Labor Nominee Thomas Perez Is A Radical Leftist

[Clean]

If you think that Chuck Hagel was a bad pick for Sec. Defense, get a load of Thomas Perez, Obama's choice to head Labor. He is the former head of Justice Dept. Civil Rights Division. In that position, these were just a few of his controversial actions:

He sued major universities for using the Amazon Kindle, because they were not then equipped to serve blind students.
He pressured one state to drop its special care and treatment program for HIV-positive prisoners on the grounds that they had a right to live among the general prison population.
He sued Lesley University in Massachusetts for "not adequately accommodating students with food allergies."He claimed the university didn't have enough gluten and allergy free “hot and cold” options in each of its cafeterias.
He had some hand in stopping the voter rights intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panthers.

On top of that, he began to use something called "disparate-impact theory" to sue banks and other employers.

Disparate-impact theory purports to prove racial discrimination by examining statistics rather than intent or specific cases. In other words, they didn't have to find an actual example of discrimination to sue a bank. They use statistics to find discrimination.

If a bank operates in an environment where 10% of the population is African-American and they only made 8% of their loans to African-Americans, they're guilty of discrimination, even if they gave a loan to every qualified AA that met their criteria; credit score, down payment, etc. The mere fact that they use credit scores, which may favor white applicants over AA applicants, could be discriminatory according to Perez.

The Link

I won't even mention his policies on immigration, which are extreme left of center or his interference in a St. Paul lawsuit that would have challenged Disparate Impact before the Supreme Court.

No telling what trouble for American Employers that Perez can cause as head of Labor.

 

[huisache]

I am one of the ones who think Hagel was a great choice, but I would weigh in on the disparate treatment issue as folows: it is the only way you can prove the cases. A few years ago I was having a few drinks with a friend's father, who had been a loan officer for a mortgage company for years and he said they redlined as a matter of course and nobody could prove it because they never left a trace in their files explicitly saying so. Disparate impact theory basically is like medicine's epidemiology studies. It is a useful tool to correct a violation of law in that respect. I don't know squat about the appointee other than what the OP reports. He may be a disaster, like everybody else in federal "service" but if so , what's new?

And what about any of the post says he is a radical leftist? He is a busybody, like countless other government people, but is he suggesting the workers seize the means of production? Just because you are a rightwinger and don't like somebody does not mean they are a radical leftist. Read some radical leftist magazines and you will find they think Obama and his ilk are nothing but bourgeouise reformers.

 

[dillohorn]

Why not bring K Marx back to push BO's agenda?

 

[huisache]

Because he is dead?

Marx's favorite American president was Lincoln, by the way

 

[ProdigalHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bevo Incognito]

The Link

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I don't know if that's what hiusache was referencing, but if that's all it is, I'm not sure that shows what he's claiming. But regardless, is the point then that just because (for example) a communist supports a (for example) president, you can't simply assess guilt by association.

If that's his point, it's certainly valid, but I would also say that context means a lot there. Marx complimenting Lincoln for freeing the slaves doesn't exactly paint Lincoln as a communist sympathizer or even that he's doing ANYTHING that is in line with communist doctrine other than freeing slaves.

I would agree that Obama's let a lot of leftists down - but I think that's often a function of unrealistic expectations by the hard left in America.

 

[huisache]

Marx was invited by Horace Greeley or one of the other NY publisher to write columns on how the American war looked from Europe---I;ve got a book full of them----and he thought Lincoln was a great progressive, and not just for strangling slavery.

If you read the Manifesto, most of the socialist program of the time was carried out by the end of Teddy Roosevelt's administration and the rest by FDR's. About the only thing American progressives have not adopted is seizure of the means of production and abolishing private property.

Tarring Obama with Marx is a childish effort at best; unless you are prepared to argue his opponents want to get rid of child labor laws, ,the six day work week, worker's comp and social security.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

Marx thought the best part of Lincoln was when he drafted people against their will to fight cousins, brothers, neighbors and peaceful citizens.

 

[huisache]

not if you read what he actually wrote, but why bother doing that when your tin foil hat brigade already has all the needed dogma at hand?