How come so many right-wingers, neo-cons, corporate RepubliDems, NRA lobbyists, Fox News commentators and radical-extremist talk-show hosts are currently getting all up in our faces about how wonderful the Second Amendment is? “Second Amendment! Second Amendment!” they cry night and day. That’s all we ever hear from these guys. You would think that they might occasionally mention the rest of the Constitution occasionally as well — but no.
Right-wingers, gun lobbyists, Tea Party congressmen and corporatist-owned radio talk-show hosts all scream and yell and hold their breath and throw temper tantrums about the sanctity of the Second Amendment constantly. But have they ever thrown tantrums or held their breath when other parts of our Constitution were violently stepped on — especially by they themselves? Er, no.
Where were these spoiled brats when George W. Bush trampled all over our Constitution and forced several illegal wars down our throats? Silent as the tomb.
Did these spoiled brats ever throw themselves down on the sidewalk and wail and flail around violently when the PATRIOT Act gutted so many of our sacred rights as citizens? No, no, no and no. Nary a peep from the right wing noise machine.
The Constitution begins with “We the People…” But you never hear any right-winger ever bitch and moan about how America is now run by “We the Corporations….” Right-wingers, the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, John Boehner, etc. apparently have never met a corporation they didn’t like. “Corporations are people!” they always cry. And what about the rest of us? Chopped liver? “Pretty much.”
Section 2, paragraph 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” George W. Bush used that clause again and again to mire our country in the quicksand of trillions of dollars of debt, and not one right-winger anywhere seemed to even notice that our George had illegally used presidential executive privilege — let alone voice any objection to its misuse. We never heard any protests at all from the Tea Party, the NRA, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Grover Norquist or any of those guys. GWB was using executive powers to benefit the wealthy 1% but not the rest of us? Fine with them!
And speaking of GWB, doesn’t the Constitution also state somewhere that you gotta be elected before you can live in the White House? Bush was never elected. Both the 2000 election and the 2004 election were blatantly stolen. But there’s been no outcry from any right-winger about that. Hell, Anton Scalia didn’t even seem to mind. And neither did AIPAC or CPAC. What’s with that?
And what about our First Amendment rights such as “Freedom of Speech”? You never ev-ah hear right-wingers’ strident voices raised in hue and cry whenever ordinary people like us are arrested and beaten for practicing free speech.
“Freedom of Religion”. Worth fighting for? Yeah sure — as long as it only includes some kind of weird slash-and-burn Wall Street and War Street version of “Christianity” that wingers go nuts over and that Jesus would have abhorred.
And what about protecting Native Americans’ freedom of religion too? That the land itself is considered sacred? No freedom there. “Just shut up, stop whining and let the Great White Father shove his tar-sands pipeline up your throat.”
I’m not even going to mention Muslims’ freedom of religion. For right-wingers, it simply doesn’t exist.
And what about the 19th Amendment, which dares to speak out against involuntary servitude? Neo-con spoiled brats have no issues with this one — just as long as we allow them to keep their prison labor system of involuntary servitude going. And their involuntary sweatshops in Asia and Haiti that have stolen our jobs. And sleazy American factories that keep their doors locked even when there is a fire. And those thousands of WalMart workers who aren’t allowed to organize or demand a decent wage or respect? Does that count as involuntary servitude too? Apparently not.
And the 19th amendment also covers the right of everyone in America to vote except, apparently, in Virginia — where right-wingers are trying to return to the old “Three-fifths of a person” approach. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/47801/the-return-of-three-fifth-of-a-person
And what about “Freedom of the Press”? Are right-wingers defending it at all? Hell no. Just ask WikiLeaks’s founder about that one — or even the New York Times. It seems that if you ever even dare to publish anything in America that goes against Wall Street and War Street, you end up either fired or in jail. Like Bradley Manning for instance. No right-wing temper tantrums or breath-holding over him. The only exception to this rule is when the neo-con media darlings on talk-radio or Fox News get called out on their lies. Then right-wing spoiled brats really do start holding their breath.
Amendment Four? No illegal search and seizure? Violating this one is the right wing’s sweetest dream. “Gotta protect the Homeland!” they cry — apparently protecting it from We the People.
Amendment Six? “Right to a speedy and public trial.” You never hear right-wingers throw a fit about this one either — only about their treasured Second Amendment.
Then there’s Amendment Eight. No cruel and unusual punishment. Abu Graib? No outrage. “Zero Dark 30″? That torture got cheers. Mordechai Vanunu kept in solitary confinement for eighteen years by Israeli right-wingers because he spoke out? Or the countless Palestinian non-violent protesters now in Israeli neo-con jails? http://world.time.com/2013/01/25/oscar-nominated-documentary-brings-palestinian-plight-to-center-stage/ “Oh goody!” But these particular cruel and unusual things are all happening to foreign nationals, not us. However, even when horrible things like that happen right here at home too, right-wing spoiled brats still don’t even care. “Bradley Manning? Leonard Peltier? The Cuban Five? Lynne Stewart? Chris Williams and other legal medical marijuana growers and dispensers? Martin Luther King Jr?” Yawn.
Rep. Alan Grayson just wrote an article in the Huffington Post stating that Tea Party right-wingers in Congress are attempting to violate two other Constitutional Amendments — the 14th and the 27th. “As Texas Gov. Rick Perry would say, ‘Oops’.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/federal-budget_b_2563242.html
I could go on and on about all the parts of the U.S. Constitution the right-wing has happily gutted over the last several decades. But you get the gist. For them, only the Second Amendment counts.
But I have an important question here to ask “We the People” of America regarding the right wing’s constant spoiled-brat behavior. “At what point do all these temper tantrums and breath-holdings get old?”
When do “We the Parents” finally put our foot down, stand up for our own selves and send spoiled-brat Wall Street and War Street and Wrong-Wing Street and Wreck-the-Constitution Street off to bed without any supper? Apparently never.
Also found at the 
Who was Jafsie?
[Fox has legally established the right to present lies as news and therefore one of the unintended consequences of that judicial ruling is that individual consumers of political punditry (such as this column) are solely responsible for any concomitant fact checking deemed appropriate.]
“Cemetery John,” written by Robert Zorn (The Overlook Press, New York N.Y. ©2012) slowly and methodically dismantles the case against Bruno Richard Hauptmann, who was tried and executed for participating in the theft of some children’s clothes from the home of Col. Charles A. Lindbergh. Any reader of this column who assumes that Hauptmann was fried in New Jersey’s electrical chair because he was found guilty of the murder of the kidnapped baby has probably relied on other less comprehensive reports about the notorious crime. In “Don’t Know Much about History,” author Kenneth C. Davis blithely informs his readers “ . . . but the evidence in the case was always strong against him (Hauptmann).” (“What we have here is . . . failure to communicate!”)
Zorn’s book not only contradicts the conventional wisdom about Richard Bruno Hauptmann, he names a specific person as the mastermind of the famous heinous crime and builds an extensive case to bolster his assertion.
According to Zorn, academics have formulated a computer program that achieves a much higher accuracy rating for handwriting analysis than the human experts have scored in the past. This innovative example of computer superiority confirms that his suspect actually wrote (at last parts of) the ransom notes delivered to Col. Lindbergh.
Dr. John F. Condon, whose initials JFC were used to derive his handle as Jafsie, served as the go-between for negotiations with a suspect (or suspects?) demanding money from the Lindberghs for the safe return of the baby.
Dr. Condon spoke directly to a suspect and later was reluctant to swear that Hauptmann was the person with whom he spoke. Initial descriptions of the suspect given to police after his first encounter with an alleged kidnapper contradict the physical appearance of the man who was executed in the electric chair for being the one and only perpetrator of the vile deed. Dr. Condon, AKA Jafsie, was, according to Zorn, coerced into upgrading his level of certainty and eliminating all his previously expressed doubts about Hauptmann being the man to whom Dr. Condon, at a second meeting, handed the ransom money.
Zorn raises a question about the possibility that the “Trial of the Century” actually took place in a location that did not legally have jurisdiction over the matter.
The conviction and execution of Hauptmann provided a foundation for a wide variety of careers for lawyers, politicians and police officials. In the Thirties, any assertions about gaps in logic concerning the case quickly earned the sensational publicity seeking source a major amount of ridicule and (subsequently) a chance for inclusion in the Conspiracy Theory Hall of Fame.
Zorn alleges that some of the seats in the court room were sold by a local police official. Coverage of the sensational trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann provided a springboard to fame for some of the journalists who reported on the proceedings. Columnist Walter Winchell was one of those lucky individuals.
The antediluvian (has using big words gone out of fashion?) columnists’ technique, called three dot journalism, of using an ellipse to separate unrelated items has been superseded by the trend to streamline the demands on a reader’s attention span by adhering to the policy of one topic per column, but in the era of channel surfing via the remote control, perhaps the eclipse of the ellipse style will end?
Could separate and distinct topics, such as gun control, filibustering and storm damage legislation, which were separated by the use of three dot journalism, actually have a narrative thread which connects them all together?
With the new rules for filibustering, could a Senator introduce a ban on assault rifles with a dramatic public announcement which delights advocates of gun control and then later use the recently amended filibuster rules to anonymously kill the possibility of having a vote on that item and thus win the continuing supply of campaign donations from various gun supporting groups? Aren’t all things possible through prayer?
Voters in California, who are “news junkies,” may have heard some (one or two?) disturbing rumors, last week, that both of their Democratic Senators allegedly gave stealth support to the piss poor filibuster reform measure that was approved by the Senate. According to one radio report, a Senator who disapproved of the anemic reform actually told reporters the names of Quisling Democratic Senators who had quietly betrayed their constituents but he was quickly silenced (by senior Democratic Party officials?).
As the World’s Laziest Journalist understands it, the new filibuster rules present very ominous possibilities that only a vigilant free press can prevent. At the end of December, the Congressional vote on Sandy Storm relief was postponed until after the New Year’s holiday. The first day of the New Year, it was given immediate Congressional approval amid much loud hosannas in the news media. Most folks didn’t notice the small footnote attached to the story: Since a new congress was being sworn in, the approval of the measure by Congress meant that to be enacted into law it had to re-win approval in the Senate.
Those good ole boys in the Senate were, as the new session got started, mighty busy with filibuster reform, gun control, the annual State of the Union name calling competition, and (tah dah dah dutt dutt daaaahhh!) immigration reform and so it is possible that in all that excitement they have forgotten how many bills, such as the Storm relief bill, needed to be passed. Now, they have to ask themselves another question: “How many of the voters will notice/care?” To which we can only add the traditional San Francisco question: “Well, do ya, punk?”
In a country that is known for its dedication to a free press and truth, fretting about this slight oversight going unnoticed is probably a fool’s errand. Since the World’s Laziest Journalist’s headquarters operates with limited access to commentary in the free press (the access costs money) we might have missed ample examples of instances where this possible sin of omission has been mentioned. If it has not, then just as soon as the posse known as the New York Times national desk reads this column, they will (we must assume) pen a lead editorial calling the Senate to task for the glaring political fumble.
In all the excitement over the Judicial ruling that President Obama exceeded his authority with some recess appointments, the Journalists commenting on the sensational development seem to have missed a partisan implication question. Will the Republicans use that decision as the grounds for starting impeachment proceedings against the President they love to hate?
Speaking of gun control, Zorn reports that Col Lindbergh was armed when he accompanied Dr. Condon when the doctor went to pay the ransom money and that the famous flyer noticed a fellow (who most likely knew that the Lindbergh baby was dead and that the ransom transaction was a fraud) walking away from the rendezvous location. If (subjunctive mood) Col. Lindbergh had shot that person in the back, would he have been exonerated for an act of vigilante justice or would he have been convicted of murder by a jury of gun control advocates? Just asking.
It will soon be the fiftieth anniversary of the time when Lee Harvey Oswald said to journalists: “I’m a patsy.”
Now the disk jockey will play Johnny Cash’s “The Long Black Veil,” Merle Haggard’s “I’m the only Hell my mama ever raised,” and the Kingston Trio’s “Tom Dooley.” We have to go buy a “Go Niners!” T-shirt. Have a Lombardi Trophy winning type week.