Obama appoints another radical leftist to head Labor Department

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/17/tom-perez-labor-secretary_n_2898355.html


This was the same communist shithead who let the Black Panthers off w nothing and completed politicized the civil rights division of DOJ. 

Par for the Course for Obama 

[Soul Crusher]

This morning on "Mornings on the Mall" on WMAL-FM, Washington DC, former US Attorney Joe DiGenova called for the Senate to come out against President Obama's choice for Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez. 
 
"This guy is the worst of the worst," said DiGenova, citing the fact that Perez' open borders group Casa de Maryland had received over a million dollars from Hugo Chavez.  DiGenova said, "this guy is anti-business, anti--right to work and there will be no end to it. I predict he will not be confirmed." 
 
Listen to the entire interview here: 

[Soul Crusher]

Obama nominee for Labor secretary could face questions on New Black Panther testimony
 

Published March 18, 2013
 
FoxNews.com
 







May 10, 2012: United States Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, left, is joined by Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Roy Austin, during a news conference in Phoenix. (AP)
 

President Obama nominated Justice Department official Thomas Perez for Labor secretary Monday -- but the candidate could be haunted by a newly released report that found he gave incomplete testimony on the controversial decision to drop charges against members of the New Black Panther Party.
 
Perez, an assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, would replace Hilda Solis at Labor if confirmed. Obama, touting Perez' personal story as the son of immigrants who became the first lawyer in his family, urged the Senate to act quickly on the nomination.
 
"Tom's knowledge and experience will make him an outstanding secretary of Labor," Obama said.
 
The new report by the Justice Department's inspector general, though, is likely to provide fodder for Republicans. The report challenged testimony Perez gave to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, when he claimed in 2010 that no political leadership was involved in the decision to dismiss three of the four defendants in a lawsuit the George W. Bush administration brought against the New Black Panther Party. The high-profile case involved allegations of voter intimidation outside a Philadelphia polling place in the 2008 election.
 
The IG report found that, despite Perez' testimony, top political appointees were looped in on the decision-making. Further, the report said Attorney General Eric Holder "was briefed and generally indicated his approval" of a decision to dismiss some of the defendants.
 
"We found that Perez's testimony did not reflect the entire story regarding the involvement of political appointees," said the report.
 
"We did not find that Perez intentionally misled the commission," said the IG. "Nevertheless, given he was testifying as a department witness before the commission, we believe that Perez should have sought more details ... about the nature and extent of the participation of political employees in the NBPP decision in advance of his testimony before the commission."
 
The report said Perez left out from his testimony that Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli and a deputy associate attorney general were involved in consultations about the decision.
 
IG Michael Horowitz said there are no rules prohibiting political appointees from participating in such decision making and that Perez did not know about the incidents when he testified to the commission in May 2010.
 
Separately, the wide-ranging IG report also concluded that deep ideological polarization in the Justice Department's voting rights section in both the Bush and Obama administrations fueled disputes that in some instances harmed the office's proper functioning. The department's inspector general said that on some occasions the disputes involved harassment of employees and managers.
 
Despite the polarization, the IG said its review did not substantiate claims of political or racial bias in decision-making.
 
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Perez appeared to be "woefully unprepared to answer questions" from the Civil Rights Commission.
 
But Lynn Rhinehart, general counsel at the AFL-CIO, said the report shows that Perez, who was first hired by the civil rights division as a career attorney under President George H.W. Bush, restored integrity to the voting rights program at the Justice Department.
 
The White House stressed Perez's accomplishments in the Civil Rights Division, including the settlement of three major fair lending cases.
 
"Tom is a dedicated public servant who has spent his career fighting to keep the American Dream within reach for hardworking middle class families and those striving to get into the middle class," a White House official said.
 
In choosing Perez, the son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic, Obama would be placing an already high-ranking Hispanic official in a Cabinet slot. Perez, a lawyer with a degree from Harvard Law School, would replace Solis, a former California congresswoman and the nation's first Hispanic labor secretary.
 
Before taking the job as assistant attorney general, Perez was secretary of Maryland's Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, which enforces state consumer rights, workplace safety and wage and hour laws.
 
The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/18/obama-to-nominate-justice-official-to-top-labor-post/#ixzz2NulgyBPS

[Soul Crusher]

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Obama's New Prospective Labor Secretary 'May As Well Be Hugo Chavez'
Brett LoGiurato|Mar. 18, 2013, 4:05 PM|577|6
 

AP


President Barack Obama's latest Cabinet nomination is already facing pushback from conservatives and Republicans, stemming from his work as an attorney with the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
 
On his radio show Monday, Limbaugh cast Thomas Perez, Obama's nomination to be the next Secretary of Labor, as a radical liberal and said he "may as well be Hugo Chavez."
 
Limbaugh's concern is based on Perez's work as as the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which has drawn criticism among Republicans in the past.
 
Last week, the department's inspector general concluded in a report that Perez gave incomplete testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights when he said the department’s political leadership was not involved in the decision to dismiss three defendants in a lawsuit the Bush administration brought against the New Black Panther Party.
 
But the Department of Justice dropped the charges before Perez had been confirmed as a member of the department, and the IG also concluded that Perez did not "intentionally mislead" the commission in his testimony.
 
Other Republicans have latched onto this reason to oppose Perez's nomination — Sen. David Vitter said Monday that he would block it because of Perez's role in the New Black Panther case.
 
Limbaugh compared the situation to President George W. Bush dropping a case against the Ku Klux Klan.
 
"I want to play a little game with you, folks," Limbaugh said. "In a hypothetical, let's replace Obama with George W. Bush and the Black Panthers with the Ku Klux Klan.
 
"Now, I want you to try to imagine Bush's head of the Civil Rights Division not prosecuting Klanners when they engage in voter intimidation, and then — after not prosecuting Klanners for that — imagine what would happen if Bush turned around and nominated the Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan to a cabinet position where he would be deciding on discrimination lawsuits. That is exactly what's happened here. There would be unmitigated hell to pay if that had happened."
 
Listen below, courtesy of The Daily Rushbo:


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/thomas-perez-rush-limbaugh-obama-labor-secretary-2013-3#ixzz2NviWGwVp

[Soul Crusher]

Obama’s Labor nominee Thomas Perez boasted of prosecuting pro-lifers


by Ben Johnson

Tue Mar 19, 2013 18:05 EST
Comments ()
Tags: barack obama, department of labor dol, face act, thomas perez
 














WASHINGTON, D.C., March 19, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The man President Obama has nominated to become the next Secretary of Labor has been accused of filing baseless lawsuits against pro-life protesters in order to chill their right to free speech.
 
On Monday, Obama named Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, to replace outgoing Secretary Hilda Solis.
 


Last September Perez boasted, “We have opened 20 civil investigations under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, and filed eight complaints under the Act – compared to just one civil FACE Act case in the eight years of the previous administration.”
 
But his dogged pursuit of pro-life activists has earned his department a hefty fine – and a federal judge's suspicion he was colluding with abortion providers.
 
In April, the Justice Department paid Mary Susan Pine $120,000 in lawyers’ fees after wrongly accusing her of violating the 1994 FACE law.
 
Federal Judge Kenneth Ryskamp pointedly questioned whether the prosecution “was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and the [abortion provider], which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities.” On the merits, he wrote, he was “at a loss” to explain how the case ever came to be prosecuted.
 
Obama administration officials believe “by filing these suits and committing the unlimited resources of the United States government against these good people, that somehow they would back down and give up their right to free speech voluntarily,” Harry Mihet, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, told LifeSiteNews.com.
 
Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek has noted the Justice Department has a poor record on the remaining FACE cases during Perez's tenure, never having won a single conviction.
 
Click "like" if you want to end abortion!

Last March, the Justice Department dropped all civil charges against Kenneth Scott, who had been accused of 10 FACE violations outside the Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains in Denver.
 
The Justice Department pressed for a $10,000 civil fine and a 25-foot mandatory “buffer zone” outside the abortion facility. “Holder’s theory is that Ken is ‘obstructing’ other traffic when women needing help stop their cars to speak with and receive literature from Ken,” said an official with the Thomas More Society.
 
The agreement stipulated that Scott could not seek attorney's fees from the DOJ. Scott’s wife Jo Ann, paid $750 each to two women to settle the separate charges against her.
 
In July 2011, the division filed suit against Dick Retta, now 80, seeking a total of $25,000 in fines. Retta forcefully rejected the allegations, telling NPR, “We don’t block women from coming in. That’s not our policy. I teach it. I teach what I’m doing…and I say one thing: never block the women from going in. Never.” The DOJ settled the case in January in exchange for a promise from Retta not to stand inside an 18.5-foot "buffer zone" outside the facility's gate.
 
Similarly, the Justice Department charged a Pittsburgh-area activist, 56-year-old Meredith Parente, with shoving two escorts outside Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania. Parente admitted no guilt but signed a settlement on election day 2012, agreeing to stay at least 25 feet away from a Pittsburgh abortion facility. She faced $20,000 in fines.
 
In some cases, the Justice Department stands accused of prosecuting the victim.
 
Dana Cody of the Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) said the DOJ slapped David Hamilton with charges after he was assaulted in January 2010 outside the EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville, Kentucky.
 
In January, Hamilton settled the case for $2,500 to his “victim.”
 
Thomas Perez weighed in on the decision, saying, “It is absolutely crucial that those individuals who desire reproductive health services be able to obtain them in an environment that is free of interference, intimidation and fear.”
 
“By continuing to enforce the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, we are helping to ensure that they are able to do so,” he added.
 
The appointment of Perez concerns conservative observers for a number of others reasons.
 
In 2009, Perez testified before the U.S. Senate on behalf of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would allow homosexuals to sue employers if they believed they were not hired because of their sexual orientation.
 
Rea Carey of the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force praised Perez. “The Labor Department is critical to advancing, enforcing and preserving policies that directly impact the lives and livelihoods of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and our families,” he said. “These advances include adding gender identity as a protected category to the department’s equal employment statement, and clarifying that the Family and Medical Leave Act is inclusive of same-sex couples raising children.
 
“Thomas Perez at the helm of the Labor Department will help keep this momentum moving forward,” he predicted.
 
Carey also praised his role in prosecuting George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case.
 
Perez's office enjoys a close relationship with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
 
Allegations swirled that Perez may have perjured himself over the Black Panther voter intimidation case, which the department dismissed.
 
He told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) on May 14, 2010, that no political officers were “involved” in the dismissal. However, e-mails show at least two political officials were involved.
 
A 258-page report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, just released, concluded “that Perez’s testimony did not reflect the entire story regarding the involvement of political appointees in NBPP [New Black Panther Party] decision-making” and that Perez he “should have sought more details...about the nature and extent of the participation of political employees in the NBPP decision in advance of his testimony before the Commission.”
 
Senator David Vitter, R-LA, has vowed to fight the nomination, noting the AAG's involvement in “the DOJ's partisan full court press to pressure Louisiana's Secretary of State to only enforce one side of the law – the side that specifically benefits the politics of the president and his administrations.”
 
Perez accused Vitter's home state of failing to comply with a provision of the National Voter Registration Act by not providing voter registration forms to certain groups of people, like those enrolling in welfare programs, who tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. However, the DOJ expressed its hostility toward states removing dead, ineligible, or duplicate voters from their rolls.

[Soul Crusher]

More Justice Department Chicanery: Thomas Perez and ‘Disparate Impact’
PJ Media ^ | June 1, 2013 | Hans von Spakovsky
Posted on June 1, 2013 1:03:06 PM EDT by jazusamo

The cabinet nominee fought to keep the Supreme Court from reviewing his preferred extortion technique.

One of the administration’s favorite legal theories, “disparate impact,” may get taken up again by the Supreme Court. Will the administration try to engineer some kind of payoff to take the issue away from the Court — again?

In June 2012, the town of Mount Holly, N.J., petitioned the Supreme Court to review the legitimacy of racial discrimination claims premised solely on a disparate impact theory under the Fair Housing Act. Under this theory, a policy — such as requiring high credit scores for loans — can be completely neutral, but if it yields a disparate impact on a particular racial or gender group, an institution using that policy can be held liable for discrimination. In other words, an entity can be found to have discriminated even if it didn’t actually intend to discriminate.

Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for Civil Rights at the Justice Department and President Obama’s nominee to be Labor secretary, has used disparate impact to extort huge settlements from the financial industry under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).

Here, Mount Holly is alleged to have discriminated simply because it wanted to redevelop and rebuild a rundown housing development in a high-crime area where almost half the residents are black. Thus, the rebuilding plan would have had a statistically larger impact on black residents than white residents.

The issue of whether a mere disparate impact claim violates the FHA, or whether the more rigorous standard of intentional discrimination is required was before the Supreme Court last year. In that case, Magner v. Gallagher, the city of St. Paul, MN, was accused of violating the FHA because it aggressively enforced the health and safety provisions of its housing code. Slumlords sued the city, claiming that enforcement had a disparate impact because the majority of their tenants were racial minorities.

In other words, they were using the FHA to obstruct the city’s attempt to improve the horrible living conditions of poor families.

Thomas Perez concocted a quid pro quo deal to have the Magner case dismissed — even though the U.S. was not a party in the case. At the time, the federal government was considering intervening in a separate False Claims Act case worth almost $200 million against St. Paul. The city had received tens of millions of dollars from the federal government based on what career attorneys within the Justice Department called a “particularly egregious example of false certifications” by the city.

Perez told St. Paul that the Justice Department would stay out of the False Claims Act case if the city withdrew the Magner case that the Supreme Court had agreed to hear. The city jumped at the deal.

A report from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later concluded that Perez “sought, facilitated, and consummated this deal because he feared that the Court would find disparate impact unsupported by the text of the Fair Housing Act.” According to the same report, Perez also attempted to hide both the deal and his involvement in it.

He even called a key lawyer in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota and told him to make sure there wasn’t “any mention of the Magner case” in the False Claims Act case files.

Fast forward to the new claim involving Mount Holly: although the U.S. is, again, not a party to the case, the Supreme Court last October asked the Justice Department to file a brief advising whether it thought the Court should accept the case for review.

To no one’s surprise, the brief that Justice recently filed told the Court it should not take the case. The question of whether disparate impact claims are available under the FHA “does not warrant review,” it declared. The brief was filed by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., and right under his name is that of Thomas E. Perez.

Verrilli and Perez argue that disparate impact claims are a “reasonable construction of the statute’s text, structure, and history” and that there is no conflict in the courts of appeal on this issue. But the brief ends with an argument you wouldn’t expect from Justice, given Perez’s sub rosa involvement in getting the Magner case dismissed — especially in light of recent revelations that he violated federal law and Justice Department rules by using his personal email account to facilitate the deal.

Verrilli and Perez fault Mount Holly for even raising the issue of whether disparate impact claims are valid under the FHA. Mount Holly, they write, had the “opportunity to raise both questions” in the lower courts when the Magner case was before the Supreme Court,” and therefore can’t bring it up now.

With stunning chutzpah, the government is arguing that Mount Holly should have been aware that disparate impact was a live issue when review was granted in Magner v. Gallagher and should have raised the issue in its own case.

This is wrong for two reasons. First, the timeliness of Mount Holly’s claim that disparate impact does not constitute a violation of the FHA has no relation whatsoever to someone else’s lawsuit, such as the Magner case. Second, even if Mount Holly mistakenly thought disparate impact was not a live legal issue when Magner was before the Supreme Court, Mount Holly would have learned it was a live issue when the scandal became public over the government’s quid pro quo deal that bought off St. Paul and caused the city to dismiss the Magner case. Therefore, the government’s very actions in Magner make the Mount Holly disparate impact claims in the current case timely.

It should also be noted that while the brief criticizes Mount Holly for not raising this issue when Magner was before the Supreme Court, it fails to inform the Court that a senior Justice Department official (whose name is on the brief) helped get that very case dismissed before the Court could hear oral arguments.

Should we be surprised by any of these convoluted machinations?

Probably not, given what happened the last time disparate impact was being considered by the Supreme Court. The House report concluded that the quid pro quo in the Magner case “manipulated the rule of law and pushed the limits of justice to make” the deal happen.

The Supreme Court should accept the Mount Holly case. And if Justice approaches Mount Holly with a Magner-esque deal, the city should reject it so the Court can finally rule on the validity of disparate impact claims.

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/141987-obamas-labor-secretary-tweets-advice-grads-dont-individual-join-collective




 

[JOHN MATRIX]

Just part of his plan to 'fundamentally change' america. Hes a radical, appointing radicals. Hopefully this nomination can be stopped