RUSH: How come the Democrats talk about right-wing extremism instead of extremism in the name of conservatism? You know, folks, if you want to be called anything, the liberals and the left and the Democrats will call you. If you want to be called Afro-American, they’ll call you Afro-American. If you want to be called black, they’ll call you black. If you want to be called African-American, they’ll call you African-American. If you want to be called Negro, they’ll call you that if that’s what you want to be called. If you want to be called a feminist, they’ll call you a feminist. If you want to be called gay, they’ll call you gay. If you want to be called a member of the transgender community, they will call you a member of the transgender community.
But these militant Islamists come along and tell people what they are, and the Democrats say, “No, you are not what you say you are. You are extremists in the name of Islam.” It’s amazing. You can tell the Democrats, you can be called whatever you want. Now, we conservatives can’t tell ’em what we want to be called. They’re gonna call us whatever they want, but anybody else, the terrorist community — that’s how Marie Harf would speak — the terrorist community, they come along, and they openly admit who they are. And the State Department, “No, you’re not. No, no, you’re not. You are extremists in the name of Islam.”
But we never hear about extremism in the name of conservatism, do we? You know, ISIS is now recruiting in Afghanistan less than one month after Obama ended the combat mission there. ISIS is there recruiting. Yeah, he did that while he was in Hawaii. People didn’t notice this, Drive-Bys didn’t, but he ended combat missions in Afghanistan while he was in Hawaii. Oh. Get this. The guy leading ISIS in Afghanistan is a former detainee at Club Gitmo. He’s a former detainee at Guantanamo Bay that we released.
And get this, folks. The Drive-Bys are so excited, they can’t see straight. The AP has just run a story: “France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and those glorifying terrorism. … Authorities said 54 people had been arrested for hate speech and defending terrorism,” in the last week. I can’t believe the French? The French are running around arresting people for defending terrorism in the last week? Normally the French would be running around defending terrorism. All it takes is a big attack.
I’m a little confused about this too, because I mean, you read this from the article. “France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and those glorifying terrorism. … Authorities said 54 people had been arrested for hate speech and defending terrorism,” in the last week. Now, I thought the demonstration in Paris was to show solidarity over freedom of speech. I thought that was one of the reasons for that big powwow, you know, that Obama didn’t go to. We had, what, 44 different world leaders there, and I thought one of the reasons for that demonstration was to stand up for freedom of speech. Ah, just it’s amazing. I don’t know any more details than what I’ve shared with you about this crackdown on hate speech.
But I do know this. The Drive-Bys are gonna interpret that as the French government’s going after Charlie Hebdo. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, is going to be ecstatic over it. In fact, let’s do this. Let’s start with sound bite three. This is Bill Neely, this is on the Today show this morning, Bill Neely, Today show correspondent, reporting the first brand-new issue of Charlie Hebdo since the attack there last week.
Now, the new issue of Charlie Hebdo has a caricature of the prophet on the cover with a semi-funny caption. It’s not an uproariously funny thing. But the caricature of the prophet clearly devout, you could look at this and find it offensive. And in fact there have been those in this country, in the Drive-By Media, the leftists on blogs and so forth, who have expressed outrage at Charlie Hebdo. They think that this magazine is just asking for it again. They have put an image of the prophet on the cover of the first magazine since the massacre, and they claim that the caricature looks like male genitalia.
You didn’t hear that? Have you seen the cover? Well, we linked to it. It’s at RushLimbaugh.com. We’re fearless here. We put a picture of the cover up at Rush Limbaugh.com, the Weekly Standard did, it’s everywhere. Now, CNN refused to do it. CNN refused, but we put it up there. And if you look at it, there are people claiming the caricature of the prophet bears a resemblance to male genitalia. Anyway, here is the NBC correspondent, Bill Neely reporting on the first new issue of Charlie Hebdo since the attack there last week.
NEELY: It’s a satirical magazine that used to sell 50,000 copies a week. Today the first of three million copies hit the streets making it, for this week, not only the world’s most famous newspaper, but one of the best-selling. On its cover, which NBC News is not showing, a cartoon of a tearful prophet Mohammed.
RUSH: Well, see, there’s NBC now not displaying the new cover picture on Charlie Hebdo. It’s a tearful prophet. And this caricature of prophet is indeed crying, in addition to whatever else somewhat — I mean, you’d have to stand on your head to have this thing look like genitalia if you ask me, but there’s enough perverts out there that they’ll see it no matter what they’re looking at. You know it and I know it. Okay, so there’s that. NBC is admitting they’re not gonna show the cover. Three million copies! The magazine normally sells 50,000 a week. Three million the first day.
So now we go to Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington. This is Monday afternoon on her show. We told you about this. I just wanted you to hear the sound bite. This was the interview she had with the French ambassador, Gerard Araud, and during a discussion about Charlie Hebdo’s so-called provocative cartoons about the prophet Mohammed, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, said this.
MITCHELL: The tradition of free speech, it all began in France during the 1700s and the 18th century, but there are laws in France, laws that say you cannot deny the Holocaust, laws that say you can’t deny the Armenian genocide. So why is it permissible to be as provocative as these anti-Muslim cartoons were? This is a debate we’re having journalistically here in the United States as well, you know.
RUSH: Yeah, yeah. Here’s Andrea Mitchell, an accredited member of the journalism community, eagerly debating limits on the media. Oh, it’s fine, yes, because we should be responsible in our speech. And of course we journalists are, we real journalists, we are always very careful with our speech. And of course we never tell falsehoods about people, and we never ever shape a story’s outcome to fit our own bias. We are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow journalists. So we can freely discuss whether or not these people at the French magazine should be prevented from publishing what they want.
This is amazing to me. She’s asking the French ambassador to the US, again, Gerard Araud, no relation to Gerard Depardieu, by the way, asking, “Why don’t you limit? I mean, people can’t go out there and deny the holocaust. Why do you allow these people to do what they do?” And of course Andrea’s thinking it would obviously never happen to her. Nobody would ever try to limit her speech. Why, she’s a mainstream journalist, and so forth.
Well, let’s go back, let’s examine NBC. Let’s go back to the Grooveyard of Forgotten Sound Bites. I want to take you back to March 27th, 2012, right there on the Today show again, and I want you to listen to this. Your memory might be jogged here. This is an audio clip of the 911 call from George Zimmerman to the police the night he got into it with Trayvon Martin, Obama’s would-have-been son. This is the actual beginning-to-end sound bite. This is what NBC aired as they told people this is how Zimmerman’s call to 911 that night about Trayvon Martin sounded.
ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
RUSH: Now, your memory’s coming back to you now, isn’t it? They edited that. They edited that. Somebody at NBC Miami edited this on purpose. Zimmerman didn’t say that. Well, he said it, but after being asked. NBC clearly wanted to portray Zimmerman as a racist, as a “white Hispanic” racist. And you might ask, “Rush, why do they do that?” I’ll tell you exactly why. It’s knee-jerk, folks. These are liberals in the media.
How best to describe this? They have inculcated beliefs. They are not curious. They are not open-minded. They are closed-minded, and they simply belief conservatism is racist. They just believe it. It is. It’s not debatable. There’s nobody that disagrees with that. Everybody knows that conservatives are racist. Everybody knows that “white Hispanics” are racists, and everybody knows that some white guy beating on a black guy has to be racist. No other explanation. This is what they’re taught. So the editor at NBC, he just knows it’s true, so he is editing this so that it’s presented in a way that he thinks everybody already understands.
I think some people make the mistake of thinking that NBC sat in their editing room and said, “Okay, how can we screw this up? How can we twist this guy’s words? How can we make him look like something he’s not?” That’s not the thought process. The idea that George Zimmerman is not a racist never enters their mind. The fact that George Zimmerman was beating up on Trayvon Martin was all they need. He’s a racist, okay, so that’s a truth. So they, in reporting the news, are gonna make that as simple to understand as possible. They go in there and edit the tape and have it say what they know Zimmerman already thinks. This is who they are, folks.
They’re dead wrong over 90% of the time, and the other time they lie, but they are the most prejudiced, bigoted people you could possibly imagine. It’s not that they thought Zimmerman was innocent and they wanted to make him guilty. They thought he was guilty the first moment they heard the story. And they thought he was guilty ’cause he had to be a racist. He was beating up on a black guy. It had to be. There can be no other explanation. Trayvon Martin, there’s no way Trayvon Martin isn’t innocent. It’s impossible. Not in America, where there’s institutional racism against blacks. It simply isn’t possible.
So they’ve got the 911 call, and they edit it for time and have it say what they already know to be true. That’s what I think happens with this stuff. I don’t think that they’re so open-minded that they think Zimmerman’s innocent but they don’t like him and want to make him guilty. I think from the moment they hear of the incident, Zimmerman’s dead, he’s guilty. And they go out and they’ve got this 911 call, and they can prove it. Just takes a couple snips and they edit it. But here’s what really happened on that 911 call. George Zimmerman is talking to the 911 operator, and listen, and you’ll hear — and it’s not subtle, I mean, it’s a glaring difference and a glaring example of how just misrepresentational the first one was.
ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining, and he’s just walking around, looking about.
OPERATOR: Okay. And this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?
ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.
RUSH: Okay, so the whole sound bite takes 13 seconds. NBC’s edited version took five seconds. The edited version: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.” The real 911 call, Zimmerman’s asked. He doesn’t describe Trayvon Martin’s appearance. He describes his actions, behaviors, but he does not describe his appearance. The 911 operator has to ask him, and Zimmerman does not say “he is black.” He says, “He looks black to me.” It’s the last thing on his mind. But these people, no, no, Zimmerman went after the guy ’cause he’s black. That’s the only reason he went after him. That’s what America is, it’s institutionally racist.
Look, Ferguson, Missouri, it’s how you explain that. “Hands up, don’t shoot” didn’t happen. Doesn’t matter, it does somewhere else, and so it may as well have happened. But the cops are not shooting black kids every day. “Well, they want to so it may as well have happened here. We’re gonna report it that way because everybody knows that’s what happens in America.” This is the way the left is, particularly their educated ones that come out of journalism school, this is the way they’re taught to put stories together. Okay, you got this element — like the Duke lacrosse case. Automatic. Okay, you have an African-American, poor exotic dancer. Oh, my God, victim, sex object, has to go out and humiliate herself to earn an income in this despicable country.
Here come these white, rich lacrosse players. Hell, yes, she’s telling the truth. Damn right they raped her. There’s no question about it. Except that they didn’t. Well, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter in this case; it does happen, and they wanted to. That’s who they are. That’s what America is. This is what they’re taught. That’s why, when they’re shown how wrong they are, they don’t admit they’re wrong. They’re not wrong; they’ve been educated. They know how racist and bigoted and homophobic the country is. That’s why arguing the truth with them is a worthless exercise.
I learned this my first three years doing media interviews. I learned there’s no way it changes their mind. They’re not after the truth. They’re after anything they can do to confirm their bigotry. They don’t call it bigotry, but that’s what they are.