The American President Happily Heralds Decline of US Dominance
November 9, 2010
RUSH: All right, little Barry is back in Indonesia, and they're all happy over there. Little Barry Soetoro is back and they're all happy over there in Indonesia. In fact, he was someplace in India, he was introduced by somebody from Kenya, and the woman says, "As a fellow Kenyan, Mr. President," of course everybody looked the other way, "What do you mean fellow Kenyan, we don't want to hear this," and now little Barry is back. But before he left India, we have this story from the Times of India: "Obama Acknowledges Decline of US Dominance." Every time he leaves the country he makes a statement like this. The previous time he was talking about the fact that the American consumer is no longer going to lead the world economy. It just isn't gonna happen. Here is how the story from the Times of India begins: "Implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance..." Implicitly acknowledging, implicitly, that's not an accidental choice of words. Implicitly acknowledging. Not regretfully, not by happenstance, not, "Awe, shucks," but rather in a triumphant way Obama's crowing about this. "Implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance, Barack Obama on Sunday said the US was no longer in a position to 'meet the rest of the world economically on our terms.'" This is by design, implicitly acknowledging. Not saying this is temporary, "Hey, this is just an accident of fate here, but we're gonna fix this," not that. This is not just happenstance. This is by design, implicitly acknowledging -- look it up -- implicitly acknowledging, with fanfare, triumphantly, finally the decline of American dominance has been made a reality, and I'm the guy who did it, and I'm happy to be telling you about it here in India. That's what implicitly acknowledging means. "Speaking at a town hall meeting in Mumbai, he said, 'I do think that one of the challenges that we are going face in the US, at a time when we are still recovering from the financial crisis is, how do we respond to some of the challenges of globalization? The fact of the matter is that for most of my lifetime and I'll turn 50 next year -- the US was such an enormously dominant economic power, we were such a large market, our industry, our technology, our manufacturing was so significant that we always met the rest of the world economically on our terms. And now because of the incredible rise of India and China and Brazil and other countries, the US remains the largest economy and the largest market, but there is real competition. This will keep America on its toes. America is going to have to compete. There is going to be a tug-of-war within the US between those who see globalization as a threat and those who accept we live in a open integrated world, which has challenges and opportunities.'" Dare I translate this for you? Do I need to translate that for you, ladies and gentlemen? We've had it our way for far too long. The US has been unfairly at the top of the heap for far too long, and we've done it by stealing the world's resources, by taking from the people of the world and making them poor. Our own selfishness and greed has propelled us to an artificial position of dominance, but those days are over now and I'm happy to see to it as I implicitly acknowledge the decline of American dominance. "Because of the incredible rise of India and China and Brazil, we do remain the largest economy, the largest market, but there's real competition." That means not for long. On this globalization business, "tug-of-war within the US between those who see globalization as a threat and those who accept that we live in an open, integrated world." Bye-bye, borders. Hello, world currency. Hello, I want to run the United Nations. Hello, open borders. "The US leader disagreed with those who saw globalization as unmitigated evil. But while acknowledging that the Chindia factor --" that's the combination of ChiComs and India factor "-- had made the world flatter, he said protectionist impulses in US will get stronger if people don't see trade bringing in gains for them." Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is a slap at people who he thinks want to start a trade war with China. And the usual suspects, when a Democrat president starts talking about people who want to start a trade war with China are the Pat Buchanans of the world, the anti-NAFTA types, the flat earthers, the people that believe in global conspiracy. But let me tell you who's behind the trade war in China. (interruption) Who, Snerdley? It is his base led by Chuck-U Schumer. It is the unions. Chuck Schumer is leading the war on trade with China, and they're trying to pass this off as some kind of Neanderthal Republican or conservative-led movement. "If the American people feel that trade is just a one-way street where everybody is selling to the enormous US market but we can never sell what we make anywhere else, then the people of the US will start thinking that this is a bad deal for us and it could end up leading to a more protectionist instinct in both parties, not just among Democrats --" (so, he admits it) "-- but also Republicans. So, that we have to guard against." Now, if you go to Obama's second autobiography -- how many people have two autobiographies? If you go to Obama's second one, it's called The Audacity of Hope, Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, it is largely about the threat of globalization to the US economy and the American worker. All through that book, Obama uses the bogeyman of globalization to argue for the need for all of his social justice programs, such as health care reform and other income redistribution schemes, long before he had the US recession to blame. "Obama, who just lost control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans, unabashedly said the objective of his visit was to find jobs for his voters." What? He's in India to find jobs for his voters? What about the people who didn't vote for him?
BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Obama is joyfully overseas talking about the decline of the US economy, happily presiding over it, implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance. It's what he's all about. He's happy he's made it happen, and he gets to go around the world and signal to everybody that it's happened. BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: You know, folks, this Times of India article, listen to the way it ends. This is how it ends: "In the context of his efforts to revive the US economy, the president clearly sees, as he wrote in an article, India and China as key drivers of economic growth." Did you ever...? Did you ever think you would see the day when the US economy would depend upon the ChiComs and India or when an American president would be so overjoyed in this? Now, never mind the US economy still has a GDP that's twice the size of the ChiComs and India's combined. Let's see. US GDP is $14.1 trillion. China's is $4.9 trillion. India's is $1.2. But we're saying we're now beholden to what happens to the ChiComs and what happens in India -- and Obama talking about protectionism? He is the protectionist! Who is it that's been complaining about foreign money coming into the Chamber of Commerce during the campaign? Who is it that's been complaining about big union buddies? Obama's attacks on domestic companies investing in foreign countries? How about our environmental and tax laws chasing out foreign investment? And this guy wants to run around and talk about how he favors globalization? What he does want is to preside over the decline of the US economy, or the United States of America, period. He's doing it. He is implicitly acknowledging it. He's happy that it's happening. And I know it's still tough for a lot of people to get their arms around this. How else would you describe it? What could possibly explain the president of the United States happily saying the days of American dominance are over? As though... Here's the thing: As though American dominance was bad for the world, as though American dominance was evil, as though American dominance led to all kinds of racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, environmental destruction, whatever these cliched causes the left drums up. And this is who we have running the country. That's why there's no way this guy can "move to the center." There is no "center" in Obama's world, and there is no center in the Democrat Party, particularly in Congress.
BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: This is Rob in Chicago. Glad you waited, sir. You're up.CALLER: Hello, Rush, from the People's Republic of Chicago. Oh, by the way, and happy Operation Reverse Chaos dittos.RUSH: Is that not amazing? It is working, and did work, exactly as drawn up on the board.CALLER: Rush, I did one better. I was a Democrat election judge.RUSH: A Democrat election judge?CALLER: Yes, sir.RUSH: And that afforded you the opportunity to do what?CALLER: To keep an eye on the election.RUSH: Well, congratulations.CALLER: But let me get to my point, sir.RUSH: Yeah, I was hoping that was gonna happen.CALLER: Okay, okay. To my point. On October 16th of this year, Obama was calling for "an end to the tax breaks that helped send jobs away." This was in an AP article in the New York Post. Now I'm looking at Yahoo, he's announcing trade deals dismissing the outsourcing gripes. All right? So would it be fair to say, sir, that due to the shellacking that he took in the election, that now Obama is punishing the American workers for voting against him?RUSH: Well... (sigh) I think he began punishing the American worker before they rejected him in the election. CALLER: I agree, sir.RUSH: Yeah, I know. It's tough to say, folks. I know it flows off of my lips so smoothly. I know when I say this, it sounds fluent, fluid, cogent, coherent, but I'm telling you: It is uncomfortable as it can be to actually believe, much less say, that we've elected somebody who happily is presiding over our decline and goes over to India and practically applauds the fact that our days of dominance are behind us, are over. I don't like thinking this, I would love to be wrong about it, but I know I'm not. I know my gut. I know my instincts. Might there be some piling on by Obama he's been rejected? Yeah, that's liberals. You dare reject them, you dare oppose them, they will give you what-for. But this is who they are anyway, whether you vote for them, whether you vote against them.Whatever they get, it's never enough. They're never happy. I remember Madeleine Albright lamenting the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, lamenting it! The world was not properly balanced if there was only one superpower, the United States. Balance of power was required. There needed to be another superpower -- Soviet Union, maybe the ChiComs -- to keep us on an even moral keel. So it's nothing new, really, for a Democrat leftist or a Democrat to think that America is the problem in the world, not the solution. It's just tough to accept the fact that we've elected one as president. I read these stories -- and, look, I trust the foreign press. The India Times? They make it plain as day that the president is over there happily announcing the days of American economic dominance are over, that he is happy to proclaim new competitors, the ChiComs, and the nation of India. Now, look, I'm fine and dandy with India. You know, India... If you want to know the truth about India, India did not become what it is without going capitalist. You know, Gandhi was a big believer in socialism. He was a believer in the caste system. Do you know what the caste system was, Snerdley? The caste system, there were 14 or 15 of them. You were born into whatever level and you stayed there. If you were born in the dirt poor, you stayed there. You never were able to get out of it. He believed in that. India is reviving itself by virtue of capitalism, and the ChiComs (whether they want to admit it or not) had elements of capitalism in their growth. Now, what are we doing? We're cutting ourselves down to size by abandoning it -- and it isn't by accident. It's not some quirk of fate.
No comments:
Post a Comment