Aggregator
See the funniest reactions to ‘unrecognizable’ Tom Cruise in ‘Digger’
See the funniest reactions to ‘unrecognizable’ Tom Cruise in ‘Digger’
Soar above the world with the winners of the International Aerial Photographer of the Year: photos
Child star Daveigh Chase’s final resting place revealed in death certificate
Child star Daveigh Chase’s final resting place revealed in death certificate
Vicki Gunvalson defends ‘quality person’ Tamra Judge amid Shannon Beador feud
Vicki Gunvalson defends ‘quality person’ Tamra Judge amid Shannon Beador feud
Taco Bell probed over possible role in outbreak of ‘explosive diarrhea’ infections across US: report
News anchor and rival meteorologist feud on social media over ‘fake’ tornado photo
Gavin Newsom’s return to work order hits major snag as workers make truly disgusting discovery in offices
De-Banked: It's Only A Matter Of Time Before It Happens To You
"We are writing to inform you that we cannot continue serving you.
As a result of this decision, your account will be closed within 14 days from the date of this letter.
Any remaining account balances will be sent by check to the address we have on file."
Sooner or later, expect your bank to send you a letter like this.
They won't even tell you why they are closing your account, and you will probably have trouble opening accounts at other banks.
De-banking is a disturbing and growing trend.
In short, the ruling elite - parasites, more accurately - have weaponized the banking system to enforce conformity to their preferred narrative.
If you don't lap up their lies about Covid, climate, elections, wars, rising crime, or whatever the media is hyping as the "current thing," expect the financial hammer to come down on you without warning.
You could lose your ability to take payment from your customers and pay your bills at the drop of a hat.
We've seen banks close the accounts of prominent doctors critical of the Covid mass hysteria and politicians opposed to schemes to centralize power on a global level (globalism).
However, for every example of a bank closing a high-profile person's account, hundreds - or thousands - of other ordinary people likely receive the same despicable treatment but are never heard from.
Every day people are losing their ability to interact in the economy because the elite have determined they committed a thought crime.
Interestingly, the banks never canceled the accounts of the warmongers who spread the lies about WMD in Iraq or the liars that led to the toppling of the Ghadafi government in Libya and the liars that fueled the Syrian conflict.
All of their bank accounts are in good standing, even though they contributed to the unnecessary deaths of countless innocents.
Nor did the banks close the accounts of those who, for years, peddled the Russiagate lies that tore the country apart or those who claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story was phony when it was, in fact, real and probably affected the outcome of an election.
All of their bank accounts are in good standing too.
The banks also did not close Jeffrey Epstein's accounts, even though they were likely aware of what he was up to.
These are just a few examples of the blatant double standard.
If you are skeptical about whether men can get pregnant or if cow farts will destroy the planet, you should expect very different treatment than Jeffrey Epstein or people whose lies align with the military-industrial complex.
De-banking is another example of how formerly free societies are rapidly descending into high-tech totalitarianism.
It's only prudent to expect de-banking to worsen as governments fall deeper into bankruptcy and become more desperate to maintain control. Controlling the narrative - partly by de-banking anyone with opposing views - is crucial for them to try to hold on to their power.
Today you can be de-banked for having the wrong opinion. Tomorrow you could be de-banked for even more trivial reasons.
For example, even if you loyally follow whatever the TV tells you to think, the banks may notice you are purchasing "too much" meat or gas and are therefore exceeding your monthly carbon allowance. In the name of saving the planet and maintaining their ESG scores, they'll close your account.
Think that's far-fetched?
Consider that already, today, Bank of America shares all gun purchases from its clients with the FBI. It would be naive to assume they and other banks don't automatically share additional data.
Or that PayPal recently floated the idea of charging people $2,500 for promoting so-called "misinformation" - a vague propaganda term that really means "information the people in charge don't want you to know because they're afraid you will come to a conclusion they don't like."
It's not hard to see where the de-banking train is going.
We're only a few stops away from a full-blown social credit system.
There Is No Free Market in Money and BankingMoney is simply supposed to be something useful for storing and exchanging value.
Banks are simply supposed to be money warehouses.
However, that is not how it works today.
Governments have perverted money and banking into tools to control the population.
An unconvincing argument you may hear is that banks are private companies exercising discretion on their clients. They are within their right to de-bank whoever they want.
They say it is no different from a baker having the right to refuse to bake a cake for someone they don't like.
You could make that argument if only there was a totally free market in money and banking... but there isn't. Not even close.
Here's a more accurate analogy.
Imagine a situation where the only bread available on the market is government bread, and the only way you could obtain such bread is through government-approved bakeries. Independent bakeries would not exist.
The government could then exert overt and subtle pressure on the bakeries to ensure they aligned with their preferred narrative by removing their permission to operate or threatening to. They could also impose fines, start invasive investigations, or add more regulations.
There would be no shortage of ways a bureaucrat could find to make things unpleasant for the bakeries.
The bakeries' owners know such a dynamic exists, so they enthusiastically fall in line with the "current thing" to avoid problems.
Then, suppose it became known to the bakery that one of their customers had committed a thought crime. They wouldn't hesitate to throw him to the curb, even if he had been a loyal customer for many years. It simply wouldn't be worth the potential problems. Word would spread to other bakeries that he was trouble, and they'd avoid his business too.
Since the only bread on the market is government bread, which is only available from government-licensed bakeries, he would be unable to obtain bread.
A similar situation exists today in money and banking.
In Marx's Communist Manifesto, the 5th plank calls for the "centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."
That perfectly describes fiat currency and the Federal Reserve, which oversees the banking system.
The free market wouldn't choose easy-to-produce government confetti as money without laws forcing their use.
Here's another way to think of it.
Imagine if Tony Soprano forced his neighborhood to use pieces of paper with his signature as money and threatened violence against anyone who disobeyed. That's what governments are doing with their currencies today.
It's a far cry from when people used gold - a politically neutral, hard-to-produce asset voluntarily chosen on the market - as money.
That's why the notion of a free market in money is laughable.
We don't have free market money; we have communist money forced upon us with violence and threats of violence. Further, for most practical purposes, the banking system is needed to use this lousy "money."
Similarly, modern banks are not creatures of the free market like the independent money warehouses of the past. Today banks exist at the pleasure and service of the state - and obtain special privileges as a result.
Perhaps the most obvious observation is that there would be zero government bailouts in a free market and certainly no such thing as "too big to fail" banks. Incidentally, it's no coincidence that the most egregious de-bankers are the "too big to fail" banks.
Further, modern banks resemble government-sanctioned Ponzi Schemes, as they rely on the false belief that depositors' (fake) money is readily available when, in fact, it isn't because of fractional reserve banking. If only a tiny portion of depositors demanded their money back, most banks would be in big trouble.
Governments allow banks to commit this fraud that would be illegal in any other industry.
For example, imagine a fractional reserve car dealership or jewelry store where the car salesman and jewelry store owner could create 10x more claims for cars and pieces of jewelry than what actually exists in their inventories. They would be selling claims for goods that don't exist.
Not only would such a practice be fraudulent, but it would also not be sustainable.
If even a few people who purchased fractional reserve claims on the nonexistent cars and jewelry asked for delivery, it would blow the whole scam up.
The government and the banks understand this dangerous dynamic, which is one reason they created the so-called "lender of last resort," the Federal Reserve. When the banks get in trouble, the Fed can create new currency units out of thin air to bail them out.
Let me translate it into plain English.
A "lender of last resort" means legalized counterfeiting of the currency to backstop a legalized Ponzi Scheme.
Such blatant fraud would have no place in a free market for money and banking. However, because it is institutionalized and has the government's blessing, most people thoughtlessly accept the situation as normal.
In a truly free market for money, people would voluntarily choose whatever was most suitable for storing and exchanging value. Historically, that meant gold because it was the one physical commodity that was hardest to produce and most resistant to debasement. Tomorrow it might be Bitcoin.
In a truly free market, banks would cease to be government-sanctioned Ponzi Schemes and revert to their historical role as independent money warehouses. Further, anyone could enter the banking business in a free market; you wouldn't need the approval of the Federal Reserve cartel, as banks do today.
That's why the argument that de-banking is simply private companies rightfully exercising discretion is disingenuous.
The SolutionThe ideal solution is to get the government entirely out of banking and money and have a totally free market. But that's probably not going to happen anytime soon.
So what can you do about de-banking?
First, don't expect to use physical cash as a solution for long.
The elites have long had nefarious plans to eliminate cash. Today they're
Tyler Durden Tue, 07/14/2026 - 15:05Subaru recalls over half a million units of their most popular models — what that may mean for your car
Applications to volunteer for the 2028 Summer Olympics in LA open Tuesday
NYC streetwear kings ignite fashion Subway Series battle with competing baseball collections
Billionaire Ken Griffin Has Spent $40 Million To Keep The Senate Red, But Snubs Trump's Favorite Texan
Ken Griffin has put roughly $40 million into Republican midterm efforts this year and could double that by November, according to the Wall Street Journal. The money runs through nearly every competitive Senate race in the country - except for one... Ken Paxton's run for a seat in Texas, which won't see a dime of it.
According to the report, the Citadel founder has no plans to help the Texas Republican nominee - the candidate President Trump pushed onto the ballot by helping end John Cornyn's Senate career. The Journal notes that donors rarely broadcast who they're refusing to fund. When one does - a day before super PACs file their quarterly reports, and eight days before Senate Majority Leader John Thune headlines a Washington fundraiser for Paxton - it's fair to assume other donors are meant to hear it.
The refusal lands in the middle of an argument Republicans have been having since late May, sometimes privately and increasingly on the record: who pays for the candidates Trump forced on the party? The president's own political action committee, MAGA Inc., was sitting on roughly $382 million as of last month, the Boston Globe reported, and hasn't said what the money is for. Cornyn, asked about funding the man who beat him, told Semafor: "I think he can spend his money."
Where Ken Is SpendingGriffin's biggest check this cycle, $10 million, went to the Senate Leadership Fund, the super PAC aligned with Thune, according to the Journal. He gave $2.5 million apiece to groups backing Sen. Dan Sullivan in Alaska and Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, and $1.5 million to one supporting Rep. Ashley Hinson in Iowa's open-seat race. The Cook Political Report rates Alaska and Maine as tossups, while Iowa leans Republican - a state Trump carried by double digits in 2024. On the House side, he gave $5 million in May to the Congressional Leadership Fund and $5.5 million split between two other groups, including one that backs veterans running as Republicans. "I am able to fully fund these races because of his steady investment cycle over cycle," said Chris Winkelman, the Congressional Leadership Fund's president.
The people familiar with his giving told the Journal that Griffin is focused on the Senate because six-year terms give his money the longest reach into the party's future after Trump, whose term ends in January 2029. A senator elected this fall serves until January 2033. Whoever wins the White House in 2028 will be confirmed, funded and investigated by the class Griffin is paying to elect right now.
He has already said which 2028 candidate he'd rather see. At the Allen & Company conference in Sun Valley on July 8, interviewer Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Griffin to pick between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance in a hypothetical primary. Griffin said he'd be "predisposed" toward Rubio, whose 2016 campaign he backed with $5 million to a supporting super PAC, Axios reported. (The Journal notes the question offered only those two names.) According to Revenge, Axios reporter Alex Isenstadt's book on the 2024 campaign, Griffin urged Trump not to put Vance on the ticket at all. Vance has said he'll decide on a presidential run after the midterms.
Griffin's distance from Trump goes back years. Worth an estimated $50 billion-plus, he was the country's fifth-biggest political donor in 2024, giving $108 million by OpenSecrets' count - about 37 percent of what top donor Elon Musk spent that cycle - and none of it went to Trump, whose campaigns he has never funded. He spent $5 million that cycle keeping Nikki Haley's primary bid alive. He voted for Trump - "not with a smile on my face," he said afterward - gave $1 million to the inaugural committee, and has since praised the administration's border enforcement while criticizing its tariffs and its pressure on the Federal Reserve. If his giving doubles as projected, Griffin would join the cycle's top tier of donors, which a New York Times analysis this spring put at Andreessen Horowitz ($115.5 million), George Soros ($102.9 million) and Elon Musk ($85 million).
Then There's TexasPaxton, the state attorney general, launched his challenge in April 2025, and Senate Republican leadership spent heavily to stop him. Cornyn and his allies put more than $90 million into the primary, according to the Texas Tribune, including $11 million from One Nation, the nonprofit arm of Thune's political operation; pro-Cornyn groups outspent Paxton's side by roughly nine to one. Cornyn finished a point ahead in the March 3 first round but short of a majority. A week before the runoff, Trump endorsed Paxton, calling him "a true MAGA warrior." Cornyn became the first Republican senator in Texas history to lose his party's nomination, in a spring when Trump-backed challengers also took out Sen. Bill Cassidy in Louisiana and Rep. Thomas Massie in Kentucky.
Democratic nominee James Talarico, an Austin state representative, had raised more than $40 million through his primary and took in $600,000 in the two hours after Paxton won, his campaign said. Paxton had raised $7.6 million and had $2.3 million left as of early May, per FEC records cited by NBC News. Republican operatives told the network that holding the state, with its roughly 20 media markets, could cost outside groups $100 million. Meanwhile, anti-Paxton Republicans handed Democrats their script: a 2023 impeachment on corruption charges by the Republican-led Texas House (the state Senate acquitted him) and years of legal and ethics controversies besides.
That history, the people familiar with Griffin's giving told the Journal, is why he's staying out.
The $10 million questionThere's a catch to Griffin's ghosting of Paxton - The Senate Leadership Fund hasn't ruled Texas out. If the group goes in this fall, Griffin's $10 million goes in with it; money doesn't stay in labeled jars. So either "no plans to help Paxton" has some give in it, or the leadership PAC's most prominent donor has effectively told it where not to spend. Neither Griffin's office nor Latcham has answered that question on the record.
The backdrop: Republicans hold the Senate 53-47, Democrats need to net four seats, and Griffin's side of the ledger has strengthened without him lifting a finger. In Maine, Democrat Graham Platner - who won the June 9 primary with about 70 percent of the vote - formally quit the race July 10 over a sexual assault allegation he denies, leaving the party to pick a replacement at a 601-delegate convention on July 25, two days ahead of the ballot deadline. Collins, backed by Griffin's $2.5 million and $42 million in SLF reservations, currently has no opponent at all.
The quarterly filings land Wednesday, and the Paxton fundraiser is a week later.
Tyler Durden Tue, 07/14/2026 - 14:45Sheriff Says Somali Youth Gangs Are Running Wild In Minneapolis
Authored by Joe Schaeffer via Liberty Nation,
A Minneapolis sheriff has triggered an uncomfortable conversation by saying out loud what you are not supposed to talk about in Minnesota. "Out of control" gangs of Somali youths are terrorizing the city, and the mayhem is poised to get worse.
(Photo by Christopher Mark Juhn/Anadolu via Getty Images)Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher released a livestream video on July 6 decrying widespread violence by Somali gang members over the Fourth of July weekend. He also took the opportunity to criticize media outlets in the Twin Cities and the state for refusing to cover the problem.
Fletcher "stated that the Somali gangs are responsible for at least 14 murders in the last two years as well as over 100 shootings - many of them at high-profile events like graduations and the State Fair. Fletcher also said in his promo video that he heard from a Minneapolis police officer who said that 20 percent of their homicides are now Somalis," local news site Alpha News reports.
The situation is blowing up right in front of the public eye.
'It's All About Ego for 99% of It'"Investigators say Somali gang violence is growing quickly and now spans the metro [area], with 12 Somali gangs tracked from Minneapolis and St. Paul to St. Cloud, Apple Valley and Burnsville. Most of the violence involves guns, according to the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office," Fox-9 TV in Minneapolis reports. "Authorities say the gangs are still young and growing, with about 300 people involved right now."
Ramsey County Deputy Ben Seidel said the Somali youth gangs don't operate like traditional inner-city gangs in the sense of being motivated by money. "From what I've seen... it's all about showboating. It's all about ego for 99% of it. They aren't selling narcotics. It's all about just gloating," Seidel states in the video.
There's a history to Somali gang violence in Minneapolis that explains the seeming novelty of these officers' remarks. In blue-dominated Minnesota, criticizing the Somali community in any way is immediately defined as racist. The "R card" has been so weaponized in the state that health-care fraud was allowed to flourish for years, which may have cost American taxpayers up to $9 billion.
There is nothing new about Somali gangs in Minnesota. They have been identified as a growing problem for 20 years or more. And it has never sounded like child's play. Every few years, the issue is ventilated, only to recede amid de rigueur pressure from "anti-racist" organizations and personalities.
The City of Minneapolis commissioned a study in 2007 after a series of robberies by Somali teens in 2005. As Minnesota Public Radio detailed at the time:
"The report's author, consultant Shukri Adan, presented her findings to members of the city council.
"Adan says at first it was thought the Somali youth were involved in loosely organized groups of 'troublemakers.' However, Adan says as these young people ended up in jail, they met established gang members and learned from them how to organize.
"'They're very sophisticated and they've adapted some of that into the Somali gang structure. But for the Somali gangs that I've identified, they were specifically Somalis and all their membership were Somalis, even though they had associations with other gangs.'"
Yet leftist MPR made sure to point out that "[t]he report says gang activity is relatively small. Statistics from the Minnesota Gang Strike Force identifies 52 Somali gang members - less than one percent of all known gang members in Minnesota."
Three years later, the Somali youth had moved on to serious organized criminal activity.
Somali Gangs Trafficking African American GirlsA "federal indictment unsealed in November [2010] in Tennessee charges 29 people with crimes from sex trafficking to credit card fraud to witness intimidation. It said the accused were members or associates of three Somali gangs - often acting as one larger gang - bent on forcing girls into prostitution for their own profit," the Associated Press reported in 2011. The gangs were trafficking girls from Minneapolis to Nashville and Columbus, Ohio - three cities with significant Somali populations.
The article featured a harrowing account of the brutalization of a 12-year-old girl. And there was a further revelation that the professional "anti-racists" would rather you not hear about.
"The indictment details several instances in which young Somali or African American girls were taken from place to place and forced to engage in sex acts with multiple people. One girl was under 13 when she was first prostituted. Another girl was 18 when she was raped by multiple men in a hotel room," the AP reported in November 2010.
Whereas much of the violence perpetrated by Somali youth gangs is targeted at their fellow East African immigrant communities, underage native-born American black girls were among those being sexually exploited by this ring, as well. Where was the outrage from the Congressional Black Caucus?
Just as with MPR, the AP seemed to downplay the number of Somali gang members in 2011. "There are seven Somali gangs in Minneapolis, and a total of about 200 documented Somali gang members and associates, [Minneapolis police officer and Somali community liaison Jeanine Brudenell] said - about 10 percent of the roughly 2,100 documented active gang members in the Minneapolis Police Department's system. The gang members are a small fraction of the Somali population," the AP stressed.
Fast forward to 2026 and we're up to 300 gang members (and who knows how many more yet to be identified?). Even Sheriff Fletcher, while calling out the problem nobody wants to talk about, treads carefully.
"Fletcher was careful not to castigate the entire Somali community or even all of their youth in his comments," Alpha News noted of the livestream video. "Rather, he said that the violence is stemming from a small number of misguided, mostly male youth, which he later clarified is about 300 young people participating in about 12 gangs across the metro [area] and Minnesota."
There's one final element we should emphasize. As Somalis moved en masse to states like Minnesota, they retained their fiercely held tribal identities.
"[C]lan rivalry is often the most important reason for gang violence" within the Somali community, Viktor Marsai at the Center for Immigration Studies wrote in March. "Clan violence is fueled not only in the offline space. More and more Somali TikTokers and Youtubers are using online platforms to glorify their own clan tradition and savage rival groups. In many cases, tens of thousands of people are following these accounts and add hundreds of comments. The inflammatory effects spill over from the online... these influencers utilize their clout to support violence in their country of residence and in Somalia."
Americans may not be able to comprehend the meaning behind what Deputy Seidel refers to as "showboating" among Somali gang members. How much of this comes from lingering clan identification dating back to the old country? How much is fueled by a foreign culture wholly incompatible with the American way of life?
Tyler Durden Tue, 07/14/2026 - 14:25