New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Here's another dangerous Obama admin radical. Remember this name...

Dino

Russian Asset
This is the absolute turd of a person behind forcing the FDNY to take unqualified minorities, lying in the Philadelphia Black Panther case, trying to make Florida keep non-citizens on its voter rolls..and now, most recently, leading the prosecution of Amish Christians and the outlandish 15 year prison sentence for one, all for trimming another Amish's beard.


Thomas Perez Should Be Blocked
By Quin Hillyer on 3.12.13 @ 6:10AM

If President Obama thinks he can get away with appointing an obvious prevaricator to be Secretary of Labor – and a radical, race-baiting one at that – he has lost all touch with reality. Even a group as confused and fractious as the caucus of Senate Republicans is sure to find the collective backbone to block the (expected) appointment of Thomas Perez.

As I described in detail last August, Perez is one of the most loathsome figures in the thoroughly loathsome political ranks of Obama’s Justice Department.

He has led the administration’s racial scaremongering against voter ID laws, but got smacked down hard by the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit, so that elections in South Carolina this week will go ahead with the law in effect. (This wasn’t a partisan decision: The unanimous three-judge panel included Clinton appointee Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.)

Indeed, Perez doesn’t even seem to be a very good lawyer at all: His positions also have been rebuked by courts in Arkansas (about the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act), again in the D.C. District Court, in New York on an education case (U.S. v. Brennan), in a Florida abortion case where Perez’ team was abusively prosecuting peaceful protesters, and most particularly in a major Perez loss in Florida when trying to force the state not to remove non-citizens from its voter rolls.

Perez has overseen most of the unprecedentedly naked politicization of DoJ’s Civil Rights Division, as detailed in an exhaustive series of reports at PJ Media. In short, of 113 “career” (meaning supposedly apolitical) civil-service hires for the Civil Rights Division under Obama and (mostly) Perez, every one of those 113 were demonstrably liberal activists. (The New York Times effectively confirmed this report: “None of the new hires listed conservative organizations.”) In fact, many of them hailed from backgrounds with outfits such as the “Intersex Society of North America,” or wrote essays about “Genital Normalizing Surgery on Intersexed Infants,” or fiercely advocated the “rights” of prisoners in Arizona to perform Hawaiian chants and rituals. Since Dec. 3, 2009, Perez has insisted on personally approving each of these new hires.

He has aggressively continued a series of lawsuits against various municipal police and fire departments to try to force them to jettison written tests for membership – including a suit against the heroic Fire Department of New York in which the Obama team has argued in favor of what amounts to strict racial quotas – at the expense of public safety. Amazingly enough, Perez actually argued that black firefighter applicants who fail 70 percent (!!!!) of the entrance exam still be admitted to the fire academy. This is, by the way, another case where Perez may well be on the losing side: Last month, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a “stay” blocking enforcement of the Perez team’s preferred outcome that would have punished the FDNY.

Long before Perez started working for the Obama Justice Department, he had developed a record as a radical’s radical. Wrote the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky:

Perez also served as president of Casa de Maryland, an extreme advocacy organization that opposes the enforcement of our immigration laws. This group has encouraged illegal aliens not to speak with police officers or immigration agents; it has fought restrictions on illegal aliens’ receiving driver’s licenses; it has urged the Montgomery County Police Department not to enforce federal fugitive warrants; it has advocated giving illegal aliens in-state tuition; and it has actively promulgated “day labor” sites, where illegal aliens and disreputable employers openly skirt federal prohibitions on hiring undocumented individuals.

Moreover, Perez’ enthusiasm for racial quotas (or their equivalent) has gone beyond even the traditional leftist rationalization that quotas are needed to atone for past discrepancies, into the hard-left realm of providing preferences for what the Washington Times called “other social objectives as well.”

Meanwhile, DoJ under Perez repeatedly slow-walked efforts to help ensure that overseas military personnel have real opportunity to exercise their voting rights – and then Perez moved to make permanent the appointment of the official whose incompetence or willful foot-dragging was largely responsible for the failures. (Worse, at the same time Perez’ division was stiffing our soldiers, it was going overboard – without any real jurisdiction – to interfere in each state to try to help felons regain voting privileges.)

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the little matter of a federal judge hinting broadly that Perez may have committed perjury when testifying that there had been no interference by political appointees in the course of the Obama DoJ’s decision to drop already-won voter-intimidation cases against New Black Panthers in Philadelphia. This came after Perez also had, apparently unlawfully, refused to honor valid subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights — and it was in addition to yet another falsehood by Perez, this one to the effect that DoJ had sought the maximum allowable penalty against the Panthers. And it is in addition to several other of Perez’s alleged falsehoods as recounted by noted whistleblower J. Christian Adams, who resigned in protest of them — most egregiously, to my mind, when Perez wrongly denied that anybody in his division had ever announced that Obama DoJ practice would be to avoid prosecuting certain types of cases or enforcing certain sections of voting laws.

While the original decision to dismiss the case pre-dated Perez’ appointment to the Justice Department, his direct involvement in, and hands-on management of, what amounted to a cover-up of the decision’s origins should alone be disqualifying for any Cabinet post.

Again, the words about Perez’ dishonesty came straight from federal judge Reggie Walton:

The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.

Thomas Perez has a record of dishonesty, radical leftism, legal hackery, and contempt in some cases for the rule of law itself. This man has no business heading a major Cabinet Department; instead, he should be swiftly cashiered from all federal government service.


http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/12/thomas-perez-should-be-blocked
 
Little early to tell. But it sure will be prescient if Obama puts that [Unwelcome language removed] up for some appointment.

Be ready for fur to fly opposing this radical nut.
 
Hang in there with that one, buddy. And maybe a few years from now, you can shit an "NcMusicman" and go off on how this guy's gonna be impeached!
 
Any comment on the content of the top-post?

Or just mindless insults is all you got in the tank?

I know these people are tough to defend, so should I not expect any effort whatsoever?
 
Any comment on the content of the top-post?

Or just mindless insults is all you got in the tank?

I know these people are tough to defend, so should I not expect any effort whatsoever?

I have a few comments. First, it is rare that people who aren't liberal activists will seek a career enforcing civil rights laws. It sort of comes with the territory. Two, apparently the author of this screed is AGAINST the right of prisoners to perform religious ceremonies of their choice. Third, written exams for police and fire in most cities, including New York, were only introduced in the 1960s, and they were introduced as a means to keep the force dominated by whites. There is no evidence that I know of that Blacks and Latinos who are unable to pass these exams are worse police or firefighters. (Consider the parallel case of the SAT test, where there is no correlation between high SAT scores and success in college, which is why the College Board is no longer allowed to call it the "scholastic aptitude test.") Fourth, there are legitimate concerns based on widespread fraud in previous elections of "military ballots" that are cast not by soldiers, but en masse by partisan political operatives as in Florida 2000, and of overbroad purges of "felons" that remove lawful voters from voter rolls. Fifth, Casa de Maryland as the author describes it sounds like a reasonable organization. Sixth, I don't see the contradiction the judge refers to. The political appointees (i.e., high-level officials) DISCUSSED the case, but didn't INTERFERE with the career bureaucrats' decision to drop the prosecution on its merits.
 
I describe a racist's sickening partisan politics, you blow it off and call it "fear".

That's really the best you got? That's why I'll oppose you people and your oppressiveness until I cease to breathe. You hate America and what it has always stood for.
 
So you'd insist the test for FDNY had undergone no alterations since the 1960's? That's ridiculous. And of course, where is the evidence after it was changed it's targeted goal was to keep the force white-dominated? You think off-hand comments by leftists makes it so? Or some stufy from a liberal bunch of college students? No chance.

We're not talking felons being removed, but non-citizens. One case out of Florida is surely no justification for rampant lawlessness. Liberal destructive policy has lead to illegals with driver's licenses and now reach voting rolls. That should be opposed and stopped.
 
I realize Perez is impossible to defend for the left. You'll give him all the attention and defense of the "doctor" out in Philly who liked aborting his fetuses after being born alive.
 
largely just rightwingnuts are and have been "freaking out".

what's amusing is that the poor thing seemingly thinks any of this is "new".

what's most amusing is their claim below that the left "has no defenses of" Perez, when they've been ongoing as rightwingnuts lie/distort, etc. http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=perez&x=9&y=9

but then, their being ignorant of all this is hardly unusual, given how big a role ignorance plays in most of their BS.

have a good one fair.
 
Dino~

I'd like to ask you some questions for clarification. Do you believe that we have a social obligation to ensure that all eligible voters be able to participate in elections on an equal basis? Do you condemn any effort by partisan organizations to rerstrict the franchise by gimmicks or unreasonable expectations?

God Speed,
David
 
I don't believe we have a social obligation to ensure all eligible voters be able to vote. It's purely a personal responsibility. And the integrity of the system should be preserved.
 
Apparently Perez is not defensible or popular. I say turn the hounds loose when his name comes up for appointment. Dig in, don't let go, and do not allow this leftist fiend any more power than he deserves.
 
Forgive the delay in responding to your reply. So, you would condemn any efforts to keep eligible folks from voting? It sounds like that is what you are saying, but it isn't explicit.
 
Forgive the delay in responding to your reply. So, you would condemn any efforts to keep eligible folks from voting? It sounds like that is what you are saying, but it isn't explicit.

Your trick question is completely transparent. It all hinges on the definition of "eligible". THAT'S where the voter fraud of the left comes into play. When they try to make illegal aliens, 16 and 17 year old kids, dead people and felons "eligible" to vote, then who in their right mind would support allowing them to do so? Do you?
 
I don't believe we have a social obligation to ensure all eligible voters be able to vote. It's purely a personal responsibility. And the integrity of the system should be preserved.

So it's a personal responsibility to make sure others don't deprive you of the right to vote, for instance by purging your name from voter rolls because, say, you have the same name as an illegal immigrant (or at least a Hispanic-sounding name)? And it's not at all illegitimate to engage in purges of this sort, knowing that (as in "one case" in Florida when depriving tens of thousands of Black people of the right to vote led to the integrity of the presidential election being impaired) it will deprive many legally eligible citizens of their right to vote?
 
Back
Top