Where the foundations of law are fundamentally unjust, positive law becomes less valuable. It may be appropriate to revert to something more primitive - a law of necessity, so to speak. Under such a law, I would say it's fair that if you loot, we shoot.
I live just a little south of Baltimore. The fiction of civilization is pretty much worn away. We are now paying the price for our indulgence of the vermin, such as the subject of this article. When we indulge welfare queens, such as this "lady," when we tolerate their sucking off our blood, we encourage the lawlessness that eventuates in Baltimore riots. The solution is to eliminate those who believe they are entitled to suck our blood.
It might be different if this “lady” at least mouthed the pieties of attempted personal responsibility. But this “lady” is an aggressive leech, operating within the bounds of what is “legal” only because she does not to personally exert violence to steal from the rest of us. Otherwise, she is no different from any of the other looters. If one were to legally obstruct her looting, there is little question that she would resort to less “legal” means. Shoot the looters.
That is what will be coming soon enough just a little north of me.
sitetest
Cowie did something very like what Kate Middleton does: achieve a pricey taxpayer-paid lifestyle for having children.
Cowie may be old, ugly, and foul-mouthed, but she's doubtless cost the taxpayers a whole lot less than Kate. She's probably never flown in a jet or had a piece of jewelry that cost over $50. And she and her kids do their own d*** dishes.
And--- more relevant --- Kate and her class have a whole lot more power to change state policy than Cowie and her class. These things are set up as they are because the money and power class want it that way.
Just to make it simple: if you knew that taking an available job would mean a precipitous drop in income, food, housing, and every other benefit for you and all your kids --- would you take that job?