Is there a copy of the letter cited from Onaka to Bennett anywhere on the Internet?
How anyone could look at this letter and declare it "confirming that Obama’s Hawaii BC is legally non-valid and the long-form and short-form BC’s are forgeries to hide that fact" is beyond me.
Seriously, this letter, which is quite plain in its verification of Obama's birthplace is the "smoking gun."
None of this CONSTITUTIONAL argument matters, as Obama is an NBC and if we could just stop flogging this dead horse, we might be able to turn toward the work of fixing this country.
Here’s what a google search turned up:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2012/05/hawaiis-verification-of-president-obamas-birth.php?page=1
It’s on my blog, contained inside the letter that Klayman sent to Bob Bauer, posted at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf Onaka confirmed these things by what he REFUSED to say, as Klayman’s letter explains.
I’m crazy-busy today so just a note here. Palmer, Onaka doesn’t have discretion to pick and choose which of the facts he will verify. If he is truly verifying Honolulu, then he also has to verify Oahu. The statute leaves no room for discretion; they have to provide verification of ANY INFORMATION submitted to be verified. If Honolulu was submitted then so was Oahu, and if Honolulu is truly being verified then the law says Oahu has to be also.
But the syntax in Onaka’s sentence is clear. What he is verifying is the existence of the birth record - which incidentally “indicates” (claims) a Honolulu birth.
If I was willing to lie, I could go today and get a birth certificate for me that “indicates” a Hawaii birth. It would be non-valid and wouldn’t mean a thing, but I could get it. All Onaka verified is that Obama or his parents (or actually law enforcement...) did what it takes to get a non-valid record “indicating” a Honolulu birth.
