“Treason” isn’t a word that should be tossed around lightly, but it might best describe what is happening on a near-daily basis on the Fox News Channel, whose motto is “fair and balanced” despite their Senior Vice President for Programming’s declaration that they are “the voice of the opposition” where the Obama administration is concerned.
For some time, it’s been clear to most rational Americans that Fox News commentators in general – and Glenn Beck in particular – are more entertainers than true believers in the stream of fear-mongering, fringe-friendly drivel they put forth each night. But at a certain point, one has to wonder where the line is crossed.
Several nights ago on THE O’REILLY FACTOR, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley accused the President of the United States of America of wanting to see its citizens die in order to forward his own agenda.
She said, in part, “I think President Obama is a true believer. What I mean by that is that he is a disciple of Saul Alinsky… who was a radical, who believed in the radical remaking of America by shattering its very foundations. I believe that President Obama… has taken that to heart.”
When host Bill O’Reilly said, “But he can’t want Americans to be killed!” Crowley countered with, “How else do you explain his incredibly flaccid reactions to… attacks against the United States?”
That’s right, a Fox News commentator suggested that President Obama wants citizens of this country to be killed by extremists as part of his “radical agenda.”
Ladies and gentlemen, the line has been crossed.
Since the election of Barrack Obama, we have seen Fox News commentators literally call our president a racist (“I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.” – Glenn Beck), put aside that pesky “fair and balanced” thing in order to openly support the so-called “tea party” movement and help blatantly spread misinformation about everything from his status as an American citizen to his attempts to push for healthcare reform.
Funk & Wagnall’s standard dictionary defines “treason” as “betrayal of one’s sovereign or government” and “treasonable” action as anything “of, involving, or characteristic of treason.” So one has to ask: When does a supposed news organization go from taking full advantage of its First Amendment right of free speech to, in word and deed, taking part in actions that can be seen as “a betrayal of one’s government” and therefore treasonous?
If the charge seems a bit heavy handed, keep in mind that it is one the network itself has had no trouble using to suit its own purpose. For example, Beck – reacting to a rumor that had already been discredited by the White House – said that President Obama and his administration had behaved in a manner “that borders on treason.” In fact, not once, but three times within the hour, Beck used the term “treason” in conjunction with the White House.
Another definition of treason is “the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.” So how is one to take it as anything but treason when O’Reilly boasts that, “The conservative media is winning now. They’re damaging the president of the United States.”
There is, of course, one way in which this could all be viewed as something other than treason on the part of Fox News, and that is if their allegiance is to a government other than the one we have here in the United States. But that would mean that in the childhood tradition of “he who smelt it dealt it”, Fox News has cleverly been accusing Obama and his administration of being Nazi capitalists when, in fact, it’s all part of their own wicked plot to usher in a fascist regime. So which is it, Fox? Are you traitors to your country… or the ultimate in subversive commies?
Want to see a Conservative Republican become apoplectic? Suggest that people should be allowed to make their own decisions.
They are Pro-life, not Pro-Choice.
They rally around the Defense Of Marriage, not Equal Rights.
They somehow think “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a better motto than “why should it matter?”
More often than not, conservatives prove they can’t be anything but right by breaking out the biggest of big guns: “God is on our side,” they will declare. Of course, just like in all of the examples above, this argument leaves no room for the possibility of dissent by those who either do not believe in God or do not accept the Daddy Fearest version put forth by those who would use him as a sword with which to smite their enemy. Their stance in all things is “my way or the highway… to hell!”
Want to see the radical right at work?
Swing on over to the homepage of Donald Wildon’s rabidly anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-Democrat American Family Association and take a look at both the group’s causes and their coverage of world events. They call themselves ”America’s Largest Pro-Family Action Site,” but of course, families headed by same-sex couples need not apply. Because what they mean, silly rabbits, is pro… you know, normal families.
And trust us, they’re not above manipulating facts to make the world fit their view.
Take, for example, their long-running boycott of Pepsi for its “refusal to be neutral in the culture war over homosexuality.” Of course, neutrality isn’t really what the AFA is after, but rather, for the soda company to bend to their will. Upon learning that Pepsi had joined the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, Wildmon and company met with the corporation’s big wigs to demand that they withdrawl any and all support of the group. During similar meetings with the corporate heads of McDonald’s, Wildmon is quoted as saying “McDonald’s strongly told us that they are reaffirming their commitment to — they called it — ‘diversity.’”
Notice the quotation marks around the word diversity. The site usees that technique a lot, using quote marks to show derision toward a word such as “diversity” or “gay” when in fact the word they should be putting quotes around is “neutrality.”
Did you see what they did there? Call for “neutrality” when in fact what they meant was “side with us or we will boycott you?”
Not surprisingly, the site is extremely friendly with the Fox News Network. In fact, a recent story ended by suggesting, without a bit of irony, that “more networks follow the example of FOX, and offer balanced news with a conservative bent.” Poor things don’t realize that news with a “conservative bent” isn’t “balanced.” But at least they know it’s all a game, because the same piece goes on to say that the brand of “news” Fox puts out there is “what’s selling.”
What they, like most members of the radical right, are selling is the idea that there are two Americas: One in which heathens run around making decisions for themselves, and the one in which God-fearing people allow their lives to be controlled as if they are members of a collective. Like the Borg of Star Trek fame, they believe “resistance is futile” and “discussion is irrelevant.”
Somehow, members of the radical right forget that this country was born of a fiery rebellion against those who thought they could force us into seeing things their way. In this scenario, the radical right is the Kingdom of Great Britain or, to continue our previous analogy, the Borg. And perhaps it is in a line from that episode of Star Trek that those who refuse to be “assimilated” can take comfort.
“[They] have neither honor nor courage. That is our greatest advantage.”
