All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 12, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:50
October 12, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Make no mistake about it, folks.
Make none.
The White House is sniffing something happening in Delaware.
There is a late surge of support for Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.
Hey, Buddy Osombay number 22.
I want to play this ad for you again.
You don't send the president in there.
You don't send the president of the United States into Delaware.
For the expressman, I'm surprised the people of the Washington Post bought, well, no, I'm not.
I was going to say I'm surprised they bought it.
Obama's going in there because it's a great opportunity to make Republicans look like weirdos.
I mean, it's like, it is, it's like...
It's like Obama says, okay, look, Delaware is the armpit of the country.
And we're going to go prove it.
He said, we're going to send the president in there to show the whole country what an armpit is.
They're sniffing.
Speaking of armpit, they are sniffing a late surge.
And that the website, coonsetaxman.com, this ad is running.
It's a web ad, but of course now we have taken it viral.
In America, where jobs are being lost and wages cut, in Delaware, where the economy is suffering and families are losing their homes, there is one man who stood against the tide and raised taxes.
One man who thought that a 911 call should be taxed.
One man who thought property taxes should be hiked almost 50%.
One man who was county executive drove Newcastle County on the brink of bankruptcy.
Hide your will.
Hide your lights.
Because he's taxing everything out here.
Chris Coons is the taxman.
Hide your lights.
Hide everything.
Chris Coons is the taxman.
And there's a graphic at the end of the ad paid for by friends of Christine O'Donnell.
And you'll notice the word witch is not in there one time.
So this is good.
It's a great, great, great ad, and we've got it posted.
We've got a link to it posted on our Facebook page as well as at rushlinbaugh.com.
Speaking of fundraising, here's a story from the Washington Post.
Sharon Angle raised $14 million the third quarter.
Former Nevada State Assemblywoman Sharon Angle raised an eye-popping $14 million between July 1st and September 30th for her challenge at Dingy Harry.
The Washington Post says here's a stunning number that far eclipses the cash collection totals of other prominent candidates seeking Senate seats next month.
I mean, $14 million.
Marco Rubio raised $5 million in Florida.
Dino Rossi raised $4 million in Washington state.
Scott Brown raised $14.2 million in January.
Just to give you something to compare Sharon Angle's $14 million to.
Now, here's the thing.
We are in a whole new ballgame.
Candidates do not have to rely on the promises of the GOP, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, the Senate Republican Campaign, the RNC, or any of the other inside the beltway groups for money anymore.
This is national fundraising.
Christine O'Donnell, look what happened to her.
She had a web bomb, whatever they call $2 million and, well, $1 million in one day.
When I, El Rushbro, said, wouldn't it be funny if everybody in this audience just sent her a buck?
Sharon Engel went out there and said, well, you get mentioned on Rush Limbaugh, and this is what happens.
So if you want to see who's going to win, follow the money.
Meanwhile, the establishment Republicans are sitting around admitting that their victory is going to be based solely on a repudiation of Democrats.
They will admit this to you if you speak to the right-ranking Republicans.
They'll tell you this.
And they will then tell you that you're not going to have all that much power here.
We're not going to control a government because we're not going to be able to override vetoes.
There's some of them in Washington still not ready to do the heavy lifting.
Still not ready.
Still not inspired.
To some of them in Washington, this is just standard operating procedure, standard power sharing that goes back and forth from Republicans to Democrats.
Obama and Obamaism is not a crisis.
To them, it's just the latest Democrat to win.
And of course, their job is to make sure he doesn't get reelected.
It doesn't go much beyond that.
If you talk to the right ones, they'll admit that to you.
Go to the audio soundbites again.
This is an illustration of me telling you how the state-controlled media really doesn't like Axelrod and Obama accusing the Chamber of Commerce of being foreign agents.
They really are uncomfortable.
They're trying to get them to stop this.
So this morning on the MSNBC's leaning forward, it won't hurt a bit, Morning Joe Show, they had Mark Halperin on there from Time magazine.
And Scarborough said, Mark Halperin, this is their strategy now.
They've adopted this strategy attacking a Chamber of Commerce and talking about foreign sources.
I'm not sure how they think this appeals to voters, to call out the Chamber of Commerce for allegedly using foreign money.
It also seems a little strange to be demonizing the foreign.
No one's advocating law breaking, but this boogie word that they're using of foreign as if somehow anything that's foreign is bad.
It's just not relevant to voters.
And for the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States to keep up a line with no basis where they say, well, the Chamber has to prove they're not using foreign money.
It's really mystifying.
Really?
Okay, don't like it.
They're mystified.
The chamber has to prove they're not using foreign money.
It's mystifying.
Why?
Mark, they're Democrats.
This is common.
It's SOP.
It's standard operating procedure.
It's mystifying.
They have to prove it.
Axelrod was Schieffer.
You know, Schieffer said, is this the best you can do?
And Axelrod says, well, Bob, you have any evidence?
You have any evidence that they're not taking foreign money?
Schieffer says, do you have any evidence that they are?
And Axel, you have any evidence that they're not, Bob?
Yesterday afternoon on CNBC's power launcher in a power grid segment, the co-host Tyler Matheson spoke with Eamon Jabers, the Washington correspondent, about foreign donations to political parties in the 2010 midterms.
Question foreign companies, U.S. subsidies having their own PACs.
Who have these PACs supported generally?
President Obama might want to look up this statistic because they're favoring Democrats.
More than $6 million has gone to Democrats and more than $5 million has gone to Republicans from those subsidiaries, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies.
So clearly that group favoring the Democrats by a pretty healthy margin.
Right.
And this is one of the reasons why the media is saying, well, you guys kind of back off of this.
I mean, we all know where the foreign money is going.
We remember John Huang.
We remember Charlie Tree, the Chinese restaurateur from Little Rock, delivering thousands and thousands of dollars in money orders.
We remember Al Gore and the no-controlling legal authority with the Buddhist nuns contributing to the Clinton campaign out in California, Los Angeles.
Here's Jake Tapper last night, ABC is world news tonight.
This is a report on foreign donations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Is there any proof that foreign money is funding political ads or activities?
No.
The chamber says that no foreign money is used to fund our political activities.
But you're asking the chamber to prove a negative.
Prove that you're not doing such and such accusation.
It's not proving a negative, Jake, because all you have to do to clear up the questions is reveal who your donors are from.
There aren't any questions.
There weren't any questions until you raised them.
So the whole point is moot until the White House says, where's this money coming from?
All of a sudden, because you asked the question, they have to respond.
They have to reveal where the money is coming from.
They don't have to reveal this.
So, no, it's not proving a negative, Jake.
All you have to do is clear up the question and reveal your donors.
This is seriousness of the charge versus nature of the evidence.
Let's go back.
On Sunday, here's the mantra for the rest of the campaign from the drive-by media.
Do you I guess I would put it this way.
If the only charge three weeks into the election that the Democrats can make is that there's somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into the campaign, is that the best you can do?
I still love this.
I still love this.
Bob Schieffer got Axelrod on Sunday.
He's thinking he's going to hit a home run.
He's going to show up.
He's going to deliver a knockout punch.
It's going to make it a sure shot that the Democrats hold the House and hold this in a day.
White House, this is Obama campaign.
They got something.
And I got them on my show.
And they're going to come here and they're going to announce the blockbuster.
And they leak out this business of foreign money, Chamber of Commerce, a corrupt representative of foreign interests.
And Schieffer's, I mean, just as let down as anybody could be.
This is like, you know, wanting a train set on Christmas Day and your parents give you a fish or a rubber band to go out and kill mosquitoes with.
He says, is this it?
You fire up Peggy Lee.
Is that all there is?
Now, Chris Matthews didn't like what Schieffer did, but for a different reason, here's what he had to say about foreign donations to the Chamber of Commerce in the 2010 midterm elections.
If the U.S. Chamber of Commerce raises millions and millions of dollars from its corporate sources, including overseas sources, and funnels that money right into these Republican campaigns, what was illegitimate about what Axelod and the president are saying?
I don't understand Schieffer's question.
What's wrong with the basic charge?
So this is a little internecine battle going on here.
Clearly, Matthews doesn't like the way Schieffer went out.
What's wrong with it?
What's wrong with it?
So we got it.
There's a circular firing squad going on.
I like how much foreign money pours into General Electric, which owns NBC, which owns CNBC, at least for a while.
They got stimulus money.
It's a story on a stack here.
They got GE got $24, $25 million in stimulus money, and they still laid off workers.
Yeah.
I've got it here.
I'm sure I put this at the top of the stack.
It's in here someplace.
But it's, yeah, I'll find it.
He did.
GE got stimulus money and still fired a bunch of people.
How much foreign money goes to the paycheck of Chris Matthews?
How much foreign money actually ends up in the budgets to run leaning forward, it won't hurt that much MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC.
And Matthews doesn't even get the basic facts right, which is not a surprise.
The Chamber of Commerce has not raised millions and millions of dollars.
They raised 100,000.
100,000.
GE laid off all those workers making incandescent light bulbs.
That's who lost their jobs because of Obama policy.
And they got a grant to go after whatever the green energy stuff.
So it was a double whammy.
Speaking of which, brief time out, back right after this.
Okay, we're going to start on the phones now, folks.
Even though, I mean, I could go another three hours here.
I got that much in the stack without taking a call, but I invite people to call.
I've been holding here for an hour and a half.
I am duty bound.
It's a matter of honor.
Well, I'm inviting people to call.
I should talk to them.
So let's go to St. Louis.
This is Brad, and thank you for waiting.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush, and Missouri dittos to you.
Appreciate it.
I have to slightly disagree, though, with your analysis regarding Obama's trip to Delaware, and here's why.
To me, this just seems like the next page from the same old Axelrod Obama playbook.
For example, a year ago, Obama goes out making speeches and trying to disparage the Republicans by casting your face as the face for the Republican Party.
And that failed.
Next, six months ago, he makes the same speeches trying to cast John Boehner's face as the face of the Republican Party to disparage Republicans.
And that failed miserably.
To me, this just seems like the next logical extension because now they think because of this stuff that's come out about O'Donnell, that now we've got our face for the Republican Party.
But this is going to fail just like the prior two attempts did.
Well, but while all that may be true, and I have a brilliant response to it, ready to go here, even if all that's true, you still have to go there.
I mean, Obama did not come to the EIB network to use me.
He did it from the Oval Office.
He'd not go to Boehner's office at a Capitol Hill to try to demonize Boehner.
He did it from the Oval Orifice, and he had his minions do it.
To go in there, they're sending a lot of people from New Hampshire and others in to help shore up Koons the tax man.
But let me tell you something.
The big problem the Democrats are having, you're right, they have to find an enemy.
That's right out of Olinski's rules for Radicals 101.
Pick the enemy, identify it, freeze it.
All that stuff.
That's their usual strategy.
They had me.
They demonized me, as you say, and then Boehner.
They've had a lot of people.
The trouble is they've met the enemy and it is us.
It's not one person.
It's all of us.
This is the shocking thing that Axelrod and the boys haven't yet figured out.
The enemy, in political terms, is us.
The enemy is over half of the country.
So if you want to try to find somebody that represents half the country to demonize, that's going to be a defeating policy.
You're going to have to find somebody who represents the thinking of 30, 40% of the country, which means Obama.
Obama's the guy that ought to be demonized.
Or Axelrod or anybody on the Democrat side, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, but they've met the enemy and it is us.
The difficulty that they're having is trying to convince us, the enemy, to vote against ourselves.
Now, they may be looking at it as convincing us to vote for them again.
But the truth is, They're trying to convince us, the enemy, to vote against ourselves.
Because you see, Christine O'Donnell is us.
Just like she said in her ad, Sharon Angle is us.
Marco Rubio is us.
So the more they demonize us, the more damage they are inflicting on themselves.
But you still don't have to go into Delaware to demonize O'Donnell.
Besides, she's the most demonized.
I guess, you know what Obama is really saying by doing this?
Bill Maher, we love you.
You're not cutting it.
Saturday Night Live, we love you, but you're not cutting it.
Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, we love you, but you're not cutting it.
We need to send a big guy in to get the truth out about Christine O'Donnell.
And we got to send him into her backyard.
Because for all the efforts of Bill Maher and Saturday Night Live and Stewart and Colbert, she's still gaining on our guy.
So now it's time for the big guy.
Time for the big gun.
Imam Obama going into her backyard because it's such an opportunity to portray us as Cooks.
Richmond, Virginia.
Alan, welcome to the program, sir.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Megadidos.
Quick point.
It reminds me of a commercial that's on TV now.
It's some insurance company that's probably soon to be on by the government.
Where the rattlesnake is sitting there and the rabbit's scared, and then all of a sudden it's got a fake rattle tied to its tail.
That's what Obama and Axelrod are looking like.
And that's why Bob Schieffer's sitting there going, y'all are turning into snakes with rattles on your tails.
And it's hilarious to watch.
I hope they keep doing it.
Well, is that the Traveler's Insurance ad you're talking about?
Yeah, that's it.
And so we're all out there, the conservatives, the Tea Party guys, or the jackrabbits running up in the field to look at Imam Obama with a rattle on his tail.
Excellent point, sir.
Our audience is observant.
And who says our audience is not steeped in the popular culture?
Have you seen that Traveler's ad, Snerdley?
Have you seen it?
It is hysterical.
It's hysterical.
And I think to have Axelrod and Obama, Bob Schieffer compared to his playing roles in that ad is terrific.
All right.
I have to take a brief time out.
It's a sad note, but it's only three minutes or even less.
And it won't feel like it's that long anyway.
Back before you know it.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, Rush Limbaugh, mind, over chatter as we start a million conversations.
You see the lead story on the Drudge Report last night, and yet still up there today.
George Soros, I can't stop a Republican avalanche.
This is the danger of putting all your eggs in one rich guy's basket.
George Soros, billionaire financier who was an energetic Democrat donor in the last several election cycles, but is sitting this one out, is not feeling optimistic about Democrat prospects.
You're on your own, Barry.
You know, what's kind of funny is that Soros is sitting this out, and this bogus charge against the Chamber of Commerce came from a Soros front group.
The, what is it, the Think Progress.
And Soros pays for that bunch.
All right, back to the phones.
Tracy in Sheboygan, Wisconsin.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
I love the subject.
This is so disgusting.
It's with regard to the hypocrisy and outrage by the president, the Democrats, of the foreign money influencing and stealing our democracy.
However, Rush, they don't seem to have issue with, nor is any media outlet reporting on the fact that many foreign countries, including Mexico, are participating with our government in a lawsuit against Arizona claiming human rights violations.
They have those amicus briefs they're participating with.
Of course.
I mean, the hypocrisy is ranked.
I mean, it's all over the place.
They're meant to screw Arizona, but not the Democrats, I guess.
Speaking of all this immigration, I have a story here, and I might have just thrown it away.
It's interesting.
I go through the stack now and then, and I find things that I thought I might use before the show started.
The show gets underway.
I said, no, I need to shrink the stack, throw that away.
And now she calls, and I can't find it.
I don't know what I did with it, but I'll paraphrase it.
It's a story about how the Mexican people are all fed up that Guatemala will not stop their people from immigrating to Mexico.
Guatemalans are going to Mexico and stopping.
They're not continuing on to the United States.
So the Mexican government's mad at us for trying to stop the illegals from crossing our border.
And they want to sue Arizona and so forth.
They're upset that the Guatemalans are coming into their country and won't keep going to the United States.
That's, I don't know, I just, I find this kind of irony hilarious.
There's news of women out there today.
There are two stories, political stories from the politico.
Let me get the dates of these stories and then I'll get them in sequential order.
Here we go.
October 11th, which would have been yesterday.
This is by Carrie Budolf Brown.
And the headline poll, Women See Obama Failure.
The White House may view the last 18 months as historic, racking up a legislative scorecard that includes a porculus bill and an overhaul of the health care system.
A majority of women, however, see it as a failure.
According to a new poll conducted by Kellyanne Conway for the Kitchen Cabinet, a conservative women's group, the findings point to the divide this year between Washington and the electorate, which has yet to give Obama much credit for his string of legislative victories.
You know, that sentence is really enlightening.
That sentence really tells us a lot.
This is politico, so this is traditional state-controlled media, partisan political operatives.
Listen to this sentence.
The findings point to the divide this year between Washington and the electorate, which has yet to give Obama much credit for his legislative victories.
Now, these people inside the belt were supposed to, what?
Be happy in awe, ecstatic what?
Obama has had some victories.
Why?
Because the victories have been over Republicans.
Does it not matter?
Miss Budolph Brown, the substance here.
Do you not get the fact the American people did not want Obama to win?
That it doesn't always translate to wonderfulness when presidents win their legislative battles.
But to these people inside the beltway, I mean, such a narrow worldview, such a closed-minded worldview, such a limited way of defining success and moving forward.
Okay, so what happens if Obama has a piece of legislation that raises the marginal tax rate to 95% on everybody, and 80% of the country disagrees with it when we get a story about they just don't appreciate how good the guy is in getting his legislation passed?
It's as though the substance of this stuff doesn't matter to these people.
It doesn't factor in.
So after writing this sentence, the findings point to the divide this year between Washington and the electorate, which has yet to give Obama much credit for his string of legislative.
You know, it's not even about that.
The electorate is ticked off.
Ms. Budolf Brown, the electorate, I mean, is ready for overthrow here.
That's what this election's all about.
They want repeal.
They're upset that this thing was victorious, that parts of this agenda were victorious.
So the divide between Washington and the electorate.
And it's always because the electorate's a bunch of idiots.
I don't realize what a string of accomplishments Imam Obama has put forth here.
And then the next sentence, 56% of women consider the health care reform law a failure, while 29% view it as a success.
The economic stimulus pack is viewed only slightly more favorably.
53% say it was a failure.
34% say it was a success.
This is a survey of women.
Among independent women, a group that Democrats and Republicans are battling over, a majority viewed the health care overhaul, a stimulus package, the auto industry bailout, a troubled asset relief program, TARP, as failures.
The negative take on what the White House views as signature achievements helps explain, writes Ms. Budolf Brown here, at least in part, why the president and Congressional Democrats have seen their approval ratings plunge since early last year and are struggling to gain traction ahead.
I mean, this is absurd.
The negative take explains in part why the president and Democrats have seen their approval ratings take a plunge as though this is an anomaly?
Democrats' approval numbers are never to take a plunge.
That's reserved exclusively for Republicans.
But it's happening to Democrats.
There must be some reason for it.
Yeah, they just don't appreciate.
We just don't appreciate how good Obama is to have secured these victories.
Sonia Eddings Brown, treasurer creator, Kitchen Cabinet, the group here, people who voted for Obama feel just as betrayed by the outcome as conservatives.
Everybody realizes we're burying our kids in debt, and even Democrats realize hope and change had a price tag they didn't expect.
In the survey, 41% of the women identified themselves as Democrats, 37% as Republicans, 15% as Independents, and the remainder said, I might change my mind, so don't ask me now.
Conway, a Republican, Kellyanne Conway, who specializes in polling women voters, said she expected to see more optimism about the four major legislative achievements.
Now, remember, this is of women.
So even Kelly, who's a conservative woman, she's Republican.
She was surprised.
She thought that women would be more inclined to say good.
Oh, at least he got it done.
At least he moved the ball forward.
But then she said, women are looking at this election almost entirely through an economic lens.
They expect the president to be a mathematician, not a magician.
The policies they have seen in the last year literally don't add up with them.
Now, the Conway survey paints the picture of a more motivated electorate.
More than two-thirds of women who are registered to vote said they are 100% likely to vote.
That's not good news for Democrats.
They generally count on the women vote.
The second story from Politico is today by Marin Cogan.
Democrats fear wipeout for women.
While conservatives are already celebrating the year of the Republican woman, thanks to a record number of GOP female candidates for Congress, Democrats fear the opposite trend, the year of the liberal, no, they don't say that, the year of the women's wipeout.
I'm adding liberal into it.
The year of women's wipeout, three Democrat women first elected in 92, the original year of the woman, are at risk.
Nearly a quarter of the 56 female Democrats in the House are considered vulnerable, including once-rising stars like Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Betsy Markey of Colorado, and Mary Joe Kilroy of Ohio.
Even if female GOP hopefuls like Sharon Angle in Nevada, Carly Fiorina in California, and Kelly Ayat in New Hampshire make it to the Senate, the elections will still quite likely bring a net loss of women in Congress.
Oh, let's cry a tear.
Even if these Republican women win, it's a net loss.
The impact of more women in Congress has also trickled down to smaller cultural changes like installing breastfeeding rooms for new mothers on the Hill.
This should trouble anyone who believes that a Congress should be truly representatives of the people it serves, said Representative Judy Chu, Democrat California.
These libs don't represent most people.
This is the funny thing.
But the ousting of a wide suave of Democrat women November 2nd would chip away at a generation of female politicians inspired by the 92 election, which saw a surge of Democrat women perspired to break up the Boys Club of Congress after Renita Hill's testimony and then Judge Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
So two stories in the Politico.
Women angry en masse at Obama and Democrat women prepared to take a shellacking and how this is bad for all women.
What did these women do?
What would Patty Murray do?
What did Barbara Boxer, what did they do but screw things up?
All these women that we're going to be so sorry to see go, what did they do?
Now these other Republican women that were so frightened of, what did they do?
What did they do to anybody?
How have they negatively impacted politics?
What'd Sharon Engle do to anybody?
What did Christine O'Donnell do to anybody?
What did Linda McMahon do to anybody?
It's absurd here.
And what will a new flock of women from the Tea Party do to correct the mistakes of their sisters?
So, I mean, from the cultural point of view, this is an amazing turn of events.
It is a total, what's shaping up here?
A total repudiation of liberal women, not women, but liberal women.
It's a total repudiation of liberal women.
And the feminazis in the media and nags are not happy.
I mean, there is discord across the left of the political spectrum.
I'm going to tackle this.
I'm not going to spend much time on it, but people are demanding my take on the outcome of the football game last night, the Minnesota Vikings and the New York Jets.
And people want to know, rush, rush.
It was obviously Brett Farbrett, Farbrett, Favre was distracted by all a text message and sext messaging controversy.
No, no, no, no.
Whatever Favre did or didn't do with the sideline host had nothing to do with why the Vikings lost the game last night.
The Vikings lost the game for one reason.
Late in the fourth quarter, a New York Jets defensive back remembered that he saw the exact formation that the Vikings were lined up in.
On third and whatever the yard the situation was, he remembered a film study.
They always go to the tight end.
He had the tight end in coverage.
He jumped the route.
26-yard interceptions returned.
Favre threw a pick six.
And I don't think he was thinking about a sideline babe when he threw the pass.
Everybody says he's Favre distracted by the six.
No!
Just like last year in a championship game in Super Dome.
He threw a pick in overtime at the end of the game, the end of regulation, threw a pick last night.
He happens to do this now and then in games they lose late in the day.
Tricia, Trumbull, Connecticut, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Rush, although I've never met you, you are my friend, and I believe a friend to everyone who desires that which is good and right and success and happiness for all.
And EIB is wonderful, but I think it's a huge understatement to me.
You are brilliant in fearless broadcasting, and you deserve a promotion to something like Supreme Dean of Truth Tellers.
And the opposite of that is cacistocracy, which is government by the least qualified or most unprincipled, which I was reminded of when you were talking last week, and many were about Blumenthal running for Senate against Linda McMahon to replace Chris Dodd.
Yeah, what did you think of his attempt to explain how a job was created?
Total fumbling, but that represents him.
I mean, for a quarter century, he has worked in government for two decades as he's well earned the Sobriquet sue-a-mall Blumenthal.
I mean, he's sued thousands of companies and well deserves the title of nation's second worst attorney general this year, rated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
And it includes things like selective application of the law, ethical breaches, fabricating law, usurping legislative power.
So anyway, some think he would be even worse than Chris Dudd, which I'll tell you, anybody that doesn't eat, you can't trust him, and he looks like he doesn't eat.
And either way, the guy speaks, I'm proud of my therapist.
I'm proud of my time served in Vietnam.
Give me a break.
Whoos!
I mean, it just doesn't.
It seems that there is a woman in Congress, Virginia, Congressional District 1, by the name of Crystal Ball.
And she doesn't like being called a whore.
Crystal Ball.
▲
Export Selection