Transparent?

The Obama Administration is

  • the most transparent in history

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • transparent

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • transparently phony

    Votes: 7 87.5%

  • Total voters
    8

Dr.Who

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
6,776
Location
Horse Country
Here are parts of an article that demonstrates just how transpareent the present administration is - NOT!

"The way to hold government accountable is to make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made [and] how they're being made. ... Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known. ... The mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it." - Barack Obama

Consider the president's unfathomable decision to support the radical leftist, anti-American, would-be dictator Manuel Zelaya when all the lawful authorities in Honduras removed him from office for subverting the clear text of the Honduran constitution. Even the American Law Library of Congress concluded that the Honduran Legislature and courts acted lawfully, yet the Obama administration actually has imposed sanctions on the Honduran people, who long have been our allies.

Since July 8, 16 senators have been asking the State Department to explain the legal rationale for its stance. They received no substantive response. When Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, and three House members traveled to Honduras, U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens urged them to read a memo by State Department counsel Harold Koh explaining the administration's analysis. On Oct. 6, the senator's staff specifically requested that memo from the department. No response.

Twice this month, I requested the memo. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley refused, saying the memo officially is "classified" because of "the nature of the information used in the analysis" and that it also is subject to "attorney-client privilege." Finally, he said it is privileged because it is a "pre-decisional" and "internal deliberative document."

The same evasive tactic was used when the Justice Department under the ethically challenged Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. decided to drop an already-won case against members of the New Black Panther Party for blatant voter intimidation at a Philadelphia polling place. Respected Republican Reps. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia and Lamar Smith of Texas requested explanations. So did The Washington Times. The Justice Department first said the decision was made by "career prosecutors" without political appointees weighing in. That was untrue. As for the further requests for information from Mr. Wolf and Mr. Smith - no dice.

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission, with statutory authority to examine such issues, also requested an explanation. Sorry, Charlie. Ignoring the law giving oversight rights to the commission, the Justice Department basically told the commission to take a hike.

Similarly, when the White House fired Gerald Walpin, the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, without proper notice or explanation, Iowa Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley demanded documents. Mr. Grassley long has been praised widely for his efforts to protect whistleblowers and IGs. Yet the administration continues to jilt him as well.

The administration has refused to honor a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the Chicago Tribune for Freddie Mac board minutes from when White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was a director. It has ignored multiple FOIA requests for White House visitor logs, including one from its pet network, MSNBC. It denied an FOIA request for documents on a treaty on intellectual property rights. It refused an FOIA request for documents related to the Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout. And as far back as June, Newsweek featured a headline saying "Obama Closes Doors on Openness" because of loopholes making its disclosure guarantees "astonishingly weaker" than those under President Clinton.

Infamously, the administration also tried to punish the Humana insurance company for the sin of communicating with its own customers. It told an Arizona sheriff he couldn't tell the press about his roundup of illegal immigrants. It has declined to cooperate with bipartisan congressional requests for hearings with its policy "czars." And of course, it is participating in closed-door negotiations on health care despite Mr. Obama's famous pledge to work out the details in front of TV cameras.

Mr. Obama promised us the most transparent administration in history. That pledge looks transparently phony.
 
Werbung:
As not just this presidency continues, but the acolytes in Congress and the dung heap they're piling on the American people, I can honestly say I understand Beck when he has referred to "blood shooting from your eyes." The art of illusion relies on not just sleight-of-hand, but playing to the weaknesses of your audience. Only those who totally bought the transparency line from the beginning could possibly perceive it as such now.

This might put a slight smile on your face, though:

He's Barack Obama!
 
Transparent is the wrong word, it makes like it's their thing and they're being up-front about it, when in reality it's our thing, the citizens, and they, the humble servants, shouldn't be keeping secrets while they're on company time.

I used to think the CIA, maybe, but JFK gets shot and it's a magic bullet, while Castro goes on to live out the century. Bumbling scalawags - get rid of them and make everyone play above board.
 
When deliberations are in private, and those deliberations do not include the republicans - moderates - conservaties - , the entire country is not being represented any longer.

Why are the folks in Washington. To represent us. When you have this majority rule in congress, and the majority plays tough with the minority, it is ridiculous, because not all sides get to be represented.
 
When deliberations are in private, and those deliberations do not include the republicans - moderates - conservaties - , the entire country is not being represented any longer.

Why are the folks in Washington. To represent us. When you have this majority rule in congress, and the majority plays tough with the minority, it is ridiculous, because not all sides get to be represented.

Just say "no" is not deliberating.
 
They can deliberate in private, then present the results to us.

Not only did he say he would not deliberate in private on health care but he specifically said he would not even meet with lobbyist. And now the lobbyists are having secret meetings with him.

Is it any wonder the health care plans we see in bills benefit the insurance companies the most?
 
Just say "no" is not deliberating.

It's a nice catch phrase but it is not true.

The republicans are just as much in favor of health care reform as the democrats and they would love to say yes to a zillion proposals despite the fact that the largest group in the country is conservative and would not like most of these changes. So far the big thing republicans have said no to is the public option - but so have a number of democrats and when it comes to specifics so do most of the people.

This is more of a case of congress versus us than it is a case of dems versus pubs.
 
Not only did he say he would not deliberate in private on health care but he specifically said he would not even meet with lobbyist. And now the lobbyists are having secret meetings with him.

Is it any wonder the health care plans we see in bills benefit the insurance companies the most?

I'd question that statement about 'SECRET MEETINGS' :confused: How many people does one person have to go through to obtain a few precious seconds with 'ANY' elected official...I'm not a 'as need to know' American but I would venture to guess that there are at least 5-10 chain of command personnel that this 'SECRET MEETING' has to process through!!

I mean it's not like the 'Monica MOMEMTS' that could happen behind a closet door :rolleyes:
 
I'd question that statement about 'SECRET MEETINGS' :confused: How many people does one person have to go through to obtain a few precious seconds with 'ANY' elected official...I'm not a 'as need to know' American but I would venture to guess that there are at least 5-10 chain of command personnel that this 'SECRET MEETING' has to process through!!

I mean it's not like the 'Monica MOMEMTS' that could happen behind a closet door :rolleyes:

Are you arguing for or against yourself? I mean, the Monical moments were certainly secret.

And by secret I don't mean that NO ONE knows they are happening but that no one knows what is happening in them or who is there.

Here is a report from MSNBC (the media seems to have turned around since they got hammered for being so biased):

"The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/

Remember:

I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House.

It's time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent.

"We can be a party that says there's no problem with taking money from Washington lobbyists — from oil lobbyists and drug lobbyists and insurance lobbyists. We can pretend that they represent real Americans and look the other way when they use their money and influence to stop us from reforming health care or investing in renewable energy for yet another four years."

"Or this time, we can recognize that you can't be the champion of working Americans if you're funded by the lobbyists who drown out their voices. We can do what we've done in this campaign, and say that we won't take a dime of their money. We can do what I did in Illinois, and in Washington, and bring both parties together to rein in their power so we can take our government back. It's our choice."

"In every election, politicians come to your cities and your towns, and they tell you what you want to hear, and they make big promises, and they lay out all these plans and policies. But then they go back to Washington when the campaign's over. Lobbyists spend millions of dollars to get their way. The status quo sets in. And instead of fighting for health care or jobs, Washington ends up fighting over the latest distraction of the week. It happens year after year after year."

President Obama went so far as to say that no one in his administration would be a lobbyist yet so far 130 of them are.

http://vlogz.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/obama-picks-defense-lobbyist-as-deputy-defense-secretary/
 
Thanks to a "sunshine" law in the state of Mississippi, the members any public body that deliberates in secret can be fine a whopping total of one hundred dollars. Fine to be paid out of public funds.

Any guesses as to how effective our sunshine law is? :eek:
 
Thanks to a "sunshine" law in the state of Mississippi, the members any public body that deliberates in secret can be fine a whopping total of one hundred dollars. Fine to be paid out of public funds.

Any guesses as to how effective our sunshine law is? :eek:

Tragically funny.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top