Replies

Actually, no. but that was a good worshipful try, obamanoid. What hawaii has done is confirm that they have some documents which no one —except perhaps little barry bastard boy and the clerk who pulled them— has seen which make claim that little S. Bernard Dunham was born in Hawaii, in similar fashion as proof of birth to the birth affirmation for Sun Yat Sen.

Show me in the statute where it says that the date is irrelevant and so it doesn’t have to be verified when requested.

What part of “and any other information that the applicant provides” do you fail to understand?

Mike Zullo noted in his first press conference that he had asked different state SOS’s and they had all said that they would not accept a verification of birth that didn’t list a date and parents.

Why did Onaka mention Honolulu but not Oahu? Both items were submitted for verification.

Why did Onaka mention only one word out of all six things submitted for verification? If issuing a verification means that everything submitted was being verified, then why mention Honolulu at all?

And why not verify that Obama WAS born in Honolulu, instead of verifying the existence of a birth record “indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II, was born in Honolulu, HI”? All he is verifying there is the existence of the birth record. It claims a Honolulu, HI birth, but that only legally means something if the record is valid. Onaka never directly says whether the record is valid or non-valid. But by refusing to verify any of the submitted facts even though saying that the information “matches”, he effectively confirms that the BC is NOT legally valid. Which is why he can’t say he verifies any birth facts submitted on the request application; he can only verify the existence of a birth certificate CLAIMING (”indicating”) this or that. Makes no difference what a non-valid BC claims. Legally, it is totally irrelevant.

But you won’t address this. Which is why it is a waste of time to talk to you.