October 17, 2009

Al Sharpton is threatening to sue Rush Limbaugh for defamation? But that's what Rush wants, isn't it?

Let me explain my theory, which I based on: 1. my understanding of litigation and 2. my familiarity with the way Rush Limbaugh's mind works. Note: 1. I'm a law professor, and 2. I listen to Rush all the time, and I pay particularly close attention when he contrasts what people say and what they are really trying to do.

So Rush writes this op-ed in the WSJ. Go over there and read the details about his thwarted investment in the St. Louis Rams. I just want to focus on what he said about Al Sharpton, who was one of the key people who made a conspicuous fuss about Limbaugh:
In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. 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.
Sharpton threatens to sue because of that, reports CNN, which adds:
The Crown Heights riot began after a Hasidic Rabbi accidently struck and killed an African American boy with his car. The boy died from the injuries–sparking four nights of riots. The Rabbi was not charged, but Sharpton played a large role in rallying on behalf of the young boy’s family and the African American community.

According to a statement put out by Sharpton’s media consultant, a study New York Governor Mario Cuomo commissioned showed Sharpton was not involved in the Crown Heights incident until after the rioting concluded.

"Mr. Limbaugh's blatant and defamatory statements regarding the Crown Heights Riots falsely give the impression that Rev. Sharpton was present during the violence that occurred when in reality he had been called in by the family after the violence," Sharpton’s statement says.

"In terms of Freddie's Fashion Mart, Rev. Al Sharpton, along with local elected officials supported the protests. However, a lone gunman who disagreed with the nonviolent nature of the protests entered the store and killed seven people and himself… For Mr. Limbaugh to imply that Rev. Sharpton has anything to do with someone that killed people and himself is blatantly wrong," the statement continues.
CNN doesn't bother to fact check either Limbaugh's assertions or Sharpton's. What did Sharpton really do in relation to those old incidents?

I think Limbaugh was baiting Sharpton. Sharpton now has to talk about those old riots and the way he acted back then. If he sues, it will draw intense attention to the details of what happened, and we'll have to debate about the precise language Limbaugh used and how close to accurate it was. The question of the damage to Sharpton's reputation will be put in issue, and there will be discovery and factfinding relating to Sharpton's reputation and how much money it is worth. That's pretty risky for Sharpton, who likes to pose as an elder statesman nowadays. Meanwhile, Limbaugh, who may not want to begin any litigation, will have the opportunity to counterclaim, accusing Sharpton of defamation.

Look out, Reverend Al, it's a trap!

ADDED: This whole NFL controversy is a gift to Rush. I don't think Rush cared much about being one of the investors in the Rams. He wouldn't have had any serious power running things, and the group of investors came to him about it. Now, he's the center of attention, everyone's talking about him, and plenty of them are embarrassing themselves with careless, stupid, and nasty racial pandering — producing audio clips which he will play on his show, accompanied by scathing mockery and insistence that the mainstream media air his side of the story. If they do not, that's more fuel for Rush's red-hot critique of media. If they do, then he's on mainstream media, telling it his way at last.

126 comments:

Mark O said...

I'm interested in opinions of the strategy of using a declaratory judgment action for Rush. In the meantime, name that case.

traditionalguy said...

Suing Rush is not like blackmailing a Corporation which sells to African American customers. I presume the suit will be filed and tried in West Palm Beach. But could federal jurisdiction rules result in a transfer of the controversy to the District Court in New York?

rhhardin said...

Stanley Cavell on the decision to sue excerpt, as to its social function.

If there are grounds on which to take the matter to court, I may or may not choose to. If I do, I have not decided to let the court tell me whether enough is enough: taking the matter to court is an expression of my judgment that enough is enough.

Chase said...

I read with amazemenr and horror the blatant left wing intolerance and hatred that was written by many lawyers and commenters on the Volokh Conspiracy regarding Rush and whether he might succeed in suing CNN for libel.

The unsourced and ends justify the means hatred of the left for this man is astounding. Most children would blush.

Here is the challenge: to find ANY black liberal who will unequivocally condemn Al Sharpton's actions in the Tawana Brawley Case and the Duke La Crosse Team Case without any caveats about Sharpton's "good works" or blackness.

Odds of any liberal demonstrating that kind of balls and backbone:

close to 0%

Maguro said...

Rush and Al should settle this little dispute on Blogginheads.

Chase said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chase said...

careless, stupid, and nasty racial pandering

which especially describes NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell

What a coward!

10/17/09 7:24 PM

Ann Althouse said...

"I presume the suit will be filed and tried in West Palm Beach. But could federal jurisdiction rules result in a transfer of the controversy to the District Court in New York?"

I don't know why you assume Sharpton would file in Limbaugh's home town. Limbaugh's purported libel was sent all over the place, and the asserted injury occurred wherever Sharpton has a reputation. Sharpton has a vast choice of forums, and he should choose whatever suits his interests best. Sharpton might try to join a New York party to defeat diversity jurisdiction, but if he does not, Limbaugh will be able to get to federal court, and he can move to transfer, but why should he succeed?

JAL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Hasenstab said...

Agree with Limbaugh's politics or not, he is one smart guy.

It was a trap and Sharpton took the bait. Sharpton will now have to sit for depositions and testify in open court, under oath. And everything, including financial statements can be demanded under discovery. Genius.

In the same segment as the Sharpton comments, Limbaugh also said that Jesse Jackson was not with Dr. Mr. Luther King, Jr., when King was assassinated, a claim Jackson has made in the past.

There is ample evidence that Jackson was not with King, and was in fact one floor above King in the motel where the assassination occurred. Jackson has not, thus far, taken the bait.

JAL said...

xcusi, I meant:

dope? meet rope.

former law student said...

He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants")

Sharpton's calling neighborhood Jews diamond merchants hardly seems sufficient provocation for the Jews to riot. I don't understand what point Rush is trying to make here.

jeff said...

Sharpton isnt stupid. He will not sue. He will want to keep this in the court of public opinion where he is up against the left-created caricature of Limbaugh. That will not fly in court. Actual quotes and actual deeds would be focused on.

edutcher said...

I hope Rush sues him if Fat Albert doesn't have the guts to go to court. He (Sharpie) should be doing 20 to life and the idea that he can ruin somebody's career on his say-so is obscene.

traditionalguy said...

Great answer Professor. Welcome back into game of legal analysis. Not only Purdue won today, another local Engineering school just won its game beating Virginia Tech. We call them our trade school on North Avenue.

JAL said...

fls -

“If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." Al Sharpton reportedly during the Crown Heights incident

And the "diamond merchants" quote is a bit longer.

AJ Lynch said...

FLS: were you being sarcastic? I believe the rioters were predominantly the black people.

Synova said...

I don't know that it's a GIFT. Certainly the world would be a better place if people didn't do all of those things that Rush can now use as fodder for his radio show.

But it does bring to mind the meaning of the truism, that you can't cheat an honest man.

former law student said...

FLS: were you being sarcastic? I believe the rioters were predominantly the black people.

Yeah. If a remark isn't defamatory on its face, if you have to research the situation referred to, is it really defamatory? The opinion formed in the third-party's mind is based on his own investigation, not on Rush's remark

Similarly, if I said, Eisenhower was involved in World War II, up to his neck, is that defamatory?

Synova said...

"Sharpton's calling neighborhood Jews diamond merchants hardly seems sufficient provocation..."

Even if he only said this stuff after the riots, the fact that people were so inflamed is hardly *helped* by someone spewing stereotype and prejudice.

I'll have to read the op-ed I suppose, but I wonder if this (law suit, publicity, etc.) is what Rush wants so much as a simple argument... Hey, THIS guy was accusing me of racism.

