Issues, News & Views

Who will be the
2016 candidates
for President of
the United States?



Donald Trump has come out
of nowhere and stolen the
show. He seems to have
captured the zeitgeist, the
spirit of the times. Can it last?

Who, from among this
strong, diverse field , will
emerge victorious to return
the GOP to the White

With the inept Obama
Administration in its final
days, one would have
expected that experienced
governors with a record
of accomplishment would
dominate the Race 2 Replace
but outsiders and novices
Trump, Carson and Fiorina
are in the hunt! Seasoned
executives for sure, but
not the ones the beltway
had in mind!



The creaky, rusty Clinton
machine grinds slowly
onward, wayward, relying
solely on muscle memory
for movement. Will
Democrats suddenly rise
from their slumber to the
realization she cannot win a
General Election?

Is Hillary a foregone
conclusion, or will
someone else swoop in and
steal the show?

Folks on the right can barely
contain their joy at the
prospect of a Clinton
candidacy. Shouldn't that
give pause to the Democrats?
Biden and Warren are both
better candidates and better
Democrats than Clinton, but
aren't even in the race. And
then there are O'Malley and
Sanders, again, both better
Democrats and better
candidates. Yet the Dems
seem intent on following
Clinton in a lemming-like
charge over the cliff.


2015/12/04 - President George W. Bush (#43) led us into an ill-conceived war in Iraq on the twin-premise that Islam is a religion of peace, and that all people yearn to be free. But what if, just maybe, Bush 43 was wrong?

What if Islam is not a religion of peace, and Muslims do not seek our vision of freedom? What if the “peace” of Islam is achieved not through tolerance and coexistence, but through conquest and domination? What if our definition of “free” is informed by our western culture, and people from other cultures have a different idea of what “free” means?

In any type of competition – sports, business, war – in any kind quest, it is important to understand the perspectives and objectives of other players. You need to do this in order to identify both threats and opportunities. You cannot assume that other participants, neither potential allies nor potential adversaries, formulate their objectives from the same foundation of ideas that you do.

Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different in that Christianity never anticipates being a dominant religion. Jesus, Paul and the other teachers consistently instructed followers to submit to secular authorities – to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, to live peaceably with all men. As such there is no embedded civil code in Christianity – no crimes elucidated, no punishments articulated, no rules on a how a broader society should govern itself. It is left up to the broader society to decide how to govern itself.

So it is straightforward to see how the United States Constitution would be drafted and enacted in this environment. The fledgling nation, whose citizenry sprung from a Christian tradition, would need to draft a civil code – one that would be informed by the Christian tradition of the nation’s founders. We have no "Christian Law", instead we have a Constitution and legal framework implicitly guided by a Christian perspective of love and holiness, of mercy and justice.

Islam on the other hand contains an embedded civil code known as the Sharia Law. It lays out crimes and punishments. For examples, theft is punishable by cutting off the thief’s right hand; and, a man can beat his wife for insubordination; and, a man can marry a young girl and consummate the marriage when she turns nine (yes, age 9). These three examples are in blatant opposition to any laws anywhere in the United States and completely abhorrent to our culture and values.

Since Christianity contains no civil code, it can blend in comfortably and unthreateningly in any society. It was never necessary for any of the Christian teachers to pursue or advocate violence to topple authority because Christianity never pretends to be a civil authority. On the other hand Islam requires a Muslim to follow Sharia law, so it is not hard to see how that would create conflict – either violate your religion and follow the local laws, or follow your religion and contravene local laws.

So how can a Muslim reconcile his religion to American values? The answer is he doesn’t have to! Taqiyya is a doctrine in Islam that allows dishonesty and deceit for the furtherance of Islam and in support of it adherents. Taqiyya allows a Muslim to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States without believing a word of it. Even if a Muslim believes Muslims are required to go to war to advance Islam, he is still allowed to claim that Islam is a religion of peace, if he believes that such a claim will further the cause.

Taqiyya represents a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam. Consider the account of Peter’s denial of Christ. The Bible portrays this as deeply dishonorable conduct by Peter, whereas in Islam it would be acceptable and indeed expected, since Peter was facing danger. If taqiyya was a Christian principle Peter most certainly would not have “gone out and wept bitterly”.

Indeed, taqiyya was originated precisely for times and circumstances precisely like the here and now, times when Islam has increased its belligerence and been exposed to a corresponding backlash. The idea was to use subterfuge, camouflage if you will, to preserve the religion and save its adherents from a violent demise.

History shows that it took little time before Mohammed and his followers were clashing violently with their neighbors and the authorities. Some of these clashes turned deadly and Mohammed was compelled to introduce Taqiyya, allowing Muslims to deny their faith, to misrepresent its principles, anything to live to fight another day. General Patton may have been echoing Mohammed when he said, “don’t die for your country, make the other poor dumb bastard die for his”.

Taqiyya is an acceptable tool to advance the spread of Islam, to take advantage of gullible appeasers like today’s liberals, progressives and Democrats. Progressives do not understand how devout religious people think, and will misjudge them every time – perceiving malice where none exists, and failing to recognize threats that stare them in the face.

To President Obama and his ilk, Fort Hood was workplace violence. San Bernardino? Workplace violence. The woman beheaded by a Muslim convert in Oklahoma? Workplace violence. To blind progressives like Obama, there are only two type of people: evil Republicans, and everyone else. Violent jihadists, and the philosophies from whence they came, must be good – because they are not Republicans. No honest inquiry from progressives here.

Unfortunately, in our mix of cultures, Taqiyya poisons the well – since it allows Muslims to deceive, how can we who come from a culture that values honesty and transparency ever know for sure if a Muslim is leveling with us? In our culture lying is shameful; with taqiyya lying is par for the course, np, nbd. But how can we know when we’re getting a load of Taqiyya? How can we believe anything, for example, that a Muslim advocacy group like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) tells us?

It begs the question of whether the principles of Islam are compatible with American values. It seems like they cannot be reconciled. The United States Oath of Allegiance instructs us to support and defend the Constitution and our laws from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Yet no day goes by where we do not see Islamic countries, and Muslims, engaging in law, practice, culture, and custom that we deem repulsive.

The First Amendment reads in part "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." but how do we reconcile that with Islam? Islam demands to be established as the State Religion.

But we don’t want to face reality, do we? Because the conclusions are unpleasant... that maybe, just maybe, Islam is…? But, what if? What if "Islam is a religion of peace" is just a load of taqiyya? What if Islam is actually… ?


December 21, 2015 - The media doesn't just push its leftist agenda on Republicans - Apple CEO Tim Cook got a taste of "Gotcha" last night on 60 Minutes.

Charlie Rose tried to paint Cook and Apple as unpatriotic for trying to minimize their tax burden.

Instead, Rose should have exposed the tax code as unpatriotic, and commiserated with Cook regarding the damage done to American companies, to the American economy, and to American families, by the excessive levels, counterproductive provisions, and complicated structure of corporate taxes.

Bad on Rose, he showed himself a shill for statism.

Good on Tim Cook for his spirited pushback.

December 18, 2015 - The Establishment won this round, punching a monstrous $1.8 Trillion porkopotamus spending package over the goal line.

Our national debt is approaching $19 TRILLION and the worse it gets, the more the K-Streeters want to spend. The GOP DC beltway establishment is a pool of leaches. They suck the taxpayer dry, and yet they are totally mystified as to why the people are rejecting Jeb! and the other puppets being put forth.

And then there's the disgraceful Marco Rubio who couldn't even bother to show up to vote on the bill. We suspect that the next GOP debate will be about spending and Rubio will be eviscerated.

It has to be Cruz or Trump at the top of the ticket. With apologies to Rand Paul, there is no one else with a shot of winning the GOP presidential nomination who might execute a serious strategy of substantially reducing the size of government.

As for newly-minted Speaker Paul Ryan, that's it for him, that's his Mulligan. He is now on a short leash. One more of these and he is John Boehner, dead man walking.

December 15, 2015 - One can only be disappointed with Marco Rubio and his dismal "attack" on Ted Cruz last night at the CNN Republican debate.

In the last debate Jeb! Bush attempted a spurious made-up "attack" on Rubio, but Rubio nimbly swatted it away, telling Bush "you're only saying that because someone told you to say that", and "The only reason you're [saying] it now is because we're running for the same position".

So it was with dismay that we saw Rubio hijack the Bush tactic and try to use spurious consultant-fabricated attacks on Cruz.

Cruz ably swatted the "attack" away, but it would have been even better if he repeated to Rubio those very words that Rubio had shot at Bush - that, like the Toronto Blue Jays, would have been priceless (sorry).

As it was, the debate was largely a stalemate - there will be a lot more reporting on it than it deserves.

December 04, 2015 - We hoped that the replacement for former AG Eric Holder might be an improvement. But Loretta Lynch might just be worse.

Displaying a jarring unawareness of the United States Constitiution, she has threatened to prosecute anyone who speaks badly against Islam.

Not only does she seem ignorant of the First Amendment, she seems to want to unilaterally replace it with Islamic Sharia Law, which makes it illegal to criticize Mohammed or the Quran.

One can only be constantly aghast at the Obama Adaministration's consistent willingness to violate the Constituition, and pander to those who would undermine America.

What a great Obama we have.

December 02, 2015 - An attack in San Bernardino has left at least fourteen dead and at least that many wounded.

The two attackers, a male and a female, were subsequently gunned down in their SUV as they attempted to escape.The fact that there were at least two assailants indicates a "cause" based attack.

The left has wasted no time politicizing the tragedy, clamoring for tighter gun control. They don't mention, however, how France's tight gun control laws were useless in preventing the attacks in Paris.

Gun control laws don't take guns away from the bad guys, instead, they take guns away from the good guys, leaving them defenseless against the bad guys, the guys who keep their guns.


© Copyright 2015 Challenge The Premise. All rights reserved.