The best Hawaii has for him is an amended late BC which doesn’t count as prima facie evidence and which actually shows that the claim of a Hawaii birth is very, very unlikely to be true.
Just out of curiosity, how does one supply a doctor's examine of a newborn baby for birth certificate purposes 45 years late?
Except the statement at the bottom of his CoLB says that it is prima facie evidence.
He wouldn’t have to provide a doctor’s examination within 30 days of birth, but would have to provide that specific piece of information from a source considered reliable.
For instance, if Obama had a Kenyan birth certificate which contained the medical information that was lacking on the Hawaii BC, he could submit that information to his communist doctor in Chicago, who would enter that on the medical history record. Then the communist doctor in Chicago could make a copy of that medical history record and send it to the HDOH in 2006 to complete the BC. Because it’s from a medical record it is considered authoritative even though the original source of the information (a Kenyan doctor) is never known.
That’s how you launder a Kenyan BC to create a Hawaiian BC.
Hold on.
Here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2509238/posts?q=1&;page=142#141
you also stated:
A digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery. The only exception would be if the information on the internet image were demonstrably false. Just the fact that Polarik would attempt such an analysis is a red flag.
Therefore you seem to be asserting that the FactCheck online COLB image is in fact "his" (presumably meaning "Obama's") COLB. Are you not making a logical leap of faith here? Where and when did Obama swear on penalty of perjury (in which jurisdiction) that the FactCheck COLB image is an authentic COLB? If you are claiming that a digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is a forgery, then it seems as if it should follow that a digitized image published on the internet can not be analyzed to determine whether or not the original, hard copy is authentic, either. An image is just that, an image. It seems to me that this is the reason why, when stopped for a traffic violation, most of us can't get away with "just kindly look at my driver's license on the internet, officer, for prima facie evidence of my identity and my license to drive an auto."
What concerns me is the evident proclivity to presume unverified information is correct until proven otherwise:
The only exception would be if the information on the internet image were demonstrably false.
Exactly how does one determine if non-independently verifiable information is "demonstrably" true or "demonstrably" false, given that the fundamental issue is verification of the alleged information itself?
In general, your logical arguments here seem to suffer from assuming your conclusions as fact. In other words, your syllogisms tend to reduce to tautologies. If you disagree, I would welcome it if you provided logically lucid argument to the contrary.