Begin at # 401 and read through # 417.
Thanks for the pings.
Posted on 02/26/2014 7:33:18 AM PST by Seizethecarp
Shrimpton reported Obama's purported mom was not pregnant in 1961 and that Obama was born in Kenya in 1960. He said Kenya was under British intelligence files and that Obama's father ran guns for the Mau Mau. He then dropped a bombshell claiming the CIA did covert DNA testing on Obama at a fundraising dinner and the test came back with no match to the claimed grandparents. Shrimpton said Rudy Giuliani's people knew and sat on the intelligence and further stated he spoke with Hillary Clinton's people and that they were quite interested.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
You really think Obama’s father did anything as real or dangerous as running guns?
However, there were not then, nor were there in 2012, enough reasonable citizens left in the Republic to prevent his electoral victories. There were then, in 2012, and now, NO (not 1) state officials willing to fulfill the obligation of office under state constitutions. Add to these failed officers the elected representatives in Congress, especially those Republican Representatives, who have also failed to act upon the information known since 2006-2008.
The only option available to the administration has never been forthright denial and presentation of irrefutable evidence. The only strategy available to them has been to blend Truth with Fiction. Team O has designed a destructive flood of mis-, dis-, and patently false information, with the goal of lumping those with legitimate concerns in a category with terrorists and mental patients. The protocol recommended by Cass Susstein in his writings has been successful.
BTW, Susstein's writings were known to the Republicans who seconded his various federal appointments, dismissing them as "academic exercises." (See Orrin Hatch). The Team 0 strategy has been so successful, that here we are 6-8 years later, so fixated, so outraged to the point of impotence, that we have failed to create a valid counter strategy solidly based on
a Program,
a Plan to implement it,
and above all to choose Leaders to use Program and Plan to convince the electorate to put them in power to correct the Republic's course.
The Democrats have a successful political party organized to reach their goals. As of right now, do not.
In regard to the information presented by the British Barrister on Youtube: even if true, and it certainly is interesting, it is not actionable in any way and the man's bona fides are not beyond reproach. Far from it. He says, "There's a tape." But, he cannot play it.
Questions: "Is this mis-, dis-, or false information? Does it benefit Team 0 ... or us?"
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=218782
Has another résumé posted for MS. Plus other background on the Olympic bomb controversy
KB good point about mis. Dis. Etc
I agree rodguy - just because he’s a character - and there’s no question there’s something squirmy about him - doesn’t mean something isn’t there. I don’t know what that is.
His story was great - it had all the elements we’d love to believe. Was the video really made in 2008, where was it done, and who was the audience? Was there really an audience? Very curious to know.
I don’t know about CIA - when I was there as a contractor, they seemed very bureaucratic and liberal. CIA hates Congress. If someone knew something about Obama, I think he or she’d most likely want to sit on it. I’m not even sure they’re imaginative enough to bother taking DNA. The regular military types who contracted to them were conservative and more idealistic, but the higher-ups were in love with their three-syllable soup agencies and everything that went with the job.
MMaschin - I only had time to briefly glance over Veterans Today. I clicked on the 9/11 link.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/category/911-and-terror-war/
I glanced over the titles and headlines about the truthers, and I saw references to “Zionists.”
“The September 11, 2001 attacks in the US were a “false flag” operation carried out jointly by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia with “Zionists playing the lead role,” an analyst tells Press TV.”
That’s what they’re writing about at Veterans Today.
I’ve never heard of it before. Maybe some of you know more about it.
I can quite understand how Orly doesn’t want birthers or even rivals, for that matter, and she’s not someone I’m quoting as credible, that’s why I thought it odd that Mr. Shrimpton allegedly reached out to her. Why do that and not reach out on his own to a regular blogger (even a birther blogger) or journalist?
Good points. We looked yesterday for the same material. Where and to whom was he speaking. Some one pointed out that the seven minute video seems to be a splice between two seperate occasions. Haven’t looked myself
Also. The entire DNA CIA of grandparents is a ruse. Way back when on the long thread there was speculation that SADO herself was adopted. If so then of course the grandparents DNA would NOT match 0
Considered last night that this entire thing is a “warning” to 0 not us!
In our initial research (2006-8) years ago we knew that Kenyan records were kept in Britain. At that time we surmised in Oxford We had no boots on the ground to look but ooenly discussed it
Since that time this has popped up
It was originally posted by ???? Pen. Can’t remember the name. That post originally gave exact location. But it has been edited and lengthened
So we all keep digging. For another blue pamphlet ala breitbart
Gallups confirms that the 2008 Shrimpton claims on these tapes do NOT include Zullo’s “Universe Shattering” revelations.
Gallups said this on a video and there is an article up on BirtherReport:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/02/breaking-report-british-barristers.html
Earlier on Wednesday, The Post & Email asked “Freedom Friday” host Carl Gallups, who has been close to the Cold Case Posse’s investigation, if the information imparted by Shrimpton is part of that which will be released next month, to which Gallups responded, “As far as I know this is not a part of the March announcement.”
Your probably right, probably nothing to it. Where was Obama born? Who knows? We will never know. No functioning press. Spineless Republican leaders.
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?
We, the people, aren't interested in rule of law nor are we comfortable with strict definitions that might somehow limit our opportunities, deny us a "win" or hurt someone's feelings.
That irresistible force is the sort of self centered infatuation that's given US our Rulership by the cult of personality and it's rampant on both sides (yet another illusion) of the aisle.
We, the people, are a lot like adolescents without real world experience, who are convinced they already know everything about everything, and have recently inherited the family business and fortune.
You're right about the house of cards tumbling down. We've made sure that a painful correction is coming for US.
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
7 min vid is either from the start or around the 2/3 point of the 93 minute talk.
He is asked a question from the audience toward the 2/3 point and reiterates what he said at the beginning.
From the context of the whole thing, it is sometime around January /February 2008 because he mentions a)snow b) Edwards and Hillary campaigns .
Not sure of the exact location but maybe it can be enlarged so the charts can be seen and the colleague- a lady in reddish suit- can be recognized.
As to grandparents - if sado was adopted she would be a citizen.
But the DNA is only the half of it... there’s the docs from Nairobi and the phone conversations.
Would be interesting to independently verify by asking this question “have you been contacted by a Mr Michael shrimpton” of the people that were connected with the various campaigns. Just the question, nothing more.
A “Court News UK” report was put on this thread showing Shrimpton being accused of falsely reporting a bomb threat. I have found the date of that Court News UK report to be July 23, 2013, nearly a year ago saying he would stand trial “next year” (2014) yet there don’t ssem to be further news accounts.
http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/online_archive/?name=shrimpton&sa=Search
July 23, 2013
“SHRIMPTON: BARRISTERS ‘A-BOMB IN LONDON’ WARNING
AYLESBURY A barrister accused of making hoax claims to a senior Ministry of Defence official about a bomb being hidden at an east London hospital is to stand trial next year. Michael Shrimpton, 56, allegedly told Barry Burton, a close colleague of Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond, that an explosive device was at Newham Hospital. Shrimpton, the author of conspiracy theory book, Spyhunter, is also said to have made bogus bomb claims to the offices of David Liddington, MP for Aylesbury, the following day, Southwark Crown Court heard.”
Hoosiermama has found an article apparently giving more details on the dust-up between Shrimpton and UK Police which was appears to be the same case that was reported in the Court News UK:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=218782
The Thames Valley Police, well-known for their fictional representations in the Colin Dexter detective novels, detained a substantial ranking government security officer, department to continue to be unnamed, at the behest of what we are told is the Property Secretary.
http://www.disclose.tv/news/500_Kilo...#ixzz22bhN43g8
My guess would be that this is the same nuke that MICHAEL SHRIMPTON was referring to when he was interviewed by U.S. christian radio station (TruNews) host Rick Wiles on WEDNESDAY JUNE 13th 2012.
Shrimpton told Wiles that he`d received intel info about a nuke that was planned for the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in London.
He claimed the Intel info came from Russia.
However, he also told Rick Wiles that, after discovering it and discussing it HE WAS ARRESTED & DETAINED BY THAMES VALLEY POLICE, and in fact he also claimed that he intends to sue them.
LINK TO THE INTERVIEW BELOW :
Wednesday June 13, 2012
Guest: Michael Shrimpton
Topic: British barrister and intelligence expert Michael Shrimpton reveals mysterious information from Russian spy that a nuclear bomb explosion was planned for opening of 2012 Olympics in London next month.
http://www.trunews.com/listen_now.htm
Or I could just put it up as another article...but given continuing lack of documentary support for any of Shrimpton’s claims I’m inclined to hold back and just let this updated 2012 article go to our activist ping lists.
Sort of looks like he reacted to soviet warning unlike the US ignoring their warnings about the Boston bombers
Begin at # 401 and read through # 417.
Thanks for the pings.
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.”
Good thinking
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.