Joe Arpaio, Racist? Or Not Racist?

A federal court has found that Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County in Arizona, was guilty of racially profiling Latinos during his immigration patrols. If this is true, I put up this short post to ask the question.

Does this make the Sheriff a racist?

I will allow commentary on the topic, but I am looking more for yes and no answers on this one , just to get a sense of the gut reaction, rather than each sides rhetoric.

I also have to give a shout out to my friend Jared Morris for stealing the title of the post. Thanks dude.


79 Comments on "Joe Arpaio, Racist? Or Not Racist?"

  1. Laffter says:

    Yes- my family is from AZ

    And there is no doubt about it

    DWH (driving while Hispanic) was a tried and true way to get pulled over

    His goons even puller over the 91 year old former state rep and made him stand in the hot sun for an hour handcuffed for no reason
    He jad saturation patrols in Latino areas etc

    This issue is and was, Latinos have been living there loner than whites and even the native Americans , the Todohom people’s were targeted because of their physical appreaance

    What was happening out there was an absolute disgrace, worse than anything the Jim Crow south had
    And hopefully soon his reign of terror will be over

    Sadly, there were many deaths and untold misery meted out by his people, even his chief deputy Hendershott had to resign in disgrace
    And Arpiaos folly cost the citizens of Maricopa county

    He also targeted politicians that disagreed with him, and had them arrested as well as activists etc

    He is an absolute disgrace to the audited States

    In short Frank, to answer your question ….YES

  2. Robert Hauser says:

    What if he is?….the word “racist”, like nearly every other word in the American lexicon, has been so grossly abused or misused as to be almost completely gutted of any real meaning….how many people here know the difference between “bigot” and “racist”? The term “racist” was originally coined by one of America’s greatest essayists, Lawrence Dennis, in 1936 in his book, THE COMING FASCISM IN AMERICA….racism simply means a sense of racial identity and belonging just the same as familial and is every bit as normal in any human. Every race, just as every nation, has not only the right but the duty, at least as moral as biological, to preserve and perpetuate its own distinct tradition and heritage—so quite frankly, I don’t give a damn in Joe is “racist” or not—he is upholding the Immigration laws that Holder and crew are willfully failing or refusing to uphold….and that is all that really counts as far as the survival of the nation is concerned.

  3. Laffter says:

    Joe Arpiao is no more allowed to ” uphold immigration law” as you are to uphold tax law

    See, there is this thing called ” the doctrine of PRE- eminence” what this means it that certain things are to sole,preview of the federal government, immigration , declaring war, making treaties, these are federal things
    Issuing a drivers license l is a state thing

    Never the twain shall meet. joe Arpiao HAD the training and blessing to hold folks and run them thru the ICE data base to see if they were in violations of immigration law

    But when he started just stopping and detaining folks for MONTHS, no joke- and I mean US CITIZENS, for the SOLE reason they were Brown or Larino , he lost that privilege

    So he can no longer uphold immigration law

    And anyway, the way in which he was doing it was in direct violation of our constitution, specifically , the 4 and 5 th and 14th amendments

    How would you like it if you were stopped and held simply because you were a ” white male” incarcerated for months and no one believed you

    These are not solitary cases I am talking about, these are many many many ashes . His legal fees ALONE Just to defend the civil,rights lawsuits- cost the tax payers out there over 22 million dollars.

    That is not the Americam way.

    Do you believe in the Geneva Vonvention? Or should out soldiers just kill maim and torture innocent women and children and the war area a, NO, because we as a nation reject this type of BEHAVIOUR
    We are not Somalian war lords, we are not Afghanistani Talibaj leaders

    If there is nomseperatio be put ween us and them, then want are we?

    American have a higher standard and as such , we should hold our law makers and law enforcers to,such a standard.

  4. kavips says:

    I was going to say everyone in Arizona was a racist, but realized it would give away my age, since Arizona is mostly Hispanic now, at least is parts.

    Sheriff Arapio is as racist as the KKK. His deputies are the enforcers of hate, which considering he was re-elected several times, means it reflects from his constituents.

    And it is not just against Hispanics. Attempting to prove the president’s birth certificate a forgery, means he is full of hate at everyone, as in someone with severe psychological-mental -breakdown-scale problems.

    Btw. Doesn’t Delaware also have a clown who is trying to mimic Arapio? Doesn’t he say Arapio is his hero? Implying to friends and members of a certain County Council that he would lick the big toe of Arapio if Arapio would let him… I believe that is what ‘s been said out and about this fair state… But then again… I could be wrong.

  5. William Christy says:

    Robert Hauser I agree completely.

    Of course Laffter in (edited to protect identity, Frank Knotts) lengthy diatribe doesn’t mention Arizona’s own immigration bill SB1070 which was signed into law, by the Governor and is indeed a law. I submit it is a war our nations borders are being invaded by these illegal aliens 24/7. The pansy ass way the federal government is handling it is repugnant, and we need someone with the balls to stop these criminals. After all that is what they are CRIMINALS when they enter our country illegally. What a moronic statement that the Deputies are racist since some of these Deputies are Latinos themselves. They are upholding Arizona and Federal law. All the lawsuit addressed was the allegation of “racial profiling” it does not stop the Sheriff or his Deputies from stopping and questioning Latino’s it only stops the manner in which they were allegedly conducting the stops.

    Next some liberal will claim Delaware is profiling drunks by conducting check point stops.

  6. Dave says:

    He may indeed be racist and his methods are definitely wrong. However, I look at it this way. His objective is to do something about illegal immigration. Those crossing the border from Mexico are typically Hispanic and not white, black, Asian or other ethnicities. Consequently, he focuses on those mostly likely to be included in the set of those people who cross the border illegally.

    Look at it this way. Given the same objective, what if his officers were profiling white males? He would look pretty foolish. So given his intent to enforce Arizona’s law, what choice does he have but to profile Hispanics?

    So he probably is a racist, but the evidence cannot be found in profiling. I too believe that the racist card is overplayed.

    Rather than simply employing a racial identity, we actually use criteria of the form: Not like me or Otherness. We treat those who are “not like me” as “others” and not necessarily because of race. Some of the characteristics employed in “not like me” are wealth, accomplishment, academic achievements, exploits, career choice, etc. It’s called affinity. We all have an affinity for those who are like us and one of those characteristics is race, but it’s not the primary characteristic.

  7. Angus Berger says:

    4 people filed the class action lawsuit according to news reports how many illegals sent packing because of the sheriffs efforts is whats important

  8. Robert Hauser says:

    Laffter….you just pitched a classic gutter ball. Your opening gambit just blew you right out of the water so high and in so many pievces it made you look like the Challenger in its goodbye forever flight… said that Arpaio is no more empowered to uphold Immigration Law than I am to uphold tax law. That was stellar…just plain stellar.
    Just so you and I don’t get off to any worse of a start than we are guaranteed of anyway, allow me to say that I have never met Joe personally and frankly think that his policy of tent cities for inmates in the blazing hot Arizona sun (with which I am personally familiar from back in the Route 66 days, and his taking the absurd extreme of making inmates wear pink boxers is way over the top—-a convict is sent to jail or prison AS punishment…not FOR punishment and, yes, Virginia, we still have an VIIIth Amendment. B ut in the interests of intellectual honesty, let us keep the issues at least somewhat distinct rather than larding them all together into an ugly mass and condemning Joe for everything because of one of the ingredients.
    Right here we are dealing with illegal immigration which, as the name clearly specifies, is quite illegal….again, you say Joe has no more authority to uphold immigration law than I, tax law….and that is just downright pathetic: do you, Laffter, have any vague notion as to just how many “laws” there are in this so called “freedom loving” country?….well, to spare us both time, I will tell you since quite obviously you wouldn’t: there are more “laws” in America than there are people—whether here legally or not—-numerically there are three separate and distinct “laws” for every two people—a new “law” is passed in this country at the rate of more than one every second. As my ancestors said in Germany before the Common Era, the more laws, the less justice.
    Nonetheless, at least some pitifully small percentage of the laws of this country do make sense and desperately need to be enforced yet are not—one of these laws is the Constitution. Another subset of the corpus juris of this country that is absolutely vital to the nation’s sheer survival and is likewise treasonously ignored and honored far more in the breach than in the observance is Immigration Law. More times than you could count, not only does federal law overlap State law or vice versa, but they coincide…and you are quite dead wrong: local and State LEOs are fully entitled to place people on what are known as “federal holds” for violation of Immigration Law….I don’t give a damn what that Sanctum Asinorum people like you laughably refer to as the Supreme Court says…what solely matters is what the law itself says, not what a pseudojudicial oligarchy of political plug-ins say it says.
    Our Immigration Laws make sense and they are fully Constitutional…”tax law” is largely unConstitutional or rabidly ANTI-Constitutional and your remark that I have no authority to “uphold tax law” as much as says that I don’t have to comply with it either. Would you care to meet me face to face and argue the point before a CommonLaw or “informed” jury?

