Herman Cain: If Elected President I Will Not Appoint Any Muslims To My Cabinet Or The Courts

Alternate title: Herman Cain: I Promise To Violate My Oath Of Office Before I Even Get To Take It.

This is the problem with politically untested, boutique candidates...they say dumb stuff.

I think fighting expansionist Islam is as much, if not more, a social challenge than a military one. We can not allow people to misrepresent political Islam, lie about Islam's history in America or it's importance to the fabric of this country. On that score, I'm with Cain.

That said, announcing that you will violate the "No religious tests" clause of the Constitution is simply wrong and shows either a lack of familiarity with parts of the Constitution or a willingness to skip parts that don't work for you. When you become President, you don't get to enforce just the bits you like, you swear to "preserve, protect and defend" all of it. Even Article VI, even as applied to Muslims.

Posted by: DrewM. at 12:29 PM



Comments

1 Okaaay! Scratch Herman Cain off that list!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 28, 2011 12:30 PM (f9c2L)

2 sigh.

Posted by: willow at March 28, 2011 12:31 PM (h+qn8)

3 At least he knows there is no such thing as a peaceful Muslem. 100% are enemies of America's freedoms.

Posted by: Scrapiron at March 28, 2011 12:32 PM (IP/jD)

4 "When you become President, you don't get to enforce just the bits you like..."
Unless your name is Barrack Hussein Obama

Posted by: Metzger at March 28, 2011 12:32 PM (c+rfX)

5 Wow, dumb. The worst part is now other candidates will be pushed to assure they will.

Posted by: Rocks at March 28, 2011 12:32 PM (Q1lie)

6 I would have figured that the "religious test" applies more to confirmation hearings than to the guy making the appointments. The founding fathers didn't have our "diversity fetish".

Posted by: Don at March 28, 2011 12:32 PM (RiU19)

7 Damnit Herman. That was a stupid thing to say but hey, Obama gets away with not following the law so meh.

Posted by: CDR M at March 28, 2011 12:32 PM (5I8G0)

8 This is the problem with politically untested, boutique candidates...they say dumb stuff
But politics is not about winning. Its about saying stuff that make people on the internets go Hell Yes! Isn't it?

Posted by: Mallamutt at March 28, 2011 12:33 PM (OWjjx)

9 7
Damnit Herman. That was a stupid thing to say but hey, Obama gets away
with not following the law so meh.


Posted by: CDR M
at March 28, 2011 12:32 PM (5I8G0)
You, ummmm, don't understand...I'm TEH WON!

Posted by: TEH WON at March 28, 2011 12:34 PM (6DDE+)

10 in before Hugh Hewitt

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at March 28, 2011 12:34 PM (+lsX1)

11 There goes the Dearborn vote.

Posted by: Waterhouse at March 28, 2011 12:34 PM (pbCk0)

12 Sarah looks better every day....

Posted by: Crabby Appleton at March 28, 2011 12:35 PM (6DDE+)

13 And that my friends is what we call a bigot. Buh-bye Herm.

Posted by: Lincolntf at March 28, 2011 12:35 PM (xMT+4)

14 When you become President, you don't get to enforce just the bits you
like, you swear to "preserve, protect and defend" all of it.

That's so cute....

Posted by: Tami at March 28, 2011 12:35 PM (VuLos)

15 Meh.

Posted by: Penfold at March 28, 2011 12:35 PM (1PeEC)

16 *shrug*

As if Obama would ever nominate a devout Catholic or Evangelical to any office. Same attitude, just unstated.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at March 28, 2011 12:35 PM (IuKAf)

17 Every candidate says dumb stuff. Heck, our current Chief Occupant has made so many dumb remarks that it's a cottage industry. While Cain was wrong to say this, I fail to see how it's all that much worse than agreeing to meet with any enemy without preconditions (something allies don't even get).

Posted by: Salamandyr at March 28, 2011 12:35 PM (P1rza)

18 EEOC on it's way to Godfathers Pizza looking for muzzies in 3..2..1..

Posted by: Scraping the McCain off my shoes at March 28, 2011 12:36 PM (F/4zf)

19 Mr. Cain, remember there is always a dem machine waiting to pounce . Don't give them ammunition.

Posted by: willow at March 28, 2011 12:36 PM (h+qn8)

20 Not that I'm saying what he said was a politically smart thing to say. It is the ultimate sin to badmouth Islam and he isn't doing Republicans any favors because now people will ask the exact same question to every candidate.

Posted by: Don at March 28, 2011 12:36 PM (RiU19)

21 Posted by: Don at March 28, 2011 12:32 PM (RiU19)



That's the thing...no one would know if a President were doing it.
That's why it's incredibly stupid to announce that's exactly what you
would do.

It's bad enough to do it by omission but saying it out loud? Bigotry is bad enough. Stupidity? That's unforgivable.



Posted by: DrewM. at March 28, 2011 12:36 PM (HicGG)

22 You're not supposed to say that out loud.

Posted by: dog whistle at March 28, 2011 12:37 PM (GTbGH)

23 17
Every candidate says dumb stuff. Heck, our current Chief Occupant has
made so many dumb remarks that it's a cottage industry. While Cain was
wrong to say this, I fail to see how it's all that much worse than
agreeing to meet with any enemy without preconditions (something allies
don't even get).


Posted by: Salamandyr at March 28, 2011 12:35 PM (P1rza)
<SIGH>...you just don't get it, do you?

Posted by: Main Stream Media at March 28, 2011 12:37 PM (6DDE+)

24 The Constitution is not a suicide pact

Posted by: Crashpanic at March 28, 2011 12:38 PM (05rI/)

25
oh shit

OH Shit

Oh SHIT

Why Herman, why?

Dammit, why can't we find just one conservative candidate who will be perfectly politically correct and say ALL THE RIGHT THINGS ACCORDING TO THE RULES SET BY OUR POLITICAL ENEMIES???

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 28, 2011 12:38 PM (uFokq)

26 Herman Cain is just another right-wing Christian bigot.

Posted by: tadcf at March 28, 2011 12:39 PM (2mull)

27
...this is why we lose elections.

Think fucking Progress. Gimme a break.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 28, 2011 12:39 PM (uFokq)

28 This is the problem with politically untested, boutique candidates...they say dumb stuff.

it is just wonderful to be back in Oregon, and over the last 15 months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty ....
seven states? I think one left to go. One left to go. Alaska and
Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit
but my staff would not justify it.

Posted by: Barack Obama at March 28, 2011 12:39 PM (7BU4a)

29 13 And that my friends is what we call a bigot realist. Buh-bye Herm nonetheless.

FTFY

Posted by: real joe at March 28, 2011 12:39 PM (IpIBJ)

30 Herman Cain= Honest Bigot
Barack Obama = Dishonest Bigot
Still not a tough choice.

Posted by: garrett at March 28, 2011 12:39 PM (p3R0Q)

31 its like politics just sucks the common sense outa people...

Posted by: trailortrash at March 28, 2011 12:40 PM (zB1JW)

32 Personally, I kinda agree with the 'policy'. But ADMITTING it is political idiocy. An example of ignorance and tone-deafness like this early in the election cycle does not bode well for the candidate.

They will be using this against him untill Nov 2012. For good reason.

Posted by: West at March 28, 2011 12:40 PM (1Rgee)

33 Sooth, bwahaha
still .

Posted by: willow at March 28, 2011 12:40 PM (h+qn8)

34 Every candidate says dumb stuff
There is dumb. That is the 57 state type of comment.
Then there is a bigoted statement. Which this is. Its a statement that says I am discriminating against a group of people because of who they are....not because of their political belief, or their ability (or lack thereof), etc.
You can survive dumb statements. This goes beyond dumb. It is bigoted.
Buh-bye, Herman.

Posted by: Mallamutt at March 28, 2011 12:40 PM (OWjjx)

35 In reality a President CAN implement a religious test. He just can't say so.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 28, 2011 12:40 PM (/G5LI)

36 So much for Herman Cain.

Posted by: tsj017 at March 28, 2011 12:40 PM (4YUWF)

37 "I fail to see how it's all that much worse than
agreeing to meet with any enemy without preconditions (something allies
don't even get)."


Posted by: Salamandyr at March 28, 2011 12:35 PM (P1rza)
Because we have the Constitution. And it is very clear about religious tests. There is no ambiguity at all. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the possibility of a profoundly stupid president suggesting that he will operate in a profoundly stupid manner.
Cain is 100% wrong.And fuck you for making me defend DrewM.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 12:40 PM (LH6ir)

38 I'm well beyond caring about what Muslims and their apologists think anymore.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 28, 2011 12:41 PM (YmPwQ)

39 It's posts like these that make me want to fap to a picture of Kathy Griffith.

Bye, ergie!

Posted by: bertel ollman at March 28, 2011 12:41 PM (JaL+E)

40
Herman Cain is just another right-wing Christian bigot.

Posted by: tadcf

Great.

4 out of 5 cocksuckers agree!

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 28, 2011 12:41 PM (uFokq)

41 Damn.

Posted by: AD at March 28, 2011 12:43 PM (pHGEV)

42 It was a stupid way to answer the question "Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim in your Cabinet or as a Federal Judge?". *sighs*, especially since I completely agree with him about the dangers of creeping shariah.

Who is advising Cain? They should have anticipated this kind of question, given there was some controversy over some remarks he made last week with wrt to Muslims.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 28, 2011 12:43 PM (9hSKh)

43 I'm against stupid candidates, but only if they are in my party.

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2011 12:43 PM (0GFWk)

44 Dammit, why can't we find just one conservative
candidate who will be perfectly politically correct and say ALL THE
RIGHT THINGS ACCORDING TO THE RULES SET BY OUR POLITICAL ENEMIES???

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 28, 2011 12:38 PM (uFokq)

This has nothing to do with political correctness. It's just stupid. Even if this is your intent why would you ever announce it? It's just tossing free ammo to the enemy.

Posted by: Rocks at March 28, 2011 12:43 PM (Q1lie)

45 Damnit Herman, what the fuck!?That was just incomprehensibly stupid and very disappointing. Do that shit clandestinely AFTER you get elected.

Posted by: Ms Choksondik at March 28, 2011 12:44 PM (EYqhE)

46 Whatever. It was probably a dumb thing to say on the record, but -- especially given how CAIR is constantly out to get him at every public event -- my impression was that he was referring to activist, out-and-out political Muslims. If he actually meant that he would refuse to consider someone just because they happen to be a Muslim but are otherwise the best person for the job, then that is a problem.

Posted by: Brad at March 28, 2011 12:44 PM (zTZGo)

47 i can't help but laugh at thedopiness but than cry. somethings are inexplicable.

Posted by: willow at March 28, 2011 12:44 PM (h+qn8)

48 Posted by: Mallamutt at March 28, 2011 12:40 PM (OWjjx)

Exactly. You cannot walk back from this statement.

Posted by: CDR M at March 28, 2011 12:44 PM (5I8G0)

49 Damnit Herman. That was a stupid thing to say but hey, Obama gets away with not following the law so meh.
Posted by: CDR M at March 28, 2011 12:32 PM (5I8G0)
Not so meh, CDR. The LSM covers for the Jug-Eared Marxist. Cain, not so much. The Won would be given an opportunity to walk this stupid shit back. Cain, not so much.
FFS, why did he have to say that?

Posted by: Bill H at March 28, 2011 12:44 PM (q8CmE)

50 It's just tossing free ammo to the enemy.



Posted by: Rocks at March 28, 2011 12:43 PM (Q1lie)

Well liberals hate guns remember and surely don't have any? But your point is well taken.

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2011 12:45 PM (0GFWk)

51 If he doesn't promptlybackpedal (correct, retract, expand, whatever) on his "I will not appoint Muslims to federal offices" position then he's not worthy of being President, and it has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with understanding American principles. He really sounds like he means it, though, so I won't be holding my breath.
The examples he gives of "creeping Sharia" in New Jersey, OK, etc. are no justification for relegating an entire Religion to second-class status.

Posted by: Lincolntf at March 28, 2011 12:45 PM (xMT+4)

52 This has nothing to do with political correctness. It's just stupid.
Even if this is your intent why would you ever announce it? It's just
tossing free ammo to the enemy.

Particularly if you are a Republican.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 28, 2011 12:45 PM (9hSKh)

53 So you folks are saying he must appoint some Muzzies?

Posted by: Tom at March 28, 2011 12:45 PM (MWXXs)

54 Who got to decide that Islam is a religion in the first place? It's not. It's a political movement with an attendant mythology.

