MICHELE BACHMANN: Her Defense Of Torture, On The Constitution, Farm Subsidies, Federal $$$$ For Her Husband’s Clinic, And Her Incoherent Position On Homosexual “Marriage”….

— Torture: OK, LET’S LOOK a bit at Michele Bachmann. She says she’s a pro-life Christian but defends torture; somewhat of a contradiction to me; waiting for someone to ask her about this. So far, nobody has. Here’s her torture view, with my comments, from Fox News (O’Reilly, 11/9/10); topic was George Bush’s new book, some recent interviews, in which Bush admits and defends his ordering and approving the use of torture:

BACHMANN (re: why some on the “Left” think we’re bad because we torture): Well, it almost seems as though they need to come up with some sort of a case to defend the people who are making this action, the radical terrorist. And here, take a look at the terrorist, who have beheaded people like Daniel Pearl. They don’t think twice about that….they’re trying to find some sort of a defense here, because it seems that America is always wrong. America is always the bad guy in their scenario…We’re not.

COMMENT: Huh? To denounce torture is really about trying to make a case for the “terrorists?!” Yep, that’s what the lady said — which is ridiculous. No, I think some on the “Left” think we’re bad people because people who torture people are bad people!

BACHMANN (still on topic of anti-torture people on the “Left”): And, they continue to take the side that is always running America into the ground.

COMMENT: When President Bush approved and ordered torture, it was Bush who was the one “running America into the ground.”

BACHMANN: But, there is no commonality between American soldiers and what American soldiers do and terrorists, who would blow up buildings and kill 3,000 innocent people and then proclaim that they want to continue to take acts of violence like that forward. There is no moral equality if you will between what our American soldiers are doing and the terrorists. And, we need to stand clearly with the side of common sense and national security.

COMMENT: Bachmann here rushes into a topic where angels should fear to tread, that is our atrocities versus their atrocities. First, torture itself is terrorism! So, when Bachmann defends torture then she is a terrorist! In addition, we’ve acted as “terrorists” in our current two unGodly, unConstitutional wars. In Iraq, “shock and awe,” remember? What is that other than, in apart, an attempt to “terrorize?” Napalming villages/people in Vietnam War was “terror.” Two atom bombs on open Japanese cities was “terror.” The entire Allied bombing campaign in WW2 that killed/murdered hundreds of thousands was “terror.” No, Bachmann does not want to go there.

BACHMANN (re: Bush ordering, approving torture): The president was only doing what we would expect him to do.

COMMENT: And, presumably, Osama bin Laden & Al-Qaeda are just doing what millions of Muslims expect them to do when they terrorize us!

BACHMANN: Had he not garnered that information? Had some terrible tragic accident occurred? The president would have been blamed, I dare say, by the same people who are accusing him.

COMMENT: Maybe. Most likely true. But, so what?! The prospect of being criticized for not torturing is not a rationale for torturing!

— Farm Subsidies, Her Huband’s Federal $$$$$: OK, LET’S LOOK AT BACHMANN and the Constitution. She speaks often in favor of the Constitution but seems not to know what it allows, what it prohibits. On “Fox News Sunday” (6/26/11), explaining “A farm, in which you are a partner, that got almost $260,000 in federal subsidies,” she said: “Regarding the farm, the farm is my father-in-law’s farm. It’s not my husband and my farm. It’s my father-in-law’s farm. And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm.” So, evidently, farm subsidies, though unConstitutional, are OK.

On the same program, Bachmann explained almost $30,000 given in State/Federal funds to counseling clinic run by her husband. She, obviously, does not believe such Fed funding unConstitutional:

BACHMANN: “First of all, the money that went to the clinic was actually training money for employees. The clinic did not get the money. And my husband and I did not get the money either. That’s mental health training money that went to employees…..

“WALLACE: In terms of the money — and, obviously, I don’t know the details nearly as well as you do about the clinic that’s run by your husband. If you say money is going to employees, that — I mean, if he runs the clinic, that would seem to be benefiting you guys….

BACHMANN: “Actually, it did not. It actually took away from the clinic, because these were training hours where employees were not able to bring more income in. This is one-time training money that came in from the federal government. And it certainly didn’t help our clinic. It was something that was additional training to help employees.

— Homosexual “Marriage”: FINALLY, FOR NOW, Bachmann’s position on homosexual “marriage” — what she thinks of NY making this “legal” — is a train wreck of a reply, truly incoherent, how she’s for States defining “marriage” (which they can NEVER do because God has already defined it forever) but also for Fed Const Amend which would PROHIBIT States from allowing homo “marriage.” Here’s entire exchange (FOX, 6/26/11):

WALLACE: You are a strong opponent of same-marriage. What do you think of the law that was just passed in New York state — making it the biggest state to recognize same-sex marriage?

BACHMANN: Well, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I also believe — in Minnesota, for instance, this year, the legislature put on the ballot for people to vote in 2012, whether the people want to vote on the definition of marriage as one man, one woman. In New York state, they have a passed the law at the state legislative level. And under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to set the laws that they want to set.

WALLACE: So, even though you oppose it, then it’s OK from your point for New York to say that same-sex marriage is legal?

BACHMANN: That is up the people of New York. I think that it’s best to allow the people to decide on this issue. I think it’s best if there’s an amendment that goes on the ballot where the people can weigh in. Every time this issue has gone on the ballot, the people have voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage as recently as California in 2008.

WALLACE: But you would agree if it’s passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor, then that’s a state’s position.

BACHMANN: It’s a state law. And the 10th Amendment reserves for the states that right.

WALLACE: All right. I want to follow up on that, because I’m confused by your position on this. Here’s what you said in the New Hampshire debate. Let’s put it on.

BEGIN VIDEO CLIP

BACHMANN: I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.

END VIDEO CLIP

WALLACE: That’s why I’m confused. If you support state rights, why you also support a constitutional amendment which would prevent any state from recognizing same-sex marriage?

BACHMANN: Well, because that’s entirely consistent, that states have, under the 10th Amendment, the right to pass any law they like. Also, federal officials at the federal level have the right to also put forth a constitutional amendment. One thing that we do know on marriage, this issue will ultimately end up in the courts, in the Supreme Court. I do not believe the judges should be legislating from the bench.

As president of the United States, I would not appoint judges who are activists —

WALLACE: But this has nothing to do with the judges.

BACHMANN: — who want — who want to legislate from the bench. Under the federal government, again, federal representative can put forward a federal constitutional amendment because ultimately, with states having various laws, the federal government —

CROSSTALK

WALLACE: My point is this, do you want to say it’s a state issue and that states should be able to decide? Or would like to see a constitutional amendment so that it’s banned everywhere?

BACHMANN: It is — it is both. It is a state issue and it’s a federal issue. It’s important for your viewers to know that federal law will trump state law on this issue. And it’s also — this is why it’s important —

WALLACE: And you would federal law to trump state law?

BACHMANN: Chris, this is why it’s so important because President Obama has come out and said he will not uphold the law of the land, which is the Defense of Marriage Act. The Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act and Bill Clinton signed it into law, to make sure that a state like New York passed a definition of marriage other one man, one woman, that other states wouldn’t be forced to recognize New York’s law.

WALLACE: But just real quickly —

BACHMANN: And President Obama has said —

WALLACE: Congresswoman, if I may —

BACHMANN: Let me just finish this. In opposition to what is supposed to do, he is charged with executing our laws, whether he likes them or no. That’s why this is so crucial. That’s why I think you may see again a rise at the federal government level for a — a call for the federal constitutional amendment, because people want to make sure that this definition of marriage remains secure, because after all, the family is the fundamental unit of government.

WALLACE: So, just briefly, you would support a constitutional amendment that would overturn the New York state law?

BACHMANN: Yes, I would. I would. That is not inconsistent, because the states have the right under the 10th Amendment to do what they’d like to do. But the federal government also has the right to pass the federal constitutional amendment. It’s a high hurdle, as you know.

We only have 27 amendments to the federal constitution. It’s very difficult. But certainly, it will either go to the courts, or the people’s representatives at the federal level.