Conclusionary statement unsupported by the facts and lacking evidence.
You may be assuming that even if he was not born on U.S. soil, his citizenship would be inherited from his mother alone. That might be true, but the rules under which that operates are much more complex, and there are other issues - such as being out of wedlock - that complicate it. Throw in the fact that she may have expatriated him by changing his nationality to Indonesian, and you have a real legal mess on your hands.
This is what I'm referring to.
If you simply assume that there is no proof that he wasn't born in Honolulu, then there's no point in talking about it. You've accepted his (unsupported) assertion. And if you buy that, maybe you could check with Freeper Buckhead about Lt. Bush's military 'record', also served up by the Democratic party dirty tricks machine.
Oh please! That describes the entire birther world view!
It isn’t up to me to prove Obama was born in Hawaii. That has been accepted by every state, every Congressman, McCain, Palin, etc. It is up to the challenger - Lakin - to show Obama was NOT born in the USA and thus ineligible.
The courts are not detective agencies. I can’t accuse my neighbor of tax fraud, and then claim that I need to courts to turn over their financial records so I can prove the charge. It is up to ME to offer some evidence. It is that whole ‘innocent until proven guilty’ thing. Someone accusing someone else of fraud is expected to present evidence, not ask the courts to go looking for some.
So, if you have evidence, send it to Lakin’s new legal team. But I doubt you are about to mail a manila envelope stuffed with evidence to them...