A sad day for journalism, Bill O'Reily retires
- Thread starter Pekelo
- Start date
Fox News went right along with the obama document fraud.
April 28, 2017
When Bill O’Reilly Misled His Viewers
By Susan Daniels
On Aprll 13, 2011, a viewer sent the following to Bill O’Reilly. He addressed it during the email segment of his show:
John Knox: Arlington, VA: What about Obama having a Connecticut social security number. He never lived there.
Bill O’Reilly: But his father lived in Connecticut for several years, John. Babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents.
Why did O’Reilly mislead, and what is the lie?
Two years before O’Reilly’s declaration, I uncovered the phony number. At the request of a client, who turned to me as a licensed private investigator, I found that Barack Obama was using the Connecticut social security number 042-68-4425, which was issued on March 28, 1977 to someone born in the year 1890.
If it seems implausible that someone would acquire their SSN at the age of 87, I can explain why it is not. As I researched Obama’s number, I found the file of a woman who was issued her number on the same day in March. A letter revealed she had been using her husband’s SSN and needed one of her own, more than likely for government assistance.
My theory is that the person actually assigned the number that Obama uses was in a similar circumstance. On March 28, 1977 Barack Obama was fifteen years old and living in Hawaii.
Although the Obama administration changed issuance of SSNs to randomly assigned in 2011, until then they were assigned by where a person lived when they filled out their application.
From the Social Security Administration: RM 10201.030 Structure of the Social Security Number (SSN) A. Prior to June 25, 2011, the first three digits of the SSN represented the area number. The area number reflected the State as derived from the ZIP Code in the mailing address the number holder provided on the application for an original SSN card.
Further investigation revealed that Obama began using the CT SSN in his mid-20s and continues to this day. In a 2009 tax return he filed as president, that number was used. As more information was collected, the SSN showed up with a cell phone number that was attached to his addresses in IL, MA and D.C. Repeatedly his actual birthday of August 4, 1961 appeared, but so did 1890.
The last four numbers (4425) appear on his “alleged” verification of a Selective Service Application. That application, however, is suspect as invalid because it does not have the same date stamp as a half dozen other applications, which were filed within days of his in Hawaii in 1980.
When Hawaii social security numbers were still assigned by address of applicant, all numbers began with 575 or 576. Obama’s half-sister, Maya, has one that begins with 576. His father, Barack Obama Sr. was assigned one that started with 575. Yet Obama Jr.’s starts with 042.
Progressives have tried repeatedly to explain away the stolen number, mostly bordering on the ridiculous. Like Bill O’Reilly, Carole Gilbert in a Yahoo-related “Associated Content” said that Obama Sr. lived in CT, which is preposterous on its face. He went to Harvard, which is in Massachusetts. Perhaps neither has ever looked at a map.
O’Reilly’s observation is even more foolish because the number was issued in 1977 and Obama Sr. was given the “bum’s rush” by Harvard in 1964, according to his immigration file and he returned to HI only once in 1971.
According to the Immigration file, Harvard did not allow him to write his thesis after he impregnated a young female from Kenya and a complaint was filed against him by the mother of a white woman, Ruth Beatrice Baker, who was under his thrall. Harvard dumped him by cutting off his money and Immigration forced him to leave.
Another obtuse accusation is that his access to the CT number was because of a typo. The Zip code for CT starts with 068 and HI starts with 968. Obama lived at only three Zip codes in HI. A quick call to the post office in CT revealed that there were no comparable numbers there for two of them and the third was a dedicated number to Union Carbide in the early ‘90s.
All of this information was contained in a lawsuit I filed in OH in 2012 against the Secretary of State in an effort to keep Obama off the ballot until he could prove his SSN was legitimate.
No one appeared in court for the opposing side but a hearing was held. Fortunately, supporters were there and can still attest to the unacceptable behavior of the Republican judge. His court reporter even truncated the official transcript of the hearing.
Three days after the hearing, he dismissed my case base on a motion by the government. (No judge in the history of Man has ever filed anything that quickly.) The four page dismissal said, in part, “Plaintiff somehow equates use of an improper social security number as a disqualifying event in that the candidate has thereby violated ‘any other requirement established by law.’”
In other words, it’s perfectly fine to use a stolen social security number. The only problem is that it is a felony.
People are under the misconception that presidential candidates are vetted by their party. They are not. Hawaii officials violated their own Constitution to put Obama’s name on their ballot. He could not prove with a birth certificate that he qualified to run for office so they changed the Certificate of Nomination to accommodate him. (All that is also in my lawsuit.) The person who accomplished that in 2008 was the head of the Hawaiian Democrat Party. His name is Brian Schatz. He is now the senior senator from Hawaii.
Susan Daniels is an Ohio state-licensed private investigator and has been since 1995.
http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url...367958&sig=AJsQQ1CAPwo3YAnzJ1zemZwzAEKtbV2cYg
April 28, 2017
When Bill O’Reilly Misled His Viewers
By Susan Daniels
On Aprll 13, 2011, a viewer sent the following to Bill O’Reilly. He addressed it during the email segment of his show:
John Knox: Arlington, VA: What about Obama having a Connecticut social security number. He never lived there.
Bill O’Reilly: But his father lived in Connecticut for several years, John. Babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents.
Why did O’Reilly mislead, and what is the lie?
Two years before O’Reilly’s declaration, I uncovered the phony number. At the request of a client, who turned to me as a licensed private investigator, I found that Barack Obama was using the Connecticut social security number 042-68-4425, which was issued on March 28, 1977 to someone born in the year 1890.
If it seems implausible that someone would acquire their SSN at the age of 87, I can explain why it is not. As I researched Obama’s number, I found the file of a woman who was issued her number on the same day in March. A letter revealed she had been using her husband’s SSN and needed one of her own, more than likely for government assistance.
My theory is that the person actually assigned the number that Obama uses was in a similar circumstance. On March 28, 1977 Barack Obama was fifteen years old and living in Hawaii.
Although the Obama administration changed issuance of SSNs to randomly assigned in 2011, until then they were assigned by where a person lived when they filled out their application.
From the Social Security Administration: RM 10201.030 Structure of the Social Security Number (SSN) A. Prior to June 25, 2011, the first three digits of the SSN represented the area number. The area number reflected the State as derived from the ZIP Code in the mailing address the number holder provided on the application for an original SSN card.
Further investigation revealed that Obama began using the CT SSN in his mid-20s and continues to this day. In a 2009 tax return he filed as president, that number was used. As more information was collected, the SSN showed up with a cell phone number that was attached to his addresses in IL, MA and D.C. Repeatedly his actual birthday of August 4, 1961 appeared, but so did 1890.
The last four numbers (4425) appear on his “alleged” verification of a Selective Service Application. That application, however, is suspect as invalid because it does not have the same date stamp as a half dozen other applications, which were filed within days of his in Hawaii in 1980.
When Hawaii social security numbers were still assigned by address of applicant, all numbers began with 575 or 576. Obama’s half-sister, Maya, has one that begins with 576. His father, Barack Obama Sr. was assigned one that started with 575. Yet Obama Jr.’s starts with 042.
Progressives have tried repeatedly to explain away the stolen number, mostly bordering on the ridiculous. Like Bill O’Reilly, Carole Gilbert in a Yahoo-related “Associated Content” said that Obama Sr. lived in CT, which is preposterous on its face. He went to Harvard, which is in Massachusetts. Perhaps neither has ever looked at a map.
O’Reilly’s observation is even more foolish because the number was issued in 1977 and Obama Sr. was given the “bum’s rush” by Harvard in 1964, according to his immigration file and he returned to HI only once in 1971.
According to the Immigration file, Harvard did not allow him to write his thesis after he impregnated a young female from Kenya and a complaint was filed against him by the mother of a white woman, Ruth Beatrice Baker, who was under his thrall. Harvard dumped him by cutting off his money and Immigration forced him to leave.
Another obtuse accusation is that his access to the CT number was because of a typo. The Zip code for CT starts with 068 and HI starts with 968. Obama lived at only three Zip codes in HI. A quick call to the post office in CT revealed that there were no comparable numbers there for two of them and the third was a dedicated number to Union Carbide in the early ‘90s.
All of this information was contained in a lawsuit I filed in OH in 2012 against the Secretary of State in an effort to keep Obama off the ballot until he could prove his SSN was legitimate.
No one appeared in court for the opposing side but a hearing was held. Fortunately, supporters were there and can still attest to the unacceptable behavior of the Republican judge. His court reporter even truncated the official transcript of the hearing.
Three days after the hearing, he dismissed my case base on a motion by the government. (No judge in the history of Man has ever filed anything that quickly.) The four page dismissal said, in part, “Plaintiff somehow equates use of an improper social security number as a disqualifying event in that the candidate has thereby violated ‘any other requirement established by law.’”
In other words, it’s perfectly fine to use a stolen social security number. The only problem is that it is a felony.
People are under the misconception that presidential candidates are vetted by their party. They are not. Hawaii officials violated their own Constitution to put Obama’s name on their ballot. He could not prove with a birth certificate that he qualified to run for office so they changed the Certificate of Nomination to accommodate him. (All that is also in my lawsuit.) The person who accomplished that in 2008 was the head of the Hawaiian Democrat Party. His name is Brian Schatz. He is now the senior senator from Hawaii.
Susan Daniels is an Ohio state-licensed private investigator and has been since 1995.
http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url...367958&sig=AJsQQ1CAPwo3YAnzJ1zemZwzAEKtbV2cYg
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusiv...work-amid-fears-fox-news-moving-too-far-left/
On the heels of major shakeups at the Fox News Network, an alternative conservative network is being actively discussed amongst conservative fat cats.
A well-placed source close to the proposal tells Mediaite that serious discussions are underway to create an alternative conservative cable network on the belief that the Fox News Network is moving too far to the left. The source, who is engaged in the talks, says a meeting is planned for today with two prominent high-powered television executives, some underperforming conservative networks and people who have an interest and the ability to fund a new network.
The potential aim? Putting “the old band” back together. There are certainly plenty of (out-of-work?) conservative powerhouses to pick from that could star on a new network, and perhaps even some executives from within Fox News who might be lured by the new opportunity. Could the new channel include stars like the ousted Bill O’Reilly, who didn’t waste much time hitting the podcast waves after he was fired amid a sexual harassment scandal? Could Tomi Lahren, the conservative mega star, who was recently sidelined at The Blaze also take on a prominent role? The exact “who” won’t be clear until the deal is more defined but the source says the pitch is that the network could immediately reach at least 85 million homes.
more at link...
On the heels of major shakeups at the Fox News Network, an alternative conservative network is being actively discussed amongst conservative fat cats.
A well-placed source close to the proposal tells Mediaite that serious discussions are underway to create an alternative conservative cable network on the belief that the Fox News Network is moving too far to the left. The source, who is engaged in the talks, says a meeting is planned for today with two prominent high-powered television executives, some underperforming conservative networks and people who have an interest and the ability to fund a new network.
The potential aim? Putting “the old band” back together. There are certainly plenty of (out-of-work?) conservative powerhouses to pick from that could star on a new network, and perhaps even some executives from within Fox News who might be lured by the new opportunity. Could the new channel include stars like the ousted Bill O’Reilly, who didn’t waste much time hitting the podcast waves after he was fired amid a sexual harassment scandal? Could Tomi Lahren, the conservative mega star, who was recently sidelined at The Blaze also take on a prominent role? The exact “who” won’t be clear until the deal is more defined but the source says the pitch is that the network could immediately reach at least 85 million homes.
more at link...
Hannity says liberal fascists after sponsors; 1 is leaving
59
1
Paul Zimmerman/Getty Images
by AP24 May 2017652
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
NEW YORK (AP) — Sean Hannity says a media watchdog is guilty of “liberal fascism” for targeting advertisers on his Fox News Channel show, as one company announced Wednesday that it would no longer hawk its wares there.
The Chicago-based Cars.com said that it had been “watching closely” and recently decided to suspend its backing of Hannity.
Hannity, the sole survivor from Fox’s once stable and powerful prime-time lineup, has been a strong backer of President Donald Trump and believes the president is under attack from media and opponents who want to destroy him. On Wednesday, Hannity said he would no longer talk about a discredited story involving a murdered Democratic National Committee chairman after speaking to the man’s family, and after Fox had earlier retracted an online story it had written about the case.
Uncertainty over whether Hannity would defy his network’s bosses over the story led to big ratings on Wednesday. The show reached 2.5 million viewers, or 50 percent more than it had for the same night a year earlier, the Nielsen company said.
On Wednesday, Hannity sent a steady stream of tweets that targeted Media Matters for America, the liberal lobbyists who a day earlier had posted a list of his show’s advertisers on its web site. Targeting a show’s advertisers is a potent line of attack in television; the swift abandonment of Bill O’Reilly’s advertisers last month after the revelation of settlements paid to women to quiet harassment charges was widely considered a factor in his firing by Fox.
Media Matters is “targeting my advertisers to silence my voice,” Hannity tweeted. “They hope to get me fired. Rush (Limbaugh), O’Reilly, (Glenn) Beck, (Don) Imus and now me.” He posted a series of links to articles about Media Matters’ funding, and ties to figures reviled by many conservatives, like George Soros and Bill Clinton.
Media Matters denied that it was mounting a pressure campaign focusing on Hannity’s advertisers. The organization’s president Angelo Carusone said he hadn’t spoken to any sponsors. He said he wanted advertisers to be aware of Hannity’s “volatility” as part of a general Media Matters campaign to get them to think about advertising on Fox; Media Matters hasn’t posted a list of sponsors for any other specific show.
Saying there’s no boycott campaign may be a distinction without a difference, however. Media Matters listed on its website more than 150 companies that had run commercials on “Hannity” in May, ranging from Lexus to Reddi-wip to Comedy Central. Hannity tweeted Wednesday that he’d spoken to several of his advertisers and they said they’d been “inundated” with emails urging them to stop running commercials on his show.
Cars.com said in a statement that its decision to advertise on a show doesn’t mean it agrees or disagrees with its content.
“We don’t have the ability to influence content at the time we make our advertising purchase,” the company said. “In this case, we’ve been watching closely and have recently made the decision to pull our advertising from Hannity.”
The company did not make clear when it made that decision or what about Hannity’s content influenced its executives. A company representative did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
By alerting his supporters about the list of advertisers, Hannity has played into his critics’ hands, Carusone said.
“He has demonstrated that he’s totally volatile and out of control,” he said. “Hannity has done more to create pressure for his advertisers than I have.”
Carusone suggested that Hannity is “acting out of fear and anxiety over the future of Fox News by preying on the fears and anxieties of his audience.”
“We’re not running a campaign to get him fired right now,” he said.
Hannity was active on Twitter before his show Tuesday, saying that he would discuss the case of murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich and his own future on Fox. It clearly paid off by drawing interest; his viewership was just under the 2.6 million reached by the current queen of prime-time cable television, Rachel Maddow, on MSNBC.
It would be nice to get rid of "The Five".
I think she'll do well in that slot.
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/fox-news-channel-laura-ingraham-1202527938/
I think she'll do well in that slot.
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/fox-news-channel-laura-ingraham-1202527938/
Fox put her into her own show once before - Just-In it was called. I think it fell flat so she would have to somehow become interesting. Yeh, maybe it is all about time slots. I dont know. She was pretty dull for a full program, although she is interesting in short burts and blurbs.
Maybe Megyn Kelly will get recycled back at some point. Man, she made a stupid move and is not getting traction in the new things she is doing- yet anyway.
The Five is unwatchable. They need some new blood, maybe Tomi or Lauren Southern. I really like Laura but she is a bit boring.