WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson says Islam is antithetical to the Constitution, and he doesn’t believe that a Muslim should be elected president.
Carson, a devout Christian, says a president’s faith should matter to voters if it runs counter to the values and principles of America.
Responding to a question during an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he described the Islamic faith as inconsistent with the Constitution.
“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” Carson said. “I absolutely would not agree with that.”
PS Ben, you’re right of course, but you’re timing is a little late…
He’s absolutely wrong, and his comments go against the principles our founders laid down. “No religious test” means “no religious test.”
This immediately made me wonder about Romney. I remember some people saying they wouldn’t vote for him because he was Mormon. Doubtful any of them were labeled as bigots too.
Sure they were labeled as bigots, by people on both the left and right.
You mean they were called bigots, “generally,” right?
(Is there a group in the world that doesn’t have its share of bigots?)
Carson’s thought isn’t grounded in bigotry.
It is grounded in the right of our people to defend and preserve the Constitutional principles that underpin the Republic and in a time of war to be extra cautious.
Carson didn’t say Muslims should be banned from running. He said the religion is inconsistent with the Constitution and he would not put a Muslim in the WH…an opinion.
There are many ways to undermine our Constitutional Republic. The Danes are facing another, tyranny by sheer numbers. Gateway Pundit:
Tina: “Carson’s thought isn’t grounded in bigotry.
It is grounded in the right of our people to defend and preserve the Constitutional principles that underpin the Republic and in a time of war to be extra cautious.”
Yeah, I’m sure old Joe McCarthy thought the same thing.
Using legitimate threats to justify paranoia and bigotry is not new, Tina, and it must be fought every time it reoccurs throughout history, lest we become the very thing we hate.
Certainly there are Muslims whose interpretation of their religion is not at all inconsistent with the Constitution. What is also certain is that Carson’s belief that no member of this religion should ever be president is definitely inconsistent with constitutional principles.
“…an opinion.”
Yes. A bigoted opinion.
Mormons are fair game all right. Not only are attempts made to keep them out of the WH but then they are used as props in the marriage debate. Incredible!
Carson is absolutely right.
The problem isn’t with the individual devout aspect of Islam but with the political and judicial aspect of Islam (Although those who adhere to the political and judicial aspects are also in some cases religiously inconsistent in their beliefs and practices).
We live in a time when religious Muslim zealots are waging a two pronged war against Israel, the West, and the other religions of the world. The war they wage is violent and it is covert. It is not representative of a nation or nation leader seeking domination but is motivated by an absolute belief that the entire world should be subjugated and live under Muslim rule.
I challenge Chris to explain how this is consistent with the US Constitution.
Tina: “We live in a time when religious Muslim zealots are waging a two pronged war against Israel, the West, and the other religions of the world. The war they wage is violent and it is covert. It is not representative of a nation or nation leader seeking domination but is motivated by an absolute belief that the entire world should be subjugated and live under Muslim rule.
I challenge Chris to explain how this is consistent with the US Constitution.”
It’s obviously not consistent with the constitution, and it’s also obviously not what all Muslims believe.
If we were to get a major Muslim candidate, he would undoubtedly be the most vetted presidential candidate in human history–the secret service alone would be looking into all his associations past and present, and if the mainstream media failed to do the same the right wing would undoubtedly pick up the slack. If there’s any “there” there, we’ll find out about it. There is no way any Muslim with this kind of extremist view of Islam would ever become president–a moderate Muslim could, some day, but even that’s unlikely–every president we’ve ever had has been at least publicly a Christian.
Carson essentially had no reason to even answer this question, since it’s an unlikely hypothetical, and exposed his bigotry for no apparent reason.
Chris, we’ve been down this road so many times. Look, we know the vast majority of Muslims are not going to do violence, we get it. We know that of this vast peaceful number only a modest portion will support violent jihad with their money and their sympathies. We can agree on that, no question about it. We’re right there with you.
However, what we believe and what you are failing to come to terms with is: Islam is like a giant machine that will turn out a number of defective products every year, along with the good guys and it seems to be getting worse.
No other religion today can claim as many defective people ready to kill or active trained, soldiers armed and well funded. When compared to Christians, Buddhists, Hinduism, etc. it’s not even a contest. Islam is violent! It has been a very war-like religion with a lot of built-in violence (in the Koran and under Sharia law). I can’t think of any other religion that imposes so many acts of violence against transgressions, can you? Under Sharia Law you can be beat, stoned, beheaded… for a lot of things we would not consider a criminal offense.
Muslims don’t seem to be able to get along with themselves! When there is Sunni and Shia living within shooting range of each other, there’s trouble. The very foundation of this religion embraces things, violent, controlling things, that run counter to our founding principles of free will and self rule. Yes, we have several nice Black Muslims in Congress who are very easy going, good people and very representative of the peaceful side of Islam. I wish they were all like that, but we’re not seeing the big picture. They’re putting that best foot forward, because we are not ready for anything else yet. First, we have to be cajoled into acceptance and feel at ease, then as their numbers grow and they gain more power they can afford to be, well, more forceful and more authoritarian. This is their trajectory, do you deny this? Have you seen their history and how they rule in the Middle East?
Imagine if we elected 70% Muslim into the Senate and Congress. I’m betting you would see a whole new side of Islam come out that would not make you very happy. But, you couldn’t say much about it because that time is long gone and so is this blog. You and I are despised infidels. We’re obstructions to greater glory of Allah. Because we are, we’re like empty vessels without a soul and no afterlife. Therefore killing us is really no big deal at least in the eyes of the fundamentalist Muslim…they say we’re already dead. But, you don’t see this? You only see the smiling side of Islam. You only see those kind and generous people, like our Congressmen, who are winning over the hearts and minds through their benevolence and charm….but just as it is written in the Koran, there is another side that is preparing to take care of those that don’t buy what their diplomats are selling.
Jack, if you admit that there are good Muslims out there, then why do you defend Carson’s statement that we should never elect a Muslim president?
“You only see the smiling side of Islam.”
This is an idiotic statement. As if I hadn’t acknowledged the radical threat a million times; as if there’s anyone on the planet who is unaware of radical Islam? What a ridiculous strawman argument.
I am not the one saying that Muslims are “only” one thing or another; Carson is.
You remind me of the parent with a favorite child who always harshly disciplines the other when they’ve both been involved in an incident and then adds…and you be good too to the favored child.
You say you acknowledge “the radical threat.” In my experience you only do so as an afterthought. And, “a million times?” Hardly. If anything you have been an active apologist for radical Islam “a million times” by calling anyone who speaks out about the threat of radical Islam bigoted. You do so by insisting that those people need to get on board and shut up. You ask that we cave to the radical notion that Islam cannot be criticized but at the same time making it quite clear that Christianity and Christians can. You give the impression that there is no room for discussion of radical Islam at all. That PC insistence on “tolerance”and “inclusion” is phony and your understanding of what it will take to defeat this enemy is a dismal replication of our feckless president’s sympathetic stance and efforts.
Tina, you just accused me of:
“calling anyone who speaks out about the threat of radical Islam bigoted,”
“ask(ing) that we cave to the radical notion that Islam cannot be criticized”
and “giv(ing) the impression that there is no room for discussion of radical Islam at all.”
Before I respond to these, I’d like to know if there are any other blatantly false accusations you’d like to level against me. I’d like to address them all at once, to save time.
Thanks in advance.
“…and it’s also obviously not what all Muslims believe.”
Duh! So what? This is not relevant. War is being waged against us whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not and common practices change a bit when people are trying to kill and dominate others.
I can’t imagine anyone in the WWII generation being in a big hurry to place a German or Japanese person in the White House at that time. But then, that generation had some practical smarts. It wasn’t that all Germans were big fans of Hitler; it was that covert operations by Hitler could include attempting to put a Nazi in the WH. Pearl Harbor was a wake up call but the Greatest Generation was wise enough to know that the Japanese Emperor might have even more covert plans in their war against the US.
Vetting would uncover only what was un-coverable. It may be unlikely, but it certainly is not outside the realm of possibilities, that our enemy could recruit a family that had been here for many years with a spotless record.
A separate, but related, issue/aspect of this war is that BIG reforms need to happen within the Muslim faith and between the various tribes and sects. There’s a good chance now that the world will not see peaceful days for decades to come, if ever, due to resistance to reforms. Progressives who, A. Think we can make friends with Islamic terrorists and sponsors of Islamic warfare and domination, and/or B. Have their heads in the sand and willfully choose to ignore the serious commitment and message of both overt and covert terrorists don’t help the situation…you play right into the hands of our enemies.
You still haven’t learned to think in terms other than race and so you fall back on the label, “bigotry” as the only possible explanation for Carson’s concerns. Man you are one narrowly focused, not to mention naive, dude.
Me: ““…and it’s also obviously not what all Muslims believe.”
Tina: “Duh! So what? This is not relevant.”
How could it possibly not be relevant? Carson said that no Muslim should be president; not “most shouldn’t,” not “some shouldn’t,” but “none.” The fact that not all Muslims believe in the extreme form of sharia Carson describes is of course a relevant counter-argument to his claim that no Muslim should be president.
“I can’t imagine anyone in the WWII generation being in a big hurry to place a German or Japanese person in the White House at that time.”
No, they were just in a hurry to lock up millions of innocent Japanese people in internment camps. The WWII generation had plenty to recommend them; their treatment of ethnic minorities during wartime is not among their best qualities, and your suggestion that we look to them as a model of how to react in such situations is, frankly, really freaking weird.
It’s also worth pointing out that, while we were at war with both Germany and Japan, we are not at war with Islam, and never have been, as the last Republican president pointed out so often (and with rare eloquence), so your equivalence doesn’t hold up. You are literally making me yearn for the halcyon days of the Bush administration; that’s how disgusting I find your current arguments.
“But then, that generation had some practical smarts.”
See above.
“Progressives who, A. Think we can make friends with Islamic terrorists and sponsors of Islamic warfare and domination,”
I don’t know where you’ve been for the past few decades, but we have been making friends with Islamic terrorists and sponsors of Islamic warfare and domination for a very, very long time, and this has been done under both conservative and progressive administrations. Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge of American relations with the Middle East knows this. If you lack such knowledge, it’s really easy to google Iran-Contra or Bush’s relationship with Saudi Arabia. Hell, google the 1953 Iranian revolution. Our country has been propping up radical Islamist dictators for nearly as long as you’ve been alive. Your apparent belief that this is a newfound phenomena started by liberals is almost cute. Even more so because you have the nerve to call me “naive” right after this.
“You still haven’t learned to think in terms other than race and so you fall back on the label, “bigotry””
What are you talking about? Carson’s comments weren’t bigoted against any specific race. They were bigoted against a specific religion.
Carson was asked a silly hypothetical (setup) question and he gave his honest opinion. Then the media plays gotcha! What a circus. Why isn’t the media focusing on far more important questions, like what will he do about the economy, healthcare, etc.?
Jack, you’re right that it was a silly gotcha question. It was also an absurdly easy one–Carson should have said that if a Muslim candidate proved to be as patriotic and qualified as any other, then he would get his vote. If Carson fell into this gotcha, he is too easily got.
The question might not be as relevant as those about healthcare or the economy, but Carson’s bigotry and willingness to discriminate is of course relevant to his qualifications for president. In fact, it’s a disqualifying factor in my eyes, much more so than any candidate’s religion.
Chris it would be a much easier war if we were faced with a nation state with an ambitious tyrannical leader. We knew exactly who the Nazi’s were…they wore uniforms and showed up on the front lines!
We may not be at war with Islam but the enemy is not easily identifiable and identifies itself as the ONLY acceptable form of Islam. They have the ability to hide in plain sight! Tiptoeing around that situation is insane, dangerous, and plays right into the hands of an enemy that would silence all discussion and criticism, blow to smithereens any resistance, and chop off heads, crucify, and set people on fire to deter all resistance to them. They wear masks so as not to be identified. They are cowards who plot spectacular feats of terror against innocent civilians (like 911, Boston Marathon) rather than facing their enemy to do battle.
Your criticisms of those who are willing to face the reality is so easy. You have nothing to offer in terms of how we should address this problem and yet think of yourself as taking the superior route.
An ex-CIA officer was on FOX Business this morning and he said that vetting the Islamist enemy was very difficult…that figuring out who to arm in the Middle East was a monumental task.
Your ability to make distinctions is limited to academic understanding. You have the book learned information that the US has “been making friends with Islamic terrorists and sponsors of Islamic warfare and domination for a very, very long time” but you have no understanding of the purpose or the end and so Obama’s Iran Deal is just another example that goes in the generic basket.
It’s really not at all surprising that you don’t get what Carson was saying or what Jack has articulated in articles about the enemy again and again. It is not surprising either that you defer to the leftist fall back position of negatively labeling the messenger.
Also, your Manchurian Candidate fantasies may make for a good political thriller some day, but they’re hardly a convincing argument. If a stealth Muslim candidate really went to such an effort to hide their background and associations, wouldn’t they also hide the fact that they were Muslim?
Gee, maybe we just shouldn’t have presidents at all, in case a super-sekrit Muslim sneaks in!
“If a stealth Muslim candidate really went to such an effort to hide their background and associations, wouldn’t they also hide the fact that they were Muslim? ”
Are you kidding? They would have the support of the Democrat Party and it’s plethora of “tax free” organizations backed by wealthy donors. They would have the support of the PC leftist media. And they would have the support of people like you who will work 24/7 to shame and silence any discussion, criticism, or efforts to vet the candidate.
Per our Constitution persons of any faith may hold office including the president’s. But, they also have to swear an oath to follow our Constitution and uphold the laws of our land. I know hard to believe when we consider what Obama has done to our Constitution and our laws.
No Religious Test Clause:
“The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.[a]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause
Article VI – U.S. Constitution:
“All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
http://constitution.findlaw.com/article6.html#sthash.D8dGbt0d.dpuf
Well said, Peggy. Undoubtedly there are patriotic and trustworthy people among the Muslim religion; Carson’s statement that he would not find any Muslim up to the task of the presidency is a bigoted generalization.
There’s a covert political operation going on in America that has the same goal but the media never asks the type of question asked of Carson and never expresses shock, dismay, contempt, or surprise at the intolerance. In fact they rally behind these “bigots,” to borrow a word. They would continue to get away with it too, were it not for the uprising of right media.
The left may not overtly suggest that Christians should never be president but they do make Christians that run fat targets for destruction. They do distort, lie, and work til their fingers bleed to make sure the candidate is discredited and rejected before a single vote is ever cast. This intolerance toward Christians “generally” has the objective of keeping a certain kind of Christian out of the White House because of his religion.
Such hypocrites and phonies!
Tina: “The left may not overtly suggest that Christians should never be president”
Perhaps because, and I’m just spitballing here, no one of importance on the left actually thinks that.
That you are trying to turn this around to talk about bigotry toward Christians–the majority of the population, and close to 100% of presidents so far–is astoundingly self-centered. To you, openly saying that no member of a certain religion should ever lead the country isn’t bigotry, but any criticism of your own religion merits the label. Once again you show that you define bigotry as people criticism of people you happen to like.
Chris there is tremendous bigotry toward Christians in this country and it manifests in many forms including trying to prevent people like Romney from ever becoming president.
No Liberal of prominence would ever be honest enough to answer the question as Carson did…the very reason so many Americans are sick of politicians. All they do is BS their way into office.
My first comment has to do with the legal, political, and social problems with Islam. You will not address this problem. Instead you hide in the religious aspect and muddle the message so you can call people bigots…that is the height of dishonesty.
It’s impossible, since there has been no reform to Islam, to consider the religion consistent with the Constitution, unless you are willfully in denial about the Koran and edicts of the Imams. The religion commands sharia law, world dominance, and subjugation of infidels and women and the murder of homosexuals. You can spend all night excoriating me because i happen to disagree on the definition of marriage but you say very little about the acts of Muslims.
I understand your defense and support of Muslims. I’ve done it myself…no nasty”Christian”remarks required…I get your contempt for me.
I do not understand your absolute unwillingness to even discuss the threat of radical Islam and the various methods employed.
McCarthy was right, by the way. And your Saul Alinsky buddies of the time made sure his voice was silenced too!
Tina: “Chris there is tremendous bigotry toward Christians in this country and it manifests in many forms including trying to prevent people like Romney from ever becoming president.”
You’re right. The majority of Americans were so bigoted against Romney for being a Christian, that they went and elected another Christian instead out of spite.
Do you think through what you write at all?
“No Liberal of prominence would ever be honest enough to answer the question as Carson did…the very reason so many Americans are sick of politicians.”
That he was honest about his bigotry doesn’t make his response any less bigoted, Tina.
“My first comment has to do with the legal, political, and social problems with Islam. You will not address this problem.”
