Read the story here. Advertise at Before It's News here.
Profile image
Story Views
Last hour:
Last 24 hours:

No More 4th Amendment: DHS Can Still Seize Belongings Without Reason

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.


The Fourth Amendment no longer means what you once thought it did: A new report reveals that the government has shrugged off concerns over the alleged constitutional infringements of its own citizens near international crossings.

An internal review of the US Department of Homeland Security’s procedures regarding the suspicionless search-and-seizure of phones and laptops near the nation’s border has reaffirmed the agency’s ability to bypass Fourth Amendment-protected rights [.pdf].


In a two page executive summary published quietly last month to the official DHS website, the agency explains that a civil rights and civil liberties impact assessment of the office’s little-known power to collect personal electronics near international crossings has passed an auditor’s interpretation of what does and doesn’t violate the US Constitution.

Since 2009, the DHS has been legally permitted to seize and review the contents of personal electronic devices, including mobile phones, portable computers and data discs, even without being able to cite any reasonable suspicion that those articles were involved in a crime.

When the initiative was introduced in August 2009 by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, she defended the policy change. “Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States,” the secretary said, adding, “The new directives announced today strike the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.”

In that Aug. 09 announcement, Sec. Napolitano ensured the American public that they had nothing to worry about and that an impact assessment would be conducted within 120 days to eliminate any fears. More than two years later, however, the DHS-led study has only now been released in part, and its findings do little to alleviate the concerns of civil liberty advocates who have held their breath since the early days of the Obama administration, waiting anxiously to hear about the legality of a directive that applies to both Customs and Border Protectionagents and officers with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement working under the DHS.

“We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment,” reads the assessment, written by Tamara Kessler of the department’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. “We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” she adds.

Elsewhere in her report, Kessler dismisses concerns that legalized searches that require Americans to submit their electronic devices without reason would scare citizens from exercising their ability to speak and act freely.

“Some critics argue that a heightened level of suspicion should be required before officers search laptop computers in order to avoid chilling First Amendment rights. However, we conclude that the laptop border searches allowed under the ICE and CBP Directives do not violate travelers’ First Amendment rights,” Tessler insists.

David Kravets, a reporter for Wired’s Danger Room, writes of the review, “The memo highlights the friction between today’s reality that electronic devices have become virtual extensions of ourselves housing everything from e-mail to instant-message chats to photos and our papers and effects — juxtaposed against the government’s stated quest for national security.”

Commenting on Wired’s report, American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Catherine Crump voices concern over how DHS agents can essentially bypass the protections of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable search-and-seizure. With few exceptions, the government is not permitted to search the belongings of a person without a reasonable suspicion of a crime. Near the nation’s borders, though, that requirement is removed entirely.

“There should be a reasonable, articulate reason why the search of our electronic devices could lead to evidence of a crime,” Crump tells Wired. “That’s a low threshold.”

Katie Haas of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program adds in a blog post this week, “the reality is that

allowing government agents to search through all of a traveler’s data without reasonable suspicion is completely incompatible with our fundamental rights. Those rights, she says, are “implicated when the government can rummage through our computers and cell phones for no reason other than that we happen to have traveled abroad.”

“Suspicionless searches also open the door to profiling based on perceived or actual race, ethnicity, or religion,”Haas adds, “And our First Amendment rights to free speech and free association are inhibited when agents at the border can target us for searches based on our exercise of those rights.”

In response to the stripped-down executive summary posted by DHS, the ACLU’s main office has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the government in hopes of obtaining more information on when and why Americans might lose their Fourth Amendment-protected rights. The ACLU seeks the assessment in its entirety and all data, analyses and records gathered during the course of preparing the report.

Where exactly the government can seize personal items without reason is something that has already been determined, though. Last March, the US Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling that legally permitted the use of suspicionless roadblocks not necessarily close to the country’s borders. Back in 2006, the ACLU determined that roughly two-thirds of the entire US population lives within 100 miles of the country’s border, making approximately 200 million Americans in places like Buffalo, Boston, Los Angeles and Seattle subject to warrantless and suspicionless searches.

“It is a classic example of law enforcement powers expanding far beyond their proper boundaries – in this case, literally,” ACLU’s Caroline Fredrickson told Wired for an earlier report.

Sec. Napolitano and the DHS have been sued at least once over allegations that the seizure of personal electronic belonging to a US citizen near an international border violated the Constitution of the country. David House, a founding member of the Bradley Manning Support Network, says his laptop and other devices were confiscated without reason while returning to the US from Mexico in November 2010. According to legal filings, House was grilled about his association with Manning, an accused Army whistleblower arrested six months earlier, and WikiLeaks, the website Manning is alleged to have supplied with hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables.


Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world.

Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.

"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.

Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!

Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!

HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation

Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.

MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser!  Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen! 
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover -  Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%!  (See Video)

Immusist Beverage Concentrate - Proprietary blend, formulated to reduce inflammation while hydrating and oxygenating the cells.

Report abuse


    Your Comments
    Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

    Total 36 comments
    • Suni

      If you have nothing to hide it should not be a problem. Make a copy of the phone numbers in your phone or any important info and mail it to yourself just in case. I had rather go tot that little bit of trouble and have the DHS catch a bad guy to keep me safe. Everything is not perfect and yes there are time when the gov get to much in my face and business and I lose faith. This is not a big deal , yet. Thanks for looking out. :idea:

      • Iteration

        Regardless if you do or do not have anything to hide, they have no reason to do a search and seizure unless they have an actual reason (Which in most cases they have ZERO). That is what the 4th Amendment protects us from. Its YOUR willingness to just give up your rights and YOUR thought process to allow them to do this is whats destroying the US.

        You can be a good little sheep all you want, but I WILL NEVER GIVE UP MY RIGHTS.

        • Desert_Fox

          Hoorah, he’s not a sheep, Iteration, he’s one of those people that is willing to be a slave. I damn sure ain’t going to be a slave. I served for over 30+ years defending the Constitution against all enemies FOREIGN and DOMESTIC, so they better have a damn good reason to be knocking on my door. :mad: :mad: :mad:

          I took the following oath in 1963 when I enlisted into the Army and I have tried to live up to it ever since. (I’ve included the one for Officers)

          “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

          “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

          Oh, and here is a saying that I like: ‘AN UNARMED INDIVIDUAL IS A SLAVE; WHEREAS AN ARMED ONE IS FREE!” I ain’t no slave and will not allow my family or friends become one; will you?

        • Anonymous

          I agree completely, Iteration! This corporate gov’t has essentially chosen to ignore the Constitution. Have you noticed how the police – pretty much ALL L.E. – is killing innocent people all over the country with NO ACCOUNTABILITY? I read a story just a bit ago about a cop who broke into a guy’s house on a no-knock raid in the middle o the night. The guy was bare-assed and held a T-shirt over his genitals, still trying to figure out what was going on. The cop SHOT HIM in the gut; put him in a coma for I forget how long. The dude survived (I believe the cop was also at the wrong address – apparently cops can’t read very well either), but just barely. The cop’s excuse? He thought the T-shirt was a gun! The judge ruled the cop hadn’t done anything wrong.

          More and more this is happening. Rights? WHAT RIGHTS?


        • matty

          Well, they just determined that keeping thousands of Americans safe from someone trying to smuggle a bomb into the country through lapto is a reason. Do you not think that our boarders should be kept safe? They search your damn phones and computers before you get on a plane…it’s going to be nothing more than that. THere is no “seizure” happening.

          I love how you think you know what your talking about when you say things like “they have no reason to do a search unless they have an actual reason…” hmmmm…no reason, unless an actual reason. Dude, go back to school. Your retarded. And don’t pick law as a career.

      • Wizard Killer

        The question isn’t whether you have something to hide or not, the question is whether we the people have given consent to be treated like criminals for no reason. The fourth amendment is specifically telling the government to leave our ‘stuff’ alone without probable cause and without a warrant supported by oath or affirmation. These clowns are pushing the limit the same way the King of England did.

        • matty

          So, you don’t think that making sure someone doesn’t bring a bomb into the country inside a laptop is a justifiable cause to check out their laptop, the same way the do at the airport? Yeah, go ahead with your phony outrage, idiot.

      • Anonymous

        You’re a perfect moron!
        The TSA keeping you safe? Just this comment list your IQ below freezing point. Moron!

      • matty

        Well, you’re kind of missing the point of the Fourth Amendment. The idea is that there are other private things that you don’t want the government to just search through without cause…that aren’t necessrily illegal things, but they are things you want to be kept private and not have someone just bust out in front of dozens of people and start sifting through. It’s the same with stopping a person and patting them down…it’s a little embarassing to have that happen, even if you aren’t doing anything wrong or carrying anything illega.

        You also totally whiffed on what this law implies. It doesn’t state that law enforcement is going to seize your electronics and not give it back to you, rather, they are simply going to search it to make sure it’s not a bomb or something. The government isn’t going to steal your iphone and laptop…I mean, cmon…you do know where you live, right?

    • aptitude

      An artificial line drawn in the sand.
      Guarded by a troll with a gun.
      We are not cattle.
      God made one a citizen of the world;
      no one should fence you into their control.

    • KBright

      They are breaking the Oath; plus those who they have implement that action against American citizens and those legally allowed to be here are being made criminals. There IS no legitimate defense of: “I was just doing my job” or “I was just following orders” from oath takers that can be used as defense – not now, nor has there EVER been in the USA. Those who enforced Germany’s “laws” found that out at the Nuremberg Trials – those not tried at that time are STILL being hunted down TODAY for prosecution. The lawfully required Oath is legally binding. If any federal employee did not take the oath to support and defend the US Constitution they actually have NO legal jurisdiction within the USA.

      The LAWFULLY required LEGALLY binding oath has meaning. Most may not realize that breaking the oath is not just a political offense, it is also both a CRIMINAL and CIVIL offense for which they should be prosecuted, and it makes them no longer meet the LAWFUL requirements of the office/position they are occupying. Who does this apply to: The THREE BRANCHES OF OUR FED GOVERNMENT, the MILITARY, ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT, the HEADS OF THE STATES, ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES are ALL required to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

      Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. (caps are mine for emphasis)

      5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

      5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and HAVE NOT OR WILL NOT VIOLATE THAT OATH OF OFFICE DURING THEIR TENURE OF OFFICE AS DEFINED BY THE THIRD PART OF THE LAW,

      5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.


      The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.


      Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) ANY ACT TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE TAKEN THE OATH OF OFFICE PRESCRIBED BY 5 U.S.C. 3331 WHICH ALTERS THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT other then by amendment, IS A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF THE 5 U.S.C. 7311.

      Plus: Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

      The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

      The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

      The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

      Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’

      The Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses setting forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President’s assigned power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

      The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

      They are bound by their Oath to support the US Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure – political remedy for a political offense; civil and criminal charges.

      “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

      Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

      Solemn: “LEGALLY BINDING, COMMON LEGAL PHRASE INDICATING THAT AN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN CONSCIOUSLY MADE, AND CERTAIN ACTIONS ARE NOW EITHER REQUIRED OR PROHIBITED. The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
      Bound: “BEING UNDER LEGAL or moral OBLIGATION; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

      Legally Binding: COMMON LEGAL PHRASE. LAWFUL ACTION, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

      Consideration: “Consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.”

      Require, Requirement, Required: MANDATED UNDER A LAW OR BY AN AUTHORITATIVE ENTITY. “To claim or ask for by right and authority; That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

      Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.”

      The Framers placed the requirement for “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.
      Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

      Preamble to the Bill of Rights
      Congress of the United States
      begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
      THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
      RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
      ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

      Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.” The Bill of Rights are unalienable – as William Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” defined unalienable and used by the framers:

      “Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, NO HUMAN LEGISLATURE HAS POWER TO ABRIDGE OR DESTROY THEM, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.”

      Modern Dictionalries definitions: Inalienable rights: “a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred”

      Art IV Sec 2, the 14th says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

      Domestic Enemies of the USA: “Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, bills, executive orders, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of the protection of those Rights”

      • matty

        Wow…look at you. You can copy and paste old quotes from United Stated historical documents. You must be so knowledgeable regarding our fundamental rights..

        So tell me…what does the actual law about seizing the electronic devices say? Oh, you’re too dumb to know where to find that, and too stupid to read it and understand it? That’s what I thought.

    • arpes

      Suni – That has got to be one of the most braindead things I’ve read in a while….

      PS… They don’t have the right. They just think they do!!!!!!

    • arpes

      Suni – That has got to be one of the most braindead things I’ve read in a while….

      PS… They don’t have the right. They just think they do!!!!!!

      Kbright – I think you meant “unalienable”

    • Anonymous

      AGENDA 21 has been going on since the 60′s right before our own eyes..and is still allowed to this day.. in countries ALL OVER THE WORLD

      Educate yourselves and learn… time is soon running out..

      Patriot or Sheep..

      Masses can only fix this mess..

      • Harry Nut

        you got 30 days Anonymous then your theory is debunked!

    • KBright

      “When the initiative was introduced in August 2009 by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, she defended the policy change. “Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States,” the secretary said, adding, “The new directives announced today strike the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.”

      Janet Napolitano lied when she said this. There is NOTHING LAWFUL ABOUT THE ‘POLICY CHANGE’ and she knows it.

      She has broken her oath and needs to be LAWFULLY removed, arrested, and prosecuted, as do those who ILLEGALLY implemented her UNLAWFUL orders and broke the lawfully required oaths they took, any and all who were involved in this illegal activitly against our nation.

      If they did not take the lawfully required oath to SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION as then they are unlawfully in the postion they are in, and have NO lawful power to do anything to US citizens or anyone else and MUST be arrested and prosecuted for assault, stealing, impersonation of an officer of the USA, false imprisonment, and I am sure there are various other criminal and civil offenses they did.

      “the agency explains that a civil rights and civil liberties impact assessment of the office’s little-known power to collect personal electronics near international crossings has passed an auditor’s interpretation of what does and doesn’t violate the US Constitution”

      They do NOT have the lawful power to “interpret” the US Constitution. It is a lie, and an usurpation of powers – The wrongful seizure of something by force, especially of sovereignty or other authority – which is illegal here in the USA. No one was given the power to “interpret” the US Constitution.

      In case you were not aware of it, the Supreme Courts were also NEVER given the power to “INTERPRET” the US Constitution, only to make sure that ALL laws, bills, amendments, executive orders, etc were in “pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. There is a huge difference from “interpreting” to “making sure that they are in accordance with”.

      In the framers and founders own words:

      “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….” Thomas Jefferson

      “If the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones.” Thomas Jefferson

      Alexander Hamilton: “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.”

      “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamiltion

      ”We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution” Abe Lincoln

      1992 Bilderberg Group meeting, Henry Kissinger said: “Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil….individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government.”

      “Politicians brought the Nazis to power and started the war. They are the ones who brought about these disgusting crimes.” Karl Doenitz, German admiral and would-be fuehrer after Hitler

      “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” John Marshall

      “Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.” John Adams

      “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” John Adams

      ”I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations”. James Madison

      ”The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government”. Thomas Jefferson

      “the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.

    • IMPEACHtheliarNthief

      Obama SUCKS!

      • 69ingSquirrels

        Great Rebuttal dickwad

      • horedog


      • horedog


      • matty

        Yeah, as if Obama is unilaterlly doing all this. THere are OTHER parts of the government than the president…

    • RA-n

      As has already been said here , they have no such rights just because they say they do. Opperating on their lies is not something to accept but to defend against. They have become the enemies of mankind and of the light and so have defined their fates.

    • dxcircuits

      The people get the government they deserve. Even the patriots has a price tag just like our tyrannical government. Keep sitting on your ass and wait for someone to save you.

    • desertspeaks

      easy enough to overcome, find someone outside of your immediate family that you really trust and i mean REALLY TRUST!
      Have them file liens against each and every item you own for at least 1 million dollars per item. File those liens with your states secretary of states office.
      NOW if the government wants to keep your items, they can fork over $1 MILLION DOLLARS PER ITEM!

    • anonymous

      Back in 2012, DHS stole 2 boxes of .45 ACP ammo from the house where I was living in Penn-sly-vain-lie, when DHS agents are selling their government supplied ammo on the street somewhere I plan to ‘negotiate’ the repatriation of my ammo back from them. HAR! HAR!

    • anonymous

      Back in 2012, DHS stole 2 boxes of .45 ACP ammo from the house where I was living in Penn-sly-vain-lie, when DHS agents are selling their government supplied ammo on the street somewhere I plan to ‘negotiate’ my ammo back from them. HAR! HAR!

      • 69ingSquirrels

        You know you’re a redneck when that happens……..

        How many kids you have with your sister? all of them have 12 toes and the IQ of a goldfish?

    • Banderman

      B.S. This Administration cannot claim the U.S. Constitution allows their agenda one minute and they then eviscerate it the next.

    • Harry Nut

      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.

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      New flash…. We are at war…. We are facing danger everyday…..

      I for one am unsettled about our current Commander in Chief and the chaos we are going through. However, if an unwarranted search was to happen to me I know a good lawyer….


    • spartacus

      those who have the guns make the rules ! ,this is what out nation has turned into !

    • Patriot

      Wake up, we also have lost the 7th Amendment, depending on the whims of judges.
      Proof is at

      Also some info about things like that at

      Hmm, let’s see….

      – 1st Amendment: only good for muslims & far-left liberals.
      – 2nd Amendment: govt trying to axe that one currently.
      – 4th Amendment: as noted above.
      – 7th Amendment: website mentioned proves violation of that one by 4 judges allowing perjury to kick a case out for famous employer it seems.

      Are there anymore? Surely others are endangered as well that we don’t notice so quickly.
      I think it is time to get onboard with the pro-Constitution people in politics. Not sure who will work, as Ron Paul resigned, but I hear his son Rand Paul might be a decent guy.

    • midwestgrandma

      Suni, you are a either a brain controlled sheep or a disinformation cell placed on this site.

      You trust a country that drone bombs civilians, tortures, covertly murders other world leaders and places ones into power that adhere to “the 1% elite’s policies”, gropes your children and grandmother, scans and keeps pictures of you naked on a data base, cameras on every street corner, etc.

      The American Government has never shown itself to be of moral fiber – we are the only country to have used WMD twice on civilians and are now bombing the Middle East with spent uranium.

      Now, a tyrant / bully is just that, a tyrant / bully. When your home or your brothers home is drone bombed say in another couple years or your sister, cousins “disappear” – perhaps you will wake up.

      But, by then it will be too late.

      I suggest strongly you get and read three books, “The End of America” and “Give Me Liberty” both by Naomi Wolf and “Defeating The Totalitarian Lie” by Hilmar Von Campe who lived in Germany during Hitler’s reign.

      You have a lot to learn, your very ignorant of the train baring down on all of us and you refuse to get off the tracks.

    • StarRyder

      I’m a Canadian, and things seem to be working on both sides of the border. I for instance, live very close to the border and cross regularly to shop. But the route I choose can create “reasonable suspicion” even if my route makes more sense and the customs agent doesn’t know east from west. If I choose to travel through the U.S. to a crossing closer to my destination rather then my home address, upon my return into Canada, I am searched, and detained, just because I am crossing where they “THINK” I shouldn’t be….it really doesn’t make sense but thats the way it is.

    • Stevicus

      I wont hear a bad word said about the DHS they are absolutely necessary to catch all those “bad guys” hiding in the cracks & crevices at a place near you. And come on ? they are an agency and they need to raise revenue in order to fund themselves & we cant have the tax payers footing the whole bill can we ? Lets face it they are only seizing the property & belongings of the “bad guys” & potential bad guys, and lets be honest here, everyones a bad guy if he aint you. So if you have nothing to hide then regular scanbathing should be an essential part of you itinerary, but if your not getting enough dont worry because a new summer of scanshine is a dawning…

    • matty

      How is searching only electronic devices and ONLY where crossing our nation’s boarders, a violtion of FOurth Amendment rights? Let me explain something to the imbeciles bitching about this, and whatever idiot wrote this…

      Any right, whether it be the right to due process, or the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures absent a warrant…ANY right is not completely absolute. The 4th Amendment rights are among those. I mean, you HAVE heard of someone being searched without a warrant before, right? Have you heard of Exigent Circumstances? What about the “good faith” exception? Well then you need to do your homework.

      Here’s how it works: if a right is to be limited by the government or by law enforcement, there has to be an articulable reason for doing so, and in the Fourth Amendment’s case, it’s usually safety (See Terry v. Ohio, the “stop and frisk” designed to protect law enforcement officers during the normal duties of a criminal investigation).

      Since our nation has been surprised-attacked by foreign enemies both at home and abroad, and since technology is becoming more and more advanced, I think the safety of thousands of people is a pretty articulate reason for searching your freaking laptop or your iphone. The interest of protecting the lives of potentially thousands of people who could be harmed if a bomb is disguised as a laptop or a phone, FAR outweighs any consequence of such a limited search.

      Now, this is really a non issue. Why is there this belief that we should be so untrusting of the government? The problems our government is facing right now is internal conflict between parties, not anything the government is doing to it’s citizens. THere hasn’t been this widespread infringement on our COnstiutional (or any other) rights, and people have been saying that it’s happening or that it’s coming literally all my life. Well, none of it happened. Not when everyone was bitching about the phone taps during the Bush W. adminisration, or the paranoid-delusional, kooked-out “Fema camp” theory, not the increasing use of drones in areas where we are fighting terrorism, oh, and despite the recent mass murders noone’s taken away anyone’s guns (although, some woiuld have you beleive that the government is “trying” to do this…whatever.)

      It’s time for all the damn ridiculous, government hating nonsense to end. Did this news channel report on the U.S. v. Jones case, which protected our Fourth Amendment rights by ruling tjat evidence gained from a gps device installed without a warrant is inadmissible? THat’s what I thought….

    Load more ...




    Email this story
    Email this story

    If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

    If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.