Bad News: Millennials, America's Largest Generation, Prefer Socialism Over Capitalism

When socialist Bernie Sanders beat Democrat Hillary Clinton in a landslide Tuesday in New Hampshire, he crushed her among young voters by a whopping 83 percent

Tuesday night in New Hampshire, 83% of voters aged 18-29 chose Sanders, according to exit polls. And those voters were a full one-fifth of the electorate.

Sander's message of "income inequality" (Hillary has one too, but her Wall Street ties and personal wealth make it transparent) is popular with young people drowning in student loan debt (thanks to liberals proclaiming college is for everyone and by promoting the purchase of worthless degrees without the prospect of future employment) and those who have sympathy for occupy wall street. The sympathy also comes after 40 years of liberal indoctrination in public education, starting at kindergarten and ending in PhD programs, imposed by Marxists posing as teachers. 

Sanders sat down with Late Show host Stephen Colbert earlier this week, which is widely viewed by young people, to talk about his New Hampshire victory. 

Although Sanders excites young people, the reason they do is sobering. According to analysis in the Washington Post, a majority of millennials now view socialism as preferable to capitalism. Keep in mind the millennial generation is 83 million people strong and the largest generation ever produced. Millennials outnumber Baby Boomers by nearly 10 million.

In a recent YouGov survey, respondents were asked whether they had a “favorable or unfavorable opinion” of socialism and of capitalism. Below are the results of their answers, broken down by various demographic groups.

As you can see, overall, 52 percent expressed a favorable view of capitalism, compared with 29 percent for socialism. Republicans, those in families earning more than $100,000, and people age 65-plus had an especially high regard for capitalism compared with socialism, but respondents in almost every demographic category demonstrated the same preference to some degree.

There were just two exceptions to this pattern: Democrats rated socialism and capitalism equally positively (both at 42 percent favorability). And respondents younger than 30 were the only group that rated socialism more favorably than capitalism (43 percent vs. 32 percent, respectively).

The other problem here is millennials have no idea what socialism actually is or what living under socialism feels like. Over to you, Greg Gutfeld: 

Free-market conservatives have a lot of work to do, not just on the campaign trail, but in the education system to reverse this trend.

ICYMI: The State Department Slapped The Clinton Foundation With Subpoena Last Fall

We know that the Clinton Foundation has been drawn into the ongoing investigation over the Clinton emails. The State Department issued the family nonprofit a subpoena last fall, asking for all documents relating to the Foundation’s ventures that might have required approval from the government while she was our top diplomat in the Obama administration. Moreover, documents related to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s trusted aide who worked for both her office at State and other areas of the family’s operations, are included in this subpoena (via WaPo):

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.


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.

Of course, the Clinton camp and the State Department Inspector General declined to comment on this investigation, but it once again pours salt in the former first lady’s rather wide wound–which is that she’s untrustworthy, unethical, and secretive. The emails have already painted the former Secretary of State as dishonest, which was explicitly detailed during New Hampshire’s primary Tuesday night; virtually no one trusts her.

Moreover, it opens another front, and one that might have even more legs than the email fiasco, which are the questionable dealings surrounding the Clinton Foundation. Guy has been thorough reporting on the many sketchy details, especially the one involving a Russian-led purchase of a mining company that was in America’s national security priority.

In short, millions of dollars flowed into the Clinton Foundation, while Rosatom, a Russia’s energy state corporation, was in the process of buying majority holdings in Canadian-based Uranium One, the company’s chairman used his family foundation to make hefty donations to the Clinton Foundation. In the meantime, since Russia would oversee one-fifth of all uranium production in the U.S., this deal had to go through an approval process via the State Department which was heads by guess who–Hillary Clinton.

There are other issues as well. A watchdog has called the Foundation a slush fund, one of the nonprofits biggest benefactors had done business in Iran, and there’s the little issue of failing to disclose 1,100 foreign donors.

Lastly, it’s been reported that 181 donors actively lobbied Clinton’s State Department, along with Bill accepting millions from some of those entities while the politicking was ongoing. This controversy was rehashed again last December, where the Wall Street Journal reported that the United Arab Emirates had given Bill Clinton $1 million for two speeches that were approved by Clinton State Department around the time the country was asking for a facility to clear passengers prior to traveling into the U.S.

Spoiler Alert: the facility was approved, despite labor unions, U.S.-based airlines, pilots, and flight attendants opposing it, saying it was “a giveaway to the government-owned airline, Etihad Airways.”

The coincidence that good things happen to people, and other moneyed interests, who give to the Clinton Foundation cannot be ignored. With this new layer in the investigation, it’s guaranteed that Clinton will have to field another marathon round of questioning over her foundation’s dealings, and her probable mishandling on classified information with her email scandal. This will carry into the general, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), nipping at her heels over her progressive credentials, ties to Wall Street, and being her party’s establishment candidate for a status quo that the vocal left wing of the Democratic Party does not want. Talk about being besieged on all fronts.

Last Note: Friendly Reminder; there was no inspector general at the State Department when Hillary Clinton was there. 

The Enemy Within­–and It’s Not Donald Trump

Despite calls from people who claim they will flee the county if Donald Trump is elected president, this new book is sort of a timeout from the partisan noise. As some already know, especially the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, both sides are up to their necks concerning the expansion of government power. In short, Democrats federal expansion when it comes to social services and the welfare state; Republicans act in a similar manner when it comes to national security policy and the Pentagon. Both areas are fraught with danger concerning trampling American civil liberties and constitutional rights, not to mention setting our wallets aflame in wasted tax dollars or increasing debt. Yet, the most damage isn't necessarily concentrated in the Capitol building, though that's where the life blood comes from, but the various administrative arms that dot Washington.

The gross unchecked power of Washington’s bureaucracy is exactly what John Yoo and Dean Reuter want to illustrate in the book Liberty’s Nemesis.

If there has been a unifying theme of Barack Obama’s presidency, it is the inexorable growth of the administrative state. This expansion has followed a pattern:

  • First, expand federal powers beyond their constitutional limits.
  • Second, delegate those powers to agencies and away from the elected politicians in Congress.
  • Third, insulate civil servants from politics and accountability. Since its introduction in American life by Woodrow Wilson in the 20th Century, the administrative state's has steadily undermined democratic self-government, reduced the sphere of individual liberty, and burdened the free market and economic grown


Many Americans have rightly shared the Founders’ fear of excessive lawmaking, but Liberty’s Nemesis is the first book to explain why the concentration of power in administrative agencies in particular is the greatest – and most overlooked – threat to our liberties today.

Besides the overreach, and the potential for wasted money, comes the impact on the U.S. economy. One of the best examples of this is the proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP) that’s being pushed by the Obama administration. Overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency, CPP aims to reduce carbon emissions by at least 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. It will grossly impact fixed-income seniors, potentially gut millions of jobs from black and Hispanic communities, and has coal-producing states scratching their heads, as the new regulations would devastate their local economies. It’s part of another area of Washington overreach–Obama’s war on coal–which if successful, would kill over 125,000 jobs, along with a net loss of $650 billion in GDP over the next decade. The EPA’s mission in this regard has been called “constitutionally reckless.” Blueprints from states to accommodate the new regulations are due this September.

Luckily, the Supreme Court issued a stay on a key provision, the carbon regulations on power plants, on Monday. Even with this check on the Obama administration’s overreach on environmental policy–it shouldn’t have reached this point to begin with; and it’s still dubious as to whether the Court will strike this plan down as unconstitutional.

Congressional Black Caucus Endorses Hillary, Not One Vote for Bernie

Despite Bernie Sanders’ lunch with civil rights activist Al Sharpton in Harlem the day after winning New Hampshire (handily), one of the most prominent African-American groups in Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus, has chosen to endorse his opponent, Hillary Clinton. In fact, Sanders didn’t receive a single vote from the group.

Mrs. Clinton has been a “long-term, longtime partner and helped in the election of Democrats across the board,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, New York Democrat and chairman of the caucus’s political action committee, in announcing the endorsement.

This will be a blow to Sanders, who is seeking to win the important African-American vote in the Democratic primary. The candidates’ jockeying for this demographic is no surprise.

"It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a Democrat to win the nomination without strong levels of support among African American and Hispanic voters," Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, wrote in a Tuesday memo to reporters.

Clinton has the advantage in the South Carolina primary; Polling shows that she has doubled her lead in the state. Yet, new reports suggest her win is not inevitable. That’s because her problem with millennials defies demographics. Young black voters, it seems, are becoming just as disenchanted with the candidate as young white voters. They are nervous about her inconsistent record and her husband’s policies as president, reports NPR, particularly the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act, which some claim led to an increase in African-American incarcerations. Is there a hole in her southern “firewall” after all?

Sharpton will meet with Clinton next week and before deciding who to endorse.

Rotary Club Awkwardly Kicks Jeb Bush 'Out the Door'

The cloud of awkwardness and clumsy misfortune continues to loom over Jeb Bush's head while on the campaign trail.  At at rotary club rally in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Jeb was interrupted during the middle of his speech and ushered off stage.  

"They're kicking me out the door," Jeb said.  "They're kicking me out the door."

He then proceeded to awkwardly nod his head, walk around in a circle, and then move off stage.  

Wether it be the chest bump in Iowa, giving out turtles to kids in New Hampshire, or the bizarre campaign ad of him struggling with a hoodie in Las Vegas, Jeb simply struggles with relating to the everyday American.  He continues to go out of his way to act like an everyday American; and in doing so, proves that he is not.    

Oregon Occupier: We'll Leave Here 'Dead Or Without Charges'

On Wednesday night, the FBI raided the now 40-day-old anti-government occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon. Four men remain at the site and are reportedly engaging in negotiations with authorities.

Yet, one of the occupiers, David Fry, had a message for those authorities:

"You're going to hell. Kill me. Get it over with," he said. "We're innocent people camping at a public facility, and you're going to murder us."

"The only way we're leaving here is dead or without charges," Fry said, who told the FBI to "get the hell out of Oregon."

Last month, the standoff took a violent and deadly turn. Police arrested occupation leader Ammon Bundy, the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his brother and three other protesters when they were traveling on U.S. Highway 395. Tragically, the group's spokesman, LaVoy Finicum, was killed in that confrontation.

Fry's charged language suggests it's going to be a drawn out and perhaps bloody ending. Other reports, however, indicate the occupiers will surrender. 

Stay tuned for updates.

Iran Celebrates Capturing Americans With Parade

Iran celebrated its 37th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution with a parade mocking the capture of the 10 U.S. sailors, and by releasing images of one of the detained Americans with a face full of tears during his ordeal.

The reenactment took place on a parade float, using Iranians to act out both captives and armed captors roles.  

This is just another action in a series of events that includes the capture and humiliation of American prisoners, an Iranian drone being flown over a US aircraft carrier, and on Wednesday, video of the U.S. sailors in tears.  

The FBI Still Hasn't Unlocked the San Bernardino Terrorists' Phone

The cell phone used by the San Bernardino terrorists during their December 2 attack was so well encrypted that the FBI has not yet unlocked its contents.

James Comey, who directs the agency, told the Senate Intelligence Committee the problem of communications "going dark" was "overwhelmingly affecting" law enforcement operations.

He said criminals were increasingly using encryption to evade detection in cases of murder, car accidents, drug trafficking and child pornography.

"We still have one of those killer's phones that we have not been able to open," Mr Comey said on Tuesday in reference to the San Bernardino attack.

This is unsettling, for a multitude of reasons. One, I don't like the idea that terrorists are better at encryption than the FBI. Two, it's crucial to know just who exactly the San Bernardino terrorists were speaking to in the days leading up to the attack--they could be planning other attacks and American lives could be at risk.

State Department: 'Of Course' Hillary's Classified Email Spillage is 'Very Serious'

A follow-up to Katie's post, which detailed Fox News' latest report on how Hillary Clinton's impropernational security-compromising email scheme led to expanding concentric circles of intelligence "spillage." In case you missed it, here are the details:

At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News. The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and others. A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server. The State Department recently confirmed that the messages in question include the most sensitive kind of intelligence.

Intelligence officials familiar with the recently-confirmed FBI criminal investigation into the matter say the secrets that Clinton knowingly put at risk were some of the most sensitive in existence. Her presidential campaign has cynically insisted that this top secret (and above) intelligence be made public, to "prove" that it's no big deal. Looking past the fact that this isn't how the law works, Team Hillary knows full well that their bad-faith request cannot be fulfilled, as the State Department has concluded that 29 emails are too secret to release even with significant redactions. This determination confirmed urgent concerns raised by the intelligence community Inspector General, which prompted the initial FBI probe. Pressed by Fox's Catherine Herridge yesterday, a State Department spokesman acknowledged that new details about the extent of the classified email spillage are "of course" quite serious:

He noted that the department is currently focused on complying with a court order to publicly release the final round of Hillary Clinton's (non-deleted) emails. This week, a federal judge rebuffed the State Department's request to push back the deadline significantly:

A federal judge has rejected the State Department’s request for a month-long delay in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit over Hillary Clinton’s emails. While the agency was supposed to have completed its review of Clinton’s private emails by the end of January, State Department officials attempted to push the deadline back to Feb. 29 due to an “error” that caused the agency to overlook more than 7,000 pages of records. But Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court told the State Department Tuesday he was reluctant to allow the agency to stall the release of the final batch of Clinton emails until the end of the month. He instead asked the State Department to publish what they could by Feb. 18 at the latest...The State Department’s attempt to stretch the production schedule in the Clinton email case would put the last document dump after the first round of Democratic primaries and prohibit the media from circulating in-depth stories about the emails until the “Super Tuesday” nominating contests were well underway on March 1.

This last batch of emails is expected to include some of the most complex and sensitive materials to date, meaning that the list of 'too secret to release' messages is likely to grow.  Former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey has made the case that based on evidence already in the public realm, Mrs. Clinton should face an indictment.  That decision will ultimately lie with Democratic donor and current Attorney General Loretta Lynch.  Lynch reports directly to President Obama, who is supporting Clinton's presidential bid, according to Obama's former top spokesman.  I'll leave you with this timely reminder from New Hampshire's Democratic voters:

Bernie Sanders Meets With Al Sharpton And This Tweet Sums It Up Perfectly

As the race for the White House moves to the south, socialist candidate Bernie Sanders is desperately hoping to shore up more support from minority voters. 

Who is he turning to for guidance? Race-baiting huckster Al Sharpton of course. From NPR:

The morning after his New Hampshire primary victory, Bernie Sanders made a highly publicized visit to Harlem to dine with Al Sharpton.

The two dined at Sylvia's, the same New York City restaurant where Sharpton huddled with Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign.

I'll let this tweet handle the rest: 

Have a Question For The Presidential Candidates? Ask Here!

Dear Townhall readers,

We've partnered with to bring you Conservatives Speak! This is a special project that allows you, the citizen, to submit questions to the presidential candidates for consideration. All you have to do is visit the Townhall Media/Change Politics webpage and submit your question. Candidates will answer five of the ten top-voted questions, curated by Townhall Media, plus one editor’s pick.

I submitted this question yesterday: As president, would you support National Reciprocity legislation to allow gun owners to exercise their rights in other states?

Here's a video about Change Politics: 

"Townhall Media is proud to partner with, as they launch their new Change Politics digital townhall platform this year. In cycles past, we've watched how technology revolutionizes the campaign trail and influences election outcomes, putting more power and information directly into the hands of American voters. Never before has the landscape been so shaped by almost instant dissemination and reaction through broadcast, digital and social media," VP & General Manager of Townhall Media Jonathan Garthwaite said about the project.  "We hope that through the combined reach of our audiences, as well as the community, we can close the gap between conservatives and their candidates, encourage helpful dialogue during a turbulent primary season and empower voters to ask the questions that matter most to the base."

The chance to submit your questions ends on February 19.

Churchill’s Grandson Furious Reply To Anti-Nuclear Defense Minister

WESTMINSTER, United Kingdom – The grandson of Britain’s wartime Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, has raised eyebrows in the House of Commons for angrily refusing to meet the Labour Party’s newly appointed Defense Secretary. Sir Nicholas Soames MP told a staffer to Emily Thornberry his opinion on her views were “too robust… for her delightfully delicate sensibilities”.

Throughout the letter Soames referred to Thornberry by her official title ‘Lady Nugee’, which she dislikes using, instead favoring her maiden name. He claimed to believe the invitation to meet him for lunch was a “joke” and that her policy on defense matters would be consigned to the dust bin “where Labour’s defense policy always ends up”.

Sir Nicholas does not explain the reason for his anger but it is thought to be related to Thornberry’s opposition to the renewal of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, Trident. Since the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader the party has toyed with dropping the project for ideological reasons.

Trade Unions in Scotland are deeply opposed to any cancellation of Trident, this led Labour to propose a bizarre compromise, were the submarines would be built but would not carry nuclear weapons. The idea was widely mocked in both London and Washington.

Winston Churchill led Britain throughout the Second World War and was voted the greatest ever Briton. His family are still considered by many of have an unofficial role in standing up for the military and Soames himself has served in the Conservative Defense team.

Thornberry’s pedigree is less impressive, with her having gotten into trouble before last year’s general election for patronising working class British people. She took to twitter to express her disdain for a “white van man” with a union flag outside his house. At the time she was reprimanded by the then Labour leader Ed Miliband.

The email exchange has been widely forwarded, including to the editor of the Eton College Chronicle. The chronicle serves as the newsletter for the private school that many Labour politicians attack on a regular basis as they see it as evidence of the British class system.

Soames attended Eton, as did Prime Minister David Cameron and the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

Jay Carney: Obama Would 'Prefer' to See Clinton as Democratic Presidential Nominee Over Sanders

Despite praising Sen. Bernie Sanders and acknowledging that Hillary Clinton is a bit “rusty” on the campaign trail, President Obama would prefer to see Clinton as the Democratic nominee, according to his former press secretary.

“I think the president has signaled while still remaining neutral that he supports Secretary Clinton’s candidacy and would prefer to see her as the nominee,” Jay Carney said on CNN.

“I think he is maintaining the tradition of not intervening in a party primary. But I don’t think there is any doubt that he wants Hillary to win the nomination and believes she would be the best candidate in the fall and the most effective as president in carrying forward what he has achieved.”

Don’t expect a public endorsement of the former secretary of state anytime soon, however.

“[He won’t] officially embrace her unless and until it’s clear that she’s going to be the nominee,” Carney added.

This is assuming, of course, that she does not get indicted over her email scandal. If she did, some, including former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, are predicting Vice President Joe Biden would enter the race and presumably become the Democratic presidential nominee.  

Bernie Sanders Raised a Ton of Money Last Night

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has raised $5.2 million since his (sort-of) victory last night in the New Hampshire primary. The average donation size was $34.

At his victory speech, Sanders encouraged his supporters to send in small donations. Apparently, they listened.

Sanders crushed rival Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday. During his victory speech, he urged people to donate to his campaign.

“I'm going to hold a fundraiser right here, right now, across America,” Sanders told the crowd at his victory speech in Concord, N.H.

“My request is please go to and contribute. Please help us raise the funds we need, whether it's $10 bucks, $20 bucks, or $50 bucks. Help up us raise the money we need to take the fight to Nevada, South Carolina, and the states on Super Tuesday.”

Sanders outraised Hillary Clinton by $5 million in January.

Looks like quite a few people are feelin' the Bern.

Oh, Canada: Cost Of Liberal Party’s Proposals Projected To Soar Into The Billions

Liberal Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s proposals for his four-year term are projected to send Canada into the red in the neighborhood of $90 billion. So, in essence, Canada’s liberals are going to spend everyone’s money in four year (via National Post):

In a report, the bank predicts the public books will sink deeper into the red due to the combination of a weakened economy and Liberal promises of billions in fiscal stimulus.

Report author Warren Lovely says if the bank’s downgraded growth profile comes to pass then Ottawa could lose $50 billion in revenue over the next four years.

The Liberals have pledged to run deficits in the coming years in order to spend $17.4 billion over its first mandate on infrastructure projects — which they predict will create jobs and generate economic growth.

The National Post added that Liberals have moved away from their promise to keep deficits under $10 billion, and their goal of having a balanced budget in their fourth year could be difficult, if not outright impossible, without tax increases and reductions in government spending.

Sounds like quite a grim economic picture, eh?

San Diego City Officials Wanted To Ban 'Gender Biased' Phrase 'Founding Fathers' Ahead Of Presidents Day

As we approach Presidents Day, it’s essential to remember not to use gender-specific language, like Founding Fathers, if you’re a city worker in San Diego. The Pacific Justice Institute caught this wild exercise in political correctness. The city of San Diego has now said that workers can't refer to the Founding Fathers by their proper title on Monday (via Fox News):

The traditional reference to America's patriotic patriarchs was an example of "gender biased" language in a city manual, and the admonition not to use it was reinforced this week with verbal orders, according to legal watchdog group, Pacific Justice Institute.

“At a time set aside to honor American icons to whom we owe our constitutional freedoms, it is offensive and indefensible that the City of San Diego is directing employees not to even mention the Founding Fathers,” Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said in a statement provided to

The warning against referring to Washington, Jefferson, Adams and company as "Founding Fathers" first appeared in a section of a city-issued manual titled, “Bias-Free Language.”

In a statement, city spokeswoman Katie Keach said workers are now free to characterize the framers of the Constitution in the traditional language.

“The ‘founding fathers’ reference was an example used in the correspondence manual, nothing more," she said. "This example has been removed."

Folks, this is getting out of control. Facts are facts, but in psycho-political correctness land–hope is down, black is white. We’ve seen what it’s done to our college campuses by turning them into cesspools of intolerance. So, please enjoy Triumph the Insult Dog’s venture to the University of New Hampshire, where he (and by he, I mean comedian Robert Smigel) wanted to know about safe spaces, microaggressions, and gender neutrality (kill me now!). Yes, a bit cavalier, but pay attention to the redhead with the glasses. Her reactions are priceless.

[Warning: some strong language and adult content]

Divisive President Laments On How Much He Sucked At Easing Partisan Rhetoric

Today, President Obama ventured back to Springfield, Illinois, where he launched his 2008 presidential campaign, to address the Illinois General Assembly. He lamented about how he’s been an utter failure regarding bridging political divides and calming the vicious partisan rhetoric (via NBC News):

Returning to the place where his political career — and his first presidential campaign — began, President Obama visited the Illinois capital Wednesday, renewing his call for healing the nation's partisan discord and building a better electoral system.

Bemoaning a "poisonous political climate" that made citizens cynical and disillusioned and leaders unable to achieve great goals, Obama posed the challenge: "What can we do all of us together to try to make our politics better?"

He outlined a few solutions, none of them new: limiting the influence of money in politics — including a Constitutional amendment, if necessary; reforming the congressional redistricting process; and making it easier to register and vote.

Well, for starters, this president is the most divisive in the modern era. Second, gerrymandering really didn’t have that much of an impact on our political process. But if Democrats want to continue this charade of throwing temper tantrums about the way congressional districts are drafted, then win some state and local elections. You actually have to care about the states, Democrats. By all accounts, you have zero interest in state legislatures, secretaries of state, governors, insurance commissioners, and other positions that are key to congressional maps, and finding future talent for the party. But enough about how Democrats have been completely eaten alive at the state level; Obama added that not being able to shed his divisive nature is one of the biggest regrets of his presidency.

In short, a divisive president lamented about how awful he was at trying to…be not as partisan. That’s rich–almost as rich as Bill Clinton trying to accuse other of sexism given his sordid sexual history.

President Obama at Illinois General Assembly: "I had to acknowledge that one of my few regrets is my inability to reduce the polarization and meanness in our politics. I was able to be part of that here, and yet, couldn't translate it the way I wanted to into our politics in Washington." Full video here:

Posted by C-SPAN on Wednesday, February 10, 2016

(Via White House):

But it’s been noted often by pundits that the tone of our politics hasn’t gotten better since I was inaugurated, in fact it’s gotten worse; that there’s still this yawning gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics. Which is why, in my final State of the Union address, and in the one before that, I had to acknowledge that one of my few regrets is my inability to reduce the polarization and meanness in our politics. I was able to be part of that here and yet couldn’t translate it the way I wanted to into our politics in Washington.

And people ask me why I’ve devoted so much time to this topic. And I tell them it’s not just because I’m President, and the polarization and the gridlock are frustrating to me. The fact is we’ve gotten a heck of a lot done these past seven years, despite the gridlock. We saved the economy from a depression. We brought back an auto industry from the brink of collapse. We helped our businesses create 14 million new jobs over the past six years. We cut the unemployment rate from 10 percent to 4.9 percent. We covered nearly 18 million more Americans with health insurance. We ignited a clean energy revolution. We got bin Laden. We brought the vast majority of our troops home to their families. We got a lot done. We're still getting a lot done.

Right, Mr. Nonpartisan, who continue with this in his address:

Look, I am a progressive Democrat. I am proud of that. I make no bones about it. I’m going to make another point here. I believe that people should have access to health care. I believe they should have access to a good public education. I believe that workers deserve a higher minimum wage. I believe that collective bargaining is critical to the prospects of the middle class, and that pensions are vital to retirement, as long as they’re funded responsibly.

Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Sit down, Democrats. Sit down. Sit down -- just for a second. I appreciate that, but I want to make this larger point.

I believe we’re judged by how we care for the poor and the vulnerable. I believe that in order to live up to our ideals, we have to continually fight discrimination in all its forms. I believe in science, and the science behind things like climate change, and that a transition to cleaner sources of energy will help preserve the planet for future generations.

I believe in a tough, smart foreign policy that says America will never hesitate to protect our people and our allies, but that we should use every element of our power and never rush to war.

Those are the things I believe. But here’s the point I want to make. I believe that there are a lot of Republicans who share many of these same values, even though they may disagree with me on the means to achieve them. I think sometimes my Republican colleagues make constructive points about outdated regulations that may need to be changed, or programs that even though well-intended, didn't always work the way they were supposed to.

So, you whip the Illinois Democrats into a frenzy, only to give the token handout to the GOP that we’re good at finding regulations that are outdated–and you're regretting how you have been unable to be less partisan? Get out of here, dude. 

Full video here:

Sanders Had A Tremendous Night, But Clinton Is Probably Going To Trounce Him In The End

While Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) had an astonishingly excellent night (some might say “yuge”), it could be his own Little Bighorn. Yes, it’s a big deal that the prohibitive nominee of the Democratic Party got clobbered by double-digits, lost young and suburban women, voters under 50, and every income bracket below those who make $200k or more.

Betsy Woodruff and Jackie Kucinich wrote about how the Sanders campaign just out-worked and outmaneuvered the Clinton machine in New Hampshire, along with running into Bernie supporters who voiced their distrust of Clinton–and their disgust over Madeline Albright and feminist Gloria Steinem’s remarks. Albright said there is a special place in hell for women who don’t back Hillary; Steinem said that women support Sanders because they want to attract men, or something. In fact, support for Sanders is so deep, that some will back the disheveled democratic socialist–and no one else.

Numerous Sanders supporters flatly stated that they would under no circumstances back Clinton, citing the criticisms of her that Sanders brings up on the stump every day.

Ashley Bays of Quincy, Massachusetts, who came to New Hampshire to volunteer for Sanders, said she would “absolutely not” back Clinton, ever.

“It would be completely against my ideals,” she said.

“Hillary is obviously not thinking about the best interests of the people,” she continued. “She’s thinking about the corporations that fund her, Goldman Sachs.”

Peggie Greenough, a New Hampshire voter who came to the party along with her husband and three sons, said she wouldn’t vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee.

“I don’t trust her,” she said. “I don’t trust her at all.”

Marilyn DeLuca, of Londonderry, New Hampshire also said Sanders is “the only candidate out there” with integrity. And she wasn’t exactly enthralled by Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem’s goofy arguments that women are obligated to back Clinton.

“They’re irrelevant,” DeLuca said. “Their time has come and gone.”

“I have two daughters in their twenties,” she added, “and they were so angry when they heard that.”

Based on the exits, it’s an old Guard vs. new order rumble, and the new order won–or did it? As Stephen wrote earlier today, Clinton got slaughtered, but left with more delegates than Sanders thanks to the Democratic superdelegate system that allows party officials who can back anyone in this contest. So, even if Sanders won, he lost.

This is a sign of things to come. The delegate math and the composition of the electorate as we head towards the Mason-Dixon line and out west all suggest that Hillary is going to clean Sanders’ clock once the primary shifts away from states, where whites make up the vast majority of voters. C’mon guys, we all know that Iowa and New Hampshire are whiter than Wonder Bread, whereas South Carolina’s Democratic primary is set to be a majority African-American contest. And they’re all breaking for Hillary overwhelmingly.

First, the math (via Cook Report):

…98 percent of pledged Democratic delegates will come from states with lower shares of liberal whites than Iowa and New Hampshire. Just 447 of 4,051 pledged Democratic delegates - 11 percent - are tied to results in states or districts with higher shares of college-educated whites than New Hampshire. Moreover, just 13 percent of pledged Democratic delegates will be awarded in caucus states like Iowa, which as 2008 proved, tend to bring out more liberal participants than primaries.

In other words, if Sanders prevails narrowly in Iowa or New Hampshire, his support among liberal whites and in college towns - essentially Portlandia - would be entirely consistent with a scenario in which he also gets clobbered by Clinton nationally.

And the road ahead (FiveThirtyEight):

Polling has indicated that Sanders trails among nonwhite voters by nearly 40 percentage points nationally. Although no reliable recent polling is available in Nevada, Clinton leads by 30 percentage points in both of our South Carolina forecasts. In the latest Marist College poll, she’s buoyed by a 74 percent to 17 percent lead among black voters. Sanders must cut into that margin if he wants to have any chance in South Carolina or anywhere in the South.

You could already see how Sanders might have problems in Nevada and South Carolina even as he was crushing Clinton in New Hampshire. Despite winning the state by more than 20 percentage points, the best Sanders could manage among registered Democrats was a tie. His large margin came from registered independents who voted in the Democratic primary. You must be a registered Democrat to vote in the Nevada caucuses, though you can register as one the day of the election. In 2008, 81 percent of Nevada caucus-goers self-identified as Democrats. Just 58 percent of New Hampshire voters on Tuesday thought of themselves as Democrats.

Most worrisome for Sanders is his 25-percentage-point loss among New Hampshire Democrats who want to continue President Obama’s policies. Obama’s current job approval rating among blacks nationally is about 90 percent. Sanders will have big problems in South Carolina if he doesn’t do better among voters who like Obama.

Regardless, let’s give credit where credit is due: Bernie Sanders had a great night. And he’s raised a ton of money since his New Hampshire victory. But it could be his last great win. He’s approaching Hilary’s southern firewall, and it’s dubious he can climb over it. At the same time, he could be a consistent thorn in the side for Clinton, with his fundraising keeping him alive throughout the primary season. He won’t win, but he could keep gnawing at the heels of the Clinton machine, leaving her bloodied going into the convention, consistently highlighting her flaws (of which there are many), and leave her quote bloodied entering the general. The problem is if the Republican pick is someone who is an unserious clown, all of the hammering (and possible damage) inflicted by Sanders would be irrelevant since this unspecified GOP nominee isn’t going to be able to compete in areas where elections are decided.

For now, conservatives should get a good laugh knowing that Hillary knew that she needed to do well with women, suburban parents, and in Hillsborough and Rockingham counties; she lost all of the above.

Exit question: Given that New Hampshire Democrats don’t find Hillary to be honest, one former supporter said the emails made him distrust her, is it time for Sanders to unleash on Hillary for mishandling classified information? Today, it was reported that top Clinton aides handled sensitive material over her server. This is an issue and a huge flaw in the character of a primary opponent.

At Space, Missile Defense Forum, Lt Gen Says NK Launch is 'Disconcerting'

Townhall was in attendance at the Hudson Institute's Space and Missile Defense Forces and Capabilities for the Warfighter forum on Capitol Hill Wednesday where Lt. Gen. David Mann addressed Congress. In attendance was Congressional Missile Defense Caucus Chairman Trent Franks and Co-Chair Doug Lamborn. Lt. Gen. David Mann is Commander of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command and Army Forces Strategic Command. He is responsible for advocating for the missile defense needs of the Combatant Commanders, training and equipping the war-fighter in support of those missions, and coordinating Army space and missile defense forces and capabilities in support of USSTRATCOM.

"I think it's fair to say that we feel very confident in our Navy, in our Air Force, in our Army, our tank formations, our infantry formations," Mann said.  He made it clear that the Department of Defense feels very confident in its conventional war arsenal but was reluctant when it came to the evolving technological warfare that may be taking place in the future.   

"The recent space launch from North Korea, you know, that satellite is in orbit... it does reflect a capability that North Korea is trying to leverage in terms of ballistic missile technologies.That's disconcerting, and uh, we gotta get after it," he said.  

Mann went on to mention how pleased he was the recent budget released by the White House in saying that, "I am kind of counting on, or hoping that looking into 2017 some modifications or adjustments may be made so those accounts can come up a little bit in terms of funding."

Mainly, he wanted the congressmen to know that while America is safe, expansion in the budget will be necessary to continue adapting to the ever evolving battlefield.  

It is safe to say he certainly downplayed the North Korean launch on Sunday but many people in the room seemed to doubt whether or not the DOD fully understands what the satellite is capable of.  When pressed on the issue towards the end of the forum, he quickly interjected and said, "they have not been able to verify that it is operating or transmitting."


Farewell: Thank You, Carly Fiorina

As Christine reported earlier, Carly Fiorina has suspended her 2016 presidential campaign, effectively ending her long-shot bid for the White House. Upon her departure from the race, many conservatives are taking the opportunity to applaud her contributions over the last few months, myself included:

Fittingly, the former CEO waved farewell with a hard parting shot at the Left's constricting and self-serving vision of "feminism:"

To young girls and women across the country, I say: do not let others define you. Do not listen to anyone who says you have to vote a certain way or for a certain candidate because you’re a woman. That is not feminism. Feminism doesn’t shut down conversations or threaten women. It is not about ideology. It is not a weapon to wield against your political opponent. A feminist is a woman who lives the life she chooses and uses all her God-given gifts. And always remember that a leader is not born, but made. Choose leadership.

Hear, hear.  Mark Levin is right: Fiorina has been an extraordinary asset to the conservative cause this election cycle thanks to her relentless, ruthless criticism of Hillary Clinton.  She is bright, accomplished, disciplined, clever, and on-message.  And she's a fighter.  For those reasons alone, I agree with SE Cupp that she ought to get a serious look for a spot on the eventual GOP ticket -- especially because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Team Hillary is going to lean heavily on gender-based demagoguery against Republicans.  She's already deploying that cynical strategy against her far-left opponent who agrees with her on so-called "women's issues" like, er, taxpayer-funded late-term abortion-on-demand (most women are not on board with this extremism), and forcing nuns to facilitate the purchase of birth control in violation of their religious faith.  Regardless of what the future may hold, I suspect Fiorina's indelible legacy will be those two debates I tweeted about.  Her dominant showing in the first "undercard" debate in Cleveland was so complete that she guaranteed a spot at the adult table a few weeks later.  She fought her way in.  She earned it.  And then lightning struck twice.  She stole the show at the Reagan library, passionately and articulately advancing conservative ideals, and landing one of the only clear face-to-face blows against Donald Trump of the entire race thus far:

As an aside, Trump's nasty "look at that face" insult -- and his ham-fisted lie denying what he'd meant by it -- is precisely the sort of foolish, easily-exploitable episode that will sink him in a general election.  The overall electorate will not be remotely as forgiving of his intemperate antics, ignorance, and vulgarity as a certain segment of GOP and disaffected voters have been.  Even in light of Clinton's unpopularity and fundamental flaws, Trump cannot win.  I'll leave you with one of the most delightful moments of Carly Fiorina's entire campaign -- a comprehensive beat-down of Chris Matthews, delivered with a smile:

One more thing: Despite what the Left chants over and over again, Carly did not "lie" about the despicable contents of those undercover Planned Parenthood videos. How rich that liberals furiously accuse Fiorina of lying, while preparing to nominate this woman for the presidency.

Only Five Candidates Confirmed for SC Debate So Far

CBS News criteria only allows five candidates on the debate stage this Saturday in Greenville, South Carolina. According to the network's rules, to qualify for the debate the remaining GOP contenders must do one of the following: Place in the top five in the NH primary, in the top three in Iowa, or in the top five in national and South Carolina polls. As such, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and John Kasich have earned podiums – Ben Carson is still up in the air. Jim Gilmore is most decidedly a no show.

After Tuesday’s primary, which Donald Trump won handily, a few candidates who fared poorly have promptly dropped out of the running. Carly Fiorina announced her exit Wednesday afternoon and all signs point to Chris Christie soon following.

That leaves seven candidates - with only six potentially eligible for the next debate.

While retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson isn’t yet confirmed a spot on stage, most roads will get him there.

The bottom line: The only way Carson won’t qualify is if Kasich or Fiorina passes him in the national and/or South Carolina polling averages. Given that Carson has a pretty big lead in both categories, the only way he’ll miss out is if his own polling numbers tank over the next two days while Kasich’s and/or Fiorina’s surge by a big enough margin to pull one of those candidates ahead of Carson.

The South Carolina debate, moderated by CBS News’ John Dickerson, Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett and the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel, will take place this Saturday at 9 p.m. Republicans in South Carolina will head to the polls on Feb. 20 and Democrats will vote Feb. 27. 

Dozens of Hillary's Top Aides Had Top Secret Info "Too Damaging to Release" on Private Email Accounts

Yesterday Judicial Watch released a series of emails showing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared and exchanged classified information with top aides Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, who hosted the information on their own private email accounts. 

Judicial Watch today released nearly 70 pages of State Department records that show that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides, Deputy Chiefs of Staff Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, received and sent classified information on their email accounts.  The documents, also available on the State Department website, were obtained in response to a court order from a May 5, 2015, lawsuit filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) after it failed to respond to a March 18 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The new documents show that Hillary Clinton used the system to ask Huma Abedin (also on a email account) to print two March 2011 emails, which were sent from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (using the moniker “aclb”) to Jake Sullivan on Sullivan’s email account.  The Obama State Department redacted the Blair emails under Exemption (b)(1) which allows the withholding of classified material.  The material is marked as being classified as “Foreign government information” and “foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources.”

The newly released Abedin emails include a lengthy exchange giving precise details of Clinton’s schedule using unsecured government emails. The email from Lona J. Valmoro, former Special Assistant to Secretary of State Clinton, to Abedin and Clinton reveals exact times (including driving times) and locations of all appointments throughout the day. Another itinerary email provides details about a meeting at the United Nations in New York at 3:00 on Tuesday, January 31, 2012, with the precise disclosure, “that would mean wheels up from Andrews at approximately 12:00pm/12:15pm.”

Today, Fox News is out with an exclusive report showing Clinton shared classified information with at least a dozen aides, not just Abedin and Sullivan, that was not only top secret and classified, but so sensitive and damaging it cannot be released.

At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.

The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and others.

A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

The State Department recently confirmed that the messages in question include the most sensitive kind of intelligence. 
As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton pointed out yesterday, this means multiple indictments are in order.

“These emails show that Hillary Clinton isn’t the only Obama official who should be worried about being prosecuted for mishandling classified information.  Her former top State aides (and current campaign advisers) Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan should be in the dock, as well,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The Obama State Department has now confirmed that Clinton, Abedin, and Sullivan used unsecured, non-government email accounts to communicate information that should now be withheld from the American people ‘in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, and properly classified.’ When can we expect the indictments?”

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign is demanding sensitive emails containing classified information should be released to the public. Last week the Clinton campaign argued that 22 emails found on her private server and deemed too classified to released were simply a product of classification "run-amok." Keep in mind the emails in question cannot be released due to incredible damage exposure of the information contained within them would do to national security and human sources. 

The FBI officially confirmed earlier this week that agents are in fact investigating Clinton's improper handling of classified information. There's no doubt with these findings the FBI is also investigating her aides, even if they aren't aware of it yet. 

9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America (Author Interview: Brion McClanahan)

Who were the 9 presidents that screwed up America? Find out in our interview below with author Brion McClanahan. McClanahan is a celebrated historian and the author of four books, has lectured across the Southeast and appeared on dozens of radio programs to discuss American history and the founding traditions of the United States. Read our interview below to also learn who the four presidents were who tried to save America!

Congratulations Brion on your new book, 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America, And Four Who Tried to Save Her! Can you give us an overview of your book, and what was your inspiration in writing it?

Thanks! During the media campaign for my The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution in 2012, I was often asked about a statement I made where I said that virtually every president in the 20th century should have been impeached. This was shocking to many people, so I thought I needed to clarify my position. I also wanted to explain why President Obama is just the latest in a long line of serial abusers of executive power. It didn’t happen overnight.

I trace the origins of executive overreach and expose the most blatant examples of executive misconduct. Many readers may be surprised by those included in the book because the list of those who “screwed up America” contains men who are often ranked as the greatest presidents in American history, and the three of the “four who tried to save her” are never considered great by the historical profession or the public at large. I have inverted the traditional rankings. Even if the reader does not agree with my conclusions, it will make people think.

How do you define “saved” and “screwed up”?

The book measures presidential success by the only yardstick Americans should use, namely how did the presidents uphold their oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” according to the Constitution as ratified in 1788. Those who “screwed up” America consistently violated their oath according to the original Constitution, while those who tried to “save her” generally followed the parameters of executive power established by the founding generation.

Without taking away too much from your book, who were one or two presidents that “screwed up” America, and one that helped “save” it, and why?

The “screwed up” group was a challenge because I could have included more! Obviously, the low hanging fruit were Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, but there are a few surprises in the bunch going back to the earliest administrations. As for the “good guys,” the best president in American history according to the original Constitution is John Tyler. Who? You’ll have to read the book to find out why.

What are some takeaways you would like readers to leave with after reading your book?

I would want readers to have a better understanding of executive power and to start a conversation about what we should expect from the executive branch. The founding generation feared unlimited executive power above all else. Just read the Declaration of Independence and that becomes clear. We need to be consistent in our disdain for executive abuse. Just because “our guy” did things we like through unconstitutional means does not make it correct. That opens the door to “their guy” doing the same thing. See Barack Obama.

Within the current 2016 field of Democrat and Republican presidential candidates, who is more likely to “screw up” America, and who could “save” it?

Obviously, both Clinton and Sanders would screw up America, but so would Jeb! and any other candidate the establishment Republicans march around as the “savior” of the American political system. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump could “save” it for different reasons. They would be the best among the remaining candidates, but we have gone so far off the rails that the only hope for “saving” America is either through the States or through a series of Constitutional amendments that would curtail executive power and bring it back to the founders’ design.

What books, authors, or conservative-themed books, influenced your political philosophy and outlook on life?

Like many conservatives, I was introduced to intellectual conservatism through Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind and George Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America.From there, I found Walter Williams, Pat Buchanan, Richard Weaver, Mel Bradford, Stan Evans, Murray Rothbard and a host of other men who are often considered “Old Right.”

I also started reading the founding generation themselves and several men who are not household names—St. George Tucker, John Taylor of Caroline, and Abel P. Upshur for example—influenced my views on how the Constitution should be interpreted. Historians Forrest McDonald and Clyde Wilson honed my understanding on the early republic. My outlook on life was forged by my grandparents who emphasized hard work, dedication to family, defense of hearth and home, a love of history, and a respect for God and tradition.

Learn more about 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America at the Conservative Book Club.

Report: As Secretary of State, Hillary Aide Blackmailed Media For Glowing Coverage

I know what you’re thinking: Another Hillary email controversy? Yet, that’s exactly where the New Hampshire also-ran finds herself.

A FOIA request obtained by Gawker reveals a suspicious email exchange between a Hillary Clinton aide and a reporter conniving for flattering coverage of the former secretary of state.

In 2009, Atlantic reporter Marc Ambinder asked Philippe Reines for an advanced copy of Clinton’s speech to the Council on Foreign Relations relating to Obama’s foreign policy. Reines was happy to help Ambinder but insisted on a few requests: He must refer to her speech as “muscular” and that the envoys will be strategically placed in front of her. Oh, and in no way could he say he was blackmailed.

Here’s just an excerpt of what Ambinder produced, clearly following Reines’ instructions.

“When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” read the story. “That’s the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL).”

Now, Ambinder admits the exchange made him “uncomfortable.”

Clinton has had nothing but bad news, it seems, in recent weeks. Before she cratered in the New Hampshire primary, her email scandal was getting ever more serious with reports that material on her unsecure server were even more top secret than we thought. The FBI confirmed it is undergoing a serious criminal investigation and media everywhere are asking, "Will she be indicted?" 

Then, she raised more voter suspicion after refusing to release her Wall Street speech transcripts, which more than likely show her cozy (and lucrative) relationship with financial firms.

All these controversies help explain those embarrassing exit polls from Tuesday night that show voters do not trust her

BREAKING: Carly Fiorina Suspends Campaign

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina has suspended her campaign, she announced Wednesday on Twitter.

Her full statement, released to her Facebook page:

This campaign was always about citizenship—taking back our country from a political class that only serves the big, the...

Posted by Carly Fiorina on Wednesday, February 10, 2016

There are now seven candidates remaining in the race for the Republican nomination.