The Virginia Association of Realtors has ruled that a realtor and pastor violated its rules by posting Bible verses and a message from Franklin Graham.
Wilson Fauber, of Virginia, was found guilty of an ethics violation that bans realtors from certain religious expressions, CBN News reports.
The 70-year old bivocational pastor came under fire during a recent run for city council. He posted a Bible verse from the Old Testament about homosexuality. Two realtors, one of whom is gay, filed a complaint against the pastor – accusing him of posting hate speech.
Pastor Fauber told CBN News that the National Association of Realtors is woke.
“The leadership of the National Association of Realtors has made it very clear about their involvement in endorsing and approving of the LGBTQ community,” he said.
Michael Sylvester, an attorney with the Founding Freedoms Law Center, is represent the pastor.
“So, it all changed in 2020 when the National Association of Realtors adopted a rule that prohibits anybody from speaking what they deem ‘hate speech’ against certain protected classes such as sexual orientation or gender identity. But what’s incredible here is the post that Wilson made was in 2015, five years before that rule even existed. He simply was presenting his religious views about marriage that should not qualify for a hate speech charge,” Sylvester told CBN News.
Pastor Fauber now faces a $15,000 fine and he could lose his license to sell real estate.
“Christians don’t have rights, and this is just totally wrong,” the pastor said. “And the National Association of Realtors being the largest trade organization in America, they have set a precedent by adopting this policy. If I’m guilty because I post my religious beliefs in a meme or a scripture on my Facebook or social media accounts, and if that’s guilty of hate speech… there are millions and millions of Christians that agree with my position, and we don’t have a voice.”
I guess if you are a Christian and disagree with abortion and homosexuality, you aren’t allowed to fix a bike for your step son’s Christmas at Bike Edmonton. The video on this link below shows me getting kicked out of Bike Edmonton earlier tonight.
I went to Bike Edmonton two weeks ago to work on my son’s bike for his Christmas gift and I must say my first visit was a positive experience. Yes, I noticed the UnGodly Pride sticker on the wall at their front desk and no doubt I don’t share Bike Edmonton’s views when it comes to CO2 admissions causing the end of civilization. Still, I liked the mechanic I worked with and was happy to purchase my bike brakes and derailleur there. Indeed, I even purchased a membership. Not to affirm homosexuality or the NDP. I purchased the membership to affirm their initial great customer service and what I thought was Bike Edmonton’s commitment to provide cycling support to everyone who came to their shop.
My next visit was not so positive. I made an appointment to work on my son’s shifters and drove 2 hours to attend their shop. When I got to Edmonton I was surprised to find out my appointment was cancelled. Seeing as I was already in Edmonton, I went to Bike Edmonton’s downtown shop (10612 105 Ave) to find out why my appointment was cancelled.
The video of my conversation with Bike Edmonton’s manager, Alex Hindle, he/him, and his e-mail sent to me when I was in route (copied below) shows how Bike Edmonton treats Edmontonions who are openly Christian, pro-life, and who do not agree with the homosexual/transgender political agenda.
In Christ’s Service, Bill Whatcott
Alex Hindle’s e-mail to Bill Whatcott, December 4, 2024
————————————————————
Hi William,
I have reason to believe you are the same William Whatcott who has long campaigned publicly against homosexuality and abortion, among other issues. While Bike Edmonton works to make cycling accessible, we cannot countenance the views you have publicly promoted and will not allow you to enter or use our community bike shop (10612-105 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta) going forward. You are arguably a public figure and your presence in our shop, which is located in the same building as the Edmonton Pride Centre, may adversely affect our reputation.
I have cancelled your appointment for this evening. I understand that you recently bought a Bike Edmonton membership and can cancel and refund this if you like. It appears you paid cash for the membership, and so you may briefly come by the shop for the purpose of a refund. Let me know if this is your preference.
Thank you, Alex Hindle Downtown Community Bicycle Workshop Co-manager Bike Edmonton Pronouns: he/him
Bike Edmonton South • 8001 102 St • T6E 4A2 780-433-2453 ext 9002 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, in Treaty Six Territory amiskwacîwâskahikan | ᐊᒥᐢᑲᐧᒋᐋᐧᐢᑲᐦᐃᑲᐣ
My Lifefunder to help deal with challenges related to being on bail for years while getting acquitted and retried again for a so-called hate crime for sharing the Gospel at the Toronto Homosexual Pride parade: https://www.lifefunder.com/whatcott
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.” Matthew 5:43,44
We’re losing the right to offend – and that should frighten us allA press watchdog ruling says journalists cannot call a trans woman ‘a man who claims to be a woman’ – so what should we call her?
Ipso upheld a claim by trans woman Juno Dawson against The Spectator calling it ‘personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant’Michael DeaconColumnist & Assistant Editor11 December 2024 6:01pm GMTThe job of a journalist, we used to think, is always to tell the truth, whether people like it or not. It seems, however, that times have changed. Because nowadays, the job of a journalist is to avoid telling the truth, in case it hurts someone’s feelings.Or so I infer from this week’s extraordinary judgment by Ipso, the press watchdog.In an article for The Spectator about Nicola Sturgeon, published in May, the writer Gareth Roberts briefly referred to the time Ms Sturgeon was interviewed by Juno Dawson, a trans woman – or, as Mr Roberts put it, “a man who claims to be a woman”. Dawson complained to Ipso. And this week it decided that The Spectator had breached the Editor’s Code of Practice – and forced the magazine to publish the ruling on its website.As Dawson is biologically male, you may feel that Mr Roberts’ phrase is hard to dispute. And, as it happens, Ipso did not uphold Dawson’s complaint of inaccuracy. The reason it found against The Spectator was that, in Ipso’s words, the phrase was “personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant, in a way that was both pejorative and prejudicial to her gender identity”.In other words: it was accurate. But it hurt the subject’s feelings. So you shouldn’t have said it.The Spectator’s new editor, Michael Gove, calls the ruling “outrageous”. And he’s absolutely right. Using the phrase “a man who claims to be a woman” may upset trans activists, but that doesn’t mean journalists should be punished for saying it. After all, saying “fairies aren’t real” may upset a child. But that doesn’t mean newspapers should be forced to pretend they are real, and publish solemn reports of the latest magical happenings in the fairy realm.Nonetheless, Ipso has spoken. So now, to avoid the same fate, journalists will be wondering what to write instead of “man who claims to be a woman”. Perhaps: “Man who is in possession of a piece of paper issued under the terms of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, stating that, despite appearances to the contrary, he is actually a woman, and you’d better agree or keep your trap shut”?Whatever the answer, we need to face the most uncomfortable truth of all. Which is that it isn’t just journalists whose free speech is under threat; it’s everyone’s. Because the fact is, we’re losing the right to offend – and that should frighten us all.Think of the undergraduate in Leeds, recently suspended from hosting her student radio show after posting a gender-critical blog. Or the 17-year-old female footballer, suspended for six matches last month after asking a trans opponent: “Are you a man?” Or the Newcastle United fan banned from attending matches after posting gender-critical views on social media.It’s not all about gender, either. Think of the Christian teacher sacked last year after saying he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. And remember how, in September, an Oxford don lamented that today’s undergraduates are too “frightened” to speak their minds in seminars, for fear they’ll be cancelled for causing offence.In fact, that’s the key word here: “fear”. Journalists have editors to fight their corner. But members of the public don’t. So, when they read about the trouble you can get in these days for saying the “wrong” thing, they may decide it’s safer not to express an opinion at all. They don’t want the police to come knocking on their door, like they did with Allison Pearson…Such fear, though, spells disaster for society. Because, when it comes to speech, offence is the price of freedom.
Sinister zealots are putting free speech under threat in Britain as never before
The press regulator must not allow itself to be used to stymie the expression of legitimate opinion
Standing up for free speech: Michael Gove, The Spectator’s new editor, has lambasted Ipso’s absurd ruling this week against the magazine Credit: Lucy North/PA
What has happened to our country, once the freest in Europe? Why did we cease to be the home of open debate, civilised disagreement and liberalism at its best? When did we sign away our right to free speech, our freedom to tell it as it is, to expose cant and lies and hypocrisy, to disagree with the powerful, fashionable and sanctimonious?
How did it come to pass that a nation that always refused to be told what to do, that still cannot even tolerate ID cards, ended up acquiescing so meekly to the demise of free expression? The world is watching our descent into soft authoritarianism with great sadness.
Unimpeded speech is the foundational freedom without which no other can survive, a prerequisite for any democratic polity. Frederick Douglass, the great American abolitionist, put it beautifully in 1860. “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist,” he said. “That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power.”
Those in today’s world who seek to exercise power over us – the woke mob, “human rights” lawyers, pressure groups, bureaucrats, politicians, regulators, big tech companies, HR departments, the post-liberal intelligentsia, the know-it-alls, the propagandists – are fully aware that free speech is their very own kryptonite. They dread scrutiny, and fear being held to account.
Their strategy to combat open and fearless expression can vary. Speech can be regulated or constrained by laws, directives or official guidance, as with ever-expanding privacy case law or “non-crime hate incidents”; bullying, shunning and cancelling dissidents can also work well, forging a toxic culture of self-censorship.
There is no better way to stamp out dissent than to cite a “speech code”, or claim that “the science” isn’t being followed, or to dismiss somebody’s opinion as a “conspiracy theory” (even when it is not) or to warn that somebody’s feelings are being hurt.
Several of the greatest global scandals of recent years could have been avoided had speech been freer. In Britain and Europe, cancel culture was deployed against anybody who questioned the scale and impact of mass migration, with sceptics smeared as racists. The Hunter Biden scandal was covered up, including by Facebook, which censored a New York Post story ahead of the 2020 elections. It became impossible to discuss the likelihood that Covid originated from an accidental lab leak in Wuhan; posts or articles would be removed from social media or search engines, and authors hounded as xenophobes.
Yet while the Americans are fighting back, the situation in Britain keeps getting worse. Allison Pearson, my Telegraph colleague, was persecuted by the police over a tweet. Floyd Mayweather, the boxing legend, was harassed while shopping in London, apparently because of his laudable pro-Israel, anti-Hamas views.
The newspaper industry’s regulator has joined in too. Earlier this year, The Spectator published a piece about an interview Nicola Sturgeon gave at a literary festival. Gareth Roberts, the author, wrote that the former Scottish first minister and advocate of gender self-ID “was interviewed by writer Juno Dawson, a man who claims to be a woman, and so the conversation naturally turned to gender”.
Dawson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), the regulator which also oversees The Telegraph. Ipso ruled that while the piece was accurate and did not constitute harassment, it breached section 12.1 of the Editor’s Code, which states: “The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.” Ipso ruled that the reference to Dawson’s gender identity was pejorative and prejudicial.
This was a deeply disappointing judgment by a regulator that appears to hold an overly expansive view of its own remit. It dismissed the author’s, and the publication’s, right to free speech and ability to state a view that I suspect the majority of the population would agree with. Ipso, which was set up as an alternative to effective state regulation, has strayed into the realm of taste and politics: it is imposing its views on the press, rather than making sure that facts and accuracy are maintained. Its claims to “uphold high editorial standards to protect the public and freedom of expression” ring hollow.
At a time when extreme gender activism is in retreat, the press’s own regulator has, however inadvertently, done the zealots’ work for them, forcing journalists to follow the diktats of an unpopular ideology.
I stand in solidarity with Michael Gove, The Spectator’s editor, and his predecessor, Fraser Nelson, who published the piece. Gove is right to defend his magazine’s right to free expression, protesting that “Dawson may have a Gender Recognition Certificate but no piece of paper, whatever it may say, can alter biological reality. Parliament may pass laws, but they cannot abolish Dawson’s Y chromosome.”
In a world where posts on X, Elon Musk’s pro-free speech successor to Twitter, can get millions of views in minutes, newspapers and magazines cannot compete if they are banned from stating certain facts or expressing popular but non-woke opinions.
Other decisions by Ipso have constrained the freedom of the press. An adjudication against Jeremy Clarkson in The Sun in 2022 – following complaints by pressure groups – overstepped the mark, restricting the freedom of columnists to be offensive and silly if they (and their editor) feel like it. Ipso has undermined open justice by ruling against Aberdeen Live in a court reporting case, weaponising Clause 4 of the Editor’s Code (which deals with intrusion into grief and shock) to introduce its own value judgments and interfering in editorial decisions.
In an age where there is collapsing trust in all institutions, it is madness to prevent journalists from reporting all of the facts, or to make it too risky for columnists to tackle difficult subjects. Consigning free speech to a few US-based online platforms will further hollow out the British media.
Enough is enough: America is rediscovering free speech, so why can’t we? We need to be able to express ourselves freely, limited only by common sense and the normal constraints of the law. If the current political establishment cannot give us back our liberty, we will elect a new one that can.
