“Whilst I’m not unaware of the classic party political wrangling, as a Florida Rep. the future of the space program, whether in terms of pork or employment, naturally concern Posey – if only for his political future! We know all about town hall politics – but why exclude the local politicians: who supposedly represent the people: who after all, will be conspicuous by their absence? Don’t forget, the moon speech was totally public AND fully media covered.”

Well, let’s get a few facts straight.

Technically speaking, KSC and the Shuttle program are not in Posey’s district. Go to his site at:

http://posey.house.gov/District/

You can zoom in on the map and see where the border is. His district ends at the access road to the Shuttle pads. But the pads, the VAB, and pretty much everything else Shuttle-related lies in Kosmas’ district.

Don’t blame Kosmas, it was drawn that way a decade ago, but the reality is that Posey’s district doesn’t include KSC. It does include CCAFS, where Kosmas is excluded.

Practically speaking, both have residents and contractors with a financial stake in whatever the future of the government-financed space program happens to be.

As for “the Moon speech,” presumably you mean JFK’s speech in 1961. That was to Congress. Obama is not addressing Congress.

Furthermore, if you actually read the so-called “Moon speech” very little of it had to do with the U.S. space program. It was mainly about the economic recession of the time and various jobs programs Kennedy was proposing to address it. He also talked about confronting Soviet expansionism. The Moon program was a very small part of that speech, near the end.

You can read about it, and access the speech’s text, at:

http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-frontier-and-final-frontier.html

My main gripe is how many local politicians in Brevard County, Kosmas and Posey, have totally failed to do anything about the Shuttle demise until now. Bush cancelled Shuttle in January 2004, so they’ve had more than six years to address it. They did nothing. Now that it’s a few months away, all of a sudden they’re crying about it — and blaming Obama, who had nothing to do with it. These people need to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, or lack thereof.

One of these days, I’m going to the Cocoa library and look up the microfilms of the January 2004 paper to see just how much whining actually happened when Bush cancelled Shuttle, or in April 2007 when the Bush administration signed the contract with the Russians to put U.S. astronauts on Soyuz craft once Shuttle ended. I suspect there was very little said in this overwhelmingly Republican district.

http://factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Of course, the people who would distract you from the real causes of the problems facing this country — starting with eight years of mismanagement by the Bush Administration — will say or do anything.

Just as they’ve been trying to claim that all the decisions made by the Bush Administration to cancel Shuttle and fly astronauts on Soyuz were actually made by Obama.

Of course I did. I’m sorry you didn’t follow the logic. Someone who will go to great lengths to keep a secret from becoming public is blackmailable by definition (e.g., the David Letterman blackmail case). Perjury and multiple counts of obstruction of justice by suborning perjury through intimidation and bribery are pretty great lengths.

This is YOUR opinion.

It is the opinion of any competent background investigator.

Recovered(ing) alcoholic and/or drug addict can possibly get a clearance. But how would you rate their abilities according to your criterion above?

If they’re truly recovered, and willing to allow their past to be public, there’s no problem. Or at least, they wouldn’t be automatically precluded.

“Now we’re getting way OT, but one of the things that investigators do when running a background check is to see if a person is blackmailable. ”

I am perfectly aware of that. But you haven’t provided any proof that he was blackmail-able.

“Someone with a history of philandering would be very problematic,”

This is YOUR opinion. Recovered(ing) alcoholic and/or drug addict can possibly get a clearance. But how would you rate their abilities according to your criterion above?

Whether I personally care, or should care, isn’t relevant. The fact is that many might care, even if you don’t think they should, and it could affect his electoral prospects, so it’s something that he’d like to keep under wraps. Part of the mythology of Obama was the “dreams of his father,” and if it turned out that someone else (e.g., his mentor, communist Frank Marshall Davis), it would show that the campaign image was a lie. I don’t know what that certificate would show, but doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to wonder what is on it that he has taken such great effort to prevent us from seeing. It also reduces my trust in him, particularly when he campaigned on the issue of “transparency.”

So I don’t think that Bill Clinton would not have gotten a clearance. What in his background makes you think he could not get one?

Now we’re getting way OT, but one of the things that investigators do when running a background check is to see if a person is blackmailable. That is, does he have secrets that he’d be willing to go to great lengths (including providing classified information) to keep secret. Someone with a history of philandering would be very problematic, particularly since, as we saw, he was willing to lie under oath, and intimidate and bribe witnesses, to keep his affairs from becoming known. Given his willingness to commit federal felonies like that, what else might he have been willing to do? For reasons of national security, if you’re the most powerful man in the world, you have an obligation to your office not to engage in activities that you wouldn’t want to read about on the front page of the Washington Post. No, if he weren’t president, it would be very unlikely that he could get a clearance. Clearances have certainly been pulled for far less.

Anyway, we’ve drifted far afield. I was simply pointing out that the claim that Bill Posey claimed that Barack Obama wasn’t a citizen wasn’t true. Or at least hasn’t been proven to be true. I can’t, of course, prove a negative. It’s possible that he’s made such a claim, but I’m aware of no evidence of it, which is why I asked for a citation to that effect. I’m still waiting for one.

“The question remains, is there something on the original that the president doesn’t want us to see, perhaps because it’s in some way politically embarrassing (e.g., the father is actually someone other than Barack Obama Sr.)?”

Let’s assume there is a shadow however tenuous this might be. Why do you care who his father really is? Why in the world would it be any of your, our business?

“For instance, Bill Clinton would never have been able to get a clearance with his background, had he not been president.”

There are people whom you’d think could not get a clearance that still get one. And the reason is that clearances are given on a case by case basis. Sure there are guidelines and “rules” but in the end it still is on a case by case basis. So I don’t think that Bill Clinton would not have gotten a clearance. What in his background makes you think he could not get one?