Posted on 01/26/2004 1:47:29 PM PST by Reagan Man
The 2004 campaign season is well at hand. Following the dramatic turn-around from earlier polling results, the strong showing by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John Edwards (D-NC) has brought renewed focus by the media on the possibilities of President Bush not only facing formidable opposition, but also losing his bid for reelection. A newly released Newsweek poll shows Kerry defeating President Bush if the election were held today. Of course, the poll is meaningless in the sense that President Bush has not yet begun to campaign, but it does add fuel to the fire that 2004 could be as close as the historic elections of 2000. With that in mind, it's time for conservatives across the country to focus on the big picture and realize that a Bush loss is far worse than a Bush victory.
The Newsweek poll garnering so much media attention shows Sen. Kerry defeating President Bush by 49%-46%. The result is understandable considering the endless attacks on President Bush by the Democrats challenging him for the White House. These attacks, levied during debates, stump speeches, and television commercials have largely gone unanswered by the president or the Republican Party. If the public is only getting one side of the story, then there should be no surprise when the president's numbers head south. The true test of public opinion will come once President Bush begins his campaign and America hears both sides of the story. Of course, the ultimate public opinion poll will be the 2004 presidential election itself.
In addition to the hits being taken by the president from the Democrats, President Bush has also sustained damage from those on his side of the political aisle: Republicans and conservatives who vote Republican. The anger expressed by conservatives toward President Bush is primarily focused on two issues: border security/immigration and federal spending.
President Bush's recent announcement of a "temporary worker" program has drawn harsh criticism from conservatives across the country. The volume of feedback I have received on this issue has been almost unanimously one-sided and in opposition to the president's plan -- a plan which conservatives feel is synonymous with "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. Under the Bush plan, illegal immigrants could apply for a 3-year temporary worker designation which would grant them legal status to remain in the U.S. provided they have employment or have a job waiting for them. In addition to the illegal immigrant being allowed to gain the benefits of residency in America, the worker's family would also be allowed to join the worker inside the U.S.
The other "stick in the eye" for conservatives is the massive increases in federal spending which have occurred over the past three years. Increases in the rate of growth of non-defense, discretionary spending in the current Bush administration are double that of the Clinton administration. Republicans have gone on a spending spree, and there appears to be no end in sight. Despite the fact that smaller, limited government is one of the tenets of conservative, Republican philosophy, congressional Republicans have shown over the last several years that they can spend with the best of them. To President Bush's credit, the budgets presented to the Congress by the administration have included modest increases in non-defense, discretionary spending by most observations. However, the budgets returned to the president for final approval have shown no restraint and are loaded with excess pork.
As a conservative, I share the philosophical concerns of friends and colleagues. Following the events of September 11, 2001, border security should be of the utmost concern, and promoting programs that not only potentially weaken security but also reward illegal behavior is just plain wrong. In addition, one of my core beliefs in which I identify myself as a conservative and as a Republican is my belief in smaller, limited government. If one of our core values is no longer being observed by our elected officials, then feelings of anger and betrayal are understandable and justified.
The key question going into the 2004 presidential election is "What is a conservative to do?"
The answer to this question is simple: conservatives must wake up and smell the coffee. The best choice for conservatives; the best candidate to advance our agenda; and the best person in which to put our hope and faith is President George W. Bush.
On the two previously mentioned issues of immigration policy and federal spending, conservatives only need to look at the alternatives to see that President Bush is the right person for the job. Regarding immigration policy, if Sen. Kerry were to become America's next president, there would be no need to debate the merits of granting legal status to a portion of illegal immigrants, because wide spread amnesty would be the policy of choice. Both Kerry and Edwards favor amnesty for illegal immigrants and would open the flood gates on America's already porous borders. According to campaign information, both Kerry and Edwards favor legalizing the status of illegal immigrants who have worked in the U.S. for a certain period of time.
The best hope for the immigration issue and border security is for conservatives to work diligently for President Bush's reelection and to demand sensible immigration reform from members of Congress. The real work on immigration will be done in Congress. Conservatives must push for meaningful reform, while working to ensure that the candidate who most closely shares our views wins in November. That person is President George W. Bush.
In regards to federal spending, one can only imagine the budgets that would be submitted by Kerry, Edwards, or Dean. A score card of liberal votes in Congress maintained by Americans for Democratic Action shows that Sen. Kerry actually has a more liberal voting record (93%-88%) than his Massachusetts counterpart: Sen. Ted Kennedy. Thus, a Kerry presidency means spending restraint by the Executive Branch goes right out the window. Conservatives have a right to be angry over spending, but the way to fight for our cause is to demand that our Republican legislators trim the pork. It is also up to us to push for presidential leadership in this area. We should support President Bush in his call for fiscal responsibility. We should also call on the president to unleash his veto pen if fiscal responsibility is not what he gets.
Much has been written in recent weeks in op-eds, letters to the editor, Internet discussion boards, and so on regarding conservative dissatisfaction with the current administration. The Bush administration should listen to their concerns, and the conservative community should work for positive solutions. Staying home on Election Day is not the answer. Voting for a third party candidate is not the answer. Writing in a protest vote is not the answer. Had just a small percentage of liberal voters stood with Al Gore in Florida rather than voting for Ralph Nader, the entire outcome of the 2000 presidential election could have been different. Conservatives cannot stay home in November. We must be on the ground working for President Bush and advancing our agenda in the process.
The conservative movement needs a voice, and it needs a leader. President Bush is that leader, and he has stood by conservatives on many of the issues we hold dear. The president is a stalwart on life issues and has been unwavering in his support of a ban on partial birth abortions. The president has been equally strong in putting forward judicial nominees who respect the Constitution and who will not legislate from the bench. The president is a leader in the war on terror, and I can think of no one better suited to occupy the oval office in this time of turmoil. The best way to fight for the conservative agenda is to fight for the reelection of President George W. Bush.
---
Bobby Eberle is President and CEO of GOPUSA (www.GOPUSA.com), a news, information, and commentary company based in Houston, TX. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Rice University.
MAP is correct, probable cause IS NOT required for a FISA warrant. Its a rubber stamp.
From FindLaw:
FISA's Longstanding Special Procedures For Counterintelligence-Gathering
The FISA statute therefore created a secret process and secret court to review requests to wiretap phones, and conduct searches, aimed at spies, terrorists and enemies of the United States. The process and court were meant only for counterintelligence - not for ordinary criminal investigations.
The court issues FISA "warrants" - but these so-called "warrants," unlike traditional warrants in criminal cases, did not require probable cause of specific criminal activity. Rather, they are simply special court orders meant to be used for counterintelligence purposes.
The FISA court approves around 1,000 such warrants per year - and only rarely denies a warrant request. Persons who are the subjects of FISA warrants never know that they are targeted. An FBI agent might sneak into a suspect's house, have a look around and leave again, without leaving notice that he or she had been there.
What happens if the search happens to reveal evidence of ordinary crime that leads to a prosecution? The subject may be out of luck. The warrant and the grounds why it was granted can remain a secret - and thus will be impervious to challenge - if the Attorney General swears that the information must remain secret on grounds of national security.
How the USA Patriot Act Expanded the Basis for FISA Warrants
Originally, prior to the USA Patriot Act - enacted after September 11 - law enforcement could only seek a FISA warrant if gathering intelligence was the primary purpose of the investigation. But the USA Patriot Act allowed law enforcement to seek a FISA warrant if gathering intelligence was only a significant purpose, not necessarily the primary purpose of the investigation.
While this expansion can be debated, at least Congress authorized it. But without Congressional approval, Ashcroft acted to expand the uses of FISA warrants even further, allowing the evidence gathered as a result of the FISA warrants to routinely end up in the hands of criminal law enforcement - and even allowing criminal law enforcement to play a role in directing evidence-gathering.
Today, the FISA Court routinely approves the creation of information screening "walls" between FBI intelligence and criminal prosecutors in cases where there are overlapping criminal and intelligence components. The Justice Department procedures seem designed to tear these walls down.
The Court's Ruling: Evidence Improper Evidence Sharing Was Already Occurring
On May 17, the FISA Court ruled that the proposal was not permissible under current federal law. The ruling was signed by the court's previous chief, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth. However, it was released by the new presiding judge, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
The ruling held that the proposed procedures would clash with FISA itself - for Congress intended, with FISA, to separate evidence gathering for counterintelligence from that for ordinary criminal investigations. It also pointed to evidence that, even without the procedures, both the Clinton and Bush Administrations' Departments of Justice had already ignored the divide between counterintelligence and policing. The evidence cited by the Court is troublesome.
According to evidence before the Court, the ruling said, DOJ had misused the FISA process and misled the court at least a dozen times. Justice Department and FBI officials had supplied erroneous information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps, including one signed by then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh.
The Court also pointed to evidence that authorities had improperly shared intelligence information with agents and prosecutors handling criminal cases in New York on at least four occasions. (The Department discovered the misrepresentations and reported them to the FISA court beginning in 2000.)
Furthermore, the Court noted, in an "alarming number of instances" during the Clinton administration, the FBI may have acted improperly. In a number of cases, the FBI and the Justice Department made "erroneous statements" in eavesdropping applications about "the separation of the overlapping intelligence and criminal investigators and the unauthorized sharing of FISA information with FBI criminal investigators and assistant U.S. attorneys."
Indeed, the Court said, there was a "troubling number of inaccurate FBI affidavits in so many FISA applications" and violations of court orders. The inaccuracies and violations, "in virtually every instance," involved "information sharing and unauthorized disseminations to criminal investigators and prosecutors."
"How these misrepresentations occurred remains unexplained to the court," the opinion noted, somewhat ominously.
In striking down parts of the new procedures, , the Court also ruled that law enforcement officials cannot give advice related to the surveillance to investigators carrying out the searches or wiretapping. (A March Ashcroft memo had said consultation or sharing of information may include the exchange of advice and recommendations on how to carry out the surveillance and searches.)
No, she's not correct. She said little to nothing about "probable cause."
She claimed, just as you did earlier before you recanted, that the Patriot Act did away with court ordered warrants for secret searches.
You've already backed away from that claim. Why would you support her making that same claim now? Why would you throw out red herrings like "probable cause?" You know what she claimed, and it wasn't "probable cause."
Nobody in the country, not the ABA, not constitutional law scholars, not libraries, not prestigious law schools are concerned about the Patriot Act over reaching constitutional authority.
Way back, I knew this would be a fruitless enterprise.
Sit back, relax -- that's what I intend to do.
No ''viable alternatives''? You sound like a bloody CNN butt-boy. The alternative for a legitimate supporter of the U.S.Constitution is to simply withhold a vote for Mr. Let's-Let-Fatboy-Kennedy-Write-The-''Education''-Bill-and-Let's-Have-More-Farm-Porkie-Than-Any-Time-In-History-and-Let's-Have-The-Taxpayers-Buy-Bill-Gates'-Meds-and...above all...Let's-Let-Every-Dirtbag-Who-Enters-The-USA-Illegally-Get-A-Taxpayer-Paid-Free-Ride-On-Everything-Especially-Medical-Care.
That would be Mr. Bush (in case you couldn't solve that clue), for whom I **gladly and eagerly** voted in 2000. And who has, short of his personally causing the assassination of both ol' Scottish Law and Tiny Tom -- AND -- vetoing EVERY spending bill the Regress proposes this year until they cut the NAMED DOLLAR AMOUNT in said bill by not less than 10% in THIS fiscal year, exactly zero chance of garnering my vote in this election.
Please note: I do NOT fancy my view as unique -- Mr. Bush had better start re-earning the support of the conservative side of his party, or he may well suffer the fate of his father.
To his advantage, he has only morons to run against, as opposed to polished (slimily, granted) politicos such as Bent Willy, but -- given his domestic policies to date, and as practical and pragmatic a person as I am -- I wouldn't put more than $50-100 bidding on www.tradesports.com for his re-election.
In this election, no matter which candidate wins, America loses.
Flame away, Bush-bots (let's avoid ad hominem, please, and stick to specific objections about the opinions expressed herein).
No, you haven't proved your original claim about the Patriot Act doing away with court ordered warrants, and no, I haven't claimed that the Patriot Act (or any law) is immune to abuse.
Must I set you straight on such simple facts on post after post? Don't you have some innate desire to be factually correct? Surely you can check your facts better in the future than what you've displayed so far in this thread...
Calm down and control your emotions. You'll obviously be voting for someone other then PresBush in November. So be it. It would be a waste of time trying to convince you otherwise. I'll let you wallow in your disgust for PresBush.
Btw, who will you be voting for? And don't tell me ABB.
The CNN comment, btw, was not in any way ad hominem; your comment did indeed sound like something one might hear on that misbegotten enterprise's broadcast(s), and I've no fear at all of being inaccurate by characterising their assorted employees as butt-boys, whether figuratively or literally I shall leave to your good judgment.
Naturally, I know that you were NOT the newsreader of such a comment.
Enjoy.
I'll go **THIS** far with you; if Mr. Bush would play real live hardball, take no prisoners kick-a$s politics, with the minority slimebags in the Senate as regarding judicial nominations, I would likely vote for him this time around. Sadly, he hasn't -- and in my view he never will. Let him prove me wrong.
His problem (or, at least, one of the principal problems now in American politics) is the ascendancy of the utterly cynical notion of ''triangulation'', otherwise translated as ''I'll beat the other candidate by selling out my core supporters and co-opting his (her) issues''.
Show me SOME -- just a little teeny tiny bit -- of indication that you, Mr. Bush, will honour your oath of office...and you can have my vote again.
He has not done so to date, and I consider it extremely unlikely that he will do so during the upcoming panderfest...pardon me, ''campaign''.
BTW, and for the record, I approve wholeheartedly of his foreign policy, except that I would wish for a MUCH more vigourous prosecution of the WOT.
LOL...
Well, MissAmericanPie, you can't say I didn't warn you... Doesn't he now remind you of that kid, "I know you are, but what am I?"
And y'all thought I was jokin'..... :-P
We've gotta' give the Devil his due: he is an accomplished sophist. When confronted with the undeniable, he's like that kid... But this time, he sticks his index fingers in his ears, closes his eyes, and sings "La, la, la, laaaa... I can't heeeaaaarrrrrr yoooouuuuu... La, la, la...."
ROFLOL. He doesn't get it, because he's impervious to facts and reality. Ask him to substantiate his position, and he'll quietly exit stage left...
"I've read the Patriot Act. Its actual legal text is harmless, and it is a far cry from how it is portrayed by various ideologues and sensationalistic media outlets. I've seen *nothing* in its actual legal text that would even begin to pose a problem to our Constitutional rights.
So after all the evidence presented to you, you still claim to see no danger to the 4th amendment regarding the abuse of elements in the Patriot Act legislation? Even though the abuse is going on right now in case after case.
That answers the question I put to you earlier, are you a child or do you just hope I am one. You are a child and it's past your bedtime.
This?
From you?
You were quite rude yourself.
I don't want to have to call the Mods on you. Your lie about me yesterday on the other thread wasn't reported, but if you continue to do this, I WILL report you.
You haven't got a clue as to who I am, and you never will because you lack the complexity to do so. Please keep your simplistic and erroneous psychobabble about me to yourself.
btw, mr capitalist here was so over the top rude and nasty that the Mod warned him about one nassty post and pulled his most offensive post, and if you care to find out the truth, you will see my apology for being dragged into the mud by his insults.......
Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I didn't "follow you to this thread"...
Nor is commenting on your disingenuous pretense of innocence "harrassing you".
I don't want to have to call the Mods on you.
Oh please...
If you're going to be rude and obnoxious to others, the least you can do is stand behind your words like a grown up.
Yesterday you were talking about punching people in the nose.
Today you're hiding behind the mods and feigning innocence?
Sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.