Certifigate Post Mortem

With the inauguration of zer0bama today, it signals the end of a phase in the narrative of the CertifiGate scandal and the beginning of a different phase. The purpose of this thread is to look back on the old phase and try to learn what we could have done better, where we could have been more effective, what we would have done different, what we learned moving forward.

Once zer0bama is sworn in, we’re at a point where the 20th amendment would no longer apply. It specifically says, “if the president elect shall fail to qualify”… and goes into what should take place should that be found. Unfortunately, that is not the finding. Even though it’s as plain as day to some of us familiar with the evidence, zer0bama has been deemed to be qualified once he’s sworn in. From that point onward, there is no longer any constitutional language about the eligibility, he is assumed to be eligible. The only way to remove a sitting president is by impeachment.

The chances of removal by impeachment are diminishingly small over this issue because it would require a majority in congress to agree. If we couldn’t get congress to nail Clintoon for purgery when the evidence was as stark as DNA on a blue dress, we won’t get them to agree on this. If the SCOTUS didn’t have the courage to take on zer0bama when he was president elect and the constitutional language was very clear, they will have less courage when the constitutional language is absent or murky and the guy has the authority to park tanks in the SCOTUS parking lot as a hint. A stitch in time saves nine, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We didn’t have the wherewithal for a stitch nor an ounce and we don’t have it for the exaggerated consequent injury.

There are efforts to change laws in individual states, requiring proof of eligibility for the 2012 election. I encourage that activity. Keep in mind that congress can pass a law that states explicitly that a sitting president shall not be subject to such laws and it would be binding. But that is activity for the next phase, not looking back at the activity of the previous phase. The two activities do not really interfere with each other, contrary to the rantings of a few freepers.

Media Bias: This scandal showed the media bias to be more stark than they’ve ever been in the past. There was an almost perfect media blackout over this issue. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just groupthink. How could we have overcome the groupthink? Well, someone tried to buy ads in the MSM and they were refused. There’s a historical first. It’s amazing to see the media refusing money to do what they are supposed to do – what business are they in, anyways? What do loyal conservatives do after that? Well, with so many MSM outlets losing money and subscribers faster than they can apply for bailout checks, the thing to do is for wealthy constitutional conservatives to buy a few of these media outlets and start a conservative media. I don’t know anybody wealthy enough to do it. There would be an obvious aggregate wealth of conservatives getting together to buy outlets, but that is a cat herding project on a scope that is beyond what is foreseeable in the near future.

As another example of a form of media bias was what happened at Intrade. I set up a thread to monitor this scandal and push for contracts. https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/2279.page After all, what business is Intrade in if not setting up contracts and taking money from gullible gadflies & such? But they never set up a single contract. Does that mean they’re in on a conspiracy? No. It means they made a calculated expedient decision not to raise the ire of the likely next POTUS who will be in charge of the commission that oversees their activity. They recently shedded their connections to Sportsbook, which is what got them booted from operating on US soil and taking American dollars. So they are now a fresh entity that can qualify to do business in the US, assuming the CFTC looks favorably upon them, and the CFTC is a commission that reports up through Obama now. http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/federalregister/federalregistercomments/2008/08-004.html The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 makes it unlawful for a company to have a wagering site based within the US.

Trolls: We saw a lot of troll activity on CertifiGate. When an issue attracts Kos and DU and dummycrat trolls, it’s a sign that they are afraid of the effectiveness we are generating, and it’s a sign of the legitimacy of the issue. Unfortunately, that didn’t apply this time around. Little Jeremiah compiled a list of at least 25 trolls and tried to have the list posted as its own thread. The thread was pulled. We’ve pinged the mods & JimRob multiple times asking for relief. I pinged the admin moderator over keyword abuse and the troll named “searchin” was zotted. Later I tried to get the same thing done but the admin mod refused. Even on the Trolling 101 thread, keyword abuse was allowed (and you can find my previous exchange with the mod on keyword abuse). http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum. (Trolling 101) What does this mean? It means the trolls were allowed, even encouraged to operate on these threads. The definition of troll is right there on the Trolling 101 thread, but the application of the definition is capricious, and even relies upon extra-logo aspects of the definition that aren’t even there. I tried to follow what the admin mod suggested, hitting the abuse button, but that was met with scorn from the admin mod.

Normally, ignoring trolls is the thing to do. But when there are gangs of trolls operating, the forum is truly disrupted and they need to be dealt with. We saw the same thing with rudybots operating in tag teams and using similar tactics. It worked until JimRob opened up the bugzapper thread. That means that there isn’t much we ourselves can do without the assistance of the PTBs at FR. I recently was told by JimRob to stop hunting trolls. I’ll let you guys draw your own conclusions.

So what should we have done differently with the trolls? 1) If the disruptor is a long-term freeper, no one should be calling them an obamabot or anything like that because all JimRob does is look up their signup date (like we can’t do that ourselves?) and proclaim them not to be a troll. Nowhere in the definition of troll does it say that a longterm member can’t be an issue-specific troll, and the attempt to clarify on that issue was put down by the mod. 2) We should have had a powwow via freepmail and encouraged all the certifigate constitutional loyalists to hit the abuse button early on each new-signup-date troll. If those obvious trolls are gone, there is less cover for the remaining such issue-specific disruptors as those who admit they’re “entertained” by this issue. 3) We also should have set up an asked & answered thread where the most common arguments are dealt with so we can just ping the troll to that thread and the answer to their question for the umpteenth time Such a thread requires a lot of time and effort, and lj and I were putting it together but there was not enough time. I’ll post what we had as a start. It takes a coordinated effort, which is difficult to do. 4) We need a definition of Troll. I’ve posted that request several times, and even the Sidebar Moderator posted the Trolling 101 thread which has a definition posted http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts?page=18#18 but the mods don’t seem to be following that definition so we’re back to square one of capriciousness. 5) There will likely be someone who says blithely, “just ignore the trolls”. That doesn’t work when they are gangs of trolls operating in a coordinated effort. That’s why we needed the ask&answer thread so we could just post the answer as a link and they’re quickly refuted.

Constitution: All of us learned more about the constitution in this CertifiGate episode. For instance, I didn’t know before this that the 20th amendment even addresses eligibility: 20th Amendment Sct3: "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2145602/posts 12/09/2008 9:59:02 AM PST · by Kevmo · 79 replies · 1,825+ views Constitution of the United States ^ | January 23, 1933 | US Constitution

There are Freeper lawyers who know more about the constitution, the appellate court processes, etc. Folks like Congressman Billybob and BP2. Hoosiermama’s dad was a hotshot appellate lawyer. Billybob, Buckeye Texan, BP2, and several others all agreed this was a legitimate constitutional issue (it probably still IS). When the discussion proceeds to the minutiae of appellate procedures and minor points of legalese, I tend to lose track and probably so do a lot of other freepers. And, notably, those who claim to be lawyers don’t all agree on the significance of things (like cases getting forwarded for conference) or on how cases are processed in SCOTUS, what the chances of cert were, that kind of thing. It was confusing. How can we improve that situation? I don’t know, I toss it out there for Freepers to consider and suggest solutions.

What else could/should we have done with the CertifiGate issue? What else did we learn from this go-round? I will kindly ask those who’ve been operating against us to refrain from the usual “give up the tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff” and gloating and contrariness. It amounts to dancing on the grave of the constitution; this is a constitutionalist website, so show some Freeping respect. If you want to gloat or dance on the grave or whatever, start a thread and do it and ask us show you respect.

This whole time, the proponents of this conspiracy have felt entitled to post the most ridiculous, specious, absurd arguments on a reputable public website and have these arguments remain free of any criticism.
***Baloney. I spent days and days chasing after specious, ridiculous and absurd arguments from your team mates. I challenged mlo to a debate on the legitimacy of the topic and he declined. If what you say is so EASILY proven, why would he decline? So I’ll challenge you to the same thing. I know the answer: crickets, hemming & hawwing, whatever baloney you can muster as a dancer on the grave. You make me sick.

Naturally, many of these points collapsed under scrutiny
***I challenge you — point by point — to a debate. Any other answer than simply saying yes makes you completely full of bovine feces.

leaving the proponents of these conspiracies bewildered and angry and thus the “CoLB troll” was born.
***The CoLB trolls operated long before we were bewildered and angry.

Lists were created with the names of the skeptics and the hope that Jim would wholeheartedly back this conspiracy and there would be a ‘Great Purging’ of any Freeper who disagreed with it.
***Yup. And you were on that list.

That didn’t work out so well.
***And color me surprised. These people acted like trolls, posted like trolls, and were in almost every way anticonstitutionalist.

Jim didn’t really take a position on the issue
***Things that make you go hmmmmmm....

and few posters on either side saw their accounts zotted. Now we have our Certifigate “commiseration” thread where once more we are asked that the non Kool-Aid drinkers please refrain from participating.
***So it’s obvious you read the request, but something within you just can’t let that go, that dishonorable tendency you have.

As always, they want to preach to the choir and have their points presented free from criticism.
***I’ll take any and all criticism, I’ll debate you, I’ll put my money where my mouth is over at Intrade if I can. What we saw wasn’t criticism, it was gang trollhood, just like the tootyfruityrudybots. And just like the tootyfurityrudybots, JimRob kept aloof until the damage to this forum was beyond obvious; then he was surprised how many of them there were and how much they hated Free Republic when the zotted started posting at the other forum. When we scratch the surface of those who ended up on the ColB troll list, I have no doubt we’ll find the same kind of motives and sentiment. Simply put, this time JimRob got it wrong, just like he had it wrong when he was so aloof for so long on tootyfruityrudybots.

What if Congress "deems" him Emporer? Does that make him Emporer?

I'll stand with Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. on this.

"...if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.