TMink said...

Althouse, I think I heard some hurt and frustration in Rush's voice the days after the NFL setback. He seem touched with the callers who supported him. I mean, the guy is a football geek.

Trey

AJ Lynch said...

So-called leaders like Sharpton and Jackson have been discredited more than once.

Why does the media continue to seek their opinion when the media wants to find out what the "black" community is thnking?

Alex said...

FLS - stop stepping into KNOWN piles of shit. You keep doing it over and over again. Now you're apologizing for that race-baiting, riot-inciting antisemitic Sharpton. You really hate yourself, don't you?

Synova said...

Oh, I think that calling Jews "diamond merchants" is defamatory even without the specific context because it still exists in the larger context where Jews are the evil rich people you owe money to.

Perhaps we could think of some things similar that would be defamatory of blacks that don't sound *bad* until they're applied to the whole group? I don't think that would be difficult to do.

Peter V. Bella said...

The value of Al Sharpton's reputation- way less than zero. As to defamation- you cannot defame the infamous.

Al Sharpton is, has been, and always will be a poverty pimp of the lowest sort. He preys upon the poor and laughs all theway to the bank. He is like Jesse Jackson- another roar that mouthed; "say it proud, I'm Black and I'm loud."

Funny thing, I have never heard of either one of these guys actually helping anyone.

What is left out is Sharpton never actually paid the 65,000. After some years had passed with court judgments and other hearings a friend of Al's paid.

Cedarford said...

Al Sharpton's path into Fox TV news studios is bootlicked every step of the way by Jewish show producers licking every marble step Sharpton ascends...long before O'Reilly, Hannity, and Geraldo insert their tongues up Sharpton's rectum, seeking to dredge up ratings gold on their tonguetips.

Why does anyone think Jews, of all people would desist from enabling this black race-baiter? Everything he does, even Crown Heights - makes Jewish bronze shekels into gold.

Alex said...

C4 - you just can't help yourself with the antisemitism. It's quite sad actually. We all pity you.

Cedarford said...

"Alex said...
C4 - you just can't help yourself with the antisemitism. It's quite sad actually. We all pity you."


And I pity you for not seeing the obvious.

Who created Al Sharpton as a national figure?

The black-owned media???

There is a reason why media multimillionaires, largely Jewish, find Sharpton as ratings gold through "controversy!!".

Leave it to Jews, though, to cast themselves as "victims" while trying to elbow Hannity out of the way and tongue-bobb the Rev Al's sphincter for profit.

Rev Al is a NYC Jew media creation - for fun and profit. All Crown Heights and Tawana and his riots against lesser-born Jews in Harlem was - was an opportunity for Midtown Jews to get richer through their manipulations of the Al Sharpton phenomenon.

traditionalguy said...

The best diamond merchants in my experience are Jewish because of their great skills and real honesty in a business that is full of tricks. Beats me why hating all the Jews come so easy for some people when they hear false charges made against one Jew. I have been cheated by an Englishman once, but I don't go and look for ways to slander and do revenge on all the Englishmen in the world.

RLB_IV said...

The reason why the world hates the Jews is that the One True God chose them to introduce Him the world. They have been reviled from that time. He sent His Son who changed the world as "they" knew it and opened a world for us that evaporated our false beliefs about our selves and our world.

former law student said...

Alex, my point is that Sharpton would have to explain all the context for why Rush's remark was defamatory. So I'm pretty much agreeing with Althouse.

LonewackoDotCom said...

I would be very grateful if Rush would sue the company that helped spread one of the smears against him, and it's probably not one of the companies you've heard about from others.

Way back in June - well before most people and most bloggers - had heard of this issue - I contacted that company no less than three times in an attempt to get them to either back up or retract the quote. They never got back to me, but - whether because of me contacting them or others doing the same - they knew at the latest in June of this year that the quote was questionable or bogus. They did not, AFAIK, take any action to correct that quote. Maybe Althouse would like to discuss just how "reckless" that is.

former law student said...

The reason why the world hates the Jews ...

part of the reason, I believe, is that they remained the strangers in our midst. And this is still going on. I was surprised to read an article in the NY Times saying that the ultra-Orthodox in New York were finally turning their child molestors over to secular authority rather than trying them in beth din rabbinical courts. A quote showing how separate their world still is:

Yet one rabbi mentioned frequently on blogs cites ancient doctrine that justifies killing someone who informs on a fellow Jew.

It's hard to get more Us against Them than that.

Seneca the Younger said...

Now note that (1) I'm not a law professor or for that matter any kind of lawyer, and (2) listen to Rush less than AA, but I suspect Rush has to be thinking "Sue me. Make my day." On the one hand, you've got Sharpton, who's gonna have one hell of a time overcoming the NYT v Sullivan limits, between the public figure and opinion issues; on the other hand, you've got Limbaugh, who is fit tanned and rested and rich as Croesus. Should it come to trial, which seems extremely unlikely, every mildly inflammatory word out of Sharpton's mouth will be brought back and rehashed repeatedly.

miller said...

Once again, Rush controls the conversation.

Mian said...

Cedarford:
Sharpton spews anti-semitic bullshit and you blame the Jews?? You really are a diseased, pathetic fuck..

juniorfruit said...

Rush could teach Carl Rove a thing or two.

traditionalguy said...

To my surprise the Althouse Blog has become the best place go to learn about the real Rush Limbaugh. Rush does seem to be very real to me after reading the Professsor's thoughts on the ongoing events of the past months concerning him.

blake said...

Sharpton's on double-secret probation.

Carol_Herman said...

Why not run a contest? Up or down. Al Sharpton sues. Or doesn't sue.

I don't think he's gonna sue. But I think he's angry. And, he knows how to get a headline. Headlines are supposed to disappear after a period of time.

Rush, on the other hand, has been handed a golden opportunity. His show is about his opinions. And, what is better at attracting men then a discussion of football?

So, what do you think? The Rams are sold to whom? And, will this fiasco cost the new owners more, rather than less? Did the NFL come out ahead, or behind. (I'm voting behind.)

And, you've also thrown in lessons you'd only get in law school. Where the drawback?

John Stodder said...

Anyone foresee that the publisher of Limbaugh's op-ed might not be so eager to get into a pissing match with Sharpton. It's not very far from Sharpton's headquarters to the WSJ's offices; he could get a pretty good picket line going there, every day, all day, 'til the Journal runs a correction.

Maguro said...

It's not very far from Sharpton's headquarters to the WSJ's offices; he could get a pretty good picket line going there, every day, all day, 'til the Journal runs a correction.

So...Sharpton should race-bait outside the WSJ until they publish a correction stating that he's not now and never has been a race-baiter? Sounds difficult, but if anyone can pull it off, it would be the Rev Al.

Peter V. Bella said...

Al is hoping that the people who put Rush on will quietly give him money to go away. It is extortion and intimidation. If Al were Italian he would be sitting in a Federal Pen on a RICO conviction.

Hey, that's it. Al Capone Sharpton.
Rat a tat tat.

Joe said...

On a slightly separate subject, why is the word "investment", or some form of it, ever used in connection with owning a football team. Do any of them actually make money? Wouldn't it better be phrased that Rush pulled out of dumping money down the St. Louis Rams money hole?

LoafingOaf said...

Is Althouse wet for Rush Limbaugh? The guy clearly likes to race bait. Heck, even Fox News, tonight, on Gerlado At Large, was going over many quotes by Rush that show he is a race-baiter.

Maybe Althouse should have the guts to either defend the racially conroversial statements by Rush or not, since she listens to him all the time and has about a hundred posts where she states how much she loves the man.

Instead, Althouse is being a typical law prof blogger, making the issue about something other than it is to the general public. I'd like a clear statement from Althouse about such Rush statements as "Take that bone out of your nose". That's an old quote, but Geraldo At LArge on the Fox News Channel presented a bunch of quotes, tonight, where Rush is being extremely racial about Obama. Can we get a clear statement from Althouse on those, given how she has vouched for how wonderful Rush is for many months now?

Bruce Hayden said...

The reason why the world hates the Jews is that the One True God chose them to introduce Him the world. They have been reviled from that time. He sent His Son who changed the world as "they" knew it and opened a world for us that evaporated our false beliefs about our selves and our world.

My take is that Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple was in upheaval. Jews of the Temple based religion of their time had to adapt to a religion that no longer had a Temple. Two of the primary contenders for its heart and soul were the Pharisees and the Nazarenes. Pharisaic Judaism ultimately evolved into the Rabbinic Judaism we see today, and Nazarene Judaism into Christianity (though the Nazarenes themselves stayed true to Judaism at least into the 4th Century AD). Add to this that the Romans tolerated Jews at a time when they actively persecuted Christians, and, indeed, this was somewhat duplicated by Islam (likely, I would think, in both cases, because Christianity is a lot more evangelical than is Judaism).

LoafingOaf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LoafingOaf said...

I didn't have to watch MSNBC or the "MSM" to see terrible quotes from Rush concerning how he purposefully attempt to be a racial provacatuer. I saw it on the Fox News Channel, on Gerlado At Large this evening.

Look, I tune in to Rush once in awhile and often laugh along with him. His new Battle Hymn with the children singing for "Rush Hudson Limbaugh MMM MMM MMM" for example, made me laugh out loud.

But Rush does say a lot of race-baiting stuff, particulraly about Obama. Even Fox News had to say as much this evening. So, it seems to me, he is a racially divisive voice on the radio. Can he really complain when people point that out?

Chase said...

Commenters such as Loafing Oaf would have a lot more credibility if they had the backbone to denounce Sharpton.

It is obvious that LO doesn't get it - LO's mind is already made up about Limbaugh - part of the definition of a bigot is one who holds a position refusing to examine evidence contrary - so there really isn't any need for Ann to re-explain it or defend it.

Is it that liberals don't really mind being hypocrites and uninformed bigots? It doesn't matter to them?

Robert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LoafingOaf said...

Commenters such as Loafing Oaf would have a lot more credibility if they had the backbone to denounce Sharpton.

I have disliked Al Sharpton ever since I saw him on some cable show in the 90s (I believe it was an old CNBC talk show) and heard him claim that black people cannot be racist because they don't have power. I didn't care for how Sharpton was trying to redefine the word "racism" in order to excuse racism from black people, and I've always remembered that whenever I've seen Sharpton ever since.

It is obvious that LO doesn't get it - LO's mind is already made up about Limbaugh - part of the definition of a bigot is one who holds a position refusing to examine evidence contrary - so there really isn't any need for Ann to re-explain it or defend it.

I like a lot of what Rush says. I don't hear his show much simply because he's on from 12pm-3pm and I am working during those hours. I catch 15 minutes of him here, 10 minutes of him there. I ofen LOVE what he's saying, and I am often laughing along with him.

But did you see the racial stuff Limbaugh has said that was presented on Fox News tonight on Geraldo At Large? If you did, do you not think Rush is intentionally being a racial provocateur? Althouse is not just a casual listener of Rush. As she says, she listens to him "all the time". And she has many posts where she seems to almost have a crush on him. She ought to issue a clear statement on some of these highly controversial, race-baiting statements Rush has been spewing.

Freder Frederson said...

Leave it to Jews, though, to cast themselves as "victims" while trying to elbow Hannity out of the way and tongue-bobb the Rev Al's sphincter for profit.

Yes, and of course Fox News is owned by that well known Irish/Australian/American member of the tribe, Rupert Murdochstein.

Freder Frederson said...

I would hope that where ever this ended up in court the Judge would have the guts to say: "Are you guys serious? Both of you get the hell out of my courtroom! Both of you are race-baiting lying slime. You deserve each other!"

Duscany said...

I saw a couple of articles by Limbaugh-hating heavy-breather types who quoted him as follows: "You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed."

There are posts all over the Internet suggesting that this is a totally made-up quote unaccompanied by any citations. Yet the mainstream media happily reprinted it as proof that Limbaugh was unfit to own a piece of the Rams.

reader_iam said...

I just want to point out--highlight, if you will--that Sharpton was convicted in 1998 of quite the rather minor, merciful charge, in context, with regard to the 1987--repeat, repeat--1987 Tawana Brawley hoax. Not for him, a rush to judgment (nor any *real* payment, in the name of justice)! Yet he demands speedy ostracizing--this minute! today! right now!--of people he doesn't want around. And why not; why shouldn't he? After all, he continually and consistently gets respectful platforms on which to soap-box with so-called respectable news/commentary figures who can't find the voice to utter a single peep about Sharpton's factually ignoble background amongst their utterly partisan squawks.

It speak volumes--libraries of volumes!--that anyone serious (or even anyone who's *pretending* to be serious) would give even 2 seconds of the time of day to Sharpton's unrighteous, shameless shenanigans.

reader_iam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
reader_iam said...

Let me be more clear and direct and slightly more brief:

Anyone who freely uses the term "race-baiter" but who DOES NOT include Al Sharpton on his or her short-list of the most disgusting, shameless race-baiters of the last 25 years is without question intellectually dishonest.

For starters.

Pogo said...

""Al Sharpton is threatening to sue Rush Limbaugh for defamation? But that's what Rush wants, isn't it?"

One might mention Br'er Rabbit and the the Briar Patch or the Tar-Baby as being analogous, but you'd have to be crazy.

AllenS said...

I would imagine that Sharpton is thinking a trial, if it came down to having a trial, will be held in Harlem. If that ends up being the case, Rush is fucked.

William said...

If what Rush has actually said is so harmful, why were the fabricated quotes so widely used against him?.....Rush is antagonistic to Sharpton and most liberal black leaders in the harshest way possible. This is sometimes defined as racism; sometimes aa democracy... I am certain that if you put a collection of the over the top quotes of Limbaugh and Sharpton (or, for that matter, Al Franken) side by side, Limbaugh would appear to be the more temperate public speaker....But all of this is predicated on putting the case before an unbiased jury, which is, of course, impossible. Before a black jury, Sharpton is innocent. Before most white juries, Limbaugh is the injured party.....This is a win win situation for both parties. If convicted, Sharpton can continue his narrative of martyrdom. Ditto with Rush. If exonerated, Sharpton can glow under that halo. And again, ditto with Rush.....It's a thorny philosophical question defining who is Br'er Rabbit and who is the Farmer and, for that matter, where is the Bramble Bush.

William said...

My above statement was written before reading that of Pogo. He is quite right to question my sanity, but it is possible that both Rush and Sharpton are as crazy as foxes.

Pogo said...

I was being clever by raising the issue and simultaneously disowning it, and questioning my own sanity all at the same time.

I am so meta it scares me; a riddle wrapped in a misery inside an enema.

vet66 said...

I'm still waiting for Sharpton and Jackson to make a statement condemning black-on-black violence. Maybe I missed something but I haven't anything from POTUS or FLOTUS condemning the recent killing of the black honor student in Chicago who accidentally wandered into a gang fight at the very time Obama et al were attempting to sell Chicago to the IOC.

Sharpton, Jackson, and Obama fan the flames of racism to the point it becomes hollow as an accusation. Except for the progressives, white guilt doesn't sell anymore and the charge predicated on the victimization of blacks at the hands of everyone else is falling on deaf ears.

Having lived through two Watts riots the one image I remember vividly was the looting of stores, many owned by blacks, then being torched. Pathetic when the neighborhoods found themselves without local stores to shop in and complained about having to travel to shop.

Reverend Wright, Phleger, et al make a living out of preaching to the dependents they have created in one of the ugliest scams of all time. So-called 'white guilt' is extortion covering the deeper wound of victimization. Modern day "Carpetbaggers" is what they are as they make a living eating their own.

Brian Hancock said...

Al Sharpton is the left's version of Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan has been marginalized fortunately, it's a shame that Sharpton hasn't been.

Limbaugh produces an entertainment product that deals with politics. If he was a racist, he would not have been on the air for twenty years.

When can we start post-racial America? Right now will be fine.

Cincinnatus said...

"In the same segment as the Sharpton comments, Limbaugh also said that Jesse Jackson was not with Dr. Mr. Luther King, Jr., when King was assassinated, a claim Jackson has made in the past."

Of course not, JJ doesn't associate with republicans.

Jeff said...

Joe said: "On a slightly separate subject, why is the word 'investment', or some form of it, ever used in connection with owning a football team. Do any of them actually make money? Wouldn't it better be phrased that Rush pulled out of dumping money down the St. Louis Rams money hole?"

It's about capital gains, not revenue. Most football teams are at least borderline profitable. The real haul is made when selling a team.

The Rams are threatening to leave STL if they don't get a new stadium. Think the franchise value would increase as the only team in Los Angeles? Either way, buying the Rams today is a classic buy-low.

If the Checketts group buys the Rams, and if Limbaugh's level of investment (say, a 5% partner) has been documented, then his loss would be easy to prove each year with the annual Forbes value assessment of pro sports teams.

Yos said...

Bravo ... excellent analysis

Oxbay said...

Once Rush joined the Rams bid I think he cared very much about winning the bid.

I think he cared very much about the cruel calumnies stated and repeated in the "state run media" without attribution or apology.

I think a horrible precedent has been set if only left wingers and their bootlickers are the ones to be allowed in the "public square".

Mike@ said...

Frank Zappa wrote a song about Jackson in 1988, called "Rhymin' Man", one of the verses says :

"They say when Doctor King got shot,
Jesse hatched an awful plot,
Dipped his hands in the Doctor's blood,
And rubbed his shirt like playin' with mud
Looked around for all the press
'Check me out, my name is Jess!
I'll be known from towns and farms,
Doctor King died in my arms!'"


This is the same thing Rush is saying now, if not worse. Did Jackson sue Zappa in '88 ?

Alexander said...

What is going on with that Glenn Beck guy these days? Haven't heard much of him recently.

Freder Frederson said...

In the same segment as the Sharpton comments, Limbaugh also said that Jesse Jackson was not with Dr. Mr. Luther King, Jr., when King was assassinated, a claim Jackson has made in the past.

There is ample evidence that Jackson was not with King, and was in fact one floor above King in the motel where the assassination occurred. Jackson has not, thus far, taken the bait.


Ample evidence that Jackson was one floor above King? Really? If this is what Limbaugh believes then he really is a lying scumbag.

Google the Lorraine Motel. King was shot on the second floor balcony. The Motel only has two floors.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Not to mention that there are numerous pictures of Jackson standing next to King at the time of the shooting.

Rick Lee said...

I'm not going to pretend to know what Rush really wants, but the guy LOVES football. More than politics I believe. He's a Missouri native and I think he probably would have been more than thrilled to be an owner.

AllenS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

Limbaugh is no racist. I heard him on air talk to a 40 year old black fella, who was a victim as a teenager of racism. He was told by his employer that he would never amount to anything in business because he was a "N#$%&". The guy said thats why he would never vote republican. Limbaugh avoided the politics of it, and proceeded to explain to him that by letting that man's words dominate his self image for the last 25 years, he let him win. He told him HE is the designer of his life, no matter the obstacle. And that any obstacle can be overcome with internal belief, which he was fully capable of. And by exercising such, he would be sticking it to that racist every moment he did so.
You don't give such wisdom to someone you would supposedly hate and despise.

Koblog said...

Legal details and strategies aside, the best thing Limbaugh did for me is to reveal just how useless the NFL is.

If it weren't for instant replay, "foot" ball (interestingly, a game where the foot rarely touches the ball) would instantly die.

Football is beyond boring. I believe women instinctively know this. Men delude themselves as to its importance.

It is beyond me why we devote billions of dollars to childish men who happen to have the ability to put a ball in a hoop, hit a ball with a stick, put a little white ball into a hole in the ground or pound each other into pulp to move a ball 100 yards. It's massively silly.

I had already begun recording football games on my DVR for faster playback. I discovered an entire game -- every play -- can easily be watched in about an hour. The process of doing this showed me just what a waste of time the whole sports thing is.

The Limbaugh incident proved that in addition to wasting my time, the NFL doesn't want me as a customer. So I canceled my viewing of the NFL. If it's not on my DVR, it doesn't get watched.

I believe this type of realization is dawning on us in a number of areas: network news that really is an arm of the DNC; network prime time "must see" shows that aren't; "important" films that aren't; newspapers that fail to report the news; contentless magazines that are really simply advertising vehicles.

'Twill none of them be missed.

Albert said...

I heard part of the Mark Levin show on Thursday and Levin was baiting Sharpton regarding his past behavior.

Levin really really wanted Sharpton to sue him, although it wouldn't surprise me if Levin also hopes that Sharpton sues Limbaugh since Levin and Limbaugh are, to the best of my knowledge, very good friends.

Pogo said...

Frederson, you're wrong (see pp. 284-285.

Jesse Jackson was not up on the balcony. There is a no photo of Jesse Jackson up on the balcony with Martin Luther King at the time of or immediately after the assassination.

Jackson was down in the parking lot talking to some musicians – Ben Branch and others. When the shots rang out, he ran and hid behind the swimming pool area. He came back 30 minutes later, once the TV cameras had arrived. (see "Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson")

I'll take facts, hold the narrative said...

If Rev. Al Sharpton were to file suit against Rush Limbaugh, one result would be that the court would have to determine if they had jurisdiction over Mr. Limbaugh.

If suit is filed in Federal Court in New York under Diversity of Citizenship because Rush is a citizen of Florida, then Rush could use that judicial determination to get the State of New York to stop harassing him to pay New York state income taxes.

Also, if during discovery, any strange financial matters concerning Rev. Al Sharpton should surface and somehow wind up in the hands of the State of New York, then Rev. Sharpton could be the one having to deal with New York state tax collectors.

Of the two parties involved in this matter, I believe that Mr. Limbaugh has had to carefully and completely document every financial transaction because he knows that he is always subject to having to prove his innocence to the government. He knows that his history of drug dependence will always haunt him because he is a conservative and not a liberal.

Carol_Herman said...

Dear Law Professor,

I don't think the matter is "al." I think Mark O on top is referring to a slam dunk Supreme Court decision that will declare the quotes (against Rush), are false. That's one leg of Al's complaints. And, it would be shot away.

The BIGGER 'elephant' in the middle of the room is SECURITIES LAW. (You know, the system in law school, where you either cut it. Or you fall asleep.) But it's there. It's been there since 1929, and the 'revises made' on how public businesses operate.

Goldman Sachs, for instance, needs to be sure it is operating a 'bid' within the law. So? Well, somebody just trampled on Rush's rights to BUY a company. When this gets recognized as the whopper of a case, it will involve PROSECUTIONS. Who know? Throw in RICO into this mix. Because you can't have it both ways. You can't be a 'private club,' using Goldman Sachs, to bring wealth to a few insiders looking to sell the RAMS.

Of course, I didn't go to sleep in law school! I didn't go to law school. Journalists, or whatever you call reporters, didn't go there, either. Heck, you can even snooker Charlie Rangel on this subject. But wouldn't it be nice to lift the curtain? First, you'd have to name a very qualified CONSTUTIONAL lawyer, and you'd have to see if he was curious enough to give you some advice. I'd love to hear it. And, I am not alone.

rcocean said...

I half-agree "Kolog". The NFL lost me 20 years ago. All the teams seemed the same and the greed and overall weirdness turned me off.

I switched over to college football - where you have a variety of playing styles, the players aren't in it for the money (mostly), and its truer to spirit of the sport.

Freder Frederson said...

Jesse Jackson was not up on the balcony. There is a no photo of Jesse Jackson up on the balcony with Martin Luther King at the time of or immediately after the assassination.

You know it is hilarious when the very link you point me directly contradicts your assertion.

You are even dumber than Michael, who at least can claim that he made an honest mistake and meant that Jesse Jackson was one floor below MLK at the time of the shooting.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

It is probably cant to say so, but the people who hate Rush the most have never listened to him. I started listening to Rush in '88 when I was still a liberal putz because I thought he was an entertaining crazy man. It turned out I was the one who was crazy, and I have since amended my ways.

The point is this-- Rush is for equal treatment of everyone, regardless of race. Unfortunately that opinion must be branded racist in this political climate. Victimhood, reparations, affirmative action must be prolonged forever, and no one has more to gain from their perpetuation than Al Sharpton.

Pogo said...

1. Contradicts? Bullshit.
2. Produce the photo. Should be easy enough.

Pogo said...

From the reference linked:
"Lee, Jackson, and Williams had followed Young up the steps from the courtyard to room 306. Dr. King's still head lay in a pool of blood. Abernathy, kneeling over his friend tried desperately to save Dr. King's life. "

Jackson wasn't cradling MLK as he's always claimed.

Freder Frederson said...

1. Contradicts? Bullshit.
2. Produce the photo. Should be easy enough.


First of all, here is quote from the link you provided which contradicts your assertion

"Lee, Jackson, and Williams had followed Young up the steps from the courtyard to room 306. Dr. King's still head lay in a pool of blood. Abernathy, kneeling over his friend tried desperately to save Dr. King's life. Several of the men on that balcony pointed in the direction of the shot. Frozen in a picture taken by photographer James Louw, they were aiming their index fingers across Mulberry Street and northwest of room 306.

An ambulance arrived at the Lorraine about 5 minutes after Dr. King had been shot, according to Abernathy."

And here is a link to the world famous photograph

And I am waiting for your apology.

Mickey said...

I have to wonder if Sharpton and Jackson, shouldn't be sued for defamation since they are the behind most of the lies against Limbaugh.

This isn't the first time Sharpton has behaved stupidly. Al Sharpton was indirectly responsible for their deaths, because his words incited the arsonist.

Al Sharpton is and always has been out for himself and not the people he claims to be helping. He, Jackson and the rest of the race whores have made millions for themselves using extortion. Protection money is what the mob calls it and we certainly do see this with this criminal and the Obama regime.

Typical race whores!

Carol_Herman said...

Is there a conspiracy theory I haven't heard yet? Because one of the whopping theories that's made the rounds involves MLK working for republican interests. Here's the setup.

The year is 1962. JFK is in office. He wants to win re-election, when along comes MLK, going down south, trying to start race riots. MLK doesn't succeed. There's a picture of him sitting in a jail cell (could be Selma), very puzzled at how complacent southern blacks are to this move. But in the White House? Fear enough that eventaully JFK will be foreced to visit Dallas. He's gotta do something about the bleeding going on, now, with his potential re-election numbers.

While up north, in 1962, 1963, you get race riots in two places: New York City. And, Chicago.

Why would Martin Luther King go about trying to change the playing field WHEN a democrat was in the White House?

LBJ was one of the meanest son's of bastards ever to occupy the Oval Office. I've always felt he was motivated by his own anger. He wasn't going to be allowed to run in 1968. So two people who count, get shot. Robert Kennedy. And, MLK. The truth? So well hidden for so long, will NOT be coming out!

But go ahead. The stuff starts with Nixon. Looking to damage JFK. And, using MLK as a conduit against the White House.

Then? In 1968, LBJ takes his best shots. Wouldn't be the first time tables turn on assassinations. Just look what happened when Lincoln got shot.

Freder Frederson said...

I have to wonder if Sharpton and Jackson, shouldn't be sued for defamation since they are the behind most of the lies against Limbaugh.

And your proof for this is? (And the monkeys flying out of your butt telling you it is so doesn't count)

Pogo said...

Freder:
1. Point out which one you think is Jackson, who wasn't wearing a suit (the man kneeling is an undercover Memphois cop).
2. The text does not support Jackson's repeated avowals that he cradled MLK in his arms as he died. It's bullshit.
3. I am sorry, that you are so credulous.

rdasher said...

I have not watched a complete football game in more than 20 years. Used to be a big fan, and had season tickets etc. But it is way too much time to waste, when there are much better things to do.

As a big fan of Rush, I feel for him and the loss of his bid for the Rams. The most intolerant people in the US are the "tolerant liberals".

Freder Frederson said...

Pogo, I'm sorry, that's not the way the game is played. You pointed me to the official government report on the King Assassination. The text clearly states that Jackson is in the Louw photo. Whether I am credulous or not is beside the point. It seems to me the burden is on you to show that the official government report is in error when it says that Jackson is in the photo.

As for whether Jackson was wearing a suit or whether he claimed to have "cradled MLK in his arms". As to the first, you had not made that claim before and as to the second, I never defended that statement by Jackson, so it is irrelevant. Frankly, I agree with you, he is probably exaggerating on that point.

Pogo said...

Read it again.

It merely states that "Several of the men on that balcony pointed in the direction of the shot." Since that statement followed the sentence "Lee, Jackson, and Williams had followed Young up the steps from the courtyard to room 306.", you are assuming the photo documents Jackson. The paragraph is ambiguous at best, and does not "clearly state" that Jackson was in the photo at all. He wasn't even wearing a suit or overcoat that day, as the men in the photo wear.

From Inwood said...

I doubt that anyone is going to sue anyone here. There's Sullivan & there's too much to be dragged out under oath which will make a good soundbite & it's ever so much fun to play all this out on TV.

I agree with Chase on his “amazement and horror the blatant left wing intolerance and hatred that was written by many lawyers and commenters on the Volokh Conspiracy regarding Rush and whether he might succeed in suing CNN for libel.

And here the same blatant left wing intolerance and hatred.

Best Comment I've seen in this regard. Mark Steyn:

"Can Rush buy the St Louis Rams if he gets Roman Polanski to front the deal?"

The hatred here & in other blogs, &, worse, in the MSM (which claims that it, unlike blogs has “fact checkers”, which apparently are not as good as those of The National Enquirer) expressed in the “fake but accurate” subterfuge. That is “um, even if we can't find the actual racist Rush quotes that were alleged, he has surely said enough bad things about minorities (though, OK the examples produced so far don’t quite show racism) that it's not surprising that all good men, OOPS persons would understandably believe that he really, really said something like these quotes & that, surely, someone, somehow (please God) will find some racist rantings by him somewhere if only we can look hard enough” And those racist things said by Liberals? Well, these people are obviously not racists since they’re Liberals.

How about if I said the mirror image of that:

"Finally, given the innumerable stupid and mean things Olbermann has said over the years, my inaccurate quotes about him saying that Bush had sex with the animals on his ranch & beat his wife were things he could have said."

And people (apparently, if a commenter here is correct,like Geraldo, there he goes again) paraphrasing or taking out of context as has been explained over & over. Are they reading at grade level? Dr. Goebbels, repeating the Big Lie?

And commenters playing their trump card telling me to Google “Big Fat Lies By Big Fat Rush” or some such, which simply repeats the unsubstantiated (lies) statements attributed to Rush. OK, guys, you Google something like “Obama’s Not a ‘Native’ Born American” (a phrase not used in the Constitution) or “The XVI Amendment”, with claims that we don’t have to pay Federal Income taxes because the Income Tax Amendment was not really adopted by 3/4ths of the, um, 57 states.

How about, then, if I say about some of the commenters here:

Finally, given the innumerable stupid and mean things you have said about Prof A. over the years, my inaccurate quotes about your saying that she had sex with ten year old boys were things you could’ve said.

It's like the old Irish biddy who, when challenged on whether her gossip was true, replied "'tis true enough".

Or it’s “Print The Legend”!

Finally, I have an, um, bone to pick with some desperate people who have to go back 40 yrs when Rush was 20 yrs old. I’m waiting ‘til someone produces some HS history report of Rush’s criticizing something like Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus. Oh, wait, that was necessary. As Joseph Welch said to Joseph McCarthy when McC referred to one of Welch's minions’ brushes with commies when the minion was in his early 20s “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Freder Frederson said...

You know Pogo, your original assertion was that Jackson hid for 30 minutes until the tv cameras arrived.

But do you think I am so stupid I have forgotten that?

From Inwood said...

rhhardin

Thanks for the cite to Cavell.

One of the joys of reading this Blog site is the intelligent & thoughtful comments of so many of the commenters like you.

Rush doesn't care what his detractors say or think about him so long as they can't hurt him.

So far Rush's detractors haven't hurt him regarding his show & his listeners & enough listeners keep listening to him so that enough sponsors keep sponsoring him.

But, Rush's detractors can force some (many/most?) of his listeners to keep silent in public (e.g., in the workplace, at B-B-Qs/cocktail parties/lunches/speeches before civic groups) about their listening to him, or at least make such listeners apologetic & force them to publicly distance themselves somewhat from him. And make me comment anonymously. This does not bother Rush &, I guess, makes him think these wary listeners are wusses. Er, up to a point, Lord Rush.

Rush's detractors have, however, now hurt him, Bigtime, with the NFL players & owners by painting him a racist even if they have no proof of any racist utterances from him. This absurd defamation may make him mad & put him in an attack mode, but it has prevented him from appearing again on ESPN & now has prevented him from owning a part of an NFL team.

And I suspect that if Jay Leno went out on the street & asked "Who said the following words:

'Slavery built the South. It had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.'"

a lot of Jay Walkers would now answer: "Rush Limbaugh".

And I'd like to be a fly on the wall of some churches this Sunday when the minister gives his sermon.

Pogo said...

No. The link you read doesn't refute that, either. It's not presented a timeline; in fact, it's pretty jumbled, as memories tend to be during traumatic events. The text clearly refutes Jackson's claim that he cradled MLK as King lay dying. That's the point. He wasn't in the photo (if he is, it should be easy for you to point him out).

Whether he ran up after or was hiding is not part of my argument ("Shakedown" makes the latter claim). I don't give a shit about that; I aim to demonstrate Jackson is a liar, just like Sharpton.

Mickey said...

Looks like another distraction from reporting the robbing and looting of the country but okay, why don't we talk about the attacks made by the far, far left. Perhaps a law suite would expose the likes of Sharpton, Jackson and their ilk.

Reid (attacking a private citizen on the floor of the senate) and media hacks that help them fight against freedom of speech.

Obama, the smiley faced dictator in the making use mobster style methods to shut people up that refuse to go along with the destruction of our Constitution. These pathetic hacks are more interested in declaring war on a private citizens than terrorists killing our citizens and our military (of course we can't use that word any longer - what do we call terrorists these days)? Obama is giving aid and comfort to our enemies with his refusal to send needed troops to Afganistan - Treason wold be the definition!

An "Enemies list" by the White House enemy No. 1: Rush Limbaugh? And then we have these morons treating a news network as an "opponent", really? The poser president might want to get a clue, the campaign is over and it might be time to make believe he is a leader of the "free world" rather than a front man and hand puppet for Soros and the international socialists trying to destroy the country.

I would like to know more about the latest,
"Wikipedia Libelist responsible for damaging posts to the Rush Limbaugh account apparently has been narrowed to the IP address of a New York City law firm:

"The quotes were added by a user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146. This address has been used mostly to make changes to the article about Rush, but also Karl Rove, Sean Hannity,.. James Dobson and Sara Palin from 2005 until earlier this year.

From Inwood said...

Chase, Prof Volohk has referred to Free speech/press law as "the tax code of constitutional law".

IMHO, perhaps from 21st Century thinking about how easy fact checking has become, Sullivan should've said specifically that "nothing herein is intended to indicate that the absence of fact checking when such facts are readily & quickly available to the average reasonable commentator & when such fact checking is customarily used in a situation similar to the one in question would not be evidence of 'actual malice!' "

And as many people have noted, with the MSM, sometimes a story against conservatives is just too good to be fact checked before it's put out.

Then too, today’s sports writers, who always tended to print the legend & take handouts from the team they were covering (& writers of entertainments such as Law & Order) seem to fall for the false consensus effect, a/k/a, the Pauline Kael effect, by which they assume that since everyone in journalism they know thinks like them, everyone in their audience thinks like them & that it helps shore up their reputation (make them look like Renaissance men) to provide comfort thoughts (like comfort food) in their work. They take it for granted that the mere mention of Bush 43 as a war criminal or comparing a sport team’s futility to what they absolutely know is our situation in Iraq under BushChaneyRumsfeld/Haliburton will get them bonus points with their audience. When I read about or see an analysis of a game, I want a first-rate sports report, not a third-rate political rant.

From Inwood said...

Mickey

It's not so much knowing that the Wiki quotes come from one scrivener who is apparently selective in his condemnation of people. It's more important that Wiki does not remove unsourced quotes immediately as it now has done with these Rush ones.

Apparently people can go in to anyone's bio & make outrageous claims.

I think I'll go into Prof A's Wiki bio & suck up to her!

Scott said...

I think Cedarford is a moby.

Jeff said...

This is the same Jesse Jackson who fathered an illegitimate child while counseling Bill Clinton on the Lewinsky sex scandal, right?

Mickey said...

Al Sharpton and ilk, called for the NFL to discriminate against Limbaugh or actually, anyone that calls a liar like Sharpton, a liar, criminal and who caused race riots resulting in deaths.

NFL players union director (and Obama transition team member) DeMaurice Smith writing a letter basically claiming that Limbaugh owning a team would introduce racism and hatred into the league. He claimed that Limbaugh was a divisive figure, and that sports work best when they’re inclusive (apparently Mr. Smith is fine with the hateful and divisive Keith Olbermann broadcasting from the sidelines during NFL games).

Now Sharpton is essentially making the same accusations:

Rev. Al Sharpton pleaded with the National Football League on Monday to deny conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh the opportunity to buy the St. Louis Rams franchise.

