Obama cant get security clearance because he associates with terrorists!

Saw this on Politifact yesterday:

A chain e-mail has been burning up the Internet with the allegation that Sen. Barack Obama is not eligible for FBI or Secret Service jobs because of his acquaintance with former antiwar radical William Ayers.
The implication is that anyone who wouldn't qualify for a federal law enforcement job has no business as commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces.

One version of the e-mail we received on Oct. 10, 2008, had the subject heading, "FW: unbelievable food for thought."

"Just passing along info that came to me," it began. "This is something to think about no matter what other concerns may be on your plate. If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past associations with William Ayers, a known (and unrepentant) terrorist. If elected President, he would not qualify to be his own body guard!"

It's worth noting that the president, no matter who he or she may be, automatically gets access to any classified information, and in fact has the authority to decide who else in the government gets access to it. Just by virtue of having been elected to the U.S. Senate, Obama already has access to a great deal of secret intelligence information.

Still, that says little about how Obama would fare in a background check, since none is required for either job.


An FBI spokesman said the bureau would not comment on whether any individual would pass a background check, and the Secret Service did not return numerous calls on the matter. So we asked outside experts whether Ayers would pose a problem for Obama.

Obama and Ayers are both active in politics and civic life in the city. They both volunteered at two different charities, the Woods Foundation and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and Ayers hosted a small gathering for Obama and then-state Sen. Alice Palmer in 1995 as Obama planned to run for the seat Palmer was vacating.
Were Obama to apply to the FBI, he would have to fill out Standard Form 86, a background-investigation form used by the entire U.S. intelligence community. The more detailed iterations of the Internet rumor allege Obama would have to disclose his past connections to Ayers on the form, particularly in a section titled "Association Record." It asks seven questions along the lines of these two:

"Have you EVER been an officer or a member of, or made a contribution to, an organization dedicated to the use of violence or force to overthrow the U.S. Government...?"

The Secret Service did not return our calls for comment about the agency's application procedures, but its Web site indicates that applicants must fill out a modified version of the form called the SF-86A, which asks:

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons which is totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive; or which has adopted or shows a policy advocating or approving the commission of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or which seems [sic] to alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means?"

Note that the agencies ask whether the applicant himself has engaged in this behavior – not whether the applicant knows anyone who has. Ayers' militant activity occurred in the '60s and '70s, when Obama was a child. Even Obama's harshest critics do not allege he had anything to do with them.

So there is no reason to believe Obama would have to disclose his relationship to Ayers, experts said.

"There is nowhere on the form that Obama's relationship to Ayers as it exists or existed would even come up," said Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who specializes in security-clearance work. "It would never come up unless somebody mentioned it during a background investigation."
Moreover, even if it did come up, there's no reason to believe it would impede Obama's hiring, Zaid said. "Given what has been said publicly about their relationship, I can't fathom that it would ever get more than a moment's attention," he said.

A second lawyer specializing in security clearances, Elizabeth Newman of the Washington, D.C., firm Kalijarvi, Chuzi & Newman, concurred that the Ayers connection would pose no problem for Obama, even if it did come to the attention of the investigators.

"They would care if there was a recent relationship with someone who is currently on trial or currently considered to be advocating violent overthrow of the government," she said. "But not something that was 20 or 30 years ago."

A third security-clearance lawyer, Mark Riley of Odenton, Md., who is also a retired Army intelligence officer, was slightly less dismissive of the Ayers issue, saying it was "something they would investigate."

But Riley leaned toward the conclusion that the Ayers connection would not cost Obama a security clearance. "The issue is what is Obama's relationship with him in his adult life," Riley said. "If he didn't have one, other than they sat on a board and maybe had the same political causes, that's not enough to deny a fellow a clearance."

So all three of the attorneys we contacted agreed unequivocally that Obama's relationship with Ayers would not be an automatic disqualifier, as the claim suggests.

In fact, Zaid said someone with Obama's record – a law degree from Harvard, teaching experience at the University of Chicago Law School – would be an excellent candidate.

