DOJ - General / Misc. Articles
(DOJ): DOJ Threatens to Create
Racially Gerrymandered Voting Districts! (08/22/99)
SANTA PAULA, CA -- LA Times Headline: "U.S. Probe Spotlights Small Town
Ethnic Relations" -- "For the past year, the U.S. Department of Justice
has been quietly investigating this city's electoral history after receiving a complaint
that the system of at-large elections keeps Latinos off the City Council." [Last time we checked, "at large election" means that all
registered voters may vote for any candidate of their choice. If the registered
voters are indeed mostly Latino, why, then, haven't they voted their choices? The
DOJ probe blithely ignores this question. Editor.]
"Nobody knows exactly what the government will do. But if it decides that minorities
have been denied power in a city in which two-thirds of the 27,000 residents are Latino,
it could sue to carve the 4.5 square miles into separate political districts."
That, of course, would be illegal according to Supreme Court rulings on the issue.
"Although Latinos make up two-thirds of the population, they constitute considerably
less than two-thirds of the U.S. citizens in the city. Exactly what proportion are
citizens is unknown." According to the LA Times story, Ramon Rodriguez, a
local Latino activist estimates that only 50% of the Latinos in Santa Paula are citizens
of the U.S. The Times quotes Mr. Rodriguez as saying that he doesn't think it
"[T]he police chief and city clerk are Latino. The two local school boards are
controlled by Latinos, who hold 3-2 majorities. Some say these examples weaken the
argument that Latinos lack political power in the city."
"We're supposed to be one and the same," she [Connie Reed, a white
businesswoman] said. "It shouldn't matter what race is in [office]. Something like
this [DOJ probe] divides our town more than it's already divided." (LA Times
08/22/99 by Margaret Talev)
(DOJ): 'Diversity' Winning Against Equal Protection! (05/25/99 - dead link)
"If you dig no deeper than the headlines, you might suppose that race and gender
preferences--known in the propaganda of liberalism as ``affirmative action'' and in common
sense words as ``reverse discrimination''--are on the way out.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that such preferences for university admissions are
unconstitutional. Voters in California and Washington state referendums voted
overwhelmingly to end them in all state services, including college admissions, and other
state referendums are pending. The liberal civil rights lobby warns luridly of ``the
return of Jim Crow'' and its conservative opponents, ahem, crow that the ideal of ``a
color-blind America'' is coming closer. And President Clinton vows to fight to the death
"...last week the civil rights office of the U.S. Justice Department issued
guidelines that would support the Texas legislature's end-run around anti-discrimination
law--and do much else besides. It ruled that if minority students perform less well on
average in standardized test scores--as they do--then those tests cannot be used in
determining college admissions in either public or private institutions. (See Also:
Dept. of Education Declares SAT, ACT Racist!)
"Overnight this ruling overturned national procedures for college admissions that
were designed to produce results rewarding individual effort and ability regardless of
race or gender. Even university administrators, who are almost invariably supporters of
racial preferences, believe this ruling to be legally flawed. And it is plainly designed
to circumvent court decisions and the decisions of voters that have overturned racial
preferences--by making racially neutral and merit-based selection procedures illegal.
"In short, we are witnessing a profound battle between two visions of America--one
based on the idea of individual rights supported by a multi-ethnic majority of the
American people, the other based on a permanent regime of racial preferences, a k a
``diversity,'' supported by the political class of politicians, bureaucrats and
lawyers." (Chicago Sun Times 05/25/99 by John O'Sullivan)
(DOJ): Are sports teams with Indian names really a
federal civil rights crime? (02/19/99)
WASHINGTON, DC -- "Warning: Naming your high school sports team the
"Warriors" is now a federal crime. That's what the Department of Justice
seems to think: It's launched an investigation into whether a small North Carolina high
school has violated the civil rights of its Native American students because its sports
teams have Indian-themed names.
"But the Libertarian Party says the investigation demonstrates how preposterous civil
rights laws have become, and proves that Department of Justice bureaucrats are completely
out of control.
"Civil rights allegations have become a modern-day witch-hunt -- if saying so isn't a
crime against our wiccan friends," said Steve Dasbach, the national director of the
party. "What this case shows is that the Department of Justice has become a bigger
threat to our civil liberties than any high school sports team is to our civil
"What put the Department of Justice on its current warpath? The mother of one
Native American student at Erwin High School in Asheville, North Carolina wrote to federal
bureaucrats, complaining that her son was "deeply offended" because school teams
were named the Warriors and the Squaws.
