Home » Articles posted by comradeconservative
Author Archives: comradeconservative
ACLU on the Second Amendment
Comrades,
As of late, there has been some talk about “gun control”. This talk is mostly done by the Bourgeois, i.e. Liberals/Democrats/Progressives. More specifically, this talk has been around a Civil Liberty that is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, specifically the Second Amendment. Let’s take a look at what the Second Amendment says.
Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
With some recent releases about the NSA domestically spying, the ALCU, i.e. American Civil Liberties Union, has gone to court to challenge what the NSA is doing. More specifically, the ACLU is going to court against violations that the Federal Government has performed against those Civil Liberties enshrined in the Constitution, i.e. First Amendment and Fourth Amendment. Now if the ACLU is so concerned with the Civil Liberties that are protected in the Constitution, i.e. Bill of Rights, what is the ALCU’s position on the Second Amendment? Well, you can find that here.
Here is some of what the ACLU states their policy is when it comes to the Civil Liberty enshrined in the Bill of Rights:
“Given the reference to “a well regulated Militia” and “the security of a free State,” the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right…For seven decades, the Supreme Court’s 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view…the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment…Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU’s own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.”
The first point the ACLU raises is that they take the Second the Amendment to be a Collective Right and not an Individual Right. The ACLU mentions that Heller v. D.C. has overturned this idea and enshrined that the Second Amendment is an Individual Right. The second point the ACLU raises is that they used United States v. Miller to form some basis of support for their view of Second Amendment being a Collective Right. The third point the ACLU raises is that their policy was never dependent on the Supreme Courts views to begin with, but instead was based on their “own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.”
Let us review what the United States Government, through definitions in the US Code, what the meaning of Milita is, which are all found in Title 10 of the United States Code.
Ҥ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
Moreover, Title 10 of the US Code also defines what the National Guard are as follows:
1) The term ‘‘National Guard’’ means the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. (2) The term ‘‘Army National Guard’’ means that part of the organized militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, active and inactive, that…(C) is organized, armed, and equipped wholly or partly at Federal expense; and (D) is federally recognized. (3) The term ‘‘Army National Guard of the United States’’ means the reserve component of the Army all of whose members are members of the Army National Guard. (4) The term ‘‘Air National Guard’’ means that part of the organized militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, active and inactive, that—
So the United States recognizes that there are two Militias: Organized Militia and Unorganized Militia. The National Guard is part of the Organized Militia, and the National Guard is part of the United States Army or Air force. Thus, All National Guard are contained within Army, but not all Army are contained within the National Guard. So those who are part of the Organized Militia, or National Guard, are contained within the US military.
It doesn’t take the Heller v. D.C. ruling by the Supreme Court to understand that the Second Amendment wasn’t a Collective Right, nor even close to a Collective Right. Let us just review two things that US v. Miller stated.
(1) “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller point out that a sawed off shotgun isn’t considered to be a weapon that the military uses. We have to keep in mind that the Court made a ruling based on the conditions that brought the case to them, and the condition was that of a weapon that wasn’t part of common weaponry that the Armed forces used.
However, an AR-15, whether automatic or semi-automatic, are common weaponry that the Armed forces use. We notice this from what has been going on in Afghanistan or Iraq. The US Military forces, as well as the National Guard (i.e. Organized Militia), were given AR-15’s. These are also some standard issue weapons that the Army gives to infantry. So an AR-15 “contributes to the common defense”, while a sawed off shotgun doesn’t “contribute to the common defense.”
(2) “when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
The Supreme Court points out that when the government calls upon people into the Organized Militia, they are “expected to appear bearing arms”. But if the Second Amendment is a Collective Right, then how can these people come bringing arms that they have “supplied by themselves” when they aren’t allowed to own them individually? They can’t.
So we immediately notice that the Second Amendment applies to the Unorganized Militia, not to the Organized Militia. The Organized Militia is “armed, and equipped wholly or partly at Federal expense.” The Unorganized Militia isn’t armed or equipped at Federal expense.
Moreover, we can notice, from the case cited, that the Unorganized Militia must provide for their own arms so that when they are called up into the Organized Militia, they have their own arms to provide for the “common defense”.
Handguns are obviously part of ordinary military equipment and used to contribute to the common defense. AR-15’s, whether automatic or semi-automatic, perform the same function. So individuals are expected to bring forth their arms that they have supplied for themselves, and these weapons themselves obviously being in common use so that they can buy them with ease. So handguns and AR-15s are of this sort as well.
What makes the ACLU’s position so weird is this: The ACLU would state that only the Federal Government or State Government are allowed to own weapons. This would mean that if either the Federal Government or State Government, or both, were to become tyrannical government, there would be no recourse for The People to stand up against the Tyranny. In other words, if the ACLU were around during the Revolutionary War, then the ACLU would want to disarm the Founding Fathers and leave all power with the Tyrannical Government of King George III.
What is even stranger about the ACLU’s position is this: When an individual signs up to join either the Army or National Guard, you sign a contract in which you state that the Federal Government owns you. The ACLU would only allow for Individuals who are the property of the Government to own weapons. In other words, the ACLU would make it so that only those who the Government own are allowed to bear arms. But this is completely contradictory to the Principles of the US Constitution, and especially against the Principle of Separation of Powers enshrined in the US Constitution.
Government Shouldn’t Tax the Churches
Comrades,
An interesting blog piece was written by Walker Bragman, and posted by Huffington Post, called “Tax the Churches“.
He mentions that (1) “churches (of any denomination) may participate in some political activity but it must be limited in order to maintain tax exemption.” One of the limitations is that of (1) is that (2) “they are expressly forbidden from showing any bias towards or against a candidate, or group of candidates, and must not engage in politics in any substantial way.” So there are rules to balance (1) and (2), which means that (3) “The goal of these rules is to balance governmental noninterference against free expression, but too often that balance is uneven.”
The problem is that there is an imbalance between (1) and (2). In other words, not both churches (of any denomination) may participate in some political activity and must be limited in order to maintain tax exemption.
The conclusion that Bragman reaches is an answer to this problem:
“If we are to maintain the separation of church and state we must adapt to deal with the problems that arise. The political climate today is a heated one, and churches are integrally linked to it, as many have political messages. This means that tax exemption is essentially the same as subsidizing those messages because what they don’t pay is picked up by the American taxpayer. Nothing can be a greater violation of the First Amendment than this situation. It may be time to tax the churches.”
His conclusion has these parts contained within it.
(i) If we are to maintain the separation of church and state then we must adapt to deal with the problems that arise.
(ii) The political climate today is a heated one & churches are integrally linked to it & have many political messages.
(iii) Assuming that Churches are tax exempt implies that If Churches don’t pay taxes implies pay is picked up by American tax payer then Government is subsidization the Churches message.
(iv) (iii) Violates the First amendment.
Let us take a look at the First amendment, and what it says.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” & “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of an establishment of religion”. They both deal with the Government passing a law that either is respecting an establishment of religion or not prohibiting the free exercise of the establishment of religion.
Bragman holds that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” has been violated. Thus, he holds that Congress has made a law that is respecting an establishment of religion. He points this out with the consequence of (iii). Furthermore, the greatest work horses that he presents for his argument is (ii) and (iii).
A refutation of his conclusion can be shown in a simple and comprehensible manner.
First, Churches work for the General Welfare & Churches don’t take money by threat of fine or jail or law, Taxes are taken by the Government for the General Welfare & the Government takes money by threat of fine or jail or law. We notice an asymmetry here. The Government imposes consequences of not giving money in taxes, while Churches don’t impose consequences of not giving money. The difference is one that is Voluntary and the other is Involuntary.
Second, Churches are one form of serving the General Welfare & States are one form of serving the General Welfare. Churches take voluntary private donations & States take involuntary private donations. To serve the General Welfare, the States have to take money that people don’t want to give up. To serve the General Welfare, the Churches don’t have to take money that people want to give up. Thus, in serving the General Welfare, the Churches aren’t intruding into individuals private lives by taking their private money.
Third, Individuals are freely exercising the establishment of a religion and giving freely giving up some of their private money to an established religion to serve the General Welfare. Taking away their private money means that they can’t freely exercise their religion or can’t freely give up their private money to an established religion to serve the General Welfare. Thus, this would be prohibiting Freedom of Religion.
Fourth, Individuals don’t freely give up their private money to the Government, which serves the General Welfare, but the individuals don’t decide which groups get the money or don’t get the money. This means that possible the Government is subsidization the Churches message when they are giving money to perform a function of the General Welfare. This would be using an individuals money to go to something that goes against the free exercise of religion. This exact situation was actually a serious issue the Founders had, i.e. James Madison & George Mason.
(ii) is where most of the tension lies, because the political climate is always heated. There are differing opinions on politics and always conflict over political ideals. This is nothing new. Churches are linked to political ideals as well, since some religious views involve how individuals interact with one another & some religious views what is morally right way to interact with one another. However, not all of religious views involve how individuals interact with one another or what is morally right way to interact with one another.
Because there is no National Church, i.e. Church of England, there is a clear Separation of Church and State. Churches do not dictate how all individuals interact with one another and doesn’t dictate what is morally right way to interact with one another, by the force of Government. However, with the idea that Bragman mentions, the State would dictate how all individuals interact with one another & prohibit the free exercise of religion in the processes.
What is National Security?
Comrades,
There has been lots of talk about “national security” and the release of “classified information”. This has been specifically brought up in regards to the press releases of classified information by Edward Snowden. The examples are the PRISM program and XKEYSCORE program. These deal with data-mining techniques. The programs used were classified and part of national security.
The Department of Homeland Security, in their Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report, mention where the term national security came from and what it revolved around.
“While homeland security is still relatively new, it may be useful to recall that the concept of national security was also little known until the 1930s, and was only formally established as an organizing principle after World War II. The National Security Act of 1947 brought together the Department of War and the Department of the Navy into a single integrated entity that became the Department of Defense. The act also created the National Security Council and a position on the President’s staff that would later become the National Security Advisor. The innovation was to bring together under one overall concept the consideration of foreign affairs and military policy, which had been, up until that time, two largely separate governmental domains. Over the decades, aspects of economic policy, trade policy, energy policy, and countering transnational threats were also drawn into the ambit of national security.
In 2002, the Homeland Security Act sought to integrate the various elements of homeland security in a similar manner, creating both the Department of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council. In effect, the 2002 Homeland Security Act added a third concept to the military and foreign affairs pillars of national security by associating domestic security concerns with national security.”
National Security combined what was once separate. It combined foreign affair policy and military policy, right after World War Two. After 9/11, another distinct subject became subsumed under the term “national security”, which was domestic security. Thus, National Security would contain (1) Military Policy, (2) Foreign Policy, and (3) Domestic Security Policy.
National Security is military policy, foreign policy, & domestic security policy.
The National Security Act of 1947 not only created the Department of Defense, it also created the National security Agency (NSA). The National Security Agency would be contained within the Department of Defense, which combined both the military policy and foreign affairs policy together. The NSA would also report to the National Security Council, which was also created by the same act.
The Department of Justice (DoJ), in their National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plane, mention what classification contained, based on their level of classification.
“A classification level is assigned to information owned by, produced by or for, or controlled by the United States government. Clearance levels are based on the need-to-know doctrine, which requires a background check for officials who need to have access to national security information. Information may be classified at one of the following levels:
1. “Top secret” is applied to information of which the unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
2. “Secret” is applied to information of which the unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.
3. “Confidential” is applied to information of which the unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security.”
Release of “Top Secret” information is assumed to cause grave damage to either military policy, foreign affairs policy, or domestic security policy.
Release of “Secret” information is assumed to cause serious damage to either military policy, foreign affairs policy, or domestic security policy.
Release of “Confidential information is assumed to cause damage to either military policy, foreign affairs policy, or domestic security policy.
The term “National Security”, being in the name of the NSA, would lead one to recognize that they deal at least with information related to military policy and foreign affairs policy. That is what national security meant right after World War Two ended and that was NSA’s mandate. However, now being in post 9/11, national security also invokes domestic security policy.
Now supposing that NSA deals with all parts of national security, then NSA would deal with information that is related to military policy, foreign affairs policy, and domestic security policy. Under NSA handling all aspects of “national security”, would mean that they are collecting information domestically to help come up with domestic security policy. Classified information, which is all NSA handles, deals with national security and domestic security is national security.
Difference between American Socialism & American Facism
Comrades,
The United States Code, in Title Five Chapter One Section 103, defines what it is to be a “Government Corporation” and a “Government Controlled Corporation”. This distinction helps to show the difference between American Socialism & American Facism, and possible ways to either position.
Government Corporation: “‘Government corporation‘ means a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the United States.”
(i) Suppose the United States government does own a corporation and allows a private corporation to control it, then it would still be a United States government corporation. (ii) Suppose the United States government does own a corporation and the United States government controls it, then it would be a United States government corporation.
Government Controlled Corporation: “‘Government controlled corporation‘ does not include a corporation owned by the Government of the United States.”
(iii) Suppose the United States government doesn’t own a corporation and the United States government control the corporation, then United States government controlled corporation. (iv) Suppose the United States government doesn’t own a corporation and United States government doesn’t control the corporation, then isn’t a United States government controlled corporation and isn’t a United States government corporation.
Either the corporation is owned by the United States or the corporation isn’t owned by the United States. If corporation is owned by the United States then government corporation. If corporation isn’t owned by the United States then possibly United States government controlled corporation or possibly private corporation controlled corporation.
Either the corporation is controlled by the United States or the corporation isn’t controlled by the United States. If corporation is controlled by the United States then either corporation is owned by the United States or isn’t owned by the United States. If corporation isn’t controlled by the United States then possibly government owned or possibly private corporation owned.
Corporations owned and controlled by the government are Socialist. Corporations owned by the government and controlled by private corporations are Fascist. Corporations owned by private corporations and controlled by the government are Fascist. Thus, there are two ways to a Fascist America and one way to a Socialist America.
NSA Employee Mistakes are 3,000 Violations 4th Amendment
Comrades,
With the current NSA surveillance programs, a new classified document was released by the Washington Post. It talked about a review of NSA surveillance programs done by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. The review conducted was for the year of 2012, and there were at least 3,000 violations of The Right of the People by the military intruding on the People’s privacy.
There are some further points of this story which are covered here.
Since the IG’s report was released, the NSA’s director of compliance, John DeLong, stated that “NSA has a zero tolerance policy for willful misconduct,” and “None of the incidents that were in the document released were willful.”
It is also admitted that that there were “a couple” of privacy violations during the past 10 years that were willfully done. However, the NSA hasn’t provided any details of those willfully incidents of the violation of The Right of the People & the People’s privacy.
So the government admits that there have been willful violations of the Constitution, but the government won’t state how many violations of the Right of the People were conducted. The government does state that all the violations of the Right of the People were not willfully conducted.
NSA admits that there is an “0.0005 percent error rate, with roughly 100 mistakes out of 20 million queries a month.” This query is into the People’s privacy, and only 0.0005 queries are done in violation of the 4th Amendment, while those other 99.9995 queries are done in line with the 4th Amendment. So out of 20 million searches into the People’s privacy, there were 100 searches into the People’s privacy that in violation of the The Right of the People.
The critical question is “How many individual Americans have their privacy violated with each single one of those 100 unconstitutional searches?”
It is possible that just one of those unconstitutional queries gathered all the private letters and affects of 300 million individuals, which contained all private letters and affects of every electr
“[T]he NSA said that it had collected data on a “large number” of phone numbers in Washington DC“, and this happened when unwillfully typed area code of 202 instead of the Egyptian area code of 20. So all those individuals who have an electronic data contained within the 202, or Washington DC area, all had their private letters and affects swept up by the NSA, in violation of The Right of the People and the People’s privacy. But this is okay, because this violation of the People’s individual liberties weren’t done willfully.
There was “a serious constitutional violation by the agency as it established a collection program for ‘Multiple Communications Transactions“, which was judged to violate The Right of the People by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The ‘Multiple Communications Transactions’, like collection of Washington DC electronic data was unwillfully done, but eventually corrected and within limits of Constitution.
The NSA provides reports like those released by the Washington Post of the breaches of the People’s privacy, but “the NSA provided this type of data to lawmakers and agencies with oversight responsibilities.” So those in oversight positions, whether Congress Intelligence Committees or Executive Branch, receive these reports. These oversight agents know that some violations of privacy are willfully done and some violations of privacy aere willfully done. They are even told how many violations there are total, and how many violations that are either willfully or unwillfully.
Ron Wyden is the Senator of Oregon, and he sits on the Senatee Intelligence Committee. That committee is one of those in Congress that have oversight responsibility, and so they see these reports of violations of The Right of the People and their privacy. He states that, “we believe Americans should know that this confirmation is just the tip of a larger iceberg.”
It is possible Ron Wyden would both know how many violations of The Right of the People were committed willfully and know how many violations of The Right of the People were committed unwillfully. The Executive Branch would also possibly know this.
County Sherieff Can’t Do What FBI or Feds Can
Comrades,
It was previously brought up, that Europe’s local police force were more likely to conduct domestic surveillance on it’s citizens than the national or federal police forces would. But one of the differences was that the national or federal police would have an easier time of obtaining vast quantity of data compared to the local police forces.
Now it appears that such a model does not hold over in the United States. Take for example how the local police, perhaps the town sheriff or chief of state police, don’t have the capability that the national or federal agencies have. This does not just include just technological capability, it also includes legal capability.
Take this example of the legal obstacles that the local sheriff would have to go through: “wiretaps on landlines and cellphones, this requires what Fakhoury calls a “super warrant” — not only a probable cause finding by a judge, but proof that less intrusive means have been tried already and other requirements. A wiretap will obviously surface everything you do online, not merely your searches.”
The main conclusion about what your local police force can do with data is that “your local police will never be able to spy on your searches unless you’ve done something to convince a judge that you’re up to no good.”
The national or federal government, on the other hand, “collects data on “nearly everything a typical user does on the internet” and makes that data available to analysts without judicial review. And while the NSA’s surveillance programs are supposed to “target” foreigners, the NSA sometimes sweeps up Americans’ communications, too. Leaked procedures for filtering this information, known as “minimization,” suggest that the NSA may retain information and pass it along to the FBI if it is evidence of a crime.”
Not only shall your information be gathered up, and analyzed without a warrant, let alone a “super warrant”, it shall be passed on to the FBI if it is evidence some crime that has been committed.
It becomes an interesting issue, since it is strictly the State governments that have the Police Powers within the Confederate Republic. Those that the Republic have are few and far between. Yet those those who are closest to your heart are furthest from gathering information on you. This is because it is very hard for them to have the legal authority to exercise such actions.
But now the Republic has taken up not only the information of those in a specific state, but all states. It has infringed on the police powers of those states and their citizens, with such ease and without legal authorization. But it is for Foreign Intelligence.
And if this were limited to the individual States, it would not affect all citizens of the Union. Instead of being localized to a certain area, and only infringing a small groups liberties, makes it more apparent to those in that area but don’t spread to all other citizens in other States. Those citizens of the State would be quicker to alter the laws that directly affect them and those in their immediate community or kin, then those citizens in other States or elsewhere in the Union.
The Sheriff is also directly responsible to the citizens of their district, and the Chief of State Police is appointed by the Governor of the citizens of the States. They are immediately responsible to their citizens and their petition of grievances.
Comrade Conservative 