Anti-Patriot

Maverick Senator Russ Feingold has once again made a strategic move to be centered in the national spotlight.

By voicing his fierce opposition to the compromise reached on extending the Patriot Act, Feingold is sending a message to our enemies. He wants to make America a terrorist-friendly place.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House and Senate negotiators reached an agreement Thursday to extend the USA Patriot Act, the government's premier anti-terrorism law, before it expires at the end of the month. But a Democratic senator threatened a filibuster to block the compromise.

"I will do everything I can, including a filibuster, to stop this Patriot Act conference report, which does not include adequate safeguards to protect our constitutional freedoms," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who was the only senator to vote against the original version of the Patriot Act.

If Feingold is serious about running for President, he has to quit siding with our enemies.

Working tirelessly to make it easier for terrorists may play well with the radical Left, but it will be a tough sell in Red State America.

I do not believe that my constitutional freedoms have come under attack since the Patriot Act was passed. The government hasn't infringed on my rights in any way.

With all due respect to Senator Feingold and others that complain about our eroding freedoms, they are loony.

They talk as if the FBI and government agencies can pick at any American's life. That's a complete misrepresentation of what the USA Patriot Act allows.

For example, under the compromise bill, before federal agents can obtain an individual's library and bank records, they must go to a judge with a "statement of facts" showing "reasonable grounds" indicating that such records would be relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation.

The Left seems incapable of grasping this aspect of the Patriot Act. There is a process to protect the constitutional freedoms that Feingold claims are being threatened. A judge has to determine that federal agents have grounds to gather information on an individual's activities.

Get it?

The government DOES NOT have free rein to pry into one's life. It must first be shown in court that there is reason to engage in an anti-terrorism investigation. I think that's an adequate safeguard.

What is Feingold's standard? Does one have to have wires hanging out of one's shoes before he'd be willing to investigate the person?

Would Feingold prefer that federal agents only get permission to check out terrorist suspects after deadly plans are successfully carried out?

Feingold knows that his threat to filibuster would grab headlines. It was a calculated maneuver.

All of Feingold's squawking is political posturing. The guy wants attention, pure and simple. He wants to get noticed.

He's getting noticed -- for being weak on terrorism and for promoting an environment that provides for the easier execution of terrorist plots.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., announced that the negotiating committee had reached an agreement that would extend for four years two of the Patriot Act's most controversial provisions — authorizing roving wiretaps and permitting secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries. Those provisions would expire in four years unless Congress acted on them again.

"All factors considered it's reasonably good, not perfect, but it's acceptable," Specter said of the agreement.

...The Republican-controlled House had been pushing for those provisions to stay in effect as long as a decade, but negotiators decided to go with the GOP-controlled Senate's suggestion.

Most of the Patriot Act would become permanent under the reauthorization.

The Associated Press does not make it clear to readers that a judge must grant federal agents permission to investigate.

Of course, when people get the impression that the government is taking away the freedoms we cherish, they are wary. The problem is that it's a false characterization of what the Patriot Act permits. The mainstream media is doing an extremely poor job of explaining the facts.

Do you think the libs will acknowledge any of the compromises made by Republicans? I don't.

The libs play politics with our security. I am certain if the White House wanted to let the Patriot Act expire, the Dems would be screaming for it to be made permanent.

...Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada intends to vote against the measure as currently drafted, according to an aide.

Feingold and five other senators from both parties issued a statement that said, "We believe this conference report will not be able to get through the Senate." They said they wouldn't support it in any form.

The other senators are Republicans Larry Craig of Idaho, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Democrats Dick Durbin of Illinois and Ken Salazar of Colorado.

It doesn't surprise me that Durbin and Reid are weak on terror; nor does it surprise me that these RINOs are siding with the Dems. Nevertheless, it does bug me.

These people that are against extending the Patriot Act are the same ones insisting that the Iraq war has created more terrorists and has made the world hate America more than before 9/11.

If their theory is valid, that there are indeed more terrorists now, why would it be a good idea to weaken the government's ability to investigate people wishing to do us harm?

If their accusations are correct, that globally there is more hostility toward the U.S., they are being derelict in their duty to protect Americans by actively seeking to make the country a more fertile place for fostering terrorism.

Feingold issued a separate statement threatening a filibuster, a stalling technique designed to block the measure from coming to a final vote.

It takes 60 senators to overcome a filibuster in the 100-member Senate.

"I don't think there will be a filibuster," Specter said. "I don't think it will succeed if there is one."

Like I said, Feingold just wants attention. He must know that a filibuster wouldn't succeed.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the deal should satisfy everyone. "This agreement both preserves the provisions that have made America safer since 9/11 and increases congressional and judicial oversight, which should alleviate the concerns of those who believe the law enforcement tools endanger civil liberties," he said.

But the American Civil Liberties Union immediately denounced the deal, calling on lawmakers to reject the legislation because it intrudes too far into the privacy of innocent Americans.

"This sham compromise agreement fails to address the primary substantive concern raised by millions of Americans, as well as civil liberties, privacy and business organizations and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle and in both chambers," said Caroline Fredrickson, the ACLU's Washington legislative office director.

The ACLU doesn't like the compromise. That's an encouraging sign. It means that the compromise bill is good for the country.

The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, has not yet decided whether to support the agreement, a spokesman said. But the GOP-majority negotiating committee has enough votes to send the House and Senate the compromise if all of the Republican negotiators agree to it.

The Senate is expected to vote on the compromise next week, Specter said. That would give them enough time to deal with any filibuster threats before the Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31.

When I hear December 31, why do I think of Feingold?

Oh, that's right. December 31, 2006, is the date that Feingold wants American troops out of Iraq.

To recap--

Feingold wants to filibuster a bill that aids the government in its efforts to keep us safe from terrorists.

Feingold wants to set an arbitrary date for the U.S. military to retreat from Iraq.

Feingold wants to be the Commander in Chief.

I hope that Feingold doesn't get what he wants.