The Biden Administration isn’t yet done, and still more of it’s dirty dealings are coming to light. Remember Operation Choke Point, the semi-secret program to “debank” disfavored businesses like guns and weed under the Obama administration? Well say hello to Operation Choke Point 2.0, where the disfavored people being unbanked are the Obama/Biden Machine’s political opponents.
Investor Marc Andreessen made headlines last week when he told Joe Rogan that dozens of tech founders had been quietly “debanked” under the Biden administration.
Elon Musk commented on a shorter clip and asked: “Did you know that 30 tech founders were secretly debanked?”
Andreessen called the orchestrated effort “Operation Choke Point 2.0,” in reference to an Obama-era initiative targeting the gun industry which triggered anti-boycott laws in some red states.
“Debanking is when you, as either a person or your company, are literally kicked out of the banking system,” he explained. “Under current banking regulations, after all the reforms of the last 20 years, there’s now a category called a ‘politically exposed person,’ PEP. And if you are a PEP, [banks] are required by financial regulators to kick them off, to kick them out of your bank. You’re not allowed to have them.”
“Basically, it’s a privatized sanctions regime that lets bureaucrats do to American citizens the same thing that we do to Iran, just kick you out of the financial system,” he said. “So this has been happening to all the crypto entrepreneurs in the last four years.”
“So when Trump says the deep state, the way we would describe it is administrative power,” Andreessen said. “It’s political power being administered, not through legislation. There’s no defined law that covers this, it’s not through regulation. There’s nothing you can do — you can’t go sue a regulator to fix this. It’s not through any kind of court judgment. It’s just raw power. It’s just raw administrative power. It’s the government or politicians just deciding that things are going to be a certain way, and then they just apply pressure until they get it.”
Sounds deeply illegal, unconstitutional, and un-American, doesn’t it?
Here’s the video:
One person Andreessen mentions as being debanked is David Horowitz of FrontPage and the Freedom Center.
“You literally can’t get a bank account. You can’t get a Visa terminal. You can’t process transactions. You can’t do payroll. You can’t do direct deposit. You can’t get insurance.”
“Choke Point 2.0 is primarily against their political enemies and then to their disfavored tech startups, and it’s hit the tech world hard. We’ve had like 30 founders debanked in the last four years.” But lunatic tech/crypto founders like Sam Bankman-Fried get left alone despite breaking the rules because they donate to Democrats.
“This is one of the reasons why we ended up supporting Trump. It’s like we just can’t live in this world. We can’t live in a world where somebody starts a company that’s a completely legal thing, and then they literally get sanctioned.”
Here’s more of that interview with Andreessen, in which he says that the censorship regime against the enemies of the left/deep state was “widely understood.”
MA: “There’s nothing that happened at Twitter in the Twitter files that wasn’t happening to the all the other companies.”
MA: “It’s a consistent pattern. If you got the YouTube files, they would look exactly the same.”
MA: “The Biden White House was directly exerting censorship pressure on American companies to censor American citizens, which I think is just flatly illegal. I think it’s actually subject to criminal charges.” That would be willful denial of rights under the color of law.
MA: “There were also members of Congress doing the same thing, which is also illegal.”
MA: “Then there was a lot of funding of outside third party groups that were that were bringing a lot of pressure down on censorship.”
MA: “There’s a unit at Stanford, you know, right next door. The internet censorship unit that was funded by the US government [that] exerted tremendous pressure on the companies to censor, and it was very effective.”
JR: “One of the things that I found really kind of shocking was when they revealed how much money the Democrats had spent on the election, and how much money was spent on activist groups. It’s like more than $100 million, right?”
MA: “There’s extensive Government funding of politically oriented NGOs. NGO is one of those great terms, right? Non-governmental organization, all right. Like what what the hell is that?”
JR: “What is that? Tell me. I don’t know.”
MA: “It’s sort of a charity. But most of the time it’s a political entity. It’s an entity with a political agenda, but then it’s funded by the government. In a very large percentage of cases, including the the NGOs in the censorship complex. Like the government grants, National Science Foundation grants, like direct State Department grants, right? Then its okay. Now you’ve got an NGO funded by the government. Well, that’s not an NGO, right? That’s a GO.”
MA: “You’ve got government officials using government money to fund what what look like private organizations that aren’t.”
MA: “What happens is the government outsources to these NGOs the things that it’s not legally allowed to do.”
JR: “Like what?”
MA: “Like censorship. Like violation of First Amendment rights. What they always say is the First Amendment only applies to the government. The First Amendment says the government cannot cannot censor American citizens. And so what they do is, if you want to censor American citizens, if you’re [what] you do is you fund an outside organization and then you have them do it.”
JR: “That’s like hiring a hitman. Like it’s not okay to murder someone, but you can hire someone to murder someone and you’re clean.”
MA: “When the government does that, [that’s] a very powerful message. Like it’s a message from a mob boss. ‘Don’t you want to do me a favor?’ ‘Yes, Mr. Gambino, I do right. I’d like my corner store not to catch on fire tonight.'”
Also this tidbit: “In her book, Melania Trump, the former first lady, claimed her bank account and that of her son Barron were shut down in the wake of the Jan 6 riots. ‘This decision appeared to be rooted in political discrimination,’ she wrote.” Ya think?
If Democrats didn’t hesitate to go after a First Lady and her son, they certainly wouldn’t hesitate to come after me or you…
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 8th, 2024 at 12:02 PM and is filed under Democrats, Regulation, video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
15 Responses to “Biden Unbanking And Censoring Political Enemies?”
If there aren’t actual investigations, followed by trials, for all these ass-clowns? We’re done for, long-term. Because the next go-round, whoever is in charge of it all will look at what happened since the first Obama administration, and take that as a lesson/example.
This crooked shit has been going on since the first Obama term. Slowly, at first, and then with gaining confidence when nobody called them out on it. What happened to Trump in 2016 was just the culmination of it all… Obama completed the purge of the intelligence organizations and military that Clinton started. Brennan? A former avowed Communist, put in charge of the CIA? WTF? He couldn’t have gotten a f*cking clearance under any other administration, not at that level. He was always suspect, and should have never been put in front of anyone. Then, there were the cute little “warnings” about how the intel organizations should never be opposed, because they could “get you” anytime they wanted. From a sitting f*cking member of Congress. Who should have been strung up by his constituents for not doing his damn job and reining in the agencies he had oversight over.
This is early-stage imperialism. If it’s not nipped in the bud, then you’re going to see Caesar Augustus rising around here, within a generation or two.
I’m glad Trump was elected, and heartened by the appointments he’s trying to make. However, comma? I fear he’s one of the Gracchi, doomed to go down to defeat at the hands of the entrenched powerful in DC. I hope not, but if I were a bookmaker…?
debankedbythebanks dot org is a project of the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) to expose the financial industry’s determination to crush all aspects of the civilian firearms trade. They are working in concert with National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).
“I fear [Trump’s] one of the Gracchi, doomed to go down to defeat at the hands of the entrenched powerful in DC.”
Moot the entire matter by repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Make the states sovereign in the Senate again and the “entrenched powerful” will be uprooted and dispossessed of their unified control.
[…] BIDEN CABAL/OBAMA SHADOW REGIME GOING OUT SWINGING: Biden Unbanking And Censoring Political Enemies? “The Biden Administration isn’t yet done, and still more of it’s dirty dealings are […]
In Citizens United, SCOTUS ruled that money is speech for businesses. Wouldn’t that same logic apply to taking away your money for saying things that the government doesn’t like.
“Moot the entire matter by repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Make the states sovereign in the Senate again and the “entrenched powerful” will be uprooted and dispossessed of their unified control.”
Step back from the issue, a bit: Is the problem really the 17th Amendment, or is it the fact that we’ve put so much cheese ‘n peanutbutter out that the rats are coming from miles around?
Before the 17th, there were issues with the Senate. Making them directly-elected was supposed to solve those problems, which stemmed from the “appointed” thing. States could not come together enough to agree on who to send, and there were years when some states had no Senate members because they couldn’t work out who to appoint.
Everybody looks at the problems of governance and goes “If only…” News flash: The issues are ‘effing endemic, and like a balloon, you squeeze in here, it bulges out over there. Your only real solution to an inflated life raft inside your aircraft fuselage is to pop the damn thing and make it small enough to manage.
The real problem here is that we’ve put so much power, so much wealth up there for grabs by whatever ethically and morally challenged asshole staggers by that it’s not even funny. Changing how we pick Senators ain’t fixing shit; reducing the power available to anyone aspiring to that position will fix things much better and for considerably longer.
What’s going on here is that our system has become overburdened by all these well-meaning asshole types that say “There ought to be a law!!” whenever something unfortunate happens. Empowering someone to “solve problems” is how we get to where we are; repressing that impulse is way more important than changing how Senators get made. I doubt it’d even work; we’d either go back to the problems that led to the 17th, or we’d have our much more sophisticated crooks figure out new and better ways to finesse the system.
Only real solution? Take away the power; make Congress do its Constitutional job, and take all regulatory power away from the bureaucrats. If Congress can’t write the legislation, in its entirety, then they shouldn’t be passing it. Period.
I’d go so far as to say “No aides; no staff”. If you’re a Congressman, then you get just as much “help” as the poorest citizen in your constituency. Make them do their damn jobs, and quit setting them up as the center of attention for a crowdswarm of ass-kissers. That’s nine-tenths of the problem with our government… Once you get to a certain position, that’s all you ever hear, is how great you are. Wonder why the generals are so ‘effed up? They’re constantly catered to by all of their myriad staff; they get personal chefs and aides up the ass. They should be given the worst barracks/housing available at their assignment, in order to ensure that they take care of their troops. Instead, they’re worshipped like petty little gods, treated as though they were special… Which they manifestly are not.
The fact that we’ve allowed all this crap to grow up around these positions is where our problems lie. Do away with it all, from Congress down to the lowest executive position in the government. No special treatment, no special perks… Make the f*ckers fly coach, commercially.
As the old saw goes, politics is downstream from culture, and our culture of individual rights and responsibilities, local government backed by Judeo-Christian morals, and people banding together to help each other as needed *and then disbanding once the job is done* has been under massive attack since ~1900 (and arguably since ~1870).
The biggest “out” that comes to mind is revitalizing the 10th Amendment the way the 2nd has been. But almost all of federal government is in direct violation of the 10th, and the public has been taught that it is meaningless for over a century, so that’s an uphill battle.
“Before the 17th, there were issues with the Senate.”
Before the 18th Amendment, there were issues with drunkenness and immortality, which Prohibition exacerbated. Wisely, it was repealed.
After the 17th Amendment, it was no longer possible to mount a credible challenge to a Democrat/Republican dualism. But in every dualism, one god becomes the evil god. So we have Evil Fascist v Evil Commie as the basis of our political dialogue.
Admittedly, the North v South struggle is not a very good example of comity, but how far have we progressed? Republicans v Democrats has degenerated into an existential struggle, with each wishing the other to be defeated and subjugated.
For all its faults, the original construction of the US Senate afforded a break wall against the violence of political faction, which is exactly what James Madison envisioned.
See that? See that asshole who wants to solve a personal problem with the grand and mighty power of government? Is that a legitimate use of government?
Never mind that the base idiocy there was putting the government in charge of selling liquor in the first ‘effing place, but here we are: This genius thinks that this is appropriate use of government power. Where the hell does it end? Are we to start mandating that people put their toilet paper up a certain way, because some numpty becomes bothered by it not being done “their” way?
This crap right here is where and how governance starts to go off into the crazy place. Someone in power comes up with an idea like that, then they need to be removed from power as quickly as possible, and never be allowed near it again. They think that government exists to make the world perfect and fair and just, and all those nice-sounding words. It does not, and the minute the people in government get that shit into their silly little heads, then watch out: They’ll turn things into a petty nightmare of tyranny and “Oughta bes” that will destroy whatever social cohesion and consent you have.
This is the mentality that’s gotten us here, not how we pick the Senate. Too many of these “Oughta be” characters in office, doing too many things, while not doing their actual goddamn jobs.
“Someone in power comes up with an idea like that, then they need to be removed from power as quickly as possible, and never be allowed near it again.”
So tell me, was US Senate tenure shorter, longer or about the same prior to the 17th Amendment? How often did a Senator hold office for the same length of time as a judicial appointment? Never, amirite? Duration is an essential component of power. If you want to abridge the power of elective political office, shorten the office holder’s tenure.
Malthus, you are a master at missing the goddamn point.
I’m telling you that the system is broken because of the participants. They’re the problem, and the surrounding cultural matrix of “gimmedat” and “Oughtabe”.
The rules aren’t the problem. You can make any goddamn rules you like work; the people are the key issue, and if they’re inherently corrupt and stupid, then no set of rules or fixes to those rules will make a difference.
Col. David Crockett made an on-point speech on this very subject, government overreach, when he was in Congress:
“I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. …
We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.
He went on to quote a constituent who had complained when he previously voted for a similar measure:
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”
This is the mentality and ethos we’re missing, and until we fix that moral lacking in our politicians, no amount of rules-lawyering will help.
If there aren’t actual investigations, followed by trials, for all these ass-clowns? We’re done for, long-term. Because the next go-round, whoever is in charge of it all will look at what happened since the first Obama administration, and take that as a lesson/example.
This crooked shit has been going on since the first Obama term. Slowly, at first, and then with gaining confidence when nobody called them out on it. What happened to Trump in 2016 was just the culmination of it all… Obama completed the purge of the intelligence organizations and military that Clinton started. Brennan? A former avowed Communist, put in charge of the CIA? WTF? He couldn’t have gotten a f*cking clearance under any other administration, not at that level. He was always suspect, and should have never been put in front of anyone. Then, there were the cute little “warnings” about how the intel organizations should never be opposed, because they could “get you” anytime they wanted. From a sitting f*cking member of Congress. Who should have been strung up by his constituents for not doing his damn job and reining in the agencies he had oversight over.
This is early-stage imperialism. If it’s not nipped in the bud, then you’re going to see Caesar Augustus rising around here, within a generation or two.
I’m glad Trump was elected, and heartened by the appointments he’s trying to make. However, comma? I fear he’s one of the Gracchi, doomed to go down to defeat at the hands of the entrenched powerful in DC. I hope not, but if I were a bookmaker…?
debankedbythebanks dot org is a project of the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) to expose the financial industry’s determination to crush all aspects of the civilian firearms trade. They are working in concert with National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).
Florida law prohibits debanking.
How is this not a violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution?
“I fear [Trump’s] one of the Gracchi, doomed to go down to defeat at the hands of the entrenched powerful in DC.”
Moot the entire matter by repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Make the states sovereign in the Senate again and the “entrenched powerful” will be uprooted and dispossessed of their unified control.
[…] BIDEN CABAL/OBAMA SHADOW REGIME GOING OUT SWINGING: Biden Unbanking And Censoring Political Enemies? “The Biden Administration isn’t yet done, and still more of it’s dirty dealings are […]
In Citizens United, SCOTUS ruled that money is speech for businesses. Wouldn’t that same logic apply to taking away your money for saying things that the government doesn’t like.
Banks need to get government on their side now before cryto meets hawala and financial institutions are caught with a lot less money to handle.
“Moot the entire matter by repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Make the states sovereign in the Senate again and the “entrenched powerful” will be uprooted and dispossessed of their unified control.”
Step back from the issue, a bit: Is the problem really the 17th Amendment, or is it the fact that we’ve put so much cheese ‘n peanutbutter out that the rats are coming from miles around?
Before the 17th, there were issues with the Senate. Making them directly-elected was supposed to solve those problems, which stemmed from the “appointed” thing. States could not come together enough to agree on who to send, and there were years when some states had no Senate members because they couldn’t work out who to appoint.
Everybody looks at the problems of governance and goes “If only…” News flash: The issues are ‘effing endemic, and like a balloon, you squeeze in here, it bulges out over there. Your only real solution to an inflated life raft inside your aircraft fuselage is to pop the damn thing and make it small enough to manage.
The real problem here is that we’ve put so much power, so much wealth up there for grabs by whatever ethically and morally challenged asshole staggers by that it’s not even funny. Changing how we pick Senators ain’t fixing shit; reducing the power available to anyone aspiring to that position will fix things much better and for considerably longer.
What’s going on here is that our system has become overburdened by all these well-meaning asshole types that say “There ought to be a law!!” whenever something unfortunate happens. Empowering someone to “solve problems” is how we get to where we are; repressing that impulse is way more important than changing how Senators get made. I doubt it’d even work; we’d either go back to the problems that led to the 17th, or we’d have our much more sophisticated crooks figure out new and better ways to finesse the system.
Only real solution? Take away the power; make Congress do its Constitutional job, and take all regulatory power away from the bureaucrats. If Congress can’t write the legislation, in its entirety, then they shouldn’t be passing it. Period.
I’d go so far as to say “No aides; no staff”. If you’re a Congressman, then you get just as much “help” as the poorest citizen in your constituency. Make them do their damn jobs, and quit setting them up as the center of attention for a crowdswarm of ass-kissers. That’s nine-tenths of the problem with our government… Once you get to a certain position, that’s all you ever hear, is how great you are. Wonder why the generals are so ‘effed up? They’re constantly catered to by all of their myriad staff; they get personal chefs and aides up the ass. They should be given the worst barracks/housing available at their assignment, in order to ensure that they take care of their troops. Instead, they’re worshipped like petty little gods, treated as though they were special… Which they manifestly are not.
The fact that we’ve allowed all this crap to grow up around these positions is where our problems lie. Do away with it all, from Congress down to the lowest executive position in the government. No special treatment, no special perks… Make the f*ckers fly coach, commercially.
As the old saw goes, politics is downstream from culture, and our culture of individual rights and responsibilities, local government backed by Judeo-Christian morals, and people banding together to help each other as needed *and then disbanding once the job is done* has been under massive attack since ~1900 (and arguably since ~1870).
The biggest “out” that comes to mind is revitalizing the 10th Amendment the way the 2nd has been. But almost all of federal government is in direct violation of the 10th, and the public has been taught that it is meaningless for over a century, so that’s an uphill battle.
“Before the 17th, there were issues with the Senate.”
Before the 18th Amendment, there were issues with drunkenness and immortality, which Prohibition exacerbated. Wisely, it was repealed.
After the 17th Amendment, it was no longer possible to mount a credible challenge to a Democrat/Republican dualism. But in every dualism, one god becomes the evil god. So we have Evil Fascist v Evil Commie as the basis of our political dialogue.
Admittedly, the North v South struggle is not a very good example of comity, but how far have we progressed? Republicans v Democrats has degenerated into an existential struggle, with each wishing the other to be defeated and subjugated.
For all its faults, the original construction of the US Senate afforded a break wall against the violence of political faction, which is exactly what James Madison envisioned.
Malthus, you’re missing my point. Changing the 17th Amendment back would basically be an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Here’s where the real problem lies:
https://www.nbc4i.com/news/politics/ohio-bill-would-require-high-demand-liquor-bottles-to-be-opened-when-sold/
See that? See that asshole who wants to solve a personal problem with the grand and mighty power of government? Is that a legitimate use of government?
Never mind that the base idiocy there was putting the government in charge of selling liquor in the first ‘effing place, but here we are: This genius thinks that this is appropriate use of government power. Where the hell does it end? Are we to start mandating that people put their toilet paper up a certain way, because some numpty becomes bothered by it not being done “their” way?
This crap right here is where and how governance starts to go off into the crazy place. Someone in power comes up with an idea like that, then they need to be removed from power as quickly as possible, and never be allowed near it again. They think that government exists to make the world perfect and fair and just, and all those nice-sounding words. It does not, and the minute the people in government get that shit into their silly little heads, then watch out: They’ll turn things into a petty nightmare of tyranny and “Oughta bes” that will destroy whatever social cohesion and consent you have.
This is the mentality that’s gotten us here, not how we pick the Senate. Too many of these “Oughta be” characters in office, doing too many things, while not doing their actual goddamn jobs.
“Someone in power comes up with an idea like that, then they need to be removed from power as quickly as possible, and never be allowed near it again.”
So tell me, was US Senate tenure shorter, longer or about the same prior to the 17th Amendment? How often did a Senator hold office for the same length of time as a judicial appointment? Never, amirite? Duration is an essential component of power. If you want to abridge the power of elective political office, shorten the office holder’s tenure.
Malthus, you are a master at missing the goddamn point.
I’m telling you that the system is broken because of the participants. They’re the problem, and the surrounding cultural matrix of “gimmedat” and “Oughtabe”.
The rules aren’t the problem. You can make any goddamn rules you like work; the people are the key issue, and if they’re inherently corrupt and stupid, then no set of rules or fixes to those rules will make a difference.
Col. David Crockett made an on-point speech on this very subject, government overreach, when he was in Congress:
“I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. …
We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.
He went on to quote a constituent who had complained when he previously voted for a similar measure:
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”
This is the mentality and ethos we’re missing, and until we fix that moral lacking in our politicians, no amount of rules-lawyering will help.
We have rules to curb the rapacity of man. If men were just, rules would be unnecessary.
Tu toque, Kirk.