Obama’s Birth Still Under Investigation — by UK Court


United States politicians, businessmen, reporters and bloggers have repeatedly questioned Obama’s actual birthplace since his first presidential campaign mutterings. To date, there are still more inconsistencies and blackholes of information than there are legitimate facts.

Neither of his alleged birth certificates holds up to examination. The non-changing serial number assigned to the short-form doesn’t match state records, and the long-form doesn’t use a matching and consistent font. Other inconsistencies exist as well.


His mother’s passport and travel documents, when they were available under a Freedom of Information Act request, did not show Obummer as listed on the passport, and his mother could not get her passport renewed in Indonesia with his name listed.

There are/were no incoming visa documents or name change information listed with Immigration and Naturalization Services: He reportedly just disappeared when he arrived in the U.S. in or about 1971.

He attended Occidental University as a foreign exchange student and traveled to Pakistan with friends during a time when the U.S. Department of State prohibited travel to U.S. citizens.

What you probably don’t know is that Michael Shrimpton, an English barrister, a form of lawyer, will be defending himself in an intelligence-related trial just delayed until November 10, 2014, and Shrimpton gained some notoriety in which he claimed on youtube that the CIA and British intelligence have DNA records that Stanley Ann Durham, supposedly Obummer’s mother, is not actually his mother at all.

Shrimpton declared Obummer is most likely the offspring of Obama, Senior, and one of his mistresses in Kenya.

He plans on subpoenaing all DNA records those two intelligence agencies have on Obama’s origin and presenting it in his defense for the criminal charges of submitting a false report to British intelligence. The report pertained to a stolen nuclear bomb smuggled into Britain by German intelligence.

What those to issues have to do with anything, I have no idea, but if the British choose to continue with the prosecution, I, for one, will be watching the news with bated breath.

Oh, one more thing: If Stanley Ann Durham wasn’t pregnant in July 1961, do we have another version of Immaculate Conception when she gave birth in August 1961?


Source: downtrend.com

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *