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.
You’ve got the facts now, but you don’t understand them.
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.
One more time…It is NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE. It is a VERIFICATION IN LIEU OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE or CERTIFICATION. It is a state issued abstract of a birth record which may or may not be authentic or amended. It merely states that there is a record on file but does not provide proof of its veracity, how it was filed, any amendments that have been made to it and crucial information which can prove or disprove its authenticity.
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.
You’re wrong. The problem with the short form is the information that is NOT ON IT. The DHHL explains this in plain English:
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout).. Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
Red pill.