Top Ten Things Obama Has Not Released: (stick to your guns Romney)

As the Obama campaign and the media continue to press Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns, and to suggest--without a shred of evidence--that he is a “felon,” it is worth noting how much critical information Barack Obama has withheld from view--both as a candidate in 2008, and during his term in office.

10. State senate papers. In the 2008 primary, Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for not releasing papers from her eight years time as First Lady--but failed to produce any papers from his eight years in Springfield. “They could have been thrown out,” he said.

9. Academic transcripts. His supposed academic brilliance was a major selling point, but Obama (by his own admission) was a mediocre student. His GPA at Occidental was a B-plus at best, and his entering class at Columbia was weak.

4. The real White House guest list. Touting its transparency, the Obama White House released its guest logs--but kept many visits secret, and moved meetings with lobbyists off-site. It also refused to confirm the identities of visitors like Bertha Lewis of ACORN.

In addition to the above, Obama and his campaign have lied about many facts about his past--his membership in the New Party; his extensive connections with ACORN; and his continued relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, among other examples. Obama’s own memoir is filled with fabrications. And now he is lying about his opponent’s honorable record in business. He--and the media--have no shame.

Source: www.breitbart.com...

Well, let the belittling and racist chatter begin.... Go ahead. Refute any one of these (be sure to check out the complete list at the source article).

Obama continues to show his childlike ways but playing the games children do. Sad thing is about 40% of the folks think it's okay to have this clown in office.

Stick to your Guns Romney. Play his game. You'll do just fine. Anything you release won't win you any votes from the Left/Democrats anyway. Let them whine away.

Man, they have suckered you into their game big time.

This is not a pissing match between the two, they do not have to prove anything to each other.

They need to be proving their selves to the American people, not a did to did not between each other.

The whole thing stinks and the People should not stand for it.

For someone who campaigned on government transparency he sure is secretive about a great many things...

I disagree that Romney will be any better though...

I would even say he has far more to be secretive about with his history, more transparency all around.

Lets shine a light on these cockroaches and watch them run.

reply to post by anon72

Stick to your Guns Romney. Play his game. You'll do just fine. Anything you release won't win you any votes from the Left/Democrats anyway. Let them whine away.

Well it's nice for you to admit that Romney has something to hide.

And I love it really...you are encouraging Romney to do what you supposedly hate about Obama. And you are going to vote for this guy...for acting just like Obama (in your opinion)???

That seems a bit odd...don't ya think???


This isn't going away for Romney...Republicans are calling on him to release his taxes...this will follow him all the way through to November. And the longer he waits, the worse it looks. If he tries to release only his tax rates from those years and not his entire tax returns...then that just makes it more suspicious that he is hiding something in those returns.


I absolutely love that you guys are comparing Obama's college transcripts to Romney's tax returns.

reply to post by anon72


As for the FOIA, there was already a backlog prior to Obama taking office.

Justice Department spokeswoman Gina Talamona said reducing backlogs within the department remains a significant challenge: “The complexities of these requests, the number of offices that must be searched, the number of consultations that must be made, and the level of review that must be undertaken prior to responding to the request are all beyond the control of the agency.”

www.propublica.org...

As far as Romney sticking to his guns; if these are the issues he is going to target, he is only going to shoot himself in the foot. Obama was elected in 2008 and everybody was already aware or didn't care about many of the 10 things you pointed out. The only ones who care are Republicans and one would think that by now Romney would have already acquired their votes.

Obama could also disclose a full list of his 2008 donors but still hasn't. How many hundreds of millions$ came from foreign sources?? Back then McCain released a full disclosure of his donors and Obama still remains mum.

Stand Strong Romney. It's a trap.

reply to post by jam321


Everyone knew about or didn't care about? Maybe the people reaping the benefits of his welfare state, but the average working class citizen certainly does care. It's also a little hypocritical to campaign on transparency and then blast Romney about his tax returns in an attempt to cover up his lack of transparency and his administrations shortcomings. Personally I've always felt that a business person makes a better political leader than a career politician and the baggage they bring with them. The real sad thing is that people are either stupid or just have real short memories and Obama will most likely end up getting re-elected.

How sad OP.
You feel obligated to pick a side, as many other defeated American's have. This isn't Star Search or the Bachelor!
You don't vote for one or the other because they are all that is left!

I will still vote for Ron Paul and I will continue to cheer Obama and Romney equally as they continue to expose how loathsome they both are.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


Well it's nice for you to admit that Romney has something to hide.

And I love it really...you are encouraging Romney to do what you supposedly hate about Obama.

And you are going to vote for this guy...for acting just like Obama (in your opinion)???

That seems a bit odd...don't ya think???

Indeed. Everyone that complained about Obama not releasing things should also want Romney to release these records.

This isn't going away for Romney...Republicans are calling on him to release his taxes...this will follow him all the way through to November. And the longer he waits, the worse it looks. If he tries to release only his tax rates from those years and not his entire tax returns...then that just makes it more suspicious that he is hiding something in those returns.

Going in theme with my comment above, I'm sure you feel the same way about Obama too then. I mean, lets say there were certain Fast and Furious documents that he wasn't willing to let people see, it looks suspicious, right?

I absolutely love that you guys are comparing Obama's college transcripts to Romney's tax returns.

Perhaps you didn't read the link. In addition to college transcripts, it mentions the following:

1) The fact that the health care negotiatons were being touted as how transparent they would be, and yet were entirely secretive. This is the most significant piece of legislation to come out of this administration and regardless of rather or not is will be helpful or hurtful everyone admits it will have enormous implications. Lying about its transparency is arguably more important than Romneys taxes.

2) Hiding documents from FOIA requests. In fact, Obama recieved an award for lipservice he had at how transparent he would be with these requests, but now the very groups that gave him that award are critcizing him as not fulfilling his promises. He is even being called the worst President in history for allowing these requests.

dyn.politico.com...

It also states in this article,

The administration has embarked on an unprecedented wave of prosecutions of whistleblowers and alleged leakers — an effort many journalists believe is aimed at blocking national security-related stories.

A man who ran on transparency doing the exact opposite and punishing whistle blowers who try to show corruption, seems more important than Romneys taxes.

3) Fast and Furious. As you said above, if someone wont release all of the records on something, its suspicious. A US agent dead, and unknown number of innocent civilians, and a cover up in place. Definitely more important than Romneys taxes.

See I think Obama and Romney are lying hypocrites. You fairly call out a Romney supporter for hypocrisy, but if you continue to support Obama then you also are a hypocrite in the very same way.

How can you call for Romney to be transparent when you defend someone with a track record like Obama?

Originally posted by jam321

As for the FOIA, there was already a backlog prior to Obama taking office.

Perhaps, but as i posted even the ACLU and other organizations that touted Obamas transparency are now criticizing him.


dyn.politico.com...

And as shown in my previous post, he has gone further than anyone previous in actually punishing whistle blowers whom have exposed corruption. This is inexcusable.

As far as Romney sticking to his guns; if these are the issues he is going to target, he is only going to shoot himself in the foot. Obama was elected in 2008 and everybody was already aware or didn't care about many of the 10 things you pointed out.

Heres five they didn't know about from the list:

8. Book proposal
4. The real White House guest list.
3. FOIA requests
2. Health reform negotiations.
1. Fast and Furious documents

Thats half of them.

The only ones who care are Republicans and one would think that by now Romney would have already acquired their votes.

Wrong. I'm not Republican I care. And shame on you. Just because you are of the same political party as this man you don't care about his lying and corruption. I think that really hurts your credibility.

reply to post by peter_kandra

Maybe the people reaping the benefits of his welfare state, but the average working class citizen certainly does care.

If they cared he never would have won in 2008.

It's also a little hypocritical to campaign on transparency and then blast Romney about his tax returns in an attempt to cover up his lack of transparency and his administrations shortcomings.

Did Obama release his tax info? I don't see obama demanding Mitt release his BC or college transcripts. Even Republicans are demanding he release them.

The real sad thing is that people are either stupid or just have real short memories and Obama will most likely end up getting re-elected.

Funny how the opposition is always labeled as stupid for exercising their right to vote for whomever they so desire. And yes, Obama will get reelected. Not because he deserves to, merely because the Republicans picked a bad nominee.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher



No, what I am saying don't give more than you have to. You won't help your case. Anything he discloses will be twisted and/or manipulated against him.

I don't like either one of them but I am sure in hell ready to give someone else the wheel. It is the way our country works and right now... it's one or the other.

I have already seen what Obama CAN'T do. Next!

reply to post by Grambler

Just because you are of the same political party as this man you don't care about his lying and corruption. I think that really hurts your credibility.

Doesn't hurt my credibility. I have never met a politician who doesn't lie and isn't corrupt. They all lie. And it ain't going to change anytime soon.

Heres five they didn't know about from the list: 8. Book proposal 4. The real White House guest list. 3. FOIA requests 2. Health reform negotiations. 1. Fast and Furious documents

On a scale of 1-10, Do you really think Americans would rate these at the highest end of the spectrum. Unless Romney can prove that he can do better job than Obama on the economy, Romney has no hope. And so far he has failed.

(stick to your guns Romney)


Rofl. Do you think Mitt is reading that and going, "yeah, buddy, I will. Thanks for the moral support, random internet mouthpiece."

The politics game is so very tiresome. And most people get so caught up in it they don't even see that it doesn't matter. Not one tiny little bit. Yawn.

Originally posted by jibeho

Obama could also disclose a full list of his 2008 donors but still hasn't. How many hundreds of millions$ came from foreign sources?? Back then McCain released a full disclosure of his donors and Obama still remains mum.

I have come to assume that your posts are always lies...you never let me down.

2008 Presidential Election OPENSECRETS

How complete are this candidate's campaign finance reports?

Obama
Full Disclosure $378,216,383 (90.2%)

Incomplete $15,611,429 (3.7%)

No Disclosure $25,289,671 (6.0%)

www.opensecrets.org...

McCain

Full Disclosure $168,024,058 (87.2%)

Incomplete $6,905,825 (3.6%)

No Disclosure $17,782,479 (9.2%)
www.opensecrets.org...

Just for fun...lets look at 2012

Mitt Romney
No Disclosure $15,491,181 (14.7%)
www.opensecrets.org...

President Obama
No Disclosure $4,207,361 (3.5%)
www.opensecrets.org...

Originally posted by jam321


Doesn't hurt my credibility. I have never met a politician who doesn't lie and isn't corrupt. They all lie. And it ain't going to change anytime soon.

Okay, so why support one over another? Why not just not vote then?

You must evaluate the size and scope of those lies in order chose one. So why do you not put weight on these significant lies and corruption Obama has done? The fact that you are willing to overlook it because hes your guy is what hurts your credibility.

On a scale of 1-10, Do you really think Americans would rate these at the highest end of the spectrum. Unless Romney can prove that he can do better job than Obama on the economy, Romney has no hope. And so far he has failed.

First off, who cares? I'm discussing why you are willing to overlook these things.

I have no interest in which one of these two puppets will actually win the election. The reason that this sham of a two party system is allowed to continue is because of a mentality like you have shown: All the choices are corrupt, but i'll chose one and overlook their corruption.

(On a side note, I truly hope you are supporting Obama as a lesser of two evils and you don't actually think Obama is a good candidate, it won't change anything but to think that Obama has done well seems impossible at tjis point)

But I do think well informed people should be concerned about most of these issues. Whistle blowers being arrested, innocents dying and covering up an investigation, etc. all from the supposed "most transparent administration", all of this seems important to me.

reply to post by Indigo5

I have come to assume that your posts are always lies...you never let me down.

Really?? You know what they say about people who ASSUME?? Name calling?? Wow.

Clearly you failed to read the full list cited in the original OP article
#6

6. Small-dollar donors. In 2008, the McCain campaign released the names of donors who had contributed less than $200, though it was not required to do so. But the Obama campaign refused, amidst accusations it had accepted illegal foreign contributions.

Care to discuss? Sorry I wasn't more specific for you. I just Assumed that people actually read the sourced articles. Shame on me

Thanks for the Open Secrets stuff though. It actually makes you look like you know what you are talking about. I should expect that from you right?

Just in case you weren't around in 2008

Calling Barack Obama the "greatest fundraiser in presidential political history," John McCain campaign manager Rick Davis urged the Democratic nominee to identify his small donors.

During a morning call with reporters, Davis said Obama has made transparency a cornerstone of his White House bid and that disclosing the identity of all of his donors should be tantamount to his message.

