Your ignorance of the basic facts was suspect to begin with. I’ve shown you the law so you are educated on the issue now. What you choose to do with the information is up to you.
The document provided by Obama is a NOT A BIRTH CERTIFIFCATE. It is only a certification, or verification in lieu of a birth certificate, which is a short form computer generated print-out which lacks detailed information that can be cross checked and does not detail any prior amendments that were made to the actual long form birth certificate. It does not verify the authenticity of the original birth certificate or the detailed information contained in it. Hawaiian law clearly distinguishes between a certification and a certified copy of a certificate.
Who says that? You're just pulling that out of thin air. Prima facie evidence is enough to settle the matter unless someone can prove otherwise.
Prima facie evidence is not sufficient to settle cases rising from either of the two instances that I pointed out; the DHHL and the US Passport office. Both require the original long form certificate. It is the source document that would be the deciding document in a court case.
No, that's not what it show at all. You need to read and understand the cites, not just use them as ammunition. What I'm telling you is what that web page says itself.
They will accept a birth certificate, but it's not enough to qualify for the program. You also have to prove ancestry. They need *additional* data. It's not that there's something wrong with a birth certificate.
You need to comprehend the cited sources provided and my comments regarding them. The point of the DHHL’s requirement is that the short form is not sufficient for their process, regardless of whether more documentation is needed. It would not be sufficient in a court case arising from a dispute with the DHHL. The bigger point is that the two documents do not carry the same weight, this was merely one example.
You're right, I could have phrased it better.
What I was saying is, you haven't shown that any of these out of state birth certificates apply to Obama, in either time frame or circumstances. But even if they did apply, you are just assuming that the certificate would lie.
This is a typical Bot dodge. Their whole argument is based on a flawed premise. The source document is the ultimate proof and will clear up the issue. Obama refuses to release it, knowing that privacy laws protect him, and his surrogates claim that no proof has been given. He controls the source document/evidence and prevents its release yet claims there is not sufficient evidence. There are conflicting accounts of his birth location. A $10 certified copy of his original birth certificate would resolve the issue. Obama refuses to release it, instead he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent its release.
Suggestion: Take the red pill.
"Suggestion: Take the red pill."
There's the dodge. That's not what we were discussing. Maybe you need that pill yourself.
I've got the basic facts just fine. You seem to be having a little trouble though.
""The document provided by Obama is a NOT A BIRTH CERTIFIFCATE. It is only a certification, or verification in lieu of a birth certificate, which is a short form computer generated print-out which lacks detailed information that can be cross checked and does not detail any prior amendments that were made to the actual long form birth certificate. It does not verify the authenticity of the original birth certificate or the detailed information contained in it. Hawaiian law clearly distinguishes between a certification and a certified copy of a certificate."
It is a birth certificate. It is one possible form that a birth certificate can take. Nobody is claiming that it is identical to some other form.
All I'm saying is that it is in itself, regardless of what other forms and what other documents exist, prima facie proof of the data it contains. The document itself states that. Arguing against it is really silly.
"You need to comprehend the cited sources provided and my comments regarding them. The point of the DHHL’s requirement is that the short form is not sufficient for their process, regardless of whether more documentation is needed."
WHY is it not sufficient? That's what you aren't getting. It's not because of some problem with the certificate. It's not because it isn't proof. It's only because *with this particular program* it takes more than Hawaiian birth to qualify. It takes proof of ancestry.
It would be like applying for food stamps and having to prove income in addition to identity. It doesn't mean your identity document isn't trusted. It just means income also matters.