Banks empowered with censorship tools by the Feds to control your money
Federal agencies have provided banks with automated censorship tools to identify potential domestic terrorists among Americans who purchase Bibles or support immigration law enforcement, according to testimony presented before a House committee today.
In his written testimony, Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at the nonprofit First Amendment law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), stated that “Federal agencies are funding tools for the financial sector similar to those social media is using to target misinformation and hate speech. Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg.”
Tedesco’s testimony also revealed that federal regulators are pressuring financial institutions to discriminate against customers based on their religious and political beliefs. This indirect discrimination would be unconstitutional if carried out directly by the federal government. In fact, 16 state attorneys general recently called on Wells Fargo to cease using “debanking” as a political tool to advance the Biden Administration’s policies throughout the economy.
According to a letter from the attorneys general, Wells Fargo has implemented discriminatory practices by imposing race and sex-based quotas in credit agreements with customers like BlackRock. The bank, along with others, is working to limit customers’ access to affordable energy sources and increase their grocery bills in order to align with the economic central-planning goals of the Democratic Party.
In essence, the same government pressure that is creating an “Iron Curtain” around the Internet is now constructing a financial social credit system within the United States, similar to that of Communist China. The FBI has provided financial institutions with a document listing “indicators of domestic violent extremism” that banks should monitor in customer purchases, including objections to firearm legislation, easing of immigration restrictions, and Covid-19 lockdowns.
Prior hearings have revealed that Treasury Department officials instructed financial institutions to flag law-abiding Americans as potential domestic terrorists if they purchased religious texts like the Bible, supported former President Donald Trump, or shopped at sporting goods stores.
Furthermore, major banks have participated in meetings concerning misinformation and disinformation organized by the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee. JPMorgan Chase, for example, attended a meeting where CISA identified “financial services” as ”critical infrastructure” at risk due to the spread of false and misleading information.
CISA, a Department of Homeland Security agency, has designated Americans’ “thoughts, ideas, and beliefs” as “critical infrastructure” to justify censoring online speech about elections. It defines “malinformation” as true information that federal employees believe should be accompanied by government talking points.
During the 2020 election cycle, CISA acted as a “switchboard” pressuring social media companies to silence individuals expressing views disliked by the Democratic Party. This behavior is the subject of the constitutional lawsuit Murthy v. Missouri, currently before the Supreme Court.
Tedesco’s testimony reveals that the unconstitutional social media censorship apparatus is now being applied to financial transactions. CISA has expressed its commitment to a “whole-of-government approach” in implementing its communist social credit initiatives. The cancellation or seizure of Americans’ bank accounts, similar to what occurred in Canada with donors to the trucker protest in 2022, poses an even greater threat to American liberties than the cancellation or secret muting of Facebook and Twitter accounts.
“We don’t know the extent to which AI is currently being used to make these decisions, but we know that Congress is funding projects and providing AI tools to banks,” Tedesco stated during a press conference. “The problem of censorship at scale that we see in the context of social media also exists in the financial context.”
Tedesco’s testimony provides numerous examples of banks closing accounts of Christian charities without sufficient explanation. For instance, Bank of America terminated the account of Indigenous Advance Ministries, a Tennessee-based charity that supports orphans, prisoners, and sex trafficking victims in Uganda. The bank also closed the account of an organization that donated to Indigenous Advance Ministries.
According to Tedesco, Indigenous Advance Ministries had to inform its nine Ugandan employees that they would have to wait an extra week to receive their paychecks, which they rely on for survival. In Uganda, where many people live meal to meal, waiting an additional week for a paycheck can mean the difference between eating and going hungry.
When asked for an explanation, the bank simply stated that the charity operates in a business type that Bank of America chooses not to serve. Chase Bank similarly closed the account of the National Committee for Religious Freedom, a charity founded by former U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, and demanded that the charity disclose a list of donors who contributed 10 percent or more of its operating budget, as well as the criteria used to determine political support.
Tedesco also revealed that since 2019, 13 ADF donors have reported that their banks, including Fidelity Charitable, the largest grantmaker from donor-advised funds, have either banned or delayed donations to ADF. Impact Assets, Fidelity Charitable, the Chicago Community Foundation, and the Community Foundation of Greater Memphis have all refused to allow Americans to send their own money to ADF due to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s designation of Christian charities, including ADF, as “hate groups.”
Despite the fact that ADF has won 15 cases at the U.S. Supreme Court in the past 30 years, the Southern Poverty Law Center is an actual hate group and a financial scam machine that consistently expresses bigoted animus and relentless persecution against Christians. Its “hate group” designation inspired a gunman to attack the Family Research Council’s offices in 2012.
Treasury officials have also shared reports from the Anti-Defamation League and Institute for Strategic Dialogue with banks, falsely labeling Christian charities as “hate groups” and symbols like the Celtic cross as “hate symbols,” according to a report published by the weaponization committee.
ADF’s 2023 Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index revealed that over half of large financial companies have policies that allow them to deny service based on customers’ religious or political beliefs. These policies, often referred to as “reputational risk” policies, frequently include provisions against “hate speech” that were added to international treaties by Soviet Communists after World War II. Banks’ “reputational risk” policies also serve as a pretext for punishing clients who have been defamed by media smear campaigns, even if the smears are fabricated.
Tedesco warned that these policies can be easily weaponized by third-party activists. He cited instances in the payment processing space where activists pressure payment processors to deny service to individuals based on their speech. “Reputational risk” policies essentially allow activists to dictate how banks enforce their own policies.
JPMorgan Chase closed the account of the Arkansas Family Council due to its conservative views, while Wells Fargo refused to process payments to The Ruth Institute, a Christian charity, falsely claiming that it is affiliated with hate, violence, harassment, and abuse. PayPal is notorious for denying service to Christians and conservatives.
Tedesco emphasized that there is an opportunity to address this issue before it becomes as pervasive as social media censorship. Opposition to discrimination in banking is a bipartisan concern, and the implementation of social credit scoring tools in financial data is still in its early stages.
rnrn
What examples of indirect discrimination in the financial sector were highlighted in Jeremy Tedesco’s testimony?
Federal Agencies Enabling Censorship and Discrimination in Financial Sector, Testimony Reveals
In a recent House committee hearing, it was revealed that federal agencies are providing banks with automated tools to identify potential domestic terrorists among Americans who purchase Bibles or support immigration law enforcement. This alarming revelation was brought forth by Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at the nonprofit First Amendment law firm, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), during his written testimony. Tedesco stated that similar to the social media platforms’ efforts to target misinformation and hate speech, federal agencies are funding tools for the financial sector. However, he emphasized that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Tedesco’s testimony also exposed the pressure being exerted by federal regulators on financial institutions to discriminate against customers based on their religious and political beliefs. While such indirect discrimination would be unconstitutional if carried out directly by the federal government, it is nonetheless occurring through financial institutions. Sixteen state attorneys general have recently denounced Wells Fargo’s use of “debanking” as a political tool to advance the Biden Administration’s policies throughout the economy.
The attorneys general’s letter highlighted Wells Fargo’s discriminatory practices, such as imposing race and sex-based quotas in credit agreements with customers like BlackRock. The bank, along with others, is actively working to limit customers’ access to affordable energy sources and increase their grocery bills, all in alignment with the economic central-planning goals of the Democratic Party.
The implications of these revelations are grave. They indicate that the same government pressure responsible for the “Iron Curtain” around the Internet is now constructing a financial social credit system within the United States, resembling that of Communist China. The FBI has supplied financial institutions with a document listing indicators of domestic violent extremism to monitor in customer purchases, including objections to firearm legislation, easing of immigration restrictions, and COVID-19 lockdowns.
Past hearings have exposed the Treasury Department’s instruction to financial institutions to flag law-abiding Americans as potential domestic terrorists if they purchased religious texts like the Bible, supported former President Donald Trump, or shopped at sporting goods stores.
In addition, major banks have participated in meetings organized by the CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) to address misinformation and disinformation concerns. CISA designated “financial services” as critical infrastructure at risk due to the spread of false and misleading information. CISA, a Department of Homeland Security agency, has even labeled Americans’ “thoughts, ideas, and beliefs” as critical infrastructure to justify online speech censorship about elections. It defines “malinformation” as true information that federal employees believe should be accompanied by government talking points.
During the 2020 election cycle, CISA acted as a “switchboard” pressuring social media companies to silence individuals expressing views disliked by the Democratic Party. This behavior is now the subject of the constitutional lawsuit Murthy v. Missouri, currently before the Supreme Court.
Tedesco’s testimony underscores that the unconstitutional social media censorship apparatus is now being applied to financial transactions. CISA’s commitment to a ”whole-of-government approach” in implementing its communist social credit initiatives poses an even greater threat to American liberties. The cancellation or seizure of Americans’ bank accounts, similar to what occurred in Canada with donors to the trucker protest in 2022, is a more significant threat than the cancellation or secret muting of Facebook and Twitter accounts.
“We don’t know the extent to which AI is currently being used to make these decisions, but we know that Congress is funding projects and providing AI tools to banks,” Tedesco emphasized during a press conference. “The problem of censorship at scale that we see in the context of social media also exists in the financial context.”
Tedesco’s testimony provides concrete examples of banks closing accounts of Christian charities without proper explanation. Bank of America terminated the account of Indigenous Advance Ministries, a Tennessee-based charity supporting orphans, prisoners, and sex trafficking victims in Uganda. The bank also closed the account of an organization that donated to Indigenous Advance Ministries.
Tedesco revealed that Indigenous Advance Ministries had to inform its nine Ugandan employees that they would have to wait an extra week to receive their paychecks, which they rely on for survival. In Uganda, where many people live meal to meal, waiting an additional week for a paycheck can mean the difference between eating and going hungry.
When asked for an explanation, Bank of America simply stated that the charity operates in a business type that it chooses not to serve. Chase Bank similarly closed the account of the National Committee for Religious Freedom, a charity founded by former U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, and demanded the disclosure of a list of donors who contributed 10 percent or more of its operating budget, as well as the criteria used to determine political support.
Tedesco also highlighted that since 2019, 13 ADF donors have reported that their banks, including Fidelity Charitable, Impact Assets, the Chicago Community Foundation, and the Community Foundation of Greater Memphis, have either banned or delayed donations to ADF. These actions were taken due to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s designation of Christian charities, including ADF, as ”hate groups.”
Despite ADF’s success in winning 15 cases at the U.S. Supreme Court in the past 30 years, the Southern Poverty Law Center continues to label it as a hate group, a designation that inspired a gunman to attack the Family Research Council’s offices in 2012.
These revelations emphasize the need for urgent action to address censorship and discrimination in the financial sector. American liberties and principles of free speech and expression must be safeguarded, ensuring that financial institutions do not infringe upon individuals’ rights based on their beliefs or affiliations. The role of federal agencies and their influence over the financial system must be thoroughly examined to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
