The Fall of the House of Obama
What is happening to the Democrat Party is less of an unexpected decline and more of a predictable crash.
In my view, the Democratic Party’s mindset and actions reflect a troubling reliance on government overreach, radical social policies, and financial manipulation, which have eroded its legitimacy in the United States, the world’s freest nation. The party’s decline is no accident; it is the inevitable result of dismantling the bloated infrastructure that has propped it up for decades. The defunding of questionable agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the reduction of bureaucratic excess, the elimination of ideologically driven programs like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), and the exposure of mainstream media as a propaganda tool have stripped away the party’s veneer of public support. I believe these developments reveal a party that has thrived not on genuine popular backing but on a carefully orchestrated system of coercion, financial largesse, and ideological control.
I contend that the Democrats have imposed radical social policies through coercive tactics, forcing Americans to comply with agendas that lack broad appeal. These policies, often cloaked in the language of progress or inclusivity, are, in my opinion, disconnected from the needs and values of most citizens. Rather than persuading the public through open debate, the party has relied on institutional power - government agencies, corporate allies, and media narratives - to enforce compliance and silence opposition. This approach, to me, betrays a lack of confidence in the merit of their ideas and a preference for control over consensus.
Financially, I see the Democratic Party as a beneficiary of a self-serving system that misuses taxpayer money. The party has, in my view, treated public funds like a personal piggy bank, doling out grants and “forgivable” loans to loyal groups - activist organizations, NGOs, and allied industries - with reckless abandon. I believe much of this money circles back to the party through opaque channels, enriching its leaders while burdening ordinary Americans. Similarly, the party’s lavish spending on foreign aid and international programs strikes me as a scheme to buy influence abroad, with benefits quietly funneled back to Democratic elites. This financial entanglement suggests to me that the party operates not as a servant of the people but as a parasitic entity dependent on public resources.
In my opinion, the Democratic Party is defined by its symbiotic relationship with an overgrown government. It is a party, as I see it, “by the government, of the government, and for the government,” sustained by billions in taxpayer dollars over more than half a century. Its ideology thrives only within this artificial ecosystem, propped up by bureaucrats, activists, and media allies. When government spending is cut or programs are eliminated, the party’s infrastructure crumbles, exposing its lack of organic support. I believe the American people have been unwittingly funding this system for too long, and their growing awareness is driving a reckoning. The Democratic Party’s decline, in my view, is the natural consequence of its dependence on a government it has manipulated to serve its own ends, and its wounds are self-inflicted when that government is finally restrained.
The American people have been funding the Democrat party for over half a century.
When you cut government, the Democrat party bleeds.
They are one and the same.
As an FYI about how it gets channeled back via NGOs, here is how it works.
NGO gets federal contract to build something in Africa, like wells or small solar installations.
This is now part of a program. A bunch of staff in a beautiful office in the D.C. suburbs or Manhattan get assigned to the program.
Funds meant for building wells in Botswana are now paying for the square footage of office space where the staff work, the salaries of the mostly white, mostly liberal female employees, and assorted travel expenses.
Manhattan and D.C. office space and salaries and elite human capital (Lol, it’s a bunch of upper-middle-class and upper-class talentless white girls with political connections) are expensive, so very little of the money makes it to Botswana.
Once it’s in Botswana a portion ends up in the pockets of bureaucrats, most ends up In the pockets of contractor companies that are actually subsidiaries of offshore firms owned by wealthy donors or the spouses or children of powerful D.C. officials.
Maybe 5% ends up digging any wells. The NGO gals will take a safari over to Botswana for photo ops at one of the few newly built wells and use that as proof that their organization exists for any other reason than subsidizing untalented Democrats and RINOs with taxpayer money.
The scary thing is what would have happened in the 2024 elections if they had a decent candidate. I still think there are a lot of Americans who don’t get it and will they ever?