Yup, the U.S. DOJ has sent a member of it’s Community Relations Service team to investigate the float which depicted a zombie looking figure, dressed in overalls, standing outside an outhouse with a sign that said “Obama Presidential Library” on it. Neither the float or the truck pulling it identified a sponsor, according to the Omaha World-Herald.

The Nebraska Democratic Party called it the “worst show of racism and disrespect” for the president in state history.

“There is a level of respect for the office of the Presidency which should not be crossed,” said NDP Executive Director Dan Marvin. “It’s beyond disappointing the City of Norfolk, its officials and citizens would allow such a thing.”

This appears to have started after Glory Kathurima, a native of Kenya, expressed concern about the float. “I’m angry and I’m scared,” she told a reporter from the Lincoln Journal Star. “This float was not just political; this was absolutely a racial statement.” She said in an interview with Action 3 News that the depiction was equating the President with what you do in an outhouse.

I’m guessing she never saw the cartoon which shows an outhouse with a wooden sign in front of it with the words “Bush Presidential Library.” Well maybe she saw it, but, because she has been so blinded by the media and this Administration, and slammed over the head by them with the fact that anyone who disagrees with Obama is “racist,” hundreds, if not thousands, of times, decided that wasn’t “a thing.” Not like anything negative about Obama would be.

Many are claiming that the mannequin in overalls depicted Obama (really, I don’t think I have ever seen Obama in overalls), but Dale Remmich, who created the controversial float, claims that the figure in the float was himself, not President Obama, and that representation was meant to reveal his frustration with the president’s handling of the Veterans Affairs Department. The NAACP disputed this assertion. What, on top of being the ultimate purveyors of justice for keeping black voters in Mississippi safe from those mean old “tea party” poll watchers, they can read minds now too?

But, at the same time, even if it was a depiction of the President. How is that racist? And even it if was disrespectful, as some are claiming, is showing disrespect for the President a crime worthy of an “investigation?” Saying it is “racist” is really far fetched. What happened to freedom of speech? In the words of the great George Washington, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

So, Holder sends a Community Relations Service team member, who deals with discrimination disputes, to attend a meeting in Norfolk to investigate this incident. At the same meeting were the NAACP, as well as Norfolk mayor Sue Fuchtman, and the Norfolk Odd Fellows, coordinators of the parade.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have noticed what seems to be an uptake in the propaganda from the left about “racists” and “racism.” They have to call just about everyone that disagrees with them, on anything, racist or disrespectful of the “Office of the President.”

Of course they had no problem with disrespect of the Presidential office when President George W. Bush was portrayed as a Nazi, parallels between him and Hilter were made, when the political “Bush outhouse” cartoon was published, or when scores of other unflattering images, including those calling for Bush’s death, went viral. Did they say anything then? Nope, it was considered “freedom of speech” then. And, I would venture to guess that many were happily cheering along.

But, I can’t say I’m surprised Holder has found this incident to take priority over all the other “minor” issues we are faced with, like the IRS targeting scandal, spying on American citizens, and whatnot.

It’s just so nice that our Attorney General sits back and lets all the real atrocities go unchecked, deems them “not important” enough to waste his time on, and instead decides to spend that precious time, his staff’s time, and our taxpayer dollars on investigating a parade float. A FREAKIN’ PARADE FLOAT, Y’ALL.

I guess a man’s got to have his priorities.

In an editorial entitled “Colorblind Harry Reid continues to divide,” that was posted at the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s website on Friday, they called Reid the “da Vinci of distraction.”

“The moment any scandal, policy failure or political defeat crashes down on him — and there have been plenty the past few years — the Senate majority leader unleashes outrageous rhetoric,” the editorial said, adding that Reid “has become especially fond of slinging race cards just to crank up the outrage.”

This came after Reid commented, in regards to the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, “The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by the virtues of five white men.”

Oops, there he went – pulled out that “race card” again! The problem is, only four of the justices that sided with Hobby Lobby are white. The fifth justice was Clarence Thomas, who is black.

Facepalm, Harry?

Nope, the Review-Journal editorial ascertains that “Senator Reid’s slip was no accident.” They continue, “He believes racial and ethnic minorities are ideologically monolithic constituencies who are incapable of independent or — gasp! — right-of-center thinking.”

“In the majority leader’s mind, Mr. Thomas is not an African-American because the justice doesn’t blindly subscribe to liberal orthodoxy,” the paper said, before pointing out other examples of Reid’s attitude towards minorities.

An example they cited was, during his 2010 re-election campaign, the Senator said of Latino voters, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?” This was the same year Republican Brian Sandoval, who is Hispanic, was running for governor.

The editorial points out, “Never mind that Sen. Reid himself, like the entire Senate Democratic leadership, is as white as an Irishman in a snowstorm.”

“Quit the race-baiting already, Sen. Reid,” the editorial ends with. “You’re clearly colorblind — in all the wrong ways.”

However, the paper did not go even further in unwrapping his racist views. In an excerpt of the book Game Change, by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, giving details of a private conversation with Reid, away from the cover of the public facade, Reid said he “believed the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

He apologized for those comments, two years later. Seriously? It took him two years to apologize? All-righty then. Wonder if anyone that wasn’t a Democrat made a statement like that… would they get a two year pass on an apology? I highly doubt it. As a matter of fact they could apologize immediately and it would probably still be a part of the news cycle two years later. Just saying.

Why is it, six years into the Presidency of Barack Obama, our first African American President and a Democrat, his party continues to pull out the race card? And, why do the Democrats continue to let Reid lead their party in the Senate? And, in an even bigger question, just how does this man continue to get re-elected?