Rudy Giuliani came out a couple of days ago and declared that King Obama does not love Amerika. That simple sentence has created a firestorm of reaction from both those who would defend and those who would criticize the King's actions. It must have been a slow news day yesterday but even Bill O'Reilly reported on the story as his lead "talking point" in last night's episode. As you would expect, Bill defended Rudy and gave him a free pass for his comment because he is "a passionate man who hates terrorists." The meaning was obvious from what Bill said. Giuliani loves Amerika because he loves the military and he loves killing terrorists around the world. King Obama, by necessary implication, must not love Amerika because he does not love the military, although he does kill a lot of terrorists around the world by means of his beloved drones.
The words "patriotism" and "patriot" have been thrown around a lot in the discussion about Rudy's comment. I have posted to this blog in the past about how the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have redefined the term 'patriot.' In my lifetime the term has changed from one who loves his country to one who loves his military. You can find that post here. Here is another post in which I make a similar argument, although from a different angle of course. I never repeat myself. I never say the same thing twice. There is no redundancy in my blog. Oh, and by the way, here is another post to this blog which makes the case that when patriotism is defined as worship of individual soldiers, as I believe it has today, we have traveled a long distance down a very immoral path. In regards to Giuliani I suspect most people would agree that he was saying that King Obama, in addition to not loving Amerika, is also not a good patriot.
In addition to not loving Amerika and not being a good patriot it also logically follows that King Obama must hate Amerika as well. Rudy did not declare that the King hates Amerika, he simply asserted that the King does not love Amerika. But there are only two other options available for our King if he does not love Amerika: he can either hate Amerika or he can be neutral towards Amerika. I believe it is fair to say that when people like Rudy accuse our King of not loving Amerika they are not saying that he is neutral towards Amerika. How often have we heard our King described as "one of those people who believes we ought to hate Amerika first?" Indeed, in this country there is no apparent middle ground when it comes to our feelings for Amerika. We either love it or hate it. And since Amerika is generally defined as Amerika's military, we are deemed to be good, honest, patriotic citizens when we profess our love for the military and its soldiers and horrible, Hitler-like demons whenever we refuse to profess our love for the military and its soldiers.
I have a slightly different take on the matter. If you read the posts listed above, and I think you should, you will see that patriotism and worship of the military are not the same thing. I dare say that all of the men and women we were taught about in grade school who were described as "patriots" during the time of the War of Independence from Great Britain would be considered subversives and "hate Amerika first" types today. You need go no further than what they wrote to see their definition of patriotism.
First and foremost a patriot was a person who harbored a serious distrust of all forms of civil government. A patriot wanted a country in which the civil government was bound by so many rules and regulations it would be very difficult for it to get involved in the day to day activities of its citizens. The patriots of the past would be appalled to discover that the rules and regulations they wrote to hinder the growth of government have been taken and applied to businesses today. They would find it impossible to believe that government is given free reign to create laws and rules and regulations that prescribe in ornate detail all the permissible and impermissible activities in the private sector. They would also find it incomprehensible that patriotic Amerikan citizens would be clamoring for more rules and regulations on a daily basis.
A patriot from the past believed that government did not have the right to examine our property, papers or personal affairs. That is why the 4th Amendment to the Constitution was written. The individual patriots from our past had intimate knowledge of what it meant for a government agent to break down his front door and force him to divulge his personal affairs to them. They refused to allow the government they were creating to engage in the same sorts of activities. Anyone who supported the all-knowing government was called a traitor. My how things have changed. Edward Snowden was "a 29 year old pulling in $200,000 a year in a cushy job in a dreamland with his girlfriend in Hawaii." (Taken from "The Character of Edward Snowden" by Jeffrey Tucker.) Tucker asks, "To appreciate what he has done, you have to put yourself in his position. Would you give that up? Would you be willing to walk away?" Public opinion polls about Snowden's actions indicate that most Amerikan citizens believe he behaved as a traitor when he divulged the fact that the Amerikan government is continually and perniciously spying upon its own citizens. Most Amerikans proudly say that they are more than willing to give up their 4th Amendment rights in exchange for the bogus promise of government protection. No patriot would ever say that. Ever! Remember "give me liberty or give me death?" Today it is "give me a false promise of security and take whatever you want while doing so."
If you read the Constitution, written by American patriots from our distant past, you will find a phrase about the operation of the military within it. The military is subject to the rule of Congress with the President serving as Commander in Chief. Most interesting to me however, is the little phrase about how the military is to function under the terms set by our first patriots. Section 8 of Article I, which describes the powers of Congress, says, "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." That is the only phrase in the Constitution which describes what the military is actually empowered to do. Notice that the military has three legitimate functions: 1) to execute the Laws of the Union (such as when Kennedy sent the militia to Alabama), 2) to suppress Insurrections (such as when Nixon sent the military to Kent State), and 3) to repel invasions (such as.....humm.....humm...I guess there are no examples of this from our history.) Notice how sending the military around the world to engage in incessant wars of imperial expansion and aggression is not mentioned in the Constitution. Remember how Jefferson said that it was the goal of this new country to engage in "free trade with all and entangling alliances with none." The past patriots would be revolted to see what we have become. The past patriots would no doubt boldly declare that the SDA has become to the rest of the world what Britain was to the original United States.
Most people reject practically everything the past patriots stood for. Most people give up freedom for a false sense of protection. Most people worship the military and its soldiers. Most people consider Snowden to be a traitor. Most people think it is a good idea for the rest of the citizens of the world to "fear" Amerika. Most people think it is a good idea to kill foreigners. I conclude that most people hate America and love Amerika. As far as what the King believes about Amerika......you will have to ask him.