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."

When Heroism Is Not Enough

On February 9th, the voters of Louisiana will go to the polls to decide who will be the nominees for the office of President of the United States of America. By this time, the field has narrowed down to just a few candidates, and the Republican roster has been reduced to four men. Realistically, only two now have the delegates to make a realistic push for the nomination, those two being Senator John McCain of Arizona, and former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney. I am not writing this column to endorse a candidate. The candidate that you choose is entirely up to you. In truth, I have been trying very hard to NOT write this article, because it is in some ways, a condemnation of a man for whom I have a great deal of respect.
John McCain is a war hero. He is a veteran, and a former P.O.W. John McCain’s body has been ravaged because of his devotion to duty as a soldier. Because of the time he spent in the “Hanoi Hilton” he cannot raise his arms higher than his chest. His hands do not function well. He requires assistance just to get dressed. John McCain has made sacrifices that I will never be able to relate to, but heroism and sacrifice are not enough. There are several reasons why I cannot vote for John McCain in the primary.
Let us begin with that issue which is most important to me, integrity. Senator McCain was roundly criticized this week for making a false statement regarding Governor Romney, his chief opposition. He stated that Governor Romney supported timetables for mandatory withdrawals of our troops in Iraq. Not only is this not true, but he did so, claiming that this made Governor Romney no different than the Clintons. That is an interesting claim, considering how closely Senator McCain’s positions on so many issues mirror that of the Democratic Party.
It was John McCain, along with Senator Ted Kennedy who offered the amnesty bill disguised as “immigration reform.” The American people rose up and squashed the attempt to pass a program that offered resident visas to border jumpers without securing those same borders. The program allowed illegal immigrants, and let me stress the word illegal, to bypass a majority of the red tape and get on the fast track to citizenship. This while people who have followed the rules and tried to gain citizenship through proper channels had to sit back and watch the illegals move to the front of the line. Not exactly an exercise in fairness.
Senator McCain also reached across the aisle to Senator Russ Feingold and together, they assembled the “campaign finance reform” act. The most far reaching assault of political free speech since the 1976 Buckley vs. Valeo decision put an end to these kinds of roadblocks by ruling that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. Senator McCain swore an oath to defend and protect the constitution, then in one fell swoop, began to tear it down.
Perhaps we should look to the “patient’s bill of rights.” Senator McCain, along with Senator Kennedy and Senator John Edwards gifted the trial lawyers of America with the biggest boon since the tobacco settlement. If you’re still not convinced, perhaps you should look to the blow he dealt to the pharmaceutical industry and its research and development with his plan for the reimportation of drugs.
There is also this against him. John McCain has been fighting the economic battles of the Democratic Party as well. He opposed the tax cuts that President Bush proposed in 2001, why? “I’m not going to do tax cuts for the rich.” Senator McCain, I received that tax cut in 2001, am I rich? Anyone who knows me knows that I am not. In fact, at the time, I was barely making above minimum wage. Tax cuts for the rich? Isn’t that class warfare rhetoric? Have we started pitting rich against poor, black against white, man against woman? These are not the statements of a conservative. In fact, none of this constitutes the actions of a conservative.
To be honest, Senator McCain has done his dead level best to impede the progress of the conservative movement since he joined the Senate. The most glaring example of this that I can give is his efforts to stop the confirmation of conservative judges between 2000 and 2004. Yes, a Republican Senator, in a Republican controlled Senate sided with the Democrats to extend the filibuster of judicial nominees. The filibuster rule was never meant to apply to judicial nominations; in fact the Senate has no constitutional authority to use filibuster in such a fashion. The loophole in the rule was going to be closed by the Senate Republicans until John McCain rode in with his "Gang of fourteen". That’s right. Seven “moderate” Republicans and Seven Democrats that blocked the rule change and allowed the Democrats to continue to block those judicial appointments that might support the constitution as it was written rather than as they’d like it interpreted.
I cannot vote for such a man as the nominee in my party. Should it come down to a choice between him, and Obama or Clinton, well he’s still the better choice than either of them, but it would be the equivalent of asking me if I’d rather be shot in the chest or in the head. I’m sorry, Senator McCain, that you’ve suffered so much for this country. Heroism is just not enough to redeem your record.