In a letter sent to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Sharpton wrote that he was “disturbed” to hear about Limbaugh’s interest in the Rams and asked for a meeting with Goodell “to discuss the myriad of reasons as to why [Limbaugh] should not be given an opportunity to do so.”

Sharpton argued that Limbaugh has been “anti-NFL” in his comments about several of the league’s players, specifically naming Philadelphia Eagles quarterbacks Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick. BTW, that was true at the time the comments were made and not in the least little bit racist!
In addition, Sharpton wrote that Limbaugh’s “recent statement that the NFL was beginning to look like a fight between the Crips and the Bloods without the weapons, was disturbing.”

The problem with Sharpton’s complaints is that what Limbaugh said isn’t necessarily inaccurate. What’s more, it highlights a major problem the NFL is going to have in turning down Limbaugh’s ownership bid.

After all, the NFL does tolerate any number of criminals within its ranks of players. Some petty criminals, some not so petty. So these criminals guilty of breaking any number of laws including those against assault and theft are allowed to play, but Limbaugh whose only crime is that he espouses political beliefs people like Al Sharpton find objectionable should be excluded from the league?

And why would it be any more okay to discriminate against Limbaugh’s bid for ownership based on his political beliefs than discriminating against a bid made by somebody because of their skin color? Or religion? Or political feelings?

I thought freedom and speech and expression were things we held dear in this country. I guess that would only apply if you are willing to carry the party line. Fortunately, I don't belong to a political party and have not problem pointing out that Sharpton and Jackson are the old race whores who profit from causing racial problems...yes, race whores!

Hey Sharpton: Kettle - black?

blake said...

Before you call C4 a moby, you have to point out some conservative position that he's staked out.

traditionalguy said...

Jeff...C-4 is a regular guy with lots of good information; however, he keeps falling into the anti-semitism pit he digs for the Jews. Therefore he is a repeater that goes insane every two weeks or so. Maybe we can get him into therapy where he can learn to start hating Martians instead. Have you seen the movie "War of the Worlds"? Those martians were everything and more than C-4' believes the Jewish boogeymen are.But in the end a lifeguard has to let a fool drown when he wont quit fighting.

kentuckyliz said...

Rush didn't quit the bid, the investor group canned him because of the pressure.

If it turns out that Rush loses money due to not being able to participate in the investor group as a direct result of the slander/libel against him, there is a long list of people who caused FINANCIAL LOSSES due to their lies.

That's what makes it suable. There are damages! Actual provable financial losses. The libellers should be shaking in their shoes. They have a lot of $$$$$ to lose.

kentuckyliz said...

BTW El Rusbo has been announcing the list on the air.

I started listening this year, even paying for the privilege, because it doesn't air in my area. With the mass fellation by the MSM of the Big Oh, I wanted to hear a contrary voice. He's a good critic.

Obama's election has probably been good for Rush, business wise, esp. since the MSM is engaging in mass fellation. If and when the fellation stops, that will be bad for Rush's business.

RebeccaH said...

Oh, please, please, let Reverend Al sue Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh will make hamburger of that charlatan.

William said...

To those who are disenchanted with football, I would recommend reading Malcolm Gladwell's article in the currect issue of The New Yorker. Apparently football linemen undergo an enormous amount of head trauma through their careers. The incidence of dementia among such football players rivals that among boxers. And there doesn't seem to be anyway to prevent such trauma. Gladwell compares how the NFL treats football players to the way Michael Vicks treats his dogs....Some observations: If the country bans football for humane reasons, this can be interpreted as a way of preventing young black men from becoming rich by the free choice of risk. If, on the other hand, the game of football is allowed to continue, this can be interpreted as allowing young black men to sacrifice their health and sanity in order to satisfy the entertainment needs of white fans....if I were Rush, I would publicize the health risks of professional football and call for its banishment.

M. Simon said...

NYTs On Jesse and the bloody shirt

VW:outio

jr565 said...

Loafing Oaf said:
But did you see the racial stuff Limbaugh has said that was presented on Fox News tonight on Geraldo At Large? If you did, do you not think Rush is intentionally being a racial provocateur? Althouse is not just a casual listener of Rush. As she says, she listens to him "all the time". And she has many posts where she seems to almost have a crush on him. She ought to issue a clear statement on some of these highly controversial, race-baiting statements Rush has been spewing.


Really now. You're going to have to actually point out specific comments that were race baiting for us to buy your argument that Limbaugh is race baiting. What I have seen Limbaugh do is ridicule and mock race baiters and use their arguments to point out how absurd and evil their points actually are. Which is in fact not race baiting but satirizing the race baiting victimology merchants like Sharpton and Farackan. All the people who have used race to in fact race bait.

As but one example the parody song "Barack the Magic Negro". A lot of people bring up that song as an example of Limbaughs racism. Yet, as has to be pointed out again and again, it was a black columnist that came up with the phrase "Barack the Magic Negro" and he was suggesting that Barack Obama would serve as a "magic negro" to assuage white guilt. ie that they could vote for him because he was a safe, inauthentic black. And the parody song made fun of this argument and mocked "authentic" black leaders and victim merchants who are now marginalized because of the safe Obama who doesn't talk the talk and doesn't live in the hood.
There might be other examples you're referring to, but please point them out and not simply state Limbaugh is a race baiter, because merely because you state it as a fact doesn't make it so.

steve poling said...

I wonder whether Mr. Limbaugh would want to avoid NY should Rev. Al choose to file suit in that venue. If memory serves, Mr. Limbaugh has stated that each day he spends in NY costs him money in taxes.

Of course, the pleasure of waging lawfare against Mr. Sharpton could be worth the price of admission. The ball is indeed in Mr. Limbaugh's court. Tally Ho, El Rushbo!

Ted said...

I agree with this except for this: "I don't think Rush cared much about being one of the investors in the Rams."

Rush very much wants to be part of the NFL - he has made that very clear over the past couple of weeks. I'm sure he'd rather be full owner but I am quite certain he's disappointed by the whole thing falling apart. And of course he's pleased to be able to continue to do what he does best because of it :)

R. Zim said...

My guess is, that what this boils down to is proving INTENT. Sharpton would have to prove that Limbaugh's statement "He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot" was INTENDED to imply that what he really meant to say was "He "WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR" the 1991 Crown Heights riot. Rush never said that. He clearly said "played a leading role in".

I think there is no mistake that Sharpton DID "play a leading role". Therefore, I think this would be impossible to prove. If this one goes to court, it gets thrown out, and also exposes Sharpton as the con-artist he is. Either that, or I am far too naive and live in a country where the entire court system itself has totally descended into an abyss of racial, left-wing insanity.

George Bruce said...

For me, the most unfortunate thing about the antics of Sharpton and Jackson, et al, is their tendency to re-enforce, rather than dispel outmoded stereotypes and prejudices. With those two, and their type, it seems we can never get beyond the most vile bigotry.

Carol_Herman said...

If there's a lawsuit, ahead, it will come out of SECURITY BREECHES. Interfering with Rush's ability to live free, and invest as he wants. Checkletts isn't out of the woods, yet. The Rams deal hasn't been announced, yet.

And, no one knows 'what's in those envelopes.' If and when a lawsuit comes it won't be about libel/slander.

As to Al Sharpton's "I'M GOING TO SUE, YOU" ... I'd be a millionaire if I got a nickel every time someone claimed this. And, then did not follow thru.

former law student said...

Rush left ESPN because they didn't want an announcer who made remarks that were "insensitive and inappropriate" about Donovan McNabb. To quote McNabb at the time, "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal."

Among the chorus of political figures calling on Rush to quit was Presidential candidate Wesley Clark.

http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2003/1001/1628537.html

What this tells me is that if Rush wants to shoot off his mouth on his radio show, fine. But he shouldn't be surprised if this tendency limits his career options -- it already happened once.

Skay said...

It is interesting that the man representing the players union has ties to Obama.

Rush(on his program) also mentioned hearing something about George Soros being involved in the group -- but that he had not been aware of that until after the deal fell apart.
If true, it would be interesting to find out the timing of the Soros involvement.
Also-would Rush have wanted to be involved in a group with Soros.

It seems that Obama wants to take over sports also. Cars and banks and healthcare etc. just aren't enough to manipulate and dominate while flying around on Air Force One.

former law student said...

Rush(on his program) also mentioned hearing something about George Soros being involved in the group

Maybe Rush was thinking of when the cleats were on the other foot, back in 2005, when George Soros was too controversial a liberal icon to buy a sports franchise:

Soros's Nats Bid Irks Republicans

Billionaire George Soros is a member of one of eight groups bidding to buy the Nats from MLB. (By Marvin Joseph -- The Washington Post)

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Major League Baseball hasn't narrowed the list of the eight bidders seeking to buy the Washington Nationals and some Republicans on Capitol Hill already are hinting at revoking the league's antitrust exemption if billionaire financier George Soros , an ardent critic of President Bush and supporter of liberal causes, buys the team.

"It's not necessarily smart business sense to have anybody who is so polarizing in the political world," Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) said. "That goes for anybody, but especially as it relates to Major League Baseball because it's one of the few businesses that get incredibly special treatment from Congress and the federal government."

Rep. Tom M. Davis III (R-Va.), who was a strong supporter of bringing a baseball team to Virginia, told Roll Call yesterday that "Major League Baseball understands the stakes" if Soros buys the team. "I don't think they want to get involved in a political fight."

Stefano said...

The recent controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to buy into an NFL team (as part of an ownership group) illustrates that hypocrisy abounds in the NFL. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell allows dog-killers, wife-beaters, strip club addicts, girlfriend batterers, drug addicts, drunk drivers, etc. but is worried about comments (some allegedly) made by Limbaugh?

The NFL clearly has a double standard and appears to be discriminating against conservatives. Apparently, Mr. Goodell doesn’t have a problem with the blatant and outrageous conservative bashing served up by Keith Olbermann who is one of the hosts of NBC’s Football Night in America. I say if Limbaugh can’t be part of an ownership group that is allowed to purchase an NFL team, Olbermann should not be allowed to host one of the NFL’s most widely seen television shows.

I urge you to take a few minutes to email Roger Goodell at Roger.Goodell2@nfl.net and NBC at nbcsportshelp@nbcuni.com (telephone #: 1-212-450-2000 or 212- 450-2027) and insist that Olbermann be relieved of his duties. Clearly his offensive diatribes against conservatives are more egregious than anything Limbaugh has ever said and should be handled in the same manner.

Please join me in my efforts to FIRE KEITH OLBERMANN from Football Night in America. Send this email to as many people as possible. Maybe there is still a chance for justice to be served. Together we can make it happen!

former law student said...

Stefano said...
The recent controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to buy into an NFL team (as part of an ownership group) illustrates that hypocrisy abounds in the NFL. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell allows dog-killers, wife-beaters, strip club addicts, girlfriend batterers, drug addicts, drunk drivers, etc. but is worried about comments (some allegedly) made by Limbaugh?

I misunderstood. Limbaugh wants to play in the NFL, like those other miscreants do.

I don't want to sound ageist, but isn't he a little old for that?

Paul said...

Any libel or defamation suit is impossible to prove whether Sharpton sues Limbaugh or Limbaugh sues those he claimed defame him.

But, Sharpton is trapping Limbaugh into a corner where he will be forced to sit through a deposition and the deposition can be on any topic - even those not related to the case. I don't think Limbaugh wants that. And, I don't think Sharpton really cares about being deposed.

Methadras said...

Imagine me holding my hands out in front of me, palms up as if they were balanced scales. Now imagine putting Al Sharpton on one hand and reputation on the other. Just take a guess on which tilts first and in what direction.

BlueVetteKid said...

Of course Sharpton The Bigot is bluffing -- like he's going to want the local NY TV stations archives to expose these cesspools of bigotry on his part regarding Freddy's and the Central Park Jogger ??


Freddy's Fashion Mart:

"The street leader of the boycott, Morris Powell, was the head of Sharpton's "Buy Black" Committee. Repeatedly referring to the Jewish proprietors of Freddy's as "crackers," Powell and his fellow protesters menacingly told passersby, "Keep [going] right on past Freddy's, he's one of the greedy Jew bastards killing our [black] people. Don't give the Jew a dime." Some picketers openly threatened violence against whites and Jews -- all under the watchful, approving eye of Sharpton. The subsequent picketing became increasingly menacing in its tone until one of the protesters eventually shot four whites in the store and then set the building on fire -- killing seven employees, most of whom were Hispanics.

The Central Park Jogger:

"Unspeakably, (Sharpton) and his people charged that the victim’s own boyfriend had raped and beaten her to the point of death. Outside the courthouse, they chanted, “The boyfriend did it! The boyfriend did it!” They denounced the victim as “Whore!” They screamed her name, over and over (because most publications refused to print it, though several black-owned ones did). Sharpton brought Tawana Brawley to the trial one day, to show her, he said, the difference between white justice and black justice. He arranged for her to meet the jogger’s attackers, whom she greeted with comradely warmth. In another of his publicity stunts, he appealed for a psychiatrist to examine the victim. “It doesn’t even have to be a black psychiatrist,” he said, generously. He added: “We’re not endorsing the damage to the girl — if there was this damage.”.."

Magen_Daveed said...

Al Sharpton is a racist. He has fed is fat gut with hate but I think there days and effective weapon of of calling people racist are over and so is his free meal. How can honest hard working black people ever give heed to the words these parasites like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton say is beyond me. I don't believe that they do. I believe only the perverts who are full of hate caused by their imaginary belief in injustices are the ones back these wicked men.

Maggie said...

Ann
unfortunately the place I found info on the Crown Heights riots was Wikpedia (but I knew about them when they happened because of the murder of the hasidic student from Melbourne Australia, Rosenbaum)...

If Sharpton is claiming that he was not involved prior to the end of the riots, then he is a liar because Sharpton spoke at the funeral of the little boy Cato. As Limbaugh pointed out Sharpton called the Jews "Diamond merchants" which only served to keep the flames fanned.

There were two innocent people who were murdered during those riots, one of them was Rosenbaum and there was a salesman of Italian descent who was also murdered by the mob of very vicious people.

Also, I do not believe that the driver who killed the boy was in fact a rabbi, and if that is what Sharpton said, then it also shows that he was a liar. The driver was part of a motorcade and he was last in the procession. He failed to stop for traffic lights. The rest of the story was history. On top of that the young driver was beaten to a pulp by the crowd, who then got angry because the police whisked this person away in a private ambulance even as they worked on releasing the child who was pinned under the vehicle.

If Sharpton spoke at the funeral, then he more than likely spoke to the mob and helped to keep them stirred up.

I also read about the other riots that involved Sharpton shooting off at the mouth. I would be interested in knowing more about the real landlord (a black church?) in that case who had increased the rents which then caused the increase of the rent for the sub-tenant. Sharpton did in fact stir up the crowd on that occasion. In fact from what I have read Sharpton has always been good at supplying a crowd of trouble-makers as needed.

So.... you are right... this could be a trap for Sharpton especially when discovery takes place......

mavzoley said...

мультфильм
электронная почта без регистрации