The press misses no opportunity to distort statistics to encourage public self-pity, like the recent AP report announcing that “American men in their 30’s today are worse off than their father’s generation.” Numbers cited in the study revealed that in the last decade inflation-adjusted income for the average man actually went up sharply, by 6.5%!  Moreover, the figures never counted the value of benefits – particularly costly health insurance – that many workers get today that they never received a generation ago. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office – analyzing households with children, not male individuals – showed that Americans in every income group saw a sharp improvement in family income since 1991 --- with middle class purchasing power soaring nearly $10,000 a year!  By focusing only on men, the gloom-and-doom report ignored the fact that far more women are working, and earning vastly more income, than in previous generations: providing males, for better of worse, with new workplace competition.

The contrast between Palestinian territories in the Gaza Stirp and the West Bank provides powerful lessons for the USA. The West Bank, with continued Israeli military presence and some 250,000 Jewish residents, remains relatively quiet and safe. But Gaza, controlled entirely by the Palestinian Authority and with all Jewish inhabitants forcibly removed in 2005, has become a dangerous center of terrorist attacks--- including 250 cross-border rocket attacks in the month of May alone! Similarly, Israel made past territorial concessions to Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians – and each of those areas teem with anti-Israel terror. With Jordan, however, Israel never returned an inch of the West Bank and Jerusalem land won in 1967– but Jordan has established the most peaceful relationship with the Jewish state of any Arab nation. The US should take note: Islamic societies don’t see compromise as an indicator of friendship, but as a sign of weakness – and seek to take advantage of that vulnerability.

Two recent headlines gave starkly divergent summaries of the state of public opinion on comprehensive immigration reform.

The New York Times (May 25^th) reported: “IMMIGRATION BILL PROVISIONS GAIN WIDE SUPPORT IN POLL.”

Meanwhile, two days earlier Rasmussen Reports summarized its own poll with the headline: “JUST 26% FAVOR SENATE IMMIGRATION PLAN.”

The substance of the reporting seemed similarly contradictory. Describing  a CBS News/NY Times survey of 1,125 adults (conducted May 18-23), the Times declared: “Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demands, the poll found.”

On the other hand, the Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted at virtually the same time period (May 21-22) discovered that “initial public reaction to the immigration proposal being debated in the Senate is decidedly negative…. Just 26% of American voters favor passage of the legislation. Forty-eight percent are opposed while 26% are not sure.”

The New York Times/CBS poll reported, however, that “point by point, large majorities expressed support for measures in the legislation that has been under debate since Monday in the Senate.” For instance, on the crucial question, “Should illegal immigrants get a renewable visa if they pay a fine, have a clean record and pass a background check?” more than two thirds (67% agreed), while only 27% registered opposition. Even among self described Republicans, 66% supported the concept of “earned legalization.”

How could two polls, both from reputable public opinion operations, produce such dramatically different results? Did either CBS News/NY Times or Rasmussen deliberately distort their results to produce the outcomes they desired?

That explanation appears highly unlikely, given the inevitable and devastating damage to any polling organization caught in such manipulation. Pollsters (like everyone else) maintain their own biases, but if they allow their ideology to color their work they quickly lose credibility.

In truth, it’s perfectly plausible that both polls gave an accurate indication of public response to the questions they asked. The crucial point here is that the questions posed to the public were every bit as different as the results they produced.

The New York Times poll asked for public opinion on specific points of policy. It approached respondents with questions like “What should happen to illegal immigrants who have been in the US for at least two years?” (62% said “Should be allowed to apply for legal status,” 33% said “should be deported), or “Would you favor or oppose a guest worker program?” (68% favor, only 30% oppose).

The Rasmussen Reports survey, on the other hand, asked about the Senate bill in the abstract, without spelling out its provisions. “In our question measuring support for the Senate bill,” they explained, “Rasmussen Reports did not describe the details of the proposed legislation. We asked survey respondents how closely they have followed news stories about ‘an immigration reform agreement reached by the Bush Administration and a bi-partisan group of Senators.”

In other words, the Rasmussen respondents registered their dislike of the very idea of the Senate bill without any understanding whatever of the specifics of the proposed reforms. For instance, the same group that showed overwhelming opposition to the “immigration reform agreement” showed even more overwhelming support for its most controversial provisions.

Asked, “Would you support an immigration compromise including a very long path to citizenship, provided that the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English, and that the compromise would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country?” an amazing 65% of the Rasmussen survey said yes.

Each of the details mentioned in that question counts as part of the current Senate proposal, where the earliest an illegal alien could qualify for citizenship would be thirteen years after the bill’s passage, and they would have to pay at least $6,500 in fines and show English proficiency before qualifying even for a green card, let alone citizenship. Moreover, none of the changes in status for today’s undocumented aliens would be possible without the bill’s “triggering” mechanism, with certification that the number of entering illegals had, indeed, already been reduced (a process involving building at least half of the border fence, deploying many more border patrol agents, establishing a new system of workplace enforcement and reliable ID, and more – a process estimated to take at least eighteen months from the bill’s enactment).

In other words, the Rasmussen results actually re-enforce, rather than contradict, the New York Times survey. Like the New York Times/CBS respondents, the Rasmussen survey indicates massive support for a path to earned legalization with strict and demanding conditions.

When people know nothing about immigration reform beyond the hysterical (and increasingly dishonest) denunciations of “amnesty” on talk radio and on Lou Dobbs, they naturally dislike it. If they take the time to consider the actual components of the proposed legislation, however, they support those provisions by overwhelming margins of more than two-to-one.

This means that the challenge to those of us who seriously desire immigration reform involves cutting through the ranting and the lies and the noisy sloganeering and trying to explain, as substantively and honestly as possible, what comprehensive reform actually involves.

In the process, it’s inevitable that hysterics and demagogues will denounce anyone who urges meaningful change as a traitor or sell-out or dupe--- a denunciation that never comes with an explanation of why the opponents of reform want so desperately to preserve the status quo of the current broken system, with all its obscene costs, hypocrisy, and security threats to our country.

Providing honest information and argument respects the judgment and patriotism of the American people. Befouling the public discourse with pronouncements of doom and conspiracy theories, instinctive negativity and simplistic slogans, insults the intelligence of the populace and threatens the nation’s future. 

  For me, one of the great advantages of observing the Sabbath and Jewish holidays is the sense of perspective—when you pull back for a day or so and stop digesting the up-to-the-minute media, and think about things that are important, rather than urgent.

  I enjoyed that experience over the past two days (Wednesday and Thursday) while observing the Jewish holiday of Shavuos (Pentecost) – spending time with my family and friends, eating festive meals, going to services, participating in all night Bible study, and going for a long walk (nearly thirty miles) during the last hours of the holiday on Thursday. As my listeners may have noticed, on Wednesday and Thursday we played pre-recorded hours—some of them brand new, and prepared for this occasion.

  In any event, this sort of removal from the ongoing hysteria and combat and emergencies of talk radio (which I do love, by the way) helped nourish my sense of well-being and optimism about our country, even with the problems and challenges and bitter controversies we face.

  I’ve also collected a few amazing, even shocking statistics that ought to give some pause to the doom-and-gloom/sky-is-falling crowd. Americans – nearly all of us – remain the luckiest people on earth, and there’s reason to celebrate what’s happened in our country over the last five or ten years, rather than complaining about it constantly and endlessly.

  Consider the following stunning items of data, all culled from reliable and authoritative sources:

n      Americans at every income level earned far more in 2005 (the last year for which data are available) than in 1991, but the group in the population with greatest surge in income (adjusted for inflation, and including government benefits) was the poorest group. Among the lowest 20% of the population in terms of household earnings, income growth was a stunning 78% (according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget office) or the equivalent of more than 5% per year. Even the slowest growth of all income groups – the middle 20% of household income-- saw an inflation-adjusted income rise of 18%, for an increase in purchasing power of more than $8,500 per year. The claim that Americans are suffering, with fewer choices and less money than ever,  is disproven by the dramatic increases for every segment of the public.

-         Another indication of the nation’s rising wealth comes from the National Association of Homebuilders, which reports that the houses we occupy are much bigger than ever before – despite the decreasein family size. In 2005, the average new home amounted to 2,434 square feet – an increase of more than 20% (or 400 square feet) since 1990. In 1990, less than one in six US homes had four bedrooms or more; today, more than one-in-five of us live in houses that large.

-         Meanwhile, the New York Times Magazine offered a special report on aging Baby Boomers, describing a group of remarkably fortunate, contented, prosperous and educated Americans. For instance in 1967, only 8% of 50 year olds had completed four year college. Today, almost four times as many (31%) have completed college or university. In 1967, only 49% of 50 year olds had completed high school—but today (2007) the number is a dazzling 91%. Meanwhile, a startling 92% of Americans say their relationship with their partner is “emotionally satisfying” – one of the highest figures for any nation. Among the French (supposedly the experts on Amour) the number is a mere 81%.

-          I could go on, and will probably cover some additional indications of American progress and privilege on my radio show tomorrow (Friday).

But the point remains unassailable, I believe: if you gain a bit of perspective, looking past the viciousness and desperation in our current discourse, we remain the most fortunate nation and the most fortunate citizens in the whole, long history of humanity.

God bless America.

Last year, just before Memorial Day, Jessie Macbeth turned up in interviews as a wounded Iraq veteran who confessed that his unit of Army Rangers murdered more than 200 innocent civilians in and around a mosque in Fallujah.

Representing the group “Iraq Veterans Against the War,” he tearfully recalled how he and his comrades raped young girls, then killed their fathers after forcing them to watch.

War critics used his charges as evidence of American depravity—without noting that Macbeth was a total liar. He wasn’t a Ranger, he hadn’t been wounded, and he had never set foot in Iraq—let alone murdering anyone.

He spent only six weeks in uniform in Ft. Benning, Georgia before his discharge for psychiatric reasons and currently faces prison time for defrauding the VA of more than $10,000 in benefits.

Liberal organizations should apologize for publicizing his despicable lies, but it seems that being liberal today means never having to say you’re sorry.

HOLLYWOOD’S HEIGL PROUDLY DEFINES A NEW SPECIES

A small passage in an interview with a glamorous movie and TV star exposes the sense of superiority, shallowness, entitlement and exceptionalism at the very core of the Hollywood world view.

Katherine Heigl, the lovely and genuinely talented 28-year-old leading lady of “Grey’s Anatomy” on TV and the upcoming movie comedy “Knocked Up,” provided revealing answers for reporter William Keck in Monday’s USA TODAY.

At one point, they engaged in the following interchange:

  Q: Your KNOCKED UP character has a truly gruesome birthing scene. And you were in the delivery room with your older sister, Meg. That all impact your decision to have kids of your own?

   A: Oh yeah. I’ve always planned to adopt anyway, but that definitely reinforced my want to. I’m done with the whole idea of having my own children. It doesn’t seem like any fun. I don’t think it’s necessary to go through all that.

The very phrase “I’m done with the whole idea of having my own children” suggests that she’s moved to a more mature state of consciousness where she can put aside such a retrograde, primitive notion. In the past, billions of women have endured the agony of childbirth but she’s reached the hyper-civilized, enlightened state where “she’s done with all that.” And why? “Because it doesn’t seem like any fun,” of course. Here we are, after long millennia of human progress, ready to embrace the sophisticated notion that the most elemental life-cycle experience of them all, child birth, deserves dismissal because it’s less “fun” than, say, a Yoga class. Ms. Heigl, apparently, fails to consider that certain experiences and processes might be worthwhile even if they aren’t “any fun.”

I know I shouldn’t sound too harsh toward this beautiful and gifted young woman, especially since her intermittently amusing new movie (which I’ve seen) carries an unexpectedly potent pro-life message. Of course, she may change her mind about “birthing babies” (as described in “Gone With the Wind”) as soon as some love relationship intensifies, or she sees that her sister Meg (with whom she experienced the delivery room) actually got some lasting value (it’s called a child) for her hours of maternity ward pain.

But please recall that Ms. Heigl already is 28 – not 18. And that her declaration about moving above and beyond the tacky business of childbirth came not in casual conversation, but in a formal interview with the nation’s top circulation newspaper, while trying to promote a major movie to the largest possible audience.

Did it never occur to her that suggesting that she’s “done with the idea of having my own children” involved her expressed contempt for an experience that the overwhelming majority of women cherish and anticipate and value?

Once upon a time, Hollywood stars went out of their way to show themselves as “regular guys” and “ordinary gals,” despite their good looks, glamour and fame. That connection with the American Everyman remained the very essence of Ronald Reagan’s appeal, for instance—in movies and in politics. It was no accident that Reagan, and Jimmy Stewart, and Clark Gable, and Henry Fonda, and even Elvis made it a point to serve in the military, like everyone else.

Today’s stars, on the other hand, feel no compunction in acknowledging the fact that they function in a different reality, but seem altogether comfortable with the notion that they constitute a higher species – unencumbered by the messy realities of childbearing.

  The most common and most powerful argument against comprehensive immigration reform involves the claim that providing illegals with a path to legalization amounts to rewarding bad behavior. If you reward bad behavior, doesn’t that always mean that you’ll get more of it?

This logic is unassailable, but the bi-partisan Senate bill makes a point of rewarding only good behavior. If an illegal immigrant comes forward, pays a fine for his illegal entry, registers with the government, gets verifiable ID, and goes through a background check, isn’t that a step in the right direction? The new system would only provide rewards – like the right to remain in the US – in return for such positive actions; without them, the immigrant would be subject to deportation.

Of course, sneaking across the border without authorization amounts to bad behavior – but the new bill devotes considerable resources to stopping such entries in the future. For those who have already crossed, who have already behaved badly, it provides a means to atone for your negative actions with positive steps – not automatic forgiveness. To earn full legal residency, you’d need to pay a total of $6,500 in fines and fees (per worker), wait for a minimum of eight years, learn English, pay back taxes, prove that you’re fully employed more than 90% of the time, and go back to your home country to apply for a visa. Then, after that, it would still take a minimum of five more years – a total of 13 years – for citizenship. This is not some “free pass,” that privileges rule breakers.

Do we want to encourage illegals to try to rectify their status – to come out of the shadows, play by the rules, pay all taxes due, learn English, and assimilate into our society? Or do we only want them to disappear – nursing the delusional fantasy that some 12 million human beings will somehow uproot themselves (in many cases after years of US residency) and return to their impoverished homelands simply because we want them to do so?

And speaking of rewarding good behavior, and punishing the bad: those courageous conservatives (Senators Kyl, Graham, Isakson and, yes, McCain) who have worked constructively and seriously on immigration reform deserve our support, not our rage, while those politicians and media figures who have demagogued this issue in a way that only makes it worse, in no way merit our encouragement.

  Secular militants have provided no shortage of intemperate, vicious, mean-spirited reactions to the death of Jerry Falwell but perhaps the most revealing came from Christopher Hitchens (author of a new book attacking religious delusions, “God is Not Great.”)

   Interviewed by Anderson Cooper on CNN, Hitchens seemed oddly obsessed with repeatedly applying a single—and singularly inappropriate -- adjective to the late Dr, Falwell.

   In the course of the interview, Hitchens decried “the empty life of this ugly little charlatan…” and then asked “who would, even at your network, have invited such a little toad….”  Shortly thereafter, he declared, “The whole consideration of this horrible little person is offensive to very, very many of us…” He also concluded that Dr. Falwell even counted as insincere in his religious faith, suggesting, “He woke up every morning, as I say, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking, I have got away with it again.”

   In what possible sense did Jerry Falwell count as a little man?

   In the most obvious, physical sense Hitchens’ attempt to belittle Falwell might reflect the common envy of a small guy for a larger, stronger specimen. Aside from the late pastor’s obvious girth, he stood well over six feet tall. I’ve shared refreshments with both Falwell and Hitchens, and the Brit’s not bigger in any sense of the word.

   Of course, Hitchens and his apologists might respond that describing Falwell as “little” denotes his ultimate insignificance, his limited intellectual, spiritual dimensions, not his physical size, but even here the dismissive term hardly applies.

   As the driving force behind the emergence of the modern Christian conservative movement in U.S. politics, Falwell changed history – as even his most vitriolic critics concede. “The Moral Majority” which he founded played a crucial role in the Reagan landslide of 1980, and even more conspicuously led the way to the stunning, unpredicted Senate sweep that gave the GOP control of the upper house of Congress for the first time in 26 years. Twelve Republican challengers – most of them outspoken Christian conservatives – seized the seats of twelve highly entrenched Democratic incumbents (including such luminaries and former Presidential candidates as George McGovern, Birch Bayh and Frank Church). Liberals may lament the outcome of that watershed election but it’s impossible to dismiss its importance.

   In other words, this purportedly “little charlatan” Jerry Falwell, managed to bring about a big shift in American politics – thereby qualifying as a major figure in all the battles of the Reagan Presiency and beyond.  Everything about the man actually counted as big – big ambitions, big plans, big ideas, big impact. In addition to his well-known role in politics and media, Falwell qualified as a spectacularly successful institution builder. His Thomas Road Baptist Church, which he founded from scratch in 1951, now draws 22,000 members, and booming Liberty University (founded in 1971) educates nearly 8,000 students (more than Dartmouth or Princeton). Emerson once said that “any durable institution is nothing more than the lengthened shadow of one man.” In that context, Falwell counts as a big guy, with a big shadow.

   There is one possible sense in which a major figure might be described as “small” – if even this powerful, influential individual comes across as petty, obsessed with trivialities, nursing grudges and slights.

    Falwell possessed none of these characteristics of smallness, and managed to strike up unlikely friendships even with his political and religious adversaries. Opponents as diverse as Jesse Jackson and Larry Flynt remembered him on his passing as a “friend,” praising his graciousness and geniality while emphatically rejecting his ideology. Falwell engaged in frequent, sometimes furious battles in politics and pop culture but he did so, for the most part, as a proverbial happy warrior. The New York Times wrote in their obituary: “For all the controversy, Mr. Falwell was often an unconvincing villain. His manner was patient and affable. His sermons had little of the white-hot menace of those of his contemporaries like Jimmy Swaggart. He shared podiums with Senator Kennedy, appeared at hostile college campuses and in 1984 spent an event before a crowd full of hecklers in Town Hall in New York, probably not changing many minds but nevertheless expressing good will.”

    The fact that some of Falwell’s critics displayed so little good will on the occasion of his passing (“Ding Dong, Falwell’s Dead!” exulted a typical headline at CommonDreams.org)  reflects their insecurity and bitterness, not their certainty. Religious believers feel no need to sneer and celebrate when a noted atheist leaves this life. If, as the skeptics believe, there’s no fate awaiting any of us beyond a future as worm food, then deeply religious people have no more reason to worry than their irreligious counterparts.

    If, on the other hand, there’s a watchful God who’ll ultimately judge us all by Biblical standards, then the non-believers may face significant reasons for concern. No wonder an angry atheist like Christopher Hitchens reacts with such defensive fury to the very idea that Falwell (and, ultimately, the rest of us) will go on to some form of eternal reward.

    Despite the effort to disregard him as “little,” Falwell qualified in every sense as a large figure-- big hearted and cheerful, secure and sincere in his own faith, with enormous dreams and major impact. He never would have stooped to a cruel, small-minded, petty and pathetic publicity stunt like smearing one of his ideological adversaries on the very day that opponent died.

   So who, then, is the real “little toad,” Mr. Hitchens?

Three reasons (among many) to honor Jerry Falwell:

1). In a profession often tarnished by scandals of a sexual and financial nature, his reputation remained clean and honorable. The controversies in his long career involved ill-considered statements or unpopular policy positions, but never charges of greed, selfishness or hypocrisy. Even his political and religious opponents acknowledged the man’s dedication and passionate sincerity.

2) He helped to build unity among conservative believers of many faith traditions. Despite the long history of Catholic-Protestant antagonism, the Baptist Falwell changed the world by uniting every denomination in the pro-life cause. The Moral Majority enjoyed an unprecedented impact in the 1980’s precisely because it recognized the importance of transcending doctrinal disagreements. Without hesitation, he enthusiastically appealed to Jews, Mormons and other “minority religions” in his efforts to rally support for the values that traditionalists of every faith seemed to share. I know first hand of the way that his obvious affection for the Jewish people and the state of Israel helped to shatter the dumb old idea that any fervent televangelist must somehow harbor anti-Semitic instincts.

3) He nobly illustrated the conservative model for reforming and improving the world – working from inside out and the bottom up, rather than from the top down. The left emphasizes sweeping change, initiated by the federal government or other central planners, as the basis for bettering the lives of the populace. Falwell understood that durable transformations begin with individuals, families, neighborhoods, communities, and then can spread outward to impact millions. He began by organizing the Thomas Road Baptist Church in out-of-the-way Lynchburg in 1971, then gained national influence and worldwide fame, but finally returned his emphasis to the local institutions he had launched and nourished (including Liberty University). He never abandoned his commitment to his own wholesome family and his small corner of the country to chase the phantoms of media glory and worldwide power; he enjoyed lasting prominence and influence because he remained grounded at home.

I first met Dr. Falwell in 1983 at a private meeting of California Jewish leaders and found myself deeply impressed by the effortless, easy-going way he charmed and disarmed a half-dozen hostile liberal rabbis. In a dozen personal interactions with him over the years, he always seemed at least as kind-hearted, down-to-earth and gracious as he appeared on TV. His personal joy, confidence and contentment in his faith could warm a room and the conservative movement, and the nation, will feel notably colder with his departure.

It’s always gratifying to see mainstream media attempt to catch up with the truth—however belatedly.

For more than fifteen years, I’ve been writing and speaking about the myth of America’s "soaring divorce rate", and the pernicious lie that “50% of all marriages end in divorce.”

My bestselling book HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA (1992) includes a whole subchapter entitled, “The Myth of the 50% Divorce Rate.”

This week, even the Associated Press began to acknowledge the truth. “Divorce Rate Falls to Lowest Level Since 1970,” said the headline of a major article on May 10.

This piece accurately reported the following: “America’s divorce rate began climbing in the late 1960’s and skyrocketed during the 70’s and early ‘80’s, as virtually every state adopted no-fault divorce laws.  The rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981. But since then it’s dropped by one-third, to 3.6. That’s the lowest rate since 1970.”

Of course these numbers reflect only those people who get divorced in a given year, and say nothing about the number of marriages that ultimately end up shattered. Nor can you extrapolate from these figures reliably into the future. The fact that 3.6 out of a thousand people get divorced in a single year doesn’t mean that 36 people out of a thousand will have gotten divorced after ten years.

The only way to measure the over-all divorce rate – the percentage of all  first marriages that end in divorce --is to consider the readily available numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the most recent figures (from 2001, after the last completed national census), some 166,932,000 Americans have ever been married – or 76% of all those 15 and older.

Meanwhile, 48,412,000 have ever been divorced.

This means that of all those who have ever been married, a startling 71% are either still married to the person they originally wed, or else they remained married until the spouse died.

This figure applies only to first marriages, of course: the number for those who have “ever been divorced” (22.2% of all American adults) includes many people who have been divorced more than once.

Nevertheless, think of the important, valuable, reassuring message to prospective married couples that could be provided by an honest summary of the marital realities:

If this constitutes the first marriage for both of you, there’s a better than 70% chance that you will remain married until one of you dies.

Despite decades of media distortions, the truth remains precious and liberating.

One of the favorite rhetorical tricks of the secular left involves the comparison of Islamo-Nazi terrorists with Christian conservatives. Rosie O’Donnell on “The View” specifically declared that the American Christian Right represents a danger similar to Islamist fanatics while Howard Dean and others regular refer to “the Taliban wing of the Republican Party” as a way to stigmatize pro-lifers and other social conservatives.

Recent revelations about the Fort Dix Six (the Muslim fanatics in New Jersey who allegedly planned murderous attacks on US soldiers) serve as a potent reminder, however, that religious enthusiasm brings very special risks for Muslim families.

The New York Times quoted relatives of several of the accused terrorists as worrying over their increasing religiosity. Murat Duka, a relative of the three illegal immigrants at the heart of the conspiracy, declared: “It’s fine to be a religious man. But if you get too much to the religion, you get out of your mind and do stupid things.”

The father of another suspected plotter, Serdar Tatar, told reporters that “the young man had gravitated to radical Islam in recent years, prompting a rift between them. “I’m not a religious person,” said Muslim Tatar. “I don’t want my son to be a religious person, but he was a religious person.”

It’s true that in Christian and Jewish homes some casually religious parents may worry over the faith-based intensity of their offspring. But these concerns involve potential damage to the child himself – who may harm his career, or wear funny clothes, or embarrass the family by handing out obnoxious tracts. No Christian or Jewish parents need worry, however, that the intensifying religiosity of a child will lead to acts of violence against others, or to suicide as a means of gaining “paradise.”

Muslim parents do worry about such outcomes, however – because literally tens of thousands of their most devout young people have encouraged of horrifying acts of brutality and self destruction. When Murat Duka expresses concern that religion will cause you to “get out of your mind and do stupid things,” the stupid things he has in mind are far worse than talking in tongues, or growing an unkempt beard, or restricting your diet based on ancient law.

Outsiders may see radical Islam and Evangelical Christianity and Orthodox Judaism as similarly “fundamentalist,” but the nightmarish experience and legitimate fears of the Muslim families of the Fort Dix Six, suggest that not all fundamentalisms are created equal.

  Everyone makes mistakes, and not every misstatement of fact amounts to a lie.

  But if a gross distortion is repeated and defended, despite clear-cut evidence of its inaccuracy,  then a mistake can become a lie – a deliberate, or at least shamefully careless, falsehood.

  Senator Barack Obama recently provided a good example of a stupid mistake that in no way qualifies as a lie. Speaking to a campaign rally, the enthusiastic Senator expressed horror at the Kansas tornado which, he declared, “wiped out a whole town…. 10,000 people died.” Actually, he fell 9,988 casualties from the mark: only 12 people perished in the Greensburg tornado. Within minutes of his embarrassing speech, his campaign aides acknowledged the error and apologized to the media.

   In a similar if less spectacular vein, I also misstated a victim count on my radio show on Tuesday. A caller tried to make the ridiculous point that my talk about the “Fort Dix Jihadis” amounted to a deliberate diversion from the national emergency involving criminal aliens. The caller said that the New Jersey conspirators hoped to kill “only” 100 soldiers, but that illegal aliens murder several times that number every single week. He went on to claim that illegals murdered some 8,000 to 9,000 Americans every year.

   I insisted that his number counted as absurd, laughable, dishonest and ridiculous --- since, I said, only 10,600 Americans die of murder each year, and there is no chance that the heavy majority of them are killed by immigrants.

   Actually, the figure that I pulled from memory covers gun deaths each year – which is why it stuck in my mind after heavy repetition following Virginia Tech. Recent statistics for all murders are, in fact, somewhat higher – amounting to a bit over 16,000 killed annually in recent years. That number is still way down from the 23,438 murders logged in 1990 (before the current wave of mass immigration, by the way) and a dramatic decline in the murder rate—which reached 10.2 per 100,000 population in 1980, and stands at 5.5 per 100,000 today (all statistics from the FBI: Uniform Crime Reports). As I accurately commented on the air, the overall murder rate has been cut nearly in half in the last quarter century, despite a proliferation of guns and immigrants. Within minutes of my misstatement of the actual raw number of murder victims, I corrected the number on the air—and acknowledged my mistake to the listeners.

   But the claim of “8,000 to 9,000” killed by illegals remains ridiculous, unsubstantiated, irresponsible and, in fact, demented. The government doesn’t provide statistics on who committed every murder because many killings, of course, remain unsolved. We do have numbers, however, on those arrested for murder and those numbers (classified by race) show no basis whatever for suggesting that illegals predominate when it comes to killing their fellow US residents. The “Uniform Crime Report” doesn’t list a separate figure for “illegal aliens” or even for Hispanics, but it does divide murder arrests between blacks and whites --- with “blacks” representing 47.2% of all arrested murderers, “whites” amounting to 50.5% and “other” (mostly Native Americans) counted as 2.3%.

   Since only a tiny percentage of American blacks (most of whom descend from slaves forced to this country before the War Between the States) qualify as illegal aliens (or legal immigrants, for that matter), these numbers would mean that at least two-thirds of the self-described “white” murderers would have to be “illegals” to come up with anything close to the ludicrous figure of 8,000 murder victims of undocumented immigrants per year.

   To further settle the issue, consider the states with the highest murder rates per 100,000: they are Louisiana (12.7), Maryland (9.4), and by far the winner, the District of Columbia (with a staggering 35.8). None of these bloody jurisdictions is known for concentrations of illegals. Meanwhile, those states most famous for burgeoning populations of the undocumented show murder rates that only moderately exceed the national average of 5.5 – including Texas at 6.1 and California at 6.7. In other words, illegals may create a host of other serious problems (particularly for our over-taxed medical and educational institutions) but they can’t be blamed for the majority or even for half of the national murder rate.

   This conclusion then raises the touchy issue of a “statistic” that may have arisen from an honest misunderstanding, but now amounts to a ludicrous distortion, an irresponsible bit of demagoguery or, most likely, an outright lie.

    A few politicians and many, many conservative talk show hosts (who honestly ought to know better) have taken up the cry that “nearly one third of all inmates crowding our prisons are illegal aliens.” Sometimes, those citing this number will make a slightly more modest claim: that 29% of all prisoners are illegals, or 27%, or some other hugely disproportionate number.

    This claim is so dishonest, so wide of the mark, so utterly unsubstantiated that the people who continue to recycle it ought to apologize, and acknowledge their mistake – or else they’re participating in a deliberate lie.