Posted by: Truman North at March 28, 2011 12:45 PM (G5JPI)

55 To be fair - I don't see this as bigotry.
Islam is not just an abhorrent Religion. It is, equally Political as well, and one that is inheritly opposed to the Freedoms that define our Republic.
I wouldn't hold it against him if he guaranteed that he would not hire anyformer KGBto work in his administration, either.

Posted by: garrett at March 28, 2011 12:45 PM (p3R0Q)

56 I'm a critic of Islam, but there really are peaceful Muslims. Maybe not the "vast majority" as apologists would prefer, but they certainly exist. Fighting PC garbage about Muslims is great, that's why I like Allen West. Trashing the religion itself is also fine, there's nothing wrong with hating a religion. It won't win you votes, but religion is an ideology. There's nothing bigoted about hating a worldview.

But the open thrashing of all Muslims is not a good thing, IMO. Many Muslims are muslims because their parents were muslims, or maybe they aren't even that religious, etc. There is no need to alienate those guys from our cause by forcing them to find common cause with our enemies.

Of course, I'm predisposed to not hate Muslims because I used to sleep with a Muslim chick. So, feel free to discount me if you will. I can't think of them all as evil. I think Islam is evil as a religion, I even tell Muslims this. But I don't them personally unless they hate me.

Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 12:45 PM (xsoRi)

57
my oh my how nicely the Left has trained some of you


Posted by: Soothsayer at March 28, 2011 12:45 PM (uFokq)

58 Posted by: DrewM. at March 28, 2011 12:36 PM (HicGG)

I honestly don't see it as bigotry. It is because I don't really think that the core of islam is really a religion; it is a political system. I'm not trying to argue, really, it was dumb to say. Not appointing someone you see mainly as a political enemy is politics, not some unforgivable sin in my opinion.

Posted by: Don at March 28, 2011 12:46 PM (RiU19)

59 Yep, it was a dumb thing to say; surely he's smarter than that to think he's actually going to be President.
Oh, yeah- and saying he wouldn't appoint aMuslim wasn't very smart either.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 12:46 PM (SY2Kh)

60 If he had said he wouldn't appoint a nazi there might be less of an uproar. Personally, I see this as a technical gaff, not a problem for me otherwise.

Posted by: maddogg at March 28, 2011 12:46 PM (OlN4e)

61 ...and this is why I don't go bandwagon with folks with no public track record.

Because, like I said before, that's how we got in this mess to start with.

Reality trumps wishful thinking. Every. Frakking. Time.

Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord© at March 28, 2011 12:46 PM (GBXon)

62 We don't make halal pizza's either, fuck them.

Posted by: Cain at March 28, 2011 12:47 PM (JpFM9)

63
It's just tossing free ammo to the enemy.

I love this argument.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 28, 2011 12:47 PM (uFokq)

64 I don't think that applies to how a president selects nominees. I think it applies, at its most generous currently to the civil service, where a regular employee can't be removed from office for that reason or denied employment based on religion.

However, there was no professionalcivilservice at the time.Allcivilian governmentemployees were political appointees. Only the military had any professionalcadre. It certainly applied to them, e.g. one could not be denied appointment or confirmation as an officer becauseof your religion.

In the UK at the time, Catholics were prohibited from employment by the government and prohibited from serving in Parliment, as well as being the monarch. The clause was designed to protectmembers of religious groupswho want to run for office, both executive and legislative, but was not applicable to political appointments by the President. The clause was another effort by the Founding Fathers to prevent internecine religious conflict between Christians that had plagued Europe.
In fact, one could argue that Islam is not covered by this policy based on the fact that most of our Founders did not even consider it, but considered it a policy to avoid religious conflict among Christians.
One could even further argue that Islam, like Communism, is a foreign political entity and alliegance, not protected by that clause.
Butin any event, there is no affirmative action for Muslims of political appointments by the President. Cain might gain or loose from this politically, but he doesn't have to appoint any Muslims.

Posted by: Federale at March 28, 2011 12:47 PM (PWWdd)

65 Meh. Nothing there to change the game. Cain won't appoint a Muslim because he is concerned about the lense through which they view the law. Obama won't appoint a Catholic because of the lense they use but he will appoint a Wise Latina because of her lense which is morally superior to the white male lense. It's called Elections Have Consequencestm.

Posted by: BigDaddy1964 at March 28, 2011 12:47 PM (pOcKt)

66 Cain is 100% wrong.And fuck you for making me defend DrewM.


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 12:40 PM (LH6ir)

I'm somewhat ambivalent about this. I'm of the opinion that the Founders put in the "No Religious test" thing for the purpose of preventing disputes between the different states with official state religions. When the founders use the term "Religion" I suspect they mean "Denomination" in today's vernacular. Nothing in any of their writings leads me to believe they wanted to give the same consideration for non-Christian religions as they do to Christianity. If they did, they would not have ended the Constitution with the words:"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand
seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United
States of America the Twelfth"
Seems like a pretty specific yet taken for grant reference to Jesus.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 28, 2011 12:47 PM (/G5LI)

67 It violates the supreme law of the land. We should take that seriously. And just because Obama (pbuh) does it doesn't mean that it is correct.

Cain doesn't know the Constitution well enough to be president.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 12:47 PM (LH6ir)

68 It's not a religion...

Posted by: The Mega Indepedent at March 28, 2011 12:48 PM (fSVm6)

69 It was a stupid way to answer the question "Would you be comfortable
appointing a Muslim in your Cabinet or as a Federal Judge?".

The correct answer is I won't appoint a Muslim, but they I won't appoint a Christian either, or a Buddhist. I will appoint Conservatives.

Posted by: toby928™ at March 28, 2011 12:48 PM (GTbGH)

70 So you folks are saying he must appoint some Muzzies?
Posted by: Tom at March 28, 2011 12:45 PM (MWXXs)

I'd appoint a muslim who swears allegiance to the United States of America and ONLY the United States of America and agrees to abide by it's laws and only it's laws. And I'd have to believe it was a truthful statement. And anyway I'd keep my mouth shut and side step the question since it is a trap.

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 28, 2011 12:48 PM (0GFWk)

71 The correct answer was "I don't care if someone is muslim or not, as long as I am sure that their loyalty is purely and exclusively to the United States, its constitution, and its citizens."

There. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

Sigh.

Posted by: CanadaGuy at March 28, 2011 12:49 PM (+J68k)

72 So you folks are saying he must appoint some Muzzies?
/facepalm
Right- that's exactly what we're saying. In fact we're suggesting he hire nothing but Muslims.
What else could we possibly mean? That even if wouldn't appoint any Muslimsit's politically a bad idea to say so publicly? Nah- couldn't be that at all.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 12:49 PM (SY2Kh)

73 He was pretty clear, and no, there isn't any way to defend his dumb, bigoted ass. I don't care what Obama has said over the past two years. It doesn't give our candidates the excuse to become outright bigots.

What a dumb ass.

Posted by: Alex #11 at March 28, 2011 12:49 PM (v6ZD+)

74 This statement will win or cement more votes than it loses. Two groups care about the Muz: The muz, and the libs. Neither will vote for our guy under the best of circumstances.
Regardless, the constitutionality of this is irrelevant. The acts of the current president should make it clear that the constitution is nothing more than a set of suggestions these days.
I sure hope I get a chance to vote for this guy. Finally - someone who gets it.

Posted by: Reactionary at March 28, 2011 12:49 PM (xUM1Q)

75 72
The correct answer was "I don't care if someone is muslim or not, as
long as I am sure that their loyalty is purely and exclusively to the
United States, its constitution, and its citizens."

There. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

Sigh.


Posted by: CanadaGuy at March 28, 2011 12:49 PM (+J68k)

Muzzies don't play that way.

Posted by: Tom at March 28, 2011 12:50 PM (MWXXs)

76 Posted by: Soothsayer at March 28, 2011 12:45 PM (uFokq)

You are lucky that you have the best hash of anyone on this blog. Otherwise I would have said to go Fok yourself.

It is against the law. I want my president to uphold the law of the land. How difficult is it to understand that?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 12:50 PM (LH6ir)

77 OK, seriously, how long have we been getting this...I presume it's Arabic spam?

Given the thread, a body tends to wonder about the timing...

Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord© at March 28, 2011 12:50 PM (GBXon)

78 Dammit, why can't we find just one conservative candidate who will be perfectly politically correct

This isn’t even about being politically correct. What he said was just plain wrong. There’s no getting around it—his statement was as clear as he could get.

Posted by: Jerry at March 28, 2011 12:50 PM (QF8uk)

79 Sorry ladies.

Posted by: I Have A Huge Momba at March 28, 2011 12:50 PM (EL+OC)

80 Looks like a Media Matters ambush question to me.
Cain should have known better. But, otoh, he's honest. I certainly don't want anyone in Washington thinking that sharia law is at all suitable for me or my country, or that I'll willingly submit.
There are already enough of them.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 28, 2011 12:51 PM (d0Tfm)

81
So you folks are saying he must appoint some Muzzies?

Posted by: Tom at March 28, 2011 12:45 PM (MWXXs)

No, but now every damn candidate for the R nomination will have to publicly state they will consider it. They will say "if the person is right for the job" and the press will dutifully ask them if there are any Muslims at all who are right and who they are.Instead of talking about important issues they are talking about something stupid.

Posted by: Rocks at March 28, 2011 12:51 PM (Q1lie)

82 Well there goes my poll vote. So now Muslims Cancelled Cain (McCain get it!) has the same problems of foot in mouth as Barbour.

Posted by: Kerncon at March 28, 2011 12:51 PM (S4d07)

83 The correct answer is I won't appoint a Muslim, but they I won't appoint a Christian either, or a Buddhist. I will appoint Conservatives.
This. That was all that was required. Really ---

Posted by: Mallamutt at March 28, 2011 12:51 PM (OWjjx)

84 This has nothing to do with political correctness. It's just stupid.
Even if this is your intent why would you ever announce it? It's just
tossing free ammo WMDs to the enemy.
FIFY

Can I change my vote for the straw poll?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 28, 2011 12:51 PM (0q2P7)

85 Against what law? Where's the law that says a President MUST appoint a Muslim to any position? I guess we'll have towait for the Sharia judge to rule on it.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 28, 2011 12:52 PM (YmPwQ)

86 Posted by: Don at March 28, 2011 12:46 PM (RiU19)

Three things....

1st...of course Islam is a religion. A fucked up one under the best of circumstances but it's a religion. It's recongized around the world as such and by the US government in many ways. Saying it's not is a talking point but it has no basis in reality.

2nd..Cain didn't talk about the political part of Islam. He specifically went on to frame it as a 1st Amendment religion issue.

3rd...If announcing you won't appoint someone simply on the basis of their religion isn't bigotry, I'm not sure what is.

Posted by: DrewM. at March 28, 2011 12:52 PM (HicGG)

87 In completely non-relevant news (but let's face it, so was H. Cain, bless his heart), Moo has decided to make the Easter Bunny gayer than Richard Simmons in all his shininess in Sweatin' to the Oldies...

Posted by: laceyunderalls at March 28, 2011 12:52 PM (pLTLS)

88 Shit, he should have followed up with "but i will let them scrub my toilets"

Posted by: Berserker at March 28, 2011 12:52 PM (gWHrG)

89 eeesh!

Posted by: Serious Cat at March 28, 2011 12:52 PM (bAySe)

90
Posted by: toby928� at March 28, 2011 12:48 PM (GTbGH)
Ding.
Posted by: CanadaGuy at March 28, 2011 12:49 PM (+J68k)
Also ding.And this is how every other Republican candidate should answer the question when the MFM asks them.

Posted by: blue star at March 28, 2011 12:52 PM (4OCrT)

91 The context of the Religous Test clause is merely in relation to the swearing of an oath. Some sects at the time (as now) didn't allow oaths. It also was to prevent the technicality of someone not being allowed to serve because he wouldn't swear on a Bible.

For individuals who serve at the pleasure of their boss, how do you claim there is no such test?

Posted by: Loren Heal at March 28, 2011 12:53 PM (PqKUh)

92 "my oh my how nicely the Left has trained some of you"
Exactly....
One could reasonable argue that a "religious test" is a law that restricts someone from holding office. I fail to see how not appointing Muslims by personal preference would fit be a "religious test" from a legal point of view.

Posted by: Jeff at March 28, 2011 12:53 PM (mQauu)

93 Islam is more politic than religion. Cain could modify his position by allowing secular types while denying fanatical types and maintain the peace.

Posted by: sTevo at March 28, 2011 12:53 PM (FzVlt)

94
Who here, if president, would appoint a single muslim to any office?

Cut the shit with 'as long as they're conservative' crap. There are no pro-American muslim conservatives out there. None.


Posted by: Soothsayer at March 28, 2011 12:54 PM (uFokq)

95 After the poll in which Herman Cain came in second, I thought that I ought to look up the guy and see what he's about.
Not so any more.
Run Sarah, Run!

Posted by: Max Entropy at March 28, 2011 12:54 PM (lH6z9)

96 And no chicks either.

Posted by: Herman Cain at March 28, 2011 12:54 PM (QKKT0)

97 Against what law?

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 28, 2011 12:52 PM (YmPwQ)

"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."

Some shit that some old white guys wrote -- 1787

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 12:54 PM (LH6ir)

98 I like Herman but he needs to realize he is an announced candidate for president not still the host of radio talk show.

I once again fall back on my darkhorse candidate, Dan Quayle.

Posted by: Just A Grunt at March 28, 2011 12:54 PM (pOC9r)

99 So you folks are saying he must appoint some Muzzies?

Logic fail. No: saying he shouln't use religion to disqualify someone from a position does not imply he has to nominate someone from any religion.

Why are folks so logically impaired today?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 28, 2011 12:55 PM (0q2P7)

100 In other news,

I know this will shock the morons, but the Tar Heels are cry babies.

Waa we lost waaa.

http://tinyurl.com/45ej594

I guess no Miller Lite for them, man up losers.


Posted by: Kemp at March 28, 2011 12:55 PM (JpFM9)

101 The Cabinet Gets Bacon!

Posted by: Herman Cain at March 28, 2011 12:55 PM (p3R0Q)

102 Also, I personally would have a hard time appointing a Muslim too. For the same reason I have a tough time trusting gay judges. There is a danger that their identity will trump their appreciation of the law.

That doesn't mean I hold the standard that I'd never appoint them, I just hold them to a standard by which I have to see evidence of them not putting their identity group first. If a judge occasionally fights against his own interests in pursuit of the law, I'd gladly nominate him for higher authority. If someone has attempted to serve issues instead of their identity, I'd gladly have them in my cabinet.

The wise comment would be "I'd nominate anyone who has the United States as their number one priority". "Any judge who puts the Constitution and the law first in qualified". Make it about following the law, not the particular judge's beliefs outside of the courtroom. Radical, activists judges are wrong whether they pervert the law for religious, racial or sexual reasons.

Honestly, this wouldn't be a killer if he had experience he was running on. He's running mostly on his ability to talk a good game...

Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 12:55 PM (xsoRi)

103 Posted by: Loren Heal at March 28, 2011 12:53 PM (PqKUh)

You are incorrect. Read the Constitution and then get back to us.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 12:56 PM (LH6ir)

104 When you become President, you don't get to enforce just the bits you like ...
Next you'll be saying stuff about how candidates don't get to accept campaign donations from other countries.

Posted by: FireHorse at March 28, 2011 12:56 PM (k3RPu)

105
As president, I promise to never appoint a Raëlian to any office.

Is that okay with everyone? Thought so.


Posted by: Soothsayer at March 28, 2011 12:57 PM (uFokq)

106 Ok, so if he somehow wins, and he fail toappoint any Muslims, what is the penalty?

Say it with me now......

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 28, 2011 12:57 PM (YmPwQ)

107 Uh, 'scuse me? The "religious test" is that you don't have to be a member of a particular religion. Like you would if you wanted a job in say, the Saudi government. If Herman said that you had to be Baptist or whatnot to be appointed, then we have a problem. And here is a problem that I have. Everyone here knows that Islam is a form of government, right? And that it is not compatible with our form of a republic? 'N speaking a which - did any of you constitutional scholars consider Section 4 of Article IV? The feds are obligated to make sure that at least the States have a republican form of government. Now, I like to think that I have a good understanding of the Noble Quran, but I have never come across anything that supports the idea of a republic. Unless you can point out where the Prophet (pbuh) gave any support to a republic (and I doubt you would find it in the Hadith) methinks that the Hermanator is absolutely correct here.

Posted by: alGore at March 28, 2011 12:57 PM (bwsPK)

108 20 Not that I'm saying what he said was a politically smart thing to say. It is the ultimate sin to badmouth Islam and he isn't doing Republicans any favors because now people will ask the exact same question to every candidate.

And the correct response will be:
There will be no religious test in my cabinet. Period.

Posted by: Max Entropy at March 28, 2011 12:57 PM (lH6z9)

109 I wasn't going to support him anyway (unless he won the nomination) because I think a candidate should have some experience in government.

Posted by: real joe at March 28, 2011 12:58 PM (IpIBJ)

110 If announcing you won't appoint someone simply on the basis of their religion isn't bigotry, I'm not sure what is.

Saying anything less than adoring about these koranic little scamps is bigotry. Wanting lower taxes is bigotry. Disagreeing with a liberal is bigotry. Bigotry is the new "Racism" and people stopped caring about "Racism" about a year into Bambi's presidency.

Posted by: The Mega Indepedent at March 28, 2011 12:59 PM (fSVm6)

111 Reality trumps wishful thinking. Every. Frakking. Time.
NO! I want Cain / Palin / Bachmann to be President! The more I want it, the moreitwill cometrue! That's how it works! It's just like howI know that this lottery ticket I boughtis going to be the winner; I refuse to buy into the MSM and Establishment spin when they say that the odds are 100,000,000 to 1.
Besides, the other candidates are exactly the same as Obama, except where they're not. Beat that logic, RINO.

Posted by: Imbeciles on the Internet at March 28, 2011 12:59 PM (SY2Kh)

112 National Socialism, like Islam, was a political system that had an associated mytholgy as well. I am as upset that Cain said this as much as if he said he wouldn't abide any Nazis or Nazi sympathizers in his cabinet. Islam is Anti- American.

Posted by: Minuteman at March 28, 2011 12:59 PM (d6wkB)

113 Then again, you could disqualify then on the grounds of separation of Church and State. There is no room for Sharia Law in our Constitution.

Posted by: sTevo at March 28, 2011 12:59 PM (vXr7p)

114 I think there is a way for Cain to weasel out of this. All he has to say is that he thought the essence of the reporters question was "would he appoint someone who would implement or judge based on Sharia law"
Of course, this requiresCainto embrace is inner weasel. If he has one. Do you think he does or want to?

Posted by: WishRich at March 28, 2011 01:00 PM (hdpay)

115 Yeah it was a dumb thing to say but I will not allow a hit piece by a liberal bag shit outfit like "Think Progress" to influence who I will vote for in the primary.

Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2011 01:00 PM (M9Ie6)

116 Who got to decide that Islam is a religion in the first place? It's
not. It's a political movement with an attendant mythology.
Posted by: Truman North at March 28, 2011 12:45 PM (G5JPI)
This.

Posted by: RushBabe at March 28, 2011 01:00 PM (urYpw)

117 So much for that Godfathers Pizza franchise in Cairo ...

Posted by: Chuckit at March 28, 2011 01:00 PM (Z9Nrf)

118 Way to embrace your inner honey badger, Herman. That'll play well in peoria.

Posted by: apotheosis at March 28, 2011 01:00 PM (xWk3U)

119 You are incorrect. Read the Constitution and then get back to us.


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 12:56 PM (LH6ir)
The Constitution also says Congress alone has the power to declare war. Yet our current president just kind of launched an aerial campaign and sent them a letter.
If we're gonna tilt a windmill for the sake of the Constitution, why don't we tilt that one? Cause it seems much more pressing and a much greater existential threat to the Constitution than a goofball primary candidate in our own party.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 28, 2011 01:01 PM (TpXEI)

120 I haven't seen the clip, and can't watch at work. Nevertheless, here's my first blush:

1- Never hand your enemies ammunition or resources with which to orchestrate your downfall.

2- Some things can be communicated without ever being said. This should have been one.

3- If you ARE going to single out an identity group in America today, you'd better have good, solid, reasons that stand up to Constitutional muster 100%- or you'll get crucified.

If others' takes on what he's saying are correct, he violated all three of these. In response to a question about accepting Islamic justices, my preferred answer would be something like, "All candidates would be viewed on their records and writings. Obviously, I believe anyone who shows even a hint of bringing in outside legal or social influences should be off the list. Whether that's clinging to the Communist Manifesto or believing that Sharia Law should have any influence on our legal system, neither would be acceptable. Anyone candidate I put forward will, and must, have a proven track-record of putting any such social or legal leanings behind them and ruling based only on the written words of the Constitution and any specific statute under question."

People may still attempt to make hay out of such a statement, but at least it would be fully defensible.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 28, 2011 01:01 PM (8y9MW)

121 Thank you Uncle Ruckus.

Posted by: ZombieVader at March 28, 2011 01:01 PM (kaTSr)

122 67
It violates the supreme law of the land. We should take that seriously.
And just because Obama (pbuh) does it doesn't mean that it is correct. Cain doesn't know the Constitution well enough to be president.


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 12:47 PM (LH6ir)

And Obama Does? If he did, he would disqualify himself. (Unless of course he's corrupt, but we know that's not the case!)

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 28, 2011 01:01 PM (/G5LI)

123 The problem is not that Cain wouldn't appoint any damned Moose limbs to his cabinet. The problem is that he said it out loud.

Posted by: maddogg at March 28, 2011 01:02 PM (OlN4e)

124 This is the problem with politically untested, boutique candidates...they say dumb stuff.
bullshit. Based on recent history, saying dumbstuff is a requirement for membership in the GOP at the highest levels. The last two GOP Presidents frequently stepped on their cranks, verbally.

Posted by: brobdingnagian at March 28, 2011 01:02 PM (K/USr)

125 Posted by: DrewM. at March 28, 2011 12:52 PM (HicGG)

He should have pointed out the political part of it, you are right....maybey he's smart enough to do that when he gets asked again.

Posted by: Don at March 28, 2011 01:02 PM (RiU19)

126 Okay.. watched the video.. what did I miss?


Posted by: Dave C at March 28, 2011 01:02 PM (d5IfM)

127 Al, nice try, but long replies still can't hide bullshit.

This was put in the constitution because England required you to be a member of the Church of England to run for Parliament. Maryland (Mary Land), er founded by Catholics, I believe at one time had the same rule.

Posted by: Kemp at March 28, 2011 01:02 PM (JpFM9)

128 Cut the shit with 'as long as they're conservative' crap. There are no pro-American muslim conservatives out there. None.
Who is Samah Norquist, Muslim wife of Grover Norquist and formerly in the George W. Bush administration. Maybe you heard of Grover Norquist?

Posted by: Mallamutt, AOSHQ Jeopardy Champion at March 28, 2011 01:02 PM (OWjjx)

129 Islam is more politic than religion. Cain could modify his position by
allowing secular types while denying fanatical types and maintain the
peace.

After blowing your foot off with a shotgun, shooting it again with a .38 then declaring that's what you meant to do originally does not improve your overall situation. He could have been very succinct and said the same thing. "I will not nominate someone who holds Sharia, or any other religious doctrine for that matter, higher than and in contravention to the Constitution of the United States." he could have continued: "This doesn't bar a Muslim from being appointed, it would bar those radicals who would impose Sharia here in the United States"


Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 28, 2011 01:02 PM (0q2P7)

130 Some shit that some old white guys wrote -- 1787
That was like, over 100 years ago. Nobody reads Latin anymore, so who could possiblyunderstand it?

Posted by: Ezra "Juicebox" Klein at March 28, 2011 01:03 PM (SY2Kh)

131 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 28, 2011 01:01 PM (TpXEI)

Okay, so your rationale is that if the worst president in our history ignores the constitution, it is perfectly acceptable to emulate his behavior?

Wow.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 01:03 PM (LH6ir)

132 Posted by: Imbeciles on the Internet at March 28, 2011 12:59 PM (SY2Kh)
Careful, your trespassing on my turf.

Posted by: The Commentor Who Calls Everyone and Everything a RINO at March 28, 2011 01:04 PM (OWjjx)

133 This post is a little misleading. He didn't just extemporaneously say he wouldn't appoint any Muslims. He responded to a question as to whether or not he'd be comfortable doing so.

It's still not a good thing to say, but it's certainly not nearly as bad as this post made it out to be.

Posted by: CrankyTrex at March 28, 2011 01:05 PM (g6rtj)

134 When you become President, you don't get to enforce just the bits you like, you swear to "preserve, protect and defend" all of it.
Ah Drew, you silly, silly man. The Constitution is an old,living, breathing document, meant to be moldedto conform to whatever societal whimbs deemed appropriate by your betters.

Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2011 01:05 PM (pr+up)

135 We can rebuild him, we haz the technology.

Posted by: White Guilt Fairy at March 28, 2011 01:05 PM (EL+OC)

136 So there are secular Muslims? I thought there were only those that lied about that.

Posted by: kansas at March 28, 2011 01:06 PM (mka2b)

137 "And Obama does?"

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 28, 2011 01:01 PM (/G5LI)

What the fuck is your point? I specifically refuted this. Learn to read.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 01:07 PM (LH6ir)

138 Goddamn y'all are a bunch of whiny fucking pussies.

Posted by: Not a Whiny Pussy at March 28, 2011 01:07 PM (mJ950)

139 Some shit that some old white guys wrote -- 1787

You mean like this guy?

http://tinyurl.com/4lrs75x


Posted by: Kemp at March 28, 2011 01:07 PM (JpFM9)

140 Activist judges that play identity politics are larger problem, not Muslims. Muslims are only part of the problem. I will gladly fight against creeping Sharia law, but the larger debate is fighting against the subjugation of the law for personal reasons. This is the problem with the entire judicial system. For anyone concerned with Muslim judges , are they willing to also never promote other judges that groups that play identity politics? Because frankly, you'd never be able to approve of anyone.

I don't think it's a bigoted point of view, I just think it's bad public policy.

Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 01:08 PM (xsoRi)

141 Herman Cain? Never heard of him.

Posted by: Practically Everybody at March 28, 2011 01:08 PM (fSVm6)

142 Kemp, you really don't need a reminder that No 1 seed Duke lost by 16 points, do you?
I'll say it again ina bold font:
SIXTEEN POINTS

Posted by: laceyunderalls at March 28, 2011 01:09 PM (pLTLS)

143 I'm pretty sure the MSM will make sure they pick our candidate...Huckabee.....but I don't know who it will be.

Posted by: kansas at March 28, 2011 01:09 PM (mka2b)

144 Once again:

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand
seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United
States of America the Twelfth
"

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 28, 2011 01:10 PM (/G5LI)

145 We are going to have lots of trouble as a society if we can becowed by accusations of bigotry when the bigotry is perfectly rational. If you are not bigoted against Islam, then you don't know enough about it.

Posted by: Jeff at March 28, 2011 01:10 PM (mQauu)

146 Could he get away with not appointing any Sunni Muslims?

Posted by: mpurinTexas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at March 28, 2011 01:11 PM (LFiVW)

147 138
"And Obama does?"

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 28, 2011 01:01 PM (/G5LI)

What the fuck is your point? I specifically refuted this. Learn to read.


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 01:07 PM (LH6ir)

You can ASSert that you refuted it, but you didn't. Obama is NOT QUALIFIED to be President because he is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen."

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 28, 2011 01:11 PM (/G5LI)

148 I know this will shock the morons, but the Tar Heels are cry babies.


Yeah I hate those whiny pricks. But most schools have 'em...especially Duke.

We got beat by a team that shot the lights out. A good team shooting better than 50% from 3 is tough to beat. And we didn't play well enough to win anyway. Like a lot of games lately. This team was frustrating to watch all year because they made so many mistakes with the ball either not thinking or pressing too hard.

I'll just wait till next year. And I, too, managed to pick zero final four teams. I could be President!

Posted by: NC Ref at March 28, 2011 01:12 PM (/izg2)

149 #143

Duke got there ass beat, I don't remember them crying about it, do you?

Obama's favorite team, cry babies LOSERS.

Need me to remind you of the score of last Duke-UNC game?

That would be 75-58, in bold.

Posted by: Kemp at March 28, 2011 01:13 PM (JpFM9)

150 128
Al, nice try, but long replies still can't hide bullshit. This
was put in the constitution because England required you to be a member
of the Church of England to run for Parliament. Maryland (Mary Land),
er founded by Catholics, I believe at one time had the same rule.

Why is this a disagreement with me? I pointed out that Cain couldn't require someone to be a member of a particular religion. Aren't you saying the same thing here? And if you want to visit the First Amendment, you will find that only the Feds weren't permitted to have a state religion - states could have theirs until 1947 with Everson v. Board of Education, which applied the Establishment Clause to states.

Posted by: alGore at March 28, 2011 01:13 PM (bwsPK)

151 Okay, so your rationale is that if the worst
president in our history ignores the constitution, it is perfectly
acceptable to emulate his behavior?
Wow.


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 01:03 PM (LH6ir)
My point was that if we give the other side a pass to ignore the constitution while following it ourselves, we are idiots.

No matter how closely you adhere to the Constitution, you cannot have a Constitutional government when half the people in the country don't give a shit about it.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 28, 2011 01:13 PM (TpXEI)

152 Today as I type this, my company is under attack by the Federal Government. It not the muzzys that I'm a scared of. A shut down order is in the possibilities during this safety inspection.

Posted by: sTevo at March 28, 2011 01:14 PM (roFKc)

153 He's right. You don't put your enemies in positions of power. And they are ALWAYS muslim first.

Stop all immigration by muslims, deport any that are not citizens, and watch the rest very closely.

Posted by: sablegsd at March 28, 2011 01:15 PM (04c5r)

154 Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 28, 2011 01:11 PM (/G5LI)

What kind of tin-foil hat are you wearing today?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 01:16 PM (LH6ir)

155 CrankyTrex@134: The question was “Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?”

The answer was “No. I will not. And here’s why.”

They asked about his comfort level. He answered about what he would actually do. This isn’t a Juan Williams moment. There’s no leeway in that answer.

Posted by: Jerry at March 28, 2011 01:16 PM (QF8uk)

156 #152

Your points are well taken. Thanks.

Posted by: Kemp at March 28, 2011 01:16 PM (JpFM9)

157 Posted by: Jeff at March 28, 2011 01:10 PM (mQauu)


I think for most of us here, the problem isn't with his position in, and of, itself. The problem is with 1) how he stated it and/or 2) the fact he's using a clearly anti-Constitutional rationale for it.

We know that Islam (when practiced as written) is bad. Part of the problem is that there are plenty of people who claim to be Muslim who do no more than refrain from beer and say their 5 prayers. Just like there are plenty of people who claim to be Christian who never do anything more than show up in Church on Sunday morning. Or, in extreme cases, on Easter and Christmas.

So a blanket statement that "No Muslims" would be allowed anywhere near his administration is dumb on a number of levels.

I'm not quite as sure as Drew and others seem to be that it would kill his candidacy, but I know it hurts him significantly, and he'll have to take more hurt- by finding some way to walk this back- before he can start healing his image.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 28, 2011 01:16 PM (8y9MW)

158 Mountain, molehill, read the transcript.

Posted by: Tom at March 28, 2011 01:16 PM (MWXXs)

159 I don't think there is any coming back from that statement.

Say what you want about the context, and accepting that I have the exact same reservations vis-a-vis Muslims in positions of influence. (I've known a fair number of Muslims socially, and with the exception of 2, one of whom was actually an apostate, all were hip-deep in making excuses for the depredations of their coreligionists.)

You can't get past the fact that this is an extremely bad answer. The right answer is "I have no problem appointing anyone in any religion that I feel confident can carry out the duties of office according to the constitution."


Posted by: krakatoa at March 28, 2011 01:17 PM (a0Jhx)

160 Dumb thing to say, but -- somewhat counterintuitively -- it doesn't actually violate the religious test of office clause. The reason is, the President's power to appoint is absolute, subject only to confirmation by the Senate. An individual Senator's power to vote yea or nay is also absolute; he is not required to justify in a legal sense the reasons behind his vote.

So there are really only two effects the religious test of office clause has: for *elected* office, candidates cannot be barred because of religion (but Cain was talking about appointments, not elected offices). Second, a law or regulation saying that no member of xxxx religion may be appointed to xxxx office could be struck down by the courts, relying on the clause. But even that couldn't stop a pres + congress from a de facto implementation of the same policy: again because their respective powers in the matter are absolute.

So...all you're left with, regards to a de facto policy like this, is an appeal to American's inherent sense of justice and (smashmouth) politics. Not law, or the Constitution.

In this case...since Cain was foolish enough to state the policy out loud...I think those socio-political forces win (and the Cain candidacy has taken a BIG hit).

Posted by: BobInFL at March 28, 2011 01:17 PM (edlRB)

161 And yes, there are lots of secular Muslims. I know Muslims that barely even practice their religion. They are Muslim in the same sense that Rahm Emmanuel is Jewish. They cling to it for ancestral and cultural reasons.

They may even publicly believe in Allah, but again...it's not a deep rooted conviction in them.

I think Islam is a destructive force in the world and I'm not sure how many Muslim judges place constitutional adherence over their faith. I have no clue. But if they exist, they shouldn't be excluded based on the actions of anyone else. That's a core American value, individualism. Just like I don't treat conservative gay people as being the same as Judge Walker. Be discerning. That's the best approach Don't decide appointments based on anything other than that person's adherence to the constitution. Radical Muslims can never adhere to the constitution, and should not be appointed. There's no need to invite the shitstorm that comes from making blanket statements.It's pointless.


Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 01:18 PM (xsoRi)

162 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 28, 2011 01:13 PM (TpXEI)

We had to destroy the Constitution to save it.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2011 01:18 PM (LH6ir)

163 ...so does this mean we can skip a Palin thread this week...?

Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord© at March 28, 2011 01:18 PM (GBXon)

164 Oh noes, he lost the CAIR vote.

Posted by: Andy at March 28, 2011 01:18 PM (5Rurq)

165 Think PROGRESS!!!!

Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2011 01:18 PM (pr+up)

166 This guy was never a serious candidate to begin with. But now he'll be the poster child for the "intolerance" of the right (that is, if lefties are willing to cast a black man in that role).

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at March 28, 2011 01:19 PM (QxGmu)

167 Questioner: "Would you feel comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?

Cain: "No, I would not."


Posted by: Tom at March 28, 2011 01:20 PM (MWXXs)

168 68
It's not a religion...


Posted by: The Mega Indepedent at March 28, 2011 12:48 PM (fSVm6)

This is a fundamental fact that needs to be exposed a hell of a lot more. Islam is not as much a religion as it is a way of life, and that way of life, through Shariah, is contrary to everything America stands for.
From the subjugation of women as cattle, to the appointment of religious dictators, to the following of fatwas which ignore the law of their host country to commit great crimes against their fellow citizens, there's little about Islam to call a religion.
Just as we arrest fundamentalist mormons in Northern Arizona for raping and 'marrying' groups of 12 yr olds, we have no business accepting this religion of pedophiles and sharia into our land.
Thus, I absolutely agree with Herman Cain, but wish he would articulate a little better.

Posted by: TehSchlip at March 28, 2011 01:20 PM (xm1A1)

169 Part of the problem is that there are plenty of people who claim to be
Muslim who do no more than refrain from beer and say their 5 prayers.
Then they are not really muslims. Islam literally means "submission" and a muslim is one who submits to Allah. Submission must be complete. If they are someone who leaves a mens room with their left foot forward, they have not submitted to Allah. Christianity needs only a belief in the divinity of Jesus. Plus refraining from beer should disqualify you from any role in life aside from having self-inflicted injuries.

Posted by: alGore at March 28, 2011 01:24 PM (bwsPK)

170 I agree with every thing he said. There is no place for Islam in our laws and that was his point. Fuckin A Right. I'll vote for him.

Posted by: melvin at March 28, 2011 01:24 PM (3OCZw)

171 >Herman Cain: If Elected President I Will Not Appoint Any Muslims To My Cabinet Or The Courts

he just locked in my vote

Posted by: Jones at March 28, 2011 01:24 PM (cUNcx)

172 They serve at the pleasure of the President, and they give him no pleasure.

Posted by: Jean at March 28, 2011 01:25 PM (WkuV6)

173 Never got an answer. If Cain somehow won, and then failed to appoint a Muslim to any appontable position, what is the penalty?

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 28, 2011 01:27 PM (YmPwQ)

174 Just checked. If I'm elected I can appoint whoever the fuck I want for whatever reason. And I can also not appoint whoever the fuck I want for whatever reason. So, no Muzzies.

Posted by: Herman Cain at March 28, 2011 01:27 PM (mka2b)

175 Ok, the guy had no chance so why are we in a circle jerk about this. He said something stupid, so what. He had no chance, so let's move on already. We currently have a President that probably lights his splif with pieces of the Constitution and we're going to have a bowel movement over this? Really?

