Or read the transcript below:
(Transcription by J. C. Hendershot)
Interview with Erik Rush by Roger Aronoff
The “Take AIM” show on BlogTalkRadio, August 26, 2010
ROGER ARONOFF: I am Roger Aronoff, a media analyst with AIM, and our guest today is Erik Rush, a journalist and author whose work put Jeremiah Wright, President Obama’s pastor of 20 years, into the forefront of media debate during the 2008 Presidential elections. Erik writes for WorldNetDaily, along with other print and online publications, and is the author of four books, including his most recent work—and the book we’re going to discuss today—Negrophilia. Good morning, Erik, and welcome to Take AIM!
ERIK RUSH: Good morning! Thank you for having me on!
ARONOFF: Erik was born in New York City, on January 1st, 1961, the first child of a white father and black mother. For many years his family lived in the same neighborhood as Betty Shabazz, Malcolm X’s widow, and her children. From 1975 to 1985, Erik worked as a studio, club, and stage musician, and in biomedical research. In 1986 he relocated to Colorado, and began writing award-winning short stories and novels. He is currently a contributor of social commentary to WorldNetDaily. He’s been on Fox News and CNN, and his 2007 book, Annexing Mexico: Solving the Border Problem Through Annexation and Assimilation, was a New York Book Festival winner in the “Best Nonfiction” category. In February of 2007, Erik Rush was the first to break the story of President—then-Senator—Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Erik, tell us more about yourself. What was your involvement in the music industry, when you were doing that?
RUSH: I’m a self-taught musician. I’d been playing pretty much all of my life—I play several instruments—and I was planning to be the next big Eddie Van Halen, or whoever when I was a kid. And so I did the New York club scene, writing songs and doing studio work and so forth, for quite a while—until, I guess, I was about 25. That sort of soured, in a way, because the music business is really not agreeable to me, and it ceased to be fun, and I kind of ceased to be doing it for that reason.
ARONOFF: Were you always interested in politics? When did that come into your life?
RUSH: It’s kind of interesting. Despite having been in the music business, and being somewhat bohemian in my youth, I was still a conservative, which struck people kind of funny. There are a lot of people in the entertainment business who are, more or less, apolitical. They’re just too into themselves to really care about politics—and then there are a lot who are very progressive, and then that small percentage who are conservative but don’t really talk about it, but there are more that lean that way than, I think, most people know. So I had some friends that were very into politics, very well-read, and we would sit around, while people were partying up and what-have-you, in the corner and talk politics some of the time. And I was a Reagan supporter, and a lot of people thought that was crazy—especially black folks. Because Reagan was going to have us back on the plantation, don’t you know? I found that amusing. But that’s pretty much where I was. My beliefs coalesced over the years, and I suppose when I was in my mid-30s I got more interested in writing, and sort of developed over the next few years, and got into political commentary a few years after that.
ARONOFF: What influences led you to be more at home with conservative politics? Were your parents that way? What public figures influenced you in that way?
RUSH: My parents were probably—I guess you would say FDR, JFK Democrats, which would probably be more conservative-leaning these days, but what formed my political beliefs really had a lot to do with having seen—I really don’t know. It might have been just because I was taught to employ more critical thinking than some people, but, despite having grown up in New York, I really latched on to the hypocrisy of progressivism. They called themselves “liberals” back then, I suppose. That was kind of a con, particularly as it applied to black Americans, because I grew up around a lot of black Americans who, despite the inequities of the time—when I grew up, when my folks got married, they still had “Colors Only,” “Whites Only” signs up, and despite all of that, I saw black folks, who were neighbors of mine, who had businesses and rental property and were retiring with money in the bank—doing well, even by today’s standards, for the average American. And their children and grandchildren went on to engage in activities that were really pretty self-destructive, and I wondered why. A lot of the things we talk about now—the dropping out, the illegitimate births, the penitentiaries, all of this stuff, drug use—and I came to the belief, over years, that it really had to do with the progressive influence that they were buying into, that they were being fed by black activists, white and black progressives who were, essentially, disenchanting them with America as it was developing. Despite the things that were getting better, they perceived them as getting worse.
ARONOFF: So there was no—for instance, you discovered William Buckley or Milton Friedman, or someone, and that struck you and made sense to you? There wasn’t that kind of moment in your political development? It was kind of a gradual awakening?
RUSH: Yes, it was a gradual awakening. Some friends of mine had books that we would read, and there were people like Norman Podhoretz and Howard Ruff, and people like that, but it wasn’t a burning bush moment or anything. It was really more gradual. As we’d talk, I’d hear about someone or other, and got to watching Buckley—I’d watch him every now and then, not often, because I was very busy in those years, most of my social-political intercourse was mainly talking with other people—but then, years later, it just became more and more—[Laughs]—I guess I just became more and more conservative as time wore on.
ARONOFF: I think many people know you as the first person to raise concerns about the President—then-Candidate—Obama’s ties to the Trinity United Church and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. What was it that you brought to people’s attention? This was back in February 2007, shortly after he announced his candidacy. Tell us how that came about.
RUSH: It was in January or early February of 2007. I was approached by a Chicago-area journalist named Fran Eaton, who knew about Obama—and everybody knew that he was about to declare. Everyone in Chicago knew that he attended Trinity United Church. Of course, the more conservative people had more of a bead on what the church was about, and she had written a couple of pieces on it, but was somewhat frustrated, because it wasn’t getting any traction. So she approached me through a third party, and asked if I might be interested in looking into it, maybe writing about it. Which I did. I did my homework, and was duly appalled when I discovered the black liberation theology church, and what its background, essentially, was. So I wrote a column  for the New Media Journal on the subject, and that got picked up by Sean Hannity, who was on Hannity & Colmes at the time, and the rest, as they say, was history.
ARONOFF: Right. It was a fascinating column, because you listed all of these things from their website, and posed it as if it said “white” instead of “black,” how would this be regarded?
ARONOFF: It was quite an eye-opener, I think, for anyone who saw that! And then—as I recall the chronology—then Hannity had Reverend Wright on his show about a month later, and then
he kind of dropped off the radar for about a year.
RUSH: Yeah. He actually had Reverend Wright on the very next night, on March 1st.
ARONOFF: Oh, okay.
RUSH: Wright, of course, tore me up one side and down the other, and said I was an idiot. Actually, he was kind of rude to both Hannity and Alan Colmes, and then he dropped off the radar for a bit. Then what happened—I guess it was about a year later—the videos of his inflammatory oratory started surfacing, because there were some people who were doing more homework behind the scenes while the establishment press really wasn’t covering it too much. There were other people who had taken what Sean and I had done—Sean and I kept talking about it the whole summer of 2007, and into the fall, and so the next year, when things started to ramp up, as far as the campaign went, that’s when you started seeing a bit more of the press picking that up.
ARONOFF: Explain Reverend Wright, this black liberation theology, where it comes from. He had been a Muslim at one point, before that, right? A black Muslim?
RUSH: Yeah. That’s the story. Interestingly enough, as I find about a lot of these people, prominent people on the hard Left—and even not-so-prominent people on the hard Left—a great many of them come from a fairly comfortable background, even privileged. Reverend Wright grew up—his folks were both professional people—while, obviously, anyone growing up—who was black—growing up during the time that he did was aware of the inequities in society pertaining to black Americans. But he was not someone who was impoverished, or who wanted for anything, or had a poor education, or a dysfunctional home life, or anything like that. He, like many black men—and whites—bought into the emerging Marxist influence that was creeping into the Democrat party and into the worldview of a lot of folks, especially black Americans who were becoming more into the civil rights end of stuff—and sort of went on a different track than, say, Dr. Martin Luther King, in that they bought into the—that Marxism, and Marxist things, tendencies, were going to really be the way out for black Americans, versus the passive resistance and civil disobedience, and things of that nature. So you had James Cone, who put black liberation theology together, rooted in Marxism. It kind of turns Christ into a revolutionary, and makes whites the Roman oppressor-type, to use that analogy. So Reverend Wright studied that, and started—became—that’s his claim to fame, that he’s Trinity United Church and became very well-known in Chicago.
ARONOFF: What does it say that Obama went to this church for 20 years? And then, of course, his comments that he was “never there” when some of the more inflammatory comments were made? What do you think?
RUSH: Yeah. I think I might actually—and don’t hold me to this—but I might actually have been the first person to call Obama a liar on national television, because I said, on television, on Hannity & Colmes—that I thought that his claims, that he had never heard any of that stuff, was rubbish. Because you don’t sit in a church for 20 years, with somebody who has opinions that are that strong, and not hear anything that would give you that indication. And Alan Colmes asked me, “Is he lying?” and I said, “Absolutely. If that’s what he’s saying, he’s lying.” But, of course, the establishment press, thinking that Obama walked on water, of course they took him at his word and said, “Well, okay! He didn’t hear anything of that! Any of that! He doesn’t know who Bill Ayers is! We’ll just take him at his word.” So that issue sort of died.
ARONOFF: Now, do you think that Obama felt that this wasn’t controversial? Or that he could, somehow—because the media would go along with him—he could kind of keep that part of his life buried? Or, in his mind, there was nothing to keep buried? That was just his church, and no one should have any problem with it?
RUSH: Well, in his own mind, it isn’t controversial, because of the worldview that he holds. He perceived, I’m certain, that it might be a problem for him with some Americans, but only the stupid ones. And maybe the majority are stupid. I believe he’s sufficiently narcissistic that, maybe, that’s what he believes. As time has gone on, obviously, he’s gotten the indication that the establishment press will carry as much water for him as he allows them to carry, so, I believe, he’s gotten bolder and bolder as far as the things that he figures he can get away with, in terms of his rhetoric and his actions. Because he’s not going to be called on anything by members of the establishment press. I think that, maybe, he perceived it as being a bit more of a problem early on. Case in point: He did, pretty much, throw Reverend Wright under the bus, or kick him to the curb, or however you want to put it, but then—and that was early on. I don’t know that he would have found it as necessary to do it now, if the issue had taken this long to come to the surface.
ARONOFF: Right. But that was really after his—Reverend Wright’s—National Press Club appearance. Before that, Obama had strongly defended his ties—
RUSH: Right. Right. And if Reverend Wright had become a bit more of a wallflower, if he had eased up a little bit, I think that he probably would still be in the Obama circle. But it was either not in Wright’s nature to back off, or it would have gone against his economic imperative, because his bread and butter is in that sort of rhetoric, so being able to maintain his livelihood, and weighing that against being kicked out of the Obama inner circle, I think that he probably—he made his decision, and Obama made his.
ARONOFF: Yes. I want to get into your book, but—can you stay with us a little longer than the original alloted time, so we can cover some other current topics as well as your book?
ARONOFF: Let’s go to some current things. You wrote—in your most recent World Net Daily column , “In addition to President Obama’s tacit support for the ‘Ground Zero mosque’ being treasonous, his statements concerning America’s traditional tenor regarding this sort of tolerance being fundamental to American values were erroneous, prejudiced and subjective.” Treasonous.” “Prejudiced.” Please elaborate.
RUSH: Well, I heard a very interesting quote yesterday, and I was remiss in not nailing down precisely who had uttered it, so it isn’t mine, but it was that there may be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. What I mean by that is that the people who are advancing the idea that Islam has as much of a right to free speech as any other religion, and we have to give them all of this latitude, they’re not really out to destroy us, are—they either have a political imperative in doing so, or they’re just deluding themselves, because it is very apparent to me, and to a lot of other people—reformed Muslims would be the first among those—to say that there is no coexistence between Islam and non-Islamic societies. Despite the fact that you may have a moderate Muslim, you’re always going to get to a point where it reaches critical mass, the Muslims radicalize and try to take over, implement sharia law—which is antithetical to what America stands for, and to the Constitution.
So you’ve really got a paradox going on when you try to integrate Islam, because it’s supposedly a religion—I think it’s more of a political system—that enjoys First Amendment protection, but then it’s going to neutralize the Constitution, and we can’t have that. So what do you do? The reason I said that his words were treasonous is because they are, in effect, giving latitude to people who want to destroy us—the radical Islam, or Islam, wants to destroy America. It’s putting us at risk. It’s putting our people, our soldiers, at risk. And I think it’s prejudiced, inasmuch as he has a very subjective view of Islam that is, also, tainted by his Marxist designs to compromise as much of America’s society, infrastructure, economy, everything, as he possibly can, in order to implement his grand vision.
ARONOFF: So you would say the opposition [to the mosque] is driven more by practical considerations and self-preservation than anti-Muslim bigotry?
RUSH: I don’t think anti-Muslim bigotry enters into it at all. I think the fact that we’ve got hundreds and hundreds of mosques, and Muslims doing quite well in this country, and the fact that they have been able to get a foothold, politically, in the United States, is testimony to the fact that we don’t have any problems with Muslims at all. It’s just that, now that we have reached this critical mass, and we’re moving towards, in addition to having attacks like 9/11, we’re moving towards this kind of situation that they have in areas of France, and in England, where you have this inassimilable Muslim clog that is causing all of these problems, because they want sharia law. That is the way we’re going. We don’t want that, so the hard Left, and, of course, the Muslim activists, are going to call us “bigotry.” Which, of course, is the “crime” I speak to a great deal in my book, and that is how they throw around the race card. We want to secure the border? We’re bigots. We want to stem the tide of radical Islam? We’re bigots. We don’t like the way the black activists have compromised black America? We’re bigots. It’s become very tedious.
ARONOFF: How do you see this playing out? How might this be stopped, this “Ground Zero mosque”? Is it by popular uprising, and getting unions to decide not to work on it? Or is it going to be court challenges? How would the First Amendment play out in this thing? What do you see happening?
RUSH: All of the above, I would say—by any means necessary, save for armed conflict. Because it’s a very dangerous time. We’ve got a lot of things going on, a lot of factions that are putting forth things that are antithetical to our way of life, our core beliefs, even the Constitution—and they are convoluting things such as the First Amendment in order to be able to get away with them. You also have activist judges who are like-minded, which makes things even worse. What I’ve been saying for the last few months is that you really have to attack the problem which is the, the influence of the progressive, hard Left in the United States. People have been sold this sort of altruistic world view by the Left which appeals to peoples’ good natures but which, politically, is actually an incremental installation of Communism on the installment plan. We can’t have that, so what you have is, you have a lot of things going with things such as the 9/12 groups and the Tea Parties and people who have come to realize that we have to—more Americans have to come to realize that progressivism needs to go the way of segregationism. Then, a lot of these things are going to take care of themselves because we will be able to act with more prudence on things such as the border and radical Islam. Come on: not being able to say—even say!—radical Islam is suicidal. We have this political system whereby these things are happening. We have people who are committing seditious acts. We need to start watching these radical Islamists. The Muslims who are moderate and don’t want to engage in these things—fine. The other ones are going to be watched the way that the FBI watches some of these white supremacist groups. Because they’re dangerous.
ARONOFF: I mentioned, earlier, your book Annexing Mexico: Solving the Border Problem Through Annexation and Assimilation. I know you wrote a whole book on it, but I think people would be fascinated. Solving the Border Problem. In a brief summary—how would you solve that problem?
RUSH: Annexing Mexico was a theoretical study that was not necessarily advocating but showing how assimilating Mexico into the United States would solve the border problem—something that would be done, incrementally, over time, whereby our system of law and the Constitution would be superimposed onto Mexico. Their infrastructure would be—their resources would be used to beef up their infrastructure, and their economy, as a result, would be able to flourish, and there would be less reason—actually, there wouldn’t be any reason for people who were in Mexico to come north because they would be able to enjoy the same sorts of things that Americans enjoy in terms of being able to start businesses and get new jobs, which they cannot do now because their resources are not being utilized because of the corruption. The infrastructure stinks because of the corruption, and everything is run in this sort of oligarchical system whereby you just have these puppets who are sort of elected to, keep the people happy, and it goes kind of back and forth, sort of a third world United States. Nothing really works and so, it says—the book postulates that if we were to, essentially, use our system of law down there, things would take care of themselves. But the only way to really do that would be to negotiate an annexation of Mexico into the United States.
ARONOFF: But wouldn’t that mean adding that many citizens to Obamacare, and our welfare system, and that sort of thing?
RUSH: Well, aren’t they now? That’s one of the reasons that we’re suffering so much. If we were to negotiate the terms of it, we would be negotiating terms whereby it was incremental. It wouldn’t be like throwing another 50 million people onto the Social Security rolls, or something like that—and the welfare rolls. These things would be done incrementally, and it would be a delicate situation in terms of how to negotiate it equitably so that the Mexicans would not be second-class citizens, but that Americans would not be taking the full burden of supporting them as we’re doing with the millions of illegals who are here now. But it could be done.
ARONOFF: Okay. Well, let’s get on to your book, which came out in June, called Negrophilia. What is the origin of the title, and why did you write this book?
RUSH: Well the title is a word that has been sort of loosely thrown around before. The literal translation from Latin and Greek is into “Love of black, things black, or black people,” and the book analyzes that the aspect of that world view that the far Left has put across over the last few decades, that it deceives and misrepresents black Americans, demonizes white Americans, and advances the idea—excuse me—that we are still an institutionally racist nation, promoting white guilt, black anger and dissatisfaction, black dependency. And the kinds of things that we are seeing now in terms of the malaise that’s in the black community are things that I say are directly traceable to progressive policies, and some of the things that we’ve seen over the last few months, in terms of racial tensions ramping up—and everyone’s wondering why—is directly traceable to those same policies.
ARONOFF: You say in the book that, as President, Obama has implemented measures on a massive scale that promise, given the historical record, to be some of the most economically crippling and liberty stultifying ever seen in our nation’s history. Please elaborate.
RUSH: Well, a lot of us saw the potential for the liberties that would be stultified with the implementation of Obamacare, and, of course, when I wrote the book, Obamacare hadn’t even passed yet, but it was definitely on the table—that things of that nature tend to stultify liberties in terms of things that they have in other countries where they have similar things. If the state is taking care of your health care, then the state should have a say in how you live your life, how you eat—oh, wow! Well, Michelle Obama’s been talking about that. We’re too fat. We have to watch how we eat. They’re starting to ask questions about—when people go to the doctor and have questionnaires. “Do you own any firearms?” You didn’t ask us that before. “Oh, well, you know, we’re just looking out for your safety.” There are people who have actually been asked this already—the precursor to the kinds of things that they’re going to be, in quotes, “looking out for us” in terms our safety, because they’re paying the bill and now they have a right to ask these things. The economy, we have seen—despite the fact that Joe Biden gets there, and in this Orwellian sort of speech talks about how we’re moving in the right direction economically—there are the experts and lay people who are throwing up their hands and saying “You’ve got to be kidding! We’re moving toward being the Weimar Republic, or something out of Road Warrior, and no one seems to know or care!” Of course, that goes to Obama’s objectives for implementing his grand design, but those are the things that you referred to out of the book. The spending money, to spend our way out of debt and deficit obviously isn’t working, and people are saying that, and, of course, it’s being ignored because of Obama’s pretty autocratic style.
ARONOFF: You say it was negrophilia that got him elected. Is that because there’s no way a white candidate with his record, his associations, and his experience could have ever been elected President?
RUSH: Absolutely. I say in the book that negrophilia is not the only reason that he got elected, but it was definitely a big one. For example, the media could have thrown their full weight behind a white candidate and, you know, covered him the same way that they did—it just happens that it would have given a white candidate the same kind of advantage. It just so happens that they threw their weight behind Obama. Part of that was because he was black, but there are other things that went into it as well: The white guilt, a lot of white folks being able to say that they voted for our first black president, and the fact that he was shielded, that a lot of those people wouldn’t have voted with him if he had not been shielded in the way he was, the Trinity United debacle just being one among many. There are quite a few that I list in the book, not all of which had to do with negrophilia, but quite a few of them did.
ARONOFF: So how does negrophilia apply to pop culture and professional sports?
RUSH: Well, as far as pop culture goes the problem to which negrophilia gives rise is that there’s a lot of aspects of black culture, or what people commonly call “black culture,” that are the lowest end of the scale. For example: Gangster rap promotes disobedience of authority, misogyny, abuse toward women, hatred of the police, drug use, promiscuity. Those things are not inherently black. They are inherently poor, urban, black, ignorant, poorly educated, dysfunctional. That is not the entire black community, but that is what is being advanced as being the black community by pop culture—people who are out to get a buck, activists who stand up for it when people complain because they say you’re trying to “deny black people their culture.” So it is promoted, and the people—the black Americans and whites, who say, “Wait a minute, that’s not black culture, that’s dysfunctional black culture!” are told to shut up, “You’re racists” or “You’re race traitors.” In sports there is a bit more—it’s not necessarily as bad, if you will, as it is in the entertainment business, because there are some black role models in sports, or a lot of them, who are good role models. However, there is that myth of blacks being better athletes. Blacks do tend to be outstanding athletes, but there are also black folks who couldn’t throw a ball if you paid them. There are black Americans—and I show this in the book—who excel in certain areas of sports because they are more suited because of their genetic background, and they are not so good at other sports because of their genetic background. And I go into kinesiology and things, that—you know, weight trainers and coaches would tell you—that we’re really not allowed to talk about because you’d be considered a racist.
ARONOFF: What is your opinion of the black establishment these days, like the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus?
RUSH: Well, the Congressional Black Caucus are really, I mean, they’re essentially Marxists. They probably wouldn’t admit that, but that’s what their world view and their philosophy says, as well as their policies they promote, the people and organizations that they support. I don’t know why there has to be a Congressional Black Caucus. The NAACP has pretty much trashed a very august and respectable history and legacy through having gotten into bed with the political Left, and just become a propaganda arm for Marxists in high places. They continue to advance negrophilia, you know—white guilt, dependency. Under the guise of advancing black Americans, they really do much more to keep them in that cycle of dependency, and the entitlement culture and anger and so forth that are really things that come down from the progressive overlords.
ARONOFF: Now what role did the media play in all of this—covering for Obama, stoking racism/racialism, generally reinforcing negrophilia? You do a chapter on the media and so give me your take on that, since we are Accuracy in Media.
RUSH: Well, as far as the media, the press goes, it’s unfortunately—despite what Janeane Garofalo says, in that the Right controls the press—it is precisely the opposite. The Left has pretty much got the reins on the press, and a lot of the news bureau chiefs and the journalists are likeminded people who went to a lot of the same universities, they were schooled in hard Left journalism. They really have lost that concern for what the truth is, and they’re advancing an ideology which is not only a shame as far as the occupation of journalism goes, but it’s very dangerous for the United States. Consequently, they have been very amenable toward advancing progressivism, and—in part and parcel, negrophilia being part and parcel of that—it is a very superficial and somewhat juvenile world view. When you get down to it, it doesn’t involve critical thinking. A lot of conservatives talk about how critical thinking has been bred out of Americans’ worldview—certainly out of our school system—and if you take that out of journalism, people who are supposed to employ critical thinking to a higher degree than most of the population, you’ve got a body of people who are essentially no better than a propaganda arm, which is what we’ve seen.
ARONOFF: You draw in the book an interesting contrast to how the media responded to Kanye West, when he made his criticism of President Bush after Katrina, to Bill Cosby, for example, who, if he appears to be moving to the right of conventional wisdom, how the media responds to one versus the other. Tell us a little about that.
RUSH: Well, yes. You see, Bill Cosby, being an older gentleman who grew up with a real education and real values, despite the fact that he, being a black man, had a certain affinity for black people accomplishing things, which is all well and good, and who had experienced bigotry and so forth because of his age. He had not really been a big political guy, but he had been affiliated with some of these Lefties over the years—Jesse Jackson and so forth, who have—but, I think, only because they were prominent. When he came out and started talking about black Americans being responsible for themselves in society, and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, it was because he has more of a traditional worldview, and a very good one—I mean, if you look at how well he’s done—but it wasn’t perceived of as him as having a prudent, traditional worldview, it was perceived as “It’s going against the grain because that’s what the conservatives espouse, that’s what the hard Right, Evil White Men in Suits espouse, and we don’t want to hear that!” The only reason that he was not disparaged even more than he was is because he’s so well loved, and iconic, versus when Kanye West—this rapper who’s got, essentially, the brain of a ferret—comes out and starts talking about George Bush hating black people, and all the poor response to Katrina, and all of these things, he’s given all this press, and paid all this deference—as though his credentials really mean something. And all it does is reflect this very negrophiliac, ignorant sort of a worldview that the hard Left and progressives want black Americans to have.
ARONOFF: Okay. Listen: We’re just about out of time. I’d just tell people again: The book is Negrophilia, the guest has been Erik Rush. You can get the book at Amazon, and—where else? Where else can they find your work? We’re going to have to leave it there.
RUSH: If you go to my website, erikrush.com —E-R-I-K-R-U-S-H-dot-com, you can find links to just about anything you want having to do with me and my books and columns and so forth. That would probably be the easiest, least time consuming way of letting the folks know.
ARONOFF: Well, it’s a great book. I recommend everyone read it. There’s a lot more to it they we didn’t get to cover. Erik, thank you so much for being on Take AIM.
RUSH: Thank you very, very much for having me on.