The full text of the amendment reads as follows:

Question On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Coburn Amdt. No. 3556) Amendment purpose To reduce the cost of providing federally funded prescription drugs by eliminating fraudulent payments and prohibiting coverage of Viagra for child molesters and rapists and for drugs intended to induce abortion.

Question On the Motion (Motion to Waive Sec. 313 of the CBA Grassley Amdt. No. 3564)Amendment purpose To make sure the President, Cabinet Members, all White House Senior staff and Congressional Committee and Leadership Staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Here's Who Voted How:

Max Baucus had one of those Maxine Waters moments last week when he let this slip out. "Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," he said. "Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

I'm sure everyone who is familiar with Democrat-think already knew this bill has nothing to do with health care, but I'm sure when the buzz wore off the sleaze high that the Democrats had after passing the Socialized Medicine Act that he reminded himself not to say things like that in his outside voice.

A Rasmussen poll, just out, shows the race to fill the vacant Massachusetts Senate seat narrowing. Democrat Martha Coakley still leads in the polls by a margin of 50% to 41% ahead of Republican challenger Scott Brown.  However, two months ago Coakley led by a comfortable 25 point margin. Among the ever-dangerous independent voters Brown leads by an overwhelming 65% to 21% margin.  Should Brown pull off a victory, this upset could be a disaster for the Democrat take over of the health care system.  Brown would represent the 41st Republican Senator, ending the Democrats' current lock on the Senate.  Further, Brown has stated publicly that he will filibuster to stop passage of the health care bill,  as well as the Cap and Tax legislation, if elected.

Even with the momentum behind him, Brown is going to require huge amounts of support to upset Coakley, who is backed by the Democrat and SEIU  political machines.   With the Democrats pushing the legislation through behind closed doors, Brown is seen by many as the last best hope of averting the health care fiasco that will result should the Democrats succeed.

Senate Tricks Make it Hard to Find the Senate Health Care Bill

The Constitution requires that all revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives. This would make Harry Reid's health care bill unconstitutional from the very start, but as you may have already guessed, the Constitution is nothing more than an annoyance to Democrats. That's why they have to use trickery to get around it. How does it work?

In order to create revenue or appropriations bills in the Senate, they simply take some piece of legislation previously sent over by the House and completely gut it, inserting whatever language they want as an amendment. In the case of Harry Reid's government health care takeover bill, the bill started its life as H. R. 3590 Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. The bill is now titled H. R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate). That's how easy it is to ignore the Constitution, and it gets easier with the practice that they get every single day. It truly makes the Oath of Office a very bad joke.

If you've been looking for this horrendous piece of legislation, the best place to read it is here: H. R. 3590

It may not be time kiss grandma and grandpa goodbye just yet, but it's getting closer. In a strictly party-line vote all Democrats and both Independents voted for cloture on the Obamacare bill. All Republicans voted no, except for George Voinovich (R-OH) who is either too cowardly or simply did not care enough about the subject to vote.

The Senate Bill which aims to nationalize health care in the U. S. by emulating the failed systems of Massachusetts, Canada, most of Western Europe and Cuba should never have even come up for debate. The question is actually: Do you want a health care system like the one in Cuba? The answer is No! That should have been the extent of the debate. Instead, we can look forward to Senators whose blind lust for power at any cost will destroy the American health care system and America along with it.

Make no mistake about it, these people will pass this legislation no matter what the American people have to say on the matter, because they represent only themselves and their desire to control others. They long ago ceased being representatives of the people and believe they have now become our masters. Continuously, they either willfully ignore, or show utter contempt for their constituents.

