‘Every Single One’ Fallout: Justice Dept. in Turmoil From PJMedia Series
113 and Oh.
Following the Justice Department’s long-delayed compliance with a Freedom of Information Act request, PJMedia recently published content from the resumes of each career attorney hired to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division under Attorney General Eric Holder. The articles were written by two former Civil Rights Division attorneys — J. Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky — and PJMedia Editor Richard Pollock.
The Justice Department is forbidden by federal law from hiring employees based on political affiliation. Yet the resumes revealed the following ideological breakdown among the new hires:
Leftist lawyers: 113
Moderate, non-ideological, or conservative lawyers: 0.
That represents the basest headline for the series, the matter-of-fact evidence that should lead any reasonable observer to believe the DOJ has employed an illegal political litmus test during the interview process. But the “Every Single One” series has provided additional benefits: the results present the inherent flaw in leftism’s perversion of the term “civil rights,” while providing a real world example of the flawed belief actualized. Additionally, the “Every Single One” series presents ramifications that reach far beyond the individuals most directly affected by DOJ activity.
We hope not to understate it: this perversion of “civil rights“ is the beating heart of leftism itself.
Only one definition of “civil rights” could ever logically exist: that of equal protection under the law, the law defined as the codified protection of an individual’s life, liberty, and property. Yet Eric Holder, Loretta King, Thomas Perez, the 113 hires — they claim that civil rights, and the Division established to enforce them, reside in racial, gender, disability, and even sexuality preferences presiding above the law, in the hands of an elite few trusted by an elite public class to establish some breed of “fair lawlessness.”
The flaw is obvious: when the law is not equally applied, a citizen’s actions are no longer their own.
Their fates are no longer tied to their personal adherence to life, liberty, and property, but to an unelected bureaucrat’s whim, an individual who believes both that he is qualified to make such judgments of other men and that our country’s laws allow him to do so. They claim that civil rights are not the individual’s, but somehow theirs, a definition incompatible with itself!
This is, as we know, the post-Marxist brand of tyranny — a “well-meaning” lawlessness. But prior to this series, we did not know that since 2008 the Civil Rights Division has been populated entirely according to this ideology, behavior which represents the perfect antithesis of civil rights.
The Way-Backstory: Strom’s (D-SC) Segregation-athon
The DOJ Civil Rights Division is a product of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first — and largely unsuccessful — of several legislative attempts to secure voting rights for blacks. The bill passed by a large margin, though passage was ardently opposed by Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond, who marked the occasion with the longest single-person filibuster in the Senate’s history: 24 hours, 18 minutes. (Please note: Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC) was, at the time, a Democrat.)
The Act’s passage created the office of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. This office is currently held by Obama appointee Thomas Perez, and he oversees a Division that now encompasses 11 sections: the Appellate Section, Criminal Section, Disability Rights Section, Educational Opportunities Section, Employment Litigation Section, Federal Coordination and Compliance, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices, Policy and Strategy Section, Special Litigation Section, and the Voting Section.
“Insufficient Evidence to Prosecute … ”
“Every Single One” presented key information from the resumes of each of the 113 career attorneys hired to serve within 10 of these 11 sections since the appointment of Eric Holder. The key information presented provided substantial evidence of the political leanings of each hire. In each case, enough evidence was available for a reasonable observer to determine that the hire was neither a conservative, moderate, nor apolitical.
The hiring practices within the Division should be of primary interest to the American citizen for several reasons; this series concerned itself with three. First, and inherently most urgent: employing a political litmus test during the applicant screening process is illegal under the Civil Service Reform Act. (This Act dates back to Chester Arthur, and was intended to ensure nothing other than that government hiring be merit-based.)
A political litmus for hiring is also contrary to the DOJ’s Reasonable Accommodation Statement:
The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer. Except where otherwise provided by law, there will be no discrimination because of color, race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, marital status, disability (physical or mental), age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, genetic information, status as a parent, membership or non-membership in an employee organization, on the basis of personal favoritism, or any non-merit factor.
Our second concern: a political litmus test — in this case, a “no exceptions” political litmus test — for employment within the Civil Rights Division raises the possibility of a significant number of Americans simply not being protected by the civil rights statutes the Division was created to enforce. Indeed, this is the singular purpose of creating a politically blind hiring process, and in practice — the discrimination statute now violated under Eric Holder — the political litmus test has unimpeachably resulted in the occurrence of this concern. See the New Black Panther case dismissal, or the 2010 military voting rights scandal.
The third concern: the difference in federal treatment of the Bush DOJ and the Obama DOJ constitutes an uneven enforcement of the ban on a political litmus test.
On July 30, 2008, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice Glenn Fine testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. His statement was titled: “Politicized Hiring at the Department of Justice.” From his introduction:
Our investigation found that [DOJ White House Liaison Monica] Goodling, Kyle Sampson (the former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General), and other staff in the Office of the Attorney General improperly considered political or ideological affiliations in screening candidates for certain career positions at the Department, in violation of federal law and Department policy.
And from his conclusion:
[T]he Department must ensure that the serious problems and misconduct we found in our reports about politicized hiring for career positions in the Department do not recur in the future.
The testimony was accompanied by a 70-page report, which primarily attacked Assistant Attorney General Brad Schlozman — the position now held by Thomas Perez. Six months later, on January 22, 2009, Spakovsky eviscerated the report and defended Schlozman in the Weekly Standard (the report had not been made public until the week prior, on January 13).
The result of all of this investigation: Schlozman resigned. Kyle Sampson resigned. Monica Goodling resigned. (She was later reprimanded by the Virginia State Bar following the report. Four years later. Strange.)
However, and most telling: none were prosecuted. Further investigation concluded that there was not sufficient evidence of law being violated by anyone involved.
Glenn Fine was still IG until January 2011: his earlier concern about the “serious problems and misconduct” inherent in politicized hiring — which resulted in several unnecessary resignations — had faded when Eric Holder took over the Department under his watch. Fine’s enforcement was blatantly uneven, and overlaps with our second concern: a significant number of Americans are neither protected by our civil rights laws nor by the appointed Department watchman.
Where’s Our Pulitzer?
A fourth concern, unrelated to the law yet perhaps as relevant to the American citizen, is the hypocrisy with which this “no exceptions” political litmus test has been examined by left-leaning media outlets and establishments.
The most notable findings by the press resided in the work of the Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage: Due in no small part to his investigation of Bush DOJ hiring practices, Savage was the recipient of a 2007 Pulitzer!
Savage submitted a series of eight articles to the Pulitzer committee; the series resulted in his win. One of the eight articles, published on July 23, 2006, was titled: “Civil Rights Hiring Shifted in Bush Era: Conservative leanings stressed.” From the piece:
The Bush administration is quietly remaking the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, filling the permanent ranks with lawyers who have strong conservative credentials but little experience in civil rights, according to job application materials obtained by the Globe.
The documents show that only 42 percent of the lawyers hired since 2003, after the administration changed the rules to give political appointees more influence in the hiring process, have civil rights experience. In the two years before the change, 77 percent of those who were hired had civil rights backgrounds.
…
The profile of the lawyers being hired has since changed dramatically, according to the resumes of successful applicants to the voting rights, employment litigation, and appellate sections. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Globe obtained the resumes among hundreds of pages of hiring data from 2001 to 2006.
Hires with traditional civil rights backgrounds — either civil rights litigators or members of civil rights groups — have plunged. Only 19 of the 45 lawyers hired since 2003 in those three sections were experienced in civil rights law, and of those, nine gained their experience either by defending employers against discrimination lawsuits or by fighting against race-conscious policies.
Meanwhile, conservative credentials have risen sharply. Since 2003 the three sections have hired 11 lawyers who said they were members of the conservative Federalist Society. Seven hires in the three sections are listed as members of the Republican National Lawyers Association, including two who volunteered for Bush-Cheney campaigns.
Several new hires worked for prominent conservatives, including former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, former attorney general Edwin Meese, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, and Judge Charles Pickering. And six listed Christian organizations that promote socially conservative views.
The changes in those three sections are echoed to varying degrees throughout the Civil Rights Division, according to current and former staffers.
Note that Savage only announced results for three sections. Our investigation took ten of the eleven sections into account.
And note his statistics: 42 percent from 77 percent, 19 out of 45. These differ in severity from our one statistic: 113 to 0. His data, later found to be part of a package of evidence found to be not worth prosecuting — and indeed representing an example of politically blind hiring rather than the opposite — helped him win a Pulitzer.
Another comparison between Savage’s work and ours deserves your attention: how was Savage able to gather the data for his Pulitzer-winning investigation? It doesn’t appear that he had to work terribly hard.
Presented with a Freedom of Information Act request, the Bush DOJ turned over the resumes plus hundreds of pages of hiring data to the Boston Globe within a few weeks, significantly ahead of the statutory FOIA deadline. The Bush DOJ redacted absolutely nothing, except the hires’ contact information.
During the Obama administration, FOIAs have proven to be notoriously — criminally? — hard to extract if the filer appears to be ideologically opposed to the administration. (But not so for fellow leftist travelers — PJMedia covered this very topic. Also see an interview with Adams on this.) Unlike Savage, PJMedia had to fight an almost year-long legal battle with the Most Transparent Administration in History to obtain the Civil Rights Division resumes of attorneys hired under Eric Holder:
In spring of 2010, PJ Media requested the exact same information from the DOJ that Charlie Savage requested in 2006 — except for hires made in the Obama DOJ. Recall the Bush administration turned over all the resumes of attorneys as fast as they could, and well before the statutory FOIA deadline.
PJM’s request was ignored. Then on October 13, 2010, the request was renewed by certified mail. Still, no response as required by law.
So on January 18, 2011, the case of PJ Media v. United States Department of Justice was filed in the United States District Court in D.C.
We finally received materials on May 13, 2011. But not everything – it included redactions and some material was missing. The FOIA was not fully complied with until July.
Has Charlie Savage, so terribly concerned with violations of the Civil Service Reform Act while George W. Bush was president, shown any interest in the hiring practices of the Eric Holder Civil Rights Division? Actually, he has — and he reported on it in a manner that only a delusional observer or one tasked with defending the DOJ from prosecution might.
On December 31, 2010, Christian Adams offered Savage some advice on this front:
Savage could bolster his credibility by making the same inquiries of this Justice Department as he did to the Bush DOJ. For starters, he could examine the preposterous hiring practices in the Civil Rights Division since Obama’s inauguration. The more time that passes without an inquiry from Savage and the New York Times, the more partisan his badgering of the Bush DOJ appears.
We cannot know for sure if Charlie Savage read Adams’ above recommendation, but he followed through on May 31, 2011, with an article covering the resumes of the new hires. Interestingly, the National Law Journal took Adams’ plea for an investigation to heart, and they performed one as well! They published a report on the resumes on May 30, 2011.
Two reports in two days. Savage mentioned the following in his piece:
The New York Times analyzed the résumés — obtained via the Freedom of Information Act — of successful applicants to the division’s voting rights, employment discrimination, and appellate sections.
You’ve likely already noticed what stinks to heaven about this, but for the sake of placing it in writing: we filed our FOIA in Spring 2010, and it was not even partially complied with until early May 2011. But little did we know — at the same time we were fighting a legal battle — that both the New York Times and the National Law Journal had made the exact same FOIA requests! Which were also complied with in … May 2011.
Two possibilities:
1) Both left-leaning organizations caught wind of our FOIA, and decided to file the exact same FOIA to get to the bottom of this rumored lefty hiring spree. Perhaps they fought the same almost year-long battle for compliance. (Note: I call this a “possibility” in that the standard model of particle physics would not prevent it from occurring.)
2) The FOIA referred to in Savage’s article above was actually our FOIA. The DOJ voluntarily released the resumes to the New York Times and the National Law Journal at the same time they were released to us so that the two left-leaning organizations could offer an opposing viewpoint to our investigation.
But this possibility only holds water if the two organizations actually were shameless enough to report that all was well after viewing the left-wing resumes. Did that happen? Hit it, Charlie:
In Shift, Justice Department is Hiring Lawyers With Civil Rights Backgrounds
Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has reversed a pattern of systematically hiring conservative lawyers with little experience in civil rights, the practice that caused a scandal over politicization during the Bush administration.
Instead, newly disclosed documents show, the lawyers hired over the past two years at the division have been far more likely to have civil rights backgrounds — and to have ties to traditional civil rights organizations with liberal reputations, like the American Civil Liberties Union or the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
The release of the documents came as a House Judiciary subcommittee prepared to hold its first oversight hearing, on Wednesday, on the Civil Rights Division since Republicans regained the House. It also comes against the backdrop of efforts by conservative activists and media outlets to throw back at the Obama administration the charges of politicizing the Justice Department that were made against the Bush administration.
Which conservative media outlets? Tell us!
Savage and the National Law Journal actually did manage to spin a clear and severe violation of the Civil Service Reform Act into the Carville-ian: “Bravo for hiring lawyers with a civil-rights background.” (Note: the same defense later employed by the DOJ itself. Keep reading).
So we know what Savage and the National Law Journal think. Forgive us for feeling slighted, but we want to know about everyone else: What do the Boston Globe, the rest of the MSM that breathlessly parroted the findings of Savage’s original article, and the Pulitzer committee think of our objectively superior, unimpeachable work?
PJMedia readers will get that answer. Stay tuned.
The Spin, the Turmoil, and the Even Bigger Reveal
Our investigation has not yet resulted in an inspector general investigation, group resignations, or a Little League trophy to show at the White House Correspondents Dinner, but we are getting results.
