DHS Directives on Border Searches of Electronic Media
Submitted by cjgayman on Thu, 08/27/2009 – 12:30
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano recently announced two new directives aimed at improving oversight for searches of computers and electronic [devices] at U.S. entry ports. This is viewed as an important move to support DHS efforts to “combat transnational crime and terrorism while protecting privacy and civil liberties.” [HUH? WHAT THE … !?]
“The new directives address the circumstances under which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can conduct border searches of electronic media—consistent with the Department’s Constitutional authority to search other sensitive non-electronic materials, such as briefcases, backpacks and notebooks, at U.S. borders.” DHS today also released this Privacy Impact Assessment for the new guidelines on border searches of electronic devices in order to enhance public understanding of these new procedures and controls used by DHS.
NO LOGIC AT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY!
Warrantless searches of your laptop, PDAs, iPods, Blackberries, cellphones, DVD players, etc., are unconstitutional violations of the Fourth 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.”
Using DHS logic they can strip search you in the name of combatting transnational crime and terrorism while protecting your privacy and civil liberties just because they say so. And if you refuse the warrantless search? Will they arrest you? Welcome to the Government Totalitarianism! Isn’t despotism fun?
In the study of logic, “[a] stipulative definition assigns a meaning to a word for the first time. This may involve either coining a new word or giving a new meaning to an old word. The purpose of a stipulative definition is usually to replace a more complex expression with a simpler one. The need for a stipulative definition is often occasioned by some new phenomenon or development.” Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, University of San Diego, Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997, p. 92.
In Botany, a radicule (a.k.a. radicle) is a the part of a plant embryo that develops into a root. In Anatomy it is a small structure, such as a fibril of a nerve, that resembles a root. In the example of a kernel of corn, pictured at right, the (2) root radicle elongates protected by (1) coleorhiza. Soon, the shoot radicle protected by (3) coleoptile starts to elongate above the soil surface.
Definition of radical (Meriam-Webster Dictionary): (Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root — more at root. Date: 14th century) 1 : of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as a (1) : of or growing from the root of a plant <radical tubers>; (2) : growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground <radical leaves> b : of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root c : of or relating to a mathematical root d : designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue <radical surgery> <radical mastectomy>; 2 : of or relating to the origin : fundamental; 3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>; 4 slang : excellent, cool
I stand on the premise that the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights intended that every law-abiding citizen has the absolute right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate, interstate, nautical, and maritime travel under the Common Defence Clause of the Preamble, the Supremacy Clause, the Second, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, the National Open Carry Standard (A.K.A. The Standard Model). In today’s society this makes me a “radical” against the current belief system that the NRA’s National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry is the constitutional norm. I submit that even those who advocate the NRA’s National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry are radicals under the National Open Carry Standard of the Constitution of the United States.
Because I have advocated the National Open Carry Standard of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights I have been bombarded from the left wingers and the right wingers with libelous personal attacks, insults, and even threats to my reputation by those who don’t even know me. It is the liberal left’s culture of “shut up” which has apparently been adopted by the conservative right as well. (See below).
I submit the following as relevant evidence of the need for the new stipulative definition of Radicule to discribe any Radicals who use argumentum ad hominem attacks instead of debating the actual issues:
For a backgrounder on the political connection to this new stipulative definition for “Radicule” see Rules 5 and 11 of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in John Eric Braun, Obama and Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, at Politics-4-All (blog), August 6, 2009.
See also, Marc Ambinder, The Rise of the Alinsky Explanation, The Atlantic: Politics, August 12, 2009.
See video, Glenn Beck Discusses Two of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” Being Used Against Americans Today, at Freedom’s Lighthouse (blog), August 13, 2009, reporting on Rules 5 and 12 of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
See Andrew Klavan, On the Culture: Shut Up, August 1, 2009. Andrew Klavan reveals the strategy used to silence the criticism and ideas of conservative thinkers.
See Sonja Schmidt video, PJTV: America’s Culture of Blame (Silent No More) , August 14, 2009. Sonja Schmidt takes us back to a time before America strayed from the principles of the Founding Fathers… a time before the culture of blame. – http://www.pjtv.com
See Kyle-Anne Shiver, Obama’s Radical Revolution: Its Alinsky Root and Global Vision, at American Thinker (blog), August 15, 2009.
Alinsky’s Power Tactics:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is mans most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise of tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
Download Admiralty Lawsuit [Here] (Revised Tuesday, August 18, 2008)
Added Headings to the Introduction.
Because I cannot presently afford the cost of printing 11 copies of the 500-page Admiralty lawsuit I must wait until October when I will then be able to afford the cost of printing. An immediate $500 donation or loan is the only way I can get this Admiralty lawsuit printed and filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at this time. Any help will be greatly appreciated. If you want to help email me at 4donhamrick[at]gmail[dot]com. I will post a notice on this blog alerting the public that someone has stepped forward with the donation or loan.
The Admiralty lawsuit will be revised again and again as events develop or as I discover new information until it gets printed and filed.
PART 3. Introduction (Table of Contents)
1. Taking a Stand for the Supremacy Clause and the Second Amendment Against the Fourteenth Amendment
2. Taking a Stand for the “More Perfect Union” Clause and the “Supremacy Clause” against the State Action Doctrine for the Direct Horizontal Effect Doctrine
3. The Judicial Coup d’État Against Constitutional Rights and Civil Rights is Treason Against the Constitution of the United States
4. The Judicial Coup d’État of Judicial Deference to the Executive and Legislative Branches is Judicial Treason Against the Constitution of the United States.
5. Judicial Treatment of Absolute Ministerial Duties (Oath of Office) as Discretionary Duties is Judicial Treason Against the Constitution of the United States
6. The Public-Duty Doctrine Compels the Second Amendment’s Right to National Open Carry Handgun in Intrastate, Interstate, Nautical, and Maritime Travel as an Absolute Constitutional Right and as an Absolute Human Right for the Law-Abiding Citizen
7. Federal Courts Differential Treatment of 1974 Nixon and 2009 Obama Threatens Anarchy and Perhaps Even Civil War
8. Why the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Should Abandon Defense of this Admiralty Complaint
9. People Rebelling Against Gun Control By Exercising Right to Open Carry
10. U.S. Supreme Court’s 14 Self-Defense Cases
11. No Federal Laws or Regulations For or Against National Open Carry
Federal Courts Differential Treatment of 1974 Nixon and 2009 Obama Threatens Anarchy and Perhaps Even Civil War(?)
Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) – Justice Brandeis, dissenting (Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.) [Plaintiff’s Emphasis added.]
Today we have President Obama who is considered to have committed treason against the Constitution by refusing to prove his eligibility as a natural born citizen to be President of the United States. This places Obama and his Administration as lawbreakers inviting anarchy.
Anarchy is clearly evident when Obama’s refusal to respect the Constititution’s prerequisites for the Office of President emboldens an unscrupulous person to criminally obstruct justice with a forged birth certificate.
In Alan Keyes et al v. Obama et al, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:09-0082-DOC-AN, plaintiffs’ attorney, Orly Taitz filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Expedite Authentication, Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for Authenticity of Kenyan Birth Certificate Filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes Phd on August 1, 2009.
Then, a week later, August 7, 2009, WorldNetDaily publishes, Blogger: I Created Kenya Document: Posts Images of document, Says ‘You’ve Been Punk’d’.
A blogger who is maintaining anonymity is claiming to have generated a Kenyan birth certificate for the president that appears similar to the one unveiled days ago by a California attorney who has shepherded several lawsuits over Barack Obama’s eligibility.
The blogger wrote on fearlessblogging a list of materials used in the work, including: Fine cotton business paper: $11, Inkjet printer: $35, 1940 Royal Model KMM manual typewriter: $10, 2 Shilling coin: $1, Pilot Varsity fountain pen: $3 and then cited “Punkin’ the Birthers: Priceless.”
Producing and distributing the forged Kenyan Birth Certificate is a criminal act under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 Frauds and Swindles, 18 U.S.C. § 1423 Misuse of Evidence of Citizenship or Naturalization, 18 U.S.C. § 1425 Procurement of Citizenship or Naturalization Unlawfully, 18 U.S.C. § 1426 Reproduction of Naturalization or Citizenship Papers.
On one hand we had a white president Nixon in 1974 who resigned under threat of impeachment over the Absolute Privilege Doctrine for presidential communications to which the federal court enforced its Article III powers over the Executive Branch. Today we have a black president Obama who hasn’t yet proven his eligibility to occupy the Office of the President to which the federal courts refuse to enforce its Article III powers over the Executive Branch. Is this Affirmative Action in practice or is it unmitigated racism because it is definitely NOT equal justice under the law.
United States v. Nixon 418 U.S. 683, 705-707 (1974):
However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. [418 U.S. 683, 707]
The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.
“While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).
To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of “a workable government” and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.
The same rule of law should also apply to civil proceedings seeking a judicial remedy against President Obama and his refusal to prove his eligibility to hold the Office of President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.