Main Menu

Tag Archives | Article II Super PAC

BR “begging letter” from Helen Tansey

“The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide.”

So rather than begging for money himself, the anonymous Birther Report is letting Helen Tansey, treasurer of the Article II Super PAC1, do it for him–the project: ostensibly to raise funds to move the web site from the hyper-reliable free Google Blogger™ platform to an “independent secure server.” That way, Google can’t take him down again.

Is that a good thing for BR readers? I personally would be grateful if someone took my site down, should I ever start serving malware to visitors. While the clueless BR site owner was running around the Internet saying his site was OK, Google protected BR readers from some nasty malware being passed through from one of BR’s advertisers. Terms of service and acceptable use policies protected BR’s readers the a way that a privately-run server could not.

Tansey paints a picture of someone who started blogging for altruistic purposes, saying:

It is difficult for a blog owner who never weighed into blogging to make money from his readers to now be in the position of having to ask for donations.

That’s an odd description for a heavily-monetized web site like Birther Report. It’s full of aggressive advertising, a fact Tansey glosses over. What I find suspicious is that while asking for donations to move the site, at no time has BR actually stated how much money he needs.2 Tansey claims that it is:

1. To purchase its own web server (not leased) that will more than handle the site’s high traffic load; and 2. Complete the conversion/migration process in order to securely archive4 the thousands of articles documenting Article II eligibility and Obama’s identity document fraud.

Earlier BR had put it this way:

This blog will be moved to a privately owned server [without TOS BS] as soon as possible. It is something that should have been done long ago but lacked the knowledge and resources. More at a later date….

Buying a whole server for a piss-ant web site like Birther Report is massive overkill. But then BR keeps its traffic numbers as secret as it does its expenses and advertising revenue. What are they hiding? This is in contrast to my site, where all that information is public. I listened to BR’s anonymous appearance on the Mike Volin “Where’s Obama’s Birth Certificate?” show and it was clear that he does not have the technical competence to run anything on his own, much less an entire server. That leaves, as I see it, two possibilities:

  1. BR is going to buy a server and have it co-located at a hosting company that will manage it for him.3
  2. He’s going to buy a server and hook it up himself at home and have a good buddy run it for him. He’s talking like 20 minutes before he’s hacked.

Frankly, if I weren’t a computer hobbyist, I would never run my own WordPress installation, much less my own server—it’s just too much trouble and too much risk. I would be running at or Blogger™, like most of the folks who blog on either side of the birther issue. They’re free and easy, and far more reliable :(

In a follow-up article today, Tansey describes reader fundraising response as “awesome” and said they have reached one-third of their goal (still refusing to disclose what that goal is). I would remind them of the tag line from Barack Obama at the beginning of every Birther Report video: “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide.” Birther Report doesn’t disclose the identity of its owner, its traffic figures, its backers, its revenue and its expenses. What do they have to hide?


In a reply to a question at BR, Helen Tansey sort of answered the cost question:

As for the hard numbers, it is less than $10k and more than $5k.


1The Tansey letter further fuels suspicions about the identity of Birther Report being Gary Wilmott. Tansey and Wilmott both serve on the board of the Article II Super PAC.

2I didn’t do any significant research into colocation fees. I found one host that says it has the “Industry’s Lowest Prices” and they want $49 a month after a $99 setup fee for hosting your own rack-mounted server on a 10 Mbps pipe, unlimited bandwidth, 7 IP addresses and 2A power. Add maybe $1,000 one time for a rack-mounted server with a decent processor and a big disk drive. The real wild card is how much the software setup and ongoing maintenance is going to cost. If he hosts a server himself, he will need a business class Internet connection, as pretty much all home plans prohibit servers. Business Internet services have policies, such as this one from AT&T.

3Colocation companies have their own terms of service and acceptable use policies. Here’s a sample from ColoUnlimited.

4Securing the content of a Google Blogger™ blog is no big deal:


Article II Super PAC plans to pressure electors

It looks like some of the birthers are planning to hijack the next election. The following promotional piece was put out by the Article II Super PAC.

A key to developing A2’s political/campaign strategy for the general election is by first looking at the Electoral College rules/codes in all 50 states. Why?

In the general election we are casting our votes for citizens from our respective states to serve in the Electoral College. 538 members are elected in total.

It is this body, 538 electors, who then casts their respective vote either for the individual who won the majority or who still has independence to cast their votes for  whomever. 

Soros has been pouring money into states, especially blue ones, to change their Electoral College election code to legally tie the hands of those elected to vote for the nominee who won the majority of votes cast.

However, there are plenty of states that have not passed such code.

A2 knows this but we don’t know what all of those specific states are and we don’t know where we can apply pressure or sway the elector.

Wow! Do they realize how ominous “apply pressure” sounds?

The Article II Super PAC is also raising money to fund a $10,000 retainer (they need $4,000 more)  for birther law professor Herb Titus to come on board and assist. I wonder if Titus knows their plan to pressure members of the Electoral College break their pledge to the people who elected them.

Apparently the Article II bogey man is the “National Popular Vote interstate compact (NPVIC),” which if ratified by enough states to comprise a majority of the Electoral Vote would require electors in those states to vote for whoever won the popular vote nationwide. Since only 8 states plus DC have joined the compact (comprising 24.5% of the electoral vote) , it doesn’t kick in and will not have any consequence for this election. How George Soros is supposed to be involved escapes me.  Here’s an example of a NPVIC Bill from California.)

States currently in the NPVIC are:

  • California
  • District of Columbia
  • Hawaii
  • Illinois
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • New Jersey
  • Vermont
  • Washington

That list is distinct from the twenty-four states with laws requiring electors to honor their pledges and the Supreme Court has ruled such laws constitutional. A member of the Electoral College who votes against their pledge is called a “faithless elector.”  There have been a number of faithless electors in history, particularly when their candidate died between the election and the meeting of the College.

A bill in Nebraska would make it a Class IV felony for an elector to vote for a candidate not certified as eligible by the Secretary of State (something the bill says requires a birth certificate).

Read More:

Orly attacks Article II Super PAC

Orly Taitz published a long article today about the Article II Super PAC, an organization that may is really Vattelevision or the Birther Summit or something. Taitz wrote:

I have more important things to do, than waste my time with Article2superpac handful  of bloggers

But she nevertheless devotes quite a bit of time to this article. The thrust of her criticism is that the PAC made a big deal of hiring attorney Larry Klayman who was supposed to be filing ballot challenges. She says, and it seems to be so, that he hasn’t filed any. Further she states that Klayman isn’t admitted to the Bar in California, one of the two states where he is supposed to be working. [One cannot help to note that Orly Taitz is not admitted to the bar in Georgia, Texas, or Alabama where she filed cases.]

Taitz raises this concern about Super PACs in general:

Article2superpac also clarified, that the money, that people donated for law suits did not go to the pac, but to their legal fund.  What they are saying, is that they, as a superpac, donate only to education and this is reported and expenditures are disclosed. What you donate to lawsuits, goes to their offshoot Article2superpac legal fund. Apparently there is no disclosure in regards to their legal fund.  They did not disclose, who is on the board of this article2 legal fund, how much of the $25,000 was actually received, who got this money and what did this person/persons do with it.  I got a phone call from George Miller, who stated that  attorney Klayman was not paid, because they did not collect nearly $25,000, that attorney Larry Klayman demanded as a precondition of a deposit for filing any eligibility lawsuits. George Miller did not disclose to me, how much was collected for those law suits and what was done with this money.

Let’s you and him fight.

What does Orly Taitz not want you to see?

I reported that Dean Haskins has been critical of Orly Taitz as of late, and speculates that she will not present the birthers in the best possible light at the hearing in Atlanta tomorrow. I agree, as will most people who have seen Orly in action and read her legal briefs.

Dissention in the birther ranks

Haskins says he’s gotten hate mail, and Orly reports that one prominent birther has severed ties with Haskins over it.


I would appreciate it if you remove my bio and all references of my association with Birther Summit immediately.

Your attacks against Orly Taitz are despicable and I will not tolerate it.

I also want to go on record that I asked several times to reconsider the name of the summit because the word “birther” is insulting and damages our credibility on the most important issue of our lifetime. I have worked too hard trying to save our country from tyranny and evil and your ego along with the egos of those who have chosen to stand with you against Orly is only defeating my purpose.


Miki Booth

I also reported that a newcomer to the Birther movement, the Article II Super PAC, is collecting money for a live video feed of the Atlanta hearing. That’s excited many birthers who feel that the hearing will be favorable to them and want to enjoy the moment live. Orly is not on board. She wrote [link to Taitz web site].

please, do not support any blogger, who has on his website a sign “art2superpac” and who asks to donate  to “art2superpac” legal fund.

Taitz (at the link preceding) writes a lot more about the Article 2 Super PAC, saying that they act like “Chicago thugs.” Is Taitz just angry because the Article 2 Super PAC isn’t giving her any money? Is it because they complete for attention? Is it payback for criticism of her at Obama Release Your Records run by one of the folks at the PAC? Or is it because she doesn’t want that video feed of her in the courtroom?

In my article, Experts witnesses in Georgia, I pointed out  that most of what Orly calls a witness list will never make to the stand, either on the issue of relevance, or on the issue of (lack of) expertise. Does Taitz want the world to see that she has no real case?