And what we got was a letter from Mr Tusk in which there is no treaty change, no powers returned to the United Kingdom and no control over our borders at all. In fact it was hardly worth the wait, it is really rather pathetic.

But there is of course one more chance for the Prime Minister because he goes to the European Summit in a couple of weeks time and like Oliver Twist he will parade in front of the other leaders and say please can we have some more concessions. I find it rather humiliating that a British Prime Minister has to do this but I'm certain of one thing: he won't get another thing.

The most bizarre thing is that Mr Cameron said that with this deal he would now vote for Britain to join the European Union. Let's have a little think about that. If the question in June was should we join the EU we'd have to tell the British people you have to surrender the control and sovereignty of your parliament and have 75 percent of your laws made somewhere else.

Your supreme court will not be supreme; you will be overruled by a court of Luxembourg made up by people who aren't even judges.

You will have to give up your fishing grounds, including in some places 200 miles of the North Sea. And you must cut your links with the Commonwealth and the wider world because you are no longer fit to negotiate your own global trade deals.

Oh, and by the way for all of this you will be paying 55 million pounds a day as a membership fee.

Would the British people vote for that? Not a snowball's chance in Hades and all we have to do is recognise that while the politicians and the big banks and the big businesses will in this referendum defend their own vested self-interest, it is people power that will win this referendum and after we've won this referendum I hope that many other countries will in Europe too."

Many of them think in due course the UK should join the Euro. They would like us in the Schengen common frontier area. Meanwhile they ensure the freedom of movement rules operate in such a way that we do in effect share common borders with the rest. They do not like the UK’s island approach, seeking to keep some clear water between us and the continent on a range of matters.

Worse still, if we voted to stay the EU would make two constant claims. They would firstly portray the renegotiation deal as another special set of favours, and would expect favours back once the vote was won. Secondly, they would presume that because the UK had voted to stay in they could now make us do as they wished, because we no longer have a realistic chance of leaving.

It’s better to spare us and them the anguish of a reluctant UK trying to hold up the direction of travel of the rest of the EU. Leaving now would be good for us, but it would also be good for them. Then they can get on with completing their ever closer union without the UK trying to slow it down.

The reason for this uncharitable assertion is simple: If Islam was once a faraway, exotic religion, today we hear calls for, and see acts of, violence committed in the name of Islam every day. And if our leaders don't, many of us still have "ears that hear and eyes that see" (Proverbs 20:12). It's no secret: Muslims from all around the world and from all walks of life — not just "terrorists" or "ISIS" — unequivocally and unapologetically proclaim that Islam commands them to hate, subjugate, and kill all who resist it, including all non-Muslims.

This is the official position of several Muslim governments, including America's closest "friends and allies," like Saudi Arabia and Qatar; it's the official position of Islamic institutions of lower and higher learning, including Al Azhar, the world's most prestigious Islamic university; and it's the official position broadcast in numerous languages on Islamic satellite stations.

In short, there's little excuse today for ignorance about Islam in America — especially for those in positions of leadership or authority. Yet it is precisely they who vehemently deny any connection between Islam and violence.

It was one thing for America to be politically correct when it existed in a utopian bubble away from all the nastiness "over there." But to be politically correct at this late hour when the tentacles of the global jihad are well entrenched in America is suicidal, literally.

Either way, "political correctness" is a convoluted euphemism that simply means "lying" — bringing us right back to our question and a final observation: It doesn't matter if those running the show are liars or fools, for at day's end, the result is the same: the world's strongest nation lies paralyzed before an existential threat that grows fiercer by the day.

What's more, the stand down order includes a requirement that the whereabouts of illegals released are not to be tracked. "We might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether," suggested agent Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council.

The biggest change: Undocumented immigrants are no longer given a "notice to appear" order, because they simply ignore them. Judd said that border agents jokingly refer to the NTAs as "notices to disappear." The Department of Homeland Security, however, said that the government continues to be strict on the border.

"Immigration laws today appear to be mere suggestions. There are little or no consequences for breaking the laws and that fact is well known in other countries. If government agencies like DHS or CBP are allowed to bypass Congress by legislating through policy, we might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether," Judd concluded.

On February 3, 2016, Powell reported on the lethal attack by three Palestinian terrorists on two Israeli policewomen. Powell stated:

“…Now, these attacks have been seen as lone wolf attacks. They are not driven by a militant group but by the frustration of individual Palestinians. They say this frustration stems from the lack of prospects for an independent Palestinian state and the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It fuels this wave of violence…”

Powell is offering conjecture, not fact. And his conjecture is inconsistent with what is known about the events and incitement to violence by Palestinian officials that led to the recent wave of attacks and what Fox News has previously reported.

Powell's skewed reporting on the violence in Israel and the West Bank is habitual. As CAMERA documented in November 2014, Powell placed equal blame on Israelis and Palestinians during another brief wave of lethal Palestinian attacks on Israelis. He described the unprovoked attacks on Israeli civilians as a "tit-for-tat."

When will Fox recognize that Powell is unable to restrain himself from injecting his personal biases into his reporting? Powell is spreading his misinformation to the Fox News audience and undermining the reputation Fox News has sought to establish as a reliable and fair source of news on the Middle East.