UNTRUE. I have addressed these problems many, many times. I have said myself Islam is in need of reformation. Saying that one would never vote for any Muslim candidate is NOT conducive toward that goal.
“Instead you hide in the religious aspect and muddle the message so you can call people bigots…that is the height of dishonesty.”
Focusing on the religious aspect of open religious discrimination is “dishonesty?” Wow. OK. Sure.
“It’s impossible, since there has been no reform to Islam, to consider the religion consistent with the Constitution, unless you are willfully in denial about the Koran and edicts of the Imams.”
One need not make any judgments about whether the “religion” is consistent with the Constitution in order to believe a certain candidate of that religion will uphold the Constitution. I don’t believe Huckabee’s interpretation of Christianity is consistent with the Constitution either; that does not lead me to disqualify every Christian from the pool of people I’d vote for, because I recognize that people are individuals.
“The religion commands sharia law, world dominance, and subjugation of infidels and women and the murder of homosexuals.”
And yet since not all Muslims believe in this interpretation of the religion, it is ludicrous to completely disqualify Muslims from the running, even if it’s only in your own mind.
“You can spend all night excoriating me because i happen to disagree on the definition of marriage but you say very little about the acts of Muslims.”
Please show me which commenters here are Muslim terrorists and I’ll be glad to have a little talk with them. (I’ve always had my suspicions about Peggy. [Kidding.])
“I do not understand your absolute unwillingness to even discuss the threat of radical Islam and the various methods employed.”
I do not understand your choice to repeatedly say untrue things about what I have and haven’t discussed here, so I guess we’re even.
“McCarthy was right, by the way.”
Oh for God’s sake. No. Stop. We have been through this before. You are embarrassing yourself.
McCarthy was fighting a real threat but his tactics were deplorable, and he destroyed the lives and careers of innocent people in his quest to persecute anyone to the left of himself. That you think he was “right” tells me not only everything I need to know about how wrong your political opinions are today, but about your character as well.
“And your Saul Alinsky buddies of the time made sure his voice was silenced too!”
Joseph Welch was a Saul Alinsky buddy? Edward R. Murrow was a Saul Alinsky buddy? Arthur Miller was a Saul Alinsky buddy?
You’re holding as a hero one of the worst men in our country’s history and denigrating the men of integrity who brought him down. Disgusting.
Just because anyone of any faith can run for office per our Constitution doesn’t mean they will win. I seriously doubt anyone who held opposing views and beliefs to our laws would ever be elected. At least not now and not any time in the near future. With all of the Muslims being brought in by this administration that may change during my grandkids time.
Obama allows 80,000 Muslim immigrants into United States :
October 22, 2010
President Barack Hussein Obama, in a determination letter to Congress, has announced that he will allow an additional 80,000 immigrants – – mostly from Islamic countries – – to resettle in the United States during fiscal year 2011.
Mr. Obama says that the increase in Muslim immigrants “is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-allows-80-000-muslim-immigrants-into-united-states
Number of Muslims in the U.S. doubles since 9/11:
“A new survey reveals the dramatically changing face of religion in America, with the number of Muslims in the U.S. soaring 67% in the decade since the 9/11 attacks.
Data released Tuesday from the 2010 U.S. Religion Census shows Islam was the fastest growing religion in America in the last 10 years, with 2.6 million living in the U.S. today, up from 1 million in 2000.
In the Midwest and parts of the South there are now more Muslims than Jews for the first time. Immigration from parts of the Muslim world and a small rise in conversions are the driving force behind the growth, researchers said. Jones also speculated that the burst of anti-Islam sentiment after the 9/11 attacks could have done more to grow the religion’s presence in the U.S. than slow it. Those on the fence about converting to Islam may have decided to do so on principle.
“Persecution is sometimes good for a religious group — in the sense of being able to attract more followers, for some reason,” Jones said. “Rarely is opposition a very effective tool in stopping the growth of a movement.”
Dr. Ihsan Bagby, associate proessor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky, agreed that any negative sentiments against Islam has only built up resiliance in the Muslim community. “You get stronger with resistance,” he said. “If everything is just peachy keen, it’s hard to grow. I think the anti-Muslim atmosphere in certain segments of the public square have actually made Muslims more religious.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/number-muslims-u-s-doubles-9-11-article-1.1071895
Peggy I’m not sure the people wouldn’t elect someone who’s beliefs are inconsistent with the Constitution. We elected Obama, a man that has criticized our Constitution as putting too many limits on government. He has acted on his own, expanding the power of this office. He has done so on immigration against our immigration laws. In so many ways he is a man who does not respect or honor our Republic, our for of government, or our laws.
“Rarely is opposition a very effective tool in stopping the growth of a movement.”
Worked very well in stopping the Nazis! How old is this guy?
The problem is we no longer follow through.
Thankfully the “test” in this case isn’t a religious test but an ideological chasm in terms of the laws of this land and the laws of sharia. Freedom itself is inconsistent with the beliefs of practitioners of this system of governance.
My hat is off to those Muslims in America who practice their faith and remain true to American values and laws…God bless them.
This is a serious problem and it’s about time the political left took it seriously instead of playing at the college level where everything exists in the intellectual realm and never sees practical application..and, even when it does we end up with a one-sided agreement with a nation that sponsors terrorism.
Tina: “My hat is off to those Muslims in America who practice their faith and remain true to American values and laws…God bless them.”
‘Just, you know, don’t bless them with the presidency or anything like that, lest they think they’re our equals or something. They’re nice and all, but they need to know their place. Amen.’
Chris you really can be an @$$*%7# at times.
Your newfound “agnosticism” gives you all kinds of permission to twist and distort what people say. Congrats you little twerp, your anti-Christian intolerance level has hit an all time high.
Tina: “Congrats you little twerp, your anti-Christian intolerance level has hit an all time high.”
Please show me where, in any comment here, I have shown even an ounce of “anti-Christian intolerance.” I’m genuinely curious.
I knew you couldn’t do it.
I don’t believe today there are enough to elect someone who ran on not following our Constitution and laws. But, based on the fact Obama has been admitting Muslims from the middle east all the way back to 2010 when he announced he was bringing in 80,000 in 2011. I just stumbled across this information so went looking for how many he admitted the following years. Didn’t find it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not out there.
If Obama has been bringing in 10,000-80,000 more Muslims per year for the past 5 years in addition to the 200,000 Kerry says they will bring in the next two years another part of Obama’s transformation of America will be 99% complete.
When they, their children and future children start electing city council members, school boards, state legislators and congressional members the road to the WH will be open.
There was an article last week about the city council in the Twin City, Minn. area stopping the building of a mega mosque and community center in a certain neighborhood. The mosque will be built because of the large population who want it, they’ll just move to an area where it can be approved.
Irving, TX, where that kid built the “clock,” is also the same city where the Imams last year tried to set up a Sharia law court and the mayor and city council fought them and won.
Isolated coincidences or are they signs that the Muslim population has grown enough to begin the taking over of the local decision and law maker’s positions? A nudge here and there getting people used to the idea of what’s coming and when the numbers are right it will happen.
Now, for the non-Muslims living in the area seeing what’s happening they’ll have a choice. Stay and fight the “take over” or sell their homes and move. Most I believe will move because they will have children they won’t want being raised by Sharia law compliant schools.
Obama has been the worst of all past bad presidents combined. He has destroyed this country and I don’t think it will ever be able to recover.
Michigan Crowd Cheers When City Council Denies Muslims A Building Permit For A Third Mosque:
http://www.weaselzippers.us/234184-michigan-crowd-cheers-when-city-council-denies-muslims-a-building-permit-for-a-third-mosque/
Irving Mayor Addresses Rumors on Sharia Law Court Approval:
http://www.irvingweekly.com/s/1891/Irving-Mayor-Addresses-Rumors-on-Sharia-Law-Court-Approval.php
Obama allows 80,000 Muslim immigrants into United States: (2010)
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-allows-80-000-muslim-immigrants-into-united-states
Another example.
Muslim Parent Warns School Board ‘We’re Going to Be the Majority Soon’ as Meeting Gets Heated and Security Is Needed:
“The Jersey City Board of Education voted last week not to close schools for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, one of the most important holidays for Muslims.
School board members in New Jersey made their decision Thursday despite appeals from Muslim attendees who showed up to advocate that the board change the school schedule.
