The Birth certificate does not say "I certify that Obama was 100% born in Hawaii" it says that This is a copy of the record we are willing to show you.
Till they put down on paper some sort of statement to the effect that this is an EXACT copy of the ORIGINAL birth certificate, they are not matching their public statements. It is AXIOMATIC that not a single one of them can testify they personally witnessed Obama's birth in Hawaii. They can only testify what is in their files. No where are they telling us that his record hasn't been replaced, or that it was not based on an at home birth affidavit.
They are 100% certain in their public statements, but completely ambiguous in their legally binding statements, and THAT is the contradiction.
Now you may say that they simply put that same stamp on all birth certificates, but that is at the Whim of the DOH. They USED to have a stamp which read " I certify that this is a TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD..." They could use that one if they wanted to. No ambiguity, matches their public statement, and it is entirely up to them whether or not they use it.
Don't tell me they can't make an exception. We are all told that the mere creation of this long form document for the President was an exception, so the least they could have done was to put that legally binding and completely specific stamped statement on it, rather than that weaselly worded ambiguous bunch of puff.
Their public comments are specific, their signed statements are ambiguous and don't affirm their public comments.
Birth certificates are self-authenticating documents. As far as courts of law are concerned, whatever the state of Hawaii says is an authenticated birth certificate is an authenticated birth certificate. The Obama short form COLB is a legitimate birth certificate. The long form was released for demonstration purposes.
The following is official state policy since 2001:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Policy_Memo_5_15_2001.PDF