All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:08
June 4, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I felt like I needed to apologize to the EIB network guys over.
I mean, I'm getting inflamed and incensed mail from people over my present position on impeachment, which is subject to change, but I just wow.
We're going to have to agree to disagree with this.
But and if that stirred people up, this monologue here might stir some of you.
I I just we're gonna have to lay some parameters here.
It's Eric Erickson here on the EIB network info rush limbaugh about to go or angels fear to tread.
The phone number is 800-282-2882.
Get me on email.
You can tell me you disagree or agree, however, Eric, E-R-I-C-K at redstate.com or Twitter at EW Erickson.
There is a brewing controversy over Kevin Williamson.
He's a national review writer.
And it all goes to oh watch a mediggy.
Um the Time magazine cover Laverne Cox.
People are calling it.
Laverne Cox is the transgender person.
I'm not going to get into a debate or conversation about transgenderism, the BLTG, A, B, C, D, E, FG community, none of that.
But there's a method to the madness here.
You will have to bear with me.
Kevin Williamson wrote a piece I agree with.
That Laverne Cox is a man, biologically is a man.
And his piece was run by National Review.
It was picked up by the Chicago Sun-Times and the game mafia outraged demanded an apology and retraction from the Chicago Sun Times for the Kevin Williamson column.
They pulled it down under protest from from the mob, much like they ran that guy out of out of Mozilla for giving money to the Proposition 8 campaign in Colorado in California.
Dissent dissent is patriotic until it's the conservatives who dissent.
Now, again, this isn't about transgenderism, whether it's it's a mental issue or a biological issue or what have you.
But this all gets me to a column by a Samantha Allen.
Here in Atlanta, we would call Samantha Allen an Emroid.
We we mean nothing disparaging by that, but she is a women and gender studies person, so she probably has no humor to begin with and probably would be upset by being called an emoid, which just means here in Atlanta where I am, that she's over at Emory University.
She is a doctoral fellow in the Department of Women's Gender and Sexuality Studies at Emory University, and she's written something on some website called the Daily Dot.
All upset with Kevin Williamson, and and she, a women and gender studies fellow, wishes to educate Kevin Williamson, a very smart man at National Review on Science.
She says he's simplistic to claim that sex is a biological reality.
She claims it's been debunked by scientists and people called social theorists.
She says sex is not self-evident.
Okie dokie.
Here, this is this is the nugget.
This is the this is the bit where we want to pivot to go to go to a m a bigger, broader topic.
Williamson writes his piece that it is biology.
If you have an X and a Y chromosome, you you are a man.
This is settled science.
This is long settled science for for people.
If if you have an ex and an ex you're a girl, if you have an X and a Y, you're you're a boy.
Settled science, or at least it should be.
But according to this person, I want to just read you the sentence.
Scientific knowledge is mutable, changing, and unstable.
It is subject.
Let's let's let's pay attention to this one.
It is subject to social whims and corporate interests.
Scientific knowledge is subject to social whims and corporate interests.
The argument this lady t seems to make seems to unravel the entire argument that that people are born gay or straight.
It unravels all sorts of other arguments.
It unravels the argument.
You knew this is where we were going on global warming.
Let me read you again a liberal women and gender studies professor at Emory Universe Fellow at Emory University.
Scientific knowledge is mutable, changing, and unstable.
It is subject to social whims and corporate interests.
Science is.
This is this is a supposedly well-educated liberal admitting that science is subject to social whims and corporate interests, immutable, changing, unstable, and I bet she believes in global warming.
I'm sorry.
I'm I'm sorry.
Climate change.
I bet she believes climate change.
In fact, I don't know a soul who doesn't believe the climate is changing.
I was in Louisiana visiting my parents, East Feliciana Parish, and it was muggy and hot and storms coming off the Gulf, and then I move back over here to Georgia, and it's just hot and dry right now.
We may have weather later.
It was cold a few months ago.
We had a snowstorm in Atlanta.
Shut the city down.
I got five inches of snow in North Macon Georgia.
And now it's hot.
The climate is always changing.
Global warming, that's what they really mean.
They just know they can't say it because we get snowstorms in Atlanta, and people are like, really?
Global warming.
Here's a liberal, a well-educated liberal at that, admitting that scientific knowledge is mutable, changing, and unstable.
We see this mob of people who went to the Chicago Sun-Times.
What Kevin Williamson said, I submit to you is probably the opinion of a majority of Americans that you're born a boy or a girl, and there's there's an issue there if you think you're not.
I would submit to you that's probably a majority or close to majority opinion in this country.
I would submit to you that that is the well-settled scientific knowledge of everyone who's ever been through a biology class, an X and a Y and an X and an X, and I would submit to you that there are a lot of people who are very vocal against this and they believe otherwise, and they were able to get a newspaper, bully a newspaper into retracting, pulling down and apologizing for a article written by Kevin Williamson of National Review.
As this lady Samantha Allen calls it, an inflammatory op-ed claiming that Laverne Cox is not a woman.
If they can do it to an article like this, where more likely than not a majority of Americans would tend to side with Kevin Williamson on the position, whether you do or not, that's not the point.
But if they can do it on that, when a majority of the global warming community is opposed to people who think it's either a natural phenomenon or man doesn't contribute it as much, or it's not even happening, or in fact, as even scientists are willing to admit it has plateaued.
It kind of renders the arguments moot that, well, there are no peer-reviewed articles that dispute us.
Well, we see what would happen with the peer-reviewed articles.
The peers who would review them are the people who are hostile to them and would shut them down to begin with.
They would never run the article to begin with.
So when the left comes out and global warming and says, Well, these scientists, they're gonna have to put up or shut up if they disagree with global warming.
They won't even print the dispute.
You you have a a well-educated liberal saying this scientific consensus, it's subject to change, and it can bow to social whims and corporate interests.
It can bow to government interests as well.
Those of you who disagree with that, see Galileo.
Because he's your role model for scientific descent.
You can politicize these things, and right now it is the left politics everything.
My God, not a day goes by that the left doesn't politicize something.
They can politicize two ply toilet paper, they can politicize a movie, they can politicize A book written in the 1600s and make it about today.
They can politicize your favorite movie, your favorite comic strip, your favorite cartoon character, your favorite football team can be politicized by the left, which can also politicize science, can politicize the idea that the world is hot or cold.
And you know, so we've got the this EPA regulations being trotted out by the Obama administration.
Again, my unified theory of everything this president does to strengthen the world, he wishes to weaken the United States.
And one way they must weaken the United States is energy independence.
They must weaken the United States' capacity to sustain itself and not be dependent on third world despots.
They wanted us to move to natural gas, but now that we're booming and going gangbusters and have figured out fracking, we got to get rid of fracking because it doesn't cause earthquakes, but they claim that it does.
And they will pressure the science to prove that it does just as they will do these other things.
They will politicize the science to get their way.
You know, there was a Wall Street Journal article the other day while I was on vacation that 90 the 97% of scientists agree.
That actually is nonsense.
The Wall Street Journal has an article on this.
That where do they get that 97% consensus statement?
They get it from a peer-reviewed of people who believe in global warming, a peer-reviewed review of a few papers.
Well, 97% of the people they happen to review agreed.
Not 97% of the scientific community as they would have you believe.
Not 97% of all scientists.
Just ninety-seven percent of the selective reviewed people they decided to review who tend to agree with them in one shape or fashion.
The left politicizes everything.
Even science, they are willing to politicize to get their way.
They say that we need to cut back natural gas.
They say that we need to cut back on coal.
They say we need to cut back on CO2, that somehow us cutting back, never mind that our CO2 emissions are less than they were at the beginning of the Bush administration.
Somehow we here in the United States are to blame.
This has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with destabilizing the United States in the name of leveling the playing field for everyone else in the world, even though we are the last best hope for mankind.
We'll be back here on the EIB Network.
Eric Erickson, Infor Rush.
The power of the EIB network.
It appears that Senator Thad Cochran's campaign team has now deleted after I raised the subject on this here show.
It's deleted his tweet.
Welcoming home, Sergeant Bergdahl.
The power of the EIB network, never underestimate it.
Welcome back.
It is Eric Erikson in for Rushland Ball, the phone number 1800-28282.
On this global warming hoo-haw from the Obama administration.
The larger point stands that these people will politicize everything.
Right now they want to politicize science because the United States is actually doing very good environmentally, but they want you to feel bad and feel guilty.
