Bush-Bashing Conservatives Should Focus on the Big Picture

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.

"I posted the PA, every aspect of it is unconstitutional."

No, and no.

You posted the definitions in the prelude to the Patriot Act, not the Patriot Act itself. That's the first "no" to your above claims.

The second "no" is that you still haven't read the Patriot Act. You can't identify a single sentence in the Patriot Act that is specifically unconstitutional.

If you could identify such text, you would have posted it long ago to shut me up.

But instead of saying "Section 239: This Act Bypasses Courts To Give Unlimited Rights to Strip Search All Beautiful Women," or some other Constitution-defying verbage, you keep posting distractions and diversions as if I'll somehow fall for such fluff or get so bored with your intellectual dishonesty that I'll simply let you off the hook.

Won't happen.

You've made claims. On this very thread you have made the assertation that the Patriot Act somehow does away with court ordered warrants for secret seaches.

That's a heck of a claim.

But you can't support your claim. You can't point to any section of the Patriot Act that does away with court ordered warrants.

Shoot, one of your posts to me even SPECIFIED that FISA warrants from FISA courts were included in the Patriot Act, directly contradicting your own claim, and then you went on to, gasp, bash *me* for daring to think that Fisa Warrants were gasp, choke, cough...issued by FISA courts! Talk about nerve!

Now, presuming that you have bothered to read this far into my post, let me give you an easy solution to your dilema.

If you want *me* to admit, on this thread, in black and white, that I am wrong and have been wrong all along...then all that you have to do is to post back to me on this thread the actual legal language in the Patriot Act that does away with court issued warrants for secret searches.

There, that one thing is all that you have to do. You don't have to insult me. You don't have to dump pages of data on me. You don't have to get your friends to post nasty grams to me. You don't have to baffle me with BS.

All that you have to do is to show that one piece of legal language that backs up your initial claim against the Patriot Act.

But here's the kicker: you can't do it. No such language exists in that law.

And if you ever bother to take the time to actually read the Patriot Act, then you'll discover that truth on your own.

Southack, this is my last post to you on this subject. Your rebuttal is so twisted from post-to-post, I can’t be certain whether you just enjoy being combative, or you are as obdurate as you sound – a lot of both I think.

First, you choose to quibble with 601 and 629.

The text you highlight from 601 and 629 in 632 was not intended to be about warrantless searches.

Its my turn to challenge you, can’t you read ??

Now, go back to 596, that’s where you’ll find multiple, detailed citations authorizing warrantless searches. And, I didn’t even cite two separate Executive Orders because they are no longer focal points for these issues.

If you recall, by 601 and 629 we had moved on to discuss the rubberstamp aspects of the warrants the FISAC does issue, both before and after USAPA, so you hopefully could see the distinction.

You’ve NEVER responded to the precise citations provided in 596.

Even before USAPA, FISAC was compelled to issue orders based on even sealed information. And the old FISA law mandates that information remain sealed forever preventing any opportunity for judicial oversight EVER. For all the FISAC knows, the sealed request could contain blank paper, or nothing at all. We’ll never know because the OLD FISA protected the bureaucrats (and it still does), not the people.

MAP and I, and many noted constitutional scholars contend an order issued under such a circumstance, in fact offers NO 4th Amendment protections at all.

To us, and others, an order issued without neutral judicial review is tantamount to NO LAWFUL WARRANT AT ALL.

Under old FISA, the FISAC was compelled to grant orders on sealed documentation based upon only the certification of the Attorney General (AG) that the request met two standards, that the PRIMARY purpose of the surveillance was for intelligence and that the specific targets were not U.S. citizens.

To understand the history and framework of where we are today, you MUST appreciate there is a difference, in the eyes of the law, between an intelligence investigation and a criminal investigation. The old law differentiated and created a legal barrier between a foreign target and a target who is a U.S. citizen, and the law differentiated between surveillance and a physical search.

All these distinctions are important.

That brings us to the effect of USAPA. USAPA is subtle, deceptive, and crafted artfully. Assessing its impact requires a lot of walking back the proverbial dog to understand its nefarious methodology.

USAPA was never intended to be a comprehensive, all-inclusive document that provides all you need to know in one easy-to-read handbook.

It’s title IS NOT "How to violate the 4th Amendment for Dummies."

If that’s what you’re expecting to see, I concede, its not there in black and white.

Instead it’s aim is to change multiple other, already existing laws.

Since I know you’ve read the Patriot Act word-for-word, you appreciate that a great deal of it’s language reads like an editor’s detailed errata sheet. USAPA’s danger lies not so much in wholly articulated sentences, establishing intent and meaning clearly discernible to the reader, but achieves it's impact by the changes it makes in other laws. To understand it’s full impact, you must cross-reference to every law it amends and dissect its impact carefully.

For example, under multiple EOs and law (cited in 596), the government already had warrantless authority to conduct surveillance on foreigners primarily for intelligence purposes for many years, now they have expanded authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for a SIGNIFICANT intelligence purpose.

AG Ashcroft fought hard for USAPA to change that one word in FISA, “primary” to “significant.” What it means, and how it is being implemented is to use FISA circuitously for criminal as well as intelligence investigations. The I in FISA means just that, Intelligence.

Changing that one word from primary to significant, now means in practice that FISA can be used against U.S. citizens as well as foreigners. FISA was never intended to be used this way, the F in FISA is for Foreign.

Orders are still required for physical searches, but the request to the FISAC can still remain sealed and now the AG need only certify a “significant” purpose is for foreign intelligence. In practice, changing that one word now results in using a greatly widened FISA to conduct physical searches for criminal investigations against U.S. citizens, although indirectly.

Orders for investigations, issued by FISAC, based on sealed information, without judicial review of the actual request is as blatant a violation of the 4th Amendment as one can imagine.

That is the import of USAPA and that is what is causing such an outcry from those who care about constitutional protections.

There are other egregious aspects, under old laws (either with or without an order) a wire tap, or other surveillance had to be directed against a specific individual and a specific number, pen or URL.

USAPA permits roving surveillance, now any number any pen, any URL that a target MIGHT use, can be monitored, ALL the time. Under old law, any evidence against anyone other than the target, was excluded by definition. Now, under USAPA, that exclusionary protection is ended.

If the JBTs are monitoring a phone they suspect a target might use, and they hear you talking to, or intercept your e-mail to, your CPA about a questionable tax matter, they COULD now use that to pursue a criminal case against YOU, even though you were not the target and the matter does not implicate intelligence issues.

Yes, many believe it’s a reach, but now they could do it, and they could not before. You have to ask youself, What Would Janet Reno Do (WWJRD) ?? Remember, she issued an unlawful warrant to search Aldrich Ames house and car. Attorneys General DO NOT have the authority to isse a search warrant for any reason against anyone, it is illegal, but that didn't stop Janet. For now, AGs still have to go through the charade of petitioning the FISAC in intelligence cases such as Ames', and tradional courts for criminal cases.

Oh, by the way, that's another USAPA change. Prior to USAPA a warrant had to be issued in the jurisdiction where the surveillance or search would take place. No longer. USAPA supporters allege the purpose of the change was to allow continued monitoring of a suspect as he travels from one jurisdiction to another. But, there is no prohibition barring the Feds from "shopping" for a warrant; a district court judge in D.C. can issue a warrant to be served in California. Wasn't that way before.

There are multiple examples where Clinton used IRS audits against his critics – just imagine what an unscrupulous President or AG could do with the broad reach of USAPA. I know, you don’t care, you aver correctly that ANY law can be abused – but – we should take warning when a door is opened that invites abuse. That is where you and I differ greatly.

Using specious FISAC orders, obtained under seal, for physical searches, USAPA again sets the snare where U.S. citizens, who are merely bystanders, can become the subjects of criminal prosecutions.

Instead of dialing for dollars, under USAPA, the Feds now have the latitude to go seining for suspects – and the net has a very fine mesh.

The amendments USAPA makes to the banking laws, similarly enables them to widen their monitoring of electronic transactions. Instead of monitoring the transaction of a named target, now they can monitor ALL transactions to see who else they might detect, even if the suspect was not a target and even if the offense does not relate to an intelligence-related offense. Wiring a relatively insignificant amount of money innocently to a sister studying in Rome could make you the target of intense federal scrutiny.

Under post 9-11 revisions to the Banking Secrecy law, the purchase of a monetary instrument (e.g. money order, or cashier’s check) exceeding just $3K, with cash – MUST BE RECORDED FOR LATER REVIEW. This is not to be confused with the already existing requirement to actually REPORT cash transactions for $10K or more.

One last point. Under the guise of criminal investigation, from about 1959-1972, the FBI and the CIA colluded to investigate the lives of Americans who were engaged in peaceful political dissent, especially during the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement.

In an effort to rein in these blatant unconstitutional activities, the Church Commission recommended the CIA be barred from conducting domestic criminal investigations directed against U.S. citizens. The result, among other Acts, was FISA.

Now comes USAPA tearing down that wall, reestablishing the link between the CIA and the FBI. So long as “intelligence” can be claimed as the “significant” purpose of an investigation the CIA and the FBI once again can work together to investigate U.S. citizens criminal activity.

To combat terrorism, such a partnership IS desirable, except that USAPA voids the concept of the fruit of the poisoned tree. Under expanded USAPA authority, any person (including a citizen), suspected indirectly of a criminal activity (presumed to be innocent ‘of course’) can become the subject of intense investigation and prosecution although there was no warrant or order naming him or her.

Obviously - the opportunity for abuse is alluring, and has resulted in the multiple cases cited by MAP.

That my friend, scares the bejesus out of me – obviously, so far, your mileage varies.

A harmless, useful tool (with teeth).

Indeed !!

I’m tired of being your study hall proctor. Go do that Goggle search, do your own research. Instead of listening only to Bush and Ashcroft, read the opinions of the leading constitutional scholars, especially Turley (on the left) and Fein (on the right).

Get your head out of the specific words of just USAPA, and see what it really does to all the other laws it amends.

Appreciate its subtlety and its nefarious methodology.

While you’re at it, re-read your Constitution a few times, and the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence.

Try to develop a visceral appreciation for the freedom and liberty our forefathers bestowed upon us by creating this federal republic.

Guard jealously our unique American legacy, and heed Benjamin Franklin’s admonition, ‘We gave you a republic, if you can keep it.’

Now, "Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexations to the spirit..." -- Desiderata

"To us, and others, an order issued without neutral judicial review is tantamount to NO LAWFUL WARRANT AT ALL."

Then that's what you should be arguing, rather than posting bold-faced fabrications that you have to later recant in this very thread. It's one thing to claim that warrants are being authorized without sufficient judicial neutrality, but quite another thing to claim that a law literally does away with such court ordered warrants altogether!

Both you and MAP claimed, contrary to the evidence at hand, that the Patriot Act did away with court ordered warrants for secret searches.

When challenged on that claim by me, you recanted because you admit that such language does not exist in the Patriot Act. MAP took a different approach. She tried to do a data dump, as if posting large amounts of irrelevent data would somehow suffice as support for her wild-eyed claim. Then she pretended as though the court mandated warrants int he Patriot Act weren't somehow issued by courts, among other such disreputable debate "tactics."

And now you are turning away from my challenge to both you and MAP (which was, for the record, to show any legal text in the Patriot Act that backed up your claims of abolishing court ordered warrants) to a different proposition altogether: that *other* laws, such as FISA (enacted in 1978 under President Carter), while still requiring warrants, negate the judicial neutrality of some types of court ordered warrants.

This shift in your argument would finally place both you and MAP on firmer intellectual ground. Who knows, if hashed out in a lengthy debate you might even be able to make a persuasive case for that new argument.

But I challenged neither of you about FISA or other laws.

No, I took you both to task because you both made wild-eyed claims about one specific law: the Patriot Act.

Oddly, you've attempted to continue debating me in this thread even though you've already *recanted* your original claim about the Patriot Act (at least, you recanted after I called you to task for saying such outrageous things).

MAP, on the other hand, has so far refused to back down from her absurd stance that has already been refuted by her own posts on this thread in which she cited the FISA court warrant itself!

To which I ping her back to this thread only as a courtesy since I am talking about her and do not wish to so do behind her back. Were it not for that I would have attempted to respect her clear desire to flee away in embarassed disgrace from this thread.

Here's another information dump for you foo. The tenacles of the PA reach far beyond their lawful application, making them void and unlawful, including their worthless piece of paper so called warrant, and the section listed in the article below, section 213 of the PA that grants secret and unlawful searches that you claim doesn't exist. Of course numb skulls won't get it, but everyone else will.

House Votes to Ban PATRIOT Act Secret Searches Reuters reported at ten o'clock last night that the House of Representatives has grown a backbone and something akin to a respect for the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and the American traditions of privacy, civil liberties and checks on government power.

In a 309-118 vote the House voted to attach a provision to a $37.9 billion spending bill that would ban the Department of Justice from allocating any money whatsoever for so-called "sneak and peak" searches of private property.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, part of a little-known set of provisions designed to protect the civil liberties of Americans, reads:

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.

This means, in essence, that if a law enforcement agency wants to take a look around your home without your permission they must convince a judge that they have probable cause to do so. If they get what a judge considers probable cause and end up searching your home, traditionally they must serve you with the search warrant #&151; this allows you to then challenge their probable cause in court.

So, for instance, if they relied on faulty testimony or relied on evidence that your attorney doesn't feel constitutes "probable cause" then you can challenge the warrant in court and potentially get any seized evidence thrown out as "fruit of a poisonous tree" — in other words, it was seized illegally and therefore inadmissable in court.

On top of that, Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure stated that the government must, if seizing items while executing a search warrant, immediately provide you with an inventory of items seized. They must say "Okay, we took one JVC television, one Sanyo phone..."

This process serves to protect us from government run amok. It serves, specifically, to prevent the government from randomly entering people's residences searching for something — anything — without the proper probable cause. If they find something, after all, they won't be able to use it in court anyway.

The provision about immediate notification of seized evidence, of course, also serves a purpose. It prevents the government from barging into your house and just taking your property for no good reason. If they don't give an inventory of property seized, after all, it would be extremely difficult to ever get your property back. They could simply say "Oh, we didn't take that."

John Ashcroft wasn't happy with that state of affairs. He wasn't happy with having some balance in the system of search and seizure. He wasn't happy giving the citizenry any leg up on government. Ashcroft feels that government must hold all the cards while the citizenry sits passively by, content to be searched and seized by the infallible and omnipotent government.

The USA PATRIOT Act got America closer to Ashcroft's vision of an American police state. Under Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, entitled "Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant," the FBI could obtain a special warrant to search your house without notifying you — or at least not notifying you until the evidence is actually used against you in court.

Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act actually allows the FBI to put on gloves and black clothing, pick the lock to your home and sift through your personal belongings, leaving nothing out of place. It permits them to rifle through all your personal effects — from your personal papers to your pornography collection — all while leaving nothing out of place. They leave as silently and invisibly as they came, giving no indication that they have been there.

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.