Slashdot Mirror
Reason Suggests DoJ Closing Porn Stars' Bank Accounts
MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) writes "In a recent story on reason.com it was reported that the DoJ is closing down the bank accounts of porn stars. Not knowing the site I googled around and found another site, the Guardian. The story does not end there. It turns out that this is part of a larger scheme (ironically) called Operation Choke Point. Also reported in a Washington Post article that downplays the practice. According to Cryptocoin news. There are thirty industries the DoJ is now targeteting: Ammunition Sales; Cable Box De-scramblers; Coin Dealers; Credit Card Schemes; Credit Repair Services; Dating Services; Debt Consolidation Scams; Drug Paraphernalia; Escort Services; Firearms Sales; Fireworks Sales; Get Rich Products; Government Grants; Home-Based Charities; Life-Time Guarantees; Life-Time Memberships; Lottery Sales; Mailing Lists/Personal Info; Money Transfer Networks; On-line Gambling; PayDay Loans; Pharmaceutical Sales; Ponzi Schemes; Pornography; Pyramid-Type Sales; Racist Materials; Surveillance Equipment; Telemarketing; Tobacco Sales; and Travel Clubs. But more can be added. (I notice alcohol sales is not on the list)." The Reason article stops short of saying that Choke Point is proven to be the reason for the account closures, but it seems very plausible.
Using DoJ resources to force the closure of accounts belonging to "legal but subjectively undesirable business ventures"? There's no way in hell that can be legal. This is a slippery slope situation and should get folks on both sides of the aisle riled up
I'm not making any claims, I'm just making an observation:
Some of the things on DoJ's "Laundry List" of so-called "high financial risk" businesses are historically not high-risk AT ALL.
Like ammunition and firearms. Far from being "high-risk": manufacturers and retailers have historically been both large and long-lived. There is an ammunition manufacturer not all that far from here and they have been in business for 60 years. And the vast majority of ammunition is sold through major sporting-goods franchises, not mom-and-pop shops. Same with firearms.
Further, where people DO engage in small-scale ammunition or firearms sales or manufacturing, it is often a perfectly legitimate, specialty product. I know somebody who made and sold custom cartridges, and I have also met a guy who makes firearms. All perfectly legit and legal.
So pardon me for saying so, and I don't want to be misunderstood as being some kind of right-wing nut or anything, but it kind of looks like some things on this list are in fact Obama agenda items. Which is illegal.
These are a threat to national purity, and if you disagree, you can go to one of the soon-to-be-opened concentration camps!
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Pepper the list with plenty of "industries" that the vast majority of people would dearly love to see destroyed, such as pyramid schemes, racist trash and payday loans, but shut down plenty of useful-but-intimidating-to-those-in-power businesses as well.
[End Of Line]
Not sure why merely doing business in the Ammunition Sales; Coin Dealers; Credit Repair Services; Dating Services; Firearms Sales; Fireworks Sales; Home-Based Charities; Life-Time Guarantees; Life-Time Memberships; Mailing Lists/Personal Info; Money Transfer Networks; On-line Gambling; PayDay Loans; Pharmaceutical Sales; Pornography; Racist Materials; Surveillance Equipment; Telemarketing; Tobacco Sales and Travel Clubs industries or combination thereof should automatically flag ones activies as "questionable". What happened to innocent until proven guilty??
...but I can't stand the thought of government deciding that some people (who aren't doing anything illegal) shouldn't be able to have a bank account.
I reject the excuse that it's all optional on the part of the banks. Having Big Brother breathing down your neck and Strongly Suggesting that you do something is absolutely inappropriate, and I'd love to see Washington, DC held accountable for this in some way.
And that is a problem. It makes sure people do not climb out of poverty, or at least makes it a lot harder. After all, cannot have people participating in normal society that the government deems "undesirables". Next steps: forbid them to work, then concentration camps, then gas chambers. National purity must be maintained at all cost!
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
For all the Ponzi-this, tulips-that that gets posted every time Bitcoin makes the news, this is one of the problems they're trying to solve. A prude at Chase or the DoJ can't close your bank accounts if you have no need of a bank in the first place.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Wait, so they want more of these industries to be cash based and perhaps un/under-report income tax??? I know plenty of people who have been moving more toward cash in the past several years, but it seems counter-intuitive the government would want to track less.
But seriously, how will this decrease fraud?
Ammo sales were a particular no no.
Private gun ownership was fairly common in the Soviet Union, at about 10 guns per 100 people, and is still common in Russia today. Private citizens were limited to long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they had to register them. But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one. The idea that all dictatorships ban private weapons, or conversely, that an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Imagine your live without a bank account or the ability to drive or travel by air.
Drive porn to the black market... That will probably work as well as the war against drugs...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Eric Holder: "I Have 'A Vast Amount' of Discretion in Enforcing Laws"
Go read the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and get back to us with why you feel it doesn't apply to a bank account.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
No, but pornography is a first amendment rights, and screw you if it is at the opposite of your morality.
Considering that investment firms cost the government HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bailouts, can they really argue that porn stars are "risky"?
Every government agency is moving to national security is their objective. It means a bigger budget.
Maybe that's part of it. I think this is Big Government nanny state in action. They want to control everything they see, whether or not there's a law authorizing them to do so. It's this kind of arrogance that makes the IRS audit political opponents of the Obama administration for no other reason than to intimidate them and "make them go away". Making people go away in one form or another is a common theme with dysfunctional governments.
Closing the bank accounts of gainfully employed citizens just because they're work in a perfectly legal field that the government doesn't like is justice?
How the hell are you people still not realizing you're living in a situation worse than Nazi Germany? (Screw Godwin's law. This is a perfectly legitimate comparison.)
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Do you WANT to create a shadow banking system? Because this is how you do it.
Agreed, it is clearly not optional on the part of the banks. This has a very chilling effect on activities where the regs can't actually prosecute for wrongdoing. If they could, they would, and they wouldn't be going this route. This sort of tactic is contrary to the principles of a free society. Banks will "choose" to decline to do business with certain people and companies if they feel they will get sued or have to spend a fortune on a governmental investigation. If there is truly evidence of illegal activities, authorities should go after the people allegedly engaged in those activities, not the banks. But in these cases, often times the activities are not really illegal, even if they are activities not loved by everyone in society. Because the government can't prosecute, should it be allowed to strong-arm banks into doing the dirty work? What does that sort of logic lead to, especially when things like banking are akin to breathing in modern society.
There are plenty of nefarious behaviors going on at banks that regulators would be wise to oversee, but this is a case of overstepping IMO. Regulators are forcing discrimination. Is it okay for banks to be choosy based on certain parameters (I don't like your business because it's porn and I think porn is ruining our society) and not others (I don't like your business because it supports, say, charter schools, and I the bank president happen to think charter schools are ruining our society)? That's discrimination. At the very same time, regulators would bring proceedings against these very same banks for refusing to do business with certain people/organizations just because they choose to.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
"PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (PNC) received a subpoena regarding the return rate for its payment-processor clients from the U.S. Department of Justice. The department’s consumer protection unit is seeking information “for certain merchant and payment processor customers with whom PNC has a depository relationship,” the Pittsburgh-based bank said today in a regulatory filing. “We believe that the subpoena is intended to determine whether, and to what extent, PNC may have facilitated fraud committed by third-parties against consumers.” "
Private citizens were limited to long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they had to register them. But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one. The idea that all dictatorships ban private weapons, or conversely, that an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.
You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered.
Then you're home free. When you know who has the weapons and who doesn't, you pretty much control them.
While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. (!!!)
Sound familiar?
The great aspect to the US legal system is it was shaped to protect from extrajudicial punishment and protects free speech, assembly, press, privacy and much more.
Or at least, it's supposed to. The foundation is there.
Check out 18 U.S.C. 242: "Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law".
While many people think this is "just" a discrimination statute, a careful reading of the law shows that it applies to ALL Constitutional and natural rights.
And government employees are not immune. Not even the President. (In fact, this statute was specifically intended to prevent government abuse.) The maximum penalty is life in prison.
They are doing it in a way more subtle way, just as any agenda-based administration would do. A death by a thousand paper cut. Democrats have very few in common with "liberals"...
I should add: conviction rates for violations of 18 USC 242, once charges are brought, are exceptionally high: somewhere in the 90% range.
I don't mind them going after the crooks, but many of those listed are perfectly legal activities. It seems like a huge overreach to me. The DOJ should stick to investigating criminals, even the ones in the current administration.
If you want more confirmation, see any of the message boards dedicated to the affected industries. There you'll find the victims discussing what to do.
In some of these industries, like porn, one closure affects many, many people. All those free porn sites are financed by the ads they run for a comparatively small number of large pay site networks. Many of them don't expect to get paid this month because their sponsor's account has been shut down in the last few days. The affect is similar to, but not as big, as shutting down PayPal's accounts - it affects not only PayPal, but anyone who relies on PayPal for their business. There are also hosting companies and other service providers who make their living providing services to all the smaller sites. When the sponsor can't pay the small sites, the small sites can't pay their hosting bill. Anything that affects a couple of the large sponsors ripples through the industry.
Because the DoJ isnt actually closing bank accounts?
If you had read the article you would see that it is speculating that a handful of porn star's bank account closures are maybe due to DoJ pressure. Theyre making this leap because of a vice.com article which speculates that the closures are because they are porn stars. Vice makes this gigantic leap because of a WSJ article (conveniently paywalled) which speculates that Operation Chokepoint is targetting porn.
Thats a whole bunch of speculation on a ridiculous assertion. A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn; it would alienate huge parts of their base. The idea is stupid, the speculation is stupid, and Reason/Vice are remarkably stupid websites. Slashdot is even worse for being dumb enough to link to the flamebait.
Yes, Obama clearly was pro-cable box descramblers and pro-fireworks when he ran for office.
Just one more way he didn't keep his promises!
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
I personally know people who got audited because of contributions to the IRS watch list. And they love to claim that it was a coordinated political attack against the right wing.
It wasn't.
When "non profit" groups form that are closely aligned with or have explicit anti-government agendas (particularly against the IRS, tax code, and the claimed illegality of personal income tax) then it's a no brainer place to look for those skirting the law.
No one was intimidated, their tax reporting was just flagged for the extra-scrutiny pile.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
they're work in a perfectly legal field that the government doesn't like is justice?
No, it's tortious interference with business relationships.
Which is fine: the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"General welfare" clause. It is the Silly Putty of the Constitution: it can morph into any shape and justify any law or government action, even if other parts of the Constitution are at odds with it.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Removing high risk activities? They should close banks!
No shit. A majority of the second amendment nutters in the US are extremely pro-police state, pro-totalitarianism.
Really? Odd that reality doesn't seem to fit with your narrative. From everything that I've seen in the US, police are generally disliked by both sides of the isle. But between the two sides, especially 2nd amendment folks you'll find them being the ones who don't actually take to the militarization of police. While many left wing people do, and left wing groups. Going as far as pushing police depts. to get surplus military vehicles. So you were saying?
Om, nomnomnom...
As if our weekly fun news didn't have enough material for its "US SPECIAL" corner...
What is it with the US and Porn? I've never seen a country so obsessed about it, and quite frankly any time some sort of report about some sort of sexual freak show or paraphilia, you may rest assured it's about the US.
Kinda reinforces my theory that the road to sexual perversion is repressing it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Frank Keating, former governor of Oklahoma and FBI agent who is now head of the American Banker's Association came out against Choke Point in a WSJ op-ed a week ago.
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
When you become a banker, no one issues you a badge, nor are you fitted for a judicial robe. So why is the Justice Department telling bankers to behave like policemen and judges? Justice's new probe, known as "Operation Choke Point," is asking banks to identify customers who may be breaking the law or simply doing something government officials don't like. Banks must then "choke off" those customers' access to financial services, shutting down their accounts.
Justice launched the effort in early 2013 as a policy initiative of the president's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which includes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other regulatory agencies. Though details are scant—much of the investigation has been conducted in secret—the probe aims to crack down on fraud in the payments system by focusing on banks that service online payday lenders and other services deemed suspicious by the government....
"If you like your pornstar, you can keep her, period"
I think we have gotten to the point where the administration has lied so frequently and so blatently that I believe the wing nuts explaining their wrong doing long before I believe their excuses. There is no level of trust for the administration anymore and they brought it upon themselves.
I'm a so called "wingnut" republican, and this story isnt even a little believable. The day Obama administration goes after porn sites is the day the tea party embraces obamacare.
It's a bit regional I think, and mostly aligns with opinions on other issues. I've spent some time living in the southwest, and there is generally strong pro-police sentiment among conservative gun-owners in states like Arizona (and parts of Texas), largely due to their views on illegal immigration. If anything the prevailing sentiment in those areas is that the cops should be more militarized, fleets of drones with missiles and everything, and should be given more police-state-style powers to stop anyone at any time and ask for their documents.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"Nice bank you have there. Wouldn't it be a shame if we had to shut you down and audit you and your best customers for the next six months?"
"Now, here is a list of people we think you better not do business with. Any questions?"
I found two non-fringe or slightly suspect news links: EFF.org. The article completes the circle back to sites like reason.com and The Guardian. The other is CNBC.com. It links to entertainment sites like Perez Hilton. Not the sort of thing you expect to find when a secret government operation like this is uncovered.
What I don't see, is anything linking directly to information about the DOJ's Operation Chokepoint. The list of targets is a bit broad and the tactics are a little suspect. You wouldn't think of a far left liberal like Obama as someone who is anti-porn. We'll have to watch this and see how things develop. Maybe someone will find a few hard government generated facts and write up a 2600 article?
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
You heard it here first: Sex workers not being able to keep their money in a bank is worse than the Holocaust.
It's first a step to the left, and then a jump to the right.
Fascism is not the Holocaust. It is the road to it. The U.S. government considers itself far enough above the law to kill people with drones without due process, to detain them for decades in Guantanamo for decades without due process, to torture people to death for fun (the CIA report shows that torture was used lethally and systematically regardless of whether the "justifying" information was already given either by the victim or other means), to extort from people their right to a jury trial ("plea deal"), to record the communication of everybody in the world including the own populace for fun and extortion.
Destroying the existence of people you don't like for some reason is quite in line with what Nazi Germany did to the Jews in the years leading up to the Reichskristallnacht. And the U.S. shows no sign of mitigating sanity in its current course.
The main difference is that there is not a single NSdAP against splintered small parties they suppress, but rather a right and a far right wing of it handing off power to each other and having rigged the political system long ago to a degree where voting has become pointless.
While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. Sound familiar?
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too. I recall reading an account by a former US officer who had accepted the surrender of a German unit. He told the German commander to collect all weapons and deposit them at the town hall. Among the weapons collected were numerous civilian rifles and shotguns collected from the town residents. The US commander told the German commander he only meant the military weapons and that the civilian weapons should be set aside so that their owners could come to the town hall to claim their property and have it returned to them.
Conservative Utah has a pretty damn high (the highest?) per capita consumption of online porn.
You seem to be under the impression that conservatives dislike porn, and liberals love it. Fact is, both sides love it. It's just that more conservatives claim to be against it, because, you know, god.
Not sure why ObamaCare is illegal. It seems to be merely a matter of jurisdiction. Here in Australia ...
The construction of the US government was based on competing centers of power. That power would be split between the federal government and the various state governments, and that within the federal government the power would be split between executive, legislative and judicial branches. The basic idea was to have checks and balances between the federal and the state and within the federal itself.
The constitution does this by enumerating the powers and authorities of the various components of the federal government and then it explicitly states that all other powers and authorities are the domain of the state governments.
The argument against Obamacare goes that since the constitution does not enumerate compelling a person to purchase a service as a power of the federal government it is a power that falls into the domain of the states.
In other words the power of the federal government is limited by an enumerated list of power and authority granted to the federal government and the power of the state governments is limited, plus the power of the federal government is further limited, by an enumerated list of rights and privileges granted to individual citizens.
Russia today may be better in this regard, but when I lived in USSR, I did not know a single person, who owned a weapon — even martial arts were frowned upon by the officials and what studios existed, were underground. Today in the US quite a few of my acquaintances have firearms — and my five year-old attends a karate class twice a week.
