How many verifications from Hawaii have you reviewed?
If in Bennett’s verification Dr. Onaka would not verify the island, why verify the hospital that is on that island? If Dr. Onaka would not verify the mother’s name, why verify the date she signed the BC?
Dr. Onaka verified the 5 or 6 items on the request form by issuing the verification in the first place.
The only complete sentence Onaka used to say exactly what he was verifying was his statement that he verifies that they have a birth certificate on file for Obama. That is the only FACT that Onaka verified.
All the rest is just saying what is claimed on the non-valid BC they have. Because if everything on the White House image is on the record they have, Onaka has to verify the truth of everything submitted or else verify the truth of none of it.
It’s clear that he never said a peep to verify male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, or Barack Hussein Obama.
If he can’t verify the truth of those things even though they’re on the record, then he can’t verify the truth of ANYTHING that’s on the record - and it is thus obvious that whatever he did verify about the other things, it wasn’t that they were the truth.
What I’ve said is totally consistent and logical: He didn’t verify the truth of anything, but only verified that those are the claims “from the birth certificate”, as Bennett requested. There is no cognitive dissonance in what I’ve said.
You, on the other hand, have to give some logical reason why all those inconsistencies exist on this verification. Why verify Honolulu but not Oahu? Why verify Kapiolani but not Oahu? Why verify date of informant’s signature but not verify Stanley Ann Dunham? Why verify date filed but not date of birth?
See, the cognitive dissonance is glaring, if Onaka is actually verifying the truth of any of the birth facts on that birth record. If he can verify the truth of any birth facts, it’s a legally valid record and he can (and must) verify the truth of ANYTHING submitted for verification that’s actually on that record.