WHAT PART OF THAT DO PEOPLE NOT GET?

Our Constitution was based on rights that were endowed by the creator; they exist, even for illegal aliens. They exist for us, because we will kick the a$$ of anyone who tries to make them non-existent. However, if they are illegal in this country, we may, but are not obligated, to use our resources to enforce those tights for them. That is up to them or the government of the country from whence they came. If you don’t believe that everybody is entitled to the inalienable rights bestowed by the creator, then you don’t believe in the founding principles of Constitution and this country.

Old Country Boy on October 7, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4; The Congress shall have the power; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
What part of this don’t you get?

GrannySunni is an alias, just as you chose ExpressoBold. Sunni = sunny = for Arizona sun. Nothing more to the name than my love of sun/sunshine.What did you think it meant?

GrannySunni on October 8, 2009 at 2:56 PM

I was wondering about the Sunni component of your alias and you explained it.

Privacy laws I refer to are the First Amendment rights that Joe tried to trample when he tried to gather all the information on the readers of the New Times, when he arrested the editors.

I think, GrannySunni, that you should reference a copy of The Constitution when you claim “privacy rights.” I’ve linked to an online copy for you and there is NO Constitutional “right to privacy.” To learn more about “privacy rights”. Note that the 14th Amendment has been interpreted as conferring a substantive, not explicit, right to privacy especially as regards abortion “rights.” A Supreme Court decision defiend this right, not an explicit Constitutional statement.

You may consider my viewpoints vague but I thought I was able to post opinions here. I don’t see you pouncing on others who have posted their opinions. Seems you all dislike anyone that goes against the flow. I would not be here if I were not a conservative but I don’t always happen to agree with AZ politics.

Yeah, yeah, you think I’m picking on you but you were very adamant in your judgment of Sheriff Joe; if I just let everybody have their say without challenging things that I think (or know) are wrong then people get to say all kinds of erroneous things as the truth. Think of it this way: if you can defend yourself successfully when someone challenges you, you can debate a whiny old (or young) liberal. I we conservatives just let falsehoods pass by, we won’t look very smart when we are confronted by someone who knows the facts, will we? There are a number of liberal trolls who frequent this site and there are lots of hot and heavy debates and arguments that go on here all the time. It’s more than a game, more than a diversion – it’s actually a culture war and if they get to feeling confident again, it’s harder to put them in their place. A tradition of cogent argument on our side is not so easy to defeat, Granny.

Homeland Security and the DOJ are investigating the persistant Sheriff who refuses to see illegals in his county as legal….

And if I were going to link an article from the ethically challenged Phoenix New Times which launched itself “in 1970 in reaction to the war in Vietnam.” to provide support for an assertion against Sheriff Arpaio, I would be darn sure there were no hidden bombs in the reference. Look at the following. Calling into question everyone’s ethics except their own, Lacey and Larkin declared the lawful actions of the sheriff and prosecutors unconstitutional while excusing a “seemingly picayune matter of Sheriff Arpaio’s home address getting printed at the bottom of an opinion column on our Internet site.”

I worked for the New Times back before I grew a brain. I knew Lacey and Larkin. The New Times is not a reliable source. Belive me.

Unfortunately you have, once again, stated something that is at odds with many other commenters here who have a much different experience than you. I don’t live in the area so I’m just trying to get a feel for the truth. I can’t do that if I have conflicting stories with partisan, one-sided viewpoints. To much of what you say has a vague, general, not-too-accurate feel about it.

For instance, which “privacy laws” would you be referencing in which particular occurrences?

BTW, if I may be so bold, what is the “Sunni” part of your name all about (I don’t call myself ExpressoBold for nuttin!”)?

ExpressoBold on October 8, 2009 at 1:59 PM

GrannySunni is an alias, just as you chose ExpressoBold. Sunni = sunny = for Arizona sun. Nothing more to the name than my love of sun/sunshine.What did you think it meant?

Privacy laws I refer to are the First Amendment rights that Joe tried to trample when he tried to gather all the information on the readers of the New Times, when he arrested the editors. The prosecutor was eventually fired. The links for the articles are below. Yes, most people love Sheriff Joe. You may consider my viewpoints vague but I thought I was able to post opinions here. I don’t see you pouncing on others who have posted their opinions. Seems you all dislike anyone that goes against the flow. I would not be here if I were not a conservative but I don’t always happen to agree with AZ politics. Yes, you will read comments here too, that the New Times is a poor newspaper. While I don’t particularly care for them, they have won awards, just as have the Arizona Republic, East Valley Tribune and Az Daily Star.

Now to the links:
This is the story about why Sheriff Joe arrested the New Times editors. Yes, they were wrong to publish his address. But I feel it was a violation of first ammendent rights for him to request all the information regarding viewers of New Times web pages.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-10-18/news/breathtaking-abuse-of-the-constitution/

This is an article about fall out from the arrest of the editors. Eventually the prosecutor was fired.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-02-21/news/new-times-files-a-prelude-to-a-lawsuit-against-sheriff-joe-arpaio-county-attorney-andy-thomas-and-a-discredited-ex-special-prosecutor-on-behalf-of-its-readers-and-the-constitution/

Read this story to learn why the case was dropped against the New Times editors.. The second page tells about the death of an inmate – after an altercation with jail guards. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-10-16/news/new-times-lawsuit-continues-stern-s-disorderly-conduct-charge-dropped-and-we-ask-a-judge-to-force-joe-to-release-video-of-a-suffocated-inmate-s-last-minutes/

Otherwise, I can’t stand the guy.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 9:04 AM

So don’t vote for him. See how easy that was?

You know — vindictively harassing reporters and political opponenets, ignoring inmate deaths, waging an anti-Mexican jihad to obscure his otherwise mediocre record, generally being an arrogant ass.

Bleeds & Spews on October 7, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Looks like you covered all the New Times/Village Voice talking points.

The illegals have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The illegals DO NOT have the PRIVILEGE of entering this country illegally.

Blacksmith8 on October 8, 2009 at 12:51 PM

If you don’t believe that everybody is entitled to the inalienable rights bestowed by the creator, then you don’t believe in the founding principles of Constitution and this country.

Old Country Boy on October 7, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Hm. I’ve read a lot on all the founding fathers.
Many of them struggled with this bcs many of them considered the problems this would bring.
I think everyone in the world, whatever govt you are under has certain basic ‘rights’, like what is enumerated in the Constitution.
But you have to fight for them, just like our forefathers did.
So giving all these ‘rights’ to every illegal Tom, Dick & Harry is insane.
You want our govt to recognize your ‘rights’?
Then show us you mean by following our laws-And coming here LEGALLY.

Otherwise, I can’t stand the guy. But it’s good to hear he’s doing some good.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 9:04 AM

I meant to quote you:
NOT :

Randy

williars on October 8, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Randy

williars on October 8, 2009 at 1:47 PM

A lot of people didn’t like Wyatt Earp or Bat Masterson, to name a few.
But they were there to do the dirty job of cleaning up places of rotten criminal elements that no one else had the guts to do.

Now I have the President of the United States and the Secretary of Homeland Security trying to keep me from doing my job and from speaking out about this travesty publicly. This is America and I will speak. You have a right to know the truth. But none of this will deter me and I won’t back down one inch. All I’m doing is enforcing the laws of this state. In short, I’m doing my job that the voters elected me to do. As ludicrous and baseless as these attacks are, I have to respond to them and prepare for whatever future actions my opponents may take, including the latest recall campaign. Right now, petitions are being circulated to collect enough signatures to recall me. National open-borders organizations are coordinating their efforts to remove me from office to stop me enforcing the immigration laws. I promise you I will fight this battle with all my heart and soul.

Hey, I live in OK not AZ but I will support Joe. For those of you who want to do the same, the address is Sheriff Joe Arpaio, P.O. Box 5066, Scottsdale, AZ 85261

However, his retaliation was a misuse of taxpayer dollars and an abuse of the privacy laws.

GrannySunni on October 8, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Unfortunately you have, once again, stated something that is at odds with many other commenters here who have a much different experience than you. I don’t live in the area so I’m just trying to get a feel for the truth. I can’t do that if I have conflicting stories with partisan, one-sided viewpoints. To much of what you say has a vague, general, not-too-accurate feel about it.

For instance, which “privacy laws” would you be referencing in which particular occurrences?

BTW, if I may be so bold, what is the “Sunni” part of your name all about (I don’t call myself ExpressoBold for nuttin!”)?

America You are On Your Own. Back to the Wild West System.
Women & Children stay off the streets. The Obama crew vs America.

Our Constitution was based on rights that were endowed by the creator; they exist, even for illegal aliens. They exist for us, because we will kick the a$$ of anyone who tries to make them non-existent. However, if they are illegal in this country, we may, but are not obligated, to use our resources to enforce those tights for them. That is up to them or the government of the country from whence they came. If you don’t believe that everybody is entitled to the inalienable rights bestowed by the creator, then you don’t believe in the founding principles of Constitution and this country.

Old Country Boy on October 7, 2009 at 7:11 PM

That was thought provoking. The illegals have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The illegals DO NOT have the PRIVILEGE of entering this country illegally.

Jason58 on October 8, 2009 at 8:46 AM

I heard Sheriff Joe on the radio yesterday. He said from his drug program the recidivism rate is 15%. What I want to know is why every county in the country hasn’t copied it. I am personally in favor of chain gangs. The part about DHS refusing to release the ICE audit of the Sheriff’s office was the best part. ICE gave the Maricopa County Sheriff an A+. Janet Napo tanked it and refused to let it out.
 
GO JOE!
btw Sheriff Joe used to be the DEA Agent in charge of San Antonio, twenty years ago.