Say Uncle says Frightening, Third Power says Baghdad Chicago, Mike Vanderboegh says be careful what you wish for, Dave Codrea says:

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.

All over what Mary Mitchell says:

Secret Service, sheriff’s deputies, Chicago Police officers and plainclothes officers are scattered throughout the area.

Frankly, I felt like I had just entered the safest zone in America.

For the first time — in a long time –while on the South Side, I didn’t worry about leaving my car parked on the street or about walking back to it several hours later in the dark.

Obviously, law enforcement is doing what needs to be done to ensure a presidential candidate’s safety.

But it does make me think.

Obama’s neighbors have been forced to give up certain of their personal freedoms in order to ensure his safety.

Unsuspecting pedestrians are questioned when they go around the barricades. Similar to a gated community, guests who visit Obama’s neighbors have to identify themselves.

Although I’m a journalist, the presumption on the part of the Secret Service is the same as it is for the Fruit of Islam who guard the Nation of Islam headquarters a few blocks away.

An agent rifled through my purse and searched my backpack.

More than a few dog-walkers strolled past without so much as a backward glance at my outspread arms as the agent checked me with a hand-held metal detector.

Aldermen and activists who are struggling to stop the bloodbath on the South Side may have to resort to the same aggressive policing that is being used to protect Obama.

Hundreds of people have been killed in the city this year because of street violence.

It is a crisis.

And a crisis requires drastic intervention, not rhetoric.

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.

When you go to an airport or into most schools, you have to walk through a metal detector.

This is Chicago, not Alaska.

Wow! Just wow!

Any other words I am inclined to say could be used against me…

This is a little bit into my gray area. I disagree with the judge but I can see his point even if he overstates it with the shirt in question:

“The impact of violence is so great that it now has equal importance as the issue of illegal drug use in schools,” U.S. District Judge James Knoll Gardner wrote in an opinion handed down this week.

“There is nowhere that is truly safe or immune from the problem of school violence, from the one-room schoolhouse to America’s largest universities,” Gardner said.

“Students,” he said, “have no constitutional right to promote violence in our public schools.”

What this judge apparently doesn’t understand that his own orders are carried out with the threat of violence. There is illegal violence and there is legal, even praiseworthy violence. I don’t see that the shirt advocated anything illegal or immoral:
 

According the court order and the article the complete text on the back of the shirt says, “Special Issue-Resident-Lifetime License–United States Terrorist Hunting Permit–Permit No. 91101 Gun Owner-No Bag Limit”. The front of the shirt has a gun on the pocket which has a gun and says, “Volunteer, Homeland Security”.

And how does this “promote violence in the school system”? It is promoting the rapid stopping of illegal violence using legal violence. If the shirt advocated hunting Muslims, blacks, Jews, or some other ethic, racial, or religiously identified group I would agree with him. But not this. Terrorists are not, or at least shouldn’t be, a protected group.

I must conclude this is another case of simplistic minds either refusing to or being unable to see the total picture.