And you're missing the reason this is getting traction. You say "...here is such a thing as a birth certificate that was released. Yes it was a copy." Wrong!
It was not a copy of anything. It was an "abstract", a computer print-out. Not a copy of the birth certificate, a new document. Now, Hawaii's director of the department of public health, Chiyome Fukino, has stated that she has seen the actual B/C, and that it's kosher, which it probably is. But people are now asking the logical question: "If there's nothing fishy about the B/C, why won't 0 just authorize its release?"
Granted, there is much frothing-at-the-mouth crazyness on the fringes of the question, but this simple, central question is not crazy. In fact it's the epitome of reasonable inquiry. And it resonates because of this.
“Hawaii’s director of the department of public health, Chiyome Fukino, has stated that she has seen the actual B/C, and that it’s kosher, which it probably is”
I’ve wondered about that. If she saw it, and there’s nothing un-kosher about it, why can’t the rest of us see it.
...beside which, the constitution doesn’t say anything about Chiyome Fukino approving anyone’s credentials. I would have remembered that name.