Arizona’s media villagers are failing to report on this scandal

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I previously posted about Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio's anti-government extremism:

Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio is a favorite of far-right extremist groups
like former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack's conspiratorial Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Oath Keepers, made up of
former and current law enforcement officers and military personnel who believe it
is their duty to defy what they deem to be unconstitutional orders. These anti-government extremists are a law unto themselves.

Hence this bit of anti-government extremism from Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio on Wednesday. Joe Arpaio Says He May Not Enforce New Gun Laws (AUDIO).

Not to be outdone for media attention, "Joe, Jr.," Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, penned a letter to President Obama last week saying that he too would not enforce any federal laws that he deems to be unconstitutional orders. Has anyone investigated his connections to far-right extremist groups
like Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Oath Keepers?

Talking Points Memo reports Arizona Sheriff Tells Obama He Won’t Enforce Federal Gun Laws:

Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu penned a letter to President Barack Obama
last week criticizing the administration's gun control proposals and
asserting that he won't enforce any law or executive order "contrary to
what the Constitution of the United States of America says."

"Mr. President, if you attempt to carry through with your proposal,
it will hinder the ability of good citizens to defend and protect
themselves and others against those who wish to cause them harm through
the use of deadly force," Babeu, the sheriff of Pinal County, Ariz.,
wrote. "Your actions would turn many good citizens, who wish to maintain
their God given Constitutional Rights to bear arms, into criminals. I
am writing you this letter today to inform you that any "law" or
regulation created by an executive order of your office which is
contrary to what the Constitution of the United States of America says,
shall be deemed as unlawful and shall not be carried out by myself or my
office."

Read the entire letter, which was obtained by Fox 10 in Phoenix.

Listen up you lazy media villagers. The story here is not these two embarrassments to law enforcement officers everywhere posturing for media attention by saying that they will not eforce federal laws that they deem to be unconstituional. The story you should be reporting on is their connection to anti-government extremist groups like former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack's conspiratorial Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, the Oath Keepers, and the The Sovereign Citizen Movement. Where is your investigative reporting?

And about those presidential executive orders that you media villagers are too damn lazy to report on, let me do your research for you. Garrett Epps, a real reporter at The Atlantic, lays it out for you in Can We Talk Calmly About Obama's 'Executive Orders'?:

You may be perplexed about President Obama's recent actions aimed at promoting gun safety. One of the leading scholars of separation of powers, Peter M. Shane, has set out a calm analysis of Obama's actions here. The president signed three, not 23, executive orders, he notes. Shane's most important point is this: 

What executive orders cannot do is impose obligations or
restrictions on the public, unless Congress, through legislation, has
expressly or implicitly conferred authority on the President to do so.
It is worth noting that none of President Obama's executive orders on
gun violence do any such things
.

The opposition has many
criticisms of the specifics of Obama's actions. Fair enough; that's part
of the ongoing debate about the proper regulation of firearms. But some
on the right like to claim that "executive orders" in themselves are
lawless.

If so, that would have come as news to George Washington — who
issued, among dozens of proclamations, eight executive orders of the
kind we recognize today — and to every president since.

What is the president's job? He is the holder of "the executive
power" and has the duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully
executed." It would be childish to believe that statutes, once passed by
Congress, somehow carry themselves out while the president greets
Little League teams in the Rose Garden. New criminal statutes must be
enforced; new conditional spending grants must be administered; new
programs must be assigned to government departments for administration;
new policies must be carried out by government employees on the ground. 

A president cannot do his job without issuing executive orders and
other instructions to the executive branch. The question should be
whether a specific one is justified by law.

Now take a look at Peter Shane's analysis, THE HYSTERIA OVER OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDERS:

What executive orders cannot do is impose obligations or restrictions on
the public, unless Congress, through legislation, has expressly or
implicitly conferred authority on the President to do so.  It is worth
noting that none of President Obama’s executive orders on gun violence
do any such things.

One of
these memorandums requires federal agencies to step up their efforts to
comply with the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.  As the
memorandum explains, “Among its requirements, the NIAA mandated that
executive departments and agencies (agencies) provide relevant
information, including criminal history records, certain adjudications
related to the mental health of a person, and other information, to
databases accessible by the NICS.”  The memorandum puts the Justice
Department in charge of coordinating government-wide compliance with the
Act, and requires agencies to keep the President and the Justice
Department informed of their progress.

Not only is this a constitutionally unremarkable order, but it perfectly comports with the President’s constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

A second memorandum directs
the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, the Interior,
Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security, and
potentially other agencies and offices that “regularly recover firearms”
in the course of their investigative activities to ensure that such
firearms are “traced through ATF at the earliest time practicable.”

The memorandum asserts, “Over the years, firearms tracing has
significantly assisted law enforcement in solving violent crimes and
generating thousands of leads that may otherwise not have been
available. . . .If Federal law enforcement agencies do not
conscientiously trace every firearm taken into custody, they may not
only be depriving themselves of critical information in specific cases,
but may also be depriving all Federal, State, and local agencies of the
value of complete information for aggregate analyses.”

This memorandum is thus an unremarkable presidential exercise in
priority-setting
.  Federal agencies have the authority to trace the
firearms they take into custody.  The President is saying, “Do it
quickly.”

The third memorandum directs
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other scientific
agencies within her department “to conduct or sponsor research into the
causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.”  This also is a pure
exercise in agenda-setting.  HHS and the CDC already have legal
authority to conduct or sponsor research on public health problems.  The
President is telling them to put “gun violence” on the list of things
they research.

In short, none of these memorandums requires the public to do
anything, expands the powers of the federal executive, or evokes even
remotely the ghost of George III.  So, please, let’s get a grip –
preferably not pearl-handled.

So the real story here is two out-of-control County Sheriffs who are media whores who claim that they alone may deem what laws are constitutional — without any legal basis in fact — and who may have connections to anti-government extremists groups, but Arizona's media villagers are failing to report on this scandal. Do your damn job!

UPDATE: Pay attention media villagers. The Rev. Al Sharpton shows you how it is done. Al plays prosecutor and gets "Joe, Jr." to admit that he cannot name one executive action President Obama took that is unconstitutional, and that the gun legislation he has proposed to Congress would be enforceable law if enacted into law. "Joe, Jr." is basically objecting to any new gun safety regulations and parroting GOP talking points that President Obama is "acting like a king," based upon the specious claim that executive orders are unconstitutional. Joe, Jr. obviously missed that day in his high school civics class. Al Sharpton takes this witness apart, leaving Joe, Jr. to resort to "wingnut tourette's syndrome," uncrontrollably spouting "fast & furious!" and "immigration!," because that kind of craziness works with wingnuts in Pinal County. Al Sharpton argues to the jury that Sheriff Paul Babeu is just a media whore "seeking media attention" with his clownish act.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

0 responses to “Arizona’s media villagers are failing to report on this scandal

  1. For those readers who have 8 minutes to spare to listen to the living breathing words of a few county sheriffs compiled from Fox News and CNN…

    http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/msm-compilation-sheriffs-stand-against-gun-control/

    Barack Obama even gets 30 uninterrupted seconds at the very end of the clip. I would say it is worth watching to the the very end.

  2. I live in a country that allows every person the opportunity to peacefully resist the actions of government, regardless of whether that is the city government, the county government, the state government or the federal government.

    The statements made by various sheriffs are well within their rights. I personally don’t see where any of the above four sheriffs claim to have any superior rights. Perhaps you could point out some wording I may have missed.

    I have many concerns about democratic governments which is why I take steps to point out their hazards.

    “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

    As for your suggestion that I move to Somalia I will keep it in mind. I have yet to even visit Bosaso but if pictures are any judge it certainly looks like a nice place.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosaso

    http://www.somalinet.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=246&t=277126#p3215468

  3. “If former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack’s group is an accurate gauge then 256 sheriffs have expressed their intent “to uphold and defend the Constitution against Obama’s unlawful gun control measures.'”

    First, President Obama has done nothing that is even remotely “unlawful” which demonstrates the unhinged hysteria of these comments.

    Second, the laws proposed in Congress if enacted by the duly elected members of Congress are lawful and presumptively Constitutional. Individuals who do not agree with the laws enacted by Congress do not get to reject our democratic form of government and the rule of law and declare themselves to be “sovereign citizens” who will decide for everyone else what laws are constitutional.

    Finally, the nonsense promoted by former sheriff Mack that sheriffs somehow have a superior right to determine the law of the land to a democratically elected state and/or federal government are derelict in their duties and are guilty of malfeasance in office for which they should be subject to removal from office.

    If you don’t like democracy and the rule of law, I hear the Libertarian paradise of Somalia is wonderful this time of year. Pack up your shit and move.

  4. It appears that an additional two Arizona county sheriffs have stepped forward to make clear that they will have no part in any infringement that might come to pass.

    Monday, January 28, 2013 (this is only a portion of his complete statement)

    Cochise County Sheriff Mark J. Dannels

    “In closing, while I respect our Nation’s elected Offices, as the duly elected Sheriff for the citizens of Cochise County, I and my Office will ensure the Constitutional Rights of the citizens of Cochise County are not infringed upon and will not permit any official, federal or otherwise, to attempt to do so.”

    http://cochise.az.gov/cochise_sheriff.aspx?id=12008

    Wednesday, January 31st, 2013 (this is only a portion of his complete statement)

    Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot

    “The creation and imposition of new regulations by our Federal Government, either via congress or executive order, on our rights granted by the Second Amendment would be foolish and misguided and serve only to criminalize honest, law abiding citizens.

    In closing, as your Sheriff and a citizen of the United States of America and the State of Arizona, I firmly support the Second Amendment which grants citizens the right to defend themselves and their families and I will not suffer any infringement upon those rights.”

    http://www.facebook.com/wilmotforsheriff/posts/243654692436047

    Which makes for 6 out of 15 Arizona county sheriffs so far. If former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack’s group is an accurate gauge then 256 sheriffs have expressed their intent “to uphold and defend the Constitution against Obama’s unlawful gun control measures.”

    http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/

    Those who believe that Mack and other folks are overly alarmed may take solace in the fact that only 8% of county sheriffs in the United States have felt the need to make a statement. If Wikipedia is to be believed there are 3,143 counties or equivalent in the US.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_statistics_of_the_United_States

  5. Two additional Arizona county sheriffs have gotten “uppity”.

    Yavapai County Sheriff Scott Mascher confirmed Tuesday he sent out a memo about recent gun control issues last week in which he stated, “As Sheriff, I refuse to participate or cooperate with any unconstitutional order that will infringe upon our Second Amendment rights.”

    http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=115254

    Mohave County Sheriff Tom Sheahan has joined a growing list of rural sheriffs who say they will not enforce gun laws that might be enacted in the wake of the Dec. 14 mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

    “If I feel a law is unconstitutional, I probably wouldn’t enforce it,” said Sheahan on Wednesday.

    http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=54753