Arizona Citizens Supporting Honest Representative Government At All Levels
We sent out a blast this morning with some of our comments on the elections results.
What do you think?
Post in the Comments box below. Share your views and maybe how you think our best candidates can be victorious in the General. Here is a link to the most current Arizona 2016 Primary elections results: Azsos.gov
"Spoken like a true follower of the Deception party of deflect and destroy."
I'm a lifetime Republican. Deception Party? I've heard of the Democratic Party, but not the Deception Party. And, I notice once again you ignore and fail to address the list of facts about our wayward Republican, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. And speaking about Joe, yes he did speak at the Phoenix rally, four slots before Trump spoke. The significance again is that this was a major speech on immigration, in Joe's backyard, and the day after Joe winning his primary election and Trump didn't mention Arpaio's name once. Could it be because of the recent federal criminal contempt order that just came down against Arpaio? Could it be that there was dissention in Trump's camp about Arpaio's behavior toward the court and Latino's? The day after the Trump immigration speech, not surprisingly, some of Trump's Latino advisers decided to leave the campaign.
Speaking again about deflecting, you bring up Hillary and all of her faults, and she has many, and I believe she is not fit to be President of the United States, just as I believe Arpaio is no longer worthy of our trust as sheriff, but she is really off topic. You refuse to address the facts about Arpaio addressed above. How could a true Republican vote for an individual who more and more looks like a scofflaw? Aren't Republicans for Law & Order?
IF ... Sheriff Joe is your only avenue of protest then ... GET A LIFE. A "contempt order" is not a proven FACT ... it is conjecture only. Hello ... INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY of peers"... as if you believe this as a "fact" then you are part of the deception of liars of the "anybody but Trump" movement, just because he supports Trump. Speak to us about the facts of a lying Hillary please, and leave the BS of protest against our overwhelming popular Sheriff Joe. YOU Lost!
Move on to the more important national issues please. Trump can make inroads into the Latino community, just like he can make inroads into the Black inner city communities, its about the "summer of recover" that NEVER happened that we already PAID FOR!
Sherriff Joe couldn't do anything about that. This "racial bias" is just a smokescreen to deflect. So stop with the defecting of responsibility of JOBS, and our economic vitality ... that a Hillary doesn't give 2-shitzeys about. She is all about HER foundation, a FOUNTATION that she as co-founder, controls by international contributions and earns a salary from!!! She is executor of it, and demands whatever salary she wants. Focus please on a future of opportunities, and not he past of utopian dreams of Marxist collectivism. Sherriff Joe is but a drop in the ocean of national corruption.
Your "law & order" is to an audience that doesn't understand what "contempt" by a biased judge is. Look up at judge Snow please, and understand what lies beneath the lines of Evil deceit. Investigate WHY, WHERE, WHO, WHAT, and WHEN all this came about. Look at the "principles of the matter" of a so-called investigation based on forgone conclusions of fault. Law and Order applies to all ... but mostly to a progressive liberal left ... FIRST .. for they know nothing but self-interest lies.
Mr. "Goldwater" I am not a supporter of Arpaio. I am a supporter of the people's right to choose. They chose Arpaio but you appear to call them stupid. Your hatred is showing and it's been showing in other posts. It is time to give it up. I suggest you sign on with the Penzone campaign and work to defeat Arpaio in the General. The raw hatred you show is very un-Christian. You are not the smartest person on this site, in fact there are many pretty intelligent people here. They are respectful to you perhaps you could return the favor?
I'm glad that you're not an Arpaio supporter. I also am a supporter of the people's right to choose, but with that right comes the responsibility to be informed and vet the candidate before one votes. I would venture to guess, that not one of you have read the complete Melendres v. Arpaio court transcripts, or listened to or read the Flake v. Arpaio deposition. How many of you bothered to go to court in either of the cases to see the real Joe Arpaio? How many of have bothered to review Arpaio's history of retaliation against his political enemies through the use of his office? Hatred? No. Righteous indignation? Yes. Righteous indignation is a common reaction to wrongs witnessed by a Christian. And since when is it disrespectful to present factual information so that you may be informed? A true sign of intelligence is the desire to continue learning about all subjects. When it comes to learning about Arpaio, it would appear that many on this site think it's safer, especially if you live in the jurisdiction of the sheriff, to be ignorant.
If one really wants to know why I cannot, in good conscience support Sheriff Joe Arpaio, compare the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Code of Conduct (written in italics) to the quoted excerpts in standard text from the Melendres v. Arpaio, Finding of Facts and the Criminal Contempt Order. Arpaio does not meet the standards that he has set for his own MCSO employees. Do Republicans really want a "Law & Order sheriff"?
“I pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Arizona, to obey the laws of the State and the United States, and the rules, regulations, and Policies of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.”
“Further, despite at least three applicable disclosure orders and despite assurances to the Court that they were disclosing and would continue to completely comply with court-ordered disclosure requirements, Defendants intentionally withheld documents involving the Plaintiff class. In doing so, they again violated court orders, made intentional misstatements of fact to the Monitor about the existence of such documents, and made additional intentional misstatements to the Monitor in an attempt to justify their concealment.”
“Perjury is a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 1621. So is a false declaration to the court. 18 U.S.C. § 1623. Perjury can also provide a separate basis for a criminal contempt charge, but only when it results in an actual obstruction or attempt at obstruction of justice. In re Michael 326 U.S. 224, 227–28 (1945); Ex parte Hudgings 249 U.S. 378, 383–84 (1919); see also § 401. The law also requires that even false testimony given in an attempt to obstruct justice cannot provide the basis for a separate criminal contempt charge unless “from the testimony itself it is apparent that there is a refusal to give information which in the nature of things the witness should know.” Collins v. United States 269 F.2d 745, 750 (9th Cir. 1959).”
“This Court has found, under the civil standard of proof, that Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan intentionally made a number of false statements under oath. There is also probable cause to believe that many if not all of the statements were made in an attempt to obstruct any inquiry into their further wrongdoing or negligence.”
“I will never abuse the authority vested in me, and will honor and uphold the constitutional rights to liberty, equality, and justice afforded to all persons.”
“The MCSO continued to stop and to detain persons based on factors including their race, (id. at ¶ 161), and frequently arrested and delivered such persons to ICE when there were no state charges to bring against them, (id. ¶¶ 157–61). Sheriff Arpaio did so based on the notoriety he received for, and the campaign donations he received because of, his immigration enforcement activity. (Id. ¶¶ 58–60.)”
“I will be honest in thought and deed, in both my personal and official life, and will not allow my conduct to bring discredit, dishonor, or shame upon the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.”
“The Court ordered the Parties to introduce all fact evidence that would bear on the remedies to which the Plaintiffs might be entitled. From the substantial evidence presented during the hearing and the facts set forth in detail below, the Court finds that the Defendants intentionally failed to implement the Court’s preliminary injunction in this case, failed to disclose thousands of relevant items of requested discovery they were legally obligated to disclose, and, after the post-trial disclosure of additional evidence, deliberately violated court orders and thereby prevented a full recovery of relevant evidence in this case.”
“I will never misrepresent myself, be untruthful, or take what does not belong to me, nor will I tolerate conduct on the part of any other employee of the Office, which violates the principles of this Code of Ethics.”
“In their testimony during the evidentiary hearing, Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan made multiple intentional misstatements of fact while under oath. In short, the Court finds that the Defendants have engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, dishonesty, and bad faith with respect to the Plaintiff class and the protection of its rights. They have demonstrated a persistent disregard for the orders of this Court, as well as an intention to violate and manipulate the laws and policies regulating their conduct as they pertain to their obligations to be fair, “equitable[,] and impartial” with respect to the interests of the Plaintiff class.”
“Chief Deputy Sheridan, after the evidentiary hearing began, directed that the discovery of 1459 IDs [*] and the investigation into them be concealed in part by “suspending” the investigation and by failing to disclose them, (Id.¶¶ 297–304); (4) Chief Deputy Sheridan, after his suspension of the IA investigation into the 1459 IDs, ..”
[*] The 1,459 ID’s, license plates, money and other items, according to testimony, were taken by MCSO personnel from their contacts.
Italics = MCSO Code of Conduct https://www.mcso.org/Multimedia/PDF/2012-Integrity_Accountability_Community.pdf
Comments below Italics are quotes from court documents:
dear Mr. AuxH2O, it seems to me, too, that hatred is the wrong word. I believe "obsessive" might better describe this interest in the Sheriff. Like you and Mr. Jasper, I also am not a supporter of Sheriff Arpaio. I do not need to read court transcripts or depositions. I just do it the old fashioned way. I use common sense and my mind. That has worked well for me for many years. There are many serious problems in the world today. I don't believe the actions of the Sheriff qualify as world-changing ones. I'm content to leave it to the courts even though the courts are more corrupt than your accusations of the Sheriff. It's quite difficult to take sides in this case.
The judicial system is corrupt today, just look at the FBI and Director Comey's comments while all the evidence pointed to moving forward for a special prosecutor. His responsibility was only for gathering evidence, not to appoint a prosecutor .. yet HE CHOSE to be the arbiter of the case??? Oh what a difference visit to a plane makes ... and we would think that this Judge Snow is not influenced by the DOJ?
What the H E L L are they smoking? Medical marijuana.
Ignorance is bliss.
Uh, no. I don't want to know why you don't support Arpaio. I think I've got that picture. Can we close this segment of the comments?
Yep, if you disagree with what one writes, it's easier to close down a discussion than to address the facts. What ever happened to the free discussion of ideas and political beliefs? And what is so wrong about wanting responsible, fiscally sound law enforcement that follows the Constitution, and the laws that they enforce? My expectation is that Sheriff Arpaio will eventually be held accountable for his actions. Relying on common sense and your mind will not work in the absence of knowledge. Many people used their mind and common sense to determine that the earth was flat. In the absence of knowledge, their assumptions using common sense and their mind were wrong. Joe is a great entertainer, who says the right things, makes people laugh, but he wields a huge amount of unchecked power in our county. Corrupt law enforcement, whether it is found in the FBI or in our local sheriff's office, should be a concern to all of us. Those of you who have admitted to not voting for Arpaio's reelection made a responsible decision for better law enforcement. Seeking freedom from an overbearing government, whether local or national, is our duty and our responsibility. The government is our government. Is it obsessive to want good government? Talk to our ancestor Patriots who were under the rule of King George. In my opinion, it's our duty as citizens to have a passion for the best government possible, for the freedom of our ourselves and our families and our posterity.
"Goldwater" there is a difference between a Discussion where one person says something, another person answers with something new and on it goes, always with new info. A debate is what you want to have where you disgorge the same info over and over in a different format. It's a waste of time for either of us to do that. Please take you passive aggression to someone else. Thank you.
Speaking about discussions, are the people here really conservative Christian Republicans? In this thread alone I have been called or associated with:
"part of the deception of liars of the anyone but Trump movement"
"progressive liberal left"
Are personal attacks appropriate in a discussion among conservative, Christian Republicans? (I certainly am not seeing the fruit.) Do personal attacks change any of the facts? Do your attacks reinforce your fact free position? The very definition of discussion is, "to argue or consider carefully by presenting the various sides. to talk about". To further the concept of discussion, is the word "forum." Forum is described as " a medium (as a publication or online service) of open discussion." Isn't that the purpose of the AFA?
I think that I have accurately described some individuals in this forum as "ignorant," which simply means, "lacking knowledge." I've attempted to rectify this situation by providing facts and sources for your review. Much to my surprise and disappointment, some of the people here are not interested in reading facts, apparently because of their bias and preconceived notions.
It's truly a shame, that none of you seem to be willing to address the facts that I have offered. It's truly a shame that facts apparently don't matter.
With that being said, prove to me that the Criminal Contempt Order and the Finding's of Fact (linked in my post above) are biased or incorrect. Prove to me that Judge Snow was biased. (You may use facts, common sense, a divining rod, or anything that helps you to make a decision.) I'd be happy to discuss your opinions.