I love my country. I make no bones about it. I was born American by God’s grace.

However, there are a bunch of idiots out there who do not feel that way. They take the privilege of being born in the greatest country on Earth as a liability, not a blessing.

For example, the Liberal pinheads who are currently publishing the adventures of an American Icon, who has always stood for truth, justice, and the American Way.

That’s right. These snotty-nosed punks are having the Man of Steel renounce his American citizenship.

This unpatriotic bone-headed move takes place in “The Incident,” a short story in Action Comics #900 written by David S. Goyer with art by Miguel Sepulveda. In it, Superman meets with the President’s national security advisor, who is hot about the fact that  Superman appeared in Tehran to non-violently support the protesters demonstrating against the Iranian regime, no doubt an analogue for the recent real-life protests in the Middle East.

What in the world?

…Since Superman is viewed as an American icon in the DC Universe as well as our own, the Iranian government has construed his actions as the will of the American President, and indeed, an act of war.

Superman replies that it was foolish to think that his actions would not reflect politically on the American government, and that he therefore plans to renounce his American citizenship at the United Nations the next day — and to continue working as a superhero from a more global than national perspective. From a “realistic” standpoint it makes sense; it would indeed be impossible for a nigh-omnipotent being ideologically aligned with America to intercede against injustice beyond American borders without creating enormous political fallout for the U.S. government.

What in the name of Krypto the Superdog is going on here?

It’s bad enough that we have to live with the Liberals’ intentional distruction of our American Way of Life, but do they have to corrupt our comic book icons as well?

What next…is Batman going to come out of the closet and change his cape and cowl to pink?

The next thing you’re going to tell me is that the President of the United States doesn’t like our country.

Oh, wait…

On americanthinker.com, in an excellent article posted on 11/1/2009, a writer named bookworm posted the following list of Obama’s anti-liberty goals:

• He wants to deny individuals access to the marketplace –where they can make their own decisions about their own health care — and instead put the government entirely in charge.   [Since this list was published, Obamacare got passed.]
• He’s willing to give government control over American businesses (e.g., the bank takeovers and Government Motors).
• His administration, while on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine, is aggressively exploring a backdoor regulatory scheme that would have precisely the same practical effect as the Fairness Doctrine: it would impose government restrictions on content, rather than allowing the market (that means us, the consumers) to control content.
• His FCC wants to control the internet, a humming beehive of free speech (much of it critical of Obama).
• As his loud battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News illustrate, he desires a single-party press, not a free one.
• He believes that now that he is in power, the opposition should shut up and “get out of the way,” a notion that runs directly counter to the First Amendment.
• Although he’s mostly erased the record that once existed in cyberspace, his dream is to create a civilian national security force, subordinate to the administration, which would be larger than the American military. The military, please note, is controlled by the Constitution and has traditionally existed separate from, but subordinate to, the rest of the American government.
• He wants to take away the right to bear arms. He’ll pay lip service to supporting the Second Amendment, but his fundamental goal is to use government to remove arms from individuals.
• In a stunning blow to the freedom of born alive infants, he is one of a handful of politicians nationwide who believes it is appropriate to leave such infants to die alone and untended. With few exceptions, even those whose politics are entirely colored by a pro-choice viewpoint couldn’t swallow this approach.
• Without money, people have no choices. The more money the government siphons to itself, the fewer choices we as individuals have. Although he dresses it as fairness (it’s “fair” for the “lucky” to pay substantially more), Obama believes that it’s government’s role to “spread the wealth.” That may be “fair,” but it’s not consistent with liberty, hard work, and individual choices.

And, just yesterday, the Obama Administration  exiled the San Francisco Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci from being a part of the press pool again.

Her horrendous crime? 

She pulled out a small video camera last week and shot some protesters interrupting an Obama fundraiser at the St. Regis Hotel.

Censorship of the press.  My…how Marxist.

Why is it that those who claim to be the most tolerant of anybody in this nation, are actually the least?

And the very country that permits them to practice their misguided ideology is the very nation that they hold in such great disdain?