Papa Bear responds to Stephen Colbert, Ann Coulter says Colbert fans not charitable

When Stephen Colbert called Bill O’Reilly out last week on the ‘Colbert Report’, it must have struck a serious nerve. According to Newshounds (Motto: “We watch Fox so you don’t have to”), Bill O’Reilly dedicated three segments of his December 20th show responding to Colbert’s allegations.

First, for those of you who missed it on Thursday’s show, here’s Stephen’s rant on Bill O’Reilly’s December 9th column and Bernie Goldberg’s “Jesus is a Liberal Democrat” statement on Fox News.


O’Reilly began his response with quoting the parable of the talents, saying that Colbert needs to reread that story as to comprehend the “Judeo-Christian tenet of personal responsibility.” O’Reilly then made the leap of logic that all who ask assistance are spending it very irresponsibly: “We are not mandated to buy people gin or cocaine or pay someone else’s bills if they refuse to work. If you want to do that, you can in a free society. But to force the responsible to pay for the irresponsible is immoral in my opinion.”.

Ann Coulter then jumped on to add her $0.02 into the argument, which amounted to saying that writing a check to the IRS does not amount to donating to charity. O’Reilly asked Coulter if he felt that guilt was the issue at hand that Colbert was bringing. She then said something that blew me right away: “That’s how they [Liberals] flatter themselves, by making you feel guilty … no it is self righteousness. That’s what it is. It’s Stephen Colbert talking about what a charitable person he is. … That is the implication. And that you aren’t because you don’t want to send your money to the IRS.” O’Reilly mentions that Colbert is playing to his audience, his Liberal audience, to which Ann Coulter replies “And who does not donate to charity. We do know this. There have been studies.” The exchange starts around 6:30 in this video (courtesy of Mediaite):


I can guarantee anyone bold enough to make an accusation such as Coulter did that the Colbert Nation gives. Shall I give some examples? Yes, lets.

The total for these five charities alone is $1,493,336, and this is nowhere near a complete list of the charity work that Stephen Colbert personally supports, and encourages the Colbert Nation to support. And these numbers don’t even include the tickets he gives away for charity auctions, the charitable performances, the support to the least of our brothers, and the many other acts of charity that we may not ever even hear about.

I take great pride in being a member of the Colbert Nation, and not only laughing at the jokes, but supporting the causes and making a difference in people’s lives. I love that I helped buy a tuba for some kids through Donors Choose. I love that me buying a hat helped Katherine Reutter win two medals at the 2010 Olympics. I wear my WristSTRONG bracelet every day with pride, and when people ask me what it’s for, I say it’s to support the families of troops who are at Walter Reed. I love that my retweet helped fund support for people affected by the BP oil spill. I’ve never been in a fandom who acts so charitably so often, and even though I’ve been blogging about his good works for over four years, I’m still constantly in awe of how much Stephen Colbert gives of himself to help support those in need.

Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter may “talk the talk” about being charitable and living a Christ-like life, but do they walk the walk even a smidge as much as Stephen Colbert walks? I’d love to hear your opinion in the comments.*

*And please remember, Zoners, this is a family friendly blog – play nice!


  1. Speechless. Utterly speechless! This is a new low, even for O’Reilly and Coulter (and that’s saying something).

    Well, I guess being shown the truth of his own hypocrisy was more than Papa Bear could take, huh? And Ann Coulter? There are no words to adequately describe the incredible disgust that woman evokes in me. Not to mention…Sweet Baby Cheeses! What the H-E-double hockey sticks is she talking about? What studies?? Someone needs to tell her that writing idiotic statements on the back of her Denny’s placemat in crayon does NOT a study make!

    The fact that Colbert Nation IS so charitable is one of the main reasons I wanted to write a book about them. I have never, EVER seen a group of people so willing to reach out to their fellow man like the Citizens of Colbert Nation are. I’m proud to say I am one of them.

    And let’s face it, Stephen is the one who inspires the giving spirit in all of us. He is, without a doubt, one of the MOST kind-hearted people I have ever seen. His willingness to give of himself constantly is one of the reasons I admire him so very much. I want to be just like him when I grow up! ;)

    You guys have no idea how difficult it has been to keep this response family-friendly…Well, on second thought, I bet you do.

  2. AMEN LORI!!! My sentiments EXACTLY (Of course, my initial reaction as I read the post was to use NSFW terminology, but I’m alone, so what happens in my room, stays in my room.)

  3. I can’t bring myself to watch the video because just reading about it made my blood boil. I guess it wouldn’t be Fox if something so stupid it defies logic wasn’t said on a nightly basis.
    I don’t have a lot of money. I’m a grad student, so I try to pinch pennies. But I have donated to each and every charitable cause Stephen has ever mentioned on his show. Why? Because he asked me to. And when someone I appreciate and respect to that degree asks me to sacrifice a little cash to help someone who could use it more than me, I do it. I’ve given more money in Stephen’s name the past few years than I would have ever thought to give without his encouragement. And I’ll continue to give to every cause he lends his support to in the future. It’s the least I can do for a guy who brings as much joy to my life as Stephen does. So you can take your imaginary studies, Coulter, and shove them up…oh yeah, family blog. Ahem.

    Oh and I don’t think you want to get into a Bible-off with Stephen, Bill. Others before you have tried. He used to teach Sunday school, motherf@&?er.

    Are you required to leave your brain along with any sense of decency at the door upon entering the No Spin Zone? Have there been studies?

  4. Oh and I don’t think you want to get into a Bible-off with Stephen, Bill. Others before you have tried. He used to teach Sunday school, motherf@&?er.

    I literally LOL’d so hard, I spit coffee on my screen! :D

    (Of course, my initial reaction as I read the post was to use NSFW terminology, but I’m alone, so what happens in my room, stays in my room.)

    Yeah, I must admit, I let out a string of obscenities that would’ve made Tony Soprano blush while watching that video. My 17 yr old son came in my room and applauded. It was sad. Apparently my voice tends to rise a few hundred decibels when someone messes with people I admire. Go figure.

  5. Do we have an email for Papa Bear? I know he likes to read out emails on his show responding to his segments, both the positive and the negative. Since Stephen’s not in a position to respond right now, it’d be nice to completely bombard the show with emails. If just one gets read on air, at least Stephen will know the Nation has his back.

  6. I like to pretend that neither of them exist. It helps keep my temper down ^^

  7. I’m going to go ahead and laugh these incredibly offensive and absolutely ridiculous comments off, so that I don’t feel compelled to hit something. But I will say this: “There have been studies”??? I would love to see some of those, Ms. I-Should-Really-Just-Never-Talk-About-Anything-Or-Have-Any-Opinions-Ever, er, I’m sorry, Ms. Coulter.

    On a postive note, $1,493,336 for just those five charites?! That. Is. AWESOME.

  8. I find it funny how Coulter says conservatives give, and noone else really does and points to some book to state her case. When it comes down to it, studies show that while the wealthy give more money, the poor and lower middle class give a larger percentage of their income to charitable private organizations.

    • Exactly! It is my belief that the reason her study implies that conservatives are more charitable is quite simply this…We know about the charitable contributions of the far-right simply because they never give anonymously, and I believe more liberals do. If they (the rightists) were to do so, they would forfeit a nice little tax-right-off, and we can’t have that, now can we? That would negate the entire purpose of giving in the first place – to be paid back monetarily.

      Now, of course, I have no study to back this claim up…Oh wait! I know! I’ll write one! Just let me get my crayons out and….HEY!!! Who’s been eating my red crayola??? Seriously, guys! Everybody KNOWS the blue tastes better!! Sheesh!

      But seriously, my making the above claim is about as idiotic as EVERYTHING that comes out of Ann Coulter’s mouth. (The one about giving to charity, not the crayon one. I stand beside my claim that the blue tastes better) It has no basis in fact, and is nothing more than someone trying to be a bully and stir up controversy like splendiferous_zepplin said.

      You know, I read someplace (and no, I cant remember where) that Stephen was asked his opinion about Ann Coulter, to which he said he wasn’t so sure that she isn’t playing a character like he does. Well, if that’s the case…For the love of baby Jesus, God, and all that’s Holy, somebody PLEASE pay for some comedy improv classes for her!! Her act is not funny! The vitriol that spews forth from her foul mouth is nauseating. Since we can’t feed her to Yogi Bear’s evil cousins, can’t we pass a law that forbids her kind of hate-speech??

      I do want to add one more thing…If Laura Ingraham is Ichabod Crane’s Banshee Widow,(as Colbert once said) then Ann Coulter is the Headless Horseman’s Hideous Mistress.

      Ok, stepping down from my soap-box now. But really, I want my red crayon back guys, or I’m tellin!

      DB!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D

  9. Christy Allen says:

    Yeah.. this is really frustrating. I can’t bring myself to even watch the video. It showed up on my Google alerts and I went .. oh no.. more BS from the BS press… First of all.. PAPA BEAR.. guess what.. not ALL of the Colbertnation fits into one nice neat little easily labeled “Liberal” box. I myself am a passionate faith-based conservative.. and yeah.. NOT charitable? .. mmmk *looks down at wristrong bracelet* .. Bill this may suprise you but I love Jesus deeply seek to live as He lived.. love as He loved AND I love the Report. Does it also surprise you to know that while being a member of the Colbernation I do Prison Ministry? leading Bible studies with inmates?? Oh Bill.. don’t put people in boxes.. People tried that with Jesus once too.. and 3 days later? he popped RIGHT BACK OUT! lol

  10. Splendiferous_Zeppelin says:

    Of course I’m sad that such things are said, but I rather feel like Coulter and company are either so evil, or so stupid, or both, that they really don’t care about the morality of needless taxation. (If they did, they’d be going at the military and giant corporations just as often, which….they don’t.) On the contrary, they care about getting fans of Stephen upset, and so I’m not going to give them that satisfaction. I’m only going to roll my eyes and stick out my tongue, as that’s bar they’ve set in regard to their level of discourse. They have a point – nobody knows what Jesus’s modern theology and political leanings would be; we can only guess; some people are just as convinced he’d be a conservative as I’m convinced he’s a liberal, and why is my viewpoint any more valid than anyone else’s? But. They don’t need to talk in such a rude, confrontational, aggressive way. They don’t need to be so convinced they can read the mind of someone born 2000 years ago in a very different culture. There’s simply no reason (besides to stroke controversy, build viewership, and make a s***load of money). They thrive on bullying and pulling other people down, be it Colbert, Stewart, or the nebulous “liberals” who are lurking out there to steal all their money away. I’m going to call them out right now and say that they have more love for the battle than the rationale behind the war. So I’m not even going to dignify them with a point by point rebuttal, which would frankly be so absurdly easy to do.

    And I don’t think Bill O’ Reilly really wants to get into a Bible-off. Bad idea, Bill. Or, er….should I say, great idea! FANTASTIC idea, Bill. It’s obvious that you know WAYYY more than Stephen does. How about you go on his show and prove it?

  11. Karenatasha says:

    Sigh. Grow livid. Burn up. Calm down.
    If I got into a tizzy about everything the evil Ann Coulter said, I’d be permanently hospitalized with a heart attack. She is a loathsome creature, and I know many conservatives who feel exactly the same way about her. Of course, we in NYC have already endured her goading of the 9/11 widows.

    As for O’Reilly, he’s just a blowhard who’s enraged that Stephen can quote Jesus better than he can. That’s something I don’t think they tend to expect: a liberal who not only is religious, but also possesses incredible in-depth knowledge of scripture. Mind you, there are many such and Stephen fits snugly into the Catholic tradition, even if the past and current pope have pretty successfully weeded out the liberation theologists.

    “There have been studies done.” Yes, Miss Coulter, please name at least two? And make them reputable, please. Thank you, DB, for mentioning some of the charities the Colbert and NFZ nation have supported, and let me point out that some of us also contribute to causes that Stephen isn’t pushing! As much as I admire Stephen, I didn’t wait for his blessing to donate to Haiti, to Lupus, Diabetes, and AIDS research, or to feeding the homeless. (And no, Ms. Coulter, they are not all politically based. Even die-hard Neanderthals like you can get breast cancer, Alzheimer’s, or MS, and then you can be thankful that terrible, awful liberals like me helped fund the research.)

    As for the government buying people’s drugs or drink, there are rules in place to stop that. And they seem to be better enforced than the ones making sure the military doesn’t drain its budget buying doubtful “help” from politically-connected services such as Blackwater, whose employees have committed crimes while on the job.

    There is no low to which Coulter and O’Reilly won’t go.

    • Oh how I wish you could hear my applause, m’dear! Well-said, indeed!!!
      Tip O’ the Hat!

      On a different note (and speaking of Neanderthals) my captcha is, and I am NOT kidding) Palinurus Serail. Would that be Sarah Palin’s Neanderthal species? Oh wait, that was redundant of me wasn’t it? :D

  12. Before everyone gets out the torches and pitchforks, there actually have been studies claiming that in general, conservatives give more to charity than liberals. No, I can’t cite the studies, nor do I remember where I read about them, but they do exist. (There’s a discussion going on about this over at Reddit, so check it out there if you’re interested.) So Coulter is not completely lying when she says that. HOWEVER… to extrapolate from those studies that the Colbert Nation doesn’t give to charity is simply unsupportable. DB proved it with the numbers. But remembering that O’Reilly and Coulter exist as media personalities for one reason only — to drive liberals crazy — they’re not even worth taking seriously. As a member of the Colbert Nation, I’m highly insulted, but as a rational human being, I can’t be bothered to smack them down because neither one of them is worth that kind of attention.

    • lockhart43 says:

      Thanks for the clarification, Ann. The way Coulter said it, I took it to mean more of a direct shot at the Colbert Nation, with studies to suport it, not at Liberals in general. And like you said, to then take those studies and infer that the Colbert Nation does not give to charity is utterly ridiculous. But considering the source, I’m trying not to get myself too worked up about it. O’Reilly’s a blowhard and Coulter’s a…well, she’s not a word that I can say here. ;)

    • Karenatasha says:

      Thanks for giving the heads-up on the Reddit debate, Ann. It’s really interesting.

  13. This is slightly off-topic, but I echo everything that’s already been said, and I don’t feel like I have anything to add. I know this is a fan site for Stephen, but I have to just express my admiration for Jon and the Daily Show team for a minute. The show that they did on Thursday was great, but the response to it has been truly incredible. The media is now covering it in force and holding the Republicans who didn’t vote for it accountable. Most of the Republicans now say that they’ll vote for it, and a deal has been reached over the basic structure of the bill. That means that it’s probably going to pass. And I think it’s fair to say that without Jon covering it, it would have died and nobody would have noticed. Although it’s sad that it takes a comedian to get this passed, I’m so thankful he did and cannot begin to express how much I admire both Jon and Stephen for all the good work they do.

    • lockhart43 says:

      I agree with absolutely everything you said, and thank you for taking the time to say it – I hadn’t heard that a deal has been reached about the structure of the bill. I definitely noticed right after The Daily Show covered it, more major media outlets started covering it in their nightly newscasts. I also got an email from MoveOn.Org about it a couple of days ago. I think the Republicans were hoping and praying that it would just get shoved under the news rug and go under the radar so that no one would cover it and they wouldn’t look bad. Then Jon and TDS came along and did a truly wonderful thing.

  14. Gobsmacked and in a total WTF? place at the moment to all of this and I feel the best responses, led by DB, have been brilliantly given.

    But really? “There have been studies done.” That is one of my hated things -okay Coulter, qualify that statement. Prove it, you talking head. Just because someone says something doesn’t mean it’s true, and man, in this case with all the money Stephen and his character have raised for charity just shows how incredibly inane her statement is, and the worst part, a fair chunk of people will have sat there and nodded their heads at their tv screens and take it as a Fact.

    Will there be some retaliation when TCR returns? I would hope so -this has gone above and beyond.


  15. Comrade Steve says:

    The parable of the Talents is most likely about the Eschaton, not about financial gain. Based on the good they did, God will reward people differently in the final kingdom. That’s what Jesus was talking about, not capitalistic gain.

  16. O’Reilly cant attack Stephen on matters of scripture, he is no fool. So instead he relies on slander hoping his ignorant viewers wont know better. What Bill did was bellow the belt, but I am sure it will just come back to bite his ass when Stephen decides to use it against him. Bill made a terrible mistake and it is going to backfire.

  17. bottomline: they are wrong on the theology, they are wrong about the man.

  18. Laurie Loves Stephen says:

    Ann Coulter makes a living from saying mean things to shock people, and to keep her act fresh to keep her schtick going, she has to lower the bar every time she expresses an opinion. It is an absurdity to pick on Saint Stephen the Sexy, because not only does he make a nation laugh with his unique wit and imagination – dare I say, 21st century USA’s Charlie Chaplin or Will Rogers – but one of the reasons he is LOVED by his fans rather than just enjoyed as a comedian, is the fact that he is at heart such a spontaneously generous, loving man who has used his popular show to raise money for important causes. He even took his show to a very dangerous Iraq to show his appreciation for the troops. We the Colbert Nation may be It Getters, but without Stephen’s initiative, we might not have had the opportunity to give as we have to such blessed causes, like helping the families of servicemen, and look at what we did for Speed Skating, thanks to Stephen. The Harpy and “Papa Bear” do not attract or extend such grace or positively effect the lives of others. I love Stephen Colbert not only as a performer but as a dear soul, and I am proud to be a member of the Nation who answers Stephen’s call to positive action. That being said – oh Coulter, you’re such a shrew and missing out on the fun the Colbert Nation is having loving and laughing all day every day! And Papa Bear – I think you’re jealous because you can’t “get ” Stephen, who just floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee every time you appear together. (PS Stephen will be in The History Books of the USA as a great American humorist; I think it can even be argued that his appearance at the Correspondents’ event was the turning event of the Bush Presidency.)

  19. I can see I am too late to say this but please don’t feed the trolls. Coulter is nothing but a professional troll who says things with the intention of riling people up. She knows very well what she is saying and the impact it will have.
    If we ignore her, perhaps she will go away but if we give in and bitch and moan about her, she will keep doing it.

    • I see what you’re saying, but I also think that it would be wrong to just sit back, let people like this spew their lies and half-truths into the atmosphere unchallenged, and hope that they go away. Someone has to stand up with the facts and call them out on this, because the sad fact is that a lot of people hear this sort of thing and actually believe it. Now sure, a lot of those people will just hear what they want to hear anyway, but this isn’t a random troll on a message board who can safely be ignored, this is someone with (sadly) real influence who deserves to be called out on their bullshit.

      There is too much of this sort of thing in the world, where people aren’t willing to push on the facts because they think the dumb and lying and the obvious trolls will just go away. They don’t. They just capitalise on the legions of the ill-informed until suddenly their point of view has a social legitimacy that it really doesn’t deserve. And the best way to take them down is by publicly mocking them and their ridiculous stances, which is what Stephen and Jon are so good at, and what I really hope happens here.

      • Arrow,
        that’s why I love you dear. You have that fire in ya. It’s only natural to want to defend Stephen. Believe me, I agree with you, I just know what Coulter really is. She does it solely to get a rise out of people like us.
        If I thought it was worth trying to defend against what she says, I would. The people who believe her will not be swayed and the people who don’t, well, they already know she’s full of, oh yeah, I can’t swear here.
        If and when Stephen or Jon address this, it will be like legitimizing what she does. She doesn’t deserve their airtime.
        You know how Stephen feeds off of positive energy from his audiences, well that’s what Coulter is like. She feeds off the negativity from the haters and the people she calls liberals. If we react to her, she gets stronger and she thrives. We must not feed her.

      • Thank you lovely, I really do appreciate getting your thoughts on this. :) I agree that it sucks to give nasty pieces of work like Ann Coulter attention that they so obviously enjoy, but at the same time, I really couldn’t care less about her and her proclivities.

        What I care about is standing up for the truth, and reminding people like Ann and Bill that they won’t get away with blatant strawman arguments (like equating all government assistance with buying people cocaine and paying the bills of the “lazy”) and making stuff up about good people (like saying that liberals, and Stephen’s audience in particular, don’t care about/give to charity, which is very different to saying that a few – somewhat dubious – studies have shown that overall liberals may give a few percent less, for a variety of reasons).

        Even if you only change a few people’s mind when you remind them that the facts are on your side, isn’t that worth it? In some cases, I think it’s worth pushing with the facts, even when the person is clearly just trying to cause trouble. When a public figure says something blatantly inaccurate and prejudicial like this, in a way that then affects a lot of people’s perception of what the reality is, I think it’s one of those cases. Now sure, you don’t want to keep giving this oxygen, and you probably shouldn’t take their twisted views too much to heart, but one firm slap-down in response seems to me to be very much warranted. Unfortunately, Stephen probably wouldn’t usually take a stance like this on his own behalf, even though he does incredible charity work, because he’s just modest like that. But I suspect that he’ll take a pretty dim view of slights to his Nation.

        I’m not going to get upset if Stephen chooses to let this go, because overall I respect his judgement on the matter. But either way I think he’ll have a special place in his heart just for Ann Coulter after this, and will be watching out for the next opportunity for a hearty public takedown. Revenge is a dish best served cold, after all.

      • Karenatasha says:

        I absolutely agree with you on this one, Arrow, because both O’Reilly and Coulter have a powerful forum that’s not going away anytime soon. They’re got a huge audience, they have influence, and, however much I wish it were so, ignoring them won’t make them fade slowly into the ether like the Cheshire Cat.

        And if only one person’s mind is changed in the process of trying–well, so be it! That’s one victory more.

        And to be honest, I think that a bigger victory against Coulter might actually be possible. As I’ve said, I know conservatives who find her really distasteful.

  20. Ooooh, Stephen struck a nerve! Yay!

    “We are not mandated to buy people gin or cocaine or pay someone else’s bills if they refuse to work. If you want to do that, you can in a free society. But to force the responsible to pay for the irresponsible is immoral in my opinion.”.

    I’d really like O’Reilly to have come seen what my mom, dad, and I went through from last December up through to this past May, and THEN try and say that. Wow. That is insulting on so many levels. *Mutters to self: “Keep it family friendly, keep it family friendly… ” (though I have to laugh at colbaby’s comment about Sunday school :D)* I don’t get this guy, I really, really don’t.

    And as for Coulter, ugh, the less said about her, the better. Everyone else pretty much stated my thoughts. She’s an obnoxious idiot. Plain and simple.

    I’m just going to echo a statement from this discussion: the list of what all’s been accomplished by donations to the charities supported by Stephen and his fans? Fantastic. Absolutely fantastic.

  21. And also…. Australia has an athiest woman Prime Minister – SHOCK!!!
    September 9, 2010, 5:31 PM
    The Most Generous Countries on Earth
    The United States is the fifth most-generous country on earth, tied with Switzerland, according to a new ranking from Gallup’s World Giving Index.

    The index is based on surveys and other research on 153 different countries, which together constitute about 95 percent of the world’s population. The survey asks in part about charitable behavior, including donations, volunteering habits and taking time to help strangers.

    Based on this index, Australia and New Zealand are tied as the most generous nations on earth.

    The top 21 most generous countries, in order, are:

    1. Australia
    1. New Zealand
    3. Ireland
    3. Canada
    5. Switzerland
    5. United States
    7. Netherlands
    8. Britain
    8. Sri Lanka
    10 Austria
    11. Lao People’s Democratic Republic
    11. Sierra Leone
    13. Malta
    14. Iceland
    14. Turkmenistan
    16. Guyana
    16. Qatar
    18. Hong Kong
    18. Germany
    18. Denmark
    18. Guinea
    Gallup’s analysis of the data found that giving money is more strongly correlated with happiness than with a nation’s gross domestic product.

    “It would be reasonable to conclude that giving is more an emotional act than a rational one,” the report says.

    Among the other findings, age and gender affected generous behaviors. Globally, giving money to charity increases with age, largely explained by changes in disposable income. Women are generally more likely to give than men, but only just barely – 30 percent versus 29 percent.

If you're new to our Zoner community, please read the No Fact Zone Comment Policy before commenting. Thank you!