Chase Bank Closing "Alt-Right" Accounts

[Dark_Grey]

Chase Bank Shuts Down Alt-Right Accounts

WND Link
NatReview Link

Quote

“First we get silenced on social media, then Paypal, then I get debanked. It’s a very dangerous trend.”

It was only a matter of time before they came for the finances of dissenters. Once they realized that de-platforming does not remove the offender from the internet, the next step is de-funding. Kick them off PayPal, kick them off KickStarter and any other platform that allows crowd funding. Apparently, they aren't going to stop until all voices of opposition are silent AND broke. They want to go back to the days of all information being funneled through very controlled windows.

Quote

Tarrio is a young, peaceful, Afro-Cuban freethinker and chairman of the Proud Boys organization. In February 2019, the Texas Trump supporter received a letter from Chase Bank informing him that “after careful consideration,” the financial institution could “no longer support” his banking account.
[...]
Tarrio was subsequently kicked off Chase’s payment processor, which he used to sell patriotic and pro-Trump T-shirts. Next, he was deplatformed from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Airbnb, FirstData, Square, Stripe, and PayPal before losing his bank accounts.

Tarrio can't even use those little credit card processors preferred by small business owners. All avenues for income based on his activism have been shut off.

Quote

Others who received Chase shutdown notices so far in 2019: conservative Rebel Media contributor Martina Markota and U.S. Army combat vet and vocal Trump supporter Joe Biggs. Were Markota’s and Biggs’s removals “clerical” errors or unfounded, or were they based on an ideological litmus test disguised as a “moral character” assessment?

China's "social credit" system is the envy of globalist control freaks every where. When your ability to borrow money is dependent on your ability to stay quiet, we are all in deep doodoo. This is much bigger than politics - it's crucial that we are able to expose bad business practices and corruption which is a power they are trying to snuff out.

[+and-then]

It will be interesting to listen to those who support this selective censorship when it becomes THEIR turn to be targeted.    

[Vorg]

I don't really see anything offensive on the Proud boys website that other retailers might carry that might be deemed more offensive. It's just "Cuzz Trump" is all I see.

And maybe it is time to drop Chase.

Edited April 23, 2019 by South Alabam

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

31 minutes ago, and then said:

It will be interesting to listen to those who support this selective censorship when it becomes THEIR turn to be targeted.    

We won't see that in our lifetime, and then.  Commies win out here and for the long term, I'm afraid.

You have to remember, it is never the tactic of the freedomists (right) to target anybody for anything other than criminal acts. What you see here is a pinko commie Nazi thing.

[aztek]

and that is exactly what rise of fascism looks like,  brought to you by local liberals as regressive dubocrapts

Edited April 23, 2019 by aztek

[Buzz_Light_Year]

Citigroup has felt the backlash from just the same type of business model.

https://www.oann.com/report-citigroup-admits-to-losing-business-due-to-gun-control-policies/

Quote

According to a report by Breitbart, an official for the National Center for Public Policy Research — Justin Danhoff — said he recently confronted the CEO on the issue during a shareholder meeting. Officials reportedly admitted they lost clients because of the move, but claimed the amount of money they lost was “negligible.”

I seriously doubt that the losses were "negligible" if they were they probably wouldn't have even been mentioned.

 

[Setton]

A bakery can refuse service to a customer for no reason, so can a bank. 

You guys really need to get your stories straight. 

[aztek]

discrimination based on political belief,  illegal in USA as of 1964

Edited April 23, 2019 by aztek

[rashore]

I wasn't sure who Enrique Tarrio was, and figured some other folks might not either. So I googled him up...

Proud Boys is this group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

A Heavy article from last November about Enrique Tarrio and his stepping up in the Proud Boys: https://heavy.com/news/2018/11/enrique-tarrio/

A write up of Enrique from afrocuba web, has lots of article links about him: http://afrocubaweb.com/enrique-tarrio.html

An article from thegrio in Jan about Enrique supporting Roger Stone: https://thegrio.com/2019/01/28/enrique-tarrio-leader-of-far-right-group-shows-up-to-roger-stones-house-to-show-solidarity/

The OP article is more recent about the Chase thing, here's one from zerohedge in Feb that has an image of the letter Chase sent: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-09/chase-bank-abruptly-bans-proud-boys-leader

And another Feb article, this one from bigleaguepolitics: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/chase-bank-shuts-down-proud-boys-leaders-personal-bank-account/

An article from Miami New Times from March: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-09/chase-bank-abruptly-bans-proud-boys-leader

And a couple more recent links in the last week or so about Chase in relation to this...

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/04/17/are-chase-banks-account-decisions-motivated-by-politics/

https://www.theepochtimes.com/chase-bank-denies-political-motives-after-controversy-erupts-over-closed-accounts_2884333.html

 

 

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

44 minutes ago, Setton said:

A bakery can refuse service to a customer for no reason, so can a bank. 

You guys really need to get your stories straight. 

No one is really talking about whether it is LEGAL, Setton, but whether this is scary and unhealthy

[Kismit]

I am not sure that it is all that different to the bakery decision. 

I would like to see people’s opinions on where these two issues differ.

[+OverSword]

47 minutes ago, Setton said:

A bakery can refuse service to a customer for no reason, so can a bank. 

You guys really need to get your stories straight. 

Banks run under federal regulations bakeries do not.

[aztek]

actually bakery can not refuse,  we had a legal precedent, i would think by now everyone here would know

[spartan max2]

I wonder at what point people will openly admit that they just don't believe in the freedom of speech anymore. 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

discrimination based on political belief,  illegal in USA as of 1964

So discrimination based on something you choose is illegal but based on something you're born with is legal. 

When did your country get so backwards? 

30 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

No one is really talking about whether it is LEGAL, Setton, but whether this is scary and unhealthy

I didn't mention legality either. 

So keeping it purely as a moral question, why is this immoral but refusing customers in a bakery isn't? 

Doesn't the business owner have the right to choose their customers? 

6 minutes ago, aztek said:

actually bakery can not refuse,  we had a legal precedent, i would think by now everyone here would know

Can and did. Take your alternative facts somewhere else. 

[spartan max2]

26 minutes ago, Kismit said:

I am not sure that it is all that different to the bakery decision. 

I would like to see people’s opinions on where these two issues differ.

Honestly people bringing up the bakery seems like a straw man.

 

It was decided that it's illegal to not serve the gay couple. So if the bank isn't different then you should agree that it's wrong for Chase to refuse customers off of politics 

If you disagree with that then you're stating that the bakery and bank are two different situations. 

[Setton]

28 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Banks run under federal regulations bakeries do not.

So free market but only when it suits? 

Same question as for aztek - why should you not be able to discriminate over a conscious choice but you can over something the customer is born with?

Do you honestly not see how backwards that is? 

[Setton]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Honestly people bringing up the bakery seems like a straw man.

 

It was decided that it's illegal to not serve the gay couple. So if the bank isn't different then you should agree that it's wrong for Chase to refuse customers off of politics 

If you disagree with that then you're stating that the bakery and bank are two different situations. 

So what is this:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/04/gay-cake-ruling-supreme-court-same-sex-wedding-colorado-baker-decision-latest

If you're right, then everyone who spoke in favour of the bakery should also be supporting the bank. As you say, same situation. 

[spartan max2]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

So what is this:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/04/gay-cake-ruling-supreme-court-same-sex-wedding-colorado-baker-decision-latest

If you're right, then everyone who spoke in favour of the bakery should also be supporting the bank. As you say, same situation. 

Ah, I honestly wasn't aware of that ruling. 

I actually agree with people saying you should not be allowed to not serve someone just because of their sexuality. 

I also think the bank is in the wrong.

Do you agree?

[+OverSword]

15 minutes ago, Setton said:

So free market but only when it suits? 

Same question as for aztek - why should you not be able to discriminate over a conscious choice but you can over something the customer is born with?

Do you honestly not see how backwards that is? 

You asked.  Not my problem if you don't like the answer.

[Tatetopa]

Did the Supreme Court rule in favor of the Masterpiece Cakeshop or not?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

58 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Banks run under federal regulations bakeries do not.

This is a good point that the bakery example does not match in any way.

The Feds  make FDIC insurance available to banks which means that it is tax payer funded.  Is it legal for the bank to refuse service to a taxpayer that subsidizes the bank?   I doubt it.

[+OverSword]

33 minutes ago, Setton said:

So discrimination based on something you choose is illegal but based on something you're born with is legal. 

There is strong evidence that our political leanings are hardwired physiologically.

[rashore]

3 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

This is a good point that the bakery example does not match in any way.

The Feds  make FDIC insurance available to banks which means that it is tax payer funded.  Is it legal for the bank to refuse service to a taxpayer that subsidizes the bank?   I doubt it.

It's not really tax payer funded. As in it does not receive congressional appropriations or federal or state tax funds. It's funded by the banks- they pay premiums for their insurance. And it's also paid for by interest generated by the portfolios of securities FDIC has invested in from the premiums payed in.

FDIC of course is part of the tie ins the banks have with the feds. But banks don't have to have FDIC in order to operate, though it is the business norm to follow the feds rules and also carry the FDIC.

[Tatetopa]

25 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I wonder at what point people will openly admit that they just don't believe in the freedom of speech anymore. 

Not for a while yet.  Everybody has a right to speak, but those with money can speak louder.

In the Citizens United ruling, the SC  said that money is speech, financial support is the same as free speech and businesses have a right to do that.  .  At the time, a lot of liberals opposed that ruling and said it could lead to worse consequences down the road.  Well, here we are. consider this an exercise in protected corporate free speech.   Remember the support that conservatives gave to this ruling because it was the conservative view that had the immediate benefit?.   Unintended consequences friends.  Eventually, the future becomes the present.

It is a distraction  to blame this on liberals or the government, when in fact it is a multinational global corporation  that made this choice supported by a supreme court decision backed by conservatives.

The purpose of a corporation is to return maximum profit to its investors, not protect free speech or truth.

Did Chase decide that it would lose more money if people found out Proud Boys had an account than they get by servicing the account?  Beats me, but that could have been their decision.  

You gonna take your money out of Chase?  Fine.  I am sure their analysts already took you into account in the risk / benefit calculation.

I don't think it is right but it is the system we have built, both conservatives and liberals have a hand in where we are today.