Why would you think that criticism of something is the same as being fundamentally against that thing?

I'd say what you're doing here is "emotional thinking". Try being more rational when thinking.

When you love your country, you actually have the duty to point things out that are wrong. That's the only way problems can be corrected. Otherwise it would mean you're ok with your country decaying.

(Just like with your boy/girlfriend or husband - if you love them, you need to openly talk about the problems.)

Says the Ayn Rand disciple. Anti-government is great, unless it's anti-American government, then it's treason.

Objectivism is not anti-government, and indeed, sees government as necessary in order to protect the rights of individuals (all individuals) from those who would otherwise violate them.

Right, it's just power worship. So government in service of the powerful at the expense of the weak is a-ok; the converse, evil.

Dissent isn't treason, even if you do it a lot.

Yet

He dissents, per Chris Hitchens, even when such dissent is "stupid and ignorant." So if Chomsky is too smart to be "stupid and ignorant," he must do so out of his need to be a bad American.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor...

I think you might be trolling so I hesitate to make this comment, but Chomsky is anti-authoritarian in the same way as most US founders were. For some reason in the middle of his career, Hitchens took a very strong toward statism and the associated hypocrisy and authoritarianism.

That doesn't make Hitchens' intellect any less entertaining, but if you look closely at his worldview it's clear that he willfully indulged a big blind spot for the follies of state power and coercive force. Rand would surely agree with my assessment.

Disagreement is not evidence of treason or conspiracy. Chomsky can be both smart and wrong.