National Review Online  |  July 9, 2010

So, Will Holder Tell Arizona that the States Are Pre-empted From Defending Themselves From Hezbollah, Too? 

By Andy McCarthy

FILE - Shiite Muslim supporters of the Hezbollah, raise their fists as they chant slogans in support of pro-Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah during a march in the southern suburb of Beirut, Lebanon. (AP)

Steve Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism reports that the Hezbos are at the Mexican border - and we're not talking here about those "moderate elements" of Hezbollah that Obama's counterterrorism czar is searching for; we're talking about the jihad's A-Team (i.e., the guys al Qaeda goes to for training).

As IPT relates:

Hizballah is setting up shop along the American border with Mexico, the
Kuwaiti newspaper al-Seyassah reports.In an exclusive story, the Kuwaiti
daily revealed that Mexican officials have arrested a Mexican national with
ties to the Shiite terrorist group.

The militant, Jameel Nasr, was reportedly under police surveillance for a
while, with authorities explaining he had traveled from Lebanon to countries
throughout South and Central America, eventually gaining citizenship and
a job as a graphic engineer in Mexico. While in Mexico, Nasr reportedly
traveled frequently to Lebanon to receive information and instructions from
Hizballah commanders.

The issue of border security for the United States, both to the North ad the
South, is not new. We recently reported on an investigation by the House
Committee on Homeland Security that confirmed the threat is only
increasing. In June, Congresswoman Sue Myrick wrote to Secretary of
Homeland Security Janet Napolitano about this issue, asking that a task
force be dedicated to the issue because, in the words of former Chief of
Operations for the Drug Enforcement Administration, Michael Braun:

"Hezballah relies on the same criminal weapons smugglers, document
traffickers and transportation experts as the drug cartel...They work
together; they rely on the same shadow facilitators. One way or another
they are all connected."

Steve goes on to explain that the "report cited Mexican authorities as saying that Nasr had been 'entrusted with forming a base in South American and the United States to carry out operations against Israeli and Western targets.'"

This is not new news (see, e.g., this 2009 Washington Times report). And let's not forget that, in 2006, FBI Director Bob Mueller testified to a House Appropriations subcommittee that Hezbollah had a smuggling ring on the Mexican border and had already succeeded in infiltrating a number of its operatives into the U.S. (It would be foolish to think the rings we know about are the only rings that exist.)

As I've indicated (see, e.g., here), I don't think the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona passes the laugh test. More gravely, it would be a dangerous rupture in the social contract on which our republic is based to tell a sovereign state that (a) the federal government will not act to defend it from a foreign threat such as rampant illegal immigration, and yet (b) that the state, by having joined the union, has forfeited its own natural right of self-defense - such that it must passively allow itself to be overrun (and to pay for the privilege).

But even if you bought the Obama Justice Department's ludicrous premises regarding routine Mexican illegal-immigration, would anyone seriously suggest that a sovereign state cannot protect itself from the threat of international terrorism by a jihadist organization that (1) is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under federal law, (2) has killed hundreds of Americans, (3) is the forward militia of Iran, an enemy whose national motto is "Death to America," and (4) is setting up shop on the southern states' doorstep?

Original posting here.