Obamao Putting Extremist, Corrupt Radicals Into His Regime Everywhere He Can

[calfoxwc]

From the Desk of:
Mat Staver

5/18/2013

Thomas Perez still has a major hurdle to overcome, in spite of a narrow committee approval along party lines yesterday. Although this is a temporary setback in our effort to stop his confirmation, Barack Obama’s nomination for Secretary of Labor took a lot of well-justified criticism in the process.

Our sources tell us that the difficulty this radical nominee experienced getting through committee does not bode well for him passing a full Senate vote. In fact, efforts to expose his radical actions and viewpoints gained traction in the committee phase that will now intensify leading up to the Senate vote. Please read my important message below – Mat.

Twice before, attempts by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to vote on Thomas Perez’ nomination to be Secretary of Labor were delayed and derailed. He finally limped through without getting anything more than lock-step Democratic support.

We were hoping for “three strikes and you’re out,” but the battle to stop Perez’ confirmation is not yet over.

The committee voted 12-10 along party lines to advance Thomas Perez’ nomination as Secretary of Labor to the full Senate for a vote.

Thanks to the efforts of alert citizens like the many supporters of Liberty Counsel Action, we expect Perez will face a much tougher, uphill battle in the next phase of his confirmation hearings.

++Resistance to this outrageous nomination is stiffening.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blasted Perez in a recent statement…

“He is a committed ideologue who appears willing, quite frankly, to say or do anything to achieve his ideological ends.

“His willingness, time and again, to bend or ignore the law and to misstate the facts in order to advance his far-left ideology leads me and others to conclude that he’d continue to do so if he were confirmed to another, and much more consequential, position of public trust.”

The simple fact is, Thomas Perez is a radical’s radical. He has twisted the rule of law to advance his own agenda. His radical pro-union and well-left-of-mainstream immigration policies are dangerous to American businesses.

++The opportunities to confront Barack Obama’s ultraliberal agenda seem to be never-ending!

Barack Obama’s nomination of Thomas Perez to be the next Secretary of Labor is an in-your-face move by a smug President who feels he can get almost anything past the American people in his second term.

A pattern of promoting lock-step liberals for their slavish touting of the Obama agenda is characterizing this administration’s nominations for high position…

Thomas Perez has been the Chief of the scandal-ridden Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, but now President Obama wants to promote him!

Susan Rice, Ambassador to the United Nations, repeatedly lied to the American people about the attacks in Benghazi. Now, President Obama reportedly wants to promote her to be the National Security Advisor!

Sarah Hall Ingram, the Internal Revenue Service official in charge of IRS tax-exempt credentialing at the time the unit targeted tea party, conservative, and religious groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the ObamaCare healthcare law!

There is a disturbing pattern of promoting those who advance the President’s ideologies, no matter what laws they break, twist, or ignore to gain advancement.

Thomas Perez’ confirmation into cabinet-level authority must be stopped!

We must keep the pressure on the United States Senate to act in response to the will of the American people. I am urging all members of the Liberty Counsel Action team to keep pressure on the Senate to stop the Perez nomination once and for all when his vote comes to the full floor for a vote.

There is more important information to come on this deeply troubling nomination for the important office of Secretary of Labor.

God bless you!

Mat Staver

Chairman

Liberty Counsel Action

[MLD Woody]

So... I see these people don't like him. He's a bad liberal, radical, etc. I got that a bunch.

 

But why exactly? What exactly makes this guy a horrible, horrible radical. I'm legitimately asking.

 

Its one thing to write s letter about how bad thus guy, the president, and life deals are, but its another to actually explain why.

[calfoxwc]

Oh, for goodness sakes. Here:

*************************************

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/16/senate-panel-oks-obama-nominee-thomas-perez-who-targeted-pro-lifers/

[MLD Woody]

So he's pro choice and fined a pro life protest group ?

 

 

That makes him a corrupt, dangerous, radical liberal? Alright.

 

Your articles are just 95% the author using negative adjectives to tell you something is bad, and quotes from people on your side saying something is bad, but light on facts

[calfoxwc]

Using your political position to leverage selective and fraudulent harrassment and fines should disqualify

 

anybody for political position after that fact. You don't even have articles.

 

I read. Try it. Except you should also try to understand what you read. Then simply

 

figure out what it all means, if anything, in the longer run.

 

Here's more:

 

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/12/thomas-perez-should-be-blocked

[MLD Woody]

Cal... you just read from places where you know you'll already agree with what you'll hear. That's a lot different

[calfoxwc]

Woody, I have eventually posted from most well known sources that exist.

 

Cnn, msnbc....

 

If the story is legit, what does it matter that it's a known conservative source?

 

Does it mean not legit story, if Cnn won't run with it? Benghazi doesn't exist because

 

msnbc won't talk about it or...?

[MLD Woody]

Because you are basically post g editorials, not news articles. An unbiased source wouldn't mention how horrible and radical Obama is, or liberals are, or whatever, ole er other line. From this it makes the reader (a reader not just reading to hear what they want) question the legitimacy of the claims they are making about why they think this guy us so bad. Did they leave any info out? Are they blowing one thing out of proportion? Or are they flat out lying? Those questions shouldn't come up from a truly unbiased source. I mean, its not like no one here gas ever gone down the rabbit whole of sources from an article you posted only to find it way off base from what actually happened, or just completely untrue. That totally real neurosurgeon? Exactly.

 

That you don't get thus just shows how warped to one side you are and completely kills taking most of what you say seriously.

[calfoxwc]

I toss a lot of stuff up there. So, there isn't some scientific study out there that says

the IRS shouldn't politically single out for harrassment, political opponents of the

president they favor because he is so far left?

 

Nobody is buying your crap, Woody. Either start having your own opinions on matters,

and back them up, or pizz off.

 

How about YOU getting off your ass and proving these points wrong, with YOUR own sources, coward?

 

Prove that Benghazi never happened, "Fast and Furious" never happened. The IRS thing never happened.

 

with your own sources.

[MLD Woody]

So you post crazy shit and I have to take the time to prove it wrong? No thanks

[The Cysko Kid]

This is the first part of the first paragraph from Cal's highly impartial source. Suffice to say the whole article reads like this. And this,Cal, is why your sources are unreliable and derision worthy.

 

"If President Obama thinks he can get away with appointing an obvious prevaricator to be Secretary of Labor and a radical, race-baiting one at that he has lost all touch with reality."

 

How does one have a serious conversation about anything when one parties' position is based on "Person X is bad and I hate him. Everything person X does is bad and insidious and since you don't hate Person X you must agree completely with everything Person X stands for" ?

[The Cysko Kid]

No one is denying any of your scandals. The IRS certainly didn't deny the unfair targeting. Didn't they fire the director and others?

 

I'm still not sure what the scandal is over Benghazi. That Obama didn't immediately call it a terrorist action? That he didn't immediately send an additional security detail to the consulate? I disagree with these actions and you may recall I thought we should have made an example of the libyan "government" at the time, but its not a scandal my man. It's not like Obama ordered the ambassador killed. That would be a scandal.

 

Failure to send a detachment of marines into a highly dangerous situation where they are heavily outnumbered and might all be killed and their bodies dragged through the street isn't that unusual of a decision.

[calfoxwc]

The failure to act to save American lives (reference Obamao's having voted "present" over a hundred times when he was

in the state senate) is a scandal.

 

The lies, and subsequent cover-up is a scandal.That's what brought Nixon down. And Obamao is going Nixon all over the place,

with a bunch of Cloward-Piven and Saul Alinski thrown in.

 

"Fast and Furious" was a scandal. And the determination to keep people quiet and not testify on any of these...

is also a scandal.

 

A scandal is where something is very wrong, and a coverup ensues. Remember when Obamao said his regime was going

to be the "most transparent"?

 

Really?

[Dste Ace]

No one is denying any of your scandals. The IRS certainly didn't deny the unfair targeting. Didn't they fire the director and others?

 

I'm still not sure what the scandal is over Benghazi. That Obama didn't immediately call it a terrorist action? That he didn't immediately send an additional security detail to the consulate? I disagree with these actions and you may recall I thought we should have made an example of the libyan "government" at the time, but its not a scandal my man. It's not like Obama ordered the ambassador killed. That would be a scandal.

 

Failure to send a detachment of marines into a highly dangerous situation where they are heavily outnumbered and might all be killed and their bodies dragged through the street isn't that unusual of a decision.

 

 

Can you imagine the firestorm from Republicans if this had actually happened?