Monckton questions Obama’s status as President: states there is enough to cast doubt on POTUS place of birth

Monckton now believes there is “compelling evidence” to cast doubt on where Obama was born. No, really he does…

If further evidence is needed to support to the contention that many climate sceptics have embraced a cluster of conspiracy theories, look no further than Lord Christopher Monckton.

The prominent climate sceptic – who has been feted by figures such as Gina Rinehart, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and Australia’s climate change “sceptics” – now claims the birth certificate on the White House is a forgery (which many of us know, he has been for some time).

Monckton has been spending time in Hawaii “investigating” Obama’s birth certificate and detailing the results of his investigation in a series of ongoing interviews with Alex Jones, host of InfoWars.

Jones is known for his  support for New World Order conspiracy theories and that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks:

Six weeks later, on the day the Twin Towers fell, Jones began his broadcast by declaring that, as he had predicted, the Bush administration had taken part in a staged terror attack. “I’ll tell you the bottom line,” Jones said. “98 percent chance this was a government-orchestrated controlled bombing.”

Monckton’s claims: yes, he really is a Birther

On a recent InforWars show (8 June 2012) Monckton makes some incredible claims. The segment goes for over 2 hours, but Monckton’s discussion of Obama’s birth certificate begins at 1:33:40 onward:

Here are some direct quotes:

Alex Jones: “…what’s the latest you’ve got breaking from Hawaii?”

Monckton: “Well its very clear now… that somebody in the Hawaiian Health Department knew the document that now appears on the White Hose website is a forgery… it is clear it is a forgery…” 

He then goes onto say:

“…there must be an opening up of the official record of Mr Obama’s birth to independent forensic scrutiny… there is now sufficient doubt as to where he was born…”

See also here on the InfoWars site.

Monckton paper that questions the President’s legitimacy: end results of his “investigation”

The end result of Monckton’s investigation is a paper titled “Is the President the President? A Hereditary Peers’ Briefing Paper“.

He even uses that logo that his own variation of the House of Lords logo which potentially breaks copyright:

In the paper Monckton outlines an incredible theory the that birth certificate on the White House web site is a forgery.

Citing the work of “bither” Sheriff Joseph Arpaio of Arizona,  Monckton goes at great pains to demonstrate “anomalies” with the birth certificate.

From there he questions the legitimacy of Obama as President of the United States.

Monckton even links his climate change scepticism to his support of “birther” claims:

Does the issue matter? An eminent constitutional lawyer has given advice that it does. He says: “We amend the Constitution, or we abide by it.” Judge Parker of the Alabama Supreme Court in the McInnish case also considers the issue important, in that it raises “serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates”. Mr. Obama’s legitimacy is now materially in doubt. Though his political supporters dismiss questioners of his birth certificate as “birthers”, much as they brand questioners of Man’s influence on the weather as “deniers” or questioners of the European Union as “xenophobes”, the subject will move up the political agenda in the coming months, notwithstanding the studied indifference of the media and of both parties to it.

At the end of the paper Monckton launches into a rhetorical flight of fancy that leaves little doubt that the man is a fantasist:

The implications of this affair for Her Majesty’s Government are considerable. The apparent forgeries, with the failure of Mr. Obama and of the State of Hawaii to ensure access to the original long-form birth certificate of which the document on the White House website is said to be a copy, have cast legitimate and growing doubt upon Mr. Obama’s fitness to hold office. His hostility to the United Kingdom, evidenced by his removal of the bust of Churchill from the White House, may have been somewhat assuaged by his relationship with the present UK Prime Minister: however, almost any other foreseeable candidate for his office would be less inimical to the United Kingdom.

If any successful moves are made against Mr. Obama or his key supporters, whether via ballot challenges in the civil courts, or via the exercise of Brady rights by a defendant accused of a crime signed into law by Mr. Obama, or via a disqualification from office under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, a dislocation considerably more severe than the fall of Nixon may be anticipated, leaving the free world leaderless at a time of great financial uncertainty. Therefore the issue, peripheral though it may at first seem, is not only of central importance to the United States, whose Constitution may have been flouted and circumvented in a material respect, but is also potentially of great consequence to Britain and to the West.

Apparently Obama has a hatred for the United Kingdom, evident from removing a bust of Churchill. Monckton also believes the fate of “the west” is in the balance.

There can be little doubt this provides support to the the recent research by Lewandowsky et.al.

24 thoughts on “Monckton questions Obama’s status as President: states there is enough to cast doubt on POTUS place of birth

  1. uknowispeaksense says:

    I didn’t think it was possible to surpass the level of “batshit crazy” but I reckon Monckton’s giving it a fair crack. Does anybody, except for the Climate Sceptics Party, really take him seriously?

  2. We can debate Obama’s birth certificate til the cows come home. But if you want a document that clears up any doubts about an individual’s birthright to sit in a legislature or not , this is what it looks like –
    http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

  3. Teletran1 says:

    Dear people who frequent this site 
    I want to ask you a few questions: When Julia Gillard says ‘the contours of a new world order are emerging but not yet apparent.’ Does Mike denounce her as a crackpot conspiracy theorist? When the greens post on their website that one of their policies is world government under the United Nations does Mike accuse them of a mental disorder? When a quick wiki search reveals that the fractional reserve banking system does indeed allow private corporations to create money out of nothing, does Mike attack them for their anti-semetism?
    Of course, he can’t say those things about those sources because he doesn’t want to demonize and smear those who agree with his position on Global warming. He only calls it ‘conspiracy theory’ when it is convenient, when it is useful as a demonization technique, because only a mentally ill ‘denier’ would believe in such ridiculous ideas, right? And the best way to fight ‘denial’ is to endlessly copy and paste what ‘deniers’ say about world government and debt slavery without even a single sentence debunking the concepts.
    By calling the new world order, UN governance and legalized counterfeiting and debt slavery ‘conspiracy theories’ Mike is trying to convince you that:
    a) these are just the insane fantasies of mentally ill people who seek comfort in an uncertain world, and
    b) no-one needs to take those peoples position on global warming seriously because they are ‘a’ type people.
    Of course the logic breaks down when respectable authorities like Gillard, Brown or Wikipedia admit that world government is the final phase of globalization and that central banks loan money into existence while the 99% have to work to ‘pay it back’.
    Or maybe those benevolent authorities who fight the evil deniers are talking about the ‘good’ new world order and the ‘nice’ debt slavery.
    Dear people who frequent this site 
    I want to ask you a few questions: When Julia Gillard says ‘the contours of a new world order are emerging but not yet apparent.’ Does Mike denounce her as a crackpot conspiracy theorist? When the greens post on their website that one of their policies is world government under the United Nations does Mike accuse them of a mental disorder? When a quick wiki search reveals that the fractional reserve banking system does indeed allow private corporations to create money out of nothing, does Mike attack them for their anti-semetism?
    Of course, he can’t say those things about those sources because he doesn’t want to demonize and smear those who agree with his position on Global warming. He only calls it ‘conspiracy theory’ when it is convenient, when it is useful as a demonization technique, because only a mentally ill ‘denier’ would believe in such ridiculous ideas, right? And the best way to fight ‘denial’ is to endlessly copy and paste what ‘deniers’ say about world government and debt slavery without even a single sentence debunking the concepts.
    By calling the new world order, UN governance and legalized counterfeiting and debt slavery ‘conspiracy theories’ Mike is trying to convince you that:
    a) these are just the insane fantasies of mentally ill people who seek comfort in an uncertain world, and
    b) no-one needs to take those peoples position on global warming seriously because they are ‘a’ type people.
    Of course the logic breaks down when respectable authorities like Gillard, Brown or Wikipedia admit that world government is the final phase of globalization and that central banks loan money into existence while the 99% have to work to ‘pay it back’.
    Or maybe those benevolent authorities who fight the evil deniers are talking about the ‘good’ new world order and the ‘nice’ debt slavery.
    Dear people who frequent this site 
    I want to ask you a few questions: When Julia Gillard says ‘the contours of a new world order are emerging but not yet apparent.’ Does Mike denounce her as a crackpot conspiracy theorist? When the greens post on their website that one of their policies is world government under the United Nations does Mike accuse them of a mental disorder? When a quick wiki search reveals that the fractional reserve banking system does indeed allow private corporations to create money out of nothing, does Mike attack them for their anti-semetism?
    Of course, he can’t say those things about those sources because he doesn’t want to demonize and smear those who agree with his position on Global warming. He only calls it ‘conspiracy theory’ when it is convenient, when it is useful as a demonization technique, because only a mentally ill ‘denier’ would believe in such ridiculous ideas, right? And the best way to fight ‘denial’ is to endlessly copy and paste what ‘deniers’ say about world government and debt slavery without even a single sentence debunking the concepts.
    By calling the new world order, UN governance and legalized counterfeiting and debt slavery ‘conspiracy theories’ Mike is trying to convince you that:
    a) these are just the insane fantasies of mentally ill people who seek comfort in an uncertain world, and
    b) no-one needs to take those peoples position on global warming seriously because they are ‘a’ type people.
    Of course the logic breaks down when respectable authorities like Gillard, Brown or Wikipedia admit that world government is the final phase of globalization and that central banks loan money into existence while the 99% have to work to ‘pay it back’.
    Or maybe those benevolent authorities who fight the evil deniers are talking about the ‘good’ new world order and the ‘nice’ debt slavery.

    • john byatt says:

      Teltran1 here is what you are quoting from Gillard

      http://australia-unsc.gov.au/australia-and-the-un/

      Why would anybody think her a crackpot ?

      please explain

      ,

    • john byatt says:

      Teltran1 here are the greens policies, which one scares you?

      http://greens.org.au/policies/

      • john byatt says:

        The Australian Greens will:

        provide a commitment by Australia to support the work of the UN, to abide by its charter and resolutions, and to meet financial obligations to the institution.
        support consideration, by a UN reform commission, of structural reforms such as:
        phasing out the veto powers of permanent members of the Security Council;
        regularly reviewing the permanent membership of the Security Council and expanding the permanent and non-permanent member representation;
        restructuring the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, including requiring General Assembly approval for the enactment of certain Security Council measures such as the enforcement of economic sanctions;
        establishing structures that provide a greater accountability to the peoples the UN represents;
        creating a consultative mechanism composed of representatives of civil society, including trade unions, environmental organisations, professional associations and other non-government organisations;
        creating an international council for conflict resolution; and
        making changes to UN decision making bodies to ensure that they more democratically represent the peoples of the world.
        support the establishment, by the UN, of an international crisis prevention and response centre to address threats from terrorism and other conflicts, to provide rapid response peacekeeping forces, and to rapidly respond to humanitarian crises.
        support the establishment of an international environmental court and an environmental council at the UN, with similar decision-making powers to the Security Council to deal with environmental issues of global significance.
        support the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and ensure that all nations are subject to its decisions.
        work towards the creation of a clear code of international law for breaches of universal human rights within individual States.
        support the abolition of the IMF, World Bank and WTO unless radical reform can:
        make their processes transparent;
        ensure voting and other decision making processes are more democratic;
        allow full democratic participation of representatives from affected communities, including non-government organisations (NGOs) representing disadvantaged groups such as indigenous people and women;
        democratise and improve their dispute settlement processes;
        abolish IMF and World Bank structural adjustment loans;
        reorient World Bank loans away from large, capital-intensive projects; and
        bring them into the broader ‘family’ of UN institutions and provide checks and balances over their power.
        Authorised and printed by Derek Schild, Australian Greens, 8-10 Hobart Place Canberra 2601

        FEATURED SPOKESPERSON

        NAME:
        Christine Milne
        ELECTORATE:
        Tasmania
        READ MORE
        Click here to download the full policy PDF

        which part scares you Teltran1?

        Checks and balances?

  4. john byatt says:

    Teltran1 you are confusing global governance with the crackpot One world government theories, is it not a good thing that all world states can agree on treating refugees humanely, that we all agree to tackle climate change, that we all agree on such things as
    how to handle war crimes and terrorist states, Global governance is simply global cooperation or a new world order if you like, it is the antithesis of global slavery

    The One world government theories are born of religious texts as in

    End Times Bible Prophecy – Revelation, Apocalypse, Armageddon …
    http://www.escapeallthesethings.com/The Book of Revelation is rife with confusing passages. ….. The Bible describes a future one world government leader ruling for the last 42 months of these End …

    pure nonsense

  5. Teletran1 says:

    So, the nwo is only a crackpot theory, unless you agree with the nwo, in which case its a humanitarian vision.

    Thanks john, i must have been confused like you said.

    Mike’s strategy of discrediting deniers by pointing out thier opposition to world government is not exactly a brilliant strategic move. Nwo awareness lends credibility to anyone willing to discuss it, still more to those courageous enough to oppose it, while those who still use the term conspiracy theory as a smear are clearly at the point of desperation.

    How do you expect to win an information war when it only takes me a few minutes to discover that the GE corporation not only makes a fortune out of windfarms, but also owns the weather channel that blames all extreme weather events on climate change, while running news networks selling wmd claims to justify war on the few nations that retain banking and energy independence, while generating a fortune through the loans required to pay for the planes and bombs that they are selling to the governments who use them to kill millions of people and bombing thier nations into the stone age leaving those lands contaminated with depleted uranium?

    Or the fact that the wwf’s main purpose is to use the money they get from thier partner coca cola to convince people that saving the environment involves sitting in the dark for an hour instead of powering up thier computer to research the real facts about cokes ongoing and serial environmental crimes in poisening ground water in poor Indian villages?

    Or maybe learning that the head of the alternative technology association who promotes and sells renewables to generate almost as much profit as fossil fuels do while producing about 3% of the output was the ceo of BP over the time the epa investigated its environmental practises and determined that it was the worst serial environmental criminal corporation in the world?

    Im sure that future generations will forgive your collaboration with these nwo vampires when they read back over your attempts to justify and excuse thier insane destruction and deception and realise that you simply lacked the intelegence or ability to comprehend how duped you are.

    Goodnight.

    • uknowispeaksense says:

      wow. I hope you didn’t pop an anneurism or fall from your soap box there fella. Since you seem to have so many criticisms in your overtly arrogant rant,not to mention, insults,how about you enlighten us and explain what you think the answer is in regards to solving the AGW problem? See if you can be polite.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Thanks for the post, it provides additional research leads for me. I’d like to introduce you to the concept of pattern seeking behavior:

      http://www.science20.com/news_releases/superstition_ritual_and_conspiracies_why_we_sometimes_see_what_we_want_to_believe

      http://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/superstition_pattern_seeking_and_loss_of_personal_control

      Or as Homer Simpson put it on bears:

      Homer: Well, there’s not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.

      Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.

      Homer: Thank you, sweetie.

      Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.

      Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?

      Lisa: It doesn’t work. It’s just a stupid rock.

      Homer: I see.

      Lisa: But you don’t see any tigers around, do you?

      Homer: Lisa, I’d like to buy your rock.

      • Teletran1 says:

        Yeah, I know those articles, Ive read a lot of stuff about conspiracies, been around for a while.

        Are you intending to deal with my criticisms of GE, WWF or ATA? I posted that stuff so someone would reply with a counter arguement.

        My position on these groups is clear from my post. What is your position on the facts I have raised? How would you defend the actions of these groups? How would you explain the difference between what they claim to stand for and what they actually do?

  6. Teletran1 says:

    Yes, Im sorry, i was insulting and arrogant.

    I will try to be more polite next time. I will look into agw solutions when the warmist side has proven its a real problem, not just a manufactured crisis to leverage world transformation.

    “We are on the verge of a global transformation.
    All we need is the right major crisis…”
    – David Rockefeller,
    Club of Rome executive member, probably the biggest oil you can get.

    I am with the people of the world who resist the nwo and the millions who have died because they live in ‘terrorist nations’ as John and the UN calls them. I am angry that the greens write nice stuff about non-violent solutions on thier website but when Lybia was demonized by the corp/gov media Adam Bandt was the first aus politician to call for blood.

    Prepare to see many more innocents killed in the coming years as the corporate financier nwo wearing the green UN mask brings peace and harmony with a depleted uranium bullet in the head.

    The problem is not agw, the problem is people like this:

    “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”[1] James Paul Warburg (1896-1969) was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Company which financed the Russian Revolution through James’ brother Max, banker to the government of Germany.

    As long as this site defends multinationals, international bankers, fake green groups, the violent imposition of global government and demonization of sceptics and nwo resisters as terrorists and mentally ill racists Ill post here because I see this movement as the problem and I guess talking about it with you is my solution. And I will try to be polite, thanks for reading.

    • john byatt says:

      So Teletran1 you obviously have convinced yourself that a new world order of co-operation among states and global governance equals one world government, and a communist one at that.
      You believe that AGW is a means to enact a one world government.

      Confirmation bias in action, but nothing would change your mind because while you can not be honest and confirm it your believe is based entirely on christian scripture,

  7. john byatt says:

    Okay Teletran! I am going to call you out on this

    ” I am angry that the greens write nice stuff about non-violent solutions on thier website but when Lybia was demonized by the corp/gov media Adam Bandt was the first aus politician to call for blood.”

    please back this claim up with evidence, if you cannot do that then accept that you are a simpleton

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      “Prepare to see many more innocents killed in the coming years as the corporate financier nwo wearing the green UN mask brings peace and harmony with a depleted uranium bullet in the head.”

      This, is well… the same arguments by Evans et.al about “international bankers” financing a new world order and wars. In other words, the protocols re-imagined for a new audience.

  8. Marian Rumens says:

    I question Monckton’s status as Lord

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: