Amazing, then, that with my familiarity with the English language, with literature and its genres, and with essay writing, I came up with completely different results.
Now, you yourself say that she was not speaking satirically, but rather "symbolically" or "hyperbolically". That she was not intending to be understood literally. This does make more sense than asserting (as others here have done) that she was being satirical. However, the problem remains that she used the words "convert them to Christianity" as part of a compound predicate in the same sentence. Do you believe that she meant the words "invade" and "kill" symbolically? These are strong actions she is advocating. Why is it unreasonable to assume that she means "convert" in the same literal sense as "invade" and "kill"? On what basis do you interpret her otherwise?
Essays?? Essays?! OMG! You are killing me!! Are you a paid, published writer? Have you ever written a column for publication? Have you taken courses on journalism or freelance writing? No?? I have. On all counts. Comparing a stinkin' essay is superbly laughable!! Not to mention that my father happens to agree with me on this as well. Not that that would necessarily mean anything to you, except that he has a doctorate of education from George Peabody College for Teachers (look it up!), and teaches the course on writing doctoral dissertations there.
You can make any part of a compound sentence tongue-in-cheek. There are absolutely no rules to the contrary! Subject-verb agreement and pro-con agreement, yes. But tongue-in-cheek statements? No. Besides which, I don't know that she deviated at all in that sentence. I read the whole thing as tongue-in-cheek. She was venting, for heaven's sakes!! It wasn't a mandate! (Helloooooooo??)