So, as they say, Citation needed...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
One of the first steps on the way to the holocaust was to deny Jews and other undesirables the right to a bank account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
thousands? are all of their accounts being closed?
there are probably hundreds of porn stars at any time being that they go through girls like baseballs at a game. plus all the people behind the scenes.
is there suddenly a stop to all porn production? because that's what would happen if people can't get paid or companies lose access to banking
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article VI), and federal judges have power to interpret law (Article III). This includes power to interpret laws limiting the power of Congress, or in other words, to declare that Congress broke the law when enacting a particular statute.
google it
chase closed a few accounts
the porn people went on twitter and a lot of their friends closed their chase accounts in protest
in reality it was a few accounts
Woah, please cite an instance where left wing groups are pushing police depts. to get surplus military vehicles. It's generally the left that is always marching around protesting police brutality with things like the Oct. 22nd marches/rallies that have been going on. It's the left that protests US military interventions. The left that bitches about the police state. It's the left that the right calls peacenicks and makes fun of for not wanting to arm themselves in the name of pacifism. Police states don't fit into that equation.
Administrative subpoena have no judicial oversight, leaving plenty of room for abuse.
Unless you have one of those Obama as Hitler posters in your basement.
Obama could never be mistaken for Adolf Hitler. Hitler could rally crowds and command respect/fear on the global stage. Poor Mr. Hapless no longer seems able to do the former and was never able to do the latter.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn
Liberals aren't anti-porn? Seriously? You really wanna go there?
Earlier this month, 42 senators signed a letter urging Attorney General Eric Holder to step up enforcement of federal obscenity laws. Among the cast of mostly Republican signers, one name stood out: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a staunch liberal from California, the de-facto porn capital of America. (Feinstein wasn’t available to comment for this story.)
She wasn’t alone: five other Senate Democrats, including Minnesota’s left-wing warrior, Amy Klobuchar, also signed the letter, and they were applauded by feminists, leftist lawyers, and liberal academics. Together, this increasingly vocal segment of progressives is making the case that hardcore porn flies in the face of cherished liberal causes—and that Democrats should be leading the charge to take down its distributors.
“To be anti-porn is a progressive principle.”
Liberals have no problem going after porn. They just frame it differently than Conservatives. They're upholding women's rights (except of course for the right of women to consent to star in pornography) rather than Christian morals.
If anything the Liberal position is more hypocritical than the Conservative one.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That's the claim from some on the democrats. Probably some of the same democrats who filibustered the civil rights act. In fact, over the last 20 years, there have been three major anti-porn laws, all eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. All three were signed by Bill Clinton.
Not only do the liberals pander to to the extremist feminists by going after porn, they keep at it, never giving up when the Supreme Court tells them over and over again "no, you can't do that. You're violating the first amendment". That's the fact. For more information, Google "CDA", "CDA II", etc.
This is bullshit, in case you didn't guess. Follow the Guardian link. One bank, Chase, is closing porn-related bank accounts, including "at least one" personal account. Chase is operating in the USA and making a calculation that it has more prudes than porn businesses among its customer base. This has nothing to do with the US government.
The Constitution doesn't enumerate the rights of citizens, the Constitution enumerates the (very limited) powers of the federal government.
So, since the Constitution has "zero mention" of a governmental power to take away people's bank accounts, the federal government does not have that power.
As a lifelong Democrat, I may just do that. Democrats obviously have gotten drunk with power and have been wrecking this country. Frankly, I care less and less about the stupidity of social conservatives in the Republican party, because it is harmless compared to the damage Obama and Congressional Democrats have been causing.
They "embraced" a preliminary version of something that was somewhat similar to "Obamacare". That's not the same as embracing Obamacare.
Fact is that Republicans universally rejected Obamacare and that it was exclusively designed and implemented by Democrats. Democrats are the only ones responsible for it.
If you read in Russian, you should google , and 1960. In short, being a civilian in the USSR, you could get strictly a hunting rifle. There was no Castle doctrine, so you couldn't realistically use it for own protection. Such action would make yourself a criminal almost automatically. The registering process and regular checks were quite strict, and you were bound to sell or abandon weapons if you have failed to renew your license in term. Hunters were watched over quite carefully, and a case of bad behavior could make their license revoked (there was a kind of civil watch program in the USSR). The '10 in 100' number posted above seems not very realistic for me. In my own town of birth (with plenty of forests with sporting game around) there were less than a thousand of registered hunters out of the 130,000-strong population. Disclosure: my father was a hunter for a few years in 1970s, even before my birth, then get rid of his rifle.
It's easier to just convince gun owners that whoever is the target of tyranny is their enemy too. This is how the US government got away rounding up US citizens and putting them in internment camps.
Oh, also convince them that "we" respect your rights (as we're collecting all your phone calls) and "they" are trying to take your guns away (even though they're not). That shit always works.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
So where are all of those NRA protests against wholesale warrantless wiretapping?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
at least not a material one. So it's not surprising people look on at the current administration doing a lot of the same things as the last one and conclude their all the same.
To be fair, I think the current Administration (e.g. Obama's) is doing the best he can. I doubt I could do any better. But given the current state of America there's no chance in hell you'll see a real left...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You offer botched police raids as proof the cops are worst than the Third Reich? - Must be Saturday night.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The idea that a liberal administration would be for shutting down porn sites when not even conservative ones go there is absurd.
As absurd as the DEA shutting down perfectly legal marijuana dispensaries?
Deny it all you want, but it's happening, and you're a blithering idiot.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Porn stars are risky because porn sales are risky, and porn companies have trouble maintaining merchant accounts for credit card processing. This leads to a high rate of "personal" accounts being used as business accounts, and then used to open merchant accounts; often with misleading or erroneous service types listed.
It is simply a fact that all sorts of "adult" companies have a high rate of charge-backs. This puts the companies involved under pressure and difficulty, so all sorts of related fraud and non-compliance with terms happens. Being associated with this sort of "high risk" industry makes it more likely that a bank will have some sort of related problem with your account.
Personally, I would like to see a government-run bank that only offered deposit accounts and checking services; nothing else. With account numbers that can't be used to sign up to merchant services or anything like that. That way everybody would have access to a basic banking services provider of last resort.
If anything the Liberal position is more hypocritical than the Conservative one.
It's not so much hypocritical, it's just that the left favors collective rights over individual rights. So where the right would favor an individual's right to join or not join a union, the left favors a union's right to force individuals to become members.
Banning pornography is like forcing women to join a union. By restricting supply it artificially increases the value of naked women and as a result causes men to spend more on it. As a result they're hoping to increase the sexual value of the average middle-aged American woman from almost nothing to "half your stuff when she divorces you".
For the lazy..
Estimated 8.9/100 in guns per 100 ppl privately owned so about 1/11th of the amount in the US
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
"Guns may be acquired for self-defense, hunting or sports activities only. Russian citizens can buy smooth-bore long-barreled firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns unless part of a registered gun collection, guns that shoot in bursts and having more than a ten-cartridge capacity are prohibited."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
http://www.gunlab.com.ru/
Honestly in today's age, there is no excuse for lazy assed ppl to cry 'citation needed', this is not an encyclopedia, its a debate, take the effort to research rather then cry for others to do it for you. I remember the horrid old days of the internet when searching for data was a task, its not, grow up or shutup.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
So apparently you both agree that you're somewhere on the scale of Nazi Germany, and now you're just arguing over the exact point the United States falls?
I'd say the problem is more the fact you're even on the scale, rather than where on the scale you are.
No, but pornography is a first amendment rights, and screw you if it is at the opposite of your morality.
You don't have to support the actions in the story (and I don't) to argue with what you just wrote.
Pornography isn't a first amendment right. The actual people who passed the first amendment didn't think it protected pornography. By contrast. they did think that the first amendment protected, say, the Koch brothers buying political ads, because that's exactly what the first amendment was for.
Wallowing around naked in public (or some commercial version of public) isn't speech. Political communication is speech, the precise speech that those who enacted the first amendment were trying to protect.
If you want to enact law that protects pornography, then go ahead ... but actually do that, don't try to hijack other law for your purpose.
In a two party system the two parties work in alliance to ensure they collectively control all political power.
In practice voting Republican is exactly the same as voting Democrat.
How many people have read even ten words that Hitler actually wrote or spoke? Nobody knows who the Nazis actually were, or what they actually did. I am convinced that if a National Socialist party were started in the US, people would flock to it without realizing for a moment what it actually was. They'd have to change a few nouns, perhaps substitute Muslims for Jews, but the rhetoric would be terribly seductive.
(Modern Neo-Nazis have very little in common with the German Nazis of the 1930s.)
You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered.
[A] is complete bullshit. Handguns were created as weapons for riders, because you can shot them single-handedly, while with a long gun, you have to stop your horse and then shot both-handedly. Handguns are primarily attack weapons.
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too.
That should read "German civilians who were members in good standing in the Nazi Party, or the family member or friend of someone with authority in the Nazi Party. If that Party member happened to fall into political disfavor, or the citizen's personal enemy(s) reported him for some betrayal or politically-forbidden speech etc, those individuals were suddenly instantaneously prohibited from possessing a firearm.
This status-change was often announced by way of a Luger or MP40 discharged into the unlucky formerly-legal-gun-owner for the offense of illegally possessing a firearm.
Every single person ever born or who will ever be born has the natural right to self defense. How much any particular government recognizes this natural individual right varies greatly, however. Until basic human nature deeply and fundamentally changes, people will always need an effective means of self defense against other humans attempting to do them great harm, and therefor have the natural right to that defense.
Every tyranny and authoritarian state down through history where individual freedom was severely restricted also severely restricted and onerously-regulated, or prohibited outright, common people from possessing effective personal weapons for self defense.
Failing to learn such important lessons from history leads people into de-facto slavery if not actual, outright slavery. That is, if they are lucky enough that the powers-that-be haven't included good old genocide of "*those* people" (whoever is politically-inconvenient or convenient, as the case may be) as part of their goals.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Hi! As a card-carrying NRA member, I'm one of those "Second Amendment folks" you're talking about here. A couple of points:
It's "the Second Amendment," not "the Second Amendments." There's only one Second Amendment.
Overthrowing the government by force is the right of the people, yes. It's also unbelievably stupid in the overwhelming majority of cases. Civil war is horrific and something best avoided. The Framers did intend the armed populace to be a bulwark against governmental infringements on liberty, yes, but mostly by means of making the government afraid to violently oppress the people for fear of the armed resistance they would face.
In this, the Framers have been overwhelmingly successful: where in past eras a government would've just bludgeoned people into believing the law was what they said it was, nowadays our politicians have learned to couch things in terms of "counterterrorism" and "protecting the children" and we'll quite amicably assent to whatever they say the law is.
The Framers had the right idea, they just weren't quite clever enough: they thought the risk would be a government that used force against the people, whereas the real risk is from public relations and focus groups.
Anyway -- short version: although I am one of those "Second Amendment folks," I, and all of the other "Second Amendment folks" I know, am absolutely against civil war. Horrible, terrible idea. I've seen enough gunshot wounds already in my life, thank you very much: I feel no need to be the cause of them.
This would amount to "terroristic threats", and would be considered grossly illegal in all 50 states. I, and all of the other "Second Amendment folks" I know, think this behavior is reprehensible.
How many accounts does it take? How is it legal to even close one?
If the government can get away with this, where does it stop? Close the bank of accounts of political rivals? Close the bank accounts of those who write unflattering articles about Obama?
Seems to me that this action sets a dangerous precedent.
what you are forgetting is that nazi germany wasnt JUST the Holocaust, Nazi germany lasted about 15 years(longer if you dig deeper but we will go with 15) and the war was 6. So yes, saying we are living in a place WORSE than nazi germany could be factual, nazi germany before the war, not during obviously
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Once more, we ask you: What liberals?
Regardless of the interpretation of the original posters use of exaggeration, there are in fact similarities between what is happening in america today and what happened in germany in the late 20s and early 30s
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
OK, I'll bite. Who is the administration's main competitor?
Marijuana dispensaries are a slightly different matter though. Those dispensaries are violating Federal law, even if they are legal by State law. I oppose them enforcing the Federal law over the State law in that instance but I think everyone opening a dispensary understands that risk.
The industries that the DoJ seems to be targeting in most cases appear to be completely legal by Federal law.
Those dispensaries are violating Federal law,
No, they are not.
There is no federal authority to ban any drug whatsoever. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment has been repealed, leaving no legal power in federal hands to do anything of the kind. Any act of congress purporting to ban a drug is not a law at all, but a usurpation.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."