O'REILLYSAURUS: A DINOSAUR IN NEED OF A TAR-PIT

by Steve Young

The term "dinosaur" is derived from the Greek words deinos meaning "terrible" and saura meaning "lizard" or "reptile". Which brings us to the O'Reillysaurus, more commonly known as Bill O'Reilly or BillO, a genus of the Ailes species which includes the Limbaughanus, the Hannitycolmes and the extinct comedy of Dennis Miller (usedtobefunnysaurus). Once considered to be a member of the journalist family, the O'Reillysaurus's inclusion under the journalist designation was found to be a fake 2002 Wikipedia addition made by the O'Reillysaurus itself, bitter over not ever being made a member of the fourth estate's big boy club.

Evolved from the reptilian mccarthy-goebbels sub-order, the O'Reillysaurus exists in a primeval ooze where its small brain, in contrast to its massive, fat head and even larger ego, is fraught with an all-consuming paranoia that finds a fast-approaching imaginary asteroid, intent on casting an lethal Ice Age over Fox News, Christianity and Factor Gear, hiding behind every secular-progressive tar-pit. Though its sex life is sketchy, the O'Reillysaurus's stalking of the Andreamakris Producersaurs indicates a preference for smaller, weaker conquests.

When there is no asteroid to fear, the O'Reillysaurus has an instinctive ability to make one up...as in its syndicated column this week, where it rolled out its usual condemnation of the Left with no concern of who or what it stomped on to destroy its prey.

"So now the far-left loons in the media are saying there really isn't an organized terror threat in the world and that this whole war on terror deal is a hype job. That must come as great comfort to the thousands of families who lost loved ones on 9/11."

And in going Rudy Giulialini all over us the O'Reillysaurus attacked the usual suspects.

"The nutty professor Paul Krugman, who teaches at Princeton and writes op-ed lunacy for the New York Times, is also on the diminish terror bandwagon. This is from his desk: "There isn't any such thing as Islamofascism -- it's not an ideology; it's a figment of the neo-con imagination. That's like saying there is no such thing as stupidity... right, professor?"

Of course there's stupidity, BillO. How else would you explain newspapers choosing to waste a single column inch on your weekly fraudulent attacks without first issuing a disclaimer? The column continues:

"Maybe we should ask the families of the 40 dead and 300 injured in the London subway bombings, or the friends of the 202 dead in the Bali, Indonesia attack on a Kuta beach nightclub to comment on Krugman's opinion. I believe they might have some reaction."

Hey, Bill. Maybe we should ask the family and friends of the billions of dinosaurs -- who, except for your kind, no longer slog across the earth -- and see if they care that you chose to leave out a sentence from the same Krugman column that would have made your entire argument and ambush null and void.

"Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program," wrote Krugman.

Krugman never says there's no threat of terrorism, he just doesn't buy into the White House's calculated use of the word Islamofascism which -- just like the O'Reillysaurus cut and pasted in his attempt to create a Krugman-boogeyman out of hole-cloth -- was created as a simplistic fraud to frighten people on to the Bush war-making wagon.

Perhaps, BillO, we should ask all the dead and injured you callously exploit how they feel about being manipulated for your own selfish fear-mongering, fabricated propaganda.

The O'Reillysaurus has always had an innate ability to select a minuscule portion of information or a parsed segment of an opponent's argument and blow it up into some sort of ideological principle to debase, sell its fictional fear-based controversies, and hawk its do-as-I-say-and-not-who-I-sexually-harass books: i.e. San Franciscans dressed as nuns to bring down Christianity; War on Christmases attempting to put the X back in Christmas; MSNBC emboldening the terrorists who want to re-crucify Christ.

Just as it recently deprecated Ron Paul telling him he had "no time for a history lesson," the O'Reillysaurus has no inclination to supply the Folks with all the information necessary to make a cognizant decision on their own. After all, why would they need O'Reillysaurus if they had that?

The O'Reillysaurus's clumsy deception is confirmed by the fact that he never links his references so that the Folks can see a reference in full context. Of course that would make the O'Reillysaurus mix and match accusations much weaker, if existent at all.

But back to this week's column where the O'Reillysaurus saves its most patently offensive fabrication for last.

"The hits just keep on coming in the liberal media. General Wesley Clark, a commentator on NBC News, says that Osama Bin Laden is not an 'existential' threat to America. The General believing that the terrorist and his crew could not destroy the entire nation. Just some of us. Swell.

"Perhaps Clark's most important message -- and one worth taking to heart -- is that "we're going to solve the national security question." In other words, Al-Qaeda is not the existential threat to the U.S. that the Bush administration has portrayed."

Wow. It's hard to believe General Clark said that, well, because he didn't. It came from the May 29, 2007, Stanford Daily editorial entitled, "2008 Candidates Should Heed Clark"; an editorial by some college kid who was drawing his own conclusion of what Clark may have meant, which the O'Reillysaurus or its sucklings would have discovered with a simple Google. Like I said, small brain.

Here's the full context of what the O'Reillysaurus crack research team culled from:

"Perhaps Clark's most important message -- and one worth taking to heart -- is that 'we're going to solve the national security question.' In other words, Al-Qaeda is not the existential threat to the U.S. that the Bush administration has portrayed."

Even if Clark meant it that way, the fact that the O'Reillysaurus -- so bent on feeding on its victims -- obviously didn't even care to look at the original piece, should be justification enough to have its journalistic cred -- if there be any left -- pulled immediately.

Though not yet extinct, the O'Reillysaurus's laughable attempts to camouflage its inane concoctions and propaganda as fact, together with an ever-aging fan-base make its continued survival doubtful. Even the addition the Dhuepoint, a supposed ombudsman segment meant to hold the O'Reillysaurus's feet to the fire (last week the O'Reillysaurus was grilled as to when it would write a book on parenting), doesn't appear likely to keep the O'Reillysaurus from being crushed into a bad memory under the weight of its own narcissism.

The O'Reillysaurus ends this week's column with "...downgrading the lethal threat is irresponsible in the extreme." To those who say I may be obsessed with the O'Reillysaurus...I couldn't have said it any better.