The Obama Doctrine Clearly Defined

Loading


“He doesn’t strategize­. He sermonizes­.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Advisor

Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama speaks in Mitchell, South Dakota. Rick Wilking -Reuters

A good read and lengthy piece in the New Yorker called, The Consequentialist.

We now have a concise description of the Obama Doctrine, defined by an unnamed senior official in the president’s own administration: Leading from behind:

That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. “It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world,” the adviser said. “But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.”

Kori Schake:

Ask any young Marine what “leading from behind” means. They probably won’t know; they’ve only ever seen leaders out front, sharing in the greatest risks because that is the responsibility of command. To the extent they will even understand what you’re asking, those Marines will probably say that a leader in the back of the formation is a coward, because they are making their Marines take risks the commander will not expose himself to.

Which is pretty close to what President Obama has done in regard to the demands for democracy in the middle east. He allows others to take risks for which he then claims credit

Runner up slogans would be, “Having it both ways”, “Straddling the fence”, and “Voting present”.

Nile Gardiner and Kori Schake write responses to Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker article which sums up the origins and shaping of Obama’s foreign policy.

He writes:

This spring, Obama officials often expressed impatience with questions about theory or about the elusive quest for an Obama doctrine. One senior Administration official reminded me what the former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said when asked what was likely to set the course of his government: “Events, dear boy, events.”

Obama has emphasized bureaucratic efficiency over ideology, and approached foreign policy as if it were case law, deciding his response to every threat or crisis on its own merits. “When you start applying blanket policies on the complexities of the current world situation, you’re going to get yourself into trouble,” he said in a recent interview with NBC News.

Obama’s reluctance to articulate a grand synthesis has alienated both realists and idealists. “On issues like whether to intervene in Libya there’s really not a compromise and consensus,” Slaughter said. “You can’t be a little bit realist and a little bit democratic when deciding whether or not to stop a massacre.”

Gardiner:

The Obama White House must be the first US presidency in living memory that actually prides itself on following rather than leading on the world stage.


~~~

On the Middle East as a whole, the Obama administration barely has a coherent big picture strategy, hardly an advertisement for what it calls its “smart power” approach. In reality the Obama doctrine represents little more than the humbling of a superpower, and the stunning abdication of US leadership in an increasingly dangerous world. As I noted previously, America badly needs another Reagan-style revolution, not only to rebuild its economic might, but also to restore its standing in the world.

Schake:

What makes the article so funny is the pompous self-regard of the administration officials and the complete lack of appreciation for how woefully inadequate their performance has been in meeting these challenges. They are “not cursed with self-awareness,” to quote Annie Savoy from the movie Bull Durham. Secretary of State Clinton compares herself as a collegiate Vietnam war protester to the young Egyptians who brought down the Mubarak government. Both Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes explain the importance of reducing involvement in the middle east because our strategic interests lie in Asia … as the administration engaged in combat operations in Libya. A presidential memo is cited as wisely anticipating the middle eastern revolutions, except that the memo calls for tailored country by country programs that the administration’s policies clearly did not have. The author even unwittingly adds to the humor, saying “Obama’s instinct was to try to have it both ways.”

America is lacking leadership in the world because America is lacking a leader capable and willing to lead.

July 27: President Barack Obama does a behind the back move with the ball after he welcomes the 2008 WNBA champion Detroit Shock on the South Lawn of The White House in Washington. Alex Brandon-AP
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
56 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Clock Ticking, Congress Poised to Resume Debate on Libya Intervention

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/28/clock-ticking-congress-poised-resume-debate-libya-intervention/

According to a decades-old policy, the president is supposed to seek congressional authorization within 60 days of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities. This is Day 41. And Congress still hasn’t passed such a measure.

Obama is speaking live.
Called for a disaster area designation for some of Alabama.
NOT for Texas…..not even yet.
What a creep!

@Nan G, #3:

Texas Governor Rick Perry’s April 16 letter to Obama formally requesting Direct Federal Assistance under the Public Assistance Program for nearly every county in Texas (see page 3).

From an article on the request that appeared April 26 in Christian Science Monitor:

“FEMA has made 20 emergency declarations for individual fires in the state, but Texas has already run up a $23 million tab with the federal government even as the Texas Forest Service scrambles for funds. The agency on Monday asked the Texas legislature for a supplemental infusion of $40 million to cover wildfire-related costs, most of which has been incurred during the current wildfire season.

“A federal emergency declaration for this year’s wildfire season means US taxpayers would pick up the tab for 75 percent of the total cost of the statewide fires. The total tab could run to $70 million. The state legislature, meanwhile, recently proposed slicing $34 million out of the Texas Forest Service’s $109 million biennial budget, with most of the cuts coming from training and equipment grants for volunteer crews who deal with wildfires.”

People can draw their own conclusions about any inconsistencies they notice. It reminds me, at least, of the hypocrisy demonstrated earlier by elected officials who loudly condemned the stimulus bill, while simultaneously pursuing every stimulus dollar they could get to keep essential state, county, and local services up and running.

The post-storm situation in Alabama is obviously quite different than the situation in Texas in that the need for federal emergency assistance is immediate. It isn’t a question of making federal funds available to help offset the accumulating financial costs of an ungoing disaster. In the case of the storms, it’s a matter of responding to a catastrophe where 250 were suddenly killed, unknown numbers of survivors could still be buried in the rubble, and elements of local infrastructure essential to the emergency response have been wiped out. In a case like that you jump in and worry about the resultant costs later.

Greg: People can draw their own conclusions about any inconsistencies they notice. It reminds me, at least, of the hypocrisy demonstrated earlier by elected officials who loudly condemned the stimulus bill, while simultaneously pursuing every stimulus dollar they could get to keep essential state, county, and local services up and running.

Good heavens…. is there no cogent thought processes skill you possess, Greg? Pray tell what does federal emergency relief… first implemented into law as the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 by Ford and his House/Senate Dem controlled Congress, and then rolled into FEMA by Jimmy Carter in 1979… to do with “stimulus”?? Emergency relief for natural disasters is a wholly different matter.

Good post!

@drjohn:

Dr J, that New Yorker is pretty good, huh?

Wordsmith,
I look forward to reading the Lizza article (now with a hint of trepedation) which just arrived in the mail. He’s an excellent reporter and tells it like he sees/hears it.

@MataHarley, #7:

The train of thought seems fairly easy to follow to me.

