on Friday, September 25, she was asked about that statement. Ms Fiorina made this remarkable response: “I actually – with all due respect Jan – I think that is a quote from someone else, not from me.” Unfortunately, this is difficult for Ms Fiorina to deny, since her original statement is available on Youtube. But she did leave herself a caveat: she said later in the interview, when asked again, that she was “…not aware of having said that”.
Ben Carson also astounded this writer when he said this: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” He further said that Islam is incompatible with the Constitution (whatever that means), and, regarding a candidate’s religious belief, “If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter.”
There is no point in discussing the concept of separation of church and state with Mr Carson. Nor would there be any benefit in mentioning the irrationality of Islamophobia, or stating that it is as nonsensical as homophobia, since that is an argument that would hold no water with the illustrious Mr Carson.
Mr Carson continued to astonish: “A lot of people in the minority community – contrary to popular opinion, all they want is a fair chance. All they want is an opportunity to succeed.” This says much about Mr Carson’s opinion of both the ‘minority community’, when he says ‘a lot’ of people want a ‘fair chance’, and the rest of the nation, when he implies that their opinion of minorities is that they want something other than a’ fair chance’.
The fun continued, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. When asked about the recent arrest of 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamad of Texas, for bringing to school a home-made clock, Mr Jindal said that, in the US, “We don’t discriminate based on colour of skin or their creed”. He should, perhaps, check out Mr Carson’s statements about Muslims. But even that is unnecessary. Later during the debate, Mr Jindal said this: “Right now, the biggest discrimination going on is against Christian business owners and individuals who believe in traditional forms of marriage”. So, either, in the US, people do discriminate based on their creed (it would take too long to list even a small portion of the examples of discrimination of people based on the colour of their skin, so we will just focus on Mr Jindal’s creed-related statement here), or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways, Mr Jindal.
Looking at the Democratic side, things are no better. Former Senator Hillary Clinton can never seem to give any speech without a shout-out to her most special friend, Israel. On September 9, 2015, when discussing the recent nuclear agreement with Iran, these pearls of wisdom dropped from her lips: “I wouldn’t support his (President Obama’s) agreement for one second if I thought it put Israel in greater danger.” She went on to reiterate her position on the agreement. “The United States will never allow [Iran] to acquire a nuclear weapon.” She further said that, as president, she “will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon”.
It might be worth considering why it is that the US puts Israel on such a pedestal, while it ignores that country’s unspeakable human rights abuses and war crimes. It is also worth asking why the US puts itself in a position to determine which countries will or will not be permitted to have nuclear weapons. Also, it gives one concern that Mrs Clinton is willing to unilaterally march US soldiers off to war. And if Mrs Clinton is unable to see the disastrous results of the US invasion of Iraq, which she voted to support, and does not recognise that Iran is far better able to defend itself than Iraq ever was, and that it is far more likely that other nations would come to Iran’s aid than did to Iraq’s, then she certainly has no business running for president.
The US is still more than a year from its next great display of faux democracy, wherein some limited percentage of the population will vote for candidates who have spent millions, and probably even billions, to purchase the election. The Republicans are all scrambling to the right; any talk of greater inclusiveness from the 2012 election result has all been lost. On the Democratic side, Mrs Clinton is trying to cement her credentials with those with the largest check books; she is unconcerned about the individual voter, knowing that the GOP will frighten away many of them, leaving them with her as the only viable alternative.
The US nominating crash scene will continue to enthral; it’s only unfortunate that so much hangs in the balance, and the choices being served up are all equally unappetising.
Courtesy: Counterpunch.org