UPDATE: ESPN Reports Limbaugh To Be Dropped By Bidding Group to Buy Rams

Even in these times when the once unthinkable is becoming increasingly unremarkable, the current controversy over whether Rush Limbaugh is potentially worthy to be an NFL owner crosses over from the simply outrageous to the utterly infuriating. I strongly believe that it also represents a seminal moment in our cultural history as well as the sad state of free speech in this country.

There are so many levels of insanity with this story that it is difficult to know where to begin.

First, the facts: Limbaugh is a part of a group that wants to buy the lowly St. Louis Rams so that the team will stay in Rush’s native Missouri. The group has not even made an official bid as of yet, is one of several potential buyers, and Rush would not even be the primary owner of the team.

Despite all of this, just the mere mention of his name has caused a literal hysteria in the public dialogue. Nearly everyone even remotely associated with the NFL (as well as many who have no direct connection at all) have expressed their, often completely ignorant, opinions on whether Rush is worthy to join the highly exclusive club of NFL owners.

The overwhelming view allowed to be expressed in the mainstream media has been irrationally negative towards Rush’s potential bid. The primary “justification” for these views has been the notion that Rush is somehow a racist and that because the league has a high percentage of black players that it would be wrong to have him be a part owner of a team.

What is the basis of this incendiary claim? Well, we all know (because the media tells us so) that strong conservatives are really racists so anything they say that sounds remotely racist must be presumed to be so. Therefore, because Rush resigned in 2003 from a position at ESPN because a legitimate observation about the media coverage of a black quarterback was deemed by Rush haters to somehow be “racist,” this is all the critics need to close the loop on their laughably inane circular argument.

Just after Limbaugh’s resignation, I wrote in my book “The Death of Free Speech” that Rush had made a big mistake because he was allowing the perception to be created that he was essentially, though unintentionally, admitting (by resigning without a fight) that he was indeed a “racist” and that this narrative would come back to haunt both him and the movement. Unfortunately, it appears that I was right.

But even more infuriating than the tactic of Rush’s opponents to take his past statements out of context (or, in some cases, just flat out make them up), is the audacity of those who have chosen to be most vocal about this issue.

It should go without saying that of the 300 million people in this country that Al Sharpton should be at the very back of the line when it comes to being the moral arbiter of who is or is not worthy of owning anything. The man was found guilty in a civil court for having blatantly lied when accusing an innocent man in the infamous Tawana Brawley case. That he is given any platform to speak on this or any other matter of social importance is a damning indictment of our entire society. And yet, here he is leading the charge in the cause to keep Limbaugh from simply buying property.

If that wasn’t enough, the first owner to speak out against the theoretical Limbaugh bid was Jim Irsay of the Indianapolis Colts. Irsay claims, “Sometimes when there are comments made that are inappropriate, incendiary, insensitive… It’s bigger than football. As a nation we have to watch the words that we say.”

Forgetting for a moment that Irsay clearly has no appreciation for free speech, any such comment on who would make a proper NFL owner coming from him fails to even pass the laugh test.

Ask the people of Baltimore about Irsay who helped his alcoholic and apparently insane father (who was known to drop profanities during live televised press conferences) take the Colts to Indianapolis in moving vans under the cover of darkness. I doubt anyone there will tell you Irsay is the model NFL owner. And by the way, under these bizarre, watered down, rules for racism, why was it not “racist” for the Colts to move from Baltimore to Indianapolis where the percentage of blacks in the neighborhood was exponentially smaller? (It should also be noted that there are quite a few black people in St. Louis who would like to keep their NFL team.)

Then there is the angle of who else is already an NFL owner. Al Davis is a clearly senile crazy man who has sued the league and moved his Raiders numerous times while turning them into an utter laughing stock on the field. But Davis is just the tip of the iceberg.

The transparent hypocrisy here could not have been more starkly displayed than on the pages of Wednesday’s USA Today. On the front page of their sports section the top headline was “Irsay, Goodell speak out against Limbaugh.” Directly under that article was a cover story on how the Miami Dolphins have incorporated numerous celebrities into their ownership team. Included among them are Marc Anthony, Gloria Estefan and the Williams’ sisters.

That’s right. Serena Williams, who recently threatened bodily harm to a lines woman on national television, is a part owner of the Dolphins. I must have missed the hand wringing from anyone associated with the NFL or the media about whether she was fit to be an NFL owner. Oh wait, I forgot. She is a black woman and is therefore beyond such scrutiny. After all, to even ask such questions would obviously be racist and, let’s face it, it’s no coincidence that the flock of celebrities picked to be Miami owners all happen to be members of strategically important minority groups.

Unfortunately, now that the momentum has started and it is more than safe (in fact, expected) for everyone involved to condemn Rush, the floodgates appear to be open. It frustrates the heck out of me that the Commissioner of the NFL has no fear at all of offending conservatives by bashing Rush. The reason? Largely because they tend to have day jobs and think for themselves, conservatives are really lousy at boycotts/protests. If a similar situation happened to say, Al Franken, the left would immediately be in attack mode and the apology would be immediate.

Quite simply, what is happening to Rush is beyond outrageous and frankly dangerous to the property and free speech rights of all Americans. This is so obvious that even Keith Olbermann (whose own appearance on Sunday night NFL telecasts should be seriously questioned) has somewhat supported Rush’s position here.

And yet my sense is that the general reaction from many conservatives is to not take this topic very seriously. Some seem to think the issue is frivolous or that Rush is doing this for publicity.

Folks, this is a huge deal. If Rush Limbaugh is not even allowed to be considered to be a minority owner of a property where his primary intent to help the community where he grew up, an incredibly dangerous precedent will have been set and the narrative that conservatism is synonymous with racist will be further cemented in the public consciousness.

Rush Limbaugh needs to fight this one right to the very end of the game, and we need to back him with everything we have.

If not, we will get what we deserve.