http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=2488



www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org

Date: 8/19/2014 9:07:31 AM

*THOMAS PEREZ*

   - Served in the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the Bill Clinton
   administration
   - Was appointed by President Barack Obama to be Assistant Attorney
   General for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division
   - Greatly expanded DOJ's prosecution of alleged hate crimes, which he
   depicts as a predominantly white-on-black phenomenon
   - Views “disparate impact”—i.e., instances where particular policies
   affect whites and nonwhites unequally—as *prima facie* evidence of
   discrimination
   - Depicts America as a nation rife with injustice against groups such as
   women, nonwhite minorities, and immigrants
   - According to the *American Spectator*, "Perez has overseen most of the
   unprecedentedly naked politicization of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division."
   - Became U.S. Secretary of Labor in September 2013



*[image: Thmoas Perez]*
<http://discoverthenetworks.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&id=1e486c523a&e=a0dce601a4>



The son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic, Thomas Edward Perez was
born October 7, 1961 in Buffalo, New York. He earned an A.B. in
international relations and political science from Brown University
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6667> in 1983, a
J.D. from Harvard
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6678> Law School
in 1987, and a Master of Public Policy from the JFK School of Government,
also in 1987.

>From 1987-89 Perez was a law clerk
<http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/73100/thomas-perez#.UUAdl2ByFWM>
for Judge Zita Weinshienk of the U.S. District Court in Colorado. In the
early 1990s he served <http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Thomas_E._Perez>
as a prosecutor, and later as deputy chief, in the Civil Rights Division
(CRD) of Bill Clinton
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644>'s
Department of Justice (DOJ). From 1995-98, Perez worked as special counsel
to Senator Edward Kennedy
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=804>.

In 1996 Perez was instrumental in facilitating the passage
<http://www.kff.org/about/perez.cfm> of the Church Arson Prevention Act, a
bill founded on the false <http://fumento.com/arson/kudos.html> premise
<http://fumento.com/arson/wsjfire.html> that African American churches were
being targeted at a disproportionately high rate by arsonists.

>From 1998-99 <http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Thomas_E._Perez>, Perez
returned to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division as deputy assistant attorney
general. In this role, he helped establish the Worker Exploitation Task
Force
<http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oV5-QeR5pI8J:www.justice.gov/crt/crim/tpwetf.php+>,
which sought to improve the working conditions of illegal aliens. Moreover,
he worked to eliminate the disproportionate assignment of black and
Hispanic students to special-education programs; to increase the number of
such students in "gifted and talented" programs; to prosecute
<http://www.kff.org/about/perez.cfm%20> federal civil-rights cases
involving police misconduct and hate crimes; and to eliminate racial
profiling
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=116&type=issue> by
law-enforcement.

Also during his tenure with the Clinton DOJ, Perez volunteered for—and
later (from 1995-2002) became a board member
<http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/07/open-borders-doj-vs-america/%20> (and
president
<http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/12/thomas-perez-should-be-blocked>)
of—Casa de Maryland
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7583>, a George
Soros <http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977>-
funded
<http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/07/open-borders-doj-vs-america/%20>
advocacy group for illegal aliens.

>From February 1999 until the end of the Clinton administration, Perez
served as director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.

As a member of Maryland's Montgomery County Council in 2003, Perez (who
served on the Council from 2002-06
<http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/73100/thomas-perez#.UUAdl2ByFWM>)
called
<http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/obama_to_nominate_sharia_supporter_illegal_immigrant_advocate_as_labor_secretary.html>
for the state to recognize
<http://townhall.com/columnists/jillianbandes/2009/09/16/thomas_perez,_illegal_activist_and_obamas_civil_rights_officer/page/full/>
the notoriously fraud-prone *matricula consular* ID cards issued by Mexican
and Guatemalan consular offices as a valid form of ID for illegal
immigrants in the United States—even though allowing such IDs could give
illegals easier access
<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343667/obama-s-illegal-immigrant-booster-katrina-trinko>
to government-funded social services. That same year, he sponsored
<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343667/obama-s-illegal-immigrant-booster-katrina-trinko>
a Montgomery County bill aimed at giving illegal immigrants access to
banks.

Perez has also supported
<http://townhall.com/columnists/jillianbandes/2009/09/16/thomas_perez,_illegal_activist_and_obamas_civil_rights_officer/page/full/>
a policy that would permit illegal immigrants who attend college in their
state of residence to qualify for the same discounted, in-state tuition
rates that are available to legal residents.

In 2004
<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343667/obama-s-illegal-immigrant-booster-katrina-trinko>
Perez went before the Maryland state legislature to testify against a
number of immigration-enforcement bills, including one that sought to
prevent illegal immigrants from acquiring driver’s licenses, and another
proposing that people be required to prove their citizenship before
registering to vote. Moreover, Perez opposed
<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343667/obama-s-illegal-immigrant-booster-katrina-trinko>
efforts to study and document the financial burdens that illegal immigrants
placed on the Maryland state budget.

In 2005 Perez served <http://keywiki.org/index.php/Thomas_Perez> as a
trustee and an action-fund member of the Center for American Progress
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6709>.

In 2006 Perez wrote a scathing *Mother Jones*
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6959> piece
denouncing <http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/344027> an amendment
authored by Oklahoma Republican senator Tom Coburn that would have repealed
a Clinton
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644>-administration
executive order requiring doctors to provide translators for
non-English-speaking patients. Accusing Coburn (who is a medical doctor by
training) of having “exhibited a distressing disregard for the
doctor-patient relationship,” Perez said that the proposed amendment (which
ultimately did not pass) would “undermine meaningful communication between
doctors and patients, thus relegating those who do not speak English to a
lower rung of our health care system.” Coburn disagreed
<http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/344027> vehemently:

“After all my years of practicing medicine, I take offense at someone
stating that I have a ‘distressing disregard’ for the doctor-patient
relationship. I have treated numerous patients who do not speak English and
found ways to communicate with them. Often these patients have family
members who speak some English or they find other ways to communicate.
There is no reason to burden health-care providers with the expense of
having to provide services in languages other than English.”

>From 2001 to 2007, Perez was a professor at the University of Maryland
School of Law. He has also worked as a part-time faculty member at the George
Washington University
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7430> School of
Public Health.

In 2007 Perez ran
<http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/73100/thomas-perez#.UUAdl2ByFWM>
unsuccessfully for the office of Maryland attorney general. From 2007-09,
he served
<http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/73100/thomas-perez#.UUAdl2ByFWM>
as secretary of licensing and regulation in the Maryland Department of
Labor.

In 2008 Perez worked <http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Thomas_E._Perez%20>
on Barack Obama
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511>’s
presidential campaign and then served on the transition team after Obama’s
electoral victory. On March 31, 2009, President Obama nominated Perez to be
Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division (CRD). The
U.S. Senate confirmed Perez in October 2009.

Upon taking office, Perez declared
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama_s-zealous-civil-rights-enforcer-gets-busy-1007714-100069444.html>
that CRD's mission was to help those Americans who were “living in the
shadows”—a reference not only to illegal immigrants, but also to: “our
Muslim-American brothers and sisters subject to post-9/11 backlash”;
“communities of color disproportionately affected by the subprime
meltdown”; “LGBT brothers and sisters ... forced to confront
discrimination”; and “all too many children lacking quality education.”

>From the start of his work with the Obama administration, Perez pledged
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama_s-zealous-civil-rights-enforcer-gets-busy-1007714-100069444.html>
to greatly expand
<http://www.justice.gov/crt/speeches/2010/crt-speech-100420.html> DOJ's
prosecution of alleged hate crimes, which he depicts
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7dOvFzQSnk> as a predominantly
white-on-black phenomenon. He also made it clear that he viewed
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama_s-zealous-civil-rights-enforcer-gets-busy-1007714-100069444.html>
“disparate impact”—i.e., instances where particular employment- or
education-related policies affect whites and nonwhites in different
ways—as *prima
facie* proof of discrimination
<http://www.justice.gov/crt/speeches/2010/crt-speech-100420.html>. (An
example would be when a company makes its hiring or promotion decisions
based on exam scores, and whites as a group score higher than nonwhites.)
Consider the following facts:

   - On April 23, 2012, Perez's Justice Department sued
   
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/23/us-usa-florida-firefighters-idUSBRE83M1KQ20120423>
   the city of Jacksonville, Florida, claiming that its use of written tests
   to determine promotions in its fire department had "resulted in a disparate
   impact upon black candidates," who registered passing grades at
   significantly lower rates than their white counterparts. "This complaint
   should send a clear message to all public employers that employment
   practices that have the effect of excluding qualified candidates on account
   of race will not be tolerated," said
   
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/23/us-usa-florida-firefighters-idUSBRE83M1KQ20120423>
   Perez.
   - This was just one of numerous Perez/DOJ lawsuits
   <http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/12/thomas-perez-should-be-blocked>
   designed to force various municipal fire (and police) departments to do
   away with written tests for membership. In a case against the New York Fire
   Department, Perez and DOJ argued
   <http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/12/thomas-perez-should-be-blocked>
   in favor of what amounted to strict racial quotas favoring blacks, even if
   they scored as low as 30% on their qualifying exams.
   - Also under the rubric of "disparate impact" theory, Perez believes
   that bankers and mortgage lenders who reject the loan applications of
   blacks at a higher rate than the loan applications of whites are akin to
   Klansmen. Such lenders, says
   
<http://nypost.com/2014/08/17/why-the-obama-administration-sees-racism-everywhere/>
   Perez, discriminate "with a smile" and "fine print," but their subtle brand
   of racism is "every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a
   neighborhood."

In Perez's view, compensatory payments to plaintiffs who win judgments in
civil-rights cases should go not only to the actual victims of
discrimination, but additionally to “qualified organization[s]
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Justice-Department-steers-money-to-favored-groups-1007439-99979014.html>”
approved by the Justice Department. Such a policy enables
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Justice-Department-steers-money-to-favored-groups-1007439-99979014.html>
DOJ to funnel cash into the coffers of activist groups that share the
presidential administration's political agendas.

In 2009, Perez and CRD pressured
<http://www.justice.gov/crt/speeches/2010/crt-speech-100420.html> several
universities to discontinue an experimental program whereby students could
purchase their textbooks in digital formats which they could read via
the Amazon
Kindle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Kindle>, because the
Kindle—notwithstanding its text-to-voice feature (for the narration of
books)—was not fully accessible (in its menu options) to blind students.
Until the Kindle rectified this injustice, said
<http://www.newmediajournal.us/fifth_column/0804b.htm> Perez, universities
that made their textbooks available on the e-reader would be investigated
for possible violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

That same year, Perez and CRD launched an investigation
<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/227816> of Maricopa County,
Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his strict enforcement of federal
immigration laws. This investigation grew out of a February 2009 demand
<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/227816>—by Democratic
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6214>
Representatives John Conyers
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1987>, Zoe
Lofgren, Jerrold Nadler
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1986>, and
Bobby Scott—that the Justice Department look into allegations of Arpaio's
“discriminatory” police practices toward illegal aliens. Though the
accusers had no evidence
<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/227816> of any wrongdoing by
Arpaio, CRD initiated its inquiry within a month. The following year, Perez
would lead <http://www.justice.gov/crt/speeches/2010/crt-speech-100420.html>the
Obama Justice Department in filing a lawsuit
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100902/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_sheriff_lawsuit_5>
against Arpaio.

Also in 2010, Perez and CRD led
<http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/07/open-borders-doj-vs-america/%20> the
fight against an Arizona law
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1215> deputizing
state police to check the immigration status of any criminal suspects who
they believed might be in the U.S. illegally.

In January 2010
<http://www.justice.gov/crt/speeches/tp_aflcio_mlk_speech.pdf> Perez told
AFL-CIO <http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7507>
leaders that if Martin Luther King Jr. were still alive: "he would continue
his quest for economic justice, for all Americans to be able to access the
great wealth and promise of our nation"; he would urge our nation's leaders
to move forward on health care reform"; and he would call "for passage of
the Employee Free Choice Act
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=828>.” Perez
then proceeded to depict America as a nation rife with injustice and
maltreatment against many groups of people. For instance, he said
<http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/tom-perez-obamas-radical-labor-secretary-nominee/>
:

   - "[W]omen [are] still fighting for pay equity in the workplace."
   - [D]iscrimination persists -- both blatant discrimination and the
   dangerously subtle kind -- in so many of our institutions."
   - "[N]ewcomers to our country face bigotry and hate because of the
   language they speak, the clothes they wear, the color of their skin, or the
   accent in their voice."
   - "Crosses are still burned in yards across the nation's heartland. Acts
   of violence are still committed because of an individual's skin color, or
   because of who they love, or because of where they come from."
   - "Individuals with disabilities are still too often denied access to
   those basic services that the rest of us take for granted."

On April 20, 2010
<http://www.justice.gov/crt/speeches/2010/crt-speech-100420.html>, Perez
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject of his
efforts to combat discrimination in housing, money lending, employment, and
police work. For a brief summary of his testimony, click here
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/thomaspereztestimonySJC.html>.

Perez consistently emphasized CRD's “critical work” of “monitoring federal,
state, and local elections across the country to ensure that voting takes
place free of unlawful intimidation.” But in June 2010, J. Christian Adams,
a five-year DOJ veteran, resigned
<http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/02/holder’s-black-panther-shame/> to
protest the “corrupt nature” of DOJ's dismissal of a case involving two
<http://biggovernment.com/tag/jerry-jackson-jr/> Philadelphia-based members
<http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/04/meet-phillys-new-black-panther-party-leader/>
of the New Black Panther Party
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7556> who had
intimidated white voters with racial slurs and threats of violence on
Election Day, 2008. Adams cited Perez and Thomas Perrelli (the associate
attorney general) as the two DOJ officials most responsible for dropping
the case. In July 2010
<http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2010/07/malkin-whitewashing-black-racism.php>,
Adams gave damning public testimony about how Perez and other Obama DOJ
officials believed that “civil rights law should not be enforced in a
race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other
national minorities.”

In September 2010, Christopher Coates—Voting Section Chief for the
DOJ—testified to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7017> and
corroboated Adams' assertion that the Department had routinely ignored
civil rights cases involving white victims. For more than a year,
Perez had denied
the Commission's requests
<http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/09/christopher_coates_testimony_9-24-10.pdf>
to hear Coates' testimony and had instructed Coates not to testify. But in
September 2010, Coates finally chose to go public with his story and asked
for protection under whistleblower laws. For the full text of Coates'
testimony, click here
<http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/full-text-of-christopher-coates-testimony-to-u-s-commission-on-civil-rights-pjm-exclusive/>
.

Perez played a key role in opening investigations of several large urban
police departments
<http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/30/justice_department_civil_rights_police/index.html>
for systematic civil-rights abuses such as harassment of racial minorities,
false arrests, and excessive use of force. In 2011, for instance, Perez's
CRD initiated
<http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/30/justice_department_civil_rights_police/index.html>
a high-profile push to reform the New Orleans Police Department; "pattern
and practice" investigations of police departments in Newark and Seattle;
and a preliminary investigation of the Denver Police Department. These
actions were consistent with what Perez had stated
<http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/30/justice_department_civil_rights_police/index.html>
in September 2010: "In case you haven’t heard, the Civil Rights Division is
once again open for business. There were very few [pattern and practice]
cases during the prior administration." On another occasion (in April 2010
<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/thomas_perez_on_the_danziger_bridge_shootings.php>),
Perez had stated: "Criminal prosecutions alone, I have learned, are not
enough to change the culture of a police department." As of March 2013,
Perez had initiated
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-perez-would-bring-liberal-zealotry-to-labor-department/article/2524096>
17 probes of police and sheriff's departments across the United States—more
probes of that type than CRD had ever previously conducted under any
individual's leadership.

In 2011, Perez led a DOJ lawsuit
<http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/03/11/thomas-perez-is-hero-to-some-liberal-hack-to-others/>
against Alabama's recently passed anti-illegal immigration law (HB-56),
similar to Arizona's 2010 law.

In July 2011, Perez addressed a luncheon meeting of the National Council of
La Raza <http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=153>
(NCLR), a pro-amnesty immigration group with which he has long had a close
relationship. In his remarks
<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/12/Obama-s-Purported-Labor-Nominee-Rallied-Pro-Amnesty-Group-As-DOJ-Asst-AG>,
Perez praised NCLR's work and expressed gratitude for its steadfast support
of President Obama's agendas. He also lauded the organization's members as
valuable "change agents" and "serial activists" who "will [help] move
America forward." And he characterized opponents of immigration reform as
racists: "It’s undeniable that what else we see out there in America is an
absolute headwind of intolerance, and it’s a headwind of intolerance that
has been manifested in many different ways shapes and forms."

In August-September 2011, PJ Media published *Every Single One*
<http://pjmedia.com/every-single-one-pj-medias-investigation-of-justice-department-hiring-practices/>,
a 12-part series of exposes revealing that, without exception, every
attorney hired by Perez's CRD had a leftist or Democrat activist pedigree.
When PJ Media initially asked to see the resumes of these hires, the
Justice Department refused to provide them. Thus PJ was forced to sue
<http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/02/11/pajamas-media-sues-eric-holders-doj/>
Attorney General Eric Holder in federal court under the Freedom of
Information Act, and thereby gained access to the data it sought. To view
this 12-part series, click here
<http://pjmedia.com/every-single-one-pj-medias-investigation-of-justice-department-hiring-practices/>
.

   - Nearly two years later, in March 2013, the *American Spectator*
   reported
   <http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/12/thomas-perez-should-be-blocked>
   that "Perez has overseen most of the unprecedentedly naked politicization
   of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division," as evidenced by the fact that "every one"
   of the 113 people his CRD had hired for supposedly non-political
   civil-service positions were "demonstrably liberal activists." Moreover,
   said the report, Perez had "insisted on personally approving each of these
   new hires."

In December 2011
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/201251-doj-rejects-south-carolina-voter-identification-law>,
the Justice Department blocked
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/201251-doj-rejects-south-carolina-voter-identification-law>
a new South Carolina law requiring voters to present valid identification
at their polling places on election day. Claiming that the law
discriminated against minority voters, Perez wrote
<http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-23/us/us_south-carolina-voting_1_voter-impersonation-voter-fraud-voter-identification-requirement?_s=PM:US>:
“Although the state has a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud and
safeguarding voter confidence … the state’s submission did not include any
evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any other
type of fraud that is not already addressed by the state’s existing voter
identification requirement.” Perez further contended
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203391104577125532355717866.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop>
that the law violated Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, because 8.4%
of the state’s registered white voters lacked photo ID, compared to 10% of
nonwhite voters.*[1]*

Perez also led a 2012 CRD lawsuit
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-perez-would-bring-liberal-zealotry-to-labor-department/article/2524096>
that succeeded in overturning
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/court-blocks-tough-voter-id-law-in-texas.html?_r=0>
Texas's voter ID law.

In late May 2012, Perez and DOJ ordered the state of Florida
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-perez-would-bring-liberal-zealotry-to-labor-department/article/2524096>
to halt its efforts—which were already underway—to verify the identity and
eligibility of the people listed on its voter rolls. DOJ explained its
actions by saying that it had not yet been able to verify that Florida's
efforts “neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of
discriminating on account of race, color, or membership in a language
minority group.” In a letter
<http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/06/11/497934/breaking-department-of-justice-sues-florida-over-voter-purge/>
(dated June 11
<http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/florida.pdf>) to the
Florida Secretary of State, Perez charged that Florida was violating the
National Voter Registration Act and the Voting Rights Act. “Please
immediately cease this unlawful conduct,” he wrote.

Florida was not compliant with DOJ, however. “We have an obligation to make
sure the voter rolls are accurate and we are going to continue forward and
do everything that we can legally do to make sure than ineligible voters
cannot vote,” said Chris Cate, a spokesman for Florida secretary of state
Ken Detzner. “We are firmly committed to doing the right thing and
preventing ineligible voters from being able to cast a ballot. We are not
going to give up our efforts to make sure the voter rolls are accurate.”
Earlier that year, Florida election officials had identified some 53,000
still-registered voters who were deceased, and another 2,600 who were
non-citizens. In fact, state officials estimated that the total number of
non-citizens on Florida's registered-voter rolls was as high as 182,000.
Nevertheless, DOJ filed suit against Florida on June 12, 2012. "Because the
State has indicated its unwillingness to comply with [DOJ's] requirements,
I have authorized the initiation of an enforcement action against Florida
in federal court," said
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/politics/florida-voting-lawsuit> Perez.

In early August 2012, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona), a member of the House
Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, asked
<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/03/Obama-administration-paves-the-way-for-sharia-law>
Perez: "Will you tell us here today that this Administration's Department
of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes
speech against any religion?" Perez refused to answer, four separate times.
Breitbart.com
<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/03/Obama-administration-paves-the-way-for-sharia-law>
provided some context for this:

"Last October, at George Washington University, there was a meeting between
DOJ officials, including Perez, and Islamist advocates against free speech.
Representatives from the Islamist side included Mohamed Magid
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2562>,
president of the Islamic Society of North America
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6178> (ISNA)....
The leader of the Islamist [side] was Sahar Aziz, an Egyptian-born American
lawyer and Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a
Muslim advocacy group based in Michigan. At the meeting, the Islamists
lobbied for: cutbacks in U.S. anti-terror training; limits on the power of
terrorism investigators; changes in agent training manuals; [and] a legal
declaration that criticism of Islam in the United States should be
considered racial discrimination. Aziz said that the word 'Muslim' has
become 'racialized' and, once American criticism of Islam was silenced, the
effect would be to 'take [federal] money away from local police departments
and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.'"

Perez raised no objection in response
<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/03/Obama-administration-paves-the-way-for-sharia-law>
to Aziz. (For a video of Perez's exchange with Rep. Franks, click here
<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/03/Obama-administration-paves-the-way-for-sharia-law>
.)

In early 2013, Perez told
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577293622283974562.html>
Congress that his CRD had filed "a record eight lending-related federal
lawsuits" in 2011, resulting in eight settlements that netted "more than
$350 million in relief to the victims of illegal lending practices." In
many of those cases, Perez used disparate impact analysis
<http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1184&context=key_workplace&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2522disparate%2520impact%2520analysis%2522%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D5%26ved%3D0CFAQFjAE%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1184%2526context%253Dkey_workplace%26ei%3Db_tMUeSKINep4AOmnoGQBA%26usg%3DAFQjCNG-9gQd1k_ChIBv5NKD1MtXIn7WVA%26sig2%3DFx5RyQDVBcwiD8Ba9NUdRA#search=%22disparate%20impact%20analysis%22>
to advance the notion that if banks were rejecting white and nonwhite loan
applicants at different rates, they were, by definition (and regardless of
intent), engaging in discrimination that violated the Fair Housing Act. For
example:

   - In February 2012, Perez had used his influence to prevent
   
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577293622283974562.html>
   the U.S. Supreme Court from hearing *Magner v. Gallagher*, a case where
   local slumlords from St. Paul, Minnesota were accusing that city of racism
   for enforcing its housing code. St. Paul, in turn, challenged
   <http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/paul-500804-perez-justice.html> the
   notion (embraced by Perez) that racial discrimination can be proven simply
   by presenting disparate-impact statistics rather than actually ascertaining
   intent or examining the specifics of each case.

   As the Court date drew near, St. Paul officials, confident of a victory,
   publicly declared that they would prove that the Fair Housing Act actually
   makes no explicit allowance for disparate-impact analysis. Perez, afraid
   that the Court might rule disparate impact illegal, spoke to
   representatives of both St. Paul and the plaintiff and, according
to the *Wall
   Street Journal*, "strongarm[ed]
   <http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/paul-500804-perez-justice.html>" them
   to withdraw the case so that he and the Justice Department could continue
   filing such lawsuits. The *Ocean County Register* reports
   <http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/paul-500804-perez-justice.html> that
   "as a quid pro quo for withdrawing its case, Mr. Perez promised the city of
   St. Paul that Justice would make two pending False Claims Act cases it was
   facing go away," thereby saving the city "millions of dollars" in legal
   fees and settlement costs.

On March 18, 2013, President Obama nominated Perez to be the U.S. Secretary
of Labor, replacing outgoing Secretary Hilda Solis
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1247>.

In a May 2013 hearing before members of the House Oversight and Judiciary
Committees, Perez testified
<http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/05/08/tom-perez-and-more-justice-department-lies/>
that he could not recall ever having used his personal Verizon email
account to conduct Justice Department business at his Takoma Park, Maryland
home. This was an important matter because -- in the interests of
transparency -- it is illegal for government employees to conduct
government business on a personal email account. Perez was then confronted
with emails showing conclusively that he had in fact conducted DOJ business
on his home Verizon account, and he conceded their authenticity.

Under Perez, the DOJ repeatedly slow-walked
<http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/12/thomas-perez-should-be-blocked>
efforts intended to help ensure <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0lQln3iwA8>
that overseas military personnel (who tend to support
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/17/obama-campaign-going-after-veterans-votes/?page=all>
Republican candidates by a wide margin) could exercise their voting rights.
Meanwhile, Perez's division strove—without jurisdiction
<http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/12/thomas-perez-should-be-blocked>—to
help felons (who overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates) regain
voting privileges in a number of states.

During his tenure with CRD, Perez was a featured speaker
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuYr-MoIV9c%20> at a number of events held
by the American Constitution Society
<http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6707>, telling
<http://www.acslaw.org/taxonomy/term/259> its members that "your mission
and ours [at CRD] share a lot in common."

Perez was confirmed as U.S. Labor Secretary by the Senate on July 18, 2013,
and was sworn in five days later.

In August 2013, Perez, who has repeatedly called for increases in the
minimum wage, stated
<http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-01/politics/41670824_1_labor-department-minimum-wage-labor-day>:
"The living-wage strikes that we’ve seen recently ... really stand for the
proposition that nobody who works a 40-hour week should have to live in
poverty. Time and time again, after the minimum wage has been raised, those
sky-is-falling predictions have been disproved."

On September 4, 2013, Perez was sworn in as U.S. Secretary of Labor.

In a July 2014 speech
<http://nypost.com/2014/08/17/why-the-obama-administration-sees-racism-everywhere/>
he delivered to hundreds of black students at Howard University, Perez
denounced the so-called "school-to-prison pipeline" that allegedly funneled
large numbers of African American youth into the O.S. prison system without
cause. To drive the point home, Perez stated that school authorities in
Mississippi had recently had black high-schoolers arrested for infractions
as small as wearing the "wrong color tie" or the "wrong color socks," or
for "flatulence." "I’m not making this up," Perez assured. "This is
Meridian, Mississippi, where we still see separate and unequal.... We
thought we had made progress [but] this is America" today. Hoover
Institution Fellow Paul Sperry
<http://nypost.com/2014/08/17/why-the-obama-administration-sees-racism-everywhere/>
subsequently revealed Perez's willful duplicity:

"[Perez] was making it up. Meridian Public School District students have
never been jailed simply for breaking school dress code, as he implied.
That would be false imprisonment. They have, however, been mildly
disciplined for wearing the wrong uniform to school. Meridian, which is
mostly black, has a strict dress code to prevent gang violence.... Perez
conflated the circumstances, even though he knew better.... Perez made it
sound as if Meridian were run by a bunch of white, racist Bull Connors.
What he failed to mention is that the Meridian school superintendent, Dr.
Alvin Taylor, and four of the five Meridian school board members are all
black. So is the judge running the juvenile court.... Why would this
Cabinet official [Perez] say [this] to an audience of black students?
There’s only one explanation: To rile young African-Americans up about the
specter of a still-racist America."



*NOTE:*
[1] It is noteworthy that in 2005, the DOJ itself had approved
<http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/18/the-war-on-south-carolina-continues/2/>
a Georgia law with the same provisions and protections, and in 2008, the
Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in *Crawford v. Marion County Election Board* that
an Indiana law requiring photo ID did not present an undue burden on
voters. Furthermore, South Carolina’s law explicitly addressed potential
disenfranchisement by offering
<http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/18/the-war-on-south-carolina-continues/2/>
state-issued IDs free of charge, and free transportation to anyone who
needed a ride to a location where a picture ID could be obtained. An
extensive data review
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45962186/ns/local_news-greenville_sc/t/attorney-general-dead-people-voted-sc/%23.TxXkQEY23EM>
conducted
by Department of Motor Vehicles Director Kevin Shwedo found that more than
900 deceased people had "voted" in recent elections in South Carolina,
demonstrating
<http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/18/the-war-on-south-carolina-continues/2/>
that a voter ID policy could have been useful in South Carolina.






__._,_.___
 ------------------------------
Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]>
------------------------------


 Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbmRzaGVhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MDg0NTczNDI->


 [image: Yahoo! Groups]
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbmpmOTlzBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQwODQ1NzM0Mg-->
• Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
Unsubscribe <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>

__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to