Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
She meant AIPAC and money...one has to make a clear difference between criticizing lobbies that back Israel and anti semitism.She meant money...and she was right, that's not anti semitic. Why would presidential hopefuls run to AIPAC for support to bank money from Zionist donors that their main goal is to back a foreign nation?You got no proof I see.Prove that Omar and Tlaib are anti semitic. And bring that argument of "the criticized poor israel"
Those two don't care about the United States. All they got into Congress for was the Benjamin's.
You don't think the use of the word Benjamin's associated with the Jewish people is anti-semitic?
She used the term Benjamin and Israel to implicate Jewish people are out for the money; a stereotype of the Jewish community. If she said black people were out for the watermelons, would you consider that to be a racial comment?
So he talks the talks only? Hypocrite?It is documented CNN or FOX doesnt mattwe... and if trump is sooo much about Americans first, why was he bringing people feom overseas and not hiring Americans?Trump brought foreign nationals to work at in his golf courses and real estate projects. Spin that one...GO.
So what? They were on work visas. Well, according to CNN which is a really sketchy news service in the first place.
Because that's what his competitors did.
You can't compete against a business who has half the labor costs as yours because you hire Americans and they don't. Same thing with manufacturing. Trump's products are made in China because his competitors products are made in China. You can't compete against a company that has their products made in China while yours cost twice as much because you hired Americans.
So he talks the talks only? Hypocrite?It is documented CNN or FOX doesnt mattwe... and if trump is sooo much about Americans first, why was he bringing people feom overseas and not hiring Americans?Trump brought foreign nationals to work at in his golf courses and real estate projects. Spin that one...GO.
So what? They were on work visas. Well, according to CNN which is a really sketchy news service in the first place.
Because that's what his competitors did.
You can't compete against a business who has half the labor costs as yours because you hire Americans and they don't. Same thing with manufacturing. Trump's products are made in China because his competitors products are made in China. You can't compete against a company that has their products made in China while yours cost twice as much because you hired Americans.
She meant AIPAC and money...one has to make a clear difference between criticizing lobbies that back Israel and anti semitism.She meant money...and she was right, that's not anti semitic. Why would presidential hopefuls run to AIPAC for support to bank money from Zionist donors that their main goal is to back a foreign nation?You got no proof I see.Those two don't care about the United States. All they got into Congress for was the Benjamin's.
You don't think the use of the word Benjamin's associated with the Jewish people is anti-semitic?
She used the term Benjamin and Israel to implicate Jewish people are out for the money; a stereotype of the Jewish community. If she said black people were out for the watermelons, would you consider that to be a racial comment?
Example I dont like the regime in Saudi Arabia that doesnt make me islamophobe.
She meant AIPAC and money...one has to make a clear difference between criticizing lobbies that back Israel and anti semitism.
Example I dont like the regime in Saudi Arabia that doesnt make me islamophobe.
We explained to you that was during the Iraq invasion the international intervention was just...the American invasion of Iraq years later had no legitimacy. Capiche ?From an imperialistic way ? Of course....war Iraq invasion was an imperialistic unilateral move by the US....not even crazy little orange baby agreed with it although he flip flopped on that like always.Lol oh so it was not weapons of mass destruction ? And that was the first desert storm...the US went on later to occupy the oil rich country with false claims...even your master orange recognizes that.Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply. Remember this?
You can shove your weird master shit back up your ass were you pulled it from.
My point stands. ONly a fucktard would deny that Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply with a picture of the world's oil burning in front of him.
I posted photographic evidence to back up my claim, and all you did was restate your claim.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP LEFTARD.
If I was a marxist I wouldnt root for the IS vs the Soviet union. But apparently you are just like trump, you lie the lie and beleive it.Where you get your conclusions from?I hate the racist part of America and love most of america... sorry if you are not loved....change your actions.He was not blaming everything on communism. He was putting some of our actions in the context of the Cold War.
You seem to hate America. Are you a Marxist?
That is a load of shit. It was not only part of America that fought the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and you slammed all of America for those actions.
The tyranny and the mass murder and genocide that took place in the soviet controlled portion of the world, shows that our fighting against them, was completely justified.
Only a blood thirsty monster could have supported the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War, especially now with hindsight.
For someone like that to pretend to give a fuck about "Racism" is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who reads this page.
I rooted for the US against the Soviet before I even lived in the US. ....
Because you slammed America for it's actions in the Cold War, without any context, nor hint of justification nor mitigation from that context.
The obvious conclusion is that you dont' consider the Cold War to BE justification or mitigation, and only a fucking Marxist or the worst sort of naive fool would think that way.
And you seem to be more of a fucking marxist.
But without the balls to admit it.
I just posted a picture of them burning as much of the world's oil supply that they could, and you are denying they were a threat to the world's oil supply?
LOL!!!!!
The pic is from Kuwait. That "war" which we still do not know the truth over was over with.
Are you saying the "war was over with" to imply that it was not the Iraqis that set the oil wells on fire?
I shouldn't have to teach history to you.
Your evasion is noted. If you had a real point, that you thought really refuted what I said, you would have said it.
Instead you play games.
Because your intent is to express disagreement, implying for those who are willing to believe you, that there is a reason to your disagreement,
without actually stating it, because you know the more we look at it, the weaker your shit is.
My point stands. Iraq was a threat and anyone that says otherwise, is either dishonest or a dupe.
They were no threat to us.
From an imperialistic way ? Of course....war Iraq invasion was an imperialistic unilateral move by the US....not even crazy little orange baby agreed with it although he flip flopped on that like always.Lol oh so it was not weapons of mass destruction ? And that was the first desert storm...the US went on later to occupy the oil rich country with false claims...even your master orange recognizes that.Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply. Remember this?
You can shove your weird master shit back up your ass were you pulled it from.
My point stands. ONly a fucktard would deny that Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply with a picture of the world's oil burning in front of him.
I posted photographic evidence to back up my claim, and all you did was restate your claim.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP LEFTARD.
Would pics of WWII prove Germany is a threat?
Maybe you should study some American history. Birthright citizenship has been recognized for hundreds of years and by great men such as James Madison. We should discard it because white men are afraid of losing their political influence. If the Supreme Court turns this aside then no one including you is a American citizen.
Maybe you should study history because for the longest time, there was no such things as legal or illegal aliens. And if you studied history, you would realize that the amendment was not written so that anybody that could sneak into this country could have a child with a guaranteed citizenship.
The amendment was written for decedents of slaves, and that's all it was written for.
And yet when the Supreme Court last ruled on it, slaves had nothing to do with that ruling.
Which is why the amendment needs to be revisited again by the courts, and President Trump is seemingly going to push it to that point.
I hope he does because it would be an election booster.
While it's clear the media are no fans of ending birthright citizenship, as screeching headlines from leftist journalists suddenly taken with the Constitution suggest, how do the American people feel about it?
While recently polling on the issue is sparse, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, which is not exactly a right-wing outlet, put out a Twitter poll on Wednesday.
"Should U.S. End Birthright Citizenship?" asked the straightforward poll. Over 9,000 Twitter users responded.
The final results showed resounding agreement with the president that birthright citizenship should end. A total of 6,683 participants, or 72%, answered "yes"; and 2,6000 participants, or 28%, responded "no."
C-SPAN Poll: How Americans Feel About Birthright Citizenship Might Shock You
Bet he doesn't and I hope he does.
I hope he does as well. It's about time because it's been going on way to long, and hurting Americans in the process.
American heritage? Is a blend of many cultures...unless if you talking about native American heritage.
Oh, the "We are a nation of immigrants" bullshit again.
No, we are a nation of Americans and nothing less. Just because democrats have succeeded in invading the country with 85 million immigrants and cultures from all over does not change that fact.
And no, you don't love that nation, but hate it. The fact that it's the opposite of socialist pisses you off the most.
Democrats didn't bring replacement workers in to replace American workers at Disney.
They didn't? To my knowledge, Disney is a pretty liberal company.
Disney is a publicly traded wall street firm.
So what does that have to do with the company being liberal?
The pic is from Kuwait. That "war" which we still do not know the truth over was over with.
Are you saying the "war was over with" to imply that it was not the Iraqis that set the oil wells on fire?
I shouldn't have to teach history to you.
Your evasion is noted. If you had a real point, that you thought really refuted what I said, you would have said it.
Instead you play games.
Because your intent is to express disagreement, implying for those who are willing to believe you, that there is a reason to your disagreement,
without actually stating it, because you know the more we look at it, the weaker your shit is.
My point stands. Iraq was a threat and anyone that says otherwise, is either dishonest or a dupe.
They were no threat to us.
The nation as a whole and much of the world, disagreed.
AND, I posted photographic evidence to back up my side.
What do you have? Other than a gut level hate of America?
Are you saying the "war was over with" to imply that it was not the Iraqis that set the oil wells on fire?
I shouldn't have to teach history to you.
Your evasion is noted. If you had a real point, that you thought really refuted what I said, you would have said it.
Instead you play games.
Because your intent is to express disagreement, implying for those who are willing to believe you, that there is a reason to your disagreement,
without actually stating it, because you know the more we look at it, the weaker your shit is.
My point stands. Iraq was a threat and anyone that says otherwise, is either dishonest or a dupe.
They were no threat to us.
The nation as a whole and much of the world, disagreed.
AND, I posted photographic evidence to back up my side.
What do you have? Other than a gut level hate of America?
