The Least Bigoted People I Know!

Ben Carson is too smart; my cousin David Mazzola lives as a monk offering constant love; my aunt Anne Mazzola walks with the saints!

TheFederalist

The Federalist RSS Feed Follow TheFederalist on Twitter Follow TheFederalist on Facebook Follow TheFederalist on Pinterest
It’s Not Bigoted To Judge Candidates On Their Faith

Politics
It’s Not Bigoted To Judge Candidates On Their Faith

The Constitution says no religious test shall be required for political office. Nowhere does it say voters should ignore a politician’s beliefs.
David Harsanyi
By David Harsanyi
September 22, 2015
If you’re a Seventh-day Adventist who believes it’s mankind’s duty to eradicate alcoholic beverages, or a Young Earther, or a Christian Scientist, or a member of any religious denomination that embraces Ludditism, or an orthodox Muslim who believes Sharia law is a preferable legal framework to secular governance, I probably wouldn’t vote for you no matter how compelling your tax plan sounded. But that’s just me.
It doesn’t mean I’d advocate that you be prohibited from running for office, or barred from proselytizing your faith, or have you thrown into an internment camp; it only means you are mistaken about some of life’s most significant questions.
This goes for candidates who are openly socialist, believe humans have the ability to control the weather, think astrology is real (even a little), wear bowties un-ironically, or adopt regional accents during stump speeches. In a world where the state has some say in nearly all of our decisions, your ideological disposition, your behavior, your choices, they all make a difference.
And few things impact your political outlook more than faith—whether it derives from Christ, Marx, or Ayn Rand. So yes, the Constitution says that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. What it doesn’t say is that voters are prohibited from being critical of your illiberal, troglodytic, or silly notions about the world.
When Republican presidential candidate and (surprisingly) inarticulate retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson says, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation; I absolutely would not agree with that,” he designates all American Muslims—those who are most law-abiding, secularized, moderate, and fighting radicalism themselves—as members of a Fifth Column. Framed like this, it is both ugly and prejudicial. But is any concern over religious affiliation of a candidate tantamount to bigotry? Because if it is, we are a nation of haters.
A gay man avoids voting for the evangelical Christian who contends his favorite philosopher is Jesus Christ or the practicing Catholic who regards traditional marriage as sacrament. The media would never consider such a man a bigot. In fact, they would almost certainly comprehend his reluctance. If it were intolerant to take into account someone’s faith before casting a vote, then everyone who’s ever made fun of an evolution-denying Christian would be considered a chauvinist.
Way back when Slate’s Jacob Weisberg wrote a piece titled “Romney’s Religion: A Mormon president? No way” he wasn’t flaunting his hate. He was exploring the belief system of a presidential candidate, and he determined that the former Massachusetts governor’s outlook was incompatible with his own theories of sound leadership. When late-liberal film critic Roger Ebert wrote the essay “New Agers and Creationists Should Not Be President” he wasn’t unsheathing his inner xenophobia, he was arguing that certain belief systems were incompatible with his modern conception of political office.
After Carson’s comments, Glenn Greenwald, representing a strain of thought popular among the Left, posed this thought experiment:

The reaction would be predictable indignation. But it’s a misleading intellectual exercise. First off, black and gay Americans aren’t prepackaged with fixed philosophical viewpoints. You can be an African-American Muslim or a black lesbian into Swedenborgianism. Second, Judaism and Islam are not the same. Just like Zen Buddhism and Islam are not the same. Or Sufi and Shia Islam are not the same. They don’t have the same relationship with secular governance. And Jews—far more an ethno-cultural label than a theological one in the United States—are members of a faith that comports with liberal societies quite well. On the other hand, we have a comprehensive list of cases that test Islamic political control, and they are less comforting. Not everywhere. Not always. But often enough.
Of course, there is the enduring claim that Christianity is no more ethically sound or preferable than any other faith. Worse, even. Here is Ta-Nehisi Coates in the The Atlantic, offering us a Chomsky word cloud:

Ben Carson is a Christian—a fact he shares in common with all our greatest domestic terrorists and self-styled Indian-killers. From slave-holding to ethnic cleansing, Christianity has repeatedly been employed to sanctify our most shameful acts. One might counter that Christianity has also been employed to inspire our most honorable acts. But this is a level of complexity that Carson’s ilk do not grant to Islam. To Carson, Islam is terror and nothing else.
This is reminiscent of the president’s allusions to the Crusades when speaking about American concerns regarding Islam. Conflating the past with the present to create moral equivalency is nothing new. But it would be worth mentioning that there are Muslims in the world who are also guilty of being self-styled Indian-killers and “slave trading and ethnic cleansing”—but in twenty-first-century Asia.
No one is innocent, of course. Humans are imperfect, sometimes evil. Christians, Jews, and so on. Some societies get better. Some allow debates over reparations for past sins, other continue in sin. But are we going to pretend that there’s no practical or moral difference between the roles Christianity and Islam play in contemporary society? I practice neither, but prefer the outcomes of one vastly over the realities of the other. You do, too, I imagine, whether you’re Amish or even if you’re a secular atheist who sports a Coexist bumper sticker.
We all discriminate. The only difference is that in the progressive mindset, only some are to be punished for it.

Photo Shutterstock

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.

DEMOCRATS UNITE with IRAN FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE USA AND ISRAEL!

 

 

 

President Barack Obama, accompanied by Secretary of State John Kerry, meets with veterans and Gold Star Mothers to discuss the Iran Nuclear deal, Thursday, Sept. 10, 2015, in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington.TWO MOTLEY FOOLS!

© AP Photo/Andrew Harnik President Barack Obama, accompanied by Secretary of State John Kerry, meets with veterans and Gold Star Mothers to discuss the Iran Nuclear deal, Thursday, Sept. 10, 2015, in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in…

“…only 21 percent of the American public supports the deal..” again Obama desires what most Americans do not want!

 

LOOK AT KERRY’S FACE! WE ALREADY KNOW Obama’s NARCISSITIC ARROGANCE! AND establishment repugnant (ie republicans) HAVE THE GALL TO COMPLAIN ABOUT TRUMP’S ARROGANT NEW YORKER EXPRESSIONS! THIS KIND OF STUPID HUBRIS IS WHAT DESTROYS ALL GREAT NATIONS! THE ESTABLISHMENT REPUGNANTS AND DEMONRATS SHOULD BE THE FIRST TO GO WHEN IRAN SETS OFF TWO NUKES OVER NEW YORK AND THE DISTRICT OF CORRUPTION KNOWN AS WASHINGTON!

re: IRAN NUKE DEAL—

Although Obama can’t show where in this agreement Iran promises anything of substance to stop Iran’s efforts for a nuke, EVEN IF IT DID the $175 billion Obama is giving Iran is enough for them to buy a few nukes from Russia with a few hundred billion left over for terrorism world-wide.  The agreement does nothing to stop that.

DID YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE A $100,000,000 SITTING AROUND PUTIN WILL SELL YOU A NUKE. PUTIN IS ALREADY MAKING DEALS WITH IRAN!  WHAT DO YOU THINK IRAN PLANS ON BUYING WITH ALL OF THAT MONEY?

HERE IS THE ARTICLE THAT SHOWS HOW BADLY THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Senate Democrats held ranks Thursday and blocked a resolution disapproving of the Iran nuclear deal, handing President Obama a major political victory.

Only a few months earlier, some Senate opponents of the deal predicted they would be able to muster 67 votes to override a presidential veto.

They fell far short of their goal this week in a 58-42 vote. Sixty votes were necessary to move forward.

Republicans refused to concede defeat, however, and said they would force Democrats to vote on Iran again next week, perhaps on the same bill.

“It will be all Iran next week,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said before the vote.

“There are going to be more votes,” he told reporters. “There will be other opportunities for people to change their mind next week, hopefully after they hear from their constituents.

Forty-two Democrats voted Thursday to filibuster the Republican-led disapproval measure and pave the way for sanctions to be lifted on Iran in the spring of 2016. Fifty-four Republicans and four Democrats voted to proceed.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) framed it as one of the most important foreign policy debates of the past decade and suggested Democrats would pay a political price.

He called the Democratic obstruction “a tragedy.”

“This is a deal that will far outlast one administration. The President may have the luxury of vacating office in a few months, but many of our responsibilities extend beyond that,” he said. “The American people will remember where we stand today.”

In the House, lawmakers are expected to vote Thursday on legislation contending that Obama has not sent all of the documents related to the nuclear deal to Congress for review.

On Friday, House lawmakers will also vote on a measure to prevent the U.S. from lifting sanctions on Iran as part of complying with the deal. Their final vote will be on a measure of approval for the deal, which is intended to embarrass the White House and force a difficult vote for Democrats.

Congress faced a Sept. 17 deadline for taking action on the Iran deal under legislation approved earlier this year.

The action in both chambers caps weeks of intense lobbying by the administration and its allies on one side and pro-Israel groups led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

President Obama personally lobbied Democrats to support the deal, arguing it offered the best chance to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon over the next decade.

Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz met often with senators to assuage their concerns over the arcane details of the agreement. Moniz estimated that about 30 Democratic senators visited his office.

Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, a group backed by AIPAC, promised to spend between $20 million and $40 million on television and digital ads urging opposition to the deal.

In the end, only four Senate Democrats defected, despite the high-profile opposition of Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democratic leader-in-waiting.

He was joined by Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, former Foreign Relations panel chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

Public support for the deal has declined in recent months, according to a Pew Research Center poll.

The September survey showed that only 21 percent of the American public supports the deal while 49 percent disapproves and 30 percent have no opinion.

A Pew poll from mid-July, shortly after Obama announced the deal, showed 33 percent approved of it while 45 percent disapproved.

A key factor in Obama’s win was a speech to a joint session of Congress earlier this year by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was invited by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) with no input from the White House.

Netanyahu blasted the deal, and several Democrats said his criticism and the invitation from Boehner turned the debate into more of a partisan affair.

Another key moment was a letter spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and signed by most Republican senators to Iran’s leadership. It warned that any deal might not be supported by the next president.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said Thursday’s cloture vote was a definitive statement of support for the deal by many Democrats.

Sorry, I have to say NOT SUPPORT, BUT BLACKMAIL AND PAY-OFFS!

“All senators should understand that the cloture vote will then become the defining vote that determines whether the resolution of disapproval moves forward to the president’s desk,” he said. “A vote against cloture is a vote for the Iran agreement – plain and simple.”

House conservatives joined by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) made a last-minute bid to postpone votes on the disapproval resolution.

They argued the 60-day review phase had not begun because the administration failed to submit information on side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The House on Thursday was expected to pass legislation making this point.

McConnell, however, rejected the notion that argument would be successful.

“We have to act before September the 17th, which is next week, or the deal goes forward,” he said Wednesday.

Senate Republicans hope to keep the Iran debate front and center and plan to wrap it up with a discussion on the Syrian refugee crisis to highlight what they say are the failures of Obama’s Middle-East policy.

“I think there’s a desire by a lot of people on both sides of the aisle to have some strengthening of our Middle East policy to push things,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

“There’s significant bipartisan concern that the Iranian deal is going de facto become our Middle East policy, which would be a travesty. So certainly there’s going to be some efforts to push the administration to be more articulate,” he added.

Jordain Carney and Cristina Marcos contributed to this story.

Anchor Babies are under Jurisdiction of Mexico, so are not US Citizens! Here’s Proof!

Anchor Babies on Trial in Texas

By Phyllis Schlafly

A federal case moving to trial in Texas could provide a means to stop the practice of extending automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently called for legislation to end that unpopular practice, which polls show Americans oppose by more than 2 to 1, and even Jeb Bush admitted that it’s perfectly legitimate to call those children “anchor babies.”

The Pew Research Center estimated that 340,000 children are born annually to citizens of Mexico and other foreign countries who are living illegally in the United States, and that doesn’t include children born to “birth tourists,” primarily from Asian countries, which the Center for Immigration Studies estimates could be as high as 36,000. These children are called “anchor babies” because their presumed citizenship enables their parents to access a variety of benefit programs intended for U.S. citizens and makes it so much easier for the entire family to continue living here illegally.

The Texas case is still in its pretrial stage, but an explosive document filed there last week by the government of Mexico adds fuel to the national debate that Trump touched off. The legal brief, which includes a sworn affidavit by Mexico’s consul general for Texas, Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez, openly admits that Mexico’s official policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access our generous welfare system.

The brief begins by declaring that “Mexico is responsible to protect its nationals wherever they may be residing,” and a footnote clarifies that under the Mexican Constitution, “Mexican nationality is granted to children born abroad of a Mexican-born parent.” In other words, anchor babies born in this country retain their parents’ nationality, which means their citizenship belongs there, not here.

Liberals claim that our own Constitution guarantees automatic U.S. citizenship to all children born on American soil, and it’s true that the Fourteenth Amendment begins with the words, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States.” But behind those three little dots is an important qualification: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

What that forgotten phrase means is that when someone born here is “subject to the jurisdiction” of another nation, that child does not become a U.S. citizen unless the laws passed by Congress so provide (and they don’t). By filing its legal brief and submitting sworn testimony in the Texas case, Mexico is officially declaring that children born to its citizens living illegally in the United States remain “subject to the jurisdiction” of Mexico.

The Mexican consul, in his sworn testimony, says, “My responsibilities in this position include protecting the rights and promoting the interests of my fellow Mexican nationals,” and “the main responsibility of consulates is to provide services, assistance and protection to nationals abroad.” Mexico’s assertion of continuing jurisdiction over its “nationals abroad” is inconsistent with any claim to automatic U.S. citizenship merely by reason of birth on U.S. soil.

The Texas case was filed on behalf of about two-dozen mothers who admit they are citizens of Mexico living illegally in Texas. The women complain that without proper ID they cannot get birth certificates for their Texas-born children, and that without birth certificates, they can’t enroll in Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing and other U.S. taxpayer-provided benefits.

Like other states, Texas issues a birth certificate to a close relative only upon presentation of a valid ID issued by a U.S. federal or state agency. These restrictions were adopted to combat the growing epidemic of identity theft, whose main cause is the widespread use of forged or fake documents by illegal aliens.

In order to assist its citizens living here illegally who cannot get the required ID, Mexican consulates issue an official-looking document called the matricula consular, which includes a laminated photo. Of course, Texas rightly refuses to accept such foreign identity documents, which it has no way to verify.

The basic allegation of the lawsuit is that by refusing to accept the matricula consular as proper ID for obtaining a birth certificate, Texas is somehow violating the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving anchor babies of U.S. citizenship. On the contrary, their reliance on a foreign identity document proves they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of a foreign power and thus not eligible for automatic U.S. citizenship.

The Texas lawsuit was concocted by a group called the South Texas Civil Rights Project, which was founded in 1972 as a spin-off of the ACLU. It was assisted by another leftwing legal outfit, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, whose largest supporter, the Legal Services Corporation, collected $375 million of U.S. taxpayer funds in the current fiscal year.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and author of two new books just published last year: “Who Killed the American Family” (WND) and the 50th Anniversary edition of “A Choice Not An Echo” (Regnery), available at eagleforum.org, amazon, and usual sources. She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org. To find out more about Phyllis Schlafly and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Website at http://www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM