Friday, October 30, 2015


O’Reilly Goes There Again

Posted on  by  

Why is Bill O’Reilly bringing this up again? The video clip (above) comes from this very week of O’Reilly’s television program. Once again, sans evidence,O’Reilly claims that Barack Obama was born in the USA. (Oh, and the UN says red meat causes cancer and global warming.)
Oddly, enough, Rush Limbaugh recently opined that he doesn’t believe that Joe Biden is truly out of the presidential race because there are a lot of skeletons in the closets of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that might still be “leaked.”Hmm.
So at the beginning of his program, O’Reilly opined that Barack Obama was born in the USA because, in his uninformed opinion, it would be impossible to forge the two alleged birth announcements found, allegedly, in the two Honolulu newspapers by O’Reilly’s staff’s “investigation”.
Now, we all know that his staff did no investigating in Hawaii, on their own, and that they did not find birth announcements in any newspapers. No. They found digital images of the alleged announcements on the Internet, just as the Internet is the only place that anybody’s going to find (digital images of) the two allegedbirth certificates (long form and short form but NOT original form) that Obamaallegedly released after he or his staff allegedly received them as certified copies from the Hawaii Dept. of Health.
We won’t rehash here why those “documents” are proof of nothing, other than to say that no court of law and no government entity would EVER accept as proof a digital image on a website, especially when the alleged underlying “document” has no known provenance whatsoever, nor does the image itself.
The image below is also on the Internet, just like Obama’s birth certificates and his birth announcements. It’s as real as they are.

Could the digital images of the birth announcements be forged? Of course!
Has anyone produced an actual contemporaneous copy of either of those newspapers? No. Ever submitted 3-D contemporaneous paper documents to anybody for authentication? Of course not!
Where did these images allegedly come from? Well, allegedly they came from microfilms allegedly on file in libraries in Hawaii and California and/or the offices of the newspapers. The images were first posted on a blog and allegedlysupplied by a woman who is now deceased, so she’s not able to provide any provenance for them.
Even if these images do exist on those microfilms, and even if the microfilms actually date to a time prior to when Barack Obama decided to run for the presidency, the films themselves have never been submitted to anybody for authentication.
In fact, people who have extensively studied the issue have found suspiciouslabeling on the microfilm boxes, missing microfilms, and mysterious splices andwear on the films themselves, right where Obama’s alleged announcement appears. Could somebody splice a false image into a microfilm? Of course!
In addition, procedures in some of the libraries make switching out filmsrelatively easy. (Who can forget how easily Sandy Berger secreted documentsfrom the National Archives on his person, sneaked them out of the building, and destroyed them?)
Therefore, contrary to O’Reilly’s allegation, the “birth announcements” could rather easily be forged.
As reported here, the birth announcements, even if authentic (a fact not in evidence), are meaningless because all they do is report that a birth has occurredsomewhere and was registered in Hawaii.
At the time, Hawaii’s system allowed births to be registered at their Dept. of Health, even if the birth occurred outside of Hawaii. So, whether or not a birth certificate showed the actual place of birth, an announcement would be printed in the two newspapers, because nothing in that announcement indicates birth location. All that list of births means is that the births were registered at the Hawaii Dept. of Health.
If that’s not enough, there’s no evidence that the “son” born to a “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama” (of an address where Obama’s alleged father never lived) is the person who occupies the White House. None. Why? Because the “son” is unnamed, as is the mother.
If we accept the announcements, then still all we know is that an unnamed son was born to an unidentified “Mrs.” Barack H. Obama on that date. (On that date, Barack H. Obama Sr. had at least two wives, if you believe the official narrative. Which wife gave birth somewhere on that date?)
O’Reilly ended his rant with the amazing contention that
the allegation that he [Obama] was not [born in the USA] is a big lie, but it’s insignificant since it has no effect on anyone’s life.
It’s insignificant to anyone’s life whether or not the president of the USA was born in this country and/or may have always been ineligible to be president?
Consider all the harm that’s been done to this country during the potentially illegitimate Obama administration:
Consider all the lives lost in the Middle East because of Obama’s “war” policies–the lives lost in Benghazi being just four of thousands.
Consider all the troops maimed or killed, all the blood and treasure expended, on his watch.
Consider the harm done by Obamacare.
Consider the loss of wealth caused by Obama’s fiscal policies.
Consider the jobs lost or not created because of his economic policies and business-strangling regulations.
Consider the horrific damage inflicted upon race relations in this country because of his attitude and racist DOJ, which prosecutes or does not prosecute, which investigates or does not investigate, based upon the race of the alleged violator. (No blind justice in Obama’s Justice Dept.)
Consider the harm done to our national security because of his weak foreign policies and his alienation of former allies.
Consider the danger to every citizen of this country that comes from deliberatelyopen borders that allow terrorists, criminals, thugs, and drugs to flow freely into our land, not to mention illegal aliens who flood across our borders, costing the states and the country billions of dollars.
Consider the lives lost when criminal aliens murder our citizens because they were not deported or because they came back after being deported, Kate Steinle being just one of far too many.
Consider the deathly damage done to our Constitutional Republic by Obama’slawlessness–by the way he ignores and does end runs around the law and the Constitution, when he “rules” by executive fiat.
I could go on and on, but how can O’Reilly, with a straight face, contend that it’s “insignificant” to anyone whether or not Obama was born here, when the answer to that question goes straight to the very legitimacy of his presidency and all that he’s done as president?
How can O’Reilly possibly state that it’s a “big lie” to challenge the unprovencontention that Obama was born in this country?
No evidence put forward to support that contention–that Obama was born here–has ever been submitted to any court of law, has ever been vouched for under oath, has ever been authenticated by anyone. Never.
There is no EVIDENCE that Obama was born in this country. Without evidence, nobody, especially an allegedly unbiased reporter/commentator, can possibly claim that it’s a “big lie” to merely question where Obama was born.
The best anyone can say is that we don’t know. We don’t know where Obama was born.
And that fact matters to everyone on this planet because there are few people on Earth who are not impacted (most adversely) by the Obama presidency.
Again. Why is O’Reilly bringing this issue up again? Why now?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.