March 21, 2013
Column: Expose and Oppose Obama's Radical Appointees
No matter what progress Republicans may make in electoral politics over the coming years, it will be difficult to roll back the steady march of liberalism that has taken place inside our cultural, bureaucratic and legal institutions -- from academia to regulatory agencies to the Department of Justice -- but we have to try.
A good place to start would be to oppose Obama's radical appointees, the latest being his appointment for secretary of labor, Thomas Perez.
Radical liberals are characteristically activists, strategists and organizers. Their plan to infiltrate and dominate academia was hardly spontaneous, and its effects have hardly been sporadic. Peruse any university course catalog and notice the kinds of political tripe that pass for core studies.
The same phenomenon occurs throughout the nation's regulatory bureaucracies. Liberals have managed to place so many ideologically charged people inside powerful administrative agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, that these institutions tend to be radicalized from the bottom up. The radicals pursue their radical agenda no matter how out of phase it is with the will of the majority of Americans -- as if the majority even has a clue or has time to apprise itself as to the kinds of things going on.
But it's not just that we have a disproportionate number of leftists populating our institutions and agencies. This imbalance wouldn't matter so much if their every action weren't driven by ideology and if they played by the rules. But they often see their calling as being not so much to perform their assigned tasks as it is to use their positions to effect radical societal changes.
They don't have the same reverence for the Constitution and the rule of law as conservatives. They view things through an ideological prism and act in deference to their ideology and their political ends more than their conservative counterparts. They see themselves as activist agents for change, as crusaders with the lofty goal of advancing an agenda so morally superior that they don't think twice about bending and twisting rules and selectively interpreting laws and regulations to serve their agenda.
These radicals will continue to pursue their mischief irrespective of the political appointees overseeing their operations, but let's not fool ourselves; the appointees do matter -- some do more than others -- and can make a difference over the long haul. Justice Department and Labor Department appointees are two glaring examples. Department and division heads set policy and set the tone.
Through their radical prism, leftist Justice Department honchos are often blinded to such legitimately noble principles as equal protection of the laws. To them, equal protection doesn't mean equal protection for everyone; it means avenging past wrongs on behalf of historically aggrieved minorities (real and perceived) and not just according those groups preferential treatment but affirmatively discriminating against others -- e.g., whites -- who they believe are not entitled to equal protection.
In his handling of the voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party alone, Attorney General Eric Holder proved that he believes that civil rights laws do not exist for the protection of whites from infringement by other groups. Neither he nor his important lieutenants believe in enforcing voting laws in a race-neutral manner, equal protection be damned. Former members of the Justice Department's civil rights division have attested to that fact.
Columnist Quin Hillyer reports that though Thomas Perez wasn't working in this division when the original decision was made to dismiss the case against the New Black Panthers, "his direct involvement in, and hands-on management of, what amounted to a cover-up of the decision's origins should alone be disqualifying for any Cabinet post."
Do you think the American public, even rank-and-file Democrats, would approve of significant divisions of the Justice Department and Labor Department being turned over to radicals like Perez, who believes in using his position to install 113 fellow radicals in career positions at the civil rights division, to impose racial quotas when the law doesn't permit it, to oppose voter ID laws on spurious, manufactured racial grounds, and to harass states such as Arizona merely for trying to assist the federal government in enforcing laws this administration refuses to enforce?
We have to do a better job of exposing radicals and preventing them from overthrowing our constitutional guarantees from inside our government. Sean Hannity, Quin Hillyer, Michelle Malkin and others have stepped up to the plate to expose the radicalism of Perez and other Obama appointees who are dismantling our institutions brick by brick. Others of us need to do a better job in this regard.
When a president appoints radicals who disrespect the Constitution and rule of law and believe they can be manipulated at will to serve their political ends, he forfeits any traditional deference to which his appointments might otherwise be entitled.
Perez must be opposed.
Posted by David Limbaugh at March 21, 2013 04:57 PM