”The Most Transparent Dictatorship in US History”
Vol: 121 Issue: 27 Thursday, October 27, 2011
During the campaign, then-candidate Obama promised the American people that, if they elected him, they would have “the most ethical and transparent administration in American history.”
Don’t take my word for it. Take his.
If you took the time to watch the linked video, you heard him accuse every preceding administration, going all the way back to the Founders, of being less ethical and less transparent than his.
“We have put in place the toughest ethics laws and toughest transparency rules of any administration in history. By the way, this is the first administration since the FOUNDING of our country where all of you can find out who visits the White House. . . the first time in history, and that’s just one example of how we’re trying to constantly open up the process. So long as I am president, I won’t stop fighting to cut waste and abuse in Washington, to eliminate what we don’t need to pay for what we do.”
Finally, the obligatory shot at George W. Bush. . .
“. . . to rein in exploding deficits that have been accumulating, not just in the last year, but in the last ten.”
That was then. This is now. . .
Dateline October 14, 2011: Politico “The Obama administration is appealing a judge’s ruling that Secret Service records of visitors to the White House complex are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Justice Department filed a formal notice of appeal Friday afternoon regarding U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell’s August ruling rejecting arguments that the so-called WAVES records belong to the White House even though they are maintained and used by the Secret Service.”
So much for the promise to open up the records so that the American people can see who is visiting the White House. (And, to quote the president, “that’s just one example.”)
Politico, which makes no pretense about its left-leaning worldview, went so far as to note that the position being taken by Obama was “essentially the same one” taken by the Bush administration. (Ouch! That’s gotta hurt!)
While appealing the court ruling requiring it to be more transparent, the administration is also demonstrating how ethical and honest it is by sending out Joe Biden to warn that unless Congress ponies up $30 billion for the teacher’s unions and $5 billion for the police and firefighter’s unions, then rapes and murders will “continue to increase.”
Biden claimed the city of Flint, Michigan was literally under siege by criminals; rapes had tripled and murders were not far behind, according to the Veep.
Even the Obama-friendly Annenberg Foundation’s Factcheck.org couldn’t find a polite way of calling Biden a liar:
“. . . the vice president misrepresented the extent of the city’s crime problem — flagrantly so, in the case of rapes. He also ignored the fact that crime this year is down, based on the city’s own crime figures, despite cuts in the police force and in direct contradiction with his larger point that Flint’s staffing cuts resulted in rising crime.”
That covers the administration’s exceptional honesty. Now what about its claim to be the “most ethical” in history?
A Human Events reporter, Jason Mattera, managed to get close enough to Biden to ask him a question, to wit: “Do you regret using a rape reference to describe Republican opposition to the president’s bill?”
Biden’s response? First, he lied, denying that he had made any such reference. Then he doubled-down on his first lie, reiterating that rapes and murders had tripled, only seconds after denying he had even said that.
“I didn’t use — no, no, no,” Biden told Mattera amid a crowd of onlookers on Capitol Hill. “What I said — let’s get it straight, guy, don’t screw around with me. Let’s get it straight.”
“I said rape was up three times in Flint, [Mich.],” Biden continued. “There are the numbers. Go look at the numbers. Murder’s up, rape is up and burglary’s up. That’s exactly what I said.”
After Mattera’s question exposed Biden as an unrepentant liar, the most honest, ethical and transparent administration in history demanded that Mattera’s press credentials be investigated and if possible, revoked.
But according to all observers, Mattera never misrepresented himself. He told Biden staffers who he was and who he worked for. And in the videotaped exchange, Mattera’s press credentials were clearly visible the entire time.
But Mattera questioned the Dear Leader. How dare he?
“Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?” (Psalms 94:20)
In addition to being the most ethical and honest administration ever to bless America with its benevolence, Obama also promised that it would be the most transparent.
In keeping with that promise, the Department of Justice is seeking a law that would allow it to reply to Freedom of Information requests by lying about the documents being sought.
Mike German, Policy Counsel with the ACLU, authored a lengthy letter to the Justice Department expressing the ACLU’s opposition:
“It’s shocking that you would twist what is supposed to be a statute — that’s supposed to give people access to what the government is doing — in a way that would allow the government to actually mislead the American public.”
Shocking? Absolutely not, says the director of the DoJ’s Office of Information Policy. According to the DoJ, “the entire consideration process for the proposal” (to lie to the public when convenient for the government) “has been open and transparent.”
(I’m not kidding — read down to the sixth paragraph from the end).
“To ensure that the integrity of the exclusion is maintained, agencies must ensure that their responses do not reveal the existence of excluded records,” noted the DoJ’s Melanie Pustay.
In other words, in order to lie effectively, it is necessary in their responses not to reveal that they are lying.
Carried to the extreme, this would allow the government to withhold evidence that might exonerate the innocent or cover up evidence that might convict the guilty.
All that is necessary is for some government official (even if he is the one under investigation) to classify the information as “too sensitive” to release and the Freedom of Information Act is effectively suspended. Not to mention the Constitution.
“For the mystery of iniquity [lawlessness] doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way.” (2 Thessalonians 2:7)
The only thing truly transparent about this administration is its lawlessness, which it doesn’t even try to hide. When questioned, they either criticize the questioner or they lie.
Last week, Obama announced that he “can’t wait” for the Congress to pass new stimulus programs so he has decided to ignore the Congress and rule by decree.
“I’m here to say to all of you and to say to the people of Nevada and the people of Las Vegas, we can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will,” Obama said.
And not just one time, either. Obama announced his intention to simply ignore the Congress whenever he found it convenient.
“I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress, steps that can save consumers money, make government more efficient and responsive, and help heal the economy. And we’re going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis . . .”
Can he do that? Legally, I mean? Well, if he DID have the authority to take action, then why did he wait as long as he did? The answer is obvious. He does NOT have the Constitutional authority, or he would have.
The Washington Times published an editorial entitled “Obama’s One Man Show” that succinctly summarized the issue in its’ subtitle: “President Unveils Lawless Scheme To Bypass Congress With Executive Orders”;
“President Obama officially declared Congress irrelevant on Monday. Instead of following the proper legislative process, he’s going to rule by executive orders issued once per week for the rest of the year. “We don’t have to wait for Congress, we’re just going to go ahead and act on our own,” said Mr. Obama. “
“The president is upset that his Democratic Senate balked at his $467 billion American Jobs Act both as a whole and broken up into smaller tax-and-stimulus bills. So he’s going to bypass democracy and try to rule by fiat.”
Rather than being the most ethical, honest and transparent administration in the history of the United States, what we ended up with was the most lawless.
Obama unlawfully used TARP money so that the government obtained ownership interests in Chrysler and General Motors. He ignored the War Powers Act in deploying the military machine to Libya. When Congress refused to pass the DREAM Act, he implemented portions of it via executive order.
His contempt for the rule of law has had a trickle-down effect into federal administrative bureaucracies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board. Even his Department of Justice has shown contempt for the rule of law.
There are members of Congress advocating for more lawbreaking because they know they have a president who is willing to break — indeed, has broken — the law governing his office and limiting its powers. So much for our system of checks and balances.
They also know that the patsy liberal media don’t care about these things unless the unconstitutional lawbreaking is done by Republicans.
The Constitution is broad in its sweep, but is specific about certain functions of government. Congress makes the laws. When Congress doesn’t pass a law, the president can’t pick up his bat and ball like an angry juvenile.
Obama’s unqualified embrace of the lawless “Occupy Wall Street” movement is another demonstration of the administration’s contempt for the rule of law.
Why else would he applaud it while he repeatedly slammed the Tea Party demonstrations that obtained lawful permits, behaved in a lawful manner, and even cleaned up after themselves?
After all, it was Obama that gave them their marching orders. Obama was the one to call for class warfare against the “fat cats” on Wall Street, the millionaires, greedy corporations and their Republican allies, etc.
A dictatorship is defined as “an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a leader or leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions or other social or political factors within the state.
By that definition, America officially became a dictatorship on Monday.