According to the latest information from the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, five states and 373 cities, towns, and counties that have already passed resolutions, ordinances, or ballot initiatives to protect the civil liberties of their 57,009,591 residents from the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act. A recent MSNBC poll asked, "Should Congress renew the Patriot Act provisions set to expire soon?" Out of 24,232 responses, 79% voted 'no'. Some of the Congress-critters are listening to their constituents...enough so that a major battle will be waged on the Hill over the next two months of debate. The bill originally was passed over Halloween week in 20001...with lots of tricks and no treats, with almost no debate.

Insight Magazine reported, "Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight, 'The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it -- and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting.

"Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. 'It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote -- at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote.'...

"And why would that be? 'This is a very bad bill,' explains Paul, 'and I think the people who voted for it knew it and that's why they said, 'Well, we know it's bad, but we need it under these conditions.' Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new law were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it.'

"What is so bad about the new law? 'Generally,' says Paul, 'the worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants.' He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the 'sneak-and-peek' provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose property was to be searched. With one vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated.

"The Fourth Amendment states: '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.'

"Paul, a strict constructionist, has a pretty good idea of what Americans may anticipate. 'I don't like the sneak-and-peek provision because you have to ask yourself what happens if the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to search his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced ... and he shoots them. This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen.'

"The only independent in the House, Rep. Bernie Sanders from Vermont, couldn't support the bill for similar reasons: 'I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'm concerned that voting for this legislation fundamentally violates that oath. And the contents of the legislation have not been subjected to serious hearings or searching examination.'

"Even before the ink on the president's signature had dried, the FBI began to take advantage of the new search-and-seizure provisions. A handful of companies have reported visits from federal agents demanding private business records. C.L. 'Butch' Otter (R-Idaho), another of the three GOP lawmakers who found the legislation unconstitutional, says he knew this provision would be a problem. 'Section 215 authorizes the FBI to acquire any business records whatsoever by order of a secret U.S. court. The recipient of such a search order is forbidden from telling any person that he has received such a request. This is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment protection of private property.' Otter added that 'some of these provisions place more power in the hands of law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could have dreamt and severely compromises the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. This bill, while crafted with good intentions, is rife with constitutional infringements I could not support.'"

In an article Ron Paul wrote, "Is America a Police State?", he said: "Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. 'Sneak and peak' and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?

"It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. I'm sure our citizens are more tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing all this government supervision is necessary and helpful - and besides they are living quite comfortably, material wise. However the reaction will be different once all this new legislation we're passing comes into full force, and the material comforts that soften our concerns for government regulations are decreased. This attitude then will change dramatically, but the trend toward the authoritarian state will be difficult to reverse.

"What government gives with one hand - as it attempts to provide safety and security - it must, at the same time, take away with two others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot less than promised, it may be too late."

In an interview by the Texas Observer (TO), Paul said: TO: What's wrong with the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security bill? RP: [They] have the basic problem of really undermining privacy, which I think is the essence of our liberty. If you don't have privacy, you don't have much freedom left.

The part that [also] really bothers me was the process. We did not even have real access to the bill[s] before the vote. I have a general rule, since I'm not a so-called loyalist. As a member of the party, I feel like there is some allegiance that I have to give. So I give it on the procedural votes, the parliamentary votes. Two times I went against the Republican Party on procedural votes: They were the PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security.

I would not support the rule because I thought the method was so atrocious. The bills were not available. Things were switched around. They kept the House open until 5:00 a.m. in order to avoid a two-thirds vote. I don't think we ever really had the final version of the PATRIOT Act before the bill was debated. And the other one became available two hours before. Then the difficulty in reading it was overwhelming. We had passed it once in the House. It was 52 pages. When it came back it was 484 pages. It was very hard to read, written in a lot of legalese.

It was just a matter of making technical changes in the code and changing the Privacy Act. If somebody tells you 'Oh, I had the bill, I just read it, and it doesn't sound that bad'-'they wouldn't know what they had read! They took it out of the realm of real debate and serious thought, and just politicized it. TO: Were they trying to hide what it did or were they in a rush? RP: They were in a rush, and I don't think it would have stood the light of day. When the Homeland Security bill went back to the Senate they had the one key vote on whether or not they might be able to amend this bill. But that would have ruined it. That would have delayed it until next year. This was too serious. But they didn't know what was in there. It was all politics. It looks like we did something before the election, but by not delaying it and not allowing too much debate, it also did not let [the public] find out about exempting corporations from liability for vaccine shots, [etc.]. The list of the details is pretty long.

Overall, it is just the elimination of the rule of law and allowing the government to do things that they aren't supposed to do. If they [want to spy on us], they should be getting very difficult to obtain search warrants. But it's open game now. I see the PATRIOT Act as making it easier to get search warrants and Homeland Security making it like they don't even need them anymore.

On Jan. 8, 1790, in an address to the U.S. Congress, George Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like a fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

Thank goodness, there are still a few good people in Congress willing to fight the good fight for liberty!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------