Oct. 13, 2009 from the Bleacher Report:
This set off a firestorm of opposition from the likes of Rev. Al Sharpton, DeMaurice Smith, head of the NFL Players Association, sports writers, and some active players.
Smith urged the Player's union to oppose the bid, writing, "Sport in America is at its best when it unifies, gives all of us reason to cheer, and when it transcends. Our sport does exactly that when it overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred."
New York Giant's player Mathias Kiwanuka told the New York Daily News that he would not play for the Rams if Rush Limbaugh was allowed to participate in ownership.
Really then, what kind of owner does the NFL want?
Indeed, how does denying Mr. Limbaugh the free market right to purchase a team reject discrimination and hatred?
The main reason for opposing Mr. Limbaugh seems to be the claim that he has made a bevy of racist comments and that he indeed is a racist.
Let's assume for a moment that being a racist, that is to say, believing the race of one is superior and therefore more entitled than another is a crime for which one guilty of such thought should be stripped of all freedom and dignity.
Accepting that assumption, let me ask, where is the proof of Mr. Limbaugh's racism?
His comments about Donovan McNabb?
Here is what he actually said;
"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,'' Limbaugh said. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
Sorry, but that is not racist. McNabb was overrated for a long-time, now he is mostly viewed as a serviceable NFL QB, but not many think he will ever end up in Canton.
Then there is the "Barrak the Magic Negro" charge. The funny thing about that is Rush was not the one who said it. It was African-American columnist, David Ehrenstein, of the LA Times.
Limbaugh turned it into a satire about then Candidate, Barrak Obama.
Perhaps that—Limbaugh’s opposition to President Obama—is the real motivation behind the resistance to the legal purchase of the Rams.
Mr Smith of the Player’s Association, a former DC attorney has known ties to the Obama administration and the Rev. Sharpton has been very vocal in his support of the president.
Could that be the motivation? I’ll let you decide.
The more important question; does the NFLPA or the NFL have a right to deny this man or any American they might disagree with the right to purchase a franchise?
Back to the race issue. One definition of racism is hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. This does not only apply to old white men.
The political intolerance in this country has gotten way out of hand. Every issue is turned to race and everyone that disagrees with a point of view or popular politician is a racist.
Once we deem that person a racist, then is it ok to take away their rights?
Welcome to Hitler’s Germany.
Before you call me a racist or Republican or whatever, understand that I don’t have a dog in the hunt. I personally believe in political neutrality and follow the Bible’s creed that every man (that does God’s will) is acceptable to him.
The bottom line, if Michael Vick has a right to earn a living in the NFL—and I believe he does—then so does Rush Limbaugh.
If you don’t like that you have a right not to support the NFL by spending your money on their product, but you don’t have a right to decide who should or shouldn’t be involved in their league.
By Henry Ball - Syndicated Writer and Featured Columnist @ the Bleacher Report
*Photo from rushlimbaugh.com