Politics

A Policy of Lying

Why does the most open and transparent administration in history lie about government records?

|

When he took office, Barack Obama promised "an unprecedented level of openness in Government." As part of that commitment, he pledged fidelity to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which he called "the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government."

It is hard to reconcile these lofty memos with the Justice Department's proposed regulation instructing federal agencies to falsely deny the existence of records sought under FOIA. But at least the Obama administration, which withdrew the regulation in November following a flood of criticism, is open about its desire to mislead us.

Enacted in 1966, FOIA "encourages accountability through transparency," as Obama put it in 2009. The law created a general assumption that Americans have a right to information about their government unless there is a good reason to withhold it, such as when disclosure would violate people's privacy, undermine a criminal investigation, or threaten national security.

Congress amended FOIA in 1986, adding Section 552(c), which addresses situations where confirming the existence of records would tip off the target of a criminal investigation, compromise a confidential informant, or reveal classified information. In such cases, agencies "may treat the records as not subject to the requirements of" FOIA, which the courts and Congress have long understood to mean issuing a response that neither confirms nor denies the records' existence.

But the Obama administration prefers to lie. Under the Justice Department's proposed rule, an agency with records believed to be covered by Section 552(c) "will respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist."

As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) noted, that practice would "dramatically undermine government integrity" and impede judicial review of agencies' decisions to withhold records. Since requesters cannot demand a justification for withholding records they do not know exist, agencies would not have to convince a court that the information they believe qualifies for a FOIA exemption actually does. And while the lies supposedly would be limited to the three situations described in Section 552(c), agencies would be sorely tempted to deny the existence of any records they would rather not reveal.

Obama suggested where such unbridled discretion can lead. "The  Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears," he declared in 2009. But who can say whether that is happening if agencies can evade oversight by lying?

The ACLU suggested a FOIA response that avoids disclosing shielded information but is nevertheless accurate and preserves the possibility of judicial review: "We interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request." In an October 28 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked why that option is unsatisfactory and threatened to block the Obama administration's mendacious alternative.

Although Holder dropped the proposed rule a week later, it may not matter in practice. Last spring U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney rebuked the government for falsely denying the existence of records sought under FOIA. "It is impossible for the Court to determine compliance with the law and to protect the public from Government misconduct," Carney wrote, "if the Government misleads the Court." The Justice Department said its new rule merely would have codified a practice dating to the Reagan administration, which means they've been lying to us all along. 

Senior Editor Jacob Sullum is a nationally syndicated columnist.

© Copyright 2011 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

126 responses to “A Policy of Lying

  1. THAT’S RACISS……

  2. I had high hopes for Obama when he took office. His lofty promises towards the transparency and accountability of government made me a supporter. However, he has shown absolutely no inclination to take up any of his more moderate or conservative promises towards accountability and smaller government, and instead has implemented a policy of back-door negotiations of an extremely liberal agenda. I’m very disappointed.

    1. What in his background or history lead you to believe that he would be anything other than a hard left Chicago pol. I’m not trying to be mean, I’m always curious whenever I hear an Obama supporter express disappointment.

      1. +10000000000000000

      2. But Jimbo. He was cool. And he had cool posters. And all of my friends liked him. And Sarah Palin was icky.

        How could you not believe in Obama?

        1. HOPE and CHANGE, MUTHA-FUCKA! YAYAYAYAAYYAYAYAYAYAAYAYAYAYAYAYAAYAYA HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

          /Dipshit Obama supporter heckling 2008 Ron Paul event.

        2. Obama was cool! And Palin was sooo stupid!! She’s a stupid dummy! Unlike the VPObama had!

          Oh wait that’s totally insane!! Wait again, it actually happened!!

      3. Woah, woah! You all are assuming way too much!

        First off, I did not vote for Obama. In fact, I actively campaigned against him in the general election. That does not mean, as I said, I can’t support parts of his agenda after he took office. I see how that might have been misinterpreted.

        Like you Jimbo, I didn’t really expect anything more than a lefty Chicago politician. But that doesn’t mean I can’t hope for better. And I’m disappointed that he wasn’t better. But it’s not like it’s anything different that what I expected.

        1. nick,
          the point is you should NOT be disappointed, that who Obama really is was there to find for anyone willing to look for it. Instead, we got fed BS by a media that got tingly by a black candidate who did not sound black and was an Ivy Leaguer; no one cared that, by comparison, John Edwards looked like an elder statesman.

          1. Maybe this is a semantics issue, but I don’t see anything wrong with hoping that Obama would do what he said he would do. I didn’t necessarily expect that he would though. I had low expectations and high hopes. I’m disappointed that he met my expectations.

            1. I get what your saying Nicholas. Your hoping in the same way Ron Paul is hoping that we will fix our fiscal crisis. It’s not likely to work out well, but it’s beter for ones sanety to have a somewhat positive outlook on things.

            2. I’m not blaming you, just saying there was ample evidence for anyone who wanted to see it that Obama was far less than the sum of his speeches. Yes, it would have been nice for his actions to reflect his rhetoric but there was nothing in his political DNA to indicate that would happen.

              Obama had a huge opportunity to be a consequential president for all the right reasons and, instead, he has become a punch line. Even sadder is that a sizable contingent of the electorate wants to give him another four years.

              1. But, but, but, this time it will different! I just know it!

                Hope & Change, Hope and Change, Yes we can!

                1. What do you think they’re going to say this time? Same thing, except “well in the second term it will happen!”? Crazy. But it will be real.

              2. It is amazing. Today I had object to some bullshit graph posted by a Facebook friend that supposedly showed how Obama had created more private-sector jobs than Bush! Um, I don’t think so.

                1. How does a President create a job, anyway? White House executive chef?

                  A President can help pass legislation that encourages economic growth, but that’s not “creating jobs.”

                2. It’s the greatest economic recovery in history, and if you don’t see that, you’re probably a fool who doesn’t see the beauty of the Emperor’s new clothes either.

    2. You should be disappointed in yourself first and foremost, because anyone looking and not caught up in false HOPE AND CHANGE could and did see that Obama is a lying piece of shit, even before the election.

      1. I must admit that I thought Obama might have actually been telling the truth about some the things he has since done that have enraged former lefty supporters, such as suspending habeus corpus or prosecuting medical marijuana clinics. I thought that he would be good about the sex, drugs, and rock and roll things that far-lefties tend to support.

        I wasn’t cynical enough to think that Obama would lie perhaps 98% of the time instead of just 90% of the time.

        1. Something like this.

          I had really low expectations. I dunno, maybe something on Gitmo, a little speed-up in Afpak, maybe some more local autonomy with the War on Drugs. At least not starting any new military conflicts. Not much. Just a little bit of change to offset all that hope.

          Nope. The best I can think of is gays in the military, which has to be one of the least important issues in our lifetime.

    3. But I bet you will vote for him again won’t you?

      And just what about a Chicago machine politician made you think that he would keep even one of his promises?

      1. You are really missing my point. First off, I didn’t vote for Obama. In fact, I campaigned for McCain (who I don’t think was much better, but 2008 was very much a rock and a hard place scenario IMHO).

        You also assume that I expected him to do good things. I didn’t. That doesn’t stop me from hoping that all his BS in the election wasn’t actually BS. But I’m disappointed that it was actually BS.

    4. What liberal agenda.. Oh right, repealing DADT. That’s it.

      1. Are you serious?

        In fact, repeal of DADT was probably one of the best things he’s done. To fond this “mystery” liberal agenda you need look no farther than his regulatory policies and Obamacare.

        1. Except *he* didn’t repeal DADT. He was perfectly happy for the first two years of his Presidency to see it stay in place. It was only under pressure that he moved on it.

    5. Yeah Nick, it comes as a complete surprise to me also, given his stellar record of conservative, small government, open and honest, citizen comes first, liberty is sacred votes as a state senator.
      Sorry to be snarky, but this fucking slimy snake was always just what he is now, and it was always there for anyone to see, if they cared to. There really is no excuse.

      1. I didn’t really expect him to be any different, but since he was the winner, I figured that some of his campaign promises were good enough to support, and so I hoped that he would follow through. Did I expect it? No. But I can hope for it.

        1. I was overly harsh, and I apologize. I understand what you are saying now.

    6. He does this because he knows that his liberal policies would not fly if the public-at-large knew about them.

  3. As much as I detest the Obaminable Showman, and I do, we do owe him some gratitude. Which is to say, if it weren’t for him, La Femme Clinton would be president right now. So take solice, it could be worse…

    1. it could be worse…

      In what way?

      1. Well, it has more to do with how I perceive their characters. The Obaminator is a street hustler and con man, but La Clinton is a devious and malicious bitch.

        1. – just ask Bill…

          1. I never would have thought it possible but the current White House occupant and his termagant actually make me nostalgic for the days of Clinton.

            1. Bill yes, but as Hillary and Monica showed, he does lack a certain taste in women.

              1. Not at all. Bill likes She-btiches and sea cows. Being an alpha male I bet he gets a little burning pleasurable delight when he bends them to his penile will.

        2. disagree. For all of her negative qualities, she is not a malevolent figure who actually wants to harm the country. Bill is a liberal but he never felt the need to make apologies for what America is or to actively work to lower its global standing, and I doubt Hill would, either.

          POTUS is far worse than a common street hustler; that’s a more apt description of Sharpton.

          1. For all of her negative qualities, she is not a malevolent figure who actually wants to harm the country.

            Really…..She stated on film she thought it was time to “nationalize” the oil companies.

            …..but she means no harm……RIGHT.

      2. No dicks in the oval office.

    2. No kidding. Easy to say now, but I would take Hillary! over Obama in a hearbeat.

    3. If it’s remotely possible, I somehow think Obama makes me wish for Ms. Clinton.
      Say what you want about the Clintons but they ain’t stupid. Obama is the most clueless fool on the American political scene since Jimmy Carter.
      Seriously, since his complete repudiation in the ’10 mid-terms he’s still spouting looney liberal stupidity.
      He really doesn’t get it.

  4. It’s funny how many of the Dreamboat-in-Chief’s original supporters still stand behind him. Delusional to the end.

    1. Sometimes its hard to be a woman democrat
      Giving all your love to just one man
      You’ll have bad times
      And he’ll have good times
      Doing things that you don’t understand
      But if you love him you’ll forgive him
      Even though he’s hard to understand
      And if you love him
      Oh be proud of him
      ‘Cause after all he’s just a man
      Stand by your man
      Give him two arms to cling to
      And something warm to come to
      When nights are cold and lonely
      Stand by your man
      And tell the world you love him
      Keep giving all the love you can
      Stand by your man
      Stand by your man
      And show the world you love him
      Keep giving all the love you can
      Stand by your man

      1. He only beats you because he loves you Tony. Just get back in the car and stop crying before Obama hits you again. He is under a lot of pressure right now. So be cool.

        1. Barack Obama? Shit….I know how to handle my woman.

          Mutha&%^#$% ain’t got nuthin on me!

    2. A few days ago Tulpa I think had a link to a KOS diary explaining why liberals couldn’t vote for Paul and had to vote for Obama regardless of Obama’s record on civil rights. The last paragraph was priceless. It was that you couldn’t vote for any candidate who didn’t believe in global warming because it our civil rights wouldn’t matter if world is destroyed by AGW.

      1. You’re fucking with me, right? Nobody could be that retarded.

        Oh, wait, progressives? I forgot.

        1. Here it is RPA in all its glory.

          But I’m tired of supposedly liberal people, mostly young people, who latched onto Ron Paul because of issues of war and civil liberties (and weed), and then IGNORE or even try to JUSTIFY his reprehensible behavior and views on all these other topics. Just look at my Facebook page for some intense debates with a former neighbor of mine who’s a big supporter of his.

          Greenwald would be better served to ask why Paul can be so prescient on certain civil liberty issues, and yet so dumbfuck stupid and blind on so many others. Though, again, Paul’s not even that good on civil liberties, because you can’t be a true libertarian and yet still want the government to monitor a woman’s womb.

          I would like to hear Greenwald explain how Paul would be good on civil liberties for women in the U.S. when he signed the Personhood USA pledge for a federal ban on abortion, not even letting “states rights” get in the way. Or how he feels about Ron Paul on civil liberties for undocumented immigrants, especially children brought here by their parents at a young age, when Paul not only is against the DREAM Act, but wants to get rid of the portion of the 14th Amendment that grants automatic citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. His civil liberties discussion seems to only focus on the sliver of civil liberties regarding detention, which, while important, is not all-encompassing.

          Oh, there is one dealbreaker for me. My candidate cannot be a global warming denier. Because all this stuff about civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights, civil liberties, the economy… none of it will matter for shit if we cannot physically live on our planet because we fucked it up beyond recognition.

          https://reason.com/blog/2012/01…..nt_2757898

          1. Oh, there is one dealbreaker for me. My candidate cannot be a global warming denier. Because all this stuff about civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights, civil liberties, the economy… none of it will matter for shit if we cannot physically live on our planet because we fucked it up beyond recognition.

            And there you have it…. the same level of thoughtful analysis you get from the “Sex and the City” girls!

            1. Even if we bought into the deal of “give up your freedom and we will preserve the environment”, the environment would still be fucked, because the policies the “ecoactivists” promote will lead to increased poverty.

              In turn, increasing poverty will lead to more destruction of the environment. When it comes to preserving the environment tomorrow and staying alive today, rational people will choose the latter.

              1. When it comes to preserving the environment tomorrow and staying alive today, rational people will choose the latter.

                Obviously. Another aspect is: what does “preserving the environment” mean? If it means not fouling it up with killer chemicals & stuff, that’s such an obvious goal of most everyone that it doesn’t require any defense. Now if it means a radical conservatist “let’s keep everything unchanged, in its ‘pristine’ mode as it was before the Industrial Revolution”, then that’s quite a different proposition: while the price to be paid for the former can be made cost-effective, this isn’t true for the latter… apart from the obvious fact that “the environment” is never in stasis: there were ice ages & warm periods way before humankind started to burn fossil fuels on a serious scale.

                1. It also doesn’t make sense given that the earths enviroment has changed rapidly in a short periods of time. North Africa used to be like the midwest in terms of fertility. From early antiquity to the late Roman area it went from that to the desert we see today. It’s one thing to try and prevent undue harm to the planet; I don’t like the idea of a trash heap the size of the pacific ocean as much as the next leftist. But I sure as shit am not going to buy into the idea that somehow preventing human progress is somehow more ideal than a little extra pollution.

                  1. Wrong, just a little central planning and confiscatory tax policy and we’ll be fine.

                    And if we don’t act now, we’ll reach a tipping point (…previous tipping points were wrong, but disregard them…). Just look at my Scary Graph of Doom ™. See the line trending upward? That’s your Doom!

          2. Holy shit.

            but then….I visited the NPR site and from the commenters there I could see they had cabbages between their ears. God I am never going back there, my eyes still sting.

          3. My brain just exploded, John. Thanks.

          4. Just when you think you’ve read the most retarded pile of drivel ever written…

      2. and then we have the neo-cons saying that civil rights don’t matter if we have terrorists lurking right under our very own beds…

        1. Obama is a neo-con?

          Let’s see… who signed the Defense Authorization Act? Hmmm…

          1. Who in Congress proposed it?

            1. did the campaigner in chief veto it? Threaten to? Has he stopped FISA yet? Is Gitmo operating? Any more Americans targeted for death? Just stop. Your attempt at equating the sins of the right with the bald-faced bullshit from this president, an article based on how what he said is the opposite of what he has done, is bad misdirection. I expect better from the party of Miss Direction.

    3. He is still clean and articulate (with the aid of the teleprompter). That’s a good reason to reelect. Let’s just ignore tens of thousands of war dead, an ever-expanding military footprint, an ever-shrinking domestic economy, the unprecedented plundering of the taxpayer to fund wild welfare schemes and the out-of-control growth of the fascist police state.

      Nothing you can do to make me untrue to My Guy….

      1. Actually, he is proposing to reduce the military, since he dispises them. Everything else Urinegate said is spot on.

  5. You use the phrase “the most open and transparent administration in history” like it’s not true.

    If not his, then whose was more open and transparent?

    1. Ronald Reagan’s, Lyndon Johnson’s, Dwight Eisenhower’s, Herbert Hoover’s, Calvin Coolidge’s, William Taft’s, Grover Cleveland’s, the almost-unknown John Tyler’s, and all of the first seven Presidents of the United States.

      That’s how fucking awful your Dreamboat-in-Chief and his administration are. Get a fucking clue.

      1. I get it– you don’t like Obama.

        I also get that you have no clue what makes an administration open or transparent. You may love Reagan’s politics, but his administration was anything but transparent. Iran Contra?

        1. Iran Contra wasn’t shit compared to Gunwalker.

          1. President Reagan for all his faults never signed an order that could allow the assasination of Americans. I mean fuck at least FDRs violations, internment camps, were somewhat understandable because of WWII and racial fears of the day.

            1. You’re confusing bad policy with non-transparent policy. Obama signed that order completely in the open. I disagree with it too, but at least we know it exists.

          2. I don’t think you understand what Iran Contra was.

            1. keep drinking that obama kool-air, fool.

        2. The best way to measure would be through FOIA’s… if you want to compare modern presidential administrations anyways.

    2. And if we’re counting ones whose politics blew but who were open about their machinations anyway (I only listed Johnson in that category previously), even if I totally disagree, all but four or so of the Presidents in our history is your answer.

      1. Yeah Lyndon Johnson was completely transparent about escalating the Vietnam War.

        Their politics blowing has nothing to do with transparency.

    3. Oh, c’mon, guys. Its not like they are even trying to hide the cronyism and corruption. Hell, they’re proud of it! They flaunt it!

      I mean, its not like Obama is quietly salting away money while trying to look like a sober and serious statesman. Fuck no! He plays golf all day while his wife swans around in thousand dollar dresses and gets her own plane for million-dollar vacations.

      What could he do to be more open and transparent about his contempt for you, his greed, his narcissism?

      1. Give a $500 million taxpayer loan to one of his cronies with a failing solar panel business. At least he hasn’t done that. Oh wait…

        1. A bad idea can also be open and transparent.

          1. Why do you believe this is the most transparent administration in history? Mentioning Iran Contra or Vietnam proves nothing.

            1. I think it is the most transparent because they spend more time and effort documenting their actions for the public than any previous administration.

              They are not 100% transparent and open, I agree. However, the bar has been set pretty low by his predecessors.

              1. You know who else was meticulous about they’re documenting their actions?

                “Earth, Hitler, 1938”

              2. … they spend more time and effort documenting their actions for the public than any previous administration.

                Yeah, Obama keeps all his golf score cards for the public.

              3. Derider, you seem to forget that Holder has instructed his agency to tell people requesting FOIA info that the info doesn’t exist. Moron.
                Try actually READING the articles in Reason.

          2. A bad idea can also be open and transparent.
            ——————-
            you mean like Obamacare? No, wait; most of it was done in secret, so we’re left with just bad.

            1. Oh the stimulus! I mean they did a great job documenting where the money went….oh they didn’t? well fuck.

              1. What amount of stimulus money was secretly distributed? I think you’re talking out of your ass.

            2. What about Health Care did Obama try to hide? Congress deliberating in secret is irrelevant.

              1. What about Health Care did Obama try to hide?

                Pretty much the whole thing? Remember, he promised that all bills would be posted online at least 72 hours before a vote.

                1. Ok, so he fails to fulfill a promise that no one else has made. That doesn’t make him less transparent than the other administrations who never even tried.

                  1. Does your planet have serious tectonic activity or do your goal posts drift aimlessly for no fucking reason?

                    1. To determine whether Obama’s administration is the most open in history, you need to compare his actions to OTHER presidents’, not to HIS OWN promises.

                    2. Shit, dude… we know you’re up Obama’s ass, Derider, but be realistic and remember: He’s a politician, and politicians are lying pieces of shit.

    4. John Garfield’s…

      1. He barred his Vice President from attending cabinet meetings because he didn’t trust him to keep secrets.

    5. C’mon Dickrider, you dont even give it any effort anymore. Squirt one turd and leave?

      1. Y’all already filled the bowl.

    6. Richard Nixon’s was definitely more open and transparent. Duh!

  6. The guy is a fucking pathologically narcissistic, lying sack of shit.

    While campaigning in 2008, a woman asked him while he was on stage whether he would promise not to use signing statements, as GWB famously did. He first showed off what a smart perfessor of con law he was and elightened the ignorant by explaining that the Constitution gives the president only two options when Congress presents him with a bill: either sign it or send it back. Those are the only two options. He then explained that he knew the Constitution, he taught it for 10 years, he loved the Constitution, signing statements are unconstitutional, and then he expressly promised he would not use them.

    Fucking liar.

    1. Yep, and captain downgrade was slobbering over the chance to use them even as he was telling her that.

    2. He was open and up front about how unconstitutional they are. See?
      “Transparency”

  7. When he took office, Barack Obama promised “an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

    Well, isn’t an unprecedentedly low level unprecedented? Huh?

    1. Good catch, sir!

      1. Practically Clintonian!

    2. He’s got us there! Obama skates by on another technicality.

  8. “Why does the most open and transparent administration in history lie about government records?”
    It is headed by a sack of shit with big ears.

    1. “Why does the most open and transparent administration in history lie about government records?”
      ———————

      because it can. Seriously, who’s calling POTUS on this, other than Reason and maybe the Club for Growth.

  9. Life is short,We always need passions!
    SeekCasual*COM, a place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship.And also for finding soul mates.Over 160000 honest members with real photos and detailed profiles.Sign up free and have a try!Nothing to lose!

  10. Just two words……

    “I Won”

  11. Does anybody know what happened to Solyndra? For a short time it was the biggest news item, then it kind of disappeared.

    For example:

    http://in-other-news.com/2011/…..ra-scandal

    In this article “Brighsource Energy” and other companies are mentioned which received over 2 billion dollars (much more than Solyndra).

    But lately, there are no news about this.

    1. Well what do you thinks gonna happen when the mainstream press covers for you! Ha!

  12. They lie because they know for a fact that NONE of their supporters would ever vote Republican. They’re playing the odds that their base plus a handful of on-the-fence folks will vote for them no matter what shenanigans they pull.

  13. Do you libertarians make any distinction between your own fantasies and other people’s lies? Do you ever do self-satire? Intentional, I mean.

    1. MaxiPad Obama 2012 campaign troll. Unpaid. Piss on those Taliban Mutha Fuckers — kill black African resistors. Reelect Obama for more!

      1. Max…

        Politicians lie.

        They lie about lying.

        They’d lie about what they had for breakfast even if there were a live camera feed tracking every bite of scrambled eggs.

        They’d lie about having just killed a puppy in front of thousands of witnesses.

        And Obama is a politician.

  14. “Sec of State Clinton publicly expressed dismay over the urination, but was heard by an unnamed administration source saying that she would have ‘squatted to pee’ on the cadavers.”

  15. “Those Taliban folks were already dead, what’s the problem with the piss-fest? I’m sure that later on, my soldiers lovingly cleansed the corpses in true Muslim style before throwing them in the wood-chipper — heh, heh, I mean some may have fooled my predecessor, but nobody gets over on ME.”

  16. Personally, I hope I live long enough to pee on Reid, Pelosi and Obama’s grave.

  17. Dude seem to be a tad bit full of himself.

    http://www.anon-vpn.tk

  18. Bi-curious?Datebi.com is designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.

  19. Obama’s lies? This sounds creepily Soviet. You libertarians are commies without the organizational skills, thank God.

  20. The President is not at present campagning or in campaign mode.
    There’s one, why doesn’t the press dog Carney over it?

  21. Want to thank all of you, for your Powerfull stand against Oboma & His Corrupted political partners.

    But there is so much more we can do. Being aggressive and focusing on the facts and truth is only the first step.

    We musT follow Up with more details standing by our convictions and dont back down.

    Oboma has NOT brought CHANGE, In fact ~! ~ THE ONLY real THING needing CHANGE !….Was Barack Hussein Obama II.

    HIMSELF

    Barack Hussein Obama II ( Who hates American Values ) who is A ” SELF PROCLAIMED Enemy” ~of responsible, Morally Conscious HARD WORKING Americans.

    oBOMAS Irresponsible & DRUG MAFIA and reckless supporters KNOW~ that Barack Hussein Obama II, WILL FORCE YOU to paY THEM, out of your PockeT .{ FOR all of their UNCHECKED Vices and THRILLS/

    { All on YOU

    | / At your COST & Sacrifice.\ ..

    .This UN~CHANGABLE fraud, has done His VERY BEST to Inspire VIOLENCE.

    THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. saying ……To his supporters.Saying “Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your Fellow

    Americans” ? Obama has ALSO DECLARED to his Supporters. “I want all Americans to get in each others faces!? Obama Demands !

    “You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” ?

    THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. ANGER VIOLENCE And more taxes….. THIS IS OBAMAS Change for america /”Hit Back Twice As Hard”. He commands ! *Obama on the private sector: ~~ “We talk To these folks?~ / so I know whose a*$ to KICK.” OBOMA wants to KICK your a*$ /“`

    Shouting THAT Republican victory would mean ~ “hand to hand combat” and HE IS EXPECTING people to be on Edge and ON BORDERLINE killing MODE, “ VIOLENT / and STAND and STOMP and MOB for their immoral CAUSES and THIS IS WHAT HE LIVES FOR ./ ./ ./ THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. !* Obama Tells democrats: ” I’m itching for a fight.” !

    ….PLEASE…. go to reXes NEW WebsiTe ~ ! Oboma *( Just like Adolf Hitler~~\oBOMA~~~ Demands ! — [ THE FINAL

    SOLUTION – for Un~Wanted Children

    Barak Obama is A MURDERER .~Torturing UNWANTED babys on DEATH ROE.

    CLICK HERE http://obomlnation.webstarts.com/index.html

    OBAMA TAKES a little NEW BORN innocent child, BORN ALIVE sTabS it iN the head and SUCKs ITS BRAINS OUT.

    This is just too wrong and horrible. Please stand for Loving Children and the USA.

    Respectfully and Thankfully Thank you ALL for your Time.

    To see HORRIBLE HONOR Killings~` HATE CRIMES ]`~ ! eXecuted by the CLINTON,RENO and ATF Media WHO COMMITTED H0NOR KILLINGs [ SLAUGHTERING }]

    21 LITTLE Helpless Children at Waco.

    Click Here http://obomlnation.webstarts.c…..dered.html

  22. Want to thank all of you, for your Powerfull stand against Oboma & His Corrupted political partners.

    But there is so much more we can do. Being aggressive and focusing on the facts and truth is only the first step.

    We musT follow Up with more details standing by our convictions and dont back down.

    Oboma has NOT brought CHANGE, In fact ~! ~ THE ONLY real THING needing CHANGE !….Was Barack Hussein Obama II.

    HIMSELF

    Barack Hussein Obama II (

    Who hates American Values ) who is A ” SELF PROCLAIMED Enemy” ~of responsible, Morally Conscious HARD WORKING Americans.

    oBOMAS Irresponsible & DRUG MAFIA and reckless supporters KNOW~ that Barack Hussein Obama II, WILL FORCE YOU to paY THEM, out of your PockeT .{ FOR all of their UNCHECKED Vices and THRILLS/

    { All on YOU

    | / At

    your COST & Sacrifice.\ …This UN~CHANGABLE fraud, has done His VERY BEST to Inspire VIOLENCE.

    THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. saying ……To his supporters.Saying “Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your Fellow Americans” ? Obama has ALSO DECLARED to his Supporters. “I want all Americans to get in each others faces!? Obama Demands !

    “You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” ?

    THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. ANGER VIOLENCE And more taxes….. THIS IS OBAMAS Change for america /”Hit Back Twice As Hard”. He commands ! *Obama on the private sector: ~~ “We talk To these folks?~ / so I know whose a*$ to KICK.” OBOMA wants to KICK your a*$ /“`

    Shouting THAT Republican victory would mean ~ “hand to hand combat” and HE IS EXPECTING people to be on Edge and ON BORDERLINE killing MODE, “ VIOLENT / and STAND and STOMP and MOB for their immoral CAUSES and THIS IS WHAT HE LIVES FOR ./ ./ ./ THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. !* Obama Tells democrats: ” I’m itching for a fight.” !

    ….PLEASE…. go to reXes NEW WebsiTe ~ ! Oboma *( Just like Adolf Hitler~~\oBOMA~~~ Demands ! — [ THE FINAL SOLUTION – for Un~Wanted Children

    Barak Obama is A MURDERER .~Torturing UNWANTED babys on DEATH ROE.

    CLICK HERE http://obomlnation.webstarts.com/index.html

    OBAMA TAKES a little NEW BORN innocent child, BORN ALIVE sTabS it iN the head and SUCKs ITS BRAINS OUT.

    This is just too wrong and horrible. Please stand for Loving Children and the USA.

    Respectfully and Thankfully Thank you ALL for your Time.

    To see HORRIBLE HONOR Killings~` HATE CRIMES ]`~ ! eXecuted by the CLINTON,RENO and ATF Media WHO COMMITTED H0NOR KILLINGs [

    SLAUGHTERING }] 21 LITTLE Helpless Children at Waco.

    Click Here http://obomlnation.webstarts.c…..dered.html

  23. First let me say that George W. Bush was not a good leader in my opinion… Having said that, President Obama has been completely over his head and not qualified for the task of running this nation. How could he be? He had zero experience in a management position, zero experience in the military, zero experience creating jobs, zero experience in the private sector etc, etc, etc…. This man came with a boys resume… Then they handed him the Nobel Prize???? Really??? Ummm, can anyone tell me why he “deserved” that award??? Didn’t think so. What he said while campaigning and what he does as president are like night and day… Transparency? a Lie! Reach across the isle? A Lie! Create jobs? A Lie! New Energy? A Lie! This imposter can’t be thrown out of office soon enough for me. NOVEMBER 2012 – The end of an error!

  24. hese lofty memos with the Justice Department’s proposed regul

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.