Nancy Sinatra spews violent rhetoric, suggests execution for ‘murderous members of the NRA’

Nancy Sinatra epitomizes just how dangerous the liberal mindset can be if allowed to run unchecked in America.

Frank Sinatra’s daughter, who hasn’t accomplished much since appearing in the May 1995 issue of Playboy at the ripe old age of 54, put on her boots and took to Twitter this week to call for the deaths of more than 5 million gun owners.

Responding to a piece in the hard-left Daily Kos that puts the burden of the Las Vegas shooting squarely on the shoulders of the National Rifle Association, Sinatra said the pro-Second Amendment organization’s “murderous members” should be shot.

All 5 million of them.

“The murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad,” the 77-year-old liberal Botox junkie tweeted.

Of course, the child of privilege is too dense to realize that she just made the perfect for why Americans NEED a right to bear arms.

But in reality, the egregious remark is all but a call for open season on NRA members.

And when a social media user pointed out just how “vile” her  comment was, Sinatra was quick to respond, saying she wasn’t referring to ALL gun owners, just NRA members, as if that somehow exonerated her.

Sinatra responded yet again when another user said her comment was “ridiculous,” saying the 5 million members should die because they didn’t advocate for preferred laws — she doesn’t seem to understand that it’s already illegal for the average American to own an automatic weapon.

And while it’s logical to deduce that NRA members can take care of themselves, what are the odds the media will hold Sinatra accountable should some left-wing lemming take her words to heart?

Dangerous times, folks.

Here’s a sampling of responses from Twitter:


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/10/05/nancy-sinatra-spews-violent-...

Nancy...this one's for you--

Image result for sticking out tongue animation

Views: 214

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

ANOTHER spoiled brat that has ZERO concept of what earning a living, protecting your family REALLY means.  She was brought up needing nothing, everything handed to her, her present net worth is around $50 MILLION.  So Ms. Ignoramus can SHUT THE HELL UP!

Sorry to hear she's such an ignoramus.

AND...........probably a PROTEGE of  "HARVEY WEINSTEIN" ~~~~~~!!!!!!!!!

I'm surprised her daddy approved of her posing in Playboy.

....and a lifetime of less than ZERO talent.

Looks like a "SEMI" backed over her face a couple of times !!!!!!!

Don'cha just love her faux patent leather "Mary-Janes". I'll bet she lead the resistance against Melania Trump's elegant footwear. Gotta' love her 60's 'Peace Symbol' too; it just screams "Execute ALL NRA MEMBERS".

...........Not to mention her cute peace symbol ring. They're a matching set dontcha know.

Hey Frank, good catch! She just spews Peace and Love ... and well, BOTOX®. Thx.

You'd think someone who's net worth is $50 MILLION.........could dress with a little more style

 Last time I saw a NECK Like that,......... we "BASTED" it for THANKSGIVING DINNER !!!!!!!

Image result for giggling animation

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service