The US Justice Department filed its suit against Arizona today, claiming the Arizona was second guessing the US Government. The Feds further claim that the Arizona law interferes with federal immigration responsibilities.

Well it might interfere with the Feds responsibilities IF the Feds actually carried out their responsibilities, but since they don't - no harm, no foul.

The Feds claim that being forced to pick up all those Arizona illegals will detract them from doing their job of chasing down the terrorists and criminal illegals. Gosh, when the Feds took responsibility for enforcing immigration - where did it say only those that the Feds deem to be terrorists and criminals? How about closing the border!

Need proof the Feds aren't living up to their immigration responsibilities? You need only see that illegals currently in the USA cost taxpayers $113 Billion each year according to a study by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

FAIR's report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: "One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice," it says, "would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration."

Of course since it's history, we already know that doesn't work. It doesn't stop future illegals and it only puts more of a drain on taxpayers.

The argument on the other side (the liberal side) is that the report also covers children of illegals born in the USA. (If there's a law to be repealed the one affording citizenship to these anchor babies should be it.) And like Nancy Pelosi telling us how unemployment adds to the economy, the liberals argue that the money spent by illegals (you know, that taxpayer handout money and the money paid under the table for work) adds to the economy.

However, if taxpayers didn't have to pay for illegals, the taxpayer himself could spend the money. The under the table jobs would disappear and taxes would be paid on those wages, along with a good possibility of a raise in those wages.

You may still have the right to speak as you wish, but TSA has decided its employees can't read you "controversial" speech anymore at work. A recent email informed employees of the revised Internet access policy.

It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access."

The categories include:

" Chat/Messaging

" Controversial opinion

" Criminal activity

" Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content

" Gaming

In some respects it makes sense that TSA would try to control their employees' Internet usage. Employees shouldn't be browsing the Internet anymore than they should be reading newspapers at work. It's "interesting" that controversial opinion sites are blocked. Thankfully TSA employees can still get the latest news about ABC's Bachelor or Bravo's New York Housewives.