It was probably just a matter of time before Glenn Beck starting making accusations that would put him at odds with Christianity as a whole. Based on statements from his radio program and his FOX show, he has willingly endeavored to do just that.

Attempting to incite his audience into mass action, Beck decided to warn his listeners and viewers to beware churches that preach about the need for social justice. He pleaded, “I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.” To ensure that no one misinterpreted Beck’s call to action, he followed that immediately by saying, “Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!”

Indeed, Beck, under the guise of a concerned Christian, unconvincingly compared calls for social justice with extremists from both ends of the political spectrum and demanded people leave their churches over the topic. “Communists are on the left, and the Nazis are on the right,” said Beck. “But they both subscribe to one philosophy, and they flew one banner… But on each banner, read the words, here in America: ’social justice.’ They talked about economic justice, rights of the workers, redistribution of wealth, and surprisingly, democracy.”

It should not surprise Beck that social justice, the term coined by Jesuit priest Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio to promote compassion and humanitarian efforts for fellow individuals, would include calls for stronger democracy. It began as an effort to help others in a practical manner, such as promotion of democracy or clothing the naked and caring for the sick. In fact, social justice has become so ingrained within the Catholic faith that it bears mentioning in the Catholic Catechism. Being raised Catholic, Beck surely understood the gravity of simultaneously conflating the Catholic Church with both Nazism and Communism. Still, he may not have recognized how wide a swathe of Christians his baseless attacks also opposed, including members of the Mormon faith he purports to agree with.

Then again, Beck’s theological aptitude led him to conclude that God would not support the right to an education. He must see no need for anyone to read the Bible or any of the books Beck so famously shills on his program; the acquired ability to read would, after all, necessitate some form of education. If Beck does not want to promote the ability to read even the book at the core of Christian faith, would that not mean he opposes the faith altogether, as well?

Beck’s crusade against humanitarianism, or “social justice” as it sometimes is called, proves how little he cares about others, even his unfortunate viewers and listeners. In his zeal to fear monger about movements of Nazis or Communists, he successfully alienated Christian churches around the world, though he claims to be a Christian himself. Perhaps it also illustrates that Beck has a better understanding of social justice than he lets on. The movement began as a worldly way for Christians to fulfill their spiritual compulsion to help others. Beck simply inverted and corrupted the equation, letting his worldly desire for infamy and money lead him to vilify any spiritual compulsion or actions intended to help anyone but him and his preconceived message.

The time has come to send a message to Beck to quit his misguided attempts at a warped theology — one that actually takes aim at Christians everywhere — and choose to Turn Off FOX.

With President Obama working hard to take his message of healthcare reform to the people and health insurers looking to raise rates, it appears rather telling about the larger debate that Sarah Palin, FOX contributor and one of healthcare reform’s most public opponents, has been such an overt hypocrite about the topic.

Reminiscing about her childhood, Palin recently told a group in Canada about how she and her family used to cross the border to receive healthcare in Canada. It indeed proved an “ironic” admission, as she called it, though Palin left it unclear if she realized in what way. This same woman has denigrated healthcare reform efforts in the U.S., which aspire to move the nation closer to the rankings of the far more successful Canadian system, as “downright evil.” Even now, years after she and her family reaped the benefits of Canada’s universal healthcare, Palin had the audacity to criticize that system for needing to allow a “private sector takeover” as if that model has always served her well in the past.

Palin’s story reveals more about how much of a joke she is, and not just because of her stand-up performance on Jay Leno. The interview with Leno had her actually parroting FOX’s motto in demanding “that there needs to be the fairness, the balance in there. That’s why I joined FOX.” Surprisingly, she did not appear to make that utterance in good humor, perhaps unwilling to test the audience too much. As one member of the audience and author of the Going Rouge coloring book noted, Palin’s humor appeared to fall flat and require a laugh track to make it presentable. She may have had better luck eliciting laughter if she tried her line defending her incredibly hypocritical telepalmer incident by claiming that God does it, too.

