All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 18, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:48
January 18, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And I, ladies and gentlemen, am back.
Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchorman.
And don't worry, I have all of this under control.
Because if I don't, nobody else does or will.
And I've always told you when it'll be time and panic, it is not time to panic yet.
Nowhere near it.
While all this stuff's going on on the Republican side, ABC Washington Post has a poll, and the American people's confidence on the economy is still falling.
And that is, I don't care how often Obama tries to blame it on Bush.
It ain't going to fly.
There is nothing Obama can run on.
In the last three years, he can say, give me another four years to do more of this.
There's nothing he can cite.
There's not one thing that has happened in these past three years that Obama can run on.
They're going to turn down the Keystone Pipeline.
That's the news.
Fox has it out there.
The State Department is going to officially reject it because the route that the pipeline takes goes through the lovely, pristine wilds of Nebraska.
And it would upset everything if it broke, which doesn't happen to pipelines, blah, blah, blah.
Now, let me tell you something, folks, about this.
This is very, very simple.
One of, and there have been worldwide surveys on this.
This is not my opinion.
This is economic fact.
One of the primary ingredients, mechanisms, if you will, in lifting people economically is access to affordable, plentiful, cheap energy.
In fact, there's a good old Boynton Georgia who said recently, I've got it a stack here, one of the story in the stack says, there's something everybody is missing here about what happened to the Chinese communists.
And one of the reasons that they're never going to be able now to hold on to communism and as one word and two words actually air conditioning.
Once the mainland Chinese discovered what they had in Hong Kong, they wanted it for themselves.
And now the Chinese are expanding their electronic grid.
So is India.
They are bringing affordable and relatively cheap market price energy to their people.
That lifts electricity and the availability of electricity is one of the most crucial elements of freedom.
Economic advancement.
The denial of this pipeline is the denial of access to more domestic energy that would lessen our dependence on foreign sources.
It would make our overall supply greater, thereby lowering prices.
It is a win-win that this administration is rejecting.
And they are rejecting it on environmental grounds.
That's the public position on this.
Now, what the plan is, I'm here to tell you what the plan is.
The plan is to reject this during the campaign.
Obama is in trouble.
He needs to secure his base.
He needs to hold on to the wackos of the Democrat Party base.
He needs to keep their campaign contributions flowing.
I'm frankly surprised that they've announced their decision this soon on this.
I thought they'd try to keep this going as long as they could, extend it to get campaign donations coming from both sides of it, the all-business side and the environmentalist wacko side.
They've obviously made a political calculation.
It's more important to secure the base right now because they're in trouble.
I don't care what's going on on the Republican side.
They claim that the Republican campaign, the nominee, the campaign is going to be about the Republican nominee.
It's going to be about Obama.
This election is going to be about Barack Obama.
He is the steward of a declining economy that an ABC News Washington Post poll tells us that more and more people are feeling more and more negative about the economy.
Nobody wants to live in a nation in decline.
Nobody wants to live in a nation in decline on purpose.
Well, I don't say nobody, but we're not to the point where the majority of Americans want to live in a plundered, failed, downturned economy forever.
That's not what most people want.
Obama right now cannot afford for this pipeline to be approved because it would provide glaring evidence of all the errors he's made the previous three years.
He simply can't do it.
This pipeline, improving it, bringing more energy into this country would do great benefit to this country.
The moment this deal were to be announced, it would have immediate effects on people's confidence in the business sector, people who plan ahead.
It would be demonstrable.
Can't afford for that to happen because it would shine the light on all the failures of this regime in the three previous years.
Plus, it would totally blow up his base.
Can't have that.
So what's going to happen?
This will be resubmitted if Obama wins in 2013 and it'll be miraculously approved.
Now, right now, it is purely and simply a campaign issue.
Well, Jobs was too.
But as far as the jobs are concerned, Obama is hoping just the appearance of interest in creating jobs will be enough to convince people he's doing something about it.
But jobs at minimum 20,000 over the long haul, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created as a result of the Keystone Pipeline.
None of it matters.
None of the reality matters.
That's where we are.
And I think, obviously, I think donations from the environmentalist wackos must be down.
I think they must.
I'm guessing here, but I'm just assuming that the money coming in from the wacko side is not as much, not what they thought.
I think they're lagging behind.
I think that's what this indicates.
Because right now, everything Obama's doing is oriented toward money.
And it always is about everything.
But now it's specifically campaign money and re-election money, so forth.
So they're weighing.
No, the calculation is that if you don't have your base, you don't have a chance.
If you don't have, if your base loses energy, if your base is demoralized, if your base is mad at you and the proverbial threats to stay home pop up, then you have no prayer no matter the fraud, no matter the cheating, no matter how much walking around street money you've got.
If you lose your base, this is, frankly, the Republican Party runs this risk every four years.
They purposely irritate the base.
I think Obama is probably losing his.
Well, on the Keystone pipeline, the unions are on both sides of it too.
Unions are on both sides.
Some union people don't want the pipeline.
Others do because it's jobs.
And so the union donations on the anti-pipeline side are not automatic.
If they don't go, well, they're not going to go to Republicans, but they don't have to give.
There's a lot of single-issue constituencies on the Democrat part of their coalition, a lot of single-issue constituencies.
And they're just like our side.
If they're not satisfied, they'll get all humpty-hump and sit around and not participate and threaten not to participate.
So there's going to be, like this, Wall Street Journal, seven charged in insider trading probe, including some of Wall Street's biggest money managers.
That's guaranteed a campaign show trial.
Wall Street on trial.
We can all see how this is going to shake down.
I don't know.
No, because congressmen are not, it's not illegal.
They can do insider trading.
Yeah, there's no proscription against them.
You heard about the Occupy D.C. protesters throwing a couple of smoke bombs over the White House fence yesterday.
You remember when the Tea Party used to do that all the time?
No, no, I don't either.
I don't know why these protesters even bother to go to the White House.
Don't they already realize it's already occupied?
They don't need to occupy the White House.
They have it.
I still love what the Prime Minister of Canada said.
Hey, look, you know, you guys, you want to treat your country like a giant national park.
It's off limits to everybody.
You go right ahead.
But we don't look at our country that way, and we're going to pipe this oil somewhere.
And if we have to send it to the Chikoms, we will do it.
Top White House officials are warning, this is from theHill.com.
Top White House officials are warning liberal and the labor leaders to brace themselves for President Obama's budget proposal.
Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, sought in meetings last week to lift the left's gloom about Washington's crackdown on spending by promising that the president this year will focus on job creation rather than deficit cutting.
How many times now have we been promised a laser-like focus on job creation by this president?
Well, here's what is this, the ninth or tenth time now.
Obama's staffers sought to present their budget plan as a glass half full, according to sources familiar with the briefings.
They promised that the president will focus on jobs and the economy instead of deficit cutting, which dominated last year's debate on Capitol Hill.
Now, the translation of that is that Obama is going to push for spending, stimulus, instead of cutting spending.
So what is there for labor unions and the rest of the left not to like?
What is this?
You won't like the budget?
I think what's really going on here is that the regime is warning the left that they're going to have to offer a budget that sounds like there are cuts, but they don't want them to have to worry since there really won't be any cuts.
Do any of us really think Obama or any Democrats going to present a budget with cuts?
I mean real cuts.
It isn't going to happen.
But now that Obama's laid it out, hey, get ready.
We're going to have to really cut this budget, blah, blah, blah.
And the media will carry that along, but there won't be any cuts.
We are coming up on the 1,000th day without a budget.
The 1,000th day that the Democrat Party has not offered or presented a budget.
But this article from The Hill repeats several times that Obama is going to focus on jobs and the economy instead of deficit cutting.
Never mind the deal he made back in August to get the debt ceiling raised.
So what he's really doing here again is to translate this for you.
Again, Obama's telling his base he's going to push for more spending, more stimulus, instead of cutting spending.
He's telling the labor unions and the rest of his foot soldiers he's still going to find ways to funnel them money, despite the supposed spending cuts contained.
When he tells them he's going to focus on jobs, the translation, i'm sending you money.
That's what it means.
Don't worry about the cuts in here, don't worry about whatever appear to be cuts.
I'm focusing on jobs, and every time Obama focuses on jobs, that means stimulus.
Jobs equals federal spending, according to Obama, and that's the message he's sending to his troops here.
We'll be right back.
Don't go away.
And we're back.
Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution, right here, the Limbaugh Institute FOR Advanced Conservative Studies.
