Joyanna Adams

Nobody's Opinion

A Presidential Doctrine of…Game

Nobody Knows

Here we go again. At Bill Clinton’s Initiative meetings, we heard once again, what Nobody calls the Bush doctrine, for lack of a better word. It could also be called the Clinton doctrine, or the Obama doctrine. It has been the doctrine of every President since Daddy Bush.  

Somewhere along the line, the American companies were allowed to merge into such superpower structures…with the rationalizations, that working together with our Congress, these big super companies could change the world for free enterprise and democracy. Not to mention create a whole new business where a global stock market takes over manufacturing, and the people with money get very rich at the same time.

Big corporations–many of them—have more money than most nations.

The doctrine insists that only by globalization NOT isolation, can the people of the world be “saved” and the world made peaceful. If the millions of Muslims and Chinese work for the Wal Marts, the Apples, the Microsoft, General Electric, etc.— the world will be brought out of poverty, and everyone will get along.

In the meantime, those corporations make trillions off of all the new found middle class wealth.

They incorporated it, tied all the countries together with the banks, and so when one country falls, so go the rest.

BUT…it’s not working out that way, is it? Alas, we saw this doctrine come up again today—at Bill Clintons’ Initiative. And it came from none other than Mitt Romney.

Romney has announced his plans to solve the world’s problem by given US Taxpayers money to businesses who are willing to “help” put other nations to work, with Prosperity Pacts.

Romney’s “Prosperity Pacts” would encourage private companies to leverage federal aid in investments in developing countries. The aid would be conditional upon the removal of economic and social barriers in those countries. (In our country this is called a bribe.)

“The aim of a much larger share of our aid must be the promotion of work and the fostering of free enterprise,” Romney said. “Nothing we can do as a nation will change lives and nations more effectively and permanently than sharing the insight that lies at the foundation of America’s own economy–free people pursuing happiness in their own ways build a strong and prosperous nation.”

Romney said unrest in these countries could in part be mollified if more opportunities were available to the youth. He said he was “touched” by the story of Mohamed Bouazizi, the street vendor whose self-immolation in part sparked the Arab Spring.

“I just want to work,” Bouazizi said after his street cart was shut down by public officials.

“I just want to work,” Romney reiterated. “That has to be at the heart of our effort to help people.”

Obama mentioned “work” at the United Nations. Bill Clinton wants Wal- Mart to build in Libya.

What does that tell you? While this concept of helping all the people in the world have jobs is noble…how about taking care of the United States FIRST? Is that too much to ask? That right there tells you that–uh–America is going to be expected to fund this global “intiative”.  No matter if it comes from Bill Clinton, or Obama, or Mitt Romney, it’s still redistribution.

Nobody Thinks…It tells you  that the doctrine of “If you build it for them, they will become democracies and love you for it.”….is not working.

In the meantime, Americans…lose jobs.

Because Obama is such a danger, we have to vote for Romney.

So who benefits when all our Presidents believe that if you just pump money into other countries they will love us?

Just WHO do they work for?.

Your guess is as good as mine.

September 26, 2012 - Posted by | Globalization, Presidents, Uncategorized | , , , , ,


  1. Comment from Oz, in the Catellaxy Files:

    Mitt Romney’s concept of how to deal with foreign aid. Here are the direct quotes from a speech given yesterday about the program he has in mind:

    “Working with the private sector, the program will identify the barriers to investment and trade and entrepreneurialism in developing nations. In exchange for removing those barriers and opening their markets to US investment and trade, developing nations will receive US assistance packages focused on developing the institutions of liberty, the rule of law and property rights.

    The aim of a much larger share of our aid must be the promotion of work and the fostering of free enterprise. Nothing we can do as a nation will change lives and nations more effectively and permanently than sharing the insight that lies at the foundation of America’s own economy – and that is that free people pursuing happiness in their own ways build a strong and prosperous nation.”

    What an extraordinary vision! A system of foreign aid that will work, that does not empower a bureaucracy but which makes private individuals pursuing their own interests the centrepiece of America’s assistance program. No doubt there are endless obstacles, but if implemented this would work and transform the remaining dead spots of the world’s economies even if this was taken up in only a minor way at first. Not everywhere is going to turn into Chile, Thailand or South Korea but this is the only way in which they could.

    Mitt Romney has the potential to become the greatest president of the twenty-first century but first he has to be elected in November

    Potentially the most transforming president of the twenty-first century
    by Steve Kates


    Comment by amfortas | September 26, 2012 | Reply

    • Well, that’s been the idea of this “game plan” except, somehow, when this has been applied in communist nations, (China) we put strings on our money, and then they say “Sure!” And then…the money doesn’t change anything. They build their navy, we go broke…but a few multinationals are getting very rich…if you have stocks in their companies…you’re okay. But…only 10 percent of Americans own stock. It’s a noble concept. EXCEPT…the country has to be ready for ‘freedom’…and ‘free enterprise’ and most of them aren’t. America had been having, based on the English Common Law, a good ride of complete freedom when they came over here in the 1660’s. They had ruled themselves…with the great laws given to them based on the Jewish “ten commandments” which have beenthe baseof all western law. “The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civiling the nations.” —John Adams The Muslims, and the Communists people have known no such freedom. Only the Christian laws have seeded freedom.. FREEDOM is WHY we were successful. This “game” has been tried in China, and they are getting rich off our “game plan.” Sure…they have adopted letting “free trade” into their countries, but at a high price to us. Will the countries of Communists and Islamic masses adopt our “republican” ways? Or even “democratic” It’s a fubar. And I would agree with you that Mitt’s noble sentiments are worthy, but I DON’T believe that the America people should pay for it. Did Mitt say he would stop giving money to all these nations on top of that? No…he didn’t. If we get a stalemate in the Congress, he won’t be able to do a thing. Unlike Obama, to his credit, he doesn’t consider himself a King. Our schools have been a disaster for over fifty years, nothing is ever done. I doubt if the “habit” of America throwing money all over the world to spread democracy is going to change. We in America have learned not to trust any of them. At least this Nobody does not. Mitt might well be the greatest President in the world. He will certainly save us from Obama. BUT…it remains to be seen if he can change the world. We can hope. (Thanks for commenting!)

      Joyanna Adams



      Comment by joyannaadams | September 27, 2012 | Reply

  2. I don’t believe in giving taxpayer’s money to companies to give jobs to those in other countries.

    Tom has a point. If their taxes were cut here, they’d have more money to build factories overseas…

    Mitt expects strings to be attached to this money. Those countries have to abide by our rules..(whatever they are, which I’m sure is not unreasonable..) BUT…we end up abiding by THEIR rules. China is the example.

    Bush always said, “We MUST not be an isolationist” He and Clinton pushed through NAFTA…Ross Perot told us the disaster from this, and we now are suffering from it.

    It’s a globalizations promotiing “democracy” …and all the Presidents have endorsed it since Reagan. It’s not doing the little guy much good.

    It does have a “name” from a think tank…I’ll try to look it up guys…to be more clear.


    Comment by joyannaadams | September 26, 2012 | Reply

  3. I consider myself one of Joanna’s most loyal readers, and she has occassionally honored me by posting my comments and materials I’ve forwarded. I am a Liberatrian and a supporter of Ron paul’s non-interventionist policies.

    But I differ from many conservatives and others on the subject of free (fair) trade. China is the fastest growing market in the world for products “Made in the USA”, while we all flock to Walmart for their low-priced goods. Sounds like a win-win proposition, except that American jobs are, indeed lost.

    I believe the solution lies in making America more business friendly, and I don’t mean Solyndras or crony capitalism. I have advocated reducing corporate income taxes (to zero!) and have asked “Where, but from us their customers, do corporations get the money to pay those taxes?” Eliminate corporate taxes and our businesses could reduce their prices by up to 35%. What could better help sell “Made in the USA” abroad than a massive reduction in our prices?

    Tell me where I’m wrong, or if right, tell your representati
    Tom Beebe


    Comment by joyannaadams | September 26, 2012 | Reply

  4. I read his statement and thought it sounded more like he would put strings on the foreign aid we already send them and encouraging businesses to open up in those areas. Maybe I need to read it again. It’s clear we now just send them money which ends up in the pockets of their leaders over there and never reaches the people it is intended to help. Some of our elected officials (Rand Paul was one) tried to restrict the foreign aid in the Continuing Resolution they all agreed to before they lefted until after the election (must be nice) but was unsuccessful.


    Comment by dancermommd | September 26, 2012 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: