This blog was the first to report yesterday that Fox News' Senior Legal Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said that extortion was committed on many American banks by the Bush Administration. The story was being typed as the Judge was speaking, and published to the internet within minutes.
Wednesday, on Fox's Studio B with Shepard Smith, Napolitano said that banks that did not need the bail-out money, did not want the bail out money, and tried to refuse, were specifically told by the FDIC and the Treasury that if those banks did not take the money they would be subjected to expensive and lengthy audits which the banks themselves would have to pay for.
Napolitano said that Monday night he met with an official of one of those banks who explained how the process had gone down. This official is reported to have told the government to go ahead with the audit because his bank was "clean" as far as its book were concerned. That is when the official was told his bank would have to pay for the audit, and his employees would have to give their time, paid for by the bank, to assist with the audit.
The Business and Media Institute said three hours later that "the method the Treasury Department employed to get banks to go along with the TARP bailout breached legal boundaries to the point of 'extortion,' according to Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano, a former Superior Court Judge for the state of New Jersey.
The Judge defined extortion as " a threat to perform a lawful act to affect some ones free will."
"This person runs a bank that’s worth about $250 billion, it has no subprime loans, it has no bad debts, wasn’t involved in credit default swaps," Napolitano said. "It didn’t need any money. It didn’t ask for the money and didn’t want it. The FDIC with Treasury backing - officials from both the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Treasury said if you don’t take this money, we will conduct a multi-year public audit of you."
In addition, those banks which were unduly forced to take the money now owe 5% interest on those government "loans". Some banks cut investor dividends at the end of their business cycles in order to pay for the interest owed.
In related news, "Signature Bank of New York said on Tuesday that it had repaid $120 million to the Treasury Department. Old National Bancorp of Indiana returned $100 million, Iberiabank of Louisiana paid back $90 million, and Bank of Marin Bancorp of Novato, Calif., repaid $28 million. All of the banks paid 5 percent interest on the money they had received. "New restrictions on executive compensation and dividend payouts made such aid less palatable to bank managers." New York Times
Extortion was committed on many American banks by the Bush Administration, said Fox News' Senior Legal Analyst, former judge Andrew Napolitano.
Tuesday, on Fox's Studio B with Shepard Smith, Napolitano said that banks that did not need the bail-out money, did not want the bail out money, and tried to refuse, were specifically told by the FDIC and the Treasury that if those banks did not take the money they would be subjected to expensive and lengthy audits which the banks themselves would have to pay for.
Napolitano said that Monday night he met with an official of one of those banks who explained how the process had gone down. This official is reported to have told the government to go ahead with the audit because his bank was "clean" as far as its book were concerned. That is when the official was told his bank would have to pay for the audit, and his employees would have to give their time, paid for by the bank, to assist with the audit.
In addition, those banks which were unduly forced to take the money now owe 5% interest on those government "loans". Some banks cut investor dividends at the end of their business cycles in order to pay for the interest owed.
In related news, "Signature Bank of New York said on Tuesday that it had repaid $120 million to the Treasury Department. Old National Bancorp of Indiana returned $100 million, Iberiabank of Louisiana paid back $90 million, and Bank of Marin Bancorp of Novato, Calif., repaid $28 million. All of the banks paid 5 percent interest on the money they had received.
It would seem now that Islam and the Human Rights Council is legitimately associated with the violations of free speech.
Muslim countries have been pressing for a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution calling on nations around the world to pass laws criminalizing the alleged “defamation” of religion – specifically Islam. This week the Council passed the resolution.
A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven mostly Western nations opposed it and 13 countries abstained. "It is individuals who have rights and not religions," said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada's criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.
"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution said. It would seem now that Islam and the Human Rights Council is legitimately associated with the violations of free speech.
The United States did not vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the council. The Bush administration announced it was virtually giving up on the body and would participate in debates only if absolutely necessary because of the council's anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.
The proposal by Pakistan had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies. The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."
Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.
But the "laws" or cannons of one religion should not be binding on people of other faiths, nor even upon those within the faith who disagree. In many cases, however, Muslim Shura, a form of social rules backed up by, in many cases, Sharia Law, forces other Muslims to adhere to the wishes of the community. http://www.alhewar.com/SadekShura.htm
India, which normally votes along with the council's majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.
Efforts by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have paid off in getting such a resolution passed – and we can count on the OIC to continue its global campaign to criminalize free speech that allegedly “defames” Islam.
