1. Did the 10/31 statement (or any other official statement from the state government) confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii, as some have assumed?The state of Hawaii refused to answer the first two questions, and that tends to cast a great deal of doubt on those who've assumed that their statement verified where he was born.
2. Did the 10/31 statement (or any other official statement from the state government) confirm that the certificate you have on file matches the one on Obama's website?
3. Is it true that under Hawaii law, Obama's certificate could indicate a non-Hawaii birth and still meet the description given in the 10/31 statement?
3. Could a certificate indicate a non-Hawaii birth and still meet the description given in the 10/31 statement?
Fri, 01/23/2009 - 14:15 · Importance: 4
Why doesn't anyone sue snopes.com and factcheck.org for fraud?
the law permitting those not born in Hawaii to register their births with Hawaii - was not passed until 20 years after Obama was born. So if Hawaii has a birth certificate for him - he was born in Hawaii.
Get a clue! Outside of obvious mistatement of fact regarding what constitutes proof, you have NO legal standing for making your requests and you, like all Birther conspiracy addicts, got the legally correct response you deserved for such irrelevant requests. Because you Birthers apparently, but erroneously, think you have some legal standing or entitlement to more birth information, you want to think there is a conspiracy when you don't get the answers you want. Obama has provided legally acceptable proof, whether you like it or not or think it is sufficient or not, and that ENDS the matter definitively, as the courts have ruled in dismissing all these claims. If you and the others want to believe in a vast conspiracy because authorities do not want to pander to conspiracy theorists such as yourself, go right ahead. In the end, you will only illustrate your ignorance of legal theory and discredit yourselves.