So Ben Carson, as a presidential candidate, is evidently no longer allowed to have a personal opinion on any matter regarding the new front of the left's civil rights movement. Sure, Carson is black and all – but we moved on from that. Muslim rights are now where it's at!

Carson's personal opinion is that he wouldn't advocate for a Muslim to become president. This is his personal opinion and has nothing at all to do with Article VI of the Constitution and the document as a whole, which deals exclusively with the operation of and restrictions on the government, not the individual or his or her opinion.

When asked by Chuck Todd whether a president's faith should matter, Carson never said a Muslim should be prohibited from holding the office, just that he would not advocate for it.

Carson didn't and hasn't said that the government can prevent a Muslim from being president.

But either the press doesn't understand the difference or they are the back-stabbing "gotcha" sacks of dirt we know them to be. Which one is it? Well, it's probably the latter. This appears to be a conscious effort to drive a wedge between two conservatives. Want proof?

The lefty site VOX.com wrote: "Carson's remarks were noxious enough — and bizarre enough — that even Ted Cruz joined in the backlash." Actually, no, he didn't because the question asked of Cruz was not the same asked of Carson.

Cruz was asked whether being a Muslim should preclude one from being president. Cruz's answer was simple and concise. "The Constitution specifies that there shall be no religious test for public office, and I am a constitutionalist," he said.

And Cruz, as usual, is exactly right. The Constitution is clear that the federal government can have no such litmus test, which is not at all the same as what Chuck Todd asked of Carson.

But I understand why those on left, supporting Obama for 7 years, could misinterpret this. After all, Obama's opinion has trumped the Constitution quite often, and his opinion consistently rules the day. Frankly, at this juncture, I'd be surprised if most on the left could spell Constitution, much less know what's in it.

And Carson was correct when he told the Chuckster that a president's faith should matter if it causes one to be inconsistent with the Constitution. He was, of course, referring to Shariah, which is utterly inconsistent with and antagonistic toward American values and the Constitution. Any thinking American should agree. But not all "Americans" are created equal.

Breitbart wrote that, according to a survey of Muslims, released just back in June, "a majority (51%) agreed that 'Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.' When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that Shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%). … even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, 'It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.'"

If that's not "inconsistent," what is?

It's important that we on the right--us real conservatives--not get caught up in the leftist muckraking. It's equally important not to take some TV or radio commentators' interpretation of a situation as fact without vetting it for ourselves. We should know by now that the left thrives on word games, so we not only have to listen closely to a candidate's answer, but we also have to carefully examine the questions asked of them.

This incident is a perfect example, as the "gotcha" questions asked of the two candidates were completely different, yet purposely portrayed by the media as being the same.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.