Muslims and the Media

Our candidate selection system, dominated by two terminally corrupt D.C. political parties that have looted the country and destroyed our children's future, is broken. We need a new one and that is why I am with Neighbors of Arkansas. I am not writing this article because I am backing Ben Carson for President, although I consider every non-establishment candidate better than any establishment candidate. I am writing it because the coverage on it is a perfect example of our anti-truth media and how they refuse to get stories right.

Dr. Carson said that he would not advocate that we put a Muslim in the White House. He hinted, but did not say, that it was because of the Muslim practice of subverting other viewpoints and practices, guaranteed in our Constitution, in nations where Muslims are in charge. Outrage followed, which is to be expected, but the basis for the outrage was false. The charges laid against Carson were false. It is a perfect example (the Kim Davis story is another) of why we can't get the right answers while we listen to the establishment media. They butcher the issues so badly that we can't even discuss the right questions with one another. If we don't ask the right questions, the odds are very slim that we will get the right answers.

But before I get to that, a few words about "Muslims". All Muslims are not the same, just as all who claim the name "Christian" are not the same. Most of the people that ISIS is killing for example, are other Muslims. The fear of "Muslims" by some of my friends in the U.S. is so overblown as to be ridiculous. Most of our problems with Muslims are rooted in FEDGOV's misguided attempts to interfere with Muslim cultures and attempt to re-shape them at the point of a bayonet. A lot of my friends are rightfully angry with the way that FEDGOV is running our country right now. Well, just think of how mad you would be if you lived in another country and that same FEDGOV started doing even worse over there. FEDGOV mismanages other nations under the empire's thumb even worse than it does this one! Conservatives and Middle East Muslims are actually mad at some of the same people, and often for not dis-similar reasons.

ISIS was trained and funded by our Muslim "allies" (and by our government too) to beat up on other Muslims. It consists of 20K to 30K ignorant Korandethals who have converted their neighbors into enemies. They are no threat to a nation of 320 million citizens. Pictures of long convoys of vehicles moving across the few roads through vast stretches of open desert don't intimidate me in the least. It only confirms my view that with our total control of the air and armed drones, we could crush them anytime they quit being a useful tool of our misguided State Department's philosophy of jumping in the middle of Islamic civil wars. The real threat to our freedom is FEDGOV in Washington D.C., and the Republican and Democratic establishment which manage the place.

Should we take refugees who are fleeing from the implementation of our State Department's insane policies? Sure, at least the Christian ones or those willing to convert. What about the Muslims who wish to enter our nation? Why would the Muslim ones even want to come to our terrible non-Muslim nation? Why aren't they thronging to get into the many Muslim-run nations in the region?

Name for me one nation ruled by an avowed Muslim that is a good place to live. Can't do it? Me neither. It seems that not even Muslims want to live in nations controlled by other Muslims. And that brings me back to Carson.  Carson did not say that we should ban, by law, Muslims from holding public office. That is what political rivals and the media are making it sound like, but he did not say that. He just said he thought it was not a good idea. It would not be his preference.

I agree. Again, I can't name a single country run by a Muslim that I would consider a well-run country. Islam and political freedom are incompatible.  That does not mean we should ban it- that would be a violation of our constitutions clause against religious tests for office. But nowhere does the constitution ban us personally from having a religious test for office. The government should not have such bans as written law, but the voters can have them written into their common sense. The media, including Voice of the Establishment in Arkansas (Democrat-Gazette) keep trotting out the Constitution's "no religious test" provision as if Carson does not understand or respect the Constitution. That is rather a case of the establishment media disrespecting the truth - that clause has no bearing on what Carson was saying.

What is scary is that so much media is unable or unwilling to separate those two ideas. They cannot separate a government ban from a personal decision. There is no action that is not state action to them- everything is political. That is similar to the Kim Davis situation where they cannot seem to understand that Davis is not stopping anyone from "getting married", she is only (IOW Kentucky law) refusing to grant state recognition to those relationships as marriage. Again, there is no discernment between state action and the thing itself. This is a collectivist thought pattern that is poisoning our ability to have discussion on any issue which has a differentiation of public from private action.