Dr. Onaka clearly says it is. Are you claiming he's a liar?
That he has purportedly been less than totally forthcoming to the CCP investigators is of no relevance. We have his recent official statement in the Mississippi case Natufian cites.
Onaka a liar? Why no, old chap. Just saying his statements require rather "clintonian" parsing. Everyone should really sit through Sherriff Joe's presser. It's not too boring. e.g., See what they have to say about Onaka.
Please. Look at Sheriff Joe's evidence. We are all circling Robin Hood's Barn (Old ME expression) and winding up where we were three years ago.
The Fog Machine is working overtime, the strobes are flashing off the mirrors.Stay with the program. See and hear what Sheriff Joe has to say. Nothing mysterious about this, unless we let Team Obama call the shots.
Yeah, I looked at that. That convinces me all the more strongly that they are covering something up. They are not direct and forthcoming, they are evasive and equivocative. Let me show you what I mean.
Beside the number "1" it says:
"The Original certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II, is on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health. "
This statement stands alone, and is self evident. It is telling us nothing new or interesting, and it make no claim as to whether or not his original certificate was an ordinary certificate like the vast majority which are on file with that office. This statement would still be true if the "original certificate" is an affidavit of at home birth.
Statement number "2" says:
The information contained in the "Certificate of Live Birth" published at (Whitehouse.gov) and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached with your request, matches the information contained in the Original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.
Note he does not say it is an exact copy of the original, which would be far easier. He simply says the information is the same as is on the Original Certificate of Live Birth.
Again, if the "original" certificate is based on an affidavit of at home birth, it is still not proof of actual birth in Hawaii. It also begs the question as to the meaning of the term "original".
My very own birth certificate plays the very same game that is being played with those words above. I am absolutely adopted, (I even have my original Hospital issued birth certificate to prove it) but my document says:
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy, original of which is on file in this office. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and cause the official seal to be affixed...To a careless reading it would appear, based on looking at the statement at the bottom of the document, that you are looking at a certified copy of the original. Nope. It says you are looking at a copy of my birth certificate, AND they have the original on file. They don't mention that what you are looking at is NOT the original. They intend that you think it is.
They have to play these sorts of games with the birth certificates of adopted children because they are legally required to not lie, but they also can't divulge that a child has been adopted, which would happen accidentally if they mentioned that the document was different from the original.
So they say in number "1" above, that they have a birth certificate on file. Fine, we knew that. They say in number 2 that the INFORMATION matches what they have on file, but they they do not say it is an exact copy of the original. They do not say if any information is omitted, such that the document has been amended or modified by court order.
Like I said, their wording convinces me even more strongly that they are not telling us the whole truth.