Carson is Partially Right, Though What He Probably Meant to Say Was that Sharia Law is Incompatible With the U.S. Constitution

Dr. Ben Carson created a furor when he said that Islam was not compatible with the U.S. Constitution.  I believe what he meant was that Sharia law is incompatible with Constitutional law.

All you have to do is look at the Preamble to the Constitution and then look at the plight of women already living under Sharia law, especially the type embraced by ISIS, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia (with their morality police), and other Islamic countries whose women are treated horribly.

And it doesn’t matter which flavor of Sharia law we’re talking about, whether it’s Shiite or Sunni.  It’s equally awful to women.

Liberty for all people is not possible under Sharia.  That makes it totally incompatible with life under the United States Constitution, which is common sense.  Wish Carson hadn’t stumbled over this issue.   

While the Constitution does not permit the specific banning of Sharia law, it does invalidate any laws that come into conflict with the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the land.  That includes 12th century barbarism that our enemies want to impose on us.

I hope the courts remember that.

Some European Countries Now Under A Refugee Tsunami Once Criticized U.S. Moves on Illegal Immigration: Now They’re Doing What They Once Criticized to Deal With Their Own Problems

The wheel turns, does it not?

I’ve been watching the unfolding European drama on illegal immigration with great interest, and can’t help but think about those European nations that once harshly criticized U.S. moves to prevent what’s now enveloped Europe. 

U.S. immigration policies of the past have been dubbed “racist” and “fascist” by European governments, and over at the U.N.,  in particular the 2010 Arizona anti-alien laws which placed tough restrictions on illegal immigrants entering Arizona and finding work there.

Now some of these same European countries are following similar tracks to control the tidal wave of illegal immigration to their nations, and it’s making American liberals very uncomfortable.   European nations are rushing troops and police to their borders and shutting down their transportation systems to prevent movement of people.

That being said, there’s no easy answer to today’s problems and Europe is getting hit with a heavy dose of reality.   It may tear the EU apart far faster than anything else.

The West needs to do a far better job with their collaborative foreign policies, so that there’s less of an incentive for people to leave their home countries.  Why leave when one can earn a living and live in relative safety with family and friends in familiar surroundings?  That should be the Western goal, if they don’t want to absorb millions of new people.

Come Now, CNN: “Anchor Babies” is a Racist Term According to Liberals and Their Pro-Immigration Supporters, So Why Are You Allowing One of Your Web Site Commentators to Use the Term to Describe Conservatives?

Nice going, CNN.

One of their commentators dared to use the “anchor baby” label to describe conservatives in a new op-ed piece, which flies in the face of the official liberal party line against using the term in the ongoing immigration debate.

Is it a racist term, or is it not, CNN?  And if it is, someone owes everybody an apology.  If it’s not, they should still apologize for offending the feel-good crowd whose feelings are undoubtedly hurt by those words even appearing on a liberal news outlet’s web site.

Perhaps they should hold a funeral for this term too.  After all, it worked so well when they held a funeral for the “n” word in Detroit and elsewhere and symbolically buried the (real) racist term. 

So much for CNN’s pretense of impartiality.  Again.

Aren’t there more pressing stories to cover, instead of a news outlet making itself part of the news?