But for Hillary Clinton to come out and criticize anybody for spreading the rumors about Barack Obama [being a Muslim], when it all started with her and her campaign passings things around in the Democratic primary is rich."
"The Republicans are wrong for doing what they're doing," Scarborough said. "This started with Hillary Clinton and it was spread by the Clinton team back in 2008. That is the truth."
Agreed. Stupid Republicans, for doing what Hillary started. Stupid Hillary, for starting this in the first place.
Yes, I've seen the Hillary-Denies-It bit. Facts are facts, though:
"At the time, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said, '[This is] the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election'."
Slate, February 25, 2008
Today, the Drudge Report posted a big, fat headline that howled, “Clinton staffers circulate ‘dressed’ Obama.” Accompanying the headline was a picture of Obama on a diplomatic trip to Kenya in 2006, wearing some type of traditional dress of the area—complete with a turban-looking headdress…
NBC's Morning Joe panelists chime in on the hypocrisy
First, the Obama campaign sent around a press release at 9:29 a.m. from campaign manager David Plouffe, in which he said the photo is “exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world.”
Then, at 10:54 a.m., Clinton’s campaign manager, Maggie Williams, pierced the quiet with her own release. “Enough,” she wrote. “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.” She goes on to say Obama is trying to “distract from the serious issues.” Note that they never refuted Drudge’s piece…
In December, the [Clinton] campaign asked two of its employees to resign after they proliferated rumors that Obama was a Muslim.
Let me remind you again, as I did this morning, that Hillary herself once hedged when asked if Obama was a Muslim, saying there was no evidence of that “as far as I know.”
Even the UK's Telegraph gives the history of the rumor's origin with Clinton's 2008 campaign workers
As for what Ben Carson said, read the exchange for yourselves. Then, read about how many Muslims worldwide, and where, believe in Sharia Law, how it should be applied and how some of it absolutely conflicts with or destroys American ideals, values and law, even if just applied to domestic disputes (like what to do to adulterers, which is to stone them to death):
CHUCK TODD: ...Should a President's faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?
DR. BEN CARSON: Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem.
CHUCK TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?
DR. BEN CARSON: No, I don't, I do not.
CHUCK TODD: So you--
DR. BEN CARSON: I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.
CHUCK TODD: And would you ever consider voting for a Muslim for Congress?
DR. BEN CARSON: Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know. And, you know, if there's somebody who's of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I'm with them.
CHUCK TODD: And I take it you believe the president was born in the United States and is a Christian?
DR. BEN CARSON: I believe that he is. I have no reason to doubt what he says.
[emphases this blogger]
I think that Carson didn't quite say this all how he should have said it, even in later comments
. It seems Carly Fiorina is more on the same page with me
, and Marco Rubio, than Carson.
This is the interpretation I believe Carson means: "...a pro-Constitution Muslim who accepts Islam’s religious tenets but rejects the imposition of sharia on society would be fine; an adherent of Islamic ideology who seeks to impose sharia on society (i.e., an Islamist or Islamic supremacist) would not."
It's clear to anyone who can read that there are some outrageously horrific parts of Sharia, but not all of it is so. Does it all have to be condemned to condemn just the condemnable parts? I honestly don't know. I do know that Carson is right that:
"I don't care what religion or faith someone belongs to. If they're willing to subjugate that to the American way and to our Constitution, then I have no problem with that."
For some unbiased education on Sharia Law, I'll point you to two sources:
- "...an authoritative sharia manual endorsed by, among other prominent Muslims, the scholars at al-Azhar University (the center of Islamic scholarship for over a century)"
which shows that:
"Islamic law rejects the premise that people are free to govern themselves as they choose, rejects freedom of conscience, rejects freedom of speech, rejects equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, rejects equality between men and women, justifies wars of aggression against non-Muslims, and rejects our safeguards of liberty and privacy – prescribing draconian penalties, often including death, for apostasy, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, and other personal choices."
- Then check out this survey by The Pew Research Center, in 2013:
Although many Muslims around the world say sharia should be the law of the land in their country...
... the survey reveals divergent opinions about the precise application of Islamic law. Generally, supporters of sharia are most comfortable with its application in cases of family or property disputes. In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith.
Overall, among those in favor of making sharia the law of the land, the survey finds broad support for allowing religious judges to adjudicate domestic disputes. Lower but substantial proportions of Muslims support severe punishments such as cutting off the hands of thieves or stoning people who commit adultery. [emphasis this blogger]
Family and Property Disputes
Islamic law addresses a range of domestic and personal matters, including marriage, divorce and inheritance. And most Muslims who say sharia should be the law of the land in their country are very supportive of the application of Islamic law in this sphere. Specifically, in 17 of the 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis, at least half favor giving Muslim leaders and religious judges the power to decide family and property disputes.
Isn't adultery a family dispute? And if most Muslims agree that Sharia law should be practiced regarding family disputes, then that implies that most agree with stoning an adulterer to death.
To put this survey into perspective: in Egypt, for example, about 74% of Muslims think Sharia should be the law of the land, and 74% of that 74% think it should apply to all citizens, non-Muslim and Muslim alike, and 81% of that first 74% favor stoning as punishment for adultery. With "around 80 million Muslims, comprising 94.7% of the population, as of 2010" in Egypt, that's about 44 million Muslims in Egypt who favor stoning adulterers of any and all faiths.
This interview presents the opposite look at Sharia, but I'm concerned about the softballs asked by the interviewer. It really would have been useful to ask this Muslim scholar what she thinks about the above statistics, in particular about whether stoning for adultery is in fact dictated by Sharia law, or not, and how many actually support that punishment worldwide.
Instead, she mentions that if any aspects of Sharia law are not acceptable, she is content to let us battle out in the courts, to decide which not to allow:
"There may be times that we as a state want to limit some aspects of the private practice of Islamic law. A California court, for example, ruled that allowing women to take a certain sum of money upon divorce, as is typical in Islamic marriage contracts, was against the state’s policy of forbidding profiteering from divorce. Other courts have found differently on that issue. And so there may be times when the issue arises as to whether Islamic legal practices conflict with public policy, and then the courts will resolve these issues and they will be adhered to..."
Still: no mention whatsoever of stoning adulterers, or cutting off the hands of thieves. When are Muslim scholars and advocates going to address these elephants in the room? Surely they must already well know that these are among the reasons for people's suspiciousness of Islam. Along with this kind of thing, especially when said by leaders
of countries hostile to us and others
All non-Muslim Americans have been given every right to be wary, at macro and at micro levels.
The hypocrisy of the media and those on the left knows no bounds, it would seem:
In other words, Carson could support a bad Muslim for the presidency but not a good one—a position that shocks liberals even as they take an identical one with respect to Christians...
Fresh from the Kim Davis controversy, during which liberals took the position that traditional Christians should no longer hold the government office of marriage clerk, liberals are denouncing Ben Carson for “bigotry” against Muslims. They piously quote the Constitution’s line from Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Read that again. Slowly. Doesn't it just scream "double-standard" at you? Honestly!
Of course, Carson never denied that Muslim Americans are eligible to run for office. He simply said that he wouldn’t vote for one who supported Sharia law. America’s founding fathers would have agreed.