Back to Basics

One of the nation’s top conservative voices, syndicated radio talk host and former Reagan Administration Justice Department chief of staff Mark Levin at the beginning of Monday’s show announced his legal group’s intention to pursue another lawsuit against the Obama Environmental Protection Agency.

Levin gave a brief explanation of the Landmark Legal Foundation – which he founded — battle against what he termed an “out of control” and “unconstitutional” EPA. Levin and his legal staff are demanding records that were requested months ago as per the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but have yet to materialize, a violation of FOIA.

“There are a host of new regulations waiting in the wings no matter who wins, but especially if the ‘dear one’ loses, to create havoc,” Levin stated.

The records involved in Landmark Legal Foundation v. Environmental Protection Agency that are in dispute include identification of all new rules or regulations for which the public has not yet been given notice, but for which public notice is planned by the EPA before Jan. 20, 2013; the names of individuals, groups or organizations outside EPA with whom the agency has met or talked regarding the pending rules and regulations; documents concerning pending revised or new environmental rules including notes, letters, memoranda, minutes, logs, calendars, schedules, reports, studies, analyses and plans; economic-impact assessments and environmental-impact statements that have been conducted in accordance with any pending new regulations; and efforts by EPA to issue a host of new rules and regulations proposed by environmentalists and other liberal groups, but adamantly opposed by many business and industry organizations and leaders.

Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation petitioned the federal court to block the Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, and her staff from issuing any new regulations until the agency releases the requested documents.

“The Obama Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Lisa Jackson, who launched an enormously expensive program to make America’s minority communities green, has sent millions of taxpayer dollars to environmental causes in nations overseas, including China, Russia and India,” said Michael S. Baker, an attorney and political strategist.

“Obama and his news media cohorts tell Americans that Romney outsourced money overseas. At least it was his own money or his company’s stockholders’ money. Meanwhile Obama and his minions outsource our money on a regular basis,” notes Baker.

Ranking members of a congressional energy committee call it “foreign handouts” amid record deficits, soaring unemployment and U.S. cities declaring bankruptsy. The money — close to $30 million — has been issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is headed by Ms. Jackson, according to Judicial Watch, a group that pursues government documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or through lawsuits filed in federal court.

The cash was distributed via 65 foreign grants that don’t even include what’s given to Canada and Mexico, according to a report released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and obtained by Judicial Watch that reveals in the past the U.S. EPA over $100M in foreign grants to battle pollution … in grants to foreign countries aimed at reducing global pollution.

Fast and Furious, Solyndra, BenghaziGate, the dismissal of criminal charges against the Black Panthers, and other cases of alleged corruption reveal the lack of integrity that exists in history’s “most transparent administration,” according to Inside-the-Beltway watchdog groups. Sadly, President Barack Obama will soon complete his first term, and for almost four years “he has failed miserably to deliver on his promise of being the ‘most transparent administration ever,’” and cabinet-level agencies are among the worst offenders in violating public records laws, according to a Judicial Watch blog entry dated Sept. 28, 2012.

Nineteen of 20 presidential cabinet-level agencies totally ignored the law requiring disclosure of public information, according to analysis conducted by the Bloomberg news syndicate. What are they mostly withholding from American taxpayers? The cost of travel by top officials, which is supposed to be public information. Other federal agencies did the same, with only 8 of a total of 57 meeting the 20-day window required by the federal law known as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Not only is the Obama administration responsible for a staggering budget deficit, the President and his underlings are also responsible for a truth deficit, said several political insiders.

“At least a couple of recent developments lead to this kind of speculation,” gun rights analyst John Snyder said. “One is Obama’s refusal to consider the charge that the Justice Department report on the Fast and Furious federal gun running scandal is a whitewash. Another is Obama’s Pentagon attempt to silence professional military criticism of his policies.”

Snyder noted that the ongoing Fast and Furious scandal involves the top officials Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF allowed straw purchasers of thousands of guns in the United States to move them illegally into Mexico. The guns ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Many reportedly were used in the commission of horrendous crimes, including the murder of American federal law enforcement personnel.

“The Inspector General’s report confirms findings by Congress’ investigation of a near total disregard for public safety in Operation Fast and Furious. Contrary to the denials of the Attorney General and his political defenders in Congress, the investigation found that information in wiretap applications approved by senior Justice Department officials in Washington did contain red flags showing reckless tactics and faults Attorney General Eric Holder’s inner circle for their conduct,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) stated.

“FOIA is a valuable tool in Judicial Watch’s work and we too see it violated consistently. To be fair, it happens in every administration—both Democrat and Republican—and JW regularly must go to court to obtain public records that should be furnished without the need for litigation. Obama promised this would all change, that there would be a ‘new era of open government’ when he moved into the White House,” said Judicial Watch.

Unfortunately for the American people it never materialized, according to Judicial Watch.

It will be possible for undocumenteds approved under Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to receive California licenses, if the government grants those folks one of the legal-status documents required by the DMV, Dennis Romero wrote in Tuesday’s edition of LA Weekly.

However, proponents of tough border security and enforcement of immigration law claim that Obama’s executive order begs the question: What’s the legal basis for Obama’s amnesty program?

On Aug. 16, 2012, the public-interest watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for documents related to the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” directive issued on June 15, 2012.

The new Obama administration policy would allow certain illegal aliens under the age of 31 to apply for protected status that would prevent their deportation and authorize them to work.

Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks the following records in its June 22, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request:

“All records concerning…the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to exercise prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children…Such records include, but are not limited to, opinions, memoranda, or legal advice rendered by the Office of Legal Counsel.”

The DOJ acknowledged that on June 25, 2012, it received the FOIA request, and was required to issue a final response by July 24, 2012. To date, the DOJ has failed to respond to the request in accordance with FOIA law.

On June 22, 2012, Judicial Watch also submitted a similar FOIA request directly to the DHS, which acknowledged that on June 28, 2012, it had received the request. After granting itself a 10-day extension, DHS was required by FOIA law to respond by August 10, 2012. To date, the DHS has also failed to comply with FOIA law.

“This new Obama amnesty program is an attack on the constitutional role of Congress and runs rough shod over existing immigration law. It is no surprise that the Obama administration doesn’t want to share the legal basis for this unilateral executive action and is violating Freedom of Information Act law to keep the American people in the dark,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“President Obama and his political appointees are abusing their offices with this new amnesty program. If the administration were confident about the legality of its actions, it wouldn’t be keeping secret the legal basis for President Obama’s extraordinary decision to unilaterally change the law,” Fitton said.

An “Inside the Beltway” watchdog group announced that it filed yet another Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the secretive Attorney General Eric Holder and the U.S. Department of Justice to obtain records related to the agency blocking a section of South Carolina Act R54 that would have required voters to present photo identification when voting.

Judicial Watch originally filed a FOIA application on Feb. 6, 2012 requesting any and all records “regarding, concerning or related to the Civil Rights Division’s denial of pre-clearance of Section 5 of South Carolina Act R54 (A27 H3003).

Sadly, as of June 19, the DOJ has failed to comply with the FOIA request, according to officials at Judicial Watch.

As Judicial Watch makes clear in its letters, under Section 8 of the National Voters Rights Act
states must make a “reasonable effort” to clean up registration rolls. Section 8 also requires states to make available for public inspection “all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.”

“In other words, Eric Holder and the DOJ are breaking the law by their actions to prohibit compliance with Section 8. This needs to be addressed by Congress and by the courts,” said Mike Baker, a political strategist and attorney.

In addition, the FOIA application requested “any and all records of communication regarding, concerning or related to South Carolina Act R54 between any official or employee of the Civil Rights Division and any other individual or entity.”

In the past, there have been unanswered allegations that the ACLU attorneys met with Justice Department attorneys to discuss voter identification laws and how to stop them, said Baker. He also mentioned meetings between the DOJ and ACORN-off-shoot Project Vote.

The DOJ acknowledged receipt of the request on Feb. 16, 2012. By law, a response was due no later than Mar. 29, 2012. However, to date the DOJ has failed to respond.

In May 2011, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley signed R54 into law.

Under the federal Voting Rights Act’s Section 5, some states, including South Carolina, must have changes to voting laws “pre-cleared” by the DOJ. On Dec. 23, 2011, the Obama DOJ notified South Carolina that it was denying “pre-clearance” of the state’s election integrity law, claiming the provision would suppress minority voting. This was the first law of its type in 20 years to be denied “pre-clearance,” according to Judicial Watch.

On Feb. 7, 2012, the State of South Carolina sued Attorney General Eric Holder to have a three-judge panel to declare R54 consistent with federal law (South Carolina v. Holder (No. 1:12-cv-0203)).

South Carolina counters in its lawsuit, that the new voter ID measures “are not a bar to voting but a temporary inconvenience no greater than the inconvenience inherent in voting itself.” South Carolina also argues that its law is similar to a law passed by the State of Indiana that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of South Carolina stepped into the legal fray and filed a motion to intervene in South Carolina’s lawsuit on Feb. 24, 2012.

A top non-profit, public-interest watchdog group is being assisted by several major news organizations in exposing the myth of the Obama administration’s transparency, according to a statement released on May 25. During his campaign for the White House, President Barack Obama promised he would run the most “transparent White House” in history, but many no longer believe the 2008 campaign promises, say administration critics.

After running a campaign promising transparency, critics claim the Obama White House is engulfed in secrecy. Photo credit: WH Press Office

Fresh from achieving a decisive victory in its lawsuit to obtain revealing and disturbing government records of secret meetings between Obama Defense/CIA officials and Hollywood filmmakers, Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, is now setting its sights on obtaining the White House visitor logs.

No organization knows more about how hard it is to get even a hint of transparency than Judicial Watch, according to an attorney and political consultant working with the Law Enforcement Examiner on issues involving the White House.

The legal watchdog group this time around has been joined by major news outlets and open government organizations in the quest to force the Obama Secret Service to finally release White House visitor logs, according to the group’s Appellate Brief.

On August 17, 2011,  Obama-appointed federal Judge Beryl Howell surprised many observers when she ruled against the Obama administration by stating that Secret Service White House visitor logs are agency records that are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

“In its usual anti-transparency two-step, the Obama administration appealed Howell’s ruling and the lawsuit is now going to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia  (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Secret Service (No. 11-5282)),” according to attorney and political consultant Michael Baker, who is assisting the Law Enforcement Examinerin covering this case.

“The Obama administration has a sham policy of voluntarily releasing select White House visitor logs, while shielding hundreds of thousands visitor logs from public view.  President Obama has made a mockery of his transparency promises to the American people,” said Judicial Watch’s President Tom Fitton.

According to Judicial Watch, among the organizations filing amicus briefs in the group’s litigation are:  Bloomberg, L.P.; CBS Broadcast Inc.; Dow Jones & Company Inc.; Gannett, Co. Inc.; The McClatchy Company; The National Association of Broadcasters; National Freedom of Information Coalition; National Public Radio; The Newspaper Guild; The Radio Television Digital News Association; The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; The Washington Post; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW); Openthegovernment.org; Electronic Frontier Foundation; and the Project on Government Oversight.

According to the amicus curiae brief filed by Bloomberg, et al, the Obama administration is attempting to evade the congressional mandate of FOIA:

“The Media Amici are particularly concerned that reversal of the decision below may encourage federal agencies to seek to place millions of documents outside of FOIA’s ambit based on no more than their say-so, even in the face of express statutes and judicial orders directly to the contrary. Permitting such an end-run around FOIA would significantly reduce the quantity and quality of information available to the media and, consequently, to the public at large, severely undermining the goal of an informed public that sits at the core of our democracy…

“…Media Amici respectfully urge this Court to affirm the District Court’s ruling…and reject the Secret Service’s repeated efforts to evade the congressional mandate of FOIA.

It’s not surprising that the Obama administration will disagree with every aspect of this story. They base reality on their rhetoric instead of, well, reality:

A minute after he took office, the White House website declared his administration would become “the most open and transparent in history.” By the end of his first full day on the job, Obama had issued high-profile orders pledging “a new era” and “an unprecedented level of openness” across the massive federal government.

But three years into his presidency, critics say Obama’s administration has failed to deliver the refreshing blast of transparency that the president promised.

“Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work. … It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it,” said Katherine Meyer, a Washington lawyer who’s been filing FOIA cases since 1978. “This administration is raising one barrier after another. … It’s gotten to the point where I’m stunned — I’m really stunned.”

David Sobel, senior counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that “despite the positive rhetoric that has come from the White House and the attorney general, that guidance has not been translated into real world results in actual cases. … Basically, the reviews are terrible.”

It’s almost as if Sheriff Joe Biden knew the above story was going to be published, because the Veep’s schedule today chimed in right on cue:

“At 1:00 PM, the Vice President will attend a meeting of the Government Accountability and Transparency Board in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. At 2:30 PM, the Vice President will meet with representatives of the National Sheriffs’ Association in the Roosevelt Room. These meetings are closed press.”

This calls for the administration to be be given yet another transparency award… behind closed doors.

“The December 2009 United Nations ‘climate change’ conference in Copenhagen must have been embarrassing for global warming activists and their associates in Washington. The Conference not only failed to enact worldwide ‘climate’ action, but the airlift of President Obama and other government officials must have resulted in huge, wasteful costs for the American people.”

The drama and fantasy of the "sky is falling" crowd wasted more energy, food, money and natural resources than it was worth, say critics. It also provided the world's elite with a free Christmas holiday in Copenhagen. Credit: United Nations

While most denizens of American newsrooms continue to protect the Obama Administration from unfavorable press coverage, the alternative news media — Internet journalists and bloggers, radio talk show hosts and newsmagazines — are uncovering one suspicious incident after another within “the most transparent White House in U.S. history.”

In the latest incident that deserves probing,  Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced Monday that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of OSM Media LLC (d/b/a Pajamas Media (PJM)), against the Department of Defense (DOD) seeking records related to the transportation of all United States government officials, congressional elected officials, staff, families and guests to Copenhagen, Denmark, for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December 2009.

On December 23, 2009, Pajamas Media sent a FOIA request to the Air Force. On June 28, 2010, the Air Force notified Pajamas Media that part of their FOIA request had been forwarded to the Office of the Secretary. Nearly one year later, on May 17, 2011, the Office of the Secretary produced four pages of almost entirely redacted material and informed Pajamas Media that it referred the withheld material to the U.S. Secret Service.

To date, the Air Force has failed to produce any records responsive to Pajamas Media’s FOIA request or demonstrate that the withheld material is legally exempt from production. The Air Force has not indicated whether or when it will produce or identify the requested records.

“What happened to the transparency that candidate Obama promised? It has taken almost a year for this administration to turn over a flight manifest and then that document was heavily redacted. The Obama administration has proven itself to be one of the most secretive administrations in history,” stated Pajamas Media CEO Roger L. Simon.

On behalf of its client, Judicial Watch is asking the court to:

* Order the Air Force to conduct a search for “any and all responsive records;”

* Set a specific date that Pajamas Media is to receive the requested documents;

* Provide OSM Media with a Vaughn index describing the records that are being withheld under claims of exemption.

“The December 2009 United Nations ‘climate change’ conference in Copenhagen must have been embarrassing for global warming activists and their associates in Washington. The Conference not only failed to enact worldwide ‘climate’ action, but the airlift of President Obama and other government officials must have resulted in huge, wasteful costs for the American people.

Rep. Issa hopes to get to the heart of the problem: Obama's non-transparency. Photo: CPAC

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, will hold a public hearing today with ranking members of the Department of Homeland Security to discuss the agency’s handling of its disclosure responsibilities.

Several news organizations and public-interest groups have complained that DHS allows political appointees to play a pivotal role in prioritizing or censoring information it is required to release under the agency’s Freedom of information Act (FOIA) guidelines.

Even lawmakers have complained about the DHS’s handling of FOIA requests. After Rep. Issa began chairing the committee in January, his first act was to request that DHS officials to submit to his office thousands of pages of records, memoranda, and emails between agency officials.

However, Issa claimed DHS’s submission of documents was too slow, and in February he forced two of the department’s employees to submit to transcribed interviews before his committee.

DHS officials repeatedly claim they will cooperate with Issa and his committee’s and they pointed to the thousands of documents the department had turned over to the committee already. They also claimed that it has taken more than 20 staff members, most of whom are attorneys, to work exclusively on Issa’s committee FOIA requests.

However, according to Issa’s office, a whistleblower from within the agency has come forward with information that contradicts what DHS officials and documents are telling him.

Now today, Issa will finally get his chance to publicly address his concerns with Mary Ellen Callahan, the department’s chief privacy officer, and Ivan Fong, the DHS’s general counsel. Both Callahan and Fong are political appointees by the Obama White House.

Issa’s probe of political officers at DHS and the role they play in the FOIA process is a result of an AP news report in July – a time in which the House was still dominated by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.

The AP report stated that top DHS officials had instructed career employees to turn over sensitive FOIA requests to President Obama’s political advisers first before releasing them to anyone outside of the Administration.