RUSH: CNN, no sooner do I speculate than the Drive-By Media makes me a truth seer. CNN is running a chyron graphic, a banner that says, “Charlie Hebdo magazine’s controversial past.” You see? It was all their fault. They brought it on themselves. They have a controversial past. Now, this is a news network. This is supposedly where a bunch of journalists are. And the same thing could be said about Charles Hebdo. It’s a magazine. There are journalists who work there, and there are journalists who got killed there.

There’s even an organization of journalists called the Committee to Protect Journalists, and it’s designed to do whatever they can to shield journalists from danger when they venture forth into war torn areas to cover the news. And so here comes ISIS wiping out 11 people at a magazine where there are journalists, and CNN runs a graphic claiming that the magazine has a controversial past. So clearly CNN doesn’t believe in freedom of the press.

Apparently the media should not be free to mock anyone. Only conservatives. Only the Tea Party. If the Tea Party gets mocked, fine and dandy. CNN ought to be among the leading defenders of what happened to these journalists at this magazine. I’m using the term “journalist” loosely, but that’s what they call themselves. CNN’s setting the stage here for blaming the magazine for offending these people. I knew it. I knew it was a widely held view. I didn’t think that we would learn the truth of it this quickly, but we did.

So that’s gonna open the floodgates. And you wait. It isn’t gonna be long now before this is gonna become a meme or a narrative. The magazine brought it on. Hell, that’s what CBS is trying to do. “White House questioned French magazine judgment in 2012.” So it’s actually already begun. The Drive-By Media is setting the stage for people to be led to believe the magazine had this coming. They did it. Even a magazine of journalists, which you would think other journalists would defend.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s Randy in Bend, Oregon. Hey, Randy, I’m glad you called, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Well, mega dittos from a thousand-time caller and a first-time getter-througher.

RUSH: Well!

CALLER: Ha ha!

RUSH: Welcome. Great to have you here.

CALLER: Thanks. It’s great to be able to talk to you. What I want to say is that the militant Islamic massacre that happened in France today is a direct result of their ill-thought-out French immigration policies of the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s. They realized that they had a low repopulation late. They wanted to get in low-education workers to do service jobs. So they went to the Middle East, and what they got was a country full of Islamic people.

The French people had a repopulation rate of about 1.3 children per couple, in some article I read about ten years ago, and the Islamic people from the Middle East were having about 10 kids. So as a result, they have about 40% of the population is Islamic now, and it doesn’t take that many militants to do what’s happening there. It’s like what happened here on 9/11. People who were in the country either illegally or questionably legally began doing things like these massacres. It’s just terrible, and it’s the result of their immigration policy, and we have the same thing coming in America in the future with our immigration policies.

RUSH: This is an interesting theory that you have. The UK has done much the same thing. The UK has pretty much had an open-border situation. And again, both in France and the UK, the open-borders policy was directly rooted in fear. It was not economics. It may have been a little bit in France, but in France they ghetto-ized them. The Muslim population, the immigrant population does not live with everyone else.

They have their own areas and own arrondissement, and a lot of it’s poverty stricken. I’m not saying that this is an outgrowth of poverty, ’cause these people are not. Most terrorists are not poverty stricken. It’s quite the opposite. But, anyway, political correctness? I say “fear.” The Brits? It’s not the same country, and depending on who you talk to over there, if you know the right people, they will tell you it’s not the same. Many think they’ve already lost the British identity, largely due to Middle Eastern immigration. Not just Muslim, but all over the place.

Let’s go to the audio sound bites on this because the esteemed… (snorts) I can’t believe I’m gonna play a sound bite of Judith Miller. But we have it, so I… (interruption) Yes, yes, the former New York Times reporter Judith Miller got picked up by Fox. I can’t believe it. Gee, you know, Judith Miller? She’s an extremist, says all these odd things, but we have it. And she says that it’s not an immigration problem, that France’s problem with Muslims is because they in France supported our policy in the Middle East.

