Michelle’s photo-op at Target store was staged

Michelle’s photo-op at Target store was staged

Rick Moran

It turns out that the AP photographer
who snapped the photos was tipped off that Michelle Obama would be at the store,
according
to Yahoo:

Looks like Mrs. Obama’s security
threw on their street clothes to blend in because no suits with earbuds were
spotted in the store.

Right outside of D.C. in Alexandria,
VA, FLOTUS decided to grab a few things for 30-40 minutes with her assistant at
the local Target. She was dressed in a floral button down, black pants, a Nike
baseball cap, and shades. But of course, she was still somewhat noticeable. The
Associated Press reported that Secret Service arrived 30 minutes before her and
blended with the other customers. The only person who recognized the First Lady
was her cashier!

In case you’re wondering if it was
really her, the White House confirmed it this afternoon
saying,

“It is not uncommon for the First
Lady to slip out to run an errand, eat at a local restaurant or otherwise enjoy
the city outside the White House gates,” said Kristina Schake, communications
director for the First Lady.

CBS News reports the pics
were snapped by an Associated Press photographer who says he was tipped off that
she would be there.
(emphasis
added).

The fact that the White House tipped
off a well known photographer about the “shopping trip” gives the lie to the WH
statement that the First Lady likes to “slip out to run an errand.” Stage
managing this Precious Moment of supposed normalcy will do little to change the
perception of the First Lady that she is a luxury loving social climber who
looks down on the rest of us.

HT: Gateway
Pundit

Advertisements

Obama “I’d like to work my way around Congress.” and the constituion also

Facing growing opposition to his economic proposals and dimming prospects that Congress will pass other parts of his agenda, President Obama told a Hispanic group in Washington Wednesday that when it comes to the issue of immigration, “I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

“As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own,” Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “There are times where — until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again — I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

As he continued, Obama conceded that “we’ve got laws on the books that have to be upheld.”  But he quickly added there are different ways to uphold the laws on the books. “You know as well as anyone that…how we enforce those laws is also important,” Obama said.  Last month, the administration made a major, unilateral change in immigration law enforcement when it announced that the government will not initiate deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants unless they have committed serious crimes.  To critics, Obama had indeed worked his way around Congress.  To the Hispanic Caucus, Obama said his new policy will “prioritize criminals who endanger our communities, not students trying to achieve the American dream.”

The bigger problem, Obama said, is that sort of unilateral enforcement (or non-enforcement) only goes so far.  “We live in a democracy, and at the end of the day, I can’t do this all by myself under our democratic system,” he said.  “If we’re going to do big things — whether it’s passing this jobs bill, or the DREAM Act, or comprehensive immigration reform — we’re going to have to get Congress to act.”

This is the second time in recent months that Obama has publicly mused about going around Congress to enact immigration reform.  In that speech to La Raza in July, he said that “some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own” — a prospect Obama said he found “very tempting.”  But the president quickly added, “that’s not how our system works.”

Stop Calling the Tea Party Extreme. It Isn’t.

Stop Calling the Tea Party Extreme. It Isn’t.

By Mercer
Tyson

The left-leaning mainstream media and liberal
Democratic politicians continue to refer to the Tea Party as extreme, wacko, and
out of touch with the American public.  Clear evidence indicates exactly the
opposite.

Many of us are getting increasingly annoyed when we
hear the Tea Party called extreme, right-wing wackos, or other unbecoming names
along that vein.  Of course, almost everyone I know decidedly left of center
deems him- or herself centrist.  My knee-jerk liberal neighbor thinks he’s a
centrist.  I have gone back through every posting on his blog, and they are all
as far left on whatever subject he is writing about as one can
be.

But then, he also thinks Obama is a centrist, as do
large segments of the MSM, Hollywood, and other liberal groups.  Universal
health care, unconditional amnesty for everyone, taxing enough life out of our
valuable corporations to drive them to other countries (good riddance!  I mean,
who wanted those high-paying jobs anyway?), subsidizing green energy schemes
that cost a fortune and make no economic sense — it goes on and on.  I guess
that, given their viewpoint, it’s no wonder they think the Tea Party is
extreme.

Now, I know it’s pointless to try to convince a
liberal that reality isn’t a whipped-cream world where all you have to do is
wish and it will come true.  However, with the hope that some late arrivals to
politics and those “independents” who seem to ride the fence and fall on
whatever side has greener grass at the moment are open-minded and willing to
listen, I will present some very obvious facts that have been dramatically
confused by the various liberal cults that want to paint the Tea Party as
extremist.

First, make no mistake about the MSM; they feign
honesty, but their decidedly slanted viewpoint denies them the ability to
present things in a straightforward manner.  There are some who argue that they
purposefully distort the truth and paint those on the right side of the aisle as
loonies, either directly or subtly.  I choose to believe that, being in the news
business, they are merely hopeless liberals without a clue about reality, and
believe they are representing the news fairly.  Regardless, they have the
ability to affect opinions.  Depicting the Tea Party as extreme is an issue that
really needs to be exposed.

So, exactly what does it mean to be extreme?  We all
know, but I will present a definition
anyway from Dictionary.com (with some minor editing):

1.  of a character or kind farthest
removed from the ordinary or average.

2.  utmost or exceedingly great in
degree.

3.  farthest from the center or
middle; outermost; endmost.

4.  farthest, utmost, or very far in
any direction.

5.  exceeding the bounds of
moderation.

6.  going to the utmost or very great
lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc.

So what exactly is extreme about the Tea Party?  Just
how are they “of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or
average”?

Let’s analyze their viewpoints.  The Tea Party is not
an official organization, but from the TeaParty.net
website, the main “planks” are:

  • Limited federal government
  • Individual freedoms
  • Personal responsibility
  • Free markets

Limited Government

A recent Rasmussen poll
(from US News and World Report) indicated that considerably more respondents
believe the federal government has too much power as opposed to too little.
According to the survey:

75 percent of Republicans believe the federal
government has too much power over the states while a plurality of Democrats (37
percent) believe the balance is about right.  Among those not affiliated
with either major party, 52 percent say the federal government has too much
influence while 9 percent say not enough
.  [Italics
added.]

And from a January ABC News article:

ABCNEWS tested the issue with two questions: Half the
respondents in this poll were asked if they trust the government to do what’s
right when it comes to handling national security and the war on terrorism.
Sixty-eight percent said yes. The other half were asked if they trust the
government to do what’s right when it comes to handling social issues like the
economy, health care, Social Security and education.  Far fewer — 38 percent —
said yes.

On this issue, the Tea Party is decidedly
centrist.

Individual Freedoms

A December 2010 poll
from Rasmussen Reports clearly shows how important individual freedoms are for
Americans; “[a]mong moderate voters, a plurality (48%) agrees with the
conservative perspective with a focus on protecting individual rights.”
Interestingly, “[t]he widest gap as is often the case is between the Political
Class and Mainstream voters.  Seventy percent (70%) of those in the Mainstream
say the primary role of a government is to protect individual rights.  Fifty-one
percent (51%) of Political Class voters say insuring fairness and social justice
should come first.”  Wow.  A whopping 70% of the Mainstream class!
Those are big numbers.

On this issue, the Tea Party is decidedly
centrist.

Personal Responsibility

While polls asking the direct question of how
important personal responsibility is in general are hard to find, specific polls
show Americans believe in the concept.  From a Gallup poll on the subject of
personal responsibility in the matter of health care, “89% of Republicans, 64%
of independents, and 61% of Americans overall say Americans themselves — rather
than the government — have the primary responsibility for ensuring that they
have health insurance.”  Fairly large numbers support the Tea Party
position.

Hardly anything that can be called
extreme.

Free Markets

No surprise here.  According to a GlobalScan
poll,
the free-enterprise system and free-market economy together decidedly constitute
the best system on which to base the future of the world.  In the U.S., this
opinion is shared by 71% of the people surveyed in contrast to 24% who
disagree.  (Worldwide polling shows 61% agreement as opposed to 28% who
disagree.)  Concurrence again.

So, concerning all four “planks” of the Tea Party, the
majority of the public is clearly in agreement.  However, as we know, the Tea
Party is vocal in its support or opposition to other specific issues as well.
Regarding some of their more important issues:

  • A July 11 CNN/ORC
    poll shows that 66% of the respondents support Cut, Cap, and
    Balance.
  • In the same poll, 74% Support a Balanced Budget
    Amendment.
  • On the budget deficit, many would agree that the Tea
    Party believes in the cuts-only or mostly spending cuts approach.  According to
    the following chart from Gallup,
    67% think the deficit should be reduced by only or mostly spending cuts.  Even
    those who believe in spending cuts alone account for 26%.  Hardly
    extremist.

 

 

  • CNN
    poll
    , January 2011, 71% of people want to cut spending in
    general (although they don’t agree as to what should necessarily be
    cut).
  • Finally, from an LA Times article:
    “according to most polls, about 20% of voters are liberal, substantially less
    than the about 40% who identify themselves as conservative.”

So how is it the Tea Party is labeled extremist when,
on virtually all their important issues, the evidence is clear that most
Americans are in substantial agreement with it?  And why did a Gallup
survey
conducted April 20-23 of this year find that only 30 percent of Americans
describe themselves as Tea Party supporters?

Clearly, the American public has been mislead by the
MSM and by the propensity of liberal politicians who customarily preach the
left-wing viewpoint to hurl charges of racism or other unflattering words at
anyone who does not agree with them.  Serious misunderstanding of the Tea Party
and the American people is apparent in Nancy Pelosi’s famous comment
referring to the Tea Party movement as astroturf instead of
grassroots.

The result of this misrepresentation is the
marginalization of the Tea Party to segments of the American public who pay
little attention to politics and believe what they hear on the 6:00 news at
dinnertime.  It’s time the “teabaggers” passionately disclaim the extremist
label.  People who make that claim should be stopped in their tracks
immediately, and the conversation should cease until that claim is
contested.

No, the Tea Party is not extreme.  It is merely the
“Silent Majority” no longer being silent.

Obama’s failure – by the numbers

Obama’s failure – by the numbers

Rick
Moran

Jeffrey Anderson at IDB has an
excellent piece breaking down President Obama’s failures by the
numbers.

It has now been a little over two
years – and eight full economic quarters – since the end of the recession Obama
inherited. It’s time to ask: How does his record of economic growth in the wake
of a recession stack up against the records of other
presidents?

[…]

According to the NBER, in the 60
years prior to Obama’s tenure, we had 10 recessions. In the two years following
those respective recessions, average real (inflation-adjusted) quarterly GDP
growth was 5%, according to federal government figures. In the two years of
Obama’s “recovery,” average real quarterly GDP growth has been just 2.4%, less
than half of the historical norm coming out of a recession.

What’s the difference (in more
practical terms) between 2.4% and 5% growth over two years? According to Obama’s
own budget, this year’s GDP will be about $15 trillion. (It’s running neck and
neck with the national debt.) A 2.6% shortfall, therefore, equals about $780
billion over two years.

If you divide that evenly among the
U.S. population of 312 million people, that works out to a shortfall of $2,500
per person – or $10,000 for the average family of four. Call it the Obama
penalty.

Some might argue that the anemic
post-recession growth rate under Obama has resulted from his having inherited a
worse recession than most. There’s little doubt that he inherited a particularly
long (18-month) and significant recession. But the historical record suggests
that, pre-Obama, the general rule was: the worse the recession (or depression),
the better the recovery.

In other words, one would have
expected such a severe downturn to be followed by a particularly strong stretch
of economic growth. That, of course, hasn’t
happened.

To really grasp the titanic failure
of Obama’s policies, the growth numbers are most significant:

Average real quarterly GDP growth in
the two years coming out of those recessions was 6.2%. The 2.4% figure under
Obama has been a mere 39% of that – which, come to think of it, roughly matches
Obama’s current approval rating.

And strikingly, among those six prior
long recessions in the postwar era, even the lowest rate of GDP growth in the
two years to follow was 4.7%. That’s almost double the tally under
Obama.

Awesomely bad. And the most
frightening thing about Obama is that he doesn’t know what to do to fix
it.

Obama’s Joint Session Blunder

Obama’s Joint Session Blunder

By Rosslyn
Smith

The controversy over President Obama’s address to a
joint session of Congress underscores his ignorance of history, his lack of
understanding regarding the Constitution, and how lacking he is in political
skills other than speechifying.  Voters seem to instinctively understand which
issues transcend partisan politics and thus are appropriate for a presidential
address before a joint session of Congress.  They also have a history of not
responding well when that venue is misused.  Giving a political stump speech
before a joint session of Congress is simply not being
presidential.

We are most familiar with the annual rite of the
president’s State of the Union address, with its stylized partisanship.  In
addition, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution mandates that the electoral
votes for president be counted before a joint session of Congress.  Diplomatic
courtesy has long honored the practice of allowing an important foreign head of
state or government to address the nation by speaking before a joint session of
Congress.  Finally, great Americans — alive and dead alike — may also be
honored by a special joint session of Congress.  These are the acceptable
reasons for Congress to meet in a joint session.  When a president addresses the
nation from inside the U.S.
Capitol
on any other occasion, he is expected to speak on
matters of genuine national importance, not partisan advantage.  This is because
under our Constitution’s system of separation of powers, a president has to be
invited to come to Capitol Hill and speak.

The State of the Union address evolved from the
command in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

He shall from time to time give to Congress
information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such
measures as he shall judge necessary and
expedient.

“Time to time” was quickly interpreted to mean an
annual report.  Many early presidents made this report in writing, but by the
early 20th century, it became standard practice for the president to
speak on the State of the Union before a joint session of Congress.  It is now
also a tradition that in lieu of a State of the Union address, a newly
inaugurated president will address a joint session of Congress shortly after he
assumes office with an outline of his first-term agenda billed as an economic or
budget address.  A far less happy tradition has also developed.  Truman,
Johnson, and Ford each addressed a joint session of Congress after being sworn
in upon the death or resignation of their predecessors.

Outside the annual State of the Union address and
transitions of power, presidents have pretty much limited their addresses before
a joint session of Congress to major issues of national security.  Examples
include FDR’s A day that shall live in infamy speech after Pearl
Harbor, FDR again on the Yalta Conference in the closing days of WWII, Truman
announcing the Marshall Plan, Carter announcing SALT II, and Reagan’s report on
the Geneva summit.

The man the press has been trying to compare Obama to
as a communicator made only three special joint session addresses to Congress in
eight years.  In addition to the Geneva summit address, Ronald Reagan also spoke
on Central America in April, 1983.  Reagan’s April 1981 speech before a joint
session was billed as an address on the economy, but the real purpose was to
reassure both Congress and the nation that Reagan was capable of fulfilling the
duties of the office after the assassination attempt a month earlier.  That
address is a
minor masterpiece of sound economic policies
,
genuine bipartisanship, and grace under pressure — commodities I suspect will
be in short supply next Thursday night.

George H.W. Bush made two special addresses to
Congress in four years.  One was on the need to go to war to reverse Iraq’s
invasion of Kuwait, the other announced victory in that war.  Bill Clinton made
only one special address to Congress in eight years.  In September 1993, Clinton
urged the joint session of Congress to pass his health care plan.  Congress
preferred to listen to the voters instead.  The plan failed, Democrats lost
control of Congress, and Clinton decided that he had better ways to move his
agenda forward.  For the rest of his two terms he confined his appearances
before Congress to State of the Union addresses.  George W. Bush also made only
one special address to a joint session of Congress in eight years.  On September
20, 2001 he announced the War on Terror in response to the attacks on September
11.

On September 9, 2009 Barack Obama addressed a joint
session of Congress on health care.  His address was no more successful than
Clinton’s in swaying the voters, but Congress charged ahead anyway.  Less than
two years later, having lost control of the House and with his poll numbers
sinking fast, Obama now plans on speaking again.  As Clinton learned, the track
record of presidents using a special joint session of Congress to promote
domestic policy proposals is not that great.  No one remembers Nixon’s 1971
speech on the economy or Carter’s 1977 address on energy as great moments in
political oration.  Nor does Congress take kindly to being scolded by a guest in
its own chambers.

It is noteworthy that FDR, another president revered
for his ability to sway public opinion, once attempted to do just that.  In 1935
FDR used his first special address to a joint session of Congress as the venue
to deliver his veto of the popular WWI
veteran’s bonus act
.
While the Senate sustained that veto, a few months later Congress sent FDR a
message.  When an almost identical bill passed a second time, a congressman took
the bill, rushed out of the Capitol, hailed a taxi, and hand-delivered it to the
White House, daring a second veto.  That veto was handily overridden, and for
his remaining decade in office, FDR limited his requests to address a special
session of Congress to issues of national security.

It is true that Truman addressed the so-called
“do
nothing” Congress
on
domestic issues in a joint session in July 1948 and then came from behind to win
reelection, but 1948 was one of the most unusual presidential election years in
American history.  Truman had not been elected to the office, and both his style
and his social background were poles apart from those of the man he replaced.
He did not enjoy FDR’s relationship with many in the national press, who often
treated him as a temporary place-keeper until another member of the East Coast
establishment could take over.  The Democrats were badly divided that election,
with not one, but two splinter candidates that year.  Progressive Party
candidate Henry Wallace had been FDR’s vice president before he was replaced by
Truman in 1944, and Strom Thurmond’s candidacy was the Southern Democrat
response to the growing power of Northern Democrats like Hubert Humphrey, who
led the 1948 platform fight on Civil Rights.  The Republicans were incredibly
complacent in the face of this disarray among their opponents.  Thomas Dewey ran
one of the most lackadaisical presidential campaigns in memory, while the
Republican Congress failed to connect with the concerns of many returning GIs.
Several historic bills had been passed by that “do nothing” Congress, but they
were mostly related to the growing Cold War, containing communism, and business
interests.  Domestic matters such as new housing were high on the list of voter
concerns.

What Truman did in his whistle stop campaign was, in
effect, to introduce himself firsthand to voters in America’s heartland in the
age before television.  Many were pleasantly surprised to see that he was very
much one of their own — a plain-spoken Middle-Westerner who hadn’t particularly
sought great ambition but who eagerly accepted the responsibility and who
offered commonsense solutions.

If anything, Obama’s situation is almost the opposite
of Truman’s.  Obama has long dwelt inside the cocoon of Ivy League-educated
experts bereft of common sense, and if anything, he has been massively
overexposed in the media.  Since 2004, the press has been extolling Obama’s
intelligence, wisdom, and first-rate temperament at every opportunity.  Many
voters took Obama at the media’s estimation of his skills in 2008.  The record
increasingly suggests that in fact, Obama possess none of these traits.  The
patented Obama partisan speech with its straw men, false choices,
blame-shifting, and self-aggrandizement in the very heart of representative
democracy is likely to only make more people realize what a terrible mistake
they made in 2008.

Should Christians Support Obama?

Should Christians

Support Obama?

 

 

This man was on Dr. Charles Stanley’s program “In Touch” as a guest speaker.

 

I almost shouted “HALLELUJAH” when I finished reading. Forward or discard….it’s your choice…but PLEASE read before you do!


Dr. David Barton

 

is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.


Dr. David Barton – on Obama

Respect the Office? Yes.

Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.

I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.

Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama !

I will respect the Office, which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.

I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!

Why am I doing this ?

It is because:

– I do not share Obama’s vision or value system for America ;

– I do not share his Abortion beliefs;

– I do not share his radical Marxist’s concept of re-distributing wealth;

– I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make$150,000+

 

(the ceiling has been changed three times since August);

– I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;

– I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;

– I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;

– I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;

– I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;

– I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;

– I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);

– I do not share hisbeliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America;

– I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East; and

– I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran.

Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama’s, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right !

For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!

They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!

They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant !

They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years !

They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country !

They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society !

They have challenged capital punishment, the right to

bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code !

They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!

Unite behind Obama? Never!

I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!

PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!

Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his “goals for America ….”

I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country!Any more compromise is more defeat!

I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good inAmerica !

“Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it.” –Thomas Jefferson

GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!

(Please, please, please, pass this on if you agree.

If you don’t agree, just delete it.)

Thanks for your time, may you and yours be safe.

“In GOD We Trust”

Obama: Birth Certificate A VERY, VERY INTERESTING. READ.

Obama: Birth
Certificate

 

A VERY, VERY
INTERESTING. READ.

 

I have never felt
this idiot was ever born here & he never should have been elected.

He should not be
President since he never grew up in the United States.

What follows should
be considered since they are inconsistent with the “Birth
Certificate”…..

It was brought to
light that back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can

this ‘birth
certificate’ state he is ‘African-American’ when the term wasn’t even used back
then??

This isn’t over! This
is interesting!

.

.

Here is a comment
from a reader to George Ure at UrbanSurvival.com : “As you all know,
Donald

Trump made a big deal
about Obama’s birth certificate.

.

.

Recently, the White House released Obama’s birth certificate. I will tell you
right now that I had never

given this
“birther” issue any credit. I watched the hype and the
“crazies” come out. I completely dismissed

the entire ordeal
altogether.

.

.

In fact, it was not until the White House released the birth certificate that
it had gained my attention. I am

the studious sort of
guy, and I have plenty of time on my hands. So, I took a close look at this
document.

.

.

While I would have thought that this issue would have been closed for good
(and, got the crazies to

crawl back into their
holes), I found two extremely strange inconsistencies that merit some
attention.

.

.

First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s
birth as August 4, 1961.

It also lists Barack
Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth,
it

also shows that his
father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in ” Kenya ,
East Africa “.

.

.

This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not
even exist until 1963,

two whole years after
Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father

have been born in a
country that did not yet exist?

.

.

Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the “British East
Africa Protectorate”.

But, this is not the
only thing that I found that just does not jive. The other item that I looked
into was the

hospital that Obama
was born in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed

place of birth is
“Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”.

.

.

This cannot be,
because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “Kaui Keolani
Children’s Hospital”

and “Kapi’olani
Maternity Home,” respectively.

.

.

The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
until 1978, when these two

hospitals merged. How
can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961
if this

name had not yet been
applied to it until 1978?

.

.

Go ahead, look it up. I am not talking crazy talk, these are the facts. Like I
said, I thought that this

was a non-issue until
the actual certificate was released.

.

.

Now that it has been released, of course I had to look into it. I have found
these issues, now I know that

something is up. If
you doubt me, just look at the following resources:

.

.

Sure as hell, the hospital part is true, as you can read about the 1978 merger
here.

http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx

Post-colonial history (from Wikipedia)

.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kenya

.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya

.

.

The first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council took place
in 1957.

Despite British hopes of handing power to “moderate” African rivals,
it was the Kenya African National

 

Union (KANU) of Jomo
Kenyatta that formed a government shortly before Kenya became independent

on 12 December 1963,
on the same day forming the first Constitution of Kenya.