Tillerson Violates First Amendment

[Flanders]

Did those assholes in the State Department ever read the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion​

Enforcing ten words is not too much to ask from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson:

NEW DELHI — The United States and India were at loggerheads on Thursday over Compassion International, a Colorado-based Christian charity that was forced to shut its Indian operations after 48 years over accusations that it had converted Indians to Christianity.

Leaders of the charity complained this week that they were being forced out of India without an opportunity to review the evidence or respond to the accusations.

Mark Toner, a spokesman for the State Department, said that Washington would raise the issue with India, and he urged New Delhi to “work transparently and cooperatively” in enforcing laws regulating foreign aid.​

U.S. to Question India About Ban on Christian Charity
By ELLEN BARRY and SUHASINI RAJ
MARCH 9, 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/...ter&action=click&src=recg&pgtype=article&_r=0​

I realize the State Department is more interested in defending charity hustlers than defending Christianity. I am on solid ground here because anger at Muslims killing Christians runs a distant second to anger at an attack on charity hustlers. In any event the government has no constitutional authority to establish a religion here or anywhere else.

Bottom line: The Department of State is funded by tax dollars; ergo, tax dollars are paid by non-Christians as well as paid by Christians. Make no mistake about the bunco game. The money Compassion International gets from Americans is passed on to every taxpayer in the form of a charitable tax deduction. (None of the charity hustles would be possible without the XVI Amendment.)

Defending bunco artists proselytizing in foreign countries can easily become the US military fighting Islam for Christianity.

As I have said many times. Americans must defeat Islam as a matter of self-defense, but they must not do it for Christianity, Communism/Socialism, democracy, and certainly not for global government. So I see this business in India as a heads up. Charity hustlers must to be added to the list of things Americans must not fight for.

Finally, only fools would become Christian soldiers marching off to war for an organized religion.

​

 

[Iceweasel]

Doesn't make sense. How did Tillerson violate our free speech rights exactly? It looks like India has a beef with the organization so you want what? The establishment of religion overseas?

I donated over a $100 a month to Children International for 15 years but if they were causing problems with India's government they brought it on themselves.

 

[BlackSand]

The State Department operates under the Executive Branch … And is in no way Congress.
So … The State Department cannot violate the provision “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” … Mainly because they aren’t Congress and didn't write the law.

.

 

[RodISHI]

The Indian government put them on a list of organizations that cannot transfer money into the country. According to CBN it is because of growing Hindu extremist violence. According to CBN forty churches there in India are filling the gap. Here's Why Compassion International Is Being Forced Out of India

 

[Flanders]

How did Tillerson violate our free speech rights exactly?

To Iceweasel: I quoted the first ten words in the First Amendment. I did not mention freedom of speech.

so you want what? The establishment of religion overseas?

To Iceweasel: Work on your reading comprehension skills.

The State Department operates under the Executive Branch … And is in no way Congress.
So … The State Department cannot violate the provision “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” … Mainly because they aren’t Congress and didn't write the law.

To BlackSand: The violation applies to every government official and every government bureaucracy. Basically, private sector Americans cannot actually violate somebody else’s First Amendment Rights —— with one exception. Freedom of the press is a privilege granted to very few. The few who own the printing presses violate everybody else’s freedoms when they do the government’s dirty work.

Incidentally, America’s freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but the country will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech. if conservative Americans want to protect the First Amendment I suggest eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so it reads:​

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

XXXXX​

My point. The press would have to defend freedom of speech for everybody in every venue as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding freedom of speech to Democrat wolves.

As I’ve said many times, Democrats had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet is informing the public about the Democrat party’s tyrannical agenda, and about top Democrats, to more Americans than Democrats can live with.

Bottom line: Freedom of speech’s continued growth on the Internet is a frightening prospect to Democrats; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats.​

Hillary Clinton Proves Fake News Is Newspeak

The Indian government put them on a list of organizations that cannot transfer money into the country. According to CBN it is because of growing Hindu extremist violence. According to CBN forty churches there in India are filling the gap. Here's Why Compassion International Is Being Forced Out of India

To RodISHI: Whatever Indians do with organized religion in their own country is not the business of our government so long as Americans are not being killed —— if you believe what the First Amendment says. Note that India was throwing them out not killing them.

Incidentally, President McKinley was the first president to violate the First Amendment when he sent troops to stop the killing during the Boxer Uprising. Boxers were killing foreigners; mostly Christian missionaries. Pulling Americans out of China was a choice back then as it is in India today.

Conversely, throwing out immigrant religious fanatics operating in this country under the First Amendment’s protection is the choice the bums in our federal government refuse to face.

 

[Iceweasel]

My point. The press would have to defend freedom of speech for everybody in every venue as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding freedom of speech to Democrat wolves.
​

So I can't read by saying it isn't a freedom of speech issue then you launch into that? Your point is hard to follow because you are essentially a manure spreader.

​

 

[RodISHI]

To RodISHI: Whatever Indians do with organized religion in their own country is not the business of our government so long as Americans are not being killed —— if you believe what the First Amendment says. Note that India was throwing them out not killing them.

Incidentally, President McKinley was the first president to violate the First Amendment when he sent troops to stop the killing during the Boxer Uprising. Boxers were killing foreigners; mostly Christian missionaries. Pulling Americans out of China was a choice back then as it is in India today.

Conversely, throwing out immigrant religious fanatics operating in this country under the First Amendment’s protection is the choice the bums in our federal government refuse to face.

Every country is able to make their own choices no doubt. India is a battle ground between Muslim and Hindu in certain areas. The tribal wars have been going on for centuries in some areas. As far as missionaries go our State Department should be warning them if they are in any areas where conflict is brewing and help them get out when needed just as they would for any US citizen. The people that go to these places should be aware that they could be in danger before they go. To my way of thinking its India's loss if they don't want American missionary money there

 

[Iceweasel]

It reminds me of the missionary chicks that went to Afghanistan, I think it was. Against their law preached the gospel and were taken prisoner. Marines had to go in a rescue them. I would have left them there.

 

[Manonthestreet]

It reminds me of the missionary chicks that went to Afghanistan, I think it was. Against their law preached the gospel and were taken prisoner. Marines had to go in a rescue them. I would have left them there.

I would have no problem with that,,,thats what missions is.......

 

[Iceweasel]

It reminds me of the missionary chicks that went to Afghanistan, I think it was. Against their law preached the gospel and were taken prisoner. Marines had to go in a rescue them. I would have left them there.

I would have no problem wit that,,,thats what missions is.......

Yep. Let Jesus bail them out.

 

[aris2chat]

Did those assholes in the State Department ever read the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion​

Enforcing ten words is not too much to ask from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson:

NEW DELHI — The United States and India were at loggerheads on Thursday over Compassion International, a Colorado-based Christian charity that was forced to shut its Indian operations after 48 years over accusations that it had converted Indians to Christianity.

Leaders of the charity complained this week that they were being forced out of India without an opportunity to review the evidence or respond to the accusations.

Mark Toner, a spokesman for the State Department, said that Washington would raise the issue with India, and he urged New Delhi to “work transparently and cooperatively” in enforcing laws regulating foreign aid.​

U.S. to Question India About Ban on Christian Charity
By ELLEN BARRY and SUHASINI RAJ
MARCH 9, 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/...ter&action=click&src=recg&pgtype=article&_r=0​

I realize the State Department is more interested in defending charity hustlers than defending Christianity. I am on solid ground here because anger at Muslims killing Christians runs a distant second to anger at an attack on charity hustlers. In any event the government has no constitutional authority to establish a religion here or anywhere else.

Bottom line: The Department of State is funded by tax dollars; ergo, tax dollars are paid by non-Christians as well as paid by Christians. Make no mistake about the bunco game. The money Compassion International gets from Americans is passed on to every taxpayer in the form of a charitable tax deduction. (None of the charity hustles would be possible without the XVI Amendment.)

Defending bunco artists proselytizing in foreign countries can easily become the US military fighting Islam for Christianity.

As I have said many times. Americans must defeat Islam as a matter of self-defense, but they must not do it for Christianity, Communism/Socialism, democracy, and certainly not for global government. So I see this business in India as a heads up. Charity hustlers must to be added to the list of things Americans must not fight for.

Finally, only fools would become Christian soldiers marching off to war for an organized religion.

​

Why would you presume to think our constitution applies to india, do indian or hindu laws apply in the US?

 

[BlackSand]

How did Tillerson violate our free speech rights exactly?

To Iceweasel: I quoted the first ten words in the First Amendment. I did not mention freedom of speech.

so you want what? The establishment of religion overseas?

To Iceweasel: Work on your reading comprehension skills.

The State Department operates under the Executive Branch … And is in no way Congress.
So … The State Department cannot violate the provision “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” … Mainly because they aren’t Congress and didn't write the law.

To BlackSand: The violation applies to every government official and every government bureaucracy. Basically, private sector Americans cannot actually violate somebody else’s First Amendment Rights —— with one exception. Freedom of the press is a privilege granted to very few. The few who own the printing presses violate everybody else’s freedoms when they do the government’s dirty work.

Incidentally, America’s freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but the country will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech. if conservative Americans want to protect the First Amendment I suggest eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so it reads:​

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

XXXXX​

My point. The press would have to defend freedom of speech for everybody in every venue as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding freedom of speech to Democrat wolves.

As I’ve said many times, Democrats had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet is informing the public about the Democrat party’s tyrannical agenda, and about top Democrats, to more Americans than Democrats can live with.

Bottom line: Freedom of speech’s continued growth on the Internet is a frightening prospect to Democrats; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats.​

Hillary Clinton Proves Fake News Is Newspeak

The Indian government put them on a list of organizations that cannot transfer money into the country. According to CBN it is because of growing Hindu extremist violence. According to CBN forty churches there in India are filling the gap. Here's Why Compassion International Is Being Forced Out of India

To RodISHI: Whatever Indians do with organized religion in their own country is not the business of our government so long as Americans are not being killed —— if you believe what the First Amendment says. Note that India was throwing them out not killing them.

Incidentally, President McKinley was the first president to violate the First Amendment when he sent troops to stop the killing during the Boxer Uprising. Boxers were killing foreigners; mostly Christian missionaries. Pulling Americans out of China was a choice back then as it is in India today.

Conversely, throwing out immigrant religious fanatics operating in this country under the First Amendment’s protection is the choice the bums in our federal government refuse to face.

How did Tillerson violate our free speech rights exactly?

To Iceweasel: I quoted the first ten words in the First Amendment. I did not mention freedom of speech.

so you want what? The establishment of religion overseas?

To Iceweasel: Work on your reading comprehension skills.

The State Department operates under the Executive Branch … And is in no way Congress.
So … The State Department cannot violate the provision “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” … Mainly because they aren’t Congress and didn't write the law.

To BlackSand: The violation applies to every government official and every government bureaucracy. Basically, private sector Americans cannot actually violate somebody else’s First Amendment Rights —— with one exception. Freedom of the press is a privilege granted to very few. The few who own the printing presses violate everybody else’s freedoms when they do the government’s dirty work.

Incidentally, America’s freedoms can live very well without freedom of the press, but the country will die without ABSOLUTE political freedom of speech. if conservative Americans want to protect the First Amendment I suggest eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so it reads:​

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

XXXXX​

My point. The press would have to defend freedom of speech for everybody in every venue as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending press protection while feeding freedom of speech to Democrat wolves.

As I’ve said many times, Democrats had nothing to fear so long as freedom of speech was limited to soapbox orators and barroom pundits. Freedom of speech on the Internet is informing the public about the Democrat party’s tyrannical agenda, and about top Democrats, to more Americans than Democrats can live with.

Bottom line: Freedom of speech’s continued growth on the Internet is a frightening prospect to Democrats; hence, they are reacting like cornered rats.​

Hillary Clinton Proves Fake News Is Newspeak

The Indian government put them on a list of organizations that cannot transfer money into the country. According to CBN it is because of growing Hindu extremist violence. According to CBN forty churches there in India are filling the gap. Here's Why Compassion International Is Being Forced Out of India

To RodISHI: Whatever Indians do with organized religion in their own country is not the business of our government so long as Americans are not being killed —— if you believe what the First Amendment says. Note that India was throwing them out not killing them.

Incidentally, President McKinley was the first president to violate the First Amendment when he sent troops to stop the killing during the Boxer Uprising. Boxers were killing foreigners; mostly Christian missionaries. Pulling Americans out of China was a choice back then as it is in India today.

Conversely, throwing out immigrant religious fanatics operating in this country under the First Amendment’s protection is the choice the bums in our federal government refuse to face.

There cannot be a violation of the Constitution … If the actions don’t violate a provision of the Constitution.
It doesn’t matter what amount of verbiage you throw at it … It doesn’t matter what intent you want to imply or assume is present.

I didn’t say it was good policy … I didn’t say it was bad policy … I said you are attempting to apply law in a manner that is inconsistent with any actual legal basis.
The Constitution doesn’t apply to the entire world … If it did … Then we would be required to either sue or invade any other country that doesn’t follow it.

In short … It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference how you feel about any of it … There is nothing unconstitutional about anything that doesn’t violate something actually written in the Constitution.

.

 

[Flanders]

Why would you presume to think our constitution applies to india, do indian or hindu laws apply in the US?

To aris2chat: Get together with Iceweasel. Maybe the two of you can get a discount from a school teaching reading comprehension skills. Where did I say, or imply, the U.S. Constitution applies to anybody in foreign countries?

The Constitution doesn’t apply to the entire world

To BlackSand: Who said it did? I do not know how you got that from my comments. In plain English, government officials in foreign countries are not bound by anything in our Constitution nor should they be.

More to the point, our federal government officials are bound not to violate the Rights of Americans at all times in everything they do as well as protect and defend the Constitution itself.

Note that the Constitution only requires the president to swear an oath, although that never stood in the way of Clinton or Obama:

Every member of Congress swears their oath of office at the beginning of each of his or her terms in office. Upchuck swore the oath nine times as a congressman and twice as a US Senator; so you would think he can recite it backwards by now:​

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.​

To be fair to Upchuck, they should do away with oaths of office since nobody is ever held accountable for violating them.​

Upchuck Should Resign

 

[BlackSand]

Why would you presume to think our constitution applies to india, do indian or hindu laws apply in the US?

To aris2chat: Get together with Iceweasel. Maybe the two of you can get a discount from a school teaching reading comprehension skills. Where did I say, or imply, the U.S. Constitution applies to anybody in foreign countries?

The Constitution doesn’t apply to the entire world

To BlackSand: Who said it did? I do not know how you got that from my comments. In plain English, government officials in foreign countries are not bound by anything in our Constitution nor should they be.

More to the point, our federal government officials are bound not to violate the Rights of Americans at all times in everything they do as well as protect and defend the Constitution itself.

Note that the Constitution only requires the president to swear an oath, although that never stood in the way of Clinton or Obama:

Every member of Congress swears their oath of office at the beginning of each of his or her terms in office. Upchuck swore the oath nine times as a congressman and twice as a US Senator; so you would think he can recite it backwards by now:​

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.​

To be fair to Upchuck, they should do away with oaths of office since nobody is ever held accountable for violating them.​

Upchuck Should Resign

Upholding the Constitution means upholding the Constitution … Not misinterpreting it or applying to things that aren’t written in it ...

.

 

[Flanders]

Upholding the Constitution means upholding the Constitution … Not misinterpreting it or applying to things that aren’t written in it ...

To BlackSand: Exactly so.

I have one RHETORICAL question. Why is your interpretation more accurate than mine?

 

[BlackSand]

Upholding the Constitution means upholding the Constitution … Not misinterpreting it or applying to things that aren’t written in it ...

To BlackSand: Exactly so.

I have one RHETORICAL question. Why is your interpretation more accurate than mine?

I didn't say anything was more accurate ... I said it is written or it isn't ... Your interpretation is irrelevant.

.

 

[aris2chat]

Why would you presume to think our constitution applies to india, do indian or hindu laws apply in the US?

To aris2chat: Get together with Iceweasel. Maybe the two of you can get a discount from a school teaching reading comprehension skills. Where did I say, or imply, the U.S. Constitution applies to anybody in foreign countries?

The Constitution doesn’t apply to the entire world

To BlackSand: Who said it did? I do not know how you got that from my comments. In plain English, government officials in foreign countries are not bound by anything in our Constitution nor should they be.

More to the point, our federal government officials are bound not to violate the Rights of Americans at all times in everything they do as well as protect and defend the Constitution itself.

Note that the Constitution only requires the president to swear an oath, although that never stood in the way of Clinton or Obama:

Every member of Congress swears their oath of office at the beginning of each of his or her terms in office. Upchuck swore the oath nine times as a congressman and twice as a US Senator; so you would think he can recite it backwards by now:​

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.​

To be fair to Upchuck, they should do away with oaths of office since nobody is ever held accountable for violating them.​

Upchuck Should Resign

How does what happened in India have anything to do with our constitution?

How is Tillerson violating the constitution?

The post began on a false premises

It is not our job to protect christianity in other countries, or charities working there. We can request on humanitarian grounds but it is still up to the other country what they do.

First amendment has no relevance in India.

 

[Iceweasel]

To aris2chat: Get together with Iceweasel. Maybe the two of you can get a discount from a school teaching reading comprehension skills. Where did I say, or imply, the U.S. Constitution applies to anybody in foreign countries?

Your reading comprehension isn't so good. I asked where the right to interfere with India's laws come from? You were the one spouting off about the first amendment. Nutbag.

 

[Flanders]

I didn't say anything was more accurate ... I said it is written or it isn't ... Your interpretation is irrelevant.

How does what happened in India have anything to do with our constitution?

How is Tillerson violating the constitution?

The post began on a false premises

It is not our job to protect christianity in other countries, or charities working there. We can request on humanitarian grounds but it is still up to the other country what they do.

First amendment has no relevance in India.

Your reading comprehension isn't so good. I asked where the right to interfere with India's laws come from? You were the one spouting off about the first amendment. Nutbag.

To BlackSand, aris2chat, Iceweasel: I will trust those who might be following this thread to decide. This is where I get off:

​