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!

Trump Transition Team Is Rightly Wary Of Sleazy General Services Administration

'Stealing records and sharing the victim’s private information isn’t any way to build up trust,' said Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Former Obama AG Suing Pentagon On Behalf Of Chinese Military Company

'Loretta Lynch has turned her back on her nation'

Will the Democrats carry Harris over the finish line?



Guys, I’m not sure Kamala Harris is going to make it. Don’t get me wrong — I think she can win. Well, no. She can’t win. But the Democrats can.

I firmly believe that if Democrats unite, supported by their captured institutions like the media, academia, Wall Street, the health care industry, local and state governments, and schools, and launch a full-court press like they did in 2020, they can carry Harris over the finish line, regardless of history. But will they? That’s a more complicated question.

Is Kamala really going to inspire enough Democrats to fight for the second first female presidential candidate this decade? It feels a little bit stale.

What’s in it for them?

A united Democratic Party might not be enough to defeat Donald Trump this time. The polls suggest that Harris will need more than just support and votes; she’ll need special support and “special votes” to secure decisive swing-state victories. Organizing door-to-door harvesting, ballot curing, and the intense effort to bring Democratic voters and ballots to the polls will require an army of skilled operatives.

What will all these operatives gain if Harris wins?

The Democratic Party is a coalition of factions, each driven by its own interests and loosely unified by a shared desire for federal dollars and the ability to dodge the consequences of their policies. For many of the power players in these factions, a Harris victory means staying out in the cold for eight more years. But if Trump wins, they only need to wait four.

Republicans argue that Biden and Harris are figureheads for a shadow government. According to this view, their competence doesn’t matter because they’re merely placeholders for whoever truly pulls the strings. Therefore, it’s irrelevant, conservatives claim, if Kamala Harris struggles to retain staff or lacks the magnetism of a coalition builder. She remains useful and convenient to the people who actually call the shots.

Therefore, we are doomed.

This argument misses key truths about politics and power. For the past decade, many on the right have viewed the Democratic Party as an unstoppable juggernaut. Its size and ideological consistency seem so overwhelming that leadership almost appears irrelevant. Alternatively, some claim that the deep state’s corruption and financial security prevent any internal power struggles from threatening its dominance. The house always wins — except for that one slip in 2016 when it wasn’t paying attention. Conventional wisdom on the right now holds that the people and history stand no chance against a fully alert and engaged Democratic Party machine.

We’ll see.

This isn’t a guarantee that Kamala Harris will cross the finish line. Biden’s 2020 victory was different. The current ruling faction of the Democratic Party — led by Barack Obama and veterans of his administration — could expect uninterrupted control with Biden at the helm. As the party moved from its Chicago superstar to what came next after Hillary Clinton's defeat, Obama’s allies could rest assured that his former vice president wouldn’t disrupt the status quo. But does Harris give the Obama camp or what’s left of the Clinton machine the same assurance?

That’s hard to imagine. Harris represents California’s political establishment, linked to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Her White House would not necessarily continue the Obama legacy, even though she serves as Biden’s vice president. Nor would she reignite the Democratic base in New York or Pennsylvania.

Will all these state Democratic organizations push full steam ahead in November, knowing they might be crowning California Democrats for the next eight or even 16 years? And with a more vigilant electorate already aware of the Democratic Party’s pre- and post-electoral shenanigans, will operatives in places like Arizona and Georgia risk it all for California Kamala?

The Democratic Party chose Biden as the compromise candidate for the 2020 election after securing key endorsements, such as Jim Clyburn’s in South Carolina. This process was crucial to determining which faction would lead in the post-Obama era. In 2015, it was clear that Hillary Clinton would have her turn, but after Trump’s 2016 victory, the party struggled to settle on a new leader.

Biden’s selection signaled a refusal to hand the party to the progressive factions backing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. Instead, he represented a continuation of Obama’s legacy — a placeholder who could attract disaffected white voters. It was widely understood that Biden would likely serve only one term, giving other ambitious party members room to vie for leadership in the next cycle.

The trouble is, Harris didn’t win a single primary in 2020, making her rise to the top of the ticket without full coalition consultation highly doubtful. While the party bigs will support her, it remains uncertain whether they will put in the same effort to carry her over the finish line.

It doesn’t seem like history (with-a-capital-H) is on Kamala’s side. Sure, sure, the “first female president” and all that. But I can’t be the only woman who feels like we already simultaneously checked and crossed out that box when Hillary ran for what felt like 20 years straight a few years back. Clinton was the woman everyone thought should have been the first female president but — whoops! — we didn’t get around to it.

Is Kamala really going to inspire enough Democrats to fight for the second first female presidential candidate this decade? It feels a little bit stale.

If the Democratic Party’s sundry factions fail to realize the same first black president enthusiasm they felt in 2008 or the first female president energy of 2016, or even please just not the Bad Orange Man in 2020, Kamala Harris will find herself the second first female president to be denied by Donald Trump.

Hundreds of former Deep State officials and nominal Republicans endorse Harris



Kamala Harris continues to collect endorsements from establishmentarians with links to the military-industrial complex and security state.

On Sunday, several hundred former officials who served in the George W. Bush, Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations joined a handful of nominal Republicans in signing a letter of support for Harris.

Their letter, advanced by the advocacy group National Security Leaders for America, contains the kind of rhetoric that set the stage for two attempts on President Donald Trump's life and appears to have left nearly 3 in 10 Democrats polled wishing Trump had been killed.

It states, "This election is a choice between serious leadership and vengeful impulsiveness. It is a choice between democracy and authoritarianism."

The letter, signed by some architects of disastrous foreign entanglements, including what was for private contractors an extremely lucrative war in Iraq, stated, "We are trained to make sober, rational decisions. That is how we know Vice President Harris would make an excellent Commander-in-Chief, while Mr. Trump has proven he is not up to the job."

The letter further alleges that Harris "has proven she is an effective leader able to advance American national security interests" and that she is "prepared and strategic."

'You need a president that's not going to be taking you into war.'

The signatories were evidently content to overlook Harris' hand in the current Democratic administration's deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan, her ostensible abandonment of Americans in Haiti during its latest collapse, her failure as border czar to stem the flood of tens of millions of illegal aliens into the country, and the glaring fact that Russia invaded Ukraine during the Biden-Harris and Obama administrations, not Trump's.

It's clear that the former security and military officials figure Trump — the first president since Richard Nixon not to kick off a new war or military conflict while in office — will make good on his promise of peace and relative non-interventionism.

After all, their letter bemoans the Republican's decision to withdraw from what he called another "endless war" in Syria, his criticism of allies — a likely allusion to Trump's pointed demands that NATO members meet their spending obligations — and his supposed ceding of "influence in the Middle East to Russia, Iran, and China."

During a town hall interview earlier this month with Sean Hannity in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Trump said, "You need a president that's not going to be taking you into war. We won't have World War III when I'm elected, but with these clowns that you have in there now, you're going to end up having World War III."

'They get rich when America's sons and daughters go off to die.'

Among the signatories of the letter are several partisan ambassadors as well as

  • John Kerry, Biden's former special presidential envoy for climate;
  • former Biden domestic policy adviser and Obama national security adviser Susan Rice;
  • Clinton adviser Nancy Soderberg;
  • Obama speechwriter and national security adviser Ben Rhodes;
  • Obama adviser Caroline Atkinson;
  • Clinton national security adviser Anthony Lake;
  • Janet Ann Napolitano, the Obama Homeland Security secretary who concern-mongered about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans returning from war as right-wing extremists; and
  • Rt. Brigadier Gen. John Wade Douglass, a failed Democratic congressional candidate and former CEO of the Douglass Aerospace Group.

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told Axios in a statement that the letter's signatories "are the same people who got our country into endless foreign wars and profited off of them while the American people suffered."

This latest endorsement by establishmentarians comes just weeks after former Jan. 6 committee member Liz Cheney endorsed Harris "because of the danger that Donald Trump poses."

Cheney, who was overwhelmingly rejected by Republican voters in Wyoming in 2022, previously called Harris "a radical liberal who wants to raise your taxes, take away your guns and your health insurance, explode the size of our federal government and give it control over every aspect of our lives."

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) said of Cheney's endorsement, "Kamala Harris and Liz Cheney make very, very interesting partners. They get rich when America's sons and daughters go off to die. They get rich when America loses wars instead of winning wars. And they get rich when America gets weaker in the world."

In August, scores of Republican staffers who served under President George W. Bush, the late Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), and failed presidential candidate Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) threw their support behind Harris, claiming another four years of Trump would alternatively "hurt real, everyday people and weaken our sacred institutions."

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

Sneaky Court Ruling Could Lock States Into Health Welfare For Able-Bodied Adults

Medicaid could soon turn into a fiscal version of the Eagles’ 'Hotel California' — states can check out any time, but they can never leave.

Obamas finally endorse Kamala Harris, and we have a question: 'WHAT did that cost her?'



When Biden finally dropped out of the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, the Obamas – some of the most powerful people in the Democratic party – did not initially follow suit, leading people to speculate that maybe Michelle would run.

However, that conjecture has been put to rest, as the Obamas have now endorsed Harris.

Glenn Beck plays the footage of Harris getting the phone call from Barack and Michelle announcing their official endorsement, which is included in one of her campaign ads.

Did Kamala Harris make a SECRET DEAL with Obama to get the Nomination?www.youtube.com

“It doesn’t ring true to me,” says Glenn, wondering what it “cost her” to get the stamp of approval from Obamas – a very “transactional couple.”

“Not nothing; I think we can be certain of that,” says Stu Burguiere.

“Here’s my guess,” says Glenn. “One of the pieces that it cost was Mark Kelly. Barack and Michelle want Mark Kelly; they do not want Kamala Harris. That's why he hadn't endorsed, and he was hoping that this would all go away after Joe Biden endorsed Kamala. I think Joe Biden [endorsed her] as a slap across Michelle and Barack's face.”

“I don't think [Biden] likes [the Obamas] at all, and I don't think they like him,” he continues. “[Biden] issued that letter and then he came out and said, ‘Oh by the way, I also endorse Kamala.”’

According to Glenn, however, “if [the Obamas] have a chance to turn on [Kamala] and do a coup on her, they will.”

“Why do you think Mark Kelly was such a big favorite of the Obama family?” asks Stu.

"Mark Kelly is the Pacifica," and "[Harris] is the Ferrari," is Glenn's answer.

To hear his explanation of this metaphor, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Every 2024 election CONSPIRACY theory with the Drinkin’ Bros



One week after former president Donald Trump narrowly survived an assassination attempt, President Joe Biden announced the end of his campaign for the 2024 election. And understandably, the conspiracy theories are now swirling.

While there’s speculation that it was strange that JD Vance, Trump’s pick for vice presidential nominee, had anti-Harris adverts ready to go, Dan Hollaway of the "Drinkin’ Bros Podcast" points out that Harris’ adverts should be drawing more criticism.

“That makes sense, because there were going to be two VP candidates and what probably would have happened is he would have run those right after he debated her, right? To capitalize on the marketing,” Hollaway tells Sara Gonzales.

“The fact that she had ones for president ready to go, is quite a bit more suspicious,” he adds.

Not only was the timing of Harris’ adverts strange, but her televised phone call with Biden was even stranger.

At one point, Harris appeared to mix up her words and started to say “rec” when she was supposed to say “call.”

“Joe, I know you’re still on the re—, on the call,” Harris said, correcting herself. Ross Patterson, Hollaway, and Gonzales believe she almost said “recording” — because the televised call seemed more like she was speaking to a recording than a human being.

“She also made sure to say ‘I’ve been talking to him everyday,’” Gonzales notes, adding, “No, you weren’t. Also, why would you feel the need to say that if you were.”

The idea that it might have been a recording has only been reinforced by the way Biden chose to drop out of the race — via a social media post.

“He broke up with us by text,” Gonzales says. “Plus, in the letter he did not endorse Kamala, but his X account shortly afterwards endorsed Kamala.”

“His campaign aides and staff say they never heard from the Bidens at all. They all found out 15 minutes prior, before it went out,” she continues, adding, “What are they not telling us?”


Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Joe Biden is out, and THESE questions need answering



Last Friday, an unknown entity announced that Joe Biden would drop out of the race the following Sunday. This information was denied by both Joe Biden and the White House, however.

Then come Sunday, Joe Biden did indeed announce that he would decline the Democratic nomination and drop out of the 2024 presidential election. Interestingly, this bombshell of an announcement came via social media.

Apparently, Biden’s decision to drop out was a result of “money, polling,” the fear that his continued campaign would “wipe out the Democratic party,” and because “staff, friends, [and] donors all abandoned Joe Biden.”

“Something doesn’t smell right,” says Glenn Beck, who has some questions.

5 DISTURBING Questions After Biden Dropped Out & Endorsed Kamala Harriswww.youtube.com

1. “Why didn't he address it from the Oval [Office] like all other presidents?”

Glenn suspects that the answer to that is because there was “a gun waiting to go off.”

“You have until 2:00pm on Sunday to resign or ... what?” he speculates.

2. “What did Joe Biden get in return for resigning? Were there promises made by anyone that ‘we will make sure that you're not held responsible for any of those crimes that you might have committed?’”

“They can pardon him if he's not the president, [and] they can pardon his family,” says Glenn.

Plus, they can point to Trump and say “if Trump gets in, it's going to be just revenge,” so “ we had to” remove Biden in order to pardon him before the administration shifts.

3. “Why [do] you jettison [Biden] and say it’s because he’s not capable” but you allow him “to run the country for the next six months?”

“That bothers me,” says Glenn, adding that the decision is a clear "inconsistency."

That’s just the beginning of his questions though. To hear Glenn’s inquiries and speculations in regard to Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ fearmongering about losing democracy, and the Democratic open primary that will select a new presidential nominee, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.