Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Trump Just Fired The Entire Board Of Democrats’ Number One Agency – He’s Had Enough

Published

on

A consultant who worked with the highly politicized Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) claims the organization funneled a large portion of more than $5 billion in collected penalties back into “community organizers aligned with Democrats” as part of a giant slush fund” according to the New York Post.

The Post reports – The CFPB Funneled a large portion of the more than $5 billion in penalties collected from defendants to community organizers aligned with Democrats — “a slush fund by another name,” said a consultant who worked with CFPB on its Civil Penalty Fund and requested anonymity.

Many believe the rogue agency created under the former Obama regime should have simply been disbanded by President Donald Trump last year. However, President Trump did what some consider as the next best thing in putting Mick Mulvaney in charge of it. It seems Mulvaney is doing his best to revamp and redirect the agency after he just fired an entire 25-member team that advised the board –

The Washington Post reports – “Mick Mulvaney, acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, fired the agency’s 25-member advisory board Wednesday, days after some of its members criticized his leadership of the watchdog agency.

Trending: James Comey Just Caught In Major New Scandal – Hillary Would Be Proud!

The CFPB said it will revamp the Consumer Advisory Board, known as the CAB, in the fall with all new members.

The panel has traditionally played an influential role in advising the CFPB’s leadership on new regulations and policies. But some members, who include prominent consumer advocates, academics, and industry executives, began to complain that Mulvaney was ignoring them and making unwise decisions about the agency’s future.

On Monday, 11 CAB members held a news conference and criticized Mulvaney for, among other things, canceling legally required meetings with the group.

On Wednesday, group members were notified that they were being replaced and that they could not reapply for spots on the new board.

In a statement, the agency’s spokesman, John Czwartacki, took a final swipe at the group. “The outspoken members of the Consumer Advisory Board seem more concerned about protecting their taxpayer-funded junkets to Washington, D.C., and being wined and dined by the Bureau than protecting consumers,” he said.

Revamping the board is part of the CFPB’s new approach to reaching out to stakeholders to ‘increase high-quality feedback,’ the bureau said in an email to the group. The CFPB will hold more town halls and roundtable discussions, the letter said, and the new CAB will have fewer members.”

Naturally, the leftist progressive Democrats threw the expected hissy fit and took to the mainstream media to spew the expected talking points – “’Mick Mulvaney has no intention of putting consumers above financial firms that cheat them. This is what happens when you put someone in charge of an agency they think shouldn’t exist,’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who helped conceive of the bureau, said in a statement.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said: ‘Mulvaney has proven once again he would rather cozy up with payday lenders and industry insiders than listen to consumer advocates who want to make sure hard-working Americans are not cheated by financial scams.'”

Both President Trump and Mick Mulvaney have had strong opinions about the CFPB in the past and many believe the purging of the CAB was a step in the right direction. The right direction being the ultimate elimination of the agency. Mulvaney is quoted with regards to the CFPB as stating – “It is a completely unaccountable agency, and I think that’s wrong,” and adding “If the law allowed this place not to exist, I’d sit down with the president to try to make the case that other agencies can do this job well if not more effectively.” Mulvaney also called the agency “a sad, sick joke.”

In addition to the $5 billion “slush fund” detailed in the Post, the CFPB has also engaged in the following highly questionable activities –

  • Bounced business owners and industry reps from secret meetings it’s held with Democrat operatives, radical civil-rights activists, trial lawyers and other “community advisers,” according to a report by the House Financial Services Committee.
  • Retained GMMB, the liberal advocacy group that created ads for the Obama and Hillary Clinton presidential campaigns, for more than $40 million, making the Democrat shop the sole recipient of CFPB’s advertising expenditure, Rubin says.
  • Met behind closed doors to craft financial regulatory policy with notorious bank shakedown groups who have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grant money to gin up housing and lending discrimination complaints, which in turn are fed back to CFPB, according to Investor’s Business Daily and Judicial Watch.

Aside from all of this, the CFPB is also known to have assembled several massive consumer databases which raise privacy and corporate liability concerns. According to The Hill – “One sweeps up personal credit card information and another compiles data on as many as 230 million mortgage applicants focusing on “race” and “ethnicity.” Yet another database contains more than 900,000 unvetted grievances against various financial companies, according to Alan Kaplinsky, lead regulatory attorney for Ballard Spahr LLP. Think of a database with the depth and breadth of Google, yet used solely by the government.

Mulvaney is already answering questions about at least one of the databases. Recently questioned at a two-hour forum with state Attorney General Derek Schmidt about elder abuse in Topeka, Kansas, Mulvaney was asked whether he believed it was still useful to keep an online database of complaints against lenders and other financial companies.

Mulvaney responded stating he had not yet made a decision about how publicly accessible the database will remain, though the CFPB did formally publish a notice in April seeking public comments on its complaint process and the public database. He stated – “The real question is: How does it help consumers to make it public?” he said during a news conference after an event in Topeka. “Again, what we’re talking about is something where you have a difficult time. Are we helping you fix your problem? Do we have to make it public to do that?”

In a news conference after the forum, Mulvaney elaborated – “It’s essentially a taxpayer-funded Yelp for financial institutions, and you ask yourself if that’s a good use of our time and our money. We’re in the middle of that analysis.”

Questions have already arisen about just what happens if and when a Democratic administration takes charge of the White House again. Can the CFPB again be weaponized against Conservatives and Independents much as the IRS has been?

As Steve Hayes explained last year, the board is a rogue independent agency that has a broad mandate to end “unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices,” all in the name of protecting the consumer. It is a vague mandate that could mean anything to anyone. The board is not accountable to anyone, least of all Congress which means it has no oversight and they can literally do as they please. Clearly, they already are.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


Well Look What Ocasio-Cortez Was Hiding While Saying She Can’t Afford D.C. Apartment

Published

on

...

* By

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by: Daily Caller

A Fox News report released Tuesday says that Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez likely has “more than enough” money to afford a Washington D.C. apartment.

“I have three months without a salary before I’m a member of Congress, so how do I get an apartment?” Ocasio-Cortez told The New York Times last week. “Those little things are very real.”

The Fox News report shows that Ocasio-Cortez — a Democratic Socialist who ran to the left of and defeated long-term Democratic incumbent Joe Crowley in New York’s 14th Congressional District — “reported having between $15,001 and $50,000 in her checking account as of the end of April 2018, according to a Financial Disclosure Report she submitted to the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.”

That appears to be much more than the average household.

She also disclosed a financial investment account worth between $1,001 and $15,000.

Further, the incoming lawmaker has reportedly drawn $6,200 in salary from her campaign since August, the last reported withdrawal being $1,288.96 just three weeks before the election.

It’s certainly possible that Ocasio-Cortez spent the substantial amount of money she had on hand during the three months between April and when she began drawing from her campaign on necessary expenses. But if not, with a median rent of $2,700 in Washington D.C., housing shouldn’t be an issue between now and when she begins receiving her $174,000 annual salary next year.

As further evidence that Ocasio-Cortez is nothing but a socialist puppet or attention-seeking person, is that he proved she has no answers or ideas on how socialism works and who will pay for all of this free healthcare. Coming from a woman who can’t even plan for or manage to pay her rent, it all makes sense.

We previously reported her response when asked about expensive ‘Medicare for All’ plan:

Democratic New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is still struggling to explain how she expects to pay for her expensive “Medicare for All” plan.

[WATCH: Relevant part starts at around the 7:00 mark]

Ocasio-Cortez, who upset incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary, has repeatedly been unable to answer how she will pay for her socialistic policies. A study by the George Mason University Mercatus Center claims Medicare for All would cost $32.6 trillion in government spending over 10 years.

During an interview with Jorge Ramos last Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez said she is “puzzled” that people keep asking her how the country can afford socialized medicine.

“People often say, like, ‘how are you going to pay for it?’ And I find the question so puzzling, because, how do you pay for something that’s more affordable?” Ocasio-Cortez said.

Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that Medicare for All would be cheaper than the current health system is inaccurate. While the Mercatus Center study estimated drug prices would fall under Medicare for All, higher demand would still significantly drive up costs.

“How do you pay for cheaper rent?” she said. “You just pay for it. You’re paying more now!”

Do YOU think we have the best President and First Lady ever? Follow Amanda Shea on Twitter to get RIGHT daily insight!

Continue Reading

Here’s What Just Happened To The Number Of Incoming Dems Supporting Trump Impeachment

Published

on

And just like the right was predicting all along it’s starting to look like a very small number of newly elected House Democrats are actually putting impeachment at the top of their agenda. Even after all the noise, they made these past two years where they accused President Trump of every criminal act they could dream of.

Here is more via The Daily Caller:

“The number of newly elected Democrats in the House of Representatives who are putting immediate impeachment at the top of their agenda is surprisingly small for the level of chatter the subject has received since Donald Trump became president, according to an analysis of their statements.

As the freshmen class of House Democrats heads to Capitol Hill for orientation, an analysis from The Washington Post revealed Tuesday that only 11, or 21 percent, have said they want to immediately begin the impeachment process for Trump.

Thirteen Democratic freshmen oppose the move despite the loud impeachment calls early on in his presidency by Democrats.

The largest chunk of the cohort, 17 individuals or 33 percent, said they’d prefer to wait until special counsel Robert Mueller releases his team’s report on the Russia investigation before deciding to move forward with impeachment.

The remaining 11 Democratic House freshmen have not commented or made strong arguments either way, according to the analysis. (RELATED: A Record Number Of Women Ran For Office, But Did They Win?)

While it is unknown when Mueller will release his findings on whether Trump or his circle had any involvement in Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, top Democrats have used the report as a point of contingency, and in turn have slowed down impeachment talks in recent weeks.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said he hopes Democrats wait until the Mueller report is out before moving forward with impeachment in an Oct. 18 interview with CBS.

“I hope they don’t. I don’t think there’s a basis for doing that right now,” Biden, a current Democratic favorite for a potential bid to the 2020 presidency, said. “There are so many things to attend to immediately. Let’s see where the investigation takes us.”

House Minority Leader and potential Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi took a slightly different approach in a Sunday interview with The Atlantic, saying that while she doesn’t want to impeach Trump, the Mueller probe will not define that decision.

“Recognize one point,” Pelosi said. “What Mueller might not think is indictable could be impeachable.”

A Politico/Morning Consult poll released Monday revealed the majority of Americans, 51 percent of voters, don’t support impeachment either.

While a little more than half of overall voters say the Democratic-controlled House should not begin the impeachment process for Trump, the majority of Democrats, 61 percent, want Congress to begin the proceedings in 2019.”

Could this be because they really do know all this rhetoric was only so they could gain power again and nothing else?

Good luck explaining this to the far left wing “mob” you all created!

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend