What’s YOUR Verdict? Anti-American Propagandists: Michele Bachmann Edition

The current conservative movement ranks as one of the most extreme and radical in American history. Many of the ideas and policies that have originated from that movement are virulently anti-American in spirit. In ordinary times, the people proffering these ideas would be dismissed as crack-pots at best, or reviled as traitors at their worst. But the concentrated and well-funded efforts on the right to fundamentally change or dismantle the American democracy as we understand it, force us to take a serious look at their words and actions. In this series, we examine how the far-right has sometimes over-stepped the lines of acceptable political rhetoric into anti-American propaganda.

We will look at their words, yes; but we will also look beyond their shouts of patriotism and fealty towards the nation. We will strip away the flags they invariably drape themselves in and ask the fundamental questions:

  •  Do they really love America and democracy?
  •  Do their words and deeds work to serve Americans, or harm them?

We The People (which is herein defined as ‘All Americans, every single one, regardless of age, gender, race, political persuasion, sexual identity, or economic circumstance), will look at the American Propagandists, on a case-by-case basis. You will be given a profile of the accused, and the evidence against them. Then we will act as (unofficial) judge and jury. Please use the comment section to give us your verdict, and suggested sentencing (if any).

The Accused: Michele Bachmann

The charges: Attempting to turn U.S. into a Christian theocracy, disseminating hate speech against a segment of the American population, attempting to foment anti-Muslim propaganda in furtherance of a Christian theocracy and unfounded allegations against top U.S. officials, endangering both their missions and their lives.

The Case Against: Ladies and gentleman, Michele Bachmann has always painted herself as a ‘small government’ proponent, even though she’s held fast to the government teat for 12 years, and has yet to return a paycheck to offset the deficit she feigns so much concern about. Her ‘aversion’ to the ‘big government’ that employs her is so great that she has advocated for the outright elimination of the E.P.A and the Department of Education. These have both become standard targets of the Tea Party, a well-known grass-roots political movement run by billionaires. Think about the utter devastation that losing environmental protection and education would visit on America. No one who truly loved this country would ever dare suggest that public health and education were not paramount to its survival.

It’s my contention that Michele Bachmann proposes to ‘starve the beast,’ in order to replace it with her own vision of government, a theocracy grounded in evangelical Christian rule. Indeed, her entire education has been geared towards attacking democracy from within.  Her university and law degrees come from Oral Roberts University, the accreditation of the law school there being questioned by the America Bar Association. While a student at this “law school,” she was a research assistant to John Eidsmore on his book Christianity and the Constitution, a specious tome whose central theme is that America began as a Christian theocracy (despite all the words of the founding fathers to the contrary) and should return to that state. Obviously, this experience had a huge influence on Bachmann’s anti-democracy statements and actions as a legislator.

Without going into great detail about her well documented attacks on the LGBT citizens of the United States, I will point out the obvious fact that all such prejudice has been ‘justified’ by claims of ‘biblical values’ which anyone with a genuine law degree would know to be a direct violation of the separation of church and state. This discriminatory behavior is further evidence that Michele Bachmann is attempting to serve two masters, at least until she can do away with one of them.

Ms. Bachmann has also gone to great pains to try to create fear of people of Muslim faith, going so far as to invent claims of ‘Sharia law’ being used in our courtrooms, and accusing a top-ranking State Department official of having ties to a Middle Eastern terrorist group. These are not the actions of a person loyal to American Democracy, but rather a theocrat trying to divide the population along battle lines drawn by her faith. As Jesus himself is to have said, “Render unto Caesar, what is Caesar’s. Render unto God, what is God’s.” I would suggest that Sharia Law and the evangelical interpretation of ‘Biblical Law’ are two sides of the same coin, neither of which belong to ‘Caesar.’ It’s not only not America’s battle, but to attempt to use our resources to wage it is, by definition, un-American.

With that, I rest my case. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we await your verdict.

Feel free to join me on Facebook and Twitter