Anthony Obi Ogbo
All Souls Don’t Rest in Peace—So Long Rush Limbaugh
Aside from the Saw-Scaled Vipers, COVID-19, and Donald Trump, the only other evil that I hate with a passion is this brute called Rush Limbaugh.
― Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo
I have not had this in a long time, but this day, I honestly felt that Kendall-Jackson Vintner’s Reserve Merlot would perfectly suit the occasion. So immediately after the death of the conservative talk show radio scoundrel, Rush Limbaugh, was announced, I went into a celebration mode.
With glasses of this wild but soft, delicate, herbal, and silky ruddy liquid, and of course, over some jungle-roasted groundnuts, I watched YouTube videos of Limbaugh’s numerous tommyrots―hate speeches and conspiracy tales. I celebrated all day, and I was glad I did. Because, aside from the Saw-Scaled Vipers, COVID-19, and Donald Trump, the only other evil that I hate with a passion is this brute called Rush Limbaugh.
I already know. We should “Never speak ill of the dead” because, at the least, death is supposed to humble us all. I understand that literature. In fact, in my very Christian community and African culture, there is this unwritten law that people should not say bad things about those who have died. This is to honor the solemn period and show respect to the deceased by forgetting and forgiving their bad actions while remembering only their good ones.
Rush Limbaugh died on 17th February 2021, which saw news headlines going gaga with contrasting messages over the value and legacy he lived. He was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer and finally gave up at 70. But for 32 years, this dude facilitated fiery rhetoric that infiltrated political discourse across America with schismatic contention. He hated a united America.
He shot at core governmental policies and causes that are relevant to African Americans and other minorities.
He was brutal throughout his career, targeting Blacks and minorities and documenting and destroying them through lies and treacheries. He shot at core governmental policies and causes that are relevant to African Americans and other minorities. He specifically disliked everything Black and targeted with racist attacks every admired and respected people of African descent, including Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Colin Powell, Barack Obama, and many others.
Of course, the world saw how this man targeted Obama—the first African American President of the United States, whom he referred to as “Halfrican American.” He proceeded with a mischievous campaign that Obama was not Black but a Kenyan Arab. He questioned everything about Obama, including his birth, education, and family tree, and recurrently used “Barack the Magic Negro”―an obsolete Jim Crow-era anti-Black term, as background music. He once suggested that James Earl Ray (the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King, Jr.) deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor. He also suggested that the NAACP should have riot rehearsals: get a liquor store and practice robberies.
It is amazing how this numbskull—some empty-headed vandal who dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University after a miserable two-semester attendance—could captivate about 15 million listeners a week who tuned in for his daily three-hour program. I must confess, Limbaugh had a unique subject composition and delivery style that makes his show a perfect hub for the White Supremacists. He would announce his target or policies, initiate the news matter in the most distorted manner, and meticulously trash-talk his conspiracy theories to further woo a clueless flock of listeners who often believed him even when he faked a cough.
Ironically, he died of lung cancer after downplaying the dangers of smoking.
Today, Limbaugh is no more. Ironically, he died of lung cancer after downplaying the dangers of smoking. Then he was a front-runner of Covid-19 denial media bigots. He repeatedly lied about the coronavirus and despicably suggested that the virus was nothing more than a stunt by people opposed to President Donald Trump.
Those who benefited from his idiocy praised him. For instance, his wife, Kathryn Limbaugh, did what any wife of a villain would do. She eulogized him as, “An extraordinary man. A gentle giant. Brilliant, quick-witted, genuinely kind, extremely generous, passionate, courageous, and the hardest-working person I know.”
Former President Donald Trump issued a statement that read in part: “Rush was a patriot, a defender of Liberty, and someone who believed in all of the greatness our country stands for.” Former Vice President Mike Pence, who also benefited from Limbaugh’s nonsense, commemorated him in a series of tweets. He tweeted, “For more than 30 years, no one did more to educate, inform, inspire, and just plain entertain Americans about the issues of the day than Rush Limbaugh.”
While conservatives across the nation mourned Limbaugh, his victims also took to social media to celebrate his demise. In one of over a thousand tweets lampooning him, comedian Paul F. Tompkins tweeted, “If I had to say something positive, I guess I’m glad Rush Limbaugh lived long enough to get cancer and die.” Bishop Talbert W. Swan II, president of a Massachusetts branch of the NAACP, shared his thoughts in a reply to former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s tweet eulogizing Limbaugh. According to Bishop Swan II, “Rush Limbaugh was a despicable racist. He was a vile, repugnant white supremacist who denigrated Black people, mocked those dying of AIDS and other diseases, and stoked the flames of bigotry and hatred. Our country has lost one of its most wicked voices. Praise God.”
Judi Ketteler, author of Would I Lie to You? The Amazing Power of Being Honest in a World That Lies wrote, “People who have made a living out of spreading outrageous lies are generally not stupid. They are experts at self-deception.” In the Rolling Stone, Bob Moser wrote, “How the right-wing talk radio icon corrupted the Republican Party, spread hate, racism, and lies, and laid the groundwork for Trumpism.” NPR Houston Public Media, David Folkenflik, “Before right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, before Fox News, there was Limbaugh.”
As I write, the body of Rush Limbaugh lies lifelessly awaiting a process that will finally commit him to Mother Earth. No doubt, he left this earth with his destructive attitude, and racist demeanor.
In society, generally, we would want all departed souls to rest in peace. Some very holy Christians would advocate praying and forgiving their enemies, haters, oppressors, or bullies to pacify the Gospel according to Matthew 5:44, that we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. On the contrary, Isaiah 48:22 declared, “’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’” Therefore, from the spiritual perspective, all souls don’t rest in peace—not a wicked soul like Limbaugh, who spent his entire lifetime lying, conniving, hating, and destroying other souls.
For a man whom the Devil blessed with just two major Hobbies: Insults and Cigars, and who ironically died of Cancer, going to Hell makes sense.
Also, individuals must not be bullied for their opinions about the dead. They must not be scorned for celebrating the death of their predators. In the dominion of organizational politics, death is what gives the victim solace over the dictators. Thus, victims must not be discouraged from rejoicing over the death of those monsters who make their lives miserable.
Limbaugh has vehemently hurt my people, and for me, it is so long, Dude. It is understandable if he makes it to Hell. For a man whom the Devil blessed with just two major Hobbies: Insults and Cigars, and who ironically died of Cancer, going to Hell makes sense.
♦ Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, PhD, is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News
“Jonathan’s calculated and weaponized ambiguity breeds deception and weakens emerging political alliances.” —Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo
Former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan has once again found himself at the center of presidential speculation, floating silently above the country’s political waters while supporters aggressively market him as a possible candidate ahead of another critical election cycle. And once again, Jonathan is doing what he has mastered throughout his political career: saying nothing clearly while allowing political confusion to grow around him.
This pattern is not new. It is the same indecisive political behavior that defined some of the most consequential moments of his rise and fall. Jonathan became president in 2010 following the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. At the time, many northern political stakeholders within the then-ruling PDP believed there was an informal understanding that Jonathan would complete Yar’Adua’s term but not seek another full term in 2011, thereby preserving the party’s zoning arrangement between North and South. Instead of taking a clear and immediate position, Jonathan spent months dribbling the nation politically. He neither fully denied nor openly confirmed his intentions until the political tension had already escalated nationwide.
By the time he eventually declared his candidacy, the damage had been done. Many northern allies who initially supported him felt betrayed, politically cornered, or deceived. The PDP fractured internally, regional distrust deepened, and Jonathan’s relationship with major northern power blocs deteriorated permanently. Though he won the 2011 election, the cracks created by that indecision followed him into 2015, contributing significantly to the coalition that eventually removed him from power.
Yet Jonathan learned little from that experience. Since losing reelection in 2015, his name has repeatedly surfaced during every major electoral cycle as a potential presidential contender. Each time, his supporters strategically floated his candidacy across media platforms and political circles. Each time, Jonathan refused to decisively shut the door. Silence became his political instrument, whereas ambiguity became his strategy.
Now the country is witnessing the same playbook again. As coalition politics intensify and opposition forces attempt to consolidate around alternative political movements, Jonathan’s name has resurfaced aggressively. Reports and speculations about his presidential ambition continue to dominate political discussions, especially within camps seeking to disrupt the growing momentum surrounding Peter Obi and emerging opposition realignments.
The troubling part is not merely that Jonathan’s supporters are campaigning. The troubling part is that Jonathan fully understands the implications of his silence. He knows that his political stature carries enough weight to destabilize fragile coalition negotiations. He knows his name alone can divide campaign structures, weaken consensus-building, and inject uncertainty into opposition calculations. Yet he refuses to publicly and definitively state where he stands.
That is not statesmanship. That is calculated political ambiguity. Jonathan’s political history is filled with similarly contradictory choices. After losing power in 2015, he received widespread praise for conceding defeat peacefully. He initially framed that decision as a sacrifice made to preserve Nigerian lives and prevent violence. Later, however, different narratives emerged suggesting international pressure, particularly from the United States under President Obama. The shifting explanations weakened what could have remained one of his strongest democratic legacies.
Then came another contradiction. Despite emerging politically from the PDP, Jonathan gradually aligned himself closely with the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, serving in diplomatic and goodwill capacities that many PDP loyalists considered politically inappropriate. This unusual closeness fueled longstanding allegations that elements within the APC establishment viewed Jonathan as a useful political instrument capable of destabilizing opposition coalitions from within. Whether those allegations are true or not, Jonathan’s conduct has consistently created room for suspicion.
His political base remains uncertain. His campaign structure is invisible.
Today, his undeclared ambition is already generating confusion among supporters, coalition organizers, and opposition strategists. His political base remains uncertain. His campaign structure is invisible. His intentions are unclear. Yet his loyalists continue mobilizing aggressively in his name while he watches silently from the shadows.
Nigeria is too politically fragile for this kind of elite gamesmanship. At critical national moments, leadership demands clarity, courage, and accountability. Jonathan cannot continue operating as a permanent “maybe” in Nigeria’s political future, thoughtlessly hovering around every election season like an unanswered question designed to manipulate negotiations and weaken emerging alliances.
At this time, Jonathan should sit in or sit out! If he wants to run, he should declare openly, defend his record, and face the democratic process directly. If he does not intend to run, he should immediately and publicly withdraw his name from the political marketplace. Anything short of that increasingly looks less like political strategy and more like calculated deception. Nigeria deserves leaders who make difficult choices openly—not politicians who weaponize silence while others gamble with national uncertainty in their name.
♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
Nigeria’s Forgotten Sacrifice and the Tragedy of Xenophobia in South Africa
As George Santayana famously warned, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The unfolding xenophobic tensions in South Africa reflect more than economic strain; they reveal a deeper crisis of memory and meaning. When history fades, gratitude dissolves, and fear replaces solidarity. The violence directed at fellow Africans is not merely social unrest; it is a philosophical failure to reconcile past sacrifice with present identity, reminding us that nations, like individuals, must remember to remain whole.
.
I recall that when I was in college in Nigeria, all Southern African students, present in substantial numbers, were on full federal government scholarships and received an additional income called a bursary. They lived better than many Nigerians; some even drove cars. Many adopted Nigerian names, assimilated seamlessly, and secured opportunities with ease, while Nigerian graduates faced rising unemployment. It was a quiet but powerful demonstration of solidarity, Nigeria investing in the future of a region still shackled by apartheid.
Today, that history feels almost erased.
For years now, waves of xenophobic attacks in South Africa, often targeting Nigerians, and more recently Ghanaians and other African nationals, have revealed a troubling pattern: violence fueled by economic frustration, misinformation, and historical amnesia. Shops are looted, homes burned, and lives disrupted under the recurring claim that “foreigners are taking jobs.” Yet this narrative collapses under even the most basic scrutiny of history.
Nigeria was not a bystander in South Africa’s liberation; it was a central force.
Under the military leadership of Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria became the first country in history to boycott the Commonwealth Games in protest against apartheid. That decision was not symbolic; it was costly, bold, and globally consequential. Obasanjo went further, advocating a continental defense posture and proposing what he termed a “Black bomb,” a radical idea reflecting the urgency of protecting African sovereignty against external aggression.
Nigeria’s commitment extended beyond rhetoric. During the Ibrahim Babangida regime, South Africa sought to exert strategic influence in Equatorial Guinea, offering infrastructure support before the discovery of oil. Nigeria recognized the geopolitical implications and decisively intervened, severing ties and offering its own support. The situation escalated to the point where Equatorial Guinea petitioned Nigeria at the United Nations for intervention. Nigeria did not retreat. This was not interference; it was protection. It was foresight. It was leadership.
Nigeria funded liberation movements, provided education, opened its economy, and bore economic sacrifices, including the nationalization of British Petroleum assets, to pressure the apartheid regime. These were not acts of charity; they were acts of conviction rooted in a vision of a free and united Africa.
And yet, decades later, Nigerians are hunted in the very land their country helped liberate.
The tragedy of xenophobia in South Africa is not merely about violence—it is about the collapse of historical consciousness. A generation disconnected from its past becomes vulnerable to manipulation, scapegoating, and misplaced anger. Economic hardship is real, but it does not justify the erasure of truth or the targeting of fellow Africans.
If history were remembered accurately, perhaps the conversation would be different. Perhaps the anger would be redirected toward structural inequalities rather than neighboring nationals. Perhaps the bonds of Pan-African solidarity would still hold.
But memory has faded, and in its absence, resentment has grown. Africa cannot afford selective memory. Nations that forget who stood with them in their darkest hours risk losing their moral compass in moments of crisis. Nigeria’s role in the liberation of South Africa is not a footnote—it is a foundation. To ignore it is to misunderstand both the past and the present.
Equally troubling is the persistent failure of successive South African governments to decisively confront and eradicate xenophobic violence. Such inaction, whether intentional or not, signals a dangerous tolerance, if not tacit endorsement, of these attacks, allowing them to recur with impunity. If brotherhood is to mean anything, it must be anchored in truth and reinforced by responsible leadership. And if Africa is to move forward, it must first remember and act.
♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
The cost of this misalignment extends beyond politics and erodes the strength and perception of the Igbo brand itself — Dr. Anthony Ogbo
Few ethnic groups in the modern world embody resilience, adaptability, and entrepreneurial drive like the Igbo of southeastern Nigeria. Forged by history, particularly the trauma and aftermath of the Nigerian Civil War, the Igbo spirit has evolved into a global force defined by education, commerce, and labor. Across Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Americas, Igbo professionals, traders, academics, and innovators have exerted disproportionate influence. Their philosophy of self-determination, “Igbo enwe eze” (the Igbo have no king), has fostered a decentralized, merit-driven culture that rewards initiative and hard work.
In many respects, this dynamism mirrors that of the Jewish people. Like the Jews, the Igbo have leveraged education as a primary tool of advancement, often placing extraordinary value on academic achievement as a pathway to mobility. In commerce, both groups demonstrate remarkable networking capabilities, building trust-based systems that transcend geography. In labor, their willingness to start from the margins and climb through persistence is widely documented. These parallels are not superficial; they point to a shared cultural DNA rooted in survival, adaptability, and intellectual capital.
Yet this comparison begins to diverge in political cohesion and strategic alignment.
While Jewish communities globally have often demonstrated coordinated political engagement, aligning interests, influencing policy, and maintaining a unified voice, the Igbo have struggled to translate their economic and intellectual strength into sustained political power within Nigeria. This gap has had significant consequences, affecting not only their representation but also their broader cultural and national standing.
A critical example is their overwhelming support for Goodluck Jonathan in the 2011 and 2015 elections. While politically understandable at the time, this near-unanimous alignment left the Igbo politically exposed following his defeat in 2015. In the aftermath, many Igbo communities perceived a decline in federal inclusion and influence, reinforcing a sense of marginalization in Nigeria’s power structure.
This pattern appeared to repeat, albeit in a different form, with the passionate and often uncompromising support for Peter Obi in the 2023 elections. Obi’s candidacy energized millions, particularly among youth and the diaspora, and represented a shift toward issue-based politics. However, the “all-or-nothing” posture adopted by segments of his support base, both online and offline, arguably alienated potential allies across Nigeria’s diverse political landscape. What could have evolved into a broad coalition instead deepened ethnic and regional fault lines, weakening the strategic positioning of the Igbo in national politics.
Beyond electoral choices, the Igbo political challenge is also structural. The absence of a unified political leadership or central coordinating body has made it difficult to articulate and pursue long-term collective interests. Internal divisions, elite fragmentation, and the rise of competing advocacy voices, some constructive, others reactionary, have further complicated alignment. Additionally, separatist agitations, while rooted in legitimate grievances, have sometimes overshadowed pragmatic engagement with Nigeria’s political institutions, limiting opportunities for negotiation and influence.
The cost of this misalignment is not merely political; it touches the Igbo brand itself. A people known globally for enterprise and intellect risk being perceived domestically through a narrower lens of political disunity or agitation. This perception, whether fair or not, has implications for investment, partnerships, and national integration.
The way forward requires a recalibration, one that does not dilute Igbo identity but strengthens its strategic expression. First, there must be a deliberate effort to build political coalitions beyond ethnic lines. Nigeria’s complexity demands alliances; no single group can achieve national power in isolation. Second, Igbo leaders across business, academia, and civil society must converge on a shared political agenda that prioritizes inclusion, infrastructure, security, and economic development for the region within the Nigerian framework.
Third, political engagement must shift from emotional mobilization to strategic negotiation. This includes cultivating influence within major political parties, supporting diverse candidates across regions, and investing in long-term policy advocacy rather than election-cycle enthusiasm. Finally, the Igbo diaspora, arguably one of the most powerful in Africa, should be more intentionally integrated into political strategy, leveraging its global networks for both advocacy and investment.
Igbo dynamism remains undeniable. The challenge is not capacity, but coordination. If the same ingenuity that built global commercial networks can be applied to political alignment, the Igbo will not only preserve their cultural and economic stature but also secure a more decisive role in shaping Nigeria’s future.
______
♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is with the School of Communication, Texas Southern University. Dr. Ogbo is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is also the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo2 weeks agoGowon’s Book and the Dangerous Politics of Selective Memory
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo1 week agoNigeria, South Africa: When Memory Fails, Brotherhood Burns
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo1 week agoBetween Silence and Sabotage: Jonathan’s Return to Political Manipulation
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo1 week agoIgbo Dynamism and The Politics of Misalignment
-
Column1 week agoFrom Noise to Votes: Nigerian Youth Must Turn Online Fire into Electoral Power
-
Nigeria1 week agoThe Devastation of Insurgency: Nigeria Cannot Kill Its Way Out of Insecurity
-
Community2 days agoWazobia Family Funfair AT 10 – Decade of Family, Culture, and Community