All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 8, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:41
August 8, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
As always, it's fun.
It's a thrill and a delight to be with you.
I have this chance, this opportunity every day to talk with you about things.
I said the other day, Snerdley was shocked, said the other day I wasn't all that jazzed about the football season.
There was a game last, what was it, Sunday night?
The Hall of Fame game, the Saints and the Cardinals.
And I turned it on out of hat.
I watch it.
I got the Steelers and the Eagles tomorrow, and I don't care.
It's not just that it's preseason and preseason doesn't matter.
It's just normally this time of year, my attitude shifts ever so slightly.
It's the arrival of football season, and with it, the seasonal change, and you get the holiday, all of that stuff that I normally get a little jazzed about, sometimes more so than others.
And I'm not feeling it this year.
And there's a bunch of reasons why.
The way football is talked about and reported now is forever different.
And it's not going to go, genie's out of the bottle.
It's not going to ever go back to being what it was now.
For example, can I just give you an example?
At practice, at Oakland Raiders practice yesterday, there was a helmet-to-helmet hit.
They called an ambulance.
They took a player to the hospital.
That was the big news.
Helmet to helmet hit.
Was there a concussion?
Is this guy going to walk again?
That kind of turned out everything was fine.
But that's the first time I can recall in I don't know how many years of there being a news story or an ambulance being called at practice.
Because if a helmet to helmet hit.
Anyway, it's just going to be different.
The commentary during the games is going to be different.
It's just like now, when it's 100 degrees in July, you know, people are thinking about global warming.
Every hard hit in the football game, everybody's going to stop now.
Oh, gee, we shouldn't be playing this game.
Genie's out of the bottle, as I say.
There's another reason, though, and that is, I'm consumed with other priorities.
I am really worried about this election.
I am really worried about what's going to happen in this country if this guy wins.
I've never felt this way about an election before.
I have never, when football season's shown up, not cared.
I look at this election, and if Obama wins this, I am just, I'm worried for everybody, what the country's going to be, how it's going to change, and where we may not be able to get it back.
Not for a long, long time.
Anyway, just as a reason to explain.
And of course, check the email during the breaks.
You know, Rush, you're falling for it.
All is Romney killing people.
All Obama's trying to do is distract you and everybody from talking about the economy.
Okay, what are we supposed to do here?
No matter what happens, remind you of the unemployment rate, remind you of what the gross domestic product is not.
I mean, if you want, every day I'll just do another.
We'll give you the economic stats.
My contention is that you know it and you feel it.
Obama's got no record.
I don't think that we have been deficient in highlighting Obama's failures anyway.
But this stuff, you know, Romney killing people now.
And CNN again running a fact check in a random act of journalism and telling everybody, of course, was on CNN.
Nobody heard it.
They had another 20-year low in ratings in the month of June.
I take it back, July.
It's already August.
They've got Larry King.
God love him.
Larry King, when he hosted his show, before it faded away and he had to leave, at his peak, Larry King, you could count on Larry King for a million and a half viewers a night.
And in the cable universe, that was enough.
That was okay.
This Piers Morgan guy in July, around 300,000.
I mean, the bottom is falling out.
And that's where all of this fact-checking took place on the Obama ad, where it was revealed to be an utter lie.
So we repeat it to bring it to a larger audience.
I'm going to do it again.
This is Jennifer Saki talking to Blitzer.
Blitzer said Breonna Keillor, that's their reporter, did a fact-check of that ad.
It's full of falsehoods.
Obviously, the campaign's not associated with the super PAC, but you can say, you know what?
We want to dissociate ourselves from that ad because it's repulsive.
If you want to say something like that, he's talking to Jennifer Saki, who's part of the Obama campaign.
Why do you want to be part of that ad?
Don't you want to dissociate yourself from it?
Wolf's beside himself.
The ad's a lie.
Our network found out.
It's a bunch of falsehoods in it.
Why do you want to associate yourself with it?
Wolf, we have nothing to do with the ad.
We're focused on our race.
We're focused on going to Colorado tomorrow, and that's where we're at from the campaign side.
We can't speak to the super PAC ads.
We don't have anything to do with them.
So I don't have anything further on that.
Because it is pretty serious when you're not doing it, but the Super PAC is making this allegation that Romney was responsible for the death of this woman when that's simply not true.
Well, Wolf, you know, I wasn't involved with making the ad.
Yeah, I wasn't involved.
Besides, all we're trying to do is distract people from Obama's horrible record on the economy and stuff.
So up next was Babe Buchanan.
Wolf has to turn to Babe Buchanan and let her loose.
He said there have been false Romney ads as well, taking words the president of the United States said totally out of context.
That's Wolf happening to be fair.
When Romney hasn't done anything of the sort, that's Wolf harkening back to the Obama.
You didn't build that.
You didn't make that happen.
Anyway, here's what Babe Buchanan had to say.
This is typical.
We have the most powerful man in the world.
President of the United States takes no responsibility for his campaign, no responsibility for his PACs, no responsibility for his cabinet members who are out there raising money for this PAC so this ad can run, takes no responsibility for the pain and suffering this country is suffering.
The people in this country are suffering with a high unemployment, a loss of homes, falling into poverty.
The only thing he takes responsibility for is the businesses other people are building.
This is a disgraceful, despicable, dishonest ad.
And if the president of the United States does not want shame on himself, he should immediately reject it outright.
What shame?
He doesn't think there's any shame.
He thinks they're getting away with it.
Obama thinks it's working.
Stephanie Cutter, she's the one that came out and said that Romney's a felon.
This morning on CNN, on the starting point, talking to the co-host Josh Berman, there are plenty of questions about the timeline of this.
This man, obviously, we're sorry he lost his wife, suggesting that she died because of action that Romney took.
Now, he, of course, had left Bain years before.
And then this, and this woman had her health insurance for two years while at this company.
She had health insurance for two years.
She was not left high and dry.
What do you say to that, Stephanie Cutter?
Here's what I do know, that Mitt Romney personally handled the deal to take over G.S. Steel, and it personally handled some of the decisions made to load that company up with debt so much that it went underwater.
It went bankrupt.
And you just said that he left the company before the deal was made.
That's not true.
Mitt Romney made that deal.
He says that he left Bain Capital in 1999 to go run the Olympics.
But if you remember, according to the SEC forms that he filed, he was still president and CEO of that firm.
He was still taking a salary.
And I guarantee you that when G.S. Steel went bankrupt, that Mitt Romney personally walked away with a significant profit while Joe Soptic lost his job.
Right.
And his wife died.
So Stephanie Cutter, what do you mean back away from it?
Romney did kill the guy's wife.
That's what she's saying.
What do you mean step back from it?
You people are seeing it are nuts.
Romney was there.
He founded a company.
He got rich.
This guy lost his job.
His wife died.
Romney killed her.
It's clear as a bell.
That's what she is saying.
So Berman said, this woman died in 2006.
This ad basically accuses Romney of killing her.
Is that the kind of rhetoric you want to hear in a campaign like this, especially from the side of the president of the United States, especially a president who ran four years ago on raising the notion of civility?
I don't know the facts of when Joe Soptic's wife got sick or when she died.
But as I said before, I do know the facts of what Mitt Romney did with G.S. Steel.
I do know the facts of how Joe Soptic lost his job, lost his health care.
The entire company went bankrupt.
But Mitt Romney walked away with a pretty hefty profit.
Those are the facts that matter.
This private sector business experience that he's talking about was all about making profits for himself at any cost, at any consequence to anybody else.
Yeah, and by the way, he killed the guy's wife.
Now, this, we're told that this is working.
Now, you might be asking, since this all went down yesterday, what is the Romney campaign doing?
As the Romney campaign responded, yes, they have.
The Romney campaign responded this morning on Fox.
Off the top of your head, what do you think the Romney campaign said about all this?
Well, I'm going to tell you.
I have this story here from Media8.
And the headline says it all.
Romney spokesperson.
That woman would have had health care under Romney care.
That's the reaction.
Appearing on Fox News with Bill Hammer, Mitt Romney, campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul attacked the ad, and then she veered off message.
She said that the fired steel worker would have had access to health care if he had lived in Massachusetts, where under Romney's plan, health care coverage is extended.
So wait a minute.
You're telling me That you get a campaign person on from the Romney campaign to respond to an allegation that your candidate is responsible for a woman's death, And your answer is, she would have had health insurance if she'd lived in Massachusetts.
Look, I don't know the people at the Romney campaign, but I'm going to tell you, your candidate is accused of killing a woman because this isn't about health insurance.
They're out there saying that your guy killed this woman.
And your answer is, well, she'd have had health insurance if she lived in Massachusetts.
From the sound of this, they don't know at the Romney campaign what the purpose of this ad was and how it took root.
They apparently don't know that the Obama campaign ran an ad accusing Romney of murder, essentially.
Stephanie Cutter is backing it up.
The woman did die.
Romney got rich.
He closed the plant.
Husband lost a job.
Wife got sick and died.
Romney made out like a bandit.
Well, she'd have had health insurance if she lived in Massachusetts.
And you couple that with there was a lack of understanding or desire to join the Chick-fil-A day.
I mean, that's your base out there.
Okay, got to take a break, folks.
Your phone calls are next when we get back, so sit tight.
All that and more is straight ahead.
You know what's going on here, folks?
We are in the middle of a political terrorism campaign.
This is political terrorism, what's going on.
Romney is a felon.
Romney is a tax cheat.
Romney kills women with cancer.
Romney founded Bain Capital with money from right-wing death squads in El Salvador.
Romney wants to rob from the middle class and give to the rich.
Even though he's the father of five, Romney wants to starve children.
He wants to foul the water, poison the air.
And he's ahead of the E. coli club.
So as always, I checked the email during the break.
Well, what will you do?
Well, I certainly wouldn't go on TV after I had just been accused of committing murder and said, well, if she'd have lived where I was governor, she'd have had health insurance.
You know, that steel company, here's what I'd say.
If I'd gone on TV today to talk about that steel company, asked Bain Capital in.
That steel company was going under.
They asked Bain Capital in.
They were going bankrupt otherwise.
Bain Capital gave Joe Soptic an additional two or three years of work with health insurance that he would not have had were it not for Bain Capital.
Why can't they tell their own story?
I know their story.
Why can't they tell their story?
And then I'd come back.
You know what?
There are 2 million people who do not have jobs that did have jobs when Obama was inaugurated.
2 million fewer jobs since Obama took office.
How many of those people have died of cancer?
You guys want to start talking about death squads?
When are you going to give the money from Planned Parenthood back?
You want them about death squads?
How about the national or NARAL, whatever that stands for, Abortion Rights Action League.
You learned about death squads.
I would throw it right back at them.
But here's, by the way, here's the bite that's Andrea Saul.
And look, I don't know Andrea Saul, and I'm sure she's nice, and I'm not trying to pick out any kind of a fight here.
I am just simply reacting to what I heard, and I think there's a disconnect with this answer.
Bill Hammer had her on Fox morning.
Says, is it true that this gentleman who lost his job, his wife died five years after that, it'd be 2006?
Are those the facts that you understand?
Obviously, it's unfortunate when anyone loses their job.
This particular case was a plant that was closed years after Governor Romney left the company.
And to that point, you know, if people had been in Massachusetts under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care.
Oh, there's that's the potential goldmine for the Obama it's because they can say, well, yeah.
And Romney cares.
The was the foundation for our plan.
Obamacare.
which they are already out there saying, let's go.
We'll start at Rich in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Rich, glad you called.
Thank you for waiting and hello.
Hey, Rich.
You know, I'm not doing well here today.
Normally, I'm a pretty even-keeled guy, but this whole Mitt Romney thing that they're trying to pit on him, this woman dying because of what they're calling poor business decisions that he made, I got to tell you, I am a small business owner.
And in the last five years, I'm a real estate appraiser.
And in the last five years, I almost lost my business twice.
I almost lost my home twice.
I know of people who've lost their businesses, millions of small business owners who just either went under or almost went under.
I had to sell personal assets to keep my business afloat.
I had to forfeit so much in order to remain sovereign to remain in business.
Even just last week, and we're doing much better now, but even just last week, I still have to pull money out of personal savings in order to make a payroll.
And if we're going to start placing blame on poor decisions that people are making, let's start with the government and all the poor regulations and how they've gutted my industry and the things that they did.
When they were handing out government bailouts, none of us blue guys were getting to bail out.
I had to figure out the next move I had to make.
And so you don't understand why everybody's talking about this Romney business when what's really happening out there.
That's exactly right.
There is a much bigger problem going on out there.
They are making so much out of nothing.
I don't know what they're saying.
Well, that's what they're trying to make sure people don't talk about that or not reminded about that.
Some of this stuff is no doubt a diversionary tactic, but it's all teachable moments at the same time, and it's all linked together.
It's all being brought about by one guy.
All of this misery is Obama.
And it's a tough sell.
You tell people, yeah, it's happening on purpose.
It has to be.
I mean, there are fixes for this.
There are ways to stop the direction of this economy.
All he wants to do is double down on what's caused this.
If you believe that America has had an unfair advantage, is that it is an unqualified, illegitimate superpower.
And if you think America needs to be cut down to size in the interest of fairness to other nations around the world, then this has to happen.
The middle class has to be taken down a peg.
The rich have to be stolen from.
The rich have to be harmed if this country is to assume its rightful fair place among other nations.
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, John in Wilson, New York.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Hey, I'm the guy that called last spring that said, we need a guy exactly like Gingrich because at this point, you're the guy who called last spring?
Yes.
And here we are in the middle of a war, and we are surrendering.
And I am sick of it.
This whole thing with Reed and the tax reforms, I would put that little man down so fast he wouldn't even come out of his hole.
Why are we playing around with this guy?
I'll tell you what.
Somebody's got to call Laurie Ingram and Ann Colder, who are so big on Romney.
Romney was a guy.
We all knew what was going to happen.
Now we have McCain, too.
And somebody better get a hold of him right now.
Go ahead, Rush.
I'll tell you.
Thank you, sir.
I'm sorry to do.
That's all right.
I need to be reminded what it's like to be a caller now and then.
And you've helped me.
I'll tell you why.
I'll take you back to Bush 43.
Their belief, remember, they never responded to anything either.
And you're talking about the essence of the GOP establishment.
And their theory was that if they responded to anything, it gave it life and kept the story alive in the media day after day after day.
Whereas if they ignored it, it'd go away.
And yeah, something else would pop up, but it would eventually go away if they didn't give it life.
There was also the belief that they didn't want to sully the office of the president by getting down the gutter all the time responding to this stuff.
Now, Karl Rove admitted in a book after he and Bush left office that they might have made a little bit of mistake in not responding to some of this stuff.
But I think that the prevailing theory in the Republican establishment today is: don't mention it, don't respond to it.
It just elevates it, gives it longer life.
It will eventually go away, and people will forget about it.
Maybe?
Well, it didn't work for Bush 43, did it?
No, it's not that long.
They were able to.
I'll tell you how successful it was: that there are still 40% of the people in this country who think he's responsible for this economy.
So you'd have to say that it worked.
And that's another thing, Rush.
I wish I'd have Bush 43 at the Republican convention and have him take the gloves off because he's not going to.
In fact, I was going to ask you about this, John, since you're all fired up here about burying Harry Reid.
Let me ask you, let me ask you to put yourself in George Bush's shoes.
You're president for eight years.
After 9-11, you saw to it there was not another attack on this country.
Iraq and Afghanistan happened.
And 9-11, and you rebuilt the economy.
And when you left office, the unemployment rate was just about 5%, and all kinds of people were working.
And now you have been, your reputation is destroyed.
Your presidency's lied about.
Do you think you might have reacted to any of this at some point by now?
I would have.
Oh, I don't know.
I can't say that.
I understand about when a president leaves office, and I understand how Clinton's broken that.
So I probably would not have responded.
But the Republican Convention would be a great place to do that.
I mean, and brag about the average 5% unemployment we had for eight years.
And I don't know why they don't do that, the Republicans.
Are they afraid of George Bush?
You know what I mean?
Is who afraid of George Bush?
Is the Republican establishment afraid to bring a guy like George Bush out at the convention because of the?
I hadn't thought about it, but now that you mention it, there might be some in there who think his negatives are still too high to bring him out.
I wouldn't be surprised.
It's a good question.
I hadn't really thought of that.
I've put myself in Bush's shoes, and I know about the decorum and the tradition, the role of ex-presidents.
And Bush has old-fashioned ideas about the presidency.
And he's got profound respect for it.
So he's not going to do anything in his mind that would sully the office.
He was merely a placeholder, in his view.
The office of the presidency is sacrosanct.
And he's not going to do anything to denigrate it.
Clinton can do what he does, and Obama, when he leaves, will do what he does.
Bush is going to, even if it means the country goes down tubes, this is where I, in putting myself in his shoes, if I could sit around and let that happen, if I wouldn't want to try to stop it.
But I see, this is why I always say I'm not a politician.
And folks, those people play this game, whatever you call it, by a totally different set of rules than you and I go about living our lives.
It's like you said Harry Reid wouldn't be able to walk after two days of this if he'd done about you.
But in those guys, oh, that's just Harry.
He ought to, he ought to, that's just wrong.
Harry ought to stop that.
And that's as far as it goes, as far as the Republican response to it's concerned.
John, I appreciate the call.
Here is Henry in Portland, Maine.
You're next, sir.
Great to have you.
Hey, Rush, thank you.
You know, they accuse Romney of killing this poor woman.
But, you know, the only presidential candidate this year that's actually killed an American citizen is Barack Obama.
He's got his hit list.
He killed somebody who was a bad person, but he killed them without due process.
How can we trust that if he's elected again, that he won't actually bring that back to the United States?
Killing American citizens.
It's more than one person.
How many people died with Fast and Furious?
That's true, too.
With Obama guns.
Absolutely.
Death squads and Romney Deblaw.
How many drug cartels have American-made guns that they're killing people with?
Absolutely true.
So, you know, he is the candidate that's actually killed American citizens.
And we have proof.
We don't need to speculate.
We absolutely know.
And he personally has to approve anyone on that hit list.
So we know that he will approve killing more people, possibly more American citizens.
Do we trust that he won't bring that back?
You're talking about Orlocki, right?
The terrorist and the drone attack.
That's what you're talking about.
Absolutely.
And Obama has the right, if he decides anybody's misbehaving, he'll wipe him out.
Absolutely.
And Halilocky, who had the Ford Hood shooter in communication with him, also.
So who's to say that American citizens, you know, maybe these right-wing political in this country?
Obama didn't even read that poor shake his Miranda rights.
He did not.
And then as an American citizen, I think there's due process no matter how bad you are, and which is proven with these shooters, and the person yesterday was pleaded guilty.
The point.
The point is, the President of the United States is accusing you of killing a woman.
You have to realize what this is all about.
Here's what's always been frustrating to me.
With Obama, we have never had this great an opportunity, this great a contrast between who we are and who our opponents are.
This guy, Obama, is a sitting duck.
He ought to be a sitting duck.
There is no reason to compromise with any of this.
All this notion of walking across the aisle and making friends, that's not even relevant with this, with this Democrat Party.
We've never, ever had a greater opportunity to teach the American people who the Democrats of today are, who the liberals of today are, what they're doing, the damage that they are wreaking on this country.
We have never, ever had a greater opportunity.
And I'm sorry, Republican Party, it's not enough to do it every day on talk radio.
You're going to have to do it as a part of your campaigning to win elections because you're going to have to have a mandate when you win elections.
You're going to have to do some teaching.
You're going to have to get into some ideology here.
And it's the opportunity to contrast who we are with what we're up against.
We've got a Democrat Party and a president literally destroying this economy and the middle class.
And we have the opposing parties still reluctant to frame it properly.
They still want to couch it in the same old traditional political terms and universe.
Well, they're the Democrats and we're the Republicans and sometimes they win and sometimes we win and Democrats and you listen to all the analysts on TV and you listen to all the strategists and you listen to all the pollsters and you listen to all the political scientists and they too.
Every damn one of them.
It's just another election.
It's Electoral College here, the state here, the swing state there, this poll over here.
It's about so much more than that.
Every election, it is said, this is the most crucial election of our life.
This one really is.
This one really is.
The problem with the Republican-based voter is they know they get it, but they're not sure that their party still gets it.
And they don't understand how anybody can't get it.
How anybody can't understand what we're up against.
We're in the middle of what's happening.
If you're in the middle of a forest fire and that forest is everything to you and you know who said it, you know who set the blaze.
You know who put it on fire.
You A, want to save the forest as much of it as you can, and you also want everybody to know who did it.
Because forest fires don't happen every day.
They're not common.
This election season is not.
This campaign is not common.
It's not like every other one before.
And that's because of the last three years, three and a half years, and what's happened in this country.
You got to go back to FDR and Woodrow Wilson for things like this.
And those two guys were pikers compared to what's happening here.
I got to take a break real quick.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, back to the audio soundbites we go here.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have, let's see, Romney, who was in Des Moines, Iowa today at a campaign event.
And liberals are not going to like this.
He's basically continuing on his anti-Obama welfare reform tack that he has been on recently.
President Clinton and the Republicans who were in Congress at the time came together on a bipartisan basis and said welfare in the future is going to require work.
People who receive payments from government are going to be required to work, not as a punitive measure, but as a gift.
Work is enhancing.
Work is elevating.
And there were some who said, oh, this will be terrible.
They'll be poor on the streets.
You know what happened?
As a result of putting work together with welfare, the number of people on welfare was cut in half.
Poverty was reduced.
Five straight years, the level of poverty in this country came down.
Okay, now it's going to be one of those hard days.
I have to tell you what I think.
I think that soundbite could have been so much better.
Why is it important to say Bill Clinton and the Republicans who were in Congress at the time came together, bipartisan basis?
It's this relentless push for independence, which have abandoned Obama already, or at least they had.
I don't know where they stand now.
I think poll to poll.
They're still pretty much with Romney.
And they did it on their own.
You didn't have to promise independence bipartisanship or this other rot gut.
They don't like Obama's economic policy.
But you see, the campaign consultants of the establishment, they're locked themselves 30 years ago or five years ago.
It does.
And by the way, welfare reform did not come about by virtue of bipartisanship.
Welfare reform wasn't the Democrats and the Republicans setting aside their differences and embracing arm and arm and kumbaya and saying, you know what, we love each other for this day and we'll do this policy of welfare.
That's not how it happened.
Bill Clinton was inalterably opposed to welfare reform.
He stood up against it and vetoed it three times.
He was forced into signing welfare reform by an aggressive Republican Congress.
There was nothing bipartisan about this.
This was pure hardball politics.
We still had a number of relatively young members of Congress on the Republican side who hadn't yet learned about all this bipartisan nonsense.
And they were in making something happen that they believed in.
They forced Clinton into this.
It was a matter of his reelection.
The country was sick and tired of freeloaders.
The country was receptive to the notion that if you're a freeloader, you're at least going to have to work or try to get work in order to get welfare.
And I remember, when Clinton signed it, there wasn't any bipartisanship.
Everybody from Jesse Jackson to Sheila Jackson lead, everybody else, the congressional black Caucasian running around.
You better fix this after you get reelected.
And Clinton promised them that he would fix it.
And what did that mean?
Getting rid of it.
It meant getting rid of work requirements.
The Democrats never wanted.
There was any bipartisanship.
That's not what this election is about.
This election is not about people determining who they're going to vote for based on who can work well with the other side.
It's gone way beyond that now.
There's nothing on the other side worth compromising for.
What about Obamacare do we want to accept?
What is there about any Obama economic policy that we'll compromise on just to get some sort of bipartisan agreement?
But when Romney says this, it's clear to me when I listen to the bite that he thinks the important thing in this soundbite, President Clinton and the Republicans who are in Congress at the time came together on a bipartisan basis and said welfare in the future is the Democrats said no such thing.
The Democrats were dragged screaming and kicking into this.
And finally, last week, they had all that work requirement stuff taken out with Barack Obama and an executive order.
He just ripped it out.
There wasn't anything bipartisan about this.
This was a full-fledged conservative Republican victory over the Democrats.
It was made to look bipartisan because the Democrat president went along with it after vetoing it three times.
It's not the important thing about welfare reform is what Obama did to it last week, not what happened with Clinton and the Republicans in the 90s.
Oh my gosh, look at him.
I got it.
Folks, time is just zipping by here today, but we still have another exciting chock full hour coming up.
I appreciate your patience.
You sit tight.
▲
Export Selection