The Price Of Speaking Truth To Power: $80 Million

Holder Obama

Leftists love using the phrase “speaking truth to power.” But when Standard and Poor’s, the respected credit ratings service, told the truth about the federal government’s out-of-control spending, power came crashing down on its head.

In August 2011, S&P lowered America’s credit rating below AAA because it found that the government’s ability to manage its finances had become “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” This set off a firestorm within the White House. The Treasury Department publicly attacked the report, and then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner called the CEO of the company and threatened them. According to reports of the conversation, Geithner promised that the company would be “looked at very carefully” and would “be held accountable for that.” Harold McGraw III, the CEO of S&P’s parent company, said in a sworn deposition that Geithner said: “Such behavior could not occur without a response from the government.” The response came; and it was swift, harsh, and costly.

The Obama Administration unleashed Attorney General Eric Holder on the company. In August 2013, the Department of Justice sued the company for fraud in their ratings of mortgage-backed securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008. According to the DOJ’s theory, S&P ratings of the securities were tied to relationships they had with the investment firms. The government was threating the company with $5 billion worth of fines. There was no mention of the fact that other credit rating services also rated the same securities as safe. The New York Times noted that “S&P, one of three major agencies offering advice to investors about the quality of debt investments and the only one to face a Justice Department lawsuit, stood out as the rare company to actually follow through and fight the government.” It is clear that the actions of the DOJ were in response to the company’s decision to warn Americans about the coming debt crisis.

S&P decided to fight back by making motions in court demanding documents, emails, and other information connecting the White House, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Justice, in an effort to connect the dots between the credit downgrade and the actions of the DOJ. Not surprisingly, DOJ opposed those motions in court, castigating the effort as a “fishing expedition.” Turning the screws, the DOJ, again in the words of the New York Times, “invoked an obscure federal law passed a quarter-century ago after the savings and loan scandals. The law, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, or Firrea, requires a lower burden of proof than criminal charges and empowers prosecutors to demand unusually large penalties: up to $1.1 million per violation.”

Faced with the threat to the future stability of the company, S&P was forced to settle to get the Obama Administration off their backs. This week, we discovered that the cost of speaking “truth to power” is about $80 million — the amount of money S&P will be forced to fork over to the government for speaking the truth about the country’s financial mess.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

A Party At War With Itself

Holder Obama

For the third time, the cops of the NYPD have turned their backs on the mayor of New York.

The first time was when Mayor Bill de Blasio arrived at Woodhull Hospital, where mortally wounded officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu had been taken on Dec. 20. The second was when the mayor spoke at Ramos’ funeral. The third was at Liu’s service on Sunday.

Detestation of de Blasio among the NYPD and the cops who came from across the country to stand in solidarity with their slain brothers is broad and deep.

And, in a way, de Blasio served as stand-in for Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, and President Obama. For all four gave aid and comfort to the war on cops that has raged since Ferguson last August when Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed an 18-year-old who tried to grab his gun.

When a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict the NYPD’s Daniel Pantaleo in the chokehold death of Eric Garner, after the 350-pound black man, suffering from heart disease, diabetes, and asthma, died resisting arrest, the war on cops went viral and national.

De Blasio, Sharpton, Holder, and Obama were all out on point saying that blacks, especially young black males, were all too often victimized by racist cops. And black kids needed to be taught that.

Brimming with moral outrage, protesters took to the streets; blocked Times Square and Grand Central; disrupted Macy’s during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays; and shut down malls, highways, and bridges across the country.

Though their lawlessness was rampant and their chants bespoke a hatred of police, who were compared to the KKK by marchers yelling for “dead cops,” these protests were indulged and described as “peaceful.”

So it was that on Dec. 20, a deranged criminal decided to make himself famous by putting “wings on pigs” and executing Ramos and Liu in Bedford-Stuyvesant as payback for Garner and Brown.

Suddenly, the real America revealed itself, an America enraged at the cold-blooded assassinations of cops and disgusted with those who had pandered to anti-police protesters. And the America that revealed itself is not good news for the Democratic Party.

