[OldDeckHand]

'The fact is, there is not one single document in all of his INS documents where he himself has acknowledged having a child with Stanley Ann Dunham! "

First, I have no idea what the "facts" are regarding Obama's INS record, and neither do you. But, what does that alleged INS file have to do with Hawaiian law? Nothing, nada, zip, zero zilch.

Barack Obama's Sr.'s name IS on that birth certificate, and he was married to Obama's mother. THAT is ALL he needs to be exist for Obama's father to be the one of the two legal parent - per HI law and PER US constitutional law (Armstrong v. Manzo).

Signature, no signature, footprint, no footprint - it's all IRRELEVANT. Barack Obama Sr. was Barack Obama's Jr's LEGAL natural father. It can't be any more simple. I

[Brown Deer]

First, I have no idea what the "facts" are regarding Obama's INS record, and neither do you.

YOU might not, but I most certainly do!

YOU are the one, who made the asinine statement: "His signature is on the birth certificate. How can it be reasonably argued that isn't an "acknowledgement" of the child's birth?", not ME!

Signature, no signature, footprint, no footprint - it's all IRRELEVANT.

YOU brought it up, not ME!

Barack Obama Sr. was Barack Obama's Jr's LEGAL natural father.

Prove it, because if so, he is NOT a natural born citizen, is he?

[Will Escott]

If an adoption happened in Indonesia HI law would be irrelevant and so would the US Constitution. Only Indonesian law would matter. President Obama would keep his US citizenship but gain Indonesian citizenship too. Indonesia would not recognize the US citizenship existed though. Under Indonesian law adoption severs any connection with birth parents. There would not be an amended BC in HI if the adoption happened in Indonesia. Obama, Sr, was a Kenyan citizen, so Kenyan law might matter but HI law would not have anything to do with anything. President Obama himself admits in DOMF that he had no paperwork that proved under Kenyan law that he was Obama Sr's, son. That suggests you are wrong Not saying there was an adoption but your reasoning is faulty.