The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta
Friday, November 27, 1998
SOME INTERESTING COMMENTS ON FDIC BANK ACCOUNT SNOOPING
My discussions on the FDIC "Know Your Customer" program, in which banks and, eventually, all financial institutions will be required to monitor your banking activities and report any deviations or suspicious activities to the federal government, is drawing a lot of comment. Here are just three of the e-mail messages I received over the past few days.
I work for _________ Bank. We are ready to go with the "Know Your Customer" program, but you are missing some critical information. The least expense method of distributing funds to a customer is a debitcard. Our bank is giving these to *ANYONE* with a checking account. If, over the next ten years, everyone starts using debit cards or checks for all their business transactions, there will be less cash transactions to weed through. Now the government is talking about giving accounts to the poor and linking it to the National ID card as their debit/ATM card?!? Scary! Neal, _________ Bank, even before the merger, had a system in place that knew what type of accounts you had (checking, military checking, savings,investment, business, line of credit, etc.) and looked for changes. It could pick out select profiles, automatically run credit checks on them and pass this information on to our marketing and sales departments to market other product lines to you. If you called our 800 number, it would also use your "profile" to determine which call queue you went to, how long you had to wait, etc. Obviously, we want our higher dollar customers with more diverse accounts to go to a more experienced employee and not have to wait. Everything is in place at the largest bank in the country to do this today. Give it ten years, add the national ID card and mandatory accounts for benefits recipients and suddenly you have the government able to track every non-cash transaction. The banks are trying to move away from costly branches with their high overhead and move to non-cash banking like PC Banking, debit cards, and telephone customer service. In the end, anyone doing a large cash transaction becomes a suspected criminal by default. So when do they make cash illegal?
As a former compliance officer of a national bank I can only say that I am not surprised as this latest infringement on our privacy. The general public would be outraged at the amount of investigation "your" bank is required by Federal Law to perform. I am sure you are aware that "banks", to ensure compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act, are required to complete a "Currency Transaction Report" for any transaction involving currency (deposit, withdrawal, etc...) in an amount greater than $10,000. However, on April 1, 1996, banks were also required to begin completing "Suspicious Activity Reports" (SAR) detailing activity on your account deemed "suspicious". These suspicious activities are not limited to currency transactions but also include transactions inconsistent with normal account activity. An interesting "safe-harbor" provision in the regulation allows "banks" to submit information on the SAR which would normally be prohibited by the "Right to Privacy Act". Interesting, huh?
Let me assure you the Federal Government is serious about reporting. For about six months I was called by an IRS agent alleging my bank, based on historical data and customer demographics, did not complete "enough SARs". During a face-to-face meeting with the agent I expressed my position that I did not feel as I should be an investigator for the IRS and if they wanted me to investigate I should be hired and given a badge. Wrong answer. The agent looked me straight in the face and said "You don't want any trouble with the IRS". We began to close accounts, including deposit and lines of credit, "due to regulatory reporting burdens". What a country! Interested in other examples, let me know.
WANTED --- MORE AND MORE GOVERNMENT
HERE'S THE EXACT WORDING
I told you yesterday of Dan Rather's reporting on Dr. Jack Krevorkian's arrest for murder. Rather reported that, by a 2 to 1 margin, Americans don't want Krevorkian prosecuted for this crime. Yesterday I didn't have my notes with me, so I couldn't report Rather's words exactly. Well, here they are. After the news about the opinion polls Rather looked into the camera and says something I have never heard a network news anchor say before. He said "You may want to take note that laws are not to be enforced on the basis of public opinion polls.
My beef? Well, as I explained yesterday, rather has NEVER uttered these words when presenting poll results relating to Clinton's criminal conduct.
No surprise.
WE'LL VOTE FOR YOU IF YOU SEND MONEY TO OUR HOME COUNTRIES
Bianca Jagger has written an open letter to Bill Clinton which appears in the current issue of the Nation. She is urging more taxpayer money be sent to Central America for hurricane disaster relief. Read this incredible paragraph from Jagger's letter"
"Latin American immigrants, including members of my family, were those who, along with other minorities, turned out in unprecedented numbers to vote down your opponents in the recent midterm elections. Mr. president, wouldn't it make sense to invest in our homelands, and to send aid on a scale that the magnitude of the devastation merits?"
So, there you go. According to this brilliant entertainer, Clinton should take money from taxpayers of this country and send it off to Central America because so many immigrants from that area voted for him.
DON'T LET THE NAACP GET AWAY WITH THIS
An article in today's Atlanta Constitution by Scott Shepard says that the NAACP has moved through its financial problems and is ready to assume its leadership role in civil rights.
Shepard writes that the NAACP will reinvigorate "its commitment to oppose hatred, racial polarization and discrimination."
Bull ____t.
A few points to remember. First, don't forget that the radical left in this country is busy re-defining "hatred." The new definition will be "the expression of any thought or idea in opposition to the liberal agenda." Thus all conservatives are, by definition, "hate-mongers" and all comments on conservative oriented talk shows are "hate speech."
Remember, also, that the NAACP is NOT fighting racial discrimination. In fact, the main NAACP thrust right now is the promotion and support or racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is just fine with the NAACP and most other so-called "civil rights" groups as long as white males are the ones being discriminated against.
THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
More absurd spin coming out of the criminal conspiracy that is currently occupying the White House. The time is up, and they need to submit the answers to the Request for Admissions served on Bill Clinton by the House Judiciary Committee.
The White House is playing on the ignorance of the American Public. They are protesting the Request for Admissions on the basis that the tone of the requests is accusatory because all of the questions begin with "Do you admit or deny."
My friends, this is the way Requests for Admissions are ALWAYS phrased. It is the very nature of the pleading. Basic form used by attorneys in every one of the fifty states. Clinton, however, knows that most Americans don't realize this. This means that he can go out there and get big-time sympathy from the dumb masses while continuing to obstruct the investigation into his criminal conduct.
By the way, you can take some heart in this. Clinton knows that he isn't going to be kicked out of office in an impeachment process. Now he's worried about what happens AFTER he leaves office. Clinton knows that the statute of limitations for perjury and obstruction of justice will not run before he leaves the White House. Ken Starr will still be around, and he will still be responsible for his crimes.
The day when indictments are handed down against this criminal and his corrupt, power-mad wife will be one of the finest days in my lifetime.
PROGRESSIVE
I have long been interested in the meaning of this word as it is used in politics. Most of the people who claim to be "progressive" are the very same people who always seem to be working for more government and less individual economic freedom.
No wonder.
Since I wasn't supposed to be talking, I spent a good bit of time reading while I was out with laryngitis earlier this week. I found that the word "progressive," so proudly claimed by the likes of Cynthia McKinney and other leftist radicals, has a rather dark beginning.
After Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto (see below) Communism became all the rage. It wasn't long, though, before the "C" word came to carry a lot of baggage that was hard for its proponents to bear. So, in order to avoid having to use the dreaded "C" word, the supporters of the Communist revolution simply began calling themselves "progressives."
Again ... .no surprise.
SPEAKING OF "PROGRESSIVE" --- HERE'S A FREEBIE FOR YOU!
You probably didn't know it, but this year was an important anniversary for many of our friends on the radical left. It was the 150th anniversary of the first publication of a little book by Karl Marx entitled The Communist Manifesto. Make no mistake, this book is alive and well on college campuses across this country. The Los Angeles Times and the New York Times printed rave review of Marx's work this year.
The Center for the Study of Popular Culture is distributing a little pamphlet entitled "Marx's Manifesto, 150 Years of Evil" by David Horowitz. A copy is yours for free by dialing 800-752-6562.
WHAT YOUR KIDS ARE TAUGHT ABOUT AMERICAN HISTORY
Robin West is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, the alma mater of our corrupt president. Here is how Professor West describes American history in Progressive Constitutionalism.
"The ... history of the United States ... is in large measure a history of almost unthinkable brutality toward slaves, genocidal hatred of Native Americans, racist devaluation of non-whites and nonwhite cultures, sexist devaluation of women, and a less than admirable attitude of submissiveness to the authority of unworthy leaders in all spheres of government and public life. Why should we bind .... our political choices by [a Constitution] produced by this history of ruthlessness; of brutality; and of mindless, infantile, and at times psychotic, numbing wrath."
This is the rule, rather than the exception on American college campuses.
boortz.com |
