RSS

DHS Declares “Constitution-Free Zones”

07 Aug

Since A.D. 2008.

video   00:04:24

 

Tags: , , , , ,

28 responses to “DHS Declares “Constitution-Free Zones”

  1. Ken

    August 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM

    You can outsource your Constitutional protections, but maybe you should also remember that you are the one solely responsible for your Constitutional protections.

     
  2. dasanco

    August 7, 2013 at 10:51 PM

    hehe … probably not real!
    if it were … the existence of free-zones, mean confirm it DOES exist elsewhere … which they’d never do?!

     
  3. Martens

    August 7, 2013 at 11:59 PM

    Yeah, this is probably fake, or at least misrepresented and over-hyped.

    But what else you do expect from a video by some unknown guy on YouTube pretending to be a news anchor?

     
    • Dusty

      August 8, 2013 at 2:04 AM

      Actually, Anthony has been around for some time, and has done a load of interviews with many mainstream and alternative sites and journals. He’s been featured on Drudge, as well, which is not exactly “some unknown guy” as you put it.
      He’s also a convert from atheism to a believer in Christ, altho I think doesn’t claim a particular ‘religion’ or denomination. I’d say he has libertarian leanings. He’s been featured on Info wars, Coast to Coast, many radio programs like Power Hour. I think he makes a credible presentation that we should put to our ‘representatives’ and demand an answer on the record!

      There is a lot of talk right now about defunding and abolishing the DHS, that there is about 15 top jobs unfilled in that agency right now, and would be an ideal time to put the lid on the coffin!

      I demanded my “congressperson” to tell me if we are still operating under The War Powers Act, and under SOE, during which all courts except administrative were under military control. At least 4 different exchanges with them and his staff, all promising to get me an answer, and they never would answer it. Instead one of his “military advisors” asked me “what do you want to know for??”.This is is level of arrogance and cover of silence that they exert over the citizens.

      I will be raising some of these issues in the media in their districts this coming election season, which I promised them I would do, if they refused to give me an answer. It’s TIME to get busy and put these elite narcissists into retirement!!

       
  4. Dusty

    August 8, 2013 at 2:15 AM

    Here’s a link to an interview Anthony did with Dan Bongino, who I think is in Maryland (?) and is running for the Senate I think.. I’m on his mail list, and I LOVE this guys’ message!! He’s a solid thinker and speaker… and deserves support. I’ve sent him $$ too and I’m in the midwest. We need this kind of guy speaking out on the issues. In fact, I heard him on Alex Jones just last night, I think.. they had a great discussion. Check him out. He’s got a youtube channel too.
    http://www.storyleak.com/ex-obama-secret-service-exposes-gun-control-agenda/

     
  5. Jetlag

    August 8, 2013 at 4:35 AM

    I, for one, would not dismiss this video so hastily. It could very well be correct. The problem is, YouTube is not a reliable source. In fact, it’s an infamous distributor of “yellow journalism” (see definition below), some of which gets view counts over a million. Whether this particular ringing of the alarm bell is justified or not is hard to determine, given the presenter’s rather sparse use of references.

    Perhaps if this news originated from a known (to me) source in the alternative press (e.g. this blog), or from a YouTube video more thoroughly based in citations from other sources, I’d be willing to credit its alarming message. As of now, however, I won’t be adding this item to the ever-expanding collection of ominous and apparently insoluble developments home delivered by internet pundit.

    “Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.”

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

     
  6. Vindex

    August 8, 2013 at 6:42 AM

    The story was not difficult to confirm.

    “Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

    The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This ” Constitution-Free Zone” includes most of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas.”

    http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

     
  7. Martens

    August 8, 2013 at 7:00 AM

    @Jetlag

    Okay, perhaps I did judge in haste. The video aside, that’s a fine Wiki article you linked. I had to LOL when I read the following…

    Frank Luther Mott (1941) defines yellow journalism in terms of five characteristics:

    1. scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news

    2. lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings

    3. use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts

    4. emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips

    5. dramatic sympathy with the “underdog” against the system.

     
    • Dusty

      August 8, 2013 at 1:02 PM

      Sounds a lot like the MSM press coverage of Dear Leader Obumma.

       
    • Jetlag

      August 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM

      @Martens

      Your laughter indicates you attained an understanding of which I am yet ignorant.

      I’ll keep that list of characteristics in mind and see where they apply.

       
  8. palani

    August 8, 2013 at 7:08 AM

    A border is as wide as a piece of cellophane but rhetoric can confuse that concept. ‘Within this state’ is a construction defined as ‘the federal zone(s) within the EXTERIOR boundaries of the state’.

    If you examine a piece of cellophane closely you will see it has two sides. One side (call it the one farthest from you) might be said to be the EXTERIOR side while the other side (closest to you ) might be said to be the INTERIOR side. Make sense? So mark each side accordingly.

    Now drape that piece of cellophane over your wifes’ best casserole dish after you have placed a tennis ball inside. Is the tennis ball within the EXTERIOR or INTERIOR boundaries of the casserole?

    Isn’t the tennis ball within BOTH boundaries?

    Possible the nature of the boundary has more to do with the nature of the ball than with the physical territory the cellophane encloses. How ’bout if the ball was a U.S. citizen? Is a U.S. citizen ‘within the exterior boundaries of the state’? Could be. Maybe we are talking of Indiana and this U.S. citizen happened to be born of parents born in Indiana. Is he then considered to be within the interior boundaries of the state as well? But this concept would be true if he were physically located in Ohio … he would still be within the interior boundaries of Indiana because he is a member of the body politic of Indiana (Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis both at work). That piece of cellophane has no effect at all on the boundary that determines whether you are within the interior or exterior boundaries of Indiana if you happen to be a citizen of that particular state. It is more of a filter of what your STATUS actually is with respect to your state and federal government. Should you be a federal citizen and within the geophysical boundaries of Indiana then you are located ‘within the exterior boundaries’ … you are professing to be alien…. with a physical presence in the state.

    If you are ‘within the exterior boundaries of the state’ then YOU are the federal zone.

     
  9. Christian Gains

    August 8, 2013 at 11:51 AM

    Palani, I understand perfectly, every word you wrote, but the concepts of Jus Soli & Jus Sanguinis…can you give a bit more definition & clarification concerning each of these two concepts? Thanks!

     
    • palani

      August 8, 2013 at 1:15 PM

      Wikipedia (as well as other sources) give the topic more justice than I can in a paragraph.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

      These concepts and naturalization are the only three paths to citizenship. Denizenship would be another path but this is not practiced in the U.S. The civil law countries seem to be receptive to claims of Jus Soli … if the land ever belonged to France, for example, and you were born on the land then you would have a claim to Jus Soli nationality although Jus Soli citizenship might require you to speak French.

       
  10. Adrian

    August 8, 2013 at 12:45 PM

    The Constitution Of US it’s been a nonsense for over 200 yrs.I do not understand why so many
    people are so alarmed about it.
    US if following orders from NWO,headquarter ZION CITY.
    No one in America cares about their presence around here.Why do you think they did not set up shop in Russia or China?
    If you keep on using words like,Government,Constitution,your are part of their delusion.
    Don’t you see how many followers they have.Some true believers in the American dream are a
    small minority around here.
    By the way,I just had the chance to review recently an old book,The Age Of Reason.It makes a lot
    of sense to compare the way people now days are thinking.

     
  11. medicis

    August 8, 2013 at 12:47 PM

    Consider this possibility: The ‘Federal Zone’, number 2, below, as coined by Paul Andrew Mitchell and also previous researched extensively by The Informer, et. al.:

    Quoting Mitchell, quoting the Informer:

    In the first sense, the term “United States*” can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The “United States*” is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where “U.S.*” refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this “United States*” as follows:

    1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a “Citizen of the United States*.” This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital “C” in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English. [Which One Are You?, page 11]
    [emphasis added]

    Secondly, the term “United States**” can also refer to “the federal zone”, which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term “United States**” is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, “The United States** is …” or “Its jurisdiction is …” and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:
    2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic English [sic]. This is the “United States**” the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5). [Which One Are You?, page 11]
    [emphasis added]

    Thirdly, the term “United States***” can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term “United States***” does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term “United States***” is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, “These United States***” or “The United States*** are …” and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these “United States***” as follows:

    3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.
    [Which One Are You?, pages 11-12][emphasis added]

    ——–
    a further issue….

    I imagine that when Roosevelt’s treason removed (ultimately) gold and silver backed currency, the original union States ceased to function and doppleganger private for profit corporate franchises of the Federal government were substituted for the real McCoy union States resulting in…. e.g., The STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA etc. The fake states can agree to anything the Federales desire without obtaining consent of the people because The Federal Zone is not subject to the will of the people or the Constitution.

    Thus you can easily end up with brand new but not lawful ‘Federal Zones around the national geographical borders encroaching into each Franchise ‘State’ …. but these cannot truly exist within any of the union States…

    But what the hell, most Americans have been deluded into believing they are US citizens (note small ‘c’) and residents of the Fed Zone when they are not truly so… but merely presumed by the FED Corp to be thus or have consented to be so. Citizens of the original union States and/or nonresident aliens to the Fed Zone and who are not ‘citizens’ of the Federal United States do not lawfully have to submit to anything the Feds want to them do. Of course, the Fed a-holes in those zones may shoot you anyway.

     
  12. Yartap

    August 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM

    Hey! That’s some good news (constitution-free zones)! I mean, that ole rag still exit?

    Now – does a constitution-free zone mean that we do not have a gov-co. in this zone, also? I certainly hope so! Ha!Ha!

     
  13. palani

    August 8, 2013 at 6:54 PM

    Should point out … the Little Bighorn could have been considered to be a ‘constitution free zone’ as well.

     
    • Yartap

      August 9, 2013 at 7:45 PM

      So, a return to the ole wild, wild west, where men make their own laws – hummm, I like the idea!

      Do you think gov-co. will try to make the constitution-free zones into a “gun-free zone?”

       
  14. pop de adam

    August 9, 2013 at 7:12 AM

    If all agencies are created and exist by authority or appointment from authorities delegated or appointed from the constitution, for such an agency to declare that their own authority is suspended seems foolish upon closer inspection.

    “Sir, the protections afforded by the constitution and bill of rights are of no effect here.”

    “So what you are telling me officer is you are acting with no authority?”

     
  15. Doug

    August 9, 2013 at 11:31 AM

    The U.S. Inc. is a bank that acts in some respects as the government. The people are voluntarily within the banks jurisdiction and purview by and through usage of the FEDERAL drbt based credit system. The bank has no obligation to the Constitution or the restraints placed upon the organic government since you have forfeited Constitutional governance in lieu of bank script. Sad but true.

     
    • Tony

      August 10, 2013 at 9:51 AM

      Doug,

      “since you have forfeited Constitutional governance in lieu of bank script.”

      Right. When I was 18 years old I deliberated for awhile and eventually decided I would use FRN’s rather than be paid in silver.

       
      • Adask

        August 10, 2013 at 4:13 PM

        Ah-HA! So it was YOU, Tony, who was responsible for giving up silver dollars to go to a pure fiat currency! ‘Bout time you fessed up.

         
  16. Yartap

    August 9, 2013 at 8:38 PM

    Found out that it is not a “constitution-free” zone, but rather, a “constitution-lite” zone. No Fourth Amendment right enforced or allowed.

    So, why are the border patrol stopping motorist within 100 miles of the border?

    Well, according to the ACLU, it has always been a standard practice and acceptable to search and question people crossing that thin line, we call the border. What is different, now, is that the gov-co. has defined the thin border to be a thick border which is 100 mile wide.

     
  17. Yartap

    August 9, 2013 at 10:57 PM

    The power to conduct warrant-less searches at the border and in the U.S. is refereed under 8 USC § 1357. The provision of this section reads in part:
    “(a) Powers without warrant. Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant–
    (1) to interrogate any alien or person BELIEVED [Emphasis Mine. Does not the term, “believed,” give meaning to “probable cause?”] to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States; [Should the question to a border agent be, “What reason makes you ‘believe’ that I am not an United States Citizen?” Question: Why does the border agent only ask the driver, if he or she is an U.S. citizen and not the other adult passengers? Think about it!]
    (2) to arrest any alien who in his presence or view IS ENTERING OR ATTEMPTING TO ENTER [Emphasis Mine. At these road block “islands,” your already IN! So does this apply?] the United States in violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, or to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and IS LIKELY TO ESCAPE [Emphasis Mine] before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States; [Does this sound like, if you are stopped at one of their “island stops,” the only crime that they can press against you for a warrant-less stop and search is if they claim you to be an illegal alien? But, sense you have your car turned off and are not going any where at their road block, instead of busting out your car’s glass, they must get a John Doe warrant for your arrest – Right? Because you are not escaping. And this applies to anywhere in the United States. Think about that!]
    (3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of TWENTY-FIVE MILES [Emphasis Mine] from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings [What if… “My Car is my Home?”], for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States;”

    I have not found any Amendment to this code which extends the warrant-less border searches past twenty-five miles.

    Please give comments. Thanks!

     
    • palani

      August 10, 2013 at 6:40 AM

      So 8 USC 1357 provides for a warrantless search area (excluding homes) somewhat similar to the area in yellow?
      http://tinypic.com/r/2dua7wg/5

       
  18. Jetlag

    August 9, 2013 at 11:46 PM

    The simple fact that the gubment still needs a warrant to search a private home near the border proves the Constitution remains in effect there.

    So, on further analysis, it turns out this “Constitution-Free Zone” label is indeed yet another example of the deceptive and intellectually bankrupt “yellow journalism” dished out daily on YouTube, as discussed above.

     
  19. Adrian

    August 10, 2013 at 1:55 PM

    Guys,the key question here is: What is UNITED STATES? If you find the right answer,than you have solved all your headaches.
    ” Constitution-Free -Zone” is one issue.How about, “Constitution-Zone”.
    From here,am main question arises: What do you mean by that( Constitution)?
    If is to be a “Constitution”,We the American People are not part of it.
    So much talk about nothing on the internet nowdays.
    Get back to reality,assess your priorities and get into action.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s