All Episodes
Previous Next
May 3, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
May 3, 2010, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hiya folks, how are you?
Welcome back.
I am Rush Limbaugh, serving humanity here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, America's real anchorman, truth detector, and doctor of democracy.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Great to have you here as we kick off a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbaugh at eibnet.com.
Robert Gibbs with the mantra of the regime this afternoon, the White House press secretary.
I'm not sure the president can alter the pace of drilling in the Atlantic.
I'm in the Gulf, I'm sorry.
We're, I used this phrase yesterday, Secretary Salazar used this phrase, and that is, we're going to do what we have to do.
We will keep our, as Secretary Salazar said, our boot on the throat of BP to ensure that they're doing all that is necessary while we do all that is humanly possible.
We're going to keep the boot on the throat of AP to make sure they're doing all that's necessary.
He then went on to encourage fishermen in the Gulf to sue British petroleum because it is they who are causing difficulties with the fishing habitat.
So I just got a note from a friend of mine who is in the corporate bond business.
Hey, Rush, we were having an investment meeting here to discuss going short in BP bonds.
Then we heard the Obama quote at the top of your show from Gibbs.
Let me be clear, BP.
Well, Obama did say, let me be clear, BP will pay for this spill.
And then we heard Gibbs say we're going to keep the boot on the throat of BP.
So we have gone ahead and shorted British petroleum bonds.
And this spread, he gives me the basis point spread.
I'm not going to mention that to you, but he said the BP spread will widen with this attack on them for the financial liability.
So you got a bunch of people.
Follow the money here.
A bunch of people in the investment business are going to short British petroleum stock and bonds because the White House is now attacking them.
The White House is blaming them for everything that's going on.
They're an adversary.
The White House is not partnering with them to try to fix the problem or to solve it whatsoever.
They are blaming them.
I gave kind of short shrift a moment ago when I repeated to you what Mahmoud Ahmadine Zod had said in his speech at the UN.
Basically, anybody that threatens to use nuclear weapons needs to themselves be criticized and attacked.
We walked out.
The French walked out.
The British walked out.
The Russians and the Chikoms did not walk out.
And basically, I think, you know, this made a joke about, you know, Obama sending letters over there and Ahmedine Zod kind of just flipping the bird back to us in response.
But it is rather serious because what it really means is that the Iranians are not going to stop.
And they're saying openly and upfront, we're not going to stop with our development of nuclear or anything.
It was open defiance from Ahmedine Zod here at the United Nations.
And our close friends, the Russians, and our close friends, the Chikons, did not walk out.
Only the French and us, or we, and the Brits, I think the Brits, walked out as well.
So, oh yeah, they're convicting BP without a trial.
Of course they are.
That's the whole point.
I mean, you got to understand they have more compassion for Khaliq Sheikh Mohammed than they have for British petroleum.
There's a piece in the American Thinker Today, Steve McCann, America's Growing Vulnerability to Catastrophe.
And it's timely.
We've had a weekend here that included shockingly fast flooding in Tennessee, killer tornadoes in Arkansas.
Two million people in Boston are boiling their water.
Two million people are still boiling their water.
We had an almost car bomb.
Well, we had a car bomb.
It didn't go off.
We had a car bomb, sorry, SUV bomb in New York.
Another potential bomb in Pittsburgh on the route of the Pittsburgh Marathon.
And of course, this oil slick.
It does seem, folks, that we are under a cloud of catastrophic events here.
And so Mr. McCann's article brings up an important aspect to consider.
He says the major responsibility of those in government, and some might say their only responsibility, is to be certain that a country is capable of surviving a worst-case scenario such as a war, massive economic downturn, or a catastrophic natural disaster.
It has been predicted that California has a 99% chance of a major devastating earthquake in the next 30 years.
The central part of the U.S., extending to the right coast in an area that has recorded four of the largest earthquakes ever in North America, could experience a cataclysmic earthquake sometime in the next 50 years.
The cost of these events may well be in the trillions of dollars.
The economy, so wedded to the world financial structure and socialist economic policies, has a very high probability in the short and long term of repeating the scale of financial wreckage the country has recently undergone.
Yet, the current regime in Washington does not seem to understand or care that the policies they are pursuing will leave no margin for error in the event of an apocalyptic natural or man-made calamity.
He's got a great point here.
The wealth of the United States has always been its fallback position in order to come through wars and recessions or cope with natural disasters.
The country's enormous GDP has allowed the government to spend by reducing taxes if necessary and borrowing whatever monies were necessary to offset the losses incurred from these events and or to restart the engine of the economy.
This nation has had an unlimited credit card and until recently used it somewhat wisely compared with what has begun under Obama.
As long as the U.S. maintained a reasonable debt-to-GDP ratio, which is less than 50%, and kept the annual budget deficit to less than 3% of GDP, it had always had the ability to survive a contingency of unimagined problems.
However, the Obama administration, its fellow travelers in Congress appear to care little for the long-term survival of this country.
They are in the process of squandering the nation's wealth and thus its well-being in their headlong determination to, quote, fundamentally change the country, unquote.
At the end of 2008, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government stood at 40.2% of GDP.
In the four years of the Obama administration, the debt will increase to $5.7 trillion, which is equal to the entire debt incurred by the U.S. since its founding, up to and including 2008.
This will result in the country having a debt to GDP ratio of 72% by 2012, which is just two years from now.
Unheard of.
Without significant repeal of the Obama tax and regulatory policies and changes in the entitlement programs and overall reduction in government spending, the current spending proposals and impact of the trillions needed for Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare and interest payments will result in the debt to GDP ratio exceeding 100% by 2019, which is just unsustainable.
Recently, the bond ratings of Greece, Portugal, and Spain have been downgraded, Greece to junk status.
Not only is the entire European Union threatened with collapse because of the excessive debt and budget deficit policies of these countries, but the entire world economy.
By comparison, the U.S., if it remains committed to the Obama agenda, will experience a debt-to-GDP ratio of 104% and an annual budget deficit of 9.7% of GDP by 2019.
America will become the next Greece if these figures happen.
Now, the point, it goes on, a couple pages, a page and a half.
The point here is a good one.
Something I always, frankly, it's one of these things I always thought about, but this guy reminded me, it never was a thought that I verbalized.
But whenever there was a natural disaster here or anywhere, why were we the only nation able to help?
It wasn't that we're the only nice people on the planet.
It's we're the only ones that had the financial wherewithal.
We are the only ones that had such a burgeoning, growing economy.
There was this whole concept of American exceptionalism.
So whether it was an earthquake in San Francisco or Hurricane Katrina, whatever it was, the tsunami in Indonesia, earthquake in Iran, wherever it was, we're the first on site.
And the reason we were is because we had the money.
It was just as simple as that.
We were a wealthy nation and we did not build a wall around our nation and keep people out of it, nor did we fail to spread our wealth around for the causes of good.
And we don't have the money for this now.
We literally don't have the money for our own natural catastrophe or disaster without ratcheting up these debt ratio numbers that you just heard even faster.
We don't have the money.
We are broke.
There is no margin for error here.
And the only way we have of making sure that there is going to be a margin of error, that we have some financial wherewithal down the road to handle all of these eventualities that we've always been able to handle, with nobody really questioning it, is to repeal most of the Obama agenda.
What are the likelihoods of that?
Nobody knows.
But it is a transformational change that's coming.
I don't think anybody, maybe 20% of the people who voted for the guy were hoping for this.
But you can look at the independents and you can look at how they have abandoned Obama and the Democrats in droves.
And the one thing you have, you can say about that is that by definition, by the media's own definition of independent, you cannot call them fringe.
You cannot call them kooks.
They are the great and loved center.
They are the great and loved moderates, the great and loved people in the middle, and they're running as fast as they can away from Obama and this agenda, which means there is a huge amount of buyers' remorse out there.
We haven't seen any polls on it because, of course, state-controlled media is not polling that, other than Rasmussen, and they're doing it not with specific questions like that, but rather asking people how they react to this agenda item or that agenda, such as healthcare or what have you.
But it's a great piece here in the American Thinker because it does lay out in very understandable, comprehensive language why it is how it is.
We are transforming ourselves from an America of exceptionalism and greatness to an America that's no big deal.
The sad thing is that that is the agenda.
That's being done on purpose, right in front of our eyes.
And here, all you have to do is look at this oil slick.
I can't think of any other regime in this country who would look at this and see it as an opportunity to advance an agenda.
Maybe Clinton.
Maybe Clinton.
I don't know of one presidency that would not look at this and instead try to shore up its love and adoration with the American people by solving it, by acting cooperatively with the people who are experts here in this accident and can solve it.
But this administration wants everybody that it doesn't agree with or that it has an enemy against to be an adversary and not a partner.
And so there's no unity.
There's not even an attempt at unity.
Only division.
And that's where we are.
Quick time out.
Get more of your phone calls when we come back after this.
And we're back at Rush Limbo.
By the way, don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, I just remembered this last summer.
Remember when the Obama administration agreed to $10 billion in loans to Brazil for them to drill offshore for oil?
And we found out sometime later that George Soros' hedge fund had invested $811, some odd, what, million dollars in maybe million to billion, I forget which one in front of me right now.
So we're in bed with Soros down in Brazil to help them drill for oil.
And the Angolans are drilling for oil in the Gulf.
So are the Vietnamese, so are the Cubans, so are the Chaikons.
The Mexicans have a big new field.
We send the SWAT teams in to shut it down pending an investigation of what happened.
To the phones to Chicago, this is Paul.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Mr. Levo.
Hi.
Yes.
Sorry for my not perfect English.
I'm Polish native.
Mr. Limbo, I might miss one of your programs because I listened since like maybe seven years ago.
I might miss your program.
I never heard from you about what federal government should do, if anything, in order to solve the illegal immigration issue in a long term, kind of speaking.
Do you have any position on it?
And if you allow later, I can have also a couple of comments.
Well, yeah, I think I have offered not a solution per se.
We already have laws on the books about immigration.
All we have to do, Paul, is enforce them.
We have a bunch of different categorizations of visas.
The legal immigration in this country is a long process.
It requires answering questions, taking tests, ascertaining whether or not the new arrivals want to assimilate and actually become part of our culture.
We are ignoring the law when it comes to immigration on our southern border.
And all we have to do is just enforce that law like we enforce it everywhere else against the Europeans, against the Asians, everybody else in the world.
It doesn't require anything new here.
It just requires our own federal government obeying its own laws.
It's not complicated.
Understood.
But the fact is we have, in a state, we have about 30 million people on illegal status.
So, you know, the question is, because I don't know what the existing immigration law is saying, but the fact is we have so many millions of people here.
The question is, besides, of course, let them leave, you know, the state, and that's the solution.
But that's not the solution.
What is that?
Okay, let's, well, no, no, I don't see the contradiction here.
That's like saying we've got a bunch of people who have committed murder.
Well, let's leave murder out of it.
We've got a bunch of people who've robbed banks and stolen automobiles, and we think there's about 30 million of them we haven't caught.
But we're going to really crack down now and make sure that no more banks are robbed and no more cars are stolen.
But the people that have stolen the cars and robbed the banks, we're going to figure a way to get them amnesty.
Illegal is illegal.
The biggest problem with all this is that a lot of people who do not want to enforce the law, like I saw a headline the other day, Paul, that said, illegal aliens accused of breaking law.
As though that was news to somebody in the media reporting the story.
If we're not going to maintain the integrity of our own borders, we're going to lose our sovereignty.
We're going to cease to be the nation that we are.
This is not really complicated.
It may be hard in a compassion sense, but it's not really complicated.
But again, I understand, but again, besides forcing the law and forcing people to leave the country, do you think the federal government should solve it, allowing illegal to stay here?
And what terms would it be?
Just thinking about it, how the government could or should solve this, thinking that those people that they want to be here, and what do you think?
What term, if any, would be under consideration of government to do?
Well, there are a lot of people that want to be here.
And, you know, there is no country in the world that is as easy to immigrate legally to as the United States.
If these people couldn't get work, they would leave.
It's that simple.
This new Arizona law is acting as its own deportation law.
People are leaving Arizona because they know now the law is going to be enforced.
They know now that they can't get hired.
And so they're leaving.
Now, I know the point of your question because I'm host, and I am well aware of many people trying to trick the host.
It's a game that callers make.
And what you're trying to get me to do is say something deathly unkind about the so-called 30 million illegals here.
What you're hoping I will say is ground them up and kick them out.
And if they won't go, throw them out.
That's what you want me to say.
And I'm not going to say that.
I have never said whatever number are here illegally, round them up and deport them.
It isn't realistic.
Well, we have to, this is why you'd want to diminish the secure the borders argument when that's the number one priority.
We have to do that.
We have to stop the influx.
That's not insignificant.
So you just, you can't pose a question to me.
Okay, Mr. Limbaugh, after we secure the borders, didn't we?
The borders are key.
And then we come up with a plan, I can give you two or three of them, that would help legalize these people if they're willing to assimilate.
We don't want a balkanized America here.
And that's what this is leading to as well.
It really isn't complicated.
It's just a matter of following the law.
Let me clarify something here, folks, because few people are on my case when reading the American Thinker article about the margin of error that we no longer have in helping people around the world.
Hey, Rush, it's not just because we had the money that would help people.
We're good people.
I know we're good.
You can.
You can go around the world.
A lot of wealthy countries do not do what we do.
The Saudis think the Saudi is going to go anywhere where there's an earthquake or even a Muslim country.
No way, Jose, a little Spanish lingo there.
There is always something special about America.
There always has been.
That's why there is this whole concept of American exceptionalism.
And there's no question that it's under assault because it is viewed by the current occupants of this regime as something other than exceptionalism.
No, Chikoms step into what vacuum?
Being nice to people in disasters?
Of course not.
All you have to do, stirredly, I can't believe you're asking me this.
How do they treat their own people?
For credit, the Chikoms, they look at a natural disaster as a chance to invade.
I can't believe Chikomps take over our.
There's nobody out there to take over our role.
What?
Who's doing this?
Who's making?
Oh, the Chikoms are not trying to cozy up to anybody to be nice to them.
They're cozying up to them because they need their resources.
Oh, except the Chikoms don't plan on giving anything back once they take it.
The rub against the U.S. is we stole all the world's resources.
We made about 15 or 20 bankers rich.
Everybody else got poor.
Well, the oil companies got rich.
And everybody else got poor, and we didn't share any of it.
You know, we didn't give it back.
Chikoms.
That's no different than asking me if Mahmoud Ahmadine Izad is going to try to take over some of the slack that we've left over if we no longer can be charitable.
There's something special about this country, the people who live here.
No question about it.
Let me ask you, since this immigration question keeps coming up, why do we keep doing the same thing over and over again when we know it doesn't work?
How many amnesties have we granted?
We did Simpson Mazzoli when Reagan, where we gave amnesty to two or three million people.
We tried it once at least since.
It doesn't work.
If you're not going to protect and enforce your own border, you can give amnesty to all the people in the country illegally, but you're not doing one thing to dissuade anybody from continuing.
In fact, when you give them amnesty, you are in fact perhaps motivating or inspiring them to keep coming.
If these people couldn't get work, they would leave.
And they're having trouble getting work now because everybody's having trouble getting work because of the economic downturn.
So we know that granting amnesty doesn't work.
We tried it 24 years ago.
It only made matters worse.
And yet here we're back.
We've got to grant amnesty.
And because the people talking about granting amnesty, let me repeat, are not interested in solving a problem.
They need more voters, pure and simple.
They're not trying to fix the country, solve a problem.
They're not even trying to help the illegal immigrants.
They're just being used.
This is just a bunch of selfish politicians, wherever you find them, who look at this big group of people as potential voters.
They're also looked at as potential wards of the state, future members of the totally dependent class, which is the best way to get their votes.
So why does everybody insist that the only solution to our immigration problem is to do something we've already tried and failed miserably?
And trying to, you know, we think, we tell ourselves we can change the climate of the world.
We can change the climate of the world.
We can stop all this global warming, but we can't stop people coming across our border.
You just can't.
Such shame.
They can't stop people from coming across the board.
I'm going to change the climate of the planet.
There's no question we can do that.
By the way, Sturdley, you should know.
I'm surprised you don't remember this.
I don't know why.
What do you get ChiComs on the brain for anyway?
Chi-Coms had an earthquake, remember?
They asked for assistance.
The Chi-Coms were asking for aid for their recent earthquake.
There's only one United States, and it is always under attack.
It always has been under attack.
The difference now is that our threat contains an internal component as well as external.
All right, I made mention of the fact, and you all know Mother's Day is coming, and it's an important holiday, and everybody wants to do something really nice and really unique.
And a lot of people, I'm one of them, my mind freezes when trying to come up with a unique gift.
I don't care with holidays, Christmas, what I've gotten to do when I go through catalogs or look at things on the internet, I actually now save things that look like it'd be fun to give to, and I keep them in a file and look at it later as we approach holidays.
And I find it takes the stress out of it.
Well, here's a great way to take some stress out of Mother's Day.
And I don't mean the holiday itself is stressful.
It's just, gosh, I'm going to send mom the same thing, a card.
There's something you can try that will be a Grand Slam home run.
Sherry's Berries.
Huge, biggest strawberries you've ever seen, hand-dipped in chocolate.
They look like they have been painted in chocolate.
And they've extended the offer that expired last week just for you until Thursday of this week.
Now, these are huge strawberries, and a half dozen of them are just $19.99 plus shipping.
And you'll also get some free premium toppings with each order.
Your mother will be delighted.
You could double the order at this price and send her a dozen.
They're not just for dessert.
They're for hors d'oeuvre time.
Or you could put them around a salad, drink them with champagne.
It is seriously the most unique chocolate-covered strawberry you have ever seen.
Sherry's Berries.
You can get them at rushberries.com, B-E-R-R-I-E-S, rushberries.com.
Order through Thursday or call them 866-FRUT02.
$19.99 for a half dozen, $10 more, plus shipping for a full dozen.
You order them once, I guarantee you'll be ordering them again.
Madison, Wisconsin, back to the phones we go.
Mike, great to have you here, sir.
Hello.
Rush.
Hey, how are you doing, buddy?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
Good.
I'm a little off topic today.
You're talking immigration, but I had kind of a bank question for you.
Go right ahead.
Right ahead.
Goldman Sachs, they've got a 10% share on the Chicago Climate Exchange.
And now, thanks to yourself and Glenn Beck, we know that Goldman has previous employees and board members deep in the exchange and the administration itself.
I was wondering, do you think this has anything to do with why Goldman was bailed out and Bear Stearns was sold at the government garage sale?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Say that in a different way again.
Why is it that Bear Stearns was allowed to be sold off and Goldman is bailed out?
Well, Lehman was a lot of people.
What do you think the answer is?
Well, I think the answer is that there's a lot of corruption going on in there.
And CNSL Bear Stearns was the seventh largest security firm at the time of their collapse.
They can't say too big to fail.
Well, it was a competitor that was gotten out of the way.
There's no question.
And the federal government took care of it for Goldman's.
You want to know something else interesting?
I'm going to have to double-check this.
I got a note from somebody over the weekend trying to give me a tip, and I didn't have time to check it.
And I always have to check these things.
But the tip said that there are 11 other firms.
I'm not sure I can believe this, but I'm going to go ahead and mention there are 11 other firms that were more involved in CDOs and derivatives than Goldman Sachs.
That they were not at the top of the list of financial houses trying to pool these mortgages and make some sort of insurance package of them.
I'm going to have to double-check this.
But if that's true, then everything that we have as a suspicion about this, Goldman's in on it.
It's just designed to pass Obama's bill, his Chris Dodds bill, the financial regulatory reform bill.
Goldman's the biggest, the biggest name, the most hated, next to AIG, a way to gin up, just like they're doing now with BP.
The administration had their boot on Goldman's throat.
And now here come criminal charges for what they did.
So always, in this case, especially, follow the money.
And the big pile of money was called TARP.
And Bear Stearns didn't get any of it.
Lehman didn't get any of it.
Goldman, which didn't need it, got a whole bunch of it rooted through AIG, which also got a lot of it.
And then the boot has been on their neck ever since this all happened.
Anyway, quick timeout.
I got to take it.
We'll be back and roll right on after this.
By the way, somebody just clued me in on what our previous caller was talking about.
I was having a devil of time understanding what the guy was saying.
Not his problem, mine.
He was talking about carbon trading.
No, no, no.
I wish I'd have heard him say that because that's the, we've mentioned it on this program.
The reason cap and trade, who cap and trade means, we're going to trade carbon credit.
The reason nobody at the government level wants to admit the hoax of global warming, the reason that we need cap and trade is we need to trade the carbon credits.
And who's going to be the clearinghouse?
Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs was the clearinghouse.
All the trades for carbon credits were going through Goldman Sachs.
That's the original plan.
Maybe a couple of other firms on Wall Street.
And I'm sorry I didn't hear what he was saying.
But again, it was my problem, not his.
Brian in Tampa, great to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Rush, Gator Country, Tea Party, Nicotine, Stan Big Fingers, mega dittos to you.
Thank you, sir.
I have listened to you since Hurricane Andrew, and listening to you is like listening to my dad who passed on in 83 upon graduating high school.
And listening to you is like listening to my dad every day.
And I am no longer having to miss him because I hear you on the radio.
Well, thank you very much, sir.
I understand that, and I appreciate it.
One thing I have noticed out of the media, media-wide, is this administration has a complete lack of regard for the investigative process.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you have a bunch of questions that are here that need to be answered, whether it was sabotage or terrorist attack, and speaking specifically to the oil rig, and how President Obama is already pointing a finger at BP.
And as much as he's jumped to a conclusion with the cop up in Boston, it's a reckless and irresponsible way when an investigative process has not taken place and no one has a clue as to why the thing blew up in the first place, because in my memory, I've never heard of an oil rig blowing up out in an offshore rig.
Well, I've had a couple other people, Brian, make this analogy to the Cambridge cop and how Obama jumped to conclusions because it fits his narrative or fits his template.
You know, last week, last week, I caught blogger hell because one thing I said was taken out of context.
Bloggers all over the country were saying that I was accusing the Obama administration of blowing up the rig.
And I wasn't.
I was not thinking sabotage at all until I heard they're sending SWAT teams down there.
When the federal government's sending SWAT teams, that changed my whole perspective on this.
And why are you sending SWAT teams down there?
And why are you sending Homeland Security?
And why are you not working with oil company executives on this?
And who knows the answers to these questions?
But, you know, I happen to do something on this program that I think is highly valuable to people.
You know, we're an improv program.
We think out loud here.
Things happen.
All of you call.
You tell me what your thoughts are at the moment.
And it's a great intellectual exercise.
And the left, of course, loves to take these little on-air think pieces out of context and try to say that we said things on this program that we haven't said.
But I never occur.
Sabotage never occurred.
Then I read that Halliburton had placed the concrete at the area where the thing had the explosion.
So, well, this is made to order.
I mean, they've been trying to get Cheney and Halliburton executive frog-marched up to Capitol Hill in chains for hearings for who knows how long.
And I said, well, this has got to be, this is too juicy.
Halliburton's involved in this?
Then SWAT teams are sent down there?
The administration not doing anything to fix it?
Well, fix it.
They're not doing anything to contain it.
And they didn't care about it for 12 days.
And now the focus of attention is all on BP with Obama's spokesman saying we got our boots on their necks.
And you fishermen down there, they're the ones depriving you of your livelihood.
Go sue them.
So, I mean, BP, they're the next targets like my investment buddy Rush.
We just decided to go short 62 basis points here on BP bonds.
And it's tempting when you go short, you're betting on the price to go down.
And it'd be very difficult here to bet that the BP stock price, bond price is going to go up when you've got the most powerful man in the world creating a mental image of a jack boot on their neck and the press secretary smiling, urging Louisiana fishermen to sue them.
Short BP.
Back after this.
I had a story on the stack today from the Australian that I didn't get to today.
I may save it for tomorrow, but here's the upshot of it is that men trying to get a beautiful stranger, men trying to find a beautiful woman that they consider out of their league have more anxiety than men who jump out of airplanes with parachutes.
And it's one of the greatest stress-inducing events is to find or make contact or ask out a beautiful woman you think out of your league.
And if you happen, if you happen to marry this woman, the story says it's even worse long term.
It's even worse.
The study claimed long-term relationship stress can cause chronic levels of cortisol leading to impotence.
If you marry a woman that you think is so beautiful, she's out of your league because you never really are comfortable with the fact that you got her.
See you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection