HADITHA: NO "KNOWING COVER-UP"

By Michelle Malkin

So the leakers are now telling the Los Angeles Times:

The general charged with investigating whether Marines tried to cover up the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha has completed his report, finding that Marine officers failed to ask the right questions, an official close to the investigation said Friday.

Nothing in the report points to a "knowing cover-up" of the facts by the officers supervising the Marines involved in the November incident, the official said. Rather, he said, officers from the company level through the staff of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Baghdad failed to demand "a thorough explanation" of what happened in Haditha.

Flashback...

A powerful member of Congress alleged yesterday that there has been a conscious effort by Marine commanders to cover up the facts of a November incident in which rampaging Marines allegedly killed 24 Iraqi civilians.

"There has to have been a coverup of this thing," Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, charged in an interview on ABC's "This Week." "No question about it."

Murtha photoshop convention over at Hot Air, including a submission from reader insomni:

IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN IN PENNSYLVANIA

May this be a model for more reforms to come.

AP reports: “With tensions rising and the police department and municipal budget stretched thin, Hazleton is about to embark on one of the toughest crackdowns on illegal immigrants anywhere in the United States.”

Last week the mayor of this former coal town introduced, and the City Council tentatively approved, a measure that would revoke the business licenses of companies that employ illegal immigrants; impose $1,000 fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants; and make English the official language of the city.

“Illegal immigrants are destroying the city,” said Mayor Lou Barletta, a Republican. “I don’t want them here, period.”

Barletta said he had no choice but to act after two illegal immigrants from the Dominican Republic were charged last month with shooting and killing a 29-year-old man. Other recent incidents involving illegal immigrants have rattled this city 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, including the arrest of a 14-year-old boy for firing a gun at a playground.

“This is crazy,” the mayor said. “People are afraid to walk the streets. There’s going to be law and order back in Hazleton, and I’m going to use every tool I possibly can.”

It’s not Los Angeles, but it’s a start.

When Barletta took office in 2000, Hispanics represented about 5 percent of the city’s population of 23,000. The population has since shot up to 31,000, with Hispanics now representing 30 percent, lured to Hazleton by cheap housing, a lower cost of living and jobs in nearby plants, factories and farms.

City officials do not know how many of the new arrivals are in the United States illegally, but say they are fueling the drug trade, joining gangs and committing other crimes.

Municipal officials around the nation, frustrated at what they perceive as the federal government’s inability to stem illegal immigration, have increasingly taken matters into their own hands.

Calling the GOP. Wake up! It’s your calling.

In San Bernardino, Calif., voters will decide whether to adopt a measure nearly identical to the one in Hazleton. An Idaho county filed a racketeering lawsuit against agricultural companies accused of hiring illegal immigrants. In New Hampshire, a pair of police chiefs began arresting illegal immigrants for trespassing.

“They’re being forced to pick up the financial tab for all of this nonsense, and they are doing whatever they can to find ways to combat it at the local level,” said Susan Tully, national field director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates limits on immigration. “This is a fine example of what I’m talking about.”

The melting pot is no longer melting. It’s boiling over.

Flavia Jimenez, an immigrant policy analyst at the National Council of La Raza, predicted the Hazleton crackdown would prompt a civil rights lawsuit.

“Landlords are going to shut their doors to anyone who may look or sound Latino,” she said. “On the other hand, landlords may attempt to actually determine whether a person is undocumented or not, and make multiple mistakes because of the complexity of immigration law.”

Well, y’know, maybe Flavia Jimenez has a point. “The complexity of immigration law” is onerous. High time to simplify: Namely, if you’re here illegally, that means you broke the law and you’re a criminal — and you’re not entitled to government services gratis at taxpayers’ expense. Period.

“It’s about time,” said Francis X. Tucci, 57, who was born and raised in Hazleton and owns a hair salon in the heart of the Hispanic business district. “We were a nice community. You find bad everywhere, I understand that, but we’re talking about here and now.”

Some Hispanics approve of the measure, saying they are fed up with crime and graffiti. “If I was mayor, I wouldn’t let anyone in who had a criminal record,” said Rafael Rovira, 69, a naturalized American citizen from the Dominican Republic.

It’s about time, indeed. And more than just a few Hispanics will agree: Serious immigration reform is required.

Jose Lechuga, 42, came to the United States illegally in 1982, received amnesty in 1986 and now operates a grocery store and restaurant in Hazleton. He said the mayor is “confusing illegal people with criminals.”

Jose meet Flavia. The fact is: As long as commiting a crime is illegal, then those who break U.S. immigration laws should be considered criminals. The only thing confusing is why Republicans aren’t doing something about it.

Let’s face it: When France is making news for taking a stronger stand on this issue than America, that only confirms how weak we are on immigration. Toughen up, GOP. We’re fighting to preserve our nation. Vote No on Senate Bill 2611

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: WHAT DID FRANCE DISCOVER THAT THE GOP CAN'T GRASP?

There’s a great number of happy people in France today as a result of the news that the upper house of the French parliament has passed a tough new immigration bill. The bill was passed by an overwhelming number of votes weeks after it was adopted by members of the lower chamber of parliament.

The French immigration reform bill makes it more difficult for unskilled immigrants to settle in France, which in the past has created discord among French citizens who work menial jobs. The new bill, expected to be signed into law very soon, adds a number of tough measures to France’s immigration policy.

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who drafted the bill, says it will bring France into line with other countries. Critics on the far-left, using the same verbal attacks as US leftists against anti-illegal immigration proponents, say the law is racist and accuse Sarkozy of pandering to the far-right, although the majority of French citizens are far from being right-wing and, according to polls, they overwhelmingly support the tough immigration legislation.

Minister Sarkozy has been making some noise about being a potential contender in presidential elections next year, and political observers believe he latched onto the issue of immigration as part of his platform. He recently told the BBC that France must be in control of immigration, rather than a passive recipient. (Hear that, George W.?)

One significant provision is a requirement for immigrants to sign a contract agreeing to learn French and to respect the principles of the French Republic. In addition it makes it more difficult for them to bring their families over to join them. It also offers no provision for so-called anchor babies who are afforded citizenship as a result of being born in the country.

According to the French government, the following new rules will be part of the immigration law:

– Only the qualified immigrants will be granted “skills and talents” residency permits.

– Foreigners are only allowed into France to work, and not live off benefits such as welfare and free healthcare.

– Foreign spouses of immigrants allowed to remain in France must wait longer before being granted residence cards.

– Migrants must agree to learn French.

– Migrants must sign a ‘contract’ stipulating they must respect the French way of life.

The new law also scraps the old one regarding workers receiving automatic citizenship after living and working 10 years in the country.

French law enforcement officials, who wholeheartedly support the new law, have argued that the weeks of riots by youths in the immigrant suburbs across France last November showed the system of immigration and integration was failing. These Islamic immigrants kept their own culture while denigrating the French culture and their refusal to assimilate into the French mainstream posed problems for that nation.

Now, how come the French figured this out before the Republican Party’s leadership?

Sarkozy countered criticism of the new law by pointing out that like a number of other Western countries, France has the right to choose the immigrants it needs.

Most immigrants living in France come from its former Northern African colonies, which are predominately Muslim. Their new law has been criticized by many in that region, including President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal. You might say he’s France’s President Vicente Fox of Mexico.

Perhaps the United States will have to suffer through a catastrophic incident such as a large-scale riot by illegal aliens before our leaders decide to really get tough on illegal aliens. As it is, many illegal aliens in the US are killing, raping and robbing American citizens each year.

France, a socialist country, decided — to its credit — not to allow it to get that far.

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

WHAT DO THEY STAND FOR?

This past week has been quite informative if you were wondering where the Democrats stood on Iraq. When Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed, Nancy rushed to the microphones to say that this good news was reason to start pulling troops out “as soon as practicable.” John Murtha said that (a) we’re losing, (b) we can’t win this militarily, (c) Iraqis are fighting Iraqis in sectarian violence, and U.S. troops have become the target and that (d) we can’t get them to change direction. He then cites

“In Beirut President Reagan changed direction, in Somalia, President Clinton changed direction, and yet here with the troops out there every day, suffering from these explosive devices, and looked at as occupiers.”

As I’ve noted before, bin Laden saw Clinton’s cutting and running in Somalia, done at Murtha’s behest, as proof that America was a paper tiger that didn’t have the will to win a war. Yet John Murtha points to that change of strategy as proof of his wisdom. If ever there was something to hang your head in shame about, telling a president that the world’s superpower couldn’t win a military battle with a third world warlord should be it. Yet he wears it as a badge of honor.

We also had the spectacle of Hillary getting booed for saying…well, it’s difficult to tell what she was advocating. We know that she’s opposed to an open-ended commitment to Iraq, which would lead a logician to think that she’s for setting a deadline. Except that she said that she’s opposed to setting a deadline, which would lead a logician to think that she’s for an open-ended commitment to winning in Iraq. Except that she omitted any mention about winning.

The bottom line is that Hillary, Pelosi and Murtha either don’t care if we win (Hillary and Pelosi) or don’t think we can win (Murtha) and that the moonbats at the Take Back America conference don’t want to stay long enough to win.

This shouldn’t be lost on the American people. While it’s true they don’t like being at war, it’s also true that Americans expect winning when we put troops in harm’s way. And with good reason. We’ve only lost one war and that’s only because the political leaders that John Murtha likely looked up to didn’t have the steadfastness of conviction to win the war, not because we couldn’t win it.

When you enter the voting booth, ask yourself if you want to vote for someone who wants to deprive the terrorists of a safe haven in Iraq or if you want to vote for someone that wants to cede Iraq to Iran and their state-sponsored terrorists. That should clear off the fog of war.