Mediaboss Marketing

The Trump administration has ended Operation Choke Point, the anti-fraud initiative started under the Obama administration that many Republicans argued was used to target gun retailers and other businesses that Democrats found objectionable.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd told GOP representatives in a Wednesday letter that the long-running program had ended, bringing a conclusion to a chapter in the Obama years that long provoked and angered conservatives who saw Choke Point as an extra-legal crackdown on politically disfavored groups.

"All of the department's bank investigations conducted as part of Operation Chokepoint are now over, the initiative is no longer in effect, and it will not be undertaken again," Boyd wrote in the letter.

The letter was addressed to Jeb Hensarling and Bob Goodlatte, the chairmen of the Financial Services and Judiciary Committees, respectively. Their staffs confirmed they received the letter.

The Republicans had written last week to Attorney General Jeff Sessions for confirmation that the program was over so that businesses that might be targeted could breathe easy.

After the Obama Justice Department began Operation Choke Point in 2013, Hensarling and other conservatives accused them of denying the constitutional rights of businesses like gun dealers and payday lenders by targeting them for scrutiny under the program, cutting off their access to the banking system under the guise of investigating fraud and money laundering.

The GOP said companies were still wary that they could lose access to the banking system, and needed clear guidance from the Trump administration that the program wouldn't be continued.

In a joint statement, Hensarling, Goodlatte, and Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri and Darrell Issa said that the Trump administration has "restored the Department's responsibility to pursue lawbreakers, not legitimate businesses."

The also said that the "Obama Administration created this ill-advised program to suffocate legitimate businesses to which it was ideologically opposed by intimidating financial institutions into denying banking services to those businesses."

Not that the government is totally done with Choke Point. Boyd said the department would follow up on investigations that stemmed from the original program.

Nevertheless, Boyd called Choke Point a "misguided initiative" and said that the administration shares the Republicans' concerns about lawful businesses being scrutinized just because their activities are disfavored. He also noted, though, that some of the responses to subpoenas originally issued as part of the program uncovered criminal activity.

Separately, Luetkemeyer called for the federal banking regulators tasked with cracking down on banks thought to be facilitating crimes to also definitively state that they would stop doing so. Luetkemeyer, who chairs the financial institutions subcomittee, also called for Congress to pass legislation he's authored to prevent the administration from undertaking similar programs in the future.

Some banks have still experienced bank examiners taking issue with certain customers in recent months, said Camden R. Webb, the chair of the firearms industry practice group at the law firm Williams Mullen. The Justice Department's letter was a "great step in the right direction for the gun industry and other industries," Webb said, but businesses have to be realistic that "we don't have any official position statement, at least not presently, from the bank regulators."

Dennis Shaul, the head of the Community Financial Services Association of America that represents some of the targeted payday lenders, said that his group will keep pursuing a lawsuit against the federal government over Operation Choke Point in order to "hold these regulatory agencies accountable" and allow businesses to regain access to the banking system.

Originally posted here:
Trump ends Obama's Operation Choke Point - Washington Examiner

Several websites pushed out a fresh accusation of plagiarism against First Lady Melania Trumpand once again, the alleged source for the supposedly ill-gotten words is former First Lady Michelle Obama.

On Saturday, August 12, as violence escalated in Charlottesville, Virginia, Mrs. Trump took to Twitter with this message: "Our country encourages freedom of speech, but let's communicate w/o hate in our hearts. No good comes from violence. #Charlottesville"

Sometime on Sunday, a meme appeared on Twitter, Facebook, and various other websites, that juxtaposed the words of the first lady's tweet and her picture with very similar words purportedly from Michelle Obama: "Our nation encourages freedom of speech, but let's communicate without hate in our hearts. No good comes of that." The former first lady's picture also appears in the meme (shown below), as well as the date when Mrs. Obama allegedly made the remarks, April 16, 2016.

However, there is no evidence that Michelle Obama ever uttered those words or anything remotely close to them. The Obama White House archives do not indicate any speech or remarks by Michelle Obama on the date in question, nor does a broader search turn up any such remarks by the former first lady at any point during her husband's presidency. A review of contemporaneous news reports similarly comes up empty as well.

The photo of Mrs. Obama used in the meme comes from an October 13, 2016 appearance at a Hillary for America campaign event in Manchester, New Hampshire. During her remarks, Mrs. Obama excoriated then-candidate Trump for vulgar remarks in a 2005 Access Hollywood taping. But again, the transcript of the speech contains nothing close to the words in the meme.

Despite the complete lack of evidence, within days the meme and related stories were shared on Twitter and Facebook thousands of times. Rickey Smiley, a comedian and TV-radio personality, featured the false story under the headline "First Lady Forger: Did Melania Trump Just Plagiarize Michelle Obama Again!?" Smiley's Facebook fan page and blog linked to a Raw Story piece which in turn used an International Business Times story as its source. Other sites responsible for wide distribution of the fake meme include an unofficial Bill Maher fan page and AlterNet News.

The meme plays off a 2016 incident in which the speech Melania Trump delivered at the Republican National Convention drew heavily on remarks made by Michelle Obama in 2008. A Trump campaign aide who wrote the speech for Mrs. Trump took responsibility for the uncredited words, saying that she took notes while Mrs. Trump read passages from Mrs. Obama's earlier speech. Those notes were incorporated into the final draft of the speech without attribution. The aide offered to resign, but Donald Trump declined her offer.

The new accusation of plagiarism, while drawn from the 2016 incident, seems to have been largely shared with the understanding that it was likely a hoax. In Rickey Smiley's posting for example, the article ends with "Before you pull out your pitchfork though, know that none of this has been confirmed. No one has proven that Michelle actually said or tweeted those words beforefor all we know, it could just be a meme gone out of control."

Even the original International Business Times story noted that it was an "unproven claim whether Melania stole Obama's words" and "[w]hile the possibility of plagiarism has not been ruled out in the latest instance, reports said the viral meme was most likely a spoof."

Whatever doubts existed, thousands of social media users enthusiastic spread the story based on the sensational headlines. While mainstream news outlets have largely avoided the story for now, Yahoo! News picked up and reprinted the International Business Times version with the headline "Melania Trump Accused Of Copying Michelle Obama Again." But while the IBT story headline included the phrase "Maybe Wrongly This Time," that caveat was missing in the Yahoo! Headline.

While the original source of the meme remains a mystery, the spread of false stories such as this is anything but.

If you have questions about this fact check, or would like to submit a request for another fact check, email The Weekly Standard at factcheck@weeklystandard.com.

Read this article:
Fact Check: Did Melania Trump Plagiarize Michelle Obama on Twitter? - The Weekly Standard

Adam Fondren, Deseret News

I voted stickers and voting cards at the Sandy City Office polling location on August 15, 2017.

On Aug. 16, Republicans in the 3rd District finally chose a candidate to fill the empty seat formerly held by Jason Chaffetz. Because this was a three-way race with no run-off, the fiscally responsible voters of the 3rd District were divided, and as a result, the GOP candidate for this fall will be the least fiscally responsible, least free market oriented of the three. And this is in Utahs most fiscally responsible congressional district.

On the Democratic side, we have a candidate advocating an even more aggressive federal government micromanaging of health care from D.C., raising the tax and debt burden on every American.

Meanwhile, our local media have zeroed in on only one alternative to this lack of real choice, the son of the late Sen. Bob Bennett, who was ousted by Utahs fiscal conscience Sen. Mike Lee. The fiscally sound folks from Utahs 3rd Congressional District currently have six candidates on the November ballot to choose from, but only three are being mentioned as viable choices to represent their interests in Washington.

This letter is not a reflection on the character of the candidates in this race, in fact, having met both Jim Bennett and John Curtis, I can genuinely say that these candidates are seemingly very good people with good intentions.

However, the records and statements of the Democrat and the Republican in this race present two candidates with only slight differences in their tax and spending policies. With Congress discussing the critical issue of tax reform in the coming year, it is critical that the fiscally responsible people of Utah are represented by a true voice for substantive tax reform.

When Jason Chaffetz resigned, one of the most often referenced concerns of voters was the absence of a voice in Congress during this critical time. Ask yourself, do you want a congressman who has a bad record on taxes, or do you want a sane voice for fiscal discipline? Do you want a candidate who, once elected, must immediately turn around and begin campaigning for re-election?

Despite what you are hearing from the media and the political elite, there is another option, a reasonable option that will give the 3rd District a determined and knowledgeable voice on tax reform for one year, a powerful option that will look straight in the eye of the political elite and let them know that the 3rd District is not for sale. If you vote for the Libertarian candidate in this election, you will be voting for principled tax reform you can trust that no matter what happens, your representative will represent your interests and not be beholden to the Democrats and Republicans who keep their freshman members on a tight leash.

If you vote for the Libertarian, you will have a representative for one year who will not be forced to focus on re-election, and who will instead work every day to provide real reform in Washington. If you vote for the Libertarian, you can tell the lobbyists with Count My Vote that this system placed two tofu candidates on the ballot and you wont be a part of it.

Here is the bottom line, this candidate will only hold office for one year before a new election is held. By sending the Libertarian to Washington, you will have the time to focus on finding a candidate for the 3rd District that truly represents Utah values. You have an opportunity to vote for the only candidate who was nominated at a convention rather than in a well-funded primary. A candidate with an MBA in finance, a career in education and a principled stand. A candidate who will enjoy the support of the leaders of the national Liberty Movement. There are so many reasons to vote for the Libertarian this November, take a risk and vote for Dr. Joe Buchman.

Joseph Buchman is chairman of the Libertarian Party of Utah and a candidate for Utah's 3rd Congressional District. Buchman has a Ph.D. in media from Indiana University and has spent his career teaching marketing, finance and communications.

Read more:
Op-ed: Why you should consider the Libertarian candidate for the 3rd District - Deseret News

LISTEN: How John Curley changed his mind about Seattle bike shares

Hey, check out my bike! (John Curley, KIRO Radio)

John Curley has been critical of any bike share in Seattle. So how is it possible that he could change his mind about something he has called socialist in the past?

Then I realized that Im supporting private enterprise, Curley said. The other one (Pronto!) I was forced to participate in it by having my tax dollars support it. I wasnt given a choice whether or not I wanted to get on the bike. The government just said, Hey, we think this is a good idea. We are going to pour money into this failure.

RELATED: 3 days commuting via a Seattle bike share

Seattles previous failed bike share, Pronto!, was largely publicly funded. The city even bought it out for $1.4 million before shutting it down. But the bike share companies currently setting up shop in Seattle are quite different than the Pronto system. First of all, as Curley points out, they are private companies competing to become Seattles main bike share (SDOT will make some money off of them, however). They also dont use stations. You drop them off wherever you are.

In Curleys case, he picked up a Limebike from Eastlake near the KIRO Radio studios and rode it down to Safeco Field to watch a Mariners game avoiding traffic and parking.

I got there in plenty of time; soon enough to see the first batter, get the second pitch and hit a home run against the Ms, Curley said.

Overall, it was terrific, he said. One dollar was all I got charged. It was fast, easy, and efficient. I didnt wear a helmet; made you feel a little bit like an outlaw, especially as I rode past a bunch of cops without a helmet.

RELATED: Seattle enforcing bike helmet law less and less

While he found it convenient and cheap to use, there are some drawbacks.

I will do it again in the future, but you will never win the Tour de France on one of these things, Curley said. They are clunky and slow. At first, I felt really embarrassed to be on it. Because you got the big basket and you look like the Wicked Witch of the West. Its just not something you want to see yourself on. I passed by a plate glass window and watched myself on it not the best look.

Read the rest here:
A Libertarian changed his mind about using a Seattle bike share - MyNorthwest.com

The Libertarian Party wants to be clear: they reject white supremacy, bigotry, and racism.

In a press release on August 15, 2017, in the wake of the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, the LPs executive director Wes Benedictreiterated the partysstance on bigotry:

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny or abridge an individual human right based on sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation.

The press release went further, and asked any members who identified as white nationalists to leave the party:

There is no room for racists and bigots in the Libertarian Party. If there are white nationalists who inappropriately are members of the Libertarian Party, I ask them to submit their resignations today. We dont want them to associate with the Libertarian Party, and we dont want their money. Im not expecting many resignations, because our membership already knows this well.

The press release might not have been a response just to the event in Charlottesville.

A controversy has been raging over a blog post, written by Jeff Diest a prominent Libertarian thinker, Mises Institute president, and former chief of staff to Dr. Ron Paul.

The post was titled, A New Libertarian. It calls for rekindling the spirit of Blood and Soil, God and Nation, and suggests these should be virtues Libertarians should fight and die for.

Libertarian Party Vice Chair Arvin Vohrareacted on Facebook, calling the phrases central to Nazi, and nationalist ideas, and to the belief that the US should be turned back into some pure, white, Protestant, Christian, vaguely theocratic, racially segregated, cultural backwater.

On a pragmatic note, Vohras post reads, this means that at the current time, Mises Institute has been turned into a sales funnel for the white nationalist branch of the Alt-right

Mises will continue to put out useful information, he said, But that will be just the bait to lead unsuspecting people down this path of collectivist, racist lunacy.

To some, the Mises Institute, a Libertarian think tank, is a bedrock of Libertarian ideas. However, the institute has been harshly criticized as racist in highly regarded publications, like the Washington Postand Business Insider.

Diests blood and soil phrasing was also criticized by fellow Libertarian thinker Steve Horowitz.

Diest defended himself against Horowitz in a Facebook post of his own:

Nicholas Sarwark, LNC party chair, saidhe has been verbally attacked, and asked to step down as chair, by some, for asking people to condemn racists and nationalists.

Comments to the chair on Facebook rejected the phrases as reflections of Nazism and white nationalism:

In response, Sarwark offered commentators a simple, three step plan for removing him join the party, register for the national convention, and elect someone else.

Read more here:
Libertarians Tell White Nationalists, Racists to Leave Party - IVN News