Making BFFs – Obama Curries Favor with Big Business and 1%ers

Editor’s Note – For almost six years as President, along with his campaign rhetoric prior, and his short stint in the Senate, Obama has railed against big business, fat cats, bankers, Wall Street, and beyond. He always tried to appeal to the masses as being separate from the 1%, and for the 99%.

The problem is, he IS part of the 1% and caters to their needs in order to line Democrat Party coffers as well his two campaigns for the Oval Office. Hypocrisy is a word to describe others, while he sees himself as doing what has to be done to achieve his goals. He is the king of the ‘say or do anything crowd’ to get your way and becoming BFFs with big business.

Picking winners and losers, dividing peoples and industries, catering to the wealthy as he vacations on Martha’s Vineyard, and golfing with the elites of the world are his stock in trade. Why do his followers and the MSM not see him as the fake and fraud he really is?

Why the White House Is Now Trying to Be Besties with Big Business

By Gerren McHam – Daily Signal

Ready for a backroom deal brokered by the White House?

White House officials met Monday with business leaders and interest groups to talk about executive actions President Obama should consider on immigration, per press reports. Instead of working to secure the southern border, the White House appears to be looking to obtain allies for its administrative amnesty approach that is unjust, costly, and will increase illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, government and big business collusion is nothing new. We’ve seen them team up to support the Export-Import Bank and back a nearly 1,000 page comprehensive immigration bill that purported to have something for everyone.United States Export-Import Bank

So what opportunities are up for grabs on immigration? The president will likely insist on an administrative amnesty for perhaps as many as five million illegal immigrants.

According to Politico, business leaders and interest groups are advocating for measures that include “allowing spouses of workers with high-tech visas to work, recapturing green cards that go unused, and making technical changes for dual-purpose visa applications.”

The implication is that if the White House gives them some of these goodies, they will support Obama’s inappropriate administrative amnesty.

Lost in the conversation are those who lose out or who aren’t shown the same favoritism as the involved players, such as the American taxpayer who has to foot the bill for illegal immigration. Legal immigrants and those waiting patiently in line to immigrate from abroad legally also will lose

Other business interests are being left out, too. For example, as Politico mentions, representatives of the construction industry would like their slice of the pie by incorporating a low-skilled worker provision into any executive action agreement.

This semi-comprehensive approach is frustrating the left. “All bets are off” for broader immigration reform if Obama continues down this road, said Tamar Jacoby of Immigration Works USA, a pro-immigration reform group,adding that “Obama will poison the well” if he continues excluding their members—many of which are builders and contractors—from private discussions and neglecting to include their own carve outs in Obama’s final orders.

With similar negative responses from other groups, it’s easy to see why the administration continues to communicate that everything is still up for consideration

So why is Obama pursuing this partnership with Big Business?

“White House officials are in talks with business leaders that could expand the executive actions President Barack Obama takes on immigration.”
“White House officials are in talks with business leaders that could expand the executive actions President Barack Obama takes on immigration.”

For the administration, such a partnership would help blunt criticism. Instead of faithfully enforcing our immigration laws, the administration has gone out of its way to undermine them, making promises to supporters of amnesty that Obama will do everything within his power to address immigration through executive action.

Unfortunately for them, a recent CNN poll indicates that 45 percent of Americans believe Obama has gone far enough with executive action, leaving one to believe that handling the immigration issue unilaterally may prove unpopular.

As the New York Times points out, the administration is “essentially making policy from the White House, replacing congressional hearings and floor debates with closed meetings for invited constituents.” This “go-it-alone” approach is a far cry from an administration that “claims to be the most transparent in United States history.”

With the November elections quickly approaching, the Obama administration is likely trying to both appease its supporters and also be able to show. a collective front from business. So instead of focusing to secure the border and properly address the crisis of young accompanied minors, the White House appears to be pursuing business as usual in Washington—something we have unfortunately grown to expect.

Obama Admin – Transparency, Redaction, and Delay…

Editor’s Note – The “Most transparent administration ever” is the mantra of the Obama Administration, and they laud the fact that the White House Visitor List is available – elsewhere, not so…

Ask the Citizens Commission on Benghazi with their myriad requests for information on Benghazi. Ask Karen and Billy Vaughn about ‘Extortion 17’. Ask the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, ask the House Ways and Means Committee.Capture2

Look at all the scandals – all of them still unsolved and/or not concluded from Fast & Furious, to the IRS, from the AP to Fox News reporters, it’s always opaque at best.

The reason is always – NO TRANSPARENCY! All we see is redaction, lies, deflections, demagoguery, distractions, delays, finger pointing, the blame game, the fifth… and then there all those unbelievable statistics on jobs, GNP, the debt, ObamaCare, HHS, wage disparity, etc. – lies, damn lies, and those rascally  statistics.

The most [REDACTED] administration in history

BY GENE HEALY – Washington Examiner

Good news: thanks to a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday, the “most transparent administration in history” is going to have to tell American citizens when it believes it’s legally entitled to kill them.

The lawsuit arose out of Freedom of Information Act requests by two New York Times reporters for Office of Legal Counsel memoranda exploring the circumstances under which it would be legal for U.S. personnel to target American citizens. The administration stonewalled, asserting that “the very fact of the existence or nonexistence of such documents is itself classified,” and a federal district judge upheld the refusal in January 2013.

Issa-600A month later, however, someone leaked a Justice Department “white paper” on the subject to NBC News, forcing a re-examination of the question in light of changed circumstances. On Monday, the three-judge panel held “it is no longer either ‘logical’ or ‘plausible’ to maintain that disclosure of the legal analysis in the OLC-DOD Memorandum risks disclosing any aspect” of sensitive sources and methods.

In matters of transparency, the Obama Team can always be counted on to do the right thing — after exhausting all other legal options and being forced into it by the federal courts.

When “peals of laughter broke out in the briefing room” after then-press secretary Robert Gibbs floated the “most transparent administration” line at an April 2010 presser, the administration should have taken the hint. But it’s one soundbite they just can’t quit. Gibbs’ successor Jay Carneyrepeated it just last week, as did the president himself in a Google Hangout last year: “This is the most transparent administration in history …. I can document that this is the case.”

Actually, any number of journalists and open government advocates have documented that it’s not. As the Associated Press reported last month: “More often than ever, the [Obama] administration censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.”

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. In the hope-infused afterglow of his first inauguration, President Obama declared, “for a long time now, there’s been too much secrecy in this city,” and ordered his attorney general to issue newly restrictive standards for government use of the “state secrets privilege,” which allows the government to shield national security secrets from civil or criminal discovery. Attorney General Eric Holder pledged that the administration would not “invoke the privilege for the purpose of concealing government wrongdoing or avoiding embarrassment.”GretaVanSustern-RedactedDocs224x199

Easier pledged than done, apparently. Earlier this year, in a case involving a Stanford graduate student erroneously placed on a no-fly list, we learned that the government had cried “state secrets” to cover up a paperwork error. Holder himself assured the court that assertion of the privilege was in keeping with the new policy of openness. When the presiding judge found out the truth, he said: “I feel that I have been had by the government.”

In fact, the Obama administration has driven state secrecy to new levels of absurdity. We’re not even allowed to know who we’re at war with, apparently, because letting that secret slip could cause “serious damage to national security.”

Over the last year, thanks in large part to illegal leaks, we’ve learned that we’re living in a [REDACTED] republic. In the president’s version of “transparency,” the Americans have no right to debate even the most basic public questions — like the legal standards for spying on or killing American citizens — unless, of course, that information leaks, at which point the administration “welcomes” the debate.

FOIA – We don't know, what we don't know, and it shall remain that way!

Editor’s Note – It is now policy to LIE! It is okay to lie and to hide. The Freedom of Information Act is now claw-less, toothless, and legless. An overwhelming number of requests have fallen into the category of ‘nah’ we dont think we will comply anymore. When documents are supposed to be provided, the government plays games and redacts pages upon pages, rendering the time and expense and resources even more wasteful, subpoenas are then required. The Federal government is ‘stonewalling.’ As long as We The People tolerate this, we get the government we deserve. We dont even know what we dont know, and transparency has merely become a swear word by our elected civil servants.

Government Could Hide Existence of Records under FOIA Rule Proposal

Propublica

by Jennifer LaFleur

A proposed rule to the Freedom of Information Act would allow federal agencies to tell people requesting certain law-enforcement or national security documents that records don’t exist – even when they do.

Under current FOIA practice, the government may withhold information and issue what’s known as a Glomar denial that says it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records.

The new proposal – part of a lengthy rule revision by the Department of Justice – would direct government agencies to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist.”

Open-government groups object.

“We don’t believe the statute allows the government to lie to FOIA requesters,” said Mike German, senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the provision.

The ACLU, along with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and OpenTheGovernment.org said the move would “dramatically undermine government integrity by allowing a law designed to provide public access to government to be twisted.

The Glomar denial arose in the mid-1970s when a Los Angeles Times reporter requested information about the CIA’s Glomar Explorer, built to recover a sunken Soviet submarine and the CIA’s attempt to suppress stories about it.

But the advocacy groups propose another response: You have requested “…records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA…”

They prefer such language because a last resort is to sue to obtain the records, something people requesting information might not do if they assumed that no records existed.

Open government groups also contend that the proposed rule could undermine judicial proceedings.

In a recent case brought by the ACLU of Southern California, the FBI denied the existence of documents. But the court later discovered that the documents did exist. In an amended order, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney wrote that the “Government cannot, under any circumstance, affirmatively mislead the Court.”

DOJ’s draft FOIA rule was first published in March, but DOJ re-opened commentsubmissions in September at the request of open-government groups. The new comment period ended October 19.

The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment. We will update as soon as it does.