The Left Wishes To Fundamentally Transform America - Part II

In today's New York Times is an Op-Ed by regular columnist Jamelle Bouie, titled "The Constitution Is in Tension With Democracy."  When things are not going the way the Left wants, all the rules of the game need to change.  Even the fundamental rules in the Constitution.  Yet, they told us it was Trump who was the dictator, who didn't care about the rules.  

So what are the threats to democracy?  The election deniers, of course.  But only the Republican election deniers.  Not Gore, not Clinton, not Abrams, and not the many others in the Democratic Party.  The other threat to our democracy is the Constitution itself, the very structure of our government.  First, Bouie tells us about the "democratic backsliding of the past six years;" although she is only referring to the Trump years.  Why?  Aside from the fact that the Left hated Trump, there is the assertion that "Donald Trump was selected constitutionally, not elected democratically."  

I get it.  Clinton got nearly 3 million more popular votes than did Trump, but Trump won the electoral college vote and therefore became president.  Many people are unhappy with the fact that we are a republic of 50 states, and not a pure democracy.  I suspect there are some who are even unhappy with our representative form of government in the House.  Those people would like to see the people vote on everything.  

Why do we need an electoral college anyway?  Shouldn't every person's vote count equally?  There are fair arguments to make.  But the other argument is that we are a republic of 50 states.  It would be ridiculous to assert that all 50 states have the same or even similar interests.  How are the interests of those different 50 states best taken into account?  By both the electoral college and the Senate, where each state is represented equally regardless of population.  

Bouie tells us that we have "a system the basic structure of which fuels dysfunction and undermines American democracy, from how it enables minority rule to how it helps inculcate a certain kind of political chauvinism among some of the voters who benefit from lopsided representation in the Senate and the Electoral College."  Well, yes, there is lopsided representation in the Senate and the Electoral College by the smaller states.  

But I cannot help but wonder if that lopsided representation would be of any concern to the Left if it always favored Democrats.  The Left does not ask if our country is best served by a popular vote, which would likely result in the two coasts dictating the outcomes.  Tell me, are the big cities in those coastal states doing so well that we should allow them to set the agenda for the rest of the country?   

Our Constitution has been in effect since 1789.  Of course, some say that is the problem - it is old and outdated.  I hear the same thing said about the Bible.  Our Constitution has the distinction of being the oldest and most enduring governing document on earth.  It has survived a civil war, and numerous other societal challenges.  And it has been amended to meet the needs and the mores of the times.  

But the change that the Left seeks is one that they hope will insure their hold on political power for as long as is possible.  The Constitution, as written, does not do that.  And that is the problem.   

The Left Wishes To Fundamentally Transform America - Part I

You need not take my word for it.  Barack Obama told us back on October 30, 2008, that "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."  The Left applauded.  The mainstream media was all in.  Then we had the Trump years.  With the Democrats out of power, it was necessary to change the structure of government.  Get rid of the electoral college.  Add states that would be reliably Democratic, in order to increase the number of Democrats in the Senate.  Or, get rid of the Senate altogether.  Pack the Supreme Court.  Term limits for the Justices.  Reduce the Court's jurisdiction.  

Fast forward to now.  The first Monday in October starts a new session of the Supreme Court.  The day prior, on Sunday, October 2, the New York Times had a long editorial titled "The Supreme Court Has A Crisis Of Trust."  We all know why this so-called crisis has suddenly arisen - the Court's decision in Dobbs at the end of the last term, which overturned Roe v. Wade.  If trust in the Court has fallen, it is because papers like the Times and many others in the mainstream media and on the Left have done their best to discredit and malign the Court.

Says the Times:  "The actual cause of its (the Courts) historic unpopularity is no secret.  Over the past several years, the court has been transformed into a judicial arm of the Republican Party...Within four years, the court had a 6-to-3 right-wing supermajority..."  In other words, Trump got to appoint 3 justices to the Court, and the Left cannot tolerate that.  When the Court had 6-to-3 left-wing supermajorities?  No problem.  

At no time does the paper concern itself with whether Roe was decided on solid Constitutional grounds, even though some liberal scholars acknowledged that it was not.  At no time does the paper concern itself with what powers belong to the federal government versus state governments.  The reason, of course, is that the ends justify the means for the Left.  Actual legal and constitutional issues are of no consequence to the Left.   

