On January 19th, 2005, I watched a program on CNN entitled, "Defending America".  The program aired during the Anderson Cooper 360 show.  In it, CNN’s Drew Griffin interviewed Michael Touhey the American Airlines ticket agent who sold tickets to Mohammed Atta and his henchman.

The most compelling part of the show, to me, was that the first thing Mr. Touhey thought when Atta approached his counter was, "if these two don't look like terrorists, I don't know who does" (paraphrased).  Yet, despite his "gut feeling", he issued tickets to both.  In fact, he said that his second thought was of shame for judging based on his "gut feeling" and their appearance.

Thus, he faced a “catch-22” situation that has been imposed by our country's incessant quest for political correctness and tolerance.  If he questions their motives, he is likely to face a reprimand for "racially profiling."  If he issues tickets, he runs the risk of letting two individuals who may be terrorists, on board the plane.  Unfortunately for hundreds of people that day, he erred on the side of political correctness.

Of course Mr. Touhey would take it all back were he given the chance today.  So this brings us to the question, if hindsight is 20-20 would he be correct in calling the authorities to check out the two men?  Of course, the rational among us emphatically scream, "YES!"  However, if this is the case, why do we still not allow our law enforcement officers to do the same?

The answer is because the "deafening minority" is louder than the "silent majority".  Anytime there is the appearance of a law enforcement officer singling out a minority, this relatively small minority of people (or groups like National Council of the Race, ACLU, or MALDEF) cry foul.

Is it safe to assume then, that those opposed to allowing law enforcement officers to use their experience (aka “gut feelings”) and profiling techniques to question individuals would still want Mr. Touhey to issue the tickets?  Doing otherwise would be to "racially profile" according to these same people.

Which way do we want it? We cannot have it both ways.  Do we continue to cower in the face of the "deafening minority," or use "common sense" profiling to thwart crimes in our nation?

I liken the situation to the inland immigration enforcement operations (aka "sweeps") that occurred in June of 2004 in southern California.  When, once again, the "deafening minority" cried foul to theUndersecretary of DHS, Asa Hutchinson ,and the sweeps were stopped, a human rights commission was convened in Riverside, CA to discuss the appropriate methods for our law enforcement officers to use when identifying potential illegal aliens (or other criminals for that matter).  At that meeting, I was present at that commission and reasoned with the commission that the techniques used by immigration officials should be similar to those of vice officers when picking up prostitutes.

If the law enforcement officers see a group of scantily-clad women (a subjective assessment) at night approaching cars that stop by the side of the road, in an area known for prostitution, their reasonable conclusion is that these women are prostitutes, and they act accordingly.  Likewise, if immigration officers see a bunch of men in work clothes (another subjective assessment) on the side of the road approaching pick-up trucks as they come by and leaving in those trucks, their reasonable conclusion is that these men are illegal aliens and should be able to act as such.

It is entirely possible for the women to be tourists asking for directions, just like it is possible for the men to be American citizens looking for work.  With the presumption that there can always be doubt about these conclusions, why can vice make these judgment calls and immigration and local law enforcement officials not be allowed to do so?

We need our public officials to reassure the law enforcement community that they will be defended by their federal, state and local governments, should a group like "The Race", ACLU, or MALDEF bring suit against them for using "common sense" profiling.  We need to begin standing up for each other when we see someone wrongly labeled as a “racist” with the not-so-hidden-agenda of silencing them.  We cannot continue to let the “deafening minority” dictate the security—or lack thereof--of our country and usurp our laws to suit their purpose.

Patriots:

            The next four years may be a very difficult time for our great nation if either of the two main parties have their way.  In both cases, “comprehensive immigration reform” (e.g. Amnesty) will be the order of the day.  The FIRE Coalition, along with many others, was successful at fending off the 2007 amnesty attempt through our on-the-ground education of federal legislators in the weeks leading up to the final vote, and we may need to lead a similar effort in the future.

            However, we are not content to sit and wait for the inevitable.  All politics is local, and it is in the cities and counties that the effects if the illegal alien invasion are felt first hand by our families and our communities.  The open borders lobby (and their puppets in our government) would have you believe that illegal immigration is a federal matter and must be reserved for the federal government.  It works in their favor if we believe this because it is easier to attempt to influence (“buy off”) 545 federal officials than thousands of state and local officials.  We know, however, that the illegal alien invasion is far from just a federal responsibility.

The state and local authorities have as much a responsibility to protect their citizens as the federal government; even more so since they are closest to the crimes and can react with more speed and flexibility.  Though cities and counties may not be able to enforce the border or deport illegal aliens, they can certainly seize the initiative and take defensive and offensive measures to protect their citizens.  City and county councils can pass ordinances.  States can pass new laws.  But in all cases, creativity is key.

We have already set in motion our plans to engage our state and local teams with their respective elected officials—and we want you to be a part of this effort.  The FIRE Coalition has had great success partnering with state and local officials across the country:  holding National Security Conferences, Workshops, Training Sessions, and more.   These events are designed to bring creative and previously-tested solutions to the table for local and state leaders to deploy in their jurisdictions.

However you choose to stay involved in this critical fight to defend our nation’s sovereignty, know that we will provide whatever support we can to aid you.  Please consider participating in one of our events or if you would like to schedule something similar, let us know and we can help you with ideas.

Thank you for your continued efforts in service to your country and please don’t hesitate to call on us to assist you in any way.

Keep up the fight!

                                                                                                            Jason Mrochek

                                                                                                            Co-founder & Executive Director