All the 15+ documents you posted say is that the DOH is supposed to say no record exists if no record exists. They do not say that a denial of access is tanemount to an confirmation that a record exists.
A DOH denial of access to amendment records could mean such records exist, but it also could mean it doesn't exist and the DOH bureaucrat screwed up and didn't do what he was supposed to do.
But of course, in the birther fantasy world, bureaucrats never screw up. They always follow protocal, and any violation of must be attributed to some nefarious conspiracy theory, never mere incompetence.
I gave the birthers this a 100 posts ago. It bears repeating, and if they did do this, they would probably make it much easier on them, and us. And, bad conclusions would be a whole lot easier for them to spot:
It’s your info. Set it out in a step wise method where other people can follow what you are saying and see the evidence for each step, and decide on the relevance.
For example, on the one non-white kid with no birth weight, ...I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. How can I, or anybody else, base a decision on this kind of stuff when we have no idea what you are talking about or how it ties into Obama.
It would be like saying “Obama is lying about being born in Hawaii, because everybody knows when you have a dog, INSIDE THE CITY, it has to have its shots.”
Now look at my statement. Part of it is true. Dogs inside the city have to have shots. But that is completely disconnected from any kind of relation to Obama and whether he is lying. Do you see? If you said that to some one, they would dismiss you as a quack, because your statement is just meaningless.
Read it again and tell me how anyone is supposed to have a clue what you are talking about.
BUT, suppose you put it this way.
1. Obama wrote in Das Kapital, that his grandmother bought him a new puppy when he was first born, a Shitzoo named Bonkers. (evidence)
2. At that time, the Dunhams and Obama purportedly lived within the city limits of Honolulu at 1313 Wackaheeni Drive. (evidence)
3. A review of all dog tags issued by the City of Honolulu in 1961 and 1962 reveals no tags issued to a Shitzoo named “Bonkers” or to anyone named Dunham or Obama. (evidence)
4. A review of all AKC papers issued for Hawaii in 1961 and 1962 show no papers issued on a Shitzoo named “Bonkers”or to any one named Dunham or Obama.(evidence)
5. However, a review of all dog tags issued in Mombasa, Kenya for 1961 and 1962 reveals a Shitzoo named “Bonkers” was issued a Non-food Animal tag on August 5, 1961 to an Stanley Ann Dunham registered owner, whose address was 4236 Jihad Drive, Mombasa Kenya.
5. Therefore, based upon the above premises, it is apparent that Obama is a liar, and a commie liar to boot, because no good American would ever lie about his dog.
You see, my statement is set forth in a logical fashion. It is something a non-birther can read and understand.
WARNING TO BIRTHERS!!!! DO NOT TAKE THIS DOG STORY AS TRUE. IT IS MADE UP! OBAMA NEVER CLAIMED HE HAD A SHITZOO NAMED “BONKERS”-—DO NOT ADD THIS ITEM TO THE BIRTHER DATABASE!!!
parsy, who hopes this makes it more clear
My computer has frozen 4 times today - 3 times in the middle of trying to post. Somebody wants to shut me up.
So I’ll probably be absent for a while.
But before I go, I want to point out that OIP Opinion Letter 07-01 says that if the very existence of a record is to be protected from disclosure a Glomar response (”The records, if any, are protected from disclosure”) is to be used.
That’s because a standard denial, without the Glomarized response, is a confirmation of the record’s existence. Otherwise, why add the “if any”?
The OIP is supposed to safeguard against careless answers by checking to make sure that the response follows the guidelines. Paul Tsukiyama wrote the guidelines saying that records’ existence is to be checked before anything else, and if the records don’t exist, the box is to be checked and that’s the end of it. He wrote that shortly before telling MT, on appeal, that the DOH properly denied her request for supplementary documents offered in support of the claims on the original or amended BC. This isn’t just SNAFU; this was checked for accuracy by the OIP director, who certainly knows the rules.
Seize the carp, thanks for the insight on how the Obots operate. Apparently I’m getting too close for their comfort. Bgill, if you’re keeping count - my computer froze 4 times today. Never on Drudge. Never on HotAir. Never on news sites. Just on FR and on my own blog, today. And I haven’t even been online so much today.
If you don’t see much of me in the next few days you’ll know what’s going on.