“No, what Hawaii has officially verified is that they cannot verify any birth facts for Obama.”
On the contrary, per Hawaii law:
“A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”
The telltale sign for me was when Hawaii refused to let officials from Arizona see the original public records.
According to the Article IV Section 1 "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution:
The Constitution clearly stated that a state does not have to take another state's word for it, but that public records may be "proved." Arizona went to Hawaii to prove the records for itself, and Hawaii blocked them.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
We all know that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, which means that Arizona's constitutional right to prove public records for itself supercedes Hawaii's state privacy laws, which they are using to hide Obama's records, regardless of what Hawaii deems sufficient "for all purposes."
If you don’t verify something specifically, then you are not certifying that the event happened that way. What Onaka verified is the existence of a birth record for Barack Hussein Obama, II. A verification of “male” would be a certification that Obama was born male. A verification of “Aug 4, 1961” would be verification that the birth was on Aug 4, 1961. Etc. But Onaka didn’t verify any of those things. Of the things on the actual verification application, the ONLY thing he verified was that they have a birth certificate under that name.
Why? Why did Onaka leave out all the critical birth facts, after Bennett reiterated in his letter that he wanted the items on the request application verified?
You can’t have a certification that just says, “What you said is true”. A person could claim they had said ANYTHING, and could show that signed blank check from Onaka saying it was all true!! That’s not how legal documents work. If a verification is to be considered legally the same as a certified birth certificate, there is NO WAY that a signed blank check would be acceptable. What is verified is what is ACTUALLY STATED AS BEING VERIFIED.
And that’s NOT male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama.
Why not? Why were those things not verified?