A Muslim President? Was Ben Carson Right?

Beliefs matter. "Ideas Have Consequences," as conservative scholar Richard Weaver wrote in his classic of that title in 1948.

Yet, for so believing, and so saying, Dr. Ben Carson has been subjected to a Rodney King-style night-sticking by the P.C. police.

Asked by Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press" whether he could support a Muslim for president, Carson replied, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

Carson was not out of the studio before the airwaves were filled with denunciations. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said CAIR is calling on Carson to "withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are inconsistent with the United States Constitution."

"[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

But Carson did not say no Muslim could serve. He said he would not advocate having a Muslim as president, that Islamic beliefs are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Or is it now impermissible to question a candidate's beliefs about God, man, and the state, and about whether his religious convictions might affect his conduct in office?

A man's religion is a part of who he is. While not an infallible guide to what he will do, it is often a reliable road map.

If Mormons still championed polygamy and declared that blacks could not be Mormons, would it be illegitimate to raise that issue?

Should a Quaker who believes in "turning the other cheek" not be pressed on whether his faith disqualifies him to be commander in chief?

If an Evangelical running for president believes the "end times" are at hand, would it be un-American to ask of the Armageddonite if his religious beliefs might affect his decision on war in the Middle East?

Islam means "submission." And a believing, practicing, devout Muslim believes in submission to the teachings of the Prophet.

That means not only following the dietary laws and fasting during Ramadan, but adhering to the tenets of Islam on the modesty of dress in women, praying five times a day to Mecca, and treating false faiths like Christianity as the great heresies that they are.

Anyone recall a collective protest from the Islamic world when that Afghan convert to Christianity was facing an executioner's ax?

Islam instructs its adherents not only on how to live their lives, but also how to organize their society. Is Sharia consistent with the U.S. Constitution? Would not a Muslim presidential candidate have to reject Sharia for America, i.e, apostatize? And what is the penalty for apostasy in the Quran?

Would it violate the spirit of the Constitution to ask of a Muslim candidate whether he agrees with the Quran on the proper punishment for homosexuals, adulterers and thieves?

From the Maghreb to the Middle and Near East, in almost every society where Islam is the dominant faith, repression appears the rule.

Of the near 50 nations where Islam is the majority religion, where is the constitutional republic that resembles our own?

Carson says he would not support turning the armed forces of the United States over to a follower of a faith whose co-religionists have produced the modern Middle East. Why is that bigotry? Is Islam wholly disconnected to the horrors transpiring there?

Islam has bloody borders, observed Dr. Samuel Huntington. Of the ugliest terrorist organizations of which we daily read -- Boko Haram, al-Qaida, ISIS, the al-Nusra Front, al-Shabaab -- are not most of them proudly Muslim?

Given the sectarian war between the Shiites led by Iran and the Sunni led by the Saudis, would it violate the Constitution to ask our Muslim presidential candidate to which of these two he belonged?

Atheists who embraced the political religion of Marxism-Leninism created the Stalinist Empire. Atheist Germans who embraced National Socialism as the state religion produced the Third Reich. And Islamists created Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Undeniably, Muslims have proven to be good American patriots, as did the Christians and the Jews who came before them.

But in Europe today, we see hundreds of thousands of Muslims pouring in, adding to the millions there, and they are all not assimilating.

Those elites who say they would be fine with a Muslim president are probably dissembling. Because that is the politically correct thing to say; it makes them feel superior; and no such candidate is in sight.

Indeed, the same elites who call it outrageous that Carson said a Muslim should not be president are the first and loudest to decry any suggestion that our current president is a Muslim.

THE TIP OF THE SPEAR
“Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” Winston Churchill

Since the tragic events of 911, I have spent more time than I ought trying to understand what many – too many – foolishly refer to as the “religion” of Islam.

That has led me to a more intense study of Nazism, Communism, Maoism and other tyrannical political/economic/legal systems.

And THAT has led me to conclude that of the three named above – all of which exacted a terrible human toll – Islam is by far the most dangerous because, of them, only Islam holds itself out to be a “religion”.

