Posted on 12/25/2011 7:48:56 PM PST by Smokeyblue
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona's Maricopa County has been under fire for his immigration law-enforcement policies from protesters who simply object to what he's doing, in a lawsuit alleging his department profiles on race, and from the federal government which has canceled agreements with his department to check for violators who arrive at his jail.
Now he's wondering just how much of that displeasure from Washington is being generated by the perceived White House alarm over his Cold Case Posse investigation checking out suspicions raised by area tea-party officials that Barack Obama may use or try to use fraudulent documents to be on the 2012 presidential ballot in Arizona.
In an interview with WND, the sheriff said, "I am an elected sheriff. I took an oath of office to enforce all the laws of the state of Arizona. I take that very seriously. I do report to the people."
But he said he's considering the possibility there are political connections to the circumstances that have developed.
"The investigation, I'm not sure that's part of the puzzle or not. I wonder why they are going after me," he said. "I'm a little suspicious of what's going on. The reason I'm suspicious is that the president mentioned me recently."
He was talking about Barack Obama's recent discussion with some Hispanic journalists, and the question one raised about the government's investigation of Arpaio regarding his civil-rights record.
"The president didn't like the way I enforce 1070 (a state law regarding immigration)," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
>>
I’m withholding judgment for now, but if Sheriff Arpaio did actually succeed in indubitably exposing the fraud that put the Fraud in Chief into our the people’s house, well then a small, unprepossessing shrine might be in order. ;)
>>
If Joe gets rid of President Zero, I will personally build a full size replica of the Taj Mahal out in the desert with his likeness fifty feet high on the front.
“(Mooshell having a cow, according to The Globe)’
Yeah, but if it’s in the globe, they prolly mean it literally.
Well, I bet you get some abuse in reply to that remark. Can't say that I am very sympathetic. I don't agree with you, but I certainly would not restrict your right to post your opinion.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your sentiments are authentic and your "divided loyalty" (I use that term for lack of more info on your views) is genuine.
Corruption, huh? Without an example? A single instance? In the face of studies (recent ones! -- what, about 2 years ago?) by US government investigatory bodies that ruled there were no civil rights abuses during the Maricopa County Sheriff's department procedures?
Hmm... perhaps you were not aware of that report. Of course, you could site the more recent (last year & this year) actions by the DOJ to withdraw their support for the state of Arizona and the Sheriff's Dept of Maricopa county. Seems the DOJ simply doesn't care for Arizona law, the federally granted right that Arizona used to have -- and other states still have-- to enforce federal law, and the citizen action groups that object to essentially allowing drug cartels to pwn portions of the soveriegn US. (I am speaking of the signs that warn US citizens to stay out of portions of Arizona known to be subject to smuggling-related violence.)
I don't know Sheriff Joe personally. "Blowing smoke" is a little different than "corrupt to the core". Just using your words here, because you seem to equate the two.
If making convicted criminals earn their food and housing, making them wear pink underwear, not allowing them access to the finest gymnasiums, recreation rooms and hospitality centers is "blowing smoke", then I like what I hear. All of this through the news, though, so what do I know?
Speaking of the Obama's DOJ (you said you are not a fan)... did you mean the one that you do NOT equate to corrupt law enforcement in your post? Because I just thought I might mention a few things I have read about (again from the news, so I have limited understanding). For instance: their refusal to pursue civil rights cases against whites, their dropping of charges on an open-and-shut Muslim Brotherhood voter intimidation case about to go to trial, their state-sponsored terrorism smuggling of guns into Mexico, their desire to try a 9-11 terrorist in NYC, their inability to obey congressional investigation subpoena's, their more recently revealed (by the NY Times no less!) money laundering activities, etc, etc. Is that the one you are referring to? Cuz I gotta say, perhaps the "most transparent administration in history" is looking a little bit hypocritical.
How do you feel about the rule of law, equally applied? And the "draining of the swamp" that is Washinton DC corruption (Pelosi quote)?
Just wondering if you are thinking your position out thoroughly or simply can't explain your inconsistencies.
nice.
Does freerepublic.com have an "ignore" button for gruts and (gay) BladeBryan's? LOL
Someone posted this yesterday, it says it all, and I already used it twice (but I think once it was pulled - what’s wrong with the mods these days????!!!):
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
Thomas Paine
Like him a lot. Wish he had remained in law enforcement, but he’s been out of it for a long time now.
People fawn over him. I’ve seen it. We’ve all seen it. That’s what I call Idolizing. I stand by this. Many my conservative base do hold him too highly.
Now it is exposed how Chicago politics operates and had Obama put front and center. My wish is that many of the congresspersons eye FR now and then and do some soul searching for ethical efforts but I seriously doubt they have good ethical thoughts.
Okay, you owe me a monitor.
/s
There is truth in that statement, however.
"If the investigation of Arpaio’s civil rights abuses was motivated by the Sheriff’s embrace of birtherism, how did the feds manage to start first?"
Notice how any form of the word "alleged" is conspicuously absent from that statement? That the sheriff is guilty of "civil rights abuses" is a foregone conclusion, based on the wording. No conservative giving Sheriff Arpaio even a shred of a benefit of any doubt would word that statement, that way. If I were a kitten, I'd give the Blade a sniff or two.
These three names must have some paper trail:
1. Harrison Bounel. No one has ever explained why that name is connected to Obamas house or Michelle Obama.
2. Soebarkah. His mother calls him Soebarkah on an official US document, indicating he lost his citizenship.
3. Barry Soetoro. He is listed in schools using this name.
Good point. Blade is nothing but a full-on 100% unadulterated leftist POS troll, his posting history is clear. Why he has not been banned I will never know.
Did I not see where Blade had previously been outed as a reincarnation of Jamese777?
I believe I did.
How pathetic is it, to be zotted only to slink back in under another name?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.