As reported by Fox News, congressional investigators “claim” the Obama Administration “funneled” billions of dollars to “left-wing activist groups”—such as the National Council of La Raza, National Urban League and National Community Reinvestment Coalition—through a “slush fund” scheme of the Department of Justice.
“Findings spearheaded by the House Judiciary Committee point to a process shrouded in secrecy whereby monies were distributed to a labyrinth of nonprofit organizations involved with grass-roots activism,” reports Fox.
“Advocates for big government and progressive power are using the Justice Department to extort money from corporations,” Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch told Fox.
“It’s a shakedown. It’s corrupt, pure and simple.”
Fitton also suggested that these “spontaneous” protests sprouting up at town halls and elsewhere are connected to the left’s “massive infrastructure,” created in part by Obama’s “slush fund” at the DOJ.
“The protests are as organic as a plastic cup,” he said. “There is a massive left-wing infrastructure in place trying to protect the monstrous government created by the Obama administration.”
Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas, said the “revelations” leave Obama in very “hot” water. If the House Judiciary Committee takes this “inquiry” all the way, “criminal” charges will be filed.
“Somebody ought to go to prison for this. This is worse than a mafia shakedown. At least if the mafia shakes you down for protection, your store doesn’t burn down. But this is a case where the liberals have played Robin Hood. They have stolen from the government, the tax payers, and they’ve given it to their pals.“
Obama almost “doubled” the national debt.
On January 20, 2009, when Obama was “sworn” in, the national debt was “$10.626 trillion.” On January 20, 2017, it was “$19.947 trillion.” Obama added “$9 trillion to the debt,” more than any other president.
Obama’s “apologists” claim the national debt is largely “out of a President’s hands.” They are currently having “trouble” explaining why the national debt “fell for the first time in decades” one month after he “left” office and President Trump took the “reins.”
Here’s essentially how the “shakedown” works, as outlined by Fox:
When big banks are “sued” by the government for “discrimination or mortgage abuse,” they can settle the cases by “donating” to third-party non-victims. The settlements “do not specify” how these third-party groups “could use the windfall.”
So far, investigators have “accounted” for $3 billion paid to “non-victim entities.”
Critics say banks are “incentivized” to donate the funds to “non-profits” rather than “giving it to consumers.”
As noted by the “Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Class Action Fairness” Director Ted Frank, DOJ officials are essentially “going” after corporate defenders to “to fund their pet projects.”
“The underlying problem with the slush funds is we don’t know exactly where the money is going,” said Frank. “Using enforcement authority to go after corporate defendants, DOJ bureaucrats are taking billions away from taxpayers to fund their pet projects overriding congressional preferences.”
Although the DOJ claims it’s perfectly lawful to “bypass” the Treasury Department since the banks are “voluntarily” donating, Frank argues that bypass of the department “subverts the legislative branch’s essential spending power.” Not to mention, critics have suggested the “voluntary” donations come attached with “incentives and pressure.”
“This is real abuse of power,” insisted Frank.
“Congress allotted $47 million for the HUD Housing Counseling, but the Citi and Bank of America settlements shipped in an additional $30 million in funding,” in the FY16 Enacted Congressional Appropriation, outlines Fox as an example.
“The Legal Services Corporation was allocated $385 million from Congress but is getting an additional $412 million in taxpayer dollars from the third-party settlement practice.”
Moreover, in a recent Volkswagen “settlement,” a $1.2 billion investment into zero emission technology requirement “was not only twice denied by Congress but is now expected to receive four times the amount originally requested by the Obama administration.”
Republicans argue this alleged “abuse of power” should be a bipartisan issue.
“Democrats thought it was an attack on Obama,” said Republican Oklahoma Senator James Lankford. “This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, but one of good government. Actions settled by the federal government should go back to the federal government, back to the taxpayer.”
Legislation, called “Stop Settlement Slush Fund Act of 2017,” has been introduced by Lankford to address the scheme.
“Congress must permanently end the abuses Obama’s Justice Department exploited to use settlements to funnel money to their liberal friends,” said House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Republican representing Virginia.
When Nancy Met Harry
House minority leader Nancy Pelosi has been the loudest voice against the administration of Donald Trump. The “deflector in chief,” as she calls the president, has “done nothing,” and in a March 5 CNN interview Pelosi doubled down on the Democrats’ default conspiracy theory.
“What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?” she said. “That’s the truth we want to know.”
As Pelosi mounts this surge, the old-line establishment media have shown little if any interest in Pelosi’s own background, particularly as it relates to Russia, the USSR, and the American labor movement.
“Harry Bridges was arguably the most significant labor leader of the twentieth century,” Pelosi wrote in the Congressional Record in 2001, on the 100th anniversary of Bridges birth. Bridges was “beloved by the workers of this nation, and recognized as one of the most important labor leaders in the world” and his International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union was “the most progressive union of the time.”
At the time Pelosi’s tribute drew little if any news coverage, but in 2007, when she was calling for unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, it came to the attention of Joshua Muravchik. Then with the American Enterprise Institute, he had been a speaker at the Second Thoughts Conference David Horowitz and Peter Collier staged in 1987. As a former chairman of the Young People’s Socialist League, Muravchik knew his onions on Harry Bridges.
“Pelosi’s Favorite Stalinist,” ran the headline on his June 25, 2007 piece in the Weekly Standard. True to form, Harry Bridges was “an Australian immigrant and devoted Communist” both the Roosevelt and Truman administrations tried to deport because he had lied about his Communist affiliation in his immigration papers.
“So loyal was Bridges to Moscow that during the period of the Stalin-Hitler pact, he opposed the (1940) reelection of labor hero FDR, because Roosevelt was aligning the United States with Britain against Germany, and the ILWU printed antiwar pamphlets proclaiming ‘The Yanks Are NOT Coming.’ As soon as Hitler’s forces invaded the Soviet Union, Bridges did a 180-degree about-face on the war.”
Bridges and his union “took transparently pro-Communist stances” while denying Communist affiliation. “Only after the fall of the USSR, and the opening of Soviet archives,” Muravchik wrote, “did the truth emerge that Bridges had been not merely in the party but a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party USA, a position for which the documents show he was directly approved by the Kremlin.”
A full nine years after this revelation, Pelosi delivered her worshipful tribute to the Stalinist labor boss. As Muravchik noted, she visited ILWU headquarters and praised “another prominent Bay Area Stalin fan, Vivian Hallinan, whose husband was Bridges’ lawyer and the 1952 candidate for president of the Communist-front Progressive party.” In Pelosi’s view, “Vivian was devoted intellectually and passionately to many causes, well before they became popularly embraced.”
Contrary to the progressive Bay Area Democrat, Muravchik recalled, the most important post-war labor leader was George Meany of the AFL-CIO, “a staunch force for anti-communism” who led the charge to expel any union led by Communists. In 1972 Meany denied labor support to George McGovern and in 1975 organized a welcome for Aleksander Solzenitsyn, “when President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger refused to receive the Soviet dissident.”
Pelosi’s praise of Bridges, Muravchik wrote, was not to say that Pelosi was ever a Communist. It did show “Pelosi’s wretched record in judging who are history’s good guys and who are its bad.” And as she ran off to meet the likes of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad, “we should be mindful that some of what she knows about political values was learned at the feet of people who believed fervently that the great enemy of mankind was none other than America itself.”
That’s what the leaders of Iran believe but Nancy Pelosi is a strong supporter of the Iran deal that many believe will speed Islamic regime’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. In similar style, when the 44th president caved to Russian complaints and canceled missile defense in Europe, Pelosi called it a “brilliant” move.
Likewise, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s famous re-set gave the Russians virtually everything they wanted, including the most highly intrusive inspection program the United States had ever accepted. “We want to ensure that every question that the Russian military or Russian government asks is answered,” Clinton said after meeting with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov.
Yet, in her recent CNN interview, Pelosi charged that the Russians “have a vendetta against Hillary Clinton.” Pelosi remains, as Muravchik wrote in 2007, “far to the left” and a poor judge of good guys and bad guys.
Maybe that’s why the old-line establishment media remain uninterested in Pelosi’s story. Or maybe it’s because, as Ben Rhodes said, they “literally know nothing” about Russia, the USSR, and the American labor movement, and don’t want to know anything.
David Horowitz on Communism, Marxism, and the Black Panther Party (Pt. 1)
David Horowitz: Why I am No Longer a Leftist (Pt. 2)
David Horowitz on Abortion, Islam, and Donald Trump (Pt. 3)
CENSORED CIA WHISTLEBLOWER WHO BACKED TRUMP SPEAKS OUT: EXCLUSIVE
Insider discusses Trump wiretapping and the state of geopolitics
Alex Jones talks with censored CIA whistleblower Larry Johnson about his support for President Donald Trump as well as how the world is dangerously moving closer to World War 3.
RELATED: CNN/NYT Blame Alex Jones For Trump Wiretap Claims
Related previous posts on this blog