Background Checks For Presidential Candidates

Background Checks For Presidential Candidates
Background Checks For Presidential Candidates
Alan Korwin
Alan Korwin

Arizona –  -(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you:

There's another presidential debate tonight, live at seven, don't miss it! There's a presidential caucus… polling coming… talking heads… this candidate hates that one… look at the wives… we don't objectify women… did you hear what that guy said today… blah, blah, blather, blather.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In light of recent revelations about political candidates at every level, the “news” media has continued to refuse to insist on background checks for people running for political office.

Critics point out that from the president on down, these people will have to handle top secret documents and information. The public should know before they vote if the people they're electing can pass a security clearance.

Otherwise, the elections are fraudulent — the people aren't qualified to do what they're being elected to do.

Another top issue is the eligibility question hanging over the man who was born in a foreign country to a Cuban father. Three other hopefuls also had direct foreign upbringing that probably disqualified them under the Article II instructions in the U.S. Constitution.

Article II requires a person to be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to become president, defined at the time of the Founding as having two citizen parents and being born on U.S. soil.

Background checks have become increasingly popular in American life. Even routine jobs for corporations, health care, education, transportation and many government positions require background checks, along with more traditional functions, like eligibility for various firearm permits and grade-school teaching.

Security clearance background checks for elected office is a concept whose time has come.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn't make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit:www.gunlaws.com

Subscribe
Notify of
16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
5WarVeteran
5WarVeteran
4 years ago

Yaay! Maslack! Makes perfect sense to me. We live here we should be willing to fight for what we have. Patriotism is what our country really needs to stop it from falling under the hooves of the NWO via the CFR. Remember in the time of, “Send me your poor” Ellis Island immigration, that whole surge of immigration took place when WELFARE did not exist. The people who came came to WORK AND EARN their way as Americans. Not Americant’s. America was not under the threat of near failure through free handout programs that require ZERO responsibility to pay it… Read more »

Bob
Bob
4 years ago

FIRST POST: OCT 28, 2009 THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY! Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont’s own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere. Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack… Read more »

john
john
2 years ago
Reply to  Bob

great thinking,run for office

Janek
Janek
4 years ago

How many members of Congress who fill out a 4473 would fail the background check? That’s a real question!

Janek
Janek
4 years ago

The real question is how many people in Congress could fill out a 4473 and not pass the existing ‘background check’?

5WarVeteran
5WarVeteran
4 years ago

Regular and frequent urinalysis for all government politicians and workers. You know JUST LIKE THE MILITARY.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  5WarVeteran

Roger that, 5WV, and not random urinalysis, either.

TEX
TEX
4 years ago

If a background check would had been done on Hussein Obama it would had shown that he is an African born Muslim from Kenya. And the POS still is an African born Muslim from Kenya. Either Republicans didn’t press the issue because the liberals would had yelled racism,or they just didn’t give a sh*t !

SSGRick
SSGRick
4 years ago
Reply to  TEX

It was BOTH

Hipshot
Hipshot
4 years ago

Thanks, but I don’t think I want the Government deciding who I can and can’t vote for. Big Government is bad enough without giving them the keys to who can run it.

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
4 years ago
Reply to  Hipshot

Perhaps an oversight panel of Citizens should evaluate the information gathered by the investigative services, and that panel (of non-“government-related” citizens) should make the final decision…

Hipshot
Hipshot
4 years ago
Reply to  JoeUSooner

More panels, more taxes to pay for the panel, just adding to the weight of the government. I prefer to be responsible for the decisions I make. The media vets every bad thing about every candidate and add to that the information on the internet, and I will decide who I vote for. I will decide who is viable. We need to quit asking government to do for us what we can do for ourselves.

SSGRick
SSGRick
4 years ago
Reply to  Hipshot

“The media vets every bad thing about every candidate”…REALLY and tell me just how much have you heard form the “MEDIA” on all of hit-ler-y’s close aides and associates being questioned by the FBI and DOJ?…I THOUGHT SO!

Hipshot
Hipshot
4 years ago
Reply to  SSGRick

Actually quite a bit. If you watch something other than CNN and MSNBC, you might know that. And just so you know, being snarky and saying things with conviction don’t make you right.

Russell
Russell
4 years ago

WOW … Both parents born on U.S. soil,… that might be near impossible as time goes by if we keep allowing anyone to walk over our boarders with near impunity ………….Now I really like the background check thing,… great idea !

Tom Stelene
Tom Stelene
4 years ago

Glad to see this! For a long time I’ve been thinking that background checks for any governmental position should be required – by constitutional amendment. One would be a psychological exam. If law-enforcement applicants have to take that so should law-makers, governors, and presidents. Sociopaths, particularly, should be prohibited from being in government. Also, a security check should be done to keep domestic enemies out of government. That’s sensible to do for intelligence agency applicants, it’s also sensible across the board. Anybody who fails a psych and security evaluation should be prohibited from being in government. Call it ‘common sense… Read more »