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!
Do presidential candidates undergo Security background checks? If not, WHY NOT.
Because it would eliminate all but squeaky clean conservatives.
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.
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?
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.
I believe being elected by the People of the United States vetts the President automatically.
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....
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. :)
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?”
And I recall last fall Sandy Burglar being mentioned as someone Hildabeast would possibly employ, after 1-20-09, of course.
Disgusting.
“make chicken salad out of chicken $sh!t”
With these three you really are being too kind.
There’s a word for this: Black Liberation, careful, experience, paranoid, trauma, Affirmative Action...am I close?
Thank you for your post!
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.
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.
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.
Coincidentally, your answer is two posts up from your question, in Jude24's tagline: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
” Coincidentally, your answer is two posts up from your question, in Jude24’s tagline: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” “
;~)
Oddly enough, huh??
I believe Brother Kozak nailed it down for you at post #7.
btw, Kozak? NICE letter from the Cossacks on your profile! :)
Someone once accused me of making it up. It’s the real deal, my boys new how to deal with the Mohammedans!
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.