The controversy came in the first year that schools in New York City will not have classes Thursday, the result of a decision made by Mayor Bill de Blasio last March, WNBC reported. ”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/22/were-going-to-be-the-majority-soon-security-gets-involved-as-school-board-meeting-gets-heated-over-muslim-holiday/
Armstrong Williams, Carson’s campaign manager, gave an incompetent and incoherent defense of Carson’s statements on CNN:
“Dr. Carson, Alisyn, as you’re alluding to, was not speaking about religion — not at all. His, like most Americans, in their hearts, if they search themselves and they ask questions, if you see what’s going on in the world today and what we’re becoming as a nation, if you search yourself deeply and ask yourself, at this time in the history of our country, in the question that was posed to him, which he asked and answered truthfully, is that he would not be comfortable with someone who shares the Islamic Muslim faith in the White House.”
So to decipher this word salad, Armstrong’s argument is that Carson wasn’t talking about religion, he was just saying someone of the Muslim faith shouldn’t be president. This makes about as much as someone saying they don’t want Carson in the White House because he is black, but don’t worry, they have no problem with his skin color!
From Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz: Excluding Muslims from presidency unconstitutional:
http://www.whas11.com/
Good for Cruz.
Jack: “Why isn’t the media focusing on far more important questions”
We know why. It’s the same reason Hillary gets away with a BS answer when they ask her if she thinks Obama is a Muslim…it’s part and parcel of the same leftist scheme. Can we revisit the 2008 election cycle:
American Spectator, “Obama Accused Hillary of ‘Labeling Him as a Muslim’ – Clinton refused to deny charge in heated personal confrontation.”
But your question, of course, is an important one. If only we could fire them, Trump style.
Tina: “We know why. It’s the same reason Hillary gets away with a BS answer when they ask her if she thinks Obama is a Muslim…”
Are you unaware of the distinction between a rumor and fact?
Chris until this year’s Obama/Kerry idea of negotiation and “diplomacy” the United States has not negotiated with a known terrorist supporting government without getting something in return. Reagan demanded the hostages be returned and they were without his giving anything in return. We were cautious, not blind! The “Iran Deal” is a complete roll over giving our enemy billions of dollars, nuclear weapons capability NOW, the technology to deliver a WMD to our shores, and trust that they will self inspect honestly. (How “cute” is that!!!) The Carter years were a disastrous exception. Our associations before Obama and the “Iran Deal” have been in pursuit of terrorists and in pursuit of the liberation of oppressed people. It’s not the same thing and you know it.
Condescending smart@$$ is a label you’re wearing well in this thread.
Tina: “Reagan demanded the hostages be returned and they were without his giving anything in return.”
It’s statements like this that make me wonder how many imaginary bridges you’ve purchased, and how many Nigerian princes you’ve financially supported. You can’t possibly believe this, can you?
It’s like you have this rare form of amnesia that applies selectively to the phrase “Iran-Contra,” where no matter how many times I remind you of its existence, you lose all memory of it within a matter of weeks. Now that I’ve reminded you, do you still want to say that Iran got “nothing in return” for releasing the hostages?
“Condescending smart@$$ is a label you’re wearing well in this thread.”
Stop making it so easy! When you say things as funny as “Reagan demanded the hostages be returned and they were without his giving anything in return,” you are naturally going to get condescension and smart-assery in reply. That is fair.
Chris: “The majority of Americans were so bigoted against Romney for being a Christian, that they went and elected another Christian instead out of spite.
Do you think through what you write at all?
Do you?
“They” elected the “first black man,” a Marxist, who claimed to be Christian because it was expedient. When attempts to vet him and his allegiance to America and the Constitution were made, the voices were shamed and mocked…the ever popular tactic of the left was used to silence those who would DARE to question! The so-called media happily and shamelessly carried his water.
Obama chose a “Christian” church in Chicago for activist reasons and said so. Obama was a community organizer trying to build support for his activist group. A minister from another church suggested it would be easier to get the support of the black clergy (And therefore their flock) if he joined a congregation himself. He chose a church whose pastor preached hatred for America; who preached hatred against white people, Jews and Israel. A Pastor who screamed at the top of his lungs for his congregation to sing, “God damn America,” rather than “God bless America.” Obama dismissed the relevance of Wright’s remarks by casually calling them, “controversial. ” Obama chose Jeremiah Wright’s black liberation theology church for it’s activist message rather than devotion to Christ. More information of interest here:
(On a side note this could explain the new Pope being welcomed with open arms at the White House.)
Chris, your smug retort to me, “Do you think through what you write at all,” is ridiculous and condescending. You might want to turn that on yourself for a change.
This is spot on.
The One Simple Thing Barack Obama Could Do To Stop Getting Accused of Being a Muslim:
By: Erick Erickson
“Simple: act like a Christian.
Barack Obama keeps getting accused of being a closet muslim by some people. I actually don’t think that’s true. I think Barack Obama is a secular atheist who only talked God and religion to get people to vote for him.
The man has repeatedly turned a blind eye to Christian persecution, his administration has been deeply hostile to people of faith, he has shown himself often sympathetic in his tone to Islamic radicals, and he has never spoken insultingly of Islam as he has Christianity.
When the Pope arrives, the President will further insult the faith by having people in active and celebratory rebellion to Christianity greet the Pope.
If the President wants to stop being accused of being a muslim, he should either fess up that he isn’t a believer in anything other than himself or start acting like the Christian that he claims to be.”
http://www.redstate.com/2015/09/22/the-one-simple-thing-barack-obama-could-do-to-stop-getting-accused-of-being-a-muslim/
“When the Pope arrives, the President will further insult the faith by having people in active and celebratory rebellion to Christianity greet the Pope.”
Peggy, what does Erickson mean by this?
Tina: “Obama dismissed the relevance of Wright’s remarks by casually calling them, “controversial. ””
Man, are you going for a personal record for false statements in this thread or what?
This is what Obama said about Wright in reality:
“…we’ve heard my former pastor… use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America…”
Pay special attention to the beginning of paragraph 3; Obama literally said the exact opposite of what you claimed he said.
And no, I don’t want to hear about how Obama probably didn’t mean anything he said, and actions are louder than words, or any of your typical rationalizations for why you are misrepresenting people. If you aren’t even going to bother finding out what your opponents have said before making false claims about their statements, then I’m not going to believe you have special insight into what goes on in their hearts and minds.
For instance, you accused me of “calling anyone who speaks out about the threat of radical Islam bigoted.” This is ridiculous. President Obama himself has condemned radical Islam, and is actively leading a war against radical Islamists. Have I called him bigoted for this reason? I’ve also said myself that radical Islam is a threat that must be stopped. Did I call myself a bigot?This claim against me is obviously false.
You accused me of “ask(ing) that we cave to the radical notion that Islam cannot be criticized.” Also flatly ridiculous. Again, I have criticized Islam myself.
You accused me of “giv(ing) the impression that there is no room for discussion of radical Islam at all.” See above.
When you misrepresent the views of your opponents in such overt ways, you demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness.
Your accusation that Obama is not really a Christian, and chose the religion only for political reasons, is unfounded speculation.
You are using this unfounded speculation to support your earlier argument that Romney lost in part due to anti-Christian bigotry. You do this because that argument is so comically absurd that you can’t possibly have any legitimate evidence for it, so you simply make stuff up, like that Obama isn’t a Christian. But the fact is that he presented himself as a Christian, and most voters believed he was a Christian, and most voters are themselves Christian, so your argument makes absolutely no sense.
I’m not denying that some people have done and said bigoted things against Christians. But I don’t think bigotry against Christians is a significant societal problem. If it were, then your theory that Obama chose to pretend to be a Christian out of political convenience would make even less sense than it already does; why would he do that if Christians were truly being persecuted in this country?
That you brought up this point right after denying Carson’s clear bigotry against Muslims is obscene. You only see bigotry if it’s directed against people you like, and even that is usually imaginary. You have no ability to see real bigotry; you don’t even believe America was systemically racist when blacks were not allowed to vote.
Absurd.
Chris you’ve got to be kidding. Obama’s remarks about Wright were a scripted response designed to defuse the situation. How disingenuous were they? Try this:
See he’s just like all of the rest of us…we all have pastors that regularly condemn America, spew hatred toward whites, Jews, and Israel. it’s perfectly ordinary!
Or how about this:
Watch what he, and his administration, do, not what they say. Ask how has Obama has run his presidency!
Right off the bat the Obama Justice Department refused to sentence member(s) of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation at the polls on Election Day 2008.
Then by taking sides in several local events involving the police and blacks, and before he had the facts, he created a divisive atmosphere in the nation. Saying that, “Cambridge police acted stupidly,” early on set the tone for his entire term as president.
Vice President Joe Biden told an audience that included African Americans during the 2012 election , that Republicans “want to put y’all back in chains.”
Eric Holder accused his fellow citizens of being “a nation of cowards” with respect to racial issues. When asked, he refused to take back his remark.
At a Congressional Black Caucus dinner Obama said in his remarks that the police nationwide were “to blame” for community mistrust.
Standing next to Mexican President Calderon, Obama scolded Arizona lawmakers for enacting state law that mirrored federal law. In remarks he said his Justice Department would be looking at the language to see if it “…comports both with our core values and existing legal standards.” … He added that Justice was looking at whether the law violates “the fact that the federal government is ultimately the one charged with immigration policy” and added, “I think the Arizona law has the potential of being applied in a discriminatory fashion,” agreeing with Calderon that the law was “discriminatory.” He made these remarks without having read the Arizona law.
Chris: “I don’t want to hear about how Obama probably didn’t mean anything he said, and actions are louder than words, or any of your typical rationalizations for why you are misrepresenting people.”
It’s obvious that you “don’t want to hear.” You don’t want to hear or see much of anything that doesn’t fit into that neat little belief system of yours.
Actions DO speak louder than words for heavens sake! They speak not only to a persons convictions but to their honesty and forthrightness when communicating. They speak to the probability of hidden agendas. Suggesting we not watch what a person does to test his words is imperative to understanding. My examples are not merely a rationalization but accurate pictures of the intentions behind the smooth rhetoric!
“President Obama himself has condemned radical Islam, and is actively leading a war against radical Islamists.”
And by now you still buy every word he utters without looking at his record in total. he has decimated our military. Through his weakness and failures radical Islam is stronger than ever and is invading nations across the world. His deal with the terrorist sponsoring nation, Iran, will insure that Iran has nuclear weapons capability, the ability to deliver them to our shores, and billions to fund the radical Islamist war. He has won the condemnation of our allies around the world. In addition his economic policy has decimated our economy making us much weaker as a nation and with Americans out of work he encourages a large influx of “immigrants” and “refugees.” One has to ask, “whose side is he on!”
Your so-called criticisms of Islam contain a “but,” or an explanation for why we are being bigoted or racist. As with Obama, I don’t believe you are sincere or fully aware of the threat we face. You think covert efforts to transform America and supplant it with Sharia is “paranoid.” I think that makes you a naive fool.
“When you misrepresent the views of your opponents in such overt ways, you demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. ”
The party you support does this all the time and yet you continue to trust them. This blind loyalty, in conjunction with your liberal education, makes it impossible for you to discern the truth.
“Your accusation that Obama is not really a Christian, and chose the religion only for political reasons, is unfounded speculation.”
It was not I that told this story; it was Barrack Obama. Speculation doesn’t have anything to do with it!
” I don’t think bigotry against Christians is a significant societal problem. ”
I don’t either.
I do think that Alinsky inspired activists on the left will gin up religious bigotry and hatred with distortions, accusations, and lies.
“…your theory that Obama chose to pretend to be a Christian out of political convenience would make even less sense than it already does; why would he do that if Christians were truly being persecuted in this country? ”
I never said Christians were being persecuted in this country. I didn’t say he pretended to be a Christian. I said he got advice to join a church as a means of recruiting activists for his political/social goals. (ACORN) He would do it as a means to an end.
“you don’t even believe America was systemically racist when blacks were not allowed to vote. ”
That is patently false! I have said that when blacks were not allowed to vote not all of America was racist. that is the truth! my grandfather, following the Civil War, fought against the KKK and Christians had fought for black freedom for some time. In the sixties we were in a period of transition. Not every person in America or the American South was racist. You have a distorted view of the times based on understandable sympathies that most of us share but it is distorted nonetheless. As long as there are people who drag the issue along, as if blacks STILL could not vote, we will NEVER move beyond division.
Please don’t put words in my mouth or try to explain what I believe, you’ve proven time and again that you don’t get my communication.
A bit more:
“I have said that when blacks were not allowed to vote not all of America was racist. that is the truth!”
Sure it is. I never said otherwise, so what is your point?
“my grandfather, following the Civil War, fought against the KKK and Christians had fought for black freedom for some time. In the sixties we were in a period of transition. Not every person in America or the American South was racist.”
Sure they weren’t. I never said otherwise, so what is your point?
“You have a distorted view of the times”
You’re arguing with a strawman who never made any claims opposing what you’re saying above, so how could you know that?
In our last exchange on this topic you seemed to be defining “systemic racism” as meaning that everyone had to be racist, and you acted as if the very existence of abolitionists proved that America was not a systemically racist nation during that time.
Are you now changing your position? You’re now denying having ever said that America was never a systemically racist nation, so are you now admitting that there was a time when America was systemically racist?
Chris: “I’d like to address them all at once, to save time.”
I don’t respond to commands, even when they are polite.
Respond away; my impression of you is based on your comments and attitude concerning this subject.
And this is exactly why We decided to have separation of church and state.
65% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim. He is not. If I were the Obama’s I would dress in middle eastern garb the last day in the white house and walk to the helicopter, then rip it off and break out into dance party, singing I got ya! Still not a Muslim!
Media is a propaganda machine. Anyone who follows it is a low info voter.
Frankly I do not care.
Keep religion out of politics it has no place.
Keeping religion out of our government IS the point!
P>S> Alinsky crap is just RW propaganda machine. but here is hypocrisy from 2010
“Warn your kids[!] Better yet, home school [them],” because Obama is “Brainwashing America’s Youth,” again — if the latest bit of right-wing fear-mongering is to be believed, that is. Several conservative bloggers have run with the “story” that Organizing for America is accepting applications for its semester-long internship program/”civilian youth brigade,” in which the “shocking list” of suggested reading includes community organizer Saul Alinsky’s 1971 book Rules for Radicals (the purpose of which is: “indoctrinating [your children] into Saul Alinsky’s radical tactics and ideology”).
If so, you’d better keep your kids away from those Tea Parties.
Tea Party leader and “the co-founder of Top Conservatives on Twitter” Michael Patrick Leahy has written an entire book based off of Alinsky’s “shocking” work, deftly entitled: Rules for Conservative Radicals: Lessons from Saul Alinsky[!] the Tea Party Movement and the Apostle Paul in the Age of Collaborative Technologies. In his book, “Leahy argues that today’s conservative radical should follow the tactics of Saul Alinsky, but apply the morals and ethics of Martin Luther King.”
And Leahy is not the only conservative poisoned by what right-wing blogger Pamela Geller calls “the mother’s milk of the left.”
Conservative “hero” and Fox News’ favorite investigative journalist James O’Keefe is also a fan. The Los Angeles Times reported that O’Keefe found an “unlikely source of inspiration” in Alinsky and O’Keefe “took to heart” Alinsky’s principle to: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
Also, on Fox News’ Glenn Beck, David Horowitz advocated for conservatives to follow “what Saul Alinsky argues”
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/02/01/the-right-wing-media-hates-alinsky-except-when/159884
“The Los Angeles Times reported that O’Keefe found an “unlikely source of inspiration” in Alinsky and O’Keefe “took to heart” Alinsky’s principle to: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
I’ve honestly never even understood why some conservatives object to this principle. Some of Alinksy’s proposed tactics strike me as unethical, but this one seems like basic fairness.
Tina: “Chris you’ve got to be kidding. Obama’s remarks about Wright were a scripted response designed to defuse the situation…Actions DO speak louder than words for heavens sake!”
How does ANY of what you wrote here justify the fact that you did not tell the truth about what Obama’s words actually were?
This is what you said, in case you’ve forgotten (you’ve forgotten a LOT of what you’ve said, which I’ll get to in a moment):
“Obama dismissed the relevance of Wright’s remarks by casually calling them, “controversial. ””
But what Obama actually said was that Wright’s remarks “weren’t simply controversial.” That’s the exact opposite of what you claimed he said. He then went on to condemn Wright’s remarks in strong terms.
Why didn’t you acknowledge this? Why is it that you never admit when you have misrepresented someone’s stated views, yet you get so offended when you feel others have misrepresented yours? Do you see how that’s unfair? You are asking for treatment that you do not extend to others.
Whether or not Obama believed what he said is immaterial to the fact that he did not say what you claimed he said.
What you are doing is called “moving the goalposts.” You started by making a claim about Obama’s statements. Then when it was pointed out that your claim was false, instead of acknowledging your error, you completely ignored it and moved on to saying that his statements didn’t matter. Do you see how this might strike someone as a dishonest tactic? Do you see how, when you’ve already shown either of ignorance of, or a willingless to mislead about, a politician’s verbal statements, others might have a hard time believing that you have special insight into what their true beliefs are?
“And by now you still buy every word he utters”
I am trying very hard not to use the “L” word but you’re making it very difficult for me. You keep saying things about me and others which you have every reason to know are not true.
I have condemned Obama for lying within the past week. You know this. I know you saw it, because you responded to it. The claim that I “buy every word he utters” is blatantly false.
You continued to make more false claims:
Me: “Your accusation that Obama is not really a Christian, and chose the religion only for political reasons, is unfounded speculation.”
You: “It was not I that told this story; it was Barrack Obama.”
But Barack Obama never told any story about choosing his religion for political reasons. He may have said he chose his particular church for political reasons (you’ve provided no links to prove this–the Discover the Networks pages you cited make no mention of Obama), but I am certain he never said that this is why he chose his religion. If you have evidence that he has said this, show it to me.
But then, how can I expect you to accurately represent the statements of your opponents when you can’t even remember what you yourself have said?
For example, above, you claimed this:
“I didn’t say he pretended to be a Christian.”
But you absolutely did say that. It’s right here:
““They” elected the “first black man,” a Marxist, who claimed to be Christian because it was expedient.”
There is absolutely no distinction between “pretended to be a Christian” and “claimed to be Christian because it was expedient.” None. So you did say that he pretended to be a Christian, and then you either forgot what your earlier position was, or intentionally lied about your earlier position. Which was it?
Then, when I said:
“you don’t even believe America was systemically racist when blacks were not allowed to vote. ”
You replied:
“That is patently false!”
Except that it is 100% true.
In the first comment of this recent article, you wrote:
““The struggle for some continues but America IS NOT systemically racist…never has been!”
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2015/09/06/american-flag-hate-speech/
When I challenged you on this, you made it clear that you believed systemic racism couldn’t have existed prior to the Civil War since there were a lot of people who wanted slavery to end. You had plenty of opportunities to clarify and say that systemic racism did exist prior to blacks achieving civil rights; you chose not to do so, presumably because you stood by your assertion that America was “never” systemically racist.
Obviously, if you believe America was “never” systemically racist, you must also believe that America was not systemically racist when blacks were not allowed to vote.
So I stand by my statement; I accurately represented your beliefs, at least as you have presented them on this site.
This is not nitpicking. You have displayed a pattern of misrepresenting not only the words of others, but also your own words. You continually deny saying things that are right there, in black and white. The least you could do is check your previous statements before accusing others of lying about you–or, hell, if you’re doing this intentionally to mislead people, go back and delete your previous statements so that it’s not so damned easy to prove that you’re not telling the truth. But your current behavior, in which you deny saying something, and then I show you where and when you said exactly that, is simply embarassing. As is your pattern of misrepresenting others, then getting called on it, then completely ignoring the fact that you misrepresented them.
“Please don’t put words in my mouth”
I think I’ve proven that I haven’t done so.
“or try to explain what I believe, you’ve proven time and again that you don’t get my communication.”
If that is the case, then the problem is your communication. You have repeatedly denied the only clear English meanings of your words. You have attempted to spin, dodge and weasel out of what you have said in order to distance yourself from their clear meaning. This is cowardly. You can do better than that.
Dewey, Alinsky was a real person.
He wrote a book called, “Rules for Radicals,” which he dedicated to Satan. He wrote the book to act as a guide for left wing radicals. His purpose was to teach activists how to destroy the competition and competing views. Anyone can read it, presumably even you!
Alinsky was a mentor to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Alinsky was the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. Hillary corresponded with Alinsky after college. The letters are kept at the University of Texas at Austin.
Alinsky had died by the time Obama attended college but, like Hillary before him, Obama sat at the foot of Alinsky. He was trained at the Alinsky created Industrial Areas Foundation:
Discover the Networks exposes Alinsky’s revolutionary purpose as expressed in his books:
See also here for political associations with the George Soros backed Tides Foundation. This is a foundation from which billions of dollars are shifted to left wing activist organizations like ACORN, the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Center for American Progress, Border Action Network, Earth Day Network, Environmental Media Services…and many, many more. These groups are all influenced, trained, and directed by the writings of Saul Alinsky:
Fundamental transformation has been in progress, forgive the pun, for decades. Fundamental transformation is a nice little term that really means complete destruction of our Constitutional and economic foundations.
This is not just propaganda, it is real. Wake up!
In contrast Michael Patric Leahey is “…an evangelist for constitutional liberty.”
The prodigy of revolutionary and civil war ancestors, Leahy’s loyalty to America guides his purpose which is to preserve our Constitutional Republic, unlike the Alinsky Leninist/Marxist movement now in control of the Democrat Party that wants to destroy America.
If anyone has bought into propaganda, Dewey, it is you. Unless you are a fellow traveler of this bunch of detroyers it’s clear you have swallowed the homey communications of the left that mask their true intentions…and it ain’t freedom!
“…O’Keefe “took to heart” Alinsky’s principle to: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
A simpler way to put that is, “fight fire with fire.” There is no other way to stop this monstrous movement! (Kinda reminds me of another movement aimed at the destruction of Western civilization and bent on imposing its will)
The left radical pretends to care about the little people and yet has spent fifty or more years making sure large numbers of them are stuck in poverty…it’s about time someone called them on their pretenses. It’s about time someone exposed their dirty underbelly.
Must see this black man’s talk to “white folk.”
(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
Chris “claimed” is not the same word and does not have the same meaning as “pretended.” You have demonstrated once again that you do not get what I’m saying.
I have no interest in continuing this conversation.
What I’ve written has been for others who might be interested in getting it, and I’ve belabored the subject long enough.
You have a good night.
Tina: “Chris “claimed” is not the same word and does not have the same meaning as “pretended.””
“Claimed…because it was expedient” absolutely does have the same meaning as “pretended.”
For instance, right now, you are both pretending to have not said things that you blatantly did say, and you are bi>claiming to not have said them because it is expedient for you.
See? Same. Exact. Meaning.
“I have no interest in continuing this conversation.”
Yeah, I can see how being caught in no less then ten complete fabrications in just this thread would hurt your interest in continuing further. Maybe you’d be more interested in conversations where people let you make false statements with impunity. As I’ve said, if that’s what you want, you don’t have to let me post here.
You claimed that:
–I won’t acknowledge the threat of radical Islam
–I’ve asked that no one ever criticize Islam
–I buy every single word the president says
–Obama merely dismissed Wright’s words as “controversial”
–Obama pretended to be a Christian because it was convenient
–Obama admitted himself that he pretended to be a Christian because it was convenient
–You never said Obama pretended to be a Christian because it was convenient
–You never said America was “never” a systemically racist nation
–Reagan got Iran to free the hostages without them getting “anything in return”
–I displayed “anti-Christian intolerance” somewhere in this thread that you can’t point to.
Every single one of these claims was easily proven false. And that’s not even getting into your more subjective but still highly objectionable statements like McCarthy was right, Carson’s words weren’t bigoted, there is “terrible bigotry against Christians” in this country, etc.
Instead of admitting your mistakes and apologizing for making a series of false accusations, you continue to make the target of your false accusations the problem, saying I just “don’t get your communication.” Well, duh. I don’t get people who constantly refuse to tell the truth, and who deflect and dodge and weasel out of the conversation every time that’s pointed out to them. Your communication sucks, Tina. Get better at it.
Just in case you were wondering just how much the mainstream media is leftist and in the bag for the Democrat Party (like no one already knew), how they have treated Dr. Ben Carson here is a perfect example.
I happen to agree with Dr. Carson. I also do not think any Democrat should be president.
The faux outrage posers can go suck eggs.
Good comments Pie…lol We agree 100%.
Ditto!
How many times can one recall how Obama has found the need to defended Islam, Peaceful or radical. Possibly it might because of his early youth indoctrination to the Islamic teachings, and if so why can’t he just come forth and state he has strong beliefs in certain Islamic teachings, and not just Pollyanna expound on Islamic and Christian societies being able to co-exist peacefully.
