I don't pretend to be an expert on these matters, but there is a connection, second-hand:
A partner at the Chicago law firm of Kirkland and Ellis, Bruce Ettelson, was on the finance committee for Obama back in 2006.
Another partner at the same firm, Jack Levin, received an award from Obama at a Chicago event during the relevant period of time.
Sarah Herlihy, a junior member of the same law firm and at the time only ONE year out of law school, writes an article about the natural born requirement of the Constitution.
In her article, the opening paragraph leaves no doubts about her position: "The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution’s worst provision.' ”
And the most intriguing, and subtle, evidence is the article's total omission of BHO.
Sure, if he wasn't natural born, and the senior attorney knew it, there would be no reason to mention BHO alongside the other foreign-born politicans in the USA -- Schwarzenegger, Granholm, etc. But if the evidence was clear regarding BHO's birth, then mentioning BHO would have amplified Ms. Herlihy's point greatly, something like, "the country is fortunate that the natural birth requirement isn't even more restrictive, otherwise young and brilliant politicians like our own Barack Obama, whose father was a native Kenyan, would be inelgible for office."
The total omission of BHO from the article is what makes this doubly intriguing.
I'd say there's enough of a connection to take note. If you were an attorney friend of BHO (you might be a lurker at FR for all I know), it'd be awfully easy for you to direct a junior member of the law firm to do such an article.
During a recent, and routine, committee hearing, Justice Clarence Thomas was testifying about the citizenship of Puerto Ricans. A congressman of PR origins brought up the issue of "whether I could serve as President?" and Thomas answered, "we're evading that."
Hmmm ...
Also note that Obama had a private interview with Chief Justice Roberts the week before his inauguration on January 14, 2009. No discussion topics were noted in the media. Kind of irregular, huh? And then Justice Thomas jokes a year later that the court is "evading" the resolution of matters of eligibility for the Presidency?
I'm not a birther by any means. However, there are vastly too many bits of intriguing evidence.
And don't forget that there has already been one ineligible politician who served as President. Chester Arthur's birth was very likely born in Canada, to an Irish father.
I'm just waiting ... wondering ... if something will finally be proven either way.
But we know that one of those ways will never be revealed, meaning proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, because if BHO's status was clear he would've released the long-form BC long ago.
Are you familiar with how law reviews work? They're edited by law school students. Oftentimes the articles themselves are written by law school students. Law reviews are not, in other words, like medical journals.
In this case, Sarah Herlihy was executive articles editor of the Chicago-Kent Law Review while she was in law school. She graduated in 2005. The volume of the law review that featured her article was published in February 2006. Her own article seems to say that her last edits were made in November 2005.
More importantly, notice the caption above the section that includes Herlihy's article: "Student Notes." You treat it as unusual that a fresh graduate would have an article, but that's perfectly normal for the authors of student notes.
Meanwhile, Herlihy was not employed by Kirkland & Ellis in 2005. Rather, she was law clerk to a federal district court judge from 2005 to 2006. Clerkships typically last for a year, so assuming that she started right after finishing law school in spring 2005, she was still clerking in February 2006. So although she works for Kirkland & Ellis *now*, there's nothing that says she worked for them before her article was finished and published.
I don't pretend to be an expert on these matters, but there is a connection, second-hand:
Your "connection" appears to be as follows:
1) Obama had a finance committee in 2006.
2) One of the members of that finance committee was Bruce Ettelson.
3) Bruce Ettelson works for Kirkland & Ellis.
4) Kirkland & Ellis also hired Sarah Herlihy sometime after she wrote her article on natural-born citizenship.
Not only is that a terribly weak connection, it's a far cry from your original claim that she was "one of BO's legal friends." Because that means that every co-worker of every member of every Obama committee can be deemed "one of Obama's friends."
Moreover, you specifically stated "The attorney was inspired to write the law review article at BHO's request." What's your actual evidence to support that assertion?
But if the evidence was clear regarding BHO's birth, then mentioning BHO would have amplified Ms. Herlihy's point greatly, something like, "the country is fortunate that the natural birth requirement isn't even more restrictive, otherwise young and brilliant politicians like our own Barack Obama, whose father was a native Kenyan, would be inelgible for office."
The reason she didn't say that is because it would be legally incorrect. His father's citizenship did not make him ineligible for office. The same goes for Governor Bill Richardson (whose mother was Mexican), and Governor Bobby Jindal (whose parents were Indian), and Mike Gravel (whose parents were French-Canadian). She didn't mention their names either, because they're eligible natural born citizens.