"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-16)

Major newspaper editorials and some columnists have their knickers in a twist over remarks by Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson. Appearing last Sunday on "Meet the Press," Carson was asked by host Chuck Todd whether he believes Islam is consistent with the Constitution. "No, I don't," he said. "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation." Asked whether he could vote for a Muslim for Congress, Carson said Congress is a different story, but that it "depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are."

Carson critics are quick to mention Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits a "religious test" for office, but that means no one can be barred from office because of their faith; it does not and could not prevent citizens from voting for or against someone for religious reasons.

Two years ago, The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reported that 10 of the 15 "worst violators of religious freedom" in the world are nations in which Islam is the dominant religion.

We are at war with a radical ideology that wishes to destroy the West and drastically alter our way of life. That is what Ben Carson was getting at when he made his remarks.

If you prefer the thoughts of a cultural icon, consider what singer Art Garfunkel said. As reported on Daily Mail.com, Garfunkel noted that Muslims are transforming Europe. He referenced "Reflections of the Revolution in Europe," a 2009 book by Christopher Caldwell, which argues, "that mass immigration by Muslims is altering the culture of Europe because of their reluctance to join the culture of their new homelands." The book claims Muslims do not so much enhance European culture as supplant it, and are "patiently conquering Europe's cities, street by street."

Is that bigotry, or reality? Is it bigotry to quote what various Islamic leaders say are their intentions when it comes to establishing a worldwide caliphate and replacing the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Law, or is it a warning we should take seriously and respond to as we would react to any other invasion?

"Mina" (not her real name to protect her family) is a U.S. citizen and longtime friend who was born in Tehran and still has family there. She wrote me about the intentions of the mullahs and their nuclear deal with the U.S. and five other nations: "The mullahs are buying time ... (to) finish their nuclear program. Americans underestimate these people. It will be Hezbollah, ISIS, or al-Qaida doing their dirty work. They will give them the nuclear bomb. They are very shrewd. They'll sit back and watch."

"Mina" says the Iranian regime has been a huge supporter of President Obama, whose name in Persian, she notes, translates as "he is with us." She asks why Arab and Muslim countries don't take in the migrants now fleeing their native lands for Europe (and now thanks to President Obama the U.S.). It's a good question and the answer ought to be obvious to anyone not afraid of being labeled a "bigot." They support the invasion.

While not all Muslims are terrorists, Breitbart recently revealed a startling statistic. "In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic television channel," it writes, "respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State terrorist group, with 81 percent voting 'YES' on whether they approved of ISIS's conquests in the region." Eighty-one percent.

We are at war with a radical ideology that wishes to destroy the West and drastically alter our way of life. That is what Ben Carson was getting at when he made his remarks about a Muslim president in the White House.