Obama DOJ initiative became political de-banking scheme, Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen tells Joe Rogan



Brexiteer Nigel Farage was de-banked last year for political reasons. While acknowledging he was a commercially viable customer, Coutts bank, part of the NatWest Group, dropped the British politician because of his comparison of Black Lives Matter rioters to the Taliban; his criticism of climate alarmism and his suggestion that "net zero is net stupid"; his "endorsements of Donald Trump"; and other expressions thought unpalatable by the powers that be.

Although Britain has done its best in recent months to clamp down on perceived wrong think, including silent prayer, it is hardly exceptional when it comes to the practice of de-banking.

Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Netscape and general partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, recently told Joe Rogan that scores of tech founders have been de-banked under the Biden administration through a coordinated and politically motivated effort he referred to as "Operation Choke Point 2.0," an apparent update on a scandalous Obama Department of Justice initiative. In the days since the interview, numerous crypto entrepreneurs have gone online with their own de-banking tales.

The 'wrong politics'

After explaining that "de-banking is when you, as either a person or your company, are literally kicked out of the banking system," Andreessen told Rogan that it has hit close to home — his business partner's father was de-banked.

When asked why David Horowitz, a critic of Islamic and leftist extremism, would have been de-banked, Andreessen said, "For having the wrong politics. For saying unacceptable things."

"I mean, David Horowitz is, you know — he's pro-Trump," said Andreessen. "I mean, he's said all kinds of things. You know, he's been very anti-Islamic terrorism. He's been very worried about immigration, all these things."

Other individuals and groups who have been de-banked in recent years were similarly on the right, which may explain why the Southern Poverty Law Center has defended the practice.

'There's no constitutional amendment that says the government can't de-bank you.'

In September 2023, Bank of America de-banked John Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and one of the attorneys also targeted by the 65 Project for his work with President-elect Donald Trump. Two months later, USAAA Federal Saving Bank similarly de-banked him.

Former Nebraska state Treasurer John Murante (R) noted in an op-ed last year that Chase had de-banked multiple individuals and organizations — including the Arkansas Family Council, Defense of Liberty, and retired general Michael Flynn Jr. — over "mainstream American views."

Months after JPMorgan Chase canceled the checking account for former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback's faith-based nonprofit National Committee for Religious Freedom, Brownback reportedly received an email from Chase indicating that he was a "politically exposed person."

"Under current banking regulations, after all the reforms of the last 20 years, there's now a category called a 'politically exposed person,' PEP," Andreessen told Rogan. "You are required by financial regulators to kick them off, to kick them out of your bank. You're not allowed to have them."

According to a 2021 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council document, the "term PEP is commonly used in the financial industry to refer to foreign individuals who are or have been entrusted with a prominent public function, as well as to their immediate family members and close associates." The term has also been applied to domestic individuals similarly entrusted with prominent public functions.

The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, an international outfit hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, noted in its own definition that due to their position and influence, many PEPs "are in positions that potentially can be abused for the purpose of committing money laundering offences and related predicate offenses, including corruption and bribery, as well as conducting activity related to terrorist financing."

Andreessen suggested that the de-banking of domestic PEPs tends to go only one way, noting, "I have not heard of a single instance of anyone on the left getting de-banked."

A private-public scheme

The tech entrepreneur explained that this politically unidirectional mechanism is wielded by a combination of governmental and private forces.

"There's a constitutional amendment that says the government can't restrict your speech, but there's no constitutional amendment that says the government can't de-bank you," said Andreessen.

The government leans on private banking institutions to do its dirty work, which gives it the benefit of distance, such that "the government gets to say, 'We didn't do it. It was the private company that did it, and of course, JPMorgan can decide who they want to have as customers.'"

Andreessen characterized the political persecution scheme as 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."

According to Andreessen, this "regime" has been targeting numerous crypto entrepreneurs since President Joe Biden took office.

'It's just raw administrative power.'

"This has been happening to a lot of the fin-tech entrepreneurs, anybody trying to start any kind of new banking service, because they're trying to protect the big banks," said Andreessen. "This has been happening, by the way, also in legal fields of economic activity that they don't like."

Thanks, Obama

Andreessen suggested that this coordinated effort to crush perceived political adversaries through monetary pressures kicked off in earnest "about 15 years ago with this thing called Operation Choke Point."

Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel and senior vice president of corporate engagement at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told members of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government in March:

In the now infamous Operation Choke Point, President Obama's DOJ and FDIC spearheaded a multi-agency initiative to target legal industries like firearms dealers, tobacco sellers, dating services, coin dealers, and payday lenders. After a group of payday lenders sued the FDIC, litigation filings and subsequent federal oversight offered a rare look into the world of financial regulation. The FDIC expanded "reputational risk" to include "any negative publicity involving the third party." It then worked in conjunction with the DOJ and other agencies to pressure financial institutions to deny service to disfavored industries. The DOJ issued over 60 subpoenas; the FDIC and OCC issued related guidance on the reputation risk presented by payment processing for these entities; and the FDIC listed the above businesses as "high-risk businesses," all with the intent to cut off banking access to these industries.

Andreessen suggested that the Biden administration extended the concept to apply to political opponents as well as to crypto and tech entrepreneurs.

"Choke Point 2.0 is primarily against their political enemies and then to their disfavored tech startups," said Andreessen. "And it's hit the tech world hard. We've had like 30 founders de-banked in the last four years."

According to the tech entrepreneur, those he knows who have been de-banked effectively had to reinvent themselves or get creative with where they put their money to "try to get away from the eye of Sauron."

Tyler Winklevoss, co-founder of Gemini, noted after Elon Musk highlighted Andreessen's comments that he was de-banked and suggested that there have likely been far more than 30 individuals de-banked in the burgeoning industry.

"Totally unlawful, evil behavior," said Winklevoss.

Brian Armstrong, co-founder and CEO of Coinbase, responded to Andreessen's claims, noting, "Can confirm this is true. It was one one of the most unethical and un-American things that happened in the Biden administration, and my guess is we'll find Elizabeth Warren's fingerprints all over it (Biden himself was probably unaware). We're still collecting documents via FOIA requests, so hopefully the full story emerges of who was involved and whether they broke any laws."

Konstantin Richter, CEO of Blockdaemon, claimed that Bank of America similarly cut his organization loose.

The nature of de-banking leaves victims with few or no means to seek remedy.

"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," said Andreessen. "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."

To make matters worse, "There are no fingerprints," said Andreessen. Those behind the de-banking are virtually untouchable.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

USAA Scorns Its Trump-Voting Members By Debanking The Lawyer Who Defended Him

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screenshot-2024-04-24-at-4.46.22 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screenshot-2024-04-24-at-4.46.22%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]USAA was 'founded on military values.' Now it embraces leftist ideas, transgender ideology, and corporate cancel culture.

Brazilian woman caught on camera puppeteering dead man to sign for a loan: 'Uncle, are you listening?'



A woman was arrested Tuesday after wheeling a corpse into a South American bank and attempting to take out a loan in the decedent's name.

Brazilian police indicated 68-year-old Paulo Robert Braga had long been dead when Érika de Souza Vieira Nunes, 42, rolled him into a Rio de Janeiro bank in a wheelchair, talked to him as though he were still among the living, then attempted to puppeteer a signature out of him for a $3,234 loan.

According to the Brazilian news outlet G1, bank employees quickly became suspicious of Nunes' behavior. There were, after all, a few dead giveaways that something was amiss.

In footage of the incident captured by bank employees, Nunes can be seen attempting to keep Braga's head upright and engaging in a clearly one-sided conversation.

"Uncle, are you listening? You need to sign. If you don't sign it, there's no way," Nunes can be heard saying in her native tongue. "I can't sign it for you. I'll do what I can do."

"You hold your chair very strong there," Nunes says to the corpse. She proceeds to ask one of the tellers, "Didn't he hold the door there just now?"

Feigning frustration with Braga's lack of cooperation, Nunes says, "Sign so you don't give me any more headaches. I can't take it anymore."

According to a translation provided by USA Today, one teller says in the video, "I don't think this is legal. He doesn't look well. He's very pale."

Nunes, who claimed to be the dead man's niece, says, "He is like this."

The grim borrower then suggests to Braga, whose mouth is wide open and eyes are glassy, "If you are not well, you will go to the hospital."

Bank attendants ultimately called the police who promptly detained Nunes.

Police chief Fábio Souza of the 34th Police Station confirmed to CNN Brazil that Nunes was charged with attempted theft by fraud and abuse of a corpse. If convicted of the latter, then Nunes could face up to three years in prison and a fine.

Nunes reportedly expressed no remorse in her interviews with police and told officials that Braga had expired while in the bank. Police are not buying her story in part because medical examiners found indications the elderly man had been dead for at least two hours prior to his posthumous banking experience.

Authorities are reportedly still waiting to confirm Braga's cause of death, indicating they will open a homicide investigation if they suspect foul play.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Substack Payment Processor Backs Off Demand For Bank Data From mRNA Scientist

Famous mRNA scientist Robert Malone doesn't have to turn over all his bank account data to keep his Substack earnings, Stripe says.

The Feds Gave Banks Woke Censorship Tools To Control All Your Money

The same government pressure erecting an Iron Curtain around the Internet is also constructing a financial social credit system like Communist China's inside the United States.

Capital One to acquire Discover — and both of the big businesses are on the ESG bandwagon



Capital One will acquire Discover, according to a press release, which notes that those holding Discover shares will receive shares of Capital One stock.

"Our acquisition of Discover is a singular opportunity to bring together two very successful companies with complementary capabilities and franchises, and to build a payments network that can compete with the largest payments networks and payments companies," Capital One founder, chairman, and CEO Richard Fairbank said, according to the press release.

Discover investors will get slightly more than one share of Capital One per share of Discover that they hold.

"Under the terms of the agreement, Discover shareholders will receive 1.0192 Capital One shares for each Discover share, representing a premium of 26.6% based on Discover's closing price of $110.49 on February 16, 2024. At close, Capital One shareholders will own approximately 60% and Discover shareholders will own approximately 40% of the combined company," the press release notes. Discover "is the smallest of the four US-based global payments networks. This acquisition adds scale and investment, enabling the Discover network to be more competitive with the largest payments networks and payments companies," the release noted.

Both companies promote environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, ideology.

Discover released an ESG report last year that listed goals such as increasing the representation of women and non-whites in "all management levels by 2025."

"Increase POC to 40%" the report stated as a goal, providing a footnote that explained, "POC is defined as People of Color; POC comprises all races/ethnicities in the United States that are not categorized as White/Caucasian." Other objectives included increasing "women to 50%" and "Black and Hispanic to 15%."

Capital One released an ESG report last year that noted "In the three year-period from 2019 to 2022, in the U.S., Asian and Pacific Islander VP+ representation has grown 28 percent, Black VP+ representation has grown 128.6 percent, Hispanic VP+ representation has grown 16.7 percent and women’s VP+ representation has grown 8.5 percent."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

I Bought A Bible, Slingshot, And Sports Gear. So I’m Probably On A ‘Domestic Terrorist’ Watchlist

All-American consumerism by a completely peaceful and law-abiding citizen somehow threatens the people running my own country into the ground.

Congressional Democrats call for totalitarian central bank digital currencies and digital ID



During a meeting of the House Financial Services Committee this month, government officials discussed developments in digital identity technologies and central bank digital currencies. These technologies are terrifying to civil liberty advocates because of their potential to turbocharge government oversight and surveillance capabilities.

Democrat legislators expressed support for these surveillance tools while decrying legislative efforts aimed at halting the progress of CBDCs.

Digital IDs, in particular, received strong support from Rep. Bill Foster of Illinois. He endorsed them to be enforced to protect against artificial intelligence, whatever that means. Additionally, he commended the digital ID systems implemented in countries like India, Estonia, and Korea for their ability to police the web.

“A secure digital ID biometrically synced to your smartphone allows individuals to remotely verify that they are who they say they are, saving costs, reducing the likelihood of fraud, and to allow individuals to defend themselves against deepfake identity fraud,” Foster said.

Foster asked about the benefits of having digital IDs during the COVID-19 pandemic and their usefulness in online transactions. While fawning over India's digital ID system, he failed to address the various controversies associated with it, such as significant privacy concerns, financial exclusion for non-participants, and the implementation of mandatory digital ID checks in certain sectors.

Hearing Entitled: Fostering Financial Innovation: How Agencies Can Leverage Technology to Shape...youtu.be

Foster described the digital ID systems in India, Estonia, and Korea as voluntary, highlighting that these countries offer secure digital identification.

However, he’s lying, as the digital ID is not optional in Estonia. From birth, Estonian citizens are integrated into the system with an assigned identity code.

Charles Vice, the director of financial technology and access at the National Credit Union Administration, informed the committee that the NCUA is exploring digital ID technology. He mentioned that several credit unions have already initiated pilot programs for digital ID and spoke positively about the introduction of mobile digital driver's licenses in various U.S. states.

Democrat Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts shifted the committee's discussion to central bank digital currencies, emphasizing the importance of the United States not lagging behind other nations in CBDC development. If China does something, then we must follow suit, I guess.

With a straight face, he expressed frustration that some of his colleagues on the subcommittee support legislation that would halt CBDC development. Rep. Lynch failed to articulate the myriad of reasons why many are concerned about implementing CBDCs.

Critics of CBDCs, including lawmakers advocating against CBDC-focused bills, argue that such currencies could lead to increased surveillance of financial transactions and potentially enable the control of consumer purchasing choices.

Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio approached the topic of CBDCs with skepticism during his questioning of Michael S. Gibson, director of the division of supervision and regulation at the Federal Reserve. Davidson's concerns centered on the hiring efforts of the San Francisco and Boston Federal Reserve Banks for CBDC development roles. He pressed Gibson for clarity on the Federal Reserve's research into CBDCs and whether this research signifies a move toward more comprehensive CBDC development.

“You hire people that write code, it starts seeming like you’re developing and building versus researching,” Davidson said.

Gibson claims it’s only for research and that the Federal Reserve is “a long way off from the thinking about the implementation of anything related to a CBDC.”

However, we've been hearing members of the Fed itself sounding the alarm about the implementation of the digital dollar.

The Fed's Neel Kashkari on CBDC:\n\n"If they want to monitor everyone of your transactions you could do that (...) And if you want to directly tax customer accounts you could do that (...) So I get why China would be interested. \n\nWhy would the American people be for that?" #CBDC
— (@)

The differing viewpoints expressed during this hearing highlight the broader ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans in the ongoing debate over digital technologies such as digital IDs and CBDCs.

Republicans and civil libertarians tend to approach these technologies with skepticism, focusing on the overwhelming risks and harmful implications. This concern has led to the introduction of various bills aimed at limiting or outright banning these technologies. Democrats generally view these technologies as progressive innovations that will bring equality.

Even if you assign the best of intentions to these organizations that would implement CBDCs and digital ID (which, after the last few years, why would you?), the level of control we would be handing over to the central banks is frightening. With the click of a button, they could shut off banking access to anyone they deem an enemy. Preppers, anti-war leftists, religious dissidents, “cryptobros,” or the political bogeyman du jour could all be simply unbanked. If you don’t think that’s possible, ask the Canadian truckers.

Bank CEO ousted following politically-motivated de-banking of Nigel Farage



Coutts bank, part of the NatWest Group, was exposed last week for having de-banked Nigel Farage for political reasons — something both the bank and the liberal British media previously denied.

Despite her apology last week, NatWest CEO Alison Rose has been ousted with the bank — her Tuesday admission to misleading the nation likely having been a factor.

While NatWest chairman Howard Davies indicated it "is a sad moment," Farage appears emboldened, stating on Twitter, "Dame Alison Rose has gone. Others must follow."

What's the background?

Farage, the former English politician who proved instrumental in the 2020 restoration of British sovereignty via Brexit, revealed early this month that he had been de-banked by Coutts and told his funds would be shifted to the lender NatWest.

The Guardian and other left-leaning British publications parroted the bank's suggestion that the rationale behind the shuttering of Farage's account was due to financial issues, specifically his alleged failure to meet wealth criteria.

However, Farage told BBC Radio 4, "I have been with them for a decade and at the moment I have more money sitting on current account than I have had for most of that time."

The Brexiteer appeared convinced that "the establishment" was "trying to force [him] out of the UK" owing to his political views, reported the Financial Times.

He wasn't wrong.

TheBlaze indicated last week that Farage got his hands on documents revealing both that he was right on the money and that the Times, the BBC, the Guardian and other liberal outfits were dead wrong: Coutts had taken issue with his political viewpoints and past public opinions.

Contrary to the bank's earlier suggestion, the 40-page file from Coutts bank obtained via a "subject access request" contained an acknowledgement that Farage was a commercially-viable customer.

The document further highlighted apparently unbecoming remarks made by the former politician, stressing the bank would be best off closing his account and "exiting" him upon the expiry of his mortgage, even though "it is very likely that the client would 'go public.'"

Among Farage's remarks and stances that got under the bankers' skins were were:

  • his 2020 comparison of the destructive and scandal-prone Black Lives Matter movement to the Taliban over their shared iconoclastic tendency to tear down statues;
  • his October 2022 suggestion that British politician Grant Shapps was a "remainer and a globalist";
  • his September 2022 suggestion that vicious tensions between Islamic and Hindu groups in Leicester were resultant of politicians deciding "to go down the road of diversity and multiculturalism";
  • his criticism of climate alarmism and his suggestion that "Net zero is net stupid";
  • his "Endorsements of Donald Trump"; and
  • his appearances on InfoWars.

Farage called the document "abusive," likening it to a "Stasi-style surveillance report."

Suella Braverman, the British home secretary, responded the revelations, writing, "The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry."

— (@)

After Coutts was exposed, NatWest CEO Alison Rose penned an apology to Farage, stating, "I believe very strongly that freedom of expression and access to banking are fundamental to our society and it is absolutely not our policy to exit a customer on the basis of legally held political and personal views. ... To this end, I would like to personally reiterate our offer to you of alternative banking arrangements at NatWest."

The BBC and its reporter Simon Jack, who now faces demands to resign, followed suit, apologizing Monday.

— (@)

Outs at Coutts

Sky News reported that Rose admitted to having been the BBC's source of the false suggestion that Farage's de-banking was executed on the basis of strictly commercial reasons.

Farage noted that this was a breach of client confidentiality and Financial Conduct Authority code.

"The first rule of banking is you have to obey client confidentiality. So they have made a complete and utter mess of this," said Farage.

Rose resigned and further confirmed she was no longer a member of the prime minister's business council on Wednesday.

The bank claimed Rose's departure was "by mutual consent," reported the Associated Press.

Following the news of Rose's resignation, shares in the bank dropped 4%.

Farage said online that he hopes "this serves as a warning to the banking industry. We need both cultural and legal changes to a system that has unfairly shut down many thousands of innocent people."

He said in a statement, "they should all go," referencing the whole of the NatWest board, including its chairman, Davies.

— (@)

Into the breach

Farage vowed Wednesday evening in an article for the Telegraph that his "war on woke banks is about to rapidly expand."

"An emergency root and branch examination of what has happened at NatWest under Rose’s leadership must now take place. In recent years this bank – 39 per cent owned by taxpayers, remember – has morphed into a woke warrior," he wrote. "It has become obsessed with public displays of political correctness rather than focussing on the business of managing and making money. The truth is that in its quest to promote diversity and inclusion, this corporate giant has turned into a divisive and poisonous monster."

"Now is the time to fight back," wrote Farage, adding that he intends to be the voice for "everyday people" and "to campaign for the cultural and legal changes that our banking system needs."

The last time Farage put his mind to populist action, the United Kingdom ended up kicking the EU to the curb.

The Sunday Times recently indicated that NatWest is likely to soon face an avalanche of requests from tens-of-thousands of similarly de-banked customers, all wishing to know why they were canceled.

Banking minister Andrew Griffith convened a meeting of the executives from Britain's biggest banks Wednesday, telling them, "It’s not the job of banks to tell us what to think or what political party we should support."

"In a democracy that relies upon freedom of expression, freedom of thought, that isn’t a legitimate thing for a bank to remove someone’s access to a bank account, a really important building block of society today," added Griffith.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Pastor ‘Exiles’ Family To Kenya To Escape Canadian Persecution Of Christians

For peaceably assembling to petition his government, Rev. Harold Ristau says, he was threatened with the removal of his security clearance and government confiscation of his life’s savings.