With the experience of an obviously unqualified Barack Obama all too fresh in the nation’s memory, just what qualifications should a president have, at a minimum, to sit in the Oval Office?
We all have our own opinions. We believe that certain traits and capabilities should be present, but for this post, I’m going to concentrate on one specific qualification – and that is the ability to be granted a Top Secret security clearance.
I know that this sounds ludicrous, but shouldn’t our president be required to pass a top secret security clearance?
Isn’t it important to be assured that the Commander-in-Chief of our military and the chief executive of our United States has no hidden secrets that could be used to blackmail him or her? And shouldn’t we be certain that our president doesn’t have a history of association with anti-American or subversive factions?
That question has always stuck in my craw since I don’t believe that Barack Obama could have passed an “ordinary” Top Secret security investigation. Don’t believe me? I stumbled onto a government security application form back around 2008 and answered the questions based on what I knew about Barack Obama. He would have failed. Follow along and I’ll prove that statement.
First, what sort of access requires a Top Secret security clearance?
“Individuals with a Top Secret clearance have access to information or material that could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security if it was released without authorization.”
Wouldn’t that describe the president’s access?
It follows then that we should REQUIRE that candidates for the presidency pass a background check in order to be considered for participation in a presidential election. The appropriate form to be filled out is the OPM Form 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions.
While I’d like to show the full form 86 here, it is 127 pages long, so I’ll just select a few questions to make my point.
For anyone who is interested in seeing the full actual form, be aware that it is a LARGE fillable .pdf and (depending on your connection) may take a full minute or more to load. Here’s a link:
Here are your instructions: Read the questions carefully and answer them as Barack Obama would – know full well that there WILL be an exhaustive investigation and every answer will be verified. It would not be wise to lie on the questionnaire. Misrepresentation on the form is a felony and could be punishable by fines and up to 5 years imprisonment.
There are several questions that could be troublesome for Obama. I’m not staking out a position on any of these specific items, I’ll leave it to each individual to determine how Obama’s public information might pass muster or might cause a concern warranting additional investigation.
A seminal question: His place of birth was a questionable issue leading up to the 2008 election, and as such, would have required a satisfactory answer. Remember that Obama released a “Certificate of Live Birth” just before the 2008 election. It was immediately subjected to analysis with some labeling it as a “fake.”
Assuming that the same document would have been provided to an investigating authority, and being aware of the accusations, it could have been subject to in-depth examination before the 2008 election. It also would have been entirely appropriate for the investigating team to demand to view the “original” at the Department of Health archives in Hawaii.
Exactly what they would have found is conjecture based on one’s stance on the Obama “birther” issue.
Section 4: Social Security number. It’s been reported that Obama’s SSN won’t pass the E-Verify system. I know that there has been a lot of talk about how it was registered to someone else and that it doesn’t have the proper number prefix. I’m not addressing those accusations, only the fact that I personally saw what was believed to be his SSN fail the E-Verify program and return a message that it was an invalid SSN.
This is likely a minor item assuming that what was entered wasn’t his real, true number, although if the SSN does turn out to be an invalid number, it would prompt additional investigation.
Section 10: Dual/Multiple Citizenship and Foreign Passport. If you are (or were) a citizen of the U.S. and another country, provide the name of that other country. A document from an Indonesian school shows him identified as an Indonesian citizen (and his religion as Islam). This one also may just be noise and likely wouldn’t prevent the issuance of a clearance, but could require some investigation in the “other” country.
Section 10.2: Have you EVER been issued a passport by a country other than the U.S.? Enter passport information (country of origin and number). Some have stated that Obama had an Indonesian passport, which may or may not be true; it is unknown what he used for his trip to Pakistan. Just having a passport from another country isn’t, by itself, a problem.
Section 14: Selective Service Record. Have you registered with the SSS? Provide registration number. This is another murky area in Barry’s past. There are conflicting stories about the validity of the draft card that he provided as proof of having registered. Again, if the documentation can be supported, there may not be a problem, if not, more in-depth investigation is called for.
The next question is one where Obama has serious vulnerability.
Section 16: Provide extensive contact information for three people that you know well. How would Frank Marshall Davis (a Communist Party USA member having a 601 page file with the FBI and was under surveillance for over 19 years), Jerimiah Wright (black theology proponent who made statements against the U.S.), and Bill Ayers (Weather Underground member and an admitted bomber) fare when investigated as Obama’s “friends.”
I wonder what the security investigators would think about Obama’s association with those pillars of society.
And be aware that those specified three people aren’t the only ones that they’ll interview; they’re just a starting point. Obama has ties to many folks who will not be viewed as “friendly patriots” by investigators. Those three will lead to others, who will lead to others, etc.
Section 18: Relatives. Obama might have listed his father (a Kenyan), and his seven half-siblings from his Kenyan father’s family. That will take the investigation to Kenya and expose his father’s drinking and multiple wives. The problem with family problems is that it could expose the applicant to extortion and blackmail to keep those family problems quiet. It is yet another vulnerability.
Section 23: Illegal use of drugs and drug activity. Though perhaps not within the seven years specified in the questionnaire, the fact that he admitted to doing marijuana and cocaine while in school might warrant an investigator digging a little deeper.
Here is another where Obama is especially vulnerable.
Section 29: Association Record. 1) New Party – There is documented evidence of Obama’s membership in the Democratic Socialists of America-offshoot New Party. The New Party was also communistic in its operation and Obama worked side-by-side with known communists while a community organizer. 2) ACORN – founded by Wade Rathke, a former member of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), ACORN was a leftist community organization accused of militant tactics that Obama worked closely with on several projects as well as representing them as their attorney.
There are a whole bevy of other groups who counted Obama as a member or supporter, and would be, as a rule, considered un-American.
Recognizing that I’ve only touched on a few areas that could prove troublesome for Obama, any answer that raises a flag for the vetting team requires more in-depth investigation and there are several (in my opinion) that would prevent a Top Secret clearance from being issued to B. Hussein Obama and thus prevent him from running for president.
While I was in the Air Force, I had a Secret clearance (not a Top Secret) and investigators even interviewed the neighbors in my parent’s neighborhood! I can’t speak for today, but at least back then, they were deadly serious about security clearances.
I maintain that our vetting (or lack thereof) of the president, our CEO, our Commander-in-Chief as it’s currently practiced is total LUNACY.
We go to great lengths to investigate anyone who is going to be privy to the country’s most highly guarded equipment and information, yet we give a free pass to an uninvestigated political operative who is almost assuredly a professional liar (aren’t all politicians?) and wants to be our president.
HOW STUPID IS THAT?
Supposedly the vetting of a candidate is done by the nominee’s political party and the Secretary of State in each state where the candidate will be on the ballot. It is plain that the presidential nominee satisfies the political party’s desires for a winner over and above anything else and I’d be amazed if little foibles in the nominee’s background wouldn’t be ignored or covered up in favor of a winning political package. I believe that the DNC saw Obama as that “ideal” candidate and would have done anything to cover or hide anything that could have been considered detrimental, like perhaps, where he was born?
Right. Great job guys! You really picked a winner! Just look at how Obama has improved life in these United States!
I’d love to see the information accumulated by the detailed “investigations” that were performed in order for Barack Obama to become the 2008 presidential candidate.
H/T to shycommenter for giving me the idea for this post!