Democrats Show Schizophrenia on ‘Muslim Question’

So let me get this straight.

Last week, thinking that somebody could be Muslim was such an insult that Donald Trump was called upon by liberals to apologize for a statement made by a questioner in the audience of one of his campaign appearances about President Obama.

This week, Muslims are so innocuous and unquestionably all-American that Dr. Ben Carson is being called upon to apologize for saying he would not support a Muslim for president because Shariah law is incompatible with the Constitution.

Have you ever been entrapped into an argument with someone who doesn’t have a point other than they want to argue with everything you say and be perpetually offended?

(“You gave me the lemonade I asked for? But you didn’t put it in my favorite glass!”)

Sane people understand that Islam is not your average religion, that it represents an entire political and cultural system, and that system was modern about 1,500 years ago.

Sane people further realize that beheading people for not being Muslim — or for not paying the jizya tax, or for not praying five times a day, or for exposing any flesh if you’re a woman, or for listening to music, or for looking at art, or for not flying into a berserker rage at the sight of a Mohammed cartoon, or for opposing the rape of young children, or for a hundred other things — is a violation of the very concept of human rights (which liberals should note was brought to the world by Christians and Jews).

Sane people also get that there is a difference between being a Muslim under the Constitution and being a Muslim charged with defending the Constitution, which includes numerous provisions opposed by Shariah law. In answer to wags like liberal talker Bill Handel, the difference in having a Christian or Jew as president is that Judeo-Christian principles undergird the Constitution and therefore don’t conflict with it. A practicing Muslim would have serious conflict with some of those principles.

So Carson’s statement about Shariah law and not supporting a Muslim president is perfectly reasonable. There is not, nor should there be (all you critics of Kim Davis), a religious test for public office. But it is a function, indeed a responsibility, of voters to consider a candidate’s personality, beliefs, attitudes and possible conflicts of interest in light of the office they seek.

That didn’t happen in the case of Barack Obama, and see what we got?

A third of Americans believe we got a Muslim in office. It’s possible. Among the many charming traits of Muslims taught by the Quran is the practice of taqqiyah, or lying to further the interests of Islam. Also, President Obama has undertaken numerous actions while in office that suggest he favors foreign Muslims over Americans and Muslim Americans over non-Muslims.

Obama himself says he is Christian, though what kind of Christian may itself be questionable after he attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church for some 20 years.

So there’s room for doubt, and Obama himself hasn’t done much to dispel the confusion.

Thus, when an audience member (or Clinton campaign plant, as some have suggested) stands up and expresses an opinion held by much of the country, it is not Trump’s place to correct him.

And by the way, liberals, what’s wrong with being a Muslim that it’s now considered an insult? You keep telling us what great people they are (and that you have several close friends who are Muslim …).

As for the thing about terrorist training camps (it’s assumed the questioner meant inside the U.S.), those may just be squiffy Internet rumors, but don’t you think those rumors should be checked out?

Or is it that you liberal types are pro-terrorism and don’t care? (See how annoying that is?)

The thing to take away from these two politically loaded incidents is that the Left has no intellectual ground to stand on; it never has. Their whole campaign continues to be built on straw men, innuendo and character assassination.