Department of Justice?

Tuesday, July 15, AD 2014




If anyone doubts that we have gangsters at the helm of the federal government who have nothing but contempt for traditional American liberties, the Obama administration quite nicely continues to supply plenty of evidence to support their hostility to the Bill of Rights, as Mary Katharine Ham at Hot Air notes:

This is heinous— a betrayal so blatant of American values so fundamental I have trouble wrapping my mind around it:

The U.S. Department of Justice has joined the discussions over a controversial float in the Norfolk Independence Day parade.

The department sent a member of its Community Relations Service team, which gets involved in discrimination disputes, to a Thursday meeting about the issue. Also at the meeting were the NAACP, the Norfolk mayor and The Independent Order of Odd Fellows.

The float was created by a Nebraska veteran, Dale Emmerich, and featured a zombified mannequin figure standing in front of an outhouse bearing the sign, “Obama Presidential Library.” Emmerich said the mannequin represented him and other veterans, and the float was a comment on the horrors of the VA scandal. Which, given the level of broken trust, deceit, and death exposed at nearly every level of that corrupt system, I cannot begrudge the man his dissent. It used to be that we valued such things even when— especially when, dare I say— we disagreed personally with such speech or found it problematic.

I describe the content of the float to put us all on the same page but it’s irrelevant because making a parade float that offends people is not in any way against the law. Charles C.W. Cooke on the virtues of the formerly universally understood freedom to mock one’s leaders:

Now for the obvious question: Why? What, exactly, was the problem here? Nobody was killed. Nobody was injured. Nobody had their material or spiritual interests injured, nor were they stripped of their livelihoods. No federal or state laws were broken. Indeed, not even private rules were broken. More to the point, there was no “discrimination dispute” of the sort with which the DOJ likes to concern itself. Instead, a few free people were vexed because a politician that they like was depicted in an unflattering light. One might well ask, “So what?” Once, Americans tackled the Oregon Trail. Are they now in need of their political “discussions” being arbitrated by glorified social workers sent by Uncle Sam?

In a typically risible statement, Nebraska’s state Democratic party described the incident as one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the office of the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen.” That this is almost certainly true demonstrates just how much progress the United States has made in the last 50 years — and, in consequence, how extraordinarily difficult the professionally aggrieved are finding it to fill their quotas. If a fairly standard old saw is among the worst things to have happened to the Cornhusker State in recent memory, the country is in rather good shape, n’est-ce pas?

“The float was political satire and an expression of political disgust.
There was no racism involved, no hate for anyone,” Remmich said.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Department of Justice?

  • Remember the rodeo clown? The thing is, this is precisely the disposition you see in higher education. It’s not just a function of the current President’s psychopathology. It’s how important strands of the Democratic Party nexus think by default.

  • Presidential libraries are self-made physical, structural homage to the president’s ideas and legacy. The float shows the float designer’s image of what the Obama presidential library would represent to him and others like him. That is fine and dandy. I think that people first thought the mannequin was an unattractive picture of the president, and even it it were, people are allowed to think the president is unattractive.
    That float structure expresses something very different than the Greek columns that the Democratic party used in Colorado to present their idea about what Obama represented… Fine and also dandy. I didn’t like it because I didn’t think it was a good representation of him ( he is far from anything traditional!)
    People are allowed to think freely AND people are free to express their opinions. Freedom of speech is still protected, and this float was speech.

  • thanks for link back to Tears of A Clown, Donald. It is worth reading (and the comments) again.

  • The second eloquent sentence in the quote below is taken from today’s article about the degeneration of Catholic education at Crisis Magazine.

    ” … These forces continue to dominate many philosophy and theology departments in Catholic universities across the country, with the Boomers who dominate these institutions showing no signs of ceding power any time soon to the succeeding generation of Millennials. Having raged against “the Establishment” in their youth, they are now firmly ensconced in it themselves, having become what they most hated: old fogeys who resist change and insist on living in the past. … “

  • This is mildly complicated. People may recall that the organizers of the St. Patrick’s Day parade in NYC have excluded homosexual groups from marching, and that this exclusion has been uphold by the courts. It would seem that the Norfolk parade is a municipally sponsored event and so any such exclusion is out of the question.

    Since the parade is viewed by children of all ages, it would seem that this float was in poor taste. Young children need to be introduced to politics in a way that does not plant the seeds of antisocial radicalism, and so a parade float with the outhouse of Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan is simply inappropriate.

    Still, there is no legal reason why the float should not have participated, and the actions of the Justice Department are just another in a long series of such actions by government at all levels. Just this past weekend a banner with swastikas was towed by an airplane over New York beaches; it was sponsored by the Raelian cult, the emblem of which is a swastika embedded in the center of a Star of David. The banner was seen by several descendants of Holocaust survivors who were understandably upset. Local politicians have fallen all over themselves in an attempt to pass ordinances to prohibit such displays and therefore violate the Constitution.

    Of course, this Justice Department action is also tinged with sensitivity to racism, since their only legal reason for involvement arises from the jurisdiction of the civil rights laws. John H. McWhorter, an Obama supporter, just published an excellent article on this subject in the City Journal entitled The Case For Moving On: On ice cream trucks, memory, and race in America whew he argues, in effect, that we just have to grow up. See

    The good people of Norfolk had a great opportunity to teach their small children about political decency. They could have simply exercised their rights and turned their backs on the float. What a powerful lesson! To work, though, they would have needed to be forewarned, and perhaps that did not happen.

  • I’m sure they have they have thousands of lawyers at the Justice Dept. Surely some of them have heard of the 1st Amendment?

    The NAACP’s positions seems to be, “I don’t think that’s funny. AT ALL!” Tough.

    Let’s all keep Community Relations Services on speed-dial for the next time someone makes a snide remark about His Holiness or mocks us for wearing a crucifix or scapular & see what response we get.

  • Since the parade is viewed by children of all ages, it would seem that this float was in poor taste. Young children need to be introduced to politics in a way that does not plant the seeds of antisocial radicalism, and so a parade float with the outhouse of Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan is simply inappropriate.

    Your remarks are parody, right?

  • “I’m sure they have they have thousands of lawyers at the Justice Dept. Surely some of them have heard of the 1st Amendment?”

    Doubtless they believe Thomas that it evolves with the times and does not apply if something/anything offends a member of an official victim class, unless the member of the official victim class is a conservative. The abysmal understanding of this administration, and for much of the left, of freedom for those who disagree with them is a bad portent for long term civic peace in this country.

  • Richard Fernandez: “It is impossible to understand the politics of the Left without grasping that it is all about deniable intimidation.”

    IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, armed black terrorists at pollin places, etc.

    But, racist racketeers Obama and Holder go after a parade float.


    Hayek, The Road to Serfdom: Hayek: “Everything which might cause doubt about the wisdom of the government or create discontent will be kept from the people. The basis of unfavorable comparisons with elsewhere, the knowledge of possible alternatives to the course actually taken, information which might suggest failure on the part of the government to live up to its promises or to take advantage of opportunities to improve conditions–all will be suppressed. There is consequently no field where the systematic control of information will not be practiced and uniformity of views not enforced.”

    St. Augustine wrote, “Government without justice is organized brigandage.”

  • Your remarks are parody, right?
    No, of course not. I once took my children out of a minor league baseball game because people where shouting obscenities, and I explained to them that the language was why we left. The ballpark lost our business for years until the kids were old enough to shrug off that behavior.

    The rough and tumble of modern politics is no place for children (the education of the Red Diaper babies is a case in point – I could cite others). If a municipal patriotic parade is a place for children, then rough and tumble politics has no place there. I am, of course, making a social statement and not a legal one. Is it really possible to argue otherwise?

  • Surely some of them have heard of the 1st Amendment?

    We live in a world where it’s the default position of the portside that a constitutional amendment adopted in 1868 to over-ride Southern ‘black codes” and extend certain liberties to freed slaves requires that county clerks issue marriage licenses to pairs of dudes. The black letters are just ornamentation.

    Try this: the Democratic Party is an electoral vehicle for a series of social strands, among them the bar and the higher education apparat. These social strata understand their role re the rest of society as a tutelary one. They’re the faculty and the administration, we’re the student body, and we’ve no franchise to be ‘disruptive’. (The media are manipulative sharp-elbowed organization kids a-la Tracy Flick).

  • Thank you Donald McClarey and all commenters. Clarity becomes you.

  • There hasn’t been the same reaction to freely expressed ugliness against holocaust survivors, or people wearing crucifix etc. but it seems to me they equate statements against the current administration with sedition.

  • Whoops – then there is the other part of the checks and balances doing a quick hit.

  • Is it really possible to argue otherwise?

    Yes, I’m afraid a parade incorporates a political sentiment, though usually a consensual one. As for the sensibilities of youth, we had this thing called television news when I was young, and a good deal of war footage thereon. In my mother’s youth, there was radio broadcasting, to which my grandfather paid meticulous attention. There were also characters like Westbrook Pegler employed to write newspaper columns, men who’d have broken the gaffe meter in the Newseum era of journalism. My grandparents (and my parents) had a great regard for manners. That extended to the rubrics of daily life and discussion of matters obscene. It never extended to public affairs, which are, er PUBLIC.

  • There is always the good old standby of “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,” within the hearing or sight of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby” and likely to cause a breach of the peace, to the terror of the lieges &c

  • CNN ran a story recently accusing House Republicans of “making fun” of Obumbler. That thin skinned ninny isn’t allowed to be criticized or his buddies get riled up.

    To paraphrase Simcha Fisher, “To hell with them.”

  • Yes, I’m afraid a parade incorporates a political sentiment, though usually a consensual one.
    There are many kinds of parades, Art. In my town the patriotic parades are largely about and for the children. The large majority of marchers are children – school bands, scouts, little league, pop warner, 4-H, Sunday schools, etc. etc. etc. Many of the spectators are. Very few of the town residents who currently do not have children in the extended family attend. State and local politicians march side by side in these parades without regard to their political differences. Why? Because the community expects it of them. The idea that the community can have no expectations of public manners at such an event, just because the parade happens in a public venue, is an idea that would be foreign to my fellow citizens.

    Every counter example you may give is true, but only for your example. You can keep listing them ad nauseam, and I’d agree that your reasoning about each one. War news on the public airwaves at prime time? An important public service, I agree. A patriotic parade is the one – perhaps the only – counter-example that I can think of that shows that your reasoning cannot apply 100% of the time.

  • Here in the West of Scotland, we are in the middle of the Marching Season, commemorating the Battle of the Boyne and the Apprentice Boys of Derry.
    I am told the marchers wear those white glove to stop them grazing their knuckles on the ground.
    Personally, I shall be raising a glass to the “Little Gentleman in Black Velvet.”

  • Slainte! Long live the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat…would that he and his brother moles had made their presence known at the Battle of the Boyne.

  • From the Lincoln Journal-Star

    Four representatives of the NAACP and the U.S. Department of Justice met with Norfolk Mayor Sue Fuchtman Thursday to talk about a controversial float in the Fourth of July parade.
    . . .

    The Justice Department official is a member of the Community Relations Service team that handles discrimination disputes.

    Gee, I figured it was bad enough having the DOJ investigating, but a private organisation with one gov’t along for camouflage?
    Read the whole article, they’re way beyond the float issue, now it’s about diversity and yadda, yadda.

    The NAACP has been losing members, money and influence for years but God bless ’em they still have the DOJ at their beck and call.
    I think the last person who tried to challenge that situation was Clarence Thomas when he headed the Civil Rights Division.

Obama’s Justice Department Agrees to Pay $120,000.00 To Pro-Life Protestor Over Frivolous Prosecution

Monday, April 9, AD 2012



Hattip to Tina Korbe at Hot Air.  The complete contempt that the Obama administration has for the civil liberties of Americans was exemplified in its prosecution of pro-life protestor Mary Pine.


The Justice Department has dropped an appeal in Holder v. Pine against pro-life sidewalk counselor Mary “Susan” Pine, who is represented by the civil rights firm Liberty Counsel. The DOJ has agreed to pay $120,000 for this frivolous lawsuit which, as the evidence indicated, was intended to intimidate Ms. Pine and send a shot over the bow of pro-lifers around the country.

Mr. Holder unsuccessfully sought thousands of dollars in fines against Ms. Pine, as well as a permanent injunction banning her from counseling women on the public sidewalk outside the Presidential Women’s Center (PWC) abortion mill (or any other “reproductive services” clinic).

After 18 months of litigation, the DOJ’s case was thrown out of federal court, and the department was chastised in a scathing ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp for filing a case with no evidence.

Judge Ryskamp wrote that Holder’s complete failure to present any evidence of wrongdoing, coupled with the DOJ’s cozy relationship with PWC and their apparent joint decision to destroy video surveillance footage of the alleged “obstruction,” caused the court to suspect a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Obama administration. “The Court is at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” wrote Judge Ryskamp. “The Court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct.”

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Obama’s Justice Department Agrees to Pay $120,000.00 To Pro-Life Protestor Over Frivolous Prosecution

  • Thank God for Ms. Pine and her courage (and attorneys).

    I’d like to know what personal responsibility Holder and his minions bear for such frivolous cases under the law and what would stand in the way to prevent such abuse of discretion in the future?

  • Prosecutors Paul can be held personally liable but it is extremely difficult. Go here for a good overview:

  • As the Arbiter and Supreme Justice of that Divine “Department” of Justice, God Himself will hold Eric Holder and Barack Hussein OBama accountable.

  • People like Holder and Obama don’t seem to care what God has in store for them. It is their loss. Holder pulled of a most difficult task – being a worse Attorney General than Janet Reno.

  • I would like to second Paul D. Thank God for Ms. Pine and her attorneys. I also am grateful they didn’t get some crazy judge. Who knows what could have happened

  • Penguins Fan,

    I agree. However, I came across the following last night as part of my evening devotional:

    “To the choirmaster. Of David. 1* * The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. 2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. 3 They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one. 4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the LORD? 5 There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. 6 You would confound the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge. 7 O that deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion! When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad.” Psalm 14

  • This is what they did to Mr. Joe Scheidler. This is posted at Creative Minority Report in response to Rebecca Taylor. If this is unacceptable then, please remove it but my shouting is in capital letters.
    “Our current situation began with this bit of rationalizing about “reproductive rights” not actually in the Constitution by the US Supreme Court and it continues unabated:
    “If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”
    LOOK, LOOK, AT WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID: “unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” OR BEGET A CHILD, OR BEGET A CHILD, OR BEGET A CHILD MEANS THAT A CHILD BEGOTTEN IS A CHILD BEGOTTEN. The child begotten is a child begotten, not a clump of cells, not the product of conception, or the contents of the womb, A CHILD BEGOTTEN, A CHILD BEGOTTEN WHEN TWO BECOME ONE, A SOVEREIGN PERSON, A HUMAN BEING COMPOSED OF IMMORTAL, RATIONAL SOUL AND A HUMAN BODY IS A CHILD BEGOTTEN.
    Planned Parenthood has been swindling us.
    In Engel.v. Vitale, the SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THE ATHEIST “COULD GO HER OWN WAY”. The newspapers bannered PRAYER BAN. The atheist has been swindling us since then, taking away our civil rights to acknowledge our Creator of unalienable rights, our freedom of speech to God, our freedom of press and peaceable assembly by describing prayer as a crime. FREEDOM

  • Ome should be worried. The DOJ still sent a message much like it sent a message when refusing to prosecute Black Panthers in Philadelphia for voter intimidation. Thuggery is disguised in business suits and while Ms. Pine benefitted from a good referree in Judge Ryskamp, the next Ms. pine might find herself before Judge Ideology.

  • I’m guessing we haven’t seen the last of this sort of thing. After all, the 120K
    settlement is only taxpayer money– Holder, the PWC and the attorneys prosecuting
    Mary Pine are not themselves out any cash. For them, I’m sure this episode is merely
    an opportunity to refine their skills at harassment and intimidation, at no cost to

    I agree with Cthemfly25: the DOJ succeeded in sending its message to those who
    would inconvenience the abortion industry. Next time the case might be decided in
    the court of a judge more amenable to the ideology of the administration.


Would You Have Been Intimidated?

Friday, July 16, AD 2010

The Justice Department apparently doesn’t think you should have been.

Whistle-blower J. Christian Adams, a career voting rights attorney with the Department of Justice, resigned his position in disgust over the handling of the voter intimidation case brought against the members of the New Black Panther Party featured in the above video:

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

The federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote, and those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions of their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in one case in Philadelphia, Miss., they were buried together in an earthen dam.

Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Would You Have Been Intimidated?