Posted on 09/23/2015 9:19:44 AM PDT by xzins
Rising Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina waded into the controversy over whether or not a Muslim can honestly preserve, protect and defend the Constitution by attacking Dr. Ben Carson for his comments that, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."
Dr. Carson also said that Islam, as a religion, is incompatible with the Constitution – a position we held long before Dr. Carson made the remarks that brought the political correctness police out and after him in full force.
Appearing on NBC's "The Tonight Show," with Jimmy Fallon, Republican presidential contender Carly Fiorina said Carson's position is "wrong."
“I think that’s wrong,” Fiorina told Fallon during Monday’s show. “You know, it says in our Constitution that religion cannot be a test for office. It is also true that this country was founded on the principle that we judge each individual and that anyone, of any faith, is welcome here."
This was pretty much the same thing that Hillary Clinton tweeted when the reports of Dr. Carson’s comments first surfaced: “Can a Muslim be President of the United States of America? In a word: Yes. Now let's move on. – H”
Fiorina, according to media reports, went on to say that people of faith, regardless of their particular religion, "make better leaders" and spoke of how her own Christian faith sustained her during some of the most challenging moments of her life.
Carly Fiorina concluded the part of her interview with Jimmy Fallon where she criticized Dr. Carson’s warning about Islam by saying, “But whether it’s a person of Christian faith or Jewish faith or Muslim faith, or other faiths, I think faith gives us humility and empathy and optimism and I think those are important things.”
Hummm, people of “faith,” regardless of their particular religion “make better leaders” and there’s moral equivalence between all “faiths”?
The notion that all religions are equal in informing the moral direction of their adherents strikes us as being strangely flippant, as well as ignorant, as one presumes Ms. Fiorina was not saying that there is moral equivalence between say Aztec practices of human sacrifice and the Buddhist pacifism of the Dalai Lama.
But we’re sure that Motecuhzoma Ilhuicamina was a great “leader” of the Aztec civilization, founded as it was on conquest, slavery and beheading human sacrificial victims.
Both Fiorina and Clinton missed – intentionally or otherwise – the point Carson was making, which was not CAN a Muslim be President, but SHOULD a Muslim be President?
And this is not a new kind of question for Americans to ask.
During the middle of the 20th century, Communism, another bloodthirsty political movement striving for world domination had its political adherents in the United States – just as Islam has its adherents today.
There were plenty of Americans who thought that the Communist Party should be outlawed because its adherents advocated the violent overthrow of American constitutional government.
And Congress actually passed “Communist Control Act of 1954,” because it found that the American Communist Party was “an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Other findings of fact in the law were:
***“Unlike political parties, the Communist Party acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of the world Communist movement, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed.”***
The Communist Control Act, by the way, won unanimous approval in the Senate, winning full support from both Democrats and Republicans.
Fast forward to 2015 and substitute “Islam” for “Communism” and you would have a pretty accurate description of the Islamist political goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and their various front groups in the United States.
Now here’s the really interesting part – the Communist Party USA still exists, and apart from a few minor cases the law was never used. No administration ever enforced it.
Although it is still on the books, because it has never been repealed, its potential constitutional flaws were never tested. Instead, the government concentrated on finding and prosecuting individuals, such as Alger Hiss, who actually acted on the Communist imperative and engaged in overt acts that imperiled the government of the United States.
One of the main reasons the “Communist Control Act of 1954,” was never used is because world Communism was combatted by other means – notably education – which alerted Americans to the danger to constitutional liberty posed by Communism and ultimately made the likelihood of the overthrow of constitutional government through a Communist takeover of the United States unlikely.
Contrast the vast cultural and political effort undertaken to educate Americans about the danger to constitutional liberty posed by world Communism with the “I’m OK, you’re OK” moral relativism espoused about Islam by Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton.
When you make that contrast you have to conclude that if their attitude had held sway in America sixty-five years ago today we’d all be speaking Russian and referring to each other as “comrade” instead of “dude.”
Having travelled extensively in the Islamic world, and having lived and worked in a majority Muslim country, I invite Ms. Fiorina to read the Koran and to separate the verses or Suras advocating “empathy and optimism,” especially toward non-Muslims, from the Suras advocating killing apostates (Sura 4:89); cutting of the hands of thieves (Sura 5:38); punishing women who have been raped (Sura 24:2); allowing the beating of women (Sura 4:34); and, institutionalizing anti-Semitism (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65) to name but a few of the not so empathetic and optimistic tenets of Islam.
Clearly Ms. Fiorina knows little about the practical application of Islam in the daily lives of its adherents – or its potential impact on the lives of those non-Muslims in areas where Sharia holds sway. Otherwise she would not grant Islam moral equivalence with the Judeo-Christian faith that informed the foundation of the United States, and in contrast to Islam, gives our system of constitutional liberties its moral framework.
DITTO!
Carly loves Hillary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPeoEj-4Tm4
You can tell when Carly is lying, Her Tell is looking down and blinking rapidly.
Carly is a mess.
I think horses are beautiful...Carly looks like Mrs. Potato Head.
Amazingly enough Fiorina seems to be tacking far to the port side of Bill Maher, of all people. Here is what Maher says about drawing a moral equivalency between Islam and Christianity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YG_mqZJKcM
Note to Carly Fiorina, when Bill Maher says you are full of liberal BS you should NOT be running as a Republican.
At 2:30 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb0CGl3PrPs Maher starts to set Charlie Rose straight on Roses’s liberal BS.
When we have to look to Maher to tell the truth that every Republican should be shouting from rooftops something is very wrong.
It ALSO says NOTHING about it NOT being a test for VOTING!
Well buh-bye, Carly. Carson is right, you’re wrong.
Try again with the link
Agreed.
Cara and Jeb are becoming two peas in a pod. Maybe that’s by design - for a Veep position.
So Carly, like the Democrats, believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact. No thanks.
I just sent it to my email list...
“I think that’s wrong,” Fiorina told Fallon during Monday’s show.
It’s over Fiona (Shrek reference)
It is excellent, isn’t it?
Just when she gains momentum she stalls out. After the first debate she went all “Girl Power” with Megyn and the momentum stopped and now she agreeing with Hillary!
“Girl Power” and “Muslim President” don’t go together.
Powerful...
FioRINO is going nowhere. Good riddence. She’s gone McCainCrazzzzzeee.
What a dummy. Islam is based on sharia law which does not allow freedom of religion. This is like being a little bit pregnant. You cannot be a muslim and be a president of the United States because the president has to protect the constitution and the first amendment and sharia denies religious rights to non muslims.
Since she has so clearly laid down her moral relativist credentials, why should I care about what Ms. Fiorina thinks? Indeed, why should I believe anything she says?
She's a great student of fact and situation, and does her homework right down to the nonce. I'll give her credit for that.
But in the end, to me, she comes across as brittle, calculating, and graceless....
For one thing, I heard her tell us that women are not a minority group. Indeed, that they are not a "group" at all, rather some 53% of the U.S. population.
But then, after The Donald's "face" comment, she played the feminist card — and feminism is intensely group-centered and group-conscious. Evidently to garner the sympathy of potential voters, who happen to be women.
I was really disgusted by that. It struck me as totally hypocritical and self-contradictory.
And so, I don't trust her much. Let's just leave it at that for now.
Outstanding post, dear brother in Christ. THANK YOU!!!
What really disturbed me about Carly in the debate was her trying to grab sympathy for having “buried a child to drug addiction.”
This is a gross deception. The “child” was Lori Fiorino, her step-daughter. The girl lived full-time with her mother after her parents divorce when she was ten. I’m sure Carly did forge a relationship with her step-daughter, but she did NOT raise the girl.
Second, the step-daughter died when she was 34 or 35 from alcohol and prescription drug abuse. Of course, it was a tragedy, but that was not the impression Carly was creating.
Carly’s claim that she “buried a child to drug addiction” creates the false impression that her own child died from illegal drugs in high school or college. This was a blatant attempt at manipulation with misleading statements. I cannot respect her for taking us for fools.
A more accurate claim would be “I buried my stepchild, my husband Frank’s daughter, to drug addiction, when she was in her thirties.”
But that would not have had the effect she wanted.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/real-life/homewrecker-carly-fiorina-lied-about-druggie-daughter
http://skewednews.net/index.php/2015/09/19/carly-fiorinas-sleazy-revealing-lie-dead-daughter/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.