Hawaii profiteering from secrecy?

Whatever happened to "open government"?

Whatever happened to those pledges from progressives of "transparency"?

Whatever happened to those "sunshine laws"?

Whatever happened to those "open records acts"?

Whatever happened to "freedom of information"?

TRENDING: 'Situation is completely unstable:' Crenshaw tours border, exposes how bad it really is

To their credit, Democrats have often been at the forefront of pledges and legislation for openness in government.

But in practice, Democrats run their governments more like Kim Jong-il.

For instance, what public document could possibly be as innocent and non-threatening to national security and privacy concerns as a simple birth certificate?

Yet, for two-and-a-half years, the Democrat residing in the White House (no, I refuse to confer an official title upon him until he proves he is eligible for it), has steadfastly refused to release his despite the clamoring of millions of Americans.

In fact, he has spent considerable sums in legal fees to fight all efforts to see it. He has even allowed a decorated U.S. Army officer with a distinguished career to go to prison rather than release it.

Likewise, the state of Hawaii has done everything in its power to conceal this secret document. Even the new governor, Democrat Neil Abercrombie, couldn't find it and learned he doesn't have the power as the state's chief executive to see it himself.

Newest WND bumper sticker gets to the heart of eligibility matter: "NO BC / NO DC"

Now we learn there is a move by at least five Hawaiian Democratic legislators to pass a law releasing Barack Obama's birth records to the public for a charge of $100.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see it, and I have a certified cashier's check in my hands ready to overnight to Hawaii officials the day that law is signed by Abercrombie. But doesn't this suggest the state of Hawaii is merely looking for a way to cash in on what is a matter of national security?

And what exactly is Hawaii peddling?

Is it that "certification of live birth" that proves nothing insofar as where Obama was actually born and who his parents were? As we have learned over the years, those documents could be obtained by simply filing an affidavit that a birth took place. It is not the eyewitness account that a long-form birth certificate is.

Quite honestly, a copy of that digital simulation of a birth record is not worth 50 cents, let alone $100.

If indeed these Democratic state legislators are interested in openness in government, why attach such a fee? I thought the issue was privacy. You mean it's just a matter of Hawaii making some money on the deal? That's what has been preventing the American people from knowing the truth about the constitutional eligibility of the man in the White House?

It's shocking to me.

But then again, who knows better just how many millions of Americans are desperate for this information than the clerks in Hawaii who have to field the calls and letters? It's pretty obvious these Democrats are not so interested in openness in government. They're more interested in profiteering from a controversy they created with closed government and dissembling government.

If it's that easy for Hawaii to produce the long-form birth certificate America wants to see and needs to see to ensure the man in the White House is legally occupying his office or is merely a highly paid squatter, why not just release one good clean copy to the public and press and be done with it? That shouldn't be so much trouble.

If you want to charge $100 for other copies, fine. But this is not openness. This is not transparency. This is not freedom of information.

But, in practice, this is the way Democrats do business. This is the way they always do business. Openness in government is something they talk about. It's not something they practice.