Michele Bachmann Reaches New Disgusting Low in Recent Attack on President Obama

Michele-Bachmann-foolFollowing her retirement from Congress, I thought we’d have heard a lot more from Michele Bachmann than we have so far. After all, much of her time as a member of Congress seemed to be fixated on saying some of the most ridiculous things ever uttered by an elected official. Whether it was spouting off absolute gibberish, perpetuating flat-out lies or making herself look like an absolute fool on national television, Bachmann never seemed to shy away from any situation that might get her some sort of attention.


Which is why I’ve been a bit surprised to hear so little from her these last several weeks, outside of a quick blurb about how she’s got a short cameo in the new Sharknado movie. Then again, she’s probably planning another pointless run at the presidency in 2016, so she’s avoiding taking any sort of “political contributor” role at Fox News because she couldn’t do that and run for president at the same time. Either way, when it’s all said and done, I don’t think it’s a matter of if she’ll become a paid employee of the conservative entertainment network, but when.

Well, in a recent Facebook post, Bachmann reminded everyone of just how pathetic she can be when she used the horrific crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 that killed 150 people to take a cheap shot at President Obama’s ongoing negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program.

Bachmann wrote:

With his Iran deal, Barack Obama is for the 300 million souls of the United States what Andreas Lubitz was for the 150 souls on the German Wings flight – a deranged pilot flying his entire nation into the rocks. After the fact, among the smoldering remains of American cities, the shocked survivors will ask, why did he do it?

Yes, that’s a former lawmaker (and possible 2016 GOP presidential candidate) comparing the President of the United States to a mass murderer who apparently purposefully flew a plane into the side of a mountain killing 150 people.

With this comment, politicizing an unthinkable tragedy to take a petty partisan shot at President Obama, Bachmann proved that there’s really no depth to which she won’t stoop to try to attack this president.

If someone doesn’t like President Obama, that’s fine. There hasn’t been a single president, no matter how successful they’ve been, that was ever universally liked. But I can’t even grasp what kind of sick mindset someone needs to have to write something such as this. What kind of a low-life sees a tragedy such as the Germanwings crash then thinks to themselves, “Hmm, this is a great opportunity to attack President Obama.”


Well, apparently Bachmann is exactly that kind of low-life.

It just never ceases to amaze me how low many conservatives will go just to attack President Obama. It’s one thing to dislike his politics, but it’s something entirely different – and much more disgusting – to compare him to a mass murderer just for the sake of some pointless, petty cheap shot.

Then again, this is Michele Bachmann; nothing she does really surprises me anymore.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • strayaway

    Bachman overstates her case since we don’t even know what will wind up in the Obama/Iran treaty. In any case, if the Senate doesn’t approve the Obama/Iran treaty with a 2/3 majority, it should die.

    • Stephen J. Marmon

      It’s not a treaty.

      • strayaway

        By definition it is although Humpty Dumpty would be on your side. I choose the dictionary definition of “treaty”. You apparently go the Humpty Dumpty route.tt

        ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

        ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

        ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’ -from Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll

        So if you call a treaty something else, it must not be a treaty.

    • Creeayshun Sighuntist

      President Obama speaks for the United States. Deal with it.

      • strayaway

        No, as president he negotiates treaties which can be approved by the Senate by a 2/3 vote.

      • Brian

        As president, he speaks for the US. His word is final in matters of foreign affairs and neither the Senate nor House can undermine him or else it’s treason. It actually says that in the United States constitution.

      • strayaway

        Wrong, read the Constitution. Presidents are delated with the power to negotiate treaties that require 2/3 support of the Senate for ratification. As much as you might want presidents to have dictatorial powers, the Constitution doesn’t provide them. Neither did 47 senators commit treason by reciting the Constitution to Iran. We aren’t there yet either.

      • Brian

        Wrong, this is not a treaty, it is an executive agreement and other nations are involved. The Republican attempt at sabotaging the negotiations are nothing short of treason. Your refusal to accept political definitions does not change facts.

      • strayaway

        Brian, The Constitution delegates presidents with the power to negotiate treaties. Setting aside that this “executive agreement”, as you prefer to call it, meets the dictionary definition of a treaty, please post the wording of the constitutional power enabling presidents to make “executive agreements”.

