Now it’s Cooke, an NRO contributor, taking Carson to task…on a false premise.

Ben Carson’s first comment was on a matter of a president’s faith having to be, of necessity, consistent with American principles, values, and our Constitution.

BlueCollar detailed this several days ago, but if repetition is needed, fine.

Implying the question first asked was if Ben Carson would be okay with a Muslim president is a LIE. The first question asked was if a president’s FAITH matters.

And Carson’s first answer: “If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America…and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.” (emphasis added)

Then, asked if he thought Islam was consistent with our Constitution, he said no.

So, before Dr. Carson ever came out to say he would not advocate a Muslim for president, he qualified his answer within a context of constitutional consistency.

Only by falsely implying that his ‘no Muslim’ statement stood on its own could one make the giant conclusive leap that Ben Carson made a bigoted statement.

If our Constitution is ‘the law of the land’, then no faith can be above that law…in order to be consistent with American values and principles – will Islam submit?

Message to conservatives – use honest concepts, not contorted premise, to rebut GOP candidates. Please, leave the distorting and conniving to Democrats.

No amount of lies will deter the Left from smearing Republican candidates…

…we wonder why that principle has now been adopted by the Right?