All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 3, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:43
February 3, 2011, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, let me ask everybody a question.
Do you really think anybody in this regime?
Do you think anybody, period?
Do you think anybody in Washington has any idea exactly what Egypt is supposed to be immediately transitioning to?
Here's Obama out making speeches.
You gotta start immediately.
Immediately you transition to what?
Transition to what?
And should should that not be the real question here?
We're demanding that they transition starting immediately, but we don't know to what?
Is it revolution?
Is it a civil war?
Well, it's change, yeah, but we don't know what the end result of the change is going to be.
I'll tell you what this is.
As much as well, it's hard to say that it's one thing, but there is a fact of life here, and that is as often and as frequently as Egypt is kept on the front pages.
Nothing else happening in this country is being noticed, talked about, or reported on.
Such as this from Bloomberg News, U.S. administration.
In contempt over Gulf Drilling Moratorium, the judge rules, February 3rd today.
The Obama regime acted in contempt by continuing its deep water drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge said.
Interior Department regulators acted with determined disregard by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
This from the ruling was Judge Martin Feldman.
U.S. District Judge, each step the government took following the court's imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance.
The judge said of the Obama regime.
In his ruling.
This judge also appointed by Ronald Reagan.
So I guess we have to ignore the judge.
You know, the left can bring Reagan up, say we love Reagan.
Reagan was great, we're studying Reagan.
When they do it, it's fine.
Anybody else brings Reagan up, not allowed to.
So this regime.
You know, I I uh I referred to them as increasingly lawless the other day.
And some media watchdog groups took issue with that.
Well, what would you call being cited for contempt by a federal judge for failing to adhere to a ruling on the drilling moratorium?
They basically said lift the moratorium.
It's not it's not legal.
You can't do it.
They said we're gonna go to a different judge.
Screw you.
Ken Salazar, the cowboy hat and everything kept it on and they kept the moratorium in place.
And now we've had health care pronounced unconstitutional.
They said, Well, there's no injunction against it.
The judge says in his declaratory ruling, yes, there is.
By virtue of my ruling, there is an injunction here.
And then if there were an injunction, if if the judge actually did a word-by-word ruling and called it an injunction, then Durban would find a way to ignore that.
The law just doesn't apply to these people.
Washington Post today, Senate rejects repeal of health care law as fight shifts to courts.
Well, the real news in this story is on page two.
The law is being challenged in 20 pending suits.
In two cases, federal judges have upheld it, but in two others, including one in Florida on Monday, judges have ruled against it.
These cases are likely to be heard in mid-level appeals courts before reaching the Supreme Court.
Those other cases we talked about, this don't matter now.
What do you mean, Mr. Lumbaugh?
There are four judges and they've had four different rulings.
That's right.
And one of them has ruled the whole thing unconstitutional.
You don't pick and choose.
A federal judge has said it's unconstitutional.
That must be dealt with.
Legal scholars' view of the effort, once widely dismissed as quixotic or keyotic, uh, political tactic has already undergone a sea change.
The first ruling overturning the law by U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia in December was the catalyst, said Randy Barnett, a Georgetown law professor who has filed briefs opposing the law.
There's no logical reason why one judge's opinion should have that much effect, but it really did, he said.
It's like getting hit over the head with a two by four.
Suddenly, they had to take these arguments seriously.
And then Monday's decision by Judge Vinson, which at 78 pages is nearly twice as long as Hudson's cemented that impression.
Randy Marnett said they can no longer dismiss Hudson's ruling as a one-off.
The breadth and depth of Judge Vincent's opinion is very impressive.
So yeah, it has moved on now to um the courts.
Not something frivolous.
Well, the regime is treating it as something frivolous.
So here we we we were asking yesterday whether the administration can be held in contempt or not, and they can.
Just to repeat this for you, this is Bloomberg.
The Obama regime acted in contempt by continuing its deep water drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down.
A New Orleans judge ruled.
This a Reagan appointee, by the way.
The judge is Martin Feldman of New Orleans.
Each step the government took following the court's imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance.
And here's more.
Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear, convincing evidence of the government's contempt.
And I would maintain to you that they're in contempt twice now.
You've had a judge void the health care law.
And voila, they are continuing to implement it.
Yes, my friends, things continue to brew in this country off the front pages where Egypt is.
Speaking of Egypt, though, the Washington Post, Craig Whitlock.
Again, this is uh my question, does anybody what are we transitioning to?
We're demanding Mubarak, you get out of there now.
You get out of there.
We're transitioning.
You people of Egypt, you you transition to it, you just do the transition.
Well, to what?
We don't know.
Could we perhaps be helping to usher in a terrorist group?
Under the guise of the democratic uprising.
Washington Post, U.S. examining, re-examining its relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood opposition group.
As it braces for the likelihood of a new ruler in Egypt, the U.S. government rapidly reassessing its tenuous relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition movement whose fundamentalist ideology has long been a source of distrust in Washington.
Whoa.
Let me read this again.
As it braces for the likelihood of a new ruler in Egypt.
As it braces, it's cracking the whip.
Mr. Whitlock.
The U.S. government rapidly reassessing its tenuous relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Really?
We're helping to usher in a terrorist group under the guise of democracy.
We're going to change the way we look at the Muslim Brotherhood because they may be running the show.
The Muslim Brotherhood did not start this.
They are tagalongs.
They saw this happening and they got in line.
And they're trying to claim leadership of it just as Obama is.
They try to get out in front of a mob just as Obama did.
On Monday, and what analysts said was a clear reference to the Brotherhood, the White House said a new government in Egypt should include a whole host of important non-secular actors.
The move drew the skepticism of some U.S. officials who have argued that the White House should embrace opposition groups that are more likely to support a democratic government in Egypt rather than one dedicated to the establishment of religious law.
It also marked a change from previous days when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Rotham and other officials expressed concern that the uprising in Egypt could shift power to an Islamist government, much like the one in Iran, where Ayatollah-led factions elbowed aside, other groups to seize.
That's why I say this is at this this is just as the smell.
We're celebrating the 100th anniversary of Reagan's birthday this weekend.
Yeah, that this got the smell of Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter's second term.
Iran, now Egypt, being handed over to a bunch of fundamentalists or taken over.
Whatever is happening.
We are urging a transition.
This is as much as anything, Obama showing off his power.
Obama goes to the cameras, demands a transition.
Didn't quite work out the way he wanted.
The violence was supposed to be dialed back.
The violist was supposed to subside.
It didn't.
Got worse.
Supporters of the regime in the state control media openly worried.
Now the order has gone out just to transition to something without caring what it is, just to demonstrate.
That our man child president has the power to make it happen.
That the only choice the Egypt leadership of the U.S. have now is to reconcile with the Muslim Brotherhood.
That's what we are being told.
That's the message of the Washington Post.
They're not so bad.
They're not so bad after all.
It's the same tune we heard about Khomeini 30 some years ago.
Look at him.
Cute little old cleric.
Yeah, been biding his time in Paris.
Yeah, where's those funny clothes?
What harm could he do?
Certainly better than the Shah.
Man, the Shah was ripping us off.
Shah was doing all kinds of stuff.
Shaw was getting too big for his britches.
Mubarak, 83 years old.
He's out of it.
He's got a son, he wants to make prayer.
We're not going to put up with that.
We're not going to give him a billion and a half a year, continue this stuff.
Muslim Brotherhood, these guys just want democracy.
These guys just want freedom.
They're not so bad.
It's eerie.
How things repeat themselves.
Hope that's not what's going on.
Okay, we are back.
Reminding you again the telephone number 800 282-2882 to White Plains, New York.
And Rich, welcome, sir.
Great to have you here.
Hey, Rich uh Grush, greetings from a uh a still grieving jet fan.
Um I heard you mention earlier in your blog.
Tell me how it feels.
What's that, Rush?
Tell me how it feels.
You said that you are a still breathing jet fan.
Yeah, it it feels like Sanchez's arm was moving forward in the whole game.
Aha, so the refs did it.
The refs always align themselves with the Steelers.
Okay, if that's what take it, if that's what it takes to get you through, I can relate.
Okay.
Houston Oilers, same thing.
1979, Mike Renfro.
They think they got.
What do you think, Rush?
You think his arm was going forward or not?
Um, I didn't see his arm going forward.
You didn't see it going backwards.
I that's right.
I didn't say going backwards, but I did not see it go forward.
There was one key replay view that you that that arm was not going forward.
There's so many optical illusions in these that because the ball ended up a couple yards forward.
Well didn't it?
Yeah, but that's that's the optical illusion.
The ball going forward makes you think the arm is going forward, not necessarily the case.
Go back and look at look at Palomalu, who um did the same thing.
Joe Flacco in a in a regular season game.
He hacked the arm, the ball flew uh a little bit forward, I believe, uh before it was recovered, maybe flew a little bit sideways.
Uh it's but Rush, how does the ball go forward without either the arm, the wrist, or the hand going forward?
I mean, it you know, we're talking physics here.
Well, physics perfectly explains this.
That's what I was just trying to say, optical illusion.
All right, Rush.
I want to I want to make a point.
Yeah.
I heard you talk about Dingie Harry's defense of the uh Obamacare, and he used the term uh patience's rights.
That's how they are characterizing Obamacare as a patient's rights bill, yeah.
And then I heard you talk about passengers' rights somewhere in your uh in your dialogue there, and and you know I've heard of animal rights, reproductive rights, prisoners' rights, uh, marital rights, and you know, my question is this to you, Rush.
You know, are rights are an important thing.
So could you tell me how many there are?
I mean, I would I would think that something as important as a person's rights should be uh enumerated.
And um to me, I'll I'll tell you my interpretation of what the left deems rights, they they take the cause du jour and put the word rights after it.
And there you have it.
Let me ask you a new right, and of course, before it's accompanied by a taxpayer-funded uh uh entitlement.
Before I answer your question, I need to ask you one more.
Mm-hmm.
Was there a second gunman on the grassy knoll?
Are you calling me a conspiracy theorist?
I'm just asking you a question.
I don't know.
All right.
Uh the the question about rights, you you you you're you're uh pretty much out of money.
You can have a bill that permits every man to rape a woman.
If you call it the Civil Rights Act of 2012, it would pass.
You could legalize rape by calling it a civil rights bill or some sort of rights bill.
Uh this is an exaggeration, folks, to illustrate an absurdity to illustrate absurdity.
Uh you could pass a lot by calling it a civil rights bill.
Now, what the question of where rights come from?
That's essentially what you're asking me.
Mm-hmm.
Rights come from creation.
Rights come from God.
So so the Congress is God.
In their minds.
Mm-hmm.
The White House is God in their minds.
Liberals in their minds are your God or your nanny.
They bestow rights upon you.
That's why they don't like the Constitution.
The Constitution clearly says that rights come from God.
And they're not all that complicated.
Is there anybody in Congress, in the Senate, even his Majesty himself, who will acknowledge that, who will even acknowledge that the Constitution says that.
Uh well, it's the declaration that says it.
It's the Constitution that that uh spells out what government cannot do.
Um I I think it's it's a crucial question because we're in a we're at a stage here in in our nation's uh evolution where the left has done as really pretty good job of trying to make everybody think they fit into a group of victims somewhere.
Ergo, we're working on a passengers' rights bill.
What did that come from?
Well, the passengers' rights bill comes from the fact that airlines sometime will leave you on the airplane for four hours on the tarmac before going to a gate or after leaving a gate, and they won't let you off because they're concerned about a number of things.
Passengers have complained.
Sometimes it's been eight hours on the plane off the on the tarmac.
You got a piece of legislation to fix that, make sure the airline's hand called it the passenger's rights bill of uh 2010, 2011, and it spells out what your rights are as a passenger.
And so it the attempt here is is is meant to uh put as many people as possible into groups of victims.
The reason for this is so that the great elected Leaders in Washington can act as the solvers of problems.
They can act as the people who fix it all.
They make you a victim of something, and then they come along and say we're the ones that are going to make it safe or fair or whatever.
We're going to get even with those who have victimized you.
And it's it's insidious because the more people who buy into this whole notion that they're victims of something, it's usually of the country.
A victim of some aspect of this country racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, corporatism, whatever it is.
Government gets to come along and say, we'll fix it.
We're the referee.
And that's supposed to mean, oh, good, I'll turn my life over to you then.
You will protect me from all of these predators out there like Walmart and McDonald's and whoever else it is that is endangering your life, the food that you eat or what have you.
And so they've set this up, and it's been going on for years.
Government equals justice.
Government equals good.
Government equals wonderment.
Private sector equals pain.
Private sector equals crime.
Private sector equals predators.
Private sector is where everybody who wants to get you is.
The government is where everybody who wants to protect you is.
And that's how they've set it up.
In the process, they have taken initiative away from people.
They have taken uh ambition away.
Much easier to blame some entity, faceless entity for your failures than it is to blame yourself.
Especially when you got some politician going to come along and punish them for making you a failure.
You know, this might be a wise opportune time to revisit something.
This whole notion of rights.
Because people do run around, I got my right, you can't take it away from me, I got my right.
And it's it's boomeranged.
It has exploded, and everybody.
Well, a lot of people have a misunderstanding of what is a right.
How would you define if somebody came up to you and said, I'm confused, I don't know what a right is.
How many of you would say, well, it's something the government allows you to do.
If you did say that, you couldn't be more wrong.
A right, remember now, especially by virtue of our declaration of independence.
We are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Those three things enumerated in our declaration, those three rights encompass so much pursuit of happiness, the right to life, liberty.
There's a lot there.
Those are things that cannot be taken away from you.
A right is something that no man can take away from you.
And if if someone tries, then you are being violated.
Now, the U.S. Constitution.
This is an opportune time to remind you again of the Obama administration view of it.
And he himself has said this.
He has a guy in his orb by the name of Cass Sunstein.
And Cass Sunstein and others have led the intellectual thinking that the Constitution really is nothing more than negative liberties.
Negative liberties.
The Bill of Rights.
Well, what's in the Bill of Rights?
Well, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to associate.
Where's the negative here?
Well, it's tricky.
They don't look at the Constitution the way you do.
They look at the Constitution as an obstacle.
They look at the Constitution from the prism of being in power.
They look at the Constitution as negative because the Constitution tells people in power what they cannot Do.
They cannot stop us from practicing religion.
They cannot stop us from speaking.
Particularly political speech.
They cannot stop us from free association.
And that's what they don't like.
That's why they call it negative liberties.
That's why FDR, let's have a new Bill of Rights, and we need to spell out positive Bill of Rights from the standpoint of what government can do.
They say for you, but it really means to you.
So when you have people like leftists, liberals, Obama, Constitution is an obstacle.
They want you to believe that rights come from them.
That Obamacare grants you certain rights that, by the way, the Republicans want to deny you, the way it works.
And what are these rights?
Do you have the right to affordable health care?
Think about it.
Do you have the right to affordable health care?
Well, you naturally you don't.
But how many Americans believe they do?
Do you have this is where this law has been found unconstitutional.
The government has mandated that everybody have health insurance.
And if they don't, that they pay a penalty.
The Constitution is clear.
It's in the commerce clause of the Bill of Rights.
You cannot do this.
The government cannot require that everybody have something, and by the same token, they cannot require that we don't do something.
They cannot mandate.
States can auto insurance, but the federal government can't.
There's a reason it's set up this way is to keep the federal government from becoming omnipotent and omnivorous and so big and powerful that you can't escape them.
Now you might like the idea that affordable health care is a right, but somebody then's going to have to define affordable.
Who gets to define that?
Is affordable, you only have to pay a hundred bucks a month for it, or affordable means whatever you can pay, you get the same thing that everybody else gets, no matter how much they can pay.
How do you define this?
There is no such thing as a right.
Not only to affordable health care, there's no right to health care, period.
Just as there is no right to a house.
Just as there is no right to a car.
You were not created.
Tell Thomas Jefferson he had a right to a car, but he never got one.
They didn't exist.
This is not what people had in mind.
This is not what rights are.
Rights are not wants.
Rights are not desires.
Rights involve basic humanity, way that we are created.
And the way our humanity must be respected by others.
Now, as we all know, throughout the history of the world, human rights have been violated left and right.
What's the names?
Fidel Kestro.
Hugo Chavez.
Hujentao, Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler.
Vladimir Lenin, Mikhail Gorbachev.
Hujin Idi Amin Dada, Hujentau.
Machmood Ahmedizad.
Any mala, any Islamist cleric.
It's violating human rights somewhere along the line, militant Islamists, you know, not mainstream, you know what I mean here.
Point is that people who want to deny you your human rights are all over the place.
The whole concept of American exceptionalism has been that that hasn't been the case here.
The history of human existence is one of bondage, torture, prisons, poverty, injustice.
Throughout human existence, that that has been The lot of most people.
That has been the way they lived.
But not here.
For the first time ever in human existence, the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence, our founding documents, create a country where America is an exception to the way human beings have been treated throughout history.
It's not that we're better than anybody.
It's not that we have better DNA.
It's not that we're smarter.
It's not that we're chosen.
It's none of that.
That's not what exceptionalism means.
We're the exception to the rule is one way of looking at it.
Some of us believe we are exceptional people.
To the extent that we are, it's only because we've had more freedom than anybody else's has had to realize goals, ambitions to whatever degree of effort we want to apply.
Then up to us.
So you don't have all kinds of rights that Congress or the Senate or the President bestows upon you.
There is no president.
There is no human being that can proclaim a right to affordable health care.
I mean, Obama's done it.
Does it exist?
Will it ever?
It's impossible.
They mandate everybody have an insurance policy.
If you don't, you pay a fine.
Yes, that's right, Mr. Lambo.
That will lower prices for everybody, but they're increasing the number of people in the pool.
Right, okay.
Then we're going to mandate every one of you new Castrati people have a gun.
Not the same thing, Mr. Limbaugh.
Why?
Because guns kill.
Doesn't matter.
I have the power, the federal government.
You can make me go buy an insurance policy.
Or put me in jail or fine me if I don't.
Alright, I'm going to pass a law.
And I'm going to tell you you have to have a gun.
On what premise, Mr. Limbaugh?
To reduce crime.
Reduce crime?
That's right, Mr. New Castrati.
Take a look.
The cities that have the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime rates.
Fuck death, Mr. Lombaugh, what are you speaking about?
Washington, D.C., your golden orchard.
New York City.
Wherever you look.
Point is this is irrelevant because a federal judge named Vincent in Tallahassee, no Pensacola, has said that the government does not have within the powers of the Constitution to require.
Every citizen have health insurance.
So I could not pass a law constitutional requiring you new Castrati people and everybody else to have a gun.
Difference, when I'm told that, okay, okay, fine.
Can't do it.
They've just been told that their health care law is unconstitutional.
Their reaction, screw it.
We're going to keep on.
That's a violation of your rights, if you want to get down to nitty-gritty.
In our country, ignoring the Constitution, ignoring the law, your rights are being violated like you can't believe.
Under the guise, under the guise of affordable health care for all as a right.
You are being bamboozled.
Brief time out, El Rush Vall behind the golden EIB microphone.
Don't go away.
Okay, the new year is underway, and uh a lot of people have some things that they've got to do.
New Year brings new responsibilities.
A lot of people orient goals and startups of the first part of the new year.
How many of you have legal matters that you have to do?
If you do, uh, let me recommend to you legal Zoom.
If you want to have been starting a business, you've been putting it off, uh, want to incorporate LLC, legal Zoom.
LegalZoom can help you do that at a fraction of the time and cost of going to a lawyer.
If you've um you've been thinking about your will or a living trust, who wants to?
But if you've been thinking about even putting it Off legal Zoom can help you with that too.
Legal Zoom provides free customer support.
Even free peace of mind document review by helpful people.
And when needed, they'll even file your documents with the right government agencies when you're finished.
Legal Zoom gets the job done right.
Ninety-six percent of legal Zoom customers would recommend them to family.
I, L Rushbo, am from a family of lawyers, and I have tried this and I have suggested it to other members of my family.
Just to goose them.
They smiled.
Legal Zoom's documents have been accepted by courts and government agencies in all 50 states.
LegalZoom's not a law firm, but its step-by-step process was created by a team of experts in law and technology to provide self-help services at your specific direction, from wills to incorporation, trademarks, power of attorney forms, even bankruptcy help.
Go to legalzoom.com.
LegalZoom.com.
You'll be amazed how much of this you can do on your own, the way you want it done.
And how cheap you can do it.
You would be you'll be amazed.
LegalZoom.com.
Here's Sue in Detroit.
Nice to all the phones are still turned on there.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi, thank you, Raj.
From what I've seen, um looking at um the media and that are covering these Egyptian groups.
The anti-government group that's calling for Mubarak's media ouster is nothing more than a bunch of community activists.
They're um based completely on emotion, and they're just not letting a good crisis go to waste.
These are the people with their signs printed in English, by the way, too.
Yeah, quite a coincidence.
It just seems to me that um that rather than taking Washington's stance of ramming things through as fast as we can, that uh Washington needs to take a step back and slow things down to benefit Egyptians, meaning that the public can make more choices and and thoughtful choices as to who they're going to select to be their next president rather than just running on this wild emotion.
And this can be based on rational thought.
Well, see, we we give them one and a half billion dollars.
So they're kind of under our thumb.
Mm-hmm.
It's not it's not as much as we give Israel, and it's not as but it's still a billion and a half dollars.
And so we have some power with them.
I I I have unlike you.
I uh the w what what's happening in Egypt looks very familiar to things that have happened on the streets in this country.
Community organizers, the signs in English, the demands for change now and so forth.
And you look at how readily the regime tried to get in front of this and own this.
Um it uh what does it make you think?
Uh it just makes me think that um that Washington is what it is.
It acts completely on emotion.
They don't step back and take a look at what would be best for the you know, they the the group that is protesting is just uh a fraction, not even one percent of their population.
There are a lot of groups that are that are throughout Egypt that sure they don't like Mabarek, but they also do not like what's happening with this group, Alberidae just coming in and taking control without them having any input into the process.
Well, now that is completely wrong.
That is a good point.
No, uh Mubarak is being cast by some in our media as a savior here.
He is not popular in Egypt.
Mubarak is not the answer to the uh to the equation of Al Baradaye, yes, uh El Baradai.
Mohammed Alberadai, the nuke guy, the nuclear friend of Iran guy.
But the uh the parallels to the Shah of Iran here are eerie.
That's why I keep this is Jimmy Carter, second term.
Uh, Benjamin in Pittsburgh, you're next on the EIB network.
Great to have you here, sir.
Pleasure to speak with you.
I was uh listening to the hearings on healthcare last night on uh I think it was C-SPAN, and Orange Hatch asks the panel when the government has ever required anyone to buy anything.
And one of the part of the response was that the business businesses have been required by the EPA to buy safety equipment.
What's your take on these two examples?
The health care bill versus the EPA.
Um wait a minute.
Orin Hatch asked that question.
Yeah.
And somebody said that the similarity being forced to require or to buy health insurance is the same thing to uh EPA requiring safety equipment in automobiles like seatbelts.
I think it was I there wasn't specific I I think it was more like buying gloves for your worker to be safe in the factory.
I think that was more along the lines of the uh example given.
Well, that's the occupational safety and health administration if they have uh work rules there and and and they do.
Uh but as far that that that does not even come close to equaling a a mandate that we all buy health insurance.
Uh I don't uh I didn't hear this, but I that doesn't sound analogous.
Now, if somebody wanted to claim, hey, look, they require every car to have a seat belts in it.
You know, I can talk to you about that.
You might you might be persuaded by that.
I would nuke it, but you until you heard from me, you might be persuaded by it.
Well, I don't have time to tell you right now because we gotta go to a profit center timeout.
All right, the seatbelt question is easy.
They've demanded you don't think belts.
The federal government requires you seat belts when you're driving in a car.
Yeah, Mr. New Castrati, but they don't mandate that I buy a car.
I would have to have a car before I could be mandated to use your precious seat belts, but they cannot make me buy the car.
So keep trying, folks.
You're gonna bomb out.
▲
Export Selection