The Left and their imaginary rights

Oh those goofy Leftists, always claiming some  imagined right they insist exists in our Constitution. the latest “right”? Why good weather of course!

Warming alarmist James Hansen talks law.

In a new study, I and my co-authors make indisputably clear what the world’s scientists have increasingly warned: Our climate is changing, and the impacts are growing. The changes harm humans and threaten other life on the planet.

Our study, published in the prestigious peer-reviewed science journal PLOS-ONE, was written in support of a lawsuit against the federal government. The plaintiffs are young people, those to whom we are handing an increasingly warmer and destabilized planet.
Climate change is altering people’s lives right now. … It is as clear and present a danger as we’ve ever seen.

They argue that they have a constitutional right to a safe climate, that they have a right to receive from us a planet that supports all life, just as our forebears gave us. It is correctly a legal argument, but it relates to a fundamental moral question.

REALLY? That is in our Constitution? Wow, who knew, besides delusional Leftists of course, no one knew because that “right” is not there. But seriously folks, can’t the Left be more creative when they invent rights? Hell man, go for the gusto! Here are rights I would invenent

The right to go on vacation three months out of the year

The right to have whatever job I want, say a roller coaster critic, or maybe a movie and restaurant critic.

The right to date whoever I want. Let’s see now, what is Tamron Hall’s phone number.

The right to have my own radio show. Hell, I would be a lot better than most on air today anyway.

The right to be rich, I would be GREAT at being rich!

Did I mention the right to date any woman I wanted to? So many NFL cheerleaders, so little time….

The right NEVER to hear Kanye West’s name again.

The right to confront any MSNBS host I wanted to on air. Yes, uncensored!

The right to go to any gun range, anytime, and to take any gun I wanted.

The right to take pictures of Alec Baldwin just to piss him off, let’s see him bully me. 

The right to date any woman I wanted, I may have mentioned that one before I know, but, Minka Kelly is, well have you seen her?

All kidding aside, rights are precious as our Founders knew, and the manner in which the Left trivializes natural rights is depsicable

 

Well THAT is inconvenient for the gun control nuts

From the CDC comes a report that proves just how wrong on gun rights the Left is, at Guns.com, we find this nugget

The Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, under the direction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recently published a study of findings related to violence and guns. Some of the results may come as a shock – to those on both sides of the gun control argument.

The study was conducted as part of the 23 Executive Actions signed by President Obama in January in an effort to reduce gun violence. The order specifically called to “issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

Who says everything Obama does is bad? Certainly this study reveals some very crucial information about defensive gun uses, and confirms our basic right to own guns

“An individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.”

OK very good, but now, the best parts

According to the study, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century.” Accidental deaths resulting from firearms accounted for less than one percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.

“Mass shootings are a highly visible and moving tragedy, but represent only a small fraction of total firearm-related violence. … It is also apparent that some mass murder incidents are associated with suicides. However, the characteristics of suicides associated with mass murders are not understood.”

The Left has done their best to convince us that mass shootings are on the rise, they are not. The Left also has consistently mocked the very idea of Americans using guns in self-defense, David Frum, every Democrat’s favorite Republican has also made light of the idea that many Americans use guns to stop crimes. OH David, facts can be really inconvemient

Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

OUCH! That has to sting the gun grabbers on the Left. Allow me to make that sting last a bit longer. Given the lowest estimate of 500,000 defensive gun uses, and given that there are 365 days in a year, we can say that AT LEAST 1,370 Americans use firearms to defend themselves against criminals EVERY DAY! If you take the highest estimate, you get a total of 8,219 per day. Likely the real number is somewhere in between those two numbers. Any way you look at it though, numbers do not lie. The violent crime rate would be MUCH higher if the Left had their way.

 

 

 

So, we should have debates after Obama gets caught?

Great post by William Teach

The Politico’s Josh Gerstein explains what that means

The Obama administration has a familiar refrain on the surveillance of Americans’ telephone records: the president and his team are eager to have the debate.

Eager, that is, only after others have brought the tactics to light and the administration has spent years employing them.

On Guantanamo and drone strikes, as well as his administration’s aggressive use of leak investigations into the telephone records and e-mails of journalists, President Barack Obama and his aides often seem to cast him as a detached analyst or law professor watching policies carried out, rather than the one actually directing or responsible for them.

Or the one at whose desk the buck stops at. The guy who ran for the position of POTUS twice. The guy who sits at the head, per the United States Constitution, of all these federal agencies. The guy who said “I’m the president and I take responsibility.” The guy who said “I am not a dictator, I’m the president.”

When it comes to surveillance, Obama has as president shown no sign of really wanting to have a robust debate. For years, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Minn.) have been pleading with the administration to disclose more information about call-tracking tactics that they suggested would shock many Americans.

The administration largely rebuffed those calls. Only after the leak Wednesday of a four-page “top secret” court order indicating that millions of Americans’ phone calls were tracked on a daily basis did officials begin to confirm the program’s details.

Unfortunately, Wyden and Udall were not calling for the O admin to stop the full program, which casts a wide net over a good chunk of the American population, rather than targeting those who could be terrorists. I’m sure some have a problem with any electronic surveillance; I personally have no problem with targeting those who could be bad people. Some have cast out the old “well, if you’ve done nothing wrong, you shouldn’t be worried” meme. For those people, I’d ask if they’re OK with The Government coming in to their homes and searching them every day, going through their drawers. If they’ve done nothing wrong, they should be fine with that, right? Right?

“Every time he gets into trouble, he wants to have a debate, he wants to have a discussion….I think it’s his way — a distortion field created by his own moral rectitude,” said Michael Meyers of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. “It’s the same thing with the reporters [and leaks], he wants to have a guy who violated their civil liberties to have a discussion with the media.”

Go read it all. The ironic thing in all of these scandals is that the president who swore his administration would be transparent has been anything but transparent. Yet, each scandal sheds more transparency on what type of president we have. One that thinks nothing of invading the privacy of Americans. One that thinks nothing of spying on the media. One that thinks nothing of using the EPA, and IRS to punish his political enemies. Need I mention Benghazi? or Fast and Furious? But just wait folks, Obama Care is coming, Obama Care, run by the IRS, God help us.

Senator Durbin ought to read the Constitution sometime

Big Fur Hat lays into Senator Durbin

Lil Dick Durbin can go F himself, sideways 

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin has in the past had a very subjective and abstract view of the Constitution, and on Fox News Sunday he once again wondered which people might be “entitled” to constitutional protections and which people might not:

“You’ve raised an important point and I heard Sen. Graham call for special counsel,” Durbin said. “I’m not ready to do this at this moment. I would like to know if Holder has any conflict in here beyond what we heard when it comes to the Fox case.”

“But here is the bottom line — the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”

 

 

 

The danger of equating “rights” with “needs”

90 Miles has a great example

ninetymiles1bdzo81s8kfyxo1_500

There is no Bill of Needs in the Constitution. There is a Bill of Rights. The single greatest founding principle of America is this. Our rights come from the Creator. they are natural rights. The government can neither give nor take these rights because these rights are as much a part of us as our hearts and minds are. Liberals love to talk of needs, telling us what we need, or do not need. How much we need how often we need to use our rights, and that our rights must be tempered by need. That is not an American ideal, that ideal comes from Marx, and should be rejected at all costs.

The proper response to anyone that seeks to equate your rights, and what they think you need is this

the-middle-finger

 

The quote of the day

Comes via American Power, where Donald Douglas refers us to Jeff Goldstein

Because through the heart of every leftist runs the blood of totalitarianism, of confirmation bias, of rank bigotry and a mob’s lust for violence, for punishment, for blood, for inflicting suffering on those who dare oppose their designs.

Lots more at Protein Wisdom, where Goldstein points out the obvious, that the Left is demonizing us and marginalizing anyone who holds the Constitution dear as a fanatic. It is all about their blood lust to eradicate our liberties, our Constitution, and raise up their Utopian dream of a Neo-Marxist America where everything we have is determined by what we “need”. Where there are no rights except what rights the government chooses to allow us to have.

How far they will go is not known, but history shows how far Marxists, and Fascists will go. Our best hope is an electoral sweep of Congress and the White House. But, with so many Americans now addicted to government entitlements, throwing the rascals out will be harder than ever. So, let us resolve to redouble our efforts to reach people, and make them understand    that less government will raise the nation up, and  allow more of us to prosper. 

I think the Founders would approve

The Founders would use more eloquent language, but I think A Nod to the Gods has captured their spirit here

a15

 

 

 

 

 

 

To those who will argue that I should use more “respectful” language I would pose one question. Do those miscreants seeking to deprive Americans of the right of self-defense have “respect” for our rights, or for the Constitution? Do they respect the truth when they deliberately lie about the number of times Americans use firearms to defend themselves? Do they respect honest debate when they seek to ram through legislation that would limit, or eliminate entirely my God-given natural rights? Do they show me any respect when they paint me, and other gun owners as nuts? Do they show us respect when they falsely seek to blame us for horrific tragedies like Newtown? The answer is no. So, why do I owe tyrants, seeking to rob my natural rights any damned respect?

 

——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Ed’s interjection:

Indeed, “fuck you” is the very sentiment which spawned this great nation. If it hadn’t been for our forefathers’ “fuck you” mentality, the Boston Tea Party never would have happened. Saying “fuck you” to authority is what America is all about. In fact, the U.S. citizenry is the most profoundly “fuck you”-oriented society on Earth… by tradition. Hell, “fuck you” was the thought that finally motivated Rosa Parks to move to the front of the bus. Our general “fuck you” attitude has helped sustain us as a people for generations, and if by chance you don’t happen to agree with everything I just wrote, then “fuck you” too!