Chris Matthews takes a lot of heat from the left and right as either being to much of a parrot for the right wing, or a liberal tool. Some ways, I feel sorry for the guy.

But no more so than this interview with Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who once called herself a "a fool for Christ."  Hmmm.... you gotta wonder about that after watching the interview.

Amy was that you?

Anyway, Matthews patiently asks Bachmann for the connection between liberalism and anti-Americanism. Bachmann flatly ignored the question and repeated the same mantra. No evidence. When Matthews asks her what percentage of Congress is anti-American? No number was offered. Why, if you didn't know better, it seems Bachmann does not have evidence to back up her accusations. Couldn't be... unh?

So, its on this paucity of "evidence" that we are to accept Bachmann's accusation that liberals, like Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reed, are anti-Americans. And just what are anti-Americans? Bachmann never offers a definition.

In the last minute of the interview, Bachmann suggested that the media do an investigation into anti-Americanism.

Let me get this straight, conservatives constantly whine about bias in the media because they perceive a liberal bias and it's just oh so unfair to them. Really, all that means, is that conservatives object to the media inserting value judgments on facts and events – and rightly so. The media is only "liberal," when a report exposes something unsavory about their ideology or actions. As if, conservatives do not like to be exposed for the beliefs and actions that they otherwise proudly espouse.

Ironically, Bachmann now demands that the media make such likewise value judgments. And how should the media determine who is pro-American or anti-American?

Why, exactly what right-wing conservatives, like Bachmann dictate.

While conservatives and liberals have quite natural and understandable ideological differences, you'll find few examples of liberals attacking a conservative's patriotism. In fact, you'll find many examples of liberals (right on LCL) defending a conservative's right to their conscience.

Let's cut through the bullsheit. When a conservative talks about any other American as an "anti-American" they are accusing other Americans as being treasonous.

To the Bachmann, Hemmers, Hayetts of the world, any shade of liberal equals anti-Americanism.

In the worldview of these conservatives, pro-American is slavish devotion to conservatism; anti-Americanism is anything that is not.

And I mean anything which does not constrain itself to that narrow-minded worldview.

All-in-all, I rather be accused of being a socialist – then a fascist.

Right-wing centrist hate is just too much to stomach sometimes. We simply can not criticize President Bush when we are in a time of war – a long war against terrorism that will never end. Do you people not understand that it is our blind and uncritical love of George Bush that keeps our women and daughters safe from Muslim enslavement?

As many in the right wing have stated over and over again, that any and all criticism of the President weakens him. It is our patriotic duty to look the other way when our President fails – even when he fails to deliver on his own legacy.

Bill O'Reilly on that Bush legacy:

"He’s done. He’s through. … He will now go down in history…as an ineffectual leader. And I’ll tell you the reason why, it’s poor leadership on his part. The people that he picked to run certain things have been disastrous. And no leadership and now Americans are getting hurt" (The Radio Factor: 09.18.2008)

If you believed that Bill was correct when he stated about Air America Radio that "..all those clowns at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care." (The Radio Factor: 06.20.2005)

Therefore, as only true patriotic Americans, we must hold Bill accountable and all people like him, now that the baseline has been shifted beyond themselves.

Anti-Americanism can not stand. 

Action must be taken.

Yesterday morning, America irrevocably changed for me.

In my darkest nightmares, I could have never imagined that other Americans so fearful of other Americans would resort to repression by the State for thought, or for words they found unfavorable. No matter how vile or wrong those words could be. The very notion offered by an American that someone should be arrested and charged with treason for exercising the unassailable right of free speech, I never thought possible. 

I can not think of a bigger retreat from our principles when we resort to passing and enforcing laws against speech. And America has tried these types of laws before. Does America really need to retread this ground? 

Yet, these people are my neighbors and are alleged to be conservatives. It was my impression that conservatives were greatly concerned with size of government and its expansion. I can not think what would make the government larger and more pervasive than expanding its size to occupy the thoughts in a person's head.

I want to ask them, do we really want to become a society that arrests and punishes people for thought crime? Do we really want to fall into the trap of squelching dissent by force of State? The right-wing on this board says they know the difference between acceptable free speech and unacceptable free speech. They do not. The whole premise is one special plead.

Freedom of speech is not determined on a case-by-case basis.

Freedom of speech is like being pregnant, you either have it or you do not.

There is no middle ground.

There are no special exceptions to the rule.

Freedom of speech is the rule.

It seems fitting to draw this comparison from fantasy and science fiction:

"..if we fight the Daleks, we will be defeated. Worked to death. Exterminated. But if we do as they wish, and if we work for them efficiently and swear not to turn against them, then we will survive. And if we survive, then we will have hope." The Angel of Mercy (Dalek Empire IV, The Fearless, Part 1. Big Finnish Audio.)

