Posted by Joseph Nemec in A disturbing trend has emerged in the Republican Party in recent weeks. Friday night on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann called for inquiries against un-American members of Congress. Who is defined as un-American? According to Bachmann, that means liberals and Obama supporters. One of Matthews’ topics was the automated phone calls from the McCain-Palin campaign that attacked Barack Obama’s character and judgment and that he has close ties to domestic terrorist William Ayers. Attacks like this have been common at McCain- Palin campaign rallies for the past several weeks.
On the program, Representative Bachmann stated that Obama has strong ties to Ayers and that he may be anti-American. Bachmann spoke of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as having far leftist views. When pressed further, the congresswoman continued that leftist members of Congress should be investigated by the media to determine whether or not they are pro-American or anti-American. This sounds like a return to McCarthyism to me. What defines being “anti-American?” Its sounds like being a leftist or liberal is a qualification. This is very dangerous territory. Having an opposite opinion or simply disagreeing with policy is grounds for labeled as “anti-American?”
Along the same lines, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin talked about small town America being “hard working very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation.” So basically “red states” or “red congressional districts” are pro-American? I am very disturbed by this rhetoric from the Right. Wasn’t New York City attacked on September 11, 2001? Isn’t New York a “blue” city? Don’t they fly American flags in big cities that tend to favor Democrats? I don’t know how or why the Republican Party claims a monopoly on patriotism and being “pro-American.” I am literally amazed at the blatant divisiveness of the McCain-Palin ticket. Should McCain become the 44th president, how will he be a “unifier” like President Bush promised in 2000? In a country where the leadership views one segment of society as un-American and “not like us,” I fear what course the country would take.
Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27297028/
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/20/1572959.aspx
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/palins-mixed-me.html
RSS 2.0
“What defines being “anti-American?”
That’s simple. Advocating the violent overthrow of the United States Government, for one. That would be Bill Ayres, his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, and the various branches of the Communist Party they have been associated with as members, organizers, and leaders during their political “careers”.
It would also apply to those who advocate the non-violent overthrow of the US government as defined by our Constitution.
Because of his known influences, associations, memberships, endorsements, and involvements over the years, beginning with Communist Party member, Frank Marshall Davis during his youth in Hawaii, and his continued associations with the far left throughout his political career.
Adding to the concern about Obama’s sentiments regarding the future of the United States Constitution is the fact that there is much information missing from his biography, particularly regarding his school records, activities and associations while living in New York and attending Columbia University.
Compound those tidbits with the additional fact that there is no known Obama supporter who has expressed the slightest bit of concern about these missing years, or of even what it means to be a Communist, and what we have is a viable and reasonable concern about the mindset of his followers.
None of this is “rhetoric”, these are verifiable facts. Another huge cause for concern is that clearly, Obama supporters have no clue about the difference between the two and even less interest in finding it out.
Clearly, there is smoke rising here. There is nothing in the world wrong with, or rhetorical about expressions of concern or further investigation to determine whether or not there is fire, as any reasonable and responsible American would agree, regardless of their personal preferences and affiliations.
Perhaps Barack Obama would be better served by a more informed, discriminating and ethical base of supporters than those who worked so diligently to discourage and even punish the most reasonable evaluation process of their candidate, but since he hasn’t made any mention of that, one is left to ponder that he might just be well served by it, and anyone with an knowledge of history knows the dangers of a mindlessly compliant and fanatically unquestioning citizenry.