I think I've seen the notion that 'since Obama's birth was announced concurrently in Honolulu newspapers, it is yet another proof that he was born there', at least a hundred times. Most often adjoining that statement is something to the effect that "what, do you think that his parents went to all that trouble, just so he could be president forty five years later? Take off your tin foil conspiracy hat!"
Well, as it turns out, the Honolulu Advertiser, which is the most often used example of the announcement, did not accept birth announcements from individuals in 1961. They <i>only</i> printed information supplied to them by the Dept of Vital Statistics. The other newspaper, the Honolulu Star Bulletin, says that they have "always done it that way".
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104678
So, it has been confirmed, as if we needed it (lol), that yet another of the lefts talking points to try to cover for Obama and ridicule the questioners is based on falsehood.
The information in the newspapers came from the state, and <b>isn't independent, concurrent information at all.</b>
Well, as it turns out, the Honolulu Advertiser, which is the most often used example of the announcement, did not accept birth announcements from individuals in 1961. They <i>only</i> printed information supplied to them by the Dept of Vital Statistics. The other newspaper, the Honolulu Star Bulletin, says that they have "always done it that way".
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104678
So, it has been confirmed, as if we needed it (lol), that yet another of the lefts talking points to try to cover for Obama and ridicule the questioners is based on falsehood.
The information in the newspapers came from the state, and <b>isn't independent, concurrent information at all.</b>
