By Douglas J. Hagmann

If you watch and listen carefully to the 20-minute, 14 April 2011 interview of Barack Hussein Obama by George Stephanopoulos, you will notice something very telling that takes place during that interview when the discussion shifts to the issue of Donald Trump and ultimately, the “birther conspiracy.” Veteran investigators who are experienced in interviewing and interrogating suspects, witnesses, criminals, and non-criminals have undoubtedly identified numerous big red flags of deception precisely when expected, and in textbook fashion. To observe this in action, begin watching the video at about the 13:25 minute mark, when Stephanopoulos lobs the following softball, leading question to Obama and receives his answer[ii]:

George Stephanopoulos: I wonder how you size up your potential opponents?  I mean all of us have been struck by Donald Trump rising to the top of the Republican field by feeding fantasies about your background.  What do you make of that?

First, note that Stephanopoulos sets a friendly tone for easy rebuttal by Obama to anyone believing that anything might be amiss with regard to Obama’s eligibility. He asks a leading question that automatically suggests that any reference to the “birther issue” as raised by Donald Trump is a “fantasy.” Accordingly, Obama should be able to handle the question without any obvious stress or difficulty. But here’s exactly where the difficult-to-control verbal and non-verbal clues of deception take over. First, read his response:

President Obama: Well you know, I think that over the last two and a half years there’s been an effort to go at me in a way that is politically expedient in the short-term for Republicans.  But creates, I think a problem for them when they want to actually run in a general election where most people feel pretty confident the President was born where he says he was, in Hawaii.  (LAUGHS) He—he doesn’t have horns.  We may disagree with him on some issues and we may wish that you know, the unemployment rate was coming down faster and we want him to know his plan on gas prices.  But we’re not really worrying about conspiracy theories or—or birth certificates.  And so—I—I think it presents a problem for them.  But, look I right now have such a big day job that I am not yet focused on what’s happening on the other side.  There’ll be a time where I’m—I’m very focused on it. [emphasis added]

Verbal deception indicator 1

In this answer alone, notice how Obama shifts from speaking in the first person to suddenly referring to himself in the third person or as “the President.”  Naysayers, apologists, and supporters of all types will undoubtedly refute or even mock this investigator’s observations and the premise that switching from talking in the first person (i.e., using “I”) to the third person is meaningless. Alone, it might very well be, but now watch the entire interview or consult the transcript and note the number of times Obama answers a question by referring to himself in the first person. Now compare your findings with the above paragraph.

Recently, pundits at Fox News actually counted the number of times Barack Obama used the word “I” in a recent speech about Libya. It was excessive, they opined, and typical of Obama. The number of times Obama referred to himself in the first person in this interview appeared consistent with the subject matter and the questions asked until the issue of his birth certificate was raised.

Verbal deception indicator 2

One of the best indicators of deception is one’s evasiveness of answers or simply not fully addressing the crux of the matter or answering the question posed. Obama knows very well that the issue in this instance, “bracketed” by this question, is his refusal to release his long-form birth certificate, which Trump is known for demanding. Admittedly, Stephanopoulos did not directly ask Obama about his birth certificate and used the general term “background” instead.

Nonetheless, instead of addressing that issue head-on, even in this friendly environment, Obama reverts to the use of a non-sequitur by adding that “…he doesn’t have horns.”  He then reverts back to addressing the entire issue as a “conspiracy theory,” specifically mentioning his birth certificate out of the context of the question. His evasiveness is smooth but obvious. Now note that Obama continues to refer to himself as “he” or in the third person for the remainder of the question.

Non-verbal deception indicators

Notice when Obama answers the above question, there is excessive eye blinking, which is an involuntary stress indicator. When answering this question, one can count over sixty-(60) eye blinks during his short answer on this specific topic.

Additionally, note that Obama laughs directly in the middle of his answer and at a critical point in delivering his response, which is also a non-verbal sign of deception. Further analysis of his facial expression, including micro-expressions, indicates a false or forced laugh or one that is not genuine and does not involve all of his facial muscles.

What it means

As I’ve previously indicated in various CFP radio segments[iii] and on the nationally syndicated “The Roth Show,” I’ve interviewed a wide range of individuals, from prisoners in Attica State Penitentiary to the residents of some of the most expensive homes in the country during my 26-year career as a professional investigator. I also hold multiple law-enforcement-related certifications, including those involving interviewing and interrogation techniques, the identification of verbal and non-verbal deception, and certifications in numerous other related subjects related to behavioral analysis and the identification of micro-expressions in lie and stress detection.

As the title of this article indicates, it is my professional analysis that the verbal and non-verbal indicators of deception are not only present in this interview but are “off the charts” and offer a classic textbook example of the same. Obviously, Obama did not take this opportunity to clear up this matter when provided the opportunity, even in this non-hostile venue. Clearly then, we should expect nothing different should he ever be compelled to prove his constitutional eligibility in a not-so-friendly venue.

Note to the reader: The basis of my conclusions arise from a complete review of the entire 19-minute, 25-second video, isolating the clips where the camera was pointed directly at Obama and not at the interviewer. Additionally, various clips from Obama’s campaign speeches and candid interviews about general matters were used as a baseline for this analysis.

[ii] Transcript credit ABC News, “George’s Bottom Line”, page two
[iii] CFP Radio, The Hagmann & Hagmann

By Douglas J. Hagmann

There is something wrong when simply raising the topic of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility qualifies reasonable and well-researched conservatives the designation of “pinheads.There is something wrong when presidential candidate McCain is made, by congressional mandate, to prove his eligibility as a candidate while Obama is not held to the same standard.

Now here’s an interesting lesson about the act of civil disobedience. Bomb the Pentagon, lead a domestic terrorist group that was responsible for 30 bombings, destruction of property, and deaths, and suggest that you cannot rule out committing additional bombings, you become a folk hero of the radical left, a close confidant of a sitting president, and hold a position as a professor in higher academia.

Alternatively, give your country nearly 18 years of unblemished military service as a high-ranking military officer until you request proof that the orders you are given are, in fact, made by someone with the ultimate authority to do so, you are stripped of your military rank, your liberties, your income, your pension, your freedom and are sentenced to Leavenworth.

Welcome to the new paradigm of civil disobedience, Chicago style, where self-proclaimed conservative warriors are more MIA than Lt. Col. Lakin on the issue of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to hold office.

The Washington Examiner published a powerful article by columnist Diana West today about Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, the army surgeon who attempted to verify the Constitutional legitimacy of the deployment orders he received. For his efforts, however questionable in both tactic and venue, this highly decorated military leader was sentenced to serve time in Leavenworth. As Ms. West so eloquently concluded, the guilty verdict against Lt. Col. Lakin settles nothing, except, perhaps, that such challenges within the ranks will not be tolerated.

The most basic question of whether Barack Hussein Obama is Constitutionally eligible to hold office and issue orders to the most powerful military in the world remains unaddressed and unanswered. Accordingly, it remains a national security issue of the highest magnitude.

As I wrote last week, Lt. Col. Lakin chose a particular path to compel, once and for all, Barack Hussein Obama to provide authenticated proof that he is qualified to issue orders to the U.S.  military as the Commander in Chief. It was arguably not the best path to choose in a system that was rigged from the start, but at least this man had the grit to put everything on the line for the sake of the U.S. Constitution and ultimately, every American citizen.

Wretched hypocrisy of the progressives and their corporate media mouthpieces

Now, Lt. Col Lakin will be paying the price for his actions. One positive although surely unintended consequence of the Lakin case, however, is that it has clearly exposed the wretched hypocrisy of the progressives and their corporate media mouthpieces as well as the duplicity and dissimulation of many so-called conservatives. So that Lt. Col. Lakin’s efforts are not entirely in vain, I believe closer examination into this aspect of the case is necessary.

Ms. West wrote that Lakin’s actions ultimately fell “into the category of civil disobedience, breaking the law to uphold higher principle.” If history has taught us anything, it has shown that acts of civil disobedience and breaking the law to uphold a higher principle are the very tactics that are enthusiastically embraced and praised by the progressives. The activists themselves are held in high esteem, and their activities are often rewarded by academic positions at universities or positions in the Obama administration.  Former Weathermen terrorist William Ayers is a perfect example of this progressive principle of legitimizing and even deifying an activist and his cause.

For the advancement of a higher principle, Ayers proudly proclaims that the Weathermen were responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the security and defense infrastructure of the U.S. and that he personally participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. During their period of “civil disobedience,” the actions of the Weathermen resulted in both death and destruction in the U.S., all for a “higher principle.”

William Ayers and the morally bankrupt lunatic left

Today, Ayers is hailed as a hero to many on the political left and quite the chum of Obama, despite the desperate denials of leftist, self-proclaimed arbiters of truth like Media Matters,, and the brain-sharing freak show of Keith Olberman, Rachael Maddow and Chris Matthews. When not fundraising for Obama or shilling for Hugo Chavez, Ayers serves as a professor of education at the University of Illinois. Perhaps more disturbing is that Ayers has not ruled out the possibility of conducting future bombings, as he muses in his 2001 memoir Fugitive Days. But such is to be expected from the morally bankrupt lunatic left.

More troubling than the far left’s position on the Obama eligibility issue, however, is that of the conservative right. It is here, in my opinion, where the most dangerous duplicity exists and is allowed to metastasize. By design or default, this dissimulation is co-opting a strong and growing conservative base. These self-proclaimed, constitutional loving conservatives are more AWOL in legitimately reporting on the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama than Lt. Col. Lakin was for his last deployment.

There is something very wrong when those who have the eyes and ears of a vast national audience and the power to educate, inform and even influence millions of Americans choose to remain silent on perhaps the most important, or at least the most fundamental of all Constitutional issues.

There is something wrong when simply raising the topic of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility qualifies reasonable and well-researched conservatives the designation of “pinheads.”

There is something wrong when constitutional scholars are ignored or mocked by conservative pundits, or by talk show hosts who are insulted by the pejorative term “tea-baggers” yet accept and even advance the equally disparaging label of “birthers.”

There is something wrong when presidential candidate McCain is made, by congressional mandate, to prove his eligibility as a candidate while Obama is not held to the same standard.

This is something wrong when a 32-year-old baseball player states that he believes Obama is hiding something regarding his birth certificate (i.e., his eligibility) and gets more press than a highly decorated military veteran who expresses the same concerns under the threat of court-martial.

The corporate-fed conservative forces will be at their microphones and in front of the cameras, assured that their jobs are safe as long as they dare not step over the forbidden topic of Obama’s eligibility and pedigree. They will continue to enjoy their compassionate conservatism as long as they don’t ask for the release of Obama’s long form birth certificate, his passport records, kindergarten records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records and thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, and a list of other documents that would provide proof of Constitutional eligibility and valuable insight into the current occupant of the house of the American people.

While the political favorites of the Tea Party, the conservative pundits who lecture relentlessly on the virtues of Republicans and conservatism, and the conservative bloggers whose articles appear in lockstep with the old guard lead the masses down the acceptable path of truth and liberty, Lt. Col. Lakin has been unceremoniously denied both.

Sadly, so has every American. Sadder still, most don’t even realize it, and most of those with the moral obligation and opportunity to make a difference are contemptibly silent.

Despite rabid and consistently incorrect assertions to the contrary, Barack Hussein Obama has not provided one single item of authenticated evidence to prove that he is a natural-born citizen and thusly qualified to be president as defined by Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.  Not only has he not provided such documentation, but he has also fought long and hard, and spent what many reliable reports suggest and over a million dollars against releasing his birth certificate and numerous other documents relevant to his background.

By Douglas J. Hagmann

Sadly, there seems to be more talk about ineligibility on any given Sunday during football season in the U.S. than about one of the most important issues in America today.  It’s the issue that still hasn’t gone away, despite the best attempts of politicians, media pundits, and well-known talk show hosts from both sides of the political aisle. It’s the issue of the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to occupy the highest elected office in the United States.