        “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

        That’s the treaty clause. Now go fetch the “executive agreement” clause.

      • Brian
      • strayaway

        I really think that’s a good find going through the history of the abrogation of this one aspect of the Constitution one degree at a time. A precedent based on a precedent here and a judge’s logical conclusion there until, voila, executive agreements are sort of like something actually in the Constitution. But what I asked for was for you to find some sort of “executive agreement” clause or maybe even just a mention of executive agreements in the Constitution. Still waiting…

        Remember, you wrote that, “As president, he speaks for the US. His word is final in matters of foreign affairs and neither the Senate nor House can undermine him or else it’s treason. It actually says that in the United States constitution.”

        Where does it say that?

    • Brian

      It’s not a treaty, it’s an arms restriction agreement. Secondly, it’s treason for the Senate to undermine to president in matters of foreign affairs.

      • strayaway

        TREATY : “a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.”

        How and why is Obama’s deal not a treaty by definition?

      • Brian

        Well for starters, it currently is not a formally concluded or ratified agreement. So you answered your own question. Not that I believe for a second you bothered reading.

      • strayaway

        When and if the Senate ratifies Obama’s deal. there will be a formal conclusion. Until then, it is just Obama’s proposal.

      • Brian

        Executive agreement. Senate is unnecessary.

      • strayaway

        “Executive agreement”? Where is that mentioned in the Constitution or is that a Newspeak phrase you picked up from the Progressive Sheeple?

      • Brian

        Ad hominem.

      • strayaway

        “ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person’s character, rather than to the content of their arguments.”

        So where are “executive agreements” mentioned in the constitution?

      • Brian

        Already linked it. You didn’t accept it. Not my problem. And you insulted me, thus ad hominem. Logan Act says The Republicans committed treason. Take it or leave it, you’re still in the wrong.

      • strayaway

        The Logan Act does not say that it is treason to reiterate the Constitution which is pretty much what 47 Senators did in their letter. The did not write anything in their letter about the content of the would be Obama/Iran treaty. Try to find wording about number of centrifuges or timelines for instance. You should rephrase that to say that some Progressive Sheeple talking points claimed that mentioning the contents of the Constitution, such as the 2/3 Senate ratification requirement, are treasonable. If I were to look for treason in any of this, I would watch to see if the President turns this over to the Senate or again violates his oath of office by turning it over to the UN for ratification.

  • Benjamin Demille

    Perhaps Obama could pray away the gray hair he’s accumulated while in office.

    • Creeayshun Sighuntist

      All while Marcus Bachmann continue to pray his gay away.

  • Sunnysmom

    She is a disgusting excuse for a human being. All that education and that’s the best metaphor she can muster? How insulting to the families of the Germanwings victims. Ugh.

  • deedee2die4

    My bet is MB and many others could not find Iran on an unmarked map.

  • Macdoodle

    I wonder how mant deadlines we will extend to the Iranians.Im sure they are laughing at how easily Kerry can be manipulated.

    • Vicky Walker

      So I suppose you would rather what? bomb them into submission? WTF is wrong with you people?? America isn’t the world’s bully and we have no right to just push other countries around if they don’t agree with us. So the best thing to do is try to negotiate in a peaceful manner. John Boener called our president “anti-war” as if that’s a bad thing?? I guess you must be one of those idiot “pro-war” fools eh? And keep in mind that there were other countries involved in the negotiations as well. America doesn’t run the world you know.

      • Bendy Bentley

        Unfortunately, we have been the world’s bully for a long time, and just like with all bullies, the victims usually turn on them. There are a LOT of victims, and if they all turn on us at once, it is over!

  • Creeayshun Sighuntist

    Bachmann is truly a special kind of crazy. I will be sad to see her retire, but it will certainly be easy to identify the next craziest conservative to fill the void she will leave behind.

    • Benjamin Demille

      Without an enthusiastic audience she would just be talking to herself.

  • Woodrow_Plant

    “Romney didn’t win, did he.” T’was Senator Reid’s response to why he flat-out lied from the floor of the Senate about candidate Romney, ” … he paid no federal income taxes …” Just sayin’.