Judicial rulings contradict your beliefs.
Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
I have never argued that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British Subject at birth.
The only argument I have ever made against his being a Natural Born Citizen is that he was not a U.S. citizen at birth.
As you will notice, in the quotation you posted, Obama’s birth in Hawaii is accepted ONLY for the sake of argument. It is not asserted as a fact.
And, of course, there is no EVIDENCE that Obama was born in Hawaii, there are only assertions to that effect by various people.
Once again, a data dump that is completely beside the point.