Arguing with a liberal is like slapping a baby neither one has clue why
November 22, 2015 at 2:53am
I went to fast didn’t I, I was worried about that.
Next time I will go slower so you don’t miss the point.
That being when someone says they will kill you when you don’t believe the way they do, you had better wake up. Especially when there is a religion driving it.
November 20, 2015 at 11:17pm
Let me see If I got this right,
I don’t want to go too fast for the typical simple Liberal reader.
1. Koran = Islam
2. Follower of Islam = Muslim
3. A Muslim following Islam as written in the Koran = Radical
So an Islamic Radical Terrorist is comprised of Items #1 thru #3
Add to this what is called a Jihadist it means the following: (To us this is a religious terrorist)
• Jihad is an Islamic term referring to the religious duty of Muslims to maintain the religion.
• In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning “to strive, to apply oneself, to struggle, to persevere.”
• A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural of which is mujahideen.
I believe the above descriptions describes the basic ideology of Islam.
So the term Radical Islamic Terrorist would be a correct term.
I'm the one with the small cranium? You can't recognize the SOP of the Dems used on minorities being played out here? Take a group of people (in this case conservatives and middle class), keep them angry and confused and exploit it for gain while never working to fix the real problem. The Blaze does it well. The establishment GOP is not going to fix your problem any more than the Dems.
Good one! The real figure is probably closer to 20% than 1%, but 1% is still way too high.
A smart Liberal would say “If 1% of the candies were poison and 99% would save a baby’s life, would you eat one?” But, there are no smart Liberals, so your metaphor is safe.
 November 18, 2015 at 8:19pm
Can’t wait to see what happens when the black community gets screwed again and must take in the shorts to help these refugees…Not going to be pretty!
 November 18, 2015 at 10:38am
Bill O is so so clueless
 November 17, 2015 at 3:03pm
I think I would have used a rope to encircle these poor students and guide them briskly out to their safe space.
If you consider it non-factual to state that a natural born donkey did not come into existence by way of a an a$$ for a father and a human mother, o.k.
WEBWITHDEB, I've been wording and rewording searches online and have yet to come up with something that distinctively describes something other than 'natural born' and 'naturalized'. If somebody knows of something described by a legal source rather than a news or prognostication source, I'll gladly give it a read.
As ‘soy’ has stated, our founding fathers stated that a person has to be a natural born (so clear there is no question) citizen to be president, V/P, yet ‘just’ a citizen to be a Senator.
Were they ‘creating’ a lesser status citizenship?
When a person is born to a citizen mother and a citizen father in the country in which those parents are citizens, there is absolute CLARITY as to the citizenship of the child.
When our government declared that just being born in this country made one a citizen, that did NOT state with absolute clarity as to the question of their citizenship as is evidenced by those born here to diplomats. Thus those born here to non-citizen parents are NOT natural born citizens — they are NATIVE BORN citizens.
Our government, by law, cannot MAKE anybody a natural born anything. It is a function of nature, of reality, of life, to be natural born — the government cannot speak you into being.
I cannot direct you to any source other than Vattel’s “Natural Law” as to give you any more understanding. I wholly understand, though, that people will believe what they may, even when their arguments are based on an entirely non-natural premise — that a legal fiction is a congruent substitute for reality.
actually at the time of the founding the founders said that natural born citizens OR citizens of the USA at the time of the adoption of the constitution could be president(it also said they had to be residents for at least fourteen years) its funny that the founders would have accepted a citizen of the USA during their time but you act like they would now find it atrocious..
now i know not everyone is happy with the Fourteenth amendment i have my issues with it myself but until we amend it we cant just ignore it... if we do then we are no better than obama
Well, bless your little cranium, AJ.
At the point in time before this country's founding (you know, at the time of the founding fathers), just WHO was a citizen of a country that had yet to be founded?
October 23, 2015 at 3:58pm
Duh……Who couldn’t see this coming……..What are the statute of limitations on cases like this?
 September 11, 2015 at 3:11pm
I’m wondering, if he will meet the press afterwards in front of his orange prayer rug again, that is hanging on the wall ?
 September 8, 2015 at 10:35am
Just waiting for Pocowannabe president to enter the race