All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 8, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:42
February 8, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
So the advertising agency that put together the Clint Eastwood halftime ad in the Super Bowl had people that volunteered for Obama in 2008.
The Hollywood Reporter dug out that news, not the drive-by media.
Who would have thought that was possible?
In fact, probably difficult to find an ad agency that didn't donate or work on the ONES campaign back in 2008.
Anyway, great to have you here, folks.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Rick Santorum.
One night, three victories.
CBS has the story of Santorum's stunner, sweeps three Republican contests.
And I've taken a gander throughout the Republican media, conservative media, and all over the place, and they're shocked.
They're literally shocked.
The Republican establishment had no idea this was percolating out there.
I can't believe how insulated they are.
I mean, I know they're insulated.
I know they're inside the Beltway.
I know they have their own world in which they live.
But to look at the reaction they're having today, see how shocked they are that Rick Santorum has come out of what they thought was an impossible position, equivalent to nowhere, is an incredible thing.
And we're going to look at this in some detail.
Of course, the drive-bys are crediting me for this.
And it's about time to put a stop to this.
I know why they're doing it.
And the real reason they're doing it is because they think they have this kind of power.
They think they have the power.
And in some cases, they do with certain audiences.
But they think they have the power to launch Obama from nowhere to the presidency.
And it could be argued that they did play a significant role here.
And so they think that of themselves.
So a Republican candidate comes along out of nowhere.
First it was Newt, now it's Santorum.
It can't be the candidates.
It can't be that Santorum's connecting with voters.
Can't be that.
No, no.
It can't be that Santorum's resonating with Republican voters, the conservative base.
It can't be that the conservative base just isn't happy with Romney.
Can't be any of that.
No, no, no.
It has to be that the Republican base, a bunch of mind-numbed robots sitting out there waiting for marching orders from me.
And, well, while it's fun, snurdly, while it's fun to sit here and tweak these people, and while it's fun to listen to their soundbites, which we're going to do today, while it's fun to listen to them talk about how I'm responsible for it, never forget that I have the most profound respect and admiration of people in this audience.
And I know full well that conservative voters, by and large, there are always exceptions to things, are intelligent, they're engaged, and they're clearly able to make up their own minds, and they do.
And so it may be a mixture of both, but still, it's still fascinating to watch because all of these conservatives sneak up.
The one thing that it's never going to stop bothering me, this notion, this template, if you will, that conservative voters are a bunch of idiots that can't make up their own minds.
They sit around and wait for marching orders.
That's been one of the templates to describe this audience ever since this program started in 1988.
And it's insulting, it's demeaning, and impugns these people.
And I think it's a mistake because the Republican Party had better understand here that the people who are not voting for Romney are not doing it because I'm telling them to, or because anybody else is telling them to.
Are doing it because they genuinely have a problem with Romney.
And they're doing it because in Santorum's case, as I've been saying the past couple of weeks, if you're looking for a conservative who is the least corrupted, who has the least number of periods of wandering off the reservation, if you're looking for a conservative who's never sat down with Nancy Pelosi on a couch for any reason, and you've got Rick Santorum, and people know this.
Now, one of the things that could explain Santorum's sweep yesterday, a number of things.
One of the things that could explain it is people have to think that the guy can win.
And that's what the base is telling us today.
They think Santorum can win.
People, there may be some protest votes in this, but the establishment had better wake up and understand that Republican primary voters are doing this not just to stick an eye in the establishment and not just to be frivolous here.
They're doing it.
They're sending a message.
They sent a message with Newton, South Carolina, and I told you then that Newt was the vessel for that message and that vote and then the South Carolina primary victory that he had after the confrontation in the debate with Juan Williams.
Now, I had a note today from somebody that wanted to try to be a little funny.
Said, Rush, I know that Romney didn't mean it this way, but the recent Health and Human Services mandate on contraceptions, Catholic Church thing, once again shows that yes, Obamacare is worth getting angry about.
And there's an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today that Romney might be well served to get a little bit more angry about the health and human services thing, although he has condemned it.
He's practically called it zany.
That's the note I got.
And it's instructive because I have here a piece of information you may not know yet.
I, of course, stumbled across this because I, well, it's my job, men, to stay informed and to keep you that way.
It's from life sightenews.com, lifesite news.com.
It's December 9th of 2005.
Are you ready?
In a shocking turnaround, remember now, this is seven years ago, December 9th, 2005.
Sitting down, Snerdley.
In a shocking turnaround, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday, which would have been December 8th, 2005, that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in Massachusetts will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospital's moral position on the issue.
The Republican governor had earlier defended the right of hospitals to avoid dispensing the morning after pill on the grounds of moral dissent.
The Boston Globe reporter Romney's flip on the issue came after his legal counsel, Mark Nielsen, concluded Wednesday, again, we're talking 2005 here, that the new law supersedes a pre-existing statute related to the abort efficient pill.
Now, morning after pill.
What we have here is another telling sign of just how similar, if you will, Romney care is to Obama here.
What is the legislation they are talking about here?
I'm going to read this to you again.
It's December 9th, 2005, a shocking turnaround.
The site is LifesightNews.com in a shocking turnaround.
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in Massachusetts will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under the new state legislation.
Now, it's sexual assault victims, it's not everybody, but there's a similarity here.
And what this does, one of the reasons why I have often stated to the chagrin of the establishment and the drive-by media, one of the reasons that I have been of the opinion, let's put it that way, that Obama wants to run against Romney, not just Occupy Wall Street, which I think was created to run against Romney and to define Romney, but I think they know that there's a connection between Romney Care and Obamacare.
Romney's two advisors helped the White House put theirs together.
And here is another link to something happening today vis-a-vis Obamacare that has linkage to Romney care.
What this does is takes another issue off the table.
I mean, hypothetically speaking, here, if Romney gets a nomination, there's an issue that we've got to go tread lightly when criticizing Obama on this mandate that Catholic schools, everybody else, sell and give away the morning after pill, contraceptives, and all against their moral conscience.
The word is denuded.
It denudes us of another issue against Obama.
See, it is this kind of thing.
It's what the establishment in the Republican Party just doesn't seem to penetrate this, even though people may not have known this specific bit of information.
There still is this unsettledness in the conservative base about Romney because of things like this.
And what the conservative base knows is that we have the most radical, far-left president this country has ever seen.
And the contrast to that is who we are naturally.
And to denude that contrast, to have a campaign where there doesn't appear to be that big a difference in something as fundamental as Obamacare from him to our nominee, this is something the conservative base just is roiling against.
And the establishment doesn't quite get it.
So you get to Santorum, and what's he talking about?
What's Rick Santorum talking about?
We take a break here.
We'll come back and listen to a little bit of his St. Charles, Missouri acceptance speech last night.
He is out talking about freedom.
I'll give you an excerpt.
I'm not the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.
I am the conservative alternative to Obama.
Amen.
That is exactly what the Republican conservative base is looking for, a conservative alternative to Obama.
The fact that they have to find a conservative alternative to Romney is what frustrates them.
It's having to find a conservative alternative to McCain.
Santorum then said, I care about the very rich and the very poor.
I care about 100% of America.
Ladies and gentlemen, freedom is at stake in this election.
America's honor is at stake.
Freedom is at stake.
This is exactly, if you people in the establishment want to know why this is happening with Santorum, it's right here in this one line.
Ladies and gentlemen, freedom is at stake in this election.
Now, if you're in the Republican establish and you think that's silly, if you don't think freedom is at stake here, you know, come on, these radicals, these fringe kooks, these Republican conservatives, every election, their freedom is up for great.
It is.
They believe it.
People in this country, we believe it.
We think the whole point of Obamacare is to deny us individual liberty and freedom.
We believe that one of the whole points of the Obama administration and the reason he wants to be president is to take away individual liberty and freedom and transfer it to the state having dominion over us.
That's what the Republican base believes.
And there's a big disconnect with the establishment either making fun of that, poo-pooing it, not taking it seriously, or even worse, not even understanding it.
But that's why we're where we are.
Now, in this thing in 2005, let's say with Romney, let's say that the statement here, this story, in a shocking turnaround, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals of the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospital's moral position on the issue.
Might not be due to Romney care.
Could be there was a law already on the books in Massachusetts that superseded Romney care on the abortion on the pill.
And Romney said, I have nothing to do about it.
It was pre-existing before I got here.
That could well be, but there is a flip-flop referenced in this story.
The Republican governor had earlier defended the right of hospitals to avoid dispensing the morning after pill on the grounds of moral dissent.
And from there, that's where you got the shocking turnaround.
Governor Mitt Romney announced that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals of the state will be forced.
So some are going to say, no matter how this comes, well, he didn't fight for it.
He's flip-flopped.
I don't care how it ultimately manifests itself.
The way this is going to be perceived by Republican primary voters is a confirmation of some of the doubts and concerns that they have.
I'm just trying to explain to you why people are voting for Santorum, why this has been percolating, effervescing, if you will, out there, apparently under the radar, as far as the Republican establishment, some of its media minions are concerned.
So let's take a brief time out.
We'll come back and listen to a bit of Santorum's speech last night, St. Charles, Missouri.
And after that, we have a bite from Trump who says, I don't get this whole Santorum thing.
And he just last week goes out and endorses Santorum and now this endorses Romney.
And now Santorum sweeps three states.
There are a lot of people scratching their heads.
And no, I wasn't surprised by this.
I'm not surprised by this.
It's one of the reasons that I haven't been panicking throughout all of this.
I think I have a pretty good understanding and idea where the Republican base is.
And if they're given the opportunity to vote for what they think is important, they'll do it.
Coupled with, is my vote going to be cast where somebody can actually win?
I think people thought Newt could win.
It's one of the reasons they voted for him.
People are going to say, well, you know, Santorum can't win.
Everybody knows he's unelectable.
We've been hearing this.
Every one of our candidates, unelectable, can't be elected.
Doesn't matter who, other than Romney.
We've been told this by our side, our establishment, by the Democrats and the media as well.
Let me take a break here before I get on too long.
Sit tight.
Back with more after this.
Let me read you a little bit more of this story from December 9th of 2005 from LifeSite News.
Daniel Avila, the Associate Director for Policy and Research for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said yesterday in an interview with the Boston Globe that Catholic hospitals still have legal grounds to avoid providing the pill despite the new legislation.
The new bill did not expressly repeal the original law protecting the rights of Catholic facilities.
As long as that statute was left standing, I think those who want to rely on that statute for protection for what they're doing have legal grounds.
That's in the Boston Globe.
Now, the conference has been fighting this new legislation for several years.
2003 statement to the Joint Committee on Healthcare, they outlined their concern over the proposed Emergency Contraception Access Act, stating it will force Catholic medical personnel to distribute contraceptives, even in cases involving the risk of early abortion, also furthers a national strategy ultimately directed towards coercing Catholic facilities to provide insurance coverage for and to perform abortions.
The final paragraph, the governor's turnaround is especially unexpected, since Romney has been presenting himself as a conservative on social issues in anticipation of a possible run for the presidency in 2008.
This decision will certainly undermine the credibility of his conservatism with Republican Party members that may have been inclined to support him up to now, which takes us back up to the opening graph.
In a shocking turnaround, Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation.
There are two things about this.
One is, as far back as 2003, you can see the Democrat Party and the American left's design here on the Catholic Church and on the entire pro-life movement.
Just use the force of the state to force them to require them under penalty of law to violate their conscience, to violate their own morality, to give away or provide abortion services.
This has been going on at least since then, the attempt to co-opt and corrupt the pro-life movement.
The Boston Globe story on this, December 9th, 2005, Governor Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide a morning after pillar rape victims.
The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the State Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds.
It says that Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday he had changed direction after his legal counsel concluded Wednesday the new law supersedes a pre-existing statute.
So he was saying, I've got to follow the law here.
Governor, they passed the law.
I've got to follow the law.
I'm just pointing out that this is the kind of story that will raise more red flags.
And I find it's seven years old, this story, and it comes back to life, quite understandably.
I don't think Santorum has an opposition research firm yet, Or office or even departments.
I don't think this possibly comes from him.
The only point here, folks, is that we have the most avowed leftists in office ever and need somebody who can contrast remarkably the exact opposite on our side if we're going to beat this back.
Now, I promise we'll get to Santorum's speech excerpts.
Next.
In Los Angeles, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Now, for what it's worth here, this is from the Washington Post fact-checker, a guy named Glenn Kessler today.
In one of his most controversial acts as governor, Romney actually vetoed a law to make Plan B, the morning after abortion drug, readily available over the counter and to rape victims treated at area hospitals.
But his veto was quickly overturned by the Massachusetts legislature.
The bill became law.
And could be that the life site news story is a story about the bill that superseded the bill Romney was talking about.
There were two laws from the Washington Post.
Originally, Massachusetts law had previously held that hospitals had the right, for reasons of conscience, to not offer birth control services.
But in writing the new law, legislators did not include wording in the bill explicitly repealing that clause, according to news reports at the time.
So, again, what we have here is a confusing bunch of mumbo-jumbo, from which one can take that not a whole lot was done to oppose the Massachusetts legislature or that this was just considered to be politically expedient or what have you.
It's just amazing to me that we have the area of commonality here between an issue that's become highly charged and controversial this last couple of weeks, actually.
The new law in Massachusetts, the one that Romney vetoed, but passed, superseded this earlier law.
So I'm sure that the Romney camp can say, no, we tried.
We wanted to veto this.
We did everything we could.
The news media is making this flip-flop.
It wasn't a flip-flop.
I've been totally misrepresented.
The media, of course, have posted me as a conservative Republican governor in Massachusetts and all of this.
It's just illustrative here of the point that I think is salient.
That is the administration not really that unhappy for Romney's a nominee because there are a couple of things, Wall Street and health care, that they think they can just wipe off the table as something that Obama could be criticized for with any credibility whatsoever.
So when you see somebody running for office, I don't care who it is for the presidency, do you think you know why they want to be president?
Isn't it amazing?
You don't, you don't wonder that I well.
Okay.
Well, that's the point.
We're left to assume why these guys want to be president.
The last time I can think anybody was asked was when Daniel Mudd asked Ted Kennedy back in 1980.
And we got the forerunner of that gibberish shit at Clinton fundraiser in the 90s.
Well, He had no answer for why he wanted to be president.
No answer for why he was running.
It strikes me that there aren't very many candidates who are asked that question point blank.
So we're left to assume.
Like Snerdley was just shouting at me in the IFB.
I know why Obama wanted to run.
He wants to totally change this country.
He didn't like the way the country was founded.
It's his job to transform.
We're left to assume that.
And I think we're right.
But he wasn't asked, at least not that I recall.
Now, sometimes they'll say, I want to be president of this country for X, Y, and Z, but put on the spot where the question doesn't happen.
So when you look around, do you know why Newton?
I'm just asking, I don't have an answer here.
I mean, these are rhetorical questions.
I'm asking you, this audience's voters, when you watch a Republican debate, do you have any idea why Ron Paul wants to be president?
Do you have any idea why Newt wants to be?
Did you know why Bachman wanted to be president?
Did you know why Rick Perry did?
I'm just asking.
The reason I'm asking is because I think when you listen to Santorum, you know he's answering the question without being asked.
And it's in that little quote that I read to you about freedom and what's at stake in this election in this country.
That's his why.
That's his answer to the question why he wants to be president.
And this is a powerful thing.
His what he said: I am not the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.
I'm the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.
I care about the very rich, the very poor.
I care about 100% of America.
Ladies and gentlemen, freedom's at stake in this election.
America's honor is at stake.
When you hear that, you have very little doubt what it is that's motivating or inspiring Santorum.
Let's go to the sound bites.
We have four of them here from St. Charles, Missouri at Santorum headquarters last night.
Wow!
Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota.
Thank you all so very, very much.
It is great to be here.
I just can't thank the people of Missouri.
We doubled him up here and in Minnesota.
Let me just thank God for giving us the grace to be able to persevere through the dog days and blessing us and blessing our family.
My wife, Karen, here, what a rock.
I mean, what a rock through these last few weeks.
We have had more drama than any family really needs.
And she has just been an amazing rock and a great blessing to me.
And I just want to thank you in particular, my sweet, for all you've done.
Thank you.
Here's the next excerpt.
I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't listening.
Why would you think he would be listening now?
Has he ever listened to the voice of America before?
No, why?
Because he thinks he knows better.
He thinks he's smarter than you.
He thinks he's someone who is a privileged person who should be able to rule over all of you.
But we have a different message for him.
Rick Santorum talking about Obama.
Obama, he's not listening tonight.
He thinks he's better than we are.
I think that nails it, by the way.
I think Obama is one of these narcissistic, egomaniacs, superiorists who actually does think he's better.
The bitter clinger comments, an example.
When Obama looks at everybody, he has to look down his nose to see us.
In the next bite, this is Santorum saying he's not the conservative alternative to Romney, wants to be the conservative alternative to Obama.
I hope you have been listening to our message.
Because if you listen to our message and you found out that on those issues, healthcare, the environment, cap and trade, and on the Wall Street bailouts, Mitt Romney has the same positions as Barack Obama.
And in fact, would not be the best person to come up and fight for your voices for freedom in America.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.
I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.
This is standard slogan at these rallies.
We pick Rick.
There's always a slogan that got all fired up.
Santorum is also very fluent in the language of conservatism.
You'll hear it's natural.
It pours out.
And explaining, for example, a theory of limited government is second nature to him.
He doesn't have to be taught it.
He doesn't have to have it written for him.
He doesn't have to be briefed.
And he certainly doesn't have to be tutored right before he goes out to speak about it.
The president over the last few years has tried to tell you that he, in fact, the government, can give you rights.
The government can take care of you and provide for you.
They can give you the right to health care, like in Obamacare.
But look what happens when the government gives you rights.
When the government gives you rights, unlike when God gives you rights, the government can take them away.
When government gives you rights, the government can tell you how to exercise those rights.
And we saw that just in the last week with a group of people, a small group of people, just Catholics in the United States of America.
Yep.
It just flows out of there.
Now, there was a piece today.
Where was it?
I don't know if it might have been posted.
It's from the Independent Women's Forum, Charlotte Hayes.
I am familiar with this group.
Members of this group have often referred to me as Braveheart in a political sense, although it was not Charlotte Hayes, but they're a conservative bunch.
Independent Women's Forum, they sort of created themselves the alter ego of the feminazis.
They appreciate strong men.
They want strong men.
They desire a role for strong men in relationships and in the world, in politics and all of this.
They're a good bunch of people.
So this from Charlotte Hayes was posted around 8 o'clock this morning.
If you think Rick Santorum can get independence, go for it.
So once again, here we have this notion that we can't win this without winning the independence and conservatives can't win the independence.
It's a group called the Independent Women's Forum, and they identify themselves as conservative.
You think Rick Santorum gets independence?
Go for it, folks.
Senator Santorum, who enjoyed a magnificent triumph in three states last night, deserves a lot of credit, as he would no doubt be the first to tell you for hanging in there.
He's been impressive in recent debates.
The Grateful Nation thanks Mr. Santorum for seemingly having dispatched Newt Gingrich back under his bridge.
That means he's a troll.
Newt's a troll.
He's lurking under the bridge there, comes out every now and then for a debate.
It is snarky, is my point.
But at least for the time being, we thank Santorum for dispatching Newt back under his bridge.
Last night was not good for the Republican Party, writes Ms. Hayes.
Was not good for the Republican Party.
I think the voters last night were acting like my favorite cousin Harry, she says, who yearns for a real conservative, refers to Romney as McCain.
Then she adds in parentheses, by the way, a McCain presidency looking pretty good right now, huh?
It was during the campaign, not a presidency, that McCain lost his nerve.
And parentheses.
So this little paragraph here is chock full of stuff.
She's ripping people.
Oh, yeah, yeah, McCain presidency looking pretty good right now.
I actually could make the case that the party, the Republican Party, would be far worse off today with McCain having won.
But that's for another time.
Back to Ms. Hayes here.
Mitt Romney speaks conservatism like a second language.
That's because it is a second language for him.
Is that such a bad thing?
Sure, he needed somebody to tell him not to flaunt that coveted Bob Dole endorsement.
He needs to quickly absorb some of the language and ideas that are first nature to movement conservatives like Walter Williams.
He's good on the minimum wage.
I hate it when others beat me to ideas that I've been playing with, but William Tucker did the other day, proposing that Romney, with his temperament, could be another Reagan.
With a conservative Congress, the sky's the limit.
In a way, Santorum has replaced Gingrich as the conservative feel-good candidate.
As I said, if you think Santorum can win in November, be my guest.
I worry he doesn't have that kind of broad appeal needed to even beat a disaster like Barack Obama.
Now, you might ask yourself that I, by the way, I say I know independent women's form.
I don't know Charlotte Hayes.
If I've met her, I don't recall.
Rick Santorum is not rallying support because of a cult of personality.
As I pointed out in the previous 45 minutes of this program, he's rallying support because he's the last real conservative still standing.
He's running enthusiastically as a conservative.
But the issue is not whether he has brought appeal.
It's whether conservatism has brought appeal and can win over converts with the strength of its arguments, which get clearer.
I got to take a break.
I'm a little long.
I'm not through, though.
back after this and we are back Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Let me grab some phone calls before we wrap up this hour.
I know some people that want to get in on this.
They've been waiting patiently.
But this whole thing with Charlotte Hayes here, either conservatism is what it is and you support it or it isn't.
Santorum is out.
You can say, well, no delegates were assigned.
Three states.
He swept three states.
If the establishment's right, Romney should be winning everything.
Now, it should be over.
And it's not.
Romney's not sweeping everything.
So now the latest is, at least from Ms. Hayes, and I've really, I don't know where this is really not even a criticism of her.
This is more an opportunity to illustrate a point.
Santorum is out rallying support because he's the last real conservative still standing, and he is running as a conservative.
He's not cloudy about it at all.
There's no doubt about what and who Santorum is.
So the question is, well, does he have broad appeal?
The question is, does conservatism, properly explained, cheerfully proclaimed, does conservatism have broad appeal?
Can conservatism win over conference with the strength of its argument?
And there's no question that it can.
It does every time it's tried.
The problem is it's not tried enough in electoral Republican politics.
But the last time it was overwhelmingly successful was Reagan.
We've been through time and time again how much the establishment doesn't like that.
They just don't like conservatives.
They don't like conservatism for all the reasons that we've stated.
But in times like this, one of the reasons you want down-the-middle straight conservative is because of the opportunity to contrast it with Obama.
In times like this, is when conservatism becomes crystal clear to people that don't understand it or have never had it explained to them or don't quite think ideologically in their lives.
Greatest opportunity ever to explain conservatism to people.
It explains itself.
As times get more dire and as Obama becomes more stridently left, conservatism comes into focus.
Now, if you are a conservative and you don't believe that that's true, then why be a conservative?
If conservatism has to be modified or moderated or somehow, why be a conservative?
So there's a lot going on with this.
There is a lot that establishment types could learn and put to good use from this experience and this example.
I know it gets frustrating folks having to constantly teach.
You look at the left and they don't have to teach it.
And what is it?
Liberalism is the most gutless choice you can make.
You see some suffering, go, oh, gosh, I hate that.
Oh, you're a liberal.
You got a big heart.
You got compassion.
You've done nothing but see it.
You've done nothing but say you saw it.
You come along with ideas to fix it.
And that's when you get opened up to all these charges and have to take an intellectual foray into understanding what this is about.
Got to take a break again because of constraints of time.
Be right back after this.
▲
Export Selection