An archived article from 2004 on Barack Obama’s run for the U.S. Senate in Illinois describes the relative political newcomer as “Kenyan-born,” providing further fuel for speculation over the president’s eligibilty for office. The report starts out, “Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack (sic) Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.” ....More
Why believe a Kenyan newspaper (which, if it were serious about reporting that Obama was born there would cite something such as a document or a source) and not believe the Wall Street Journal, which concluded:
ReplyDelete"Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)
In other words, the Kenyan newspaper made a mistake. Big deal. If it had been serious about reporting its news that it had found out that Obama was born in Kenya, it would have said "we know that he was born in Kenya because we found X document or Y source said it." But it wasn't doing reporting, it was just saying that it knew that there was a Kenya relationship with Obama, and it didn't have tough editors or fact-checkers.
The National Review commented: "The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=&w=MA"