Obama's neighbors have been forced to give up certain of their personal freedoms in order to ensure his safety...There's a solution: Constitution-free zones.
There's no telling how many guns would be taken off the street in gang- and drug-plagued neighborhoods if police were to set up roadblocks and search everyone going into those areas.
For those of you who argue that what I am proposing violates basic civil rights, forget it...
This is Chicago, not Alaska.
Mary Mitchell's America is a police state.
I notice she acknowledged force was used. I note she says "Forget it" for any rights-based disagreement, removing any will but hers from the decision.
How many men who disagree is Mary willing to see destroyed to enact her totalitarian agenda? Anybody not think creatures just like her enabled killing fields?
This wretched harridan is nothing less than a domestic enemy. The Chicago Sun-Times, which gives her a platform, is an instrument of subversion.
Anyone who thinks such as these will ever allow us to peacefully coexist is a fool.
[Via HZ]
13 comments:
Ms. B****ell claims men like us hunt humans; should she gun for my blued steel, then I guess it's open season on her. If she is willing to risk a horde of good, ol' boys or even herself SHOT, then she's stalking the correct game.
In the meanwhile, I'll be lubing my so-called arsenal.
-Anonymous-
It's Harpy season!
The only reason she would be so bold as to state this is because she (and others like her) believe that they have victory within their grasp.
The final phase of the bloc plan is in high gear, as witnessed by the recent Russian military and diplomatic maneuvers. Unfortunately for the poor saps like Mary Mitchell, they are viewed as useful idiots and will be disposed of as soon as their usefulness is over.
It's a real honorable way to die — with your throat slit after being denounced as a traitor to the revolution.
There is no safety in socialism or any of its unholy children.
I have long since surrendered any hope of peaceful coexistence with these monsters.
In fact, I have written an essay wherein I posit that only force will settle the future of our nation, for good or ill.
If you like, David, I will email it to you after some polishing and additions. If you feel you can use it, you will be welcome to do so.
Send me an email.
That's great. Forget it. Well, since Mary Mitchell says so, I don't see how I can argue. Here, officer, I brought some KY to speed the process along. I'm in a hurry to make my appointment at the Ministry of Truth. Stupid bastards. If I was Obama's neighbor the local PD would have had a lawsuit from me by the end of the day. If you want to search me you better have more than 'habitating in the vicinity of a candidate for political office' as probable cause.
while force seems highly probable, being responsible for the initial act of aggression is not, and never will be, necessary.
some argue that they've already committed it. others argue that we'll know it when we see it. my question is: what's the difference?
I suppose Harpy Mary would scream the loudest when her beloved JBTs shoot down a few black citizens for driving or walking while black.
It must be great to live in a Utopian paradise...
Done. I warn you, it is long and wide.
Straightarrow,
Whether David uses it or not, I still want to read it. Please shoot me an email.
David,
I've copied you on my response to Ms. Mitchell.
Mike
III
I suppose Harpy Mary would scream the loudest when her beloved JBTs shoot down a few black citizens for driving or walking while black.
Only in public.
In private, her ilk cheers when that happens.
Straightarrow - please also send me the email
Post a Comment