The announcement did not mention the baby’s name, it only mentioned the father’s name and the address of the family. An investigator went to the address and found a neighbor who lived there from before the birth announcement, the neighbor had no memory of a birth there and stated that it would be known to neighbors that a baby had been at that address.
Neighbors in Hawaii are much closer than in other places in the USA. They stay in their homes and seldom move around. They know their neighbors very well.
There are two problems with Obama and his eligibility. Either:
1. He was not born in the USA, or
2. His parents were not both citizens at the time of his birth.
Many so-called ‘birthers’ do not take sides on the above two issues. They simply ask for evidence to disprove both. Such request for evidence is not ‘crazy’ or ‘conspiracy driven’.
Your position is that birth announcements in a newspaper suffice for proving citizenship. But there are major holes in that argument. Each hole is well-documented with proof citing actual local laws, definitions and intentions.
One problemm is that Hawaii allowed anyone having a child to report the birth within a year and without official witness but by affidavit. This was a law in effect to allow for the transition to statehood and for those with infants to report them. Once the Hawaii department recorded a birth, a list of births would be made public for local media to report. Thus, the two newspapers announcing the birth to the father Barack Sr. would have taken the announcement from the same source and they would have known if the child had been born in the islands or not. The system was loose.
The motivation for announcing, actually for reporting the birth to the state would have been simply to claim citizenship. Obama may have been born in Kenya, may have been born some other place or may have been adopted, but the motive of claiming citizenship would have been strong at the time because US citizenship was very valuable to have. The Obama family was very aware of how to game the system. If indeed Obama was born in say Kenya, his mother, whether she was the adopting mother or the birth mother, would have faced a mountain of burden to get him into the country. If she had birth documentation from Kenya, she would have faced problems with proving he was indeed born to her and if she had adopted him the burden would have been greater. It would have been far easier to call realtives in Hawaii and coordinate a scheme to slip him in under the radar.
There is also the curious and strange fact that Obama showed up to sponsor Senate Resolution 511 to render permission for John McCain to run for POTUSA. The original wording was “naturalized citizen”, not “natural born citizen” so it is believed that Obambi knew exactly what he was trying to do.
The issue of why the Constitution calls out for a president to be a ‘natural born citizen’ meaning born in the United States from TWO US CITIZENS goes to the issue of allegiance. Indians and children of ambassadors would be excluded.
The original long form birth certificate would have the names of the parents and their CITIZENSHIP. So even if Obama had been born in Hawaii, he still has eligibility problems to be president because of the allegiance of his parents.
That Obama covers up for the real birth certificate, that he mysteriously sponsors a resolution that is unconstitutional in regards to natural born status and that he has his compliant media smear anyone that questions his legitimacy is a prime example of coverup.
Well...the powers that be will just continue to win out as it should have been sorted by now.
Efforts to thwart his agenda and make sure this is a one term occupancy should be where our energies lie as of now.