Bill O’Reilly Has Lost His Professional Objectivity Over Obama’s Eligibility

The long-time media stanchion is showing signs of confusion and susceptibility to propaganda from Obama's deceptive regime.

by Dan Crosby of The Daily Pen

During the ‘Viewer Mail’ segment of Fox News’ “The Factor”, host Bill O’Reilly committed a cardinal sin against journalistic integrity. He made a declaration of truth without investigating the “who, what, when, where and how” of the facts.

On the Wednesday, April 13, 2011 episode of ‘The Factor’, O'Reilly was asked why Barack Obama, while living in Hawaii until the fall of 1979, was issued and has used a social security number from an applicant’s address located in the state of Connecticut as early as 1977.

"What about Obama having a Connecticut Social Security number? He never lived there," asked the emailer.

O’Reilly flippantly answered, "His father lived In Connecticut for several years…babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents."

The number, which was first associated with Obama sometime between 1977 and 1979, has been shown by the social security administration to be originally issued to an individual born in 1890 in Connecticut, not 1961. It is a felony for someone to use a social security number previously issued or used by another individual.

At the time it was used by Obama, a social security number was assigned by geographic indexing using the first three digits to associate the state of the applicant’s address with the number. Obama’s social security number begins with ‘049’ indicating, unequivocally, the number was issued to an applicant declaring a Connecticut address.

O’Reilly claimed Obama’s father lived in Connecticut. This is not true. No evidence or statements have ever been found to support such a claim.

Reporter, Shurei Hirozawa, wrote a story for the the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on Sept. 19, 1959, indicating that Barack Obama Sr. had arrived from Kenya and registered for classes at the University of Hawaii. The term began two days later on September 21.

The Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin both reported in June 1962 that Obama Sr. was leaving that month for Cambridge, Mass., to begin graduate studies. In September 1962, Obama Sr. began graduate courses at Harvard in economics. He returned to Africa before completing the degree, however.

Documented evidence shows that Obama Sr. was working as an economist in the Kenyan Ministry of Economic Planning in 1965.

O’Reilly would have his viewers believe that Obama Sr. maintained a Connecticut address, at which he never lived, 100 miles from Cambridge, where he attended school, while living in Kenya for more than 12 years by the time Obama Jr. was assigned his Connecticut social security number.

Moreover, it is more unlikely that Obama Jr. would have traveled to the east coast between 1977 and 1979 and used his father’s address from 12 years previous to obtain a social security number for the purposes of either taking a job in Hawaii or attending college in California. By his own admission, Obama Jr. stated in his book “Dreams From My Father” that he resided in Hawaii until 1979 when he left for Occidental College in California. There are no records or evidence showing that Obama ever traveled to or lived on the east coast as a teenager.

O’Reilly stated that “babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents.”

The problem with this claim is that Obama’s social security number was issued between 1977 and 1979, not 1961, more than 12 years after Obama’s father had moved back to Kenya. Obama was not a baby when the number was issued.

Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been assigned by one central office with the first three digits of an applicant’s Social Security number being determined by the zip code of the mailing address on the application.

O’Reilly seems to be struggling with an inability to be objective regarding the Obama eligibility issue. In his desperate desire to discredit any possibility that Obama may actually not be who he claims to be, O’Reilly is going out of factual bounds to protect against having to explain the simple truth. On many occasions throughout the past year, O’Reilly has either made light of any claims against Obama, or he has indulged outright mockery of the idea that Obama is not a vetted president.

One of the most outrageous claims made by O’Reilly is that his investigative team discovered the two birth announcements allegedly showing Obama’s birth registration in Hawaiian newspapers. In his claim, he completely disregards the fact that birth announcements were published based on registration statistics provided by the “Health Bureau”, which is so stated at the top of each column in the announcement section of the paper.

O’Reilly also ignores the fact that the state of Hawaii has registered births of foreign-born children since before the islands became a state and that this birth registration process automatically triggers the birth announcement publication, regardless of the location of the birth, without the newspapers having ever confirmed the information with any originating hospital or physician.