They demanded he drop out of the race. They’re a 501c3 organization, and such organizations are not supposed to intervene in campaigns either on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate. Clearly the gang of thugs at Hamas-linked CAIR, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, is in violation of the law here, but it is almost certain that Obama’s politicized Justice Department will take no action.
“Carson: Pro-Islam nonprofit broke the law with political attack,” by Bradford Richardson, The Hill, October 3, 2015:
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson says a nonprofit Islamic advocacy group broke the law by calling for him to drop out of the presidential race.
“The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) held a public press conference demanding that I withdraw from the presidential race,” Carson said in an email to supporters Saturday.
“Here’s the catch – CAIR is a tax-exempt nonprofit, and the IRS rules explicitly prohibit such groups from intervening in political campaigns on behalf of – or in opposition to – a candidate,” the email continues.
Carson said he is demanding the IRS take action against the group and started an online petition to remove CAIR’s tax-exempt status.
A spokesman for CAIR called for Carson to drop out of the presidential race after the GOP candidate said a Muslim should not be elected president.
CAIR is a 501(c)(3) group with tax-exempt status, according to the group’s website.
The group previously lost its tax-exempt status in 2011 for not filing tax returns for three years in a row, but regained it the next year.
“We find it interesting that Dr. Carson seeks to use a federal government agency to silence his critics and wonder if that tactic would be used to suppress First Amendment freedoms should he become president,” CAIR said in response to Carson.
“CAIR is not in violation of any IRS regulation in that we did not ‘participate in’ or ‘intervene in’ any political campaign. We, as mandated by our mission as a civil rights organization, merely expressed the opinion of our community that a candidate whose views violate Article VI of the Constitution is unfit for public office.”…

Dan says
Everyone complains that Dr. Carson is too soft spoken; not aggressive enough.
I think he’s just one of those guys who keeps his mouth shut until he’s 100% gotcha nailed to the wall by the short hairs.
Dan says
Great way to make sure your opponents never see it coming
jihad3tracker says
CARSON’S CANDIDATE WEBSITE PROBABLY STILL HAS A “TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK” PAGE.
SHOW YOUR APPRECIATION FOR THIS COURAGEOUS TRUTH TELLER BY WRITING A MESSAGE OF SUPPORT.
SPECIFICALLY MENTION THIS LATEST NAILING OF CAIR AND ITS 501 (C) (3) VIOLATION.
dumbledoresarmy says
Yes. Exactly.
I’m with other posters here: what matters about this guy, and *all* that matters, is that he seems to have more clue about Islam than a great many other politicians currently on offer in the West.
he seems to be capable of standing up to Mohammedan bullying.
Everybody, please, every American jihadwatcher here: get behind this man and PUSH. Try your best to find out what he *knows* about Islam, about the jihad, about the sharia; if you identify gaps in his knowledge, try to fill them – *briefly* and clearly, pointing him in the direction of reliable sources of information. Point him to Spencer, to Mark Durie, to Sam Solomon, to the Barnabas Fund (they do an *excellent* booklet explaining about sharia and how it violates universal human rights – go to their website, buy the booklet – dirt cheap but very nicely presented – and post it to him!). Point him to Raymond Ibrahim, and Ibrahim’s articles about Islamic deception.
Speaking as an Aussie, citizen of a country that for a good many decades has been allied with the USA, I have felt more and more unsafe the longer that Obama the Islamophile has remained in office.
The way Carson is looking, and if he keeps it up, I have to say if *he* were at the helm of the good ship USA, I’d feel a whole lot safer all of a sudden.
cs says
This guy ROCKS!!!!!!
gravenimage says
Dan wrote:
Everyone complains that Dr. Carson is too soft spoken; not aggressive enough..
…………………………………..
I’d much rather have something of substance spoken in a measured manner than listen to some rude waffling blowhard who just sounds tough.
Perhaps that’s why I’m so impressed with Robert Spencer…
As for Dr. Carson’s views on evolution that several posters have mentioned, I agree with Wellington here. I am rather dismayed with this blind spot from this obviously intelligent and otherwise scientifically sophisticated man (he is a pioneering surgeon).
There are other issues I disagree with him on, as well. I’m sure this is true of many others here.
But I have never agreed with *any* political candidate on all points–and why would I? I believe democracy can easily survive a Biblical literalist in the White House–but I *don’t* believe we can survive being overrun with ravening Muslims and the creeping imposition of Shari’ah law.
Right now, it’s not as though we have a surfeit of brave, forthright, Anti-JIhadist candidates–that we have one is incredibly heartening, whatever his views on evolution might be.
خَليفة says
A dilemma
1-An imaginary universe in which there is no God.
2-A planet much like Earth
3-75% of people there believe there is a God like the Christian God
4-25% of people there KNOW there is no God
5-no God means there is no morality (lying / murder / slavery is neither right nor wrong except as stated by man’s laws which can change over time) No God also means that evolution is true – an unintended consequence of that is that certain races are more evolved than others ( the same would be true here on Earth, think about it )
The dilemma is this:
There is an election for the leader and there are two people running.
Candidate A knows there is no God, but states that he believes to get votes.
Candidate B, because he falsely believes there is a God, strives for a higher purpose, believes he should not lie nor deceive, and that he will have to answer to God for his wrong doings ( as described by his religion )
KNOWING ALL this, you get transported to this planet – who do you vote for?
gravenimage says
خَليفة wrote:
A dilemma
5-no God means there is no morality (lying / murder / slavery is neither right nor wrong except as stated by man’s laws which can change over time) No God also means that evolution is true – an unintended consequence of that is that certain races are more evolved than others ( the same would be true here on Earth, think about it )
……………………………….
With respect, خَليفة, I disagree on a couple of points.
Firstly, the idea that all Atheists lack morality is simply not the case–there are many extremely ethical Atheists and Agnostics, including many here on JIhad Watch.
Then, it is not correct that all of those who believe in evolution are Atheists–in fact, in the US and the rest of the West a majority of Christians believe in evolution, and do not believe it conflicts with their faith at all.
Here’s one good article on the subject:
http://www.bethinking.org/does-evolution-disprove-creation/is-it-possible-to-be-a-christian-and-believe-in-evolution
And then, the idea that some races are more “evolved” than others is not a scientific evolutionary concept–we are all the same species. Any differences are *cultural and ideological*, not evolutionary.
Islam is more violent and primitive than any non-Muslim faith or creed–but this is because Islam is a sick ideology, not because Muslims are biologically less evolved. Muslim apostates are much more civilized, and “reverts” of whatever race become much more morally primitive when they embrace Islam.
More:
The dilemma is this:
There is an election for the leader and there are two people running.
Candidate A knows there is no God, but states that he believes to get votes.
Candidate B, because he falsely believes there is a God, strives for a higher purpose, believes he should not lie nor deceive, and that he will have to answer to God for his wrong doings ( as described by his religion )
KNOWING ALL this, you get transported to this planet – who do you vote for?
……………………………….
Without having any more information, I would vote for the honest candidate (assuming I knew the other candidate was lying).
It is true that many religious people *do* strive for a higher purpose–but so do many people who are not specifically religious.
And religion is not an unalloyed good–it depends *what you believe in*. If the candidate above was *Muslim*, and his “higher purpose” involved imposing brutal Sharia’ah, then I would vote for his opponent–even though he is a cynic in lying about his faith.
Most Christians *are* inspired by their faith to live morally better lives–and this would be true, as you imply, whether Christianity is objectively factual or not.
Rev g says
False conundrum. 25% of the people may think there is no god, but it is impossible for them to know it absolutely.
Lia Wissing says
Dr Carson, you are so very right! Perhaps you can get these CAIR-people banned totally? For some or other reason they think their position is secure beyond questioning.
tess says
Yes I do to. He is very intelligent.
And diplomatic.
kikorikid says
Carson is correct but does not go far enough.
HAMAS is the “Armed faction” of the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama’s Buddies.
CAIR was one(1) of over three hundred(300) organizations and individuals
listed as “Unindicted Co-Conspirators” in the “Holy-Land Foundation Trial,
Dallas, 07-08. Every entity on this list should be given nothing.
Wellington says
CAIR is lying again, distorting things again, by asserting that Dr. Ben Carson “seeks to use a federal agency to silence his critics and wonder if that tactic would be used to suppress First Amendment freedoms should he become President.”
First of all, Carson has done or said nothing to silence CAIR, nor does he want them silenced. CAIR still has the right under the Constitution to state what it wants. All Carson has done is point out that CAIR is in violation of federal law and thus should lose its tax-exempt status. CAIR would still though, after losing its tax-exempt status, which it most assuredly deserves to lose, be able to state what it wants per protection of the First Amendment. Not surprising in the least that CAIR would quite deceptively muddle the issue of tax-exempt status with liberty. It’s disgusting but very “CAIR-like.”
Second, how rich it is that a Muslim organization like CAIR would bring up the First Amendment to defend itself since Islam would destroy the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment if only given the chance. Talk about rank hypocrisy. But then hypocrisy from Islam, double standards, self-pity and just plain old deception too are inherent characteristics of the Islamic faith, as CAIR is here proving with crystal clarity.
There is so much to detest about Islam——-its incompatibility with freedom, its incompatibility with equality under the law, its proclivity towards violence when it does not get its way, its capacity for deception, its control-freak nature, its relegating women to second-class status (even in the afterlife), its overall desultory mindset which disallows thinking outside the box, its appropriation of others’ achievements, its disgusting psychopathic, pedophiliac and narcissistic founder, et al. But right up there at the top of things to detest about Islam is how it is only too ready to use freedom pioneered by non-Muslims to eventually destroy that very freedom, as evidenced in this example with Dr. Carson.
God, I detest Islam. I would argue that no one who cherishes liberty, and who comprehends at what cost liberty is attained and preserved, can do anything but detest Islam. Here I rest my case on this occasion, on this thread, against the most abominable, nefarious, repulsive religion of all time.
EYESOPEN says
Love the way you put that Wellington. All very true. Unfortunately, only heard by we here in the choir.
Wellington says
Well, EYESOPEN, we can at least hope that the choir is getting larger by the year. Actually, I think it is.
Hope you are doing well. Ah, the fight to preserve the best of what man has produced never ends, does it? Islam’s continued existence proves this I believe.
rev g says
And of course, Carson was not violating Article VI, he was not calling for a religious test. He was stating his opinion, nothing more.
PRCS says
That is correct.
To validate your comment (from Wikipedia):
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.[a]
This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath or affirmation of support to the Constitution, indicating that the requirement of such a statement does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine. The option of giving an “affirmation” (rather than an “oath”) can be interpreted as not requiring any religious belief or as a nod to Mennonites and Quakers who would not swear oaths but would make affirmations. This does not apply to voters, who are free to apply a religious test or any other test of their devising to their consciences before casting their secret ballot for a candidate for federal office; it only means that the federal government may not refuse to swear-in and seat an elected official based on a religious test of their devising.
The clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of “original intent” of the Framers of the Constitution of avoiding any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices. This is significant because this clause represents the words of the original Framers, even prior to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
It’s telling that CAIR’s many attorney’s either didn’t know that or misinformed Uncle Nihad.
And, I’d bet, they know full well that their 501c3 status has been jeopardized by their latest idiotic PR stunt; the penultimate (thank you Hugh Fitzgerald) example being the “I stand with Ahmed” leap.
I get a laugh from their organization’s name–attempting as they do to obfuscate the incompatible relationship between America and Islam.
gravenimage says
Excellent post, Wellington.
And I agree that the “choir” is getting larger all the time;
According to HypeStat, Jihad Watch gets over 625,000 unique visitors a month–to put this in perspective, this is about the population of Boston, Massachusetts or Washington, DC.
http://jihadwatch.org.hypestat.com/
And Jihad Watch stories are regularly cited by other sites–so readership is even larger than these figures imply. Far more visitors read here than comment. Daily Google searches for JIhad Watch stories can be as high as 44,000.
These are *huge* numbers.
somehistory says
Will Dr. Carson prevail? Time will tell. He is certainly right about the law.
Jack Diamond says
Beautiful riposte by Dr. Carson. CAIR, of course, like every other group tied to the Muslim Brotherhood,
should be kicked out of the USA.
