Win or lose, Obama was not and is not the president
Posted by By GeorgeM at 7 November, at 05 : 25 AM Print
Lord Christopher Monckton has dessert with us in Westlake, CA.
.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, high priest of climate skepticism, advised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, wrote leaders for the Yorkshire Post, was editor of the Catholic paper The Universe, managing editor of the Telegraph Sunday Magazine, assistant editor of Today, and consulting editor of the Evening Standard. He invented the million-selling “Eternity Puzzles,” “Sudoku X” and a promising treatment for infections. See the Science & Public Policy Institute.
“The investigators are closing in. When prosecutions begin (and it is “when,” not “if”), those who failed to honor their oaths of office will be in the crowded dock alongside Obama as accessories after the fact of forgery, fraud and – let us not mince words – high treason.”
CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY
Win or lose, Obama was not and is not the president
As I write, it is not yet clear who has won the presidential election. Win or lose, though, Mr Obama was not and is not the president. The Hawaiian long-form “birth certificate” he publicly endorsed and posted at the White House website last year as proof that he was born in the jurisdiction of the U.S. and is thus constitutionally eligible to be president is a forgery.
I can prove it.
I have been asked to prepare an affidavit in one of the 80 court cases U.S. citizens have filed in the hope of persuading someone – anyone – in office to lift a trembling, liver-spotted finger and do something about the forgery.
The affidavit, which I shall be swearing today, is posted here, with the written permission of the plaintiff’s attorney.
More: http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/win-or-lose-obama-was-not-and-is-not-the-president/
“The Hawaiian long-form “birth certificate” he publicly endorsed and posted at the White House website last year as proof that he was born in the jurisdiction of the U.S. and is thus constitutionally eligible to be president is a forgery.” “Born in the jurisdiction of the U.S.” – why in heaven’s name is that argument being used at this late stage of this matter? The issue of WHERE he was born is not the primary issue. That is that he has claimed a man as his father who was not a U.S. citizen – end of story.
His long affidavit spiel going into probability theory is likely not to get him pst first base – in American parlance – because he can be dismissed right off the bat (another Americanism) as neither a document expert or an electronic document expert. I am saying that I am not sure that his offer of a supportive affidavit would necessarily be helpful to anyone’s case, and may even muddy their case up a little.
Or if he DOES offer a supporting affidavit, wouldn’t it be better if he laid out a scholarly argument as to the difference between a ‘natural born subject’ in English common law, and the form of law that the Founders used, in their rejection OF English common law? As a Brit, and an obviously politically knowledgeable one, THAT COULD POSSIBLY carry some weight…
Stan, 6 months ago
He’s done that already. Don’t know if he used it in a case, but he sent it around widely, including officials, who ignored it.
GeorgeM, 6 months ago