Preliminary Discussion

I watched Chris Mathews Interviewing GOP Representative Michelle Bachmann about anti-pro American issues. Chris of course, took a broad view that all people who lived and worked here were probably pro-American, regardless of their political views. That is conservatives, liberals, and leftists were all pro American. He really pressed Bachman to commit to calling Liberals anti American, and she danced around this for a few minutes. It occurred to me that there really was no definition for pro Americanism. Everyone seems to confuse liking America the way it is or disliking it the way it is as a pro or anti American stance.

In order to have this discussion we have to first agree what defines the United States of America as The United States of America . As with any Geo-political sphere, one needs to accept the Constitution as the definition of The United States of America . The original Constitution has been amended, but in all cases these amendments have only clarified the original intent of the constitution, and I think fairly represent the intent of the founders of our nation. It would be correct, I think, that the Constitution is the essence of the United States of America. We love the LAND as well but the land is a commonality that all nations have, our Constitution is what makes us unique.

It is interesting that the "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" of our Declaration of Independence didn't make it into our into our Constitution. The fifth Amendment does guarantee "Life, Liberty, and Property."

Right to Life, Liberty, Property

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Discussions:

The "Right to Life" is not under dispute in this country. Even liberals believe in life enough that they are against practically all wars, all capital punishment, and in other ways very Pro-Life. Just what happens when we get to abortion? Life has less importance then. They grasp at starting point arguments such as protecting the life of the Mother if it is endagered by a difficult pregnancy. Almost everyone can accept that premiss. Then in the case of rape? Challenged children?

Obama says he wouldn't want to:

"PUNISH HIS DAUGHTERS WITH A CHILD IF THEY MADE A MISTAKE."

This attitude of convenience is what infuriates many conservatives. How does convenience have a standing as a moral argument?

Obama has a campaign donation system that circumvents the most basic preventative measures that can be used to stay within the law. But Obama is a lawyer, he looks at the law as a contest. Him against the law. The law has no MORAL standing. It is something to BEAT, to win against. Why assume a burden of staying within a moral guidline defined by the law, when you can beat the system?

Get out the vote. Not only does Obama employ institutions like ACORN which scam the very institutions which we honor, Obama teaches college kids to commit voting fraud. We ignore the law as if it had no moral basis. Again the law is something to use and abuse, not a factor of morality. It's a word game, a lawyer's game. "I never met a law I couldn't beat."

This is a me-only self interest that permeates Obama's philosophies. I have no problem with saying this is being Unpatriotic.

Sounds Anti-American to me, unless your definition of Americanism and Patriotism includes self-serving convenient miss-use and abuse of the law.