Protecting American Consumers: Why Trump And The Senate Should Restrict The CFPB

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a new rule in July that heavily restricts arbitration clauses, and opens companies to more frivolous class action lawsuits. This new rule, passed under the guise of consumer protection, is not just anti-consumer — it will make the elite class of trial lawyers even richer off the backs of consumers.

In typical fashion, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren claim that Republicans are anti-consumer and are only on the side of big banks. Maxine Waters, the Ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, went so far as to say that “it is outrageous that Republicans are trying to nullify the rule to the detriment of consumers. Republicans should think twice before taking away consumers’ rights to be heard in a court of law.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Under this new rule, the only people who will truly be “heard” in a court of law are the already powerful trial lawyers who have made billions of dollars from class action lawsuits. Republicans are against this bill because it not only hurts consumers by passing on higher costs to them, it empowers lawyers to line their pockets with millions of dollars while class action participants are left to pick up the scraps.

Mandatory Arbitration clauses are beneficial to consumers because they give them a low-cost alternative to resolve disputes with lenders and banks. Consider this: The CFPB’s own study on arbitration concluded that on average, consumers receive more than $5000 through arbitration hearings, as opposed to roughly $32 through class-action litigation — if they even have the chance to get anything at all.

Litigating class action lawsuits has become an entire industry unto itself. According to Forbes, “for practical purposes, counsel for plaintiffs (and for defendants) are frequently the only real beneficiaries of the class actions. When consumer class actions do settle, lawyers usually negotiate a deal that pays them and their named plaintiffs well, but delivers little to nothing to their other clients.”

It’s no wonder that we see commercials daily advertising class action lawsuits. The only reason law firms can afford millions in national TV advertising is because they make even more off of the lawsuits, and end up passing the litigation costs off to the consumers.

Luckily, under the Congressional Review Act, a bipartisan bill signed by President Clinton in 1996, Congress has the power to nullify rulings by government agencies within 60 days of the rule’s passage. It even goes one step further, and prevents any government agency from issuing the rule again. This law has already been used to retract several Obama-era regulations, and should be used again in this case to protect consumers.

The House recently voted 231-190 to repeal the controversial ruling, with the bill currently awaiting a vote in the Senate. President Trump has indicated his strong support for the bill, and has promised to sign it once passed by the Senate.

Like all government agencies, the CFPB has morphed from its original intention of protecting consumers to becoming an agency that fights for powerful interests under the guise of consumer protection. Restricting the powers of the CFPB to regulate arbitration clauses isn’t just smart policy, it’s a consumer-first policy. It’s critical that the Senate passes this bill, and President Trump signs it, for the good of the American people.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1TJbF1r

Cultural Marxism’s Indoctrination into Islam through Opera

Cultural Marxism's Indoctrination into Islam through Opera

The “enlightened” and multicultural” public from Cluj Napoca recently attended Karl Jenkins’ The Armed Man, a Mass for Peace, an “opera that included a Muslim muezzin chanting the call to prayer.” It was a thinly-veiled attempt to force Romanians to accept the Cultural Marxism agenda of the European Union which is implemented through the heavy islamization of Europe’s population.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/11sy9G3

Oh yes, Frederica Wilson is lying

Frederica Wilson is lying
Did Donald Trump really insult the family of fallen Sergeant La David Johnson? Did he really say “he knew what he signed up for” in an insulting and dismissive way? Did he really offend the family with his callous attitude and behavior when he called to ostensibly offer condolences?

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/11sy9G3

It’s Obama’s fault American soldiers died in Niger

It’s Obama’s fault American soldiers died in NigerCongresswoman Frederica Wilson has come up with a new gimmick for getting invited on CNN. After exploiting the death of one soldier killed in an attack in Niger, she decided that if exploiting one soldier made her famous, exploiting the deaths of all the soldiers would make her even more famous.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/11sy9G3

E-Verify off the table in Senate DREAM negotiations — thanks to the GOP

How should we apportion blame on this one? Show of hands: Does anyone think Pelosi and Schumer would agree to an enforcement measure as useful as E-Verify for an amnesty as limited as a DREAM bill? E-Verify won’t be put on the table by Democrats unless and until a mass amnesty for all adult illegals is on the table too. There’s no point in the GOP insisting on a demand they know the other party won’t accept if they’re serious about getting a deal done. A “minor” amnesty gets only “minor” enforcement improvements in return.

On the other hand, show of hands: Does anyone believe Senate Republicans are eager to expand E-Verify? If Pelosi and Schumer turned around tomorrow and said they’re open to including that in a DREAM deal, the Chamber of Commerce and agricultural lobby would descend and demand a meeting with Mitch McConnell post haste. Democratic support for open borders remains the chief obstacle to immigration reform in the United States, but lord knows it ain’t the only obstacle.

[S]ome outlines of an agreement are becoming clearer. For instance, the [Republican] senators [working on a bill] have all but ruled out including a mandatory workplace verification system known as E-Verify in a final DACA agreement, according to multiple lawmakers engaged in the talks…

Several of the GOP senators involved in the immigration discussions are fine with punting negotiations over a nationwide mandatory E-Verify system, particularly since Democrats will not accept any policy provision that will help identify other immigrants here illegally…

“There are large segments of some important sectors, like agriculture, where we need to do E-Verify with immigration reform to make sure that there’s an adequate legal workforce,” Cornyn said. “And if we start adding too much stuff to the DACA-border security approach, then we get back into comprehensive immigration reform and nothing happens.”

Instead of E-Verify they’re going to try to get a “down payment” on ending chain migration by barring newly legalized DREAMers from bringing their relatives to the United States too — at least until they’re naturalized. How that ends chain migration rather than simply delays it by a few years, I don’t know. It’s going to make the bill exceptionally difficult to sell to populists. If they’re essentially signing off on turning a DREAM amnesty into a mass amnesty, albeit with a delay of a decade or so before the “mass” part fully begins, why shouldn’t Republicans insist on E-Verify as the price?

In a piece endorsed by Steve Bannon, Andrew Sullivan weighs the electoral consequences of Democrats’ increasingly fanatic pandering to illegal immigration activists. Lotta truth to what he says here, but it comes with the caveat that weak bipartisan immigration deals redound to the GOP’s disadvantage too. The public writ large will view them as being as soft on illegals as Democrats are, undermining the restrictionist argument for preferring the GOP. And right-wing populists, ever exasperated on this subject, will turn to populists even more loose-cannon than Trump to enforce the borders. Sullivan:

The Democrats’ current position seems to be that the Dreamer parents who broke the law are near heroes, indistinguishable from the children they brought with them; and their rhetoric is very hard to distinguish, certainly for most swing voters, from a belief in open borders. In fact, the Democrats increasingly seem to suggest that any kind of distinction between citizens and noncitizens is somehow racist. You could see this at the last convention, when an entire evening was dedicated to Latinos, illegal and legal, as if the rule of law were largely irrelevant. Hence the euphemism “undocumented” rather than “illegal.” So the stage was built, lit, and set for Trump.

He still tragically owns that stage. What Merkel did for the AfD, the Democrats are in danger of doing for the Trump wing of the GOP. The most powerful thing Trump said in the campaign, I’d argue, was: “If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country.” And the Democrats had no answer, something that millions of Americans immediately saw. They still formally favor enforcement of immigration laws, but rhetorically, they keep signaling the opposite. Here is Dylan Matthews, also in Vox, expressing the emerging liberal consensus: “Personally, I think any center-left party worth its salt has to be deeply committed to egalitarianism, not just for people born in the U.S. but for everyone … It means treating people born outside the U.S. as equals … And it means a strong presumption in favor of open immigration.” Here’s Zack Beauchamp, a liberal friend of mine: “What if I told you that immigration restrictionism is and always has been racist?” Borders themselves are racist? Seriously?

Seriously. The dilemma for Republicans now is that Washington is already so distrusted on immigration that even a good deal with real enforcement improvements will spook border hawks, who’ll be convinced that Democrats will water it down or blow it up entirely once they have the power to do so. If they do, both parties will end up being blamed despite the fact that it was the Dems’ handiwork: Republicans will be attacked by the right for having gotten rolled on the deal, having failed to accelerate implementation of the new security measures before the left could block them, and so on. Trust will erode further. Populists will get more desperate and more radical. Even a “minor” amnesty could have major repercussions.

The post E-Verify off the table in Senate DREAM negotiations — thanks to the GOP appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

‘Sheer BS’: Ben Shapiro blasts Jeff Flake in scathing twitter critique

Conservative activist Ben Shapiro criticized Republican Arizona Senator Jeff Flake in a scathing series of tweets Tuesday over his supposed reasons for not seeking re-election.

Flake had announced earlier that he would not seek re-election, and blamed the “flagrant disregard of truth” of the Trump age.

“Flake blaming his fall on Trump and the supposed inability of the base to support good people is disingenuous and cynical,” Shapiro tweeted.

“Flake was deeply unpopular for years and was going to lose,” he added. “Not because of Trump. Because he broke faith with his base.”

“Blaming Trump and Trump voters is a way of playing hero while quitting because he was going to lose,” he continued.

“The media will eat it up because anyone who badmouths Trump (and I agree with many Flake critiques) becomes a tragic hero,” he added.

“Trump is happy to play into that story because it makes him look powerful,” he continued. “Flake wants to play tragic hero. Media love the conflict.”

“He is the president and a vehicle for the base’s anger and desire to stop Democrats,” Shapiro concluded. “Good people can still be elected.”

Flake had been a vocal critic of Trump, and cited him as a main reason why he couldn’t maintain his office.

“We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country,” Flake said Tuesday on the Senate floor, “the personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth or decency, the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have all been elected to serve.”

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.theblaze.com

1.5 Million People off Food Stamps Since Trump Took Office

One of the many criticisms against former President Barack Obama was the astonishing number of Americans enrolled on food stamps or other forms of welfare assistance while his “non-recovery” economy sputtered along for eight years.

But Breitbart just reported that, within five months of President Donald Trump taking office, food stamp enrollment had dropped significantly, by nearly 1.5 million people or about 3.5 percent.

That revelation came from numbers recently released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as the food stamp program is officially known.

Advertisement – story continues below

As of July 2017 — the latest numbers released — the number of Americans enrolled in the program was 41,203,721. That’s down from January 2017, when enrollment was at 42,689,768. In July 2016, the number was reported as 43,334,443, meaning food stamp rolls had dropped by more than 2 million enrollees in one year.

It is worth noting that, while the overall downward trend in enrollment is expected to continue, it is nevertheless thought that there will be a spike in reported enrollment numbers over the course of August and September, owing to a temporary increase in the need for government assistance for some residents of Texas and Florida in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

To be sure, some of the drop in SNAP enrollment could be attributed to a swiftly improving economy and falling unemployment rate, but it is suspected that Trump’s proposed policies to get Americans off of food stamps may already be having an effect as well.

Advertisement – story continues below

Politico reported in May that Trump’s proposed budget called for cutting SNAP funding by roughly 25 percent, along with a strengthening of work requirements for able-bodied recipients and a strong encouragement for states to match their portion of food stamp funding by 20 percent.

Of course, liberals decried the proposal as a heartless gutting of the “social safety net” that millions of Americans rely upon, but that simply isn’t the case.

“We believe in the social safety net,” Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, explained to reporters at the time. “It helps us get to 3 percent (economic) growth, because having a social safety net gives people the confidence to take a gamble and fail and know they won’t be completely wiped out.

Advertisement – story continues below

“What we’ve done is not to try and remove the social safety net from folks who need it, but to try to figure out if there are people who don’t need it and get them back into the workforce,” he added.

Many states had already implemented tougher work requirements for food stamp recipients, as well as limits to how long they could continue receiving benefits, and Breitbart reported that some 42 of 50 states had seen a drop in enrollment thus far this year.

The number of enrollees should only continue to drop as Trump’s policies are further implemented and the economy continues to pick up the pace, sparking job and wage growth that will allow many Americans to enter or improve their position in the job market and no longer need government assistance.

H/T Newsmax

Advertisement – story continues below

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter so everyone can see what has happened to food stamp enrollment since Trump took office.

What do you think of the drop in food stamp enrollment since Trump took office? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2gEOIzE

Black man charged for racist, anti-black graffiti that sparked campus protests

A black man was charged Monday with spraying racist, anti-black graffiti on Eastern Michigan University’s campus last year, which led to widespread student protests, according to the Detroit Free Press.

The graffiti included the letters “KKK” in red, white and blue, and the word “Leave” followed by a racial slur for black people painted on a campus building.

Who did it?

The suspect is 29-year-old former EMU student Eddie Curlin. He attended the school from 2014 to 2016.

Curlin has been in custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections on an unrelated charge since August, serving a 1-to-5 year sentence for receiving and concealing stolen property.

Now, he’s been charged with three counts of malicious destruction of property, four counts of identity theft, and one count of using computers to commit a crime.

Why did he do it?

EMU police chief Robert Heighes would not specify a motive for the vandalism, only saying “it was totally self serving. It was not driven by politics. It was not driven by race.”

Protests and unrest

After the racist graffiti was discovered last fall, students at EMU protested what they believed was a lack of urgency and action by the university in finding out who was responsible.

Student protests in the student center lasted so long that a number of students were disciplined for code of conduct violations, but those charges were later dropped.

Police comments

“Our officers have worked on this case extensively since day one,”  Heighes said in a news release Monday. “We appreciate that people wanted a fast arrest but, in many cases, that is not the way police work happens.

“I recognize the anger, fear and frustration that these incidents caused for many of our students, faculty and staff, and I thank them for their patience and understanding as we conducted a thorough investigation.”

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.theblaze.com

Waters Faces Calls for Arrest After “Take Out Trump” Threat

In mid-October in New York City, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters attended a benefit gala that was hosted in honor of a murdered transgendered teen. When Waters got up to speak, she used the platform as another dig at President Donald Trump, promising the audience that she was going to “take him out.”

Now, Waters’ GOP challenger is calling for her arrest.

During the gala evening at the Ali Forney Center for homeless gay, lesbian and transgenders, Waters stated, “Wow. What a moving evening this is. I am sitting here listening, watching, absorbing, thinking about Ali, even though I never met him.”

Advertisement – story continues below

That’s when things took a decidedly bizarre turn. “And with this kind of inspiration, I will go and take Trump out tonight,” Waters added and, not surprisingly, the overwhelmingly liberal crowd cheered right along with her.

But there was one person who wasn’t cheering, Republican challenger to Waters’ seat, Omar Navarro.

Navarro took to Twitter to blast Waters for her thinly veiled threat, writing, “I’m calling for the arrest of Maxine Waters. Let’s get ready for it.” Using the same language Waters often uses when speaking about Trump, “calling for his impeachment,” Navarro hit her right back.

Advertisement – story continues below

Only, this time, she could actually be facing time, considering that she did threaten the sitting President of the United States. See the video below:

Navarro was right to call for Waters, arrest after hearing that blatant threat.

Advertisement – story continues below

On Sunday, Navarro called for the Secret Service to demand that Waters step down as a result of her threat against Trump’s life. “Secret Service should call for Maxine Waters immediate resignation after these comments,” he tweeted. “We don’t need lip service.” Her mobster mentality has gone too far.

Waters went on CNN on Tuesday to try and walk back her remarks, claiming her statement was no real, physical threat to Trump. In an interview with “New Day,” she told host Chris Cuomo she said she was referring to impeachment, not assassination.

“That’s absolutely ridiculous … that a 79-year-old grandmother who is a congresswoman and who has been in Congress and politics all these years doing any harm,” she said. “The only harm I might be doing to the president is I want him impeached.”

Advertisement – story continues below

She might be getting rattled.

Waters has been in hot water for some time now, constantly trying to take President Trump down a peg or two. This time, however, she may have overstepped her boundaries.

It is no secret, that she disapproves of President Trump, but she has stopped short of doing anything other than opening her mouth. It seems she may have forgotten that the Secret Service does not take assassination threats lightly.

Combine what she said on this video to what she has been saying ever since President Trump got elected and you have yourself a very real motive and what could be a very credible threat.

H/T TheBlaze

Share this story on Facebook and Twitter and be sure to add your thoughts on Water’s threats and possible punishment to the comment section below.

What do you think should happen to Maxine Waters after her threats against President Donald Trump? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2gEOIzE

Dissecting the Left’s Language of Emotion, Victimization, and Violence

Dissecting the Left’s Language of Emotion, Victimization, and Violence

In 2017 America, the left has created a dystopia where the whole world is genderless, fat, and self-important. Nobody watches the Olympics anymore, instead we have a new international game called “Intersectionality” where you tally up the number of victim points you have, and the winner receives top-tier jobs offers, New York Times op-eds, placement at top universities, and more lenient grading, because tough grading is racist (unless you’re a straight, white male).

At colleges, the students are the professors, and minority students can attack and harass the people who were hired to teach them, and to who their student loan debt finances their salary.

If only they didn’t think that books were racist, they might open one . . . Like, perhaps, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s 1953 masterpiece “Philosophical Investigations”. In that book, Wittgenstein discusses the nature of language. The meaning a person attaches to a word when they use it can be extremely difficult to understand if both individuals do not have shared values and cultural outlooks. So, if I ask you where your family is from, you would most likely say something like, “Well, my mother’s family were settlers, and my father came here from Europe in the 1950s”, where a person on the left would be offended by the “micro-aggression” of the question itself.

While the question was obviously asked in English by an English speaker to another English speaker because the two people have different cultures, groups, and religions (or lack thereof) that they ascribe to, it makes it difficult for the two English speakers to communicate – this is a “personal language”. Personal languages inhibit language’s inherent role in society and make it impossible to have a dialogue, this is why we see the lack of a communication and political polarization in our society right now.

Personal languages are based on sensations and feelings that only one person could know on their own but would have a hard time translating for someone else. An example of this would be the feeling you get every time your gas light comes on, nobody else can know how you feel. The left employs personal languages in a way that ostracizes anybody that they are trying to talk to, or, as it often goes, shout down, because they are speaking with their personal feelings and their personal sensations, something no one but them can understand.

The question we should be asking ourselves is: Why is the left doing this? What is their end goal?

They want to shut down opposing speech. They know that if everyone is aware of what they are doing, they would not be supportive of it because it is counterintuitive to building an agreeable society. At the same time, they are so finicky about what is “okay” to say that they alienate their own people in the process. This leads to infighting and people walking on eggshells as they try and do their best to understand the person speaking. This is also the plight of the Alt-Right.

Both groups have restricted language’s reach in order to create a dogma. That dogma will lead to the collapse of society if we cannot agree on the way that we should communicate and if we cannot agree on the definitions of the words that we are using.

What does this do for discourse on a political level? It makes it entirely impossible to get anything done through discourse.

Where I see a man and call that man a man, a leftist sees a man and asks for their preferred pronoun; they are using accepted English language structures, changing the denotations, and creating a breakdown in communication in the process – one that defies logic or science.

Where does their language fail primarily? It fails in conversation.

If language’s job is to make communication easier, why is it failing us with the left? They refuse to address the primary problems found in their form of language definition, which is based on feelings, and by skirting this issue, they are skirting discourse, creating a societal divide, and aiding in the death of the English language.

Ultimately, what we’re witnessing is a collapse in the communicative realm of society. No longer can anyone simply talk to another person about something without having to preface it with a laundry list of qualifiers to make sure that you’re not racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, arachnophobic, cynophobic, anthropopophobic, hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobic, the list goes on.

When JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” he set the standard for modern American values; unfortunately, in today’s climate the left acts in an opposing manner to Kennedy’s altruistic notion. Everything is about the government rectifying people’s problems and people begging for handouts, from the NFL protests to the pussy-hat brigade to the Black Lives Matter coalition, within the liberal camp, nothing will ever get done if they cannot learn to communicate properly. The left needs to dump their language of divisiveness and start speaking American.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/SIPp5X