Jeffress: God Will Punish Us No Matter What »« Mormonism Erases the Past

Other Rush Wants Journalists Tried for Treason

Erik Rush, the absolutely deranged Worldnutdaily columnist, has actually managed to turn up the level of authoritarianism in right wing rhetoric with his latest column, in which he proposes that Candy Crowley and other journalists be tried for treason. Yes, he actually says this.

In the matter of this president, the press largely facilitated the ascension of Barack Obama. The instances wherein they have promoted, shielded and aided him are beyond enumeration.

This goes beyond such things as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and his man crush on Obama – I’m talking about treasonous collusion. One particularly scandalous incident occurred during the second presidential debate, when CNN moderator Candy Crowley made an interjection that appeared to have been as spontaneous as Ambassador Chris Stevens’ murder, and which led to a solid point scored for Obama. Most recently, after Mitt Romney brought up Obama’s 2009 “Apology Tour,” the press did their best to support Obama’s claim that this never happened, despite boundless reams of footage that exist chronicling the event…

It is improbable that the framers of the Constitution anticipated a situation in which the press were entirely given over to seditious, anti-American policies. If they had, it is likely that their modus operandi would be similar to that for any faction found guilty of high crimes. Trials for treason and the requisite sentences would apply, and I would have no qualms about seeing such sentences executed, no matter how severe.

This is not likely to occur, however. Radio personality and nascent media mogul Glenn Beck has the intention of putting the establishment press out of business. While I wish him every success, it doesn’t seem likely that he will accomplish this through his organizations alone. In addition to the advent of powerful alternative media sources, I believe it will be necessary to codify – or reaffirm – the nature of crimes against the Constitution and the American people. In this manner, we can thwart the designs not only of the press, but all global socialists operating in America.

Those whose speech and actions impinge upon the God-given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are, by definition, excepted from protection under the First Amendment (as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment). This is a very important concept to consider, because it is based on these presumptions of protected speech and equal protection for all that progressives and socialists have engaged in their predation upon our liberties.

If these truths can be acknowledged and widely accepted as such (as opposed to progressives’ Orwellian interpretations), then the political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists can begin in earnest, and in the open.

Of course, if we were to accept that premise, Rush himself would be the first one arrested. What he proposes here is nothing if not contrary to the ideas found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Just another right wing authoritarian.

Comments

  1. iangould says

    Oh for fuck’s sake:

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

    US Constitution Article 3 SEction 3.

  2. Matrim says

    It’s always fun when people get up on their soap box and then express an opinion on what should be treason that, if they really had their way, would be every bit as “treasonous” as the people they actually seek to marginalize.

    Kinda like when women stand up and talk about how the women’s rights movement was a bad thing, or when Christians talk about there not being a separation of church and state.

  3. Chiroptera says

    This is a very important concept to consider, because it is based on these presumptions of protected speech and equal protection for all that progressives and socialists have engaged in their predation upon our liberties.

    And this is the money quote. Upon which “liberties” have the the progressives and socialists preyed? Their “liberty” to be cruel to, marginalize, arrest those who are different or dare to express different opinions or even those who secretly have different beliefs.

  4. says

    Zinc @ 1:

    How un-American to question those in power, to check facts, to hold them to account, and to speak without fear.

    Except Crowley actually did the opposite of that. Which is even less deserving of the term “treason.” I don’t think it’s correct to say that Crowley acted in support of the president*, but even if it were, I’m not sure it’s treason for an American to act in support of the President of the United States on U.S. soil.

    *For essentially the same reason I don’t believe in evolution.

  5. D. C. Sessions says

    Those whose speech and actions impinge upon the God-given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are, by definition, excepted from protection under the First Amendment (as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).

    I like this. Apparently, some accusations automatically trump the Constitutional provisions for due process.

    Of course we don’t see this stated frankly very often, but it’s been policy for a long time. Most notably for drug charges and more recently “terrorism.”

  6. bradleybetts says

    @iangould

    Hey, your right-wingers like to re-define treason too! They do it all the time here in the UK :) The amount of times I’ve had to explain to some EDL nutjob that you can’t try an Ex-Prime Minister for treason just because immigration increased during their tenure… *sigh*.

  7. says

    This is a very important concept to consider, because it is based on these presumptions of protected speech and equal protection for all that progressives and socialists have engaged in their predation upon our liberties.

    If these truths can be acknowledged and widely accepted as such (as opposed to progressives’ Orwellian interpretations), then the political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists can begin in earnest, and in the open.

    Freedom for me, but not for thee.

    But, seriously, this is a Gary North level of authoritarianism. This guy is in no uncertain terms calling for everyone who isn’t a right wing fundamentalist to be rounded up and killed (seeing as the maximum punishment for treason is death in this country). As the “mainstream” version of the right moves further and further towards the extremes, the extremes respond by becoming even more and more extreme. And that’s what we’re seeing here.

  8. says

    “It is improbable that the framers of the Constitution anticipated a situation in which the press were entirely given over to seditious, anti-American policies.”

    Why? Their whole revolution came out of a press given over to seditious, anti-British policies.

  9. says

    Me (to Romney): “No. What you said is wrong.”

    There. I’ve committed treason, apparently. Felt kind of good, actually. Weird thing is, if I’d said it to Obama, Erik Rush would’ve called me a patriot or somesuch. Strange days. Strange days, indeed.

  10. says

    In his book The Bush Dysləxicon (here’s hoping the schwa character displays properly), Mark Crispin Miller asserts that the mainstream media gave George W. Bush a ‘free pass’ in the 2000 election.

    I’d say that according to Erik Rush’s standards, that would make a lot of media personalities, even ones he supports, guilty of treason, but I suspect that the It’s Okay If You’re A Republican rule would apply.

  11. StevoR says

    .. then the political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists can begin in earnest, and in the open.
    – Erik Rush.

    So .. Is that an admission that “political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists* and Marxists*” is currently happening in secrecy (out of the open) right now?

    &&&

    * What *both* of them? How many American Marxists (or even socialists) are there out of museums or cobwebbed textbooks these days anyhow?

  12. says

    Those whose speech and actions impinge upon the God-given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution

    Oh, skimmed this before. Isn’t one of those rights free speech? So, speech that impinges on freedom of speech?

  13. slc1 says

    Seems to me that a fellow named Frankenberger talked like that in Germany in the 1920s and early thirties, before he assumed power. How did that work out.

  14. Sastra says

    It is improbable that the framers of the Constitution anticipated a situation in which the press were entirely given over to seditious, anti-American policies. If they had, it is likely that their modus operandi would be similar to that for any faction found guilty of high crimes.

    Yes, framer of the Constitution John Adams had to institute the Sedition Act whilst president to deal with those unanticipated problems with the Press. Thought better of it later, though.

    “Bring back the Sedition Act!” Great idea for a wingnut bumper sticker. No more speaking in a “false, scandalous and malicious” manner against the government.

  15. andrewjohnston says

    It’s actually worse than it looks. Read between the lines, and you’ll see Rush arguing that Constitutional protections are not rights afforded to all Americans. Per Rush, speech is not innately protected but is only allowed and can be regulated and rescinded. Under this theory, he would like to strip 1st Amendment rights (and probably voting privileges) from those people he has deemed enemies of liberty, i.e. “liberals.” Look at his language – Obama supporters are guilty of “collusion,” as though Democrats are de facto traitors – a real echo from the Bush years.

    In other words, in a column about how liberals are enemies of the Constitution, he’s announcing his desire to deny Constitutional rights to a wide swath of Americans. Wingnuts remain ever immune to irony.

  16. andrewjohnston says

    @Chiroptera: Well, in the full article, the only example Rush can come up with is a joke played by some A/V guy at a local CBS affiliate. However, there are a few common bugaboos among this particular type of wingnut. Most of them are convinced that liberals are bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, even though that hasn’t been mentioned by anyone outside of the right for a good twenty years (some of the denser ones are convinced that Network Neutrality = Fairness Doctrine because they kinda-sorta sound similar). And then there’s the old “anti-Christian bias in schools” line, usually packed with ancient political myths like the Raymond Raines story.

  17. Michael Heath says

    Let’s not forget the numerated press right in the 1st Amendment, not just the numerated right to speech:

    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.
    [emphasis mine – MH]

  18. baal says

    “It is improbable that the framers of the Constitution anticipated a situation in which the press were entirely given over to seditious, anti-American policies.”

    I was going to comment on how it was improbable that they’d consider an improbable event (and how the pass bush got on torture was pretty anti-american (thought not seditious)).

    Then I saw this:
    “If these truths can be acknowledged and widely accepted as such (as opposed to progressives’ Orwellian interpretations), then the political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists can begin in earnest, and in the open.”

    The infinite regress of stupid – it is Orwellian to call for open political disenfranchisement of any group – especially so for a political group. That word Orwellian doesn’t mean what you’re using it for.

  19. says

    From another Rush:
    “From this day forward, somebody propose it, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns. It’s just that simple. Liberals should have their speech controlled and not be allowed to buy guns. I mean if we want to get serious about this, if we want to face this head on, we’re gonna have to openly admit, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns, nor should they be allowed to use computer keyboards or typewriters, word processors or e-mails, and they should have their speech controlled.”

  20. Stacy says

    CNN moderator Candy Crowley made an interjection that appeared to have been as spontaneous as Ambassador Chris Stevens’ murder

    Ah, Crowley knew what Romney was going to say, and she rehearsed in advance what she was gonna say when he lied during the debate. Fiendishly clever, these traitors.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply