Probably not a topic for a pickup line with a liberal . . .

  • Why would you want to date a liberal anyway ?. . . never mind but read on
  • Obama operation choke point dead to rights


If you have a close acquaintance, or maybe even a family member who proclaims their liberalism, here’s a simple direct question you might ask of them; it requires only a simple direct answer:

“Do you approve of government regulators, or other federal agencies, taking it upon themselves to shut legal businesses out of the banking system, if the services or products they provide are considered by the leadership of those agencies to be ‘abusive,  fundamentally wrong, hurt people, or are damaging to the nation’s culture and morality’?”

(If you’re pressed for an example, you might suggest agencies dedicated to providing abortions to underage girls without informing or requiring approval of their parents or legal guardian. Another might be companies in the soft porn industry or purveyors of contraceptives the agency heads consider ‘dangerous’.

Just don’t suggest at the outset the examples of firearms dealers or ‘payday lenders’ when discussing the topic with a liberal.    DLH

Forbes article, Nov 5, 2018:

Newly Unsealed Documents Show Top FDIC Officials Running Operation Choke Point

Last week brought new revelations regarding Operation Choke Point, the Obama administration’s effort to freeze politically disfavored businesses out of the financial system. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), who helped lead a multi-year effort to shut the program down, highlighted some of theses newest findings and pointed out that stopping Operation Choke Point is not a partisan issue.

For those unfamiliar, Choke Point consisted of bureaucrats in several independent federal agencies taking it upon themselves to shut legal businesses – such as payday lenders and firearms dealers – out of the banking system. Given the nature of the U.S. regulatory framework, this operation was easy to pull off.
Officials at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), for instance, simply had to inform the banks they were overseeing that the government considered certain types of their customers “high risk.” The mere implication of a threat was enough to pressure banks into closing accounts, because no U.S. bank wants anything to do with extra audits or investigations from their regulator, much less additional operating restrictions or civil and criminal charges.

Later, in April 2013, Joel Sweet, a Justice Department official heavily involved in the initiative, emailed senior officials at the FDIC, the FTC, the CFPB and other federal agencies with “a simple and elegant idea about how to protect consumers from predatory PD lenders.” The idea involved banning banks from “originating debit transactions against the bank accounts of non-customer borrowers.” (See page 16).

In an email to Director Pearce, for example, [Atlanta Regional] Director Thomas Dujenski emphasized that he was “sincerely passionate” about the fact that “I literally cannot stand payday lending. They are abusive, fundamentally wrong, hurt people, and do not deserve to be in any way associated with banking.” Director Dujenski continued: “I really hope this bank we discussed truly gets out of this on their own as they are indicating….I hope my persuasion skills are still effective :)” (See page 22).

This entry was posted in UNCATEGORIZED. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *