Last night on his Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly used the news to attack Moyers and his journalistic ethics. He also claimed that his producer, Jesse Watters, was solely responsible for Moyers resigning. “Now I think we — Jesse Watters drove him out of PBS,” said O’Reilly. “I think Jesse Watters is responsible for Bill Moyers leaving.” Watch it:

In 2007, Watters ambushed Moyers on the street outside his home. O’Reilly had Watters harass Moyers after the PBS journalist ran a program about impeaching President Bush. O’Reilly claimed that Moyers symbolized “Americans who want their country to lose in Iraq, based upon hatred of all things Bush,” which he determined was a good reason to send his henchman to Moyers’ house. According to O’Reilly, this one interview was what drove Moyers out of his job two years later.

Of course, what O’Reilly didn’t show was a 2008 confrontation between Moyers and Fox News producer Porter Berry, which didn’t go as O’Reilly had planned. This time, Moyers turned the tables on Berry and called O’Reilly a coward for sending out producers to do his dirty work and for refusing to appear on his PBS show. Watch it:

Last night was a prime example of O’Reilly’s inflated ego. He has also taken sole credit for saving Christmas, lowering gas prices, John McCain being behind in the polls in October 2008 (because the senator refused to appear on The O’Reilly Factor), and Spanish prosecutors deciding to drop an investigation into the Bush administration’s torture regime (because O’Reilly threatened a Spanish boycott).

Later in the segment, O’Reilly added that another reason that Moyers is retiring is because PBS was mad at him for not being tough enough on Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a 2008 interview.

Transcript:

GOLDBERG: Avuncular, right. But you know what? I knew Bill Moyers at CBS. I worked with him. He’s a very serious guy. And in that sense I give him — I give him credit. When a lot of people were going for fluff, Bill Moyers wanted to do serious journalism.

Some place along the line, Bill, he stopped being a journalist, and he started of being an advocate. He stopped being a journalist, and he started being an evangelist. And the religion he was preaching for was liberalism.

O’REILLY: Far left.

GOLDBERG: Far left. And when you’re — when you’re that kind of person, there are no shades of gray.

O’REILLY: Now I think we — Jesse Watters drove him out of PBS. I think Jesse Watters is responsible for Bill Moyers leaving. Now Bill Moyers is hammering Bush and Cheney, wanted them impeached, this and that, and you know, taking shots at The Factor. So we sent Jesse out to talk with him. Roll the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JESSE WATTERS, FACTOR PRODUCER: Mr. Moyers, what do you think about t hat? I mean, come on, do you think…

BILL MOYERS, PBS: Come on my show. I’ll ask you. Bill won’t do it. He doesn’t have the courage. But I’ll ask you.

WATTERS: Bill would have been here today but he’ interviewing Lindsay Lohan.

MOYERS: Oh, of course. Bill’s got his priorities in line.

WATTERS: That’s right. He would have loved to be here, but he can’t make it tonight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right.

GOLDBERG: I’m amazed he knew who Lindsay Lohan was.

O’REILLY: Look, and that was a joke, by the way. There was no Lindsay Lohan interview.

O’REILLY: CNN is never going to fire him, you know that…

COHEN: I’m not quite as cynical as you are Bill. I think that if enough people speak out, CNN will listen and be more responsible in the future.

O’REILLY: You wanna bet?…I’ve got ten grand for Habitat for Humanity on the table if you wanna bet me.

COHEN: How about ten grand for the Southern Poverty Law Center?

O’REILLY: But I’m not going to take your money. There’s no real bet there — he’s not going to get fired.

Watch it:

In an open letter addressed to O’Reilly that was posted yesterday, Cohen states “You lost the bet. Time to pay up!” Granted, O’Reilly’s commitment to the bet was tepid, at best — but Cohen points out that “in the court of public opinion, you lose.” In an interview with Dobbs on his show last night, O’Reilly suggested that Dobbs’ departure had nothing to do with responsible journalism, and more to do with CNN not wanting to offend the President. O’Reilly also urged Dobbs to “come back on a semi-regular basis.”

