4/17/2009:   Janet Napolitano voided an immigration raid that occurred in Washington state, gave the illegal immigrants netted in the raid legal work permits, and vowed to "get to the bottom" of who authorized the raid and why.

So let me get this straight... Law breakers were caught, y'know, breaking the law, and Ms. Napolitano rewarded for doing so by making their action legal. Law enforcement was, well, enforcing the law, and Ms. Napolitano is going to punish them for it. Does this sound like the much-ballyhooed and gleefully anticipated "nation of law" that Mr. Obama promised?

Apparently after the raid, the hispanic community in Bellingham went nuts, emailing politicians, networking, and screaming on the radio that the children of illegal immigrants would lose their parents to the raids. With enough noise and lacking any spine whatsoever, Ms. Napolitano either wimped out or was told to wimp out.

Folks, if you break the law to get here, expect to get picked up and deported. It's the law. Until the American electorate votes to throw the doors wide open and let everyone in, we have immigration laws for a reason, and if you break them, you must face the consequences of being caught.

But immigration law ignores the other half of the problem. Mexico is a prime example of what happens in a purely capitalistic society. A tiny fraction of the population controls 95% of the wealth. By our standards, their middle class would be considered just above the poverty line here. Their quality of life is much lower, their job opportunities are far less, and the pay from those jobs is meager in comparison to ours and insufficient even given their economic standard. They come here because the Mexican economy sucks. Simple. They can make so much more and provide their families with so much more if they just can get past our border guards and evade our immigration law enforcement. Who can blame them? Whackjobs like Savage, Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly notwithstanding, these are by and large good people wtih the ambition and motivation to get across our border and seek a better life for themselves.

Look, Manteca is chock full of Mexicans. There are more non-chain Mexican food restaurants here than all the other types combined. Learning Spanish is easy because many of the people you run into speak it as their first language or hear it all the time at home. All of my children are part Mexican. I love the Mexican side of my wife's family -- what a great bunch of people! I have nothing at all against Mexicans.

But I can't shed a tear for people that break the law. The immigration procedures need to be flexed to account for our southern neighbors, but that's a matter for the popular vote. Until such time as someone can come up with a modification to the laws that streamlines the process of allowing good, productive, upstanding people into our country and keeping criminals and anti-American elements out, we must enforce the laws we have.

Ms. Napolitano might as well hang up a sign that says, "First come, first served!" I mean, really, what the hell?

4/16/2009:   Texas Gov. Rick Perry, speaking at a "tea party" yesterday, suggested that Texas may soon secede from the union. No, really. As in, the South will rise again, that sort of secession. "...If Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." Which makes some very broad and highly questionable assumptions, such as:

To pretend that he's got the backing, authority, or ability to lead a secessionist movement is absolutely ridiculous. Give me a break. What a pandering moron.

4/15/2009:   So the "Tea Parties" that Fox News has been screaming incessantly about over the last few weeks were held today. The video clips show the Fox News staff appearing at the events, speaking at them, and firing up the faithful.

Why? Because they aren't journalists. They are entertainers and political cogs in Murdochs propoganda machine, but reporters with even a shred of journalstic integrity they are not.

Oh, and that useless idiot "Joe the Plumber" was a speaker at one of them as well. Which should tell you just about all you need to know about the intelligence level at these events.

But the reason I'm commenting is because of the signs I see in the video clips, which, by the way, do not show the immense million-man-march evoking crowds that Faux News was hoping for. From the signs being held up, it's clear that some people are mad about the bailouts using taxpayer money. Those folks I can understand, and I agree with them up to a point. But it's the others where people took advantage of the situation to draw attention to their sour grapes insults or their far right whack-job slogans.

Here are some examples:

"Democrat Congress Stealing Your Money." No, the GOP stole your money, and the first bailout, the TARP bailout and the additional 1.8 trillion dollars in unauthorized treasury "loans" all happened under Gee-Dubya.

"Starve the Beast by Tax Cuts." The beast is your country, and Obama is cutting taxes on the middle class and poor and raising the taxes on the rich to Clinton-era levels. Not even Reagan-era levels, which would be 10% more.

"Taxed Enough Already." Then you must just LOVE Obama for cutting your taxes! This one is obviously someone who doesn't get it. They think their taxes are going up or something. Nut job.

"Read The Constitution." Not sure what this one was trying to say. Taxation is in the Constitution.

"Give me Liberty, Not Debt." I hear ya! But since Bush drove the economy into the ground and our country into record debt, Obama has no choice but to incur additional debt to get the economy going again.

"One Big Awful Mistake America." Using Obama's name. This was just dumb. If Obama is a mistake, then George W. Bush was a freakin' tragedy of Katrina-like proportions, a perfect storm of stupidity and evil. No, my friend, Obama is the fix for the crime you probably deserve some credit in committing.

"Stop Rewarding Failure." Again, I agree up to a point. What we need to do is take over the companies asking for a bailout and treat them like acquired companies being broken up and sold back off. At least that's one theory...

"Don't Spread My Weath, Spread My Work Ethic." Okay, this one is catchy. And if this guy's work ethic could be bottled, I'd say, sure! Let's spread that around! But the truth is it wasn't a lack of work ethic that got us here, that gave us a crashed economy, crushing debt, two ongoing and poorly executed war theaters, etc.

"9-12 Project We Surrounnd You Wash. D.C." No, I didn't misspell that -- there was an extra "n" in "surrounnd." The 9-12 project is a bunch of idiots that think we should be rolling back people's First and Fourth Amendment rights, but throwing out all types of gun control. They want people to believe that Obama is a fascist socialist who will raise your taxes and take away your guns. Morons, really.

"Atlas Will Shrug." This is a literary reference to revolution. For what? Because Obama isn't cleaning up the GOP's mess fast enough? Not as smart as your sign suggests, honey.

"Obama Read My Teleprompter, Socialism Does Not Work." Actually, friend, this country has been more prosperous at all levels thanks to FDR's socialist programs than any other country on earth EVER. And what Obama is proposing isn't all out socialism, although the health care industry would have you believe otherwise.

"The [crossed out Parliament] Congress of [crossed out Great Britain] the United States have no more right to put their hands in my pocket, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into yours for your money." Cute, but you're being taxed *with* your consent, in the form of your elected officials. Have a nice day, idiot.

"What part of 'no more spending' do you not understand." The part where he wasn't hired to stop spending any money at all. What a doof. This womean thinks spending of all monies for anything at all should cease and desist? Lady, don't you have a shirt to iron?

"We The People." That's it. Just "we the people." ... I'm guessing this guy has a *really* bad case of ADD and couldn't focus long enough to actually form a complete sentence...

"Stop the DC Pork Dinner." Except the pork already stopped.

"Government Spending Is Against Our Will." Buddy, if you voted for anyone thinking they were going to stop all spending, you're a fool. The government is GOING to levy taxes to finance programs and infrastructure. They are GOING to spend those taxes to meet those ends. It's their PURPOSE. If you don't like what they're spending it on, vote differently next time. Or drive to Mexico. Or Canada. Whatever...

"Silent Majority No More." Number one, you're not the majority. And number two, the right wing whack jobs haven't gone silent yet, but you're such a small number that the true majority is just sort of ignoring you. Have a nice day.

"Freedom Will Be Defended." Good! Not that that has anything whatsoever to do with bailouts, but what a great sentiment! You go, boy!

"Socialism is Change We Don't Need." Maybe you don't, sugar, but healthcare reform is definitely something everyone else needs.

"Chains You Can Believe In." Chains. Really? How so? This is a startling poster, but what's he saying?

"Stop The Crazy Spending." Okay, finally, a complete, cogent thought. And I agree. The spending shouldn't be crazy. It should be focused on job creation, fixing the infrastructure, funding education and social net programs, etc. Oh, y'know, the stuff Obama is doing, as opposed to that crazy spending Bush was doing...

"One Term Limit For All." Why? Why would you limit my choices? Maybe I want the guy that did such a great job last time to work for me again. There's something to be said for experience.

"Stand Up, Stand Up, Take Back America." We just did, thanks.

Sad, really. Most of the events covered looked smaller than some family reunions I've been to.

4/8/2009:   I get a lot of emails from the Courage Campaign, most of which I just delete because I have an actual life outside my computer. I know, you wouldn't this so, huh? But it's true! But this latest email got my attention, and when I checked out, it completely freaked me out. It starts off dark, cloudy, ominous, and there are a number of people standing, facing the camera, and talking to it as though addressing a group of very small, young children:

Wow. Sounds terrible. It's going to rain or something!

Wait, what? Are you kidding me? How does allowing gays the right to marry take your freedoms away? Does the homosexual marriage ceremony involve putting duct tape over your mouth? Hiding your guns? Going through your personal papers without a warrant? Enslaving you? Charging you a poll tax? Taxing you without representation? Billetting soldiers in your home?

Exactly how does a doctor have to choose between faith and her job? Was she trying to refuse care to gay people that get married? Was she forced to allow a homosexual person to stay by the bedside of another homosexual person as though they were family? I don't get it. So if she continues collecting a paycheck, she can't go to church anymore? Can't she be a doctor and not be a hater?

How were you punished? Did they put you in jail because you wouldn't allow gay people in (of course not)? Were you forced to marry a gay couple (no)? Was it because you wouldn't employ a gay person or extend marriage benefits to a gay person you accidentally employed (probably)?

Um... It *is* okay, for the gay couple that married. If it's not okay for your son, he won't marry a man. OH! Wait, I get it... You think that the school is filling your son's head with gay thoughts, and maybe even turning him gay! Hahaha!! No, you silly goose! That's not how it works! Besides, if you don't want him taught that, put him in a private school or home school him. Really. You *can* control your child's education completely, if it's important to you to do so.

Okay, I'm still confused. Maybe there's something I'm missing here. So they're forcing you to treat people equally, equitably, fairly, and that's got you all tied up in knots? Does that sound like what God wants to you? It doesn't to me. And how are they changing the way you live? Does the fact that gays can get married suddenly mean you can't have cream of wheat in the morning? Did your counter tops go from sandstone to drab green linoleum? Are you only allowed to water your lawn every Tuesday? (Actually, that last one might be true, but trust me, it's got nothing to do with the gays. Really.)

Yeah, you covered that already. I've got my umbrella ready, but the clouds outside my window don't seem to be doing anything.

Oh good! Gosh, that's a relief. Someone has figured out how to use the coming storm to reverse global warming? The rain will wash away the nation's debt? Rush Limbaugh will slip in a puddle, fall, and smash the nerves to his mouth?

I'm not sure what's more disturbing. That Jesse Jackson is going to have to take a stand on the use of "Rainbow Coalition" for a group he isn't affiliated with, or that homophobes are so determined to prevent homosexuals from being happy at all costs, even though they can't make a commercial that gives me solid facts on how gay marriage detrimentally affects their lives in a way anyone should care about, if at all.

Not on your freakin' life...

There were never any WMDs in Iraq.
No links to Al Qaeda.
No ties to 9/11.
Bush, Cheney, and Condie lied to you.
You ignored the facts.
You re-elected a liar and a murderer by proxy.
But now it's time to show your support for the troops.

I'm going to leave this up for a while yet. These traitors have not been held accountable for their crimes, and I want to make sure they never quite leave the public eye. Bush and Cheney deserve to be in jail, but even if that justice is never meted out, our nation deserves to have the crimes publicly recognized and measures taken to ensure that such a presidency can never happen again.

4/8/2009:   It would seem that Mr. Obama has let his advisors do the thinking for him on the issue of the Bush administration's violations of the First and Fourth Amendments, the separation of powers doctrine, the original FISA of 1978 (before it was retroactively modified last year), the Wiretap Act, the Electronic Communications Privace Act, and the Store Communications Act. The DOJ filed a response to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) suit against the U.S. government in connection with the warrantless wiretapping in which AT&T and other telcos knowingly provided aid, equipment, and services. In a nutshell, the DOJ requested that all charges be dropped because the suit would require the exposure of "state secrets."

I'm looking over the filing, and here are the salient bits. Obama's DOJ is saying:

The DOJ's filing is sprinkled liberally with references to 9/11, fighting terrorism, and homeland security. The last word being the only one that should apply, the position taken by the DOJ implies that if the case goes forward, we'll reveal, through the Freedom of Information Act and other judicial transparency laws, the U.S. governments tactics and tecniques for deterring attacks on America.

It references the Wiretap Act. From Wikipedia, Section 2511(3) specifies that nothing in this act or the Federal Communications Act of 1934 shall limit the constitutional power of the President "to take such measures as he deems necessary ":

The problem there being that the FISA of 1978 specifically overturned that power and stated that, even in cases of national security, intelligence agencies must go through a special FISA court to obtain a warrant. Period, end of story.

They further argue that, according to the Bush-reworded FISA, unless the government "willfully discloses" information found in those wiretaps, and so long as captured information is used solely for the purpose of protecting the United States from attack and/or overthrow, that no law has been broken or right violated.

So if the DOJ is correct in its findings and has elected to pursue this line of argument, then it appears the law is broken. I do not wish to relinquish my right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and by privacy I don't mean privacy from my kids, my parents, and my neighbors. I mean privacy from everyone, unless strong evidence can be presented to a court of law that I represent a threat to the citizens of the United States of America or to the stability of its government.

The DOJ's filing, while quite probably factually correct and, I'm surely, carefully and thoughtfully constructed, simply points, in my mind, to the fact that the Fourth Amendment protection I have been taught since childhood to expect has been steadily and substantively eroded since early in the 20th century when the Church report exposed the illegal dealings of the FBI in investigating Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights activists. Our reasonable expectation of privacy guaranteed us in the Constitution is being chipped and shaved and sanded and worn down until the only privacy you can expect to have will be a 1984-inspired line that extends around the mere circumference of your own head. Until the Thought Police obtain the tools to monitor your very thoughts, I guess you're safe there at least...

It seems to me that the EFF should have been petitioning the United States Congress to waive immunity in this case, although I expect that the process for such waiver would be summarily stalled to death. The Congress, while Obama was part of it, supported the FISA amendment that, to the horror of U.S. citizens, provided retroactive immunity to telcos. Clearly the ruling sentiment in Congress is that the powers arrogated by the Bush administration should now be the precedent; that, going forward, your Fourth Amendment rights can be ignored by the President, the Attorney General, or really, anyone in the government that can point to some statement by their superior as authorization.

Having said that, the DOJ's rebuttal doesn't address the core issue: information was gathered in a drag net without just cause for nearly all of the information gathered. They were not selective in recording the calls. If they can show that they were selective, and that all the information gathered fell under just cause, then I would think they would have disproved the EFF's case's core principles. But instead they're hiding behind sovereign immunity and state secret privilege.

I want my rights back. I want Bush and Gonzales held accountable, but more than that I want the law changed to favor the people over the government. I want to know that the principles of privacy are honored. I want the kind of cases the EFF is pursuing litigated, in part if necessary and where possible, in the same courts FISA defines for handling matters involving national security and state secrets. The state secret defense is pathetic and should not stand.

Because, you see, that lovely phrase "prohibiting disclosure except for purpose" didn't prevent Alberto Gonzales from instructing the FBI to use the evidence gathered to prosecute cases that did not involve national security. In fact, evidence was provided to the FBI to prosecute cases with the instruction that, should the source of the evidence be questioned too closely, the case should be dropped rather than exposing the wiretapping program and the disclosure of evidence from that program beyond the purpose of national security. Remember that time Gonzales was questioned by Congress about the politically-motivated attorney general firings and how Alberto suddenly couldn't remember *anything*? I think that's why Congress didn't pursue the allegations that the A.G. had disclosed warrantless wiretap information beyond purpose -- because he'd have walked in with full-blown Alzheimer's...

IANAL, but I think the court should set aside the case, advise the EFF to pursue permission from Congress to sue, and allow them to refile once that permission is obtained. I think Obama should push for the same. I think it behooves him as a constitutional law professor, the man who roundly criticized the prior administration's violations of the Constitution, the man who ran on a platform that included a return to the rule of law, and the man who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, to take a visible and vocal stand on guiding the process of resecuring the protections originally and clearly outlined in the Constitution as regards the privacy in person, papers, and as applies today, communications of the citizens of the United States of America.

4/5/2009:   Apparently Rupert Murdoch still has a chip on his shoulder when it comes to the Democratic Party.

Apparently the talking points from on-high included an embarrassingly obviously fabricated number. Last Friday, Fox News' kept displaying the false claim that President Obama's $3.6 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget is "4x bigger than Bush's costliest plan."

Oh, give me a freakin' break...

The Monkey Faced Frat Boy's budgets for 2008 and 2009 were $2.9 trillion and $3.1 trillion, respectively. Is EVERYONE at Faux News just REALLY bad at math or do they think our collective memory is that bad?

And then there are Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade, the right-wing tools with their NeoCon show "Fox and Friends." The Nile River of Crap has its well-spring in the mouths of these jerks. They sat there on Friday and made it sound like Coleman had as much as won the Minnesota senatorial election when in fact Franken holds a solid lead, given the number of ballots that have been okayed for recount. There is no way Coleman can "win" at this poing, and all he's really doing is preventing Minnesota from seating their elected representative. So Minnesota continues to lack representation, the Democrats are one vote further away from a filibuster-proof majority, and Faux News is running flack for Coleman to make him seem relevant.

Faux News ignored the fact that Coleman probably lost because he's corrupt. In fact A "Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Government" report on congressional corruption found four senators that were corrupt, and Mr. Coleman was corrupt enough to make the 4th spot on that list. (IIRC, it was a similar report that helped cost Richard Pombo his senate seat.)

And nowhere do they note that this election isn't unique in its litigation. Coleman is known for attempting to use the courts to steal elections. Coleman is perfectly comfortable rolling the dice with a lawsuit -- he's got nothing to lose except what he's already lost, right?

No, because the Republican didn't win, they want the results thrown out and a new election held. Yeah, that's right: Because they didn't win, they want a do-over. And what happens when they don't get best two out of three? Three out of five? Four of seven? Five of nine? How far do you go with this? How many millions are the GOP willing to burn in order to get one damned seat? And how long with the people of Minnesota sit idly by while they are humiliated before the entire nation?

4/5/2009:   There is a huge group of rank idiots running around on the Intertubes, and they are calling themselves "The 9-12 Project." These knuckle dragging morons have finally figured out how to operate the TV with the keyboard and they're trying to unite to fight the "evil" that is "liberalism." They throw sound bites and slogans back and forth like a fast game of hot potato, without every actually saying anything of substance. Try this out:

Or how about:

And:

With no attributions or references. In other words, they pull that kind of crap right out of their butts. I'd like to ask them where they get their facts, what kind of "evil" the "libs" represent, and where these people were when Bush was shredding the Constitution and destroying our freedoms and liberties.

4/3/2009:   A handful of screechy, unhinged Alaskan Republicans, including the empty-headed Barbie-esque VP loser Sarah Palin and Alaska GOP chairman and neocon tool Randy Ruedrich said Thursday that, since former senator Ted Stevens has been been acquitted with prejudice of all the charges of corruption that harried him during the 2008 campaign, the victor in that contest, Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, should step aside so a new vote can be held.

I'll give you a minute to soak that in...

Okay, times up...

bwuhahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahah!!!!!

Is that just hysterical or what?! What power-grubbing, divisive, elitist, megalomaniacs the GOP has in Alaska!! Not that Norm Coleman of Minnesota isn't leading the charge of crybaby losers, but the fact that Sarah Palin and her ilk are still trying to secure Alaska just for themselves or threaten to secede from the union (right after Texas, of course) is side-splittingly, stupidly, laughable!! WHAT MORONS!!!!

4/1/2009:   Norm Coleman, former senator from Minnesota, has lost his seat to Al Franken and has been trying to prevent him from being seated through a long, drawn out series of useless legal maneuvers, the sole purpose of which is to keep the Democrats from getting 59 senate seats, one short of a filibuster-proof majority. He lost the latest decision in the sense that the court ruled that 400 previously un-recounted votes would be included, but he needs to get something like 65% of those votes just to tie Franken, and that's not expected to happen.

One of two things needs to happen. Either Coleman needs to grow up and be a man about it and let Minnesota be represented in the United States Senate, or the Democrats in Minnesota need to all unite and tell Colemen to either stand down or there will never again be a single undisputed election in Minnesota because the Democratic candidate will prevent the GOP incumbent from being seated as long as appeals and money hold out. Two can play the game of jamming a monkey wrench into the gears of democracy and denying the voters the representation they elected.

In fact, someone should order Norm Coleman a pair of those huge rubber fake testicles that rednecks hang off the hitch of their trucks. Ship a pair to him with a note that reads:

I'm just saying...

4/1/2009:   Maybe Penn Jillette is high on his own koolaid. Maybe his magic tricks have him thinking he really is magic. Maybe watching Rush Limbaugh, an Oxycontin and off-market Viagra scarfing sex tourist and radio entertainer become the de facto leader of the Republican't Party has him believing that anyone can be anything they want to be.

Dunno.

But he's been given an alarming amount of time at the global podium by media outlets like Showtime and CNN to air his political and economic views. He's good at telling stories, and he comes across as just a common-sense, no-bull****, down to earth guy who sees things oh-so-clearly and doesn't have a problem with calling a spade a spade, no matter how you decide to define the word "spade."

The problem is, his starting point for his latest show is the principle that you can't spend your way out of debt. That assumes, of course, that all you're doing is throwing money around. You can, on the other hand, invest your way out of debt. Look at what nearly every single small business owner in America has done since this country started. You put money in, often borrowing money, tools, or effort from friends, family, and especially nowadays, the bank. Small business owners often take out a loan to get a business started. By the time their business gets off the ground, they're sweating bullets hoping their business turns at least a modest profit right away.

When my wife and her business partner decided to create a salon, they found an adequate space that used to be a small church in a property wtih four shops on Main Street. Vadre and I and Gina and her family went to work ripping that place apart and putting it back together. If I recall correctly, it took about a month of slaving away and $30,000 to get that place completely turned over, furnished, and ready to open.

That salon is now the #1 high end salon in the California central valley. It went from Vadre, Gina, and Sheri to 14 employees (I think -- I'm not in there very often) and manages to remain profitable even in this economy. And if I may toot their horn, that salon attracts the very best talent from all over. The ladies working there are amazing.

Now you may argue, and rightly so, that we didn't "spend" our way out of debt, we invested that money. And the same can be said of what Barack Obama is doing with our economy. He's investing money, not throwing it away. Money put into the economy with a reliable and proven return on investment is not "spending," it's investing.

Penn Jillette is a loudly self-proclaimed anarchist. This is a man that believes the U.S. government's sole job should be settling state issues and maintaining the military. That's about it. He feels the federal government's infrastructure projects are redundant, conservation projects are illegal, taxes are unconstitutional, social programs are socialism, and financial and trade regulation is fascism. He's for a wild west market place and lot's of guns, sex, and drugs, with the natural progression of misfires, STDs, and addiction working it's Darwinian magic on those too stupid or unfortunate to survive exposure to the big kids' toys. He's just a huge drippy bucket of sunshine, isn't he?

Penn's not a stupid guy, but his vision for America is shared only with a fringe minority populated almost entirely with anarchist/survivalist freaks. He's picked up the GOP Party-of-No slogan to serve his own ends. He's also making it sound like we had control over the banks when they were doing bad things, so more control over them isn't going to prevent bad things from occurring now. Which ignores the fact that the GOP free-marketers who were pocketing big money from the banks were the ones that loosened the controls enough to allow banks and financial organizations like Citigroup and AIG to destroy our economy they way they did. He mixes the GOP talking points with just enough folksy common sense to make it take on the color of wisdom when in fact it's just GOP heckling.

And I actually don't have a problem with Jillette spouting his tripe, believe it or not. He's an ass, but he has the right to be an ass if he wants, and at least he's an entertaining and sometimes funny ass.

What I take issue with is CNN of all places giving him an op-ed page on their site. He's part of the lunatic neo-con fringe, but he's got the bully pulpit today, and CNN should quickly put someone with the entire nation's interests at heart and a degree in economics to give the expert side in order to balance this crap out.

3/30/2009:   John Boehner (rhymes with "loner"), he of the orange-hued spray tan, led a gaggle of hucksters from the GOP in creating the Wizard of Oz inspired illusion that they had a budget plan that trumped Obama's budget. He waved a blue official looking folder in front of the press corp and stated that they had a budget that was far superior in every way.

And then the press corp opened their copies, looked them over, and realized that the only actually numbers, the only digits at all in the entire "budget" were the ones describing a MASSIVE tax cut for the rich.

MASSIVE. As in from Bush's ginormous tax cut down putting the top end at 35% down to just 25%. They also offered a pathetic tax cut for the middle class and none at all for the poor, but the rich would get 10 full points lopped off. That's a 28% reduction in taxes for people that DON'T NEED THE MONEY.

Did I mention it was a MASSIVE tax cut?

So the press corp started asking pointed questions such as, "Where are the numbers?", and "You're kidding, right?" Well, not all the questions. One reporter from a right wing rag tried to help out a bit with, "So when you give us the details next week, they'll follow the guidelines and principles in this document?" Which Boehner picked up on quickly and parroted, "Principles...yes..." And shortly after that Boehner and crew exited stage left.

It was one of the stupidest, "Ignore the man behind the curtain and the complete lack of substance in our 'budget'," con job I've ever seen. Talk about desperation. They are seriously hoping that the soundbite of Boehner saying, "Well, Mr. President, here it is," will be played by itself on enough right wing channels that the GOP faithful will feel more confident in their elected morons.

What idiots. If Boehner only had a brain. Or a plan. Or an actual budget...

The following people voted against the Constitution, against the Fourth Amendment, against your rights, freedoms, liberties, and protections. A version of the FISA reform bill that grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that broke the law at the president's behest and gives the president the ability to grant immunity without oversight or further authorization, has passed the United States House of Representatives on Friday, June 20th, 2008. These are the people that voted for that measure. Included among them are Democrats that have betrayed their constituencies, including my own Jerry McNerney. Let us not forget these traitors at election time.