Kris Kobach, a law professor and supposed expert on illegal immigration, has been paid $300 an hour to "train" AZ deputy sheriffs to profile Latinos by seemingly indirect means (avoid the ultimate appearance in the eyes of the unenlightened). His profiling tactics are unconstitutional. They violate the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights. They don't meet the probable cause standard. Kobach's fascistic methods promote police harassment (a lack of security for the persons) of law-biding Latino citizens and others under the guise of discovering illegal immigrants.
"Kobach has responded by denying that he is a racist, citing his work as a missionary in Uganda, and attributing the charges to political opponents of his stand on illegal immigration." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kobach#Immigration_Lawsuits)
The particular elitist mindset here is not necessarily detected or understood by those of it. Kris Kobach is engaged in falling for elitism that is inherently anti-Mexican-American and anti-Mexican and other poor by virtue of Kobach's emphasis versus the obvious solution(s) that I will state below. He has a mental block whether he realizes that or not. Perhaps he doesn't want to be a racist or ethnic bigot, but he doesn't want it enough or he'd come to other conclusions.
Indications from the dress or appearance of an individual that he has been-has recently-that he's an illegal alien and perhaps that he has just entered without inspection, based on the totality [of] circumstances. Number nineteen, related indications that the vehicle and/or its occupants have been on a very long trip. And number twenty, the individual avoids making eye contact with the officer, and this, of course, can give rise to reasonable suspicion, not only in the immigration context, but in other law enforcement contexts, as well.
Here's a rather simple article on the general subject: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0421/Arizona-immigration-law-must-pass-the-prejudice-test
Issues: Reasonable suspicion or grounds to 1) stop someone 2) require identifying information 3) and even upon such stop, frisk someone for weapons (contrary to Supreme Court rulings, this represents a search under the 4th amendment that requires probable cause - reasonable probability that there was, is, or will be a crime).
Where have the lines been, are, and will be drawn? Overly strict standards allow criminals to escape. Overly relaxed standards allow for police harassment and abuse. Where's the proper balance?
Going deeper into the problem:
Is this even the right place for society's main efforts versus questions of fundamental fairness across-the-board and globally? I say that the root causes for so-called illegal immigration are being deliberately ignored by those of elitism to whom I've referred above. Many of the ills suffered by the Mexican and other poor are a direct result of bad neighbor policies and practices of White American and other elitists. Address the root causes. That's the right thing to do rather than harass people.
Below, I'm going to go deep into the problem, to the heart of it, and give the complete solution.
There is a racist, demographic (a la Zionist fears of democracy in a one-state solution), political motive to the recently passed and signed Arizona law. Latino-Americans tend to vote against the hyper-elitism favored by many Whites whose legacy is in racism and slavery.
The bigger picture:
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a Washington Consensus, unnecessary austerity-promoting, bailout-like system. It was designed with a number of evil things in mind: reduce the workers in the US to closer to third-world standards to make them be more willing to work for peanuts in the privatized and private businesses owned by elitists so those elitists could keep more for themselves (sharing less with workers); keep multinational trading companies from having to meet solid environmental, worker health and safety, and collective-bargaining standards; and to help expatriate dollars to places where former US businesses would avoid US and other taxes (again, so the elitists could keep more and share less).
Such "trade" deals have been ruinous for the bulk of the people. Ever since the off-shoring of all the American jobs via reduced standards and allowing the importation of wage-slave-made goods (from Mexico and China, etc.) and when coupled with the huge rise in consumer credit-card interest rates and the lowering of requirements to obtain such credit, Americans have gone deeply into debt to the banksters who arrange this whole Ponzi scheme. Those same banksters have been bailed out for the financial crash they caused on cue and that they knew would be handled as it was by their bought-and-paid-for agents in government (executive and legislative).
They knew they were blowing up a bubble that they were going to burst. They knew they'd be "too big to fail," just as before. They knew they would take the near 0% money and use it to consolidate and not to lend to Main Street but rather park at the Federal Reserve to earn them interest (insane smoke and mirrors/voodoo economics).
They knew it would cause a global crisis and that whole nations would be subjected to IMF austerity measure so the richest of the rich (the biggest banksters in hiding; unauditable - the only ones in the world) would devour more and more and more of the value created by the people's labors.
These banksters control the mass media. They have a horde of disinformation propagandists working for them whose job it is to distract, change the subject, and lull the people into doing exactly what is bad for them. This happens on the left and right and to the libertarians and so-called statists. That four-cornered spectrum is a farce. That whole plane of existence is unreality. The superrich are laughing everyone else to scorn for their gullibility that they don't just take what is fair and distribute it fairly and all work for one and all as true, loving, harmless, unselfish siblings: righteous.
The big picture:
The Earth is far from Heaven, but that's solely due to the bad choices of its inhabitants who bring Hell upon themselves collectively and individually.
Interest, taxes, and money (mammon, filthy lucre) are unnecessary evils. They should never have come into existence. They came out from wicked, selfish minds and must be done away with or humanity will fall deeper and deeper into the Hell of its own making.
The first mundane thing that everyone needs to see is that the government has the power to create money right now and doesn't need the Federal Reserve or any "private" organization to do it.
Why are there taxes? The answer you are given is that the government needs to raise money when government has the power to create money. Can't you see how stupid that is? The people's government was designed to create the money it needs to spend for the general welfare.
If taxes are unnecessary and the government can create interest-free money, then why is anyone paying taxes that go to paying interest to private entities on created money? It's as dumb as can be.
The private banksters set up this whole scheme thinking that you are too stupid to see what's so simple and obvious and that even if you were to shake off the banksters' spell you're under, you'd still not have the brains to demand a complete halt to the rape and to set things right (which could be done nearly instantly).
Bringing Heaven to Earth:
Lastly, in the best conceivable society, there is no need for any medium of exchange because everything everyone needs is brought forth by everyone by consensus and all just work for that out of the unselfishness in all hearts.
The problem was, is, and will be (until the people wake up) that people of violence took control and have been taking the lions share and intimidating and fooling the rest ever since. Why have it?
I'm not calling for the starvation of any banksters. They can live in decent housing right along with everyone else. They can have enough good and healthy food to eat. They can have proper clothing to protect them from the elements, etc. Let them turn to honest work.
Teach them to use the forefront of their brains that is the seat of unselfishness. Teach them to overcome their sociopathy.
Let's stop the greed, violence, and sexual decadence (decay).
Help with the Christian Commons. The Christian Commons will translate the medium of exchange once and for all into communal lands (the Commons again).
As I wrote to a Facebook friend:
I'm a socialist/communist but not a Marxist. I'm what I call an Acts Communist, after the Book of Acts in the New Testament in which it's made very clear that the disciples lived from one purse. They did that while they were with Jesus too, but it doesn't say it so pointedly or irrefutably before the Book of Acts.
There are "conservative" Christians or "capitalist" Christians who attempt to lead others to believe that the one-purse arrangement was not meant to stand for all time. It's not true. The spirit of Jesus's message is exactly in line with the giving-and-sharing-all political-economic model.
The reasons I'm not Marxist are numerous. One of them is that I don't want to force people to share. At the same time, I don't want those who are opposed to sharing to try to stop people who do want to share, which has happened over and over down through history. The reason for it is because when such people are left alone, they do very well, which exposes the falsehoods promoted by capitalists who have routinely lied in saying that socialism has always failed. The more socialist-leaning nations in Europe and elsewhere laugh at that since many of them have a higher standard of living than the US.
Dennis [another Facebook friend] appears to be a communist (sharer) at heart, so that's why our views overlap.
I want to take things further than did the disciples in Acts though (not that they were wrong; the circumstances were different due to the coming acts of the Romans and Jews). Those disciples accepted donations from Christians and shared it amongst fellow Christians and others in need. I want to obtain land for Christians to live on to grow food and make clothes and all sorts of practical things but in surplus that can be given and shared with the needy in the vicinity as wide as needs be. The land and buildings and equipment would all be communally held by the members. So it would be communist, as the members would collectively own the means of production and the result of the fruits of their labors while realizing that it all rightfully belongs to everyone who will not seek to devour it for selfish and greedy reasons.
I call it the Christian Commons http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org, which I believe I'm mentioned to you before, but I trust you won't be offended if I repeat it a bit.
Concerning 9/11 [she commented where 9/11 was part of the topic], have you seen "Core of Corruption," by Jonathan Elinoff?
Jonathan has done a yeoman's job putting together video clips on the issue. It's one of the best, if not the best, single video on the subject I've seen.
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)