Posted by: mastour at March 28, 2011 01:27 PM (RKRXz)

176 I was a Herman Cain supporter, but if he had any chance it's finished now, and should be.

Posted by: Jon at March 28, 2011 01:28 PM (Xt7UU)

177
What's the big deal? I like his honesty. It's a crap question that would NEVER be asked of a liberal. As President, he wouldn't be appointing anyone biased on religion. He would follow the law and his staff would be making appropriate decisions.
This was a set-up and that's ok. I would say, muslims in the US are waaayyyyy over catered to already and to the extent they vote, they probably vote for whomever floats their local boat. What can they game from teh system. I doubt there are a sizeable number that are conservatives who gravitate towards the GOP or Tea Party.
Because, see, America is just a stopping place for my conception of Muslims in the US. We're just a place where they live and a place they want to transform. They aren't the only ones, but I'm sick of abetting those who want to transform the U.S. and use our liberties and laws against us and our heritage.
I guess I'm a jerk and unwashed and uneducated. I cannot name a muslim as a friend and cannot think of one I know of in popular culture that has distanced themselves from the religion of conquest and death.

Posted by: Yip at March 28, 2011 01:28 PM (SyLEU)

178 The thing is, would you be willing to hire a Muslim in your Government if you had office? Probably not. You distrust them. Many Muslims put their religious faith over their country. There is nothing wrong with this point of view.

But Cain is saying, flatly, that no Muslim could ever be qualified. That's just flat out wrong. Anyone with some effort could think of a qualified Muslim. Someone who thinks Sharia law isn't compatible with United States secular government. Someone who supports reading the Constitution as written, not in whatever way benefits him, even if it personally hurts his "tribal" group. If this person existed, most of us would see him as a breath of fresh air. We'd be surprised at his existence, and would nominate him in an instant. We'd still believe the same way as before, but he would be an exception. Under what Cain said, however, he would be denied. He's a Muslim, nothing else matters.

That's the issue here. The flat out statement that no Muslim can EVER be worthy of appointment is the problem.

Anyways, this is a circular firing squad. The point is, we're in a war here. We need to be smart with everything we do or say.

Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 01:28 PM (xsoRi)

179 174
Never got an answer. If Cain somehow won, and then failed to appoint a Muslim to any appontable position, what is the penalty?

Beheading comes to mind.


Posted by: kansas at March 28, 2011 01:29 PM (mka2b)

180 174

Never got an answer. If Cain somehow won, and then failed to appoint a Muslim to any appontable position, what is the penalty?

Loss of the goat fukn vote for at least a generation.


Posted by: alGore at March 28, 2011 01:29 PM (bwsPK)

181 Posted by: alGore at March 28, 2011 01:24 PM (bwsPK)

James 2: Faith without works is dead. Matthew 25:31-ff: Just calling on his name ain't enough.

So, if you must be considered Christian just because you go to Church, then someone who only performs the 5 prayers gets to be considered a Muslim. Based on your argument anyway.

My point, actually, was that such people are not Muslim in any real sense, but that people outside their daily lives would have no way to know that- so simply disqualifying anyone who calls themselves Muslim is kind of silly- it's an unforced PR error.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 28, 2011 01:29 PM (8y9MW)

182 2 things) Cain should not have said this outright although any president certainly could avoid muslims as cabinet members and probably has latitude in selecting judges to avoid muslims w/o "applying a religious test"

2nd) Islam is really a form of socialism with a religious veneer. Extra dangerous because they use western rules for religious freedom to advance their political long term goals.

Posted by: Palerider at March 28, 2011 01:31 PM (FBj6Z)

183 "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."

Note the context. It was clearly a violation to pass a law stating that all members of Congress needed to be Episcopalians. It should not be "a religious test" for a President to choose whatever cabinet he will under whatever criteria. But he should have shut up about it.

Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at March 28, 2011 01:31 PM (g9neE)

184 The whole premise is about the dumbest shit I've seen on a major post here. It must lead to the point that we now need a religious QUOTA in Executive hiring decisions. How do we know if we've got the proportionate number of Shinto Japanese in the Defense Department? How about if we'd raised that with Truman.

Posted by: Elizabeth I at March 28, 2011 01:31 PM (Q6W96)

185 meh. Fuck the muzzies. I'd appoint any Muslim that publicly renounced the evil child-rapist Muhammad.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 28, 2011 01:33 PM (QcFbt)

186 I'd appoint that Pakistani actress that has been oh so outspoken lately. Multiple times.

Posted by: grognard at March 28, 2011 01:35 PM (NS2Mo)

187 Islam is a religion?
could have fooled me.

Posted by: Reality Man at March 28, 2011 01:36 PM (9AQdP)

188 There's a religious test in The Constitution? I didn't know that.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at March 28, 2011 01:36 PM (/f9MS)

189 If someone fails to nominate a Muslim, of course there is no penalty. This isn't Affirmative Action we're arguing for. We're not even arguing for the appointment of Muslim judges at ALL. We're arguing that you can't exclude someone merely for his identity group. Most Muslims are probably Pro-Sharia, so fuck them. I don't care. I'm not Pro-Islam in any way.This is not a discussion of political reality, but worldview. We're debating general principle, because that's what Cain is discussing. The debate is whether it is fair to not appoint Muslims merely for their religious affiliation, not whether it is smart in practice to appoint Muslims. I believe it isn't wise to exclude merely based on religion, but based on politics and judicial philosophy.

But fuck it, nobody is actually listening to what anyone is saying. They're just speaking in platitudes and bumper stickers like Obama voters.


Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 01:37 PM (xsoRi)

190 James 2: Faith without works is dead. Matthew 25:31-ff: Just calling on his name ain't enough.

Conceded. My study of the Noble Quran takes time away from reading other religious texts.

So,
if you must be considered Christian just because you go to Church, then
someone who only performs the 5 prayers gets to be considered a
Muslim. Based on your argument anyway.

Mmmm, no. Islam is a totalitarian form of government. Either buy the whole thing or live in dhimmitude.

My point, actually, was
that such people are not Muslim in any real sense, but that people
outside their daily lives would have no way to know that- so simply
disqualifying anyone who calls themselves Muslim is kind of silly- it's
an unforced PR error.

I really don't think so. I always thought that a clever bumpersticker would be one that said "Respect the Koran, Don't Read It" Non-muslims who have read it have to agree with Cain.

Posted by: alGore at March 28, 2011 01:38 PM (bwsPK)

191 187 I'd appoint that Pakistani actress that has been oh so outspoken lately. Multiple times.
Veena Malik

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 28, 2011 01:39 PM (UO6+e)

192 Muslims are committed to a political system that's antithetical to our own. Cain's objection to putting them in high office presumably reflects that. I don't really see this as being any more heinous than a conservative pledging not to appoint marxists, or a liberal not to appoint nazis.

Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at March 28, 2011 01:39 PM (VPlpE)

193 I understand completely what he's saying. And it doesn't bother me. I don't think it's illegal.

What I'm tired of is the Stockholm Syndrome of PC-ness.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 28, 2011 01:40 PM (YmPwQ)

194 192
187 I'd appoint that Pakistani actress that has been oh so outspoken lately. Multiple times.


Veena Malik

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 28, 2011 01:39 PM (UO6+e)
She can be the Secretary of Hawt.

Posted by: grognard at March 28, 2011 01:40 PM (NS2Mo)

195 This has nothing to do with freedom of religions or any other freedoms. This man has the right to appoint who he wants to serve as his cabinet members, that's why he's called TEH PRESIDENT.

Posted by: Jordan Phillips at March 28, 2011 01:40 PM (5gOnS)

196 The whole premise is about the dumbest shit I've seen on a major post here. It must lead to the point that we now need a religious QUOTA in Executive hiring decisions. How do we know if we've got the proportionate number of Shinto Japanese in the Defense Department? How about if we'd raised that with Truman.Posted by: Elizabeth I at March 28, 2011 01:31 PM (Q6W96)

Every day I spend on the Internet is another day I'm forced to be reminded of how many stupid people post on it.
Just to be clear, yes, I am talking about you.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 01:42 PM (SY2Kh)

197 Jerry @156
The answer was “No. I will not. And here’s why.”

They asked about his comfort level. He answered about what he would actually do. This isn’t a Juan Williams moment. There’s no leeway in that answer.
---------------------

"No, I will not [be comfortable appointing Muslim cabinet members and judges]. And here's why." That's why the question is important, it defines what he "will not."

For example, I would not be comfortable appointing a liberal to my cabinet, but that doesn't mean I would refuse to do so if they were the best person for the job.

The rest of his statement is even at odds with the idea that he would test religiously, since he goes on to say essentially that he doesn't believe religion belongs in government. One could make the case he believes the person asking the question is referring to people who identify as Muslim first and everything else second.

The bottom line is that while I don't consider it to be a good view to espouse (the answer should be "What does their religion have to do with anything?"), there is still a considerable difference between what the post says he said and what he actually said.

Posted by: CrankyTrex at March 28, 2011 01:43 PM (g6rtj)

198 185
The whole premise is about the dumbest shit I've seen on a major post
here. It must lead to the point that we now need a religious QUOTA in
Executive hiring decisions. How do we know if we've got the
proportionate number of Shinto Japanese in the Defense Department? How
about if we'd raised that with Truman.

Posted by: Elizabeth I at March 28, 2011 01:31 PM (Q6W96) With all due respect, nobody is arguing for that at all. Only liberals think that only two options exist: exclusion or quotas. I believe in being included based on their ability, competence, qualifications, etc. If no Muslim is qualified, fine. Don't appoint them. If a Muslim is qualified, then appoint them. That is my position. I personally believe few, if any, Muslims are qualified because most put their religion ahead of country. This is not the same as a blanket exclusion. I believe some Muslims, in theory, could be qualified. This is not the same as affirmative action.

Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 01:46 PM (xsoRi)

199 I've never adhered to the view that religions need to have a view of the supernatural at all, at least in a Constitutional sense.

Would it be bigoted to announce that you were never going to appoint Communists to the cabinet?

What's the difference?

Posted by: AmishDude at March 28, 2011 01:47 PM (T0NGe)

200 Anyways, this is a circular firing squad. The point is, we're in a war here. We need to be smart with everything we do or say.
Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 01:28 PM (xsoRi)
Nah, it's just the usual Republican campaign function, the Grenade Party.You really only need one grenade, but everyone brings one anyway.It's the only thing that really gets the base energized.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 28, 2011 01:49 PM (bxiXv)

201 I think some of us fight liberals so much that we start seeing the enemy in each other's actions a bit too often.

Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 01:49 PM (xsoRi)

202 I believe in being included based on their ability, competence, qualifications, etc. If no Muslim is qualified, fine.

What the hell does "qualified" mean anyway? It's not like these people are technicians, the "qualification" for most of these appointments is a stinkin' law degree (which I think should be a disqualification for everything except AG, I even think appellate court judges should have vast experience outside of the corrupt legal profession.).

Posted by: AmishDude at March 28, 2011 01:51 PM (T0NGe)

203 Merovign, I rarely coverse with you outside the ONT. Damn, I missed talking about boobs yesterday.Fuck. Oh well, I'll just try to fight some to stare at in real life tonight. LOL




Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 01:51 PM (xsoRi)

204 CrankyTrex@198: The answer you’re looking for is “would not”, and even then, you need it with a different level of forcefulness.

I would not be comfortable with Cain as the Republican nominee. I will not vote for him.

Posted by: Jerry at March 28, 2011 01:52 PM (QF8uk)

205 Circular firing squad, FORM UP!

Posted by: Kerry at March 28, 2011 01:52 PM (a/VXa)

206 The qualification for a judge that a conservative appoints should be a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, and adherence to the law.

That's the only qualification, in my eyes.


Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 01:53 PM (xsoRi)

207 A president exercises discretion as to the people they wish to name. A 'religious test' would be a requirement of law, not of the according discretion of an official to name or nominate the people they wish to.

Posted by: nickless at March 28, 2011 01:54 PM (MMC8r)

208 Right thought. Wrong answer.

He should have said he would only appoint fully qualified people to his cabinet or as judges. In his mind that excludes people of the Islamic faith because its totalitarian belief system is in conflict with our constitution in too many fundamental ways, but that he's willing to keep an open mind.

How many Muslims has Obama appointed to his cabinet or as judges so far?

Posted by: daleyrocks at March 28, 2011 01:55 PM (uMV8s)

209 Bgawk! Bgawk! Thick Progress is right! Bgawk!
Hermann Cain is a bigot! Bgawk! Bgawk!

Posted by: Typical chickenshit GOP weblog commenter at March 28, 2011 01:59 PM (lT0LC)

210 Islam is a hostile political ideology cloaked as a religion. Basically its a pact among brigands for distributing the loot from caravan raids. Cain is right to reject muslims for service in public office. He shouldn't have said it that way though.
He should have described and explained its political aspects before making any pronouncements of this type.

Posted by: Iblis at March 28, 2011 02:00 PM (9221z)

211 So you folks are saying he must appoint some Muzzies?
Yes. That's it exactly. Read much? Better yet, read AND comprehend much?
Dolt.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 28, 2011 02:01 PM (B+qrE)

212 Bgawk! Only the first 13 states are valid, cos the Constitution says "no new State shall be formed"! Bgawk!
Context is too difficult for me! Bgawk!

Posted by: Typical chickenshit GOP weblog commenter at March 28, 2011 02:02 PM (lT0LC)

213 @Daleyrocks: Yeah, and that approach still allows you to welcome an ally if you do somehow find one. It's open ended in theory, if not in practice.

That would be probably be a good approach.

Oh btw...you damn RINO!

Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 02:02 PM (xsoRi)

214 The "No Religious Test" Clause assumes the candidate follows the other parts of the US Constitution.
Notice how Muslims are often talking about how the Constitution is acceptable to Islam or something which makes Islam the source of legitimacy. Often a breezy analysis of trivial similarities in the use of language. Some people will read that and think sharia suddenly doesn'tkill those who attempt to leaveIslam orsuggest many times when Muslims should wage jihad against the unbeliever or punish non-Muslims for blasphemy.If Islam is the source of legitimacy no non-Muslim canrule over any Muslim there is no free speech or freedom of religion, and so on.
But their freedom must be allowed to destroy our freedom so we can be truly free. X-treme Tolerance: suicide pact or bust!

Posted by: Beagle at March 28, 2011 02:03 PM (sOtz/)

215 I need to get to work, guys. Which probably makes me a RINO squish.

Later.

Posted by: Crazee at March 28, 2011 02:03 PM (xsoRi)

216 so i guess that Cain is now "unelectable"?
... if it wouldn't have been this they (the GOP establishment) would have found something else...

gee, somehow "electable" looks more and more like the canidate the GOP wants us to have, wierd how that works.

... but don't think about that too hard or Hollowpoint will call you an Obama supporter.

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2011 02:04 PM (473WA)

217 @Jerry, 205

Now you're debating verb tense? I will not because I'm a Presidential candidate speaking as though I'm already elected and in the process of doing that thing.

Unless he finishes "will not" with "will not appoint any Muslims to the Cabinet or Federal Judges", then what he "will not" do is the question, which is "feel comfortable" doing it.

If someone wants to ask the man "Will you appoint any Muslims to the Cabinet or as Federal Judges?" and he says "No, I will not." Then I will agree with you.

Posted by: CrankyTrex at March 28, 2011 02:05 PM (g6rtj)

218 The whole premise is about the dumbest shit I've seen on a major post here. It must lead to the point that we now need a religious QUOTA in Executive hiring decisions. How do we know if we've got the proportionate number of Shinto Japanese in the Defense Department? How about if we'd raised that with Truman.
Bullshit. Who said that?One cannot, repeat cannot be a serious candidate for President of the United States and make exclusionary statements based on religion or race, age, or sex for that matter. This is the point.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 28, 2011 02:07 PM (B+qrE)

219 So you folks are saying he must appoint some Muzzies?

Yes. That's it exactly. Read much? Better yet, read AND comprehend much?
Dolt.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 28, 2011 02:01 PM (B+qrE)
And Communists?

Posted by: AmishDude at March 28, 2011 02:08 PM (T0NGe)

220 Of all sites this one gets bent out of shape because Cain speaks honestly. This is more than a religion it's a political and military system.

Where were the moderates after 9/11? Why is our government having a hard time finding Arabic and other linguists for Islamic countries?

Even the countries we liberate they still slaughter and persecute Christians and other non-Muslims. Where are the moderates?

In Michigan a Muslim father has a son who was in the Marines. The neighborhood shuns him? Where are the moderates?

The term moderate Muslim implies that a regular Muslim is extreme. If you're good to go why moderate or reform?

They want to build a victory mosque near Ground Zero and where were the moderates?

For a site that drops f-bombs, talks of boobies, etc every other comment loses its mind over Cain saying what he believed.

big·ot (bgt)n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I guess me being a Christian makes me a bigot? I will never be a Muslim so I guess it makes a bigot because I'm strongly partial to Christ instead of Mohammed.

Some of you sound like a bunch of leftists.



Posted by: Lou at March 28, 2011 02:11 PM (olXPW)

221
When you become President, you don't get to enforce just the bits you
like, you swear to "preserve, protect and defend" all of it. Even
Article VI, even as applied to Muslims.

Barak Obama is on line 1 for you.

Various ayatollah's on line 2 to deny that Islam is incompatible with a republican form of government, and that the Constitution is an abomination before Allah.

I'm on line 3 wondering when serving at the President's pleasure meant there was a quota system or something?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at March 28, 2011 02:11 PM (1hM1d)

222 The President does not violate the Religious Test by not appointing Muslims to his cabinet. The only qualification for a Presidential appointee is that they be breathing, and so far, we haven't descended into Caligula nominating his horse for Senate just yet.

If, as an example, the Speaker of the House refused to administer the oath of office to incoming MN Rep, Keith Ellison because Ellison was a Muslim, that would be unconstitutional because the election under which Ellsion was elected had no religious rules applied to it; and, the Speaker can not make up one for the purpose of thwarting a person from holding the office once duly (legally) elected/selected/appointed.

But drinking buddies, successful fund raisers, friends of friends, radical commies, idiot academics with a zero success prediction rate, even conditions of blackmail by the head of the FBI, have all seen the light of day as Presidential appointees.

Posted by: Adriane at March 28, 2011 02:11 PM (0yDnd)

223 or a liberal not to appoint nazis.

Uh, the Nazis (the Socialist German Workers Party) were liberal. Look at the fuhrerprizip - a strong central government run by a really smart person - sound like any party you know? The Nazis were in cahoots with the muslims as well.

Posted by: alGore at March 28, 2011 02:12 PM (bwsPK)

224 It was a stupid thing to say but I read it the same as if he said I will not appoint any Communists to my cabinet or courts. That does not excuse the stupidity of saying it in the context of running for President.

Posted by: polynikes at March 28, 2011 02:12 PM (Vt8uu)

225 so i guess that Cain is now "unelectable"?
Shooey--let's just lay the case out. Herman Cain has no elected political experience. No government experience. No military experience. Very little name recognition. He is not closely identified with a high political value geographic area. He operates in talk radio mode, which is great for entertainment, less great for a presidential candidate. Hell, any of us have basically the same qualifications.
The answer to you question is: He was, is, and will be unelectable.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 28, 2011 02:13 PM (B+qrE)

226 @Crazee - It's probably less controversial than saying they should all be rounded up and interned someplace where they can slit each others' throats and bugger goats to their hearts content, not that I would suggest such a thing as a candy-assed RINO.

Posted by: daleyrocks at March 28, 2011 02:13 PM (uMV8s)

227 ok..not the most politically smart thing to say but this man is honest, a smart business man he loves America. The most stupid thing that could ever come out of his mouth will still always be smarter more honest than the current COC we are stuck with. Cain will tell it like it is without fear of the "bigot police."

One statement does not push a candidate out of the running...having a baby with a skank and trying to hide it will but not a stupid statement.

Posted by: THE SLOB at March 28, 2011 02:20 PM (LKYVz)

228 Everyone can cry bigot all they want...the reality is that what he said is true.Look at Europe....look at what is happening in the rest of the world. The Muslims are not making any big secret out of it...and since it's not a religion,really? Bigot?
Or just really honest.
Sac up girls

Posted by: chistmasghost at March 28, 2011 02:20 PM (ibzsd)

229 226
so i guess that Cain is now "unelectable"?
Shooey--let's just lay the case out. Herman Cain has no elected political experience. No government experience. No military experience. Very little name recognition. He is not closely identified with a high political value geographic area. He operates in talk radio mode, which is great for entertainment, less great for a presidential candidate. Hell, any of us have basically the same qualifications.
The answer to you question is: He was, is, and will be unelectable.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 28, 2011 02:13 PM (B+qrE)

i understand your concerns, a lot of people have the same concerns, the point I keep trying to make is that none of the professional pols are going to change anything in any signifigant way, all of them are riding the gravy train and have been for years.
if we elect some how's been an insider nothing will change, nothing.
politics is not rocket science, you don't need a Harvard degree, you don't need to be a lawyer, and you don't need tons of political experience.
I'll take honest over smart any day, in fact, i'm to the point where i'm demanding it and won't accept anything else.

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2011 02:24 PM (473WA)

230 I smell a conspiracy here. Is it a coinicidence that Cain came in second in 2 seperate AOS straw polls, and lo and behold, a lefty hit piece appears? After many monmths of the "leadership" at AOS has bi-weekly Palin-bashes, because she finished 1st in another AOS straw poll (as well as this one)? Do the powers that be secretly want to attempt to steer us, the rabble, towards Mitt or some other squish that is perceived as "electable" ?

Taking off the tinfoil hat.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 28, 2011 02:24 PM (YmPwQ)

231 And PIMF, dammit.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 28, 2011 02:25 PM (YmPwQ)

232 > "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"

I doubt he's going to give any of them a test.

Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at March 28, 2011 02:35 PM (qndXR)

233 I smell a conspiracy here. Is it a coinicidence that Cain came in second in 2 seperate AOS straw polls, and lo and behold, a lefty hit piece appears?
psst... let me fill you in on a little secret:
Nobodytakes online polls seriously. They're like a newspaper horoscopes- for entertainment purposes only.
And yes, those of us who view defeating Obama a high priority in 2012 would like to see someone electable get nominated; preferably the most conservative candidate who can win. There's no moral victoryin nominating a candidate who's destined to lose; there's no second place prize for the loser.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 02:43 PM (SY2Kh)

234 Here's the thing, Cain is well within his prerogative to simply not appoint someone he doesn't want. That is not a violation of the Constitution, drew.

Posted by: KG at March 28, 2011 02:43 PM (2k/Dg)

235 IMPURE !

Posted by: Ace is the place with the helpful RINO view at March 28, 2011 02:44 PM (Lnsuu)

236 234
I smell a conspiracy here. Is it a coinicidence that Cain came in second in 2 seperate AOS straw polls, and lo and behold, a lefty hit piece appears?
psst... let me fill you in on a little secret:
Nobodytakes online polls seriously. They're like a newspaper horoscopes- for entertainment purposes only.
And yes, those of us who view defeating Obama a high priority in 2012 would like to see someone electable get nominated; preferably the most conservative candidate who can win. There's no moral victoryin nominating a candidate who's destined to lose; there's no second place prize for the loser.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 02:43 PM (SY2Kh)

problem is we tried the moderate, supposedly "electable" canidate in '08 and he LOST!
we don't know that we can't get a true conservative elected until we try, what better time to make the attempt than now?

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2011 02:49 PM (473WA)

237 The President does not violate the Religious Test by not appointing Muslims to his cabinet. The only qualification for a Presidential appointee is that they be breathing, and so far, we haven't descended into Caligula nominating his horse for Senate just yet.
It is a violation of the Religous Test when you make it clear that only members of certain religions will be considered for public service. That in effect is what he said.
That doesn't imply that he'd be obligated to nominate a Muslim.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 02:49 PM (SY2Kh)

238 Ace, you beclown yourself here.

Question: Can a muslim be true to the Koran and the Constitution at the same time?

Answer: Absolutely NOT. The precepts of the Koran absolutely violate the Constitution, and there is no wiggle room there.

Islam is a violent, and expansionist military and political enemy masquerading as a religion. Hell yes, no practicing, faithful muslim should be appointed to any office with any real responsibility.
Period. They cannot uphold the Constitution and therefore are disqualified from serving.

The reason why this is actually a very good thing that Cain brought this up and I applaud him for it is that we need to confront how the Muslim faithful cannot uphold the Constitution and obey the Koran at the same time. We cannot continue to sweep this problem under the rug.

Posted by: Paul at March 28, 2011 02:50 PM (4YmMT)

239 Some people at this site seem to be taking the straw poll...the AOS straw poll, anyway....somewhat seriously. The comment thread over there looks suspiciously like every other Palin thread on here since last November. Except now, Cain is showing some life, so gotta beat him down, too. I could be off my neds, too. In the end, only chaos.
Do I have delusions that the world is waiting with bated breath for our results? Of course not.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 28, 2011 02:52 PM (YmPwQ)

240 the real fight these kind of threads bring out is between the status quo'ers and the shake-it-up'ers.
i am firmly and proudly in the shake-it-up camp.

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2011 02:55 PM (473WA)

241 shake the whole damn thing to ground if I can...

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2011 02:56 PM (473WA)

242 we don't know that we can't get a true conservative elected until we try, what better time to make the attempt than now?

