One such claim that he reviews is that Hawaii confirmed that Obama was born there. His conclusion is that those who made confirming statements were not in a position of authority sufficient for their statements to be accepted as proof.
Actually I did read it ... (just a few minutes ago and right before I saw this post ... :-) ...).
I've commented on this one before in other threads... I've said that you're dealing with two different things here. One is an official announcement from the State of Hawaii that puts out the fact (according to that statement) that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural born citizen. The second is, "what does a court require for proof?"
The first is what I refer to as a public statement meant for wide-spread and public dissemination to citizens. One does not go into court with that official statement and say, "here's the proof"... but it is considered to be something for public information. It's something to inform the public (and the public does not have to go into court for every bit of information that they receive from the state; as the state can make official statements).
The second thing is that if it ever turns out that some court does order the "certified copy" of the birth certificate to be produced for them, I'm sure that the State of Hawaii will do so -- and -- I'm also sure that it's going to show that Obama was born in Hawaii, as the public statement said. For me, I don't go down the "conspiracy trail" and say "the State of Hawaii said he was born there -- but -- the birth certificate will show he is born somewhere else." I take it that when the State of Hawaii makes an official statement like that, it is indeed exactly what the "certified copy" that the State of Hawaii prints out -- actually says, too.
BUT, even so... and addressing that particular concern -- I've said, all along that if someone want confirmation that the State of Hawaii's official statement is actually true -- then they should be pushing for that state law that I've been encouraging all along -- in that some state should make it mandatory that any candidate must produce his birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state. That's my answer to any concerns to someone who thinks that the State of Hawaii would say something different than is on the "certified copy" that they print out.
And so, that leaves the other issue, which is whether the citizenship status of the father bears on the "natural born status" of the child, with the child having been born in the United States.
I've addressed that up above and said that it's going to require a Supreme Court decision to settle that one. But, I don't think that such a Supreme Court decision is coming before the next Presidential election (if it ever comes, at all).
So, I'm back to the two things that I've said all along that is necessary to do in order to get Obama out of office. One is that state law in which a candidate must produce his birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state -- and -- "we must vote him out of office" ...
People wanted to know if the birth record was amended from an original content, and/or whether the current content was based on a birth record witnessed by a physician or attested to by a family member.
I don't want to believe that Hawaii officials would play semantic games like that, i.e., that his record today says... when the true facts are something else. But I also understand the pride that some may feel about a "favorite son" becoming the first president from their state, and then feeling an obligation to the state to not upset that story.
It does make me wonder why even Hawaii officials are trying hard to not be transparent about all the information they have, even going so far as to deem their own transactional data to be "private" data about someone. To me, a person's data about themselves is private, but a person's public dealings with public government departments is not "private."
-PJ