The assumption that Hawai DoH issued a valid COLB to Obama is a mighty big one. The DoH refuses to answer the direct question whether they issued a copy of birth certificate to Obama on June 6, 2007!
In addition, birth registration INDEX data, which is by Hawaii law PUBLIC, is hidden from US citizens/voters. Request for Obama’s birth index data, which included the registration number 10641, was ignored by the DoH.
There is no logical explanation for their refusal to answer trivial questions about PUBLIC data.
No one has ever said they will, and only a moron could think that retort is relevant to anything under discussion.
The assumption that Hawai DoH issued a valid COLB to Obama is a mighty big one. The DoH refuses to answer the direct question whether they issued a copy of birth certificate to Obama on June 6, 2007!
No, it's not a very big assumption at all if one doesn't bring a massive chip on their shoulder to the argument. It looks like the type of document Hawaii produces; in fact, save for the color, it looks pretty much like what I can get from my state. The telling point that never gets addressed in any of these fantasies is a very simple one. Obama's campaign prof erred an image of a birth record, which they have let others examine. They were under no obligation to profer anything and did so simply as an informative courtesy.
The hopelessly feverish, initiated by the contemptible Polarik, then went off on all their fantasy reasons why that document was a fraud without answering a simple question. Specifically, fraudulent state documents have no privacy protection. If the document presented as a state document is not legitimate, that is, if it does not accurately reflect Hawaii's records, the state is legally free and clear to say so. Indeed, they have a legal obligation to do so in the face of fraud. That the state of Hawaii has not disputed the facts of the document Obama's campaign presented speaks volumes to objective observers. That the state has indeed affirmed the facts in question is definitive for anyone willing to be convinced.
Against that, we have simply cut-and-paste recycling of then same tired arguments and half truths whose deficiencies are obvious to anyone with legal experience.