Toward the bottom page 2, under the heading Options, the paper states, “The following options – used alone or in combination – have the potential to result in meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.” Reading further reveals multiple layers of strategy to impose the will of the elite on the unwilling and unaccepting citizens of the land.

Each of these options requires, we are told, “development of specific written guidance and/or regulatory language, implementation protocols…” One can only recall the old adage, “more regulation, less freedom”. Yet this is only the beginning.

The paper outlines various paths to turn the unenforced laws written to protect the legal Americans into guidelines that make the agency charged with this task into an agency charged with looking after a new and expanded class of protected individuals. They want to do this subtlety, not by changing existing laws and regulations, but by tweaking details within them.

They want to raise some standards here, lower some standards there and revising definitions, basically gutting the protections built into our immigration system… making those who have spent the time and money to complete the process according to our laws look like major league chumps. It could be rightly argued that the process is too involved and convoluted to be practical, but that is the a discussion for another day.

Reading blogs, news stories and listening to the chattering class does not compare to reading the source document. Read through it. See what the inmates who have taken over the asylum want to do to our country. We must shine the light of truth on the nefarious plans they want to implement in the dark of night. We need to make this light of truth continuous and bright so we can watch the roaches scatter into their hiding places.

The only chance we have is to create public outcry loud enough to be heard round the world. Harassing our elected representatives will have limited impact as they probably won’t get to vote on this scheme, but the more we can put the fear of the voters in the members of the Presidents own party, we may be able put a crimp in their plans. Beyond this, all we have left is to seek injunctions to keep them from making the illegal legal against the will of the people.

All the while we need to seek guidance from the creator who gave us this great country on how to keep it… and not insult Him by giving it away without a fight.

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…

I will have to admit that there are some aspects of this that does seem to be appealing. Who could be opposed to the President being selected by the majority of voters? This is the way it is meant to be. However, when you consider that nine or ten states could make the voters in the rest of the country irrelevant, it doesn’t seem to be such a good idea. What follows from this is that there would be even less incentive for national candidates to deign to visit the smaller, less populous states.

Polling tells us roughly 70% of the American people would be in favor of simply going by the total votes for each candidate. I have no doubt that the numbers support this. What I wonder is if these good people would be so agreeable if the question were asked how they felt about representatives from their state casting votes contrary to the majority of their neighbors. As with any poll, the way you phrase a question has a great influence on the results.

The goal of this movement is to have states with sufficient votes, 270, to win in the electoral college agree to cast their ballots for the candidate with the most popular votes… then no matter what the rest of the country wants or the constitution demands, is beside the point. Again, the smaller states, or those wishing to honor the will of their people, would be effectively neutered.

The beauty of our electoral system is that, despite the apparent unfairness and potential for an election like we had in 2000 that drove Algore supporters to distraction, is that our founders were concerned that voters of every state would have their voices heard. Now, as with so much going on in our political world, expediency and desired results are taking the place of faithfulness to the process that has served us well for so many years.

Some may wonder whether sparing the feelings of the folks in East Overshoe, SD is worth the danger that of electing a President who did not represent a majority of the people. It should be be noted that Bill Clinton was a 42% president. For those who believe there may be such a thing as ACORN inspired voter fraud, the segmentation of vote counting by state builds a firewall around each area where this may occur. Instead of polluting the entire voting pool, these nefarious deeds would be confined to an individual state.

While this is bad enough, it would be far worse to have the excess votes dilute the will of everyone else in the country. On the other hand, nationalizing the process would reduce the influence of unions on industrial (or formerly industrial) states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. However, would we take that approach… that of looking for a particular outcome rather than supporting the integrity of the process, we would be like progressives who value results over purity of process. This cannot be if our country, as we know it, is to survive and prosper.

Whether electing our President as a national event or one retaining our current practice of actually have an election in each state for people to represent the will of that state is a good idea or not, those promoting the idea obviously do not respect the constitution. As with so many of the actions of the current administration, they are attempting to do an end run around the document. If the electoral process is to be changed from the constitutionally sanctioned one, creating a new amendment would be the way to do it as it would assure more wide spread support than we get from the actions of several renegade states.

