Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: I guess this is not gonna be surprising to some of you, but it happens. It happens after every Muslim terrorist attack. Every one! It happens after every one, and it has happened again. The mainstream news media — and I’ve got two stories, two examples.

One is by the Bible of the left, the New York Times. They’re very, very, very worried about a backlash against Muslims right here in our country. Yeah, and also they’re really, really worried about a backlash against Muslims in Paris. The same anti-Muslim backlash we’ve been hearing about for years, the same anti-Muslims backlash that has never happened. There has never been one. There wasn’t one after 9/11 in this country. There wasn’t one after Benghazi.

There has never been an anti-Muslim backlash after any act of Muslim terror in this country, but an article in the New York Times manages to go even further than that. The Times has a 37-paragraph, 1,600-word story at the top of the front page with the headline: “‘Dangerous Moment’ for Europe as Fear and Resentment Grow.” But the “dangerous moment” in the New York Times headlines isn’t a reference to the murder of a dozen French citizens by Muslim terrorists.

No, no. The Times sees the “dangerous moment” as the opportunity that the right wing might resurface in France. That’s the “dangerous moment” that the New York Times is worried about. (mocking) “A Muslims backlash? Oh, no! That’s the really bad thing that could happen. Oh, no! The French right wing could have a political resurgence because of this. Oh, no!” That’s what’s troubling American liberals today.


RUSH: I kid you not, the New York Times, I have it right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. “‘Dangerous Moment’ for Europe, as Fear and Resentment Grow.” And you might think the New York Times would be talking here about the rising tide of militant, dangerous Islamic terrorism. And they’re not. They’re very, very worried about the rise of the right in Europe.

“‘This is a dangerous moment for European societies,’ said Peter Neumann, director of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at KingÂ’s College London. ‘With increasing radicalization among supporters of jihadist organizations and the white working class increasingly feeling disenfranchised and uncoupled from elites, things are coming to a head.'”

“Dangerous moment” in the New York Times headline is not referencing the murder of a dozen French citizens by Muslim terrorists. Nope. The dangerous moment is a chance that right-wing political parties could gain power by exploiting the stupid working class’s groundless fears of Islam. I’m telling the honest-to-God truth.

Now, I’ve said in the past that the greatest enemy in America today that the left and the media and the Democrat Party face, the Tea Party. They are more fearful or worried, driven crazy by conservatives and the Tea Party than they are by militant Islam. How many times have you heard me say that over the years? Quite a few. Here’s the truth. Here’s the evidence. Twelve people just slaughtered in France, a hundred thousand French citizens stood in solidarity.

Do you know that the cops are not armed in Paris? I think throughout France. Well, that, too, of course was a gift to the politically correct. We can’t arm the cops. That would just intimidate the criminals and make them even angrier. And that’s the way politically correct thought goes. So the cops are unarmed. And so therefore are the citizens. Citizens are unarmed. Nobody had any way to stop what was happening. The cops couldn’t have, didn’t have guns. You saw the video of the cop pleading for his life. He was one of the cops killed. He was Muslim. He was shot dead. The cops are not even armed. That’s political correctness to the max for you.

And in the face of all of that, the liberal bible in the United States is worried that all of this is gonna cause the stupid, contemptible middle class that doesn’t really know enough to take care of itself, is gonna cause them to start supporting law-and-order right-wing political movements. That’s what has the New York Times worried. Dangerous moment for Europe. You Talk about satire. Hey, Conan, would you tell this joke? ‘Cause this is a joke. Except that it’s true.


RUSH: This New York Times story, there are actually two of these. There’s one that’s worried about a backlash against Muslims. They write this story after every act of Muslim terror. After every act of militant Islamic terror they write this story. They’re hand-wringing, they’re fretting over the backlash against Muslims, and there hasn’t been one yet.

Now, contrast that with the backlash against the cops that has been inspired and fomented by people like the New York Times. Grand juries render decisions and there is an immediate assault on the cops, there’s an immediate attack on the cops. And these people are driven so insane by people like the civil rights leadership, they run out and murder a couple of cops sitting harmlessly in their patrol car. The New York Times blames the cops, and the New York Times may as well be the American left.

Where was the concern for backlash against the cops after these grand jury decisions? Not only was there no concern about no backlash against the cops, there was tantamount encouragement for a backlash against the cops, and it’s ongoing. So they’re very worried about a backlash against Muslims that had nothing to do with the attack, and there has yet to be one in a civilized western country. There has yet to be one.

And yet here’s the New York Times insulting everybody in this country, everybody in the middle class, all the plebes, the bourgeois, you know, the know-nothing middle class, which, they happen to love them when they vote Democrat. But for the most part they think you in the middle class are a raging bunch of idiots and lunatics that don’t really know anything, and you need to be saved from yourselves. You’re not responsible for your own health care ’cause you can’t spend your own money the right way. That’s why they gotta tax more and more of it from you.

I mean, this does kind of boggle my mind: “‘Dangerous Moment’ for Europe, as Fear and Resentment Grow.” Worried about average people in Europe turning to right-wing governments in the aftermath of this. And, by the way, the Times doesn’t stop there. The New York Times even attacks Charlie Hebdo, the magazine. The New York Times says that the magazine was vulgar, “sometimes commercially driven effort to offend every Islamic piety, including the figure of the Prophet Muhammad.”

And that their magazine and their humor, their vulgarity “became a symbol of an aggressive French secularism that saw its truest enemy in the rise of conservative Islam in France.” You note the juxtaposition of “conservative” next to “Islam” in the New York Times. Isn’t that fascinating?

Yesterday I happened to mention on this program the Financial Times and a signed editorial attacked the French magazine mercilessly. I mean, they went after them. It was so bad that the editors of the Financial Times, toward the end of the day yesterday, withdrew it and retracted it. Well, I don’t think they retracted it, but they published an editorial that spoke for the entire publication condemning the earlier column by their signed op-ed columnist. I forget his name. But it was a typical blaming the magazine, making fun of Islam, it was vulgar, it was crude, just went too far. Maybe it did. But it still didn’t justify this kind of reaction on the part of the militant Islamists.

But nevertheless, the magazine now, it’s coming into the crosshairs of the New York Times because it became a symbol of an aggressive French secularism that saw its truest enemy in the rise of conservative Islam. Isn’t that what the New York Times does, by the way? Couldn’t the New York Times be described as a raucous, vulgar, sometimes commercially driven effort to offend every conservative piety, including the figure of, take your pick, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee.

Do you think you would ever see the words “our Lord and savior Jesus Christ” in the New York Times? You wouldn’t. But you’ll see “the prophet Mohammed” every other sentence. You’ll hear the Drive-By Media in talking about this, “it was very insulting to believers in the prophet Mohammed. The prophet Mohammed, the prophet Mohammed.” You’ll never hear “the Lord and savior Jesus Christ.” You’ll never hear “our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.” You won’t see it in the Drive-By Media. You won’t hear it in the Drive-By Media.

No, ’cause it’s perfectly fine to offend them. In fact, you can win awards doing that. You can win plaudits doing that. You can get TV shows doing that. You can be one of Barbara Walters’ 10 most famous, fascinating people of the year if you do that. The Times doesn’t seem to be concerned about offending the very large conservative population in this country. No, no, they’re worried about the conservative backlash against Islam that’s never happened.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This