How does a governor keep a straight face, proposing to cut state equipment and training funds for Texas wildfire crews by $34 million, while simultaneously looking to the federal government to provide $40 million from U.S. taxpayers to fight Texas wildfires? (That’s on top of 23 million federal dollars that have already been commited.)

How does that square with Perry’s anti-federal, get-Washington-off-our-backs, soveriegn state rhetoric? The guy is a big fan of the Tenth Amendment. Maybe he could explain where he thinks Obama’s Constitutional authority for the federal assistance he’s demanding comes from.

@Greg:

Sorry, Greg, I don’t mean to jump into your conversation and take it off on a tangent, but something I just was reading seemed to hit a spot with me, regarding your post.

Are you implying that because of Perry’s philosophical stance, in regards to the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment, somehow should disqualify him from seeking assistance from the federal government, from a program designed to give emergency assistance to states in times of disaster, that Texas taxpayers pay money to the federal government for?

The federal government, by force(no need to pretend that it isn’t), takes in taxes, from Texas taxpayers, for public assistance, to include this disaster relief program, and simply because of a different ideological philosophy on what government should be spending money on, indignation is thrown at Texas for requesting assistance, through this program, even though Texas, the last I checked, was included within the rolls of the “public”. Am I wrong to state this this way? Is the assistance only doled out based on the ‘whim’ of some DC bureaucrat? Are you saying that Texas should pay money into the program, but never draw on the funds, because, somehow, they have the ability to pay for it themselves? Isn’t that a little like saying that they not only should stanch their own bleeding, and treat their own wound, but also then provide blood for everyone else? Just wondering.

Incidentally, have you checked into other states requesting funds from this program who’ve also cut money from their own state budgets? I have. 46 states have cut significant amounts from their own state services budgets. And, of the 20 Major Disaster Declarations declared this year, all have been in states that cut their budgets.

Just a couple of thoughts.

OBAMA: “WTF! I’m ‘Leading from Behind. So shut up, bend over and take it all Be-och! And don’t give me any lip!”

Using Federal funds for emergency relief is a good use of federal funds. Now, Greg, is giving federal funds to Brazil for oil exploration and development a good use of our funds?

@Tom:

Just in Time, Obama Changes the Subject

But the Lizza story quickly developed legs outside the conservative blogosphere. In the Week-in-Review section, the New York Times’ David E. Sanger had chimed in with a piece describing Obama’s policy as “Letting Others Lead in Libya.” On the Monday morning the Lizza piece broke on the blogs, Eric Alterman in The Daily Beast posted an opinion piece headlined “Obama’s Awful ’70’s Show Echoes Jimmy Carter.”

Full stop: in a 48-hour period, the New Yorker, the New York Times, and The Daily Beast had all published highly critical pieces of President Obama’s foreign policy in general and his response to the Arab Spring in particular. Somewhere, a dam had been breached. The whole story was acquiring critical mass.

It got worse. On Tuesday, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Ryan Lizza on his nationwide radio program and posted the interview on-line, urging his followers to read both the New Yorker article and the interview. On Wednesday morning, Terry Gross interviewed Ryan Lizza for a half hour on NPR’s “Fresh Air.” It went up on NPR’s website.

The New Yorker piece — and its devastating “leading from behind” quote — had entered the mainstream media. The whole thing was, shall we say, about to metastatize.

Time to change the subject. And a topic was readily at hand,.

That very morning, the White House released the President’s long-sought Hawaiian birth certificate. The President himself appeared at the podium of the White House Press Room to denounce the birthers and their enablers as “circus barkers.” Then he left to see Oprah and talk it up some more. Donald Trump, meanwhile, was grandstanding on the subject before all available television cameras.

As Paul Harvey would say: “Now you know the rest of the story.”

Which is pretty close to what President Obama has done in regard to the demands for democracy in the middle east. He allows others to take risks for which he then claims credit.

Indeed.

Barack Obama doesn’t act- all he does is react.

Republicans clean up Democrat mess and Obama takes the credit [Reader Post]

Libya, spending, Japan- Obama is sitting them all out and waiting to see what’s best for him.

@Dr. J:

It’s remarkable how that Lefty Ryan Lizza can write such an unflattering portrait of his leader, but Progressives aren’t known for possessing the virtue of loyalty. Must be the “animal” in him. I know “our” side would never do that. 🙂

This is LEADERSHIP

Allen West: I stand on facts and the truth

Representative Allen West went on Sean Hannity’s TV show to talk about the recent town hall event where liberals interrupted the meeting. West said he will not be intimidated and will always stand by the facts and the truth.

When it came to the topic of the debt ceiling debate, West said there has to be in place spending control measures in order for him to vote to raise this ceiling: One of the measures is a balanced budget amendment, to cap federal government spending.

“I think you have to look at our corporate business tax rate, it’s just 35 percent, we need to bring it down to 20, 22 percent, take away the loopholes and subsidies, encourage businesses and corporations to come back to America and invest in Americans and hiring them.

“But the last and most important condition, I think we need, is a trigger-control mechanism so that when you reach a certain percentage of the debt ceiling, there are automatic spending cuts should come in, because we don’t need to keep doing this thing about raising the debt ceiling ever again.”

http://cubachi.com/2011/04/28/allen-west-i-stand-on-facts-and-the-truth/

Accept NO Substitutes.

I hope it was a lie when Mr West said was not going to run. That’s about the only lie I would except from a political type.

I guess West’s actual words were “my place is in congress”. So maybe he is just waiting to announce his running. Who knows?..

@Tom: It’s a sign of utter defeat, Tom. When you lose the left, you really are losing.

@Wordsmith: Thanks, Word!

@Tom: Tom, you really have to be proud of me, right? This is exactly what I have been saying for a long time and you have had the pleasure of being way ahead of the curve merely by visiting Curt’s blog!

@johngalt, #9:

Are you implying that because of Perry’s philosophical stance, in regard to the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment, somehow should disqualify him from seeking assistance from the federal government, from a program designed to give emergency assistance to states in times of disaster, that Texas taxpayers pay money to the federal government for?

Not at all. Texas is part of the Union. The people of Texas are entitled to consideration from the federal government that’s identical with that given the people of any other state. The services the federal government provides for the people it represents is a matter of legally defined obligation, not largesse. The federal government works for and serves the American people, not the other way around.

It bothers me that there’s so much disdain for the federal government. This sometimes reaches the level of generalized hostility. A lot people consider many things falling within the broad range of the federal government’s activities to be worse than useless. That range is often questioned by people sharing Perry’s views on constitutional grounds–at least until some pressing need or use specific to their own particular situation arises. At such a point the federal government suddenly isn’t doing enough, and isn’t doing it as quickly as it ought to be done.

Governor Perry’s attitude strikes me as an example of that. I think he needs to reconcile his rhetoric concerning the federal government with the expectations he has regarding it.

@DrJohn:

I am proud of you Dr J. The world has finally caught up to your sober, impartial political analysis. Give me your mailing address and I’ll send you a gold star.

@Greg: Greg, do you never understand or are you ignorant! This country was founded on the principle of federalism. That means the states have the power to regulate within the state. (Look it up!) What the animosity against the federal government is that the federal government is usurping the states’ rights. They have done this by a underhanded interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and by making up things like the right to privacy. (Show me where in the constitution there is a right to privacy!) The whole abortion rights issue is based on privacy rights.

You likely don’t remember “revenue sharing”, That was a wonderful system where the federal government collected the taxes and sent the revenue back to the states. The only difficulty with that is so much was missing! The federal overhead was too high. Why is the federal government regulating education within a state? Why is the federal government regulating any product that is manufactured within a state and sold within a state? Why is the federal government making health insurance mandatory within a state? This is just a few items that are not covered within the Constitution. If you remember, the Civil War was fought over states rights, not slavery!

@Randy, #25:

If you remember, the Civil War was fought over states rights, not slavery!

I’m aware of that. I also remember which view prevailed when the Union was preserved.

@Greg:

Governor Perry’s attitude strikes me as an example of that. I think he needs to reconcile his rhetoric concerning the federal government with the expectations he has regarding it.

No, it looks, to me, that you wish to have double standards when it comes to federal assistance. The people of Texas are not solely responsible for the passage of legislation leading to the program. And yes, they do pay in tax dollars for it. He has a responsibility to his state, which pays money for the program, to use it when necessary, no matter what he personally feels about the size and scope of the federal government. You’d rather he turn away from federal assistance, at the same time you want Texas to continue paying money to the feds for the program.

@ johngalt, It’s just OPM from the Big Piggy Bank, but Congress stuffed it full of IOUs.

http://www.cato.org/
pub_display.php?pub_id=13054

Who is Bernard Henri-Levy (BHL)? He’s heir to an industrial fortune, and a crusading socialist who favors open-collared shirts, stylishly long locks and “humanitarian” wars. One critic summed up BHL’s persona tartly: “God is dead, but my hair is perfect.”

Henri-Levy’s 2006 book, American Vertigo: Traveling America in the Footsteps of Tocqueville, was so condescending about America’s “derangements,” “dysfunctions” and “hyperobesity,” it roused NPR’s Garrison Keillor to a fit of patriotic ire. The normally placid Prairie Home Companion host called BHL “a French writer with a spatter-paint prose style and the grandiosity of a college sophomore.”

And yet, BHL — clever boy — helped entangle this fat, silly country in a conflict that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admits “isn’t a vital interest for the U. S.” You can’t make this stuff up.

Since we turned command over to NATO, the British and French have been running short on laser-guided munitions and pleading with the U. S. to do more heavy lifting.

But if our NATO allies can’t get the job done, maybe it’s because they’ve become military “welfare queens,” free-riding off America’s lavish defense budgets. The U. S. now accounts for nearly 75 percent of NATO members’ overall military spending.


What are we doing in NATO anyway? Maybe it made sense in 1949 to put aside our distrust of “entangling alliances” in order to confront the Soviet threat. But that threat disappeared two decades ago.

Today, the alliance’s main functions seem to be forcing the U. S. taxpayer to subsidize Europe’s generous welfare states, and periodically embroiling us in conflicts, like Kosovo and Libya, that we’d be smarter to avoid.

There are lessons to be learned from the Libyan debacle. For us, the main lesson is that NATO long ago outlived its usefulness. For Europe, it’s that foreign adventurism doesn’t come cheap. If you think these things are worth doing, pay your own way, and finish the fights you start.

Allen B West: awards and decorations include the Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal (two Oak Leaf Clusters), Army Commendation Medal (two Oak Leaf Clusters, one Valor Device), Army Achievement Medal (one Oak Leaf Cluster), Valorous Unit Award, Air Assault Badge and the Parachutist Badge.

In addition, West has been awarded the following service medals and ribbons: National Defense Service Medal (with bronze star device), Southwest Asia Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Army Overseas Service Ribbon (multiple awards), Saudi Arabia Kuwait Liberation Medal W/Palm Tree and Kuwait Liberation Medal

But he does not have a nobel peace prize….

@Old Trooper 2, #17:

West: “I think you have to look at our corporate business tax rate, it’s just 35 percent, we need to bring it down to 20, 22 percent, take away the loopholes and subsidies, encourage businesses and corporations to come back to America and invest in Americans and hiring them.”

Fact: World Bank study found U.S. effective corporate lower than those of several industrialized nations, including China.

“In its Paying Taxes 2009 publication, based on its 2009 Doing Business report, the World Bank-International Finance Corporation estimated that the United States has a lower effective rate of current corporate tax than that of several other nations, including Germany, Canada, India, China, Brazil, Japan, and Italy. The publication also included a figure that compared effective and statutory corporate tax rates for several G8 and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries.”

An overview of the Peoples Republic of China tax system; specifically, “The major taxes applicable to foreigners, foreign investment enterprises (“FIEs”) and foreign enterprises (“FEs”) doing business in China”. Note the 25% corporate tax isn’t the only one relevant; there’s also a standard VAT of 17%. (They will, of course, cut corporations a special rate for establishing new high-tech industrial capabilities in the PRC–from the U.S. worker’s perspective, the first step in offshoring yet another bit of our manufacturing base. Some might unkindly characterize this as a monetary reward for selling out to the your own nation’s economic competition.)

When you compare the total effective corporate tax rates, it seems like high corporate taxes might not be the primary reason for offshoring, after all. Dirt cheap labor and minimal (as in totally inadequate) protective regulation might be the real reason.

Greg: When you compare the total effective corporate tax rates, it seems like high corporate taxes might not be the primary reason for offshoring, after all. Dirt cheap labor and minimal (as in totally inadequate) protective regulation might be the real reason.

Welcome to the reality when many of us say the unions price US businesses right out of competition with the rest of the world. Now, I know you have an extreme reaction and mentality, but no… I am not saying we need to treat labor as China does. But there can be much done to keep more business here with fudging with various corporation rates, and making them more appealing. Not to mention, if we could keep OSHA and EPA out of their heinous restraints, we’d gain some ground there as well.

The Media Matters you quote is a year old, and they have a 2010 Paying Taxes study. As they point out, corporate income taxes are a small percentage of what corporate taxes actually pay… and it varies from country to country.

Technically, if you look at the appendices on this Doing Business reports, you’ll find that the tax rates for the US are actually 46.3% (see pg 86 of the PDF). The corporate income tax is 27.9%, with labor taxes at 9.6%. This gives the US a ranking of 118 out of the 178 world economies they ranked. In this scale, #1 is the cheapest rates, i.e. Timor-Leste with a 0.2% TTR.

The highest TTR rate was Argentina with 108.1%. Argentina’s corporate income tax was low… 2.9%. The rest of their taxes made up the balance. France, Italy and Spain all rank in higher TTRs than the US. Spain has 21.2% corporate income tax, but 35.2% labor tax. China was ranked in 160th position with 63.8% TTR.

Germany is similar to the US, with a 112 position rank, but their tax structure is completely different. They have low corporate taxes of 17.4%, but higher labor taxes of 22.0% with other misc taxes making up the balance of 5.5%. This is why I keep trying to pounding into Larry’s head that you can’t simply look at “tax cuts” as a stand alone entity, since “tax policy” for economic stimulu is a wise combination of low rates in some arenas, and higher rates in others. Corporate income taxes are sensitive to economic trends/recessions, and thereby volatile and unpredictable revenue, where the rest remain more fixed.

In the section on 25 of the PDF.

Corporate income tax is only part of the burden of taxes A consistent message of the Paying Taxes study each year, is that corporate income tax19 is only part of the tax burden on business. The data from this year’s study shows the same position. Figure 2.3 shows that, on average, for all 183 economies in the study, corporate income tax accounts for 12% of the tax payments made by the case study company (13% in 2009), for 26% of the compliance time (26% in 2009), and for 38% of the TTR (Total Tax Rate, which was 37% in 2009) When considering reform, it is important for governments to take into account all of the taxes that companies pay.

Since I know how you have a high disdain for big companies, you’ll find the data on pg 36 especially interesting…. Where nine of the nations with the largest corporation rank with each other.

Note the amounts of each types of taxes the corporation pays, and that out of the nations with the largest companies, only Belgium has a higher overall TTR than the US for the large corporations. They actually have a lower corporate income tax, but really sock it to corporations on labor taxes plus others.

@Greg: I just helped a lady move her company to Austria to avoid US corporate taxes. There is no way she will pay the corporate taxes plus all of the other costs of doing business here. Obamacare is another issue. How about the interference of the NLCB in the Boeing move to SC. Maybe they should have move to another country. The cap and trade issue that continues to pop up on the lefty side to combat a fraud in AGW. Give one reason for a corporation concerned with stockholders to stay in the US?

I

@Randy, #32:

Patriotism?

@ Greg, Taxation and Over Regulation as well as Un Constitutional Regulation (Meddling) has been a cause for off shoring.

I have no plans to move my beef cattle operation and have hired 3 new employees in the past year. I am in compliance with all applicable Laws, State and Federal Regulations and operate in the Black. I have no stockholders and have always had clear title to my land as well as Grandfathered Mineral and Water Rights.

As I have frequently asked You if You have Employees, meet a payroll or produce a marketable product for profit and have gotten no response I reckon that You are on the Consuming end and not on the Private Enterprise end. If I decide to open a business with My Capital, where I locate that business is where there is an enterprise friendly environment. It may likely be overseas depending on the product, the raw materials required and skilled labor availability. As it is My Money and not the Governments, I have that option.

As I pay enough taxes already in the US, see Over Regulation and Meddling as a trend in the US due to the Socialist approach of the Current Regime and Irresponsible Spending driving the taxation, any new enterprise that I choose to engage in for profit may not be based in the US.

@ Greg, Patriotism on the part of either Randy or Myself is not Your prerogative to Question. If decades of Selfless Military Service is not Patriotic then what is?

You and Joe Biden can pay more taxes if You like but it is no measure of Patriotism. As I recall, Joe never Served.

@Old Trooper 2, #35:

That was meant as an answer to the question Randy posed. It was the first one that popped into my head. I wouldn’t presume to question your patriotism and apologize if I somehow gave that impression.

I do question what some large multinational corporations hold dearest.

@Greg:

Randy is correct, Greg . It was all about the states rights. Their rights to own black people! And capital gains tax. A little know fact is that capital gains tax on black people was 25% at the time of the War Against Northern Aggression. This liberal tax was impeding commerce. Something had to give.

@Greg: The train of thought seems fairly easy to follow to me.

How does a governor keep a straight face, proposing to cut state equipment and training funds for Texas wildfire crews by $34 million, while simultaneously looking to the federal government to provide $40 million from U.S. taxpayers to fight Texas wildfires? (That’s on top of 23 million federal dollars that have already been commited.)

Because it’s called a natural disaster, and not a regular occurrence, Greg. I live in a section of the NW that actually gets very little snow for it’s position on the parallels. The entire county has three snow plows. When we get those heavy snows for extended times… rarely, but they happen… they put those three to work, then pull in locals with heavy cats and moving equipment to pick up the slack. But it’s not in the budget to keep them on hand as inventory annually.

That’s what’s an “emergency relief” is for. You’re stretching big time for a BS point here, and I’m calling you on spewing crap.

@Greg… it’s “patriotic” to put yourself out of business?

Odd concept…

@Tom: Randy is correct, Greg . It was all about the states rights. Their rights to own black people!

Hard to tell what’s more offensive about you, Tom. Your race baiting or your utter ignorance of history… the unrevisionist kind. If you are clueless to the fiscal issues that were driving the Civil War contentions – of which the cheap black labor force was their fiscal counterbalance (yes, a very wrong counterbalance, no matter what color their skin was) – then you’d be better off keeping your cyber trap shut, rather than shoving both feet in your mouth.

@MataHarley:

Hard to tell what’s more offensive about you, Tom. Your race baiting or your utter ignorance of history… the unrevisionist kind. If you are clueless to the fiscal issues that were driving the Civil War contentions – of which the cheap black labor force was their fiscal counterbalance (yes, a very wrong counterbalance, no matter what color their skin was) – then you’d be better off keeping your cyber trap shut, rather than shoving both feet in your mouth.

Whoops. Someone doesn’t have their humor detector well calibrated. Of course I was kidding! Do you take me for a guy who thinks the Civil War had more to do with slavery than with fiscal issues? I mean, come on. Slavery is bad, but we’re talking about something truly barbaric – fiscal issues! Some states might stay in a union that includes states with slavery; but most states with slavery won’t stay in a union ignorant about fiscal issues.

Many slaves who escaped the lash to the North years later often experienced a strange longing in their souls that they couldn’t place. I bet it was fiscal issues.

@Tom: Greg you never seem to understand what I write or you ignore it. Many times I explained that corporations are just people. Many are your neighbors. You and most of the left think of corporations as an enemy of the people. In fact, corporations are the people. You want high taxes on corporations because they are the enemy. Do you own any stock in a corporation? Who does the government tax when they tax corporations? They tax the stock holders as a corporation and then turn around and tax the stock holders again on the dividends that the corporations distribute.
Stock holders provide the capital the corporation needs to build and operate a successful business for the benefit of the stock holders. You and Larry laughed at the Laffer curve and said that taxpayers do not alter their behavior after being taxed 18%. Why do you think these corporations are moving over seas? It is because the stock holders are being over taxed. Most do not mind paying their income tax, but they hate being taxed twice. Not only that, but those buddies of your who always vote for the lefties who gives them hand outs always want to tax them more. When there are 47% or more of the people in this country who pay no taxes, the tax payers alter their behavior.
Tax payers have two choices; continue to pay increasing taxes for their work or to move their business to a place where the business can be profitable. Patriotism is not a factor. In fact, it is a form of protest against unfair taxation. ( To quote Mrs. Clinton,” protest is a form of patriotism”) When you and your ilk understand that a corporation is the people who own the stock and the corporation is the entity that employees people and that your escalating taxes and regulations impede the company from succeeding, then maybe there will be changes. When that happens, like LTC West said, “jobs will return to the US”.

@Randy:

I am confused as to whether you are writing to me or to Greg, but nevertheless, you provide an eloquent tribute to an often forgotten segment of our society: corporations. By the way, I don’t know who “the left”, “lefties” or “your ilk” are, but they sound like horrible people.

Tom projects his racism onto us. How predictable. BTW, YOU are a lefty Tom and yes, you aren’t much of a person considering what your actual opinions of Conservatives are. (You thought I had forgotten what you called them?)

@Hard Right:

So now it’s race-baiting to hold the opinion that the instituation of slaveryis one of the main causes of the Civil War? Hilarious. “Dear North. It’s not you (or slavery), it’s me”.

Summary: Obama has O Vision . . . . on anything.

America is in bad need of a visionary.

@Tom: Perhaps it’s because you’re not funny, Tom.

@MataHarley:

A funnier man than me once wrote, “humor is a gamble that seems to fail as often as it succeeds”. I imagine the wisdom in that statement was hard-won indeed. For that man and myself I hope at least that some failures are nobler than others, and that the failure to spread laughter and good cheer is partially mitigated by the good intent behind the bad execution.

52+% of the electorate imbued Obama with an importance and a “vision” it wished upon him.

He was a blank slate, and people don’t change. He is still a blank slate. He achieved the historical precedence of being the first African American President, then stopped there. He had no capacity to rise to the calling of history as a leader.

He couldn’t have come at a worse time for America. Given the extreme pressures facing the Nation on all fronts, the serious weaknesses of this President are accentuated. Script writers and teleprompters cannot “solve” America’s challenges, nor can they lead the Country out of its quagmire.

– The country needs a leader who will challenge the likes of Geithner and Bernanke (for example) before more time passes, and further devastation becomes an inevitable outcome.
– The country needs someone to rise to the occasion and instead of forming “another useless committee,” grab the podium, and stimulate the industrious and creative nature that has built America. I wish we would stop hearing about how China is taking over the world and winning the economic war. Repeat it often enough, and everyone will believe it is inevitable, the dollar will be worthless, and we might as well all pack our bags for Guangdong.

Good one, Wordsmith.

James Raider, GEITNER AND BERNANKE are among the BILDERBERG GROUP,
ADVOCATE OF THE EXISTING WORLD ORGANISATION
and that tell us in AMERICA where their interest are PRIMARY, THEY OWN THE FEDERAL BANK AND ARE INDEPENDANT OF ANY UNITED STATES MATTERS OR ANY PROBLEMS AND EMERGENCYS
THEY CAN ANYTIME CLOSE THE LID TO THE POT OF MONEY TO AMERICANS.

Here is a head-spinning moment from the MSM – The socialist propaganda machines are smelling arrogance from Obama? . . . .

The San Francisco Chronicle –
Chronicle responds after Obama Administration punishes reporter for using multimedia, then claims they didn’t

More surprising than the article are the comments. Socialist California may be getting dismayed with the ideology it has promoted.