Has a second front opened in the war for freedom?

Pres. Obama's attempt to use Obamacare to crush religious freedom is provoking a backlash even in San Francisco where Christians organized a massive rally on Friday against Obamacare's mandates (click to enlarge):

(Photo courtesy of Larry from SF)

(Photo courtesy of Larry from SF)

Up until now, the TEA party, a secular group, has been the central force defending freedom against Obama's governmental power grabs. If this rally is an indication, religious groups may form a second front in this war for freedom.

Since Christianity values charity, many Christians have supported Democrats and their government welfare state. Obama has demonstrated however the danger in this ill-conceived alliance. The massive power of a Federal welfare state is a threat to religion and religious values. It is not just the outrage of the government requiring Catholics to pay for abortifacients and the possibility that this may force the nationwide network of Catholic charity hospitals to close. Obama's stated goal of giving old people aspirins instead of medical care is also a clear violation of Christian conscience:

(Photo courtesy of Larry from SF)

This rally took place at Noon on Friday at the Federal Building in San Francisco. Although some media reported the crowd size at 500, Larry from SF estimates the attendance at 1,000. This rally was part of a nationally organized Stand Up for Religious Freedom protests.

One of the groups represented at the rally was Couples for Christ, a Catholic organization, with a newly discovered mission to oppose Obama:

(Photo courtesy of Larry from SF)

Some in the crowd had a good time:

(Photo courtesy of Larry from SF)

[Update: these two have been identified as infiltrators]
There was a large religious contingent at the last San Francisco TEA party protest against Obama in San Francisco (story and photos). This rally takes that opposition to a new and higher level. One can hope that this represents an awakening on the part of Churches to the idea that their survival depends not just on changing the language of one mandate among many in the Obamacare regulations but recognizing what the founding fathers understood: our government should not have had to power to make such mandates in the first place.

Thanks to Larry for an advance peak at his photos. Expect more commentary on this rally with photos to appear soon at Larry's blog: Fund47. [Update: Larry's post is here.]

WELCOME to readers from GatewayPundit, Frugal Café, and Extreme Conservatives.

Obama explains social justice to a schoolgirl

PREVIOUSLY on social justice:
•Thomas Sowell defines "social justice"
•Obama as superhero in the service of social justice
•When "social justice" leads to mass starvation

One reason for the 2nd Amendment

The sign reads:

My next door neighbor
wants to BAN all guns!

Their house is
NOT ARMED!

Out of respect for their opinions
I promise NOT to use MY GUNS
to PROTECT THEM

Because there is no law that liberals can pass that would prevent criminals from getting guns, gun control laws are all about assuring criminals that they can commit crimes against innocent civilians without fear.

Hat tip: Gunslinger's Journal

The banality of evil

Not every Canadian is willing to accept Canada's abolition of freedom of speech. The Western Standard magazine published the infamous Mohammad cartoons two years ago. Consequently, the Orwellian-named Alberta Human Rights Commission is prosecuting its publisher, Ezra Levant. They held their hearing on his case last January 11. For some reason, they allowed Mr. Levant to video-record the hearing. He did and it is now on youtube. In the sample below,
the inquisitor, Shirlene McGovern, asks him for his "intent" in publishing the cartoons. Her dry bureaucratic approach in asking about thought crime, reminds us of Hannah Arendt's comment about the banality of evil:

Ms. McGovern has since resigned from the case, reportedly because she was surprised by the strength of the public reaction against such interrogations over alleged thought crimes.

Canada's Human Rights Code forbids, for example, any publication that "is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to ... contempt." Contempt is a quite vague concept. (Under Canada's interpretation, as expressed by Ms. McGovern, the issue of contempt is somehow tied into someone's subjective concept of the publisher's "intent.") Nearly any expression of a political opinion can be interpreted by those on the other side as 'exposing them to contempt.' Consequently, to the extent that Canada is willing to enforce the code, it really is the end of free speech.

For instance, the Hadith reads "The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: `The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!' Sahih Muslim book 41, no. 6985." It seems that any discussion of that passage at all would offend ("expose to contempt") one side or the other and thus be illegal in Canada.

PREVIOUSLY, Canada's liberal party rejected a proposal to restore freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

UPDATE: Deborah Gyapong has much more on abuses by Canada's Human Rights Commission.

Canada may restore free speech

At the moment, speech is not legal in Canada if politically correct groups find it "offensive." A liberal MP has proposed a motion to change that.

UPDATE: Canada's Liberal party opposes this motion

Political ethics

Bill Clinton never ceases to amaze. James Taranto summarizes a development:

The New York Times uncovers a scandal involving a former president

Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan's president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton's public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton's wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Less than 48 hours later, Giustra's company signed a deal giving it the rights to buy into three Kazakh uranium projects. Months later, Giustra secretly donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton's charitable foundations.