That doesn't follow. The automatic placement of a newspaper announcement
was explained. All the rest is your conjecture, not discussed in the
allegation that it is a forgery. and completely irrelevant to that and the
technical explanation given (incidentally, in agreement with quite a few other
expert assessments along the same lines).
The real questions are why it took so long to produce -- I can show you my
birth certificate in two minutes -- especially by someone who has a long
and mysterious record of keeping secret personal information, including
college records, travel to Pakistan, and a host of other things that are
normally revealed by presidential candidates.
I don't know where the man was born, but I am highly suspicious of the
veil of secrecy imposed on so much of his biography that should have been made
public knowledge. People just don't do that unless they have something(s)
negative to hide; and the fact that we don't know what they are doesn't mean
that they aren't there.
It's water over the dam by now anyway, although a matter of intellectual
interest if nothing else. Since taking office the man has revealed himself,
by words and deeds, to be someone who would continue to do great damage to
our foreign relations, security, and economy if re-elected.
In a message dated 4/10/2012 11:18:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Either one believes the signature of the State Registrar or one doesn't.
If one doesn't, then one has to believe:
- that the parents in question had the foresight and ability to arrange
for a fake birth announcement to be placed in at least two newspapers (and
didn't bother to keep copies)
- that it's significant to a person's citizenship that the mother from
whom they are claiming their citizenship resided in the U.S. for a minimum of
10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the
age of 14, and if born out of wedlock for a period of one year prior to the
birth (which was the law from 1952--1986) --- since then Congress decided
that that kind of bookkeeping was irrelevant to citizenship since the law
is now much simpler.
- that he was born in a British Colony w/ no documentation, and that as an
infant was brought into the U.S. w/o any documentary paperwork at all
- that he's still a Kenyan citizen despite having failed to pledge an oath
of loyalty to Kenya and despite having pledged to uphold and support and
defend the U.S. Constitution in his various oaths of office.
- the people who claim to have handled the original, and everyone who
remembers his birth in Hawai'i are lying, and that _everyone_ who actually
knows different (a midwife in Kenya, customs officials in the U.S. and Kenya,
one or more airline crews, the entire staff of a U.S. hospital) is choosing
to stay silent and allow the lie to stand.