The Daleks, are humanoid mutants encased in battle-armored machines intent on galaxy-wide domination. They are "a powerful race bent on universal conquest and domination, utterly without pity, compassion or remorse." The Daleks have committed more genocide than in Hitler's most erotic, wet dreams. They make Mao, Stalin, Hannibal, look like amateurs. Osama...the man is a n00b. The Angel of Mercy, an appellation bestowed upon by the Daleks, is a human prisoner who helps the Daleks maintain control of human slaves by influencing their will. She is also psychic, so she is especially adept in doing so.

What does this analogy have to do with treason by liberals? In the blog post, Who Said it – Liberal or Terrorist?, Amy L Gieger Hemmer states "there seem to be many extreme liberals who hate the country they live in and especially the President" and continues that "if the rhetoric borders on treason and people are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, charge them as such." Therefore, the Daleks are terrorists, and the Angel of Mercy, is an extreme liberal. Her support of the Daleks is treason.

For the sake of argument, let's indulge in the fantasy that there are extreme liberals who hate America. Furthermore, let us also conclude that in comparison to terrorist rhetoric, the extreme liberal is no different. As Amy states "hateful rhetoric demonizing one's own country does serve to help and support the enemy." Therefore, we can conclude that liberals are giving Aid And Comfort.

We now have an explicit case of treason by liberals against the United States of America.

Treason is defined under Article 3, S.3, as

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Also, are we not at war with Iraq? No. Legally, we are not at war. Fact is, Congress only declared military action, not war. (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)  Furthermore, Bush declared victory stating that "major combat operations against Iraq" were completed. If it ever was a war, that war has been since completed.

Regardless, have we not declared a war against terrorism? No. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists authorized military force against the Taliban and terrorism, and not against the Afghan state. This resolution is based upon the War Power's Act, which states that the President may commit troops without a formal Declaration of War. A Declaration of War states that "a state of war between two or more nations." Terrorism at large functions largely independent of a state. For both resolutions, the President must go to congress and have both authorizations re-certified every sixty days.

America is not at war, even though in parlance we refer to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as such.

Also, there are currently are no cases of treason against liberals. The best that legally could be charged against a liberal would be espionage and there are no cases currently of espionage against liberals before the Court.

Which is a bit odd, considering that for a solid, six years (2000-2006) the Congress, the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court have been dominated by conservatives with liberals all to willing to capitulate to the demands of these conservatives in matters foreign and domestic. (Adding to that, the Senate is barely liberal, with Lieberman an Independent Hawk who caucus with the conservatives.) Depending on your point of view, we've seen a relaxing or strengthening of FISA, and increased cooperation between the CIA and FBI to spy on American citizens with relaxed wire taping laws allowing phone companies to snoop on citizens on the behest of the CIA. Interrogation methods have been "enhanced" to include water-boarding and other techniques that were once considered torture by the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Military Code of Justice.

Not one peep from a terrorist implicating a liberal or an extreme liberal. And not one legal action against either. 

If we assume that the total population of liberals based upon the last general election of '04, we find there are almost as many liberals as conservatives. And if we look at Bush approval ratings which hovers around 30%, or Cheney's around 18%, we should find a significant majority of liberals who are extreme. Even with the expanded powers of the state an all branches aligned against terrorism, we should have at least turned up one case of a treasonous liberal. (Well, here was that Plame case. However, no liberals we're implicated, just conservatives. And there was the right-winger and Christian-Conservative, Tim McVeigh, inspired by the fantasy of the Turner Diaries who blew up the Mora Federal building. But never mind all that. Nothing to see here. There is a witch-hunt against liberals to conduct.)  We have not. So unfortunately for Amy, her accusation is a non sequitar.

Fact is, there are currently no cases of treason against liberals. Even the extreme ones, who according to Amy, are not that hard to find in public statements. So it seems fitting to draw an analogy from the world of fantasy. Amy states that all it takes are facts to refute a liberal. Well, I've outlined the facts above. If facts are good enough to refute a liberal, they are good enough to refute a conservative in today's variety of a Bush-Nationalist.

That is, unless, they are delusional.

(In Part 2, I will analyze rhetoric by Amy and other Bush Nationalist and its consequences to freedom of speech, freedom of consciousness, and the historical precedent that this authorarianism against thought that they endorse. Stay Tuned. )

Yesterday, I commented on how patriotism is used as a personal attack against one's opponent. I defined this attack as the Theme of Patriotism (ToP). This attack is used instead of confronting a person's positions because the larger debate has been lost. In desperation, the ToP is used.

In this post, I want to ask what exactly is patriotism. Meaning, how can the concept of patriotism be objectively defined? Is there an objective standard, a rule, in which we can say that, yes, that person is patriotic, while this other person is not patriotic.

Let's start with a basic, operational definition. I'll use the online edition of the Merriam Webster Dictionary.

"love for or devotion to one's country"

This is great, but once again, with "love" we are faced with finding an objective definition. So a definition of love is no help. Although it is true that there are distinct varieties of love as in a person loves their car or like the love of their spouse. So, perhaps it is best to use a type of love like pride. We have to settle on something I suppose. However, lets put pride in context and not leave it an open-end concept.

We need a case study.

Last month, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans about their pride in America's History.

• 75% of U.S. voters declare themselves proud of America’s history
• 13% say they are ashamed of that history
• 12% were undecided

When these numbers are shown by race:

• 81% of white voters are proud of U.S. history
• 44% of African-Americans share that view
• 22% (1 in 5 Black Voters) think America is a land of liberty and justice for all
• 49% of white voters believe that to be true

It is important to understand that Rasmussen was evaluating sentiment about American history. The right wing implication is that Republicans are more patriotic than Democrats. They do this by ignoring the context and racial composition of the poll.

Anyway, I tried to find a poll which showed party affiliation by race, but I could not in the time alloted to work on posts each morning. (If you know of a poll, please forward that to me. Thanks.) However, it is generally acknowledged that African-Americans overwhelming vote Democratic. (Here's a contrary view.) And why not? The Democratic party does indeed elect African-Americans - can you name one elected African-American who is a national congressional representative for the Republicans? 

If you've forgotten your history, remember the 3/5 compromise and the institution of slavery, until the 13th Amendment was passed and we fought a civil war. In addition, the 60's we witnessed the genesis of the movement for equal rights. Studies show that the African-American community is encumbered by poverty, a larger percentage of the prison demographic, and generally on the lower scale of wages. The past is very much interpreted by today. The Rasmussen study seems to confirm this. When asked about if America is "truly a land of liberty and justice for all":

• 72% of Republicans say yes
• 29% of Democrats agree

So if the question is about the history of the country, one can not forget about the inequities of the past, and today.

That being the case, it should be of no surprise to us that when asked about the pride in our country's history is lower in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. Why Republicans and the right wing think this is convincing argument against the Democratic Party or the left wing of American politics is beyond me. Then again, the ToP is an invective, and not really about patriotism.

So the question still looms, should we Americans have uncritical pride (or love) for our country, given that we have a past rife with slavery and inequalities for race, gender, sexual orientation, and in class? Is it possible that critical examination of America's policies, in the past and present, is an expression of pride or love that we feel America should stand for? Or is ignoring all of our past and current mistakes and suspending criticism about America a better expression of pride and love? Is there an objective standard of patriotism?

I'll leave you to decide.

There is nothing wrong with love of ones country and the different expressions it may or may not take, however there is a problem when one's narrow definition is used as a weapon against an opponent. When this weapon is used as an argument, it is often used as a personal attack and as a baseless smear. Let's call this argument formally the Theme of Patriotism. (ToP) The ToP is predicated upon partisan politics and not the merits of an issue.

A new poll reveals that 60% of all Americans believe that wearing a flag pin "indicates that a person is patriotic." If the majority believes that something is correct, then of course it must be true. Heck, if 90% of people said tomorrow that slavery was correct, we should repeal the 13th immediately.

Which must make Barack Obama as un-American as you can get I suppose. Last year, Fox news reported that Obama did not wear a lapel pin on some occasions. Asked why, Obama stated that the pin "became a substitute for I think true patriotism." But of course, when Obama wears a pin to soothe the right-wing's hurt feelings and to bolster their failing sense of patriotism, the right wing brands Obama as a flip-flopper. Ho-hum. Damned either way I suppose. (And so are these politicians.)

Well, we liberals are very found of litmus tests. Which is why, I 'd like to introduce one's love of country on this guy as the new baseline:

If we look at patriotism on scale with not wearing a pin with the value of zero, sometimes wearing a lapel pin with a 3, always wearing a lapel pin a 5, any combination of frequency of lapel pin with a flag tattoo on shoulder, back, or other body part with a 7, and getting one's face tattooed a value of 10 (extra points with lapel pin, of course), we can clearly see that McCain is not very patriotic. Well, as not as patriotic as he should be. So in the interest in fair and balanced punditry, we must also speculate about McCain.

Since we've established that it was fair to conclude what Obama feels toward America despite his own words to the contrary, we should also make a similar definitive conclusion on what John McCain's sense of patriotism is. We all know that McCain didn't love America until he was a p.o.w as he stated to Sean Hannity, “I really didn’t love America until I was deprived of her company.” Therefore, to balance Obama's fashion faux paux, we should definitely use McCain's quote out of context.

Since no true scotsman "puts sugar on his porridge" we can only conclude that both Obama and McCain must hate America because only a true patriot inks his face in total commitment to this, our God Blessed America.