You: And you know this how?
Because I looked up the Hawaii statutes that govern changes in the BC that result from an adoption. I already forwarded you the links before. Here they are again.
For a child born in-state, the law onlys allow for the names of the parents and the child to be altered upon adoption:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020.htm
For a child born out of the country, the law clearly states that the BC will list the child's true country of birth as the place of birth:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020_0005.htm
If Obama has a "born at home" affidavit as his original record, followed by an adoption (By Lolo Soetoro OR his Grandparents) it will create a fake replacement birth certificate that looks exactly like what we see.
No, it would not. Since the law only allows for changing the parents' names or child's name, the new BC would still indicate he was born at home if he really did have such an affidavit. Since the current BC lists a hospital as the birthplace. we know for sure his original BC included no such affidavit.
You've just touched the surface of it with your links. When *I* looked at Hawaiian Adoption law, it was more than 26 pages of stuff. There was a HUGE section on Privacy regarding Adoption. From what *I* recall reading about it, it gives a great deal of discretion to the Judge to decide what to do. You are saying the Law doesn't allow such changes, yet the law can be a fickle and contradictory thing. Loopholes are characteristics of it. You assure us it does not allow such a thing, and I believe you cannot know this just by looking at such a small part of it. Certainty, on your part is not reassuring.
This does not even address the issue of whether the law was followed or not. The Hawaiian state Bureaucracy has not struck me as particularly dilligent or competent. That a laid back Island state would be lax on legal rigour does not strike me as much of a stretch.