For we have seen this movie before, half a century ago.

After LBJ’s victory over Barry Goldwater came the riots of the 1960s — Watts in 1965, Newark and Detroit in 1967, and 100 cities, including D.C., after Dr. King’s assassination in 1968.

These riots produced deaths, thousands of arrests, and looting and arson on a scale requiring the National Guard and federal troops. And these rampages were perhaps the principal factor in turning Middle America against a Democratic Party that had been the nation’s majority party since 1932.

In 1964, LBJ won 61 percent of the vote. Four years later, his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, got less than 43 percent.

What happened? A civil war had taken place inside the Democratic coalition, not unlike what is going on now. Today’s conflict, though not nearly so violent, is daily nationalized by cable and the Internet.

All of America watched what happened in Ferguson night after night, and saw the aftermath of what happened on Staten Island, and observed what happened Dec. 20 and then at those funerals.

Americans began openly and viscerally to take sides.

And from the new defensiveness of de Blasio and the muted responses of Sharpton, Holder, and Obama, there is no doubt who has lost this battle. A sundered America is siding with the cops and turning against those who turned on the cops.

Something like this happened in Chicago in August 1968: Police, after constant provocation by foul-mouthed radicals, chased them down, clubbed them, and arrested them in Grant Park.

The networks and national media denounced a “police riot,” and liberal Democratic Senator Abe Ribicoff said Mayor Richard J. Daley’s cops had used “Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago.”

When the dust settled, however, America, to the amazement of the elites, had come down on the side of the cops, not “the kids.”

That America gave Nixon and Wallace 57 percent of its votes.

The political point: In the 1960s, both George Wallace and LBJ were Democrats. Mayor Daley and the radicals cursing his cops were Democrats. The students who took over Berkeley and Columbia, and the deans and professors whose offices they trashed, were all liberal or leftist Democrats.

The ’60s wars over social, moral, and cultural issues were bloody scrimmages on the home field of the Democratic Party.

So it is today. Whether the issue is income inequality or the evil of Wall Street, police brutality or black criminality, the hostility and anger among Democrats over these issues makes the Tea Party vs. the GOP establishment look like a badminton tournament on the country club lawn.

 
COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Allen West: Obama Creating Myth Of Modern-Day Racism

allenwest

Charles Payne asserted to Lt. Col. Allen West on Fox News Live Sunday that many people believe President Barack Obama is the central reason why race relations seem to be getting worse in the United States. Colonel West commented that he grew up in the inner-city of Atlanta and remembers what race relations used to be like. West said that racial division is what Obama wants.

“For President Obama, when you look at it from his perspective as a progressive socialist community organizer, he believes that race relations are fine, because of the impact they’re having on what they believe is social justice. So when you have this incredible divide amongst us, because that is the aim and the goal of collectivism, which is what the president believes in, then everything is fine for him.”

Colonel West pointed out that the president and Al Sharpton are perpetuating a mob atmosphere:

“When you have someone like Al Sharpton visiting the White House and providing him counsel eighty-two times and standing and putting pressure on Sony and other individuals, and this angst that has happened, and this mob atmosphere that is going on, this is really what the president would like to have – this vomiting of dissension. But that is not what the inner-city needs right now. We need economic growth. We need better education opportunities. But that’s not the focus.”

Payne added that President Obama is stoking racial division because he is unable to improve the economy.

“I would actually argue that a lot of times the president’s fallback position with respect to stoking the anger and anxiety with race is because of an inability to move the economic needle … It feels like at every turn that he could blame or hint or suggest that racism was at the fault of criticism, the fault of failure, he took that.”

West responded that, although the nation has a black president and many other black people serving in positions of authority, it still is not good enough for Obama.

“Well, one of the things is that they created that atmosphere back early in 2009. Eric Holder said that we were a nation of cowards when it came to race. And you look at the fact that we have elected and re-elected the first black president, but yet he still believes that that’s not enough. We have the National Security Advisor, the Department of Homeland Security. I don’t know what more else you need to have.”

