Some see the first anti-American president as too anti-American

While the current headlines focus on insurgent Tea Party candidates defeating Republican establishment picks in the recent primaries, the real story remains the collapse of the Democrat coalition and the impending Democrat loss of control in Congress.

Much has been written about American voters reacting negatively to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi lurch to the left with the bailouts, the stimulus, the financial "reform" and, most of all, the crazy idea that government can borrow and spend our way to prosperity.

But there is another cause of the Democrats reversal of fortune that is rarely explored by pundits left or right. It is the Obama jihad against Arizona for daring to take action to enforce America's border with Mexico.

Arizona's law, SB 1070, empowered state law enforcement officers in any arrest, traffic stop, or other contact within the scope of their duties to require identification and in the absence of identification to call in federal immigration officials to determine immigration status.

Before this law could even come into affect or be enforced, Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano denounced the law as "racist" and then had to admit they had never read it.

President Obama likewise denounced the Arizona law and invited Mexican President Calderon to address a joint session of the American Congress and stood by approvingly while the Mexican President chastised Arizona for passing this law.

Even after public opinion polls showed strong majority support for Arizona's stance on border control and even after horror stories of Mexican drug cartel incursions into Arizona, the President ordered the Justice Department to sue Arizona to invalidate SB 1070.

The latest Rasmussen poll still finds American voters favoring passage of an Arizona style law in their own state by a margin of 59%-41%. And 56% oppose the Obama Administration's decision to oppose the law in court.

The very idea of an American President suing a state for trying to enforce a federal law that the President refuses to enforce infuriated a significant majority of American voters already frustrated and angry about other actions taken by the Obama Administration.

For example, in Kentucky voters were asked "How angry are you at the current policies of the federal government?" 74% of the respondents were angry (47% very angry) with only 7% being not angry at all.

It isn't just the debt, the crazy spending, persistent recession and high unemployment; American voters are frustrated by President Obama's apology tours, bowing to foreign leaders, and now suing a state within his own country for trying to enforce a federal law where widespread public support demands a controlled border.

Inspector general to look into racial preference system at Justice

The other shoe is dropping on the stonewallers at the Obama Justice Department. Yesterday, the department's inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, informed Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, and Rep. Frank Wolf, Virginia Republican, that he will open "a review of the enforcement of civil rights laws by the Voting Rights Section of the Department's Civil Rights Division." Such an investigation is bound to kick up a lot of dirt.

Although the review won't directly or solely analyze the now-infamous decision to deep-six a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party, it could include that case within its broader analysis of "whether the Voting Section has enforced the civil rights laws in a non-discriminatory manner; and whether any Voting Section employees have been harassed for participating in the investigation or prosecution of particular matters." This is big stuff. It would be difficult not to find something shady in Justice's decision not to pursue a case in which a Black Panther wielded a nightstick at a voting place while he and another spit violently racist epithets at voters.

For months, Mr. Wolf implored Mr. Fine to investigate the Black Panther scandal. For months, Mr. Fine said it was out of his jurisdiction. Yet it turns out that while he claims no legal authority to review a specific prosecutorial decision, the inspector general asserts he may by law "conduct the broader program review."

This is the same sort of review, from outside the department, that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has been attempting, despite an utter and lawless lack of cooperation from Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The poignant point about Mr. Fine's change of heart is that the New Black Panther case was never merely about two menacing thugs standing outside a single polling place. The overdue need for an investigation centers on the broader question of whether the Obama-Holder Justice Department enforces civil rights laws equally in defense of whites and Asians as it does on behalf of blacks or Hispanics. Ample anecdotal and strong circumstantial evidence indicates it doesn't.

Mr. Fine's investigation and an upcoming report from the Civil Rights Commission amount to a one-two punch against racial preferences at Justice. Between the two efforts, the American public can muster hope for a forced return to equal justice under the law.

Why is Obama seeking the approval of the world's worst man-made disaster - the UN? Is he stealthily seeking his next gig?

America was founded as a country where no citizen would ever have to submit to the will of a king, or any other brand of despot. But hey, that's yesterday's news. President Barack Obama's administration is now submitting its own special selection of domestic policies and laws for review by the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose 47 members include such tyrannies as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Cuba and China.

Packaged as a 29-page report aiming to create "a more perfect union" in "a more perfect world," this U.S. self-critique was sent by the State Department on Aug. 20 to the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights, in preparation for a formal review on Nov. 5 by the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. A glaring feature of this report is its disparaging mention of Arizona's new immigration law. This is the same law that Attorney General Eric Holder condemned in May without reading, and which the Obama administration is challenging in court. State is presenting this situation for review by the U.N., implying that Arizona is violating human rights with a law that has "generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world."

Gov. Jan Brewer registered her protest in an Aug. 27 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking that the section on Arizona's immigration law be removed from the report. Calling it "downright offensive" that Arizona law be offered up by the federal government for a "human rights" review by such U.N. members as Libya and Cuba, Brewer wrote: "The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a State of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional."

Brewer is dead right about internationalism running amok, and she's probably right that this is unconstitutional. But the problems with this scene go way beyond the federal abuse of Arizona. At the best of times, the U.N. is, in the words of the late Democratic New York Sen. and U.N. ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "a dangerous place." The U.N. is not an honest parliament accountable to some higher law. It is a despot-infested collective that reports erratically to itself; a place of double standards, which routinely delivers to dictatorships a legitimacy they do not deserve, and which they in turn use to heap criticism, without penalty, on the U.N.'s chief sugar daddy, the United States. Any attempt at real oversight or enforcement of integrity at the U.N. has been pretty much a voluntary and thankless task, shouldered almost entirely by the U.S.--when it is has been shouldered at all.

