Posted on 01/20/2009 9:42:15 AM PST by Kevmo
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.
So here we stand at this historical milestone.
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.
LEARNINGS
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.
- Edwin Vieira, Jr.
LOL!
A constitutional usurper cannot have constitutional authority. If he’s not qualified, his actions are unenforcable. Any actions taken to enforce his decisions are themselves unlawful.
***So that remains to be seen. Anyone who doesn’t like the law that Obama passes can challenge the law on this premise. And we all get to buy popcorn.
How would such a challenge manifest itself? Let’s say some company decides they don’t like his green initiative and files a lawsuit saying they’re not responsible to fulfill the law since he’s not an eligibile pres. The lawsuit is likely to get dismissed all the way up the line to the SCOTUS, the same SCOTUS who took a pass when they could have stopped this debacle. SCOTUS will likely dismiss the case without ever looking at it. Then what would be that company’s recourse?
Neither does the title foreign-born president.
***But the title president DOES exist and he’s assuming that role. He’s issuing orders and living in the white house and flying Air Force One and all that stuff. He is the acting, de facto president. The only way to remove him is with impeachment.
The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.”
***I agree that this is what the constitution says. It’s a complete tragedy that those we entrust with upholding the constitution have sold us down the river. The evasion worked, unfortunately.
Dr. Taitz case Lightfoot v Bowen has disappeared from the docket - Why?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 5:03:40 PM · 31 of 33
LucyT to unspun; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; pissant; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; ..
All the cases on Obama’s eligibility, even the pending ones, have been removed from the SCOTUS website.
Ping again.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies
Maybe they care, in an abstract way, but they have come to take it for granted so much that they think it’ll always be there, like the sun or the sky; indestructible, no man can put it asunder...they might get a surprise with this new gang in Washington.
And how would you force that to happen? Nobody could make it hapen this time, and the issue was identified in plenty of time before the election. We were impotent to do anything, and that is the chilling wake-up call. Like 9-11, this wasn’t supposed to happen here.
Bump for later.
The question is not what to do this time. This time is done. It's all about next time.
Next time is 2012, and if Obama chooses to run for re-election he would have to comply with the laws in place in 2012, regardless of the fact that he is president now.
If we change the "proof of qualification" laws, could Obama re-qualify in 2012? Being the incumbant would not exempt him from re-qualifying, or he wouldn't need to run again to keep his job. If he runs again, he would have to comply with the same laws as his competitors, or there isn't "equal protection."
-PJ
“The guardians of whether he’s “constitutionally qualified” are the SCOTUS. They stuck their cowardly heads in the sand and let the issue go by unexamined. They abrogated their responsibility and completely violated the trust we the people place in them”
Do you have a sneaking suspicion that Roberts’ flub while administering the oath to the Usurper resulted from a guilty conscience?
Do you have a sneaking suspicion that Roberts’ flub while administering the oath to the Usurper resulted from a guilty conscience?
***Yes, but that and $4 will get me a cup of coffee.
True, but it nevertheless affords a certain satisfaction to note that the Chief of the 9 Gutless Wonders probably realizes that he has done something horrendous.
Don’t let the bastards get you down Kev!
Someone on another thread mentioned starting a website dedicated to this. I think it is a good idea. Hmm, just tried to find where I read it and now I can’t...
Anyway, the poster opined that it would be a good idea to have a dedciate 0bama eligibility website with factual evidence, what isn’t true, and so on.
IMO Post Mortem is good for the pre-[fraudulent]inauguration, now the next phase begins.
This fiend plans to destroy everything that is good about our country. We cannot allow him to do this. It seems as though our elected and appointed officials don’t want to do anything to stop him (as far as I know) although I am still hoping that the SCOTUS will do something. But giving up? NO ****ING WAY! Giving up is giving in to those who want to ruin us.
Time to not make waves, to avoid becoming the focus ... Standing up for the Constitution is too risky, ... After all, the clause of eligibility for the presidency is so weak, so ... passe.
Is this #48 the current FR conclusion / consensus?
***If this were the current FR conclusion/consensus then JimRob would not have told me to stop hunting trolls. Besides, it looks to me like a tongue-in-cheek post.
The WND Petition is still online. TO: (partial) Congress, Federal Elections Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, other controlling legal authorities Should we continue to publicly promote this? (I think yes.)
***Absolutely.
20th amendment would no longer apply... Alan Keyes & other Const. ‘experts’ agree?
***It’s difficult to get the ‘experts’ to agree when it comes to this issue. Note that none of the resident constitutional FR experts have logged onto this thread.
Should we refer to him as “President”, or as “Usurper Obama”?
***Whichever suits you. I like the 2nd one.
What are the best summaries AND soundbytes of why we should care / or have cared about this?
***You’re way too late in asking this. That’s a bit like asking the captain of the titanic what his preferred design of his rescue tugboat would have been.
Don’t let the bastards get you down Kev!
***Thanks for the encouragement. Answer all the questions in post #109 and maybe you’ll understand how I feel.
I see your point. I also wonder what’s up with JimRob these days.
You said — “We know you live for these threads, you require it for yhour own big fat ego—find another playground. Beam up to wherever you’re from, warp factor 5, —just, GET LOST, OK?”
Well, I can tell you that not even a small fraction of my posts (of 11,833 posts) on Free Republic have been about Obama. So, that would “give the lie” to the idea that I “live for these threads”... LOL...
I was posting about a wide variety of subjects before Obama and even during the time of Obama.
The fact that you may not like a poster’s opinions or comments is not a valid reason for them to “get lost”... :-)
Brazen. You not only heavily infest these threads, but use half a page comments! But that’s OK—soon as I see, “You said—”, & the asterisks, I just skim on to the next comment. LOL!
Well, I appreciate you moving on to the next comment. There’s no use getting aggravated over an issue that is dead...
[note, none of the markers here... hoo-boy...]
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.