Sarah Montague interviewed Ta-Nehisi Coates on Today (08:50) concerning a letter he wrote to his son preparing him for life in ‘racist’ America, a land in which the Blacks are still oppressed. Never mind having a black President and all that. A rare form of oppression one might think. The letter came out in July and Coates has a long history of such racist whimpering. You may suspect that the letter to his son was nothing more than a device to catch the media’s attention in a way that a race baiter talking up the usual anti-white rhetoric wouldn’t…wrap it up in a sentimental coating and it becomes a heartfelt plea, a meaningful spotlight on a cruel and racist America.
Montague played along and offered up Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown as evidence of America’s white racism…never mind Martin was shot as he tried to smash the head of an Hispanic American into the ground and Brown was a thug and thief who attacked a police officer, tried to take his gun, punched him in the face and charged at him when told to stop….that’s why he was shot, not because he was black, because he was a dangerous, dumb-ass thug.
Then we get to the real meat of the interview, one suspects what Montague really wanted to address all along….Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson stating that a Muslim should not be President of the USA.
Coates denounced him as a bigot. Montague said nothing to contradict that view. In fact she didn’t put into context what Carson said and why he said it thus deliberately leaving it open to interpretation that he was a bigot….an ‘Islamophobe’.
So now we know…America is racist, black men get gunned down by police for absolutely no reason whatsoever and blacks are put in jail just for the crime of being black [If you believe frothing mouthed liberal rants such as this where mass murderers and rapists are being treated ‘unfairly’ by racist America….”The imagery haunts, and the stench of slavery and racial oppression lingers through the 13 minutes of footage.’] and Republicans are Islamophobes.
Jon Sopel joins in the condemnation of Carson in this blatant piece of opinionated tripe he wrote for the BBC...Carson leaps over the line with his Islam comment. This is not reporting but a one-sided piece of invective against Carson giving him no say to defend himself and which libels and labels him as a bigot and racist.
First though we have the usual BBC anti-Trump rhetoric which Sopel uses as a warm-up for his attack on Carson….
The slight trip across the line came from the aforementioned Mr Trump who failed to correct a questioner who alleged that Obama wasn’t American, wasn’t a Christian – but was a Muslim. Mr Trump, under fire, countered that it wasn’t up to him – he had no moral responsibility to stand up for the president. OK, but you can correct a downright lie. No?
That of course is purely subjective and not in the realm of a BBC ‘journalist’ to demand…Sopel calls the comment a ‘lie’ but what if it is a truly held belief or just a mistake? To label it a ‘lie’ is a contrived way to put the person who made the comment in a bad light and Trump after. Trump had no obligation to ‘correct’ him at all, and Obama was born a Muslim, his father was Muslim, therefore he may well be Muslim technically…in fact Muslims will tell you everyone is ‘Muslim’…you just don’t accept it…that is why they, especially the fundamentalists, insist on calling converts ‘reverts’…they revert back to their ‘natural’ religion….Jesus was a Muslim, as was Moses and Abraham..oy vey!
Then Sopel gets to Carson and mounts his high-horse…..here sententiously, pompously, laying it out for us…
If you haven’t heard it I am going to reprint here the full exchange with Chuck Todd the interviewer, just so you can see that the comments aren’t being taken out of context.
TODD: Should a president’s faith matter? Should it matter to voters?
CARSON: I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America. And of course, if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem.
TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?
CARSON: No, I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.
Sopel tries to set it up to suggest the context proves Carson is a bigot…hmmm…well reading it doesn’t seem to support that prejudiced and bigoted conclusion from Sopel who exhibits all the usual signs of being the BBC’s useful idiot in America ala Mark Mardell….it can’t be long before ISIL murders a group of people in America and Sopel comes up with the line that ‘This is a senseless tragedy….nothing to do with Islam’.
Reading what Carson said seems more to support the idea that he said this because his comments were based upon what the religion teaches, events from around the world such as in the war zone of the Middle East and events in Muslim majority countries in which Islam rules supreme guided by the word of God not man.
Is Islam compatible with western, democratic, secular, liberal societies that value free speech, liberty, tolerance and humanity? Most people would probably say not. I know of no-one who thinks Islam is a good and humane religion…the evidence is overwhelming that it seems to promote violence, intolerance and apartheid in societies around the world in a way that no other religion even comes close to…only in Islam does a holy book incite its followers to kill the unbelievers, to kill them until Islam rules supreme…nowhere in the Bible will you find Jesus telling followers of Christ to kill the unbelievers….
Quran (8:39) – “Make war on them until idolatory shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.’
Sopel emotes on behalf of Muslims in America…
How is it going to feel to have a serious political figure, someone who aspires to lead this nation, essentially saying being Muslim is un-American?
These people who day in, day out serve their communities, support their families, enrich the lives of fellow citizens and make America the successful melting pot that it is. Kids who recite the pledge of allegiance in the morning at their schools and go to their mosque or church or synagogue in the evening at the weekend? Isn’t that what America is all about? Which bit of “one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” doesn’t Dr Carson get?
He then says this:
Indeed, how different are Dr Carson’s comments from previous generations of bigots, racists and apologists who would say there could never be an African-American as president, or Catholic, or any other minority you could single out.
So Carson is a racist, a bigot, an apologist for racists and bigots……but his comment was based not upon a physical characteristic but upon an ideology, one that clearly states what its tenets are….for everyone to read….and you can see those tenets being put into action around the world…and come to the conclusion that Carson did….are you a racist and a bigot if you oppose Communism or Fascism? No, because they are ideologies not a skin colour. Sopel doesn’t seem able to tell the difference.
Sopel quotes from the Constitution...
Article 6 is just about as explicit a statement as you’re ever going to find: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
That though isn’t the issue…the issue is that it is Islam doesn’t recognise the ‘sovereignty of man’ and will not recognise the very same US Constitution that Sopel quotes from……which makes this command from the Constitution somewhat incompatible with a Muslim being President…
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
As does this…..
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
How can a Muslim defend the Constitution when his religious principles oppose that very notion, that concept of man’s sovereignty not God’s, the very heart of the US Constitution? Federal Law is the supreme law of the land, Sharia law therefore would be incompatible, it cannot also reign supreme.
Sopel’s failure to explain Muslim beliefs about politics and Sharia law whilst quick to quote Article 6 shows how biased his ‘reporting’ is on this issue. Article 6 may not actually mean what he takes it to meant…that anyone, of any religion can be in public office….it is apparently taken as meaning no-one can be made to adopt a religion or belief…a slight but significant difference in meaning….it may not mean anyone is free to be President regardless of their ideology.
John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, in his Presidential campaign tackled a similar question….and his conclusions were…
If the time should ever come – and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible – when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any other conscientious public servant would do likewise.
It is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me—but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none—who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him—and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
I don’t believe any Muslim could make the same statements about the separation of religion and state, the guarantee of religious freedom, a state where religious law plays no part, where no faith school gets public funding and that he should have to resign if his faith and conscience should act against the national interest.
Sopel ends with this condescending and pompously arrogant sneer…
I was in California for the second Republican debate last week, and to be honest I thought Dr Ben Carson was sailing in a bit of an empty vessel. I couldn’t remember anything noteworthy that he had said. Well, we now see that there is something in that vessel, aside from him. And it is not very pleasant. It will be interesting to watch how much pressure there’ll be for him to walk the plank, or chart a very different course.
So Carson is also ‘not very pleasant’ and should be made to resign or be forced to change his views.
All in all a typically prejudiced, ill-informed and bigoted piece from the BBC that sets out to label anyone who criticies Islam as a racist and a fascist, someone whose views are ‘unacceptable’ and therefore can be maligned and slandered by the BBC…..and either silenced or forced out of their job.
Regardless of whether a Muslim could actually be the President and ‘protect and defend the Constitution’ Sopel has produced an incredibly biased piece aimed at Carson. Sopel and his crew are the closest we have to the medieval thought-police of the Inquisition, the Gestapo in the 30’s or the KGB….this is a media show trial and just as in any show trial the defendant has no right of reply and his guilt is pre-ordained. Carson was hung out to dry by Sopel for the crime of being truthful.
Top 12 Richest African Americans of 2015
I guess these victims are crying oppression on the way to the bank.
They are all “celebrities”, sports, TV, music (allegedly), etc.
Not one scientist, engineer or other significant thinker.
Mr Watson, who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for uncovering the double helix structure of DNA, sparked an outcry in 2007 when he suggested that people of African descent were inherently less intelligent than white people.
He should have been given another Nobel Prize for speaking the truth not silenced by the PC brigade.
The long campaign by the BBC to propagate lies about the US is aimed at creating widespread discord and distrust between the UK and America. By spreading deliberate falsehoods about American society – slanderous tales of widespread violence, oppression, racism and any other accusation that befouls the reputation of the US – the BBC is serving two ends. It encourages disdain and even hatred of the US within the UK, and gives the upper hand to those of our fellow citizens who have ulterior motives in blackening the reputation of our closest and dearest ally in the world. At the same time, in the US we are ourselves are wilfully misrepresented by the BBC as a carping, hostile and downright alien population who have turned our back on liberty, and who therefore are no longer worthy of the close and trusting relationship we have previously enjoyed.
We should not forget that, at the same time the BBC is busy filling us with lies about our closest friends, it will be filling them with lies about us.
The aim is, I think, to drive such a wedge between our two nations that Britain becomes irreversibly isolated and vulnerable – isolated from much of its own tradition of freedom, its culture of independence and its adherence to a model of national sovereignty, and terribly, imminently, vulnerable to national liquidation and municipalisation within a socialist EU.
It is yet another indication of the direction of governance of the BBC, both directly from the EU and indirectly from its devolved agencies within our own legislature and bureaucracies. Properly understood, it shows just how far the Corporation has escaped from the proper control of those it was intended to serve, just what kind of ‘rogue elephant’ it has become.
This Carson business started at just after 6am, so Sopel and Montague had two goes at him. What enraged me about the affair was not that Sopel quoted the constitution to dismiss Carson, but that, as a journalist, he should have asked the question ‘why did he say that?’ And in answering, he would have had to reveal that Islam is not a religion, it is an ideology which brooks no religious or political dissent whatever, and therefore makes any, but any, Muslim totally unfit for that high office.
To me the whole bit about Article 6 was a non sequitur. Just because Article 6 allows someone to be President does not mean that person is suited to be President. I don’t think Carson said a Muslim was not entitled to be President, but that he would not advocate a Muslim being President. These are entirely different arguments, but either Sopel is too dim to appreciate that or, more likely, he’s shit-stirring.
Excellent comments and irrefutable in a rational world. Sopel shows what is the unnacceptable face of liberal bigotry.
Carson is correct. The Constitution of the United States is at variance with Sharia law and any interpretation of it. Why there is any need to argue against this is beyond me.
Maybe we could contact the shade of Jefferson and ask his opinion.
The BBC is not only anti the values of the United States it is also anti our Western values . What exactly are it’s values are hard to ascertain. Emotion and a refusal to make any value judgements about people and political/ethical systems seems about it.
The BBC of today is but one step away from the controlled media of the old USSR. Although in it’s case it is a self created media not a state imposed one.
It is now the enemy of liberty and of free men everywhere.
It is interesting to look at Carson’s Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/realbencarson/posts/532081783624959?fref=nf .
“The first issue I want to deal with tonight is the stories today about my comments yesterday when I was asked if I would support a hypothetical Muslim candidate for President. I responded “I would not advocate for that” and I went on to say that many parts of Sharia Law are not compatible with the Constitution. I was immediately attacked by some of my Republican peers and nearly every Democrat alive. Know this, I meant exactly what I said. I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law.
Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing. Under Islamic Law, homosexuals – men and women alike – must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed.
I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced…I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.
…I also can’t advocate supporting Hillary Clinton either by the way.
There were many questions about this and I wanted everyone to know exactly where I stand.”
Some of the replies are illuminating. I liked the one where a teacher describes putting the full interview in front of her junior and senior students without comment (read bias from the media).
“Cindy Morrow Alderman I am a history teacher in a small private school. I showed the entire Meet the Press interview to my Juniors and Seniors. I just told them to listen carefully and then we would discuss the interview. That was my only prompt, other than mentioning that you are being slammed for the interview. I didn’t tell them why. Every student, afterwards, was outdone that you would be slammed at all. When I asked why they thought you are being they answered that it was probably over the Muslim statement. And everyone agreed that you are right. My word! If a bunch of high schoolers get it, why can’t so-called adults.”
Ben Carson isn’t a bigot – he is absolutely right. A Muslim should not be president of the United States. If Islam were merely a religion, then Dr. Carson would indeed be misguided, but Islam is so much more. Islam is everything to the Muslim.
Islam is a way of life – a political and judicial system all its own, encompassing every aspect of the Muslim’s life. It orders his activities based on the strictures of Islamic law – modeled on the actions and beliefs of the perfect man of Islam, Mohammed, not some corrupt social construct of the kafir (infidels).
Of course, in America, that “corrupt social construct” is the Constitution, and we recognize it as the supreme law of the land. However, a Muslim cannot do so without rebelling against his/her own faith. Islam is indeed wholly incompatible with the governance of a constitutional republic.
This reality will not stop the left (BBC) from losing their collective (and collectivist!) minds over the whole subject.
I am glad that Sopel included an actual transcript of the words said. It is a shame that Sopel then switched his brain off and obviously did not understand on listening to the interview and in writing his piece for the BBC web-site and seeing Carson’s words in print, what Carson meant. “CARSON: No, I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” Please note: “I would not advocate that”
Would the Republican Party nominate a Muslim? It might but, with my knowledge of American politics – which ought to be far exceeded by that of John Sopel – I think it is highly unlikely. Would Carson have to nominate that person? No, he would not. Would he have to vote for them? He would not have to. He could abstain, or even vote for the Democrat or any independents in the race. From his words, any sane person would assume that Carson as an American Republican would not advocate putting up a Muslim for the Republican Party’s candidature for reasons that are not included in the Todd:Carson interview (or Sopel’s extract) but are, I would have thought, obvious. It is highly unlikely that Republican voters would vote for such a candidate. It would take a dire Democrat candidate and independents to make Republicans with the choice of only their nominated Muslim to him or her into the White House. I am sure that some regular Republican voters were attracted by Obama in 2008 and crossed over with their vote. Of the two main Parties, I think Republicans are probably the most stubbornly loyal.
Would the Democrats nominate a Muslim candidate? Again, I think it unlikely. Some key swing States in US Presidential Election, I understand have high Catholic populations that tend to vote Democrat. Usually but not always. (It was this group that did not trust Kerry when he ran against George W. Bush and either stayed home or “chose the devil they knew over the one they did not.”) US demographics are swinging toward the Hispanic/Latin-American group. Any rational human being would think there would be an obvious tendency for them to be Catholic-Christian oriented and therefore against any Democrat of Muslim faith who seeks nomination for the Party. If one were to be nominated, I would have thought there would be no guarantee of getting out those Democrats who value a candidate who is sympathetic to their beliefs. I wonder if Jon Sopel has noticed anything – as an indicator of loyalties – going on at the present time out there and of prime interest to the Catholic population within the US?
Talk about a BBC journalist not doing a very good job! This must be prime example.
When I read the transcript of the Todd:Carson interview, having only heard the headline news on radio, I took Carson’s meaning to be nothing like what John Sopel and the BBC were trying to make it out to be.
Carson was clear: whether for his Party or not, he would not advocate a Muslim President of the USA.
Others, on this Thread, and elsewhere have made the point that Islamic ideology is profoundly anti-democratic. While they have a point, technically & strictly it is a (sort of) theocracy. Yes, there are Islamic countries with elections. Iran would be a good example. We also know that in the recent past it has also had an Islamic dictatorship. There are countries who have left Islamic dictatorships in the modern era and adopted democracy but could swing back into an Islamic-oriented dictatorship via democracy. Turkey being the prime example of that.
There is no doubt, that the American Constitutional requirement for their form of democracy and its ongoing maintenance, would be at risk from a Muslim President in the White House who had control over the legislature. But there’s the rub: could such a President, in the exceptional circumstance of gaining a nomination and being elected as outlined above, gain control over both Houses AND other institutions such as the military and command their loyalty? I doubt that. Most thoughtful Americans, I guess, would doubt that. Ben Carson also expressly doubts that. TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution? CARSON: No, I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that. Let alone the practicality of getting a Muslim elected to the White House, Carson cannot see one assuming his or her Constitutional powers. Taking the Oath of Office might be tricky from the outset.
I would suggest only Jon Sopel and American TV hosts (desperate for something to talk about during the lengthy US Presidential election process?) think that it might happen some day. He has insulted Ben Carson unnecessarily. I think he has completely misunderstood what Ben Carson said. He has produced a piece that is incompetent at best and incompetent and bigoted at worst.
Jon Sopel is the one who is guilty here, not Ben Carson.
As he hails from Baltimore I can see why Ta-Nehisi Coates would be writing a letter of concern to his son. After all Baltimore has one of the highest murder rates in the US, a staggering 211 homicides in 2014 with a population about the size of Leeds. 90% of the victims were black and over 90% of the perpetrators were black.
This is in a city where 63% of its population is black. The Mayor is black, the Police Chief is black, the city council president is black, the council itself is 2/3rds black, 48% of the police force is black, the Police Commissioner is black. Racism clearly in action.
The last white mayor they had, Martin O’Malley, dedicated his time in office to trying to stop blacks murdering each other. More racism?
Perhaps some blacks are troubled with the number of black on black murders but I wonder if the BBC would publish any of their letters of concern?
http://data.baltimoresun.com/bing-maps/homicides/index.php?show_results=UPDATE+MAP&range=2014&district=all&zipcode=All&cause=all&age=all&gender=all&race=all&article=all
This reveals the extent of BBC bias. A massive news organization with financial backing, but you will never see evidence of research, other than selected snippets to illustrate the political standpoint of the BBC. You could run an organization like this with just a handful of reporters working in a small room, or bed sit, like most lefty political groups.
Yes you are right.
Within the BBC there is a lack of intellectual curiosity in any aspect of life that doesn’t fit into a Guardian view of the world. In fact at times there appears to be a downright hostility to any thoughts that challenge the Soft Left’s view of the world.
It amounts to political subterfuge.
Already 243 Baltimore homicides in 2015.
They sure do work hard at their crime.
Mark Steyn nails the liberal media in the US regarding their attitude to the ‘shocking’ question Trump was asked recently about the president and Muslims.
http://www.steynonline.com/7188/get-lost-you-palace-guard-creep
He’ll be appearing in Copenhagen soon along with other brave souls on the 10th anniversary of the Mohamed cartoons being published, which shamefully were censored at the time by our national press and of course the odious and cowardly BBC. Only a few picked up the mantle of free speech, and one of those was, of course, Charlie Hebdo, something conveniently forgotten by the likes of Sopel, who seems to regard disdain for an aggressive and fascistic religion as worse than murderous endeavours of its true adherents.