Yes, LZ. Michele Bachmann.

LZ Granderson at CNN has major problems with Michele Bachmann.   Apparently he thinks she wants us to return to enslaving blacks and establishing a theocracy -- while being inconsistent about wanting to reduce the government's footprint.

 Is the country's political system so upside down that a candidate can find followers by promising smaller government at the same time wanting government to expand to ban porn and slow down the divorce process? 

Well, first of all, the lessening of restrictions on porn is relatively recent. It's not like porn was perfectly legal in 1776 and now Michele Bachmann is trying to reverse that by signing a pledge.  I'm pretty sure you still have to be at least 18 to buy it or purchase a ticket to see it.  Secondly, the pledge says nothing of the sort.  Here's the wording:

–Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.

Nothing in there about "banning porn". But this will become the meme. Bachmann signed a theologistic, racist pledge to ban porn, bring back slavery, and make divorce illegal. Because that's what the left wants you to hear, that's what you'll get in the media.

"For some reason, no matter how ridiculous some of her statements are, she keeps getting more popular."

Perhaps it's because they only sound "ridiculous" inside certain insulated circles and the ideas are actually quite popular outside of them. Just a guess.

"But when you refer to the Obama administration as a "gangster government," and a year or so later sign a document that suggested black Americans were better off when they were slaves; and contend that the forefathers worked tirelessly to end slavery -- despite the fact that they owned slaves -- I no longer characterize those moments as gaffes. "

Now look who is speaking in half-truths. Never mind document Bachmann actually signed didn't say that blacks were better off as slaves -- the point of that kind of language (that again, was removed before Bachmann signed it) was not that slavery was peachy but that there's something seriously wrong TODAY. It's all fine and good to bring up the plight of the black family when it means more handouts and special treatment, but somehow it's always "racist" to try to address the root of the problem, which is culture.

I assume LZ is insuinuating racism here (because that's where the left always goes) when Bachmann referred to Obama's administration as "gangster government", as "gangster" and "gang" are now largely celebrated in, and in large part as -- "black culture". But "gangs" and "gangster" started out with decidedly European immigrant roots ... largely, but not limited to Italians. They also had a very strong base and a sordid history in Chicago, from whence Obama and a lot of his administration hail, and which are widely recognized as having a strong influence in shaping Chicago politics.

It is sad that the language and tactics of "the mob" were adopted by poor blacks who were and are taught to be angry about racism and to see it everywhere whether it is there or not. It is still more sad that this imagery and narrative has been popularized throughout "black culture" and more and more into "white culture" who mimic and adopt the outward appearance and attitudes of this culture.  It is destructive.

Lastly, the left speaks as if slavery were invented in America. It was not. They also speak as if black africans were the only race ever enslaved.  It was not.  Though relatively rare, there were white slaves and free blacks even in the south in this country at its founding. Slavery was a fact of life in Europe and southern America at the time of America's founding, and the founders (some of whom owned slaves, and many of whom were ardent abolitionists) made some very specific moves aimed at ending slavery here. Two of them were the famous 3/5ths compromise, and the 20 year sunset clause. In the end, they weren't enough and we fought a bloody war over it.

Slavery was abolished in 9 states by 1804.  Slavery was abolished in England in 1833. This was much easier to do since the United States was no longer under English rule (the American Revolution made it easier to abolish it in England) and there was little to no economic pain for Brittain in doing so.  Rich Brits just had to start paying their domestic servants.  They could still buy their cheap slave-produced cotton from the U.S. South. A little over 30 years later slavery was abolished here thanks in very large part to the ideals of the founders including Jefferson, and Washington -- who were born into slave owning, and others who framed our founding documents. Just as smokers can work to stop smoking, slaveowners can work to end slavery.