I’ve written about JP Morgan Chase’s far-left bias many times, going as far back as 2015. JP Morgan Chase along with Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo are the most radically leftist banks. Chase might be the worst of all. Whereas the others focus on giving money to left-wing causes, Chase actually forces their secular leftist views onto employees and customers.

Before we see the good news, here is something I blogged about WAY BACK in 2015:

A document provided to Breitbart News shows the investment banking behemoth JP Morgan Chase has joined a long line of major corporations in putting pressure on employees to sign up for the cause of gay rights. And they have not-so-subtly let each employee know not signing up will be noted.

Employees are being told “to help create an environment for open and honest dialogue.” The document notes descriptors such as “wife” and “boyfriend” are frowned upon, and “partner” is preferred. Not referring to your wife as your wife “offers up the opportunity for more inclusive conversations.”

Imagine me working for a company like that! As a Christian, and a conservative, I would never survive a month working for this corporation. Not even with an alias, because they are actively hunting down dissenters using loyalty tests. But JP Morgan Chase doesn’t just target employees who dissent from secular leftist ideology. They are also known for de-banking Christians and conservatives.

Here’s a report posted on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) web site:

JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank, has proven to be one of the worst offenders. In 2022, JPMorgan Chase closed the bank account of the nonprofit, National Committee for Religious Freedom, founded by former U.S. Ambassador Sam Brownback. Chase refused to provide a clear explanation for why the account had been closed in the first place, and insisted that it would only consider re-opening the account if the nonprofit agreed to disclose confidential donor information and detailed information about its pollical activities. Over the course of the next year, Chase offered no fewer than five increasingly untenable and contradictory explanations for why it canceled the account—including a false claim from Chase’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, at the annual shareholders meeting that NCRF’s representatives had simply failed to “fill out all the forms.”

And that’s not all, there’s more:

Chase’s payment processing subsidiary, WePay, has also denied service to religious and center-right nonprofits on multiple occasions. In 2021, WePay denied payment processing services to an organization called Defense of Liberty for an event featuring Donald Trump Jr. … That same year, WePay denied service to the Arkansas Family Council for being “high risk,” presumably for their advocacy that focuses on family values.

There’s more discrimination, but the important thing is that now you know how to receive the good news that came out on Wednesday, reported by Daily Wire: (archived)

Luckily, some of the most influential names in both the conservative legal, financial, and government worlds stepped up to the plate. Pressure for increased transparency and commitments to ditch any policies that could lead to a client being debanked for political reasons has come from all directions, from legal giants like Alliance Defending Freedom to notable financial professionals to state financial officers and attorneys general. As that public pressure mounted, shareholder pressure has been growing from the inside for the past three years, spurred on by organizations like the firm I work for, Bowyer Research, with Chase investors like financial advisor David Bahnsen spending literal years urging the company to clarify its approach to debanking — and fix its spotty track record on political neutrality.

And Chase listened.

In 2023, JPMorgan made the decision to axe its “social risk” policy from its payment processing arm, no longer allowing vague terms like “intolerance” and “hate” to determine whether a customer was fit to continue doing business at Chase. But the biggest win so far came several days ago, when Chase agreed to a policy change explicitly protecting customers and employees from discrimination based on religious or political views.

[…]Shareholders like Bahnsen, and groups like ADF & Bowyer Research, have been engaging with Chase for years to get this change. Make no mistake: Chase’s willingness to protect against future political/religious debanking is the result of real shareholders using real influence to create real change.

This is very good news for me. I have some money invested with JP Morgan, and I was worried about what might happen if they found out that I don’t believe the same things they do, maybe from spying on my Chase account. I was already in good shape, because I live in a red state that opposes de-banking. But now I am really in good shape to leave the money there. So this is really good news for me personally. I hate moving things around!

By the way, I already switched out my Zelle and my credit card purchases out of Chase to smaller banks. Not willing to take any chances with big leftist banks that would label me bad names based on my donations and purchases.

Many people think that policy disagreements are like clothing style disagreements: there’s no right answer, it’s all personal preferences. Lazy people love this view, because it allows them to not have to read anything. I try to read 1 or 2 books on every policy topic, and that’s because I want to be able to persuade people to cote for the policies that I support. One of those areas is gun rights.

And there’s a new study from the Crime Prevention Research Center about gun policy, and it was written up in The Federalist.

It says:

In non-gun-free zones, where civilians are legally able to carry guns, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police, CPRC found in a deep dive into active shooter scenarios between 2014 and 2023.

Not only do permit holders succeed in stopping active shooters at a higher rate, but law enforcement officers face significantly greater risks when intervening. Our research found police were nearly six times more likely to be killed and 17 percent more likely to be wounded than armed civilians.

The article has a lot more interesting findings, for example, of the 180 total instances where an armed civilian stopped an active shooting, only one permit holders accidentally shot a bystander. But in the 156 cases stopped by law enforcement, police accidentally shot the wrong person in four cases, killing fellow officers twice and civilians twice.

And:

27 police were shot and killed while trying to stop an active shooter, a 7.7 percent rate, which is nearly six times higher than the rate for permit holders.

One hundred police were wounded, a 28.6 percent rate, compared to 24.4 percent for permit holders.

You might find this surprising, but in many of these big city police forces, they have a DEI appointee in charge, and all the hiring is governed by DEI. So, a lot of the time, it’s just people like the Secret Service agent who hid behind Trump when he was being shot at, or the one who couldn’t even re-holster her weapon without looking.

Anyway, let’s head over to the Daily Signal, and hear the latest defensive gun usages from Amy Swearer, who busies herself with these sorts of things.

She writes:

• Jan. 4, North Charleston, South Carolina: When a man saw his neighbor dragging a woman by her hair through the front yard of a nearby home, he called 911, then grabbed his handgun before successfully intervening to protect the woman without having to fire a shot. Police arrived and arrested the neighbor, who was “visibly intoxicated” and smelled of alcohol. He was charged with first-degree domestic violence.
• Jan. 9, Clarion, Pennsylvania: After a woman and her husband discovered a serial stalker had come to their home and parked in their driveway, one of the woman’s employees responded to their call for help and detained the stalker at gunpoint until police arrived. Police arrested the stalker, who they described as engaging in “an escalating pattern of concerning behavior” over the last two years. He’d been released on bail just 17 days earlier after a different stalking incident involving the same victims.
• Jan. 11, Brooklyn, New York: A concealed carry permit holder fatally shot a man who tried to rob him at knifepoint in a park. The robber allegedly put the victim in a chokehold and held a knife to his neck while demanding all of his money, but the permit holder drew his gun and shot his assailant. Police said the permit holder is unlikely to face criminal charges.
• Jan. 15, San Antonio, Texas: When an apartment complex manager and two maintenance workers confronted a suspicious man who’d been peering into residents’ vehicles, the man “became hostile” and physically assaulted them. A resident then tried to intervene, but the man pulled out a knife and a taser. The resident responded by drawing a handgun, causing the man to flee. The resident chased him in a “brief pursuit” before the man turned around and “postur[ed] like he was about to stab or attack the resident,” at which point the resident shot and wounded him.
• Jan. 26, Kansas City, Missouri: A knife-wielding man entered a convenience store, jumped over the counter, and tried to stab the manager. The manager, however, drew a gun and shot the attacker, wounding him. A bystander in the store was also armed and “stood guard” over several customers (including an 8-year-old) who barricaded themselves in a back room during the assault. The injured suspect was charged with first-degree assault and armed criminal action. The 8-year-old’s father, meanwhile, told reporters that he believed the armed intervention saved their lives.

I think it’s important for every American to be able to explain both the studies AND the examples of defensive gun usage by concealed carry permit holders to people who don’t understand why lab-abiding people should be allowed to own guns. It’s not enough to have your one vote, you have the duty to convince other people to vote for the right policies.