Wednesday, October 14, 2026
But, I thought Al Gore said there'd be no snow by now...haha
Winter arrives early across the Northern Rockies as heavy snow blankets the West
But still they want everyone to go electric everything
Iconic LA deli’s eye-watering utility bill exposes ugly affordability crisis in California
Socialist fascism is when politicians control private businesses for their political goals...the CEO's need to be punished personally
Major banks closed accounts of MAGA, pro-life and other conservative groups disfavored by Biden admin: bombshell report
Major banks closed accounts and refused credit to MAGA merchants, pro-life causes, religious groups, conservative organizations and sectors disfavored by the Biden administration, such as firearms, oil and gas, and private prisons, a bombshell report from the federal banking regulator has found.
The Debanking Review by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) investigated 100,000 complaints and scrutinized 50,000 internal bank records to reveal how customers were “debanked” based purely on their political, social, or religious beliefs.
JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC, TD Bank, and BMO Bank were found to have discriminated against American consumers, citing “reputation risk” as a reason to deny service between 2020 and 2025.
Negative press, protests, criticism from advocacy groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, and reprisals from regulators or politicians were cited as the reputation risks most feared by the banks.
The 47-page OCC report, “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,” released Wednesday, found that the nation’s largest banks targeted Christian organizations over abortion, LGBTQ issues, and traditional family values.
The banks also restricted financing for “disfavored” industries such as firearms makers and retailers, Arctic oil and gas, coal, detention facilities, tobacco and e-cigarettes.
Among the examples in the report is JPMorgan Chase’s payment operation, WePay, closing the account of a merchant that sold merchandise promoting President Trump and the Make America Great Again(MAGA) brand, claiming it “promote[d] hate, violence, or racial intolerance.”
The bank’s internal screening system regularly flagged terms such as “MAGA,” “Make America Great,” and “America First” that appeared in merchants’ customer profiles, websites, and transaction information. Several of the terms used to find “violations” were added after the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
WePay also closed accounts for a merchant selling “conservative/republican t-shirts, hats, etc.” Merchandise that raised “red flags” included a “Biden-Illegitimate-Tshirt,” “The-Big-Lie-Sticker”, and a “Trump-Won” flag.
A merchant was debanked for processing payments for a planned event after the event organizer posted promotional material on social media that bank employees decided was “an incitement of hate”.
The posts described Black Lives Matter as “Marxists” and called President Biden and Anthony Fauci “the enemy”.
Banks regularly used hate group designations from the Southern Poverty Law Center to debank customers. The SPLC was indicted in April on federal fraud and money-laundering charges, with prosecutors alleging it defrauded donors of millions of dollars. FBI Director Kash Patel has described the non-profit as a “partisan smear machine.”
JPMorgan’s WePay, for instance, closed the account of a religious organization citing the fact it had been designated an “extremist hate group” by the SPLC.
In the bank’s internal tracking system, employees described the organization as a “[r]ight wing religious conservative non profit with strong anti LGBTQ rhetoric.”
WePay also closed an account used to raise funds to support a legal challenge of anti-discrimination laws by a “devout Christian”.
PNC refused to issue a line of credit to a successful media company because the bank’s environmental and social governance group noted that one owner had a foundation that “has funded several Christian conservative groups, including several identified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.” Another owner was branded “a conservative political commentator.”
The bank employee who recommended the refusal wrote: “I think it becomes really difficult to justify aligning ourselves with a company whose owners have built very public personas around opinions very contrary to PNC’s beliefs/values.”
Wells Fargo pressured a payment processor to terminate a religious nonprofit because of its views on same-sex marriage.
Wells Fargo also declined to lend money to two firearms businesses, with employees fearing repercussions from the Biden administration and criticism from anti-gun activists and members of Congress.
“Under the Biden administration, banks could face greater supervisory pressure to move away from lending to the firearms industry,” noted a reputation risk review of a prospective firearms client.
Bank of America debanked private-prison businesses citing “changing policymaker attitudes,” and then tried to re-establish one of the accounts just months into the Trump administration.
The OCC report also found organizations on both sides of the political spectrum had been denied services because of their perceived political affiliations.
Capital One, for instance, declined to provide financial services to any partisan entity that supported the campaigns of candidates from a single political party.
The bank refused business with an organization promoting “reproductive rights [that was] synonymous with abortion and the Dems” and also declined services to a gun rights organization “due to optics that we endorsed its position.”
Although all nine banks told the OCC they had revised their practices, the regulator said the reforms have not gone far enough and that no bank had “fully and publicly acknowledged” its “weaponization of finance against hardworking Americans.”
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced an investigation into the banks Wednesday and pledged to address any consumer harm caused by the debanking practices described in the report.
“It is appalling that these banks targeted American consumers for their political, social, or religious beliefs that did not align with the Biden Administration or its leftist allies,” said CFPB’s Acting Director Mark Paoletta.
“Many of those targeted were supporters of President Trump. These thuggish tactics… have no place in America…
“The CFPB will fully investigate whether the institutions featured in OCC’s report and others have complied with federal consumer financial laws and take appropriate action.”
The CFPB holds primary supervisory and enforcement authority for banks with over $10 billion in assets.
Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould said the OCC is considering further action to stop banks discriminating against customers on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.
“Today’s report provides irrefutable evidence that the nation’s largest banks have denied, debanked and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses,” he said.
The OCC review followed President Trump’s executive order directing federal banking regulators to combat “politicized or unlawful debanking”. The August 7, 2025 order declared that “no American should be denied access to financial services because of their constitutionally or statutorily protected beliefs, affiliations, or political views.”
Donald Trump is suing JPMorgan Chase, alleging it closed his accounts in 2021 for political reasons after the Capitol riot.
Melania, Eric, and Barron Trump have also complained they were debanked at that time, along with several Trump businesses.
Tech founder Marc Andreessen has claimed tech entrepreneurs were debanked under a program by the Biden administration because they were operating disfavored businesses like crypto. He also alleged his partner’s father was debanked for his conservative political views.
Americans who believe they were unfairly debanked can visit helpwithmybank.gov.
A spokesman for JPMorgan Chase said: “A process used by WePay, a small technology company we acquired years ago and have since wound down, did not meet our expectations. We identified it, corrected it, and the business no longer operates… Our policies prohibit discrimination against customers based on political or religious views.”
Democrats with a far to high opinion of themselves
Wide-eyed Indiana Democrat Jaime West slurs her way through train wreck-interview: ‘This is NOT a skit’
A Democratic candidate in Indiana is going wildly viral for a car-crash interview in which she slurred her words and rolled her eyes while bragging about having “guns” and promising to fire all Republicans.
Jaime West, who is running for county council in Fayette County, appeared confused from the start of her televised forum sponsored by local outlets TV3 and the Connersville News Examiner, admitting that she had not prepared an opening statement, as expected
Her rambling, slurred monologue viewed millions of times on X only got more surreal when it sounded like someone on a microphone loudly farted.
When West was asked what unpopular thing she would do in office, she slurred again as she replied, “Firing all Republicans.”
“I don’t even talk to them…. I don’t like being around ’em,” West rambled about her opponent party members.
“I mean, y’all did this to us. Y’all voted for us. You made this happen, this ICE coming into our communities, stealing people’s jobs. I mean – arghhh,” she continued, before ranting about President Donald Trump’s supporters.
“There are good Republicans out there. But then there’s these MAGAs, who are just racist and aren’t very intelligent at all,” West said.
She also claimed a sheriff’s nephew once tried to “blow my head off,” and, when asked for a final message to the voters, she looked directly at the camera and threw her hands in the air as she bizarrely said, “We have guns too.”
The clip has gone viral since being shared by TV3 on YouTube on Friday, with Libs of TikTok stressing, “This is NOT a skit.”
“This is WILD. I legit thought it was a skit/high school video project,” one X user wrote alongside the video in a post seen seven million times.
“This is what happens when you’re at happy hour and are reminded you agreed to do an interview about your race,” added a second.
“She’s fully loaded—and her guns are too,” quipped another commentator.
West could not immediately be reached and does not appear to have commented about her viral moment.
She is running against Republican Gary Jeener Jr. for the council seat with voting taking place on Nov. 3 along with the midterm elections.
Pity the child
Mom stabs husband and son, 3, to death at popular family resort before calling 911 to ask for help killing herself: cops
These are vile dishonest people
Report: Ilhan Omar’s Staff Had Her Listed Birth Year Changed After She Was Elected
The Problem Of Immigrants Whose Faith Mandates Conquest
The Problem Of Immigrants Whose Faith Mandates Conquest
These are not the hard-working economic immigrants of old; this is a whole new type of immigrant, and America must address the change soon.
In Wednesday’s Pluralism Is Broken, I argued that pluralism only works when cultural differences operate within a shared civic framework. Multiculturalism reverses that premise by asking America to accommodate differences without requiring assimilation. When immigration policy no longer reinforces a common framework—and when we become unwilling to examine its consequences—we are not preserving pluralism; we have sown the seeds of our own destruction.
The central question is whether a society committed to individual liberty can remain coherent when it loses the will to reject individuals or groups whose norms contradict its foundational values. Over time, we have deliberately bent our rules to accommodate two categories: those who come here solely for economic reasons and those who seem to come in a spirit of religious conquest.
Economic migration has existed since the nation's founding, but two modern developments transformed it from beneficial to detrimental: easier entry from around the globe and a benefits system that attracts those seeking opportunity regardless of their ability to contribute.
That created a second, more complex challenge: the arrival of migrants whose religious framework is not merely a set of private beliefs but a complete system governing how believers live, their obligations to others, and a requirement to proselytize or even conquer—and that makes welfare not a gift, but a mandate from the new host country.
Classical Islamic scholarship draws this distinction through ibādāt—acts of worship governing the relationship between God and the believer—and muʿāmalāt—rules governing relationships among human beings, including family, inheritance, commerce, sexuality, and community life. Islam is not merely a faith; it also prescribes how believers must live and what to believe. Devout Muslims accept these obligations as divinely mandated, not optional. The concept of the ummah reinforces this: believers are members of a religiously defined community with obligations toward one another that extend across national boundaries.
In a religiously tolerant country like ours, we have no natural immune system to fend off a culture with a high birth rate that frequently rejects assimilation. This leads to an unavoidable question: whose culture will survive? This unprecedented question demands
that we rethink our laws and beliefs while we still can.
The problem is not that Muslims are different; America has always absorbed differences. The question is whether those differences encompass fundamentally exclusionary ideas. America's original social compact was built around the individual. The people who came here differed in nationality, language, and denomination, but generally shared a recognizable conception of society: individual liberty bounded by responsibility, private property, family, voluntary association, rule of law, and government constrained by citizens' rights. We need not be homogeneous; we need only function within the same framework.
The First Amendment protects free exercise, not parallel legal systems. Americans are free to practice their religion and organize religious communities, but American law governs. A religious obligation can compel the believer, not someone else.
The problem comes when religious obligation involves matters American law treats differently: marriage, divorce, inheritance, women's status, sexual conduct, speech, and religious criticism. When Islamic law addresses these areas, the issue is no longer merely private religious belief. It becomes a question of whether a religious framework can coexist with a civic framework built around individual autonomy and our Constitution.
Our society accommodates religious belief and practice—but not without limits. Muslims may pray, observe Ramadan, eat halal food, and establish a mosque, as long as they respect others' rights. But religious freedom does not shield practices that violate our laws or undermine core civic norms. Customs that impose coercive dress requirements, restrict women's autonomy, or involve genital mutilation, among other customs, are categorically incompatible with American legal and moral standards. Tolerance has boundaries; beyond them, accommodation constitutes societal surrender.
The problem intensifies when accommodation shifts from religious practice to reshaping society, allowing religious requirements to become institutionalized and requiring others to acquiesce. Beware exceptions granted on religious grounds; more will endlessly follow. Over time, tolerance of an individual practice can become pressure on institutions to accept norms fundamentally at odds with our culture.
At that point, we are no longer discussing religious freedom; we have breached the boundaries of our common civic order.
We can't stop at diagnosing incompatibilities; we must establish policies that prevent the erosion of civic order—not by restricting religion, but by restricting practices that violate American law, undermine individual rights, or create parallel social systems.
What we must do:
First, the United States must enforce laws against coercive or abusive practices more consistently. Customs such as forced marriages, genital mutilation, or dress requirements imposed through religious strictures are not protected expressions of faith; they violate individual rights. Immigration screening should identify applicants who endorse or participate in such practices and deny entry to those who will not swear allegiance to American legal norms and our Constitution.
Second, the government must prohibit parallel legal systems. Any institution—religious or otherwise—that attempts to adjudicate family law, inheritance, or criminal matters outside the American legal system should be sanctioned.
Third, immigration policy must incorporate cultural compatibility as a legitimate criterion. This does not necessarily mean excluding people based on belief, but evaluating whether an applicant's stated expectations and social media history align with America's constitutional order and societal structure.
Fourth, assimilation must be a requirement for naturalization. This includes English proficiency, civic education, demonstrated lack of criminality, self-sufficiency, and a verifiable understanding that American law—not religious obligation—governs public life.
Finally, policymakers must recognize that immigration scale matters. Even compatible cultural differences will overwhelm our society when numbers exceed our capacity to integrate immigrants. Immigration levels must reflect not only economic needs but the nation's ability to maintain our civic identity.
These policies do not directly target Muslims; they target their practices and frameworks that conflict with the American civic order. A pluralistic society can welcome many faiths, but it cannot survive the institutionalization of norms that contradict its foundational principles. Policy does not punish difference; it preserves the norms that make differences possible.
We have treated immigration as though the primary question is: how many people can we absorb? The more important question is what America becomes by absorbing them. A constitutional society can tolerate individual differences, but not indefinitely competing conceptions of the proper social order without becoming something different itself.
That is the transformation we should be discussing—not whether America is tolerant enough, but whether tolerance has become the mechanism by which a tolerant society is transformed, and what decisions we must undertake to preserve our own civic culture.
God Bless America.
When there comes here...well you know the rest
Who will stand for western civilization values?
In the face of concerns over the importation of millions of migrants from Islamic terrorist hotbeds and the unlikelihood of their assimilation, then-Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel stated in August 2015, "We can do it."
Merkel's optimism has not aged well.
'Child marriages are incompatible with our values.'
The influx of migrants from the Middle East not only corresponded to a dramatic rise in Islamic terrorist attacks and helped drive a spike in crime, especially rape, but apparently left Europe with a child marriage problem.
In response to a parliamentary query from two members of the Alternative for Germany party, better known as the AFD, the interior ministry of the southwestern German state of Baden-Wurttemberg revealed in September that hundreds of child marriages have taken place in the region since Merkel made her infamous statement.
Martin Rothweiler, the leader of the AFD in the Baden-Wurttemberg state parliament, said Tuesday in a statement on X that was translated by the platform, "Our country and our values are being abolished before our very eyes."
The Tübingen Regional Council has been recording child marriages in Baden-Wurttemberg — home to roughly 13.46% of the total German population — since 2012. Between 2017 and 2026, the regional council recorded 358 child marriages with victims as young as 11, according to the interior ministry's report.
RELATED: Diversity is our strength? Britain has to remind migrants: Don't rape kids
Under German law, minors 14 years and younger are considered children, and those 15 to 18 are considered adolescents. This is in keeping with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which holds that "a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier."
The men marrying these minors were predominantly from Syria, Turkey, Bulgaria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Only eight of the recorded child marriages since 2012 — including a marriage between a 16-year-old German girl and a 25-year-old Pakistani man and a marriage between a 14-year-old Afghan girl and a 30-year-old Afghan man — were broken up with a legally binding annulment, according to the report.
The government noted that there are no legal proceedings under way to annul any of the other marriages.
The state report also noted that of the 271 cases recorded last year by the state-funded counseling center YASEMIN, 80 cases involved individuals at risk of forced marriage. In these forced-marriage cases, 33 individuals were minors — four of whom were under the age of 12, five of whom were 12, and two of whom were 13.
Emely Knorr, one of the AFD politicians who requested the data, said last week in a statement on Instagram for which Euronews has published a translation, "Child marriages are incompatible with our values. Children have a right to safety, education, and a self-determined future. That is why we need effective protection, early intervention, and resolute action against forced marriages."
Nikolaos Boutakoglou, the other AFD politician behind the query, said earlier this month in a statement on X translated by the platform, "Almost every single child marriage in Baden-Württemberg since 2017 can be traced back to mass migration!"
"Nearly 40% of child marriages were contracted between Syrians, while child marriages between two Germans account for only 0.3%!" Boutakoglou added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
