From all published accounts the information obtained from conscientious ATF employees has provided a valuable and devastating indictment of the extent of that agency's involvement in the "Fast and Furious" debacle, in which thousands of firearms were allowed to pass into Mexico over the objections of both law-abiding gun stores and those same rational ATF agents. ultimately causing the deaths of countless Mexican citizens as well as two American law-enforcement officers. The complete story is detailed beginning here for those who need to catch up on the facts of the case.
Well, the top brass at that odious department, true to their jack-booted nature, have apparently decided to try to put a stop to such inconvenient whistleblowing. Acting ATF Director B. Todd Jones on July 9 released a video message to all ATF employees, warning them in part that "Choices and consequences means simply that if you make poor choices, that if you don't abide by the rules, that if you don't respect the chain of command, if you don't find the appropriate way to raise your concerns to your leadership, there will be consequences, because we cannot tolerate -- we cannot tolerate -- an undisciplined organization,".
Well, Mr. Jones, the American public cannot "tolerate" an "undisciplined" and rogue government organization that deliberately breaks its own country's laws as well as those of a neighboring country, directly causing the deaths of at least hundreds of innocent people, and then shamelessly tries to cover up its illegal actions by refusing to respond to a legitimate Congressional subpoena seeking to investigate those activities. Make sure and address that simple concept in your next propaganda video, sir.
What Jones also conveniently forgets is that ATF agents and even some Justice department lawyers did indeed attempt on multiple occasions to address their concerns with their superiors, only to have their "complaints dismissed or ignored". Thus, they were forced to go to bloggers David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh as well as members of Congress to get the story out once it became clear that Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry had been shot and killed with one of the thousands of firearms that the ATF had incompetently "lost".
Congressman Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley have warned Jones in no uncertain terms that intimidation of legitimate whistleblowing activities will not be tolerated. The ATF responded thusly:
"ATF spokeswoman Ginger Colbrun, though, said the video clip was 'taken out of context.'
She said the message was one of eight internal videos released since March that address topics ranging from "trust" to "mission" to "morale."
This one dealt with "choices and consequences," but she said it wasn't meant to "discourage" legally protected activities."
The ATF and Justice Department brass in both Arizona and Washington made the deliberate "choice" to break the law. It's past time they received some "consequences" of their own.
Showing posts with label Transparency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transparency. Show all posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Back on the horse
After going through several personal challenges over the last couple of years, we finally feel ready and able to devote some time and energy to this site. We apologize for taking so long to get our act together; it was unfortunately necessary to concentrate on our health and well-being instead of outside interests. Please pardon our dust as we get back up to speed, and we hope to once again earn your readership and trust. Onward, then.
Let's see, what sorts of events have occurred during our extended absence? Surely things have changed and the maddening situations about which we previously wrote no longer occur, right? Well, no, as a quick review of just today's news tells us:
1. The House Government and Oversight Reform Committee has this afternoon voted to hold Attorney General Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder in contempt of that body for refusing to provide documents and emails pertaining to the "Fast and Furious" scandal, despite a last-minute (and surprise) assertion of executive privilege by President Obama (who as a Presidential candidate excoriated Bush 43 for doing the exact same thing).
Both men have previously stated (in the case of Mr. Holder, under oath) that they knew absolutely nothing until quite late in the game about this amateurish and stumblebum "operation" (in the view of many a thinly-disguised PR stunt that, had it somehow succeeded, would have been used as a propaganda tool to push for more gun control for law-abiding Americans) that has cost the lives of at least two American law-enforcement officers, not to mention those of countless innocent Mexican citizens. So, pray tell, exactly which of these highly sensitive communications between minions in the Executive Branch, concerning an operation about which this pair apparently hadn't a clue, need protection from Congressional oversight? Desperate measures indeed.
By the way, as far as we can determine not one person to date has lost their job over this utter debacle. It's good to be a Federal government employee.
2. A former head prosecutor in the Baltimore (wildly anti-lawful gun city in wildly anti-lawful gun Maryland) State's Attorney's office, the person who decided whether or not to go after people for gun crimes (and, judging by the comments to the story, an absolute jerk who insisted on charging otherwise law-abiding people to the max for such "crimes" as stopping for lunch in the city while in the middle of transporting an unloaded, cased firearm in their vehicle from Pennsylvania to North Carolina), was himself arrested last Friday night after cops stopped him for a traffic violation and discovered he had a loaded pistol in his car's center console:
"Matthew Fraling, 49, who spent 23 years as a city prosecutor and oversaw prosecutions of gun offenders for his final two years, was pulled over on Friday night at about 11:45 p.m. in the 2500 block of Guilford Ave. after an officer in an unmarked vehicle began following him.
The officer, Det. Kenneth Ramberg, wrote in charging documents that Fraling was pulled over after he crossed the center line, and he initially told the officer he did not have any weapons on him or in the vehicle. Ramberg asked Fraling to step out of the vehicle and again asked if there were any guns, and Fraling said he had one in the vehicle's center console for which he did not have a permit to carry."
We have to agree with one of the wags who commented - Mr. Fraling has undoubtedly now switched his position and whole-heartedly supports the idea of lawful firearm carry in the backwards state of our birth.
(h/t to NJT)
Let's see, what sorts of events have occurred during our extended absence? Surely things have changed and the maddening situations about which we previously wrote no longer occur, right? Well, no, as a quick review of just today's news tells us:
1. The House Government and Oversight Reform Committee has this afternoon voted to hold Attorney General Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder in contempt of that body for refusing to provide documents and emails pertaining to the "Fast and Furious" scandal, despite a last-minute (and surprise) assertion of executive privilege by President Obama (who as a Presidential candidate excoriated Bush 43 for doing the exact same thing).
Both men have previously stated (in the case of Mr. Holder, under oath) that they knew absolutely nothing until quite late in the game about this amateurish and stumblebum "operation" (in the view of many a thinly-disguised PR stunt that, had it somehow succeeded, would have been used as a propaganda tool to push for more gun control for law-abiding Americans) that has cost the lives of at least two American law-enforcement officers, not to mention those of countless innocent Mexican citizens. So, pray tell, exactly which of these highly sensitive communications between minions in the Executive Branch, concerning an operation about which this pair apparently hadn't a clue, need protection from Congressional oversight? Desperate measures indeed.
By the way, as far as we can determine not one person to date has lost their job over this utter debacle. It's good to be a Federal government employee.
2. A former head prosecutor in the Baltimore (wildly anti-lawful gun city in wildly anti-lawful gun Maryland) State's Attorney's office, the person who decided whether or not to go after people for gun crimes (and, judging by the comments to the story, an absolute jerk who insisted on charging otherwise law-abiding people to the max for such "crimes" as stopping for lunch in the city while in the middle of transporting an unloaded, cased firearm in their vehicle from Pennsylvania to North Carolina), was himself arrested last Friday night after cops stopped him for a traffic violation and discovered he had a loaded pistol in his car's center console:
"Matthew Fraling, 49, who spent 23 years as a city prosecutor and oversaw prosecutions of gun offenders for his final two years, was pulled over on Friday night at about 11:45 p.m. in the 2500 block of Guilford Ave. after an officer in an unmarked vehicle began following him.
The officer, Det. Kenneth Ramberg, wrote in charging documents that Fraling was pulled over after he crossed the center line, and he initially told the officer he did not have any weapons on him or in the vehicle. Ramberg asked Fraling to step out of the vehicle and again asked if there were any guns, and Fraling said he had one in the vehicle's center console for which he did not have a permit to carry."
We have to agree with one of the wags who commented - Mr. Fraling has undoubtedly now switched his position and whole-heartedly supports the idea of lawful firearm carry in the backwards state of our birth.
(h/t to NJT)
Sunday, May 15, 2011
ALL sides want your civil liberties to disappear
Just some of the latest assaults on everyone's basic freedoms from the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government:
1. Charles Kadlec of Forbes magazine reports that President Obama is apparently about to issue an executive order requiring any company (no matter what size) competing for a government contract, along with its senior officers (such as the owner if the firm is a sole proprietorship) and political action committee (if one exists), to generate a single report listing all contributions these parties may have made to political parties and candidates for the last two years.
"Similar disclosure requirements were in a bill that last year’s Democratic Senate was unwilling to pass. By signing the order, President Obama would override the democratic process and rule, instead, by decree."
Mr. Kadlec is quite correct when he opines that this kind of information in a single easily-accessible government database will almost certainly be misused by Dear Leader to arbitrarily deny contract awards to any firms who happened to contribute to his political opponents.
2. In other chilling Dear Leader news, his administration has filed a memo in a criminal case maintaining "the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) gives judges the right to censor and withhold material that is 'unclassified'.'"
Sorry, White House sycophants who are nominally all for "transparency". Either material is classified or it isn't. If the latter, common peasants (and especially criminal defendants, as in the case in which the memo was submitted) have every right to request and look at it. We paid for it, after all. The defendant's attorneys certainly agree:
"CIPA authorizes substitutions only for 'classified information,' not unclassified information."
Indeed, the CIPA makes no mention of "unclassified" materials being protected, nor does the word "unclassified" even appear in its text."
Having something be that legally crystal clear doesn't mean the judiciary will pay the slightest bit of attention, as the next story shows us.
3. The Indiana Supreme Court has overturned a cornerstone of American and English common law that has been in place as far back as 1215 by ruling that residents of that state have no right to resist an unlawful police entry into their home:
"In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
'We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,' David said."
And hence the problem with viewing the Constitution as a "living, breathing document" that only means whatever those currently wearing the black robes thinks it means through their ideological prisms, rather than their strictly interpreting the plain text of the document.
We wonder what "modern" opinions Justice David holds on the other absolute liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights such as freedom of speech and the right to a speedy trial, but fear those pronouncements would prove just as ludicrous.
