Lord Monckton Investigates Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate?

8 Responses to Lord Monckton Investigates Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate?

1. Ellen says:

   June 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm

   This guy isn’t even a lord. He claims to be a lord, but he isn’t.

   He is a nut who believes the WND “experts” on Obama’s birth certificate. But they haven’t proven that they are experts, and they certainly have not shown that they are impartial. That is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the National Review all do not believe them.

   http://gratewire.com/topic/tea-party-conservative-refutes-claims-of-obama-birth-certificate-forgery

   http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/473-Keystone-Kops.html

   http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/03/on-the-release-of-report-from-sheriff-joe-arpaio-stating-barack-obamas-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

   Nathan Goulding, chief technology officer of the National Review magazine, dismissed the matter of “layered components” found in the White House PDF by suggesting “that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner.” and adding “I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

   And:

   Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: “The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

   And:

   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.”

   In contrast to the claims by birther zealots, three Republican and several Democrat officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that there is a birth certificate on file for Obama and that it shows that the long-form birth certificate published by the White House is accurate. Their confirmation is further confirmed by the Index Data–a list of the birth certificates on file by year, showing one for Obama in 1961:

   http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

   And these confirmations are still further confirmed by the birth notices that appeared in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers in 1961. As the name implies the notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section only came from the DOH of Hawaii, and at the time the DOH only sent out birth notices for children born in Hawaii.
2. Bruce says:

   June 12, 2012 at 5:39 pm

   — “This guy isn’t even a lord. He claims to be a lord, but he isn’t.” —

   How DARE Ellen claim that Lord Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and acknowledged ‘hereditary peer’ in Great Britain, is not fully authorized to use the title ‘Lord’!

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

   Does this ‘POTUS eligibility dilettante’ Ellen, believe that Lord Monckton is NOT who he claims to be, the eldest son of Gilbert Walter Riversdale Monckton, 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley? Let me remind her (him?) that heritage has obviously been taken very seriously by the Monckton family for many generations, apparently quite unlike the excruciatingly confusing Obama, Soetoro, Dunham clans.

   Lord Christopher Monckton IS Lord Christopher Monckton! — of that, one should have no doubt!

   From the Wikipedia article:

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

   “Lord is used as a generic term to denote members of the peerage. Five ranks of peer exist in the United Kingdom, in descending order these are duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron. The appellation ‘Lord’ is used most often by barons who are rarely addressed by their formal and legal title of “Baron”, a notable exception being during a baron’s introduction into the House of Lords when he begins his oath by stating “I, Baron X…of Y…”. The correct style is ‘Lord (X)’, for example, Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson, is commonly known as ‘Lord Tennyson’. The ranks of marquess, earl and viscounts are commonly also addressed as lord. Dukes use the style ‘Duke of (X)’, and are not correctly referred to as ‘Lord (X)’. Dukes are formally addressed as ‘Your Grace’, rather than ‘My Lord’. In the Peerage of Scotland, the members of the lowest level of the peerage have the substantive title ‘Lord of Parliament’ rather than baron.” – (bold emphasis added)

   There has been some back-and-forth discussion regarding Lord Monckton’s claim of ‘membership’ in the House of Lords, as indicated in the article linked below:

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords

   However, there is no doubt that Christopher Monckton can properly use the hereditary title of ‘Lord’!
3. ARNOLD CARL TAPP says:

   June 12, 2012 at 7:44 pm

   @ Bruce:
   WHO GIVES A RAT ‘ S ASS WHETHER THIS GUY IS A LORD OR NOT ???????????
   HE IS JUST ANOTHER NOSY BRIT TRYING TO MAKE HIS MARK IN THE WORLD BY INTERFERRING IN THE AFFAIRS OF AMERICA . HOW COULD HE POSSIBLY OFFER ANY PERTINENT INFORMATION ABOUT THE VILLAGE IDIOT WHO ILLEGALLY ” OCCUPIES ” OUR OVAL OFFICE AND WHITEHOUSE ?????????? IF THE STUPID ‘ INVESTIGATORS ‘ FROM WND
   AND SHERIFF JOE HAD A BRAIN , THEY COULD CLOSELY EXAMINE THE ONLY AUTHENTIC BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR obummer POSTED ON THIS SITE .
   THE SAME GOES FOR OUR ” EMPLOYEES “~ THE MORONS IN CONGRESS .
4. Lucas D. Smith says:

   June 12, 2012 at 8:04 pm

   Bruce wrote:

   — “This guy isn’t even a lord. He claims to be a lord, but he isn’t.” –
   How DARE Ellen claim that Lord Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and acknowledged ‘hereditary peer’ in Great Britain, is not fully authorized to use the title ‘Lord’!
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
   Does this ‘POTUS eligibility dilettante’ Ellen, believe that Lord Monckton is NOT who he claims to be, the eldest son of Gilbert Walter Riversdale Monckton, 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley? Let me remind her (him?) that heritage has obviously been taken very seriously by the Monckton family for many generations, apparently quite unlike the excruciatingly confusing Obama, Soetoro, Dunham clans.
   Lord Christopher Monckton IS Lord Christopher Monckton! — of that, one should have no doubt!
   From the Wikipedia article:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord
   “Lord is used as a generic term to denote members of the peerage. Five ranks of peer exist in the United Kingdom, in descending order these are duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron. The appellation ‘Lord’ is used most often by barons who are rarely addressed by their formal and legal title of “Baron”, a notable exception being during a baron’s introduction into the House of Lords when he begins his oath by stating “I, Baron X…of Y…”. The correct style is ‘Lord (X)’, for example, Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson, is commonly known as ‘Lord Tennyson’. The ranks of marquess, earl and viscounts are commonly also addressed as lord. Dukes use the style ‘Duke of (X)’, and are not correctly referred to as ‘Lord (X)’. Dukes are formally addressed as ‘Your Grace’, rather than ‘My Lord’. In the Peerage of Scotland, the members of the lowest level of the peerage have the substantive title ‘Lord of Parliament’ rather than baron.” – (bold emphasis added)
   There has been some back-and-forth discussion regarding Lord Monckton’s claim of ‘membership’ in the House of Lords, as indicated in the article linked below:
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords
   However, there is no doubt that Christopher Monckton can properly use the hereditary title of ‘Lord’!

   Well stated, Bruce, well stated.
5. ARNOLD CARL TAPP says:

   June 12, 2012 at 8:06 pm

   >>> ATTENTION <<>> IMPORTANT INFORMATION <<<
   WE HAVE ALL HEARD A LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ILLUMINATI ,
   NEW WORLD ORDER , AND BILDERBERGERS . ALL THESE ARE CLOSELY ASSOCIATED AND CONNECTED . THERE IS AN EXTREMELY INFORMATIVE ARTICLE ABOUT THE ILLUMINATI IN THE " NEWSWATCH MAGAZINE "
   ISSUED APRIL 15 , 1999 . THIS IS PART ONE OF 2 PARTS . YOU CAN OBTAIN A COPY OF THIS ARTICLE AND PART 2 BY CALLING 972 – 937 – 2227 .
6. Lucas D. Smith says:

   June 12, 2012 at 8:12 pm

   ARNOLD CARL TAPP wrote:

   >>> ATTENTION <> IMPORTANT INFORMATION <<<
   WE HAVE ALL HEARD A LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ILLUMINATI ,
   NEW WORLD ORDER , AND BILDERBERGERS . ALL THESE ARE CLOSELY ASSOCIATED AND CONNECTED . THERE IS AN EXTREMELY INFORMATIVE ARTICLE ABOUT THE ILLUMINATI IN THE " NEWSWATCH MAGAZINE "
   ISSUED APRIL 15 , 1999 . THIS IS PART ONE OF 2 PARTS . YOU CAN OBTAIN A COPY OF THIS ARTICLE AND PART 2 BY CALLING 972 – 937 – 2227 .

   Thank you for this information, Carl.
7. Ellen says:

   June 12, 2012 at 8:16 pm

   Has “Lord Monckton” actually shown proof this his real father was Lord Monckton? Maybe he believes that his father was Lord Monckton. Maybe his father believed that he was the son of Lord Monckton, but was he really?

   However, based on the assumption that Lord Monckton really was his father, as apparently the records show, then I stand corrected and he really is a Lord.

   He is still WRONG.

   No one but birther “experts,” and such nuts as Lord Monckton have said that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate. Such conservative leaders as Romney and Ron Paul (whose campaign I asked) do not believe that the birth certificate is forged, nor does Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly or the National Review.

   The birth certificate for Obama does exist as confirmed not only by the officials but by the “Index Data”–a public file that lists the birth certificates on file, and it lists one for Obama under 1961–and by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961.
8. Bruce says:

   June 13, 2012 at 4:19 pm

   (1) I have posted below a link to the 20 page pdf ‘Hereditary Peers Briefing Paper’, which Lord Monckton refers to in the video:

   http://static.infowars.com/2012/06/i/general/peers-briefing-2.pdf

   (2) I think Lord Monckton’s comment regarding Ron Paul at about the 1:55 mark in the video makes a lot of sense. He thinks that, if Romney is elected in November, he should appoint Ron Paul to a cabinet level position to provide some experienced, intelligent input and to serve as a stabilizing influence on the administration.

   I think Ron Paul is a good man and he could provide some valuable help to Romney and the country during our next four, difficult years, if given the chance. I never envisioned Ron Paul as POTUS and considered him unelectable, due to the current sad state of our citizenry’s misguided beliefs and favored priorities. However, he would be GREAT as an appointed, cabinet level participant in our future.

   Trying to be realisitic here — I can’t see Romney, if elected, actually following Lord Monckton’s excellent suggestion about appointing Ron Paul to a cabinet level position, but maybe he’ll come through with a surprise.