We have said “Never again” over the Jewish holocaust and then blamed Israel for 7 October. Will we also blame conservatives for political invasions of privacy and debanking?

From Obama on, it has been the Democrats who have used power against their political enemies to gain information and debank those enemies.

Grassley shares explosive Arctic Frost update revealing Jack Smith obtained a treasure trove of data for over half a million Republican supporters

Senate Judiciary Committee lays out the details in Joe Biden’s and Jack Smith’s Artic Frost that swept up data on a half-million Republicans. (Senator Grassley provided the bolding and, therefore, the emphasis.)

 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today released a memo updating Judiciary Committee members on his ongoing Arctic Frost and Jack Smith oversight based on new findings from lawful whistleblower disclosures.

Recently reviewed subpoena returns show Jack Smith’s Special Counsel Office (SCO) and the Biden Justice Department obtained information for at least 639,000 Republican donors, voters and supporters. The earliest donor contribution captured dates back to 2005. The data included:

• Names;
• Dates of birth;
• Physical addresses (encompassing most states and U.S. territories, including the home states of every Judiciary Committee member);
• Email addresses;
• Whether the individual was a registered Republican;
• Individuals’ congressional district and state legislature;
• Individuals’ occupation and place of employment (sample occupations listed include janitor, doorman, pool tech, driver, logger, safety manager and retired);
• Individuals’ donation amount (as low as $1; generally, donation amounts were under $1,000);
• Individuals’ credit card information (including last four digits of credit card numbers); and
• Donor analysis data (such as one-time versus recurring donations and the amount of the donation).

“This update shows that Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department collected incredibly invasive donor data – and voter data – beyond what could conceivably be necessary for Smith or his team to fulfill the Special Counsel’s mandate. The new findings further corroborate that Smith and his partisan team aimed to map out the entire Republican Party apparatus,” Grassley said. “I again call on my Democratic colleagues to join my oversight work instead of trying to defend Smith and sweep his abuse of authority under the rug.”

Grassley’s memo also notes Jack Smith’s SCO and the Biden Justice Department obtained names of Trump campaign personnel, a catalogue of Trump campaign products and information on sales of red MAGA hats, including individual buyers, their purchases and their shipping addresses.

(Read more at the Senate Judiciary Committee memo and see a link to the actual record)

If this doesn’t motivate you to vote, maybe recognizing the degree of our partisan press will push you to vote

If knowing that more than a half-million Republicans (that is, more than enough to sway an election) had their data collected by unscrupulous Democrats does not motivate you to vote, what will? And don’t tell me that either Dementia Joe Biden or illegally-appointed Jack Smith is above reproach. If Biden were above reproach, he would not have the Chinese or Ukrainian associations he did. If Smith were above reproach, he would not have accepted an illegal appointment.

…

The silence of the media Is deafening as it comes to the invasion of privacy committed by Jack Smith

Hot Air asks how an American Media that will obsess on the death of a repeat felon and drug addict like George Floyd can ignore a Democrat sweeping up data on a half-million political rivals.

Inspector Javert, it turns out, was too lazy for his job. A slacker.

Jack Smith could teach him a lesson or two about getting to the bottom of things and making life miserable for the people he targets.

Smith, you will recall, was the illegally appointed Special Counsel assigned to destroy Donald Trump and any of his supporters. Merrick Garland broke the law by appointing him, and Smith’s bogus case fell apart spectacularly when Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Garland broke the rules when appointing him. 

Smith appealed, and in the meantime, Trump won reelection, and Smith resigned in disgrace. 

Still, Smith was a busy beaver as Special Counsel. So busy, in fact, that the chances that you, my reader, wound up in his spreadsheet of potential insurrectionists?

Ex-special counsel Jack Smith obtained personal info on 639K Republicans- including red MAGA hat buyers https://t.co/F8BnxKfCEv pic.twitter.com/ht1pdf7USV

— New York Post (@nypost) October 14, 2026

Did you make a political donation over the past 20 years? You could be on his list!

Did you buy a MAGA hat? Well, you could be a terrorist plotting to take down the Republic!

 Ex-special counsel Jack Smith obtained personal information on 639,000 Republican donors, voters and supporters — including some who contributed as little as $1 or bought “red MAGA hats” — according to subpoena returns obtained by a Senate Republican committee.

In a Wednesday memo, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) disclosed the details of data Smith’s office received, denouncing the former prosecutor of President Trump for “abuse of authority.”

More than 148,000 rows on spreadsheets contained the findings, including donors from 2005 to 2021.

Senator Chuck Grassley released a memo outlining some of the outrageous conduct Smith engaged in, including collecting 640,000 names of Republicans whose “crime” was contributing to candidates or liking red hats. His investigators created a spreadsheet to track potential enemies of the state.

That’s not an investigation. That’s building a watchlist for the Stasi. The spreadsheet was impressive in its scope.

• Names; dates of birth; physical addresses (“most states and U.S. territories, including the home states of every Judiciary Committee member”); email addresses
• Whether the individual was a registered Republican; congressional district and state legislative district
• Occupation and place of employment — samples: “janitor, doorman, pool tech, driver, logger, safety manager and retired”
• Donation amount (“as low as $1; generally, donation amounts were under $1,000”)
• Credit card information (including last four digits)
• Donor analysis data (one-time vs. recurring donations, amounts)
• Earliest donor contribution captured dates back to 2005
• Merch strand: a catalogue of 2024 Trump campaign products (“these red hats, t-shirts, mugs, and door mats,” per the memo via the Post) plus hat-sale records tying individual purchasers to home shipping addresses.

I don’t happen to have a MAGA mug or t-shirt, but I was once gifted a MAGA hat that I have lying around somewhere. I wonder if the purchaser — who, ironically, wasn’t a fan of Trump — wound up on Jack Smith’s enemies list.

Whistleblowers disclosed the new info about the wide net the special counsel cast, as Smith was gearing up to indict Trump for attempting to reverse Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.

That probe, which began as an FBI investigation codenamed “Arctic Frost,” has been cited by Republicans as having committed Watergate-level abuses against politicians — including many who had their phone calls and text messages obtained without their knowledge — and party allies.

“I again call on my Democratic colleagues to join my oversight work instead of trying to defend Smith and sweep his abuse of authority under the rug,” Grassley said in the memo to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

When Richard Nixon kept an “enemies list,” which had no actual legal backing and no group of prosecutors subpoenaing anybody, it included the names of 220 people and organizations. The media was outraged at the time, though the only real consequence of ending up on that list was getting the cold shoulder from the White House. 

In this case, a federal prosecutor with subpoena power and the will to use it collected data on 640,000 Americans whose only crime was supporting Republicans, and FBI agents dutifully combed through it, classified people by occupation and how long they supported Republicans, and treated them as suspects in a conspiracy to overthrow the government. 

And the media…shrugs. In fact, they all supported Jack Smith and lamented that he was forced to resign after being blocked from illegally prosecuting Trump. 

Unbelievable. Or not, really. This is the new reality in the United States, where the elitists act as if the Stasi were a model that needed only to be updated with sophisticated information technology to become truly effective. 

Smith used nearly 200 subpoenas to collect this data, including phone records from nearly 90 White House phones, Trump’s lawyers, and his Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, while she ran his 2024 campaign. 

You can’t make it up. His investigation of the 2021 “insurrection” required investigating almost every Republican Senator and Trump’s 2024 campaign? 

Uh, yeah, no. It was the creation of an enemies list, complete with backgrounds on and financial records of the “enemies.”

(Read at Hot Air for Smith’s likely true regret)

If that does not motivate you to vote, then how keeping Democrats from appinting corrupt law enforcement officials?

While it seems that the bulk of Democrats (from Talarico to Al-Sayed) have “defund the police” comments either in their past or in their hidden backgrounds, it seems like Democrats like Joe Biden are all too willing to illegally appoint prosecutors like Jack Smith, who are more than willing to exceed the bounds of the constitution.

…

Jack Smith’s excuse: I had a duty to collect facts

CBS News allows Jack Smith to tie his own hangman’s noose by way of testimony where he whines “I had a duty to collect fact.” (I inserted bolding for emphasis.)

(Buried deep in the article, as a dutiful socialist outlet would)

Smith said that in the course of his investigation, his team obtained financial information but could not recite each subpoena his office issued.

“I can tell you why we issued subpoenas, and it was to conduct a criminal investigation of one of the most serious crimes that’s ever happened in our nation’s history. I had a duty to collect facts,” he said.

Grassley had asked Smith whether his team of investigators obtained donor data, including financial information. The senator said that his own investigation found that Smith obtained more than 4,700 donor checks, many of which he said was for small dollar amounts.

Grassley said the Justice Department and FBI will now “forever” possess the addresses, phone numbers, bank account information and signatures for “thousands” of people.

As part of his investigation into Mr. Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Smith examined the president’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech at the Ellipse outside the White House. After the president’s remarks, members of the rally crowd descended on the U.S. Capitol and breached the building, where lawmakers had gathered to reaffirm the results of the 2020 election.

The rally outside the White House was planned by Mr. Trump’s political supporters. 

Smith said in his report that the president repeatedly told his supporters that the 2020 election had been stolen and was rigged against him.

(Read more excuses for Smith at CBS News)

Does this ring as hollow as the World War II German officer saying “I was just following orders” or not?

Is it just me or does Jack Smith’s “I had a duty to collect facts” ring as hollow as the excuse of Adolph Eichmann, where he claimed “I was just following orders” or is it something else?

Maybe slipping into Obama’s and Biden’s world of their debanking political enemies will cause you to vote

Just remember that it was Obama who started Operation Chokepoint to kill the American firearms industry by making banks drop them as business partners.

OCC Report Confirms What Firearm Industry Has Known For Years: Banks Discriminated by Obama’s Operation Chokepoint

Firearm Industry Trade Association directs our attention to the efforts of Barack Hussein Obama to drive firearms manufacturers from business by forcing banks to drop business with those companies.

A couple of years ago, during his Weekend Update sketch, Saturday Night Live cast member Colin Jost attempted to crack a joke about President Donald Trump’s call for major financial and lending institutions to stop de-banking law-abiding customers and lawful businesses.

At a rally in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, President Trump had told a crowd, “We’re also going to place strong protections to stop banks and regulators from trying to de-bank you.”

Jost scoffed, arrogantly dismissing the president’s concerns.

“Trump did have a slight stumble this week while talking about banks, and he introduced an interesting new term called de-bank,” Jost said. “I don’t know what the hell de-bank means, but you might have to take ‘de-ambulance’ to see ‘de-doctor.’”

Now, Jost might want to do a little reading. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a major government agency housed within the U.S. Treasury Department, released a long-awaited report confirming what the firearm industry and its member businesses have known all along: major banks and financial institutions discriminated against politically disfavored industries, including the firearm industry, simply for political reasons.

Early Evidence Confirms De-Banking

NSSF has long known about financial shenanigans from major banking institutions, going all the way back to Operation Choke Point 1.0, begun in 2013, under former President Barack Obama. That was the hush-hush government-led initiative under the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to pressure major banks to cut off lending and banking services to politically disfavored entities, including oil and gas operations, firearm manufacturers and other firearm industry businesses and others. The DOJ was forced to officially terminate Operation Choke Point in Aug. 2017, settling multiple lawsuits and promising to end informal, unwritten guidance to banks.

Fast forward to President Joe Biden’s administration and Operation Choke Point 2.0 was the same goal, only migrated to the private sector and the major banks. Former President Biden’s administration used coercion, informal pressure, threats and guidance documents to force banks to sever ties with many of the same entities, plus some new ones. The firearm industry was of course included, after all — President Biden labeled the firearm industry “the enemy” from the presidential debate stage in 2019.

President Donald J. Trump came back into office and vowed to put an end to it all. He made ending financial discrimination against lawful companies a major plank of his administration and has followed through on his promises.

NSSF was encouraged by the OCC’s preliminary report, released in early Dec. 2025, and praised the progress the administration was making. In short, the preliminary findings confirmed that large banks, including JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank and BMO Bank, unlawfully discriminated against certain industries, including the firearm industry, for political reasons.

Now the final report has been released.

New Report’s Findings Damning

The new OCC report was the culmination of the directives issued by President Donald Trump through his Aug. 2025 Presidential Executive Order Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans. The report doesn’t mince words, revealing that, between 2020 and September 2025, all nine banks held such discriminatory policies.

“Today’s report provides irrefutable evidence that the nation’s largest banks have denied, debanked and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses,” said Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould. “Americans should have access to financial services regardless of their beliefs, affiliations, or political views. Fair access to financial services is not a mantra — it is a mandate.”

In the report, the OCC found that broad reputation risk policies — which “lacked clear standards and objective, risk-based criteria” — penalized certain Americans based on their political, religious or social views or based on their lawful business activities. The OCC also found that “these banks maintained public and nonpublic policies restricting certain industry sectors’ access to financial services,” including “oil and gas exploration, coal mining or coal-powered plants, firearms or ammunition manufacturing or distribution,” and more.

And it wasn’t just a few small examples that OCC used to back up their mandate. According to the OCC’s press release, the agency reviewed nearly 100,000 complaints to OCC-regulated institutions and received approximately 50,000 documents consisting of approximately 420,000 pages from these banks regarding their policies, procedures, practices, and individual customer decisions. NSSF contributed industry examples for OCC to review.

Summarizing the impact of financial discrimination on the firearm industry, the OCC’s report included a specific section titled, “FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURING OR DISTRIBUTION.”

“Several banks restricted financing to firearms manufacturers or retailers, including those offering assault- or military-style weapons for civilian use. Others included certain firearms accessories. At least two banks highlighted “polarizing” or “polarized” public opinion surrounding individual gun ownership rights and gun control as part of the basis for their firearms restrictions. Another bank noted that “an association with certain [f]irearms [m]anufacturers and [r]etailers could result in significant [f]ranchise risk, particularly when those firearms are associated with civilian gun violence.” As a result, that bank conditioned relationships with these manufacturers and retailers on their adherence to the bank’s view of “best practices” regarding the sale of firearms.”

(Read more at the Firearm Industry Trade Association)

…

Just as Obama’s initiative saw the debanking of conservative businesses, has Jack Smith’s information gone to banks?

Let’s ask: Did Jack Smith’s information go to the American banks? Is that the reason that, during Biden years, we saw an increase in debanking of conservatives over political beliefs?

Debanked over political beliefs

The Patriot Post dug into the recent report that exposed Biden’s expansion of efforts into debanking his opponents.

It’s been months in the making, but yesterday’s 47-page report from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency made clear that the big banks were playing politics with people’s lives and livelihoods.

“Today’s report,” said Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould in an accompanying press release, “provides irrefutable evidence that the nation’s largest banks have denied, debanked, and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses.” Gould added, “Americans should have access to financial services regardless of their beliefs, affiliations, or political views. Fair access to financial services is not a mantra — it is a mandate.”

Recall that Donald Trump’s executive order of August 7, 2025, titled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,” sought to put an end to all this. And yesterday’s report is replete with examples of what our nation’s nine biggest banks — JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank, and BMO Bank — were doing.

Among the transgressions: “public and nonpublic policies restricting certain industry sectors’ access to financial services, including those in oil and gas exploration, coal mining or coal-powered plants, firearms or ammunition manufacturing or distribution, construction or operation of detention facilities, the manufacturing, distribution or online retail of tobacco or e-cigarettes, and digital asset activities [i.e. bitcoin].”

Consider JPMorgan Chase’s payment operation, WePay, which closed the account of a merchant selling gear promoting President Trump and the Make America Great Again brand, saying it promoted “hate, violence, or racial intolerance.”

But not so fast. As The Wall Street Journal reports, “Capital One … rejected an organization supporting reproductive rights, including abortion access,” with one employee pointing out that its contributions to politicians “are about 95% Democrat.”

The big excuse being bandied about by these Who-Me big banks is “reputational risk” — that is, they took these egregious debanking and denial-of-banking steps in order to protect their squeaky-clean reputations. But the OCC isn’t buying it. “The OCC is considering actions to prevent banks from discriminating against customers or prospective customers on the basis of their political or religious beliefs and to address the problematic role of reputation risk in bank decision-making.”

Reputational risk, eh? You don’t say. Y’know what’s a reputational risk? When one half of the American people think that our nation’s leading banks are run by a bunch of craven politically motivated Democrat dirtbags. These bank CEOs — the Jamie Dimons and the Brian Moynihans and such — had better thank their lucky stars that Republicans and conservatives don’t behave like Democrats and progressives. We don’t assassinate our political opponents like they do. And we don’t shoot corporate CEOs in the back, even when we think they’re trying to wreck our lives.

And they have wrecked people’s lives. Donald Trump can certainly take care of himself, but he and his family were debanked not only by Bank of America but by Signature Bank and Deutsche Bank. And John Eastman — the constitutional scholar and former law school dean who was Trump’s leading post-2020 election lawyer — was ruthlessly debanked twice in the span of several months: first by Bank of America, and then, remarkably, by USAA, the bank he’d fled to. All for the high crime of having given constitution-based legal advice to Trump in the aftermath of the rigged 2020 election.

Memo to Big Bank CEOs: If you want to protect your reputation, stop picking political winners and losers, and stop intentionally harming everyday Americans for their political and religious activities, and their lawful business practices.

As the Journal also reports, “In another instance, TD Bank decided against extending a Covid-19 era emergency loan to a nonprofit promoting anti-immigration positions.”

It’s understandable that a sleazy bank might do such a thing. After all, open borders let in all sorts of cheap laborers, which depress the wages of low-end working Americans while making the open-borders Chamber of Commerce types really happy.

But that’s not the worst of this particular offense. The Journal continues, “The bank’s decision was influenced in part by [wait for it!] the Southern Poverty Law Center, which had designated the nonprofit a ‘hate group.’” And the SPLC’s name pops up repeatedly in the report as a trusted arbiter of what constitutes a reputationally risky customer.

We can’t make this stuff up.

It’d be interesting to see what the left-right ratio is for those being denied services. My sense is that the Trump administration wouldn’t be pursuing this matter as zealously as it is were there as many left-leaning victims as there are right-leaning victims.

Were the big banks weaponized against Trump and his associates, and more generally against all things MAGA? And were a handful of left-leaning organizations included in these debanking practices as a devious way for the banks to claim they weren’t acting in a partisan manner? It’s hard to say at this point, and we won’t have any crystal clarity until someone does a deep dive into the document dump and produces a right-vs.-left ratio of victims.

But this much we do know: The Trump family was debanked, and John Eastman was debanked, and yet I don’t know of a single leading Democrat who’s been debanked, so there’s that.

(Read the closing point at the Patriot Post)

Further, there are other reports that it was not just on political lines that people and companies were debanked

If you will read the article by the Washington Stand (immediately below), you will see that it seems the debanking also followed religious lines (in that certain Catholics and Christians were more likely to lose their accounts).

…

Regulator report: during Biden years, nine of America’s largest banks debanked clients over political and religious views

The Washington Stand also commented on the nine largest banks in America debanking customers over their religious (mostly Christian) and political views.

From 2020 to 2025, the nine largest U.S. banks deliberately discriminated against clients with political or religious views that might be deemed controversial, according to a 47-page report released Wednesday by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The report confirms that conservative and pro-marriage organizations lost banking access due to the recommendations of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

“This is just shocking information,” exclaimed Rep. Mike Haridopolos (R-Fla.) on “Washington Watch.” “These are things that happen in communist regimes or fascist regimes, where the government is playing politics in an aggressive way. … This is why we had to go in to look at the Deep State and why we need to have this transparency in government.”

The OCC investigated the practices of the nine banks that ranked largest by asset size when it began its review in September 2025. These are: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank, and BMO Bank. The final report comes after it reviewed some 100,000 complaints, hundreds of bank decisions, and 420,000 pages of documents.

The report found that “the banks largely lacked clear and measurable standards and objective, risk-based criteria for assessing the reputation risks of customer relationships.” The banks acknowledged “the highly subjective nature of a reputation risk assessment” but did not let this fact stop them from suddenly shuttering the accounts of longstanding clients.

Just how subjective these decisions were was evident from the “various sources [used] to inform these decisions, including the results of negative news searches and non-traditional sources, such as the opinions of advocacy organizations.”

For example, PNC in 2021 “declined to issue a line of credit to a media company due to reputation risk concerns.” The “reputation risk” apparently stemmed from the fact that one company owner was “a conservative political commentator,” while another owner had a foundation that “has funded several Christian conservative groups, including several identified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC].”

“This underscores why the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been indicted, should be nowhere near government,” declared Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “No one should use them as a reference. They’re a political attack group.”

In testimony before Congress last year, Perkins spotlighted the SPLC’s debanking efforts, noting how “banks, payment processors, and technology companies increasingly relied on SPLC classifications to decide which organizations could maintain accounts, process transactions, or operate online.”

“SPLC officials openly acknowledged this strategy before Congress in January 2020. SPLC official Lecia Brooks stated: ‘We have lobbied internet companies, one by one. … A key part of this strategy has been to target these organizations’ funding,’” said Perkins. “FRC experienced this from Truist Financial, Fidelity Investments, GuideStar, Mobile Cause, and other technology-related companies.”

Given the far-left bias of SPLC, it should come as no surprise that “the banks’ implementation of ambiguous reputation risk policies disadvantaged Americans holding certain political, religious, and social views,” as the OCC report found.

For example, in February 2021, WePay, Inc., a subsidiary of JPMorgan, closed the account of a t-shirt merchant because “they’ve started selling t-shirts that promote hate and are pro-Trump.” WePay developed and maintained a list of terms that it considered violations of its guidelines; the “exemplar list” reviewed by the OCC “included terms such as MAGA, Make America Great, and America First,” as well as names of “certain ‘hate groups’ identified by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

In June 2021, “WePay closed the account of a customer that employees characterized in the bank’s internal tracking system as a ‘[r]ight wing religious conservative non profit with strong anti LGBTQ rhetoric.’” The next month, “WePay closed an account used to raise funds to support a legal challenge by a ‘devout Christian’ of certain anti-discrimination laws.”

The OCC review identified a double standard between banking clients based upon their net worth. “Mere allegations, negative press, or negative reviews contributed to some banks declining to serve average Americans, even in the absence of any validation of the underlying facts or concerns,” it noted, “yet some banks were able to find ways to get comfortable with the reputation risks posed by high-net-worth clients.”

Indeed, on Tuesday, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed $1.2 billion in penalties on Bank of America for its years-long failure to report or prevent money laundering. “This is the third largest fine that the agency has ever issued to a financial institution,” said Perkins. “A lot of this has connections with Russia and Iran. … They couldn’t keep up with the terrorists and the other bad actors, but they could sure cut off the Christians.”

The OCC report concluded that the debanking standards were often surprising and confusing for clients who suddenly found their bank account closed, with only a vague explanation insufficient to even mount an effective appeal.

The report cited one instance where Wells Fargo induced an “independent sales organization” to close a nonprofit’s account after “highlighting the nonprofit’s views on same-sex marriage.” One of three resources Wells Fargo relied upon to identify problematic organizations was the SPLC. The Wells Fargo vendor, which had previously determined the nonprofit in question was not engaged in hateful conduct, “subsequently terminated the nonprofit’s account with immediate effect.”

“The nonprofit received no advance warning of the independent sales organization’s account closure decision and no explanation beyond that it was identified as affiliated with a product or service that promotes hate, violence, harassment, or abuse,” the OCC explained. “As a result of the independent sales organization’s decision, the nonprofit had to quickly notify donors of potential donation processing issues and adjust its website.”

“Americans who are denied financial services or whose accounts are suddenly closed experience real world financial consequences,” the report argued. “Customers or prospective customers may be denied access to funding or other specialized financial products to expand their business operations, be unable to make critical payments on time, be forced to quickly find new banking relationships and incur costs associated with opening a new account, or experience delays in receiving access to the funds in their closed accounts.” Additionally, “A customer or prospective customer that does not receive an adequate explanation from a bank regarding its decision to deny services or terminate a relationship is left to speculate as to the cause.”

“In America, citizens should not lose access to banking services, digital platforms, public credibility, or physical safety because they believe in biblical teaching on marriage and human sexuality,” Perkins urged Congress in his testimony last year. “When government-regulated institutions can apply ideological labels in a coordinated fashion to silence, isolate, or financially cripple opponents, we allow political targeting by proxy, and freedom is at risk.”

Fortunately, the OCC report found that “All nine banks report having reassessed the role of reputation risk in decisions to establish, maintain, or terminate customer relationships.” At least some of these reassessments coincided with the Trump administration taking power in Washington, suggesting that these policies were at least tacitly encouraged by the Biden administration. However, “despite taking some steps to address fair access concerns, opportunities for future debanking remain due, in part, to inexact reputational risk policies and processes.”

Haridopolos argued that the “first, biggest” way to ensure that banks do not revert to practices of debanking conservatives is “to get out and vote.” He acknowledged that “People are a little apprehensive right now. They’re frustrated by higher gas prices. But people need to get out and vote. Elections truly matter.”

(I would encourage you to read this and more at the Washington Stand)

Remember that it was Biden who had the FBI look into Latin Mass Catholics

Remember how (as revealed in the Richmond memo) Biden had his FBI investigating Latin Mass Catholics. Further, despite the apologies and retractions by the Dementia Joe crowd, we should all recall that the actual extent of the spying on those faithful church goers.

Specifically, as Senator Grassley wrote in a 3 June 2025 press release, this un-Constitutional bias hits at the very core of what should be American values:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today released Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records revealing the Biden FBI’s anti-Catholic Richmond Memo was widely distributed to over 1,000 FBI employees across the country before it was publicly disclosed by a whistleblower in 2023.

Per the Grassley-obtained records, the Biden FBI’s targeting of Catholics based on biased sources was more widespread than previously known. In fact, Grassley found the FBI produced at least 13 additional documents and five attachments that used anti-Catholic terminology and relied on information from the radical far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). One FBI agent admitted over email, “[O]ur overreliance on the SPLC for hate designation [of traditional Catholics] is … problematic.”

A second FBI memo, released by Grassley, was drafted by the FBI Richmond field office for Bureau-wide distribution. The draft memo repeated the unfounded link between traditional Catholicism and violent extremism, but was never published due to backlash following the Richmond Memo’s public disclosure. The existence of this second memo contradicts former-FBI Director Christopher Wray’s testimony that the Richmond field office only produced “a single product.”

Grassley is urging FBI Director Kash Patel to continue producing records related to the Richmond Memo’s origins, as well as former-FBI Director Christopher Wray’s misleading and obstructive response to Grassley’s oversight of the memo.

“I’m determined to get to the bottom of the Richmond memo, and of the FBI’s contempt for oversight in the last administration,” Grassley wrote. “I look forward to continuing to work with you to restore the FBI to excellence and prove once again that justice can and must be fairly and evenly administered, blind to whether we are Democrats or Republicans, believers or nonbelievers.”

…

For some time, I have known that, after his employment as a teacher, Talarico found employment with the far-left group MAYA (by the way, if you read to the end, you will find that group to be hiding itself). It was during this time that a number of pro-socialist views began to be publicly espoused by Jimmy Talarico and recorded by the general public.

Nonetheless, a new phase of revealed socialism and corruption came to light with the following tweet by an investigative reporter out of Texas:

Within the above tweet, you can read:

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT: JAMES TALARICO HAS SOME EXPLAINING TO DO – MILLIONS IN TAXPAYER-FUNDED CONTRACTS, PRIVATE INCOME, AND A NEW LLC

I’ve been digging into Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico’s financial history, and I have some questions about where taxpayer money was going and who was benefiting from it.

Let me break this down so everyone understands…

From 2019 through 2025, James Talarico worked as a paid consultant for a company called MAYA Consulting, now known as VIDA Collaborative.

During that same time, Talarico was serving in the Texas Legislature, including on the House Public Education Committee, which deals with matters involving the Texas Education Agency (TEA).

THE SAME STATE EDUCATION AGENCY WAS AWARDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN CONTRACTS TO THE COMPANY PAYING TALARICO.

We’re talking about approximately $5.16 MILLION in TEA contracts, plus additional money the consulting firm received from individual Texas school districts.

And according to Talarico’s own financial disclosure, he reported $83,333.40 in income from MAYA Consulting for 2025.

This means that James Talarico was a Texas lawmaker helping make decisions about public education. But at the same time, he was receiving private income from a company doing millions of dollars in business with the state’s education system.

Hello?

I certainly want to know what he was being paid to do, whether he had any involvement in those government contracts, and how potential conflicts of interest were handled.

But wait, there is more.

