SAN JOSE, CA September 25, 2015 The recent mainstream media frenzy to attack Dr. Ben Carson with regard to his statements that he would not support a tyrant as POTUS reveals outlandish bias and twisted logic by supposedly intelligent people.
The Progressive Press or mainstream media recently responded like a pack of starving dogs competing for fresh meat when Carson, one of the leading GOP candidates for President of the United States, spoke up and stated, “We don’t put people at the head of our country whose faith might interfere with them carrying out the duties of the Constitution.”
It is quite revealing that many assorted politicians also added their comments aimed at slamming Dr. Carson for making such “biased,” “intolerant,” or “prejudiced” statements.
The trend of “intelligent” commentary seems to be aimed at steering the issue of what Dr. Carson had actually said toward some distorted interpretation cleverly designed to generate confusion or to contort the meaning of his statement.
As the retired neurosurgeon explained to Fox News’ Sean Hannity, “We don’t put people at the head of our country whose faith might interfere with them carrying out the duties of the Constitution,” and “…if you’re a Christian and you’re running for president and you want to make this [country] into a theocracy, I’m not going to support you. I’m not going to advocate you being the president.”
With all due respect to the good doctor, it seems that all he is really saying is that he would not support a tyrant as POTUS.
However, there are all those other respectable leaders of the country like Harry Reid and Lindsey Graham who jumped on Carson’s words as an example of religious intolerance. Incidentally, that is a very transparent example of where the two political parties line up: against an honest man who is speaking out against tyranny and defending the Constitution.
That raises the obvious question of what Carson’s opponents support. Possibly, a tyrant in the White House may be acceptable to them.
Within the Hannity interview, Carson further clarified his meaning, “Now, if someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets (Sharia law) and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then of course they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them.”
Attempts at framing the issue as religious toleration are misdirected at best, and highly suspect as being politically manifested disinformation in the worst case. Carson has been clear about his intolerance of tyranny. It may be hard to believe that Carson’s opponents are advocating the tolerance of tyranny, but it does raise doubts with respect to the motivations of his detractors.
This can be a double-edged sword because elected officials are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. If opponents who attack Carson are not clear themselves, intelligent people might wonder about just what values are being defended. For those paying attention, tyranny is not compatible with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Dr. Carson’s concerns are definitely not unwarranted. Such violation of the Constitution has already occurred in U.S. history – not due to adherence to a particular religious belief system, but because personal belief interfered with one’s ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
A deeper study of America’s history reveals that the government established by the Founding Fathers has been violated on a number of occasions. However, one incredibly tragic episode not often studied in history classrooms today, reveals how one of our early presidents managed to violate the Constitution, to defy the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and to get away with extensive destruction of human life, as well as long–term damage to the nation.
Today being Native American Day in California and South Dakota, it is fitting to recall one of the most egregious crimes against an entire population when President Andrew Jackson ushered a controversial bill through Congress which forced thousands of American Indians living in the southeastern portion of the United States to vacate their ancestral homelands. This occurred in 1830 when a bitterly divided Congress passed the Indian Removal Act. A pleased Jackson signed into law orders that would force the indigenous peoples of the southeastern region to relocate to “Indian Territory.” These people were forced to march across the southeast, across the Mississippi and Missouri rivers over to what is now the state of Oklahoma and part of Arkansas.
Sadly, this period, just before and after the passage of the Indian Removal Act, a time marked forever by thousands of Cherokees dying on the “Trail of Tears.” This episode was one of the darkest periods in the relations between the American Indians and the U.S. government. In all, the “five civilized” tribes were forced off their land. Ironically, these were the nations that had tried to work within the objectives and parameters of previous federal government administrations to help peaceably assimilate the Indians into the European culture. The Cherokee had even followed the advice of Christian missionaries who advised them to take their case through proper legal channels.
The Cherokee case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Native American tribes were sovereign nations and that state law had no jurisdiction over tribal lands, essentially that Jackson’s efforts were unconstitutional, “The several Indian nations were distinct political communities having territorial boundaries within which their authority is exclusive, and having rights to all land within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guaranteed by the United States.”
Jackson ignored the Supreme Court ruling, and is reputed to have said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
In reality, Jackson’s precedent of serious disregard for the Constitution was established long ago at the very top level of the federal government. Such an historical episode should serve as a warning to those who love freedom because it reveals what can happen when a free people vote to elect a president who can turn around and easily abuse the power of the presidency for personal political gain or for the pursuit and promotion of power for one’s political party.
Nevertheless, one can imagine how much more motivated a religious zealot could be, or one who feels genuinely obligated by religious dogma to purposely disregard or dismantle the Constitution. Yet, any tyrant’s quest for absolute power would never be compatible with the principles and values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.