Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio 'Eligibility' Press Conference at 3pm ET, Live Thread
World Net Daily ^ | 01 March 2012

Posted on 03/01/2012 11:52:29 AM PST by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs

Sheriff Joe Arpaio's press conference concerning Obama's eligibility among other things is scheduled for 3pm Eastern time.

The event will be shown live at the source URL and possibly other networks. Any bombshells? We're about to find out! Discuss here!

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

KEYWORDS: arizona; birther; naturalborncitizen; obamaeligibility; sheriffarpaio; sheriffjoe; sherriffjoelive
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-352 next last
To: Lucky9teen

If you “visit” WND to get the report, you have to sign up to have it emailed to you.

That email “sign-up” also makes Google your homepage - and it will be the devil to get rid of.

The report arrivedf in email; is programmed to not allow it to be printed.

NOT pleased with WND.

141 posted on 03/01/2012 12:47:44 PM PST by GGMac ((lesson learned re Obie: parse every sentence, every word, every gesture, every photo))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tomkat

I saw that!!


Dude does an interview, then dies a couple hours later!!

142 posted on 03/01/2012 12:47:50 PM PST by djf (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

They have a perp suspect???? This is unbelievable. Not what I expected at all.

143 posted on 03/01/2012 12:48:14 PM PST by ponygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

The better take the “person of interest” into custody for his/her own protection.

144 posted on 03/01/2012 12:48:14 PM PST by Never on my watch (I'd rather light a candle than curse the flatulence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Well looks that way....hope what they discussed is known and protected by trusted patriots?

145 posted on 03/01/2012 12:48:30 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Yes. Amazing. It was done by phone. Probably Breitbart’s last interview.

146 posted on 03/01/2012 12:48:30 PM PST by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: caww

My thoughts exactly. This person of interest will be dead within 24 hours without protection.

147 posted on 03/01/2012 12:50:11 PM PST by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Perhaps if we knew ALL that Breitbart discovered last night with Arpaio we’d all have heart attacks too. This press conference is very upsetting. These are seasoned investigators who are calling it as they see it. The magnitude of the significance of this cannot be overstated. It’s downright historic.

148 posted on 03/01/2012 12:50:25 PM PST by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: NowApproachingMidnight
Person of Interested identified as the forger of the birth certificate, but not identified at the moment.

Thank God we have Sheriff Arpaio - one who hasn't been corrupted....

The County Sheriff:The Ultimate Check & Balance

When the United States of America was founded the framers spent arduous hours devising a Constitution that would protect future generations from tyranny and government criminality. A system of checks and balances was established to keep all government, especially at the federal level, from becoming too powerful and abusive.

The Bill of Rights was promulgated to augment the limitations previously placed against the government, to further insure that government would stay in its proper domain.

So, what happens when government does not obey its own constitution? What punishment is meted out to politicians who vote for and pass unconstitutional laws? What happens if they appoint unlawful bureaucracies or allow their agents to violate the rights of the American citizen? The answer to these questions is both astounding and lamentable; NOTHING!

Now the question becomes even greater; who will stop criminal and out-of-control government from killing, abusing, violating, robbing, and destroying its own people? Yes, believe it or not, there is an answer to this one. The duty to stop such criminality lies with the county sheriff. The question needs to be posed to each and every sheriff of these United States; will you stand against tyranny?

The office of sheriff has a long and noble history. It dates back over a thousand years and originated in England. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in America. He is the last line of defense for his citizens. He is the people's protector. He is the keeper of the peace, he is the guardian of liberty and the protector of rights. A vast majority of sheriffs will agree with all of this until they are asked to apply these principles of protection to federal criminals. Their backpeddling and excuses will be more plentiful than radar tickets and louder than sirens at doughnut time. Most of the unbelievers, who themselves have taken a solemn oath to "uphold and defend" the U S Constitution, will passionately and even apologetically exclaim that they have no authority or jurisdiction to tell federal agents to do anything, let alone stop them from victimizing local citizens. The truth and stark reality is that it's just the opposite; the sheriff has ultimate authority and law enforcement power within his jurisdiction. He is to protect and defend his citizens from all enemies, both "foreign and domestic."

Of course, there are those who will maintain that the feds have not and will not commit crimes against law-abiding citizens in this country, the IRS notwithstanding. For the sake of argument, let's just pretend that the government did nothing wrong at the Branch Davidian church in Waco or at Ruby Ridge, Idaho when citizens were killed. Those incidents have been debated and will be forever. However, the immutable truth about both tragedies remains that if the local sheriff had remained in charge of both incidents, not one person would have died, including federal agents, and the law would still have been enforced.

Despite the frequency or the severity of government abuses, if they were to happen in your county, would your sheriff intervene? Well, don't look now, but they are already occurring and some sheriffs have indeed taken very courageous stands against the feds coming in to their counties to "enforce" their laws. Cattle, lands, homes, bank accounts, cash, and even children have been seized and prisons filled all in the name of federal enforcement of EPA rules, The Endangered Species Act, IRS rules, (of which there are over 10 million pages) Forest Service and Dept. of the Interior technicalities and the list goes on and on. The sheriff of NYE County, Nevada stopped federal agents from seizing a rancher's cattle and even threatened to arrest the feds if they proceeded against his orders. Sheriffs in Wyoming have told the agents of all federal bureaus to check with them before serving any papers, making any arrests, or confiscating any property. Why? because they are doing their jobs that's why! It's just another way to provide checks and balances that ultimately protect and help citizens.

Criminality within the IRS has been well documented. Hearings about such crimes were held before congress in 1998. IRS employees testified of hundreds of crimes being committed against law-abiding citizens. Congress did nothing about it. They were too busy checking Monica Lewinsky's dress. The point remains, if any abuse occurs in your county by federal officials; does your sheriff have the guts and the authority to protect and defend you? Does that question not sound redundant? Is he not bound by oath to do just that?

Yes, he has the right and the duty to do so. In Mack/Printz v USA, the U S Supreme Court declared that the states or their political subdivisions, "are not subject to federal direction." The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States' Rights and local autonomy. In this ruling by the Supreme Court, some amazing principles were exposed regarding the lack of power and authority the federal government actually has. In fact, this is exactly the issue addressed by the court when Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, "...the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones."

Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs' suit in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined. The feds have their assignments within constitutional boundaries and the states have theirs, as well. Scalia also mentions this, "It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty" and that the states retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." (The Federalist # 39) Thus, the federal government has no more authority to compel the states or the counties to do anything, no more so than the Prime Minister of Canada has.

But what happens when the inevitable occurs; when the feds get too abusive and attempt to control every facet of our lives? The Mack/Printz decision answers this also. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution's structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." To quote Madison again Scalia writes, "Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." (The Federalist # 51) So the state governments are actually and literally charged with controlling the federal government. To do so is "one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty."

Yes, it is regrettable that a sheriff would be put in this position. The governor and the state legislature should be preventing federal invasions into the states and counties way before the sheriff, but if it comes to the sheriff, then he must take a firm stand. James Madison also said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So when the state legislatures go along to get along and are bought off by political cronyism or the disbursement of federal funds, then the sheriff becomes the ultimate check and balance.

It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and defend us from all enemies; foreign and domestic. When sheriffs are put in the quandary of choosing between enforcing statutes from vapid politicians or keeping their oaths of office, the path and choice is clear, "I solemnly swear or affirm, that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
149 posted on 03/01/2012 12:50:57 PM PST by Lucky9teen (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.~Thomas Jeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots
Wow, how sad for Breitbart his family and our country, he stuck his neck out for the truth.
150 posted on 03/01/2012 12:51:36 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource

I heard, that is really weird and need to take off my tin foil hat :(

151 posted on 03/01/2012 12:52:18 PM PST by GoCards (I am a Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource

And you know damn well the 0bama regime had Breitbart’s phone tapped and possibly even following him with agents.

152 posted on 03/01/2012 12:52:18 PM PST by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource
This person of interest will be dead within 24 hours without protection.

As Tom Hagan said in "The Godfather, pt.2" - "It will be as if she never existed"

153 posted on 03/01/2012 12:52:46 PM PST by Never on my watch (I'd rather light a candle than curse the flatulence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs


154 posted on 03/01/2012 12:52:55 PM PST by manic4organic (We won. Get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs

Arpaio’s closing remarks.
“We have a lot of media here. Probably some already inferred this inestigaiton is pointless, silly trite. I hope maybe you’ll have a change of opinion. If theses documents are forged, and we believe as a result of investigation there is enough to say probable cause that they are. I am not accusing the President of the United States of a crime. . . .

155 posted on 03/01/2012 12:53:20 PM PST by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource

no kidding - we’d like to see all of that, but do you really think we’re going to?

My point is that they’re using easily debinked “evidence” to prove their point - I wish that they had more by way of real evidence. Then we might have gotten more of what we wanted. This makes it look like a joke.

156 posted on 03/01/2012 12:53:37 PM PST by krobara18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

“and what do you think happened to the missing INS documents from the National Archives, that just happened to be from the first week of August 1961?”

Why are you asking me? I have no idea. I would guess that 0’s handlers stole them, but I’ll leave that to the investigators.

157 posted on 03/01/2012 12:53:57 PM PST by balls (0 lies like a Muslim (Google "taqiyya"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource
Mr. Corsi got to August 1 to August 7, those records disappeared from the microfm. Picked up on Aug 8 and continued on. We asked archives why this occurreed. To date they do not.

Didn't Nixon resign over a similar pertinent issue?

158 posted on 03/01/2012 12:55:33 PM PST by Fast Moving Angel (Newt's not a perfect candidate but Jesus isn't running this year. - shoff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: krobara18

Where do I go next? Ask for a bipartisan Congressional investigations. These are two alleged crimes, forgery and fraud. Those responsible, whoever they are, should be brought to justice. I don’t care who they are. If I’m being criticized for enforcing the law against felonies, that is wrong. I want to find out if there is forgery or fraud. my job and I’ll pursue it. If nothing comes out of this investigation, what we have learned, all of us have learned something over this, we need a better process to vet people running for President of the United States of America.

159 posted on 03/01/2012 12:56:08 PM PST by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource
The point is to create doubt and let people know what we can determine now before the election. Better than nothing being done.

Well that may turn some away from Obama but as I see it those who supoort him will look at this the same way all the facts were presented in 08....and still were ignored.

Further how many black/white or otherwise americans do you really think will believe this report or any other? I am seeing many people don't care what the facts's all about if they "like" the guy or not..and if or not he'll continue to keep the gravey train moving..

160 posted on 03/01/2012 12:56:40 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-352 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson