All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 9, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:31
January 9, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, we are back with broadcast excellence.
All yours, another hour of it here on the fastest three hours in media.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Happy to have you along today, folks.
As always, if you would like to be on the program, the number 800-282-2882, email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Got a, oh, we've got Senator Kennedy soundbites from his prequel speech an hour ago at the National Press Club.
We will play those for you here in just a second.
I got an email from someone, Rush, why are you so convinced that the Democrats' position on embryonic stem cells is so oriented toward making sure that abortion remains a common occurrence?
Folks, in explaining this, let's go back to this story out of Banger, Maine, that starting next week, if you're driving around in an enclosed car or truck in which there are churning and you are smoking, you're subject to a $50 fine if you're driving on a state road or a city road, which is it's impossible not to be driving on one of those.
Unless you're out in the sticks on a gravel, I guess, who knows?
But the point is, they said one of the researchers or one of the council members in Banger, Maine, who herself is a smoker, said, hey, this is tantamount to killing the kids.
It's tantamount to murder.
Now, isn't it interesting?
They can say that about smoking, but you can't say that about abortion.
When I say abortion is about killing children, I get people calling me, what are a little brutal, don't you think?
No, it's true.
I mean, it's what happens.
It's perfectly fine to say smoking with kids in the car is killing them, tantamount to killing them, even though how many decades is it going to take?
And it would have to be in there every day.
I mean, for hours on end.
But here's the real reason.
If Tom Harkin and any of the other Democrats were to come out, and what's got this argument sparked today is the survey paper released yesterday that says the stem cells from amniotic fluid in the womb are perhaps just as valuable as embryonic stem cells.
The Democrats are all beside themselves.
You can't do that on the day before Senate debate.
What is just one paper?
And Harkin's urging the media to ignore it and not pollute the upcoming Senate debate on this.
Too important, creating false hope, all of this rigmarole.
The real answer to the question is, is if they give up, if the Democrats ever, if the liberals ever give up on their push for embryonic stem cell research, what happens?
By definition, it weakens their case for abortion because to give in to the less wretched alternative, such as adult stem cells or amniotic fluid stem cells, the Democrats are in an implied way conceding that we ought to try to limit the death option, and they thereby imply there's something morally wrong with that kind of research.
And they can't do that.
They cannot ever admit there's anything morally wrong with embryonic stem cell research because that then says there's something morally wrong with abortion.
And they will never ever do that.
And they will fight having to do that, regardless what research.
And I'll tell you what, if tomorrow there were a cure discovered for, say, Parkinson's or Alzheimer's in any kind of stem cell research other than embryonic, they would try to discount it.
And I am not exaggerating and I'm not making it up.
That's how important this is.
They can never, ever allow themselves to admit that there is something morally wrong about abortion.
It's just the exact opposite, in fact.
Holding out this false hope of great cures for horrible diseases in embryonic stem cell research actually points out the moral high ground in abortion, does it not?
Which propels the whole movement?
And of course, as selfish and passive the American people have become, why they'll fall prey to the argument, that's just an embryo.
I mean, that's not a kid.
Don't kid me, Limboy.
Killing a kid, you're killing an embryo.
I mean, no different than killing the yolk of an egg.
Who believes you're killing a chicken?
And, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Besides that, I've got Alzheimer's.
I need to get cured.
I've got Parkinson's.
I need to be cured.
We're going to have babies all day, left and right.
I just need good ding one to cure me.
And that's how they'll sell it.
You know, if we encourage the choice, like they say they're pro-choice, but you can't exercise a choice and still be pro-choice.
I tried that once on this very program.
I came out and said, ladies, I am pro-choice.
I have decided I have changed my mind.
I am pro-choice.
I choose for pregnant women to give birth.
I need to put the baby up for adoption or what or keep it or what have you.
And if feminists call, you can't do that.
I said, why?
Choice is choice.
I'm choosing.
Well, you can't do that.
That's why if we encourage the choice to have the mother keep the baby, we are again conceding via implication that abortion is a less moral choice.
And the Democrats will never, ever concede that, no matter what.
And that's why they're not going to let go of the embryonic stem cell research as a, you know, as a thing that holds out great promise, even though there's more promise in other areas.
One other smoking story, and this is from the UK, and we've already had our version of this here.
I think this was in some county in Maryland.
An English couple are facing a council investigation into their smoking habits at home.
Jeanette Gordon Crawley, 54, and her husband, Gavin Gordon Crawley, who is 51, three years younger than his wife.
That's problematic, but that's another discussion.
They live in North Wales.
They have been told by their local council that their next door neighbor has complained that she can smell cigarette smoke from their house in her living room.
Moira Duell or Duell, she's an environmental health officer with Gwynned County Council, sent the English couple a letter titled Alleged Odor Nuisance.
In the letter, Moira Duell said, your neighbor alleges that cigarette smoke is permeating into her living room from your property.
To enable further investigation into the matter, I would like to visit your property to discuss the matter further.
Can you imagine this?
Well, of course you can because it's already happened here in the United States.
Except in Maryland, a woman who was 300 yards away, 300 feet away, 100 yards, a football field away, claimed that a couple smoking in their house with all the windows closed, she could smell the smoke, the secondhand smoke.
And on that basis, they were going to ban cigarette smoking in your house.
It didn't quite work, but as I say, these things, once they're brought up, they never go away.
Isn't it time, folks, we got serious about this?
I mean, all of this death, all of this cancer, all of this discomfort, the noxious fumes.
Isn't it time to just ban the product for crying out loud?
Have never in my life heard about the pitfalls of a product that causes death.
And the product still survives.
Other than guns, but that's a different, that's a different story.
The libs are on the same take there.
But aside from that, we've got a product that, if you listen to these people, murders.
It murders the innocent.
It kills the victim.
And what are we doing?
We're continuing to produce the product and we're taxing the people who buy it.
And what are we using the proceeds of the taxation of tobacco products for health care?
Smokers are single-handedly, or not quite, but smokers are bearing the huge burden via the taxes they pay on healthcare.
They deserve a medal.
They deserve the Congressional Medal of Honor or the Medal of Freedom.
These people are devoted to improving your life.
They're being called murderers.
And yet the product still survives.
It's just, it's curious, isn't it, ladies and gentlemen?
All of this horror that we hear about this, and yet nobody moves to ban the product.
They move to ban the use in more and more places, but they refuse to ban the product.
At any rate, Senator Kennedy is next in his prequel to George Bush's speech tomorrow night on the surge in Iraq.
The title of Kennedy's speech may as well be Purge the Surge.
Excerpts are coming up.
All right, I'm going to go to the Kennedy soundbites, but I'm not going to do it now because there have been people on the phone patiently waiting.
And frankly, I'd rather talk to you people on the phone than I would listen to Senator Kennedy.
One thing first, though.
This is Detroit Free Press.
The Chinese automaker Chang Feng Motor Company today, actually yesterday, introduced its SUV products at the North American International Auto Show.
Second time in the auto show's history that a ShiCom automaker makes a presentation.
Chinese automaker Geely Motor Company became the first ShiCom automaker to show a car at the North American International Auto Show last year.
Chang Feng chairman Li Jiang Xin told reporters that Automaker collaborates with Mitsubishi.
So we got a communist SUV to hit the market from China.
What will the liberals do now?
Will it either stick with the hybrids or support the ShiComs in their new venture into SUVs?
Imagine communists coming out with something that destroys the planet.
John in Nashville, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello, Rush.
Hi.
Hi, it is an honor to speak with you and to get a commentary on something that I had considered an odd comment from two and a half years ago when Nancy Pelosi was on Meet the Press with Tim Russard.
And the first, it struck me as odd because the first third or first half of the interview, she was nearly crying about the troops in Iraq and what a bad thing it was to be to be there and what we were doing.
And then when Tim asked her what she would do, she had said, well, I would put more troops in.
And it always struck me as odd.
And I'd like to get your comment on that in our probably first hundred hours of her leadership.
Well, you know, excuse me.
I don't remember her saying that.
We can research it, though, because we have access as powerful, influential members of the media to the Meet the Depressed transcripts.
So if she said that in May of 2004, that we need more troops, it doesn't mean anything.
Why are you going to hold these people away?
They just said in the campaign, a new era of bipartisanship, and the Republicans are going to be allowed to debate and participate in the first 100 hours legislation.
