No talking points, just a logical conclusion.
The key point made is that the State of Hawaii had Obama’s birth record filed before Aug 13th, 1961, less than 10 days after he was born. If you want to dispute that point, fine, but your cut-n-paste talking points are not responsive to that point.
You stated this:
“... they (The newspaper birth announcements) are evidence that the Hawaii Department of Health put those ads in the newspapers based on a birth being registered as having occurred in Hawaii.”
I agree with that point.
No talking points, just a logical conclusion.
Garbage in, garbage out. Your conclusion is all based on fabrication and supposition and parsed statements not legally binding under the threat of perjury.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/fact-check-this-media-reasons-why-obama.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2709663/posts
The social security fraud, the forged Selective Service Registration etc all tie into a pattern of criminal activity which includes the short form COLB (4 versions have been floated around).
So again, why did Brian Schatz refuse to certify Obama as meeting the constitutional requirements for the presidency in 2008?