"The Department of Justice jumped on the case, sending a detailed list of questions
to the school administration about whether a "racially hostile environment" had
been created for the 1% of students who are Native American.
"Department of Justice lawyers demanded to know the history of the team names; the
origin of its Indian mascot; the school's policies on racial discrimination; and the
racial breakdown of all students, faculty, and administration. If the DOJ decides to
prosecute, the school could lose $8 million in federal funds and spend as much as $500,000
in legal fees.
"Interestingly, the "offended" student didn't allege that he had suffered
any harm from the racially hostile environment -- he graduated in 1998 and is now
"No wonder Americans have an us-versus-them attitude about the federal government:
They see a $15 billion federal agency, with armies of lawyers at its command, go after a
high school in a case where even the so-called victim doesn't claim to be a victim,"
said Dasbach. "Apparently, hurt feelings are now a federal crime, and having a
politically incorrect sports mascot is illegal behavior." (Libertarian Party,
contact George Getz, Press Secretary Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com)
DOJ - Bill Lann Lee Articles
Clinton defies GOP with
Lee recess appointment (08/04/00)
"President Clinton Thursday [Aug. 3, 2000] named Bill Lann Lee to head the Justice
Department's civil rights division, ignoring warnings by Senate Republicans against a
recess appointment of the controversial lawyer who failed to win Senate confirmation for
"The recess appointment, made while Congress is on its summer break and Republicans
are nominating their 2000 presidential candidate in Philadelphia, allows Mr. Lee to serve
through the remainder of Mr. Clinton's term despite his failure to win Senate
"Critics have called the appointment a flagrant violation of the Constitution, which
gives the Senate the power to "advise and consent" on major executive
"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, said Mr.
Clinton was playing partisan politics, adding that the timing of the appointment served as
further evidence that he was "intent on dividing our people rather than uniting us
for the common good."
"Mr. Hatch said at the time that during Mr. Lee's tenure at Justice, the department
had advocated the "same policies that initially led to his failure to be
confirmed" in 1997.
"The Center for Equal Opportunity and the Institute for Justice said in a report that
Mr. Lee had a "long record of promoting discrimination on the basis of race and sex
through preferences and quotas," despite Supreme Court decisions overturning such
policies." (Washington Times 08/04/00 by Jerry Seper)
Clinton Bypasses Hill With
Appointment Move (08/03/00 - no link)
WASHINGTON (Associated Press) - "President
Clinton removed ''acting'' from Bill Lann Lee's job title at the Justice Department,
appointing him Thursday as assistant attorney general for civil rights during a
"The White House announcement, made without comment while Clinton was playing golf,
comes nearly three years after the president named Lee as his main civil rights enforcer
on an acting basis to circumvent heavy Republican opposition.
"Thursday's action allows Lee to hold the post through the end of Clinton's term in
January without sending his nomination to Congress for approval.
"Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, whose committee would have sat in
judgment on a Lee nomination, said Clinton was the one playing partisan politics,
installing Lee during the Republican National Convention. ''The timing of this
decision serves as further evidence of what we have come to know is true: The Clinton-Gore
White House is intent on dividing our people rather than uniting us for the common good,''
Hatch said." (Associated Press 08/03/00 by Sonya Ross)
(DOJ) Will Senate
Roll Over and Accept Lee This Time? (Mar. 1999)
"The jostling for position in the post-impeachment landscape has begun.
Witness President Clinton and his renomination of Bill Lann Lee as the Justice
Departments top civil rights enforcer. Lee has held down the job on an acting,
recess-appointment basis ever since the Senate Judiciary Committee refused to approve his
nomination in December 1997." The Senate committee refused Lee in 1997 because
of his dogmatic support of racially discriminatory quotas and preferences.
John Dickerson, Time Magazine's congressional reporter, says 'The formal renomination of
Lee now is a testing of the political waters by Clinton.' The President is betting
that Lee will be an easy pickup this time because the Republicans are not in a strong
position to put up a fight. The White House figures that the GOP has spent its ammunition
on impeachment, meaning that what Republicans currently need "is a record of
achievement, not another record of attack," says Dickerson. (based on Time Magazine,
by Alain L. Sanders)
(DOJ) Bill Lann Lee's First Year
(1997 - 1998): Racial Quotas Du Jour?!
page, this site). Dec. 15,
1998 is the one year anniversary of Bill Clinton's sneaky "temporary"
appointment of the most pro-racial-quota head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division in the
history of this country! On 23 separate occasions during 1998 Bill Lann Lee
attempted to muscle courts and local authorities to enforce reverse discrimination and
racial quotas. This is the sad story of Lee's first year on the job.
to Bill Lann Lee by George F. Will (dead link)
"A year has passed since President Clinton accompanied his appointment of Bill Lann
Lee as assistant attorney general for civil rights -- as "acting assistant attorney
general in perpetuity -- with that breezy acknoledgment: The appointment was not
"entirely constitutional". (Washington Post 12-13-98, page C-7)
Alternate Link: In Lee case, Clinton
showed true colors by George F. Will (same story)
[ Deseret News link @ http://deseretnews.com:80/dn/view/0,1249,30000829,00.html
Related: Inventing Mr. Lee's Past by Balint
Author Vazsonyi closely examines Bill Lee's resume, and finds some interesting
facts. Lee was NOT admitted to Yale under the terms of Affirmative Action, as Lee
often claims. Lee entered Yale before the school implemented its first AA
program. Whence comes the 'racial quota' chip on Lee's shoulder? After all,
Lee enjoyed the best of the best in American without AA! (Originally in the
Washington Times 2-17-98)
[ link http://www.founding.org/column32a.html
(DOJ) Defying the Rule of
Law (Feb. 1999 - Institute for Justice)
Excellent analysis regarding the racial-quota record of Bill Lann Lee, by Roger Clegg, VP
and legal counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity, and by Clint Bolick, VP and
director of litigation for the Institute for Justice.
"More than a year has passed since an unprecedented set of circumstances placed Bill
Lann Lee in command of the nation's most powerful civil rights law enforcement arsenal.
The president nominated Lee, the former western regional counsel of the NAACP Legal
Defense Fund, as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. It was the third consecutive
time that President Bill Clinton tapped someone from [NAACP's] LDF for that position.
"Lee brought with him a controversial record of judicial activism and support for
racial preferences, and following a lengthy hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
he failed to win majority support. Democratic members of the Committee filibustered their
own President's nominee, and the nomination went no further. Bypassing the Senate's
constitutional "advise and consent" role, President Clinton appointed Lee
"Acting" Assistant Attorney General on December 15, 1997, a status Lee still
holds more than a year later despite its doubtful legality." (Roger Clegg,
Clint Bolick, Feb. 1999)
(DOJ) Black Leadership Network Opposes Bill
Lann Lee 1999 Re-Nomination (02/18/99)
"Members of the African-American leadership network Project 21 urge the U.S. Senate
to reject President Clinton's expected renomination of activist lawyer Bill Lann Lee as
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of
Justice. Lee's unrelenting implemention of divisive racial preference policies while
serving as "acting" head of the Division are at odds with Supreme Court and
lower court decisions.
" 'Bill Lann Lee's rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul policies are not only out of step with the
mainstream of the American polity, but are out of step with the majority of the Democratic
Party as well,' said Project 21 member Council Nedd, the director of government
affairs for Citizens Against Government Waste.
"Mr. Lee's nomination to become the nation's chief civil rights enforcer deadlocked
in the Senate Judiciary Committee in November of 1997 due to his controversial support for
race-based preferences in hiring, government contracting, education and voting laws.
President Clinton then chose to bypass the Senate's constitutionally mandated 'advise and
consent' role in the nomination process in December of 1997 by appointing Mr. Lee as the
'acting' head of the Division." (Project 21, 02/18/99)
again to oppose nominee (02/17/99)
"President Clinton and Sen. Orrin Hatch on Tuesday rekindled an old battle over the
acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, Bill Lann Lee, whom
Republicans accuse of favoring racial preferences. Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, urged Clinton not to renominate Lee, whose bid for the post of
assistant attorney general for civil rights has been blocked twice, but who nonetheless
has been heading the division since December 1997.
"When first nominated in 1997, Lee encountered heavy criticism from conservatives who
charged that he was a zealous promoter of racial preferences in affirmative action
cases." (Times Union, 02/17/99, by Mark Helm)
House Attempts to Defend Lee's Re-nomination (02/16/99)
"The White House on Tuesday rejected calls that President Clinton nominate [a
non-quota oriented] alternative to Bill Lann Lee as the nation's top civil rights
enforcer, saying Lee's critics have 'a demonstrable lack of knowledge' of his performance
in the job [assuming his 'job' included ramming racial quotas down our throats] .
"Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, urged Clinton on Tuesday to nominate
'a confirmable candidate' for the civil rights post, saying Lee has already been
considered. 'During Lee's tenure, the Justice Department has advocated the same
policies that initially led to his failure to be confirmed as assistant attorney
general,' Hatch said. He said he told deputy attorney general Eric Holder last
week that Lee's temporary appointment has exceeded 14 months in violation of a law on
federal vacancies that Clinton signed in October.
"Two [anti-quota] conservative groups, the Institute for Justice and the Center for
Equal Opportunity, issued a report Tuesday concluding that, under Lee, the Justice
Department has 'continued to defend the constitutionally indefensible' when it comes to
" 'We do not suggest that every action ... exceeds Lee's proper discretion as the
nation's foremost civil rights law enforcement official,' the report said.
'But the pattern is unmistakable: Lee sides with racial classifications in government
contracting, employment, voting and education in nearly every instance, placing the
federal civil rights arsenal at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court's repeated pronouncements
that racial classifications are presumptively impermissible.' " (AP, via Las Vegas
(DOJ) Racial Quota Foes Oppose Bill
"Expecting the re-nomination of Bill Lann Lee to the government's top civil rights
post, conservative foes of [racial quotas and set-asides] issued a report Tuesday blasting
Lee's performance in his year as "acting" assistant attorney general for civil
"More than a year ago, Republican senators blocked Lee's nomination, charging his
views on affirmative action amounted to support for quotas and racial preferences. Despite
the setback, Attorney General Janet Reno named Lee to fill the same post he was denied, on
[a seriously questionable] 'acting' basis.
"At a Tuesday press conference on Capitol Hill, former Attorney General Edwin Meese
III attacked as 'a subterfuge' the appointment of Lee to head the civil rights division,
despite the Senate's deadlock over the nomination. Conservative activists Clint
Bolick and Roger Clegg issued a report accusing Lee of continuing to back racial
preferences through a series of Justice Department lawsuits filed during the past year.
" 'Sadly, in all too many instances, Bill Lann Lee has wielded the resources of the
Civil Rights division to pursue racial preferences in government contracting, employment,
voting and education,' Bolick said." (CNN, 02/16/99, by Terry Frieden)
- Racial Profiling
Editor's Note: The U.S. Department of Justice enforces a Good Racial
Profiling doctrine which states that any crime statistic, employment test,
academic test, or personnel policy on which protected minorities perform more poorly than
whites and Asians constitutes a de facto case of racial discrimination. Conversely,
DOJ advances the notion that whites and Asians are "privileged" and therefore
are never discriminated against.
You can only run so far from the truth. (10/16/00)
[By an anonymous officer of the Los Angeles
Police Department as published in the National Review.]
"There was much discussion of racial profiling in last week's presidential
debate, but after scouring the transcript in search of some honesty on the subject, I've
come away disappointed. A good friend is a psychiatrist here in Los Angeles, and when he
treats patients prone to rationalization he falls back on a time-tested maxim: You can
only run so far from the truth.
"And the truth, gentle readers, is that in the United States of America in the year
2000 A.D., certain ethnic groups tend to violate the law in numbers far in excess of their
representation in the population. The debate may rage as to why this is so, but only after
accepting the truth can honest dialogue take place.
"Don't take my word for it. Go to the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of
Statistics website and look up Tables 40 and 46 [you
may download the report in Acrobat PDF format from http://www.adversity.net/DOJ Crime
where you will discover that in 1998, the most recent statistics available, blacks
committed about 38 percent of the reported robberies while making up about 13 percent of
the population. Consider further that nearly all of those robberies were committed by
black males between the ages of 15 and 24, and you'll come to the realization that a tiny
demographic group is responsible for a whole lot of trouble out there.
"These statistics are based on the perceived race of the perpetrators as
reported by the victims. To disbelieve these numbers, you must subscribe to the
phantasmagoric notion that robbery victims, a large number of whom are black themselves,
are so consumed with racial animus that they will falsely describe their assailants to the
police so as to further a negative stereotype."
(The opinions expressed are solely those of the
anonymous LAPD officer, and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management.)
[National Review 10/16/00 by Anonymous.]
DOWNLOAD 1998 Dept. of Justice
Racial Crime Statistics in Adobe PDF Format:
END of DOJ Fed News Page.