American Social Scoring? Chase Bank Allegedly Cancels The Account and Credit Card of Michael Flynn

Chase Bank’s motto “What Matters Most” took on a menacing meaning this week after Michael Flynn claimed that the bank canceled his account and the credit card due to the “possible reputational risk to our company.” If true, the report is a chilling expansion of the role of private companies to isolate and harass those with controversial views in our society. As shown with censorship, such private enforcement of speech controls has proven far more dangerous and effective than the traditional government programs. Indeed, the move would show how a type of Chinese “social scoring” could easily take hold in the United States.

While I was highly critical of the handling of his prosecution, I have also been highly critical of former national security Michael Flynn and his reckless rhetoric in the wake of the 2020 election. However, it is precisely his unpopularity that is allegedly the reason for Chase taking action against him.

This remains only an allegation by Flynn since there is no confirmation from Chase or additional supporting material. Some have noted issues with the postings to suggest that the notice may not be directed at Flynn. However, neither Flynn nor Chase have publicly denied the account.

On Sunday, Flynn posted a message from Chase informing him that it is severing its banking ties with him “because continuing the relationship creates possible reputational risk to our company.” The partially redacted letter, dated Aug. 20, stated that the bank’s action would be effective on Sept. 18.

330 thoughts on “American Social Scoring? Chase Bank Allegedly Cancels The Account and Credit Card of Michael Flynn”

  1. Chase bank played the woke card their ‘masters’ asked of them. They assumed Flynn would tuck his tail and take their crap…he did not. He called them out and in the open. They relented and folded their woke tail. Any other assertion is patently false as this is so obvious for what it was it can not be denied.

  2. I emailed Turkey yesterday to suggest he update / correct the column, since “Chase bank has refused to respond to media inquiries on the matter” was false, but he has chosen not to. I wonder why.

    1. Maybe because he’s an extremely busy person and hasn’t had a chance to get to it yet since, you know, it hasn’t even been 24 hours. And I’m sure he doesn’t need you to inform him Chase backtracked faster than Drew Brees, I’m sure he has a staff of sorts for that.

    2. Anon- “I emailed Turkey yesterday to suggest he update / correct the column, since “Chase bank has refused to respond to media inquiries on the matter” was false, but he has chosen not to. I wonder why”

      ***
      He probably is twerp proof.

  3. It’s nothing personal against General Flynn. With Chase, it’s all strictly business. For example, when the risks of money laundering increase, Chase must, unfortunately, raise the rates it charges its customers. It’s not personal. It’s business. You can see the concept in this surveillance video where Jaime Dimond meets up with one of its valued clients:

  4. Chase unilaterally closed out all of my accounts without notice and despite my credit rating of over 800. They refused to tell me what the problem was. I only wish I was gay so I could bring a class action lawsuit and allege that was the reason. I agree that private companies have a right to choose their customers but I would not oppose a law that requires financial institutions to disclose why they are cancelling someone’s account.

    1. Mr. Turley says he dismisses General Flynn’s claims on the 2020 Presidential election being stolen. However Molly Ball wrote an article in the Feb.4, 2021 issue of TIME Magazine detailing how the election was rigged by a cabal of corporate oligarchs to install their own meat-puppet into the White House as a titular figure so they could rule behind the curtain of Oz

      I have transcribed that article as well as other supporting data in my own blog:
      https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/01/2020-presidential-election-fraud/

      Also see this telling video from the surveillance video at State Farm Arena:

      https://tv.gab.com/channel/somebitchiknow/view/composite-video-state-farm-arena-60be3103e03b8c0eaf22587c

      \\][//

    2. I’ve researched for hours, financial institutions and credit card companies that don’t cancel conservatives. Find zillions that do, but zero that don’t. We need conservatives to step up and form these companies and an APP that assists with that. Anyone?

  5. Columbia linguist professor John McWhorter presents a ten point catechism of the new religion of neoracism.

    https://www.persuasion.community/p/john-mcwhorter-the-neoracists-1bf

    A new religion is preached across America.

    When black people say you have insulted them, apologize with profound sincerity and guilt. But don’t put black people in a position where you expect them to forgive you. They have dealt with too much to be expected to.

    Black people are a conglomeration of disparate individuals. “Black culture” is code for “pathological, primitive ghetto people.” But don’t expect black people to assimilate to “white” social norms because black people have a culture of their own.

    Silence about racism is violence. But elevate the voices of the oppressed over your own.

    You must strive eternally to understand the experiences of black people. But you can never understand what it is to be black, and if you think you do, you’re a racist.

    Show interest in multiculturalism. But do not culturally appropriate. What is not your culture is not for you, and you may not try it or do it. But if you aren’t nevertheless interested in it, you are a racist.

    Support black people in creating their own spaces and stay out of them. But seek to have black friends. If you don’t have any, you’re a racist. And if you claim any, they’d better be good friends—in their private spaces, you aren’t allowed in.

    When whites move away from black neighborhoods, it’s white flight. But when whites move into black neighborhoods, it’s gentrification, even when they pay black residents generously for their houses.

    If you’re white and only date white people, you’re a racist. But if you’re white and date a black person, you are, if only deep down, exotifying an “other.”

    Black people cannot be held accountable for everything every black person does. But all whites must acknowledge their personal complicity in the perfidy throughout history of “whiteness.”

    Black students must be admitted to schools via adjusted grade and test score standards to ensure a representative number of them and foster a diversity of views in classrooms. But it is racist to assume a black student was admitted to a school via racial preferences, and racist to expect them to represent the “diverse” view in classroom discussions.

    1. The critical racists’ theory presumes diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment) that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. the racist designation “people of color”), color quotas (e.g. too many Jews), and affirmative discrimination in lieu of affirmative action.

      That said, from Jew privilege to White privilege, and the baby “burden”. Here’s to progress under a liberal ideology: one step forward, two steps backward, under a nominally “secular” Pro-Choice religion that recalls the diversity and adversity of pre and post-apartheid South Africa, Zimbabwe, Germany, China, etc.

  6. Turley, how do you know if the real reason Chase is cutting ties with Flynn isn’t a credit issue? Or just their desire to not be associated with an f widget?

    eb

    1. Eb, Chase said it was an issue concerning their reputation not a credit issue. Banks are not shy about letting you know if your credit is bad. Your attempt to put words in Chase’s mouth is duly noted. Being a constant contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian is also duly noted and respected for what it is.

        1. Anonymous, speculation does not speculate on the obvious or it wouldn’t be speculation. If it’s obvious it is based on fact and no speculation is required. When speculation is required it is often employed only when desired for a preconceived outcome. First conceive what you want it to be than somehow fit the information to your desired outcome. Figure out how to float you boat than type it down. Sail on Anonymous sail on.

      1. Banks are not shy about letting you know if your credit is bad.

        Cancelled credit cards would show up on your credit report. Very petty in thats a motive…about right for leftists.

    2. They aren’t cutting ties with Michael Flynn. According to Snopes and the Daily Mail, Chase says that a letter was sent to Michael Flynn’s wife, Lori Flynn, by mistake, and instead of correcting the erroneous story that was circulating, Mike Flynn did the standup thing (sarc) and misleadingly re-posted an image of the letter with the first name blacked out, letting people continue to believe that it was sent to him.

      1. Anonymous somehow hasn’t ever heard the term “joint property”. Want to really get to a guy. Attack his wife.

        1. Most states aren’t community property states, and you’ve provided zero evidence that they share a credit card account. But don’t let little facts like this get in the way.

          1. Anon: “you’ve provided zero evidence that they share a credit card account. But don’t let little facts like this get in the way.”
            ***
            And you have provided ZERO evidence that they don’t. But don’t let little facts get in the way.

            They are married and I think they now live in Florida which is not a community property state but a tenancy by the entireties state with more complex legalities governing marriage. There are also interesting rules for protecting debtor property during bankruptcy or judgment collection that come into play.

            Dismissing the wife’s account as if it were the account of a complete stranger is simply ignorant.

            1. Thanks Young. I just made a similar rebuttal to Anonymous’s comment but you more eloquently beat me to it.

            2. “Dismissing the wife’s account as if it were the account of a complete stranger is simply ignorant.”

              And introducing straw man arguments like that one is simply dishonest.

              1. I think we are disputing with a dishonest straw man. What posed the difficulty for you? That they are married? That they live in a state with tenancy by the entireties? That the state has favorable laws for debtors [ask OJ Simpson] or that you just don’t understand the issues and are trying again to crawl away with a non sequitur insult?

                1. If you’re aiming for a sincere discussion (which I doubt), you should avoid loaded questions.

                  You wrote “Dismissing the wife’s account as if it were the account of a complete stranger is simply ignorant,” and I’m saying: I didn’t do that, and implying I did is a straw man argument on your part. Clear enough?

                  1. As a man you would have to have been married to a woman to understand. Seeing that you are not able to comprehend what marriage entails between a man and a woman, you really have no input t this dialogue that s worth considering.

                    1. A. Aside, my wife and I have a Chase card. Both of us have cards in our own name. But the account is in her name attached to her individual banking activities. Maybe the general and his wife do likewise. But that is speculation. And I wonder what activities his wife might be engaged in that could injure Chase’s reputation.

                  2. Anon: “You wrote “Dismissing the wife’s account as if it were the account of a complete stranger is simply ignorant,” and I’m saying: I didn’t do that, and implying I did is a straw man argument on your part. Clear enough?”
                    ***
                    But you did. You placed the probability of their having a joint account on the same level as the probability of their not having a joint or shared account.
                    No evidence either way. But the existence of the marriage is evidence in itself…a lot of evidence because it brings changes of law into it.

                    Your statements completely dismiss the implications of their being married. The marriage creates a number of likely sharing situations that are available under Florida law. The spouse vs stranger scenarios are by no means equal and you are fooling yourself and trying to fool us by acting as if they were. If you don’t acknowledge the significance of their being married you have dismissed it.
                    Clear enough?
                    Probably not.

                    I do see why Mespo, a very bright lawyer, has concluded it is a waste of time to attempt to discuss anything with you.

                    1. “You placed the probability of their having a joint account on the same level as the probability of their not having a joint or shared account.”

                      BS.

                      “The spouse vs stranger scenarios are by no means equal and you are fooling yourself and trying to fool us by acting as if they were. ”

                      Now you’re becoming even more dishonest. I haven’t been talking about strangers at all. The likelihood that they’re spouses is 100%, and the likelihood that these particular spouses are strangers is zero, and I’d never suggest that those are “equal.”

                      “I do see why Mespo, a very bright lawyer, has concluded it is a waste of time to attempt to discuss anything with you.”

                      Please do join him. I feel the same way about you and several of your pals.

            3. @ Anon, @ Young.

              Free clue… joint checking is not an issue of community property.

              Just keeping it real.

              -Gumby.

              1. Anon- No. The checking account could be entirely in the husband’s name and still be community property unless the wife has signed an agreement that it is sole and separate property or it existed before the marriage and has retained a separate character. Put any money earned during the marriage into the account and its character could change.

          2. Anonymous, and you have not proven that it is not a shared credit card account but you present your argument with great certainty. It’s known as a straw man argument and everyone here sees it for what it is.

            1. “you have not proven that it is not a shared credit card account…”

              I also haven’t claimed that it isn’t.

              “but you present your argument with great certainty.”

              On the contrary, I don’t make an assumption either way. I don’t know whether or not they have a shared account.

              What is it that you said about “Comprehension 101” again?

              1. Anon- “I don’t know whether or not they have a shared account. ”
                ***
                No, you don’t know whether or not they have a shared account. But you should know that adding an extra approved card holder does NOT mean that a joint account has been created. It is a way of giving someone access to credit without tying in the marital community as a whole. This is more common with married couples or SOs than it is between strangers. Given the bills and liabilities he has faced fighting a corrupt government if I were him, like OJ Simpson, I would be in Florida and I would arrange my finances so that my troubles would be insulated from my spouse and the my marital community. A debt or fine against only him does not become a debt against the marital community as it would in a commuinty property state.

                As you say, you know nothing either way. However, for those informed of the circumstances much can be figured out with varying degrees of probability.

                Ask yourself, but for being married to him how could his wife impair Chase’s reputation?

                1. “much can be figured out with varying degrees of probability.”

                  LOL that I can straightforwardly say “I don’t know,” but you cannot bring yourself to say “I don’t know either.” Both of us can figure things out with varying degrees of probability, but unless the probability is 100%, it’s not knowledge.

                  “but for being married to him how could his wife impair Chase’s reputation?”

                  Chase says that the letter was sent by mistake, and I’m not interested in conjecturing. There are clearly many questions that interest you but not me, and vice versa.

                  1. Anon: “LOL that I can straightforwardly say “I don’t know,” but you cannot bring yourself to say “I don’t know either.”
                    ***
                    Are you truly that stupid? There is an enormous difference between saying one does not know absolutely and saying one can estimate likelihoods of something being true given sufficient information.

                    Everybody does that every day. That is how we live and think. We make decisions based on probabilities rather than certainties and generally it works out rather well. I think I explained this to you once before.

                    Come to think of it we were going in that direction when I said evidence was accumulating that the Pfizer vaccine caused heart problems for some people.

                    You took the same strangely rigid stance that there was no evidence for that and referred to the Phizer Fact Sheet.

                    I looked at a more recent fact sheet and saw Pfizer did say the vaccine can cause problems.

                    You shrugged it off as ‘what I wanted’. No, it was what you wanted. I was able to use imperfect information to reach a likely, not certain, possibility that you could not even contemplate without evidence from Pfizer.

                    Strange that you don’t get it.

                    1. “You took the same strangely rigid stance that there was no evidence for that and referred to the Phizer Fact Sheet.”

                      You’re lying. I never, ever said that there was no evidence for it. I never, ever even suggested that there was no evidence for it. I asked you to provide evidence for it, because it was your claim, and I accepted the evidence after you provided it.

                      “I was able to use imperfect information to reach a likely, not certain, possibility that you could not even contemplate without evidence from Pfizer.”

                      You’re lying again. I’m quite comfortable using “imperfect information to reach a likely, not certain, possibility.” I also didn’t ask for evidence from Pfizer. You chose to provide evidence from Pfizer, and I accepted it.

                      That you can’t even have a truthful discussion about such basic things is part of why exchanges with you are a waste of time.

                      So I’ll stop wasting my time, and if you respond with more lies, I won’t be surprised.

                    2. Anon:

                      “You’re lying. I never, ever said that there was no evidence for it. I never, ever even suggested that there was no evidence for it.”Start by providing evidence that the Pfizer vaccine is associated with “heart problems, circulatory problems, and strokes.” If you can’t even read your short article attentively, I have no reason to trust you on anything else. Make sure that your stats show a rate above the rate in the placebo group.”

                      “I linked to the fact sheet from April (that’s the one that was used when I was vaccinated). It has been updated since then.”
                      ***

                      Its your style. You did suggest there was no evidence that the vaccine caused cardio problems. When I said evidence was building that the vaccine caused cardio problems [among others] you countered with an out of date Pfizer Fact Sheet that did not list cardio problems as side effects. That was your chosen authority. Why use it if not to counter what I said which is clearly what you were doing?

                      Then when I quoted from the updated Fact Sheet that included cardio problems you said that now it provided the information I wanted. Nope, I didn’t need it. I had already seen enough accumulated evidence that strongly points to that risk. I was ahead of the Pfizer Fact Sheet by more than a week. You are the one who lives by fact sheets and, as an aside, by being very unpleasant in discussions. It is almost an addiction.

      2. @Anonymous,

        Flynn’s wife? Now what sort of reputational risk does she pose?

        Depending how the account was set up, since its a joint account it could be addressed to her and not him.

        Seems you’re being intentionally obtuse which means you just want to be heard and not care about the underlying issue.

        Imagine for the sake of argument… you got outed in this forum.
        Someone at the bank decided that you and your posts make you out to be a twat therefore they don’t want to do business with you.
        So they cancel your accounts and black list you.

        Now you live in an area where there’s a JPMC ATM on every other street corner. Your alternative bank, not so much. So every time you go and get cash… you get hit with a $2.00 charge.

        To make matters worse. JPMC does this. BoA, WF, and other mega banks do this and use the same processing agency. So you end up getting flagged not just by JPMC but now every other super regional bank.

        But hey, that’s ok, right?

      3. Chase says that a letter was sent to Michael Flynn’s wife, Lori Flynn, by mistake
        The letter stated the reason for cancellation was to protect the reputation of Chase. We are back at the same point. Politically motivated cancelling.

        1. “We are back at the same point.”

          No, we aren’t. “A spokesperson for Chase confirmed to [Snopes] that this letter was real, but added that it was sent by mistake and that this person’s credit cards would not actually be closed.”

          1. How many cancellations for reputational” causes get sent out?
            Its like a guy getting shot mowing is yard. one mile away, a trained sniper that found out his wife was cheating on him, With the neighbor,is tracked down and his gun is a match, and evidence has him on site…1 mile away. Sure it was his gun, but hitting the lawn mowing guy, that was doing is wife, was an accident, the gun must of fell and its just all a mistake.

            No this is intentional.

      4. Right ,right, it was all just a a big “mistake”, lol. Chase backtracked faster than Drew Brees once the heat was on, lol!

    3. Chase could simply make an official statement to set the record straight. If I worked in their PR department I would be on this like crazy!

          1. A 17-year Marine Corps veteran, Lt. Colonel Stuart Scheller has been relieved of duty for speaking his mind about President Biden’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal. Col. Sheller posted a video that said he demands accountability from his leaders on Thursday. On Friday, he was relieved of duty by the Pentagon.

            1. Lt. Col. Scheller, nature abhors a vacuum, there’s an urgent message for you from the American Founders:

              “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

              – Declaration of Independence, 1776

            2. Florida fisherman, any active duty officer who publicly questions the commander in chief is committing a derilection of duty offense.

              In the military you don’t do that.

              1. When the UK Telegraph denounces Biden as a liar, all is lost. US Allies have been betrayed by Babbling Biden. Sad af!

                Joe Biden’s betrayal: Allies can never trust this president again
                Pointless G7 meeting framed one of America’s most embarrassing retreats as a great success

                https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/08/25/joe-bidens-betrayal-allies-can-never-trust-president/

                Joe Biden gave a speech on Tuesday night that was an affront to his allies, to desperate Afghans, and to the American public.

                After 20 years of the United States’ longest war its Commander-in-Chief spoke for less than 13 minutes – and he spent the first five of those minutes talking about his domestic economic agenda.

                “Now to Afghanistan…” Mr Biden said eventually, as many wondered if he had forgotten there was an international crisis going on.

                The eagerly awaited address in the White House’s Roosevelt Room – which was billed as the president’s response to the Afghanistan crisis – had TV networks waiting with bated breath. It was then inexplicably delayed several times, ultimately for five hours.

                What was Mr Biden agonising over all afternoon? Perhaps it was whether or not to tell the truth about his hasty and disastrous withdrawal.

                In the end, he tried to hoodwink viewers in the US instead.

                According to Mr Biden there was “strong agreement” between leaders he had spoken to earlier in a virtual G7 meeting. There wasn’t. The UK, France and Germany all wanted to extend the August 31 withdrawal deadline. The US president didn’t.

                1. WWII ended 76 years ago, yet we have many bases in Germany and Okinawa. You can withdraw from taking such an active part in a country, while still maintaining a presence. There was good reason to keep a base in Afghanistan. There are limitations to over the horizon operations. Beyond the logistics of access, there would have been intelligence and anti-terrorism benefits to keeping a presence there.

                  The combat mission in Afghanistan actually ended Dec 28, 2014. We weren’t still at war with Afghanistan. We spent years on counterinsurgency efforts, to help the Afghan government hold back the Taliban, who regularly tried to recapture control.

                  Can you imagine how our military will feel if we end up going back to Afghanistan, fighting all over again, except this time they’ll be facing OUR infrastructure, an OUR weapons?

                  My uncle fought in the Korean War. He said they were right there. There wouldn’t be a North Korea, threatening to nuke us and starving its people, if politicians hadn’t signed a truce. It would have been a unified Korea, First World Country, with a very high standard of living. Instead, South Koreans are, on average, much taller than North Koreans, due to the latter’s malnutrition and parasite infections. North Korea is dark from space. There are young women traffic attendants in North Korea who stand outside all day, rain or shine, waiting hours, and sometimes days, to direct the one single car that might pass by.

                  There is all this starvation and suffering in North Korea because the US stopped in its mission. There is already murder, rape, sex slavery, and torture in Afghanistan because we surrendered.

                  Make no mistake. This was not the completion of an objective and triumphant return home. This was a surrender and chaotic rout.

                  1. Karen,

                    Biden ran on bringing the troops home. “Promises made, promises kept” was a constant refrain during Trump’s disgraceful presidency. Biden had a mandate. Elections have consequences.

                  2. Karen,

                    How many more years of military involvement in Afghanistan are you advocating? Are you going to inform the parents of American service members who’ll continue to be killed?

                    “WWII ended 76 years ago, yet we have many bases in Germany and Okinawa.”

                    With their permission. We are not fighting people in Germany and Japan. It’s not analogous.

                    “There is all this starvation and suffering in North Korea because the US stopped in its mission.”

                    There is starvation and suffering in much of the world. North Korea isn’t close to the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Just in terms of the number of people, we could do more good by spending that money addressing the suffering with humanitarian aid in other countries instead of continuing the hugely expensive military expenditures.

                    Our military should not be in Afghanistan.

                    1. Anonymous, it is one thing to withdraw the troops eventually — it’s another thing entirely to withdraw the troops first, close down airfields, and then wonder how to get Americans and Afghani allies out of teh country.

                      And furthermore, keeping an American presence there to provide intelligence and air support to the Afghani army (which they relied heavily on) would not have been a bad thing. Indeed, we had been doing just that for months now, and not one American life has been lost. It wasn’t until air support and intelligence was pulled out, and Kabul was ceded to the Taliban (the Department of State said “we just need the airport”), that we lost American life.

                      I’m sick and tired of the few people who actually try to defend what Pretendant Biden did here. He completely botched this operation, and has lied to the American people since then. I’m sick of the lies and gaslighting.

                    2. Alpheus says,

                      “I’m sick of the lies and gaslighting.”

                      In other words, Trumpism. We “Never Trumpers” figured if we couldn’t beat you with the truth, we might as well join you by lying right back at you. Give you a taste of your own medicine, as it were.

                    3. “it’s another thing entirely to withdraw the troops first, close down airfields, and then wonder how to get Americans and Afghani allies out of teh country.”

                      Alpheus, Biden didn’t completely withdraw the troops first.

                      And it wouldn’t have been so hard to get Afghan allies out if Trump hadn’t slowed and then entirely stopped processing SIV applications in March 2020.

                      I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Karen:
                      How many more years of military involvement in Afghanistan are you advocating?

                    4. Anonymous, I somewhat misspoke. He pulled air support and intelligence out first. He then pulled out the rest of the military, leaving (as Pretendant Biden himself admitted) “10% of all Americans who wanted to get out” behind. And how many Afghani allies, now left to the mercy of the Taliban, after the Biden Administration gave the Taliban their names, are still left behind?

                      Sure, perhaps our military should not be in Afghanistan. But while there are American civilians there? Our military should have been there until every last one of them was out.

                      And, to the extent of hanging around for a year or two to provide air support and intelligence to the Afghani military — I would have no problem had we done that. But we abandoned them on short notice, and Pretendant Biden has the gall to say “No one could have predicted how fast the Taliban would retake the country. This is very reminiscent of the time we promised South Vietnam replacement supplies for the supplies they used — and when Democrats renegged that promise, they fell to North Vietnam.

                      I’m sick and tired of the justifications. I’m sick and tired of the excuses.

                      And I couldn’t care less what President Trump did before. This is Pretendant Biden’s rodeo now. Pretendant Biden cancelled pretty much everything else that President Trump did; why are we so suddenly expected now to believe that this is the one thing that Pretendant Biden couldn’t change? Particularly when we know that Pretendant Biden did change it?

                    5. “I couldn’t care less what President Trump did before.”

                      I care what Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden have done. So this is another way that our opinions differ. Republicans are already objecting to taking Afghan allies in as refugees.

                      “Our military should have been there until every last one of [the American civilians] was out.”

                      Do you have the same stance about American civilians in other unsafe countries? At what point do you decide that some American civilians choose to go to countries knowing that the countries are unsafe, and we generally do not send the military to save Americans in unsafe countries?

                      Biden has taken responsibility for his own choices. He’s only blaming Trump for some of Trump’s choices. Like refusing to process SIVs.

                      I was against the war and the overly broad AUMF in 2001. It’s long past time that we left. You and I have very different views.

                    6. “Republicans are already objecting to taking Afghan allies in as refugees.”

                      Republicans are objecting to taking in unvettedP Afghanis, who may or may not be allies, in an environment where, due to the Pretendant’s actions, allies have been destroying records for fear of what the Taliban will do to them, and Taliban terrorists are likely planning on sneaking in as “allies” to commit terrorist acts.

                      ““Our military should have been there until every last one of [the American civilians] was out.””

                      “Do you have the same stance about American civilians in other unsafe countries?”

                      It depends. Were those civilians in a country where the American military had provided significant stability, and they are now planning to pull out? Then yes, civilians get first priority. Once that is done, pull out air support and intelligence, and then, finally, the military itself. How freaking hard is this to understand?!?

                      “At what point do you decide that some American civilians choose to go to countries knowing that the countries are unsafe, and we generally do not send the military to save Americans in unsafe countries?”

                      If those Americans knowingly go into a country without American military support, then they are on their own. If they didn’t know they were going into that country, or go in by accident, then the State Department has some work to do. If they go into a country expecting American military support, then yes, we should get those Americans out, and use the American military to do so, particularly if the military is now being pulled out.

                      “Biden has taken responsibility for his own choices. He’s only blaming Trump for some of Trump’s choices. Like refusing to process SIVs.”

                      If Biden truly wants to take responsibility for his own choices, he should resign. He clearly cannot handle the responsibility of the Presidency.

                      This particular policy doesn’t sound all that hard to reverse, and I sincerely doubt there are any policies Pretendant Biden couldn’t have reversed. Indeed, Pretendant Biden has already rejected President Trump’s original exit day of May 1. And none of this justifies the botched pullout, where Pretendant Biden pulled out air support and intelligence first, leaving the Afghani military, the American military, and American civilians and Afghani allies without any support, leaving them at the mercy of the Taliban.

                      “I was against the war and the overly broad AUMF in 2001. It’s long past time that we left. You and I have very different views.”

                      Pretty much everyone has come around to the idea of pulling out of Afghanistan. BUT. NOT. LIKE. THIS. The desire to pull out doesn’t justify the completely botched way the Administration handled it.

                    7. “””In other words, Trumpism. We “Never Trumpers” figured if we couldn’t beat you with the truth, we might as well join you by lying right back at you. Give you a taste of your own medicine, as it were.”””

                      Anonymous, I was a NeverTrumper. I became a tepid supporter of President Trump in no small part because of the constant gaslighting about President Trump.

                      If “NeverTrumpers” had been a lot more truthful, then perhaps I’d still be one today. Then again, maybe there would have been far fewer “NeverTrumpers” instead.

                      But, either way, the notion that “NeverTrumpers tried to beat you with the truth” is ridiculous on its face.

                      Furthermore, between the complete disaster that was foisted on us via Pretendant Biden, the outright hatred of this country that many anti-Trump politicians and pundits have shown, and the continual gaslighting to now prop up Pretendant Biden as best they could, as much as I still despise President Trump as a person, as much as his personality rubs me the wrong way, and as much as I oppose many of his policies, I actually look forward to his running again, and I may even vote for him in the Primaries. If he wins those Primaries, I will certainly vote for him to become President again.

                      And do you know what? We know what a Trump Presidency is like. We now know what a Biden Presidency will be like. And for all Trump’s faults, we know this: a Trump Presidency is 1,000 times better than a Biden Presidency, and we’re only a few months into the latter.

                    8. Alpheus,

                      I have already stated that I would like Trump to become president again so he can be impeached and convicted. A wooden stake needs to be driven through the black heart of Trumpism so that it will never rise from the dead again.

                    9. Jeffsilberman, Joe Biden has done far more to damage our formerly Great Republic than anything that President Trump did. You say you want to impeach President Trump yet again — however, if we can’t impeach and remove from office Pretendant Biden now, after the horrors he’s inflicted on the American people these past few weeks, what makes you think you think we could do that with President Trump, after he wins a second term — a term that, if it happens, will be because of the significant damage Joe has inflicted on this country?

                    10. Alpheus,

                      You and I are diametrically opposed in our beliefs so that I don’t know where to begin. It’s hopeless to think that we could agree on anything except maybe the time of day. It’s best we just salute each other and go on our merry ways.

              2. The entire George Washington Gang questioned the British Commander-In-Chief, the King, in the name of natural and God-given individual rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities.

                George Washington has been considered anything but derelict ever since.

                In the service of the establishment of independence and self-governance, you “do” do that.

                Just do it!

                Lt. Col. Scheller, just do it.

                Please!

              3. Svelaz, when the Pretendant gives the military orders that will clearly result in the debacle that Afghanistan became, it is a deriliction of duty to execute those commands, rather than resign in protest. In the military, you don’t leave Americans behind, yet they did just that.

                This active duty officer demanding accountability — and knowing he’d likely be relieved of command for doing so — had more integrity than all the military leadership that has yet to resign for their disgrace.

              4. As a man whom has served…likely you did not svels , when a USMC infantry battalion commander with 17 years in uniform has to blow the whistle …you KNOW things are bad in our goobberment…FACT !!!!.
                That Lt. Col. knew what the “system” does in his case and was willing to sacrifice his career to be that stand up OFFICER & MAN and call a spade a spade. Sadly few have his backbone and are just careerist ticket punchers afraid to lose their benefits etc etc.
                But I’d wager you think that political two faced Lt Col Vidman is a hero to you.

      1. The Daily Mail is being linked because it is an outlet that leans strongly to the left. If the link was to the Wall Street Journal you would say “Oh The Wall Street Journal again”. You just can’t stand it when Biden is criticized even by the left. If it was the Daily Mail criticizing Trump as they often did you would be on it like a bird on a June Bug. You would be praising their astute reporting instead of trying to say they are some kind of a rag. We understand, fairness is not to be considered.

        1. LOL that you think the conservative tabloid Daily Mail “leans strongly to the left.” Perhaps you believe that anything less conservative than you leans left?

          1. The left, right, center news organizations can no longer hide what the entire world now knows: Biden is demented, incompetent and has humiliated Americans. No longer will US Allies believe anything Biden’s Presidency says. Kamala Harris is done as well

      2. Maybe if we didn’t have Pravda media in the USA, we would believe what they report, but since we can’t, we look elsewhere, where we usually get the news before any propagandist in America changes it to fit the Progressive lie they want to spew.

  7. I just watched a movie about protest of Apartheid in South Africa. The name of the movie is “Escape from Pretoria”. The lead character received 12 years in prison for distributing anti-apartheid literature. Many world wide businesses supported Apartheid. https://www.voanews.com/archive/companies-profited-during-apartheid-hit-multi-billion-dollar-lawsuit-2002-11-12. When major business join together with government it meets the classic definition of fascism. The business are supposed to morally serve their best interest but the government is supposed to serve the best interest of all the people regardless of their political affiliation. Which political party in America is calling for more censorship? In South Africa politicians were calling for the separation of blacks and whites and the censoring of anyone who disagreed. What we see today in our nation is not even a scintilla of difference. Again, which political party is calling for shunning and censorship of the deplorables?

    1. “Which political party in America is calling for more censorship?”

      They each call for censorship of some things.

      1. Anonymous, Democrats on the floor of the house have called for more censorship by social media. Please provide evidence that Republicans have done the same. The tape don’t lie.

          1. Anonymous, I read your link about the Global Gag Rule. Trump didn’t want foreign entities using American dollars to promote abortion. Why should the U.S. take my money to promote a practice that I do not believe is moral. Trump did not say that no one could speak in favor of abortion. He did not cancel their right to speak in the world on a general bases. He just said that the United States government should not fund the promotion of abortion. He did not call for the voices of people who favor abortion to be cut off from the public square entirely as social media has done to Michael Flynn. He did not call for you to be censored as members of the house have called for your censorship if you don’t walk the line they lay down. Trump did not say that your voice in favor of abortion should be completely expunged from social media. False equivalence is yours.

            1. “I read your link about the Global Gag Rule. Trump didn’t want foreign entities using American dollars to promote abortion.”

              You either didn’t understand what you read, or you’re being purposefully misleading. It explicitly stated “While enacted, non-U.S. organizations who receive U.S. global health funding cannot use their own money to so much as mention abortion as part of their counseling or education programs. If a client comes to them asking about abortion, they cannot tell her where she could go to obtain the procedure or offer her any guidance about selecting a safe provider. Even if providers determined that carrying a pregnancy to term would put the woman’s health at risk, they cannot counsel a client that abortion is an option.” Their own money, not “American dollars.”

              “Trump did not say that no one could speak in favor of abortion. He did not cancel their right to speak in the world on a general bases. … He did not call for the voices of people who favor abortion to be cut off from the public square entirely as social media has done to Michael Flynn. He did not call for you to be censored as members of the house have called for your censorship if you don’t walk the line they lay down. Trump did not say that your voice in favor of abortion should be completely expunged from social media.”

              And I didn’t claim he did.

              “He just said that the United States government should not fund the promotion of abortion.”

              That’s a lie.

              “False equivalence is yours.”

              No, actually, it’s yours. You’re pretending that I said something I didn’t say and that Trump said something different from what he actually said.

              Tell me again about “Comprehension 101.” What I actually said — They each call for censorship of some things — is true.

              1. Anonymous, so when foreign abortion entities get money from the U.S. government they separate out that money from “their money” and don’t use it to promote abortion. It seems to me that when they have money from the U.S. it becomes “their money”. If you can provide some information that segregates U.S. money from “their money” we would be interested in seeing it. One would assume that it all ends up in the same bank account. This really is kind of easy to figure out if one is inclined to do so. Gobbledygook.

                1. “If you can provide some information that segregates U.S. money from “their money” we would be interested in seeing it. ”

                  Is this a royal “we”?

                  Not only is it easy to keep funds from different sources segregated in different accounts, it’s pretty common in some businesses to do so, and it’s sometimes required by the US government. For example, a 2002 Congressional Research Service report noted that “USAID will further be able to continue support, either directly or through a grantee, to foreign governments, even in cases where the government includes abortion in its family planning program. Money provided to such governments, however, must be placed in a segregated account and none of the funds may be drawn to finance abortion activities.”
                  https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20020917_IB96026_9a8ca28ff715f404956d69cbed6ee142b601a3d4.pdf

                  “One would assume that it all ends up in the same bank account.”

                  No, YOU may assume that, but “one” doesn’t. “One” understands that it’s pretty common for organizations to have more than one account and to sometimes segregate funds depending on their source and/or restrictions on their uses.

                  Are you truly having difficulty understanding or accepting this?

                  “This really is kind of easy to figure out if one is inclined to do so.”

                  Indeed.

                  1. Even when kept in separate bank accounts, money is fungable. If it weren’t for that American money, the organization would have had to pay for all of their operations on their own. Giving them money will enable them to use their own money for other activities.

                    If you don’t want the Federal government to have a say in what an organization can and cannot say, then maybe it’s time to reconsider federal funding for anything and everything. It’s a power that the Federal Government has, and one that the Supreme Court has even approved.

                    1. You seem to have missed that it was given as an example of Republican censorship.

                      The anti-abortion law that just went into effect in Texas is another example of Republican censorship.

                      As I said: both Republicans and Democrats call for censorship of some things. Glad that you admit that Republicans do this too, something that Thinkitthrough was unwilling to admit.

                    2. Is it an example of censorship, though, or is it merely a condition for receiving Federal money? The same kind of restriction that the Federal government uses to force pretty much all States to restrict the drinking age to 21, so they could receive federal highway funds?

                    3. I consider that “mere condition” censorship.

                      And if you don’t like that example, look at the new TX abortion law, which attempts to prevent everyone from “… knowingly engag[ing] in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion … or intends to engage in the conduct …” This is not only censorship, since telling someone where to obtain an abortion is a form of aid, but an attempt to establish thought crimes, if someone simply “intends to engage in the conduct,” but doesn’t actually do it.

                    4. “This is not only censorship, since telling someone where to obtain an abortion is a form of aid, but an attempt to establish thought crimes, if someone simply “intends to engage in the conduct,” but doesn’t actually do it.”

                      Ah, I see you’re against “conspiracy to commit crime” laws, then. Because I see no difference between this and similar laws outlawing murder and other crimes.

                      Indeed, I remember learning years ago that if you and a friend talk about, say, committing a bank robbery, and after that conversation, your friend goes online to see how to commit that robbery, and the FBI (or some other enforcement agency) finds out about it, you are on the hook for conspiracy to commit a crime. I fail to see how this is any different.

                      Maybe such things should be legal, or at least much more limited than they are. Indeed, maybe they should be legal for free speech reasons. But if such things are going to be illegal, then I fail to see how they shouldn’t be applicable to a new illegal thing.

  8. Turley Isn’t Sure About Story

    Yet Turley Regulars Pile On Chase

    Professor Turley admits he Isn’t sure how true this Flynn story might be. Yet all day, creepy Turley regulars keep chiming in to disparage Chase. In fact the blog stooge and his puppets are hyperactive. What a dubious blog this has become.

    1. A continuation of what has been happening.
      Operation Choke Point is real
      IRS denying preferred tax status is real
      Operation Fast and Furious is realArizona U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which ran a series of sting operations between 2006 and 2011 in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF “purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them”.
      The White House telling facebook who to censor is real.

      That Chase did this and will do more is real

      1. “That Chase did this and will do more is real”

        Except it’s not real that Chase cancelled Michael Flynn’s account. Which is why the first name is blacked out in the image. Because if it hadn’t been blacked out, it would have been clear that it wasn’t addressed to Michael Flynn.

    2. Not so long ago people like Anonymous were anti big business. Now if it serves their interest they’re cheerleaders for what the used to call the “big bad banks”. How can we do anything but disregard their opinion? Disregard but not try to stop them from saying it as their great leaders on social media are doing.

    3. Anon: “What a dubious blog this has become.”
      ***
      Do you think that your posting without a regular handle makes it less dubious?

      1. The trolls get paid to attack, lie and otherwise act like they have ingested high doses of Ivermectin in a jug of bleach. Look what it did for Joyless Reid

        Bwahahahahahaaha

    4. I know you’re trying to gin up sympathy for Chase, but considering that (1) Turley’s concern is a real one, in no small part because it’s happened elsewhere, so I see no reason to let up about this particular concern, and (2) perhaps Chase would have more sympathy — and it would be easier to give them the benefit of the doubt — if they treated their customers better.

  9. I read the Snopes fact check. If the email wasn’t real why would Chase say that they sent an unreal email by mistake? Chase was convinced by their superiority complex that they wouldn’t receive any pushback. One call from a rich guy with millions of dollars in Chase Bank and an immediate “my bad” was issued. This isn’t the first time that the Democrats have called for the defunding and censorship of a rival party. All’s fair in love (Coumo) and political war in the Democratic Party.

    1. “If the email wasn’t real why would Chase say that they sent an unreal email by mistake?”

      Oh, goodie, a loaded question. Who said it wasn’t real? That’s not what Snopes or Chase said. They said it wasn’t sent to Michael Flynn.

      Your statements regularly belie your name.

      1. Anonymous, read the Snopes story again they intimated that the email might be fake. The said “if it is real”. Comprehension 101.

        1. “The said “if it is real””

          No Snopes didn’t say “if it is real.” You seem to be fabricating quotes. They did say “Assuming this letter is real, …” but earlier in the same column they said “A spokesperson for Chase confirmed to us that this letter was real, but added that it was sent by mistake and that this person’s credit cards would not actually be closed. A spokesperson for Chase told us: ‘We’ve contacted our customer to let her know that we made an error and we apologized for any inconvenience this caused.’”

          Do tell me more about “Comprehension 101” oh inattentive one.

          1. So Snopes said “Assuming that the email is real” after Chase Bank said it was real. A not so well hidden attempt by Snopes to cast doubt on the validity of the email after Case Bank themselves confirmed that it was real. Excuse me if I’m assuming that Snopes isn’t a for real fact checker rather than a left wing schill.

            1. “A not so well hidden attempt by Snopes to cast doubt on the validity of the email after Case Bank themselves confirmed that it was real.”

              Looks to me like a case of poor editing of their original column after they received confirmation from Chase. You did see that the column had been updated, right? And you have the skill to find a copy of the original text, right?

  10. I can’t confirm but I just read where Chase has changed it’s position due to an error. Anyone else read this? If chase did that’s a good thing.

      1. Maybe it could have been Flynn’s wife how would she damage the banks reputation. You should save your stretching for after exercise.

        1. Yes, the Daily Mail says that it was sent to Lori Flynn: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9944457/Chase-tells-General-Flynns-wife-theyre-cancelling-card.html

          Apparently you have nothing to say about all the mistaken stories about it having been sent to Michael Flynn, or about Michael Flynn dishonestly implying that it was sent to him, or about Chase’s statement that it was sent by mistake, and instead you want to insult me. Got it.

            1. I generally don’t, but understandably, there aren’t many news outlets reporting on this non-story. My earlier comment linked to Snopes. The Daily Mail simply confirmed that it was sent to Lori Flynn.

          1. Let’s see Anonymous. When married we are joined as one and we have joint property. Get it?

              1. Anonymous– “You took your wife’s first name?”
                ***
                You must live in a basement. If you have an account you can get a card for another authorized user. People do it all of the time.

          2. So Flynn was lying about chase closing HIS account when in fact it was his wife? Shocking. Flynn lying?

          3. Anonymous:

            1. This is General Flynn’s public statement: ‘They need to deal with their own reputation instead of persecuting my family and I. I guess my America First political views don’t align withy ours. Your loss.’
            2. Whose relationship creates this “reputational risk”? Lori Flynn all by herself, or Lori Flynn’s marriage to Gen Flynn? It’s like trying to claim that the media hatred of Melania Trump had nothing to do with Donald Trump.
            3. We these joint credit cards?

            Gen Flynn said they are persecuting his family. This is just the latest time.

            You claimed Gen Flynn was dishonest. Maybe read his statement again before assassinating his character.

            1. “Maybe read his statement again before assassinating his character.”

              His statement doesn’t change the fact that he posted an image of the letter with his wife’s name blacked out and without correcting people’s misbeliefs by saying something like “it was addressed to my wife, not me.”

              As for “Whose relationship creates this “reputational risk”?,” if you read the Snopes article, you’d see “A spokesperson for Chase confirmed to us that this letter was real, but added that it was sent by mistake and that this person’s credit cards would not actually be closed,” so I have no reason to think that anyone created a reputational risk.

              1. You keep on harping on “But it was his wife!” as if that matters to the husband. You keep on harping on “But Chase said it was a mistake!” as if Chase regularly cancels accounts due to reputational risks — and that it’s ok to regularly close accounts for fear of reputational risks.

                Mistake or not, it is now clear that (1) this letter is real, and (2) that Chase cancels accounts for so-called “reputational risks”.

                Now, as for your harping on “but it was a mistake!”, sure it was. But what kind of mistake? Was it the result of an accidental false positive automatic cancellation where someone got caught in an automatic anti-fraud filter — and if so, why would Chase describe the issue as a “we’re concerned about our reputation” one? Or is it an “I’m sorry we got caught and made a lot of people angry because they are now aware we do this” mistake?

                Your protestations notwithstanding, the evidence points to the latter — and the fact that companies are trying to do this is disturbing.

      2. snopes is worse than WAPO. Raw leftist propaganda. With out looking, spin, misdirection, and ‘probably’ mostly false.

      3. “Chase said it’s an error but also described the client as “her,” so unlikely that it was Michael Flynn.”
        ***
        Not unusual for married couples to share use of accounts opened separately. It seems likely the cancellation was aimed at Gen. Flynn. In fact, if that is the case it increases the chances that the government is involved. If for some reason his finances are structured so that it is hard to get to him then his wife is the next best target.

        In times past I would have thought that impossible, but too much has been revealed for it to be excluded out of hand.

    1. General Michael Flynn should be so lucky. Obama should have allowed the banks to fail and thereby shake up our woke, lazy, coddled, obese population. This is how we get repaid for rescuing the banks.

      https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/jpmorgan-chase-co-agrees-pay-920-million-connection-schemes-defraud-precious-metals-and-us

      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
      Tuesday, September 29, 2020

      JPMorgan Chase & Co. Agrees To Pay $920 Million in Connection with Schemes to Defraud Precious Metals and U.S. Treasuries Markets

      JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan), a New York, New York-based global banking and financial services firm, has entered into a resolution with the Department of Justice to resolve criminal charges related to two distinct schemes to defraud: the first involving tens of thousands of episodes of unlawful trading in the markets for precious metals futures contracts, and the second involving thousands of episodes of unlawful trading in the markets for U.S. Treasury futures contracts and in the secondary (cash) market for U.S. Treasury notes and bonds.

      The department reached this resolution with JPMorgan based on a number of factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offense conduct, which spanned eight years and involved tens of thousands of instances of unlawful trading activity; JPMorgan’s failure to fully and voluntarily self‑disclose the offense conduct to the department; JPMorgan’s prior criminal history, including a guilty plea on May 20, 2015, for similar misconduct involving manipulative and deceptive trading practices in the foreign currency exchange spot market (FX Guilty Plea); and the fact that substantially all of the offense conduct occurred prior to the FX Guilty Plea.

        1. Correct am undo. The term is RINO like Mitt Romney who blows with the wind always ending up with Democrat pals. RINO is a grey area that merges an ideology that blurs any understood political boundaries.

  11. What happens if we find out that Chase got a ‘hint’ from federal regulators that it would be nice if they banned Flynn?

      1. That’s an interesting hypothetical; at this point, though, we know we don’t live in that alternative universe. Whether it was a sincere mistake or trying to backtrack, we know that a Flynn had their accounts cancelled, we know it was cancelled for “reputational” reasons, and they were cancelled temporarily at the very least.

        1. “they were cancelled”

          No, the letter said that it would be cancelled later in September, and the bank has already said that it won’t occur.

          1. Does the hair-splitting really matter? The cancellation was still attempted, and it was still attempted for “reputational” reasons.

            1. You said “they were cancelled temporarily at the very least.” That’s false. It’s not hair-splitting to correct a false statement.

              1. Anon: “It’s not hair-splitting to correct a false statement.”
                ***
                No, it’s only petty but also wrong in this instance. We knew what he meant. Are you going to try to correct punctuation next, Library Lady?

                The situation was similar to a contract subject to a condition precedent. The legal condition, cancellation, was in place and valid and scheduled to implement at a stated date. That put them in the position of scrambling to look for alternative services.

                Imagine the bank had placed a time bomb in his home scheduled to go off in September and it was caught and neutralized before it could go off. Does that mean there was no bomb attempt after all? The cancellation process was in place and set to trigger in September. The only way you can’t see this is because you don’t want to see it.

  12. The only views worth listening to are the unpopular ones. We’ve all already heard the popular ones, over and over. Its the unpopular ones that challenge our thinking that keep us sentient.

    Without unpopular views we are for want of a better term, mindless sheep. Its the unpopular opinions that stretch the imagination, help spawn innovation and adaptation or in most cases help confirm the “popular” opinion as valid.

    Prime example is the Apollo landing conspiracy theorists and their opinions. If I’d never had a chance to hear their arguments, if for example they were censored and I couldn’t see their opinions on why we didn’t go, then I may have ended up wondering and even doubting that we went, myself.

    After censoring their opinions and the information accompanying them would have circumvented my ability to debunk them. But since at the time YouTube was not censoring the Apollo conspiracy theorists I was able to watch hours of their videos, absorb tons of information they have been putting out, and in so doing debunk each and every bit of it. Once I got to see and hear the information, I was able to find “more information” easily debunking their nonsense, confirming Professor Turley’s oft repeated standard that the way to combat bad speech is with more speech. The way to combat “misinformation” is with more information. The right information. That’s all. Don’t need to go to war with the misinformer, just need to put out better information.

    This is pretty scary . I see Prof Turley says “if this is true” but I can see the Tweet there whatever it is and I doubt Michael Flynn would put out a fraudulent document and ascribe it to Chase bank. He’d be in a lot of trouble, and given Chase refuses to respond I am fairly confident it has actually happened. And that’s just unbelievable. They’re worried about how allowing a man to keep his credit card who likely pays his bill and all, but not about how this sick, depraved act of political vengeance will make them look. After all do they think its just republicans and conservatives worried about this curtailing of free speech by introducing civil penalties and retribution for speaking freely by an American financial institution?

    I hope its actionable somehow, and some lawyer takes it on. The only views worth hearing and the only views needing protection are the unpopular ones. This seems like the most Unamerican activity I can think of.

    1. Come to think of it, I have to take issue with the claim that “the only views worth listening to are the unpopular ones.”

      There are many popular views that are also worth listening to. There are also many unpopular views that ought to be ignored. Having said that, the unpopular views are the ones that need the most protection, because right or wrong, they are the ones most likely to come under attack.

      If we don’t protect the unpopular views, there’s no way to undermine the popular views that may be wrong — because people generally rally around the popular views and protect them, almost automatically. It’s mostly why popular views don’t need protection. Additionally, though, the more comfortable we get banning unpopular views, the closer we get to banning outright popular views, though. The unpopular views, whether they are right or wrong, are the canaries in the coal mine.

  13. Most memorable of the Gen. Michael Flynn case was the eminently actionable, constitutional sabotage committed by the dutiful soldier for the Obama Coup D’etat in America, and “Down Fo Da Struggle,” “Here Come Da Judge,” Affirmative Action Project, “Judge” (i.e. term used loosely) Emmet G. Sullivan.

    Presumably,nay, obviously, judges inferior to Justices are not bound to swear to “support” the Constitution.

  14. Chase Bank, has a Dimon (Diamond if you like) as head of its dragon spewing out fire and dung of the new woke culture, domination through intimidation. What was the risk to the Bank leaving the issue alone? Seems to me the Rhinestone’s of woke culture have intimidate Dimon to show faith in the new “Theocracy of Woke”. General Flynn does not deserve this type of abuse and further attack. If this termination did happen, what banking law or regulation did General Flynn violate?

    Of course in today’s culture of justice, one sitting on the fence yet leaning towards the left will be pulled into the abyss of “Theocracy of Woke”, or cast aside for refusal, to be shunned, beaten and forgotten as a non-believer. Those on the right side of the fence are cast as heathens, in need of redemption and forced by threat of character to adopt or fain acceptance of “Theocracy of Woke”. Those refusing to adapt are assigned demeaning or derogatory terms identifying them as scallywags of the lowest order. The “Theocracy of Woke” theologians are professing revolution against the Constitution, changing meaning of words, phrases, social mores, economic standards and political alliances and demanding total alliances to WOKE. In the parlance of a reformation of yester years the current ecclesiastical hierarchy does not worship God, but some Untold Utopian State allowing them to administer their truths. Truth as defined in philosophy is the correspondence between what is true (a belief, sentenced, judgment an on) and what makes it true (fact, incident, experience and on).

    The Theologians preach belief in Woke as the true path forward and to cast aside belief in the Constitution of a Republic which is the greatest that has ever existed. Daily you see an affront to our way of life, or rights (God and the Constitution), the written laws, and host of other tyrannical dictates.

    These WOKSTERS have placed America in a precarious position and are constantly stirring the pot of discontent, and pitting races and classes against each other allowing them to work under the radar as they formulate the demise of America.

  15. Chase is only one example. The Obama administration pressured banks to cut off businesses they didn’t like, paycheck lending companies and gun stores for example, under operation Checkpoint.

    What happens if you wake up some morning and find your home insurance is being cancelled and no other company will insure you? What if you are a small business shipping something legal but the government doesn’t like you and suddenly UPS and others refuse your business?

    Obama established a frightening example of government abuse using private companies as cats’ paws. Now it is expanding.

    1. -Young,
      Right.
      What if I get a cancellation notice from my bank, insurance company both home and auto, etc. because I bought a American flag, 8 years ago (random number)?
      What is my recourse?

      The real solution, two different societies in the same country. One has its set of banks, economy, social media, restaurants, governments at the state and local level, etc. and the other has theirs.
      And the two shall never meet.
      Might tone down the amount of hate and rage in America we are seeing today.

      1. Upstate: “Might tone down the amount of hate and rage in America we are seeing today.”

        ***
        That is certainly a good idea, but look at the sources of the agitation: the government and the media.

        The Duke Lacrosse Case was a classic example of government, academia, and media whipping up racial hatred and it turned out the case was phony.

        The government and media did much the same in the Zimmerman/Martin case. They tried to judicially lynch an innocent man.

        Look at the rage surrounding the George Floyd case. Disgusting. He was a long-time felon and thug with multiple medical problems who died resisting arrest. But I expect our Woke Navy will be naming a destroyer after him before long.

        The tribalism and hatred is tearing the country apart and I don’t see it stopping any time soon.

        But they might see a lot of us decoupling to some degree. I never watch the Oscars or other crap award shows and judging by the ratings I am not alone. I’ve given up on ‘woke’ television programs; won’t watch them. Movies are crap. Won’t go. I imagine my small part isn’t going to impact the bottom line for any of those businesses but my decision is for my benefit rather than how it affects them. As for trust, the radius of the circle of people and institutions I trust has gotten much smaller of late.

    2. Let’s not forget the 2 million Americans incarcerated with about 1/3 there because “someone” didn’t like them, they competed with Uncle Sam or felt disrespected when offered a phenomenal plea bargain (a set up to fail).

Leave a Reply