You have a knack for trying to baffle your way out of a question with volume rather than directly addressing the point. The subject is Obama’s ORIGINAL birth certificate, not what passes for a legal birth certificate. You said they would refer any questions about the ORIGINAL to an alleged June 2007 abstract. Either you think he has no other birth certificate prior to June 2007 or you know that it would be a deflection to refer anyone asking about the ORIGINAL to look at the jpg on the FTS site. Do you understand now??
When it comes to proving eligibility, all that matters is whether it is legal, not whether it is the original.
In many states, the registrar keeps the original and only abstracts can be requested and distributed. Does it matter? Not to any court, Federal agency, or sane people in general. But it does matter to birthers, who obviously can't be counted in the last group.
You have a knack for trying to baffle your way out of a question with volume rather than directly addressing the point. The subject is Obama’s ORIGINAL birth certificate, not what passes for a legal birth certificate. You said they would refer any questions about the ORIGINAL to an alleged June 2007 abstract. Either you think he has no other birth certificate prior to June 2007 or you know that it would be a deflection to refer anyone asking about the ORIGINAL to look at the jpg on the FTS site. Do you understand now??
In light of the fact that officials of the state of Hawaii from the Governor to the Attorney General to the Director ot Health to the Registrar of Vital Statistics to the Director of Communications for the state Health Department have gone out of their way to verify and authenticate that Obama’s birth in Hawaii occurred on August 4, 1961, do you believe that a long form birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II released by the state of Hawaii under Obama’s authority will be a valid and true representation of the facts of his birth?