Translate

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Obama's Operation Choke Point Is "Unbridled Abuse Of Executive Power, Completely Outside The Rule Of Law"

In an earlier article I touched on the withering attack on the 2nd Amendment that has subsided to a “dull throb” for the moment.  A large portion of that is “Operation Choke Point,” the regulatory “assault” instituted by the Federal Government to force the banking industry to deny services to industries, not on the basis of illegality, but incorrectness as judged by the administration.
This cabal is represented by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC under the “ringmaster” of the Department of Justice.  The aforementioned agencies have regulated the banking industry by using their positions as directed by the administration to sever businesses from their connections with the banks.  Specifically, the firearms industry, to include (in order) first firearms manufacturers, and the complementary industries that are synergistic with those manufacturers, namely ammunition manufacturers and accessory products for firearms.
The regulators mentioned have used their authority to browbeat the banks into submission and deny businesses in the firearms industry such things as lines of credit, as well as forcing the closure of business and purchasing accounts.  Any banks that refused to institute any of these measures against their clients then opened themselves up to inspections, scrutiny, examinations, and harassment from a regulatory perspective.  The “cover” phrase for the regulatory agencies: “To promote bank safety and soundness.”
“Reputation risk” is the term used by the regulating industries, in essence, to blackball the banksby stating their clients (in this case businesses involved in the firearms industry) were increasing risk for the banks and that the banks themselves were absorbing “negative publicity.”  The regulators insisted they had an obligation to “protect” the banking industry overall by eliminating the potential for the absorption of bad publicity by one of its members due to negativity associated with that third party.  In essence, guilt by association, and in this case guilt not by a court of law as a verdict for a crime, but a bureaucratic regulator operating at the behest of the Obama administration, making its own restrictive “laws” to inhibit legal businesses.

No comments :

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.