This is what I was talking about

The other day I said:

Don’t ever forget there are certain inalienable rights all humans have.

Well, here is why we always need to have our guard up:

Notice, they didn’t complain about surveillance before. My assumption has been that with a Muslim running DHS, a Muslim DCI, and a Muslim POTUS, the Muslim community was pretty much surveillance-free. Now they know the worm is turning.

What I hope Trump will consider is not stopping at the Muslims, but going a step further. Democrat politicians, liberal political activists, #Blacklivesmatter assholes, global warming cult believers, Democrat contributors, Cuckservative never-Trumpers, mainstream media traitors, and other enemies of the state should all get their own government-funded perpetual proctological exams.

Once you get a government violating the rights of the “deplorables” it is very difficult to get it to stop. Government bureaucracies almost always grow and expand their original scope. Resist the urge to create such agencies to begin with and capitalize on every opportunity to shrink and/or eliminate them, and convict those who violated the rights of others, no matter how much you despise the victims of their crimes.


6 thoughts on “This is what I was talking about

  1. fist, bear with me.
    one hand typing due to surgery today.
    we must not over-react. We must absolutely pursue justice, but we are not criminals as are they.
    Prosecute malfeasance. Execute terrorists.
    But within the law and The Constitution.
    AND shrink the bureaucracy.
    Satisfaction is with the just.

  2. Maybe all forms of government surveillance, absent a warrant issued based on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and describing particularly the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized, are unconstitutional. Maybe. Or maybe it’s just unreasonable of me to insist that we play by the rules of the game.

    • There’s no “maybe” about it; the Constitution is entirely clear.

      Then again, the Constitution is entirely clear about everything it says, and yet the government gleefully tramples every single rule in the Constitution anyway. And has been doing so since about 1790.

  3. It would be easy (maybe not easy, but possible) to turn the eye of the State onto those who previously used it against their “enemies” who often were many of “us”.

    What would be a better use of the levers of government would be to return us to the limits of power and the actual rule of law. Make an actual, sworn warrant necessary for surveillance. Make wholesale phone intercepts and email mining illegal and prosecute those who’ve warped and perverted our legal and justice systems.

    Should the Progs turn to violence the resulting conflict will be sans rules.

    • It certainly would be better if the government (or all of them at all levels, actually) magically started obeying the Constitution. But for all practical purposes, they never have. What plausible mechanism do we have to change over two centuries of precedent?

Comments are closed.