Accuracy in Media

The Obama administration has announced that it won’t enforce money-laundering laws against banks doing business with marijuana stores, in a move designed to “facilitate illegal conduct,” says Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)

The Obama administration calls it “Guidance to Financial Institutions on Marijuana Businesses.”

The Washington Post story about this development carried the innocuous headline, “Obama administration clears banks to accept funds from legal marijuana dealers,” when in fact the marijuana “business” is not “legal” under federal or international law.

“Marijuana trafficking is illegal under federal law, and it’s illegal for banks to deal with marijuana sale proceeds under federal law,” noted Grassley. “Only Congress can change these laws. The administration can’t change the law with a memo.”

He added, “This is just one more area in which the Obama Administration is undermining our system of checks and balances and the rule of law.”

Robert Charles, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, told Accuracy in Media that, despite the “guidance” from the Obama administration, banks will stay away from laundering marijuana money because of the fear of being sued. “The range of suits is enormous,” he said. “The guidelines do absolutely nothing. They protect no bank against anything. The DOJ won’t give any bank an assurance that it won’t be prosecuted under federal bank secrecy or anti-drug laws.”

Calvina L. Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation, told AIM, “This is yet one more example of the lawlessness of the Obama administration.  We all know that banks are federally regulated and that pot is still illegal at the federal level. This action will clearly put banks in jeopardy of violating regulations and will enable criminal activity to thrive.”

She added, “This action tells parents and grandparents that the government can no longer be counted on to do what it is intended to do: protect U.S. citizens from criminals who engage in drug trafficking, human trafficking, weapons trafficking, and other serious illegal activities that are inter-connected to the drug underworld. Rather, our government is now embracing this activity and enabling it.”

While most of the major media have been in support of what the Obama administration is doing to facilitate the spread of mind-altering drugs, some publications are sounding the alarm.

Whistleblower, a publication of, has published a special issue on the epidemic of drug use, legal and illegal, in American society. A piece by Art Moore titled, “Dude: Science contradicts Obama’s pot claims” refers to Obama as the “Choom Gang” president, a reference to his membership in a high school gang of heavy marijuana users, and notes that Obama’s claims about the relative harmlessness of pot are not sustained by the scientific evidence. Another article by Moore identifies Obama supporter George Soros, the hedge-fund billionaire, as the main force behind marijuana legalization.

Investigative reporter Michael P. Tremoglie says in an article on a site called Main St. that Soros is only one of several big name CEOs and rich elites who are financing the marijuana movement. He also names:

  • Google billionaire Paul Buchheit
  • Facebook billionaire founders Sean Parker and Dustin Moskovitz
  • PayPal founder Peter Thiel
  • George Zimmer, founder of Men’s Wearhouse
  • John Sperling, chairman and CEO of the University of Phoenix
  • Whole Foods founder John Mackey

A website called “Marijuana Majority” names dozens of other personalities backing the legalization of dope.

It appears, however, that some Republicans are moving in the direction of Obama’s soft-on-drugs policy.

Five days after the Maryland mall shootings, The Washington Times ran a front page story, “In the weeds: Paul, Christie, Perry open to softer pot laws ahead of 2016,” about possible Republican presidential candidates embracing the drug. It turned out that the Maryland mall shooter, who killed two people and then himself, was himself a pothead, and was possibly having a psychotic episode.

The Times said that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) “has arguably been the most vocal on the subject, saying the federal government should leave the issue entirely to the states.” The Times also reported that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) has vowed to scrap the “failed war on drugs.”

But David Evans, the Executive Director of the Drug Free Projects Coalition and a special advisor to the Drug Free America Foundation, notes that during the George W. Bush administration marijuana use went down among young people by 25 percent. “If we had had a reduction in any other health problem in the U.S. of 25 percent, we would consider it an outstanding success,” he said. But marijuana use has been going up under the Obama administration.

Michele M. Leonhart, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), declared in a statement issued last December that “Those who aspire to see their own or others’ children accomplish great things in life or who want to live in a nation of increasing prosperity should be very concerned about the increase in marijuana use by teenagers, including the fact that a staggering 12 percent of 13- and 14-year-olds are abusing the drug. The mixed messages being sent to America’s teens about the harmfulness and legality of using record-high-potency marijuana are obscuring kids’ awareness of the effects their use will have on them. America owes it to its children to give them the best possible start in life, so they and society are not hindered in the future.”

Her statement takes on even more significance now that Obama has disregarded the scientific evidence, declared the drug to be relatively harmless, and is encouraging banks to launder money from the marijuana traffickers.

Pro-marijuana groups are demanding that Obama fire Leonhart. But she continues to enforce the federal laws against marijuana as best she can. The DEA announced on January 27th that the owners of a “medical marijuana” dispensary in Bakersfield, California, had been charged with trafficking in both methamphetamine and marijuana.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • Taurnil Oronar

    “But marijuana use has been going up under the Obama administration.”

    Not surprising. When people find it difficult, impossible, nerve racking, have their promises shattered they will turn away from the savior promising to lower the oceans, keep your insurance if you like it, etc, etc, they will look for an escape.

  • stlouisix

    This story is yet another example of Obama’s callous disregard for the
    “common good” because Obama is all about the “common bad” in generating
    as much chaos as possible in America and the world in order to provide the cover necessary for tyrants like him to survive!

  • Richard Hellstrom

    He has better things for the IRS to be doing – In todays environment , our government , leaders , corporations , politicians and elitist need to be told that their just as good as the children their attacking so that they can maintain some kind of self worth and self value. Their ideas and morals cultivate from such attitude and mentalities as The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and their attacks are as pathetic and un justifiable as any Eastern Block Communist Country.

  • DavidForward

    Love it when a neocon like Kincaid decries the efforts of progressive statists to control every aspect of life but also pleads for the same type of control, just under the wise hands of the neoconservative philosopher kings.

  • stevor

    a continuation of the drug money laundering with clinton (another reason to reject Hitlery, as though her bungling of benghazi wasn’t enough already)

  • junkbuster

    The “War on Drugs” is a crock. Major banks have been “laundering” money from the drug cartels for years. Marijuana is only the “tip of the iceberg.” BHO has close personal as well as family ties to the banking industry. Therefore, none of his pronouncements on this subject should come as a surprise. The fact that he is not being indicted for something only proves his clandestine connections to some very, extremely rich and powerful agents. We the People have lost control of our own country.

  • Guest

    RE: “Obama Encourages Drug Money Laundering “
    The worst thing about Congress challenging OBAMA?

    ~Is that ….Congress (was so LOADED…with other issues)
    …..they simply….toke,….toke,…..ah,…. forgot..

  • Guest

    ~ Money is Money to Community Organizers, and poverty pimps like Obama.

  • Tanker74

    The rich can get richer with “legal” marijuana, and then the trial lawyers will get rich suing everyone and everything for the harmful impacts of marijuana. Then it’ll be time to move on to a new legalized drug and lawsuit cycle.

  • michael rhodes

    Is it just me or does anyone else think it’s funny that Senator “Grassley” is taking up this cause against “grass”? “Only Congress can change these laws. The administration can’t change the law with a memo.” Ah note to Senator “Grassley” obviously you were asleep during the part of the President’s SOTU address where he said he has a pen and a phone and he planned on using it. You can’t and won’t stop him period.

  • Fred Obozo

    It’s all about the money boys!!!! Obama filed a financial report that he was worth $600k when elected. Today he is worth 16 million $.

  • HmmmSaysDavidHume

    This is utterly ridiculous. Over 100,000,000 Americans admit to using cannabis in their lifetimes. A very large percentage of those Americans have used cannabis multiple times. If the average user has used cannabis ten times in their lives, then 1,000,000,000 times Americans have ignored and openly flaunted the law. Anyone with half a brain knows this is a conservative estimate of the number of times people have flipped off Leonhart and her oppression obsessed ilk.

    Think of the children? You mean, the ones across America who are one text away from access? The ones government is supposed to be protecting? How’s that worked out?

    Sure, let’s keep it illegal so another killer can replace the now captured El Chapo.

    This author and the others quoted in it are nothing more than self-interested liars, who will obfuscate the truth and direct attention away from their spectacular failure to affect supply or demand, and the ethical disasters Their beloved Prohibition has caused.

    Disgusting. America will soon celebrate their well-deserved pink slips.

  • Tony Aroma

    Great article! Keep up the good work. This sort of thing is immensely helpful to those working to end prohibition. It’s very enlightening to see what the prohibitionists are all about. So please, keep those crazy rants coming. You’re helping the other side more than you can imagine.

  • American1969

    With all of the people, drugs, guns, and God-knows-what-else coming across the border, are we really supposed to believe that DC isn’t receiving some kind of kickback? Why else would they all refuse to secure our ports and borders?

  • stanford67

    What are you saying in English?

  • K Brown

    A very sticky issue. On one hand, Rand Paul is right when he says that drug policy is a state issue. However, since much of the drugs in this country are smuggled in from overseas, it cannot rest completely outside Federal jurisdiction. The Federal Government can consider this within their scope of authority simply because of the international nature of the problem. So, with that in mind the Federal Government has the constitutional right to outlaw marijuana or any other substance that conceivably can be transported through their ports of entry. Also The Federal Government can also regulate transactions with the US via the Commerce Clause, regardless of marijuana’s legal status at the state level.

    Secondly, since marijuana is banned at the Federal level and the feds have the authority to regulate banks than transactions borne directly from directly from drug sales is indeed illegal under Federal law. And the bank should be bought up on money laundering charges. However, the Federal Government’s enforcement should be modified as to not fall into conflict with individual state laws. But, it is the Congress’ responsibility to change Federal drug laws and not the President’s.As a supporter of drug legalization, I believe that the President has again, overstepped his bounds.

  • stringman

    I am trying to figure out how NAMBLA got into a dicussion about dope, money laundering, and Obama. Could you please elaborate?

  • stringman

    I can’t help being a little conflicted about pot laws. But, only a little. In most cases, the laws are not what prevent pot use. Bottom line: The world has not ended since we lifted alcohol prohibition. And anyone that tells me pot is more dangerous than booze will be laughed at on the spot. More people are ruined and/or die from alcohol abuse than all other substances totalled together…….except maybe tobacco…..and, oh yeah, it’s legal too.

    And, number one cause of murder? Drug trafficking!

  • terry1956

    The Vast majority of federal banking regulations are illegal anyway because they as the vast majority of federal regulations within the states are beyond the limited enumerated powers of the federal government granted to it in article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution or they are not necessary or not proper and according to article one section 8 the federal law must be both necessary and proper for carrying out the federal powers granted to it in the US Constitution main body.
    Further more the stated purpose of thePreamble to the Bill of Rights is to further restrict the authority of the federal government so laws passed by congress can not legally conflict with anything in the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution including the 9th, 10th, 4th, 5th,6th and 7th amendments.
    Congress may legally authorize banking and currency regulations within the states to assure the honest market value of coins , securities including bank notes and the honest market value of deposits backing the securities and bank notes because the federal government is paid and pays in currency.
    Of course state, county and local governments are paid and pay in currency and have bank deposits and accept payment from bank and credit union deposits so they have just as much valid interest in investigating the market value of coins, bank notes , bank and credit union deposits as much as the federal government including investigating wrongful federal actions to devalue currency and other wrongful actions.
    Since historically gold as been the most stable of money for over 2,200 years congress and the other US government should judge the market value of bank and credit union deposits, bank notes and coins by their market value in gold.
    Just going back to 2003 we can see the great loss in value of the federal reserve bank note as well as other central government/ central bank notes in their gold value.
    It took only an average of 360 FSNs to equal an ounce of gold in 2003 thus a modest income of 36,000 federal reserve dollars a year or around 18 an hour would have been worth 100 ounces of gold a year.
    Just a little over 10 years later that modest 2003 income earner would need over 130,000 a year or around 65 an hour just to break even.
    A family business owner is not much better off despite what the left says
    a profit of 3.6 million federal reserve dollars a year in 2003 would have been equal to 10,000 ounces of gold but just to break even today the profits would need to be over 13 million a year.

  • terry1956

    Congress has the legal authority to regulate imports through its custom inspections, duty to protect each state from invasion and the use of import taxes for general revenue but it has very little legal authority to regulate banking and securities in the US thus general know your customer federal acts is unconstitutional.
    Federal drug regulations in the states through both DEA and FDA are unconstitutional, as is food, healthcare, health insurance, agriculture and labor.
    Likely 90% or more of current federal acts and regulations internally are illegal, not authorized by the US Constitution, not necessary, not proper, conflicts with one or more amendments in the Bill Of Rights including the 10th.

  • terry1956

    The power mongering centralizers some times works it both ways, first they pass unconstitutional federal acts to forbid something within the states, then they illegally seize the assets of Americans without a proper fully informed American common law jury trial within the state and district.
    Then they get kick backs when the thing is smuggled into the US.
    The framers promise in the state ratification debates of the US Constitution was that normally the federal government would get most of its revenue from import taxes and taxes on other foreign sources.
    Except for a few years that promise was kept for the first 120 plus years.
    Before 1861 import taxes usually made up 80% to 90% of federal revenue, in 1825 almost 98%.
    After the Civil war in the 1870s it was around 40 something percent for a few years, then went back up to over 50% for all but a few years until 1913.
    Hardin and Coolidge supported deep cuts in the federal income tax rates and increases in the import tariffs with the American price system so that no import would be sold for less than a made or produced in America good or farm product.
    Coolidge was also for restricting immigrants to only those who really want to become Americans.
    The American price should also apply to foreign labor in the US or in other words if a new immigrant or a illegal granted clemency works for less than the prevailing non union wage of Americans the non citizen should pay a federal tax to make up the difference in the two plus 10%.
    The 10% should be charged to every non citizen income earner and the internal federal income tax on US citizens eliminated.
    The American price on imported goods and services would be similar, a flat 10% on all imports plus any difference in the retail price of the import and US good or Service.
    Thus if a shoe made in Italy cost 50 dollars retail before the import tax and a similar American made shoe cost 50 dollars the shoe made in Italy would sell for 55 dollars after the import tax giving the American made shoe a 10% price advantage.
    A similar shoe made in Red China selling for 25 dollars without the import tax would have a 120% import tax applied to bring it up to 55 dollars, the flat 10% above the American price or 5 dollars plus an extra 25 dollars to bring the shoe from communist China up to the American price.

  • K Brown

    The last time I checked Congress was part of the Federal Government, so whatever arrives through the ports is its business. As far as banking is concerned, only Federal Government is constitutionally required to print the nation’s money. They don’t. Private banks do. The income tax levied on American Citizens is discretely deposited into the private Federal Reserve System, which is then transferred to off shore accounts. This is why the Commerce Clause exists….to prevent a situation like this. Interstate commerce(banking) is indeed under Federal jurisdiction…as well as other forms if interstate commerce. However, you are right about most Federal agencies being unconstitutional. The regulations handed down by these Federal agencies(FDA, EPA, etc) are indeed illegal. Regulations and any type or public POLICY unrelated to commerce or anything relating to social issue are state matters only.

  • terry1956

    juries can change it indirectly by refusing to both send a case to trial and refusing to convict a defendant.
    Notice the quotes of Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson, a broad political spectrum of the founders.
    All three agreed that jury veto authority was vital.

  • terry1956

    Yeah Congress is part of the federal government but they not the president or the WTO has authority on imports.
    As far as printing money goes the Constitution is clear neither congress or the states are legally authorized to print money.
    Congress is authorize to coin money not required to coin money and the states are forbidden from coining money.
    In fact with the meaning at the time money since it was gold, sliver or a copper mix was money then money legally could and can not be printed by congress, states, private sector etc, at least until maybe advances in nano tech allows for the private sector to print gold, silver or copper.
    The federal government or states can not issue currency or grant a monopoly or cartel to issue currency or even to coin real money.
    Private banks, credit unions, stores, churches, charites, co-ops, mutual aid associations, clubs may issue currency and hold deposits but both should be backed 100% by whatever they say the backing is.
    Its best to judge the daily market value of the deposits and competitive currency with the market value of one or more commodities, gold has been the most stable for centuries than any of the other commodities including silver.
    By the way the Constitutional Dollar is made of mostly silver similar to the Spanish Silver Dollar or Pieces of Eight used at the time the 7th amendment was ratified.
    As far as the FDA, EPA, USDA, SEC, DEA as well as FCC, FAA, National Park Service and the vast majority of federal departments and agencies, they are unconstitutional period and must be eliminated.
    Since the 16th like the 18th amendment violated the 9th and 10th amendment they were null and void from the start but the 18th or liquor prohibition by the federal has since been repealed anyway by the 21st amendment returning the internal regulation of made in America booze to the states where it was illegal to leave and go to the federal in the first place.

  • terry1956

    His Mother side of the family had ties to one or more of the large foundations that Norman Dodd spoke about in his Reece commission report and in a interview with G Edward Griffin.
    They also had ties to the Communist Party USA, the Soviet Union( Obama senior also as well as Frank Davis) and maybe worked for the OSS ( grandparents on moms side) and maybe the CIA ( grandparents on moms side, his mom, Obama senior), some family on Obama senior side was and is with the radical Islamic Muslim Brotherhood.
    Personally I think Obama and his family( many not all) on both sides are nothing but well connected con artist with no political, national or religious loyalities, they play all sides for big personal gains.

  • K Brown

    When I stated that the Federal Government controls imports I meant Congress.

    Actually, states can issue their own currency and many have considered it

    Legally, anything can be used as currency. It’s been in many different parts if the country.

    “….As far as the FDA, EPA, USDA, SEC, DEA as well as FCC, FAA, National Park Service and the vast majority of federal departments and agencies, they are unconstitutional period and must be eliminated…”

    I’ve said that a couple of times already. Policies Handed down by these agencies are unconstitutional. As most of the issues they deal are state issues.

    The 16th Amendment is illegal but it not null and void since it is being enforced.

  • malcolmkyle

    Robert Altemeyer, in his book The Authoritarians, describes the authoritarian in ways that resemble the typically unprincipled prohibitionist:

    “They are highly submissive to established authority, aggressive in the name of that authority and conventional to the point of insisting everyone should behave as their authorities decide. They are fearful and self-righteous and have a lot of hostility in them that they readily direct toward various out-groups. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason and rely instead on social support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use a lot of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times and are often hypocrites.”

    Prohibition was flawlessly designed to increase drug use, atomize society, impoverish citizens, spread illness, increase unemployment, destroy lives, imprison productive people, subvert democracy, shred the Constitution, empower the ignorant & brutal, facilitate mass surveillance, destroy the educational system, hold people in ignorance, manipulate and censor the media, and enrich a tiny puritanical minority of mega-millionaires and corporate bosses. Sadly, it has succeeded in all these objectives.

  • junkbuster

    Yes, I agree with the above statement, especially the last sentence. It would seem to me, from several unrelated sources, that this man is a descendant from a family of unimaginable “con artists.” The ordinary mind of the law-abiding citizen does not imagine the level of corruption of these people. That is why they are getting away with so much. Continuous mystery surrounding a person’s immediate family is never a good thing, especially if pertinent information is scrubbed from every server. Politicians, where was your protest on this one?!

  • SunSpot

    What happens when this regime falls and we get law and order back? These banks will be in big trouble if they violated the law. This is like entrapment, “we wont prosecute you now, so go ahead” If I were a bank or other entity that is promised non enforcement of the law I would be very wary.

  • jackie cox

    Weed makes you stupid