 

h/t Allen West Republic

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Attorney General Eric Holder Reveals New Limits On Profiling For Law Enforcement

Eric Holder

On Monday, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued revised guidelines prohibiting federal law enforcement agencies from profiling on the basis of religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

The DOJ released a revised version on Monday of its “Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.” The initial guidelines prohibited profiling solely on the base of race and ethnicity.

“Profiling by law enforcement is not only wrong, it is profoundly misguided and ineffective, because it wastes precious resources and undermines the public trust,” said Attorney General Eric Holder about the revised guidelines, according to NBC News.

“Particularly in light of certain recent incidents we’ve seen at the local level – and the widespread concerns about trust in the criminal justice process which so many have raised throughout the nation – it’s imperative that we take every possible action to institute strong and sound policing practices.”

A formal statement is expected from the Justice Department later today. A DOJ official told ABC News exactly what would be entailed in the revised policy:

  • Expand the characteristics it protects to include prohibitions on profiling on the basis of gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity, in addition to race and ethnicity
  • Apply not only to federal law enforcement officers, but also state and local law enforcement officers while participating in federal law enforcement task forces
  • Eliminate the broad carve-outs for law enforcement activities related to protecting national security or the integrity of the borders
  • Maintain the stringent 2003 standard governing routine or spontaneous law enforcement decisions
  • Require that in making routine or spontaneous law enforcement decisions like traffic stops, federal law enforcement officers may not use race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity to any degree, except that officers may rely on a listed characteristic in a specific subject description

NBC News notes that the new policy will apply to several components of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the United States Coast Guard, but not to airport screening, anyone crossing the border, or the United States Secret Service.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

What Holder’s Justice Department Just Did Suggests Further Favoritism For Black Radicals

St L arch

Recall back in 2008, during the voting that led to Obama’s election, how the New Black Panther Party and two of its members were charged with voter intimidation for their conduct outside a polling station in Philadelphia?

There was even video showing the Panthers, King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, clad in black and brandishing what appeared to be a club, scowling at people as they entered the voting place.

In a highly controversial move that outraged many concerned with voter intimidation and potential fraud, the Department of Justice later narrowed the charges against Shabazz and dismissed the charges against the New Black Panther Party and Jackson.

Now, in an action reminiscent of what it did some six years ago, Holder’s DOJ appears to be going easy on two members of the New Black Panther Party who allegedly plotted to blow up the St. Louis Gateway Arch and carry out political assassinations…all in the name of protesting the Ferguson shooting and grand jury decision.

As Western Journalism told you last week, an undercover police operation in St. Louis busted the pair who:

reportedly planned to blow up the city’s iconic Gateway Arch and kill two prominent figures in the Michael Brown shooting case in Ferguson, which has sparked protests nationwide.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Wednesday that Brandon Orlando Baldwin and Olajuwon Ali Davis were indicted last week on federal weapons charges but authorities expect more charges to be filed against the duo relating to the alleged plot.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the two Black Panther suspects are apparently not being hit with federal terrorism charges, as might be considered appropriate in the case.

The communist and racist New Black Panther Party plotted to bomb St. Louis’ Gateway Arch and assassinate local law enforcement officials, but the Justice Department so far has limited its prosecution of the group to an indictment of two members on minor gun charges.

The soft treatment for activities that normally would have brought federal terrorism charges appears to be part of efforts by Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department to “go soft” on the racist group, according to former Justice official J. Christian Adams.

J. Christian Adams has long been a critic of Holder’s DOJ for the stark appearance of favoritism it has shown toward the New Black Panthers and its radical members. Via freebeacon.com:

Adams’ 2011 book, “Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department,” includes a photograph of then presidential candidate Barack Obama marching in Selma, Alabama, with members of the New Black Panther Party in March 2007.

Since the Justice Department stepped into the investigation, the St. Louis Police Department has reportedly withheld comment on the case.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom