Posts Tagged ‘Sheriff Joe’

Sheriff Joe: Democrats using illegals for votes

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Sunday Democrats are mostly interested in immigration reform because the newly legalized residents will eventually obtain voting rights and will vote for Democrats.

“That’s common sense,” said Arpaio. “I don’t think that’s something that nobody knows. You make them here legally so they can vote.”

Arpaio was speaking on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM.

“There’s a push afoot nationally to sign up more Hispanics to be able to vote,” said Arpaio. “But you have to be careful now. But if you legalize these guys, these people, they are going to vote.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from, America’s independent news network.

As WND previously reported, Eliseo Medina, a former immigration adviser to President Obama, boasted in 2009 that granting citizenship to millions of illegal aliens would expand the “progressive” electorate and help ensure a “progressive” governing coalition for the long term.

Medina is the current secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Medina and Gutierrez served on Obama’s National Latino Advisory Council.

During the interview, Arpaio urged Republican president candidates to discuss the issue of drug trafficking when talking about border security.

What do YOU think? Is the push to bring in illegals to America meant to create more Democrat voters? Sound off in the WND Poll!

“Ninety-nine percent” of those arrested for bringing drugs into Maricopa County, Arizona are illegal aliens,” according Arpaio. “Everybody talks about the border related to illegal immigration. Can’t they throw in another little issue just for kicks? And say, oh by the way, tons of drugs are coming across the border too.”

Stated Arpaio: “Everyone talks about immigration. What about the drugs destroying our young people? Heroin is increasing. So if I were advising the (Republican) candidates, I’m sure they will be calling me even though I’m taking heat again, I’d say start talking about the drug problem coming from Mexico. … Forget just the illegal immigration. Put it together. There is a combination of both problems. That’s what I would talk about.”

He added, “Where’s the president? How come he is not talking about the drugs coming across the border?”


Sheriff Joe plea: Rein in Obama 'power grab'

by Bob Unruh

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is asking an appeals court in Washington, D.C., to rein in the massive power that would be granted to President Obama and future presidents if a lower court’s decision stands.

The ruling threw out a legal challenge to Obama’s executive-memo driven amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens, despite the fact that amnesty was rejected by Congress and the plan would contradict state law.

Arpaio, represented by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to step into the case thrown out earlier by Judge Beryl Howell.

Arpaio contends the administration’s claim that “prosecutorial discretion” allows Obama to promise the benefits of citizenship to millions of illegal aliens is wrong.

“What is to stop a future president from simply directing the Internal Revenue Service to stop collecting taxes on capital gains or stop collecting income taxes above a rate lower than set by Congress?” asked a reply brief and request for oral argument filed Monday.

“Indeed, who would have standing to challenge taxes left uncollected from another person? What is to stop a future president from refusing to enforce environmental laws, labor union protections, securities laws, voting rights laws, or civil rights laws, on a claim of prosecutorial discretion?

“May a future president direct the IRS not to collect the penalty supporting Obamacare’s ‘individual mandate,’ producing actuarial collapse?”

“Appellees ask this court to endorse this power grab. Constitutional government in the United States would end in all but name. Any future president may ignore the law claiming ‘prosecutorial discretion’ wholesale.”

The brief contends that the issue is not a “policy dispute” as the government claims.

“The executive branch seeks to raise its own ‘policies’ above congressional statutes. Executive branch policies are not the ‘supreme law of the land’ as congressional enactments are.”

The brief also notes that in a similar case, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen already has issued a preliminary injunction halting Obama’s executive amnesty, because the administration failed to follow the Administrative Procedures Act.

Hanen now has ordered the Obama administration to be in his courtroom later this week to explain why the administration apparently is not abiding by his preliminary injunction.

Arpaio’s case aims for a ruling that the president’s actions are unconstitutional.

He argues that while the power to execute laws, residing in the executive branch, includes the ability to resolve questions, “it does not include unilateral implementation of legislative policies.”

The president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and not take executive action to create laws, he points out.

Klayman earlier told the appeals court that, according to the Office of Legal Counsel, Obama didn’t have the authority to order amnesty.

That agency concluded, “The executive cannot, under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences.”

“Yet the appellees are doing exactly what OLC warned them not to do. Appellees’ programs are not prosecutorial discretion but rewriting the statutes. Appellees seek to grant amnesty to an estimated 6 million (53 percent) of the estimated 11.3 million illegal aliens that congressional enactments command them to deport,” Klayman has argued.

WND reported earlier when Arpaio said his local government had spent at least $9.2 million extra on detention and other costs because of Obama’s first “deferred action” plan providing some of the benefits of citizenship to illegal aliens.

Arpaio alleges he suffers direct economic harm from the defendants’ executive action amnesty for citizens belonging to a foreign country.

In their case filings, Arpaio and Klayman have argued that some aspects of amnesty already have begun taking effect, and the federal government is preparing to hired thousands of workers to process illegal aliens under amnesty.

The goal of the case at the outset was to obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court on Obama’s strategy to use notes to federal agencies, called executive memoranda, to change the law, rather than going through Congress.

Klayman has contended Obama “cannot end-run Congress based on his own ‘emperor-like’ actions.”

“By his own admission 22 times in the past, Obama lacks the power to take this unconstitutional executive action,” Klayman said. “To allow this to stand would amount to trashing our constitutional republic and set a bad precedent for future presidents.”

He argued the status quo should be maintained until Congress changes the national law.

WND also reported when a federal judge in Pennsylvania declared the amnesty unconstitutional.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

The judge noted Obama “contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his executive action was necessary because of Congress’ failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.”

“This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the president’s executive authority,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”


Sheriff Joe Arpaio Submits Affidavit in Florida Case on Obama Eligibility

by Da Tagilare

While we are still waiting for the second press conference from Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse investigation that was promised for June, the influence of their investigation has reached a court room in Florida.
Democrat Michael Voeltz filed complaint in Florida challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to appear on the November ballot as a candidate for President of the United States. Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch USA is representing Voeltz’s case in court. The case is being heard by Leon County Judge Terry Lewis, who is probably best known for his ruling in the 2000 case of Bush v Gore. It was ultimately Lewis’ decision that made Bush the winner of the presidency.

Back on May 31, Obama’s attorneys had asked for the case to be dismissed on the grounds that it has no merit and that legal definition of natural born citizen is different than what is stated in the original complaint. Judge Lewis challenged the Obama legal team to produce evidence to back up their claim, which they did not or could not do. Klayman had presented documentation of the 1875 case of Minor v Happersett in which the US Supreme Court ruled the term, natural born citizen, did in fact mean that both parents were US citizens. He also provided statements that the Founding Fathers purposely wrote it that way to avoid someone from obtaining the office of president who may have divided loyalties if one or both parents were from another country.
Judge Lewis has scheduled the hearing for this coming Monday. Many believe that this time, Lewis will make his decision on the request to dismiss the case by the Obama team. He has the option of completely dismissing the case or rule that the case will move forward with the discovery phase.
In the latest developments in what could be a ground breaking or birther ending case, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Mike Zullo, lead Cold Case Posse investigator have filed affidavits in the Voeltz case. According to a WND report, Sheriff Joe’s affidavit to the court states that his department’s investigation into Obama’s documentation has lead him to believe that the long-form birth certificate, Selective Service Registration card and Social Security number are all forgeries and that their presentation to the public was an act of fraud.
Zullo’s affidavit reportedly states that upon his investigation, that he advised Sheriff Joe that two crimes were committed by the White House when they presented the long-form birth certificate to the general public. First they committed fraud by creating the forged document and secondly they committed fraud when it was presented to the citizens of Maricopa County and to the American people.
Zullo’s affidavit went on to state that the Hawaiian Department of Health has continuously worked to hide Obama’s birth records so that they were not available for public investigation. Although he did not say so in these exact terms, his statement basically says that Hawaiian officials were deliberately covering up Obama’s birth records or lack thereof.
As a nation, we need to be praying that Judge Lewis takes Arpaio’s and Zullo’s affidavits seriously and rules to move the case forward. We also need to pray that similar cases are raised in all fifty states so that Obama’s eligibility will be challenged in courtrooms across the land. One would hope and pray that through it all, the truth will finally come out and that Barack Obama will be arrested for perpetrating the greatest crime ever committed in the United States.

Read more:

Sheriff Joe Captures Two Illegal Smugglers Who Had Been Deported 27 Times!

SEO Powered By SEOPressor