We're From the Government, We're here to Help..
If you bought a Bible or shopped at Bass Pro Shops, you're a threat?
Prescott, AZ February 5, 2024… Elections turned selections, have consequences that are becoming more evident by the day. Have you ever heard of Plaid? Plaid is a financial services company based in San Francisco, California. The company built a data transfer network that powers fintech and digital finance products.
Plaid's product is a technology —think digital— platform that enables applications to connect with users’ bank accounts (think ESG). It allows consumers and businesses to interact with their bank accounts “seamlessly”, by checking balances and making payments through different financial technology applications. The company operates in the US, Canada, the UK, France, Spain, Ireland, and the Netherlands (WEF?).
Congressman Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has made a formal inquiry into the interactions between Plaid and Federal 3-letter agencies like the FBI. Wait, what? Aren’t there restrictions on Federal agencies spying on American citizens without those pesky things known as warrants? By the way, “general warrants” are not legal in the United States.
A fake “President” presiding over an ongoing criminal enterprise…
Who the hell appointed the Federal government watchdog over what Americans purchase for everything from camping, fishing, and survival wares to products and services aimed at education and enhancement of individual understanding of and faith in God, and why?
Just about everyone understands what “mission creep” is, but in case you don’t, it is what happens when the government introduces a service or program. In that instant, the program manager begins the process of justification. At first, justification comes out in the form of progress reporting. That’s fair enough, the taxpayers deserve to know what their tax dollars are being spent on. But then, the program takes on a life of its own and begins to expand on its original mission.
The more nefarious version of mission creep is intentional misuse. There has been a hue and cry from the American people concerning the “weaponization” of government for several years, but now it has reached a crescendo. Congress put restraints on federal agencies in an attempt to ensure that their activities would not be used to injure or harm the American people, but instead thwart criminals and those who seek to do us harm.
Presumption of innocence and “general warrants”…
What Congressman Jim Jordan and the House committees are in an uproar about, and rightly so, is the use of a government resource intended to track potential terrorist movements and activities in the wake of 9/11. FinCEN is the Federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
Just a few weeks ago, on January 17, Jordan who is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and who is responsible for the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, sent one of those strongly worded letters to Noah Bishoff, who is the former Director of the Office of Stakeholder Integration and Engagement in the Strategic Operations Division of FinCEN.1 The suspicion is that Bishoff is the likely culprit who facilitated the expansion of the use of FinCEN to “spy” on Americans.
The assault on civil rights by the Federal government is nothing new. For years those who seek absolute power over the American people have sought to undermine the Second Amendment by restricting access to firearms, ammunition, and even banking to pay for the manufacture and distribution of such tools of self-defense. What FinCEN has done is to engage in the use of “general warrants” if not formally, at least in theory.
The history of “general warrants” is quite literally a study of the weaponization of government action directed at the very people the government was set up to protect in the first place. For many years, the English, later British, government had used a "general warrant" to enforce its laws. These warrants were broad in nature and did not have specifics as to why they were issued, like what crime or threat existed, or what the arrest was being made for. A general warrant placed almost no limitations on the search or arresting authority of a soldier or sheriff. This concept became a serious problem when those in power issued general warrants to have their enemies arrested when no wrongdoing had been done.2
To act as a barrier to what the framers of our Constitution experienced firsthand, the Fourteenth Amendment was crafted. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “due process” and the presumption of innocence entered the picture. Both arrest warrants and search warrants must focus with specificity on the person, place or thing to be searched, what is to be seized, where it is likely to be found, and why it should be seized. And, in each instance, the signature of a member of the judicial branch of government must be on the warrant. Those engaged in the actual search are in the executive branch of government, a manifestation of the separation of powers.
Propaganda and the vilification of you and me…
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Mark Finchem's Inside Track Substack to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.