"The agencies would be fighting over him," Zaid said. "As an outright claim, this statement is false."

We agree. It's False.

 

Ah but what do they know!! We know he is a terrorist who wants to overthrow America, hates the services, brought down wall Street, knows Criminals, Hates America, and is a Kenyan Muslim

 

Oh yeah, and then there is the birth certificate...they have looked into that as well...probably more than anyone else...if anyone cares to see his birth certificate and the steps taken to verify it, it can be viewed here.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

He indeed has a birth certificate from hawaii and it was confirmed as indentical to any other issed by that state.

Now one can believe that the democratic party is part of a vast conspiracy that involved faking his citizenship or its just as it appears, a real birth certificate...this link will show the certificate and the process they took to confirm its real. It will also talk about how nothing they could do would convince people who are sure he is all you said he is an more



still not going to vote for him but the crap they make up is just over the top.

 

Hey, how come that birth certiicate reads the father's race as African? Thats not a race its a continent. That makes no sense.

 

We know he isnt a American just look at his name, also he is a Socialist, a Libral, A intelectual, A Elitist, A Racist, Bet he Drives a furring car as well

 

There is a difference between a Birth Certificate and a Certification of Live Birth.

http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=537818&articleId=132064&func=6&channel=News&filterRead=false&filterHidden=true&filterUnhidden=false

 

I don't know about the rest of their research but the SF-86A is not a modified version of the SF-86. The SF-86A is a continuation sheet for when you have more places you have lived, worked or went to school than can be fit on the SF-86. The SF-86A does not say what the article you quoted says it says either. It would be silly to say have that statement on the SF-86A since it is only a continuation sheet for what I stated above.

Seems a little sloppy of them since it is easily looked up online. Most all government forms are on line. I had to fill out an SF-86 (just for a Secret clearance - not sure if there is anything extra for Top Secret.) I didn;t have to fill out the SF-86A because I had not lived, worked or went to school more places than would fin on the SF-86.

 

I just looked again and I think I see where they made their error. They referenced the wrong form. What they actually were writing about is an SSF-86A not an SF-86A which is a Secret Service Form (SSF) not a Standard Form (SF) like the SF-86 and SF-86A.

 

youre right stu, I assumed the person was probably refering to Standard Form 86 'Questionnaire for National Security Positions' / Part 2 / Page 9 / Question 30 'Your Association Record'

A. Have you ever been an officer or a member or ever made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end....

B. Have you ever knowingly engaged in any acts or activities designed to overthrow the United States Government by force.

The one I saw was revised in 1995, dont know how often things are revised but what they reported was worded differently but asking roughly the same questions. Either way you are right its sloppy that they didnt get the form quite right.

 

It may have just been a typo thing but it was still a bit confusing.

I thought this was the funniest part of the form, though...

"PROVISIONS OF THE HATCH ACT MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR YOU, IF APPOINTED TO ANY POSITION IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE, TO ENGAGE IN CERTAIN
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES. ARE YOU ENGAGED AT PRESENT EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY OR ORGANIZATION?"

I think that disqualifies both candidates from a secret service job! lol

 

That would disqualify every elected official

 

The written application is only a portion of the process. Interviews with the applicant are conducted and there is a background check, which includes talking to neighbors, co workers, etc. I can assure you that past associations, things one has written, public statements, etc are scrutitinized.

 

well, you ARE the expert so that settles that

 

Now you're catching on!!

 

I am pretty sure there is some sort of law that allows every presidential candidate secret service protection. I'm sure thats true . If not, someone needs to show me where it isnt true.

 

THis kinda explains it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2095824/

Basically, as with everything else, if you are a Presidential candidate of the 2 party system, you are a shoe in. The hurdles for any third party candidate are set so that I am sure none qualify. The article says even Ross Perot probably wouldn't have qualified.

Seems kinda crazy to me that the main candidates are going to spend near a billion dollars to get elected and can't find the money to hire their own body guards instead of using the secret service.