Links and Stuff About US Contact Lunar
Welcome to Lunar Magazine
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar  RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The First Act: Light of Day
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LunarMagazine.com Forum Index -> Politics and Philosophy
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
transponder



Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5890
Location: Erotic City

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:47 pm    Post subject: The First Act: Light of Day Reply with quote

Quote:
Obama institutes ethics rules, freezes salaries
President Obama orders sweeping ethics rules for White House, freezes senior-level salaries

* Jennifer Loven, AP White House Correspondent
* Wednesday January 21, 2009, 2:28 pm EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's first public act in office Wednesday was to institute new limits on lobbyists in his White House and to freeze the salaries of high-paid aides, in a nod to the country's economic turmoil.

Announcing the moves while attending a ceremony in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building to swear in his staff, Obama said the steps "represent a clean break from business as usual."

The pay freeze, first reported by The Associated Press, would hold salaries at their current levels for the roughly 100 White House employees who make over $100,000 a year. "Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington," said the new president, taking office amid startlingly bad economic times that many fear will grow worse.

Those affected by the freeze include the high-profile jobs of White House chief of staff, national security adviser and press secretary. Other aides who work in relative anonymity also would fit into that cap if Obama follows a structure similar to the one George W. Bush set up.

Obama's new lobbying rules will not only ban aides from trying to influence the administration when they leave his staff. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted.

The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any size to any member of his administration. It wasn't immediately clear whether the ban would include the traditional "previous relationships" clause, allowing gifts from friends or associates with which an employee comes in with strong ties.

The new rules also require that anyone who leaves his administration is not allowed to try to influence former friends and colleagues for at least two years. Obama is requiring all staff to attend to an ethics briefing like one he said he attended last week.

Obama called the rules tighter "than under any other administration in history." They followed pledges during his campaign to be strict about the influence of lobbyist in his White House.

"The new rules on lobbying alone, no matter how tough, are not enough to fix a broken system in Washington," he said. "That's why I'm also setting rules that govern not just lobbyists but all those who have been selected to serve in my administration."

In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public -- not to look for reasons to legally withhold it -- an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.

Just because a government agency has the legal power to keep information private does not mean that it should, Obama said. Reporters and public-interest groups often make use of the law to explore how and why government decisions were made; they are often stymied as agencies claim legal exemptions to the law.

"For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city," Obama said.

He said the orders he was issuing Wednesday will not "make government as honest and transparent as it needs to be" nor go as far as he would like.

"But these historic measures do mark the beginning of a new era of openness in our country," Obama said. "And I will, I hope, do something to make government trustworthy in the eyes of the American people, in the days and weeks, months and years to come."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jkfunkee___



Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 5788

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lay down the rules barry, the sheeple need guidance
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
transponder



Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5890
Location: Erotic City

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

At least take the time and READ what happened jk.

Do you have any legitimate criticism of substance over this action or are you just gonna slam Obama supporters (sheeple?) no matter the headline?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jkfunkee___



Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 5788

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

im just not down for his self promotion, he is a politician plain and simple. edicts like this are designed to influence the masses, not affect change. outlaw lobbying if he wants, do away with public funding of campaigns. eliminate all corporate support of politics, let the common man vote with his checkbook as corporations have been doing for years. these are real changes, not fluff as this man seems to be all about
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
transponder



Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5890
Location: Erotic City

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not saying I wouldn't be open to exploring your curious proposals, I just think Obama's message of increasing ethics and transparency in government is an important one as it relates to investors' mistrust in the economy.

The last administration was an advocate of deregulation, privatization, and under the table, behind the curtain market transactions. Given those circumstances I don't see the harm in prohibiting administrative staff with White House resources from assuming lofty corporate kickbacks and payola as lobbyists immediately after leaving the staff there, as was so common in the last admin.

How can this NOT attempt to affect change from what is considered the standard in Washington and Wall St. alike? If Obama is "full of fluff" on this issue then I hope he's prepared to be held to his own standard. Seems silly otherwise. I'm not sure how this is interpreted as self-promotion?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
djy



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 3930
Location: Behind the decks!

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the proof will be in the pudding. Too early to say whether it's fluff, or if he sincerely believes he can carry it out.

Change maybe great for the electorate, but D.C. is a whole different story.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
transponder



Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5890
Location: Erotic City

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wheelchair Dick GOING DOWN??
Cheney about to feel the pain of Obama's Mag-Lite??





DOES ANYONE HAVE A CLIP, VID OR PIC, OF THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT IN ONE FRAME OF MEDIA WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA FROM YESTERDAY??

My guess is NOPE!


I don't advocate spending one dime of taxpayer money to investigate water under the bridge (or over the board as it were) making this country with so many other issues vulnerable to another terrorist attack like what happened during Clinton's impeachment hearings, but it looks inevitable that Wheelchair Dick is trying to pull that scene in Casino when the bosses showed up to court with oxygen tanks and nurses.


#2
Quote:
Executive Order -- Presidential Records


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.

(b) "NARA" refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.

(c) "Presidential Records Act" refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.

(d) "NARA regulations" refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.

(e) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.

(f) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.

(g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.

(h) A "final court order" is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.

Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records.

(a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

(b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.

Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President.


(a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.

(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.

(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.

(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order

Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President.

(a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist's determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist's determination with respect to the former President's claim of privilege.

(b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

Sec. 5. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.--(what sort of Iraq info from Daddy's tenure was little Georgie attempting to protect??)



BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 21, 2009
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
transponder



Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5890
Location: Erotic City

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As close as I could find...but he's just waving goodbye to Bush right?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Thesouphead



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 15214

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jkfunkee___ wrote:
im just not down for his self promotion, he is a politician plain and simple. edicts like this are designed to influence the masses, not affect change.



so this is simply just Obama running for 2012?



what about the news that came out yesterday and is coming out today....about him closing down the so-called secret prisons and torture camps?

trying to close down GITMO.


that would be change would it not?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thesouphead



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 15214

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

transponder wrote:

DOES ANYONE HAVE A CLIP, VID OR PIC, OF THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT IN ONE FRAME OF MEDIA WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA FROM YESTERDAY?? ]



you think Secret Service is going to allow that to happen? The guy shots his own friends in the face!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
djy



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 3930
Location: Behind the decks!

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thesouphead wrote:
jkfunkee___ wrote:
im just not down for his self promotion, he is a politician plain and simple. edicts like this are designed to influence the masses, not affect change.



so this is simply just Obama running for 2012?



what about the news that came out yesterday and is coming out today....about him closing down the so-called secret prisons and torture camps?

trying to close down GITMO.


that would be change would it not?


It is. And good change at that. One thing we have to be really careful of in this "war on terror" is becoming more like the other side ourselves.

If we don't respect basic rights, like a right to trial, then how do we expect others to do so?

Now what should we do with the prisoners?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jkfunkee___



Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 5788

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thesouphead wrote:
jkfunkee___ wrote:
im just not down for his self promotion, he is a politician plain and simple. edicts like this are designed to influence the masses, not affect change.



so this is simply just Obama running for 2012?



what about the news that came out yesterday and is coming out today....about him closing down the so-called secret prisons and torture camps?

trying to close down GITMO.


that would be change would it not?


say what u want...but that shit clearly has worked. has the homeland been attacked by "terrorist" again? it's a war of cultures/religion with no real end, your man is on board leading the charge into afghanistan bro. and 2 ur further point bout the year of all years (a nod to our reality sandwich brethren) a 1st termers top priority is re-election soupy. the prisoners? that's what the hague is for, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court ) present a case agin em, let the chips fall where they may.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
djy



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 3930
Location: Behind the decks!

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jkfunkee___ wrote:

say what u want...but that shit clearly has worked. has the homeland been attacked by "terrorist" again?


The homeland wasn't attacked between '93 (1st wtc bombing) and 2001 either. Does that mean Clinton was successful in defending the homeland too?

I don't think the absence of an attack can be directly correlated to Gitmo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thesouphead



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 15214

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

djy wrote:

Now what should we do with the prisoners?



send them to prisons.....treat them the same way we treat other believed-to be-criminals every day. In fact, we might have done more damage by the way we handled some of these people.....giving them more street cred or giving them greater martyr type status.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thesouphead



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 15214

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jkfunkee___ wrote:
Thesouphead wrote:
jkfunkee___ wrote:
im just not down for his self promotion, he is a politician plain and simple. edicts like this are designed to influence the masses, not affect change.



so this is simply just Obama running for 2012?



what about the news that came out yesterday and is coming out today....about him closing down the so-called secret prisons and torture camps?

trying to close down GITMO.


that would be change would it not?


say what u want...but that shit clearly has worked. has the homeland been attacked by "terrorist" again? it's a war of cultures/religion with no real end, your man is on board leading the charge into afghanistan bro. and 2 ur further point bout the year of all years (a nod to our reality sandwich brethren) a 1st termers top priority is re-election soupy. the prisoners? that's what the hague is for, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court ) present a case agin em, let the chips fall where they may.


the shit clearly has worked?



how do you know?



how do you know it wasn't new episodes of the Office that kept us safe......from what I can tell, ever since the Office has been on tv, we have not been attacked........thank you Dwight Schrute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LunarMagazine.com Forum Index -> Politics and Philosophy All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot add events in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 
home  |  features  |  events  |  reviews  |  dj charts  |  forum  |  my lunar  |  links  |  about us  |  contact