Well, I honestly hope you can get the virus problem fixed. What you describe, with the redirects from search engines, sounds like a virus my boss had a month or two back.
Once you get that straightened out, I look forward to learning if and where in the audio Hagmann describes the "affidavits" you detailed.
Why do you suppose they have interviews from 7 different people saying their supervisors told them the eligibility issue was off-limits?
You want me to speculate? Because that's all it'd be. So here goes.
One possibility is that Hagmann's 'documents' aren't worth the paper they're printed on. That they're made-up by Hagmann himself, or they're creations by other people who are Birther-friendly. Like the story of teenage Obama confessing a Mombasan birth. Or the story of Russians confessing about how law-school-era Obama was part of decades-long Soviet plot to put a Communist in the White House. Or the story about getting a birth certificate from Coast General Hospital. Y'know, fiction. The fact that Hagmann's supposed investigative skills didn't stop him from getting the Quarles Harris completely wrong means he's not above getting snookered.
Another possibility is that a network or two really did tell their employees that Birtherism was off-limits, but that Hagmann is spinning this as unnecessarily sinister. The employee interviews, after all, don't actually identify any involvement by Obama lawyers or the FCC or whatnot; that's all Hagmann's conjecture. It could just be, like CNN did after Dobbs got Birther-friendly, that a network or two made an internal decision to tell its news talent "We've looked into these birth and eligibility allegations. They're conspiratorial crap, and it would embarrass the network to put them on air. So don't talk about it."
I can certainly envision Fox doing the latter. Fox execs are smart enough to know conspiratorial nonsense when they see it, and they don't want the network tarnished with something that silly. They don't need secret threats from Obama agents to make them not go down that road.
What did he say right before he said, “We have, in addition to that....”? And what did he say right after what you quoted?
Before that, he mentioned the statement from the anonymous 'National Talk Show Host.' After that, he repeated all his bad information about Quarles Harris.
Methinks there’s a bunch you’re leaving out.
OF COURSE there's a bunch I'm leaving out; it's THREE HOURS of audio. I was listening for talk of affidavits, which you said was in there. It wasn't. I didn't much care about whatever other stories he was spinning, especially after I caught him lying about Harris.
If his story is true, he does have a good reason to not disclose them at this time so non-disclosure is not proof that he doesn’t have them.
What good reason would he have for not only not sharing ANY of his evidence, but for not even TALKING about it for over a year now?
Contrast that with Obama. If his story is true, what good reason does he have to not disclose his records? The double standard in your epistemology is stunning.
As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That baby Barack was born at the local hospital, a few miles from his mom's home, and where he said he was born for 50 years? Not an extraordinary claim. That secret Obama agents threatened multiple television networks, including Fox News itself, into silence by warning of severe FCC retaliation? Pretty freakin' extraordinary. And yet Hagmann produces not ONE BIT of evidence to back it up.
So tell me, it's been almost two years since Hagmann claims to have gotten that first confession, and over a year since he went public with his whole 'investigation.' How long are you willing to put your faith in Hagmann's phantom evidence before you give up and concede that he's full of it? When the primary campaign starts, and Hagmann's still silent and evasive? When two full years have passed, and still nothing from Hagmann? When general election time rolls around, and Hagmann's nowhere to be seen or heard? When do you finally admit that his phantom evidence can't be trusted?
What proof do you have that Race Bannon “created” the story about Obama saying he was born in Mombasa? What proof do you have that the story of the Soviet mentioning Obama’s name was made up? I’d be willing to bet money that you’ve got less proof than you ridicule Hagmann for claiming to have.
What proof do you have that Hagmann relied on only the evidence that you claim to have in the case of Harris? How do you know what evidence he does or doesn’t have?
While these “smart” media execs would only ridicule this issue if address it at all, the American public has reached a point where 60% of the respondents in a CNN (!!) poll say they doubt the “official line” about Obama’s birth. With no loudspeaker at all and against all the loudspeakers out there, this story has gained steam. In addition, ever increasing percentages of people believe the news media are non-credible. I guess these “smart” execs played this one pretty smart. (cough)
It’s a good thing the media heads would be too embarrassed to go after non-stories, like Christine O’Donnell’s thoughts about witchcraft or masturbation. These media execs are so very careful to screen out any content that might stain their reputation simply by being mentioned. /s
Loren, you act as if you still don’t get it. What reason would he have? If his story is correct his sources could be killed if the story comes out at the wrong time. It’s like asking why nobody would report the mafia, assuming that there must not be a mafia because even though people were being killed right and left nobody would publicly step forward as an informant. The argument itself is disingenuous.
Next time the grocery clerk or cop asks to see my driver’s license I’m going to tell them that my having a driver’s license is not an extraordinary claim so there’s no reason for me to show it. The claim that I would only PRETEND to have a driver’s license is extraordinary so they have to prove that I DON’T have a driver’s license.
Can’t you see how absurd that argument is?
Obama’s social security number is from Connecticut even though he’s never lived there and he has dozens of other SS#’s as well.
His selective service registration is forged.
Sources close to the passport breach investigation have said the breaches were to sanitize Obama’s passport records.
Obama has presented a COLB that the HDOH has in 2 different ways confirmed is a forgery. Rather than present anything genuine, his lawyers asked Judge Carter to take judicial notice of that forged COLB and of similarly-forged birth announcements.
And now the passport office appears to have forged a “cable” that they submitted in an affidavit to support their claim that Obama’s mother’s passport records from 1965 and earlier may have been destroyed. In 10 minutes’ time they could produce the microfilmed records of all the passports she received including any from 1965 and earlier, but at least one person has been waiting a year to see those public documents that are easily retrievable and permanent.
I won’t even go into the records the HDOH is required to maintain permanently that they say they don’t have.
EVERY SINGLE piece of documentation the guy has is associated with some kind of foul play and/or obfuscation where at least one government agency is implicated in wrong-doing or cover-up. That’s just what we know from the records that are required to be made publicly available.
At this point the original birth certificate that Fukino referenced in her July 2008 statement is REQUIRED to be available to the public, according to Hawaii’s UIPA law. Fukino’s refusal to disclose that is a violation of the law. Apparently whatever is on there is more dangerous to her than openly breaking the law. Why does she break the law instead of disclose what the law requires? How long will you continue to believe her story without her showing any evidence even though she is REQUIRED BY LAW to do so?
I may never know what the truth is regarding Hagmann’s claims. Just like I may never know the truth about a lot of things. Until I have proof one way or another all I can do is have an informed opinion about it. But the behavior of the media heads and the track record of Obama’s thugs - as well as all the blatant law-breaking on the part of government agencies on Obama’s behalf, that I referenced above - lead me to believe that Hagmann’s story is credible.
Look at how Obama’s “friends” in Congress are treating the Chamber of Commerce. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2605225/posts (Oops. Meant to link to the WSJ article the thread is based on.)
One of the threats that was made to the media heads, according to notes taken by the administrative assistant at the meeting, was that the FCC would investigate the ownership of the media companies and possibly break up the ownership because of “diversity” requirements. I suppose any company that doesn’t have at least 50% ownership by card-carrying democrats would have to be broken up. Or 50% ownership by communist party members.
Or have to have enough Blacks (whose approval rate for Obama is at 91% - lotta folks not wandering off the government teat plantation, compared to the much more even numbers among all other groups except Muslims, who also have a ridiculously high approval rate for Obama compared to the general public).
All the while unions are international and have no such “diversity” (and the leftist Congress is pushing to make a law that would let unions campaign all they want while restricting business campaigning). And all the while the FEC overlooks the fact that Obama’s campaign specifically disabled the credit card function that would have disallowed foreign contributions. How many millions was it in contributions that the Obama campaign said it could not track (because they disabled that function)?
IOW, we’re seeing out in the open the same kind of manipulative tactics that Hagmann’s alleged witnesses say were threatened to keep the media companies from reporting on Obama’s eligibility problem.
What you say is an extraordinary claim (threats) seems to actually be standard operating procedure for Obama, his administration, and his colleagues including Congress. And now it’s even done out in the open, so they’re getting bolder with their tactics. What was formerly uttered in secret is now proclaimed from the rooftops.