Noble Cause Corruption

By Julian Krasta

Noble cause corruption is generally used to describe when a peace officer goes beyond what is correct and proper when executing his or her authority.

An example is when a policeman might plant incriminating evidence or give false testimony under oath to aid in the prosecution of a known and dangerous repeat felon “to get them off the street.”

In his mind, he has done nothing wrong – that what he did was for the greater good (e.g., making neighborhoods safer within a failed criminal justice system). But while making us feel safer he, however, has also violated Constitutional rights.

Going further (and deeper psychologically): Being caught literally red-handed with your mitts in the till but not accepting personal liability for the crime comes under the heading psychopathic narcissist (not to be confused with Obama’s malignant narcissism). Narcissists in all groups never admit to wrongdoing.

Take the liberal mainstream media: As far as they’re concerned, nothing they print, report or represent is distorted, damaging, or untrue. In their twisted minds, what they do is for the greater good. That is classic noble cause corruption.

It is well known that accepting a bribe is an act of corruption, because the receiver of cash or cash equivalents for favors is demonstrating abuse of power (private, public, civil, judicial) that is vested in him or her. It is a patent breach of trust.

On that basis, it would not be unreasonable to say that noble cause corruption has been a key factor in the melting down of the credit market: creating entities to assist those who normally could not afford to buy a home.

Those entities were represented to us as being established for the greater good. No one, of course, mentioned the portly profits being raked in on the sidelines by members of both houses of Congress – did you, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, and Franklin Raines? Did you?

I admit I’m startled by the injudicious actions and remarks by those we elected (such as Harry Reid’s ill-timed pronouncement on October 2, 2008 that a major U.S. insurance company is on the brink of collapse, sparking a sharp sell-off of insurer stocks).

Statements like his only served to add fuel to the confusion and complexities of this disaster, which is coming dangerously close to landing our financial industry permanently in the I.C.U.

But to be perfectly honest, I’m really not that startled anymore, because I’ve come to accept the fact that nearly everything that comes out of the mouth today of every Washington lawmaker, every politicaster, every MSM reporter, and every liberal in the entertainment industry bears the same consistency and smells as bad, if not worse, as what we buy in 50‑lb. bags at our local nurseries and spread on our lawns.

In addition is the ludicrous blame game – its gun barrels smoking up a storm and choking the oxygen in and around Capitol Hill. The majority of this noxious residue is coming from Speaker Pelosi’s office, who is obsessed with a macabre predilection of laying the fault of everything on Earth and in the heavens solely on President Bush – and on all Republicans, for that matter, whether living or dead.

What Ms. Pelosi could not foresee is this: Bill Clinton has come forth to lay a majority of the blame on fellow Democrats. (Thank you, Bill, for your honesty. I’m sure Senator McCain thanks you, too.)

As an aside to Ms. Pelosi: The beginning of the end kicked off before George W. Bush was sworn in as President of the United States. The conception of today’s meltdown was in 1995 when then-President William Jefferson Clinton signed his name to a bill, which was nurtured and overwhelmingly supported by Congress.

That bill was the instrument that impelled banks to lend money to persons and entities whose credit-worthiness and personal reliability were more risky than that of my Rottweiler, Ziggy.

It didn’t take long before the banks got the shakes about having to hand over their money to less-than-equitable persons. To ease their anxiety, the banks sold those mortgages to Fannie Mae.

Furthermore, it was President George W. Bush who, in 2004, fought to get a bill passed that would place a muzzle on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Despite the president’s best efforts to contain the perceived disaster, the Democrats shot it down raucously stating that there was absolutely no risk involved.

Not even Alan Greenspan’s warnings were taken seriously. On February 24, 2004, the Federal Reserve chairman testified before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, in which he predicted, at length and in detail, the present ruinous outcome. (Go HERE for the full text of his testimony.)

I’m going to stop at this point. Rather than proceed and write something I might later regret (because I’m mad as hell over this roiling mess), go HERE for a laudatory article dated September 30, 1999,entitled “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending,” written by Steven A. Holmes of The New York Times. It’s reasonably short and easy-to-understand – and also speaks volumes on noble cause corruption in politics and the media that support those types of politics: what was done for the greater good.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“I believe the banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Need I say more?