Jack Cafferty knows Jack about Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and the Fourth Amendment

Here's a video of Jack Cafferty being on the wrong side of this Arizona/national/international issue. My comments follow:

The full text of the bill is something I've read. The bill says that an undercover police officer can motion to a person standing around (literally use his finger to say, come here; the bill actually states that as an example) and that if the person does that, it constitutes reasonable grounds to suspect that person of being an illegal. Under the 4th amendment, that's not reasonable suspicion/probable cause for a police officer even to speak to someone. Now, since there is to be equal application and protection under the law, that so-called "reasonable" suspicion can and will be applied in non-immigration cases as well. That means that this change in the law will erode constitutional rights across-the-board where those the police-state types don't like are concerned.

Do you not remember peaceful protesters and those not even protesting being herded into toxic warehouses at the Republican National Convention?

This is slippery-slope stuff here, and fascists are tilting the playing field more and more and more. The object here is not to take this bad law in isolation but to anticipate both immediate- and long-term consequences. What the fascist-minded are advocating is an erosion of not only the rights of the legal immigrants who may not have the proper (undefined in the bill) papers on them at the time (subjecting them to arrest and detention; by the way, even "legal" children, citizens, including mentally handicapped, have been deported to Mexico to the horror of their Hispanic parents in Arizona), but they are advocating the erosion of the very protections they need to be sure that they will not fall on some ill-defined list, like the no-fly or watch lists, or are simply subjected to arbitrary whims of self-styled law-enforcement.

In addition, there are other legal issues regarding America's culpability in causing life to be miserable where the immigrants came from. http://www.facebook.com/TomUsher?v=wall&story_fbid=119421958076125 and here (highly recommended), for those of you who aren't Facebook users, "Reagan's Refugees: Why Undocumented Migrants Have a Right to Work Here," by David A. Sylvester. Tikkun Daily Blog. April 30th, 2010.

Lastly, unless you've been to Maricopa County, where Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been pushing this, you can't easily appreciate how many Mexicans live there. I lived there for nearly 40 years. I could go into my local grocery store when it was crowded and be the only non-Hispanic there. That was far from unusual.

Every person seemingly hanging around anywhere will be unfair game under this sweeping, reprehensible so-called law.

As for Jack Cafferty, his team censored me when I attempted to comment on one of his programs. My comment contained nothing but straight-up rebuttal. I hadn't violated any comment rules, and it was the only comment I submitted. There was no legitimate reason to refuse to allow the general public to see it.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

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.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.