Can someone post a link where Carson states he will "eliminate welfare, food stamps, and pell grants"? If true I would have a hard time voting for him.

 

I'm heavily reliant on Pell Grants for my two sons in college and I have two more kids in HS that hope to utilize them as well.

 

Thanks.

 

This link seems thorough. It addresses this meme.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/11/occupy-democrats/does-ben-carson-want-eliminate-dependency-governme/

Why is he wrong to say he wouldn't vote for a Muslim?

 

What is wrong with that?

 

I am having a hard time finding something wrong with it, because if anyone has payed attention, Muslim countries are horrible places for women, and anyone non-Muslim.

 

Why all the outrage?

Does it matter that he didn't say a Muslim shouldn't be president?

It's a religion that stands squarely against the principles regarding Church and State that this country was founded on. Folks who hold to that religion do not owe their allegiance to the United States and will work to topple this country that we've worked so hard to build and defend. It's a religion with a history of bloodshed, torture, and a global conspiracy to dominate the world. No one of this faith should be trusted with public office.

 

All of the things above were said, but not about Muslims. They all popped up regarding the candidacy of Al Smith, a Roman Catholic, during the presidential election of 1928.

 

There is nothing new under the sun.

This link seems thorough. It addresses this meme.

 

Does Ben Carson want to 'eliminate dependency on government' despite benefiting from welfare? | PolitiFact

 

Thank you.

Thank you.

 

No problem homey!

It's a religion that stands squarely against the principles regarding Church and State that this country was founded on. Folks who hold to that religion do not owe their allegiance to the United States and will work to topple this country that we've worked so hard to build and defend. It's a religion with a history of bloodshed, torture, and a global conspiracy to dominate the world. No one of this faith should be trusted with public office.

 

All of the things above were said, but not about Muslims. They all popped up regarding the candidacy of Al Smith, a Roman Catholic, during the presidential election of 1928.

 

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

Not exactly apples to apples comparison there.

 

There was certainly fear that the religious (Catholics in this case) would try to change public policy to match biblical law.

 

That fear certainly exists where Muslim populations have moved into sections of numerous European countries and here in the US.

 

Muslims have proven that when the public policy doesn't work, they will turn to violence in great numbers. Try googling "muslim violence in Europe" and see how many hits you get. It's 40,200,000 links. There are tons of current articles outlining the attacks, rapes, burning of synagogues, churches and schools, etc.

 

Try googling Catholic violence in Europe. You get 27MM hits, but they all refer to events that occurred in the 1500s and 1600s.

 

Muslims will not be satisfied with secular laws being held above their religious laws. They will fight, violently, as we've seen in Europe. Leftist European leaders have sought integration as the answer to Muslim contentment. Most are now acknowledging that integration was a pipe dream. Muslims don't want integration. They want Sharia law put above secular national laws.

 

We're beyond the point of being PC about Islam. 95% of Muslims are decent people that just want to live their lives. But the other 5% pose a great deal of danger to our safety and freedom. It's not as bad here as it is in Europe. We're about 15 years behind them on the cycle. But it's coming here eventually.

Article VI Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

 

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Article VI Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

 

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of a religious test.

I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of a religious test.

 

Just wondering if it had any implications in the current debate.

 

The religious tests were often in favor of a certain interpretation, denomination or even theological premise.

 

Wondered if we imply that Muslims "Can't" be good officials for the US, is that not similar to saying that those who aren't "Anglican" can not be a good official to hold office?

Dr Ben has as much chance of being the nominee as Johnny Carson.

Not exactly apples to apples comparison there.

 

There was certainly fear that the religious (Catholics in this case) would try to change public policy to match biblical law.

 

That fear certainly exists where Muslim populations have moved into sections of numerous European countries and here in the US.

 

Muslims have proven that when the public policy doesn't work, they will turn to violence in great numbers. Try googling "muslim violence in Europe" and see how many hits you get. It's 40,200,000 links. There are tons of current articles outlining the attacks, rapes, burning of synagogues, churches and schools, etc.

 

Try googling Catholic violence in Europe. You get 27MM hits, but they all refer to events that occurred in the 1500s and 1600s.

 

Muslims will not be satisfied with secular laws being held above their religious laws. They will fight, violently, as we've seen in Europe. Leftist European leaders have sought integration as the answer to Muslim contentment. Most are now acknowledging that integration was a pipe dream. Muslims don't want integration. They want Sharia law put above secular national laws.

 

We're beyond the point of being PC about Islam. 95% of Muslims are decent people that just want to live their lives. But the other 5% pose a great deal of danger to our safety and freedom. It's not as bad here as it is in Europe. We're about 15 years behind them on the cycle. But it's coming here eventually.

 

If this is the case and the crazy Muslims are headed this way aren't we doing ourselves a disservice by being unable to fully separate the church and the state?

Can someone post a link where Carson states he will "eliminate welfare, food stamps, and pell grants"? If true I would have a hard time voting for him.

 

I'm heavily reliant on Pell Grants for my two sons in college and I have two more kids in HS that hope to utilize them as well.

 

Thanks.

 

Looks like he didn't want to eliminate them for students that needed them, according to PP's link he said.

"Secondly, Pell grants already exist to pay for community college expenses for needy students. For those who are not needy, there is an old-fashioned remedy that is very effective called work. In fact work might even be beneficial for those who are needy. It certainly provided some very valuable experiences for me."

Not exactly apples to apples comparison there.

 

There was certainly fear that the religious (Catholics in this case) would try to change public policy to match biblical law.

 

That fear certainly exists where Muslim populations have moved into sections of numerous European countries and here in the US.

 

Muslims have proven that when the public policy doesn't work, they will turn to violence in great numbers. Try googling "muslim violence in Europe" and see how many hits you get. It's 40,200,000 links. There are tons of current articles outlining the attacks, rapes, burning of synagogues, churches and schools, etc.

 

Try googling Catholic violence in Europe. You get 27MM hits, but they all refer to events that occurred in the 1500s and 1600s.

 

Muslims will not be satisfied with secular laws being held above their religious laws. They will fight, violently, as we've seen in Europe. Leftist European leaders have sought integration as the answer to Muslim contentment. Most are now acknowledging that integration was a pipe dream. Muslims don't want integration. They want Sharia law put above secular national laws.

 

We're beyond the point of being PC about Islam. 95% of Muslims are decent people that just want to live their lives. But the other 5% pose a great deal of danger to our safety and freedom. It's not as bad here as it is in Europe. We're about 15 years behind them on the cycle. But it's coming here eventually.

 

I agree, mostly.

 

A link with a lot of interesting stuff. Been quoted extensively in the news.

The World?s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society | Pew Research Center

Can anyone name a country governed by a Muslim that is not a theocracy, ruled by a tribe, or ruled by a dictator?

 

Is there a Muslim democracy or Republic?