Posted on 07/16/2016 5:51:30 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
After spending years trying to silence people in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", Hillary Clinton shrieked this little number:
I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate, and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic and we should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.
Yes, unfortunately, I had to listen to it. I provided the link, but for the sake of your health you might not want to click and listen to the YouTube clip. Now, onto Dear Leader Teddy's hypocrisy. And you know, this is something you always see with progressives. They just can't help themselves. Because they worship at the altar of big government, it's ok for them to lie to whomever they need to lie to. As long as the agenda moves forward.
On April 23rd, 1910, Roosevelt said:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Now, why did Roosevelt say these things? Well, he does give clues. Such as his use of the phrase "strong man". TR was so "strong", he wasn't going to let any G.. D... Constitution stand in his way - and he didn't. He exercised his pen and his phone, whatever he had to do, to get around that pesky Constitution. He readily admitted as much in his own autobiography.(page 372)
I declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the Nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it. My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws. Under this interpretation of executive power I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power. In other words, I acted for the public welfare, I acted for the common well-being of all our people, whenever and in whatever manner was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition.
So you see, wherever the Constitution stood in TR's way, he simply declined to adopt the view. That's all. That's not so bad, is it? That's why in his letter to George Trevelyan, TR grumbled about how people kept calling him a usurper. Because that's what he did. He usurped.
But what does that have to do with Hillary Clinton? The usual progressive claptrap, of course. If you show me a progressive, I'll show you a person who stands at the height of hypocrisy. Here is what Roosevelt had to say in 1894, at the founding of the National Civic League in Philadelphia:
Two points in especial bear in mind: be actors and not merely critics of others, in the first place, and in the second, do not try to accomplish anything at the very beginning, and then because you fail abandon the effort to accomplish anything.As to the first point criticism is a very good thing, but work is a much better one. It is not the man who sits at home in his parlor, the man who reads his evening paper before the fire and says how bad our politicians are, who ever works an improvement in our municipal government. It is the man who goes out to the primaries and the polls, who attends the meetings of his party organizations, (etc)
At first glance, this does not seem contradictory. Until you realize, that when TR was elected and he started using the Constitution like toilet paper, that suddenly there weren't any critics worth a penny that he could find. In 1894? Criticism is a good thing. Here, TR is sick and tired of people who say that if you debate, and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic and he stood up to say, that we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration...... But in 1910? It must be that vast right wing conspiracy and we need to silence those guys.
You see, they're just a bunch of critics after all. And critics don't count. They can be silenced. They're just RIGHT WINGERS anyways, clinging to their Constitutions and their Bibles, and antipathy toward others. It's the "strong man" who counts. TR explicitly separated critics from work. Yes, work is better, but criticism, originally that was still a good thing. Was. My, what a difference an election makes.
I guess to TR, the only critic who ever counted was TR himself.
The hypocrisy of progressives. I just can't take it. You can always tell a progressive is lying - is their mouth moving? Yes. There you go. They're lying. If their lips have motion, some devious plot is afoot. Hey, and let's not forget that Hillary keeps going out there and saying that she is just like those progressives from the early 20th century. She must mean Theodore Roosevelt.
After all, she doesn't like the Constitution any more than he did.
The writer states in his article the following:
“[Roosevelt] exercised his pen and his phone, whatever he had to do, to get around that pesky Constitution. He readily admitted as much in his own autobiography.(page 372)
So I clicked and read what Roosevelt had written on page 372:
“My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws.”
Note: “unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution”
In other words, to pursue his narrative, this writer lies.
Oh... ‘Theodore’.
I was thinking ‘Eleanor’.
Quoth the raven ‘Never more’.
They both have a moustache?
Pretty much like Ken Burns doculiementary.
Things Teddy had, that the Clinton hag has not:
1. Gonads.
2. Leadership from the FRONT of the battleline, sword in hand.
3. The ‘Gunboat Diplomacy Tour’, or to put it in more simpler terms:
‘You (truck) with me and mine, and I’ll (truck) you up, good.’
4. The MAN knew what guns were for, owned many, and KNEW how to use them. Remember his Western and African expeditions? Remember how he had sent letters to Winchester containing his specifications for a handy rifle?
Roosevelt is making clear, that in all the areas where the Constitution is silent, that's where he acted.
A very large portion of progressivism exists exclusively by taking advantage(using and abusing) of these areas. For example, TR was the first to call for government controlled healthcare.
The Constitution is ultimately silent on healthcare. That word does not exist in the Constitution.
The Progressive Party Platform of 1912
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/progressive-platform-of-1912/
This is called the Stewardship Theory of the Presidency, and has been written about long before I realized the source of it.
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA324102 (PDF Download)
"Theodore Roosevelt is the architect of both the theoretical and practical foundations of the modern presidency. The result has been to weaken and undermine the auxiliary precautions of the United States Constitution, primarily separation of powers, in order to enhance the power of the national government in general and the president in particular in the interest of efficient, progressive leadership and administration."
Complains about Pence's high moral standards...That's all she's got.
TR was a liberal proto fascist. He was far more interested in the narrative of national greatness than in individual rights. He encouraged and even endorsed some of the same creepy eugenicists that the nazis later appealed to in promoting theories of race hygiene. Had he lived longer, he would have put America on a very dangerous path.
They’re both dead ?
He was perhaps aside from Jefferson the most intelligent man to ever serve as president and lived his life like an unstoppable force of nature. He suffered tremendous personal tragedy when his young wife (in child birth) and mother died within hours of each other and recovered by going into the west and remaking himself into a rancher, eventually gaining the respect of truly rough and ready men (some of whom later fought alongside him in Cuba).
He was a warrior but not a war monger and one of the most remarkable men in our history. For anyone to try and make a comparison between TR and a serial incompetent and coattail riding lying shrew like Hillary Clinton is beyond ridiculous, it's offensive.
As an unrelated aside, Glenn Beck should have followed his dad's profession and remained a baker. His diatribes against TR were a foreshadow of his rants about Trump.
I guess Theodore had no problem being totally truthful in his autobiography. Suggest you read Colonel Roosevelt by Edmund Morris, as well as his Theodore Rex and The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. By the end Roosevelt was an out and out socialist and moving to a commie. There are many other including the new work on his youth.
I am not sure how much pure research you have ever done but reading a sentence in an autobiography doesn’t cut it. I’ve studied TR since college over 40 years ago. The author is not far off on his use and misuse of Presidential power.
The problem with all use of power by one person is you don’t always get a good person in charge. TR was basically good in his intentions but the problem becomes when others take over the office.
The founders gave us a strong Congress for a reason. We have totally gotten away from that idea as it is easier to let one person run with power.
“I am not sure how much pure research you have ever done but reading a sentence in an autobiography doesn’t cut it.”
“doesn’t cut it”??
Is that the best you can do?
I was merely pointing out the central contradiction in his argument, and it had nothing to do with Roosevelt’s autobiography.
And since when has just one author wrote the definitive and final word on Theodore Roosevelt?
They’re both fat and like women?
Dear Paine,
In regards to the original idea of marrying Hillary to Teddy Roosevelt, There is no hoot from heck great enough, nor legit enough, to do this.
Now, if you wish to run down a President, who in his own words writing about immigrants, ‘assimilate or leave’, and you wish to continue the Beck history lessons, be my guest.
But if you wish to continue your attempt of re-writing history that I learned over 50 years ago, you are too late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.