What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The DOJ is watching you

Do you ever picket abortion mills? Does a hostile clinic owner ever get aggressive or make frivolous or fraudulent complaints against you? Well, it might behoove you to know that Big Brother, the Obama DOJ, may be watching you and may also try to get the names of your pro-life friends whom they can harass. Not that that should stop you.

Having eradicated all federal crimes and brought in a utopia of Peace and Justice, with extra time lying heavy on their hands, the agents of the FBI have decided to go on fishing expeditions against pro-lifers, just in case they might have violated the (arguably unconstitutional) FACE act.

Jill Stanek reports on one of these (emphasis added):

On July 13 FBI agents Conrad Rodriguez and William Sivley paid a visit to my son-in-law, Andy Moore, at his home.


Per Andy and my daughter, who was home at the time, here were questions the agents asked:

What affiliations do you have including church groups?

How long have you known your wife?

What belief system makes you believe in your cause?

What is your goal in protesting?

Do you know why people would make complaints against you?

Are there friends of yours or people you’re connected with that you could confidentially tell us are aggressive or abrasive? “Don’t be afraid to tell us.”


They were REALLY interested in the connection to Jill Stanek – details of internship, New Zealand speaking tour visit, did you get your activist and pro-life ideas from her? Did she train or teach you? Did you meet Jill before or after you became involved in the movement? Was it Jill who “fired you up” to become so active in the movement?

They were overly nice saying he wasn’t in trouble and feel free to tell us anything. Encouraged him to keep going back out there, that they represent both sides. ++they are protecting his freedom of speech++ is what they kept saying.

They said their task force that deals with these abortion cases also handles Hate Crimes and White Supremacy. Odd grouping with pro-lifers.

And here's my favorite:

They knew he was an immigrant. They said a felony on his record could/would get him deported. “You wouldn’t want to be apart from your wife and newborn.”

"Nice little life you got there, Andy. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to mess up that life." All of you who have had an elementary logic class will recognize this as an example of innuendo used to convey a threat.

Andy, apparently, is not alone:

Life Legal Defense Fund, one of the pro-life legal firms that has successfully defended pro-lifers against prosecution by Obama’s Department of Justice, has now taken Andy under its wing. Senior Staff Counsel, Allison Aranda, shared her insights in an email:
The Obama administration is essentially engaging in a witch hunt. From the moment the new administration took office, the DOJ has been targeting peaceful pro-life sidewalk counselors. They have come out guns blazing on several occasions often bringing allegations that could later not be substantiated or in some cases clearly proven to be false. Their weapon of choice – the FACE act. The DOJ is using tactics that amount to legal extortion. They have filed these frivolous claims against innocent people who don’t have the finances to hire big shot attorneys. The DOJ then kindly offers to settle the case if the counselor simply agrees to stay so many yards away and pay a couple thousand dollar fine.

Pro-bono legal foundations like LLDF, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Liberty Counsel have taken a stand to defend these innocent pro-lifers. Thankfully the sidewalk counselors have either had witnesses or video evidence to defend their actions. The DOJ has outright dismissed charges in two cases, walking away with egg on their face. In one case, a federal court judge issued a scathing opinion questioning the motives of the DOJ for bringing such unsubstantiated charges in the first place. The judge suggested that there might have been a conspiracy between the government and the abortion clinic to violate the free speech rights of the pro-life advocates.

It now seems that the unscrupulous Eric Holder is at it again. This time when the government determined that the evidence wasn’t quite what they thought it would be to proceed on a FACE claim against Andy, they turned their intimidating interrogation into a fishing expedition about the personal life of Jill Stanek. Targeted bullying by our government because of an individual’s viewpoint and willingness to share that message in the public square is intolerable. LLDF is committed to aggressively defending the rights of pro-life advocates. We will not back down, and we will not be threatened. We will continue to fight so that the freedoms of all are protected and preserved.

This is just one example of how the power of the executive branch can be used ideologically to target politically disfavored groups. It shouldn't happen. America is supposed to be a country of the rule of law and equality before the law. But it does happen.

Andy has now been advised not to speak to the FBI fisherman again without counsel present. Darn tootin'. I wonder if one would be allowed to record such interviews. Could be interesting.

What I want to know is this: Is there a way, a realistic way, to hold the FBI responsible for such speech-chilling persecutions? Probably not. But there should be.

I have read that in Canada one virtually never sees picketers outside of abortion clinics. It is at least perceived to be illegal to picket or offer counseling outside abortion clinics. So far it hasn't come to that here in America, though FACE was intended to make it harder to get the truth to abortion-minded women. The Obama administration is showing us just how that works.

Comments (23)

Lydia McGrew: "What I want to know is this: Is there a way, a realistic way, to hold the FBI responsible for such speech-chilling persecutions?"

This is not realistic, but it's not impossible: Have Catholic Martin Sheen protest abortion clinics, and have him try and get other Hollywood stars to protest abortion clinics. Maybe they can splash baby blood on fake furs.

Then let's see Obama's DOJ try and prosecute Martin Sheen.

What I want to know is this: Is there a way, a realistic way, to hold the FBI responsible for such speech-chilling persecutions? Probably not. But there should be.

Yes, insist that the FBI get a charter that gives it a legally defined role that covers only white collar private crimes, internal corruption in the federal government, national crime lab services and domestic counter-intelligence. Reassign and fire any and all personnel as needed. The FBI's current power derives from a legal regime which lets it go wherever the Attorney General wishes. This must stop; they need to be like every other federal agency with a clear mission as defined by a few tasks that at least kinda-sorta go together.

Mike, add to that getting rid of wide-open (unconstitutional) laws like FACE, that give at least the facade of a federal law at issue. But that's not going to happen soon, much to our disgrace.

Maybe if we can get one of these FBI interrogations on clandestine video, it can go viral and some good senators can call them in on the carpet (along with Eric Holder, of course). Congress can slap down a federal agency that is too big for its britches, it just needs a good enough political motive for that.

Couple this with the 2012 NDAA* and the expanded "kill or capture list"** and you have the beginnings of the nightmare scenario. Remember when Janet Napolitano said that 'right-wing terrorism' was going to be a priority for Homeland Security?

* Allows the indefinite military detention - without due process - of American citizens deemed "terrorists" by the government.
** Secret government panel has begun to add American citizens (deemed "terrorists") to this assassination list - again without due process.

Are Americans supposed to provide answers to FBI agents who pay them visits?.

Or the problem is Andy Moore is not a citizen and may be deported?

I think probably he's just too nice of a guy and didn't realize he could insist on having a lawyer present. Or maybe that part is different in New Zealand. (!) He knows better now.


Thanks for bringing attention to this here. I did post Jill's article several days ago, but I really don't think many people realize this clear and present danger. Or maybe they are just keeping their fingers crossed that November will bring true change.

Either way, the fact that the Justice Department can become this politicized when there is so much serious crime being committed, is downright frightening.

This is the reason why limitations on gov't power are so essential. The people who erode them assume that they will always be benefited by governmental action and don't mind infringing on the rights of their opponents.

This sort of thing truly is scary.

Congress can slap down a federal agency that is too big for its britches, it just needs a good enough political motive for that.


politics is the snare, not the solution

congress [nix the crudity, LM]

why would they want to [stop that, ed.]? easy money, great career and benefits, etc etc

admit it: you have NO governmental, nor political, elements willing to do what is righteous and just, and that most certainly includes the (un)justice department

the fems won, you and i lost, everything now is Political, nothing is Personal, thats the nation they wanted, and thats the nation we have

use of govt to intimadate and terrorize "politically uncooperative" citizens is about to go thru the roof, and if you imagine congress is gonna save you pls contact me asap about some fine, plowable nevada farmland for sale

Congress can slap down a federal agency that is too big for its britches, it just needs a good enough political motive for that.


Actually they can through 3 ways:

1. Change its mission (President cannot give lawful orders that violate a charter since charters are acts of Congress).
2. Change its funding.
3. When all else fails, draft this and ram it through Congress again after a veto:

"Agency XYZ is hereby disbanded by Act of Congress, DATE_HERE. Its duties shall be suspended until such time as another enforcement agency is designated. Its personnel are to receive 90 days severance pay and benefits, to be administered by the Office of Personnel Management. Its assets are to be liquidated at public auction by the General Services Administration and proceeds delivered to the Treasury within 90 days."

There is the legality of what can be done (as Mike points out) and there is the practicality/possibility of getting it done (as Ray points out in apparently colorful language).

Congress as composed over the last several years has not shown itself to be a particularly courageous bunch, and Mike's suggestions would take a little more Congressional chutzpah than has been seen in a long time. I don't hold out much hope for the possibility, but at least with a change in administration there is a chance.

I recall 10 or 12 years ago Congress held hearings on the IRS, all about how the IRS was using its management techniques to turn up the pressure to "collect more money", telling agents to pry more money out of people, and agents putting the thumbscrews to anyone they felt like because it was easier to threaten the guy in front of them rather than figure out who really owed more money. IIRC Congress changed the IRS, reorganized it, and forced them to stop using amount collected as a measure of agents' performance. And made it illegal for agents to use certain techniques on people. And established an advocate service to be a backstop when the IRS gives people the run-around.

Admittedly, this wasn't in the last few years, but it wasn't back in the stone ages, either. The main driving force of the actual law changes was the hearings on Capitol Hill, people giving their stories of being used and abused. So, seems to me that all you need to get something started in terms of political motivation is for an obliging senator committee head to start holding hearings on FBI and Justice Dept. on what they have been doing to people. And it doesn't matter if the Eric Holders refuse to come, you can still hear what transpired with people like Andy Moore.

Isn't there some way to fire or otherwise expel Eric Holder?

Isn't there some way to fire or otherwise expel Eric Holder?

Besides impeachment?

It's for my to feel sympathy for anti-choicers. I don't want bad things to happen to them, but they are trying to restrict what I believe is a fundamental right. It makes it hard to see them as anything other than slavers, even though I know that many of them are good people with the best of intentions. In any case, the government should keep a close eye on them. Anti-choice terrorism IS a thing, even if most of these groups are peaceful.

The idea that Andy Moore and Jill Stanek bear watching and questioning is ludicrous.

The idea that Andy Moore and Jill Stanek bear watching and questioning is ludicrous.

Not to mention the fact that security theater has become so commonplace in the federal government since 9/11 that it would actually serve as a dangerous distraction from real efforts. Law enforcement is metrics-driven and thus you need management discipline to keep people from focusing on "low hanging fruit" like making a mountain out of (at best) a molehill. If you look at most FBI "successes" at fighting domestic Islamic terrorism, they're invariably guys that look damn near like they've been set up by some agent looking to bust someone to add a notch to his belt.

they are trying to restrict what I believe is a fundamental right

A fundamental right to do what?

It makes it hard to see them as anything other than slavers

And I bet orly has no problem with the system which gives exclusive authority over whether the child lives, how much access the child will have to its father and whether or not a man will be bound for 18 years to a child he may not want (to have or pay for). Why, the man practically signed up to place his future in the woman's hand the moment they got frisky [okay, I get the point, but this is somewhat irrelevant as well as a tad crude, LM]

spent my whole life being Edited by Those Who Know Better, aint volunteering for it (esp by dubble headed vultures) lol

you can play It's My House w/somebody else, adios

spent my whole life being Edited by Those Who Know Better

And judging by your comments, you're going to spend the rest of your life being edited by people who know better.

anti-choicers. I don't want bad things to happen to them, but they are trying to restrict what I believe is a fundamental right.

Orly, get your facts straight. Sidewalk counselors, people who want to talk to potential "customers", to give them a different option. "Restriction" isn't the least part of that scenario.

Protestors are trying to change public opinion, so that the public changes its mind and decides - democratically - that the kind of society they want isn't a society with abortion mills. Since their object is the whole public, if any restricting took place through the democratic process you have to attribute the public itself and the democratic process as the responsible party, not just the protestors. So, you really don't like democracy when it works for conservative causes, right?

If you think that trying to change the public's mind on an issue constitutes the sort of "restriction" that ought to come under FBI scrutiny, then you ought to be all out for the FBI to investigate every single union protest, every single LGBT protest of Catholic events, every PETA protest of hunting or fur-selling, every vegan protest of meat use. These protests all try to restrict people's rights. But no, you don't get all upset about the fact that the FBI doesn't investigate those, do you?

...since a human being has no natural rights of any nature."

Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"

Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? IF two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

"The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me kings of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers. Not that I agree with the entire theory, I am just pointing out the philosophical dangers of claiming "they're restricting my fundamental rights" about something as putridly silly as the "right" to abort a human not yet born.

[okay, I get the point, but this is somewhat irrelevant as well as a tad crude, LM]

People like orly typically stridently support abortion as a moral right for the autonomous woman while supporting restrictions on men that are the diametric opposite. One example would be the one you censored, which I might add, feminist-inclined judges have ruled a man had an obligation to support despite the fact that they didn't have intercourse or did so with protection that was otherwise sufficient to prevent conception. In my opinion, Lydia, this is an extreme case of hypocrisy.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.