From the “Thou doth protest too much” department: What does it say about a politician who not only opposes an employer’s right to conduct criminal background checks on potential employees prior to making hiring decisions – but threatens to sue them if they do so?
Answer: That politician must believe – pretty damn strongly – that a disproportionate percentage of those background checks conducted on one group – vs. the general population – will reveal information disproportionately detrimental to potential hires among said group. Furthermore, that politician must also believe that said group overwhelmingly supports him and his party – and will also overwhelming support his opposition to such checks.
Of course, the irony is not lost on Rat that universal criminal background checks have become all the rage in Washington, as Democrats (and weak-kneed Republicans who’ve allowed themselves to become frightened by the whole “anti-gun-violence” thing) are falling all over themselves rushing to ensure that anyone who even thinks about buying a gun is subjected to the equivalent of an electronic proctology exam.
So, whom is it that O and the Regime believe will most suffer from criminal background checks when applying for employment? Let’s say it all together, in 3…2…1… Minorities!
Yep, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) have both determined that employers who utilize background checks as one of the determinants of whether to hire a prospective employee just may be engaging in “prohibited discrimination.” Shocked? Me neither.
So, what’s a good regime to do when it opposes existing law – as the O Regime has done countless times relative to immigration and other policies? Disregard those laws, of course, and, for maximum impact – sue companies who choose to enforce them.
It occurs to me (as it should occur to any like-minded rational thinker), that the EEOC’s “logic” that criminal background checks on potential employees have a “disparate impact” on minorities presents a bit of a sticky wicket when it comes to minorities who attempt to purchase firearms. What’s a party that has exploited blacks in America for more than 50 years to do? Universal background checks, of course – non-minority liberal loons fully support them. (Always gotta count the votes, folks.)
S0 – what the Regime is telling us, is that while criminal background checks of minorities who apply to purchase firearms are not discriminatory, it has no problem prohibiting employers from conducting criminal background checks on the cable guy who shows up to case your home, or worse hook up your new HDTV.
Welcome – again – to Barack Obama’s America.
Categories: Liberal Lunacy, Obama the Disingenuous, Planet Obama
Tags: Background check, EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Related Articles
-
Must See Videos Of The Week
-
The Government As A Jealous Girlfriend
-
Obamabots Clueless About Obama’s Scandals: But Hey, He’s Awesome!
-
Obama: It’s Rush Limbaugh’s Fault I Can’t Get Anything Done!
-
Nancy Pelosi: I Can’t Thank Troops On Mother’s Day Because Of Sequestration
-
MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch: Pro-Gun Senators ‘Literally Have Blood On Their Hands’
Hmnn… Let’s see…If I check a black applicant’s background, the government will sue me; if I don’t the stockholders will sue me. Never a dull moment!
Does the government do background checks on its hires for high security positions, hmnn…?
You’re using logic, Jack. This is a foreign concept to “progressives,” you know.
If I promise to get over it, can I be President?
You reactionary morons just love draconian laws when it serves you. But try to restrict rampant gun violence at all, and suddenly you are all “Idealogues” rabidly supporting just one Amendment to the Constitution – while ignoring all the other parts.
Employee background checks are FACIST and just one more step towards our Future Shock
Why can’t you people simply make a substantive comment or counterpoint without calling names?
“…you are all “Idealogues” rabidly supporting just one Amendment to the Constitution – while ignoring all the other parts.”
This comment is not only without proof or foundation; it’s ridiculous.
Hope you’re feeling a little less bitter today!