In September 2025, shortly after announcing his Senate campaign, Talarico formed a company called Nine Banded LLC. His federal financial disclosure identifies him as its managing member and describes the company as inactive during the reporting period.

What was the purpose of this company? Has it received any money since its formation? And is it connected to any of his political or private business activities?

I want to know. So I have submitted a Texas Public Information Act request to the Texas Education Agency demanding the records involving MAYA Consulting and its government contracts.

I want to see the contracts, invoices, payment records, names of the people who performed the work, and any documents addressing potential conflicts of interest.

Most importantly, I want to find out whether James Talarico personally performed any work connected to those taxpayer-funded contracts, whether any of that money paid for his services, and whether his position in the Texas Legislature created any conflicts.

Talarico’s campaign and the consulting firm have, of course, denied wrongdoing. They maintain that he did not work on or receive compensation from those government-funded contracts.

If that’s accurate, the records should help us understand how his private consulting work was kept separate. And if they refuse to send the records… I think we can put two and two together.

The public records already establish that Talarico received private consulting income while his employer held millions of dollars in public education contracts.

James Talarico, I think Texas taxpayers deserve a very simple explanation:

What exactly were you being paid to do, and how can you demonstrate that your private financial interests were kept separate from your responsibilities as an elected official?

These are taxpayer dollars we’re talking about. Public officials should expect scrutiny when their private employers are receiving MILLIONS from government agencies.

STAY TUNED. I’m waiting on responses from the TEA.

It seems I was not the only person to find this tweet

WHOA: James Talarico has some “splainin” to do that has NOTHING to do with his 12-day absence

Twitchy was the first within our right-leaning media to point out the tweet that highlighted Talarico’s potential corruption.

We know James Talarico has been in the news a lot … and mainly for reasons we’ve already covered.

Endlessly.

What people might be missing, though, since we’re all understandably focused on where the heck Talarico was for 12 days, is something that may be even bigger.

At least according to Sarah Fields.

This seems, oh we dunno, kinda sorta important.

Take a gander:

🚨 INVESTIGATIVE REPORT: JAMES TALARICO HAS SOME EXPLAINING TO DO – MILLIONS IN TAXPAYER-FUNDED CONTRACTS, PRIVATE INCOME, AND A NEW LLC

I’ve been digging into Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico’s financial history, and I have some questions about where taxpayer… pic.twitter.com/ktQ2zhgrYX

— Sarah Fields (@SarahisCensored) October 10, 2026

(Read more and see related links at Twitchy)

This seems to point not only to the likely corruption of Talarico, but to the importance of a free platform like X

Without X (and, to a lesser extent, Rumble and Truth Social), the left-leaning platforms like Google and Facebook would be able to do as they did in the Biden regime and suppress news unfavorable to Democrats. 

…

“Abused his office:” Paxton slams Talarico over corruption scandal

PJ Media had, however, dug up and published in a 17 September 2026 article containing accusations that pointed to the same type and source of corruption between Talarico and his former employer, MAYA.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is disgusted by new corruption charges against his Democrat Senate race opponent, James Talarico.

Talarico has been making charges of corruption against Paxton throughout this contentious and high-stakes race, but as often happens with Democrat politicians, Talarico was throwing stones while living in a glass house. Or, put less metaphorically, he now faces charges of “blatant corruption” for allegedly receiving money for consulting work from an entity that, in turn, received substantial state funding while Talarico was a state lawmaker on the committee that oversaw the funding distribution.

BREAKING: James Talarico abused his office to enrich himself and his employer. He needs to answer for his corruption and explain to taxpayers why he used their tax dollars to benefit himself and the woke DEI firm paying him tens of thousands of dollars. https://t.co/TdX67eCec1

— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) September 17, 2026

It is altogether too common for politicians at both the state and national levels to funnel taxpayer money to organizations that they expect to provide kickbacks or other benefits. In this case, it seems Talarico was partly responsible for determining where Texas education funding went, and one of the recipients was MAYA Consulting, which also hired him.

A 2019 Facebook post  from Talarico says, “Being a state legislator is a part time job. That’s why I’m thrilled to announce that I’m joining MAYA, an education consulting firm in Austin. As a consultant for MAYA, I’ll be working with districts, nonprofits and communities to build excellent and equitable educational opportunities for all our students.” MAYA Consulting has since rebranded as VIDA Collaborative.

For Our VIPs: George Washington’s Hopes for We the People in His Farewell Address 

But, as Fox News explained, while Talarico was bringing in paychecks from MAYA, he was also sitting on the Public Education Committee that oversaw state contracts from the Texas Education Agency (TEA), like the one that MAYA received. Talarico was a voting member of the committee between 2019 and 2025.

TEA registers from 2021 and 2022 show that the agency awarded MAYA two contracts worth $3.578 million and $1.635 million, respectively. The contracts were related to priorities Talarico was pushing in the Texas House at the time, including addressing learning loss due to COVID-19.

Meanwhile, Talarico’s disclosure shows that he earned $83,333.40 from the nonprofit in 2025, in addition to his $13,904.92 part-time salary as a member of the Texas House of Representatives.

Based on these facts, Talarico was giving money to the consulting firm in his role as a legislator and receiving money from the firm in his role as a consultant. Kassi Longoria, CEO of VIDA Collaborative, told Fox that Talarico did indeed work with the firm between 2019 and 2025. She also denied, however, that he was involved in obtaining any state contracts for the firm. Talarico’s campaign has also denied any wrongdoing.

(Read more at PJ Media)

Even if this just is an accusation, shouldn’t the news agencies that ran with the Russia hoax be carrying this?

Just to be fair, shouldn’t the outlets like MS NOW, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, and the rest be at least mentioning this in their evening news?

…

James Talarico’s corrupt past catches up to him

Townhall likewise provided an 18 September 2026 article chronicling the misdeeds of baby-face Jimmy Talarico (possibly to join the ranks with Baby Face Nelson).

Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico often rails against corruption in politics, but now his past conduct is garnering more attention.

The candidate has made campaign finance reform and the elimination of dark money one of the centerpieces of his campaign. He argues that donors with deep pockets and political action committees wield an outsized influence over policy debates in Washington, D.C.

“Money in politics is the root cause of every major problem facing our state,” he once said. 

Talarico has also stressed that “Our democracy is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, not of the donors, by the donors, and for the donors.”

However while serving in his role as state representative, Talarico also worked as a strategy director and consultant for Maya Consulting, an Austin-based firm focused on educational strategy and policy.

TEXAS SENATE RACE: While Talarico was responsible for oversight of the TEA, MAYA consulting was paying him 500% more per month than he made as a state legislator. Meanwhile, the TEA awarded MAYA millions in state contracts. The firm cannot explain what Talarico did to earn his… pic.twitter.com/KNh6ye1IJw

— @amuse (@amuse) September 18, 2026

The Austin Chronicle reported that the candidate was employed at the organization while holding a seat on the Texas House Public Education Committee. Texas legislators are considered part-time government employees and often have outside employment. But serving on an education committee while working at an educational lobbying group raises questions regarding ethics.

In Talarico’s case, a potential conflict of interest could exist because the Public Education Committee has direct authority over state curriculum standards, school funding formulas, and educational grant disbursements.

Maya Consulting advises school districts, education nonprofits, and charter networks that compete for state funding and other resources. Regulatory decisions and statutory changes can directly affect the financial and operational landscape for the organization.

Critics point to Talarico’s public pronouncements against political corruption when he seemed to have no problem with his apparent conflict of interest. They argue that holding a leadership position at an education consulting business while being a key member of a committee that decides policies that could benefit the company creates the appearance of impropriety — which it clearly does.

(See one more tweet and read more at Townhall)

While I am certain that the Austin Chronicle probably carried this on page CC10, at least they carried it.

That is more than I can say for the rest of the main stream media. Kudos to the Austin Chronicle for covering Jimmy in this damaging news.

…

Texas Democratic Senate candidate Talarico accused of corruption over involvement with firm

Just The News provided the most in-depth article (again, on 18 September) in its coverage of Talarico’s connections to MAYA and the TEA that involved millions of dollars.

Senate Democratic nominee James Talarico is facing accusations of “blatant corruption” due to the high salary he received working for a consulting firm that received millions in state contracts awarded by the Texas Education Agency. 

Talarico helped provide oversight of the agency as member of the Public Education Committee, Fox News reported. 

In a 2019 Facebook post, Talarico announced he was joining MAYA Consulting and that he would be “working with districts, nonprofits, and communities to build excellent and equitable educational opportunities for all our students.”

He worked for the firm from 2019 until 2025, according to Senate campaign financial disclosure documents, and during those years, official legislative records show that Talarico served as a voting member of the Texas House’s Public Education Committee. 

During those years, the Texas Education Agency awarded contracts to MAYA totaling over $5 million. 

Republican National Committee spokesman Zach Kraft accused Talarico of wrongdoing, saying the Democrat’s work with MAYA is an example of “blatant corruption.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running against Talarico in the race, accused Talarico of abusing his office to enrich himself and his employer. 

“He needs to answer for his corruption and explain to taxpayers why he used their tax dollars to benefit himself and the woke DEI firm paying him tens of thousands of dollars,” Paxton said in a post on X. 

The firm has since been rebranded VIDA Collaborative. Kassi Longoria, CEO of VIDA Collaborative, told Fox that Talarico has no current role with the firm, and she said that “during his time at VIDA, his consulting work was structured, specifically to remain separate from his role as a Texas state legislator.”

(Read more at Just The News)

If MAYA has established a name for itself, why now rebrand as the VIDA Collaborative?

Are those at MAYA trying to get away from associations made with Jimmy Talarico? Are they trying to remove themselves from past actions?

…