First, if the FactCheck COLB online image is not a forgery, how do you refute the evidence given by Polarik here?
Second, the state of Hawaii did not recognize Obama as being born in Hawaii in any court of law, which is the only place that it would count. Typically, the manner in which this type of question is proven is by the production of a long form birth certificate and/or eyewitness testimony to the birth in a court of law under penalty of perjury. Otherwise any recognition is meaningless from a legal perspective, which for the purposes of qualification to the office of president under the Constitution is the only perspective that is meaningful. No Hawaii official has produced a long form birth certificate to a court of law nor has any Hawaii state official given any eyewitness testimony under penalty of perjury in a court of law. Unless one can cite the production of a long form birth certificate produced as evidence in a court of law or eyewitness testimony given under penalty of perjury in a court of law, one can make such a statement, but it is not verifiable, and so rather immaterial to the discussion. Your law is wrong.
Third, even if the state of Hawaii recognized Obama as being born in Hawaii in a court of law, it does not necessarily follow that a random image published on the web is not a forgery. In other words, the statements that "the FactCheck COLB online image is a forgery," and "the state of Hawaii recognized Obama as being born in Hawaii in a court of law" are not mutually exclusive. If your second statement is intended to prove that the first statement is true, your logic is wrong.
Fourth, there is a grammar mistake in the statement "The state of Hawaii recognize Obama as being born in Hawaii." Here is a test for you, Always Right: can you identify where your grammar is wrong?
Polarik is not credible. His analysis is flawed.