As a direct follow-up to “Every Single One,” Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) submitted a letter to Eric Holder on August 10 demanding answers regarding our published proof of an ideological litmus test. Grassley did not go ignored: Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded on September 8. The key passage:
Your letter questions whether the Division has nonetheless considered the actual or perceived political or ideological affiliations of applicants for career positions and thereby reverted to the politicized approach in hiring that was documented in the 2008 Report. We can assure you unequivocally that it has not done so. The Division does not take into account actual or perceived political or ideological affiliations in the career hiring process — much less inquire into applicants’ political or ideological affiliations as occurred during the period examined in the 2008 Report and documented in the Report. The blog postings referenced in your letter posit that working at certain organizations, belonging to certain groups, participating in certain activities in law school, or even having a certain sexual orientation necessarily reflects a particular political or ideological affiliation, and therefore establishes that hiring decisions were made based on that perceived affiliation. That is not the case. As would any responsible employer, the Division places a high value on an applicant’s relevant experience in the field, as well as demonstrated commitment to full and fair enforcement of civil rights laws, when making hiring decisions. The examples of prior employment cited in these blog posts and your letter — noting, for example, that numerous new hires for the Civil Rights Division had previously worked for civil rights organizations — reflect nothing more than that. (Emphasis added)
The two defenses as laid out in this paragraph from Weich are important, as they define the tactics which the DOJ has selected to defend themselves publicly, and — perhaps eventually — legally. They are: 1) Despite appearances, we did not inquire about political affiliation. 2) The 113 lawyers hired happen to be leftists because only leftists care about civil rights. Charlie Savage agrees.
These two arguments noted in this paragraph were parroted by Main Justice, a site run by Mary Jacoby that bills itself as “an independent news organization and not part of the U.S. government,” and which exists to cover insider news about the DOJ. In reality, Main Justice has appeared closer to being a DOJ mouthpiece.
Following the money leads to some circumstantial evidence: Eric Holder’s former law firm Covington & Burling buys advertising on the site. And a DOJ employee who wishes to remain anonymous tells PJMedia: “When Jacoby is reporting it, Jacoby is hearing it from a DOJ official.”
Main Justice’s role as mouthpiece is evident in the article “Behind Grassley’s Attack on Civil Right Division Hiring, Some Familiar Faces”:
Their series is entitled, “Every Single One,” as in “every single one” of the new hires is a liberal. Their research found the new lawyers have worked for organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union. It apparently formed the basis of Grassley’s assertion in a congressional hearing earlier this week that the Civil Rights Division in the Obama era “has hired 96 liberals and zero conservatives.”
The punch line here is, of course, that Adams and Von Spakovsky are the ones connected to improperly politicized hiring inside the division.
Heritage Foundation fellow Von Spakovsky was a political appointee in the division when it ran amok during the Bush administration hiring career attorneys based on their conservative ideology, and driving out veteran lawyers perceived to be too liberal.
…
The stumbling block for Grassley (and Adams and Von Spakovsky) is that the historical mission of the Civil Rights Division — ensuring full voting, housing and other rights for minorities who have faced documented discrimination — is inherently a liberal mission.
Jacoby’s reporting is notable for two reasons: First, according to Christian Adams, Main Justice has previously published an article claiming Adams was “associated with the improper hiring” of the Bush DOJ. Adams contacted her, explaining he was nowhere named in the 2008 inspector general report, and insisted she retract the line. She did.
Now, she publishes the exact same falsehood again!
Further, Jacoby got it wrong on Hans von Spakovsky, too: this leads us to believe she either did not check the 2008 inspector general report to see what it actually said about him, or she chose to report a falsehood. Von Spakovsky was a career lawyer in the Division, not a “political appointee” as Jacoby mistakenly claims. Von Spakovsky also tells PJMedia that he was interviewed by Jacoby several years ago, and that during the interview he informed her of this. The IG report itself makes no claim whatsoever that von Spakovsky was involved in any politicized hiring.
Second, Jacoby’s piece includes a confession regarding DOJ hiring practices: “The historical mission of the Civil Rights Division … is inherently a liberal mission.” You should take this as nothing less than a “guilty, and proud” admission, and having read Weich’s response, be reasonably assured that this is a DOJ position.
The best I can manage for summarizing this argument: “Civil rights” in fact means preferences, therefore preferences in our own hiring is in accordance. We didn’t break the law, but we don’t agree with the law. And further, the Bush DOJ did break the law when they used preferences, which we do not do, but we agree with.
The argument is lawless, and illogical: “It counts as civil rights when we do it.”
It’s leftism’s beating heart of identity preferences, which always and forever ends in a statement defining tyranny. It’s a lie, and you should be angry in shouting it down.
There are plenty of conservative lawyers who take on the mission of defending civil rights, defending the only possible definition: equal protection of the individual’s life, liberty, and property. Two of these lawyers are named Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky.
Further, the response from Weich dropped a nasty, underhanded lie directly intended to defame PJMedia: that we determined political affiliation from any of the hirees’ sexual orientations.
No. We did not. This is a nasty, nasty line designed to paint us as homophobes.
First: this was not possible, for goodness’ sake! No one puts their sexual orientation on their resume! Show us where this information sits on any of the 113 resumes — we certainly do not see it; perhaps it lies in the areas you redacted?
In many cases, we drew conclusions regarding the political ideologies of the hirees from the political affiliations and behavior of the organizations they belonged to.
The only people drawing conclusions of political ideology based on sexuality are the liars who cooked up that smear. They can get further information regarding their ignorance from the members of GOProud, and they can learn more about PJMedia’s track record from CEO Roger Simon, who announced his personal boycott of CPAC within moments of hearing they had banned GOProud from attending.
This smear is the tyranny talking; it’s what happens when a group believes the impossible, that they “own” civil rights.
Second: this nasty lie secondarily expressed the point that we had gotten something wrong. That in using sexual orientation, which we did not, we got someone’s political ideology incorrect.
DOJ and Main Justice: let us know where you think we are mistaken. Who among the 113 is actually conservative?
Internal Panic?
Weich’s public response belied a more nervous tone brewing within the Civil Rights Division. A confidential source within DOJ leaked the following memo to PJMedia, written by Thomas Perez two weeks ago and circulated throughout the Division:
From: Perez, Thomas E (CRT)
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 04:13 PM
To: CRT Users
Subject: Civil Rights Division Success
To all Division Staff:This morning I had the opportunity to testify before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary about the remarkable work of the Division. It was a great honor to discuss some of our recent accomplishments, and to show that, despite the difficult budget situation, the Civil Rights Division staff are among the best this government has to offer.
As I told the Committee, when I returned to the Civil Rights Division in 2009, I promised to restore and transform the Division. Thanks to all of you, our efforts have yielded great success. I am attaching a copy of my full statement, as well as the oral statement I delivered today, for your review.
I discussed the many ways in which our work has transformed communities for the better, and provided access to opportunity. It was incredibly satisfying to discuss the largest ever Title III ADA settlement, the largest ever settlement involving claims of rental discrimination, the largest ever monetary settlement for identified victims in a fair lending case, the largest ever settlement in a case alleging discrimination in hiring based on immigration or citizenship status. I discussed the successful prosecution of the New Orleans Police Department officers involved in the shootings on the Danziger Bridge in the wake of Hurricane Katrina that left two civilians dead and four wounded. I mentioned our trip to Puerto Rico to release the findings of a comprehensive, extensive investigation of the police department there. It was an honor to discuss the guilty pleas in the first case charged under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, bringing some measure of justice for the incident’s victim – a young man of Navajo descent who had developmental disabilities. I discussed our renewed efforts to ensure language access in courts nationwide, and our ramped up efforts to protect servicemembers from employment discrimination when they return from service. I discussed our first efforts in nearly a decade to protect students from harassment in school because they fail to conform to gender stereotypes. And I discussed the Voting Section’s incredible efforts to respond to the influx of redistricting plans submitted for administrative review, all while defending the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and handling the most robust case docket in a decade.
