RUSH: So this happens a lot, folks. I'm sitting here at my real radio announcer desk in my real radio announcer studio, and I am diligently preparing today's program, deeply concentrated on a number of things -- well, in deep concentration, would be the proper way to say it. And the Official Program Observer, Bo Snerdley, walks in and says, "I need some help understanding something."
I said, "Well, you've come to the right place."
"I don't understand. What are they trying to do with all these kids, all these immigrant kids crossing the border, flooding the border. It's an election year! What in the world are they trying to do?"
And I said, "You're looking at this through the prism of this being an election year?"
I said, "So you think that Obama is slitting his throat, cutting his own throat in an election year for the Democrats by flooding the southern border with a bunch of refugee immigrant kids?"
I said, "Well, you're looking at it the wrong way." Understandably. I mean, it is an election year and people do tend to look at events they think are political in terms of an election, this being an election year. And there are a number of assumptions that people make, such as Obama wouldn't want to do anything to hurt the Democrats; such as Obama wouldn't want to do anything to hurt Hillary; such as Obama wouldn't want to do anything to hurt himself. And I have to tell you, speaking of Hillary, by the way, am I the only one tired of talking about this woman and whatever her future is? I'm sorry. We're going to talk about her. It's a fiduciary responsibility I have if nothing else. It's an issue of responsibility, but I am worn out. I'm fed up.
I'm no longer intrigued by what the Clintons are doing. I guess, A, because I know. There's no mystery to the Clintons for me. I know exactly what they're doing. I know exactly what she's angling for in all of this. But we'll talk about it. I don't know if it's a bad sign or not. What do you think? Is it a bad sign I am just bored to tears with Mrs. Clinton? (interruption) I know. I know! (laughing) We're just kicking up again here with Clinton era number three, for all intents and purposes.
Anyway, about the flooding of the zone and Bergdahl and the prisoner swap with the Taliban. Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama has two and a half years to transform this country. He's got two and a half years to remake this country. He's got two and a half years to do whatever he wants to do to this country. Two and a half years. He also knows that he's not on any ballot coming up in this election year. So it doesn't matter to his electoral fortunes anything that happens here. He is on a mission. This country is going to pay a price for its past transgressions. He's going to see to that.
Let me turn this question around. Forget the election year. Why in the world, somebody tell me, what is the compassionate reason, what is the common sense reason, what is any good reason for throwing open the borders and allowing tens of thousands -- forget illegal immigrants -- refugees? Why do this? Who benefits? What is the point? The right way to look at this question, I think, is not through the prism of the election coming up in November or this being an election year and the impact this is going to have on Obama's fortunes or even the Democrat fortunes.
Now, one thing in a political sense you could say, "Well, maybe this is designed to put pressure on the Republicans to go ahead and pony up on amnesty, just finally get in gear and do it." And there may be something to that. I don't think so, but others might, and they could be right. If you look at Paul Ryan, he's back on this amnesty kick. I mean, the Republicans in Washington are hell-bent on having amnesty get done prior to the election with them getting credit for it. So if you flood the zone with illegal immigrants -- and, by the way, the fact that they're children is not incidental.
If you allow them in, you welcome them in and you say, "Oh, my goodness, it's so sad, it's so horrible. Look at these ragtag children. We're the great United States, we must --" You gotta let their parents in, don't you? We don't want them to be parentless. We don't want them to be homeless. We gotta find a way to get their parents in. What does anybody think is happening here? Somebody tell me what the benefit is here, for whoever, if you can think of one. I'm kind of on the edge here in being point-blank, straightforward, full-bore honest about this because I have been for six and a half years, and it may not be productive.
Being full-bore honest may not be persuasive. It may be so scary to contemplate and so outrageous that people may want to reject it and look for something that is less painful. People just do not, will not, cannot accept that they've elected somebody to be president that doesn't like this country and thinks this country is not worth what everybody else does and doesn't think that what we have become can be justified. So that this country must be made to pay a price.
Look at this. Bergdahl. Forget Bergdahl. Forget who Bergdahl is. Forget whatever happened, and forget his parents. Just look at the deal. One of our guys for five of some of the most reprobate of them. Five of some of the greatest threats to this country ever, and we've just let 'em go, and we've just restocked, replenished the enemy. Why? Could it be that there are elements of this Regime that don't really think of the Taliban as the enemy? That they are just as justified with their grievances as we might be in ours?
Go back and analyze any question or answer that Obama has given when asked about American exceptionalism. What does he say? Paraphrasing: "Well, I'm sure that they think they're exceptional in Great Britain, too. I believe in American exceptionalism, but I'm sure they think they're exceptional in Guinea-Bissau. I think they think they're exceptional in Sri Lanka."
What that means is there's no such thing as American exceptionalism. It's a bunch of people bragging. But, hey, they are just as justified in thinking they're decent and they're good and they're exceptional as we are in thinking it. Have you heard (I'm paraphrasing this, too), "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? All right, well, it may not be a cliche as far as Obama's concerned.
Maybe the Taliban is, "Hey, you know, who says they can't have Afghanistan? Who says we shouldn't negotiate? Who says that they're not justified? Who says that they're not legitimate?" Why in the world would you restock them? Why would you willingly release five of the most sworn, dangerous enemies of this country?
I don't care what you get for it. Why would you do it? I think these are questions that have answers. Why would you flood the zone with tens of thousands of refugee children, uneducated, obviously poor, obviously not able to support themselves? Why would you do it? It's not a matter of why wouldn't you stop it. It's, why would you do it?
I mean, everybody woke up one day last week and saw this is happening. The Border Patrol says they can't stop it. They're overwhelmed. The governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, is back. She's pulling her hair out. What do we do? You add up everything else that's happening that we've learned and continue to learn about IRS, you name it -- you go down the list -- and it's patently obviously what is happening here.
It's also patently obvious that we don't have a whole lot of people want to admit it, acknowledge it, or even think about it.
RUSH: I'll give you one more perspective on the... It's not an influx. I mean, we're being overwhelmed by these child refugees. Do you remember there was a program that Obama and Eric Holder conceived of that was called Fast and Furious? Do you remember that? Know what that was? That was a long time ago. People may have forgotten Fast and Furious. Here's the upshot of Fast and Furious.
The Obama administration really wanted a serious attack on the Second Amendment, and they wanted that attack to come from the American people. They wanted the American people to get mad at the wanton use of weapons such as on schools and wherever they had them. They knew that they didn't have the political ability on their own to survive politically if they just issued an executive order wiping out the Second Amendment.
If they could do that, they would.
So they had to devise some scheme that -- in their hopes and dreams -- would get the American people just fit to be tied/outraged over the existence of guns. So the short version of the story is that the Regime allowed massive amounts of weapons to be purchased from gun stores in southern states, predominantly Arizona, and let those weapons then get walked across border into Mexico, where they ended up in the hands of people in drug cartels.
Those are bad people. They're very mean people.
In fact, all of that happened.
A US Border Patrol agent ended up being shot by someone using one of those guns, as well as 200 other people who were shot. Some died. And the purpose of Fast and Furious was to create this impression in the minds the American people, "Guns are so out of control that a drug gang can cross the border and go to a gun store and buy up 10 or 20 of 'em at a time and go back to the cartel headquarters in Mexico and start killing people!
"We've gotta do something!" That's what they wanted to create. The problem was the drug cartels were not crossing the border and buying the guns. The Obama administration was arranging for the guns to be bought and then transported to Mexico, and then they sat around and waited for the drug cartels and the other bad guys to start using guns that were easily traceable to American gun stores.
They wanted the American people to be outraged, but not at them. They didn't intend for any of that to be learned. All they wanted was the news to be filled with stories about guns, easily obtained in American gun stores, getting into the hands of drug cartel thugs being used to shoot innocent people. The thought was that you would rise up in righteous indignation and demand instant brand-new gun control laws where everybody who had a gun would have to surrender it.
It backfired, didn't work. The truth was learned, and everything I told you became public knowledge. Well, I think it's possible the same type of scheme is in play here with these kids, these refugee kids. I think maybe the Regime is thinking along the same lines. It's possible. Just an idea. You flood the southwestern United States with tens of thousands of the essence of innocence: Young children.
By definition, not self-sufficient; by definition, totally dependent; by definition, without their parents. You create, hopefully, in the public mind an outcry of outrage and sympathy. "How could we allow this to happen? We must do amnesty!" It could well be they're thinking the same theoretical thoughts with this as they did with Fast and Furious.
That's the charitable analysis, I might say. The truth is probably far more penetrating than that. But if you want to cut 'em some slack then you could say, "Well, they're just trying to repeat Fast and Furious with illegal immigrant children instead of guns." That could well be. But if you look at this through the prism of it being an election year, it all falls apart and doesn't make sense.
Why would a Democrat president willingly attach himself to this policy by either encouraging it or not do anything to stop it in an election year when you figure most people are gonna make the party responsible for this pay? That's why I throw out the idea this has any election year applications or implications. I think there's something far different going on by this, and I think it's all rooted, ladies and gentlemen, in the fact that Obama only has 2-1/2 years left and it's crunch time.
Maybe it's time to panic?
And remember Cloward-Piven? You remember that? What's the point of Cloward-Piven? These are two professors, sociologists at Columbia who also did not like America, and their theory to destroy the country was to simply overwhelm the welfare system to the point that it couldn't handle it any longer. That'd create millions of people literally wandering the streets with nothing -- no money, no food -- because the government simply can't take care of all of them.
It was their way of discrediting capitalism and illustrating capitalism is a giant failure, by overwhelming the socialist welfare system. Well, within the context of Cloward-Piven, what might we say about flooding the zone of southwestern America with young children who are, by definition, uneducated; by definition, poor; by definition, not self-reliant?
What would you say? I mean, we're a compassionate people. They get sick, we're gonna take care of them. They can't eat, we're gonna feed them. They can't find water, we're gonna give them whatever, right? We're a compassionate country. But we don't have the resources for this anymore, do we?