Walsh aside, Obama owes explanation
A Daily Herald editorial addresses Congressman Joe Walsh's child-support dispute. You state a U.S. representative is "not just a public figure; he is a public official." You describe this as "a matter of clear public concern that his constituents deserve to know about and understand". You conclude: "He owes an explanation, and citizens are reasonable to expect one."
Assuming that this policy applies equally to all public officials, it raises the question of why you devote a quarter of a page to challenging Congressman Walsh on his child-support issues, but you never question or challenge President Obama on his highly secret background.
He is the top public official in this country, the chief keeper of the public trust and the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. He governs by executive order, declaring what we must or must not do, even contradicting decisions of the voters and the supreme court.
Yet he has reportedly spent $2 million hiding his past from the American public, sealing records of his birth, adoption, passport and travel, education, student loans, his university thesis on the Soviet Union, Selective Service and more.
As you say, as a keeper of the public trust, Mr. Obama "owes an explanation, and citizens are reasonable to expect one."
Marvin A. Schulgen