Tag Archives: Leftism

News

Al Qaeda defense attorney promoted to No. 3 at Department of Justice

1 Comment

From Judicial Watch. (H/T Creeping Sharia)

Excerpt: (links removed)

In a scary development, a major Obama fundraiser who defended a convicted al Qaeda terrorist will become the third highest ranking official at the Department of Justice (DOJ), which, ironically, is charged with defending the interests of the United States.

Northern California lawyer Tony West has been named Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, making him the No. 3 guy at the agency. In 2009 West, who helped Obama raise tens of millions of dollars as finance co-chairman of his first presidential campaign, was appointed to help run the DOJ’s civil division which represents the government, Congress and presidential cabinet officers and handles cases dealing with significant policy issues.

In a statement announcing the promotion this week, Attorney General Eric Holder says West has served the department with “professionalism, integrity and dedication.” Holder also mentions West’s work before coming to the DOJ a few years ago, including a stint as a Special Assistant Attorney General in California and a lengthier career at a large San Francisco law firm.

Conveniently omitted in the press release is that West represented convicted al Qaeda terrorist John Walker Lindh, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence. Lindh was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 while fighting against the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance as a member of the Taliban army. He actually pleaded guilty to aiding the Taliban and carrying explosives while fighting U.S. troops in the region.

Holder also knows a thing or two about defending terrorists. After all, he was a senior partner in a prestigious Washington D.C. law firm (Covington & Burling) that represented more than a dozen Yemeni terrorists held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. While Holder was a senior partner the firm employed a number of radical attorneys to provide the Islamic extremists with thousands of hours of free legal representation, according to a news report.

Another highlight in Holder’s resume is that he orchestrated Bill Clinton’s shameful last-minute pardons, including that of a fugitive financier and a pair of jailed domestic terrorists. In fact, shortly after the pardon scandal, Holder predicted that his public career was over. Under his leadership the DOJ has been embroiled in a number of high-profile scandals, including a gun-running operation (Fast and Furious) in which weapons were sold to Mexican drug cartels. One was later used to murder a federal agent. Judicial Watch has sued the DOJ to obtain records involving the operation.

I feel compelled to contrast that story with this one from Fox News (April 2009).

Excerpt:

The government considers you a terrorist threat if you oppose abortion, own a gun or are a returning war veteran.

That’s what House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday in response to a Department of Homeland Security report warning of the rise of right-wing extremist groups.

Smith, who said the report on “right-wing extremism” amounts to “political profiling,” said that DHS is “using people’s political views to assess an individual’s susceptibility to terror recruitment.” He joins a growing chorus of protest from irate conservative groups that are protesting the report’s findings.

The report, titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” released last week by DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis, said while there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence, it suggests acts of violence could come from unnamed “rightwing extremists” concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms — and it singles out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.

[…]DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the report Wednesday, saying it is part of an ongoing series of assessments to provide information to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on “violent radicalization” in the United States.

This story goes to show you steeped in moral relativism the Obama administration is – the good people are evil, the evil people are good.

News

UK Christians hammered by Harriet Harman’s anti-Christian laws

11 Comments
Map of the United Kingdom UK
Map of the United Kingdom UK

From the UK Daily Mail. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

Equality laws introduced by the last Labour Government have been attacked by a group of MPs for promoting ‘unacceptable’ discrimination against Christians.

In a strongly worded report out tomorrow, they say the legal system now places the freedom of believers to express their faith below the rights of other groups, such as the gay community.

The report, by an all-party committee of MPs and peers, criticises Government, the courts, employers and police for ignorance over religion and unfairly curbing expressions of faith.

Calling for changes in the law,  it says there are ‘significant problems’ with the controversial Equality Act 2010, steered though Parliament by deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman.

Interpretation of the Act, the committee says, has resulted in religious belief being ‘relegated’ below the rights of other groups.

Referring to a series of cases highlighted by The Mail on Sunday, it says: ‘Critically, early indications from court judgments are that sexual orientation takes precedence and religious belief is required to adapt.’

The report cites registrar Lillian Ladele who lost her job at Islington town hall, North London, after refusing to officiate at civil partnerships, and Roman Catholic adoption agencies banned from turning away gay couples.

The report also refers to bed and breakfast owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who were fined for refusing a bed to a gay couple, even though they also barred unmarried heterosexual couples.

The committee says it is ‘clearly unfair’ for the gay couple’s rights to overrule those of the owners of the B&B.

Similar problems were faced by those who expressed their faith at work by displaying a religious symbol, the report said.

Electrician Colin Atkinson faced the sack from Wakefield District Housing after refusing to remove a cross from his van. The report concludes: ‘It is hard to conceive how this common and ancient tradition could have caused any offence. The case became a symbol of the excesses of political correctness.’

MPs and peers were also critical of the treatment of Cumbrian street preacher Dale McAlpine, arrested and charged for saying homosexuality was a ‘sin’.

In another case, Adrian Smith was demoted and had his pay slashed by Trafford Housing Trust after he criticised gay marriage on his Facebook site.

The committee says: ‘The cases show it is becoming increasingly difficult for Christians to speak out about their views on sexuality without fear of recrimination.’

I am trying to convince many of my apologetics-enabled British friends to think a second time about how they vote. I could have told you back then that Harriet Harman was a snake. But many good-natured, slightly naive Christians voted for her. They thought that it is the government’s job to “spread the wealth around” and make people feel better about themselves – regardless of what they do. “Is it really such a bad thing for children to be fatherless?” they asked. “What is so wrong with passing laws to make sure that no one is ever offended by mean, hateful bigots?” they wondered.

Wake up, Christians! To the secular left, you are the bigots. Next time, pick up a book on economics and get yourself straightened out before you pull the leaver. Stop voting for bigger government. If poverty vexes you, get a job and give your own money away to people you want to help. That’s what I do. Big government means less liberty.

UPDATE: Pat wrote this in a comment below:

When I was living and working in England a Muslim doctor and I used to compare and contrast the differences in our religion as we wound down on a Friday afternoon. Not argueing, just discussing. He got a new secretary.

First week she was there, we started out usual banter it always used to start this way. She started shouting ‘Don’t keep rowing about religion.’ He looked at her in surprise and said ‘We’re not rowing, we’re discussing.’ She then shouted ‘People start wars over religion.’ Again, he said we’re not rowing, we’re discussing.’

We still carried on every Friday afternoon. next thing I know I was called down to my manager and told off in no uncertain terms for trying to convert him. When he found out he stormed down to my manager’s office and really had a go at her slaming her desk with his fist. He asked why I had been called down, when it could just as easily have been that he was trying to convert me to Islam. (Neither of us were actually trying to convert the other, but for months had been comparing the Q’ran and the Bible). The secretary was, by the way, an athiest.

We still carried on our discussions, but he used to ring me and call me into his office. It was good actually, because the other doctor he shared with was also Muslim and he also started joining in.

This was at least 10 years ago, so it had already started then.

She is in the UK.

News

Conservative MP’s bill to repeal Section 13 moves to committee

3 Comments
Canada 2011 Federal Election Seats
Canada 2011 Federal Election Results

Andrew sent me this article from the Chronicle Herald.

Excerpt:

To protect freedom of expression in Canada, sometimes you need a majority government in Ottawa.

That’s the moral of the story of a Conservative backbencher’s private member’s bill — which has now cleared second reading in the House of Commons and gone to committee — seeking to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Let’s recall the exact wording of that infamous clause. Hate messages, according to Section 13 (1), are communications “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

In other words, if I were to write something critical about Islam, for example, and someone reading my column felt it “likely” that my words could provoke “contempt” towards Muslims, they could lodge a complaint against me with one of Canada’s government-created human rights commissions.

Truth would not be a defence. Neither would my intent. And the person complaining wouldn’t even have to be a Muslim.

That’s because, on top of the appallingly loose wording of this section of federal human rights law — a clause echoed in its provincial counterparts — any complaints are adjudicated by government-appointed tribunals, where the standard protections afforded any accused in a court of law don’t necessarily apply.

When complainants’ cases go forward, taxpayers pick up the tab. Meanwhile, those accused must pay to defend themselves out of their own pockets.

It’s a system ripe for abuse. And that’s exactly what has happened. We’ve seen comics fined for insulting hecklers (B.C. human rights tribunal), former publishers spend $100,000 in legal fees over three years to defend themselves for printing “offensive” cartoons (Alberta human rights commission), and Maclean’s magazine investigated by three human rights bodies (federal, Ontario and B.C.) for running an article on Muslim demographics in Europe.

The Conservatives have long opposed Section 13, but didn’t feel they had the support they needed from the other parties, as a minority government, to push the issue legislatively.

They also were concerned, with good reason, that some opponents might twist the issue for political advantage, slamming the Tories for being soft on hate.

Yes, Bill C-304, which aims to repeal Sections 13 and 54 (dealing with penalties under S.13), was put forward by Alberta MP Brian Storseth (Westlock-St. Paul) and is a private member’s bill, but the legislation has the justice minister’s endorsement. So there’s a good chance the bill will be back in the Commons this spring for final reading, then on to the Senate and, hopefully, passage and royal assent.

The bill, if made law, would take effect a year after receiving royal assent.

Canada does not protect free speech right now. Repealing Section 13 would be good, but Canada is not a good place for families to raise children. Even if they get Section 13 repealed, there is still the recent unanimous Supreme Court decision affirming that the provincial governments have a right to decide what children will believe – not parents. The Supreme Court was mostly selected by the previous Liberal governments.