[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: This Missouri congressman wants to end Obama scandal that is ‘worse than the IRSÂ’ This Missouri congressman wants to end Obama scandal that is ‘worse than the IRS’ Posted by: Jon Dougherty December 4, 2014 •The Obama administration has created more scandal than scandal-trackers can legitimately keep up with, and it is difficult to get a true accounting of which scandal is “the worst” •One Missouri congressman says that, in terms of the overall damage it could do to the country, long-term, another largely hidden “scandal” is much worse than just about anything else that has happened during the Obama years The Obama administration has created more scandal than scandal-trackers can legitimately keep up with, and it is difficult to get a true accounting of which scandal is “the worst.” Some have said it is Fast and Furious, because the lethality of federal gun-running to Mexican drug gangs has led to the deaths of U.S. border agents and Mexican civilians. Some have said the Benghazi scandal, because of the deaths of four American operatives, including a U.S. ambassador. Others, however, believe that the scandal involving the IRS, in which liberal operatives within the powerful tax collection agency disproportionately singled out conservative, Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny that resulted in their being unable to obtain tax exempt status prior to the 2012 election is “the worst” (and in terms of pure politics, these people may be right). Still others claim that President Obama’s serial disregard for constitutional process is the worst “scandal.” But one Missouri congressman says that, in terms of the overall damage it could do to the country, long-term, another largely hidden “scandal” is much worse than just about anything else that has happened during the Obama years. As reported by The Daily Signal: Calling a secretive government operation to strangle politically out-of-favor businesses “more dangerous” than the IRS targeting scandal, a congressman with a background in banking is preparing to introduce legislation to kill the Obama administration initiative. “I believe this activity is probably more dangerous and more disastrous than that of the IRS scandal because this is running people out of business for no reason and it’s harming livelihoods, incomes [and] families,” Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., said [recently] in an interview with The Daily Signal. Luetkemeyer, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, was talking about the Justice Department’s “Operation Choke Point,” which is actually a partnership between the department and various other federal agencies dealing with banking regulations – chiefly the Treasury Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission. As further described by The Daily Caller: The controversy, however, is over allegations that the DOJ is pressuring financial institutions to decline doing business with so-called “high risk” industries which line up squarely against the political leanings of the current administration. These businesses include ammunition sales, payday loans, pornography, fireworks companies, and others—24 industries in total, as listed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). But Luetkemeyer says the operation has been politicized under the leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder – an entirely believable notion. So the Missouri congressman has introduced legislation he says will erect a “safe harbor” for banks to do business with DOJ-targeted enterprises. “We want to provide a safe harbor for the banks to be able to continue to have a longstanding relationship with a business that’s doing legal business. Those folks have the right to continue to exist, and the bank has the right to continue that relationship,” Luetkemeyer told The DS. His latest legislative effort builds on similar legislation he introduced in June. “This one will be more effective and garner more support,” he said. “It solves problems that are there with the present bill.” Before being elected to Congress, Luetkemeyer was a bank examiner in Missouri for three decades, and says he feels uniquely qualified to bring his legislation. “I understand the banking mentality and the activities that go on,” he told the Signal. “This issue was brought to me by the payday lending industry and the banks that service them. But looking into Operation Choke Point, I eventually found that it was more than just the payday lending industry. There was actually a whole list [of businesses] that was on the FDIC’s website.” Luetkemeyer was referring to a list of 30 examples of supposed “high risk” activities posted on the website of the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation (FDIC). After coming under congressional scrutiny, however, the FDIC, the agency responsible for regulating and auditing more than 4,500 banks, removed the list. But here it is as it appeared before it was removed: Note that Second Amendment-related businesses are part of the targeted firms, along with tobacco and even dating services. Our hypocrisy meter pegged when we saw a category for “Ponzi schemes,” given that Social Security is one of the all-time biggest Ponzi schemes of all. “The examiners and the DOJ believe that there’s something unethical or immoral about these industries in the way that they view the world—there’s an ideological bent against them,” Luetkemeyer said. “They’re allowed to have their personal opinion. The problem is, that’s not the legal law. Their job is to enforce the law the way it’s written. They don’t have the right to go out and make moral judgments on these businesses—that’s up to culture in our society.” William M. Isaac, former chairman of the FDIC, agrees that the operation is potentially catastrophic. “Operation Choke Point is one of the most dangerous programs I have experienced in my 45 years of service as a bank regulator, bank attorney and consultant, and bank board member,” he wrote in The Hill, Congress’ daily newspaper. “Operating without legal authority and guided by a political agenda, unelected officials at the DOJ are discouraging banks from providing basic banking services…to lawful businesses simply because they don’t like them.” As reported by The Daily Signal, Luetkemeyer’s bill would require these measures and actions: 1. Require bank examiners to provide a legal or material basis for suggesting or requesting that banks terminate financial relationships with certain customers. This would prevent banks from closing accounts on the grounds of a “reputational risk” alone, one result of Operation Choke Point. 2. Require bank examiners to go on the record and state reasons when they determine banks need to end relationships with certain customers. 3. Clarify regulatory guidelines by requiring examiners and regulators such as the FDIC to define “reputational risk” so that the term can’t be applied as a blanket rationale for closing accounts with certain enterprises. 4. Amend a 1989 law regulating banks, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, to restrict bank examiners’ ability to look at certain issues unless they could harm banking as opposed to merely affect banking. 5. Require the U.S. attorney general or deputy attorney general sign off on every subpoena sent to banks, so that it is clear who did what, when and where. His legislation is called the “End Operation Choke Point Act.” Do YOU think the Missouri congressman is right – is ‘Operation Choke Point’ THE most heinous of all Obama scandals? Which one do YOU believe is the worst? Why? INFORM THE DEBATE below! Poster Comment: Obummer is in deep doo-doo with this burgeoning scandal. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
Here is the reasoning behind Choke Point. 1. It stops gun, and other industries from making money. Those who do continue to make money, will unfortunately have to hide their assets, or store lots and lots of cash on site, or in warehouses. This cash can be siezed, because the businesses could not prove beyond a doubt that it was not accrued legitimately. 2. If you store large amounts of cash, you can be suspected of a crime, and have your assets siezed for simply having it. If the cash was onsite, they could not only sieze your cash, but your merchandise, as cash transactions over $3000.00 are monitored. If you buy a new car paying cash, an expensive tv, a home, land, jewelry in excess of $3000.00, your accounts are flagged and then doublechecked by the FBI. So, if you are a business that pays $3000.00 for supplies to produce goods or services and use a cashiers check, or cash, that purchase will be flagged somewhere and you will be considered a criminal enterprise. 3. By forcing you or a business to seek other means to safekeeping your cash, they then have the justification to audit you, or scrutinize you because by their rationale, you are a criminal, even though their policies have made you into one. 4. What they cannot control, they make illegal. What they make illegal, they justify unconstitutional responses to. Meaning, they raid your business, steal your stuff, deprive you of your 4th and 5th Amendment rights, and force you out of business. Any bank that stops doing business with a gun manufacturer, or any other industry because the government doesn't like, should be replaced with a new bank, or credit union that will. "Call Me Ishmael" -Ishmael, A character from the book "Moby Dick" 1851. "Call Me Fishmeal" -Osama Bin Laden, A character created by the CIA, and the world's Hide And Seek Champion 2001-2011. -Tommythemadartist
Excellent break-down, and solution, thanks
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
We are all Berliner's now. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||