The following comments were flagged by the community as off-topic for the posts to which they were attached.
David Hustvedt at 11:24 PM in
Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles If the goal of transparency is to “promote accountability and provide information for citizens about what their Government is doing” then the discussion here is a sham as long as the Obama administration refuses to produce a document that demonstrates Obama’s eligibility for the office of President.
It would be an excellent starting point if the Administration produced a birth certificate listing Obama’s place of birth, attending physician, etc.
Phyllis Prather at 11:21 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
yes its not going away,we the people demand to know the truth,the movement is growing like a storm they are erecting billboards across the country,they can hide all they want but the laesiuts just keep piling up,obumma cant keep hiding the truth forever,he is a fraud,more and more grand juries are being held against him and he will be impeached for treason,none too soon for me either before he hands our country over to our enemies,it makes me sick how he is over there kissing our enemies asses,they laugh at us,they want us dead,all i ever needed to know about islam i learned on 9-11 and that trojan horse fraud will never make me forget what a lie about transparency,all he has to do is show one document and he wont,he is the biggest liar since hitler and as evil to boot
David Farrar at 11:09 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
Hi Michael,
The reason why these posts seem to be so disjointed, out of sequence, or “off-topic” is because some posts have been surreptitiously removed simply because the owners/operators made a political decision to deny someone their 1st Amendment rights.
Once again, I implore the gods of this website not to remove any posts without leaving proper notification as to why the post was removed and by whom.
Secondly, I would strongly suggest an alternative “Off-Topic” mirror OSTP Blog website be set up so that any and all posts removed from the main OSTP Blog website can be placed, with a link to this web-blog also provided in the removal notification. In this manner, every one’s rights can be preserved while the site is successfully moderated.
It’s easy to talk about transparency. But achieving transparency in the face of perceived political opposition is the only true test of the soundness of the principles of transparency you adopt.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Willard Anderson at 10:55 PM in Transparency Governance
In order to initiate an ‘Open Government Initiative Discussion’ you must first layout and define the limits of the ‘Openess’ of ( ie ‘all questions’ ( as in ‘All Questions’) and the ‘Permitted’ or ‘Non Permitted’) topics open for discussion. As per the current track of this ‘Open Discussion’ it is a falsehood. This ‘Open discussion’, is as currently tracked, a censored discussion.
Please redefine your intentions and commitments to this False ‘Open Discussion’. You have made it impossible to follow with the zig-zag approach to ‘Open’. The manner in which this ‘OPEN’ discussion is currently following is Communistic in it’s nature.
Please redefine.
David Farrar at 6:36 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
The President being a “natural-born” citizen of the United States, as is required by the Constitution, is the very issue of this data transparency debate. While I, too, am positive, the long-form birth certificate that Hawaiian health officials acknowledge having in their possession does prove that Obama is a natural-born citizen, it has simply not been proven yet by a simple inspection of the record — remember transparency being defined as a verifiable record, with public accessibility, where the law permits. I know of only one person who is blocking the verification of this record, and its public accessibility as a public matter, and that is Pres. Obama, himself.
Further, if the stories are true, Obama’s mother was too young to confer citizenship by birth on Obama, according to the law at that time.
Lastly, I welcome your support for removal notification, as well as the grounds, and by whom, so that proper appeals to a court of competent jurisdiction can be undertaken by any poster who has had their 1st Amendment rights trampled upon here in this forum on government transparency.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I am sorry, the same post above was inadvertently misplaced. I do apologize
David Farrar at 6:32 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
The President being a “natural-born” citizen of the United States, as is required by the Constitution, is the very issue of this data transparency debate. While I, too, am positive, the long-form birth certificate that Hawaiian health officials acknowledge having in their possession does prove that Obama is a natural-born citizen, it has simply not been proven yet by a simple inspection of the record — remember transparency being defined as a verifiable record, with public accessibility, where the law permits. I know of only one person who is blocking the verification of this record, and its public accessibility as a public matter, and that is Pres. Obama, himself.
Further, if the stories are true, Obama’s mother was too young to confer citizenship by birth on Obama, according to the law at that time.
Lastly, I welcome your support for removal notification, as well as the grounds, and by whom, so that proper appeals to a court of competent jurisdiction can be undertaken by any poster who has had their 1st Amendment rights trampled upon here in this forum on government transparency.
Ronald Smith at 4:43 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
The President’s nationality is not in question. Even if the President did not have a birth certificate, the lack thereof does not preclude citizenship. All the Constitution requires is that he be a “natural-born citizen” (in addition to age and length of residency). Even if Barack Obama were born outside the US, geography does not determine citizenship. His mother was a citizen, therefore he is a citizen.
Qualifying for the Presidency is not a government service. No law (including the Constitution) mandates the publication/release of “birth certificates”. If you desire such a law, feel free to work towards that goal.
I don’t know who “owns” this website, but if it is a government owned forum, then we all “own” it. In that case, it is not unreasonable to censor postings which are off topic. However, I agree that some kind of justification or acknowledgment that a post has been removed would be in holding with this initiative’s ideals. So I vote that such a scheme be instituted as soon as possible.
David Farrar at 4:27 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
With all due respect, Mr. Smith,
We are talking about a Constitutional issue, the eligibility of the President of the United States. To date, Pres. Obama’s nationality as per the requirements of the Constitution makes this an issue of governmental data transparency. Pres. Obama’s qualifications to be president of the United States is a public data transparency issue.
I can go further, if I must, to cite examples where ordinary citizens must publish their “private” medical data, i.e., birth certificate, as an aspect to qualify for government services or employment, joining the military as one example, obtaining a driver’s license, et cetera.
Furthermore, please ask yourself, who benefits from this website not publicly acknowledging their own actions in removing posts from this forum, and clearly articulating the reasons for that removal, and by whom? Is it to protect the poster, or is it to protect the the owners/operators of this website from possible litigation for their actions? This is not an accident. These people have deliberately designed this website to be anything but transparent for their own ends. A point we would all do well in exploring further if we are to achieve our goal of developing true transparency principles in government
ex animo
davidfarrar
Ronald Smith at 3:47 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
I’m certain they are in possession of the original. But that is irrelevant. Most original birth documents (if the child was born in a hospital) contain very private information not necessarily about the individual that should not be made public. As for the original containing additional information such as “the attending physician’s name, foot prints, and other relevant information, the name of the hospital, etcetera”, that is not knowable by you without having seen it. It may contain this information and it may not, but the certification of birth is valid without regard to the style, design, or amount of information provided.
Obviously your point about transparency is well-taken, but this is not the forum to discuss the transparency policies of Hawaiian state health officials. No conclusions reached by the transparency initiative will affect private medical data (which is what a birth certificate contains). We are discussing public data.
Jason Roberts at 3:02 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
Ronald:
Both president Obama and the state of Hawaii have acknowledged the original long form birth certificate exists. It’s not a semantic issue. As I have stated previously, it is an issue of amount of information contained on the document, the source of that information and the fact that the information is not verified, but accepted de facto from the parent.
David Farrarat 2:58 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
But Mr. Smith,
Hawaiian health officials have ackowledged they are in possession of Obama’s orginal birth certificate.
Moreover, and contrary to a COLB, the orginial birth certificate has the attending physician’s name, foot prints, and other relevant information, the name of the hospital, etcetera, rather than simply the name and date of someone’s live birth.
Again, the issue here isn’t Obama’s nationality. We all know he is a U.S. citizen. The issue here is governmental data transparency, and access thereof.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Jason Roberts at 2:54 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
Troy:
Not so. That would be true if I were making allegations. I am not. I am simply saying that in order for the populace to accept in good faith that transparency is real and not contrived, it must start with the beginning, in the basic request for transparency of the birth certificate issue. I make no allegation that Obama was or wasn’t born in Hawaii. I simply don’t know, because no proof has been presented. One cannot know this, because Obama has failed to be transparent from this very beginning issue. The discussion of transparency is rendered farcical and illogical if rules are designed to state that only certain issues are open for transparency. At that, transparency does not exist, but only in the minds of those making an emotional, rather than rational connect. The bottom line is that a cabal of elitist Obama followers forming a discussion of a contrived transparency cause that disallows and excludes certain issues important to the American populace at large is utterly meaningless, and is purely self-serving, resulting in a greater disconnect between government and people.
David Farrar at 2:48 in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
“An example of generalities not pursuant of a target specific stated attack would strongly suggest the obvious difference to what you are stating.” Huh?
We are here trying to develop, expound, if you will, on transparency principals. The topic of transparency as it relates to Obama’s birth certificate seems to me is relevant to this section.
For an example: The mere fact that a post has been simply wiped off this forum without a trace, without any public notification as to why, or by whom, seems to violate every aspect of the principles of transparency in government. Didn’t we just summarize the fact that providing a verifiable record is at the very corner stone of governmental transparency, and here we have a government agency, or a corporation acting on its behalf, erasing the record of their own actions in an attempt to be anything but transparent.
Doesn’t anyone see the hypocrisy?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Ronald Smith at 2:32 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
The difference between a “Certificate of Live Birth” and “original birth certificate” is a semantic one. In my state (Oklahoma) there is ONLY a “Certificate of Live Birth”. Other states may call it a “Birth Certificate”, but in many states no other document exists to vouch for my birth. I am only allowed to possess certified copies (essentially photocopies with a stamped seal) of this document. I have no control over where, how and if the original paper document is released, stored, or copied. I have never seen it and I have no idea where it is stored. It is highly disingenuous to suggest that there is some other document out there that addresses the President’s birth which is distinct from his COLB.
Jason Roberts at 2:27 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
No, his birth certificate HAS NOT been released. Not even a replacement birth certificate. It’s merely a certification of live birth. It is prima facie evidence of nothing more than A LIVE BIRTH OCCURRED. The basic info contained on it is received, unverified from the parent as de facto information. It carries almost no weight. Saying that it’s equal to his birth certificate, is like saying a hand written unsigned Bill of Sale is equal to the original Official Title of a vehicle. I tell you what, how about a compromise. He wants to hide his birth certificate? Okay, then release the school/student aid/student loan records. Oh that’s right, he wants to hide those too. Okay, then release the passport records. Oh shoot, he wants to keep those hidden too. Hmmm … I think logic and common sense prevails here, and should supersede any feel good idea of blindly following Obama like sheep and swallowing the “official” story hook, line and sinker.
Troy Klingspoon at 2:24 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
An example of generalities not pursuant of a target specific stated attack would strongly suggest the obvious difference to what you are stating. Principles of Transparency in development would not constitute rhetoric on specific allegations, in fact it would be completely off topic to the task.
David Farrar at 2:22 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
That is certainly true. It is possible to get (buy) a certified (copy) of your birth certificate. That was not what was released by Obama’s campaign. What was released, and what Obama, himself, has thus far refused to even acknowledge is his, is a copy of “his” (COLB) Certificate of Live Birth, not a certified copy of his original birth certificate.
Hawaiian Health officials acknowledge they do, in fact, have the original birth certificate of Pres. Obama, but to date, have not been given the necessary authority to release said document, or allow anyone to simply view it in its original form.
In fact, if some reports are to be believed, Obama has spent millions in legal fees to specifically prevent just such a public inspection of his original birth certificate.
Now, as far as my own personal feelings about this issue are concerned, I consider it a distraction to the important goal of providing more transparency in government. This whole issue can easily be cleared up with Obama’s help. So the animus some feel against the people asking for this issue to be cleared up, posthaste, have only the President to blame, and not the people asking for the simple truth to be offered by the President of the United States.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Jason Roberts at 2:09 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
If all posts about the birth certificate issue are deleted because they are alleged “duplicate” posts or “duplicate” post topics, then multiple posts about transparency in government must also be deleted, as that would constitute duplication by the same standards. Not gonna be many comments now, are there?
The fact that the birth certificate issue hasn’t been resolved, precludes any possible discussion of government transparency. 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. How does he expect the majority of this country to have faith in a man who refuses to be transparent about his birth certificate, and yet claims some mythical transparency in his administration. That’s hypocrisy at its height. This whole situation is utterly nonsensical and illogical. It’s like being on a sinking ship and opening a discussion on what color the life vests should be. We must handle the big problem first. Transparency issue number one, is the birth certificate issue. Any discussion of transparency in the Obama administration before resolving this issue, is a pointless farce and nothing but a “pretend we’re important” load of bologna and an exercise in ignoring the tough issues. This issue will never go away. It will be there, stoked and kept fresh daily, for 8 years if necessary, until it is addressed. And the one to blame is Obama. Those of us asking the question, are not to blame, for we are justified in asking for proof. But Obama is to blame, because he could put this whole issue to rest (and could have months ago) by just releasing (or authorizing the release of) his long form birth certificate which he claimed in his book to own and cherish, and which Hawaii verifies exists. Really, logic prevails here.
And now, let the whiny negative voting begin …
David Farrar at 1:24 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
That is certainly true. It is possible to get (buy) a certified (copy) of your birth certificate. That was not what was released by Obama’s campaign. What was released, and what Obama, himself, has thus far refused to even acknowledge is his, is a copy of “his” (COLB) Certificate of Live Birth, not a certified copy of his original birth certificate.
Hawaiian Health officials acknowledge they do, in fact, have the original birth certificate of Pres. Obama, but to date, have not been given the necessary authority to release said document, or allow anyone to simply view it in its original form.
In fact, if some reports are to be believed, Obama has spent millions in legal fees to specifically prevent just such a public inspection of his original birth certificate.
Now, as far as my own personal feelings about this issue are concerned, I consider it a distraction to the important goal of providing more transparency in government. This whole issue can easily be cleared up with Obama’s help. So the animus some feel against the people asking for this issue to be cleared up, posthaste, have only the President to blame, and not the people asking for the simple truth to be offered by the President of the United States.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Deanne Williams at 12:10 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
Barack Obama’s birth certificate has been released. Just because it isn’t the “orginal”, doesn’t mean it isn’t a birth certificate.
I lost my birth certificate years ago, but you can’t obtain the original anymore. You get a “new” birth certificate, in the current design.
David Farrar at 12:08 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
Hi Michael,
I hope you are right. So where is that last post? Does anybody know? I don’t see any sign of it.
Moreover, that was the first post referencing Obama’s birth certificate that I can see. In order to be a duplicate, there has to be at least one allowed to be posted; isn’t that right?
Perhaps I have missed it. But I don’t see one posted.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Deanne Williams at 12:07 PM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
When posts are flagged as duplicates or spam, they are removed. This is clearly stated in the moderation policy.
There are currently numerous posts regarding Obama’s birth certificate, so duplicate posts are being flagged and removed in accordance with that policy.
This is a moderated internet forum, there is no freedom of speech here.
James Huston at 11:55 AM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
So where’s the birth certificate? Any common citizen who wishes to travel outside the country MUST provide one in order to obtain a passport; it is also commonly used as a form of identification to obtain a driver’s license or to determine work eligibility. I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect anyone seeking the top job (which, btw, also involves travel outside the country) to be able to prove unequivocally that he was born in the United States. That’s transparency.
David Farrar at 11:42 AM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
Oh my God….
What happened to the post asking for Obama’s birth certificate to be made public? Has it been removed? If so, by who, and for what reason? What part of the rules did that post breech? Isn’t this an abridgement of that poster’s 1st Amendment right to free speech?
Please advise?
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar at 11:14 AM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
I agree, as an exercise in transparency. However, it there is something personally embarrassing in his long-form birth certificate, precautions must be implemented.
Any suggestions?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Dave Thomas at 7:49 AM in Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles
At the top right of this page it reads.
“Our commitment to openness means more than simply informing the American people about how decisions are made.”
I value the transparency of sincerety, and the “follow me” kind of leadership exemplified by great men in our history as a nation. Our constitution was framed of men with faith in the one true God creator of all, who they trusted to preserve us as a nation. They were not afraid to acknowledge Jesus Christ as His Son, or Israel as the nation God chose to bring to make Him known.
This kind of transparency and faith has made our nation great.
Mr. President: I want to believe in you. I don’t understand, “Why is there an un-resolved issue about your place of birth?”
Sincerely,
Dave Thomas
Posts
