….Breitbart.com, as part of its relaunch, has posted recent video of Lerner and his cohorts celebrating their favorite topics: how to “abolish capitalism,” how to stir worker unrest, and how to advance the alliance of union interests and Occupy fervor.
Breitbart.com has received exclusive tape of an Occupy Strategy Session at New York University, billed as a group talk on “The Abolition of Capitalism.” One of the headline speakers at this session was Stephen Lerner, former leader and International Board Member of the SEIU and frequent Obama White House visitor. Lerner argued in favor of people not paying their mortgages and “occupying” their homes; he spoke in favor of invading annual shareholders meetings to shut them down. But his big goal was to get workers to shut down their workplaces. That’s where the SEIU agenda and the Occupy agenda truly meet: once workers begin to occupy.
Via Gateway Pundit. This is an older video I posted a while back asking the questions about these lawyers hired by the Obama admin, which Fox News has just revealed the names of:
FOX News revealed the identities of these seven DOJ attorneys who represented terrorists before joining the Holder Justice Department.
Jonathan Cedarbaum– now an official with the Office of Legal Counsel Eric Columbus– Senior counsel in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General Karl Thompson– Office of Legal Counsel Joseph Guerra– Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General at the Justice Department Tali Farhadian– now an official in the Office of the Attorney General Beth Brinkmann– now Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Civil Division —- Tony West– the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division
Walid Shobat continues the similar train of thinking found at Gateway:
America was turned on its collective head on September 11th and is apparently still upside down. Do you remember the “American Taliban,” John Walker Lindh? If the answer to that question is yes, do you remember what a pariah he was considered after his capture? Ok, if you answered yes to that question, try to imagine Lindh’s Defense Attorney in 2001 becoming the number 3 at the Department of Justice.
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 glowing press release, West’s boss (Eric Holder) apparently didn’t find it relevant or admirable to include West’s work in defending Lindh:
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.
The left often seems to be privately proud of that which rational people find deplorable and outwardly proud of ideals it rarely has any intention of aspiring to.
I can’t imagine why West wouldn’t be proud of defending a traitor to his country. Being assigned the case as a public defender is one thing but being an attorney who gleefully defended Lindh is something else entirely.
These are the values the Obama admin personnel have supported by defending, (via Atlas Shrugs):
Libya’s leadership has apologized after armed men smashed the graves of British soldiers killed during World War Two, in acts of vandalism that appeared to be directed against non-Muslims.
Amateur video footage of the attacks, posted on video sharing site YouTube and social networking site Facebook, showed men casually kicking over headstones in a war cemetery and using sledge hammers to smash a metal and stone cross.
One man can be heard saying: “This is a grave of a Christian” as he uprooted a stone headstone from the ground….
DEAR READER: In the first decade of the DRUDGEREPORT Andrew Breitbart was a constant source of energy, passion and commitment. We shared a love of headlines, a love of the news, an excitement about what’s happening. I don’t think there was a single day during that time when we did not flash each other or laugh with each other, or challenge each other. I still see him in my mind’s eye in Venice Beach, the sunny day I met him. He was in his mid 20’s. It was all there. He had a wonderful, loving family and we all feel great sadness for them today… MDRUDGE
(Via Gateway Pundit!) He was 43. Andrew collapsed last night after leaving a restaurant. He was rushed to the hospital and was pronounced dead early this morning. Andrew was a conservative hero and true American patriot. He was generous with his time. He was a devoted friend. He was the definition of raw courage.
(Via BigGovernment!) With a terrible feeling of pain and loss we announce the passing of Andrew Breitbart.
Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.
We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.
Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.
Andrew recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation:
I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies.
Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands—who knows?—of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night.
Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us.
On this episode of ID The Future, Casey Luskin puts to rest once and for all the common assertion by opponents of intelligent design that there are no scientific papers supporting the claims of ID. This wasn’t true in 2005 when Eugenie Scott of the NCSE stated it on MSNBC and it certainly isn’t true six years later. Luskin discusses the most recent scientific paper, by Stephen Meyer and Paul Nelson, and talks about the importance of the peer-reviewed scientific literature: “These papers collectively make a case that intelligent causation is necessary to produce the sort of biological complexity that we are discovering in the cell today.”
As is the case with so much that is being reported in other countries about how much of the rest of the world is walking itself back from the extreme statist agenda supposedly necessitated by “climate change,” a presentation at the British House of Commons made by MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, whom James Delingpole at the UK Telegraph describes as “one of the world’s greatest atmospheric physicists: perhaps the greatest,” has gone virtually unreported in the U.S. establishment press.
There’s a reason for this. As Delingpole notes (“Lindzen totally pwns the alarmists”): “… even if you’d come to the talk he gave in the House of Commons this week without prejudice or expectation, I can pretty much guarantee you would have been blown away by his elegant dismissal of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.” Here are excerpts from the PDF supporting Lindzen’s appearance, followed by proof that the self-described outlets of record in the America have ignored it (bolds are mine):
Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
… Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.
… one can see no warming since 1997. As Phil Jones acknowledged, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years. However, there are uncertainties in the above data, and small adjustments can result in negligible warming or cooling over this period. In the polarized public discourse, this leads each side to claim the other side is lying. However, Jones’ statement remains correct.
… Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.
A search on the professor’s last name at the Associated Press’s main national site comes up empty. At the New York Times, the most recent item mentioning Lindzen is from a year ago.
