RUSH: Here’s Vince in Atlanta. Glad you called, sir. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. How are you today?
CALLER: Excellent. Yeah, so you were talking earlier about the invasion of Europe. And I have to say, I find it very ironic that for 50 years, the United States provided sufficient security and protection for Europeans from the Soviet Union that they could build these outrageous social programs.
RUSH: These welfare states. We allowed them to build welfare states.
RUSH: That’s why people are making these treks up there.
CALLER: And that’s kind of the point where for all that time instead of spending five or six percent protecting themselves from the Russian bear, they could take two or three percent of their economy and turn it to social programs. And now after six years of basically a vacuum of American leadership, it’s the same social programs that we allowed them to build that are now accomplishing what the Ottomans couldn’t do in the 14th and 15th centuries.
RUSH: Yeah, it’s kind of like what Vladimir Lenin said. “We will sell the capitalists the rope they will use to hang themselves.”
CALLER: Exactly. It is absolutely an invasion. But it’s like Europeans are simply caving, like Angela Merkel —
RUSH: You’re exactly. Let me tell you something. Let me tell you how right you are. It is a welfare state invasion. There’s no question. I told you yesterday. I’ve been watching a three-season series of a Danish show on Danish politics called Borgen, B-o-r-g-e-n. I don’t know how the word’s pronounced in Danish. It stands for the word “castle,” and “castle” is what they call their parliament. And it was good. It’s all in Danish. It’s all subtitled in English. Very little English is spoken.
It’s a foreign TV series. I found it on iTunes. It’s about a woman who’s a member of parliament and eventually becomes prime minister. The battles that she endures, the home life, her family strife, the pressures and all that. And in a couple of episodes in season two (it’s three or four years old), they have a storyline on their part in the coalition that Bush put together in Afghanistan.
And just to illustrate your point, remember, this is a TV show produced in Denmark for the Denmark audience, and it’s steeped in reality. They lost eight soldiers in an attack in Afghanistan, and that caused panic in their parliament. Eight soldiers. And that led them to a whole debate about whether they should pull out of the coalition. Eight soldiers. Eight soldiers. Losing eight meant, “Uh-oh, failure. We’ve got to get out.”
RUSH: A couple of e-mails. People took great offense at my comment on Denmark and the number of soldiers lost in the Afghan war necessitating their pullout. Let me put it back in context for you. And even if the e-mails were a bunch of hoaxsters it’s still a decent opportunity to really explain this without time constraints.
We had a caller who thought, just moments ago, how ironic it is, here we are the United States, we rebuilt Europe after World War II with the Marshall Plan and then we continued to protect them. They didn’t have to spend any of their national budget on defense, very little. We did it for ’em. We set up NATO. We were NATO. We funded it. Our defense budget shielded Europe from Soviet attack, or any other attack. They had marginal membership. They contributed troops and so forth, naturally, but these European countries didn’t have to spend anything compared to us on their national defense. We were their national defense.
So his point in calling, isn’t it ironic now, because we were their national defense, they were able to establish themselves as welfare states. They took what would normally be expected to be spent on national defense and they were able to spend it on welfare and their politicians were able to buy power and buy votes by playing Santa Claus with their population. As a result, we have so many Western European democracies that tend toward socialist or big government welfare states.
His point was that it’s ironic, since all of this has happened, now they’re being flooded with the very kind of people that we used to defend them from. Except they’re not being flooded by military action, they are people just on the hoof express or on the train or on the bus. It’s a new experience and they’re being invaded. Very few people are gonna call it that. They’re calling it a refugee relocation. But make no mistake, it’s an invasion. It’s a particular invasion. The majority of the arriving refugees are Islamic, and, from everything I’ve seen, the clear majority are military-aged young men.
I mentioned Germany, got it right here in front of me. Germany has promised to accept 500,000 of these migrants per year, as Angela Merkel is bragging that this influx is going to change her country. She’s bragging about it. When I saw this I said, “Whoa!” That would be like us bragging over what’s happening at our southern border. That would be like Obama going out, bragging how much positive change on our country this is gonna be. There would be an uproarious revolt in this country if he ever did something like that. I mean, it’s what many people think is happening anyway. But he hasn’t said that. If he would go out and say, “Man, this is the greatest thing in the world. We’re gonna welcome 500,000 and 800,000, and they’re gonna change our country, this is great.” Even though that’s what’s happening, numbers may change.
So I had to find out why, and it is that Germany’s birthrate, they’re in danger as near at 2020 to 2030 seeing the bottom of their economy drop out simply because their birthrate hasn’t been and isn’t anywhere near replacement level. Don’t know why. Didn’t delve into that. It was just enough that I had to find out why in the world German president was going off the way she was on this. I mean, she’s welcoming in 800,000 this year and then 500,000 a year for every year with no end in sight.
Well, in the midst of all this, this guy calls and talks about how it’s us, the United States, that that has enabled these western socialist democracies to do this, because we essentially funded their defense, and they didn’t have to spend that money. And to make his point for him, I talked about this television show I’ve been watching called Borgen. And again I want to stress, that’s the English pronunciation of the word. It’s not pronounced that way in Danish. The actual translation of the word’s “castle,” and castle is their building that houses their parliament and their prime minister in Copenhagen.
It’s a great show. It’s purely politics. It’s produced in Denmark. It’s for a Danish audience. Thirty episodes over three seasons, and it’s — how to describe this. I mean, the primary character is a woman, member of parliament who inadvertently somehow miraculously becomes prime minister. It’s about her life, her home life, her professional life, trouble with her kids. I mean, it’s the usual expose of how people are pulled and torn in different directions and what happens in aspects of their life when it’s unbalanced.
In the process you learn about Danish politics. Now, we already know that Denmark is one of these socialist democracies, and they’re very proud of it. I mean, in this series, they proudly even call themselves a welfare state. Candidates campaign on the premise that they will enlarge it. Whereas here, somebody that actually campaigned on the premise of enlarging the welfare state would be doomed. We hope. We think. But there, it’s the exact opposite. The bigger welfare state, more tax increases on the rich, all that, it’s just applauded and it’s rewarded.
Well, in the midst of all this there were a couple of episodes dealing with Denmark’s contribution to the coalition force in Afghanistan after 9/11. There’s not a lot about the US in this series other than references to our power and our secretary of state and how we’re pretty demanding and so forth, but it’s not adversarial. So there’s nothing in it that would make you mad if you watched it about the United States. It’s just strictly a program about Danish society and politics.
Well, what struck me is in two episodes about this particular coalition force they contributed to in Afghanistan, there was an attack when it happened to be the Danish media was there to do a report on the great contributions that Denmark was making to the coalition. The great bravery and the courage of Danish soldiers and the TV One, the network sent reporter there. I think even a couple members of parliament and the equivalent of secretary of defense, and while they were there, there was a sneak attack by the Taliban, and eight Danish soldiers died.
And that begot on this show a strenuous debate on whether or not they should pull out, eight deaths, that’s unacceptable. Eight soldiers dying, our country won’t put up with that, it’s not worth it. Afghanistan, nobody’s ever won anything there. That’s where you go to die. It’s where you go to lose. We need to pull out, eight soldiers.
The only reason I mentioned that, because it dovetailed with a point the caller made. These Western European socialist democracies never had to pay for their own defense. They never had to suffer losses like this. They never had to make investments in heavy military. They all had a jet or two. There’s a segment in the show where they’re arguing about buying a couple F-22s and whether or not it’s too expensive. Now, in fairness to Denmark, eight soldiers being killed might be 10% of their military. You know, everything is proportionate. I mean, that may be a bit of exaggeration.
Well, all I was doing was trying to prove the point the caller made by — and I’m sorry: This representation, by the way, was factual. I’m sure it was a factually accurate representation of the Danish population’s attitude to being part of the coalition Afghanistan. And I just was thinking, one sneak attack by the Taliban and eight soldiers die, and they pull out. “That’s not what we signed up for! We didn’t bargain for anything like this.” Meaning, they haven’t had to pay for their defense, really, since World War II.
They haven’t had to commit to it. This not a criticism; it’s just an acknowledgement. It was not a criticism of Denmark. Actually I’d kind of like to go to this place having seen the show. I never saw the sunshine, but that’s just a fact of the production. But regardless, I thought it was a great way to illustrate the point that the caller was making. But for those of you in the audience who were Danish, I had no intention whatsoever to criticize or insult.
Unless you consider it insulting to have an accurate portrayal of Danish attitude toward war. “Eight soldiers was just not what we signed up for. It’s too many.” But then by the same token they had politicians that wanted to be known as great military warriors and so forth. The politics ran the gamut like it does here. Anyway, what’s happening in Europe all over with this migrancy or this invasion or whatever, it is game-changing. Angela Merkel is right. It is going to change Germany, and I don’t know if she’s really stopping to think how.
She’s strictly looking at it economically. She’s just looking at bodies. And it’s the same way the Democrats look at bodies arriving here via our southern border, but they’re not looking for workers per se. We don’t have a birthrate problem here, not nearly as bad as Germany’s, but the Democrats are looking for voters. The Republican Party is, however, looking at the labor force aspect of it and how cheap it might be. Let’s be honest here, folks.
Angela Merkel has ended up nailing what everybody in this country is so damn concerned about. And it’s why any politician standing up to this is going to be rewarded with overwhelming support. It is! It does have the potential to change the country, and we don’t want it changed. I don’t know what the Germans are thinking. Angela Merkel is bragging about how it’s gonna change her country. I don’t know how her countrymen react to that. I haven’t seen enough of that yet.
But I do know that here in the United States the kind of change that this represents is not ’cause we want people to come here and assimilate and become Americans. We don’t want a country that becomes Balkanized. And that’s the primary reason there is so much opposition to this so-called illegal immigration, which is an invasion, in my mind, of our country. This is not immigration, what’s happening on our southern border. It’s all happening outside the law.
Call it illegal immigration to put a softer face on it, but it’s an invasion, especially the numbers that we’re talking about. But it is the change that threatens the country as a result of this that has everybody up in arms. Not to mention there are other aspects of it, too. I’m clearly up to speed on them. And when we have politicians in Washington who seem impervious to that, unaware, act like don’t even care, then that makes it even worse. So it all kind of went together and made sense in terms of this guy’s call and keeping everything in context.
RUSH: Okay, now, let’s bring all this home, shall we? Because we have same kind of people running our country as are running these western socialist democracies. John Kerry could easily be a Dane, could easily be a Francais. Jean-Francois Kerry could easily be as at home in Sweden as he is here. In fact, he would probably prefer that this country end up emulating all those. I’ll share with you a couple of stories. A piggyback. One is from the Huffing and Puffington Post. The other is from The Daily Caller.
First from the Huffing and Puffington Post: “Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that the Obama administration aims to allow more refugees to resettle in the United States, including a larger number of Syrians who are fleeing their homes for Europe and other Middle Eastern countries at crisis levels.” I don’t know if you’re aware of this. We are actually flying them here. Did you know that, Snerdley?
We are arranging for certain Syrian refugees to be transported here. It’s in the six-figure numbers as of now. So here is our secretary of state, Jean-Francois Kerry, saying today that the Regime aims to allow even more refugees to resettle in the US, including a larger-than-is-already-happening number of Syrians. He said, “We are committed to increasing the number of refugees that we take and we are looking hard at the number that we can specifically manage with respect to the crisis in Syria and Europe.”
That crisis is of their making.
That crisis in Syria and Europe is a direct result of the US pulling out of the world. I spoke about this at great length yesterday. It’s what Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz’s book that’s just out is all about: American leadership in the world, why it’s needed and what happens when it’s absent. This is what happens when it’s absent. Now, one of the things about this European Union influx. You’d be amazed.
Well, actually, you wouldn’t, if you have a decent understanding of what a western socialist nation is and how its leaders think. They’re looking at all this as a great act of humanity. They’ve already seen their open-border policy in many European Union countries destroy or nearly destroy the national identity of these countries, and now they’re welcoming more. They’re claiming that they’re great humanitarians in the process, and that’s all the motivation they need.
Remember the story I’ve told you about my good friend in an argument with a major daytime television figure whose name you would all know about immigration? Every fact, every figure presented to the major American daytime television figure is pointless. He’s not moved by it, because he ultimately says, “All I can tell you is, if some poor soul from some wretched part of the country wants in my country to better his life, then I’m not gonna keep him out. How could I not let him in?”
It’s the same kind of thinking that’s now become part of our country. But wait! As I said there’s companion story to this, and it is The Daily Caller. “State Department spokesman John Kirby acknowledged that ‘it’s a possibility’ that some of the refugees fleeing Syria may actually be Al-Qaeda or ISIS terrorists. [He] indicated ‘it’s pretty clear that many these people are just innocent moms, dads, brothers, sisters, grandparents,” but there could be a lot of actual terrorists in the bunch.
Mr. Kirby said, “Well certainly, that’s a possibility. I mean, you can’t… you can’t dismiss that out of hand. Obviously, if you look at those images though, it’s pretty clear that the great majority of these people are innocent families. Innocent victims of Bashar al-Assad’s brutality and cruelty to his own people. And they are trying to do what they can to protect their children and to protect their families. That’s what really is going on here,” except that it isn’t what’s really going on here.
In any video or still photographs, look past the people that the Drive-Bys are focusing on in the foreground and you will see the majority of these refugees are young men. Take a look. Take any picture. The vast majority of these refugees are well-dressed young men of military age. Reuters even admits that less than a third of them will ever be reunited with their families, ’cause it isn’t about that. So here you have Kerry acknowledging that for humanitarian purposes we’re gonna bring even more people in from Syria than we already are.
We’re gonna resettle even more! And here you have his spokesman admitting that they’re aware that a lot of them are terrorists, and that is what is happening. That’s how… You know, if you got a big ocean that you can’t walk across to get here, all you need is John Kerry to put you on an airplane and he’ll fly you here. And if you happen to be a terrorist? Well, that’s the price we have to pay for bringing in these innocent families.
There’s gonna be a couple terrorists in there, yeah.
We’ll deal with that later