publiusvarus wrote:
Locked,
Quote:
Right now you make unfounded statements that have no support.
Unfounded?
Quote:
WND also found on microfilm in the Honolulu downtown public library a notice published under the "Births, Marriages, Deaths" section of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for August 13, 1961, on page B-6, noting: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack II Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4."
In searching through the birth notices of the Honolulu Advertiser for 1961, WND found many birth notices were published between one and two weeks after the date of birth listed.
The notice in the Honolulu Advertiser does not list the hospital where the Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby.
In a startling development, Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
Quote:
In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.
Quote:
Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
Yeah... there's still no proof there. Let me RE-bold your quote (see above).
1. The many means nothing. So some aren't. AMAZING!
2. Obama's birth hospital isn't listed. Imagine what a controversary arises when mid-wifed babies or (like me) babies born in a vehicle try to get citizenship without a hospital published in a newspaper that "many times" shows birth notices.
3. Not only does Obama's grandma "reportedly" (not said who reported it or when) talk about his birth... but she merely "allege"s (not quoted for truth). Now that's sound journalism!
4. Obama documents were sealed. What documents? Right. We dunno. Because, hey, they could be something... or absolutely nothing.
5. There's the crux of your "proof." That everyone else but radical tinfoil-hatters are satisfied, and you have sour grapes because his campaign won't cater to you. Fantastic.
So again, yes, unfounded. There's nothing there but theory... and no evidence what so ever.
