Hawaii, like every state, can only issue a truly certified birth document by following the rules that had been in place since the invention of photographic reproduction of birth records. Since micro-photography was invented about 150 years ago, it has probably been in use a very long time.

That process resulted in “a true & correct copy” of the original record. The heads of the departments of records signed their signatures on the copies and stamped them with their state government embossing stamp. Looking at that copy you knew exactly what the original looked like, but in negative.

The copy was certified to be a “True Copy” of the original. But now no true copies are issued, -only abstracts composed of extracted information.

The so-called certification is now merely a digital reproduction of all the text (and form structure) that the original contains minus the presence of the paper it was typed on.

That digitized form, on a transparent field without any background, is over-layed on the image of security paper as its new background. When printed it constitutes an abstract version of the original, -not an abstract copy, because abstracts can’t be called copies. Copies are copies, while abstracts are abstracts. That is why the Hawaiian registrar’s signature stamp “certifies” that a birth certificate “is a true copy or an abstract.” Not a true or abstract copy.

The stamp’s statement is a travesty against true certification because you can’t certify an “or” statement as being “the” certified truth since there’s no way to know which it is, -a true copy or an abstract? What exactly is being verified & certified? Certification statements can never be vague nor ambiguous. They must be exact and accurate.

They can’t claim that it might be a true copy since they no longer have a need nor reason to issue true copies. If they did, then they would be following some arbitrary non-standardized protocol by which they might issue either one for no particular reason.

What’s wrong with issuing digital abstracts as certified copies? Birth Certificate fraud. Digital data can be exported, and altered imperceptibly. With a fake birth certificate you can obtain a U.S. passport and pass yourself off as an American citizen.

The amount of fraud in Puerto Rico in recent times was so bad they had to invalidate all the birth certificates in the territory and issue new ones that couldn’t be counterfeited with a desktop computer and laser printer.

It must have been quite easy to make fake ones because they had a similar or even worse system of issuing abstracts which were open to photo-shop digital manipulation of text.

So the so-called “Verification of Birth” letter is not in any way a verification of the White House pdf because the pdf is not a copy of an original hospital birth record, nor a scan of a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, -it’s just an image of something that looks just like one, but then counterfeit money also looks just like the real thing, as does an image of real money viewed on a computer monitor. Instead, what’s verified is that the information matches what is in the (digital) files.

Hawaiian officials released a statement in 2008 that said in effect that Obama’s record was handled no differently than any other record, which means they never checked the paper records, just what appears in their data-base.

Oct 31, 2008 Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino:

Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including the Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i.

That very carefully worded statement, written by a lawyer to protect them from making a false statement in an official capacity, tells us, (those able to read between the lines), that what they have seen and verified is only that which is “on record”, meaning information, since records are not “on record”, statements and data/information are held “on record”, -they have a record of it (the supposedly original information) which is retained “ in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

The information “on record” is recorded and maintained according to their policies and procedures in the form of a digital data-base accessed via computer terminals.

So instead of them trekking to their warehoused archive of 50 year old ledgers and searching for Obama’s original papers, or searching through their vaulted micro-film records, all they did was sit at their own desks and call up Obama’s file image, and then attest that they had seen “the original birth certificate.” They avoided any explanation of what that meant.

What they saw on their monitors was no doubt just what they were supposed to see after it had been sanitized of any entry that would have been embarrassing or proof of ineligibility.

With the data-base abstract image altered to protect Obama’s legitimacy, the Obama acolytes in the Hawaiian Health Dept. could claim with a straight face that they have personally seen the information “on record” and it “indicated” that Obama was “a natural born citizen” -even though no court has ever ruled specifically on what that term means, -although it elucidated the principle of natural citizenship in the case of Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 US 99 (1830), yet they are ready and willing and eager to offer their expert constitutional law insight. How perfectly neutral of them, -how strictly objective and factual and scholarly and authoritative. We don’t need to determine the truth of the matter for ourselves. They have spared us from the effort by doing our thinking for us.