OK Candidate releases son’s 1981 Hawaiian Certification of Birth

DOCUMENT CONFIRMS INVESTIGATORS SUSPICIONS, EXPOSES DOH AS LYING

The Post & E-Mail

by John Charlton

The Hawaii 1981 Certificate of Live Birth for Alan Paliko Booth (full size image).

(Feb. 10, 2010) — Miki Booth, a native Hawaiian, and candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives for the State of Oklahoma shocked and awed Obama supporters during the recent Tea Party Nation convention in Memphis, TN, when she publically disclosed the Certificate of Live Birth for her son, Alan Paliko Booth, born on Nov. 24, 1981, at 7:55 AM, at Kapiolani Children’s Medical Center, the same hospital that Obama has claimed to be his own place of birth, nearly 20 years before.

The actual document contains a wealth of information, such as the signature of the Attending Physician or Midwife, a field for evidence presented for an Amended Birth Filing, race for Parents and child, a signature and date stamp, certifying the copy as an authentic representation of the information on file with the HI Department of Health.

Importantly, the actual document, which you can view through this link, contains the fields, “Date received by Local Registrar” and “Date accepted by the State”, and the name of the Local Registrar.  In recent months, Miss Janice Okuo has insisted that the terms mean the same thing, and that she has no knowledge of what terms were used previously to the alleged Obama COLB.

The now widely recognized, crude forgery, which Obama claims to be his own Certification of Live Birth, bearing date of 2007, but without the seal and confirmatory signature of the State Registrar, does not contain information regarding the race of the child, or the date accepted.

This has led private researchers to speculate that Obama’s original vital records, which Dr. Fukino claims to have seen, and who herself admits are several, might contain a delayed birth filing, an amended birth filing, adoption record, or other changes regarding the name of the child and parents, and location or nation in which the child was purported to be born.

The details of this actual 1981 “long form” “birth certificate” indicate more precisely the possible motives Obama might have for refusign to disclose his own real certificate, that is, if he was in fact born in Hawaii in the first place.  Because the actual form might indicate

1) Race of Child: Negro or White — in the former case, Obama’s racism might take offense; in the latter case his race politics might be undone;

2) Race of Parent: Father might be indicated as Negro rather than African, which would gut the prima facie evidentiary value of his own alleged BC.

3) Parents might not be who they are claimed to be — there has been a lot of speculation on that;

4) Place of brith might have originally been Mombassa, Kenya, as Obama’s Co-grandmother and he himself have in the past claimed; if so, Obama is perhaps not even a U.S. Citizen.

5) No father might have been indicated originally, because Obama’s mother might not have been sure who the father was, at the precise moment of the original filing — which would reflect badly on his mother’s morals, and cast doubt upon any evidentiary value of whomsoever was subsequently claimed to be the real father; because doubt in such cases is prima facie evidence that there was more than one man who could have been the father.

6) Name of child might not be Barack Hussein Obama II, which, in the absence of name changes, would make Obama’s usage of his current name unlawful.

Source:

Hillary’s eligibility challenged in Supreme Court

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

A brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government

corruption, questions whether members of the “political branches of the government” can “evade the clear and precise language of a provision of the Constitution through the use of a legislative ‘fix.'”

The dispute is over former Sen. Hillary Clinton’s eligibility to be secretary of state.

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6, clause 2, provides: “No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office

under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been [increased] during such time.”

The case brought on behalf of a career government employee

outlines how during Clinton’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, the salary for the secretary of state was raised to $186,600, then to $191,300, and then again to $196,700.

Complete Story:

Broke State Spends $75 Mil On Cars, Furniture

Judicial Watch

As the nation’s most populous state begs for a an exorbitant federal handout to bail it out of a self-inflicted financial crisis, public officials spent tens of millions of tax dollars on furniture, new vehicles and frivolous conferences at luxury resorts.

Despite the budget crisis, California bureaucrats have been loose with the public cash, spending more than $75 million on furniture, cars and off-site meetings even after the governor issued an executive order directing all state agencies to cut costs and eliminate vehicle purchases unless they were for emergency purposes.

The scandalous spending spree was revealed by a state legislative panel (Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review) that assures public agencies operate efficiently. This week the committee is scheduled to call on leaders of the various state agency offenders to explain their spending, according to a newspaper report.

State officials spent nearly $45 million on new vehicles in a budget year, almost $30 million on new furniture and more than $2 million on questionable meetings and conferences at upscale hotels around the state. The California Department of Transportation spent the most on vehicles ($10.4 million) and the Department of Motor Vehicles bought nearly $2 million worth of furniture. The Department of Consumer Affairs had the largest off-site conference tab at $245,430.

The expenditures will be tough to justify considering that, more than $20 billion in the red, California has laid off tens of thousands of state employees, severely slashed the funding of its nationally-renowned public colleges and universities and cut numerous publicly funded programs.

Regardless, lawmakers twice gave themselves hefty raises in less than a year during the budget crunch and substantially raised the salaries of their staff members. Legislators in the not-so-Golden State also continue to support costly programs for illegal immigrants. California spends $4 billion a year to educate illegal aliens, $775 million on their medical care and about $500 million on other welfare benefits not covered by the feds.

Source: