Government

House Rejects Extension of Patriot Act Provisions as 26 Republicans Defect

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The House on Tuesday failed to extend the life of three surveillance tools that are key to the nation’s post-Sept. 11 anti-terror law, a slipup for the new Republican leadership that miscalculated the level of opposition within its own ranks.

The House voted 277-148 to keep the three provisions of the USA Patriot Act on the books until Dec. 8. But Republicans brought up the bill under a special expedited procedure requiring a two-thirds majority, and the vote was seven short of reaching that level.

The Republicans, who took over the House last month, lost 26 of their own members, adding to the 122 Democrats who voted against it. Supporters say the three measures are vital to preventing another terrorist attack, but critics say they infringe on civil liberties. They appealed to the antipathy that newer and more conservative Republicans hold for big government invasions of individual privacy.

The Hill lists the Republicans who defected and notes that until Tuesday night’s vote, “Republicans voted together in all but two votes this year, and in those two votes, only one Republican voted with Democrats”:

Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Rob Bishop (Utah), Paul Broun (Ga.), John Campbell (Calif.), John Duncan (Tenn.), Mike Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.), Tom Graves (Ga.), Dean Heller (Nev.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.), Tim Johnson (Ill.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Jack Kingston (Ga.), Raul Labrador (Idaho), Connie Mack (Fla.), Kenny Marchant (Texas), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Ron Paul (Texas), Denny Rehberg (Mont.), Phil Roe (Tenn.), Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.), Bobby Schilling (Ill.), David Schweikert (Ariz.), Rob Woodall (Ga.), and Don Young (Alaska).

The Patriot Act bill would have renewed the authority for court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. Also addressed was Section 215, the so-called library records provision that gives the FBI court-approved access to “any tangible thing” relevant to a terrorism investigation.

The third deals with the “lone-wolf” provision of a 2004 anti-terror law that permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. people not known to be affiliated with a specific terrorist organization.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the former Judiciary Committee chairman who authored the 2001 Patriot Act, urged his colleagues to support the extensions, saying they were needed as a stopgap until permanent statutes could be agreed upon.

“The terrorist threat has not subsided and will not expire, and neither should our national security laws,” he said.

But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said Republican supporters of the tea party movement should show their opposition to big government by joining Democrats in opposing the measure.

“How about the Patriot Act, which has the broadest reach and the deepest reach of government to our daily lives?” he asked.

The defeat means that Republicans may have to bring the bill back to the floor under regular procedures that only require a majority for passage but allow for amendments. Time is of the essence: The three provisions will expire on Feb. 28 if the House and Senate can’t agree on how to proceed.

The House had pushed for a nine-month extension to give lawmakers more time to come up with an approach that would give the measures permanent legal status. The Senate is considering longer-range ideas.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., last month introduced legislation that would extend the three provisions through 2013 while improving oversight of intelligence-gathering tools. Leahy would also phase out, at the end of 2013, the use of national security letters, FBI demands for information that do not need a judge’s approval.

The Senate also has on its legislative calendar a bill by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would reauthorize the three measures through 2013 and a Republican proposal that would make them permanent.

The White House, in a statement, said it did not object to the House bill but “would strongly prefer” extending the provisions to the end of 2013, saying that “provides the necessary certainty and predictability that our nation’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies require.”

Leahy, who introduced a nearly identical bill last year that the Senate did not take up, said in December that he had received a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder saying that the Justice Department was implementing several oversight and civil liberties measures included in his legislation.

Those included requirements that the government show relevance to an authorized investigation when seeking library or bookseller records, and similarly that the FBI show that information it is seeking with a national security letter is relevant to an investigation.

Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she was “glad to see there is bipartisan opposition to the Patriot Act 10 years later.” The ACLU is a strong opponent of the three provisions, saying they lack proper and fundamental privacy safeguards.

—-

The bill is H.R. 514.

Online:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

Comments (171)

1 2 3 4
  • Chett
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 9:07am

    Way too close. We need some serious call your congressperson action here. Kill the patriot act – NOW.

    Report Post »  
  • Pezman
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:50am

    I was with my more liberal friends when this ac was first put in place. They howled about it all during the Bush years. but went stragnely silent, when the current administration amped it up. Now they are starting to blame this on the tea-party? I’m glad to see this monumentally unsonstitutional set of powers go by the wayside. No matter who is in the White House. I hope those on the left can let go pf partisanship when it comes to this issue.

    Report Post »  
  • RefoundHonor
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:49am

    Michelle Bachmann voted for the extension. What a fraud. I love how we practically run on a “constitution” platform and we vote to basically chop the 4th amendment in half.

    ..and she wanted to hold hearings for congressmen to study and learn about the constitution? I think she needs to get schooled herself.

    Report Post »  
    • riseandshine
      Posted on February 11, 2011 at 11:11am

      she’s runnin for prez. …she’s not the one for the job, obviously. and she most likely still buys the bin laden story. i believed it for a long time till i looked into it. its so plain to see for anyone who would take a little while and examine the overwhelming evidence. Nano-thermite

      Report Post » riseandshine  
  • Lion420
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:45am

    I have heard a lot of good things that were done with the Patriot act. They mean nothing if it’s not Constitutional. Let it go. The Constitution without the extras like this will do us just fine. I’d feel safer, with intelligent God-fearing Americans who own guns as opposed to ANY legislation no matter what it does.

    Report Post » Lion420  
  • Helldogger
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:44am

    If they’re not gonna fight the war like a war, then they don’t get the special rules to war. Yesterday we found out they were forcing Arabic language in our schools & they want to put a victory mosque up on the 9/11 grave site. That tells me we’ve lost the war.

    Report Post » Helldogger  
  • entropy
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:42am

    Let them get a court order Do Not Ever trust the Feds to look out for you. U.S. Military maybe, Feds, NO.

    Report Post »  
  • CountMeIn
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:38am

    Works for me? Why doesn’t Congress do its job and find something to replace it with which protects the population without invading personal liberty. Unfortunately, this is only temporary and it is likely to come up for a simple majority vote soon.

    Report Post »  
  • gr8photoman
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:38am

    Instead of electronic snooping we could go a long way to protecting ourselves by doing what every other country in the world does and simply protecting our boarders. Both parties have sold us out to the Mexican invasion. What’s worse…Mexicans aren’t the only nationality strolling right on in. What’s scarier…some of them aren’t empty handed.

    http://www.iraniumthemovie.com/

    Report Post » gr8photoman  
  • orcainohio
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:35am

    How come everytime a terrorist gets caught we get mass punishment at our airports?It is terrible to watch a TSA search a ww2 veteran down to his socks.

    Report Post »  
  • pdh42
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:29am

    What is funny about this Patriot Act is that when Nobama was running for President he was against it and now that he thinks he is president he wants it…. I say we dump it and bury it and never allow it to come back….

    Report Post »  
  • Scaz
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:25am

    My Rep. Chris Gibson (NY) voted against it. Good boy Chris!

    Report Post » Scaz  
  • omni
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:21am

    The red flags went up when I saw that the defeat was ACLU approved. Could we be throwing out the baby with the bath water because we don’t trust Barry? Maybe a closer look at safeguards would be a better approach.

    Report Post »  
    • LLATPOH
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:37am

      I had thought that as well; that if it expires you’re throwing everything out, good and bad.

      There are so many things that can be justified under the current law that wouldn’t be allowed normally, and it does need to be looked at.

      I agree with you in that there should be a better look at safeguards. What better way than to start clean? And hopefully, our newly elected officials will have some say on the philosophy behind the next rules.

      Report Post »  
    • republitarian
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 12:32pm

      Yep. Throw it out and then have a serious discussion about what can be done within the constitution.

      Report Post » republitarian  
  • destroyer_of_moonbats
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:20am

    i agree with ron paul 100%

    Report Post » destroyer_of_moonbats  
  • darlenekay
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:20am

    I don’t want this much power in the hands of Obama. I’m glad it went down.

    Report Post »  
    • Showtime
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:41am

      That’s the reason I was against it, too!

      Report Post » Showtime  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 2:34pm

      I‘m glad it’s down because I don‘t want to see that kind of power in ANYBODY’S hand. My liberty is not judged based on who is holding office.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • republitarian
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 2:51pm

      It’s not down! This was a two thirds vote. If we are serious about this, then we had better put in the overtime now.

      Report Post » republitarian  
  • destroyer_of_moonbats
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:19am

    i agree w/ ron paul 100%

    Report Post » destroyer_of_moonbats  
  • DagneyT
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:15am

    Considering who is in charge, I’m not sure refusal in giving the regime this kind of powers is a bad thing. Especially since they seem to see US, i.e., WE THE PEOPLE in TEA Parties as their suspects in terrorism! They ignore true jihadists, and target the American people, why give them any more tools to do that?

    Report Post » DagneyT  
    • RedeyeBlind
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 9:31am

      BINGO! Just what i was thinking, I did not like it when Bush was in charge and it really scares the hell out of me now.

      Report Post » RedeyeBlind  
    • TheBMT
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 10:24am

      and this is the whole point we try to make to the left. We are trying to limit executive power and federal govt power in general so that when we get somebody 20-30+ years from now they have to work to get that stuff. By allowing them the stuff now there is a more likely chance they will abuse it.

      Report Post »  
  • blanco
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:14am

    You think that’s going to stop prez islama from doing it? Which part of the Constitution has he NOT circumvented?

    Report Post »  
    • pdh42
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:27am

      ROFLOL…. Prez Islama…. I like that….

      Report Post »  
  • emertz8413
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:14am

    The more I hear about the Patriot Act, the more concerned I get for potential abuse. It doesn‘t matter if you’re not doing anything wrong, what happens when those in power “deem” you are doing something wrong. My gut tells me “beware”, I’m going with my gut more and more these days.

    Report Post »  
  • GeauxAlready
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:13am

    .
    That Brain in Texas is once again lost. Ron Paul dropped it some where. We will put it back on the mikl carton, if found please return ASAP……………

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • ConservativeHippie
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:46am

      Ron Paul is a great Patriot.

      Report Post » ConservativeHippie  
    • ozz
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 11:34am

      Ron Paul stands for freedom with every single vote. Your freedom. Do not be an ungrateful idiot.

      Report Post » ozz  
    • RockyMountainMosaics.Com
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 11:43am

      You’re more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by a terrorist. I’m not ready to give up my Constitutional rights for Bin Laden (Emmanuel Goldstein) or any other boogyman. Too bad this won’t stop perfect strangers from getting to third base with your wife and daughter at the airport. Perhaps we can work on that next, no?

      Report Post »  
  • lildeb56
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:12am

    If Connie Mack (FL) voted against it – I respect his judgment. He is in tune with his constituents, and I support him fully.

    Report Post » lildeb56  
    • Showtime
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:32am

      I am PROUD to say that FOUR (4) of GEORGIA’S Representatives voted against it, and Republican Walter Jones (NC-3) voted against it.

      I don’t mind telling you — NC’s Third District constituents LOVE Walter! I kept the spotlightlight on him when I wrote for the newspaper in NC. I never saw a politician work so hard for his people, go to the trouble he does to mix with and talk with his constituents, and be as helpful with information needed for a newspaper story. Walter Jones is NC-3′s “Jim DeMint!”

      Report Post » Showtime  
  • etetetet
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:04am

    Don’t matter – Technology that came into existence the last 10 years allows the same type ‘peek-a-boo-I hear you. Even beyong the NSA but they most likely have the best. This post went through their deciphering computers as you read this.

    Report Post »  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:20am

      Yes we are now far beyond the nightmare of George Orwell
      And for just one moment ask yourself what if these Crazy 911
      was an inside job are telling the TRUTH ????

      Report Post » tower7femacamp  
    • GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 9:22am

      If U would go so far as to find out the physics behind an underground nuclear demolition, it will piss U off to no end finding out how they blatantly lie to the public.
      Congress was established because we had primitive communication back then. That is no longer the case, WE DON’T NEED THEM ANYMORE!!!

      Report Post »  
  • Ironmaan
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:03am

    These people are fools and they are playing with our lives. Whats wrong with the section of the law below?
    —The third deals with the “lone-wolf” provision of a 2004 anti-terror law that permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. people not known to be affiliated with a specific terrorist organization.—
    http://guerillatics.com

    Report Post »  
    • moriarty70
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:45am

      @Ironmaan

      How would you like it, if you were on vacation in Canada and the government was keeping a record of you and bugging you, not due to any reason they can prove, but just in case you might know someone who means harm to Canada?

      Report Post » moriarty70  
    • Ironmaan
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:57am

      —Moriarty70

      I wouldn’t mind. How would you like it if your family was blown up on an airplane because the government was unable to follow such a lead? I guess you figure the odds of that happening to YOU are minimal, but you are willing to take that risk for others.

      Report Post »  
    • tifosa
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 9:33am

      As I recall, Str. Leahy introduced legislation that some contingencies continue, but that the most controversial/intrusive parts of the legislation be terminated or allowed to expire. Did the 26 R’s and 120+ D’s who voted against it look at such possibilities?

      Report Post » tifosa  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:01am

    @The Blazers

    For others who post at this sight, and may not be able to get to see the Glenn Beck show on the TV there is a sight you can catch the past episodes of his shows…

    http://www.watchglennbeck.com

    The people who manage the sight also make availible material links for the latest research of each of Beck’s shows. Please pass this on to anyone who may be interested in his show for what it covers and may not be able to watch it due to time constraints.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • DagneyT
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:18am

      Good on ya’ for passing that along! There are lots of conservatives who do not have cable.

      Report Post » DagneyT  
    • Showtime
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:23am

      Thanks, Snow. I’d forgotten what that link was. I’ll put in the subjecdt line of an email to myself and save it. (My Favorites bar “runneth over.”)

      I watch ((GB)) on my computer at 5:00 p.m. here: http://www.tvpc.com/Channel.php?ChannelID=2458
      If it’s not livestreaming then, I watch it at 2:00 a.m. when Fox reruns it.

      Report Post » Showtime  
    • Scaz
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:24am

      Great site. Thanks for posting that.

      Report Post » Scaz  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:24am

      @Dagneyt

      Do not feel bad, I found this sight several months ago; it was not until reading many of the posts of the caliphate and egypt articles that I understood just how many people do not have the time due to other obligations to actually see the show.

      I had, obviously incorrectly, figured many others were aware of the show being availible on that sight, I hope others will pass the information on as well.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • GeauxAlready
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 7:59am

    .
    We don’t need to know what they are planning any way.

    Obama will protect us errrrrrrr welllllll…………

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • Showtime
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:44am

      Well, Obama asked for BIPARTISANSHIP! He got it!

      Report Post » Showtime  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on February 9, 2011 at 7:58am

    The Patriot Act itself may have seemed like a good idea at the time it was drafted and voted upon, yet I for one will not miss the passing away of this act. There have been many grave concerns for the potential abuse of power by the fed’s for too long of time, and this gave them the rights to do almost anything in surveilence and intrusion into other peoples lives without even a court determined bit of suspision presented.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • blanco
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:15am

      “Abuse of power”—ya think?????

      Report Post »  
    • DagneyT
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:17am

      Especially considering who is currently in control!

      Report Post » DagneyT  
    • taskmaster78
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:19am

      I totally agree, it has been abused and will be in the future, I would rather not have the Obama administration have access to this law. I can see the abuses, it would make Nixon admin seem tame when it comes to an enemy list.

      Report Post »  
    • rodamaa
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:20am

      I have misgivings on anything that tramples on our constitution. To quote Ben
      “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

      Report Post »  
    • cnsrvtvj
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:25am

      Strange how all the Democrats who bashed Bush for passing this act due to concerns about the constitution are now bashing Republicans for not passing it this time. Which one is it liberals? I forgot the liberal mindset……Bush war bad, Obama war good, Bush spending bad, Obama spending good, Bush patriot act bad, Obama patriot act good.

      http://www.donsmithshow.com – conservative news and political humor

      Report Post » cnsrvtvj  
    • terryinlasvegas
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:38am

      I agree totally. Obama is causing enough trouble already. We don’t need him doing ANYTHING in secret or without a warrant. Especially after he said: “Don‘t think we’re not keeping score brother”…

      Report Post »  
    • HappyStretchedThin
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:38am

      I’m as leery of government intervention as the next Orwell reader.
      But law enforcement DOES need up-to-date tools to counter up-to-date technologies used by potential terrorists. A FISA judge warrant STILL takes too long for many applications. The freedom of everyone is NOT negatively impacted by the heart of the Patriot Act provisions, although some tweaking is desirable.
      But PLEASE, if you want to disagree with me, do NOT misquote Franklin to do so. That’s what the loony left does.
      He REALLY said: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
      Note the critical words: essential, temporary
      I can forgive switching out security for safety, but essential and temporary are KEY parts of the concept Franklin was driving at. Ponder with an open mind and prepare to change opinions if necessary.

      Report Post » HappyStretchedThin  
    • TAXLORDCOMETH
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:44am

      Ron Paul is becoming my favorite member of Congress. I‘m about to call my rep and have her explain why she didn’t vote against this.

      Report Post »  
    • TAXLORDCOMETH
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:47am

      The truth is, folks, the NSA can listen to any phone conversation they want at any time, and nobody is going to know. Do you think they’re going to run to a judge and tell them? Our Intel community is totally out of control. If even half of black project technology I’m hearing about exists, we are cut off from marvelous inventions that would transform this planet — and we paid the bill to develop them.

      Report Post »  
    • patriotgamer
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:51am

      I want a government that does not give in to those who attack us by changing our way of life, but says, “We will not infringe on our citizens liberty on bit to ‘prevent’ another attack!” But that would also require a government that lives up to its constitutional duty to defend the United States from all enemies, especially foreign, and mop the floor with them when we are attacked! One or two nukes into the heart of Afghanistan 8 or 9 tears ago would have been more effective at keeping us safe than all the thugs at the TSA could ever hope to. Maybe Mahmoud Ahmjustamidget would be thinking twice about threatening us now.

      Report Post » patriotgamer  
    • tifosa
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:57am

      Correction: the dems were not “for” the Patriot Act. Almost twice as many dems voted against it compared to for it. This has been an abuse of power from the start. The first five years alone (’01-’06) saw tons of over-reach and misuse of the “privileges” to the gov’t (incl. FBI.)

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • Shempy
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 8:57am

      List the cases where American citizens have been damaged — imprisonment specifically, i guess — because of “misuse” of the Patriot Act…..I’m just curious…..Not trying to be a smart aleck, really….where are the cases and cases of American citizens thrown into prison for absolutely no reason, never given any chance to defend themselves, locked away in a gulag-ish hell hole? (Like Pelican Bay, CA,) I have just always wondered, after hearing for 10 yrs that the Patriot Act was going to turn our country into a police state. where have all the press conferences for the releases of the wrongly imprisoned been? You‘d think there’d be one a week, the way some people have wrung their hands over the Patriot Act. I’m just curious– Have there been any cases of American citizens wrongly imprisoned and their lives destroyed by “misuse” of the Patriot Act? One, two maybe. How about 10? 1 a yr?

      Well, we haven’t had ONE more 9/11, have we? I know I sound simple but….allz I know is I sure don’t want another day like 9/11/01. Ever.

      Report Post »  
    • Stuck_in_CA
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 9:06am

      I’ve always respected Rep. Sensenbrenner, but this time I’m with Kucinich. Sometimes, the Left is right. Another example of that is the Middle-class-destroying “Free Trade”
      policy of most on the Right.
      The Patriot Act has gone way too far. It truly is a soft police state law.
      Congress needs to take a VERY close look at it in its entirety, before voting yes on it.

      Report Post » Stuck_in_CA  
    • Freedomator
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 9:23am

      Good point. I agree.

      Report Post » Freedomator  
    • texsun
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 9:32am

      I agree, this act like many we have seen over the past few years was passed “in a crisis”.

      Report Post »  
    • annieoakley
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 9:36am

      I agree. I think the TSA is related to the Patriot Act and it seems as though the FBI takes on the political posture of this Administration. IMO Eric Holder and all the rest of the people in the admin. are not on OUR side. I still think that all of our previous Administrations were much more trustworthy than this one. The Obamas, from the top and including the FLOTUS are grabbing power as quickly as possible and no one seems to be able to stop them. It truly is all about THEM and ‘do as I say not as I do’.

      Report Post »  
    • hologram5
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 9:44am

      Good call Snow, I agree. This patriot act doesn’t make us any safer than TSA and their thug-like tactics. They released exactly what they did and did not find and it was funny that they stopped nothing. They found nothing. They have missed more than they found.

      Report Post » hologram5  
    • independentvoteril
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 9:50am

      I did NOT see my reps name on the list so I will have to check and see just how he did vote.. I at the time the Patriot Act was signed was AGAINST it and BUSH was in office.. I could see the potential for abuse even from him.. and there was some if I remember correctly.. when Obama extended it I knew my fears were right..this is a SLOW take over making congress and the senate irrelevant.. that could go with the ex. order signed by Bush (believe it was 51 and can be found on the government website) that OMITS his having to go to the SENATE to declare Marshal Law.. Obama also KEPT this one on the books.. what people keep failing to understand is the Bush family comes from a long line of SOCIALIST or actually worse yet I beleive it was the older Bush’s grandfather who was all for a NEW WORLD ORDER.. he worked closely with the PROGRESSIVES in the 20′s..what OBAMA is doing is continuing the take over of powers from the Congress and Senate that were being started as far back as the first Bush.. and don’t be fooled Jeb is cut from the same cloth.. read the history of the family.. I am proud of all those that voted against this bill and hope MORE join in for the next vote.. there is NO REASON to have it.. when they HAVE the facts and signals they STILL don‘t do anything consider the FORT HOOD SHOOTER and THE MEXICAN CARTEL’S that they IGNORE because they are being PC.. and the T.E.A party who they are telling everyone is a terrorist organization.. the EXTRA intel isn’t doing any good anyway, it is however putting EVERY American who doesn’t agree with them on the coals..

      Report Post » independentvoteril  
    • Nutthuggers
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 9:51am

      Thank you, thank you, thank you 26 Republicans!!! We are getting back to traditional Repub values. We need LESS Federal intrusion in our lives!!

      Report Post »  
    • joe3
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 10:02am

      becks doing a great job telling the truth, today I herd him call out the GOP for the power grubbing traitors they are. Time for the GOP to be replaced with tea party members. on ronpaul.com he has a list of who voted this to be continued. sadly, only 26 republicans voted it down, the rest need to be looked at. 2012….

      Report Post »  
    • tifosa
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 10:11am

      BTW, pay attention, it was NOT the teapartiers that voted against it. Michele voted FOR it, for example. Allen West voted FOR it. hmm gets interesting :)

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • Sinista Mace
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 10:17am

      Thank you Dennis Kucinich for not supporting the Patriot Act.

      Meet me at Halloran Park and we can talk about the TSA And Police jamming their hands up our butts at random.

      We still have the problem of Police and TSA doing cavity searches at ad-hoc checkpoints in violation of the 4th Amendment, with a Judge on site to give the officers warrant to perform a search.

      Report Post » V-MAN MACE  
    • ClassicalLiberal
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 10:28am

      Thank you for rejecting this legislation!

      Report Post » ClassicalLiberal  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 10:44am

      Please call your Congressman and thell them to not to renew the Marxist Act!!! This big brother garbage has to squashed now!
      So refreshing to have new blood in the Congress who don’t walk lock step with the NeoCons Lieberman, McCain, and Graham!

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • Templar Knight
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 12:37pm

      I agree, the Patriot Act was a mistake that was needed at the time. But now it is just an expansion of Governmental power. I am actually surprised that there was something I could agree with the Democrats on, and thank goodness for our Tea Party candidates.

      Report Post » Huguenot Descendant  
    • joseph Fawcett
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 1:03pm

      I agree completely, get rid of the Act completely once and for all. It was the wrong huge step in goverment abusive powers over it’s people. This is one thing I hated that Bush did. It should be undone completely and Firm relance of Divine Providence should be incouraged over Goverment power to control the daily lives of its people. I pray the Holy Spirit not only protects this nation from terror but that He restores our faith in God’s protection from our goverment and the New World Order that is spreading through out the world now. We are witnessing the end-times for sure. May we be faithful to God until the end!

      http://www.josephfawcettart.com Western artist

      Report Post » joseph Fawcett  
    • MJustice
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 1:29pm

      I think considering that the Demoncrats are still in charge, any power we can take away from the government is a good idea. However, at the time, this act was a good idea as well. The problem is, as with anything the government touches, they took this good idea and twisted it into something so very, very wrong!

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 2:00pm

      Huzzah! Roll back the police state! :)

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 2:14pm

      @Shempy

      “where are the cases and cases of American citizens thrown into prison for absolutely no reason, never given any chance to defend themselves, locked away in a gulag-ish hell hole? ”

      How would you be able to produce any cases in that event? How would you even begin to know (you or anybody else I mean)?

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • Navyveteran
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 4:54pm

      Snow the unpatriot act was never a good idea. The dems had it right this was a power grab and to take away our rights in this country. TSA came from this act btw. However now when the dems have the senate and the white house you don’t hear a peep from them on this act.

      Thank God the tea party repubs voted against this, now let’s get rid of the whole thing and we can end the porno scanners and cop a feel to fly programs.

      Report Post »  
    • ANTISOCIAL-IST
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 5:10pm

      no wonder they issued report that threat is highest since 9-11: they want to be able to continue to spy on citizens w/out warrant. yes, they do. all the time. to you and me. no different than most other countries, if not all. patriot act smatriot act – destroy immediately. but they won’t. they’ll extend it ’til there is an actual credible threat and then say, see, it‘s a good thing we didn’t get rid of it.

      Report Post » ANTISOCIAL-IST  
    • gracentruth
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 6:14pm

      The “un”partiotic act was indeed a dictator’s dream. Also, leave my french fries alone; and my health care, and my education, and my internet, and my country.

      Report Post » gracentruth  
    • Redistributor
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 7:54pm

      I’m not so sure. Not counting Fort Hood, has the PATRIOT Act been the driving force behind no serious terrorist attacks? I don‘t really care for the act either but it is pretty amazing that we haven’t been hit again like 9/11.

      Report Post »  
    • DisillusionedDaily
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 9:46pm

      Maybe now we can regain our unalienable right to privacy again.

      Report Post » DisillusionedDaily  
    • riseandshine
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 10:52pm

      didn’t need it then..don’t need it now….it was probably used mostly to make sure those connected to the 9/11 false flag operation kept their mouths shut

      Report Post » riseandshine  
    • oldoldtimer
      Posted on February 9, 2011 at 11:37pm

      They will just revote tomorrow. Remember the repubs is the one pushing this. Why? They know it guts the 4th amendment and destroys individual rights and property rights. So why would they? They do not need to be able to tag soeme one as a domestic terrist with no proof and no way to challange it. If so declared they can confiscate every thing you have.

      Report Post »  
    • riseandshine
      Posted on February 11, 2011 at 10:50am

      we didn‘t need the patriot act back then and we don’t need it now. 9/11 was a false flag operation. and this coming from a reagan conservative

      Report Post » riseandshine  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love