The U.S. Treasury Department building is seen in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 19, 2023, following an announcement by the U.S. Treasury that it had begun taking measures Thursday to prevent a default on government debt, as Congress heads towards a high-stakes clash between Democrats and Republicans over raising the borrowing limit. | SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
A U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee is seeking to question a former official in the U.S. Treasury’s financial crimes enforcement office over revelations the agency urged financial institutions to flag customer transactions linked to phrases like “MAGA” and “Trump” as well as purchases of religious texts.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chair of the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, sent a letter Wednesday to Noah Bishoff, the former director of an office in the Treasury’s Strategic Operations Division of Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Requesting a transcribed interview with Bishoff, Jordan stated that the subcommittee obtained documents showing that following the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, FinCEN “distributed materials to financial institutions that, among other things, outline the ‘typologies’ of various persons of interest.” He alleges the agency also “provided financial institutions with suggested search terms and Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) for identifying transactions on behalf of federal law enforcement.”
“These materials included a document recommending the use of generic terms like ‘TRUMP’ and ‘MAGA’ to ‘search Zelle payment messages’ as well as a ‘prior FinCEN analysis’ of ‘Lone Actor/Homegrown Violent Extremism Indicators,’” the letter reads.
“According to this analysis, FinCEN warned financial institutions of ‘extremism’ indicators that include ‘transportation charges, such as bus tickets, rental cars, or plane tickets, for travel to areas with no apparent purpose,’ or ‘the purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views.’“
Jordan claimed that the documents show that “FinCEN urged large financial institutions to comb through the private transactions of their customers for suspicious charges on the basis of protected political and religious expression.”
The findings from the subcommittee suggest federal law enforcement agencies also sought data on transactions at popular sporting goods stores like Bass Pro Shop, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Cabela’s.
“We now know the federal government flagged terms like ‘MAGA’ and ‘TRUMP’ to financial institutions if Americans completed transactions using those terms,” Jordan tweeted. “What was also flagged? If you bought a religious text, like a BIBLE, or shopped at Bass Pro Shop.”
We now know the federal government flagged terms like “MAGA” and “TRUMP,” to financial institutions if Americans completed transactions using those terms.
What was also flagged? If you bought a religious text, like a BIBLE, or shopped at Bass Pro Shop. pic.twitter.com/jjRaVNItWz
One of the sample slides distributed by FinCEN, “prepared by a financial institution,” gave instructions on how to query for transactions like those associated with “small arms,” “sporting and recreational goods and supplies,” and keywords like “Dick’s Sporting Goods,” “Cabela’s” and others, according to the documents.
While Jordan’s letter refers to the Jan. 6 date, a source familiar with the matter told Fox News that the documents linked to House committees’ investigation contained no “specific time frames or limitations for banks searching customer transactions with the terms.” This suggests federal investigators may have expanded their effort to collect data from merchants “beyond” those transactions linked to the Jan. 6 event.
The revelation comes just days after President Joe Biden released the first ad for his 2024 reelection campaign in which he labeled millions of Donald Trump supporters as “extremists” leading up to the third anniversary of the Jan. 6 riot.
The video released Jan. 4 highlights what Biden calls the “preservation of American democracy” as the “central issue” of the 81-year-old’s reelection campaign.
“There’s something dangerous happening in America,” the Democrat says in the ad’s voiceover. “There’s an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs of our democracy. All of us are being asked right now, what will we do to maintain our democracy?”
“The federal government, disinformation ‘experts’ at universities, Big Tech, and others worked together through the Election Integrity Partnership to monitor & censor Americans’ speech,” Rep. Jim Jordan, pictured Oct. 20, posted on X. (Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The federal government coordinated with an array of entities to censor Americans’ speech online, a newly released report from the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government shows. In particular, the report shows that the Department of Homeland Security worked with Stanford University and the Global Engagement Center, which works across agencies but sits under the State Department, to create a streamlined process for identifying and censoring posts.
These groups formed the Election Integrity Partnership, which the report shows worked to censor and limit certain posts going into the 2020 presidential election. The report argues the federal government was “heavy handed” with universities and social media companies and censored conservative viewpoints far more often than liberal points of view under the guise of combating disinformation.
“Created in the summer of 2020 ‘at the request’ of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the EIP provided a way for the federal government to launder its censorship activities in hopes of bypassing both the First Amendment and public scrutiny,” the report said.
The report lays out how EIP analysts searched social media sites for undesirable content.
From the report:
The EIP’s misinformation ‘analysts’ next scoured the internet for additional examples for censorship. If the submitted report flagged a Facebook post, for example, the EIP analysts searched for similar content on Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, and other major social media platforms. Once all of the offending links were compiled, the EIP sent the most significant ones directly to Big Tech with specific recommendations on how the social media platforms should censor the posts, such as reducing the posts’ ‘discoverability,’ ‘suspending [an account’s] ability to continue tweeting for 12 hours,’ ‘monitoring if any of the tagged influencer accounts retweet’ a particular user, and, of course, removing thousands of Americans’ posts.
This report is the latest in a series of reports, including the “Twitter Files,” which show the federal government pressured private and nonprofit organizations to quiet certain viewpoints. Much of this push for censorship was fueled by concerns that former President Donald Trump was propelled to the White House by misleading news and content on social media sites.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sparked headlines last month when he said that Twitter was an “FBI subsidiary” before billionaire Elon Musk took over. Johnson raised concerns again after this latest report.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., pointed to the report as well, pushing for his legislation, the Free Speech Protection Act. Paul said that under this legislation, which he co-wrote with Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the government “will be stripped of its ability to shroud its actions in secrecy and infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the American people.”
This latest report includes documents obtained from Standard that show examples of the censorship and the coordination between federal and private entities.
“The American people deserve to know if they were targeted by their own government and so-called ‘disinformation’ experts,” Jordan, who leads the weaponization committee, wrote on X.
The Department of Justice admitted this week to running secretive DOJ “commandos” at the January 6 protests in Washington DC.
Four Trump supporters died that day including two women who were killed by Capitol Hill Police. A third woman was nearly killed but was rescued by Green Beret Jeremy Brown.
The DOJ Commandos were given “shoot to kill” orders.
Now they’re admitting the government did in fact have commandos at the capitol on Jan. 6. After nearly a year this information is finally coming out.And they accused this website and others of being conspiracy nuts for reporting on the feds in the crowd that day.We will likely never know how many feds were working that day to sabotage the peaceful protests.
On Sunday, January 3, the heads of a half-dozen elite government special operations teams met in Quantico, Virginia, to go over potential threats, contingencies, and plans for the upcoming Joint Session of Congress. The meeting, and the subsequent deployment of these shadowy commandos on January 6, has never before been revealed.
Right after the New Year, Jeffrey A. Rosen, the acting Attorney General on January 6, approved implementation of long-standing contingency plans dealing with the most extreme possibilities: an attack on President Donald Trump or Vice President Mike Pence, a terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction, and a declaration of measures to implement continuity of government, requiring protection and movement of presidential successors.
Rosen made a unilateral decision to take the preparatory steps to deploy Justice Department and so-called “national” forces. There was no formal request from the U.S. Capitol Police, the Secret Service, or the Metropolitan Police Department—in fact, no external request from any agency. The leadership in Justice and the FBI anticipated the worst and decided to act independently, the special operations forces lurking behind the scenes.
“I believe that DOJ [Department of Justice] reasonably prepared for contingencies ahead of January 6, understanding that there was considerable uncertainty as to how many people would arrive, who those people would be, and precisely what purposes they would pursue,” Rosen later told Congress. He stressed that his department “no frontline role with respect to crowd control,” that they were focused on “high-risk” operations.
The contingency units meeting on January 3 included the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, the FBI’s national “Render Safe” team, an FBI SWAT team from the Baltimore Field Office, Special Response Teams from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the U.S. Marshals Service Special Operations Group…
…FBI tactical teams arrived on Capitol Hill early in the day to assist in the collection of evidence at sites—including the Republican and Democrat party national headquarters—where explosive devices were found. FBI SWAT teams and snipers were deployed to secure nearby congressional office buildings. Other FBI agents provided selective security around the U.S. Capitol and protection to congressional members and staff.
A tactical team of the Hostage Rescue Team was one of the first external federal agencies to actually enter the Capitol after protestors breached the building. In addition to augmentation of emergency security assets, one team coordinated with the U.S. Capitol Police and Secret Service to provide additional safeguarding of Vice President Pence, who had been moved to the underground parking structure beneath the Capitol, from where he was supposed to evacuate. But Pence refused to leave the building and stayed underground instead.
The presence of these extraordinary forces under the control of the Attorney General—and mostly operating under contingency plans that Congress and the U.S. Capitol Police were not privy to—added an additional layer of highly armed responders. The role that the military played in this highly classified operation is still unknown, though FBI sources tell Newsweek that military operators seconded to the FBI, and those on alert as part of the National Mission Force, were present in the metropolitan area. The lingering question is: What was it that the Justice Department saw that provoked it to see January 6 as an extraordinary event, something that the other agencies evidently missed.
Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.
Feds tell police to stop “domestic terrorists” providing free security
Police in Ferguson, Missouri, have been pressured by the federal government to stop members of Oath Keepers from guarding local homes and businesses targeted by arsonists.
Oath Keepers, an organization consisting of former and current military, police and first responders, dispatched several members to Ferguson the day after the Grand Jury announcement to provide free security to those in need.
Almost immediately after receiving praise in a local paper for protecting vulnerable residents, Oath Keepers standing watch on top of a locally-owned bakery witnessed a three-man sniper team exiting a silver Suburban on the ground below.
The three men were then seen setting up sniper hides in a nearby building before aiming their rifles directly at the group. Across the street, on top of the fire hall, a seperate sniper team began setting up as well.
A Missouri Oath Keeper named Sam Andrews, who spoke briefly with Infowars, immediately called Unified Command to find out why snipers had taken up an aggressive position against them.
According to Andrews, local police, a large portion of which have been supportive of the Oath Keepers, were completely unaware of the feds movements.
Shortly after, a St. Louis County police officer appeared on scene and began telling Andrews that business owners wanted them off their roofs.
After calling the store owners, Andrews and his team quickly confirmed that no such request was ever made. That is when the officer admitted that his chief was being pressured by the feds to keep Oath Keepers from protecting buildings.
Further reports revealed that the feds had told police earlier that day that Oath Keepers were “domestic terrorists,”an unsurprising claim given the federal government’s baseless targeting of the group.
The owner of a Chinese restaurant receiving free protection was reportedly confronted by federal agents also and told to kick the Oath Keepers out.
Failing to remove the businesses’ and homes’ much needed protection, other officers began telling Andrews that his group was in violation of state law. Police claimed the group needed to posses security licenses, despite the fact that the law only applies to paid security, not volunteers.
“We’re volunteers. We read the statute. We had three attorneys read the statute,”Andrews told Infowars.
Stewart Rhodes, founder and president of Oath Keepers, told Infowars that the American people are being presented with a false choice by those running the show in Ferguson.
“They want to create a false paradigm… They are presenting a false choice between lawlessness, looting, arson, assault, murder on the one side, unrestrained, or a hyper-militarized police state on the other,”Rhodes said. “They are failing to do the intelligent thing and protect businesses without trampling on rights.”
Rhodes’ remarks cause even more concern in light of comments made by Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, who accused President Obama of ordering a National Guard stand down as Ferguson businesses burned to the ground last week.
Ferguson Mayor James Knowles also stated that his request for National Guard help was turned down by Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat ally of the President.
Andrews and the other volunteers, who even spent Thanksgivingpouring water on rooftops in case arsonists and rioters returned, are now shifting tactics in order to continue protecting life, liberty and property in Ferguson.
Watch: November 27 interview with Stewart Rhodes and Sam Andrews on the Oath Keepers experience in Ferguson
We can all recall a time when a black woman named Rosa Parks defied law and won. No need exists to paint the picture. You already know it. You can already see her. Here we see a modern representation as Americans awaken to the insidious growth of our federal Creature. Over the weekend, a fierce standoff between Bundy Ranch militiamen and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) came to an end– For now.
Highlights from the events that took place are finished off with a dramatic conclusion in a Youtube video watermarked by InfoWars. Posted yesterday, the video already has 105k hits. For all intents and purposes, the video has gone viral. However, Facebook is doing its best to stand in the way of people seeing it. Facebook is a private company. They may control content if they please. However, Facebook’s lean to the left becomes more prevalent as the days go on.
If you own a “conservative” Facebook page you know all too well that Facebook has been censoring, charging higher prices for ad space, and decreasing the social reach of your page when compared to more liberal leaning pages for quite some time now.
Facebook users who attempted to share the video were met with an abrupt security pop-up:
Mark Zuckerberg and his team of liberal elitists would rather not have Americans see what it looks like to win for once. Here at BenSwann.com we believe in the free flow of information. Although Facebook won’t allow you to directly share the video, you may still be able to share this inspirational video through this article.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.