http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/12/17/new-organization-to-educate-and-mobilize-the-public-on-the-significance-of-natural-born-citizen-and-the-2012-election/New Organization To Educate and Mobilize the Public on the Significance of “natural born Citizen” and the 2012 Election
“NO DIVIDED LOYALTIES”
by Sharon Rondeau
Logo from the newly-organized Article II SuperPac (art2superpac.com)
(Dec. 17, 2011) — Anorganization which intends “toeducate the majority of voters on what their vote truly means to the future of America in the 2012 election” and thesignificance of the “natural born Citizen” clause has officially been launched.
Article II SuperPac (art2superpac.com) seeks to ensure that Article II of the U.S. Constitution is upheld in all future elections such that all candidates for president and vice president, beginning in 2012, meet the definition of “natural born Citizen.” The group will not be making political campaign contributions to any candidate.
Director Helen Tansey, who operates the blog “The T-Room,” joined forces with numerous constitutional bloggers to form the new entity, which also plans to raise money for a legal defense fund for citizens facing legal expenses in challenging a candidate’s constitutional eligibility. Ar2SuperPac will be working as a strategic partner with ObamaBallotChallenge.com, operated by Capt. Pamela Barnett (Ret.), who also interviewed recently with The Post & Email. The following interview outlines the scope and future plans for the organization.
MRS. RONDEAU: Who conceived of Art2SuperPac, and how was it launched?
MS. TANSEY: Over the last four years, I would read constantly that individuals would become very excited regarding the legal challenges against Obama, believing that something was going to happen. When the judge would rule “You have no standing,” it was a deflation of spirit. I watched the excitement and the deflation over and over again. After a while, many people started to say that the court system wasn’t the way to go; maybe we needed to go in a different direction. I had wished folks would put together a vehicle that would help us. So I decided after reading these things for several years that it was time to do something.
My background is that of political campaigns and issue advocacy campaigns, so I had the organizing skill set. To be totally candid, I never to use them again, because I’d left it all behind in 2008. But after watching this and all of these gallant efforts, I finally decided, “We’ve got to do something.” So I started reaching out to a handful of bloggers with whom I had a relationship and for whose work I had a high regard for the work they were doing specific not just to Barack Obama and his lack of qualifications, but also other presidential candidates who were being touted.
We started meeting in June 2011 and worked for six months to build a truly independent vehicle designed to be a voice for the people with regard to the 2012 political campaigns. That’s pretty much how it got started.
It’s been a roller-coaster ride for all parties concerned who have filed lawsuits and memorandums of complaint, put their names out there. Everyone has done everything they could possibly do to bring about some remedy for the people, and it just hasn’t occurred. Because it was considered a political question, the question then became, “How do we engage this energy, this vibrancy, this wisdom, and inject it into the 2012 political campaign season?” That’s the goal: to fire up people, get them engaged. We’re going to be doing a lot of groundwork and grassroots building. It’s about all of us coming together and truly working with one voice to make sure that when it comes to the 2012 election that either a) through Pamela’s efforts we keep the unqualified candidates off the state ballot, or b) if we’re not successful there, then we go after the members of the Electoral College, and if we’re not successful there, we keep going until we have exhausted every possible remedy to make sure that no unqualified candidate gets on the presidential ballot.
MRS. RONDEAU: It sounds as if yuou’re using the 2012 election as an opportunity of sorts.
MS. TANSEY: Absolutely, because in a political race, everybody is out saying something about the candidates. Well, there’s no voice for Article II. We always want to inject for Article II.
MRS. RONDEAU: How do you intend to educate people about what Article II “natural born Citizen” means?
MS. TANSEY: The first thing that has to be done when one begins to organize such an effort is to build a volunteer base. As you’re doing so, you’re raising funds, and you train the volunteer base. So some of the things you do typically in a political campaign as well as in an issue advocacy campaign is canvassing. You leave flyers at doors and use direct mail. You do coffee chats and invite your neighbors to your home. We provide scripts and all of the resources, materials and tools so that that individual who is willing to host a coffee or canvas a neighborhood or have a table outside of their grocery store has gotten the talking points from us. They got the messaging and materials from us. So it’s truly doing the grassroots work so as to reach the average citizen who is somewhat tuned in, not tuned in at all, or very tuned in.
Depending on the funding we raise, we will also be doing a great deal of internet advertising. We’ll be using YouTube as a vehicle as well as Google videos and some of the other video groups to get our message out. We will be working to target key states and even key districts within those states to get volunteers where there’s a persuadable vote. For example, Virginia is a targeted state by both Democrats and Republicans, and say an unqualified candidate gets on the ballot. What we do is target the really conservative or and/or the really red counties and/or the really blue counties, and we do very specific messaging within those counties where a large portion of voters reside. So it’s really strategic and much more laser-focused. Because we don’t have the financial wherewithal, nor do we have the body of individuals such as volunteers where we can do all 50 states. We have to be focused and strategic as to where we’re putting our resources so it has the greatest impact we can possibly have.
MRS. RONDEAU: So you know you’ll be focusing on certain counties within certain states?
MS. TANSEY: I would think right now we’re honing in on the states we’re going to be targeting. Within those states, we will break it down and identify the counties. We’ll look at voting records and intensity of voting in 2008. We’ll also go back to 2004. We’ll be looking at all the statistics to identify those targets. So we’re currently honing in on the states, and in those states will be those areas where we will highly likely wage a campaign of getting several citizens to wage a ballot campaign.
The difference between Pamela Barnett’s efforts and Article 2 Super Pac’s is this: Pamela is focusing on one individual: Obama. She is looking at all 50 states. We’re looking to target specific states. Where we’re helping the strategic partner relationship is where we’re working together to target those key states. We’re working to together to target those key states and put forward a campaign and be able to wage that campaign and hopefully be successful. She’s taken on all 50; we’re just being more strategic.
MRS. RONDEAU: What is the structure of your organization, and how many people are on your team?
MS. TANSEY: It’s called a kitchen cabinet, and on the kitchen cabinet there are five individuals. All of them have been engaged in this fight for at least four years. We have support from outside the kitchen cabinet which is helping to advise, giving us ideas and supporting the effort. The core group which has met over the past six months has the same five people, all of whom have been extraordinarily committed. At some point we’ll release in a press release who we all are. We’re trying to stagger the information right now so that we keep people coming back. So soon, rather than later, we’ll announce who we are and where our specialties lie, where our skill sets lie…and you know all of them.
MRS. RONDEAU: In your daily conversations with people who might not have been active on the internet and cognizant of the Obama eligibility issue, do you find that they now have a questions about it?
MS. TANSEY: I would say that in 2008, prior to the election itself, when I had that conversation with neighbors, friends and colleagues, they looked at me as if I had a third eye and thought I was absolutely crazy. Fast-forward to 2011, when I’m having that conversation with some of the same people and also new ones, they are much more in tune, much more aware that something is wrong, and they are more open to having a conversation. Whereas in 2008 it was a wall, and in 2011, there is some movement in that wall. It’s a subtle shift in people being more open to learning, whereas in 2008 they weren’t open to that at all.
MRS. RONDEAU: What would you say to someone who says, “I think he was born in Hawaii, so that makes him eligible; case closed?”
MS. TANSEY: What I would say is what Leo Donofrio said almost four years ago, and that is that this gentleman could have born on the Supreme Court steps. It doesn’t matter; the fact of the matter is that his father was not a United States citizen. Therefore, his birth does not meet the definition of Article II. So for us, it’s all about the Constitution. It’s all about the law. It’s not about all of those other items that have popped up over the course of the last four years in regard to his background. For us, it’s strictly and solely about the law of the land, and the law of the land requires that the individual who runs for president of the United States is a natural born citizen, which means “citizen parents and born on U.S. soil.” We’re just all about following the law. So all of the birth certificate stuff, all of the social security number stuff, although valid, and it has its place; it’s important; but when you look at the law, this man admits that when his father was born, he was a British subject. That clearly tells you and me that Obama was born as a dual citizen. Therefore, he is not qualified. It does not matter where he was born. It matters only that under the law that he is not qualified under Article II.
MRS. RONDEAU: Many people do not seem to be aware that citizenship involves the parents. Pamela mentioned to me during her interview that years ago, when a woman married, hercitizenship, if different, changed to that of her husband, which would have produced two U.S. citizen parents.
MS. TANSEY: It’s all about allegiance. That is really the key word. The reason that the Founders put in the “natural born Citizen” clause was that the president would also serve in times of war as the Commander-in-Chief. Having a Commander-in-Chief with dual or even trial citizenship means, by definition, that that individual would have divided loyalty to the United States of America. So the Founding Fathers put the natural born citizen clause in to the Constitution to ensure sole allegiance. to the United States of America and her national security.
If you look at the President’s oath of office, you will see that he is the only elected officer who swears sole allegiance to the United States. When you compare the president’s oath to that ofsenators and congressmen, they’re different. Sole allegiance feeds in to the military. Our young people who say, “I’m going to serve in the military” deserve nothing less than a commander-in-chief who is only loyal to them, and no one else.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think Obama has shown signs of foreign loyalties?
MS. TANSEY: I would say that when he was on the campaign trail, he was talking “red, white and blue,” and he did a bang-up job persuading people of his authenticity. But when you look at his policy decisions, his national security apparatus, you can clearly see that this man is more global in his thinking and witht he resources and tools that the American society has built, including the military. He has signed so many bills; the most recent one which Sen. John McCainand Sen. Carl Levin sponsored has language to detain Americans without the right of habeas corpus. That clearly demonstrates a lack of loyalty to the protection that the Constitution demands. So, yes, his policy decisions clearly demonstrate, in my opinion, that his loyalty is notto the United States of America and her citizenship; it’s global. And we are not global; we are the United States of America.
MRS. RONDEAU: The election is about 11 months away. When do you expect that your organization will be in full swing?
MS. TANSEY: We’ll get into full swing after the first of the year.
MRS. RONDEAU: And you are looking for volunteers and financial support?
MS. TANSEY: Absolutely. If we don’t have people on the ground as well as the financial wherewithal to be able to inject our Article II message into the political debate,, we’re just going to be spinning our wheels. So yes, those two pieces are critical.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have any thoughts on what could happen if Obama were determined to be ineligible?
MS. TANSEY: The 2012 election is going to a a critical one, because if an unqualified individual, whether it’s Obama or on the Republican side with Marco Rubio as vice president, it doesn’t matter; it’s a turning point for the United States of America. If we elect unqualified candidates and they make it into the office of the presidency or the vice presidency, then in my humble estimation, the Constitution will be dead. So for me, to answer that question, the line in the sand is now. If we don’t rally and come together to make sure that our Constitution, even though on life support, remains in place so that we have four more years to do what we need to do, we no longer live in a constitutional republic.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you believe that if you can get your message across to enough people about presidential eligibility, we can reverse the damage that’s been done?
MS. TANSEY: That’s a great question! I’m naive enough to believe in the American people. I believe strongly and passionately in the common sense, in the patriotic spirit of the citizens of this once-great country. I believe that if we’re successful in pushing back in 2012, we have four years to engage and keep doing what we have to do peacefully to restore our constitutional republic. So yes, I’m naive enough to believe that. I realize that there are others out there who absolutely see revolution or some sort of revolt on the horizon. I’m not allowing myself to go there, because I continue to keep faith and place my faith in the American citizens.
