As amazingly reported Sunday by the British Telegraph (emphasis added throughout, h/t Glenn Reynolds):

The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded.

Shocking, yet refreshing, wouldn’t you agree? But that was just the beginning:

The report claims that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased - and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.

It warns that celebrities must not be pandered to and allowed to hijack the BBC schedule.

Hmmm. Celebrities must not be pandered to. Luckily, American media don’t do that:

After a year-long investigation the report, published today, maintains that the corporation’s coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial.

But it says coverage of Live 8, the 2005 anti-poverty concerts organised by rock star campaigners Bob Geldof and Bono and writer Richard Curtis, failed to properly debate the issues raised.

Instead, at a time when the corporation was renegotiating its charter with the government, it allowed itself to effectively become a promotional tool for Live 8, which was strongly supported by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Geldof, Bono and Curtis were attempting to pressure world leaders at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, which was taking place at the same time, to help reduce poverty in developing countries under the banner 'Make Poverty History’.

Sound a little bit like what American media are doing with Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts, and how they’re pandering to global warming alarmists like Sheryl Crow, Laurie David, and Leonardo DiCaprio? Think our press organizations would ever admit it?

Regardless of the answers, the article continued:

The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.

It reads: “There is a tendency to 'group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.”

A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives admitted they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended.

Aren’t the similarities between what the BBC admitted and what conservative media analysts in America continually point out regarding our press absolutely striking? And how about this revelation:

During the seminar a senior BBC reporter criticised the corporation for being anti-American.

Fascinating, wouldn’t you agree? Equally so was an editorial published in England’s the Sunday Times concerning this BBC report (emphasis added throughout):

There are some things you do not need an official report to tell you - that John Prescott thinks he is a babe magnet, that President Mugabe is not entirely in favour of white farmers and that Al-Qaeda takes a pretty dim view of the West. The report commissioned by the BBC into itself concluded with something equally blindingly obvious. It said that the organisation is institutionally biased and especially gullible to the blandishments of politically driven celebrities, such as Bono and Bob Geldof. Almost anyone in Britain could have told the BBC that for free, but maybe it’s better to have it in an official report.

[…]

But what emerges from the report is a picture of an organisation with a liberal, anti-American bias and an almost teenage fascination with fashionable causes. The report singles out the BBC’s overwhelming and uncritical backing for the campaign over Live Aid and now the Live Earth concerts on global warming.

All those in favor of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, FNC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Reuters, and the Associated Press undergoing the same self-examination with full disclosure say “aye.”

*****Update: Jules Crittenden comically noted:

Good thing [the BBC] didn’t go looking for pro-Jihadi sentiments.  That could have got ugly quick.

Via:  Newsbusters

TEHRAN, Iran  —  Pakistan on Monday condemned Britain's award of a knighthood to author Salman Rushdie as an affront to Muslim sentiments, and a Cabinet minister said the honor provided a justification for suicide attacks.

In the eastern city of Multan, hard-line Muslim students burned effigies of Queen Elizabeth II and Rushdie. About 100 students carrying banners condemning the author also chanted, "Kill him! Kill him!"

On Saturday, Britain announced the knighthood for the author of "The Satanic Verses" in an honors list timed for the official celebration of the queen's 81st birthday. It has also drawn condemnation from Iran.

Lawmakers in Pakistan's lower house of parliament on Monday passed a resolution proposed by Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan Khan Niazi, who branded Rushdie a "blasphemer." He said the honor had hurt the sentiments of Muslims across the world.

"This is an occasion for the (world's) 1.5 billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision," Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, religious affairs minister, later said in parliament.

"The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title," ul-Haq said, also urging Muslim countries to break diplomatic ties with London.

"If Muslims do not unite, the situation will get worse and Salman Rushdie may get a seat in the British parliament."

After his comments were reported on local news networks, ul-Haq clarified to lawmakers that his aim had been to look into the root causes of terrorism.

Lawmakers voted unanimously for the resolution although one opposition member, Khwaja Asif, said it exposed a contradiction in the government's policy as an ally of Britain in the war on terrorism.

Robert Brinkley, Britain's high commissioner to Pakistan, defended the decision to honor Rushdie for his contributions to literature.

Rushdie is one of the most prominent novelists of the late 20th century whose 13 books have won numerous awards, including the Booker Prize for "Midnight's Children" in 1981.

"It is simply untrue to suggest that this in anyway is an insult to Islam or the Prophet Muhammed, and we have enormous respect for Islam as a religion and for its intellectual and cultural achievements," Brinkley said.

Asked if he was concerned it could provoke unrest in Pakistan, Brinkley said, "We will just have to see where it goes from here. There's certainly no reason for that."

At the Multan protest, Asim Dahr, a student leader from the group Jamiat Turaba Arabia, demanded Rushdie face Islamic justice.

"This queen has made a mockery of Muslims by giving him a title of 'sir.' Salman Rushie was condemned by Imam Khomeni and he issued a decree about his death. He should be handed over to the Muslims so they can try him according to Islamic laws," he said.

Iran's late spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a 1989 fatwa, or religious edict, ordering Muslims to kill the author because "The Satanic Verses" allegedly insulted Islam. The threat forced Rushdie to live in hiding for a decade.

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said Rushdie's knighthood would hamper interfaith understanding and that Islamabad would protest to London.

"We deplore the decision of the British government to knight him. This we feel is insensitive and we would convey our sentiments to the British government."

Call us  violent and we'll KILL YOU!!

The Religion of Peace^TM 

Fox News 

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond.

The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced. The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning. The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:

- Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures

- Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided

- Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants

- Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority

- Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour

- Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction

- Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

Václav Klaus, Financial Times, 14 June 2007

Vaclav Klaus

Outstanding. 

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Copyright © 2007 Republican-American

In Oakland, Calif., "marriage," "family values" and "union of a man and a woman" have been deemed hate speech. Here's how it happened: Oakland has anti-discrimination rules protecting homosexuals. In 2002, a letter distributed via the city's e-mail system invited municipal employees to "National Coming-Out Day" activities as part of the city's celebration of diversity and homosexuality. Two workers responded with fliers on employee bulletin boards and elsewhere announcing the formation of the Good News Employee Association for people who oppose "all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage." Naturally, a lesbian co-worker was horribly offended and told the city attorney's office the fliers made her feel "targeted" and "excluded."

Moderator Dalia Ya'iri, a former anchor of the widely-heard Israel Radio afternoon newsmagazine, opened the panel by saying, "Thank you for the applause; we and the radio truly deserve it; it is good that it is realized that in essence, without us, there is nothing! Even the television takes from us..."

Popular Army Radio broadcaster Razi Barkai said, "There is no doubt that the morning shows and what they broadcast determine the agenda of the rest of the day."

Only Golan Yochpaz, who anchored an Army Radio morning newsmagazine for several years, said, "We must not overestimate our influence... We have an influence, but it often lasts only until the next news show. And often, don't forget, the politicians use us; we fall victim to their spins... It is also not true that we come in with a specific agenda to push. We - at least I - come in with the goal of making a good show."

A phone message left for Chanan Naveh, hoping to clarify his remarks at the conference, was not immediately answered. Similarly, MK Yechimovich's aide said that she would not be able to address this matter today.

Israeli journalists have previously admitted that the media was largely enlisted on behalf of the Disengagement/expulsion from Gush Katif and northern Shomron.  "I have failed. We have failed," wrote Kaveh Shafran, political affairs correspondent for Israel Army Radio shortly before the expulsion was carried out. "As a diplomatic correspondent, I was among those who in the past year were supposed to tell the public exactly what is the Disengagement Plan, why it was created, how it will be implemented... The media's conspiracy of silence protected Sharon when he fired cabinet ministers who did not support disengagement..."

Similarly, respected Israeli journalist Nachum Barnea admitted that most of the Israeli media acted more like the "guard dog" of the Disengagement Plan rather than that of democracy. Writing in the monthly media publication "The Seventh Eye," Barnea stated that Israeli journalists made a mistake that must be acknowledged, and that there is "no argument that the tone in the Israeli media is pro-disengagement."

But that could never happen here, right?  Right??

Arutz Sheva

While Democrats were swept into power in Congress by making corruption a political issue, it is one of their own, U.S. Representative William Jefferson, D-LA, who could set a record for the most corrupt acts carried out by a member of Congress.

Jefferson’s 16-count, 94 page indictment, for which he could serve more than 200 years in prison if convicted, eclipses the legal troubles of former Republican Congressmen Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-CA, Bob Ney, R-OH, and former Democrat Representative James Traficant, D-OH.

Cunningham pleaded guilty to four counts and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Ney pleaded guilty to two, and received a 30 month sentence. If convicted, Jefferson would face sentencing on as many counts as Cunningham, Ney and Traficant combined.

Traficant, a flamboyant Democrat Congressman, was found guilty in 2002 of 10 counts racketeering, bribery and fraud. While both Cunningham and Ney resigned their seats in Congress, Traficant refused to leave, and was expelled. Despite reports that Jefferson is seen on videotape accepting $100,000 in cash from an informant - $90,000 of which was later found in Jefferson’s freezer – he has indicated he will not resign from Congress.

Earlier this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempted to place Jefferson on the sensitive Homeland Security Committee.
Now that Jefferson has been indicted, House Democrats, who pledged "to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history," will need to decided what to do about the thousands of dollars in campaign contributions Jefferson has made to his colleagues and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).

Following U.S. Representative Tom DeLay’s indictment at the hands of a local district attorney, the DCCC called on GOP candidates to return contributions they received from the then-House Majority Leader.

Jefferson donated nearly $140,000 to the Democrats’ campaign committee. Jefferson also gave thousands to Democrat House members and candidates, including freshmen Nick Lampson, D-TX, Heath Shuler, D-NC, and Ciro Rodriguez, D-TX.

Lampson and Shuler received contributions from Jefferson’s re-election committee, while Rodriguez received $1,000 from Jefferson’s political action committee, the Future PAC. Only Lampson is reported to have returned Jefferson’s contribution.

Other Democrats who received financial support from Jefferson are:

• Sanford Bishop, $1000;
• Corrine Brown, $2000;
• Lois Capps, $500;
• Julia Carson, $1000;
• Donna Christensen, $1000;
• Emanuel Cleaver, $2000;
• Chet Edwards, $1000;
• Al Green, $2000;
• Alcee Hastings, $1000;
• Barbara Lee, $1000;
• John Lewis, $500;
• Carolyn McCarthy, $1000;
• Charlie Melancon, $2000;
• Gwendolynne Moore, $1000;
• Brad Sherman, $1000; and
• Mel Watt, $1000.

Jefferson also contributed a total of $5,680 to the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) PAC. Jefferson’s Future PAC gave $1,000 each to Democrat Representatives Corrine Brown, Julia Carson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Carloyn McCarthy, Kendrick Meek, Mike Ross, and Linda Sanchez.

Red State

· Colombian farmers driven out as armed groups profit
· Lucrative 'green' crop less risky to grow than coca

Oliver Balch in Mutat and Rory Carroll in Cartagena
Tuesday June 5, 2007
The Guardian

Armed groups in Colombia are driving peasants off their land to make way for plantations of palm oil, a biofuel that is being promoted as an environmentally friendly source of energy.

Surging demand for "green" fuel has prompted rightwing paramilitaries to seize swaths of territory, according to activists and farmers. Thousands of families are believed to have fled a campaign of killing and intimidation, swelling Colombia's population of 3 million displaced people and adding to one of the world's worst refugee crises after Darfur and Congo.

Several companies were collaborating by falsifying deeds to claim ownership of the land, said Andres Castro, the general secretary of Fedepalma, the national federation of palm oil producers.

"As a consequence of the development of palm by secretive business practices and the use of threats, people have been displaced and [the businesses] have claimed land for themselves," he said. His claim was backed up by witnesses and groups such as Christian Aid and the National Indigenous Organisation of Colombia.

The revelations tarnish what has been considered an economic and environmental success story. The fruit of the palm oil tree produces a vegetable oil also used in cooking, employs 80,000 people, and is increasingly being turned into biofuel.

"Four years ago Colombia had 172,000 hectares of palm oil," President Alvaro Uribe told the Guardian. "This year we expect to finish with nearly 400,000."

"Four years ago Colombia didn't produce a litre of biofuel. Today, because of our administration, Colombia produces 1.2m litres per day." Investment in new installations would continue to boost production, he added.

However the lawlessness created by four decades of insurgency in the countryside has enabled rightwing paramilitaries, and also possibly leftwing rebels, to join the boom. Unlike coca, the armed groups' main income source, palm oil is a legal crop and therefore safe from state-backed eradication efforts.

Farmers who have been forced off their land at gunpoint say that in many cases their banana groves and cattle grazing fields were turned into palm oil plantations. Luis Hernandez (not his real name) fled his 170-hectare plot outside the town of Mutata in Antioquia province nine years ago after his father-in-law and several neighbours were gunned down. When he and other survivors were able to return recently, they found the land was in the hands of a local palm producer.

"The company tells me that it has legal papers for the land, but I don't know how that can be, as I have land titles dating back 20 years," said Mr Hernandez. He suspects palm companies collaborated with the paramilitaries. "I don't know if there was an official agreement between them, but a relationship of some sort definitely exists."

A government investigation reportedly found irregularities in 80% of palm oil land titles in some areas. "If there have been abuses and the titles are shown to be false, then the land needs to be returned and all the weight of the law needs to be brought down on those that are responsible," said Dr Castro, of the producers' association.

Funny, they never mention this in all those enviromental prop pieces...

Guardian Unlimited 

A platelet-rich gel derived from one's own blood could speed up the healing of wounds and cuts.

By Jennifer Chu

Researchers at the University of Cincinnati say that a topical gel derived from a patient's own blood may help prevent infection while speeding up the healing process. The finding could mean that, in the not too distant future, a concentrated "cocktail" of a person's own blood could be used to help dress wounds, particularly in patients with diabetes or other disorders that slow the healing process.

Blood's healing effects lie in its platelets--sticky, disc-shaped molecules that naturally flock to the site of a wound, binding to blood-vessel walls to stop bleeding. These platelets are thought to contain elevated levels of growth factors that, when released, initiate a cascade of events that ultimately heal the injury. In the past few years, clinicians have experimented with variations of platelet-derived gel, studying its effects on bone healing, tissue swelling, and bruising. But while scientists have reported positive results in some instances, David Hom, director of the Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the University of Cincinnati, says that it's still not clear how such gels effect wound healing in healthy individuals.

In an experiment published in the Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery, Hom, then at the University of Minnesota School of Medicine, and his colleagues studied the effect of platelet-derived gel on eight healthy individuals. Hom obtained blood samples from each subject, making a gel for each individual. After applying a local anesthesia, Hom then made small incisions in the upper thighs of each subject. The wounds on one leg were treated with the individual's blood-derived gel. Hom applied a traditional antibiotic ointment to the wounds on the other leg.

Over six months, subjects returned for follow-up studies, at which the researchers took photographs and small biopsies of each wound. Hom and his colleagues found that in fact, the gel-treated wounds healed statistically faster than the controls did. And when Hom compared each subject's gel-platelet counts, he discovered that those individuals with concentrations of platelets six times greater than their normal blood concentrations healed faster. "We found that at six times or greater, it was maybe passing a threshold, signaling to the cells to heal quicker," says Hom.

Although Hom only studied healthy individuals, he says that he hopes to look at how such blood-based gels affect healing in patients with chronic wound-healing problems, such as diabetics or patients undergoing chemotherapy. "People might say, 'Why do you want to accelerate healing if it's going to heal anyway?'" says Hom. "Well, they'd be able to get out of the hospital quicker, and it would be able to reduce the risk of a wound reoccurring."

Technology Review (MIT) 

Interesting stuff.  Go ye, and read the rest. 

You remember Naveed Haq, the Pakistani-American who declared "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel," before shooting six innocent women and killing one at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building last July? He has entered his plea in the case:

A man accused of opening fire at a Seattle Jewish charity last summer, killing one woman and wounding five others as he allegedly ranted about Jewish people, will raise an insanity defense in his trial next January.

Naveed Haq changed his plea Wednesday to not guilty by reason of insanity for the 20 criminal charges he now faces, including the 11 new charges that King County prosecutors filed Wednesday morning.

Haq's attorneys, C. Wesley Richards and John Carpenter, said Haq has a long history of mental illness, hospitalizations and suicide attempts over the years. He has most consistently been diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features, which Richards called "a very debilitating type of mental disorder."

"Obviously, we believe it had a substantial impact on Mr. Haq's conduct," Richards said.

The attorneys also dispute that Haq committed a hate crime. Richards said Haq did not "as a result of religious hatred."

To be found insane, jurors must agree that Haq's mental illness made him either unable to perceive the nature of what he was doing or took away his ability to tell right from wrong.

A reminder:

Haq is accused of forcing his way into the secure Belltown offices of the federation on July 28 by holding a gun to the back of a 14-year-old girl.

He carried two guns, court documents allege, and spewed anti-Semitic statements as he made his way through the office, randomly shooting people he encountered as some screamed and tried to escape or hide.

The shooting came a day after the FBI had warned Jewish organizations nationwide to be on alert after Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon and al-Qaida's second in command urged that the war raging in the Middle East be carried to the U.S.

Haq reportedly told operators in a 911 call during the shooting, "These are Jews. I want these Jews to get out."

And a Cox and Forkum flashback:

Via: Michelle Malkin

Thanks for the Memories, Cindy

America's foremost expert on having a dead son has decided to leave the anti-war movement. Goodbye, Cindy!

May 21, 2007 -- THE immigration bill set to hit the Senate floor this week has over 300 pages - yet few people have seen the details. Proponents, led by Ted Kennedy, waited until the last minute to make the draft public - so most senators will be in the dark when they debate it.

But the text is now circulating on Capitol Hill, and the content is astonishing. Just when it is becoming clear that overwhelming majorities of Americans - of all parties and all races - say they want to see stronger enforcement of our laws, the bill would take the country full speed in the opposite direction.

As promised, the bill will legalize most of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens now in the country via a new "Z visa." Each would pay $3,000 - only slightly more than the going rate to be smuggled into America.

But provisions buried in the fine print are far more outrageous. Here's a sampling:

1) To qualify for the Z-visa amnesty, an illegal alien need only have a job (or be the parent, spouse, or child of someone with a job) and come up with a scrap of paper suggesting he was in the country before Jan. 1 of this year. Any bank statement, pay stub, or similarly forgeable record will do.

Expect a mass influx unlike anything this country has seen before, once the 12-month period for accepting Z visa applications begins. These rules are an open invitation to sneak in and present a fraudulent piece of paper indicating that you were already here.

2) Supporters of the bill call the Z visa "temporary" - neglecting to mention that it can be renewed indefinitely until the visa holder dies. Thus, we have the country's first permanent temporary visa. On top of that, it's a super-visa - allowing the holder to work, attend college or do just about anything else.

Are you a law-abiding alien who's interested in switching to this privileged status? Sorry. Only illegal aliens can qualify.

3) Many criminals and terrorists will find it easy to get a Z visa. The bill allows the government only one day to conduct a so-called "background check" on the applicant. If the (already overstretched) feds can't find anything in that single day, the alien gets a probationary visa that lets him roam at will and seek employment legally.

Plainly, the bill's authors don't have a clue how the government maintains info on criminals and terrorists. It has no single, searchable database of all dangerous people. Much data exists only in paper records that can't be searched in 24 hours. Other information is held by foreign governments.

In this real-world version of "24," if the federal government fails to find the key facts soon enough, we all lose.

4) The bill effectively shuts down our immigration-court system. If an alien in the removal process is eligible for the Z visa, the immigration judge must close the proceedings and offer the alien the chance to apply for the amnesty. The wheels of justice won't just turn slowly, they'll go in reverse.

5) The bill transforms the federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from a law-enforcement agency into an amnesty-distribution center. If ICE officials apprehend an alien who appears eligible for the Z visa (in other words, just about any illegal alien), they can't detain him. Instead, ICE must help him apply for the Z visa.

Rather than initiating removal proceedings, ICE will be initiating amnesty applications. It's like turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-distribution network.

6) The bill even lets gang members get the amnesty. This comes at a time when violent international gangs have brought mayhem to our cities. More than 30,000 gang members operate in 33 states, trafficking in drugs, arms and people.

Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. This bill would end that: Under it, a gang member qualifies for the Z-visa privileges as long as he simply signs a "renunciation of gang affiliation." He can keep his tattoos.

In Sen. Kennedy's America, "immigration enforcement" will become an oxymoron. And - just like the last time we offered an amnesty, in 1986 - millions of new illegal aliens will flood the country to apply for the amnesty fraudulently.

This bill isn't a "compromise" in any meaningful sense. It is a surrender.

Kris W. Kobach, a professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, served as counsel to the U.S. Attorney General, 2001-03. He was the attorney general's chief adviser on immigration law.

New York Post 

Living in Terror

Click here to launch the Podcast Player

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego -- and bragged about it?

I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war. There would likely be numerous casualties on our enemy's side, but we would rightfully hold those who attacked us responsible.

More than 1,300 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza since Palestinians were given control two years ago. Israelis, however, have gone to incredible lengths to stop the war against them without harming Palestinian non-combatants. But make no mistake, Israel is at war. The elected Hamas government regularly repeats its official promise to destroy Israel entirely and replace it with an Islamic state. Hamas openly took credit for killing one woman and wounding dozens more last week alone.

The Palestinian strategy is to purposely target and kill Israeli civilians. Then, when Israel goes after those launching the attacks, Palestinians claim to be the victims. If Palestinian civilians aren't hurt in the Israeli attacks, they stage injuries and deaths. Too often, they garner sympathy and support from a gullible or anti-Semitic media in the international community.

Israelis, themselves, are often incapable of facing the damage they inflict in self-defense. Knowing this, Islamic extremists are using their own populations as human shields.

I'm beginning to wonder how much longer this vicious plot will work though. International sympathy for Palestinians has diminished as the same Islamofascist extremists have brought havoc to Madrid, Bali, Somalia, London and elsewhere. More importantly, Israelis themselves are suffering so badly, they may be on the verge of losing their sympathy for the people who have sworn to kill them.

Imagine what it would be like to live, knowing that a rocket could fall on you or your children at any minute. Half of those who live nearest to Gaza have fled their homes. Those remaining are traumatized by daily warning sirens and explosions.

The irony is that Israel has the military might to easily win the war that is being waged against them today. They haven't used that might, in the past, out of compassion for Palestinian civilians and because it could trigger a wider regional conflict.

That balance of power is about to change, though. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, the very existence of this tiny nation of Israel will be threatened. The Iranian regime has left little doubt that it intends to see Israel "wiped off the map.” Hamas is using the same language, not coincidentally, and has announced it will begin launching missiles into Israel from the West Bank too.

If the world doesn't act to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, it must be prepared for the consequences of Israel defending itself.

Fred Dalton Thompson via ABC Radio 

By Robert Hardaway

Few politicians can resist the urge to exploit consumer angst over gasoline prices, and thereby deflect where the blame certainly lies — with them.

Here are 10 things the politicians won’t tell you:

1. At over $3.00 a gallon, the U.S. inflation-adjusted price for gasoline in May 2007 is now less than it was in 1981, a remarkable decrease in price over a 25 year period during which real prices in other sectors, such as health and education have tripled and quadrupled.

2. This decline in the price of gasoline since 1981 is enjoyed almost exclusively in the U.S. In most other developed counties in the world, the price of gas is at least double what Americans pay. Consumers in the Netherlands now pay an average of $7.77 gallon, while those in Great Britain pay over $7 and consider it a bargain.

3. The gross profit margins of the major oil companies is far less than that for many other sectors, such as beverages, electrical equipment, chemicals, and computers.

4. At present gas prices, the major oil companies make a profit of between 10 cents and 12 cents a gallon. (If you really think that’s a lot, buy the stock; but most people feel investing in oil companies is a pretty risky business-witness the devastating losses oil company investors lost during the 1980’s).

5. At present prices, combined federal and state government profit (i.e. taxes) on each gallon of gas is 28-68 cents a gallon, depending on which state you live in. Pelosi’s San Francisco enjoys tacking on an extra 26 cents bite.

6. As a result of gas prices in the U.S. which are less than half that in much of the industrialized world, gasoline consumption in the U.S. increased dramatically during the last year.

7. Oblivious to, and largely insulated from the $7-8 per gallon consumers in other industrialized countries now pay, energy-greedy Americans continue to buy such gas guzzling behemoths as Hummers and SUV’s at a feverish pace.

8. If government singled out oil companies for a confiscatory 50% profit surcharge, it is tempting to think that the price of gas might decline by up to 6 cents a gallon, say from $3.38 a gallon to $3.31 a gallon; in fact, gas prices would soar, as investors would no longer capitalize oil companies (turning instead to industries with higher profits, such as beverages and cigarettes). The oil companies would then either have to cut back exploration (Exxon alone has invested $15 billion in new capital investments) or go out of business, thus causing supplies to tighten and prices to skyrocket.

9. Crude oil prices, which make up 90% of the total cost of running gas refineries, are set by the international market of supply and demand, which fluctuates hourly, and not by private companies; while the major oil producing countries can form cartels (such as OPEC) which can set prices at higher than a free market, these countries are not subject to U.S. antitrust laws.

10. If government is serious about both curbing oil company profits as well as curbing U.S. reliance on foreign oil, the only way to do it is the way the Europeans do it: a gasoline tax that raises the pump price of gas to about $8. And that’s one thing you can be sure the politicians will never, ever tell you.

Rocky Mountain News 

There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran aliens.

#1. Illegal aliens generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, instate tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.

#2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.

#3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.

#4. Illegal aliens are NOT critical to the economy. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents.

#5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants (legal immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.

#6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are not immigrants by definition. The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.

#7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote." Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end.

#8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S. During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, new Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their schoolchildren.

#9. Although some illegal aliens enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?

#10. There is a labor shortage in this country. This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.

#11. It is racist to want secure borders. What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price? For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There has already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more. You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders' in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here? There will be a reckoning. We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.

David J. Stoddard U.S. Border Patrol (RET) Hereford, Arizona

PHX News