Monday, October 17, 2011

The Face of the Democratic Party

From Front Page Magazine today:

The Face of the Democratic Party

By Matthew Vadum

Salvador Dali would have been comfortable painting a mural of the surreal Occupy Wall Street movement.

Supported by billionaire Marxists, mega-rich Hollywood airheads, radical libertarians, indebted students, sexual exhibitionists, malingerers, and professional protesters, the neo-communist “Occupy Wall Street” movement is fast becoming the face of the modern Democratic Party.

This is a wonderful thing, says conservative columnist George F. Will. Will said he wants the Occupy Wall Street protests to prosper:
I think they do represent the intellectual spirit of the American left, but also I remember the 1960s. We had four years of demonstrations like this [that] led up to 1968, when the Nixon/Wallace vote was 57 percent – the country reacting against demonstrators, and Republicans went on to win five of the next six presidential elections.
Organized by Obama allies such as the sleazy, SEIU-funded ACORN front group known as the Working Families Party, the Occupy Wall Street mob’s demands are strikingly similar to the Democratic Party platform, differing largely only in degree. They include creating a single-payer health-care system and a “guaranteed living wage,” abolishing credit agencies, free college education, banning the use of fossil fuels, open borders, and $1 trillion in useless new infrastructure spending.

Prominent national Democrats and the mainstream media are now working overtime to convince Americans that a revolution is in the air and that they should embrace it. In order to make the movement more palatable to middle America, they are pushing the line that Occupy Wall Street is a left-wing version of the Tea Party movement.

Democratic office holders have been sprinting so hard to align themselves with the unwashed masses squatting in lower Manhattan that it’s a miracle they haven’t suffered sports injuries.

President Obama threw his lot in with the demonstrators and used the occasion to smear Republicans. The movement “expresses the frustrations the American people feel, that we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country,” Obama said in a reference to Wall Street, which has long been a Democratic fundraising powerhouse.

“Yet you’re still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place,” the president pontificated, ignoring the role that Democrat-dominated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Democrat-created Community Reinvestment Act, and Democrat-aligned ACORN, played in sabotaging the economy.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said she supports “the message to the establishment, whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen.”

Al Gore whined predictably. “With democracy in crisis, a true grassroots movement pointing out the flaws in our system is the first step in the right direction,” said the world’s preeminent global warming charlatan. Of course Democrats only complain that democracy is in crisis when they’re down in the polls.

The media and the left end of the think tank world are also pushing the movement’s socialist propaganda.

The New York Times and media outlets across the country hang on every word from every absurd and anti-American pronouncement issued by Occupy Wall Street and its supporters. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal points out that Jim Roberts, the New York Times’s assistant managing editor, seemed to signal approval of a radical revisionist interpretation of the Boston Tea Party by linking to it via Twitter. (Whether Roberts agreed with the post is almost beside the point, according to Taranto, because it was greatly out of character for Roberts to highlight an item from an aggressive left-wing policy shop.)

The ahistorical post Taranto and Roberts referenced is by Lee Fang, a researcher at the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Think Progress blog with a penchant for getting basic facts wrong. Like much of the propaganda emanating from the George Soros-funded, John Podesta-run Center for American Progress, Fang’s item is a litany of falsehoods and half-truths.

In the article titled “Top 5 Reasons Why The Occupy Wall Street Protests Embody Values Of The Real Boston Tea Party,” Fang writes that the Occupy Wall Streeters share the same values as the Bostonians of the 1770s because they rail against corporate abuses and use civil disobedience techniques against private corporations.

Of course this is nonsense. In fact the company on the receiving end of American ire in pre-revolutionary days was the tea-importing East India Company, which in a sense is a forerunner of today’s taxpayer-supported “government-sponsored enterprises” or GSEs. Like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the rent-seeking East India Company enjoyed special privileges such as trade monopolies granted by the Crown.

It is true that both Occupy Wall Streeters and the Tea Party today oppose crony capitalism but the similarities end there. The leaders of Occupy Wall Street denounce markets themselves as unfair and demand a radical transformation of American society, while Tea Partiers revere markets and want the government to get out of the business of picking winners and losers.

Occupy Wall Street supporters want the government to control every aspect of Americans’ lives.

Come to think of it, that’s what today’s Democratic Party wants too.

* * * * *

Americans need to know that ACORN is restructuring in time to help re-elect President Obama in 2012. Obama used to work for ACORN and represented the group in court as its lawyer. These radical leftists who use the brutal, in-your-face, pressure tactics of Saul Alinsky want to destroy America as we know it and will use any means to do it.

Buy my book Subversion Inc. at Amazon and in Barnes & Noble and Books-A-Million bookstores. Visit the Subversion Inc. Facebook page. Follow me on Twitter.


  1. Mr. Vadum,
    I know that I haven't been productive in my communications with you thus far and it has served no purpose.
    So I would like to say: I have taken several, very cheap shots at you that were unworthy of the man I like to believe that I am - and most certainly not fair to you, my minimal knowledge of whom is based upon nothing more than what I read here - with a certain amount of prejudice - I admit.
    In any case, I'm sorry.
    I chose this post to comment on because of one phrase that troubles me:
    "...and $1 trillion in useless new infrastructure spending."
    Here's a link (You'll like it. It's from Kos),000-Vehicles-Day-Appears-Ready-to-Collapse?via=search
    The bridge in question connects the mainland with the island of Gloucester, MA. It is crossed by around 50,000 cars daily.
    Now, I know you live in DC so the chances of your driving over it - especially at the moment of collapse (Inevitable - What goes up must come down) - are slim to none but... does this really seem like "useless infrastructure" spending to you?
    You do drive over bridges - and roads - on a daily basis; the upkeep of which you have so sweepingly dismissed as "useless"?
    Cue: perplexed look from me.
    I submit, Sir. Think.
    Now, simple housekeeping stuff 'cause I think I'd probably like you if we were together in the same room:
    I'm on Blogger as well, several blogs. I love it. I run my for-profit website on it ( for free.
    Along with several other blogs - including some for my kids.
    So, some formatting tips: Feel free to consult any marketing/PR gurus you may know 'cause... I'm just making it up as I go along.
    First, the white on black (charcoal gray - whatever) is difficult for folks "of a certain age" to read. It's dramatic - no question - but you're not talking about an online game here.
    Just think about it.
    Your blurb re ACORN and Obama's (inevitable) re-election can be put, as a banner at the top of your page. It's more eye-catching that way - I think - than tacking it onto the bottom of every post.
    And... trepidation here... your pic on the banner:
    Now, I've seen you with some nice arm-candy in photos so you're obviously not butt-ugly.
    However, the way it's set up now, looks ... ad hoc.
    Again, I don't know. Ask someone who does.
    And finally, Matthew - if I may call you that - you can moderate comments.
    You don't have to have my foul-mouthed screeds posted for God and everyone to read before you discover them and delete.
    Anyway, even though I think that you're exponentially wrong concerning just about anything you choose to expand upon, I do admire your puttin' it out there.
    Good on ya'
    All the best, Sir.
    Dan Brock, Proud Socialist, Anarchist... lots of other words with the sufix "ist".