Rotating Header Image


Presidential Election 2012: President Donald Trump or no President Donald Trump, that’s today’s question.

From Donald Trump’s appearance today on the O’Reilly Factor on FOX — which interaction between O’Reilly and Trump will be continued tomorrow, says O’Reilly, a few points made on today’s broadcast:

When Bill O’Reilly asked Trump if he agreed (or didn’t agree) that the U.S. “has a Muslim problem.”

Donald says: “Of COURSE. I don’t see Swedish people knocking down the World Trade Center.”

That’s a hit times ten.

More Trump: “There’s some.thing.there about their ideology…they hate us, they”

That was Trump cutting through the fog of words and airing the festering wound.

O’Reilly asked Trump “about unions – what’s your take on unions.”

Trump responded (I paraphrase): “I have a good relationship with unions — I’ve made a lot of money, have many good friends who are heads of unions (and emphasized his working relationship with unions toward what Trump deems to be a successful, productive method, no complaints).”

Trump did not distinguish between public and private workers unions, which is an area as to what Trump represents that needs closer scrutiny. However, since Donald Trump at this rate is a highly-emphasized “private sector” “entrepreneur,” he’s speaking in this interview, at this time, as such.

O’Reilly asked Trump about what’s taking place in Wisconsin and Trump responded that he thought Wisconsin Scott Walker is “doing what’s right for his state” but Trump didn’t expand beyond that, leaving, again, the key issue of public workers’ unions (which are Wisconsin’s and our nation’s big liability, an issue in need of correction) unaddressed by Trump.

O’Reilly asked Trump what his views are on “illegal aliens”.

Trump responded (again I paraphrase): he’d “put troops on the border” to prevent “people climbing the fences with no one for miles around”, that “something HAS to be done” to limit the border abuses by those entering our nation illegally.

O’Reilly remarked: “you’d militarize the border, then.”

Trump agreed he would do that.

O’Reilly then asked, “but what about those who are already here” and Trump replied that (more paraphrasing) they had to be sorted out, separating the good from the bad, saying that “there are some here who are really hard working and good and then there are others who are (really, really bad) and belong in prison” and that the existing illegal alien population had to be dealt with “individually…one at a time” until sorted.

Trump’s response suggests he’d be interested in arranging amnesty for “some” illegal aliens, those deemed “good” versus the bad, but he did not use the word, “amnesty,” simply described some sort of “sorting” process by which the good would be distinguished from the bad and then unstated options applied to both.

Not sure about this, though it sounds practical, and it suggests great tedium and room for abuse by many more illegal aliens — the primary liability of any amnesty, more of the crime and criminal behavior results. Donald Trump is a businessman from New York with infrastructure and operations in many more states beyond New York, so obviously, his enterprises profit from cheap labor, illegal aliens provide that to a degree (when labor costs alone are considered because the economic liabilities they create far outweigh the benefits to individual businesses).

Leave me with more questions here. I cannot vote for any politician who supports amnesty for illegal aliens, despite the difficulty in resolving this ongoing problem that besets our nation.

O’Reilly asked Trump “about the Birther (issue).”

As most know who have heard Donald Trump of late, Trump has been highly vocal and critical about Barack Obama’s failure to provide “his real birth certificate”.

Trump, as with I, maintain that there’s at least something cloudy, foggy, confusing about Barack Obama’s birth circumstances as they have been unclearly presented, despite him having been elected to the U.S. Presidency in light of this confusion. Trump, as with I, says that this could “possibly mean” that there’s a Constitutional eligibility for the Presidency issue as to Barack Obama and that it could easily be cleared up (and should be) with increased analysis of more exposure of valid, original documents as relates to “Barack Hussein Obama.”

I think it’s a general area of scrutiny and concern that every American ought to be supportive of and the arguing about the questions raised are inherently disrespectful to and about our Constitution, and that applies to Barack Obama himself for ridiculing the queries about his refusal to provide credible documentation about who he is.

Trump: “But I’ll tell you one thing, if he wasn’t born in this country, it’s one of the biggest scams of the century.”

And, bah, Karl Rove who appears later after Trump on O’Reilly says the “‘Birther’ issue is a distraction.” That “it’s a trap — and Obama wants people to fall into the trap,” which statement satiates Bill O’Reilly’s screed about “Birthers.”

Rove and O’Reilly are among the people who ridicule addressing this because it’s one that both the Democratic and Republican gamers think they’re both being played by in some ongoing double-agent blackops madness. I disagree, especially when these sorts (O’Reilly, Rove and Obama, among others) devote far more time to their emotional escapades denigrating “Birthers” than the issue merits. These are political creatures captured in their own nightmares, unfortunately, and they don’t speak for human nature, in general, which Donald Trump apparently does on the issue of Obama’s foggy-bottom birth circumstances.

NOTE: a Fox News poll today that shows (as of this hour) that 10,500 people AGREE that Trump is doing a good thing by exposing the “Obama Birth Certificate” issue — versus a mere 3,400 who disagree with that. Rove and O’Reilly are on the losing side of this issue, as is Barack Obama himself.

Earlier, O’Reilly asked Trump if he was “pro-life”.

Trump responded affirmatively, with no hesitation, “I am. I am pro-life.”

Trump then expanded briefly on his experiences arriving at that moral, ethical position, which I can surely appreciate, saying he’d gone from not being so to then and now being so (now pro-life, seems quite affirmative and proud of that position from how he affirms it).

An important point, however, that Trump also shared about his pro-life position was that he said that he doesn’t think “a President should be elected on (this issue)” but that he’d explain more about his own position (pro-life) in relationship with the Presidency in a short time when or if he announced what his plans for 2012 are.

I got no impression from Trump that he was side-stepping the issue in any way, but simply reserving a near-future announcement/speaking opportunity to share more about his pro-life views in relationship with the Presidency.

O’Reilly asked Trump what his views were on “‘gay’ marriage.”

Trump responded that he doesn’t “believe in it,” that our nation “has more important things (to deal with/take care of)” and that the idea of “‘gay’ marriage” is (I paraphrase again) is one that he finds depressing or something like that.

O’Reilly pressed him and posed the possibility that “what about the complaints about ‘rights’ — they think they’re being denied ‘rights’ and…”

Trump’s expression was stony and disapproving and he reiterated that he didn’t agree with “that” and that our nation “has more important things” to take care of.

During the later appearance by Karl Rove and then, Dennis Miller, O’Reilly continued on to exclaim, “but do you know what this guy would DO with the Presidency?”

O’Reilly failed utterly earlier last year with his limp-kneed “interviews” with Barack Obama and here today he has an actually fresh and bold guy, Donald Trump, before him with ample opportunity to get into greater discussion, and O’Reilly uses more time after Trump departs (today’s portion of Trump’s appearance on O’Reilly) to lambast the very notion of his “guest” being President, and in the third-party at that (discussing his “guest,” Trump, with Rove and Miller after Trump left the broadcast for today). Tasteless behavior there by O’Reilly.

Call me interested in Donald Trump as a Republican President elected in 2012.


A link to this article from a Palm Beach fundraiser in which Bill O’Reilly appeared and spoke (link from comments at Free Republic) includes many supportive, enthusiastic comments by Bill O’Reilly on behalf of Donald Trump AND a Trump Presidency (includes O’Reilly saying he’d vote for such).

So the appearance tonight (to continue tomorrow) by Trump on The Factor with Bill O’Reilly finds, instead, a contrary O’Reilly that defies his previous comments. Perhaps O’Reilly’s behavior and intent in tonight’s and tomorrow’s Trump appearance on FOX were simply to be Argument Contrarian.

UPDATE: “Part 1” – March 30, 2011 Trump appearance on O’Reilly available in transcript form and vidoe, HERE.


  1. […] second part — contrary to the first broadcast yesterday (and written about here) — today’s second part of this interview/exchange included a far more supportive […]