During Barack Obama's campaign for president and in the years following his election, many conspiracy theories have been circulated, asserting that he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and consequently, under Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, is ineligible to be President of the United States.

Some of these theories allege that Obama's published birth certificate is a forgery—that his actual birthplace is not Hawaii but Kenya. Other theories allege that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia in childhood, thereby losing his U.S. citizenship. Still others claim that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen because he was born a dual citizen (British and American). Some political commentators have characterized these various claims as a racist reaction to Obama's status as the first African American president of the United States.[4]

Such claims have been promoted by fringe theorists ("birthers"), some of whom have sought court rulings either declaring Obama ineligible to take office, or granting access to various documents which they claim exist, and which they claim would evidence such ineligibility; none of these efforts has been successful. Some political opponents, especially in the Republican Party, have expressed skepticism about Obama's citizenship or been unwilling to acknowledge it;[5] some have proposed legislation which would require presidential candidates to provide proof of eligibility.[5]

Expressed belief in such theories has persisted despite Obama's pre-election release of his official Hawaiian birth certificate in 2008;[1] confirmation, based on the original documents, by the Hawaii Department of Health;[6] and the April 2011 release of a certified copy of Obama's original Certificate of Live Birth (or long-form birth certificate); and contemporaneous birth announcements published in two Hawaii newspapers.[7] Polls conducted in 2010 suggested that at least one quarter of adult Americans said that they doubted Obama's U.S. birth,[8][9] while a May 2011 Gallup poll found that 13% of American adults (23% of Republicans) continued to express such doubts.[1

The chief executive of the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) said that it was a “source of some surprise” to him that authorities had brought cases against junior bankers but not senior directors.

Speaking at a conference in London, Mr Bailey said it was “not the job of the regulator” to say if individuals should go to prison.

But he added: “It is to my mind a very striking observation and difficulty with the crisis that no formal action has been taken against any chief executive or any chairmen of a failed institution. Not because I have a personal vendetta against them but it is more than odd that action has been taken against people lower down institutions but not at the top.”

It follows that is – as here- there are multiple irregularities, most of which posses low probabilities of innocent occurrence, the probability that the document is genuine must be vanishingly small. In my experience, I have never found a document which, when this probabilistic technique is applied, is determined to be so very nearly certain to be a forgery as the White House document.

In this analysis I have relied upon the published results of the Cold Case Posse's investigation. To the extent that the investigator's results are reliable and robust, and to the extent that the probabilities I have assigned to each individual irregularity that the investigators have identified are considered reasonable, my conclusion that the probability that the White House document is vanishingly different from zero necessarily follows. Even if the probabilities I have chosen were to be considered excessively low, the fact that there are so many independent irregularities, even if absurdly high probabilities such as 1 in 2 were assigned to each irregularity, would be sufficient to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the White House document is a forgery.

Lord Monckton, as an expert on uncovering forgeries, was asked to examine Obama's White House published birth certificate.

Here is Lord Monckton's sworn affidavit:
http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/11/monckton_affidavit.pdf

The red highlighting in the below quotes are mine

From paragraph 51 on page 8 of the affidavit:
From paragraph 54 on page 8 of the affidavit:

This news article refers to Lord Monckton's findings:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/win-or-lose- ... president/

Monckton is on record as accepting that there is a greenhouse effect,[41] and that CO2 contributes to it.