  9. Dave says:

    “local and State LEOs are fully entitled to place people on what are known as “federal holds” for violation of Immigration Law”

    Good point Robert! And what say you about the same LEOs upholding and enforcing constitutional federal law on firearms?

    If an LEO is authorized, responsible, and required to uphold federal law do the same LEOs get to pick and choose which ones they apply that authorization to?

  10. Robert Hauser says:

    Good question….always deserves an answer to match: it is this….flatly despite their false claims to the contrary, all law enforcement officers in America are OATH BOUND to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC….and that very much includes court judges and both federal and State legislators who seek, through malicious “interpretation” and false “acts of legislature” (“statutes” repugnant to the Constitution) to subvert that Charter of Freedom. …this means that any law enforcement officer has an oath bound duty to refuse to enforce an un- or as in many cases rabidly ANTI_Constitutional so called “law” if in his own conscience it is such—even at the risk of losing his job. To do otherwise is to engage in a flatly cowardly and felonious disavowal of a sacred Oath….and quite tragically that describes the vast majority of leos in this country right now. Read the works of former Sheriff, Richard Mack.

  11. Dave says:

    I asked “If an LEO is authorized, responsible, and required to uphold federal law do the same LEOs get to pick and choose which ones they apply that authorization to?”

    You answered: “this means that any law enforcement officer has an oath bound duty to refuse to enforce an un- or as in many cases rabidly ANTI_Constitutional so called “law” if in his own conscience it is such”

    So the short answer to my question seems to be yes, they get to pick and choose.

    Also, I might be willing to read his stuff on car theft rings, murder and other criminal activities he responded to but, I think I’ll pass on ex-sheriff Mack’s writings. Constitutional scholar is not his core competency.

  12. Robert Hauser says:

    Well, if you really wanted a short answer, Dave, I could have simply said “yes” and left it at that without explaining myself whatsoever and then you’d be complaining because my answer wasn’t long enough….and how do you know that Mack is incompetent as a Constitutional scholar?….how do you define a “Constitutional scholar”, anyway?….Are you saying that unless someone has had the luxury of a Harvard Law School education (like Alger Hiss and ML King) then they have no standing whatsoever to pass judgement on the way the people of this country are being sodomized bowlegged daily out of their Constitutional rights? ….suppose I saw a black mamba crawling up behind you …are you going to tell me I have to be a fully and academically pedigreed herpitologist to grab a gun and blow its head off to save your life? I dunno…maybe you would. Such is America now.

  13. Laffter says:

    Hauser is another sheriff drone

    We are wasting our time with the willfully ignorant, he thinks he can play with the Printz/ Mack decision here and all it did was bite him in the ass.

    No one mentions all the parts of the AZ LAW AND THE MS law and the GA LAW, ALL ANTI- immigration that were struck done as unconstitutional

    See, there is this little thing call USC title 8 section 287(g) and in order to enforce federal immigration law a local LEO must have a MOU signed with the Feds to do so, as well as being trained by the Feds Ina two week intensive course.

    Arpiao was stripped of this ability about 2 years ago for his abuses.

    But hey , lets not let their RWNJ opinions stand in the way of facts

    As far as informed jury – would you be threatening me with posse commitatus?

    Walk carefully friend

    And a LOCAL LEO may NOT PUT an immigration detainer on a detainee unless ICE faxes the detainer over to the LEO HAVING THE PERSON IN CUSTODY.

    you obviously don’t quite know how the system works here in De

    Did you also know that with a federal immigration detainer that if ICE Does NOT SHOW Up to take custody , the detainer goes away and the person much be released.

    Maybes you should find out from you buddy Christy what I do for work. And what my content knowlEdge speciality is.

    As for your common law jury- no thanks , I don’t have time for a bunch of sovereign citizen hick hay seeds that can’t spells “DOCTRINE OF PREEMINENCE ” never mind read it., nor studied the Marbury decision.

    But thanks for playing.

  14. Dave says:


    I appreciated the long answer. My “short answer” response was simply a literary device used to preface the extraction of the central point of your long answer.

    And I’ll add black mamba recognition Mack’s core competencies. However, constitutional law scholars have spent many years studying and working with constitutional law issues. I made fried chicken a couple of times. That doesn’t make me a chef.

    Mack’s career was spent in law enforcement, primarily enforcing and dealing with state law. I would no more take his advice on constitutional law than I would take the advice of a constitutional scholar on how to conduct a raid on a drug house without getting shot.

    That others would take his advice means either they are shopping for advice they like or they are ignorant or both I suppose.

    By the way, I support enforcing existing immigration law, but then I support all laws by which our nation functions and is governed. I don’t like them all, but I recognize them as the law of the land, especially when they have been adjudicated by the highest court in the nation.

  15. Robert Hauser says:

    You’d best stagger not so carelessly yourself, my dyslexic drop-out from Sesame Street….you are bandying terms about and name-dropping in the belief that you can impress any rational person here—and you won’t. As re being a drone, all you’d need is tail-fins and you’d be in the ranks of Soetoro’s 30,000 oisseaus-du-merde.
    The Posse Comitatus, just for your enlightenment, is generally defined as the sum total of all able-bodied citizens between 18 and 45 years of age (varies from State to State) who can be called upon by the County Sheriff at any time to maintain the peace and/or uphold the law—meaning the Constitution and that much of “Olde English CommonLaw not in conflict there with”
    A fully informed or CommonLaw jury is entirely distinct from the Posse and is a twelve member jury of one’s peers, with not only the right but the sworn duty to judge not only the supposed “facts” of the case but the applicable “law” itself for repugnancy to the Constitution and to NULLIFY or VETO the law, even if in defiance of the judges “instructions” to the jury to blindly and unthinkingly “apply the law as (he) explain(s) it” to them. Don’t try to confuse the two to these people.

    In just so many words, a twelve member jury of citizens of sound and disposing minds and memories can flatly overturn a decision of your Sanctum Asinorum of a Supine Court, capisce? There probably is not one judge in this entire damned palsied country who would not delight in holding me in contempt for even telling you this…and quite frankly I don’t give a fiddler’s…let them bring it on.

    The federal “judge”, Snow, who declared Arpaio’s antics as “unconstitutional ” did NOT declare the Arizona law as such as I recall. Murray Snow simply ruled that Arpaio was engaging in “profiling”…so damned what? Sister Fat-Ass Napolitano quite routinely profiles us war vets as “potential terrorists” and that doesn’t seem to in anyway abraid the delicate sensitivities of the political lackey, judicial plug-ins that the current JU$T U$ system is maggot-ridden with: Murray Snow-bird is a Bush appointee and given that Bush and his fecal ilk of political white trash have wet dreams contemplating this country being turned into a pelagic sewer system of cheap immigrant labor, I would find his easily challengable decision anything but surprising. The United States Supine Court would “rule” that serial child rape was perfectly “constitutional” if they felt there was political hay to be made—-you don’t even have to have graduated from h.s. to be a United State Supreme Court “judge” and that is why you can use their decisions for bathroom stationary.

    If you wish to continue this discussion with me, at least clean up your damned English…debating with your ilk makes me feel like I am on a blind date with someone’s adopted cousin.

  16. anon says:

    Is this guy for real? Posse Comitatus? Really?

    Selective interpretation of the Constitution is a disease with these people. Wow.

    It would be much better if we just made Mr. Hauser king so he could decide what laws ‘r good and what laws ‘r bad. Hauser likey = Constitutional. Hauser no likey = Illegitimate.

    Awesome, then. It’s settled. Time to go clean my guns.

  17. Robert Hauser says:

    And as for you, Dave….you’ve missed the entire point I tried to make and I hate having to repeat my self to those who choose to remain oblivious of the obvious—-this country is rank with sociopathic mentalities: a full 4% of the population in America is clinically confirmable sociopaths. Now who do you think gravitates, by inherrent nature, right straight to public office such as State and federal legislatures and court houses? Now you say that there are certain laws “you don’t like”….whether you “like” them or not is flatly and totally irrelevant to the discussion—the fact is that an ungodly host of them are unambiguously ANTI-Constitutional. You claim you “support all laws by which our nation functions”…oh, beautiful. Considering that the country is as rabidly dysfuntional as is at present due to treasonous and opium-den spawned aberrational “statutes”, that is speaking volumes about you as a person. I will tell you in no uncertain terms that there is not one person currently seated on the morally dry-rotten bench of the Supreme Court that I would trust any further than I could blow his or her dead carcass down a brand new two-inch fire hose.

    Got any idea how many federal felonies there are in this so called “free” country right now, Dave? Go on—take a wild guess. Because if you know the answer then you know more than a team of highly seasoned and learned legal scholars who are currently engaged in trying to find out and the best they have come up with so far is “well over 4500″….and they are stashed all over the place —in the unConstitutional Federal Register, office memos between government bureaucracies and God knows where else—not just in the federal codes. But they are felonies that you or anyone else could be charged with at any time and that you never knew existed. John Baker, DrJ, former professor of law at LSU has flatly stated that there is not one solitary person, eighteen years or older, in the United States right now as we speak who cannot be immediately arrested for a federal “felony” they would have no way of knowing even existed. Wait until you get busted for one, Dave, and then tell me all about how you respect “all laws” You know, Dave, you and this “Laffter” character want to go on blindly sucking up on everything some self-styled governmental authority figure wants to dump on their filthy carpet and think of yourself as a “solid citizen” for doing so, be my guest….but you will be seeing the inside of a FEMA camp just as soon as I….but at least I will have the satisfaction of knowing I tried to stop this country from chewing itself to pieces and spitting the remains in the gutter by legislating itself right into a state of deranged oblivion.

  18. Robert Hauser says:

    Guns?….what guns? A dreg of your ilk would have long since personally turned them all in to Barry Soetoro or Diane Swine-slime already. Don’t try that “selective interpretation” gimmick with me, chum….the Constitution is not written in Esperanto or Swahili and needs no “interpretation”. The Supreme Court—and I use that term most charitably now—-does not have the lawful authority to randomly “interpret” the Constitution as suits their leisure and comfort or political sycophancy, only to attempt in good faith (assuming any of them know the meaning of the term) to divine what the Founders intended by any given statute therein and how they would have applied it in a case where determining where one person’s Constitutional rights leave off and another’s begin poses a vexing situation requiring a leaned jurist. Read the works of Lysander Spooner—-wait, no, that would be a 747 to a zero dimensional gamma like yourself. I truly believe, Anon, that you would eat your own stool right out in front of the entrance to the main post office at high noon and spend three hours drawing a crowd if either George Bush or Barry Soetoro asked you to…I said “asked” not told. If America ever again draws a free breath it will be in spite of cyborgs like you, not because

    You know, anon: you are the reason this country is in the dirt-hole of the universe condition it is now in….and the worst part of all this is you vote…..most likely with your big toe and not the one that contains the single brain cell. Have an interesting day….

  19. Mike Protack says:

    No, he is not a racist.

    Simple fact is as long we have insecure birders we will always have problems with all sorts of allegations and attacks.

    I propose we have the same laws as Mexico:
    Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

    “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

    Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

    Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

  20. Dave says:

    Ah Robert, Robert, Robert. I was chalking it up to just a nice Sunday rant, but after I read “…seeing the inside of a FEMA camp…,” well that takes it out the rant category into whacko land.

    It’s one thing to make valid points about government overreach and constitutional concerns, but when those become simply bookends to the real library of black helicopters, FEMA camps, government created tornadoes, I gotta get off the bus cause I know it’s going off the deep end. Still nice ride while it lasted.

  21. anon says:

    No way. I can’t accept that this is a real person. It’s a Family Guy writer having fun with us or an algorithm or something. Or some sort of reality TV show stunt. Nobody can wrap that many nutjob memes into three paragraphs. It’s like Alex Jones Mad Libs.

    But it’s funny. I’ll give you that. It’s funny.

  22. Laffter says:

    What does and ” insecure birder” have to do with any of this Protack?

  23. Laffter says:

    Ok. houser jumped the shark several posts ago

    But hey, I wonder what he’s Ben smoking

    Maybe he can end up in he same cell as Schaffer from Alaska

    They r cut from the same cloth. , like a christy.

    Eventually they will either off themselves or die off ….no issues here, ignore them long enough and laugh- they will be gone soon enough

  24. Robt Hauser says:

    Hope you enjoyed the ride, Dave….everything is just a “ride” to you anyway, isn’t it?….or should I use the word “trip”…that would certainly apply in anon’s and laffter’s case now wouldn’t it?

  25. Robert Hauser says:

    anon…you wouldn’t know a real anything if it crawled up inside you and laid eggs…..I was fighting for the Constitution before Alex Jones was an ugly bump in his mother’s silhouette so don’t try to dismiss me as a clone of him. Go play in the freeway with your unoriginal ad hominems, you aren’t worth wasting a good Sunday on.

  26. Robert Hauser says:

    Laffter…before you fault Protack on his spelling, you might want to check your own….it reeks from here to the far side of Hell with whatever you BEN smoking…or shooting….those who live in glass houses best not throw stones.

  27. William Christy says:

    Robert this will explain all you need to know about laffter:

    Undocumented immigrants in Delaware received an estimated $7 million under Medicaid programs for pregnant women and children under 19. A recent Pew Hispanic Center study calculated $52 million in additional costs to educate the children of undocumented immigrants in Delaware. This compares to a 2004 Federation for American Immigration Reform estimate of $53.8 million for Delaware to educate both undocumented immigrant children and the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. (The Delaware Department of Education has no statistics.)

    Yet those who support Delaware’s immigrant population, legal and undocumented, cite experiences that cast a very different light on the issue.

    “My experience with undocumented immigrants is that they come here simply to work, because they realize if they don’t work, they don’t eat,” says (laffter), a member of the board of (redacted), a Georgetown-based group that helps immigrants find employment, get education, and achieve self-sufficiency and citizenship.

    “The crimes they commit are ones of necessity,” laffter says. “Motor vehicle violations related to registration, licensing and insurance are all due to undocumented status. Being in this country without documentation makes it impossible to change that status under current law. So they must live with the constant risk of being caught for violations of law they’re unable to comply with in the first place.”

    As an analogy, laffter cites the looting that took place in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. “Would anyone want to see those people who looted stores for milk, food, diapers and other necessities for their survival prosecuted as criminals? It is out of necessity only that these other laws are being broken.”

    Further, laffter does not believe undocumented immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. “There’s been no rise in unemployment, and since reputable employers must pay either federally established minimum wages or those set by terms of immigrant work visas, there is no evidence that wages are being depressed.”

    Laffter also believes undocumented immigrants do not avail themselves of many social services or free medical assistance, for fear their status will come to the attention of authorities. “My experience is that most undocumented immigrants will pay cash for emergency room services,” laffter says.

    This is laffters mindset in their own words. Laffters just one of the RLWNJ’s that are a cancer eating away our nation and society.

  28. anon says:

    Okay, Mr. Hauser, fantastic. But before I go, can you please yell “GET OFF MY LAWN!” one time in your angriest crank voice? Please?

  29. Frank Knotts says:

    Okay, I have stayed out of this one because originally I was simply asking for a yes or no answer to whether the Sheriff was racist of not a racist.
    The thread has taken a nasty turn as they are want to do sometimes.
    Mr. Hauser seems to be unable to control his anger, thus demonstrating the angry person syndrome that is destroying the conservative movement.
    Mr. Hauser, if I may, and I may since it is my post, you stated that this conversation is about illegal immigration.
    Well no sir it wasn’t, it was about whether or not using racial profiling makes the Sheriff a racist. Personally I understand profiling, we do it all the time.
    The FBI has a whole section just to determine a profile of a killer. Example! Most serial killers are white males in their late twenties to late forties, of average to above average intelligence.
    Now if a LEO uses this profile and stops white males in the areas surrounding the area of the killings, does this make them racist? Not in my opinion.
    I also agree that we have made far too many laws of far too great of complexity for the citizens to know and understand.
    James Madison once said,
    “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood”.
    So you see even in the days of our Founding it was understood that government could grow too far.
    That being said, Madison also said,
    “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
    One could easily see Sheriff Arpaio’s tactics and your view of his “sworn duty” to uphold the “LAW” as “HE” sees fit, as him using the immigration issue to create the guise of a foreign threat, to create internment camps for people he chooses to label a threat.
    Your Oath Keeper attitude leads me to believe that you feel that certain law enforcement agencies have the duty to self interpret the law as they see fit, yet you hold others who do the same thing in contempt.
    This is where you lose me and others.
    You in one moment speak of your high respect of the U.S. Constitution, yet have no respect for the Judicial Branch of which was created by the very document you attest to holding in such regard.
    Also you, like so many who behave as you do, confuse the Constitution with law.
    The Constitution is not law, it is a governing document for the nation. It instructs the branches of government on how to create laws. each branch has its role to play.
    Now while I do not agree with every decision of SCOTUS, one has to recognize their position in the game.
    If we did not have SCOTUS who would judge the constitutionality of laws passed? Each individual county sheriff? Wouldn’t that make for a fun time traveling across this vast nation?
    Mr. Hauser you come across not as a law abiding citizen, nor even a disillusioned citizen, you come across as either a anarchist or a person who has some romantic view of rebellion.
    And Dave if you are going to list the tin foil hat club’s hit parade then you forgot that George W. Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans.

  30. Dave says:

    I was focusing on Robert’s beliefs. I didn’t think he bought into that one. The big one I didn’t list is that 9-11 was an inside job and I didn’t list that one as well.

  31. Laffter says:

    Ummmmm BEN…..hahah really

    That’s your lead off? Too funny….

  32. Laffter says:

    Really Christy!0? Did you attribute all,that to me

    Hmmmmmm, I’m smarter and more prolific than I even knew, had no idea I wrote all,that

    But then , after checking with the cops in New Hampshire, they also told me you were never a LEO up there, not even fish and wild life, but they did have some other fun stuff to say

    See, I checked , and your name is mud there, like it is here.

    You might want to check with DIAC about the file they have on you

    But of course, someone who quotes FAIR, A listed hate group by the Southern poverty law center , would have an FBI file- and not a nice one either.

    Don’t you ever wonder how I know what I know, if, according to you I am a nobody?

    And Frank and Dave ….you win for today!

  33. Laffter says:

    Does anyone else find it weird how obsessed Christy is with me?
    Wo I am and what I say and do?

    I find it amazing…… And not flattering at all
    But then again, anything ever happens …..

    Well, he’s toast

  34. Robert Hauser says:

    You field this one, Dave….”9/11 was an inside job”…yep, I knew that sooner or later that one would drop right into the gear box. Ok…I am not going to protract this, Dave, why don’t you just drop the “T” word, huh? Go on—you are teetering right on the brink of doing it and I wish you would…just come on out and call me a “twoofer”, go on. You would just swing from the chandeliers in hysterical ecstasy over that one, wouldn’t you? Do it, Dave, because just as soon as that word flees your keyboard, it will tell me all I will ever need to know about you and that is that honestly searching for the truth and being willing to demand it from some bloat-gutted self-servant-at-public-expense at threat of prosecution has never been a family value in your one-dimensional life. In that case, you have my blessings: go finish whatever excuse for a life you have right to its end which will prove to be as oblivious-by-proud-tradition as whatever went before it. Milton William Cooper probably said it best—I suffer not fools.

  35. Robert Hauser says:

    And as for you, Frank…I did your lengthy paragraph the honor of reading it through and now find myself in the same predicament that I have numerous times before with many others in this country: I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony—just simply don’t know where to begin. Now one way to go about this would be to go through your entire post, sentence by sentence—bullet point wise and rip you to smithereens and end up with something that practically runs into book length…and I have no intention of doing that as, since you have unmistakably IDed yourself as what used to be called a “kosherCONservative” —-in times more recent you would be known as a neoconjobber. In so many words you are not worth the attempt any more than Dave…but I have to at least address a modicum of your absurdities: you state that the Constitution is not law……I can now see what I am dealing with….have you ever read it? No, I am not being facetious…at least no more than clearly warranted by the heat of the moment…over 70% of all law enforcement officials in the United States have never read the Constitution…yet were required by law to swear an oath to uphold and defend same. Brilliant…just freaking brilliant…for all such, I have some stunning ocean-front property in Eastern Wyoming I will let go for five k per acre—it’s a damned steal; just sign the dotted line, send me the five and it’s all yours. Am I a real guy or WTF? I have met fourth year law students that have never once in their lives read the Constitution…and probably never will…yet some colossal DIMWIT like you would trust them with defen ding your rights in our current JU$T U$ system. Jesus….Jesus…Jesus.
    Read ARTICLE V of the United States Constitution, Frank…what does it say? It says “This Constitution and all laws in pursuit thereof (in earlier versions it said ‘and that much of Olde English CommonLaw not in conflict therewith…’) SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THIS LAND…” It’s like the time-honored bar sign: WHAT PART OF NO DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND? L….A….W…..

  36. Robert Hauser says:

    Correction to the above…ARTICLE VI

  37. William Christy says:

    Laffter …….. let me get this straight according to you I’m a nobody yet you’ve spent the last 15 months of your life stalking, harassing and attempting to intimidate me in any forum/blog I post in.

    Laffter……if what you post is true, YOU have admitted to illegally using your position to target a United States citizen by running NICS, FBI queries for no lawful purpose.

    New Hampshire

  38. Frank Knotts says:

    Well Mr. Hauser, thank you for blessing me by reading my paragraph.
    But you like so many who claim to love the Constitution have a tendency to love a select phrase of a few words that serve your purpose. or you simply have no grasp of the language with which it was written. You see you can’t simply take a few words out of context and base your argument upon them, you have to read the Article in its entirety.
    What Article VI actually says is,
    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
    Let’s start with this, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;”, okay if you have any grasp of the English language then you know that the definition of the word “Pursuance” is, “the carrying out or pursuing of an action, plan, etc.”
    So you see the Founders were saying that the Constitution was the plan and the laws that “shall be made in Pursuance thereof”, would be the “supreme Law of the land”.
    Next we have, “and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”, you see Mr. Hauser, again, the Constitution is the guide post by which we are governed, it is the instruction manual for government. You are right in calling it law only in the sense that it is the law for government, but it is the guarantee of Liberty for the individual citizen.
    What Article VI is saying in my opinion is that any law made within the boundaries of the Constitution will be the supreme Law of the land.
    Oh and to answer your question, yes I have read it a few times and not just to find a phrase that fits my agenda, but to actually understand the meaning of the entire document.

  39. Dave says:

    “drop the “T” word,”

    I don’t think I know what the “T” word is. How about enlightening me?

    “searching for the truth and being willing to demand it from some bloat-gutted self-servant-at-public-expense at threat of prosecution has never been a family value”

    My family values, include such things as providing for my family; sharing their pain and joys; supporting my family in their endeavors; things like that. You have some odd “family values.” Then again, I don’t know your definition of a family or even your definition of a value.

    I can’t imagine what you are bitter about, but bitterness is definitely at work here. Lashing out is often a response to some great dissatisfaction or disappointment. Maybe because the world has passed you by. I don’t know. I don’t actually care. The only interest I have is in the psychological or physiological aspects of someone who exhibits a disconnection from reality.

  40. Frank Knotts says:

    I am going to ask both Laffter and Mr. Christy to take their personal issues outside please. These accusations have no place here. And Delaware Right and myself have no interest at this time about them. I thank both parties for respecting this request and hope that further action is not needed.

  41. Laffter says:

    I think you mean to refer to NCIC. I would have no idea what NICS is. I think you might watch too much TV

    Maybe you wish now that MOM did grip that aspirin tighter- see comments like that come back to bite you- don’t they billy boy?

    you have claimed I have so many positions it’s hard to tell anymore which one you might be referring to….

    But then again ,someone who falsely claims to be law enforcement would make an error like that that

    And before you start running your mouth you best remember all the times you falsely claimed to be law emforcemt

    And it was LOTS of time, verbally and in writing

    As for stalking ? – honey I have a LIST of people YOU Facebook messaged, emailed, and wrote to who wanted nothing to do with you. Yet you would not stop even after being told to

    Quie frankly, you are known to be unstable both back in New Hampshire and here

    Now- be a big Boy and go away

  42. Laffter says:

    Whoops. Apologies Frank

    Will do , no problem- just cross posted with you and saw UR request

    Thanks again for deleting the profanity earlier

    I will simply ignore him from here on out

  43. William Christy says:

    The National Instant Criminal Background Check System- NCIS. NCIS is used for every gun purchase made at an FFL dealer under the Brady Bill.

  44. Just another guy says:

    NCIS is the acronym for Navel Criminal Investigative Service, seen nightly on your local TV stations… NCIC is the acronym for the National Crime Information Center, which performs the instant background checks for purchases of firearms. Know your alphabet soup please before stating pseudo facts.

  45. Robert Hauser says:

    You didn’t read my post carefully, did you, Dave?….had you done so, you would have experienced no problem seeing that the “T”-word is “twoofer” or “truther” — a derogatory term used against anyone who has a normal (except for America) and natural human curiosity and the courage to not blindly accept an “explanation” simply because it is handed down by some “authority” figure, mountebank or otherwise. And as regards “family values”, they do consist, at least in Western Hemisphere civilized countries, far more than just keeping food on the table—-look, David, you enjoy being a shallow-minded, flag-waving professional ignoramus, i.e. brain-dead yuppie, and equating that with “patriotism” all swaddled up in your own sense of material well-being and ready, willing and able to meekly surrender your rights to be “safe from terrorism” , that’s fine. But the very last thing you ever want to do when it hits the fan in this country and you suffer the results is to come to me for sympathy. That’s it, Dave, I suffer not fools, you can post for your own entertainment from here on.

  46. Robert Hauser says:

    And you, Frank….whom do you think you are trying to con?….some kind of country hay-seed that fell off the back of a produce truck? By engaging as you are in the kind of either totally deceitful or unbelievably vacuous semantic antics you did in your last post, you are dredging the bottom of the lowest pilpulling —-if you are not aware of what “pilpulling” is, I suggest you research it for yourself, obviously you are by no means above it and it is one of the reasons this country is in the execrable state it now finds itself in….and is about what could be expected out of a pseudo-journalist of the current cash-crop in America.
    Here you accuse me of cherry-picking certain sentences out of the Constitution that suit my needs or to substantiate my credos…see? this is typical of people like you: of course I am going to do that just the same as you or anyone else and you know it and I know it. Certainly I am under no more obligation to quote an entire document from cover to cover when a sentence or two or even a phrase is all that is necessary in my best judgement so don’t try to pull that “selective interpretation” or “cherry-picking” routine as it’s not going to fly, Frank—I left out the part about treaties as they were entirely irrelevant to the issue and resorted to ellipses as any other writer would, so don’t try to kid me with this “oh, you are just picking select sentences and using them out of context”—that is pure road apples, Frank. If anyone on this thread needs to review use of the English language it is you who posture yourself as some kind of “columnist”.
    YOU read ARTICLE VI again and do it more honestly this go-around if that isn’t asking too much: it couldn’t be more plain despite your cheap and sleazy attempts to make it otherwise: “….this Constitution, AND (caps mine) the Laws that shall be made …shall be the supreme Law of the Land”. It does not say “the Laws that shall be made in Pursuit of this Constitution or thereby guided” or words to that effect. That is just consummately low-life semantic antics, my fine-plumaged scribbler, and is about the kind of dime-store sophistry you’d expect to see in a small claims court or “Judge Judy” episode on trash TV. I’m out of here, Frank, as I have far more creative things to do with my life than waste it on perjure-nalists like you, your specious column and the kind of brain-dead yuppies it apparently attracts.

  47. Laffter says:

    Back on topic – this is an interesting read regarding the enforcing if immigration laws on state levels and the results of states that went restrictionist

  48. anon says:

    Hauser is one of those people who uses a thesaurus when he writes in order to sound smarter than he actually is. This guy is an entire bucket of pure awesomeness. The entertainment value alone is worth the price of admission.

  49. fightingbluehen says:

    I’m sort of a “do unto others” guy, so when I think of what they would do to us if we were in their country illegally, It doesn’t bother me so much when I hear what Sheriff Arpaio is doing.

  50. Dave says:

    @anon, I’ll have to agree about Robert. Somewhat of a strange character. It’s as if he spent considerable time crafting a long string of adjectives together to form a all encompassing insult. It was entertaining.

  51. Dave says:

    @fbh who said “I’m sort of a “do unto others” guy, ”

    I can understand that sentiment, but then I remind myself that as an American I have this (arrogant) attitude that we are supposed to be the better nation, the better people.

    Regardless, I’m more of a “rule of law” person than anything. No one should be criticized for following the law (including laws against discrimination mind you). If the law is a bad law, change it, don’t ignore it. Our democratic enterprise is undermined when laws are simply ignored because they are inconvenient or detrimental. Our system has remedies for those things and legislatures (including Congress) have the authority to make things right.

    The rule of law is the only thing that stands between democracy and anarchy, civilization and chaos. I’m not an absolutist on this, the law provides those in authority with discretionary powers and they can and should use them, but when you have large issues that radically affect human lives and the nations economy, well that’s the kind of thing that cries out for legislative remedy.

  52. Laffter says:


    Somehow I don’t see be headings becoming par for the course , even in AZ

    just because other countries act the way they do, does not mean we have to follow suit.

    We don’t behead people, hang gay folks, shoot or stone women for real or imagined slights to their families, nor shoot our citizens en masse and dump them into mass graves…..

    I think we like to believe that we set the standard for human and humane treatment of others, and hope that other nations follow our lead. A least for the most part.

  53. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    The answer to the question posed in my opinion is YES. Racist for sure.

    Angus Berger makes another non lie comment that begs the comment….HUH? The point being what? Four people file a lawsuit when in reality it takes only one. Four people stand up and say enough is enough and a judge agrees.

    Maybe people are beginning to see that AZ ‘Sheriff’ for what the Sussex ‘Sheriff’ is when push comes to shove. Times are changing all over the world.

  54. Frank Knotts says:

    Well Mr. Hauser, I have often been criticized for my opinions, I have had people deflect from the original topic to avoid answering a question, and I have had the angry responses that usually indicate that the person has no answer. But you have gone into rare territory, you incorporated all the above to demonstrate that you haven’ t a clue about what you have chosen to talk about.
    Just because you reiterate your point does not mean that you have clarified your point and certainly does not mean that you are correct. Just because you criticize me and label me wrong does not make it so. As for treating you as a “hay seed”? well you said it not me.
    You did not simply leave out sections of the article, you left out words from sentences. You and your ilk swear to defend the Constitution, yet have no problem butchering it for your own selfish agendas. And still you did not defend your interpretation of the Article, you simply denounced mine. You must have scored a lot of points in the debate club with those tactics.
    Your selective reading of the Constitution reminds me of the people who memorize verses from the Bible because they play into their needs, yet have never read the Bible in its entirety. The Constitution must be read in its entirety to be understood because articles and amendments are affected by prior and latter articles and amendments. But of course a person of your intelligence understands this, you simply choose to ignore it to serve your agenda. which in this case would be to foment anger and hate.
    Dave, the reason your attitude has no meaning to the Hausers of the world, is because to implement your view of how the system should work, you first have to win elections, and the Hausers of the world will never win elections because they continue to pare down their base with loyalty oaths and purity test . They don’t seek to actually win elections because then their conspiracy theories would not sound as good to the uninformed. They seek only to destroy, not to build, they seek to tear down, not to build, they seek to shrink a party, not to grow one.
    Our Founders would have no respect for the bastardizing of the Constitution that these people practice everyday in the name of the Constitution.
    As for me being anything close to a journalist? No way. I am a blogger, and blogging is just graffiti with punctuation!

  55. fightingbluehen says:

    ‘Somehow I don’t see be headings becoming par for the course’

    Cut me a break. Within reason right? We aren’t savages.

  56. Laffter says:

    I know FBH, but that is happening in Mexico to the illegal immigrants from countries to the south that are passing thru

    The cartels are using them to mules and if they refuse the punishment is DEATH, and usually a brutal one

    They have unearthed many mass graves where Guatemalans and Brazilians , all illegal immigrants have been found murdered and dumped

    That IS, how they are treated there, and it’s awful. The government looks the other way

    I was using hyperbole to make a point, but Dave said the same thing, only better.

    We should be humane- but having a woman , handcuffed and leg chained to the gurney while she is in labor and giving birth is not only illegal but brutal. Her crime, crossing the border without permission , which technically is de minimus for a Mexican citizen who is within 100 miles of the border. So, it’s less than jaywalking

    Pretty severe treatment for the offense.

    And it really happened……case was litigated.

  57. Robert Hauser says:

    See, there you went again, Frank, just now proving my point…and thank you. You didn’t refute a solitary word of what I said…merely regurgitated your very hackneyed and quite false accusation that I am “selectively interpreting” the Constitution as if it were something like the bible that can be “interpreted” 50,000 different ways by 50,000 different people and yet, it is not in any way akin. The Constitution was written by men who had more knowledge of the Classics under each of their little fingernails than you would have in your entire anatomy and ingeniously put together in the best way humanly possible to, quite unlike the so called “holy book”, say what it means and mean what it says, so that double-speak addicts like you would have no grounds to falsely accuse someone of “cherry picking” or taking out of context.

    You call yourself a “conservative” yet you have never even close to delineated what it is you seek to “conserve” when in truth, you wouldn’t make a fly speck on the rear windshield of a true conservative back when the word meant something. You are nothing but a cheap, flag-waving, ego bloated pilpuller, Frank, and a far from impressive one at that…you really haven’t refuted a solitary damned thing I’ve said here, merely sunk to the level of ad hominem “all the Hausers in the world blahblahblah” like you are addressing a present day kindergarten class and fancy yourself to be impressing anyone with enough brains to leave a grease mark on a fresh linen tablecloth. Finally, thank you for your gratuitous admission that you are no more than a lowly nickel-a-boxcar-full blogger and not any excuse for a media journalist….even of the latter day cash crop of such practically kidnapped out of the cradle or out of an h.s. classroom at the latest.

  58. Robert Hauser says:

    No, but you soon will….for quite a few years, America has already “lead the world” in incarceration for victimless so-called “crimes”—-today as we speak, the Graveyard of the Once Free throws more of its own citizens in prison and jail for victimless “crimes” than any other nation on earth very much including the former Soviet regime when extant…today I could dump you out of a plane anywhere in California’s airspace and no matter where you hit the ground it would never be more than fifty miles from a major State or federal penal institution. And with, if you will kindly excuse me, the latte-hued Kenyan-spawned bastard son of a self-hating white-trash self-hating porn queen and a deported communist rat, look for beheadings and far worse atrocities soon to be coming to your neighborhood. But I suppose I should not be squandering my time pointing that out to those still walking in circles flat-footed, dumb-struck and starry-eyed with their thumbs in their mouths in drug-stupored ecstacy over “America’s first black” prez.

    By another’s faults, the wise man learns;
    His own, the fool as well.
    Heeding neither counsel the American earns
    His rightful place in Hell…
    —-Robt John Spittler

  59. Laffter says:

    “the latte-hued Kenyan-spawned bastard son of a self-hating white-trash self-hating porn queen and a deported communist rat, look for beheadings and far worse atrocities soon to be coming to your neighborhood”

    Wow, now THAT is what i would call a purple passage….
    I take it you are not a fan of President Barak Obama?

    Lets look at this passage:

    Latte- hued , that would depend on how much milk you like in your coffee- for most folks latte- hued is rather an attractive color, tanning salon business is booming.

    Kenyan-spawned- whould that be a reference to his fathers nationality or that you think he was born IN Kenya? Not quite clear on that point.

    As far as his mother- ummmm, self- hating – could you kindly provide some evidence
    Of this psychological issue and the origins of the self-hate. Or is it just that you think any white person that dilutes the race by marrying into another race is automatically self- hating? Rather racist idealology, and harkens back to a rather shameful era of both european and American history.

    As far as the porn- queen reference ……and self-hating twice – quite the screed you had going there. What movies might she be seen in. By all accounts she was a pretty average american wife and mother

    As to the bastard part, well, they were married……so as he was born inside the bounds of wedlock, bastard would be not quite the right adjective here.

    I think you will probably self destruct, or be in the loomey bin long before beheadings ever come to our neighborhoods any time soon

    But hey, your rants are rather entertaining…..and all those sdjectives strung together.
    Have not seen writing quite that bad since my second graders had to count words…..

  60. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Laffter…You are HOOT !!
    Robert Hauser, Little Willie Christy and Angus Berger should form an outward looking circle and and let Moseley call the beat from VA. By forming the circle they could see who’s coming to get them from every direction except UP and that could well be where the lightning bolt will strike them.

    Or maybe one of their paranoid buddies from that other site that can’t see out of the left eye falling from the plane mentioned by Hauser? I love this entertainment blog!!

    Hauser is on a roll. He’s hating everything and everyone. Rock his world and the guys in the white jackets will be coming to get him soon and that’s probably long overdue.

  61. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Hauser, what part of your previous comment was I to refute? That you think I am beneath pond scum? That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. You do seem to think a lot of yourself and assume that everyone else is beneath you, example, you assume that I have not read the classics, believe it or not I am fairly well read, unlike you I have taken the time to read thing beyond how to field strip an M-16. And with this statement, ” quite unlike the so called “holy book”, you demonstrate that you believe yourself above God, good luck with that my friend.
    As for your opinion that the Constitution is beyond the need of interpretation? Well this merely demonstrates that you have neither the intelligence nor the inclination to understand that for the document to continue to be useful in our modern time, there is a need to interpret what the underlying intention was.
    You say for instance, that unlike the Bible there is no need for interpretation of the Constitution, your words, “say what it means and mean what it says”.
    So are we to assume that you believe that we are to take the Constitution literally? That there is no need to adapt it to our modern world? That every word written is to be held to without even so much as a question of “what if the Founders were writing the Constitution today?”
    If we follow the thinking of Mr. Hauser, that there is no need to use our brains when reading the Constitution, then no woman can ever be elected to the office of the President without an amendment to the Constitution.
    Just a few examples from Article 2 Section 1,
    “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services” The word “HIS”.
    “nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected”, the word “HE”.
    “and he shall not receive ”
    “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation”
    Article 2 Section 2,
    ” he may require the Opinion”
    ” and he shall have Power to Grant”
    “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”
    ” and he shall nominate”
    Now I could go on but you get the idea, well everyone but Mr. Hauser gets the idea I suppose.
    So Mr. Hauser, can we elect a woman to the office of the president without an amendment or not?
    Now as for your racist hate filled rant against the current president, well I would like to thank you, to thank you for giving a perfect demonstration of what a complete ass sounds like when it opens wide and offers up what always comes from an ass.
    I have no love for Pres. Obama, his politics are antipodal to mine, however I respect the office. When we have people such as yourself running around making such ignorant statements it only serves to show the world how divided we are, this does not serve the best interest of the nation.

  62. Robert Hauser says:

    You teach or taught second graders?….diploma-mill-run pedigogs like you are “teachers” in about the same sense that a woodpecker is a carpenter. The term “dumbing down” didn’t become household until about the late ’80s but the official practice was instituted in this country as far back as 1914—check out the book THE PUBLIC SCHOOL RACKET written in 1951. Lots of luck trying to find it but it is out there. I refer to the public fool system in this country as nationalized skull-rape and one of your creed—-going along to get along just like the other dead fish—would be most at home in such a menticidal scatosphere.

    Yes, Laffter, I sure as the Hell did use “self-hating” twice in the process of correcting a fat-finger extravaganza and neglected to delete one of the two after it disappeared behind the top margin of the text window. …and it goes without saying that you salivated gallons all over yourself in giggling delirium when you spotted it as well.

    As regards the term “latte” in reference to color, by general consensus , it refers to a shade of brown about midway between what is known as “cosmic latte” to almost pitch black—so now if you wish to pursue a protracted discussion of colorimetry, spectral power distribution, Planck’s Law of Black Body Radiation, color temperature and the RGB color matrix, I will be most happy to accommodate you and you will be way out of your league, I assure you. O-Dark-Zero’s skin pigmentation is latte and down South he would have been referred to like any other half-breed black or mulatto as a “high yellow”. End of discussion.
    Very astute observation, Laffter….Soetoro is not my favorite guy…gee whiz, Dick Tracy, what gave ya the clue? If my opinion of Barry Soetoro, your precious mackdaddy-in-thief, could be bottled like rot-gut beer, with one 12 ouncer, I could take out the entire city of Frisco clear down to bedrock and put the Gate at the bottom of the Bay in chunks as a throw-in bonus.
    You claim the tanning salon bizz is booming—I’ve heard the opposite and I’ve seen many roll it up for lack of clientele…what I do know is that a far bigger boom is the cancer clinic racket where Big Pharma’s faux “treatments” for skin cancer are mongered daily and like most such “treatments” in this country, not only fail to cure the disease or anything like it but kill the patient before the cancer has a chance. So much for that.
    Considering that O-Dark-Zero’s entire life history is being treated like the Manhattan Project and nearly as much money is being expended upon keeping it that way, and given that was eminently disqualified from any office of public trust from the beginning, why go to the time and effort to Photoshop or otherwise transpose the head and face of Stanley Ann Dunham onto the nude carcass of Marcy Moore as apparent Obots like you would have us believe? You can google the photos for yourself and see how “normal” the woman was—perfectly “normal” life style according to you, right? Sells out her own race twice, has two diverces…first hub deserts her and her jiggabreed brat son…..yes, Laffter, all perfectly “normal” isn’t. For “new age” America of today, all very normal, I am sure. Soetoro was born out of wedlock because Obama Sr. was married to a Kenyan woman named Kezi and deserted her, too, just as he did Dunham. Therefore since his marriage to Dunham was a fraud, it was void ab initio and therefore your precious mackdaddy was born out of wedlock and therefore a bastard. Q.E.D. Soetoro is an unmitigated bastard in every sense of the term including biological. Face it. It is pretty obvious that Ovomit’s mother had no use for her own race even if you restrict yourself to what Wikipedia says, and was willing to dilute” as you yourself put it, her own race. If those skin pix aren’t transpositions or otherwise as fraudulent as the current “prez”, then it is pretty obvious she at the very least didn’t have much self esteem and that’s just a door or two down the street from self-hatred.
    People who blindly accept what Wikipedia says about things would probably go to Hell to adopt a penguin. You have to research far beyond Wikipedia….rat poison is 98% perfectly edible corn meal…it’s that 2%.
    You speak of loony-bins, Laffter…you will never see the inside of one for the simple reason that in order to suffer from a mental ailment, one must first be possessed of a mentality. As regards my writing…you are probably the last to pose yourself as any excuse for a literary critic: after seeing most of your posts, it is most evident that you are parsecs removed from being any kind of Tolstoy or Edward Dumas or stand the chances of a gingerbread angel in a West Oakland rat hole of ever being. And in closing I will say that I genuinely feel sorry for the kids that are cursed to have to sit in your classroom and get themselves skull raped every day…and I do put out this fervent prayer that each and every one of their parents has the good sense to jerk their kids out of what ever zombie farm you teach at and instruct their kids at home as I did. So long…teach…have yourself an interesting day while the short supply lasts.

  63. Laffter says:

    To quote Dickens

    ” please sir, may I have some more?”

    ROTFLMAO- look, it’s a real live racist!

    Where do you keep your pointy white hood?

    “Sells out her own race twice, has two diverces…first hub deserts her and her jiggabreed brat son”

    Yup, love the exposure…..of course I have neither delusions of,grandeur like you nor do not hold myself up as a “writer”

    Blogging is to literature what graffiti is to the Mona Lisa

    I just post comments on a blog- like Frank says, verbal graffiti.

    There’s a lawyer inVA, GOES by name of Jon Moseley, if you are not acquainted you should try to,hook up.

    And there’s another blog in DE That could use your verbal expertise and magical prose…they seem to be a little lacking in writers lately, you should fit right in

    It’s called Delaware Politics- give it a whirl, the land of misfit toys is always looking for more malcontents

    But do bring your meds when you go. 😉

  64. Robert Hauser says:

    Yeah, whatever, “teach”….as seismic a shock to you as this may be, some of us don’t live on Big Pharma toxins (“meds”) such as you have seen fit to do for most of your life I would venture.

  65. Robert Hauser says:

    Frank….like too many people in America, you never advanced beyond hebephrenia and now you are just being downright childishly stupid….
    Read ARTICLE V of the Constitution—it provides for orderly change (amendment) to the Constitution as and when the needs of the times clearly mandate. The Constitution is not an engineering document or a laboratory manual where things are done down to the nearest Angstrom for chrissakes, what in the Hell is the matter with you? It is a corpus juris and a freedom charter….no one is expected to comprehend the Constitution with some kind of National Bureau of Standards precision…any more than you have to carry a laser range finder in your car so as to make certain that you switch your turn signal on at exactly 100 feet before reaching an intersection…not a micron less, not a micron more. Now for your benefit, not that you or your equally retarded gopster friends, Laffter, Dave and anon on this thread are worthy of it, but kindly read and share the following…

    16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

    No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

    With that, I leave this thread for good after giving a juicy reply to Tux above; again, I suffer not fools.

  66. Robert Hauser says:

    Yo…Glutius Maximus….since you obviously are unfamiliar with what has been going on here and have yourself contributed worse than nada, why don’t you chill until you are far more conversant with the issues in controversy here? As far as your hallucination about my “hating everything and everybody” I truly believe the men in white will be snatching you off the street on sight and cramming you into a strait jacket long before me…you wouldn’t know a psychopath if he were swinging butt-naked from your chandelier, scratching his armpit with his free hand and dumping all over your dining table.

  67. Frank Knotts says:

    And Hauser once again deflects and avoids answering a direct question. Mr. Hauser makes a statement in his own comment that I then pose a question of whether we can elect a woman as president without an amendment to the Constitution, since Mr. Hauser believes that there is no need to interpret the document and since the document clearly intended only males to be elected president by the constant use of the words, he, him, and his.
    Mr. Hauser has a lot of big words in his mouth, but doesn’t seem to have much understanding in his head.
    He clearly is a person who hates people simply based on their skin color and the fact that they may have a heritage that is not 100% Aryan.
    Of course a person such as Mr. Hauser has researched his heritage and knows for a fact that there is not a single drop of non-Aryan blood in his past. He believes that he can hide his lack of intelligence behind big words and demeaning insults, when in fact he lights it with a neon sign by doing those things, and his racism is the flashing vacancy sign over his intellect.

  68. waterpirate says:

    ” island of misfit toys ” ROFLMAO!!!! I use that line alot myself. Too funny

  69. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Conversant? I don’t need anymore info than what I see from your rants and hatred of all that isn’t what you wish. Tuxamus ‘Glutius’ Maximus sees you for what you are and that’s nothing more than a coward that can’t face facts, or pony up the info requested by others here.

  70. Robert Hauser says:

    Yes, Waterthief, ROFLMAO, I’m sure you do use it quite a bit yourself as like most of the social debris that clings to Knotts, you don’t have it in you to come up with anything original. So go play in your toy square-rigger and rediscover the island.
    Tux, you are about as hollow as a soap bubble and have absolutely nothing to add here—you are just a hobo in the conversation and here for the entertainment because you got bored rotting what’s left of whatever brain you might of had out on daytime trash TV.
    And you—anything but Frank—haven’t the brass-clad bowel tract to accuse anyone about “deflecting” anything when about three times now you have failed or refused to answer my question as to what you self-proclaimed “conservatives” are supposedly “conserving”—oh, don’t even try it, Frank—don’t try to “deflect” my question by claiming that it is “silly” or impertinent: far from it; from other blogs of yours it is clear that you have been sucked up into the workings of the GOP = Gay Old Perverts. And you and I both know that the elephant that would be a horse’s pahdoo is divided more ways than a pie at the county fair. In so many words you are a confirmed, straight to the grave in blissful ignorance, gopster. So it is blindingly obvious that you yourself are flatly incapable of furnishing anyone with a straight answer about much of anything but merely repeating, like a cracked record, that I am. And you are a cracked record, Frank, like many such polbuffs—just as cracked as the Liberty Bell.
    Here is an example of why the GOP is going to tube out in a blaze of inglory with barnacles like you hanging from it: you claim that I hold myself to be “above” or “better than” God…now where in all of the above exchange did I say that?….what statement did I make that could even be reasonably so construed by a rational person of sound and disposing mind and memory? I never once said that or anything like it, now did I?—YOU did. All I did, if you will recall, was refer disparagingly to the bible as the so-called “holy book” now didn’t I? Prior to 1938, the so-called “holy bible” had already been revised at least seventeen times since the alleged Ascension and, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, has suffered some 15,000 significant changes in its text….now that strikes me as an inordinate number of mutations in the supposedly “immutable” word of the Lord, don’t you think, Frank? No…I’ll answer my own question: you don’t think…and perhaps it is as well because if you did think, the results would be worse than disastrous.
    Finally, you got your thong all wadded up in a knot because, so you perceive, I “deflected” your question about a woman as prez and whether we could have one without completely rewriting the entire Constitution replacing all the “he”s and “hims” with “he, she or it” and “him, her or it” and you show just how stupid you really are—-ask yourself: was Hilarity Clinton, in all her sheer wretchedness, on the ticket back in ’08 or was she not? Did everybody have to scramble into their chairs to completely rewrite the Constitution just so her name could be there? YOU answer the question, Frank…see if you can keep it straight. You have been a pretty spectacular failure doing it so far.

  71. Laffter says:

    Just thought I would share this tidbit with our more literary- minded friend :

    “The difference between journalism and literature is that journalism is unreadable and literature is not read”

    Oscar Wilde

    Wonder what he would think about blogging …..or Hauser’s rants for that matter?

  72. Dave says:

    Glutius Maximus
    Hilarity Clinton
    anything but Frank

    Aside from the fact that it’s juvenile. I wonder how long it takes to come up with these nicknames or does it come naturally and is a product of arrested development?

  73. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Tuxamus ‘Glutius/Taxi Maxi’ Maximus offered his name for use here so that it could evoke abuse from those that have nothing better to offer than throw sticks and stones, offer and allow lies to be told while he plays in the light of day yet stays in the shadows to remain cool. Tuxamus Maximus is a retired hunter/killer that was forced into retirement due to stupidity of others trying to rid themselves of rodents and this is a good, and fun, place to enjoy his retirement with some rodents and others that hunt rodents!
    Does this help? if not read the following:
    Tuxamus Maximus’s name is as useful as ‘Dave’. Tuxamus Maximus knows a few ‘Dave’s’ as well and they all look the same to him. ‘Dave’ is pretty common while Tuxamus Maximus is unique….kinda like WaterPirate yet not the stature of Hilary Clinton.

  74. Dave says:

    I think you missed the point. The point wasn’t the name/nickname, it was Robert’s bastardization of the name/nickname. “Waterpirate” was transmongrifed into “Waterthief” as an insult. Ditto yours. You post as “Tuxamus Maximus.”

    Unless I’m mistaken, you read my comment as if I was declaring your nickname juvenile. What I was saying is the bastardization of your nickname in order to insult you was juvenile.

  75. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Tuxamus Maximus understands Dave now but could care less what fun is made of his name. He has fun with others as well (see below) but has yet to come up with one for the AB that is ‘worthy’…besides isn’t this a free for all blog site sans vulgarities?

    Tuxamus Maximus now rethinks and considers “Dave” a reasonable man but now wants to nap on the desk.

    Tuxamus Maximus may well dream of the times when he hunted the ‘Hauser’s’, Angus Berger’s and Lil Willie Crispy’s that slithered in his realm.

    Tuxamus Maximus likes to play by the ‘rules’ on this free for all entertaining site.

    Tuxamus Maximus has never uttered a vulgarity in his life.

  76. Robert Hauser says:

    Instead of spending the rest of your life wondering…why not throw a seance tonight and invite Dave, Tux, Frank and all the rest of his resident sycophants and ask him?

  77. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    to Robert Hauser:
    Tuxamus Maximus plans on watching a 3D movie on his 3D TV this evening with the humans and the grandson. But that sounds like an interesting night.

    Tuxamus Maximus ‘wonders’ if we can we the seance at your house? Better yet…in your sandbox? Tuxamus Maximus would like to leave a LARGE gift in your sandbox.

    Tuxamus Maximus ‘wonders’ can we bring our wives? You may not feel that they have an opinion worth consideration and if at your home we would play by your rules! One would hope you provide indoor plumbing at least for the wives. If your friends will attend can we bring Lysol to keep the stench to a minimum?

    Tuxamus Maximus is rolling over and taking another nap now.

  78. waterpirate says:

    It is a funny thing about peoples perceptions.

    I take being called a water thief as a compliment, and am flattered that my skills as a sailor are well enough known that even R.H. took time to point them out.

    No is my answer to the question. I will not pass judgement on a LEO that is working, where I am not living. They obviously have issues that we do not, and the reality is that profileing is a part of human nature, that LEO’s are not imune to.

Got something to say? Go for it!