> Obama recounting Auma’s words about her mother doesn’t magically transform them into words about Obama and his mother.
How do you magically transform “So of all of the Old Man’s kids, Mark’s claim is the only one that is uncontested” into “Obama’s claim is uncontested”?
> You’re implying...
I’m not implying anything, I am quoting Obama’s book.
> But that’s the sleight of hand you’re trying to pull with the out of context quote
The specific quote “Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was” leads directly to the passage in question, exemplified by your posting it. A quote such as “Mark’s claim is the only one that is uncontested” is more generic and does not point directly to the passage in question.
You claim Auma’s statement is false yet offer nothing to support the claim. That’s the sleight of hand you’re trying to pull.
Those aren't words you quoted initially. So appealing to words you didn't quote to try to salvage the misleading nature of your partial original quote illustrates my point.
Your original words:
Obama wrote, “Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was.” Then what’s that thing on the White House website?
Saying "Obama wrote" without noting he was quoting Auma makes it look like "Unlike my Mum" are Obama's words about his mother when they are not.
Making reference to the WH posting implies that there's some contradiction between that document and "Unlike my Mum, Ruth has all the documents need to prove who Mark's father was" when they refer to documentation for two different persons. The "documents" in the quote refers to documents to which would support Auma's claim of BHO's paternity. The WH posting proves the paternity of BHO Sr. to Obama Jr. Different things.