• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Let’s see. I seem to remember a declarative, emphatic promise from candidate Barack Obama, something about “a new transparency in government.”

Yes, and a resounding, fervent promise by the newly elected President Obama: “My administration will bring a new transparency in our governance.”

That sounded so good, didn’t it?

Over the last several decades, the American people have become very angry about the many ways elected representatives have created to feather their own nests, curry favor with special-interest groups and, worst of all, enact legislation that restricts traditional freedoms – without consulting with the people who elected them.

Candidate Obama, and the people who were composing his speeches, showed sensitivity to the simmering furor over “earmarks,” giant slabs of “pork” added to appropriations and other bills in Congress. Elected politicians have used this sneaky, rotten process for many years; into a multi-billion-dollar bill these scoundrels salt their own local, self-serving, pet projects – often without their names attached – correctly assuming that a few million dollars here or there won’t be noticed, and they’ll be heroes to their constituents back home. All at the expense of unsuspecting, unknowing taxpayers. You and me.

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens sneaks in an appropriation of $140 million for a “bridge to nowhere.” Pennsylvania’s Rep. Jack Murtha saddles us with a new airport facility in his district, costing millions, to accommodate two or three flights a day – between Washington and his district. Candidate Obama swore that he’d veto any of these porky earmarks that found their way into any bill that crossed his desk.

Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: “A Question of Eligibility: Is Obama’s presidency constitutionally legitimate?”

His promise of accountability – of transparency – of responsibility to the voting taxpayers sounded so great. He was elected by voters who believed his words.

But the first appropriations bill that hit his presidential desk contained $7.7 billion in nearly 9,000 earmarks. And he signed it. When questioned about it, he lamely explained that all this pork had been buried in the bill before and during his election – as if that validated it and excused him from his vow.

Then he and his advisers quickly devised an $847 billion “stimulus plan” that would “bail out” our lending institutions and auto manufacturers, saving and creating thousands of new jobs and stimulating our crippled, struggling economy. This gigantic, frightening plan was put into play without any consultation with the voters, the taxpayers who would have to fund the whole thing.

Right on the heels of that mind-numbing exercise, a new mandate for a gigantic government-run health-care plan was announced – one that the majority of Americans say they don’t really want – one that would cost an estimated one and a quarter trillion dollars. The Democrat-controlled House and Senate appeared ready to roll over and rubber-stamp the administration’s wishes, again without giving the voting public any say in it whatsoever.

In fact, one House bill was over a thousand pages, and was delivered to our cowed representatives the night before they were expected to pass it – without even reading it! What kind of “transparency” was this?

Well, the general public, aroused voters by the millions, began to assemble in the offices of their representatives, in town meetings and demonstrations – astounding the administration in a show of anger and militant resistance to these heavy-handed methods that would saddle us all with massive debt and unwanted programs.

The fire of irate resistance flared higher with the discovery that the president was creating as many as 50 “czars” over vital and powerful functions of our government, a number of them with Communist-sympathizing backgrounds and socialist involvements, some quoting Chairman Mao as their inspirations. Our president informed the Muslim world that “America is no longer a Christian nation,” and that because of the number of Muslims in our borders that we might be considered “a Muslim nation.” These and other similar comments amazed the over 80 percent of Americans who still identify themselves as Christian.

“Transparent”? The word means “clear,” “understandable,” “out in the open” – not hidden, enforced, surreptitious and mysterious.

But the issue that makes his notorious promise of “transparency” seem so hollow – and false – is his steadfast refusal to provide to the public who deserves and wants it an actual copy of his birth certificate! Not the “certification of live birth” that has been produced and accepted by a strangely gullible and meek Congress.

No, what’s required is the actual birth certificate with the signature of the delivering doctor and name of the hospital – the document you or I, as just ordinary citizens, have to provide in myriad settings as a form of identification.

Far from being “transparent,” Mr. Obama has paid, so far, $1.7 million to 11 different law firms in 12 states to prevent anyone from seeing his birth certificate, his early travel records, or his Occidental, Columbia and Harvard records (which are believed to include incendiary opinions expressed in his school papers).

He insists on hiding things that inevitably will come to light. Why?

The growing number of determined citizens who are demanding transparency are being derided and smeared as “birthers,” in the hope that they’ll be written off as irrational or politically biased.

But my question is – and has been for over a year now – “MR. OBAMA, IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, WHY ARE YOU SPENDING A FORTUNE TO HIDE IT?”

It’s an acknowledged fact that Barack Obama Jr. was born to an 18-year-old American girl and a Kenyan father, a British citizen. Some have seen an actual videotape, now strangely unavailable, in which the boy’s fraternal grandmother describes being in the delivery room in Mombasa, Kenya, when young Barack was born.

I’m reading now from Article II of the Constitution a president swears to preserve, protect and defend: “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” That phrase, “natural born,” has always been understood to mean born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents. A person born to one citizen parent can be a citizen – but is not eligible to be president.

This eligibility question supersedes all other considerations. It can and should be settled (even before elections) by a full and transparent revelation of all pertinent facts. To obscure – or adamantly hide – the facts raises tremendous alarm. Why do this, when open revelation could settle the matter permanently? As I’ve written here before, TRUTH WILL OUT … now or later. Obviously, now is better, and owed to the citizens of this country.

All we’re demanding, on constitutional grounds, is transparency … not a stone wall.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.