[JohnHuang2]

Monday-morning ping! Have a great week, y’all!

[cunning_fish]

[meadsjn]

The best argument conservatives have against liberalism is the cartoonish Barack Obama.

And we should use that against the liberals in every campaign for the next 200 years.

[rawcatslyentist]

They’re not terrorists. they’re presidential sympathizers.

[olezip]

With the incessant liberal prattle all week about the "right" of their darling little Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to remain silent under Miranda after detonating his shrapnel-jam-packed pressure cooker at the Boston Marathon, liberals have succeeded in safely shifting the conversation away from the sheer magnitude of murderous barbarism displayed by a couple of imported terrorists, (or, as the New York Times would prefer, a coupla misunderstood little lads just trying to fit in).

Are liberals not behind the initiative to kill Americans with drones? Why are the leftists not consistent? Now they have Miranda rights? Or is all this an attempt to muddy the water?

Many articles about the terrorists seem to generate sympathy and "understanding." It is maddening!

[cripplecreek]

What about people accused like the Hutaree. Some of them spent as much as two years in jail before being acquitted?

[JoeProBono]

[0.E.O]

So Kinchlow he have a point in any of that or was he just filling printspace? He said we’re a nation of laws but he doesn’t want to see the laws applied to terrorists. OK, I understand that. But he is also dismissive of having them classified as enemy combatants and shipped to Gitmo. So in all of that did he indicate what he did want done with them?

[Little Ray]

Terrorists captured in this country should have Constitutional Rights until they are convicted. Remember, we have a Regime (including the popular media) that is trying make the Tea Party, veterans, etc., into “potential terrorists.” They need some protection.

Once they’re convicted of murder, though, “Constitutional Rights” should go out the window, esp. that pesky clause about “cruel and unusual punishment.”

[Wolfie]

I’m just glad we all agree the Constitution means nothing. It’s refreshing.

[EricT.]

If you don’t want terrorists to have constitutional rights, don’t make them citizens.

[AuntB]

You sound like one of those....

“Islamaphobic”, “racist”, “restrictionists, who merely think of themselves as conservatives”, “ bitter-enders who are still responding to radio talk-show hosts from eight years ago haven’t noticed that the world has shifted from underneath them,”

that Grover Norquist warned us about! [yes, sarcasm]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3012385/posts?page=13#13

[allmendream]

Yes, let us give the government the power to not recognize the rights of anyone they deem a “terrorist” - what could POSSIBLY be wrong with that?/s

Is WND really THIS stupid?

[Jim Noble]

There’s one big problem with “no civil rights for terrorists”, and that is, as long as Obama, Jarrett, Napolitano and and Holder get to define who is and who is not a terrorist, all of us are skating on thin ice.

That’s MY 2 cents.