The smearbots in some articles I read try to make the unsuspecting reader think that a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” means you were born in Hawaii (true) but that a Certification of Live Birth only proves that you were born (false). Both say where you were born.

I’ve never seen an image of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, but I’ll bet it is easily distinguished.

“Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.”

There you have it. Unless his mother had some evil plan way back when? Will they ever let it go?

By definition, conspiracy theorists dismiss evidence that contradicts their views.

If Obama ever walked into court and was asked to prove his birth place, all he would have to do is hand the clerk that certificate that we have all seen and that would be all the proof he need supply. End of story.

Hawaii Law: §338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates. Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (and §338-13 Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original,)

In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

The conspiracy theorists are asking us to believe that the stateo f Hawaii has two versions in their records, one with a foreign birthplace and one with a false Hawaiian birthplace.

I suppose it cannot be absolutely ruled out, as human error cannot be ruled out. So where does the burden of proof lie? Obama has produced a legitimate birth certificate from Hawaii, now he is expected prove that the information on it is true. If the original paper copy of his birth certificate is produced, what is the betting that the conspiracy theorists would challenge it too, and declare it a fake and require even more proof?

However, changes are not made for the fun of it and they do not change “true” information into “false” information. Changes are always made under legal authority. Unless someone provided documentation of an error, things like Mother’s Name, place of birth and date of birth do not change. Father’s name is something that does change. In Hawaii, state law requires the certified copy to say “ALTERED” in the case of a change.

I think most if not all states retain the original paper documents, or else they maintain microfilm copies of them. This is what Hawaii Department of Health officials looked at and verified.

There seems to be a presumption that the state of Hawaii maintains two databases, one that holds the information that they print on your short firm birth certificate and another “true” database that holds the secret information from your original “vault” birth certificate.

Or maybe that there is just one database that has never been checked against the original documents.

In either case it defies common sense.

The only exceptions are birth certificates issued for people in the “witness protection program” where they really do make up totally fake birth certificates with the cooperation of the states.

In Hawaii today (since 1979), it is possible to adopt a foreign-born child, register the birth, and get a birth certificate. However, the law says: “The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents.” http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020_0005.htm

In any case it would be impossible for an adoption to have been completed in the 4 days between the date Barack Obama was born and the date his birth was registered.

I found this here:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/11/update-berg-case-from-comments-section.html

No backup for the assertion.