Young Voters in Iowa Favored Bernie Sanders Six-to-One Over Hillary Clinton

Well, America's youth are dumb, but they're not that dumb: they can sure ferret out the true hardline communist in the Democrat field.

From Ronald Brownstein, at the Atlantic, "The Great Democratic Age Gap":

Bernie Sanders answered two important questions with his strong showing in Iowa. But, despite his impressive finish, he’ll need to answer two more to truly threaten Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The most powerful lesson from the Iowa caucus results is that Democrats are facing not just a generation gap, but a Grand Canyon-sized chasm. As I wrote this week, age has emerged as the single most important dividing line in the struggle between Sanders and Clinton.

In the Iowa entrance poll (which questions voters on the way into a caucus, rather than on their way out the door, like “exit polls” in primaries) Sanders amassed astounding margins among young people. He crushed Clinton by an almost unimaginable six to one—84 percent to 14 percent—among voters younger than 30. For those tempted to dismiss that as just a campus craze, he also routed her by 58 percent to 37 percent among those aged 30 to 44.

But Clinton’s margins were almost as impressive among older voters: she beat Sanders 58 percent to 35 percent among those aged 45-64, and by 69 percent to 26 percent among seniors.

That’s an even wider age gap than Iowa produced in the 2008 contest between Clinton and Barack Obama. In that Iowa caucus, Clinton also was routed among younger voters, but Obama stayed more competitive than Sanders did among those older than 45. On both sides, John Edwards, as a strong third contender, also somewhat muted the contrasts. In 2008, Clinton ran 34 percentage points better among seniors than with those under 30; this week, the gap was 55 points.

Obama beat Clinton by 20 percentage points among voters younger than 30, while she beat him by 25 points among voters older than 65, according to a cumulative analysis of the results of all the exit polls in the 2008 Democratic primary conducted by ABC pollster Gary Langer. Voters in the middle-aged groups divided more narrowly: Obama carried those aged 30-44 by 11 points, and Clinton carried the near retirement generation (45 to 64) by seven, according to Langer’s analysis.

But when it comes to piling up votes, one of these demographic advantages is much more useful than the other. Across all of the 2008 contests, according to Langer’s calculations, voters older than 45 cast fully 61 percent of Democratic votes, while those younger than 45 cast 39 percent. That’s an advantage for Clinton. And it’s a slightly worrisome note for Sanders—a cloud passing on an otherwise sunny day—that young voters cast a slightly smaller share of the total Iowa Democratic vote in 2016 than 2008.

Still, Sanders’s overwhelming margins among Iowa’s younger voters—which exceeded even Obama’s 2008 showing—affirmatively answered the first critical question for the Vermont senator’s campaign: Would the connection with young voters evident at his rallies translate to the ballot box?

An interesting hypothesis emerges: when young voters turn out, especially at record levels, far-left radicalism prevails in the outcomes.

As always, I expect Hillary to win the nomination, but it's an extremely much more interesting contest than it was looking to be in mid-2015, when most people --- once again --- expected Clinton to waltz to the nomination.

Thank goodness for Bernie for making it a race.

Still more (via Memeorandum).

WATCH: Rachel Maddow Gets Orgasmic Discussing Socialist Bernie Sanders' 'Big Victory' in Iowa (VIDEO)

She's practically creaming all over the set.

Watch, "Rachel Maddow: Tonight's Iowa result against Clinton 'is such a big victory for Bernie Sanders'."

Bernie Sanders: 'We will be in contact with the party tomorrow...' (VIDEO)

Here's Bernie reacting to the results last night, via CNN.



And previously, "The System's Rigged! Bernie Sanders Campaign Calls for Review of Vote Count in Iowa Caucuses."

The System's Rigged! Bernie Sanders Campaign Calls for Review of Vote Count in Iowa Caucuses

From Jennifer Jacobs, at the Des Moines Register, "Iowa's nightmare revisited: Was correct winner called?":

It's Iowa's nightmare scenario revisited: An extraordinarily close count in the Iowa caucuses — and reports of chaos in precincts, website glitches and coin flips to decide county delegates — are raising questions about accuracy of the count and winner.

This time it's the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Even as Hillary Clinton trumpeted her Iowa win in New Hampshire on Tuesday, aides for Bernie Sanders said the eyelash-thin margin raised questions and called for a review. The chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party rejected that notion, saying the results are final.

The situation echoes the events on the Republican side in the 2012 caucuses, when one winner (Mitt Romney, by eight votes) was named on caucus night, but a closer examination of the paperwork that reflected the head counts showed someone else pulled in more votes (Rick Santorum, by 34 votes). But some precincts were still missing entirely.

Like Republican Party officials in 2012, Democratic Party officials worked into the early morning on caucus night trying to account for results from a handful of tardy precincts.

At 2:30 a.m. Tuesday, Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Andy McGuire announced that Clinton had eked out a slim victory, based on results from 1,682 of 1,683 precincts.

Voters from the final missing Democratic precinct tracked down party officials Tuesday morning to report their results. Sanders won that precinct, Des Moines precinct No. 42, by two delegate equivalents over Clinton.

The Iowa Democratic Party said the updated final tally of delegate equivalents for all the precincts statewide was:

Clinton: 700.59

Sanders: 696.82.

That's a 3.77-count margin between Clinton, the powerful establishment favorite who early on in the Democratic race was expected to win in a virtual coronation, and Sanders, a democratic socialist who few in Iowa knew much about a year ago.

Sanders campaign aides told the Register they've found some discrepancies between tallies at the precinct level and numbers that were reported to the state party. The Iowa Democratic Party determines its winner based not on a head count, like in the Republican caucuses, but on state delegate equivalents, tied to a math formula. And there was enough confusion, and untrained volunteers on Monday night, that errors may have been made...

Keep reading.

Remember, Pat Caddell warned that the Democrats will never release the raw vote totals, because they'd show the Bernie won the popular voted. The system is rigged!

Plus, more from Ms. Jacobs:

Results from the 1 missing Dem precinct: Sanders won by 2.
But voters can't find any party officials to report to. https://t.co/jB0sDxd3oZ

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) February 2, 2016

BREAKING: Sanders won 7, Clinton 5 in final missing precinct, chair tells me.
Did Sanders win popular vote in Iowa? https://t.co/jB0sDxd3oZ

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) February 2, 2016

With missing results, Clinton's excruciatingly close lead narrows. Voters report "chaos" and untrained volunteers. https://t.co/jB0sDxd3oZ

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) February 2, 2016

The missing Democratic votes are now logged, making the score in the Iowa caucuses:
Clinton: 699.57
Sanders: 697.77#iacaucus

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) February 2, 2016

Sanders voters: Will @iowademocrats show raw body count? Re-examine precinct paperwork? (This is CLOSER than when GOP got 2012 winner wrong)

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) February 2, 2016

Bernie Sanders' Barnburner Victory Speech at the Iowa Caucuses (VIDEO)

Of all the results last night, I got the biggest kick out of Bernie Sanders.

I'd never vote for him. But I love --- and I mean I just love --- how he's taking it to Hillary Clinton like a brick upside her head.

Pat Caddell was on Sean Hannity's earlier and he claimed that Sanders most likely won the popular vote in Iowa --- the 49.9 to 49.6 percent vote totals being reported are based on the shares of the delegate counts --- but that the Democrat National Committee won't release popular vote data, lest they give Sanders added momentum and legitimacy headed into New Hampshire.

One thing you might have noticed is that Sanders is an extremely disciplined campaigner. He doesn't deviate much from his standard stump speech, but nevertheless captivates voters at every stop. He's hammering on the issues of economic insecurity and economic inequality like no other candidate, and he's shameless in his robust embrace of hard-left ideological attacks on the corporate rich, the billionaires, and the "1 percent." These themes are the more focused priorities that far-left progressives have hoped the Obama administration would push for, and they want the next Democrat administration to be even more radical in seeking to level the playing field in the American economy and dismantle the free-market infrastructure. In plain language, they see Sanders as their agent of "more free stuff." I can see why young, idealistic Millennials have placed so much stock in him.

In any case, I hate the politics, but his populist appeal and cornered-bull tenacity are extremely compelling. Hillary Clinton is looking at a repeat of 2008, and it's gotta be ugly from her perspective. Once again, she got taken to the cleaners by a far-left candidate that came virtually out of nowhere. Yeah, she "breathed a sigh of relief" that she tied and wasn't blown out of the water, but Sanders beat expectations, big time.

In any case, watch his ball-busting speech below

And see the Los Angeles Times, "Sanders campaign manager predicts 'a tremendous bounce'":

The man behind Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign on Monday night said he expects "a tremendous bounce" out of Iowa after the Vermont senator found himself locked in a race there with Hillary Clinton that was too close to call.

“An early success gives your candidate and your campaign credibility to future voters," said Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver. He said he was looking forward to taking the campaign to New Hampshire "where the senator is very, very popular." Sanders is ahead in many polls there.

Although the Iowa race was virtually tied Monday night, Sanders and his supporters looked and sounded like they were celebrating a victory.

In a speech to a jubilant crowd in the ballroom of a Des Moines hotel, Sanders said the Iowa results signaled the beginning of "a political revolution.”

"Nine months ago we came to this beautiful state," Sanders said. "We had no political organization, we had no money, no name recognition. And we were taking on the most powerful political organization in the United States of America."

Sanders, who had to catch a plane to New Hampshire, stuck close to his stump speech, vowing to fight for more equality and to create "an economy that works for working families, not just the billionaire class."

Watch:



The full speech is here (but turn down your volume), "Watch Bernie Sanders' full speech after Iowa caucuses."

Governor Jerry Brown Signs Assisted Suicide Bill Into Law

There's supposed to be all kinds of safeguards with the legislation, but I still don't like it.

At the Los Angeles Times, "After struggling, Jerry Brown makes assisted suicide legal in California."

FLASHBACK: "Assisted Suicide of Healthy 79-Year-Old Raises Right to Die Issues."

How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich?

This is interesting, from Thomas Edsall, at the New York Times.

Don't Miss Mark Levin's Plunder and Deceit

I picked up my copy, at last.

Maybe commenter Art Deco will pick up a copy as well. He wasn't too pleased with Morton Kondracke and Fred Barnes' biography of Jack Kemp.

Check out Levin's book on Amazon, Plunder and Deceit: Big Government's Exploitation of Young People and the Future.

Communities Struggle to Care for Elderly, Alone at Home

The other "Home Alone."

At the Wall Street Journal, "More people age at home, raising demand for support services":

STOCKHOLM, Maine—At least three times a night during much of the long, harsh northern winter, Aldea Campbell gets out of bed, steps into her slippers, and descends a flight of frighteningly steep, narrow wooden stairs to the cellar to fill her wood-burning stove. She’s 82, a widow, and has lived in her 102-year-old house near the Canadian border for almost six decades.

She burns wood because she can’t afford enough oil to get through the cold months. When her arthritis is bad, she gingerly maneuvers the steps sideways to keep from falling. But still, she slipped on the stairs twice last year, once badly hurting her tailbone. “It happened so fast,” she said.

Such predicaments are increasingly common in Maine: the grayest, most rural state in the U.S., with housing among the oldest in the nation. Maine has another distinction: it is among the first states to experience challenges from a growing number of seniors who are “aging in place”—remaining independent rather than relocating to nursing homes or moving in with grown children.

More elderly across the nation are aging at home for a variety of reasons: they prefer to and are healthy enough to stay; they can’t afford other options such as assisted living; and states in some cases have imposed policies to limit nursing home stays paid for by Medicaid, which is a major funder of long-term institutional health care for older Americans.

But aging in place is proving difficult in places where the population is growing older, supportive services are scarce, houses are in disrepair and younger people who can assist have moved away. As a result, elderly people who live at home are having to rely more on neighbors—who sometimes are elderly, too—and local nonprofits and public agencies are starting to feel the strain from increasing requests for help.

“It’s a huge issue—it couldn’t be bigger,” said Lenard Kaye, director of the University of Maine Center on Aging. “Ninety-nine percent of older adults say they want to stay right where they are until they’ve taken their last breath, but that doesn’t mean they are continuing to remain safe and remain well.”

Keep reading.

Tiny Makeshift Houses Used by Homeless Could Soon Be Removed by the City of Los Angeles (VIDEO)

Well, if the homeless have these little houses, then I guess they're not homeless. These are their homes.

But local officials want the tiny shelters to come down.

Watch, at CBS News 2 Los Angeles, "Makeshift Homes Used by Transients Could Soon Be Removed from Streets of L.A."

Some Parents in East Bay Don't Like Planned Parenthood Teaching Sex Education to Their Kids

Yeah, I can imagine some parents might not be too pleased, but don't forget, children "belong to communities," not their families.

At ABC News San Francisco, "ACALANES SCHOOL BOARD MEETING ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD SEX ED CLASSES."

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

Well, my wife and I paid our fair share. Thankfully we got a nice tax return this year. We're in the top 20 percent as well, although that's not as impressive as it sounds.

At WSJ, "And the bottom 20%? They get paid by Uncle Sam. We compare tax burdens as Tax Day approaches."

The Earned Income Tax Credit is the main reason folks at the bottom quintile get paid by Uncle Sam.

Obama's Budget-Busting Spending Plan Expected to Balloon Federal Debt to More Than $25 Trillion by 2025

Man, talk about drunken sailors.

The Obama-Dems have no inkling of restraint. None.

See Town Hall, "Obama's record budget: Tax the rich, screw the middle class":

The deficit would remain under $500 billion a year through 2018, but would rise to $687 billion by 2025, according to administration projections — though levels of red ink could still be considered manageable when measured against the size of the economy.

But the cost of financing the government's debt would spiral as the debt grows to more than $25 trillion by 2025 and interest rates rise. According to the projections. Interest costs would jump from $229 billion this year to $785 billion in 2025...

And see the Hill, "President to unveil $4 trillion budget that busts spending limits."

More astronomical budget projections at the Wall Street Journal, "Obama’s 2016 Budget: Behind the Numbers."

And see, "Obama Budget Sets Off Push for Deals: Republicans Dismiss Calls for New Taxes, but Openings for Compromise Are Seen."

'Selma' and the Sanctimony of Leftists

I was reading my hard-copy of Time earlier, and I found its piece on "Selma" interesting, although not quite worth a blog post, "Selma: The Making of History." If anything, I was debating whether to see the movie at the theater or wait until it comes out on cable (which will be about a year from now).

But that's it.

Now, though, it turns out my friend Mary Grabar (pictured) has a piece up on the debate over the film's creative license with MLK's relationship with President Lyndon Johnson, at Pajamas Media:

It’s always interesting to witness the sanctimony of liberals (usually Democrats) when their narratives of history are challenged by those they say they “helped.”  Thus it has happened with the movie Selma, which has focused negative attention on President Lyndon Johnson, so much so that my Google search for “Lyndon Johnson” brought up as the second entry (after the first Wikipedia entry) a Hollywood Reporter article.

The film’s director, Ava DuVernay, has said she did not want to follow other movies such as The Help that present whites as “saviors.”  But Joseph Califano, Johnson’s “top assistant for domestic affairs,” charged in the Washington Post that the film “falsely portrays President Lyndon B. Johnson as being at odds with Martin Luther King Jr. and even using the FBI to discredit him, as only reluctantly behind the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and as opposed to the Selma march itself.” Califano even claimed that the Selma march was Johnson’s idea.

Other commentators also made corrections.  Three days before the film’s Christmas Day release, Politico ran LBJ library director Mark Updegrove’s long feature that asserted that LBJ and Martin Luther King, Jr. were “close partners” in reform.  Post columnist Richard Cohen rushed to Johnson’s defense and reported that director DuVernay had the temerity to call Califano’s assertion “jaw dropping and offensive.”  Then in what Cohen called a “brush off of a tweet,” Duvernay advised getting the true historical account by “interrogating history”–by seeing her movie.

But it seems that all bases need to be covered, and on January 5, 2015, the Post published another article, this time about a “quiet battle” Johnson as vice president waged in 1961 as he and his wife challenged restrictive real estate covenants of their “elite” Northwest Washington neighborhood, “The Elms.”  The reporter, Karen Tumulty, must have searched for this nugget. But she saw no irony in the fact that the anti-poverty future president with a penchant for social engineering was motivated by the fact that “diplomats from African nations . . .  found it difficult to find suitable housing.”

The Post has published well over a dozen articles on the movie....

The historians quoted in articles praise Johnson. David Garrow was quoted in the New York Times and then re-quoted in the Post as insisting that Johnson fully supported the Selma march and as objecting to the depiction of Johnson ordering FBI surveillance tapes of King’s extramarital trysts.  Naturally, responsibility for the surveillance is placed on LBJ’s predecessor President Kennedy, and even more so on FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.  Garrow said, “If the movie suggests L.B.J. had anything to do with the tape, that’s truly vile and a real historical crime against L.B.J.”

Yet, in The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr., Garrow reported on the delight Johnson took in listening to the surveillance tapes of King (whom Garrow approvingly presented as a radical and socialist).  Garrow wrote, “When one aide attempted to defend King’s sincerity on the issue of [opposition to the Vietnam War], Johnson reportedly replied, ‘Goddamn it, if only you could hear what that hypocritical preacher does sexually.’”  This is a milder term of abuse for King. Johnson was known for using the racial slur that is unprintable in our respectable publications or printable only with a trigger warning as was done in an MSNBC article.

That MSNBC article acknowledges that Johnson was “a reliable member of the Southern bloc, helping to stonewall civil rights legislation” for two decades, but gives Johnson a pass as a product of his times and does not charge him with political opportunism.  The New York Times also portrays Johnson via Princeton history professor Julian Zelizer as someone who wanted voting rights but couldn’t get them through until the civil rights movement made it possible.

Chosen are only those historians whose opinions fit the flattering narrative of those who like to think of themselves arm-in-arm with the “marchers” either in actuality or imaginatively–and choking up at the movie, as Richard Cohen, in his column, said he did.

But Johnson’s support of civil rights legislation for political purposes was seen for what it was back in the 1960s by black conservatives like Reverend Joseph Jackson and Pittsburgh Courier columnist George Schuyler.

Schuyler, who supported Barry Goldwater for president against Johnson because of his better record on civil rights, saw civil rights marches as a form of “beggary,” of prostration of blacks before white political leaders.  Working in the tradition of Booker T. Washington, Schuyler promoted the idea of black economic independence in the form of cooperatives and black-owned financial institutions and businesses.

Joseph H. Jackson, the longest serving president of the National Baptist Convention, in a speech before the meeting of that body in 1964, also opposed the “direct action” tactics of “boycotts, pickets, sit-ins, and demonstrations,” implying that most of the black community did not approve of such lawless tactics for achieving civil rights. “We must not allow the white community to pick our leaders or tell us what Negro to follow,” he stated.

Such expressions of Truth to Power, however, do not fit into the self-flattering image of liberals.  Dramatizations of such speeches will not be coming to a screen near you.

I've excerpted the article, so go to the link to RTWT.

Obama Seeks Federal Mandate on Paid Family Sick Leave

He's always mandating something, usually by unconstitutional executive action. So it'll be interesting to see if the GOP stands up against another federal mandate boondoggle.

At the cover of today's business section, at the Los Angeles Times, "Obama pushes paid sick/family leave for workers":

President Obama embarked on an effort Thursday to make paid family leave the new norm in America, using a strategy that garnered him some success last year in increasing the minimum wage for certain workers.

Obama signed an order to give up to six weeks of paid leave to all federal employees when a new child arrives and publicly called on Congress to pass a federal law guaranteeing seven days of paid sick leave for all Americans.

He also announced that Department of Labor money would be made available for states and cities that want to study implementing their own such policies.

Then, after a lunchtime meeting with coffee shop owners and working parents in Baltimore, Obama unveiled a pitch to corporate America: Paid family leave is good for companies' bottom lines.

"When they make that investment in their employees, there's a dividend," Obama told reporters at Charmington's cafe. "They end up being more profitable over the long term."

The president's approach to paid leave draws heavily on his experience over the last year with the minimum wage, a proposal he rolled out in the State of the Union address last January by asking Congress to raise workers' base pay to $10.10 an hour from $7.25. His first steps were to sign an executive order raising the wage for people working on federal contracts and to set off on a speaking tour to plug the idea.

Today, Obama has yet to persuade the Republican-led Congress to hike the wage. But the idea has picked up currency: 17 states and the District of Columbia have raised the requirement to increase the pay of an estimated 7 million workers.

One Obama aide called the momentum "heartening," and the president's team is embracing the strategy as one of the best tools at his disposal as advisors prepare to reuse it for paid leave.

Still, the newest sales pitch faces the same challenges as the one for minimum wage. Republicans scoff at the idea of imposing more costly requirements, especially on small businesses.

Americans already have "great freedom" when it comes to work, said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), noting that workers have latitude to choose a career and negotiate for the benefits that matter most to them. American businesses operate with far fewer restrictions than the rest of the world, he said.

"One more government mandate, however well-intentioned, will only reduce those freedoms, making it harder for employees to find jobs, negotiate for the things they need and open and run businesses," he said.

Sounds good. But time will tell if these congressional RINOS hold the line against Obama's latest bid to cement is bankrupt socialist legacy.

Monthly Credit: California Assemblywoman Introduces Bill to Provide Diaper Stipend to Low-Income Women

Makes sense for dependency state leftists, especially in California. They have a "welfare stipend" for just about everything nowadays.

At KGTV-ABC10 News San Diego, "A welfare program for diapers? Diaper stipend proposed for low-income families."

'We’re up against evil like I've never seen in my life...'

It's Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson, speaking at the Republican Leadership Conference, via the Blaze, "‘We’re Up Against Evil’: ‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Phil Robertson Blasts White House, Tells GOP to ‘Get Godly’."

#Mexico Divided: Stark Photos Show Urban Wealth and Poverty Side-by-Side

Recall my son's country project on Denmark?

Well, whereas the Danes have the greatest economic equality in the world, as measured by the Gini coefficient, Mexico is plagued by some of the world's worst economic inequality.

London's Daily Mail chronicles some of that, "Mexico divided: Stark unaltered photographs capture middle class affluence side-by-side with extreme urban poverty."

More, at Distractify, "These Images Of Poor And Rich Neighborhoods Side By Side Are NOT Photoshopped. How Can This Be?!"

My Son's 6th Grade Country Report

My boy picked Denmark. And of course I spent time with him researching the country and helping with the written paragraphs.

I'm impressed. Denmark boasts the world's highest level of income equality, as measured by the Gini coefficient (financed the world's highest tax rates). And Danes have the highest rate of meat consumption per capita in the world. It's basically your Scandinavian dream country. Modern, cultured and environmentally correct. I'm not planning a trip to Europe anytime soon, but after helping with this project, I'm way more inclined to consider a Copenhagen stopover.

My kid's 6th grade class project. #Denmark pic.twitter.com/84ebIAL09r

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) May 17, 2014

In any case, here's the copy on the country's background:

Denmark is located in Scandinavia, in the northernmost part of Europe. The geography of Denmark is mostly flatland. The country's highest point being roughly 173 meter above sea level. There are over 400 islands. Some of its best-known landmarks include the Tivoli Gardens amusement park in Copenhagen and the Little Mermaid Statue, at the Langelinie promenade in Copenhagen. Denmark's natural resources include oil, natural gas, gravel, sand, limestone, chalk, and clay. Denmark is self-sufficient in oil. Denmark has a temperate climate with mild winters and cool summers. The country averages about 28 inches of rainfall per year. Denmark is a predominantly Protestant nation and Easter and Christmas are the country's biggest holidays. Danes celebrate three days of Christmas. Other religious holidays are also important throughout the year. The capital city of Copenhagen, population of over 1 million people, is a popular visitors' attraction. The city is rich in historical sites and palaces, as well as arts and culture, like museums and the opera. The Copenhagen zoo is popular as well. The original Legoland park is located in the city of Billund, to the west in Jutland. Danes are the world's greatest meateaters! Denmark boasts the highest consumption of meat per person in the world. Meat and fish are the main foods. Danes like to eat open sandwiches, called smørrebrød, with lots of toppings, as well as meatballs with all kinds of trimmings. Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Nina Agdal is probably the world's most famous Dane at the moment, although Prince Hamlet, from Shakespeare's play, remains as popular as ever. Because it is cool in Denmark most of the time, Danes wear a lot of layers in the clothing, as well as denim jeans, sweaters and scarves.

And you gotta love Denmark's immigration policy, via Der Spiegel, "Putting a Price on Foreigners: Strict Immigration Laws 'Save Denmark Billions'":

Denmark's strict immigration laws have saved the country billions in benefits, a government report has claimed. The Integration Ministry report has now led to calls among right-wing populists to clamp down further on immigrants to increase the savings...

The report has led to jubilation among right-wing politicians: "We now have it in black and white that restrictions (on immigrants) pay off," said DPP finance spokesman Kristian Thulesen Dahl. The DPP will almost certainly exploit the figures in future negotiations over the Danish economy.

But the report has sparked outrage from opposition parties like the centrist Social Liberal Party, which dismissed it as undignified and discriminatory. The party's integration spokeswoman, Marianne Jelved, said: "A certain group of people is being denounced and being blamed for our deficit, being made into whipping boys." She added: "We cannot classify people depending on their value to the economy. That is degrading in a democracy that has a basic value of equality."

Still, the announcement has not come as surprise. The right-wing populist DPP, which has been working with the ruling center-right coalition government of Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen since 2001, has in the past made its aims very clear: a complete halt to immigration into Denmark from non-Western countries. "A Somali who is no good for anything, that is simply not acceptable," said DPP leader Pia Kjærsgaard. Similarly, center-right liberal Prime Minister Rasmussen has also said anyone who would be a burden on Denmark is not welcome in the country.

Right-wing populists have even demanded a ban on satellite dishes so that TV stations like al-Jazeera and Al Arabiya cannot be beamed into Danish living rooms. There have also been suggestions to exempt migrants from the minimum wage -- supposedly to make it easier for foreigners to gain access to the labor market.

The small Scandinavian country already has the strictest immigration and asylum laws in Europe. For example, foreign couples are only allowed to marry if both partners are at least 24 years old. The number of asylum seekers and relatives of immigrants seeking entry into Denmark dropped by more than two-thirds within nine years as a result of the tough laws....

In November, the government agreed to stricter laws and made the entry of immigrants' spouses more difficult. Only those who collect enough "points" may come to Denmark in the future -- with points being determined by factors such as academic qualifications and proof of language proficiency. In addition, the equivalent of €13,000 must be deposited with the state in the form of a bank guarantee to cover any future public assistance. Socially deprived areas with a disproportionately high number of immigrants will be subject in future to a so-called "ghetto strategy" designed to prevent high concentrations of foreigners in public housing areas. Migrants will be assigned housing, and three-year-old children who do not speak Danish well enough will be required to attend state child care.

Some immigrants have already turned their back on Denmark voluntarily. Increasing numbers of Somalis are moving away, especially to the UK, the Jyllands Posten reported on Thursday, because of discrimination.

Hmm, racism as state strategy. And leftists say we're the world's most evil country, lol!

Veterans' Benefits Live On Long After Bullets Stop

A great piece, at WSJ, "Still Paying for the Civil War":

WILKESBORO, N.C. — Each month, Irene Triplett collects $73.13 from the Department of Veterans Affairs, a pension payment for her father's military service—in the Civil War.

More than 3 million men fought and 530,000 men died in the conflict between North and South. Pvt. Mose Triplett joined the rebels, deserted on the road to Gettysburg, defected to the Union and married so late in life to a woman so young that their daughter Irene is today 84 years old—and the last child of any Civil War veteran still on the VA benefits rolls.

Ms. Triplett's pension, small as it is, stands as a reminder that war's bills don't stop coming when the guns fall silent. The VA is still paying benefits to 16 widows and children of veterans from the 1898 Spanish-American War.

The last U.S. World War I veteran died in 2011. But 4,038 widows, sons and daughters get monthly VA pension or other payments. The government's annual tab for surviving family from those long-ago wars comes to $16.5 million.

Spouses, parents and children of deceased veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan received $6.7 billion in the 2013 fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Payments are based on financial need, any disabilities, and whether the veteran's death was tied to military service.

Those payments don't include the costs of fighting or caring for the veterans themselves. A Harvard University study last year projected the final bill for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would hit $4 trillion to $6 trillion in the coming decades.

Eric Shinseki, the secretary of Veterans Affairs, often cites President Abraham Lincoln's call, in his second inaugural address, for Americans "to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan."

"The promises of President Abraham Lincoln are being delivered, 150 years later, by President Barack Obama, " Secretary Shinseki said in a speech last fall. "And the same will be true 100 years from now—the promises of this president will be delivered by a future president, as yet unborn."

A declaration of war sets in motion expenditures that can span centuries, whether the veterans themselves were heroes, cowards or something in between...

RTWT.

Mose Triplett switched sides, joining the Union Army so he'd qualify for veterans' bennies after the war. And boy did he ever, lol.