I would not want to discuss semantics and I trust it is probably "valid"...the important question is "relevance". This is not relevant or important information in this ad, more riff raff & flim flam, not one issue is addressed on this ad. I would rather watch Soap Operas.
Fine, if you care only of the wording of NDAA and the Patriot act, I am willing to debate it.
As for the patriot act, he only extended 3 provisions of it, Wire taps, access to business records and the authorization to conduct surveillance on "lone wolves" which yes, could be anyone. Effectively, all this does is save money. These activities have been going on for decades by covert operators, but now, any federal agent can do it with the right warrant (which can be awarded in secret). Effectively, this means that the only change is that the government saves money by utuilizing the FBI instead of the NSA, and there will also exist a record of the authorization to conduct these activities. I don't like it, but it is an improvement over the original Patriot Act that Dubya signed.
You get half a point for this one imo, and honestly, it hinges around fear mongering.
Now the provisions of the Patriot Act which he did not renew do somewhat exist in the NDAA. I'm assuming that you object to the same ones that the ACLU objects to. I also object. They are narrower than the provisions in the original Patriot act at least, but I still object.
Score one for you.