Skip to comments.Obama Doctrine: We're Number Two... or Three...or Four...
Posted on 06/22/2012 2:26:50 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: This is last night on Charlie Rose. He had an author on, a guy by the name of James Mann. James Mann has a new book called The Obamians: The Struggle Inside the White House to Redefine American Power. Now I want you listen to this. I can't believe that Charlie actually had this guy on. And I can't believe this guy walked out of there without needing a wheelchair after what he said. It's another book on Obama, another window into what Obama's really all about. And this is key to understanding Obama's world view.
I've thought for the longest time, just to set this up, I've told you I don't know how many times. I think Obama is a guy, educated, raised, he's got a chip on his shoulder, and he's mad at this country. It was unjustly founded. It's immoral. Slavery, all that stuff. Discrimination against the poor. It's set up by a bunch of rich guys for a bunch of rich guys. And this country isn't a super power; it's stolen everything. It's stolen resources from other people around the world. We're the reason that the rest of the world is in poverty, because we steal everything they've got. I think he really believes this. I think that's why he apologizes for the country. He thinks we're a bunch of imperialists, marching around the globe taking what we want. That's why he blanches at this whole notion of American exceptionalism. You keep that in mind. Charlie Rose asks James Mann, the author, "Can you define an Obama doctrine?"
MANN: At the heart of this book is the notion of American primacy in the world. That post World War II, that America is the unquestioned world leader and is able to serve as the world leader and is always looked to. That lasted through the Cold War. Even more so after the end of the Cold War. And it's not that Obama at all wants to do away with that role, but he has in mind that maybe we won't always maintain our role of primacy in the world. Obama gives speeches that are quite intriguing that say, we have helped underwrite global security for the last six decades, sometimes without thanks. That perfect tense in there kind of suggests that maybe we won't always be the world's leader.
RUSH: I disagree with the author. I think it's on purpose. I think his mission is to cut America down to size. This guy's saying that he's just trying to give it legitimacy. We never did have the ability to police the world. We never did have the ability to protect the world. And Obama knows this. Obama's smart enough to know that we never had the ability to be this super power. It's all been a dream. He's going to cut us back to size. That's reality. We're number two or three. He admires the ChiComs. He salivates. He wishes this country were the ChiComs. Like Thomas Friedman, New York Times, these guys sit around and they speculate how much fun it would be to be able to sign something and make a decision without a Congress, without any political opposition. The smartest people in the country, fix everything by just implementing what they believe. That's how they see China and they see it wonderfully. And that's what they want here. And, of course, they think they are the smart people who should be in charge of all this implementation.
I think we’re kidding ourselves if we think the Obama Doctrine is: “We’re Number Two... or Three...or Four...”
We’re lucky if it’s only we’re number twenty, thirty, or forty. It’s probably more like we’re number 120th or worse, perhaps even dead last.
One guy hates our nation and governs a certain way as a result, and the other professes to love our nation, but believes it could be a lot greater if only he could govern moving us to the Left.
Wonderful. Our nation is located between two boxers throwing blows who want to fix it. And fix it they will.
Heaven help us.
No Communist nation has ever been economically successful for very long. Often, their prosperity is grossly exaggerated. Recall that few in the West anticipated the economic collapse of the USSR.
A combination of incompetence & corruption will just as surely collapse China. It is only a matter of time & circumstance.
0bama is #2. Flush him.
Those on the left see the world as static with one pie with it’s size set. The pie will not, can not get any bigger. Those on the right see the world as opportunity with many pies of varying sizes and they can be increased in size with effort. New pies can be created also like Bill Gates’ Microsoft.
Those on the left will say “I am going to work to earn money”. This ties in with one pie, set size and there is no more. Those on the right say “I am going to make some money”. They talk in terms of creating wealth and then proceed to do exactly that.
To Obama we are stealing from the rest of the world to maintain our wealth. In reality we decided we wanted a bigger pie so we built one L of a big one and if the blasted socialists would get off our backs we can build another one even bigger.
One thing in Europe I noticed they always talked about earning money. Here in the US it almost always is “I’m going to make money”. Let us not adopt European ways.
They study "poverty." Their fake concern for the "poor," which buys them power and votes, even causes some of them like John Edwards to establish "poverty centers," where they can get uninformed rich people to contribute money so they can peddle their vote-getting pity for the poor.
What they should be doing is studying Adam Smith's "Inquiry in to the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" so that whatever real concern they have about the poor can be directed into increasing the nation's wealth, thereby creating jobs and incomes for even the poorest among us.
Now why don't they do that?
Is it possibly because their own "self-interest" is power, not helping poor people have good jobs and adequate income?
Naaaah. . . . .
A president whose indoctrination and chosen ideology focuses on how to buy power with promises of "redistribution," giving no thought to the necessity of a wealth-creating mechanism to fund such promises is a charlatan who cannot be trusted.