While the PATRIOT Act's broad surveillance powers often dominate discussions, its substantial encroachment on financial privacy is frequently overlooked. The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of 1970 initially deputized financial institutions in combating money laundering by requiring them to report suspicious activities. The costly and administratively burdensome regulatory framework introduced by the BSA has not only severely eroded the financial privacy of law-abiding citizens but has hardly made a dent in preventing money laundering.
pull down to refresh
related posts
74 sats \ 2 replies \ @Satosora 27 Oct
When you give away control, its hard to get it back.
We have to be very careful with our firearms!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 31 Oct
You don’t put yourself in a position to loose control!
You don’t let anybody else put you in a position to loose control.
You don’t let the bastards grind you down, either!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 28 Oct
https://thereload.com/kamala-harris-backed-san-francisco-handgun-confiscation-measure/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_H_(2005)
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240729/kamala-harris-is-an-existential-threat-to-the-second-amendment-and-supports-gun-confiscation
https://rumble.com/v5el80i-kamala-debates-kamala-on-gun-confiscation.html
https://thereload.com/kamala-harris-walks-back-past-calls-for-ar-15-confiscation/
reply
74 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 28 Oct
Two decades later, we face a bleak reality and unsettling questions: Are we actually safer today? Are there fewer terrorists worldwide? Given the state's shifting definition of "terrorist," what prevents this law from being used against the very citizens it was meant to protect? While pondering these questions, Ben Franklin's famous words come to mind: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." In an age of emerging Artificial Intelligence (AI) and looming threats of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), the PATRIOT Act could become a cornerstone in establishing a totalitarian technocracy where privacy is a relic of the past—if we haven't already reached that point.
The PATRIOT act was made to screw all the people all the time.
We lost all privacy.
We lost most of our freedom.
The Bill of Rights was shredded.
No terrorists, except domestic terrorist (new style) have been caught.
IT WAS A TRAP.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @KudzaiK 31 Oct
I couldn't agree more! Thank you for reading
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 31 Oct
You’re welcome!
reply
43 sats \ 2 replies \ @KudzaiK 31 Oct
Thank you very much for sharing my article. I truly appreciate it! :-)
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 OP 31 Oct
Thank you for writing it! I'm very happy to see you're here on SN. Now we'll all bug you for more of your insights!
reply
43 sats \ 0 replies \ @KudzaiK 31 Oct
I certainly don’t mind sharing the insights I do have ☺️
reply
43 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 29 Oct
https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=32905
American Trotskyites
One of the most remarkable, but woefully unremarked, developments of the last decade is the shift of the neocons back to the left. Starting with Trump coming down the escalator in 2015, the neocons first tried to purge him and his supporters like they did to Pat Buchanan and the paleos in the 1990’s. When that failed, they began their slow march out of the conservative movement then out of the Republican Party, returning to their old home on what we call the left.
Imagine if twenty years from now a collection of retired government officials steps forward and to say that 9/11 was an inside job. The planes were real, but the whole thing was orchestrated by the CIA or maybe the Mossad. It is not just that it would reveal a conspiracy to conceal the truth, but that it would validate the people tarred as conspiracy theories for doubting the official truth. It would be the sort of revelation that leads to questioning other official truths.
Long forgotten is the fact that the label “neoconservative” was a smear coined by a socialist named Michael Harrington. These newly minted conservatives were often called Trotskyites because they never abandoned their old ideology, but simply opposed the people who came to dominate the American left. Of course, others accused them of being a stalking horse for Zionism and the Israel lobby. Still others suspected that their obsession with Russia was the real motivation.
Buried in that post about Kristol and Cohen is an easily overlooked assertion that has always been at the heart of the issue. They claim that conservative Jews have specific interests that they think are better served by the Democrats now. Leaving aside their definition of “conservative Jews”, what they are arguing is that this subgroup of Americans has interests peculiar to themselves that can conflict with the majority interests of the country, but those minority interests come first.
This gets to something further down the memory hole than the old neocon – paleocon battles of the last century. Jewish liberals and leftists have often accused neocons and Zionists of being bad for the Jews, because they confirm the claims often made by Jewish opponents regarding the loyalty of Jews. Bill Kristol makes explicit that his primary interests lie outside of and often in opposition to the interest of the American people, so you can see the problem.
A lot of people accused of being conspiracy theorists with regards to the behavior of the neocons have been vindicated over the last decade. This gets little to no attention in the mainstream media because the neocons still wield enormous power. They have always deftly folded their interests into those of the Israel lobby and no one in politics dares take on those guys. For elected officials, opposing Israel means losing the next election and for the chattering classes, it means exile.
Another aspect of this is the ease with which the neocons have made the transition from conservative and Republican to progressive and Democrat. Disgraced in the Bush years, they nevertheless hung on in the Obama years, orchestrating various schemes like the 2014 coup in Ukraine. They have had total control of the Biden administration to the point where its sole purpose was war with Russia. At no point in this transition was there a hint of dissent or self-examination.
The other side of this is the fact that the Democratic Party has put up no resistance to the return of their old Trotskyites comrades. The same people who were marching around in the streets, banging their pots and pans over the Bush wars in the Middle East now wear Ukraine lapel pins. Without a trace of irony, they accuse Trump fans of disloyalty for not supporting the Ukraine war or the Israel wars. There is a last scenes in Animal Farm quality to all of it.
Of course, this raises the oldest critique of America’s two-party political system, that it is just a show put on for the masses. The real decisions are made outside of public view by the powerful interests who control the system. One of those powerful groups are the neocons, who work with the Israel lobby to control foreign policy. Given what we have witnessed over the last decade, that old critique is vindicated. The people in charge are immune the ballot box and operate as an alien overclass.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @KudzaiK 31 Oct
This ought to be a book 🔥
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 31 Oct
I shared a link to this essay which was really good. I wanted to provide a 2 paragraph excerpt and I got carried away
So many good lines
reply