It’s Hard to be a Woman

Well it is if you are a democrat.   Has  Jenny Ballantine become the symbol of the democrat party?

Ann Coulter: via J0hn Hawkins, Right Wing News.

“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.”  

Nora Ephron, Puffington Post: 

But it’s hard. It’s especially hard to remember that the real enemies are the Republicans, when the Democrats tend to break your heart and the Republicans are just the boys you’d never go out with anyway.

It’s hard when you watch a debate and decide that in the end you’re probably going to throw your vote away in the primary and vote for someone who doesn’t have a chance, like Dennis Kucinich. I mean, look at them, look at the front runners: Hillary Clinton, who can’t help being Hillary Clinton; Barack Obama, who was a disappointment from the beginning and whose new-found attack mode is as dispiriting as his low energy level used to be; John Edwards, whom I am afraid I will never be able to think of again (after this week’s Peggy Noonan column in the Wall Street Journal) as anything but a desperate furry little woodland animal.

Ann Coulter accuses some democrat women of voting with their hearts rather than their brains.    Ephron  proves the point.    Come on guys, do your part and date a ‘rat or two.

More:  Memeorandum.

The natives are restless, over at the house of Kos:

I want to stand by and watch it all blow up.

I want the dollar to plunge to worthless paper.

I want the stock market to implode.

I want the economy to plunge into chaos.

I want the Chinese to call in all the debt they hold.

I want an economic meltdown of such staggering proportion that even that idiot on Bill Moyer’s Journal who does not know the difference between a State Constitution and the United States Constitution, is forced to look around in mild surprise and wonder what the hell happened.

Only total economic destruction will get the attention of the fools.

Ya know, there is a line between sanity and insanity which this author has just pole-vaulted over. John Hawkins notes the same article, and says in part:

Now, that’s patriotism, isn’t it? Comparing America to Nazi Germany and then rooting for “total economic destruction” in our country. Granny Doc better be careful. If she keeps writing posts like this, even someone as influential as Kos won’t be able to get her a job any better than Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy in the Treasury Department of a future Clinton Administration.

Ouch. Ya know, on most folks that kinda thing would leave a mark.

“Controversial” means saying things that make liberals sniffle. Apparently a lot of Americans enjoy watching liberals sniffle.

Ann Coulter,  from John Hawkins’,  Right Wing News,  interview.

Billy Beck makes a point that I made yesterday:

Doug Mataconis links and quotes Radley Balko on the latest rumblings among the savages:

“This is why ‘spreading democracy’ is such a foolish foreign policy objective. There are lots of places in the world where we don’t particularly want a democracy. What do we do, now that our ally in Pakistan is suppressing dissent, punishing political opponents, suspending the country’s constitution, and declaring martial law?

When a country attacks us without provocation, or shelters the people who do, we should fight back. We should destroy that regime, in our own defense. But we should call it what it is: national defense. We aren’t doing it because we particularly care about the people in that country. Because we don’t. At least not when the choice is our safety and security versus theirs.

By pushing this ‘bringing democracy to the Middle East’ nonsense, we’re now in the precarious position of explaining why we’re going to sit idly by while one of our allies wholly dispenses with democracy, and cements an absolutist grip on power.”

You know, a very thick problem with hypocrisy and mendacity is in explaining oneself when events call authoritatively. Mataconis makes a crucial point:

“Well, the reason is because they need to do it in order to prevent the country from descending in to chaos and civil war. And if that’s what it takes to prevent a nation of 100 million people armed with nuclear weapons from being turned over to fanatics then, well, that’s what it takes and we should just like Musharaaf do what needs to be done. It’s really none of our business.”

Only from where I sit, mind you, considering the whole disaster now so historically deep that the very worst can be expected at any moment with nearly metaphysical immutability, it nonetheless looks like very little or nothing was going to prevent Pakistan from descending into chaos and civil war. It was never going anywhere good that they had nuclear weapons, which rather means that it will be someone’s business when the wrong set of kooks finally gets their hands on the things. Musharraf is on the tiger now, but there is always profit in confusion and I think one should safely bet on intensified Islamoguerrhea against the government and bystanders. The street-bomb-animals can only profit, according to their scales of values, while Musharraf plays the teeter tottering on the pin-point of power. It’s bound to come apart sooner or later for him, and I think it deeply foolish to expect anything sane, let alone responsible, from people among whom the power of government has never been brought near the light of reason.

Well, the idea of it all coming apart for him seems to me less likely than people TRYING to make it all come apart for him. If and when it comes apart for him it will come down to how we reacted to the situation.

The left and the press (A redundancy) just now is taking great pleasure in knee-jerking this into just another Arab strongman, (thereby making Musharraf a tool to beat George Bush over the head with) and there seems to be a number of folks, Balko among them, willing to toss the whole idea of supporting western friendly nations, such as Pakistan has been of late, on the basis of Musharraf’s kicking a few butts over there. But history has some say in this, or should. This is a lesson Iran should have taught us about the necessity for such rulers in such places.  Remember? We got worried about the strongman tactics with the Shah. His replacement should be a lesson to those who worry about strongman tactics, now…. that a strongman is not the worst scenario.

The difference with Musharraf is, he’s trying to move the country in the direction of Democracy, (unlike the Shah) but al Queida seems to have other ideas. And of course the nukes there are a major reason for it. DO we really want to moralize ourselves into al Queida running the show over there?

As I said yesterday:

We can get all wrapping up in moralizing arguments about how we should be supporting Democracy and Musharraf is not play that game. But the bottom line is, out here in the real world, that unless Musharraf wins this one, Democracy doesn’t have much hope, there. As Billy says… getting democracies up and running, depend on the ideas of the people involved;

Impressing the shape of institutions that are founded elsewhere on and the consequences of ideas will not make those institution-shapes work like the real thing. The crucial element is the ideas that make them institutions. Never in my whole life has Pakistan gotten over the idea that the power to rule can be had by the mightiest or shrewdest. What’s the news here?

Again, it comes down to the time to put this stuff together. And that includes the spreading of the ideas behind such institutions at a cultural level, before it’ll work at a governmental level. Think about what what frightens the AQ folks the most… IDEAS. They kill people publicly for holding ideas they disapprove of.  That takes time to overcome.It’s most certainly not going to happen inside of 30 minutes (Minus 11 minutes for commercials).  By definition, that’s the long road. And I wonder if the American people have the courage to see it through.

I spoke the other day about Voter Fraud, Motor Voter, Spitzer, and the Democrats ,and their plan to give driver’s licenses to illegals in order to facilitate that vote fraud.

I see John Edwards has started touting a plan similar to the one Spitzer has been trying to foist off on us.

We’re told that the excuse for this plan is to help us track the illegals and make sure that they’re insured. Granted, this is a problem, but it’s less of a concern, than illegals voting. And further, there are other problems with this plan. Just because one gets an ID doesn’ t mean one can drive legally. And THAT, supposedly is the reason behind all of this.

See, one problem not discussed by the Democrats pushing this vote fraud, is the fact that when you apply for insurance, you’re usually required to provide a social security number for the purpose of a verification; IE your ability to pay the bill for the insurance you’re signing on for. Since the reason they can’t get a  driver’s license is they don’t have a (Legal) social security number, how does Elliot Spitzer figure these people will be insured?  The bottom line is they will not be.

 Has John Edwards thought this one through quite that far, I wonder?  Wouldn’t this lead to more social Security fraud, more ID theft, etc?

Or maybe… just maybe.. they really don’t care about that.  I mean, they still can’t use these things to drive with. But they CAN use them in the motor voter program. Perhaps what the Democrats are really after is more Democrat voters, in the form of illegal and impossible to trace, aliens. Nah… couldn’t be… right?

Gerry Willis , in the Los Angeles Times,  attempts a tortured defense of the practice of abortion:

But is abortion murder? Most people think not. Evangelicals may argue that most people in Germany thought it was all right to kill Jews. But the parallel is not valid. Killing Jews was killing persons. It is not demonstrable that killing fetuses is killing persons. Not even evangelicals act as if it were. If so, a woman seeking an abortion would be the most culpable person. She is killing her own child. But the evangelical community does not call for her execution

Willis makes a straw dog arguement.  Of course abortion is not murder,  the illegal killing of a human being by another.   Abortion is legal.  Hence it can not be murder.

The issue is not a legal one but rather a moral one, and sadly the language lacks a word for immoral but legal killing of a human being.

Willis argues by assertion that somehow the unborn is not a person.    Yet, a person is the living body of a human being.   A fetus has a body, is living and is indeed human.   A fetus is a human being and he can be nothing else.  

While Willis argues that the unborn is somehow not a person, Willis makes no attempt to argue that the unborn is anything other than a person.   So Willis is saying that as he is not totally sure the unborn is a real person, it is therefore permissable to kill him.  When in doubt kill?

Hat tip:  Memeorandum.

Addendum: (Bit)

First, if we’re going to resort to the legal version of phrases, the word you’re looking for, David is actually TWO words: “Justifiable Homocide.”  Of course, the way that phrase is worded, of itself puts the argument in serious question… a state of affairs which Willis cannot deal with, and so he avoids it oughtright. There are implications, there, I think, we could discuss for days.

But perhaps of greater import, isn’t ‘not quite a human being’ the argument that was used in the Dred Scott case?

 And it seems to me Dred Scott is particularly ironic as a basis for discussion, since it exposes the wages of over-dependence on law to decide moral issues… a topic we’ve written about in this spaces several times over the years.

Michelle notes that to get the story of what’s happening in Iraq, you need to turn to the newspapers… in Austrailia.

IT is whispered about at the margins of meetings, and discussed in Washington parties where rumour is passed around with the wine and canapes.

It even appears, fleetingly, to be fact.

“The day nobody died from violence in Iraq” is a date that has been much anticipated in the White House – where US President George W. Bush is desperate to hail the success of his surge of 30,000 troops this year.

But no one can quite say when this event occurred.

“It was some time this week, wasn’t it?” says a senior military source. “Or maybe last week.”

Another diplomatic official confidently asserted that there were “at least two such days this month”. When, exactly? “Not sure,” he replied.

Such vagueness may be concealing a truly significant transformation on the ground in Iraq.

…

During a five-day stretch between October 19 and 23, there were no deaths among coalition forces. Although three US servicemen died from “non-hostile causes”, this was the longest period without combat deaths for almost four years. And, between October 27 and 29, there were more days without coalition deaths.

Someone should tell The New York Times.  After all, this is news that’s fit to print, isn’t it? I guess Michelle’s right; it doesn’t fit the narrative.

Good lord, it MUST be.

I mean, in the last week, I’ve gotten… and I kid you not, around 1000 notes telling me I need enlargement.

I dunno. Only thing I can figure is my reputation somehow became otherwise than I would have it be.   Funny thing, I don’t remember enlargement ever being a need. Rather the opposite, is what generated what complaints I got over the years, actually. But that doesn’t stop this inflation business from showing up in my systems a hundred times per day. There certainly seems to be a number of people trying to make a buck off my appendage.  (Is that, like,  legal?)

Or, not, perhaps.  I just went wading through my Mom’s mail account, and found someone thinks that at age 80 plus, SHE needs Penis Enlargement, too.  Actually several dozen someones. An example:

Do you believe in wonders? We think you’re likely to give a negative answer .We hadn’t believed, either…until the moment we tried MegaDick!

Apparently, Nixon is back, and bigger than ever. Anyway, with her, I suppose penis enlargement will take additional work.

Now, that’s one of the milder examples, and I’m not going to show you more than this.  On the other hand, I’m told  quite regularly that I have several people who have a crush on me…  via spam, of course. (Females, one presumes, though perhaps that’s unwarranted in today’s society) Which leads me to the question, if I’m that under-equipped, as the other spammers are making me out to be, how can this attraction exist?

It’s not just the net, of course…Who are the biggest advertisers on TV these days? That’s right… Penis enlargement (Well, they call it “natural male enhancement”, there ) and dating services, such as E-Harmony.

A thought occurrs:

In each case, they seem to be arguing against each other. Perhaps I could simply forward the “Boy have I got a date for YOU” people, all my Penis enlargement spam, and let them solve each other’s problems?

Why am I even commenting on this problem? Irony abounds… it’s the sheer size of the thing, that causes me to comment.

Oh. Sorry. My trash bin, I mean. Well, their formula certainly works at enlarging THAT, at least.

At what point do we get a break from this stuff, guys?

Over at Blue Crab Blvd, Gaius tells us:

Christopher Booker and Richard North, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, detail the incredible levels of fraud and deceit behind the global warming scare. The article is a preview of their new book, Scared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming — How Scares Are Costing Us The Earth. The genesis of the entire frenzy, and Al Gores complicity in spreading it is fairly stunning when spelled out this way.

A scare is often set off — as we show in our book with other examples — when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was causing the new warming in the 1980s?

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers, drafted in con-sult-ation with governments and officials — essentially a political document — in which most of the caveats contained in the experts’ report would not appear.

This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991, which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study came under heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated the evidence. But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the Summary for Policy-makers, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn’t want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.

There’s more, of course. None of this should be a shock to anyone who’s been reading here for any length of time. But go and RTWT.

By way of The Conservative Grapevine, I see that Human Events  has interview with Fred Thompson.

By now, just about everyone is all over this Musharraf thing.

Perhaps it’s as well that I point you toward Memeorandum for the latest. Particularly from there, I’m finding The Corner to be useful. Also, Michelle is on top of this, too.

But one article I will point you to is at Q&O where Bruce says:

In reality, it seems like an extreme way to deal with a Supreme Court Musharraf disagrees with:

He accused the country’s Supreme Court of releasing 61 men who he said were under investigation for terrorist activities. “Judicial activism,” he said, had demoralized the security forces, hurt the fight against terrorism and slowed the spread of democracy. “Obstacles are being created in the way of democratic process,” he said, “I think for vested, personal interests, against the interest of the country.”

The dispute apparently goes back a few months:

“This is the first time Musharraf has brought in military rule to sustain himself in power,” he said. “He felt threatened by the Supreme Court.”

Mr. Chaudhry, the former chief justice, has been the focal point of the opposition to General Musharraf since the president fired him in March. With support from lawyers, judges and a wide public following, Mr. Chaudhry led a street-style political campaign against his summary firing that helped fuel popular sentiment against General Musharraf.

The Supreme Court reinstated Mr. Chaudhry this summer, and in September it ruled in favor of General Musharraf, saying he could run for re-election while still in uniform.

Hardly the portrait of a “Constitutional” ruler, but then it would be hard to argue that a guy who took over the country in a bloodless coup in 1999 was particularly concerned about the Constitution.

…

UPDATE: Not good.  Not good at all:

Pakistan’s government on Sunday continued a nationwide crackdown on the political opposition, the media and the courts, one day after President Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency rule and suspended the constitution in a bid to save his job.

Police throughout the country raided the homes of opposition party leaders and activists, arresting hundreds. Top lawyers were also taken into custody, and at the offices of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in the eastern city of Lahore, 70 activists were detained. Journalists covering the raid had their equipment confiscated by police, and were ordered off the premises.

The international advocacy group Human Rights Watch issued a statement condemning the move as “an appalling attack on human rights defenders.”

Up to 500 opposition activists had been arrested in the last 24 hours, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said Sunday.

Aziz said the extraordinary measures would remain in place “as long as it is necessary.” Aziz said parliamentary elections could be postponed up to a year, but no decision has been made regarding a delay.

Those actions and statements really up the ante. They go beyond a possible internal dispute and are fairly significant signals that Musharraf is headed towards establishing completely totalitarian rule. Things could get ugly quickly.

Question: Where’s the military on all of this?

I told him, just now:

The best course, it would appear, is to sit quietly and watch, and be ready to support Musharraf at need.

Let’s remember what Musharraf is up against… something like 50% of the people in his country support Usama Bin Laden. It’s admittedly a guess, but I’m willing to bet not a lot of them care much for the Constitution, either, particularly when they’d like to re-write it to USM’s approval.

And what do you suppose will happen when such a government gets hold of the nukes in that country?

We can get all wrapping up in moralizing arguments about how we should be supporting Democracy and Musharraf is not playing that game. But the bottom line is, out here in the real world, that unless Musharraf wins this one, Democracy doesn’t have much hope, there.

And what of Bhuto? Interesting you ask. Certainly she is a player, here and Musharraf will do well to cut a deal with her. And your question Bruce asking about the military bears on this as well..

The fact is that the 50/50 split I spoke of, also happens to be true within the ranks of the Military there, by what I’ve been reading… and she simply doesn’t have the support of the Military, whereas Musharraf has it… mostly, if grudingly. IN a raw election, Bhuto would win a split election… perhaps 60/40 or something like that… and then be overthown by the AQ operating in the country, and the military wouldn’t lift a finger to stop them, so great is the sympathy for AQ.

I suspect that for whatever faults Musharraf has, he sees all this, and is reacting accordingly. Is it the best move? I’ve no idea. But given the conditions, I’m not willing to condemn it ouright, just now.

ANSF, COALITION FORCES NULLIFY TALIBAN ACTIVITIES IN HELMAND PROVINCE

Posted: 03 Nov 2007 08:48 PM CDT

ANSF, COALITION FORCES NULLIFY TALIBAN ACTIVITIES IN HELMAND PROVINCE

I’m pleased to announce yet another fine addition to the Swamp Stompers… The McGehee Zone.

An interesting note from Glenn today. He’s apparently come to the very same conclusion I came to years ago:

DO NOT TRUST CONTENT FROM ANDREW SULLIVAN: I can’t go around answering all of Andrew Sullivan’s misrepresentations, but it’s telling that he can’t seem to criticize me without misrepresenting what I’ve said. In this post he links to a truncated version of my views on the torture debate on another blog.  Why?

Probably because if he linked to my actual post it would reveal some uncomfortable things. First, that I’m not pro-torture despite Andrew’s pathetic eagerness to find me so, and second, that I was criticizing the Democrats’ inconsistency on the subject. Oh, and third, it appears that waterboarding, over which Andrew has exercised himself so much in recent years, and upon which he has staked his many, many, many, many claims to moral supremacy, actually stopped in 2003 — ironically, just as Andrew executed his pivot against Bush and the war — and was only used three times. This seems pretty consistent with my view of torture, which is that I’m against it, but that it’s not quite the issue Andrew wants it — perhaps I should say needs it — to be. Rather, especially for the Democrats, the torture debate has been a political tool, applied in an “any weapon to hand” fashion when politics dictate, but abandoned when they feel the need to talk tough on terrorism.

None of this is out of line with what Andrew the Incontinent has been doing for years.  That’s exactly why I gave up on him, back in 04.

Frankly, if there’s anything that amazes me about this, it’s that it too this long for Reynolds to come to this conclusion.  Usually, Reynolds is a fairly smart cookie, (though I must say I stoutly disagree with what I perceive his position on torture to be.)

His delay in coming to this conclusion about Sullivan is a bit of a mystery to me. (Shrug) I’d guess he’s had other things occupying his time.

As for Sullivan, himself, his dishonesty started years ago, when he finally discovered his championing of homosexuality couldn’t be meshed well with what his logic had led him to in other portions of his life.  After he recognized he was suddenly more popular in raw numbers, with his newfound leftist friends, he’s been similarly dishonest in his arguments not involving homosexuality. After all, if it worked there so well for him…. it should work everywhere.

And so it has, for a while. But the downward spiral has been happening for a long time. As I said back in ’05:

Drezner last night decides to take on the task of reading and arguing Andrew Sullivan’s TNR peice. Glenn’s been commenting on this one too.

The two of them do a far enough job of trying to argue with him as if they take him seriously. I suppose they DO take him seriously, and I think it a mistake. But, even there, I think they get the better of the argument.

Let’s go for the root of the problem, though.

 

When I see someone claiming conservatism, who quite publicly supported the most left wing candidate possible; John Kerry

When I see a homosexual calling loudly for homosexual marriage at the expense of all else, and yet still claiming Roman Catholosim;

When I see an ostensive Brit liberal, trying to re-define for his own purposes what it means to be an American Conservative;

When I see such a man in his opening Para claiming that it’s American conservatives that are confused;

Well, I gotta tell ya…it’ll all I can do to hold my chair for all the laughing. It’s like Elmer Fudd claiming Jack Warner had a widdle speech prwobwem.

Sullivan’s attempts in this article at self-justification… and that’s really what that article is… are about as impressive as Teddy Kennedy complaints about simulated drownings at Abu Griabe.

What amazes me is anyone takes Sullivan seriously, anymore, when he breaks out his label gun.

Sullivan, by means of a left so desperate as to use any tool to hand, including Sullivan, for it’s own ends, has been able to keep himself afloat readership-wise. There’s always a number of idiots up for a good fantasy, after all.. and the lieft has been needing alrger share of reinforcement of late.. In this, Sullivan has a unique position; He is that person the left most loves, and will ignore most other aspects of… An EX Republican.

But the years of dishonest arguments are starting to catch up with him, as I predicted they would, years ago. His credibility is shrinking by the hour. The timing, in terms of the 08 election, seems fortunate.
Now, of course, the left needs their spokesman, and so… we’re about to see the standard defense of Sulivan from the left, and from Sullivan, himself. We’re about to hear, for example, about what a right-winger Glenn Reynolds is, which of course is laughable on it’s face.  But again, since when has honesty ever invaded the arguments of these numb-nuts?

All that said, it’s all coming unglued, today. What we’re seeing, here is the culmination of a process I predicted back in ’03.

Addendum: And by the way… I should share a chuckle with you… Oliver WIllis, arguably the least honest person in the sphere, one of the few on the planet who could rival Sullivan for the title… and as far as I’m concerned, the MASTER of misrepresentation, giving us this line:

Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan, two of the least intellectually honest people in the blogosphere, are arguing with each other about misrepresentation.

I’m dyin’, here…..

David Kopel at Volokh 

Earlier this week, Sen. Fred Thompson wrote to Field & Stream magazine, criticizing the UN’s campaign against the human right of self-defense. The Thompson campaign touted the letter on its website, and the letter got a favorable reception among many pro-Second Amendment bloggers.

The Thompson letter, including its quotation of the great Dutch philosopher of international law, Hugo Grotius, appears to have used as a source the Kopel/Gallant/Eisen article “The Human Right of Self-Defense,” which is forthcoming in volume 22 of the BYU Journal of Public Law. (We’re in the middle of the cite-check right now, so the draft on my website is not the final version. And kudos to the BYU staff for its hard work on a monstrous cite-check with hundreds of sources, many of them not in the collection of an ordinary law library.)

Sen. Thompson’s letter prompted criticism from Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly and Stephen Benen, both of whom relied on a refutation written by UN Dispatch, a weblog funded by the UN Foundation.

Today, the Knoxville News reports that it was UN Dispatch that got the facts wrong. The Special Rapporteur’s Report which Thompson criticized (and which was adopted and endorsed by a submcommission of the UN Human Rights Council) quite explicitly says that personal self-defense is not a human right.

Yeah, well, that Benen and Drum would come out against the right of a human being to defend himself from attack shouldn’t be much of a shock to anyone who has read them for any period of time. Indeed the position they take seems to me to explain much in the remaining articles of theirs I’ve read. There’s a theme that runs through them;  The sacrafice of the rights of the few, or the one, for what the leftists in government maintain is the good of the majority. … in this case, the ability to defend one’s self.

The report in question clearly states:

 “The principle of self-defence has an important place in international human rights law, but does not provide an independent, supervening right to small arms possession . . . .”

So, we have a right to defend ourselves but we do not have the right to have the tools to do so. Brilliant! What wisdom! What foresight! What horsedoodle!

But it gets worse… in digging around a little, one enterprising commenter at Volokh suggested we look on page 9 of this report  Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Councils’s Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (How big are their business cards?) on page nine, where she says:

 Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation.

Can someone please tell me again why we are subjecting ourselves to this monster on Turtle bay?