Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ricki21092

I’m not talking about shoulds or oughts. I’m not talking about what’s ‘right’ or what’s ‘reasonable’. Those concepts left Washington years ago, probably with Reagan. And I’m not suggesting that the President should not be or isn’t informed about military maneuvers, incidents and operations all over the world as it pertains to protecting American soldiers’ and or civilians’ lives.

I’m suggesting that the POTUS doesn’t necessarily know about all the defense systems, military equipment and top secret programs being conducted in black programs which are designed to protect the US. Add to that the context of this thread, which is that BO wouldn’t pass a basic security clearance, and I’m suggesting that IF he were elected POTUS, there are powers within the government who would continue to protect the US by maintaining a level of secrecy from BO, despite what he ‘demanded.’ This would give us protection from an elected tyrannical, traitorous president, a scenario I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever has been discussed within the walls of the defense department at some time in the past.

I do not argue your point that the POTUS should have to be able to pass the highest clearance available; nor do I argue the point that he ought to have to be vetted on a number of critical levels prior to taking the oath. However, as we have learned, there is no agency within our government nor any judicial procedure to require candidates prove their natural-born constitutional status, so why should we expect that anyone in the government will expect him to pass muster on a silly security clearance. Just give him the keys to the Oval Office and a measuring tape for those drapes...


35 posted on 10/27/2008 7:17:29 AM PDT by erkyl (Obama has always been a baby-killer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: erkyl

“IF he were elected POTUS, there are powers within the government who would continue to protect the US by maintaining a level of secrecy from BO, despite what he ‘demanded.’ This would give us protection from an elected tyrannical, traitorous president...”

WTF? If he’s elected and obeys his oath, he’s not a tyrant (and if he’s not obeying his oath, he should be impeached). The president is Commander in Chief, he doesn’t need security clearance because he has the power to classify or declassify anything he wishes. Its the person who’d withholds government secrets from the C-C who’d be the traitorous one.

he Constitution can survive 4 years of a bad president, it can’t survive unelected government employees withholding government secrets and decisions from a president because they disagree with the will of the America electorate.


37 posted on 10/29/2008 10:40:42 AM PDT by Maximum Leader (run from a knife, close on a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson