Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren and CFPB Shenanigans Are Part of the Same Story

Millions of Americans are now aware of Warren's fake Cherokee heritage. But are they aware of her involvement in the CFPB?

Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., questions Jerome Powell, President Donald Trump's nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2017.

By Jay Richards Published on November 29, 2017

By calling Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas,” President Trump has done what no one else could do. He’s made millions of Americans aware of her fakery. And by trying to appoint his own successor, Richard Cordray, the outgoing director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has revealed the raw, political nature of the agency. Millions are now worried that the CFPB, created in 2010, is a menace.

What you might not know is that Warren, Cordray, and the CFPB are part of the same story. Warren played a key role in creating the CFPB and she still plays a role in the left’s infiltration of our financial system.

In 2013, I wrote a book that described these matters at length. Since you might not have noticed, here’s some background to get you up to speed. 

Faux-cahontas?

In the spring of 2012, Warren was a professor at Harvard Law School and the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate against GOP incumbent Scott Brown.

Then, in April, the Boston Herald revealed that Harvard Law had for years claimed she added ethnic diversity to their faculty. That’s because she claimed she had Native American ancestry. When asked about it, Warren cited “family lore.” She’d heard that she had a great-great-great grandmother who was Cherokee. But there was and still is no evidence that the blond, blue-eyed native of Oklahoma had Cherokee lineage.

When I first heard the story, I got it at once. I grew up in the Texas Panhandle. From there, you can drive to Warren’s hometown of Oklahoma City in just a few hours. Besides the hot summers, wide-open spaces, and latitude, they have something else in common: Almost everyone with deep roots in the area has heard family lore about Cherokee ancestry. The Cherokees had been moved to the region from Georgia in the early 1800s. Claiming Cherokee lineage added an exotic flare to otherwise dull personal bios. Warren is that rare public figure who used such lore to career advantage.

Few Americans know the key role Warren played in the CFPB and that she still plays in the left’s infiltration of our financial system.

Had she been running in Oklahoma, her career might have been over. As it was, there were amusing follow-up pieces about “Faux-cahantas” and “Sacajahwarren.” Soon the media stamped the subject “old news.” It had dissipated when she took the stage in September 2012 at the Democratic National Convention.

The CFPB was Warren’s Brainchild

Warren’s role in the CFPB, however, starts earlier. In 2007, she wrote an article for the leftwing journal Democracy. In it, she laid out a proposal for what she called a Financial Product Safety Commission.

Of course, the financial industry was already covered with mountains of regulation. There were state audits, the FDIC, federal regulations (like Truth-in-Lending), Fair Credit Reporting, rules against discrimination, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Office of Thrift Supervision. In the essay, she granted that some regulation already existed. But she insisted that these were weak reeds against the tsunami of industry lobbyists. Hence the need for a new, powerful, “independent” agency to police the financial world.

Warren didn’t just call for the government to protect us from fraud, which it already does. She called for the government to protect us from a financial crisis. This was odd, since her proposal had almost nothing to do with the causes of the 2007-08 meltdown. And yet, she wanted a unique agency to fill the space already occupied by dozens of local, state, and federal regulators. Businesses as diverse as college loan providers, credit card companies, collection agencies, mortgage lenders, installment lenders, payday lenders, and pawnshops would fall within its grasp.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Just three years later, the Dodd-Frank Act, which was supposed to prevent another financial crisis, created the CFPB. Warren had worked with others behind the scenes to make it happen.

Clearly the 2008 financial crisis didn’t require a new agency to police pawnshops in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The crisis, rather, was an opportunity to create one. What we got was an agency with unprecedented power and little oversight. More on that in my next piece.

 

Jay Richards is the Executive Editor of The Stream and author of the New York Times bestseller Infiltrated. Follow him on Twitter.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Ryan

    Sounds like it was an agency created with the intent to help bring down this country. More leftism.

  • Paul H

    Nice deflection from the primary issue of Trump’s use of a celebration to honor the Code Talkers as an opportunity for a political jab, using a term that is disparaging to Native Americans. Christ Followers should not participate or salute such behaviors; we should be more discerning

    • Ken Abbott

      Hmm. Does that mean whenever Trump assails a public figure for one of his numerous silly reasons, said public figure is forever after sacrosanct? If so, this may create a waiting list to be a Trump insultee.

      You’re not being fair to Jay Richards. The point of the article is not to defend Trump’s actions but to reflect on the (shall we say providential) sudden and near-simultaneous elevation to public attention of Elizabeth Warren’s somewhat dubious rise to political influence, the unmasking of the CFPB, and Warren’s role in creating it? I for one look forward to the next installment.

    • Bryan

      Are you saying the term “Pocahontas” is disparaging to Native Americans? I’m not sure I understand that. Especially in this context. Senator Warren brought that upon herself by claiming to be something she was not. Also, it’s the same term used in the newspapers when it was discovered she lied.
      I agree with Mr. Abbott that the point of the article is not the ceremony but the person, Senator Warren, and the program, the CFPB. Whether you agree with the jab or not, the “primary issue” of the article is the history of the person and the organization, which are dubious indeed.

      • Jenn Johnson

        Bryan and the rest that read this. You may not understand how calling someone Pocahontas is extremely rude at minimum but from the American Indian perspective it really is. My husband is 1/2 Creek Indian and if you call him Chief or called someone in his family another name like that, you would be lucky to leave on your own two legs. If President Trump has a problem with the CFPB then do something which is what it looks like he is doing but to stand and defend him calling names to attempt to minimize someone is so very non-Christian.

        • Bryan

          I get how it can be rude just like in your family to call your husband “Chief”. My point was three-fold: 1) I wanted to confirm that was the term being referred to, 2) how this specific term is disparaging, and 3) that the point of the article was about Senator Warren and her involvement in the CFPB. You’re correct that it appears President Trump is acting on the issue of the CFPB.
          The term was used by several newspapers to refer to Senator Warren in 2012 or so because she lied about her ancestry. To call oneself part American Indian when you know (or can be reasonably sure) you’re not in my mind is akin to calling any American Indian male, “Chief”. Especially is the reason to do so is solely political. Are you similarly outraged at the newspapers that used that term and similar ones a few years ago?
          Second, if the term itself is disparaging in and of itself, how are you supposed to teach history if you can’t use the proper names of specific individuals for fear of offending someone? I think that the previous commenter was referring to the specific instance of calling a specific person a name which we’ve discussed. However, I’ve seen crazier assertions before and I was trying to clarify.
          Lastly, as I stated earlier the point of the article is about a separate issue. I agree that name-calling is poor form for anyone. In this case, there is precedence for the name-calling of this specific person involved because of her previous mis-deeds and the current lawsuit from the CFPB. I’m not defending Trumps words, rather I contend that to jump on him for this shows a lack of critical thinking and the desire to criticize every action he makes.

          • Jenn Johnson

            Bless your heart, I feel you have missed the point of name calling. Our President should rise above and I give him no excuse or leeway by saying “but others have said it”. The newspapers are not standing in front of true hero’s from the Navajo Nation while calling someone a name meant to be disparaging. As for you playing your sanctimonious card as how we are to talk about history if we can’t use proper names, please don’t go there. First know what Tribe Pocahontas belonged to, that is not the tribe the Senator stated her relationship. Can we just stick to the point and celebrate the hero’s without name calling? We should demand that our President simply stick to CFPB or any other policy he would like to promote without being a name caller. We as Christians – to use your words “need to be critical thinkers” and not blindly accepting of wrong doing.

        • Ken Abbott

          For what it’s worth, I tend to favor the appellation “Lie-awatha” with reference to the honorable senator from the great state of Massachusetts.

          Name calling, when done right, is not necessarily non-Christian. Otherwise, who could be called a brood of vipers, a den of thieves, or whitewashed sepulchers?

  • tether

    The things people will do for power.
    This nation has run rampant with corruption for far too long.
    I am so grateful we finally have someone in office who is willing to try to clean things up. Thank you President Trump

Inspiration
Garbage In, Garbage Out
Wade Trimmer
More from The Stream
Connect with Us