It doesn't matter whether I take you seriously. Asking questions that assume facts not in evidence is not an effective way of bringing to your side people who are not already predisposed to believe the facts in question.
There exists video in which people who claim to be Obama's relatives apparently state that he was born in Kenya. That in and of itself proves very little. Of course, Obama's allged birth-certificate JPEG also doesn't prove a whole lot. Rather than try to argue the 'fact' that Obama's relatives state truthfully and unambiguously that he was born in Kenya, it would be better to frame things accurately: the evidence, though sketchy, raises some doubts about Obama's legitimacy; not huge doubts, but enough that it can hardly be stipulated.
BTW, I'm reminded of the end of the Democrats' convention, when the query was made if anyone opposed Barack's nomination, and then he was declared the winner before anyone would have had a chance to reply. Not that there was any doubt that Barack was going to win, and Hillary could have told her delegates that they would be persona non grata with her if they made any stink, but it still seemed to me that proper protocol would have called for letting any opposition be heard and, if there was any plausible doubt about the relative strength of support and opposition, a quick vote count. At minimum, count all the delegates who opposed Obama, and then count more than that number of delegates who supported him.
Some might argue such protocols are silly when there's a clear winner. IMHO, however, they should still be followed.