Neal Boortz
Wednesday, April 17, 2002

If liberals hated homicidal Muslim fanatics half as much as they hate anti-communist Cubans, all of America would finally be behind the war on terrorism. … Ann Coulter

Yesterday the British press was full of horrid accounts of a grisly massacre of "innocent Palestinians" in the "refugee camp"* of Jenin. Various British newspapers wrote of bodies littering the streets - carnage everywhere you looked.

Then, during a press conference this morning in Israel, Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked, "Why don't you visit the Jenin refugee camp and see the massacre there?"

Then something happened. Some unbiased Western journalists actually gained access to the streets of Jenin and - guess what? The streets weren't littered with bodies! The "stench of rotting corpses" didn't fill the air!

Virtually all of the reports of a massacre by Israeli troops in Jenin have been filed by people who have not been to Jenin to see for themselves, or by so-called journalists who are known to be nothing but flacks for Arafat and his terrorist pals.

I'm struggling to understand this. It just escapes me. The Arab world vows the destruction of Israel. Arab terrorists attack Israeli civilians with homicide bombings. Finally Israel reacts - as Israel had every right to do.

Troops are sent into the very areas that had been exporting terrorism and death targeted at women and children. Terrorists and their supporters are arrested - and "world opinion" (whatever that is) is turned against Israel!

Why was the world's press so eager to accept the reports of a massacre in Jenin from the Palestinians? Do the Palestinians have some sort of a reputation for truth-telling that I'm not aware of?

I think that the British press - and others reporting on this so-called massacre - actually know the truth. They know that it is quite probable that the Palestinians are lying. They report the massacre, though, because it serves their goal of demonizing Israel in this conflict.

Israel offered Arafat and the Palestinians almost everything that they had been asking for - and Arafat walked away. He walked away without even telling his people the details of the peace offer that had been made.

He went back to his compound, where he immediately started writing checks to buy the explosives that homicide bombers would wear as they wandered into Israeli restaurants, markets and grocery stores.

And why? He walked away because Israel did not offer to dissolve the Israeli nation and remove all Jews from what Arafat considers to be Palestinian territory.

That's Arafat's goal. That's the Arab world's goal. Nothing less will suffice. Nothing will protect Israel short of a military defeat of Arab terrorist and military forces.

* Why the asterisk? Because you need to understand the use of the word "refugee camp" in the language of Palestinians. To anyone else it would be a village or a city. To Palestinians it is a "refugee camp," and so it shall remain until an official Palestinian nation is formed. At that time it will become a city.

This Is All Just a Warm-up for Our Efforts to Get Saddam

This criticism of Israel for its efforts to root out terrorists and protect its citizens is nothing - mere child's play - compared to what you will see when the United States makes its move against Saddam Hussein. As soon as the first shots are fired against Saddam's forces you'll see the newspapers around the world virtually erupt with horrible tales of civilian causalities.

This is just practice for the Islamic fanatics. They're testing their propaganda capabilities and the willingness of the media to accept wild claims of civilian massacres. The real game is yet to begin.

Homicide Bombings … Now an Accepted Weapon?

Several weeks ago I read a column to you in which someone, forgot who, said that the Arabs were trying out a new weapon in their actions against Israel. That weapon is suicide bombing. In recent days we have read statements from people such as Arafat's wife stating that suicide bombings (I prefer "homicide bombings") are, indeed, perfectly legitimate weapons for a desperate people. Many Palestinian apologists in the world's press seem to be ready to accept that premise.

OK ... if we're ready to say that suicide bombings aren't acts of terrorism, that they are legitimate offensive actions conducted by "freedom fighters," then how can we say that the actions of the hijackers on Sept. 11 were improper?

The only difference between strapping dynamite to your stomach and walking into a restaurant and flying an airplane into an office building is one of degree.

The Palestinians want the world to accept the intentional murder of innocent civilians as a legitimate tool of war. Those who agree become part of the terrorism problem.

And Just Who Are the Biggest Tax Cheats out There?

The IRS says that it is stepping up its efforts to identify and prosecute tax cheats. If that's the case, then let them go after the biggest group of tax cheats out there.

And just who makes up this biggest group of tax cheats? Well, it's not those evil rich folks. It's the EITC crowd. EITC - the Earned Income Tax Credit. If you make too much money, you won't get your income transfer check under EITC!

So - the biggest group of tax cheats are those who underreport their income so they won't lose their government check. Has the age of political correctness made it improper to focus anti-fraud efforts on these deadbeats?

No Need to Clutter the Constitution With This Nonsense

Some people think that it might be a good idea to have a constitutional convention to fix some of the problems with the current U.S. Constitution.

What problems? Well, how about the 16th Amendment, which provides for an income tax? And how about that little oversight that left broadcast media out of the mix of protections offered by the First Amendment?

There's a problem here. If we were to have such a constitutional convention, every special interest group out there would be lobbying to make sure that special and unique "rights" were guaranteed for members of their group.

Gays and lesbians would be demanding specific coverage for such things as marriage and adoption. Then the trans-gendered crowd would step up. Single moms would be demanding their "right" to child care services while disabled golfers would be demanding their "right" to wheelchairs on golf greens. In short, it would be a complete mess.

Well, maybe we don't even need a constitutional convention to make our Constitution a complete mess. Just let George W. Bush have his head and we could well be on our way.

President Bush came out yesterday with his support of Dianne Feinstein's "victim's rights" amendment to the Constitution. So, what would this amendment say? Here you go … see if you can figure this out.

"The rights of victims of violent crime, being capable of protection without denying the constitutional rights of those accused of victimizing them, are hereby established and shall not be denied by any state of the United States."

Now that is only a part of the amendment. The whole thing is nearly as long as the entire Bill of Rights, but what does that say? What is a victim? What are those victims' rights? Would a victim have the right to compensation from the person who victimized him? What if that person has no assets? Do the taxpayers then have to step in to make sure that his "rights" are protected?

The squabble has already started. Some crowd called The National Center for Victims of Crime is upset because the scope of this amendment would be limited to victims of violent crime. What about nonviolent crimes?

Our Constitution has only been amended 27 times. One established prohibition, the other ended it, so wipe those two off the map and you have 25 left.

Some have been disastrous for our country. The 16th Amendment, of course, which gave us our wonderful income tax, is one. Another would be the 17th Amendment. This is the tragic amendment that turned the election of U.S. senators over to the voters instead of the various state legislatures.

The message? Amendments should be clear, concise and well-thought-out before they're even submitted to the states for ratification. This victims' rights amendment doesn't fill the bill.

Another question. Is this a matter that can be handled by state governments? After all, most criminal prosecutions happen under state, not Federal, law. Does the federal government even have a role to play here?

Every one of the 50 states already has provisions on the books that protect victims' rights. Constitutional protections are offered in 29 states. Why not leave it up to the states to do whatever needs to be done here?

Let's not trivialize constitutional amendments, especially if your true goal is to do nothing more than to pander to the senator from California.

Make Some Room in Our Jails

A federal judge has told Fulton County, Ga., that it must do something - fast - to relieve overcrowding in its jail. I don't know just how many people there are in this jail right now being held for a nonviolent drug crime - basically we talking mere possession here.

If there are any, turn them out. They have violated no person's rights to life, liberty or property. What they have done shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

Accountability Can Be a Real Pain

It's not exactly above the fold on the front page of your local newspaper, but it seems that workers are conducting a general strike in Italy. They're upset at Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi is planning some new regulations that would make it easier to fire workers.

What are these Italian workers afraid of? Pretty much the same thing that workers around the world are afraid of. Accountability. They're afraid that if they don't do the job they've been hired to do, they may get fired. They feel that they have a "right" to a job. They don't particularly feel that the employer has any "right" to a good day's work for a good day's pay. It's just plain basic union mentality at work.

More Details on the Child Bomber – They're Looking for the Father.

Yesterday I said that this photo (http://www.boortz.com/child_bomber.jpg) was taken at a demonstration in the West Bank. Not true. The pro-Palestinian demonstration was actually in Berlin, Germany. Now we read that German authorities are looking for the father of the little girl in the photo. Criminal charges could be brought under German law for condoning acts of violence. The interior minister says that this is an outrageous use of a child for promoting terrorist activities.

If they catch him ... take the girl away, before he kills her.

Neal Boortz is the hugely popular nationally syndicated radio host.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Middle East
War on Terrorism