During the presidential election of 2008, two men of color stood at the entrance of a Pennsylvania polling place. What was newsworthy of this event was they were carrying clubs and making racially charged remarks regarding the election. Video was taken of the event complete with recordings of their very own words. Witnesses were present including members of the press.

The Justice Department looked into the matter directly after the new administration took office and found no reason/evidence to prosecute these persons for violating federal voting laws. The mainstream media gave it little to no attention and the whole thing passed into obscurity, until now.

J. Christian Adams recently came forwarded and has blown the whistle on the current Department of Justice for ignoring voter intimidation basically charging the current leadership of ignoring a "black on white" federal crime. Many of us on the right side of the aisle that witnessed the video feed were later surprised to hear that charges had been dropped. It makes one wonder why this blatantly obvious display of hate and intimidation could be ignored. So, let me take a stab at it, ok?

There were several dynamics at work during this moment in time. The first black president had been elected. The Democrat Party enjoyed a super majority in both houses of Congress. The prevailing attitude from the left was, "We are in control now and if you don't like it, too bad." The Obama administration had the campaign promise of closing Gitmo and was working to make good on it. Things like who would stand trial and where? How can we get Guantanamo Bay closed as soon as possible? These were the priority items for the administration at the time.

The election was a done deal and the votes from Pennsylvania meant nothing in the end. You could have thrown the whole state over to McCain/Palin and Obama would still have had a decisive victory. I truly believe that the Obama administration thought that it was such a low priority item that it was not worth pursuing. Here is the underlying problem with our society in general.

The attitude was that the event did not affect the outcome so it does not deserve attention. This is called relativism. Because no one got hurt and the outcome would not have been different the media and the administration made a judgement call of "well, it is not right but there was no real harm done". There wasn't?

In a landmark case where the ACLU argued in favor of the American Nazi Party to be able to hold a rally in Skokie, IL, a predominantly jewish community, it was held that if the freedom of expression/speech is lost for one group it is lost for all. I would submit that it is as wrong for a KKK member to stand in front of a polling place in Selma, AL with a weapon as it is for a New Black Panther to stand in front of a polling place in Pennsylvania with that same weapon. There is no difference between the two. If it is wrong for one group then it is wrong for all.

Our nation is a nation founded on the rule of law. We are not supposed to enforce the laws that we like and not enforce the laws we don't agree with. There exists right and wrong with no gray areas. It is not right in this instance and then wrong later or vice versa. It is either one or the other. Our society has become a society of gray. We no longer raise our children to believe in right and wrong. Right is what you can get away with and wrong is if you are the offended party. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Let us as a nation stand for justice in all cases not just the ones that are popular.

Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state. - Plato

Our country has borders. These borders were established by treaties. These treaties represented the governments of the day. How these borders were determined and the agreed to articles of these treaties is no longer at issue. If the Mexican or Canadian governments feel there is inequity in the borders for some reason, let them come to the table and initiate a discussion toward a solution. To send there citizenry, unfettered, across these borders to obtain whatever services or jobs they can acquire illegally is irresponsible.

Our government's first duty is to secure safety and security for its citizenry. It has established this framework by enacting laws that reward those who enter our country legally, desiring to assimilate, and punishing those that would enter illegally and live in the shadows of our society. The federal government has been unable or unwilling to enforce these laws to a great extent.

Major cities across our country have largely ignored these laws and added exponential numbers to social welfare roles in order to secure more federal dollars that increase the size of their bureaucracies. Now, the State of Arizona, which by the way has the authority to enact its own laws that do not contradict federal law, has enacted a law requiring law enforcement to turn over any undocumented individuals to federal authorities. There is no state militia being sent to the border. Nobody is kicking in doors to hunt down "wetbacks".

The only thing occurring here is Arizona has had it up to the ears with being overrun and the federal government doing nothing to help. A lot of it has been Arizona's fault. Weak public leaders willing to turn a blind eye or deaf ear. Now the state government has drawn the line in the sand for better or worse. Nobody has said immigration to the United States is unwelcome. What we are saying is illegal immigration to the United States is unwelcome. These sanctuary cities like, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and others, reward bad behavior to those that sneak into this country illegally and it puts the rest of America in danger.