Almost nobody here was backing McCain, forpercievedelectability reasons or otherwise.
The reason that people like Palin, Cain and Bachmann are unelectable is not that they are "True Conservatives", but becauseas individuals they have fatalweaknessess (inexperience, not viewed as "presidential", foot-in-mouth disease, etc) that make them so.
Being as how we're running against an incumbent with relatively strong (for reasons difficult to comprehend)approval ratings and a massive war chest who's fucking things up on an hourly basis, now is the worst possible time to take a gamble on a longshot.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 02:58 PM (SY2Kh)

243 And yes, those of us who view defeating Obama a high priority in 2012
would like to see someone electable get nominated; preferably the most
conservative candidate who can win. There's no moral victoryin nominating a candidate who's destined to lose; there's no second place prize for the loser.<<<

There's no moral victory in nominating an unprincipled jackass whose chief talent is political survival, either. And I will not hold my nose to vote for one again.

Posted by: Kerry at March 28, 2011 03:02 PM (a/VXa)

244 Cain has a damn good reason for his position - see this:

http://tinyurl.com/4kt26cj

If he's asked about it again, he needs to point to this case.

Posted by: thirteen28 at March 28, 2011 03:05 PM (AbmsP)

245 Oh, I'm a crawl-over-the-glass anti-Obama voter as well. I will pull the lever for McCain again if that's the result that comes up. But now, up until the final primary, is the time to hash this out.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 28, 2011 03:23 PM (YmPwQ)

246 "The reason that people like Palin, Cain and Bachmann are unelectable is not that they are "True Conservatives", but becauseas individuals they have fatalweaknessess (inexperience, not viewed as "presidential", foot-in-mouth disease, etc) that make them so."

funny how this seems tobe the caseover and over againwith any canidate to the right of Lindsey Graham, to read the papers every conservative canidate is hopelessly, fatally flawed and every "moderate" canidate is pristine as the driven snow. (until the general election that is)

we are being played and i'm not having it.

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2011 03:26 PM (473WA)

247 Yeah, well he's not going to be the nominee and this sort of shows why.

Posted by: Y-not at March 28, 2011 03:39 PM (pW2o8)

248 funny how this seems tobe the caseover and over againwith any canidate to the right of Lindsey Graham, to read the papers every conservative canidate is hopelessly, fatally flawed and every "moderate" canidate is pristine as the driven snow. (until the general election that is)
It's not the case "over and over again" except when the candidate in question is in fact fatally flawed (Palin, Bachman, Cain, etc).
Few would deny that we (again) have a weak field with each of the candidates being flawed to some degree, but that's not an excuse for letting Obama slide to an easy victory against an unelectable candidate.
The "GOP elite" doesn't decide who wins general elections- the voters do, and they have certain expectations with regards to who they'll vote for. Like it or not, the most conservative candidate who can win isn't always the most conservative candidate. Blame the "establishment elite" all you like for that, but it's beyond foolish to put a candidate up for election without considering the voters who decide the contest.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 03:43 PM (SY2Kh)

Posted by: To the Right of You at March 28, 2011 03:46 PM (B60j2)

250 don't care if it's Cain, or Palin or anyone else, the name is unimportant, what is important is that we insist on someone who will bring us back to a more constitutionallyconstrained government, I do NOT trust the current GOP leadership to support, let alone produce such a canidate.
no more insiders, that's it, i'm done, i will not support anyone from inside, outsiders only need apply.
I want Romney, Huckaboob, Cantor, Boner, McConnelland all the rest of the insiders on the unemployment line, when Jim DeMint is Senate Leader and Michelle Bachmann is Speaker of the HouseI may, may startcuting the GOP some slack, until then I will fight them.

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2011 03:50 PM (473WA)

251 Some of you kneejerk jackwagons are missing the possible point. Cain is shrewd. He's pretty much ignored by the the MSM precisely because he's the potentially biggest threat to their entire power structure and the assumptions that support it: he's an intelligent, articulate, self-made black man with beliefs that resonate with the voting majority of the country. They know that yet they ignore him.

This statement on Muslims could -- could, mind you -- be his way of saying something so outlandish that it'll (a) force this politely ignored issue into the national discussion before '12 with (b) Herman forced into the spotlight right along with it as a man echoing what the majority already believe. And he'd clean any opponent's clock who argues him on it.

Well played, Herm, well played.

At least I hope so.

Posted by: To the Right of You at March 28, 2011 03:51 PM (B60j2)

252 "The "GOP elite" doesn't decide who wins general elections- the voters do, and they have certain expectations with regards to who they'll vote for. Like it or not, the most conservative candidate who can win isn't always the most conservative candidate. Blame the "establishment elite" all you like for that, but it's beyond foolish to put a candidate up for election without considering the voters who decide the contest.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 03:43 PM (SY2Kh)

no the GOP doesn't decide who wins elections, but they would like to and in that effort they try very hard to limit our choices to the ones they find acceptable.

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2011 03:53 PM (473WA)

253 Veena Malik

I would be on that like a cat on uncovered meat.

Posted by: can't let go of old memes at March 28, 2011 04:07 PM (GTbGH)

254 don't care if it's Cain, or Palin or anyone else, the name is unimportant, what is important is that we insist on someone who will bring us back to a more constitutionallyconstrained government, I do NOT trust the current GOP leadership to support, let alone produce such a canidate.
no more insiders, that's it, i'm done, i will not support anyone from inside, outsiders only need apply.
Somebody needs to explain what constitutes being an "insider".
On what planet is one former governor who's never held national office or a formal leadership position in the GOP an "insider", but a former VP candidate or a multiple-term Congressperson is an "outsider"?
Or is "insider" just code for "someone I don't like"?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 04:09 PM (SY2Kh)

255 The thing that Herman Cain understands, is, unlike Canon law or Talmudic law (which specifically state that Catholics and Jews are to be subservient to the laws of the country in which they reside),Islamic Law states that is it superior to the laws anywhere, and all people are to become subservient to Islam (Islam, after all, means "submission", not "peace"). Thus, it is not compatible with taking an oath of office that states that you will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the US. The objective of Sharia Law is to get rid of all other law, including the Constitution of the United States.

So, Herman is right. If a person can practice Islam without the Sharia bits thrown in, cool. But, then he's not practicing Islam.

Frank Gaffney told me this.

Posted by: MathMom at March 28, 2011 04:17 PM (tj0rx)

256 Shit, he should have followed up with "but first, they will blow me i will let them scrub my toilets"

Fixed

Posted by: OregonMuse at March 28, 2011 04:36 PM (YMDmI)

257 Although it has some religious elements, Islam is principally a project aimed at spreading Arab Bedouin culture and laws across the globe, most of which are contrary to western values and the constitution of the US. So, Herman Cain is right to make this announcement.

You need to catch up; we are not dealing here with a 'religion' in the sense normally understood in the west - where religions have been 'tamed'. These are totalitarian projects of conquest and domination.

Posted by: Brett_McS at March 28, 2011 04:38 PM (q+fa8)

258
Wow. Guess we have to write off the muj vote. What a damn shame.
While you nitwits are being inclusive, these terrorist assholes are cutting off heads.
I wish I could vote for Herman twice.
All you complaining that he said this can suck my sweaty balls.

Posted by: HoundOfDoom at March 28, 2011 04:58 PM (KhioZ)

259 255
don't care if it's Cain, or Palin or anyone else, the name is unimportant, what is important is that we insist on someone who will bring us back to a more constitutionallyconstrained government, I do NOT trust the current GOP leadership to support, let alone produce such a canidate.
no more insiders, that's it, i'm done, i will not support anyone from inside, outsiders only need apply.
Somebody needs to explain what constitutes being an "insider".
On what planet is one former governor who's never held national office or a formal leadership position in the GOP an "insider", but a former VP candidate or a multiple-term Congressperson is an "outsider"?
Or is "insider" just code for "someone I don't like"?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 04:09 PM (SY2Kh)

nope, an insider is anyone who has been in D.C. for more than about 4 years.

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2011 05:01 PM (473WA)

260 actually, them me restate that:
an insider is anyone active in Party politics for more than a few years.

"but, that's just about all of them!"

exactly.

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2011 05:04 PM (473WA)

261 Can't thank you enough for playing Herman. We do have some lovely parting gifts though. Tell him what he's won Johnny.

Posted by: BruceTheRobert at March 28, 2011 05:16 PM (re6ik)

262 Actually, the Constitution doesn't prohibit the President from choosing all Catholics for his cabinet, as an example. What it does is prohibit a legal requirement regarding a religion. In other words, there can't be a law prohibiting Mormons from serving in a position. However, cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the president and he may choose whom he likes based on any criteria he likes. The interpretation that says he cannot is a liberal one, not a strict constructionist or originalist one.

Posted by: gscott at March 28, 2011 05:22 PM (wzYW7)

263 You confuse a malignant political philosophy with a religion. This is no more offensive than "I will not appoint members of the KKK, or Aryan Brotherhood, or Westboro Baptist Church..."


Posted by: MarkD at March 28, 2011 05:23 PM (6CLxP)

264 The only Muslim in Congress is breaking peter King's balls whenever he can to prevent any transparency. I'd vote for Cain because he's honest. I wouldn't appoint any either. He's not breaking the Constitution- neither is Obama and Holder

Posted by: KGB Barry at March 28, 2011 05:32 PM (493Hl)

265 This was put in the constitution because England
required you to be a member of the Church of England to run for
Parliament. Maryland (Mary Land), er founded by Catholics,

Henriette Marie de France - looks like she's been hitting the New World ditch weed in her wiki painting.

The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 was one of the first laws that explicitly dictated religious tolerance, though toleration was limited to Trinitarian Christians.

Posted by: Dave at March 28, 2011 05:44 PM (FQACB)

266 I like Herm Cain all, but why do these low-to-non-existent-profile candidates think they have any shot to win the Presidency, especially with all the weight of the media behind The Won?
Cain: "Vote for me to be the 45th President! In my only other run for political office, I couldn't win the primary for U.S. Senate in Georgia."
Rick Santorum: : "I was a two-term U.S. Senator from a lean-blue state and lost by 18% to a guy with the personality of sawdust. But I know I can defeat Obama for sure!"
Buddy Roemer: "I'm a former Democrat-turned-GOP governor fromtwo decades ago - No, really, I was! - who finished 3rd in my primary for reelection behind the great David Duke. Give me the chance to knock out the first black President!"
John Huntsman: "Vote for me - I was ambassador under Obama! Consider my Mormonism a bonus. And the media willlove me. What could possibly go wrong?"
All these people really need their wives to say "Honey, I love you with all my heart, but even I know you have no chance to be elected President. Let's at least keep our dignity in tact instead of making this ego-driven run for the Presidency."

Posted by: Color Me Surprised at March 28, 2011 05:46 PM (rTwsE)

267 I don't look at this as a religious issue. It is a political issue. Islam is more of a tyrannical political philosophy than a religion. Would the same have been said about Herman Cain if he had said, "I will not appoint any Communists to my Cabinet or to the courts"?

Posted by: SteveL at March 28, 2011 05:48 PM (+ds8F)

268 islam is not a religion.
it is a political conspiracy to dominate the world through violent force.

Posted by: a at March 28, 2011 05:54 PM (w3ZFS)

269 Muslims in the cabinet should be like abortions - legal, safe, and rare.

Posted by: JoePlumber at March 28, 2011 06:01 PM (tXUGJ)

270 actually, them me restate that:
an insider is anyone active in Party politics for more than a few years.
"but, that's just about all of them!"
exactly.
So Bachmann is an "insider", but Palin has another 6 months or so before achieving "insider" status...

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 06:06 PM (SY2Kh)

271 I like the Islamist, Hirabist or Caliphist label. Forcing a separation and a redaction of the Koran will take longer than D5 theocide but we still have time. Constitutionally I'm thinking we have a 1st word of the preamble problem. They ain't We and don't want to be. But my make em eat a ham sammich plan is apparently shot.

Posted by: Dave at March 28, 2011 06:19 PM (FQACB)

272 Are you libtards in waiting trying to capitulate to Hussein HopenChange or KGBarry? If that's all it takes is fear of the thought of intimidation or having to actually stand up and say what you believe in, then sit down and shut up and let the grownups handle this one.

Posted by: RacistforCain at March 28, 2011 06:22 PM (yyJcR)

273 How's that throat slittin' workin out for ya? Black flag indeed, huh!

Posted by: RacistforCain at March 28, 2011 06:23 PM (yyJcR)

274 Hey look!

DrewM is elevating criticism against someone who is not the establishment guy.

Maybe we can recruit Mike Castle to run. I'm sure he won't say anything dumb.

Posted by: Gonzo at March 28, 2011 06:59 PM (nTd0a)

275 Did FDR make a Jap the SecWar during WWII?
Did Truman make a Chinaman the Under Secretary of the Army during the Korean War?
Did Lincoln make a Georgian the AttyGeneral during the Civil War?
Did McKinley make a beaner SecInterior during the Spanish American War?
We are at war with .... get ready ... Muslims!
WTF is wrong withyou people?

Posted by: sig94 at March 28, 2011 07:01 PM (aswfl)

276 I love this guy more every day!

Posted by: Marty at March 28, 2011 07:05 PM (wqDoR)

277 Yeah this guy has huge brass balls to sacrifice himself / to lay it out there and to say What Needs To Be Said.
It is becoming clear that Political forces in our own country are fully capable of turning our Democracy on its head. They will, through the use of political correctness, fear and stupidity follow the same epic failure that Europe has in regards to thinking that Islamic culture can be integrated into western society.

Is there ANY Presidential candidate that will say this here and now? He just set the bar and this will be what I want to hear.

Any douche bag candidate who does not state this is capable of rolling over.

Cain is da Churchill, much respect and all that shit

Posted by: melvin at March 28, 2011 07:25 PM (3OCZw)

278 The folks at IOTW are not impressed with our pithy comments. Cain's comments can cut both ways. Having Trump float the "Who is this guy card" doesn't hurt. Having Cain point out that he doesn't trust Muslims is no worse than Ex NPR hack Juan Williams say he's uncomfortable when he sees Muslims dressed in traditional dress on his plane. I'm not going to rip on the guy for telling the truth. Playing the PC card is going to get us killed. I believe I have seen 2 muslims with the guts to say the radicals are wrong. When I see millions I might change my mind.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at March 28, 2011 07:40 PM (2o7Ys)

279 Go Cain! He is speaking the truth, which appears some of our political types don't understand, because it is such a rare thing in politics. Islam is not just a religion, but a political ideology. The religion and political ideology cannot be separated from each other. If Cain has said, "I Will Not Appoint Any Nazis or Communist To My Cabinet Or The Courts", would some of you object?

Posted by: Minstrel Boy at March 28, 2011 07:44 PM (rwioF)

280 >>dumb stuff

That's the problem with blog posters who value sensitivity over survival. They say dumb stuff.

Posted by: railwriter at March 28, 2011 07:48 PM (daRzV)

281 Drew M....

Islam is not simply a religion by modern 21st century standards....What Cain said does not violate the constitution.

Posted by: Minstrel Boy at March 28, 2011 07:51 PM (rwioF)

282 That said, announcing that you will violate the "No religious tests" clause of the Constitution is simply wrong...

Only a fucking idiot would interpret his statement as such - religious like reverence for a mass murdering pedophile brigand does not a religion make, even if you are moderate in your reverence.

Posted by: Druid at March 28, 2011 08:02 PM (RnujI)

283 Drew's mouth is already soft for the bit.

You'll make a good servant of Allah, kufr.

Posted by: railwriter at March 28, 2011 08:29 PM (daRzV)

284 "make em eat a ham sammich plan"

Dave,

I like your style.

Posted by: Blacksmith8 at March 28, 2011 08:38 PM (Q1qy3)

285 Kudos to Mr. Cain. I wouldn't hire a Muslim either. Whenever I see on one the streets and they are walking towards me, I spit on the ground and then look at them. I am looking for the day a stupid Muslim says something to me. Phuc Muslims.

Posted by: Karen G at March 28, 2011 09:07 PM (WnnhY)

286 So Bachmann is an "insider", but Palin has another 6 months or so before achieving "insider" status...
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 28, 2011 06:06 PM (SY2Kh)

yes

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2011 09:18 PM (yCH89)

287 Honey Badger has spoken.

Posted by: Shoey at March 28, 2011 09:20 PM (yCH89)

288 he clarified on the Cuvato show this afternoon (3/2

Posted by: THE SLOB at March 28, 2011 09:51 PM (LKYVz)

289 Amazing how many here are so brainwashed with the PC nonsense on the religion of pieces that they are willing to throw Cain under the bus for this.

Posted by: gscott at March 28, 2011 11:43 PM (wzYW7)

290 Until forced to do so by the ACLU and some liberal activists idiot judge

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at March 29, 2011 12:59 AM (vA9ld)

291 So when a man has the courage to oppose the disease of islam - which is not a religion at all but a political system whose agenda is world dominion, just like communism or fascism - then all the good right wing folk here start shaking their limp dix and wagging their tongues. No wonder the country is in such a mess with ball-less people like these commenters, willing to jump on anyone who might ruffle the feathers of a hate group. Pathetic.

Posted by: Slobyskya Rotchikokov at March 29, 2011 01:05 AM (6LPG5)

292 This is the problem with politically untested, boutique candidates- DrewM

No, this is what happens when we let large numbers of muslims into our country and let them loose in our society. Eventually, they become part of our society and begin shaping it according to sharia and altering our politics to the point where it affects not only our ability to act abroad, as in the case of say France, where that country faced massive riots if it had engaged in the invasion of Iraq; but they eventually begin to alter our very way of life with their alien and intrusive customs and their outright hostility towards Infidels and Infidel customs and traditions. And everyone is uncomfortable to some degree to this alien and hostile presence, but because our highest ideals are now tolerance and non-discrimination, people feel less able and if fact are less able to speak out against it. It is not the fault of Herman Cain for saying what he said, but rather the fault of our political class for opening the gates to this gates and allowing the enemy a foothold within our walls.

Had to fix that for you, Drew.



Posted by: J. Cashill-Can I get a witness? at March 29, 2011 04:05 AM (7Xm5b)

293
And no, Drew, it's not stupid or a political mis-step for Cain to have made this statement. Regardless of how our media and political class would have us think, muslims and Islam are not popular in this country. Let there be a bold difference between the two parties on this issue-

The Democrats, in favour of large-scale mass immigration regardless of the cultural compatibility of the new immigrants with our people and way of life- including more muslims and consequently a greater presence of Islam

and

The Republicans, for an instant moratorium on immigration from muslim nations and less overall immigration from everywhere with a priority for new arrivals from countries with a populace more able to integrate seamlessly into our society.

Now, given the unpopularity of Islam and the behaviour of muslims amongst us, and even the general disenchantment with mass immigration in general and given that the USA is still overwhelmingly of European and Christian descent, which party would be better positioned to harness popular sentiment in the years ahead?

Posted by: J. Cashill-Can I get a witness? at March 29, 2011 04:21 AM (7Xm5b)

294 Begone, Jack!

Posted by: sartana at March 29, 2011 04:23 AM (7Xm5b)

295 "...you swear to "preserve, protect and defend" all of it. Even Article VI, even as applied to Muslims."

Does anyone really think that the Founders ever intended for our Constitution to apply to muslims?

Posted by: sartana at March 29, 2011 04:33 AM (7Xm5b)

296 The President may make appointments at his discretion. It is the U.S. Senate (in its role of advice consent) that accepts or rejects a nominated individual. It is they who would, or would not, apply a "religious test," not the President.

Posted by: Fred at March 29, 2011 08:12 AM (7dnwI)

297 But Cain is black and black can't be bigots.

Posted by: burt at March 29, 2011 12:27 PM (OzqQM)

298

buy NFL
jersey

NFL custom
jerseys

NFL jerseys
on sale

Posted by: juice at March 30, 2011 01:56 AM (kW4bB)

299

Nike
Air Max cheap

cheap
Nike Air Max

Nike air Max on sale

Posted by: jack at March 30, 2011 01:57 AM (kW4bB)

300 Some bends in your course, likepuma Ferrari Turns four and 6, terminate at or near the crest of the hill. Wholesale Motorcycle Accessory is easy and common to energy wheelie even though exiting these turns, as you are usually for the gasoline and occasionally still leaned more than Motorcycle parts ¨C a combination that usually qualified prospects to some lightened front-end that is ready to shake its head.Here once again the Suzuki
motorcycle fairingscontinues to be obedient, since the electronically controlled steering damper permits only a few fast wiggles in the bars prior to bringing the helm back below your control when you carry on to available the throttle for an excellent generate out of the corner motorcycle accessories.And a quite darn great
generate you¡¯ll get thanks to some decent distribute of mid-range energy that gets noticeably efficient through the 8,000 rpm mark. and also the closer-ratio gears appear to work as advertised, too. The Auto parts engine has enough pulling energy to smoothly tug 3rd gear when you otherwise may believe a gear reduce
is essential to squirt away from particular corners even though aboard a top-end-power-biased supersport.

2K Sports also appears to be scheming with the release of MLB 2K11. Nike Dunk SBThe biggest issue comes with not having released Nike Air Forcethe official rules for the $1 Million Perfect Game Contest.Nike dunk shoes MLB 2K11 is being marketed almost completely around the contest.Nike Air ForceEthically the official rules need to be out beforepuma shoes sales release of the game, otherwise consumers are purchasing a product with rules coming sporets shoesthat could change their perception of the game or even their eligibility to win the contest G30tl03.

Posted by: duo2du at March 30, 2011 04:19 AM (C0COO)

301 This is NOT about religion. Islam treats women, gays & others ILLEGALLY under US Constitution & US law. Islam allows lying to Infidels; so much for gov't workers' oath to uphold US Constitution & laws. No man can serve two masters. President's oath to defend our National Security means he can't let those folks anywhere near his administration or our courts. Period. Too bad not too many voters can read. Or think.

Posted by: Ed at March 30, 2011 06:32 PM (hDC29)

302 Can someone add the little graphic spam buster to this site? And maybe delete the off-topic ads? Thx, Ed

Posted by: Ed at March 30, 2011 06:34 PM (hDC29)

303 I was reading something else about this on another blog. Interesting. Your position on it is diametrically contradicted to what I read earlier. I am still contemplating over the opposite points of view, but I'm tipped heavily toward yours. And no matter, that's what is so great about modernized democracy and the marketplace of thoughts on-line.

Posted by: Sailor Suits at April 04, 2011 02:29 AM (iONAR)

304 Moon likeRobs(friend of theshow since Louboutin Shoes 2004) isjust a nicewatch that desirablefor formal occasionseven though the37mm lookskind of silly on my 75rist Even though JaegerLeCoultreseemsto have christian louboutin entered a different routeto get close red christian band official site christian louboutin to itsclientssince red pumps a while with big bulky timepiecesor with hightech materials thisMaster Moon watch model with a diameter of 37mm and a height of just 10mm isa real classic that at least will look great on your wrist in a few decadesfrom now Do theCompressor watchescan do it asthesame I think notFor around 3000 Euro you should beableto find a beautiful Master Moon (young occasion) in good condition finished with box and papers Makesurethealligator

Posted by: christian at April 07, 2011 03:21 AM (kTC4E)

305 iPhone to Computer Transferyou cannot only Transfer iPhone to Computer, also Convert Audio/Video files to iPhone compatible formats. No matter you Transfer iPhone to Computer or Convert Audio/Video files to iPhone, our iPhone to Computer will always keep the original quality for you.

Posted by: jj at May 04, 2011 09:56 PM (Gp2dj)

306 You'll find a wide variety of pandora australia at an online pandora jewellery retailer, and often at highly discounted prices. pandora charms online can usually offer their pandora jewelry for less because they don't have the store pandora online overhead expenses that a brick-and-mortar pandora sale store would have. Also, you can browse through hundreds of cheap pandora pieces right from the comfort of your own home.Some of the pandora bracelets gift items you might find online include diamond pandora beads for an engagement ring, a pearl necklace, a necklace with colorful stones, gold earrings, gold pandora bracelets charms, cubic zirconia, and more. Shop online today at a fine pandora charms australia website to find that perfect timeless treasure for pandora charms bracelets
your loved one!I am sure not every one is aware of this, but whenever a
girl or a woman wears bracelet it brings out their feminine side.Hair
ornaments, this kind of jewelry may vary in forms and styles.

Posted by: pandora australia at May 11, 2011 03:05 AM (aHKeY)

307 He's just stating the truth. It shocks some of you because you're not used to hearing it. Let's see, "right-wing Christian bigot." Now that's a great response from someone we now know has nothing to contribute. You know, when you have no argument, criticize their race, religion, and/or politics. Brilliant (NOT).

Posted by: Dee at May 11, 2011 11:42 AM (O06SA)

308 Cheap Shoes OnlineCheap Shoes SaleCheap Nike ShoesCheap Adidas ShoesCheap Puma ShoesCheap Super Star ShoesCheap Air Jordan Shoes

Posted by: yearshoes at July 05, 2011 08:02 AM (60aw0)






Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0623 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0274 seconds, 317 records returned.
Page size 181 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat