The Preezy of the United Steezy Wants to Distract You from His Dismal Economy
May 02, 2012
JOHNNY DONOVAN: Now, behind the scenes on the campaign trail with President Obama at a campaign stop in Kabul.
OBAMA SPOOF: My fellow Americans and my fellow SEAL Team Six members, let us remember why we came here. To remind you and the American people that I shot Osama Bin Laden and ended the war on terror one year ago today with my act of bravery under heavy fire from Joe Biden. Also, you need to learn the correct way to say "Pakistan." Say it with me. You can do it this time. "Pakistan." "Pak-i-stan."
JOHNNY DONOVAN: Join us next time as we take you behind the scenes on the campaign trail with President Obama.
RUSH: Greetings, my friends, and welcome. It's Rush Limbaugh, and this is the EIB Network, and we are not going to be distracted by the campaign speech in Afghanistan. We're gonna tell you about the dismal jobs report in April. And we're gonna tell you about the dismal manufacturing numbers. And we're gonna tell you about the continuing plummeting of the US economy. And we'll also tell you about what happened in Afghanistan, what it was really all about.
The Politico headline: "Obama Steps Away from Politics in Troop Visit." I kid you not. That is The Politico headline. And Chris Matthews has the tingle up his leg again. He said that Obama reminded him of Henry V last night from Shakespeare, how great that speech was. The Drive-Bys are orgasmic over this speech that Obama made last night.
RUSH: This is from the payroll firm ADP. "Private-sector employment increased by just 119,000 in April, according a report from ADP that puts a dent into the notion that the jobs market is on the path to a solid recovery. The report was well below forecasts of 170,000 and comes after a string of stronger numbers."
So even the ADP experts thought it would be 170,000, which would have been putrid. One hundred and seventy thousand jobs created would have been putrid. Well, let's see if anybody was surprised here. I only print out the first page of these things because the rest of it is gibberish. You only need to read the first two paragraphs of any story and it's over. I don't. You know, stuff that prints out to three pages, the first page is all I read and then I get to my comments. "Private sector... (muttering) well below forecasts." I assume they were surprised since it's well below forecasts, but the words "surprised" or "unexpected" are not in the first two paragraphs.
Now, you want to talk Orwellian? You want to talk Orwellian? Lesley Stahl, Ensure, making Khalid Sheikh Mohammed drink Ensure, that's Orwellian. You want to talk Orwellian, how about a socialist campaign slogan that says one thing when the reality is just the exact opposite? "Forward." Do you realize, there already is a Wikipedia entry for "Forward" as the official campaign slogan for Obama-Biden '12? And they are thinking of pulling it back. They're thinking of yanking it. "Forward" is already, I think, an official moniker for the state of Wisconsin and a number of other things. But I mean just to show you how biased even Wikipedia is.
But here they've got this slogan Forward when we are going backwards so fast that we're about to implode. "Forward" is the preezy's code word for "socialism." That's where we're headed. The preezy of the United Steezy, Jimmy Fallon, had Obama on his show, "slow-jam" the news. So "Forward" is preezy's code word for "socialism." I remember Reagan. In fact, we've got some Reagan sound bites. Cookie dredged 'em up, Reagan talking about Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society and the War on Poverty, since I was talking about it yesterday in regards to the new book about Johnson that's out.
And then there's this: "Factory Orders Post Biggest Decline in Three Years." It's Reuters. "New orders for US factory goods in March recorded their biggest decline in three years as demand for transportation equipment and a range of other goods slumped, government data showed [today]. The Commerce Department said orders for manufactured goods dropped 1.5% after a revised 1.1% rise in February." Now, the news continues to be dismal no matter where you look, and that's why the trip to Afghanistan for a seven-minute speech in front of a bunch of military equipment.
It is pathetic, folks. It is pathetic what President Obama is doing. It is so beneath the office of the presidency. But it is what it is, and you've gotta deal with it as it is. In the meantime, Rome burns. You know what I expect? You know what I expect from economic data and business stories reporting on the state of the US economy? I expect robust numbers! I expect startling growth! I expect exciting advances that make us all proud.
The reason is that Preezy Obama has, in essence, spent $5 trillion that we don't have. Where is all of this economic growth? It's not just the $800 billion stimulus. Preezy has spent $5 trillion in 3-1/2 years. And what do we have to show for this? That's how much has been added to the national debt since the preezy was immaculated in 2009. You would expect... I'm being facetious of course. We would expect, of course, just exactly what we've gotten: A plummeting economy. Because that spending of $5 trillion is money that's essentially been taken out of (or will be taken out of) the private sector.
How can it grow? How can the economy grow when $5 trillion is removed from it, or a portion of it? How can the economy grow when over two million jobs have been destroyed? You know, I was thinking more last night and even this morning about the quote from Stuart Rothenberg that we had yesterday about how bad it is in North Carolina for the Democrats and they may have made a mistake choosing the state for their convention, and he had that passage in the piece. (I don't have it in front of me, but I remember it close enough.)
He said Obama's objective, Obama's goal is to find a way to put the United States back on the path of fiscal responsibility. When I read that yesterday, if you were listening, I was appalled. How can someone think that's Obama's objective? Then it hit me again just how -- and I don't mean this in an intelligence sense. It hit me just how ignorant the people closest to this government are, be they analysts, think-tankers (or I guess I should say "tank-thinkers"), or news media people. The closer to it they are, the more removed from it they actually are.
How can anybody who is intellectually rigorous and independent take a look at what's happened in the last 3-1/2 years and conclude that what Obama's interested in is fiscal responsibility? Isn't it just the exact opposite? Rothenberg was talking about how Obama's biggest challenge is to put the country back on the path to fiscal responsibility. That's not what Obama wants to do! Obama's going the exact opposite direction from fiscal responsibility. The guy "who has spent more in his 3-1/2 year first term than all previous presidents combined through deficit creation," and "fiscal responsibility," just don't go together no matter how you massage it.
RUSH: Check out this headline on the ADP story: "Private Sector Ads Just 119,000 Jobs in April: ADP." The CNBC headline is: "ADP: Private Sector Employment Up 119,000 in April." No, it's not "up" 119,000 jobs. Those 119,000 jobs were added, but it's down. It's not up. (You talk about Orwellian?) CNN... Honestly, CNN: "Some Economists Blame the Warm Winter for the Sudden Slowdown in Job Growth in the Spring." They're blaming nice weather for the lack of hiring!
If it had been snowy and blizzardy, they'd blame that. They're blaming the weather! Whatever the weather is, CNN is blaming the weather for lack of hiring. But according to "Doomberg" News: "Companies Add the Fewest Number of US Workers in Seven Months." So "Doomberg" News gets it right. Then from the Wall Street Journal: "More from the ADP Report: March Data were Revised Downward to Show an Advance from 201,000 to 209,000." So it isn't just the regime who revise downward after the fact. It's ADP.
The bottom line is: There isn't any good news on the job front and there isn't any good news on the economic front. And I think Obama going off to Afghanistan and celebrating (one-year later) the anniversary... By the way, you know, I'm being pestered by a bunch of leftists warning me not to talk about Obama and Afghanistan because they think that I defended Bush landing on the aircraft carrier under the banner "Mission Accomplished." Two things about that.
That "Mission Accomplished" banner was, I think, requested by the sailors on that boat. The second thing is, Bush didn't do that a year after the fact. And the mission was accomplished: Getting rid of Saddam Hussein! The mission to get rid of Saddam was accomplished. That was one part of it. But I don't even want to discuss that. It's silly. What Obama's doing is incomparable. No other president has ever done anything like this. You leftists can go out there and try to say that Bush had done this or that LBJ did it or others in Vietnam or whatever.
You can try as hard as you want. But we have never had as narcissistic, as self-absorbed a human being in the Oval Office as we have now. And we've never had somebody in the Oval Office who is apparently able to fib to himself on a daily basis about how good he is, how well he's done, how overwhelmingly better than every other president he is -- and has ever been. I don't think we've ever had anybody this delusional, either in Afghanistan or sitting in the Oval Office.
I don't want to make too big a deal of this, but I think it's important, this business that Washington insiders think that part of Obama's campaign -- his reelection effort -- is to put the country back on the right fiscal track to fiscal responsibility. How can anybody think that? Stuart Rothenberg is -- I mean, in terms of people in Washington, DC -- in the top five or top ten of political commentators, political scientists, pollsters. Whatever he does, he's in the top five. He's one of the most recognizable and credible names and reputations. And yet even he misses it.
You know, I'm saying, "Why does he think that?"
It's almost like it's just an automatic thing. He thinks that any president would be striving to reduce the deficit, bring the national debt a little lower, and get our deficit spending under control. He would do it if he were president, so therefore every president would. See, they assign these templates, these images, these narratives. "Obama's a Democrat. Of course he wants to get the deficit under control." No, he doesn't want to get the deficit under control! There's no evidence to suggest that he wants to get the deficit under control. That's the thing! If you live in Realville and you look at reality, there's no evidence that Obama cares about fiscal responsibility. In fact, the evidence is the opposite.
It's just assumed that presidents would want to get their fiscal house in order.
But it's not true here, and it's easy to see.
So why deny it?