It'd be nice to see some verification of the claims, so I'd be interested to see the article if it is ever republished after checking (I think they took it down as the source - Madsen - is seen as particularly unreliable).
So are these disclosures new? Whether they're a scoop or not doesnt have much to do with their actual validity, but if he's made these claims well before Snowden, then it's likely they've been debated in the past, too.
Even given my strong Democratic sympathies, I wouldn't trust Madsen to give me the time of the day correctly. Time is probably a Zionist conspiracy, anyway.
I don't know about his sexual proclivities but Obama was born a dual American/Kenyan citizen. He was also born a British subject by virtue of his father's status.
Their primary source apparently is not the most reliable, and figuring that out is not hard. They either did not know that, which would be bad, or they knew and ignored it, which would be bad, too. The third option 'they knew, but had a secondary source confirm it' seems highly unlikely as the article doesn't mention it. Also, if they had conformation, why would they have to retract it?
And yes, one can read a conspiracy theory behind the phrase "Madsen, who has been attacked for holding controversial views on espionage issues". I don't think that is enough for a respected paper to justify publication of this article.
UK wise, we are just turn all we have over to the US with out question. I would assume that this has always been the case. Dunno why we dont change our name to USK, and adopt the dollar.
It states "This article has been taken down pending an investigation."
Here's the 404 from the next day:
Here's Wayne Madsen's comments: