Replies

A vital record that is deficient doesn’t substantiate anything.

It seems like you’re missing my point, which is that Fukino was not making any claim of her own; she is merely citing the vital records - which don’t mean a thing if they are legally deficient, which they are - not only because his BC is amended but because it was late. Obama’s name was not in the 1960-64 birth index when a researcher checked and re-checked mutliple times in March.

What they claim (verbally but not in writing on the document itself) is the 1960-64 birth index in the HDOH office for public display now DOES have Obama’s name in it, so we know it was changed between then and now, which should be problematic since any change made in March of 2010 should not show up as though it was legitimately in the 1960-64 index.

It also has note of a duplicate record even though there is no record visible that it duplicated. That’s the name DIRECTLY ABOVE Obama’s in the altered birth index.

Today I read an article where the author cited experts talking about why the “birther” issue doesn’t die. One expert talked about “evidence to the contrary is evidence of a conspiracy” but nowhere did anybody in the article say what “evidence to the contrary” had ever been presented. The only thing that came close was a quote from Factcheck. Everything that author gave was a citation of somebody else. He made no claims of his own. That meant that I could not correct him, because it was not he who was making the inaccurate claims; it was Factcheck.

That is exactly what Fukino did: she cited vital records which have no legal value. Garbage in, garbage out. Her claim is only as good as the source she cited - and her office claims that a total BS legally-deficient document has to be publicly handled just as if it was pure as the newly-fallen snow.

Her statement means nothing - according to her own claim that the legal status of a vital record must be kept confidential.