In 2006, during the President George W. Bush administration, the liberal watchdog group, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, brought a lawsuit to have the White House release visitor logs to the public.
While the lawsuit was still pending, in 2009, Obama agreed to disclose information on most visits—key word most—to the White House and as of August 30, 2012, White House.govreported 3.34 million records have been released. How many of those listed are members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, if any?
On that same day, The Hill.com reported, “A federal appeals court has ruled that the White House can keep secret some records of visitors who enter the building.”
“In a unanimous decision on Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that visitor logs for the Office of the President, at the center of the White House, are not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. (FOIA).”
“Anti-secrecy organizations criticized the ruling as a barrier to public oversight.”
“Decisions like this turn FOIA from a transparency law into a secrecy law,” Tom Fitton, president of the right-leaning Judicial Watch, told The Hill. He added that the decision was “unprecedented.”
Jazz Shaw of Hot Air.com brought up a good point when he observed, “Judicial Watch is being conveniently labeled as, ‘the right-leaning Judicial Watch.’ That’s a very useful description if your sub-text is, ‘those conservative wing-nuts who just want to make trouble for the President because he’s a black Democrat.’ ”
Shaw reminds us of the time when then Vice President, Dick Cheney was meeting with oil industry executives to determine national oil policy and a federal appeals court said he would not have to release the details of those meetings. Take a look at how the left-leaning Boston Globe referred to Judicial Watch as “the anticorruption group Judicial Watch.”
Shaw continues, “I see. So when they go after the Obama administration they are, ‘the right leaning group.’ But if they’re going after the Bush administration, they’re the ‘anticorruption group.’ Hmmm…”
With the present administration, sometimes those who visit the White House might not represent the best interests of America’s citizens and, if discovered, could expose a possible scheme to pervert our laws or bring in players who are diametrically opposed to the American Judeo-Christian traditional way of life (i.e., a member or members of the Muslim Brotherhood). We would expect to see all types of various ideologues visiting the White House from time-to-time, but when certain groups with questionable ties to radical groups or certain powerful unions overwhelm the rolls of visitors to the People’s House, questions should be asked.
The problem with releasing or not releasing those logs is like a double-edged sword. On one hand, the public has the right to know who is visiting the President in the People’s House. On the other hand, sometimes delicate dealings with foreign diplomats or other important officials regarding the security of the United States involving sensitive disclosures are involved that would better be served if hostile adversaries were none the wiser. This is a delicate balancing act between the people’s right to know and the right to keep the people safe.
White House.gov states, “As part of President Obama’s commitment to government transparency, we are providing records of White House visitors on an ongoing basis online. In December 2009, we will begin posting all White House visitor records for the period from September 15th onwards under the terms of our new voluntary disclosure policy.”
The very idea that Obama did this to continue his promise to have a transparent presidency is completely ridiculous.