We see all these pictures. There is human suffering. We are Americans, and this is what we have always done, and we are always going to do it… There's doing the right thing regardless of consequences and regardless of extraneous circumstances, and this is one of those things. These are human beings in need. There's nobody else that can do this, and we are going to do it. That is who we are, and we are not going to have strings attached to it, and we may in fact not be thanked, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, because we're not doing it for that reason. We're not doing it for gratitude; we're not doing it for support. We're not doing it for love; we're not doing it for loyalty. You might say we're doing it for love. We're doing it because it's the right thing to do. That's who we are as a people. You don't have to give individually if you don't want to but there will not be a movement – there may be a movement but it will have no life – to dissuade people from donating. It's going to be just the opposite.

-Rush Limbaugh, January 3, 2005 in the aftermath of the tsunami

Back then, the moral and upstanding people of the United States would help the countries torn apart by the tsunami on December 26, 2004.

But that's not the Rush we see today. This is him in the now, with the Haiti tragedy: Mr. Limbaugh wasted no time trying to turn the horrific tragedy in Haiti into a most unfortunate and gross partisan attack on the very people working around the clock to save as many lives as possible:

[Paraphrased via Media Matters here and here] I want you to remember, it took [Obama] three days – three days! – to respond to the Christmas Day fruit of ka-boom bomber … He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti … [later in same program] … they'll use this to burnish ahhh their, ahhh shall we say, ahhh credibility with the black community, both the light skinned and, ahhh, hmmm … dark skinned black community …

Yes for Rush Limbaugh, at this very moment the streets of Haiti's capital are littered with bodies of the dead and dying. Thousands of men, women, and children – including an unknown number of Americans – buried alive under tons of rubble, many no doubt crying out in agony for help that will come too late this racist Limbaugh doesn't even have the decency to wait for them to finish dying before equating their death and suffering to an incident where no one got a scratch except the bad guy.

Today, Rush sees America as an amoral socialist pariah ill-suited to helping a neighbor. What changed from the Tsumani days to today? Why. Obama happened. To Rush no matter the issue or the humanity required he is out for just one thing, score political points even while the rest of America is horrified by what they see on TV, the masses of dead people on the streets of Haiti and look for ways to help. To Rush those are what mere black people why care? right? Rush cares only about himself, he's nothing more than the morning show shock jock who has transferred his ability to generate controversy to the AM talk radio format.

I was recently chatting with someone who wished Rush Limbaugh would die already or better yet get throat cancer so that he is never able to speak again so that he doesn't continue to use his podium for hate. That got me thinking of something a relative once said to me; “evil people die last, good people die first”

Rush Limbaugh ain't dying any time soon, he will continue to use his free speech to spew and encourage hate for anyone who does not look like him or does not agree with him and in fact get paid 400million for several years to continue to do so. Since Obama won, Rush has gotten more hateful driven by fear and greed, he's getting worse and that can last only so long. Even his most loyal listeners will end up drawing a line somewhere someday… could be soon or could take 10 years but Limbaugh will implode and will do so spectacularly.

Makes you wonder, Rush is on radio because he has sponsors do those sponsors ascribe to what Rush says and believes? If not shouldn't they take a stand against it? I've always believed that if one sees something wrong being done and says nothing, that person is just as guilty as the one doing wrong.