I do not believe these two so diametrically opposed beliefs systems, Christianity verse Islam, radical or otherwise that are currently being inflamed by groups like
Islamic ISIS can ever exist peacefully, currently ALL the world is dealing with a this growing insurgent group, (albeit junior varsity per Obama) and their acts of terrorism continue to evolve, even to a degree of holocaustic thinking toward persons of other Religions.
Obama often has falsely commenting about Islamic contributions verse presenting the reality of “Islamic terrorist or ISIS” actions and that is never going to solve their terroristic action.
This attached U-tube video link might be inflammatory (well, just a bit) and the ending is a stretch, but it makes a point of how Obama has otherwise misinformed people.
So I fully expect the sabers of liberal thinking to rattle in opposition.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/4ISTbT-R9hs
Harold: “How many times can one recall how Obama has found the need to defended Islam, Peaceful or radical.”
The answers are “a lot” and “never,” respectively. He’s defended peaceful Islam many times–as did President Bush. He has never defended “radical Islam,” and in fact has condemned it in strong terms. He’s also, you know, actively leading a war against it.
“Possibly it might because of his early youth indoctrination to the Islamic teachings”
What are you talking about? Do you have any evidence for this claim?
“I do not believe these two so diametrically opposed beliefs systems, Christianity verse Islam, radical or otherwise that are currently being inflamed by groups like Islamic ISIS can ever exist peacefully”
Then you are part of the problem.
One doesn’t even have to watch the video to see how racist and stupid it is–the cover alone is ridiculous.
Chris you got me! Wow! How could I have been so stupid as to think substance, the actual history, words, and actions of the President, are more indicative of his purpose and more important than niggling over language? How could I have thought rude the general attitude you have displayed on PS regarding our discussions of radical Islam, when you continually dismiss and ignore our complete thoughts and play gotcha games rather than respectfully communicating? How could I have thought arrogant and smug your lectures accusing me and others of bigotry, as if we were intent on condemning Muslims generally when we have clearly made a distinction between those who practice and live under radical Islam and wage war against us and those who are moderate? How could I say McCarthy was right, even though Soviet records proved he was, when the narrative has been established that he wasn’t? How could I understand what Carson was thinking when he said he wouldn’t advocate putting a Muslim in the WH at this time? HOW DARE I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION FROM YOURS WHEN YOU ARE ALWAYS RIGHT!
It’s obvious to me what your goal is, I just need to get with the program and submit to to your obvious superiority.
(I am beginning to understand completely the hostility some of our posters display toward you.)
Tina: “How could I have been so stupid as to think substance, the actual history, words, and actions of the President, are more indicative of his purpose and more important than niggling over language?”
Again, moving the goalposts. Saying that “actions speak louder than words” is very different from lying about what someone has said. You only switched to the former after trying the latter and realizing it didn’t work. You piled dishonesty on top of dishonesty.
“How could I have thought arrogant and smug your lectures accusing me and others of bigotry, as if we were intent on condemning Muslims generally when we have clearly made a distinction between those who practice and live under radical Islam and wage war against us and those who are moderate?”
You make this distinction when it’s convenient for you and you collapse it when it isn’t. If you agree with Carson that no Muslim should be president, then your distinction is completely meaningless; you clearly believe all Muslims should be regarded as suspect and unfit for the presidency based on the behavior of the radicals.
“HOW DARE I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION FROM YOURS WHEN YOU ARE ALWAYS RIGHT!”
The ten bullet points I posted were not “different opinions.” They were statements that can be fact-checked and proven false.
In other words, they were lies.
It’s sad that you can’t tell the difference.
Tina, have I or have I not said that radical Islam is a threat?
Have I or have I not asked that no one ever criticize Islam?
Have I or have I not accused the president of lying over issues such as the war in Iraq and “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan?”
Did Reagan give arms to the Iranians in exchange for hostages or did he not?
Did you or did you not say “America IS NOT systemically racist…never has been!”
Did you or did you not say that Obama claimed to be Christian because it was expedient?
Did Obama say that Wright’s comments were controversial, or did he say that they “weren’t simply controversial?”
You know the answers to all of these questions, and yet you continue to hide from them.
I understand you are angry at me. You think I am smug, condescending, and rude. OK. None of that justifies you telling lies about me, or anyone else for that matter.
You need to correct your misrepresentations and apologize.
The claim that “Soviet records” prove that “McCarthy was right” has been circulated on this blog for at least the past three years, and debunked nearly every time. The claim is based on the declassified findings of the Venona Project. One problem, according to this expert:
““I was the first American to gain access to the previously closed files of the Communist International and the CPUSA itself, located in Moscow, in the summer of 1992…
…But if McCarthy was right about some of the large issues, he was wildly wrong on virtually all of the details. There is no indication that he had even a hint of the Venona decryptions, so he did not base his accusations on the information in them. Indeed, virtually none of the people that McCarthy claimed or alleged were Soviet agents turn up in Venona. He did identify a few small fry who we now know were spies but only a few. And there is little evidence that those he fingered were among the unidentified spies of Venona. Many of his claims were wildly inaccurate; his charges filled with errors of fact, misjudgments of organizations and innuendoes disguised as evidence. He failed to recognize or understand the differences among genuine liberals, fellow-traveling liberals, Communist dupes, Communists and spies- distinctions that were important to make. The new information from Russian and American archives does not vindicate McCarthy. He remains a demagogue, whose wild charges actually made the fight against Communist subversion more difficult. Like Greshams Law, McCarthys allegations marginalized the accurate claims. Because his facts were so often wrong, real spies were able to hide behind the cover of being one of his victims and even persuade well-meaning but nave people that the whole anti-communist cause was based on inaccuracies and hysteria.”
– See more at: http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2012/08/09/national-security-matters-1/#sthash.9TfBY5TT.dpuf
The comparison I made between Carson and Joseph McCarthy was apt. Legitimate threats should not be used as excuses for bigotry, paranoia and witch-hunting, as they were in the McCarthy era. While he was right about the threat he was absolutley wrong in his tactics and he destroyed countless innocent lives with his inquisitions.
To say that “McCarthy was right” and that he was “silenced” by “Saul Alinsky buddies” is ignorant and despicable. It shows a complete unwillingness to learn from our history’s greatest mistakes. McCarthyism was an extremely dark time in our country, and these comments prove that there are still McCarthyites today who would drag us back to those dark times for the sake of fearmongering about the latest threat.
It’s not going to work.
The claim that “Soviet records” prove that “McCarthy was right” has been circulated on this blog for at least the past three years, and debunked nearly every time. The claim is based on the declassified findings of the Venona Project. One problem, according to this expert:
““I was the first American to gain access to the previously closed files of the Communist International and the CPUSA itself, located in Moscow, in the summer of 1992…
…But if McCarthy was right about some of the large issues, he was wildly wrong on virtually all of the details. There is no indication that he had even a hint of the Venona decryptions, so he did not base his accusations on the information in them. Indeed, virtually none of the people that McCarthy claimed or alleged were Soviet agents turn up in Venona. He did identify a few small fry who we now know were spies but only a few. And there is little evidence that those he fingered were among the unidentified spies of Venona. Many of his claims were wildly inaccurate; his charges filled with errors of fact, misjudgments of organizations and innuendoes disguised as evidence. He failed to recognize or understand the differences among genuine liberals, fellow-traveling liberals, Communist dupes, Communists and spies- distinctions that were important to make. The new information from Russian and American archives does not vindicate McCarthy. He remains a demagogue, whose wild charges actually made the fight against Communist subversion more difficult. Like Greshams Law, McCarthys allegations marginalized the accurate claims. Because his facts were so often wrong, real spies were able to hide behind the cover of being one of his victims and even persuade well-meaning but nave people that the whole anti-communist cause was based on inaccuracies and hysteria.”
– See more at: http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2012/08/09/national-security-matters-1/#sthash.9TfBY5TT.dpuf
The comparison I made between Carson and Joseph McCarthy was apt. Legitimate threats should not be used as excuses for bigotry, paranoia and witch-hunting, as they were in the McCarthy era. While he was right about the threat he was absolutley wrong in his tactics and he destroyed countless innocent lives with his inquisitions.
To say that “McCarthy was right” and that he was “silenced” by “Saul Alinsky buddies” is ignorant and despicable. It shows a complete unwillingness to learn from our history’s greatest mistakes. McCarthyism was an extremely dark time in our country, and these comments prove that there are still McCarthyites today who would drag us back to those dark times for the sake of fearmongering about the latest threat.
It’s not going to work.