What do I have? The fact that we had to be lied into a war with them. You posted a pic of something that had long been done and over with. There are even questions of whether or not Iraq thought we were good with it because of us backing them in our other useless wars.
Are you saying the "war was over with" to imply that it was not the Iraqis that set the oil wells on fire?
I shouldn't have to teach history to you.
Your evasion is noted. If you had a real point, that you thought really refuted what I said, you would have said it.
Instead you play games.
Because your intent is to express disagreement, implying for those who are willing to believe you, that there is a reason to your disagreement,
without actually stating it, because you know the more we look at it, the weaker your shit is.
My point stands. Iraq was a threat and anyone that says otherwise, is either dishonest or a dupe.
They were no threat to us.
The nation as a whole and much of the world, disagreed.
AND, I posted photographic evidence to back up my side.
What do you have? Other than a gut level hate of America?
What do I have? The fact that we had to be lied into a war with them. You posted a pic of something that had long been done and over with. There are even questions of whether or not Iraq thought we were good with it because of us backing them in our other useless wars.
Oh, the "We are a nation of immigrants" bullshit again.
No, we are a nation of Americans and nothing less. Just because democrats have succeeded in invading the country with 85 million immigrants and cultures from all over does not change that fact.
And no, you don't love that nation, but hate it. The fact that it's the opposite of socialist pisses you off the most.
Democrats didn't bring replacement workers in to replace American workers at Disney.
They didn't? To my knowledge, Disney is a pretty liberal company.
Disney is a publicly traded wall street firm.
So what does that have to do with the company being liberal?
Your deflecting.
Maybe you should study history because for the longest time, there was no such things as legal or illegal aliens. And if you studied history, you would realize that the amendment was not written so that anybody that could sneak into this country could have a child with a guaranteed citizenship.
The amendment was written for decedents of slaves, and that's all it was written for.
And yet when the Supreme Court last ruled on it, slaves had nothing to do with that ruling.
Which is why the amendment needs to be revisited again by the courts, and President Trump is seemingly going to push it to that point.
I hope he does because it would be an election booster.
While it's clear the media are no fans of ending birthright citizenship, as screeching headlines from leftist journalists suddenly taken with the Constitution suggest, how do the American people feel about it?
While recently polling on the issue is sparse, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, which is not exactly a right-wing outlet, put out a Twitter poll on Wednesday.
"Should U.S. End Birthright Citizenship?" asked the straightforward poll. Over 9,000 Twitter users responded.
The final results showed resounding agreement with the president that birthright citizenship should end. A total of 6,683 participants, or 72%, answered "yes"; and 2,6000 participants, or 28%, responded "no."
C-SPAN Poll: How Americans Feel About Birthright Citizenship Might Shock You
Bet he doesn't and I hope he does.
I hope he does as well. It's about time because it's been going on way to long, and hurting Americans in the process.
I've not been hurt.
I can see granting US citizenship only to children who have one parent living here LEGALLY. That is easy enough to prove. However, using a term as fuzzy as "foreigners" is never going to cut it. By law, immigrants who WANT to become citizens must live in the US FIVE YEARS before applying for naturalization. They are foreigners who plan to become citizens and of course want their children to be, as well, since they will be raised here.It's the next step in making America great again. Birthright Citizenship refers to Citizen parents, not Illegals. The 14th Amendment was only created for slaves after the civil war. It was not created for foreigners. Let's hear from the man who wrote the Citizenship clause himself, Senator John Jacob Howard:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete.
President Trump Says He Is Still "Looking Seriously" at Ending Birthright Citizenship
I agree that Chinese women who travel here on a tourist visa to have a baby and then fly back to China with a US citizen child is BULLSHIT. So is granting citizenship to the children of two illegals living in the US. The illegal shit has got to stop. I agree with that.
Trump has to be careful how that is done, though, in order to be fair. And I don't believe Trump can change that himself; it is written in law and needs to be changed by Congress, doesn't it?
The problem is less Congress than it was previous rulings on citizenship. That's what we need to do first; have it so the Supreme Court rules that anchor babies are not constitutionally protected.
Maybe you should study some American history. Birthright citizenship has been recognized for hundreds of years and by great men such as James Madison. We should discard it because white men are afraid of losing their political influence. If the Supreme Court turns this aside then no one including you is a American citizen.
Maybe you should study history because for the longest time, there was no such things as legal or illegal aliens. And if you studied history, you would realize that the amendment was not written so that anybody that could sneak into this country could have a child with a guaranteed citizenship.
The amendment was written for decedents of slaves, and that's all it was written for.
I can see granting US citizenship only to children who have one parent living here LEGALLY. That is easy enough to prove. However, using a term as fuzzy as "foreigners" is never going to cut it. By law, immigrants who WANT to become citizens must live in the US FIVE YEARS before applying for naturalization. They are foreigners who plan to become citizens and of course want their children to be, as well, since they will be raised here.
I agree that Chinese women who travel here on a tourist visa to have a baby and then fly back to China with a US citizen child is BULLSHIT. So is granting citizenship to the children of two illegals living in the US. The illegal shit has got to stop. I agree with that.
Trump has to be careful how that is done, though, in order to be fair. And I don't believe Trump can change that himself; it is written in law and needs to be changed by Congress, doesn't it?
The problem is less Congress than it was previous rulings on citizenship. That's what we need to do first; have it so the Supreme Court rules that anchor babies are not constitutionally protected.
Maybe you should study some American history. Birthright citizenship has been recognized for hundreds of years and by great men such as James Madison. We should discard it because white men are afraid of losing their political influence. If the Supreme Court turns this aside then no one including you is a American citizen.
Maybe you should study history because for the longest time, there was no such things as legal or illegal aliens. And if you studied history, you would realize that the amendment was not written so that anybody that could sneak into this country could have a child with a guaranteed citizenship.
The amendment was written for decedents of slaves, and that's all it was written for.
And yet when the Supreme Court last ruled on it, slaves had nothing to do with that ruling.
Which is why the amendment needs to be revisited again by the courts, and President Trump is seemingly going to push it to that point.
I hope he does because it would be an election booster.
While it's clear the media are no fans of ending birthright citizenship, as screeching headlines from leftist journalists suddenly taken with the Constitution suggest, how do the American people feel about it?
While recently polling on the issue is sparse, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, which is not exactly a right-wing outlet, put out a Twitter poll on Wednesday.
"Should U.S. End Birthright Citizenship?" asked the straightforward poll. Over 9,000 Twitter users responded.
The final results showed resounding agreement with the president that birthright citizenship should end. A total of 6,683 participants, or 72%, answered "yes"; and 2,6000 participants, or 28%, responded "no."
C-SPAN Poll: How Americans Feel About Birthright Citizenship Might Shock You
I can see granting US citizenship only to children who have one parent living here LEGALLY. That is easy enough to prove. However, using a term as fuzzy as "foreigners" is never going to cut it. By law, immigrants who WANT to become citizens must live in the US FIVE YEARS before applying for naturalization. They are foreigners who plan to become citizens and of course want their children to be, as well, since they will be raised here.It's the next step in making America great again. Birthright Citizenship refers to Citizen parents, not Illegals. The 14th Amendment was only created for slaves after the civil war. It was not created for foreigners. Let's hear from the man who wrote the Citizenship clause himself, Senator John Jacob Howard:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete.
President Trump Says He Is Still "Looking Seriously" at Ending Birthright Citizenship
I agree that Chinese women who travel here on a tourist visa to have a baby and then fly back to China with a US citizen child is BULLSHIT. So is granting citizenship to the children of two illegals living in the US. The illegal shit has got to stop. I agree with that.
Trump has to be careful how that is done, though, in order to be fair. And I don't believe Trump can change that himself; it is written in law and needs to be changed by Congress, doesn't it?
The problem is less Congress than it was previous rulings on citizenship. That's what we need to do first; have it so the Supreme Court rules that anchor babies are not constitutionally protected.
Maybe you should study some American history. Birthright citizenship has been recognized for hundreds of years and by great men such as James Madison. We should discard it because white men are afraid of losing their political influence. If the Supreme Court turns this aside then no one including you is a American citizen.
Maybe you should study history because for the longest time, there was no such things as legal or illegal aliens. And if you studied history, you would realize that the amendment was not written so that anybody that could sneak into this country could have a child with a guaranteed citizenship.
The amendment was written for decedents of slaves, and that's all it was written for.
You are a typical Trump supporter. Stupid. ...."
Prove that Omar and Tlaib are anti semitic. And bring that argument of "the criticized poor israel"What is wrong with communism? America would be more educated, and civilized as a communist country. Communism helped turn Russia from a peasantry antisemite country of drunken illiterates into a superpower. America is filled with antisemitic Nazis. Russia doesn't kill Jews at their synagogues today, Nazi Americans still do.Real Americans aren't Nazis who shoot up synagogues.
Real Americans aren't commies who go to a baseball practice and try to kill all the Republican congress people either.
Oh please. Your wonderful Democrat party harbors two of the most anti-semite congress women in congressional history. Worse than that, the rest of the party supports their anti-semite comments and even elevated these rookies to the top of their list. Even Israel says they want nothing to do with them.
If Communism is so great, why do they keep their people from leaving their countries? Better yet, if you are an American, why not move to one of those countries and try it out for a couple of years if you think it's so great?
Those two don't care about the United States. All they got into Congress for was the Benjamin's.
