biblical World View to be president.  I’ve championed that idea thousands of times over the years in print, radio, TV, and personal appearances.  Tirelessly I’ve exhorted, encouraged, and exclaimed that America is in God’s judgment (withdrawal of His Grace) and that 2 Chr 7:14 is the first step.  And the second part is a candidate.  Michele Bachmann is that candidate. I encourage you to consider the words of our Lord  who said, “I set before you Blessing and Cursing. Choose life.”  Folks if we get this one wrong, America will become a by-word in history, judgment for our personal sin and national sin will minimize America’s influence, and our children and grandchildren will inherit a wasteland. 

  • kjanssen

    Barb you really did your homework, Great job!  Michele will make an incredible President. What a dream come true to have a President that has the same values my family has. 

  • SC4Bachmann

    Michele is a good person and an even better representative of the american voice! She will be an awesome president and its about time that the white house is ran by a common since TEA party leader! God bless america and God Bless Michele Bachmann

  • Larry T

    The following link is to an article that I think articulates better than any other I have read, and I have read many, why Tea Party members need to support Michele Bachmann.
     
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43018

  • http://www.facebook.com/Tom.DodsonUSA1 Tom Dodson

    I came to the same conclusion many months ago,.   Consistent Conservative made of the right stuff and country first.  What else could someone need ?

  • Pingback: Three states raid anti-pollution funds

  • http://twitter.com/DavidCrespoUSA David Crespo

     I enjoyed reading your article. It makes a very good case about Michele Bachmann.

  • Carmelo Junior

    God bless Michelle Bachmann. She is America’s Deborah!!!

Deace on TV