Quick note on commenting

While a busy–but free and extremely welcome–weekend has kept me from updating here as I’d like, technical difficulties are keeping many of you from commenting as you would like. Therefore, commenting is now back open, no login required, though I do encourage all of you to enter a screen name at the appropriate spot.

If you look at the diagram to the right, you can click on
“Name/URL” and enter the name of your choice, still remaining anonymous but under a screen name. Any screen name. That way, if someone wants to reply to your post, or if you want to reply to someone else’s post, you wont have to say “well, according to anonymous who posted at 3:15pm…” but rather “well, according to Joe Incognito…”

Thank you for understanding, and I apologize for the inconvenience.

– Jeff


America’s Right allows you to post comments via this blog subject to the guidelines set forth herein. You understand that any comments you post are your own and are not those of America’s Right. You further understand that America’s Right is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced in your comments. Unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable comments are not acceptable. If you think any content posted or otherwise included in America’s Right violates the guidelines set forth herein, then please alert America’s Right. America’s Right reserves the right to pre-screen, edit, and remove any post as it deems appropriate. You specifically acknowledge that America’s Right has no obligation to display any post submitted or otherwise provided via America’s Right.



  1. Anonymous says:

    Cool, I don’t mind typing a name for ID purposes :-)

  2. Anonymous says:


    What if you went to the grocery store and chose a large box of crackers needed to go with your family’s dinner only to discover upon opening the package it only contained rat poison. How would you react? First you would immediately know that isn’t what you intended to buy. Your choice was crackers. You got rat poison in its place. Then you wonder how it happened that rat poisoning was inside a beautifully packaged box labeled crackers. Would feel deceived? Would you wonder if it was an accident or all the boxes contained rat poison? Then you would realize you didn’t get what you needed for the family. That means you will have to make a second trip to the store and return the rat poison and look for the right box that truly has crackers and not some other unwanted product. What if every beautifully designed box labeled crackers had any thing else in it but crackers. What if he refused to refund your money and told you to keep the rat poison whether or not you needed it? Then he said you really didn’t need the crackers, anyhow. What if the store keeper told you this is because it is now bringing you change and a new way of doing business? What if when you objected, the store keeper advised you to keep silent about the way the products were packaged because he didn’t want others to get upset? Or he simply said, “Get over it. This is the new way we are doing business. It is the customers will.” Would you begin to lose confidence in a store that offered only beautifully designed packages that did not contain the items that were stated on the labels. Would you continue doing business with that store? What if all stores started doing business that way? Or worse—what if there were no other stores but that store?

    Why is it then, so difficult to understand the argument Obama worshipers present that Obama is the will of the people because he allegedly received 66,000,000 votes is false? Why is it people have such a difficult time recognizing that the Obama they thought they were choosing is not the Obama they are getting. That is the price of fraud. What voters thought they were choosing and what it actually was are no different than picking a box of crackers based upon the label on the box to only later discover it was rat poison. That is why 66,000,000 Obama votes are not the will of the people.

    Who turns violent against the person or system that saves him and his family from egregious harm? That is why there will be minimum to no rioting if some branch of the electoral process takes the responsibility, declares Barry Sotoero ineligible to be President on the basis he is a usurper and over turns this election. The worst that will happen after the initial trauma is voters will be grateful Obama was discovered before he could do any more harm to America. Except for the very large group of Obama conspirators who are amoral, most of the voters will feel very betrayed by the man who so flagrantly abused their trust and stole their vote. Only the Saul Alinsky pirates of political power are using the threat of violent riots by the people if the silver plated turd is prevented from becoming a usurper. They are the ones who will be facing their just dues.

    Let us all use the power of our imaginations and see Congress, the Nine Supreme Court Judges, and people doing the right thing by preventing a usurper from being President.

  3. Anonymous says:

    By the way, Jeff, you are among the great good and handsome men of the world. Thank you for allowing me to post on your extremely learned site. Even when I fail to take the time to say thank you in my posts, I am always grateful in my heart.

    If wishing makes it so, you and your family will always enjoy the best life has to give.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I am sorry for your technical difficulties, but I’m glad to be able to post again. I prefer to remain anonymous.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Good. And, thank you.

  6. Claudia says:

    Hi, Jeff, and a good morning to you and yours.

    I just got used to having to go sign in and then re-sign in to post, and now you are telling me that I can just do it the same old way again, thanks a whole bunch, and I really mean that. THANKS…… the other was a total hassle.

  7. ianrthorpe says:

    Anonymous is a decent guy but I would never trust Joe Incognito.

    Happy New Year to you and your family Jeff.

  8. Thankful says:

    Thank you for supporting privacy!

  9. mas says:

    Hi Jeff,
    Had a thought and wondered if you could comment.
    If Obama released what is claimed to be a BC on his site, hasn’t he relinquished his right of privacy regarding that document? There would also be the public figure argument in respect to privacy. But, wouldn’t it be rather straightforward to have the BC released? Why not release even the short form? He claims that is what has been posted. Could someone make a case for disclosure based on this?
    Thanks, hope your Christmas was great!

  10. Anonymous says:

    I had tried to comment a few
    times and nothing happened.
    I also had problem’s trying
    to get on Phil Berg’s website for a few day’s.
    I wonder if google has something to do with it.
    Glad it is back on track..

  11. C.M. Hatem says:

    Hey Jeff, Does this mean I can be some guy you know and not the guy everybody hates because they want to hate him?

  12. Roses,WA says:

    just to see if I can follow directions..
    OOohhh, so when you click on name/URL it opens a window to type in the name… now I get it :-)

  13. LaurieTexas says:

    I love how he asked everyone to use a “name” and yet everyone still used “anonymous”. If you love this site as much as I do, can’t you follow a simple request?

  14. Marie says:

    It occurred to me today that the natural born issue has been played like a high stakes game of poker and since Obama is an experienced poker player we can see he will bluff until the end. Unfortunately, it appears that our members of congress and the senate and the supreme court have all decided to fold unless they see someone else stay in the game.

    I believe the supreme court has timed the review of the Berg case to coincide with the day after the counting of the electoral votes for a reason. They will only address the issues Berg has raised if an objection is raised by one senator and one representative. If no one raises an objection, they will not hear the case.

    On the other hand, all the senators and reps who might be interested in raising an objection won’t do so unless the supreme court gives them some cover by ruling that Obama needs to show the BC.

    In other words, no one wants to be the first to call him on his bluff and he knew all along that it would be this way. It was a risk but a very calculated one based on his years of study of election law and his knowledge of how weak the constitution has become in this country.

    Sadly, one of the strongest aspects of his resume is his poker playing experience so I guess he is benefiting from that experience.

  15. Sammy says:

    I just wanted to say thanks for the link to the Palin/Thatcher article the other day. I really enjoyed it. And thank you for changing the commenting requirements.

  16. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Chris — I’m actually going to try to address that today. I have a piece I’ve been writing, but kept on getting distracted by the 60-degree late December weather here in Philly.

    Love it.

  17. OldCodger says:

    Mas, you asked if Obama hadn’t relinquished his right to privacy by posting his birth certificate on his web site.

    That was something that occurred to me early on, also.

    As I recall, Andy Martin raised that issue in his attempt to obtain the original form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. For whatever reason, it didn’t carry any weight with the Hawaii officials — they still refused to produce it on the grounds of privacy. They said only he or a family member could obtain it. (It isn’t enough to be an “Internet powerhouse” I guess.)

  18. Linda says:

    I’d like to add my thanks for your site, Jeff. First thing in the morning, America’s Right; second, coffee. A dynamite combination! With so much on your plate, you still find time for insightful, intelligent writing–and I (one of many) am so grateful.

    I hope you are pleased with your grades. I appreciate that you still made time to check in.

    Best wishes to you and your family for the coming year… and God bless us all.

  19. Jeff Schreiber says:

    As I recall, Andy Martin raised that issue in his attempt to obtain the original form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. For whatever reason, it didn’t carry any weight with the Hawaii officials — they still refused to produce it on the grounds of privacy. They said only he or a family member could obtain it. (It isn’t enough to be an “Internet powerhouse” I guess.)

    Don’t forget “legendary muckraker,” OldCodger.


  20. IamNBC says:

    Jeff maybe you can discuss the issue. My opinion was that if no senator or rep made an objection then the SC would look into the case.

    The gentleman above seems to feel the SC will only act if a senator and rep object. I hope he is wrong.

    I am a Natural Born Citizen. Both my parents were citizens at my birth.

    My feeling is that by far almost all postings here are done with due respect. So Anonymous is fine. If things get out of hand then identification might help put a stop to that.

    I will take the name I am NBC or IamNBC. Thanks Jeff

    Make sure you let us all know what grade you get in every class. I find it interesting just to learn the names of the classes. Election Law was a new idea to me. Since getting involved in the Berg case I find law to be pretty interesting. unfortunately I am now over 65 so it is kind of late for a new law career for me.

  21. gailbullock says:

    Chris, you have already won our hearts. Don’t even think about being someone who’s hated. Jeff wouldn’t ask you to write if you weren’t top notch!

    Thank goodness I’m not the only one who was scratching her head (as the case is for me) over the blog thing. I’m just glad that my entire email address isn’t included in the identity.

    Jeff, I’m not the only that you had hands wringing over your grades, either! So, big guy–how did exams go, and did the grades go up or “down–way down?” We want to know because we’re all pulling for you!

    I’ve already gotten some people committed to vote for you in 2016. When are you going to announce your candidacy?

    And, welcome back–we really missed you. I don’t even go to email first anymore. It’s straight to Am-Right, with coffee.

  22. Let us move forward says:

    for koyaan,

    I guess that when someone gets something right, you don't reply.

    That must mean that you accept the following:

    1)>>Mr. O has refused access to all records that may show that he presented himself as a foreign citizen. And without these records, only he and the people holding the records know for sure. And the people holding the records are bound in some way to not disclose, like by privacy laws.

    >What does it ultimately matter other than as a purely political issue?

    If Mr. O presented himself as a foreign citizen and/or with a foreign passport beyond the age of majority (we will give you age 21), that would be equivalent to owing allegiance to a foreign power that would not be covered by INA 1952. He would require naturalization to regain his US citizenship and could not claim "natural born" status.

    2)from http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html

    'John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” '

    The 14th amendment as written defines citizenship (not natural born citizenship specifically unless you read 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as 'born not subject to any other jurisdiction or allegiance'):

    'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States …'

    The definition of citizenship was modified by United States v. Wong Kim Ark, who was "native born" to Chinese national parents.

    The link above discusses United States v. Wong Kim Ark and there is apparently a wide opinion on whether the Court's decision in that case was legislation from the bench. Wong Kim Ark was the son of two long term legal resident aliens who were prevented by treaty from becoming naturalized citizens. Compare that situation with Obama Sr. who probably had a student visa and returned to Kenya when he finished his education.

    The fightthesmears post claims only native born citizenship.

    There are additional discussions about the writings of the framers of the Constitution and their consideration of the requirement of citizenship vs. native born citizenship vs. natural born citizenship as the requirement for the President. See naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com (some discussions will be in the comments).

    Allision, who is apparently a lawyer, posted on obamacrimes.com, that there is a lot of discussion about what is a "natural born" citizen in the legal community at this time. (She claims interest in the standing issue.)

    If Mr. O becomes President, the precedent for letting "native born" citizens become President could be set. It could also allow "naturalized" citizens to attempt to become President, changing the Constitution without an amendment.


    I am not really sure what citizenship status the Court determined for Wong Kim Ark other than citizen. The majority opinion (written by Chester appointee Gray) does not specifically state the exact status. Maybe it is possible to have a citizenship status that is simply "citizen".

    Mr. O apparently has the weakest claim to natural born citizenship status of any President born after the Constitution was ratified, including the ineligible Chester Arthur. With the conflicting definitions of "natural born citizenship" in the law, which definition would be judged applicable to his case? Precedent would indicate that he is ineligible.

    The following may be of interest to you


    with its approach to the question of Mr. O’s citizenship with both "strong" and "weak" definitions of natural born citizen.
    (I noticed a few minor incorrect statements that don’t invalidate the general approach.)

    Leo Donofrio's case was based on the "strongest definition", the definition that the framers intended and that was confirmed by the chief architect of the XIV amendment (see above in 2) ).

    Berg is challenging any claim based on the "weakest definition", the federal law that allows one US citizen parent of a child born abroad to transfer natural born citizenship.

    The citizenship status granted to United States citizens born to two married US parents abroad (due to military service) arbitrarily varies from natural born to naturalized (according to posts I have read). With the "weakest definition", couldn’t babies "casually conceived" in foreign countries by United States servicemen and foreign women be considered natural born US citizens at birth?

    Why don’t we have consistent legal definitions of citizenship status and the consistent application of the same? This inconsistent approach to citizenship is crazy and confusing. This question goes beyond Mr. O’s eligibility to be President. The definitions of natural born and naturalized and any other class of citizenship need to to clarified and consistently applied.

    Where is the Supreme Court? The Nine Justices need to address this issue (now would be better than later). Congress needs to get busy on this too.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Sorry Jeff. I left a comment on another post before I read the guidelines. I appreciate the opportunity to post comments without having to register. And, I understand I should leave a name so someone could respond to me.

    But, do you think you could include your commenting guidelines (perhaps in a box or such) at the end of each article? People will adher to your guidelines, if they are aware of them.


  24. suek says:

    >>Where is the Supreme Court? The Nine Justices need to address this issue (now would be better than later).>>

    I can think of two possibilities:

    a)He isn't president elect until the Electoral College votes, therefore his natural born status isn't relevent until that occurs.

    b)It isn't their jurisdiction – the Congress has to raise the challenge.

    I do wonder, however, about the problem it would cause Roberts if no challenge is made by congress, no decision is made by the SC, but he himself considers Obama ineligible… Would he swear him in? What if the SC considers it outside their jurisdiction, but they all are of the opinion that he is ineligible? hmmmm.

    Thank you for changing back to the old method of commenting. I do know that there can be a problem with the Name/URL selection…if you allow the cursor to drop into the URL box, the system demands a URL to be filled in, or it won't allow the comment – just continues to request the word type in and asks for the URL. If you type in _just_ a name, don't hit enter, then hit send, it works.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Jeff, Thanks for your explanation of Alawite Muslim. I know if I had not met Muslims personally and realized how nice they are and not at all like the image we have of some of them, I would not understand your position. I also know some are foxes in the den, so we have to be cautious, but not exclusive. Love wins all battles. Exclusion creates increased hatred. I admire your wisdom. You might enjoy a book written by a Harvard Jewish professor, Roy Schoeman, who converted to Catholicism, “Salvation is from the Jews.” A fascinating book of Jewish history, including the German situation. His parents wer holocaust victims. He said he did not really understand Judaism until he became a Catholic. He wondered why God’s miracles stopped 2000 years ago, and could not believe the miracles and fascinating history and saints of the Catholic Church. He learned Judaism was all symbolic foreshadowing and the Catholic Church was really post-Messianic Judaism. He helped me understand my own Catholic faith and get excited about it! Your religious roots are interesting. Your goal of varied viewpoints for your web ste is great. It reflects America at its best. I will now think of the menorah as Christmas birthday candles for Christ!

  26. Rick says:

    Marie, that was an interesting point about Obama bluffing all the way to the swearing in. If he truly has cajones that big, maybe he will be a helluva president LOL. I hope that the other commentor is correct that the SC is waiting for the electoral votes to be counted therefore making him officially Pres. Elect and then making the issue relevant. That would be sooooooo interesting that I may not have to watch 24 this season. Okay, you know I’ll rent the DVD’s. Thanks for the intelligent chatter everybody. That’s why I love this blog.

  27. sharon says:

    Great writing as usual, and I believe incognito IS a better user name than Anonymous…Anonymous sounds like Nobody… ” Say your name, say your name” hey, that has a ring to it perhaps someone will write a song…

    : )

  28. Gracie says:

    Jeff, thank you for your website. I have found it very interesting. Especially, the topic on Obama’s citizenship. I am closely keeping up with every story I can find on this issue. You may want to add the link to your website I’ve e-mailed you.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Please go to http://www.wnd.com (World Net Daily) as for a total cost to you of $10.95 FedEx letters will be sent in your name to each Supreme Court Justice guaranteed to arrive in time for their deliberations. The last time World net Daily offered this opportunity some 60,000 responded.

    There is strength in numbers. You have a voice. Use it!!!!

Speak Your Mind