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.
What you posted didn’t address a single thing that I asked. I asked if the situation exposed weaknesses in determining the Constitutional qualification of a candidate, and you said you “haven’t seen anything to suggest the new President isn’t a citizen of the United States of America.
***Typical of the obfuscations we’ve been seeing.
To me, there is nothing as important as truth. Nothing. Everything else is secondary or even further down the list. Has truth been served in this election? I don’t think so.
Those who taunt, naysay and sling words like “troothers” and “birthers” and “kook” around seem to have little regard for truth. Even is someone thinks that 0bama is most likely a natural born citizen (and even they can’t be SURE as he has produced no proof, one way or the other) should be interested in the truth. If such people think that people like you, me and others who want the truth are idiots and kooks, what does that say about their desire to have the truth?
Anyone who says stuff like “move on” etc is not caring much about truth. And I’m all for trying to get real conservatives elected - heck, isn’t that the goal? - but after four years of 0bama it’s not going to be easier, it’ll be harder.
As a sort of side point, it is clearly that the GOP leadership [sic] need to be cleaned out like the Augean stables. Spineless, power hungry, egocentric with who knows what kind of hidden dirty laundry - they don’t represent me.
Here’s a hypothetical I posted at Intrade, which generated some insightful conversation.
https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/555/2279.page
Here’s a set of hypotheticals for you. Let’s say you’re a loyal Roman republican with 5 buddies watching Caesar cross the Rubicon with his army, and you know full well what that means for the Roman republic. What is your duty at that point?
Let’s say you’re a loyal German who believes in democracy and you see Hitler making tanks instead of VW’s as he has promised the peepull. What is your duty at that point?
Let’s say you’re a loyal american constitutionalist and you see a marxist usurper cheating his way to the presidency, you file a lawsuit and it gets thrown out of SCOTUS within a week of the inauguration. What is your duty at that point?
I know, I know... no one ever really addresses a good hypothetical. Here’s an example: If the sky were green, would more people have green eyes? Many people say stuff like, “of course the sky ain’t green” or they go into the physics behind why the sky ain’t green or they ask you why you aren’t in with the yellow-eyed crowd or they say green-eyed people are just monsters or all kinds of things, but they never really address the hypothetical. So I shouldn’t hold out any hope that you’d be different.
But at least I’m on record with trying to stop this constitutional travesty and if I wander back to my farm in the highlands rather than continue the fight through further futile Roman Empire politics, that’s my business. The only guy who survived in that movie of ‘300’ was the one whose job it was to tell the history.
If such people think that people like you, me and others who want the truth are idiots and kooks, what does that say about their desire to have the truth?
***What does it say about Free Republic that they’re allowed to operate in their constitutionally agnostic (or should we say obviously anti-constitutionalist) tactics & perspectives? The guys posting chemtrail conspiracies & Vince Foster nonsense & other Arkancides & illuminati &etc. were given a wider berth than this. I don’t freeping get it.
several of you need
***I see another classy grave dancer has chimed in. From the article thread : “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.”
“Certifigate Post Mortem”
If anyone wants proof of “life after death”..., just keep watching Certifigate... :-)
The rule of law is now the rule of federal dictate.
We are at the stage encountered when the Declaration of Independence was written and signed.
The people in the voting majority will be the people for whom the federal oligarchy focuses, to consolidate the federal jobs, and the powers of labor and income for those industries sympathetic to federal rule.
The unions will be empowered on a much broader scale now, the state legislatures will be made beholden to the federal coffers to stay afloat and pay the state government employees, and the orgs that can deliver the number of votes (not voters, the number of votes) will be financially empowered and put to work consolidating the power of the ruling party, the Democrats.
America ceased to be a Constitutional Republic and slid into being a federal oligarchy today, and most of the people heiling and bowing before this affirmative action fraud want it that way ... and perhaps a few conservative website owners and talking-head show clowns in radio and television.
Time to not make waves, to avoid becoming the focus of federal goons wielding a fairness doctrine. Standing up for the Constitution is too risky, draws too much attention. After all, the clause of eligibility for the presidency is so weak, so ... passe.
Meant to ping you guys.
I think much prayer and deep contemplation is the next step.
We are at the stage encountered when the Declaration of Independence was written and signed.
***Yikes.
The people in the voting majority will be the people for whom the federal oligarchy focuses, to consolidate the federal jobs, and the powers of labor and income for those industries sympathetic to federal rule.
***Good analysis. A sort of majoritized fascism.
The unions will be empowered on a much broader scale now, the state legislatures will be made beholden to the federal coffers to stay afloat and pay the state government employees, and the orgs that can deliver the number of votes (not voters, the number of votes) will be financially empowered and put to work consolidating the power of the ruling party, the Democrats.
***And when it all comes crashing down, they’ll blame the republicans. A perfect scam.
America ceased to be a Constitutional Republic and slid into being a federal oligarchy today,
***I agree. Historians will see this as the crossing of the Rubicon.
and most of the people heiling and bowing before this affirmative action fraud want it that way ...
***Like Germans did in the 1930’s. It wasn’t imposed from the top against the wishes of the majority population.
and perhaps a few conservative website owners and talking-head show clowns in radio and television.
***I can see that for the radio & TV clowns because they’re in a business to make money.
Time to not make waves, to avoid becoming the focus of federal goons wielding a fairness doctrine.
***Yup. When I first signed on at FR, there was a lot of discussion about Clintoon going after conservatives with tax audits. That’s where I got my original login name. Now we just have to see what tools zer0bama will use. Tax audits, fairness doctrine, new declaration of independence, “constitution is a fundamentally flawed document” - type thinking, Obama version of brown shirts, online worshippers, Chicago politics tactics learned at the feet of William Ayers and Rev. Wright... there seems to be a lot more tools for zer0bama than Clintoon had. I remember seeing comments that if there were an internet around in 1992, Clintoon would never have been elected. Well, there’s an internet now, and that didn’t start a marxist usurper with terrorist ties and a wife & pastor who hate America from becoming president.
Standing up for the Constitution is too risky, draws too much attention. After all, the clause of eligibility for the presidency is so weak, so ... passe.
***Maybe FR should just change that first line on the front page, in the “Statement by FR’s Founder:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution “...
You said — “What I learned is that the Constitution means nothing as long as the people vote for an unqualified candidate, the electoral college ignores it, the congress ignores it, and the supreme court swears him in.”
When you don’t analyze the situation correctly, you come up with a defeatist attitude like that. It’s like saying that the laws against murder doesn’t mean anything anymore since O.J. “got away with it”....
No, I’m sorry, but the laws against murder are still just as effective as they were before.
Likewise, with this situation, the Constitution is still just as viable now as it was a few years before you ever heard of Obama.
The *analysis* of the problem is that no one knows for sure — “legally speaking” — if Obama violated the provisions of the Constitution in terms of eligibility. There hasn’t been any proof that any court has *adjudicated* and affirmed is legally true. Until that happens, you just don’t know for sure.
And for those who say they *do know for sure* — then, I would ask why a court has not agreed with you? That’s the only *result* that counts, not you or someone else “just knowing so”.
As far as being an “unqualified candidate” — no, the “process” that we’ve always used in the past — Obama *did qualify* under. He and the campaign and the party signed papers with the states affirming that he qualified and they were notarized. That was the same thing that was required of all the other Presidential candidates. So Obama *did qualify* in the same way everyone else had before.
It’s only *in your own mind* that you’re saying that the Constitution is “useless” and not viable any more. It’s not true in real life.
That’s a defeatist attitude resulting from the wrong analysis of the situation.
The Constitution is still there, it’s still valid and nothing has been changed in the Constitution. No provisions have been made void and not usable in the future. It’s all just as valid as it has been.
whoa kevmo,
my reply/link was TO the ‘grave dancers’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2167975/posts?page=24
>>>>
Total insanity has already taken over. Anyone not realizing this at this point in time is living in denial.
24 posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 6:14:51 AM by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
Courtesy ping to Dead Corpse
You said — “I look at it this way. The Constitution and our way of government was our social contract. It has been broken. When will the people put it back? Only when they feel the pain of doing without it.”
I see nothing “legal’ that says the Constitution, as the “law” is “broken”. It’s still just as valid and just as binding as it ever was.
Just because people couldn’t prove a “guilty party” — guilty — doesn’t mean the law is not valid. This sort of thing happens in courts all the time, and the “law” still stands and is still enforced.
You have a defeatist attitude to say that it’s been broken...
my reply/link was TO the ‘grave dancers’
***Then I withdraw my post, mea culpa & all that. I can’t get that website link to load up and it says something about maniacs... so I got the wrong idea. Sometimes what we’ll see is taunters post a link with a URL similar to that and it’s just a way of wasting Freepers’ time & patience. Perhaps you could just post what your thoughts are rather than rely upon a sporadic link?
“I would ask why a court has not agreed with you?”
The court also said the local governments can take your property for any reason they so choose and sell it to whomever they desire. So much for the courts obeying the Constitution or the foundations of this nation.
The courts did not rule Obama was a US citizen. They simply ruled no one has standing to demand he prove it.
Fine, let’s get Arnold in as simply lie and swear he is eligible. According to you that is all that is required, which is completely false. The Constitution does not say, “Well, screw the natural born thing. Just get a few people to swear to it.”
You said — “But you can’t deny that this exposed a weakness in the enforcement of clauses in the Constitution. What would you change for the next time?.
Enact state laws specifically requiring certain documentation in the statute language that the Secretary of State must get from the candidate in order to prove his eligibility under the Constitution, or else he cannot go on that state’s ballot.
“The Constitution is still there, it’s still valid and nothing has been changed in the Constitution. No provisions have been made void and not usable in the future. It’s all just as valid as it has been.”
Nice popagana ya got there. What do you expect the courts to say, “Yeah, we’re violating the Hell out of this thing.” According to you, the courts could easily say, “Shoot the short people.” and it would all be legal.
When would a person like you ever think the government has gone beyond their legal authority? Is there ever a point?
it was sent by a friend .
good inspiration example of NOT Giving Up until the end.
i thought it appropiate since the Gds seem to be out in force today
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.