Advocating a Muslim in charge

Charles Krauthammer writes:

... spectacular attempts to alienate major parts of the citizenry.

The latest example is Ben Carson, the mild-mannered, highly personable neurosurgeon and one of two highest-polling GOP candidates. He said on Sunday that a Muslim should not be president of the United States.

His reason is that Islam is incompatible with the Constitution.

David Brooks writes:

Ben Carson says he couldn’t advocate putting “a Muslim in charge of this nation.”

During George W. Bush’s first term there wasn’t much difference between how Democrats and Republicans viewed the overall immigration levels. Republicans were about eight percentage points more likely to be dissatisfied with the contemporary immigration flows. But now the gap is an astounding 40 percentage points. Eighty-four percent of Republicans and 44 percent of Democrats are dissatisfied with the current immigration level, according to Gallup surveys.

I wonder what these guys think about putting a Muslim as Prime Minister of Israel?

Of course they would be against it. They are Jews who are strongly in favor of Israel being a Jewish state. But for America, they disagree with the 84% of Republicans who are anti-immigration, and they side with those who have an interest in destroying American Christian culture. And most Democrat Jews disagree even more. (Bernie Sanders is a notable exception; part of his popularity is based on being anti-immigration.)

Brooks endorses the idea of expecting "great things from our race":

Herman Melville summarized this version of American exceptionalism in his novel “White Jacket”: “The future is endowed with such a life that it lives to us even in anticipation. … The future [is] the Bible of the free. … God has predestined, mankind expects, great things from our race; and great things we feel in our souls.”

I do not think that Melville was writing about Muslim migrants.

Update: A Rasmussen poll says 28% of the public would be willing to vote for a Muslim president.

Update: A Wash. Post article by a rabbi argues:

Jews in America struggled for decades to become white. Now we must give up whiteness to fight racism.
Let's teach our children that we are, in fact, not white, but simply Jewish.

Most Jews would be considered white, but many white-looking Jews do not identify as white. While you might think that a term like white Judeo-Christian American culture would include Jews, many American Jews seek to undermine white culture by falsely calling them all racists. The first paragraph falsely blames white people for injustices in Ferguson Mo.

Update: The Wash. Post comments are overwhelmingly negative, from different views:

I suppose it doesn't even occur to this rabbi that characterizing "white" and "whiteness" in a racial sense as something inherently bad, corrupt, oppressive, racist, and shameful - as something to be eschewed - is itself extremely racist.

This is really nothing but an attempt on the rabbi's part to promote the "whites are bad" narrative while calling for Jews to deny their whiteness. It just goes to show, the most vile hate filled racism can be printed by one of the country's most prominent papers provided it has a leftist spin and the target of its hate are white people.

Yes, I do think that the views of Brooks, Krauthammer, and this rabbi are as racist as you will see in a major newspaper. Another comment says:

Ethnic cohesion for us Jews. Multicultural suicide for you whites.

The point is that Jews promote multiculturalism out of a racist attempt to attack white Christian culture and to promote their own racial identity, which they see as non-white.

Again, it is not my opinion that Jews are non-white. Most of them look white to me. I am just pointing out that many Jews identify as non-whites and have anti-white political views. They are pro-immigration of non-whites for the USA, and anti-immigration of non-Jews for Israel.