Just Hanging Around Grazing at Free Republic?
Haven't donated yet?
Sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will donate $10
Urgent: Save Lazamataz! Donate today
Posted on 04/16/2011 7:40:58 AM PDT by Bed_Zeppelin
Since Fox News host Bill O'Reilly erroneously claimed President Obama's Connecticut-issued Social Security number was likely the result of his father having "lived in Connecticut for several years," the cable news giant has apparently scrubbed the audio of the statement from its website.
In his viewer email segment Wednesday night, O'Reilly was asked by viewer John Knox of Arlington, Va.: "What about Obama having a Connecticut Social Security number? He never lived there."
"His father lived in Connecticut for several years," O'Reilly answered, adding that "babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents."
Another letter from Fox viewer Ken McFadden of LaGrange, Ga., asked: "O'Reilly, will you stake your professional reputation that Mr. Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president?"
"I will, Ken," answered O'Reilly.
But those questions and answers did not appear on a Fox News website podcast of the episode purchased, downloaded and audited by WND. In addition, a printed version of the question-and-answer exchange, above, on BillOReilly.com, a separate site, also left out the key question about Connecticut.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Another nice zot.
Whoops, wrong tab. [blush]
The upcoming head of Fox is a Judeophobic pro-jihadist.
What or who are you referring to here?
Would that be someone related to Murdoch?
I am referring to the WND article that is linked to in this thread.
The reason for removing this is fairly clear.
It is blatantly false. As such, it would need a redaction and an apology if the original is allowed to stand. With that redaction and apology the floodgates would open since now the only mainstream excuse for the SS# would be an ACKNOWLEDGED LIE and and ACKNOWLEDGED COVERUP.
The other reason it may have been removed is on direction of the lawyers. The lawyers for Fox, the State of Hawaii, the Democratic Party of Hawaii, Fact Check, etc. all are probably looking everything published and printed. Or at least they should be. The lawyers are probably starting to get very involved with what is published, broadcast, printed and stated for all of these entities. I am sure the lawyers want nothing that can be easily disproved in the public domain.
The lawyers for Hawaii Democratic Party probably told Brian Schatz to not certify Obama - so he did not.
The AG office is not record as indicating they gave NO direction to Janice Okubo in her responses to the July 2009 statements.
The more that is said the more people have an opportunity to commit a criminal act or to be called in front of Grand Jury. Keep talking Bill, keep taking Fukino, keep talking Abercrombie, keep it coming.
O’Reilly reports “Real but Fake” news, yet once again.
I recall Jerry Rivers also saying he would spit on Michelle if she was there, or something close to that.
The reason Fox/O’Reilly had to scrub the podcast and the offical transcripts of the show is because O’Reilly’s explanation for why (one of) O’Bummer’s SS#’s is from Connecticut was a complete and utter fabrication, based on nothing. What makes it even more ludicrous is that this was a prepared comment from O’Reilly, not just some off the cuff mistake. Mr. “no spin” owes his audience an acknowledgement of his grievous error, and he owes an apology for his deliberate deception and the subsequent coverup. But that’s not gonna happen.
Now that you mention it, I DO remember the spitting comment.
There are a few people I don’t like on FNC, but Geraldo is way up at the top, tied w/Al Sharpton. Why do these idiots get any air time?
Yours is the best B.C. yet!
his son.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2705436/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2705240/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2705098/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2702276/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2698726/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2662517/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2661672/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2659018/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2556165/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2541022/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2496806/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2473501/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2470351/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2469155/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2445846/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2445630/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2258871/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1948255/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1938716/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1876399/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1875579/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1564097/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1423351/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/926950/posts
you mean Judge Neopolitan that’s just been filling in for Beck for this past week?
“you mean Judge Neopolitan that’s just been filling in for Beck for this past week?”
It is Judge Napolitano thank you very much. I did not know he was filling in for Beck
He also has his own program at 7pm CDT on the Fox biz channel.
He is a strict constitutionalist.
I like him but I guess from your distortion of his name you do not. Not everyone agress with everyone. Great country, what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.