An Army of Bachmanns

It seems as if not more than a day can pass without Rep. Michele Bachmann making news with some new conspiracy theory about how Democrats in Congress and the White House are out to destroy this nation … and here she is again warning that the expansion of the AmeriCorps program will lead to indoctrination camps for young Americans:

It’s under the guise of — quote — volunteerism. But it’s not volunteers at all. It’s paying people to do work on behalf of government. …

I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.

Bachmann just barely survived her re-election bid last November after calling for investigations of members of Congress in order to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America” and has gone on to establish herself as one of the most incoherent, least stable public figures in recent memory.   

But apparently the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez and right-wing radio host Mark Levin think that what the conservative movement and the GOP need are more candidates like Bachmann – at least according to Lopez’s most recent column based around Levin’s new book” Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto”:

When the actions of a Republican president set the scene for the current commander-in-chief’s CEO firings, we need a new level of attention from all Americans. In Levin’s words, we need “a new generation of conservative activists, larger in number, shrewder, and more articulate than before, who seek to blunt the Statist’s counterrevolution — not to imitate it — and gradually and steadily reverse course. More conservatives than before will need to seek elective and appointed office, fill the ranks of the administrative state, hold teaching positions in public schools and universities, and find positions in Hollywood and the media where they can make a difference in infinite ways.”

We appear to be living in a paradigm shift, in which the government is taking over in unprecedented ways. If you’re uncomfortable with what you’re seeing, get to work.

There are countless examples of citizens who have shared Levin’s concerns at one time or another throughout America’s history and have gotten involved in politics because of them. One of Levin’s contemporary favorites, as anyone who listens to his radio show knows, is Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann. She’s someone the Left loves to hate; in fact, left-wing groups pulled out all the stops in their attempt to defeat her last year. She got involved in politics a decade ago after one of her foster children (she and her husband have taken care of 23 over the years, in addition to raising five children of their own) came home from high school with a poster to color for math class, instead of serious homework. She realized there was something wrong with the public-school standards in her home state and got involved in improving things. Her efforts would eventually take her to the state senate and, now, the U.S. House of Representatives. Ask her about it and you’ll get the sense of a woman who is thinking not about an office but about her country.

Talk to Bachmann about politics and the future, and it is clear that she has “liberty and tyranny” on her mind (both literally — she cited the book on Sean Hannity’s show — and foundationally). What she says seems to stem not from political ambition but from those concerns that got her into politics in the first place. She views herself as a back-bencher with an opportunity and a responsibility at a crucial time in American history. She’s a former federal-tax-litigation attorney who now sits on the Financial Services Committee. Also a small-business owner and an educational entrepreneur (she helped found one of the first charter schools in the country, which is still running), Bachmann brings a breadth and depth of experience to Washington that Gotcha! sound bites do not do justice to.

At a moment when the conservative movement is in disarray and the GOP is floundering, Lopez and Levin are suggesting that the best course of action is to rally its Bachmann-like members to take action and get involved in politics at various levels all over the country?  

And they wonder why they keep losing elections.

PFAW

Giuliani to Right: 'You Have Absolutely Nothing to Fear from Me'

The spirit of Ronald Reagan was invoked as a cadence on Saturday morning at the Values Voter Summit, first by Bill Bennett—Reagan’s Secretary of Education, who emphasized the need to nominate a candidate who understands the need to prevent a “preemptive cultural surrender” in the war on terrorism—and then by Rudy Giuliani, who was working hard to make the skeptical audience think of his “leadership” rather than his position on social wedge issues.

PFAW

'Men in Black' Author Calls for Dependent Judiciary

“What Would Reagan Do?” Term limits and congressional veto over court rulings, claims Levin.

PFAW

Right Wing Reacts Quickly to New Jersey Marriage Decision

Today the New Jersey State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that, according to the state’s constitution, same-sex couples cannot be denied the rights and benefits of marriage. While a majority stopped short of specifically granting the right to marry to same-sex couples, the court ordered the legislature to extend the same rights, whether through marriage or another institution.

“The New Jersey Supreme Court has blatantly and arrogantly ordered the state Legislature to rip up what marriage has meant for thousands of years,” said James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. “The justices have made clear their disdain and disrespect for the true decision makers in our democracy -- the people -- as well as for the institution of marriage.” He added: “Nothing less than the future of the American family hangs in the balance if we allow one-man, one- woman marriage to be redefined out of existence. And, make no mistake, that is precisely the outcome the New Jersey Supreme Court is aiming for with this decision.”

“This is a textbook example of agenda-driven judges who are willing to twist their state laws and invade the province of the legislative branch in order to force same-sex 'marriage' on the people of New Jersey,” said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America. CWA President Wendy Wright added, “The New Jersey Supreme Court has distinguished itself once again for imposing its own form of discrimination by arrogantly declaring that a woman is not needed to make a marriage, or that a man is not.”

“This is nothing more than an act of veiled judicial activism,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “As in Massachusetts and Vermont, the New Jersey Supreme Court has acted as a super-legislature imposing their will on the people of New Jersey. He called on the legislature to “ignore this ruling.” Dobson, Perkins, and Wright also said that the ruling should give impetus for voters in the 8 states with ballot initiatives regarding same-sex marriage.

Radio-talker Mark Levin, author of the anti-Supreme Court book “Men in Black,” asserted that the ruling was “as political as any I've seen.” “New Jersey joins Massachusetts in transitioning away from democratic government,” intoned Hugh Hewitt. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) quickly called for the passage of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, perhaps hoping to be the first member of Congress to do so.

Some struck a positive note. “This is a plus for those of us who have been pressing for a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, explaining that he meant the case is “a wakeup call to the vast majority of Americans who are opposed to gay marriage but are reluctant to access the constitutional amendment process as the right remedy.”

Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Glen Lavy also called it a “wake-up call for people who believe that marriage doesn’t need constitutional protection.” According to Lavy, the court’s declining to require marriage over civil unions should be interpreted as “mak[ing] marriage meaningless” because it is characterized as “just another option along with other ‘unions.’”

Expect more tomorrow.

PFAW
Syndicate content