State Department spending tax dollars on foreign mosques...

[Belmont31R]

Hundreds of millions a year...billions quickly.



Then people wonder how we are 14 trillion in debt. Shit like this. For for f-ing mosques in the middle east? Like those cocksuckers don't make money hand over fist on oil?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaXuZ7ZWlOE

[Belmont31R]

I almost forgot. In 2009 Obama sent almost a billion to Hamas for refugees in Gaza. Wheres the oversight report on how that billion was spent?



Why are we sending billions of dollars to muslims?



http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/177785/long-were-passing-out-piles-cash-why-not-900m-hamas-andrew-c-mccarthy

[Cincinnatus]

Because the overriding urge of the Obama Administration is to make the Muslims like us, then maybe they won't attack us--say the handwringing leftists. Hence the conversion on NASA from a space exploration agency to a muslim outreach and enviornmentalist wacko convent. Leftists' religion is political correctness, and in the pantheon of political correctness, Muslims and their liking liberals is dear to the Liberal bleeding heart. Like Mark Steyn recently said "Muslims are the new gay." meaning that liberals will go to any lengths necessary, national sovereignty and the Constitution be damned, to pander to Muslims.

[RWK]

Wheres the oversight report on how that billion was spent?

Here's your oversight report: lots of ordnance to be used against Israel, likely purchased from Iran.

[Cincinnatus]

Here's your oversight report: lots of ordnance to be used against Israel, likely purchased from Iran.

Yes. Slowly but surely the Obama admin is lining itself up more and more with the Palestinians and against Israel. Note the recent declaiming by Secreatary Clinton that Israel building houses in their own frickin' country is illegitimate. It is only a matter of time before they openly say that Israel is the problem, not the Islamists, and ally with Israel's enemies--George Soros, who bank rolls much of what the DNC and the think-tanks Obama relies on for foreign policy, like Center for American Progress, has recently written in an OpEd that Israel is the problem. The Anti-semitic, Helen-Thomas heart of the Left will show through in time.

[Cagemonkey]

Yes. Slowly but surely the Obama admin is lining itself up more and more with the Palestinians and against Israel. Note the recent declaiming by Secreatary Clinton that Israel building houses in their own frickin' country is illegitimate. It is only a matter of time before they openly say that Israel is the problem, not the Islamists, and ally with Israel's enemies--George Soros, who bank rolls much of what the DNC and the think-tanks Obama relies on for foreign policy, like Center for American Progress, has recently written in an OpEd that Israel is the problem. The Anti-semitic, Helen-Thomas heart of the Left will show through in time.Tonight, Glen beck mentioned the Billion worth of arms to Egypt in 2009. High probability these will be used against Israel, either by Egypt itself or given to Hamas.

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

I was in a civil affairs unit on my second enlistment and my team spent close to 400,000 in Afghanistan in 2003-2004 on trying to make Muslims like us. Most of the places we went had no freeking idea who we were so when we drove up and started handing out money and radios we were very popular.

I spent alot of that money on mosques. There was also a program that would fly people to Meca for free for the Hage.

It was a contest between the commanders to see who could spend the most.

I dont think it worked

[mr_smiles]

Separation of church & state. It's pretty clearly written...

[D. Christopher]

Separation of church & state. It's pretty clearly written...

Really? Where? The Constitution? The Bill of Rights? It's not clearly written into U.S. law if that's what you're implying. People are quick to quote that phrase, but it just isn't there. The 1st Amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibit people from freely practicing their religion. Article VI prohibits a religious test as a requirement for holding government office, but "Separation of Church and State" is either a quote from a Supreme Court Justice, or from Jefferson's Danbury letter of 1802. It is not clearly written in U.S. law. The words "separation" and "church" don't appear in the U.S. Constitution at all.

I'm not happy about all the wasted money we give to our enemies and to people and countries and religions that are gaming the system and will use it against us one day, but I do realize that we don't enforce most of the laws we already have on the books. I don't waste time worrying about not enforcing laws that aren't on the books.

[mr_smiles]

Really? Where? The Constitution? The Bill of Rights? It's not clearly written into U.S. law if that's what you're implying. People are quick to quote that phrase, but it just isn't there. The 1st Amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibit people from freely practicing their religion. Article VI prohibits a religious test as a requirement for holding government office, but "Separation of Church and State" is either a quote from a Supreme Court Justice, or from Jefferson's Danbury letter of 1802. It is not clearly written in U.S. law. The words "separation" and "church" don't appear in the U.S. Constitution at all.

I'm not happy about all the wasted money we give to our enemies and to people and countries and religions that are gaming the system and will use it against us one day, but I do realize that we don't enforce most of the laws we already have on the books. I don't waste time worrying about not enforcing laws that aren't on the books.

To quote the supreme court.

"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

From Everson v. Board of Education Page 330 U. S. 18

So any direct funding of a religious building is a direct violation of the first amendment, at least that's the opinion of the guys who decide whats constitutional for a living.

[Skyyr]

Separation of church & state. It's pretty clearly written...

No, it is not. Try actually studying the Constitution before barfing up something you read in an editorial.

[Skyyr]

To quote the supreme court.

"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

From Everson v. Board of Education Page 330 U. S. 18

So any direct funding of a religious building is a direct violation of the first amendment, at least that's the opinion of the guys who decide whats constitutional for a living.

The SUPREME COURT is nothing but the opinion of whatever cronies the POTUS happens to want in those positions during a time of vacancy. This same court allowed the banning of rifles based on cosmetic features alone, allowed the restriction of rifles under 16" barrel length and allowed full autos to be banned in light of an Constitutional amendment that says "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed." Must be Constitutional since they said it, huh? What about the ability for the government to restrict your ability to grow food on your land because it affects "interstate commerce"? Constitutional, huh? Quoting their statement of a separation of church and state does not mean in ANY way that it's Constitutional and it paints you as unintelligent and disingenuous doing so.

Quote where it was written in our founding documents - you WON'T find it anywhere.

[mr_smiles]

The SUPREME COURT is nothing but the opinion of whatever cronies the POTUS happens to want in those positions during a time of vacancy. This same court allowed the banning of rifles based on cosmetic features alone, allowed the restriction of rifles under 16" barrel length and allowed full autos to be banned in light of an Constitutional amendment that says "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed." Must be Constitutional since they said it, huh? What about the ability for the government to restrict your ability to grow food on your land because it affects "interstate commerce"? Constitutional, huh? Quoting their statement of a separation of church and state does not mean in ANY way that it's Constitutional and it paints you as unintelligent and disingenuous doing so.

Quote where it was written in our founding documents - you WON'T find it anywhere.

Actually it's discussed in our founding papers (depending I guess on how you define founding papers) the separation of church and state, these are people who had just got freed from church of England and wanted the freedom to pursue their own beliefs with out prosecution.

And since we have written records of letters exchanged between founding fathers we can pretty much get a good idea what they had intended with the free exercise clause. The government wasn't intended to sponsor any religion. Something you're doing by building mosques.

And it's not just an "opinion" as you so put it, the SCOTUS can either make or break a law created by congress by deciding if it's constitutional or not. Little more complicated when you get to state levels. But as far as federal goes the SCOTUS is there to ideally keep congress from running amok. Is it perfect, no. But it's what we have. And surely you agree with the SCOTUS when they rule on the side you agree, yet when they rule for an opposing view you find their decisions non constitutional.

[mr_smiles]

No, it is not. Try actually studying the Constitution before barfing up something you read in an editorial.

So it's not clearly written in early American documents? Such as the Virginia act for establishing religious freedom, and a number of others... OK


By the way, this is my last response on this thread since it's pointless for me to defend my interpretation against that of some one else. But the courts, the guys who matter (like it or not) have drawn the same conclusion as I have.

[Skyyr]

Actually it's discussed in our founding papers the separation of church and state, these are people who had just got freed from church of England and wanted the freedom to pursue their own beliefs with out prosecution.


If it's been discussed and written about, then quote it. You won't find it, just like you won't find a mention of "democracy" in our founding documents either.

[Skyyr]

So it's not clearly written in early American documents? Such as the Virginia act for establishing religious freedom, and a number of others... OK


By the way, this is my last response on this thread since it's pointless for me to defend my interpretation against that of some one else. But the courts, the guys who matter (like it or not) have drawn the same conclusion as I have.

First you state "It's clearly written," then you follow it up with a dictated excerpt (which hardly qualifies as clearly written) from a Supreme Court decision, which is in no way, shape or form tied to our country's foundation on the issue. On the contrary, the very fact that the Supreme Court made a ruling on it only underscores that it was not "clearly written."

You then cite a single state's constitution and claim that it's proof of our country being founded on the same. Since when does a line from a Constitution of a SINGLE STATE qualify as being "clearly written" as it pertains to an ENTIRE COUNTRY? If it was so important that it was supposed to be the same, then the framers of the Constitution would have included it. The specifically chose not to.

And further, any mention of separation of state and religion in their correspondence with each other only further proves that they specifically left it out for a reason. It's so ironic that people claim all day long "Oh George Washington said this" and "John Adams said that," yet they disregard that these brilliant men, the men that founded our country, also found it unfit to mention a separation of state and religion in the Constitution. Funny, because firearms and free speech made it in the Constitution, yet they talked more about religion than they did about the previous two.

Further, what was written for Virginia is for VIRGINIA ONLY. Argue semantics all you want, the very fact that NY state has an AWB and the US as a whole does not is enough proof that the laws of a State have no power or influence over the government of which it belongs to.

You said you had proof in our FOUNDING documents - that's the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (and its amendments). Quote it.

[BrianS]

Tonight, Glen beck mentioned the Billion worth of arms to Egypt in 2009. High probability these will be used against Israel, either by Egypt itself or given to Hamas.

Israel needs to get off first like 67 if Egypt cancels the treaties that came out of Camp David. If they let the Arabs pick the time and place like 73 while they rub hands it could spell trouble with this administration as allies.

[500grains]

This is a thread after my own heart. :p

There are so many line items of horribly wasted money that I am not going to get my blood pressure up about this one, although I object to it much more strongly than I object to section 8 housing, grants to ACORN, etc. Of course about half of the money will be embezzled by the IMAM's for their 'charitable works' (suicide bombings), meanwhile they just laugh at us.

The enemy is inside the gates.

[Cincinnatus]

The irony here is that it is the Liberals who profess to so believe in Sep of Church and State, and Skyyr, I agree with you on this, and it is they who are for the Federal funding of Mosques. Why the incongruity? Because it is Christianity and Chrisitanity only that they oppose and for any other religion they have a complete double standard. Why? Because in their perverted minds, it is Christianity that is the religion of the imperialists despite the fact that the Crusades were motivated as much by secular politics as by religion, that the Muslims actually attacked the West first during the reign of Charles the Hammer in France, and that Islam is far more intolerant, imperialistic, and bent on subjecting others to its strictures against their will than Christianity ever was. Last time I checked, it was not Christians who go around blowing themselves and women and children up. Last time I checked, it was not Christians who grab little kids and hold them in front of them as human-shields as do Palestinian troops (and they are trained to do that). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_46cGArhEk

Obama and the Left's strategy in the War on Terror is to please and appease the enemy, not defeat the enemy.