Democrat Strategy For America : Divide and Conquor.

Amen brother! As I have stated on many occasions here, the progressive socialist democrats are wholly invested in dividing the country on all levels of human interests, making them victims denying the right to become successful in their individual lives. But democrats see this as a way to profit from the resulting chaos they cause is for only one reason and that is to get and keep power. 

The motto of modern day tyrants and from decades and centuries past, destroying entire nations, is to divide and conquer the people, driving them to despair and lose hope for a safe and profitable future for themselves and their families.

I'm puzzled way so many of our fellow citizens can't see how this works as we watch the socialist liberal democrats on the floor of congress and daily in the progressive liberal media of all kinds, ranting about how Republicans not only hate immigrants, or how corporation want their customers to die and steal tax dollars, but also how Republicans hate women, hate children, hate the middle class, hate blacks and a clean environment.    

And wait for it, oh my goodness, maybe the worst of all of the Republican failings, they deny climate change!!! Progressive democrats say if you deny climate change, you must be denied your Constitutional rights.

Who are these people? Where do they come from? And worse, who keeps voting from them? Do you really want 'change you can believe in'? Stop voting democrat.

Democrats Thrive by Keeping Americans Divided, Dependent, and Angry

Dennis Prager / @DennisPrager / November 29, 2017

In almost every area of American life, the better things are, the worse it is for the Democratic Party. And vice versa.

Marriage

Even today, after decades of feminism, most Americans agree that it is better for women (and for men)—and better for society—when women (and men) marry. Yet, when women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party; and when women do not marry, even after—or shall we say, especially after—having children, it is quite wonderful for the Democratic Party. Married women vote Republican. Unmarried women lopsidedly vote Democrat.

It is both silly and dishonest to deny that it is in the Democrats’ interest that women not marry.

Blacks

Blacks who are not angry at America, especially white America, are more likely than those who harbor such anger to vote Republican. On the other hand, the more a black American considers America a racist society, the more he or she is a guaranteed Democratic voter. Therefore, it is in the Democratic Party’s interest to ensure that as many blacks as possible regard America negatively. If Democrats feel it will benefit their party, they will play with fire—the fire of violence.

Take Ferguson, Missouri. No Democrat or Republican knows what happened in Ferguson just before a black teenager was shot by a white policeman. The only thing almost any American has known about Ferguson is that a white police officer shot and killed a black teenager. Yet, while blacks in Ferguson demonstrated, some violently, the reaction of Democrats—both politicians and the mainstream left-wing media—has been to side with the demonstrators.

There does not appear to be any level of black anger at white America that is too much for Democrats, who would rather see riots—no matter how unwarranted—than potentially lose black votes.

Latinos

The more a Latino assimilates into American society, the more likely he or she is to vote Republican. On the other hand, the more Latinos continue to identify with the country they or their parents fled, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. Thus, Democrats and the rest of the left have engaged in two massive undertakings for decades: One has been to label Republicans “nativist,” “anti-Hispanic,” “xenophobic,” and “anti-immigrant.” The other has been to promote “multiculturalism,” the anti-assimilation doctrine that cultivates ethnic identity over American identity.

Democrats repeatedly assert that America is “a nation of immigrants.” This is undeniable. But there is a big difference today. In the past, nearly all immigrants sought to become American and to shed their previous national or ethnic identity. Today, many, perhaps a majority of, immigrants from Latin America do not have that goal. They come primarily or exclusively for economic benefits (and no one should blame them for doing so).

Meanwhile, under cover of “multiculturalism,” Democrats and the rest of the left cultivate these immigrants’ Latin American identities, knowing that the more American an immigrant feels, the less likely he or she is to vote Democrat.

Victim Identity

Americans who do not see themselves as victims—of an “unfair” or “racist” or “misogynist” society—are more likely to vote Republican. On the other hand, Americans who see themselves as victims of American society are likely to vote Democrat.   Therefore, the Democratic Party and its supportive media cultivate victimhood among almost all Americans who are not white and male.

Dependency

The more Americans depend on themselves or on their family or community, the more likely they are to vote Republican. On the other hand, the more Americans depend on the government—whether for a job or for economic assistance—the more likely they are to vote Democrat. Therefore, it is in the Democrats’ interest to have more and more Americans depend on the state.

In other words, in almost every area of life, the better things are, the worse it is for the Democratic Party. Democrats have placed themselves in the role of benefiting from social and moral dysfunction.
And they have embraced this role. The Democratic Party cultivates singlehood, black anger at America, Latino separatism, victimhood, group grievance, and dependency on government.

Nor is this the only way in which Democrats do terrible damage to America. They are also tearing America apart, setting women against men (with such falsehoods as “the war on women,” “the rape culture” at American colleges, and the nonsense that “women are paid less for the same work”), blacks against whites, and Latinos against other Americans.

They do this because the less women see men as an enemy, the less blacks regard whites as an enemy, and the more Latinos see themselves as Americans, the worse it is for Democrats.

The Democratic Party has become a wholly destructive force in this country. Even though you may not intend to, if you vote for any Democrat, you contribute to that damage.

Bernie Sanders Say He Wasn't Groped by Trump : He Was Screwed by Hillary

Ol Bernie, the avoid communist, understands the enemy, the progressive socialist liberal democrats, and he knows they take no prisoners. Little wonder then, he was only an practicing communist, meaning he had no chance against a powerful progressive socialist democrat like Hillary.

The socialist battle was about who was the farthest to the left of Marx? And who won the battle?

Never vote for a socialist or a democrat.

A communist against a progressive socialist liberal democrat. And who won? 

Progresssive Socialists Democrats Worry About Debt and Deficits : Why Now??

After watching Senator Chuck Schumer rail on about the GOP tax reform bill on the floor of the Senate last week, little is left to know that, Schumer as the leader of the Senate for the progressives socialist liberal democrats has left the station but forget to get on the train. 

His rant on the Republicans, the deficit and debt that will supposedly bring more of both if the tax reform bill is passed, which it did pass, will destroy life as we know it in our country. But some how 'ol Chuck, with out tears in his eyes has conveniently forgotten the past 8 years of ''The One'', ''Change you can believe in", ''I will change America fundamentally'' bringing total civil chaos and national decline in domestic and foreign policy, as well as more debt to us then anyone could of even fantasized about just a few decades ago.

But to worry, 'ol Chuck has used page 11 of the progressive socialist libveal democrat play book to explain how things are not as the seem but with us, the progressive democrats in charge we can solve Americas problems, not the evil Republicans that just want to hurt everyone.

The fact that the progressives had 8 years to do just that but failed spectacularly to deliver on their promises to the people is of little concern to Senator Schumer and Rep.Nancy Pelosi.

What is  happening now in our politics that democrats are very concerned and indeed frightening  is what the Republicans are doing is working and portends success for America in the future. This  in turn will harm the chances for socialist democrats to win elections as democrats can't lie about what the Republicans are doing because the people actually can see the results are positive.

So, if Republican succeed in their efforts to 'make America great again', this spells doom for liberal democrats. 

Senate Proposal to End Chain Migration : Real Immigration Reform Coming?

We live in exciting times. We are living history like never before. The middle class has finally awaken to the sinister demands on the country by the progressive socialist liberal democrats that want to transform our civil society. All the want is obedience, subservience and capitulation.

What's wrong with that?

That these Senators Perdue/Cotton's proposal to change how we approach immigration in this country is long over due, and in fact is based on an extensive history of how it has failed  proves it's worth to resolve some of the problems with our immigration system, especially the outrageous situation of 'chain migration' in our current system.

Will this proposal become legislation remains to be seen. But if we want to bring this monster that is currently totally out of control, we had better hope the Republicans can come out from under their desks long enough to make it happen.

But know this as well, there won't be any, zero progressive liberal democrats that will vote for this change in or on immigration statues. Democrats rely on chain migration as well as open boarders for increasing their voter base which is the only thing they really care about.

They have shown over the decades what is most important to them. It's about getting and keeping power. There can't be any else more important. The country itself be dammed.

Never vote democrat!

 

Sen. David Perdue: No ‘Dreamer’ Amnesty Without Ending Chain Migration

Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / November 30, 2017

Any legislation that provides legal status to so-called “Dreamers,” or young illegal immigrants brought to the country by their parents, must end the process of allowing prior immigrants to determine who future immigrants are based strictly on family ties, Sen. David Perdue said.

The Georgia Republican’s demand to end the process known as “chain migration” came a day after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced his support for a merit-based immigration bill sponsored by Perdue and Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. President Donald Trump backed the proposal months ago.

After announcing in September he was ending the program, Trump gave Congress until March to address former President Barack Obama’s executive action that created a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which shields an estimated 800,000 so-called “Dreamers” from deportation.

Perdue and Cotton are sponsoring legislation they call the the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act. The RAISE Act would establish a merit-based immigration system—focused on skilled labor—to replace the current “chain migration” system based on family reunification, which has led to a multiplying effect on the number of legal immigrants in the country.

“I want to stop the conversation about DACA as singular issue, relative to a solution,” Perdue told The Daily Signal when taking questions at a forum sponsored by the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors stricter limits on immigration. “I just don’t think under current law there is a solution to DACA, because of the parental and chain immigration dimension of it. What we’ve said is, ‘Look, if you want a solution to DACA, you’ve got to at least engage on RAISE.’”

Chain migration has paved the way for millions of immediate family members related to legal immigrants and naturalized citizens to come to the United States. McConnell said on Fox News Channel on Wednesday night, “I agree with Cotton and Perdue” on their bill, adding:

The president has given us until March to deal with the issue of DACA. And the question is whether you are just going to do that and nothing else. I’m in favor of doing something on the DACA front. These kids came here through no act of their own.

I think they have a legitimate case to be made, but I don’t think we ought to just do that. Chain migration, doing something about the diversity visa lottery, there are plenty of changes to the legal immigration system that should be added to any kind of a DACA fix that we do.

If all of those protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status were legalized, it would likely balloon to 2 million new legalized relatives in the next decade, Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, said at the forum. Perdue said he isn’t sure how the legislation would be structured.

“I wouldn’t preclude any negotiation right now, except that I have certain precepts. One is, beyond anything else, we have to end chain migration,” Perdue told The Daily Signal. “I’m saying that as a business guy. I don’t know the political ramifications of that. … But think about this. The last time we changed our immigration law was 1990. It’s time to review. The world has changed since then. It’s time to get a deal done.”

Perdue is the only former Fortune 500 CEO in Congress, having run both Reebok and Dollar General stores prior to his political career. The Georgia lawmaker said the U.S. immigration system is “absolutely screaming to be reformed,” noting that a merit-based system has broad public support.

The RAISE Act, he said, “is pro-worker. It’s pro-growth.”

“If you just did a pure DACA solution under current law, the problem with that is, the parent in five years would be the next person that gets included,” Perdue said. “I have a particular problem with that, because what makes the DACA young people different is that they didn’t violate the law, their parents did.” Any amnesty is closely linked to addressing chain migration, agreed Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

“The RAISE Act isn’t just a good idea, and here we have an opportunity with DACA. It actually is related to DACA in the sense that DACA is going to have certain harmful consequences,” Krikorian said during the forum. “It’s going to almost certainly attract more illegal immigration and spark more chain migration. So, something like the RAISE Act is necessary as a kind of damage control component of a DACA fix, rather than just horse-trading.”

The United States could use more high-skilled workers to help make America more competitive, Perdue said. “What we’re doing is, we’re educating a lot of young people around the world coming to our colleges and our universities,” Perdue told The Daily Signal. “The No. 1 export we have, the highest-quality export we have, is our [higher education] system. The problem is, we are educating these young people, giving them diplomas, and in many cases putting them on scholarships, and not giving them a green card.”

He continued:  My home state of Georgia right now does more traditional movies than California. That’s a fact. The problem is, the digital development, which is the fastest-growing part of the movie industry, is actually in Canada and now the [United Kingdom]. Why?

A lot of kids go to our schools, on a scholarship, and get their degrees. Many of these are engineers and so forth, and high-tech skilled workers, that can’t get a green card and end up going to Canada.

So Canada right now is the leading growth area for digital movies. So, I’m of the opinion, nobody knows what this limit should be, what the number should be. But we are going to find out.

First, we’ve got to stop chain migration and go to a merit-based immigration system.

Tax Reform Bill And ACA Tax Mandate On Citizens Set To Be Eliminated

If you're still wondering about the OgbjmaCare workings and how they are bleeding the functional life from the health care system, read this and then pray that the Republicans leave the provision in the new TAX FEFORM bill that eliminates the OgbjmaCare MANDATE to buy insurance now heading for the Senate's version for a approval vote today, and then on to reconciliation with the House plan. 

One has to understand that the catastrophic events that have driven our health care system into total chaos for so many citizens is totally because of progressive socialist liberal democrats and democrats alone.

Remember, not one Republican voted for it as they had no input what-so-ever in it's design. NONE!! It was totally a socialist idea to drive the health care system into the ground and then demand government run health care, ''single payer'' to fix it.

Just think how cool that would be after watching how the rest of our government departments and agencies function with such efficiency, all the while having a loved one that's sick having to depend on a government panel of bureaucrats in Washington to deicide their fate. 

Never vote socialist democrat again! And you have to believe, they are all socialists!

Senate Should Repeal Regressive Tax on the Uninsured

Doug Badger / @Dougsbriefcase / November 30, 2017

Senate Democrats who fret over the distributional effects of tax cuts should thank their GOP colleagues for giving them the chance this week to vote on repealing one of the most regressive taxes: the Obamacare tax on the uninsured.

This tax disproportionately falls on those with incomes less than $50,000, while exempting many households earning six-figure salaries. Many who qualify for subsidies will have to choose between paying the tax and buying policies that offer shabby coverage with onerous deductibles that could stick them with big medical bills.

This wasn’t the way the so-called individual mandate was supposed to work. Obamacare’s architects theorized that threatening young and healthy uninsured people with a tax penalty would induce them to buy a product they didn’t want. They expected a big influx of younger people to pay premiums and file few claims, creating a stable market with affordable premiums.

Millennials spoiled this dream. Their enrollment rates disappointed expectations, roiling insurance markets and driving premiums higher. That, coupled with President Donald Trump’s decision to discontinue unappropriated cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers that a federal judge ruled were unconstitutional, drove insurers to hike their 2018 premiums even higher.

Most of these increases fell on silver plans, creating a dilemma for many people eligible for premium subsidies. The perverse result is that many subsidy-eligible people end up being subject to the mandate, while many with much higher incomes are not.

Consider a 31-year-old who earns $32,000. She would qualify for an average subsidy of nearly $2,500, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s premium calculator. She would have several choices. She could buy a silver plan at an average annual premium net of subsidies for a little more than $2,700.

Alternatively, she could pay less (an average annual premium of around $1,200, net of subsidies) for a bronze plan. But deductibles in bronze policies average nearly $5,900, requiring her to shell out more than $7,000 (22 percent of her income) for premiums and deductibles before her coverage fully kicks in.

Her third option is to remain uninsured and owe a tax penalty of $695.

Now consider a 31-year-old couple with an income of $80,000, too much to be eligible for a subsidy. A silver plan would cost them an average of nearly $10,500. A bronze plan would be more affordable (average premium of around $7,400). But since the bronze plan premium exceeds 8 percent of their income, Obamacare exempts them from the tax penalty, unlike the 31-year-old single woman who earns far less.

This 8 percent threshold shields even households with six-figure incomes from the Obamacare tax penalty. A 45-year-old couple with income of $115,000 can forego coverage without tax consequences. A 55-year-old couple earning a combined $177,000 also would be exempt from the penalty.

It’s little wonder that an analysis by the office of Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., of IRS data found that 4 out of 5 people who paid the penalty for the 2015 tax year had incomes below $50,000.
For millions in that income category, Obamacare premium subsidies are a mixed blessing. Because those subsidies hold premiums below the 8 percent threshold, they are subject to the penalty if they don’t enroll. Households with much higher incomes, meanwhile, are exempt.

The individual mandate is a failed and regressive policy. It has neither stabilized markets nor kept premiums affordable, and it falls most heavily on households in the bottom two income quintiles.

Those looking for regressive taxes to repeal need look no further.

CFPB Infested With Democrats : Unethical and Immoral Behavior Abounds

Mulvaney brings light to the socialist darkness.

Everything you ever wanted to know and feared about how the progressive liberal democrat criminals that have infested the disease of socialist liberalism in the CFPB, and more!

It's a little long but informative telling just how the democrats have corrupted this organization from the very beginning. It was organized to be corrupt.

We guessed about most of this as we suspected, given those that instigated this nightmare, Frank and Warren are far left, alt-left socialist liberals, is about nothing more then the uunscrupulous, unethical and immoral grab for power and control 'by any means necessary'.

Upon investigation into who voted for progressive liberal democrats in the last election from this cesspool of socialists, the CFPB, the total showed (537) voted for democrats and (1) voted Republicans.

Who knew???  Watch the video 

Q&A: Former CFPB Employee on Why There Aren’t More Republicans in the Agency

Genevieve Wood / @genevievewood / November 30, 2017

Ron Rubin, a lawyer and writer who used to work for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, discusses the nature of the federal agency with The Daily Signal’s Genevieve Wood. What follows is an edited transcript.

Wood: There’s been a lot of controversy around this Consumer Protection Financial Bureau. The head of this agency, the director, Mr. [Richard] Cordray, stepped down right before Thanksgiving. He appointed someone on his team to come in and take his place, but the president had other ideas and made OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, who we actually just saw leaving the building, the acting director instead. Ron, we’ve got a lot we could talk about here. First let me ask you: What do you think the legitimacy is of Cordray’s making the appointment he did versus Donald Trump’s appointment?

Rubin: There’s no question from a legal point of view that President Trump was correct. The Vacancies Act is what dictates who will ultimately be the acting director. It’s just a very simple question.

And instead of going into the deep legal analysis, I’ll just say that the CFPB’s own general counsel came to that conclusion and issued a memo. So did the Justice Department, so did the president and the White House. Basically, the only people who are arguing the legal argument are [CFPB Deputy Director] Leandra English and [Sen.] Elizabeth Warren and [former Rep.] Barney Frank.

Wood: Sen. Elizabeth Warren was not the original director here, but she was kind of the first head of it because when they were first forming the agency, she was a presidential appointee before she became a senator. So she’s got a lot of stake in this. In an article you wrote for the National Review, which viewers can find online, you say Elizabeth Warren built a political battleship, referring to the CFPB, and Richard Cordray deployed it. What do you mean by that?

Rubin: Well, it’s very interesting. The only organizations that I can think of where the external affairs of the media/press office is the most powerful office in an organization is a political organization. So [in] senators’, congressmen’s offices, the media office is very important and a lot of times gives the orders. And that’s what pretty much goes on at the CFPB, it’s very indicative of that.

I’ve never forgotten that one of my friends, who’s a senior rulemaking person there even now, told me that they would come up with rulemaking proposals and the media people would say to them, “No good. We can’t get a good headline out of that. It’s not a good press release.” So, even people who are Democrats, who believe in consumer protection and the mission of the bureau, would be outraged by something like this, saying, “Well, the media team is dictating what rules you’re going to write?”

Wood: But you outline in here how many millions of dollars were paid to PR firms, media advocacy firms, which primarily did advocacy for Democratic causes and campaigns. But the CFPB paid them to do advocacy for them and was kind of guiding them in terms of, as you said, what they did and didn’t do in terms of rulemaking.

Rubin: Well, that was the money they gave to outside media companies. They also have internally a huge external affairs media division. So both internally and externally, there are hundreds of advertising companies and firms in the country who they could have gone to. They didn’t go to one other firm for the last three years. Every dollar of $60 million that they’ve spent advertising themselves went to this one firm. Which, at the moment, basically the only other client that this firm has is the Clinton Foundation and Clinton-related entities.

Wood: If you’re doing a good job and you’re truly protecting the consumer, why do you need to hire a PR firm to tell everybody, or convince everybody, of that in the first place?

Rubin: You don’t. And that’s the whole point, that the big goal of this organization, the way it has been operated, is to get good PR for Elizabeth Warren, for the Democrats, and themselves, and it really should not be that way.

Wood: Let’s talk about why this was founded. We had the financial crisis of 2008. Coming out of that, you had the Dodd-Frank legislation that came forth, and within Dodd-Frank was basically the creation of what is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: CFPB. That was intended to supposedly protect people from greedy banks and Wall Street and all these terrible things. A lot of folks don’t think it should have ever been created. But where did it go off the rails in terms of doing any kind of good?

Rubin: I have to admit that I didn’t see what a lot of the Republican critics saw right from the beginning. Which was creating an agency where only the president can fire the director once he’s been confirmed by the Senate. And the funding goes through the Federal Reserve Bank, so Congress can’t change the funding, which means Congress basically has no way of meaningfully dictating anything to this agency.

Wood: And no other agency has that kind of thing, right? The Department of Education has to lobby for their dollars before Congress, all the agencies have to go before Congress and make a budget, but CFPB does not.

Rubin: I’m not 100 percent sure that there might not be some very minor agencies through the government, but nothing with the kind of powers that this agency has. The simplest explanation is absolute power corrupts absolutely. And even the best-intentioned people, given the ability to have no oversight, will end up going off the rails and covering up things that they do wrong. When finally Mr. Mulvaney and Republicans take over, you’re going to see what’s been going on inside this agency for the last six years.

Wood: Let’s talk about that briefly, because you also bring this up in your article you wrote for National Review. And you talked about the fact that they’ve been hiding the bureau’s failure. Interesting, we’re right down the street here from a Wells Fargo branch, and there was a scandal going on there not too long ago. The very kind of thing that CFPB was supposedly created to discover, yet they didn’t.

Rubin: No, and it’s hard to say which is worse: the fact that they didn’t do their job or the fact that they tried to take credit for other people doing their job. They had their examiners going into Wells Fargo almost from the day they opened for business in 2011. For almost two years they didn’t find anything. And then there was a huge exposé in the Los Angeles Times in December of 2013.

You would think at that point they would start doing an investigation. But they went off and they were doing things that they shouldn’t have been doing, which was trying to regulate auto dealers, which is the one thing that the Dodd-Frank Act forbids them from doing.

So they’re off wasting their time doing that, and they let the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Los Angeles city attorney do investigations. And then they come in at the end and basically negotiate a big fine because the law allows them to fine almost anything. And for all the world it looks like they’re the heroes.

Wood: But they didn’t do the hard work?

Rubin: No. And not only did they not do the hard work, but in the year … since it’s come out that if they had done an investigation starting even in 2013, there were a whole lot of other things that Wells Fargo had done wrong that they didn’t detect. And in the last year, Wells Fargo has been self-reporting things. So not only did this all go on for that long, but their own settlement didn’t adequately cover what it should have covered.

Wood: You talked about how they have put fines on many a bank and financial institution. What happens to those dollars when they come back into CFPB? Do those dollars go to all the consumers who have been harmed by financial institutions? Where does that money go?

Rubin: That’s kind of the interesting thing. Technically, you can say they gave that money, the $12 billion, they keep saying that they gave it back to consumers who are harmed. But really what happens, for example, in the case of Wells Fargo, the restitution portion was $3 million and then there was $100 million in civil penalties. Wells Fargo victims probably didn’t get that money.

What happens is at the end of the year it all goes into a fund. They’re allowed to give it to a trustee. I’m sure it’s a Democratic trustee, and trustees make a lot of money from the money they distribute. And then they can look and find any other victims in other CFPB matters who they feel were not adequately compensated and give the money to them. So they’re allowed to say that they gave the money back to consumers. But, for example, probably very little of that $100 million made its way back to actual Wells Fargo victims.

Wood: You know Mick Mulvaney made the comment when he first got into the building, “I’ve been going through the files here and looking at my responsibilities in my job description, and it would scare most people out there to know how much power I have.” They have the ability to not only fine these institutions but then decide who they want to give the money to.

Rubin: Right. You know the cliché is judge, jury, and executioner, and also distributor of the fines that they collect. There’s never been anything like that in the entire U.S. federal government.

Wood: When you talk about the failures on Wells Fargo, you talk about how they want to regulate car dealers, put fines on them; the inspector general admonishments they’ve gone into; the oversight investigations that Congress has tried to do that the CFPB has held off of. You say there’s even some sexual harassment charges against CFPB managers that may now come to light. Is that why you believe Cordray was so intent on appointing his deputy? He was hoping that people wouldn’t find these things out?

Rubin: When I worked for the House Financial Services Committee, I just know the things that they were asked for, like documents. For example, in the Wells Fargo case, they were asked for documents explaining how they did their investigation. And if there was one document that was relevant it was called the action memorandum. Basically, the enforcement division’s memorandum to the director of why they wanted to sell this mantle matter for $100 million. And that was one document they did not turn over because it was very damning. Finally, he took a year to get it.

But you saw, for example, that the enforcement attorney said you could have gotten up to $10 billion settlement instead of $100 million. And it was very clear from the document that they did very little in the investigation, which was contrary to what Director Cordray testified to in front of Congress. So there’s just an awful lot of things that are going to come out.

Wood: What do people need to know about it? Maybe the history and where you think this ought to all play out? And some people are calling for abolishing the bureau itself. But where does it go from here, and what do people need to know?

Rubin: I think the most important thing is, however this plays out, there needs to be guardrails in place so that something like this can never happen again. I get so angry at basically the argument from Elizabeth Warren and Barney Frank and the Democrats on the other side, [Rep.] Maxine Waters, is that somehow Republicans all love banks, and they can’t be inside this agency, they don’t like law enforcement, they’re happy to have consumers get ripped off. And that’s just nonsense.

Traditionally, Republicans were the party of law enforcement. And all Republicans are certainly not billionaires, almost all of them are not millionaires. But they’re all consumers and none of them like to get ripped off. So this is just nonsense about the only people who can do consumer protection are Democrats. It needs to stop. It’s insulting.

Wood: I have seen you say in other interviews that the majority of people working at CFPB have been Democrats. And if you’re a Republican, you didn’t really want to raise your hand and say anything.

Rubin: I think Fox this morning said that 537 employees donated to Democrats and one donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign. I didn’t make any contributions to that campaign. I’m still trying to figure out who the one person was.

Wood: Ron, thank you very much. You’ve really come out and shed a lot of light because you’ve been inside the agency and many people have not. So thank you very much for talking with us.

Watch the video : https://youtu.be/pp9TSfC4P7w

Califorina Shames Justice : The Guilty Go Free

This is so bad on so many accounts that it nearly impossible to single out which one is the worst or that maybe they are all catastrophic in nature. One of the worst for all of us is the state of 'equal justice under the law' itself, and that a noncitizen, illegal immigrant criminal actually has the ability to be above the law that would be rendered on an American citizen qualifying them for prison time or worse.

Remember the darling of the progressive socialist democrats, the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers explaining his verdict on murder charges, release on a technicality, ''Guilty as hell but free as a bird''. Sweet times for liberal democrats.

And that an American city in this case, San Francisco, and a state, California, has decided man slaughter and negligent homicide are no longer applicable to known criminal immigrants. Come to our city and be excused of all federal laws and regulations. 

I believe this is just more of the total and unabridged insanity that has tipped the progressive liberal democrats into another dimension that doesn't even parallel our own, but deviates into a darkness that is reserved for the most evil and demented to occupy.

Today, the great state of California has to hang it head in shame.

Jury Finds Illegal Immigrant Not Guilty in Killing of Kate Steinle

Will Racke / @hwillracke / November 30, 2017

A San Francisco jury found the illegal immigrant accused of killing Kate Steinle not guilty of murder Thursday, a stunning result in a case that ignited a nationwide debate over illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was found not guilty on all counts in the 2015 shooting, except for felony possession of a weapon. Zarate faced a charge of second-degree murder, but jurors were instructed to consider first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.

At trial, Zarate admitted to firing the shot that killed Steinle, 32, but contended that he had picked up a .40-caliber handgun underneath a bench on the San Francisco pier and accidentally fired it July 1, 2015.

A ballistics investigation revealed that the bullet skipped off the pavement before hitting Steinle in the back as she walked with her father on a popular pier, lending credence to Zarate’s claims that the shooting was an accident. A Mexican national, Zarate–then known as Juan Francisco López-Sánchez–is a seven-time convicted felon who had been deported from the U.S. five times before the shooting.

Just months before the shooting, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials lodged an immigration detainer for Zarate with the San Francisco sheriff’s office, which declined the request.

 Commentary: The Left’s Sanctuary Cities Hurt Americans’ Safety

In an interview with local media, Zarate said he had made his way to San Francisco because he knew he would be less likely to be deported because of the city’s sanctuary policies. The incident sparked a nationwide debate over sanctuary cities and later became a central theme of Donald Trump’s campaign for president.

This summer, the House of Representatives passed a bill known as Kate’s Law, which would toughen penalties for illegal immigrants who have been deported and then illegally re-enter the country.
The bill has not been taken up in the Senate.

 Kate Steinle’s Father: ‘Self-Inflicted Wound’ of Sanctuary Cities Caused My Daughter’s Death

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Nancy Pelosi Explains Immoral Behavior : Or Not!

When one of their own is attacked for being more of a monster then usual, the progressive liberals circle that democrat to protect, not just this reprobate, but to protect all the the other known reprobates that are on the lose and attacking the innocent.

But hey, who cares. We're taking about good sold voting soldiers that infest the collective for the cause of binging socialist change to society. What better way to do this then having members of congress dropping their paints to entertain the staff or other innocent by-standers. 

Bill Clinton anyone?

Don’t Fall for Nancy Pelosi’s Virtue Signaling. Here Are the Sleazy Democrats She Has Enabled.

Michelle Malkin / @michellemalkin / December 01, 2017

Medical professionals know who and what she is.

Finally, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s faux feminist veneer has fully cracked.

The Democratic “shero” is, and always has been, a sham. But after Pelosi’s incoherent appearance on “Meet the Press” defending Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Al Franken, D-Minn., the progressive left can no longer mask her apologism.

Pelosi milked her XX chromosomes for all their electoral worth. Her official biography brags about her role as “the most powerful woman in American politics” and her induction into the National Women’s Hall of Fame.

Over three decades on Capitol Hill, she has scooped up Ms. Magazine’s Woman of the Year award, Glamour Magazine’s Woman of the Year designation, Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award (named after the abortion godmother and notorious eugenics champion), and the Alice Award (named after suffragette Alice Paul).

So, feminists were aghast when Pelosi hailed Conyers as an “icon” and downplayed news of his secret sexual harassment settlement with a former female staffer—one of three former employees alleging sexual abuse.

Blasting D.C. double standards, Long Island Democratic Rep. Kathleen Rice fumed this week over Pelosi’s failure to call out Conyers and Franken. But this is far from the first time see-no-evil Nancy has looked the other way at Democrats. I’ve been reporting on her creep-enabling for years.

Let me cure the left-wing political and media establishment’s amnesia:

Former Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York. Lost in the aftermath of Weiner’s nude selfie and sexting scandals is the fact that Pelosi refused to condemn him until his interactions with an underage girl in Delaware were exposed by conservative bloggers and confirmed by police. Only then did champion-of-women Pelosi rush from behind to lead the demands for Weiner’s resignation.

Former Democratic Rep. Eric Massa of New York. In 2010, the married Massa resigned amid a sordid sexual harassment scandal involving young, low-paid male staffers he allegedly lured to his Capitol Hill playhouse for “tickle fights.” Turned out that Pelosi’s office had been informed months before, by a staffer of former Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, of Massa’s predatory and harassing behavior with multiple congressional employees.

Massa’s former deputy chief of staff and legislative director also contacted leading Democrats on the House Ethics Committee. Former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also knew of Massa’s misconduct. But Pelosi said and did nothing until allegations went public. A toothless House Ethics Committee investigation went nowhere. “I have a job to do and not to be the receiver of rumors,” she deflected icily.

Former Democratic Rep. David Wu of Oregon. The seven-term liberal congressman had a longstanding history of alcoholism and sexual skeeviness that broke into the public eye when his own staffers revolted against their drunk-texting, Tigger costume-wearing boss and pressured him to seek psychiatric help. House Democrat leaders, desperate to keep one of their own in office, ignored the pleas.

Only after The Oregonian newspaper published allegations by a teenage girl who had complained for months to apathetic Capitol Hill offices of an “unwanted sexual encounter” with Wu did Pelosi make a show of calling for a House Ethics Committee investigation—which went, you guessed it, nowhere.

Former Democratic Mayor Bob Filner of San Diego.   Last month, Pelosi climbed aboard the #MeToo bandwagon in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse scandal. “Your courage is truly inspiring to us all,” she tweeted. But when multiple women accused her old friend, former Democrat Congressman and San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, of harassment and assault, Pelosi indignantly refused to call on him to resign.

One staffer claimed Filner had ordered her to “work without her panties on.” Others alleged he forcibly kissed them. Another said she had contacted Democratic higher-ups in California about a half-dozen women, but nobody did nuttin’.  “What goes on in San Diego is up to the people of San Diego. I’m not here to make any judgments,” Pelosi sniffed.

The late Democratic Sen. Teddy Kennedy.   Of the Democratic lion of the Senate whose public boorishness culminated in the infamous “Waitress Sandwich” with fellow Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Pelosi effused:

''Rooted in his deep patriotism, his abiding faith and his deep concern for the least among us, no one has done more than Senator Kennedy to educate our children, care for our seniors, and ensure equality for all Americans.''

The Democratic Bad Boys Club has had no better cheerleader than Nancy Pelosi.

Christmas Found In The White House : Christ Is Not Dead After All!

Donald Trump believes that Christmas has to be about Christ coming into our lives and what it means to be a Christian. The Trumps believe that Christmas without Christ is just another day at the mall.

Little wonder then it wasn't a surprise that the Ogbjmas went out of their way to eliminate Christ as the center of the Christmas season, they are not believers in a God of faith but in a god of men and government authority, one of the very fundamental aspects of Barack's religious jihad for 'transformation' of our civil society.

Taking away the people's guns and Bibles was front and center for Barack's 'change we can believe in' agenda and ideology.

The Big Changes the Trumps Are Making at the White House to Celebrate Christmas

Tony Perkins / @tperkins / November 29, 2017

There’ve been a lot of wise men in the White House. But this Christmas, there are three more in the East Room, where the Trumps are highlighting a Nativity scene.

That’s just one of the ways the first family is separating itself from the Obamas, who came dangerously close to ditching the 50-year-old display in 2009. There wasn’t room for Jesus at the inn—and for eight years, there wasn’t much room for him at 1600 Pennsylvania either.

The Obamas famously wanted a “nonreligious Christmas” (which makes about as much sense as a vegetarian barbecue). But they were outed by their social secretary, Desiree Rogers, in an eye-opening profile piece for The New York Times.

The lunch conversation inevitably turned to whether the White House would display its crèche, customarily placed in a prominent spot in the East Room. Ms. Rogers, this participant said, replied that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display—a remark that drew an audible gasp from the tight-knit social secretary sisterhood. (A White House official confirmed that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the crèche.)

Ultimately, the Obamas caved to pressure and included a Nativity scene in its décor. For two terms, that was the extent of Christmas in the White House. There were no mentions of Christmas on official cards—and only a smattering of references in eight years of greetings and special events. After eight years of making political correctness a state religion, it’s really no wonder Americans flocked to a man who isn’t afraid to call the season what it is.

“You go to stores, you don’t see the word Christmas,” then-candidate Donald Trump argued on the campaign trail. “It says ‘Happy Holidays’ all over. I say, ‘Where’s Christmas? I tell my wife, ‘Don’t go to those stores’ … I want to see Christmas.”

Thanks to the president and first lady, Americans are seeing Christmas. The White House is alive with tradition, from the “Merry Christmas” on the White House card to its official hashtag #WHChristmas. To the Trumps, it’s just another way of keeping their promise.

“Something I said so much during the last two years, but I’ll say it again, as we approach the end of the year, you know we’re getting near that beautiful Christmas season that people don’t talk about anymore,” the president said at last month’s Values Voter Summit. “They don’t use the word Christmas because it’s not politically correct. You go to department stores, and they’ll say, ‘Happy New Year,’ and they’ll say other things. It’ll be red. They’ll have it painted. Well, guess what? We’re saying Merry Christmas again.”

The crowd erupted in cheers—completely baffling the media. Like most liberals, they couldn’t understand why the issue resonated so much with conservatives. Other reporters almost mocked the line, latching on to it as another silly soundbite on an issue they consider so trivial. But to every Christian in that room, the president was talking about a lot more than the war on Christmas. He was speaking directly into the fight for religious liberty in America.

Maybe the mainstream media didn’t notice how stifled Christians were under President Barack Obama’s government—how everything they said or wore or posted was scrutinized (or worse, punished). After two terms of the most hostile administration to faith the country has ever seen, I guarantee no one takes the simplest expression—”Merry Christmas”—for granted.

To the people who elected Trump, this isn’t just about putting Christ in a day. It’s about putting faith back in American life.

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.