Replies

"An original birth certificate does NOT = vital recordssssss (plural, do you understand??).

I know that Birthers have an obsession with parsing plurals, generally in the service of bastardizing common English language usage. But sorry, a reference to "vital records" is simply common usage for a category of document. The specific document(s) in question has been explicitly identified by Dr. Fukino, so your continued confusion is frankly inexplicable.

" If the little bastard’s BC was legit and proved place of birth, there’s no need to cite anything else, yet she did."

In point of fact (and it's a shame I have to point this out to you so many times) the only document she actually cited at all was his "original birth certificate."

Like MissTickly and butterdezillion, you have allowed your imagination to get the best of you and have deluded yourself to believe she has said things that cannot be found in either of her statements or in any related correspondence.

To believe that someone's failure to say what you wanted them to say is actually a secret way of saying what you wanted anyway... well it's just insane.

But sorry, a reference to "vital records" is simply common usage for a category of document.

Sorry, but this argument is pure nonsense. Fukino had no problem being specific in her previous statement. She had no reason to be vague in her second, unless she was talking about diffent documents. And she emphasized the vital records statement was separate from the birth certificate statement. The claim of Hawaiian birth is not based on the original birth certificate, else she would have said so.

In point of fact (and it's a shame I have to point this out to you so many times) the only document she actually cited at all was his "original birth certificate."

Only to the extent that the state of Hawaii has one on file. She said nothing about the contents of this document nor whether she actually looked at it or even that she read it. She definitely avoided saying that its contents matched the same contents in the alleged COLB. No, you've fallen prey to classic double-speak or are simply reading something between the lines that was never stated. All you have is faith, not fact.