Poll: Millennials Pick Socialism Over Capitalism

Lazlo Balogh/Reuters

by MIKE FLYNN11 Feb 2016366

A new survey from YouGov finds that millennials have more favorable views of socialism than of capitalism.

As Santayana said, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Less than two decades after socialism seemed to have been confined to the dust-heap of history, another generation may have to learn hard lessons.

The survey, taken at the end of January, found that 43 percent of Americans under 30 had a favorable view of socialism. Less than a third of millennials had a favorable view of capitalism. No other age or ethnic demographic preferred socialism over capitalism.

Seniors, unsurprisingly, had the most favorable view of capitalism. Just 23 percent of Americans older than 65 had a positive view of socialism. Sixty-three percent of seniors, though, had a favorable view of capitalism.

Seniors, after all, experienced the long-standing intellectual battle between capitalism and socialism played out in real life. They witnessed a post-war economic euphoria grind down into a socialist malaise, only to be reinvigorated by a global embrace of disruptive technology, deregulation, and global trade.

In the past 20 years, the number of people living in poverty worldwide has fallen by half. In 1990, 43 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. In 2013, the United Nations estimated that just 22 percent of the world’s population continued to live in extreme poverty.

“Never in history have the living conditions and prospects of so many people changed so dramatically and so fast,” the UN Human Development report said.

Even if millenials aren’t swayed by the dramatic improvement in worldwide living standards, one would hope they would see the benefits of capitalism in the products and services that inhabit their world.

They live, and thrive, in a consumer-driven, on-demand society. They have immediate access, at their fingertips, to more knowledge, art, music, and communication than the wealthiest oligarch just a few decades ago.

Each and every one of the products and services they use every day was developed by someone chasing profit and market-share. It is a cliche to say that capitalism has powered the technological and scientific innovations that have improved all our lives. Apparently, however, it is a cliche that bears repeating.

On a postive note, every other demographic block in America still prefers capitalism over socialism. Well, Democrats, perhaps naturally, are evenly split between the two economic systems. At least Democrats, though, have slightly higher unfavorable ratings of socialism than capitalism.

The danger, of course, is that the demographic in America that does prefer socialism is also the future of the country. Of course, they have the luxury of looking positively on socialism, since any impact on their lives is restricted to dusty history books.

The finding also presents something of an existential dilema for the conservative and libertarian movement. Since the 1980s, the institutional infrastructure of the conservative and libertarian movement has grown exponentially.

Aside from dozens of national think tanks and advocacy organizations devoted to propogating conservative and free market views, there are more than a hundred free-market think tanks in states across the country.

It is safe to say that billions of dollars have been spent over the past two decades promoting and educating the public on the benefits of capitalism and free markets. There are publishing imprints, media companies and new conservative news sites everywhere. Yet, something has gone horribly wrong.

Many in the commentariat have watched the rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with a certain touch of condescending nostalgia. “Oh, look a socialist is running for President, isn’t that cute,” you can almost hear them type.

For many, Bernie’s label as a socialist was something he would have to overcome to make a serious run for the White House. It may now be, however, something he needs to more warmly embrace.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Economics, socialism, Millennials,capitalism, hispanics

Clinton Foundation received subpoena from State Department investigators

www.washingtonpost.com

Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

The full scope and status of the inquiry, conducted by the State Department’s inspector general, were not clear from the material correspondence reviewed by The Washington Post.

A foundation representative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing inquiry, said the initial document request had been narrowed by investigators and that the foundation is not the focus of the probe.

A State IG spokesman declined to comment on that assessment or on the subpoena.

On the campaign trail, Clinton is rarely seen in public without Abedin somewhere nearby. (Matt Rourke/AP)

Representatives for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Abedin also declined comment.

There is no indication that the watchdog is looking at Clinton. But as she runs for president in part by promoting her leadership of the State Department, an inquiry involving a top aide and the relationship between her agency and her family’s charity could further complicate her campaign.

For months, Clinton has wrangled with controversy over her use of a private email server, which has sparked a separate investigation by the same State Department inspector general’s office. There is also an FBI investigation into whether her system compromised national security.

Clinton was asked about the FBI investigation at a debate last week and said she was “100 percent confident” nothing would come of it. Last month, Clinton denied a Fox News report that the FBI had expanded its probe to include ties between the foundation and the State Department. She called that report “an unsourced, irresponsible” claim with “no basis.”

During the years Clinton served as secretary of state, the foundation was led by her husband, former president Bill Clinton. She joined its board after leaving office in February 2013 and helped run it until launching her White House bid in April.

Abedin served as deputy chief of staff at State starting in 2009. For the second half of 2012, she participated in the “special government employee” program that enabled her to work simultaneously in the State Department, the foundation, Hillary Clinton’s personal office and Teneo, a private consultancy with close ties to the Clintons.

Abedin has been a visible part of Hillary Clinton’s world since she served as an intern in the 1990s for the then-first lady while attending George Washington University. On the campaign trail, Clinton is rarely seen in public without Abedin somewhere nearby.

Republican lawmakers have alleged that foreign officials and other powerful interests with business before the U.S. government gave large donations to the Clinton Foundation to curry favor with a sitting secretary of state and a potential future president.

Both Clintons have dismissed those accusations, saying donors contributed to the $2 billion foundation to support its core missions: improving health care, education and environmental work around the world.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic primary, has largely avoided raising either issue in his campaign. Last spring, Sanders expressed concerns about the Clinton Foundation being part of a political system “dominated by money.”

Sanders has batted away questions about the email scandal, famously saying at a debate last fall that, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”

The potential consequences of the IG investigation are unclear. Unlike federal prosecutors, inspectors general have the authority to subpoena documents without seeking approval from a grand jury or a judge.

But their power is limited. They are able to obtain documents, but they cannot compel testimony. At times, IG inquiries result in criminal charges, but sometimes they lead to administrative review, civil penalties or reports that have no legal consequences.

The IG has investigated Abedin before. Last year, the watchdog concluded she was overpaid nearly $10,000 because of violations of sick leave and vacation policies, a finding that Abedin and her attorneys have contested.

Republican lawmakers, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), have alleged that Abedin’s role at the center of overlapping public and private Clinton worlds created the potential for conflicts of interest.

COMMENTS

The Nuclear Option: Donald Trump Built a Juggernaut and Had the Media Pay for It

by CHARLES HURT10 Feb 2016

Why does the mainstream media heap such scorn and disbelief on Donald Trump over his promise to build a great wall along the border with Mexico — and make Mexico pay for it? After all, Donald Trump has built a winning presidential campaign — and made the media pay for it.

Mr. Trump’s second place finish in Iowa gave respite to the legions of media pundits and establishment flunkies who suffer the worst forms of Donald Trump Derangement Syndrome. They braced for a huge blow-out win in the Corn State. When it didn’t happen, it was like an executioner’s gun jamming. First they flinched, then they blinked a few times and then got up and ran like their hair was on fire.

Ever since, of course, they have been gloating and crowing — from a safe distance — that Donald Trump failed. King Midas had finally touched something and turned it into silver, instead of gold.

This, to be sure, is every bit as delusional as the derangement syndrome that has captivated their sanity for six months now. What Donald Trump pulled off in Iowa was nothing short of miraculous.

The last time a secular, loud, brash New Yorker who was leading in all the national polls faced Iowa Republican voters — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2008 — he got truly schlonged. Mr. Giuliani came in sixth place with only 4 percent of the vote.

Donald Trump came in second place with an astonishing 24 percent of the vote. He was just 3.3 percentage points behind Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) of Texas, who won the race by shamelessly pandering to the state’s huge evangelical population, which has determined the outcome of every Republican caucus there since at least 2000.

If Rudy Giuliani had done as well in Iowa as Trump did, the media would have declared him the winner and he very likely would rushed through New Hampshire and South Carolina on waves of positive press and his ultimate gambit of winning it all in Florida very likely could have worked. In other words, if Mr. Giuliani had done as well as Mr. Trump did in Iowa, we quite possibly would be referring to him now as former President Giuliani.

But the media hatred for Mr. Trump is so unrestrained that even a stellar accomplishment like he had in Iowa was dismissed as a shattering loss. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s third place loss behind Mr. Trump was spun endlessly as some kind of huge victory. This propelled the Florida Republican, until his poor performance in last weekend’s robotic performance in the New Hampshire debate.

What is so amazing about Mr. Trump’s blowout in the nation’s first primary in the Granite State is not just the 2-to-1 win over the next-nearest competitor, but his performance among every demographic group on every single issue.

Among women, middle-aged voters, the elderly, the educated — all people the experts warned would flee from Donald Trump — Mr. Trump managed to win. And he won on every major issue, including the economy, foreign policy and immigration.

Perhaps the sweetest thing out of New Hampshire is how the media will be forced to spin the results. They will, of course, try to minimize Mr. Trump’s thumping.

Then they will be forced to breathe wind into Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s disappointing — but surprising — second-place finish. The Kasich campaign is hopeless going forward. And so the battle rages on for the so-called “establishment lane” with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and even Ted Cruz piled up behind John Kasich’s hopeless campaign.

Live by the spin, die by the spin.

Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com. Follow him on Twitter at @charleshurt.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, Donald Trump,immigration, New Hampshire, John Kasich,rudy giuliani

The Nuclear Option: Donald Trump Built a Juggernaut and Had the Media Pay for It

by CHARLES HURT10 Feb 20163138

Why does the mainstream media heap such scorn and disbelief on Donald Trump over his promise to build a great wall along the border with Mexico — and make Mexico pay for it? After all, Donald Trump has built a winning presidential campaign — and made the media pay for it.

Mr. Trump’s second place finish in Iowa gave respite to the legions of media pundits and establishment flunkies who suffer the worst forms of Donald Trump Derangement Syndrome. They braced for a huge blow-out win in the Corn State. When it didn’t happen, it was like an executioner’s gun jamming. First they flinched, then they blinked a few times and then got up and ran like their hair was on fire.

Ever since, of course, they have been gloating and crowing — from a safe distance — that Donald Trump failed. King Midas had finally touched something and turned it into silver, instead of gold.

This, to be sure, is every bit as delusional as the derangement syndrome that has captivated their sanity for six months now. What Donald Trump pulled off in Iowa was nothing short of miraculous.

The last time a secular, loud, brash New Yorker who was leading in all the national polls faced Iowa Republican voters — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2008 — he got truly schlonged. Mr. Giuliani came in sixth place with only 4 percent of the vote.

Donald Trump came in second place with an astonishing 24 percent of the vote. He was just 3.3 percentage points behind Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) of Texas, who won the race by shamelessly pandering to the state’s huge evangelical population, which has determined the outcome of every Republican caucus there since at least 2000.

If Rudy Giuliani had done as well in Iowa as Trump did, the media would have declared him the winner and he very likely would rushed through New Hampshire and South Carolina on waves of positive press and his ultimate gambit of winning it all in Florida very likely could have worked. In other words, if Mr. Giuliani had done as well as Mr. Trump did in Iowa, we quite possibly would be referring to him now as former President Giuliani.

But the media hatred for Mr. Trump is so unrestrained that even a stellar accomplishment like he had in Iowa was dismissed as a shattering loss. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s third place loss behind Mr. Trump was spun endlessly as some kind of huge victory. This propelled the Florida Republican, until his poor performance in last weekend’s robotic performance in the New Hampshire debate.

What is so amazing about Mr. Trump’s blowout in the nation’s first primary in the Granite State is not just the 2-to-1 win over the next-nearest competitor, but his performance among every demographic group on every single issue.

Among women, middle-aged voters, the elderly, the educated — all people the experts warned would flee from Donald Trump — Mr. Trump managed to win. And he won on every major issue, including the economy, foreign policy and immigration.

Perhaps the sweetest thing out of New Hampshire is how the media will be forced to spin the results. They will, of course, try to minimize Mr. Trump’s thumping.

Then they will be forced to breathe wind into Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s disappointing — but surprising — second-place finish. The Kasich campaign is hopeless going forward. And so the battle rages on for the so-called “establishment lane” with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and even Ted Cruz piled up behind John Kasich’s hopeless campaign.

Live by the spin, die by the spin.

Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com. Follow him on Twitter at @charleshurt.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, Donald Trump,immigration, New Hampshire, John Kasich,rudy giuliani

The Nuclear Option: Donald Trump Built a Juggernaut and Had the Media Pay for It

by CHARLES HURT10 Feb 20163138

Why does the mainstream media heap such scorn and disbelief on Donald Trump over his promise to build a great wall along the border with Mexico — and make Mexico pay for it? After all, Donald Trump has built a winning presidential campaign — and made the media pay for it.

Mr. Trump’s second place finish in Iowa gave respite to the legions of media pundits and establishment flunkies who suffer the worst forms of Donald Trump Derangement Syndrome. They braced for a huge blow-out win in the Corn State. When it didn’t happen, it was like an executioner’s gun jamming. First they flinched, then they blinked a few times and then got up and ran like their hair was on fire.

Ever since, of course, they have been gloating and crowing — from a safe distance — that Donald Trump failed. King Midas had finally touched something and turned it into silver, instead of gold.

This, to be sure, is every bit as delusional as the derangement syndrome that has captivated their sanity for six months now. What Donald Trump pulled off in Iowa was nothing short of miraculous.

The last time a secular, loud, brash New Yorker who was leading in all the national polls faced Iowa Republican voters — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2008 — he got truly schlonged. Mr. Giuliani came in sixth place with only 4 percent of the vote.

Donald Trump came in second place with an astonishing 24 percent of the vote. He was just 3.3 percentage points behind Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) of Texas, who won the race by shamelessly pandering to the state’s huge evangelical population, which has determined the outcome of every Republican caucus there since at least 2000.

If Rudy Giuliani had done as well in Iowa as Trump did, the media would have declared him the winner and he very likely would rushed through New Hampshire and South Carolina on waves of positive press and his ultimate gambit of winning it all in Florida very likely could have worked. In other words, if Mr. Giuliani had done as well as Mr. Trump did in Iowa, we quite possibly would be referring to him now as former President Giuliani.

But the media hatred for Mr. Trump is so unrestrained that even a stellar accomplishment like he had in Iowa was dismissed as a shattering loss. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s third place loss behind Mr. Trump was spun endlessly as some kind of huge victory. This propelled the Florida Republican, until his poor performance in last weekend’s robotic performance in the New Hampshire debate.

What is so amazing about Mr. Trump’s blowout in the nation’s first primary in the Granite State is not just the 2-to-1 win over the next-nearest competitor, but his performance among every demographic group on every single issue.

Among women, middle-aged voters, the elderly, the educated — all people the experts warned would flee from Donald Trump — Mr. Trump managed to win. And he won on every major issue, including the economy, foreign policy and immigration.

Perhaps the sweetest thing out of New Hampshire is how the media will be forced to spin the results. They will, of course, try to minimize Mr. Trump’s thumping.

Then they will be forced to breathe wind into Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s disappointing — but surprising — second-place finish. The Kasich campaign is hopeless going forward. And so the battle rages on for the so-called “establishment lane” with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and even Ted Cruz piled up behind John Kasich’s hopeless campaign.

Live by the spin, die by the spin.

Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com. Follow him on Twitter at @charleshurt.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, Donald Trump,immigration, New Hampshire, John Kasich,rudy giuliani

German Govt Begins Migrant Propaganda Campaign, Urges Citizens To Overcome Their ‘Dark Side’

Sean Gallup/Getty

by LIAM DEACON10 Feb 2016693

A German government ministry has begun an aggressive advertising campaign urging citizens to overcome their “dark side” and embrace open door mass migration and multiculturalism.

“Germany, stay strong! With humanity towards your dark side” and “Against Hate & baiting – no ifs or buts” read the propaganda billboards.

The text is written over a German flag dripping with black paint. Organisers say they hope to “retrieve” the flag from “right wing” and “nationalist” groups such as the PEGIDA and the Eurosceptic Alternative for Germany (AfD), represented on the poster by the encroaching black paint.

“‘Germany, stay strong!’ Is a call to civil society, to oppose right-wing tendencies and incitement. An appeal to a welcoming culture for people in need – and for a cosmopolitan Germany”, writes the left wing ‘Show Your Face! For a cosmopolitan Germany’ group on its website.

