@WillHild
🇺🇸Account based in
About this account
- Account based in
- United States
- Connected via
- United States App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Executive Director of @ConsumersFirst | Proud father and husband | Standing for American consumers
Washington, DC
Joined September 2017
- Tweets4.8K
- Following678
- Followers19.2K
- Likes1.4K
Pinned Tweet
🚨 The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) just dropped a damning report proving major banks discriminated against conservative and religious groups — shutting down accounts and denying credit purely over their beliefs. After reviewing the report, the CFPB announced that an investigation into the banks "thuggish tactics" would be opened immediately 👇
At the direction of President Trump, the OCC reviewed 100,000 complaints and 50,000 internal records and found America’s biggest banks used “reputation risk” as a justification to discriminate against customers for their political and religious beliefs.
Major banks, like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, targeted Christians and conservatives over their religious and political views, according to the report. Internal systems flagged ordinary political/religious terms. Employees closed accounts after deciding merchandise or posts crossed the line.
They leaned on activist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to treat religious groups as risks. One internal note called a target a “right-wing religious conservative nonprofit.” Staff refused service because the customers’ beliefs conflicted with the bank’s own.
The pattern was clear: accounts closed, credit denied, processors pressured purely because of their beliefs.
This confirms everything we’ve been saying: the big banks knowingly and willingly discriminated against and debanked conservatives and religious Americans.
Comptroller Jonathan Gould called the report “irrefutable evidence” that major banks denied, debanked, and discriminated against customers.
The OCC even noted that no major bank has fully acknowledged the “weaponization of finance against hardworking Americans.”
Yet they wonder why conservatives don't trust them? They've given us ample reason to never trust them again.
Florida AG James Uthmeier is right over target 🎯
@FirstStreetLLC is a central player in a scheme designed to quietly sabotage the value of your home, slapping properties across the nation with highly subjective and arbitrary “climate risk scores."
We've been sounding the alarm on them since July and we commend the state of Florida for taking action to hold them accountable 👇
First Street’s climate risk scores on Zillow, Redfin & Realtor.com are presented as accurate and scientific. They’re not.
We are taking them to court because Florida homeowners deserve facts, not alarmist scores that hit their property values and their wallets.
Here is exactly how the racket works:
xitter.cf/WillHild/status/207706…
🚨 Wall Street is quietly sabotaging the value of your home. We’re asking Congress to investigate 👇
Here's exactly how the racket works:
The central player is @FirstStreetLLC — a shadowy outfit whose mission is to "connect climate change to financial risk."
They slap subjective, arbitrary “climate risk scores” on American properties.
These junk scores are now embedded on @Zillow, @Redfin, @RealtorDotCom, @HomesDotCom, and more.
@BlackRock, @Vanguard_Group, and @StateStreet — the asset management cartel ramming through Net Zero and ESG — own a massive 19-25% combined stakes in the parent companies of these platforms.
See how this works? First Street cooks up activist “climate risk scores” that perfectly align with the ESG agenda pushed by woke asset managers. Then the home-buying platforms that those same woke asset managers control adopt the scores — tanking home values based on pure speculation and bogus ratings.
These unregulated models have zero statutory authority, frequently contradict official FEMA maps, and offer homeowners almost no real appeals process. Yet they’re displayed right next to federal maps like they’re gospel.
One documented case hit a FEMA Zone X (minimal risk) property with a 9/10 flood risk score. Buyer interest collapsed. Time on market exploded. The seller took a massive hit on a $6.2 million home.
For most American families, a home is their single largest asset and path to generational wealth. This activist-driven science is quietly stealing it with zero transparency or accountability.
This isn’t consumer protection. It’s control — Wall Street forcing its radical ESG ideology directly onto your property values.
Consumers’ Research has already alerted the CFPB, @FTC, @FHFA, and @HUDgov. Congress should launch a full investigation into First Street and these platforms:
- Who’s really behind these models?
- Who funds them?
- Why unaccountable private scores are allowed to undermine official FEMA data?
- What actual protections exist for American homeowners whose biggest asset is being deliberately eroded?
American families deserve answers.
Can I get an update on this, @SenLouiseLucas?
Will Hild retweeted
🚨 22 state financial officers are putting @MoodysRatings, @FitchRatings, and @SPGlobalRatings on notice for their continued use of widely discredited ESG policies.
@DagenMcDowell and @Connor_R_Hansen explain ⬇️
REPORT: 22 state financial officers are demanding answers from top credit rating agencies — including @MoodysRatings, @FitchRatings, and @SPGlobalRatings — on their continued use of discredited, woke ESG policies 👇
The state financial officers want to know specifically how rating agencies' continued use of these thoroughly discredited policies has influenced individual states' credit ratings, warning that continued use of these policies harms state financial interests, taxpayers and investors.
In their letter, the state financial officers highlight how these ESG policies rely on assumptions that have been repeatedly proven false. From assuming fossil fuel demand would rapidly decline to predicting that governments would universally impose tougher climate policies, the assumptions underlying discredited ESG policies have not materialized.
The state financial officers also highlight how use of these discredited policies in ratings has (and still is), in many cases, bizarrely led to higher ratings for Chinese businesses while simultaneously causing US companies to be downgraded.
The very fact that so-called 'ESG risk' resulted in some American companies getting downgraded while Chinese state-owned companies received high ratings should be enough to discredit this absurd metric permanently.
No credit rating agency should base scores on ESG, period.
@ConsumersFirst commends these state financial officers for being proactive in calling out these agencies for outrageous ESG practices.
REPORT: 22 state financial officers are demanding answers from top credit rating agencies — including @MoodysRatings, @FitchRatings, and @SPGlobalRatings — on their continued use of discredited, woke ESG policies 👇
The state financial officers want to know specifically how rating agencies' continued use of these thoroughly discredited policies has influenced individual states' credit ratings, warning that continued use of these policies harms state financial interests, taxpayers and investors.
In their letter, the state financial officers highlight how these ESG policies rely on assumptions that have been repeatedly proven false. From assuming fossil fuel demand would rapidly decline to predicting that governments would universally impose tougher climate policies, the assumptions underlying discredited ESG policies have not materialized.
The state financial officers also highlight how use of these discredited policies in ratings has (and still is), in many cases, bizarrely led to higher ratings for Chinese businesses while simultaneously causing US companies to be downgraded.
The very fact that so-called 'ESG risk' resulted in some American companies getting downgraded while Chinese state-owned companies received high ratings should be enough to discredit this absurd metric permanently.
No credit rating agency should base scores on ESG, period.
@ConsumersFirst commends these state financial officers for being proactive in calling out these agencies for outrageous ESG practices.
Markey trying to scalp recruits from the Disney labor pool
The SEC’s current shareholder resolution process favors left-wing proposals that increase consumer costs, destroy shareholder value, and give undue leverage to asset managers and proxy advisors who have become political activists.
Limiting or eliminating shareholder proposals benefits investors and consumers and aligns with our federal system, which gives states primary control over corporate governance.
dailywire.com/news/the-case-…
Now the SEC has proposed removing itself from the shareholder process and allowing states or corporate bylaws to set the rules.
This is a welcome reform to a process that advantages left-wing proposals and damages investors and consumers.
Returning control to states and to company bylaws aligns with our federal system.
Competition for corporate charters will incentivize states to set rules that make it harder to use the shareholder process to destroy shareholder value and raise prices for consumers.
dailywire.com/news/the-case-…
My organization files shareholder resolutions.
Yet I support the recently proposed Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules that will limit shareholder resolutions.
My latest in @realDailyWire 👇
If you listen to @GoodOlBoysPod then you knew this years ago...
Chris Rock mocks "Woke 1" and the DEI movement in corporate America that it fueled, comparing it to the Salem Witch Trials:
"The problem is when you institutionalize it...the Salem Witch Hunts, I'm sure the first 3 witches they caught were actually f*cking witches, but then you open up a witch office and now you gotta start lying, now you've gotta f*cking make sh*t up... you've gotta justify the witch hunters pensions..."
I really want to like TXSE, but I don’t understand why they’re presenting this dual listing as anything more than largely symbolic. People buying stocks through Schwab or Robinhood aren’t choosing companies because they’re listed on two exchanges. In most cases, the exchange itself is practically invisible to the investor.
Kind of like how most people don’t realize TXSE is backed by woke financial giants BlackRock and JPMorgan.
If they’re going to oversell a dual listing’s impact to liquidity and competition, that makes me want to take a much closer look at what else TXSE is claiming.
I wrote about this earlier this summer:
thecentersquare.com/opinion/…
