Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Enquirer

User Profile Image Enquirer
Member since : Jun-02-2009 (Verified)
5 Ideas, 20 Comments, 437 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

How much longer will yesterday's #1 idea be locked, pending moderator approval?

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4387-4049

With over 4200 total votes cast compared to about 1400 total for today's most popular idea, it is obviously the one with the most interest on this site!

Or, did the White House tell you to get it out of view?
Yesterday's most popular idea STILL has almost twice as many votes as today's most popular. But it doesn't have it's rightful position because it is Locked, pending moderator approval.

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4387-4049

Is this how transparency works?

I guess they got tired of having the #1 issue being one they'd rather not see the light of day.
Part of the vetting process for ALL appointees and candidates for elected office should REQUIRE that they submit to a background check and be able to qualify for the level of security clearance commensurate with the information to which they will have acceess by virtue of their position.
The President of the United States is given full access to all matters pertaining to the defense and security of the United States by virtue of his position without having to undergo the usual investigative process.

Members of Congress are also not required to have a background check unless they are on the intelligence committee.

Should we have a President who could not get a basic security clearance through the usual process?
The most popular idea yesterday had more than twice as many votes as the next.

Today it is GONE!

Was it removed by the moderators, or the poster?
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas
12345678910….168169Next »

Comments Posted

Enquirer 8 months ago
If you attempt to navigate to these comments by the "Front Door" you get:

"This feedback site is currently inactive. New submissions will not be accepted."

And can't even see the comments already posted about the birth certificate issue.
Enquirer 8 months ago
Twitchy,

I'm sure you're right. There will always be doubters and I MAY still be one of them.

But, once documentation is released and a ruling is rendered on the MERITS of the case, legal remedies will have been exhausted and the doubters will either be vindicated or quashed.
Enquirer 8 months ago
Do you really want this controversy to go away?

Here's how to make that happen.

Join us in our quest for Obama's hidden documentation and a definitive answer regarding what is meant by "natural born citizen" and its impact on this situation. If our doubts are baseless, giving up what is requested will make undeniable what a waste of time, energy and money it was.

That is the ONLY way this issue will be resolved.

The only possible reasons I can see for allowing this to go on are arrogance or fear of discovery.
Enquirer 8 months ago
I would be willing to bet that Twitchy, along with most Obama supporters, would STILL support him as POTUS even it is PROVEN that Obama is ineligible to hold the office to which he has been elected.

Then, if Obama IS removed from office and/or prevented from running for a second term in 2012, their fury will be directed not at the perpetrators of the fraud, but at those who choose to honor the rule of law and the Constitution.
Enquirer 8 months ago
There is an often stated assertion that Obama was vetted as a candidate and as a member of the Senate and/or his previous elected positions he was subjected to security checks.

I have never seen any proof that either assertion has any validity.

Show me where responsibility and accountability for vetting of a candidate for ANY elected office is mandated or requirements DEFINED.

As to security/background checks, the only elected officials REQUIRED to submit to them (including POTUS), are members of the intelligence committees which did not include Obama. And, POTUS is granted access by virtue of his position.
Enquirer 9 months ago
Think of this as our "virtual" picket line.
Enquirer 9 months ago
No amount of logic or persuasion will turn the disciples of Obama from the dark side.

The best we can hope from them or their messiah is for them to come to the realization that this issue will continue to gain momentum until they either produce the documentation being asked for and prove us wrong, or SCOTUS rules on the merits of the case (which would require a discovery process), along with defining what is meant by the term "natural born citizen".

We will NOT "go gentle into that good night".
Enquirer 9 months ago
Obama? Or is it Soetoro?

The birth certificate would be the LEAST of his problems.

What about association with known terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.

What about habitual drug use?

What about travel to countries banned to U.S. Citizens?

etc, etc, etc.
Enquirer 9 months ago
Sorry to be throwing a wet blanket over your idealistic aspirations. But the people demanding validation of the legitimacy of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the office of President of the United States are neither frightened, confused, rascists or hate mongers.

We are lovers of the constitutional principals as given to us by the inspired vision and wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the rule of law. What we hate is the idea that our voices of concern have gone largely unheard or ridiculed and in the process the things that have made this country great are being subverted and overturned and our country is being bankrupted and our children's futures being mortgaged for generations to come. And we will do WHATEVER we can within the law to make our case.

It would be such a trivial matter to make this all go away and there are only 2 possible reasons not to. Arrogance, or fear of discovery.
Enquirer 9 months ago
You don't have to (and probably wouldn't) be told that tactics came from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" to be showed how to use them.

Why is it that it's predominantly the left that resorts to ridicule and personal attacks in response to challenges of their cause?
Enquirer 9 months ago
An individual can post as many ideas or comments as they have time for, but each individual account can only vote once on an idea. And you have to take the time to set up an account to be able to vote.

I don't see how spamming applies to tallying votes on one posted idea.
Enquirer 9 months ago
The reason that is happening is because following the rules would result in allowing this crirical issue to be pushed into oblivian by mobilizing the Obama machine to quash it.
Enquirer 9 months ago
But if they did that, they would be acknowledging it as a legitimate issue.
Enquirer 9 months ago
It IS currently LOCKED, awaiting "moderator approval".
Enquirer 9 months ago
Contrary to logic, background checks are not REQUIRED of members of Congress unless they are on the intelligence committee. And clearance is GIVEN to the President by virtue of his position without the usual investigative process.
Enquirer 9 months ago
The original poster of the "idea" was NOT sympathetic to the legitimacy issue and that's how the idea was expressed. I believe that's why it was so popular, not because it was spammed. People on both sides of the issue were giving it the "thumbs up".
Enquirer 9 months ago
Why do Obama's supporters resort to ridicule in response to challenges to his legitimacy? They are merely following the precepts laid out in their bible, Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". And that strategy has become so deeply ingrained, it is now reflexive.
Enquirer 9 months ago
It will also allow just a few people to move the concerns and opinions of many out of the view of the uninformed. Then it could be like the official Obama sites where they censor and purge contrarion dialogue.
Enquirer 9 months ago
If Obama's deception is uncovered and corrective and punitive measures are taken, what happens to those who were complicit, and who would that include?
Enquirer 9 months ago
The saddest thing about this issue is that most of the people who voted for Obama COULDN'T CARE LESS if he is constitutionally ineligible.