You know Apple is having uh, some giant foray into education in New York.
They're announcing it tomorrow in New York.
Uh, one of their executives, Eddie Q, is involved and nobody really knows.
There's all kinds of rumors about what they're going to be doing involving their IBooks app, perhaps getting into textbooks.
Some people suspect they might be offering tools to publish textbooks digitally and, as a business matter, destroy the analog textbook industry.
They're denying that.
No no, no.
We're not into content here.
We're trying to offer, in the process of this, of being interested, what Apple does.
I found an interview Steve Jobs gave Wired magazine back in 1996.
Now what is that?
15 years ago?
16 years ago, it'd be about right.
Here's Jobs.
In 1996, on education, I used to think that technology could help education.
I probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to schools than anybody else on the planet.
Remember, this guy's a new age leftist at the time, a Buddhist in fact.
But i've had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve.
What's wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology.
No amount of technology will make a dent.
It's a political problem.
The problems are socio-political.
The problems are unions.
You plot the growth of the National Education Association and the dropping of sat scores and they're inversely proportional.
The problems are unions in the schools.
The problem is bureaucracy.
He went on to say, Steve Jobs 1996.
If we gave vouchers to parents for 4400 a year, schools would be starting right and left.
People would get out of college and say, let's start a school.
You could have a track at Stanford within the MBA program on how to be the business person of a school.
The MBA would get together with somebody else.
They'd start schools.
You'd have these young, idealistic people starting schools working for pennies.
I mean, if you took the education money we spend federally, get it, get rid of the N?
E, the Department OF Education and give families what their taxes are equal to to education taxes every year, 4400.
Just take a the old voucher.
Let parents be in charge of spending the money that's taxed from them.
Let them choose where their kids this 1996, this is.
This is before Jobs even went back to Apple.
I don't know how you can be a liberal and say this is why i've.
I've back when Jobs passed away.
I've Mentioned a couple times here.
I'm not sure he knew what he was, but he knew what he had to be, or what he had to be perceived as being.
He said, but these people would do it.
They'd start schools left and right because they would be able to set the curriculum.
When you have kids, you think, what exactly do I want them to learn?
Most of the stuff they study in school is completely useless.
But some incredibly valuable things you don't learn until you're older, yet you could learn them when you're younger.
And you start to think, what would I do if I set a curriculum for a school?
He's talking about entrepreneurs.
If you have a neighborhood or a town where every family's got $4,400 to spend, sending their kids to school, you might start a school trying to get that money.
You'd hire the teachers.
You'd set the curriculum.
You'd have genuine competition in it.
And you could attract students based on what you're teaching them and how you're teaching them.
In Isaacson's biography of jobs, jobs blast the nation's education system several times for being crippled by union work rules.
Apple is not union.
Jobs believed wherever you find a union, you're going to find a mess.
And I just think it's interesting, 1996, 16 years ago.
Okay, to the phones, we go.
Dick in Hokassin, Delaware.
It's great to have you on the EIB Network.
Hello.
Real pleasure to be here today, Rush.
I've been listening to you since 1989 in Sacramento, California.
So thanks very much for taking my call.
I appreciate that, sir.
The reason I'm calling is I'm getting pretty fed up with this constant bashing of Mitt Romney.
And it just seems no matter what the guy does, there's always somebody out there with a snippet or something to put down whatever he's done.
Yeah, now wait a minute.
I just, Newt's getting pretty slammed here by Romney.
Well, I understand that, but all spare and love in war, but in politics, and I agree with Sarah Palin that all of these candidates should be vetted.
But, for instance, if Newt Gingrich changes his mind, and I always an avid supporter of Newt, but if Newt Gingrich changes his mind on global warming, and he wrote about it and talked about it for five years, sat on the bench with Nancy Pelosi, he makes one statement, it goes away, almost goes away.
He was censured and lost by over 300 votes to 26.
Nobody brings that up, paid a $300,000 fine.
Nobody brings that up.
But if Romney says one little word.
Wait a minute now.
Now, hold it.
They brought every bit of that up in Romney's ads in Iowa.
That's what took Newt out of the Iowa cauckey.
Well, what I'm talking about, Rush, and this does not apply to you, because, like I said, I listen to you almost three hours every day, and you're the only one that brings up the good points of Mitt.
For instance, when he gave away his inheritance, I wonder how many, I bet you Newt Gingrich or none of those others did that same thing.
He's been married for 42 years, seven kids, not three times, and all the rest of this stuff.
He turned the Olympics around, and then he was a governor.
And is he perfect?
No, absolutely not.
I'd be the first to admit that.
And then when I hear a guy like Croudhammer say that he isn't tough enough or he isn't out boisterous enough, we don't need another.
We need somebody that's going to go in there and do the job.
Well, Crouhammer said that he can't articulate conservatism, that he's a businessman.
He doesn't know conservatism.
That's what a previous caller said that we need a street fighter.
And I understand how you might have gotten the two confused.
But believe me, I mean, Mitt is dishing it out every bit as much as he's getting it.
That's one of the things going on in his campaign a lot of people don't like, but it's happening.
Now, one of the reasons, look at, I'm not here trying to offer excuses or explanations.
Well, maybe explanations, certainly not excuses.
We all admit that Romney did not have the best debate Thursday night, or Monday night.
You don't know, Snerdley.
You didn't see it.
It's true.
I said it.
And of all the people, he did, and you would think he's been, this is his second campaign.
Some of the answers to some of the allegations questions just ought to roll off of his mouth, but they're out of his mouth, off his tongue, but they don't yet.
And remember, his father, George Romney, got into trouble, had a huge big mouth.
George Romney, and I admitted maybe obviously learned from this and doesn't want to make the same mistake or experience.
George Romney said that he was brainwashed when he went to South Vietnam by us, by our side, by the Americans.
He was brainwashed when he went over there.
That sank his presidential campaign overnight at the American advisors brainwashed him.
Well, I mean, it was over.
It was totally finished.
And when something happens to your dad, it's obviously a formative experience.
And so you're going to be very guarded.
His dad's shot from the hip frequently.
Mitt doesn't.
That's very obvious.
Now, you may have heard a 200-page document that appears to be from McCain's 2008 opposition research on Romney has been put up on the internet.
The biggest portion of it consists of a detailed and heavily sourced exploration of Romney's evolving positions on social issues.
There are 22 pages of opposition research on that.
Economic issues, 21 pages of opposition research.
Domestic policy, 48 pages.
A 33-page section details Romney's business record at Bayne Capitol.
There are 16 pages that cover political issues that the authors believe can be exploited against Romney.
And there are another 11 pages devoted to Romney's flip-flops.
So there's 200 pages of op research, ostensibly from the McCain campaign in 2008.
And yet, despite all that, McCain has endorsed Romney.
And that's just plain old party politics.
My point in bringing this up is that our last caller is getting upset at all these attacks on Romney.
All these attacks on everybody.
And this is chump change compared to what's coming in the general election once we have a nominee, whoever it is.
Now, there's some theories out there who will be the less affected by Democrat attacks.
And there's a popular conventional wisdom that Romney will be the least affected, that they will be able to do the least damage to Romney.
That it's tough to make fun of him, that it's all these attacks, they've already been leveled against him back in 2008, but that it's easy to make fun of and parody Newt and make a joke of him and then ridicule him.
Ridiculing Romney, very hard to do.
Ridiculing Newt, Eat, easy.
Ridiculing Santorum, relatively easy.
Ridiculing Perry, relatively easy.
Ridiculing Ron Paul, easiest thing in the world.
So I'm just, this is, well, this is just a conventional wisdom that's out there.
But all of this that's going on is called vetting.
And we say we want vetting.
And to those of you who say, yeah, but rush, some of these allegations that Newt's making about Mitt and some of the allegations Mitt's making about Newt, they're not true.
I know.
And what do you think is coming?
In a way, this is all useful to find out how these guys are going to deal with it.
Because once one of them is chosen as the nominee, it's going to be intensified far above what it is now once the Democrats and the media join forces and get in gear on this.
So proving ground, training school, training wheels, whatever, however you want to look at it.
But the allegations need to be vetted too.
This whole business, the seriousness of the charge, rather than the nature of the evidence, well, the allegations need to be vetted as well.
In the meantime, every day you can find a story like this, sometimes more than one.
This isn't a business insider.
Nearly 3 million New Yorkers are reporting having difficulty affording food, while a growing percentage of college-educated New Yorkers are also reporting higher levels of difficulty finding food.
It's according to a new report from the Food Bank for New York City.
One in three expressed concerns they might need assistance finding food.
This is despite all the food stamps out there.
The number of affected residents making between $50,000 and $75,000 a year and therefore not eligible for food stamps has increased by 6%.
To cope, they're cutting back on spending by purchasing fewer essential items like dairy, meat, and fresh fruits and turning to soup kitchens and food stamps, which is all part of Obama's plan, creating more and more dependency on government for the necessities of life.
Now, when will this be called the Obama economy?
When will this properly be called Obamaville?
I don't know how you blame anything going on in New York on any Republican.
Unless you want to go back and try to say that this is Giuliani's mess, but it can't be and it isn't.
You've got a liberal nanny for mayor.
You've got who now wants to put bars out of business by limiting the number of adult beverages you can have every day.
You've got food banks reporting increased activity.
2.9 million New Yorkers, the population's what, seven?
2.9 million New Yorkers report having difficulty affording food.
It's Obama Bill.
Well, I don't know if there's any trans fats, foods around, but even if you're starving and you find some trans fats, I'm sure they'll charge you.
It's absurd.
Back to the audio soundbites.
This is Romney.
I wanted to play this.
We've discussed it earlier, but this was yesterday in Florence, South Carolina.
It was a town hall event.
And during the Q ⁇ A, Romney said this about his taxes.
It's number six.
I've been paying it's probably closer to the 15% rate than I think is my last 10 years.
My income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past rather than ordinary income or earned annual income.
I got a little bit of income from my book, but I gave that all away.
And then I get speakers' fees from time to time, but not very much.
So Reuters took this and did a giant story, putting dollar figures to it.
Like $372,000 doing speeches.
Never mind Bill Clinton, $82 million in speeches over six years.
From 2000 to 2006, Bill Clinton, $82 million.
Yes, Snerdley.
$82 million over six years.
The Clintons are running around bragging about how rich they are.
The Clintons run around and brag about they have so much money they don't need a tax cut.
The Clintons hide all kinds of their money in the Clinton Family Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative.
Romney, $372,000 doing speeches versus $80 million for Clinton over six or seven years.
I mean, it's no contest at all.
And so the media has now gone nuts over this.
And they never cared about John Kerry.
John Kerry paid an effective tax rate at 12% the last year that his tax returns were made available.
He and Countess Teresa Hines combined taxes.
They paid an effective tax rate of 12%.
And the year before Romney Kerry ran for president, he paid zero to charity, donated zero to charity.
So here's a montage of the media going nuts over Romney's tax rate.
Mitt Romney finally tells us how much he pays in taxes.
Just wait until you hear his definition of not very much money.
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a multi-millionaire, pays a lower tax rate than you.
Mitt Romney may pay a lower tax rate than you do.
To Mitt Romney, $374,000 isn't a lot of money.
How much is not that much to Mitt Romney?
More than $374,000.
He admits his effective tax rate is close to 15%.
The speaking fees that he calls, quote, not very much, are what the rest of the world calls wicked huge.
It is legal, but what is legal is also a scandal.
Mitt Romney has a lot of explaining to do.
That was former Labor Secretary Robert B. Rice.
We'll have the final comment there in our montage.
Of course, $374,000, let's say a little bit of income in my speech giving.
And then I got speakers' fees from time to time, and not very much.
$374,000, not very much.
Not very much compared to $82 million for Clinton.
Here's Diane Sawyer.
We just say she's so good, we separate her out.
ABC's world newest tonight, she's talking with senior political correspondent John Carl.
How much is not very much for Mitt Romney?
$374,000.
That's how much he made last year giving eight speeches, Diane?
Nearly $350,000, John.
$374,000.
Wow.
Okay.
Thanks so much to John Carl reporting in tonight.
Wow.
Wow.
So $374,000, eight speeches.
During the early 1990s, with no apparent presidential perspirations, John Kerry contributed the following amounts to charity.
Zero in 1991, $820 in 1992, $175 to charity in 1993, $2,039 in 1994, $0 to charity in 1995.
In 2003, once he began to run for the presidency, he gave $43,735.
Diane Sawyer belongs to the Speakers Bureau.
I wonder how much she gets for her speeches.
Diane Sawyer is worth $40 million, according to CelebrityNetWorth.com.
I wonder if $300,000 is a big deal to her.
Do a quick, I don't have something in, divide $374,000 by eight.
What does that come out to per speech?
You should be able to do this in two seconds.
We have to call it the calculator and open the calculator that input the numbers.
What is the number?
You know, with five seconds of dead air, I could have gone to my computer and done this myself.
$46,000 a speech.
$46,000 a speech.
Clinton doesn't speak for less than $110,000.
And Romney does eight of them.
Remember, I have turned down.
I don't charge for speeches.
I don't even charge for expenses for speeches.
And the money generated when I do one, most of it goes to charity.
I don't get a dime.
I'm not part of a Speakers Bureau.
I don't have an agent.
And I'm fine.
But I have been offered.
I'm not going to tell you who.
I have been.
I think the most I've been offered is a million dollars to do a speech.
Yeah, I was in Texas and it was sometime back in the 90s.
You know what I did last night, by the way?
I got the final installment of all the Colombo mystery movies from 1993 to 2001, the last seven or eight of them.
And I remembered there was a Colombo that bounced off of me in 1993.
The character was a talk show host, a radio, a pompous, arrogant talk show host who was the murderer.
And I had forgotten.
I watched it last.
I watched a little bit of it last week.
William Shatner portrayed Fielding Chase.
That was his name.
And I remember at the time, NBC, with their little promo announcements during the week, promoing the up-and-coming Colombo, kept talking about, don't miss the rush.
Sunday Night's Columbo.
They were totally, because 1993, we were five years into this, and the media still hadn't figured out what this was all about.
We were skyrocketing.
We were on our way to 600 stations, and it was just, all the fun phase, you can never repeat it.
You know, the growth phase.
And when you finally get there, the hard work begins to stay in there.
And I got the DVDs in yesterday, decided to watch this.
From 1993, William Shatner.
And then I got to think, you know, I've been to Shatner's house now.
I watch Monday Night Football at Shatner's house, and I've been interviewed by him on that show of his.
And he's a funny as heck guy.
And his character was perfectly pompous and arrogant In this Colombo that I watched.
Anyway, I'm way over time here again.
Usually happens in this segment, so I got to go real quick.
Okay, by the way, Bill Clinton averaged $181,000 per speech.
And in two instances, 2006, 2008, sorry, June, 2008, Clinton got $525,000 for a speech at a motivational speaking conference in Edmonton, Canada, and $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.
In June of 2010, another $500,000 for a speech at the United Arab Emirates in December of 2010.
And of course, that's never ever reported, never said to be too.
And Clinton brags about how rich he is.
But see, Clinton says, hey, I'm all for tax increase.
We don't need all this money.
We don't need it.
All they do is shelter as much of it as they can.
Here's Shirley in Wash Crossington, Pennsylvania.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Big time ditto.
Thank you.
I've made an observation.
It seems to me that Mitt Romney has taken everything that has been thrown at him, and I don't hear any whining.
And I think that is a good characteristic, a good trait for our next president.
So you're in the tank for Romney.
No, I'm not.
I have not made up my mind.
But he certainly has impressed me in that regard.
Some of the other candidates have not quite met that mark.
Yeah, I know.
Some of them act pretty personally peeved.
Yes.
That anybody would dare attack them.
Exactly.
And you're right.
He hasn't whined.
I have to give you that.
You can't say that about some of the others.
Perry hasn't whined.
Perry has not whined.
He just keeps smiling.
Rick Perry, he just, the guy makes me laugh.
He just keeps smiling out there no matter what.
When he's trying to viciously cut somebody to pieces or when he's answering a question, he just smiles.
Anyway, Shirley, that's a good point.
It's a good observation.
I got to take a break.
We'll do it.
And we'll continue after this.
Still Boku sound bites to go through here, folks.
Lots of them.
And you have to do these things when you feel them.
And the story that I held from yesterday for today about money really can buy you happiness.
Late survey, I'm not feeling it, wrote all this other stuff.
I'm going to find a way.
If I don't get to it today, don't panic.
I got to do these things when I feel it.
When the gut, when the instinct, empathy says, do it.
May happen the next hour, may not.
▲
Export Selection