EYESOPEN says
Yep.
Davegreybeard says
I have just placed a “Ben Carson for President” sticker the bumper of my pickup.
I think this man understands Islam and is not afraid of a fight – he is the one we have been waiting for.
Wellington says
I sure hope Carson is, Davegreybeard. I think he may very well be.
I also think that the MSM, since Carson has uttered truths about Islam (just about the ultimate sin in our pc/mc times), will do all that it can to destroy him. The “pummeling” of Carson will be ceaseless I suspect, aided by politically correct Democrats and wussy Republicans. Yes indeed, doing things like preserving civilization and stating the truth are often not easy things to do, for instance in America nowadays, where the Democratic Party has lost its collective mind and the Republican Party has lost its collective guts (my God, even Cruz criticized Carson for what he said about the “inadvisability” of a Muslim becoming President).
Hope you and yours are doing well in this very silly time in which we live. Take care, Davegreybeard.
Jack Diamond says
His poll numbers have risen to rival Trump since his a Muslim should not be President remark.
I can’t imagine he will be nominated but it is important to get this into mainstream discourse.
Wellington says
Yes, into mainstream discourse that Islam is a spiritual version of Nazism is imperative.
Davegreybeard says
Thank you Wellington, I always appreciate your well reasoned responses.
Time will tell about Carson, but he has definitely got the conversation started, which is exactly what we need at this point.
Take care my friend.
gravenimage says
Yes, Dave–that Islam is even part of the political conversation now is a big deal.
PRCS says
I hope, GI, that Jake Tapper and other “journalists” read a Qur’an and learn that Dr. Carson’s assertions are correct.
And wouldn’t it be wonderful if they made the public conversation about Islam an even bigger deal by publicly admitting that.
gravenimage says
Agreed, PRCS–though I’m not sure I’ll be holding my breath.
Linde Barrera says
To Wellington- I loved all your posts on this article, and I agree with your thoughtful answers. And I would vote for Dr. Ben Carson. He has guts to state that a Muslim should not be in the White House, —and he is right. No Muslim ever in the WH.
Jeff says
Finally the truth is told about the MB!
August_West says
I don’t know if others have commented on this, but on Ben Carson’s campaign website there is a link for anybody to sign a petition to revoke the 501(3C) tax status for CAIR.
Regardless of what you think of Ben Carson, I would like to suggest that each of us take the time to sign this petition. No matter what happens to Ben Carson – CAIR needs to have its tax status revoked.
CAIR’s tax status is a direct tax payer funded subsidy to a terrorist PR group. This the equivalent to the IRS giving Joseph Goebbels (Nazi Propaganda Minister) a tax break.
Let’s hope that either the current President (fat chance) or the next President (lets hope so) are able to make this happen.
KnowThyEnemy says
Good idea to sign the petition. There probably are many pro-Islam organizations that are 501c3 tax exempt, and penalizing CAIR (for interfering in election campaign) would send a warning to them all. This can only be good!
pdxnag says
You can find a link to a useful IRS ruling at this link
taxprof “Would The IRS Revoke The Catholic Church’s Tax Exempt Status If Pope Francis Endorses Bernie Sanders?”
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/09/would-the-irs-revoke-the-catholic-churchs-tax-exempt-status-if-pope-francis-endorses-bernie-sanders.html
Moshe Akiva says
How about banning Islam in America and all their organizations?
Dave J says
Giving tax exempt status to CAIR, an organization devoted to the advancement of Islamic supremacy, is literally insane.
Dexter Wilson says
Sign Dr. Carson’s petition to take away CAIR’s 501c3
P. Smith says
I don´t buy the cheap speach of Trump. He said that the world-wide danger of islam is just because of “some muslims”. He also said that the iran nuclear deal ” has nothing to do with religion”. He will deport all illegal cheap mexican labour, but will replace them with millions of legal muslims.
gravenimage says
Carson calls for revocation of Hamas-linked terror organization CAIR’s tax-exempt status
…………………………
Bravo Dr. Carson! I though he might have backed down after the sickening backlash he got from openly telling the truth about Shari’ah.
But he’s standing tough, and not rolling over for the sinister CAIR. Very impressive.
dumbledoresarmy says
Neurosurgeons have to make very tough decisions all the time.
They need a steady hand and nerves of steel and a lot of physical and mental stamina. And they need to be able to tell people who are in denial stuff that the people concerned don’t want to know…but *need* to know.
Good training for what he’s now doing…
Personally, I hope that Allen West has gotten in touch with him and is having quiet behind-the-scenes conversations with him about Islam. Because Allen West, who has been in battle against mohammedans, and who has been a *commanding officer* (another role that requires the ability to make difficult decisions), has done his homework on Islam, and then some.
gravenimage says
Yes, DDA–I would *love* to see the two of them teaming up!
Here’s the stalwart Allen West on the subject:
“Muslims’ call for Ben Carson to withdraw from race BACKFIRES big time”
http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/10/muslims-call-for-ben-carson-to-withdraw-from-race-backfires-big-time/
By the way, there are several Facebook pages calling for an Allen West/Ben Carson ticket. I’m not sure how large a groundswell there is, but seeing it referred to is quite heartening!
Katnis says
Anyone know the URL for the petition?
Good job, Carson.
KnowThyEnemy says
“Sign The Petition” is the first thing on his website at http://www.bencarson.com
Katnis says
Thanks!
Kepha says
Frankly, we allow tax exempt status for a whole lot of organizations that claim exclusive truth, and some even that would deny liberties to their opponents. I’m not for taxing CAIR, but…
Ben Carson is pro-life, understands economics, seems to be a moral and upstanding citizen, has long and serious experience in a serious profession, “gets” Islam, and seems to think about what he says. As a Christian, American, and [usually] Republican, I find Carson one attractive candidate among several. That, folks, is the real problem Republicans are having.
As for the Dems, Shrillary Shroooo is a corrupt, proven incompetent curse on the land who never met an abortion method she didn’t like; Bernie Sanders is a 1930’s Stalinist dusted off and repackaged who thinks that a yet-to-be-born child of 8 or 9 months is a “choice” but that Americans having many choices of toothpaste (and the freedom to develop a better one and market it) is immoral.
dumbledoresarmy says
Some ammunition to send to Carson.
1/ Mordechai Kedar, in Israel National News, writing about the jihad against the Jews (which is a subset of the jihad against everybody not-Muslim). “It’s Jihad, Stupid”.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17628
2/ Conor Cruise O’Brien, writing in the ‘Independent” in 1995, at the height of the Sharia-Pushers vs Slack Muslims civil war in Algeria:
“The Lesson of Algeria: Islam is Indivisible”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-lesson-of-algeria-islam-is-indivisible-1566770.html
CONOR CRUISE O’BRIEN
Friday 6 January 1995
The lesson of Algeria: Islam is indivisible
Excerpt, to show *why* I think this should be printed off and sent to Dr Carson.
“Fundamentalist Islam” is a misnomer which dulls our perceptions in a dangerous way. It does so by implying that there is some other kind of Islam, which is well disposed to those who reject the Koran.
“There isn’t.
“Islam is a universalist, triumphalist and political religion. It claims de jure dominion over all humanity; that is God’s will. The actual state of affairs, with unbelievers of various sorts dominating most of the world, is a suspension of God’s will and a scandal to the faithful. The world is divided between the House of Islam and the House of War, meaning the rest of us.
“For more than two centuries now, the House of War has been in the ascendant, and the House of Islam has been abased.
“The remedy for this unnatural and intolerable state of affairs is jihad. Jihad is defined as “the religious duty imposed on all Muslims to wage war upon those who do not accept the doctrines of Islam”. The Prophet Mohamed himself not merely preached but waged jihad. God’s word, dictated to the Prophet and preached by him, is binding on all Muslims, and his example is their inspiration.
“In the glorious centuries of expansion, the jihad carried Islam from Arabia, to the west as far as the Atlantic; to the north as far as Vienna; to the south as far as the Sahara and down the east coast of Africa to Madagascar; and to the east across Persia and the Indian subcontinent into part of China and Indonesia.
“What is going on today in the Muslim world is not the advent of some aberrant thing called Islamic fundamentalism but a revival of Islam itself – the real thing – which Western ascendancy and Westernised post-Muslim elites no longer have the capacity to muffle and control. The jihad is back…”.
More:
“All the great religions are the same” is the idea.
“Only they aren’t.
“The Clintonian world view observes [sic: probably ‘obscures’ – dda] the hard specificity of Islam.
“The Prophet Mohamed did not offer his followers a chance to live in harmony with their neighbours.
“He taught them to fight their neighbours, if they were unbelievers, and kill them or beat them into submission.
“And it is futile to say of those Muslims who faithfully follow those teachings today that their actions are “not intrinsically related to Islam”.
“We are facing an Islamic revival…”.
3/ Patrick L Moore, a lapidary essay on Islam and jihad, with some very useful discussion of Islamic deception and brilliant footnotes pointing to classic scholarly works on Islam. As a surgeon, Mr Carson would look for the sources. Moore’s sources won’t lead him astray.
“From ‘Cold War’ to Guerra Fria”.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/GUERRA.HTM
The author is not someone famous, but the essay is *beautifully* written. Lucid, plain, not too long. A perfect ‘background briefing’, backed up by reference to Islamic sources and classic works of the best Western scholarship on Islam from the pre-PC era.
Excerpt:
“…There are five especially critical aspects about Islam’s doctrine of jihad which must be brought out to properly understand the significance of Islam as it relates to the United States and the West. In summary, the meaning of jihad in its primary sense is military and coercive; it is central to the universalist doctrine of the Islamic belief system; its operational aim is political domination of non-Islamic territories (i.e. rather than forced conversion); it is offensive or aggressive in nature in the first instance (and not merely “defensive”); and, finally, jihad is continuous in character (i.e. pending the ultimate victory of the forces of Islam).”
And finally, 4/ Raymond Ibrahim on Islamic deception. Here is the essay that Ibrahim originally wrote for Jane’s “Islamic Affairs Analyst”.
Islam’s Doctrines of Deception, Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst, 26 September 2008; reprinted at the “Middle East Forum” website.
http://www.meforum.org/2095/islams-doctrines-of-deception
Print these four essays off. Add a brief covering note. Post them to Dr Carson (and when you do, encourage him to personally get in touch with Raymond Ibrahim and have a nice long chat; let him know that Ibrahim, because of his Coptic background and as a fluent Arabic speaker, could be very helpful…and let him know that Ibrahim because of knowing Arabic ‘rumbled’ the fact that what Al Qaeda said to Muslims in Arabic was very different from what Al Qaeda said in communiques aimed at pressing westerners’ guilt buttons – mention “The Al Qaeda Reader’ which exposed this double game).
If Carson gets multiple copies then he can hand them around to his staffers, for aeroplane reading; and keep them in a handy sack and hand them out to clueless journalists and other politicians, for their better education.
duh+_swami says
If Carson is the no,nominee, I will vote for him…He’s right about Islam and he is right about CAIR…CAIR is not really a ‘public benefit ‘organization anyway..,…
Evolution or creation…There are lots of theories, some better than others.
Science has discovered some ways the universe works, but they still don’t know exactly what it is, but I’m sure they will keep working on it…
What came first, the chicken or the egg? It doesn’t really matter since you can eat the chicken and the egg…
Midway says
It’s brilliant of Ben Carson. CAIR gets bolder & more intrusive with the belief that they’re above the law as they see fit to attack anyone who speaks out against the negatives of Islam,
underbed cat says
I wish at times that Ben Carson would have been the first Black American President. But as the difficult times have been with our first (in myopinion islamic driven president) and unfold it may be that we had to go thru this time to expose Islamic doctrine. I would love Ben Carson as President.
I am also grateful to Trump for opening the closed gates to the political incorrect, in a world that rejects common sense and truth for some deadly ideas that immigration has no consequence other than the goodness of diversity. Where truth could protect us he speaks out as a possible big expense for his future. I never thought that Trump was trying to suppress free art with a political bend, just that he knew enough about Islamic doctrine to know that muslims would consider drawing mo as “slander” which call for death penalty and is “risky”, so he had to have knowledge about the risk as Pamela Geller had, because she had security. I beleive he was concerned about her safety. Not that she did not have a right to have event to support our freedoms. I believe he thinks she was very brave but took a risk. I first learned about this site and all things related by hearing about Atlas Shrugs…and I have read her books and think Pamela Geller is awesome. I will sign Carson petition, no tax exempt for an organization that deceives and supports terror.
el cid says
Ben Carson’s scientific credentials are beyond doubt. As a sample, did you hear how expertly he handled the question around autism and vaccines? He explained to the laymen scientific method and evidence based medicine in under 1 minute.
So, what is this stupid discussion about? I saw the unfortunate film where Dr. Carson is explaining what is wrong with the theory of the big bang and evolution. Clearly, he does not spend time reading the works of the experts in these fields. That is not surprising, because he is not interested. He should have kept quiet rather than display his lack of reading.
But, his point of view is simple. He only has a limited band-width for believing ‘stuff’, and he chooses to believe in his version of Christianity. Clearly, this belief does not limit one’s ability to expand any scientific field. By the way, this also applies to evolutionary biology and astrophysics. In fact, skepticism wins the day in both fields.
We Jews are taught by the Talmud, I believe, that speculation about the origins of the universe, or the nature of God that matter, is not a worthy activity since it cannot ever be known. That didn’t stop many Jews from having extraordinary breakthroughs.
I think that the Catholics have the most enlightened view of science because they embrace the notion of ‘miracles’ and actually do blind tests to try to disprove miracles. They begin with the belief that there is a mystery beyond science. That idea is too subtle for many atheists, but it does not require one to believe in any particular God to see the power of it. Atheists are frequently hung up on the technology of the day whereas scientific thought is punctuated with incredible breakthroughs. For example, genetics does not explain evolution nor is it the last thing that biologists will discover.
As interesting as the speculations are about the origins of the universe and life on earth, Carson is not concerned about it and does not make a point of believe in these speculations no matter how compelling or interesting they may be. And, that is fine for a president.
Karen says
I highly encourage everyone to sign this petition. It costs nothing, may actually do some good, and you’ll just feel great giving CAIR a poke in the eye. It may be all the fun you have today, in addition to supporting the legitimate claims against CAIR.
trango says
The empirical evidence is clear: if there is a god it does not care about us humans. I will cite the Holocaust, Rwandan massacre ad nauseaum. ISLAM DELENDA EST.
Rev g says
He cares.
Your conclusion has no merit.
Wellington says
C-14 dating is indeed not pertinent to fossilized evidence that is hundreds of thousands or millions of years old since it is only good for about 50,000 years or so but there is also uranium dating and magnetic polarity dating. We are, for instance, very certain that Homo habilis is a species that lasted from as early as 2.8 million years ago down to about 1.5 million years ago. Certainty exists for so many other Hominids like the Australopithecines that can be dated from about 5 million to 1 million years ago. And your cavalier dismissal of stratigraphy is not shared by about 99% of geologists.
rev g says
The “no merit” comment was addressing the comment regarding God not caring. I was not intending to.be dismissive of any dating method.
Still, since you brought it up, most geologists and archaeologists are aware of the shortcomings in all dating methods, including stratigraphy. Even if it were true that only 1% expressed uncertainty in the system, a consensus does not imply correctness. Any dating system that relies heavily on expert appraisal is quite circular in logic.
Wellington says
Shortcomings to what extent? To the extent that the earth might only be thousands of years old instead of billions? Only millions? Please be clearer. As for the 99% I used that was my way of indicating something that went way beyond consensus (which is the term used to convince people today that AGW is valid, which I don’t believe it is——sadly even science nowadays has been politicized). I should have said that minus that extremely rare fundamentalist Christian who gets a PhD in geology or a related field, the rest of the scientific community simply accepts stratigraphy as a valid RELATIVE dating system.
I’m not certain where you disagree with me about my physical anthropological and geological contentions. Enlighten me if you will.
rev g says
There are plenty of problems inherent in every dating system. Try a google search and see for yourself. Consensus does not equal correctness, regardless the numbers. Besides that, your numbers are certainly optimistic, and not because of religious affiliation. There is a reason all datings begin with a professional “scientific wild assed guess”…., so they can throw out the false indications. Or is that the ones that don’t fit the agenda? It is all very circular. Your own use of the word ” certain” so many times is indicative of excessive faith in, and blindness to flaws, in these systems.
They work, often, but a true professional knows the limitations and flaws of these systems.
My criticisms have nothing to do with religion.
Wellington says
Sorry, rev g, but your response to me spoke only in the greatest generalities. And don’t suggest to me to do “a google search.” This is argument by the cheap. It’s a cop out. Argue your own points in detail as I have done.
As for “consensus,” did you not read my last post to you which spoke of something way beyond consensus, as something which actually hold “consensus” as now understood in our silly times with contempt? Did you even get this much?
You have not given me a single, concrete example of how anything I have said is wrong. I think you are grasping for a pre-conceived truth on your part rather than demonstrating, really demonstrating, that any such truth you aver exists.
Stop it. Give me specifics. If you don’t, then I will have to conclude you’re engaging in BS.
Your turn. I have patience but there is a limit. You’re approaching that limit. Oh yeah, no more suggestions about a “google search.” Write things down in your own words with reference to the pertinent facts.
Be advised: I have kept the built-in crap detector I was born with in fine tune.
Rev g says
con·sen·sus
\kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\noun , often attributive
: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group
Full Definition
1
a :general agreement :unanimity
b :the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
2
:group solidarity in sentiment and belief
http://i.word.com/idictionary/consensus
Can’t even use that word properly?I don’t get paid to be here, so answers on the cheap are a good idea. I am sure your Google works, so what do you fear? Learning?
I merely wanted to point out that plenty of problems exist in those systems, apparently some prof told you otherwise and you are still spellbound
Try google, you may learn something.
Wellington says
Try yourself pointing out those problems. And how specifically did I misuse the word “consensus.” I did indeed denigrate it where AGW is concerned. And here’s a phrase for you——-virtual unanimity——–which implicitly I attempted to show as something beyond “mere” consensus. Geez, is there anything about the geological timetable or human evolution you would say is solid? Anything? Or is it all just speculation with other speculations being about as good?
Again, you have torn down what I have said without putting anything in its place. You have lectured with no substance, just denigration.
All right, I’ll make it easy for you with two examples. Here they are: 1) Homo erectus, which had a cranial capacity of about 1000cc., lived on earth from about 1.8 million years ago to as recently as 300,000 years ago (if the pygmy specimens found in Indonesia just a few years ago and dated to a mere 18,000 years ago are actually a dwarf leftover of Homo erectus, then erectus did indeed come down almost into “modern times”). Do you dispute this? If so, why? Details please and no obfuscations by way of defining consensus or sending me to Google.
2) The Hominid cranial capacity began with such species such as Sahel Anthropus and Orrorin tugenensis, very precisely dated to some 7-6 millions years ago. These earliest species of the Family, Hominidae, had cranial capacity’s no larger than that of the present apes (quick, can you name all four still existent pongids?) Thereafter, we can see the increase in cranial capacity over millions of years, from a dead end like the Austrlopithecines at around 600cc., to Homo habilis at about 750cc., to Homo erectus at around 1000cc. (and the species of Hominid which left Africa), to Homo sapiens at around 1350cc. Do you dispute any of this? If so, why? Details please and, once again, write it out yourself. No sending me to Google, which is the lazy and deficient way of arguing but one you seem quite familiar with.
Rev g says
Much better. Less absolutism works well. Except of course when you said “very precisely dated to 7-6 million years ago”. So how do you measure this precision of exactly one million years precisely, or very precisely?
Also, a mere consensus can be literally unanimous.
Wellington says
Yep, you just tear down. You offer nothing. You’re a sophist, and an extra tedious one at that. And do try real learning sometime instead of just tearing down. You may actually really learn something. Done here.
Rev g says
Whatever you say….precisely.
richard courtemanche says
Revoking that status is important for an org which only pretends to exist in the best interest of the country when in fact it is an agent of Islamism.
Truth says
Carson is right on the mark about Islam. Evolution? does it really matter how we got here? The question is where do we go in the future.