Yet More Transparency!

The Obama Adminstration evidently thinks the meaning of "transparent" is "you can't see it."

Candidate, er, "President" Obama has been hard on the campaign trail. He has attended glitzy L.A. fundraisers and $35,000 per plate dinners. However, you can't see it - it's "transparent." Photographers were barred from the event, because that isn't the image the Obama campaign wants to project. 

What Mr. Obama wants you to see is a stop at the local diner for a fast-food chicken dinner special, so the media is invited in. (Where's "Let's Move" Michelle when all this high-calorie grease is going down the hatch?) Then it's on to collect the big bucks from the rich folks who bankroll his campaign, but you can't see it (it's transparent.)  And where is the media in all this? Gushing over Obama's link with the common man, how he is in touch with the little people at the diner, with hardly a word on the "transparent" fundraisers with the rich. The media could win more trust if they would do their job and stop campaigning for Obama.

It gets better, though. The "transparent" administration is proposing a new regulation which will allow Federal agencies to deny the existence of documents they don't want to release in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.  Under current law, if an agency refuses to release documents, a citizen may go to court to request an impartial review to determine whether documents should be released. With this new rule, the government can simply deny the existence of documents, removing any opportunity to seek a court review. After all, any court action would be dismissed on the grounds that the citizen could not even show that any documents existed to review, after all, it's transparent.
Is this an example of yet more transparency? This rule is simply another blatant attempt by the Obama Administration to ensure that government "of the people, by the people, for the people" shall perish from the face of the earth.