* The Liberal Mind. In my last post I cited a CNN poll finding that Republicans overwhelmingly supported Israel's recent actions in Gaza (74% to 12%), whereas Democrats could not even muster majority support (41% to 36%). In an email to readers on my list I noted that readers who were Democrats might be surprised by their party's dwindling support of Israel. I also noted that I was not surprised. Sure enough, one Democrat reader disagreed with those stats. What follows is an exchange (given with his permission) between the reader (R) and Truth-Uncensored (TU):
TU: "So unless you think either I or CNN made up those stats, what is your explanation for the far greater GOP support? If you just don't buy it, then you have not been paying attention the last 10-20 years. Await your explanation."
R: "I live in a sheltered social circle. I have never met an anti-Israel person or a pro-Arab person. Just hard for me to believe, or perhaps accept, any numbers regardless of parties. I must be in denial as I have no reason to challenge you or your source. Where does CNN find these people I have never met or heard of?"
TU: "Let me correct you. You INTENTIONALLY live in a sheltered social circle. The evidence is all around you. I did NOT need that poll to tell me that Repubs overwhelmingly support Israel and Dems don't. Your inability to accept reality reflects two things: 1. You only read the mainstream media, and 2. As I often say, liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality. In this case, you BELIEVE all Dems support Israel, so you are UNABLE to process REALITY when it conflicts with that belief."
This exchange was with a reader whom I personally know. He is very bright and analytical in his job. So what's the problem? He is right about one thing - of course he is in denial. He only "knows" what he gets from the mainstream papers and mainstream/liberal talk shows. But like so many liberals I have come across, what they "know" is simply not true. Sadly, a combination of his "beliefs" and lack of exposure to other viewpoints and information, results in this liberal Jew not even recognizing how far his party has moved against Israel. Yet, this decreasing support for Israel among democrats has been going on for years, if not decades. These same limitations prevent these liberals from seeing how far their party has moved to the left on economic issues and social issues. And what incredible naivete to say these anti-Israel Dems don't exist because he never met them or heard of them. Will this same reader have to see an Iranian nuke go off in Israel or the US before he "knows" Iran has acquired nukes? The liberal mind.
* Texas vs. California. The growth rate in Texas the last two years: 3.3% and 5.2%. California: 2.0% and 1.7%. Texas' unemployment rate: 6.8% vs. California's whopping 10.2%. From 2008 to 2011 median hourly wages in Texas rose 8% vs. 5.7% in California. California's poverty rate of 23.5% is the highest in the US; Texas has a rate of 16.5%. Texas students do better in math and reading, even though Texas spends less on education. (Think about all the politically correct nonsense that California School Boards worry about over actual education.) From 2007 to 2010 about 500,000 people left California; Texas gained nearly 400,000 people. Not surprising as Texas has created more than double the number of jobs that California has created since June, 2009. (All stats and information from the 11/23/12 Investor's Business Daily.)
Texas regularly ranks in the top five of business friendly states. I suspect states like California, New York and Illinois are in the bottom five. Notwithstanding California's awful economic situation, they continue to raise taxes (Prop. 30 being the latest example), and will undoubtedly continue to increase regulations. Now that Californians have given super majorities in both legislative houses to the Democrats, they can pass whatever additional tax and spending measures they want.
So here's the question: Is Obama going to take us down California's path or the path of Texas? Yes, it's just a rhetorical question as we know Obama prefers the California path. In Obama's current fight with the Republicans in the House over the "fiscal cliff" and ending of the so-called Bush tax cuts, Obama continues to insist on raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Such a tax increase does almost nothing to pay down the debt or deficit. But as Obama told Charlie Gibson four years ago, he would consider raising the capital gains taxes out of a "sense of fairness," even though historically increasing the rates resulted in less revenue to the government. That's what his current fight is all about. Obama the ideologue, wants to raise taxes on the top 2%, even if it means impeding job growth; while at the same time making it look like it is the Republicans who are the extremist ideologues. (Here's a question: Who do you think creates more jobs, the top 2% or the bottom 2%? Or the top 2% vs. the bottom 50% for that matter.)
And, just to add insult to injury, if you want to rent a U-Haul to move from San Francisco to San Antonio, it will cost you $1693. If you want to go from San Antonio to San Francisco - that's only $983. Far less demand! (Data from the 11/23/12 IBD article.)
* The UN Recognizes Palestine. On November 29, the UN voted to upgrade the Palestinian Authority from non-member observer to non-member state. This new "state" consists of Gaza, the West Bank and "East Jerusalem," based upon the 1967 borders. The vote was 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions. The US, Canada, and Israel voted against, as did one European country - the Czech Republic. Voting for, among others, were France, Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland. Britain and Germany "abstained;" such brave votes.
So what could be wrong with this picture? Well, Abbas has NO legitimacy as his term of office expired three years ago. Undoubtedly, he was reluctant to hold new elections fearing that Hamas would win, as they did in Gaza. This new "state" has two different governments: the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Here's a small matter: how does the UN have any jurisdiction to make this decision? When the UN General Assembly voted partition of the British Mandate in 1947, their jurisdiction was clear. Britain voluntarily turned over the Mandate area to the UN General Assembly to decide its' fate. Sixty-five years later they think they still have jurisdiction? While they are feeling so generous, they ought to recognize Tibet (too bad China), Chechnya (sorry Russia), Kurdistan (too bad Turkey, Syria and Iraq), just to name a few. And while they are at it, shouldn't they recognize Mexico's borders as including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California?
How many lies did Abbas tell in his speech to the General Assembly before the vote? He noted that 65 years prior the UNGA "partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel." Actually, it would have been a birth certificate for an Arab country as well but for the fact that the Arabs announced before partition that they would NEVER accept a Jewish state; and, oh yeah, they attacked Israel the day after Israel declared their independence in 1948. So, the partition was not Israel's birth certificate; it was the defeat of the Arab world's multiple armies that assured the existence of a Jewish state. Abbas: "In those dark days, our people had looked to the United Nations as a beacon of hope and appealed for ending the injustice..." Wow! There's a whopper. Again, the Arabs announced BEFORE the 1947 UN vote that they would NEVER accept a Jewish state there. That is why the war ensued. So Abbas claims they looked to the UN when the truth is they denounced the UN vote.
Otherwise, Abbas' speech was filled with the usual accusations showing his true attitude towards Israel. He referred to Israel's creation as the Nabka (catastrophe) as the Arabs regularly do. He accused Israel of war crimes for their retaliation against thousands of rockets and mortars from Gaza; and hinted that as a "state" now they would file a complaint with the International Criminal Court against Israel. We know how that would end up. He referred to Israel's "racist, colonial occupation" of lands Israel has controlled since 1967 because the ARABS LOST THAT WAR! We know, of course, that the Arabs are the real racists as they have said no Jew may live in their country, whereas over one million Arabs live in Israel. And, I might add, enjoy greater civil rights than Arabs do in Arab run countries.
The same liberal reader referred to above believes in the legitimacy of the UN. See how the UN protects the Syrian people from being murdered by their own government? They can't - because Russia would veto any resolution. The UN had a peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon after Israel's war with Hezbollah. That UN force sat idly by while Hezbollah rearmed with tens of thousands of missiles from Iran and Syria. By maintaining our membership in the UN we only give credibility to the votes of dictators, thugs and islamofascists. The US ought to withdraw and establish a new UN of democratic and free countries. Countries wishing to join must not only have democratically elected leaders, but provide for basic civil freedoms for their citizens (such as free speech and freedom to choose one's religion). The UN as currently constituted allows for countries like Iran and Syria to be on the Human Rights Council. What a joke! Not only does the UN not promote peace, it arguably enables mass murder and genocide as in Syria. The Security Council is unable to act because dictatorships like Russia and China prevent action. Therefore, unless the US acts on its' own, nothing happens.
And let us not forget that the UN has voted more resolutions against the tiny country of Israel than the rest of the member states combined. Anyone who believes in the legitimacy of the UN has, quite simply, lost their moral compass.