RUSH: I am apparently a spokesman for the National Football League. This afternoon on the House floor, the American Samoan Delegate Eni Faleomavaega, Democrat from American Samoa, spoke about me and my comments on the Redskins as the name of the team in Washington. (laughing) This is choice. This is one of those where I say, “I really wish my father were alive to see this, his son, who didn’t finish college, being ripped to shreds, in this instance on the floor of the House. There’s two sound bites. Eni Faleomavaega, number one.
FALEOMAVAEGA: I rise today on behalf of our Native American community to speak on the subject of great concern. The use of the term Redskins by the National Football League’s Washington franchise. Recently our nationally recognized commentator, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, attempted to wash away years of pain, suffering, and humiliation endured by our nation’s first inhabitants by questioning their motives in seeking to rid the NFL of this most racist, disparaging, and patently offensive word. Mr. Limbaugh does not appear to know the violent and abusive history behind this racial epitaph. I submit, Mr. Speaker, Native Americans are human beings. They are not animals. The Native American community, which Mr. Limbaugh calls a bunch of PC jerks.
RUSH: (laughing) You know, folks, the NFL is gonna be really surprised to learn that I am their spokesman. I don’t have anything to do with the name of the Washington franchise. All I’ve said about it, okay, so some people say they’re offended. We stop everything? If all you have to do to effect change is to say you’re offended? I pointed out that Redskins fans don’t seem to be bothered by it. They sell out every week. They got a hundred thousand seats in that stadium. They sell out every week. The Redskins have a tremendous television audience.
Now, a bunch of PC jerks, I’m talking about American leftists, the politically correct censors. Pain and suffering, humiliation endured by our nation’s first inhabitants by questioning their motives in seeking to rid — I have nothing to do with it! Anyway, here’s the second sound bite, and this is again Mr. Eni Faleomavaega, the nonvoting — well, maybe he is voting, probably nonvoting — a delegate from American Samoa, he’s a Democrat.
FALEOMAVAEGA: Mr. Limbaugh also states, “So the Redskins may not be a popular name with some people.” Mr. Speaker, I submit this is not a popularity contest. It is not even about sports. This is a moral issue that reaches far back to the time when Native Americans were not only considered outcasts, but deemed enemies by the colonial government. The only sporting involved was the game of hunting and killing Indians like animals for money. Mr. Limbaugh to Mr. Snyder to Mr. Goodell and all NFL club owners, I ask, haven’t American Indians suffered enough?
RUSH: You know, Roger Goodell and Dan Snyder are gonna be shocked to learn that that I am part of the NFL and responsible for this. But, you know, this guy’s pretty smart. He does sound like he’s crying. But Native Americans not only considered outcasts, but deemed enemies by the colonial government? I’m telling you, folks, these people are people who do not like this country as founded. They think it’s unjust and immoral, and they are all part of the Obama coalition to transform this country to something that it wasn’t. But what is this guy doing?
I’ve got nothing to do NFL, literally nothing to do with the name of the Washington team. Dan Snyder doesn’t even like me. I’m not even part of it and this guy invokes my name. Now, Snerdley, why do you think this guy is invoking my name in this squabble over the name of the Washington franchise? (interruption) Well, but he did say Dan Snyder and Goodell. He used my name. He used my name to try to get action out of Goodell and the Redskins. The game plan is, what they’re supposed to do right now, “Oh, my God, oh, jeez. This Limbaugh guy, he doesn’t have anything to do with this, but he’s still killing us. We gotta get rid of the name.” (laughing) That’s what this guy’s thinking is. That the NFL will want so little to do with me — (laughing) I have nothing to do with it!
By the way, this story dovetails with the story I’m withholding from telling you about until after you hear me discuss it on Greta. This goes part and parcel with this, and I’m not even gonna give you a hint about it. ‘Cause if I start giving you a hint I’ll end up telling you the whole thing. I’m not gonna get into that.
Folks, it turns out on this Redskins business… I didn’t know this. I was just now informed that the Washington Post did a pretty long article on me and the Redskins on July 2nd. I did not know it. July 2nd was right before the July 4th. I do not have Rush alerts on Google, I’m not obsessed with seeing my name in the media, so I don’t get those — and I don’t read the Washington Post anymore, and I only read the New York Times when people send me stuff from it.
I don’t waste my time. I know what it’s gonna be. I know what the Washington Post gonna be. Same thing with the New York Times. So I don’t go there, I didn’t see it, and nobody sent it to me. But most of this article, I’m told — I still haven’t clicked on the link. Most of this July 2nd Washington Post article on the Redskins is quotes from me, and I’ve got nothing to do with it. I have zero, zilch, nada to do with the Redskins.
That’s why this guy from American Samoa goes to the House floor today and rips me, because he’s probably read these out-of-context (they’ve gotta be) quotes from the Washington Post. But I would just say to the delegate here from American Samoa who said, “This is a moral issue that reaches far back to the time when Native Americans were not only considered outcasts, but deemed enemies by the colonial government…” (sigh)
I think Mr. Faleomavaega as a Samoan may not know that Native Americans went to war with each other. It wasn’t just “the colonials.” Native Americans, the Indians, were at war with each other before the colonials got here — and many of the wars between Native Americans were over slaves, slavery. We even had a member of the Comanches call here and say, “Rush, you’re exactly right about that.” He was talking about his great-great grandmother or some such thing.
But apparently the culprit for this is this Washington Post story on July 2nd.
I don’t even want to read it. I’m just telling you it’s out there.
RUSH: Okay, now I remember. I didn’t see these stories, but I remember saying this. I remember all this. July 2nd. And there are two of these. One of these is a Washington Post story; the other is USA Today. And you all will probably remember this. There was something that happened in the whole controversy over the name change of the Redskins, and, as usual, it was a media story advocating for the change, and the story, like all things liberal, was demanding that the government come in here and make the Redskins change their name. So I commented upon that and reacted to it, and that’s what this Washington Post story is, and the quotes are accurate, and there is also a USA Today story on this.
Get this headline: “Rush Limbaugh Made Some Fine Points About Redskins Name Change.” The subhead: “And he made some other points too.” Let me start with the USA Today story first.
“When one of the most polarizing men in the country takes on one of the most polarizing issues in sports, youÂ’d think itÂ’d be all fireworks. But Rush LimbaughÂ’s defense of the Redskins team name is relatively tame and quite reasonable, focusing more on the role of the federal government than the merits of the teamÂ’s nickname. (I say ‘relatively tame’ because this is still Rush Limbaugh and it wouldnÂ’t make for good radio if he couldnÂ’t shoehorn phrases like ‘jackbooted thugs’ and ‘PC jerks’ into a segment.)”
You know, honest to God, folks, I am blown away by this hatred for me that’s out there. I mean, I can understand people disagreeing with me, but the hatred these people have, all based on the fact that I’m polarizing? I’m not polarizing. Everybody listening to this program agrees with me. There isn’t even any controversy on this program, and there isn’t any polarization. The polarization is imagined by these people on the left who, for whatever personal reasons they’ve got, harbor animosity for me. And part of it, I mean, it’s justified because I’ve told the world what a bunch of creeps they are, the way they do their jobs and how they’re biased and they pretend to be one thing when they’re not and so forth and so on. I understand they’re taking shots. But polarizing?
So the guy quotes me and thinks it’s fine nuance, it actually makes a lot of sense, the whole story except for the last paragraph. This is classic. He quotes me accurately, and I’ll share the quotes in just a second. Listen to this last paragraph. “Oh well. ItÂ’s not like it was going to remain a nuanced discussion about the dangers of government overreach for long before devolving into name calling and taunts — this is talk radio, after all. But it was a good run while it lasted.” This is Chris Chase writing it. So most of the story praises me and then says, “But we know, before it’s over with, Limbaugh is gonna end up being a creep.” But I wasn’t a creep on this.
Let me share with you some of the quotes on this. You’ll remember this. The Washington Post piece is by a guy named Dan Steinberg. “Rush Limbaugh on the Redskins Name.” Now, Steinberg starts his piece by saying: “‘You can use the Redskins issue to argue anything,’ I wrote Monday morning. That was prophetic, as it turns out. Because Monday afternoon, Rush Limbaugh chimed in on the issue.
“This happened after Limbaugh began discussing the federal governmentÂ’s potential involvement in student-loan rates, and the creeping loss of freedom he believes this could cause. ‘Now, thereÂ’s another example of this kind of change,’ Limbaugh said. ‘The pressure on the Washington Redskins — talking about the NFL — the pressure on the Washington Redskins to change the name from Redskins to something else. And of course the modernists among us — well, you canÂ’t continue to call them Redskins. I mean, you wouldnÂ’t run around in real life calling, “Hey, lookit, youÂ’re a Redskin!” you wouldnÂ’t say that to somebodyÂ’s face, and so a team shouldnÂ’t be named that. And then the people who oppose it might posit an argument, “Well, you know, if you do that, where are you gonna stop? Are you gonna start saying you canÂ’t name teams after animals next? Where is it gonna stop?” And then the change advocates say — see, see, you just construct this straw man, where you manufacture disaster as a result of change. ThatÂ’s not the point. In the case of the Redskins name, who is everybody advocating change looking to to make it happen? The federal government. And this is the problem.”
And this is me being quoted accurately. “Lookit, change is unavoidable. Change is constant. And it does need to be embraced. But IÂ’ll tell you, all of the change being advocated now — at least from the change advocates, the people who think theyÂ’re hip and modern — all theyÂ’re actually doing is advocating the government take more control of things.”
This isn’t change, I said. This is imposition. It’s a major difference. This is not evolution. This is a bunch of people dissatisfied, claiming they’re independent, wanting the government to do things their way. Then they hide behind the fact that that’s change.
Â“Okay, so the Redskins may not be a popular name with some people. Let the NFL figure it out. Why does the government have to get involved? Why does Obama or Congress or anything need to get involved? We donÂ’t need McCain and the boys involved in this. Why should they be? But the advocates, those people who are now just fit to be tied over the name Redskins, what they really want is to empower the federal government some more. TheyÂ’re willing to turn over all kinds of powers to the federal government in order to bring about what they want.
“So these change advocates are nothing but a bunch of liberals who are, in truth, seeking to empower the federal government with more power over everybody. And itÂ’s incremental, and sometimes itÂ’s tiny, and sometimes itÂ’s considered insignificant. CÂ’mon Rush, what harm could there be getting rid of the name Redskins, it offends some people. Fine. But why do you want the iron fist of the federal government involved in this? ItÂ’s an NFL thing; let them deal with it.
“The NFL and the owners deal with the Redskins. And the fans, if it were really that upsetting to the fans, nobody would be going to FedEx stadium. And FedEx stadium is sold out every week. It obviously isnÂ’t upsetting too many people. And yet you want the federal government to come in here with their jackbooted thugs, or iron-fist people, and do what?
“Now look, IÂ’m not one of these people that is routinely, uniformly, formulaically against change, because you canÂ’t stop it. But the change advocates are a bunch of leftists who simply want to empower the federal government to impose what they believe under the name of change. What they want you to believe is [that this is] simply societal change. In the case of the Redskins name, what they want you to believe is that our country and our society is maturing and is understanding that itÂ’s just reprehensible and unfair and mean to have a team named Redskins.
“Well, the fact of the matter is, our society is NOT that offended by it, and DOESNÂ’T think that itÂ’s that big a deal, as evidenced by Redskins sell-outs and high TV ratings. So the advocates, the people who donÂ’t like the Redskins names are just a bunch of PC jerks. TheyÂ’re politically correct liberals who want the federal government to come in,” and impose on people.
“And there ISNÂ’T a groundswell to change it, so they want the federal government [to]. Well, itÂ’s the same thing here with the student-loan program, or itÂ’s the same thing in so many other areas of life. Change, must have change. You want the federal government to do it, youÂ’re not talking about change, youÂ’re talking about imposition.”
So that is what led to the American Samoan guy going to the floor of the House today to rip me as somebody defending the name Redskins because the Redskins deserve to be called the Redskins or whatever it was he said. And the USA Today again quoted me accurately, but then the last paragraph said (imitating USA Today), “But he doesn’t really mean it. He’s really a mean-spirited racist creep and he’s gonna get back to normal soon,” is the essence of what they said. And while all this is going on, these same people — well, not the same people, but these same types of people in the media are writing stories, even today, about how I’m irrelevant now. I’ve diminished. I’m a has-been. My time has passed, 25 years, I haven’t any power anymore. I can’t stop anything from happening, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
RUSH: Oh, by the way, folks, AP, a poll from May 2nd this year, quote: “Poll Reveals Overwhelming Support for Redskins Name — A new Associated Press-GfK poll shows that nationally, ‘Redskins’ still enjoys wide support. Nearly [80% of] Americans don’t think the team should change its name, the survey found. Only 11% think it should be changed…” This is my point.
There is not a groundswell to change the name of the Washington franchise. A groundswell is made to appear to be taking place by the media. The media is running around acting all offended, and then demanding that somebody do something. Eighty percent of the American people are not offended by it, and are not bothered by it. My only point here is that there’s not a groundswell, and I have nothing to do with it.
The commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, has said that the term “Redskins” stands for strength and hard work.