Then they threw that out the window, threw that overboard.
What she said in 2004 doesn't matter.
They come up with any number of excuses to say, well, that was then.
This is now.
Look at all that's changed.
The only thing that's consistent about Nancy Pelosi from then to now is it's all about criticizing President Bush.
Whatever he does is wrong.
In May of 2004, if she didn't think we were winning, well, we need more troops just to disagree with Bush.
Today, if Bush wants to send more troops, hell no, we can't do that because Bush is an idiot.
You know, Bush, we can't.
It's all about disagreeing with Bush.
It's all about hatred for Bush.
I imagine, too, in 2004, when she said we need more troops, she probably heard about it from the fringe kooks that make up the Democrat base.
But I long ago, I mean, to try to hold them accountable to their words is, I mean, it's not worth the time.
And I don't mean to sound as though it's not a weapon to use against them.
It's just their expectations are so low.
I mean, our expectations for Democrats and liberals are so low that when they say and do things like this, it's not a shock.
This is something that, I mean, here's the best way to put this.
And it takes me back to the 06 election.
Why anybody believes anything they say is beyond me?
Simplest way to express my thought about that.
Why anybody believes what they say?
Why there is not instant doubt and curiosity and some, you know, well, doubt.
It's beyond me.
Matt in Redlands, California.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello, Rush.
You know, if Ted Kennedy and the other Democrats get their way and they cut the funding for Bush's upcoming troop surge, that means that the Democrats would be implementing a plan to stay the course in Iraq.
And that after screaming for two years that Bush must change course in Iraq, Bush finally decides to change course and the Democrats are screaming, no, no, no, we want to stay the course in Iraq.
Keep the troop levels at their current levels.
What do you think about that, Rush?
It's insane.
I think that sounds very, very clever, but once again, you'd misunderstand who these people are.
Who are they?
Well, I'm going to explain it to you.
Okay.
You're on the surface.
And with brilliant logic, you are absolutely right.
And it's a brilliant observation, and I applaud you.
Wish I would have come up with it myself.
However, we have to define the terms.
Stay the course, as Bush was talking about.
The Democrats oppose that because their alternative is to end it.
Bring them home now.
Get the troops out of there.
Bush comes along and wants to do the surge, if you will.
And the Democrats say, hell no, we're not going to fund that.
We're not going to touch funding for the other side, Senator Kennedy says, but we're not going to fund that.
And so you say they're staying the course.
They would say they are staying on course to try to bring troops out because that's what they're talking about.
Ultimately, that's what they're talking about.
They are it really is a brilliant intellectual discovery of yours to trap them and to accuse them.
You guys are just advocating staying the course unless you have the guts to defund the whole war.
But they'll be able to slither out of this with their buddies in the drive-by media if that were ever pointed out to them.
And I guarantee you it won't be unless you were a caller to some of these shows that take calls and get in and ask them.
Rush, I just don't understand.
I mean, only 8% of the American people think the Democrats have a plan.
There's basically three plans.
You have a surge of troops, you keep it the troop level now, which I guess now Kennedy's advocating stay the course, or you cut and run.
I mean, basically, in general, that's the choices.
And I'd still like to know where the Democrats stand.
The Democrats' position is whatever Bush wants to do is do the opposite.
Look at, I'm going to tell you one more time.
I know it may be tough to hear, and it's doubly tough to believe.
The Democrats' position is us losing.
You can't be serious, Rush.
They can't really want us to lose.
Well, I know.
See, it's tough for people to believe.
That's like back in the old days, calling somebody a communist.
It was in the government.
Nobody wanted to believe that.
And people don't want to believe that a whole political party wants its own country to lose.
Would you explain to me the result if they got their wish?
If we cut and run, if they defund the war, if we deploy, whatever, if we de-escalate, what's the result?
I take you to the New York Times editorial again today.
They want us out of there, but then they say once we leave, we better make sure that hell doesn't break loose.
Oh, I see.
Once we leave, then we could make sure it's stable.
Right.
Oh, that makes sense.
So we should leave Iraq to make sure.
Yeah, now you're getting it.
Oh, I see it.
We leave Iraq, and then we make sure it's stable.
Oh, I see.
We leave Iraq, but we make sure that it doesn't happen in Iraq like happened in Cambodia and South Vietnam.
We make sure that the Iranians don't overrun them.
We make sure the Syrians don't.
We make sure that nobody else gets control of the oil after we leave.
Oh, that makes perfect sense, right?
Now you're getting it.
Yeah.
We leave.
So we leave.
We cut and run.
Uh-huh.
Now, the New York Times unsigned editorial, obviously no accountability, doesn't advise how to do any of this because, of course, it's not possible.
But I'm just, you know, you may not want to hear it.
Democratic Party leaders, the people talking about this, are invested in our defeat, and they have been since before the election.
They've been all of last year.
How can you say it?
Because I believe it.
And if you don't, just ask yourself, what is the result if we do everything they suggest?
Peace and tranquility.
Also known as the most dangerous man in America, identified as having talent on loan from God.
800-282-2882.
Well, a baseball hall of fame has elected Tony Gwynn of the San Diego Padres, Cal Ripken Jr. of the Baltimore Orioles to the Hall of Fame.
Mark McGuire fails to gain entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
This is due to the steroid controversy that has dogged Maguire ever since his test.
Well, I think it really intensified after his testimony before that House committee when he refused to talk about the past, said he was only there to talk about the future.
And this is not a surprise.
This was expected.
Sports writers of America, select sports writers, are the people who vote on entry into the Hall of Fame.
It's quite interesting.
Whatever the season was, I forget the season.
But the season prior to this, World Series got canceled because of a strike.
It was the next season or the next season or two that Maguire and Sammy Sosa supposedly saved baseball with their friendship, their good vibes, and their friendly competition for the home run record that year in which Maguire hit 70.
What was it?
70.
Yeah, I get it all confused.
Barry Mines hit 73.
Whatever it is.
He has gone from the savior of baseball to the biggest goat the game's ever had and can't get into the Hall of Fame now.
And both judgments passed down to us by the baseball writers of America, ladies and gentlemen, about whom we know nothing.
We don't know how many of them have taken no-do's for 15,000 years in order to make deadline.
We don't know anything about these people.
And we don't know that Maguire used steroids.
We know that he used Andro when it was legal, which you can buy at the GNC store down the block, right next to Starbucks.
But we don't know that he used steroids, but the presumption is that he has.
I think these baseball writers of America have gone to the Mike Nyphong and Duke University School of Moral Judgment.
Here's Stan in San Francisco.
You note that I'm delaying playing these Ted Kennedy bites because I really don't want to hear them.
I'm struggling here with I've got the duty to play them to you and do I want to sit through them and listen to them?
And I will probably opt to play some of them.
Anyway, Stan in San Francisco, you're up, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
Greetings from one of the 99 conservative Republicans in her speakerships district.
There were 100 of us until it was clear she was going to be speaker, and then one of them died.
And that was probably why.
Yeah, well, I'm sure.
I wanted to get your take.
I missed you yesterday because I was in an airplane, but I wanted to get your take on Schwarzenegger's insurance plan for the world.
Well, there are two plans.
The first plan is, and by the way, you spell this, M-A-R-I-A.
But there are two plans.
Maria, just spell it as Maria.
I understood.
Snurdley was looking at me like he didn't get it.
Or how about W-I-F-E?
That's it.
He got that one.
Well, but she's a Kennedy.
Yeah.
She's a Shriver.
And Arnold's in California being captivated by the fact that it's a liberal, moderate state.
Well, and she's back at the compound now for a while.
She's back in the compound.
Well, you know, I'm half joking about Maria.
I just, I think this is predictable.
If you're not conservative, you're going to become a liberal.
If an organization is not conservative, it will become liberal.
I mean, that's a profundity.
It's a philosophy.
It's not an assertion, not an opinion.
If something by definition doesn't strive to be conservative, it will become liberal.
At any rate, there are two health care proposals.
One is for health care insurance for every child in California, including those of illegal immigrants.
And then the second one, health care for everybody.
Isn't that right?
He wants universal coverage for everybody in the state of California.
Including illegal aliens.
Yes, yes, of course.
Which, of course, the people voted down in Prop 187, but the judge said it's unconstitutional.
He's gone green on the environment.
Look at all you have to understand about this is what Arnold said he wants to do next.
He said he wants to take the best of conservatism and the best of liberalism and form a new ideology that contains the best of both and create this new centrist movement that takes the best from both liberal and conservative.
Well, when you compromise with a liberal, you become liberal.
And that's what's happening here.
I don't know him.
I've met Arnold, been around him twice, three times.
And I'll tell you the first time.
The first time, it was at when they were opening, he and Bruce Willis and whoever, I forget who else.
Oh, yeah, sliced alone, but he wasn't there that night.
They were opening the plant on Hollywood in Dallas back in the 90s, invited me down there.
And at the party before we drove over to the restaurant, it was the hotel where they were all staying.
By the way, Anna Nicole Smith was there and Charlie Sheen.
Anna Nicole Smith was, I mean, if she were a weather girl that night and standing on the East Coast doing the weather, you wouldn't have been able to see California.
And she strolled in in virginal white, and Charlie Sheen had a cigarette dangling from his mouth, could not take his eyes off of her chest.
Just stared dumbfounded.
I figured, here's the guy Hollywood seen it all.
He was paralyzed.
But anyway, and Bruce Willis came up, told a couple jokes about Sharon Stone, which I can't repeat.
And then Schwarzenegger walked in and he walked up to me and said, I love what you say about the Democrats, the way you screwed them up.
Only he didn't say screw.
The way you screwed them up.
I love what you say.
Now, he could have been saying that just because he's a politician and all that, but I got the sense that he meant it.
And in the old days, Arnold was considered a pretty strong conservative guy, but now he's become governor and he had to get re-elected.
And I'm sure he's had a dose of liberal compassion hit him with his healthcare stuff and the environmental movement.
And I remember I got into so many arguments with Californians for Schwarzenegger when I said, well, I warned him.
I tried to warn him.
He's not a conservative.
He may be a good guy and he may be a Republican, but he's not a conservative.
And they'd call me.
There was, oh, give me grief on this program via email and so forth.
It was fun.
But I just, how can liberals are liberals and moderates are moderates and moderates are liberals?
Moderates become liberals.
If you're not a conservative, you are going to be a liberal.
That's why I say moderates are not moderates.
They are liberals.
And this is all going to have to be paid for.
And it's, I just, I don't know where the money is going to come from.
And I don't know that he does either, really.
And I think it's going to be interesting to watch.
The liberals are not going to want him getting credit for this.
They're not going to want Republicans getting credit for it.
They're going to stand in the way of this.
This is something that they have been promising to do since the Clintons were in the White House, and none of them have done it.
Here comes a quote-unquote Republican that proposes it, is apparently serious about getting it done.
You watch, Stan.
They will do what they can to object and stand in his way.
Well, we'll see what happens.
The moderates, like you say, are just like those moderates who were elected to the House who are going to vote with the liberals.
Well, yeah, they say they're not.
They're going to stand up to Pelosi, but they won't.
By the way, Mike, if you could grab that song Mama Told Me Not to Run, or Mama Told You Not find that handy.
Stan, thanks for the phone call.
I appreciate it.
Let's see.
Union leaders quickly, union leaders quickly balked at a requirement that all Californians have health insurance, calling it a tax on the middle class.
A demand that all but the smallest businesses offer their workers insurance upset many of Schwarzenegger's business allies.
So union leaders, read liberals, they don't like this requirement that all Californians have insurance.
When did unions ever care about a tax on the middle class or a tax on anybody?
But all of a sudden they do now?
It's exactly as I told you.
Ladies and gentlemen, they just don't want Schwarzenegger to succeed.
He said, I look forward to everyone now having those debates.
There are a lot of people around the table.
Now, the way Mitt Romney required health insurance in Massachusetts, he's requiring everybody to go out and buy it themselves or to get it, much like you have to have automobile insurance.
And that plan has some workability to it, some possibilities.
Schwarzenegger's, I'm not quite sure if his whole coverage plan is that, but to succeed with his plan to extend health care to 6.5 million uninsured Californians, he's going to have to find common ground between groups that are often at odds.
Now, I thought everybody was for health insurance for everybody.
I thought everybody, well, what do you, we got arguments now from unions who are opposed to it.
And then, let's see, what is it?
Civil rights activist Al Sharpton said Monday he's seriously considering a run for president.
He said, I don't hear any reason not to.
If we're talking about the urban agenda, can you tell me anybody else in the field who's representing that right now?
Sharpton said, Al, you ever heard of Barack Obama?
By the way, have you seen the latest picture of Barack Obama?
It is a dead ringer for the publicity photo of Daniel Craig, the new James Bond, walking out of the ocean in his swim trunks, all hunky and wet.
Same damn picture, Barack Obama walking out of the ocean somewhere.
Said to be embarrassed about this picture.
There's a question I need to ask.
If Hillary Clinton is so anointed, if she is the next Democrat nominee, why is there even a Barack Obama?
Why is the media the one promoting him?
If it's hers, something's not right about that.
As far as Sharpton, you don't hear any reason not to run?
Try this one.
Our buddy Paul Shanklin there, as Al Sharpton threw the megaphone, a bullhorn, Mama Told Me Not to Run.
He wants, you want to know why he's running?
It's all in that song, The Matching Funds, folks.
Back in a sec.
I'm going to play one Ted Kennedy soundbite just for the hell of it here because it has nothing to do with the prequel that he gets.
Well, it has nothing to do with the war.
We'll get to those tomorrow.
There'll be plenty of time to play them tomorrow if I even care then.
But he was asked a question about what, aside from all this war business, what are the Democrats going to do in this congressional year?
Get this.
I think we'll do something on preventive care.
We'll do something on obesity.
We'll definitely get something on the floor of the Senate on smoking, on children.
And in the broader strokes, hopefully we'll do something on case management, incentives for best practices in health care, financial incentives.
For crying out loud, folks.
Do you understand what this we're going to do something on preventative care?
What are we doing now?
It's not that.
We're warning everything, everybody, every day of everything that'll kill them.
We're going to do something on obesity.
We'll definitely getting something to the floor to the Senate on smoking on children.
The translation of this is, you people are a bunch of helpless boobs.
And without us, you will have no bra.
You will have no protection.
This ought to insult everybody.
Nanny State business.
By the way, it is true.
Transcript from Nexus Tim Russert interviewing Nancy Pelosi, May 30th, 2004.
What would you do?
What would you do in Iraq today right now, Russert said?
What I would do is, and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are.
And there has to be a leveling with the American people and with Congress as to what's really happening there.
It's very hard to say what you would do.
We need more troops on the ground.
Russert, would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?
Pelosi, yes.
So on May 30th of 2004, Nancy Pelosi said she would do exactly what the president is going to do or announce tomorrow.
We'll remind you of this tomorrow when the president makes his speech.
Actually, on Thursday, he makes his speech tomorrow night.
This is what happened to the babe who was all upset about.
She needs a little time.
His name is Jennifer or Jen.
She's upset about the discipline story.
This is good.
I can't wait.
Roger Springfield, Illinois.
Welcome, sir.
Rush, how are you?
Good.
Rush, I was just wondering, why was Michael J. Fox fighting so hard for embryonic stem cell research?
Didn't he see this new development coming down the pike?
The man with his thumb on the pulse of this research?
It wasn't about embryonic stem cells, really.
Oh.
It really wasn't, because he's not stupid.
He has Parkinson's.
He knows.
He's got a foundation.
He knows what's working and what isn't and what shows promise and what doesn't.
This is about electing Democrats to advance a liberal agenda using hope and false hope in order to accomplish the agenda.
When you start saying that people like Jim Talent and Michael Steele want to criminalize research into stem cells, I mean, that's, you know, look at, they sent Michael J. Fox out there because he's a victim and he's a celebrity, and as such, you can't criticize what he says.
Except you can.
I do, indeed.
When you enter the political arena, you are fair game.
Does this mean that the president made the right decision?
Does he prove President Mush made the right decision?
Yeah, I think.
I'm not sure what you asked, and I don't have time to delve into because I'm really up against time.
See you in just a second, folks.
Well, that's it, folks.
Another exciting excursion to broadcast excellence in the can.
But you know all that.
Over and out for yet another exciting day, folks.
Look forward to being back with you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection