Here is what the director of public health says:
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii."
You cannot get more clear or more explicit than that.
The only official vital record that does this is a birth certificate, but the state official in question (there was only one), made it clear she was not citing obama's birth certificate as the source of this alleged verification.
Where exactly did she "make clear" she was not citing his birth certificate? I don't see it in her statement. Do point it out.
Sorry, debunked.
Nope.
The birth anouncement didn't list a place of birth.
Doesn't matter, since the state did not register foreign births at the time.
The state did register foreign births. It's why spokesbabe Okubo said that if the child was born in Bali, the COLB should say Bali as the place of birth (odd coincidence she picked a place in Indonesia).
The law allowing the registration of foreign births was not passed until 1982. There was no such provision under the laws in effect in 1961.
No, what the amateur factcheckers photographed was not the same document that Obama originally presented as a jpg.
How do you know?
Somehow the document paper grew in the photos.
That's because the first image was a scan, not a photo.
The pictures also fail to show that the signature block on the back clearly belongs to Obama's alleged COLB.
They show photos of the front and the back. What else would you have them do?
Why won't they expose Obama's backside??
They do show a photo of the back of the document.
State law allows ANYBODY to report a birth to the DOH. IOW, an unattended birth could have been 'phoned in' by anybody. Your other points were already debunked.
The above statement is simply untrue.
Feel free to prove this [birth records in Kenya being open the public).
Sure. Here you go:
No such proof has been presented in a court of law. You ever stop to wonder why??
Yes. It's because no court has asked for it.
Nice qualifier. Now you're saying IF Obama ws born in Hawaii ... we don't know, do we.
We know the state vital records say he was born in Hawaii. That is enough under the law to prove he was born there. The presumption is now on you to disprove it.
Presenting a false birth certificate is a crime.
True. However, there has yet to be uncovered as shred of evidence that the COLB he did present is false.
Nonsense. She didn't name specific documents. You can't be much more vague, but she certainly was not clear nor specific.
Where exactly did she "make clear" she was not citing his birth certificate? I don't see it in her statement. Do point it out.
By not citing the birth certificate by name. The ONLY vital record under her authority that authenticates birth claims is a birth certificate. There would be no other records to cite, especially if Obama's birth certificate indeed proves his place of birth. Instead, she says, she has nothing to add to her statement from October 2008 ... which was THE statement about the original birth certificate. If she wanted to prove his place of birth, all she had to do was cite that same document. She didn't and for obvious reasons.
The law allowing the registration of foreign births was not passed until 1982. There was no such provision under the laws in effect in 1961.
The law you're talking about didn't allow the registration of foreign births. The state already did that (hence Okubo's statement, the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth program and adoption laws). The 1982 law was about adding a Hawaiian residency requirement which did not exist prior.
They do show a photo of the back of the document.
It shows a photo of what looks like the back of a birth document, but there's nothing that visibly ties it directly to Obama's alleged COLB. They carefully avoided not photograhing the full back side of the document. It's time for Obama to expose his backside to the public.
That's because the first image was a scan, not a photo.
The first scan shows the edge of the document. The documents in the photos have a wider margin outside the imprinted area than the scans. Paper can't grow. Ouch.
The above statement is simply untrue.
It's true. HRS 388-6, "If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth ..." Ouch ... again. Granny could have phoned it in ... by law.
Yes. It's because no court has asked for it.
Why wait for a court to ask for it and why let other people keep brining lawsuits when the presentation of a simple document could answer 90 percent of the questions??
True. However, there has yet to be uncovered as shred of evidence that the COLB he did present is false.
The state of Hawaii won't say it's authentic. The document comes in at least two different sizes. Some versions are stamped. Some aren't. The certificate number is out of sequence with known certificate numbers. The DOH has responded that the certificate was altered, yet the COLB fails to contain the required statement that it was altered. It contains a typo in one of the date fields that inconsistent with computer-generated forms. There's more than just a shred of evidence that it's false.