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.
Understood. Agreed.
As for me logging on to another one of your BC threads, don't worry, I won't. You're beating a dead horse. You were in the right. You did your best. Now use your energy to help get non-RINOs elected so we can restore the rule of law in this country.
My motives for logging onto this thread?
***Yup. I throw that out to see which questions you’ll answer. Disruptors really have trouble with that one and ignore the rest. Honorable freepers answer all the questions, including motive. Lessee, which path did you take? Looks like the Grave Dancer path.
“Let it go Birthers.”
<<<I really think you have not been here long enough to start telling folks (”birthers”) what they should do.....
What do you care anyway?
I honestly appreciate your determination. However, I choose to use my energies on causes that can be won. You've chosen a non-starter. Adios.
You are a coward.
Ooo, that hurt. What have you done on this issue? All 3 people reading this thread want to know.
I spit on you.
Let’s see, 84 posts in 6 hours regarding THE most important constitutional crisis ever. There’s your answer.
***Interesting measure. By that measurement, the situation surrounding Anna Nicole Smith was THE most important constitutional crisis ever.
I honestly appreciate your determination.
***I think you just enjoy rattling cages. AND you need a better way to measure importance. Anna Nicole had great numbers, but that’s all.
Adios.
***Buh bye.
Do you have any comment on the hypotheticals? What is your insight?
You’ve chosen a non-starter.
***I chose to defend the constitution. And this is a constitutionalist website, so WTF are you doing here?
From the FRONT PAGE, from the FOUNDER, on the FIRST SENTENCE:
“Statement by FR’s Founder:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution...”
Part of the problem with this issue gaining traction was huge media bias. We all saw the media treat questions about McCain’s natural born status as just another news story. But when questions were raised about Obama—Whoa!! Back off!
Another very significant and ongoing problem, it seems to me, is that establishment elements in both political parties don’t want this issue examined, lest it cost them their best candidate. They don’t really care about upholding the Constitution if it robs them of an electoral victory (WHORES).
And now we get to the American people, many of whom haven’t heard about this. However, political correctness and general apathy would have likely prevented any kind of uproar about this. Sadly, it is with the people that the rubber meets the road. If the people truly, loudly were to make demands, the earth would move on this.
Then there is the Supreme Court. Who knows what they are thinking? If they fail to act out of cowardice, they should simply resign from the bench.
I don’t know what the story is with Obama’s eligibility. I didn’t pay too much attention until just before the election. However, when I started reading about it here I became outraged that so many records had been sealed and that he would not simply comply. That should be unacceptable to the American people, whether it is Obama, Bush, or whomever.
What I do know is that I have only contempt for the cynical operatives and politicians who laugh at people who care about this issue. At least some of these individuals hope to be able to run an attractive candidate who may not be natural born in the future.
I do hope that this is sorted out properly before too long and that our constitutional requirements for the presidency are not erased in the years to come.
Prove it.
(see what I’m getting at here?)
That you and those fixated on this ridiculous snipe hunt don’t understand the damage you cause is the only thing surprising.
And that sums up the debate on this forum perfectly. 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.
Naturally, many of these points collapsed under scrutiny leaving the proponents of these conspiracies bewildered and angry and thus the "CoLB troll" was born. 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.
That didn't work out so well. Jim didn't really take a position on the issue 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. As always, they want to preach to the choir and have their points presented free from criticism.
Yep. As I noted yesterday, if you want an ‘echo chamber’ for your view, posting in a public forum like this one is just absurd.
Reminds me of the old Clinton ‘Arkancide’ threads....(chuckle)
The Keyes vs. Bowen case still has not been heard in Superior Court in Sacramento, by the way.
IOW, post mortems are premature.
Plenty of us are on your side, Kev. If the quitters and site pests take a hike, it will be a big improvement for this forum. Those of us who love the Constitution will continue to use all our energy and financial resources to keep as much pressure as possible on B.O. We have nothing to lose!
I think the issue is far from dead. Be patient.
Correct—it’s not dead at all. That’s why we can count on more aggravating posts from site pests. My next action will be to pledge to never respond to any poster who expresses negativity or ridicule regarding the eligibility issue. Having the Usurper in the White House is negative enough; having to put up with propagandists who express levity and mirth about the inauguration of an imposter as well as negativity toward constitutionalists is simply intolerable at this point. Such posters will receive only icy silence from me. I encourage other strict constitutionalists to do the same.
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.