The Goal of Islam

      

        Why does the White House avoid the words "Islamic Terrorists"?  Why can't we Identify this enemy?  Why are we losing the war on terror?  Why are terrorist attacks around the world growing in numbers?  How can we protect ourselves from Islamic Terrorists?  Some of the answers are obvious, but not politically correct.  

    Many words and descriptions may be offensive, but accurately describe a situation.  Banning the use of these words is just burying our heads in the sand.  This misguided political correctness only makes the problem worse.       

      The argument that alienating Muslims will promote radical Islam is certainly proven wrong with the recent bombings in Belgium.   Belgium is as friendly to Muslims as any country could be that does not have Islam as a state mandated religion. 

     We have taken political correctness to such an extreme that we no longer have freedom of speech.  It is impossible to accurately describe the Islamic religion and still be politically correct.  what liberals call freedom of speech does not allow anyone to say anything that could possibly offend anyone.

      There are exceptions. It is okay to bash conservatives, Republicans, and Christians.  Christians are prohibited from expressing their religion in any way that might offend anyone from another religion.  This is denying a right guaranteed in the First Amendment.  But Muslims are allowed prayer time in some schools.

       Our enemies in WWII were Germany and Japan.  After their defeat, democratic governments similar to the U.S. were implemented in those countries and both thrive today.  This same approach does not work in Muslim countries.  

      We went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  These wars may or may not have been justified, but the consequence was a destabilization of the Middle East.  There was no viable exit plan. 

        Constitutions were adopted that were modeled after our Constitution with a couple changes.  Islam was made the official state religion and Sharia Law was recognized.  Neither are compatible or workable with our Constitution.  What idiot thought this could ever work?

       We must recognize the basics of the Islamic religion.  There are few similarities with other religions.  If we try to reason with Muslims with the same love and compassion we accept, we will lose.  We have to understand what the religion teaches. 

       The Koran clearly states that Islam is not a religion of peace, but many try to interpret it as such.  Verses like “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.” are hard to misinterpret.

       The objective of Islam is very clear.  History shows an unwavering goal of world domination by any means.  We can look as far back as the Crusades.  Many great statesmen like Thomas Jefferson, Winston Churchill, and Andrew McCarthy make the goal of Islam quite clear.  McCarthy was the lead prosecutor of the blind sheik and 11 others for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

       We must be realistic about the goal of Islam. We can look at Isis, al Qaeda, Hamas, or the Muslim Brotherhood.  The objective is always the same.  We must deal with the reality of Islam. 

      We don’t want an official state religion.  Allah clearly states that it is the duty of all Muslims to wage jihad until Islam and Sharia Law are established world wide.   

       We protect and cherish personal civil liberties.  Islam considers woman as property, and the penalty for   homosexuality is death.  We try to protect woman and children, and Islam terrorists use them as suicide bombers.  Islamic fighters use schools and hospitals as bases for artillery because they know we try to avoid civilian casualties. 

       We give terrorists the benefit of our legal system, and avoid enhanced interrogation methods.  They behead people.  There is a saying, “Don’t take a knife to a gun fight.”  We are taking on Islamic bombs with talking. 

        Islam is using our ignorance of their objective and our Christian morality to their advantage this misguided political correctness this misguided political correctness and laughing at how naive we are.  We have to wake up before we have widespread terror and Sharia Law in this county. 

The Entrepreneurial Myth

        Most of my recent posts have been devoted to politics, so let’s look at the business today.  It is my hope that real common sense political change in 2017 will promote business, the economy, and entrepreneurship.  

        “Do what you know and love and you will be a success” is one of the myths about starting a business that I address in my book, Business Fits.  It is often referred to as The Entrepreneurial Myth, and in my opinion is the fourth leading cause of new business failure. 

        People must have a passion for their daily activity.  If someone doesn’t like what they’re doing, they will be unhappy and they won’t be successful. 

        The problem occurs when the entrepreneur has a passion for a product or service, and does not consider  his/her role in the business.  Having a passion for a job seldom has anything to do with the product or service.

        I once had a client who we will call Jim.  He loved bicycling, so he went to work for a store selling bicycles.  Jim worked in that store for seventeen years and hated his job.  Eventually, he became so unhappy that he foolishly quit with no job or business, something I would never advise. 

        Jim started to look at his options for owning a business.  His current hobby was horses and riding.  One of his neighbors suggested making a business out of his love for horses, but Jim was too smart to make that mistake again.   He didn’t want to ruin another hobby by turning it into work. 

        Anyone thinking about a business should read my book, Business Fits by Terry Oliver Lee.  It is available on Amazon as an eBook or a paperback.

        I also recommend reading The E-Myth Revisited by Michael E. Gerber to learn more about the entrepreneurial myth.  Gerber gives some great examples of running a business vs. working in the business.  

        One of his examples is a woman who loves to bake pies.   She starts a business making and selling pies.  She has to give up the making pies, which she loves, to have the business survive.  She has to let someone else bake the pies so she can devote her time to running the business and developing a complete business system.   

        I am interested in helping aspiring entrepreneurs, and offer a free phone consultation to guide them.  Contact me through my website http://BusinessFits.com or e-mail me at TerryOliverLee@gmail.com.

A Political Analysis

        I watch a lot of news and I find it strange that I have never seen the analysis I am going to put forward concerning the Republican Presidential campaign.  As of last Tuesday, Donald Trump has won 15 states plus DC, Ted Cruz has won eleven states, and Marco Rubio has won one state plus Puerto Rico.  Rubio and Kasich are probably irrelevant at this point.

        Political commentators come up with all kinds of ideas as to why each candidate won or lost every state, but I they missed one analysis.  We need to look at which states were caucuses and which were primaries. 

        The only state Rubio won was the Minnesota caucus.  He also won the primary in Puerto Rico, which could almost be considered his home. 

        Cruz won eleven states.  All were caucuses except for primaries in his home state of Texas and Idaho.  His win in Texas makes sense, but I don’t understand Idaho except the state might be pretty far right and associate with Cruz. 

        Trump has won every primary except for Texas, Idaho, and the territory of Puerto Rico.  What does this tell us? 

        As I mentioned in a previous blog, there is a big difference between a caucus and a primary.  I lived in Iowa and am familiar with how a caucus works.  A caucus is a little like management by committee.  One or two strong individuals can, and do control the results of a caucus.  This means that the party establishment has a large influence on the outcome of a caucus.  This explains why Cruz won seven caucuses and Rubio won one.  Trump did win the Nevada and Hawaii caucuses.  Maybe there is not a strong Republican establishment in those two states.

        The party establishment has less influence on the outcome of a primary, because voters are alone in that voting booth and can vote their true feelings.  Primaries can be open or closed.  For example, in a closed Republican primary, only previously registered Republicans can vote. 

        In an open primary, anyone can vote for candidates in either party, but not both.  This means independents and even Democrats can vote in the Republican primary for the person of their choice. 

        The party establishment will have more control in a closed primary than in an open primary.  This may explain why Cruz won Idaho. 

        Another interesting fact is that the number of people voting in Republican primaries is up an average of 65%, while Democratic primary voters are down 35%.  This represents millions of people who had not voted in a Republican primary before.  Since Trump won these primaries, it is safe to assume the increase in voting is due to him being in the race. 

        The Republican Party establishment is doing everything possible to stop Trump.  Their claim is that he is not really a conservative and they don’t know what he will do if elected.  I think they know exactly what he will do.  They fear he will put an end to the current big government establishment and the growth of government. 

        In spite of the Washington and the Republican establishment, Trump wins if the public gets to vote.  This is also in spite of being outspent many times over.  It is clear that the voting public is totally fed up with big government, big money, the Washington D.C. establishment, and the political elite.  They see Trump as a solution and love his lack of political correctness.

        I have known people who do not exercise their right to vote.  Their attitude was that it was all rigged and their vote did not count anyway, so why vote.   People are frightened for our freedoms, and are voting in the primaries for what they perceive to be a common sense change. 

        The increased interest in the Republican primaries provides a great opportunity for the party, which has been in decline for the last couple decades.  If the Republican Party accepts what the people want, it could rise to great heights.  If they continue to support the establishment, the party may be finished.  Either way, the old Republican Party will cease to exist.

        

1984

          I just finished listening to 1984 by George Orwell while in the car.  When I read this book many years ago, I thought it was just an interesting book of fiction.  If you have not read this book in the last few decades, I would recommend a re-read. 

          1984 was first published in 1949.  I am amazed at how relevant it is to our current country and political world.  Wikipedia describes it as a “dystopian novel”, and I would agree.   I always listen to books-on-tape while driving, I probably should not have listened to this one in the car, because at times it was so upsetting. 

          In 1984, the entire world is divided into three super states.  The story takes place in the province of Airstrip One, which was formerly Great Britain, and is part of the super-state Oceania.  Oceania is governed by an oligarchy called Ingsoc, which stands for English socialism.  Ingsoc is usually referred to as “The Party.”  The government owns everything and is in total control of everyone’s lives.  The name reminded me of Demsoc, which could stand for the democratic socialism many politicians now propose.

          The Party is led by Big Brother, who might not exist.  The Party has inner and outer circles of power and is in absolute control.  There is no place for freedom, family, or religion with Ingsoc.  The news is  totally controlled to promote The Party, and history is even rewritten to give The Party credit for everything good. 

          Rewriting history is the job of the main character in the book.  He works for the Ministry of Truth.  It is hard for him to forget the past after he rewrites history, but it is expected of him.  It is a concept called Doublethink.  If the Party says 2 + 2 = 5, people are expected to think 2 + 2 = 5.  Today, many of our politicians like to tell lies and rewrite history, and we accept it because “It’s just politics.”

          Ingsoc’s various government departments are quite interesting.  The Ministry of Love is in charge of torture and brainwashing.  The Ministry of Peace oversees the continuous war with one of the other two super-states. The Ministry of Plenty handles shortages and rationing, which is a big job as everything is rationed.  The Ministry of Truth is in charge of all propaganda and rewriting history records.   This sounds like today’s political name game.  The Affordable Health Care Act is a perfect example. 

          In Oceania, there are monitors everywhere, including everyone’s homes, which broadcast the single government channel.  This channel continually broadcasts news that the Party dictates.  People are not allowed to turn off these monitors.  The monitors are also cameras for spying on people.  Hidden microphones are everywhere to listen to anyone and everyone. 

          Rebellion against the party is not tolerated.  There are even Thought Police that spy on people.  Anyone with any action, talk, or thoughts against the party is arrested and often “vaporized”.  All the records and history of that person is then eliminated so the person never existed.

          Raising children is considered the responsibility of the Party.  The education children receive must teach the modified history and promote the political agenda of the Party.  All books are rewritten or eliminated so there is never any reference to freedom.  Children are taught total loyalty to the party.  One child turns in her father to the Thought Police for talking in his sleep and saying something that could be considered negative to The Party.  In spite of a certain death sentence, the father is so brainwashed that he is proud of his daughter’s loyalty to The Party.  One or more of our current Presidential candidates have stated that the responsibility of raising children is more with the state than the parents.  Scary!

          One thing that really interested me was the idea of Newspeak.  This was a dictionary that was continually revised to eliminate words.  For example, any words that might reference freedom were stricken.  This brought to mind our current obsession for political correctness. 

          Today, political correctness divides our country and makes it impossible to deal with actual issues. The political elite continue to grow the size and control of government. 

          After reading this book and comparing it to the current power and corruption of the political elite, it frightened me.  Our media is controlled by big money and the political elite and does not report the news or issues.  History is rewritten, and our education system promotes the political agenda. 

          This country is facing some very tough choices.  We must decide if we want to continue to increase the control government has over our lives, or if we want to maintain our country as the land of freedom and opportunity for our children. 

Pope Francis

        I was disappointed and upset with Pope Francis last week when he said Donald Trump was not a Christian if he builds walls and not bridges.  The Pope is the head of the large and powerful Roman Catholic Church, but I do not think he has the right to sit in judgment and determine if another person is a Christian. 

        I think a little history is relevant.  The Vatican is a 110 acre walled city ruled as an absolute monarchy by the Pope.  The walls were originally built to keep out invading Muslims.  Doesn’t this sound similar to the proposed wall Trump is proposing for our national security?  

        We all have our own morality, and if we are Christian, we might think someone’s actions or opinion does not fit with ours.  That is our right, but I certainly do not think any church leader should publicize an opinion that someone is not a Christian.

        I believe a person can be a Christian and not show it in the same way another person does.  For example, it is not necessary to go to church every week to be a Christian.  We all have our own beliefs and probably several different levels of ethics depending on the situation. 

        I once gave a sermon when our church was without a minister.  My topic was that we had different levels of morality in church, at home, and at work.  That is certainly true for some politicians who feel telling lies is permitted in politics.

        Our Founding Fathers felt Christian morality was essential if this great republic was to survive.  They protected that right of religion in the First Amendment.  The Founding Fathers wanted religion in government, but they did not want the government dictating religion.  They would be very upset with the convoluted separation of church and state interpretation we currently have which restricts the very religious freedoms they were trying to protect.  

        The Pope justifies his statement by stating he is an advocate of the poor.  This is admirable, but he is mistaken in how to achieve the goal of helping the poor.  He criticizes capitalism and advocates socialism.  This is wrong.  We need to look at the facts. 

        The poor live better in our capitalist country than in any socialist country.  Charity from both the government and the private sector help the poor more world-wide than any socialist country.  Capitalism also gives people to opportunity to work their way out of poverty.

        The Pope advocates charity.  The people of this capitalist country show great charity at home and abroad.  That is part of capitalism.  A socialist country, by definition, advocates the government should collect taxes and determine who is worthy of receiving charity.  Socialist leaders do not feel the people are capable of making these decisions. 

        I have been talking about Christians, but this should include all religions that advocate peace, good moral conduct, respect the law, and freedom of religion.  This does not include any religion that advocates a world-wide caliphate by any means, including beheading Christians.  We have to protect ourselves from this very real danger.