Friday, August 31, 2012

Article II Super PAC, Letter to Commission on Presidential Debates, 8-30-2012

RE: Commission on Presidential Debates: 2012 Nonpartisan Selection Criteria

Dear Mr. Fahrenkopf and Mr. McCurry:

As advocates for the Framers' original intent, establishing in Article II, Section 1 that every President must be a "natural born Citizen," the Article II Super PAC wishes to extend our sincere thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) for the proper priority you place on the faithful observation of this national security provision of the Constitution by citing it in the first of your 2012 Nonpartisan Selection Criteria.

It has come to our attention that CPD may not recognize or apply any specific definition for "natural born Citizen" in the process of qualifying candidates' satisfaction of Presidential eligibility. If this is in error, we would appreciate any information on how you qualify Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates' eligibility as natural born Citizens.

We are deeply concerned with the efficacy of our electoral process in general since we learned in recent years that no known state or federal government office, nor any agency or elected official makes any effort to authenticate Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates' constitutional eligibility prior to their name appearing on the ballot. Instead, we are genuinely alarmed to find that stewardship of this keystone of our national security is deferred to the same biased, unelected and unaccountable political parties which advance their respective nominees. Furthermore, no official examination to substantiate any party's claims of their candidate's eligibility is ever conducted or even sought. For example, it is the FBI's position that they do not presume to contravene the will of voters, so no background checks are conducted on candidates for any office.

As you are aware, a simple majority vote cannot overturn Constitutional requirements.


FLASHBACK: Obama Is The Original Birther! Obama In 1991 Stated In His Own Bio He Was Born In Kenya. DETAILS HERE. 

SHOCK CLAIM: Breitbart Reporter Charles Johnson Has Documented Proof Obama is Indonesian Citizen - AUDIO HERE. 





Article II Super PAC Letter to Commission on Presidential Debates 8-30-2012

New Ad - AZ Sheriff Arpaio - Obama Birth Cert & Draft Reg Card Are Forged! Wash Times Natl Wkly - 12 Ma...


  1. The commission is already in our back pocket (c'mon - look who the moderators are!).

    We're way out in front of you on this. There's no angle you can come up with that we haven't already thought of and foreclosed.

    Always two steps ahead,

    Calamity Jane.

  2. Calamity Jane the village idiot who claimed the Gary Kreep election was rigged and he would lose. He ended up winning!

  3. @Anonymous

    "Calamity Jane the village idiot who claimed the Gary Kreep election was rigged and he would lose. He ended up winning!"

    Keep repeating the lie long enough and people will start believing it - take it from us! LOL!

    Calamity Jane.

  4. Calamity Jane you're a lying sack of Obama(shit). Go back and read the thread at this site about Kreep's election. You commented that Kreep's race was rigged so that he would lose.

    You talk so much shit you can't even keep track of all your BS.

  5. There is so little oversight as to who can be on the ballot as a presidential candidate that a convicted felon serving 17 years in federal prison can send in his $2500, fill out a form and appear on the ballot, taking 42% of the vote against Obozo in West Virginia's Demoncrap primary.

  6. Well done. I'll be copying parts of this and sending it off too. Hope you don't mind.

  7. Oh my!

    Headlines coming across the wires ahead of Bernanke’s speech indicate Ron Paul has just renounced the GOP, calling the party Keynesians and ‘NOT HIS PARTY‘.

    Could the announcement of a long awaited independent run for President by the Texas Congressman be imminent?

  8. Ron Paul working to give Obama 4 more years!

    Way to go Paulbots!

    Thanks from Obama's re-election campaign!

  9. Questions no Obot moron supporter of Barry Soetoro can answer.

    1. Please explain the difference between 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen' in the Constitution, that is according to what the framers intended? Why did the framers use two instead of one? What's the difference?

    2. What does natural mean in 'natural born citizen'? Do you think it has anything at all to do with acquiring citizenship from nature, i.e., naturally? Or is there an Obot spin for this too?

    3. Does anyone but a complete moron believe that the framers intended that someone with citizenship (allegiance) to a foreign power should be POTUS? Further, does anyone but an even more complete moron believe that the framers would be OK with a British citizen being POTUS? What's the Obot spin on this?

    Putting aside all of the bullshit that you Obot morons sling, the problem is that you don't care about the constitution. You're in it to protect one guy because he's your guy. He could be a martian, and you'd lie and spin your moron asses off because you're in lust with him. That makes you both un-American and anti-American. True patriots put the founding principles first, which is why so many of those that stand for the constitution are also pissed off that the media and the political class would allow Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindhal (both anchor babies) to be candidates for either POTUS or VPOTUS, without so much as a second thought.

    Soetoro, Rubio, Jindhal - none of them are eligible and the morons that will do whatever they can to justify otherwise are domestic enemies of the constitution.

  10. The history and true legal meaning of the constitutional presidential eligibility clause, natural born Citizen, and the U.S. Supreme Court cases and holdings such as Minor v Happersett 1875 say that it means born in the country to two U.S. Citizen parents. Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen. Minor has never been overturned. It is not that a father or mother is foreign born it is whether they both immigrated to the USA and both became a U.S. Citizen and renounced their foreign allegiances before their child was born in the USA. Rarely made obvious to the public is that Obama’s father was not even an immigrant to this country. We are a nation of immigrants but Obama’s father was not one. He was never a U.S. Citizen and never wanted to be. Obama Sr. was a British Subject foreign national simply visiting our country to attend college. No other elected President in our history ever had a father who was not an immigrant to our country. Obama II is not constitutionally eligible to be President. Let us not repeat the lack of vetting debacle of the 2008 election and suffer another 4 years under an ineligible, illegal person in the Oval Office.

    Read more about Obama’s Crimes and his Constitutional Ineligibility here:

    CDR Kerchner (Ret)

  11. At this point, legal challenges to NObama's candidacy are useless. Eventhough I thought the letter clearly summed up the legal arguments from the perspective of those who question the Usurper's legitimacy, those arguments are not in the mainstream and no one outside of the movement accepts them. We now have only two remedies left: Nov. 6 or the 2nd Amendment.

  12. @Kanbun

    Neither an Obot nor a moron, but I will attempt an explanation

    1. "Natural born citizen" is used only once the Constitution, and that is, of course, in regard to presidential eligibility. There are only two types of citizenship, two types of citizens, in the US, natural born and naturalized. The intent of the framers was to have no one other than a natural born citizen be president or commander in chief, with the exception of those who were already citizens when the Constitution was adopted. At the time, they were concerned that European royalty would come here and could possibly elected.

    The only difference between the rights of a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen is the eligibility for the presidency. Everywhere else in the Constitution, it refers to "citizen". It says that a representative and a senator must have been a citizen for at least 7 and 9 years, respectively. It doesn't say natural born citizen, just citizen. Of course that does not exclude NBCs from Congress.

    2. The "natural" in natural born, means a citizen at birth. No tests, pledges or naturalization is required.

    3. The framers were all British citizens, most were natural born British citizens. The framers were not concerned with citizenship passively acquired by birth or marriage. Those with passively acquired citizenship have it only as a result of the laws a foreign nation, not by any US law.

    Of course the founders would not have allowed another country to determine our citizenship or who could qualify for the presidency. If that were not the case, in the Cold War days the Soviet Union could have passed a law that said all persons born in the US are Russian citizens. Would that disqualify our natural born population? Of course not.

  13. Kanbun, you are a joke... sad !! :)

  14. Kanbun said: "Putting aside all of the bullshit that you Obot morons sling, the problem is that you don't care about the constitution."

    Apparently, NONE of America's representatives in Congress, Senate or the judiciary do, because they all agree with US.

  15. Citizens can be either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens. The framers intended that naturalized citizens could not be President. If you are born in this country you are automatically a citizen (natural born) and don't need to be naturalized.

    President Obama is not a citizen of Great Brittan or Kenya. I have no idea about Governor Jindal because I don't know India's policies on citizenship. It does not matter however. The citizenship laws of other countries have no impact on the laws of our country. There are a number of countries that confer automatic citizenship to children born in the United States under certain circumstances. Israel is one of those countries.

    There is a lot of sentiment to prohibit "anchor babies" from becoming automatic US citizens. That would require a constitutional amendment to change. Obama is not an anchor baby though. His Mother was a US citizen so this would not even apply to him.

  16. Kanbun Thanks for that. No one said it better. Bill G

  17. So Calamity Jane, ONE pathetic retarded person in a basement, is speaking to the vast majority of Americans who know Obama is a fraud. What balls. Wait, ballsacks, they're empty.

    Calamity, the locomotive of truth is unstoppable. Everyone knows you're a criminal and your criminal element will be shredded. Just give it time and light. Unstoppable. You're toast.

    Enjoy your basement, oh single person.

  18. Kanbun is correct, they shrivel and die like the wicked witch of the East doused with water when asked to DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A CITIZEN AND A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN


    A citizen can be born anywhere, including in the USA
    a natural born citizen must be born here
    A citizen can have 0, 1 or 2 US Citizen parent
    a natural born citizen must have 2 US Citizen parents

    A CITIZEN is either a statutory or natural born citizen, so it's already in the fucking statutes who is NOT a natural born citizen.

    There is only one omitted permutation, just one.


    that is the only permutation omitted from the statutes, that is a natural born citizen, and it's been codified into modern law for even obot retards to read.

  19. @Kanbun
    Exactly correct. Can I exchange my usurper for yours? Traitors the whole political lot.

  20. After reading "Susan Daniels", recent, lawsuit regarding Obama's eligibilty as President.....I believe her lawsuit will be thrown out. Obama's Lawyers' stated she did not have a case due to the fact that "she was not a Democrat". The Lawyers' stated that because she was not a Democratic her issues could not be raised in the Courts. It made me ask the question: "If I was a Democrat, running against Obama, could I then sue him in a Court of Law?" It seems to me that, only, "IF" you were a Democrat.....could I then sue Obama. Is this true regarding Obama's Lawyers' arguement? And....."IF" this is true......then.....could a Constitutional Lawyer sue Obama.....for changing "The Democratic Requirements" for Presidency? In Susan Daniels lawsuit, she raises the fact that the Democratic Party has changed their Democratic Requirements from the words "U.S. Constitution" to "Democratic Party". Was this legal? And..."IF" this is not legal....then will it take a "Constitutional Lawyer" to restore the Democratic Requirement "Wording" to it's original U.S. Constitution "Wording"?
    One other question...please. If the Democratic Party can change the requirements for easily....why was this "not" addressed by the Republican Party?

  21. @Anonymous

    Do you have a link to this law that says a NBC has to have two citizen parents?

  22. @Anonymous

    Susan Daniels did not sue Obama. Obama is not the defendant in that case. Ms. Daniels sued Jon Husted, the Ohio Secretary of State. It was the Secretary of State's lawyers who responded.

  23. @Anonymous"Do you have a link to this law that says a NBC has to have two citizen parents?"

    There isn't a law. The two citizen parent rule is a legal theory that many in the eligibility movement accept as an accurate interpretation of Supreme Court rulings. Just because it's not a law, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be the way things are. Indeed, America would be in a lot better shape now, if it was the law as understood by the lame-stream court system.

  24. There are several in congress & the senate who are patriots; it is the LEADERSHIP IN BOTH HOUSES WHO SHOULD BE MPEACHED FOR HIGH CRIMES.
    The "soldiers" are blackmailed & threatened with losing committee positions.
    Send it to Issa, the only chairman with guts. Grassley also.

    If they were not extorted, they would come forward.

    Obama had no chance of winning unless he steals the election.
    At that point, you will see members of congress move on impeachment.

    Boehner & McConnell have decided an election is less messy.
    This letter is way over the recipients' heads.

    It should have been signed by an attorney & sent to theirs with cc to the members.
    Obama has retained thousands of desperate gopher lawyers to attempt to generate voter fraud finding absentee ballots in cars etc as the nitwit Al Frankenstein in Minnesota "found".
    He stole the election. He lived in NYC for 30 years.
    He is cockroach.

    The cable shows will not address this so I suggest you send it to:
    Limbaugh, Ingraham, hedgecock Boyles Cashill levin savage WND ALEX JONES, Dr. Stephen Pieczenik ( who recommends Twitter & Facebook to spread the word) Doug Hagmann, Canada Free press, Prada, Rick Wiles, Genersl Anthony Shaeffer, Aaron Klein TRUMP, and ROGER AILES & Don Frederick: (Obama Timeline) NRA & Clint Eastwood & Jon Voight, & Janine Turner.
    If they care, they will move on this and call the commission out as incompetents & compromised.
    Publish in the WSJ NOT THE WASHINGON TIMES. You want the uninformed to catch up with reality.
    " this is our country. They are our employees!"... X

  25. @TerriHey Terry - can you read? Read this: fuck you. The only joke is your guy. A lying, scheming, low-life that only a moron can support.

  26. @Anonymousat 5:58 p.m.

    Barry Soetoro has acknowledged his British citizenship. It was plainly set forth on his campaign website in 2008.

    While most of your comrades are just spinning and rationalizing for your guy, you on the other hand demonstrate distinct inability to even get the facts straight.

    Keep luvin' your guy.

  27. @Bob M. from OhioCan you simply believe the foolishness and idiocy of these Obots? They just make this up as the go along. Don't get the point, can't speak to the facts.

    Lust for Barry Soetoro is overwhelming for these morons.

  28. 'About Obama being re-elected'? There is a court case filed by Susan Daniels versus this court issue was raised by Susan regarding the Democratic Party Eligibility Requirements For President. According to Susan....the Democratic Party has "changed" the eligibility requirements by omitting the words "U.S. Constitution" for the words "Democratic Party". The lawyers for Obama stated in their dismissal brief....that...this omitting of the words "U.S. Constitution" did not matter, due to the fact that "Susan Daniels was NOT a Democratic party member". I do not "know" the law......however....I want to believe that changing the words from "U.S. Constitution" to "Democratic Party"...HAS TO BE I wrong? . I do believe that Barry Sotero is a "Fraud In Chief".....I do believe that his birth certificate is a fake. I do believe that he has kept himself in "Office" being...."one step ahead of the court lawsuits brought against him". But...."just maybe"....with this "information about the changing of the Democratic Party Requirements"....someone..​ nail this phoney!!! And "IF".....this "someone" can nail him with this in follows......that "this Someone" can, also, nail him with his phoney birth certificate and phoney S.S.I. numbers.

  29. Where's "Trump's Surprise?"

  30. @Ralph Swain

    I agree that it is not a law, nor is it in the Constitution. I was asking the person who made that argument and said "... it's been codified into modern law for even obot retards to read."

  31. @Anonymous

    The Susan Daniels lawsuit is not against Obama, it is against Jon Husted, the Secretary of State of Ohio.

  32. @Kanbun

    It isn't just Obama, we also believe that Rubio and Jindal are natural born citizens.

  33. @Kanbun

    "1. Please explain the difference between 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen' in the Constitution, that is according to what the framers intended? Why did the framers use two instead of one? What's the difference?"

    The difference is naturalization. On August 9th, 1787 some delegates tot he Convention suggested making it a requirement that senators be native born. Others (principlely James Wilson who was not a native) argued that such a requirement would discourage immigrants from coming to the US if they knew they could not participate in the government.

    It was shortly after that the granfdfather clasue was added.

  34. The Democratic Party should be outlawed for the treasonous act of making a foreign communist our Commander-in-Chief.

    Then these "progressives" can be reborn under a more suitable title: the World Socialist Party.

  35. @Anonymous

    Right, because outlawing political parties is so American. (sarcasm)

  36. @Kanbun

    Anyone who immigarated from England and became an American citizen between 1784 to 1788 would be eligible to be President after 14 years of residence and 35 years of age. Under English law they were still British subjects.

    Justice Story even said the "grandfather clause" affected naturalized citizens.

  37. @Kanbun

    "2. What does natural mean in 'natural born citizen'? Do you think it has anything at all to do with acquiring citizenship from nature, i.e., naturally? Or is there an Obot spin for this too?"

    Natural born citizen is derived from the term natural born subject, The Founders declared themselves "natural born subjects" in 1774

  38. "Natural born citizen is derived from the term natural born subject, The Founders declared themselves "natural born subjects" in 1774"

    I guess that bloody war to rid ourselves from being the King's subjects was just a fairytale!!!???

    Obots are funny!

  39. @Anonymous August 31, 2012 10:55 PM

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 and The Naturalization Act of 1795 both specify that children of aliens naturalize upon the naturalization of the parents.

    Naturalization Act of March 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103

    §1 "...And the children of persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States."

    Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 414

    §3 "And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization; and the childred of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States"

    These first two of our Naturalization Acts are examples, as are subsequent Acts.

  40. @Anonymous

    Yes, those were for children that came over with their parents. Nothing says it was for children born in the US.

  41. @AnonymousThe Naturalization Acts clearly state that the children of Aliens naturalize upon the naturalization of the parents, no mention is made of the location of the child's birth.

    The minor children of Aliens are Alien. They naturalize upon the naturalization of the parents, or by their own choice upon their majority.

  42. @Anonymous

    Between 1785 and 1791, Massachusetts used both terms interchangeably in their legislation.

  43. It's game over, folks. We've been sold-out by the so-called leaders of the movement. Tea Party was totally squashed at the RNC. The jig is up. It's just like the invasion of the Phillippines in 1942. Nothing to do but fight, surrender, or take to the jungles and resist.

    There's nothing left to do but prepare to take care of you and yours. Only the best prepared will have a chance.

    The next 90 days will make your head spin.

    Good luck and God's speed.

  44. Natural Born Defined: Natural Born Citizen vs. British “Common Law” Natural Born Subject

  45. > Do you think it has anything at all to do with acquiring citizenship from nature, i.e., naturally?

    Since nature does not have such a thing as "citizenship", the idea of acquiring a man-made legal construct "from nature" is absurd in itself.

    This has about the validity of people claiming "homosexuality is unnatural" and when you point them to animals, they go "but we are not animals, are we?". You can't have the cake and it eat.

    This is just more smoke and mirrors from the Obots. Do you really think you can convince just one average person that some alternative interpretation of Constitutional law is the correct one?
    This is just draining our resources tilting at windmills. Might just as well try and convince the public Einstein was wrong.

  46. @Anonymous"Do you really think you can convince just one average person that some alternative interpretation of Constitutional law is the correct one?
    This is just draining our resources tilting at windmills. Might just as well try and convince the public Einstein was wrong."

    I agree with what you said. Folks have got to realize that sometimes there's a difference between the way things actually are and they way that they should be.


“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.