SHERIFF JOE FLAYS FOX NEWS ANCHOR

Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio reminded everyone why he’s considered “America’s toughest sheriff” when he took a Fox News anchor to task in a live interview this afternoon.

Appearing on “America Live” with Megyn Kelly, Arpaio told Kelly she was wrong in some of her reporting about a federal investigation into his treatment of Hispanics in Maricopa County, Ariz.

The U.S. Justice Department is looking into allegations of racial profiling, a charge Arpaio denies, and the federal government wants Arpaio to allow an independent monitor to oversee the conduct of his office.

The Obama administration announced it’s now preparing to sue Arpaio. The Justice Department has said negotiations have broken down with the sheriff, who also believes President Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service card are likely forgeries.

Though Kelly never mentioned concerns over Obama’s eligibility in her interview, she did ask Arpaio why it would be a deal-breaker to have a federal monitor in his presence to make sure everything in his county office were “legit.”

“First of all, I’m the elected, constitutional, legitimate sheriff,” Arpaio said.

“I report to 4 million people in this county, and I’m not going to be controlled by the federal government because they don’t like the way I enforce the illegal-immigration laws. And it’s really interesting they’re cracking down right now. I presume we’re in an election year. You know this started three and a half years ago, 100 days after Obama took office, they went after me. I’m their poster boy.”

“But it started in 2008 under President Bush – the investigation,” Kelly interrupted.

“It did not. It started 100 days under Obama,” Arpaio responded.

“There is a former mayor that made a complaint to the Justice Department, but it was the Obama administration that started the investigation. So they can give all the hype they want for political reasons. But I tried to negotiate. I spent 50 years in law enforcement, many years as a top law-enforcement official with the Department of Justice, so I would like to get this over with.”

“They want to take me to court to send a message,” he added.

Kelly then stated, “They (federal officials) seem to be suggesting the thing that is making the negotiations breakdown is your – this is their characterization – your sudden objection having this independent monitor, something that you hadn’t objected to before, so they think it’s you who’s making the conflict come to a head right now.”

“That is garbage. That is garbage,” Arpaio said angrily. “I publicly said in the past I will never give in to a control by the federal government. That is false, which many other statements they make are false. That is not true.”

When asked where he thought the case would end up, the sheriff responded, “I don’t know. If we go to court, that’s great. Then we’ll see the true story come out. Quite frankly, I don’t think they want to go to court. They don’t have the evidence, so we’ll see.”

CLICK THE TITLE HEADLINE FOR ARTICLE

Obama and his cronies are really scared right now. That's why they are trying to go after Sheriff Joe so hard right now. They fear him. You can donate to Sheriff Joe's cause by clicking the title headline of this post.

2012 will be a bad year for Obama

By Lou Buren

I predict 2012 will be a bad year for Obama. I predict he will lose the 2012 election by a landslide. He will be beaten by a huge margin. I also predict the supreme court will strike down the individual mandate of ObamaCare.

And I also predict the investigation by Sheriff Joe Arpaio will find so much criminal activity on the Obama camp's part. That he may become the first fraudulent president in history. The first to occupy the white house illegally.

And if he isn't held responsible for it. Then shame on the lawmakers.

OBAMA PREPARES TO SUE SHERIFF JOE

CLICK THE TITLE HEADLINE FOR ARTICLE

WASHINGTON – On the heels of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s challenge of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the presidency, the Obama administration announced today it’s preparing to sue the Arizona elected official for alleged civil-rights violations against Latinos in a crackdown on illegal immigrants.

The administration’s Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office have been in settlement talks for months over Obama administration allegations that officers made unlawful stops and arrests of Latinos, used excessive force against them and failed to adequately protect the Hispanic community.

Those negotiations broke down about the time Arpaio held a news conference in Phoenix announcing that preliminary findings of a six-month law-enforcement probe found the birth certificate Obama posted on the White House website was fraudulent.

“We believe that you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith,” Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in a letter to the lawyer for Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

Austin said in the letter that Arpaio’s team demanded that a meeting slated for tomorrow include for the first time negotiations over the monitor and previously had demanded that the Justice Department provide more details about its findings.

“MCSO’s refusal to engage in good faith negotiations requires us to prepare for civil (court) action,” Austin said. He added that the Justice Department has recently discovered more information about the “failure to reasonably investigate sex crimes” by Arpaio’s office.

The Justice Department in a December report outlined numerous alleged civil rights violations, including that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latinos by Arpaio’s force.

The sheriff has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at the Obama administration for targeting his department and failing to deal with the problem of illegal immigration with some 11.5 million believed to be in the United States.

In a strongly worded statement on Tuesday, Arpaio said the appointment of a monitor would force him to abdicate responsibility for his police force, including decisions about policies, operations, jail programs and enforcement.

“To the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say: This will not happen, not on my watch!” Arpaio said in the statement.

Arpaio announced today his investigation of Obama was expanding into election irregularities in 2008, based on claims by supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton, then Obama’s challenger for the Democratic nomination.

CLICK THE TITLE HEADLINE FOR ARTICLE

Lou Buren of TWAU BLOG: Clearly Obama is targeting Sheriff Arpaio in retaliation of his investigation into his eligibility. Sheriff Joe is doing an outstanding job with the investigation. He truly is America's top cop. Obama's bogus accusations against Arpaio will not hold up. Much like Obama's individual mandate will not hold up in the Supreme courts decision.

Gay teen sues Ohio school for banning 'Jesus Is Not a Homophobe' shirt

WAYNESVILLE, Ohio – A gay Ohio teenager filed a federal lawsuit against his high school Tuesday after he was forbidden from wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan "Jesus Is Not a Homophobe."

Maverick Couch, 17, told the Cincinnati Enquirer that officials at Waynesville High School said he could not wear the garment at school because it was "indecent and sexual in nature."

CLICK ON THE TITLE HEADLINE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE

Lou Buren of TWAU BLOG: I believe the school made the right decision regarding the shirt. This poor mislead teen. I hope he will somehow be lead to the light. Jesus loves him and all people. But homosexuality is a perverse sin that Jesus wants him and others to repent from. The Bible says that those who live such a life-style will not be permitted into Heaven.

So that's why it is important that we Christians pray for and try to teach people what the Bible says. Join us in praying for the teen, that he might be saved from sin. Homophobe is just a made up word created by liberals, but by their own definition Jesus would be considered a homophobe.

George Zimmerman

Zimmerman’s brother says medical records will prove that George Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon Martin in a Florida neighborhood before the 17-year-old was shot to death by Zimmerman. A surveillance video released to ABC showed that Zimmerman appeared to have no wounds on his body after he killed the teenager. In an interview last night, Robert Zimmerman said medical records will prove otherwise. (CNN)


Lou Buren: My opinion is Zimmerman is guilty. I think he probably was attacked by Trayvon. But most likely because he was antagonized by Zimmerman. First of all, a neighborhood watch person isn't suppose to follow people. If they see something suspicious they are suppose to call police.

This Zimmerman fella, followed Trayvon and probably got in a verbal shouting altercation with him. The only way Zimmerman should have been justified in using a gun is if Trayvon also had a gun and had it drawn. I think tempers were high and Trayvon was shot. And in an attempt to avoid prosecution Zimmerman is claiming he feared for his life.

Few things that shouldn't have happened,(1) black male wearing a hoody should never be out late creeping around neighborhoods. (2) Neighborhood watch guy should have stayed in his house and called 911. Now it's in the authorities hands.

NATIONAL ID THREATENS 'ULTIMATE CONTROL'

CLICK ON THE TITLE HEADLINE FOR ARTICLE

A coalition of organizations led by officials at the Rutherford Institute is urging members of Congress not to even consider plans to revive the failed Real ID Act of 2005, which mandated “costly and restrictive” nationwide standards for a drivers’ license database.

The plan, although made into law, never has been implemented, and according to John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, half the states adopted resolutions or other prohibitions on the federal plan.

Those included Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Washington, and officials said 15 of them actually adopted laws prohibiting the implementation of the act.

The new coalition includes the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, Asian Law Caucus, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Watchdog, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Floridians against REAL ID, Liberty Coalition and others representing a broad range across the spectrum of politically active groups.

“Civil and privacy rights advocates, as well as liberal-, conservative-, and libertarian-leaning organizations, have long raised concerns that a national ID card would enable the government to track citizens and, thus, jeopardize the privacy rights of Americans,” Whitehead said.

“When all is said and done, the adoption of a national ID card serves one purpose only: to provide the government with the ultimate control over the American people,” he said.

The letter, addressed to representatives, explains: “We the undersigned organizations write today to express our opposition to any effort by Congress or the Department of Homeland Security to force states to comply with the Real ID Act of 2005.”

Although the law gave states three years to comply with “restrictive federal licensing standards” and create a national database of license information, individual birth certificates and other personal information, it never has been completed.

States’ rights organizations say it simply is a rejection on the part of states of the federal government’s intrusion into their affairs.

“Groups from across the political spectrum opposed it. Supporters of fiscal conservatism and federalism decried it as an unfunded mandate that trampled on the Tenth Amendment. Civil rights and civil liberties groups worried that the act lacked sufficient protections and might increase racial discrimination. Defenders of religious freedom described its negative impact on the Amish and other religious denominations. Consumer groups feared it would result in an expansive and cumbersome new bureaucracy. Advocates against domestic violence believed it would expose personal information about survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault,” according to the letter.

Further, “they believed it would facilitate tracking of data on individuals and bring government into the very center of every citizen’s life.”

And the costs, estimated originally at $23 billion, were outlandish, states decided.

Now the federal government, if it tried to impose the system, would fail, the letter said.

“DHS cannot mandate compliance because implementing its sole penalty under the statute – barring the use of non-compliant licenses for boarding airplanes – would bring air travel to a halt,” the letter said.

The letter to the House Judicial Subcommittee on Crime said the only possible outcome to an attempt to enforce the plan would be “harm” to individual liberties and a “waste” of taxpayer resources.

Click the title headline for article

Lou Buren of TWAU BLOG: If you'll notice, the federal government is relentlessly trying to pry into the personal lives of Americans. The ObamaCare bill that is very intrusive into our lives. And then this! Friends, this is exactly why 2012 must be an anybody but Obama vote! Get your friends and families out in November, and vote for the GOP nominee! It doesn't matter who it is! Vote Obama out!!

Can a liberal be a Christian?

By Lou Buren

I guess that depends on how liberal someone is. First off, let me say politics and faith go hand in hand. There is no separation of church and state. There is no law stating there is, and there is nothing in the constitution that says there is. A persons faith defines who they are. And so does a lack of faith.

Let's take a look at liberals, they typically support or advocate things of a wicked nature. Things that a Christian would not. Things like abortion and homosexuality. They typically believe the evolution lie over creation by God.

So because of the type of things they advocate, I'd have to say NO it's not possible to be a liberal and a Christian. Just like it's not possible to be a police officer and a bank robber. I mean the bank robber could call himself a police officer, but the two titles conflict with the actions involved too much for one to also be the other.

Now let's take a look at the liberal phrase (pro-choice). Isn't that a nice word, that makes people think it could be something good? I mean everyone loves choices right? And Christians are typically (pro-life). Let me ask you something, what is the opposite of life? The opposite of life is death. So if you are not in favor of life, your (pro-death). Doesn't sound so nice now does it? That's what happens when you shine light on darkness.

There is never ever a reason for a woman to have an abortion. And I mean no reason ever. Some might argue that and ask "What if the woman was raped"? Ok, say she was raped. The rapist is a criminal and deserves to be in prison. But the baby is innocent. Why kill a child for what it's father did? The Bible is clear in it's teachings that God knit us in our mothers womb.

That means life is created at conception. No one should have the right to kill an unborn child, just as no one should have the right to kill a child of any other age. Because age is the only difference here. A baby should not ever be slaughtered for any reason. God put guidelines on sex for a reason. One man and one woman are to be married before they ever have sex. Sex in wed-lock is the only way God allows us to have sex.

All other sex is sin. If people lived by Gods word and laws, most of the terrible things people deal with now wouldn't be an issue.

Just some thoughts from yours truly.