Rush Limbaugh And The "Cancer On Our Society"

-A +A

[Commentary: Black Star Media Watch]

One of my favorite items over the last few days was "The Race Card, Football and Me," an Op-Ed column in The Wall Street Journal's October 17 and 18 Weekend edition, by recovering drug addict Rush Limbaugh.

The brave leader of the so-called ditto heads weeps like a little child whose parents have refused him any more candy. The hate-monger and certifiable racist shows that while he likes dishing false and divisive sermons on his show, he doesn't have the skin or backbone to withstand a little heat.

Limbaugh claimed his ouster from a business group that wants to purchase the St. Louis Rams football team was due primarily to a racist campaign by the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Major media outlets and sports writers also teamed up to soil his reputation and integrity, Limbaugh claimed. That's tantamount to complaining that someone dropped garbage on horse dropping. Limbaugh is one of the nation's number one purveyors of racism and race-hatred; all courtesy of his hate-talk radio show.

So for him to claim that he's a victim of racism is like an arsonist castigating the Fire Department for not putting out the fire which he himself has started. The abundant evidence of Limbaugh's hatred can be viewed at YouTube.

Limbaugh has compared President Obama and the Democratic Party to Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party. He recently said he was on the same side as the Taliban and that he shares the group's view in that President Obama did not deserve the Noble Peace Prize. Obviously Limbaugh has a right to his opinion on whether the president deserved the award or not--but to take sides with the Taliban against the president and the United States is nothing less than treasonous. Why if Limbaugh was in better shape, instead of ballooning on his chair as he spews off hatred on his hate-talk radio show, the Taliban might just invite him to join its ranks.

Limbaugh is definitely a liar. Recently he claimed on his radio show that in "Obama's America" Black kids are beating up White kids while other Blacks yell "Right on; right on." As one observant journalist noted, Black people haven't spoken like that probably since the 1970s. So Limbaugh doesn't even know the Black people that
he constantly denigrates. He has made much money from spewing hate because there are many people who share his inadequacies and tune in to listen to this type of nonsense. In return, Limbaugh is compensated millions of dollars to continue spewing such hatred; millions of dollars to lower the standard and tone of conversation about race in this country.

Shame on The Wall Street Journal for allowing Limbaugh, who in another era might have been leading a Southern lynch mob, for allowing this hate-monger to publish, unchallenged, his nonsensical Op-Ed in which he casts himself as the victim. Yet, it's not surprising. While some sections of The Wall Street Journal remain strong and offer some of the best reporting, often scooping The New York Times, the editorial and Op-Ed pages have become more rabidly anti-Obama since Rupert Murdoch acquired the newspaper. Murdoch is of course the owner of The New York Post, which some months ago, depicted Obama as a chimpanzee who had been shot by a New York City police officer.

Yet Limbaugh may face some heat as a result of his Op-Ed piece in which he has a number of clearly false and possibly defamatory statements about Sharpton, who has reportedly already said he intends to sue.

Obviously Limbaugh was enraged that Sharpton had taken the position that he wasn't suitable to be an owner of an NFL team. Limbaugh had famously declared that Black athletes couldn't play the quarterback position in football and that the NFL in desperation was trying to hype the Philadelphia Eagle's Donovan McNabb, whom he considered to be mediocre, because the league wanted a success story.

This was the kind of racist thinking that dominated football before Warren Moon showcased his skills with the Houston Oilers and before Doug Williams won the Super Bowl for the Red Skins.

So how does Limbaugh retaliate against Sharpton in his column? Not surprisingly, he brings up the Tawana Brawley case, in which a court later ruled that a young African American girl had falsely accused some White males in law enforcement of rape in Upstate New York; Limbaugh notes that Sharpton, who was a supporter of Brawley, was found guilty of defamationand ordered to pay $65,000.

Here is where it gets rough for Limbaugh, when he continues, referring to Sharpton: "He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews 'diamond merchants') and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot." Limbaugh is going to have a hard time proving that this statement isn't patently false--and it's serious since fatalities were involved in both incidents.

Limbaugh's defense elsewhere is laughable, even though the article is printed in The Wall Street Journal. One NFL player said given Limbaugh's "racial views" he wouldn't play for a team owned by Limbaugh, he explained. "My racial views?" Limbaugh continued, feigning shock and ignorance. "You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to race? Those controversial views?"

Purveyors of hate are often masters of doublespeak. Yet, in Limbaugh's case, it's clear that even he knows that no one believes these nonsensical statements from him; especially the editors of The Wall Street Journal.

"'Racism is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don't share the left's agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us," he added, probably chuckling at his own joke, as he wrote, without appreciating the irony that his words aptly describe Limbaugh.

Yet Limbaugh, provided he's indeed referring to himself, gets it right in his conclusion, when he says these tactics "are a cancer on our society."


The item of the day is without a doubt from "Stumping With Mayor, Giuliani Stirs Old Fears," in today's New York Times which describes comments attributed to Rudolph W. Giuliani during a campaign appearance on Sunday with Mayor Michael Bloomberg,at a breakfast sponsored by the Jewish Community Council in Borough Park, Brooklyn. According to the Times article, Giuliani, who is stumping for Bloomberg said many parts of New York City were gripped "by the fear of going out at night and walking the streets."

"You know exactly what I'm talking about," Giuliani said, according to the article, "This City could very easily be taken back in a very different direction--it could very easily be taken back to the way it was with the wrong political leadership."

Always trust the detestable Giuliani, a miserably-failed presidential candidate, to inject race-baiting in New York politics. It's the language he speaks best; he spoke it throughout his two mayoral terms. He was obviously referring to the Administration of David Dinkins, New York's first African American mayor.

Bill Thompson, the City's comptroller and Bloomberg's opponent in the Nov. 3 election, is also Black. Bloomberg, later, was asked about Giuliani's comments, according to the Times, which added that "Mr. Bloomberg did not answer directly."

Bloomberg, who has had strong relations with African American leaders through his two terms, is going to have a major problem with Giuliani's comments, especially from the African American community --where he surprisingly polls highly at about 37% to Thompson's 43% according to one report-- unless the mayor quickly distances himself from the remarks and repudiates them.

Giuliani belongs to the Rush Limbaugh wing of the Republican Party.

Moreover, Giuliani boasts and takes all the credit for the drop in crime in New York City without acknowledging that it was Dinkins' initiatives that set the trend.
Dinkins put money into hiring more police officers and it was Dinkins who initiated community policing in the City, actually getting more men out on the streets. Had Dinkins had a second term, the continued drop in the crime rate  would have occurred under his watch. Most honest observers have been able to say this.

Giuliani quickly forgets that race relations were at explosion point towards the end of his term and that his stock had hit the bottom of the sea when he confessed to an adulterous affair and dumped his wife and children on Television. Had it not been for the 9/11 attacks and the City's tradition of rallying together during a crisis, Giuliani would have been the has-been that he deserves to be.

There are reports that he intends to run for governor of New York. Well, if anyone had been affected by amnesia, we have all been reminded of why voters rejected Giuliani when he ran for president. New Yorkers must similarly reject him should he venture into the gubernatorial race.

When I contacted the mayor's campaign today, I was sent a transcript of the mayor's response when he was asked today about the Giuliani remarks:

"I am phenomenally proud of our record of bringing people together from all neighborhoods and every community. And I think we’ve successfully resisted attempts to divide this city for the past eight years. I’ve worked well with virtually everyone, I don’t point fingers. I try to lower the volume and the temperature and not raise it, and I’m not going to start trying to raise it now. I can only speak for my record and the results, I think, speak for themselves. Crime is down 35%. We have the best counter-terrorism program in the nation, we’re the safest big city in the country and I’ve- given the opportunity to serve another four years I’m confident that we can do even better. I’m asking for people’s votes because I believe the next four years can be better than the last eight years, not worse than the last eight years and I’d appreciate everybody’s support."

Mayor Bloomberg must unequivocally distance himself from Giuliani's remarks, and his attempts to take New Yorkers back to a place we don't want to return.


Another item that caught my attention was an article "Love of Designer Clothes Adds Flair to Police Corruption Trial in South Africa," by Barry Bearak, in today's New York Times.

The article is about Jackie Selebi, the former South African police chief, who is undergoing trial on corruption charges. The article detailed his alleged business relationship with a convicted drug dealer, Glenn Agliotti, who's testifying against him, and the pair's fondness for designer clothes. The section of the article that caught my attention the most was discussion of the growing chasm between South Africa's elite, and the poor communities--cabinet ministers spend as much as $146,000 on official vehicles (that's for one car), while slum dwellers have no running water, electricity or toilets. "Recently, Haroon Bhorat, an economist at the University of Cape Town, told Parliament that based on his calculations, South Africa now has 'the most unequal society in the world,' falling behind Brazil for this ignominy," Bearak wrote.
This is indeed outrageous and really is an ugly testament for the great fighters who sacrificed their life to defeat Apartheid. Bhorat also wrote that the gap was "a threat to social stability."

Please post your comments directly or send them to

"Speaking Truth To Empower."

Also Check Out...

Rep. Scott: Heroes Act would stop
Portland: Federal Court Extends
COVID-19 in Africa: Regional
Black Entrepreneurs Face Major
CARICOM Celebrates Jamaica’s 58th
Blacks, Hispanics More Likely to