On sheer volume, open-borders advocates are in the catbird seat, getting exactly the open borders they have effectively been calling for.

Here is the latest from NPR:

The number of migrants apprehended at the Southern border surpassed 100,000 for the second consecutive month, according to new figures released by the Trump administration.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehended 109,144 migrants in April. That is more than 5,400 over the total in the month of March, and it is the highest monthly total since 2007.

The chief of the Border Patrol, Carla Provost, told a Senate Judiciary panel that “our apprehension numbers are off the charts.”

“We cannot address this crisis by shifting more resources. It’s like holding a bucket under a faucet. It doesn’t matter how many buckets you give me if we can’t turn off the flow,” she said.

For the rest of us, we are about to learn just what open borders looks like. 109,000 is quite a few people, not just in a big country such as the United States, but in the countries these migrants are coming from – 1% of the population of Guatemala, 1% of the population of Honduras, taken over the course of the first seven months of the fiscal year.

Economist Hernando de Soto told me several years ago that history shows there is no stopping the movement of peoples, and while I felt disagreement with him then, it’s clear that in this mass migration incident, he was in a certain way right. It’s not that people are unstoppable like deer in nature, however. It’s that the incentivizing laws from the U.S. – from the failure of the asylum system to keep junk claims out, to the huge banquet of ‘free’ benefits on offer from states, which judges have ruled no popular vote can stop, pretty well inevitably leads to the now-seen open border that lawmen can no longer stop, all based on sheer volume. The law has little ballast or enforcement in the face of a migrant flood, with migrants now rolling in not just form Central America, but from all over the world.

What is it going to take to reestablish rule of law, to stop so many service-desperate, uneducated, hard-to-assimilate, unskilled migrants looking for a handout without following the law? It helps of course when someone puts pressure on the governments that make life so miserable for their citizens that they want to leave, as a Nigerian cardinal did recently, blasting his country’s government for driving so many people out based on their rotten governance. In this hemisphere, no such leadership is evident on the ground in remittance-hungry countries such as Honduras, so the migrants are coming.

Sadly, Victor Davis Hanson has offered the grim answer where the limit lies from these current open-border dynamics, too, writing: 

Under such conditions, the logical limits of immigration can be calibrated not so much by whether countries south of the border reach parity with American standards of living, freedom, security, and quality of life. But rather the current issue is whether regions of America, especially the American Southwest become roughly indistinguishable from Latin America and Mexico, and therefore in terms of economic opportunity, safety, and quality of life do not offer that much of an improvement—or at least not such a radical margin of enhancement to justify abandoning one’s homeland.

In such an equation, the more that illegal aliens arrive, swamp social services and tax law enforcement, the more that they create ethnic enclaves that resist rapid assimilation and the more that they sense that their hosts see them most useful as an identity politics constituency, then the more parts of the southwestern United States will seem more like Mexico, and perhaps to the point of eventually diminishing illegal immigration.

No one knows what the saturation point might be of illegal and unassimilated immigration, but influxes are now approximating each month a mid-sized American city. 

So the U.S. will have to become as corrupt, hellish and impoverished as the places these foreigners leave behind to nullify the enticements of migrating illegally. 

Which is a pretty sad picture. The only possibility of reversing it, though, is still out there, given that nations such as Canada and Australia have mastered it: they crafted far better immigration laws, which required fewer lawmen to stop those who would break those laws. If the U.S. does this, the nation can renew its commitment to rule of law and serious efforts can be made to halt illegal entrants at the border.

No chance for that with the Democrats, who see the migrants as politically useful in a lot of ways, the needier and more easily manipulated, the better.

So for now, the migrants are rolling in, and the Border Patrol, with no tools for stopping anyone (just deporting one of them require the use of a detention bed they don’t have) is effectively just waving them though, if not serving as free babysitters for people who should be paying for their own freight the way normal people do.

It’s sad because the other thing Hernando de Soto said was critical for any prosperity and stability in a country is the invisible architecture of rule of law. Without it, the U.S. can just morph into Honduras North. It appears the Democrats would have that because they are blocking any meaningful efforts to control the border, the borders are wide open now and rule of law is going fast.

Image credit: ABC News, via shareable YouTube, screen shot

On sheer volume, open-borders advocates are in the catbird seat, getting exactly the open borders they have effectively been calling for.

Here is the latest from NPR:

The number of migrants apprehended at the Southern border surpassed 100,000 for the second consecutive month, according to new figures released by the Trump administration.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehended 109,144 migrants in April. That is more than 5,400 over the total in the month of March, and it is the highest monthly total since 2007.

The chief of the Border Patrol, Carla Provost, told a Senate Judiciary panel that “our apprehension numbers are off the charts.”

“We cannot address this crisis by shifting more resources. It’s like holding a bucket under a faucet. It doesn’t matter how many buckets you give me if we can’t turn off the flow,” she said.

For the rest of us, we are about to learn just what open borders looks like. 109,000 is quite a few people, not just in a big country such as the United States, but in the countries these migrants are coming from – 1% of the population of Guatemala, 1% of the population of Honduras, taken over the course of the first seven months of the fiscal year.

Economist Hernando de Soto told me several years ago that history shows there is no stopping the movement of peoples, and while I felt disagreement with him then, it’s clear that in this mass migration incident, he was in a certain way right. It’s not that people are unstoppable like deer in nature, however. It’s that the incentivizing laws from the U.S. – from the failure of the asylum system to keep junk claims out, to the huge banquet of ‘free’ benefits on offer from states, which judges have ruled no popular vote can stop, pretty well inevitably leads to the now-seen open border that lawmen can no longer stop, all based on sheer volume. The law has little ballast or enforcement in the face of a migrant flood, with migrants now rolling in not just form Central America, but from all over the world.

What is it going to take to reestablish rule of law, to stop so many service-desperate, uneducated, hard-to-assimilate, unskilled migrants looking for a handout without following the law? It helps of course when someone puts pressure on the governments that make life so miserable for their citizens that they want to leave, as a Nigerian cardinal did recently, blasting his country’s government for driving so many people out based on their rotten governance. In this hemisphere, no such leadership is evident on the ground in remittance-hungry countries such as Honduras, so the migrants are coming.

Sadly, Victor Davis Hanson has offered the grim answer where the limit lies from these current open-border dynamics, too, writing: 

Under such conditions, the logical limits of immigration can be calibrated not so much by whether countries south of the border reach parity with American standards of living, freedom, security, and quality of life. But rather the current issue is whether regions of America, especially the American Southwest become roughly indistinguishable from Latin America and Mexico, and therefore in terms of economic opportunity, safety, and quality of life do not offer that much of an improvement—or at least not such a radical margin of enhancement to justify abandoning one’s homeland.

In such an equation, the more that illegal aliens arrive, swamp social services and tax law enforcement, the more that they create ethnic enclaves that resist rapid assimilation and the more that they sense that their hosts see them most useful as an identity politics constituency, then the more parts of the southwestern United States will seem more like Mexico, and perhaps to the point of eventually diminishing illegal immigration.

No one knows what the saturation point might be of illegal and unassimilated immigration, but influxes are now approximating each month a mid-sized American city. 

So the U.S. will have to become as corrupt, hellish and impoverished as the places these foreigners leave behind to nullify the enticements of migrating illegally. 

Which is a pretty sad picture. The only possibility of reversing it, though, is still out there, given that nations such as Canada and Australia have mastered it: they crafted far better immigration laws, which required fewer lawmen to stop those who would break those laws. If the U.S. does this, the nation can renew its commitment to rule of law and serious efforts can be made to halt illegal entrants at the border.

No chance for that with the Democrats, who see the migrants as politically useful in a lot of ways, the needier and more easily manipulated, the better.

So for now, the migrants are rolling in, and the Border Patrol, with no tools for stopping anyone (just deporting one of them require the use of a detention bed they don’t have) is effectively just waving them though, if not serving as free babysitters for people who should be paying for their own freight the way normal people do.

It’s sad because the other thing Hernando de Soto said was critical for any prosperity and stability in a country is the invisible architecture of rule of law. Without it, the U.S. can just morph into Honduras North. It appears the Democrats would have that because they are blocking any meaningful efforts to control the border, the borders are wide open now and rule of law is going fast.

Image credit: ABC News, via shareable YouTube, screen shot

What’s the connection between spicy chicken nuggets, tomato-farming labor organizing and virtue-signaling celebrities? A whole lot of social media posts and not a single bit of change.

I’m not a huge Wendy’s guy, so I can’t vouch for the deliciousness of the aforementioned spicy chicken nuggets. However, the chain made a promise that it would bring back the menu item if the tweet got 2 million Twitter likes, after hip-hop star Chance the Rapper made hopes for the nuggets’ return a daily affirmation. (I like Chance, but I don’t get it, either.)

Y’all keep asking, so here’s your chance.The people in charge say if you guys can get our tweet (this one right here) to 2 Million likes, they will bring SPICY CHICKEN NUGGETS BACK.Let’s freakin’ do this! https://t.co/qrtvWXjj9V

— Wendy’s (@Wendys) May 4, 2019

And lo and behold:

TRENDING: Dems Quickly Delete Ginsburg vs. Kavanaugh Poll When It Goes Terribly Wrong

THIS IS NOT A DRILL!Spicy Chicken Nuggets are coming back! Y’all are crazy!That took like a day and a half! WHAT?!We don’t know when yet, gotta figure it out, but soon, and ok, LOSING IT RIGHT NOW THIS IS AMAZING!!

— Wendy’s (@Wendys) May 6, 2019

So, you have your spicy chicken nuggets. And Amy Schumer and Alyssa Milano have a beef (pun intended, I suppose) with Wendy’s.

“Hey! We love @chancetherapper and hate to be the ones to tell him that Wendys is the only fast food chain refusing to protect farmworker women from sexual assault and rape in the fields,” Schumer wrote. “This is true. Please read that sentence again. Message for the people in charge: Instead of spicy nuggets, we want food that is harvested with dignity NOT violence. Please join the @fairfoodprogram and #BoycottWendys link in my bio of how you can help.”

So, here’s the controversy, which has nothing to do with nuggets and everything to do with tomatoes: Wendy’s hasn’t signed onto what’s known as the Coalition of Immokalee Workers’ Fair Food Program, which The New York Times describes as “currently benefit[ing] about 35,000 laborers, primarily in Florida. Over the last decade, it has helped transform the state’s tomato industry from one in which wage theft and violence were rampant to an industry with some of the highest labor standards in American agriculture.”

Wendy’s hasn’t signed onto the plan as other chains like Burger King and McDonald’s have. That doesn’t mean, however, it’s “refusing to protect farmworker women from sexual assault and rape in the fields.”

“Heidi Schauer, a Wendy’s spokeswoman, said in an email that the company required its tomato suppliers to submit to third-party reviews of their human rights and labor practices. She said the chain had recently committed to buying all of its tomatoes from indoor greenhouse farms, most of them in the United States and Canada, which ‘strengthens our commitment to treat people with respect,’” The Times reported.

Wendy’s also has a list of expectations for its suppliers that provides explicit protections against exploitation.

RELATED: MAGA for All: Hispanic Unemployment Rate Plummets to All-Time Low

“Suppliers are expected to provide a safe and healthy workplace in compliance with applicable local, state /provincial and federal laws and regulations,” one point reads. “Suppliers of certain fresh agricultural products harvested by hand or in an otherwise manually intensive way will be subject to third party human rights and labor practices reviews,” reads another. Other points include enforcement of labor norms, the ability to organize under a union and protections against harassment and discrimination.

Part of the issue, too, is the fact that the Fair Food Program covers field workers, not workers in hydroponic greenhouses — from where Wendy’s sources its tomatoes.

“This is a complex issue, but be assured that we do not purchase the field grown product that the Fair Food Program covers. In fact, Wendy’s is proud to only purchase tomatoes from indoor hydroponic North American farms,” a statement from Wendy’s read, according to Fox Business.

“We are excited about the superior quality of these tomatoes, and this move further strengthens our commitment to responsible sourcing practices by providing safe, indoor working conditions, shelter from the elements and environmental contaminants, reduced water and land use burdens, and a significantly reduced need for chemical pesticides.”

The Times wasn’t buying this: “Several experts questioned the value of such reviews, which are often superficial, as well as the suggestion that greenhouse farms provide more humane work environments.”

Their evidence for this is a letter sent to the Ohio State University student newspaper written by a Fordham University law professor whose been a vocal advocate for the Fair Food Program. You may be able to describe him as an “expert” on the issue, but a better word may have been “activist.”

While I’m sure there are more critics of these reviews, this wasn’t an independent labor law professor evaluating Wendy’s statement and expectations of their suppliers and concluding that they’ve been conducting only desultory oversight from their suppliers, it’s a partisan advocate who wants to pressure Wendy’s to sign onto the agreement.

Unsurprisingly, however, there were other Hollywood celebs wiling to use the spicy chicken nuggets to bludgeon Wendy’s. Unsurprisingly, one of them was Alyssa Milano.

Alyssa Milano, labor expert.

You may have noticed what’s missing: Any accusations that Wendy’s knowingly uses suppliers that abuse their workers or that allow sexual assaults to occur. Not one accusation. Not one incident critics can pinpoint.

This has little to do with exploitation and everything to do with agitating for a specific labor program. It’s difficult to call these outright lies, but they’re certainly misleading.

And, for celebrities, it’s about virtue signaling. This is the cheapest form of publicity one can get: Moral indignation. About what? What have you got?

In short, it’s all talking points with little substance attached. Enjoy those nuggets, folks.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

When an alleged Seattle rape survivor shared her harrowing story, the reaction from the left was a bit less than civil — all because of the fact that the accused rapist was a homeless man.

The story originally made headlines last year, when a man named Christopher Teel was accused of raping a woman in the bathroom of a Seattle Volkswagen dealership.

KOMO-TV reported that the accuser claimed Teel followed her into the dealership’s restroom in on May 14, 2018, locked the door, then forced open the stall and forced her out.

Teel allegedly told the victim, “you want this, God wants this.” He has not pleaded guilty to the charges of rape and unlawful imprisonment, but KCPQ-TV has reported court documents indicate he’s admitted to having committed the rape. He goes on trial this month.

Recently, the alleged victim contacted Seattle City Journal contributing editor Christopher Rufo about shooting a video regarding the crime.

TRENDING: Dems Quickly Delete Ginsburg vs. Kavanaugh Poll When It Goes Terribly Wrong

Rufo has reported extensively on Seattle’s homeless problem and, as he notes, Teel “had arrived from Texas as a transient and was evading multiple warrants, but the city-sanctioned encampment welcomed him without conducting a criminal-background check.”

“Nearly a year later, the victim, Lindsey, contacted me. After being raped, she had approached city leaders and met with the sitting councilman for nearly an hour but was received, she says, with dismissiveness,” Rufo wrote in a piece for City Journal published last week.

“Teel’s crime against her did not fit the preferred narrative of compassion for the homeless, so the political class downplayed it,” Rufo wrote. “By the time Lindsey reached out to me, she was ready to speak out.

“Lindsey asked me to create a short documentary so that she could tell her story in her own words. I’ve worked for more than a decade as a documentary filmmaker, but my interview with Lindsey was one of the most wrenching I’ve ever done.

“She walked me through the details of the attack and her deep frustrations with the political leadership that created the conditions for the crime to occur and then resisted making changes even after her story broke.”

The interview is difficult to watch. We warn you, graphic material ahead. Viewer discretion is advised.

“I arrived a few minutes early to my appointment that morning,” Lindsey says in the video. “I went up the ramp into the women’s restroom. I was in there I would say no longer than about 15 or 20 seconds before I heard the restroom door open.”

“He grabbed me by my throat and my shoulder and he threw me down on the ground in front of the handicapped stall and we fought for several minutes,” she continued.

She also talked about her frustration with how city officials handled the alleged crime and how they’ve handled the homelessness issue in general.

RELATED: Good Guys With Guns Win Again: Good Samaritans Help Thwart Shoplifters

“I think we need to all acknowledge what we’re doing isn’t working — what we’re doing right now is actually harming the city,” she said. “And we need stronger leaders. And strong leaders, in my opinion, are out there.”

The video made an immediate impact, Rufo wrote.

“We edited the film together and posted it to Facebook on April 22. That evening, it was the lead story on all four local Seattle news networks and had reached more than 35,000 people on social media,” he wrote. “The public renewed its call for warrant checks at city-sanctioned encampments. Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan condemned the assault and commended ‘the courage of a survivor of sexual violence to speak out.’”

Not everyone was supportive, however, as Rufo noted, and the liberal backlash was ugly.

One of the critics was local journalist Erica Barnett.

The agenda (Rufo’s and KIRO’s) is to create a false link between a policy—”allowing” homeless people to live outside of government camps or jails—and rape of a (not coincidentally) attractive, blonde woman, who could be “your” daughter, sister, cousin.

— Erica C. Barnett (@ericacbarnett) April 23, 2019

That the victim signed up for this voluntarily is beside the point. It is the responsibility of media not to repeat false narratives credulously, even if they are presented in well-lighted studios and with many tears.

— Erica C. Barnett (@ericacbarnett) April 23, 2019

Barnett would note that Rufo is a conservative activist — which is true, but she’s also a liberal activist and what we’re discussing here is the story of a sexual assault survivor.

The idea that it shouldn’t be reported because it might reflect badly upon the homeless or because it might be triggering for rape survivors is, well, patently absurd. (She also managed to work Trump into her thread, too, because why not?)

Seattle Councilmember M. Lorena González echoed the idea that this wasn’t newsworthy.

When reporting on #sexual #assault and #violence, “The responsibility of the media is to ask what does this illustrate and what solutions does this point to?” says @ericacbarnett. And to “not sensationalize or create fear” in communities that may already be triggered. #SAAM

— Councilmember M. Lorena González (@CMLGonzalez) April 24, 2019

Rufo, however, had no problem describing what the rape story illustrates:

“The reality: city-sanctioned encampments in Seattle have become magnets for crime and violence. According to the Seattle Times, when the city opened a low-barrier encampment in Licton Springs, the police recorded a 221 percent increase in reported crimes and public disturbances,” he wrote.

“Neighbors witnessed a dramatic rise in property destruction, violence, prostitution, and drug dealing in the area. According to King County Jail statistics, homeless individuals are 38 times more likely to commit crimes than the average citizen (the homeless represented 0.5 percent of the population but 19 percent of jail bookings last year).

“Seattle’s activist class seems, then, to have more compassion for transient criminals than for the victims of their crimes. Lindsey’s story should be a clarion call for everyone who cares about violence against women,” he added.

“But in the tortured logic of intersectionality, the story of a homeless rapist demands ‘context,’ while the white, blonde, middle-class target of his assault is an unsympathetic victim.”

The stories of the havoc that swelling homeless populations are causing in liberal cities have become all too commonplace. Yet liberals insist the homeless are victims of some kind — even at a time when the country’s economy is providing more jobs than there are workers to fill them.

Meanwhile, liberals hector endlessly about the need to believe any woman who comes forward with a report about a sexual assault (even if there’s no evidence).

Yet when the sexual assault allegation involves a woman and a homeless man, the politics of liberal victimhood clash in their own contradictions.

Apparently, the love and support that the left provides to victims of sexual assault only goes so far.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Do you think peace can be made with the North Koreans?

A couple from Northern California’s attempt to relocate a nearly 200-year-old oak tree from one of their properties to another one has resulted in a $586,000 fine. The judge who slapped them with the fine cited the couple’s “arrogance” and “complete disregard” of legally binding conservation terms in his defense of the stunningly steep punishment.

The couple owned two adjacent properties, one of which included a conservation easement upon which the 180-year-old oak tree was located. (Note: Oak tree pictured above is not the one removed.) The tree was under the protection of a conservation agreement which the judge says the couple “knowing[ly] and intentional[ly]” violated.

“The case against Peter and Toni Thompson reportedly started in 2014, when a concerned neighbor reported heavy equipment and digging on a property protected under a conservation easement,” CBS San Francisco reported Wednesday. “Court documents show a Sonoma Land Trust official found more than 3,000 cubic yards (2,300 cubic meters) of dirt and rock had been removed and a 180-year-old oak tree had been uprooted.”

The couple attempted to relocate the tree and others to another home they had built on an adjacent property. Unfortunately for the tree, and the couple, the attempt to keep it alive in the relocation process failed. Not only did the tree die, a dozen or so others and vegetation along the path they bulldozed died as well. ABC News reports:

The heritage oak was uprooted and bound so that it could be dragged to an adjoining ranch where property owners Peter and Toni Thompson had built a new estate home. That heritage oak and two others the landowners sought to move over a haul road they bulldozed through the previously undisturbed site all died, along with a dozen more trees and other vegetation, according to court records.

According to the Sonoma Land Trust, the couple also dumped soil onto the protected land from a lake they dredged on their adjacent property.

In response, the Sonoma Land Trust sued the couple for violating their conservation contract, and a superior court judge agreed, condemning the Thompsons for their “arrogance” and “complete disregard” for the easement terms.

Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Patrick Broderick agreed with the trust that the Thompsons committed “knowing and intentional” violations of their conservation deal, ABC notes. Broderick also made a point of blasting the couple for having “demonstrated an arrogance and complete disregard for the mandatory terms of the easement.”

The $586,000 fine is intended to go to restoring the damaged property — though obviously sans the irreplaceable 180-year-old oak.

After the judge issued the ruling, the couple decided to go ahead and sell their estate for $8.45 million, CBS reports.

The couple is currently seeking a retrial because they say their attorney could not properly represent them as a result of a family matter that arose amid the trial.

“There are so many personal tragic issues throughout this case that were very painful to deal with and actually really affected the ability to tell our side of the story,” Peter Thompson said in a statement reported by ABC. “In our opinion, there’s a lot of evidence that our side of the story really didn’t get a chance to explain.”

A Sydney couple who fed their children a vegan diet were arrested a year ago after their youngest child suffered a seizure. The couple, in court on Thursday, now face up to five years in jail.

When the child had her seizure and emergency services were called, doctors discovered the 20-month-old was severely malnourished, had no teeth, and suffered from rickets. She also had not been vaccinated or taken to the doctor since she was born, nor had she received a birth certificate or a Medicare number.

The Centers for Disease Control suggests that children around the baby girl’s age should weigh around 17 to 30 pounds. The little girl in question weighed barely 11 pounds, less than what a 3-month-old should weigh.

Neither the father nor mother are named in news reports, for legal reasons.

The Australian news outlet news.com.au reviewed court documents, which showed the parents fed their child “one cup of oats with rice milk and half a banana in the morning, and a piece of toast with jam or peanut butter for lunch.” For dinner, the mother told the court she would serve the baby tofu, rice, or potatoes, but since her daughter was a “fussy eater,” she might just eat oats for dinner as well.

“This diet resulted in severe deficiencies in nutrients across the board for the infant, including a lack of calcium, phosphate, vitamin B12, vitamin A, iron and zinc,” news.com.au reported. “Her levels of vitamin D — which can cause bone disease if found to be too low — were ‘undetectable.’”

The calcium, phosphorus, and vitamin D deficiencies led to rickets, which weakens the bones.

The mother’s attorney claimed in court documents that she was severely depressed after the child’s birth. The attorney claimed the woman suspected the girl’s father was cheating on her and questioned her skills as a mother. The attorney claimed the mother wouldn’t even leave the house to get groceries.

A psychologist disputed these claims, telling the court on Thursday that medical records showed no evidence of the depression and her own interview with the mother revealed otherwise. The psychologist, Dr. Yvonne Skinner, said the mother had actually bonded with her child and enjoyed spending time with her.

An attorney for the girl’s father said the accused man was not vegan nor anti-vaccination but was being subjected to a “witch hunt” based on that belief. The attorney for the man claimed his client was essentially helpless to save the child, as the mother “dictated” her care. The attorney said the father was the family’s sole provider and did everything – from cooking to driving to shopping.

Judge Sarah Huggett of Downing Centre Court in Sydney dismissed the attorney’s claims, instead reprimanding the father because he is an “educated man” who “could have picked her up and taken her to a doctor.” She said he should have noticed something was wrong because the child, at 20 months, couldn’t walk or talk and “wasn’t hitting milestones.”

After the baby’s seizure, the child spent a month in the hospital and was taken in by a foster caregiver, who said the little girl couldn’t even roll over. After six months away from her parents, the baby was able to crawl and stand and put on 13 pounds.

Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who worked for Sanders’ unsuccessful 2016 POTUS race, are teaming up for a Facebook live event at noon Eastern on Thursday to introduce legislation that will target banks and credit card companies.

The Washington Post reported that the bill will include a 15 percent cap on credit card interest rates and would allow states to set their own limits.

“Sanders, the Vermont senator running for the Democratic nomination for president, told The Washington Post in an interview that a decade after taxpayers bailed out big banks, the industry is taking advantage of the public by charging exorbitant rates,” the Post reported.