No wonder Palin so regularly denigrates the media, of which she is a member, and tries to exclude others from her events; the jokes that she makes intentionally hardly have the desired effect, but the real humor and insight into her values come from Palin’s attempts to be serious. For the adequately informed, Palin makes for an unwitting jester. Unfortunately, for a number of people willfully ignorant of Palin’s hypocrisy, the views she pretends to hold could harm the progress of the concerned citizens who would rather not have to cross the border for healthcare. They should ask for the the would-be comedian to be pulled from the stage — and choose to Turn Off FOX.

Of the many things FOX might criticize the president for having, one would expect his faith-based council advisory board to be last on the list. Yet FOX has maintained an opposition to the appointment of Harry Knox to said board, and Kelly played her part in that narrative. She illustrated her willingness to cover the full breadth of the story by introducing the story of GOP opposition to the appointment by quoting John Boehner as calling Knox a “Catholic bashing bigot.” Then to further that notion, Kelly brought in Laura Ingraham to discuss the issue, Ingraham a commentator so far right that Bill O’Reilly called her an “ideologue.”

The closest thing to a counter to Ingraham’s attacks about Knox would presumably come from Kelly, but her strongest volleys came in the form of saying, “It isn’t a huge shock that President Obama would have a guy like this advising him,” something that comes across as just a further indictment of the President than a defense of Knox. Ingraham also asked Kelly, “Megyn, do you think he’d survive on this administration’s faith council if he said something similarly insulting about the Prophet Muhammad?” Kelly opted against deflecting the irrelevant hypothetical and rather endorsed it by smilingly responding, “That’s a good question.” Kelly continued to offer little interjection while Ingraham voiced her rage about the “great disrespect to the Holy Father” and complained about how people needed to “show some respect to the people of this country who do take their faith seriously,” an unbelievable demand coming from a woman who openly mocks the sick for political gain. Kelly and Ingraham obviously agreed, regardless of how much that meant taking a biased stand on a news story.

Kelly’s blatant bias would surprise more if not for her long history of exhibiting just that. As Jon Stewart pointed out with ample detail, Kelly and her staff only air interviews that agree with their preconceived opinion, such as those with opponents of healthcare reform. For support, Kelly cherry-picks poll numbers to illustrate an overwhelming opposition to reform, ignoring those that show majority support of reform. Then she tells viewers something like she did in October 2008 regarding Obama’s success in the polls: “Don’t trust the polls; with all due respect to our pollsters, they might not tell us anything.”

Viewers should not be fooled by the purported news and opinion programming differentiation at FOX. Most of the FOX personalities are likely to push the same conservative agenda regardless of time slot. If anything, the “news” programming occasionally aims at subtlety, but not much else. People should ignore shows like Kelly’s midday dose of unqualified conservative propaganda — and choose to Turn Off FOX.

Appearing this morning alongside Gretchen Carlson, whose substantive contributions to political conversation includes analyzing hair, Mancow came in and commented on the ongoing healthcare reform debate. As Carlson put it to Mancow, stressing the obvious wealth of knowledge Mancow could cull from for discussion, “You’re from Chicago. President Obama’s from Chicago. What do you think he’s going to do today?”

Playing into the sense that being from the same city of nearly three million people meant Mancow had some true insight to offer, he replied, “Well, I knew Barry Obama when he was just the, uh, you know, the race-baiting community organizer in Chicago, but, uh, he’s doing a good job. You know, it’s Chicago mob politics and it doesn’t matter what the people want, he’s going to shove it through.”

He went on to deride the potential reform, one currently without even a public option, as “Obama’s Communist healthcare.” Carlson chose not to openly challenge the ludicrous denigration of President Obama as a “race-baiting community organizer,” but she did at least point out that President Obama had incorporated four GOP ideas into healthcare reform. Unabated in his vitriol, Mancow simply asked, “Was there a Republican proposal that he should be, uh… that he should resign?”

