Bryan Fischer: "No More Mosques, Period"

[Kalam]

except you failed

In your estimation, I'm sure I did.


How could they not have been? We can begin with offering service to an oppressive, non-Islamic regime in an attempt to gain its political support. Muslims do not recognize any authority apart from God's and fight for the sake of no cause but Islam. Then, of course, there is support of methodical mass extermination simply on the basis of ethnoreligious heritage, political affiliation, physical wellbeing, or sexual orientation. Anybody supporting the cultivation of a master race is an anathema to Islam, which rejects any division along racial lines as ignorant and animalistic.

btw, it was in response to an asinine claim by you

My post was excessively belligerent but correct in identifying proposed actions against Muslims as Nazi-esque.

I notice your sig-line is -- not surprisingly, since you Izzies are perfectly okay with dishonesty -- deliberately out of context.

I included the only parts of your posts that mattered. You'll forgive me for not taking up half a page with my signature for the sake of preserving whatever "context" you think there may be. Anybody who cares can follow the links and read the posts themselves.

Shortly after that post of mine you use in your sig-line, little lying Islamic twat, IF you were inclined to ever be honest, you would have noted my response to the claim that the First Amendment should not protect Islam. I flatly disagreed with that.

Oh, I made sure to include enough to make sure everyone knew that you though Mr. Fitnah might not quite be right about prosecuting (persecuting) people for daring to worship God. What would you do if legislation like that actually passed?

Snivel about "dishonesty" all you want; I'll remind you of your whining about context the next time you or one of your daft pals posts a passage from Islamic scripture.

I also happen not to believe that RICO can be used to "go after" Islam. Mr.F may be mistaken in this instance (imho) but he is still quite smart. You couldn't understand.

And Hitler was a notable proponent of animal rights. Who gives a fuck? Even if he were intelligent (I have relatives in pre-school who can write more comprehensibly), that's completely overshadowed by the totalitarian bullshit he espouses.

Islam is diseased. It is a menace. But it is still protected (up to a point, anyway) by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects religious belief. It has not been interpreted, however, to permit any action taken in its name. For example, certain fundamental Christians take a verse from the Bible literally and therefore they take very dangerous risks when handling venomous snakes. THAT can be outlawed regardless of the First Amendment.

Similarly, religiously based "faith healing" can be prohibited (within bounds) if it adversely affects or risks the health of children regardless of religious belief and regardless of the First Amendment.

And here's an extreme example. SOME religions have a firm belief in "human sacrifice." Well, some used to, anyway. Maybe in some remote regions, some still do. If those folks were to come to our shores to "practice" their religion, the First Amendment would certainly not insulate them from murder charges if they "practice" their religion in that way here.

So, although Mr. F may be off-base in espousing the belief that RICO can be used to go after Islam, he may not be as far off-base as many here presume.

You go ahead and keep telling yourself that it isn't fascism.

 

[Liability]

Ah...so you are saying that my comment was not true? How so?

do you really consider Hitler a christian, in spite of what he thought of himself?

He considered himself a Christian...who am I to argue.

Is it really my place to say whether you are a christian or not if you declare yourself so?

I think you missed the point. I believe Dive is suggesting that Hitler did NOT consider himself a "Christian." In fact, I recall reading that Hitler was quite dismissive of Christianity.

So, this is not a question of you having to take issue with the old genocidal maniac's self-view. Heavens. That would be politically incorrect. You could, instead, just take him at his word.

 

[Kalam]

Guilt by association, Kalam? That's as intellectually weak as it gets. I wouldn't have expected that from you.

Yet one more great thing about places like this is the ability to seek out opposing views and, with a little luck, be able to fight and argue and still sit down to laugh about something else when we're done. And with even more luck, maybe somebody learns something. Nobody's opinion on one subject is the sum of who they are.

Well, all right there are some around here who can't see past an issue or agenda to find reality with two hands and a flashlight...but I've found extreme views on one subject aren't necessarily the measuring stick for that.

So I have no apologies for having "pals" I disagree with - even if I disagree vehemently.

Now have fun with the bitchfest, I need more coffee.

You're obviously more tolerant of others' viewpoints than I am; I don't know whether I should respect you for that or what. I draw the line at calling for the criminalization of religious beliefs.

Look at where we are, Kalam. It's a message board. /shrug

If it were the halls of Congress it would be a very different story.

You're right, of course. I envy your level-headedness.

 

[bodecea]

Please check the links in this website...Hitler's own words about his Christianity.

Hitler's Christianity

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You continue to refer to Islam as a religion.
Islam is a street gang founded according to its calendar at the beginning of the crime wave. Banditry kidnapping rape terrorism murder are Islams stock in trade to make the world safe for Islams crimes against humanity .
Sure it is wrapped in a false cloak of religion., but Islam is no more a religion than the Latin kings.
The original victims sought to protect themselves from mohammad and his gang by sending able bodied men to protect the carvans . they were all were systematically eradicated do to nighttime raids where women and children were killed. Mohammad and his gang grew wealthy from the bootie Islam became very popular .
Over a decade the efforts failed, the gang had become an army .
Mekka fell to mohammad .
Islam is what happens when the bad guys win.
Now 1431 years later and 80 millon dead testify to the threat to life and liberty the acts and example mohammad hold.
Written threats are illegal .That the next victim is unnamed is irrelevant .
The prior dead and clear message of genocide remove any benefit of the doubt Islam might have been given at one time.
That time has passed .
All members of the gang are required to contribute funds, Funds that are in part specifically to be used for jihad .
The entire structure of Islam man not be dismantled in one prosecution, it will require several .
One has been completed already . Care international is no more, its founders jailed .Care International fell into the pattern of Muslim charities that engage in economic jihad. Funneling money to commit acts of terror
To stop jihad someone other than counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan,who does not understand anything about Islam or jihad.
The Stop jihad, laws concerning zakat will be expanded
To stop jihad judges and prosecutors familiar with Islamic jihad ideology will have to be put on the bench .
Not judges who think using international or sharia law in an appropriate in US courts of law.

 

[goldcatt]

I notice your sig-line is -- not surprisingly, since you Izzies are perfectly okay with dishonesty -- deliberately out of context.

Shortly after that post of mine you use in your sig-line, little lying Islamic twat, IF you were inclined to ever be honest, you would have noted my response to the claim that the First Amendment should not protect Islam. I flatly disagreed with that.

I also happen not to believe that RICO can be used to "go after" Islam. Mr.F may be mistaken in this instance (imho) but he is still quite smart. You couldn't understand.

Islam is diseased. It is a menace. But it is still protected (up to a point, anyway) by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects religious belief. It has not been interpreted, however, to permit any action taken in its name. For example, certain fundamental Christians take a verse from the Bible literally and therefore they take very dangerous risks when handling venomous snakes. THAT can be outlawed regardless of the First Amendment.

Similarly, religiously based "faith healing" can be prohibited (within bounds) if it adversely affects or risks the health of children regardless of religious belief and regardless of the First Amendment.

And here's an extreme example. SOME religions have a firm belief in "human sacrifice." Well, some used to, anyway. Maybe in some remote regions, some still do. If those folks were to come to our shores to "practice" their religion, the First Amendment would certainly not insulate them from murder charges if they "practice" their religion in that way here.

So, although Mr. F may be off-base in espousing the belief that RICO can be used to go after Islam, he may not be as far off-base as many here presume.

If you're talking about actions and not thought, words or belief, then you're right. Many actions are not protected. I posted two cases showing examples earlier, and yet the religions in question are not themsleves outlawed or otherwise unprotected. Only those specific practices that violate already existing laws.

The point I've been trying to make is that big bright line in between thought, or speech, or belief, and specific conduct that is removed from First Amendment protection.

"If you're talking about actions and not thought, words or belief, then you're right."

There's no "if" about it. It's what I said.

I can believe -- if I so choose -- in a Huge normally invisible God with a White Beard and Robes, floating on a cloud, and surrounded by a choir of angels. Or, I may believe that there is but one God and Allah is NOT his name.

But if I "believe" in "faith healing," I may not be permitted to ACT on that belief when it comes to a sick child. Or, if I believe that God wants me to show my faith by handling venomous snakes, maybe I can do that to myself, but I sure as hell cannot do that to children. And if I happen to be a devout Mayan with a firm belief in human sacrifice, I am sure as hell not allowed under the banner of "protection" from the First Amendment to sacrifice the life of some young virgin to keep the Gods all happy.

Now if (huge "if" imho) Mr. F or others can somehow prove that Islamic practices as preached inside their mosques or by their imams, etc., call for ACTS of violence against us infidels or even against insufficiently "pious" Muslims, then the First Amendment clearly wouldn't protect THOSE "practices" or ACTS, either.

Still, that's a long reach distant from a RICO prosecution.

Yep. With the clarification that the preaching you're referring to would have to violate the already existing standards for incitement we're on exactly the same page here.

 

[goldcatt]

You continue to refer to Islam as a religion.
Islam is a street gang founded according to its calendar at the beginning of the crime wave. Banditry kidnapping rape terrorism murder are Islams stock in trade to make the world safe for Islams crimes against humanity .
Sure it is wrapped in a false cloak of religion., but Islam is no more a religion than the Latin kings.
The original victims sought to protect themselves from mohammad and his gang by sending able bodied men to protect the carvans . they were all were systematically eradicated do to nighttime raids where women and children were killed. Mohammad and his gang grew wealthy from the bootie Islam became very popular .
Over a decade the efforts failed, the gang had become an army .
Mekka fell to mohammad .
Islam is what happens when the bad guys win.
Now 1431 years later and 80 millon dead testify to the threat to life and liberty the acts and example mohammad hold.
Written threats are illegal .That the next victim is unnamed is irrelevant .
The prior dead and clear message of genocide remove any benefit of the doubt Islam might have been given at one time.
That time has passed .
All members of the gang are required to contribute funds, Funds that are in part specifically to be used for jihad .
The entire structure of Islam man not be dismantled in one prosecution, it will require several .
One has been completed already . Care international is no more, its founders jailed .Care International fell into the pattern of Muslim charities that engage in economic jihad. Funneling money to commit acts of terror
To stop jihad someone other than counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan,who does not understand anything about Islam or jihad.
The Stop jihad, laws concerning zakat will be expanded
To stop jihad judges and prosecutors familiar with Islamic jihad ideology will have to be put on the bench .
Not judges who think using international or sharia law in an appropriate in US courts of law.

Care International was one small group within Islam that indulged in criminal behavior, which was proven in a court of law.

Criminal behavior should be and can be punished no matter who perpetrates it, of any religion. But again, actions are not beliefs. And the actions of the few cannot rationally or legally be projected onto the many who adhere to a similar belief system but do not engage in the same actions. Period.

If you cannot separate the two, or separate the individuals engaging in criminal actions from the whole who do not, you'll never understand either the fundamentals of American First Amendment liberties or why you're off base with your reasoning here.

 

[Kalam]

You continue to refer to Islam as a religion.
Islam is a street gang founded according to its calendar at the beginning of the crime wave. Banditry kidnapping rape terrorism murder are Islams stock in trade to make the world safe for Islams crimes against humanity .
Sure it is wrapped in a false cloak of religion., but Islam is no more a religion than the Latin kings.
The original victims sought to protect themselves from mohammad and his gang by sending able bodied men to protect the carvans . they were all were systematically eradicated do to nighttime raids where women and children were killed. Mohammad and his gang grew wealthy from the bootie Islam became very popular .
Over a decade the efforts failed, the gang had become an army .
Mekka fell to mohammad .
Islam is what happens when the bad guys win.
Now 1431 years later and 80 millon dead testify to the threat to life and liberty the acts and example mohammad hold.
Written threats are illegal .That the next victim is unnamed is irrelevant .
The prior dead and clear message of genocide remove any benefit of the doubt Islam might have been given at one time.
That time has passed .
All members of the gang are required to contribute funds, Funds that are in part specifically to be used for jihad .
The entire structure of Islam man not be dismantled in one prosecution, it will require several .
One has been completed already . Care international is no more, its founders jailed .Care International fell into the pattern of Muslim charities that engage in economic jihad. Funneling money to commit acts of terror
To stop jihad someone other than counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan,who does not understand anything about Islam or jihad.
The Stop jihad, laws concerning zakat will be expanded
To stop jihad judges and prosecutors familiar with Islamic jihad ideology will have to be put on the bench .
Not judges who think using international or sharia law in an appropriate in US courts of law.

You should have included well-poisoning and blood drinking festivals in your litany of anti-Islamic bullshit. Those are classic fascist standbys.

 

[bodecea]

You continue to refer to Islam as a religion.
Islam is a street gang founded according to its calendar at the beginning of the crime wave. Banditry kidnapping rape terrorism murder are Islams stock in trade to make the world safe for Islams crimes against humanity .
Sure it is wrapped in a false cloak of religion., but Islam is no more a religion than the Latin kings.
The original victims sought to protect themselves from mohammad and his gang by sending able bodied men to protect the carvans . they were all were systematically eradicated do to nighttime raids where women and children were killed. Mohammad and his gang grew wealthy from the bootie Islam became very popular .
Over a decade the efforts failed, the gang had become an army .
Mekka fell to mohammad .
Islam is what happens when the bad guys win.
Now 1431 years later and 80 millon dead testify to the threat to life and liberty the acts and example mohammad hold.
Written threats are illegal .That the next victim is unnamed is irrelevant .
The prior dead and clear message of genocide remove any benefit of the doubt Islam might have been given at one time.
That time has passed .
All members of the gang are required to contribute funds, Funds that are in part specifically to be used for jihad .
The entire structure of Islam man not be dismantled in one prosecution, it will require several .
One has been completed already . Care international is no more, its founders jailed .Care International fell into the pattern of Muslim charities that engage in economic jihad. Funneling money to commit acts of terror
To stop jihad someone other than counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan,who does not understand anything about Islam or jihad.
The Stop jihad, laws concerning zakat will be expanded
To stop jihad judges and prosecutors familiar with Islamic jihad ideology will have to be put on the bench .
Not judges who think using international or sharia law in an appropriate in US courts of law.

For you to continue to deny that Islam is a religion, pretty much marginalizes you as someone to not take seriously.

Now...eagerly awaiting your next neg rep. They make my day.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The UK uncovered some problems Perhaps the US mosque should be visited unannounced
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FbVoB8hinI]YouTube - Trouble at the Mosque - 49 min documentary[/ame]
Muslim American Society in the American arm of the muslim brotherhood.
An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America :: Archive Documents :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism

They currently run the Boston cultural center, Dal al-Hidrah mosque in Virginia and are devolping the Staten Island mosque.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Care International was one small group within Islam that indulged in criminal behavior, which was proven in a court of law.

Criminal behavior should be and can be punished no matter who perpetrates it, of any religion. But again, actions are not beliefs. And the actions of the few cannot rationally or legally be projected onto the many who adhere to a similar belief system but do not engage in the same actions. Period.

If you cannot separate the two, or separate the individuals engaging in criminal actions from the whole who do not, you'll never understand either the fundamentals of American First Amendment liberties or why you're off base with your reasoning here.

Islam requires zakat (contributions) from all members
a portion of zakat goes to jihad( including terrorist acts)
Are all innocent for contributing to jihad providing material support for terrorism?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

For you to continue to deny that Islam is a religion, pretty much marginalizes you as someone to not take seriously.

Now...eagerly awaiting your next neg rep. They make my day.

Nope you are a crashing bore and a liar.
You know damn well Hitler wasnt a christian .
you know damn well what he though of chritians but you persist on repeating the same lies in spit of knowing better you are a vile creature.
Done with you.

 

[goldcatt]

Care International was one small group within Islam that indulged in criminal behavior, which was proven in a court of law.

Criminal behavior should be and can be punished no matter who perpetrates it, of any religion. But again, actions are not beliefs. And the actions of the few cannot rationally or legally be projected onto the many who adhere to a similar belief system but do not engage in the same actions. Period.

If you cannot separate the two, or separate the individuals engaging in criminal actions from the whole who do not, you'll never understand either the fundamentals of American First Amendment liberties or why you're off base with your reasoning here.

Islam requires zakat (contributions) from all members
a portion of zakat goes to jihad( including terrorist acts)
Are all innocent for contributing to jihad providing material support for terrorism?

Now this is where some of your evidence would come in handy.

 

[Modbert]

Mr. Fitnah calling anyone on here a vile creature:

 

[Liability]

Care International was one small group within Islam that indulged in criminal behavior, which was proven in a court of law.

Criminal behavior should be and can be punished no matter who perpetrates it, of any religion. But again, actions are not beliefs. And the actions of the few cannot rationally or legally be projected onto the many who adhere to a similar belief system but do not engage in the same actions. Period.

If you cannot separate the two, or separate the individuals engaging in criminal actions from the whole who do not, you'll never understand either the fundamentals of American First Amendment liberties or why you're off base with your reasoning here.

Islam requires zakat (contributions) from all members
a portion of zakat goes to jihad( including terrorist acts)
Are all innocent for contributing to jihad providing material support for terrorism?

Now this is where some of your evidence would come in handy.

Evidence for what? That Islam requires zakat? Or that a portion of zakat goes toward jihad? Or that a portion of the funds used for jihad could be supporting terrorism?

What proof for any of the above would be deemed acceptable?

Note: I am not attempting here to stake a claim. Frankly, I don't know the answers. But we should clarify the precise questions and the level of evidence required so we don't have to quibble later on.

 

[Liability]

If you're talking about actions and not thought, words or belief, then you're right. Many actions are not protected. I posted two cases showing examples earlier, and yet the religions in question are not themsleves outlawed or otherwise unprotected. Only those specific practices that violate already existing laws.

The point I've been trying to make is that big bright line in between thought, or speech, or belief, and specific conduct that is removed from First Amendment protection.

"If you're talking about actions and not thought, words or belief, then you're right."

There's no "if" about it. It's what I said.

I can believe -- if I so choose -- in a Huge normally invisible God with a White Beard and Robes, floating on a cloud, and surrounded by a choir of angels. Or, I may believe that there is but one God and Allah is NOT his name.

But if I "believe" in "faith healing," I may not be permitted to ACT on that belief when it comes to a sick child. Or, if I believe that God wants me to show my faith by handling venomous snakes, maybe I can do that to myself, but I sure as hell cannot do that to children. And if I happen to be a devout Mayan with a firm belief in human sacrifice, I am sure as hell not allowed under the banner of "protection" from the First Amendment to sacrifice the life of some young virgin to keep the Gods all happy.

Now if (huge "if" imho) Mr. F or others can somehow prove that Islamic practices as preached inside their mosques or by their imams, etc., call for ACTS of violence against us infidels or even against insufficiently "pious" Muslims, then the First Amendment clearly wouldn't protect THOSE "practices" or ACTS, either.

Still, that's a long reach distant from a RICO prosecution.

Yep. With the clarification that the preaching you're referring to would have to violate the already existing standards for incitement we're on exactly the same page here.

Well, we're getting there, anyway. I wasn't talking about preaching. I drew the distinction between BELIEFS and ACTIONS. It MIGHT be, though, that certain preaching could cross the line from an expression of protected religious BELIEF into the realm of unprotected (and unworthy of protection) incitement to criminal behavior.

For instance, it is one thing for a Muslim cleric to state that Islam requires "jihad." That much is true. A pillar is a pillar, I guess. But it is another thing for that cleric to then "preach" that Jihad REQUIRES that infidels be slaughtered or to urge the "faithful" to take certain specific, direct and murderous actions against infidels or apostates.

 

[goldcatt]

"If you're talking about actions and not thought, words or belief, then you're right."

There's no "if" about it. It's what I said.

I can believe -- if I so choose -- in a Huge normally invisible God with a White Beard and Robes, floating on a cloud, and surrounded by a choir of angels. Or, I may believe that there is but one God and Allah is NOT his name.

But if I "believe" in "faith healing," I may not be permitted to ACT on that belief when it comes to a sick child. Or, if I believe that God wants me to show my faith by handling venomous snakes, maybe I can do that to myself, but I sure as hell cannot do that to children. And if I happen to be a devout Mayan with a firm belief in human sacrifice, I am sure as hell not allowed under the banner of "protection" from the First Amendment to sacrifice the life of some young virgin to keep the Gods all happy.

Now if (huge "if" imho) Mr. F or others can somehow prove that Islamic practices as preached inside their mosques or by their imams, etc., call for ACTS of violence against us infidels or even against insufficiently "pious" Muslims, then the First Amendment clearly wouldn't protect THOSE "practices" or ACTS, either.

Still, that's a long reach distant from a RICO prosecution.

Yep. With the clarification that the preaching you're referring to would have to violate the already existing standards for incitement we're on exactly the same page here.

Well, we're getting there, anyway. I wasn't talking about preaching. I drew the distinction between BELIEFS and ACTIONS. It MIGHT be, though, that certain preaching could cross the line from an expression of protected religious BELIEF into the realm of unprotected (and unworthy of protection) incitement to criminal behavior.

For instance, it is one thing for a Muslim cleric to state that Islam requires "jihad." That much is true. A pillar is a pillar, I guess. But it is another thing for that cleric to then "preach" that Jihad REQUIRES that infidels be slaughtered or to urge the "faithful" to take certain specific, direct and murderous actions against infidels or apostates.

Certain preaching could cross the line, of course. But you know the standard for removing inciting speech from First Amendment protection. It's not as simple as saying it, there has to be an imminent and highly credible threat that the action will occur because of it.

That's not impossible, which is why I say IF the preaching violates those standards it should be penalized. But it's a very high threshhold to reach.

Regardless, even if that were to happen the penalty only applies to the individual engaging in that nonprotected speech. Not the audience and not the entire religion to which he belongs. Ah, the wonders of the American justice system.

Nah, I think we more or less agree here. Bummer. I like arguing with you.

 

[Liability]

Yep. With the clarification that the preaching you're referring to would have to violate the already existing standards for incitement we're on exactly the same page here.

Well, we're getting there, anyway. I wasn't talking about preaching. I drew the distinction between BELIEFS and ACTIONS. It MIGHT be, though, that certain preaching could cross the line from an expression of protected religious BELIEF into the realm of unprotected (and unworthy of protection) incitement to criminal behavior.

For instance, it is one thing for a Muslim cleric to state that Islam requires "jihad." That much is true. A pillar is a pillar, I guess. But it is another thing for that cleric to then "preach" that Jihad REQUIRES that infidels be slaughtered or to urge the "faithful" to take certain specific, direct and murderous actions against infidels or apostates.

Certain preaching could cross the line, of course. But you know the standard for removing inciting speech from First Amendment protection. It's not as simple as saying it, there has to be an imminent and highly credible threat that the action will occur because of it.

That's not impossible, which is why I say IF the preaching violates those standards it should be penalized. But it's a very high threshhold to reach.

Regardless, even if that were to happen the penalty only applies to the individual engaging in that nonprotected speech. Not the audience and not the entire religion to which he belongs. Ah, the wonders of the American justice system.

Nah, I think we more or less agree here. Bummer. I like arguing with you.

** Liability scratches top of his head **

I have discovered I kind of like you. Not just arguing, either.

I'm mystified.

 

[Hister]

Well, we're getting there, anyway. I wasn't talking about preaching. I drew the distinction between BELIEFS and ACTIONS. It MIGHT be, though, that certain preaching could cross the line from an expression of protected religious BELIEF into the realm of unprotected (and unworthy of protection) incitement to criminal behavior.

For instance, it is one thing for a Muslim cleric to state that Islam requires "jihad." That much is true. A pillar is a pillar, I guess. But it is another thing for that cleric to then "preach" that Jihad REQUIRES that infidels be slaughtered or to urge the "faithful" to take certain specific, direct and murderous actions against infidels or apostates.

Certain preaching could cross the line, of course. But you know the standard for removing inciting speech from First Amendment protection. It's not as simple as saying it, there has to be an imminent and highly credible threat that the action will occur because of it.

That's not impossible, which is why I say IF the preaching violates those standards it should be penalized. But it's a very high threshhold to reach.

Regardless, even if that were to happen the penalty only applies to the individual engaging in that nonprotected speech. Not the audience and not the entire religion to which he belongs. Ah, the wonders of the American justice system.

Nah, I think we more or less agree here. Bummer. I like arguing with you.

** Liability scratches top of his head **

I have discovered I kind of like you. Not just arguing, either.

I'm mystified.

Can everyone feel the homo love?

 

[Coyote]

I believe his idea is extreme. But no more extreme than the ACLU and other loony lefties who believe that terrorists have the right to enter our country illegally, blow shit up, and then be provided with taxpayer funded attorneys and special meals.

I'm sure you can provide a link indicating said belief? Maybe a direct quote or two?

There is no doubt in my mind that people on here would argue that the 1st amendment allows for anyone to fund, recruit, train, and assemble an army to kill innocent Americans. Price we pay for freedom and all.

And no I do not believe all Muslims want to do that. But many do, and I for one am grateful that people more knowledgable than us, are keeping tabs on them. For now...

Yup. Just like they did those untrustworthy Japanese in the 1940's....