I would like to respond one more time to allegation that I am "naïve." I have considered the idea of a conspiracy and concluded against it for for many reasons. One of which is that the conspiracy would unravel because people talk. You cite the Drudge article which I believe appeared after a post which I published here a couple of years ago which purports to be exactly what I predicted, someone speaking out against the conspiracy.
Are you citing this Drudge article to support the fact that there is a conspiracy or to support your assertion that in Hawaii no one would talk? If there is a conspiracy, someone is in fact talking and your claim to special knowledge of the arcane world of Hawaii has been exploded by your own citation.
If I am naïve you are presumptuous of your own special knowledge.
I just found the following post which addresses my understanding of the issue some time ago and it presents an analysis why it was not necessary to have a conspiracy for the public officials in Hawaii to speak the way they did. Since that time Obama has released what he claims to be a legitimate birth certificate. Our discussion, of course, is only relevant if Obama's version is counterfeit. Beyond that, we have the document presented today which says that someone, perhaps Obama perhaps not, entered the US at the relevant time from Kenya. Did that document get into the Hawaii chain? I do not think it did unless there is blatant fraud committed by the Hawaiian officials and subsequently covered up by a conspiracy alleged in the Drudge article.
If there was such a conspiracy, it cannot hold for very long. Even the Mafia turns on itself time after time.
Herewith my posts from some time ago indicating my belief that it is logical if not probable that Hawaiian archives and the statements of the Hawaiian officials could be honestly made and yet consistent with a fraudulent application for birth document made by, for example, the grandparents. I submit this post to support the view that my analysis might be wrong but it is hardly naïve:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let us examine the statements of Doctor Fukino, the Director of Health the State of Hawai'i, made with at least the tacit confirmation of the Registrar of Vital Statistics:
"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...." (emphasis supplied)
The first statement avers two significant facts: 1) they have his birth certificate, and 2) the certificate they have is the "original." So whatever else they have in that file, they have his original birth certificate. So, if they have a birth certificate from Kenya, presumably it would not recite that he was born in Honolulu. If the original birth certificate recites that he was born in Honolulu, the certificate was not made in Kenya. Whatever comprises the "original vital records" (emphasis supplied) we know at least that it contains what these officials believed to be Obama's "original" birth certificate from whatever place derived.
Parenthetically, please note that if the original certificate was not from Kenya or some other country, it must have come from America, presumably Hawaii. Significantly, we know It is not possible that the "vital records" which were drawn upon to draft the Certification of Live Birth were comprised only of perjurious affidavits of Obama's mother or grandparents because we know they contained his "original birth certificate."
The doctor's second statement says that the "original vital records" which the doctor has "seen " verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. Significantly, she concludes that this means that he was a "natural born citizen." Finally she concludes by saying that she has nothing to add to this statement or to her original statement of October 31, 2008, thus tying the two statements together.
We have these commonalities of language use between the two statements:
1) the birth certificate is "original."
2) the vital records contained "original" documents
3) the doctor has "seen" the "original" birth certificate
4) the doctor has "seen" the "original" vital records.
The most reasonable rendering of these two statements is that the doctor has seen an original birth certificate which comprises the original vital records. Since the original vital records verify that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, the original birth certificate also verifies that he was born in Hawaii. Since the birth certificate was original and the vital records is made up of original documents, the phrase "vital records" must include the birth certificate. If the birth certificate did not verify birth in Hawaii, and since it is an original document, then the vital records could not verify birth in Hawaii. Since the vital records verify birth in Hawaii, and since the vital records are comprised of original documents, and since the birth certificate is an original document, the birth certificate verifies birth in Hawaii.
Beyond the logic from parsing the words, a reasonable investigator would look at the import of the words: "verifying Barrack Hussein Obama ... is a natural-born American citizen" and conclude that no reasonable person would make that assertion if there was anything in the vital records which suggested birth elsewhere than in America. The issue is not whether Doctor Fukino who drew the conclusion that Obama is a natural born citizen is competent to make that legal judgment, the point is that that conclusion expresses her state of mind. Whether she is competent to make such a legal judgment has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of what she says she saw. She said she saw an original birth certificate and she says the record she examined told her that he is a natural born citizen. There can be no doubt of her intended meaning. No honest person, lay or constitutional scholar, would publicly conclude natural born citizenship if she knew he were born abroad because the issue of foreign birth is precisely what the whole dispute is about. Besides, she had just said he was "born in Hawaii."
Under these circumstances, her statement that the records verify that Obama is a natural born citizen means she is climbing out on the limb publicly with no way back. Contrary to critics of her statement, she is leaving no room in the wording for Clintonesque distinctions. It means under any rational test that she is including the original birth certificate as part of the original vital records. It means that she will look foolish even venal, if the contrary is ultimately proved.
I recite all of this about her state of mind because the language of her statement has been used to discredit her credibility. The argument is she is parsing her words, that she should have been more explicit, that she should have provided more detail from the original birth certificate, if in fact there was one. There is a perfectly plausible and honorable explanation for her use of language. Doctor Fukino was aware that the law of Hawaii forbids her from revealing the contents of the vital records. The law of Hawaii does not prohibit her from expressing a conviction. Hence she was free to opine that he is a Natural Born Citizen because that does not disclose a fact protected by the privacy law but only a legal conclusion. She was free to recite that he was born in Hawaii because that was a fact already set out in the public record in the Certification of Live Birth. That also explains why she concluded her second statement by saying that is all she had to say. She did not want to open herself to a trespass of the law by engaging in a give-and-take. Not sinister, but quite sensible.
To conclude otherwise than above is to say that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, together with the Registrar of Vital Statistics of the state of Hawaii, are either incompetent at their jobs or they are lying. In order for these two officials to be lying one literally has to believe a conspiracy. One has to believe that these two officials were motivated enough to jeopardize their jobs, their careers, their reputations. At this point, we have abandoned reason for conspiracy
