Ron Paul Institute: Donald Trump Says “Stop and Frisk Works,” Wants to Expand the Police State

| |

Editor’s Note: And Hillary will do the same.

clinton trump mask

In his main stage speech at the Republican National Convention in July, Rudy Giuliani, a former New York City mayor and current advisor to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, predicted, “What I did for New York, Donald Trump Will do for America.” That does seem to accurately state Trump’s intention, at least as far as expanding Giuliani’s stop-and-frisk police activity across the country is concerned.

On Friday, NBC10 reporter Lauren Mayk asked Trump what police in Philadelphia “are not doing that they could be doing” for dealing with “gun violence,” Trump’s response included asserting that “stop-and-frisk,” which Trump credits to Giuliani, “is a very positive thing.” This is not just some one-off statement by Trump regarding stop-and-frisk. In July of 2013, Trump posted the following message on Twitter:

Adhyl Polanco, a New York City police whistle-blower, has provided a disturbing picture of the stop-and-frisk quota system employed by the New York City Police Department. Polanco explained in a 2013 Democracy Now interview that 600,000 of the around 700,000 police-initiated stop-and-frisk incidents the previous year would not have occurred but for improper encouragement by the city government, police department, and police union. The quota system, he says, even would result, near the end of a work shift, in some police just arresting “whoever’s at the corner.”

Trump’s statement in July that he would reinstate “in a heartbeat” the full flow of military weapons from the United States government to state and local police that President Barack Obama had limited fits right in with Trump’s promotion of stop-and-frisk. Together the two positions provide a window on how Trump would deal with police powers as president. In a nutshell, Trump favors expanding police power in America. As Trump told host Bill O’Reilly in a Fox News interview this month, Trump’s solution to the crime problem in Chicago is for cops in that city to be “very much tougher” than they are now.

Trump’s desire to expand police power extends beyond state and local cops to US government cops as well. In a Wednesday speech in Phoenix, Arizona, Trump declared his intention to “triple the number of [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] deportation officers” and “hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents,” a nearly one-third increase. Some people may object that all these new cops will be focused on countering illegal immigration, but, as Robert Wenzel cautions in a Target Liberty article regarding Trump’s Arizona speech, “It is really difficult to believe that a person who is so willing to expand the Federal police state in one sector is going to be more cautious in other areas.”

Also, remember that police patrolling the borders or enforcing immigration laws across America can surveil, harass, detain, search, injure, and even kill illegal immigrants and American citizens alike. With a president who cheers the New York City model of stop-and-frisk, who wants to remove limits on providing US military equipment to police, and who calls for police to be “very much tougher,” there is little reason to expect that his administration will place a high priority on restraining the liberty-endangering actions US government police may take.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by The Ron Paul Institute of ronpaulinstitute.org.

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home. The Institute mobilizes colleagues and collaborators of Dr. Paul’s to participate in a broad coalition to educate and advocate for fundamental changes in our foreign and domestic policy.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • pharmerdavid

    Trump enthusiastically supports senator ‘insane McCain’ too, which indicates he is a the right-wing version of neocon, while Shillary Clinton is the left-wing version. Besides those two insane candidates, another possibility is Trump could be ‘assassinated’ and replaced by Jeb Bush, who is neocon maximus. The likeliest possibility though, is the election will be cancelled, and Obama will be the last president of the USA…

    • Frank

      If events occurred where Obama suspended the elections or declares some kind of “emergency,” don’t you think the gloves would come off from the Republican (party) side, or would the R party go along with it? The right string of events could result in some level of national Civil war, or the concerted effort to dethrone Obama, as well as the treasonous Congress, via any means at the Peoples’ disposal.

      • Mary

        If Obama suspends the election, the GOP establishment will go along with it since they too prefer Hitlery over Trump. There is only ONE party…the globalist party. The globalist party does not want their NWO agenda derailed. Hence, they don’t want Trump. However, “we the people” want Trump but the elitists don’t care what we want. With Hitlery’s health spiraling downward, the globalists have a liability. Canceling the election is the obvious alternative but, you are right to suggest that the people will rise up and a potential civil war will break out…American Revolution – The Sequel.

        • Frank

          A colleague of mine suggested that the Dems could, as a last-ditch emergency solution if Hillary is unable to continue for any reason, throw Biden into her nomination slot. Biden, appearing harmless and innocent comparatively to Trump, could steal the election just because he’s not as “unfavorable” – regardless of his limited exposure to equal scrutiny during the run-up campaigning. Biden’s presidency would not just be “lame duck” all the way around, but lacking assertiveness and purpose would lead the US further down the road of ruin.

          • Mary

            I’m not sure of the protocol in a case like this in which the candidate dies or withdraws before the election but I would think that Bernie Sanders would fill the spot since he was actually a running candidate. Not sure though.

        • g.johnon

          mary, as a “card carrying member” of WE THE PEOPLE, I would appreciate it if you did not tell me what I want; because trump damn sure aint it.
          rest of your post is pretty good though.

          • Mary

            I was not referring to YOU personally in my previous post. I was speaking generically. The majority of folks in America want Trump or he wouldn’t be the nominee. If you don’t want Trump, that’s your prerogative. I damn sure don’t want the Hildebeast.

          • g.johnon

            mary, I did not take your previous post as a personal reference to me. I am wondering how you measure what WE THE PEOPLE really want. while a good portion of the masses (sheeple) like trump, and that could be a good sign that they are, at least, waking up to Hillary, WE THE PEEPS want our constitutional republic back; and trump does not look like the man for that job at all.
            NONE OF THE ABOVE IN 2016!

    • Tom Sawyer

      He don’t endorse mclame. Remember the whole thing about Maine being a pow and Trump saying that really don’t make him a hero.

      • David E

        A hero is someone who takes a risk they could avoid in order to help/save others. It is most often used incorrectly. Trump is right though; merely being a POW doesn’t make someone a hero. There are many things that could be done in the circumstance of being a POW that could be heroic. But being a POW might mean the POW was passed out drunk during the battle and thus got captured. That of course is as far from heroic as you can get. I have no idea how McCain became a POW. It could have been something heroic caused him to become a POW. But being a POW in itself is not heroic.

  • nlightened2

    Of course ‘stop and frisk’ works. This is just following in the footsteps of some of the most effective police forces in the world like the Russian KGB or Hitlers secret police. But do we wish to live in fear every time we go outside for a little ‘safety’?

    • Chongtlewis1

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj306d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !mj306d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash306DigitalLifeGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj306d:….,….

  • GAZOO

    Trump is damn fool to take this tack.

    • The_Ipcress_File

      The fool on the left or the fool on the right…

      • GAZOO

  • Frank

    While Trump’s intentions are good, to protect Americans, he is getting an education in the actual realities and logistics of implementing the grandiose plans that he has outlined – hence his “softening” on some Immigration enforcement/deportation positions. The deeper he gets the more he is learning about the realities of enforcing the laws that have been ignored for years – and what its going to take to correct the situation.

    Stop and Frisk is not an expansion of the “Police State.” This practice has been/was employed for DECADES, selectively and effectively, based upon Reasonable Suspicion, in notoriously high crime areas – to the benefit and safety of the community at-large. Stop and Frisk has been proven to be one of the most effective and least intrusive methods of deterring street crime. Stop and Frisk targets BEHAVIOR, regardless of race or any other demographic identifier. The fact is that street crime has gone back up in areas where the use of Stop and Frisk was stopped. While we still have some semblance of the Rule of Law, if you’re not doing anything illegal you really shouldn’t have anything to worry about. There are flaws in every system and (largely feigned) outrage at the “intrusiveness” of such practices, but the overwhelming fact, based upon historic reporting, is that Stop and Frisk is effective when used as designed.

    I don’t engage in or demonstrate BEHAVIOR that would attract police attention and I don’t “live in fear” of being illegally targeted by police, but I definitely want the police to have the support of the community to contact and, if warranted, frisk a suspicious person (based upon Reasonable Suspicion) in my neighborhood.

    Comparing our current police organizations to the KGB or Stasi is irrational and paranoid – we’ve got a long way to go – – until Hillary is elected, that is, then we’ll see Federal Agents and local police co-opted into political enforcement forces. When that happens, the prestige and respect for those that enforce our laws will be undermined and the police, out of desperation and self-preservation, will likely begin to react more harshly – after having been ordered not to interfere (until things are out of control). I fully anticipate that Class and Race wars will ensue if Hillary is elected – justifying harsher police responses, higher taxes, and potentially martial law in certain areas…then we’ll see a KGB/FSB type of organization materialize.

    • Don’tTrust’em

      “Targets behavior ” sounds like word magic. It’s humanly impossible for a cop not to judge a person on what they look like. You might be behaving like a upstanding citizen standing on the corner wearing a blue or red hoodie with some Jordan’s on enjoying the day, till a cop drives by and noticed your wearing gang colors. Then jumps out and harasses you for looking a certain way in a neighborhood . You giving cops to much credit for have sound judgment, their job only works if they profile.

      • Frank

        I’m not being argumentative, but Profiling is bias based upon experience. EVERYBODY “profiles” other people based upon personal biases and perceptions, whether we want to admit it or not. The important thing is how aware we are and how we respond or act pursuant to our own biases. You provided a key element in police “profiling” criminal behavior with “looking a certain way in a neighborhood.” Wearing those colors or styles in one neighborhood won’t get the same reaction in other neighborhoods – the history of the location/area/neighborhood plays into the “profile” of the behavior. All things are relative to their surroundings, in one way or another.

        • Don’tTrust’em

          Nor am I being argumentative. We are need of a major revamp of the training police officers recive. The people policing these neighborhoods should be more envolved in those communities. They should be more helpful and less threatening. Just about every cop I’ve ever ran into has immedatly used intimidation tactics, vilolated my constitutional rights, the list goes on. So yes, my faith in this system is next to nothing, if any at all. I’m a college educated white male, which stereotypically wouldn’t usually take this stance, so it’s hard for others to understand, not that you don’t.
          I don’t trust cops and to give them more power just makes me cringe.

          • Frank

            I’ve encountered a-hole cops myself, but have also had good experiences, too. I support the idea that cops be more personally engaged in the communities that they serve, not just a “response force” that shows up to “fix” a problem and then get back in their cars and drive away.
            I recently read an article where a (White) female cop took the time to go buy a little (Black) girl some much-needed school supplies – and somebody had the nerve to complain about this interaction(!) What the hell?! This is exactly the kind of personal service that will create a better police-citizen environment.
            Police departments are stretched by budget constraints, etc. etc. so the “Beat Cop” is a thing of the past, but there are now officers designated as “primary” to work certain areas in an attempt to try and re-establish this kind of link to the community. Some members of my neighborhood invited police officers to come and talk to residents about area crime and crime prevention – and got a reasonable turn-out but nowhere near 100%, which is to be expected.
            Something that just occurred to me is that like criminal behavior, anonymity facilitates bad behavior by cops. If you know who you are being confronted by, and can identify them or know them, they tend to act more civil. Anonymity provides a cloak of protection – for anybody. When this cloak is used to escape accountability for bad behavior, its time to “out” the identity of the perpetrator, criminal or cop.

          • Don’tTrust’em

            I agree with a lot of what you said. The system needs to be fixed. and these communities affected by crime and drugs need to be at the negotiation table when the people in the suites make the decision on their behalf. The lack of accountability , with no help from the media has driven the wedge between cops and communities. 10 years ago this might have been a fixable but I’m worried that the people frustrations , with the snails pace of this broken system is at it’s breaking point or may even already hit the breaking point.

          • WinstonSmithy

            The “system” is too many laws and too many “crimes” with no victims. But you realize it is working as designed, right? Also, much of this “wedge” you describe is being ginned up by those in, or close to, power in order to keep people divided, scared, and begging for further expansion the police state. To keep you “safe”, of course.

          • Don’tTrust’em

            Yes , I understand. And what Trump is talking about doing, with more police , more border patrol, more military spending, more domestic spying , without first fixing the real problem is only going to throw gas on what is an already 5 alarm fire.

    • Don’tTrust’em

      Race wars will ensue if Donald is elected. Don’t think for a second that 30+million illegals are going to be happy to be deported. Plus, all the trigger happy fools that can’t wait to have the green light to round up any illegals they know of. Which will lead to some white boy stoping every Mexican he sees to find out if their here leagally or not, which will have consequences. We are all in for something regardless of who’s elected, in my opinion.

    • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

      “… if you’re not doing anything illegal you really shouldn’t have anything to worry about.”

      Spoken like a true mindless bootlicking fuckwit.
      You’re an embarrassment, and an enemy of those who stand for Liberty and the principles under which the U. S. was founded.

      Amendment IV

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      What part of that inviolable right authorizes a warrantless search based on nothing but the speculation of a substandard intellect?

      • Frank

        Rev, I should have known that you were lurking out there in the shadows, waiting to demonstrate your infantile, self-aggrandizing criticisms and name calling. Can you EVER state a counter-point without denigrating everybody else? Your history of comments shows that it’s unlikely. In addition to that, you’re (AGAIN) talking out your ass because you know nothing about me or, apparently, the definition of a Search – as you refer to with the 4th Amendment.

        A Stop and Frisk, in its intended application, is not a search, “warrantless” or otherwise, as most of you closet Liberals would otherwise like to believe and bully the rest of us into accepting as fact.

        For your edification:
        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stop+and+Frisk

        • WinstonSmithy

          A stop and frisk isn’t a search? The second sentence in your link calls it such then spends 5 paragraphs parsing the way lawyers do. Pay a lawyer enough money and he will argue up is down and black is white. The Rev’s got your number on this one.

          • Frank

            Semantics – whatever makes you feel good.
            “Unlike a full search, a frisk is generally limited to a patting down of the outer clothing. If the officer feels what seems to be a weapon, the officer may then reach inside the person’s clothing. If no weapon is felt, the search may not intrude further than the outer clothing.”

          • WinstonSmithy

            Yeah, semantics. Such as where in the Constitution is the federal gov’t’s enumerated power to wage a war on (some) drugs? Or any other number of usurpations. The fact that the plain language of the Constitution de facto no longer controls is no consolation. Just wait till they frisk you, your spouse, your kid, etc. for “looking at them the wrong way” or maybe posting on that “conspiracy site” the Daily Sheeple. But it can’t happen to you, right?

          • Frank

            I fully expect it to happen to me, at some point, if our nation keeps going down the path that it is now. But, unlike others, I won’t be surprised or outwardly outraged and stupid enough to react and give an excuse for them violate any of my Rights beyond a cursory detention and frisk – however that may be justified.

          • Smarty

            Sorry Frank. I’m with Winston and the Reverend on this one. The 4th A doesn’t allow for frisking, searching, or ball grabbing. They need to keep their fucking hands off of us. Everyone has to eat a little crow every now and then. Make sure to put some seasoning salt on yours….it will taste much better…

          • Frank

            Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I will continue to support the use of Stop and Frisk, as intended, within the specified limits, when and where legally warranted, to keep law-abiding people a little bit safer – even if they get inconvenienced once in a while. When applied by ethical police with the honest intention of stopping a crime in progress, it is reasonable. I object to its use when police abuse their power and use it indiscriminately and not as intended or defined. I don’t consider this allowance to be a submission to police abuse, a “police state,” or surrendering my Liberty (or yours), but a willingness to acknowledge that there is a “gray area” that we can either use, or abdicate, when trying to keep ourselves from becoming victims of the predators among us.
            Good discussion. Have a nice day.

        • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

          Take your closet liberal and stick it up your ass with the rest of your regressive lefty bullshit.

          frisk
          frisk/
          verb

          1. (of a police officer or other official) pass the hands over (someone) in a search for hidden weapons, drugs, or other items.

          Gee. . . looks like the definition of frisk agrees with me, and disagrees with your imbecilic attempt to redefine an obvious term.

          Get an education, slackjaw. That’s the easiest way to keep me from using factual descriptions of your idiocy.

          • Frank

            Do you need a towel, Rev, because you obviously worked yourself into an angry fit and spittled upon yourself?
            If you’re going to define a Search with no room for variance or level of Intrusiveness, yes, you’re right, in your perfect Rev world. But REALITY doesn’t work that way, you know it, but won’t admit it.

            Later, Rev, I’m done listening to your abusive desperation.

  • Don’tTrust’em

    More spying, more cops, more border patrol, more military spending, hmmm! Trump needs to say weather he is for or against the Patriot Act but something tells me he’s for it.

    • Frank

      Consider this: the development and implementation of the Patriot Act was a reaction and a “solution” for problems that could have been avoided – had existing laws been enforced for years leading up to 9/11. The People tolerated the gradual non-enforcement of laws, not wanting to be labeled as “intolerant” of other cultures (xenophobic) AND not realizing that not holding a standard would eventually result in an attack upon the US by people who had been allowed/invited into the US and then allowed to stay – in violation of the terms of their entry. Like many government “solutions,” their usually worse than the original problem.

  • Tom Sawyer

    Have any of you been to Philadelphia? It’s a crime infested crap hole something needs to be done to clean it up.

    • WinstonSmithy

      Sorta like DC without the global reach, I guess.

    • ExecutorOffice

      Hey, what you doing outside of Hannibal?

  • landy fincannon

    The inherit intrusiveness of ” malum prohibitum ” laws , seems to be overlooked. What form of law is being enforced by stop and frisk ? Clearly Admiralty law is being implemented. Get the gold fringe off the flag and a lot of this goes away

  • ExecutorOffice

    Lesser of two evils, nukes or taxes, guns/no guns, Obongo takeover, 666 mark of da beast, vaccines with glysophate, sky is falling, Fed Reserve is the devil, your transmission is slipping, the toilet tank burst at 4:36am, I’m down to 6,000 rounds, ….
    when will it end???

    • g.johnon

      not until WE end it.

  • pharmerdavid

    You are likely correct. Although it sounded like an enthusiastic endorsement, that was likely just for political reasons. As for McCain being a POW “hero” – that is the opposite is the truth. McCain was a traitor who recited communist propaganda for the enemy, and was given special treatment while incarcerated – supposedly they even furnished a ‘pleasure girl’ for him. Then there was the dangerous stunt he pulled on the aircraft carrier, which caused a fire killing and injuring many of his cremates. McCain was subsequently evacuated from the carrier by helicopter, because his crew mates wanted to lynch him. He is an obvious globalist-shill, and is married to a Bronfman – the Canadian family with close ties to the House of Rothschild. I still think Trump is insane though, as is his opponent, and Obama too – all of them are shills for the globalist-banksters. There is no political solution, nor can we fight against the NWO and win. The only solution is to end our support of the pyramids-of-pyramids, which will cause it to collapse like a house of cards. Become self-sufficient for water, food/medicine, and energy, and work together cooperatively with neighbors to help create a better world. We should all be farmers, and overgrow the NWO with cooperation and Love!

    • g.johnon

      excellent post pharmer, but I do not agree that they cannot be fought.

  • g.johnon

    soros, inc. is owned by Rothschild money and banking llc.
    you know, the nice folks who fuck the world for profit everywhere all the time. stop looking at the tools and start paying attention to the carpenter.

  • g.johnon

    hitler was pretty good at speaking the “truth” too.
    Obama did not create isis, his boss “Rothschild” did.
    we really need to learn who are the players and who are the tools.