But last night on Fox, the network’s top legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano — who has been known to disagree with Fox’s right-wing narratives on legal issues — disputed that view, citing the constitutional right to be tried in the place where the crime has been committed. “I don’t care about the Constitution!” host Bill O’Reilly responded. The debate continued:

O’REILLY: So why is he entitled to come to New York City to be tried in the civilian criminal court if he’s arrested in Pakistan?

NAPOLITANO: Because the document you don’t want me to talk about says when the government is going to prosecute you, it must do so in the place where the alleged harm was caused.

Later in the program, Fox analyst Brit Hume said he’d “been scouring the columns of various people opining about this to see if somebody makes a good argument for doing it,” adding, “And I really haven’t heard one.” Hume then noted Napolitano’s opinion and said, “I’m not certain I agree with that.” Watch it:

Holder’s “bold and principled” decision was “a victory for the rule of law and the American system of justice,” the Center for American Progress’ Ken Gude said.

“If you are accused, you get to know what you know what you are accused of, you get to face your accusers, and you get to defend yourself in court, and then you face a trial and a conviction. This is who we are as a system,” said Tom Andrews, director of the National Campaign to Close Guantanamo. “The Taliban? You can get a trial and a beheading in a few hours. That’s not our system of justice.”

Read more about Holder’s decision in today’s Progress Report.

LAUER: Is she [Palin] staking out an early claim for the Republican nomination in 2012?

DOBBS: Well she’s certainly the front-runner in terms of her popularity in the Republican party and therefore, de facto, it seems to me Matt she’s staking out her territory.

LAUER: Is she someone if the election were held today Lou, would you consider voting for her?

DOBBS: Would I consider voting her? Frankly based on what I have seen, personally no. … I think the woman had a brilliant address at the Republican convention last year. I think uh, since then, she’s left a lot to be — uh, I’ll put it this way — desired as a person who’s seeking votes.

Watch it:

Ironically, Daily Show host Jon Stewart joked last week that Dobbs is “going Palin, going rogue” by abruptly leaving his job at CNN to supposedly “engage in constructive problem solving.”

In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly last night, Dobbs indicated that his downfall at CNN curiously started when Barack Obama became president. Dobbs confirmed that he will remain an active figure in the public arena. O’Reilly in turn invited Dobbs to make “semi-regular” appearances as a contributor on The Factor.

Glenn Beck had Fox News host Bill O’Reilly on his radio show today to promote their upcoming “Bold & Fresh Tour,” which will take the two right-wing personalities around the country to preach “the truth — straight up, whether you like it or not.” When Beck brought up Dennis Miller’s appearance on the O’Reilly Factor last week — in which Miller warned of a coming “insurrection“– O’Reilly predicted a “tax revolt” that will “get nasty” and end up with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor.”

BECK: Last week, I head you say that — you were on with Dennis Miller. … You two were talking about an insurrection coming.

O’REILLY: Tax revolt.

BECK: He used the word insurrection. And not in a comedic way.

O’REILLY: Yeah, tax revolt. I think people, when they figure out how badly they’re going to get hurt in the next few years, there’s going to be a tea party on taxes and its gonna get nasty. Nancy Pelosi’s going to be bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor.

This statement appeared to be too much for Beck even, who replied, “Uh, I don’t think that’s necessary.” Listen here:

The network is set to announce that Dobbs will be a guest on Monday night’s edition of Bill O’Reilly’s show, DailyFinance has learned. Warm feelings between the two men goes back to last summer, when O’Reilly publicly defended Dobbs against critics who wanted him fired for repeatedly showcasting the claims of “birthers” who allege President Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. Dobbs offered to be interviewed on The O’Reilly Factor then, but quickly backed out, prompting speculation that CNN had ordered him not to appear on a competing network.

Monday’s appearance could be a make-good for that…or it could be a not-so-subtle signal that Dobbs is inclined to sign on with Rupert Murdoch’s legions, as many believe he will. (On his radio show today, callers were reportedly urging Dobbs to do just that.)

As Bercovici notes, O’Reilly has defended Dobbs on the air multiple times. Dobbs has replied by calling him “a stand up guy.”

Hume, a regular Fox News misinformer, surprisingly corrected O’Reilly, noting that Americans actually support the public option:

O’REILLY: They call it, you know, the public sector. What is the –

HUME: Public option, you mean?

O’REILLY: Public option, whatever. The folks don’t want it. … But it looks to me like they have maybe 55 votes to pass it. And that means they could be filibustered and never come up for a vote.

HUME: That’s what it looks like right now. The public option, actually some polls show that the public option standing by itself is not at all unpopular, but it is kind of popular. But that depends on how the poll question is raised. … We don’t need to go into all that right now.

Watch it:

Those trying to derail reform with a public option try to claim that Americans don’t support it. “All the polls now indicate substantial opposition to this particular type of health care reform,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said last night on Fox. But Hume is right. Americans do support the public option, as recent polling shows:

– CNN/Opinion Research, Oct. 30 – Nov. 1: 55 percent support “creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies.”

– Ipsos/McClatchy, Oct. 30 – Nov. 1: 51 percent support the “creation of a public entity to directly compete with existing health insurance companies.”

Other recent polls, such as USA Today/Gallup and Washington Post/ABC News, have found majority support for the public option — results that are consistent with other polling on this question throughout the health care debate this year.

Indeed, large majorities in Connecticut support the public option but Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the state’s junior independent senator, has repeatedly said he will filibuster any bill that contains a public option. Like Hume, Lieberman doesn’t want to talk about polling support for the public option either, reportedly saying that poll respondents are simply “confused.”

Right winger Andrew Breitbart’s “Big Hollywood” blog took on the Sesame Street menace this week proclaiming: “Add one more soldier to the Left’s war on Fox News: Oscar the Grouch”:

If Mom and Dad watch cable news, it’s better than 50/50 they watch “POX News.” So what gives? PBS — a network partially funded with my tax dollars — has the right to tell my kids that their parents watch “trashy” news? The message is clear, I can’t even sit my kids in front of “Sesame Street” without having to worry about the Left attempting to undermine my authority.

Thursday night on Fox News, host Bill O’Reilly picked up on Big Hollywood’s rant and couldn’t resist defending his network against the smear merchants at Sesame Street. “Say it ain’t so. Sesame Street trashing Fox News!” O’Reilly complained. After airing the segment in question, O’Reilly said wryly, “We may have to ambush Oscar.” Watch it:

As Big Hollywood itself acknowledged, Fox News wasn’t the only news organization or media personality Sesame Street spoofed. “Walter Cranky,” “Dan Rather-Not,” “Meredith Beware-a” and “Diane Spoiler,” all made appearances on the show. And of course, Oscar’s employer, the “Grouchy News Network.”

Media Matters’ Simon Maloy notes, “It looks like Andrew Breitbart’s BigHollywood.com is looking to dethrone NewsBusters as the premiere source for asinine right-wing media criticism” by documenting “the absurd liberal bias in an episode of Sesame Street that aired two years ago. Just let that sink in for a moment…”

We wouldn’t put it past O’Reilly hit-man Jesse Watters to be staking out Oscar’s garbage can right now.

Later that night, Hume joined Bill O’Reilly to continue defending the network’s news coverage. O’Reilly and Hume agreed that Fox “routinely hammered President Bush on Iraq” and was “very faithful about covering all the bad news that came out of Iraq”:

O’REILLY: Now you and I came up in the old school, where we were taught as a reporter you should be skeptical of everybody. I mean, that’s your job as a reporter.

HUME: Right.

O’REILLY: To be skeptical, skeptical of the Democrats, skeptical of the Republicans. It doesn’t really matter. And I have to say that when President Bush was in trouble in Iraq, this network and this program and your program, as well, routinely, routinely hammered President Bush on Iraq.

HUME: Well, we certainly — we were very faithful about covering all the bad news that came out of Iraq.

O’REILLY: Absolutely.

“There was no cheerleading of President Bush on this network when his administration ran into trouble,” claimed O’Reilly. Watch it:

O’Reilly and Hume appear to have a selective memory when it comes to their cheerleading of the Bush administration. When Hume stepped down from the Special Report anchor chair, he marveled that Bush had put America on “an amazing” foreign policy “path.” During his time at Fox, Hume repeatedly spun bad news for Bush and pushed misleading information that bolstered the Bush administration’s faulty case for invading Iraq. Perhaps this is one reason why a 2003 study found that 80 percent of those who primarily relied on Fox News believed falsehoods about why we went into Iraq.

When it came to Iraq war coverage, O’Reilly explained his philosophy on his radio show in June 2007 after the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that Fox covered the war less than CNN and MSNBC. Claiming that Fox’s competitors were reporting on violence “because they want to embarrass the Bush administration,” O’Reilly said, “Do you care if another bomb went off in Tikrit? Does it mean anything? No!” “There’s little news value in broadcasting daily bombings,” O’Reilly added on his Fox show.

Transcript:

O’REILLY: Now you and I came up in the old school, where we were taught as a reporter you should be skeptical of everybody. I mean, that’s your job as a reporter.

HUME: Right.

O’REILLY: To be skeptical, skeptical of the Democrats, skeptical of the Republicans. It doesn’t really matter. And I have to say that when President Bush was in trouble in Iraq, this network and this program and your program, as well, routinely, routinely hammered President Bush on Iraq.

HUME: Well, we certainly — we were very faithful about covering all the bad news that came out of Iraq.

O’REILLY: Absolutely.

HUME: .for a very long period of time. The criticisms were made of him were reported and discussed at length on FOX News. Now, he had his defenders. The war had its defenders.

O’REILLY: But there was no cheerleading.

HUME: There were commentators.

O’REILLY: There was no cheerleading of President Bush on this network when his administration ran into trouble. There was no cheerleading, you know. It was skeptical coverage. Iraq’s going south. When the economy started to wobble last September, we were right on that.

Now, what has changed, in your opinion, from when you and I came up in the journalistic ranks and we were told — taught in school and then told by our bosses you be skeptical of those in power. Doesn’t matter where they are, what party they are. That does not in many quarters take place anymore.

HUME: Well.

O’REILLY: We mentioned NBC and CNN. And certainly those networks are dramatically favorable to Barack Obama. What is happening.

HUME: Well, I think that – well, I think what happened in this particular case — look, it has been universally recognized for a long period of time and survey after survey has shown it that most reporters vote Democrat, particularly in presidential elections. The journalists who inhabit Washington, and I think it’s fair to say the key spots in the network headquarters and newspaper headquarters in New York with very few exceptions are Democrats, or at least they vote Democratic. They tend to be liberal in their outlook. That was true for a long time.

The level of discipline, exercised by the conventions of journalism on them have weakened.

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann responds to TVNewser, “Having had an actual stalker myself, I think the Congresswoman needs to apologize to women (and men) whose lives are blighted and ruined by such terror and threat. Not even in the mildest of senses – of journalists whose aggressiveness might verge colloquially into ’stalking’ – is she anywhere close to being such a victim.”

Watch Bachmann’s comments:

O’REILLY: Do you think — and this is an off-the-wall question. And I’m telling the audience that it’s just something that’s occurred to me. Both you and Sarah Palin are good-looking women. I mean, you’re attractive, young — relatively young — women who other women can identify with. You’re a mom, a wife. You had a private-sector job.

I think that’s it. I think that the success of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann drive the far left crazy because you don’t fit — they don’t like what you believe in, but you can attract others to listen to you. I think that’s what’s going on.

Bachmann responded that she and Palin are pulling away votes from Democrats, “especially in a woman block — a middle America woman block.” Watch it:

O’REILLY: And I think you raise a very interesting point in what you said. And you said — I’m glad you mentioned me because that got attention And then people to think about this. We don’t break stories that are going to interfere with President Obama or President Bush or whoever’s in office if we feel that the story is going to hurt anybody, our military, our policymakers. We’ll hold it back. Okay? We’re not The New York Times. We’re not trying to do that.

Watch it:

Fox News and O’Reilly may not “break stories” that directly “hurt anybody,” but they certainly haven’t made great efforts to take targets off anyone’s back either. In fact, O’Reilly producer Jesse Watters regularly stalks and ambushes anyone O’Reilly and his goons disagree with (like TP’s own Amanda Terkel), even if it means following them home and confronting them in places such as their garages.

In May, a radical anti-choice crusader gunned down Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas physician who administered abortions. Prior to this incident, O’Reilly regularly singled out Tiller on his show, referring to him as “Tiller the Baby Killer,” saying that he “has blood on his hands” and that he “executes babies.” After the murder, O’Reilly stood by all his claims and even lied that he never called Tiller “Dr. Killer.”

Other hosts, such as by Glenn Beck, have attempted to scare the American public by calling the President a “socialist,” saying that he has ties to communists (or fascists), or that he’s even a “racist” who hates “white culture.” Beck regularly fears that the country is being “stolen” and has even said that the Obama administration had created concentration camps.

Indeed, other major conservative media figures have noticed this constant incendiary rhetoric, and one CNN host noted that “Americans are scarfing up guns and ammunition at an alarming rate.”

People vote with their feet. And they love Bill O’Reilly; they love Glenn Beck. They love the shows that are on Fox. That’s what matters. Because people want to go where they can find truth. They obviously aren’t finding truth over on some of these other channels.

Watch it:

Bachmann has gone on Fox News to claim health care reform is unconstitutional, that the Census is dangerous because it was used to intern the Japanese, and that Alaskan caribou favor oil drilling because they like the the warmth of the pipeline. Together, the Fox News network and Bachmann create a very “truthy” tag-team.

GOLDBERG: Bill, Bill, don’t shoot the messenger. Right? I’m your friend. I’m telling you this as a friend. You also said, “If the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.” Now, I know what you meant by that.

O’REILLY: But I clarified it: private hands.

GOLDBERG: You did. You absolute — you absolutely did. But you’re a big prize for the left. But they can get… What I’m saying is when — when you say — when you say if the government can cobble…

O’REILLY: I clarified. I know what you’re saying, but it’s just drives me crazy that you can’t have an honest dialogue in this country anymore.

Watch it:

Looks like “liars” have found a “safe haven” on cable television.

Ironically, O’Reilly was receiving a “Media Courage Award.”

At first, Watters tried to walk away from us, but we were able to chat with him as he waited for the elevator. When we said we were from ThinkProgress.org, he replied, “I don’t know that organization.” But as soon as we mentioned the ambush of Amanda, he turned to his cameraman and said, “Oh, shoot this. Shoot this. Shoot this.”

We pointed out to Watters that O’Reilly has said he always contacts people to give them a chance to respond before ambushing them. Watters attempted to stall several times before answering the question, but eventually responded:

WATTERS: We called her office.

Q: She said she got no call.

WATTERS: Yeah, no — I called her office twice.

Q: Who in the office did you call?

WATTERS: I called the main number.

Q: The main number?

WATTERS: Yeah, I called the main number and asked if Amanda Terkel was there.

Watters then began to say that he contacted Amanda Terkel “before we went after –” but stopped himself before finishing the sentence and instead said, “Yeah, before we went there.”

Watters is lying, just like he did when he claimed he contacted Hendrick Hertzberg before accosting him in New York City. No one at the Center for American Progress ever received a call from Jesse Watters or anyone else at Fox News about having Amanda appear on the show. (Of course, O’Reilly’s producers had no trouble finding CAP’s media booker a few days later when they then wanted John Podesta to appear on the show.)

Watters also tried to play off staking out Amanda’s apartment, following her on vacation, and ambushing her on the street as a friendly interview. “Amanda Terkel is a very nice person, and she sat down with me, and we did an interview. She was very gracious to take my questions and I really appreciate that. … Tell her I said hello.” He then looked into the camera and said, “Hey Amanda, how are you doing?” (As we pointed out to him, Amanda never “sat down” with Watters; she had to stop on the street while on vacation and talk to Watters because he and his cameraman had followed her for two hours.)

As Watters walked away from us into the elevator, we asked Watters why he refused to comment to the New York Times about his ambush tactics. “I didn’t refuse to comment to the New York Times,” he replied. “Don’t believe everything you read in the New York Times.” Watch it:

NINA OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don’t necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O’REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don’t like their health insurance, if it’s too expensive, they can’t afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.

Watch it:

As recently as last month, O’Reilly was still saying that progressives want “the government to run the nation’s health care system. That’s because the Feds can then redistribute income much easier, shifting resources to the poor and away from corporations and the affluent. … It’s not really about health care. It’s about socialism.”

Fox anchor Megyn Kelly tells O’Reilly in the same segment that she is not sure whether an individual mandate is constitutional because it would “require days and weeks of research” for her to determine whether it is.

Kelly could spend days and weeks researching this question, but the Wonk Room already addressed it on Monday.  As the Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Raich, the Constitution empowers Congress to enact broad regulatory schemes that “substantially affect interstate commerce.”  This power includes authority to enact broad reforms that concern “economic activity,” and an individual mandate unquestionably falls within the scope of this power:

The [individual mandate] would require most uninsured Americans to buy a product — health insurance coverage — which pools thousands of people’s premiums together and pays those people’s medical costs as they become ill. … [T]he individual mandate would lower premiums nationwide by requiring more healthy individuals to buy into the system; while reducing the risk of catastrophic financial loss should a person who was previously uninsured experience catastrophic illness. It is difficult to imagine a law which has a more obvious economic impact than a requirement that all Americans be insured.

So O’Reilly’s constitutional attack on health reform is entirely without merit. Sadly, however, it is also one of the least virulent theories being advanced by right-wing constitutional theorists. A number of elected conservatives, including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) are proud members of the “tenther” movement — a movement that believes that landmark progressive reforms such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, federal education funding, the VA health system, the G.I. Bill, the federal minimum wage, and the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters are all unconstitutional.  Since they could never pass such a radical agenda through Congress, conservatives now want to rewrite the Constitution to suit their ends.

Transcript:

KELLY: There are some questions. And they have been totally ignored, interestingly enough.

O’REILLY: They have been?

KELLY: By most of the media.

O’REILLY: Right.

KELLY: And by most constitutional scholars. Everyone just assumes that President Obama and the Democrats can impose this tax on us, this — basically the legislation coming out of both houses of Congress proposed would say you have to get health insurance. And either have to get it through your employer, if you don’t have it through your employer, you have to pay for it. You have to buy it if you don’t.

O’REILLY: Yeah, but if you’re governmental funded.

KELLY: Right.

O’REILLY: But they do this in Massachusetts already.

KELLY: They say if you don’t do it, then you’re be fined by the federal government there.

O’REILLY: Right.

KELLY: And there’s a real question about whether the Congress has the power to do that to you. They’d be doing it probably under their commerce clause power, which is the broadest power that they have. But the courts in the past decade or so have really cracked down a little bit more on commerce clause power and just don’t give Congress an empty check.

O’REILLY: So are you saying it is not constitutional to force people to buy health care?

KELLY: I’m saying that would require days and weeks of research.

O’REILLY: Days and weeks.

KELLY: So we don’t have that.

O’REILLY: And you don’t have that, do you, Kelly?

And not only do I not have it.

O’REILLY: Yeah.

KELLY: .but the constitutional scholars don’t have it yet. What do you say?

WIEHL: Constitutional scholars are all over the place.

O’REILLY: Constitutional?

WIEHL: I say that it is constitutional. I don’t like a lot of parts of this health plan but the.

O’REILLY: I don’t care what you like or not like.

WIEHL: But Commerce.

O’REILLY: .why is it constitutional? All right, nobody, hold it, Wiehl.

KELLY: Any time somebody drives a truck.

O’REILLY: Wiehl, stop talking. Nobody understands what the commerce clause is.

WIEHL: Right.

O’REILLY: Please explain it briefly.

WIEHL: Okay, Article I in the constitution.

O’REILLY: Yes.

WIEHL: .the Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. That is anything that goes from one state to the other.

O’REILLY: Okay, so what?

WIEHL: So a trucker. They can – and takes your lettuce from one state to the other. They can.

O’REILLY: What does that have to do with health care?

WIEHL: Health care itself may be local. Your doctor may be in your state but the medical supplies that come to you, the medical equipment, all of the things.

O’REILLY: So what? Why can they make you buy anything?

WIEHL: Because they can regulate interstate commerce. Those things go through interstate.

O’REILLY: Okay.

WIEHL: They can force you.

O’REILLY: Now I want the audience to know this is total B.S. This is why people hate lawyers.

KELLY: This is the constitution.

O’REILLY: This is nuts. All right, here’s the question, Kelly. And I’m going to give one more shot, Wiehl. The government is saying you have to buy health insurance. You have to do it.

KELLY: Right.

O’REILLY: I say that’s unconstitutional. The federal government doesn’t have the power to force an American to buy anything.

KELLY: That is the distinction between this case and most of the cases that come under the commerce clause power. It’s more like a taxing power. I mean, the Congress has the power to tax us, too. Let’s not fool ourselves.

O’REILLY: Okay, but this is it has nothing to do with taxes.

KELLY: Well, no, but.

O’REILLY: It has defining – they’re finding, I understand it. But I think on the upfront, Wiehl, the government cannot buy that dress, Wiehl. You have to buy that dress because it’s good for you. They can’t tell to you buy anything.

WIEHL: Or they can tax you. They can’t tell you to buy it, or they can tax you. Megyn’s absolutely right one way or the other.

O’REILLY: But they’re telling you to buy it. And if you don’t, you’re punished.

WIEHL: Because and they’re also saying you are going to get a benefit a government benefit.

O’REILLY: I think the Supreme Court would say.

KELLY: You have a decent point because.

O’REILLY: Yeah.

KELLY: .normally they can’t tax you unless they had the power to regulate the behavior they want to tax you for in the first place. So we’re back to the commerce clause and do they have the power.

O’REILLY: I don’t want to hear it. Give me a headache. I’m going to go on the record a saying now this is unconstitutional. The federal government cannot force you to do or buy anything.

At an off-the-record summit meeting for chief executives sponsored by Microsoft in mid-May, the PBS interviewer Charlie Rose asked Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of G.E., and his counterpart at the News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, about the feud.

Both moguls expressed regret over the venomous culture between the networks and the increasingly personal nature of the barbs. Days later, even though the feud had increased the audience of both programs, their lieutenants arranged a cease-fire, according to four people who work at the companies and have direct knowledge of the deal.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin has reportedly told network producers to “restrain from criticizing Fox directly,” and Fox staffers were told to “be fair” to General Electric, MSNBC’s parent company. Olbermann said that he personally was “party to no deal.”

Bill O’Reilly has never shied away from denouncing late-term abortions and the handful of doctors who perform them. In the aftermath of George Tiller’s murder, O’Reilly became an easy target for the liberal media who tried to pin some of the blame on Bill, saying he incited the violence by decrying these unnecessary procedures on his show. Despite the unfair allegations, O’Reilly spoke the truth, bringing new light to a gruesome procedure. On behalf of our co-sponsors and millions of values voters, we want to express our gratitude to a culture warrior who uses his national platform to promote life–no matter what the personal or professional costs.

O’Reilly rarely spoke the “truth” about Tiller, who was murdered by a radical anti-choice extremist. What O’Reilly did was demonize him, calling him — even after his death — “Tiller the Baby Killer” or “Dr. Killer.” “This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union,” O’Reilly said of Tiller’s medical practice. Beyond the Tiller commentary, O’Reilly rarely shows “courage” on his show. Nothing says courage less than sending your producer to stalk people because they once wrote something critical about you and you’re too afraid to actually call them up and ask them for a response first.