Lying was part of the career strategy that brought Bachmann to the top, so she's not going to give it up now. She spoke at Liberty University in Virginia (Jerry Falwell's old stomping grounds) and claimed that Obamacare would subsidize abortion with taxpayer dollars.
And that's a lie, it's already been exposed as a lie--but she's sticking with it, and telling that lie to fellow evangelical conservatives.
Here's the story, from Minnesota Public Radio's Brett Neely.
(CONTINUED)
Bachmann worked hard to tie together her social conservatism and her economic conservatism, including this debunked claim about last year's health care law.
"Obamacare is the first time in the history of our nation that we have taxpayer subsidized abortion," she said.
An amendment to the bill forbids federal money from going towards abortions, but Bachmann's assertion struck a chord with the friendly audience in Lynchburg, as did much of her speech weaving together her brand of Christianity and her political message.
This is what the Minnesota political media should have been doing all along--nailing Bachmann lies as soon as they escaped her lips.
This one was actually ruled to be a lie when Bachmann's longtime supporters, the Susan B. Anthony list made the same claim. As pointed out in a link in the MPR article, a court ruled as follows:
"The express language of (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/Obamcare) does not provide for tax-payer funded abortion. That is a fact, and it is clear on its face."
So what Bachmann told all those fellow believers was lie, a d***d lie exposed months ago. I don't understand why *no pastors, anywhere, ever criticize her publicly for embracing a political strategy that depends on lying. (Even Tim Pawlenty did that.)
Isn't the documented record long enough for America's pastors? Isn't there a real danger here--that people who understand that Bachmann regularly lies for political effect, will conclude that Christians think that lying is somehow "okay, now," if a believer is the one doing the lying? I mean: here we have another case of her lying to an audience of conservative Christian faithful. Since when was that okay, with the evangelical community's spiritual and moral leaders?
Here's a link to the MPR report on Bachmann telling this lie:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/...
And here's a link explaining why it's a lie:
http://thehill.com/...
One thing bugs me in the reporting: why, years later, are reporters still using the euphemism "social conservatism" when they are talking about "Christian conservatism" or "evangelical Christian conservatism?" Christian conservatives and evangelical conservatives don't confine themselves to that euphemism to describe their political worldview, during their broadcasting or in their political coverage.
They tend to use the word "Christian" to describe their worldview--as if their sectarian brand of conservatism was the political expression of Christianity. (It isn't. There are uncounted millions of Christians around the world who don't agree that the Bible and Christian faith requires adoption of the evangelical conservative political program.)
I always object to the use of the euphemism "social conservative" to describe the political worldview of conservative Christians to the public at large. It tells readers who aren't familiar with the movement nothing. Nothing about the movement's political agenda, nothing about the people who direct the movement, nothing about its goal of introducing sectarian religious values into American policymaking.
I understand why professional media would want to refrain from calling these guys what they are (not "social conservatives," but "Christian conservatives," "evangelical conservatives.") The professional media would get a s**t-storm of letters and complaints from the millions of Christians who object that these people in no way represent "true Christianity or a truly Christian worldview."
But that's no excuse. "Social conservative" tells the casual reader nothing about the movement's motivations or agenda. (Even "anti-abortion conservatives" would be a more accurate and informative term, for the casual reader.) Use of the term "social conservative" by reporters actually aids the evangelical conservative movement, by concealing its core political motivation from readers.
It's cowardly, on the part of the media. If they know "it's about sectarian religion," then they should use a term that indicates "it's about sectarian religion." (The equivalent would be regularly identifying "the oil industry" to readers as "the natural energy developers.")
In the last few years, it's become more common for more responsible reporters and editors to use the term "evangelical conservative" or "conservative evangelical." That's a good trend; it helps voters to identify what the movement is about and what it wants. But there's still too many in the press who are hanging on to that deceptive, self-serving euphemism...