Daily Archives: May 10, 2013

Gun Control, Politics

Square Inc. Joins Anti-Gun Hysteria Crowd

2 Comments

Effective March 10, 2013, Square Inc., the convenient portable credit card processor, has aligned itself with the gun control hysteria squarecrowd, expanding their exclusions for use to not just firearms not made in person, but also to ammunition and anything to do with firearms made in person or by any other means. It amounts to a 100% prohibition of anything related to, and including, firearms.

Square Inc. sent notice of their new Merchant Agreement to current subscribers today, with the proviso that by continuing to use their service, you agree to the terms of the new Merchant Agreement.

The updated agreement will take effect on June 9, 2013. If you continue to use our services after June 9, 2013, you agree to the terms of the new agreement. You will be able to access the previous version of the agreement for the next thirty days.

The details are found in Section 6 of their new Merchant Agreement . . .

By creating a Square Account, you also confirm that you will not accept payments in connection with the following businesses or business activities: . . . (23) sales of (i) firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or (ii) weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury

Relating to firearms, the previous policy prohibited use only for firearms sales not made in person.

(23) internet/mail order/telephone order firearm or weapon sales,

If you are a business owner and don’t agree with the stance Square has taken, regardless of what industry you are in, there are alternatives to using Square Inc.  One is Payment Alliance International. They also have a NRA & NSSF Endorsed Shooting Sports Payments Package.

Media, Politics, War On Terror

Media, Benghazi Co-conspirators?

From the lack of media coverage of the hearings, it is clear that the media has staked a position instead of reporting events as they mainstreammedialogosunfold. There is absolutely no curiosity to get to the bottom of conflicting reports surrounding the attack. Conflicting reports from what the administration put forth and those of witnesses on the ground at the time. Witnesses, by the way, that up until now, long after the election, have not been heard from. The media has too much at stake in the success of this administration. Because now, they are willing participants in the cover-up as well.

If it is not in the news, did it really happen? If all of what is in the news is the Democrat talking points, does that mean it is true or deserves no further examination?