All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
July 13, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Hiya, folks, and how are you?
Great to have you here, Rush Limboy, and the golden EIB microphone and broadcast excellence that you have come to know and love and expect.
And of course, I, as host, meet and surpass all audience expectations every day.
No mean feed.
Telephone number if you want to join us.
800 282-2882, the email address L Rushball at EIB net.com.
George Steinbrenner has passed away at age 80.
That cracker made a lot of African American millionaires.
He every and George Steinbrenner, the classic capitalist.
Everybody around him became wealthy.
Like like most successful capitalists, he made the people around him wealthy.
And a lot of African American millionaires along the way.
And at the same time, he fired a bunch of white guys.
As uh as managers, left and right.
I'll tell you what, it's it's uh it's you know, it's it's it's it's a it's Steinberg hasn't been himself for the past two or three years, but uh nevertheless, uh what a man he was, and what a what a what a feature and a character he was in uh in Major League Baseball.
A story here from a really devastated Washington Post today.
Headline says it all, historic oil spill fails to produce gains for U.S. environmentalists.
Now, what kind of thinking must you have?
In order to look at the oil spill that way, you have to have a political agenda in mind.
And you know with each mounting day or each passing day, there's mounting evidence that this disaster is a tool, or it was hoped to be a tool to advance a political agenda.
For environmentalists, the BP oil spill may be disproving the maxim that great tragedies produce great change, a maxim we have never heard before.
We heard some talk about how a crisis should never go to waste, but I've never heard this maxim that great tragedies produce great change.
Traditionally, American environmentalism wins its biggest victories after some important piece of American environment is poisoned, exterminated, or set on fire.
Well, what a movement to be part of.
What a movement to be proud of.
Your cause only accelerates and only advances when devastation happens.
Come to think of it, that's liberalism.
Come to think of it, that's the Democrat Party.
Whenever devastation occurs, whenever destruction occurs, your political agenda advances.
What's good for you if you're a Democrat and a leftist is not good for America.
And what's good for America is not good for you.
And so the Washington Post here, bitterly disappointed, just sad as they can be over the fact that this BP oil spill has not made more environmentalist wackos out there.
And I'm sure that Obama and his boys were counting on this uh to be a big victory.
An oil spill and a burning river in 1969 led to new anti-pollution laws in the 1970s.
The Exxon Valdez disaster helped create an Earth Day revival in 1990 and sparked a landmark clean air law, but this year, the worst oil spill in American history, and before that, the worst coal mining disaster in 40 years have not put the same kind of drive into the debate over climate change and fossil fuel energy.
Damn it.
What's wrong with this country?
The Washington Post wants to know what's wrong with America.
Why aren't we rising up against the energy producers?
Our media masters have done their part.
Oh, Anderson Cooper, 124, CNN learning that it is perhaps a crime to go cover the BP oil spill.
The regime is not letting people in there who want to report on this factually.
Speaking of the regime, what one more one more phrase from this uh Washington Post story.
Senate is gridlocked on cap and trade.
Opinion polls haven't budged much.
Gasoline demand is going up, not down, damn it.
Environmentalist wackos say they're trying to turn public outrage over oil-smeared pelicans into action against more abstract things, such as oil dependence and climate change.
But historians say they are facing a political moment, deadened by a bad economy, suspicious politics, and lingering doubts after a scandal over client scientists' emails.
Oh, how outrageous.
How outrageous that the truth would get in the way.
And this is what always happens to the left.
What always happens to the Democrat Party?
What always happens to leftists, the truth eventually gets in their way.
The truth is what derails them.
The difference between now and the awakenings that followed past disasters is as stark as on versus off, said Anthony Liezerwitz, a researcher at Yale, who tracks public opinion on climate change.
I wonder how much his education cost him.
Hey, Anthony, what do you want to be when I grow up?
Well, dad...
I want to research public opinion on climate change at Yale University.
Well, that's a great ambition, little Anthony.
I'm sure since nobody else is interested in it, you can own it.
And apparently it does.
Lizorowitz, I think that's the correct pronunciation of his name, said people's outrage is focused on BP.
The spill has not been automatically connected to some sense that there's something more fundamentally wrong with our relationship with the natural world.
Because we are the natural world.
We're not a part from it.
What is our relationship with the natural world?
What are we unnatural?
Are we supernatural?
Extranatural?
What are we?
Are we not part of nature?
We have a relationship with it, but we're not part of it.
Well, that what this means is we obviously need more pictures of oil-smeared pelicans.
Have you heard about the sea turtle that has fallen in love with a toy?
And you s seriously.
Obviously, God wasn't looking when they were passing out the genes in turtle creation.
A turtle has now fallen in love with a toy turtle.
And we try to try to tell me that lights will affect where turtles walk.
The story of 2010 is not that nothing happened after the BP spill or after the coal mine explosion.
It's that much of the reaction has focused on preventing scientists on tighter scrutiny of rigs and mines rather than broader changes, or preventing accidents, rather, rather than broader changes in the use of oil and coal.
Oh, it's a dismal day.
It's a horrible day.
The disaster is the disaster, and it hasn't worked.
What good's a disaster if it fails?
The disaster was supposed to be focused on preventing uh or tighter scrutiny of rigs and mines, and Obama's doing his part.
Have you heard?
Despite two court rulings, overturning the moratorium, Salazar said hell with it.
We're gonna we're gonna have a drilling moratorium anyway.
He did.
The hell with the courts.
It's lawlessness.
Why isn't Mr. Salazar held in contempt of court by the judges who have overruled his oil drilling moratorium twice?
And they're gonna go ahead with it.
Which I predicted.
Washington Post, the story of 2010 is not that nothing happened after the BP spill, it's that nothing happened restricting the use of oil and coal.
What's wrong with people?
I joined the Washington Post in asking this question.
Why haven't these two wonderfully timed accidents?
The oil spill and the mine disaster.
Why haven't they made us give up on mining for coal and drilling for oil?
Why haven't they?
The regime gets it.
Why do the American people not get it?
By the way, there's polling data out there that is not good for the regime.
Obama has fallen below 50% approval with white college educated women.
This is a milestone, and I'm not I'm not trying to be funny about this.
Uh that that is the base of the Democrat Party in many states.
White college educated women and Obama is under 50% approval.
In the not a good day for the Washington Post, folks.
I mean, the stuff that they're running today, it's it's they they might want to have a suicide watch in the newsroom over there.
The fading embers of Obama's coalition is the headline of a Mark Thiessen story.
Here's a quote bottom line, Republicans are winding or riding a wave of voter enthusiasm.
While Democrats are fighting a rip current of bitterness among many of their core constituencies.
To avoid getting swept out to sea, they are pandering desperately.
But for those they're trying to appease it may be too little too late.
And for the rest of America, it's a sad reminder that change we can believe in has given way to politics as usual.
What an indictment.
The Washington Post has just thrown Obama overboard.
Change we can believe in has given way to politics as usual.
The fading embers.
And then Dan Balls and John Cohen, also in the Washington Post about the Post Wall Street Journal NBC poll.
Confidence in Obama Post ABC poll, sorry.
Confidence in Obama reaches new low.
Not a happy day at the Washington Post.
They are terribly shaken.
First, the oil spill has not resulted in any significant change in public opinion on global warming and climate change.
Neither did the coal mine disaster.
And now the beloved leader of the regime is sinking faster than a rock in the Gulf of Mexico, being funneled down to stop the oil leak.
Obama's overall standing puts him at about the same place Clinton was in the summer of 1994, a few months before Republicans captured the House and the Senate in an electoral landslide.
Also two years before Clinton won re-election.
Let's not forget to mention that.
Democrats are also outraged at Gibbs, the White House press secretary, for assuring a Republican victory in the House coming up in November says he's negatively impacting fundraisers or fundraising and uh and is demoralizing the troops.
I say the troops, based on what I read, based on what I see, based on what I hear when they call here the leftist troops are demoralized.
We had two big stories yesterday, 17,000 word pieces in the uh in the nation and so many other they're not getting anything happy about, or not being happy about anything happening.
They're they're disappointed, it's not happening fast enough.
There's absolute misery on the left.
And the Washington Post today is the singular chronicle of it all.
Lots coming up, plus Michelle my Belle Obama at the MAA LCP yesterday, complained about crumbling schools, complained about dessert, praised the founders, not of the country, the founders of the NAALCP.
And she urged even greater intensity on the part of African Americans.
And I'm sure many of you are shocked to hear this.
Many of you expected the country to be at the end of racism and bigotry, discrimination with the election of our first black president.
We were supposed to be post-racial and post-partisan.
And now we got the new Black Panthers talking about killing cracker babies, not being condemned by anybody, by the way, at the highest levels of the regime.
Michelle My Bell Obama at the NAA LCP doing a keynote urging greater intensity.
Something's not right.
Something's not right.
I mean, it should be, shouldn't these people be happier than ever?
I'm being serious.
For the first time in over 200 years, a black man runs the country.
His wife, a black woman is first lady.
Nobody ever thought that day would happen, certainly not 20 or 30 years ago.
And here it has happened, and yet the rancor, the anger, the outrage, the divisions in the country are greater than ever.
How is that?
Why is this happening?
Why is there not optimism and happiness?
If not happiness, why not contentment?
Why not a sense of accomplishment and achievement?
It is a major achievement.
For the country and for the Obamas.
Why the anger?
Why the balled up fists?
Why the rage?
Why the continual and widening gap of divisions of people in this country, both racially, ethnic ethnically, uh, sexual orientation, whatever, we are a divided nation.
People are losing faith in the Messiah.
First Messiah that I'm aware of who has had less than 50% approval from the flock.
Most messiahs get 100% approval from the flock.
This Messiah down below 50% now, which is not a good sign for his second coming in November.
And Obama himself ought to be outraged at it.
He should be furious.
He didn't spend a trillion dollars to end up having disgruntled foot soldiers.
He wanted disgruntled Republicans.
He wanted disgruntled people who were not voters of his, but he didn't want a bunch of angry foot soldiers on his side after spending a trillion dollars.
Lots to do on the program today.
Sit tight.
Your phone calls, of course, will be folded in right when we get back.
Let's take a look at some of this polling news today from the Washington Post.
First, Mark Thiessen, the fading embers of Obama's coalition.
The president has also angered many of the key Democrat constituencies he needs to keep control of the House and Senate.
And now Democrats are blowing furiously on the fading embers of their electoral coalition hoping to stave off disaster this November.
In the process, they are abdicating their responsibilities to govern, failing to pass a budget or any of their annual spending bills, while using their executive and legislative powers to appease their special interests instead.
That's the kind of stuff usually only read about Republicans.
But here's the Washington Post, the fading embers, they're blowing on the embers, failing to pass a budget, and the reason for that is they don't want you to know what kind of tax increases are coming.
They don't want you to know exactly how rotten they intend to make it.
And a budget battle publicly held with all the hearings and so forth would clearly illustrate things the Democrats don't want you to know.
Mr. Thiessen writes continue or take organized labor.
Unions are incensed with Obama and the Congressional Democrats for their failure to deliver on key priorities such as card check legislation.
To repair the breach, the Democrats have turned their legislative agenda over to the unions.
And that's one of the reasons they're in trouble.
But why in the world are the unions unhappy for crying out loud?
The Jones Act was not waived, so that help from foreign countries to stave off the oil disaster was not allowed in.
The unions were bailed out in the process of buying General Motors and Chrysler.
What in the world?
This is the thing that amazes me.
What in the world these people have to be unhappy about?
What in the world do they have to be angry about?
They want the destruction of the U.S. private sector, they're getting it.
They want the buildup of the public sector.
They want never-ending pensions, never-ending health care plans, they want universal health care paid for by somebody else.
They're on their way to getting it.
Why are they unhappy?
Yet they are.
And one of the reasons they're unhappy is because they systemically are not capable of happiness.
Liberalism and happiness do not mix.
They do not go together.
Have you ever seen one?
You ever seen a robustly happy liberal?
Even the wealthiest, richest of these people, like Soros, they're still burning with rage over things.
Take your average Hollywood actor liberal.
Are they happy?
No, they're running down to Venezuela, they're running over to Haiti, they're running down to Cuba, they're talking about how rotten things are here.
They're talking about oppression, how they're in jail figuratively.
They're not happy.
And yet they're in the midst of more destruction that they have wanted than they have ever dreamed they would ever see.
Now, one of the things that is contributing to their misery is obvious, and that is it doesn't create a utopia.
These people have grown up, they have been raised, they have been taught, They've been educated to believe that their beliefs bring about universal love and happiness and contentment and equality and sameness and no discrimination and nobody ever dies, and nobody ever gets sick.
But if somebody does get sick, they're treated, and it doesn't cost them anything.
It was supposed to be a panacea of virtual utopia.
And they are seeing right square in the eyes that their utopia cannot happen.
That there's no such thing.
That their policies, in fact, when fully implemented, lead to abject poverty, destruction, misery, and they didn't have to wait for Obama.
They could have simply looked at Detroit or any other city or state that has been run by liberals unchecked, or any country.
We'll be back.
Just getting warmed up here, folks.
Little Lou Baker here, Mambo number five.
Broadcast excellence on Tuesday.
Why are liberals unhappy?
Let's look a little deeper into this.
One of the reasons why liberals are unhappy, and there are many, they're agitators.
Their leaders are agitators.
They're leaders are not happy.
They're always stirring things up, agitating.
Community organized.
They're always unhappy about something.
Even if they have to lie about something, they're always unhappy.
There are two kinds of people in the world, folks.
Those who choose to be governed and those who choose to be ruled.
Liberals are obviously in a second camp.
They want to be ruled.
They'll never be happy until there is some bureaucrat to tell them how to tie their shoes and everybody else how to tie their shoes, how to do everything in their lives, until there is a bureaucrat or a statist in charge of everybody's life.
No liberal will ever be happy.
They want to be told how to live down to the smallest detail, and that's not good enough.
Everybody else must be told how to live down to the smallest detail.
And everybody must be compliant.
And everybody must be obedient.
And if we do not obey the central planner to tell us how to live our lives from what we eat to where we sleep to how much we sleep, to all of this, then there's misery and unhappiness.
So at the root of it, liberals are unhappy because they can't stand freedom.
Freedom is a threat.
Freedom threatens their desire for total control and obedience.
They don't want freedom for themselves.
And a reason why freedom is failure.
Freedom allows you to succeed, but it also allows you to fail, and nobody wants to fail.
So people who are afraid of failure are easy marks for liberalism.
And you cannot have failure unless you have freedom.
You cannot have success unless you have freedom.
So freedom, a big problem.
Because it stamps people as successes or failures.
And the libs don't like it.
They don't want freedom for themselves, they don't want it for anybody else.
That's why they try to give it away with both hands day in and day out.
The people trying to give away your freedom are liberals in the process giving away theirs for whatever reasons, security, or they think they're better people, but in the process they're not content just to live their own lives the way they want to.
They're gonna brag you into it as well, and they're never going to be happy because nobody's gonna be totally obedient.
See, under freedom, they have well without freedom, they have no excuses for their lives.
And it's a burden that's hard to bear.
Freedom makes them miserable.
Because freedom illustrates the differences in people.
And to many liberals, those differences are negative associated with themselves.
They feel they're worthless, they don't matter, and therefore they're envious and jealous of anybody else who does.
The only people who should matter are the people giving the orders, the central planners.
So they have to find new and better ways to blame The system to blame society to blame freedom for their failures.
And if failure, if if freedom is bad for them, then it's bad for everybody.
Because sameness, misery, whatever it is, is the desired result.
And this is why it's tough to debate or discuss rationally issues with these people because they're not oriented toward rationality.
They're not oriented towards solutions, not at least in the same way we are.
We strive for happiness.
Look, there's a story here today from the The Daily Caller, which is the website of Chatsworth Osborne Jr.
It's by Heather Bachman.
The headline says it all.
Axelrod, GOP would turn America backwards.
Obama advisor David Axelrod stated that America would be going backwards if they allowed the GOP to take the majority in 2010.
Well, let me tell you something.
I don't know about you folks, but I would love to go backwards.
I'd love to go back about a year and a half.
I'd love to go back when people's houses had value.
And the expectation was that the value would increase every year.
I'd love to go backwards to when we had a 4.7% unemployment rate.
I would love to go backwards.
Where our taxes were lower.
I would love to go backwards.
Where our health care was affordable and excellent.
I would love to go backwards when our investments had a good chance of growing.
I would love to go backwards when people's children could get jobs with their expensive college educations.
I would love to go backwards when we had leaders motivating and inspiring young people to seek the world, to seek their dreams.
I would love to go back to that period of time.
It's just a year and a half ago and beyond.
Who wants to live in an era where the president and the first lady tell college graduates to screw it?
Don't get into the money-making professions.
Oh, yes, Mr. Axelrod.
I would love to go back.
I would love to go back to a period of time when my president actually liked my country.
I would love to go back to a period of time when my president respected my country and my president was proud of it.
I would love to go back to a period of time where my president was not trying to destroy things that he thinks have been unfair for 20 or 30 years or 230 years.
I would love to go back to a period of time where my president did not look at the United States as the problem in the world.
I would love to go back, Mr. Axelrod, to a period of time where we had leaders who believed the United States was exceptional and could indeed be the economic engine and the freedom engine of the world.
I would love to go back.
And we don't have to go back very far, Mr. Laxelrod, just 18, 19 months.
Oh, yes.
I would love to go backwards, Mr. Axelrod.
Brief time out, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network back after this.
And speaking of going backwards, isn't that what Axlrod wants to do?
Doesn't Axelrod want to go back to the 60s?
Aren't he and his buddies perpetually trapped in the idealism and the promise of the 1960s?
Perhaps we could say they would love to go back to even further to the time of Marx.
And Nita Dunn might like to go back to the time of Mao Tseitong in the 30s and 40s.
Some of the great dictators of all time are the professed inspiration for many members of the regime.
So yeah, we're not the only ones that want to go backwards.
Job openings drop in May is hiring stays week.
This is AP.
Job openings dropped in May from the previous month.
Layoffs edged up, fresh evidence, employers are reluctant to add workers.
What's missing in this story?
Don't mout it in there.
What's missing in the story?
Read the lead, and you tell me what's missing here.
Job openings dropped in May from the previous month.
Layoffs edged up.
Fresh evidence, employers are reluctant to add workers.
What's missing?
What's missing is that they were surprised.
What's missing is the news was unexpected.
Normally this would say job openings unexpectedly dropped in May from the previous month, or job openings surprisingly dropped in May from the previous month and layoffs surprisingly edged up.
That's not there.
They're not surprised.
The decline in openings comes after a sharp rise.
The previous two months, driven by temporary government hiring for the 2010 census and more openings in the private sector.
George Steinbrenner.
Now this is an example, my friends, of the kind of bit of news that I'm going to impart here.
That'll just infuriate liberals.
Just it will ruin their day.
George Steinbrenner, that cracker was a great capitalist, and he made many African Americans who worked for him millionaires, as a lot of capitalists do.
But he also, as a good capitalist, knew when to die.
There is no death tax.
George Steinbrenner's family this year will not have to cough up 55% of what they inherit and perhaps lose the New York Yankees.
How sad it is.
We've come to this point in America.
How much you want to be the liberals try to get around this, pass a special law or something to get the Yankee tax money?
This is a story from business insider.
If you're massively wealthy, 2010's not a bad year to pass away.
That's because Congress allowed the inheritance tax to lapse for one year.
Not that the Steinbrenner family is seeing the upside in the passing of the legendary Yankees owner, but the lack of the tax, which could go as high as 55%, could make the passing of the Yankee franchise that much easier.
In fact, it'll be totally easier.
You remember the uh family of Joe Robbie, who won the Miami Dolphins when he passed away, they had to sell the team to pay the estate taxes.
There's not been the wisest uh estate planning going on there.
But Steinbrenner knew when to die.
No estate tax.
What are you laughing at, Brian?
You I mean, you know, you know damn what this is the kind of thing is going to irritate the left like nothing else will, especially since I point it out.
Exactly right.
I want to go back to the fading embers of Obama's coalition, another disint Washington Post, another disenchanted constituency that they found at the WAPO is Hispanics.
Latino support for Obama has dropped 12 points since the start of the year, as anger has grown over the Democrats' failure to make immigration reform a priority.
Is that really true?
Are we are we really going to believe that?
Are we going to believe the 12-point drop in Hispanics is because Hispanics are unhappy that there hasn't been amnesty?
Maybe, maybe folks, can we ever stop to think maybe Hispanics who are here legally want a job too?
Maybe it could well be that they happen to have assimilated and have become Americans and they don't like what's happening to the country either.
Could it be that a 12-point drop in Hispanic support for Obama has nothing to do with amnesty?
I don't think it has a thing to do with amnesty because Obama's making it clear he's all for it.
And Harry Reed's making it clear he's all for it.
They're suing the state of Arizona, my gosh, if you're trying to woo the Hispanic vote on the basis of illegal immigration, what more can you do to show your support for them?
And for illegal immigration and amnesty than to sue the state of Arizona.
Why, the conventional wisdom in politics, is that Obama's support among Hispanics should be 90%.
We had a phone call yesterday, Sophia from Miami, who said, Rush, don't buy all this notion that every Hispanic in this country wants amnesty for all these illegals.
We don't.
We didn't get it.
Just because they're Hispanic doesn't mean we're willing for them to be able to bypass the law when we weren't able to.
Twelve-point drop in Hispanic support since the start of the year.
I'd say it's because the bloom's off the rose.
I'd say it's because they were expecting all kinds of great things, job-wise stimulus, economy growing, and it ain't.
And that's why.
That's why every constituency group except the unions and African Americans is abandoning Obama in droves.
But the drop in Hispanic support is dwarfed, says the Washington Post, by the astounding 36-point drop in support for Obama from one of the most reliable Democrat constituency's Jewish voters.
Jewish Americans are outraged with Obama says former New York mayor Ed Koch, not because Obama's middle name is Hussein, they write, it's because Obama alienated many in the Jewish community by reaching out to Iran while relentlessly criticizing Israel.
I can't believe this is in the Washington Post, but they're throwing in a towel.
I mean, this is the kind of stuff you would read even if it weren't true about Republicans.
But this isn't even half of it.
Then the next story by Dan Balls and John Cohen.
Confidence in Obama reaches new law, Washington Post ABC News poll finds nearly 60% have no faith in Obama's decision making.
Sixty percent from a devastated Washington Post.
A slim majority of all voters say they would prefer Republican control of Congress, so that the legislative branch would act as a check on the president's policies.
They were specifically asked that.
And they said yes.
We want somebody in there to stop this guy.
In an ABC News Washington Post poll, this is not good for Obama.
He could have at least saved or created a few more jobs.
Now this is, and the and the Washington Post in both these stories makes this point.
This is this is where Clinton was in 1994, and Clinton went on to a second term.
And we can't let that happen for Obama.
It's a matter of time.
Will will Obama start triangulating?
Will he go the Clinton route?
And abandon the public display of extreme liberalism and leftism, and all of a sudden start trying to sound like a moderate.
Will that happen?
I don't know.
Investors Business Daily, with another poll telling me what I know already.
Consumer gloom in July reached its highest level since the recession was near the bottom amid fears the expansion remains too weak to create jobs.
Economic optimism, the lowest since February of 2009.
Okay, I get it.
We're depressed.
We're in the dumps.
Which means Obama has us right where he wants us.
Michelle My Bell Obama yesterday, Kansas City, Missouri, where yes, a blind hooker, still working the streets.
That's how tough times are.
First Obama goes in there, the NAALCP with its convention.
Michelle My Bell keynotes it, and a blind prostitute spotted still working the streets.
You really have to hand it to her.
Here's Michelle My Bell.
When so many of our children still attend crumbling schools, and a black child is still far more likely to go to prison than a white child.
I think the founders of this organization would agree that our work is not yet done.
When African American communities are still hit harder than just about anywhere by this economic downturn, and so many families are just barely scraping by.
I think the founders would tell us that now is not the time to rest on our laurels.
Well, you know, who's president?
Who's first lady?
How come these black communities are still hit harder than about anywhere else?
Why is that?
How can that happen?
With you guys in charge?
And by the way, Mrs. Obama, you know, you're really, you're really ticking a lot of people off here complaining about crumbling schools.
We have spent millions, Mrs. Obama, on buildings.
The stimulus was for shovel-ready jobs to rebuild infrastructure, school buildings.
Besides, my grandfather was educated in a one-room school and got a great education.
That's not the problem.
I wonder, my friends, if Michelle Obama would be surprised to learn that the three primary founders of the NAACP were white.
Back after this.
The birth of the NAACP.
Founders of the NAACP were White, Mary White Ovington, journalist William English Walling, and Henry Moskowitz.
New York City January 1909 in what is credited to be the original meeting that led to the founding of the NAACP.
They were all white and they were all socialists.
It wasn't until later that W.E.B. Du Boys from Harvard and others were brought in.
Even so, the majority of the founders of the NAACP, later to become the NAALCP, were white.
Now wait till media hears this.
▲
Export Selection