In a letter to JR Simplot Co, the makers of the GM potato, the FDA said that it wasn’t substantially different in composition or safety from other products already on the market, and doesn’t require any more stringent vetting.

However, several studies carried out by scientists independent of the biotech industry have revealed glaring differences between GMOs and their non-GMO counterparts. This makes a mockery of the regulatory principle of ‘Substantial Equivalence’ which has facilitated approvals of GMOs with practically no protection for public health and the environment.

But the approval doesn’t come without consumer backlash; the new GMO potato represents yet another reason we need to adopt GMO labeling across the country. Both McDonald’s and Frito Lay have said they will not purchase GM potatoes to pass on to their customers, largely due to consumer backlash.

"The question is not could Britain succeed outside the European Union, it is how will we be most successful? How will Britain be most prosperous? How will we create the most jobs? How will we have the most influence on the rules that shape the global economy and affect us? How will we be most secure?"

"And I've always said that the best answers to those questions can be found within a reformed European Union. But let me say again, if we can't secure these changes I rule nothing out." Mr Cameron also said he will never say the EU is "fixed", even if the changes are secured. He went on: "There'll be many things that remain to be reformed and Britain would continue to lead the way."

Mr Cameron added: "So if we stay, Britain will be in there keeping a lid on the budget, protecting our rebate, stripping away unnecessary regulation and seeing through the commitments we have secured in this renegotiation."

"Ensuring Britain truly can have the best of both worlds, in the parts of Europe that work for us and out of those that don't - in the single market, free to travel around Europe, part of an organisation where cooperation on security and trade can make Britain and its partners safer and more prosperous, but with guarantees that we will never be part of the euro, never be part of Schengen, never be part of a European army, never be forced to bail out the eurozone with our taxpayers' money and never be part of a European superstate."

Eurosceptics were quick to denounce the plan. “Is that it then, Mr Cameron?” asked the anti-Brussels Daily Mail newspaper. Liam Fox, the senior Conservative Eurosceptic, said it did not “even come close to the fundamental changes promised to the public”. Downing Street can justifiably claim that the prime minister has achieved many of his original negotiating goals. Eurosceptics counter that this it is only because the things he wanted were so trivial in the first place.

Even in areas identified as successes by Mr Cameron’s team there are plenty of caveats that will be mercilessly picked apart between now and an EU heads of government summit on February 18-19. One EU diplomat compared the next stage to “open heart surgery”.

Conservative Eurosceptics poured scorn on David Cameron’s attempt to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with Europe, saying his outline deal with Brussels did not go anything like far enough, writes Kate Allen. Steve Baker, leader of the Conservatives For Britain group, called the document an “in-at-all-costs” deal about “staying in a substantially unreformed EU” which “looks funny, smells funny”. “This deal does not end the supremacy of EU law or allow us to control the benefits system as we see fit or determine migration policy for ourselves,” he said.

Liam Fox, a leading figure in the Leave camp who fought Mr Cameron for the Conservative party leadership in 2005, said: “The very limited set of demands from our government have been watered down by the EU in every area. None of these changes even come close to the fundamental changes promised to the public,” he added, claiming that the deal constituted “empty promises from the EU that are not even backed up in a treaty”.

"What it means is more Europe with an EU army, EU accession of Turkey, and EU primacy over our laws and our courts. Well Cameron wanted a four year ban on migrant benefits, he didn't even ask for a restriction on the open door movement that we have to nearly half a billion people. We can in the first few months or year stop benefits, but from years 2, 3 and 4 bring them up to the current levels. This is pretty weak stuff."

"Fundamental treaty change, which is what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary talked about. A change in our relationship, reform of the European institutions and Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, in the first sentence of this document says that all the principles on which the European Union was founded have been respected. The treaties stay intact."

"There is no fundamental reform, there's some fiddling around the edges on migrant benefits. I absolutely predict that the effect of this will not be to reduce the numbers coming to Britain but given the huge increase that is coming to a minimum wage, to our living wage, even more people will come. I suspect the European Council will approve this document, they are giving us nothing."

“David Cameron has agreed to a virtually unworkable system which still sends benefits money to families of EU workers abroad and which doesn’t even put a stop to immediate benefits payable to EU workers, opting instead for a ‘graduated’ system which will still pay some benefits at once. It is a pipe dream to put total reliance on 55% of the other EU countries agreeing with him. He is now their hostage if he agrees to that.” Thurrock MEP Tim Aker said "The choice couldn't be clearer. We must leave the EU now to regain control of our laws, borders and sovereignty. To stay in risks too much."

The agency, the International Maritime Organization, said Tuesday that it had received a notification from the North Korean authorities of a multistage rocket launch between the hours of 7 am and noon local time, on an as-yet unspecified day between February 8 and 25. An agency spokeswoman, Natasha Brown, said North Korea’s notification described the payload as an Earth observation satellite it called Kwangmyongsong, which translates as Lodestar.

If the launch goes as planned, the notification said, the rocket’s first stage will fall in waters off the west coast of South Korea, and the second stage in waters east of the Philippines. The notification came after warnings to North Korea advising against a launch from the United States and allied nations, which consider such a step a cover for developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that can deliver a nuclear bomb. Under a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions, North Korea is barred from developing nuclear weapons or ballistic missile technologies.