« | »

Obama Announces $33 Billion In Commitments To Africa

From an unquestioning Associated Press:

Obama announces $33B in commitments for Africa

By Paul Wiseman and Stacy A. Anderson | August 5, 2014

WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking to strengthen America’s financial foothold in Africa, President Barack Obama announced $33 billion in commitments Tuesday aimed at shifting U.S. ties with Africa beyond humanitarian aid and toward more equal economic partnerships.

Not to quibble, but where does the Constitution give the President the power to make billions of dollars of commitments to foreign countries? (Just kidding. We know that Mr. Obama isn’t limited by the Constitution.)

The bulk of the commitments came from private-sector companies, including Coca-Cola and General Electric, underscoring Africa’s growing appeal to businesses…

And here we thought Mr. Obama was seeking to punish US companies for moving overseas. But, apparently, Africa is a different story.

Yet Obama noted that U.S. trade with the entire African continent is about the same as its trade ties with Brazil and that just about one percent of U.S. exports go to sub-Saharan Africa…

So he wants a planned economy that will distribute foreign investments more fairly. What could be wrong with that?

"We’ve got to do better, much better," he said during closing remarks at a daylong session that brought together U.S. and African politicians and business leaders. "I want Africans buying more American products and I want Americans buying more African products." …

Exactly what products does Africa produce?

The U.S. is hardly alone in seeing economic potential in Africa, with China, Europe and India moving aggressively to tap into Africa’s growing markets. China in particular is hungry for oil, coal and other resources and is eager to develop the roads, bridges and ports needed to pull them out of Africa…

How come China doesn’t give Africa more foreign aid? They own the place.

Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry also addressed the attendees…

Yes, he did. In fact, Mr. Biden even called Africa a nation while he was speaking at the US/Africa Summit. “There is no reason the nation of Africa cannot, and should not, join the ranks of the worlds most prosperous nations,” Biden said.

That’s our Joe.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, August 6th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Obama Announces $33 Billion In Commitments To Africa”

  1. Africa is a country. Biden said so.

  2. Rusty Shackleford

    When, in ancient times, the Greeks developed writing, building grand structures and philosophy, the African was fighting tribal wars and living in mud huts.

    Then came the Romans and for (roughly) 1,000 years, they built incredible cities, wrote, developed a complex social structure, conquered and incorporated other lands into their own, developed currency, albeit with slavery as a dominating trade, but the African was fighting tribal wars and living in mud huts.

    The Dark Ages came after the fall of Rome, not much happened there in Europe but the African was fighting tribal wars and living in mud huts.

    Then the Renaissance, with Leonardo (daVinci, not deCrapio), Michelangelo, Galileo, the discovery and usage of the compass, clocks, the printing press, etc.

    The African was fighting tribal wars and living in mud huts.

    Then came the age of discovery on into the 1800’s, with huge explorations, inventions, the steam engine allowing for railroads to traverse great distances, the telegraph, the birth of true medicine and surgery, the microscope, etc.

    The African was fighting tribal wars and living in mud huts.

    Then the explosion of technology in the 20th century. The airplane, the diesel engine, automobiles, the telephone, the radio, television and radar. Rockets; Trips to the Moon and back; Exploration by robot of other worlds. Einstein, Neils Bohr, Madame Curie, The X-Ray, Atomic power.

    The African was fighting tribal wars and living in mud huts.

    Meanwhile, the freed slaves in this country got off to a decent start but then in the 1960’s got subverted to feed the democrat machine.
    (but that’s a different discussion—but even they did not want to “return” to Africa to fight tribal wars and live in mud huts)

    So….I ask you. In the three thousand years of the development of western civilization, running against it is the muslim cult and the Africans who fight tribal wars with machetes and live in mud huts.

    Which scenario is better?

    Has western civilization had wars, disease, poverty? Yes, absolutely. But not all the time and tremendous strides have won out to eradicate it.

    So which nation(s) is/are simmering caldrons of disease? Continents?

    Why….if you said “Africa” you would win the gold star.

    The natural resources in Africa are only slightly exploited and cannot be properly managed because of that danged tribal warfare/mud hut mentality.

    So what sets Westerners apart? Is it in the DNA? Is it just “custom and convention”?

    The left would have us believe it’s all our fault. How is this so? Do we westerners go to Africa and IMPOSE poverty and disease on Africans? Or….is it more likely that, since the 1800’s Westerners have repeatedly gone to Africa and offered up a better way, help with food and medicine?

    To which, I might add, they more often than not, categorically reject due to this convention or that superstition.

    Meanwhile, they fight tribal wars and live in mud huts.

    Hurray for the left! Their next voting bloc awaits!




« Front Page | To Top
« | »