Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $4,731
5%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 5% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by GregNH

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • New Laws are Needed for Same Sex Marriages

    06/29/2015 8:11:00 PM PDT · 8 of 27
    GregNH to hapnHal
    This change would be covered by the 10th Amendment for States Rights.

    Hmmmm I thought that marriage WAS a states rights issue...

  • Kagan, Sotomayer Not Legitimate Members of Supreme Court

    06/29/2015 7:07:46 PM PDT · 151 of 281
    GregNH to 4Zoltan

    Thank you and I do understand all that but I also know that there was some controversy surrounding Chester Arthur and I would think that maybe there was discussion when the first NBC became CIC.

  • Kagan, Sotomayer Not Legitimate Members of Supreme Court

  • Kagan, Sotomayer Not Legitimate Members of Supreme Court

    06/29/2015 4:35:35 PM PDT · 142 of 281
    GregNH to Nero Germanicus

    The problem is that Congress at some point in time stopped at section 15. To all of sudden follow through with their duty under U.S. Code 3 Chapter 1 would be not only be embarrassing but also appear to be racist to all of sudden ask for “papers” from a black President elect.

  • Kagan, Sotomayer Not Legitimate Members of Supreme Court

    06/29/2015 1:28:51 PM PDT · 140 of 281
    GregNH to Nero Germanicus
    The word qualify does not appear until section 19 where it mentions the President "elect." This is because we have determined in section 15 who the President and Vice President elect are. That is the point where qualifications are to be handled. In fact section 19 describes every different situation where someone other than the President elect would assume to act as President and in each case it also declares that that person needs to be "qualified". It is mentioned "nine" times! Not in one of those instances are electoral votes a factor. Now how can one think that any other person or body be responsible for seeing that in these different situations involving the qualification of the President and Vice President elect, or any of the other situation listed, be handled by but Congress?
  • Kagan, Sotomayer Not Legitimate Members of Supreme Court

    06/28/2015 6:51:56 PM PDT · 128 of 281
    GregNH to Nero Germanicus

    I fail to see anywhere in the information you provided that failing to qualify means did not receive the required electoral votes. Not one instance!

  • Kagan, Sotomayer Not Legitimate Members of Supreme Court

    06/28/2015 3:05:38 PM PDT · 115 of 281
    GregNH to Nero Germanicus
    It appears that most historians, constitutional scholars and political scientists interpret “qualifying” or “failing to qualify” as being related to acquiring a majority of the electoral votes.

    Can you point to one historian, constitutional scholar, or political scientist that has said this?

  • Kagan, Sotomayer Not Legitimate Members of Supreme Court

    06/28/2015 2:55:56 PM PDT · 114 of 281
    GregNH to Uncle Sham

    I think there should be transcripts of some past joint sessions where eligibility is discussed. IE Chester Arthur for instance or maybe perhaps President number 10, John Tyler, who was one of the first NBC Presidents.

  • Kagan, Sotomayer Not Legitimate Members of Supreme Court

    06/27/2015 7:41:27 PM PDT · 100 of 281
    GregNH to Uncle Sham

    Can you point to a congressional record of the procedure where qualifications were discussed somewhere in the past?

  • A PERMANENT ANSWER TO SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ABUSES (Hostage)

    06/25/2015 12:57:46 PM PDT · 146 of 241
    GregNH to BuckeyeTexan

    Ping

  • Why do Mitch McConnell and John Boehner act like they have a Denny Hastert problem?

    06/07/2015 6:22:58 AM PDT · 73 of 76
    GregNH to bgill
    As outlined in my post HERE, and read a few comments after.

    Here is the pertinent subsection of US code 3 chapter 1 section 19

    In reading this it is clear that the President elect and Vice President elect need to "qualify." Now we can argue that this chapter does not spesifically spell out a process to "show us your papers" but then again the Constitution does state that only an NBC can qualify.

    From what I can determine Congress has not followed this chapter to it's proper conclusion for some time and to do so now would not only embarrass Congress it would of seemed to be "racist" to all of sudden ask for "papers."

    SR511 was purely political and only drew attention away from the real issue of Zippo's qualifications.

  • Liberal Academic Says America’s Founding Document Outmoded

    06/06/2015 8:40:00 PM PDT · 114 of 153
    GregNH to SvenMagnussen; Academiadotorg; bgill; DrDude; shibumi
    Start HERE and read to end of thread. His replies to me speak volumes.
  • Liberal Academic Says America’s Founding Document Outmoded

    06/06/2015 8:28:17 PM PDT · 112 of 153
    GregNH to SvenMagnussen; SatinDoll; LucyT; Brown Deer; Fred Nerks; frog in a pot
    Sven has been making claims for years without backing up a single one. Case in point, taken from here. And trust me there are many of the same references all over FreeRepublic.

    In 1971, there were only two contractors with HHS to administer the Federal Foster Care program. The two contractors were Catholic Social Services of Connecticut and Lutheran Social Services. Lutheran Social Services primarily focused on Ports of Entry along the East Coast in 1971. Catholic Social Services of Connecticut administered the program throughout the U.S. Consequently, Catholic Social Services of Connecticut was the only provider of the Federal Foster Care program to take custody of an unaccompanied minor with foreign nationality at a Port of Entry in Hawaii.

    Obama’s only connection to Connecticut is his SSN filed on his behalf by his case manager at Catholic Social Services of Connecticut. Only foreign nationals could enter the Federal Foster Care program in the 70’s.

    I finally dug in and came up with this email exchange. Read emails from the bottom up. Taken from here.

    Hi Greg,

    I checked with our immigration services director who said that Catholic Social Services (one of our former names) did not provide services for unaccompanied refugee minors during the 1970s. She suggests that you check with Child and Family Service to see if they provided this specialized service. Great question!

    Celeste Imamura
    Development Coordinator
    Catholic Charities Hawai‘i
    1822 Keeaumoku Street
    Honolulu, HI 96822
    Phone: (808) 527-4821
    cimamura@catholiccharitieshawaii.org

    The information in this e-mail is confidential and is legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized and may lead to civil and/or criminal penalties. If you have received this message in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message (and the documents attached to it, if any); destroy any hard copies you may have created; and notify Catholic Charities Hawaii immediately at 524-4673.
    ________________________________________
    From: Greg
    Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:16 AM
    To: Celeste Imamura
    Subject: RE: Website Inquiry

    Thank you very much for the reply.

    I am doing some research and am being told that “Catholic Family Services” would have been the organization who would take custody of an unaccompanied minor arriving from a foreign shore. The time frame was about the 1970’s. Is this something that you would have been involved in?

    Greg

    From: Celeste Imamura [mailto:celeste@catholiccharitieshawaii.org]
    Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 8:15 PM
    To: Greg
    Subject: Website Inquiry

    Aloha Greg,

    Thank you for your email.

    Catholic Charities Hawai‘i was chartered in Hawai‘i in 1947. There’s also some history on our website at: http://www.catholiccharitieshawaii.org/site/371/about_us.aspx

    Thanks again for your message.

    Celeste Imamura
    Development Coordinator
    Catholic Charities Hawai‘i
    1822 Keeaumoku Street
    Honolulu, HI 96822
    Phone: (808) 527-4821

    113 posted on 06/18/2013 1:08:28 PM PDT by GregNH (If you can't fight, please find a good place to hide!)
    These CFS of Hawaii claims then stopped. He has claimed may times that Zippo naturalized in St Louis, I looked into that and couldn't find anything. Now he says LA....I don't have the time or the html space to show all of rebuttals that go unanswered by Sven.
  • Obama Pays Parking Tickets 17 Years Late (Oldie but a goodie because of the Rubio flap)

    06/06/2015 9:34:46 AM PDT · 12 of 13
    GregNH to LucyT

    Just a random thought. I am from MA and I can tell you first hand that if had an old parking ticket your license to drive was suspended until that was taken care of. Now that we have a national system, and have had one for many years, no other state would of issued or renewed a drivers license until MA was taken care of. This happened to me many years ago and to my mother, who is Florida as well. So he either does or did not have a license in his name in IL or he didn’t have one at all.

  • Why do Mitch McConnell and John Boehner act like they have a Denny Hastert problem?

    06/02/2015 7:16:48 AM PDT · 66 of 76
    GregNH to SvenMagnussen
    Interpreting the fact the Congress qualifies a President-elect as determining the President-elect is a natural born citizen is disingenuous in the light of Schneider v. Rusk. Congress does not have the authority to define a natural born citizen and does not have the authority to determine who is a natural born citizen and who is not a natural born citizen. All we know is that a naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen.

    I never said Congress defines NBC. There is no need to define it by law. See HERE

    What the US Code does in the sections subsequent to section 15 before we get to section 20 is verify the qualifications as to Art II sec I that outlines what is required to be CIC. Section 20 uses this language "fails to qualify which clearly places the burden on the President elect to bring forth his or hes qualifications to show eligibility.

  • Why do Mitch McConnell and John Boehner act like they have a Denny Hastert problem?

    06/01/2015 5:45:09 AM PDT · 64 of 76
    GregNH to SvenMagnussen
    President-elect is said to have failed to qualify because he cannot perform the duties of the President.

    You are being disingenuous.

    SECTION. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    The fact that a President dies OR fails to qualify are two totally different situations listed in the language of our constitution. Hence the word OR

    It is same uncommon sense that people use to ignore the words natural and or in the phrase "natural born citizen or a citizen..."

  • To the memory of Free Republic’s “Kenny Bunk.”

    05/31/2015 12:32:43 PM PDT · 62 of 135
    GregNH to Seizethecarp; LucyT

    I once shared with KB a time when I meet a guy from Maine. I asked him “Have ya lived here all your life?” and simply replied “Not yet.” We had a good laugh and I will always remember that dry sense of humor Kenny Bunk had but with a twist of whit. See ya in fishing boat on the other side buddy...

  • Why do Mitch McConnell and John Boehner act like they have a Denny Hastert problem?

    05/31/2015 10:40:51 AM PDT · 62 of 76
    GregNH to SvenMagnussen
    the Electors chose to elect President Obama while there were numerous individuals publicly complaining he was ineligible.

    You are missing the sequential order of events. The electors have nothing to do with qualifications of a candidate. Congress does not know who the President elect is until US Code 3 chapter 1 section 15. No person not declared President elect can be ineligible. That must happen between section 15 and section 19 where is states "if the President elect shall fail to qualify"

  • Why do Mitch McConnell and John Boehner act like they have a Denny Hastert problem?

    05/30/2015 3:29:26 PM PDT · 59 of 76
    GregNH to SvenMagnussen
    The American people voted to void the US Constitution

    It takes two thirds of the states to vote to conveign a constitutional convection for the purpose of changing the constitution, not by popular vote.

  • Why do Mitch McConnell and John Boehner act like they have a Denny Hastert problem?

    05/30/2015 3:24:34 PM PDT · 58 of 76
    GregNH to SvenMagnussen; SaveFerris
    An ineligible President cannot be prevented from assuming the Office of the President of the United States because the majority of American people have voted to put the ineligible President in the office.

    The below comment was taken from HERE Also see comments 56 & 57 on that thread.

    I have been on this 20th amendment thing since Oct 2008! Anyway I came across this old post I did last year. I never did get a response....

    I came across this page a while ago and after reading the Q&A's I decided to email the person giving the answers. I have yet to receive a reply.

    From that page the first question is;

    Question:

    What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration?
    Answer:
    If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified.
    Then further down on that page is another question.

    Question:

    Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?
    Answer:
    The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.

    In light of this answer I emailed the contact for that page the following.

    From: Greg XXXXXXX
    Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:23 PM
    To: 'electoral_college@nara.gov'
    Subject: US Code 3

    On this page "Previous Questions of The Week." here http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/previous_questions.html

    There are two questions I would like to address, the First one is "What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration?" And the answer is correct as it states the process described in the 20th amendment and US Code 3 Sec 19. US Code 3 describes the process of counting the electoral vote for President and Vice President during a joint session of congress.

    Then a subsequent question "Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?" That answer is not very specific. You mention the Office of Federal Register at the National Archives but go on to state it is a states issue. Well in section 11 we see the first mention of the Archivist. But there are three other copies of the certificates, one set being delivered to the President of the Senate. Then is section 15 we see that two tellers from each house previously selected and are handed the certificates for opening and are dealt with in an alphabetical order. It goes on to explain and clarify the counting process.

    The word qualify does not appear until section 19 when it mentions the President "elect." This is because we have determined who the President and Vice President elect are. That is the point where qualifications are to be handled. In fact section 19 describes every different situation where someone other than the President elect would assume to act as President and in each case it also declares that that person needs to be "qualified". It is mentioned "nine" times! Now how can one think that any other person or body be responsible for seeing that in these different situations involving the qualification of the President and Vice President elect, or any of the other situation listed, be handled by but Congress?

    I think there should be transcripts of some past joint sessions where eligibility is discussed. IE Chester Arthur for instance or maybe perhaps President number 10, John Tyler, who was one of the first NBC Presidents.

    3 U.S. Code Chapter 1 - PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES

    • § 1. Time of appointing electors
    • § 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day
    • § 3. Number of electors
    • § 4. Vacancies in electoral college
    • § 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors
    • § 6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection
    • § 7. Meeting and vote of electors
    • § 8. Manner of voting
    • § 9. Certificates of votes for President and Vice President
    • § 10. Sealing and endorsing certificates
    • § 11. Disposition of certificates
    • § 12. Failure of certificates of electors to reach President of the Senate or Archivist of the United States; demand on State for certificate
    • § 13. Same; demand on district judge for certificate
    • § 14. Forfeiture for messenger’s neglect of duty
    • § 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
    • § 16. Same; seats for officers and Members of two Houses in joint meeting
    • § 17. Same; limit of debate in each House
    • § 18. Same; parliamentary procedure at joint meeting
    • § 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
    • § 20. Resignation or refusal of office
    • § 21. Definitions

    So there is the process listed. Why and when did Congress start stopping at section 15?

    52 posted on 11/02/2014 9:04:56 AM PST by GregNH (If you can't fight, please find a good place to hide!)
  • Why do Mitch McConnell and John Boehner act like they have a Denny Hastert problem?

    05/30/2015 2:27:56 PM PDT · 57 of 76
    GregNH to Lurkinanloomin; MarchonDC09122009

    I was there as well. I was fairly sure there would be a little coverage given the unexpected numbers of people that did show up, but nothing....

  • Yes, birthers, Ted Cruz IS a natural-born citizen of the U.S.

    05/26/2015 7:21:48 AM PDT · 238 of 240
    GregNH to Yosemitest
    Your point on pinging me again to the same post in this very thread is what?

    I read the thread. I posted my opinion. You pinged to me what I have already read and you feel the need to direct me back to what I have read again?

  • Yes, birthers, Ted Cruz IS a natural-born citizen of the U.S.

  • Family pictures of young Barack and Michelle Obama are fake

    05/14/2015 7:25:15 PM PDT · 87 of 103
    GregNH to JennysCool; Lazamataz; HomerBohn; bgill
  • Obama Administration Admits Breaking Executive Amnesty Injunction

    05/09/2015 5:53:59 AM PDT · 95 of 108
    GregNH to Delta 21
    This does not rise to the level of "High crimes and misdemeanors" is often the quote heard from talking heads.

    That makes it sound like there has to be a crime that rises to some level above all other levels. Public officials need to be held to a higher standard meaning a misdemeanor is a crime, just like it is for you and I.

  • Texas Ranger Reports What He Saw INSIDE Military Train Used for “Martial Law” Exercises

  • Texas Ranger Reports What He Saw INSIDE Military Train Used for “Martial Law” Exercises

    05/06/2015 7:00:24 PM PDT · 86 of 102
    GregNH to LucyT; robowombat

    It maybe two years or more at this point but there was a guy here on freep that was a welder and he recounted how he was welding these shackles into train cars, I believe in Washington State if memory serves me...don’t really have the time to search it right now but I remember it like yesterday. He was pretty scared about it too.

  • Obama and mayors planning not only to reform but to totally replace America’s police forces

    05/02/2015 6:49:31 PM PDT · 27 of 66
    GregNH to Jane Long; rrrod; LucyT
  • Presidential eligibility of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal challenged at Supreme Court

    02/20/2015 1:24:35 AM PST · 177 of 280
    GregNH to GregNH

    It was common knowledge at the time.

  • Judicial Watch Forces Obama Administration to Release Pentagon Benghazi Attack Documents

    02/20/2015 1:23:13 AM PST · 20 of 24
    GregNH to TigersEye; jazusamo; LucyT
    Repost from Benghazi e-mail finally answers the basic questions: Who knew what, when? Feb 2012

    I believe that the pResident was AWOL therefore no one with the authority to order a cross boarder military action, only the CIC has that authority and I believe he was w/Reggie behind a Do Not Disturb sign. I copied this from a previous post, sorry for any redundancy.

    Taken from an interview posted on ABC News website here President Obama Begs Off Answering Whether Americans in Benghazi Were Denied Requests for Help Posted on October 26, 2012. A local Denver journalist, Mr.Clark, pressed again.

    Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” he asked... .

    [snip]

    “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”
    Everything he says is in past tense. He is cornered and has no teleprompter. I believe he was AWOL after the 6PM email that stated that the attack had stopped and the consulate cleared.

    Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.

    So if the very first "order" was to do whatever we need to. Then why wasn't thank done? Who did he give that directive to? Why didn't he answer the question with "We couldn't get help there in time?" Or whatever the spin is now.

    He had the Do Not Disturb sign on the bedroom door of Reggie because this was supposed to be hostage taking for a October negotiation for Stevens release to make him look good for November....

    If that is true then it makes sense because no one could give the authority to launch an international cross border military action but the CIC so all they could do was tell them to stand down.

    And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe.

    You lie!

    Then we have Panneta's testimony where he cooberates Zippo's first directive and also the fact that he never saw Zippo after that.

    Several committee Republicans pressed Panetta and Dempsey about their discussions with President Barack Obama on that fateful day and his level of involvement, suggesting that after the initial conversation the commander in chief was disengaged as Americans died.

    Panetta said he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., questioned whether Panetta spoke again to Obama after that first meeting. The Pentagon chief said no but that the White House was in touch with military officials and aware of what was happening.

    "During the eight-hour period, did he show any curiosity?" Graham asked.

    Panetta said there was no question the president was concerned about American lives. Exasperated with Graham's interruptions, Panetta said forcefully, "The president is well-informed about what is going on; make no mistake about it."

    At one point in the hearing, Graham asked Panetta if he knew what time Obama went to sleep that night. The Pentagon chief said he did not.

    And further more why was Hillary out at 10:00PM to inform us that Stevens was dead and not Zippo, where was he? < /rhetorical >
  • Presidential eligibility of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal challenged at Supreme Court

    02/18/2015 8:53:11 AM PST · 139 of 280
    GregNH to Nero Germanicus
    In the absence of a vote in both chambers on a legislative measure and a president’s signature

    So you are not satisfied because a law defining common knowledge does not exist.

  • Presidential eligibility of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal challenged at Supreme Court

    02/16/2015 5:09:52 PM PST · 135 of 280
    GregNH to Nero Germanicus
    Bingham on two occasions spoke of the definition on the floor of the house without objection.
    Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.
  • Presidential eligibility of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal challenged at Supreme Court

    02/16/2015 3:23:04 PM PST · 133 of 280
    GregNH to Nero Germanicus
    John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

    The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

    "All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

     

    The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

    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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

    No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.


     
    Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

    “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

    (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

    The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people's house regarding "citizenship" and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect's multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country.

  • Presidential eligibility of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal challenged at Supreme Court

    02/15/2015 6:29:10 AM PST · 125 of 280
    GregNH to C. Edmund Wright

    Great arguments, thanks!

  • Presidential eligibility of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal challenged at Supreme Court

    02/15/2015 6:21:31 AM PST · 123 of 280
    GregNH to C. Edmund Wright

    You’re funny. Law and facts disturb you?

  • Presidential eligibility of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal challenged at Supreme Court

    02/15/2015 6:10:10 AM PST · 121 of 280
    GregNH to Nero Germanicus; mlo; .45 Long Colt; Plummz; saleman; wolfman23601; C. Edmund Wright; ...
    The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born Citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ cannot possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any other part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?

    There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.

    OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?

    There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.

    1. Born in or out of a country.
    2. Both parents are citizens.
    3. One parent is a citizen.
    4. Neither parent is a citizen.
    The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.

    Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

    'Natural Born Citizen' simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.

    What is important about the 'law of nature'? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable". The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.

    The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

    Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320?
    CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens at birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, these are not really 'Citizens at birth', the are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz 'spokespeople' will always say 'by birth'), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.

    That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'. Jindal and Rubio are not NBC's either as described above.

  • MALIK SHABAZZ TO BLACK PANTHERS: 2015 TIME TO BUILD ARMY, GO TO GUN RANGE

    01/02/2015 1:37:19 PM PST · 171 of 206
    GregNH to Kackikat

    There are two bad accidents that could of caused the scars that BHO has. He has a real nasty one on his leg and few on his skull. There was David Obama that supposedly died in Kenya from a motorcycle accident and of course you bring up the Shabazz accident. I actually went to the Honolulu police department last year when I made a trip to Hawaii and they were all clamed up. Nothing at the the police department and nothing in the newspapers about the accident. It’s an Island of dead ends....

  • White House Quietly Releases Plans For 3,415 Regulations Ahead Of Thanksgiving Holiday

    11/24/2014 7:50:52 AM PST · 9 of 47
    GregNH to Nachum
    that includes 189 rules that cost more than $100 million.

    So tell me again how the executive branch can authorize spending?

  • Obamacare Architect Gruber: I Regret Calling American People ‘Stupid’

    11/12/2014 9:26:57 AM PST · 148 of 149
    GregNH to machogirl
    “I’m frustrated that the future of the American health care system rests in the hands of one or two of these unelected people who might make the decision based on political grounds,”

    So the future of the American heath care system resting in the hands of an unelected MIT professor is better? And by the way, lying to the elected and stupid voting public is just fine as well....

  • Obamacare Architect Gruber: I Regret Calling American People ‘Stupid’

    11/12/2014 9:06:11 AM PST · 145 of 149
    GregNH to Nachum

    He mentioned he was the architect for Romney Care. What was that relationship?

  • Harry Reid raises impeachment … to raise last-minute election money

    11/02/2014 1:20:26 PM PST · 57 of 61
    GregNH to David

    I would seem to me that the phrase “fails to qualify” places the burden of proof on the president elect. He of course, as we now all know, can’t.

  • Harry Reid raises impeachment … to raise last-minute election money

    11/02/2014 9:47:08 AM PST · 54 of 61
    GregNH to David

    I think the jury is till out on that one. But getting through the entire qualification process first is much more important at this point.

  • Harry Reid raises impeachment … to raise last-minute election money

    11/02/2014 9:04:56 AM PST · 52 of 61
    GregNH to David
    I have been on this 20th amendment thing since Oct 2008! Anyway I came across this old post I did last year. I never did get a response....

    I came across this page a while ago and after reading the Q&A's I decided to email the person giving the answers. I have yet to receive a reply.

    From that page the first question is;

    Question:

    What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration?
    Answer:
    If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified.
    Then further down on that page is another question.

    Question:

    Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?
    Answer:
    The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.

    In light of this answer I emailed the contact for that page the following.

    From: Greg XXXXXXX
    Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:23 PM
    To: 'electoral_college@nara.gov'
    Subject: US Code 3

    On this page "Previous Questions of The Week." here http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/previous_questions.html

    There are two questions I would like to address, the First one is "What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration?" And the answer is correct as it states the process described in the 20th amendment and US Code 3 Sec 19. US Code 3 describes the process of counting the electoral vote for President and Vice President during a joint session of congress.

    Then a subsequent question "Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?" That answer is not very specific. You mention the Office of Federal Register at the National Archives but go on to state it is a states issue. Well in section 11 we see the first mention of the Archivist. But there are three other copies of the certificates, one set being delivered to the President of the Senate. Then is section 15 we see that two tellers from each house previously selected and are handed the certificates for opening and are dealt with in an alphabetical order. It goes on to explain and clarify the counting process.

    The word qualify does not appear until section 19 when it mentions the President "elect." This is because we have determined who the President and Vice President elect are. That is the point where qualifications are to be handled. In fact section 19 describes every different situation where someone other than the President elect would assume to act as President and in each case it also declares that that person needs to be "qualified". It is mentioned "nine" times! Now how can one think that any other person or body be responsible for seeing that in these different situations involving the qualification of the President and Vice President elect, or any of the other situation listed, be handled by but Congress?

    I think there should be transcripts of some past joint sessions where eligibility is discussed. IE Chester Arthur for instance or maybe perhaps President number 10, John Tyler, who was one of the first NBC Presidents.

    3 U.S. Code Chapter 1 - PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES

    • § 1. Time of appointing electors
    • § 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day
    • § 3. Number of electors
    • § 4. Vacancies in electoral college
    • § 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors
    • § 6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection
    • § 7. Meeting and vote of electors
    • § 8. Manner of voting
    • § 9. Certificates of votes for President and Vice President
    • § 10. Sealing and endorsing certificates
    • § 11. Disposition of certificates
    • § 12. Failure of certificates of electors to reach President of the Senate or Archivist of the United States; demand on State for certificate
    • § 13. Same; demand on district judge for certificate
    • § 14. Forfeiture for messenger’s neglect of duty
    • § 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
    • § 16. Same; seats for officers and Members of two Houses in joint meeting
    • § 17. Same; limit of debate in each House
    • § 18. Same; parliamentary procedure at joint meeting
    • § 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
    • § 20. Resignation or refusal of office
    • § 21. Definitions

    So there is the process listed. Why and when did Congress start stopping at section 15?

  • EPA review board finds 'strong scientific support' for water rule

    10/23/2014 10:00:27 AM PDT · 14 of 18
    GregNH to Oldeconomybuyer

    That’s it! It’s settled science!

  • Ebola Czar Ron Klain Says "Overpopulation" Top Concern

    10/21/2014 2:15:35 PM PDT · 73 of 115
    GregNH to Nachum

    And it’s all off the books, we have no control, none!

  • Ebola Czar Ron Klain Says "Overpopulation" Top Concern

    10/21/2014 2:12:29 PM PDT · 69 of 115
    GregNH to GraceG

    I don’t have a link to it but there was a story about some guy with a drone who some people think he captured on video the new set for Star wars. When I saw it I recognized it one of these under ground facilities.

  • Ebola Czar Ron Klain Says "Overpopulation" Top Concern

    10/21/2014 2:03:37 PM PDT · 62 of 115
    GregNH to Nachum

    That is just one guy. I have seen many other videos on population control, and we do have massive under ground complexes. Many truckers have filmed their trips under ground.

  • Ebola Czar Ron Klain Says "Overpopulation" Top Concern

    10/21/2014 1:39:32 PM PDT · 52 of 115
    GregNH to Nachum
  • Unreal: With Ebola Crisis Raging, Obama Administration

    10/17/2014 1:04:28 PM PDT · 7 of 32
    GregNH to LucyT
    Nobody but a natural born citizen shall be eligible for the office of President.

    Now we know why....

  • Obama to bring non-American Ebola victims to U.S. for treatment

    10/17/2014 12:58:31 PM PDT · 57 of 210
    GregNH to LucyT; null and void

    This picture is on the front page of Foxnews right now. This customs agent agent is handling a passport and when he is done he will handle the next persons passport in line. So he in effect is transferring whatever maybe on a previous passport to the next one!

    I posted this on another thread 4 days ago.

    I was watching Fox this morning and while they are reporting there was a video running of an airport, don’t know which one, but there were two rows of chairs and two people in hazmats going from one person to the next checking what looked like passports. My jaw dropped because they are handling one passport after another!