LOOK HOW FAR OUR DOJ HAS SUNK! TO THEM LAWS ARE JUST SUGGESTIONS!

Submitted by: Donald Hank with foreword

The law has not only been ignored and breached. It is MUCH worse than that. The CRA not only allowed banks to drop standards in a way that, in any normal country, would trigger legal measures or congressional investigations. It actually demanded that some of them do so.

Most economists today have accepted the baloney that the CRA didn't really do much damage because it was hardly enforced for years and then only against certain banks.

The reality is that when other banks which were not mandated to lend to the "underserved communities" saw that these singled-out banks were obliged to lower their standards in a reckless manner, they understood that the government would have to stand behind them and bail them out if the SHTF. Of course, they did. The banks that gambled on--at least the big ones--this won their gamble.

So let's stop thinking that the government only lowered their oversight standards. It was lots worse than that.

Obama is following this aggressive pattern of enforced lawlessness by suing states that dare to protect against illegal invasion (illegal aliens).

It is part of a much bigger scheme to bring the entire house down upon us, as Sampson did the pillars of the temple. It is motivated by pure blind hatred of our country. As Dinesh D'Souza speculates, Obama is motivated by an anti-colonial animosity that takes the form of anti-Americanism. But it's not just Obama. beyond this, the entire political establishment did little to stop him and seems strangely implicit--insisting for example, that he was born in the US, although over 50% of us now have some degree of doubt about that. Like the Roman Empire, we have a serious lack of survival instinct in all aspects of our public life. It seems to me that there is a desire on the part of high ranking elites to destroy America so as to usher in a supranational, or world government and currency.

They may get something much different. Like Sampson, they may wind up with the roof crashing down on their heads.

Don Hank

http://www.fedupusa.org/2012/08/the-wsj-wakes-up-on-the-rule-of-law/

Well I’ll be damned; the WSJ finally published a piece on this.

No one doubts that the coming election will be the most important referendum on the size and nature of government in a generation. But another issue is nearly as important and has gotten far less attention: our crumbling commitment to the rule of law.

The notion that we are governed by rules that are transparent and enacted through the legislative process—not by the whims of our leaders—is at the heart of that commitment. If legislators exceed their authority under the Constitution, or if otherwise legitimate laws are misused, courts must step in to prevent or remedy the potential harm.

During the 2008 financial crisis, the government repeatedly violated these principles.

Mr. Skeel goes on to argue that the 2008 crisis was where these problems reared their head.

He’s right that these issues become more serious in 2008, but he’s dead wrong that this excuse — that “in a crisis you do what has to be done, law be damned”began this series of abuses.

Leverage in fact contains an entire chapter on this subject in the second half of the book (“A Way Forward”) entitled, appropriately enough, “The Rule of Law.“  In it just some of the myriad abuses that were rampant not only during but prior to the 2008 panic are laid out in a fair bit of detail.  The Market Ticker has chronicled many more.

Some of the worst abuses are found in what the government claims are laws but are in fact suggestions, as there is no penalty.  Let’s simply take The Federal Reserve Act which mandates, among other things, that The Fed shall conduct monetary policy so as to produce stable prices.

The word “stable” is a common English word. It is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of a factual condition that either exists — or it does not.

For 100 continuous years The Fed has violated this mandate — a black-letter law.

It has never been held to account and not one candidate for President — not Obama, Romney or Johnson has come out and said “these alleged laws, such as The Federal Reserve Act, which contain no penalty for non-performance or indeed intentional violations must have violations enforced and penalties must be added to these statutes.

Is it not proof of actual intent to not enforce the law when you enact a so-called “law” without a penalty for its violation?  Is it not proof positive that you intended no such law be in force at all when you willfully and intentionally ignore one hundred sequential years of violation of the very law you pass?

This isn’t complicated folks — there is no intent by our government at any level — federal, state or local — to actually follow and enforce the law on an even, honest and level basis.

Oh yes, it’s gotten much worse in the last four or five years, but do not kid yourself — this is not a new problem.  Passing alleged “laws” that are supposed to proscribe conduct for everyone and then ignoring them when the government wants to is nothing new.  We have run drugs in both the United States and abroad – our government – for decades and we’re still doing it today.  We ran over a thousand guns to Mexican Drug Cartels – intentionally – in “Fast and Furious” (otherwise known as “Operation Gunwalker”) and not one BATFE or other Federal employee has been indicted or jailed for doing so.

Not one bankster went to prison when Wachovia laundered money for Mexican drug cartels — and they admitted it (in exchange for a fine and a “deferred prosecution agreement.)  Multiple banks ran money for Iran and intentionally altered transaction data to obscure who the transfers were for — yet at most they’ve been fined and nobody has gone to jail. In Jefferson County Alabama the residents are still paying radically-jacked-up sewer and water bills and will be forever, despite the fact that a few municipal employees went to jail for bribery-related crimes on those transactions.

The number of banksters jailed?  Zero.

Last time I checked in order to receive a bribe someone must make one.  Isn’t it funny how only certain people got prosecuted and imprisoned?

I’m glad to see the WSJ publish this opinion piece, but Mr. Skeel needs to widen his lens a bit and look at the problem from more than simply a “crisis-mode” intervention issue, because it most-certainly was not and is not today.