A Mexican drug cartel has “allegedly” – because it’s such a stretch to believe that a drug cartel would perpetrate contract murder – put out a $1 million bounty on the life of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. This is presumably in response to his history of being tough on illegal aliens and criminals of both legal and illegal residence status, as well as passage of the recent state law meant to do what the Obama Administration refuses to:  try and stanch the flow from Mexico before any more of Arizona has been swallowed up by drug cartel sponsored violence and anarchy than already has been.

Bear in mind, the drug cartels for all practical purposes run and control Mexico. I promise you that nothing goes on down there that the cartels haven’t approved of. There isn’t anyone in a position of power or to infringe upon their criminal activities who they haven’t bribed, intimidated, or already killed. Thus, while it might not qualify in a strict sense, it’s essentially accurate to say that the de facto Mexican government has put out a hit on an American official.

In times gone by, this would have been considered an act of war and met with whatever measure of force those in power deemed necessary to repel the threat.  It could have been merely defensive, such as sending thousands of troops to the border; it could have been offensive, such as invading and eliminating the regime.

Whatever they ultimately decided to do, they would have taken such a thing very, very seriously. It would not have gone unnoticed and would have been responded to harshly and with dispatch.

Would that we had a president with the cojones to do likewise, to paraphrase Sarah Palin. (Who knows a thing or two about them, seeing as she’s the only potential 2012 contender with enough of a set – despite her biological lack of them – to say anything critical of Obama.  The Mittwit? Come on. Pawlenty? Paw-lease. Palin’s done more via Facebook posting to counter Obama – remember “death panels”? – than everyone else on the scene combined. She’s not perfect, and some conservatives have taken their hero worship of her a bit too far, but right now no one else who’s a tiny bit plausible as a 2012 presidential candidate is even close. If Romney and Pawlenty want to be considered the main alternative to Obama, they may want to consider actually publicly opposing him; a crazy idea, I know, expecting an opponent to oppose, but it’s worked before or so I’ve heard.)

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. What was President Obama’s response to this? Did he put the cartels and Mexico in their place? Did he put his brand of infantile far-left hyper-partisanship aside and let them know that when they threaten American law enforcement officials, they threaten America and we will respond as one? Nope. He and his Attorney General Eric Holder have sued Arizona to repeal the law. And he publicly sided with the cartels, throwing the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, under the bus and slandering her by calling her an “anti-immigrant demagogue.” He might as well have said to the cartels “…and while you’re at it, here’s another one.”

Certainly Obama thinks Arpaio and Brewer deserve to be threatened and feel s no sympathy for them and their families at all. Nor does he see any obligation as president to protect them as American citizens and government officials from a foreign danger, never mind that the close proximity, porous border, and well-documented track record of the cartels makes this threat much more than just idle bluster.

The situation with Mexico is quickly becoming analogous to Russia’s with Chechnya. In both cases, you have a bordering “nation” which is really just a region of lawless anarchy, effectively run by the meanest bunch on the block. (Who else would or could rise to the top of such a place?)  They have no moral center or even an informal code of behavior like the Chicago gangs of the 1920s Prohibition era. They are in a stiff competition with Al Qaeda for the title of Most Irredeemable Scum on Earth, with the decapitated corpses strewn along the Mexican side of the border as evidence. About the only thing missing is an unconscionably evil attack on a Tucson elementary school and the butchering, starving, and dehydrating to death of all the innocent children within.

THIS is the sort with whom Obama would prefer to side, against the likes of Arpaio and Brewer, when they are only desperately trying to keep their state from being overrun. And, by definition, the other 49 since there certainly aren’t walls on Arizona’s other borders. Obama has already ceded to the cartels the southernmost tier of counties, in having merely put up signs warning Americans to stay out of that portion of America.

Moreover, any border open enough for migrant workers and drug gangs to cross is open enough for radical Muslim terrorists and their bomb components. Beyond the immediate security threat to Arizona proper and her citizens from the cartels, there is the inherent security threat to us all in leaving the back door of the house standing wide open. But Obama is doing even worse than that dereliction of duty, in directly attacking those state and local officials who would act in his stead. He is openly abetting , enabling, and encouraging America’s enemies. Or, as the Constitution defines treason, he’s “giving aid and comfort.”

Sadly, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu had it right when he said “Our own government has become our enemy and is taking is to court at a time when we need help.” The Obama administration is the most clear and present danger of them all.

12 Responses to “Mexican drug cartel puts bounty on Arizona sheriff, so naturally Obama attacks Governor Brewer”