Many Republicans and conservatives, under the influence of their Kool-Aid-induced agendas, have described the eligibility issue as a “distraction” from the real issues. The majority of Democrats and progressives, for obvious reasons, have resorted to associating the issue with race,  bigotry, and hatred. Together, detractors of this issue from both sides have engaged in the methodical marginalization of the message and mocking those who dare act as messengers.

What could be more fundamentally important than ensuring that the person at the helm of our country, the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in the world, the holder of the keys to the nation’s nuclear lockbox is indeed constitutionally eligible to hold this office? I see more outrage on Sunday afternoons by grown men living vicariously by dressing up in the jersey of their favorite football player when a receiver is declared ineligible.

Despite rabid and consistently incorrect assertions to the contrary, Barack Hussein Obama has not provided one single item of authenticated evidence to prove that he is a natural-born citizen and thusly qualified to be president as defined by Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.  Not only has he not provided such documentation, but he has also fought long and hard, and spent what many reliable reports suggest and over a million dollars against releasing his birth certificate and numerous other documents relevant to his background.

It is not within the scope of this article nor is it my intent to discuss the definition of natural born citizen, the “Vattell Theory,” or other technical matters related to this issue beyond this one fact: Obama could have been born in the middle of the White House lawn at noon on a crowded weekday with John, Jackie and Rose Kennedy serving as witnesses, and with Teddy serving the drinks, but that, by itself, does not make him eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.

While the so-called men in our country are busily fretting over the news that Brett Favre is ending his NFL streak, there is one real man, an American patriot, whose own unblemished record is also coming to an end today. His name is Lt. Col. Terrence “Terry” Lakin, an Army flight surgeon with 18 years of honorable service to our country. His military court martial begins today, and by all accounts, he will be spending the next one to five years in Leavenworth.

In terms of contemporary history, I’d sadly wager that Favre has better name recognition than Lakin. In terms of historical importance, however, I’d wager that the annals of American history will hold a special place of valor, honor and bravery for Lt. Col. Lakin. It will not likely be for the venue he chose, his method and manner of battle, but for the fact that this highly decorated man had the guts to do what countless others haven’t. That is to ensure that as an officer in our military, he was following legal and legitimate orders in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

I doubt that the start of today’s court martial proceedings of this high ranking military official will receive much, if any, coverage by any of the mainstream talk show hosts regardless of the network. If there is any discussion devoted to the issue, it will likely be limited to the fact that Lt. Col. Lakin disobeyed a direct order and essentially invited his own court martial and paved his own destiny. Perhaps that is the case, or at least the most basic legal element of this case.

Meanwhile, the majority of the mainstream conservative commentators and pundits will continue to ignore Lt. Col. Lakin and the larger eligibility issue or mock those who bring it up, even as they pay lip service to the Constitution of the United States. These media pundits have been issued their “talking points” and a list of topics that are out of bounds.  If they wish to continue with their comfortable media careers, they must not stray from the approved script.

Members of the elite conservative bloggers who wish to remain on the “A” list of invitees to network and cable news shows must also conform to the topical standards and avoid devoting any virtual print space to this issue. Whether a co-opted conservative pundit or blogger, or a progressive with an inherent disdain for such inconveniences as the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, their responses or lack thereof will be similar.

Detractors of the eligibility issue will insist that this case is about a military officer failure to report, or in military parlance, “missing movement” and nothing more. Lt. Col. Lakin failed to obey orders and must be punished, period. This case is about following or failing to follow military orders, nothing more and nothing less.

By that logic, the military guards at Auschwitz and other concentration camps should never have been subjected to trial at Nuremberg or otherwise punished. After all, they were just following orders.  As for the detention and extermination of the Jews, well, bringing that up while there was a war going on was a distraction from the real issues of the day.

Follow Hagmann P.I.

Copyright © 2023 | All Rights Reserved.