You apply for a job which requires that you be at least 18 - its the law for that job. If the employer(s) request to see valid proof of your birthdate, and you refuse, hire lawyers to tell them that they don't have any right to see the proof, and instead of providing a copy you have two workers say yep, we saw his birth certificate, so just take his word for it that it is OK. Do you think the employer(s) should say - aw heck, it must be fine since he said he was 18 and two others said he had a birth certificate - even though I may be sued and prosecuted for hiring this guy if he is under 18, I should take his word for it. Don't think so.
Wouldn't you think something was ‘fishy’ because he refuses to present the documentation?
OK, in this case, we have a case where obviously he had quadruple citizenship - British because British law says that the father bestows citizenship to his offspring. Kenyan because when Kenya became independent and British citizenship to Kenyans transferred automatically. Indonesian by adoption and maybe American, but only IF the birth was physically in Hawaii - however there is question as to even that as his underage teen mother was not old enough at his birth to bestow her citizenship, but all this would be documented in the vault copy of the original certificate that was filed - witnessed by the attending physician and recorded at the hospital.
Take a few minutes and read the Constitution - ask yourself why would the founders have grandfathered the status of those living at the time of the Constitution - it is because they had been British subjects and in some cases French until the founding of America having held more than one allegiance and citizenship - something they knew should not occur in the future as a safeguard to our Union.
So, WHY would he squander thousands and thousands of dollars to avoid showing the documentation? If the answer is not that he is hiding something, then we must accept that he is a lunatic spendthrift to whom money is just a toy. Does ANY of this make sense to you?
The original World Net article also reads that there was a candidate once declared ineligible for being only 34 years old and not 35+. Not you but everyone should read that original article as well.
But even in 1787 one had to be here 14 yrs to qualify for the Presidency. Interestingly the only one this seemed to really apply to was Hamilton who arrived in 1773 and who was instrumental in calling for, writing and obtaining ratification for the Constitution. Those numbers may have been selected with him in mind.