Editor note: In 2020, we saw a nationwide push to “defund the police”. While we all stood here shaking our heads wondering if these people were serious… they cut billions of dollars in funding for police officers. And as a result, crime has skyrocketed – all while the same politicians who said “you don’t need guns, the government will protect you” continued their attacks on both our police officers and our Second Amendment rights.
The following contains editorial content which is the opinion of the author.
WASHINGTON, DC- The Department of Justice is supposed to be apolitical. It doesn’t exist, or isn’t supposed to exist to carry the water for any one political party.
Back in the 1960s when Richard Nixon was president, his Attorney General, John Mitchell, was probably the last such office holder to function as a political hitman for the president…that is until Loretta Lynch, who served under Obama.
Now, Attorney General Merrick Garland appears to be allowing politics to dictate how the DOJ operates.
Lynch, according to The Federalist, used a fake name to cover up the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server. She was caught holding a secret meeting with Bill Clinton aboard a private plan on the ramp at Phoenix International Airport amid the investigation into the server.
The pseudonym was used to create a narrative about the details of the meeting with Clinton, as reported by the Daily Caller. Shortly after that meeting, FBI director James Comey announced the agency would not pursue a case against Clinton.
Likewise, Lynch announced a month later that the DOJ would not investigate the Clinton Foundation’s relationship with the State Department while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State.
In an opinion piece in the Epoch Times, Marc Ruskin opines that Garland is clearly demonstrating “his intention to toe the [Democratic] party line,” without consideration for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, instead of being a nonpartisan and objective arbiter of federal law.
While the DOJ ignores the threats posed by radical elements of Black Lives Matter, as well as the anarchist ideology of antifa, Garland instead insists that the primary threat of domestic terror is from white supremacists, and said as much in a June 15, 2021 speech:
“In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethnically motivated extremists, specifically those who advocate for superiority of the white race.”
As Ruskin notes, while there are still elements of white supremacy in the country (clearly), most of that the threat from that element was successfully dispatched in the 1980s and 1990s, when the Aryan Nations and other white militia organizations were targeted through the use of “high-risk, large-scale undercover operations.”
On September 17, 2020, FBI Director Christopher Wray, in congressional testimony had said essentially the same thing Garland did.
Wray made the same accusations as Garland did nine months later without any basis in facts or otherwise supported by data, using “Democratic talking points rather than independent determinations based on articulated facts.”
So exactly who are these white supremacists? Basically anyone who disagrees with the preferred narrative, more directly those who voted for Donald Trump.
We have seen members of the military, police officers, evangelicals, NRA members—all accused in one form or another of being white supremacists or potential domestic terrorists. In other words, those who tend to oppose leftist progressive policies.
More recently, we have seen another group lumped in as domestic terrorists—parents.
On October 4, Garland issued a memorandum directing the FBI to assist local and state law enforcement agencies, based on an alleged “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers and staff.”
Garland did not address specific incidents; however his memorandum was clearly politically (and financially for his family) motivated.
Garland’s memo came in response to the National School Board Association’s letter to the DOJ asking Garland to implement the Patriot Act among other tools in the DOJ toolbox to target parents who have been protesting against implementation of critical race theory and who oppose continued mask mandates for children.
In other words, parents who are exercising their First Amendment rights, including free speech, freedom of assembly, and redress of grievances.
This is an unprecedented power play by an attorney general and is intended to do one thing and one thing only…suppress opposing views. All we can say is thank God this leftist dirtbag Garland wasn’t allowed to be voted onto the Supreme Court…one thing Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has actually done right.
That doesn’t mean Garland doesn’t have tremendous power—clearly he does. The fact he issued a memo which let’s face it is a threat to use the full force and authority of the federal government to suppress speech that runs counter to the desired progressive narrative. As Ruskin succinctly put it:
“Garland’s misuse of the government’s overwhelming power—proscribed by the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights—is barred precisely because the Framers anticipated such abuse of power and went to great lengths to prevent it.”
In fact so egregious was Garland’s memorandum that half of the members on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wrote him a letter blasting him for the memo, according to Fox News.
“We write to express our concerns regarding a recent memorandum issued by your office,” the four members wrote in questioning Garland’s motives for the memo.
“Your memorandum did not cite any specific examples of ‘harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence’ that would provide any basis for law enforcement action by the Department,” they wrote.
“We are concerned that much of what the NSBA calls threats and acts of intimidation—and compares to ‘domestic terrorism and hate crimes’—can be merely classified as political speech.”
They then cited a number of forms of political speech which Garland was, in effect referring to, and noted that if, for example:
“…a parent concerned with a local schoolboard’s policy may portend an electoral challenge against an incumbent schoolboard member,” which they note “would be well within the parent’s First Amendment rights and well without the Department’s purview as a federal law enforcement agency.”
Continuing, they wrote:
“We have combed the internet for signs that parents petitioning school boards are anything approaching a national problem,” the four members wrote. “Nearly all of what we have seen so far makes us proud to be Americans: Parents care about the education of their children, and they are not willing to allow them to be indoctrinated into radical ideology.”
Using common sense, the members noted that if parents did indeed get out of hand at local school board meetings, local law enforcement is more than capable of managing it.
They closed by asking Garland if he was surprised that “concerned parents across the country view [his] memorandum as an endorsement of the NSBA’s description of their protest as comparable to ‘domestic terrorism.’”
In closing, the four asked the feckless Garland to give “specific examples” of “harassment, intimidation and threats of violence” which Garland used as a pretext for intervention by the FBI.
It of course isn’t only Garland who is attacking the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For example, January 6 was fully nine and one-half months ago.
Under the Sixth Amendment to said Constitution, it guarantees criminal defendants the right to a speedy and public trial. Yet, almost ten months later an overwhelming number of those arrested at the US Capitol are still being held in jail, some being held without bail and others in solitary confinement.
How about the Fourth Amendment? This one gets a bit slippery because it is a private corporation…Apple…that is engaged in violating the right of Americans to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Yet Apple, in it’s newest operating system for iPhones, iPads and iMacs includes the ability to monitor images kept on phones of its customers. The reason given—identification of pedophiles—is admirable, however the ability of a big tech corporation to overstep, ala Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others—should give pause.
Back to the Sixth Amendment—Customs and Border mounted officers were convicted without a trial base on photos interpreted to show them “whipping” Haitian migrants, including by Joe Biden, who said there would “be consequences” for the border agents, this prior to the initiation of any formal investigation.
The list goes on and on. Perhaps nowhere was the circumvention of the Bill of Rights more evident than over the past twenty months where coronavirus measures have significantly restricted the liberty rights of Americans—or at least those in Democratic-run states.
State legislatures have gutted the legislative process and have allowed governors to act like petty dictators even as the “emergency” of coronavirus has long-since passed.
It’s difficult to find an amendment in the Bill of Rights that isn’t currently under attack. Taking it further, Article II, Sect I, Clause II of the Constitution spells out how elections are to be conducted, with the legislature of each state being in charge of the process—not governors, not judges, not election officials—the legislatures.
Yet last November, we saw the entire process being scrapped with laws changed sometimes weeks or only days before the election all for the purposes of making it easier to cheat. It was this type of activity that led to the January 6 incident, with people questioning not only the validity of last November’s election but the veracity of elections going forward.
All of this brings us to what is in fact going on according to Ruskin, which we agree with—a purge.
Think about it for a minute…for what purpose is it to use vaccination mandates to fire people if not to purge out dissent?
The fact is we are firing people who refuse to get vaccinated to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated so the vaccinated to get sick from the virus they are vaccinated for in the first place.
In what world does any of that make sense? We are told that this is the “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” yet that is clearly not always the case.
No, what this is about as Ruskin says is not at all about COVID-19. The fact that some folks are resistant to getting vaccinated means they are not willing to go along and follow orders.
Firing doctors, nurses, police officers, firefighters, teachers, etc., has nothing to do with COVID-19. Kicking sailors, Navy SEALS, Marines, soldiers, and aviators out of the military has nothing to do with COVID-19.
It is about control—weeding out those who still believe in our Constitution, still believe that we are granted by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. As Ruskin says, it is “to weed out dissent.”
There was a book written by George Orwell called “1984.” It talked about a dystopian society where language was changed to a version called “doublespeak” where what was said in fact meant the opposite.
The United States is engaged in a version of that, where people who won’t admit they are racist are in fact racist for not saying they are, as an example.
In 1984 there was a “Ministry of Truth,” which controlled words, thoughts, and deeds. The supreme leader, “Big Brother” watches everyone’s every move, has control over what everyone says and does—kind of like Twitter and Facebook.
Anyone using their own mind were accused of Thoughtcrimes, not towing the Party line, punishable by the Thought Police. Sound familiar?
We’ll let Ruskin close:
“It’s a campaign to disempower, to eliminate those with dissenting ides, ideas that diverge from authorized, “correct” thought. Those who would pose a threat to the power elite.”
In other words, we’re in the middle of a purge.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.