How I would answer... #1

Today I am starting a new feature called “How I would answer...” As we head into the election season, I expect the various candidates to be asked all kinds of bizarre questions; so this is where I will post the way I would answer some of these questions. I am kicking it off with a question recently asked of Dr. Ben Carson.

Question: “Do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?”

My answer: Islam is not only a religious system, it is also a political system. Muhammad was not just a prophet, he was also a prince. He not only had an army of teachers, he also had an army of warriors. The part of Islam that is particularly inconsistent with the Constitution is its concept of jihadism and world domination. These elements, which are fundamental doctrines of the Islamic faith, are clearly inconsistent with our Constitution.

Compassion

Certain members of our society seem to define compassion as allowing anyone who manages to cross our borders to stay here. But do they realize that the only reason these aliens are in our country is because the were able to get here. Anyone in Mexico or Central America can get here, if by no other means, then by walking. Yet there are millions upon million of people in Africa, the Philippines, and other places who would give nearly anything to come to America, but because of geography, they have no way to get here. Even Cubans have to risk their lives at sea to get here. So if compassion equals allowing people to live in America, then wouldn't it be even more compassionate to pay for poor Africans, et al, to come to America? Why not just open the door and pay the way for anyone and everyone from any place on earth to live in American. I mean, why not be really compassionate? I'll bet there are at least 4 billion people who would love to live in America.

The truth is, allowing people from all over the world to live in America is not compassion; but exporting American values and ingenuity all over the world is. Instead of bringing the world to America, let's send America to the world (wherever we are welcomed).

Veto power

How is it that the threat of a presidential veto has become the guiding force in the legislative process? The Constitution states plainly: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” (Article 1, Section 9). It also says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” (Article 1, Section 1). When Congress decides what spending to authorize based on what it thinks the President will approve, it has in effect yielded its constitutional authority to the President. This is an abdication of responsibility.

The Constitution states that the President cannot spend one thin dine unless he is authorized to do so by Congress. If Congress passes an appropriation bill and the President vetoes it, it is not Congress that has “shut down” the government; it is the President. Congress is not required to acquiesce to the President’s every demands. That is to make the Legislative Branch the servant of Executive Branch. In our system, Congress makes the laws according to its own independent judgment. It is then up to the President to either approve or disapprove of them. If he disapproves, he is required to send the bill back to Congress along with a written explanation. Congress can then reconsider what to do. The idea that the President’s disapproval of an appropriations bill that does not fund Planned Parenthood is equal to Congress shutting down the government is absurd. These limp-wristed congressional leaders (McConnell and Boehner) need to get testosterone injections.

Another double standard

In 2004, when Gavin Newsom was mayor of San Francisco, he violated the law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He was hailed as a hero! In 2015, when Kim Davis "violated the law" by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, she was thrown in jail and called a bigot.

Concerns about the Iran nuclear deal

I think the following are legitimate concerns:

1. U.S. intelligence officials report that Iran is already sanitizing is controversial nulcear plant at Parchin. (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-05/iran-already-sanitizing-parchin-nuclear-site-intel-warns)

2. The IAEA chief tells Congress they cannot see the secret side deals they have with Iran.(http://news.yahoo.com/iaea-chief-fails-reassure-us-senators-iran-deal-223150057.html;_ylt=AwrC1Cp.0cJVyRsApzjQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBydWNmY2MwBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--)

3. The President admits that Iran may use the funds they are about to receive to fund terror groups.(http://news.yahoo.com/obama-admits-unfrozen-iran-cash-fund-terror-164816905.html)

4. Secretary Kerry admits the Iranians may use the conventional weapons made available by the nuclear deal to kill Americans or Israelis. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-iran-may-kill-americans-or-israelis_1000220.html)

A final concern I have which I have heard no one address is, What happens in 2030 when all the terms of this deal expire? It seems to me that in all likelihood, Iran will richer and stronger, and if they haven't already, able to quickly make an arsenal of nuclear weapons. It also seems to me that at best, all this deal does is kick the can a little farther down the road. Maybe the hope is that the people will overthrown the regime by then. But what if they don't? Jihadis are patient people. Waiting 15 years to get a bomb, free and clear, is no big deal to them, as long as they eventually get it. I am concerned about what kind of world my grandchildren may have to live it.

All but inevitable...

In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. (Justice Clarence Thomas from his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges)

"Well, they may."

When asked at a House hearing if the Iranians “will use the conventional weapons made available by the Iran nuclear treaty to kill Americans or Israelis," Secretary of State John Kerry candidly replied, “Well, they may.” This is certainly encouraging news.  

Saw this one coming...

I predicted last week that this would happen within a year. I was wrong. It took less than one week.

Reported by Cheryl Chumley: A married Montana man has taken his wife and his girlfriend to the Yellowstone County Courthouse and told the clerk: Marry us – if the Supreme Court OK’d “gay” unions, then we should be allowed to join together in holy polygamy. “It’s about marriage equality,” said Nathan Collier, who filed for a marriage application to two women, Victoria and Christine, CBS News reported. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/polygamous-trio-applies-for-marriage-license/#PW1YcczdhVtzjYIU.99

Media hypocrisy

In response to the pulling of The Dukes of Hazzard... “When media companies are criticized for marketing programs that glamorize drug and alcohol use, or for sexualizing minors in television programs and movies, or for selling violent entertainment to children – despite overwhelming evidence of harm – or for trivializing rape, child sex abuse and pedophilia, all in the name of 'entertainment,' they are quick to wrap themselves in the banner of Free Speech.

“Restraint and responsibility do not infringe on the First Amendment and do not encroach on Free Speech rights. If TV Land is willing to pull The Dukes of Hazzard, out of concern for its harmful impact on our society (and it is good that Viacom is publicly acknowledging its programming can have a harmful impact on our society), they cannot then hide behind the First Amendment to refute the compelling evidence of harm from the violent and sexualized media content they continue to produce and air with impunity.” (The Parents Television Council)