In this memorandum I reply to comments made by some 300 readers to my column of Nov. 7 on Mr. Obama’s forged “birth certificate.”
I am grateful to the many readers who support the work of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the unpaid, unsung heroes of his cold-case posse – an example to the rest of government in that it costs taxpayers nothing. Almost 100 readers wrote to me directly. Another 300 went online to register their views. Many were supportive. Some were not.
This reply will concentrate on those who disagree with my analysis, whom I shall divide into four categories: the loonies, who unfairly attack Obama ad hominem; the reasoners, who address my argument rationally and to the point, if often erroneously; the yah-boos, who have merely perpetrated and perpetuated the left’s characteristic logical fallacy of attacking the man ad hominem rather than addressing the substance of his argument ad rem; and the do-nothings, who wring their hands and say nothing can be done about the forgery.
Let us get the loonies out of the way. I will criticize Mr. Obama for bad policies, but in my columns there is no support for racism. There is only one race: the human race.
Likewise, you will find no hatred or contempt of Islam. The Constitution guarantees religious freedom. The founder of my religion preached love, not hate.
On any view, allegations that Obama is “gay,” by which the commenters seem to mean “homosexual,” or that he is “Antichrist” or “Satan,” ought not to be indulged by the moderators. The Constitution guarantees free speech, but there is no obligation on WND to encourage vicious and baseless allegations of this kind.
Nor will you find here any accusation that Mr. Obama is complicit in the forgery of his “birth certificate.” The White House document is a forgery, but Sheriff Arpaio and his lead investigator, Mike Zullo, have not revealed any evidence that Mr. Obama played any culpable part in the forgery.
Unless and until any such evidence comes to light, and even then, at all stages before trial and conviction, Mr. Obama is entitled to be presumed innocent.
It is inappropriate to allow political opinions to intrude in what should surely be a straightforward, factual question whether various serious crimes have been and are being committed. Keep politics out of it.
Let us get those who challenge my math out of the way. Professor Charles Delzell of Louisiana State University has a stellar mathematical resume. He contacted me out of the blue to tell me he had sent his congressman and his two senators my affidavit that found only a 1 in 75 sextillion probability that Obama’s “birth certificate” and other identity documents are genuine. He wrote that he had told them he endorsed my mathematical reasoning. I asked him for an affidavit saying that. “>He kindly supplied sworn and notarized testimony confirming and endorsing my findings.
My calculations crucially depend on the published findings of Sheriff Arpaio and his team. One commenter wrote: “Lord Monckton is indeed a mathematician. The issue is not with his methodology, but the information he bases that on.” I had based my analysis on the very large number of irregularities the sheriff’s investigators found in Mr. Obama’s various identity documents. I only did so after visiting the sheriff and conducting detailed conversations with his principal investigators and with several experts. After making those enquiries, I consider his findings credible.
“Statistically, Monckton can stop counting at the first item he regards as ‘actually impossible.'” Yes, I could have taken a single irregularity that appears impossible and condemned the entire document on that basis. However, my affidavit explained that for the sake of fairness and caution I preferred to assign a low probability, rather than a zero probability, to apparently impossible irregularities.
“Monckton can’t do basic arithmetic, – i.e., 213 is 8192, not 65000.” I had stated that there were 13 significant irregularities in the White House “birth certificate” and a further 3 in Mr. Obama’s other identity documents. That makes 16, and my affidavit states that figure: 216. A probability of 1 in 216 is, as I said it was, less than 1 in 65,000: specifically, it is 1 in 65,536.
“A computer image is not self-authenticating.” No, it is not. But evidence in official statements from the governor of Hawaii and the White House Press Office, taken with Mr. Obama’s own press statement endorsing the forged document, establishes a chain of custody that rules out any processing of the scanned image of the original paper document.
Also, internal evidence in the White House document provides several indications of electronic tampering to fabricate the electronic image piecemeal rather than to scan it from a paper original. A computer image is not self-authenticating: but it may be – and, in the present instance, is – self-incriminating.
Another commenter asked whether similar Hawaiian birth certificates of the period would have exhibited as many irregularities as the White House document. The investigators have examined many such certificates, and the answer is no.
They have interviewed the official responsible for ensuring accuracy in birth records in the early 1960s. Her procedures were so rigorous that mistakes were likely to be rare. A dozen mistakes in a single birth certificate would be unthinkable.
Besides, my affidavit explicitly tested the possibility of frequent errors by assuming that each of 16 separate irregularities found by investigators in Obama’s identity documents might occur as often as half the time.
Even on that extreme assumption – which would horrify the meticulous lady in charge of the records at the time – the probability that the White House document is genuine is less than 1 in 65,000.
“I just love how prescient President Obama’s mother was. She even got the birth announcements to the newspapers on time just to fake his birth.” Note the sneering tone of one who takes an aprioristic, political position rather than looking unemotionally and objectively at the facts.
I had always been puzzled as to why a student of Ms. Dunham’s background would have bothered to act counter-culturally by inserting two birth notices in the Hawaiian newspapers. The posse were puzzled, too. They dug – and found the answer.
The sheriff’s investigators discovered that the newspapers inserted birth notices themselves en bloc from the official birth records (which seem to have been less of a state secret in those days than today).
At that time, bizarrely, Hawaiian law permitted any adult to obtain a birth record for any child born anywhere in the world to parents at least one of whom was Hawaiian.
I conclude from the existence of the two advertisements that there is indeed a birth record for Mr Obama in Hawaii, but that it is in a form consistent with his having been born in Kenya, where the biography he personally wrote and annually updated for his literary agents in each of the 17 years 1991-2007 inclusive said he was born. The genuine birth record will not say he was born at a particular place in Hawaii.
Thanks to the existence of that strange law, the mere insertion of birth records in a Hawaiian newspaper provide no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. Check the advertisements themselves: they mention no place of birth.
“It would mean the state of Hawaii and every Democrat senator is in on the scam.” Someone in Hawaii is certainly in on the scam, which – inferentially – is why Hawaii has taken the unusual and improper (if not unlawful) step of refusing in-person requests by law enforcement officials to see the original birth records.
Besides, members of all parties in both houses of Congress, not just Democratic senators, may be said to be acting as accessories after the fact of forgery, fraud and high treason by failing to raise any objection even when credible evidence of these crimes has recently been put before each of them in writing at the hands of a senior attorney.
“Silly birther nonsense” from one commenter and, from another, “You birthers are part of the reasons Mitten is losing. You’re a disgrace.” I am no birther. I have no idea where Mr. Obama was born. It may even be that he has no idea either. But the White House document is a forgery. The probability that it was genuine, and that question alone, was what attorneys in a U.S. court case had requested expert testimony about. I was not asked to consider where Mr. Obama was born.
A commenter writes that I lie in saying I am an appointed expert reviewer for the forthcoming “Fifth Assessment Report” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The procedure for appointment is as follows. Each potential expert reviewer completes a form listing his or her publications in the reviewed literature on climate change. The IPCC considers the publications and decides whether to appoint the reviewer. Then it notifies those reviewers who have been appointed. I have been appointed. Get over it.
“Daffy hereditary peer” and “Don’t we have enough nuts in the U.S.? We need to import them from England?” and “You all need to go back to writing about BatBoy and UFOs” and “Crazy does exist on both sides of the Atlantic. Monckton has plucked statistical possibilities out of his bum.” The key distinction between Man and the beasts lies in his ability to reason. Only the beasts merely snarl and hiss and bark and yelp and whine and mewl and hoot.
“What a splendid forgery of the House of Lords emblem.” My charming logo shows a portcullis, a standard heraldic device, surmounted by a coronet with nine of the 16 pearls of its corona visible. That is the vicecomital coronet. Only 29 people in the United Kingdom – viscounts, an elegant, valuable, endangered species – are entitled to use that coronet.
Garter King of Arms, the world’s top expert on heraldry, says anyone may freely adopt and use any combination of heraldic symbols not registered to anyone else. My logo is a unique combination not registered to anyone else.
Nor is my logo, which I drew for myself, anything like the House of Lords emblem. That emblem shows the words “HOUSE OF LORDS” surmounting the royal achievement of arms, lion and unicorn and all, surrounded by an elliptical cartouche.
The emblem of the Houses of Parliament shows the royal Crown surmounting a portcullis. The commenter – a U.S. citizen – is perhaps unaware of the distinction between a royal Crown and a vicecomital coronet. His ignorance was temporarily shared by the Clerk of the Parliaments, who has now been disabused of this and other foolish notions that he had at one stage unwisely entertained.
As for the “not-a-member-of-the-House-of-Lords” brigade, I am a member of the House, but without the right to sit or vote. Get over it. True, the aforementioned Clerk once wrote me an arrogant letter saying I was not entitled to say that. But he was ill advised to do so, and – disgracefully – did so without first having obtained the authority of the House. He has no doubt been told off by his betters for his folly.
I consulted learned counsel, whose 11-page legal opinion ends with the words, “Therefore the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a member of the House of Lords, albeit without the right to sit or vote, and he is fully entitled to say so.”
“I taught in one of the best Applied Mathematics departments in the world. I say with some considerable authority that what you wrote about the calculation of probabilities is absolute hogwash.” A real mathematician would have offered some sort of reasoning rather than mere yah-boo.
Also, if that commenter had stayed awake in logic class, he would now be able to recall that the argumentum ad verecundiam, his argument from appeal to the authority of his own questionable reputation, is a logical fallacy from which no valid conclusion can be drawn except that the arguer is prejudiced or ignorant, or both.
“A retroactive action to undo what you don’t like IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.” A retroactive action to undo what a society does not like is called a “prosecution.” It is not for me to say whether there will be any prosecution for the White House forgery. But it remains the job of criminal investigators to investigate crimes. It will then be up to the prosecuting authorities to decide whether the strength of the evidence merits prosecution.
“Hawaii has officially certified that the WH image exactly matches the vault birth certificate.” It has not quite done that. Weasel words were used. If it had done so, under the “full faith and credit” provision in the Constitution, the Union and all other states would normally have had to take Hawaii’s word for it.
However, where a state has certified what a serious and credible law enforcement investigation has found to be a manifest forgery, full faith and credit is inapplicable. That provision cannot be construed to provide Hawaii with a “Get Out of Jail Free” card if its officials conspire to commit forgery, fraud and high treason.
“If Romney and Ryan aren’t willing to be claimants, it’s over.” They aren’t: That would involve honoring their oath to uphold the Constitution. Boehner Republicans don’t do that: They will not step up to the plate and defeat a fraudulently nominated Democrat. Their absence of vertebrae renders them floppily irrelevant. Once the sheriff’s investigators have tracked down one or two points, they will be able go to the Federal District Court and ask for an order requiring Hawaii to let their forensic investigators inspect the original birth records. On the evidence already presented at Sheriff Arpaio’s two press conferences, in my submission the Court would be bound to grant that application.
If the attorney general of Arizona were not minded to do his duty by putting the application before the Federal District Court, there would be nothing to prevent Mike Zullo, the lead investigator, from adding any further relevant evidence to his existing affidavit and allowing the attorney general of another state to make the application instead. If that happened, and if the execution of the court order turned up definitive evidence of forgery and fraud, the attorney general of Arizona would then have to resign on grounds of unsound judgment and dereliction of duty.
“Obama was elected, verified and sworn in. If he is verified and sworn in again, he remains the president. None of this matters.” Nice try, but no. If he had no right to be sworn in, and if – whether by his own deception or by a deception organized by others – his nomination was defective, then the swearing-in and all of his acts as president would be null and void. Bye-bye, Obamacare.
“Nobody wants to be responsible for the riots that would ensue in every major city across the nation.” This is the nastiest of all the logical fallacies, the argumentum ad baculum, the argument of force. “If you don’t leave Black Jesus on the throne, we’ll set fire to your houses and businesses.”
There were riots when the courts found discrimination against black people in the South unlawful. The law prevailed. If Mr. Obama is found to be unlawfully president, the law will prevail again, threats of violence notwithstanding.
“If you’re going to start throwing people out because they broke their oaths, we wouldn’t need elections anymore.” Actually, we would, more than ever. We would need elections to replace today’s craven placemen with statesmen more in the image and likeness of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
“The birth certificate doesn’t matter: His alleged ‘father’ was not a natural-born U.S. citizen.” In the Happersett case in 1874, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether both parents of a natural-born citizen had to be U.S. citizens. The in dubiis libertas principle accordingly prevails: Since the Supreme Court has never determined explicitly that two U.S. parents are a necessary precondition for natural-born citizenship, Mr. Obama’s parentage is no bar to his presidency.
However, a natural-born citizen must be born within Uncle Sam’s jurisdiction: iin the United States or its territories, or in a U.S. embassy or military base overseas. If Obama was not born under Uncle Sam’s cloak, he is not validly president.
Recall that the most serious doubts about whether Obama is a natural-born citizen have been aroused by Obama himself. It was he who personally wrote and annually verified or amended the biography circulated by his literary agents, describing himself for 17 successive years as having been born in Kenya. Only in the year he began his run for the presidency did the narrative precipitately change.
It is he whose signature appears on the selective-service registration that bears an impossible stamp with a two-digit year rather than the four digits specified by the Department of Defense in writing. It was he who, as his first act as “president,” and on his first full day in the job, issued an executive order sealing all of his own past records from public scrutiny. It was he who, on April 27, 2011, personally made a press statement publicly endorsing the manifest forgery now posted at the crime scene that is the White House website.
Without these numerous questionable actions on Mr. Obama’s own part, there would be no criminal investigation into Whitehousegate – an investigation that is now ineluctably closing in on the culprits.
To track the progress of the investigation, you can rely exclusively on WND. The mainstream news media are in the tank for Obama. They have long since abandoned any attempt – or even pretense – at objectivity. Their way of dealing with the growing embarrassment of having served as cheerleaders for this catastrophic non-president is to remain sullenly, miserably silent as Whitehousegate unfolds under their bulbous, alcohol-reddened noses.