Operation Choke Point Overlord

Posted on November 10, 2015November 10, 2015 by Denise Simon

A disgusting program concocted by Eric Holder, former Attorney General was launched called Operation Choke Point. Several Federal agencies are part of this program where government intimidates private business where agency deem them high risk. Banks then are told to no longer do business with them.

Freedom and liberty is threatened.

The current Attorney General, Loretta Lynch is still operating the program and private businesses across the country continue to be squeezed. Across a spectrum of industries, they include ammunition and weapons companies, fireworks manufacturers and payday lenders. The FDIC and the Securities and Exchange Commission are part of the operation.

Senate Judiciary Committee Considers Nomination of Operation Choke Point Overlord

Fairfax, VA -(AmmoLand.com)- On Wednesday; Nov. 4, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Stuart F. Delery for the position of associate attorney general of the United States.

If confirmed, Delery would become the third-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), behind the attorney general and the deputy attorney general. Delery has been serving as “acting” associate attorney general since September 2014.

The NRA is seriously troubled by Delery’s nomination because of his supervisory role over DOJ’s scandalous Operation Choke Point (OPC). Fortunately, committee members had some tough questions for him on this point. Delery’s unconvincing denials and platitudes in response demonstrate that he does not take seriously the harm OPC, whether intentionally or not, caused to legitimate businesses. The fact that the Obama administration continues to push his nomination shows that it is more interested in rewarding ideological and political fidelity than performance in the pursuit of justice.

The functions of DOJ, however, are far too important, and the department’s powers too great, to make politics its main function.

Delery himself had key oversight responsibility for OPC. He approved the operation and its tactics. He also individually approved the investigative subpoenas that resulted in various banks ceasing business with certain industries wholesale, rather than trying to separate good actors from bad within those industries. Attached to the subpoenas that Delery approved were FDIC guidance materials that included a list of supposedly “high risk” merchants and activities. These included sales of ammunition and firearms. This same list appeared in a PowerPoint presentation given in September 2013 to bank examiners at a workshop conducted by officials from the FDIC, Department of Justice, and Office of Comptroller of the Treasury.

Whatever the true intent of OPC (and DOJ has done nothing to earn the benefit of the doubt on that score), the effect of the government’s tactics was clear: banks were interpreting DOJ’s actions as directives not to deal with certain types of legal businesses. As a result, numerous gun shops and manufacturers lost long-established banking relationships or were refused those relationships in the first place.

Questioners at Wednesday’s hearings pressed Delery hard on these facts. In his opening statement, Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) called OPC a “stunning and dangerous” use of government power.

He noted that the operation was “sold to the public as merely an initiative to protect consumers from predatory payday lending practices.” Nevertheless, he continued, “we now know based on internal DOJ documents that from the outset it was specifically designed to prey on the banking industry`s fear of civil and criminal liability, with the stated goal of shutting down legal businesses” disfavored by the Obama Administration.

He also criticized the broad net the program cast over the banking industry: “three prosecutions out of 60 subpoenas is hardly a justification for the scattergun approach the Department undertook.”

Sen. Grassley went on to confront Delery with documentation that Delery was aware of the negative affect OPC had on lawful industries. DOJ’s response to these developments was to rationalize that if individual businesses were operating lawfully, they should be able to establish that fact with the banks. Yet the banks themselves had in many cases already made the decision that case-by-case determinations invited more scrutiny and pressure from DOJ than they were worth to the bank.

The toughest questioning, however, came from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz offered a blistering summary of the program and confronted Delery with examples of actual businesses that had lost banking relationships, not because of poor performance, but because the banks had decided to sever all relationships with the firearm industry. Delery insisted that no firearm businesses had even been investigated or prosecuted.

“Choke Point,” Cruz shot back, “was all about using government power to intimidate banks to cut off their money even though they weren’t violating the laws.” “The program as it pertained to firearm businesses,” Cruz continued, “was not targeted on evidence of fraud but based on an antipathy of the Obama Justice Department to the exercise of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by American citizens.”

Delery uniformly denied any intention to use DOJ’s authority to target lawful businesses. In essence, he blamed the banks themselves for misunderstanding DOJ’s intentions. Yet when bank after bank came to the same supposedly unintended conclusion, DOJ did not change course. Only when Congress itself stepped in to investigate DOJ’s tactics did the department issue public “clarifications” of its objectives to target specific fraudulent actors and not entire industries per se.

By that time, however, the damage to lawful industries had been done. Reports from the field, moreover, indicate that these industries continue to suffer the residual suspicion of financial service providers, notwithstanding DOJ’s more recent guidance on the professed scope of the program. For many banks, once burned means twice shy.

One of the more ridiculous aspects of Wednesday’s hearing was the repeated insistence of Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) that NRA “agrees” that OPC did not intend to target lawful businesses. To “substantiate” this point, he quoted from an alert we issued on May 2, 2014, as rumors were swirling about OPC in the media.

We stated at that point that we had “not substantiated … an overarching federal conspiracy to suppress lawful commerce in firearms and ammunition, or that the federal government has an official policy of using financial regulators to drive firearm or ammunition companies out of business.”

We cautioned, however, that “NRA will continue to monitor developments concerning Operation Choke Point and report on any significant activity of concern to gun owners.”

We also noted, “The Obama administration’s record … certainly provides no reason for confidence.”

Three weeks later, we posted an update to that story in which we specifically stated, “At the time of the [May 2] report, we were unaware of a ‘smoking gun’ to tie [banks’ decisions to drop or refuse firearms industry business] back to pressure from regulatory authorities,” and noted, “That may be changing.”

That second report went on to detail additional evidence on OPC that had since come to light, as well ongoing investigative efforts.

Since that time, NRA has reported on OPC extensively, including here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Anyone who read these reports could not fail to understand that NRA has been gravely concerned about OPC for well over a year and that whatever OPC’s original justification might have been, DOJ was willing to accept or even embrace its negative affect on the firearm and ammunition industries. Yet Sen. Franken cherry-picked one phrase from an early report to falsely portray NRA’s current position and view of the matter. Certainly, this sort of duplicity does not serve the senator’s integrity or the cause of Delery’s nomination well.

Delery’s nomination has not yet been scheduled for a vote. Based on his unconvincing performance at the hearing, however, and continued unanswered questions about the true origins, design, and scope of OPC, NRA remains deeply troubled by this nomination. America deserves better than senior DOJ officials who are merely tools for the political views and schemes of an ideologically-driven administration.

To reward such officials for this behavior with promotions is clearly beyond the pale.

About the NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Facts on Deport Racism PAC and anti-Trump Video

Posted on November 9, 2015November 9, 2015 by Denise Simon

The full document of the Deport Racism Political Action Committee filing to the Federal Election Commission is here. Based in Columbus, Ohio is has some Hillary Clinton supporters’ fingerprints on this video and mission.

More details: Hat tip to Heavy.com for the information below.

Deport Racism: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Deport Racism recently posted a video that featured children hurling obscenities at Donald Trump. The group has now offered to pay $5,000 to anyone who yells “Deport Racism” or “Trump is a Racist” during the live TV broadcast of Saturday Night Live while Trump is hosting this Saturday.

Here’s what you need to know.

1. The Video Features Children Yelling Profanity About Trump

The (NSFW) video posted above features two children yelling out obscenities about Trump and raising the middle finger at him. At the time of posting, the video had only 2,198 likes on YouTube and 13,096 dislikes. The video starts out with the words: “Hola, Donald Trump! Screaming, ‘Get out of my country!’ Republicans use offensive words. So here’s a few of our own.”

2. The Group Is Now Offering $5,000 to Anyone Who Yells “Trump is a Racist!” During Saturday Night Live

deport racism trump

Donald Trump will be appearing on NBC’s Saturday Night Live on Saturday, November 7. The Latino community was angered by this news, saying that letting Trump be on the show gives support to his offensive and racist comments, Rise News reported. Deport Racism wants to hold the station accountable and is offering $5,000 in cash to anyone who yells “Trump is a racist!” or “Deport racism!” during the live broadcast, The Hill reported. In a press release, Santiago Cejudo, an organizer with the group, said:

We’re hoping the $5,000 will help people on set or in the studio audience find the bravery to speak out loudly and help focus the national conversation on that we need to deport racism, not people.”

3. Some Suspected That YouTube Deleted Dislikes for the Video

dislikes decreasing deport racism

Deport Racism’s video currently only has 2,198 likes on YouTube, but visitors reported that they saw fewer dislikes on the video after visiting on YouTube multiple times. In a Reddit thread posted here, one Redditor shared a series of photos showing the number of dislikes steadily decreasing. Some commenters mentioned that the number of dislikes decreased even while they were reading the thread on Reddit. The number of dislikes currently stands at 13,096. However, other users said that after awhile, the number of dislikes started increasing again and perhaps the decreasing numbers were simply due to users mistakenly hitting “dislike” at first and then changing their vote.

4. Others Believed Hillary Clinton Was Behind Deport Racism’s Campaign, But It’s Really Just One Activist Who Supports Clinton

deport racism source code

Liberty GB reported that Deport Racism’s website included a link for supporting Bernie Sanders’ campaign. However, digging into the source code of the website revealed links to Clinton’s campaign gear, accessories, and a “White House Wonder Woman” Vimeo file, which is private. The code also linked to a website called Bill for First Lady 2016, which described itself as a “national online grassroots movement of young Americans to support Hillary Clinton for president in 2016…” The website is registered to Luke Montgomery, who is an activist for Hillary Clinton and founder of the Bill For First Lady website.

Some have said that these are signs that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is behind the anti-Trump campaign run by Deport Racism. However, this isn’t actually the case. The truth is that Luke Montgomery, a Clinton supporter and activist, is the person behind all the sites, without any direct connections to Clinton.

5. Deport Racism Is an Online Movement to Fight Anti-Latino Racism in the 2016 Election

deport racism trump snl

Deport Racism is a PAC that was created to fight anti-Latino racism in the 2016 election. The group focuses its work on creating viral videos, social media memes, and “headline-generating confrontations,” according to its website.

Deeper dive on the man behind all of this and he has a dark past.

DEPORT RACISM PAC

PO BOX 10472
COLUMBUS, OH 43201

Treasurer Name: LUKE MONTGOMERY

Committee Designation: U (UNAUTHORIZED)

Committee Type: O (INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE-ONLY COMMITTEE)

Chinatown had Ordered Murders

Posted on November 9, 2015November 9, 2015 by Denise Simon

Raymond Chow Kwok-cheung (traditional Chinese: 周國祥; simplified Chinese: 周国祥; pinyin: Zhōu Guóxiáng; Jyutping: zau1 gwok3 coeng4); born 1960), nicknamed “Shrimp Boy“, is a Hong Kong-born ex-felon with ties to a San Francisco Chinatown street gang and an organized crime syndicate, including the American branch of the Hong Kong-based triad Wo Hop To^[1] and the Hop Sing Boys.

In 2006, Chow became the leader of the Ghee Kung Tong, a Chinese fraternal association based in San Francisco, California. In 2014, Chow along with 28 other defendants including former California State Senator Leland Yee, were indicted for racketeering, money laundering, and a host of other alleged criminal activities. Leland Yee pled guilty to racketeering in July of 2015 for conspiring with his campaign fundraiser to defeat donation limits through money laundering. Despite initial press releases, Chow was not indicted in a racketeering conspiracy with Leland Yee. Chow was indicted in a racketeering conspiracy which alleged that he oversaw a criminal faction of the Ghee Kung Tong. Chow is the only co-defendant of 29 to publicly profess his innocence and ask for an expedited jury trial. He is scheduled for trial in November of 2015.

Prosecutor: Chinatown crime defendant ordered murder

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A defendant in a San Francisco crime probe ordered the murder of a rival and was at the center of a criminal organization in Chinatown that laundered money and trafficked in guns and drugs, a prosecutor said during an opening statement on Monday.

Federal prosecutor Waqar Hasib recreated the scene when Allen Leung, the head of the Chinese fraternal group, the Ghee Kung Tong, was shot in February 2006, calling the slaying a “cold-blooded, gangland-style hit” ordered by defendant Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow.

Chow was the focus of a lengthy organized crime investigation in Chinatown that ended up snaring a corrupt California senator and more than two dozen others. He has pleaded not guilty to murder, racketeering and money-laundering charges that could put him away for life.

Hasib said Chow was the sun at the center of a criminal universe.

Chow repeatedly accepted money from an undercover FBI agent posing as a member of the mafia despite denying he had any involvement in the agent’s money laundering and other crimes, Hasib said.

Jurors will hear a chilling recording of Chow talking to the agent about another murder Chow has been charged with and hear testimony from one of Chow’s co-defendants that Chow had ordered Leung’s murder, Hasib said.

Federal investigators say Chow took over the Ghee Kung Tong in 2006 after having Leung killed.

“This case is about this group of people engaging in this pattern of criminal activity,” Hasib said. “But most importantly, this case is about the person who is at the center of that, around whom all of that criminal activity revolved, around whom all those people revolved.”

Chow’s attorneys, led by veteran San Francisco lawyer Tony Serra, are expected to make their opening statement later Monday.

They have argued in court papers that the government’s multiyear probe was a costly fishing expedition that induced innocent people into crime.

Legal observers say the racketeering conviction of state Sen. Leland Yee in July has largely validated the government’s probe and lowered the stakes for prosecutors in Chow’s trial.

Federal agents say that one of Chow’s associates was Keith Jackson, a former San Francisco school board president and well-known political consultant who raised money for Yee’s unsuccessful mayoral run in 2011 and bid for secretary of state.

Jackson led investigators to Yee, who acknowledged as part of his plea deal that he accepted thousands of dollars in exchange for favors and discussed helping an undercover FBI agent buy automatic weapons from the Philippines.

Yee is scheduled to be sentenced in December and faces a maximum of 20 years in prison. Jackson pleaded guilty to the same racketeering charge as Yee and is also scheduled to be sentenced in December.

“The government has gotten what it wanted to get out of this investigation by already putting down Leland Yee,” said Peter Keane, a professor at Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco and a former public defender. “He was their trophy.”

The investigation also sent a message to other politicians and Chinatown power brokers, said Rory Little, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings and a former federal prosecutor.

“‘Even Chinatown can be penetrated by government investigations, so stay on the up and up,'” he said. “‘And if you’re a state senator, don’t assume you’re safe.'”

The judge overseeing Chow’s trial, Charles Breyer, said it could continue into February.

Mizzou University President Forced to Resign by Black Demands

Posted on November 9, 2015November 9, 2015 by Denise Simon

The University president did resign on November 9. This has the social justice types at the White House and the Department of Justice fingerprints all over it.

The social media campaign in earnest here and here.

In part: “We want the student body and the administration to know that we are calling for UM System President Tim Wolfe to step down or we risk losing a student,” Ervin said, referring to the possibility that Butler could die.

The group is using Twitter to push its message using the hashtag #BoycottUM.

They have also started a www.Change.org petition to remove Wolfe from office.

“I think there are several things in the works to bring attention to what is going on,” Alexis Ditaway, who is an ally of Concerned Student 1950, said. “As minority students on campus this is something that can and will affect all of us. This is an issue.”

The students gathered Tuesday night with one final chant from Assata Shakur:

“It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.”

During the University of Missouri’s 104th homecoming parade, Saturday, October 10, 2015, eleven Black student leaders on campus interjected themselves into the parade, presenting UM system president, Tim Wolfe, and the Columbia community with a demonstration addressing Mizzou’s history of racial violence and exclusivity. The demonstration covered the raw, painful, and often silenced history of racism and discrimination on the University of Missouri’s campus.

This history of racism at Mizzou dates back to 1935 when Lloyd Gaines petitioned the university to be its first Black law student and was denied admission. The actual year that the first Black student, Gus T. Ridgel, was accepted in the University of Missouri wasn’t until 1950, hence where the concept of “Concerned Student 1950” comes from.

Concerned Student 1950, thus, represents every Black student admitted to the University of Missouri since then and their sentiments regarding racerelated affairs affecting their lives at a predominantly white institution. Not only do our white peers sit in silence in the face of our oppression but also our administrators who perpetuate that oppression through their inaction.

The Black experience on Mizzou’s campus is cornered in offices and rarely attended to until it reaches media. Then, and only then, do campus administrators seek reactionary initiatives to attest to the realities of oppressed students, faculty, and staff. These temporary adjustments to the university’s behaviors are not enough to assure that future generations of marginalized students will have a safe and inclusive learning experience during their time at Mizzou.

It is important to note that, as students, it is not our job to ensure that the policies and practices of the University of Missouri work to maintain a safe, secure and unbiased campus climate for all of its students. We do understand, however, that change does not happen without a catalyst.

Concerned Student 1950 has invested time, money, intellectual capital, and excessive energy to bring to the forefront these issues and to get administration on board so that we, as students, may turn our primary focus back to what we are on campus to do: obtain our degrees.

The following document presents the demands of Concerned Student 1950. This document reflects the adjustments that we feel should be made to the University. We expect a response to these demands by 5:00pm on October 28, 2015.

If we do not receive a response to these demands by the date above, we will take appropriate nonviolent actions. If there are any questions, comments or concerns, you may forward them to ConcernedStudent1950@gmail.com.

The struggle continues, Concerned Student 1950

List of Demands

I. We demand that the University of Missouri System President, Tim Wolfe, writes a handwritten apology to the Concerned Student 1950 demonstrators and holds a press conference in the Mizzou Student Center reading the letter. In the letter and at the press conference, Tim Wolfe must acknowledge his white male privilege, recognize that systems of oppression exist, and provide a verbal commitment to fulfilling Concerned Student 1950 demands. We want Tim Wolfe to admit to his gross negligence, allowing his driver to hit one of the demonstrators, consenting to the physical violence of bystanders, and lastly refusing to intervene when Columbia Police Department used excessive force with demonstrators.

II. We demand the immediate removal of Tim Wolfe as UM system president. After his removal a new amendment to UM system policies must be established to have all future UM system president and Chancellor positions be selected by a collective of students, staff, and faculty of diverse backgrounds.

III. We demand that the University of Missouri meets the Legion of Black Collegians’ demands that were presented in 1969 for the betterment of the black community.

IV. We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.

V. We demand that by the academic year 20172018, the University of Missouri increases the percentage of black faculty and staff campuswide to 10%.

VI. We demand that the University of Missouri composes a strategic 10 year plan by May 1, 2016 that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training, and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.

VII. We demand that the University of Missouri increases funding and resources for the University of Missouri Counseling Center for the purpose of hiring additional mental health professionals; particularly those of color, boosting mental health outreach and programming across campus, increasing campuswide awareness and visibility of the counseling center, and reducing lengthy wait times for prospective clients.

VIII. We demand that the University of Missouri increases funding, resources, and personnel for the social justices centers on campus for the purpose of hiring additional professionals, particularly those of color, boosting outreach and programming across campus, and increasing campuswide awareness and visibility.

Crackas With Attitude Hit FBI Director

Posted on November 7, 2015November 7, 2015 by Denise Simon

A few days ago, it was the Director of the CIA, John Brennan, now it is the Director of the FBI. The hacking group boasted their success on Twitter, but that account has since been terminated.

CIA email hackers breach FBI-run site, deputy director’s private email

The same hackers who breached the email account of CIA Director John Brennan last month are now believed to be behind another set of intrusions, including accessing a FBI-run law enforcement portal and a private email account of a top bureau official.

The hackers, who call themselves Crackas With Attitude, posted Friday personal data of law enforcement officials that appears to have been stolen from the Law Enforcement Enterprise Portal, CNN reported.

The FBI-run site, also known as LEO.gov, connects local and federal law enforcement officials and allows local, state and federal agencies to share information, including details of ongoing investigations.

Three U.S. law enforcement officials confirmed the breach. Users of the portal received notices that their data may have been compromised.

In addition, a Twitter account that investigators believe is operated by the hackers posted screenshotsThursday that appear to have come from a private email account belonging to FBI Deputy Director Mark Giuliano and his wife.

The same Twitter account also posted data that appeared to come from the LEO.gov site, including names and contact information for law enforcement employees.

The three officials told CNN that the same hackers who accessed Mr. Brennan’s email account are believed to be behind the latest breaches.

An FBI spokeswoman declined to comment on the alleged breaches.

“We have no comment on specific claims of hacktivism, but those who engage in such activities are breaking the law,” FBI spokeswoman Carol Cratty told CNN. “The FBI takes these matters very seriously. We will work with our public and private sector partners to identify and hold accountable those who engage in illegal activities in cyberspace.”