4. We have just noticed that U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) last year introduced S. 3081, legislation that would permit the President to imprison anyone, even U.S. citizens, without charge or trial indefinitely merely by designating those people "enemy belligerents".
This proposed law almost certainly would not pass judicial review on Fifth Amendment grounds (except if Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David were to rule on the issue, no doubt), but the fact that someone who was held captive without trial for five and a half years in an undeclared war would think this legislation is a good idea simply boggles the mind.
1. Charles Kadlec of Forbes magazine reports that President Obama is apparently about to issue an executive order requiring any company (no matter what size) competing for a government contract, along with its senior officers (such as the owner if the firm is a sole proprietorship) and political action committee (if one exists), to generate a single report listing all contributions these parties may have made to political parties and candidates for the last two years.
"Similar disclosure requirements were in a bill that last year’s Democratic Senate was unwilling to pass. By signing the order, President Obama would override the democratic process and rule, instead, by decree."
Mr. Kadlec is quite correct when he opines that this kind of information in a single easily-accessible government database will almost certainly be misused by Dear Leader to arbitrarily deny contract awards to any firms who happened to contribute to his political opponents.
2. In other chilling Dear Leader news, his administration has filed a memo in a criminal case maintaining "the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) gives judges the right to censor and withhold material that is 'unclassified'.'"
Sorry, White House sycophants who are nominally all for "transparency". Either material is classified or it isn't. If the latter, common peasants (and especially criminal defendants, as in the case in which the memo was submitted) have every right to request and look at it. We paid for it, after all. The defendant's attorneys certainly agree:
"CIPA authorizes substitutions only for 'classified information,' not unclassified information."
Having something be that legally crystal clear doesn't mean the judiciary will pay the slightest bit of attention, as the next story shows us.
3. The Indiana Supreme Court has overturned a cornerstone of American and English common law that has been in place as far back as 1215 by ruling that residents of that state have no right to resist an unlawful police entry into their home:
"In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
'We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,' David said."
And hence the problem with viewing the Constitution as a "living, breathing document" that only means whatever those currently wearing the black robes thinks it means through their ideological prisms, rather than their strictly interpreting the plain text of the document.
We wonder what "modern" opinions Justice David holds on the other absolute liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights such as freedom of speech and the right to a speedy trial, but fear those pronouncements would prove just as ludicrous.
4. We have just noticed that U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) last year introduced S. 3081, legislation that would permit the President to imprison anyone, even U.S. citizens, without charge or trial indefinitely merely by designating those people "enemy belligerents".
This proposed law almost certainly would not pass judicial review on Fifth Amendment grounds (except if Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David were to rule on the issue, no doubt), but the fact that someone who was held captive without trial for five and a half years in an undeclared war would think this legislation is a good idea simply boggles the mind.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
The rest of the story?
At least one apparently longtime credible source is alleging to NewsFlavor that it was in fact CIA head Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who gave the go-ahead for the raid on Osama Bin Laden, specifically overriding Dear Leader and his incompetent political minion Valerie Jarrett:
"Please get this out ASAP. Want specific people to know we know.
RE Osama Bin Laden. Significant push to take him out months ago. Senior WH staff resisted. This was cause of much strain between HC and Obama/Jarrett. HC and LP were in constant communication over matter – both attempted to convince administration to act. Administration feared failure and resulting negative impact on president. Intel disgusted over politics over national security. Staff resigned/left. Check timeline to corroborate."
...
"IMPORTANT SPECIFIC: When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. This order did not originate from CoC. Repeat – this order did not originate from CoC. He complied, but did not originate."
A very thorough and plausible-sounding followup interview of the same source is here.
(We note with wry amusement that the accompanying picture of the war room clearly shows that the president had to cut short his weekly golf outing in order to go play Commander-in-Chief. That must have irritated him to no end.)
This is a very interesting scenario if proven true, and sadly one which makes much more sense given the known personalities and political tendencies of both Clinton and Obama. We had been wondering where the president had suddenly found the guts to make such a quick and pointed military decision when we are so accustomed to seeing him do precisely the opposite over and over by waffling and wavering over every issue, especially those involving national security. This kind of aggressive operation seems much more like Hillary than anyone else in that administration, and if that's indeed the case she deserves the resulting kudos and praise, not Dear Leader.
Now we just need an inquisitive mainstream media reporter to follow up on this story. There's got to be at least one of them out there.
"Please get this out ASAP. Want specific people to know we know.
RE Osama Bin Laden. Significant push to take him out months ago. Senior WH staff resisted. This was cause of much strain between HC and Obama/Jarrett. HC and LP were in constant communication over matter – both attempted to convince administration to act. Administration feared failure and resulting negative impact on president. Intel disgusted over politics over national security. Staff resigned/left. Check timeline to corroborate."
...
"IMPORTANT SPECIFIC: When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. This order did not originate from CoC. Repeat – this order did not originate from CoC. He complied, but did not originate."
A very thorough and plausible-sounding followup interview of the same source is here.
(We note with wry amusement that the accompanying picture of the war room clearly shows that the president had to cut short his weekly golf outing in order to go play Commander-in-Chief. That must have irritated him to no end.)
This is a very interesting scenario if proven true, and sadly one which makes much more sense given the known personalities and political tendencies of both Clinton and Obama. We had been wondering where the president had suddenly found the guts to make such a quick and pointed military decision when we are so accustomed to seeing him do precisely the opposite over and over by waffling and wavering over every issue, especially those involving national security. This kind of aggressive operation seems much more like Hillary than anyone else in that administration, and if that's indeed the case she deserves the resulting kudos and praise, not Dear Leader.
Now we just need an inquisitive mainstream media reporter to follow up on this story. There's got to be at least one of them out there.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
You give up your rights first, Senator
New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, along with a few other members of Congress, wants to make it illegal for people placed on a top-secret document known as the "terror watch list" to buy or possess firearms.
That sounds pretty reasonable on the surface, at least until one realizes that
1. Such people haven't even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.
2. The government won't list the criteria they use for putting someone on that watch list, what happens to the people so labeled or the process by which an innocent person placed on it by mistake might get off it.
3. There apparently hasn't been a single incident of such a listed person buying a firearm and then using it even in a garden-variety criminal act, much less a "terror" incident:
"There is no public information about anyone on the watch list who was allowed to buy a firearm using it in a crime."
4. Finally (and most importantly), does anyone else have a problem with a government official having the sole power to arbitrarily designate, using a secret process unknown to just about everyone, a person as a "terror suspect" in order to deny them their Constitutional rights without any due process whatsoever? What about denying them free speech? Indefinite detention without charges being filed? Cruel and unusual punishment to obtain information about terror plots? Under this argument, those steps would be perfectly OK as well.
"'This is a homeland security issue, not a gun issue, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to stop a terrorist from buying a dangerous weapon in the United States,' Lautenberg told the AP."
No reason except the Constitution, thankfully, which prevents overweening bureaucrats and politicians from imposing their unlawful will on the peasants under the guise of "homeland security" and "it's really for your benefit so shut up and submit to whatever we want you to".
Lautenberg would have been a model apparatchik in the old Soviet Union.
That sounds pretty reasonable on the surface, at least until one realizes that
1. Such people haven't even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.
2. The government won't list the criteria they use for putting someone on that watch list, what happens to the people so labeled or the process by which an innocent person placed on it by mistake might get off it.
3. There apparently hasn't been a single incident of such a listed person buying a firearm and then using it even in a garden-variety criminal act, much less a "terror" incident:
"There is no public information about anyone on the watch list who was allowed to buy a firearm using it in a crime."
4. Finally (and most importantly), does anyone else have a problem with a government official having the sole power to arbitrarily designate, using a secret process unknown to just about everyone, a person as a "terror suspect" in order to deny them their Constitutional rights without any due process whatsoever? What about denying them free speech? Indefinite detention without charges being filed? Cruel and unusual punishment to obtain information about terror plots? Under this argument, those steps would be perfectly OK as well.
"'This is a homeland security issue, not a gun issue, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to stop a terrorist from buying a dangerous weapon in the United States,' Lautenberg told the AP."
No reason except the Constitution, thankfully, which prevents overweening bureaucrats and politicians from imposing their unlawful will on the peasants under the guise of "homeland security" and "it's really for your benefit so shut up and submit to whatever we want you to".
Lautenberg would have been a model apparatchik in the old Soviet Union.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
...Or maybe he didn't get it. Prove it.
"President Obama finally and quietly accepted his 'transparency' award from the open government community this week — in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House on Monday."
Woody Allen would be literally laughed out of his agent's office for suggesting the kinds of ludicrous situations to which our president is a regular party.
Oh, wait a minute - just like his undeserved Nobel Prize, this award was apparently given for the potential efforts at "transparency" that Dear Leader's devoted followers are fervently hoping will still occur at some later point in time, not for anything the president's (not) accomplished to date:
"'I don’t feel moved today to say 'thank you, Mr. President,'" said Steve Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. But he said he understands the award to be 'aspirational,' in recognition of Obama’s potential to do more on the transparency front.
'And in that sense, one could say it resembles the award at the Nobel Peace Prize,' Aftergood said. 'It’s not because Obama brought peace to anyone but because people hoped he would be a force for good in the world, and maybe that’s the way to understand this award.'"
Sure it is, Mr. Aftergood, sure it is (sweet last name, by the way). Whatever helps you rationalize your decision to give an honor for openness to someone who didn't earn it and who ironically won't accept it in public.
Woody Allen would be literally laughed out of his agent's office for suggesting the kinds of ludicrous situations to which our president is a regular party.
Oh, wait a minute - just like his undeserved Nobel Prize, this award was apparently given for the potential efforts at "transparency" that Dear Leader's devoted followers are fervently hoping will still occur at some later point in time, not for anything the president's (not) accomplished to date:
"'I don’t feel moved today to say 'thank you, Mr. President,'" said Steve Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. But he said he understands the award to be 'aspirational,' in recognition of Obama’s potential to do more on the transparency front.
'And in that sense, one could say it resembles the award at the Nobel Peace Prize,' Aftergood said. 'It’s not because Obama brought peace to anyone but because people hoped he would be a force for good in the world, and maybe that’s the way to understand this award.'"
Sure it is, Mr. Aftergood, sure it is (sweet last name, by the way). Whatever helps you rationalize your decision to give an honor for openness to someone who didn't earn it and who ironically won't accept it in public.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Trapped in the closet
"Staffers with Vice President Joe Biden confined an Orlando Sentinel reporter in a closet this week to keep him from mingling with high-powered guests gathered for a Democratic fundraiser."
Scott Powers was supposed to be the media pool reporter for the event, but he apparently ended up being the "closet reporter" instead.
Why have the press there at all if that's how you're going to treat them?
"Transparency". Don't listen to what the Obama administration says about promoting it, watch instead what they do to stifle it.
The reporter's cushy digs. (Pic via Drudge)
Scott Powers was supposed to be the media pool reporter for the event, but he apparently ended up being the "closet reporter" instead.
Why have the press there at all if that's how you're going to treat them?
"Transparency". Don't listen to what the Obama administration says about promoting it, watch instead what they do to stifle it.
Monday, March 14, 2011
From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines
"Promises, Promises: Little transparency progress"
Two years into Dear Leader's term of office and the Associated Press isn't particularly impressed with his administration's oft-stated vow of "transparency", particularly when it comes to Freedom of Information Act requests.
Oddly enough, the AP reports that one of the hardest challenges is simply trying to take a gander at the very process of supposedly opening up the government to its own citizens:
"The Obama administration censored 194 pages of internal e-mails about its Open Government Directive that the AP requested more than one year ago. The December 2009 directive requires every agency to take immediate, specific steps to open their operations up to the public. But the White House Office of Management and Budget blacked-out entire pages of some e-mails between federal employees discussing how to apply the new openness rules, and it blacked-out one e-mail discussing how to respond to AP's request for information about the transparency directive."
The worst offender for invoking the "deliberative process" exemption was, naturally enough, the Homeland Security Department. That office accounted for over 80% of such uses government-wide, despite Obama ordering agencies to only use that excuse when absolutely necessary.
Just imagine how maddening the process must be for the information they don't want getting out in circulation.
Two years into Dear Leader's term of office and the Associated Press isn't particularly impressed with his administration's oft-stated vow of "transparency", particularly when it comes to Freedom of Information Act requests.
Oddly enough, the AP reports that one of the hardest challenges is simply trying to take a gander at the very process of supposedly opening up the government to its own citizens:
"The Obama administration censored 194 pages of internal e-mails about its Open Government Directive that the AP requested more than one year ago. The December 2009 directive requires every agency to take immediate, specific steps to open their operations up to the public. But the White House Office of Management and Budget blacked-out entire pages of some e-mails between federal employees discussing how to apply the new openness rules, and it blacked-out one e-mail discussing how to respond to AP's request for information about the transparency directive."
The worst offender for invoking the "deliberative process" exemption was, naturally enough, the Homeland Security Department. That office accounted for over 80% of such uses government-wide, despite Obama ordering agencies to only use that excuse when absolutely necessary.
Just imagine how maddening the process must be for the information they don't want getting out in circulation.
Friday, February 25, 2011
From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines
"White House meets lobbyists off campus"
Once again we find Dear Leader cynically ignoring even more of his many lofty campaign promises.
This time he's been caught simultaneously jettisoning both his solemn vow to not allow the foul stench of a common lobbyist to befoul his royal robes as well as his oft-stated commitment to "transparency" by freely releasing all of the names of any people who show up at the White House to plead for various indulgences:
"Caught between their boss’ anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama's aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds — and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident.
It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view — and out of Secret Service logs kept on visitors to the White House and later released to the public."
These lobbyists are like homely women who get callously used for sexual favors by the type of narcissistic men (ahem) who then refuse to be seen with them in public. One sometimes wonders why both jilted groups keep going back for such cruel and cavalier treatment.
The article claims staffers also clandestinely meet with the lobbyists in such public places as a local Caribou Coffee outlet and the rest stop men's room at mile marker 72 on Route 66 in Virginia.
Okay, we made that last one up. But we wouldn't be at all surprised if such secret meetings were indeed taking place in locations more often associated with prostitution, given the seamy nature of Obama's entire Mafia-like Presidency.
Once again we find Dear Leader cynically ignoring even more of his many lofty campaign promises.
This time he's been caught simultaneously jettisoning both his solemn vow to not allow the foul stench of a common lobbyist to befoul his royal robes as well as his oft-stated commitment to "transparency" by freely releasing all of the names of any people who show up at the White House to plead for various indulgences:
"Caught between their boss’ anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama's aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds — and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident.
It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view — and out of Secret Service logs kept on visitors to the White House and later released to the public."
These lobbyists are like homely women who get callously used for sexual favors by the type of narcissistic men (ahem) who then refuse to be seen with them in public. One sometimes wonders why both jilted groups keep going back for such cruel and cavalier treatment.
The article claims staffers also clandestinely meet with the lobbyists in such public places as a local Caribou Coffee outlet and the rest stop men's room at mile marker 72 on Route 66 in Virginia.
Okay, we made that last one up. But we wouldn't be at all surprised if such secret meetings were indeed taking place in locations more often associated with prostitution, given the seamy nature of Obama's entire Mafia-like Presidency.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
We don't need no stinkin' laws
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, frustrated at their inability to execute wiretaps on communications not covered by current laws ("web-based e-mail, social-networking and peer-to-peer services"), is apparently going to "lean" on such online companies, Mob-like, to build in a few special little back doors for the Feds to use in whatever extra-legal fashion they wish:
"But [FBI General Counsel Valerie] Caproni told lawmakers she was not asking for expanded CALEA [Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act] powers. And she stopped short of calling for rules requiring Web-based communication providers to build in so-called back doors allowing law enforcement access to their software, although she said she's optimistic the US government can find incentives for companies to 'have intercept solutions engineered into their systems.'" (emphasis ours)
It will be interesting to learn what sort of "incentives" will be offered to companies who are asked to provide the type of access that Ms. Caproni doesn't want to bother codifying into law. Maybe something along the lines of "Play ball with us and we won't unlawfully seize your Internet domain and then go on to defame your company by falsely accusing you of harboring child porn", perhaps?
The e-list member who turned us on to this article has a well-placed friend who summed up the situation quite nicely:
"Laws have boundaries and oversight. Incentives don't."
True, which is most likely why Ms. Caproni doesn't appear to be in a rush to request a legislative-based solution to the department's expressed dilemma.
This issue might be something to keep in mind when evaluating your future online software solutions.
"But [FBI General Counsel Valerie] Caproni told lawmakers she was not asking for expanded CALEA [Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act] powers. And she stopped short of calling for rules requiring Web-based communication providers to build in so-called back doors allowing law enforcement access to their software, although she said she's optimistic the US government can find incentives for companies to 'have intercept solutions engineered into their systems.'" (emphasis ours)
It will be interesting to learn what sort of "incentives" will be offered to companies who are asked to provide the type of access that Ms. Caproni doesn't want to bother codifying into law. Maybe something along the lines of "Play ball with us and we won't unlawfully seize your Internet domain and then go on to defame your company by falsely accusing you of harboring child porn", perhaps?
The e-list member who turned us on to this article has a well-placed friend who summed up the situation quite nicely:
"Laws have boundaries and oversight. Incentives don't."
True, which is most likely why Ms. Caproni doesn't appear to be in a rush to request a legislative-based solution to the department's expressed dilemma.
This issue might be something to keep in mind when evaluating your future online software solutions.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Pointing out the obvious
The U.S. Senate voted 98-0 yesterday to criminalize the impossible.
The proposed new law, an amendment to an FAA bill introduced by Democratic senators Nelson and Schumer, would make it a felony to save, copy, collect or distribute in any form the images generated by the TSA-operated full-body scanners at airports.
Curiously, these are the very machines the American public was specifically and repeatedly told lack any of those capabilities in the first place:
"The TSA says it does not store the images from the body scanners and there is no way they could ever be copied."
So why the need to add one more new crime to the bloated U.S. Criminal Code (one that provides for penalties of up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine for a violation, no less), unless the government is blatantly lying to us about what those machines can or can't do?
We repeat the assertion we recently made about this provision - if such a scan showed a weapon or a suspected explosive device, that information would be evidence of a crime and would undoubtedly be of vital importance in the subsequent investigation and criminal prosecution of the suspect - evidence DHS would in no way allow to be lost to eternity because of the lack of a "save" command.
The proposed new law, an amendment to an FAA bill introduced by Democratic senators Nelson and Schumer, would make it a felony to save, copy, collect or distribute in any form the images generated by the TSA-operated full-body scanners at airports.
Curiously, these are the very machines the American public was specifically and repeatedly told lack any of those capabilities in the first place:
"The TSA says it does not store the images from the body scanners and there is no way they could ever be copied."
So why the need to add one more new crime to the bloated U.S. Criminal Code (one that provides for penalties of up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine for a violation, no less), unless the government is blatantly lying to us about what those machines can or can't do?
We repeat the assertion we recently made about this provision - if such a scan showed a weapon or a suspected explosive device, that information would be evidence of a crime and would undoubtedly be of vital importance in the subsequent investigation and criminal prosecution of the suspect - evidence DHS would in no way allow to be lost to eternity because of the lack of a "save" command.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Selective transparency
The Obama Justice Department, under the stellar leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder, has apparently been playing political games with the Freedom of Information Act, at least according to conservative media outlet Pajamas Media, which recently asked a federal court to put a halt to the blatant favoritism.
The lawsuit alleges that "Justice" has been routinely fulfilling information requests to liberal media organizations in as little as one day while at the same time delaying for months or even outright ignoring similar requests from conservative outlets. PM provides many convincing examples of such bias in the above article.
Chalk up another victory for Dear Leader's "most transparent administration in history".
The lawsuit alleges that "Justice" has been routinely fulfilling information requests to liberal media organizations in as little as one day while at the same time delaying for months or even outright ignoring similar requests from conservative outlets. PM provides many convincing examples of such bias in the above article.
Chalk up another victory for Dear Leader's "most transparent administration in history".
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Your convenient usefulness is at an end, media idiots
The White House Correspondents Association has lodged a formal protest about being shut out of the very events they're supposed to be covering for the public:
"In a letter to Press Sec. Robert Gibbs, the WHCA Board complained about their lack of access to the President throughout the crisis in Egypt and outlined their request to open today’s treaty signing to the White House pool."
The President has once again blatantly ignored his vow of "transparency", this time to the enablers who couldn't find a single thing about him to criticize him during his ascension to the Oval Office. Oh, how the worm has turned.
Well, this is what naturally happens when the mainstream media finally finds their guts and quits being overt cheerleaders for such a narcissistic demagogue of a politician - the access and photo-ops dry up. Did they really expect something different to happen?
"In a letter to Press Sec. Robert Gibbs, the WHCA Board complained about their lack of access to the President throughout the crisis in Egypt and outlined their request to open today’s treaty signing to the White House pool."
The President has once again blatantly ignored his vow of "transparency", this time to the enablers who couldn't find a single thing about him to criticize him during his ascension to the Oval Office. Oh, how the worm has turned.
Well, this is what naturally happens when the mainstream media finally finds their guts and quits being overt cheerleaders for such a narcissistic demagogue of a politician - the access and photo-ops dry up. Did they really expect something different to happen?
Monday, January 31, 2011
Even Dear Leader's own family is now beginning to question Obamacare
Dr. Milton Wolf, physician and cousin to President Obama, publicly raises the very same question we've been asking for some time now:
If Dear Leader's socialized medicine Ponzi scheme is such a great deal for everyone, then why have his closest supporters, especially unions such as the SEIU, been lining up to obtain waivers to be excused from it?
"For this administration, transparency promises last only until the teleprompter is unplugged."
Ouch.
"Our democracy cannot allow a president to exercise the unholy power of picking and choosing winners and losers, of choosing who must follow his flawed laws and who gets a free pass. If any American deserves a waiver from Obamacare, then all Americans do."
Our sentiments exactly.
If Dear Leader's socialized medicine Ponzi scheme is such a great deal for everyone, then why have his closest supporters, especially unions such as the SEIU, been lining up to obtain waivers to be excused from it?
"For this administration, transparency promises last only until the teleprompter is unplugged."
Ouch.
"Our democracy cannot allow a president to exercise the unholy power of picking and choosing winners and losers, of choosing who must follow his flawed laws and who gets a free pass. If any American deserves a waiver from Obamacare, then all Americans do."
Our sentiments exactly.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Setting new records for glibness
How, then, can that course of action be on the table enough to justify even having such an internal debate?
Monday, January 03, 2011
Regulation Whack-a-Mole
Jeffrey Anderson of The Weekly Standard reported the other week on a new rule concerning Obamacare (a 347-page, 118,072-word "rule". That's one heck of a regulation) that had been posted online for a comment period, as required by law.
As soon as he did, though, the link went dead and Anderson could no longer find mention of the rule anywhere online. Coincidence? Possibly. Switching Internet locations willy-nilly without leaving a forwarding link surely isn't "transparency", though.
Well, the mysterious vanishing document has finally reappeared here. Just try to wade through it. We guarantee your eyes will cross inside of 5 minutes.
Bureaucratic legalese measured by the pound such as this undecipherable "rule", which Anderson points out by itself is 15 times longer than the Constitution, is but one example of how your health care is going to be run under the auspices of Dear Leader's minions.
Don't get sick.
As soon as he did, though, the link went dead and Anderson could no longer find mention of the rule anywhere online. Coincidence? Possibly. Switching Internet locations willy-nilly without leaving a forwarding link surely isn't "transparency", though.
Well, the mysterious vanishing document has finally reappeared here. Just try to wade through it. We guarantee your eyes will cross inside of 5 minutes.
Bureaucratic legalese measured by the pound such as this undecipherable "rule", which Anderson points out by itself is 15 times longer than the Constitution, is but one example of how your health care is going to be run under the auspices of Dear Leader's minions.
Don't get sick.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
"Ruling" by executive order and bureaucratic policymaking instead of governing by simply following the law
Thomas Sowell has a great article out today on how Dear Leader's Department of Health and Human Services on January 1 is going to begin implementing a "Death Panel" component of Obamacare, notwithstanding the fact that Congress specifically left that provision out of the legislation after an avalanche of protest from the peasantry:
"[Congressman Earl] Blumenauer's office praised the Medicare bureaucracy's action but warned: 'While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops because we are not out of the woods yet.'"
What a perfectly transparent government President Obama and his minions have given us. They're so proud of their sneaky little sleight of hand creation of yet another "rule" out of thin air, yet on the other hand they desperately don't want the likes of you and I to find out about it. It's frankly quite maddening.
"[Congressman Earl] Blumenauer's office praised the Medicare bureaucracy's action but warned: 'While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops because we are not out of the woods yet.'"
What a perfectly transparent government President Obama and his minions have given us. They're so proud of their sneaky little sleight of hand creation of yet another "rule" out of thin air, yet on the other hand they desperately don't want the likes of you and I to find out about it. It's frankly quite maddening.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
We're going to have to start a new category to keep track of all of his broken pledges
Another solemn campaign promise from Dear Leader goes unfulfilled:
"The Obama administration is preparing an executive order that would formalize indefinite detention without trial for some detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but allow those detainees and their lawyers to challenge the basis for continued incarceration, U.S. officials said."
You know, the Chimpy McHitler-created hellhole he solemnly vowed would be long-shuttered by now because it was such an affront to his sensibilities.
We're starting to cynically think Obama only said all this stuff in order to get elected.
Hopefully his clueless supporters are keeping score as well.
(Link via Unc)
"The Obama administration is preparing an executive order that would formalize indefinite detention without trial for some detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but allow those detainees and their lawyers to challenge the basis for continued incarceration, U.S. officials said."
You know, the Chimpy McHitler-created hellhole he solemnly vowed would be long-shuttered by now because it was such an affront to his sensibilities.
We're starting to cynically think Obama only said all this stuff in order to get elected.
Hopefully his clueless supporters are keeping score as well.
(Link via Unc)
Another promise down the drain
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, certainly no fan of conservatives (he has been particularly critical of the Bush 43 administration) and usually a fan of President Obama's policies, admirably (and bravely) points out Dear Leader's even more atrocious record on "transparency" than those who occupied the Oval Office before him, despite the President's many flowery campaign promises to the contrary:
"The [Wikileaks] episode spotlighted Obama's surprisingly poor record on government openness. The administration has already undertaken four prosecutions of government leakers, more than any predecessor, in some cases using the arcane, World War I-era Espionage Act. At the same time, the administration stymied efforts in Congress to pass a "shield law" to protect journalists' confidential sources.
Government-secrecy watchdog Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists reports that the administration has yet to produce recommendations for the "fundamental transformation" of the security classification system that Obama ordered a year ago. The government in the first six months of this year declassified only 8 million of the 400 million documents it is supposed to release by 2013. Over-classification is so prevalent that even the Pentagon Papers - leaked by Daniel Ellsberg nearly four decades ago - are still classified as Top Secret."
When even your supporters in the media are pointing out that you have no clothes it's perhaps time to rethink your governing style, Mr. President.
"The [Wikileaks] episode spotlighted Obama's surprisingly poor record on government openness. The administration has already undertaken four prosecutions of government leakers, more than any predecessor, in some cases using the arcane, World War I-era Espionage Act. At the same time, the administration stymied efforts in Congress to pass a "shield law" to protect journalists' confidential sources.
Government-secrecy watchdog Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists reports that the administration has yet to produce recommendations for the "fundamental transformation" of the security classification system that Obama ordered a year ago. The government in the first six months of this year declassified only 8 million of the 400 million documents it is supposed to release by 2013. Over-classification is so prevalent that even the Pentagon Papers - leaked by Daniel Ellsberg nearly four decades ago - are still classified as Top Secret."
When even your supporters in the media are pointing out that you have no clothes it's perhaps time to rethink your governing style, Mr. President.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Promises, promises
President Obama has signed the tax compromise bill that was approved by Congress barely fourteen hours ago, despite his solemn promise during his presidential campaign to post all such passed legislation for observation and comment via a link on the White House web site for 5 days prior to his taking any such action:
“When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing,”
We don't want to hear any weak arguments about this being some sort of "emergency", either. There are 15 days left before the tax rates would have risen on January 1. There was plenty of time for the White House to uphold their transparency promise.
This is just one more of the many Dear Leader pledges that he's thrown overboard once he got elected. How's that Guantanamo Bay closing coming along, Mr. President?
“When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing,”
We don't want to hear any weak arguments about this being some sort of "emergency", either. There are 15 days left before the tax rates would have risen on January 1. There was plenty of time for the White House to uphold their transparency promise.
This is just one more of the many Dear Leader pledges that he's thrown overboard once he got elected. How's that Guantanamo Bay closing coming along, Mr. President?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
