All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 4, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:56
December 4, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Telephone number, if you would like to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Lots to do today.
We're actually loaded.
Let me move on with this old Barack Obama stuff.
Something interesting is happening with this.
The drive-by media, within the past month, he's been on the cover of time.
He's been on the cover of Newsweek.
He's come out of nowhere to now be the star of the Democratic Party presidential hit parade.
He hasn't done anything.
He has two years in the Senate.
His election to the Senate was accomplished over a carpetbagger candidate for the Republican Party.
Alan Keyes came in from Maryland and didn't have a prayer.
Illinois has been Democrat controlled for the longest time.
I mean, it's other things.
It's no doubt skin color.
It is, but I think it's attitudinal.
The thing that I am hearing from all of these analysts is that Barack triangulates, that Barack is above Republican and Democrat.
He's above partisanship, which is not true.
He's a full-fledged, 100% lib, but they're grooming and portraying the guy as nothing more than an oracle of hope.
And the country is said to be in desperate need of hope because things are so dire.
And we need a leader who can give us all hope and bring us all together and make it think things aren't so dire.
And this is the way he's being portrayed.
And he's playing the role as well as anybody could.
Now, again, I found this thing at townhall.com by Kevin McCullough.
I do not know who Kevin McCullough is.
Sorry, Mr. McCullough.
I don't mean to be insulting.
I just don't know who you are.
And the version I have did not identify you at the end of the piece like most column nists are identified.
So this is not a swipe.
At any rate, claims to be a long-term follower of Obama, has a long track record of predictions on Obama.
All of them, he says, have come true.
And he thinks Obama is going to be president swearing in, taking the oath of office in January of 2009.
There are reasons that this event is destined to take place.
And given the option of knowing them but remaining silent or mentioning them in the hope that the scene I've just mentioned never comes to pass, I choose the latter.
If any of these were to take significant turns, the formula might collapse.
This is given the fact that the nation will be in a holding pattern for the next two years with absolute gridlock on pretty much everything, with the possible exception of amnesty for illegal aliens.
And in fact, there this is, Charles Hurt in the Washington Times today.
Congress will approve an immigration bill that will grant citizenship rights to most of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. after Democrats take control next month.
Both sides are predicting on Capitol Hill.
This is the one thing the president has talked about.
He's being eager to work with the new Congress on.
While Republicans have largely splintered on the issue of immigration reform, Democrats have been fairly unified behind the principle that the illegals currently in the country should get citizenship rights without having to first leave the country.
Well, of course.
And let me tell you why.
They're going to all end up, or the vast majority of them are going to end up voting Democrat.
And let me prove to you why.
It's historical.
I can give you evidence.
When was the last time we granted amnesty to Hispanics and illegal immigrants in this country?
It was Simpson Mazzoli, and I think the year was 1986.
Who was president in 1986?
Ronaldos Magnus.
And Ronaldus Magnus actually called it what it was.
He actually called it an amnesty program.
It was to eliminate a problem.
Of course, it didn't eliminate the problem.
We had 3.something million illegals estimated then.
Now we got between 12 and 20 million estimated.
But the historical evidence that they vote for Democrats is quite simple.
With a Republican president, as popular as was Ronaldos Magnus, granting amnesty and citizenship to illegal immigrants back in 86, why didn't they start voting Republican en masse?
Why didn't they start voting Republican?
Why didn't their Hispanic brethren and sistern start voting Republican since it was a wonderfully popular Republican president who granted amnesty?
I've never understood thus why this administration thinks that this is a way to coalesce Hispanics with the Republican Party.
It hasn't worked this way in the past.
A Republican granted amnesty in 86, and we see that most Hispanics vote Democrat now.
So where is the evidence for this?
Anyway, that's the one thing that might happen.
Mr. McCullough feels that we're going to have gridlock on everything else.
And he's right about that.
The odds are he's right.
For example, let me illustrate to you why.
Rather than just make these assertions, I, ladies and gentlemen, like to back up my assertions with fact.
All right, try this.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.
Nancy Pelosi's got big dreams, big agenda items, six in 60 or whatever it is in 100 or whatever she's going to do.
Let's pick something innocuous.
Let's say Nancy Pelosi wants to pass legislation that grants tax cuts, not tax cuts, but permanent tax deductibility for college tuition.
All right, fine.
That bill starts out now in the Democrat side of the House.
Where does it go?
It goes to all the different caucuses in the House.
You got to run it by the progressive caucus, the communists.
And when they see that, they're going to hate it and they're going to want their due.
So they're going to have something added to it.
Don't know what, but you know it won't be good.
Then it's got to go to the black caucus.
And you know, when they see it, college tuition, permanent tax deductibility, Maxine Waters, I want $1,000 for every constituent in my district if you're going to do this.
Because my constituents can't go to college because of discrimination.
And then it's going to go to the big labor caucus.
There's so many different caucuses in the Democratic side of the House.
Clinton found this out.
He found it, of course, the Republicans were the majority, and he had to work with them because of that.
But he couldn't get much done because these people start poisoning legislation.
By the time Nancy Pelosi's hypothetical Clean and Pure is the wind-driven snow legislation gets through all these caucuses for promises for votes for, it's going to look nothing like her original piece of legislation.
Then it has to deal with the Republicans.
And they're going to look at this and they're going to say, well, hell, I don't know what they'll say.
They're probably so scared you'll go along with it.
I have no clue.
Then it's got to go to the Senate.
And there, it's just, it's going to die.
You need 60 votes for anything in the Senate.
And unless the Republicans are just total cowards and afraid to oppose anything the Democrats put up, which I wouldn't doubt, by the way, depending on how they read the election results, then you've got the presidential veto to override.
And there certainly aren't the votes in the House of this.
That's why there's a good chance that there's not going to be much legislation coming out of this Congress.
The less legislation, the better, folks.
Anytime, anyplace, anywhere.
So that'll leave them time to harass the president with all these investigations and of the war and of the Pentagon and torture and who knows what.
That'll probably be the feature.
In 2006, the message of the voters was not Ned Lamont.
Rather, it was the crash dummy class of 06.
Democrats who looked and tried to talk like people of faith, at least long enough to get elected.
George Soros, Al Gore, Sarandon, Howard Dean have made their go at it, and they failed.
This is Mr. McCullough's theory, the raging liberal sect, if you will, of the Democratic Party has failed.
But since their party won, they believe they've been justified.
Their anti-American rhetoric will increase.
They will express dissatisfaction with Pelosi and Reed, demand an increased presence in the 08 picture.
The Democrat primary voter will reject this increased extremism and look for a consensus builder, somebody who's above the fray.
Obama will fit that profile, bring together the left and right in his own party.
He'll do it with a sense of style, smoothness, and humor, a stark contrast to Hillary, Gore, Kerry, etc.
He goes on to say the disgusted conservatives will be so disgusted with their party that they can be moved to support somebody with any kind of pretense of hope.
And Mr. McCullough's theory is whoever emerges, be it McCain or Rudy or Romney, none of them will have one-tenth the oratory skills of Obama.
They'll come off looking tired, dry, and stale, as Dale toast.
Exhausted moderates.
They're tired of the stale toast.
They'll be looking for anything exciting.
Mind you, moderates, by definition, don't truly stand for anything, so it doesn't matter what the candidate stands for.
A point I have long made.
Moderates can't stand for it.
I mean, they wait for the consensus to form and join the majority.
These people voted for Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton all based on one thing.
How does he make me feel?
And then there's the energized blacks, the gullible evangelicals, and so forth.
It makes the case here that all of these groups will find it exciting and attractive to vote for somebody brand new on the scene who doesn't look like anybody they've ever seen before, doesn't sound like anybody they can remember seeing in a long time.
Somebody with hope, somebody can speak, somebody who is articulate.
And this guy claims to have been following Obama all over the place.
Now, the theory is that Obama's being set up here for the vice presidency.
But look, if you're going to tell me that Obama hasn't done anything, neither has Hillary, folks, what has she done?
I mean, she'll have been a full six-year one-term member of the Senate.
Well, what's she done?
What are her qualifications as compared to Obama's?
I mean, neither of them have done anything, but you'd have to say that those two represent, right now, conventional wisdom frontrunners of the Democrat Party.
Quick timeout.
Your phone calls coming next.
Stay with us.
Your guiding light, Rush Limbaugh, living legend behind the golden EIB microphone and the EIB network.
To the phones we go, Bill in Wilmington, Delaware.
You're next.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Oh, hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Greetings from Wilmington.
Thank you, sir.
I found something in the Wall Street Journal this morning.
Yes.
Their lead editorial, and they also printed the copy of the letter that Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snow sent to the chairman of Exen Mobile.
I mean, I've never seen anything so practically blackmail and off the wall to imply that global warming now caused by humans is a fact.
And that for anybody to deny it, and certainly for ExxonMobil to maybe fund some research to counter it, is hurting America's position in the world.
And they're going to be treated like big tobacco if they don't stop it.
Well, I mean, I'm surprised that you think you've never seen this kind of what you'd call practical or practically blackmail.
This is who they are.
I mean, how do you think Walmart feels?
How do you think big tobacco felt?
How do you think big pharmaceutical feels?
Big trans fat, big sugar.
I mean, you take a look at the enemies list of the American left, and it is the engine that drives the country economically.
All the way up from the small businessman to big corporations.
They are Stalinists.
I mean, they're being totally in character.
This is real liberalism, Bill.
This is intimidation.
This is who these people are.
They've got their power now, and they're going to intimidate.
They're going to be who they are.
They're going to be liberals.
Let me give you the details of this.
He's right.
Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snow wrote a letter on October 27th to the ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson.
And the Wall Street Journal has printed the entire letter here.
I could read the whole thing to you, but I'm not going to.
I'm just going to tell you the essence of what the letter says.
Essentially, you listen to us on climate change or else.
In the letter, Olympia Snow and Jay Rockefeller make it clear that they think global warming is a fact.
They believe it is a fact, and therefore all debate about the issue must now stop.
And that ExxonMobil should, quote, end its dangerous support of the global warming deniers.
Not only that, ExxonMobil should repudiate its climate change denial campaign and make public its funding history.
And in extra penance for being one of the world's largest carbon emitters, Exxon should spend that money on global remediation efforts.
Now, what's also not stated here is that the Senate and Democrats are targeting the oil industry in this country for the elimination of a number of tax breaks and an imposition of the windfall profits tax.
Rex Tillerson has been out making speeches about how this will harm the whole research, development, and discovery process for finding new sources of oil.
And he's out there saying, look, alternative fuels are fine, wind power, solar power, whatever new inventions, but this is a world that runs on fossil fuels.
There's plenty of it, and that isn't going to change.
And that's our business.
I have always dreamed of all of the CEOs of big oil calling their own meeting and demanding that members of Congress come testify before them so that big oil could ask them what they're doing and why they're doing it in taking steps to retard energy exploration in this country.
If I were big oil, I'd want Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snow sitting front and center.
Why are you trying to destroy my business?
Why are you trying to make it impossible for me to do business?
To show you the hypocrisy of this, Exxon is part of the old standard oil company that was broken up.
Do you know who started standard oil?
John D. Rockefeller, the grandfather, great-grandfather, there's so many of them now.
I forget the lineage here, whether he's great-grandfather or just grandfather.
Jay Rockefeller's fortune comes from big oil.
Jay Rockefeller wouldn't have a dime other than his Senate salary, and he might even have that.
If his last name weren't Rockefeller, he wouldn't have a dime, were it not for the fact that it was his grandfather, great-grandfather, whoever, John D. Rockefeller, who started big oil in the first place.
And the old standard oil company, it was broken up in the antitrust movement of the last century.
Why didn't Jay Rockefeller put his inheritance where his mouth is?
Donate all the money that he has inherited to these remedial efforts on global warming.
I can't think of an individual in a position of power in this country who has personally benefited more from big oil than Jay Rockefeller.
So look at the enemies list: Exxon, Walmart, Halliburton.
The Democrats are socialists who seek to destroy our industries and economic system and kill jobs.
And you say, why would they work to come on, Rush?
You're headed over the cliff again.
No.
These people want the government to be the answer to everything, folks.
They want you to have to go to government to get a job.
They want you to have to go to the government to get relief on prices.
They want government to be where you look with praise and respect and honor.
They don't want you thanking a company for which you work.
They want you hating it.
They want you to think you're getting screwed by the people you work for.
They want you to love them.
The dirty little secret here: the left in this country is at war with blue-collar Americans, and blue-collar Americans don't even know it.
You look at oil, coal, automobiles, and construction.
Who do they think works for these enterprises they're trying to destroy?
You look at Walmart, who do they think the customers of Walmart are?
And they're trying to destroy that.
There is a war against, and I don't think it's just against blue-collar America.
I think the left in this country is at war with this country.
They're doing everything they can to dismantle all of the economic growth and prosperity that Ronald Reagan started in the 1980s.
Look, their whole approach to illegal immigration has the effect of driving down wages, especially for minorities.
They cover that up by supposedly standing for an increase in the minimum wage, but that's just a sop to the unions.
Why do you think they want illegal immigrants in this country?
Because that's a pay-em-diddly squat, ladies and gentlemen.
And that drives down wages for everybody.
Quick timeout.
Be right back.
Don't go anywhere.
I'll tell Jay Rockefeller.
Talent on loan from God.
Rushland Ball the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, kicking off a brand new week.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
All right, stand by, ladies and gentlemen.
The Supreme Court diving into a debate over scruple diversity that is as old as Reconstruction era efforts to integrate blacks into the mainstream and as new as the 5:30 a.m. start time on some buses carrying students across town in Louisville, Kentucky, at a time of rising de facto segregation in public schools.
The high court and who's to blame for that, by the way.
Dare we be honest about who's to blame for the rising de facto segregation?
The Supreme Court is to hear arguments today on lawsuits by parents in Louisville and Seattle who are challenging policies that use race to help determine where the children go to school.
The screw policies are designed to keep scruels from segregating along the same lines as neighborhoods.
Educators, civil rights advocates, politicians, and parents, not to mention students, are watching for a potential watershed ruling on what value the nation should place on diversity in the classroom and at what price.
So the answer may hinge on the court's newest member, Justice Samuel Alito, who replaced Sandra Day O'Connor in January.
A year ago, Connor and her colleagues refused to hear a similar scruple diversity challenge from Massachusetts.
After Alito's arrival, the court comprised or surprised many observers by agreeing to hear the appeals from Louisville and Seattle.
Federal appeals courts had ruled in favor of both scruel systems.
Now, the new cases put on the table in a very clear way the question of how far society, how far government should go in terms of trying to promote diversity in education in America, said Ellis Close or Coase, the author of a study on affirmative action.
A core issue is whether the government should be in the business of helping to promote diversity in some way in education is at the heart of these cases.
Some parents, all of that is just theory that does not compensate for denying kids the scruel of their choice or the one in their neighborhood.
So it is an old argument.
I mean, forced busing, and that started in a place like Boston, I remember.
It caused all kinds of problems there.
But when you take kids away from home and all that is familiar to them, put them on a bus for 90 minutes for what?
Diversity?
A 90-minute bus ride?
A 90-minute commute awaits them if they ever grow up and get a job someplace.
No reason to start the commute training early when they're in scruple, especially taking them out of the neighborhood.
You know what all this did?
You know what the real point of this was?
Can I tell you what the real point of busing was?
And it wasn't diversity.
That's just what they said.
They just wanted you to believe we're trying to mix people together so that we can promote harmony and end fixing and diversity.
All it was was a way to get the parents from having no influence over the school.
If the school's 90 minutes away, one way, that's three hours a day to get there and get back.
That's why the kids had to leave at 5.30 in the morning to go to these schools.
The parents have to work, or at least pretend to be working, and they're not going to have as much time to go to the school and get involved with what's going on.
That's damn straight, I'm serious.
You think I'm wrong about this?
You never heard the theory.
Well, I'm telling you the theory now.
The whole point was to stop parental influence.
And of course, when you have the umbrella of diversity and fairness and integration, why who could oppose it?
You just put the Civil Rights Busing Act of 2000, whatever it was.
You can legalize rape if you called it a Civil Rights Act of 2007.
You could.
Nobody in Congress got the guts to vote against civil rights.
A little bit of an exaggeration there, but I mean, that's what this was about.
This accomplished removing the parents as a factor in the scruels.
If your kid school's 90 minutes away from your house, you're not going to be showing up there very often, and it's going to be much more difficult to be involved.
So you can turn these screws into little indoctrination centers.
It gave the teachers the ability to take on the role of parent and push their agenda.
But when kids became discipline problems, the teachers all said, hey, hey, hey, it's not my fault.
The parents, they weren't involved enough.
When you start bussing kids all over Kingdom Come for one reason, well, two, I mean, take the parents out of influence roles in the school, but also to make liberals feel better about themselves.
You don't think you can trace that to the decline of public education in this country?
The whole concept of diversity is a fraud.
You know, we've got to comprise every institution we have now on the basis of diversity, not quality, not talent, not the best.
You can't go out and hire the best in your company.
You've got to make sure that you got that quota and this quota and this.
And that's what this is all about.
The whole purpose of diversity is to judge people strictly by their skin color, their national origin, or their religion.
I mean, Barack Obama, come on, come on, folks.
Can we be honest?
The media wants a black politician to do well here.
And so they're promoting this guy.
He hadn't got any qualifications.
Well, he hasn't.
He hasn't done a thing.
And yet all of a sudden he's the most promising presidential candidate the country and either party have to offer.
I know liberals and I know leftists and they love promoting victims.
And black people in this country are going to perpetually be victims to the liberals.
It's just that simple.
Now, let me add to this, because where was this argument?
These oral arguments today were at the Supreme Court.
Well, who's on a Supreme Court?
In fact, move to, let's go to audio soundbites 9 and 10, Mike.
Have them standing by.
Justice Stephen Breuer, a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, says that that court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that no one gets too powerful.
This is the guy who has debated Antonin Scalia on the value of foreign law.
He is essentially saying here, Constitution?
What Constitution?
I'm a Supreme Court justice, and we must look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary, when we find it necessary, to ensure that no one gets too powerful.
Breyer is a Clinton appointee.
He's brokered many of the High Court's 5-4 rulings.
He was speaking a TV interview that aired one day before justices heard this as it was yesterday.
In the interview, Breyer argued that in some cases it wouldn't make sense to strictly follow the Constitution because phrases such as freedom of speech are vague.
Hang on a little bit, folks.
My nose is running on.
I knew this is going to happen.
I start doing stories like my head's about to explode and it's coming out my nose.
Hang on.
Two points.
Freedom of speech is too vague.
Judges must look at the real world context, not focus solely on the framers' intent, as Scalia has argued, because society is constantly evolving, said Justice Breyer.
Let me let you listen to him in his own words.
He was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday.
First question, you voted in 2003 to uphold the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.
Now, you acknowledge that by setting spending limits on advertising, you were, as you put it, interfering with free speech.
But you said that there's a higher purpose here, higher than the First Amendment.
The very point of speech in an election is to get a message across.
And that may mean in part that you don't want one person's speech, that $20 million giver, to drown out everybody else's.
So if we want to give a chance to the people who have only $1 and not $20 million, maybe we have to do something to make that playing field a little more level in terms of money.
If you're not bothered by this, then you don't care and the country is not worth saving as far as you're concerned.
If this kind of thinking from a Supreme Court justice does not concern you, level playing field, this is nothing but personal policy preferences substituting for the law, personal policy preferences being made into law by activist liberal judges.
Here's the next question from Chris Wallace.
How do you as a justice decide what's a good precedent and what's a bad precedent?
It's a constitution that protects a democratic system, basic liberties, a rule of law, a degree of equality, a division of power, state, federal, so that no one gets too powerful.
Well, those are the limits.
And within those limits, there's a vast area for people to decide for themselves.
I don't want people to forget.
Stop the tape!
Parents whose kids are bussed across town for 90 minutes at a time are not getting to decide for themselves.
You are deciding for them on an area that, hey, you have no business deciding.
This is not the law.
This is a flawed concept called diversity that has never been proven or established to promote anything worthwhile in and of itself.
To say that we're trying to keep people from becoming too powerful, like the parents, you don't want average citizens getting too powerful.
It's not their right to determine where their kids go to school.
That big area where their participation is necessary to decide whether and how our democratic system will create rules.
Because if they forget that, and they forget to participate, and they forget that the decision-making power is theirs ultimately, then our Constitution won't work.
Who the hell is he talking about here?
Let me read the transcript.
It's a Constitution that protects democratic systems.
Well, there are limits.
Within those limits, there's a vast area for people to decide for themselves.
And I don't want to forget that big area where their participation is necessary to decide whether and how our democratic system will create rules.
Because if that, I guess he's talking about the people.
If the people forget that and they forget to participate and they forget the decision-making power is theirs ultimately, then the Constitution doesn't work for crying out loud.
We've got elections.
People elect their representatives.
The representatives go make the rules.
You guys interpret them.
But what's happening is you guys are making your own rules because you don't think anybody else is doing it right.
Or they are not sufficiently liberal for you, Justice Breyer.
So if the American people don't participate, i.e. he's talking about the people here who choose not to vote, what else can he possibly mean?
And thus they forget the decision-making power is theirs, then the Constitution won't work.
Well, not everybody has always voted.
In fact, most people don't vote most of the time.
Constitution still works.
You are the people undermining it, sir.
Not the people of the country.
This amazing stuff.
Ladies and gentlemen, many Americans are suffering from skin hunger.
Are you one of them?
I kid you not.
Gary Nash was feeling just a tad out of touch when he decided to attend his first cuddle party.
They have these in New Jersey.
He works in the World of New York Finance, walked into a yoga studio in Manhattan six weeks ago to attend his first cuddle party.
Nash is one of more than an estimated 5,000 people who have been cuddled in the last three years thanks to the growing phenomenon of cuddle parties.
These are people that just don't have much human contact out there.
And so the lack of human contact is called skin hunger.
And they're going to these parties.
Now, they're places where consenting grown-ups, most often strangers, can shake off the armor of adulthood and play.
Whether or not it includes touching is completely up to them.
You can say, I need a four-person cuddle.
You can go for a three-person cuddle.
You can cuddle to lose pounds and find love.
And it's all non-sexual, by the way.
This is just contact.
This is human contact.
The positive effects of non-sexual touch and affection are not surprising.
When a person feels calm, relaxed, or happy, the brain releases a hormone that suppresses appetite.
So cuddle parties are also, I guess, a diet, a diet plan.
Skin hunger.
No such thing as non-sexual touching, some people think.
No such thing.
Can you touch?
Well, now, come on, Snerdle.
You can hug your mother.
You know, if you go outside the family, you start cuddling strangers to solve your skin hunger.
You're saying that there's no way that can remain non-sexual.
Right, right.
Russ in Lewistown, Pennsylvania.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
Greetings from Central Pennsylvania.
Thank you.
Let me join Benny in wishing you a Merry Christmas, also.
Thank you.
Along those lines, in all the years I've been listening to you, I learned to appreciate the Mannheim Steamroller holiday songs, and I was wondering when you were planning on putting those on in your brakes.
Yeah, you know, I didn't want to start too early this year because I don't want to wear it out.
I don't want people to get tired of hearing the Mannheim bump rotation.
So I was going to start it later on in this week.
Great.
I'll be looking forward to it.
Well, you want to, since you've asked and since you have Mannheim Steamroller hunger here, obviously.
Well, let's hear.
We're going to play a little tune here for you.
It's one of my favorites from Mannheim Steamroller, Carol of the Bells.
You've got to really hear this in stereo with the bass driving, folks.
It's going to pick up here in just a second.
As I say, you need to hear this in stereo.
You need to hear this with a bass driving.
I can't hear it that way anymore, but I remember it.
And I still love it.
Chip Davis and the gang at Mannheim Steamroller.
We've got to go.
We'll be back in just a second.
Sit tight, my friend.
Man, I'd say it appears like this polonium-210, this nuclear poison's all over London.
They're finding it everywhere.
I'll tell you, this stuff is scary.
This is.
We got to run a quick time out here, ladies and gentlemen.
▲
Export Selection