SamSaid!

There are between 20-30 Muslim Principalities, KINGDOMs or Countries in the world,spreading across Northern Africa and Southern Asia from Morocco to Indonesia. They may have their individuial differences, but all of them to one extent or another have one thing in common — i.e., a Bi-Polar power structure. One is secular, the other is religious. In some cases their relationship can be chummy and cooperative; other cases they may be strongly combative and downright hostile to each other.

The secular power base is the Government, the Military, the Professional class, the Treasury, Economic control, Industrialists, Traders etc. The other is comprised of the Mullahs, the Ayatollahs and other leaders of Islam, the Educators, etc. The Secular leaders manage the country; the clerics control the culture and the minds of the citizens. But as differences arise between religious and secular leaders,it is the Koran that controls. Rather than square off in combat, the relationship between the Muslim secular and religious leaders comes down to Operation Back Scratch. They respect each other's turf, but when push comes to shove, the Ayatollas of Islam prevail.

Many westerners are willing to look other way when it comes to giving Islam the benefit of the doubt in qualifying as a great religion, but should they? Just ask yourself this simple question: While Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, Iranians, and Kuwaitis, what did the mullahs have to say? While he mass murdered Iraqi citizens my the thousands upon thousands, what did the Ayatollahs have to say? While he and his satraps milked the oil revenues for their own bank accounts as well as those of friends, military officers and political partners, what the the leaders of Islam have to say? Answer to all of the preceding?

Nothing. Nada. Just what kind of religion is it that allows and even praises this kind of behavior? And Saddam was not alone as a beneficiary of Islam riches and indulgence. And that is why the Iraqi war is such a mess. We can conquer the secular half of the equation with our military might. But what about the religious side of the populace? In my view, this war will go on and on until the Ayatollahs and Mullahs decided to call a halt to the killing. That is the very tough part of this struggle.

Rush Limbaugh may be scorned by the left wingers, but he is right, “Make no mistake, we are in a religious war” Saddams may come and go, but the Koran zealots remain. Generals can surrender; Ayatollahs do not.

SQUANDERED

I can clearly recall that heady evening in November 1994 when the Republicand swept the board and gained control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives for the first time in decades. Mainly, I recall the disbelief on the faces of the shocked Democrats as they watched the results being reported. Now I know how they felt — at least in part. As the old saying goes,”it was a Day at Black Rock” on November 8,2006.

The sweep by the Rs back in 1994 led to very high expectations, especially on court decisions that were negating many “traditional values” for the majority of Americans. The Ds and other Liberals were clevely by-passing the electorate to achieve change (their way) via ideologically sympathetic Judges, and stretching the Constitution to effectuate significant change that could never be attained through the ballot box. To a given degree, the liberal march was stopped or at least slowed dow, and the Supreme Court has been re-staffed to (hopefully) counter the silly rulings of left wing Judges catering to the liberal side. But for sure, the great expectations of 1994 are gone.

So what happened and what can we expect? First of all, Lord Acton was right, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Bill Clintom remains the champion when it comes to corruption and disreputable behavior at the highest level, but in the past few years, the R leadership has taken a real beating in the House and Senate, and they paid the price for public disclosure. In the current vernacular, the Rs simpy shot themselves in the foot.

When a major change such as 2006 occurs,there are numerous reasons that contribute to the demise of a political party in the eyes of voters — and no matter what the transgressions might be, the largely hostile press and media effectively exaggerate them by two or three fold. Any game plan for the Rs means learning how to swim upstream.

How do we describe the 1994-2006 period of Republican control of the Federal Government? Failure? Wasted? Under achievement? True, the big margins in the House and Senate were not veto-proof, but the real power base of the Rs was not pushed to the maximum degree. In retrospect, the opportunity was there, the voting strength was there, and the popular issues were there. Yet the opportunity was — my word — squandered. It could be a long time before such an opportunity comes again.

As issues go, the Iraq war stands alone. It occupied center stage, but there were a lot of other matters that seem to get lost in the clutter. Too bad.

FRAUD

The November 2006 elections are now history. The echoes of gleeful chortling still can be heard among the winning Democrats, and the somber Republucans are left to wonder what happened while they lick their wounds. Many of the election issues remain to be confronted by the Ds, while many others just slide off the end of the table where they will rest until 2008 or later. There is one particular issue in this latter category that is a sensitive matter —- at least with me.

In every election that I can recall (and that adds up to a fair number) there has been a hue and cry about election fraud; that is, thousands and thousands of votes cast by people who are not eligible to vote, people who are “dead”, non-citizens, phony IDs, voting more than once, illegal aliens, and the list goes on. All of these practices have been used in the Big City machines of both parties, going back into the 1800s,1900s, and 2000s. The practices may have changed, but not the objective which is to elect the candidate of choice, no matter how it is done.

You would think that election fraud would be a hot issue nowadays in view of the narrow margins in many elections. Every time I vote I wonder if my vote will be cancelled by some non registered derelict, or a phony ID or a vote bought for a six pack and a couple of cigars. Way back, there was a story about a controversial office holder who had openly been labelled a “crook”. In response to that Republican accusation,a Democrat replied, “He may be a crook, but he is our crook”. When it comes to election fraud, perhaps the analogous statement would be “Election fraud isn't all bad as long as our guy wins”.

The tragic thing about election fraud is that most people are not riled up about it and just don't seem to care. But I do. I keep asking, “will my vote really count?” Don't hold your breath waiting for meaningful reform. It is not on Ms Pelosi's long agenda.

300 MILLION

     It is hard to imagine that our country has grown to 300 million people  –  and much of it in the past 50-75 years. Yet we are small potatoes when compared to China and India which have 1.2 billion and 900,000 respectively. Those figures are approximate and an error factor of plus or minus 100,000 or 200,000 is reasonable. I'm not sure how anyone could even think about conducting a census of that many people.

     My concern is not so much the absolute numbers of Americans; rather it is whether the glue that holds us together is beginning to fail. I refer of course to yhe basic values that were the linch pins of our country when it was formed. Month by month they are being eroded in a senseless manner. Now we have a mentality that says  “You may have your values, but I am here now, so change them”. It is true with religion, the schools, patriotism, laws, rights etc etc. The foundation of our society is being eroded by this kind of mentality. It would be foolish to deny change over time, but there is a big difference between change and dismantling the status quo. Many Americans hate to let go of quality values and replace them with existential convenience.

     How to you plan for a future without anchors or a place to hang you hat? How do you raise children when the noise-making radicals do not concede that there is such a thing as “right” or “wrong”. How to you instill a sense of decency in kids when they are bombarded with filth and obscenity at every turn. Is the 1st Amendment our salvation, or our Achilles heel? A good example is in the area of Art (I am not an artist). No matter what the odious image might be, Art is Art as long as the artist (no matter how deranged) calls it Art.  And most of our bird-brained academicians buy that stuff. Just go to a Gallery and see for youself this highly aclaimed Art (filth).

     The bad part is that these left wing radicals keep labelling this trend as “progressive”, “moving ahead”, or a “new direction”. Nice words, but utterly destructive of time honored standards. So 50 million kids in school cannot engage in prayers or pledge allegiance to the flag (under God) because some clown says “…everyone must change to accommodate me”.. And believe it or not, with a simple brush of the pen, OUR  (the overwhelming majority) right to that kind of education is simply washed away. Obviously, 200 years of history means nothing. Does Judicial activism mean anything to the average American?  Need a better example??

    300 million Americans??   Or 300 million people living in the US who Call themselves Americans?  The death of a culture is not pleasant to watch.

IT'S THE ECONOMY

     During the Clinton years, we heard the campaign issue debate in which the phrase, “It's the economy, stupid” was used. It later became a tongue in cheek quip aimed at the not so swift. Nowadays, the Democrats are more direct in slamming Bush for a sluggish and worrisome economy even though unemployment is at the lowest level in decades, growth in Gross Domestic Product is sustained, the Dow Jones average is at an ALL-TIME high, interest rates are low and inflation is under control. It takes a lot of gall to bad mouth that kind of economic performance  –  especially in the aftermath of the Bush tax cuts enacted a few years back. And for those who want to damn the tax cuts, we might point out that the the additional revenue to the Fed Government after the tax cuts became effective has sliced this year's forcasted budgetary shortfall in half.

     With those kinds of numbers, it takes a lot of misrepresentation or deceit to twist and spin in an effort to bad mouth the President. He has made mistakes (as we all do), but the big ticket economic decisions were right on target. But uderlying all of this data is a bigger question  –  to wit –   why doesn't the mass media  — the big newspapers and TV outlets emphasize the big picture –  the positive picture  — instead of hiding this kind of data on Page 14 and giving free reign to Bush-hating columnists? If you read the NY Times, LA Times  etc, you would get the idea that we are hanging by a thread over an economic cliff.

     Whether it is a recession or a boom, we use the same kinds of statistics to measure the state of the economy. At least, one would think so. Right now, the state of the economy is good  –  strong.  But don't ask the Democrats or the columnists of the NY Times. Fair and honest journalism??

     “It's the economy, stupid”.

LIEBERMAN

     Senator Joe Lieberman is a famous American. For a multi-term Senator, a VP nominee and a frequent guest on TV shows, it is difficult NOT to be well known. But the chances are that by November, Lieberman could become a household word meaning “stab in the back”.  Joe Lieberman committed an unpardonable sin for a Democrat  –  he openly supported  George Bush, The Republican President of the United States. The issue was the Iraqi War. So the Dems decided to kill off Lieberman by supporting a rival in the Democratic primary election in Connecticut. Lieberman lost, but will now run as an Independent.

     Lieberman was beaten (by a very narrow margin) by a wealthy left winger whose military strategy starts and ends with “retreat”. The nicer term is “cut and run”. But the anti-Bush, anti-war Democrats  — Kennedy, Reid, Boxer, Kerry, et. al., got out their stillettos and harpooned Lieberman because of his principled position on the War.  “Stab in the back” is an accurate and proper term, and it may be that in years to come when a back-stabbing incident occures, it may be described as a “Lieberman”.

     Wonder what the left wing Democrats will do when Lieberman wins in November? My guess is that he will win.

TARGETING

     The Middle East sure is a mess. The Israelis are fighting for the country's very existence, and the Hezbollah are on a crash course to destroy all of them. It is interesting that many of the UN “countries” label Israel's response to the Hezbollah incursion and capture of Israel soldiers as “disproportionate”. Really? Interesting term when is comes to flat out war. Why should world opinion be so strongly critical of the Israelis? Maybe Al Jazzeera thinks the Jews should apologize for being tough on Hezbollah.

     As the 36 day War heated up, Israel depended heavily on air strikes, while the Hezbollah relied on rockets fired at cities. The difference is that all of the Israeli airstrikes were targeted at specific targets  –  military targets. On the other hand, all of the Hezbollah rockets were indiscriminately fired at Israeli cities. Can you imagine 20-40-100 rockets fired at no specific targets  –  just hoping to kill a lot of innocent people? The Israelis want to win the war and disable Hezbollah while Hezbollah is content just to kill a lot of people who have no role in the military contest.  That tells you a lot about the aims and tactics of Hezbollah  –  no other purpose than to kill whoever is unfortunate enough to be in the area where an rocket falls.

     Wars are messy indeed and people get killed. All of them are not a part of the military forces. But to fire hundreds of rockets  — aimed at nothing in particular  —  hoping that they will kill “someone” is a sub human version of “war”. Or at a minimum, a version of war conducted by sub human people.

     Disproportionate??  Hardly!

WATERMELONS

     You've got to hand it to the Brits. It is mind boggling to think that even with erratic leadership, the country on that little island has dominated western civilization for 300years and still has a lot of influence and power in the nuclear age. Don't get me wrong  –  I am not an anglophile. I have long thought that there must be something wrong with a country and its people that would fire Winston Churchill after he had led them to victory in WW II. But they do have a way of using the English language. Often times, their phraseology is suble, clever, thought provoking, humorous, and memorable. They simply have a way with words,

     I spotted a case in point the other day, when English journalists described Environmentalists as “watermelons”  –  i.e., green on the outside and red in the inside. How true. With an ultra left agenda that would do justice to the far leftists and communists (State control and big government) they qualify eminently for the Red label —  and the green exterior is just a convenient facade.  Neat phrase  –  the environmentalists are “watermelons”  –  green on the outside and red in the middle. Saves a lot of superfluous words. 

     That goes for you too, Charles! 

UNIONS

     It was in 1960 when President John Kennedy signed the now famous executive order permitting the unionization of public service employes and imposing the obligation to bargain onto public service agencies  –  first the Feds and thereafter the States. Few at that time recognized the enormity of the decision by JFK and the tremendous fallout to follow. Private sector unionization had stalled, and the Exec Order opened up a whole new world of union power. . Nowadays, it is not a matter of striking in the big industries  –  it is bankrupting Municipalities and cities.

     The problem isn't difficult to understand. In the private sector, there is a basic quid pro quo  —  the Union right to strike vs the profit motive of the employers. Not so in the public sector. In these cases, the emplyers (i.e., the taxpayers) are not even present. They literally have no say-so as the union leaders and school administrators loot the treasuries. The Unions have no obligation to quit asking, and the administrators (or lawyers) have no real incentive to say NO. It just goes on and on, and we all pay for it. Now we see retired public service people getting pensions (at age 55) that exceed their salaries at work. And those of us paying the taxes have the dubious distinction of paying people to work at the same time we are paying them not to work. The Union people of course see nothing wrong with that arrangement since it is not their money and they are indifferent to tax consequences.

     When you think about funds for education, think twice about where the money comes from and where it goes. For every dollar that goes to public education, 80 cents goes into the Union coffers to perpetuate their monopoly over the public schools. Do you wonder why they they will fight to the death to prevent school vouchers that would allow education to experience private sector innovations? Just take a good look at those doozies stomping around with the picket signs. Remember, they are “educating” your kids. Not very re-assuring, is it??

     Oh yes. My sister and wife were both teachers in the public schools. They are disgusted at the current chaos of Union corruption and teacher incompetence  –to say nothing of high school kids who can't read or write! Who in his (her) right mind would support the notion of a test to graduate from high school even though the test  is geared to 8th graders?

     The great protectors of the working man. Really??

DECISIONS

     Some decisions are easy to make  –  others are not. And many people who have had experience in leading an organization understand how painfully difficult decision making can be. Consider for a moment what might go thru the mind of George Bush as his day begins. What should we do about North Korea, Iran, Iraq, AIDS, gasoline prices, the health of Social Security, medical expenses, education, military funding, maintaining State Secrets, political races, court nominees, press conferences, International guests, vetoes ……  and the list goes on and on. Amd when the President does make a decision, it often can be “no-win” since the opposing proponents might not be satisfied. But with all of the unpleasantness that may result, the need for a decision does not go away. Some critics will be unhappy if he makes a decision, and others will be unhappy if he does not.

     It is an interesting process, and the road to a decision often runs thru consultants, academicians, experts of one kind or another, staffers paid for recommendations, friends, advisors, gurus, family members, top level aides, etc., etc., etc. The most meaningful comment emanating from this process came from President Harry Truman in the days following World War II. When facing tough decisions, Harry said, “The buck stops here”. How true.

     I had the pleasure of working for a guy who understood this process very well. When crunch time came for decision making, he dispensed with advice and recommendations with a very concise way to cut to the core of an issue. He said succinctly (to his staff of advisors and experts) : “I am not interested in your advice, recommendations or suggestions. I have only one question for you  —  “Specifically, what would you do if you were in my shoes?”   If you ever need to find a way to separate the men from the boys, here is a perfect way to do it. Just don't stand in front of the water fountain or the men's room. People can get trampled that way.