Re: No, actually - Edit 2
Before modification by MalkierKnight at 19/04/2011 05:20:23 AM
Or someone has admitted it's a valid concern?
If you're referring to the former then you're wrong. Obama has only ever produced a certification of live birth, which is not a birth certificate and significantly easier to obtain. In the state of hawaii these count for the same thing. however they are, strictly speaking, not the same. And this is so for a reason, I presume.
Again, not questioning it, I just think it's stupid not to put a rumor which is so easily quieted to rest.
If you're referring to the former then you're wrong. Obama has only ever produced a certification of live birth, which is not a birth certificate and significantly easier to obtain. In the state of hawaii these count for the same thing. however they are, strictly speaking, not the same. And this is so for a reason, I presume.
Again, not questioning it, I just think it's stupid not to put a rumor which is so easily quieted to rest.
Thanks for the link, but it didn't really help me understand why people consider a Certification of Live Birth insufficient proof. The link repeats many time that it is in fact a valid birth certificate.
It says very clearly that they are different, but allowed to count for the same thing in Hawaii. The reason for this is that Hawaii has privacy laws to keep the actual certificate of live birth private, for whatever reason. The actual birth certificate has more information, a signature and is more fundamental than the certification. This meaning that one cannot have a certification, presumably, without a certificate, hence why they count for the same, but strictly speaking, if you were being really suspicious, a certification is easier to doctor. On top of that, it might not contain the same information.
Honestly, I think Obama just doesn't want people to see what's on that certificate. It probably says he's a muslim, which really doesn't matter, imo. But he has fought in the courts to keep it private.