Your work on behalf of the American people is critical and priceless. Your ability to maintain a high level of enthusiasm and dedication even during difficult and uncertain times is admirable, and I want to thank each of you for your hard work on behalf of the Division and the nation.
Recently, we received an inquiry from Senator Grassley about the Division’s hiring practices, and I have attached to this email our response to the Senator’s inquiry. As you all know, one of my first priorities was to return integrity to the Division’s career hiring process. As a career attorney in the Division, I had the privilege of serving on the selection committee for the Honors Program in the administrations of President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton. Under both administrations, the instruction we received was identical: hire the best qualified candidates, plain and simple.
In the last two years, the process has been returned to career staff, and the hiring policies, available on our website, ensure integrity and transparency in hiring, and prohibit the consideration of any political affiliation or ideology. We hire, based on merit, individuals who have the knowledge, experience and qualifications necessary to do the demanding work of the Division. I want to thank those who have served on the hiring committees for their adherence to these principles, and for taking the time out of their already very busy work schedules to participate in this important process. I have been consistently impressed by the new lawyers that were brought on in the career staff-led hiring processes of the past two years. As noted in our letter in response to Senator Grassley, the integrity and quality of our hiring process should be judged by the quality of the Division’s work – and I can say with great confidence that our collective work product is among the best the Division has ever produced.
Our success is a product of the talent, experience and dedication of all of the Division’s employees – both those who have been here for years or decades, and those who have joined us during the current administration. I could not be more proud of our work, and I consider it a great honor to be a part of an organization filled with so many dedicated, passionate individuals who have made a commitment to public service. I thank each of you for your continued dedication to the critical mission of the Civil Rights Division.
Tom
Sounds like what we heard from Main Justice, no?
In any event, we know the memo was an attempt to shore up flagging morale within the Division, a concern directly brought on by “Every Single One.” A confidential source within the Division tells PJMedia:
Perez gets to sit and watch the bloody carnage inside each time a new “Every Single One” story comes out.
Bombshell Number One
We know that the DOJ employees behind the interview desk are nervous about a legal investigation brought on by “Every Single One,” but more immediately, we now know that the new hires themselves should be desperately concerned about the source of their next paycheck.
A source inside DOJ tells PJMedia (paraphrased):
During last week’s Senate CJS meeting, several million in funding for all DOJ litigating components were cut — including the Civil Rights Division. The amount cut was what used to hire about 100 of the new attorneys.
In other words, it may well be that they have to get rid of many of their new hires.
This really should be a big story.
DOJ hired these new attorneys knowing they didn’t have the money now and probably wouldn’t be getting it. These new lawyers probably all make more than $100,000 in salary, plus benefits. They spend maybe 20 million dollars they didn’t have. They did it specifically to fill the Division with leftists.
Now they are trying to cover it by offering early retirement/buyouts.
Bombshell Number Two, and the Big Reveal
Why might DOJ be so panicked? While the resumes speak for themselves, prosecution within a federal agency generally requires a smoking gun, and perhaps DOJ fears that it has already been found. They should be.
As Christian Adams has previously written in “Every Single One”:
Loretta King, while serving as the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights at the outset of the Obama administration, ordered the resumes of highly qualified applicants to be rejected only because they didn’t have political or left-wing civil rights experience. Multiple DOJ sources with direct knowledge of hiring committee practices have confirmed this to me.
We have proof of this.
Which takes us to the Big Reveal: all that we have presented up to this point should upset you as a citizen, a taxpayer, but we are not close to having completed publication of all that we have uncovered. The Department of Justice has done much further abuse to your liberty and property, committed significantly more acts of lawlessness on your dime. Additional articles will be forthcoming on PJMedia within a week or so.
Further, we have a much more extensive treasure trove of information we’d love to publish for you this very minute!
But copyright law requires that we wait until October 4. Preorder here!
There are an astounding number of undercover programs taking political stands. I lost track of the number of fake Nazis pretending to be alienated Republicans.
In one the case, they invented a 10-year-old son who shot his white supremacist dad. (Both individuals were fiction.)
If ONE VOTE has ever been swayed by these programs, whether in state houses or local elections, then those agents need to face criminal charges for interfering with civil processes. I’m sure the ACLU will jump on that… right….
“Jeff Hall”. Had to google it.
Baobo: Ok. I’m lost. You are saying that Jeff Hall and his son, and so his murder are all fake? What evidence convinces you of that?
The complete lack of basic data that these people (including supposed family) even exist. No Intellius data, Social Security death records, no registry of deeds records, no appearance in local police logs (they were amazingly well-behaved for trashy psychopaths), news photos appear posed and Photo-shopped, statements sound very scripted.
One can’t prove such a negative without traveling cross-country, but from any computer screen there is no proof the story was real. The FBI has an outrageous habit of abusing the news media this way.
golden fail award for the jeff hall conspiracy. aside from the 80 bazillion web hits, i also saw extensive videos of him and his family from different date ranges. But you might still want to check his birth certifcate as well
You googled “Jeff Hall” and got web hits…. and you think that’s evidence the story is real? The videos serve my point, that they are bad actors. Google “tooth fairy” and you’ll notice more stories with video.
good article and interesting greeting success please visit my blog article might be useful for you.
All your greeting success are belong to us!
+1
While the documentation exists to prove biased hiring, there will be a problem getting rid of them in that they are in civil servant positions. Until that happens the next AG may well have to open an Office for Leftist Grievances. I suggest Point Barrow, Alaska where they can write briefs to each other to be mailed to Washington for “further action”. The office would have no travel budget and no ability to initiate independent action.
@canuck – see end of article – they hired these bozos knowing they didn’t have the funding – which was cut. No funding, no jobs. When we retake the government, it shouldn’t be too difficult to drain this particular swamp!
My hope is that one of Sarah Palin’s first acts as President will be to ask for the resignation of everyone hired since Jan 20, 2009.
It has just struck me that what they are doing is eerily akin to South Africa’s apartheid system, except in reverse, of course.
The cornerstone of that peculiar institution was the unfair and unequal application of justice in the courts – no action, regardless of its inattention to basic human values, taken by the state’s goons was cause for concern because the prosecutors were hand-picked based on their willingness to subjugate those values to an ideology.
Think about it!
WOW! I mean really…wow! You guys write a 5 page article about a 100 or so lawyers at the Justice Department? Well, let’s focus on the real bias, shall we: BUSH/CHENEY. Two major wars, millions of civilians dead, TRILLIONS made by Cheney, the Koch Brothers, Bush’s oil buddies, and Chynna Phillips. A Guantanamo Bay concentration camp, a “Patriot Act” that has robbed everyone of their most basic civil rights. And let’s not forget the HUGE corporate bailouts and the economic depression. I can’t even but a mocha latte lowfat as frequently as I used to.
BUSH/CHENEY. Two major wars: approved and funded by both parties, continued by the current President, and a third war on his watch.
millions of civilians dead: not hardly
TRILLIONS made by Cheney: not hardly
the Koch Brothers, Bush’s oil buddies: I see, so its not OK to be a rich Conservative and support your causes, but it’s OK to be a rich Democrat and support Democrat causes, George Soros being the prime example.
A Guantanamo Bay concentration camp: no, a POW camp, as should be in a time of war.
a “Patriot Act” that has robbed everyone of their most basic civil rights: I agree on this one, but let’s not forget the Obama administration’s hiring of countless czars, to form a shadow government as a vehicle to get around Constitutionally sanctioned government. Fire ALL the czars.
HUGE corporate bailouts: Let’s not forget almost a trillion taxpayer dollars funneled to Democrat constituencies by the Obama administration via the stimulus. I have to wonder how much of that will end up being donated back to Obama’s re-election campaign. Corruption the Chicago way.
#6 was making a funny
It’s impossible to distinguish between parody and actual leftists anymore.
Leftists have always been parodies of thoughtful humans! Everything they say, write and text should be taken with a boulder of salt.
Wow! Look at all DOJ’s hired gunslingers suddenly popping up in disguise to comment at PJM, fearing that their rice bowl and cushy Federal retirement are under threat.
Even with the NYT trying to run interference by twisting PJM’s FOIA material, this won’t fly. Too much of the American public remains uncorrupted by Chicago/leftist/ACORN indoctrination to just pass over this series in silence.
If not tar and feathers, at least some nice long Federal sentences for Holder’s crooked crew.
Lovelyearth was engaging in parody. I understand that the difference can be subtle with today’s liberals, but even they forget to be hyperbolic on a single word or phrase sometimes. Only comedy can explain perfect liberalism.
troll
Your still focused on Bush? Right. Lets just ignore all the criminal activity of the Obama administration.
But why stop with Bush? Lets go back even further and focus on T. Roosevelt. I am sure lots of things happened then as well. So. Obama and his group get a free pass from you because of the deeds of others?
If you are prosecuting a criminal, do you focus on the acts of others and say that this one gets a pass because someone else committed a crime?
No,your just trying to draw attention away from the serious illegal actions Of Obama and his merry gang. Won’t work.
You notice with Lovely Earth, Bush/Cheney are solely responsible for the war, not islamists. The things hate can do to an already revaged mind !!
It is the subversion of the institutions of government by those willing to use them to promote their agenda that is so dangerous. They then can impose their tyranny under color of law, which in reality is lawlessness. This is the way totalitarians seize control of governments
LE,
I’m not sure how to break this to you (are you sitting down?), but Bush and Cheney are no longer in office. In fact, they haven’t held office since January 2009. What’s the date today? September 26, 2011? OK, got that?
I hope this helps. If not, try upping the dosage on your meds.
Even the ACLU has a non-trivial number of libertarians among the leftists. The claim that only leftists care about civil rights is not credible.
Ensuring civil rights is an “inherently liberal mission.” A classically liberal mission that the vast majority of conservatives embrace. The problem is that today’s leftists are so seldom classical liberals. They do not concern themselves with the even-handed enforcement of civil rights law; they concern themselves only with enhancing the rights of favored groups and ignoring violations of the rights of the non-favored.
In addition to the libertarians in organizations like the ACLU, there are any number of qualified civil rights attorneys in organizations like Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation, to name just two. So, this nonsense that qualified attorneys with civil rights experience can only be found in leftist organizations won’t wash.
Just wondering – Isn’t there a fine distinction between political *affiliation* and political *belief*? I thought the purpose of forbidding a political litmus test was to prevent party cronyism. In a job interview, a DOJ official might simply ask “Why do you want to work for the Civil Rights Division?” If the candidate gave the appropriate leftist response (anything other than “to ensure the law is applied equally), he or should would be in. “Wrong” responses would simply be “inconsistent with the CRD’s guiding philosophy” or something. That’s a lot different from asking someone which political party they belong to. And strictly speaking, there’s nothing wrong with it.
That said, it also illustrates why this PJM series is important. DOJ isn’t breaking any regulations (in letter if not in spirit), so no major news organization will be interested. And of course, most major news organizations will be in sympathy with the DOJ’s interpretation of “equal protection.” It’s up to independent media such as PJM to expose the leftist bias – which, although not strictly illegal is nevertheless harmful.
DOJ isn’t breaking any regulations (in letter if not in spirit), so no major news organization will be interested.
That’s pretty wrong. You should really read the whole article: : employing a political litmus test during the applicant screening process is illegal under the Civil Service Reform Act.
“DOJ isn’t breaking any regulations”? Hmmm. Mr. Steinberg indicates that folks in Justice could face legal troubles.
I did read the article and I think it contains a few legal holes. All I’m saying is, I think it would be difficult to prove DoJ’s hiring practices violated the law – though trying to do so in court would be an extremely useful and possibly entertaining exercise.
My impression (correct or not, anybody?) is that the majority of experienced civil rights lawyers are flaming liberals. If the DoJ asks a potential hiree, “Are you a flaming liberal?” and then EITHER hires OR rejects them based an affirmative response, then DoJ is guilty of applying a political litmus test. Why would DoJ hire them? Liberals hire other liberals. Why would they reject them? Conservative president pressuring DoJ to hire more conservative lawyers. Neither scenario depicts fair and impartial hiring. Unless you think conservative civil rights lawyers need their own affirmative action program.
I just think it would be easier to prove politicized firing – and politicized job assignments, duty stations, promotions raises, and so forth. Hit them there, and hit them on selective enforcement of voting and other regulations.
Ironically, you’re using the very arguments employed by the segregationists in the sixties to defend the actions of those whose charter it is to guard against their return.
Conservatives love civil rights, as we love all things that are noble and pure. What we hate is those who use something good to promote something that is fundamentally bad, such as the exclusion of certain classes of people from protection under the law. Such an act is the definition of perversion, and is worse than simple wrong-doing.
The next admin needs to close the Civil Rights Division. The current staff can be transferred to a new division for on-site investigation of foreign laws in, say, Sierra Leone. Then create a brand-new Civil Liberties Division with all-new staff. Clean house.
You can get rid of every single one via one of two perfectly legal techniques. First would be a budget cut to the (In)Justice Department forcing layoffs. As civil service is first in, last out or alternately last in, first out, you can force them all out via budget cuts. Second and more likely – and you touched on it in your comment – is a simple reorg of the department. Write the job descriptions correctly and you can do a thorough housecleaning in short order. Cheers -
Fine, we KNOW this is going on in the Justice Department. What can Congress do to STOP IT? Is Congress doing ANYTHING to address this lawlessness in the Justice Department?
With the Federal Government selling weapons to Drug Cartels and criminals and refusing to prosecute “black” criminals who threaten white voters, and DOJ fighting states’ (AZ)attempts to enforce immigration laws – WTF are our Republican Congressmen and Senators doing to HALT THE LAWLESSNESS in the DOJ?
When the public perceives that the government is capricious in it’s enforcement of the law, as in immigration with certain groups perceived as favored anarchy begins to set in. Why should I obey any laws if others don’t have to?
“Jacoby’s reporting is notable for two reasons: First, according to Christian Adams, Main Justice has previously published an article claiming Adams was “associated with the improper hiring” of the Bush DOJ. Adams contacted her, explaining he was nowhere named in the 2008 inspector general report, and insisted she retract the line. She did.
Now, she publishes the exact same falsehood again!”
Sounds like a slam-dunk slander case to me.
Nice thought Rob. In the meantime, note David’s portion that deals with who buys much of her advertising.
As I recall, the original story was about resume data only. Would it be hard to look up (a) party affiliation, and (b) political contributions (via Opensecrets.com, perhaps).
Gee, you might try reading the whole series. The political contributions of these political hires are included for anyone who cares to be enlightened before commenting.
p.s. — on getting that other data, you might want to ask for volunteers, and just give them the list of names. I’m sure there are some enthusiastic public-spirited readers who would do it for nothing or for just a named thanks.
Amazing series. Interview records probably show same 100% bias. The Holder crew has been so successful that the fed justice system
Amazing series. Interview records probably show same 100% bias. The Holder crew has been so successful that the fed justice system will be tilted left for a generation. Fed jobs feed academic law jobs so law schools will get even more radical.
If I had to guess, they didn’t actually ask applicants about politics. They didn’t need to. They just needed to hire the applicant from the “right” NGOs. That information is right on the resume. When they claim that only leftists are interested in civil rights, what that really means is that they only recruit from “civil rights” organizations such as the SPLC and NAACP and such. NRA attorneys need not apply.
Even if it were possible that the DOJ’s hiring of ALL leftist lawyers was purely accidental, wouldn’t disparate impact be considered? If standards for hiring firemen or policeman are lowered because of disparate impact of testing on minorities, couldn’t that also be considered in the hiring practices for the DOJ? Conservative, non-partisan, and libertarian lawyers are being disparately impacted by the hiring procedures at the DOJ.
Snork, yes. The NGO’s are leftist credentialing mills just as a college degree is a generalized one.
I appreciate the important work that went into this report and I plowed through it. But the language/writing is so dense that most ordinary people i.e. not lawyers or academics are unlikely to read it. Please find an editor who knows how to write in “real people” language.
But the language/writing is so dense that most ordinary people i.e. not lawyers or academics are unlikely to read it.
Some of us are not even lawyers, and can read it just fine. Admittedly, it’s beyond the capacity of a bumper sticker or soundbite, because the subjects are complex. Nevertheless, they’re not beyond the capabilities of a citizen with an interest in democratic government. If it’s beyond your reading comprehension skills, perhaps a few English classes at your community college would assist you in achieving enlightenment.
Please find an editor who knows how to write in “real people” language.
Perhaps you can interest the publishers of your favorite comic book to take on the task.
Why are there so many departments of “civil rights” anyway? It is ludicrous! We need to remove the cancer from our government at the ballot box if it is not too late!
The DoJ is offering early retirement and buyout packages? I see the strategy here. Hire only “progressive” lawyers (proglodytes), and try to get rid of older, more conservative ones with early retirement and buyouts. Thus, you have a DoJ crammed with proglodytes for the foreseeable future, with serious consequences for the idea of “justice” in this country.
Does the name, “Alinsky”, come up in their applications?
Thank you. Thank you for uncoving this abuse at the higest levels within the DOJ. I am deeply concerned that the destruction of this country by MSM, leftest, and the Obama administration can not be turned around. God bless you and all the staff.
My background is public employment relations at the state level. That work intersects a lot with both state and federal EEO/Civil Rights types and since unions so love to claim discrimination as a part of any discipline or dismissal grievance, you have to have a working knowlege of the Civil Rights game, and I do mean game. I’m not a lawyer or a civil rights expert, but I know enough to have kept my name off of any verdicts, judgements, or consent decrees over a twenty-odd year career.
The first problem here is the notion of political affiliation in a merit system postion. I’ve hired lots of lawyers and labor relations practitioners in merit system positions and most state laws are pretty much identical to the federal system. It is illegal for me to impose a PARTISAN litmus test. If I insist that a hire be a Republican it is illegal, pure and simple. If I carefully examine an applicant’s resume and interview answers to determine that the applicant’s personal beliefs might be more coincident with the employer’s interests than with the unions’, I have a perfect right, even a duty to do that and hire the person who would represent the employer’s interests dedicatedly. It would be very foolish of me as a Republican policy level manager to hire or allow to be hired somebody whose general inclination was that the union was right and the employer wrong a priori.
Frankly, you aren’t going to find a whole lot of Republicans or conservatives with a background in “civil rights law” or “civil rights advocacy.” That is work almost exclusively reserved to starry-eyed idealists fresh out of law school or living on money gg/grandaddy made in the rum and slaves trade back before they figured out how to perfect man in New England. If you find a Republican or a conservative with civil rights law experience, it likely was earned as an AAG in a Republican government or in a private firm representing a party accused of discrimination. Sorry, that ain’t the person a Democrat AG is looking for in ANY job. Sure, he can’t legally ask the applicant if s/he’s a Republican, but he can do the next best thing and find out which side of the issues the applicant would be on. Sorry, I’ve never seen an EEO or Civil Rights/Human Rights Office that wasn’t a advocacy office for those claiming discrimination. The only difference between such offices under Republicans from under Democrats is that there may, just may, be a little objectivity under the Republican and at least some of the staff might be competent rather than simply tokens and patronage hires. And, yes, it is easy for Democrats to make patronage hires in merit system positions and they do it extensively, right down to the clerk and janitor level. But we all know Democrats are good people and good people don’t do bad things, so nobody notices when Democrats make patronage hires in merit system postions. They REALLY notice when Republicans make merit hires in jobs that Democrats think should be Democrat patronage, however.
In vestigations such as this are pretty much like peeing your pants in a dark suit; it gives you a warm feeling and nobody notices. Republican congressmen asking questions or even holding hearings will be dismissed as mere partisanship and any former employees will simply be dismissed as “disgruntled former employees.” Stop and think about how many times you’ve seen that phrase used about a “whistleblower.” I once gave myself a warm feeling for ratting off a Democrat Administration for some outright corruption, even got a couple of articles critical of the Administration in a Democrat house organ newspaper – and made myself practically unemployable for several years thereafter. The rule is that when you do stuff like that,the Democrats hate you and since the Democrat hate makes you controversial, the Republicans are afraid to have you around. There’s a reason working ‘crats learn to just keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
Somewhere on the “to do” list for when we restore a legitimate government is to take these sorts of positions and take them OUT of the merit system. Frankly, I think all government lawyers should be political appointees who serve at the pleasure with perhaps a few of them in ministerial positions guaranteed “for cause” removal during a set term. Then all we have to do is convince those Republicans who are so compelled to be “nice,” that they need to fire every political appointee in the government immediately upon their hand coming off The Bible.
@artchance “…or living on money gg/grandaddy made in the rum and slaves trade back before they figured out how to perfect man in New England.” good one – gotta clean the coffee out of my nose now – thanks for the early mornin’ laugh!
Unfortunately, so long as biased, prejudicial laws exist to be enforced, nobody can be too surprised at bias in their enforcement. Illuminating this may inadvertently be the most valuable aspect of this story — though it’s also a great deal like beating your head against a wall.
Our country has been comandeered by Marxists.. Who are you going to call to report acts of treason, the DOJ? Good luck with that. Eric Holder is a closet “Black Panther”. He hates whites and especially white males. Look at nine of his recent new hires.. See any white males here?: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/every-single-one-the-politicized-hiring-of-eric-holders-disability-rights-section/?singlepage=true
Frankly, you aren’t going to find a whole lot of Republicans or conservatives with a background in “civil rights law” or “civil rights advocacy.” That is work almost exclusively reserved to starry-eyed idealists fresh out of law school or living on money gg/grandaddy made in the rum and slaves trade back before they figured out how to perfect man in New England.
Not exactly true, Art. For all the Marxist, tear down the system types on one side of a civil rights lawsuit, there is always someone sitting on the other side as well.
If one were to take a resume’ and peruse the cases…and one was inclined to pay attention to which “side” they were on politically speaking, here’s a general rule of thumb:
1)Prosecutor in criminal cases, defense attorney in corporate cases….on one side of the fence.
2)Defense attorney in criminal cases, plaintiff’s attorney in civil matters…on the other side of the fence.
I have tried dozens of civil rights matters. In one year I tried 7 federal civil jury trial matters….all dealing with civil rights. That does not include my other caseload matters.
You won’t find someone with that heavy trial experience very easily. The amount of work it takes to file a federak pre-trial memorandum is a significant amount of work. To do it seven times and get through verdict and post-trial motions, it might be hard to find someone else who has done it.
Yet, as I read the accounts from PJM, I would not be considered. I opposed the Marxists and beat them regularly. But I was on the “wrong” side.
What would be as interesting to me, if not moreso, would be the resume’s that were thrown out, attorneys not interviewed, not selected….because they didn’t have the right “attitude”….which will be slandered as not the right “aptitude”.
In that instance, the final damning proof would not just rest on who was hired…as much as who was passed over completely.
My point was that the lawyers styled as or self-identified as “civil rights lawyers” are a self-selected, usually very liberal if not out-right communist lot of idealists. There are lots of attorneys who do lots of civil rights work, sometimes even as plaintiffs attorneys, such as you describe yourself, but you don’t either self-describe nor would you be characterized by Democrats as a “civil rights lawyer.”
Since I retired from the State, I’ve done quite a few rights arbitrations and even one high-stakes interest arbitration on behalf of unions. Hey, have gun, will travel, but I assure you that almost nobody, and certainly no Democrat would characterize me as a union advocate.
What ought to happen is to simply abolish these stupid “human rights” and “civil rights” offices at all levels of government, but it is simply politically impossible. One of the things I hate most in public sector labor relations is that practically every labor agreement has these elaborate but horrendously vague non-discrimination clauses, which, of course, are subject to the grievance and arbitration processes giving all the scammers and malcontents two bites at the apple. Even the union guys don’t like them and will admit that you don’t have to and shouldn’t contract to obey the law. But if you dare suggest that they come out of the agreement the union immediately issues a screaming press release about how the eeeeeevul employer wants the right to discriminate against the employees. Like the scorpion and the frog; it is in their character.
There are lots of attorneys who do lots of civil rights work, sometimes even as plaintiffs attorneys, such as you describe yourself, but you don’t either self-describe nor would you be characterized by Democrats as a “civil rights lawyer.”
Sorry, Art. My bad. I was NEVER a “plaintiff’s attorney”. (the federal bench required ALL those who had first chair experience and ability… to take on pro bono cases when assigned or lose their status I did indeed have to accept those). I represented defendants accused of violating rights for the most part.
I was approached (quite often, actually) to represent folks who were being mistreated by the “state” to file a civil complaint.
I don’t care what Democrats call someone who has tried more cases to verdict on the issues involving federal civil rights than they have…the definition of that person speaks for itself.
In fact, having handled ADA, FMLA, sexual harassment, Section 1983, wrongful arrest and detention, police brutality, disparate impact, hiring, firing, and election law allegations, I have seen pretty much all of it.
And allow me to tell you, overwhelmingly…it was a sad spectacle.
Sorry, you and I seem to be talking past each other but we’re on the same side here. Even though I’ve done and can in good conscience do some union work – they are right sometimes – NO Democrat would consider me a union representative. Since I’ve spent most of my career representing the employer, the union guys and their Democrat friends would instinctively hate me. If you’re not somebody who long and loudly proclaims themselves to be a “civil rights lawyer,” to the Ds and the poverty pimps, you’re not a civil rights lawyer even if you can practice civil rights law better than the starry-eyed little punks could ever dream of.
I’m torn about this whole thing. As I said above, I hired a lot of merit system employees in a labor relations office; I sure as Hell wasn’t going to hire anybody who dreamed he saw Joe Hill last night, live as he could be. That said, I hired lots who had spent some time as union stewards or as union reps but who’d grown up and left. The union side is actually the best place to learn practical labor relations work. The only trouble with people coming over to the employer from the union is they need pretty close supervision for awhile. They know the game, sorta, already and they try to turn everything they knew on the union side 180 degrees, and that doesn’t make them a good employer rep, it usually just makes them anti-union. Since the union is already going to hate them and have a price on their head for having gone over to the employer, they don’t need to make it worse by uselessly antagonizing them.
I am almost physically ill at what you report. The underpinnings of our justice system have been compromised by Obama and Holder.
The sad thing is that most people have no idea about what’s been going on. I tell some of my less informed friends about Gunwalker and they say, oh, really. My left leaning friends just roll their eyes and maintain pubbies are just ginning up a scandal prior to elections. I can deal with people who haven’t heard about this stuff; my leftist friends who have heard something but dismiss the matter saying “politics,” they’re the ones I want to slap upside the head, shake them, and somehow make them understand that their liberties are being put at risk by the people they support.
PJ Media deserves our heartfelt thanks for this series. Exposing the criminal activity in the Obama administration will not be done by main stream media. They are only his mouth peaces.
If this exposer of the hiring practices of the thugs in DOJ does not instigate an investigation then nothing will. Loretta King and the others involved in this criminal activity need jail time. They have corrupted the very name of the department they work in.
It is clear that equal opportunity is non-existence at the DOJ under Holder. The DOJ should be called the InJustice Dept. Holder, King, Perez and others need to be fired and prosecuted. We don’t need criminals in the Justice Dept.
The sooner this administration can be kicked out of Washington the healther our country will be.
A few comments back, a poster said he couldn’t understand what he was reading due to the way it was written. I must admit I didn’t read all of the sections in this series, not because I couldn’t understand what was being written but because it started to turn my stomach. Different names, same resumes. How could someone not say it was political. Also as stated before, how hard is it to look at one of these resumes and say yea or nay as to how they think? Those doing the hiring don’t have to ask if the applicant is liberal, all that is needed is a quick read of the resume and a quick background check. I’m sure a background check is mandatory anyway. What they have done in the past is how they will be in the future.
( Besides, aren’t liberals like animals? Don’t they sniff each others butts to see if they are the right kind?) Only joking but I’m sure those resumes come with letters of recommendations. Then there is what we used to call the “good old boy” network as in yeah, I know him nice kid, liberal as all get out, fit right in.
“quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
“But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow…”
“But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow…”
Don’t lift the resident’s wallet, you might be surprised! Or not.
There is an even bigger admission in your quote from Main Justice’s article than the one you chose to highlight:
“[T]he historical mission of the Civil Rights Division — ensuring full voting, housing and other rights for minorities who have faced documented discrimination — is inherently a liberal mission.”
Protecting the rights of minorities may be a Liberal mission, but it should not be the mission of the Civil Rights Division. Our government is charged with protecting the rights of everyone–not just minorities!
Now they are trying to cover it by offering early retirement/buyouts.
Am I to understand that the lawyers who have been hired within the last two and a half years are eligible for early retirement? And what kind of employment contracts do these birds have that would entitle them to “buyouts” instead of layoffs due to cutbacks? Just how well are their nests feathered?
113 to 0 is a blowout in a basketball game, and impossible in soccer- making both as boring as heck just the same. What happened to the notion of a “level playing field”? With results as lopsided as this, any hope for ‘justice’ may have gone out of the window. Little good can come from a game where one side is always guaranteed victory.
Civil Rights weren’t all that prominent and hadn’t etched themselves into the public’s collective conscious until pictures of fire-hoses and police dogs used against protesters made it to the tube (television tube for the younger set). Since then, we’ve made much progress in protecting civil rights, so much so, that the need for an expensive, agenda-driven department (such as this series exposes) may be overkill. I mean, I doubt we’ll be seeing scenes of protesters on bridges being blasted by fire hoses and attacked by dogs anytime soon.
Well, unless you change the characters in the play and put the hoses and dogs in the hands of Eric Holder and put folks like conservative lawyers, businessmen (mostly white with a smattering of blacks), etc. on the bridge where they haven’t gathered to protest, but merely seek to conduct themselves and live their lives unmolested, then I can see the need for a Civil Rights department with an extreme and biased agenda.
Imagine arriving at a place with ‘justice’ in the name, application in hand, the latest in fire-suppression equipment manned and ready at the top of the stairs, only to find someone’s thumb has been on the scales the last fifty years? Hope you brought the Milkbone cookies.
Bill Maher and Real Time Liberal Racism
“I thought when we elected a black President, we were going to get a black President. . . . I want a real black president. I want him in a meeting . . . where he lifts up his shirt where you can see the gun in his pants [and says] ’We’ve got a ‘mother@!#$%ing problem here.’ Shoot somebody in the foot.”
The implications in that now infamous spleen-venting were perfectly clear: Real African-Americans packed guns, had foul mouths, were prone to violence, and shoot people. The only racist insults missing are that they’re all lazy and on welfare.
Were Rick Perry or Rick Santorum to utter such slurs during a debate, with or without the mother@!#$%ing, they would be forced to end their candidacies for the Republican nomination for president before you could say mother@!#$%ing. However, the utterer wasn’t a conservative politician but a very liberal loser, Bill Maher and therefore it was perfectly okay and not because Maher wasn’t a politician but because he’s a lib.
You see, liberals aren’t racists, or so they would like us to think. In point of fact, virtually every social policy liberals have articulated, proposed, and passed over the last fifty years has been either race-based, designed to stir the racial or some other pot, or calculated to foster conditions, (unemployment and poverty for example), to exacerbate racial tensions.
The ultimate Democrat goal has been to create a dependency on government and a rock-solid black constituency despite have been the party that fought tooth and nail to defeat Civil Rights legislation in the fifties and sixties. They have largely succeeded and have paved the way for Barack Hussein Obama to carry those goals to fruition.
The chief accomplishment of the granddaddies of social manipulations–LBJ’s Great Society and his War on Poverty–was to substantially destroy once-strong African-American families yet Democrats escaped condemnation for that as well by skillfully employing smoke, mirrors, and an excellent if offensive offense that people like Bill Maher still use today.
It’s believed that the adage “The best defense is a good offense” originated with the 19th century Prussian military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, but whatever its origins the line has become a staple of countless sports analysts as an observation on how best to win games. It assumes the defense isn’t as porous as that of this year’s Atlanta Falcons.
To be successfully employed in the political arena, the good offense strategy assumes the public won’t scratch beneath the veneer of attack rhetoric and discover all the talk is just a cover for lies and hypocrisy, as with tediously-constant liberal references to conservative racism to conceal liberal bigotry.
Maintaining the good offense while counting on viewers not to look behind the curtain of pretense, just previous to his bigoted description of blacks as gun-slinging hoods, Maher had hypocritically attacked Republicans and Bill O’Reilly . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5571.)
Radical Racists: Obama, Holder, and the NBPP
It’s turning out that the president of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, and the New Black Panther Party have much more in common than race. Call it recompense, call it reparations, that commonality is almost as ugly and damnable as any crimes committed by the Ku Klux Klan.
Barack Hussein Obama has undertaken prodigious efforts to appear the president of all the people regardless of race and an even greater effort to conceal his radical, racist past. Eric Himpton Holder has been more forthcoming in his racism and active discrimination toward white Americans without conceding his bigotry. The New Black Panther Party, founded on black racism and distinguished from the old Black Panthers only by the fact most have not yet been tried and convicted, is more brazenly ingenuous about its radical racism.
No matter Obama’s attempts to hide who and what he is, no matter Holder’s accidental admissions, if nothing else, Obama and Holder could learn a great deal about forthrightness from the NBPP. Their learning curve aside, recent and past revelations have now linked all of them.
After his election, Obama told America he has been running for the presidency since kindergarten. Toward that end, he campaigned in Selma, Alabama in March, 2007. Nothing wrong with that; he campaigned in 57 of America’s 58 states so Alabama most likely was one of them.
What is very wrong is that photos depicting him marching and speaking with NBPP National Chief Malik Zulu Shabazz and other members of the New Black Panther Party were quashed and hidden from the American public for four years by Obama’s mainstream media.
That oversight could readily be attributable to journalistic negligence–or to a covert attempt to portray their hero, their anointed one, as Everyman, a universal man who represented all of America, black, white, yellow and everyone in between, who didn’t have a racist bone in his body. . .
Not unsurprisingly, like those damning 2007 photos, that evidence of “reverse racism” has been suppressed by Obama’s media.
Obama’s appointment of fellow African-American Eric Holder as attorney general should have provided the clue that neither Obama nor his new appointee were on the same page as the majority of Americans.
Eric Holder’s background of facilitating Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, defending the terrorist Ejército Popular Boricua, negotiating a settlement in the case of Chiquita Brands paying off terrorists, his firm’s representation of Guantanomo accused terrorists, etc., were a dead giveaway that Holder was closer to being a terrorist himself than qualified to be the attorney general of the United States.
Obama’s MSM deftly hid those pretty damned relevant details on Holder’s résumé. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5645.)
Hello very nice blog!! Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds additionally?I’m glad to seek out so many helpful info here in the post, we’d like develop extra techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .
Great items from you, man. I’ve have in mind your stuff previous to and you are simply extremely fantastic. I really like what you have acquired right here, really like what you are stating and the way in which wherein you are saying it. You make it enjoyable and you still care for to stay it sensible. I can’t wait to learn far more from you. This is actually a terrific web site.
hi,
thanks man. There is an even bigger admission in your quote from Main Justice’s.