This from BBC News:

Eight Palestinians, including four civilians, have been killed and about 60 injured in gunfights between rival political factions in the Gaza Strip.
Clashes broke out as militiamen loyal to the ruling party Hamas tried to break up protests by police and civil servants against unpaid wages.

The Hamas fighters exchanged fire with security forces loyal to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement.

[…]

Hamas is locked in a power struggle with Fatah, which has been made worse by a severe economic crisis.

Earlier, Fatah supporters set fire to government buildings in Ramallah in the West Bank.

In Gaza City, Hamas fighters with guns and clubs moved into a crowd of civilian and police protesters gathered near the Palestinian parliament.

The Hamas forces began shooting in the air before a gunfight broke out between them and security forces considered loyal to Mr Abbas.

Of the four militiamen killed, one was from the interior ministry force that supports Hamas and the other three were from those elements of the security forces traditionally seen as loyal to Fatah - among them, two members of the presidential guard.

Gunmen from both sides fired at each other from positions on rooftops near the building.

And to think the UN criticized the Israelis for putting a wall up to protect them from these peaceful Palestinians. It was only a matter of time before something like this happens – one dose not elect a violent, armed, terrorist organization to form a government and expect it to be peaceful.

I will end my comments there before sarcasm gets the best of me.

The video has been going around the blog space for the last day or two. I believe Heidi at Euphoric Reality posted it first, so hat tip to Heidi.

If you are interested in the Immigration debate, and especially the effect on Amercicans, this is a must watch movie

[googlevideo]5871651411393887069[/googlevideo]

Now this is rich and a text book example of a frivolous lawsuit. It seems a Hispanic man is suing because he was assaulted by a police office and the assault could have been avoided if the cop spoke Spanish.

From WorldnetDaily.com:

An attorney for a Hispanic man who was allegedly knocked to the ground and kicked by a police officer is seeking over $1 million dollars for his client, arguing that the city’s failure to teach law enforcement officers “fundamental Spanish” is the reason excessive force was used.

[…]

Dallas attorney Domingo Garcia argues in his filing that the city was negligent for not monitoring and training the unnamed officer – specifically, for not training him to speak Spanish “in order to properly communicate with Spanish-speaking persons.”

Chief Tom Shelton told the Greenville Herald-Banner he was unable to discuss the specifics of the alleged incident but that the lawsuit was without merit and that he was standing behind the officer.

“There’s really not going to be much to it,” he said. “To me, it is pretty much a frivolous lawsuit.”

“I feel very confident the officer did everything he was supposed to do and he was supported by several witnesses,” Shelton added.

This is exactly why we need an official language, and requirement for a certain level of English language proficiency before granting citizenship to any immigrants. The burden of communication in any country is on those who do not speak the countries language.

What ever happened to US English and other English first lobbyists who where pushing English language laws though at the State and Corporate level? These organizations need to push a bit harder, as the current client seems ripe.

Thanks to HotAir for drawing this to my attention.

This from the Telegraph:

Seriously wounded soldiers have complained that they are worried about their safety after being left on wards that are open to the public at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham.

On one occasion a member of the Parachute Regiment, still dressed in his combat uniform after being evacuated from Afghanistan, was accosted by a Muslim over the British involvement in the country.

“You have been killing my Muslim brothers in Afghanistan,” the man said during a tirade.

Because the soldier was badly injured and could not defend himself, he was very worried for his safety, sources told The Daily Telegraph.

Unbelievable that this was permitted in a British Hospital, and just as amazing no one knocked this Muslim on his butt.

I lump Oliver Stone into the same category as Michael Moore and any of the liberals who are intent on using politically inflammatory remarks to sell movie tickets, books, or albums.

Well, Stone is at it again – his ratings must be down, so he needs some attention. The following from CNN:

“We have destroyed the world in the name of security,” Stone told journalists at the San Sebastian International Film Festival prior to a screening of his latest movie, “World Trade Center.” The film tells the true story of the survival and rescue of two policemen who were trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, after they went to help people escape.

“From September 12 on, the incident (the attacks) was politicized and it has polarized the entire world,” said Stone. “It is a shame because it is a waste of energy to see that the entire world five years later is still convulsed in the grip of 9/11.

“It’s a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others. Mr. Bush has set America back 10 years, maybe more.”

“If there had been a better sense of preparation, if we had a leadership that was more mature,” he said. “We did not fight back in the same way that the British fought the IRA or the Spanish government fought the Basques here. Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with,” said Stone.

If there was ever a speech crafted specifically with the intent on hitting as many political hot buttons as the limited time allows, this was it. I do wonder what this has to do with selling movies – I know it has had the opposite effect on me. I will not spend my money to fund a wacko extremist.

I also have to wonder how Stone and all his ilk find it so easy to blame the US response to 9/11 and totally ignore the triggering event. It is not our response to attacks on our people, our country which has polarized the world, it is the attackers themselves. This mental midget even had the nerve to say we can live with terrorism – I am sure those directly impacted would disagree; more importantly we cannot live with it unless we stand up to it.

Another short sited dimwit who mocks the cover of security he pushes his garbage safely because of.

Funny that he has this to say while planning to make millions on a moving dramatizing the very act which set this all off. It seems his morals are not so staunch after all.

Crossposted from Revealing the ACLU: Those of you who live in California are, I am sure, well aware of what proposition 85 is all about. For those of you who do not, Proposition 85 is a California state proposal which would require parental consent for underage girls who want an abortion. The proposal includes a waiting period of 48 hours after consent for an abortion to be performed. If passed, California will join the other 35 states which already have parental consent laws on the books.

The complete text of Proposition 85 can be found here.

The forces for and against Proposition 85 have been lining up for some time. Naturally Planned Parenthood is in the forefront opposing any law that would make it the least bit more difficult to kill the unborn.

Opponents to Proposition 85 are quick to trot out the “laws can’t enforce good family communication” argument, which is crazy. Parental notification for anything is not a bit about good family communication, and is all about the fact that minors are less capable of making a mature and informed decision. The simple fact that the minor is pregnant shows, in my opinion, the immaturity in making life decisions.

The safety issue is another red haring, in at most the law would require only a 48 hour waiting period.

The ACLU was a vocal opponent to last years version of this bill, Proposition 73, but has been mostly silent of Proposition 85.

Townhall hit the nail on the head in their article on Proposition 85:

As the law now stands, many teens don’t tell their parents because they don’t have to — they know that no matter how well off their family is, they can get a government-paid abortion by pleading poverty, and their folks will be none the wiser. That’s just not right.

It’s also not right when the law tells kids they can make all the wrong moves — sex without contraception — and enjoy the right to hide it from their parents. In my experience, many teens who get pregnant harbor a strong desire to have a child — a baby friend. Those girls easily could get pregnant again.

The local Planned Parenthood folks estimated that, at their clinics, three in four teens get birth control after an abortion. Those girls do not need a law that presumes they know more than their parents — they need adult supervision.

I am not a California resident, but I encourage any of you who are to support this bill when it comes to vote. It is good sense – parents have enough coming between us and our children, we do not need the law to aid in that separation.

More information of Proposition 85:

• Text of proposition 85
• Yes on 85 Website
• No on 85 Website