President Bush may have addressed the nation last week to assure Americans that his administration is doing something “comprehensive” about the growing illegal immigration crisis, but no one was buying it. Least of all those who support true immigration reform instead of lip service.

Predictably, Bush used the fig leaf of temporarily deploying 6,000 National Guard troops to the border to push his guest worker and amnesty proposals, which he continues to insist aren’t amnesty. Whether earned or not, everyone knows that enforcing such programs is currently untenable, particularly while the border remains unsecured. For those National Guard troops, it turns out, won’t be allowed to actually do anything. Largely unarmed and limited to a supporting role, the troops will only be able to report sightings to an already overburdened and in some cases compromised Border Patrol.

I say compromised because the news emerged a week before the president’s speech that higher ups in the U.S. Border Patrol had been reporting the whereabouts of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps members to the Mexican Government. The Minutemen are comprised of volunteers who simply observe and report illegal border crossings to the appropriate authorities. But they are of course a thorn in the side of those who wish to maintain the status quo at the porous border.

The Mexican Government tops that list, seeing as its economy would likely collapse were the remittances sent home by illegal immigrants in the U.S. to dry up. Then there would be the matter of all those citizens actually who might actually demand reform in their own country if access to U.S. dollars was not forthcoming. The future of Mexico’s ruling elite hangs in the balance and they’re not giving it up without a fight.
(continue reading post »)

After suffering a stroke last year, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon remains in a coma. Where once the world followed Sharon’s every political move, medical details now dominate the news. Few believe that Sharon will recover, but no effort has been spared to try and keep him alive.

Yet some would argue that prolonging life in such a manner is cruel. That in fact, ending life in such circumstances would be the more compassionate alternative. Such is the argument put forth by proponents of euthanasia and ironically, it is in Israel that they have had their most recent success.

Late last year, the Knesset signed a new bill into law that somehow manages to approve euthanasia according to Jewish law. While it is forbidden for a person to take another’s life under Jewish law, having a machine do it for you has apparently been deemed kosher. As a parliamentary spokesman put it, “The point was that it is wrong, under Jewish law, for a person’s life to be taken by a person but, for a machine, it is acceptable.”

The machine in question is a special timer attached to patients’ respirators. After 12 hours it sounds an alarm and then at the end of a 24-hour cycle, it turns off the respirator. The alarm would normally be overridden unless certain conditions are met, such as the consent of the (over 17) patient or legal guardian. The patient or guardian can request an extension at any time and living wills are to be kept on file at all hospitals.

The device is similar to the special clocks used by orthodox Jews to turn off electrical devices during the Sabbath. But where one application allows a bypassing of Jewish law that doesn’t harm another human being, the other delves into more troubling territory. One might call it a death timer.

According to Jewish law, suicide is forbidden and while one cannot hasten the death of another person, lessening their pain is encouraged. Both active and passive euthanasia fall under the category of ending life, but there is some leeway in the stipulation that prolonging life through artificial means is discouraged. However, the act of actually turning off respirators or unplugging feeding tubes would entail causing another’s death. But now a machine can do the dirty work for you.
(continue reading post »)

Comparisons to the Vietnam War have been hovering over the conflict in Iraq since day one. The anti-war movement apparently decided that the war in Iraq would be a “quagmire” before it even began and naturally, they hearkened back to the glory days of Vietnam for inspiration.

The truth is, the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam was a great victory for the anti-war movement. They were able to undermine a war in which America never lost a major battle simply by sapping the nation’s will to fight.

In 1968, when former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite surveyed the carnage after the Tet Offensive and declared on television that the U.S. was “mired in a stalemate,” he literally made it so. Despite the fact that the Viet Cong suffered the greatest casualties and that U.S. and South Vietnamese forces triumphed, Cronkite’s words won the day. Thus was born a generation of journalists who believed that it was their moral duty to hold themselves in opposition to the U.S. government and, by extension, the U.S. military, no matter what.

ABC White House correspondent Terry Moran admitted as much in a radio interview last year when he said that many of today’s journalists are victims of what’s been labeled the “Vietnam Syndrome.” He described “a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it’s very dangerous.”

When the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam in 1973, it was a vindication for the anti-war movement. Isolated incidents such as the My Lai Massacre were expanded to paint all American soldiers with the “atrocities” brush. Hence, returning soldiers and veterans were treated more as criminals than heroes. In the wake of Watergate, the presidency was exposed as corrupt and morally lacking. In short, it was a confirmation of everything the Left believed about America. (continue reading post »)

A UCLA political scientist conducted a recent study on media bias and came to the conclusion that many of us reached a long time ago. The media tilts left. But the study did produce some unexpected results.

It turns out that PBS’ NewsHour With Jim Lehrer is the most "centrist outlet," while the Drudge Report "leans left." Most readers find the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page to be conservative (with the exception of their stance on illegal immigration, which mirrors that of the far left), but the UCLA study found that the news pages are "even more liberal than The New York Times."

If the Wall Street Journal’s Middle East news coverage is any indication, UCLA knows what it’s talking about. A front page article in the news section of the December 28th issue demonstrates all the usual biases and blind spots of the liberal media when it comes to the Middle East.

Written by Karby Leggett and titled, "Latest Answer To Mideast Crisis: Fix the Economy,"(subscribers only) the article follows the trials and tribulations of former World Bank Chief James Wolfensohn. It seems that Wolfensohn has been tasked with the unenviable job of trying to help the "beleaguered Palestinian economy." Or in other words, trying to get the Palestinians to be productive instead of destructive for a change.

Wolfensohn was appointed special envoy to the Quartet (United States, Russia, European Union, and United Nations) and has been scrambling to get the Gaza Strip – recently vacated by Israelis via the Disengagement Plan – in order ever since. For according to the entire thrust of the article, if it weren’t for the incalcitrance of those pesky security-minded Israelis, the Palestinians would have created a mini-Manhattan by now.
(continue reading post »)

Against the steady drumbeat of anti-Iraq war sentiment, leftists have suddenly turned hawkish when it comes to Iran. The fact that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power has them all atwitter and as always, the Bush administration is the target of their criticism. But perhaps it’s time to call their bluff.

For one thing, leftists don’t really care about national security. They seem to suffer under the delusion that their way of life is inviolate, except perhaps for the encroachments of the “Christian right.” This would explain why they eschew every military effort on the part of the U.S. The only time they reference matters of national security is when it provides fodder for yet another anti-Bush talking point.

Secondly, since when did the left take any raving dictator seriously? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a potential Hitler with nukes, but as in WWII, the anti-war isolationists don’t want to hear about it. The fact that the elimination of Jews from the planet is the shared cornerstone of their expansive ambitions rarely factors into the equation. Whereas Hitler wanted to rid Europe of Jews, Ahmadinejad wants to rid Israel of Jews. But that’s just a minor point.

Were the U.S. to actually propose taking military action against Iran, the left would be up in arms, and not in its defense. Similarly, were Israel to prove its mettle by once again saving the world from Muslim dictators with nuclear ambitions (as they did in 1981 with Iraq), leftists would only step up their calls for that country’s destruction. Come to think of it, they have a lot in common with Ahmadinejad in that regard.

Lastly and most importantly, there’s no acknowledgement by the left that the very methods they espouse for solving such problems are currently being employed. And they’re failing miserably.

The UN, mankind’s savior according to the internationalists, is taking a time-honored approach to Iran – dithering diplomacy, meaningless treaties, and pretending that dictators and terrorist states can be trusted. Despite the left’s caterwauling, the Bush administration is actually on board for the charade. Far from employing the dreaded “unilateralism” of Iraq (if only 30 allies counts), the president has been tirelessly multilateral in his approach to Iran. The results or lack thereof are painfully obvious. (continue reading post »)

In their desperation to somehow topple the Bush administration, the left is showing its true colors. The Internet is abuzz with feverish e-mails calling on subscribers to demand the immediate firing or imprisonment of said “rightwing” villain. Backgrounds must be checked and investigations initiated immediately. Stalin would have been proud.

Democrats are prone to expressing such outrage via press conferences and the constant hubbub has the effect of keeping them in the media spotlight. Indeed, if all one consulted for their news was television, they would be under the impression that Democratic Senator Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Leader, not Republican Bill Frist. The Democrats may have the mainstream media on their side, but they can take credit for whipping up a lot of the frenzy on their own. Republicans in contrast, tend to get lost in the din.

Leftist readers will no doubt disagree, but the truth is, Republicans are way too nice. The gentlemanly approach is all well and good and at times it serves the purpose of casting the other guy as rabble-rouser, but when you’re swimming with sharks it simply doesn’t cut it. The belief that convictions alone are enough to survive in politics is afflicting too many Republicans and they are fading into the woodwork.

Democrats on the other hand are fond of calling commissions and they do so at the slightest provocation. While hearings are held and commissions are formed to discuss such non-events as the Valerie Plame “leak,” Republicans let serious transgressions go by with nary a whimper.

The list of missed opportunities is a long one and includes such whoppers as former Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berger stealing and destroying copies of National Archive documents that were to be presented to the 9/11 Commission. No doubt Berger was trying to conceal his administration’s ineptitude in dealing with the growing menace of Islamic terrorism. This criminal behavior was met not with criminal charges, but rather probation, community serve and a fine, all because of a pardon from the president. One has to wonder what deals were made to secure a simple slap on the wrist for Berger.

Yet another missed opportunity for Republicans was provided by the New York Times last week. Just as the Iraqi election was getting underway and the Patriot Act renewal was imminent the Times dropped what it pretended was a bombshell. The president of the United States authorized spying on American citizens after 9/11! In actuality, the government implemented already existing policies in order to wiretap international phone calls between foreign operatives and al-Qaeda agents in the U.S. This came in the wake of an unprecedented attack on this country, which explains why congressional leaders approved the policy at the time. (continue reading post »)