At minimum it was an image that was altered, thus making it invalid, as stated on the document itself.
(2) Obama’s C.O.L.B. says that he was born at 7:24 PM on Friday, August 4, 1961 in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii.
The image we have been shown says that.
(3) Obama’s birth was registered with the state of Hawaii on August 8, 1961, four days after his birth.
Or so it says on the image posted.
(4) Every short form Certificate of Live Birth issued in Hawaii is guaranteed by the state to have the exact same information on it as the original long form, vault copy certification. It says that right on the Certification.
It does? I don't see that statement. Besides, there is information on the long form birth certificate that is not on the Certification, such as parents place of birth.
(5) The State of Hawaii law states that the short form Certification of Live Birth is “prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceding.”
But it can't certify was is not on it. And the document also says that any alterations invalid it, doesn't it?
(6) There is no law in any state, no law in the federal code and nothing in the US Constitution that differentiates between a short form Certification and a long form Certification as valid proof of where a person was born and when they were born
The US State Department will not accept a short form certificate from some states, or from any state if the time between the birth and the registration date is more than a year. In those cases they insist on the long form. Why? Because the short form is much more subject to being altered, and they want to check the reason for the late filing, because a late filing is also more apt to be fraudulent.
The image on the internet is intended for the public. It isn't being used in an official capacity. There is no reason to assume the photographs are altered.
"But it can't certify was is not on it."
But the data on it is enough.
"The US State Department will not accept a short form certificate from some states, or from any state if the time between the birth and the registration date is more than a year. In those cases they insist on the long form. Why? Because the short form is much more subject to being altered, and they want to check the reason for the late filing, because a late filing is also more apt to be fraudulent."
Which does not apply to Hawaii and Obama's certificate, does it?