There is a comma to indicate a break in thought, and the subsequent use of the specific phrase “the people” means a very difinitely identified group of people. You cannot claim that the phrase “the people” means “every American citizen, regardless of race, age, religion, gender or any of a dozen other identifying factors” in:

• the Preamble
• Article I, Section 2
• the First Amendment
• the Fourth Amendment
• the Ninth Amendment
• the Tenth Amendment, and
• the Seventeenth Amendment

while trying to claim that it only means “specific and pre-designated agents of the government” in the Second Amendment.

************************

Now for a bit of sardonic humor, courtesy of Frank J. at IMAO:

AMAZING BELIEFS PART 1

That incidents where people shoot criminals in self defense are very rare, and shouldn’t be used as excuses to own guns, just as incidents where presidential press secretaries are shot are very rare, and shouldn’t be used as excuses to ban guns.

That guns are the real cause of crime, but we will blame and jail the owner of said gun for the crime, even if the owner wasn’t the person involved.

That a mugger will kill you in the half-second it takes to draw from the holster, but won’t harm you while you dial 911 on your cell phone, talk to the dispatcher and wait half an hour for the cops to arrive.

That gun control works, which is why there are no illegal weapons in Northern Ireland or Beirut.

That the Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks, just as the First Amendment only applies to quills and lead type.

That the proper response to an attack is to call the police, but only unarmed police, because “Violence never settles anything.”

That it’s wrong to make snide, sexist comments about women, unless the comments are about women who own guns.

That a gun with an 11 round magazine is dangerous, but a gun with fifteen 10 round magazines is much safer.

That we should rehabilitate criminals and treat them as people, but never let them own guns, even if their crime was nonviolent.

That a hijacker could easily take a gun away from a pilot, but the hundreds of passengers aboard would then be unable to take the gun away from the hijacker.

That if there’d been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 93, someone could have been hurt.

That pilots have enough to do in the cockpit, without having to worry about distractions like firearms to stop hijackers and fire extinguishers to stop fires, and these activities should be left to “trained professionals.”

That such “trained professionals” will only be available on one flight in five.

That rather than have the pilot risk human life by shooting at a hijacker, we should simply have the Air Force shoot down the plane, thus preserving life.

That rapists prefer to attack armed women so they can take the guns and use them against the victims.

That 1 firearm owner in 10,000 will commit an act of violence in his or her lifetime, and this is far more frightening than the 25% of drivers who will cause a serious or fatal accident.

That you should rely on police in lieu of your gun, just as you should rely on a dentist in lieu of your toothbrush.

That the press reporting a shooting is “responsible,” but failing to report that the shooter was stopped by an armed citizen is an attempt to prevent the “glamorization of guns.”

That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.

That Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, but Arlington, Virginia’s high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.

That the depressed and emotionally disturbed should not be allowed to own guns that shoot bullets with 250 ft-lbs of energy, but should be allowed to own 4000 lb cars with 1,136,000 ft-lbs of energy (at 65 mph).

That “assault weapons” are “very powerful” but big game hunters oddly prefer .30-06s and .375 H&Hs.

That assault rifles are “underpowered” for hunting, but can “punch through police body armor.” More powerful hunting rifles, however, cannot.

That we should outlaw bullet proof vests so criminals can’t use them, and private citizens should be then proud to be killed in the crossfire, knowing they are doing their part for society.

That we don’t need the Second Amendment or arms to protect our Constitution, but should instead use the courts and the government system, just as we did in 1776.

That the lack of mention of guns in wills in colonial American cities proves that most Americans didn’t own them, just as the lack of mention of outhouses proves that most people squatted in the yard.

That this alleged lack of ownership is as relevant to the Second Amendment as the lack of interest in newspapers at the time was relevant to the First Amendment.

That among the hundreds of documented cases against anti-gun freaks we note that: the press secretary of Handgun Control was arrested in DC for discharging an illegal handgun, a ranking regional officer of the Million Moron March was convicted of felony assault, and other Million Morons in Colorado have been arrested for attacking firearm dealers and activists, but “gun nuts” are “obsessed with violence.”

That the laws against specifically named weapons have been found unconstitutional, that the laws against “types” of weapons have been considered vague, that the laws against cosmetic features are easy to comply with and still produce the identical mechanism, and that laws against particular mechanisms are unconstitutional is an indication of the “obsessiveness” of firearms enthusiasts to do what they enjoy doing, against the wishes of the narrow minded prudes who wish to stop them, and not an indication of the obsessiveness of the ignorant paranoids who fear them.

That NASA, the military, physiologists, anatomists and trainers all agree and Olympic scores confirm that men on average have tremendously more upper body strength than women, but women should try to defend themselves with martial arts and not a gun.

That according to investigative reports, alarm systems are expensive, often easily defeated, and the alarm company may not respond for three hours, even then only driving by rather than stopping, but an alarm system is a more reliable means of protecting the home than a firearm.

That less guns in an altercation is a good thing, so you should not be armed against a criminal to keep yourself safe.

That rather than spend a few hundred dollars on a firearm and an afternoon learning how to use it, one should instead spend thousands of dollars and several years learning a martial art, so you’ll be well-prepared to fight anyone, as long as they’re in your gender division and weight class.

That it’s terrible when police officers plant weapons on a suspect to enable them to make an arrest, but we should have tougher laws against weapons and trust the police not to abuse them in this way.

That police arriving at 80mph are a better way to stop criminals than bullets arriving at 800mph.

That because of the bombing at Oklahoma City and the knife-point hijacking on September 11, we should take guns away from people who weren’t involved.

That a police officer under 21 shouldn’t be able to buy a gun for off duty use, because his competence depends on that blue jacket.

That people buy guns as “substitute penises,” because they know that only people with small penises ever get attacked by criminals.

That Hitler and Stalin didn’t disarm citizens, only Jews, Gypsies, gays, unionists and other “undesirables.” (Yes, a liberal member of the MMM actually said this in the Washington Post, quoting http://www.potomac-inc.org)

That to properly understand Nazi gun control, one must consider the “legitimate fears” they had of the Jewish population. (This was another self-proclaimed liberal. I’m beginning to wonder.)

That families with children should not be allowed to own guns for safety reasons, just as they aren’t allowed to own dogs, power tools, or toxic chemicals.

That it’s wrong to destroy someone’s life over an administrative crime by jailing them and impoverishing their family, unless that crime is owning a gun.

That a law that allows someone to keep doing “X” that has been legal for years, in the face of another, badly written law that says they can’t do “Y”, is a “loophole.”

That it’s wrong to politicize that the World Trade Center attackers didn’t need guns to hijack a plane, but okay to politicize that the Columbine killers bought guns…illegally.

That when someone dies because they couldn’t get a drug the government won’t approve, it’s tragic, but when someone dies because they couldn’t defend themselves with a gun the government won’t approve, that’s just life.

That a criminal is somehow more of a threat to a cop than to a regular person, so police need guns and regular citizens don’t.

That guns are a symbol of white male oppression, and we should address this by banning inexpensive guns that are available to poor minorities, guns with less than 6 lbs trigger pull which are useable by females and smaller men, require special storage and licensing fees to stop “those people” from affording them, require proof of “need” such as political connections or large acreage or the money to go on expensive safaris, and all this will stop those evil white males.

That governments should maintain the “legitimate monopoly of force,” because the American Revolutionaries, the Maquissards, the Israelis in Palestine and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan were “illegitimate,” but Hitler, Mao, Pot, Mussolini and Stalin were “legitimate.”

That the “Reasonable” uses for guns are hunting and target shooting, but not self-defense. In other words, it’s acceptable to use them as toys but not as lifesaving devices.

That .50 caliber rifles are both “very rare” and “selling like hotcakes.”

That the fact that .50 caliber rifles are very rare justifies banning them, just as the rarity of Lamborghinis and other high-performance cars justifies banning them.

That one has the moral obligation to make a citizen’s arrest when one sees a felony in progress, and that it should be accomplished by yelling at the perpetrator, “Stop! Or I’ll yell ‘stop’ again!” rather than by drawing a weapon.

That intelligent people should support gun control because they realize they are too stupid to be trusted with guns.

That a gun is merely an inadequate substitute for a penis, so when attacked by a mugger one should pull out a…

That a gun is a symbolic penis…what this has to do with defending one’s life I have no idea. It simply serves to prove that anti-defense psychiatrists clearly have Freudian issues that THEY need to address.

That if honest people give up their weapons, the criminals and dictators will give up theirs, as Chicago street gangs and Hitler have demonstrated.

That only the government should control guns, just as only the government should control broadcasting, and only the government should control religion.

