"Joe the Plumber" Teaches Us a Lesson About the 2nd Amendment: It's All About Him!

In the wake of last week's slaughter in Santa Barbara,   political pundit Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher ---  a.k.a. "Joe the Plumber" ---  made a startlingly candid declaration,  directed to the bereaved families.   Here's his message of condolence:

                   "As harsh as this sounds ....  your dead kids
                   don't trump my constitutional rights."

Contrast the abject cruelty of this statement with the heartfelt plea of Richard Martinez,  whose only child Christopher was one of those who died.

                "They talk about gun rights.  What about
                  Chris's right to live?"

I make no pretense of being a constitutional scholar.   But it seems as if the intent of the Constitution's framers will always be an issue.   This is the Second Amendment as written in one clear sentence:

               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 the most robust military force on the planet as well as law enforcement units at all levels of government,  we're hardly in need of seat-of-the-pants militias.   Here and there, a handful of wackos,  who worship at The Altar of Things That Go Bang,  may take issue with that statement.   But the  mainstream polls consistently conclude that a clear majority supports sensible gun laws.

I have little doubt that "Joe the Plumber"  himself would ever lose his marbles while carrying a firearm.   Considering the fact that, despite his self-anointed nickname  he's not even a licensed plumber,  he may even be less of a risk packing heat than he'd ever be wielding a toilet plunger!

But apparently Mr. Wurzelbacher can't bring himself to realize that this issue transcends his own selfish priorities.  As  Mr. Martinez eloquently stated,   it was about his son's --- and everyone else's right to live.  

In regard to the Constitution,   if my memory serves me,  the final sentence of the Preamble specifies something about "Life,  Liberty,  and the Pursuit of Happiness."   Here's my response to "Joe the Plumber" 's  strident declaration:

                    As humane and as reasonable as this may 
                    sound,  everyone's constitutional right to
                    live trumps  his  allegedly constitutional
                    right to bear arms.
   

Beating the Dead Horse GOP Style: First Obamacare, Then the IRS, Now Benghazi. (Tsk, tsk!)

Last week,   Speaker of the House John Boehner announced his party's intention to reopen a congressional probe of the attack on the American embassy outpost at Benghazi.   He has designated for this purpose a Select Committee on Benghazi.   A  GOP congressman from South Carolina named Trey Gowdy has been appointed chairman.

Congressional Republicans had mandated significant cuts in the State Department's embassy security budgets in both 2011 and 2012.   Despite these misdirected attempts at fiscal prudence,   they refuse to link these funding cuts with the lax state of security at the US embassy in Benghazi on September 11th,  2012,  the date of an attack that killed four Americans.

Instead,  the GOP insists on yelling,  "Cover up! Cover up!"  Unless I'm mistaken,  the present endeavor represents the eighth attempt to "investigate"  this tragedy.   They're willing to make political hay out of any situation,  loss of life notwithstanding.   It's ghoulish!   Then again,  this is the same group of stone-hearted folks who are perfectly willing to deny millions of people --- including their own constituents --- access to even the most basic health care by denying them Medicaid.  

They've also repeatedly shot down  any and all attempts to restore unemployment benefits and maintain the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at a level that make life bearable for the folks who really need them.

But nothing gets the ol' adrenalin pumpin'  like a good old-fashioned investigation,  no matter how repetitious or tiresome it gets.  Sorry to break it to you guys,  but that dead horse you keep  thrashing ain't never gonna neigh or whinny again!

But hey,  keep tryin'!    It's a great investment of time and money  for folks who enjoy  watching sadistic clowns do their thing.





.

So He Said "Apartheid"! Give Kerry a Break.

It seems as if Secretary of State John Kerry launched a verbal firestorm last week.   The name "Israel"  and the word "apartheid"  escaped his lips in the very same sentence!  Ouch!
         

Without missing a beat,  conservative journalist Charles
 Krauthammer demanded that Kerry resign.  His voice was not a solitary wail in the darkness.   Public officials on both sides of the aisle yelped for Kerry's scalp:  one sterling example,  among very few these days,   of bi-partisanship at its finest.  (Even the president unloaded:  [The word apartheid is] " emotionally loaded,  historically inaccurate,  and not what I believe.").   Here's Mr. Kerry's incriminating statement,  made at The Trilateral Conference:

     If there's not a two-state solution soon,  Israel
     risks becoming an apartheid state.

It already is!  As emotionally loaded as the word "apartheid" may be,   Israel's association with  this Afrikaans-based term --- which defines a forced arrangement of "living apart" ---  shouldn't shock anyone.   Even recent Israeli heads-of-state,  Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, have invoked this term in exactly the same fashion as Kerry.   Peace advocate and former president Jimmy Carter even incorporated the dreaded word into the title of a book,  Palestine:  Peace or Apartheid.   And yep,  he caught loads of flak for that awful misdeed!

Kerry has,  under pressure,  since apologized for his allegedly ill-advised use of "The A-Word".   Why?  Why do we remain in such a perpetual state of denial about Israel?  Don't get me wrong;  I'd like to see Israel continue to thrive.  But as far as I'm concerned,  there's no justification for sugar-coating Israel's treatment of the West Bank Palestinians.  Limiting where they can live,  operate their businesses,  and cultivate their crops,  as well as the everyday imposition of military checkpoints,  is a form of apartheid ---  even if it doesn't mirror in every detail the manner in which it was practiced in South Africa. 

An organization known as the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) seems to wield considerable weight among the Washington poobahs,  in and around Congress.  And yep,  they do have the shekels and like to present themselves as the voice of American Jewry.  (Disclosure:  As a secular Jew myself,  I can state unequivocally that they do not speak for me.   Nor,  to my knowledge,  do the majority of U.S. Jews  feel an unswerving,  unquestioning loyalty to Israel).  

It seems to me that those of us not named Charles Krauthammer or Sheldon Adelson should also matter once in a while.   Let Mr. Kerry do his job and stop giving him grief for speaking the truth.