This is a legitimate debate. However, we cannot accept the idea of several state legislatures taking it upon themselves to make a change such as this without the appropriate discussion and without following due process. Let the debate begin… just don’t let the, hopefully, well meaning people slip this through without letting the world know what they are up to.

Can anyone deny that the states on the US southern border (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) are being invaded by an ongoing onslaught of illegal aliens (many of whom are violent and dangerous criminals)? Somewhere between 12 and 30 million illegals now reside in the US. The entire country is feeling the effects of this invasion, but the Border States are literally under siege. And not only does the federal government do nothing to protect the states against this invasion, it actively wars against states such as Arizona when they attempt to protect themselves. Yes, I am saying it: the Washington, D.C., lawsuit against the State of Arizona’s immigration laws should be regarded as an act of war against the State of Arizona in particular, and against the states general in principle.

Please consider what Arizona and the other Border States are dealing with. According to published reports:

*In Los Angeles, 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the first half of 2004 (which totaled 1,200 to 1,500) targeted illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) were for illegal aliens.

*Some private reports state that 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix and 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are for illegal aliens. These reports cannot be verified, of course, because the feds discourage law enforcement agencies from releasing such statistics.

*At any given time, up to 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

*23% of all inmates in LA County detention centers are “deportable.”

*LA police estimate that violent gangs, such as MS-13 and 18th Street Gang, are “overwhelmingly” composed of illegal aliens.

To read one very enlightening testimony given before Congress by an expert on illegal immigration containing some of the above information (and much more), go here: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mac_donald04-13-05.htm

In addition, the Pew Hispanic Center (an organization friendly to all things Hispanic) reports that by 2007, “nearly one-quarter (24%) of all federal convictions” involve illegal aliens. And “among those sentenced for immigration offenses in 2007, 80% were Hispanic.” The PHC went on to report that illegal Hispanics “represented 29% of all federal offenders.”

See the report at: http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=104

Remember, too, that illegal aliens murder (on average) 12 American citizens EVERY DAY in the United States. That means illegals murder more Americans EVERY YEAR than in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED, TO DATE. Plus, illegal aliens who drive drunk kill an additional 13 Americans EVERY DAY.

See the following report: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103

At this point, I will not again chronicle the financial costs and job losses exacted upon the American taxpayers by these invading illegals, but I encourage you to read a previous column I wrote on this subject. See it here: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1490

Plus, my web site contains an exhaustive page dealing with the problems and costs of the ongoing invasion by illegal aliens against this country. See it at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=123

Add to the above the blatant rhetoric and public statements of activists within radical Hispanic revolutionary groups such as La Raza that incessantly call for the “reconquista” of the southwestern United States, and one can easily discern that the invasion by (mostly) Mexicans in the US is much more than “poor people trying to find a better life.” There is some of that going on, of course, but the invasion also includes violent criminal gang members, drug dealers, human traffickers, rogue government troops, and covert provocateurs who are attempting to destabilize US cities and states, promote crime and violence, disrupt honest elections, and even facilitate revolution against the American citizenry.

And what does the Barack Obama administration do? Instead of obeying the Constitution and helping to protect the State of Arizona (and the other Border States), it sues the State of Arizona for trying to protect itself. Again, by this action, has not Washington, D.C., declared war against the State of Arizona (and, by implication, the other 49 independent, sovereign states)?

Please understand: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and her allies in the Arizona legislature are not only defending their State, they are working to protect every State in the Union. Very obviously, the line is being drawn in the sand against a federal leviathan that increasingly shows blatant disregard for not only its own responsibilities and duties, but for the rights and freedoms of the individual sovereign states, and for the American citizenry as a whole.

And for those misguided Christians and pastors out there who are prone to defend and facilitate this invasion of illegal aliens in the name of Christian compassion, I would like to remind them of the words of our Lord, who said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” (John 10:1 KJV) Thus, our Savior plainly categorizes illegal aliens (or anyone who refuses to enter through a door–or across a border–honestly) as thieves and robbers. Unfortunately, many are also rapists, murderers, violent drug dealers, and slave merchants.

If Barack Obama had even a smidgen of honesty and integrity, instead of attacking the people of the State of Arizona for simply trying to defend themselves against a very real and dangerous foreign invasion, he would take seriously his responsibility to help protect them against this invasion, which Article IV. Section. 4. of the US Constitution clearly requires him to do.

For more by Chuck Baldwin go to http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

[Editors Note: We hear about the Bill of Rights from all sides. Many discussions do nothing more than make plain that the speaker has never actually read the document. So whether you just read through it last week, or several years ago, it's good to see read the real words our founders gave us when they wanted to be certain to limit the power of the federal government.]

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Showing the exclusively race based tunnel vision, the organization set their sites on repudiating “the racism of the Tea Parties”. The leadership of this formerly useful institution, in pushing the same disastrous programs that all but destroyed the black families, had to resort to playing the race card and engaging in character assassination. Generally this is the last play of one who is unable to refute logical arguments.

We know that the government intervention has never, and will never, lift people out of poverty. Abraham Lincoln said, “You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich, you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, you cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down, you cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.” Yet, holding out the promise of benefits paid for by someone else is what placed these leaders in their exalted positions and what they expect to keep them in power. Therefore, the tea parties who recognize the failure of the NAACP’s traditional approach and had the audacity to point it out… much like the child who noticed the emperor had no clothes, have to go.

These people are fighting to maintain the impression of relevance, so they are calling the tea partiers, which means they are calling most of us, what they believe to be worst name in the world, which is “racist”, and this is, somehow, to make us go away. While racism is evil and disgusting, calling someone a racist doesn’t make him one… just like their calling Barack Hussein Obama a great president, doesn’t make him one. However, they have to keep up the image of taking on the functioning part of America to keep their membership fired up and paying dues.

If they were truly effective and getting the job done for the constituents, they would not be fighting the same fights and using the same rhetoric for the last fifty years. The fact is, most of our country has moved far beyond evaluating people based on the color of their skin. Unfortunately, the NAACP is stuck in the 60s and only sees things through the lens of racial conflict. In spite of the charges of racial prejudice among the tea partiers; something that has never been proven, they need to understand that we have bigger fish to fry than keeping our black brothers “in their place”.

In fact, to anyone who believes that our creator made everyone in his own image, and endowed everyone certain unalienable rights, these ideas are preposterous and offensive. However, my reading of our constitution doesn’t include a right to go through life without hurt feelings. We are not only fighting for our own families, but all families to have a more free and more prosperous life.

We, and I include myself in the tea party crowd, have been called all sorts of vile names by protectors and agents of the status quo. This is just one more attempt to discredit a movement that threatens to bring sanity back to our world. We have two choices in how we deal with this attack. The first, and the one our enemies hope we take is to hide our heads and quietly slink on back home, having been exposed by the great moral arbiters of our society. If we really believe in what we are doing this is not an option.

The second option is to just keep on keeping on. Our example went about doing good. Some people loved him, just like they do the tea partiers. Some hated him and tried to discredit him… but you can’t discredit the truth. Then some killed him. We hope the enemies of freedom won’t get that far, but doing the right thing is never wrong and if we shrink back, we are unworthy of our founding fathers.

A little fun on a Saturday afternoon.  However, the essence of humor is the underlying truth… which we have plenty of here.

There’s not much to say about this video, other than our first amendment rights are being overridden by those who have come to our country, not to assimilate, but to change and control.  The use of police to stifle constitutionally guaranteed free speech shows how far we have fallen from government officials… particularly big city officials… who have forgotten our heritage of God given rights and have caved to the expediency of political pressure and fear of those who reject our freedom and values and insist on imposing theirs.   If you believe this is wrong, pass it on to everyone you know.  We can’t fight this sort of thing by sitting on our couches and bellyaching about it.

If you feel the need to express your opinion of the actions you just witnessed on the video, you can reach the mayor and police chief at the Dearborn city website. You might even want to give them a call.

The true essence of the 4th Amendment, that is, probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, found by the Framers, as the best, and only, reason for depriving a citizen of his, or her, fundamental God-given right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, was changed, without constitutional amendment by eight justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to reasonable suspicion. Terry v. Ohio (1968), the will of the Earl Warren Court, essentially threw out “probable cause” from the 4th Amendment and made it much easier for all police officers to deprive a citizen of a basic constitutional right that the writers of the U.S. Constitution saw as sacrosanct.

From what we know about the almost unanimous 1968 decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren carefully courted the vote of each of the justices, just as he had done in Brown v. the Board of Education (1954), in order to produce a, hopefully, unanimous vote. To change the letter of the U.S. Constitution, without amendment, the Court had to show unanimity, because the decision, in and of itself, was basically illegal, if it had been subsequently challenged by the U.S. Congress. The only vote Warren was unable to acquire in 1968 was that of the Justice William O. Douglas, who vehemently wrote in his dissenting opinion, “To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment.” (392 U.S. 1, at 38). A few days after the decision was rended, Justice Douglas supposedly quipped to a reporter off-the-cuff that “if the Court can arbitrarily change the 4th Amendment, to read as it wants it to read, what is next, changing the word “respecting” to “denying” in the 1st Amendment?” What amazes me is the immediate, or latent, lack of opposition to the decision by the American people, when a section of the Bill of Rights was altered by the collective whim of eight of the Brethren, instead of by decree of the American electorate through the amendment process.

Hence, police officers have the opportunity to arrest quite a few more criminal suspects without showing probable cause for the arrests. The Terry stop, as police officers routinely call such a routine deprivation of personal liberty, can be made by local, state, and federal enforcers for almost any reason, and all the sworn officers need to do is to write arrest reports, true or otherwise, reflecting that they had “reasonable suspicion’ to support a belief that the suspects had committed crimes, were planning to commit crimes, or were in the process of committing crimes in order to support the Terry stops. If Terry stops are actually unfounded and heinous illegal deprivations of personal liberty, the poor victims of fascist police tactics have the duty of proving such facts in court, and, of course, we know that police officers “never” lie under oath, or otherwise.

Having been a police officer, I felt, during the time I wore a badge, the immense obligation and burden of correctly and prudently enforcing the law, and, in doing so, not depriving citizens of their basic inalienable rights under the law. And during my time spent with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, I witnessed more than a few instances of deliberate abuse of, then, Sheriff John Duffy’s voters under the color of police authority by numerous rogue and violent deputies and watch commanders, who, when officially questioned about their abuses, were supported by the lies of other, less violent deputies and Sheriff’s Department officials who didn’t want the insidious title of “rat” attached to them. Though there are many good honorable cops currently in local, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, I am sadly afraid, nevertheless, that way too many men and women, under the age of 30, who are overly aggressive, under-educated, and have backgrounds and personalities that will, later-on, conflict, with their prudent enforcement of the law, are currently being hired by these agencies. The type of law enforcement practiced by the thousands of police agencies around the nation is a direct reflection of the basic type of individuals they hire to enforce the law. Many of the same young naturally violent men, and women, who were actively recruited by the U.S. Military to bear arms during Desert Storm, in the 1990s, and during the post-9/11 invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, are today wearing the uniforms of law enforcement, most of them federal. Many of these returning Vets, who found killing excitingly palatable in Iraq and Afghanistan, are sadly, today, the regular perpetrators of ritual abuse of citizens, and non-citizens, while as sworn peace officers. As the old saying goes, violence breeds continued violence, and the violent abuse under color of authority, committed against suspects by those wearing badges, implicitly conveys to an unwitting public a contradiction of the basic police purpose, to protect and serve.

Let’s take a look at another scenario, where the correct enforcement of Arizona’s illegal immigration law will really matter. Suppose that there is a 7-Eleven store in Mesa, Arizona where, perhaps, fifty Hispanic males gather every morning to be offered work by Arizona contractors, builders, etc. The normal, traditional process is for a potential employer to pull-up to the 7-Eleven in a pick-up, or with a trailer, and shout out the number of workers he, or she, will need for the day. In response to the offer, the requisite number of workers will then jump onto the trailer, or into the pick-up, and the employer will drive quickly away. Consequently, Mesa police officers realize that, of the fifty-or-more Hispanics gathered at the 7-Eleven, a high percentage of them are illegal aliens. In fact, most of the sworn officers of the Mesa Police Department are probably unable, at first sight, to detect the differences between persons of Hispanic descent and those of Middle-Eastern descent. Both have brown, or dark brown, complexions, and both are equally capable of committing crimes. Racial profiling is pretty-much necessary in order to properly distinguish between people of the two racial groups. Police attention is, therefore, immediately drawn to large gatherings of individuals, of any racial or ethnic grouping, in order to determine the legitimate reasons for the gatherings.

Hence, two police officers pull-up to the 7-Eleven in their vehicles, and immediately see ten-or-more of the individuals begin running away from the scene. The officers, using their authority under Terry v. Ohio (1968), reasonably suspect that these men running away are in the commission of a crime, are planning a crime, or have committed a crime. So, they begin a pursuit of the suspects and apprehend three of them, while the others escape immediate scrutiny. One of the three men attempts to resist arrest, and fights the police officers while brandishing a stiletto knife, and is hit about the head and shoulders, and subdued, by one of the officers with a baton. The three men are subsequently handcuffed and placed into the police vehicles for transport to a holding jail. Other officers are called as backup to the 7-Eleven, and of the forty remaining brown skinned individuals, thirty of them are found to be illegal Hispanic aliens, having no documentation showing a legal right to be in the country and unable to speak coherent English. The Hispanic male who pulled the knife during the foot pursuit is, later, found to be the perpetrator of five unsolved residential burglaries that have occurred in the Mesa area. Now, is this an example of racial profiling? Yes it is, but a very legitimate use of the process. As for the safety of the legal residents of the City of Mesa, the investigation of the large gathering of brown-skinned males at the 7-Eleven, made by the police officers, resulted in the arrest of an illegal alien burglar. This made the city much more safe. When apprehension of a criminal suspect is necessary for the sake of public safety, any facet of description that will make it easier for law enforcement to make a valid arrest, especially in cases of serial murder and serial rape, will be found useful.

In summation, racial profiling is very necessary in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society for law enforcement to properly do its job. It is so important that the FBI and state investigative agencies have established separate behavioral science/profiling departments and training centers. The FBI Academy, at Quantico, Virginia, has trained numerous state and federal profilers to investigate crimes in order to establish credible racial, ethnic, behavioral, forensic, and psychological/behavioral descriptions of suspected perpetrators so that their apprehension will be made easier for law enforcement. Behaviors typically associated with ethnic/racial custom, such as the almost ritual practice of black men touching fists instead of shaking hands, or the various Muslim behavioral rituals, are discreetly analyzed today in profiling when seeking perpetrators of crimes. This is hardly comparable to the untenable accusation made by racists against white police officers of stereotypically stopping black people in late model cars for simply having a black skin, or driving while black (DWB). If Barack Obama, or, for that matter, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, knew anything at all about law enforcement, the President of the United States would not be criticizing Arizona Governor Jan Brewer for signing into law legislation that will allow Arizona peace officers to investigate, apprehend, and arrest those Hispanics in Arizona who fit the description of illegal aliens. Politics and law enforcement have never really blended well. The tragedies of 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission debacle bear this out quite well. It’s sort of like the case of former San Diego mayor, Roger Hedgecock, and his arrest by a San Diego peace office for driving under the influence of alcohol. The arresting officer, for some reason, didn’t know what he should do with the offending inebriated Mayor of San Diego. So, he called his watch commander who ordered him to take the mayor home and put him to bed, and not to jail. Well, this action placed Roger Hedgecock well above the law, and when the people of San Diego found out what had happened, Hedgecock suddenly had to kiss his meteoric political future goodbye.

Of course, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston has established a significant 2004 precedent in favor of a standing U.S. President by dismissing a lawsuit brought by a San Francisco attorney Stanley R. Hilton, on behalf of over 160 9/11 victims’ families against George W. Bush and several of his administration, citing “sovereign immunity” as the basis for the dismissal. Sovereign immunity basically means that a standing U.S. President can commit murder while in office and will not have to stand trial for the crime in a federal court. A political, not judicial, process called impeachment is, supposedly, the only way a President can be tried and brought to justice for his crimes, that is, before the U.S. Senate, with the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice presiding. But first, there has to be enough political votes in the House of Representatives to indict a standing President. As opposed to a traditional country grand jury, comprised of ordinary citizens, each representative in the House of Representatives has something to politically gain, or lose, by voting yes, or no, to impeachment. Impeachment, therefore, is a thoroughly political process, not one wrought through the channels of criminal justice. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly say that a President, and his henchmen, cannot be tried civilly in the federal court system for egregious intentional torts, but it doesn’t explicitly say one can. Perhaps this is the reason that Mr. Obama is doing whatever he pleases with no fear of reprisal; and it was the same way with Dubya, Slick Willy & Hillary Clinton, and the duplicitous political actor Ronny Ray Gun.

Racial profiling can be portrayed by sensationally ridiculous political figures, such as Al Sharpton and people like him, as something heinous and reprehensible; but if the good Reverend Sharpton is ever mugged and robbed in a multi-racial/ethnic neighborhood by a large Hispanic man, and the police refuse to accept and broadcast a description of the man’s race, even if Sharpton keeps on whining, insisting that a big “brown” man hit him and took his money, the evening television news will end up saying, “Search underway for big man who mugged Rev. Al Sharpton, race and skin color of the man not a consideration in the manhunt.”

Norton R. Nowlin took M.A. and B.A. degrees in the social and behavioral sciences from the University of Texas at Tyler, studied law for one full year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, was a sworn San Diego County, California, Deputy Sheriff, and earned an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington. Mr. Nowlin has attended LaJolla, California’s National University and Malibu’s Pepperdine University to attain graduate credits in business management and economics. Mr. Nowlin also attained a Texas State Teaching Certification, in social studies and psychology, from the University of Texas at Tyler. A paralegal, published essayist, poet, and free-lance fiction writer, Mr. Nowlin resides in Northern Virginia with his wife, the renown math tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats.

The two thought-provoking words, racial and profiling, may be used together to convey a very sinister tone, especially to someone who has no real idea what racial profiling comprises and how it is used daily in law enforcement as a valid means of apprehending criminal suspects. The old, “let me see your papers, you don’t look Aryan,” anecdotal scenario, as applied to the fascist-Nazi motif, when the trench-coated Gestapo agent grabs the unwitting bearded suspect by the collar and carts him off to a dungeon where the person is tortured for information, is not the correct application of racial profiling in American law enforcement. Instead, imagine an elderly woman mugged on a street corner in downtown San Diego, California during the late afternoon. A police officer arrives on the scene after the mugger flees with the woman’s purse, and asks the bruised and bleeding woman a series of very important questions.

“Who mugged you, ma’am?

“A man,” she replies.”

“Would you describe the man?”

“He was a big man,” she says.

The police officer now asks the question that will really define the search for the mugger and create a racial profile needed in apprehending the mugger.

“Was the man white, black, Hispanic, Oriental, or Middle-Eastern?”

She replies, “Oh, he was a big tall black man, probably in his late forties, with half of an ear missing. He also had a thick black beard, a mustache, and a hand-gun.”

