Archive for May 12th, 2012

URGENT NEWS: Attacks on Authority of County Sheriffs’ is Beginning in Delaware

May 12, 2012

From Constitution Legal Watch by Fred Brownbill, May 8 2012

Delaware State Bill 325 moved through the State House quietly and with no publicity from any of the so called main stream media.  What was so important about this Bill and why it should have had people in every state in the union shouting from the roof tops, was that it was a Bill aimed at removing…YES, REMOVING…the powers of arrest from the County Sheriff.  If this Bill had passed you have got to believe that a similar Bill would have been enacted in all other states.

To put this into perspective, the County Sheriff is the constitutionally elected chief law officer in a county, with say over all that happens in their county, including as to if federal troops and agencies can operate there or not. The Obama Regime has been fighting this very issue since the attacks on the President by Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio and others who are doing the jobs that they are paid to do, whether it be on fighting at the county level illegal immigration to fighting other crime and corruption like operation fast and furious, or doing what their citizens ask for in investigating the eligibility of Mr Obama to be President due to his birth status.  All the above and other crime fighting jobs done by the Sheriffs have caused this administration problems and embarrassment and the attacks have been ongoing.  This Bill, however, is a full frontal attack on a constitutionally elected official and their duties.

From the time of Americas founding, the county sheriff was in place to protect the citizens of their respective counties against unconstitutional actions taken by state and federal agencies.  They alone were the front line against tyranny.  They had the authority to have any state or federal agent arrested if they entered the county without permission.  Some Sheriffs unfortunately do not adhere to this and are lackies to the Feds, beholden by grants and other funding that is used as bribes by the Feds and so readily taken by weak and cowardly county sheriffs.  Check their records on this during this election cycle.

The Sussex County Sheriff, Jeff Christopher, who is a Ron Paul supporter and to me, an all American hero, has raised his hand and stepped up to fight that legislation.  He has had great support from grassroots men and women who caused such a loud noise that several GOP members have recused themselves from the Bill, which, by the way, had been a bi-partisan Bill. Surprise surprise huh?  I wonder if those who pulled out were up for re-election?

I want to copy and paste a letter at this point  here in this article from Sheriff Christopher before I continue with my commentary on this disgusting legislation.  Please read it.

“Dear Friends:

As you are aware, I have been drawn into a dispute with the Sussex County Council over the County’s efforts to seriously limit the ability of the Sheriff’s office to perform the duties entrusted to me and my deputies by the people of Sussex County and by the Delaware Constitution.

Although I have tried to seek a reasonable outcome, the response of those people who wish to suppress the ability of the Sheriff’s office to do the people’s will has been a failed legislative effort to statutorily neutralize the powers of my office. Further, Attorney General Biden recently has issued an opinion that, based on questionable authority, attempts to further strip the Sheriff’s office of its Constitutionally granted power.

The time has come to take further action. The Legacy Foundation, an Iowa-based tax-exempt organization, has taken a strong interest in this matter and wishes to further support me in my efforts to solidify the role of the Sheriff’s office in Sussex County.

If you wish to contribute to this effort, please visit the Legacy Foundation’s dedicated webpage at http://legacyfoundation.us/sussex/ to make a charitable contribution via the internet. If you wish to send a check payable to The Legacy Foundation, please send it to my attorneys Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP, c/o Leslie J. Williams, 111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 1400, Baltimore MD 21202. Thank you, as always, for your support.”

In your service,

Sheriff Jeff Christopher”

Sheriff Christopher is not a wealthy man by any means. Law Enforcement is never a job, unless you are corrupt or cheat the system, that is designed to enrich you. Those of us that perform those duties do so as a calling. He is a family man, married with two kids and his wife recently lost her job, so like so many of us here in recessionville, money is tight. He is an honorable man who fully intends to fight this and has filed a law suit. Tea Party groups and other conservative and patriot groups are starting to rally around and help.  Believe me, this is a national problem, because if a Bill like this is passed and becomes law there, it is only a matter of time before, emboldened by this victory, the forces of evil in the name of the federal government will have similar laws passed everywhere and then they, the federal agencies, will have the ability to enter any county and do whatever they want with no elected county law enforcement agency in place to restrict or monitor any unconstitutional actions.  THIS IS WRONG AND SO VERY DANGEROUS FOLKS AND IT IS HAPPENING NOW!!!

At this point I am going to copy e mails from the establishment to give you all an idea of what Sheriff Christopher is fighting.  Again, please read.

[Start of Email]
“Hi All,
I’m not sure how much you’ve heard, but the role of the Sussex County sheriff has become an incredibly controversial issue. Now Republicans are trying to turn it into a polarized issue in Dover.

There was a bipartisan bill proposed in the House (primarily sponsored by Republican Rep. Danny Short), but Republicans have now withdrawn their support. The Sussex County Council (under Republican leadership) and Attorney General Beau Biden have both called for legislation in Dover that would clarify (and limit) the sheriff’s responsibilities. Please see additional talking points below.

House Majority Leader Pete Schwartzkopf would like to hold a conference call to talk about the issue, what’s going on in Dover, and what we can do to counteract many misconceptions flying around in Sussex County.

We will be holding the conference call this Monday at 7 pm. You must contact me (Sarah Rivin) to obtain the call-in information. We welcome anyone interested in participating, but we do want to know who joins.

Thanks for all you do!

Sarah (Rivin)
302-463-2842

House Bill 290 Talking Points

Background

The issue of the Sussex County sheriff’s authority and arrest powers (or lack thereof) has been an issue for several years.
A previous Sussex sheriff fought with the attorney general’s office and state officials over whether he could put flashing lights on sheriff’s cars.
The Republican attorney general, Brady, issued an opinion saying sheriffs do not have arrest powers.
Jeff Christopher was the deputy sheriff at the time.

Rep. Schwartzkopf tried to address the controversy several years ago, to no avail.
Now sheriff, Jeff Christopher has taken up the same mantle as his former boss, claiming the Delaware Constitution give him the authority to arrest citizens.
According to the Constitution, sheriffs in Delaware are “conservators of the peace”, but that remains an undefined term.
Additionally, the Constitution says the chancellor, judges, and the attorney general are also conservators of the peace throughout the state. Does that mean Attorney General Biden or any judge should be granted arrest powers? Given what we know of their legal roles, being a ‘conservator of the peace’ does not equate with the possession of arrest powers.

As Sheriff, Jeff Christopher has been stopping cars and acting as a law enforcement officer. But that is in direct conflict with state law and the AG’s opinion, which say the sheriff’s “power to arrest is no greater than that shared by any citizen.” Sheriff Christopher has said he will continue to defy that opinion, prompting clarifying legislation.
If the Sheriff’s actions are challenged in court, Sussex County could find itself in the midst of a serious lawsuit.

Because the sheriff and deputy sheriffs are forbidden by state law to be trained as cops, they have not undergone police training. That poses a significant liability issue for Sussex County.

What is House Bill 290?

Under its Republican leadership, the Sussex County Council has pushed for legislation clearly establishing the sheriff’s role – which is NOT a law enforcement officer. That legislation is now known as House Bill 290.
There have been a number of misconceptions about this important legislation.

The bill was fast-tracked to get it through the legislature.

The proposal has actually been circulating at the county level for months and was delayed in the House for a week.

The bill would change the Constitution.

The bill would not change the Constitution. It would simply codify the specifics of the sheriff’s role under state law.

The bill would remove Sheriff Christopher from office.

The bill would not remove Sheriff Christopher from office. The bill would, however, clearly establish the parameters of his legal responsibility.

Republicans Now Withdrawing Support

As opponents of HB 290 became vocal in Sussex County, many Republicans began withdrawing support for the bill. But in reality, those who are strongly against the bill comprise a small minority of citizens. Very few individuals turned out to a rally against the bill.
Although a dozen or so folks showed up to the Sussex County Council meeting to discuss the sheriff’s powers, those vocal opponents do not represent Sussex County voters on the whole.

Rep. Danny Short was the prime sponsor of the bill, but he now wants to table the bill. By withdrawing support for the bill, Republican legislators are caving under pressure to a loud, but small, minority in Sussex County. Not only is that not the will of the people, but it also means the dispute over the sheriff’s powers will continue.

This past Wednesday (April 25th)an hour and half before the committee meeting Rep. Short spoke on the House floor to say Democrats are trying to pass this bill as a political ploy. But this is not a partisan issue. He went on to strike HB 290 from the record.
Our Representatives have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and to protect our citizens. Rep. Short has abandoned Sussex County. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree the sheriff should not have arrest powers.”

[End of Email]

As you can see, the propaganda rhetoric is being turned up by the establishment and this promises to be a fight to the bitter end, but the result could be one of the greatest attacks on our freedoms and liberties to date and our security as citizens will have taken a HUGE hit.

The County Sheriff is the last stand against rogue agencies like  the FDA, The ATF, the EPA, the DHS, the IRS, Health Care Mandates, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, etc.

Let me repeat that: The County Sheriff is the last stand against rogue agencies like  the FDA, The ATF, the EPA, the DHS, the IRS, Health Care Mandates, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, etc.

The original Bill was just tabled and removed, but another version has been sponsored by House Majority Leader Pete Schwartzkopf, D-Rehoboth, has been introduced.  This Bill is similar to the one that was stricken which had been sponsored by a republican (so called) memberState Rep. Dan Short, R-Seaford.

Both members were concerned about the Sheriff and his deputies in Sussex County making traffic stops and arresting law breakers.  Two different AG office reports  under two different administrations have stated that County Sheriffs are not empowered to do this work and could expose tax payers to unreasonable law suits!!!  Take that folks…unbelievable or what?  The Delaware  State Constitution describes county sheriffs as “conservators of the peace,” granting the office arrest powers, but what is a measly few words in a constitution worth anymore to the abusers of power led by a Federal Government who is consistent in its’ attacks daily on our liberties  and the removal of the constitution?

On May 9th, tomorrow, this abortion of an act will be going before the House and will also no doubt head to the State Supreme Court.

EVERY SHERIFF, EITHER INCUMBENT, ELECTED OR APPOINTED, SHOULD BE READING AND FOLLOWING THIS CLOSELY AND PREPARING FOR SIMILAR ATTACKS IN THEIR OWN COUNTY.  THESE ATTACKS WILL COME FROM MEMBERS OF BOTH PARTIES AS TRUTHFULLY, THEY ARE JUST PART OF THE SAME TWO HEADED TREASONOUS SNAKE.  WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE DO TO SNAKES, WE CUT OFF THEIR HEADS, OR IN THEIR CASES, WE VOTE THEM ALL OUT.  BELIEVE ME, IF OBAMA GETS RE-ELECTED, THESE ATTACKS WILL COME FAST AND FURIOUS AS THE SHERIFF STANDS IN THE WAY OF HIS PLANS TO MAKE AMERICA PART OF A MARXIST ONE WORLD NATION.

GOD bless America, stay strong, stay united. Become a member of the III% and prepare for tough times ahead.

Fred Brownbill. President. Save America Foundation

Racists For Obama

May 12, 2012
From http://www.personalliberty.com by Chip Wood, May 11, 2012
I wondered how long it would take for someone to raise the issue of racism in this year’s Presidential election. The answer came sooner than I expected. Last week, The New York Times ran the story “4 Years Later, Race Is Still Issue for Some Voters.”
Racists For Obama
STAFF PHOTO BY SAM ROLLEY
Blacks supported Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008 by a margin of almost 24-1.
In case you thought the story might be an exposé of the virulent hatred of America by some of President Barack Obama’s more extreme supporters (such as his longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright), forget about it. That’s old news and obviously not worth discussing any more. Heck, for the mainstream media, it was hardly worth discussing four years ago.

Nor was the story about the near unanimity of black voters to support a member of their own race worth discussing. Obama is expected to receive 95 percent of the black vote this year, just as he did in 2008 — no matter who his opponent is or what the issues are. Of course, there’s nothing racist in that.

No, the emphasis of the story was on how a tiny minority of white voters –especially those in “economically depressed regions with high proportions of white working-class residents” — said they wouldn’t vote for Obama because he is black.

So it’s OK for blacks to vote for Obama specifically because he is black. But it’s racist if a white votes for another white because of his skin color. Does anyone see a bit of a double standard here?

Of course, such bias (dare I say prejudice) has been around for a long time. Many liberals believe the only way to make up for decades of discrimination is to go overboard the other way. “Equality” wasn’t enough; we needed affirmative action and a new kind of discrimination.

Thus, it has become perfectly OK for this country to commemorate Black History Month. And, of course, every college that wants to keep its professors happy better offer a bunch of courses celebrating black achievements. But can you imagine the furor that would erupt if anyone dared propose teaching a class on white achievements?

What got the Times reporter so rattled was her concern that Obama’s race could keep him from being re-elected this year. As Sabrina Tavernise explained, “As Mr. Obama braces for what most signs suggest will be a close re-election battle, race remains a powerful factor among a small minority of voters.”

Of course she means a “small minority” of white voters. Had she broadened her survey to include blacks, she could have written that race mattered to “a large majority.” In fact, it matters to a very large majority. Blacks supported Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008 by a margin of almost 24-1. But of course there’s nothing racist about that.

The Obama campaign is doing everything it can to make sure that this particular history repeats itself. There is even a special section on the campaign website on “The Obama Administration’s Accomplishments for the African American Community.” Click here to see what I am writing about.

Then Tavernise hits her audience with the zinger:

“Given Ohio’s critical importance as a swing state that will most likely be won or lost by the narrowest of margins, the fact that Mr. Obama’s race is a deal-breaker for even a small number of otherwise loyal Democrats could have implications for the final result.”

Now that is a bunch of baloney. What are the odds that someone who voted for Obama four years ago (when he carried Ohio by a comfortable margin) will vote for his opponent this year because Obama is black? Does she really think this is something the voters didn’t know in 2008? Her argument that anti-black bigotry could cost Obama the election this year is ridiculous.

If Obama loses, it won’t be because a majority of voters reject his race. It will be because they reject his policies.

What Republicans Should Do

Faced with the fact that blacks will once again overwhelmingly vote for Obama this year, what should Republicans do?

The most absurd argument I’ve heard is that they should select Condoleezza Rice as Mitt Romney’s running mate. Sure thing. And how much of the black vote will go to Romney because he has a black female on the ticket?

Let’s face facts: If Romney got four times as many black votes as McCain did four years ago, that would still be as insignificant as a mosquito biting the Hulk. In 2008, the black vote came to 12.1 percent of the total. Obama captured 95 percent of it. Does anyone think there is anything Romney could do to keep Obama from getting the overwhelming majority of it again?

Nominating Condoleezza as Vice President to fragment the black vote makes as much sense as choosing a union leader to make inroads in the union vote. Or a bureaucrat to get the government worker vote.

If Romney is to have any kind of chance this year, he must select someone who will get potential voters to work like crazy for his election. Those dedicated doorbell pushers and yard-sign displayers aren’t going to come from the liberal side of the ledger.

To use a phrase you’ve heard hundreds times before (and will hear a thousand more times before this November), Romney has to choose a candidate — and stake out positions — who will motivate the base. That isn’t Rice.

Heck, I suspect it isn’t even a black whose views I do support, such as Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell or Representative Allen West. Although any of those three articulate defenders of American principles would sure add some fire to the race. Could you see any of the three debating Joe Biden? Now, that’s a confrontation I’d pay good money to see.

I hope the left will continue to bang on the “if you oppose Obama you must be a racist” drum because the more they do, the more votes it will cost them. This one just doesn’t play in Peoria anymore. In fact, the only place it does work is the Obamas’ former church. Oh, and maybe Al Sharpton’s congregation.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.