Interesting, admitting they benefit from all the “unrest” being ginned up. While both are demonstrable domestic enemies of freedom, Perez represents the bigger danger, and the one more likely to be able to push back politically against “conservative” initiatives. That’s because, at least so far, he’s been less of a lightning rod.
True, both he and Ellison have long histories of oath-breaking and subversion. Both are for cultural terraforming of the Republic through “immigration” and “refugee” actions to bring in and embed or sanction existing unvetted foreign nationals. And both are hostile to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
But Ellison is more vulnerable to exploitable suspicions over his agenda and motives, not only because of his documented racism and sympathies with radical Islamists, but also because of his affiliation with Democrat Socialists of America, who found it in their political interests to (at least temporarily) retire their songs of solidarity:
Those vulnerabilities, I argued, made Ellison the perfect choice to “lead” a party that refuses to accept why Hillary lost, and that continues to double down on alienating flyover America. He would provide constant opportunities to make such inconvenient truths known to the wider public, and thus subject all of his moves to wider scrutiny for unstated motives.
The relatively lesser-known Perez has been more insulated, and will be better able to present his agenda as humanitarian, and as championing of the desperate and downtrodden. And that – being able to appeal to empathy from those who neither understand the underlying issues nor what is at stake – makes his ascendency to Democrat leadership all the more dangerous.
Back before he took on the Labor gig, Perez was an Assistant Attorney General under Eric Holder, heading the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. He’s the guy who warned states like Texas and South Carolina that their duly-enacted voting laws were discriminatory because they required a state-issued photo ID. As I noted at the time:
If Perez is correct, that lack of state-issued photo ID is 20% more likely to disenfranchise minorities from their right to vote, why would we not also believe it would have a similar effect on their right to purchase a firearm, as is specified on ATF’s Form 4473 requiring a driver’s license or “valid government issued photo identification,” and similar forms as proof of eligibility?
The government can’t have it both ways. By their own admission and actions, they consider a requirement to produce official photo identification as discriminatory, with a significant statistical impact on the enfranchisement of minority rights. Heller and McDonald leave no doubt that the Second Amendment articulates an individual right recognized by the federal government and applicable to the states, and it is the duty of the Department of Justice to ensure that denials of rights are prosecuted.
Likewise, state-issued identification is required to obtain concealed carry permits and to apply for registration/transfer of National Firearms Act weapons such as machine guns, short barrel firearms, destructive devices, AOWs, etc. So the question now becomes why is the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division tolerating, allowing and insisting on discrimination against minorities in general and Hispanics in particular when it comes to exercising their Second Amendment-recognized right to keep and bear arms?
The danger, of course, involves more than the Second Amendment, which, after all, is a leading indicator for the larger Freedom issue. There’s a reason why the Democrat agenda demands bringing in more foreign nationals and putting them on a “pathway to citizenship.” And that’s something establishment Republicans in general and the National Rifle Association in particular have shown deliberate indifference to.
That’s evidenced by the just-concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and the prominent roles played by both NRA’s Wayne LaPierre and by NRA darling and Bloomberg “immigration” ally Grover Norquist (although this time once more wearing his competing Americans for Tax Reform hat). Neither will address a simple challenge, preferring to ignore it and hoping the information will not escape a relatively isolated echo chamber:
In addition to explaining the California experience, produce credible data – something that can be independently validated – that “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and even legally, with current culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners.
Show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts. Show us how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts, and reverse gains made to date.
Notice I didn’t ask for platitudes or for anecdotes about exceptions to the rule, or about who is turning up in increasing numbers at gun stores and ranges – that doesn’t matter if you can’t point to a corresponding overriding shift in voting trends. I didn’t ask for wishful speculation about how education and outreach programs MIGHT help bring more over to the NRA side. I asked you to show how all credible estimates putting the disparity at over 70% Democrat and anti-gun are wrong (and how the needle barely moves in the right direction after 20 years).
If you think that can be changed, you’re going to need to be specific about how (assuming it can be done, which you’ll also need to spell out), and how by then the damage won’t be irreversible, beyond any kind of beltway insider political “solution.” Instead of opinions, how about some verifiable numbers?
This is what Perez represents, and will base much of his DNC leadership on and the media will happily amplify his voice and ensure their “reporting” does all it can to evoke agreement with it, all the while portraying opponents as xenophobes, extremists and haters. What they won’t focus on are negatives that could call his credibility into questions such as:
Perez Dropped Voter Intimidation Charges Against Black Panthers Who Brought Weapons to a Polling Place … Perez Doesn’t Think White People Are Protected Under the Voting Rights Act … Perez Abandoned a Whistleblower Lawsuit That Cost Taxpayers Millions … He Used a Private Email Address to Dodge Accountability … He Continues to Ignore and Mislead Congress
Lacking some of Ellison’s more overt vulnerabilities and, up until now, name recognition, Perez will arguably be in a better position to advance his radical, subversive agenda. So it wouldn’t hurt to learn more about that agenda, and to share such information with others who would otherwise never hear of it.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.