Now you know the flaw in our system. By virtue of his popularity with the unlettered masses, he is the POTUS designate, and as such does not have to undergo a background check. Nor does someone like Patrick Leahy who thought information heard at meeting of the Senate Intelligence committee made good cocktail party entertainment proving to his friends just how important he was. People died in that case, and many will in this one. The framers of the Constitution did not think a security clearance was necessary, and in their day it wasn’t, because they were men of honor. Some how, if we survive, we need to make a clearance a requirement for seeking public office. Obama would have been eliminated immediately based on his questionable associations.
Well, if I discount the drama queen quality of your statement, that might be an extremely productive allocation of time. I don't think any public office would or should require a security clearance, but if there indeed is no standard for the POTUS, there should be. Do you have a citation on the no security clearance required for a president rule?
It is just mind boggling to imagine that an individual would be given the most top secrets of the entire World without some sort of clearance. We are not just talking U.S. secrets here, we are talking about intelligence gathered by countries all over the World. Not to mention having a finger on nuclear war.
RaginApache, please feel free to chime in here because you have made the same statements. You can't possibly base your campaign on an allegations that you are unable to prove with simple links.
Thank you very much.