Nearly 5 years after his Feb 2008 article Shrimpton published an article on November 8, 2012 updating and elaborating extensively on his claims about Barry.
In this Nov. 2012 arcicle he is far less certain in what he says about whether or not Stanley Ann is Barry’s mom. Instead he offers his personal survey of the Western intelligence services and THEIR preferred narratives regarding Barry’s birth.
The date of this article is interesting in that is just days after Barry was reelected. Shrimpton may have hoped that Barry would be defeated, but since he was not, Shrimpton splatters these claims (still no documents or named witnesses) saying he hopes the Electoral College will refuse to certify the election.
Here is the article link followed by key quotes regarding who might be Barry’s mom and where and when might he have been born:
“REJECTION OF OBAMA BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/08/rejection-of-obama-by-the-electoral-college/
The competing theories may be shortly stated. President Obama and the Democratic Party claim that he was born in Honolulu in the State of Hawai’i on August 4th 1961. They have been consistent about the date but not the place. Two different hospitals were put forward at different times in the 2008 election (I have been tracking this issue since Obama first came on my radar, as a state senator in Illinois, about ten years ago). The President and the Democrats have now settled on the Kapio’lani Maternity Hospital in Honolulu. Mainstream media commentators like Anne Applebaum are seemingly unaware that two different US birthplaces have been put forward by the President and his supporters. They tend to take the latest White House position as fact.
The Kenya theory, supported by many Republicans, a broad swathe of the international intelligence community (behind the scenes) and, in the public domain, by the entrepreneur Donald Trump, asserts that the President was born in or near Mombasa in what is now Kenya. Within this group there are five main sub-groups – those who say that the date of birth is correct but not the place, those who put the birth in 1960, those who say that the claimed maternal relationship is true but not the paternal relationship, those who put it the other way round and those who accept the claimed parentage but not place of birth. There is of course cross-over between these groups on the date of birth.
The CIA, semi-publicly, accepted maternity but challenged paternity. Two names for the father, including the radical black activist ‘Malcolm X,’ were privately circulated by ‘sources close to the CIA’ in 2010 and 2011. The CIA’s true position, supported I am told by a DNA test, is that the claimed paternity is correct but not maternity. Their official position is of course the White House line, i.e. that President Obama is eligible to be sworn in as President on January 21st. The CIA were actually quite slow to get to grips with the issue. So far as I know no work was done on it until I briefed them in, in 2007. Both MI5 and MI6 held out on them for some months afterwards, indeed I don’t think MI6 made full disclosure of their position until CIA had the DNA test done (I am told they used wine and water glasses, with the DNA swabs verified by fingerprints). Homeland Security are said to agree with the CIA’s internal assessment. They of course have access to the immigration and passport records, which have never been disclosed publicly and are apparently troubling for the Democrats.
The Mossad, DGSE, BND, SVR, MI5 and MI6 go with Mombasa, although there is some disagreement between the agencies about date of birth. SVR are rumored to favour 1961, e.g., whereas MI6 and Mossad are said to go with 1960. MI5 have a file because the colonial internal security files came over from Nairobi in 1963. Since Obama’s father and grandfather were both linked to the Mau-Mau terrorist organization they were very properly made the subjects of intelligence and police surveillance.
There is actually very little evidential support for the Honolulu theory. The document the media refer to as a ‘birth certificate’ is nothing of the sort. It is an electronic facsimile, unsupported by matching Hawai’i file entries, which are sealed. I respectfully associate myself with the criticisms of this document by the forensic specialists who examined it at the behest of Arizona lawman Sheriff Joe Arpaio. It consists of multiple layers and appears to have been generated by software. It is not an original, nor even a photocopy of an original.
It does not take the case very much further, save that its production is damaging to the White House’s credibility, as was the production of a shorter-form purported certificate in 2008, which was denounced at the time as a forgery by a Hawai’ian official, although the state then backtracked, under intense political pressure. The older fabrication was a two-dimensional computer file, which appeared to have been photo-shopped. The purported official seal lacked depth, a common mistake by forgers.
There is a self-serving entry in the Honolulu Advertiser, which again takes the case no further, since it has always been clear that the ‘parents’ were claiming the birth of a baby boy named Barack in Honolulu on 4th August 1961. The address in that advertisement was not real however, an odd feature.
There are some surprising lacunae in the evidence produced. The claimed mother’s medical records, e.g., have never been released. That calls for comment, since in the US there would have been an attending physician. One would expect to see some reference in the medical records for a teenage girl undergoing her first pregnancy. There are no photographs showing Ann Dunham whilst pregnant, and no evidence that she took ‘her’ child with her to Washington State, after she left school in Honolulu. There are no photographs of Barack Obama in the US before the age of about two.
Neither of the alleged places of birth has a record of Ann Dunham being admitted in the first week of August 1961, hospital admission records being something investigators have been calling for over four years. There are no supporting records from the attending physician, whose name was suppressed for some three years after the issue started to gain traction. There are issues over the numbering of the long form birth certificate produced, which does not appear to be in sequence. The relevant immigration records are sealed, something which troubled Sheriff Arpaio, an experienced lawman, and his investigating posse. I know some have challenged the sheriff’s good faith, but I see no reason to question it. He is a man of the highest integrity - we are not talking Thames Valley Police here.
The passport records are relevant, because President Obama cannot have visited Pakistan during the al-Huq dictatorship on a US passport. On what basis was he issued a passport by another state? If Indonesian what was said to the Indonesian authorities about his date and place of birth?
This is much more relevant IMO then the video. You might consider asking the moderator to include its link and a couple of paragraph be added to your original post
Just ping moderator
Seizethecarp, thanks very much for posting that info from Mr shrimpton!
Heres more comment by Mike Shrimpton:
REJECTION OF OBAMA BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
By Michael Shrimpton 9th November 2012
I recommend people read the comments here at this source link: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=228642
Some of the comments are very interesting, and some are funny. As always, ignore the comments that are perverted or stupid comments.
Two comments from the source link: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=228642 I will share here:
Michael Shrimpton November 9, 2012 - 2:01 pm
“An interesting mix of comments! Some posters are even starting to make sense! Frank Marshall Davis was the other name put round by the CIA, but I’m not buying. Some of the intel pukes at Langley wanted a name with a genuine claim to US Citizenship. They knew the marriage was bigamous and that even if she were the mother Ann Dunham could not pass her citizenship to BHO, so they came up with Davis, or Malcolm X – depended on who you talked to and when. It was all a nonsense, as paternity was settled by the DNA test.
Only Kenya Colony was referred to as Kenya prior to 1963. Mombasa was formally part of the Sultanate of Zanzibar, and a British Protectorate. Technically, in my opinion, BHO at birth was a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar and a British Protected Person. I think it’s fairly clear that he was granted Indonesian citizenship of being adopted by Soetoro.
I had made the point that McCain was ineligible. According to the Supreme Court Romney would be ineligible as I think his father was a Mexican Citizen at the time of his birth. Good point about Rubio – there is an eligibility issue, as the current Supreme Court might follow dicta of the court in Minor v Happersett 88 US 162 (1874).
If the Supreme Court followed the 1874 precedent then both Romney & Rubio would be ineligible. However if you read the decision it is clear that the statement on natural born citizens being citizens born to parents who themselves were citizens was not necessary for the decision, i.e. is not binding precedent, not that the Supreme Court is bound by its own decisions anyway, as we saw on Roe v Wade.
Mrs. Minor is described as a free white woman, born in Missouri to US citizen parents, so far as one can tell. Her citizenship was not in issue. What the court were concerned with was whether she had a constitutional right to vote. Very clearly she did not, indeed the ingenuity of her counsel knew no bounds.
The Court in effect held that if you wanted to change the Constitution you had to amend it, a very reasonable view point if I may say so. It’s a pity the court in Roe v Wade could not have followed their 1874 brethren! I am still baffled with respect as to how any judge could think that George Washington thought he was putting his name to a document which gave mothers the right to kill their unborn babies. I am afraid I was using English usage for dates!”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
J/S November 9, 2012 - 3:18 pm
“I’m glad you mentioned that the Supreme Court has not been bound by its own decisions, not for a long time now. I’m tempted to say that they don’t seem to be bound by common sense, either. For me, common sense would be to go back to what the term “natural born” meant when it was used. It meant a child born in US territory, of 2 parents who were US citizens prior to the child’s birth. So Rubio, as well as Bobby Jindal, Gov. of Louisiana, are both ineligible on the grounds that their parents were not US citizens BEFORE the birth.
For me, the stickiest issue is: What constitutes US territory? I’m not sure what that meant to the Founding Fathers. I think they likely would have considered that a baby born on a US flagged/owned ship in international waters, as long as it was a baby born of 2 US citizen parents, would be a “natural born” US citizen. Likewise a child born on a US military base abroad, or a child born on US embassy grounds abroad, would be considered US territory. To me, that is common sense also. In that case, maybe McCain met the requirement.
Miss Ann Dunham, if she is the mother, should have gone to a US consulate or embassy and given birth there, under a tree or in the bathroom or something. Or in a manger, as long as the US flag flew over it.”
Sheriff Arpaio has gone out of his way to state that the privately funded CCP investigation only targets those who forged Barry’s BC and doesn’t target Barry. This is obviously disingenuous of the Sheriff(as much as I admire him).
Zullo’s claim that Arpaio’s publicly funded deputies are criminally investigating “Universe Shattering” crimes would seem to require some involvement of Barry as a perp, but could involve a conspiracy of those who put Barry in office.
In this comment #411 please note that Shrimpton AFFIRMS Sheriff Arpaio’s investigations:
“I respectfully associate myself with the criticisms of this document by the forensic specialists who examined it at the behest of Arizona lawman Sheriff Joe Arpaio. It consists of multiple layers and appears to have been generated by software. It is not an original, nor even a photocopy of an original.”
“The relevant immigration records are sealed, something which troubled Sheriff Arpaio, an experienced lawman, and his investigating posse. I know some have challenged the sheriff’s good faith, but I see no reason to question it. He is a man of the highest integrity - we are not talking Thames Valley Police here.”
There is a self-serving entry in the Honolulu Advertiser, which again takes the case no further, since it has always been clear that the ‘parents’ were claiming the birth of a baby boy named Barack in Honolulu on 4th August 1961. The address in that advertisement was not real however, an odd feature.
Don't know whether Shrimpton means that the address in the birth announcement didn't exist at all, or whether it did exist but it was neither that of Obama Sr. nor Stanley Ann Dunham Obama.
Furthermore (although a seemingly a minor point since the two birth announcement lists appeared to be virtually identical and were supposedly supplied by the same Health Dept.), why does he neglect to mention the other birth notice in the other Honolulu newspaper at the time, the Honolulu Star?