“The Registrar does not have to be there at anyones’ birth to have very good confidence if they were born in a Hawaiian hospital under normal circumstance and that the information contained in the records are true”
__
LOL, you gotta be kidding! You’re telling me that if Alvin Onaka stated that he had “very good confidence” that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the information was correct, that would satisfy your doubts about the President’s birth place.
And what does it mean for a Registrar to have “very good confidence” that the information is true? In many cases, the official issuing a certified copy of a BC wasn’t even born at the time the birth took place.
That’s why we rely on official state records — so that we’re not stuck hoping that someone who wasn’t even alive at the time can support facts about which he personally knows absolutely nothing with “very good confidence.”
I don’t know where you get this stuff from!
Do we always have to tell you clowns what "is" is.
When he says it is "true" -that's confidence - but I pointed out to you in the letter to Ken Bennett he didn't say it was "true' at all. Yeah he admits they got a record and that's it. Why deviated from the "true" standard? The information in the Hawaiian vital records can come from anywhere Fogblower. That's a fact, and not all of it in their records can be said with any confidence that it is true.
Like they usually states on Hawaiian birf certificates:
"I certify that is a true copy or abtract...." where the Registrar signs them.
The word "true" is nowhere to be found in the Onaka letter to Bennett.