Can I Call Them Or What?

Not that this prediction was rocket surgery or anything. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, among others, are joining together to sue the Pennsylvania city of Hazleton over it's strict anti-illegal immigrant law.

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania town that passed one of the toughest immigration laws in the United States this week overstepped its authority, said a civil-liberties group which announced plans on Friday to sue.

The city council of Hazleton, a former coal-mining town of some 31,000 people, late on Thursday passed a measure that will deny a business permit to anyone hiring illegal immigrants.

It also imposes a $1,000 fine on any landlord who rents to illegal immigrants, and establishes English as the town's official language.

The ordinance states that illegal immigration leads to higher crime rates, overcrowded classrooms and failing schools, imposes a financial burden on hospitals and reduces the quality of other public services in the town.

Hazleton boomed under a wave of Eastern European immigrants in the late 1800s, and has experienced a surge of Hispanic immigration in recent years.

The townspeople are suffering from "the debilitating effects on their economic and social well being imposed by the influx of illegal aliens," the regulation says, and the city has the authority to punish those who aid illegal aliens.

A coalition including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represents U.S. Latinos on immigration issues, say they will sue Hazleton in federal court.

It would appear the group's strategy will be to argue that it is the Federal government's right to regulate immigration. That's interesting, the ACLU arguing for greater Federal government control? What I find somewhat disturbing is the involvement of the Puerto Rican group. They would be legal in the US since Puerto Rico is part of the US. Why are they in this? Why would they have standing in court?

US Evacuation Teams In Lebanon

The US security teams in charge of organizing an evacuation of Americans from Lebanon have arrived in country and are at the US embassy there.

Two helicopters flew in from over the Mediterranean and landed on the embassy grounds, located on a fortified hilltop in the north Beirut suburb of Aukar, witnesses said.

"The arrival of the teams is an important first step in facilitating the safe departure of Americans who want to leave Lebanon," the U.S. Embassy said in a statement.

It said the teams would arrange for "secure transportation for American citizens who wish to depart Lebanon." There are an estimated 25,000 Americans living or working in Lebanon, but U.S. officials said they assume that far fewer would choose to leave.

The United States said Saturday it was working on a plan to evacuate American citizens from Lebanon to the neighboring island of Cyprus.

Of course, evacuation is complicated by the fact that the Beirut airport is closed due to Israeli airstrikes. One thing we can be sure of is that the Israelis will give these people safe passage. I'd be worried about Hezbollah.

North Korea Does The Expected

North Korea has rejected the UN resolution calling for it to suspend it's missile program. Big surprise that.

The North also said it would "bolster its war deterrent for self-defense," a typical phrase often used to refer to the country's nuclear weapons program.

After 10 days of debate, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed a resolution Saturday condemning North Korea's multiple missile launches on July 5. The council demanded that North Korea "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program" and re-establish a moratorium on missile launches. It strongly urged North Korea to return to six-party talks on its nuclear program, which have been stalled since last year.

The resolution bans all U.N. member states from selling material or technology for missiles or weapons of mass destruction to North Korea, and from receiving missiles, banned weapons or technology from Pyongyang.

"Our republic vehemently denounces and roundly refutes the 'resolution,' a product of the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK, and will not be bound to it in the least," the North's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. North Korea is known officially as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK.

Gee, you don't suppose the Axis of Evil is coordinating their actions, do you?

Hezbollah Rockets Haifa

At least eight people have been killed in a barrage of rockets fired into Haifa by Hezbollah. The attack was timed to hit during the morning rush hour.

HAIFA, Israel - Lebanese guerillas fired a relentless barrage of rockets into the northern Israeli city of Haifa during morning rush hour Sunday, killing eight people at a train station and wounding seven others in a dramatic escalation of a five-day-old conflict that has shattered Mideast peace.

Hezbollah's firing of at least 20 rockets at Haifa came after Israel unleashed its fiercest bombardment yet of the Lebanese capital, starting after midnight Saturday. The attack reduced Beirut apartment buildings to rubble and knocked out electricity in many areas of the city.

Within two hours of the 8 a.m. Haifa attack, Israel warplanes retaliated with at least six airstrikes on southern Beirut, blasting the Hezbollah headquarters building and sending a thick smoke cloud over the city.

U.S. officials were monitoring violence in Lebanon hour-by-hour to decide whether to evacuate an estimated 25,000 Americans, possibly to the neighboring Mediterranean island of Cyprus. About 350 people — most of them Europeans — were evacuated Saturday night and early Sunday from Lebanon to Cyprus on Italian military flights.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there would be "far-reaching consequences" for the Haifa attack. Black smoke rose over the city. Air-raid sirens wailed as the dead and wounded were evacuated. Rockets also hit an oil refinery, gas storage tanks and a busy street during morning rush hour.

Hezbollah's deliberate and ongoing attacks against civilians should be denounced even by the Arab nations. The deliberate hiding of rockets in civilian houses should also be denounced. Where are all the cries for strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions against Hezbollah? Where are all the screeches about war crimes? BOTH of the actions Hezbollah has chosen are war crimes under the Geneva accords.

Where are all the screams of outrage from the left now?

Cowards

Israeli has located and is destroying Hezbollah's long range rocket stores. Which the Hezbollah cowards have hidden in civilian homes inside Lebanese villages. Using their own people as human shields; holding children in front of them hoping to stave off Israeli fire. The head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, got a big, big surprise when Israel started targeting the rocket stores and struck with overwhelming force.

A senior IDF official revealed Saturday that Hizbullah has been hiding a large quantity of long-range rockets in specially-designed rooms built in houses in Southern Lebanon villages, operating under the assumption that the Israeli army will have difficulty in locating them and that it would prefer not to harm villages.

According to the official, the rockets that have been concealed are capable of reaching a range of 40-70 kilometers (roughly 25-43 miles). “We took the gloves off in this confrontation, we targeted these places and will hit every convoy transporting arms, even if there are Iranian elements within it,” he stated.

However, as the IDF intelligence unit believes that there are those in Lebanon capable of bringing about a significant turnabout in the country by curbing Hizbullah, it was decided that the pressure exerted on the Lebanese government will be limited, so as not to jeopardize this possibility.

Surprises for Nasrallah

Three days after the onset of the large-scale operation in Lebanon, army sources estimate that Hizbullah’s head Hassan Nasrallah had expected a much more restrained Israeli response to the kidnapping of two soldiers on its border. “He didn’t expect us to reach all those villages and substantially damage the long-range rocket infrastructure,” the senior officer said.  

According to the officer, civilians who were storing the rockets in their houses have been hit in some of the strikes. “We have no intention of hurting civilians, but those who live by the sword are bound to get hurt,” he stressed. The strike on Beirut, he stated, was also a surprise for Nasrallah. “It’s true that he has surprises for us as well. Some we know of, some we don’t,” he said.

 According to an assessment formulated by the IDF intelligence unit, there are positive forces in Lebanon capable of bringing about a much desired transformation in the country by pushing Hizbullah aside and undermining its strength. The recent operation will therefore refrain from pressuring the Lebanese government in order not to weaken these forces.

As I said yesterday, Hezbollah may well have overplayed it's hand very badly and let itself be led down the path to it's own destruction by Iran.

Are You Kidding Me?

Charles over at Little Green Footballs has a post about the New York Times, images and photographers. What's wrong with this picture? Well, it's a picture of a sniper from the Mahdi Army. The problem is, he's in the process of shooting at American troops.

Assistant Managing Editor for Photography Michele McNally comments on this one:

A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.

Michele McNally: “Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”

I'm going to point out something that appears to be beyond the mental grasp of the New York Times, photographer Joao Silva and Mr. McNally. The "brave photographer" may have taken a picture of a terrorist killing an American soldier. The "brave photographer" put his desire to take a photograph to publish in his book above the lives of his fellow citizens.

I take this very personally, for rather obvious reasons. As far as I am concerned, this is actively assisting the enemy with propaganda. It is also tantamount to accessory before the fact and a criminal act. And if I ever meet Mr. Silva or Mr. McNally, we'll have us a little discussion about that subject.

UPDATE: Maybe we could take up a collection to fly this guy in to see Mr. Silva? (That's a joke, by the way).

Partisanship

There's a rather long article in the Washington Post today that explains a "survey based experiment" that the Post did relating to how 9/11 effects politics. Starting from the strong, almost universal unity that occurred right after that day it traces how quickly - how stunningly fast - politics reverted to business as usual. Or possibly worse partisanship.

The bipartisanship that appeared spontaneously in the aftermath of the attacks was quickly swallowed up by a resurgence of partisan differences among voters and politicians. National security emerged not as a source of unity, but as a new fault line between the two parties, creating a set of issues that have led to bitter disagreement.

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, and their aftermath played out in two national elections, in 2002 and 2004, as President Bush and his team skillfully used the issue of terrorism to expand Republican congressional margins and to retain the White House. And with midterm elections looming in November, Sept. 11 still resonates politically, with fears of terrorism and memories of a nation bound together in shock and sadness capable of affecting the attitudes of some voters.

But in the intervening period, the war in Iraq has assumed a far more prominent role in the political debates and in shaping what have become the negative views of Bush's presidency that have defined much of his second term.

Whether the return to national rancor and partisan conflict was avoidable or inevitable remains a topic of debate, although the evidence tilts in the direction of inevitability. The deep divisions that produced the disputed election of 2000 never disappeared and quickly reasserted themselves shortly after Sept. 11. In a 50-50 America, the lust for political advantage overwhelmed calls for consensus and cooperation.

More fundamentally, the reemergence of security issues highlighted long-standing and heartfelt differences between Republican and Democratic voters over the use of military force and American power to deal with threats old and new. Once Bush fixed his eye on taking out Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, there may have been no way to avoid the political clashes and subsequent divisions that followed.

Somehow it's all Bush's fault. And he manipulated the issue of terrorism. Wow. Just wow. I wonder how this story would have been written without the reporters wearing their dislike for the President out on their sleeves? The rest of the article point to what I think the real conclusion of the article should have been. Images of 9/11 still have a powerful effect on people's attitudes. Those who have chosen to forget 9/11 have reverted back to partisanship, I think.

The media, shortly after 9/11 made a conscious decision to suppress the 9/11 images. People who did not want to think about the issue were able to revert to other patterns of thought. That made the divide seem even greater than it was before, I think. That reversion to old thought patterns allow people like Bill Keller to override the good of the country and publish the details of secret programs. That's my analysis of the Post's experiment. I don't think it's any less valid than Post's.

Like it or not, believe it or not, we are at war with terrorists. One party right now is fundamentally unserious about the defense of this nation because they do not have the courage to face up to the furthest fringe elements who frankly blame America for all that is wrong in the world. They stand by and let those fringe elements go after one of the few people that have credibility on national defense. They let that fringe dominate political discourse.