The reasoning in that article is not sound because of some factual errors.
For instance, the birth announcement stuff doesn’t pan out with what is actually in the announcements; the announcements came in a different order in the Advertiser than in the Star-Bulletin and the 2 papers didn’t even have all the same names. Nordykes, for instance, were in only the Advertiser and 3 days later than Waidelich who was born at Kapiolani the day before Nordykes.
And HRS 338-17.7 only became law in 1982 so it wasn’t in effect in 1961.
If Obama had been born at Kapiolani his BC would have been in the same pile as the Nordykes’ and would have been “filed”/given a number at the state HDOH office on Aug 11th just like theirs. That part is accurate.
But the bigger problem is that the “date filed” is when the number was assigned, according to Janice Okubo, and Obama’s was supposedly given a number on Aug 8th that was higher/later than the number given to the Nordykes 3 days later on Aug 11th. That wouldn’t happen in real life, so either the BC#, date filed, or both have been fabricated.
The fact that Obama didn’t know a BC# and “date filed” that would work together suggests that he didn’t have a valid 1961 birth certificate to copy that information from.
The fact that Obama didn’t know a BC# and “date filed” that would work together suggests that he didn’t have a valid 1961 birth certificate to copy that information from.
Would be untrue. What if Obama had that dead child's birth certificate (I do not remember her name) to work from? It is ENTIRELY possible that the dates would be messed up if he picked that certificate number, hoping not to get caught. Recording the birth would probably be out of order. It wouldn't be a priority.