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.
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.
For this term, absolutely.
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?
Would you not support taking active measures to ensure that future presidents clearly present their credentials to the American people prior to running for office?
When a potential candidate announces that they are forming an "exploratory committee," why shouldn't the appropriate governement entities also "explore" the qualifications of the person during this exploratory phase?
-PJ
We’re done.
***Now there’s finally something to be happy about.
That would only apply to Obama not having to comply during his current term. It would not absolve him from complying in 2012 should he choose to run again.
-PJ
One can hope. Best of luck with that effort.
For now.
Interesting... I hadn't heard that. I though InTrade and TradeSports were the same entity, run out of Ireland.
They don't make it clear, but last year when I traced their "Contact Us" information, both sites went back to the same FAX telephone number.
-PJ
I haven’t seen anything to suggest the new President isn’t a citizen of the United States of America.
What I have seen is some on the Right of the political spectrum beginning to behave EXACTLY like the 9/11 kooks...or those afflicted by Bush Derangement Syndrome.
I think its counter productive to Conservative issues in general, and websites that end up having it up in their respective forums specifically.
JMHO here.
First, even after the election people were still trying to define what a "Natural Born Citizen" is, and whether there is a third class of citizenship between Natural Born and naturalized for people who are born citizens but aren't "Natural Born Citizens". Now maybe it isn't defined in US law because the only two jobs it matters for are president and vice president and Congress never considered that someone might toe that line. Does a Natural Born citizen have to be born inside United States territory to two citizen parents (the most restrictive definition I saw which would have even eliminated McCain)? Is anyone born in the United States to anyone Natural Born based on the fact that they were born a citizen according to the current interpretation of the 14th amendment (least restrictive definition I saw)? Can a Natural Born citizen have a dual citizenship at birth, or does that eliminate him from the Natural Born category?
Second, the method of getting a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth remained fuzzy (although I might have missed the definitive answer). How long after the birth could you apply for one? What documentary evidence did it take to get one? Is a mother's claim sufficient?
Next, the aim of the investigation seemed scatter-shot. Was the attempt to prove that Barack Obama was born outside of the country? Was it to prove that he gave up his citizenship when his stepfather brought him to Indonesia?(with a followup question of whether a parent can give up a child's US citizenship, or if it can't be given up until he's 18 years old?) Was it to prove that he was born with a dual citizenship and therefore might be unable to be President? We never hit one solid reason why he wasn't eligible, instead we threw up a lot of "well, it could be this" choices.
Also there seemed to be a tenacity on holding onto evidence which didn't matter anymore. My primary point on that were the people who tried to prove that the originally published COLB was a forgery (as opposed to an official document produced by the State of Hawaii). A lot of Freepers made a big deal about white borders around the text on the first COLB posted. However it was pretty clear to me those were artifacts from having a JPEG image that was compressed way too much and trying to compare it to a less compressed "official" version. When I said so some were questioning whether I was a troll.
We should have understood the legalese of each secretary of state of each state to certify his eligibility, and swamped them before he got the nomination.
And we were working on this in March.
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."
Of course, the Constitution doesn't stop at "citizen," it asks for "natural-born citizen." How do we ensure that future candidates present to proper authorities proof of compliance with this qualification? We can't let the most powerful position in the world go to someone who is only willing to show a scan of one side of a document to a left-leaning website, and call that certified proof, can we?
You say "What I have seen is some on the Right of the political spectrum beginning to behave EXACTLY like the 9/11 kooks..." but 9/11 happened, and the government actively responded by creating a new government Cabinet-level department, forming a Congressional commission to review past practices, and enacting new laws to ensure the flow of information to all affected agencies.
If we use your analogy to 9/11 as a guide, then we should also change government practices around verifying qualifications for future presidents, to close an enforcement gap in the Constituion, whether Obama was qualified or not.
In today's information age, it's clear that we need additional future steps to ensure that future candidates positively demonstrate their qualifications. Wouldn't you agree?
-PJ
What I posted tells you clearly I don’t see any indication to support this kook theory Obama is not an American citizen.
Given that, why would I bother with the rest of what you posted BASED upon that theory?
Anyway...we don’t agree on this. Have at it if thats what you feel you need to do. Good luck, you’ll need it in my view.
For years, the NFL resisted it, as MLB still does. I can see how if a bad call hurts your team, you're all for instant replay, and if a bad call helped your team, you'd be against it.
For the guardians of the sancticty of the game, a bad call here or there isn't enough to warrant wholesale change, especially if the alleged bad calls didn't affect any of their own favored teams.
However, what happens when the bad call happens in the Super Bowl, and the whole world is watching, and it puts the credibility of the sport at risk?
And what does one say to the argument that, whether past bad calls affected me or not, I was aware of a brewing problem and could have put instant replay in place before a bad call tainted the Super Bowl?
I sense that you are willing to risk the possibility of a future candidate not being eligible, because you think Obama was eligible, and so the system worked this time. I think there were judgement calls made with no instant replay, and that with open borders, free-for-all immigration, and uncontrolled voting, we will have a problem in future elections if we don't close some gaps now.
-PJ
I’m not worried, I have you and Kevmo watching for me....(chuckle)
A lot of Freepers made a big deal about white borders around the text on the first COLB posted. However it was pretty clear to me those were artifacts from having a JPEG image that was compressed way too much and trying to compare it to a less compressed “official” version.
***Is it possible it was clear to you but not to others? How can we avoid such discordance in the future? There was a lot of other evidence besides white borders that suggested the CoLBs offered were forgeries. Did you overlook that other evidence? Did you debunk Polarik’s 160 page report on Factcheck’s CoLB? If so, I missed that. Where is it?
When I said so some were questioning whether I was a troll.
***There was troll activity even back then. Let’s assume, for a moment, that there really were trolls operating on CoLB threads. How can you differentiate yourself from them? Can you see that this is in the best interest of both sides — guys like you whom I presume would want to differentiate, and guys like me who would want to identify & isolate trolls? We needed a definition of troll, and we needed to be able to match up what freepers were doing with respect to the definition. Today there’s still no definition for ordinary freepers, and the mods seem to operate with an extracurricular definition.
-PJ
A little attempt at humor seemed required here.
Have a good day.
I believe it recently happened that Intrade closed all ties to TradeSports {not Sportsbook, sorry about the typo}.
Tradesports is shutting down
https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/3201.page
with open borders, free-for-all immigration, and uncontrolled voting, we will have a problem in future elections if we don’t close some gaps now.
***Those are the problems that South Africa faced, and did not deal with adequately, thus they lost their own sovereignty.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2072642/posts?page=13#13
That is what I really meant in my post. The battle begins now to get solid conservaties on ballots to support them in primaries for the House and Senate races and do a lot of grunt work to get it done.
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.