Islam

 Mention of Islam has been made in earlier posts with regard to the Palestinians.  But perhaps we should open the lens a bit wider.

Only Islam, as I see it, seems in conflict with other religions.  In the lower regions of the Philippines they have established themselves as a deadly minority.  In India, they never seem to have made peace with the Hindu population.  Muslim refugees who fled to Sweden have succeeded in having thoroughly alienated the people who invited them to their country.  The Islamic hostility to Christians in Muslim majority countries is well known.

So what's the problem with Islam?  In my opinion, it's that they lack secularization.  There are secular Muslims, but they survive only if they keep their heads down.  Islam is a religion that condones, and indeed promotes, the murder of anyone who speaks in a manner Muslims find disrespectful.  That is not acceptable in today's world.

No institution is beyond analysis and criticism; not the army, not a political leader, and not a religious leader.  It is only in totalitarian countries where critical analysis is banned.  There was a time when the Church in Rome made efforts to have Martin Luther killed.  But that was long ago.  This is now.  How dare some Ayatollah order Solmon Rushdie to be assassinated for having written a book to  which the Ayatollah takes exception. 

We see this same trait shown in the Palestinians.  They play the injured-party card.  Consider their charges.

The Jews took their place in Palestine.  The data shows this to be untrue.  Both Jews and Muslims who today populate Palestine were largely immigrants.

When the Jews were under the yoke of the Romans, many centuries earlier, there were no Muslims in the place which the the Romans had renamed Palestine.  Mohammed still had not been born.

Just as Christians appropriated the Jewish Torah and tacked it onto their Bible, calling it the Old Testament, the Muslims appropriated both the Jewish Torah and the Christian New Testament and stitched it all into Islam.  He made some minor changes, like saying Abrahams had been asked to offer Ishmael to God as a sacrifice instead of Isaac.  They acknowledged Jesus but denied him Godhood.  (The Jews would pretty much agree with the Muslims on that one, but they never made a big fuss over it.)

The Palestinians insist that the holy sites in Israel/Palestine belong to them.  Such sites include the Temple Mount which was once part of the temple that Solomon built and that Herod rebuilt after the first one was torn down.  How does that make it Islamic?  It was built by a Jewish king and, after again being destroyed, rebuilt by another Jewish king at a time before there were any Muslims.

The burial site of the very first Jew, Abraham, in a cave in Hebron, is also claimed by the Palestinians.  Again, in Abraham's day there were no Muslims.  They make the same claim for Joseph's tomb.

And how do the Palestinians treat these sites?  They first attempted to keep the Jews away from them.  But even worse, they had their sanitation crews throw waste in the temple yard.  They vandalize Joseph's tomb.  When archeologists found what appears to have been the alter that Joshua built, they work to tear it apart until stoped by Israeli authorities.  Is this how one deals with sites one claims to be meaningful to one's people?

Muslims in the Palestinian areas hate the Jews for their narrative, a narrative that is true and honest, while their's is false.  Never the less, they have managed to sell their narrative to some Americans, as well as to the UN, and anyone who doesn't care for Jews.

Conservatives vs. Liberals

 Most Americans give little thought as to the meaning of the terms "conservative" and "liberal",  although  they see themselves as mostly on one side or the other.  They'll think, I'm for open borders so I must be a liberal.  The conservatives are against it.  Liberals are for a woman's right to choose.  Conservatives are for "life."

If you think that way, you're not giving the country a fair shake.  The meaning of "conserve" is to save what is good for society.  It's what the country has fought for and what has proven to be worth the sacrifice.  To be a liberal is to take the position that we are where we are, but we can do much better.  

There's a problem in my opinion with reducing one's position down to "conservative" or "liberal."  The problem with conservatism is that much of what we've fought for is well worth holding on to.  But there's a fear of change even when it becomes clear that some sort of change is called for.  In a changing world, it often becomes necessary to change past procedures.  However to try to institute untried methods can do great harm to all that is good in our system of governance.  It can prove dangerous.  It can take a troubled system and make it worse.

There are two things that should concern today's Americans who wish to keep the positive aspects of our democratic system on course.   The first calls for a more critical analysis of current problems and the second has to do with holding in check the power that is often found in a small minority.

Examples:  

Gun control:  States with the most stringent rules on gun ownership generally have more murders in their cities than smaller, rural communities.  Both liberals and conservatives should work on this problem.  They should have done so years ago.

The country's borders:  Why is this an issue only for conservatives?

A woman's body:  Right-to-life vs Right-to-Choose (often stated simply as "Choice".  I have a problem here.  I strongly believe it's a woman's right to choose whether she wants an abortion or not.  This issue is tied up in religious theology and such issues are generally the most difficult to deal with.

The economy:  We've got a hundred experts.  Pick the one you like.

Going "green":  I can see the arguments in favor of going green.  But, it's quite obvious that if the rest of the world (say Russia, India and China) son't limit their use of fossil fuels, our efforts will have almost no effect on global climate change.  But, more than that, they'll significantly weaken us vis a vis our  enemies; namely Russia and China.

The list goes on, but I'm stopping here.

Heard from China: Surrender or Die

 "One Nation Two Systems" was the Chinese ploy. It was a stall.  China could never tolerate two systems; no  totalitarian dictatorship can.  With two systems people can not help but make comparisons. That would mean the end of the dictatorship.  Didn't Kissinger understand that?  It's really quite simple.

China has never been able to tolerate anything, any person, any idea that is not an extension of itself.

Look how it mauled Tibet.  It was so unnecessary.  They could so easily have dominated this backward country.  They didn't have to murder it's citizens.

Look at what it did to the million-plus Uighers.  It put them into a massive concentration camp.  It raped their women. Separated families. And why?  The Uighers were no threat.

Look at Hong Kong.  It contributed significantly to China's coffers.  It had been a British colony, but the days of colonies were over.  Britain knew it, and raised no objection to turning it over to China  This was done under an agreement that allowed the Hong Kong people to retain their own administration for about 50 years.  But after only 25 years, China tore up the agreement and put the island under mainland administration. At first, the people of Hong Kong resisted, but soon realized that resistance was futile.  They were now under the Chinese boot.  They could have fought against it but it would have been Tianemen Square all over again.

And now we have Taiwan.  It is a proud nation in all respects, except one.  It does not have UN recognition.  With Kissinger's approval, it was denied what every other nation is entitled to.  Nevertheless, Taiwan has prospered.  And it has prospered under a democratic government.  From China's point of view, that is their unforgivable sin.  China has made no secret of the fact that it intends to make it a Chinese territory and end it's free-thinking ways.  Imagine; giving it's people the right to vote!

Incidentally, anyone who does not realize that South Korea is next in line to fall under Chinese domination is blind.  North Korea would have collapsed years ago.  It is puppet of China.  South Korea has worked really hard to counter a threat from North Korea.  But once China has digested Taiwan, you can be sure South Korea will be next on its list.

There is a reason why the Vietnamese can not abide China.  They deny Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Philippines their rightful fishing rights.

So what can America do?  The first thing is to recognize that China is an evil force; not its people, but surely its leaders.  We must disengage in all ways possible.  It is interesting to note: that because of the Pelosi trip to Taiwan, China will no longer cooperate with the U.S. as regards to global warming.  What does this mean?   They'll now pollute the earth.  That'll sure teach us.

We must end all reliances on China.  We must become self sufficient in lithium for batteries, in the production of solar panels, and in the production of sneakers made in Uigher concentration camps.  We must support our industries.in this effort and those of friendly countries.  It's better to start now rather than wait until they've choked the life out of us.

Look at how dependent European countries were willing to become on Russian energy.  You can't wait for the dragon to strike.