No Resistance

When it comes to hatred of corporations, I yield to no man thereof.  Having worked in the festering cesspits of same on more than a couple of occasions, I know how they operate, and the depths of corporate bastardy in which they have no problems swimming.

This is especially loathsome when it comes to rolling over and offering up the corporate belly for the godless government agencies to scratch (and even claw, sometimes).

Small businesses, by comparison, have shown a great deal more spine than their larger brethren.  One has only to recall that gym owner in New Jersey who, when overcoming the totalitarian state government agents and the governor during the Great Covidiocy, ended up giving all of them the finger when the eighty (80!) charges against them were all dismissed with prejudice.

Back when I was running a supermarket chain’s loyalty program, I always made it clear that individuals’ right to privacy was paramount when it came to their shopping data and habits.  On more than one occasion I told divorce lawyers to piss off when they came snooping around, a couple of times facing them down when they threatened me with a subpoena.  (When I shared one of these incidents with the guys who were in my share group, one owner of a small chain said, “Oooh, I wish that some asshole would come after me with a subpoena;  I’d go to jail with the greatest of pleasure, and the positive PR I’d get for the company would be worth millions!”  He was seventy-five years old at the time.)

Of course, the banking industry — to a man, it seems — shows no such defiance when the feds come a-calling:

A new report released by the House Judiciary Committee, in partnership with the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, reveals extensive violations and abuse of the law by the federal government.

Advertisement

According to congressional investigators, the FBI abused the Bank Secrecy Act in order to work with banks to target opponents of the Biden administration and Trump supporters. 

“The information obtained during the Committee and Select Subcommittee’s investigation, and detailed in this report, is concerning. Documents show that federal law enforcement increasingly works hand-in-glove with financial institutions, obtaining virtually unchecked access to private financial data and testing out new methods and new technology to continue the financial surveillance of American citizens.

“Documents obtained by the Committee and Select Subcommittee demonstrate that federal law enforcement increasingly relies on financial institutions for highly sensitive information about Americans without legal process. Federal law enforcement has effectively deputized financial institutions to advance its investigations and to gain access to the information that financial institutions possess. As financial institutions’ capacity to track and gather data on Americans continues to increase, federal law enforcement will continue to be incentivized to rely on banks for easy access to sensitive information about Americans’ private lives.”

Now I can — sorta — see the point if the purpose is to track down gangster money-launderers or tax evaders (and even then, I’m skeptical in the extreme because nunya).  But that wasn’t the case here:

In a previous investigation done by the Committees, investigators found the FBI was flagging purchases that included “MAGA,” “patriot” and even bibles. As Townhall reported in January 2024: 

Federal law enforcement agencies partnered with a number of financial institutions to flag transactions with the terms “MAGA,” “Trump” and more. They also monitored transactions at stores like Cabela’s and Bass Pro Shop. Other purchases linked to religious texts, like Christian bibles, were flagged under the guise of “preventing extremism.”

Further, the FBI has conducted hundreds of thousands of illegal searches without proper warrants in recent years.

I realize that Trump’s DOJ is going to have its hands full for the first couple years of the new Administration.  But I hope they can spare a few moments to track down the bastards who authorized this nonsense, prosecute and imprison them.

Then again, as it was the FBI themselves who indulged in this un-Constitutional larceny, I’m not holding out much hope.

And they wonder why pics like these are so popular…

JBT

Nice to see that the Fibbies are making jackbooted hay while the sun still shines (before the darkness falls over their little empire courtesy of Trump AG nominee Matt Gaetz):

The New York Post reported Wednesday that “the FBI seized Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan’s phone and electronics early Wednesday morning — just a week after the election-betting platform successfully predicted President-elect Donald Trump’s win.” The raid was as theatrical and histrionic as the raid on Mar-a-Lago was: “The 26-year-old entrepreneur was woken up at 6:00 a.m. in his Soho home by law U.S. enforcement officers who demanded his phone and electronics.” Why show up at 6 a.m.? Why demand Coplan’s phone and electronics? Whatever this was about, was it really necessary to treat Shayne Coplan as if he were armed and dangerous? 

Apparently, the answer is yes, because Polymarket had the audacity to represent accurately the electoral groundswell for Trump. The Post quoted a source calling the raid “grand political theater at its worst,” and adding sensibly: “They could have asked his lawyer for any of these things. Instead, they staged a so-called raid so they can leak it to the media and use it for obvious political reasons.” 

Even worse, the feds didn’t even tell Coplan what it was all about. He was “not provided any reason for the incident, but the source said they expect it is political retribution since Polymarket accurately predicted Trump’s win – not traditional polls.” The raid is likely a prelude to more political persecution: “The government is likely trying to accuse Polymarket of market manipulation and rigging its polls in favor of Trump.”

Here’s a thought for FutureAG Gaetz:  Day One of your tenure, find out who originated the idea for this raid, who authorized it, who went on it, then fire all of them without benefits and nuke their pension.

Don’t even ask me what I really think about this.

Added Snoopery?

I started reading this article in the DM  more for entertainment value than any other reason:

I do not have a TV license as I only watch Netflix and Amazon. However, I’ve heard I will now need to buy a license. Is this true?

I know, I know:  the premise of the question is puzzling to my Murkin Readers, in that the very concept of a “TV license” is unfamiliar not to say abhorrent.  But leaving that aside for the moment, I found my amusement turning into something else altogether as I started reading the answer:

The general rule is that under UK law you need to have a current TV license if you, or anyone within your house, flat or premises, watches live television on any channel or service, record television programs as they are being broadcast live or watch anything on BBC iPlayer.

So when you tune in to watch ‘on demand’ television, such as Netflix, Amazon and other similar streaming services, no TV license is needed.

This is because here you are not watching ‘live’ programs – i.e. shows that are being broadcast when you watch or record them but, instead, choosing from a catalogue of options.

So far. so good (well no, not at all good, but whatever).  Here’s where I started to feel a familiar itch in the old trigger finger:

What you have heard about relates to Netflix, the US streaming giant which has 17.1 million UK subscribers and has launched a new service where it broadcasts ‘live’ events – for example the former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson versus Jake Paul boxing match being broadcast on Friday.

This is therefore ‘live’ television, meaning if you watch this, or any other Netflix live event, as it is broadcast, or even if you record it to watch later, you fall squarely into the territory of needing a TV license.

To clarify, you can continue to watch Netflix without a TV license if you chose not to watch the live events.

Which begs  raises the question:  how EXACTLY does the BBC licensing Stasi know whether you’re watching a movie or a live show?

It seems quite a simple deduction that that the answer is twofold:  either Netflix is sharing the viewing choices of the subscribers with the BBC, or the BBC is able somehow to monitor the channel feed, whether terrestrial or wireless.  Either answer is fucking terrible.

I should point out that the only way the BBC can enforce this ridiculous license fee nonsense is because Brits are largely disarmed.  If some Lizenzinspektor  came to the average Texan’s door and started with the strong-arm bullshit, there’d soon be murders.

And just so we know what this is all about:

The standard TV licence now costs £169.50 per year.  If you are required to have a license but fail to buy one, you risk being fined up to £1,000, plus any legal costs and compensation you may be ordered to pay. 

Let’s hear it for the Surveillance Society.

It’s Not Just Squirrels

I kinda missed the story of Peanut The Squirrel because, as a rule, I’m not that enthralled by stories about rodents unless there are air- and/or .22 rifles involved.

But basically, for those who are like me, the story goes that a much-loved pet squirrel with an Internet following (!) was slaughtered as a result of some dubious Gummint raid on private property somewhere in (duh) New York.

Like I said:  tragic, but not of great interest to me other than providing yet another example of why a few random local Gummint employees should, as a rule, be whipped in the town square on a monthly basis by voters, just to remind them of whom they actually are supposed to serve and to stop them getting too big for their boots.

This story, however, is quite different:

America’s famously private Amish people are unreachable by phone or email and refuse to have TVs in their homes.  But that didn’t stop members of the conservative Christian group turning out on polling day in a trend that appears to have helped Donald Trump win Pennsylvania.

What sparked the voting rush? Government agents had stormed a local farm early in the year in a row over unpasteurized milk that left the Amish community absolutely enraged. 

Pennsylvania’s traditionally private Amish community, which some estimate numbers around 100,000, then registered to vote in ‘unprecedented numbers’.  Experts have said that the movement could won Mr Trump tens of thousands of new votes in the crucial swing state. 

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture raided Amos Miller’s farm on January 4, sparking outrage among the state’s Amish population.

“That was the impetus for them to say, ‘We need to participate’,” the source said. “This is about neighbors helping neighbors.”

Trump’s winning margin in Pennsylvania was about 130,000 votes, by the way.

As much as I view the above story with satisfaction, on balance I think I still prefer the “monthly flogging” idea.


My favorite comment on the Amish story, however, was from the God-Emperor-elect himself:

“Imagine what law enforcement could accomplish if they went after members of elite pedophile rings rather than farmers selling to their neighbors??”

Muzzling Free Speech

And speaking of people who want to attack our First Amendment, we show some foreign interference (and no, it ain’t Russians):

BRITAIN was once the envy of the world for our legal right to free speech*. However, the tide has turned, and the government’s Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), set up in 2019 and instructed in March 2020 to combat the spread of ‘false coronavirus information online’, has helped the United States establish a dedicated team to crush what it sees as dissent.

In the name of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’, the CDU focused on coercing social media giants to execute ‘government-wide censorship efforts’. It has now exported its blueprint to the US, despite the fact that America’s prized First Amendment specifically protects citizens’ right to express themselves freely.

*Of course, it’s a lot easier to understand this when you realize that for all its so-called “storied freedoms”, Britain has never had absolute freedom of speech, nor anything approaching it.

A duty-of-care principle was established in the UK in 1932, and it is this anti-harm legislation the British government used to demand censorship of social media content, since reinforced by the Online Safety Act passed in October 2023.

Needless to say, though, their foulness found fertile governmental soil Over Here:

In August 2021 the Biden White House hosted a team from the CDU. They taught the Biden-Harris National Security Council (NSC), an interagency policy committee (IPC), everything they knew about silencing government critics on social media.

Feel free to read the disgusting details, if you think you can stand it.

Me, I’m off to the range.

New Ban?

This is an interesting development:

Australia will ban children from using social media with a minimum age limit as high as 16, prime minister Anthony Albanese said Tuesday, vowing to get kids off their devices and ‘onto the footy fields’.

Federal legislation to keep children off social media will be introduced this year, he  said, describing the impact of the sites on young people as a ‘scourge’.

The minimum age for children to log into sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok has not been decided but is expected to be between 14 and 16 years, Albanese said.

The prime minister said his own preference would be a block on users aged below 16.

Age verification trials are being held over the coming months, the centre-left leader said, though analysts said they doubted it was technically possible to enforce an online age limit.

Loath as I am to give any kind of credit to the OzGov, foul totalitarian nanny bastards that they are, I can’t help but wonder whether a) this can work and b) if it does work, will it benefit teens in any way?  Given that teens nowadays appear to have absolutely no problem in accessing porn — even porn sites protected by “age walls” — I’m somewhat skeptical about it all.

It’s probably just the usual “We have to do something!” posturing so common among all politicians.


(Just an aside:  Albanese’s “center-left” philosophy is somewhere around that of Bernie Sanders, politically speaking.)