Monday, June 1, 2015

Patriot Act reauthorization.

A thought that occurs to me listening to intelligence officials on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act is that the only word these modern day government officials seem to be able to pull out of their kit bag on this is "tools." "Tools" for this, "tools" for that, and "tools" for some other thing. Well, [a pox on] your tools.

Some commenters like to talk about "exigent circumstances" (Fox's Kimberly Guilfoyle) and "patterns" but it's all garbage. No one has pointed out how any of these records have led to actionable intelligence.

Cost-benefit analysis? I'll take "cost" for $200, Alex.

Eric Bolling on FoxNews' "The Five" today stood his ground on the 4th Amendment which seems not to contain the words "tools" or "patterns," and if "exigent circumstances" arise let the Supreme Court address that new wrinkle in the context of collecting phone records. Rand Paul bravely focuses on freedom.

We are indebted to these two men. It's about freedom. It's about the 4th Amendment. Government will forever talk about some grave threat but it's never how they represent it. "It's an emergency" or "This won't hurt a bit" are justifications for tyranny.

Extremely exigent circumstance.
Government has no credibility on this. It has always cried "emergency" of some kind but the reality is that government is the threat. The accretion of laws and regulations – and of treasonous federal court decisions – has destroyed liberty in the country. Fire (or refuse to hire) an incompetent minority -- or one who wants to wear a tent to your salesroom -- from (or for) your business and you can kiss that business goodbye.

The Constitution is a joke.[1]

If government wants to cry "emergency" let it seal the borders, expel illegal immigrants, stop importing Muslims, and require Muslims already here, on pain of immediate deportation, to declare the Koran a work of distilled evil and to abjure their jihadi "faith."

But, no. What we'll hear about is "tools."

The only reason we're even having this debate is because of the absurd, deadly presence of Muslims in our country. A problem completely unaddressed by "nation of immigrants"/"diversity is our strength" morons.

[1] Rights protected by the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment still receive effective protection in the courts, with much hair splitting and soul searching on the Second. The First will undoubtedly erode before the claims of "hate speech," the demands of advocates of the destruction of Christian America, and the cries of those in need of cake at homosexual weddings. Article I, Sect. 8 of the Constitution long went the way of the dodo bird and the Roman Empire, the representatives of the unholy, monstrous, usurping Federal Government now attempting to beguile us with talk of "tools."


Dr.D said...

The only purpose for a tool is to use it. There is no need for tools if you do not intend to use them. There are many tools that I do not want in the hands of the Feds. They have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted. It is not simply speculation, but rather it has been demonstrated repeated. They are not to be trusted with these tools. With the 2nd Amendment, we will be able to defend ourselves against foreign aggressors, but only if we do not have to simultaneously defend ourselves against the US government.

The best government is the smallest government, even to the point of vanishingly small!

KG said...

Spot on! Linked over at Crusader Rabbit.

Reg T said...

Bravo, Fran! A very clever triple (entendre)!
"Well [a pox on] your tools."
1) [a pox on]: euphemism for the F word
2) a "pox" was - back in the day the expression was in common use - a venereal disease
3) "tools" - a word in use since at least the 12th century (I saw it in once a grimoire hand-written back in 1123 or thereabouts) as a euphemism for male genitalia, which is where a pox was usually in evidence

Col. B. Bunny said...

All good DrD. The voices raised against giving more and more power to the central government are too few. Liberty isn't a word on a lot of politicians' lips now. And the EPA and water regulation is a good example of the real danger of runaway bureaucrats.


Thanks as always.

@ Reg T

I suppose a man ought to shut up when another finds great wit in what he writes. Alas, I was striving only for the euphemism and missed out on what you found in addition. Like Pee-wee Herman, when he flew over the handlebars of his bike, I should just say, "I meant to do that."

Reg T said...

Oops. Sorry, Col., for misattributing that to Fran. Nonetheless, it seemed so clever I was certain it was intentional. While yours is an excellent mind, it perhaps doesn't possess the devious - and sometimes salacious - leanings that Fran's does :-)

But then, what does that say about mine, that I should see the entendre?