We're a hawk on the issues.

Columnist: Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Lie, Just Like Climate Change

WorldNetDaily columnist Lord Christopher Monckton has written a new piece asserting that President Obama’s birth certificate is fake – and so is the science on climate change.

Monckton cites Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation of Obama’s birth certificate writing that his team, “after some weeks, reported that they were themselves unhappy with the document and wanted to investigate further.”

“Six months later,” he says,” he went public and said there was probable cause to suggest the White house document was a forgery. Yet his press conference, apart from a very brief item on CNN, got virtually no major news coverage.”

“Any [Attorney General] worth his salt would by now have gone straight to the federal district court and asked for orders requiring the state of Hawaii to hand over the original ‘birth certificate’ and related documents for forensic examination,” he asserted.

He then turns to climate change (you know, another liberal conspiracy), writing, “The debate about the ‘birth certificate’ is similar to the debate about the climate. As with the ‘birth certificate,’ so with the climate, the left have sullenly adopted a preconceived notion, and since they overwhelmingly control the news media, they are unwilling to allow any fact to be published if that fact runs counter to the Party Line.”

“So the voters are not given a fair selection of the facts on climate, on the ‘birth certificate’ or on many other subjects where the ‘liberal’ majority in the news media simply refuses to keep them briefed,” he continues. “Herein lies a grave danger to democracy. For if the news media, whatever their opinion, will not report the facts on both sides of a question, how can the voters obtain enough information to reach a fair decision on the basis of the evidence?”

“That is one of many reasons why I hope that Sheriff Joe will persist in his investigation until he leaves the attorney general of Arizona no option but to do the right thing,” he concludes. “If Sheriff Joe eventually succeeds in proving before a jury that the ‘birth certificate’ is a forgery, the voters will rightly be furious that – unless they had been fortunate enough to read WND – they had not previously been given any of the key facts behind the investigation. Then, perhaps, they will realize that news media controlled by the left can no longer be trusted. They will cease to subscribe to those media that have become most clearly prejudiced. And, by withdrawing their custom, they will drive those media out of business.”

About the author

Igor Derysh is the Managing Editor of Latest. com and a syndicated columnist whose work has appeared in The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Herald, Baltimore Sun, and Orlando Sun Sentinel, and AOL News. His work has been criticized in even more publications. Follow him on Twitter @IgorDerysh

  • Dale Mulkey

    Pathetic trash

  • asiafish

    Oooooh, birther nonsense AND climate denial in the same article. Best put your tin foil hats back on.

  • MsDad

    Freak.

  • David Stewart

    Why does this article refer to him as Lord Monckton? He isn’t a member of the House of Lords and has been ordered in England to stop using the title.

    • 2Smart2bGOP

      Because lying is what they do best.

      • Joyce Clemons

        You just lied, he can call himself Lord, and has desisted from using the House Of Lords copyrighted logo on his letters. The rest is between him and the Queen.

        • 2Smart2bGOP

          I stand by my statement; he can call himself Mickey Mouse for all I care, it doesn’t make any difference in his ability to lie well.
          Lying is what they do best.

          • Joyce Clemons

            I see, its easier to just spurt than to think. Got it! I see.

          • 2Smart2bGOP

            And it’s easier to make childish insults than think, it seems. Got it……thanks for proving your idiocy, though I didn’t really require it.

          • Joyce Clemons

            I filled this entire thread with thought, research and logic. All you did was make unsupported noises.

          • 2Smart2bGOP

            President of your own fan club, I see. Good for you.

          • Joyce Clemons

            Not really, but neither am into substituting personal attacks for the dialectic.

          • 2Smart2bGOP

            No? ‘Cos you seem pretty good at it….I think you’re just being modest……

            “……..easier to just spurt than to think.”

    • Joyce Clemons

      Not so. He is a peer, and as a viscount is entitled as such to the title Lord, and he received a complaint regarding the use of the logo/icon on training materials, and some concern about confusion that using the title implies he has a seat and vote. He does not, but he is eligible to both use the title and pursue a seat. But he cannot be divested of his title by the 1999 Act.

    • Joyce Clemons

      Debunking Monckton
      Lord Monckton inherited his title. The current Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is not a member of the House of Lords but he does hold a hereditary peerage and is entitled to take the title of Lord. However he is not a member of the house of Lords:http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/christopher-monckton

  • J. Kevin Michel

    This guy sells a particularly nasty form of snake oil.

  • Martin Miller

    Lunatic demagogue.

  • Jeff Warren

    I don’t often go by outward appearances, but this dude looks like he has not a brain in his head.

    • Thomas W. Yale

      Actually, he suffers from Grave’s disease. In 2011 on BBC he claimed to have cured himself, but of course he lied about that, too. It can be treated, but not cured.

      • Joyce Clemons

        You just fed into Jeff’s error. Why didn’t you correct his bigoted remark first, then make you own judgment?

        • Thomas W. Yale

          I don’t understand. I thought I did correct his error. Monckton’s not stupid, just dishonest. And merely pointing out that he lied about two things is not a judgement but an observation.

          • Joyce Clemons

            He evaluated the man based on his appearance. I didn’t disagree otherwise.

          • Joyce Clemons

            If Americans had done that to Barbara Bush, we would have been scandalized.

          • Thomas W. Yale

            If it’s definitive, why have birthers still challenged Obama’s legitimacy to have run for President? Why was McCain’s legitimacy challenged because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there? Why is Cruz’s legitimacy challenged because he was born in Canada?

            The phrase in “The Law of Nations” by Emerich de Vattel in 1758, Book 1, chapter 19 was mistranslated by English translators in London operating under English law. In French, native is rendered by “originaire” or “indigene”, not by de Vattel’s original wording of “naturel.” It was either unintentionally mistranslated or deliberately translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning from de Vattel to the English-only reader. The Founding Fathers, however, did rely on de Vattel’s original French, but still left naturalization up in the air.

            Furthermore, as the 14th Amendment, Section 3 specifies that no person can become President who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [the Constitution], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” and although it was meant to protect the nation from insurrection after the Civil War and protect the freedom of newly-freed slaves, it makes no mention of the nationality of the parents or the country in which the person was born as a basis of naturalization.

            Not only that, the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions, has never ruled on this matter.

            So how can it be definitive?

          • Joyce Clemons

            I said it was an argument, and you said it wasn’t decided, so the argument is that it is most likely to be definitive, given that there may be every reason in this particular case to depart from any code that emanates from a system springing from divine right (Black’s Law) to an alternate and international system; after all, we had appealed to Nature, and Natures God, and the world, for the rectitude of our actions, not to Black’s Law. Vattel’s treatises fill that need, and Franklin used them.

          • Joyce Clemons

            As to this translation business, please give the source, it is so fascinating.

          • Joyce Clemons

            Never mind I found it.

            “If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone’s natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Father’s were influenced from Blackstone’s Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone was increasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

          • Joyce Clemons

            All of the speculative matter aside, there is such an enormous wealth of proof that Vattel’s definition, as derived from the original French by Franklin, was a reflection of legislative intent, that it becomes paramount to eligibility challengers to meet all supportable tests of justiciability, standing, and such, along with the most learned and skilled argumentation. It’s equally paramount to all deniers of the challenge to dissuade, ridicule and explain away facts, and failing that, apply whatever means fair or foul to deflect a hearing at SCOTUS, or pervert such by means fair or foul. Age quod agis. No one expects any different, including the fractured logic.

          • Joyce Clemons

            His father was a non-resident foreign national, and he inherited the status of subject of the Crown at birth. US citizen notwithstanding, he is not legally A Natural Born citizen within the meaning of Article 2:1:5 http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

          • Joyce Clemons

          • Joyce Clemons

            I correct…not Black’s Law…Blackstone’s Treatises.

          • Joyce Clemons

            You’re not the least bit stupid, so try this..

            [De Vattel] applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His treatise was especially influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence. In particular, his defense of neutrality and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the U.S.

            Encyclopedia Britannica 2005

          • Joyce Clemons

            oops…a basis for arguing that his definition of natural born was understood as definitive by both the Founders and John Bingham, father of the 14th Amendment….oops…

    • Joyce Clemons

      You just did.

  • Michael

    I find it extremely worrying that a member of the ‘senior’ House of Parliament can make such a, thus far, unverified claim, while I also wonder how many other false passport/birth certificate holders there are in the USA – including ex-Nazis.

    • Cathryn Sykes

      He’s not a member. He is a hereditary peer, but there was some kind of law passed that disqualified him from serving in the House of Lords. Go look at this. The man is totally cuckoo. http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_christopher_Monckton

      • Joyce Clemons

        He is not disqualified. He is just not seated.

  • alykatma

    Who is the guy and why is he commenting on American politics and science? We do not have Lords in US so bugger off

    • Joyce Clemons

      Yeah, he’s no PIers Morgan, now is he…that’s a real Lord.

  • Jim Maloney

    Obama’s mother is an American citizen – nothing else matters ! End of Story.

    • Cathryn Sykes

      And he WAS born in Hawaii….and despite the delusions of the birthers, Hawaii is, and was a full-fledged state when Obama was born. (Even if it had still been an American territory, he’d still qualify as an American.)

      • Joyce Clemons

        He’s a citizen because his mother was a citizen, so it doesn’t matter where he was born as far as being a citizen. Give a sound legal argument that he is ‘natural born citizen’ as that term was intended in the legal context of the time and in the Founder’s understanding, and consistent with any relevant case law, and authoritative unrebutted scholarship, and maybe the fact that his being American is not pertinent will be clear. Lot’s of American citizens cannot be President. I don’t know why people take this so personal. It’s just a legal argument. And it is a legitimate legal argument, even if the extraneous theories are not vetted. Why did the Founder’s add “Natural Born” and where does that term come from? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • Joyce Clemons

      De Vattel talks about the relationship between individuals and government in Book 1 of The Law of Nations. He describes two types of citizen. In § 212. Citizens and natives. He says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” When de Vattel’s translator uses the phrase “natural-born citizens” (this phrase is not literally in the French language original) he is invoking a principle of natural law, as he shows when saying: “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” And finally, to emphasize what was said before, de Vattel concludes: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

  • Mark Balson

    All you have to do is look at the crazy eyes. It is a dead tell.

    • Joyce Clemons

      Graves Disease, and you have no eyes here that I can see…does that mean you are like…I don’t know, not a real humanoid?

  • MSB_Concerned_Citizen

    From
    Wikipedia: “Monckton asserts that the House of Lords Act 1999, that
    deprived him of a hereditary seat, is flawed and unconstitutional. In
    2006 he referred to himself as “a member of the Upper House of the
    United Kingdom legislature” in a letter to US Senators,[48] and has also
    claimed to be “a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit
    or vote.”[49] The House of Lords authorities have said Monckton is not
    and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a
    non-voting or honorary member of the House.[6][34]

    In
    July 2011 the House of Lords took the “unprecedented step” of
    publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk
    of the Parliaments, which concluded, “I am publishing this letter on the
    parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you
    are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation
    that you are not.”[25][26]

    Thus, any comments from this fraud regarding anything are left without merit. Please sir, just stfu.

  • Truthforme

    The Media is controlled by the left?, he is delusional cannot be believed in anything he says!

  • Cathryn Sykes

    I just want to know one thing…..even if the birth certificate is a lie, the birth announcement in the Honolulu paper is authentic. Which means that someone cooked up this whole “conspiracy to put the jihadists’ minion in the White House” some 52 years ago. So answer me one question: Why this kid? Why did they pick this kid? Fifty years ago, I seriously doubt anyone would ever think a black guy would get into the White House as anything but a servant….so why a black kid? And he’s from a family with no real wealth…..no power or influence….no political connections….why would a self-respecting jihadist waste time grooming this kid? Now me, if I wanted a candidate that had a real shot at the Presidency, I’d pick a white kid from a prominent family….a rich family….oil wealth maybe?…with plenty of political connections. A kid who was vain, but not terribly bright, so you could flatter him into doing almost anything…that’s the kind of kid I’d look for. Wait a minute….white, rich family, politically connected….a kid who is vain, stupid….easily manipulated into doing things that harm America….starting an unnecessary war, for example….maybe I’m onto something…..

    • MSB_Concerned_Citizen

      I do believe you are!

      • Joyce Clemons

        Emer de Vattel (25 April 1714 – 28 December 1767) was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy.

    • Joyce Clemons

      If the mysterious PTB, you know, someone like the Koch’s…or whoever flavor-of-the-month 1%, wanted to make sure that they didn’t have one scintilla of doubt about their candidates eligibility, they could have groomed someone, anyone of African descent easily and made extra sure to trace the “natural born” clause back to its most likely source of legal meaning, and then, and only then, would you never see all of this fuss. John Bingham of Ohio threw the monkey wrench into the works, in 1866. Deal with it.

      • Joyce Clemons

        Excuse me, I have to go and buy my winter fuel now, to deal with the expected 2nd polar vortex in a row, here in the heartland.

  • Joyce Clemons

    Lord and Lady Douchebag and Co. are also lying on this thread.