We’ve seen Barack Hussein Obama’s poll numbers fall until only the slack jawed segment of the population or those locked in the unreal world of academia can even stomach looking at the man.  We know conservatives and libertarians have plenty to dispute about his policy decisions.  Even the middle of the road independents have had their fill, but now, believe it or not, even the thinking lefties have grown weary of him.  They believe he has been disingenuous with the American people.  I’ll use a smaller word… he LIED to us.  When even Jon Stewart starts taking about this progressive darling, we know the honeymoon is over.

Watch it quickly… it’s not up on YouTube and may not be up here long.

Once more Ray Stevens shows he is one entertainer who understands what is going on in the country and wants to speak up about it.  Not only that, but he makes great videos.

Enjoy!

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

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…

The process of eliminating public protection in the city with the fourth highest crime rate the country shows the city fathers (and mothers) are following the old political practice of funding the lowest priorities first. Then, when the money is gone and the public still had needs, it is much easier to come back and ask for more money. For some reason, up to this point, people believed that the elected representatives were really working for the good of the public. How many citizens would accept a tax increase for extra flowers for the park across town? Yet, these things are often already bought and paid for when weeping and wailing is heard in the halls of power because some essential services will have to be cut. Here’s a helpful hint – don’t believe a word of it!

The idea is to create the maximum inconvenience for the maximum number of people. Oakland residents will have to make do with less police protection. This can have life and death consequences for those who find themselves in need. Cutbacks like this hit voters at the gut level as they see the criminal element taking over more and more of their city – and they become an easy touch as their representatives work to pry open their wallets. While the unions need to be reigned in, cutting down on public protection is not the way to make their city a better place to live.

A little trip this weekend showed me one of the possible results of these cutbacks. Police officers are not stupid. Many see the writing on the wall. Governments are a lot like real businesses. They are concerned with such things as expenses and revenue. When municipalities cut back on police departments, they are also cutting back on a source of revenue. This point was brought home to me as I headed down to Sandbridge Beach from the Richmond VA area.

On one short, ten mile stretch of Route 295, State Troopers had drivers pulled over in each direction. This is to be expected as we are told that heavy traffic, vacation times require tighter law enforcement in the name of public safety. However, as I traveled down Route 460 through one sleepy little town after another, with speed limits popping up and dropping down with predictable regularity, I passed through one such town that appeared to have a population of about thirty seven people and two shiny new police cars.

Each of these shiny new police cars, lights flashing brightly, sat by the side of the road, behind some hapless motorist as the officers, in the crisply pressed uniforms, politely produced traffic tickets that enhanced the finances of their sleepy little town. In the past, some remote southern towns have developed a reputation for fleecing unsuspecting, usually out of state, visitors as a matter of public policy and finance. As I said before, police officers are not stupid. It may be that the thought has occurred to some that by enhancing revenue for their employers, they enhance the likelihood that they can actually keep their jobs.

This is not to impugn the many officers working to keep us safe. Unfortunately one of the things they cannot protect us from is greedy “public servants” who maybe looking to increased zoning, traffic and building code enforcement to help cover budget shortfalls. This may or may not be happening in your area, but be forewarned… governments at all levels want your money… they say they “need” it, but we know the truth, don’t we?

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

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.

Rev Patrick Mahoney is a man of principle and courage. On a beautiful spring day in our nations capital he set out to pray for women seeking to end their pregnancies and their soon to die offspring. By simply kneeling on the sidewalk outside a Planned Parenthood abortion mill, he found himself arrested, handcuffed and driven off in the back of a District of Columbia police car.

Showing the power of political connections, the organization claimed the outdoors portion of the property to be part of the indoor section… and the city attorney went along with their scheme. Of course Planned Parenthood did not like Rev. Mahoney and his compatriots letting women know what was really going on inside the building and inside their bodies. There were too many dollars at stake. Besides killing babies is a woman’s right.

The thing that makes this event so notable is that he knew this would be the result… and he did it anyway. Many of us will cheer on a courageous patriot who will stand up, not only to the police but the legal system as well. Then, use the legal system to take back the ground we are losing every day. The complete story is covered in Christian News Wire.

We say, “Hooray for Patrick Mahoney!” We say we will pray for him and his work. Some of us will actually do it. But how many of us will put our freedom and dignity on the line and kneel next to the man in the forbidden space? While it is true that one man on the side of God is a majority, it is also true that there is also power in numbers. Never before has our government been so hostile to the traditional Christian values on which our country was founded. Never before have we need to stand our ground… whether it is supporting the unborn, standing up for traditional marriage, protecting our second amendment rights or any of a number of issues considered outdated by our progressive masters.

We can be led quietly to the slaughter… not just us, but the many we will not reach… if they are permitted to succeed. Rev. Mahoney explained the effectiveness of the American Center for Law and Justice in fighting the good (legal) fight. I have worked with them myself and can attest to the quality and tenacity of their attorneys. Having the ACLJ in your corner may be just confidence builder you need to take the stand against the powers of darkness. Whether the ACLJ or Rutherford Institute is by your side, it’s important to remember that wjen you are doing the Lord’s work, you are never alone.

Good job Rev. Mahoney! God bless you!

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.

The first indication of the Feds’ case going bad was a local report in the Toledo (Ohio) Blade, dated April 28, 2010. “An FBI agent who led the investigation of nine Michigan militia members charged with trying to launch war against the federal government couldn’t recall many details of the two-year probe yesterday during questioning by defense lawyers.

“Even the judge who must decide whether to release the nine until trial was puzzled.

“‘I share the frustrations of the defense team . . . that she doesn’t know anything,’ U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said after agent Leslie Larsen confessed she hadn’t reviewed her notes recently and couldn’t remember specific details of the case.”

See the report at:

http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20100428/NEWS02/4280343/-1/rss

Can you believe testimony such as this was given in a court of law by a supposedly intelligent federal officer–an agent who had supposedly compiled the evidence that was used to arrest and incarcerate these supposedly “dangerous militia members”? If it wasn’t so serious, this would be a joke!

Remember that it was a federal informant who had infiltrated the group and even offered to teach Hutaree members how to make improvised explosive devices. On this point, William Grigg wrote, “While federal prosecutors have provided ample evidence that members of the Hutaree are passionately anti-government–what decent person ISN’T–they haven’t been able to demonstrate that the group did anything more than engage in survivalist training and indulge in apocalyptic rhetoric.” (Emphasis in the original.)

As a result, Judge Roberts found the government’s case sorely lacking. “Discussions about killing local law enforcement officers–and even discussions about killing members of the judicial branch of government—do not translate to conspiring to overthrow, or levy war against, the United States government,” she wrote, ordering that the Hutaree suspects be released on bail.

About which, Grigg wrote, “Since the federal case against the Hutaree rests entirely on what was SAID by the suspects, rather than anything specific that was DONE by them, it’s difficult to see what’s left of it [the case].” (Emphasis in the original.)

See Grigg’s column at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/57041.html

But then again, punishing people because of their speech or political associations seems to be exactly where America is heading.

Remember that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is famous for supplying Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Fusion Centers and State law enforcement agencies with warnings against people due to their political beliefs (pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, anti-United Nations, anti-New World Order, or anti-illegal immigration, for example), their associations (Libertarian or Constitution parties, for example), or even who they voted for (Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or Chuck Baldwin, to be precise). Previous reports even identified people as “dangerous” because of the books they were reading. (Tell me, again: this is the United States and not Nazi Germany, right?)

Now consider the statements of US Congressman Andre Carson (D-Indiana), who likens Tea Party protesters to “a terrorist threat.”

Washington Times reporter Kerry Picket recorded Rep. Carson as he explained it all:

Kerry Picket (Washington Times): “Do you think the people outside [Tea Party protesters] are generally dangerous or no?”

Rep. Carson: “Oh, absolutely. I worked in homeland security. I’m from intelligence, and I’ll tell you, one of the largest threats to our internal security  . . . I mean terrorism has an Islamic face, but it really comes from racial supremacist groups. (inaudible) It’s the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record [for].”

Larry O’Connor at BigGovernment.com then wrote, “And we can now see this two pronged message continuing in the narrative from Democratic politicians and the media: The Tea Party protests are really about white rage and they are sowing the seeds for domestic terrorism. This was the message delivered by Rep. Carson that afternoon and that is the message the media has run with. “Only problem is, we can’t find any proof to back up Rep. Carson’s story.”

See the report at:

http://tinyurl.com/teaparty-terrorism

The truth is, if the federal government and its prostitutes at the SPLC have their way, ANYONE COULD BE IMPRISONED FOR ANYTHING! Don’t believe physicians should destroy human life in the womb? You’re a terrorist. Don’t like the United Nations? You’re a terrorist. Believe immigrants should come through the front door when migrating to America? You’re a terrorist. Voted for Ron Paul? You’re a terrorist. Believe in the return of Jesus Christ? You’re a terrorist. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam.

Again, maybe this helps explain why all those (non-existent) FEMA camps are being built!

In my initial column on the Hutaree raid, I wrote, “Did members of the Hutaree intend to carry out aggressive violence against law enforcement personnel? I have no idea. Until this story broke in the national media, I had never heard of this group. I will wait for the facts to come out—if indeed the federal government and national media even allow the facts to come out.”

See my column at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1177

Well, the facts are beginning to come out: The FBI agent who brought the charges against these self-professed militia members made a complete fool of herself under oath in a court of law. She presented zero evidence to indicate that the Hutaree posed an imminent threat to anybody. Now that the judge has released the Hutaree members from jail and rebuked the agent for presenting such inept testimony, we’ll see if the Feds decide to pursue the case any further. Again, as Will Grigg said, “Since the federal case against the Hutaree rests entirely on what was SAID by the suspects, rather than anything specific that was DONE by them, it’s difficult to see what’s left of it [the case].”

However, the bigger question is, How far will Big-Government toadies try to take this Nazi-like philosophy: that anyone who believes in limited government and freedom, and who rejects their sanctimonious attitude and bullying is a “dangerous terrorist”? And even greater is the question, How long will the American people put up with it?

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