"From our perspective a little bit of sunshine, a little bit of transparency will go a long way on this issue," he said. "They're being kept secret by the Obama campaign for no good reason."

Obama's team announced yesterday that the Democrat raised a record $150M in September. The FEC does not require candidates to release the names of individuals who give less than $200. But Davis suggested there's no way to be sure Obama is not receiving small-dollar donations from abroad. And he said the Republican National Committee is creating a database for all party donors; gifts will be logged and available for public review within 24 hours of their receipt.

"What we are trying to do is include the broadest possible transparency," Davis said.

"The question remains -- Why, with the technology he has in his hands and the demands on transparency that he is so well known for, doesn't he do the same thing?" he added of Obama.

hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com...

Still waiting for that list!! Do you have it??

reply to post by Grambler

Okay, so why support one over another? Why not just not vote then?

I like to vote.

So why do you not put weight on these significant lies and corruption Obama has done? The fact that you are willing to overlook it because hes your guy is what hurts your credibility.

It's not a matter of overlooking. Like I said it is not the priorities. Does any of these 10 points put a roof over my family, feed my family, clothes my family? Both have skeletons in their closet.

(On a side note, I truly hope you are supporting Obama as a lesser of two evils and you don't actually think Obama is a good candidate, it won't change anything but to think that Obama has done well seems impossible at tjis point)

FYI, I was a lifetime Republican till this last year. I don't like the direction the party is going. I pick Obama because IMHO I rather have a Republican Congress and Democrat president than to have a one sided party control everything.

Whistle blowers being arrested, innocents dying and covering up an investigation, etc. all from the supposed "most transparent administration", all of this seems important to me.

I never said this wasn't important. However, this happens in every administration. Like I said they are all liars and just as corrupt as politicians in third world countries. I do think Fast and Furious should be out in the open. I do believe that whistleblowers shouldn't lose their jobs or be harassed or prosecuted. I do believe that corruption should be taken care of. But the reality is that no matter how much I scream, these problems will persist. That doesn't mean I have stopped screaming.

I have no interest in which one of these two puppets will actually win the election. The reason that this sham of a two party system is allowed to continue is because of a mentality like you have shown: All the choices are corrupt, but i'll chose one and overlook their corruption.

The mentality I have is that one way or the other, politicians have to start putting America first. You are correct in that the two party system is a sham. But that is the system we have. Staying home and not voting isn't going to change the system. Our government has forgotten what the word compromise means.

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I have come to assume that your posts are always lies...you never let me down.

Really?? You know what they say about people who ASSUME?? Name calling?? Wow.

Clearly you failed to read the full list cited in the original OP article
#6

6. Small-dollar donors. In 2008, the McCain campaign released the names of donors who had contributed less than $200, though it was not required to do so. But the Obama campaign refused, amidst accusations it had accepted illegal foreign contributions.

Care to discuss?

sure...I trust Politifact over Briebart

"When President, then candidate, Obama was asked to disclose some of his donors because there was suspicion of their being the foreign source of money into his campaign, they refused to do it."

FALSE

www.politifact.com...

I'd like to address #5. The amazing disappearing Khalidi tapes.

Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor … who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.

Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.

Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?

At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.

The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.

Funny how the LA Times failed to mention that the AAAN was the org. sponsoring this event when they ever so gently presented the first story. Its all about Details....

Back in April, the Times published a gentle story about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi — indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted that Ayers and Khalidi were “best friends.” (And — small world! — it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly babysat the Obama children.)

Nor did the Times report the party was thrown by AAAN. Wallsten does tell us that the AAAN received grants from the Leftist Woods Fund when Obama was on its board — but, besides understating the amount (it was $75,000, not $40,000), the Times mentions neither that Ayers was also on the Woods board at the time nor that AAAN is rabidly anti-Israel. (Though the organization regards Israel as illegitimate and has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism, Wallsten describes the AAAN as “a social service group.”)

Perhaps even more inconveniently, the Times also let slip that it had obtained a videotape of the party.

Let's SEE THE TAPE
www.nationalreview.com...

Plenty of still unanswered questions presented in that article as it further illuminates the utter failure of the MSM to fully vet Obama during round one. Let's not make the same mistakes again!!!!!!