Iowa : ‘Birther’ legislation introduced by Sorenson

The Iowa Independent ^ | March 06, 2011 | Jason Hancock

[bushpilot1]

[Fantasywriter]

How can I ever sufficiently thank you? I can’t look at that graphic without laughing till my eyes water.

[bushpilot1]

Truth and accuracy are the goals at freerepublic..except for a few sordid site pests like our jamese777

[Fantasywriter]

True, but your graphics make even the SPs almost fun.

[jamese777]

The President does not obtain a security clearance. The President issues security clearances.

The President is, by definition, automatically cleared for access to any information or location under the control of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government (which includes the DoD and all of the intelligence agencies). Those who physically control access to that information or location all work for the President. He has the authority to order them to stand aside and allow him access.

Further, anyone who the President says is cleared to see something is so cleared. This is because the individuals who determine clearances work for the President and he has the authority to tell them how to do their job.

---

I’m not talking about presidents. I’m talking about presidential candidates.

Before ANY serious candidate for the presidency can be elected, they are vetted for security clearances just in case they might be elected. The vetting is at beyond top secret level.

[rolling_stone]

Before ANY serious candidate for the presidency can be elected, they are vetted for security clearances just in case they might be elected. The vetting is at beyond top secret level.

ROFLMAO....

[jamese777]

Ummm .. James get with the program. There is no “security clearance” for the POTUS. No one does a back ground investigation on him. NO ONE.

The administration preceding this current one has absolutely NO control over who gets elected, nor can they order any agency to interfere. They would be accused of partisan politics in a heartbeat. Since no one has authorization to investigate the POTUS for a background investigation, they would be criminally liable for doing so.

NO one from the FBI or secret service, NSA ever was able to look into Obama’s background top run a check on him.. That is just a fact. If you think otherwise, your just kidding yourself. But your not kidding me. I know.

Before you retort with more nonsense telling me I am wrong. You go look high and far, to the top of Kilimanjaro for all I care. But You find just one agency who can legally do it.

Here’s a hint:
The only people who can order an investigation into the President or his background is the Senate or Congress. And they failed to do so.

---

Presidential CANDIDATES are vetted by national security agencies. A candidate cannot receieve the traditional CIA Briefing for serious presidential candidates without the clearances.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/cia-briefings-of-presidential-candidates/index.htm

[Fantasywriter]

Munz, this guy only touches on Obama’s associations. Yet Obama’s drug use alone would disqualify him for a High Security Clearance. My ex had to pass a security clearance evaluation. Trust me, Obama couldn’t even begin to qualify.

by James J. Reilley, LTC USA (RET)

As a young boy my mother often told me that you could tell the character of a man by the company he keeps. As a career U.S. Army Military Police Officer I found out that all The U.S. Federal Police Agencies employed the same dictum as my mother taught me.

For over 20 years I supervised hundreds of U. S. Army CID personnel as they conducted investigations into the background of individuals seeking federal security clearances.

In my judgment, Senator Obama could never qualify for access to any level of classified information. As president he would have access to all our most guarded secrets.

A simple background investigation would reveal:

—His alliance with the unrepentant Weatherman Terrorist, William Ayers;

—His friendship with, The Reverend Jeremiah Wright;

—Dealings with the convicted Chicago Developer Tony Rezko;

—Involvements with ACORN, the organization mired in a voter fraud investigation; and,

—The fact that Obama received more money from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator— except for Chris Dodd (D) the chairman of the committee that was supposed to oversee them.

As late as September 2008 Obama referred to relaxing qualification standards for loans as, “a good idea”. In July 2008 Dodd stated at a Capitol Hill Press Conference that, “The two institutions are fundamentally, fundamentally strong”.

Franklin Rains and James A Johnson now serve as Obama campaign consultants. These Obama benefactors were former CEOs of Fannie Mae that received enormous bonuses by using tricky accounting practices.

The above has been given scant national media attention, except for outrageous spin to fit their bias. They ignored the fact that Obama sat silent in 2005 when McCain called for reforms to avert a coming sub-prime mortgage debacle. His dire warnings were ignored. The result became the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression.

Should a man so flawed by his relationships be trusted with our most guarded secrets?

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2008/10/senator_obama_couldnt_qualify_for_securi.html

[bushpilot1]

[American Constitutionalist]

( * I can already hear the media screaming about how this is a “racist birther plot” that will disenfranchise women and minorities...

Let em’ scream... the noise will stop once they are gone for good." * )

In a liberal's mind ( that is ? if they have one ) that is considered " Racism " that is ? unless ? they could use it to " their advantage" .
So ? when the liberals use the use of Constitution qualifications against Tea Party Candidates/Conservatives/Republicans ?
They will say " we are just following the law, the Constitution, and doing " the people's work " " .

[shooter223]

about ninety adjudicated lawsuits ....... How many of them were dismissed for lack of “standing”? Decisions made by POTUS can effect every person in this country. By what logic does a citizen not have “standing” to ask if the person in the oval office is authorized by the Constitution to be there? BTW, If there is nothing to hide, why spend millions on legal fees to hide as much of your background as possible? Also, where did that money come from? Personal funds? Government (taxpayer) funds? Campaign funds? Would taxpayer or campaign funds be legal to spend on this purpose?

[edge919]

Presidential CANDIDATES are vetted by national security agencies. A candidate cannot receieve the traditional CIA Briefing for serious presidential candidates without the clearances.

There's nothing in your link that says this. You're making an assumption that isn't borne out by fact.

[jamese777]

about ninety adjudicated lawsuits ....... How many of them were dismissed for lack of “standing”? Decisions made by POTUS can effect every person in this country. By what logic does a citizen not have “standing” to ask if the person in the oval office is authorized by the Constitution to be there? BTW, If there is nothing to hide, why spend millions on legal fees to hide as much of your background as possible? Also, where did that money come from? Personal funds? Government (taxpayer) funds? Campaign funds? Would taxpayer or campaign funds be legal to spend on this purpose?

---

Use your favorite search engine and enter the search term: “Article III standing.” Then maybe you’ll understand.
If John McCain had sued Obama or if Sarah Palin had sued Obama or if the Republican National Committee had sued Obama, they would have been granted standing because they could show DIRECT injury from the election of an ineligible candidate. But McCain-Palin-the RNC decided not to file suit.
The 69,315,496 voters who pulled a level or checked a box for Obama have constitutional rights too.

Obama didn’t accept public financing of his campaign so that he could exceed spending limits, but McCain took in $84 million of taxpayers’ dollars.

Here’s what a US District Court Judge who didn’t dismiss a lawsuit on grounds of standing and who was appointed by President George W. Bush had to say: “The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidible opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought.
Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not inititated impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. (See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Congress, 2009)commemorating, by a vote of 378-0 the 50th anniversary of Hawai’i statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawai’i on August 4, 1961.”—US District Court Judge Clay R. Land, US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Rhodes v MacDonald, September 16, 2009.
Judge Land denied a Temporary Restraining Order to Captain Connie Rhodes, US Army who sought to delay her deployment to Iraq until President Obama proved his natural born citizen status.

[edge919]

james, you’re illustrating a textbook example of “circular logic.” Pretty embarrassing that judges would employ such fallacies.

[jamese777]

james, you’re illustrating a textbook example of “circular logic.” Pretty embarrassing that judges would employ such fallacies.

---

That’s what everybody says when they lose in Court and with today’s second denial of certiorari in Hollister v Soetoro, the “Obama is ineligible” movement is now 0-91 in adjudicated challenges.
The “circular” logic is really a big, fat ZERO.

---

“Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his ‘natural born’ status.”—US District Court Judge Clay R. Land—Rhodes v MacDonald

[jamese777]

There’s nothing in your link that says this. You’re making an assumption that isn’t borne out by fact.

---

The Intelligence Agencies are a wee bit skitish about publicizing their current procedures. What we know comes from what was done in the past.

---

Please note that Obama got a CIA top secret security briefing BEFORE the vote of the Electoral College, BEFORE the Joint Session of Congress to count and certify his Electoral College votes AND months before the swearing in ceremony. In order to receive that briefing, you need top secret security clearance:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6191835&page=1

[bvw]

Doubt that. In any case the CIA doesn’t trump the Constitution.

What happened to the “’Birther’ Bill Is Fringe Of The Fringe” thread?

[shooter223]

"Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve" ....... Note the difference in the 2 documents. The words "Legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution" seem to be missing from the second one. The second one was filed, the first one was not. Also, like I asked earlier, why try to hide as much of your past as possible if there is no problem?

[jamese777]

Note the difference in the 2 documents. The words “Legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” seem to be missing from the second one. The second one was filed, the first one was not. Also, like I asked earlier, why try to hide as much of your past as possible if there is no problem?

---

Now that the Republicans control the House of Representatives, they could initiate hearings on Obama’s eligibility and look into the ballot certification forms from the DNC and state Democrat committees. But they haven’t.
Any city, county, or state where the name “Barack Hussein Obama II” was listed on a ballot could convene a grand jury investigation for fraud, election fraud and/or forgery. Not one grand jury has been enpaneled anywhere.
Grand Juries and Congressional committees have subpoena power.

[shooter223]

No Congressional investigations, no grand juries is very frustrating. The question remains, why hide your past if there is nothing to hide?