Six hundred such giant billboard adverts are expected to go up, and 20,000 stickers and 45,000 postcards will be distributed in the campaign, which is backed by Germany’s Ministry for Families, Seniors, Women and Youth.

“PEGIDA and Co. abuse the flag of the Federal Republic,” proclaimed Uwe-Karsten Heye, the chairman of the group at the campaign launch. “Indeed the flag and Constitution stand for an open society, the right to asylum and for inviolable human dignity”, he claimed.

 

“I think it is necessary to give people courage to stand against right-wing extremism and xenophobia,” Mr. Heye added, talking to Der Tagesspeigel. 

The organisation’s manager, Sophia Oppermann, said that they also wished to encourage left wing and “humanitarian” groups to use and display the national flag more often.

“We’re tired with the right constantly waving the German flag, and all the others have no chance,” she said. “We are also proud of this country and we stand for the values ​​that have this flag and this country.”

Specifically, the group wants the German public to embrace the 1.5 million migrants who arrived in Germany in 2015, and to keep welcoming them this year as Chancellor Merkel’s open door policy continues unabated.

“We must continue to act with humanity and we must insist that we are dealing with individuals, individuals, have to do”, Ms. Oppermann said.

She argued that the majority of migrants were refugees seeking protection, but admitted there are “huge problems” associated with the mass influx from the Middle East.

“You have to develop ideas on how you can do that”, she said. Adding: “People will, together we hope, strengthen the great majority of society”.

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart London, Germany, Europe Migrant Crisis, propaganda, Germany Migrants, anti racism

Obama’s Justice Department Sues Ferguson City When Council Rejects Draft Deal

AP

by LEE STRANAHAN10 Feb 2016Ferguson, MO293

Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced Wednesday afternoon that the federal Department of Justice will sue the cash-strapped city of Ferguson, Missouri, because the city council rejected an expensive deal negotiated by federal officials.

The rejection “leaves us no further choice,” Lynch said in her prepared statement, adding that Ferguson residents “have waited decades for justice. They should not be forced to wait any longer.”

With support from local residents, the racially mixed council rejected the deal unanimously because of its impact on the city’s budget.

The deal between the Department of Justice and the city of Ferguson was drafted after President Barack Obama’s administration investigated the city following the 2014 shooting death of Mike Brown, an 18-year-old black man who had accosted a store owner and then a white police officer. Widespread local misinformation about the shooting led to local riots and looting, as well as angry protests by the Black Lives Matter movement across the country.

The department’s investigation last year exonerated police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Brown but also criticized the criminal justice system in Ferguson. The report found that Ferguson was using the police department and the court system to generate revenue through ticketing.

The deal reached last month would have required a number of expensive changes, including raises for the police, training, and the hiring of an independent monitor. The costs would have required a tax increase on citizens. But after parts of the city were set fire by Black Lives Matter protesters, Ferguson has had a budget deficit of about $2.5 million.

At a meeting in Ferguson on Tuesday night that was monitored by top DOJ officials via a video, angry residents and city council members said that Ferguson could not afford the deal.

The council rejected the deal, partly because pay raises for police could cause a costly effect on pay for other municipal employees. The council offered some changes to the deal, and black councilman Wesley Bell said, “This is a way to meet the demands of the D.O.J., make progress with reform and keep lights on in the city.”

Wednesday’s decision by the Department of Justice shows that they are playing hardball. The move by the DOJ will likely cost Ferguson millions of dollars.

The aggressive moves by the Obama Department of Justice against Ferguson are part of a wave of lawsuits filed by the DOJ against police departments around the country.

Ferguson officials said that they plan to continue reforms, including the creation of a civilian oversight panel, despite the lawsuit.

Follow Breitbart News investigative reporter and Citizen Journalism School founder Lee Stranahan on Twitter at @Stranahan.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Eric Holder, Law Enforcement, Obama, Black Lives Matter,Social Justice, loretta lynch, anti-police,taxes, Department of Justice, lawsuit, DOJ,Riots, criminal justice reform, police shooting, Darren Wilson, Ferguson Effect,Hands Up Don't Shoot, Mike Brown,Ferguson Missouri