Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do presidential candidates undergo Security background checks? If not, WHY NOT.

Posted on 03/21/2008 1:38:54 AM PDT by cpforlife.org

I’ve been thinking about this for some time. I just did a bit of googeling but found no satisfactory answers, really none at all.

Many jobs require background checks. Law Enforcement and military get even greater scrutiny, and as the job level and contact with sensitive data increases the level of scrutiny goes up.

Do presidential candidates undergo Security background checks? If not, WHY NOT.

Could Clinton or Obama pass a security background check for a high level job at say the FBI or CIA?

If someone were to apply to those agencies and it was found out that their husband was convicted of lying under oath to a Federal Grand Jury and was Impeached from his job and lost his law license would that raise a “red flag”. Not to mention all the other scandalous things Hillary was involved in herself.

Could Obama with his ties to Rezko, his questionable purchase of his home and adjacent property, pass a security background check? What about his connections to a radical America hating pastor who, with Farrakhan visited Libya. Is that a "red flag"?

And now this: Obama church published Hamas terror manifesto--Charter calls for murder of Jews http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1988986/posts?page=1 Is that a "red flag"?

Do politicians at a certain level simply get a free pass?

I’m guessing many Freepers are in jobs that may have some special insight into this and it would be great to get a perspective on all this.

The timing of this post is not optimal but I figured I should do it now. I won’t be around too much with Easter weekend but hope to visit and see some good Freeper feedback.

Happy Easter to all.

God Bless America!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; commanderinchief; election; issues; nationalsecurity; president
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 03/21/2008 1:38:55 AM PDT by cpforlife.org
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

It seems logical (at least to me) that one who wants to be POTUS & CIC – leader of the most powerful nation on the planet should be required to undergo—AND LEGITIMATLY PASS a very serious security background check.

But I am starting to think that it’s not the case. Mainly because of “politics”.

2 posted on 03/21/2008 1:40:52 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
PING

Hope you might offer your perspective.

Happy Easter to you and yours.

3 posted on 03/21/2008 1:42:08 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

P-I-N-G


4 posted on 03/21/2008 1:42:37 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...

Special Pro-Life-of the Republic PING.


5 posted on 03/21/2008 1:43:48 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Could Clinton or Obama pass a security background check for a high level job at say the FBI or CIA?

Not likely. Obamas admitted drug use would probably be a disqualifier.

Hillary has legal issues that would delay a clearance being granted.

6 posted on 03/21/2008 1:43:56 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Because the Constitution enumerates the requirements to be President, and “security check” isn’t one of them.


7 posted on 03/21/2008 1:46:43 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: There is no god named Allah, and Muhammed is a false prophet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

PING


8 posted on 03/21/2008 1:46:48 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

PING


9 posted on 03/21/2008 1:48:43 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I guess I should also add: Do they go through a “formal” gubamint check. Obviously the opposition does plenty of diggin’ in an attempt to disqualify but is that sufficient for POTUS?

If there is one can a link be posted to it, please.

10 posted on 03/21/2008 1:52:21 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

If CheHusseinNObama has his way, the vetting process will be a thing of the past.


11 posted on 03/21/2008 1:53:09 AM PDT by Canedawg (No Che Hussein NObama, and the Hildebeast, too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

It’s a good question, and in light of Obama’s relationship with his so-called “church,” one can’t help but wonder how many black people, similarly situated, who are either applying for a security clearance, or already have one, would have their trustworthiness impugned by such an association. These people clearly indicate that they have no allegiance to their country, and the vehemence and vitriolic nature of their rhetoric are both indicators of a mindset that might easily be diverted toward acts of treason.

I once worked with an Air Force officer, a black woman, who professed herself to be very religious and belonged to a local, presumably black, congregation. We used to get into political arguments which centered around George W. Bush and his prosecution of the Iraq war, and you can pretty much guess how the lines were drawn. One day, however, passion got the better of her, and she went pretty far over the line, ranting and raving, in tones very similar to those of Reverend Wright, how “my boy” Bush had orchestrated the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center—all this while wearing the uniform and during duty hours.

I liked this woman (for other reasons), but all the while afterward I couldn’t help but wonder if she was really the type of person who should be given a role of trust within the U.S. military. The fact that on most occasions she came off as a very reasonable, patriotic, middle-class American was particularly disturbing. And to this day I can’t consider the merits of any black person, no matter how mundane, without wondering if, deep inside, he’s harboring a latent resentment against his country that might manifest itself in some unspeakable terms if given the proper impetus.


12 posted on 03/21/2008 1:53:46 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

As disgusted as I am with Politics as practiced in America today, one thing that does happen is that all candidates are vetted in more detail than would be even possible if done by the (more-than-occasionally inept) Security and Law Enforcement agencies.

Every tiniest detail - real, rumored, or imagined - of a candidate’s life is ferretted out by the Media (and by opponents’ “dirty-tricks” offices) and (unlike ‘official’ investigations) placed in the public record.. And repeated ad nauseum...;~(

Then, the decision of whether or not to trust a person with the most powerful position in the land is made, not by some faceless bureaucrat, but by We The People — which is as it should be.


13 posted on 03/21/2008 1:55:23 AM PDT by Uncle Ike (Sometimes I sets and thinks, and sometimes I jus' sets.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
Yes, the Constitution enumerates the requirements. What does it enumerate about disqualifications--hmmm?
14 posted on 03/21/2008 1:55:47 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

short answer, the only requirements for POTUS are those found in the Constitution. If you want them to pass a background check, it would take a Constitutional Amendment. You’re of course free to base your vote on whether you think they would pass such a background check, and to lobby others to base their decision on the same criteria.


15 posted on 03/21/2008 2:00:05 AM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
While at the White House and doing loyalty interviews of Clinton personnel Mr. Aldrich (FBI) wrote that almost all Clinton staffers assumed the question about loyalty related to loyalty to the Clintons.

Loyalty to the United States, the Flag, and the Constitution?

"Oh yeah. The country. Sure." Whatever.

"Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House," by Gary Aldrich, FBI retired.

I have never forgotten that part of the book -- and why should any American want to forget about what Clintonists are about?

If a president is not required to s/he should at least be required to undergo regular drug testing -- DITTO for all elected officials! IMO.

16 posted on 03/21/2008 2:01:36 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Those would be any condition that doesn’t fulfill the stated requirements,

Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:

* be a natural-born citizen of the United States
* be at least thirty-five years old
* have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years

Additionally, there are two negative qualifications. Under Article One of the United States Constitution, no Presidential candidate can have previously held the office and been removed by conviction for an impeachable offense. And under the Twenty-Second Amendment, no person who has previously served as President or Acting President for more than six years (one full-term and two additional years) is eligible for election to the Presidency or to the Vice Presidency.

Thats it. Don’t like it? All you need to do is amend the Constitution.


17 posted on 03/21/2008 2:02:04 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: There is no god named Allah, and Muhammed is a false prophet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Syncro; pissant

PING


18 posted on 03/21/2008 2:02:20 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

It is not the position that requires a security check, it is access to classified material the the security check is required.


19 posted on 03/21/2008 2:02:40 AM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (I love big brother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kozak; Jet Jaguar
Thanks Kosak. I don't want to amend our beloved Constitution over this, and I don't think it's required.

It does seem clear that pols for high office are not dealt with the same way as people who aspire to high security jobs in the CIA FBI and the like. And I guess that is another question I might have asked originally - should they be?

20 posted on 03/21/2008 2:12:13 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Do presidential candidates undergo Security background checks? If not, WHY NOT.

Because it would eliminate all but squeaky clean conservatives.

21 posted on 03/21/2008 2:14:39 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
should they be?

I think they should all be military veterans, but, like your question, no extra-Constitutional requirements can be instituted. If the people want to elect a multiple murderer they can, if his citizenship has been restored and he is otherwise qualified.

22 posted on 03/21/2008 2:17:29 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (I'm here for a purpose. I know what my purpose is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Ike
I tend to agree with you Uncle Ike. They certainly undergo major vetting and scrutiny by their political foes for political reasons and I'm confidant the digging is deep.

However...the Security and Law Enforcement agencies— occasionally inept as they are—may have resources and access to info on another level that political operatives simply don't.

I think maybe they should get both?

23 posted on 03/21/2008 2:20:32 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Naw...the whole point of our republic is to have a dynamic gov’t without that sort of arbitrary constraint.

We could elect someone who was completely nuts, a felon, a this, a that. There isn’t any limit except that the person is of a certain age, born in the US, been here 14 years etc.
That’s the point. If a background check were required, then any candiate could be deemed ‘failed’ by the committee responsible (’cause someone has to have that job), and that’s what the founders were seeking to avoid in any case.

If we elect a guy who can’t pass a security clearance, who’s in bed with crazies from overseas, or whose pastor is an anti-white bigot—then we simply get what we deserve. That means we’re rotten on the whole.

The democrats do not vet their candidates. As Fund put it, the Republicans assess their candidates through a long courtship whereas the democrats find the newest hot date and go giggles over him or her, only to find out later he’s a fraud or a bigot.

The dems know Barack is a pr!ck. How Anderson Cooper—an elitist ‘rich’ white guy—can swoon over Barack is a mystery to me. Barack’s pastor hates who Anderson Cooper is. Yes, he will use him. But he doesn’t want Cooper on TV. He wants a black guy on TV. He wants Malik Shabazz in that job. But you can’t tell that to Anderson Cooper.

Try telling a 15 year old girl her new b/f is a loser and you just end up with a pregnant teenager. This is what we’re going through with the dems right now.

This is half our doing in convincing them Billary isn’t electable. They ran from that right into Barack’s racist arms. And it’s Billary’s fault for blowing so much smoke up Wright’s protege’s butt that he thinks he can do the job without any experience.

Republicans tend to be doers and they tend to be modest.

They tend to want to do work and pull their own weight. They do not, in general, desire self-glorification, and they are usually brought up with a pretty strict ruleset.

That type of person doesn’t seek out public office by nature. That type of person seeks to be a cog in the wheel that supports the whole operation and is glad to do so. It’s working great. It’s what made Europe successful in the past. It’s what makes China successful now.

It also makes us prone to getting taken over by despots. The liberals prevent the takeover Chinese style, but instead just take over themselves with no plan whatsoever—just whatever the latest craze is (look for Rosie O’Donnell to be our next prez: straight from black to gay woman).

We have to make a specific strategy to take back media and professorships. We won’t do it naturally. Naturally we’ll want to take more modest positions. But this will not work in the long run.


24 posted on 03/21/2008 2:22:24 AM PDT by kbingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

I believe being elected by the People of the United States vetts the President automatically.


25 posted on 03/21/2008 2:24:53 AM PDT by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham
And to this day I can’t consider the merits of any black person, no matter how mundane, without wondering if, deep inside, he’s harboring a latent resentment against his country that might manifest itself in some unspeakable terms if given the proper impetus.

There's a word for this.... I just wish I could remember what it was, when you questioned someone's loyalty because of their ethnicity....

26 posted on 03/21/2008 2:26:36 AM PDT by jude24 (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

If there were to be security checks it would get very political in a very short amount of time. There would have to be parameters set as to what is acceptable and what is not. It doesn’t matter who does the check there is bound to be some bias and I am sure there would be a lot of things they would find on one and many they would “accidentally” overlook on others.

I think it would be a mess, but I certainly understand the point you are making. I think this particular crop of candidates likely begs your question more so than any I can recall. We certainly, hopefully could have done better than these three on our worst day. But, this is what we have and we will have to do our best to make chicken salad out of chicken $sh!t. This is the unenviable task that lies ahead of the American electorate. :)


27 posted on 03/21/2008 2:28:10 AM PDT by WildcatClan (Shut up about bootblacking! I like bootblacking, I like it very much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Emphasizing a point that I tried to make — I’m uncomfortable, in the extreme, with the notion that some bureaucrat - him/herself unelected, and of unknown personality, politics, or agenda - may exercise a veto over my possible choices...

Wish I could remember my long-ago Latin classes, so that I could sound ever-so-erudite by quoting the original, but all I remember is the translation: “Who watches the watchers?”


28 posted on 03/21/2008 2:28:32 AM PDT by Uncle Ike (Sometimes I sets and thinks, and sometimes I jus' sets.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael; Mr Ramsbotham; All
I seem to remember early in Bubba’s 1st term news about WH people not having undergone the security checks required for their jobs and thinking they couldn't pass.

And I recall last fall Sandy Burglar being mentioned as someone Hildabeast would possibly employ, after 1-20-09, of course.

Disgusting.

29 posted on 03/21/2008 2:29:14 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WildcatClan

“make chicken salad out of chicken $sh!t”

With these three you really are being too kind.


30 posted on 03/21/2008 2:39:16 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jude24

There’s a word for this: Black Liberation, careful, experience, paranoid, trauma, Affirmative Action...am I close?


31 posted on 03/21/2008 2:40:49 AM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kbingham

Thank you for your post!


32 posted on 03/21/2008 2:45:42 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kbingham
“...Republicans tend to be doers and they tend to be modest.

They tend to want to do work and pull their own weight. They do not, in general, desire self-glorification, and they are usually brought up with a pretty strict ruleset...”

You're incredibly naive or a republican shill.

33 posted on 03/21/2008 2:48:37 AM PDT by chadwimc (Proud to be an infidel ! Allah fubar !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

I could be wrong, but I think the original authority to classify documents or grant clearances lies with the President, so it would appear that if the POTUS couldn’t “pass” a clearance investigation, he could grant it.

I know DCI is involved too, but I think even that authority comes from the POTUS.


34 posted on 03/21/2008 2:53:36 AM PDT by perez24 (Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

The election is supposed to be the background check. Anyone who would conduct a normal government background check would be the President’s agent as an employee of the executive branch, which is a conflict of interest, anyway.


35 posted on 03/21/2008 2:53:49 AM PDT by Content Provider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Ike; jude24
Wish I could remember my long-ago Latin classes, so that I could sound ever-so-erudite by quoting the original, but all I remember is the translation: “Who watches the watchers?”

Coincidentally, your answer is two posts up from your question, in Jude24's tagline: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

36 posted on 03/21/2008 2:58:05 AM PDT by Eroteme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Eroteme

” Coincidentally, your answer is two posts up from your question, in Jude24’s tagline: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” “

;~)

Oddly enough, huh??


37 posted on 03/21/2008 3:00:06 AM PDT by Uncle Ike (Sometimes I sets and thinks, and sometimes I jus' sets.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org; Gary Aldrich
Former FBI Agent Gary Aldrich who wrote "Unlimited Access" said in his book that both Hillary and Bill would have been denied clearances.


38 posted on 03/21/2008 3:18:43 AM PDT by SkyPilot ("I wasn't in church during the time when the statements were made.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org; Kozak

I believe Brother Kozak nailed it down for you at post #7.

btw, Kozak? NICE letter from the Cossacks on your profile! :)


39 posted on 03/21/2008 3:32:14 AM PDT by mkjessup (This year's presidential choices: "Speak No Evil, See No Evil, and Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Someone once accused me of making it up. It’s the real deal, my boys new how to deal with the Mohammedans!


40 posted on 03/21/2008 3:47:16 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: There is no god named Allah, and Muhammed is a false prophet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

“Because the Constitution enumerates the requirements to be President, and “security check” isn’t one of them.”

That’s how it is.

But do you think such a check could look like ?
Let me guess how a computer program to determine this would look

boolean check_candidate( Candidate x ) {
/* assume everybody who’s not clearly
* identified as beeing good is on
* the axis of evil. So invalid is default.
*/
boolean is_candidate_valid = false;

// Top three NO GOs
if ( x.party != “GOP” ) return false;
if ( x.religion != “CHRISTIAN” ) return false;
if ( x.skincolor < 0xFFFFFF ) return false;

// Things that qualify as candidate
if ( x.age > TOO_OLD_TO_HAVE_A_OUTER_MARRIAGE_AFFAIR ) {
is_candidate_valid = true;
}

if ( x.mind != “OPEN” ){
is_candidate_valid = true;
}

return is_candidate_valid;
}


41 posted on 03/21/2008 3:57:06 AM PDT by buzzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jude24
"There's a word for this.... I just wish I could remember what it was, when you questioned someone's loyalty because of their ethnicity...."

We here in FreeRepublic try to use the written word to communicate effectively ... and try to use our faculties to understand what others write.

I believe what Mr Ramsbotham wrote was an opinion based on what a person had done and not necesarily on what that person was.

Of course, it could be interpreted otherwise ... like, once a wife beater, always a wife beater, distrust anyone under 30, and a ton of et cetera's.

We are all a product of all that has gone before us ... and if experience is of any value .. then experiance is of all value.

42 posted on 03/21/2008 4:18:02 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Presidents, and other Federal elected officials, are chosen by the People, not by the government.

The President runs the Executive Branch, not the other way around.

43 posted on 03/21/2008 4:18:18 AM PDT by Jim Noble (I've got a home in Glory Land that outshines the sun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

WHY NOT?

Because at upper elite globalist levels and too many lower chunks and levels . . .

our society has been traitorously, UNConstitutionally suicidal for decades.


44 posted on 03/21/2008 4:19:10 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Supreme Court justices are vetted more rigorously


45 posted on 03/21/2008 4:54:00 AM PDT by SMARTY ('At some point you get tired of swatting flies, and you have to go for the manure heap' Gen. LeMay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Many moons ago, as a Special Agent for the Air Force Office of Special Investigation (OSI) among my other duties, was that of conducting background security clearance investigations for both military personnel as well as civilians who worked for the AF.

Though at the time, we had few foreign born naturalized citizens when we did, it became a much more difficult process.

As more most American, depending on the level of clearance (Secret, Top Secret, etc.) we managed to learn just about everything there was to know about them.

Thus not surprising, many of those who hold high public office, would never qualify for even a Confidential-level clearance if they were subjected to the same standards as others.

Moreover, many would never want to have their past see the light of day.

46 posted on 03/21/2008 5:09:21 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (One of ONLY 37 Conservatives in the People's Republic of Vermont. Socialists and Progressives All)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kbingham
"That’s the point. If a background check were required, then any candiate could be deemed ‘failed’ by the committee responsible (’cause someone has to have that job), and that’s what the founders were seeking to avoid in any case.

I beg do differ.

As the President is CIC, all subordinates from the Chairman of the JCS to the lowliest Private, MUST necessarily be scrutinized prior to being given access to classified material.

Thus, I'm in favor of a requirement for anyone who will be holding office on a federal level (Including Congress as well as the POTUS) should be held to the same standard.

As for the "committee" you refer to, that's a no brainer.

Once a thorough background investigation is completed, then the final report is simply released in an objective manner and "we" the electorate would get to decide whether that person deserves to be trusted or not.

47 posted on 03/21/2008 5:18:17 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (One of ONLY 37 Conservatives in the People's Republic of Vermont. Socialists and Progressives All)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kbingham
“We have to make a specific strategy to take back media and professorships. We won’t do it naturally.”

I am not so sure that we will not do it naturally. The PajamaMedia has been fairly effective at getting out the word that would have been spiked 15 years ago. Much of the old media is dying. Much of the hypocrisy of the Universities is been shown for all to see.

We have to keep on pushing, and we will, but I am not sure that we need a centrally coordinated response, or that a centrally coordinated response would be as effective.

48 posted on 03/21/2008 5:22:13 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: WildcatClan
If there were to be security checks it would get very political in a very short amount of time. There would have to be parameters set as to what is acceptable and what is not. It doesn’t matter who does the check there is bound to be some bias and I am sure there would be a lot of things they would find on one and many they would “accidentally” overlook on others.

Not necessarily so (SEE my post #46)

There could easily be parameters pre-set, much as there is in place for anyone else, seeking a security clearance.

When I conducted same, there were a set criteria which was required to be addressed, such as verifying education, employment, citizenship, date and place of birth, etc.

While I agree on the subjective aspect and one which we utilized such as interviewing neighbors and co-workers, that one would not necessarily need be applied, and simply the facts relating to what one's pertinent background would need be looked into and reported on.

AS AN ASIDE, I'D LOVE TO SEE A COPY OF BARACK'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS IT IS BEEN SAID THAT A MUSLIM'S RELIGION IS SO NOTED ON SAID DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS WHAT IS LISTED AS RACE.

49 posted on 03/21/2008 5:29:27 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (One of ONLY 37 Conservatives in the People's Republic of Vermont. Socialists and Progressives All)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
"Do politicians at a certain level simply get a free pass?"

I think that's it.

Do you want to be the LEO who runs the check on his boss?

Go ahead, and let us know how it all worked out for you.

50 posted on 03/21/2008 5:52:55 AM PDT by Designer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson