Forward with transparency.

[youtube:2fqxt37v][/youtube:2fqxt37v]

[youtube:2fqxt37v][/youtube:2fqxt37v]

The House of Representatives easily passed legislation on Wednesday to re-authorize the FISA Amendments Act, the 2008 law that allows the federal government to intercept the international communications of Americans with minimal judicial oversight. The vote was 301 to 118.

"I think that the government needs to comply with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution all the time," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) in a floor speech opposing the bill. "We can be safe while still complying with the Constitution of the United States."

The FAA was originally enacted in the heat of the 2008 campaign season. During the primary, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) declared his opposition to a provision providing retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that illegally participated in surveillance programs, vowing to filibuster the legislation if it came to the Senate floor. But once he secured the Democratic nomination for president, he switched sides and voted in favor of the bill.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... retapping/

Obama's going to weigh in on this issue soon when he gets the time and I'm sure he'll explain why he flip flopped.

Here is a somewhat related story, I don't remember anyone posting it, about a Federal judge striking down the "indefinite military detention" anti-terrorism law.

http://www.hstoday.us/index.php?id=3424 ... &tx_ttnews [tt_news]=25995

"U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan said the government has softened its position toward those who filed suit challenging the law, but she said the "shifting view" could not erase the threat of indefinite military detention. She urged Congress to make the law more specific or consider whether it is needed at all. "

All I am saying is presidential elections have little to do with reality and standing up for what you believe, it is a chess match and all about strategy. Believe it or not I am not dogging Obama here but I am making a point. You cannot believe a damn thing any politician says so stop buying into it. Obama didn't keep any of his promises just like his Predecessor . Get real and vote on something other than the rhetoric. And the war on women is a myth. All republicans are not racist and rich.

All dems are not pot smoking protesters. But I do believe that conservative values in finance are truly what I want and I am hopeful that we can pull out of this mess. Buying the stock market is not the way to get out of this, however this is an unprecedented move. Let's see what happens. I do believe in freedom for ALL. African American and Caucasian and all in between.

Another example of amnesia. Big ordeal on mean old Rich Mitt and Obama said the same thing.

Big headline Romney defines “middle income” as $200,000-$250,000 and less

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/14/mitt_ro ... 00_250000/

First election and beyond. Obama says same thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/weeki ... 0copy.html

He says that federal income taxes should be increased on families making more than $250,000. That seems to be the threshold. Under $250,000, you’re middle class; over it and you’re wealthy.

I think they also forget that Obama, Clinton and other Dems are multi millionaires. Another example of buying into the notion that it is okay to hate rich white people (unless they are in your own party) it is as accepted it seems as the other thing that is okay, to make fun of over weight people. Such hypocrisy.

Why do you regard it as a sign of "hate" when people who make over $250,000 are asked to kick in another 4.6% on that portion of their income ABOVE $250,000? Since that will only affect about 7% of the megamillionaires, and an estimated 3-4% of so-called "small business", B.F.D. (Did you know the Koch Brothers are considered "small business" because they file as Chapter-S?....Who knew?)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income ?:

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don’t reduce– or excuse me, don’t raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don’t reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That’s principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now."

Does this guy have any idea what a school teacher makes? A police officer? A car salesman?

So the way I understand this is that Mitt won’t raise your taxes if you make over $200,000 a year. If you make less than that, you are so screwed. That way he can say he gave a tax break to the middle class – yeah, the part of the middle class that makes $200,000 a year. Honey, if you make over $200,000 and you’re in the middle class, you need to get a new accountant or quit wasting all your money on Beanie Babies and the Home Shopping Network.

Hey, if $200K-$250K is suddenly "middle income", no wonder he's got an extra $10,000 laying around to bet Rick Perry... (Oh, wait, that was probably just left in his pants-pocket from his last trip to the Caymans...)

What you are ignoring is Obama said the same.

I didn't ignore anything... Obama also said he didn't need the tax-cut... RMoney?....Not so much...

I noticed you ignored the question about why you call it "hate" when all it does is affect the portion of income ABOVE $250K, and that only affects 3-4% of the so-called "small business", and damn-few millionaires? (Gee, you think those ol' job-creators will reel it in and call it a day?....Nah...)

I read that link and I don't anywhere in their where President Obama said anything that resembles what you claim. The AUTHOR is the one who is insinuating that. President Obama did not say the same.