A top level, or even close to the top, security clearance--or so I heard the other day. Just a blurb, don't remember where I heard it or who said it. Just wondering if anyone could supply a source to confirm or deny.
If it's true, IMO there should be a Constitutional amendment requireing any POTUS or VP candidate to be able to get a top level security clearance before being eligable to run. Congress too--'course there are so many crooks in Congress it would never get to the floor to begin with because it would most likely put the majority of them out.
Before it starts, this isn't a bash--I was just curious. Pretty much everyone on this board has made up their mind who they will vote for, and anyone that can overlook everything else about BHO won't have any problems overlooking this one either (if it's fact).
Chad
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
He should be able to get secret, possibly top. Its gets sketchy past that. Having foreign fathers, or if your close friends with foreign nationals, hurts you.
But other than that, smoking weed or even doing blow won't necessarily knock you out of it. As long as its not within 2 years or you snorted cocaine like 20 times. Biggest no-no's is secret friends overseas, computer hacking, computer info theft. Violent background, domestic violence, animal abuse, child abuse. Saying all that, I know people who has top of the top with lifestyle poly, and psych review, and they still got cleared and are nutty as a fruitcake. And then I know others who got refused because they whipped butt in high school.
The reason given was his association with people like Ayers, Rezco, Wright, etc.
When I was in the Army a guy got his SatCom clearance yanked because Uncle Sam found out he'd stolen a stero or something like that as a teen. I can't remember for sure, but I think we only had to be able to pass "Secret" clearance--and it didn't take a lot to blow it.
Chad
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
Well, Ayers is still considered a government enemy. I still don't know his connections with that.
As long as you are honest with the g-men during your poly, you could have stole a stereo. Anything beyond grand theft, thats not a good deal.
One need to learn the term "youthful indiscretions"
They have loosened up extremely, when it comes to drugs. Just 15-20 years ago, they had a zero tolerance for weed and I believe a zero tolerance for homosexuality. But now, its about impossible to find people. I smoked weed before.
You know I just watched the hannity special on obama. If he has ties to any of these people with the PLO, or aryers, then I know personally I could never recieve a top level security clearance.
If it's true, IMO there should be a Constitutional amendment requireing any POTUS or VP candidate to be able to get a top level security clearance before being eligable to run.
The problem with that plan is what happens when the bad guys take over.
What happens when they revise the security clearance requirements so that anybody who shows less than absolute loyalty to the socialist regime is ineligible? This isn't some idle speculation, it's what actually is going on in places like China and Venezuela. It's a way to have elections without any chance for the freedom lovers to have their voices heard.
I'd rather fewer rules and a chance to screw up, than more rules and greater power in the hands of the government.
If it's true, IMO there should be a Constitutional amendment requireing any POTUS or VP candidate to be able to get a top level security clearance before being eligable to run.
The problem with that plan is what happens when the bad guys take over.
What happens when they revise the security clearance requirements so that anybody who shows less than absolute loyalty to the socialist regime is ineligible? This isn't some idle speculation, it's what actually is going on in places like China and Venezuela. It's a way to have elections without any chance for the freedom lovers to have their voices heard.
I'd rather fewer rules and a chance to screw up, than more rules and greater power in the hands of the government.
You obviously do not know the process. Its not about political ideals. It does not target one's ideology. It strickly weeds out those who will phychologically fall outside the boundries of trust and realiability.
You obviously do not know the process.Â* Its not about political ideals.Â* It does not target one's ideology.Â* It strickly weeds out those who will phychologically fall outside the boundries of trust and realiability.Â*
I admit I've never been through the process. I'm not talking about the process right now. I'm talking about the dangers of handing over more power to the government. With the wrong people in charge, it wouldn't be very hard for them to start asking questions about political views.
In fact, it is partially ideological today. For example, my ideology is largely anti-government. I accept that they're necessary to keep a minimum standard of security and contract enforcement and so on. But they are a necessary evil, which must be kept in check. I am a gun-owner, and a pot-smoker, and I can't find any justification for the ATF or DEA in the Constitution. But I'm honest, respectful, I don't start fights, or wind up in gambling debts, and I love my country and everything it stands (or at least stood) for. I doubt I'd pass a security check though.
Heck, if you're leery of what democracy can do, I'm with you. The problem isn't just the candidates though, it's the voters. Too many people who have no clue and don't care to learn, but feel obliged to vote anyways. So they wind up voting for the guy with the nicer slogan, or whichever candidate is cuter, or whoever the media tells them to.
The founding fathers had the right idea though. Keep the Constitution simple, the government weak, and minimize the chances for tyrants to abuse powers.
Obama Couldn't Pass......
