July 12, 2014

Eric Holder’s priorities: IRS? NSA? Pfffft! DOJ to investigate parade float … [Darleen Click]

First Amendment is sooooo 200 years ago …

The [DOJ] 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 Odd Fellows organized the parade. One of the floats included a zombie-like mannequin standing near an outhouse labeled “Obama Presidential Library.”

The float’s creator, Dale Remmich, has said the mannequin depicted himself, not President Barack Obama. He said he is upset with the president’s handling of the Veterans Affairs Department.

“Looking at the float, that message absolutely did not come through,” said Betty C. Andrews, the president of NAACP branches in Iowa and Nebraska.

So Andrews and a whole lot of other Obama sycophants “interpretation” of anything, regardless of authorial intent, is enough to have the Feds step in?

We are well and truly screwed.

h/t Jim Hoft

Posted by Darleen @ 1:10pm

Tags: , , ,

Comments (36)

  1. it doesn’t actually say anything about an investigation, but it’s weird that the DOJ flunky in the story is nameless

  2. this story talks about an investigation

  3. Look, folks, blow me.

  4. That should have looked something like:

    “Let me be perfectly clear. You can blow me.”

  5. ROSS DOUTHAT tries to help, and moste fouwlley beshittes bothe hymsilffe and hys owne Bedde.


  6. – From the book “Things that make me think of an image of pissing in the ocean“.

  7. > an image of pissing in the ocean<

    that makes the orangeman sad

  8. DOJ needs to give George Zimmerman his fucking gun back.

  9. how is this discrimination?

  10. A parade float? After they investigated Joe the Plumber and that rodeo clown, this is dog-bites-man.

  11. Oh, my. Someone hurt the little Commander in Chief’s feelings…

  12. Oh… this is for dicentra!

  13. Lese majeste has been a crime since Obama took office.

  14. Holder’s nightmares. More or less of a piece, since he chooses to keep his pronouncements vague enough to cover any SPLC ground he may cite.

  15. By “homegrown violent extremists” he really means classical liberals who reach their limit of what they will take from the totalitarian state he has helped advance and manage.

  16. Just saw Lauren Ashburn on that stupid Howard Kurtz Media Buzz show where they analyse and score “things”in the media.

    According to Lauren, conservatives are mad at Glen Beck because “they don’t want any immigrants to come through”.

    Is she too stupid* to read or understand spoken English? If not, she’s just another worthless fucking liar* who doesn’t care if she gets things right or not as long as she promotes elements of a commonly held press narrative.

    *Either of which makes her a poor choice for a media analysis show. (And yes that obviously goes for Kurtz too.)

    Why does Fox think viewers want to see fake ombudsmen making a fake and blunted critique or even outright making excuses for media excess? Why do they think viewers want to see a woman too stupid to understand the objection to what’s going on at the border is not based on not wanting immigration but not wanting to see the border penetrated by unauthorized border crossings shepherded by violent armed criminals who are SKIPPING our immigration process and intimidating or KILLING people down at the border?

    Fuck this shit.

  17. Why does Fox . . . ?

    It’s a good question. It’s a very good question. I’d suggest querying first Roger Ailes, and then above him, the owner with his auditor children. If, that is, thoroughly explanatory causes are at issue.

    On the other hand, the jesting answer is that Fox “thinks” it is making money hand over fist, since it has captured an audience long ignored (and which audience is willing to ignore itself!) or under-served, but which audience has not moved on in its discernment of its interests, remaining willing to contribute to Fox’s monetary success for the time being.

  18. Since Fox has been steadily moving left I rarely watch anything on the channel other than “Red Eye,” which is a comedy show, not a news show.

  19. Huckabee looks like the right wing of the network. Huckabee! And he’s even beating the anti-government drum now.

    I’m losing my mind I think.

  20. If Rick Perry loses his 2nd try at being the GOP candidate will he get a Fox show?

  21. What do black power radicals from the 60s, Obama’s college career, and Fox News have in common? A patron, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Tatal.

  22. Eric Holder translated: “Do you think we are as stupid as Bush? Two words: Scooter Libby. Special Prosecutors are for suckas.”

  23. Marco Rubio is the Hispanic love child of Chris Christie and Mitt Romney.

  24. Rubio is toast. He’s already used up his 15 minutes.

  25. Rubio is el cubano mas authentico!

    if Team R nominates him then all the hispanics will vote for Republicans forever and ever cause of they will see how authentico he is and realize that Team R is muy bueno and Hillary and her historic titties can go take a powder

  26. Cranky wrote:

    By “homegrown violent extremists” he really means classical liberals who reach their limit of what they will take from the totalitarian state he has helped advance and manage.

    Don’t forget we conservatives, Cranky. We’re his targets too.

  27. In fact, it might be easier to just simply say: ‘all non-Ideologues’.

  28. the mittens likes the rubio so shut knuckle draggers

  29. The mittens is a loser who loses though.

  30. “Community Relations Service Team.” So, uh, we actually HAVE one of those?

  31. If you drag your knuckles with mittens on no one can hear them bounce.

  32. By just joshing us this piece earnestly sinks into the muddy morass that is Obama’s transparency only in all things inconsequential.

  33. The question that needs answering here is what could a “reasonable” bureaucrat or prosecutor do with the signifiers here in order to justify an investigation into their (potentially subconscious) racism? If we don’t want that question to be asked, we’d better be at pains to make ourselves perfectly clear, and avoid unnecessary inflammatory statements. That is, use our free speech in a way that chills else, lest we lose it for our conspicuous insistence upon using it.

    The defense rests.

  34. what could a “reasonable” bureaucrat or prosecutor do with the signifiers here in order to justify an investigation into their (potentially subconscious) racism?

    The only answer necessary, regardless of applied intent or misunderstood signifiers, is “First Amendment, bitches. Can you dig it?” (*drops mic, exits stage left*)

  35. Ordinarily. Unless you’re a man of honor. In which case, you can burn me with impunity in order to protect your own misbegotten rep.

  36. If you were a Good Man, you wouldn’t need to get burned. You’ve nobody to blame but yourself!