But that’s hardly the end of it:
If some Muslims are willing to go to such lengths to eliminate the already downtrodden Christian minorities in their midst, does anyone doubt that a taqiyya-practicing Muslim presidential candidate might have no reservations about swearing on a stack of Bibles?
Precedents for such treachery litter the whole of Islamic history, and begin with the Muslim prophet himself.
It really is a different kind of religion. But the problem isn’t Muslims. The problem is Islam.
[Thursday-morning update]
Muslims say that sharia takes precedence over the Constitution. Well, at least they’re being honest.
Nothing to see here, move along.
[Bumped]
The constitution prohibits a religious test for office.
I also totally agree with Ben Carson on the issue of a Muslim president. These are not contradictory positions; they are easily reconciled by simply not supporting a Muslim for office.
I have similar concerns over evangelical Christian candidates; that they would put their religion above the constitution and the law (such as we see with that county clerk in Kentucky over the gay marriage issue). For that reason, I wouldn’t support any faith-first candidate, even if they were of my religion. The constitution has to come first.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky forbids such things and defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The Nine Kings in Black Robes have issued yet another of their whimsical *diktats* and an example has been duly made of the inconvenient Ms. Davis, but just between you, me, and the lamppost, I don’t think the Constitution–which does not mention homosexuality at all, so far as I can see–has much to do with it.
Constitution first?!?! What a shocking and radical idea! 😉
Even if you accept the dubious reading of the Constitution in that case, the supreme court is limited to striking down a law, which would leave many States without a law for issuing marriage licenses until legislatures should act on the matter. The court does not, contrary to some lawless recent practice, have the power to rewrite law to fit it’s reading of the Constitution.
Will somebody tell them to quite writing “TENANTS” when they mean to say “TENETS”? I’m pretty sure Dr. Carson knows the difference between the two and it was likely a transcription error. Where are the editors?
Exposing the truth to a national audience may be the most important part of his presidential run regardless of outcome.
Now they need to clarify the ambiguity in the term muslim and hold those accountable when used in a way to confuse.
“Exposing the truth to a national audience may be the most important part of his presidential run regardless of outcome.”
This is the thing I see Trump, Fiorina and even Rand Paul doing, as you say, regardless of outcome.
Our President practices taqiyya daily. If it is really as integral a part of Islam as the article states, who can say definitively that he is not a Muslim?
Photos of Obama at worship, such as this one, aren’t hard to find. It’s hard to believe that Obama is a devout Muslim (or Christian, for that matter) because that requires believing in something greater than yourself.
Enh, by American standards he isn’t one but by Islamic standards he is a Muslim or an apostate who would be executed.
His devotion to defending militant Islam and helping them take over countries is best explained not by Obama being Muslim but by Obama always siding with groups that declare themselves our enemies. Look at how Russia was treated right up until they damaged Obama’s reputation in the Syria debacle. Then look at how Obama treats Iran and Cuba. Only one of those countries is Muslim but they all declare themselves as enemies of the USA.
Who can say that everyone isn’t secretly a Muslim and it’s all just our mutual paranoia preventing us from revealing it?
Without, well, actual evidence beyond “Muslims are doctrinally totally okay with lying about being Muslims, sometimes” [true!], we ought to stick to the non-paranoid.
I don’t believe for a second that the President is some Sooper Sekrit Muzlim.
I believe it’s what he appears to be – an empty-suit Progressive.
(If he’s a Muslim he’s showing it really weirdly, by not especially supporting Islamic causes, beliefs, and morality.
Indeed, one might think the best fit for a crypto-Muslim, in terms of supporting Islamism, would be to pose as a far more fundamentalist Christian.
And if being a Sooper Sekrit Muzlim means never actually doing anything really especially pro-Islam, does it mean anything?
I mean, talking nice about Islam per se? G.W. Bush did that, and I think we might all agree he’s probably not actually Muslim, right?)
What a broken record. In years past it was Catholics, or Jews, or German-Americans, or Japanese-Americans, or Mormons who were the scary outsiders with alien beliefs and allegiances who were only pretending to be loyal Americans while secretly planning to undermine this country from the inside. Each time those sounding the alarm were sure that while the country had survived and even prospered while admitting previous newcomers to the halls of power, this time it was different. Each time the certainty that this group posed a uniquely potent threat became justification for discrimination and hate crimes. And each time we eventually grew out of our paranoia, and came to look back at those fears as ridiculous, and our overreaction as shameful.
Here we go again.
The only reason Democrats claim to be pro-Muslim is because it gives them a chance to call people racists. Democrats don’t believe in Islam but it is the one religion they don’t constantly talk trash about. And when Democrats trash Islam or any other religion, they don’t view it as bigotry.
And geopolitically, the only reason why Democrats are pro-Islam is because militant Islamists want to exterminate us and Democrats always side with groups that hate the USA.
Except those groups aren’t major recipients of welfare payments.
You’re the broken record. You’ve been told time and time again that the difference this time is that a great percentage of immigrants are on welfare. We’re not only forced to pay for those that are on welfare, but our salaries are lower thanks to immigration.
You’re the perfect example. You hired a foreigner for your company. Rather than walk your talk and hire an American which you would have to probably train, you went the cheapo route and got a foreigner.
Here’s a couple links that you will ignore: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/09/16/hp-dumps-30000-jobs-still-cranking-h1b-immigrants/
Right Jon, it isn’t religious views or racist concerns, about providing welfare to immigrants, which is particularly the case for refugees, and providing jobs to American’s who need them. When 1 in 10 Americans entering the workforce can’t find a job, and we will shoulder them with the debt generated to pay for the welfare of refugees today, we are setting up a harmful legacy. It is not a broken record to point this out. Jim’s like an alcoholic tired of hearing that he needs to stop drinking.
Broken record indeed, but not in past years, the NYT was calling out Jews opposing Obama’s Iran Deal just a couple of weeks ago. Why do Democrats constantly oppose different religious views? Why Jim do you consider people with religious beliefs to be scary outsiders?
The paranoid only have to be right once.
Paranoia is defined as “unreasonable fear.” “Unreasonable” is the operative word.
I do not think it the least bit unreasonable to notice that Islam is basically a barracks religion created by an Iron Age warlord and that it has been at war with the rest of humanity for thirteen centuries. I do not think it the least bit unreasonable to notice the frequency and enthusiasm with which Moslems resort to violence against the infidel.
Calling this “paranoia” smacks of Stockholm Syndrome, if anything.
People said the same sort of thing about other groups. Germans slaughtered innocent Belgians and American civilians on the Luisitania, and are obviously culturally conditioned for violence, so let’s imprison 4,000 German Americans. Japanese sneak-attacked Pearl Harbor and revere their militaristic emperor as a god, so let’s intern 100,000 Japanese-Americans. Xenophobes will always come up with excuses to justify their prejudices.
Prejudice is a form of abstraction which is how the brain works. Everybody is prejudiced in innumerable ways.
But how blind the left is can not be explained other than by evil intent or brain damage…
Islam has goals that are not compatible with civilization. Islam is not just a belief, it is an action plan and we’re allowing it to progress. It is a system that must be fought even when it seems defeated… which is what makes it so dangerous.
Note I’ve said nothing about muslims so shadup about it.
You’re aware that when nations A and B go to war, citizens of nation A who are in nation B are interned by the government of A for the duration, and vice versa, are you not?
Not “German-Americans.” They were citizens of the Third Reich. Not “Japanese-Americans.” They were citizens of the Japanese Empire.
And yes, in wartime, those who hold dual citizenship in both A and B are by long-established custom given the opportunity to renounce the foreign citizenship and then go about their business. Declining this offer in time of war is good for a trip to a detention camp. Should it not be?
It’s bizarre. Leftists in the US are even now repeating bizarre conspiracy theories about Prescott Bush supposedly trading with the Germans before the war, before it was banned, and wagging fingers under all our noses as if this meant something significant eighty years later. But this is making it sound as though he feels that allowing citizens of the Third Reich to work and travel freely in the US after the declaration of war would be A-OK. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, of course, and invite him to elucidate.
“What a broken record. In years past it was Catholics, or Jews, or German-Americans, or Japanese-Americans, or Mormons who were the scary outsiders with alien beliefs and allegiances who were only pretending to be loyal Americans while secretly planning to undermine this country from the inside. ”
Whereas now, in a more enlightened age, we know the real threat comes from servile, freedom-hating State-f*ckers like yourself and Il Dufe..
It wasn’t Republicans worried about Romney being a Mormon.
You’re right, and it was ugly of Democrats to try to make hay out of Romney’s religion. I never suggested that xenophobia was confined to the GOP. It’s been exploited by a variety of political parties over the years, and is obnoxious no matter where it comes from. Where current day Islamophobia is concerned, it’s the GOP and its allies on the right that are the worst offenders (e.g. Ben Carson’s comments, and the comments above).
Jim: those sounding the alarm
Jim: You’re right, and it was ugly of Democrats
It’s a start Jim. Let us know when you will acknowledge Democrats support of Robert Byrd, Jim Crow Laws, and that Lincoln was a Republican while Democrats supported slavery. PBS has acknowledged that history, why can’t you, Jim?
“The Democratic Party identified itself as the “white man’s party” and demonized the Republican Party as being “Negro dominated,” ”
…
“The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats.”
…
“When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death. “
Of course I acknowledge that the Democratic party was the party of Indian removal, slavery, secession, Redemption, segregation, Jim Crow, the KKK (including Robert Byrd), New Deal policies that excluded blacks, Japanese-American internment, etc. — who wouldn’t acknowledge that? Those are simple facts of history. Democrats, in particular, should remember that shameful history, and strive to do better.
Interesting, so Democrats dastardly past doesn’t disqualify them from existence but then why do Democrats always use those past events to claim the USA is illegitimate?
Which Democrats claim that the U.S. is illegitimate?
I assure you, Jim; it’s not Republicans that fear Islam.