“Veteran journalist and teacher Stan Evans, director of National Journalism Center, told of the Tydings Committee, which had investigated McCarthy’s charges of communists in government. Its report had exonerated everybody. Among the accused it stated categorically that there was no evidence against Owen Lattimore, a man McCarthy said was a major figure in the communist conspiracy. Lattimore had been Roosevelt’s key advisor on China policy. Yet Evans showed evidence from 5,000 pages of FBI files on him — files released only a few years ago to the public, although the White House had access to them.
However, evidence before the committee showed that Lattimore had supported Soviet policy at every turn, even declaring that the Stalin purge trials in Russia, “sound like democracy to me.” With then-Vice President Henry Wallace in Russia, Lattimore compared concentration camps to the Tennessee Valley Authority, and later urged Washington to abandon China to communism and to withdraw from Japan and Korea. FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, who had fed information to McCarthy, broke with him afterwards, fearing McCarthy would prejudice FBI sources of information for its criminal prosecutions.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2000/02/4020/#9Bqrhi4gJ4zcoerP.99
Nice try Post Scripts, but Chris “hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, woh woh wooohhh.” *
Re: “The comparison I made between Carson and Joseph McCarthy was apt.”
No it wasn’t. It was bigoted, twisted, and grotesque. In a word, inane. But that is a specialty of the left, so no surprises here.
* Simon & Garfunkle “The Boxer”
Pie: “No it wasn’t. It was bigoted”
Right. As we all know, nothing is bigoted except calling out bigotry.
First of all thank you Jack.
Second, this will be a long comment that many of you may not read or need to read. I post it anyway because it NEEDS to be READ! I urge our readers to take particular care to read the full article on Hollywood.
Our readers should know that McCarthy’s tactics were caustic. They should also be aware that Robert Kennedy worked with McCarthy to expose Soviet spies. Hearings, as we have seen during the Benghazi and IRS hearings are purposed to discover the truth. Questions can be harsh, especially when interviewees are not being cooperative. Our readers should also be reminded or informed that in publicly televised hearings held by Democrats, from Nixon, to Oliver North, to Clarence Thomas, questions were harsh and relentless. Yet Democrats involved have not been made out to be evil as McCarthy was.
McCarthy, a Senator, wasn’t involved in the House Un-American Activities hearings. McCarthy’s name (But not Robert Kennedy’s) is associated with HUA anyway. There’s a reason for that. HOLLYWOOD AND COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM – Discover the Networks offers some insight:
Daniel Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan, Democrat was responsible for the release of the Venona Papers:
SOVIET ESPIONAGE IN THE AMERICAN PRESS IN THE 1940S – Discover the Networks:
VENONA PROJECT, MITROKHIN ARCHIVES, & SOVIET ESPIONAGE – Discover the networks:
Lauchlin Currie, “Lauchlin Bernard Currie (8 October 1902 – 23 December 1993) was Administrative Assistant to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and a Soviet spy.”
League of American Writers, “The League of American Writers (LAW) was a Communist front, “founded under Communist auspices in 1935,” according to a 1942 report by Franklin Roosevelt’s Attorney General Francis Biddle. … In three of its Reports, the Dies Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives cited the League as a Communist front organization. ”
Harold Glasser, Harold Glasser, (b. November 24, 1905) was an economist in the United States Department of the Treasury and spokesman on the affairs of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) ‘throughout its whole life’ and he had a ‘predominant voice’ in determining which countries should receive aid. Glasser was a member of the Perlo group of Soviet spies during World War II and worked closely with Harry Dexter White. His code name in Soviet intelligence and in the Venona files is “Ruble”. …
Harold Glasser is referenced in the following decrypted Venona project cables:
1195 KGB New York to Moscow, 21 July 1943;
1206 KGB New York to Moscow, 22 July 1943;
588 New York to Moscow, 29 April 1944, p. 1
588 New York to Moscow, 29 April 1944, p. 2
588 New York to Moscow, 29 April 1944, p. 3
769, 771 KGB New York to Moscow, 30 May 1944, p. 1
769, 771 KGB New York to Moscow, 30 May 1944, p. 2
769, 771 KGB New York to Moscow, 30 May 1944, p. 3
79 KGB New York to Moscow, 18 January 1945, p. 1
79 KGB New York to Moscow, 18 January 1945, p. 2
179, 180 KGB Moscow to New York, 25 February 1945.
1759 KGB Washington to Moscow, 28 March 1945;
3598 KGB Washington to Moscow, 21 June 1945; [1]
3600 KGB Washington to Moscow, 21 June 1945; [2] [3]
3645 KGB Washington to Moscow, 23 June 1945;
3688 KGB Washington to Moscow, 28 June 1945.
C-SPAN: “Soviet Atomic Spies in America”
Attorney General’s List”:
Gee, it’s much like that today. People are totally unaware of who has taken control of the Democrat Party and with wide eyed trust believe in them.
Soviet spies are here now: 1000’s of Russian Spies in US Surpassing Cold War Record and they were here then:
Soviet Espionage in the United States
List of Soviet Agents in the United States
Klaus Fuchs is one of many soviet spies that worked in our government or had contacts in our government.
More listed here.
I think our readers can decide for themselves who speaks the truth on Post Scripts.
I see your attempts to revive the ugly spirit of McCarthyism in America continue.
Shameful.
Let’s finish this off by getting back to the subject. There are Muslims that agree with Ben Carson.
American Thinker:
Ben Carson did not suggest banning Muslims in America from running for office by law or changing the Constitution. He expressed a widely held opinion. Imagine that! A contender for the oval office who just says what he thinks as honestly as he can.
Tina: “Let’s finish this off by getting back to the subject. There are Muslims that agree with Ben Carson.”
So what? There were blacks who fought for the South. You, a woman, had no problem when one of your friends here wrote an article suggesting that the worst thing I ever happen to this country was your gender getting the right to vote. There are always members of a disenfranchised group who, for whatever reason, participate in their own disenfranchisement. That’s not an argument for bigotry.
“Speaking one’s mind,” when one’s mind is ignorant and hateful, is not inherently virtuous.
Also–good god, does the American Thinker not have any editors?
“In some “secular” states like Turkey and Egypt, democracy is tolerated for Western acceptance, but trying telling a Coptic Christian in Egypt, for example, about the freedom of religion or try imposing aa government dictate contrary to Islam, the way ObamaCare imposes on pro-life Christians, on Muslims.”
Was any part of this a sentence? It reads like Sarah Palin after ten shots.
In case anyone has forgotten it was Chris who brought McCarthy into the conversation in the fifth comment:
I don’t mind that Chris made such nasty comment. His comments speak for themselves.
I don’t mind that McCarthy is remembered as being cruel and too aggressive. He paid the price.
I do mind that the left holds McCarthy up as some kind of oddity having witnessed the McCarthy like treatment Democrats used in hearings about Nixon, Oliver North, and especially Clarence Thomas. Ruthless and cruel would not be strong enough to describe the witch hunt lynching of Thomas radical leftists in Congress attempted…and all of it on phony trumped up 30 year old charges of sexual harassment by a woman who was so “offended” she followed Thomas when he transferred to a different job.
I also mind that the historical record has been distorted and minimized. I mind that our history is taught in bits and pieces that give cover to radical leftists, then and now, who continue to work to undermine our republic. I mind that their efforts are divisive and unforgiving. I mind that anyone who speaks out to fill in the gaps in our history is maligned and dismissed as _______ fill in the blank with your favorite derogatory or offensive retort.
I mind very much that young people in America have been propagandized even to the point of being unable to think outside the liberal/progressive narrative.
Tina: “I do mind that the left holds McCarthy up as some kind of oddity having witnessed the McCarthy like treatment Democrats used in hearings about Nixon, Oliver North, and especially Clarence Thomas.”
I’ll give you Clarence Thomas, but Nixon and North were guilty as hell, and the accusations against them were proven too. How could the hearings against them be labeled as “witch hunts?”
Tina writes, and I agree:
“I also mind that the historical record has been distorted and minimized.”
Members of Congress have put themselves in to many Catch-22 Situations. and the cover ups that follow have distorted facts, either through direct Congressional committees or their influence over the courts and departments of the AG.
The initial cover-ups were followed by the continuation of the same corruption. Some of these actions now implicated members of Congress, causing them to continue the cover-ups. The record of such actions is now so great that it is a virtual certainty that the system will not allow the public to recognize what has been done to them.
The same Catch-22 applies to every other group that engaged in either the direct corruption or the cover-up corruption. None can allow the people to learn and understand the truth.