Posted on 09/24/2015 7:37:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-16)
Major newspaper editorials and some columnists have their knickers in a twist over remarks by Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson. Appearing last Sunday on "Meet the Press," Carson was asked by host Chuck Todd whether he believes Islam is consistent with the Constitution. "No, I don't," he said. "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation." Asked whether he could vote for a Muslim for Congress, Carson said Congress is a different story, but that it "depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are."
Carson critics are quick to mention Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits a "religious test" for office, but that means no one can be barred from office because of their faith; it does not and could not prevent citizens from voting for or against someone for religious reasons.
Two years ago, The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reported that 10 of the 15 "worst violators of religious freedom" in the world are nations in which Islam is the dominant religion.
If you prefer the thoughts of a cultural icon, consider what singer Art Garfunkel said. As reported on Daily Mail.com, Garfunkel noted that Muslims are transforming Europe. He referenced "Reflections of the Revolution in Europe," a 2009 book by Christopher Caldwell, which argues, "that mass immigration by Muslims is altering the culture of Europe because of their reluctance to join the culture of their new homelands." The book claims Muslims do not so much enhance European culture as supplant it, and are "patiently conquering Europe's cities, street by street."
Is that bigotry, or reality? Is it bigotry to quote what various Islamic leaders say are their intentions when it comes to establishing a worldwide caliphate and replacing the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Law, or is it a warning we should take seriously and respond to as we would react to any other invasion?
"Mina" (not her real name to protect her family) is a U.S. citizen and longtime friend who was born in Tehran and still has family there. She wrote me about the intentions of the mullahs and their nuclear deal with the U.S. and five other nations: "The mullahs are buying time ... (to) finish their nuclear program. Americans underestimate these people. It will be Hezbollah, ISIS, or al-Qaida doing their dirty work. They will give them the nuclear bomb. They are very shrewd. They'll sit back and watch."
"Mina" says the Iranian regime has been a huge supporter of President Obama, whose name in Persian, she notes, translates as "he is with us." She asks why Arab and Muslim countries don't take in the migrants now fleeing their native lands for Europe (and now thanks to President Obama the U.S.). It's a good question and the answer ought to be obvious to anyone not afraid of being labeled a "bigot." They support the invasion.
While not all Muslims are terrorists, Breitbart recently revealed a startling statistic. "In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic television channel," it writes, "respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State terrorist group, with 81 percent voting 'YES' on whether they approved of ISIS's conquests in the region." Eighty-one percent.
We are at war with a radical ideology that wishes to destroy the West and drastically alter our way of life. That is what Ben Carson was getting at when he made his remarks about a Muslim president in the White House.
Islam is not consistent with the Constitution in any way, shape or form. Islam is poison.
Considering the fact that the Quran advocates lying to “infidels”, how would one ever determine if a Muslim was telling the truth about his/her adherence to the principles espoused by our founding documents? The current occupant of the White House comes to mind...
Carson is able to say the things that Trump can't.
“Mina” says the Iranian regime has been a huge supporter of President Obama, whose name in Persian, she notes, translates as “he is with us.”
What a shock...NOT!
I’d take it a big step further. The Religion of Terror — the ROT — is not consistent with civilization “in any way, shape or form.” The ROT is poison.
Islam itself provides the answer. Any Muslim who repudiates Sharia is apostate, and other good Muslims are obligated to murder him. Being President requires taking the oath of office in which the person affirms he will take care to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and defend the Constitution. Some of those laws, like the recent ruling making same-sex marriage legal, and the free speech right to create works of art that offend Islam, openly oppose Sharia.
Thus a person can be a good Muslim or he can be President, but he cannot be both at the same time. The question being asked of Dr. Carson is either foolish, ignorant or is designed to create offense where there should be none.
Islam should be treated in the popular culture just like Nazism. Scorned, ridiculed, and mocked by all except it’s adherents. It is supremacist, totalitarian, and officially at war with all others.
It is an implacable enemy of democracy and freedom.
The root of this question is an attempt by the democRATs to turn conservative Muslims in this country who would nominally vote GOP away from the GOP. There must be some internal RAT polling that indicates the GOP is vulnerable among these voters. Remember, the media and RATs work in concert to push the RAT agenda.
Oath of office of the President of the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
What a stupid question to ask...Could a Muzzie be President?
Not if the USA wants to go down a dark shithole AND it’s overrun by liberals.
“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”
Why do we keep talking about something America just did...twice?
Our nation is overrun with leftists,Muslims and Mexicans just great! Nothing could go wrong here!
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
see link ...
The very fact that this is even an issue speaks volumes to how low we have sunk as a nation.
Should a communist be president? Should a muslim be president? How about a goat humping pedophile who likes to set thing on fire?
Sure! Why not?
I think it was Rush who said yesterday that Obama thinks he is bigger than the USA.
He thinks he’s up there with the Pope in godliness....chosen.
Maybe someone can find exactly what he said - it was interesting and seemed to hit the nail on the head.
Can you for one second imagine the press running cartoons and stories like they did during the WW2 years depicting Germans/Nazis and Japanese the way they did? They only do that to conservatives now days.
Only a mindless leftist would ask such a dumbass question. It is an insult to any freedom loving American!
Let’s keep an open mind here. The current Muslim President has done a terrific job, so, why not elect another one?
He thinks he’s up there with the Pope in godliness....chosen.
Obama is up there with the poop and he’s shoveling it...
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.