Good point about the Bernstein signature “stamp”. Although I still can’t read the CNN version, it’s readily apparent that it’s not Obama’s, unless it proves he’s lying. Look at the date accepted. It’s not Aug. 8, 1961. The day looks like 21, not 8. Look at the doctor’s name. It’s not David A. Sinclair. But even if it were, on Obama’s so-called LFCOLB, the doctor’s name does not begin abutting the left side of the box; and the mother’s name does not read: Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, with “Stanley” in parentheses.
What do you make of this? http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285/Mississippi-Democratic-Party-Motion-v-Taitz Scroll down to page 11 to see another letter of verification, sent to the Democrat Party of Mississippi; but this one claims to be signed by and initialed by Onaka and has an embossed seal. Is it real?
It seems to be genuine but it doesn’t mean anything because the lawyers for the Mississipi Democratic Executive Committee only asked for verification that they have a BC for Barack Hussein Obama II and that the “information” on Obama’s posted long-form matches the info on their birth certificate. The MDEC lawyer explains in their court document exactly what is meant by “information” - “each and every vital fact of President Obama’s birth stated in the LFBC posted at whitehouse.gov”.
IOW, they only asked whether the claims about Obama’s birth that are made on the posted longform are also made on the original record. The wording of the MDEC request matches the apparent “wording” change for AZ SOS Ken Bennett, where Bennett was required to change his request for verification that Obama’s posted long-form is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” (which is the kind of language required for a document to be accepted in a court of law) to a request for verification that “the information contained in the posted long-form matches the information in the original record.”
So the long and short of it is this: Onaka already indirectly confirmed that Obama’s actual record in Hawaii is not legally valid. The claims on Obama’s forgery match the CLAIMS that are on the record in Hawaii, but Onaka can’t verify any of those claims as being true because the record is not legally valid. The democrat lawyers “conveniently” worded their verification request the same way the HI AG forced Bennett to revise his wording - so that HI wouldn’t have to say straight out that the only thing they can verify is the existence of a legally non-valid record.
There’s a bunch of stuff about this on my blog at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/verification-verifies-if-anything-that-obamas-record-is-legally-non-valid/
Something else people should notice is the distinct features of that seal. That is Onaka’s seal - the same one that is SUPPOSEDLY on Obama’s PDF, which was supposedly scanned just as this one was. Because Obama’s long-form was copied on a copier/scanner, it couldn’t be given the computer-generated dots-and-dashes seal. It had to be given a hand-stamped seal, like this one. Onaka’s seal. So this scanned image of Onaka’s seal is an apples-to-apples comparison with the “seal” on Obama’s PDF and Guthrie’s photograph.
And the indirect confirmation of Obama’s BC being legally non-valid explains why Obama had to post a forgery - complete with a forged seal - instead of a genuine copy with a real seal, even though the HDOH says that the claims on the forgery are the same as the claims on the original. It’s the same reason he had to post a forged short-form: both the short-form and long-form have LATE and ALTERED stamps on them and a notation of the documentation to support the late and amended filings. That’s why Onaka can’t verify any actual birth facts for Obama - only verify what is or isn’t on the (legally non-valid and therefore totally worthless) record.
There’s way more that it explains than I can list here, but it explains everything we’ve seen.