I guess you can think his grandmother was speaking metaphorically of an honorary status or you can believe the narrator who claims she was speaking literally of his actual birth.
Even if we believe the narrator's translation of what his grandmother
is videotaped saying, it's the stuff she's
not on tape saying that is the most important of her supposed statements.
The mailman didn't "call" Obama a foreigner, he said Mary Ayers called him a "foreign student" they were helping through Harvard.
All the same. Plenty of U.S. citizens get called foreigners for whatever reason. Such remarks can hardly be counted for much. And even if the Ayers really did think Obama was an official foreigner, they could have just been wrong.
And that's just too specific and important a piece of information for a publishing company to allow to stand in an advertisement for a publication they are planning.
What publications?
But OK, there's enough ambiguity to be inconclusive.
The real thing is that there is no official evidence countering the official evidence.
Let me give you a personal example to illustrate my concerns here. Hardly anyone I know would describe me as being from the town I was actually born inincluding my parents. It is a technicality, and the technicality is of little meaning to people in their day-to-day conversations. The only time I ever bring up the city I was born in is on forms where the information is required, otherwise I always tell people I am from my hometown, and the people in my hometown would be perfectly right in claiming me as one of their own.
But that technicality still exists, and if I ever needed to be born in the town I was born in to qualify for something, I would technically qualify, regardless of all the other things surrounding where I'm from.
And what evidence do I have for being born in that town? A birth certificate and a newspaper clipping.
And that's often all there is...
Jon
Love your enemies!