The Post & Email Will Not Air Michael Shrimpton Interview


by Sharon Rondeau

(Mar. 9, 2014) — The Post & Email has decided not to air any portions of the interview conducted with Barrister Michael Shrimpton on Friday evening as announced on Saturday morning.

We are also confirming that no “fundraising” has been done by The Post & Email as a result of speaking or communicating with Shrimpton, nor have we benefited financially in any way from those contacts. The original story announcing the interview has been removed so that there is no question that any financial gain has been realized by The Post & Email from having conducted the interview.

The Post & Email removes posts only under extraordinary conditions.

We will continue to explore all available avenues in our quest to discover Obama’s birthplace, background, parentage and presidential eligibility, and we wish Barrister Shrimpton well.

10 Responses to "The Post & Email Will Not Air Michael Shrimpton Interview"

  1. INtrailhunter   Tuesday, March 11, 2014 at 9:47 PM

    Mr. Shrimpton’s has been interesting to say the lease but not to any level to not share.

    All I have to say is those have to be some extraordinary conditions.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The audio is being posted in segments at

  2. Loggia   Tuesday, March 11, 2014 at 7:03 AM

    Thank you for this. Exactly THIS description is what students in American public schools learned as late as the 1970s.

    Shrimpton’s explanation of “at least one American citizen parents” leaves open the possibility of ANOTHER citizenship, which cannot be.

    If our representatives in Congress were worth their salt, they would have caught this before Obama took office the first time.

    Supposedly, a number of these senators and reps are “Constitutional scholars!” At least one even taught at West Point. They are all UNIMPRESSIVE if they do not understand Eligibility of the Chief Executive.

  3. cfkerchner   Monday, March 10, 2014 at 9:04 PM

    When you look at term in the U.S. Constitution you must ask yourself why did the founders and framers put those words in there. What purpose were they trying to achieve. In the case of “natural born Citizen” it was put there by Jay and Washington as a “STRONG CHECK” against foreign influence and allegiances at birth for the person who would be commander in chief of our military. The purpose and meaning of “natural born Citizen” is one born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to one and only one country at birth. No foreign influence of allegiances at birth. Anyone born with immediate allegiance and citizenship in more than one country is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Read these essays for more: and … trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: … AND … Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus:

  4. Loggia   Monday, March 10, 2014 at 8:18 PM

    Birtherreport does seem to have this interview up. Shrimpton maintains that one must be born on American soil and have at least ONE American citizen parent to be “natural born.”

    It was not surprising then that he would think that Cruz, born on Canadian soil, would NOT be eligible.

    However, having ONE FOREIGN parent would bequeath derivative qualities of another non-USA citizenship to a child such as Obama..that is if he were born in Hawaii.

    Wouldn’t “natural born” imply that ONLY US citizenship at birth is the bar to be met; hence, Jus soli and jus SANGUINIS of both parents?

    It would be a stretch of the imagination that the Framers would have allowed anyone with any citizenship additional to that of the USA to sit at such a high seat of power.

    Shrimpton seems generous in his “one parent” assertion.

  5. ELmo   Monday, March 10, 2014 at 3:47 PM

    Thanks Sharon, I didn’t mean to imply a lack of appreciation for the great work you do. Keep it up.

  6. INtrailhunter   Monday, March 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM

    You as a reporter reported a story that looks like it was going to expose Obama but if the story made a turn that was unforeseen that Shrimpton was not what was first reported, You don’t just stop the story and leave the readers hanging.

    If a paper starts a story the paper finish the story.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: You sound angry, sir, when there is no cause. No one will be left hanging, I can assure you.

  7. carolyn tillman   Monday, March 10, 2014 at 5:18 AM

    Sharon, Thanks for all your hard work. My thoughts are with you. Carolyn.

  8. ss442   Monday, March 10, 2014 at 12:06 AM

    I can’t imagine why Rudy would shelve this information. Hillary on the other hand is an opportunist of the ilk as Obama and these snakes slither in and out of the same hole.

  9. Grandmas Mad   Sunday, March 9, 2014 at 11:54 PM

    Or does this mean that this site was threatened?
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: No, no one has been threatened.

  10. ELmo   Sunday, March 9, 2014 at 6:02 PM

    Does this mean that Shrimpton’s testimony is not credible? I have already spoken to many people about this – do we now have to disavow the information provided in the Shrimpton article?
    Please Advise
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I think that people should weigh the information in light of their own research.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.