It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House

page: 1
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House


www.msnbc.msn.com

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. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for
(visit the link for the full news article)



+7 more 
posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
This is further proof that the Obama administration says one thing, yet does another. If Obama is serious about transparency in his administration, then the visitor's list would surely be made public.

The most troubling part is that a federal judge has twice ruled that these records should be made public, yet the White House still refuses to release them. Why does the government constantly feel the need to operate above the American people? It's our government, not theirs. I truly feel an uprising is inevitable if these practices are continued. People are waking up to the fact that we're losing control of our government.

Anyway, what are your thoughts? I wouldn't expect any disclosure to happen soon if we can't even have access to public records.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Just another lie. What will it take for people to realize it's their responsibility to reform the government, not the government's?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticPerhaps
Just another lie. What will it take for people to realize it's their responsibility to reform the government, not the government's?


I'm a little confused. What is it that you consider a lie? I totally agree that we need to realize it's our responsibility to keep the government in check though. As for what it'll take to make the masses realize this, I think the continued abuse of power by the federal government will eventually lead people to say, "enough is enough." I still have some faith in the American people.


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Transparent Man Fogs The Shower Glass Yet Again! I guess he doesn't want us to see exactly how small his promise really is?

WTG Barry!



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I found it funny (although sad) that


He also cited a list of "the unprecedented steps the administration has taken to promote openness and transparency." These include instructing all agencies to adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure in Freedom of Information Act decisions, and overturning the practice of allowing other executives, aside from the president, to assert executive privilege to block access to an administration's records.


I guess both of these "unprecedented steps" apply to all agencies EXCEPT for the executive.

A judge has ruled against the executive on this two times and the administration has appealed it both times. How many times can they appeal this? It seems it won't be resolved in Obama's administration if they're allowed to just keeping appealing it.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
At least this story is getting some attention. It's good to know that the MSM can do something right (though not often enough). However, I can just see the hardcore Obama supporters claiming that this is in the best interests of our government, yet it was a completely different story when Bush pulled the "national security" card. Just further proof that the two-party system is pulling our country apart.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I would think it would be really tough to be president with people and press constantly up your arse... Maybe it would remind him how important privacy really is to anyone. Does the public and press really need to who visits the White House? Reminds me of Fringe... remember the newpaper article about Obama moving to new White House? Living in a govt. building probably costs him a ton of personal freedoms.


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
There is a reason why the records are not being disclosed. Its very simple.

My mother always told me that "you will be judged by the company you keep". Imagine what judgements would befall Obama should the people see the "company he keeps".



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by wheresthetruth
 

You may be right about that. Given the crises we have going on right now I'm sure its a calvacade of the most worst of the worst, probably North Korean and Iranian envoys they are trying to work backgroom deals with. As long as they can get things straightened out and put back on course while averting further war and the dollar's collapse, does anyone really care? No, they want stability, most Americans are smart enough to know that you have to occasionally deal with scum. That won't stop the media from hyping things (or making them up) for ratings.

I wonder if there are NASA scientists and military personnel discussing the space situation with them and they don't want the press picking up on the scent trail, they did just drop satellite access for monitoring incoming objects. Has anyone seen the RSOE site in the past two or three days? The main map is nonfunctional and the others look odd. There were an awful lot of minor earthquakes and volcanic eruptions all over the world registered late last night. One interesting note, someone bombed a Red Cross clinic yesterday in Helsinki.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Well what if some of them are visits of a personal nature?
Would the freakin' president be allowed at least a bit of privacy?
Now, I can kinda see both sides of this issue, so I can't really say for sure if what they're doing is right or wrong, but I can definitely see how it would seem suspicious.
And what's all this about 'being judged'?


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
Well what if some of them are visits of a personal nature?
Would the freakin' president be allowed at least a bit of privacy?
Now, I can kinda see both sides of this issue, so I can't really say for sure if what they're doing is right or wrong, but I can definitely see how it would seem suspicious.
And what's all this about 'being judged'?


NO, he does not deserve privacy. If he wants privacy - he can quit. This is the burden of the position. Don't like it? Don't run for public office.

A President is an employee.... do your employers or employees expect 'privacy in who comes to them on your dime, or your employers'?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Considering some of Obama’s past acquaintances, I think we should be very afraid….



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
It's because TPTB know that us ATS'rs will scrutinize every name on that list and try to connect them to every conspiracy known to man...and possibly find something!



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
It seems to me that Obama could play this much more wisely, and still get what he wants. It's not like the White House is the only place he can meet with people.

All he has to do is reverse the Bush policy and then come out claiming, "Look, I'm being totally transparent about who I'm meeting with at the White House." He could do this and still meet with people elsewhere, while at the same time upholding his credibility. Does this not seem obvious? Of course, I don't know the amount of privacy he's granted in other settings, but it seems easy enough to skirt this problem.

But I agree that he shouldn't be granted privacy while conducting business. How else are we able to hold our elected officials accountable if we're unaware of what they're doing? Just another slap in the face to our democracy if you ask me.

Edit for clarity

[edit on 16-6-2009 by killuminati2012]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Obama is a Bilderberg puppet. You must have been stupid to think he'd really bring change. Ron Paul is the only man who is not enslaved by the rich elite, but then again, the average American doesn't bother to care about that.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Did Obama ever describe what he meant by transparency?

Transparency of Bush documents-OK

Transparency of Obama's documents- NO NO

Obama is a fast speaker and people buy into what he says. What surprises me is that even when he fails to deliver, people continue to buy what he is selling.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
When a guy enter my house, well I dont know about you, but I want to know if he's not a danger for myself or my house.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Did Obama ever describe what he meant by transparency?

Transparency of Bush documents-OK

Transparency of Obama's documents- NO NO

Obama is a fast speaker and people buy into what he says. What surprises me is that even when he fails to deliver, people continue to buy what he is selling.


That surprises you?

Conservatives are STILL buying what their party is selling even though it FAILED TO DELIVER



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Wait a second...Obama promised transparency and now he is blocking the release of the visitors' log? What is he, a politician or something?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join