NHS trust compares cousin marriage to white women having children over 34
Bradford health chiefs say practice is ‘cultural’ and no different to ‘liberts distributed to families in Bradford that cousin marriage accounts for about a third of birth defects.
Education to degree level was found to be a strong protective factor, halving the risk of congenital anomalies irrespective of ethnic origin.
Lee Anderson, the hot-tempered Reform MP, has spent the week being the butt of Left-wing online ridicule. Yes, even more than usual. And it’s all because he made one of the biggest mistakes you can ever make on social media.
In short: he dared to suggest that, at least sometimes, life is tougher for men than women.
It all began when a woman on Twitter asked the following question. “Women deal with periods, pregnancy and menopause,” she wrote. “What do men have to deal with?”
An honest answer might have been, “Women dealing with periods, pregnancy and menopause.” That, of course, would have landed Mr Anderson in quite enough trouble. His actual reply, however, managed to provoke an even greater uproar.
Obviously what he meant was: “In times of war, it tends to be men who get conscripted to fight and die on the front line, not women.” But, social media being what it is, almost everyone has chosen to ignore that, and instead pilloried him for appearing to suggest that fighting on the Somme in 1916 is a universal male experience.
I for one, however, have some sympathy for Mr Anderson. Because, while I myself may never have fought on the Somme, or indeed in any other military conflict, I do think he’s got a point. Just as women are the only ones who have to endure periods, pregnancy and menopause, there really are problems in life that only us poor men have to endure.
And here are 10 of them…
1. Fat
Yes, obviously women put on weight too. But at least they tend to do it in a consistent, uniform manner. To put it bluntly: if a woman is fat, she’s fat all over. A man, however, can develop a vast, pendulous beer belly while his arms and legs remain skinny. Which just makes him look ridiculous. Like a frog that’s swallowed a bowling ball.
2. Eyebrows
Around the age of 40, if you’re a man, these begin sprouting crazed, wiry tufts, making you resemble a grumpy owl. When hairdressers start asking you if you’d like them trimmed, it’s embarrassing enough. But in due course, something even more embarrassing happens. Hairdressers just trim them automatically, without even stopping to ask.
3. Nasal hair
Charles Darwin may have been one of the most influential thinkers in history, but I don’t believe he ever managed to explain the evolutionary purpose of middle-aged men growing a small forest in each of their nostrils. Or, later on, their ears.
4. Silver fox envy
Most women can’t stand it when their hair goes grey, so they dye it. Simple enough. For men, however, the issue is more complicated. Because when men go grey, like George Clooney, they somehow seem more attractive, elegant, serious. Which leaves those of us who still have our original hair colour feeling somehow less manly – like a squeaky-voiced 16-year-old boy who hasn’t gone through puberty. Perhaps we should do the opposite of women, and dye it grey.
5. Jawline
In our youth, strong and square. Yet in middle age, it loses definition, and goes all vague and wobbly like the coast of Norway. Which is of course why, around the age of 40, so many men grow beards. Mentioning no names, Prince Harry. Or William.
6. Bladder
In later life, shrivels to the size of a lentil – leading to weary, bleary-eyed trips to the loo at 2am. We might as well sleep in the bathroom, to save wearing out our slippers.
7. Snoring
All right, so our wives will argue that they’re the real victims here. But we suffer too. Obstructive sleep apnoea – around three times more common in men than women – can leave us at risk of high blood pressure, heart conditions and stroke. At the very least, we wake up feeling as if we’ve spent the whole night gargling a Brillo pad.
8. Clothes shopping
The bosses of high-street clothing chains have eyes only for women. Hence the vast and varied arrays of stylish outfits on offer to them. Men, by contrast, are treated as a dreary, dowdy afterthought. Which is why the men’s sections of such chains are so paltry, and invariably resemble a jumble sale held by the gild of retired Blue Peter presenters.
9. Life expectancy
Even if we aren’t forced to fight on the Somme, we die younger than women do. Then again, not every man may see this as a bad thing. To quote the comedian Simon Munnery: “Why do men die before their wives? Could it be because they want to?”
10. Stiff upper lip
Of course, I could have made some slightly more serious points here. Compared to women, men have vastly higher rates of alcoholism, drug addiction, homelessness and suicide. The problem, however, is that complaining about how hard it is to be a man is considered unmanly. So we tend not to do it. Unless, that is, we fancy getting monstered like Lee Anderson.
Want your politics with the cant taken out? Then try my blogs:
Trudeau Vengeance: Trucker Freedom Convoy Leader Harold Jonker Is Canada’s Latest Political Prisoner
Have you heard of Harold Jonker? Can you please help? I can’t believe I haven’t but I’ll help!
He is a hard-working, patriotic Canadian who continues to be persecuted by the government almost 3 yrs after the 2022 Ottawa Freedom that he led as the Niagara contiguency.
As Niagara Captain for the 2022 Ottawa Freedom Convoy he led 12 of his own company’s trucks (co-owner of Jonker Trucking) along with countless others into Ottawa, and the truck he was driving was the first official Truck to enter Ottawa for the Convoy. He played a strong leadership role at the Convoy and was part of the unofficial leadership team there. Many say he was a big part of the critical “glue” that kept things together, and kept things peaceful (at least on the part of the protestors).
Of course, that means the government is targeting him, and he is fighting 4 criminal charges that carry potential jail time with them. He was also suspended as a local city councillor, and has $50,000 in court costs he needs to pay from fighting an unjust punishment by the unelected “Integrity Commissioner”.
Harold’s trial will last 10 days and is scheduled for May 2025. He has four criminal charges total – Mischief, Intimidation, and 2 charges of Counselling an uncommitted indictable offence. The last 2 charges really had my head spinning.
What did he actually do to deserve these charges? Your guess is as good as mine.
If you untangle the legalese on the last tongue-twisting charge, it means – you are charged with telling someone to commit a crime that they do not actually commit. Huh?? In my latest interview with Harold coming out this week, we try to get to the bottom of what exactly these charges mean, and what awaits him at trial.
The Crown offered him 1 year house arrest if he agreed to plead guilty. Harold refused. Now they’re asking for a year in prison.
Putting a law-abiding, business owning Canadian in jail for one year because he attended a peaceful protest, coordinated with the Ottawa Police, is absolutely scandalous.
He also led the Convoy to remain peaceful when forces conspired against them to break their patience and try to create violence.
Please give Harold Jonker the help he needs by giving today:
Etransfer – fundingthefight@proton.me
Password – Freedom
Memo – Harold
Yes, these charges against Harold are reckless and unfair. They threaten to put an honest, hard-working father and husband in jail for one year. But this also threatens all of us. Harold’s charges stem from peaceful behaviour protesting the government’s actions. If pushing back against the government becomes a punishable crime, anyone of us could be next.
Stay tuned for our interview to come later this week, and thank you for your support!
God bless,
Derek Sloan
FYI: Share this e-mail on your social media! Click here
P.S. Know someone who would like to receive this email? They can sign up here: Subscribe Now
P.P.S. Having trouble donating? You can also donate here
You received this email because you subscribed to our list. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Derek Sloan, PO Box 1645, Belleville, ON, K8N 0A5, Canada
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) was physically attacked Tuesday night on Capitol Hill by a suspect described as a pro-transgender man.
Mace, who has been leading a fight ban transgenders from using the bathrooms designated for ladies at the U.S. Capitol, confirmed that she was assaulted.
“I was physically accosted at the Capitol tonight by a pro-tr*ns man,” the Republican lawmaker wrote on X. “One new brace for my wrist and some ice for my arm and it’ll heal just fine. The Capitol police arrested the guy.”
}”>
U.S. Capitol Police confirmed that James McIntyre, 33, of Illinois had been charged with assaulting a government official.
“Just before 6:00 p.m., the Member of Congress’ office reported an incident in the Rayburn House Office Building. House Division officers, and agents with the Threat Assessment Section, tracked down the suspect,” police said in a statement.
Mace ended her X post with a warning to other predators lurking in the shadows: “Your tr*ns violence and threats on my life will only make me double down. FAFO.”
Authorities confirmed McIntyre had passed through standard security screening before entering the building.
“The Rayburn House Office Building was open to the public at the time of the incident. McIntyre went through security screening prior to entering the Congressional buildings,” police said.
Riley Gaines, a former NCAA swimmer who is leading a national effort to protect women from transgenders, condemned the attack on Mace.
“This is what we’re up against—literal violence for daring to say women are worthy of equal rights to privacy, safety, and opportunity,” Gaines wrote on X.
What’s going on? With the Canada Post strike dragging on, I would like to share a few things with you all regarding this situation and how it affects Druthers and Druthers supporters. First, I should point out, more than 90% of Druthers newspapers each month are sent on skids as freight on trains to our hubs across the country for free for local volunteers to collect bundles and distrubute freely as they see fit in their communities. For the large majority of papers, Canada Post has zero effect on Druthers. Where the Canada Post strike most affects Druthers is with our postal subscribers, yet even so, that has only impacted a portion of our subscribers. Who is affected? Subscriptions of 3 papers or 12 papers are the ones that are currently held up because they ship as lettermail (and Canada Post is the only organization ‘allowed’ to deliver lettermail in Canada). So those letters are not moving right now. In the meantime, everyone is invited to read the online PDF version for free at druthers.ca/newspapers Subscribers who receive 50 papers or above each month have all received their packages this month as we were able to send packages through another company. Sadly, only Canada Post is ‘allowed’ to deliver to post office boxes, therefore, all subscribers who have PO Boxes have all their lettermail and parcels held up.
How is this even allowed to happen? How is it ‘allowed’ for the union to call a strike and just hold everyones letters and packages hostage like this? It quite literally is a hostage / ransom type of situation. And since Canada Post is the only company ‘allowed’ to deliver lettermail in this country, how is it they are even ‘allowed’ to go on strike in the first place?? Something smells funny about all this. I could go on with further thoughts but they are all just theories and possible scenarios. We’ll see. Time will tell. Regardless, if this strike continues past Christmas, we will initiate plan B and our subscribers will receive both the December and January papers. I won’t elaborate on that yet as I wish to just keep focus on Canada Post getting back to it, sooner than later. But know, we have a plan B and very much appreciate your patience and understandiing. As for collector packs and other merchandise…
We are still able to ship the following items since they go out as parcels with other shipping companies. – 50 copies or more of Druthers newspapers – 3 or more shirts in one order – 3 or more collectors packs in one order Note: You still have time get these in time for Chistmas if you get your goodies ordered this week. And of course, please also keep the donations going so we can keep the presses running and getting these eye-opening newspapers to our fellow Canadians. Much love to you all!! Shawn Jason
Exactly as we surmised from internal evidence when we suspended VDARE, it turns the Biden Regime WAS behind debanking of political oppenents, which in our case meant denial of payment processors. “Government documents unsealed at the end of 2020 proved that the federal government used its regulatory authority over financial markets to attack political opponents.” — Peter Brimelow
How Democrats ‘debanked’ political opponents in shocking attack on American freedoms
Debanking is a method of fiscal blacklisting. REUTERS
President Biden has overseen nearly four years of a two-tiered justice system, as his pardoning of Hunter Biden and the political persecutions of then-candidate Donald Trump make all too clear.
But there have been quieter attacks on justice, like “debanking” — and few people realize they could be the next victims because they are a “politically exposed person,” that is someone who disagrees with the liberal status quo.
Debanking is a kind of financial blackballing that has appeared within just the last 20 years.
It started under then-President Barack Obama as a war to punish those seen as political enemies, like firearm manufacturers. Government documents unsealed at the end of 2020 proved that the federal government used its regulatory authority over financial markets to attack political opponents.
Government regulators essentially make it impossible for certain people or businesses to make online transactions, or to have a bank account or a credit card.
Dr. Joseph Mercola, a critic of the COVID vaccine, found his business accounts shut down by JP Morgan Chase, a move his chief financial officer claimed was at the same time Mercola spoke out against the Food and Drug Administration.
In her new memoir, Melania Trump says her bank account was terminated after the riots of Jan. 6, 2021, and her son Barron was unable to open his own account. She called it “political discrimination.”
In the modern world, exclusion from electronic financial services is an economic death sentence.
Regulators will claim that they’re not technically forbidding a private bank from doing business with an individual, and that the bank is freely choosing not to have that person as a customer.
But the reality is very different — because of the undue influence and control in the hands of today’s bloated administrative state.
A bureaucrat can make someone’s life so difficult that the victim is forced to comply — the government strong-arming a private individual or institution into doing what the government itself cannot do by law.
It’s like when the Biden administration pressured social-media companies into deplatforming anyone who questioned political talking points about the COVID pandemic.
The debanking scourge under President Biden has hit the crypto world particularly hard. The Securities and Exchange Commission has unleashed a plague of investigations, some real and some merely threatened, to force innovators and investors out of that space.
Dozens of tech and crypto founders have been debanked under Biden, and their inventions smothered.
On Joe Rogan‘s podcast, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen blamed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a group set up at the behest of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to go after crypto firms in particular.
“Basically every crypto founder, every crypto startup, either got debanked personally and forced out of the industry, or their company got debanked,” Andreessen said.
Andreessen added that others, like Kanye West, have been debanked, “For having the wrong politics. For saying unacceptable things. Under current banking regulations, after all the reforms of the last 20 years, there’s now a category called a politically exposed person, PEP. And if you are a PEP, you are required by financial regulators to kick them off, to kick them out of your bank.”
President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, has pointed out that many Democrats have been on an anti-crypto crusade as they attempt to wash off the stink of FTX and Sam Bankman Fried — the crypto scammer and fraud who gave massive campaign donations to Democratic politicians.
The problem goes far beyond crypto or the tech industry, however. And it’s bigger than just the Biden administration, which uses surrogates like the Southern Poverty Law Center to fallaciously label any conservative institution a “hate group.” Doing business with a group that engages in “hate” can get a financial institution dinged by regulators for increased “reputational risk.”
What does that have to do with a creditor’s ability to repay a loan or the solvency of a bank or the worth of an individual’s assets? Nothing. The radical left’s push to debank anyone with whom they disagree has nothing to do with sound financial principles — it’s all politics.
Anyone who appreciates freedom and the rule of law should be supremely grateful that the incoming president has put the bureaucrats on notice: Their days of covertly forcing political compliance are numbered.
E.J. Antoni, a public-finance economist, is the Richard F. Aster fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
A bit of a problem at the weekly freedom rally in Port Credit, Saturday, noon to 4:00, at the lighthouse on Lakeshore. Seven Peel Police cars drove up. A pushy Negro officer started berating the freedom fighters for attaching banner to trees (just temporarily). Mississauga is awash with gang mostly Black gun violence, home invasions and carjackings, but three dozen peaceful protesters demanded their attention. CAFE was happy to participate.
What’s the difference between Leslie Bory and Mohammed Majidpour? Les Bory is a political prisoner. A non-violent man with no criminal record, he has languished in prison. at the Maplehurst Detention Centre in Milton Ontario since February 14, 2023 — nearly two years. His “crime”? He has an online television podcast. On February 11, 2023, he made some strong statements against privileged groups in Canada, primarily Jews. For his non-violent speech, he and his wife were subject to arrest by a fully armed police shock squad. Despite numerous applications this non-violent political of words has repeatedly been denied bail.
And Mohammed Majidpour? “One of the more high-profile examples being Mohammed Majidpour, a man who already had at least 30 convictions when, in September 2022, he randomly attacked a 19-year-old woman in Downtown Vancouver with a pole, and then set fire to a car later that day. When eventually arrested for the attack, Majidpour spent only a weekend in detention before getting bail. He’d then proceed to be arrested several more times before the pole attack even had a chance to go to trial. In one instance, Majidpour was on bail less than three hours before he was arrested again for trying to steal $300 in leggings. As the Vancouver Police said in a statement, two officers who had arrested Majidpour the day before on a separate incident, simply followed him until he broke the law again. “At the time of his arrest, the suspect had been out of custody for two hours, 18 minutes,” read a subsequent police statement.: (National Post, December 6, 2024)
This is Canada’s highly politicized “justice” system. If you do violent and evil things, the system can’t get you back on the streets fast enough. However, if you express non-violent thoughts, our leftist justice system will keep you in jail.
The job of a journalist, we used to think, is always to tell the truth, whether people like it or not. It seems, however, that times have changed. Because nowadays, the job of a journalist is to avoid telling the truth, in case it hurts someone’s feelings.Or so I infer from this week’s extraordinary judgment by Ipso, the press watchdog.In an article for The Spectator about Nicola Sturgeon, published in May, the writer Gareth Roberts briefly referred to the time Ms Sturgeon was interviewed by Juno Dawson, a trans woman – or, as Mr Roberts put it, “a man who claims to be a woman”. Dawson complained to Ipso. And this week it decided that The Spectator had 
