Ignoring it won't make it better

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that ignoring a problem is not the best way to improve it, right? Sure, there's the "don't pick at it, it'll leave a scar" school of thought, and I can understand that, but to ignore something that is so vital to this country simply because it puts you in an awkward political position is unconscionable. Now I have your attention, yes?
Let's put all of the cards on the table. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 is a U.S. Federal law prescribing procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers" on territory under United States control. This included electronic surveillance, physical searches, pen registers and trap/trace devices for foreign intelligence purposes and access to certain business records for the same foreign intelligence purposes. The act created a court which meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for search warrants. Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied, is reported. In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants. This number has steadily grown to 2224 warrants in 2006. Only 5 warrants have been rejected since the court first met in 1979. In 2001, this act was amended to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government as part of the US Patriot act.
At midnight on February 16th, 2008, the FISA provisions of the patriot act expired. Why? After the renewal of this program was passed by the Senate, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi decided that she would adjourn the house session without addressing this critical piece of legislation. It seemed politically expedient for Congresswoman Pelosi to let the safety of this nation suffer because she did not want to explain to her party why the Patriot Act passed again. Petty, isn't it? She would sacrifice information that we could desperately need because she knew she would lose. This provision has been a success, and the FISA courts have done their jobs admirably. Still, the Democrats characterize this as "Warrant-less" wire taps, and an invasion of the privacy of the American citizens. Somehow, though, every instance where a wire tap has been placed, it has been within the limits of probable cause and specific to incoming international calls. The federal government is not looking to crash a PTA meeting here. This is not about what Sally is doing down the street. This is an attempt to stop international terrorists from HURTING MORE PEOPLE!
One of the biggest reasons that we were blindsided by the events of September 11, 2001 is because our intelligence agencies were handcuffed by the Clinton administration. They were not allowed to share information. If we then take away their ability to collect the data that protects us, then WHAT DO WE KEEP THEM AROUND FOR?!
Madam Pelosi, if you want to play Russian roulette with your own safety, then fine, but you have compromised the safety of this entire nation. The Constitution of this great nation states that the federal government has a responsibility to "provide for the common defense." How does this action meet that responsibility? The Patriot Act of 2001 was not a violation of our first amendment rights; it was designed to protect them. If you want to get up in arms about the first amendment, great! Repeal the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act. I can at least site a Supreme Court case that states it is unconstitutional. All you can truly argue is, "I don't wanna."