Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division (CRD) in the Department of Justice (DOJ), is the quintessential Obama appointee – capable of feeling the proverbial pea of discrimination under a thousand mattresses. A self-styled redeemer, Perez aims to save the weak and the exploited from the ravages of America’s purportedly intractable bigotry. His passion for this mission recently prompted him to tell an American Constitution Society (ACS) gathering, to enthusiastic applause: “I love this job.” Elaborating on that theme, Perez cited the deep satisfaction he had derived from successfully prosecuting a pair of white racists who had attacked a black man in a South Carolina restaurant. Why, in a nation where black-on-white crimes far outnumber their white-on-black counterparts, did Perez elect to focus on an instance of the latter? Just remember that Perez views the U.S. as a veritable snake pit teeming with racist white vipers, and the question answers itself.
Perez comes to the Obama administration with a wealth of experience as a protector of white racism’s many alleged victims. Indeed, he served as a prosecutor with the Civil Rights Division of Bill Clinton’s DOJ in the early 1990s, and as that same Division’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General from 1998 to 1999. Also in the Nineties, Perez volunteered for – and later became a board member of – Casa de Maryland – a George Soros–funded advocacy group for illegal aliens. As Michelle Malkin has pointed out, this organization opposes the enforcement of deportation orders for illegals; has condemned the post-9⁄11 coordination of local, state, and national criminal databases; has published a “know your rights” pamphlet for illegal aliens; supports the granting of driver’s licenses to illegals; favors in-state tuition discounts for illegal-alien students; and laments “the history of domination” that has always afflicted nonwhites in the United States. According to Perez, Americans who call for the strict enforcement of immigration laws are … you guessed it: racists and “xenophobes.”
As a devoted advocate for illegal aliens and the dissolution of America’s borders, Perez found a natural ally in the late Senator Ted Kennedy, a man who never met an immigration scheme he didn’t love – provided, of course, that it was structured to import a massive, permanent Democratic voting bloc and economic underclass into the U.S. Thus, from 1995 to 1998, Perez served as Special Counsel to Kennedy, advising him on civil rights, criminal justice and constitutional issues.
In 1996, Perez was instrumental in facilitating the passage of the Church Arson Prevention Act, a bill founded on the premise that southern black churches were being targeted with disproportionate frequency by (presumably white) arsonists. That premise, it turned out, was 100-percent false. But crusaders like Perez are impressively immune to facts that, were they to be acknowledged, would inconveniently interrupt the self-satisfied, public exhibitions of moral preening that are their stock-in-trade.
Illegal Mexican immigrants and southern black church congregations are only two of the many victim groups to which Perez solemnly pledged his advocacy when he joined the Obama administration. As Byron York reports, Perez has articulated his view that the Civil Rights Division’s role is to help people who are “living in the shadows” – a reference not only to illegal aliens, 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.” Such is life, as Perez sees it, in the Good-Ol’ jingoistic, Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, child-hating U.S. of A.
From the moment he first joined the Obama team, Perez pledged to greatly expand the DOJ’s prosecution of alleged hate crimes. Perez also made it clear, as Byron York again informs us, that he would view “disparate impact” as prima facie evidence of discrimination. In other words, if a company makes its hiring or promotion decisions based on the results of employee-aptitude tests on which whites as a group score higher than blacks, or if a particular bank rejects black loan applicants at a higher rate than white applicants, those racial disparities are proof of injustice – period, end of story.
As Perez sees things, plaintiffs who win judgments in discrimination or civil-rights cases are by no means the only ones entitled to receive compensation. Rather, he believes that some money should also be channeled into the coffers of “qualified organization[s]” approved by the Obama Justice Department. Under such a scheme, a housing discrimination case could conceivably generate cash flow not only for the actual, real-life victim, but also for a politically partisan criminal enterprise like ACORN which had nothing whatsoever to do with the case. Similarly, a civil-rights case could send money to the NAACP; a civil-liberties decision could enrich the ACLU; and an immigration-related verdict could line the pockets of such racist cesspools as MALDEF or the National Council of La Raza. Bob Driscoll, who was a top Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration, says:
The practice of … steering settlement funds to favored advocacy groups is at odds with both civil rights laws and common sense. If Congress wants to fund certain advocacy groups or set up grants for agencies to award in order to promote non-discrimination, it can. But allowing the Civil Rights Division to steer a defendant’s money to its ideological allies is offensive.
Ever the champion of the disenfranchised, Perez has loudly emphasized the Civil Rights Division’s “critical work” of “monitoring federal, state, and local elections across the country to ensure that voting takes place free of unlawful intimidation.” But when voter intimidation is directed against whites, Perez is suddenly struck dumb. This point was driven home with crystal clarity two months ago, when J. Christian Adams, a five-year DOJ veteran, resigned to protest the “corrupt nature” of DOJ’s dismissal of a case involving two Philadelphia-based members of the New Black Panther Party who had intimidated white voters with racial slurs and threats of violence on Election Day, 2008. Adams identified Thomas Perrelli (the Associate Attorney General) and Thomas Perez as the two DOJ officials most responsible for dropping the case. Last month, Adams gave damning public testimony about how Perez and other Obama DOJ officials believe that “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.”
Also this summer, Perez and the Civil Rights Division have led the fight against the much-maligned Arizona bill deputizing state police to check the immigration status of criminal suspects if there is reason to believe that they might be in the U.S. illegally. Perez’s opposition is based on the planted axiom that white law-enforcement officers would inevitably abuse the law because of … you guessed it again: their own racist impulses.
Last year, Perez demonstrated just how keen is his ability to spot “discrimination” where most mere mortals can detect nothing of the kind. Specifically, Perez and and the Civil Rights Division pressured several universities to discontinue an experimental program whereby they allowed students to purchase their textbooks in digital formats which they could read via the Amazon Kindle. Perez’s objection: The Kindle was not yet fully accessible to blind students. It seems that while the device’s text-to-voice feature permitted the visually impaired to hear the content of their books spoken aloud, its menu options were not available in an audible format and thus required the user to be able to see. Until the Kindle rectified this grave manifestation of insensitivity, said Perez, universities that made their textbooks available on the e-reader would be investigated for possible violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Rounding out Perez’s view of America as a bastion of discrimination is his contention that women are not compensated equitably for their work in relation to men. But as Warren Farrell has explained quite lucidly in his book Why Men Earn More, the gender “pay gap” ranks high among the most unfounded, pernicious myths of the victim-obsessed culture that leftists like Perez have created.
All in all, Thomas Perez is everything President Obama seeks in a Justice Department official: He has an exceedingly low opinion of American culture, an equally low opinion of the country’s white-majority population, and an unshakable belief that nonwhites can succeed only with the helping hand of benevolent white leftists who constantly encourage class warfare, groupthink, and rancorous division along racial and ethnic lines. Recall, for a moment, Obama’s infamous criteria for selecting Supreme Court Justices: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old.” Obama’s America is, above all else, a land of victims. Thomas Perez’s America is, too. It’s a match made in heaven.
Leave a Reply