Those who care about America still have a powerful weapon at their disposal — the power of the vote. Anyone who voted for this bill needs to pay the price for it at the polls. Don't forget this day whether it is next November or in 2012. Beyond that, we need a new form of leadership in this country, representatives that are of the people, not elitist professional politicians who have never worked an honest day in their lives. Surely, there are millions of people working all across America, people of principle, people of character, people of integrity, who must now consider stepping forward and running for office to retake control from the rabble that has overrun our government. The time has come. Stand up! Be heard! Here's how they voted:

Before posting the results for the Hamilton confirmation, let's attempt to understand how this judge was confirmed by the senate with only a simple majority. Only yesterday we discovered that once the cloture motion successfully passed with full majority support, only a simple majority was then needed for confirmation. Slick, huh? See, a handful of senators were able to vote for cloture, under the guise that it would be a principled vote to end debate, and then change their vote on confirmation. These turncoats come out smelling like a rose, since the only vote most people will pay attention to over time is the actual confirmation vote. Sort of like vote laundering. You know, "voted for it before I voted against it."

While not many people understand all of the complexites involved in the legislative process, our representatives know exactly what they are doing – or at least they should. Without these 10 Republican senators voting for the cloture motion, David Hamilton would never have been confirmed. Consider that when viewing the final Hamilton confirmation vote. 

Final Confirmation Vote Results: 59-39 (56 Democrats, 1 Republican, 2 Independants)

Confirmation vote results are the same as the cloture motion vote with the following changes:

10 Republican senators that voted against their party in favor of cloture, but later voted in vain against confirmation: Susan Collins, Saxby Chambliss, John Cornyn, Judd Gregg, Orrin Hatch, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, John Thune. Kay Hutchison was absent on cloture vote, but voted against confirmation.

2 Democrats voted in favor of cloture then absent on confirmation vote: Max Baucus, Robert Byrd.

Note: Richard Lugar (R-IN) was the sole Republican voting for the confirmation of Judge David H. Hamilton.

10 Republican Senators Vote To Advance David Hamilton Nomination 

It looks like the filibuster hold that has successfully delayed a confirmation vote for the anti-Jesus, pro-abortion judicial appointment of David H. Hamilton of Indiana will now come to an end, and a confirmation vote will soon follow. As covered in our previous article, Judge David Hamilton would carry controversial baggage with him to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals should his confirmation vote pass. What is highly disconcerting about this vote that occurred today is that the extremist ideologies Hamilton has expressed from the bench in the past, as well as prior associations, would not bode well with the majority of American people and certainly not with conservative Republicans. It is important that Americans understand the seriousness of each judicial appointment and hold their representatives accountable for the vetting and ultimately the confirmation of those worthy and unworthy to a lifetime bench appointment.

With Cap and Trade, Healthcare, Afghanistan, Gitmo, Japanese bowing etiquette, and so many other important issues overwhelming the media, it is no wonder little time has been devoted to Judge Hamilton's confirmation. Perhaps these senators don't think the American people will even notice that on this day 70 Senators chose to advance the nomination of a judge who once used his judicial powers to rule that it was not okay to mention Jesus Christ in prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives but was okay to use the name of Allah. While that decision was overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, ironically, that is the very court for which Hamilton could now sit.

If the American majority were informed of all of the controversy surrounding this judge, it is unlikely they would have voted today for a motion to invoke cloture much less for confirmation. So why did their representatives? Seven of the ten Republicans voting in favor of this motion will not face reelection until 2012. Gregg, Murkowski, and Thune are the only three who will face reelection in 2010. Chambliss's office has assured us that while he voted for the cloture motion, he would not vote for confirmation. Are other senators thinking along the same lines, intending to vote against confirmation, or could it be they assume their constituents will not remember? Perhaps that is how it has been in the past, but isn't it high time we prove them wrong?

Who Voted How on Motion to Invoke Cloture on David Hamilton Nomination

(A Nay Vote by Republicans Would Have Continued to Delay Hamilton's Confirmation.)

Nay WY Barrasso, John [R]

Nay UT Bennett, Robert [R]

Nay MO Bond, Christopher [R]

Nay KS Brownback, Samuel [R]

Nay KY Bunning, Jim [R]

Nay NC Burr, Richard [R]

Nay OK Coburn, Thomas [R]

Nay MS Cochran, Thad [R]

Nay TN Corker, Bob [R]

Nay ID Crapo, Michael [R]

Nay SC DeMint, Jim [R]

Nay NV Ensign, John [R]

Nay WY Enzi, Michael [R]

Nay SC Graham, Lindsey [R]

Nay IA Grassley, Charles [R]

Nay OK Inhofe, James [R]

Nay GA Isakson, John [R]

Nay NE Johanns, Mike [R]

Nay AZ Kyl, Jon [R]

Nay FL LeMieux, George [R]

Nay AZ McCain, John [R]

Nay KY McConnell, Mitch [R]

Nay ID Risch, James [R]

Nay KS Roberts, Pat [R]

Nay AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]

Nay AL Shelby, Richard [R]

Nay LA Vitter, David [R]

Nay OH Voinovich, George [R]

Nay MS Wicker, Roger [R]

(A Yea Vote by Democrats, Independents, and 10 Republicans Ended the Filibuster Hold and Will Allow a Full Vote.)

(10 Republicans Who Voted Against Their Party:  Lamar Alexander (TN), Saxby Chambliss – 2012 (R), Susan Collins – 2012 (R), John Cornyn – 2012 (TX), Judd Gregg – 2010 (NH), Orrin Hatch – 2012 (UT), Richard Lugar – 2012 (IN), Lisa Murkowski – 2010 (AK), Olympia Snowe – 2012 (ME), John Thune – 2010 (SD))

Yea HI Akaka, Daniel [D]

Yea TN Alexander, Lamar [R]

Yea MT Baucus, Max [D]

Yea IN Bayh, Evan [D]

Yea AK Begich, Mark [D]

Yea CO Bennet, Michael [D]

Yea NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]

Yea CA Boxer, Barbara [D]

Yea OH Brown, Sherrod [D]

Yea IL Burris, Roland [D]

Yea WV Byrd, Robert [D]

Yea WA Cantwell, Maria [D]

Yea MD Cardin, Benjamin [D]

Yea DE Carper, Thomas [D]

Yea PA Casey, Robert [D]

Yea GA Chambliss, Saxby [R]

Yea ME Collins, Susan [R]

Yea ND Conrad, Kent [D]

Yea TX Cornyn, John [R]

Yea CT Dodd, Christopher [D]

Yea ND Dorgan, Byron [D]

Yea IL Durbin, Richard [D]

Yea WI Feingold, Russell [D]

Yea CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]

Yea MN Franken, Al [D]

Yea NY Gillibrand, Kirsten [D]

Yea NH Gregg, Judd [R]

Yea NC Hagan, Kay [D]

Yea IA Harkin, Thomas [D]

Yea UT Hatch, Orrin [R]

Yea HI Inouye, Daniel [D]

Yea SD Johnson, Tim [D]

Yea DE Kaufman, Edward [D]

Yea MA Kerry, John [D]

Yea MA Kirk, Paul [D]

Yea MN Klobuchar, Amy [D]

Yea WI Kohl, Herbert [D]

Yea LA Landrieu, Mary [D]

Yea NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]

Yea VT Leahy, Patrick [D]

Yea MI Levin, Carl [D]

Yea CT Lieberman, Joseph [I]

Yea AR Lincoln, Blanche [D]

Yea IN Lugar, Richard [R]

Yea MO McCaskill, Claire [D]

Yea NJ Menendez, Robert [D]

Yea OR Merkley, Jeff [D]

Yea MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]

Yea AK Murkowski, Lisa [R]

Yea WA Murray, Patty [D]

Yea NE Nelson, Ben [D]

Yea FL Nelson, Bill [D]

Yea AR Pryor, Mark [D]

Yea RI Reed, John [D]

Yea NV Reid, Harry [D]

Yea WV Rockefeller, John [D]

Yea VT Sanders, Bernard [I]

Yea NY Schumer, Charles [D]

Yea NH Shaheen, Jeanne [D]

Yea ME Snowe, Olympia [R]

Yea PA Specter, Arlen [D]

Yea MI Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]

Yea MT Tester, Jon [D]

Yea SD Thune, John [R]

Yea CO Udall, Mark [D]

Yea NM Udall, Tom [D]

Yea VA Warner, Mark [D]

Yea VA Webb, Jim [D]

Yea RI Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]

Yea OR Wyden, Ron [D]

Not Voting TX Hutchison, Kay [R]

We've already witnessed a number of controversial Czar appointments, and it appears the president is attempting to infiltrate our courts with far-left liberal activist judges as well. Keep in mind that since some judicial appointments are for life, an extensive vetting process for all nominees should be compulsory. You'd think prior rulings, publications, speeches, and all other pertinent background should be thoroughly examined for any nominee before coming to a Senate confirmation vote. Inadequate vetting as happened with former Green Czar Van Jones is inexcusable at the executive level and should not be repeated, especially for a lifelong court appointment. True, some nominees will skate through the confirmation process despite controversy, as happened with Cass Sunstein, but at least there's a good chance he will go away after 2012. Not so if Hamilton is confirmed.

Back in March, Obama's very first judicial nominee was to appoint anti-Jesus, pro-abortion Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Indiana Senators Luger (R-IN) and Bayh (D-IN) did recommend the judge, for what may be obvious reasons, but conservative groups immediately took exception to Judge Hamilton as clearly being a far-left extremist, unworthy of a lifetime bench appointment.

There has been no vote by the Senate so far for Hamilton, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) intends to change that and has announced plans to call for a cloture vote to cut off further debate putting an end to a filibuster-hold. "We're going to do Judge David Hamilton, 7th Circuit. He's been waiting since April," commented the senator. According to Executive Calendar No. 184 on the lis.gov website, the mandatory quorum required under Rule XXII is ordered to be waived relative to the cloture motion, and the vote will take place sometime on Tuesday, November 17, 2009.

Senator Sessions: Urges No Vote for Judge David Hamilton

While the White House calls Hamilton a moderate judge, Conservatives call him a liberal activist bench legislator. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) wrote a letter on Oct. 30th voicing concerns about the Hamilton nomination. The Sessions' letter covers some concerns over Hamilton's past statements and decisions, including:

• Judge Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes writing footnotes to the Constitution. In explaining this statement to Senator Hatch, Judge Hamilton wrote that he believes the Framers intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law.
  
• Judge Hamilton has also written that empathy should factor into the judicial decision making process.
  
• Judge Hamilton prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that expressly mentioned Jesus Christ as violative of the Establishment Clause, yet he allowed prayers which mentioned Allah. The Seventh Circuit reversed his ruling.
  
• Judge Hamilton denied a Rabbi's plea to allow a Menorah to be part of the Indianapolis Municipal Building's holiday display. The Seventh Circuit unanimously reversed.
  
• Lawyers in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary describe Judge Hamilton as one of the most lenient judges in his district in criminal matters.
  
• In United States v. Rinehart, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19498 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2007), Judge Hamilton used his opinion to request clement for a police officer who pled guilty to two counts of producing child pornography.
  
• In United States v. Woolsey, 535 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2008), the Seventh Circuit faulted Judge Hamilton for disregarding an earlier conviction in order to avoid imposing a life sentence on a repeat offender.
  
• … A Woman's Choice v. Newman, 904 F. Supp. 1434 (S.D. Ind. 1995). Through his rulings in this case, Judge Hamilton succeeded in blocking the enforcement of an Indiana informed consent law for 7 years. In reversing, the Seventh Circuit noted that Judge Hamilton had abused his judicial discretion…
  

Judge Hamilton has also served as board member of the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and as a fundraiser for ACORN. Also, notice in the above-referenced rulings that on several occasions Hamilton had his hand slapped by the same judicial body for which President Obama intends that he would serve: the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Just who will slap his hands now if he gets confirmed to sit on that very bench?

There is no longer a need for Americans to fear creeping socialism in America. The days of creeping are over. It has now grabbed America by the throat and is gnawing at its jugular vein. Last night the Democrats in the House of Representatives voted 220 to 215 to socialize American medicine. Of course, they will characterize it differently.

Make no mistake. This bill, H.R. 3962, supported by the economically illiterate, will destroy the health care system in America in order to bring about the real goal of this legislation: to bring America into the fold of European-style socialist nations. Under this bill, the youth of America, brimming with false feelings of altruism, could now be forced to buy insurance or pay a fine of up to $250,000 and serve a jail term of up to five years for failing to buy insurance for themselves. The senior citizens who support this bill because of their love of the bankrupt medicare system could also have their prescription drug coverage cut along with other steep cuts in medicare payments. Congress? Oh, they'll be just fine.  Don't worry about them, they don't have to participate in the system they've created for the rest of us.

The anti-abortion Democrats added an amendment to the Saturday evening voting agenda that will not allow federal funds to be spent on abortions except under special circumstances. There is concern that once the House bill is merged with the Senate bill, the anti-abortion provision could be eliminated or perhaps modified to cover abortions with an additional insurance rider. Regarding the amendment vote, House Republican Leader John Boehner commented, "Just because we pass an amendment to help facilitate the passage of what I think is a bad bill, does not mean that the language that this House votes on is committed to by the Democrat leader in this House." This concession to pro-life Democrats was required in order to get the votes Nancy Pelosi needed for passage. The anti-abortion amendment passed easily on a vote of 240-194. Had the Republicans really wanted to defeat the health care bill, they could have voted en masse against the amendment. That would have caused the defeat of the bill, since the pro-life Democrats would then most likely have voted against the entire bill. But then that would have been playing political games; right?

Because one lone Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted in favor of this horrendous bill, will the Democrats and liberal news media now claim that H.R. 3962 was passed with bipartisan support? The gullible Rep. Cao said last night, "Tonight, I voted to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion and to deliver access to affordable health care to the people of Louisiana."

What was Cao promised by the Obama administration for his vote? He tells us, "Today, I obtained a commitment from President Obama that he and I will work together to address the critical health care issues of Louisiana including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals. And, I call on my constituents to support me as I work with him on these issues."  Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao was elected in December 2008 to represent a heavily Democratic section of New Orleans replacing Democratic Rep. William Jefferson who had served that area for nine terms. At the time of the '08 election, Jefferson was under indictment on 16 corruption charges and has since been convicted on multiple felony charges. Please remember Representative Cao on election day next November and help put an end to his brief term in office.

Watching the vote live on Saturday night, it was interesting to note that several Democrats waited until after the bill had passed to cast last-minute votes against H.R. 3962, apparently, in an effort to save their seats. Cao's vote in favor of the bill was also a last-minute vote. Being the lone Republican supporting the bill, his vote was easy to identify. The names of those last-minute Democratic votes were not easily identifiable, so it will be interesting to find out who they are. When we find out, we'll be sure to publish their names.

Who Voted How on H.R. 3962

Here's how they voted:

One of the many broken promises made by Obama during the '08 campaign was that his administration would be the most transparent in history. That sentiment became hugely popular among voters and was immediately echoed by other congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Pelosi, who vowed to end the "culture of corruption."  Why then, ten months into the Obama administration are the American people still waiting for the transparency they were promised? Are voters even aware that any attempts to introduce transparency in legislation since that change in power have been voted down by the very same Democrats that made those promises?

As the federal deficit skyrockets into unchartered nethersperes, Americans are growing increasingly frustrated with congress as legislation is routinely altered through partisan committee negotiations, back-room deals, and closed-door meetings. Introducing last-minute amendments and tacking on costly "pork" projects to bills as they migrate through numerous committees in the voting process without disclosing those alterations publicly is not what voters had in mind when they heard the word transparent. Not even close. The fact that congress does not seem to understand this concept is in part why their approval rating has reached record low numbers. People want to have a look at the menu and the prices themselves before placing their order. Too many people are struggling to live within dwindling means, and they are tired of picking up the huge tabs generated by the gaggle of swindlers that roam the halls of Congress.

Transparency Legislation: H.Res. 216, S.Amdt. 934, H.Res. 554, H.Res. 689

To  better understand how the new administration has fared on its promise of an open and transparent legislative process, let's take a look at some of the legislation proposed over the last ten months and see just who it is that continues to stand in the way of transparency:  

On March 5th, H. Res. 216, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), along with 8 cosponsors, would have required that congress have "time to read legislation before voting." This amendment was referred to the House Committee on Rules, chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), on March 5th and remains there to this day.

On April 2nd, S. Amdt. 934 to S. Con. Res. 13, proposed by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), would have required five days for the public to review legislation before being considered for final passage by the Senate. (There were no co-sponsors to this amendment.) A point of order was immediately raised as to the germaneness of the amendment and was then voted down 52-46. All 52 Senators voting against this legislation were Democrats. Every Republican senator, including Snowe, voted in favor of this transparency amendment, as did five Democrats. 

On June 17th, H.Res. 554, sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), was introduced that would require legislation and conference reports to be posted online for 72 hours before consideration for final passage by the House. The number of cosponsors to this legislation continues to grow and seems to be the best hope for a mild bipartisan effort toward transparency. To date there are 208 cosponsors, yet still this amendment has not come to the House floor for a vote. On Sept. 23rd, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) filed a motion to discharge petition to help move the bill out of the House Committee on Rules, chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), where it now sits, and onto the floor of the House for a vote. A motion to discharge petition can be used to release a bill such as H.Res. 554 through the committee system if 218 Members will sign the petition. (Now only 10 Members shy.)

Regarding H. Res. 554, Rep. Baird stated, "This isn't about politics. Both parties are guilty. Now is the time to fix this once and for all, and put rules in place so that Congress is better able to serve the American people. People should have a chance to read what is in legislation before it becomes law, not after." Questioning why Congress overwhelmingly agreed to a 72-hour review period for an agriculture appropriations bill but would not agree to the same guidelines for every House bill, Rep. Walden made the comment, "If the 72-hour rule is good enough for the agriculture appropriations bill, then what stops my colleagues from signing the petition to give the public time to review all bills, like major healthcare reform? This is about one thing: the public's right to know. It's time to change how Washington works." 

On July 29th, H.R. 689, sponsored by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), along with 36 co-sponsors, was introduced requiring legislation be made available for a 72-hour period before being brought to a vote in the House.  According to Rep. Posey's website, "This not only applies to the underlying bill to be considered but also to any manager's amendment or other amendment that makes significant changes to the bill."  H. Res. 689 was referred to the House Committee on Rules, chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), on July 29th, and remains there to this day. 

Finally, on October 15th, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), along with 99 cosponsors, introduced legislation to ban the adding of "phantom amendments" to legislation once a bill has been passed by committee. The bill, H. Res. 835, would require that legislation be posted online within 24 hours after a committee vote. Regarding this important move toward transparency in legislation, Rep. Jenkins said, "This is only my first year in Washington, but if this is business as usual, then it's time for business to change. Committees should post legislation online within 24-hours to give all members of Congress as well as the American people time to read and understand the legislation. The status quo of secrecy and back-door deals has worn out its welcome."  H. Res. 835 was referred to the House Committee on Rules, chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), where it remains at this time.

And there are others. Based on the number of bills being introduced, clearly some in Washington are beginning to support the right of Americans to be actively involved in the crafting of legislation that they will be expected to write the checks for and ultimately live under. Would it also be fair to suggest that others in Congress choosing not to vote in favor of these transparency bills either consider their constituents not intelligent enough to read and comprehend the legislation, or is it that they don't want the people to see what they are up to? Transparent means to be able to see through something, and the American people are clearly starting to see through the games that these politicians are playing. Perhaps we have transparency after all — just not the kind they promised.