July 10, 2013
If Obama Had a Justice Department, It Would Look Like Trayvon
Here's a little gem: Turns out the Community Relations Service (have you heard of them?), a division of the Department of Justice (sic), aided and abetted a series of protests, marches, and rallies in the Miami area, calling for the prosecution of George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin shooting case; the CRS activities were paid for by (did you guess?) you. And me; and all other taxpayers. From the Daily Caller:
A division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was deployed to Sanford, Florida in 2012 to provide assistance for anti-George Zimmerman protests, including a rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton, according to newly released documents.
The Community Relations Service (CRS), a unit of DOJ, reported expenses related to its deployment in Sanford to help manage protests between March and April 2012, according to documents obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.
So why was a division of the Justice Department agitating on behalf of Trayvon Martin and Al Sharpton, facillitating and urging that Zimmerman be prosecuted? What's next, a government-funded rally of illegals in favor of the Schumer-Rubio-Schumer immigration bill? A tax-funded mass protest (of professional "occupiers") in states that ban same-sex marriage?
According to the CRS's website, its nexus and justification was to heal "ethnic and racial tensions" following that Miami incident:
CRS was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the CRS web page, "The Community Relations Service is the Department’s 'peacemaker' for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and national origin. Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony."
Which they do by wading into controversial issues on the leftmost side after dubbing them "ethnic and racial," even if they have nothing to do with race, color, or ancestral origin, as with the Zimmerman case. (The only issue in that case is whether it was or wasn't self defense.)
Thus in small ways and large, the Obama administration has its thumb on the scale of virtually every aspect of American society. This "gangster government" goes far beyond the leftist cant that "the personal is political;" under Obamunism, the personal is accountable and subject to government intervention at any moment.
That is the context in which the NSA domestic spying program, the IRS "tea-party targeting," the Fast and Furious gun-running operation, the ObamaCare waivers and selective delays, and the incessant attempts to enact more "gun control" -- become scandals.
The danger is not that government has the ability to intercept "metadata" from phone calls -- for example, to see who in the United States is calling Ayman al Zawahiri; the danger is that this particular administration relishes the idea of using that power, along with the powers of the Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department, Health and Human Services, and federal law enforcement, to intimidate, threaten, disenfranchise, and even destroy Americans whose only crime is holding the Constitution above the idle whim of the king.
Of course, the biggest scandal of all is that the American people elected this conniving fool with totalitarian tendencies to the highest office of the land. Twice.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, July 10, 2013, at the time of 5:34 PM
The following hissed in response by: snochasr
Re: "the American people" and their voting habits
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that there is a limit to intelligence.
The following hissed in response by: Eris Guy
Over the course of almost a hundred years, the American people in every election and at every opportunity have erected institutions of tyranny. They will now be governed by them.
The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr
I found that article to be extremely poorly written. With a headline like that, you'd think they'd have some evidence to cite. But all of the actual quotes they cite seem neutral and ambiguous. They were "working protests" -- but given the group's mission, it would seem that would involve trying to monitor the protests and keep them from getting out of hand.
Was there something worse going on? I don't see evidence to support that claim. There's only the article's own words claiming that the deployed workers were working "for the protests", as opposed to being sent out because of the protests.
BAD journalism. Really bad. Is there something bad going on? Probably, but how could I know if the journalists won't tell me?
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2013 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved