Major points, IMHO are that:
A: Hawaii law in 1961 were so loose as to (easily) allow babies not born there, to be registered as if they were...
B: Daily Kos and FactCheck.org have lied when claiming the document they produced a “Certification of Live Birth” was the same as a Birth Certificate. Even assuming that it wasn’t forged, the “Certification” is merely an official document acknowledging that Hawaii has some sort of OTHER record (which could have been applied for in the first year of a baby’s life) of an individual’s birth. It’s a record OF a record...(kind of like the IRS acknowledgeing they have your tax return—that acknowledgment—and your return, are two very different things) The Hawaii government itself does not accept the “Certification” document as a substitute for an original long form birth certificate required for certain state services.
C: The (overwhelmingly liberal Democrat) Hawaii government has now changed the name of the “Certification” document now to a “Certificate” further muddying the potential legal waters.... Additionally, the relevant official’s original statement about Obama’s birth certificate is carefully parsed so as to never claim Obama’s record is from Hawaii...only that he has seen it “according to relevant laws and procedures”....
It is not surprising to me at all that very liberal Democrats would cover up what they consider a minor technicality (natural born status) with the Big O.
For the sake of Constitutional governance, we all need to pray the truth does come out.
Thanks so much...
Isn’t 0’s specialty constitutional law? And he’s surrounded by minions of the same species. Presto!