Obama Administration: Background Checks Are Racist

The Obama administration is suddenly against background checks.

Not wanting to employ a criminal makes you a racist. At least that is what the Obama administration has determined to be law with a regulation made without congressional approval. Businesses are fighting the charge that not wanting ex-cons on the payroll is illegal discrimination.

On June 11, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed federal lawsuits against BMW and Dollar General store alleging that their use of criminal background checks violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race.

[...]

The policy could mean that child care workers and teachers cannot be given background checks, leaving the possibility that rapists and child molesters would not be screened out of the jobs.

So does this mean that the Obama administration is also against background checks for firearms since is disproportionately screens out criminals?

read more:

http://www.redstate.com/dloesch/2013/07/02/obama-admin-background-c...

Views: 990

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Of course the Obama administration comes out with this now. He and the rest of them are shaking in their skivvies that he will be forced to turn over his fraudulent records. Then we could all breathe a sigh of relief that every thing he has done will be null and void.

This is an attempt to get felons to vote democrat. How desperate is this party? They want the poor and misfortunate, the illegals, gays, and now criminal votes.

EVERY THING UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION IS RACIST!  IT A CONVIENT WAS TO SHUT DOWN DISCUSSION  OF THE RULE OF LAW AND ALLOWS THEM TO PROCEED WITH IGNORING THE LAW OF THE LAND.

EVERY DAY ANOTHER LAW IS STOOD ON ITS HEAD...WHITE IS BLACK, BLACK IS WHITE... THEREFORE NO LAW IS EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW....KAKIOSCRACY...GOVERNED BY THE MOST UNPRINCIPLED ...THE WORST OF THE WORST CITIZENS..THE LEAST INFORMED    APS

If I am a business owner, why shouldn't I do a criminal background checks, don't I have the right to protect myself and my business from known criminals.

If you do a background check it would deny the THIEF from getting a job forcing him to steal { from you after you hire his sorry a$$ } ,does this B.S. make any sence to anyone  ?

So that must mean no to background checks for gun ownership .

Dictionary definition of the word "racist" is:

rac·ism  (rszm)

n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.          

Well...of course we wouldn't want to do a background check on king o......right????   Just askin'.....unseal those records!

The city of Seattle Washington requires business owners to not ask felons about their criminal history. What could the rationale be for that?

if its racist to check criminal background records. means it also racist on gun purchases if one is racist all are So I guess The Obama regime is the racist in recent history. So I guess anybody that has had a background check can sue the government for discrimination

...so voter id is racist too, and I am taking it that anything to keep everyone honest and above board, and to insure security and safety, and verify who is who.....the democrats will call racist....but when the irs singles out certain groups for political reason, and their constitutional rights....that's ok.

Exactly, when we get in trouble we can stop action against us because theyused a background check to have probable cause.  Got reasons now to scream if get audited and snooped on without cause (NSA).

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Gary VarvelPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

ALERT ALERT

Gohmert: Dems Will Drag Out Impeachment — Try To Get ‘Best Socialist’ Nominated For President

During an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio’s WVNN on Thursday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) offered his best assessment of what House Democrats were trying to accomplish with their impeachment efforts.

Gohmert told WVNN’s “The Jeff Poor Show” impeachment could tie up the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign efforts but predicted Democrats would use the occasion to nominate “the best socialist” they can.

“They would lose in the Senate,” Gohmert said on impeachment. “And besides that, the entire time it was on trial in the Senate, the Democrats who are running for president wouldn’t be allowed to campaign. That’s in the Constitution. They wouldn’t be able to campaign. I just can’t imagine them wanting to do that because if they send it to the Senate, they have now perfectly set up the scenario of 1996, where they will reassure Donald Trump is reelected as president. They don’t want to do that. They’re probably going to drag this thing out as long as they possibly can … through Iowa, through primaries — try to get the best socialist they can to be nominated.”

“Then just end up and say, ‘Now we’re close enough to the general election. We’ve thrown mud at the president through the House,’” he continued. “What they’re really doing — they’re using taxpayer funds to campaign against Trump. That’s all this is — a campaign fund that taxpayers are paying for in order to try to throw mud at the president. I’ll be surprised if they have that vote, but I can’t imagine they want to set up this president for reelection by having a trial in the Senate where they lose.”

Veteran's Day Tribute

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service