Which means that this happened because the United States supports Israel, and the French are our ally. In fact, it was on Fox today, Fox & Friends. I really can’t believe that I am gonna play a sound bite from Judith Miller, but Cookie gave it to me, so… The question was asked by Brian Kilmeade. He said, “The message that the terrorists want you to take away and many will take is, ‘Grab the Christians. Doesn’t matter. Don’t worry about the making fun of the Jews. But keep Mohammed out of this.’ That’s the message of this attack.”

MILLER: I lived in Paris and we weathered the first round of extremist attacks in the mid-eighties. France may be vulnerable in a way that the United States is not. France has five to six million Mooslims (sic), many of whom — two million of whom — are said to be believers, and the others who are maybe Mooslim in name only. But the French have had a long-standing problem —

RUSH: I’m sorry.

MILLER: — because of their Algerian war, because of their action in the Middle East, because of their support for American policy.

RUSH: So it has nothing to do with French policy. Nothing to do with immigration. No, no, no, no. They support America. See, in these people’s minds it all comes back to our fault, folks. I mean, they are who they are. I’m not making up when I tell you who they are. They are who they are. I just listen to what they say and pass it along to you, and I am telling you: She is from this crowd of people that buys into this whole grievance industry business, that anybody who has a grievance against us is justified in having it.

It’s our fault, and we’d better realize it and we better start making amends, that kind of thing. But “five to six million Muslims, two million of whom are said to be believers”? I am sorry. There’s no such thing. See, again… (sigh) They’re Americanizing everything. “Yeah, we have some Catholics, BUT they’re not practicing. They’re like us. They’re pro-choice. Yeah, we got a lot of Catholics, BUT they don’t support Republicans.

“And, yeah, we got a lot of Christians, BUT, you know… We have a lot of Hindus, BUT…” They Americanize everything. The idea that there are five to six million Muslims, and three to four million who really don’t care? (snorts) Sorry. I don’t think it works that way. But you have to make allowances, because it is Judith Miller. Now we move on to Christiane Amanpour. Did you notice the way I said her name?

Her name is not a name. It’s a string of syllables, and you have to be able to do the syllables right to get the name right: “Christianeamanpour.” Where does the first name end and where does the second name begin? If you just hear that, you’d say, “What Christiane Amanpour? It was like Joe Montana. It was one world: “Joemontana.” It wasn’t “Joe. Montana.” It was “Joemontana.” Well, here it’s “Christianeamanpour.” Okay, what’s the first name? What’s the second name.

Do you know, Snerdley? Okay, first name’s Christiane, and the second name is Amanpour. Actually, it’s Rubin, because she married Jerry… The former Clinton secretary. Jamie! Jamie Rubin. That’s right. She married Jamie Rubin. She is his baby mom. I don’t know where they live. But anyway, none of this is important. I’m just letting you know it’s an inside real radio announcer lingo stuff. Christiane Amanpour and CNN’s New Day fill-in host Alisyn Camerota. “What are your thoughts on this attack,” Christianeamanpour?

CHRISTIANEAMANPOUR: This is a deliberate attack, not on random civilians, but on the press. I just heard an interesting analysis by a French, uhh, senior political analyst who said, unlike previous attacks in the city of London in July 7/7, in Madrid a few years before that, those were civilians who were attacked. This is directly targeted on journalists. So Europe now, according to all officials, faces the highest terror alert in many, many years since 9/11.

RUSH: Because journalists have come under attack. At least she gets it. The rest of CNN is out there is out there ready to blame the journalists with their chyron graphics. And, by the way, it’s not just CNN. Who else is doing it? Just got an e-mail. I’ll have to find it. Is it Financial Times? Who else? Hang on just a second. Yeah. Financial Times is the magazine. TIME Magazine blamed ’em back 2012.

So I told you it wasn’t gonna be long. It’s happening sooner than I thought. But elements of the Drive-Bys are now blaming the magazine for offending these guys, and they’re blaming the magazine for not understanding what was gonna happen to ’em if they went ahead and did this. They’re not standing up for the freedom of journalists. They’re not standing up for free expression. This is what I mean… (sigh) You know what I mean. I don’t have to keep saying it.