“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?

 

 

 

 

As Keith Olbermann said on last night’s COUNTDOWN, outrage seems to have become the new empty buzzword of the financial crisis, thanks in large part to the big bucks lavished upon top execs at AIG. And while many are raising their voices to the heavens and demanding that the bonuses be repaid — and at least one Senator is suggesting those who received them should consider committing suicide — one undeniable fact remains: The entire mess is, in fact, the government’s fault.

Should the execs at AIG be ashamed of themselves? Yes, for oh-so-many reasons. But we as a people have, as one of our prime directives, a desire to get as much as possible… by doing as little as possible. The people in question here are no different.

When the government started handing out huge amounts of money with absolutely no strings attached, some predicted disaster… and they were completely right. Only now, when it is far too late, is the government feigning outrate by demanding that the money be returned and scrambling to figure out a way to force it back into the cofers.

But had they taken an extra day or two during which they could have put in place a set of guidelines for conditions under which the blank checks they were writing could be cahsed, the current situation could have been avoided.

Instead, they are now wringing their hands and asking how people who spent years manipulating the financial markets in an effort to line their own pockets to ignore the cash flowing like water from a tap in their general direction. Our lawmakers, many of whom were in power when the bailout began — and before the transition from President Bush to President Obama — are holding AIG responsible for their shortcomings.

Make no mistake. The bonus-receiving execs at AIG should hang their heads in shame. And I’m sure they are — if only to look for more candy they can grab out of the hands of babies — as they make their way to the bank. But the real responsibility for this mess lies with the government officials who opened the floodgates without bothering to think about how the water damage that would be left in the resulting tidal wave’s wake.

Or, as constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley said of the situation, “When you give billions and billions of dollars to the Pirates of Penzance, you can hardly be surprised that they spend it on women and grog.”

Okay, look, somebody just has to come right out and say it: Bipartisan politics is as much an urban myth as alligators in the sewers, Albert Einstein’s guest appearance on Gunsmoke or the guy who smothered between the 77-DD breasts of a stripper at his bachelor party.

While it would be wonderful if we lived in a “Hey, kids, can’t we all just get along?” world, the fact is that our political system has become, for all intents and purposes, a never-ending game of one-upmanship in which the party in power basically tries to sucker-punch those in the minority as often as possible before the tables are turned and they wind up on the receiving end of the blows again.

Democrats disagree with practically everything Republicans say and/or stand for.

Republicans disagree with practically everything Democrats say and/or stand for.

And as much as many voters may love the idea of Ron Paul or Ralph Nader ascending to the highest seat in the land, the notion of a third-party candidate actually becoming president is about as realistic as Joan Rivers being named Playmate Of The Year.

Go ahead, take a minute to get that image out of your system.

How we got this far into our nation’s history without realizing that a political system based on mutually exclusive goals, mud-slinging and antagonism might not be the best idea in the world, I’m not sure. Then again, I’m not exactly a political scholar. 

But when you’ve got one party ready to pounce on every move made by the other — and vice versa — it’s safe to say it won’t be easy to get things done. And even when something miraculously does get achieved, there’s always someone there to make sure that their party gets the credit… and the other gets the blame.

For example, hours after President Obama said he would sign an “imperfect” spending bill to fund the federal government through September — adding that he hoped that future bills would be earmark- and pork-free — Senator John McCain made sure to offer up a not-so-helpful response. “The President’s rhetoric is impressive,” McCain said, only to quickly turn his statement into a backhanded compliment at best, “but his statement affirms we will continue to do business as usual in Washington regarding earmarks in appropriations legislation. The President could have resolved this issue in one statement — ‘No more unauthorized pork-barrel projects — and pledged to use his veto pen to stop them. This is an opportunity missed.”

On one hand, McCain is, of course, right. 

On the other, one can’t help but think, “Um, couldn’t former President Bush have uttered those same things during his eight years in office?”

D’oh!

But have no doubt: If the situation were reversed and a Republican president were making the exact same statement, McCain’s Democratic counterpart would have responded in the same manner. And that right there, my friends, is the problem.

What we’ve got is trouble. Right here in River City. Trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Party Politics. The irony is that, as children, we are taught to share, to play well with others… and yet it would seem that in order to play the political game, those starry-eyed notions of a world in which tantrums and stubbornness are punished as opposed to rewarded have to be cast aside. Sure, our politicians shake hands with the public and kiss babies and don nice clothes while running for office, but the minute their goal is achieved, the gloves come off so that they can take part in the bare-knuckle streetfighting that is modern politics.

They say that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it would appear that unevenly-fractured power has a perhaps-not-unexpected effect: It encourages the worst aspects of human nature to come forth as the people with the most important jobs in the country are reduced to the equivalent of trash-talking, mud-slinging  Jerry Springer guests.

We, the people, deserve better. But until someone invents a better mousetrap, it would appear that we’re stuck with the rodent-infested system that we’ve got. And if we can’t expect civility from those who are, in a way, this country’s ultimate role models and trend setters, what hope is there for the rest of us?