I’m not debating the admissibility of newspaper articles. I’m pointing out that it’s ridiculous to claim that newspaper articles mean anything when they don’t list the place of birth. You brought up the “public record” and this is worthless too when the public record is inconsistent. What you’re not wanting to admit is that these out-of-court statements made in Obama’s own bio and by his own family members carries enough credibility to cause doubt about any other accounts. This is exactly how the burden of proof was shifted in the Kansas ballot challenge. The Kansas objections board was supposed to make a ruling the same day as the ballot hearing but they had no evidence and no public record to dispute whether Obama was born in Kenya or not. Obama wasn’t dumb enough to submit the kind of evidence you think is so persuasive.
What i know is that Obama himself cannot remember where he was born. However, there is an exception to the hearsay rule that permits him to testify about the facts relating to his birth. So, his testimony is admissible. I also know that public birth records are also admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. There will be a horse race as to the admissibility of the newspaper clippings, if they are even relevant at all.
So, what I know is that if there were to be a trial, there would be admissible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Opponents might attempt to impeach that evidence by accusing the state government of manufacturing phony evidence, etc., but there would be evidence admitted that he was born in Hawaii.
I have never been made aware of any witness who will testify that they saw Obama born outside the country, whether in Kenya or Katmandu. Not one. It's easy to find people who are willing to just say that he was born in Kenya or Katmandu, but it is apparently impossible to find anyone who can say that their claim is based upon personal knowledge (i.e,. that they witnessed it).
By the way, even if you could somehow prove that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, that would not be the same as proving that he was born in another country. I recognize it's difficult and I recognize that the rules of evidence may sometimes seem to be unfair, but there are good reasons for most of them.
The reality is that, where the parents are dead, proving fifty year old birth facts about anyone can be difficult without using records (government, medical) and without using the person's own testimony. You need witnesses.