Despite the specious charge Mancow used against the president, it only took the rest of the show for Mancow to commence in some race-baiting of his own. Mancow heaped praise on Sen. Bunning’s crusade to prevent a benefits extension for the unemployed and the radio host took aim against aid for Palestinians. As Mancow put it, “We’re going to rebuild Gaza to the tune of a billion dollars so radical Muslims have a level place to kill Jewish children.” How that tangent related to Senator Bunning and unemployment benefits probably would not even make sense to Mancow in retrospect, especially considering he was recently fired himself. Nonetheless, his unverifiable claims reveal Mancow’s less-than-nuanced view of Palestinians and that, like his apparent hero, his accusations regarding race sound increasingly like projection.

If Mancow’s appearance served only as a fluke instance of ridiculousness, he could be dismissed. However, his claims so nonchalantly blend into the narrative of the network that he could just as easily have his own show there. Coupled with his appearance today following in Mancow’s history of vitriol on FOX, though, exemplify the poor quality standards of FOX. Mancow’s former employers fired him during an effort to “restore credibility.” For FOX, he presented an opportunity to further diminish theirs.

Since FOX refuses to do so, help exert your own quality control against the extremist, factually unsupported accusations from Mancow — and choose to Turn Off FOX.

As previously reported, the incredibly suspicious funding sources for FOX News has left more than a few people enraged that FOX can get preference for airtime in a place such as an armed forces base that should be free from media controlled by someone like Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal who may also support terrorism. A network that touts someone who would stand alone in denying benefits to suffering people during a recession as “fearless” certainly deserves ire, but bin Talal evokes a special kind of ire that has rankled concerned people across the political spectrum. Here is a letter that a reader submitted in response to FOX broadcasting at a base:

To Fort Carson Public Affairs Officer,

I am a retired DOD Civilian from Washington State researching the destruction and loss of life caused by suicide bombers in the Iraqi and Afghan theaters. I have determined from a review of casualty lists posted in iCasualties that commands at Fort Carson have experienced a significant number of fatalities. My research has been motivated in part by the recent revelations that a member of the Saudi Royal Family who has been generously contributing to families of suicide bombers is now in a position to affect the media portrayal of how Islamic behavior is reported. This man owns a significant interest in major media which is viewed as a dependable and credible source of news and which many in the U.S. military watch daily. They might see things differently if they understood that they are contributing to an entity more concerned about making money than they are about our security here and abroad.

I have enclosed a letter I wrote to Stars and Stripes, my local press, Congressmen, and to as many PAOs as I can. If I could, I would write the families of the victims of these fanatics who would be outraged at discovering the truth about this betrayal. I have also enclosed the list of soldiers who died at the hands of suicide bombers.

Ft. Carson suicide bomber casualties:

4-10-2009 Woods Jr., Gary L. Staff Sergeant 24 US Hostile – hostile fire – suicide truck bomb Ninawa Mosul U.S. Army 1st BN, 67th Armor Reg, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division Kentucky Lebanon Junction

4-10-2009 Hall, Bryan E. Staff Sergeant 32 US Hostile – hostile fire – suicide truck bomb Ninawa Mosul U.S. Army 1st BN, 67th Armor Reg, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division California Elk Grove

4-10-2009 Pautsch, Jason G. Corporal 20 US Hostile – hostile fire – suicide truck bomb Ninawa Mosul U.S. Army 1st BN, 67th Armor Reg, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division Iowa Davenport

4-10-2009 Gautier, Bryce E. Private 2nd Class 22 US Hostile – hostile fire – suicide truck bomb Ninawa Mosul U.S. Army 1st BN, 67th Armor Reg, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division California Cypress

4-10-2009 Forrest, Edward Sergeant 25 US Hostile – hostile fire – suicide truck bomb Ninawa Mosul U.S. Army 1st BN, 67th Armor Reg, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division Missouri Fenton

11-07-2005 Reyes, Mario A. Private 1st Class 19 US Hostile – hostile fire – suicide car bomb Baghdad Baghdad (south of) U.S. Army 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry REG New Mexico Las Cruces

11-07-2005 Pope II, Robert C. Corporal 22 US Hostile – hostile fire – suicide car bomb Baghdad Baghdad (south of) U.S. Army 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry REG New York East Islip

11-07-2005 Freeman, Brian L. Staff Sergeant 27 US Hostile – hostile fire – suicide car bomb Baghdad Baghdad (south of) U.S. Army 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry REG Mississippi Caledonia

11-07-2005 Smith, Justin S. 1st Lieutenant 28 US Hostile – hostile fire – suicide car bomb Baghdad Baghdad (south of) U.S. Army 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry REG Michigan Lansing

The Letter:

Al Quaida and other radical Islamists employment of suicide bombers as a tactic has destroyed more than 135 lives among our defense forces. One man in particular is renowned for his unabashed contributions of $25,000 to the families of the bombers who attack our troops and sacrifice themselves to their cause. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a member of the Royal Family, now owns a 7 percent interest in Robert Murdoch’s News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, making him the 4^th largest investor. He funds and supports the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR which lobbies’ on behalf of Islamic Interests and is blacklisted by our government. CAIR is identified by the FBI as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator.  Bill O’Reilly actually called CAIR’s National Communications Director a “stand up guy.”  FOX News is compromised and questions regarding loyalty to our troops and commitment to our foreign policy goals arise. Why would any military facility allow or encourage a viewership of Fox News at their bases? How does a commander explain to the troops that they are to watch this propaganda network and somehow ignore that the people helping to kill, murder and otherwise harm these viewers, are in fact principals of the media and support the efforts to reduce this viewership by killing them?  Please explain how endorsing a “stand up guy” who aids and abets those who blow themselves and other people to bits isn’t an insult? I question the wisdom and policy of any DOD facility that encourages or promotes a business that attracts investors like Talal.  Service members and their families deserve more respect than that.

Clearly, the members of the armed forces working so diligently to protect this nation, as well as their families, deserve better than to be subjected to media that bin Talal boasts of manipulating. By the response earned by news of bin Talal’s stake in News Corporation, it appears transparent that FOX News has an ethical dilemma to deal with that refuses to go away. Show your own distaste for an alleged terrorist supporter controlling a portion of the national media by taking action like the reader above chose to do — and by choosing to Turn Off FOX.

Please send in tips and success stories to turnofffox@gmail.com, look out for us on Twitter @turnofffox, and join us at BuzzFlash in the Campaign to Turn Off FOX News. And please forward this article to a friend. You can drive the message home by obtaining a Turn Off FOX Bumper Sticker. Just Click Here.

After the healthcare summit, President Obama hoped to have ascertained all the common ground liberals and conservatives have on the healthcare reform the nation so desperately needs in order to push legislation forward. Unfortunately, one basic assumption bipartisan progress would require, that both sides have compassion for the uninsured, simply does not hold. Now the movement to stop healthcare reform has taken a new low — denigrating the afflicted.

Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham, who even O’Reilly considers an “ideologue,” talked about the summit on O’Reilly’s show Thursday evening, but Ingraham made it clear that she had no sympathetic sentiments and preferred to be snide about the whole event. Referring to the stories Democrats presented of real sufferers of the lack of healthcare reform, Ingraham wrote off Louise Slaughter’s constituent by saying she had “won the Olympics of sob stories by saying…[she] had to wear her sister’s dentures, okay, it got so bad with the healthcare system.” To prove she could, in fact, take her dislike for the disenfranchised a step further, Ingraham continued to say, “You had Harry Reid on the cleft palate with his [constituents] . . . I mean, the whole thing was ridiculous.”

While Ingraham prominently features a cross on her chest during most of her television appearances, nothing about her attack on the story of someone with a cleft palate as “ridiculous” sounds remotely Christian. Nor does Ingraham’s attempt to make light of an elderly woman in any way resemble a call to aid the literal or metaphorical “orphans and widows” of the world, a movement defined Biblically as “religion clean and undefiled.”

Instead, Ingraham’s derision came across as a crass attempt at humor used to avoid the substance of the issue, something her conservative colleagues like Glenn Beck and his radio sidekicks continued. Beck himself ridiculed the condition of Slaughter’s constituent by saying, “I am wearing George Washington’s dentures right now. I’m wearing his teeth right now. Over my teeth.” Beck’s sidekicks took the attacks a step further, derisively imitating the voice of a two-year-old presumably writing in to President Obama to tell him, “I have no healthcare, Mr. Pwesident, and I have no feet and no tonsils because doctors took ‘em out.” It seems only a member of Beck’s show could find humor in a small child missing body parts. Somehow, he appeared entertained.

Regardless of how many times FOX tries to portray healthcare reform as against the will of the nation, its contributors and their associates prove just how out of touch they are with the people who need help. People around the country deserve better than to be ridiculed by FOX personalities for their suffering and to have some kind of help in the form of healthcare reform. To get there, viewers deserve a compassionate presentation of the news rather than the facetiousness of Ingraham and Beck — and to choose to Turn Off FOX.

Please send in tips and success stories to turnofffox@gmail.com, look out for us on Twitter @turnofffox, and join us at BuzzFlash in the Campaign to Turn Off FOX News. And please forward this article to a friend.

Also don’t forget you can drive the message home with a TurnOffFOX bumper sticker.

I am a retired DOD Civilian and use the recreation facilities at a nearby base. I am subjected to being present when Fox News is televised. Since learning of the Saudi Prince Talal’s stake in Fox his support of families of suicide bombers, his funding and support of CAIR which is influencing Fox’s coverage of anything related to Islam, I have begun a campaign to inform as many Public Affairs Offices of this unsavory relationship. More than 135 U.S. service members have died at the hands of suicide bombers. I have researched the statistics available through iCasualties and have identified the personnel killed and their associated commands. I am in the process of contacting those commands. I have written letters to the editors of the local press and also to Stars and Stripes. I may eventually contact family members and ask if they would be willing to discuss the circumstances of their loved ones deaths and the implications of having a major “news” network funded in part by a sympathetic de facto terrorist. I am sickened by the crass capitalist motivation by these people at FOX. Members serving in the military need to understand who is not on their side. Enclosed is a copy of the letter. Anyone interested in helping with this project may contact me and — put “Military FOX” as the subject of the E-mail.

Al Quaeda and other radical Islamists’ employment of suicide bombers as a tactic has destroyed more than 135 lives among our defense forces. One man in particular is renowned for his unabashed contributions of $25,000 to the families of the bombers who attack our troops and sacrifice themselves to their cause. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a member of the Royal Family, now owns a 7 percent interest in Robert Murdoch’s News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, making him the 4th largest investor. He funds and supports the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which lobbies on behalf of Islamic Interests and is blacklisted by our government. CAIR is identified by the FBI as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator. Bill O’Reilly actually called CAIR’s National Communications Director a “stand-up guy.” FOX News is compromised and questions regarding loyalty to our troops and commitment to our foreign policy goals arise. Why would any military facility allow or encourage a viewership of FOX News at their bases? How does a commander explain to the troops that they are to watch this propaganda network and somehow ignore the people helping to kill, murder, and otherwise harm these viewers, who are in fact principles of the media and support the efforts to reduce this viewership by killing them? Please explain how endorsing a “stand-up guy” who aids and abets those who blow themselves and other people to bits isn’t an insult? I question the wisdom and policy of any DOD facility that encourages or promotes a business that attracts investors like Talal. Service members and their families deserve more respect than that.

Please send in tips and success stories to turnofffox@gmail.com, look out for us on Twitter @turnofffox, and join us at BuzzFlash in the Campaign to Turn Off FOX News. And please forward this article to a friend.

Many FOX News personalities spend their air time warning about the dangers of big government, whether because of allegations that healthcare reform “effectively is euthanasia” or that the Department of Justice is filled with “terrorist sympathizers,” among other unfounded claims. Yet recent developments in the U.K. indicate that governments and people at large have more reason to be wary of the unethical and illegal activities of Rupert Murdoch’s media conglomerate than the unsupported allegations his networks send out about government action.

An extensive report from a cross-party committee in the U.K. details allegations of a widespread practice of illegal phone tapping by journalists of News of the World (NoW), a Murdoch-owned newspaper in England. The investigation by the members of Parliament has its roots in the case against Clive Goodman, a NoW reporter jailed for hacking into the voicemails of royal aides.

At the time, NoW claimed it had looked into the matter internally and isolated Goodman as a lone actor in the scandal. However, the report on the matter from Parliament found company had a far larger problem with phone hacking. In fact, it led one member of Parliament to say the conduct “went to the heart of the British establishment, in which police, military royals and government ministers were hacked on a near industrial scale.” Furthermore, the Guardian had previously reported Murdoch’s organization secretly paid out more than £1m in costs and settlements over the hacking, apparently as hush money to quell a more widespread outcry against it. All the developments of the case and the report led Ben Bradshaw, media secretary at Downing Street, to conclude the findings showed “lawbreaking was condoned and that the company sought to conceal the truth. We welcome the report and are considering what further action may be needed to be taken.”

The implications of the report expand beyond simply the possible legal ramifications for Murdoch’s media empire in the U.K. Practices like those at News of the World help explain why News Corporation ranks so poorly in ethics among other international companies. It also sheds light on why FOX hosts sought to defend James O’Keefe, the man responsible for the ACORN videos and recently arrested by the FBI while suspiciously lurking around the phone lines at Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office. Despite FOX personalities’ constant warnings about the government’s intention to impinge on personal freedoms, Murdoch’s conglomerate appears to have the more verified problem with using extralegal measures to impinge on others’ privacy.

What actions the U.K. government will take against Murdoch remains to be seen, but the revelations about one of his media outlets boldly flouting laws and using his deep pockets to keep the story quiet should warn people against a network that touts itself as the most trusted name in news. Any informed viewer could see the credibility problems Murdoch media clearly has. One hardly requires a chalkboard to describe how vast the implications reach. Hence, a true proponent of freedom would respect only ethical media actions with appropriate consideration for the right to privacy, if not the laws demanding as much — and choose to Turn Off FOX.

Please send in tips and success stories to turnofffox@gmail.com, look out for us on Twitter @turnofffox, and join us at BuzzFlash in the Campaign to Turn Off FOX News.

The Congressman did criticize the interviewer for asking about investigating Al-Waleed in particular, saying that “an interview about a specific individual is inappropriate,” but developing furor over Al-Waleed may soon force the Congressman into action. Issa stated he was “most concerned about ownership of companies including broadcast companies by countries that may have another agenda.” Though he denied Al-Waleed had any real control over FOX News broadcasts, Al-Waleed has specifically boasted of having just that and altering the network’s coverage of stories.

Reports of bin Talal donating immense sums to the families of suicide bombers and thus possibly funding terrorism also points to Issa’s concerns of a foreign power “that may have another agenda” in influencing American media. While FOX continues to boast of the trust viewers have for the network, many in conservative circles have also questioned the implications of bin Talal’s stake in the company. As Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily said of the alliance, “I really believe this is really dangerous for America.”

Given recent activity on the federal level, separating corporate interests from political ones appears less likely than ever. The potential for someone with alleged ties to terrorism to control U.S. political discussion, though, may force people from both parties of Congress to reconsider the issue. With enough pressure, Rep. Issa and the rest of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform may have to seriously investigate what the funding from Al-Waleed means for FOX and for the nation. In the meantime, viewers should avoid news coverage the Saudi prince proudly manipulates — and choose to Turn Off FOX.

Please send in tips and success stories to turnofffox@gmail.com, look out for us on Twitter @turnofffox, and join us at BuzzFlash in the Campaign to Turn Off FOX News.