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.
Lets make it a rule you can’t post at Free Republic until you produce a valid birth certificate that is excepted by kevmo!
(chuckle)
regarding your tagline... (What would a free man do?)
maybe you could address the 3 hypotheticals I posted upthread in #43? What would a free man do in those instances?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2168149/posts?page=43#43
You said — “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.”
When courts give a decision based upon the law, as they read it, for that particular court case — then — the people have the ability to change the law to make it so that the court cannot do that again. All it takes is changing the law so that the court cannot come up with that decision the next time.
—
And then — “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.”
The problem is that no one could come up with proof to show that Obama was lying. That wouldn’t be the case with Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s got the evidence all over the place that he’s not qualified. He couldn’t get past that point, no matter if he swore to it and his whole campaign committee swore to it.
:-0
LOL...
Best of luck in your interactions with ST. I’m under orders not to hunt trolls. Is it really hunting when they come into your garage and raid your freezer? They’ve been asked politely to start their own freeping grave dance thread, but politeness is too much to ask.
Please check out the comment 118 below, regarding personality cults and power:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2167975/posts?page=118
You said we were done.
I see you’re not true to your word. Thanks for showing your true colors and grave-dancing moves.
Today is a very, very dark and ominous day.
Anyone experiencing or expressing mirth, light-heartedness or jollity is either a fool or worse.
You said — “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.”
I don’t think the Supreme Court violated the Constitution in terms of the qualifications of Obama, per the Constitution.
When the Supreme Court says something like this provision of the Constitution does not apply, and we strike it — then I would say they are in violation...
I still expect to see the Supreme Court affirming the qualifications for President of the United States, per the Constitution, at any time any legal evidence is brought up to them. That could be the next case or the next candidate or the next decade (in the future). They have not repudiated the Constitution and nor repudiated those provisions for qualifications of a President.
—
By the way, there is still room for the Supreme Court to *say* what is meant by “natural born”. That’s an issue that may be decided by the Supreme Court in the future, as to what the exact meaning should be. But, if they decided one way or another — I’m sure *some group* would not be happy with them (depending on which way they went).
You may see a decision on that, if some case makes it to them, with that issue at the heart of the case.
And..., the Supreme Court works in the “long term” and not necessarily for the immediate issue. Things may go on for a while that the Supreme Court may (at a much later time) decide that they shouldn’t be going on. “Something” may have been going on since the beginning of the Republic, and they decide over two hundred years later that it shouldn’t have been going on...
Poor baby, wants an echo chamber and all you got was this t shirt...(chuckle)
Hey, I’m not worried about this cause I got YOU watching.
I thought you’d be happy about the ‘vote of confidence’ kevmo.
Just goes to show you just can’t make a kook happy, no matter how hard you try.
See ya round the website...sooner if you keep pinging me. Later if you don’t.
Your choice, kevmo.
The question is not wether Obama is a citizen, but rather is he a Natural Born citizen, which is a Constitutional requirement to be eligible to hold the office of president.
You said — “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?”
Yes, get the truth. Make it so he has to show his documentation the next time around (unless he quits...).
You know..., those state laws putting the specific requirement in the statutory language for the Secretary of State to follow (not “vague” language).
Then you and I will see the truth that everyone has wanted...
Like those Palestinians who were yippin’ for joy on 9/11. That was a sign of their true colors, that they hate America. Today it’s a sign that they don’t care about the constitution. Such posters should have barf alerts in their taglines.
Show me your birth certificate.
I’ll wait.
(chuckle)
Yes, this is THAT ridiculous. Sorry.
You do make a good point.
I was trying to use generic language that partisans cannot use to attack me. I see the Constitution as a limiting powers if the governemtn document, while Obama sees it as a negative rights of the government document.
It's true that the Constitution is in a sense "weak" in that it assumes honest, honorable people will follow it. When people work to go around its intent, and factions hang together to support a dishonest interpretation, then nothing can stop the lack of adherence to the Constitution.
We accept the Supreme Court finding "emanations from penumbras" because we respect the authority of the court, this time.
We accept the Supreme Court finding the takings of private property for other private uses because we accept the authority of the court, this time.
We accept the Supreme Court refusing to hear qualification grievances on flimsy grounds of "standing" because we accept the authority of the court, this time.
But sometime, soon, as we see more and more factions overtly working against the interests of the consent of the governed by using our honest consent against us, we will have to stop accepting the authority of others.
I don't know where that point is.
If the Court is unwilling to enforce Article II, and if it is unwilling to enforce the Amendment I right to petition the government for grievances, and if it is unwilling to enforce Amendment XX qualifications of the president-elect, then why should we enforce Amendment XVI income tax collection? If the court is unwilling to protect Amendment V takings of private property, or Amendment IV protections of ones papers and possessions, then what will come of Amendment II rights of defense of said papers and possessions?
-PJ
What an incredible freeping jerk.
In hard times people show what they’re made of.
And if today doesn’t augur hard times, I don’t know what would. It only remains to be seen exactly how hard.
Did you really think anything would come of the birth certificate issue? Obama could have been from Mars and it wouldn’t have mattered.
If I decide to run for president I will. Mine is a REAL birth certificate, signed by a real doctor. It even has my little footprints in ink.
Did you really think anything would come of the birth certificate issue?
***Yes I did. Do you think this was a legitimate constitutional issue? Or perhaps you’re here to dance on the grave of the constitution? If the eligibility of the president isn’t worthy of respectful dialog on a constitutional website, WTF is? Exactly when did you lose your confidence in the SCOTUS to uphold the constitution? Do you consider the US to be a constitutional republic? If not, when did it convert? If yes, how do you explain the paradox of an ineligible person taking the presidency? With the SCOTUS not doing their jobs, what do we need them for? We could save a ton of money shutting down that branch of guvmint if they ain’t gonna do their freeping jobs.
Obama could have been from Mars and it wouldn’t have mattered.
***Is that because he’s a magic negro? Explain why. And explain what we could have done differently or better to nail this POS. And then explain your motives for logging onto this thread.
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.