Now, grant you, most victims of muggings are not as descriptively glib and as emotionally responsive as this particular example of an elderly woman, beaten and robbed, conveys, but let’s assume that it happens as stated. The police officer writes his report and gets on his radio and puts out a call for all officers in that particular vicinity of San Diego to be on the lookout for an armed, bearded, mustached black man in his late forties, with half-an-ear missing. So, who, then, will the responding police officers be considering as suspects, white men, Hispanic men, Middle-Eastern men, or Orientals? None of these will be considered as suspects. Law enforcement will only be looking for black men according to the victim’s description. A black man has been racially profiled in a basic fashion in this fundamental example of how police (local, county, state, and federal) approach the apprehension of any, and all, suspects.

In a racially and ethnically diverse nation, as is the United States, racial profiling is ultimately necessary in the practice of law enforcement when attempting to apprehend and arrest criminal perpetrators, who are members of particular racial or ethnic classes. Determination of skin color is actually only the beginning in the process of profiling. The suspect’s age, height, color of hair, eye color, build, distinguishing marks, ethnically or racially distinguishing behaviors, characteristic clothing, and, even, type of shoes are descriptive factors in addition to skin color, and are merely the physical profiling details delineating parts of a composite profile of a perpetrator. The psychological and behavioral attributes of the perpetrators, when known, must be added to the physical details in order to complete the composite profile. Ultimately, not knowing the race, or skin color, of the perpetrator would yield an incomplete profile and make a successful apprehension of the suspect almost impossible.

In Ireland, for instance, where less than 8 percent of the population is black, racial profiling would be even more delineated, and pronounced, by law enforcement, if the suspect were described as a large black male with half an ear missing. Since there are so few black people in Ireland, and many more people of Middle-Eastern origin, racial profiling there hardly result in indignant cries of racial discrimination from the black community. In most cases, the greater the concentration of a minority population, the greater the chances of indiscriminate and unfair accusations of racial discrimination by that minority when law enforcement uses all available tools. Yet, the process of racial profiling remains ultimately necessary.

Now let’s proceed to the issue of enforcement of immigration laws and apply the factors necessary in profiling in order to derive a determination of “who reasonably fits the description of a Hispanic illegal alien.” First and, foremost, illegal immigration is a federal, and state, crime, as much as shoplifting is a crime, and Hispanic men, women, and adolescent children who violate the law should be apprehended and arrested. Those U.S. citizens who don’t agree with this basic premise are, in effect, advocating anarchy, and comprise a dangerous human microcosm of whim and arbitrariness within a nation of laws. Police officers who attempt to determine who, out of a population of millions of Hispanics, could reasonably be considered an illegal alien suspect, fully realize that a brown skin, or a dark complexion, is, but, one of the characteristics belonging to an Hispanic illegal alien.

So, if, perchance, a person with a brown complexion, and the other innate facial characteristics belonging to a Hispanic racial model, is speeding in a car down an Arizona highway, a police officer knows that that particular individual “might” be an illegal alien, just like the officer realizes that the individual might be a car thief, or an inebriated driver. The racial profiling by law enforcement has, therefore, already begun. When the officer stops the car and approaches it from the rear, he might notice bumper stickers on the automobile advertising a local college or a major university, or parking permits at a hospital or another professional setting. As he will near the driver, after stopping the car, the officer will probably ask him, or her, for a driver’s license, car registration, and proof of insurance. If the diver is Hispanic and replies in fluent English, “Sure officer, here they are,” and hands them through the window to the policeman, the peace officer might continue the conversation by asking if the driver is a student at the college or university displayed on the car. If the driver has nothing to hide, he, or she, will usually respond, either, yes or no in a friendly fashion to the question, which will show that the suspect is almost certainly an American citizen of Hispanic extraction. After perusing the driver’s license, proof of insurance, and registration, the officer will go back to the police car and call the suspects name and license number into the National Crime Identification Center database, where a search for outstanding warrants will be made. Then the officer will call the car’s tag number into another database for identification to see if it might be stolen. If everything checks out to be proper, the officer will return the driver’s documents, with the speeding citation, to him, or her, and finally explain to the driver the appearance that he, or she, has to make at court if the citation is challenged, or the proper way to pay the imposed fine for speeding. This is what ordinarily happens during most traffic stops.

Now, let’s look at the scenario a bit differently. During the traffic stop, the police officer notices, from a distance, that the driver is a Hispanic male, probably in his late 20s. As he walks toward the car, a late model BMW, he sees a bumper sticker saying, Arizona State University Alumnus. Then he approaches the driver and says, “Good evening,” but the driver only smiles and shrugs his shoulders. He also notices that the driver is dressed in dirty kakis and is perspiring heavily. There is also a strong smell of beer, or some other type of alcoholic beverage, coming from the car. He then asks for the driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance, to which the Hispanic driver only shrugs, grins, and says “No hable.” Then the officer, with his hand on his unsnapped weapon, reaches slowly into the car, through the driver’s window, and takes the keys from the car’s ignition. He then firmly tells the driver, using hand gestures, to stay in the car, to which the driver, again, only grins and shrugs. The officer then proceeds to call in the car’s tag number to discover that the automobile, owned by a teacher, was stolen a day earlier from a parking lot in downtown Phoenix. According to police protocol, the officer calls for backup, that is, another police unit to assist him in what has now become a felony stop. The Hispanic suspect is subsequently arrested for two felonies (car theft and a loaded handgun found in the car’s glove compartment during a search of the vehicle), and four misdemeanors (speeding, driving without a license, driving under the influence of alcohol, and having open containers of alcohol in an automobile) and it is, finally, determined that the Hispanic suspect is an illegal alien with no documentation on his person. Has racial profiling occurred in this scenario? No, it hasn’t. So, let’s change things a bit.

Suppose a call has gone out for all Arizona peace officers to be looking for a late model Mercedes, owned by an Arizona State University professor, which was stolen from a downtown Phoenix parking lot a few hours earlier. A reliable witness, a Hispanic waitress at a restaurant across from the parking lot, said that, on a break, she saw a short Hispanic male, late 20s, in dirty kakis, break into the particular car in the parking lot and drive away at a fast speed. On exiting the parking lot, the car and driver passed so closely by the witness that she was able to see a prominent tattoo on the left side of the man’s face. So, the call goes out for such a suspect. Has racial profiling occurred? Yes. A detailed physical description of the Hispanic perpetrator was provided for law enforcement by a reliable witness. Such a description is the only means of searching for the thief in a large population of Hispanic males. Will the police be looking for white, black, or Oriental males? No, they won’t. It will be confined to only a population of Hispanic men between the ages of 20 and 30, dressed in dirty kakis, with tattoos on the left side of their faces. How many Hispanic aliens in Arizona, illegal or not, might fit this description, hundreds, thousands?

If the perpetrator depicted above is eventually apprehended and arrested, there is a very high probability that he will turn out to be an illegal alien, which will add another misdemeanor, a state and federal misdemeanor, to the charges against him. But does the mere unfolding of routine events in law enforcement make the typical Arizona policeman racist? Do they hate the perpetrator because he has the brown skin of a person of Hispanic origin? No, they don’t. Every Arizona peace office has taken an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Arizona, and to faithfully enforce all criminal and civil laws legislated by the State of Arizona. This simply means that discovering that a Hispanic suspect is an illegal alien during an investigation and/or arrest for the commission of another crime is merely the correct enforcement of the law. Yet, there is much more to correct and prudent law enforcement to consider than meets the eye.

Norton R. Nowlin took M.A. and B.A. degrees in the social and behavioral sciences from the University of Texas at Tyler, studied law for one full year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, was a sworn San Diego County, California, Deputy Sheriff, and earned an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington. Mr. Nowlin has attended LaJolla, California’s National University and Malibu’s Pepperdine University to attain graduate credits in business management and economics. Mr. Nowlin also attained a Texas State Teaching Certification, in social studies and psychology, from the University of Texas at Tyler. A paralegal, published essayist, poet, and free-lance fiction writer, Mr. Nowlin resides in Northern Virginia with his wife, the renown math tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats.

Sworn officers, military and the like take an oath to defend our country.  By taking this oath they swear allegiance to the constitution and rule by law rather than men.  We need to support those that take these oaths seriously rather than going along to get along.