Thursday, December 18, 2014
Democrats and Republicans both created an imperial president
The general consensus here, however, is that Obama continues to push forward his agenda despite the complete voter rejection of it during the 2014 mid-term elections. In other words, Obama continues to push forward his agenda, even though it is extremely unpopular.
I'm not trying to be offensive to my readers who love Obama's agenda, because regardless of whether you like it or not it's not popular. The reason it's unpopular is because Americans cherish their freedom: they do not want to be told what to do.
The whole premise of Obama's agenda, which is progressive, is for the government to make tough decisions so people don't have to. In other words, they believe sacrificing some liberties is for the benefit of the state.
Of course then the state gains power, and it has to enforce this power. So now people are getting fined, arrested, or jailed, (and this is not all Obama's fault, rather the fault of the progressive movement) for doing things that they shouldn't be arrested for, such as smoking or drinking in public, taking certain medicines, not paying taxes, not buying health insurance, not sending your kids to state-run schools, etc.
It's gotten to the point that we have given up enough personal liberties. Plus the government has gotten so large and so powerful that those in power are abusing it, something the founding fathers warned against.
A perfect example is how Obama used his executive power to push a health care bill through Congress that a majority of voters did not want.
A perfect example is how the Obama administration used its power to spy on conservatives who said they belonged to the tea party, a party that was opposed to the Obama agenda.
As what occurred in the 1920 election, people are tired of laws to perfect society. People want their liberties back. They want to scale back the government, take away some of this power, and take back liberties.
So the people send Obama a message in the mid-terms, and he continues to push forth his agenda. Today it's all over the news how he wants to improve relations with Cuba, a communist country with a dictator thug as a ruler.
Why would Obama do this? The answer is quite simple: The Progressive Agenda is a sister Agenda to Cuba's Communism. They are both fascist parties that believe the state should make all the tough decisions, even when it means the people sacrificing personal liberties.
Look, it's not just Obama who tries to push forth the progressive agenda, as the disease has infested the republican party as well. Sure George W. Bush did a lot of good things, but he also doubled the national debt, adding $5 trillion to it. This was because he created progressive programs, vetoing only 12 bills, the lowest total since Warren G. Harding (and that's not even fair, because Harding never even finished one term).
So why did Bush add to the problem he purported to oppose? Well, your guess is as good as mine. Yet one might "assume" that he used the power of the pulpit to buy votes.
Yes! This is, one might say, the exact reason Grover Cleveland vetoed 414 bills in his first term and 170 in his second. Cleveland knew he could use his power to move forward his agenda, but he didn't want to give future presidents the power to trample on the Constitution for their own political gain.
Cleveland understood, as the founding fathers understood, that people have a natural tendency to abuse power. This, as we have seen, is exactly what happened in Cuba where Castro became a dictator. The same thing happened here in the U.S. where the president has gained imperial powers, being dubbed by many as the imperial president.
In essence, what is occurring in Cuba is exactly what progressives want to happen here.
It's the fault of both parties, though. Surely the democratic party is infested with fascist liberals, but the republican party is infested with them too. Allow me to name a few: John McCain, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Norm Coleman, Chuck Hagel, and Lindsey Graham.
If any of these guys runs for president, we might as well let Hilary win so the republican party doesn't get blamed for progressive failures. And if the democratic party decides to save face and nominate a conservative, then we had better vote democrat.
We can look back at past presidential records and see that there have been just as many great democrat presidents as republicans. And we can also see that Teddy Roosevelt was the first progressive, and he was a republican. In fact, in the 1912 presidential election, Roosevelt was more progressive than democrat Woodrow Wilson.
Surely Obama's agenda has added $6.103 billion to the national debt, nearly doubling it. The second worse is not another democrat, however, but George W. Bush, a republican, who added $5.840 trillion to the national debt, more than doubling it. Compare this with Bill Clinton, who only added $1.86 trillion, or Jimmy Carter who added only $299 billion.
Both of our political parties -- republicans and democrats -- have created imperial presidents who take money from voters and spend it on programs aimed at helping the minority at the expense of the majority. And, as they usually say, they do it for our own good, while secretly doing it for their own political gain.
Yet the bottom line is that they abuse the power they are given in order to get re-elected and advance their agenda. This is exactly the type of thing that George Washington warned against in his Farewell Speech in 1796.
Yet Obama gives us hope, so the ferry's say. By continuing to advance his agenda, he his earning the ire of the electorate, indirectly creating new conservatives/ libertarians each time he opens his mouth. While voters might hope he stops, his not doing so is empowering his enemies.