I was just doing a peruse of reviews on Amazon.com for "Who's Looking Out for You?" and noticed most of the book reviews were rather ridiculous attempts to make O'Reilly sound bad.

The most obvious choice of overtone seems to be the NPR interview of Bill O'Reilly. The interview was supposed to be about the book, but it became terribly obvious that Terry Gross had no intention of discussing the book. The entire interview ALL she does is bring up accusation, after accusation in an attempt to make him look bad or catch him on a slip of the tongue. As it stands, however, O'Reilly handled the entire interview excellently...

One of the only real claims the Liberals seem to use against him was that they claimed that Bill O'Reilly had said he won a Peabody award. The only problem is, this is an incredible misquote. He had stated the show he worked for had won one, and he was mistaken. He later corrected this statement saying that it was a Polk award. About the only thing the true story behind this shows is that he's human, and makes mistakes. If you feel you've never made a misspoke in your life, you should to get over yourself.

I've seen statement stating that O'Reilly was wacko on the Fresh Air show. I'd be willing to bet if any of you were to sit in front of someone repeatedly saying you did things unfairly, especially knowing that this interview would be broadcast throughout the country, you would probably fallen apart.

If you compare the transcripts from Al Franken's interview about his book, and O'Reilly's, you would see a huge difference. She even admitted this herself. How in the world can you justify attacking someone who wrote a book intended to help people, and praise someone who wrote a book intended to attack people? To say O'Reilly couldn't handle an interview with a "Respected Journalist" is utter nonsense. If you don't see what is really happening here, then I will be praying for you.

The bottom line is that Liberals, for such a long time, have been one sided in anything they do. And it's so obvious when something like this comes out. Al Franken wrote a book, which libels people, and presents lies as fact, and the Liberals stat this book is "Satire". Even though the overtone of the book is to make you believe it is factually accurate. If a Conservative were to do a book similar to Al Franken's, Liberals would be coming out in droves to say the book is full of "Hate Speech".

It is almost amusing when you factually examine both sides, just how one sided the Liberals feel. A recent poll shows a majority of American?s believes Liberals primarily control the media. Yet the media in general (aka, Liberals) say this is not true. I heard Allen Colmes the other night (from Hanity and Colmes on FoxNews) say "Well if you add up the total of the people who feel it's Conservative and the people who feel it's Just right, that total exceeds the total for who feels it's liberal". This would be like saying "If you add up the totals from the California recall, 48% of the vote went to Schwartzeneggar, and 52% went to Other candidates, so this means Schwartzeneggar didn't win." With over 130 different candidates, this statement is ridiculous. But this type tactic coming from the liberal media doesn't surprise me...

In my opinion Liberals are distinctly one sided. They believe their views are much more important than that of the majority. The biggest recent example being that over 70% felt the 10 Commandments monument that was left in the premises of an Alabama court should be left there. Currently that monument is removed. Liberals believe their rights exceed the rights of everyone who doesn't agree with them. What is most scary is the number of people who don't see what's happening...

O?Reilly has also been labeled as a racist. This label for him has no base on reality. A few months back, there was an ?All White Prom? that kids from a public school were holding at a location outside of the school. However, any of the students could attend if they met one qualification: They had to be white!

O?Reilly made a huge deal about this stating it was wrong. He covered the story very closely, and was really the only member of the media to make a big deal about it. The statement O?Reilly is a racist doesn?t hold up very well in light of this. The only place people base this statement is his ?I believe gangster rap is bad for children.? Regardless of the color of the rapper, his belief in this holds true? So to use this to claim he is a racist is completely biased.

------

I may as well include this as well. It?s regarding Rush Limbaugh?s statement on ESPN. The statement has claimed to be a racist statement. His statement was simple: ?I believe the liberal media has given McNabb more credit than is due, because they want to see a black quarterback succeed.?

For starters, he did not say McNabb isn?t a good quarterback because he was black. He believed he wasn?t that great of a quarterback. To say this alone is racist isn?t very fair. Anybody who follows any sports believes there are athletes who get more credit than they?re due. If Rush?s statement makes him a racist that would mean anybody who dislikes an athlete who happens to be a minority is racist.

Now, I don?t follow football, so I can?t say weather this person is good or not. I do however, follow hockey. More specifically I follow my favorite team, the Mighty Ducks. In my opinion any player who is on any team other than the Might Ducks are not good hockey players. I think most people who follow a team in a sport can say something similar to this. But what about being more specific. A lot of people who follow sports have specific people in that sport that they do not think are any good, or at least not as good as they?re cracked up to be?

Basically what this means is, if Rush?s view of McNabb not being all he?s cracked up to be, then if you dislike a player and you are white and that player isn?t, then the bottom line under this definition is that you are in fact racist. So to say Rush is a racist means that if you?re white, you simply cannot dislike any player if they are black.

Call me a racist, but I think this statement is wrong. I do not like nor dislike players based on their color, in my opinion when it comes to ability, color does not matter?

So if you can agree with the last sentence, then we?re on the same page. Now comes the second part of his statement?

He stated the liberal media is giving him extra credit because THEY want a black athlete to do better. Now, this is an opinion, however it can be verified to some degree. The easiest way would be to compare another player with stats similar to McNabb, but who isn?t black. If this player is rated to be as good as McNabb, or at least close to as good, then the statement would be untrue. If in fact the white athlete was rated significantly lower than McNabb, especially if he had achieved more than McNabb, then there?s a much better chance for the statement to be true. Now, even if this could be proven, it is possible that McNabb has been given a higher rating for a reason other than color. However, it is not unreasonable to believe the liberal media is doing this for a specific reason. And to say THEY might be doing it based on the fact that he is black, basically is saying that the media is doing it because THEY are racist. The statement does not infer that Rush is racist, it simply infers he believes other?s are? Reversely or otherwise?

So if we could do this comparison then his statement may in fact be true. The only problem is can we do this comparison? Can we do it in a scientific manner, with detailed research, and by someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to sports? The answer is, yes we can. It?s been done, read here: http://slate.msn.com//id/2089193/

Keep in mind that my statement about Rush here has nothing to do with my opinion on his current situation with drugs. My opinions on this are actually different. As you can guess about this statement, I do like Rush. But with the current situation, I am believing there may be some truth to it, mainly due to Rush?s behavior since this came out. I?m not one sided and blind to things that make people I like look bad. I try to be realistic, and in this situation that means I do need to question weather this is true or not?