News Politician

Dems are the biggest bunch of hypocrites ever! They whine and complain about the Patriot act for a decade. Then when the first group of politicians in Washington with the guts to vote it down turns out to be Republicans, they point fingers at the Republican Party and claim it is a failure of leadership.  That if the Republicans didn't have the votes to pass it that it should never have been brought up for a vote.  Extending 3 portions of the Patriot Act failed to pass by 2/3rd on Tuesday by 13 votes.

Some of the commenters at Politico had a more balanced approach:

Kinnison said:
When you write "the Republicans" what you really mean is the Republican leadership, which consists of old-line professional politicians and party elites. The people who caused the failure to renew of the Patriot Act provisions are the "Young Turks", the new guys elected primarily by the Tea Party, who know who sent them and what they expect from their Representatives: constitutional adherence, smaller government, reduced spending and protection of our liberties. They voted against renewing the Patriot Act, as they should have.

Michael Maloney said:
This is going to be a very interesting session of congress vis a vis watching the infighting between the Tea Party (libertarian) wing of the party and the establishment (authoritarian) wing.

Good for the new kids for remembering their pledge to keep Government out of our hair.

mtrillium said:
Republican embarassment? Not really. Sounds like a lively caucus of independent thinkers -- and I like them even more!

As far as merits: all in all, Patriot Act should probably be renewed, but I get a chill giving it to the Libs to use. Don't know if I trust with powerful tools Democrat operatives staffing some key positions in FBI. For some lefties, their politics is like Islam: any abuse is justified in order to "right" a "wrong".

Patriot Act is a controversial expansion of power, there's a good reason why it has a sunset provision, you better trust who you give it to. When the Press is in opposition, you can be sure they'll hunt down any appearance of abuse, which makes it safer with Repubs at the helm. With Press and Dems at power, there's less of a balance.

Will congress renew the Patriot Act without debate? That seems to be what the Wall Street Journal expects will happen.

Three sections of the USA Patriot Act are up for a vote on Feb. 28:

1. Roving surveillance of suspects who try to evade court-authorized wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
2. Access to business records related to intelligence and terrorism investigations.
3. Surveillance of a "lone wolf" or suspect who isn't affiliated with a known group or foreign power.

All three of these activities now occur without a warrant, without oversight by a judge. This is not constitutional, in that under the fourth amendment we are entitled to protection from warrantless searches of our persons, papers and effects.

If we will not adhere to the constitution now, then WHEN! When the islamists give up and quit? That is not going to happen any time soon. We must keep our country safe and FREE for our citizens NOW. And stop letting foreigners determine our domestic policy. We must not let them take away our freedom or they WIN!

One commenter gave a form letter to send to congresspeople:

re: Repeal the Patriot Act. It is not lawfully possible to extend its provisions.
Congressman:

You honor your oath to support and defend our Constitution and hold it dear.
Yet, error may still occur unknowingly.
For that reason I write to remind you that “Any scheme or artifice to defraud” the citizens of the United States of America of the full immunities and benefits of our
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution,
. . "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
. . effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
. . violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
. . by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
. . searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
By enacting a vote to continue the Patriot Act even for one day is a felony 18USC1341->1346 “Frauds & Swindles” (NOT subject of the Art.I Sect.6 immunity) given the inevitable communication of that vote’s effect.

I trust that you will take care to do your duty.

Yet I am concerned that other less knowledgeable members of Congress might bring you into danger by their vote to extend the Patriot Act.
Your witness of their enacting a vote to extend will establish a 18USC4 “Misprision of Felony” burden upon you.
Please advise your fellow Congressmen of the burden that our penal code places upon them.
The expiration of the unconstitutional Patriot Act needs to occur by either default or unanimous rejection of extension – Our country does not need the burden of broad criminal indictment on Congressmen at this time.

There is evidence that prior votes for the Patriot Act were made in ignorance and so were without criminal intent. This vote is different.

The nature of the Patriot Act’s scheme to defraud us of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment is now evidenced as being known by all Congressmen so criminal intent will be conclusively established and the criminal act would be a matter established by public record.

When delivering that warning to Congress I ask that you call for a record of each Congressman's vote so you clear yourself of any taint of criminal culpability in this mater.

Thanks again for becoming my Congressional Representative. I know that takes courage even if your love of freedom makes the courage seem small to you.

Sincerely,

Obama wants the CIA to team up with Google to track all of our internet surfing. The Patriot Act, removing the constitutional requirement for "probable cause" was bad enough under Bush. Obama promised to get rid of the Patriot Act. But once in office, he not only kept the Patriot Act in place, he now seeks to invade our privacy even further. Both the Patriot Act and this new spying plan ignore our constitutionally protected rights to privacy of our "papers and effects". 200 years ago, there were no emails, but I bet if you asked our founding fathers, they would agree that emails are the modern equivalent of "papers" which shall not be searched without a warrant.

Why is the American left not screaming daily about the Patriot Act. It was BAD when George W. Bush did it, but it is OK now that Obama does it? And now Obama wants more power? Come on, lefties. Show some character. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional no matter which president is in office.

H/T Gateway Pundit.

We have a lot of work ahead of us getting this country back to its Constitutional roots.   After we elect Conservative representatives in upcoming elections, many pieces of Obama legislation, such as Obamacare, must be repealed. Obama's unlawful seizure of private property, as with the automobile companies, must be set right. But we must discipline ourselves to look at ALL unconstitutional legislation, not just that put forward by Democrats. I'm thinking of the Patriot Act. Any portions of that act that permit search and seizure without warrant are unconstitutional and should be abolished. Including electronic searches. The founding fathers wrote about papers and effects. They corresponded using paper and nowadays we correspond electronically. That does not mean we give up our rights to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure.

Power, once gained, is seldom voluntarily relinquished. Liberal voters expected Obama to overturn the Patriot Act. They are surprised and disappointed that he has not. Historians are not surprised at all. And as the Obama administration seeks to label Tea Party patriots domestic terrorists as Janet Napolitano did last year in her outrageous DHS memo, we feel the dirt of Obama's boot on our necks.

If we are able to gain a vast electoral victory in November and in 2012, should we then sit on our laurels? Should we breathe easy and go back to watching reality TV? Should we feel OK because it is "our guy" in the White House and he is targeting those "other guys" over there, not us?

I say NO. "The only way to promote the good of the community is to unerringly protect the rights of the individual." M. Badnarik. Ayn Rand also touted the rights of the individual. Seizure of private property, I hope everyone will agree, is unconstitutional. But anti-terrorist legislation, particularly in a post-9/11 world, is a topic that we are not all in agreement on. But to me it is like protecting the right of free speech for communists, or anybody else you don't agree with. I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. I want an easy way to find/investigate/lock up terrorists, but I want to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. We must protect ourselves while protecting our laws. Without our laws, we are naked against tyranny. Be it tyranny of the majority (democracy) or tyranny of a president, we either defend our law or stand defenseless.
Pic via Baizaphotography.