Cross-dressing jihadists, disillusioned Leftists, and judicial madness

Sadie sent me a great trio of stories today, and I want to pass them on to you:

The UN wants to make sure that the Western nation’s efforts to protect themselves against cross-dressing jihadists (you know, those guys who don burqas to hide bombs) don’t offend transgendered individuals (who may or may not be hiding bombs).   Here’s a quiz for you:  On a scale of one to five, with one being not serious at all and five being very serious, answer two questions.  First, how serious do you think the huge number of socialist and or Islamist tinpot dictatorships that hold sway in the UN are about protecting transgendered rights?  Second, how serious do you think the huge number of socialist and or Islamist tinpot dictatorships that hold sway in the UN are about ensuring that Western democracies are able to defend themselves against socialist and Islamist tinpot dictatorships?

In the too little too late category, one more sign that the bloom is wearing off the Leftist rose when it comes to Obama worship.  Leftist stalwart Richard Cohen, reviewing a hagiographic HBO “documentary” about Obama’s election, has this to say:  “What’s striking about this inside look at Obama is how being inside gets you nowhere. It is virtually the same as being outside. What’s also striking about this movie is its lack of arc.”  In other words, Cohen is starting to realize, as we have long known, that with Obama there’s no “there there,” a problem made worse by the habit his most rabid fans have of trying to prop this empty suit up high on a pedestal.

Have I mentioned how much I dislike judges?  In a long career, I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve dealt with judges who let utterly insane, unprovable, legally impossible cases go forward because the plaintiffs’ claims messed perfectly with the judges’ activist biases.  We now have another example of judicial activism, in which a judge gave a pass to a case against oil companies alleging that they caused Hurricane Katrina by increasing global warming.  What!?  No lawsuits against cows, India or China?  And how about a more logical suit against the unholy cabal of corrupt government officials and environmentalists who ensured that the levies would break?  Nah.  That last one is impossible as being logical and politically incorrect.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Danny Lemieux says

    You are right – suing oil companies over global warming is nuts. However, this could open up some interesting possibilities regarding discovery. How do you “prove” global warming in court when the temperature record says something totally different? Presuming such a case would go forward, it could be very interesting and backfire totally on the Gaia activists.

  2. suek says

    On questions a0 and b)….5 and 5.

    And did anyone check out that video by Lord Throckmorton (or whatever his name is)? I’ll post a link to a partial transript(at the end of this) that contains a link to a complete transcript – folks, if Obama signs this and if congress does what they’re threatening to do, we’ll be subject to the UN. We will have one world government – with those tinpot dictators in charge. Unbelievable, but true.

    Also check out this one:
    http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/20/fcc-church-conspiracy-to-silen/print

    http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2009/10/you-tell-me.html

  3. SADIE says

    The Scopes Trial (rewrite)

    By the end of the twentieth 21st century, many local school districts required the teaching of evolution global warming, and theories of creationism and intelligent design opposing scientists were banned.
    At the heart of the question raised in the Scopes trial is the issue of the separation of church and state two diverse schools of thought, one of government control over the role of religion Crap & Trade in American public life and the of kow towing to questionable data.
    Unless all people can agree on universal principles, which can then be embodied in law, issues of what state-funded education must and must not teach the children cannot be finally resolved.

    http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Scopes_Trial

  4. Mike Devx says

    I’m going off topic, perhaps, but since Book’s overarching theme is leftist madness and bias… perhaps I’m not going off topic!

    I loved the movie, “Taken”. That’s the one with Liam Neeson playing the former dark operative whose daughter (and her friend) gets kidnapped in France and sold into sex slavery for “foreigners”. He goes on a two-day rampage through the Parisian underworld and, needless to say, rescues his daughter in the very nick of time… from a leering ready-to-have-his-fun ugly as sin fat sheik. It was as non-PC as you could get, and I wasn’t the only one who ate it up! Far more believable than any James Bond or Bourne movie. Only occasionally might you roll your eyes.

    It was a GREAT load of fun for a movie.
    And the critics hated it, calling it preposterous and silly, and overwrought. Why? Well, quite frankly, because it was a very conservative movie.

    This weekend, “Law Abiding Citizen” opened to a very surprising 21 million bucks.
    The set of reviewers who are normally enjoyable for me, at boxofficeprophets.com, had this to say:

    Kim Hollis: Law Abiding Citizen, the latest Taken-esque revenge flick, opened to $21.0 million, torching expectations. Explain this.

    Josh Spiegel: Well, is there an explanation? We can’t chalk this up to Gerard Butler being the star (or co-star with Jamie Foxx, but Butler’s got the flashier role), because Gamer didn’t do too well. Maybe it’s that people still love revenge movies? I don’t know, sometimes you just wonder if people go to movies because they feel like they should go to movies. This one amounts to a disappointed shrug at its success.

    Jim Van Nest: I think it’s 100% that people like revenge movies. People like the thought of having the balls to go on a rampage like that when they are wronged. 99% of them, however, DON’T have the balls…so they go to the movies and yell at the screen, “That’s EXACTLY what I would have done!!!!”

    Tom Macy: I’d rather not have to explain it. My forehead is still red from the abuse it took while watching he Taken numbers roll in. Maybe Gerard Butler personally went door to door wearing a six-pack T-shirt (because there’s no way that thing was real in 300) with a boombox blasting Nine Inch Nails screaming: THIS! IS! GERARD!!!! BUTLER!!! ROOOOAAAARRRR! Personally, I would have just shut the door in his face, but some folks are mesmerized by six-packs.

    Other than that scenario, which I think is the most plausible, there really hasn’t been another straight up action/thriller option for manly men who don’t watch baseball or football in awhile. I know Surrogates, but come on. People like Jamie Foxx, they like Gerard Butler. It was well placed to scoop up the target demographic.

    Brett Beach: An opening north of $20 million? Very surprising . Here are my three key theories: 1) Everyone kept hearing it pitched as Saw meets something something (Law and Order or Taken were referenced a lot) and the women thought, “Ooh, it’s Saw but with more hunky people at the core,” while the men observed, “Dude, it’s going to be like Taken but more violent.” Voila! A de facto date movie that pleases both genders is born. 2) A male variation on the Halle Berry/Swordfish gambit where a brief hyped nude scene is worth at least a few million more in box office. I don’t know how much Butler laid on the line, but it got mentioned in a number of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

    Heh. My favorite liberal lines from above:

    This one amounts to a disappointed shrug at its success.

    I’d rather not have to explain it. My forehead is still red from the abuse it took while watching he Taken numbers roll in.

    This is precisely the kind of zeitgeist we face when the liberal message controls our media. The people of this country get this messaging, subliminally, 24-7 every day. They’re actually somewhat upset that people enjoy these kinds of movies!

Leave a Reply