Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Image by Gage Skidmore
Previously on the campaign trail, Michele Bachmann explained that her work as an IRS agent was responsible for creating her anti-tax fervor. But yesterday in South Carolina, the Minnesota Congresswoman offered another, more sinister explanation for her work. She claimed that she was in fact a “mole” in the US Government agency.
“We change the economy by changing the tax code. How many of you love the IRS? No! It’s time to change it. I went to work in that system because the first rule of war is ‘know your enemy.’ So I went to the inside to learn how they work because I wanted to beat them.”
While this explanation might have been offered to appease the more hardcore conservative base, this statement actually could be quite damaging, if not incriminating to Mrs Bachmann. The reason it might be is easily found in the oath of office that IRS people are required to take:
5 U.S.C. § 3331 sets forth the oath required of members of Congress and other federal officials (including Cabinet officials) other than the President and judges:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
But Michele claims she was essentially, if not literally in violation of that oath to our nation and our Constitution. She admits this freely and without reservation or coercion. And what she is admitting to is being a traitor to our country.
Yeah, I said it. And it’s simple. Michele gladly claims the US Government, for which she worked for in the IRS, was “the enemy.” She brags about her intent to take them down from the inside.. Read 5 U.S.C. § 3331. It doesn’t sound like she was bearing “true faith and witness” nor was she, by her own gleeful admission, “without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”
She swore that to the Constitution, and to the God she claims to follow faithfully.
Is Michele Bachmann guilty of treason by her own, in context, non cropped words?
See the video here;
I don’t even like Bachmann much, and I highly doubt the claim of hers about her purpose in joining the IRS, but this accusation of treason seems pretty ridiculous to me. The IRS is not the constitution. The oath was to uphold the constitution not our tax code. Even so, she could have faithfully executed her duties while also trying to learn about the system in order to some day be in better position to be a part of repealing or modifying the system. It would be like somebody against prohibition (either back in the days of alcohol prohibition, or the current prohibition on other drugs) joining the police force to better learn about the system and then be a better advocate against the system (maybe like someone wanting to become a part of LEAP: http://www.leap.cc/ ). And Alcohol prohibition actually was specifically part of the constitution for awhile. Would you think it would also be treason for some at that time to say that prohibition was their “enemy” and they wanted to “beat” it? Parts of the government can be changed by law and the constitution can be legally amended, so saying that a part of the government or the constitution is your “enemy” and that you want to “beat” it (aka “change it legally”) is not treason.
Which would seem to imply that this is not our currently reality? Wake the hell up.
The other side of the term limit argument is that, free of the urge to collect as many bribes as possible, free of the need to campaign, a lame duck could possibly just occasionally do the right thing, occasionally do some damn work instead of campaigning 30 hours out every 40, stop spending time with lobbyists and primping for the cameras.
The only reason that governing is complex is because these scumbags MAKE it complex, and when they disappear and take their “institutional Knowledge” with them, the government seems to survive that loss, which bolsters my original statement, the clerks, staff and lobbyists ALREADY insure continuity.
Death, I tell you, Death to the enemies of I dunno, someone. I know, already dead people. Death, Death I say, Death to rotting corpses!
Michele claims she and admitted to is being a traitor to our country and in violation of that oath to our nation and our Constitution. She admits this freely and without reservation or coercion. Bachmann stresses TEA party, indeed! The TEA party has subverted any sanity, the once proud and now defunct GOP had, and made them irrelevant! TEA party-ers have been doing everything they could to do away with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid! TEA party members are working to inhibit or destroy! The TEA party has subverted any sanity, the once proud and now defunct GOP had, and made them irrelevant! All confidence in America has been abrogated due to the TEA party! This is a summary of the TEA party! What is most treasonous is the blatant lying the TEA party-ers are in this confrontational election cycle! These confrontational tactics have taken the TEA party to new heights and made the GOP a defunct group, subverted by sanity and taken the once proud GOP to the fringe of lunacy! These Yahoos are not representing the American people they are on a bigoted crusade to take down a black president! This is the TEA party’s only agenda!
Eh, she’s just trying to justify how she could have worked for an agency that her fans consider “the enemy.” Let’s not get too carried away here.
The issue is not whether she committed “treason” but whether she’s a hypocritical, manipulative coward who’s kowtowing to the most know-nothing elements of our country. Guilty as charged.
I’d agree, but I think that in addition to trying to distance herself from that job, she is also trying to dismiss her original story about getting her post-doctorate degree in tax law because her husband told her to do it and her religious belief in being submissive to her husband. That story resulted in this question, that I’m pretty sure she would dearly like to avoid for the rest of her campaign:
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/142758/why-reporter-asked-michele-bachmann-as-president-would-you-be-submissive-to-your-husband/
I’d agree with you, but I think that in addition to trying to distance herself from that job….
I think she would dearly like to avoid being asked the question she was asked recently, EVER again while campaigning. The question came about due to her initial story about why she got her post-doctorate degree in tax law; she said she did it because her husband told her to and due to her religious belief that she should be submissive to her husband.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/142758/why-reporter-asked-michele-bachmann-as-president-would-you-be-submissive-to-your-husband/
I’m not going to pretend like this is treason. It isn’t. But it is criminal. She broke her oath. And I’m sure she’ll claim that she didn’t understand or some such non-sense. But whether this bat-hat crazy woman is ignorant of her violation or not, she should still be tried and convicted to breaking her oath. Ignorance of the law in not an excuse. “Sorry officer, I didn’t know the speed limit was 35…” won’t get you free. “Sorry Agent, I didn’t realize selling these plans to the Iranians was illegal…” won’t stop you from going to jail. She needs to be blown out of the water, all her lies exposed, so that the tea-baggers (and look up the real definition of that will ya?) can see that they are having their ignorance manipulated to keep the rich rich, and the middle class getting more and more poor. Send her to jail.
These are really great posts. That said, I tend to agree with iggie75 on this one. Ms. Bachmann doesn’t have the wherewithal to understand that her recent statement contradicts her oath. She really doesn’t get it.
This is supported by her huge number of fabrications. I daresay that in those cases, like this one, she really does think she’s stating a fact when the real fact is that she’s, well, wrong. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/sep/21/bachmann-and-truth-o-meter-collected-works/
Remember that this is a race where one of the front runners only recently made threats of secession and then makes intimations of loving America (and inferring that the President doesn’t).
Remember, too, that this is a race where a number of candidates are against an Islamic Center in NYC while in the very same breath state that they favor religious freedom.
Again, being a fool is no excuse under the law. If she broke the law, violated the terms of her office, or just stupidly said she did those things, she should be prosecuted. Simply being a wingnut moron is not a “Get out of jail free” card.
As the heat piles on, with lies on themselves, and hatred for President Obama, the DEMS are joining forces to be sure our President gets the LANDSLIDE HE DESERVES in 2012. Bring it on. Good will win over Evil, EVERY TIME!!!!! Obama is the envy of the Free World. And, anyone with brains knows it. He’s simply .. THE BEST!!!!
if only he would grow a spine.
She and the entire Tea Party aka KKK are guilty of both charges as well as Grover Norquist for his statement that he would like to get our government small enough to drown in a bathtub. They constantly claim the Government is the enemy and that our Commander In Chief is not a citizen of this country and a socialist. Lock em up in Guantonamo as terrorists for trying to overthrow this administration.
Article 1 Section 8 of the United States constitution states 17 enumerated powers. Why shouldn’t we expect the Federal government to remain small. The 18th amendment was against freedom as is the 16th and 17th! We need to oppose these freedom killing amendments at every turn!
The 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments are part of the Constitution, passed by a majority in the Congress and in two-thirds of the state legislatures. If you oppose these amendments, that makes you a traitor as well. You can’t pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you approve of. Support it as the law of the land, or renounce your citizenship.
Agreed. We were called traitors for questioning Bush. Yet we did not call for our base to take up arms (2nd amendment remedies), we did not threaten to secede (Rick Perry), we did not question his legitimacy (every damn one of them) , although we certainly could have (President Gore). The desire to get the Black Man out of the White House knows no boundaries, even to the destruction of our freedoms, our economy, and indeed, our democracy. And they continue their treason daily, in full view of the people and the powers that be.
i would, in the interest of accuracy, take issue with the “we did not question (bush’s) legitimacy” statement. actually, especially before 9/11, a lot of left of center – liberal folks very much did ‘qusetion his legitimacy.” i remember hearing “he’s not the real president” regularly in such circles. then folks would go on to argue how the fix was in with a court vote, the corruptiveness of the fla sec of state, or there was some other fraud that went on, inferences about the brother’s helping each other out etc, etc…
on everything else, you were spot on, terry.
Yes. Treason gets bandied about far too much. Treason is collusion with a declared enemy of the state. Sedition is the proper — although obviously less well known — term for plotting from within.
sedition |siˈdi sh ən|
noun
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch
treason |ˈtrēzən|
noun (also high treason)
the crime of betraying one’s country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government : they were convicted of treason.
• the action of betraying someone or something : doubt is the ultimate treason against faith.
She needs to be arrested, and charged, also they should kick her out of the Presidential race.
Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919])
Time for term limits. We need to get rid of “career politicians.” None of the founding fathers believed that politics should be a “career.” And not just for each office. Make it a flat 20 years combined for any state or federal office. But you get to serve out your last term if it’s over 20. Serve 8 years in the state assembly, plus 8 in the U.S. House, that’s 16. You get one term as president (4 years), or as a Senator (6 years) if elected. That’s it. No more elected or appointed office ANYWHERE. If you want to back and be a mayor or a county commissioner, that’s fine. But no more state or federal payroll.
term limits are not a good idea. elections determine limits of terms by the will of the people.the dangers of “lame duck” terms are when politicians cease to work for their constituents, and work primarily to feather their own nests. a person in political office who genuinely works for the betterment of the people, deserves to be re-elected as long as he/she is effective; if not, we elect somebody else. automatic term limits are detrimental to our form of government. of course, we, the people must educate ourselves, and each other, so that we can make intelligent choices, and when necessary, kick the rascals out.
Lame duck terms? If you haven’t noticed, in the last 10 years, politicians don’t need a “lame duck” term, to work for their own interest. The lame duck term has only come about for presidents, and the president doesn’t seem to have much control over anything anymore. The system of checks and balances has broken down, career politicians, multi-national corporations, corporate kickbacks, insider trading and conflicts of interest are the name of the game in Washington, and on Wall Street. Wake up, and get angry.
Why are term limits not a good idea?. Seems to me most People are too lazy to really give voting much thought other than to vote for whatever their Political affiliation is.
If the dimwitted American public is too stupid to vote out incompetent incumbents , then let there be term limits. I’m sick to death of career Politicians who are getting backhanders from special interest groups and Corporations.
if you don’t like the system You have to work to fix it; term limits fix the symptoms of the problem not the cause.
Term limits are not a good idea because governing is very complex and the institutional knowledge to keep things running smoothly would instead be held in the hands of unelected clerks, advisers, lobbyists.
You get it rollin and I’ll pushn this in Maine. This is what I’ve been screaming for years now
being a pain in the ass but here is a good quote to think about “I get nervous around laws that fundamentally assume that Americans can’t be trusted. We better have mandatory sentencing, because judges can’t be trusted to disperse even-handed justice… We better have term limits, ’cause voters can’t be trusted to recognize corruption. Oh, and by the way… I say, by the way, when the playing field is level and the process is fair and open, it turns out we have term limits. They’re called elections…” from the West wing
For years I’ve tried to explain to people that I view term limits as a way of saying “I don’t like who everybody else votes for, or that I keep getting outvoted!” It is one more way for a minority group to control the choices of the majority. It is the losers whining because they couldn’t figure out a way to get their candidate elected, or couldn’t find someone to unseat a popular incumbent. Too, as soon as we institute term limits, the unelected lobbyists will be the most experienced people in Washington.
I just do not believe it is a good idea.
I heard an interesting idea recently: the tea party freshmen have no desire to be–or expectation of being– re-elected. This is why they feel free to wreak havoc in Congress–they don’t have to live with the political consequences or be held accountable to their constituents. In the meantime, they have a good job with great perks. That would explain them–now about the rest of the Conservative GOP….
Most of our so-called “politicians” are traitors. Every one of them who supports, condones, recommends or votes for policies or laws that undermine or contravene the Constitution is a traitor. Period.
I believe that the reason we Americans are in the grotesque mess we’re in today is that we stopped holding our politicians accountable for their actions. When we stopped believing that our politicians should be held to more stringent standards than other people, when we started allowing politicians to be treated like some kind of aristocracy with special privileges and powers, the American people handed over control of our government to exactly the kind of individuals that the Founding Fathers fought a war to be free of.
Now we have politicians apologizing to polluters for our temerity in asking them to clean up their own messes, politicians holding our political processes hostage to ideological idiocy, politicians making rules to benefit the richest while they steal from the poor, and politicians who speak outright lies on the Congressional floor, who lie into the permanent Congressional Record, and none of them are held accountable.
It’s long past the time we should have started holding trials for treason in this country, and televising the punishments for those corporation executives convicted of bribing our politicians and the politicians who lie, cheat, and steal instead of serving the people.
I cannot recommend too highly the benefits of beginning to hold trials for treason IMMEDIATELY, beginning with Michelle Bachmann and going from there to EVERY politician who has ever attempted to suborn the Constitution or their oath of office.
God help us all.
Henry D. Rinehart
I know that “treason” sounds better, but the credibility of this article would be much improved by using the correct term, in this case: sedition.
US Code, at Title 18, §2384 (see also §2385), defines “seditious conspiracy” as:
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sedition.aspx
Further, it would be a boon to your readers to educate them on the distinction between treason and sedition, as this distinction is not widely understood. Case in point, Rick Perry’s recent comments concerning the Federal Reserve Chairman.
Since you brought up the issue of definitions, here they are–Treason is defined as, from Wikipedia–
Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].” In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
Outside legal spheres, the word “traitor” may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge.
Sedition, on the other hand, is defined (also by Wikipedia) as–
In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.
The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
So, to sum up, as Wikipedia does so well–
Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one’s state.
While Bachmann’s goal might be argued to be seditious, the real issue is the violation of her oath of office, which is the violation of her allegiance to our nation. This is clearly treason, and needs to be publicly tried as such. In this case, since she is a politician, I believe that it should be tried as High Treason, and if convicted she should be sentenced accordingly.
God help us all.
Henry D. Rinehart
Mr. Rinehart, thank you sincerely for your explanation of the difference between treason and sedition. In my view, Bachmann is guilty of both.
She like most of the others like her are ignorant of the Constitution. They consider it Man’s law not God’s so there is no need to obey it. Bachmann and her ilk are indeed traitors or seditionists or both. Any member of congress who is against doing what is right for our country should be recalled and true patriots elected in their place. Just look what they have done to this country. I remember when Republicans and Democrats had differences but they both worked them out for the good of the country. These idiots want to destroy the country and rebuild it their way . Unfortunately the majority of us do not want that and want to see these people gone.
She would have to be prosecuted, even though her words convict her, the constitution establishes that she is innocent until proven guilty. In the courts of public opinion she can and has made the claim that others are domestic enemies. Her religious background is a lot more scary than her and christian teachings are often anti free speech, anti equal rights, except for the brotherhood of man much of it seeks to establish a Christian version of sharia law.
If she really wanted to know how the Tax Code gets written and interpreted and tax policy gets set she would have gone to work in the National Office, not in a District as she did. All the inside stuff goes on in Washington. Attorneys at her level just follow directions and have little contact with upper management and no influence.
I agree with everyone above, of course, but frankly, I’m not believing she went to work there with that intent. That implies some kind of intelligence, which she’s sorely lacking in. This is a woman who went to tax school because her husband said she had to. Her focus for years after she left the IRS really wasn’t about taxes or tax codes either. I think she’s greatly embellishing to try to make herself look important or “dedicated to the cause” or something equally twit-ish. But yes, her statement certainly incriminates herself.
Yeah, if she had any intelligence she would have taken the 5th. lol