Saturday, December 10, 2005

Open letter to O'Reilly

Larisa Alexandrovna
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna>
Bio
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/bio.php?nick=larisa-alexandrovna&name=Larisa%20Alexandrovna>

Blog Index <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/index/> RSS
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/syndication/>

12.09.2005

Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly: It's Bill of Rights, Not Bill's
Rights!
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/open-letter-to-bill-orei_b_11988.html>
(76 comments )

READ MORE: Ann Coulter <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/ann-coulter>,
News Corp <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/news-corp>, Rupert Murdoch
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/rupert-murdoch>, Fox News
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/fox-news>, Bill O'Reilly
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/bill-oreilly>

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

We all know that you make a living selling the "victimization of hate"
concept, a not entirely new genre in scapegoating. Germany in the
1930's, for example, already had a horrifically successful run at it. So
while not original, somehow you still manage to make a fortune spewing
the kind of filth that would even make the Soviets blush.

Everyone is quite aware of your penchant for lying, in frequency only
second, perhaps, to Ann Coulter's proclivity for self-hate, pathetically
heaved up and served like poison in hopes of making everyone as bitter
as she is.

Your hate bravado, however, is something that requires a whole new
category, and Fox News selling this filth only illustrates what I have
always believed to be true about corruption and greed: Namely, both
matter more than Christian values and both have no nationality.

(Perhaps when the Lincoln <http://www.lincolngroup.com> and Rendon
<http://www.rendon.com>Group contracts are up, someone might consider
taking a closer look at Fox News and what, if any, type of contract they
may have with the military industrial complex. Sure, it is easy to write
this garbage off as a bid for ratings, but given the extremism,
anti-American sentiments, and real and absolute contempt for all things
truly American that are regularly displayed on your show, it is doubtful
you are merely churning up the numbers. Even hate consumers apparently
have a limit.).

But I digress.

In truth, Mr. O'Reilly, for all your ravings about who is a traitor and
who is not, you forget the most basic definition of treason, and you
also seem to forget where that definition is located. I suggest you turn
to the actual document that this nation is built on, the Constitution
(not the Bible), which starts with something called the Bill of Rights.

Now, while you have managed to make racial slurs against anyone who
simply prefers to use one word over another to refer to a specific
holiday, you may have missed something key in this particular document,
the Constitution, that is. You may have missed that allegiance to and
defense of the Constitution is the first responsibility of a patriot,
followed by allegiance to and defense of the nation. Note: The country
as a whole is second to the Constitution on the loyalty scale. Against
this backdrop, the real stage of history, you, Mr. O'Reilly, would fall
very much on the wrong side of the good fight.

Consider your incessant rage against the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), for example, an organization that you call "traitors" on a
regular basis. You call so many people and organizations traitors that
it is hard to choose just one, but the ACLU does provide the easiest of
arguments.

Do you know what the ACLU really is or what it is for? I suspect that
you must have spent oodles of hours researching this particular
organization to be able to so thoroughly and consistently refer to them
as traitors, right?

Bill Learns Reality, 101

The ACLU has one and only one client, a non-partisan, wholly American
client: The Bill of Rights.

Now, given that patriotism must first demand the defense of the
Constitution before anything else (see my column on being an American
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/you-are-an-american_b_5928.html>),
one could argue quite easily that the ACLU is the patriot in this
argument and you, Mr. O'Reilly, are the traitor. No?

After all, they are simply doing what every American is tasked with and
should be doing, defending the reason and foundation for this country,
while you are demanding an all out assault on that very same reason and
foundation.

The same ACLU that you decry as traitors is made up, astonishingly
enough, of Republicans (read: real Republicans, not theocrats or
neo-fascists), Democrats, Independents, and every shade of political
thought in between a Democracy and a Republic.

The ACLU's membership numbers in the millions and is made up of
Christians as well as Jews, Muslims, and so forth.

In case you should require additional proof that the evil, liberal,
ever-plotting ACLU is anything but, consider that one of their clients
is none other than Rush Limbaugh
<http://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/14969prs20040112.html>. Now it can
hardly be said that old Rush is part of some grand left wing conspiracy
- right wing probably, left wing, not hardly.

The waters are a bit muddied here, so perhaps I can better help you
clarify your real objection to the Bill of Rights - and extended to all
actual Americans - by asking you a series of questions.

For brevity, I will only cover the First Amendment:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it
is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be
orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to
confess by word or act their faith therein," Justice Robert Jackson
(West Virginia v. Barnette
<http://www.answers.com/topic/west-virginia-state-board-of-education-v-barnette>).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On Free Speech: While you seem to enjoy the benefits of free speech,
clearly you are unwilling to share that right with others. Is this the
correct interpretation of why you are waging a war against the Bill of
Rights?

On Religion: While you seem to respect the pomp more than the actual
substance of religion, you still would rather see only your religion
practiced and only with your narrow practice, is this correct? Is this
the correct interpretation of why you are waging a war against the Bill
of Rights?

On a Free Press: Your own position on a so-called news channel should
prove without doubt that freedom of the press has extended even to the
bowels of payola, confusion, misinformation, and a general brothel of
crap floating on the outer banks of decency and anything remotely
resembling human reason. Is it correct to say that you want to secure
the right of a free press so long as it is made of the type of sewage
that flows out of Mr. Murdoch's toilet? Is this the correct
interpretation of why you are waging a war against the Bill of Rights?

On Peaceable Assembly: While you and your backers meet at every
nanosecond to determine the most cost-effective way to keep hate
prettily packaged, you find it repugnant that others would meet for
non-profit-related reasons. You seem to find it horrific that Americans
(Christians and Jews and Muslims alike) should stand peacefully against
an illegal war, yet you take no issue with working for a corporation
willing to sell those same Americans into death for profit. You even
attack grieving mothers who gave their sons and daughters for this
country as traitors. Are you afraid of your own cowardice in the face of
such courage? Is this the correct interpretation of why you are waging a
war against the Bill of Rights?

On Redressing Grievances: So your position then, given your absolute
loathing of the First Amendment, is that the government (the people's
government), should ignore its constituents, deprive them of a right to
be heard, and in general run largely disinterested in or unaccountable
to the citizenry? Let me remind you what our founding fathers thought of
King George, that other George, who was just as arrogant and indifferent
as the current one:

"In every state of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress
in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered
only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by
every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a
free people."

The above is from still another important American, real American,
wholly American document: the Declaration of Independence
<http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html>

But really, let's get down to the marrow of it: What is your problem
with this particular section of the First Amendment? Are you opposed to
the right to redress grievances because such a right might compel a
company such as the one you work for to be accountable for its own
abuses? Is this the correct interpretation of why you are waging a war
against the Bill of Rights?

I do not expect that you will answer these questions, because in doing
so you would either expose yourself as an utter and complete buffoon (to
your fans that is) who can barely keep his loofah afloat every morning
or you would expose yourself as an opportunist of the worst kind (to
your fans that is). Whatever the reality of your embedded psyche and
moral compass may be, you can trust that the majority of the public is
smarter and more honest than you are. Your fans will get a grip on
reality eventually because even the most inane of us has some ability to
eventually think.

So feel free to channel and express your inner Joe McCarthy. I suspect
that you will be nothing more than a footnote to the national
embarrassment that we now see McCarthyism as. Imagine that, your entire
life nothing more than a footnote to a national disgrace and the epitome
of un-American.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home