President Obama's approach to the U.N. is bringing us the worst possible variation on these themes. Rather than stand apart on principle where warranted, the Obama administration is increasingly stooping to become one of the gang--hoping for favors in return. Last year Obama overturned the Bush policy of bypassing the Human Rights Council as hopelessly corrupt. Under Obama, the U.S. became a member, promising to work from within. We're now seeing what that means in practice. While gaining stature from the U.S. presence, the Council itself remains stubbornly tainted, recently welcoming Libya to its ranks; sidelining atrocities by some of the world's worst tyrannies while focusing obsessively, as ever, on condemning the democratic state of Israel. But Obama has found a new use for this arrangement. He's trying to enlist the Council to further his domestic agenda, with the State Department attempting an end-run that invites into the U.S. system of checks and balances such voices as those of China, Russia, Cuba and Cameroon; or at best, the pronouncements of Switzerland, Norway and France.

AG Eric Holder's office last year quashed a reform effort to halt voting by the dead, felons, illegals and people who had moved

J. Christian Adams,, a former career Justice Department lawyer who resigned recently to protest political interference in cases he worked on, made some news yesterday in testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

As expected, he claimed that Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, an Obama appointee, overruled a unanimous recommendation by six career Justice attorneys for continued prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party on charges of voter intimidation in an incident I detailed here yesterday. But Mr. Adams leveled an even more explosive charge beyond the Panther case. He testified that last year Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice's Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal "Motor Voter" law -- Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.

According to Mr. Adams, Justice lawyers were told by Ms. Fernandes: "We're not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it."

If true, Ms. Fernandes was endorsing a policy of ignoring federal law and encouraging potential voter fraud. Ms. Fernandes was unavailable for comment yesterday, but the Justice Department has issued a statement accusing Mr. Adams of "distorting facts" in general and having a political agenda.

But there is some evidence backing up Mr. Adams. Last year, Justice abandoned a case it had pursued for three years against Missouri for failing to clean up its rolls. When filed in 2005, one-third of Missouri counties had more registered voters than voting-age residents. What's more, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who this year is her party's candidate for a vacant U.S. Senate seat, contended that her office had no obligation to ensure individual counties were complying with the federal law mandating a cleanup of their voter rolls.

The case made slow but steady progress through the courts for more than three years, amid little or no evidence of progress in cleaning up Missouri's voter rolls. Despite this, Obama Justice saw fit to dismiss the case in March 2009. Curiously, only a month earlier, Ms. Carnahan had announced her Senate candidacy. Missouri has a long and documented history of voter fraud in Democratic-leaning cities such as St. Louis and Kansas City. Ms. Carnahan may now stand to benefit from voter fraud facilitated by the improperly kept voter rolls that she herself allowed to continue.

Arizona law "interfere(s) with what clearly is Washington's blatant refusal to enforce federal immigration laws"

This is a political lawsuit, driven by Obama's drop in the polls among Hispanics and Democrats' hope of bringing out Latinos this fall by hanging an anti-immigrant millstone around the GOP's neck.

The Arizona statute, on the other hand, is chiefly about the rule of law.

That Obama and Holder, along with Arizona's other critics, choose not to understand this speaks volumes.

The lawsuit does not accuse Gov. Jan Brewer and Arizona of violating the Constitution's "equal protection" clause -- curious, given the loud charges that the law will lead to massive racial profiling.

Instead, it accuses Phoenix of "crossing a constitutional line" by interfering with federal authority over immigration.

Actually, Holder -- who publicly trashed the law before he'd read it -- has a point: The law does interfere with what clearly is Washington's blatant refusal to enforce federal immigration laws.

The administration that dares not speak Islam's name

WASHINGTON -- The Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas Day bomber, the Times Square attacker. On May 13, the following exchange occurred at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee:

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas: Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?

Attorney General Eric Holder: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. ...

Smith: OK, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?

Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people --

Smith: But was radical Islam one of them?

Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious-based.

Potentially, mind you. This went on until the questioner gave up in exasperation.

Former Justice lawyer says voter intimidation case against New Black Panther Party was ordered dropped for racial reasons

A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration's handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.

J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a conservative blogger, says he and the other Justice Department lawyers working on the case were ordered to dismiss it.

"I mean we were told, 'Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,'" Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal.

Asked about the Justice Department's claim that they are career attorneys, not political appointees, Adams said "obviously, that's false."

"Under the vacancy reform act, they were serving in a political capacity," he said. "This is one of the examples of Congress not being told the truth, the American people not being told the truth about this case. It's one of the other examples in this case where the truth simply is becoming another victim of the process."

Adams claimed an unnamed political appointee said if somebody wants to bring these kinds of cases, "that' not going to de done out of the civil rights division."

Adams also accused Deputy Attorney General Thomas Perez of lying under oath to Congress about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the probe.

The Justice Department has defended its move to drop the case, saying it obtained an injunction against one member to keep him away from polling stations while dismissing charges against the others "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."

But Adams told Fox News that politics and race was at play in the dismissal.

"There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases," Adams told Fox News' Megyn Kelly.

Adams says the dismissal is a symptom of the Obama administration's reverse racism and that the Justice Department will not pursue voting rights cases against white victims.