Thursday, March 22, 2012

Lord Monckton: Obama Birth Certificate ‘Plainly A Forgery’


Lord Christopher Monckton, a graduate of Harrow and Cambridge, a prize winning journalist and former policy adviser to British PM Margaret Thatcher and a well known global warming skeptic is not a foolish or unintelligent man, regardless of whether you agree with him or not on certain issues.

During an interview on radio's 'The Larry Miller Show'
Lord Monckton took clear aim at the long form birth certificate President Obama provided to his fellow citizens on the web and reiterated what a number of experts have already said - that regardless of where the president was born, what we've been presented with is an out and out forgery.

“I mean, hey you got a president who has a false birth certificate on the Internet, on the White House website,” Monckton said. “It’s not even clear where he was born. You’ve got a national debt which is rising into the stratosphere. You’ve got unemployment certainly here in California at 11 percent, 50 percent in the construction industry. These are real problems. You’ve got real environmental problems — overfishing, deforestation, pollution, not so much in the west but certainly in other countries. These are real problems which ought to be addressed. You’ve got poverty. You’ve got disease. These are again serious problems in Africa for instance, that we could be helping with. But no, we’re obsessed with making the rich even richer and making the absolute bankers richer still by going for global warming and cap-and-trade and other nonsenses of this kind.”

When Larry Miller protested that he disagreed with Lord Monckton, Lord Monckton doubled down.

“I don’t know whether he is Kenyan or not,” Monckton said. “The point is that if I were you, I would want to make absolutely sure that he was born here before allowing him to be elected. And the birth certificate that he put up on that website, I don’t know where he was born. But I do know that birth certificate isn’t genuine.”

Monckton firmly asserted that the birth certificate on the White House website wasn’t real, and claimed it could be dismantled with software.

“It appears in layers on the screen in such a way you can remove quite separately each of the individual dates,” Monckton said. “You use Adobe Illustrator and each of the individual dates is in its own separate layer. This thing has been fabricated. Sheriff [Joe] Arpaio of Arizona has had a team on this for six months. And he has now gone public and said there’s something very desperately wrong with this and of course nobody is saying anything because the entire electorate has been fooled.”

“I’m no birther, don’t get me wrong,” Monckton said. “I haven’t a clue where Obama was born and I wouldn’t want to entreat into the private grief behind investigating. But the point is, is what he has done on the White House website is he has put up a document which he is plainly a forgery and I would regard that as a very serious matter.”

Another tip off is the reference to President Obama's race as 'African' a term that was never used in that context back in 1961.

I've already examined in these pages certain discrepancies I noticed when the long form was finally released. Remember back before that happened when we were being told that 'President Obama has already released his birth certificate' and 'there's no so such thing as a long form birth certificate'?

As to why this president has spent considerable time and money hiding away information about himself that has always been openly available when it came to every other person who has run for the presidency, there are a number of quite plausible reasons that might or might not have something to do with where he was born, but would, shall we say, be more than a little embarrassing to this president and the 'myth' we were sold in 2008.

I doubt we're going to find out the truth until President Barack Obama is safely out of office. So it's not really an issue to pursue at this point as far as I'm concerned. But eventually, it's going to come out and some people are going to have a great deal of explaining to do.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors

THREE Republican officials and the current head of the DOH of Hawaii have confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate.

No official in Hawaii–and they are the authorities after all–has said that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate or that there is anything different in the published image of it from what they sent to Obama.

Other research done on this issue:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/book-revie...
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/obama-cons...
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/decoding-t...
http://www.thefogbow.com/arpaio-report/
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirt...
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/con...

The Director of Health of Hawaii stated in a letter that she had seen the original birth certificate being copied onto security paper and that was the document that she gave to Obama’s lawyer. That physical copy was passed around in the White House press room and everyone there got a chance to hold it, and feel the seal. One reporter even photographed it.

Anonymous said...

Rob -

You're an American, so I suspect you're not aware of how crazy Monckton is. This is the same crank who wanted to quarantine AIDS patients.

As for the 'layer' argument, anyone who has spent even a small amount of time with Illustrator will be able to debunk that claim. Don't believe me? Here's Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/

But by all means, push this tired birthed story. With Etch-a-Sketch the likely nominee, you might as well resort to veiled racism if you have any hopes of winning back the presidency.

Damn. That link to Fox News (where they actually set the record straight for once) will keep you from posting this. Shame. I was looking forward to seeing you square this circle.

Rob said...

Boy, you guys sure jumped on this one quick! Bravo!

But please explain the following to me:

Why the president refused to show this for so long if it was legitimate.No other presidential candidate has ever behaved in this manner.

Why almost his first act after being inaugurated was to sign an executive order sealing all his records.

Why, as I mentioned, we were told for months that there 'was no long form birth certificate' and 'President Obama has already released his birth certificate' both of which turned out not to be true.

Why Hawaii's Governor Neil Abercrombie, a leftist loon and a solid Obama partisan vowed publicly that he was going to find the birth certificate to 'shut the birthers up' and later had to admit he was unable to find it, yet the Obama Administration was able to provide it at will...when they were ready.

An explanation for a number of other discrepancies such as why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the date accepted by the local registrar four days later on August 8, 1961, as if the baby was born elsewhere and the physician was relying on an affidavit.

Why the name Barry Soetoro doesn't appear on the birth certificate in accordance with Hawaii law after the president was legally adopted by his Indonesian stepfather.

Why the typeface appears to be a bit too 'perfect', without the normal inconsistencies common in typed documents of that era.

Any answers? Aside from the usual inane 'racism' slur?

A number of people with a great deal of knowledge of graphics and how they can be manipulated by computers have weighed in and declared that in their opinion, the document was forged. Obviously, others disagree.

The fact that some people photographed it, held it in their hands and felt the seal is fairly meaningless. I've come into contact with some extremely realistic and clever forgeries, and things like seals on a physical document can easily be faked if one has the will and access to the talent and the resources.

Don't misunderstand me. This is a side issue at this point as far as I'm concerned and where and when this president was born, his college records, etc. aren't likely going to be a factor in this election. But there is very obviously something President Obama doesn't want the American public knowing about him, and he's spent a great deal of time, effort and money to hide it. And that's a fact you simply can't deny.

Eventually, the truth will come out.

As for Monckton being 'crazy', he certainly wasn't wrong about the global warming scam, was he? And his proposal to quarantine AIDS victims in the very earliest stages of the epidemic ( which is all he actually proposed) would have saved thousands of lives. My old pal the late author Randy Shiltz, who wrote an amazing book before he died of AIDS about how the City of San Francisco's inaction due to the politics there cost the lives of hundreds of gays would have agreed with Lord Monckton.

Since you called me a racist without cause, am I allowed to call you a homophobe who doesn't care about gays dying?

Winston Court said...

HOW CAN I EXAMINE OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND KNOW IT IS A FRAUD?
You will need a few things:

1) A copy of the fraudulent birth certificate, directly from the whitehouse website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

1a.) You will also need Adobe Reader to open the web file, and download/save it to your hard drive:
http://get.adobe.com/reader

2) A free trial copy of Adobe Illustrator:
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=illustrator
(this will allow you to open the birth certificate with software which is capable of displaying the layers, accurately, and allowing the fraud to be seen in detail.)

3) Arpaio's full video report, to show you a few things to look for. It discusses important evidence of fraud:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1wiGDYPALI
(duplicating the demonstrations, with the tools given above, will allow you to do much of the same investigation Arapio's team did.)

4) Tom Harrison's report on defects/artifacts in birth certificate, proving fraud:
http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/07/110726whitedots.pdf
(following Tom's guide, you will be able to see that that obama's birth certificate is an ABSOLUTE FRAUD!)

The web is also full of other inconsistencies and evidence of the fraud, mismatched type imported from other documents, mixed, modern day computer type with 1961 typewriter type, etc.

There is little doubt that the birth certificate is a fraud (but, hey, if obama can explain the posting of a fraudulent document to the whitehouse website -- and how he became so confused as to think it is his birth certificate, I will listen.) And, one must wonder why a criminal is being allowed to remain in the public servant office of president. There are obvious problems with a criminal occupying the office of president, one is the military being unable to follow unlawful orders, since a criminal issuing orders from the whitehouse, and acting as commander in chief would be unlawful, all of his orders would be unlawful, and the military would be unable to act, lawfully, on such orders.

Also, any and all actions, bill, laws, executive orders, decisions, etc. would be unlawful, illegal, unbinding and without validity -- if done by an illegal and criminally treasonous president. As more and more American citizens wake up to these truths, there is only one way to accurately describe the situation we are in, or simply, "WE ARE IN DEEP DUDU!"

And remember, while Angels may have halos, birth certificates DON'T! (you will learn about this while examing the materials, above.)

Anonymous said...

Re: “Why Hawaii's Governor Neil Abercrombie, a leftist loon and a solid Obama partisan vowed publicly that he was going to find the birth certificate to 'shut the birthers up' and later had to admit he was unable to find it, yet the Obama Administration was able to provide it at will...when they were ready.”

Answer: Because he never said it.

Abercrombie was trying to find another document, something else that could prove Obama’s birth in Hawaii besides the birth certificate. And he has not been able to do so. However, the birth certificate and the confirmation of the three Republican officials and the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 are sufficient.

Re: “An explanation for a number of other discrepancies such as why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the date accepted by the local registrar four days later on August 8, 1961, as if the baby was born elsewhere and the physician was relying on an affidavit.”

Answer: All based on speculation and not on the situation. Delays are normal in government, and Obama’s long-form birth certificate shows that he was born at Kapiolani Hospital (which, by the way, did exist in 1961).

Rob said...

Hello Anonymous,

1) Yes, Abercrombie did indeed say that he was looking for the long form birth certificate and later said later he was unable to find it. That was a direct quote.Plus, anyone can ask a newspaper to print a birth notice, and given that the child had a father whom was a British subject and the laws on citizenship back then,( plus the fact that by the time of Obama's birth, the mother and father were estranged and a custody fight was possible)there was sufficient practical reason for doing so by the Dunhams. Youalso don't explain why we were told fo rso long that 'there's no suchthing as a long form birth certificate" when there obviously was.

2) Look at your own certificate of live birth. They are almost always issued dated the day of birth...unless there is a delay in reporting, such as in th ecase of a baby being delivered at home. Also,if you remember, two different hospitals, one of which is Kapiolani Hospital claimed Obama was born there.

One question you didn't answer was why Barack Obama's name wasn't changed to Barry Soetoro when he was legally adopted by his stepfather, in accordance with Hawaii's laws.

Again, don't misunderstand me. Barack Obama likely was born in Hawaii. But the birth certificate has likely been altered or is a forgery because there's something he doesn't want the American public to know.

Anonymous said...

Re: "One question you didn't answer was why Barack Obama's name wasn't changed to Barry Soetoro when he was legally adopted by his stepfather, in accordance with Hawaii's laws."

Answer: Because he wasn’t adopted. Who told you that he was? Yes, he used his stepfather’s name when he was in Indonesia, but he never legally changed his name, and he wasn’t adopted. For that matter, he never became an Indonesian citizen (as a call to the Indonesian embassy will confirm).

Anonymous said...

2) Look at your own certificate of live birth. They are almost always issued dated the day of birth...unless there is a delay in reporting, such as in th ecase of a baby being delivered at home. Also,if you remember, two different hospitals, one of which is Kapiolani Hospital claimed Obama was born there.

But you do not know anything about the situation in Hawaii. Obama was born late on a Friday. Delays happen in government.

Re: "1) Yes, Abercrombie did indeed say that he was looking for the long form birth certificate and later said later he was unable to find it. That was a direct quote."

Answer: NO it wasn't. If you think so, then show it. Abercrombie was not referring to the birth certifiate; he had no reason to do so, TWO Republican officials had already stated repeatedly that they had seen the original birth certificate in the files. So, what was he referring to, not the birth certificate.

Oh, and by the way, at least one more person must have seen the original in the files (the Director of Health's statement about sending it was later). That person was the clerk who created the short-form birth certificate. That is done by copying the information from THE DOCUMENT IN THE FILES.

RE: 'Again, don't misunderstand me. Barack Obama likely was born in Hawaii. But the birth certificate has likely been altered or is a forgery because there's something he doesn't want the American public to know."

Fascinating. Can you enlighten us, oh master, why someone would want to forge a birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii when he actually was born in Hawaii?

Can you enlighten us, oh master, why if there is a fact different on the published image of the long form birth certificate from the facts on the document in the files, no official in Hawaii pointed that situation out?

Anonymous said...

Re: “Why, as I mentioned, we were told for months that there 'was no long form birth certificate' and 'President Obama has already released his birth certificate' both of which turned out not to be true.”

Answer: We were never told that there was no long form birth certificate. We were told that Hawaii did not release it. That as true; the regulations in Hawaii say that only the short-form can be released. However, there are provisions for making exceptions, and Hawaii decided to make one for Obama, and it sent him his long-form birth certificate, which the Director of Health of Hawaii stated she saw being copied and that the copy was accurate, and that that was the document she gave to Obama’s lawyer. Subsequently the official physical copy of the long form birth certificate was passed around in the White House press room, and everyone got a chance to feel the seal, and one reporter even photographed it.

Anonymous said...

Re: “Why the typeface appears to be a bit too 'perfect', without the normal inconsistencies common in typed documents of that era.”

The short form birth certificate is a computer-generated document, as it is supposed to be. The long form shows plenty of inconsistencies, such as the skipping of a manual typewriter.

Re; “A number of people with a great deal of knowledge of graphics and how they can be manipulated by computers have weighed in and declared that in their opinion, the document was forged. Obviously, others disagree.”

Answer: Precisely. Birther “experts”--—who have not proven their expertise, and who certainly have not shown that they are impartial---made the claims. There are plenty of other experts who say that those claims are false, and Hawaii---which is the expert on Hawaii birth certificates after all—has never said that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate. In fact, officials there have repeatedly confirmed the facts on the birth certificate, which are also confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers.

Re: ‘The fact that some people photographed it, held it in their hands and felt the seal is fairly meaningless. “

Answer: Sure, but this is in addition to the THREE Republican officials stating that the facts on Obama’s birth certificate were accurate and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, and the director of health of Hawaii having stated that she saw the birth certificate being copied and that the copy was accurate and that that was the document she gave to Obama’s lawyer.

More importantly, there is no reason to forge a Hawaii birth certificate unless you were not born in Hawaii, but there are no travel documents showing that Obama’s mother traveled in 1961 or that Obama was entered into the USA by the INS in that year (the missing files in Hawaii are irrelevant, a trip from Kenya would have required being checked in by the INS in New York). There are also no Kenyan files showing that Obama’s mother arrived or departed there in 1961.

Re: “But there is very obviously something President Obama doesn't want the American public knowing about him, and he's spent a great deal of time, effort and money to hide it. And that's a fact you simply can't deny.’

Answer: I deny it completely because it isn’t true. Obama showed his birth certificate, and he released exactly the same amount of information about himself as the Republican candidates for president have released. And he did not “seal” his records.

Re: “Eventually, the truth will come out.”

The truth is already out. Obama was born in Hawaii, and showed his birth certificate (short form and long form), and he did not ‘seal” his records.

Anonymous said...

Re: "And remember, while Angels may have halos, birth certificates DON'T!'

Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: "All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document."

It is not illegal or immoral to make an image of a document easier to read. ONLY if the facts on the document were changed or there was no original birth certificate at all would there be a forgery.

And, guess what, the Arizona posse did not call up the officials in Hawaii and ask them whether there were any facts different on the image of the birth certificate from what was sent. They didn't even ask.

Rob said...

Ha ha ha! Axelrod must be paying you guys overtime!

First of all, Abercrombie said pretty much exactly what I said he did. Evans, a long time reporter obviously came under major pressure and retracted his statement after it became public, but he certainly had no reason to lie. And the Governor was not the only Hawaiian official to say the records didn't exist.

Why couldn't they find anything, when the Obama Administration was able to produce a long form birth certificate at will - well after the campaign?

Second, he was in fact legally adopted by his stepfather. His half sister Maya confirmed it, and several FOIA suits have shown this including records after the Soetoro that show Lolo Soetoro claiming Barry was his son and was receiving financial support from him. Even Factcheck doesn't dent Obama was legally adopted. merely that his being adopted had no effect on his US citizenship.

Third, people examining a document, feeling it, photographing it and claiming it's genuine means nothing. Neither do major news services proclaiming it as so..because no one, understandably, is too anxious to open the can of worms that would entail.

Now,why would someone born in Hawaii want to forge or amend a birth certificate after the fact?

Perhaps our president made the error of never changing his name back to Obama and has legally been using his stage name instead of his legal name of Barry Soetoro. If so, every piece of legislation he signed, every executive order would be invalid.

Perhaps there's information on it he'd rather no one saw, because it would blow the 'legend'. For instance,if you look at pictures of Stanley Anne Dunham, noted communist, admitted pedophile and pornographer Frank Marshall Davis and the young Obama, there's a striking resemblance there. Davis was a bosum pal and drinking companion of Obama's grandfather, Stanley Anne knew him quite well and the elder Dunhams, for some bizarre reason, chose Davis as a mentor and frequent companion of the young Obama.

Perhaps there's other information that doesn't jibe with what we know about Ms. Dunham's travel records and the president's given birthdate.

None of this really matters next to Barack Obama's abysmal record as president, no matter where or when he was born. But for various reasons I've given, the document we've been presented with appears to have been forged or altered, which is consistent with the president's actions and handling of the matter. Even a request in December 2009 from then SCOTUS Justice David Souter asking President-elect Obama to just let the court see the birth certificate to put the controversy at rest went without a response.

I assume that when people act in a certain manner, there's a reason for it. What that reason might be, I can only speculate on.

Again, we'll eventually find out the truth.

The important task at hand is to get President Obama out of the White House come next January.

Anonymous said...

Ok, I'm going to have this one in a few posts (sorry, but you had a lot of questions).

But please explain the following to me:

And please do both me and your readers the courtesy of posting this.

Why almost his first act after being inaugurated was to sign an executive order sealing all his records.

Not true in the slightest. Executive Order 13489 rescinded Bush's ridiculous 13233, an order that was intended to get around the 1974 Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act. Obama's order made it so that only records created during the course of being president by either the president or his advisers that are pursuant to official duties may be sealed during the full term. This would obviously not cover his birth certificate. You can read the full text here.

Why the president refused to show this for so long if it was legitimate

Maybe he didn't want to feed the fire. Maybe he thought you guys would get bored and move on to something else. Maybe he realized that you wouldn't accept it no matter what he did - and you're proving him right, by the way.

But just using Occam's razor (which will be a recurring theme here), if the president does have unlimited resources and all he needed was Photoshop, why on earth would he wait three years to distribute a birth certificate that is 'full of errors?'

No other presidential candidate has ever behaved in this manner.

Lied and hid things from the American people? Wait, let me go out to Yorba Linda with my shovel and I'll go get a rebuttal for you.

Anonymous said...

Why Hawaii's Governor Neil Abercrombie, a leftist loon and a solid Obama partisan vowed publicly that he was going to find the birth certificate to 'shut the birthers up' and later had to admit he was unable to find it, yet the Obama Administration was able to provide it at will...when they were ready.

I assume you're referring to this. Did Abercrombie say again that he couldn't find it? But using Occam's razor again: the governor is part of this grand conspiracy, yet he can't coordinate with the White House on such a simple coverup? We're not talking about faking the moon landing here. It's a piece of paper.

An explanation for a number of other discrepancies such as why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the date accepted by the local registrar four days later on August 8, 1961, as if the baby was born elsewhere and the physician was relying on an affidavit.

My own birth certificate is marked March 30, six days after my birth. I suppose the wheels of bureaucracy move just as slowly in the US as they do abroad.

By the way, you're seriously telling me (and this goes to the rest of your questions, too) that the White House created a grand forgery, yet forgot to get the date right? This is the kind of 'let's-not-think-things-through' attitude that the JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theorists trip over all the time.

Why the name Barry Soetoro doesn't appear on the birth certificate in accordance with Hawaii law after the president was legally adopted by his Indonesian stepfather.

Frankly, I have no idea. Though I have a lot of good guesses: lazy record-keeping, slow bureaucracy, incorrect filing, and so on and so on. Occam's razor. Which is more likely: that Obama and the whole power of the federal government couldn't get that right or that some sap in Hawaii couldn't be bothered to fill out a form in the mid-1960s?

Why the typeface appears to be a bit too 'perfect', without the normal inconsistencies common in typed documents of that era.

Neither of us have advanced degrees in typography. I think it looks 'imperfect'. Two subjective analyses cancel each other out. And (again), if Obama is spending so much time and money on this forgery (as you claim), you really think he didn't spring for a '60s-era typewriter? I mean, we're not talking about Rathergate here. These guys are presumably professionals, right?

Any answers? Aside from the usual inane 'racism' slur?

I understand that you would see this as a slur, and I don't intend it as such. This is a serious point. By constantly going on about Obama being 'foreign' and 'the other' and 'Kenyan', the birthers are doing something plainly ugly that swing voters can smell from a mile away. Would you like to win the election this year? Because this is a terrible way to go about it. With Romney, you're already going to have an uphill battle. Step outside of your echo chamber for a minute and look at middle America. Is this the image that you want to present to them come election day?

Anonymous said...

A number of people with a great deal of knowledge of graphics and how they can be manipulated by computers have weighed in and declared that in their opinion, the document was forged. Obviously, others disagree.

I'll let Michelle Malkin answer that one: "The plain truth will never mollify a Truther. There’s always a convoluted excuse – some inconsequential discrepancy to seize on, some photographic "evidence" to magnify into a blur of meaningless pixels – that will rationalize irrationality".

The fact that some people photographed it, held it in their hands and felt the seal is fairly meaningless.

Translation: All the proof in the world won't convince me of what I refuse to believe.

Don't misunderstand me. This is a side issue at this point as far as I'm concerned and where and when this president was born, his college records, etc. aren't likely going to be a factor in this election.

You're absolutely right. But, ironically, birthers can be. Americans typically laugh at the tin-foil hat crowd, the grassy-knollers, etc. Come August, we'll inevitably see birthers waving signs at the Republican Convention. On primetime TV. That will be the face of the Republican party as it goes down to defeat in November.

But there is very obviously something President Obama doesn't want the American public knowing about him, and he's spent a great deal of time, effort and money to hide it. And that's a fact you simply can't deny.

Like hugging a Harvard professor? Wasn't that supposed to be the next big coup? I realized just how much of a disaster that was when even you wouldn't discuss it.

As for Monckton being 'crazy', he certainly wasn't wrong about the global warming scam, was he?

Uh, yes he was. I know it's another issue, but I'm not sure how exactly his beliefs (of which he has many crazy ones) stack up against a mountain of actual scientific evidence to the contrary.

And I stand by the word 'crazy'. For example, I couldn't help but notice that my explanation about the 'layers' seemed to mollify you. After all, you didn't follow up on it. You just seemed to realize that you'd been wrong and moved on. And that's what debate is supposed to be about. You've obviously never done your own research or had anyone set you straight. But Monckton, on the other hand, has surely had people come up to him by now and explain to him why he's nuts. You at least cut your losses. This nut is still peddling this garbage.

My old pal the late author Randy Shiltz, who wrote an amazing book before he died of AIDS about how the City of San Francisco's inaction due to the politics there cost the lives of hundreds of gays would have agreed with Lord Monckton.

I'll just have to take you at you word that you, of all people, were 'pals' with Randy Shiltz. It's about as likely as me making out with Dick Cheney every night on a bed of roses.

Since you called me a racist without cause, am I allowed to call you a homophobe who doesn't care about gays dying?

I guess. It's a bit out of left field, but that's what makes you interesting.

Sorry for the long post and thanks for posting this.

Rob said...

Actually, I gave several reasons why the long form birth certificate could be a forgery that had nothing to do with Obama's being 'foreign'..although he certainly seems to have questionable values and ideas.

You still haven't sufficiently explained his behavior, especially when if everything was legit he could and should have resolved things a long time ago - remember that oath he took to defend and protect the Constitution? Reassuring the American people on this account was part of that as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not alone.It's how a real leader, a president of ALL the people would have behaved.

As far the differences in typeface, etc, my guess ( and that of several others) is that they were created by a mixture of authentic '60's typefaces and computer fonts.That's why my gut feeling is that this document is altered rather than forged wholly.

Governor Abercrombie and a number of others needn't have been part of anything if there was forgery involved and the birth certificate was filed under, say Soetoro. Someone whom knew exactly where to look could have thus found it easily and altered it.

Parse it however you wish, the president's behavior is only explainable if he truly had something to hide.

Anonymous 12:40, from your remarks, it's obvious that aside from your issues with gays dying of AIDS, you also have no problem with a president of the United States championing a racist whom even Henry Louis Gates Jr. called an anti-Semite...just like Jeremiah Wright oddly enough. Not only did the president have a man crush on Derrick Bell, he even assigned his writings to his classes during his brief career as a college lecturer.You're certainly entitled.I haven't written in detail about it simply because it's part of something I'm currently working on that will provide a great deal more background and info on this president and his views, and is an important connection and again an indication that President Obama has been less than candid about a number of things, which is exactly why his fans hid it for so long...I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

I also wonder why you'd think it was so far fetched that I would know Randy Shiltz, since we both lived in San Francisco during the early 80's, but again you are certainly at liberty to think what you like.

Interesting how this, which I regard as a relatively unimportant side issue attracts so much attention and so many hits...I think it hits a nerve on both sides of the aisle!

Ah well!

Archbishop Rob said...

2 corrections to your post:

a) he was on the Dennis Miller show, not the Larry Miller show.

b) Monckton is not actually a Lord. He just tells people he is for some reason. I can call myself Archbishop if I want, but that doesn't make me one.

Rob said...

Lord Monckton is the 3rd Viscount of of Brenchley and a hereditary peer. The title was created in 1957 for Lord Monckton's grandfather, Sir Walter Monckton.You're simply wrong.

Anonymous said...

Rob -

No, you're wrong. You're an american and obviously have no frame of reference here as to how much of a joke this guy is overseas. And you also don't seem to understand the peerage inheritance rules.

He inherited the Lord title, but only after the 1999 House of Lords Acts. Monckton says that he is a member of the Upper House without a sitting vote right. The House of Lords themselves have said that Monckton has never and will never be a Lord. They've actually issued a cease and desist order to keep him from using the title. They are now considering legal action, which includes jail time. The queen herself has gone on record saying that something must be done about this crank.

This is a long list of lies he's been caught on, including the so-called advisorship to Thatcher that he loves to claim. It's not true in any way - no less than an authority than Thatcher herself can set you right on this. He's a well-known Alex Jones-style conspiracy theorist who fraudulently puts 'Lord' in front of his name in order to fool people like you.

So, do facts really mean nothing to you? Please stick to american politics. You simply don't know (or - more worryingly - don't care) what the truth is. Your readers can look this up themselves and realize you're wrong, so you might want to at least give yourself the honor of posting this to show that you do in fact value truth.

Rob said...

Funny thing about that,Anonymous. In your you appear to contradict yourself by stating in your second paragraph that Monckton is not a Lord, and that he inherited the title!

If you mean that according to the Lords Act he's not automatically a sitting and voting member of the upper parliamentary house known as the House of Lords, you're correct, but it doesn't take away his title.

In searching further, I find that Baroness Thatcher never actually said Monckton was not an adviser..she merely didn't mention him in the two volumes of her autobiography, which the sort of people that read the Guardian take as 'repudiation'.

Ditto on the House of Lords, who quite properly wanted him not to use an emblem resembling the parliamentary emblem and sent him a letter to that effect.

There's no reference to Queen Elizabeth II saying 'something must be done about this crank', but there is a reference to a Queen's bench writ denying his appeal to have a typically biased BBC documentary called 'Meet the Climate Sceptics' include his 500 words or three minutes to provide a semblance of balance in the context of a 60-minute film almost exclusively about him.

Bottom line is, he appears to have been quite correct about the entire 'global warming' movement being a scam.

I'm sure you're next move will be to come out with another long e-mail on Global Warming, but frankly since it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, you'll understand if I don't feel like devoting any more electrons to it.As it is, this tangent took up 5 minutes or so of my life that I could have spent on much more important things.

Regards,
Rob