The total, utter, and complete lack of witnesses on August 4, 1961 is the most compelling reason to suspect that the Hawaiian birth scenario is a fabrication. Not ONE medical person has come forward. Isn't it extremely odd that nobody wants to bask in the glory of having been present at the birth of supposedly the most "historic" presidential candidate of all time (not to mention the opportunity for lucrative book deals, interviews, etc.)? Zero medical records have been produced. The hospital itself has not been identified. You would think that if Obama knew himself to have really been born in Honolulu, he would be falling all over himself to squash all these horrible rumours about his ineligibility. Instead, he exacerbates the doubt by hiding the one document that could prove his case conclusively.
Until he or his sycophants can explain this illogical behavior, this elephant stays in the room. Obviously, this won't stop his election, but it will taint his legitimacy, and this can effervesce for four years and become an indelible mark against him to be used in 2012.
Since Obama has refused to provide witnesses then how about a $10 certificate? That he has teams of lawyers blocking access to this simple document is high suspicious.
As I posted previously, I am in my 60s and there are still several who could testify that they visited my mother and me in the hospital. Relatives and friends could still give the name of the doctor (the same doctor used by many in the family and neighborhood). Some attended my christening etc. This is the sort of history that past presidents have presented.
So?....If Obama can not meet the same standard as every other president then a birth certificate and a few other documents should be sufficient.
No friend, relative, or neighbor has come forward to say they witnessed the mom bringing home a cute little baby Obama home from the hospital.
Geeze! Hold Obama to the same standard as every other president, otherwise release a few documents.
First of all, you have to assume that (a) any of them are still alive; and (b) any of them remember one specific birth 47 years ago.
Isn't it extremely odd that nobody wants to bask in the glory of having been present at the birth of supposedly the most "historic" presidential candidate of all time (not to mention the opportunity for lucrative book deals, interviews, etc.)?
Any medical professional who came forth to discuss the birth would be in violation of medical ethics rules regarding privacy, as well as state and Federal medical privacy laws. Medical professionals cannoth reveal that they treated someone or had them as a patient without that person's consent to such revelation.
Just to give you an example, when my wife gave birth to our son a couple of months ago, the hospital would not even tell friends of ours that she was a patient there when they called in to confirm where to send the flowers.