Liberals think with their hearts. Conservatives with their heads.
Liberals believe criminals should have guns. Conservatives believe citizens should be able to arm themselves against criminals.
Liberals believe America is too bellicose and ask why spend all that money on our military? Conservatives believe the primal purpose of government is protection of its citizenry.
Liberals believe government is the answer. Conservatives believe government is the problem.
Liberals believe people are entitled to a hand out. Conservatives believe people only deserve a helping hand.
http://www.staged.com/video?v=Klmb
Liberals see no problem if people become dependent and give up their freedom. Conservatives believe freedom is preferable even if it means learning from failure.
http://www.staged.com/video?v=Klmb
Liberals believe unions are good because they protect the worker. Conservatives believe unions have cost workers their jobs.
Liberals tend not to believe America is exceptional and focus more on America's mistakes. Conservatives know we are exceptional, understand we have made mistakes and ask where would the world be without America.?
Liberals question the harshness of Capitalism and focus on its failings. Conservatives cite the success of Capitalism and know empirically, when compared to any other economic system, Capitalism wins hands down.
Liberals have come to question the role of religion and our faith based Constitution. Conservatives reject a godless society.
Liberals believe government legislation, rules and regulations are preferable to free market solutions and reject the trickle down theory.Conservatives believe the free market best allocates capital, has produced more prosperity for more people and believe the cost benefits of most government red tape, and legislation are both a fallacy and have hurt American competitiveness while killing jobs.
Liberals do not believe America should have a single language. Conservatives believe English should be our official language.
I could go on and on citing contrast after contrast.
Then why, again, if opposites attract, cannot Liberals and Conservatives get along for our nation's betterment?
I believe the answer is that Liberals think Conservatives are evil and Conservatives believe Liberals are stupid.
I believe Conservatives are mostly correct and have history on their side and mountains of empirical evidence.
My friends, who are liberal, are discomforted by this comment and become personal because they have no valid response.
Strong, insightful and selfless leadership can help bring Liberals and Conservatives to work in harmony. President Reagan being the most recent example.
At this juncture in our nation's history, we lack such presidential leadership, nor is it the desire of this president to do so because Obama prefers wedge issues which drive us apart and pit American against American.. Also, neither are the two aisles willing to accommodate the other because the ideological fissures and philosophical divide are too significant.
Thus, we will muddle through and see if the 2014 election will somehow realign the political stars above in a manner more favorable to our nation and its future.
The problem is that considering the convulsive nature the world finds itself in, time may not be on our side.
===
Palestinian leaders stir up their people with falsehoods and thus keep the pot boiling. (See 1 below.)
===
Will Israel stop Iran? One more viewpoint. (See 2 below.)
and then
George Soros suggests how the U.S. could wreck Russia's economy but , in doing so, it could make us vulnerable as well. (See 2a below.)
===
Moderate Islam an oxymoron? (See 3 below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)PA: Israel planning to destroy
the Al-Aqsa Mosque
"[Israel's] goal is to remove the Al-Aqsa Mosque,"
says PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash and other PA leaders, including Chairman Mahmoud Abbas
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=11122
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
The PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash said last week on PA TV that Israel has as systematic plan to remove the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Palestinian Media Watch has documented that the PA actively promotes religious hatred by spreading this libel. With almost 100% of Palestinians saying that religion plays an "important or somewhat important role in their lives", the claim that Israel plans to destroy Palestinian and Muslim holy sites is highly inflammatory.This libel was repeated by Mahmoud Al-Habbash last week on official PA TV:
PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash:
"Israel is following a systematic, gradual plan supported by the Israeli government and protected by the Israeli army, and its goal - I'm telling you - is not to divide Al-Aqsa (i.e., the Temple Mount)."
PA TV host: "To extend its sovereignty over Al-Aqsa."
Al-Habbash: "Its goal is to remove the Al-Aqsa Mosque."
Host: "As the final goal."
Al-Habbash: "As the final goal, they don't want to see the shining, golden, elegant Dome of the Rock." [Official PA TV, Feb. 25, 2014]
Click to viewThe PA has been promoting this libel for years. Mahmoud Abbas has also expressed this libel:
Mahmoud Abbas:
"[Israel's actions in Jerusalem] ultimately aim to achieve dark goals: Destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and build the alleged Temple take over the Muslim and Christian holy sites, and destroy its [Jerusalem's] institutions in order to empty it, uproot its residents, and continue its occupation and Judaization.'
Abbas' statement also said that all of Israel's archeological digs and tunnels... will not change the reality of the city...
and will not produce a [Jewish] right based and illusions and legends.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 22, 2012]At a PA government meeting in September 2013, chaired by Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah, Israel was accused of planning "to divide the Al-Aqsa Mosque between Muslims and Jews, as part of Israel's frantic attempts to build the alleged Temple in place of the Al-Aqsa Mosque." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 18, 2013]
A Palestinian daily portrayed Israel as an octopus eating the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. [Al-Ayyam, Oct. 13, 2013]
The official PA TV News has reported that PA experts on the Al-Aqsa Mosque structure say that Israel spreads chemicals at Al-Aqsa foundations in order to destroy it:
PA TV News host: "Experts on the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem issues warned that there are traces ofchemicals under Al-Aqsa, which the occupation authorities are using in intensified excavations around the foundations of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in order to dissolve them."
Narrator: "Israel's policies and schemes have never stopped and will never stop in Al-Aqsa's courtyards and surroundings in order to harm [the Mosque's] Arabness and holiness. What is new this time is the discovery of traces of dangerous chemicals in the Al-Aqsa foundations and [the discovery of] other solvents used to cause the foundations to crumble and collapse in accordance with [Israel's] step-by-step plans."
Click to view
[Official PA TV Aug. 3, 2012]
The official PA daily reported the same story and explained that Israel spreads the chemicals at night but removes the traces during the day:
"The expert on Al-Aqsa mosque structure and Jerusalem Affairs, Engineer Jammal Amr, has warned that traces of dangerous chemicals have been found in the foundations of the Al-Aqsa mosque. He also emphasized that Israeli occupation forces use substances that induce dissolving in their excavations under Al-Aqsa, in order to fracture the [mosque's] foundations and bring about its collapse... There are [Israeli] specialists spreading the chemicals at night, and removing the traces during the day."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 3, 2012]
Secretary General of the Supreme Islamic Council in Jerusalem, Tayseer Tamimi, said when he was PA Chief Religious Justice that because Israel was removing the foundations the mosque was "hanging in midair": 
"The [Israeli] excavations' purpose is to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque. In fact, its foundations have been removed. Chemical acids were injected into the rocks to dissolve them. The soil and the pillars [were removed] so the mosque is hanging in midair. There is an Israeli plan to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and to build the Temple." When PA leaders and media mention the Al-Aqsa Mosque they refer to the entire Temple Mount, including the Western Wall. The golden "Dome of the Rock" that Al-Habbash referred to, is not the Al-Aqsa Mosque but is situated on the Temple Mount plaza.
The PA's Al-Aqsa libel has been actively promoted since 1998. Click to see more examples on PMW's website.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Will Israel Stop Iran?
"An Israeli attack on Iran would have dire repercussions. But nothing could be more dangerous for Israel than betting on Iran’s good will or good sense not to attack Israel. The dithering West, coupled with the resolute mullahs of Iran, may result in a military confrontation that should have been stopped years ago."
By Steve Kramer
Five years ago, I wrote the following article, “Green Light for Israel,” criticizing the West for its acquiescence towards the surging power of Iran [with contemporary comments added]:
“Iran is arguably the world’s greatest supporter of terror, especially against Israel. The Hizbollah terror organization in Lebanon and the Hamas terror organization [and Islamic Jihad] in Gaza, aim their scores of thousands of rockets directly at Israel. Iran is the main financier and materiel supplier for these military forces, which have already fired thousands of rockets into Israel. Iran’s elite Republican Guard is active in other Arab countries like Iraq, where Iran has contributed to the deaths of American and other Western troops, in Sudan, and and also in Africa’s largest country, Nigeria. Lately, Iran has gained influence in the African countries of Somalia and Eritrea, each located by crucial trading routes – the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden, respectively.
“Republican Guard agents are also found in South America, where terror attacks in Argentina carried out by Hezbollah in 1994 and 1996, on instructions from Iran, killed more than one hundred Jews and injured hundreds more. [Iran has opened a dozen embassies in Latin America while the United States has reduced its footprint in the region. Russia and China are also engaged in filling the vacuum America has created around the world.]
“The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said that the Tehran regime has grossly underreported the extent of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, along with a slew of other violations, including refusing access to IAEA inspectors to the heavy water reactor at Arak, which is ideally suited to producing plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. At the UN, America and Britain recently accused Iran of supplying arms to Syria in violation of a UN Security Council resolution banning arms transfer as part of the measures against Iranian nuclear activities. Violations, yes; punishments, no.
“Despite Iran’s obvious trail of anti-Western activity, the Europeans have been happy to spend years negotiating with them, untroubled by the fact that Iran plows ahead with its nuclear ambitions. Obviously, Iran’s deep-rooted hostility towards Israel and America has given the Europeans a false sense of security regarding Iran’s military prowess towards them. This is not because Iran hides its growing arsenal of ballistic missiles, but in spite of it. Iran’s latest effort, putting a satellite into orbit, was accomplished by a missile capable of hitting all of the European capitals.
“The reason for Europe’s dilly-dallying with Iran is to prolong their mutually beneficial business relationships, though their mutual transactions are many times more significant to Iran than to any of its European partners. Russia and China also have a hand in prolonging the worse-than-useless negotiations, for reasons of realpolitik as well as trade. And we can’t ignore Iran’s clout as a huge oil and gas supplier, which seems to stupefy even some of the world’s strongest countries.
“The result has been that only weak sanctions [later greatly increased] have been brought to bear on Iran by the UN and several Western powers, and even those are not enforced adequately. To sum up, the West, plus Russia and China, don’t take Iran seriously, despite its rapid acquisition of ballistic missiles, its rush to enrich uranium – a prerequisite for nuclear weapons – and its strategic position overlooking the Strait of Tiran, through which 40% of the world’s oil is transported.”
Today: The sad fact is that more than five years after the Iranian drive towards nuclear weapons became common knowledge, the Iranians are poised to produce them. Yes, the weak sanctions were greatly increased against Iran, and had a significant impact on Iran’s economy, if not its nuclear research. But just when Europe and America had Iran’s leaders in a vulnerable position, both economically and politically, the pressure was reduced to entice the Iranians to once again negotiate.
The Iranians, I’m sure, could not believe their good fortune. They were suffering from sanctions which were debilitating their economy, if not actually inhibiting their progress towards nuclear weapons. Inexplicably, their adversaries reward them for agreeing to sit at the negotiating table! America and Europe reduced the sanctions, giving Iran just the economic lifeline it needed. The sanctions regime has been gutted and Western countries, including American giants such as Boeing and General Electric, are lining up to do business in Iran. Now that Iran is once again open for business, it would be extremely hard to reinstate a drastic sanctions program.
So, what enticement is there for Iran to desist from developing the bomb? The mullahs haven’t forgotten the downfall and execution of Saddam Hussein and Mu’ammer al-Gaddafi, after they ended their nuclear programs. Conversely, North Korea defied Western demands to demilitarize and now possesses nuclear weapons. Consequently, the rogue state is a thorn in the side of all its Asian neighbors. Happily for Iran, America’s chief negotiator, Wendy Sherman, is the same negotiator who failed miserably with North Korea.
If sanctions are no longer the method the West uses to pressure Iran, only military force remains an option. In fact, while everyone knows that Europe has no stomach and hardly even the ability to act militarily against Iran, America’s State Department still claims that, “Nothing is off the table.” But everything the Obama administration does points to containment, not interdiction. (My interpretation: “Nothing is ON the table.”)
The recent weak reactions to the use of chemical warfare by Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin’s takeover in Crimea are just the latest examples of a diffident American foreign policy. Neither Assad nor Putin are put off by the Western response to their continued belligerence. Assad continues to murder Syrians and Putin is not upset that Russia is no longer part of the G-8 economic group.
As I and others noted five years ago, neither the actions of Europe nor America show alarm over the Iranian nuclear threat. Israel has no such luxury (perhaps the West doesn’t either). Israel has the means to forcefully impede Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, even if it can’t destroy the whole program. In addition, Israel has the will to do it, if necessary.
Iran, a Muslim country run by radical jihadists, just might decide to attack Israel, relying on its burgeoning military might, its many allies on Israel’s borders, and the West’s apparent disinclination for confrontation. Russia, which has lately been flaunting its power with impunity, supports Iran, another factor which may give Iran confidence.
An Israeli attack on Iran would have dire repercussions. But nothing could be more dangerous for Israel than betting on Iran’s good will or good sense not to attack Israel. The dithering West, coupled with the resolute mullahs of Iran, may result in a military confrontation that should have been stopped years ago. One thing that is sure is that Israel is serious about “Never Again.” and will not passively await a military onslaught against it. So I repeat: Western weakness is giving Israel the green light to attack Iran
2a) Soros: US Could 'Ruin' Russian Economy With Release of SPR Oil
The United States can devastate Russia's economy if it wants by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, says legendary investor George Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management.
"The strongest deterrent is in the hands of the United States because it can release oil from the strategic oil reserve, which would then reduce the price of oil, and that would ruin the Russian economy, which lives on oil," he told Marketplace.
To be sure, Soros said he hopes that doesn't happen.
The sanctions that the United States and Europe are slapping on Russian oligarchs could be counter-productive, he said.
"The Russian economy is very weak because the oligarchs who run the country don't trust it and they send their money abroad," Soros said. "So if you stop the inflow of funds, that will bring the Russian economy to its knees."
But the sanctions make it more difficult for the oligarchs to take their money out of Russia, thus boosting the Russian economy, Soros said.
He said the West needs to spend more energy on helping Ukraine, rather than just hurting Russia.
"Ukraine is determined to reform, but it needs protection," Soros said.
Meanwhile, Russia could suffer a recession from its intervention in Ukraine even without trade sanctions from the West, according to a new World Bank report.
The Bank said Russia's GDP could shrink up to 1.8 percent this year, Reuters reports. "An intensification of political tension could lead to heightened uncertainties around economic sanctions and would further depress confidence and investment activities," the World Bank said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Why 'Moderate Islam' is an Oxymoron
By Raymond Ibrahim
At a time when terrorism committed in the name of Islam is rampant, we are continuously being assured—especially by three major institutions that play a dominant role in forming the Western mindset, namely, mainstream media, academia, and government—that the sort of Islam embraced by "radicals," "jihadis," and so forth, has nothing to do with "real" Islam.
"True" Islam, so the narrative goes, is intrinsically free of anything "bad." It's the nut-jobs who hijack it for their own agenda that are to blame.
More specifically, we are told that there exists a "moderate" Islam and an "extremist" Islam—the former good and true, embraced by a Muslim majority, the latter a perverse sacrilege practiced by an exploitative minority.
But what do these dual adjectives—"moderate" and "extremist"—ultimately mean in the context of Islam? Are they both equal and viable alternatives insofar as to how Islam is understood? Are they both theologically legitimate? This last question is particularly important, since Islam is first and foremost a religious way of life centered around the words of a deity (Allah) and his prophet (Muhammad)—the significance of which is admittedly unappreciated by secular societies.
Both terms—"moderate" and "extremist"—have to do with degree, or less mathematically,zeal: how much, or to what extent, a thing is practiced or implemented. As Webster's puts it, "moderate" means "observing reasonable limits"; "extremist" means "going to great or exaggerated lengths."
It's a question, then, of doing either too much or too little.
The problem, however, is that mainstream Islam offers a crystal-clear way of life, based on the teachings of the Koran and Hadith—the former, containing what purport to be the sacred words of Allah, the latter, the example (or sunna, hence "Sunnis") of his prophet, also known as the most "perfect man" (al-insan al-kamil). Indeed, based on these two primary sources and according to normative Islamic teaching, all human actions fall into five categories: forbidden actions, discouraged actions, neutral actions recommended actions, and obligatory actions.
In this context, how does a believer go about "moderating" what the deity and his spokesman have commanded? One can either try to observe Islam's commandments or one can ignore them: any more or less is not Islam—a word which means "submit" (to the laws, or sharia, of Allah).
The real question, then, is what do Allah and his prophet command Muslims ("they who submit") to do? Are radicals "exaggerating" their orders? Or are moderate Muslims simply "observing reasonable limits"—a euphemism for negligence?—when it comes to fulfilling their commandments?
In our highly secularized era, where we are told that religious truths are flexible or simply non-existent, and that any and all interpretations and exegeses are valid, the all-important question of "What does Islam command?" loses all relevance.
Hence why the modern West is incapable of understanding Islam.
Indeed, only recently, a Kenyan mosque leader said that the Westgate massacre, where Islamic gunmen slaughtered some 67 people, "was justified. As per the Koran, as per the religion of Islam, Westgate was 100 percent justified." Then he said: "Radical Islam is a creation of people who do not believe in Islam. We don't have radical Islam, we don't have moderates, we don't have extremists. Islam is one religion following the Koran and the Sunna" [emphasis added].
Note his point that "Radical Islam is a creation of people who do not believe in Islam," a clear reference to the West which coined the phrase "radical Islam." Ironically, the secular West, which relegates religious truths to the realm of "personal experience," feels qualified to decide what is and is not "radical" about Islam.
Consider one example: Allah commands Muslims to "Fight those among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth [i.e., Islam], until they pay thejizya [tribute] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued" [Koran 9:29].
How can one interpret this verse to mean anything other than what it plainly says? Wherein lies the ambiguity, the room for interpretation? Of course there are other teachings and allusions in the Koran that by necessity lend themselves over to the fine arts of interpretation, or ijtihad. But surely the commands of Koran 9:29 are completely straightforward?
In fact, Muhammad's 7th century followers literally acted on this and similar verses (e.g., 9:5), launching the first Muslim conquests, which saw the subjugation of millions of Christians, Jews, and others, and the creation of the "Muslim world." Such jihadi expansion continued until Islam was beaten on the battlefield by a resurgent West some two or three centuries ago.
Western scholarly works, before the age of relativism and political correctness set in, did not equivocate the meaning of jihad. Thus the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for "jihad" states that the "spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated. Islamic law expert and U.S. professor Majid Khadduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, wrote that "jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community."
(As for the argument that the Bible contains similar war verses, yet Jews and Christians are not out to conquer the world—so why say Muslims are?—see "Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam" for a detailed breakdown of the similarities and differences. Also see "Islamic Jihad and the Doctrine of Abrogation" to understand how the Koran's more tolerant verses have been abrogated by its more militant ones, such as 9:29.)
In short, how can a sincere Muslim—by definition, one who has submitted to the teachings of Allah—"moderate" verses like 9:29? How can he "observe reasonable limits" vis-à-vis these plain commands to combat and subjugate non-Muslims?
Must Muslims not, at the very least, admit that such teachings are true and should be striven for—even if they do not personally engage in the jihad, at least not directly (but they are encouraged to support it indirectly, including monetarily or through propaganda)?
Just recently, reports appeared telling of how Islamic groups in Syria were following Koran 9:29 to a tee—forcing Christian minorities to pay them jizya, i.e., extortion money, in exchange for their lives. In fact, all around the Islamic world, Christians and other minorities are regularly plundered by Muslims who justify their actions by referring to the aforementioned verse.
Are all such Muslims being "extreme" in light of the commands of Koran 9:29—which specifically calls for the taking of money from Christians and Jews—or are they simply upholding the unambiguous teachings of Islam?
One may argue that, if Muslims are to take Koran 9:29 literally, why are Muslim nations the world over not declaring an all-out jihad on all non-Muslim nations, including America? The ultimate reason, of course, is that they simply can't; they do not have the capability to uphold that verse (and Islamic teaching allows Muslims to postpone their obligations until circumstances are more opportune).
It would obviously be silly, if not suicidal, for, say, Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Islam, to issue a statement to the West saying either accept Islam, pay jizya/tribute, or die by the sword. But just because Muslim nations do not currently have the capacity to actualize Koran 9:29, does not mean that they do not acknowledge its veracity and try to actualize it in other places when they can.
A quick survey of history before the meteoric rise of Western military might put Islam in check makes this especially clear.
Bottom line: If Islam teaches X and a Muslim upholds X—how is he being "extreme"? Seems more logical to say that it is Islam itself that is being "extreme." Similarly, if a self-professed Muslim does not uphold Islamic teachings—including prayer, fasting, paying zakat, etc.—how is he being a "moderate"? Seems more logical to say that he is not much of a Muslim at all—that is, he is not submitting to Allah, the very definition of "Muslim."
It's time to acknowledge that dichotomized notions like "moderate" and "extreme" are culturally induced and loaded standards of the modern, secular West—hardly applicable to the teachings of Islam—and not universal absolutes recognized by all mankind.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (Regnery, April, 2013) is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
