Committments

"No More Secrecy"

"when there's a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you the public will have 5 days to look online, to find out what's in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doin'"
-Barack Obama [quote from the above video clip]

Today's multi-billion dollar bill was signed 4.5 days after it was passed. The "most sweeping economic recovery package" in US history, was not available for the promised 5 days.

The $32.8 Children's Health Initiative bill was signed by the President just a few hours after it was passed.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed by the President without it being released online at all (not until after the signing).

So far, the only bill I can find that was signed after the promised campaign platforms was the Digital TV Bill, which was signed 6 days after being posted online for public comment. Was that as important as the economic stimulus package? Or the Children's Health Inititiative? Or the Fair Pay Act? The least important was given 6 days, the most important less than 5 days, and others either not posted at all or only posted for a few hours. Is it really too much to ask for politicians to keep up the promises they made to the very public who voted for them?

??

Thanks to the Canadian Sentinel for posting the link to this story. I just had to hand over my own high school and college transcripts along with my birth certificate to adhere to Govt policy in my province for working with young children at the daycare center, in order to make $10/hour. I had to show my childrens' birth certificates to their school and sports teams to prove that 1- they were Canadian citizens (my oldest is a Permanent Resident, born in England so I had to show proof of his citizenship as well) and 2 - that I had valid custody of them. If I have to show a birth certificate for my children to receive an education in a country that requires all children to go to school (same as the US), and show my records for partental peace of mind over their chidren's caregivers, why wouldn't a president of an entire country have to show his?

That's all I've been asking. I heard about this early last year on the Talk Radio circuit and still cannot figure out why proof of birth and citizenship did not get handed over for this candidate, who is now the Pres. Is it a trivial matter like some are suggesting? Well then why do other people have to show their proof of birth and such in order to qualify for the very programs that this president wants to push forward? Think about it. Is that fair (let alone is it legal)?

Here We Go

I have mentioned here and there for people to watch for anything resembling the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, and here it crops up again in the news. Another possibility would be be an 'equal time' doctrine. Concern from certain radio hosts I have listened to is that they already cannot get Liberals to come on their shows and have a chat. They refuse to do it, so how are they going to be able to comply with an equal time doctrine if they cannot get anyone to come on their programs and 'make things more fair and equal'? What I want to know is, why introduce something like this? What about freedom of speech? If people can stand out on a street corner with a sign, shouting and opposing Gay people, other religions, protest at soldier's funerals, and so on and get away with it for 'freedom of speech', why can't radio hosts have that freedom? It also takes away my rights if they are taken off the air because I pay to get this satellite radio in order to be able to listen to them. Some you can hear online for free, but I pay to hear all of them. The article sites that the new president is talking about transparency and accountability so this senator doesn't see a problem with enforcing this or a similar doctrine again. What on earth does transparency and accountability at the White House have to do with the airwaves? If anything - allowing these programs to continue IS transparency and accountability, is it not? If the hosts tell the public about certain things going on in the govt and tell them how to check it out for themselves, how is that not adding to the transparency and accountability pres Obama has been talking about? My thoughts are that taking it away would be the opposite of everything he has been stressing.

I was alerted to the news story by reading a post at The Canadian Sentinel. There is a very interesting entry about Diane Sawyer and Rush Limbaugh as well - check it out!

this is hogwash, seriously

Okay, so you have to wonder what is going on with the new President. I don't mean him any disrespect but he has been pushing this new bill HARD, and it's been shown on every tv and radio network around. You know it and I know it. So why, AFTER countries started expressing concern over the Buy America clause, is he now suddenly saying he promises to review that section? Did he not review it in the first place? Why push a bill if you don't even know what's in it?? THINK about it people. It is really starting to tick me off that so many are still falling under this 'spell'. Before he was even elected president I heard sound clips from Pres Obama himself saying he wants to reduce the US's reliance on foreign products such as oil. But now suddenly, out of the magical air, he is expressing concern over that part of the bill? People that have not paid attention to the 'bad press' about him over the past couple of years will hear his words and think it's great he is stepping up to the plate. But why not sit back and wonder why he even let it be there in the first place? He has had televised interviews and meetings where he was very direct about wanting this bill passed. NOW he wants to review it?? ONE ARTICLE says that ""White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the U.S. President is eager to make sure the $820-billion (U.S.) stimulus plan doesn't violate international trade agreements."" but that the VP Biden says """I don't view that as some of the pure free traders view it, as a harbinger of protectionism. I don't buy that at all"". What exactly is going on that such a massive bill is being pushed when the Pres and VP don't even seem to understand or know what is in it??? That seems to be to be very irresponsible.

And it is also confusing to find out what really happened because I have seen and heard news reports that the initial bill stated only steel and iron products would be affected, but now the bill hitting the Senate is broader, ""mandating that only U.S.-made goods and equipment be used in all federally funded stimulus projects - everything from computer software to hard hats."". And yet again the President has been on television hoping the bill gets passed. Is this an indicator of political inexperience showing through? Something that many people were concerned about when he won the election? Is this an indicator of the lack of foreign affairs experience people were worried about? To me it shows that while yes, he appears to be a good person, a well educated man, a good figurehead for the country - his inexperience is showing and he has not even been in place for a full month yet. Do you not find that frightening? I have seen people talk of change, wanting to get the 'old dogs' out of Washington and bring in someone new with new fresh ideas. Well, how's it going so far, eh?

My concern is that this bill has been pushed and encouraged by the president himself strongly. When he was in talks with fellow govt heads and some were expressing concerns, his response in the end was "I won". I have heard no end of people over the years talking about how arrogant George Bush was - well I can't help but notice the arrogance of the new president showing through already too. Is that a sign of inexperience yet again or arrogance, or both? Why not fully review the bill over and over before pushing it if he honestly did not realize that clause was in there? Why risk putting other countries on alert, countries that are allies and very important to the US and each other? Canada reacted immediately with PM Harper saying he EXPECTS the US to honor it's trade agreements. He did not say 'hope' he said 'expect'. There was a distinct power in those words.

Another concerning issue came up on Sirius Patriot yesterday when US Congressman Michelle Bachman (sp) phoned in to talk about what happened when the president met with the republicans in the House. She was shocked and surprised by some of the president's answers and comments to their questions. To hear it for yourself, you need to go to Mark Levin's program website and click on FEB 2 AUTO REWIND, and you will hear the whole thing starting at 53:20 into it (slide the bar across until you get there). I do not know how long Mark leaves his replays up so if it is gone, I am transcripting the interesting parts here to the best of my abilities. All " " parts will be Bachman speaking..... "several times during the course of his conversation with us, [President Obama] mentioned that the stimulus package is only the first leg on the stool for what he wants to do with the economy. It's the first leg. He said that he wants to also do something for the financial services community and also after that was he wants to do something for mortgage assistance. So the shocking news with that is that this trillion dollars isn't enough, it sounds like this is just the beginning of what he has planned"... "He hasn't talked about how many legs this stool is going to be". And in reference to the financial services/mortgage assistance comment Bachman said "And if that's the case, I want to know what that 700 billion dollars that he voted for was for".... "The other thing, we were only able to ask him about 6 questions in the course of an hour, and one that thing we brought up is the massive punishing tax increase that will be required to pay for this trillion dollar tax increase [sic - stimulus package]and I haven't heard anyone talk about Obama's reply to that, and he said to us, and he started out kinda joking and he said 'Well I just live down the street in a pretty nice house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue' and then he said 'I don't have very many expenses over there and I don't pay property taxes so I can afford to pay a little more in taxes'. And we looked at him and we looked at each other and we thought 'well yeah you live in public housing and not paying property taxes, but the rest of us are. And it just struck us as odd that he said he could afford more to pay in taxes but there's all the rest of us out here that don't have a choice."

So, reading that, what is your response??? What is your gut feeling about this man, coupled with trying to appoint THREE different people in a very short span of time who ALL cheated on their taxes, to an amount that is more than many people make in a year, let alone pay in taxes. Sorry, they made 'mistakes'. Awwwwww.

Read that again, read Obama's responses according to Congressman Bachman who was sitting right there, and understand a little more about this man that was supposed to be the great new hope of America, and read other countries' reactions to parts of the Bill he himself has been trying to push through. Think about it, that is all I ask people to do!

**Update: Case-in-point, I just watched the Prez on CNN talking about how if the stimulus plan is delays, it will turn a crisis into a catastrophe and he was urging congress to pass it. He even said that no bill 'is perfect'. So at the same time as saying things need to be revised and looked into, he is urging it to be passed quickly. Push Push Push, but yet admitting things need to be reviewed. How about review it, check it all out, make sure all is legal, talk to other countries about the Buy America clause, and then when it's all tied up nice and pretty, try to push it through. What's he going to do? Veto it after all this? Ummm NOT! Someone on Canadian TV last night suggested he might veto the plan. Why the heck would he do that when he is the one on tv pushing it to be put through? Hello??