Sheriff Joe Arpaio Kicks Lawless Obama's Ass on FOX 06 25 2012

Originally posted by snarky412
And especially with this being election year and all the problems with the current administration, why is Apaio getting more attention from the media then Obama himself??.

The only place I see Arpaio mentioned lately is on ATS. I think you are delusional. Care you correct me?

I am not defending the sheriff merely stating the difference of MEDIA coverage between him and the current administration's scandals. And he's not the one running for re-election of POTUS.

Really, what are you talking about? Where are you seeing all this media coverage?

reply to post by Xcalibur254


And I will reiterate once again....

I'm not defending him or the charges against him but some those are rather old and to me, this is rehashed news that is not as important as the matters going on in the White House today.

He's not the one running for president....

But the media is focused more on him than what they should be ...... the Man in charge of our country and his problems are of more importance to me. Maybe not to you guys but I would rather hear about the 2 men that want to run our country, not some sheriff in charge of a county that's elected there by the people.

The MSM will not cover any thing negative on the prez., instead they spend most their time and energy on other people that are not as significant as the POTUS.

The tanking economy, high unemployment, uncontrollable spending, misuse of funds, F&F, etc....
These are the issues I want the MSM to cover but instead, every one has to harp on a sheriff that doesn't have any thing to do with running this country.

No, I'm not excusing the sheriff but it's time to let the system do it's job where he is concerned and the MSM needs to focus on the priorities at hand..... the White House.

Both guys are wrong, yes, and both should be held responsible. Yes.....

But there is more at stake with the presidency then there is as a sheriff.

So why the biased news coverage??? That's all I'm asking, other than the obvious....

Payback for digging into the pres. background, maybe?? But he's not the one running for pres., big difference.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


The other night there was thread about "tent city" and the homeless.

Of course, a couple of us referred to you know, Sheriff Joe's tent city.

Naturally the poster was like no, that's not what i'm talking about even though that's what he had pictured.

I like to do research, so I did. I look up different ways for "homeless in tents" homeless people etc,...
But what popped up most, even though I had "homeless" was more links to the damn Sheriff's tent city. In other words, a majority of the links, regardless of homeless people, links for him out numbered the ones I was looking for.

Needles to say, I found what I was looking for but I was like, what is up with that? To me I found it annoying. The controversy over the sheriff's tent city is old news, but it's in your face like if it was something new.

If you think about it, he didn't get near the press coverage until he started his own investigation into the pres. background.

Maybe he's like Eric Holder...... might as well make the best of a bad situation.

If the news is there hounding him, what can he do? Might as well have your say I guess.

I bet the media would back off if he dropped his relentless investigation on Obama.

This being election year and all, there's no telling what red flags will be thrown around to distract the people.

reply to post by habitforming


Where do you think these threads derive from?

The News......

Just click onto the links provided in the threads.... and there's your news source.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by snarky412

 

So, lets understand your logic.

If Sheriff Joe violates the constitution and steals tax payer money it's ok but if Obama does it then it's somehow worse?

Such a hypocritical mindset. Apaio would be the same exact type of president as Obama based off his record as a sheriff.

This shows that you all could careless about the constitution or being corrupt as long as it suits your agenda.

edit on 27-6-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

One is POTUS, one is not. Neither one should violate the constitution but seems they both do.

The NDAA that the pres. promised he would not sign, he did, even though parts of it were deemed "unconstitutional".
For a president to think it's okay to detain citizens indefinitely for no reason other than suspicion with no trial, IS unconstitutional.

Indefinite detention blocked

A federal court issued an order blocking the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA for American citizens after finding it unconstitutional. On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others[23], US District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the NDAA 2012 violates the 1st and 5th Amendments. Issuing a preliminary injunction prevents the US government from enforcing section 1021 of the NDAA's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by US Congress.[24][25][26][27][28]

Judge Forrest was requested by the Obama administration to undo her ruling.[29] In a footnote of the request, the Administration claimed "The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit".[30]

In an opinion and order[31] filed June 6, 2012, Judge Forrest clarified her statement, saying that her injunction applies not just to the named plaintiffs in the suit, contrary to government's narrow interpretation. She wrote, “Put more bluntly, the May 16 order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court — or by Congress...This order should eliminate any doubt as to the May 16 order’s scope”. The detention provision is not blocked for any persons connected to the September 11 attacks.[29]

[edit]States calling for ban on indefinite detention Nine states have introduced bills aiming to adjust or repeal the detainment provisions of the 2012 NDAA.[32] Most recently Rhode Island passed a resolution calling on Congress to repeal Sections 1021 and 1022.[33]

.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012


I don't believe in any one violating the constitution but this beats any thing I've ever seen.

American and international reactions

Section 1021 and 1022 have been called a violation of constitutional principles and of the Bill of Rights.[44] Internationally, the UK-based newspaper The Guardian has described the legislation as allowing indefinite detention "without trial [of] American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay;"[45] Al Jazeera has written that the Act "gives the US military the option to detain US citizens suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial, indefinitely."[46] The official Russian international radio broadcasting service Voice of Russia has been highly critical of the legislation, writing that under its authority "the US military will have the power to detain Americans suspected of involvement in terrorism without charge or trial and imprison them for an indefinite period of time;" it has furthermore written that "the most radical analysts are comparing the new law to the edicts of the 'Third Reich' or 'Muslim tyrannies.'"[47] The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, The Center for Constitutional Rights, and The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times[48] and other news organizations.[49][50]

Yes, the Sheriff needs to be held accountable for any wrong doings, I agree.

But a President holds more power than a sheriff and should be held to the same measure.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Your operating on the premise that I actually care if he's corrupt or not, they're all corrupt in my opinion, he would actually be the lesser of 2 evils is what Im driving at.

You would defiantly see more action out of the man.

And thank you for calling me a moron, you must be the guy that ran off with my ex-wife....hows the blistering itch treating you?

Fact of the matter

Obama, by his own admission has a father who is not a US citizen and never has been. Admission is in his book, by biography.

Law at time of birth said he's not natural born according to constitution and therefore not eligible.

TPTB feared riots had this issue been addressed in 2008. Now he's known as such a screw-up I think his goose is cooked between this issue, Heathcare, Fast and Furious and his ineptness with the economy. Maybe Clinton said it best way back "its the economy stupid" that'll have all the rats run for the hills who've been running flak for this imposter.

Sign's are out there right now with so many in his party refusing to attend the convention, media next?, whistle blowers not far behind?

Obama is making GWB look like a saint in comparison when it comes to corruption and good ole boy networking, I am predicting a sudden crash and burn for this one once the truth is out.

All it takes to be a natural born citizen is to have at least one parent born on US soil.

And that's his mother. She was born in Wichita, Kansas, spent her childhood there, then lived in Hawaii for a long time, enough to get her degrees.

So even if he was born in KENYA, HE STILL WOULD BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BY LAW!

Which is a fact that you birthers ignore.

reply to post by Phoenix


The term natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution. As a result it is up to the courts to interpret the meaning. The authoritative and leading precedent is Lynch v. Clarke. The decision of this case stated that anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen. The nationality of Obama's father has no bearing as Obama was born in Hawaii.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
All it takes to be a natural born citizen is to have at least one parent born on US soil.

And that's his mother. She was born in Wichita, Kansas, spent her childhood there, then lived in Hawaii for a long time, enough to get her degrees.

So even if he was born in KENYA, HE STILL WOULD BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BY LAW!

Which is a fact that you birthers ignore.

That was not the law in 61' sorry you are mis-informed

reply to post by babybunnies


yea, thats the way they want you to look at - it severs thier purposes of making illegals have legal standing that way, why use the word illegal if no one is ever illegal. >?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Phoenix

 

The term natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution. As a result it is up to the courts to interpret the meaning. The authoritative and leading precedent is Lynch v. Clarke. The decision of this case stated that anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen. The nationality of Obama's father has no bearing as Obama was born in Hawaii.

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.

Obama father is not a Kenyan - I believe several researchers are attempting to gather DNA to prove this theory.

I'm just curious here, why do you people defend this impostor to the hilt when its so very obvious his history is dubious at best and full of holes and unaswered questions. I really am curious about that aspect. Seems no matter whats in question some here have to defend the indefensible.

Really would like a plausible answer to that and not pablum. What is it about this guy that makes you that way. The curiosity stems from knowing full well were the situation in reverse the bum would have been run out of office at tip of pitchfork, why is Obama different - explain!

Originally posted by 1BornPatriot
Obama father is not a Kenyan - I believe several researchers are attempting to gather DNA to prove this theory.

So that makes him an obvious liar who told untruth to gain office?

reply to post by 1BornPatriot
So now the New sheeple-herder is 'Sheriff Joe'',Utterly and immostionaly...Pathetic !

reply to post by Phoenix


Minor v. Happersett does not attempt to define the term natural born citizen. As it was dealing with voting rights they first had to determine whether or not Minor was a US citizen. In the decision the Justices specifically state they are not trying to define the term. They are merely determining whether or not Minor was a citizen and since she was born to two US citizens on US soil she clearly was. In Elk v. Wilkins the court's reasoning was that since Indian territory is technically an alien nation it does not count as US soil in terms of determining citizenship. The exact words of the court was that since Elk was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth he was not a US citizen. As for Osborn v. Bank of the United States I'm at a loss for seeing why it's even pertinent. On a quick perusal I don't see anything that has to do with citizenship.

Lynch v. Clarke on the other hand deals explicitly with defining the term natural born citizen. To quote the decision from that case:

Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.

This was upheld in In re Look Tin Sing, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and most recently in Perkins v. Elg which states in the decision that anyone born in the US is capable of holding the office of President even if they are raised in another country.

Originally posted by Phoenix
I'm just curious here, why do you people defend this impostor to the hilt when its so very obvious his history is dubious at best and full of holes and unaswered questions. I really am curious about that aspect. Seems no matter whats in question some here have to defend the indefensible.

Really would like a plausible answer to that and not pablum. What is it about this guy that makes you that way. The curiosity stems from knowing full well were the situation in reverse the bum would have been run out of office at tip of pitchfork, why is Obama different - explain!

edit on 27-6-2012 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2012 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)

The crickets are chirping - have I asked the unanswerable question here, WHY? not what.

reply to post by Phoenix


Yes, it was. It is you who are misinformed. It's called the Naturalization Act of 1790.

reply to post by Phoenix


That's just it. He's not different. He's gone through the same vetting process as every other Presidential candidate. He has the same records sealed as every other citizen of the United States. The motto of ATS is Deny Ignorance and this birther nonsense is as ignorant as it comes.