All topics open to discuss – except Obama eligibility

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 06, 2009 | Drew Zahn

[Man50D]

When it comes to evaluating and discussing transparency in government, one issue – and one issue alone – has been deemed out of bounds by a White House website: President Obama's continued concealment of his birth record.

As WND reported, the Obama administration's Office of Science & Technologylaunched the online forum to allow Americans to discuss ways of creating an "open government," which in turn resulted in a flood of people seeking disclosure of Obama's proof of eligibility to serve as president.

As part of the forum's rules and guidelines, posts that are obscene or reveal personal information, like Social Security numbers, are scrubbed completely, while those that are deemed off-topic are removed to a separate archive.

But a quick survey of flagged, removed and archived posts from yesterday reveals 100 percent of those yanked for being off-topic were, in fact, on the same topic.

The Open Government Initiative's online forum contains 21 entries deleted yesterday, all of them submitted to the thread on "Transparency Principles" and all of them discussing Obama's birth records, including a comment from WND's Chelsea Schilling.

One user, Jason Roberts, expressed his concerns on the forum about the White House hosting a "transparency" discussion without properly addressing the eligibility topic.

"The fact that the birth certificate issue hasn't been resolved, precludes any possible discussion of government transparency," Roberts wrote. "It is a farce to sit with hands folded and pretend to have some self-righteous discussion about government transparency when Mr. Obama is refusing to be transparent about his birth certificate, passport records, and school records. If his presidency started with his being sworn in, then the transparency must start with him willingly releasing his long-form birth certificate."

[Man50D]

If someone threatened the life of the President, and was subsequently charged by the Secret Service for said offense, would that person be granted “standing” to prove the President’s eligibility?

You answered your own question. Referring to him as the President acknowledges by that person's own admission he has attained the position in accordance with the Constitution.

[null and void]

So if said person threatened the life of Barack Obama, and was then charged with by the Secret Service for threating the president, would that person be granted “standing” to prove the President’s eligibility?

As in: Prove the individual I threatened really is the president...

[null and void]

Just a theoretical academic thought exercise, of course...

[Man50D]

So if said person threatened the life of Barack Obama, and was then charged with by the Secret Service for threating the president, would that person be granted “standing” to prove the President’s eligibility?

Referring to him by name instead of occupation would be consistent with the line of thinking a person does not legitimately consider BO President.

[real_patriotic_american]

Sounds like he’s guilty right there:

Re: “All topics open to discuss – except Obama eligibility.”