Meet Tom Perez : The goal of immigration is to marginalize whites

By 11 Comments 2,205 views

perez goal

Here’s another one of those post-election surprises coming from Obama.

Labor Secretary Tom Perez is said to be a candidate to replace the departing loathsome Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States. Perez is possibly even more scary than Eric Holder:

In addition to the race-based controversy surrounding the Minnesota, St Paul, quid-pro-quo, we have previously outlined some other perhaps more alarming issues:

To call Perez a radical is to do an injustice to the term itself. Tom Perez is a racial radical, a specific and intentional race based politico of the highest order.

Much of the information you will read about Perez will outline his warm affection to Islam in general, and to Sharia Law specifically. That alone should be alarming to the casually interested. But his ideological perspectives and his previous institutional activity within the Dept Of Justice should raise alarm levels to infinity.

Tom Perez was head of the “Civil Rights Division” within the DOJ. In that position he is in charge of the Community Relations Service, the super-secret race-based sub agency affectionately, and ironically, called “The Peacekeepers”.

Both Eric Holder and Tom Perez use the Dept of Justice to deliver their perspectives of social justice to the larger population. It is the ideology of considering race first, and behavior second, which has led to numerous alarming proclamations from various elements within the larger Federal apparatus.

Perez would administer race-based discipline and disallow criminal background checks for hiring.

Christian Adams:

Perez has a record of duplicity and dishonesty, sometimes even under oath. As assistant attorney general for civil rights under Holder, Perez famously set up a parallel email system so he could conduct his most controversial business using email accounts unreachable by federal law, or even by a Justice Department inspector general. On these private email accounts, he conducted some of his dirtiest dealings, like shaking down St. Paul, Minnesota, to ensure that the Supreme Court wouldn’t get to hear an appeal that might invalidate some of the prized racial set-asides this administration cherishes.

But his dealings with St. Paul were small potatoes compared to everything else he has done.

Perez testified falsely under oath to the United States Commission on Civil Rights — and it isn’t just me who says so. I am frequently introduced in radio or television interviews as having “resigned over the Department of Justice’s handling of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case.” That isn’t accurate: I was at the Justice Department for over a full year after that case was dismissed.

Christopher Coates and Christian Adams– both worked at the DOJ:

Perez told the inspector general that he does not believe Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act should be enforced to protect white victims of race discrimination, even if they live in majority-minority jurisdictions. Perez’s racially selective view is in direct conflict with the statutory language of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits racial discrimination against “any citizen,” and is not limited to national racial minorities.

Perez’s views are not driven by a concern for what the law says, but by his leftist, race-preferential views on civil rights enforcement. The report also shamefully reveals Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., is of the same ilk as Tom Perez.

Because of our expressed desire to protect all victims of discrimination — not just traditional national racial minorities — a prolonged and retaliatory effort was made to remove the Op-Ed writer Coates from his position as chief of the Voting Section — an effort which even included Holder himself.

Horowitz’s report documents a platoon of Obama administration political appointees gathering with Holder in 2009 to complain about our willingness to protect white victims of discrimination. Holder acquiesced in targeting Coates for removal, simply because he was willing to enforce civil rights laws to protect whites.

Never mind that we both had a long successful record of protecting black voters, including Coates’ 40 years of representing minorities in civil rights cases, both in private practice and as a DOJ and ACLU staff attorney.

Imagine it — a group of Obama political appointees griping to the attorney general that we were willing to protect white voters. What’s even more outlandish is that Holder gave his assent to carry out their retaliatory and racialist demand to remove Coates from his position as chief of the voting section as they saw fit.

Perez is a liar:

As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, Perez is a far left radical with a corrupt record within the Department of Justice and has no business being nominated as Labor Secretary.

Perez, who gave the false testimony, is a leading leftist at Justice who has taken the lead in the attacks on Arizona’s immigration enforcement measures, attacks on election integrity measures such as voter ID, and the shakedown of financial institutions over dubious discriminatory lending allegations.

Barack Obama has ordered up 34 million green cards and a lot of people are wondering why.

A government print order for as many as 34 million blank work permits and green cards is raising concern that the Obama administration could be preparing an executive order for amnesty after the November election.

An online solicitation by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services seeks vendors that can produce a minimum 4 million cards per year for five years, and 9 million in the early stages.

If the numbers reported by on Monday are correct, they are vastly larger than official estimates of 12 million illegal residents in this country.

“There aren’t enough federal employees from here to Pluto to do adequate background checks on 34 million,” said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Dane told that President Obama appears “to be getting his ducks in a row” before legalizing illegal residents by executive fiat.

Perez clues us in:

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez said President Barack Obama will take “aggressive executive action” on immigration, which Perez said will bring about more “shared prosperity.”

Addressing the National Press Club this week, Perez, who is reportedly on the short list to be Obama’s next attorney general, said the country needed to “fix our broken immigration system” with comprehensive amnesty legislation that is “big and bold” to ensure that there is “shared prosperity,” which he said is a goal of his Labor Department. Though the Congressional Budget Office determined that comprehensive amnesty legislation would lower the wages of American workers, Labor Secretary Perez championed it.

Shared prosperity.

“Shared prosperity” is a euphemism for Communism. Two years ago Obama blathered:

“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”

About what they mean by shared prosperity:

“Sharing” your prosperity includes, of course, “sharing” your wealth. It also entails “sharing” all the years that you spent working towards whatever wealth you have achieved, so that others can work less. Furthermore, it means “sharing” all the stressful nights and nervous days you spent trying to learn the skills that helped you to prosper, so that others won’t have to put themselves through the same rigors.

It means “sharing” the new home you worked to earn for your family, so that others can have a home without working so hard for it. It means “sharing” the nest egg you sacrificed to accumulate for your children, so that less responsible parents may continue to be irresponsible. It means “sharing” the retirement you were planning, so that those who choose not to do work they deem unworthy of their talents may have the benefit of a few more years of your income to support their sloth. It means “sharing” a portion of the wedding you were saving up to provide for your daughter, so that wayward young men may continue to impregnate random drug-addicted mothers without fear that their sundry offspring will ever require their support. It means “sharing” the home addition you wanted to build to accommodate your elderly parents, so that others may remain guiltlessly derelict in their duty to theirs.

To summarize, “sharing” your prosperity means “sharing” your life, your work, your mind, your goals, your aspirations, the pain you endured in overcoming your false steps and agonizing failures, and, of course, your practical success, with anyone and everyone the government deems worthy of a pound of your flesh.

Now, lest you doubt that Tom Perez is a liar:

Perez, who worked on immigration reform with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), said he has also “spent a lot of time with folks in the Silicon Valley” in response to a question about Silicon Valley business leaders demanding immigration reform “because there is not enough workers to fill the demand for high-tech workers.”

July, 2014: Microsoft lays off 18,000, including half of Nokia, in largest-ever job cuts

September, 2014: Microsoft lays off 2,100, axes Silicon Valley research

October 2014: Cisco layoffs to affect 900 in San Jose

So all those high tech infected illiterate itinerant illegals are going to jump into the high tech jobs from which Americans are being let go.

Tom Perez is a liar. His view is that whites are not entitled to the same Constitutional protections as other races. His goals are to import millions of latinos, share your prosperity with them and marginalize the white race in this country. This is all part of the Obama Fundamental Transformation of the United States of America.

Exit questions: When have you seen the Obama’s share their prosperity? When did the Obama’s spread their wealth around?

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

11 Responses to “Meet Tom Perez : The goal of immigration is to marginalize whites”

  1. 1


    These are the scum behind the curtain who really need to be cleaned out of any and all positions of government bureaucracy. The DOJ, NLRB, EPA…every stinking one of them – unelected filthy lying scum who work tirelessly to destroy our freedoms.

    These are racialist criminals who care nothing for actual law, but only use the bludgeon of a corrupt legal and bureaucratic system for the express purpose of garnishing more power for themselves and their tribal group.

  2. 2



    When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

  3. 3

    James Raider


    It is hard to comprehend the self-hating portion of the population which doesn’t grasp concepts such as “self-actualization” which the West has evolved to incorporate into its cultures over the centuries.

    The strange and warped ideological mindset of the self-haters believes lies like, “because there is not enough workers to fill the demand for high-tech workers.” It makes no sense to a functioning mind, but it fits in their sheath of arrows attacking capitalism. As if Mexico and Columbia are about to help us fill the mathematically-adept and creative-mind needs of the technological corners of our economy.

    Worst of all, if that were true, how arrogantly self-righteous would it be to take away the the most educated and brightest out of a foreign developing nation in bad need of every capable mind it can find, and bring them to America? Absolutely stupid.

  4. 4


    @James Raider:

    While the left will claim we need additional workers, and that Americans won’t work for the wages paid to those who sneak across our borders, Pew did a very interesting research project. It estimated what percentage of the work force in different jobs (plumbers, carpenters, electricians, food workers, et al) were immigrants. What I found amazing is that of the tradecraft, Americans seemed more than willing to take those jobs.

    So now we have the lowest active workforce since Jimmy Carter (Obama’s way of keeping the unemployment percentages down) and the left wants to grant amnesty to those who had no respect for our laws by entering illegally who will kill jobs Americans hold even more?

  5. 5

    James Raider


    @retire05: #4
    The problem is that while immigration is positive for a country, opening-up the borders abnormally, does NOT allow assimilation of new arrivals into the Nation’s culture, mores, etc., which means that the “thinking” which supported dictatorships or communism as in China, comes to our shores unabated, including tendencies toward corruption.

    Canada is an example of overwhelming out-of-control and corrupt immigration. It has the highest rate of immigration in the world . . . and that’s the “published” number. The real numbers are insane. Enormous ghettoes of very foreign mindsets are setting-in. Vancouver and Toronto are no longer recognizable. The wealthiest Chinese are extremely corrupt, and their billions are being laundered through to Canadian real estate. None of this bodes well for the future. Particularly the future of governance.

  6. 6


    Tom Perez : The goal of immigration is to marginalize whites.

    How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections?
    More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote.
    Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted.
    Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
    Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.
    Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes.
    Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

  7. 7


    @James Raider:

    James, France is experiencing the same problems, as is Sweden. Massive amounts of unassimilated immigrants from Middle Eastern nations and while you would think that Europe would have learned a lesson from WWII, anti-Jewish attacks are on the rise there and the governments continues to bow to big mouthed Muslims.

    I have a good friend from Canada who asked me “Where do I go next when American craters completely to cultural Marxism?” I had no answer.

  8. 9


    @James Raider: Seattle Times newspaper in the early 1980’s had a travel article re Vancouver, BC — entitled “Hong-Couver”!

    I had European friends that lived in an area near Downtown Vancouver known as the “West End” in the late 1960’s and said it was largely European immigrants and shops – and I myself had friends there around 1970-71. My European Friends emigrated to US in about 1970 and made a trip back to their old neighborhood in the late 1970’s maybe 1980 >> said that there wasn’t a European looking person or shop in sight!

    Even back in the 1980’s the border crossings were clogged with carloads of Chinese running back and forth over the border.

  9. 11


    Obama Admin: We May Need ‘Surge’ Of Millions Of Immigrant Ids ‘For Any Number Of Reasons’

    What reason is the most likely?

    New O’Keefe Video Allegedly Shows Democratic Poll Workers Assisting Illegal, Non-Citizen to Vote in NC

    O’Keefe’s video appears to show that some Democratic campaign workers are more than willing to allow and assist non-citizens to cast votes in North Carolina.

    AFL-CIO Immigration Center Bent on Recruiting Immigrants for Dems

    Tefere Gebre, executive vice president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), acknowledged publicly that a newly-built immigrant services center in Jersey City would be just the ticket to bring in more votes for Democrats.

    Could non-citizens decide the November election?

    How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
    Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
    2008 2010
    Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
    Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
    Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)

    Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

    Can Republicans beat the Democrat’s margin of vote fraud?

    T Minus 4: GOP Fights to Escape ‘Margin of Fraud’

    McLaughlin concludes, “Democrats have had a significant competitive advantage in the very closest of elections, and in close elections overall, over the past 16 years, and that that advantage has grown during the Obama years.”

    Some of this Democrat advantage is fraud. A recent study undertaken by The Washington Post found that non-citizens have not only voted in recent elections, but have likely provided the winning edge in several close races. The paper concluded that the illegal votes of non-citizens probably accounted for Sen. Al Franken’s win in Minnesota in 2008 as well as Obama’s victory in North Carolina.

    There is a limit to how much outright fraud can be committed, however. In my experience, overt fraud happens more often than liberals admit and less often than conservatives fear. Far more prevalent are “soft frauds” like partisan-led absentee voter drives at nursing homes or community centers. Or, partisan-fueled rallies and concerts to engage disinterested voters. Tactics like these aren’t illegal and, anyway, have been around since ancient Greece and Rome. Indeed, George Washington finally won election to the Virginia House of Burgess by plying voters with rum.

    My reaction is the same as; Citizenship and Immigration Service Employees Plead: Don’t Let Obama’s ‘Massive Unilateral Amnesty’ Go Through but my concern is because the Democrat’s goal in amnesty is clearly to create a permanent political advantage.

    But what is that doesn’t work? Well Democrats have many other tricks up their sleeves: Video: Machine Switches Votes from Republican to Democrat in IL

    Several voters in Rock Island County have already claimed publicly about similar problems with local voting machines in early voting. One local voter, Christina Kirk, told local NBC News affiliate KWQC 6 last week: “When I went to cast my vote and touch the screen for my Republican candidate, the Democrat candidate was the one that would pop up with my x, even though I pressed the Republican candidate.”

    The YouTube footage is the first visual report of the alleged problem with the voting machines. The error appears to occur when the voter’s finger is slightly off center in the Republican box, which appears below the Democrat box. It is apparently still possible to vote for the Republican candidate, and it is possible for a vigilant voter to correct the mistake and vote again, but a voter in a hurry might easily register a mistaken vote for the Democrat by mistake and fail to notice. The problem seems to recur throughout the ticket of races. (No test involving a voter trying to choose the Democratic candidate and selecting the Republican instead is shown.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *