The media naturally focused on the Supreme Court’s decision on the Arizona illegal immigration law, but apparently it’s missing the other story: the abandonment of Arizona by the federal government. From what I’ve read, none of the network morning programs—not Today or Good Morning America, or whatever CBS has currently—even mentioned the astounding change announced by the Department of Homeland Security. I haven’t yet heard a report on how the evening news shows handled it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they downplayed it as well. It’s what they do.

Consider: the federal government no longer will work with state and local law enforcement in Arizona on the illegal immigrant problem. If state or local law enforcement wants to check on the immigration status of someone being held for any other crime, the federal government will not respond to their request for information. As I said yesterday, it’s as if Arizona is the criminal in the eyes of the Obama administration. Of course, that should not startle anyone familiar with this administration’s approach to enforcing laws it doesn’t like:

It’s kind of like this:

They say immigration enforcement is a federal job, not that of the states, yet they don’t help the states being overwhelmed by a flood of illegal immigration. How can they have it both ways? Oh, that’s right, lawyers are in charge:

Given the attitude displayed by Obama’s DOJ and DHS, they might as well act as tour guides:

At least then they might be doing something useful.

The Obama administration has had quite an innovative approach to the problem of illegal immigration. Whenever a state decides to enforce the federal laws that already exist, such as in Arizona where the law they passed was merely a reaffirmation of what the federal government should be doing, they get a rather strange reaction from Washington:

The Obama Justice Department is so outraged by states trying to help that it has taken this all the way to the Supreme Court. Arguments were held last week, and if you haven’t heard much about it, it might be because it didn’t go too well for the administration. The same lawyer who tried to defend Obamacare was back, once again attempting to defend the indefensible. His case was so weak, reports indicate even some of the liberal justices may have to jump the ideological ship on this one:

So now we have insight into the administration’s strategy—make sure the economy stays so bad that no one in their right minds would ever want to cross the border illegally:

The president himself is so perturbed with the Court that he’s been trying to pressure it to see things his way, but he’s meeting with some resistance:

Take a moment today and thank God for the checks and balances set up in the Constitution. Sometimes they actually can work.

Attorney General Eric Holder is at it again. While already under fire for passing misinformation [a.k.a., lying] to Congress over the Fast and Furious operation, he now has jumped into the fray to challenge voter ID laws in several states. Let’s review what they are.

Understanding the need for a voter ID law does not require a doctorate. Simply stated, the laws in question merely require would-be voters to provide a state-issued photo ID of some kind to prove that the person wanting to vote is, well, actually that person. My, how unreasonable.

Yet Holder, and the Democrat Party in general, is up in arms over these laws. They claim they will suppress minority voting, that somehow these laws will intimidate such voters. Wait a minute, don’t we have to show photo IDs for various things already? Quite often, when buying with a credit card, I’m required to show a photo ID. Not a bad idea; I don’t want anyone stealing my identity.

Why would this not also be a good idea for voting? Yet somehow this is held to be discriminatory. In fact, it’s only an attempt to stop voter fraud. Surely the Democrat Party can’t be in favor of fraudulent voting, can it? Well, yes, I know about the history of Tammany Hall in New York, Mayor Richard Daley and his descendants—both in the family and out—in Chicago, where the more voters, the merrier, even if you have to allow dead people to cast their ballots from the grave, and various other locales too numerous to mention. But surely they have reformed, right? Right?

Ironically, when Georgia passed a new voter ID law, minority voting increased, both in 2008 and 2010. What’s that about discrimination again?

No one should be opposed to safeguards on the ballot box. Only genuine, legal voters should be allowed to have a say in elections. That used to be called common sense, but in the Holder Justice Department, and in the Obama administration as a whole, common sense takes a back seat to the perception of political advantage.

I haven’t commented on Operation Fast and Furious for a few weeks, but in my absence from the topic, it has grown into real news. I predict that even the mainstream media may latch on to it any day now. That’s when we’ll know it’s a legitimate story, right?

To recap: the Justice Department actually allowed guns to be sold to Mexican drug cartels. Those guns were used to kill at least one American border agent and over 200 Mexican citizens. There are more details, but that’s the bottom line. Shouldn’t that be newsworthy?

Attorney General Eric Holder testified before Congress last spring that he had just learned about the operation. I mean, he’s only the head of the department, so why would we expect him to know anything about what goes on within that department? Now it turns out there are e-mails that show he knew about it since its inception, and that he lied to Congress.

The smoking gun image is popping up in other political cartoons as well:

Probing questions are being asked and there are calls for Holder’s resignation, but the Justice Department has become quite defensive over this:

What we are witnessing is the well-worn strategy of evading personal responsibility by minimizing the offense and acting as if it’s inconsequential:

The position of attorney general is, next to the president, the chief law enforcement job in the country. It needs to be occupied by someone who is trustworthy. Eric Holder is not that man. He should step down. It would be the honorable thing to do. That’s precisely why he will never do it.

I’ve noticed there are some things that are very hard for people to do. For instance, once some individuals get into power, particularly political power, it’s fascinating how nothing they ever do wrong is their fault. They can always find someone else to blame. Charlie Rangel seems to be pretty good at this, as is Maxine Waters.

Listen to either of them speak about the ethics charges against them and you will come away believing they are victims of a massive conspiracy. In both cases, though, the evidence seems pretty clear—they are guilty of using their offices for personal financial benefit. If only they would simply admit it, but pride and arrogance forbid it.

Rangel and Waters are indicative of a whole species of political animals who can’t seem to see beyond a predetermined personal prejudice:

I’ve mentioned in previous posts the decision of the Justice Department not to prosecute the New Black Panthers who intimidated people at the polls and the atmosphere in the department that refuses to focus on any discrimination cases brought against blacks. All this does is undermine the rule of law.

Every person—black, white, and all the beiges in between—are accountable to the same law [I've always liked the title of one of Thomas Sowell's books, Pink and Brown People---it's more accurate].

Yet we continue to draw racial lines, as Harry Reid did recently:

Well, Harry, let me explain it for you: the Republican party [or at least a lot of people in that party] believes in helping individuals get off the government plantation, offering them security in their personal property, providing the liberty to achieve one’s dreams in life without undue governmental interference, and respecting the life of all unborn Hispanics. Many of those Hispanics are from Cuba, and they know how bad a socialist system can be. They appreciate American liberties.

Hope that helps, Harry.

What does “justice” mean to the Obama administration? The Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder has now followed through on its threat to sue the state of Arizona over its illegal immigration law.

Keep in mind that the Arizona law merely puts some teeth into what is supposed to be federal law. The only reason the Arizona legislature saw fit to pass it is because the federal government isn’t doing its job enforcing the law.

Incidentally, it was revealed yesterday that Rhode Island has been inquiring about immigration status in the same way Arizona has legislated for quite some time now, and no one’s civil rights have been violated. Neither has anyone complained. This lawsuit is frivolous.

If President Obama and Mr. Holder really cared about illegal immigration, they not only would stop the flood of people coming into the country illegally, but they would prosecute cities that have declared themselves “sanctuary cities,” which means they will not obey the federal law to report on illegal immigrants.

To show the amazing disparity in law enforcement under the current attorney general, all that is necessary is to listen to the testimony of a career justice department lawyer who resigned last week because he could no longer in good conscience serve under this administration.

J. Christian Adams testified that he was told to drop the prosecution of individuals from the New Black Panther Party who stood outside a polling place during the 2008 elections, intimidating the white voters who were arriving. One had a club in his hand and made threatening comments.

Just yesterday, a video surfaced of the man with the club. Here’s what he says in this video:

I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker I hate him. … You want freedom, you going to have to kill some crackers. You going to have to kill some of their babies.

Nice, huh? Why is this man not being prosecuted for his actions and his inflammatory language? This is not the kind of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Anyone who goes around encouraging others to kill people—including babies—is a threat to the community.

What does this say about the ideology of the Obama people?

Eric Holder has put the full weight of the Justice Department behind this racist, protecting him from prosecution. This is not what the phrase “justice is blind” is supposed to mean. It’s a perversion of the concept.