* * * *

(c) 2005 by Michael Z. Williamson. Permission is granted to copy for
non-profit use as long as proper credit is given. Please contact the
author when you do, through http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com. It is prefereed
that this (c) notice be attached. For online fora that will reject
copyrighted works, please note the source in text. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in that Amendment says anything about “separation of church and state”. Nothing in that Amendment says anything about preventing the various religions from getting involved in government. It just says that Congress shall not establish any religions (which is what the British royalty had done in their recent history - kicking out the Roman Catholic Church and beginning the Church of England, making the monarch not only the temporal head of Great Britain but the religious head, as well.

The Founders were making a clean break with all previous styles of government - no Kings or Queens, no Council of Barons, nothing like that. They wanted to make sure that each state would be able to allow whatever religions they wished while keeping the Federal Government above such squabbles.

Similarly, it guarantees the right of everyone to worship according to their religious beliefs. From Quakers and Shakers to Pentecostal and Episcopalians, everyone has the right to commune with the Divine in whatever fashion seems right to them.

Or not.

As for the “Freedom of Speech”, this is talking about only those rules that Congress has set. Your employer can limit your speech at any time and for any reason. If you don’t believe me, go tell your boss what you really think of him, and when he fires you, claim First Amendment protections. Hear the laughter? Grab a copy of the Want Ads from the break room as security guards escort you from the building…

So can your parents. Or your landlord. Or your teacher.

It also says nothing about the Executive Branch, which can throw you in jail if you release classified information to anyone not allowed to receive it. And it says nothing about the Judicial Branch, which can put details regarding a case under a gag order with the bang of a gavel, and throw you in jail for violating it.

Moving on…

The freedom of the Press is one of the most controversial in recent times for several reasons: the collapse of trust in the reliability of the main-stream media, the exposure of clear bias in that media, and the explosion of Intenet reporting. The questions of “what qualifies as ‘The Press’?” and “should there be additional limitations on the packdog mentality?” have yet to be adequately framed, much less argued and decided.

I consider myself an editorialist or columnist, not a hard news reporter, but does that mean that I shouldn’t get the benefits of that protection? And what about Joe Sophomore who opens his new Blogger webpage?

Where do we draw that particular line?

Moving on…

The freedom to assemble is fairly self-explanatory, but again, it must be reiterated that the operative word is “peaceably”. No riots, no blocking of traffic, no throwing of blood, no littering, just the chance to get together and trade ideas.

And finally we have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This is to give the government a final opportunity to compact its collective feces, lest we start remembering the actual text of the Declaration of Independence.

Because while the First Amendment may give us a chance to bitch and complain about the government and ask that it correct itself and change its actions, it is the Second Amendment that gives those petitions any weight at all. Without the potential threat of force, polite requests are meaningless, and accomplish nothing. (Which is why we will have to use force on Iran, but that’s another topic.)

When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have freedom.

Born down in a dead man’s town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that’s been beat too much
‘Til you spend half your life just covering up

[chorus:]
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.

I got in a little hometown jam
And so they put a rifle in my hands
Sent me off to Vietnam
To go and kill the yellow man

[chorus]

Come back home to the refinery
Hiring man says “Son if it was up to me”
I go down to see the V.A. man
He said “Son don’t you understand”

[chorus]

I had a buddy at Khe Sahn
Fighting off the Viet Cong
They’re still there, he’s all gone
He had a little girl in Saigon
I got a picture of him in her arms

Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas fires of the refinery
I’m ten years down the road
Nowhere to run, ain’t got nowhere to go

I’m a long gone Daddy in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
I’m a cool rocking Daddy in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.

I’m disappointed in the current state of affairs.  I really am.  I’m not like a lot of the conservative bloggers and punditry (Polipundit, Michelle Malkin, etc.) who have jumped off of the Bush Bandwagon because of the last two years.  I still support this POTUS, even if he’s not the most conservative politican.  If I have anger, it’s towards the cowards in the Senate, especially the two ‘moderate’ limpwrists that were elected in my state (DeWine and Voinovich).  They both suck like a Kirby. 

What has me down is the return to normalcy.  The removal of the angst and sense of importance we had after 9-11-2001.  The triviality of those things that we are looking at as important.  The political games that we are seeing.  Because what it means is that the media and the Left have finally done what they have been attempting to do for the last four years. 

They have brought us back to 9-10. 

When this POTUS feels the need to debate the pros and cons of negotiating with Iran, I know we’ve gotten back into the Clintonian Era.  When gas price gouging is screamed about, yet leftists and environmentalists continue to remain the real blocking presence to new refinery construction and drilling expansion, I know we are again drifting away from reality.  When Congress gets all in an uproar about one of their own being found out to be corrupt, yet the source of their angst is not his corruption, but the fact that the police had the gall to search his office with a proper warrant, I know our federal government is shifting from fighting a war to save our freedoms and way of life to lovingly rubbing their pivate places with the power they covet. 

Hastert is all in a lather about William Jefferson’s situation, but only because he feels Jefferson the Congressman was wronged....how backwards is that?  It’s like a kid caught masturbating getting mad at his parents because they caught him; it’s immature, and it shows a glimpse of the cloistered selfishness that inhabits those halls.  It also shows that we need a new cohort of representatives and senators. 

We need conservatives back in there.  We need the old guard....especially the ones that are daily wiping their ass with the Contract with America...to retire and collect their pensions.  Problem is, with most of the incumbents being relative locks for their re-election, or as their opponents are Kos-infected Democrats, there isn’t much hope for that. 

I’d take a Conservative Party, but one doesn’t exist at present. 

And that is why I haven’t been posting.  A lot of the wind is out of my sails.  I’ll see what I can do, but it’s kinda depressing. 

1. Separation of Powers

This has been claimed as if it actually meant something. In conducting the S&S, the FBI (which is an Executive Branch agency) was not trying to pass legislation. It was not trying to originate a spending bill or confirm a Judge, Ambassador or Senior Government official. It was not usurping anyone’s authority.

What the FBI was doing was investigating the possibility of felonious activity by a Federal official by searching an office in a Federal building. Given that it is the responsibility of the Executive Branch of government to enforce the laws passed, and that there exists a designated agency to conduct such Federal Investigations. A Bureau, even. Which is why it’s called the Federal Bureau of Investigations. FBI, for short.

So the FBI was doing the job that it exists to do, while Congress was doing the job it was created to do, and no crossing of any kinds of lines that separate the two.

Therefore, no violations of the so-called “Separations of Powers”.

Moving on…

2. Never happened before in 219 years

As if this should mean anything. Second, it’s bullshit because it HAS happened before. The FBI caught a bunch of Congressmen in a sting operation that was commonly referred to in the press as “Abscam”. One wag was claiming that this should never have happened while simultaneously arguing that they should have included the White House attorneys “like they did the last times”.

If this has never happened before, how does anyone know that procedure has been violated?

3. Violates the Speech and Debate Protections

More bullshit, and irrelevant bullshit at athat.

The clause they are talking about is from Article I, Section 6, and reads (in relevant part):

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Representative Jefferson was not arrested during his attendance at the House. He was not arrested either coming or going. He was not questioned in any degree for anything he has ever said, either in Committee or on the Floor of either Chamber, or for anything he has ever said, either directly or in response to any public statement, or during interviews or after-dinner fund-raising dinners or at any other time.

So much for the “Speech and Debate Protections"…

Look, let’s cut the bullshit, shall we? His offices were searched because the FBI had discovered that Representative Jefferson had stashed about $99,000 wrapped in foil, stuffed inside food boxes amd neatly stacked deep in his home freezer. That was presumably what was left of the $100K bribe he was videotaped accepting…

Given that no Constitutional protections offered to Members of Congress were violated, his status as an American citizen will be next, and the Fourth Amendment is the controlling authority. It reads:

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.

A Federal official, charged with the investigation into an ongoing felony, receives information that he finds sufficient to believe that a Federal employee may have stored evidence regarding that felony in his personal offices, which are located in a Federal Building. He swears - in writing, under oath, to a Federal Judge - that there is sufficient probable cause to ask for a search warrant, and the Judge, having heard the evidence and evaluated its worth, agreed that the evidence was likely to be found in the offices which were - again - on Federal property.

The Judge signed the warrant, and the FBI executed the warrant. How simple can it be?

Moving on…

4. It should have been the Capitol Police, not the FBI

Oh, puh-leeze. The Capitol Police exist to provide security for Congress and the Capitol Building. They are not an investigative agency, have never served as any sort of independent law enforcement agency, and have no powers of arrest once away from their respective areas of duty. They are sentries. Nothing more.

I respect their job, don’t get me wrong, but investigating Congress is NOT why they exist. That makes about as much sense as letting the Secret Service be the only agency that has the authority to investigate the President.

If the FBI doesn’t have the authority to investigate felonious activity by Federal employees, who does? If it is intimidating to have the FBI search your offices, maybe that should serve as a deterrant to committing crimes?

The polits had better compact their collective feces because elections are coming up.