by Diana West
Syndicated Coulumn
Get ready for the last straw.
First, though, I’d like to suggest that anyone reading this column in a local newspaper or news site pat the editor on the back for publishing what in our neo-medieval world of fear amounts to a “forbidden” column. [Read more…]
It is heartening to learn how many awesome patriots are supporting Linda Jordan and her plight to raise funds to help defray Washington State’s punitive sanction of nearly $13k for merely challenging Mr. Obama’s constitutional right to hold office. [Read more…]
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. [Read more…]
www.art2superpac.comTIME TO GET IT ON!
ARTICLE II SUPER PAC ENTHUSIASTICALLY ACCEPTS BRET BAIER’S INVITATION TO DEBATE THE MEANING AND INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL TERM: ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’
Fox News reporter and host of Special Report, Bret Baier conceded on his blog today that the constitutional meaning of Natural Born Citizen has lately been a source of continuing controversy given the buzz that Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Bobby Jindal are on the short list of possible VP picks for presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. This is because there are growing numbers of Americans who have come to realize that the Founding Fathers were expressly concerned that our commander-in-chief have no foreign allegiances. Mr. Rubio and Mr. Jindal’s parents were foreign citizens at the time of their birth and the Constitution clearly differentiates citizenship status for both the POTUS and VPOTUS (12th Amendment).
Oddly, Mr. Baier failed to make mention on his blog, how this ongoing controversy relates to Mr. Obama’s own “Natural Born” status; especially given the fact that Obama’s parentage and birthplace have yet to be conclusively proven and verified by any independent legal authority.
Nevertheless, Art2SuperPAC applauds Mr. Baier’s rational, common sense approach to finally address this constitutional crisis once and for all. By doing a full piece on his show with a panel of constitutional scholars, a “fair and balanced” debate will serve an invaluable service to the American people. Fox News is to be applauded for taking the lead and finally allowing the debate that the courts and the media have shamefully avoided for more than three years.
As a preeminent supporter of the Constitution and a leader in the effort to ensure that citizens and elected officials clearly understand Article II and the definitive meaning intended by the Founding Fathers of “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” Mr. Baier and Fox news would be woefully remiss if they failed to reach out to Art2SuperPAC to join the debate. Our legal experts and attorneys are eager to explain the true meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Read constitutional scholar Herb Titus’ response to news pundit Baier by clicking HERE
Visit Article II Super PAC to learn the history and correct meaning behind the Founding Father’s insertion of ‘natural born Citizen’ into Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 Presidential Qualifications by clicking HERE
by Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound
Contribuotr: CJ in TX @TellTheTruth1
“This will be the first time ever, since this whole thing began, that it will be looked on, on merit.” Those are the words of Carl Swensson, Republican Party Chairman of Clayton County, Georgia. “This” refers to an actual judicial hearing of the case against the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be, according to the United States Constitution, “Commander in Chief” and United States President.
The attorneys of Barack Obama requested a pretrial dismissal, as it had done on so many other occasions, against so many other cases. But yesterday, one judge denied and scheduled an official hearing of the case to commence, January 26.
From 2008 to the present, judicial standing has been refused the plaintiff, often via convoluted rationale, many say sophistry. The question however is elementary to our constitutional republic: can we as Citizens be assured those presented to us for our votes are eligible to hold office?
Unlike many other states, Georgia has a statue requiring just that. For Swensson’s part, he had “resolved that I would not let anyone on the ballot who is not demonstrably qualified to hold that office.” That would appear to be part of his job as party official and it is the job of Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp (R) to assure election law is justly carried out. Swensson relates, “We have been hounding him at hearings he’s been having across the state.”
And so it came to pass that Kemp after some delay, followed due process and called forth the court designated by Georgia law, to hear such a case. This particular case was brought by Swensson and co-litigant, Kevin Richard Powell, attorney: J. Mark Hatfield, judge: Michael M. Malihi.
As veteran Obama eligibility beat reporter Bob Unruh details at WND.com:
While Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had argued that the requirements didn’t apply to candidates for a presidential primary, the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.
“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”
Read the rest of this story by clicking HERE