And yet MORE Nefarious Obama Administration Activities


Darrell Issa speaking at Cato Institute

John R. Houk

© July 16, 2014

 

This action designed by the Obama Administration and instrumented by Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department to target business and banks involved in an enterprise Obama considers questionable has to be yet another illegal activity that should be added to Obama’s already growing high crimes and misdemeanors; viz. Operation Choke Point. Operation Choke Point aims at some real fraud such as in the porn industry, Ponzi schemes, gun sale cons, and so on. Those targets are legitimate for law enforcement to prevent a crime. The thing is the Justice Department (no doubt per Obama political agenda) is targeting legitimate legal business simply because the operation is a snub to Left Wing ideology; e.g. licensed gun industry, home school industry, home based businesses not dependent on pyramid and Ponzi schemes, child care and more.

 

VIDEO: Rep. Darrell Issa (CA-49) on the DOJ’s “Operation Choke Point”

 

Published by catoinstitutevideo

Published on Jul 13, 2014

 

Follow the link below to watch the full event:
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events…

Featuring Congressman Darrell Issa (CA-49), Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; moderated by Mark Calabria, Director, Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute.

Launched in early 2013, “Operation Choke Point” is a joint effort by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the bank regulators to limit access to the bank payments system by various businesses. Initially targeted at small-dollar nonbank lenders, Choke Point has grown to cover a variety of legitimate, legal businesses that just happen to be unpopular with DOJ, such as gun dealers and porn stars. Initial responses from DOJ claimed such efforts were limited to illegal businesses committing fraud. A recent report by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reveals DOJ’s claims to be false. In today’s economy, almost any economic activity depends on access to the payments system; allowing DOJ, without trial or a right to appeal, to arbitrarily limit access represents an almost unprecedented abuse of power.

 

I have mentioned this before in that Conservative realists like to point out that any impeachment is a waste of time because if the Republican majority in the House passes impeachment, the Senate probably could not muster the 60 vote minimum to convict either Obama or Holder. And that is even if a 2014 new Republican Senate majority takes over. But I say whether the impeachment process is successful or not, it shows voters that Conservatives in both Houses of Congress understand what is illegal AND it signals to Obama that his Executive Order fiat can become so outrageous that voters will pressure even their Dem Party incumbents in the next 2016 election which includes the Office of POTUS.

 

JRH 7/16/14

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

Lawmakers Throw Light on Secretive ‘Operation Choke Point’

 

By Kelsey Harkness

July 15, 2014

The Daily Signal

 

Is “Operation Choke Point” about to get choked by Congress? Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., sure hopes so.

 

Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is calling for the dismantling of what he calls a secretive initiative launched by the Obama administration in early 2013.

 

Critics say that Operation Choke Point, so dubbed by Department of Justice officials under Attorney General Eric Holder, seeks to weed out businesses from the marketplace that the Obama administration considers objectionable. According to The Wall Street Journal, it was an outgrowth of the Financial Fraud Task Force, established by President Obama’s executive order early in his first term.

 

 

The initiative, Issa said last week, is a slippery slope:

 

“If you empower the government to pick winners and losers within a lawful enterprise, then there is no place to stop.”

 

Initially, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, officials targeted small-dollar, nonbank lenders. But it grew to include other legal, legitimate businesses such as gun dealers and tobacco vendors at Walmart and Bass Pro Shop.

 

Issa, speaking on Operation Choke Point at Cato Institute, called it “proactive, progressive activity” by government against banks and other legitimate businesses.

 

 

“Fraud should be prosecuted,” Norbert Michel, research fellow in financial regulations at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “They don’t have to use the banking system to shut out every single player in an industry to do that.”

 

House Republicans already have passed legislation prohibiting funding for Operation Choke Point. This week, the Justice Department initiative comes under further scrutiny in three House settings:

 

·         This morning at 10, the oversight and investigations subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee was scheduled to hold a hearing on the Justice Department initiative.

 

·         Today at 2 p.m., the Financial Services Committee’s subcommittee on financial institutions was set to hold a hearing on a new bill by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), the “End Operation Choke Point Act of 2014.

 

·         Thursday at 9:30 a.m., the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on regulatory reform will hold a hearing entitled “Guilty Until Proven Innocent?” on whether Justice has the legal authority to execute the operation and possible collateral damage to legitimate businesses.

 

 

One official at Justice, quoted anonymously in a  Wall Street Journal report last summer, said the initiative was intended to change “the structures within the financial system that allow all kinds of fraudulent merchants to operate,” with the intent of “choking them off from the very air they need to survive.”

 

By “air,” the DOJ means money. The Obama administration uses Operation Choke Point to intimidates (sic) banks from doing business with merchants it deems “high risk,” Issa and other critics say.

 

>>> Operation Choke Point: FDIC Cooperated with Justice Department

 

For example, Issa said in his remarks last week, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation officials make “inappropriate” phone calls to banks and payday lenders, pressuring them to sever ties with businesses the government considers “reputational risks.”

 

Mark Calabria, Cato’s director of financial regulation studies, said FDIC pressure is an enormous weight over the financial industry.

 

“When the federal government maintains the discretion to decide which bank gets rescued and which does not, it should be clear that banks in practice have little choice but to cooperate,” Calabria said.

 

Despite his opposition to the initiative, Issa has yet to endorse legislation to end Operation Choke Point. Instead, he said:

 

We’ve got to do what baseball pitchers do anytime somebody’s crowding the plate. And that is, we’re going to put the ball close enough that either they’re going to jump back, or we’re going to hit them with the ball. … What they’re doing is wrong, and we’ve got to show that.

 

____________________________________

And yet MORE Nefarious Obama Administration Activities

John R. Houk

© July 16, 2014

__________________________________

Lawmakers Throw Light on Secretive ‘Operation Choke Point’

 

Kelsey Harkness is a news producer at The Daily Signal.

 

https://twitter.com/kelseyjharkness

 

About the Daily Signal

 

We know you’re busy. And we’re quite certain you care deeply about the future of our country.

 

We care, too. We care about your communities, your families, and how Washington’s decisions are going to impact you.

 

More and more people are grabbing bites of news from mobile devices on the go – and they need a place where they can find digestible, trusted news on the most important policy debate of the day.

 

That’s why the Heritage Foundation team created a digital-first, multimedia news platform called The Daily Signal.

 

The Daily Signal provides policy and political news as well as conservative commentary and policy analysis – in a fresh, visually rich, readable format for your desktop, tablet or phone.

 

We are committed to news coverage that is accurate, fair and trustworthy. As we surveyed the media landscape, it became clear to us that the need for honest, thorough, responsible reporting has never been more critical. That’s a challenge in today’s fast-moving world. And it’s a challenge we’re willing to accept.

We are dedicated to developing a news outlet that cuts straight to the heart of key political and policy arguments – not spin reported as news.

 

The Daily Signal is supported by the resources and intellectual firepower of The Heritage Foundation – a READ THE REST

The ‘NeoComs’


Neo-Communism

I finally found time to read Mark Alexander’s December 13th column in The Patriot Post. This an awesome history lesson of how Marxist ideology has crept into American mainstream politics. Alexander distinguishes American new Marxism from old Soviet Communism by making a play on words used to describe new Conservatism; i.e. Neoconservatism. Thus new Communism is Neo-Communism and shortened to NeoCom.

 

The NeoCom agenda is the platform American voters placed into effect in 2008 and again in 2012. The NeoCom agenda is the Obama agenda to transform Liberty oriented America as conceived by the Founding Fathers to a Socialist Christian-eviscerating State controlled economy with morality defined as well by the State.

 

You really need to READ Mark Alexander’s essay.

 

JRH 12/22/12

Please Support NCCR

**************************

The ‘NeoComs’

The Neo-Communist Economic Agenda

 

By Mark Alexander

Sent: 12/13/2012 12:16 PM

The Patriot Post

 

We must make our election between economy and Liberty, or profusion and servitude.” –Thomas Jefferson (1816)

 

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. … Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.” –Winston Churchill

 

Today, I have a new entry for the political lexicon to categorize the latest ideological iteration of Marxists in America: “Neo-Communists” or the abbreviated version, “NeoComs.”

 

You’re no doubt familiar with the label “Neo-Conservatives,” and its shortened version, “NeoCons,” to describe conservatives who have adapted to more interventionist foreign policies promoting democracy, and who support open trade policies. “Neo” differentiates these conservatives from the isolationist and non-interventionist conservatism of the 1930s — until the attack on Pearl Harbor drew us into war with Japan and Germany.

 

At the other end of the political spectrum from the Ronald Reagan NeoCons are the NeoComs — modern-day socialists who have risen, in the last decade, to dominate the Democrat Party. They have modified old Marxist doctrines and adapted them to current political platforms and policies using leftist propaganda more compatible with contemporary culture. Chief among these is the Democrat Party’s tried and true “divide and conquer” disparity rhetoric, which foments discontent and division based on income, race, ethnicity, gender, education, occupation, etc.

 

However, bull pucky by any other name is still bull pucky. Democratic Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged.

 

The objective of today’s NeoComs is, as you by now know, “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” in order to “peacefully transition” from our constitutional republic and its free-enterprise economy to a socialist republic with a state-organized and regulated economy.

 

Ideological adherents of the American Communist Party made few political gains under that banner in the last century because the label “communist” was and remains “distasteful” to most Americans. Thus, NeoComs have infested the once-noble Democrat Party and are using it as cover for socialist policy implementation.

 

The political genes of the current cadres of NeoComs establish them as the direct descendants of the statist policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the programs he implemented under cover of the Great Depression.

 

Roosevelt, like most of today’s wealthy liberal protagonists, was an “inheritance-welfare liberal” — raised in a dysfunctional home and dependent on his financial inheritance rather than that essential spirit of self-reliance, which forms the core of American Liberty. Consequently, the “dependence ethos” irrevocably shaped by FDR’s privileged upbringing is virtually indistinguishable from the dependence ethos of those who have been raised or inculcated with belief that they are reliant upon welfare handouts from the state.

 

Though markedly dissimilar in terms of their political power, the underlying difference between inheritance liberals and welfare liberals is, the former depend on investment and trust distributions while the latter depend on government redistributions. But they both support socialist political and economic agendas based on Marxist collectivism.

 

Endeavoring to transform our Republic into a socialist state, FDR set about to replace our authentic Constitution with the so-called “living constitution” by way of judicial diktat, thereby subordinating the Rule of Law to the will of his administration. Anticipating Supreme Court rulings against many of his patently unconstitutional policies, which he later arrogantly outlined in his “New Bill of Rights,” FDR attempted to expand the number of justices on the High Court, thereby allowing him to flood the bench with his nominees in order to win majority rulings.

 

Despite his failed attempt to pack the High Court, over the course of FDR’s three full terms, he infested American politics with socialist programs and policies, and brought the nation perilously close to being ruled by an avowed Marxist, his vice president, Henry Wallace.

 

Prior to 2008, the closest the U.S. had gotten to an openly socialist president was after FDR’s then-vice president, John Garner, broke with Roosevelt over FDR’s effort to pack the court. In 1940, Roosevelt tapped his secretary of agriculture, Henry Wallace, to replace Garner as his new running mate. Wallace’s allegiance to Marxist doctrine was well established. However, near the end of World War II, Roosevelt feared that he could not get re-elected to a fourth term with an open Communist on the ticket, so he tapped the more moderate Harry Truman and demoted Wallace to Secretary of Commerce — where he could further his Marxist agenda.

 

FDR, of course, died in office just a month into his fourth term. But had he retained Wallace instead of opting for Truman, America would have had its first communist president by succession.

 

Shortly after becoming president, Truman fired Wallace because of his affinity for the USSR. Wallace would later unsuccessfully challenge Truman in 1948 under the thinly veiled socialist Progressive Party front, with the endorsement of the American Communist Party.

 

The end of World War II largely capped FDR’s “New Deal” socialist expansion of the state until Lyndon Johnson’s progressive “Great Society” platform heralded a plethora of new statist programs and policies. Ironically, another war, Vietnam, capped Johnson’s socialist expansionism, but not the enormous price tag of the welfare and entitlement programs established by FDR and Johnson.

 

It was not until the sharp economic downturn of the Great Recession in September 2008 that the next socialist surge of statist intervention would be implemented. That severe recession, the result of Democrat-sponsored statist intervention policies which led to the collapse of real estate values, and cascaded into the near collapse of the U.S. banking system, also led to the election of Barack Hussein Obama, much as the Great Depression had led to the election of FDR.

 

In fact, Obama’s progressive re-election mantra, “Forward,” was inspired either by the concluding words of FDR’s “Bill of Rights”: “[W]e must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights….”, or by Mao Zedong’s collectivist “Great Leap Forward.” Either case would constitute a political distinction without a difference. And a prophetic footnote: FDR also wrote in his Bill of Rights, “People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”

 

Like Roosevelt, Obama was raised in a dysfunctional family, but unlike FDR, Obama inherited a socialist political legacy rather than wealth. However, neither Roosevelt nor Obama “let a serious crisis go to waste.”

 

Obama, the NeoCom-in-Chief and our first openly socialist president, was elected and re-elected on his progressive “fair share” rhetoric, which he often frames as “spreading the wealth around.” That, of course, is merely a new riff on an old FDR proclamation: “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.” However, that “American principle” is merely a paraphrase of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, in which he declared, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

 

Obama’s political storm troopers are led by the largest subgroup of congressional Democrats, the 76 declared members of his Congressional Progressive Caucus, who have made “progressive taxation” the top priority of their “redistributive justice” agenda.

 

Rep. Paul Ryan properly summed up Obama’s progressive agenda as “a dull journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us.”

 

Obama and his American Communist Party-endorsed NeoComs are crafting their progressive economic policies using the subtle Cloward-Piven model, a socialist strategy that outlines how to overload the national entitlement delivery system, what we call the ObamaNation Plantation, in order to generate a severe economic crisis and ultimately break the back of free enterprise. Obama is using so-called “stimulus and bailout” plans (including his most recent “Fiscal Bluff“), ObamaCare, cap-n-trade, international climate change treaties, and the like, to take our country to the edge of that precipice.

 

Sometimes, however, the NeoCom agenda is not so subtle, as was the case this week when Jeffrey Immelt, an ardent Obama supporter who also chairs Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, said of Red China’s economy, “The one thing that actually works, state-run communism, may not be your cup of tea, but their government works.”

 

NeoComs outside the U.S. are even less subtle.

 

In a recent newspaper column in “Pravda,” the old Soviet propaganda rag (“The Truth”) now published by post-Soviet era conscripts of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, a popular writer, Xavier Lerma, had this observation on our most recent presidential election: “The Communists have won in America with Obama. … Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society.”

 

Lerma criticized his fellow Russians for electing Vladimir Putin who, Lerma laments, “sounded like Ronald Reagan” in a recent speech Putin gave on the Russian economy.

 

Putin said: “We are reducing taxes on production. We are optimizing state expenses. We must avoid excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state. Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit and accumulation of the national debt are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game. During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself. We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success.”

 

Lerma concluded, “Who could ever [have] imagined anyone so willing to destroy [capitalism] like Obama, much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don’t they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist president.”

 

Indeed, who could have imagined?

 

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

 

Mark Alexander
Publisher,
The Patriot Post

 

(Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families — especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

________________________

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2012 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )