Lord Monckton Believes Obama Birth Certificate like AGW: Fake!

I don’t know whether he is Kenyan or not,” Monckton said. “The point is that if I were you, I would want to make absolutely sure that he was born here before allowing him to be elected. And the birth certificate that he put up on that website, I don’t know where he was born. But I do know that birth certificate isn’t genuine……

It appears in layers on the screen in such a way you can remove quite separately each of the individual dates,” Monckton said. “You use Adobe Illustrator and each of the individual dates is in its own separate layer. This thing has been fabricated. Sheriff [Joe] Arpaio of Arizona has had a team on this for six months. And he has now gone public and said there’s something very desperately wrong with this and of course nobody is saying anything because the entire electorate has been fooled.

Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Lord Monckton Believes Obama Birth Certificate like AGW: Fake!

  1. R.D. Walker says:

    Damn. I hate to be in a position to disagree with Lord Monckton, but he is wrong. I am guessing he isn’t an advanced user of Adobe products.

    I watched the five videos. Watch them with the sound off and a knowledge of Adobe products, and they very nicely make the case that the layers were created by a scanner. Look, the layer bleed issue is defining. Some of the seals and marks that are moved around take the safety paper pattern with them. As far as I am concerned, that is case closed. Layers don’t bleed together when they are Photoshopped… ever. They almost always do when created in a scanner.

    Look, there are thousands of people who know the deep innards of Photoshop and Illustrator. These are the people who wrote the very code that drives it. If it were created in software, they would be able to definitively prove in a matter of seconds. There must be a few conservatives among these thousands of code writers. Yet we don’t hear a peep.

    Folks, those five videos were just awful. Embarrassing, really. It may turn out yet that the birth certificate is a big, fat, fraud. The layers in the document, however, will never, ever prove it. If anything, they are evidence that it was scanned. Trust me.

  2. ellen says:

    For those of you who still believe that Obama could have been born in Kenya, or in fact in any foreign country, a question for you:

    I’ll bet that you know (but, actually, you may have forgotten) that the US government requires, and has long required, that a child being carried into the USA must have some kind of official travel document to be admitted. This is usually a US passport for the child. Or, it could be the fact that the child is entered on the mother’s US passport. Or, it could be a US visa for the child on a foreign passport. Without one of those, we would not let the child into the country.

    So, IF Obama really had been born in Kenya (or in any country other than the USA), he would have had to have one of those documents–wouldn’t he? His family would have had to show the passport, wouldn’t they? To show the passport, they would have had to have applied for the passport or the visa for Obama. And, if Obama really were born in Kenya (or another country), they would have had to have applied for it in the US consulate or embassy there, wouldn’t they?

    Such applications are FILED by the US government. The documents exist in multiple files, the actual application itself, communication about it with Washington, entries in the passport file, entries in the application file, entries in the places where the child is carried into the USA. The Bush Administration was in charge of the State Department and the INS for eight years before Obama was elected. Don’t you think that they would have checked the claim that he was born outside the USA?

    All they had to do was find one of those files and McCain would win the election.

    Well, they never did. There is no such file.

    So the question is, do you think that the Bush Administration was part of the plot?

    Do you think that the files, the documents, the application for the documents, the communications about the documents were all lost or hidden? Remember, they are in multiple files, the file of the passport holder, the files of applications for passports, the files in the US embassy in foreign countries, the files in the State Department and in the INS (which would have checked in Obama at an entry point if he had actually traveled in 1961)–and yet no document has been found. Why not?

    The absence of the travel document, plus the Hawaii birth certificate, plus the confirmation of the facts on it by three Republican (and several Democrat) officials, plus the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, plus the witness who remembers being told of the birth and writing home about it (to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a birth to a woman named Stanley). All this is evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Oh, and by the way, Obama’s Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that Obama was born in Kenya. That was the first of the birther lies. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii. And she said in another interview, with the Hartford Courtant newspaper, that the first that her family had heard of Obama’s birth was IN A LETTER FROM HAWAII.

  3. R.D. Walker says:

    Yep. That is the problem with most conspiracy theories: they collapse under their own weight.

  4. Lyun says:

    Who gives a shit.
    The man is just the face at the window.

    Come the election he might get replaced, one way or the other, by someone with Mob connectons, but as long as his skin is pale he would get the OK….Yeah?

    John F Kennedy, the “national hero”, was hoisted into office by the fact that his father, who couldn’t run for the presidentcy, had connection with the Mob and so got the “bought” votes for JFK to go into office and almost lead the Country into the Third World War.

    It was Kruschev who backed down and saw reason with the Nuke withdrawal from Cuba…..Kennedy would have committed millions of his own people to the slaughter just to maintain the top dog attitude that all president have taken as a badge that portrays the office.

    O’Bama is after all bringing the Afghan war to a close…..that is not the same as saying….Having won the war the US is now returning home triumphant…..the war will still be there for a very long time yet…the Afghan people who lost family members simply because they were collateral damage, will never let the US forget their travesties.

  5. ellen says:

    Lyun:

    You have every right to vote on those issues. I would fight to the death for your right to do so.

    I was, however, discussing the site’s implication that Obama was born outside of the USA–which is simply crazy.

  6. John Cox says:

    R.D. Just my thoughts on this area of the image taken from the white house website.

    http://jcent.com/ObamaBirthCert.png

    The background has obviously been added since it doesn’t conform to the page curl and it extends beyond the border of the document.

    The original document didn’t have this security background. If the original document was copied using a copier that was loaded with security paper (instead of plain white paper) then you would end up with something like what is shown. This would explain the blurriness of the background in the center area due to original copy not being 100% transparent. Then the new document was scanned again and distributed.

    1) The original document was printed on plain paper and didn’t have a security background.
    2) After scanning the original document, it was printed on security paper (or the background was added using software). Perhaps government scanners add this automatically.
    3) The original scan was not black and white. You cannot achieve this shading effect in the curl using 1-bit color. Parts of the original capture included grayscale or color elements.

    I think that the addition of this background has fueled many conspiracy theories and it was an unnecessary manipulation. I have not examined the other evidence closely to make a determination if it is fake or not. But, that evidence will have to be scrutinized in the light of the facts above.

  7. R.D. Walker says:

    Everywhere there is print, the background pattern is not present. If the background were just added, the background layer would be pristine even behind the text. This is not the case and wherever text is present, the background pattern is not present.

    This would have to be caused by either…

    1) It was scanned and, therefore, the print hid the background patter and – naturally – it didn’t appear.

    or

    2) Somebody with some sophistication carefully and methodically erased the background pattern wherever the upper layers appear.

    Since a sophisticated user wouldn’t have been so stupid as to leave the layers visible after doing this, the only reasonable answer is #1. Even the idiot who created the fake Bush Texas Air National Guard documents was smart enough to print out and scan the fakes.

    I don’t see the page curl or extending beyond the edge issues you mention but even that could be easily explained. When I got a copy of my original birth certificate from the county recorder so I could get a passport, the microfiche image was printed on security background paper. It is likely that the only copies of Obama’s birth certificate are on microfiche. Therefore, it would be printed and likely printed on security paper.

    Whatever the case, there is substantial bleed between all layers including the background layer. That can only be caused by scanning.

    Again, my analysis doesn’t prove it is real. I am just stating that the layer evidence doesn’t prove it is fake. In fact, my somewhat knowledgeable review of it causes me to conclude that it is a scanned image and all of the layers were created by a scanner.

  8. notamobster says:

    ellen , there are many views on this site.

    Some think born here. some not.

    The views expressed by some of our writers doesn’t mean that the site supports it… just that we have a big tent and enough integrity to let people express their thoughts.

  9. ellen says:

    Re: “This is not the case and wherever text is present, the background pattern is not present. ”

    Security paper is DESIGNED to do funny things when it is scanned or even Xeroxed.

    PDF is designed to show complex documents in layers.

    The following experts say that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, and the State of Hawaii, which is the real expert, has not said that there is anything wrong with it.

    Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: \ldblquote The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.

    Nathan Goulding with The National Review: We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it. \’85 I\rquote ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.

    John Woodman, independent computer professional, said in a series of videos that the claims of fakery that he examined were unfounded.

    Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.”

    Haloing is normal when a document software program enhances the image of text to make it clearer.

    The following experts say that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, and the State of Hawaii, which is the real expert, has not said that there is anything wrong with it.

    Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: \ldblquote The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.

    Nathan Goulding with The National Review: We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it. \’85 I\rquote ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.

    John Woodman, independent computer professional, said in a series of videos that the claims of fakery that he examined were unfounded.

    Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.”

    Other research on this:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/book-review-a-question-of-eligibility/#more-16786

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/obama-conspiracy-theories-blog-launches-investigation-into-sheriff-joes-cold-case-posse/

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/decoding-the-long-form-part-1/

    http://www.thefogbow.com/arpaio-report/

    http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/03/on-the-release-of-report-from-sheriff-joe-arpaio-stating-barack-obamas-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

    The DOH of Hawaii stated in a letter that she had seen the original birth certificate being copied onto security paper and that was the document that she gave to Obama’s lawyer. That physical copy was passed around in the White House press room and everyone there got a chance to hold it, and feel the seal. One reporter even photographed it

  10. R.D. Walker says:

    That is good info Ellen and I agree with it.

    Don’t mistake my intellectual honesty with a defense of Obama, however. I would like nothing more than to see him humiliated today and for all of history. That I call it like I see it doesn’t mean I am a friend of Obama.

  11. John Cox says:

    R.D. Perhaps we are arguing the same point.
    The PDF as published on the white house site is of a document dated April 25, 2011. The document is a sheet of 8.5×11 security paper with a smaller semi transparent image printed (or otherwise overlaid) in the center. This smaller image is a capture of a document supposedly created in 1961. This 1961 document did not have the security paper. When the 1961 document was scanned, it appears that the left side of the document curled slight up off of the scanner bed which accounts for the distortion and black top left corner. The fact that the green background is not distorted through this curl is evident that the background was not part of the 1961 document but rather part of the 2011 document.

    Please see this marked up image:
    http://jcent.com/ObamaBirthCert2.png

    The AP version of the 1961 document has a light blue/gray background. This light background, if printed on security paper, would result in a slightly shaded/blurred background in areas where this is no text. You can see this clearly in the white house PDF, as expected.

    Now, when the resulting document was scanned again for distribution, the scanner’s chromatic aberration can account for the white areas that outline the text (which “erases” the background), I guess. I haven’t looked carefully at this part.

    I am only referring to the misconceptions surrounding the green background’s origination.

  12. Lyun says:

    I wonder If Bush junior has a birth certificate….

    I don’t see anyone contesting Bush junior’s parentage, in case some skeletons leap out of the closet….perhap a DNA test should be compulsory for all presidential wannabes, just to make sure they are of true blue American stock with parentage as stated on the birth documents.

  13. Slaphappypap says:

    1. I think he was born here.

    2. He was probably born in Cook County Hospital.

    3. Moved to Indonesia with Stanley and his Stepdad.

    4. Came back to the U.S. to live with his Grandmother in tough Kansas and later moved to the rough streets and public schools in Hawaii.

    5. His teenage years he spent most of his time smoking hash and listening to Frank Marshall’s communist poetry.

    6. Filling out any applications at McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Ace Hardware, Menards, Home Depot, Menards, TGI Friday’s, or any other “meaningless” job was out of the question.

    7. Sounds American to you? Not to me. Oh, College was free too.

    8. Most of this is sarcastic, I could keep going???

  14. R.D. Walker says:

    I get what you are saying John. Of course none of that proves it is a fake but it does confuse people.

    The curl was likely caused because the original wasn’t placed on a scanner. It was photographed for microfiche.

    I don’t get why it would be black in the upper left hand corner, however. That seems to imply the security background paper curled too.

  15. John Cox says:

    R.D.,

    I doubt they even had security background paper in 1961.

    Try making a photocopy of a page in a paperback book and you’ll see what I mean regarding the upper left hand corner. The area near the binding or the book will not be flat, thus farther away from the sensor, hence the “curl”.

    The color black indicates an absence of reflected light. Try making a scan or photocopy without closing the lid, you’ll get black anywhere there is no reflection.

    When the original document was captured to microfiche, or photocopied or whatever, it was not completely flat.

    The procedure followed by the the Hawaii Dept of Health in Aug 2011 is not known exactly, but this is when the green background was introduced. If the original certificate was stored on microfiche and printed onto security paper in 2011, then signed and stamped by the registrar, we would get an image that is consistent with the PDF. If we could inspect THAT document, you wouldn’t likely see the chromatic aberrations (haloing) around the text (as that would be impossible unless the printer could print white, which most printers can’t).

    The halo effect is likely the result of the final 2011 document being scanned by the White House. The security background in combination with the difference in contrast around the text could be playing tricks on the sensor – or the scanner’s image enhancement capabilities may be trying to sharpen the text for readability.

    I have not witnessed the layer controversy myself. The PDF file that I have doesn’t have any layers. However, some scanners output PDF files that includes a text layer using OCR to facilitate text searching or copy/paste.

    The whole thing is a Red Herring. Obama wants there to be invalid criticisms of him and his administration to water down the valid ones.

    As children, we are lead to believe in many incredible characters: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Jesus. However as we grow older, we learn that all but one of those creatures doesn’t exist. This in itself casts doubt on one’s faith. “Fool me once, fool me twice…”

    Don’t get me wrong, I am a Christian and I accept Jesus as my savior. I arrived at that in another way. But the realization of a child that his childhood fantasies were just fabrications leave him with doubt about other things that he cannot see.

    I apologize for the digression, but the Obama administration is best served by letting this controversy continue. It takes our eye off the ball and lessens the credibility of our voices.

    Frankly, I don’t care if he was born elsewhere. I think it would be obvious to say that he was immediately brought to Hawaii if he had been born abroad. That is just a technicality at best. I am more concerned about his childhood. Did he go to school in Indonesia and study the Koran? Did he have to renounce his US citizenship to do that? Are there Immigration/Customs records of him returning? These are not “birther” arguments, and perhaps none are disqualifiers, but it does reveal information about his heritage and character that we should know – and not immediately dismissed by the MSM just because the fake birth certificate proved to be a Santa Claus.

  16. R.D. Walker says:

    I am asking that if the green background was added later without a curl, I am asking this: Why is the green background curled? Why does it curl away and reveal black behind it. The whole point of our discussion is predicated on the text being curled but that the background isn’t. But it is thus revealing the black background. If the green background isn’t curled, um, why it it curled?

    I will point out again that I had to request a certified copy of my 1963 birth certificate in order to get a passport. My original was on microfiche. They put the microfiche in a reader, projected it and printed it for me. This part is important: They printed it on paper made in 2002 with a security pattern background. I doubt that pattern existed in 1963. My birth certificate is, however, authentic.

  17. John Cox says:

    The green background is NOT curled. See this: http://jcent.com/ObamaBackground.png

    It does not deform through the curled area of the birth certificate.

    The birth certificate measures about 6.5×5.25 inches. It was printed on a 8.5×11 inch piece of security paper in 2011.

    The black “curl” was printed on top of the green paper.

  18. R.D. Walker says:

    Ah, I get it.

    So it was just like my birth certificate copy: A microfiche image printed on modern tamper proof paper.

  19. John Cox says:

    Correct, R.D.

    My point is that much of the analysis overlooks this important point.

    Notice the 2011 stamp and signature by the state registrar at the bottom… it has the same halo effect as the body of the certificate. This is consistent with the theory that it is a scanner phenomenon that occurs in high contrast areas.

    Try scanning your certified birth certificate to see if you get the same effect.

    (Last point: I cannot state whether the WH birth certificate is real or fake – but much of the so-called evidence is easily refuted.)

  20. R.D. Walker says:

    We are perfectly aligned, John.

  21. ellen says:

    Re: “The AP version of the 1961 document has a light blue/gray background. This light background, if printed on security paper, would result in a slightly shaded/blurred background in areas where this is no text. You can see this clearly in the white house PDF, as expected.”

    The AP image is a photograph of the Xerox of the document, not a photograph of the document, and not an image of the PDF. That is why it is different.

    Re: “much of the so-called evidence is easily refuted.)”

    Please explain then how Obama could have birth notices in the newspapers in Hawaii in 1961 when in that year the papers only took their birth notices from the DOH of Hawaii, and the DOH of Hawaii sent out the notices only for births in Hawaii.

    Six facts that establish that Obama was born in Hawaii:

    1. Obama’s two official birth certificates, with the state seals on them. (The official physical copy of the long-form birth certificate was handed around in the White House press room, and one reporter said that she had felt the seal and took a photo of the document. http://turningthescale.net​/?p=541)

    2. The confirmation of the facts on the two birth certificates–that Obama was born in Hawaii–by THREE Republican officials in Hawaii.

    3. The notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. (The claim that the notices could have been placed by lying relatives turns out to be false because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, Hawaii insisted on a witness statement.)

    4. The absence of a US travel document for Obama in 1961. Nor has there been an application for such a travel document found.

    5. This witness, who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in Kapiolani Hospital in 1961 and writing home about it http://www.buffalonews.com​/incoming/article137495.ec​e (The birther allegation that Dr West had retired by 1961 turns out to be false).

    6. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was BORN IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview (Hartford Courant) that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

  22. R.D. Walker says:

    John was making a similar argument as you Ellen. Relax.

    I don’t think you will find many hard core birthers here. Almost all of us fall into two categories…

    1) Convinced he was born in Hawaii, or…

    2) Not sure if he was born in Hawaii or not.

    Personally, I am in the first group.

    I don’t know of any here who are on a birther crusade.

    On one thing we all agree: Obama will lie through his teeth and at the drop of a hat for any benefit no matter how trivial. The liar deserves no benefit of the doubt on this or anything else.

  23. ellen says:

    Re: “will lie through his teeth.”

    You have the right to vote against him, of course. But he was born in Hawaii and is a Natural Born US citizen.

  24. R.D. Walker says:

    Yeah, this guy lies so much that whether he says he was born in Hawaii or the sun rises in the east, my immediate reaction is to doubt him.

    If Obama told me my mother loved me, I would check his source.

  25. notamobster says:

    I personally dont give a damn, at this point. Nothing could or would be done to rectify it anyway. What I do care a great deal about is getting the quasi-marxist revolutionary out of the seat of power in our country.

    He is a lying, racist, hypocrite who endangers the future of the nation I love, and have sworn multiple oaths to protect & defend.

    This issue reduces our chances of defeating him. Like it or not the liberals framed this debate from the outset. Its a millstone. Cut it loose.

  26. Bman says:

    Sheriff Joe think’s it’s a crock as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnBFyaGDWN0

  27. ellen says:

    Re: “Yeah, this guy lies so much that whether he says he was born in Hawaii..”

    It is not a question of what he says. He has shown a birth certificate (actually both the short form and the long form) from Hawaii that shows that he was born in Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed by three Republican officials in Hawaii and several Democrats. The director of health of Hawaii stated in a letter that she had seen the original document from the files being copied onto security paper to make the official copy.

    In contrast to Obama having shown his birth certificate repeatedly and the officials confirming the facts on it, none of the Republican candidates for president has shown his birth certificate.

    The National Review thinks that Sheriff Joe is a crock: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors

  28. R.D. Walker says:

    “The National Review thinks that Sheriff Joe is a crock…”

    So do I. I am just confused because this would mean that Obama opened his mouth and the truth came out. That is unexpected.

  29. ellen says:

    Re: “Obama opened his mouth and the truth came out. That is unexpected.”

    Once again, it is not a question of what Obama says about his place of birth.

    He has shown a birth certificate (actually both the short form and the long form) from Hawaii that shows that he was born in Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed by three Republican officials in Hawaii and several Democrats. The director of health of Hawaii stated in a letter that she had seen the original document from the files being copied onto security paper to make the official copy.

    Re: “Like it or not the liberals framed this debate from the outset.”

    Yes the Hillary Clinton campaign raised the first doubts about Obama’s place of birth. But they did not keep on harping on the issue when there turned out to be NO evidence that Obama’s mother traveled in 1961 and the official birth certificate showing that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    The lies that Obama’s grandmother said that he was born in Kenya (she said that he was born in Hawaii, repeatedly, and in another interview she said that the first that her family had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii) were spread by birthers who hate Obama. The three forged “Kenyan birth certificates” and the election clerk who claimed that the birth certificate did not exist–these did not come from liberals.

  30. notamobster says:

    ellen – I don’t understand what forged documents have to do with framing this debate.

    I’m not a birther. If the State of Hawaii says it’s good, so do I. I don’t care either way.

    I do care that he is a lying, racist, quasi-marxist, piece of shit who loves nothing more than himself

  31. ellen says:

    Your headline did say this: “Lord Monckton Believes Obama Birth Certificate like AGW: Fake!”

    In short you have carried a claim that Obama’s birth certificate was forged. And you did this despite not being a birther.

    Well, it is fine to carry the views of the people you disagree with. If you do not agree with this, then fine. I am simply replying to people who arrive on this site and might believe Lord Monkton–who, by the way, is not a Lord.

    Re: “I’m not a birther. If the State of Hawaii says it’s good, so do I..”

    Bravo, that is fine, especially since the state’s birth certificate is confirmed by so much additional information.

    As for: “I do care that he is a lying, racist, quasi-marxist, piece of shit who loves nothing more than himself..”

    It seems you have good reason to vote against Obama. I, for one, would fight to the death for your right to vote against Obama (and for those who may want to vote for him too, of course).

    But it seems to me with all the issues going around about the economy and Obama lying, it is surely unnecessary to carry obviously false claims that he was born outside of the country or that his birth certificate was forged.

  32. notamobster says:

    To clear up a misconception – I didn’t author this piece – Bman did. We often disagree with each other here. This is a repository for ideas. No questions are off limits. If bman wants to post something I disagree with, I’m all for it.

    Notice that I try to discourage this topic (above) because I think it’s toxic and counter-productive.

    I still support his right to explore the issue, as I do your right to refute.

  33. Bman says:

    I came up with the title. That is all I contributed to this post. The rest is what Lord Monckton said. In the title, “Lord Monckton Believes…”, that should’ve given you the clue that this post was about Lord Monckton, not about Notamobster, RD Walker, BrunDawg, or any other person or their beliefs.

  34. ellen says:

    Re: ““Lord Monckton Believes…”

    Okay, he believes it. However, his belief is not confirmed by the facts. There are NO facts showing that Obama was born in Kenya or in any other country, and there is a birth certificate and the confirmation of officials and birth notices in 1961–all of which show that he WAS born in the USA.

    In contrast, NONE of the Republican candidates has shown his birth certificate. Those are the ones that Lord Monckton should be worried about. The chances that they were not born in the USA are a lot higher than Obama not being born in the USA.

    Re: “Notice that I try to discourage this topic (above) because I think it’s toxic and counter-productive.”

    I agree with you completely. The way to discourage the topic is not to post it unless, of course, you believe it.

  35. notamobster says:

    I didn’t post it!

  36. ellen says:

    Re: “I didn’t post it!”

    Are you saying that you are not the operator of this site?

    Whomever is the operator of this site is responsible for it, and the article is about what Lord Monckton believes.

  37. Bman says:

    I posted it ellen. Are you suggesting we only post topics in which everyone agrees with?

    “…and the article is about what Lord Monckton believes.”
    Yes. That is in the title. If you have a problem with what Monckton believes, go take it up with him with a strongly worded letter perhaps.

    I’m responsible for posting this article. What’s your point? Do I need to start my posts with a disclaimer stating: The following post does not necessarily reflect the views of everyone at the Real Revo.

    Would that be better?

  38. slinger says:

    ellen, the “operator” of this site does not believe in censoring the contributors to this site. If you want censored topics, then find a different site to troll.

  39. notamobster says:

    no ellen, I am not. just a writer.

    RJ- I don’t believe she qualifies as a troll. she has politely argued her side using facts and logic. While I disagree that stifling opposing views or even questions is the proper way to address any issue – that hardly makes her a troll.

    Ellen, if we here at the Real Revo had not allowed this post – what opportunity would you have ever had to so ably debunk it? And in front of many thousands of daily visitors, no less.

    I really hope you stick around and involve yourself in some more of our debates.

  40. R.D. Walker says:

    I guess I am the final authority here; a role in which I tread extremely lightly. Only on the rarest of rare occasions do I moderate anyone and, 9 times out of 10, it is just a few words within a post written by Brad intended to show us his ass.

    I certainly wouldn’t censor anyone for posting something like this. It would never even cross my mind. I don’t agree with Lord Mockington on this issue and I stated it extensively above.

    This site exists for the free exchange of ideas. Not censorship.

  41. Bman says:

    Whatever you do, just don’t post a picture of an asshole on the Revo. That’s one of the four simple goddamned rules….

  42. R.D. Walker says:

    Four simple goddamned rules

    1) No porn images. PG13 is okay, rated R or more is not. That rules out pictures of assholes.

    2) No racism. I can’t define it but I know it when I see it. So do you.

    3) No threatening or calling for violence against your fellow law abiding citizens. We all want to kill al Qaeda, however.

    4) Try not to violate copyright. I don’t know how to do that but at least try.

    That’s it. Four simple goddamned rules.

  43. Uke says:

    I’ve never asked what the rules were, but I have a feeling that I already know the rules…

  44. Uke says:

    Yep, confirmed. I knew the rules.

  45. notamobster says:

    Is number 3 meant imply that all who enter here MUST want to kill al qaeda? ;-)

  46. R.D. Walker says:

    I didn’t mean that but I am certainly willing to entertain that interpretation. :-)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *