BILL O’RIELLY

REVIVES OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY

TPATH REMARKS

October 29, 2019

Dwight Kehoe

 

Ex-FOX News commentator Bill O’Rielly’s latest book “The United States of Trump” was released earlier this month. It has been touted, mostly by Bill himself, as being neutral, fair, honest and comprehensive.

 

While I am an avid reader and own many novels and resource books I decided to just check-out Mr. O’s book from my local library in lieu of purchasing it.  So glad I did. Glad that is, that I didn’t waste money on it.

 

Almost immediately Bill brings up Trump’s attempt to have Obama’s place of birth investigated. He referenced this endeavor in condescending and disparaging tones.  How could Trump have been so foolish as to suggest Obama was not eligible to hold the office of President?  

 

Several chapters in, he once again shows his obsession with his subject when he recounts a similar conversation he had with Donald Trump Jr. At this point I had to consider whether or not this book was worth my time. If the author placed so little value on hard facts and elevated questionable information above what all common sense dictated, I felt no other thing he wrote could be responsibly consumed.

 

Since Mr. O found it so important that he needed to put his ignorance into this book, it seems appropriate to once again lay out for him just how ludicrous his conclusions were then, and remain to this day.  

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

​

 

There are several reasons he might have chosen to ignore the facts but anytime a person places himself in a position of “historian”, no excuse for avoiding the truth and disseminating lies is acceptable.

 

There are too many problems with Obama’s birth story to post them all here in this article as they can be found with simple searches of the internet. Let’s cover just a few here to give you a flavor of the deceptive propagation.

1. The certificate that Obama posted on the White House website declaring it was his official Hawaiian birth document was proven to be a fabrication. It was full of errors, timeline misrepresentations and lingo not used in 1961.

2. The hospital where Obama claims he was born has never provided a copy of his real birth certificate and to this day they have no plaque mounted on any wall boasting of being the birthplace of the first African American US President.

3. Travel records of international flights have been mysteriously deleted during the time Obama was born. No other time periods for the decades these data have been kept are missing.  

4. If a person had a legal document, generated by the state, why would that person hire people to fabricate one?

 

Bill O’Rielly ignores all of this, and so much more not listed above, because he says there are two newspaper accounts (notices) of Obama’s birth in the Hawaiian press.  He claims that there is no way that people would have posted these notices in anticipation of needing to show proof of American citizenship since it would be crazy to suspect that Obama would one day run for President.

 

He uses the lamest of excuses which position weakly and alone as proof Obama was born in Hawaii.  When comparing that prognosis to the reams of hard evidence standing against Obama’s eligibility, it is difficult to put any credence in any part of Bill’s book.

 

Admittedly, in 1961 two newspaper birth announcements were printed and are part of the record. These are the so called “proof” O’reilly uses to discount all the other evidence.  So here are the facts concerning those announcements.

1. They did not state what city or state he was born in.

2. They did not state the hospital where he was born.

3. They did not give the name of the child.

4. They did not say who made the information available to the paper.

 

The newspapers do not require proof of identification for the printing of a birth announcement. They do not even require proof that a birth has actually occurred.  They get the notification, they print it.

 

Speculation is that Obama’s maternal grandparents posted the announcement.  Why would they do that?  Well for one, they were most likely proud that they had become grandparents and wanted some clippings for the family albums. For another, Obama’s mother was in Kenya, not being concerned much about birth announcements in Hawaii.

 

It is also possible that the grandparents understood the value of being a US citizen but may have not realized that no matter where Obama was born, if his mother was a citizen that would provide a “naturalized” citizenship to their grandson. This would have nothing to do with a possible run for President but simply an unnecessary verification of citizenship, if a record was ever needed.

 

Just to be clear here, irrespective of where Obama was born, he was never going to be constitutionality eligible to serve as President of the United States. He is a “naturalized” citizen in that he was born to one citizen parent but he is not a “natural born citizen” because his father was not a US citizen. Because Obama is a black liberal, the political and legal systems chose to ignore that requirement. However, there will always be those who know he was illegitimate.

 

Remember, it was O’Reilly who brought this up again so it was important that he be set strait.  If this guy allows his thought process to be fouled by political non-values while ignoring the Constitution, whatever else he would conjure up and write about, holds no interest for me.