Okay, Hook, let’s talk Janny Scott:
“In the last year or so respected publishers have released four biographies by mainstream authors that feature, as a central fact, the birth of President Barack Obama to his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Ann), in 1961.
Given that there has been a certain controversy about the birth, one might expect that each of the books would, if not settle the controversy, at least deal with it intelligently. None of them do.
These books include a 2010 biography of the president, “The Bridge,” by New Yorker editor, David Remnick; a 2011 biography of Dunham, “A Singular Woman,” by New York Times reporter Janny Scott; a 2011 biography of Barack Obama Sr., “The Other Barack,” by Sally Jacobs of the Boston Globe; and a 2010 multi-generational biography of the Obama family, “The Obamas,” by BBC journalist Peter Firstbrook.
Clearly, if Dunham had not given birth to Obama, none of these four books would have been written. Yet the authors are shockingly mute on the subject of Dunham’s pregnancy and Obama’s birth.
University of Hawaii records show that Dunham left school at the end of January in 1961, and subsequent divorce records suggest a Maui wedding on February 2. This is where the paper trial ends.
As to the Maui wedding, everyone writes with uncertainty. Jacobs says only, “The couple apparently had a quiet civil ceremony.” Scott writes that the wedding took place “*reportedly* on the island of Maui.” (Italics mine)
In Remnick’s account, Dunham tells no one about the wedding, but in Firstbrook’s imaginative account, the parents accompany the happy couple on the trip to Maui. As Obama has conceded, there are no wedding photos and no documents.
After the wedding, Dunham disappears from the record. Not one of these authors provides the slightest hint of what she may have done or where she may have gone between February 2 and August 4 of 1961. Nada. Not a word.
All of these books were published with the eligibility controversy in full flower. The informed reader would expect the authors, especially Dunham’s biographer Scott, to at least comment on the absence of information. None do.”
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/the_hole.htm
Exactly. Full stop. All the biographers (liberal, not-so-liberal, whatever) accept as fact that Stanley Ann is Obama's mother. And why is that? The simple and obvious answer is that all available evidence points to the conclusion, and there is no credible evidence that any other person was Obama's mother.
This is really quite simple. By the time these biographers set about their task, most persons who would have the closest connection with Stanley Ann while she was pregnant (her parents, Obama, Sr., the hospital physician who signed Obama's birth certificate, etc.) were dead. Yours is one very weak argument from silence.
But my earlier point remains unanswered. So here it is again:
"In this nation one doesn't prove date and place of birth by chasing down old friends and family and procuring statements they saw one's mother pregnant --and then handing those to the Drivers License office, passport agency, etc. One gets the appropriate state agency to verify the birth facts. Hawaii has done that in Obama's case. And under our Constitution, those records are granted Full Faith & Credit as to any sister state.
On the question of eligibility, this is called "Game. Set. Match."
(You've ignored this point even more times than you ignored my early point about the 1990 "born in Hawaii" newspaper accounts. Will the ostrich ever come up for air?)