More than that, they want to pressure change.
They want to pressure change to undermine us.
You know, we actually lived.
There was a time where we depended on solar and wind energy for the majority of our needs.
We called that period the dark ages.
And they seem very intent on wanting to bring us back to the dark ages.
They seem very intent.
Well, look, they look at the brick nations.
You know, the brick nations, they call it the BRIC nations because it's Brazil, Russia, India, China.
Do you really believe in your heart of hearts?
Do you really believe that Vladimir Putin will undermine his infrastructure and energy capabilities by reigning in his CO2 carbon emissions?
Do you really believe that China China says it's going to set goals?
Now the Chinese set goals all the time.
So they're very good about setting goals and either lying about having met them or never meeting them to begin with.
Are you really going to believe ChICOMs when they say they're going to set environmental goals?
What about Brazil and India that aren't necessarily setting goals?
The administrative, they're kind of like the wizard of Oz.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
They don't want you to pay attention to the brick nations.
They want you to pay attention to us, and they want you to believe that we are not nice, that we are sinners.
We are sinners in the hands of an angry Obama.
And we must do something to well we've got to we've got to undermine and come to terms with our white privilege in the United States of America, among other things, all the privileges that we have.
They need us to be stabilized.
This is not about the environment.
These EPA regulations wanting to harm coal producers and coal burning power plants.
This is not really about the environment.
They say it's about the environment.
Some of them genuinely believe it's about the environment.
It has nothing to do with the environment.
It has everything to do with undermining and destabilizing the United States to level the level the playing field globally.
They do not believe President Obama does not believe that the world is a safe place if the United States is a strong place.
I'm fundamentally convinced by this.
You you progressives, liberals, you can hate me for saying it, but it's true.
This is again to repeat myself from the first hour.
Because it was genius, then it's genius now.
This is why Russia's right.
Saying that Barack Obama must fail for the United States to succeed, he got just attacked all over the place.
Republicans upset with Rush Limbaugh for saying it.
And now everyone sees that he was right all along.
Rush has always been right.
Even on this, Rush was right.
For Barack Obama to fail, the United States will succeed.
If Barack Obama succeeds, we will fail because that's his end game here.
Politicizing everything.
You cannot have a conversation with people on the left anymore without it turning being just devoid of humor and political.
I don't know about you people.
I like to cook.
In fact, I believe it's a milestone in my life.
I have received now my first, I get review copies of books all the time.
Being not as influential as Rush, but having redstate.com, being on Fox, having a radio show, people send me review copies of books to review.
Some of them I do and they're good, some of them I don't.
I finally I've gotten a review copy of a cookbook.
Yes, a cookbook.
I like to cook.
I like to grill.
I like to do these things.
A diversion from politics.
More and more I'm meeting angry leftists who are just absorbed in in the need to politicize everything, politics the kitchen.
It's gotta be locally grown organic with no pesticides and a chicken with half the breast of a chicken you can get at the grocery store.
I I I'm not going to give up meat or plump chickens or fat cows.
They want to politicize everything.
Life can't be fun when you politicize everything.
If I was so focused on people in the media and movie stars who disagreed with me politically, I would never go see a movie.
I I went and saw Godzilla a couple weeks ago.
It's a fantastic movie.
I'm sure everyone in that movie is an Obama voting leftist.
It was a good movie.
My buddy Sonny Bunch over at the Washington Free Beacon thinks it's also an anti-global warming movie.
I I'm not going to pull my politics into Godzilla.
It was just a good movie.
So is the Avengers and Thor and what are the other movies I've seen?
They've all been good.
I like going to movies.
They're a good distraction from everything else.
And to pull your politics into diversions, to politicize football and baseball.
These are unhappy people.
I wrote my morning briefing at Red State yesterday, and I made this point.
I don't need to spend a lot of time on it.
Just very precise point.
Happy warriors win.
There are a lot of people on our side right now who are very angry.
They're angry about what the president has done, and I totally agree and understand why you're angry.
But if we're going to win, we need to be happy.
People don't want to embrace anger.
This is it's it's against our human nature as a mo as Americans to want to embrace anger.
We should be h we should be laughing at the Obama administration.
We should be laughing at this.
We've told people this was coming.
We told people they would finally feel comfortable enough to reveal who they are, and they are revealing who they are.
They are revealing themselves as people who want to level the playing field by leveling America.
They are people who believe the military should not be used to defend our country, but should be used as social experimentation.
They are people who, when given the choice to side with their good and righteous and the light, side with the dark and the bad and the not so very nice.
We told people that.
And now Americans who sit on the sidelines, the low information voters who aren't political, they're realizing things have to change.
Have you people gone to sign up for Rush 24-7 yet at Rush Limbaugh.com?
I'm a subscriber already.
I'm just telling you, if you want to catch up with this show, anything I've said that you wish to take out of context media matters, that's where you need to go.
Be a member.
I'm sorry, I'm so I'm I'm trading emails here with with Mr. Mamona.
I I I do, I I grill.
We were discussing my big green yesterday was not just my birthday, it was Big Green Egg Day, and so I I use it for smoking.
I'm gonna get a giant grilled though for my Sunday school class.
Uh we we will return to the topic of the day.
I could trade recipes with you people all day long, I tell you.
I'm big on brown and onions.
In any event, I want to go back to the phones.
I want to go to Kirk in Hastings, Nebraska.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hey, thanks for having me, Eric.
I appreciate it.
Sure, you're you're not calling to recipe swap.
Um I vote if you wanted to.
What's going on there, Kurt?
Oh, and just driving out to uh as part of my job at listening to your uh your show here and wanting to comment on the uh the woman that was saying that science is not really science, but it's based on a whim or something.
Yeah, it's it's it's mutable, subject to change and and corporate and social interests can can shape it.
Mm-hmm.
Then if she's saying then that science is by definition, you know, something that's based on fact, you know, what we believe is you know what we've observed and what we've experimented with.
This is what happened, these are the facts.
And to say that it's based on uh a whim totally negates all of all of that science previously and future, it's just coming to that that conclusion.
Well, what's going on here is that liberals have built for themselves this idea that they are the pro-science party and conservatives are anti-science.
And they wrote that in that the Democrat then Democrats as the political party of the left or pro-science, and Republicans as the political party of the right or anti-science.
And they're they're trying to build up this notion, basically to woo 20-something hipsters who don't go to church anymore and are just focused on science as their God, and they they want to be that they are the pro-science party.
And so by God, if you believe in science and facts and reason and logic, then you must be a Democrat.
And it doesn't work for them in in some of their their social cases and some of their social culture.
I mean, for example, uh the the issue of when life begins and stuff.
Science answers these questions and and the left gets all been out of shape by what science says.
So that they are pro-science by convenience.
They are pro-science by bumper sticker, but they're only pro-science when it really fits their needs.
They the the left, the left can be anti-science when it fits their needs.
Uh they are much more about the politicization of science than science itself.
It's like the the left is much more interested in politicizing a so-called war on women than they they are really doing anything there to help women.
They they Lily led better and all that stuff.
That they trot these things down.
Nobody knows what the heck they mean or what the legislation actually is.
That they're just they just want to pound their chest and say Republicans hate women.
And they don't care about the facts in that situation either.
They just want to politicize the issue.
It's all the left really has after eight years of Barack Obama.
And I realize we're only six years, but we got two more years left.
Well, with that statement that she made, it makes those facts more fluid.
Well, yeah.
You know, I just doesn't fit what I want, and I can I can just change that because I've got a lot of money, or I've got a lot of people that agree with me, so it's it's not a whim.
I can change that if I feel like it.
Oh, very much so.
The the The left believes that you can change these things.
Look, I mean, these are the people who tell us that we need to hold our breath and plug up the rear ends and front ends of cows to stop them releasing harmful gases into the atmosphere and that that would somehow solve global warming and then in the next breath admit that there's really nothing we can do to stop what's coming.
But instead of talking about adaptation, they're talking this is how you can tell, by the way, that these people aren't serious.
Um, where was it?
I I was it a culturated or someone that they had a call recently that you can tell the left doesn't really believe they're global warming scientific nonsense by the way they live their lives.
If they really believe that there's nothing we can do, if they really believe that that even if we plugged up the rear end of every cow on earth or banned cows all together, that we wouldn't be able to turn any of this around, we wouldn't be able to scale it back.
They're living their life as if it doesn't matter to them.
It matters to them only in the political conversation.
It only matters to them in a way to undermine the United States economically, and that's really what it is.
Remember, the environmental movement, a lot of these guys, we call them watermelons because they're green on the outside, but they were red on the inside.
They were communists who, when the Soviet Union was no longer around to subsidize them, they moved into the environmental movement so they could get government subsidies from the United States to undermine the United States.
That's I I just for the life of me, I don't understand why more and more well, I and you know, I I guess most Americans do kind of realize there's a poll out where is this?
I I've got this in in us in a stack of stuff here.
Yes, uh a good many Americans, 70% of people, they they seem to think that climate is an issue.
What the poll doesn't tell you, this is that that CNN poll.
What the poll doesn't tell you is this isn't an overwhelming issue for Americans.
A majority of Americans may think that that it is a big issue, but it's not the biggest issue for them.
Most Americans don't really care about climate change.
They they admit that climate is changing.
No one I know, again, thinks that climate isn't changing, but it's it's not it's not an issue that draws people to the polls except at the fringes.
Okay, I gotta move on here.
There's a story I've got to get to today, because it is the funniest story I think I've seen today.
Let me pull back up my laptop here.
Who who is this?
This is James Oliphant.
He is a was a correspondent covering the 2012 presidential campaign for the Los Angeles Times.
He was a congressional and legal affairs reporter.
He's covered politics, government, and legal affairs for most of his journalism career.
Yes, he he.
This guy is a journalist.
And he writes at the National Journal, which covers politics.
This honestly, this is comedy gold.
If you're not sitting down, you may need to sit down because you will laugh hysterically at James Oliphant.
I I I just I they don't say at National Journal that this guy is a comedian, but he clearly is a comedian.
This is this is really the funniest piece I I've read today.
And I read the comic strip this morning, and I read Calvin and Hobbes.
I'm a huge Calvin and Hobbs fan.
I've got the complete section, the complete book, and I I still read my Calvin and Hobbes and the far side, and this is funnier than either of those today.
I mean, this beats the genius that is Gary Larson.
The carping is familiar.
President Obama has overreached and abused his authority by releasing terrorist prisoners without notifying Congress and in promulgat new environmental regulations.
But as usual, Republicans have few remedies beyond press releases and the promises of hearings.
This is the state of play in Washington trench warfare that has lasted more than three years.
Let me just get to the punchline here.
This is brilliant.
This this is just slap your knee funny.
If Republicans truly fear the unchecked growth of presidential power, their best option is to come to the table and force compromise.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay.
This from the same knuckle-headed group that says that the Republicans only control one House of Congress, so they can't do anything.
But somehow they're going to come to the table and force Barack Obama to compromise on these issues when we know this guy, this oliphant guy, may be the only guy in America who doesn't know that President Obama has been planning to do this since the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before he ever did his first NCAA bracket in the White House.
He was doing his Taliban release bracket.
This guy, it just Yes, yes, yes, surrender and he'll stop.
Yes, HR, you're absolutely right.
This is this is I mean.
Would it have gone down this way?
What he did with this prisoner swamp.
Would it have gone down this way?
If the White House viewed the Republicans as better partners, oh my God, this guy could be at one of those dating websites.
Goodness gracious.
This is not to suggest that the GOP should ever just roll over on the president's agenda.
Oh, it's not really.
But it's continued opposition to just about everything is a misread of the current state of executive power.
I think they're reading it perfectly clear.
Barack Obama did this when the Democrats were in charge of both houses of Congress.
He did what he wanted with Obamacare.
He ran out of the gate.
He didn't care what even the pro-life Democrats wanted.
He doesn't care what the Republicans wanted.
In fact, there are Republicans who are willing to reach out across the aisle.
There are Republicans.
John McCain being one of them who wants to go sit with the president and find some kumbaya solution to r spend more money.
But the president's having none of it.
This guy, this is this is supposedly a serious American journalist, this oliphant guy.
And he believes that if Republicans would just surrender to Barack Obama, he would give Republicans what this is the state of intellectual journalism in Washington, D.C. Is it not a wonder that that place is a cesspool?
Eric Erikson in for rush.
We'll be right back.
I want you people to know, filling in here at the EIB network, uh when I first got started in radio, Rush is a mentor and a friend, and he gives me wonderful advice, and one of the first pieces of advice he ever gave me is don't eat before you go on the air, lest you belch live on radio.
And it it has horrified me ever since, and I try never to.
The downside is that at about, oh, this time in the afternoon, you're in the third hour, and you've been talking about grilling and cooking and smoking with Mr. Malone, you start to get hungry thinking of your big green egg.
And I then we get on the topic of bur I'm a big small batch bourbon guy and have a growing collection.
Most of it from listeners in the Atlanta area from my own show, find random bottles and send it my way.
I think I've got four or five bottles of papy now.
And I don't even have that in the studio.
And that's that's okay.
We'll we'll have to have a happy hour somewhere after this is over.
And then I've got to come back and do my own show in Atlanta this afternoon for drive time.
In the meantime, let's go back to the phones, shall we?
How about we go to Drew in St. Louis, Missouri?
Welcome to the E network.
How are you?
You're doing a great job.
Thank you very much.
Hey, um, quick question, then I'll hang up and let you uh talk.
But impeachment aside, um, certainly the left in the administration politicizes a lot of this, and they and what a lot of conservatives are fearful of is that they're going to be doing this in these federal agencies, the IRS, the EPA, labor, education.
And my question is more of process.
Paint a good picture for November 2016, uh, conservatives take back the White House.
Is it as easy as going into these agencies and saying, hey, folks, pack your bags, you're gone.
How do you there's such eight after eight years it will be such entrenched uh processes?
How does a new administration?
Drew, that is an excellent question.
What people don't realize is that when there's a sweep, when the Republicans go in and they take back the Senate or they take back the White House, that The staffers, the congressional staffers, they get first dibs, if I understand right, on civil service jobs.
So when Republicans swept the House in 2010 and made gains in the Senate, a lot of Democratic staffers out of jobs could then go embed themselves into the administration in civil service positions and civil service positions.
They can't be fired automatically by the president because they're not political appointees of the president.
They have to go through a system.
And this is where Democrats undermine Republican presidents.
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney largely, I adore Dick and Lynn Cheney and their family.
And Dick Cheney is just a genius.
I love that guy.
And he and Rumsfeld, having been chiefs of staff, they knew going in that Democrats embed themselves in the civil service and undermine conservatives and Republicans from within.
There's got to be Republicans have got to when they take back the White House.
They've got to do some reforms on the civil service.
I mean, we saw this during the Bush administration with CIA operatives unhappy with Bush.
They were they undermined him routinely.
And this president has played everything politically and has known that Democrats would protect him if he was able to disrupt the civil service system and route out people who might be opposed to him.
We see how they go after leaks in a way that they would have condemned George W. Bush if he had done the same.
These guys play for keeps.
Republicans never play for keeps.
Republicans do not play hardball the way Democrats play hardball.
Rarely do they.
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld got it.
And they played the game the way it needed to be played.
They they ran Washington the way it needed to be run.
Republicans need to have a sit down and pick their brains if they if and when I think they will in 2016 get back to the White House, and they're going to have to go through the civil service and find the disruptive embedded forces of the Democratic Party and drive them out.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back.
We come near the end of my time here behind the golden EIB microphone, though I don't actually have the golden EIB microphone here in Atlanta.
It's kind of a black thing.
Clearly, someone with a lot of makeup has gotten close to the foam on this microphone.
I'm sure you people wanted to know it.
In any event, welcome back.
X-Men Days of Futures Past.
That's the other movie I was trying to think of that I just I thoroughly enjoyed the other day.
Keep my politics out of it, and you know, if you just go and be a happy person who's not consumed with politics all the time, you can have a happy life.
I just, I don't get these people who were just so angry.
Have you ever noticed, by the way?
You ever noticed how the left, they got the White House, they got the Senate, they got the House of Representatives in 2009 or 2008, November.
And they just got angrier.
I mean, how how yeah, they are the most miserable people.
They they've got to invent new things, and and the good is bad and bad is good, and and sanity is insanity, insanity, insanity.
These people are they're messed up.
I mean, we we should be praying for them.
I uh that just that's my good Southern Baptist coming out of me.
In any event, I am out of time here on the EIB EIB network.
If I can talk at the end, it's Eric Erickson, in for Rushland Ball.
▲
Export Selection