Monckton tells Lords: Obama presidency at risk
Jerome R. Corsi
A dislocation more severe than the fall of Watergate may be anticipated'
In a 20-page report, a former aide to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher warns his hereditary peers in the U.K. the Obama presidency is in danger of falling because of evidence he considers conclusive that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.
“Mr. Obama’s legitimacy is now in doubt,” Lord Christopher Monckton concludes in the report.
Monckton bases his conclusions largely on the findings of Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s law enforcement investigation. Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse announced March 1 there is probable cause that Obama’s long-form birth certificate posted on the White House website April 27, 2011, and his Selective Service registration form are forgeries.
“A dislocation more severe than the fall of Watergate may be anticipated, leaving the free world leaderless at a time of great financial uncertainty,” Monckton advises the British nobility.
He put his fellow peers on notice that he considers it likely a civil or criminal court challenge of Obama’s eligibility will eventually succeed that could remove Obama from office before the November 2012 election through a disqualification determined under the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“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,” he wrote, stressing his concerns were based on his own personal investigation into the issue.
As WND reported in March, Monckton visited Arpaio at the sheriff’s downtown office in Phoenix, Ariz.
During that March meeting, WND produced a video confirming Monckton received a confidential briefing from Arpaio and Mike Zullo, the lead investigator of Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse conducting the law enforcement investigation into Obama’s eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
An inside job?
Examining the chain of custody of the Obama long-form birth certificate, Monckton argues a forger should be found within the Hawaii Department of Health. On page 7 of the report, Monckton presents his reasons for coming to this conclusion:
Sheriff Arpaio’s cold-case posse in Maricopa County, Arizona, established that these layers were not an artifact either of optimization or of optical character recognition. In any event, the statements from the Governor of Hawaii and from the White House Press Office establish a chain of custody whereby no alteration or processing of the photocopied images was performed at any point. If a forger other than one acting with the knowledge of the Hawaii Health Department had fabricated or altered the original image, the forger would have anticipated that the Department would notice the forgery.
On page 15, Monckton states that the charge by Arpaio’s law enforcement investigation that Obama’s Selective Service registration form was also forged implies Obama himself was involved in the forgery:
If the President’s Selective Service Document is also a forgery, as the cold-case posse believe it to be, the apparent perpetrator is Mr. Obama himself, since it is his signature that appears on the document.
Monckton further charges both Obama and the Hawaii Department of Health are engaged in a cover-up. “The sealing of the President’s records appears to have been carried out to an exceptional and costly degree,” Monckton wrote, noting “almost all school, college, and other records of Mr. Obama’s early life have been sealed and are not available to the public.”
Evidence of forgery
In his report, Monckton reviews much of the evidence Arpaio released at the March 1 press conference that the Obama long-form birth certificate is a forgery, including a technical discussion of the document’s multiple layers and various typewriter anomalies.
He notes that the registrar’s date stamp and signature stamp appear independently on different layers of the White House website copy of the birth certificate, commenting:
No scan of an original photocopy from Hawaii could possibly produce such separation of discrete items into separate layers. This is definitive evidence that – contrary to the chain-of-custody account from official sources – the document was not photocopied, but fabricated piecemeal. No legitimate document process would result in this separation of information into independent layers.
Monckton proceeds to stress that, for him, the evidence regarding the registrar’s date and signature stamps was conclusive proof of forgery:
It would have been simple to place the photocopy from Hawaii into a scanner, capture the electronic image, and then print the reporters’ copies and upload the website copy. The foregoing evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the simpler route was not followed, and that instead the image was pieced together from several sources.
He discussed at length news reports WND broke last year that Hawaii’s Gov. Neil Abercrombie took office boasting he would find and publish Obama’s birth certificate, only to admit belatedly that he couldn’t do it. WND reported Abercrombie’s long-time friend Mike Evans said in several radio interviews that the governor told him there was no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii. After WND’s report, however, Evans retracted his contention, insisting Abercrombie “never told me there was no birth certificate.”
Hawaii complicit in cover-up
“Hawaii is taking exceptional and costly steps to avoid allowing anyone to scrutinize its documentation, even when its own laws grant applicants the right to see long-form certificates,” Monckton writes.
He specifically cites the case of Virginia Sunahara, an infant born on Obama’s stated birth date, who died the following day at the same hospital in which Obama was supposedly born.
The Hawaii Department of Health, with the agreement of the Hawaii courts, continues to deny a request by Sunahara’s brother last year to obtain a long-form birth certificate for his dead sister.
“This less than forthright conduct on the part of the authorities in Hawaii raises legitimate questions about the conduct of [the Hawaii Department of Health and the Hawaii state courts],” he says.
Monckton emphasizes his conclusion that despite an alleged cover-up in Hawaii and the tendency of Obama’s political supporters to dismiss people who doubt the authenticity of his birth certificate as “birthers,” the subject of Obama’s eligibility “will move up the political agenda in the coming months, notwithstanding the studied indifference of the media and of both parties to it.”