Media dilemma: Illegal immigration a crime for Metts, but slick politics for Obama?

Indicted Lexington County Sheriff Jimmy Metts faces federal charges of conspiracy to harbor people who were in the country illegally.

Mett's indictment would normally be a slam dunk for the media's judgment. 

Metts is the state's longest-serving Republican. Metts really was a Republican before it became the dominant, and most-successful political ideology in South Carolina. Mett's carcass is read meat for the many liberal-based news organizations that saturate the information market.

But hold on a minute. It may not be such a clear-

cut media frenzy as one might suspect. Metts is charged with – in effect - doing the same thing the media supports President Barack Obama for doing.

Basically Metts is accused of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, just as some are accusing the Obama Administration of doing as thousands of illegal immigrants are dumped into Texas right now. With exploitation being the reason.

How can a media that is salivating Mett's indictment, with a straight face, ignore what the president is doing?

According to the indictment, Metts accepted a cash payoff to free an immigrant who had been arrested. Liberals who are clamoring to allow illegal immigrants into the U.S. (because they want their votes) tell us illegal aliens do the jobs Americans find beneath them.

Does an employer's willingness to “bribe” an official tell us the employer makes so much money from employing illegals he can pay the overhead of the cost of corruption and still afford the employee?

And: buying a person from jail is reminiscent of what we are told about slavery. Are liberals supporting the buying of a human's freedom in their championing of illegal immigration?

Would Metts dare use Obama's
 ignoring the law as a defense? 

Obama calls illegal immigrants “Dream Act” children, in reference to allowing potential Democrat Party voters into the country, bypassing the legal and proper channels toward becoming documented.

Subjecting illegal aliens to a dirty underworld of payoffs and exploitation, as is charged by U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles, hardly makes Obama's actions as noble as he is claiming. And would (could) Metts point to what Obama is doing as a defense? 

And: if the media begins to look at the DNA of the case against Metts, and decides to side with Obama, will it do so at the expense of Nettles, the US Attorney, appointed by Obama.

Stay tuned. The show is just beginning and it has many complexities.