   |
Baxter’s already proved *sarc* the Kenyan was born in Hawaii so why all the hype? ***sarc again***
You will notice that BOR did not reiterate that he has “seen Obama’s BC”.
He instead states that The Factor did an ivestigation and found the 2 newspaper announcements for Obama’s birth (not attributing who reported these announcements in the first place). That’s BOR’s proof of a Hawaiian birth.
O’Reilly and his crack staff conducted an investigation and they determined that the birth announcements in the Honolulu newspapers settled the issue.
I can’t stand BOR. obummer was born in hell.
Natural Born citizenship DOES NOT mean born in the united states. It means being born under the SOLE JURISDICTION of the United States!!
Yea, two parents that are citizens and born here is SOLE JURISDICTION - no other nation involved is there?
It isn't rocket science or theoretical physics for Heavens sake!! It isn't that hard to get!!!!!! For the love of peat.... People are SO STUPID nowadays!!! It's a simple concept!
I wish people would stop watching the big egO. I did and don’t feel like I’m missing anything. I really believe if you watched his show for a while you’ve seen everything you’re going to see.
|
That's it in a nut shell, folks!
How the HE!! can BOR be making the money he is as an expert and author of any kind?
I'm calling BS on BOR.
0’Reilly is a dunce.
BOYCOTT O’Reilly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m wondering why any Freeper would waste valuable time watching BOR. No information and no credibility - hardly the combination we are after here on FR.
One error in O'Reilly's comments concerns his belief that Obama was born in Hawaii: O'Reilly seems to put a lot weight on the Obama birth announcements found in two or more Honolulu newspapers back in 1961.
Here is the error in O'Reilly's reasoning as I see it: It has to do with O'Reilly's statement that Obama's birth listed in the newspapers originated at a hospital.
My point is this: O'Reilly seems to assume that ALL births listed in Honolulu newspapers back in 1961 occurred ONLY in Hawaii hospitals.
That is, O'Reilly was implying that the paper trail of Obama's birth listed in Honolulu newspapers went something like this:
1. A hospital, yet unnamed, sent information about Obama's birth to a government agency to be officially recorded.
2. The government agency, in turn, sent a birth list that included Obama's birth information directly to Honolulu newspapers.
3. But what O'Reilly does not seem to know---or he knows but he doesn't want to admit it---is this: Back in 1961 in Honolulu there is no evidence that newspapers ONLY listed births that occurred in local hospitals.
4. For instance, many people have posted here on Free Republic over the past year that many newspapers on mainland United States routinely post births that do NOT occur in hospitals. So it seems reasonable to expect---until proven otherwise---that Honolulu newspapers back in 1961 also posted births that did NOT occur in Hawaii hospitals.
5. My point is this: If O'Reilly's main argument is that Obama's birth listed in the local Honolulu newspapers in 1961 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii, then O'Reilly's argument is based on very weak evidence, because there is a good chance that NOT all births listed in Hawaii newspapers way back in 1961 originated in Hawaii hospitals.
A great thing about the eligibility issue is that it has the potential to not only take down Obama but also unprincipled stuffed shirts like BOR and and Karl Rove. Expect the screeching of the historical one’s enablers and apologists to become ever more hysterical and irrational.