Saturday, April 20, 2013

Your Police State On Full Display



Just in case some of you fucking people still had any doubts about the fact that we live in a police state and have for some time now.





















Then we have little clues like this,

The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to "remain silent."; Senator Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) 
April 19, 2013



Need any more convincing?
















6 comments:

Anonymous said...

According to this "Patriot"(http://muccings.blogspot.com), he has no problem with the police state lockdown of Boston, on the 237th anniversary of Lexington and Concord.

Post a Comment On:Muccings
"The Asymmetrical Warfare of Islam…"
2 Comments-Show Original PostCollapse comments

1 – 2 of 2
cavmedic68w said...
Also, it's damn frustrating, and disturbing, that so many in the
community(who should know better) have jumped on the bandwagon of infotainment drama this has been since the beginning.
While being completely oblivious to the military/federal/police lockdown of Boston, by the blatant violation of posse comitatus, fourth amendment, Bill of Rights, God given birthright to freedom, privacy, and defense of self, family
and friends; by any means necessary.
7:59 PM
Gerardo Moochie said...
And WITHOUT the extraordinary presence and action of ALL law enforcement, this Islamic terrorist might have never been caught.

If I lived anywhere NEAR that neighborhood I would be very thankful and appreciative of any type of law enforcement presence, military or otherwise.

One thing people like yourself ignore or are otherwise ignorant of: Islam has declared war on the infidel. I don't know if you are an infidel or not. I am. And I appreciate the need for the military to join in defense of the infidel in this country when we are attacked by any Muslim whose objective and actions are to terrorize and weaken us.

Anonymous said...

By the way, April 20, 2013, is now officially “celebrate slavery” day in Boston.
Hey Wolf, you pandering whore quisling of state propaganda, I can still see the Humvee in the background.
The front bumper is still showing.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Fail!

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't he just come out and
say, "thank you sir, may I have
another?"

Bushwack said...

Okay man, this is my take on it: IF YOU or any of your family was in the BPD or any federal agency tasked with taking down a terrorist who has ALREADY COMMITTED the act. Wouldn't you want them as well armed/armored as they can be? Wouldn't you want the BEST POSSIBLE EQUIPMENT in your possession before you went toe to toe with an armed fugitive?

While I don't like the feds having military weapons WE THE PEOPLE are banned from having I have ZERO problem with this particular event. The real problem is WE THE PEOPLE should have the ability to own the very same equipment as they deploy INSIDE our nation. And that is the fight. It's not a good fight to claim the feds don't need all the armor/weapons to take down fugitives.

Just a thought.

Phil said...

That whooshing sound I just heard was the facts of unofficial Marshal Law, the violation of so many Constitutional rights I don't care to count and the absolute incompetence of said Federal agents going right over your head at light speed apparently.

Bushwack said...

Marshal Law wouldn't worry anyone IF "We the people" had the ability to possess the same firepower. That's the fight that's winnable. The sheep need to understand the 2nd amendment. I don't expect that Americans should have M1A1 tanks nor mortars or a stealth fighter jet... BUT THINK a minute. The military doesn't operate in our nation against its citizens. BUT WE'VE ALLOWED THE CITIZEN POLICE to be better armed than it's population which WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!

My problem isn't with the cops/feds being well armed. My problem is I CAN'T BE THAT WELL ARMED

Fair Use Notice

Fair Use Statement: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: “http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml” If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.