In the piece from reporter Janet Shamlian, viewers then heard from O’Reilly in a Web video clip from an un-dated episode of O’Reilly’s FNC show: “In the state of Kansas there is a doctor, George Tiller, who will execute babies for $5,000.”
 
MSNBC shows earlier in the day, as well as Countdown later where Olbermann went on a full rant, played the same O’Reilly clip pushed by far-left Web and blog sites. …”

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/06/01/nbc-suggests-bill-oreilly-fueled-murder-dr-george-tiller

Abortion Doctor Gunned Down at Kansas Church, Suspect in Custody

“…  WICHITA, Kan. —  Dr. George Tiller, who remained one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions despite decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher.

The gunman fled, but a 51-year-old suspect was arrested some 170 miles away in suburban Kansas City three hours after the shooting, Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said.

Long a focus of national anti-abortion groups, including a summer-long protest in 1991, Tiller was shot in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church, Stolz said. Tiller’s attorney, Dan Monnat, said Tiller’s wife, Jeanne, was in the choir at the time. …”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523581,00.html

Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly Among Early Scapegoats for Tiller Murder

“…It didn’t take long. The blogosphere, and the more immediate (and arguably more important) Twittersphere are abuzz with finger-pointing in the hours-ago murder of Dr. George Tiller.

On Twitter, Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas was characterisically subtle with his summation:

Who’ll be the next target of O’Reilly’s and Beck’s ire to get gunned down by domestic conservative terrorist?

As I pointed out earlier, Bill O’Reilly has already been singled out, and Ann Coulter was the next to be teed up:

In fact, the hands are many in the death of George Tiller, some more directly than others. Take Ann Coulter, for example. I watched her describe, to a church full of right-wing activists, abortion-clinic doctors and health care personnel who were murdered, as either having been shot, “…or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure performed on them with a rifle.” And she’s still out there today, spewing the same bile with violent force.

As you read this, the interweb is being scoured for clips of right-wing personalities to hang this on, all in service of…well, I’m not really sure. Are Coulter, O’Reilly, Terry, et al, supposed to begin weeping and preaching the pro-choice message of tolerance? …”

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/31/ann-coulter-and-bill-oreilly-among-early-scapegoats-for-tiller-mu/

Notes on the murder of George Tiller

By Michelle Malkin  

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/01/notes-on-the-murder-of-george-tiller/

49 Million to Five

by  Ann Coulter

“…According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion — which is consistent with liberals’ hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.

In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let’s recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.

Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I’m fairly certain they’ve killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number “3,000″ keeps popping into my head.

So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life — and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller — only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans. …”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32140

Roe v. Wade

“…Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.^[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.^[2]

Roe v. Wade held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes viable.’” The Court defined viable as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”^[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman’s health, which the Court defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These rulings affected laws in 46 states.^[3]

The Roe v. Wade decision prompted national debate that continues today. Debated subjects include whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into pro-Roe (mostly pro-choice) and anti-Roe (mostly pro-life) camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

“…Survey of 1,000 Adults, April 28 – April 29, 2009

1. In the United States, is it too easy or too hard for anyone to get an abortion?
52% Too easy
13% Too hard
21% About right
14% Not sure

2. Is abortion morally wrong most of the time?
58% Yes
25% No
17% Not sure

http://www.myfoxcharlotte.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=8419491&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.3.1

General Electric Gets a $140B Bailout – What’s the Point of AAA?

“…Tell me again what a triple-A rating is good for? Not a whole lot, if one of the iconic triple-As in American industry, General Electric, has to go hat in hand to the federal government for a $140 billion bailout.

Or maybe G.E. isn’t the bulletproof financial juggernaut the rating agencies say. The company’s vaunted GE Capital unit has supposedly been a money machine for years, having generated solid returns come rain or shine. By now, the unit generates upwards of 40% of G.E. overall profits. 

Except there’s one problem: G.E.’s financial services business may be the blackest box on Wall Street. The unit has little transparency, no regulatory oversight, and now, we are finding out, an unstable funding model.

In particular, G.E. has chosen to fund its finance business with short-term commercial paper rather than secure more stable long-term funding based on its triple-A rating–which, it appears, turns out to be fiction. 

Odd, isn’t it, that even though it operates in the same economic environment as regulated financial behemoths, G.E. never seems to get hit by outsized credit losses or asset writedowns? Is that because a) the people at G.E. are just smarter than everybody else, or b) the company has wide latitude to paper over problems since it doesn’t have a regulator looking over its shoulder? …”

http://seekingalpha.com/article/105984-general-electric-gets-a-140b-bailout-what-s-the-point-of-aaa

GE Capital’s Bill Cary Provides an Overview of the Company

Fairness Doctrine

“…The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

The United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission’s general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.^[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.^[2]

^…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free

“…Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as “local content,” “diversity of ownership,” and “public interest” rules — all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123508978035028163.html