Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Donations Rise for Carson After Muslim President Remarks

Donations Rise for Carson After Muslim President Remarks

“The money’s been coming in so fast it’s hard to keep up with it.”

The mainstream media is obsessing over Ben Carson’s recent remarks about a Muslim becoming president, but the issue hasn’t hurt his fundraising. Quite the opposite, actually.

Denver Nicks reported at Time:

Ben Carson Sees Campaign Cash Spike After Muslim Comments

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Wednesday that he’s seen a deluge of donations to his campaign in the days since his controversial anti-Muslim remarks.

“The money has been coming in so fast, it’s hard to even keep up with it,” Carson said on Fox News. “I remember the day of the last debate, within 24 hours we raised $1 million. And it’s coming in at least at that rate if not quite a bit faster.”

During an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Carson was asked if he believes “that Islam is consistent with the Constitution.”

“No, I do not,” Carson said then. “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Facing a backlash, he seemed to walk back the comments somewhat on Tuesday, saying he would support a Muslim president if “they embrace our Constitution and are willing to place that above their religious beliefs.”

Here’s a video report from CNN where Carson talks about the windfall:

Naturally, some on the left are outrageously outraged over Carson’s comments.

Charles Blow of the New York Times:

The Soft Bigotry of Ben Carson

The Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

At first, he stood by that outrageously prejudiced remark, but after coming under fire from not only Muslim groups but also many conservatives, he soon tried to walk it back, to cushion and to caveat it.

On Monday night, he posted a message on Facebook that included this line: “I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law.”

Then on Tuesday, at a news conference, Carson said, “It has nothing to do with being a Muslim.” He continued: “That was the question that was specifically asked. If the question had been asked about a Christian and they said, ‘Would you support a Christian who supports establishing a theocracy?’ I would have said no.”

Only his original comment was unambiguous: It had everything to do with being a Muslim. And it was bigoted.

Carson shouldn’t take it personally. Blow has never met a Republican he didn’t hate for something.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

smalltownoklahoman | September 24, 2015 at 12:44 pm

I can agree with Carson on this issue. Just look at what’s been done to this country with a president who, if not a muslim himself, is at least very sympathetic to them!

Sammy Finkelman | September 24, 2015 at 12:52 pm

Come to think of it, that really shouldn’t be so surprising.

Any time someone takes an outlier position (on something which seems to be important) and doesn’t collapse when challenged, people who agree with him, or agree more with him than with the people arguing against him, get motivated to donate.

It can be a small minority, overall.

Charles Blow sucks. When he doesn’t blow.

Carson was exactly right as pertains to a religious Muslim.

But ANYBODY…of ANY religion…who believed in a theocracy would be someone the voters would not support. That would not bar them from running for office, however.

There is then the question of the presidential oath of office, that would seem to present a real problem…

    jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | September 24, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    See, even a ding-bat broken clock like you can be right sometimes.

    Blow does suck. He’s as stupidly blindly biased to reality at his Left end of political spectrum you are at the Right,

    If dreams could come true, the two of you would be locked in a room with baseball bats.

    Who would I be rooting for to come out on a stretcher first? Mummm. Wait. Don’t rush me…

#TrumpEffect

Donald is proving the PC Police can be defeated and Carson is confirmation of that now. Good for Carson.

    VotingFemale | September 9, 2015 at 5:43 pm

    Since this is the new direction of LI, I will delete my LI RSS feed and let the RINO swamp creatures have at it in peace.

    If you want to contact me, Professor Jacobson, the only way is DM via Twitter. I dont do email.

    For someone who so dramatically flounced! a few weeks ago, you’re certainly here a lot…

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 24, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    It was a beautiful, clear, cool night last night here in Texas.

    #TrumpEffect…is there ANYTHING it can’t do…???

    (If you’re nuts…)

      Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | September 25, 2015 at 12:34 am

      … because Carson just couldn’t have stuck to his principles without Trump showing the way.

      Maybe it was Trump who motivated Carson to voice disagreement with Obama policies right in front of Obama and the video cameras at that prayer breakfast. Heck, it may have been The Donald who wrote those book reports that Mother Carson required from little Ben.

      Where would we all be without Trump?

    Good point!

    Liberal media went after both Carson and Trump for “Insufficient Supplication When Faced with Gentle, Peaceful islam”. They both stood proudly and refused to join Bush and Fiorina, knees aquiver, bowing and worshiping at the altar of Sharia.

    Win or lose, Trump is already setting an example on how to Make America Great Again. And others are joining him and standing up to the PC Police.

      Radegunda in reply to DaMav. | September 25, 2015 at 12:38 am

      There are people who have been speaking far more bluntly and forcefully about the danger of Islam for many years than Trump has ever done. The notion that Trump is some great pioneer of anti-PC courage is ludicrous.

        tom swift in reply to Radegunda. | September 25, 2015 at 1:05 am

        There are people who have been speaking far more bluntly and forcefully about the danger of Islam for many years than Trump has ever done.

        Great!

        Are these paragons candidates?

        If not, their existence is of little significance so far as the election is concerned.

        “The notion that Trump is some great pioneer of anti-PC courage is ludicrous.”

        Like it or not, he is the only one running for president that is anti-pc. Cruz is a close second, but close is not enough these days.

        Carson is catching on quickly…

He did not walk anything back.

A substantial portion of Muslims, including all the Islamists, think that Islam is a form of government inconsistent with anything but itself, and especially inconsistent with any form of democracy. They are happy to expound on this point. Ben Carson knows about and objects to that notion, and thinks it renders the holder unfit to represent our republic. He also said that he could agree to support a Muslim that embraced our Constitution.

So, a Muslim who is willing to embrace our Constitution is someone he can support for high public office.

I have no problem with that, and anybody who calls him a bigot is, at best, hasty.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Valerie. | September 24, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    A substantial portion of Muslims, including all the Islamists, think that Islam is a form of government inconsistent with anything but itself, and especially inconsistent with any form of democracy.

    Did you take or see a poll? Are there election results that support this?

    They are happy to expound on this point.

    Who is? I suppose anyone bribed by Saudi Arabia maybe would be.

    He also said that he could agree to support a Muslim that embraced our Constitution.

    That’s what he’s saying now.

    In some ways this is like worrying about Catholics listening to the Pope.

    Of course, the Pope, or the Catholic Church, does not aspire now to temporal power, and there are various sets of Moslems who do, sometimes actually claiming a theological basis for themselves in particular.

    And the other thing is that Catholic beliefs are not so threatening, except to people in believe in abortion (and birth control and divorce – but there’s no fear about prohibitions there being imposed though any more, while the extreme possible – newly invented in fact – Moslem beliefs are imposed in some places.)

Ben Carson is absolutely right. Islam is fundamentally incompatible with American civilization, and it is long past time that we had this discussion.

Muslims do not believe in separation of church and state, they do not believe in freedom of religion, they do not believe in freedom of speech, they do not believe in free markets, they do not believe in civil rights for women, they do not believe in civil rights for homosexuals, etc., etc.

Importing millions of Muslim immigrants here is setting us up for an inevitable, and likely bloody, clash of civilizations in our own land. What sane people would willingly do that?

    platypus in reply to Observer. | September 24, 2015 at 10:45 pm

    Civil rights for homosexuals? What the h3ll is that? Homosexuality is a voluntary behavior. Religious belief is a voluntary behavior. Speech is a voluntary behavior.

    Civil rights are those rights protected by the constitution. Two of the above listed voluntary behaviors are specifically enumerated in the constitution; the other is not. Unless and until homosexuality is enumerated in the federal constitution, it cannot be included within civil rights.

    At best, legislation favoring homosexual behaviors as an identifying characteristic of a group can only be special privileges. Not rights.

      Any civil rights which apply to heterosexuals also apply to homosexuals; just as any civil rights which apply to men also apply to women; and just as any civil rights which apply to white people also apply to black people.

      Muslims do not believe that the same rights which apply to straight men also apply to females or to homosexuals. That’s where the problem is.

The elitists don’t get it — as they’ve just confirmed. That’s no surprise.

I’m curious, Fox News stepped beyond their journalistic integrity by saying certain things about Carly removing a piece of Trump’s anatomy, why isn’t Legal Insurrection talking about it? You’re so quick to jump on top of MSNBC and CNN, why protect Fox and their ilk?

    Ragspierre in reply to Mr. Izz. | September 24, 2015 at 2:14 pm

    FOX didn’t SAY jack diddly. A person on FOX DID. FOX has no obligation…indeed the OPPOSITE…to ThoughtPolice their guests.

    Or are you a PC policeman, too…???

    You mean, regarding The Donald’s latest dummy-spit?

    Incompetent @RichLowry lost it tonight on @FoxNews. He should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2015

    http://twitchy.com/2015/09/23/donald-trump-wants-national-reviews-rich-lowry-banned-from-tv-fined-by-fcc/

    Since LI tends to land on the side of liberty and free speech, you may not actually want to hear what they’d have to say about your Lightbringer demanding that someone be banned from appearing on TV for saying mean things about him; let alone what their opinion would be on said Lightbringer’s demand for the Federal Government to step in and mete out punishment for a journalist’s exercise of free speech.

    If you want totalitarian statists, this is probably not the right place for you.

      Radegunda in reply to Amy in FL. | September 25, 2015 at 12:47 am

      Trump also spoke forcefully against Pamela Geller’s “Draw Mohammed” event, whose whole purpose was to claim our right to be free from Islamic “blasphemy” censorship. He said it was wrong to “provoke” Muslims that way.

      Trump-bots insist it had nothing to do with censorship because, after all, he wasn’t using the power of government to stop the event. But that isn’t the point.

      Trump essentially came down on the side of those who used (non-governmental) violence in an effort to silence the participants. At the very least, he made excuses for them, on grounds that they were “provoked.”

        tom swift in reply to Radegunda. | September 25, 2015 at 1:22 am

        Oh, rubbish. Trump made excuses for nobody.

        He expressed personal disapproval of a program of deliberate irritation and annoyance.

        That’s just politeness, not an endorsement of violence.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Mr. Izz. | September 24, 2015 at 2:45 pm

    “…journalistic integrity…”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.. (GASP) ..HAHAHAHAhahahaha.

As conservatives and Jewish or Christian believers, we need to be taking to the field and actually fighting for our beliefs. Carson is simply saying what may of us believe – Islam is not compatible with our Constitution and democracy in general.

I’ll shamelessly plug my church group’s website again ( http://www.unshackledaction.com/ ) and ask for suggestions, donations, criticism, actions – anything that can help inform and encourage us to get out of the stands and into the arena before it is too late.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to topcat69. | September 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

    Some versions of Islam are not compatible with anything civilized.

    There’s very little that’s compatible with decent civilization, but yet not compatible with abiding by the constitution.

    Where will you find that? Do we see people supporting the replacement of the preident by a king?

    Or declaring the United States, or any country where Moslems are not an overwhelming majority, an Islamic state?

    You need to have about 60% of the population Moslem to start to get there.

    And Turkey, which is about 99.8% Moslem (thanks to ethnic cleansing during and after World War I) is legally a very secular state and even Erdogan;s given up on trying to do that and hes concentrating more on reviving thhe Ottoman Empire.

      and even Erdogan;s given up on trying to do that and hes concentrating more on reviving thhe Ottoman Empire.

      A revived Ottoman Empire would definitely not be a secular state.

      After a seven century run, the medieval Abbasid Caliphate was replaced by the Ottomans with their own Caliphate in the early sixteenth century. The Ottoman Caliphate lasted until 1924, when it was banished—along with all other vestiges of the Ottoman dynasty—by Mustafa Kemal. Not that it was easy—Mustafa’s surprisingly formidable army was a critical factor in his (at least temporarily) successful program to break the power of the Imams and turn Turkey into a modern secular state.

      Erdogan is, of course, no Mustafa Kemal.

      You need to have about 60% of the population Moslem to start to get there.

      No you don’t.

      You don’t need population, and you don’t need votes.

      You need sufficient time and propaganda to become a Progressive cause célèbre, and you need the swing vote on the Supreme Court.

      Muslims throw their weight around disproportionately when they’re still a small minority of a population. European governments have been acting, in effect, as sharia censors in an effort to appease easily-enraged Muslims.

      For example, a woman in Austria went through a lengthy court battle because she said something about Mohammed that Muslims found insulting (although it was supported by Islamic sources). The pretext was “hate speech,” but in essence it was an Islamic “blasphemy” charge.

      British authorities allowed rape grooming gangs to operate for years in Rotherham and elsewhere, for fear of being accused of “racism” if they set the force of law against a Muslim cultural practice.

      It is unwise for any society that values freedom of speech and other liberties to permit very many Muslims to settle.

Cruz answered it the best. No controversy and still raising money.

Question: If we don’t want a Muslim president (and most Americans don’t) why do we keep bringing Muslims into the country?

This story gives me hope that there are at least some sane Americans remaining.

Fox News sickened me by characterizing Carson’s position as violating the Constitution. Carson never said an Islamist candidate would be barred legally from holding the presidency; he merely expressed his personal opinion, which reflects well on his thought process and demonstrates he has more knowledge of Islam than Charles Krauthammer possesses.

    cantor4massat4 in reply to Skookum. | September 24, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    When you’re running for president, you have to forget personal feelings. Cruz answered the question the right way, but then elaborated on how this administration is treating Christians. He got his point across without creating controversy.

“Islam is not compatible with our Constitution and democracy in general.”

I’m always amused that those on the left pretend they would support Islamic leadership in our government. If anyone in our society should fear Muslim leadership, it’s liberals.

We have a muslim pres. Twice he did not recite his vowels when being installed as pres. He supposedly recited them in private to a SCOTUS. We don’t know whether he did it on a Koran or Bible ! It sounds questionable.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend