Most Transparent White House Ever Rewrote The FOIA To Supress Politically Sensitive Docs

deadcalm
Thats part of the problem now....we have nobody we can trust...including ourselves. If our very opinions and thoughts are being manipulated through print, media and the net...can we even trust our own perceptions?

That's exactly where I was going with that. Thanks for the star.

That's exactly where I was going with that.

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


Well I know it my friend....I just wanted to make the point for others and articulate it.

Thx for contributing!

reply to post by deadcalm


Thanks...It's her spirit and distrust of anything new in her world that keeps her as my avatar

I see these scoundrels before Obama, and now with him, it is almost like they are still counting on having Obama's activities ignored by his supporters simply because they are still holding Bush accountable for most everything. And this gives them so much more leeway to put the screws to the country.


And having our pretty much lame duck congress and senate just pretending to care, it gets worse and worse. A few of the repubs are even in disguise and aren't that at all. The republican majority whip and Boehner just for starters. They are total rubber stamps for everything Obama wants to ram through under the radar.. They need to be stamped 4F and booted right into the street.

Destinyone
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

So, are you saying just because you think Bush was a crap President...it's perfectly fine and acceptable that Obama is a crap President?

Just wondering on the logic in your argument...

Des

edit on 19-3-2014 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

Why don't you tell me if I said that.

~Lucidity
Yep. It was during Bush too. I have a thread around here somewhere that shows the tit for tat of the Bush v Obama "thing" (whatever this "thing" is).

Example: They made a fuss over Bush saying, "Now watch this drive..." so now we must make fun of Obama golfing.

And the list goes on and on and on. This is all like a really bad case of deja vu for those of us who actually remember things. Or maybe more like a bad rash. The just keep rewriting the headlines.

From 2009: Bush Signs FOIA Rewrite

For all of you who still believe it matters who's in the White House? it doesn't.

edit on 3/19/2014 by ~Lucidity because: typo again

OH yes it does matter especially after the current guy ran on the platform of 'the MOST ETHICAL administration' in Us history.

Point of fact non stop for 8 years we were told 24/7 how evil Bush was.

Not a GD peep about the outright LIES of the current emperor from the same people who condemned Bush, and co.

~Lucidity
Yep. It was during Bush too. I have a thread around here somewhere that shows the tit for tat of the Bush v Obama "thing" (whatever this "thing" is).

Example: They made a fuss over Bush saying, "Now watch this drive..." so now we must make fun of Obama golfing.

And the list goes on and on and on. This is all like a really bad case of deja vu for those of us who actually remember things. Or maybe more like a bad rash. The just keep rewriting the headlines.

From 2009: Bush Signs FOIA Rewrite

For all of you who still believe it matters who's in the White House? it doesn't.

edit on 3/19/2014 by ~Lucidity because: typo again

The one Bush "signed" looks like it was actually congressional legislation.

And it looks like it may actually be favorable?

Can somebody clarify the bad parts....

On Monday, Dec. 31, President George Bush signed bipartisan legislation containing the most important amendments to the FOIA in over a decade. The changes
expand the definition of who is a “representative of the news media.” This will benefit bloggers and non-traditional journalists by making them eligible for discounted processing and duplication fees that are available to the news media.

.....................

Here is the text of the new law (DECEMBER 17, 2007 )

Added; I think the Obama Administration is as transparent as a mirror.

deadcalm

Absolute disgrace.

reply to post by chrismarco

 

It is certainly that...but so much more. Look at the bigger picture here...Obama is inch by inch assuming a whole slew of executive powers he doesn't have...setting a dangerous precident.

dictatorship (dɪkˈteɪtəˌʃɪp)

— n
1. the rank, office, or period of rule of a dictator
2. government by a dictator or dictators
3. a country ruled by a dictator or dictators
4. absolute or supreme power or authority

He can...and has assumed the power to kill American citizens abroad...he's pulling laws out of his a$$, and is doing everything in his power...and out of it...to hide what the government is doing...arbitrarily deciding what laws to follow and to whom those laws are applied.....although the US is not a pure dictatorship yet...it's getting perilously close.

See the thing is that most people (usually Republicans) see Obama doing these things and call him out for it by saying that he is building up to a dictatorship and total power grab. Except, it isn't going to work like that. What will happen is that the next guy in office will take the things that Obama did outside the law and continue doing them under the guise of Presidential precedent. This will allow the next guy to push the fold a bit more, taking small steps into illegality. Also, to do this right, the next guy will probably need to be a Republican, which will conveniently shut the Republicans who are current condemning Obama up when their guy starts to do the same things. So while the Democrats will start to call out this new Republican's misdeeds, everyone will forget about the misdeeds he is doing that Obama implemented through Presidential precedent. Consider this, we rarely go more than 8 years with one party holding the presidency, then it switches to the other party. Seriously, anyone who says they are a Republican or Democrat is part of the problem. We need fresh blood.

In 2011, I was able to get the Hawaii Department of Health to tell me they do not maintain the seal impression photographed by Factcheck.org on the back of Obama's short form birth certificate, through the use of Hawaii's open records laws (Uniform Information Practices Act.) I reported it on my former blog and no one beyond my readers seemed to understand how significant that was. Shortly after, the White House released a copy of Obama's alleged long form birth certificate and the public has been successfully distracted with it ever since.

If major news media doesn't report on information of public interest gleaned through open records laws, then people don't even take notice. It's not like we can count on journalists to investigate anyway.

Krazysh0t
See the thing is that most people (usually Republicans) see Obama doing these things and call him out for it by saying that he is building up to a dictatorship and total power grab. Except, it isn't going to work like that. What will happen is that the next guy in office will take the things that Obama did outside the law and continue doing them under the guise of Presidential precedent. This will allow the next guy to push the fold a bit more, taking small steps into illegality.
-- snip --

Link

Galifianakis: I have to know. What is it like to be the last black president?

Obama: Seriously? What's it like for this to be the last time you ever talk to a president?

Sounds pretty final to me. We've got an AG that is above the law and an untouchable in the WH. You are a bit more optimistic than I.

minkmouse
I can only guess the original slogan should have been "Yes I can!"

Good one!

reply to post by deadcalm


These are not the droids you are looking for....

(these are not the changes you are looking for...)

Hope and change: The destruction of hope and the change we didnt want.

I thought it rather hilarious that one of his most recent executive orders was the one authorizing himself to institute sanctions against Russian persons/entities by way of declaring a "National Emergency".

I understand how disturbing it is that Russia is moving on Ukraine, but honestly, is it a "National Emergency" and does that mean we could escalate to physical threat/use of force? Are we not, once again, poking our nose into a situation that we would best just leave alone? Are we the World's Police dept?

It makes me sick when I think of all the lives ruined/lost in the Vietnam war to no effect. So...perhaps I should also ask if we are actually accomplishing any good in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Rather than invading everyone we do not like we should instead just carry a big stick operated by remote control. We could have reduced Iraq to a Stone Age society rather easily without setting the first boots on the ground. With regards to Afghanistan they already were a Stone Age society....we could have just taken out the leaders with cruise missiles and hunted Bin Laden down as we did anyway. Perhaps if we hadnt set boots on the ground we might have got him sooner.

Perhaps after 911 we should have sent Colin Powell to visit each arab country and just have a short meeting with them. No discussion, just a communication: If you do not clean up the terrorist crap in your country yourselves and we are attacked again we will nuke the 3 largest cities in every country in the Middle East. Then get up and leave...no discussion, no diplomacy... no nothing.

Too many lives wasted...too many dollars wasted for BS results. Economic sanctions are fine and dandy if they actually have teeth and are meaningful...if not then we stir up crap we may have to answer with force in an area of the world that is obviously not a part of our sphere of influence.

Oh, and diplomacy is BS. Diplomacy helped the North Vietnamese rebuild their war machine when they were on the ropes and at the brink of surrendering. Diplomacy helped the Nazi war machine get it's act together and diplomacy told them it was ok to attack and conquer weaker countries. Diplomacy allowed the Nazis to build up their military in direct violation of the Armistice at the end of WWI. Diplomacy is helping Iran develop a nuke. Diplomacy helped North Korea develop nukes and is helping them develop the technology to deliver them.

The only way Diplomacy is going to work is if it starts like this: "This is what is going to happen...

Yeah, It's bad, but the military has done the same thing(although, not a rewrite, as much as just holding off info)

deadcalm


Thats part of the problem now....we have nobody we can trust...including ourselves. If our very opinions and thoughts are being manipulated through print, media and the net...can we even trust our own perceptions?

This has to stop....there has to be a way.

I have often thought the same and what I came up with was better than nothing. (let it sink in for a while before you reject it):

There is a reason it's all coming down to this. By "this", I mean the realization that we have no one we can trust. The fact of the matter is that this is just reality. The concept of trust is an artificial state of mind that we have been conditioned to believe exists.

You really cannot trust anyone. And if you find that you don't even trust yourself, the reason is because you are still trying to deny reality (that there are people other than yourself that you can trust).

Most of us who are here in the conspiracy realm talking about the suspicions we have are here for one fundamental reason. INSTINCT. We just instinctively "KNOW" something shady is going on. Usually, nobody had to tell you, me or any of us that something was wrong. People don't end up posting on conspiracy forums just because someone told them something is not right in this world. You can preach at people until the cows come home and it usually doesn't do any good. People typically don't come around until something that does it for them happens in their own mind.

What am I trying to say?

The only thing you can trust is your own instincts. You may or may not be a little paranoid but frankly, in today's world, if you are not a little paranoid, you're probably not paying attention or you're trying to deny reality.

Your instincts will not lie to you if you learn to trust them. Not deliberately, anyway. By all means, factor everything you see and hear into your thought process but your own instincts should always take precedence over a talking head. Some people are here for different reasons, but most of us are ONLY here because simply we didn't trust those people to start with.

One of the cons of independent thinking is that you have to learn to live with uncertainty. But once you realize that uncertainty is a critical component of objectivity, you see that you must accept some degree of uncertainty as part of asking the hard questions that other people refuse to ask. They don't ask because they don't really want to know. They're afraid of uncertainty too. It slows them down and it's impossible to look at the world in a superficial and unconcerned way when you don't believe you know the truth. The government and MSM works a lot like religion, frankly. They lie to people for various reasons. Sometimes for selfish reasons and sometimes because people just don't want to know the truth.

I can't even get basic Right-to-Know documents from my tiny borough in PA without being hassled and threatened by the Chief of Police.

Welcome to America.

CornShucker

Krazysh0t
See the thing is that most people (usually Republicans) see Obama doing these things and call him out for it by saying that he is building up to a dictatorship and total power grab. Except, it isn't going to work like that. What will happen is that the next guy in office will take the things that Obama did outside the law and continue doing them under the guise of Presidential precedent. This will allow the next guy to push the fold a bit more, taking small steps into illegality.
-- snip --

Link

Galifianakis: I have to know. What is it like to be the last black president?

Obama: Seriously? What's it like for this to be the last time you ever talk to a president?

Sounds pretty final to me. We've got an AG that is above the law and an untouchable in the WH. You are a bit more optimistic than I.

I really don't think that is evidence of anything, except maybe evidence for the President having a sense of humor. You just linked me to an interview between the president and a comedian then zeroed in on a remark that Obama made after Galifianakis made a joke at his expense. Believe it or not, the President IS capable of having a sense of humor and that remark he just made was probably a joke.

reply to post by hellobruce


Keep on keepin' on. The way you defend Obama never ceases to amaze me.

When some one is the abject failure that Obama is I find it difficult to believe that people still defend him.

People keep pointing out the lies that Obama has told. Maybe someone should try pointing out the truths he has told. Seems like that would be a whole lot easier!

Krazysh0t
I really don't think that is evidence of anything, except maybe evidence for the President having a sense of humor. You just linked me to an interview between the president and a comedian then zeroed in on a remark that Obama made after Galifianakis made a joke at his expense. Believe it or not, the President IS capable of having a sense of humor and that remark he just made was probably a joke.

I figured that pretty well everyone was aware of the "Between Two Ferns" skit. That in and of itself wasn't intended to prove anything. However, there are times when it is wise to watch for powerful individuals who've become so confident in their lofty opinion of themselves that they feel safe in telegraphing what they intend in the safety of an off-hand remark. "I was only joking."

We have an AG who is in contempt of Congress, but knows good and well that he has nothing to worry about. When your underlings are those who would have the job of taking you into custody, that smug demeanor is somewhat justified.

When it comes to the current P_t_S, I don't put anything past him. I DO NOT trust the guy.

reply to post by CornShucker


Look I'm not trying to defend Obama here or his administration. I think they are wrong and in violation of the Constitution, but I don't think they are going to be as overt as you are claiming. Keep in mind, people said the same EXACT things about Bush when he was in office, but Bush relinquished power when his time was up. But this being true didn't stop either Obama or Bush from carrying on Unconstitutional acts that their predecessors implemented citing Presidential precedent for their reasons.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by CornShucker

 

Look I'm not trying to defend Obama here or his administration. I think they are wrong and in violation of the Constitution, but I don't think they are going to be as overt as you are claiming. Keep in mind, people said the same EXACT things about Bush when he was in office, but Bush relinquished power when his time was up. But this being true didn't stop either Obama or Bush from carrying on Unconstitutional acts that their predecessors implemented citing Presidential precedent for their reasons.

I'm not in disagreement with any of what you just said. However, nobody ever claimed that Bush was a Constitutional scholar. In spite of the hundreds (thousands?) of times I heard and read of Bush saying, "It's just a G*d D*mned piece of paper!", not once has anyone been able to source that quote when I challenged them on it.

On the other hand, we have a man who was sold to us as not just a scholar but an expert on the Constitution. His words are part of public record, that pesky old piece of paper is making it hard to fundamentally transform this country.



This vid shows several instances, but it boils down to something pretty simple to understand. If he were using the old sweeper salesmen of the 1950s as an example, he would be saying, "Not every vacuum gets sold on the doorstep, sometimes you have to get your foot in the door first." Imo, O-care was meant to fail and all these "tweaks" are baby-steps toward the eventual goal.

This man is NOT your grandpa's Democrat.



What will this country do if, when the time comes to transfer power, he emulates his AG and just says, "NO"?