Nonsense. She didn't name specific documents. You can't be much more vague, but she certainly was not clear nor specific.
Where exactly did she "make clear" she was not citing his birth certificate? I don't see it in her statement. Do point it out.
By not citing the birth certificate by name. The ONLY vital record under her authority that authenticates birth claims is a birth certificate. There would be no other records to cite, especially if Obama's birth certificate indeed proves his place of birth. Instead, she says, she has nothing to add to her statement from October 2008 ... which was THE statement about the original birth certificate. If she wanted to prove his place of birth, all she had to do was cite that same document. She didn't and for obvious reasons.
The law allowing the registration of foreign births was not passed until 1982. There was no such provision under the laws in effect in 1961.
The law you're talking about didn't allow the registration of foreign births. The state already did that (hence Okubo's statement, the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth program and adoption laws). The 1982 law was about adding a Hawaiian residency requirement which did not exist prior.
They do show a photo of the back of the document.
It shows a photo of what looks like the back of a birth document, but there's nothing that visibly ties it directly to Obama's alleged COLB. They carefully avoided not photograhing the full back side of the document. It's time for Obama to expose his backside to the public.
That's because the first image was a scan, not a photo.
The first scan shows the edge of the document. The documents in the photos have a wider margin outside the imprinted area than the scans. Paper can't grow. Ouch.
The above statement is simply untrue.
It's true. HRS 388-6, "If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth ..." Ouch ... again. Granny could have phoned it in ... by law.
Yes. It's because no court has asked for it.
Why wait for a court to ask for it and why let other people keep brining lawsuits when the presentation of a simple document could answer 90 percent of the questions??
True. However, there has yet to be uncovered as shred of evidence that the COLB he did present is false.
The state of Hawaii won't say it's authentic. The document comes in at least two different sizes. Some versions are stamped. Some aren't. The certificate number is out of sequence with known certificate numbers. The DOH has responded that the certificate was altered, yet the COLB fails to contain the required statement that it was altered. It contains a typo in one of the date fields that inconsistent with computer-generated forms. There's more than just a shred of evidence that it's false.
Of course, and there's a good reason for it. Your own words provide it:
The ONLY vital record under her authority that authenticates birth claims is a birth certificate.
It therefore is quite obvious what was underlying the vital record she was citing. Duh.
The law you're talking about didn't allow the registration of foreign births. The state already did that (hence Okubo's statement, the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth program and adoption laws).
Please show me which provision in Hawaiian law in effect in 1961 provided for the registration of foreign births.
Let me save you the trouble: there is none. I looked it up and checked. There is not a single, solitary place in the registration laws as of 1961 that allowed for it.
"If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth ..." Ouch ... again. Granny could have phoned it in ... by law.
Uh, no. I don't see anything in the statement you quoted about phoning in anything.
Why wait for a court to ask for it and why let other people keep brining lawsuits when the presentation of a simple document could answer 90 percent of the questions??
Present it to whom, exactly? And in what context?
Furthermore, given that the birther movement helps Obama by keeping his opposition distracted, and making them look like idiots, why would he want to do anything to discourage it?