Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama, the President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen
A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers ^ | April 7, 2009 | Mario Apuzzo

Posted on 08/16/2009 5:10:06 PM PDT by Vincent Jappi

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last
To: RegulatorCountry

His father being an alien is quite a different matter than Obama being a UK citzen. Apuzzo is making the argument that Obama is a UK citizen.
I don’t care what Obama claimed.

He can say it all day long..his claim doesn’t make him a UK citizen.

A divorce DOES NOT MAKE THE MARRIAGE VALID. A bigamous marriage could NEVER BE CONTRACTED.

The idea is preposterous to believe that foreign citizens can enter a bigamous marriage, get a divorce..and then say..HEY ..we had a valid marriage. LET ME INTO THE COUNTRY.

It is just ridiculous.

But go ahead and make that claim.

Btw, a later act addressed VOID marriage.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1976/cukpga_19760031_en_1

Don’t pretend that the UK law would just ignore a VOID marriage because there was a divorce.


81 posted on 08/17/2009 7:01:23 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
there is a Luo tradition that illegitimate babies cannot go live with a new family..and can even be killed. They are considered bad spirits..or some such thing. I can’t remember the exact details.

Well that gives pause to Stanley Ann's supposed idea to go live in Kenya after Sr's finished at Haaarvard unless she planned on going to Kenya and get tribally married before birth. When did she find out that Sr was already married and did he explain the whole tribal polygamy customs to her?

82 posted on 08/17/2009 7:05:29 AM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

UK law only mattered at birth here, insofar as it affected parentage, assuming Obama was born in the United States, RummyChick.

If Mario Apuzzo is going to hang his hat strictly on British citizenship for Obama, it makes for a compelling narrative, and enables him to put the matter in an historic context.

But, the only reason his self-admitted British citizenship by way of Kenya matters, is because his father was a British citizen, which makes his father an alien.

That’s all that matters as far as natural born citizenship is concerned, regarding parentage, that his father was an alien.


83 posted on 08/17/2009 7:09:32 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

Was that 1-year thing in force back in 1961? I hadn’t heard that at all. And, according to 0bambi’s own book, he has no record of them marrying, however, they did get divorced. That tells me they may not have gotten married in the U.S. And yes, Sr. was a bigamist.

I still think with all the questions and all the money he’s spending, that he should at least be forced to prove he’s eligible. The Chicago machine really covered this as much as they could and smoothed it over.


84 posted on 08/17/2009 7:15:29 AM PDT by USAHOME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Still not happy, but that’s better than Biden/Pelosi. Can’t we opt for Palin and Bachmann instead? Can we choose? :)


85 posted on 08/17/2009 7:19:25 AM PDT by USAHOME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

I am back and forth on whether there never was a marriage at all..or whether the divorce was really about getting a divorce from a Kenyan marriage.

It is quite possible she was shipped off to a home for unwed mothers and then decided to keep the baby. Pretended to get married to legitimize it to everyone...and then got the divorce because she had already made the claim they were married.

Even Obama admits the circumstances were strange about that marriage and he was afraid to look into it. This leads me to believe he has looked into and found out they were never married.


86 posted on 08/17/2009 7:34:23 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Here’s what I’m going by (and I’ve seen this more than once about his Indonesian citizenship, used to attend school in Indonesia):

From http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/08/11/obamas-dual-citizenship-disaster/

“Soetoro is the name on Obama’s Birth Certificate (BC) because a new BC was issued when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step-father. His original BC, which we assume was issued for Barack Hussein Obama at birth, would have been sealed at the time of the adoption.

Barry Soetoro probably acquired Indonesian citizenship in approximately 1965-1966, and may still hold it. He possibly changed his legal name back to Barack Hussein Obama as an older child, teenager, or adult, possibly never did – but even if he did, this procedure would not result in a change to the BC. (If he never legally changed his name back, I imagine his current name on the Presidential ballot would be invalid.)

The Birth Certificate published by Obama on his campaign website (still there, by the way) and distributed to the media was forged because the real BC on file is in the name Soetoro, an identity he apparently wanted to hide from the American people. I am getting reports from different sources that Obama traveled to Pakistan in `81 with an Indonesian passport.

Prior to 2007, Indonesian law did not permit dual citizenship. Thus, if Obama actively kept his Indonesian citizenship, his US citizenship could be challenged. I suspect that Obama may have dumped his Indonesian citizenship at some point along the way, to advance his political career. But I would not be shocked if he still holds it. This question, however, should not overshadow the serious problem of hiding his Indonesian identity from the electorate….. What else is he hiding?”

So, you may be right an all of this is a moot point. I’m not a lawyer, but wish I were to take on this whole mess and set it straight.

Thanks for the email, El Gato!


87 posted on 08/17/2009 7:37:35 AM PDT by USAHOME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: angkor; All

“The POTUS does not get or need a security clearance.”

Unfortunately, this is true. Elected officials are “cleared” by their election to office. I know it isn’t right, but that is the way it currently is.


88 posted on 08/17/2009 8:59:28 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

>>> Elected officials are “cleared” by their election to office. <<<<<

It’s all very simple. All classification authority emanates from the President, who obviously cannot and does not “clear” himself.

Congress, as an independent branch of government, is not subject to the classifications established by the POTUS. Members of Congress do not need clearance to view classified materials (although staffers do, and there are some minimal House and Senate rules regarding the handling of classified materials).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
April 17, 1995

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Sec. 1.4. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; or

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c), below.

(c) Delegation of original classification authority.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
March 25, 2003

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292

FURTHER AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958, AS AMENDED,
CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.


89 posted on 08/17/2009 9:26:38 AM PDT by angkor (The U.S. Congress is at war with America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

Fther didn’t have a green card. He was a student, not a permanent resident.


90 posted on 08/17/2009 10:12:35 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

Yes, I agree.

You wrote-
“Fther didn’t have a green card. He was a student, not a permanent resident.”


91 posted on 08/17/2009 10:18:04 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Lucy, is this racist (spittling on post #24) on the list yet?


92 posted on 08/17/2009 11:07:32 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
“Legitimate or Illigitimate” was in the quotation was in the Apuzzo quotation:

Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.

“It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .

Apuzzo and Kerchner have not been self-promoters, though I think they may not have realized how important it might be for an expanded public to be included in the dialog, and have since paid for some Washington Times ads, and asked for some help, since all of their efforts are out-of-pocket. Few are aware that their lawsuit, which covers most of the issues discussed here, and some not discussed at all, are being deliberated in New Jersey District Court. The deliberations began on August 3rd. All of the issues addressed here are in the pleadings which you can read on line. This, or some subsequent lawsuit may be the only way, short of revolution, to slow this attack on our legal foundations. People are learning the difference between Democrats and the extreme left. Those trying to be accomodating have become Lenin's "useful idiots".
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

You can wait until 2010 and see how good a job Acorn and the more than 200 hard-left activist organizations, including Acorn, can do to fix the elections. It is obvious to many of us that Obama lacks the allegiance to our founder's principles that we trust. There are many natural born citizens who also lack that allegiance, but the left ran this guy - the British citizen. The more the publich understands the truth of this the more likely some judge will be willing to allow the examination of the merits of the case. We don't have to await validation of a document for which supporting documentation is probably being suppressed by John Brennen, former CIA conterterroism administrator, and CEO of the company which employed Lt. Harris, the contractor who cauterized Obama’s State Department passport records, and was subsequently shot in the head while parked in front of a church.

The fact of Obama’s father's and thus Obama Jr.’s British citizenship is sufficient. Our Constitution absolutely forbids dual citizenship for presidential eligibility. For purposes of British citizenship, legitimacy is not required. A father is a father, whether or not he marries the mother.

93 posted on 08/17/2009 1:31:41 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: USAHOME
Prior to 2007, Indonesian law did not permit dual citizenship. Thus, if Obama actively kept his Indonesian citizenship, his US citizenship could be challenged.

US law doesn't give a flip what Indonesian law is.

If his BC says "Soetero", he's got some 'splaining to do. But, it's probably not even fraud, since it was well known that his stepfather was Indonesian, and that adoption could be assumed.

94 posted on 08/17/2009 3:07:13 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I doubt we’ll ever know the truth. Just like Area 51...it’s all secret.


95 posted on 08/17/2009 3:17:33 PM PDT by USAHOME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
There is no case law determining the meaning of the term in the Constitution, apparently because that was deemed unnecessary, due to the meaning being evident in the writing.

I'm sure the founders knew what they meant, and that even moderately well read members of the public knew as well.

There is no case law, because there haven't been any cases. Remember we are talking about the meaning of a Constitutional term, "natural born citizen", which appears in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 and nowhere else in the Constitution including it's various amendments. Any "case" construing that meaning, would by necessity involve the candidacy or election of a person whose status as a "natural born citizen" was questioned. We now have such a controversy. Now if we can just get a court rule on the issue and the evidence, even if it needs to order it produced, rather than on issues of "standing".

96 posted on 08/17/2009 3:18:52 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Thanks for the reminder, but you’re preaching to the choir, lol.

Remember, I’m the “kook” who insisted that the Constitution alone determined natural born citizenship, with the Congress enumerated to naturalization only, to the shrill dismay of the good gentleman from Kansas with whom you also had a somewhat less bombastic exchange, last week.

If that makes me a “kook,” I guess I’m still a kook, since that’s the way our Constitution works, and that’s the way the power enumerated to Congress works.

I’ve been trying, with limited success, to drive home the point that the term is not a mystery, that there has been no automatic need for statutory law to define it, and that in fact statutory law cannot define it. Natural born citizen being a “term of art,” “evident in the writing,” and etcetera.


97 posted on 08/17/2009 3:41:23 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: USAHOME
Was that 1-year thing in force back in 1961? I hadn’t heard that at all. And, according to 0bambi’s own book, he has no record of them marrying, however, they did get divorced. That tells me they may not have gotten married in the U.S. And yes, Sr. was a bigamist.

Only if the marriage were in the US. If it was in Kenya, even as a colony, he'd be a legal polygamist.

98 posted on 08/17/2009 3:47:34 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: USAHOME
I doubt we’ll ever know the truth. Just like Area 51...it’s all secret.

Area may be secret, but lots of folks know what's there, or at least some of what's there.

I happen to have been assigned to the organization that once ran "Project Blue Book", although I never made it to the hanger, which did belong to them, where the remains of the aliens were said to be kept. Of course there was a sign on the bulletin board that they'd been moved, to the basement of the HQ building.

The building is built on a slab foundation.

99 posted on 08/17/2009 3:53:39 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: USAHOME
And would we get Biden (or would he be ineligible, too?) and/or Pelosi (heaven forbid)? Can we opt for Palin and Bachmann instead, as POTUS/VP?

What, no mention of McCain.....oh wait....he's not a natural born citizen either.

100 posted on 08/17/2009 3:53:42 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs...nothing more than Bald Haired Hippies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson