DOCUMENT CONFIRMS INVESTIGATORS’ SUSPICIONS, EXPOSES DOH AS LYING
by John Charlton
(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 supporters of Barack Hussein Obama during the recent Tea Party Nation convention in Memphis, TN, when she publicly 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 of parents and child, and a signature and date stamp, certifying the copy as an authentic representation of the information on file with the Hawaii 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 Okubo 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 the date of 2007 but without the seal and confirmatory signature of the State Registrar, does not contain information regarding witnesses to the birth or the date the filing was accepted by the State.
This has led private researchers to speculate that Obama’s original vital records, which Dr. Fukino claims to have seen and which she 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 refusing 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. An at-home birth filing, reportedly, contains the race of the child.
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;
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 whomever 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.
UPDATE: Due to a too hastily written title, the URL of this post is in accurate, whereas the current title is correct: viz., “Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth.” The URL is being left as-is, so that those who have already linked to the article, won’t lose their links.