It’s not enough that all of these people in the world of entertainment get paid quite handsomely. They require our applause and adoration as well.  They also need to have their egos massaged quite regularly and be told how wonderful they are, how talented they are, and how important they are.  Many of them then use their notoriety and access to mass media to throw their liberal beliefs in our faces, while impressing each other with how much better and smarter they are than “We the People,” the “common” people.

Here is a list of some of the awards they are constantly handing out to each other:

National Reality Television Awards

Nickelodeon Kids’ Choice Awards – for television, movies, and music

NAACP Image Award – for upstanding portrayals of African Americans in film, television, music, and literature (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)

The National Film Awards

People’s Choice Awards – for film, television, and music (United States)

Teen Choice Awards – for music, movies, sports, television, and fashion

Academy Awards – also known as the Oscars (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences)

Atlanta International Film Festival

Cannes Film Festival awards

Critics’ Choice Movie Awards

GLAAD Media Awards (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)

Golden Globe Awards

Governors Awards (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences)

Hollywood Walk of Fame

Humanitas Prize

Independent Spirit Awards

MTV Movie Awards

New York Film Festival

San Diego Film Awards

Screen Actors Guild Awards

Young Artist Awards

Academy of Country Music Awards

Alternative Press Music Awards

American Academy of Arts and Letters Gold Medal in Music

American Country Awards

ASCAP awards (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers)

American Music Award

Billboard Awards

BET Awards (Black Entertainment Television)

CMT Music Awards

Country Music Association Awards

Distinguished Service to Music Medal

George Peabody Medal (Peabody Institute)

Grammy Awards (National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences)

MTV Video Music Awards (MTV)

Polar Music Prize – for International recognition of excellence in the world of music

Stellar Awards (Gospel)

Sibelius Prize

Youtube Music Awards

Back Stage Garland Awards – for excellence in Southern California theatre

Donaldson Awards

Drama Desk Awards

Drama League Awards

Drama-Logue Awards

Evening Standard Awards

LA Weekly Theatre Awards

Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle Award

National Dance Awards (The Critics’ Circle)

New York Drama Critics’ Circle Awards

Obie Awards (The Village Voice)

Outer Critics Circle Awards

Ovation Awards

Sarah Siddons Award – for an outstanding performance in a Chicago theatre production (Sarah Siddons Society)

Theatre World Award

The Tony Awards (American Theatre Wing and The Broadway League)

Critics’ Choice Television Awards

Edward R. Murrow Award – for commitment to excellence that exemplifies the career of Edward R. Murrow (Edward R. Murrow College of Communication of Washington State University)

Edward R. Murrow Award – for the best television interpretation or documentary on international affairs (Overseas Press Club)

Edward R. Murrow Awards – for outstanding achievements in electronic journalism (Radio Television Digital News Association)

Emmy Awards

GLAAD Media Awards (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)

Golden Globe Awards (Hollywood Foreign Press Association)

Humanitas Prize

Iris Awards – American awards for local television programming excellence

Logie Awards (TV Week)

National Television Awards

Peabody Awards

Young Artist Awards (Young Artist Association)

ESPY Awards

Freedom Award

Library of Congress Living Legend

Man of the Year/Person of the Year (Time magazine)

Public Service Recognition Award

Dan David Prize – honoring outstanding achievement in the arts, sciences and humanities

Erasmus Prize (Praemium Erasmianum Foundation)

Harry Oppenheimer Fellowship Award

Kennedy Center Honors

Kluge Prize

Wolf Prize in Arts

Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award

CPJ International Press Freedom Awards

Elijah Parish Lovejoy Award

Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism

NCTE George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language

Peabody Award – broadcast journalism

Pulitzer Prizes for:

Beat Reporting

Breaking News Reporting

Breaking News Photography

Commentary

Criticism

Editorial Cartooning

Editorial Writing

Explanatory Reporting

Feature Photography

Feature Writing

International Reporting

Investigative Reporting

National Reporting

Public Service

Robert Capa Gold Medal – for the “best published photographic reporting from abroad requiring exceptional courage and enterprise”

Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award

World Association of Newspapers’ Golden Pen of Freedom Award

Yes, these public figures, and politicians, do a good job of patting themselves, and each other, on the back.

“We the People” don’t hear any applause when we’re at work. We probably don’t get paid that well, and we’re not getting any awards or even recognition for a job well done. We don’t ask for much, but it would be nice to not be lied to or talked down to, while being bombarded with your political wisdom and diatribe.

There can be no argument that the mainstream media has a bias against President Trump, but their treatment of the First Lady, Melania Trump, may even be worse.

I don’t believe I’ve even heard one comment that could be considered complimentary, in regards to the mainstream media’s coverage of Melania Trump, and it’s been a year now!

Nothing she does is good enough or done for the right reasons.

When looking back at how Michelle Obama was treated, the treatment of Melania is downright sickening.

While these reporters and entertainment hacks stumbled over themselves praising and fawning over Michelle, they are vindictive and mean towards Melania. She is the only immigrant to America that doesn’t deserve special consideration apparently. Oh wait, she was a legal immigrant. Never mind.

The mainstream media promotes the idea that Michelle Obama is superior intellectually to Melania, even though Melania speaks five languages fluently, while Michelle only speaks English. The biased mainstream media reminds us though that Melania only “claims” to be able to speak five languages, while “Michelle only speaks English, but she speaks it with a flair!”

Having a difference of viewpoints is one thing, but taking that bias to a personal and hurtful level is another.

“We the People” get it. You suck.  The biased mainstream media does not even pretend to be somewhat fair anymore.  And “We the People” are not going to pretend you matter anymore either.

So you can just continue to preach to your own small and clueless audience, and pretend you are relevant, while the rest of us live in the real world.

(picture me dropping the mic)

The answer is, when the FBI investigation in question is being politically influenced and is not there to find the truth, but to cloud and hide the truth.

But why would they do that? Because people that live and play in “the swamp” together tend to stick together.

In the case of Hillary Clinton’s email “investigation,” anyone with any knowledge or potential evidence involving the matter were given immunity deals or cut some other kind of “deal” with the FBI.

Here is our cast of characters:

Cheryl Mills, former Clinton chief of staff.

Bryan Pagliano, a tech expert who set up Clinton’s email server.

Paul Combetta, another involved computer specialist.

John Bentel, then-director of the State Department’s Office of Information Resources Management.

Heather Samuelson, Clinton lawyer and aide.

Huma Abedin, top Clinton personal aide.

Much has been said about this “investigation,” and various people have tried to spin information this way and that way.

All I know is, if everybody involved with an investigation has a “get out of jail free” card, what’s the point?

If nobody did anything wrong here, why did they all feel compelled to plead the fifth, then ask for and receive immunity from criminal prosecution in this case?

Then we have the “investigation” into the Clinton Foundation for possible financial crimes and influence peddling.

This is a very convoluted case, but let’s try and make it as simple as possible:

It is alleged that the State Department was put in the service of the Clinton Foundation during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State.

For some reason, numerous foreign entities “donated” tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. I guess they were all just big hearted and trusted that the Clintons would use their money for deserving causes.

Anyway, Obama’s Justice Department (Loretta Lynch, et al) and high level FBI officials (Dir. James Comey and Deputy Dir. Andrew McCabe), threw speed bump after speedbump and roadblock after roadblock at the FBI agents actually trying to gather information in this matter.

Why? Let’s “connect the dots,” as liberals love to say.

Loretta Lynch was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bill Clinton.

Bill was of course the husband of the subject of the FBI’s investigations (Hillary). Lynch met with Bill in a plane parked on an Arizona tarmac days before the announcement that Mrs. Clinton would not be indicted.

Based on a November 2016 article from “The National Review” by Andrew C. McCarthy, it was also Lynch’s Justice Department that:

• refused to authorize use of the grand jury to further the Clinton e-mails investigation
• consulted closely with defense attorneys representing subjects of the investigation
• permitted Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the subordinates deputized by Mrs. Clinton to sort through her e-mails and destroy thousands of them, to represent Clinton as attorneys, despite the fact that they were subjects of the same investigation and had been granted immunity from prosecution (to say nothing of the ethical and legal prohibitions against such an arrangement)
• drastically restricted the FBI’s questioning of Mills and other subjects of the investigation; and struck the outrageous deals that gave Mills and Samuelson immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing the FBI with the laptops on which they reviewed Clinton’s four years of e-mails
• agreed that the FBI would destroy the computers following its very limited examination.

They would have you believe that because Mrs. Clinton was not motivated by a desire to harm national security she could not have intended to violate the classified-information laws. It is sleight-of-hand, but it was good enough for Democrats and the media to pronounce Hillary Clinton “exonerated.”

(Note: The operative criminal statute does not call for proof of intent to harm the United States, however. It merely requires proof of gross negligence, which would not even seem to be a question in this case.)

Now, back to the Clinton Foundation.

Again, per “The National Review” and Andrew C. McCarthy: While Hillary may not have been motivated to harm our national security, she was motivated to conceal the give and take between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. That was the real objective of her home server system: Mrs. Clinton wanted to shield from Congress, the courts, and the public the degree to which she, Bill, and their confederates were cashing in on her awesome political influence as secretary of state. That is exactly why she did business outside the government system that captures all official e-mails; and, critically, it perfectly explains why she deleted and attempted to destroy 33,000 e-mails.

Were it not for the Clinton Foundation, there probably would not be a Clinton e-mail scandal, but somehow the Clintons managed to make sure these two were “investigatively” disassociated from one another.

Another incredible factor in the “investigation” was that Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving President Obama guilty as well.

What?

That’s right. As a result of their search on Anthony Weiner’s/Huma Abedin’s laptop, it was discovered that Barack Obama was using a pseudonym to conduct communications over Hillary’s non-secure e-mail system.  This was a major security breach.

Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card. Any possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama’s conflict of interest here.

It has been reported, though not officially confirmed, that Huma Abedin retained some of the deleted e-mails of Hillary Clinton’s in a folder marked “life insurance,” and cut a deal with the FBI.

So, there you have a very short and condensed version of what I, and many others, believe took place here. Are you suffering from CSES yet (Clinton Scandal Exhaustion Syndrome)? They hope you are.  That’s part of the plan.

It is pretty obvious that, during the election, the Obama Administration was protecting Hillary Clinton from accountability or responsibility here at all costs, in an effort to keep their rigged system in Washington in place. It was a “swampy” CYA operation all the way around.

Thanks to Donald Trump winning the election, a lot of these questionable actions are coming to light. These “swamp” varmints don’t like light being shined on them.  They prefer to remain anonymous, unaccountable and untouchable.  If Hillary would have won the election nobody would have been the wiser and “the swamp” would be growing instead of being drained, little by little.

According to Webster, the legal definition of an “independent counsel” is: an official appointed by the court at the request of the U.S. Attorney General to investigate and prosecute criminal violations by high government officials, members of Congress, or directors of a presidential reelection campaign after a preliminary investigation by the Attorney General finds specific and credible evidence that a crime may have been committed.

Note: The use of an independent counsel was codified in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and is designed to ensure an impartial investigation (as when the Attorney General would face a conflict of interest). The independent counsel was formally called a special prosecutor until 1983.

First of all, a truly “independent counsel” just does not exist. It is a unicorn.

How many people in Washington D.C., or the country for that matter, could truly be determined to be an “independent,” politically? Furthermore, what type of person would this person be that has no philosophical leanings one way or the other, politically? Would we want someone that disinterested or ignorant to be leading any kind of investigation?

So why don’t we just stop pretending that the appointing of an “independent” counsel lends any special connotations of fairness or impartiality to anything.

Therefore, we can deduce that any special “investigation” is either a “witch hunt” or a managed stunt used for political damage control, depending on who is being “investigated” and who is doing the “investigation.”

In the case of our current “investigator,” Robert Mueller (aka “swampy” Bob), we have a witch hunt going on, and it has been going on for almost seven months now. By the way, the definition states that a special counsel is established after, “… a preliminary investigation by the Attorney General finds specific and credible evidence that a crime may have been committed.” What “credible evidence” was there again, and for what crime specifically?

The problem Robert “swampy Bob” Mueller has is that he and his “impartial” team of investigators and lawyers are having a hard time maintaining their facade of impartiality and they are having a hard time coming up with any improprieties that are anywhere near their original objective, or any objective for that matter.

Let’s put “swampy Bob” and his “pro-Hillary hit squad” to bed sooner than later, and let President Trump continue his work for “We the People” without this investigative cloud hanging over his head.

 

It has now been learned that Former FBI Director, James Comey, was working up his recommendation to not prosecute “Crooked Hillary” a full two months before she testified or was even interviewed regarding her whole email scandal. In fact, not much of the investigation had been conducted yet, but Comey was already willing to make a determination on her case. How could that be and why was that the case?

Consider this when reading a few of Comey’s recent comments, tweets and Instagram posts:

In this tweet, Comey said, “I want the American people to know this truth: The FBI is honest. The FBI is strong. And the FBI is, and always will be, independent.”

(Well, this is certainly closer to being true since Comey was fired by President Trump, but the FBI is still quite “swampy” at its upper levels. In fact, the FBI is currently not cooperating with Congress, regarding providing documents and information for quite a few on-going investigations. Hmm, do they actually have the right to do that, or are they just hunkering down in “the Swamp” when something is requested that they don’t want to provide for some reason? And who exactly is “they” and what do “they” hope to accomplish?)

After it was determined that General Flynn was cutting a deal with the Mueller investigation, Comey posted a picture of rapids on his Instagram account, accompanied by the caption: “‘But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream’ Amos 5:24.”

(That’s cute Mr. Comey, don’t worry, we’ll be getting to you, Crooked Hillary, and her entire band of accomplices and enablers shortly. Then your Bible verse will be more fitting.)

Mr. Comey also tweeted this quote, “‘Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.’ Reinhold Niebuhr.”

(Again, that’s cute Mr. Comey, and it’s true. You just don’t realize that the “…man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” part refers to you and the rest of your “swampy’ friends.  YOUR definition of “democracy” equates to “the swamp.”)

On Nov. 11, 2016, Mr. Comey quoted a sermon from the late English Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes,” hours after President Trump called Comey a proven “liar” and “leaker.”

(In this case, Mr. Comey might be correct. It did take the truth a while to “put its shoes on,” but they’re on now and they fit President Trump nicely, thank you.)

Then on Nov. 25, about a half-hour after President Trump attacked CNN and their propensity for biased and fake news, Comey tweeted a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

(In this case, Mr. Mr. Comey obviously views “the freedom of the press” as the freedom of the press to “manufacture” whatever news they want in order to advance “the swamp’s” interests.)

As we can see here, Former FBI Director James Comey really is becoming a “comeydian!”

The only problem for him is we are laughing at him and not with him.

 

According to Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, the tax reform bill represents “the end of the world,” “people dying,” and “Armageddon.” Really? A tax cut for the American people represents that much danger to you?

I am really trying to understand the motivation for the Democrats’ opposition to the Tax Reform Bill, and it is a complete opposition.

NOT ONE Democrat Senator or Representative could find their way to support this bill?

I understand that they want to oppose basically anything that President Trump supports, but when you consider the bill’s economic potential, we really have to question the motivation of Democrats.

Based on history, it really can’t be argued that tax cuts, like the ones proposed here, will significantly increase government revenues (meaning the government will have more to spend). Democrats/Socialists love to spend other people’s money, so their motivation must be quite substantial in another area to override this.

They have moaned that this bill is harmful for the middle class. Well, we all know that Democrats are more concerned about sanctuary cities and illegal immigrants than they are about the welfare of the middle class, so this is not their motivation either.

I have heard Democrat senators and representatives just plain lie about what this bill would do. They are truly desperate, desperate, desperate for it not to be passed.  But why?

I don’t believe the majority of Democrats are so stupid as to not really understand how this bill will benefit everyone, and the country in general. Notice I said “majority.”  I do acknowledge there are some incredibly stupid Democrat representatives out there. Perhaps I’m wrong here, and that is a possibility, but I don’t think so.

So why do they want the bill to fail?

Because Democrats want to see America fail.

This is the only plausible answer.

They would rather maintain some semblance of a grip on power than see America turn into an economic dynamo.

They would rather maintain some semblance of a grip on power by maintaining people’s dependence on government rather than see people do better for themselves and gain some level of success and independence.

They would rather continue to play their “swampy” games, promote their divisiveness and push their liberal propaganda than actually be in a position to make positive differences in regards to some of the socioeconomic issues that trouble our country.

What I have a hard time coming to grips with is that a majority of the Democrats in government are more worried about themselves, and the promotion of some sort of socialist hybrid vision of a country they have, than they are about “We the People” and our country as a whole.

“We have met the enemy and he is us.” – Walt Kelly

Barack Obama lied to the American people when he stated time and time again, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” regarding The “Un”affordable Care Act.

President Trump should allow those that like our current tax plan to continue operating under the current tax plan if that is what they prefer. After all, when the rest have us have died in the streets from too much prosperity, someone has to be left to pick up the pieces.

Did you know?:

The largest river in the world, The Amazon River, has no bridges over it.

Froot Loops have different colors, but they all have the same flavor.

After Erno Rubik invented the Rubik’s Cube, it took him a month to solve it after he created it. The world record now is 5.5 seconds.

Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Trivago, Travelocity and Orbitz are all owned by the same company.   It’s true.

There is an opposite type of animal to an albino animal, which are all black. They’re called Melanistic animals.

In Japan, the odds of being killed by a gun is about the same as an American’s odds of being killed by lightning.

In 2013, the government of Zimbabwe had a bank balance of $217. Don’t laugh, the US government OWES about $20 trillion!

Although most people believe the tradition of the Olympic torch relay originated with the ancient Greeks, it was actually an idea of the Nazis.

According to the FDA, stickers on fruits and vegetables are edible.

In the US, apples sold in stores can be up to a year old. Whaaat?

Eggs boiled in the urine of young virgin boys are a delicacy in China. C’mon! Really?!  Who felt this was a good idea at some point?

More people have been to the moon than to the bottom of the ocean.

It is believed that Fidel Castro slept with over 35,000 women during his life. Apparently being a dictator has its advantages.  That can’t be good for the Cuban gene pool though!

If everyone read MrEricksonRules.com everyday, the world would be a better place. It’s true!

 

Let’s take a look at what happened here (along with a few editorial comments!).

In a statement from NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack, “On Monday night (11/27/17), we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer. It represented, after serious review, a clear violation of our company’s standards. As a result, we’ve decided to terminate his employment. We were presented with reason to believe this may have not been an isolated incident.”

Lauer has served as co-anchor of NBC’s morning news program for over 20 years, since 1997. Over this time we have been subjugated to Mr. Lauer’s “objective” interviews that he has conducted from his seat of unquestioned credibility with his unerring moral compass.

Via a statement given to NBC Thursday morning (11/30/17), Matt Lauer said, “Some of what is being said about me is untrue or mischaracterized (Isn’t that NBC News’ MO?), but there is enough truth in these stories to make me feel embarrassed and ashamed (I doubt it). I regret that my shame is now shared by the people I cherish dearly (Ya, I wish they could deal with all of it). There are no words to express my sorrow and regret for the pain I have caused others by words and actions (I’m sure you could come up with some if you really tried). To the people I have hurt, I am truly sorry (Ya, I’m truly sorry that I got caught!). As I am writing this I realize the depth of the damage and disappointment I have left behind at home and at NBC (Now that I believe). Repairing the damage will take a lot of time and soul-searching and I’m committed to beginning that effort. It is now my full-time job (Now you’re free to harass whoever you want! Why stop now?!) The last two days have forced me to take a very hard look at my own troubling flaws (Which means he analyzed how he allowed himself to get caught). It’s been humbling. I am blessed to be surrounded by the people I love. I thank them for their patience and grace.”

I even heard that Matt had a secret button on his desk that would lock his office door, thus trapping unexpecting women staffers in his den of iniquity. Wow, that’s pretty “007ish” of you Matt! My question is, who installed that function into your office, and what was your reasoning for having it installed at the time?

Well, anyway, we’ll see ya Matt. I hope you socked some money away for a rainy day, ‘cause it’s pouring out.

“I am what I am, and that’s all that I am.” – Popeye

Asking who, or what, we “identify” as can be a much different question than asking who, or what, we “are.”

Each of us can “identify” as whatever, or whoever, we want, I guess. Who is anybody to tell me what, or who, I think I am?

It really depends on how you ask the question.

For example, if you really want to get past this whole bathroom and gender question, all you have to do is label the restrooms “Penis” and “No Penis.” Problem solved.

As far as racial determination goes, we really shouldn’t care, right?

If you’re asking about race there’s going to be some level of discrimination, one way or the other, following shortly, right?

Unless you’re going to order me to have a DNA test (and this may be coming soon), who could debate my choice of identity without being viewed as unaccepting or insensitive?

It’s ironic though that the only ones that would have an issue with this would be those with a liberal persuasion. This is because it is our liberal friends who are in the business of social engineering, constantly trying to “level the playing” field, in their view.  And how can you do that if anybody can identify as anything?

If people choose to identify themselves as someone they really aren’t, then the whole concept of social engineering falls apart, and I think that’s a good thing.

“Hey, get me, I’m an angel, giving out wings!” – Nick the bartender, from “It’s a Wonderful Life”

 

It’s the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Well, that sounds good, something about protecting consumers. What’s the problem?

When we take a closer look at this bureau (I am typically leery of “bureaus”), I think it will become very apparent why the CFPB needs to go.

Next to the word “swamp,” in the dictionary, there could be a picture of CFPB headquarters. The CFPB is about as “swampy” as “the swamp gets.”

The CFPB was ill-conceived as part of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. This bill was also known as the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” and was a massive piece of financial reform legislation passed by the Obama administration as a response to the financial crisis of 2008.  These bills all have good sounding names (Like the Affordable Care Act!) until you actually look under the hood, which not many of us have the time to do.

Anyway, you remember that financial crisis, right? That’s the one where Congress was bought-off by the big banks so they could make more money while Congress looked the other way, but then they got too greedy and the whole thing collapsed on them and they lost all of this money, but then “We the People” bailed them all out, and all of the CEOs even ended up getting bonuses.  Yeah, that’s the one.  Aren’t we generous?

Well, it was that whole “swampy” situation that spawned this law “to protect the consumer,” which was drafted by the Congressional abusers of the law in the first place, to supposedly protect us from themselves and all of the evil financial institutions that shovel money at them. Sounds legit, right?

It’s so reassuring knowing these people are looking out for us.

Sooo, to create this “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” first they had to circumvent the Constitution (this is always a “red flag”) in order for this “rogue” bureau to operate independently, and basically outside the law. It was conceived by Democrats and intentionally staffed with Democrats only (That’s legal, right?).  Then they funded this program through Federal Reserve profits rather than taxpayer dollars, making the bureau basically impervious to any Congressional oversight. And in the event a Republican was elected president, their nominated director would be undermined by the entrenched left-wing managers below them (I think we’ve already seen some examples of this during the first year of the Trump administration, in numerous areas).

The Dodd-Frank Act made the CFPB’s unelected director “the single most powerful official in the entire U.S. Government, other than the President,” and arguably more powerful in consumer financial-protection matters. The Constitution permits single-director executive agencies and independent commissions, but not single-director independent agencies. The Constitution never ceases to amaze me!

The whole concept for this agency was conceived by Senator Elizabeth (Pocahontas) Warren (another “red flag”), and she led the building of the agency in its first year. The CFPB was, and is, a left-wing “attack dog” that was established under the guise of a consumer watchdog agency.  Their army of lawyers (the CFPB has over 1,600 employees) have ruthlessly attacked thousands of businesses across our country.  Most of these entities were targeted similarly to the IRS’s prejudicial treatment of conservative groups during Obama’s tenure, except the CFPB had the luxury of operating without the fear of any repercussions.

The CFPB was created outside of the law, to operate outside of the law, and it has. Not only that, but the CFPB exists and operates outside of our general American ideals of basic fairness and justice.  It does not even try and pretend to be fair.  It’s kind of like our “fake news,” biased mainstream media, except the CFPB can actually ruin your life financially.

Get rid of the CFPB! Drain the swamp!  Drain the swamp!