As fanatical as the Nazis, Communists and Maoists were – and, of those now among us here in America, the communists who now call themselves “socialists” and “progressives” (all Democrats) – the mindless fervor of the more radical Muslims eclipses all but the more radical “progressives” by orders of magnitude.

But what about the “moderate” Muslims? As several authors correctly observe, they are “irrelevant” as they fail to condemn the murderous radicals. And if the radicals succeed in their quest to dominate the world with their “caliphate”, these so called moderates – who profess to embrace the words of the Koran and the verses calling for the murder of the infidel “wherever he is found” – would quickly swing in behind the crazies to avail themselves of the worldly fruits of their victory.

There are Western parallels to the current Muslim rampage.

Putting aside the frequently dredged up activities of the oligarchs, industrialists, war profiteers Zionists, New World Order crowd and the rest, when America has gone to war, it has been generally understood that we did so to either protect legitimate American national interests or to assist treaty partners under assault by invaders. And those American forces involved in actual combat have been a small percentage of our overall population. The military term for that is “the tip of the spear.” Despite the expected wartime disruptions and accelerated production activities, most Americans were behind those war efforts and could be viewed as analogous to the “moderates” among the Muslims of today.

The Muslim forces now murdering their way across the Middle East and now into Europe are also a fraction of the peoples from that area. So far as we can tell, the majority of other Muslims in that part of the world are those “moderates” referred to above.

Here’s where the parallel ends: When Americans defeated the forces that took us to war, we brought most of our folks home and tried to resume our normal national life, generally leaving the vanquished to resume theirs after attempting to share with them the principles and benefits of the system of economic and individual freedom that makes America unique and, Obama’s protestations to the contrary, exceptional. With the tragic exception of Germany after WWI, we have even helped rebuild the areas in which the conflict raged.

And here is the MOST significant departure from OUR foreign conflicts: OURS have been waged to preserve our freedoms and to establish greater freedoms for those whom we defeated. Islam’s goal is PHYSICAL, MORAL AND SPIRITUAL DOMINATION and those who RESIST ARE TO BE MURDERED!

If Islam should prevail in the current and escalating battle, because their Koran COMMANDS Muslims to DOMINATE THE EARTH, sure as God made little green apples, it IS coming, that bloody physical battle will be waged ON OUR SOIL. A far larger proportion of otherwise noncombat Americans will be involved because, like the American Revolution, the War of 1812 and the War Between the States, IT WILL BE FOUGHT AROUND AND AMONG US.

None will be spared.

Which brings me to a recent media “non-event” that just occurred. Senator Jeff Sessions warned Obama and Kerry to reexamine their insane plan to import up to 100,000 UNVETTED Muslim “refugees”. Senator Sessions used the term “POTENTIAL TERRORIST ARMY” in his remarks. I can’t recall ANY nation whose “leaders” sought to invite potential enemy combatants to its shores, let alone PAY them once in.

A senior statesman like Sessions does not lightly use such language unless he knows something a sad number of Americans either do not or, heads in the sand (or elsewhere) and because they prefer “diversity and tolerance” to freedom, choose to ignore. That phrase probably had a great deal to do with the blackout of his comments by the PC infected “progressive” news whores.

All of which has caused me – and others who have not been cowed by political correctness into a cowardly and, eventually, deadly silence – to offer that there IS NO RADICAL ISLAM: THERE IS JUST ISLAM and ALL of its adherents pose a threat to those who are not.

THINK ABOUT IT...THEN START RAISING HELL WITH THE PUSILLANIMOUS WIMPS NOW THE RULE AMONG THE POLITICAL ELITES!!

And if you believe my remarks to be too strong, rash and politically incorrect, spend 40 minutes here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjBDDC4wVxk with Dr. Bill Warner.
(Don’t be concerned that the first 5 minutes is a low key by Dr. Warner for his books. If not interested in that section, at least sample it to see how thorough is the man’s research. If you’ll run the slider out just past minute 5, you’ll be into the red meat of this important presentation.)

I know I’ve titled this “The Tip of the Spear”. To drive the point home more vividly, I should have called it “The Blade of the Beheading Sword”.

Perhaps Dr. Warner can convince you that we REALLY ARE LITERALLY in for the fight of our lives.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.