Comments on: Hollister v. Soetoro: Retired Colonel Wants to Know Obama’s Real Name http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/30/hollister-v-soetoro-retired-colonel-wants-to-know-obamas-real-name/ Questioning everything, in love, for the truth Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:40:44 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Michael Schore, Maj, USAF (Retired) http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/30/hollister-v-soetoro-retired-colonel-wants-to-know-obamas-real-name/comment-page-1/#comment-9446 Michael Schore, Maj, USAF (Retired) Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:45:50 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2332#comment-9446 Additionally, read the 14th Amendment [Flame bait]. Here is Section 1: <b>All persons born or naturalized in the United States</b>, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, <b>are citizens</b> of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Additionally, read the 14th Amendment [Flame bait]. Here is Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

]]> By: Michael Schore, Maj, USAF (Retired) http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/30/hollister-v-soetoro-retired-colonel-wants-to-know-obamas-real-name/comment-page-1/#comment-9443 Michael Schore, Maj, USAF (Retired) Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:39:11 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2332#comment-9443 The following long ago established the issue of "natural born citizen": Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.) [Flame bait] The following long ago established the issue of “natural born citizen”:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the “natural born citizen” clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)

[Flame bait]

]]> By: Michael Schore, Maj, USAF (Retired) http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/30/hollister-v-soetoro-retired-colonel-wants-to-know-obamas-real-name/comment-page-1/#comment-9440 Michael Schore, Maj, USAF (Retired) Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:33:40 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2332#comment-9440 [Flame bait] I had to serve under two presidents I despised and held my tongue. What utter nonsense? To the writer who makes the claim that "natural born citizen" means that both parents have to be born in the US--where is that written into US law? Common interpretation of the citizen law implies simply birth in the US and territories. Get over it!! [Flame bait] I had to serve under two presidents I despised and held my tongue. What utter nonsense?

To the writer who makes the claim that “natural born citizen” means that both parents have to be born in the US–where is that written into US law? Common interpretation of the citizen law implies simply birth in the US and territories.

Get over it!!

]]> By: AXJ http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/30/hollister-v-soetoro-retired-colonel-wants-to-know-obamas-real-name/comment-page-1/#comment-2596 AXJ Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:38:49 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2332#comment-2596 The international civil and political rights organization AXJ is studying this matter. www.axjus.com The international civil and political rights organization AXJ is studying this matter. http://www.axjus.com

]]> By: ?????????? http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/30/hollister-v-soetoro-retired-colonel-wants-to-know-obamas-real-name/comment-page-1/#comment-2106 ?????????? Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:41:26 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2332#comment-2106 The intent of the Constitution is, in order to be considered a "Natural Born Citizen", a person must be born on American soil or one of it's territories and to it's jurisdiction and have two American born parents. To be born on American soil with one parent or no parents as "Natural Born Citizens" only means this is your birthright and that you are a "citizen" of the U.S., not a "Natural Born Citizen". This intent was to forbid a division in allegiance to America and a foreign country. Any one of the old American History books explains this very well. Obama could for the most part be compared to Chester Arthur who ran for Vice President in 1889. To allow Obama to take the Oath of Office as President sets a precedent and opens the door for possibly our worst enemy to rule this country. Is someone using Obama to test the Constitution and open the door for whomever runs next for this office??? God forbid this should ever be allowed to happen. The intent of the Constitution is, in order to be considered a “Natural Born Citizen”, a person must be born on American soil or one of it’s territories and to it’s jurisdiction and have two American born parents. To be born on American soil with one parent or no parents as “Natural Born Citizens” only means this is your birthright and that you are a “citizen” of the U.S., not a “Natural Born Citizen”. This intent was to forbid a division in allegiance to America and a foreign country. Any one of the old American History books explains this very well. Obama could for the most part be compared to Chester Arthur who ran for Vice President in 1889. To allow Obama to take the Oath of Office as President sets a precedent and opens the door for possibly our worst enemy to rule this country. Is someone using Obama to test the Constitution and open the door for whomever runs next for this office??? God forbid this should ever be allowed to happen.

]]> By: ?????????? http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/30/hollister-v-soetoro-retired-colonel-wants-to-know-obamas-real-name/comment-page-1/#comment-2103 ?????????? Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:10:28 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2332#comment-2103 I wonder what Great Britain has to say about his citizenship. Do they have birth information since Kenya was under the British Crown at the time of Obama's birth? I wonder what Great Britain has to say about his citizenship. Do they have birth information since Kenya was under the British Crown at the time of Obama’s birth?

]]> By: NewEnglandPatriot http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/30/hollister-v-soetoro-retired-colonel-wants-to-know-obamas-real-name/comment-page-1/#comment-2089 NewEnglandPatriot Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:39:11 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2332#comment-2089 Your scenario is exactly what should happen. Even liberals are agreeing that if Obama is not "natural born," he not only should not serve, but CANNOT serve. So evidently everyone can agree that we need to follow the Constitution. It is so very simple. If Obama would simply release his birth document and end this turmoil, we would all be better off, even if there is a crisis. We need to know the truth. Your scenario is exactly what should happen. Even liberals are agreeing that if Obama is not “natural born,” he not only should not serve, but CANNOT serve. So evidently everyone can agree that we need to follow the Constitution. It is so very simple. If Obama would simply release his birth document and end this turmoil, we would all be better off, even if there is a crisis. We need to know the truth.

]]> By: Ted http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/30/hollister-v-soetoro-retired-colonel-wants-to-know-obamas-real-name/comment-page-1/#comment-2079 Ted Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:33:33 +0000 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2332#comment-2079 Challenge, can anyone prove this wrong?:-- 1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be "natural born citizen". 2. BHO's website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born. 3. BHO is therefore not a "natural born citizen" (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment "citizen" of USA) -- as confirmed in the Senate's own McCain qualification resolution agreed to by BHO. 4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 -- between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) -- to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO's eligibility to be President. 5. Since no facts are in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO's inauguration as President. 6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President. 7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined -- the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution. Challenge, can anyone prove this wrong?:–

1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.

2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.

3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — as confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution agreed to by BHO.

4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.

5. Since no facts are in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.

6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.

7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.

]]>