Bill O'Reilly: "Comparing Ms. Spears to Mr. Ludacris is like comparing pot to heroin."

O'Reilly, on the other hand, could give a damn about anyone else's freedom of expression-especially rappers and hip hop artists, whom O'Reilly has been constantly and exclusively picking on for the past year-and-a-half. Most recently, the Fox News pundit criticized sneaker giant Reebok for teaming up with 50 Cent. O'Reilly told the Boston Herald, "Reebok should be ashamed of themselves." He later said on his show, "Corporate pollution is not just dumping PCBs in the Charles River, It's allowing people to put out these horrible CDs.'' As the Boston Herald reported, "Reebok said (in a statement) it doesn't condone every action of its hundreds of athletic and entertainment endorsers but it does support their rights to free expression." Did you get that, Bill O'Reilly?

Before 50 Cent was put on his hit list, O'Reilly provoked NBC into editing out Snoop Dogg's scenes from their A Very Muppet Christmas Movie back in Sept. 2001. He also criticized Old Navy for using Lil' Kim in their ads, but the Queen Bee issued a statement in which she said that O'Reilly's comments "show the world that contrary to popular beliefs, Neanderthals are not entirely extinct." Last Jan. O'Reilly also slammed Eminem as the winner of the People's Choice Award, saying in the New York Daily News "he is as harmful to America as any Al Qaeda fanatic." But what takes the cake and propels O'Reilly's inner jackass outward is the Ludacris situation.

As is well-known by now, the Pepsi Company had originally hired Ludacris as an endorser in Aug. 2002. When he caught wind of it three months later, O'Reilly opened his big mouth and spewed a whole heap of hypocritical madness. He accused Pepsi of "promoting a man that espouses violence, degrading sex, and substance abuse." Though Pepsi Spokesman Bart Casabona admitted that "Ludacris is one of today's most popular performers, and he's broadly appealing among teens of all ethnicities," the next day, Pepsi dropped Luda's ass like a hot potato. Instead, they signed on wholesome Ozzy Osbourne and family for the deal. Yes, the same Ozzy Osbourne who bit the head off a live dove as well as a bat during live performances. And the same Ozzy Osbourne who curses a f***ing mile a minute, as witnessed on MTV's The Osbournes. Forget all of this as well as Jack Osbourne's substance abuse problems, as O'Reilly did by completely embracing Pepsi's newfound endorsers.

Ludacris shared his reaction with VIBE Online in which the Southern rapper said, "I'm very glad everything happened the way it did with the Pepsi Corporation dropping me and him talking about me. For one, I've gained so many new fans from this man talking about me on his television show." He added, "It was more of win-win situation because, you know, he got more ratings for his show, but in the end payback is a motherf***er." Luda is referring to an eventual "settlement" Pepsi made under pressure from Russell Simmons and his Hip Hop Summit Action Network, in which the corporate giant donated $3 million to the non-profit Ludacris Foundation.

But it didn't end there, O'Reilly is still jocking Ludacris like it's nobody's business. After Anheuser-Bush announced signing Luda, O'Reilly was already fanning the flames. On the March 1 airing of his show, The O'Reilly Factor, he called Ludacris a "gangsta" rapper and claimed "hundreds of educators" blame Ludacris and his gangsta rapping cronies for having "debased the culture." He said of Luda, "He comes in and celebrates illegal, violent criminal activity." O'Reilly went on to compare Ludacris to mobster John Gotti.

O'Reilly continued to make an ass of himself by reading off a list of family-oriented businesses owned by Anheuser-Bush-all while a clip played of Budweiser beer moving down an inventory line in an Anheuser-Bush factory. O'Reilly didn't seem to grasp the lunacy of what he was saying in juxtaposition to what was being shown. So Anheuser-Bush owns Sea World, Bush Gardens, Discovery Cove and Sesame Place. And? O'Reilly insinuated that American families who frequent these places-owned by the biggest beer manufacturer in the country-are going to halt their visits because Anheuser-Bush has a rapper pushing their product.

As O'Reilly Factor guest Shawn Tully of Fortune Magazine tried to explain to the stubborn and apparently deaf O'Reilly on the March 1 show, "We're talking about a marketing campaign. We're talking about an entertainer hereÂ? What really matters is the way consumers react and whether they react by not buying their products." That didn't stop O'Reilly from calling for a boycott, which he will probably later deny having called for as he did with the Pepsi situation. He summed up that segment of the show by saying, "Well, once again, I'm not buying it. I don't like to d o this. I didn't like to do it with Pepsi, and I don't like to do it now, but you've got to draw a line."

He's right, and hopefully Anheuser-Bush will draw that line. Or at least follow the money trail, which leads right to the pockets of hip hop consumers. If the only way to send a message to O'Reilly is to encourage Anheuser-Bush to go ahead and use Ludacris to pimp us hip hop heads of drinking age, then so be it. His entire reasoning for wanting to shut down Ludacris and other rappers is not only ridiculous and ill informed, but hypocritical. Why condemn someone for making a living via the inalienable right of free speech when it's exactly the same way O'Reilly makes his bread and butter?