Saturday, June 26, 2010

We Now Know The Obama Doctrine.

When Charlie Gibson did his "gotcha" interview with Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin his big score was when Palin didn't know the "Bush Doctrine." Gibson asked Palin if she supported the Bush Doctrine, she stared back blankly until she tried to turn it back on him asking "in what way?" Gibson responded, "Well, what do you interpret it to be?" Trying to make her look foolish and get his "gotcha moment." Gibson pressed Palin. "The Bush Doctrine is we have the right to self-defense, pre-emptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us," he noted. "Do you agree with it?" Palin's answer, "Charlie, if there is enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country."

Until this interview, I personally would have had no idea how to answer that question, I had never heard a specific Bush Doctrine, especially from the Bush Administration. The term the Bush Doctrine was first used by Dr. Charles Krauthammer in 2001 to describe the Bush Administration's unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol. Different pundits would attribute different meanings to it. It turned out that Gibson was referring to the 2002 National Security Strategy.

"The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act presumptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression."

So if Charles Gibson can be the be all authority of what the Bush Doctrine was, I will propose the Obama Doctrine here.

When you look to find the underlying and defining ideology that makes all of Obama's decisions it has become very clear what we must call the Obama Doctrine. It is the quote by Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." This fits perfectly into the lifelong training that Obama has had as a community organizer and follower of Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven. This has to be directly in Obama's comfort zone.

To prove this theory all we must do is look to how Obama and his administration have responded to any and all crisis that have come on his watch.

The largest financial melt-down in American history since the Great Depression was a crisis that Obama used to pass a massive spending program with the name of The Stimulus Bill, even though there was very little actual stimulus for the private sector in it, it amounted as more of a political slush fund to help bribe Democrats to go along with Obama's Health Care Bill with available pork to use to give the fence sitters in his own party.

Also in response to the economic melt-down came the need to completely redo our entire Health Delivery systems to put them under direct government control with the promise of "helping the economy and creating jobs." It wasn't until after it was forced through that we learned the numbers were going to be much higher costs than before, that it would kill thousands if not millions of private sector jobs, only creating more government jobs, such as 16,000 new IRS agents.

The floods in the south, nearly destroying Nashville, Tennessee and others was almost completely ignored by the media, and was ignored by Obama. When it was happening I couldn't figure out why this administration paid it no attention, now held up to the Obama Doctrine, I do understand. There was nothing in the flood that could be used as a reason to advance Obama's agenda, so it held no interest to him.

With the immigration crisis we see Obama choose to sue and vilify those Americans who are trying to just enforce the Federal laws regarding the border. Senator John Kyle tried to reason with Obama on a compromise to help stem the flow of illegals across the border, but was told by Obama that "If we secure the borders you guys (republicans) will have no reason to allow my comprehensive immigration reform, (total amnesty voter registration)" Once again never allowing a serious crisis to go to waste for advancing his agenda.

With the BP oil leak in the Gulf we see the Obama Doctrine clearly. When you try to use logic to figure out why the Obama Administration is throwing up roadblocks to the clean up and oil containment efforts. He has turned down every serious offer of skimmers, and oil cleaning ships from America and the world. Governor Bobby Jindal hired his own, and Obama sent the Coast Guard to stop them.

None of this makes sense if you are thinking of actually stopping or containing the crisis. However if you think about it through the filter of the Obama Doctrine it makes a lot of sense. The more damage done by the oil, the more dead sea life, ruined beaches, destroyed coastal economies, and if he is lucky sick and dying people from the fumes, the easier it will be for him to end all Oil exploration and drilling in America.

It will also open the door for him to push through the largest tax increase in world history with Cap and Trade. This is just what he needed as the entire global warming "science" has been proven to be a fraud.

When you look at the news through this Obama Doctrine, it is very clear why he is doing what he is doing on each crisis that comes our way.

9 comments:

  1. well done explaining his tactics Jim. But it doesn't answer the question "why".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Understanding the "Why" is going to be difficult for Americans to grasp intellectually or emotionally. It makes no sense to us that there is a possibility that an American president and his party's leadership wouldn't have the best interest of the American people at heart, even if they were misguided in their policies.
    However, we must look to the ideologies of those now in power, and historically the results of those ideologies. They have always resulted in tyranny by those in power, there has never been an example otherwise throughout all of history.
    The freedoms we have enjoyed in America under our Constitutional Republic form of government has been the shining example of the lone exception to tyranical rule, all freedom through the rest of the world has come from our example and leadership.
    There are those, and always have been, who want to destroy this freedom, to destroy our Constitution and replace it with them running things with their boots on all of our necks.
    Read the Cloward-Piven Strategy to learn the plan that Obama and his regime are following to the letter. Obama is a Communist who is trying to remake America in his ideological image. Though it is hard to believe, it is self-evident when you get past the "it couldn't happen in America" thought process.

    ReplyDelete
  3. lol... you are seriously crazy. you should stop attributing evil motives to your political opponents and try being more intellectually charitable. otherwise you end up in conspiracyville. i'm sure you'll just ignore this comment from a stranger on the internet, but i thought i'd just make a feeble effort to inject a little reality into your bubble - liberals aren't communists. obama's not a communist. reid and pelosi aren't communists. they aren't even socialists. compare them to self-avowed communists and socialists with clear eyes. if you can't see any daylight between liberal technocrats like the ones who run your country and communist bogeymen, then you truly are lost.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Okay Kyle, I'll bite. Let's hear your explanation of the reasoning behind Obama and his Regime's actions or lack there of. There are only two possible explanations, total incompetence or planned and executed. It is hard to believe that anyone can be as bad as they appear for the first to be true, and if you look at the leadership's training, and back ground the second is the only thing that makes sense. The only job we know of for Obama until he was in the Illinois State Senate was teaching Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to ACORN operatives.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Recently read Critical Mass by Streiber. I will not spoil the book for anyone who has not read it, but Sarah Palin's comments are right on.
    I'm afraid we will simply have to wait out this administration. I've heard enough negative comments from Democrat voters to know he would never be re-elected.
    Best advice I can give to businesses and individuals that have been hurt by the weak economy is to grab as much government work or funding as you can and hang in there!

    ReplyDelete