Posted on 08/31/2014 12:39:57 PM PDT by Kaslin
resident Obama claims to be running “the most transparent administration in history.” But even those who knew he was exaggerating must have been surprised when dozens of his own inspectors general revealed what a laughably hollow claim this is.
Earlier this month, 47 of the federal government’s 73 watchdogs filed a formal complaint about the “serious limitations” the Obama administration places on their ability to uncover waste, fraud and abuse.
It’s an unprecedented charge. “I’ve never seen a letter like this,” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said. “And my folks have checked. There has never been a letter even with a dozen IGs complaining.”
IGs from the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice -- among many others -- say the administration is imposing such “serious limitations on access to records” that it’s creating “potentially serious challenges to the authority of every Inspector General and our ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.”
Time after time, the IGs request information necessary for them to do their jobs. And time after time, they’re told the information is “privileged” and therefore can be legally shielded, even though prior administrations haven’t made such dubious claims.
Yes, this can be a legitimate claim in certain, very limited instances. Information that could jeopardize certain matters of national security, for example, is naturally very sensitive and must be handled carefully.
But when you’re concealing more information than you’re revealing, and doing so almost routinely, something is seriously wrong.
Take how the Peace Corps refused to provide records of reported sexual assaults to assist an investigation into how the agency handled such cases. And the difficulty the EPA’s inspector general had obtaining documents from the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. And many other cases that haven’t become public yet.
The IGs aren’t the only ones disturbed by the stonewalling attitude of “the most transparent administration in history.” In July, representatives of 38 journalism organizations sent a letter to President Obama, complaining about a lack of government openness.
The lead signer was David Cuillier, president of the Society of Professional Journalists. The letter accused the administration of “politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies.”
The administration is always quick to dismiss any focus on the IRS targeting conservatives, or the Benghazi attack, or the Justice Department investigating reporters, as “phony scandals.” They want us to believe they’re baseless distractions.
But we’re supposed to take this on faith. Why not provide the information necessary to prove their point? Why not open the files so we can see for ourselves?
“All of these stories linger because of unanswered questions and lack of meaningful information,” USA Today recently editorialized. “The administration could bring all of these matters to closure by simply releasing all available records.”
And if they refuse to do so, how can they blame anyone for assuming that the information they’re hiding must be damaging? That the evidence of wrongdoing is so strong that it’s better to weather charges of hypocrisy?
Even Ralph Nader isn’t happy with the White House. “Despite lofty initial campaign promises by the Obama administration, widespread government secrecy has only worsened in recent years,” he wrote earlier this year.
Ironically, the inspectors general wouldn’t even exist if not for a 1978 law that came in the wake of the Watergate scandal -- a law designed to prevent future cover-ups. As the IGs note in their letter, this law stipulates that they are entitled to “complete, unfiltered, and timely access to all information and materials ... without unreasonable administrative burdens.”
This isn’t a matter of politics. Government secrecy strikes at the very heart of how our system of government is designed. Transparency is essential to a free society.
Rep. Issa is planning to hold hearings about this in September. Surely an administration victimized by nothing more than “phony scandals” has nothing to fear.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” This country is more divided today than it was in 1861,
May I ask a perhaps naive question?
Why hasn’t congress subpoenaed these folks and promised to protect their pensions?
Is it the no balls syndrome?
I don’t know. There is so much corruption, too few honest Congress people.
> Earlier this month, 47 of the federal government’s 73 watchdogs filed a formal complaint about the “serious limitations” the Obama administration places on their ability to uncover waste, fraud and abuse.
“We seem to be expecting the ballot to save us. It hasn’t, it isn’t, and probably will not be enough in this no-consequences and no-accountabilities political world.”
Lets see.... ballot box didn’t work....jury box isn’t working.....
How many other boxes we got left now Rita???
The Obama Administration: Institutionalized criminality.
Every now and then trash a democrat...
Americans are used to corruption being exposed by the press, so when the press ignores or actively lies about corruption, we have trouble comprehending it. The MSM, operating as a 24/7 propaganda machine, enables the breath taking enormity of the on-going destruction of our way of life in every sector.
I guess we are down to just the box we have put ourself in, sorry to say. Seems checking off the Republican box has proven to be useless. They have cost us the country with their pacifism for saving her.
I’d say we’re down to prayer and fasting— but, possibly to passive to even pull that off well.
Bummer, huh? Sorry.
I, for one, am not ready for the coffin box. There are other boxes available to be used beforehand.............
Chuckle. :)
bookmark
At some point, it will be instructive, if not futile and irrelevant, to research and devise a timeline that clearly indicates when and what events and actions led to the end of the U.S. as a republic, and its beginning as a single party autocracy, i.e. a dictatorship under Barack Obamma. My guess is that this point has passed... and quite a while ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.