It’s Worse Than That

In a good post about the latest filth to emanate from the Biden cabal (wholesale pardon of murderers from facing the federal chop), Hugh Hewitt writes:

We will remember “37 out of 40,” and biographers and presidential historians will long note and long record and elaborate on this abuse of power, along with the pardon of Hunter Biden, and all the other outrageous abuses of power. The people around our apparently incapacitated president don’t care at all what history will declare about Biden. Their indifference is purposeful. It’s a display of shamelessness.

They “don’t care at all what history will declare about Biden”  because in times to come, the Marxists and their lickspittle historians will just whitewash events or cause this entire shameful episode to disappear from our history.  Remember, Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia, the chocolate ration has always been 5 grams per person, and shame is an unknown emotion to the Left.

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…

Asking The Question

Here’s another one that needs answering:

Okay, regardless of who these people are (most Murkins have no idea, which is not important), here are the the dramatis personae.

Holly Willoughby (no stranger to these pages, of course)

Alison Hammond (another Brit TV personality, and owner of the Most Irritating Voice On TV)

Ignoring what was said — trust me, it probably wasn’t that bad, it’s Brit TV — my question is:  how would one tell if the latter was blushing?

Two Things

1 — The entire Left has come to the decision that “The future of the United States is MAGA now”.

No shit, fuckwits.  Lest we forget, the acronym stands for:  Make America Great Again.  I know you assholes tried to turn it into an epithet or insult, but you failed — as a recent election may have showed you.  Most citizens want America to be great again;  why do you not?

2 — Still to the Left:  yeah, it was during an election campaign and rhetoric tends to heat up when that’s happening.  But the election is over and sanity has returned — or should have, anyway.

But just an FYI:  the “garbage” schtick is well past its sell-by date;  so if any of you assholes refer to me by that epithet from this point, I’m going to punch you right in the fucking face.

I hope I’ve made myself clear.

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.

Let’s Hear It For The Pollsters

I think this little debacle — initially seen in 2016 with Trump’s first electoral victory — can be summed up thus:

So much for them, then:  they were as clueless as all their US counterparts, all of whom called the election as “close” when (barring vote fraud) it was never going to be anything like that.

I know, I know:  everyone tries to hedge their bets in the prediction game, but never so egregiously.  It was obvious to any disinterested observer that they were cooking the  stats by slanted sampling and so on.

One would think that the pollsters would have learned their lesson from 2016, but noooo.

What I want to know is:  why should we believe anything these assholes tell us from now on?

Anyone?  Bueller?