Here is more from the Times:  "Election deniers in the Republican Party are undermining the integrity of the American electoral system."  If you tell them that Hillary Clinton continues to claim that the 2016 election was stolen from her, that's different.  The same for Stacey Abrams claiming the Georgia gubernatorial election was stolen from her.  Then, of course, we had the entire 4 years of the Trump Administration with a large segment of the Democratic Party not only claiming that he was an "illegitimate" president, but trying to remove him from office with their phony Russian collusion story.

The Times:  "Right-wing political violence is a present and growing threat."  Who shot up a Republican Congressional baseball game and nearly killed Rep. Steve Scalise?  That would be a left-wing political activist.  What about the threat on the life of Justice Kavanaugh?  And, how about the approximate $2 billion in property damage caused by various left-wing protesters and groups, in the summer of 2020.  Apparently, the Times is not concerned with political violence by Antifa or BLM or other left-wing groups.  

The Times quotes Justice Elena Kagan from a speech given in September at the Northwestern University School of Law:  "When courts become extensions of the political process, when people see them as extensions of the political process, when people see them as trying just to impose personal preferences on a society irrespective of the law, that's when there's a problem - and that's when there ought to be a problem."  Shame on Justice Kagan.  Here we have a sitting Justice of the highest court in the land, trying to undermine the legitimacy of that court, for the sole reason that the Dobbs decision did not go as she wanted.  

When Chief Justice John Roberts joined the 4 liberal justices in the initial decision upholding the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), he did so by calling the individual mandate a "tax," which it clearly was not.  The then four liberal justices, including Kagan, made it clear that they  would have upheld the ACA under any legal theory.  In other words, they were willing to act as an "extension of the political process," and support Obama's signature piece of legislation no matter what. 

To this day, I am both amazed and dismayed that so many on the Left simply accept at face value what they read in the New York Times or LA Times or other mainstream papers.       

The Democrats' Attacks on Republicans Continue

Big News!  48 illegal immigrants were flown to the island of Martha's Vineyard, which has a population of about 17,000 people, and is part-time home to many of the rich and famous.  California Governor, Gavin Newsom, was just beside himself.  Although, these immigrants were not sent to the French Laundry, so what's his problem?  Anyway, Newsom decided to send a letter to the DOJ, because, as is obvious, he wants to run for president in 2024.

Newsom wrote:  "Several of the individuals who were transported to Martha's Vineyard have alleged that a recruiter induced them to accept the offer of travel based on false representations that they would be transported to Boston and would receive expedited access to work authorization...I urge US DOJ to investigate whether the alleged fraudulent inducement would support charges of kidnapping under relevant state laws."  Hmm.  Is Newsom the governor of Massachusetts?  How is this his business?  Oh, that's right, he's running for president.  

"Charges of kidnapping under relevant state laws."  Why would the US DOJ be involved in enforcing state laws?  Who "induced" these illegal immigrants to travel to the United States in the first place?  That would be Joe Biden, giving an assist to the cartels involved in human smuggling.  Newsom is just another left-wing Democrat who is more than happy to see the criminalization of politics - as long as it is always directed against Republicans.  I would love to see a poll showing how many Democrats would approve of Governors Abbott, DeSantis and Ducey being locked up with President Trump.  Let's be honest.  Today's Democrats have no interest in the two party system that has been the source of great stability in our country.  No, these people prefer a one party system, no different from the former USSR or Communist China.  

Newsom need not worry.  The Guardian reports that 30 of the 48 illegal immigrants are already represented by counsel.  The firm's name is Lawyers for Civil Rights, and is based in Boston.  How coincidental that 30 of these illegal immigrants have counsel.  And, no surprise, these attorneys are seeking a criminal investigation of Governors Abbott and DeSantis.  Here was Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee:  "It is pathetic that these governors are taking advantage of these helpless people." 

Helpless people?  Just more elitist nonsense.  Many of these "helpless" people managed to travel the approximate 2,700 miles from Venezuela to Texas.  But they can't manage an additional 100 miles to Boston?  Sometimes, CNN has the funniest online headlines.  Here's one:  "'They enriched us.'  Migrants' 44-hour visit leave indelible mark on Martha's Vineyard."  44 hours.  I'm impressed.  How many were thinking:  "We were able to get rid of the riff-raff in under two days."  That's right.  These "migrants" were shipped off to Joint Base Cape Cod.  CNN asserted:  "The migrants sent to Martha's Vineyard have been voluntarily taken to a military base for support, officials say."  Voluntarily taken to a military base?  I thought they expected to go to Boston.  CNN also told us that these migrants "cheered" when told of the move.   

President Biden threatened to sue the Republican governors.  Biden:  "Republicans are playing politics with human beings, using them as props.  What they're doing is simply wrong, it's un-American, it's reckless."  Actually, what it's doing is bringing attention to a border crisis that Biden and Harris have ignored for nearly two years.  And outrageous that Biden says Republicans are playing politics with human beings, when he is the one that invited millions of immigrants to come here illegally.  Besides, why aren't sanctuary cities and states asking to receive all the illegal immigrants flooding into Texas?  

Many of us remember how, on 9/11, US airspace was closed to all but military aircraft.  We remember how the small town of Gander in Newfoundland, Canada, welcomed 38 airplanes, with approximately 6600 to 6700 people, into their town of about 10,000 people.  Many of those people were stranded in Gander for five days or more.  Yet, the tiny town fed and housed their unexpected guests.  Martha's Vineyard managed to deal with 48 illegal immigrants for 44 hours.  Very impressive.

G-d bless the people of Gander; and credit to Governors Abbott, DeSantis and Ducey, for bringing attention to a problem that can no longer be ignored.

Time To Catch Up On Some News

(First, an apology, and a correction.  Obviously, I always want to be factually accurate in the blog.  The opinions are, of course, mine.  But I made a huge error in the August 28, 2022 post, "Growing Up In 2001 - Part II."  I incorrectly stated that 2996 people were murdered on 9/11.  In fact, 2977 people were murdered.  The additional 19 were the rat bastard terrorist a-holes who died.  My apologies for that error, and shame on me for relying on a mainstream media source for the numbers.)  

On 9/11 this year I picked up a copy of the New York Times.  As I searched through the news pages for a story about the 21st anniversary of the terrorist attacks, I did not find anything.  There was clearly nothing on the front page.  On the assumption that I must have overlooked it, I went through the news pages a second time.  Nothing.  On 9/11/01, 2753 people were murdered in and around the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.  In New York City.  And many more have since died, from 9/11 related illnesses.  Yet, the so-called "paper of record," whose motto is "All the News That's Fit to Print," could not bother remembering those souls who were lost that day in their city.  They could not be bothered honoring the memory of the 343 members of the FDNY who died that day.  That could not be bothered honoring the memory of the 71 NYPD and other law enforcement officers who died that day.  

But, they did manage a front page anti-Trump story.  In the Opinion section was an Op-Ed titled "'America's Mayor' Finds Himself Alone."  Other than a few sentences of admiration for Rudy Giuliani's leadership on that fateful day, the rest of the Op-Ed was essentially a hit piece attacking Giuliani.  It is hardly a surprise that the New York Times has proven, yet again, to be such a big disappointment.  For those on the West Coast, the editors at the Los Angeles Times could not trouble themselves to write about the anniversary of 9/11 either.   

Remember how every word out of the mouths of every person in the Trump Administration, especially the White House Press Secretary, was fact-checked?  Not so for the lucky Karine Jean-Pierre, Press Secretary to Biden.  Fox News reported that there was no fact-checking by "Factcheck.org, Reuters, The Associated Press, The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler, and CNN's Daniel Dale."  The same report says that Snopes fact-checked her one time regarding a prior comment, and Politifact fact-checked her twice.

Maybe you believe that Jean-Pierre just does not lie.  Or, maybe you understand that the mainstream media is all in on Biden's behalf, and has no interest in disputing anything out of the Biden White House.  After all, she did say people are not just walking across the border.  If you do not watch Fox, then you probably think she is correct, because you've never seen the thousands of people walking into our country across the southern border.  Jean-Pierre asserted that Biden has done more to secure the border than Trump did.  Can you see me laughing?  

Here is a good one from Karine Jean-Pierre:  "From day one, when the Supreme Court made this extreme decision to take away a constitutional right (overturning Roe v. Wade), it was an unconstitutional action by them."  Oh, really?  And notice how every action of which they disapprove is to be deemed "extreme."  

According to a group known as The Bowery Mission, there are now 80,000 homeless people in New York City.  Another group, The Coalition for the Homeless, says that "Homelessness in New York City has reached the highest levels since the Great Depression of the 1930s."  There are parts of Los Angeles that look like the streets of a third world country, or worse.   

Recently, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) gave an interview to GQ.  She spoke of little girls telling her that they want her to be president.  But AOC opined that "...my experience here has given me a front-row seat to how deeply and unconsciously, as well as consciously, so many people in this country hate women."   I recall hearing similar nonsense from people on the left in 2008, when Obama was running for the first time.  He could never win.  Too many people are racist and hate blacks.  Except, Obama won.  Twice.  As for women, in 2016 Hillary Clinton received 65,853,514 votes compared to Trump's 62,984,828.  

Both the 2008 and 2016 elections proved that people do not hate blacks or women.  What AOC's comment about women (and the comments by leftists about Obama in 2008), does demonstrate is the utter disregard that these leftists have for their fellow Americans.  It is not just Hillary's basket of deplorables, when referring to Republicans.  It's pretty much how they think of all Americans - racists, sexists, etc. etc. 

Biden's "Let's Forget About That Whole Unity Thing" Speech

It was a prime time TV address to the nation, which the White House press secretary assured us would not be political.  Except, it was totally political.  And what was up with that dark red background?  And why were two Marines standing behind Biden, flanking him on either side.  It is not completely unprecedented to have a military presence at a presidential address, but it is quite rare when it is not a military related speech.  Recall how the Dems and the media were apoplectic when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs appeared with Trump in Lafayette Park.  

Notwithstanding the dozen or more times Biden mentioned "unity" and "together" in his inaugural address, this speech was the antithesis of his inaugural speech.  But it should not have been surprising to anyone.  The Democrats have been making an all out assault on the Republican Party this year.  First, we have the made for TV prime time January 6 committee hearings.  Second, we had the raid on Mar-a-lago.  Third, we had the Dems spending 44 million dollars to support Republican candidates in various primaries.  That's right, they are supporting MAGA Republicans, in the hope that they can be easily defeated.  It would be rather ironic if their cynical and unprecedented ploy backfired on them, and they helped elect candidates they believe are a threat to the country.  Fourth, we now have Biden's anti-Republican speech.  All of these things have been coordinated with one end in mind - keeping the Democrats in power.  

I don't care that Biden said that the majority of Republicans are not MAGA Republicans, because the overall tenor of the speech was to tell the country how bad all Republicans are.  Biden did not define who the MAGA Republicans are.  However, as one example, he mentioned abortion rights early on, and said the MAGA Republicans wanted to take our country backwards.  But all those Republicans who voted for Trump in 2016, and helped him get elected, meant they also helped get three conservative Justices appointed to the Supreme Court.  And those Justices were instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade.  So, to make my point, Biden was certainly implying that all Republicans who voted for Trump (tens of millions of Americans) are responsible for overturning Roe.   

There were many times, and many ways, that Biden made it clear just how dangerous he thinks Republicans are to democracy and to the country.  In other words, "keep us Democrats in power because we are the good guys."  He said the MAGA Republicans are "extreme," and "embrace anger," and "thrive on chaos," and "are destroying American democracy."  Here are a couple of my favorites.  The MAGA Republicans "do not believe in the rule of law," and "they refuse to accept the results of a free election."  I could write pages in rebuttal to all this nonsense.  But I'll focus on the last two quotes.

MAGA Republicans do not believe in the rule of law?  Do we not have laws regarding our territorial sovereignty?  President Trump did everything in his power to protect our borders.  And, upon taking office, President Biden did all that he could to reverse Trump's policies.  He decided that America could easily deal with another couple million people.  He said so during the campaign.  But he doesn't make the laws.  Congress does.  His job is to enforce those laws.  By intentionally ignoring the border issue, Biden has so far allowed nearly five million people to enter the country since he assumed office.  Biden decided he would forgive a certain amount of student debt, which will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars.  Why isn't that a decision for Congress to make?  

Who doesn't respect the rule of law?  Remember when Speaker Pelosi referred to federal agents protecting federal buildings in Portland as "stormtroopers."  It was so outrageous that Attorney General Barr said it was putting FBI agents at risk.  The rule of law?  Remember when Senator Schumer threatened Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.  Chief Justice Roberts felt it necessary to make a rare rebuke of a politician, by calling Schumer's "threatening statements inappropriate," and added "they are dangerous."  The rule of law?  How about Maxine Waters saying "I will go and take Trump out tonight."  The rule of law?  Here is the Democrats' 2016 VP candidate, Tim Kaine, saying that "we've got to...fight in the streets."  And where were the Dems during the rioting and looting and destruction in the summer of 2020?  Apparently they did not care that much about the loss of life, the injuries and the two billion dollars in property damage, as the Dems stayed mostly silent.  The rule of law was obviously not an issue for them.   

Now let's focus on MAGA Republicans not accepting election results.  Biden said this:  "Democracy cannot survive when one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election - either they win or they were cheated."  Hillary Clinton never accepted that she lost the 2016 election.  She called Trump an "illegitimate president."  John Lewis called Trump an "illegitimate president."  Nancy Pelosi said "our election was hijacked.  There is no question."  Over 60 House Democrats refused to attend Trump's inauguration because, you know, he was not a legitimate president.  

Clinton, not accepting that she lost, said this:  "I don't know that we'll ever know what happened," and then referred to the "many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories..."  So many possibilities.  Except for one - that she actually lost the election.  What was that Biden said:  "either they win or they were cheated."  The Democrats never, and I mean never, accepted Trump as the President.  Not simply by their words, but by the 2 1/2 years of the phony Russian collusion story, and the four years of non-stop harassment of a sitting president.  And, at least one site reported that, while at a campaign stop, one woman said to Biden that Trump was an "illegitimate president in my mind."  Biden was reported to have replied to the many things this woman said about Trump:  "I absolutely agree."   

I cannot imagine that anyone still believes that Biden is a unifier.  Was Trump divisive?  I said so in the blog.  But, Biden has now become the divider in chief.  The difference is, Biden promised to be a unifier.  But that was just one of the many lies that have been told by Biden throughout his political career.

MAGA Mike     

Growing Up In 2001 - Part II

It was the morning hours on September 11, 2001, when my brother called and asked if I was at home.  After telling him that I was, he told me to turn on the TV.  It was almost impossible to believe what I was seeing.  At 8:46am, a plane hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan.  Seventeen minutes later a plane flew into the South Tower.  At 9:59am the South Tower came down.  At 10:28am the North Tower fell.  I was unable to hold back my tears.  As my wife and I were watching in disbelief, I turned to her and said that it was inevitable that I would know someone who had just been killed.

It was inevitable because I grew up not very far away, across the Hudson River, in New Jersey.  I later found out that someone who attended all of public school with me, as well as Jewish summer camp, was, in fact, killed that day.  He worked at Cantor Fitzgerald, which occupied the 101st through the 105th floors of the North Tower.  As the plane hit below their offices, cutting off stairwell access, they had no chance of getting out.  658 of their 960 employees in New York were murdered that day. 

As we all later learned, 19 terrorists, with 15 from Saudi Arabia, and under the direction of Al Qaeda, flew a total of four planes, with three hitting their mark.  The third plane flew into the Pentagon.  And the fourth, believed to be aiming for Washington, D.C., was brought down by passengers.  After learning of the other attacks, some of the passengers were determined not to let another plane reach its target.  No one can forget - nor should anyone ever forget - the words of passenger Todd Beamer to some of the other passengers:  "Let's roll."  It was the beginning of the United States fighting back.  

Their bravery stopped the terrorists who had taken control of the plane.  Tragically, the plane crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.  A total of 2996 people were murdered that day.  It was the worst attack on American soil since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.  

It took nine years for the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center to be built.  From 1966 to 1975.  As a student at Rutgers in New Brunswick, New Jersey, two years in a row I lived on the sixth floor in the same dorm and in the same room (1970-1971 school year, and 1971-1972 school year).   On a clear day, I was able to see the 28 miles into lower Manhattan as the Towers were rising.  What took nine years to build came down in a matter of minutes.  But building is much more difficult than the cowardly act of destroying.  

I will never forget then New York City Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, refusing a gift of $10 million from a Saudi Prince, to help rebuild New York.  The Prince asserted that the U.S. "must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack."  And, the Prince added that the U.S. "should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause...our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek."  

America's Mayor would have none of it.  "I entirely reject that statement.  There is no moral equivalent for this (terrorist) act.  There is no justification for it...To suggest that there's a justification for (the terrorist attacks) only invites this happening in the future...It is highly irresponsible and very, very dangerous."

On September 14, standing at what came to be known as "ground zero," then President George W. Bush told America and the world:  "I can hear you.  The rest of the world hears you.  And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."  America was at war.  And America was united.  Flags could be seen flying from homes across the country.  And in large numbers, Americans enlisted in the military, and signed up for service in the FBI and CIA.  Patriotism abounded.

I recall that 21 years ago I found it difficult to speak about 9/11 with friends in California.  Yes, they understood that America was attacked.  But it seemed as if they lacked the same emotional involvement that the  people in New York and New Jersey had.  I had many a conversation with my friends in New Jersey at that time.  A single generation later, it is sad that the unity, the patriotism, has been so diminished.  But it was clear to me who the enemies of America were.  And they seemed to be aligned with the enemies of Israel.  After 2000, I would resolutely stand with Israel.  And after 9/11/2001, I had no patience for those who would not stand with America.  I was firmly in the conservative camp.

Growing Up In 2001 - Part I

(There are only two stories in this post.  One from 2000.  And one from 2001.  I'll start in 2000.)

In 2000, Bill Clinton was still the President.  It was the year that he held the Camp David Summit with then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and then Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.  It has been reported that Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state on 97% of the territory encompassed by the West Bank.  Proving once again that the Palestinians had no interest in the establishment of a state, as long as Israel still existed, Arafat made no counter offer.  Instead, Arafat walked out on the President of the United States, and returned to Ramallah.

From Ramallah, Arafat began the second intifada (Arabic for uprising or rebellion).  The first intifada lasted from late 1987 through September, 1993.  Many of you may recall that during the second intifada, Arafat sent so-called suicide bombers (I call them homicide bombers, because they were sent to murder civilians) to kill Israelis.  These murderers made no distinction between young and old, men or women, Israelis who may have been sympathetic to their cause or not.  They blew up Israelis on buses, in cafes and in malls.  They did the same at a Passover Seder.  Over 1000 Israelis were killed, with many more injured.

That was the year that I started to watch Fox News.  Why?  Because Fox actually let their audience know what was happening, often in disturbingly graphic detail.  And I could not believe it.  It felt like in the year 2000, I was watching yet another evil group of people seeking to annihilate the Jewish people.  I was sad, of course.  But I was also angry.  And I had no patience for my fellow Jews in America, who reacted as if what was happening did not affect all of us, as if it was happening in a "foreign" country.  No, these were not foreigners - they were my fellow Jews.  

So that was the year I realized that I did not know enough about the history of the Middle East.  I started reading up on it.  I had to.  Because I was determined to defend Israel, and my fellow Jews there, against all the hypercritical, hypocritical and hateful anti-Semitic attacks.  Obviously, this was not the first time in history that Jews were being targeted for being Jews.  It has happened countless times throughout history.  But this was the year 2000.  

Publicly, Bill Clinton said:  "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation (a Palestinian state) into being and I pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace."  Privately, Clinton was said to be furious with Arafat.  

As a reminder, at the end of World War I, with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire (the Turks), the British had control of the territory now encompassing Jordan, Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.  The area was called Palestine, and under British control, it was referred to as the British Mandate or Mandatory Palestine.  When the Jews were eventually given a parcel of that land for their state, they called their country the State of Israel.  The Arabs were also given a parcel of the land at the same time, when the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state.  But the Arabs would not tolerate the existence of a Jewish state, and made war on the tiny new country of Israel from May 15, 1948 through March 10,1949.  

It was on May 14, 1948 that the Jewish people of Palestine announced the independence of the new State of Israel.  And it was on May 15, 1948 that the Arab world attacked, in the first effort of many to wipe Israel off the map.  But, as many readers know, the Jews had to defend themselves against the Arabs before Israel became a country.  The Haganah (the precursor to the Israeli Defense Forces, or IDF), has been described as a paramilitary force that operated in Mandatory Palestine well before the establishment of the State of Israel.  The Haganah had to defend the Jewish people of Palestine in the 1920's and the 1930's against Arab attacks.  After the UN voted partition of the land in 1947, the Haganah again defended the Jewish people of Palestine from Arab attacks.   

Dennis Ross was the United States' Middle East envoy under President Clinton.  After the failure of the Camp David Summit, Ross said that Arafat wanted a "one-state solution.  Not independent, adjacent Israeli and Palestinian states, but a single Arab state, encompassing all of Historic Palestine." 

 One thing was certain.  There could no longer be any doubt - I could not stand with any on the left who sided with the Palestinians against the Israelis.  And I was greatly disturbed by my fellow Jews in America who did not feel the same way that I did.  If by 1991 I was no longer a man of the left, it was clear to me that I was now a conservative.  I was grateful to all those who supported Israel, many of whom were Republicans and conservatives.  And yes, one of the biggest supporters of Israel has consistently been Sean Hannity of Fox News.