Poverty, Recession And Democrats


The Democrat Party and its candidates are constantly complaining about the state of the US economy and how economic bad times are hitting ordinary working people.  Indeed, the Media Class has been relentlessly talking down the US economy since George Bush took office.

We are supposed to believe that the Democrat Party is actually the Party of the poor and underprivileged. Few question this nonsense because the Media constantly represents the Republican Party as the Party of the rich, vested interests and Big Business and the Democrat Party as the opposite. I say ‘nonsense’ because surely the record sums of money flowing to the two Democrat Presidential candidates reveal two pertinent things. One is that the Democrat Party must contain more rich people than the Republican Party since it is able to raise twice as much money in political contributions. Indeed the Democrat members’ pockets are so deep that there seems to be a bottomless pit for the candidates to draw on into the future. The other pertinent thing is that the ‘bad economic times’ we are said to be experiencing cannot be so bad. In genuine bad times, people stop spending on inessentials. I cannot believe that repeated contributions to a political cause are deemed ‘essential’ by anyone. In the last month Obama is said to have raised another $50m and Mrs. Clinton $30m and now donors are said to be putting together a war chest to pay for rerun elections in Florida and Michigan. I have no doubt that this flow of money to the Democrat cause will continue to next November and beyond. Behind the scenes, other rich individuals are putting mammoth sums into Front organizations that can campaign for the Democrat candidates yet avoid the restrictions imposed by new campaign contribution laws. All of this leaves out the astronomical sums that the billionaire George Soros pumps into Leftist causes.

Of course, on this website we have never bought into the nonsense that the modern Democrat Party is the party of the poor. That may have been partially true 35 years ago but with the rise to power of the Media Class the Party has become its creature and has put social issues at the forefront of its agenda. It is not only the extremely rich Hollywood Club that now funds the Democrats, but all those Companies that rely on favorable publicity to stay in business. This situation is not unique to the US. In the UK, the Labour Party is now better-funded than the Conservative Party and I doubt that the very ‘socially-progressive’ Liberal Democrat Party is short of contributions from the Media Class either. The Conservative Party’s new leader Dave ‘hug-a-hoodie’ Cameron has been busy ramping up his Party’s ‘modern’ social agenda in an attempt to get some of the money that flows to those parties which embrace same-sex marriage and the rest of the agenda that can best be described as ‘inclusive’.

To understand the phenomenon of Leftist political funding, it is necessary to understand that a new master Class is now calling the political tune and those who do not dance to it get no money and very bad publicity. The British National Party, which is genuinely a working class party and a socially conservative party, gets no money and very bad publicity. Radical and Right are not surprised by this.

I know I keep banging on about the accuracy (so far) of my political predictions in the US primaries, but I repeat that Mrs. Clinton will ultimately get the Democrat nomination. I have never claimed that she would win the votes contest but that she would nevertheless win. One of the many aspects of the Clintons’ power in the Party is their imminent control over the Party’s Credentials Committee. I quote June Kronholz, a Leftist political reporter for the Wall Street Journal (Saturday March 8).

‘If Senator Clinton were to gain a majority on the committee, she could dismiss challenges to any delegation that swung the nomination to Sen. Obama. Her backers also could overturn the Democrat National Committee’s decision to penalize Florida and Michigan, and seat those delegations even without revotes. At that point, her victories in those disputed primaries would put her delegate count over the needed 2,024 votes”. This is the kind of back-door manipulation that not only will fail to raise protests in the MSM but will actually be described as evidence of how smart and determined the Clintons are, and therefore fitted for power.

I don’t much like the weekly commentaries of Peggy Noonan, a one-time Reagan speech-writer, but her piece on the election in this week’s WSJ is well worth reading. It contains a quote from Christopher Hitchens, a Leftist writer who is a bit of a maverick. He said this about the Clintons on a radio program last week, when forecasting that Hillary would be the next President “there’s something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power….people who don’t want the meeting to end, the people who just are unstoppable, who only have one focus, no humanity, no character, nothing but the worship of money and power. They win in the end”. I hope he is wrong about the “undefeatable” bit!

I always find it interesting how MSM writers and reporters stay politically correct, no matter what the facts are that they are covering. In the WSJ of 29th February, one Ellen Gamerman was writing about a study of Finnish and other State’s school children. This OECD study of 15 year olds around the world concluded that Finnish teenagers are among the world’s smartest in science, mathematics and reading. If one reads the accompanying tables, it turns out that Finland’s children scored top in science, were second in mathematics and second in reading. One reason for the celebratory size of the Gamerman article, was that the US came way down in the league table, something that is a great source of joy to all Media types. Hong Kong came second in science, Taiwan came first in mathematics and South Korea came first in reading. Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan all scored high across the board so one might have thought this preponderance of (capitalistic) Oriental States would have provided the main focus. Of course, Finland has a long socialist record of high taxes and government interference in all aspects of life, including education, so it was Finland that justified Media attention and praise. In a very long article based on Miss Gamerman’s investigations a number of theories were floated for Finland’s high scores. As an aside, she mentions in one paragraph that Finland has a largely homogeneous population, so teachers don’t have many children in their classes who don’t speak Finnish.

I doubt that Finland has any immigrant children whilst the US has to cope with millions who don’t speak English, but that is only one of the aspects that leap out to any genuine enquirer. Maybe not having some racial groups explains the high scores. Now that is a dangerous topic and one to be totally avoided by the Media Class! Another is the high scoring of the Oriental States. Perhaps Chinese and Korean people are naturally cleverer or have cultures that stress hard work. My guess is that if the African American population were excluded from the US scores, the US would do quite well. (If the report had measured American home-schooled children the picture would have been very different indeed). Similarly, if the millions of immigrant children who struggle with English were excluded the US would do even better. This league table is comparing apples with oranges. I do not know if race in itself has an influence on intelligence and people who explore this honestly risk burning at the Media stake, but I am sure that culture is a key factor. The Finnish performances certainly suggest that race may be a potent factor, rather than educational and classroom techniques, but Miss Gamerman avoids all speculation of this nature, like the plague. I doubt her editor had to intervene since all Media people are self-censoring.

On this website we contend that everything that comes to the public through the Media’s sieve is misleading, dishonest propaganda and serving an agenda. The propaganda is not restricted to the political columns but creeps into every topic.

What's Your Opinion?