Darrell Issa Perceiving Special Prosecutors Controlled by Corrupt Obama

Gulag Bound
By: Maggie Thornton
Maggies’ Notebook

Darrell Issa: Special Prosecutor Not A Good Idea for Fast and Furious: The Awakening!

Rep. Darrell Issa (CA-49, R)

I just heard Congressman Darrell Issa (D-CA) say perhaps a Special Prosecutor is not a good idea, as his committee has already been “stonewalled” by one for a year, on the Fast and Furious case. It’s good to hear a Congressman tell it like it is.

What he was saying is this administration is corrupt and rotten to the core and there is no reason to believe a special investigation or Special Prosecutor will do anything to investigate Attorney General Eric Holder’s lies.

After information was released this week saying Eric Holder knew about Fast and Furious as early as July 2010, despite his testimony in May 2011 that he had only learned of the Operation in the past few weeks, Issa did call for a Special Prosecutor. If that means an Inspector General investigation, we know they are worthless in an administration that seeks and uses lawlessness for it’s end purpose. We saw that when IG Gerald Walpin was “fired” by Obama for exposing AmeriCorp and Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson (yes, the NBA player). A president cannot fire an Inspector General, but this president did.

I don’t know the next step – who can “investigate?” Perhaps impeachment for Holder should be the next step.


Rest In Peace Steve Jobs…

Steve Jobs: Apple

Via Drudge: Apple’s Steve Jobs Is Dead

The world lost a brilliant innovator today. Steve Jobs passed at the age of 56.

He brought us Apple and so many wonderful inventions, I’ve lost count. Being in the computer industry, even though I never knew him, it brings tears to my eyes. It’s the end of an age and the world owes him a debt that can never be paid.

We will miss you Steve… God’s gain is our loss.


Sarah Palin Will Not Run for President

Knowledge Creates Power

In a statement to the Mark Levin radio show Wednesday evening, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin announced that she would not be running for president in 2012.

“I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency,” she wrote in a statement to supporters. “Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.”

Along with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s decision to stay out, Palin’s announcement means the field is really set.

ABC News’ Polson Kanneth reports:

Sarah Palin will not run for president. She made the announcement in a letter to supporters Wednesday night.

Read Palin’s letter here:

October 5, 2011
Wasilla, Alaska

After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.

Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.

In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.

Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country!

God bless America.

– Sarah Palin


Ring, Ring – This is a Police State

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

Yesterday, my attention was drawn to an article written by Buck Sexton which appeared on The Blaze, “Calif. Appeals Court Approves Cell Phone Searches During Traffic Stops.” I didn’t know cell phones were that big a deal. Okay, maybe we shouldn’t text while shifting and most of us would agree that hands free is better than having half your field of view blocked.

“In a case explicitly decided to set a precedent, the California Appellate court has determined police officers can rifle through your cellphone during a traffic violation stop.”

There is a problem with granting police powers which extend beyond protections built into a citizen’s God given right as covered under the 4th Amendment.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Times may have changed since this wonderful document was penned; however, the intent to protect a person’s “papers and effects,” which would now include digital information housed in any number of devices, shall not be violated. Police officers have been empowered to enforce the law and when needed to search suspects for weapons or illegal contraband; but have never had the power to go on “fishing expeditions” under the color of “inventorying” a prisoner’s property.

Speaking from the standpoint of a retired police officer, the rules of evidence were put in place to secure individual rights; not to empower a police state. Items found during a lawful inventory which were clearly prohibited, such as weapons or illegal substances, could be entered into a court of law as evidence. However, there is a limit to what can be considered “in plain view” or what items might be considered “hazardous” and a risk to the safety of either the public in general or the officer’s immediate safety.

“On December 6, 2009 Reid Nottoli was pulled over for speeding by Santa Cruz County Deputy Sheriff Steven Ryan. Sheriff Ryan then suspected after pulling Nottoli over that the 25-year-old was under the influence of drugs.

As Nottoli’s license was also expired, the Sheriff decided to impound the vehicle. Nottoli requested to leave his car parked on the side of the road. Sheriff Ryan refused, and decided to conduct an “inventory” search prior to the towing.”

Up until this point, the police were acting in the interests of the public, taking the suspect into custody as a possible DUI and an expired driver’s license is a lawful arrest. The officer was obligated by law to inventory items in the suspect’s vehicle prior to having it towed to an impound. Again, for the benefit of the suspect and to protect the officer from unwarranted accusations of theft or neglect in the event items later turned up missing or were claimed to be missing.

“A fully legal Glock 20 pistol with a Guncrafter Industries 50 GI conversion that should have been stored in the trunk of the vehicle. He also noticed Nottoli’s Blackberry Curve which, after it was turned on, displayed a photograph of a mask-wearing man holding two AR-15 rifles akimbo.”

Aside from that first sentence being incomplete, the court was informed that a legal weapon was found during the inventory. Depending on the laws in California, the officer either would file additional charges for improperly transporting a weapon or, since this was a lawful weapon, the officer might have stored the weapon in a proper manner until such time as the suspect was released.

Pay attention. This is where the court has stepped over the line and violated the 4th Amendment rights of every citizen via this one case. The officer stated the suspect’s cell phone was not on during the inventory process. This was not a “search incident to arrest.” The officer turned the cell phone on and at that time observed a photograph which caused him to believe photographs contained therein may link the suspect with an unrelated crime.

Read the intent of the 4th Amendment once again.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

If the officer stated he feared for his personal safety or perhaps the phone was hollow and contained illegal drugs, it might have been reasonable to play with it. If the suspect could be connected with terrorist activities in which cell phones were used to trigger explosive devices from a remote location, at that moment the officer might have the authority to turn on the device even if such actions would be fool hearty considering the possibility that the simple act of activating the cell phone might be enough to trigger an explosive device depending on how it was programmed.

Idle curiosity caused the officer to turn the cell phone on, nothing more. No warrant could be obtained under such circumstances regardless of what images where presented to the officer’s view since he had to turn the device on when it was no threat in its present state. There was no probable cause to believe the officer was arresting anyone but a DUI traffic violator who failed to secure a legal weapon in the trunk.

“…the appellate court’s decision, written by Franklin Elia, which read in part:

“The deputies had unqualified authority under Gant (*) to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle and any container found therein, including Reid’s cell phone. It is up to the US Supreme Court to impose any greater limits on officers’ authority to search incident to arrest.”


“This case demonstrates that the scope of exception to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against governmental searches and seizures relating to searches incident to arrest is still unclear. Both parties address Belton’s bright-line rule to the Fourth Amendment allowing warrantless vehicular searches incident to a lawful arrest. If the Supreme Court adopts Arizona’s position on Belton, police will have broad discretion to search the vehicle of any arrestee, subject only to the limitation that the arrestee was a “recent occupant” of the vehicle. A decision for Gant, on the other hand, would require an officer to reasonably fear for his safety or the integrity of the evidence before he could search an arrestee’s vehicle without a warrant. In either case, the Supreme Court’s decision may further define the extent of police authority to perform warrantless vehicular searches incident to a lawful arrest.”

I’m sorry Franklin Elia, opening a closed container which may or may not hide from plain view weapons or contraband is not the same as opening a closed digital file belonging to a citizen. This no different than extracting information directly from the suspect’s mouth and is most definitely a violation of the 4th Amendment.

As a concerned citizen and retired police officer, it is my duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In the long run, we are trading security for liberty and those who do so deserve neither security nor liberty. Isn’t that what Benjamin Franklin warned?

Our judiciary system is being used to transform America into a police state; troubling to say the least. The rule of law which holds our society together appears to have been abandoned in favor of the police state. Our founding documents and the limits placed on government act to protect individual God given rights. Our courts now act with impunity violating individual rights, and with each new decision advance the notion that such actions are justified; not by our Constitution but through each amended court decision linked one upon the other. It would appear we have already become subjects of the state rather than citizens.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”



By: Chad Kent
Chad Kent Speaks

Every law the House of Representatives passes will operate on the Representatives and their friends, as well as the society.


This creates a strong bond and common interests between rulers and the people. Few governments have this feature. And without it, every government degenerates into tyranny.


If the people of America ever tolerate a law that does not apply to legislators, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.

James Madison, Federalist Papers #57

Translation by Mary Webster

The principle that Madison lays out above is essential to preserving our liberty – without it freedom cannot survive.

On the other hand, when we force our politicians to live by the same laws as everyone else – that approach to government serves as a rock solid guardian of our liberty.

Why? Because no politician is going to vote to oppress himself or take away his own rights.

Look at it this way – do you think Obamacare would have passed if our politicians thought they were going to get the same third-rate health care that the rest of us will be stuck with? Of course not.

Unfortunately, we have allowed our representatives to vote themselves healthy pensions, life-time health care benefits, and all kinds of other special exceptions that insulate them from the effects of the legislation they pass – and reinforce the belief that politicians are superior to the rest of us mere peasants.

As Madison said, if the American people accept this behavior from our representatives, then we are clearing the way for our own oppression.