by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret), blogging at CDRKerchner, ©2023

(Apr. 23, 2023) — The recent show in which he said that was ‘Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News’ hosted by Bill O’Reilly. It first aired on Thursday 20 Apr 2023 and was re-aired on Saturday 22 Apr 2023.

His show airs on The First TV streaming TV network and service. You can listen to the show on podcast via his show playlist at this link:

Look for the show dated 20 Apr 2023 which is about 46 minutes long and which title starts with “An Interview with House Speaker … “. The show covered multiple subjects. It first aired on Thursday 20 Apr 2023 and was re-aired Saturday 22 Apr 2023.

A little more than half way into the show, O’Reilly started discussing statements made by Maureen Dowd in her recent column in the NY Times about the “racist birthers”. And as part of discussing the NY Times and Dowd’s column, O’Reilly made his statement about “that birther thing” starting at about 26 minutes 25 seconds into the show.

See this link for the short audio clip I captured where he said it:’Reill-y-Says-On-No-Spin-News-Show–He-Threw-Birther-Thing–Out-The-Window-In-2011.mp3

I personally sent information to him back in Apr 2011 when he first made that claim on his show The Factor on the Fox News Network. And likewise today when his Thursday show was re-aired, and when I heard what he said and he aired that segment from his Fox New show during his The First TV network show, I immediately sent him a tweet disputing his statement of the veracity of the usefulness of those two newspaper ads to prove anything about Obama’s early life narrative and included a link to a suggested narrative to explain to him how those newspaper ads were not dispositive in proving Obama was physically born in Hawaii.

Those ads were actually placed by the Hawaiian Health Department based on information provided to them via the birth registration system. The Hawaiian birth registration laws and process were very loose back then. Those newspaper ads were not and are not primary independent source evidence of a physical birth in Hawaii. They are only evidence of a birth being registered in the Hawaiian Health Department system.

Those newspaper ads are a secondary and dependent piece of information which was totally dependent on what was given to the Hawaii Department of Health. And that department was operating under Hawaiian laws that were very lax as to what they accepted for registration of an alleged birth in Hawaii. No hospital or medical person’s statement was necessary to register birth. Any person could register a birth as occurring in Hawaii. Here is an example for the President of China who was born in China but later obtained a Hawaiian birth certificate:

Here is the link to a suggested narrative article to explain those two newspaper ads and Obama’s duplicitous early life narrative that I first wrote back in 2009, and updated in 2012 and 2019, that I sent to Bill O’Reilly tonight:

As in the past, I suspect Bill O’Reilly will totally ignore any evidence as to the lack of usefulness of those two newspaper ads to conclusively prove that Obama was physically born in Hawaii since it disputes his personal mindset on the issue and the partial and limited fact finding effort he expressed on air on the Fox News show The Factor back on 12 Apr 2011. He did not explain the birth registration process in Hawaii and how lax they were in 1961 when Obama’s birth was registered as occurring there even though he physically could have been born anywhere in the world under Hawaiian laws in effect at that time. Again, those newspaper ads are not dispositive and not solid proof of anything.

I wonder if Mr. O’Reilly realizes now what he allowed to happen to our country when to use his wording “he helped throw the true meaning and original national security intent and purpose of the ‘natural born Citizen‘ term in the presidential eligibility clause of our U.S. Constitution out the window” too.

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)

P.S. A couple of questions, thoughts, and facts to ponder and think about in the revisiting of history, disinformation, and the re-writing of history regarding the “birther thing” — Question: A historical rewrite example as background –which political party operatives helped found and strongly supported the racist Klu Klux Klan organization and Jim Crow laws? Answer: The Democratic Party. But who do the talking heads in the mainstream media and writers at the NY Times blame now? Question: Fast forward to late 2007 & early 2008 — which political party operatives floated the now racist labeled and charged “birther” narrative regarding Obama’s true physical place of birth being questioned? Answer: Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Party which was controlled by her campaign operatives in early 2008. But who do the talking heads in the mainstream media and writers at the NY Times blame now?

P.P.S. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: and/or get a copy of my new book on the constitutional term “Natural Born Citizen” via:

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. From Joseph DeMaio:
    Bill O’Reilly, like most talking heads on the news, has likely never taken the time to analyze the “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) issue apart from the Obama “birth certificate” question. They have made up their minds, and no contrary facts can penetrate the mental barrier they have erected to shield them from truth and reality. It is the only “wall” they will unquestioningly support, which is not an atypical trait in the arrogant and comfortably uninformed. And O’Reilly is no exception.

    As CDR Kerchner points out in his book “Natural Born Citizen” — and as your humble servant has pointed out here at The P&E over the years — the faux authenticity of Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate is immaterial. This is because it proves, if anything, that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen when the Second Usurper-in-Chief — Chester A. Arthur likely being the first — was born. Thus, under § 212 of Emer de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations,” there should be little “informed” doubt that Obama was not — and is not for purposes of the presidential retirement pension taxpayers continue shelling out to him in Martha’s Vineyard — a natural born Citizen as contemplated by the Founders.

    Stated otherwise — and please forgive the non-woke language –, “fat, dumb and happy,” people like O’Reilly continue to buy into the narrative that all it takes to be recognized as a natural born Citizen is to be a “citizen by birth” or a “citizen at birth.” This is not what the Founders intended and brings to mind, of course, the adage: “You can lead a person to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.” The observation fits O’Reilly like a glove.

  2. O’Reilly was, and is, a fool. Some might even call him a liar. He and a whole lot of other so-called 4th Estate “journalists” should be ashamed of themselves for aiding and abetting, whether consciously or not, the downfall of our country. Oh, by the way, should I also say that O’Reilly is an egotistical, bloviating, half-cocked pinhead. Is it really still true that he is employed by a reputable conservative-oriented news organization (Newsmax)?

    1. Hi Tom:

      He’s employed now by a conservative news channel named “The First” TV, not NewsMax. He could have been employed by NewsMax at one time but now he is with The First TV streaming TV news and talk show network. One can get The First network on the KlowdTV streaming service. KlowdTV also carries One America News and NewsMax and the Salem News Network.

      I don’t watch O’Reilly at all on a regular basis. In fact I watch him very rarely. I no longer respect or trust him given what he did to Constitutionalists wanting to openly and fairly discuss the “natural born Citizen” issue and true meaning in our U.S. Constitution back in the 2008 and 2012 election cycles. Anyone challenging Obama’s eligibility on either the place of his alleged birth or that Obama’s father was a foreigner and not a U.S. Citizen, were promptly labeled as birthers and all discussion then focused solely on the birth location and birth certificate question. They would never air any “natural born Citizen” arguments, and that Obama was not one, as I outline in this paper: and as I so declared in almost 100 full page ads in the Washington Times National Edition back in the 2009-2011 time frame, including several editions in Apr 2011:

      I like to watch another show on The First network named the Jesse Kelly show. In surfing the various news channels on KlowdTV, I just happened to be channel surfing and stumbled on The First channel exactly when O’Reilly was on the air and at that instant I heard him talking about the “racist birthers” remark by Maureen Dowd so I paused there and listened to what he was saying. I then heard him make that bragging remark about him putting the birthers right out the window back in 2011. I then listened to the podcast of that whole show segment. And the rest is history as they say. I wrote to O’Reilly my opinion of him saying what he did once again about his putting out the window the birther argument in 2011, and I also wrote my blog post.

      CDR Kerchner (Ret)

  3. The Birth Certificate was a head fake as Obama was born a dual citizen and it’s highly doubtful the framers would have been good with a British citizens being President. A lot of reports state Obama lost his foreign citizenship at 23 but that’s irrelevant The clause is called a natural born citizenship it’s not called the natural 23 years old and older clause. When he was born he owed allegiance to Britain the very thing the framers didn’t want.