Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Not advocating for someone is not the same as saying that they cannot be president

Ben Carson, like Donald Trump, is in trouble for something that he did not say.  I keep hearing people recite Art. VI of the Constitution: “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” to refute Carson’s comments made on a Sunday talk show about a Muslim president.

I do not believe that Carson ever said that a Muslim could not or even that a Muslim should not be President of the United States.  What Carson said, I believe tracks with an overwhelming majority of Americans, that he would not advocate for a Muslim president.  I wouldn’t either.  Even if he renounced Sharia law.  I say “he” in this case because Muslims certainly wouldn’t stand for a female candidate.

Muslim stoning of women and homosexuals for “sex crimes” of course can be ignored when the BS religion trapped in the 12th century can be used as a sharp stick to poke a non-establishment Republican candidate in the eye.  But not even that quaint bit of BS Islam is the main reason I’d never consider voting for a Muslim.  After all who hasn’t wanted to stone his wife or a homosexual at one time or another?  The main reason I wouldn’t vote for Muslim is their belief in Taqiyya - or a Muslim's ability to lie to nonbelievers in order to advance their peculiar brand of BS religion without sanction from that BS religion.

I believe we are see Taqiyya play out right now with Ahmed the clock maker.  He swears his device that looked exactly like a bomb was nothing more than a innocent homemade “alarm clock.”  I believe he and his POS old man are lying Sacs-O-Crap.  The briefcase “alarm clock” was designed to provoke trouble.  Any other explanation by the two is total BS.  They are allowed to BS us.  It's OK.  And they are BSing us right now make no mistake about that.

So I’m with Dr. Ben on this one.  Even if a Muslim renounced Sharia Law, I’d figure he’s just doing what Muslims do – lying to the infidels.  He’d have to publicly crap on a koran before burning it, draw a cartoon of Mo sodomising a camel and wear a “Looowee Farrakhan is an Azzhole” T-shirt to a Nation of Islam rally before I’d even begin to think the guy was being truthful.  So, no I would not advocate for a Muslim to be president.

The Pope’s visit
We’ll have to wait to see who shows up, Pope Francis or Frankie the pope.  When it come to this pope I’ve adopted this attitude:  The relationship between capitalism and the people and the temperature of the Earth have been studied by better economic and scientific minds than Francis.  As such he should consider sticking to the subject he knows best – religion. 

If he sticks to the gospel that it is every man’s obligation to help the poor rather than just voting for Dopes who redistribute people’s earnings; if he speaks up for the sanctity of life; if denounces radical Islam’s march against Christianity; if he condemns the Dope’s march against Christianity in this country; if he does that he’s Pope Francis.  If he uses his time in America to lecture about our use of air conditioning as sin against the planet and/or about an economic system that has allowed us to lift millions upon millions out of poverty and from the grip of tyrants well then he’ll revert to Frankie the pope on this page.

I liked Scott Walker early on.  He never was able break out in a format where the 75 candidates each got 90 seconds to make their case.  I did not care for him trashing Trump on the way out the door.  He should have learned from Cruz.  The way to stay alive in the process is to ride the Trump wave like a rip tide not fight upstream against it.

As these candidates disappear, I think Marco Rubio as the most popular “2nd choice candidate” will be the beneficiary of winnowing field.  If that’s the case, watch out Marco.  You will become the target of the MSM Dope/Shrilldabeast lapdogs. 

No comments: