All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 8, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:38
December 8, 2011, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
It's very weird today, folks.
Well, I mean, it's weird every day, all kinds of stuff.
But I mean, this is really to me very weird.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network.
And three more hours of broadcast excellence, hosted by me.
And uh those of you at the Sullivan Group out in Sacramento, my opinion auditing firm, you better listen up.
I gotta go up now.
I gotta go up above 99.6.
I mean, fast and furious, right on the money.
I called it.
Cheryl Atkison, CBS News found evidence in the emails that the whole plan was about affecting gun laws in this country.
Exactly as I prognosticate all the way back on July 7th of this year.
Details are coming up.
Do you know, folks, that uh last week's new jobless benefits claims are supposed to be a nine-month low.
We are at under 400,000 jobless claims for the week.
Around 378,000.
This is a major drop in unemployment compensation signups, claims, and nobody's talking about it.
It's nowhere.
You can have a drop of 2,000.
They get you down to 398,000.
The media has orgasms.
Now we have this massive drop at 378,000, and nobody is talking about it.
I I have yet to see it mentioned on any of the news shows this morning.
It isn't, it isn't getting much play by the wire services either.
Now, why would this be?
There is a reason.
I don't yet know what it is, but there is a reason.
It could be that the media is starting to get a little skeptical about the numbers.
Um I don't think they're getting tired of carrying Obama.
What were you taking a nap?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Oh, give me a break.
You got engrossed.
Snartley just said down.
You got engrossed on the on the story about the drone in the You know, it looks like a miniature B-2 bomber is what it looks like.
And these Iranian schlubs are running around video, they wouldn't know what to make of it anyway.
I mean, they know it's a drone, but that's about all I'll be able to figure out about it.
Well, Chicom's will get it soon.
By the way, speaking of that, folks, I uh i it there is a story in the New York Times today.
This is incredible.
Speaking of the GICOMs, the New York Times.
We just had this piece last week by Andy Stern.
The SEIU, we ought to emulate China.
By the way, and you you couple Stern's column uh column in the Wall Street Journal last week in Obama's speech on Tuesday in Osawatomi, Kansas.
Folks, I don't think any longer it is improper to use the word communist to describe Obama.
Uh communism to describe his objectives, nor is it wrong to use the word communist or communism to associate with the trade labor movement.
Whatever be the AFL CIO or the mine workers or the uh SEIU.
I mean, they've they've made it clear.
Obama came out of the closet.
We called him out.
We set the arena.
Obama is now playing in our arena, not the Republican Party's arena.
The Republican Party is another thing.
I'm just gonna set a table here for what's coming on the program today.
The Republican Party, I mean the establishment, working together with the Democrat establishment in Washington is now loaded for bear against Newt Gingrich.
They are coming at the long knives, are out for Newt Gingrich everywhere you look in the Washington establishment.
Everywhere you look, you want to call it the Washington ruling class.
You want to call it the establishment of both parties, whatever it is.
They're all gunning for Newt Gingrich.
It is I got a stack here to demonstrate this.
Eric Holder.
Eric Holder went up there, testified on Fast and Furious.
I said, Sullivan Group, I gotta move up now.
I mean, this is gonna be worth being right for two years.
This Fast and Furious business.
And Sens and Brenner, the Republican from Congress, well, what determines whether or not you're lying to Congress?
And and we've got the audio coming up here, but uh uh uh Holders as well state of mind.
Just state of mind.
Okay, so rapists.
Next time you get accused of rape.
No, no, I love the woman.
My state of mind was I loved her.
You can't, you can't accuse me of rape.
Hold it.
No, my state of mind.
I wasn't lying.
I just didn't in Corzon.
I have no idea where the money went.
John Corzine, former governor, former Senator, New Jersey, head of MF Everybody.
I simply don't know where the money is or why the accounts haven't been reconciled to date.
I haven't the slightest idea.
Why would I?
I only ran the place.
Why are you asking me where the money is?
No, my ex-girlfriends don't have it.
I gave them money from New Jersey, not from MF Everybody.
I just it's just a it's gonna be a barn burner.
And I'm back to this New York Times story.
I've not lost my place here.
Back to this New York Times Corzine stunned by missing funds.
Oh, of course.
You know, you lose $680 million of clients' money, you'd be shocked too.
Stunned the missing funds.
All right.
This story in the New York Times, entrepreneurs rival in China, Colonel the state.
This it's a great story.
It is actually about an ongoing battle between two companies in China.
One company is run by the ChICOM government, one company that isn't.
The private company, the company not run by the ChaiCom government, says that the government-run company stole its patents and isn't competing on a level playing field.
The first nine paragraphs go into the details of this.
Then the following 44 paragraphs, I counted them.
The following 44 paragraphs go on to chronicle the private company struggles against the government.
But in typical New York Times fashion, the really shocking news is buried right in the middle of the piece.
The Chinese government is stifling China's economy by wanting too much control and taking too much of the wealth.
I swear to God.
I swear to Allah.
That's exactly what the New York Times.
I kid you not.
The new the Chinese government is stifling the China economy by wanting too much control and taking too much of the wealth.
Now there's a reason that's buried in the middle of stories.
The editors of the New York Times, no doubt, don't want their readers to be subjected to such anti-government statements.
But they are amazing.
Because they apply to current state of affairs in our country even more than they do to the business-friendly so-called Chicoms.
So here you have two companies, one state-owned, one private.
The state-owned company stealing all the patents and basically cheating against a private company.
The New York Times says this is this is, you know, the Chinese government is stifling China's economy.
You just change the names.
Obama is stifling America's economy.
The Times does not make that connection.
They do not make, but any reasonable, and we have to throw out New York Times readers in that qualification.
Any reasonable reader couldn't help but note the irony.
And I'm reading it.
How did this get past the editors at the New York Times?
Because people like me are going to see this and they're going to say this is exactly what's happening in the United States.
The New York Times doesn't see it that way at all.
They're upset.
They are mad that the ChICOM government is mistreating this private company.
Now, I have a theory.
You know, we're going this payroll tax business.
Folks, let me tell you something.
Obama announced yesterday after meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, that he's going to veto any bill that's going to be done.
that extends the payroll tax cut if the bill lifts his ban on the Keystone Pipeline.
Now, all we've heard for the last several weeks is how vital this whopping 2% payroll tax cut extension is to the preservation of the middle class.
And they even have a countdown clock at the White House.
Days, hours, minutes, until the middle class experience a thousand dollar tax increase.
It's amazing.
And that is why the taxpayers are paying for all these recent campaign trips.
See, Obama's not campaigning.
He's pushing for this all-important tax cut.
The White House website even has this countdown clock, which is ticking off the time to the expiration of the payroll tax cut.
Now, all of a sudden, Obama would rather veto this all-important bill and destroy the middle class with this Keystone pipeline than allow the pipeline, which would create 200,000 middle class jobs.
I don't know if you've noticed this or not.
You notice how the media and the rest of the Democrat Party are saying that if we end the payroll tax cut, it will quote cost working families a thousand dollars.
They never talk that way.
When tax cuts are discussed, the Democrats in the media only talk about what it will cost the government.
Never what it's going to cost you or me.
They don't care what it's going to cost you or me.
Never.
But when it's a tax cut they want, it suddenly doesn't cost the government anything.
Have you noticed Obama's not worried what this is going to cost the government?
Have you noticed he's not worried what effect this is going to have on social security?
This is the only funding mechanism for Social Security, and there's a concern out there.
Oh, ladies and gentlemen, that reinstituting this thing will be next to impossible.
Which puts even further pressure on Social Security funding.
But when it's a tax cut that they want, it suddenly doesn't cost the government anything.
No, it's going to cost working families a thousand dollars.
In truth, if you I mean just in pure dollars and cents, the payroll tax cut has already cost Social Security Trust Fund more than a hundred billion dollars.
And according to all accounts, it hadn't even created or saved a single job yet.
Now, in the midst of all this is the Keystone Pipeline.
It's a no-brainer, right?
Uh in the normal ebb employee, it's a it is a no brainer.
It would increase our supply of oil.
It would reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
It would lower the price of oil.
It would create 20,000 jobs to start with a possibility of 200,000 by the time it was all done.
No brainer.
And yet Obama is going to go to the mat to make sure this Keystone pipeline's not okayed.
Before the election.
I think I may have figured out why.
Everybody's focusing on the fact he's a Marxist and he's a hypocrite and all that.
But if you look at it from his standpoint, and that standpoint would be pure 100% selfishness.
Right now, Obama's getting campaign contributions from both sides.
The environmentalist wackos are giving him money to keep it shut down.
Energy companies are probably donating him money, hoping that he will okay the pipeline.
If he makes a decision before the election, he cuts off one of those streams of campaign contributions.
It could very well be something as simple as that.
We know this guy's out for himself first and always.
Because you know this pipeline's going to be approved one way or the other.
Yeah, yeah, I do.
I think after the election, yeah, it's gonna be approved.
It's a no-brainer.
It's gonna be approved.
Regardless who wins.
I mean, the odds are less it'll be approved if Obama wins, but it's still but the fact remember now, Obama is not worried about the votes of white working class voters.
You everybody's looking at this the wrong way.
Everybody thinks Obama can get votes by authorizing the Keystone Pipeline.
No.
He wants the money from both sides of the issue coming in his campaign donations.
Remember, his campaign is focused exclusively on getting the votes of the poor.
The philosophy is the plan is create more poor people and get their votes.
It's been documented.
The White House has admitted white working class families, their votes doesn't matter.
Undesirable.
We don't care about it.
Therefore, trying to secure the votes of the American people on the basis of sound economic policy, i.e.
o.ing the Keystone Pipeline, not a factor.
The campaign money is a more important thing from both sides of the issue.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back here on the EIB network.
Don't go away.
The unions want that pipeline.
And the unions trump the environmentalist wackos every time.
It's why if Obama wins after the election, that pipeline is going to be authorized.
That pipeline's gonna be okay.
The unions want it.
Obama's buddies right now, that's just campaign donations, both sides of the issue.
That's why.
The last thing Barack Obama is ever going to do.
And I I f I I mean this as seriously as I've met anything.
The last thing he's gonna do is what's good for the country.
That's not his objective.
That's not who he is, it's not what he's about.
It never has been it never will be.
Some of the just the some of the not actually quotes, but the some of the references here in this New York Times article on the Chicons.
It's just how we can have such a stupid bonehead media.
They're upset at big government in China.
It's a communist government.
They're upset about it.
It's so unfair to the intrapreneur entrepreneurs in them in the in the private sector in China.
And yet in this country, the New York Times hates everybody in the private sector.
Here, I'll just give you some examples.
After more than a decade in which private companies have been the prime engine of China's economic miracle, the ChICOM government is eager to control more of that wealth, even if it means running roughshod over private companies.
It's, folks, I tell you, it's Twilight Zone.
Just change this to the United States from China.
You've got the same story.
But these lugger heads at the New York Times don't see it.
This who is this, David Barboza.
Is the wizard of smart that wrote this piece.
Chen Ziwu, a professor of finance at Yale, a harsh critic of the ChICOM's dominant role in the economy, says the ChICOM government is smothering the private sector.
When the government is involved in business, it's hard for private companies to compete, said Professor Chen.
This is from a professor of finance at Yale.
This guy's not going to have his job long talking like this.
I'm almost at a loss to express my incredulity here.
A professor of finance at Yale.
The ChICOM government is smothering the private sector.
When the government is involved in business, it's hard for private companies to compete.
Mr. Chen, what?
Whiskey.
Tango Foxtrot's going on here?
Right before your very academic eyes.
The usurping of private enterprise has become so evident that the ChICOMs have given it a nickname.
Gojin Mintui, which translates as while the state advances the privates retreat.
I don't know how to react to this.
We have a similar nickname here.
It's called Obama Nomics.
Obama nomics.
While the state advances, the private's retreat.
Some prominent Chinese economists are warning that the potentially corrosive effects of an approach that favors government companies at the expense of the private sector could eventually stifle innovation, saying it could stunt China's long-term growth and quash the rising aspirations of the nation's 1.3 billion people.
What would be so hard for these lugheads to write a story like that about this country?
Why are they so worried about a massive government takeover in China and yet the same people at the same newspaper applauded, supported, and advocated in this country?
Worried about the ChICOM government overtaking the middle class, the private sector in China, and encouraging the very same thing in this country.
If China doesn't deal with this problem and strengthen the private sector, this country's growth is not sustainable, said Zhu Cheng Gang, professor of economics, University of Hong Kong.
Really?
If America doesn't deal with this problem and strengthen the private sector, this country's growth is not sustainable.
You could easily write that sentence.
Am I making too big a deal of this?
I don't know.
I'm sorry for I'm I'm I'm epoplectically incredulous here.
Okay, welcome back.
Just a couple more passages here from this New York Times piece because it gets even, it gets even better.
There are a variety of reasons that the ChICOM government is seeking an enlarged role in the economy, including fears that wealthy entrepreneurs could begin to challenge the communist party.
Something, of course, our political elites never worry about.
There's also an ingrained belief among leaders that the state is better at driving growth and redistributing wealth.
Well, our dear leader, Barack Obama just gave a speech at Osuatomi, Kansas, expressing this very belief.
You know, folks, I I I know a lot of come on, Russ, it's the New York Times.
What are you wasting some time?
I'm not wasting time.
I think folks, this is the kind of stuff that is as instructive as it can possibly be.
Here, here we have we have evidence that a major media organ in this country will support private sector economics.
Just not in this country.
We know from it that they get it, that they understand they're worried about government encroachment in China.
There's hardly the government runs everything in China.
What they ought to be worried, if the New York Times is consistent, they ought to be worried about the rising middle class, the rising entrepreneur class, if they're to be consistent.
You watch, just like a week ago, when that piece appeared in New York Times op-ed section, that the Obama campaign didn't care any longer about the votes of white working class people.
It's a little hidden piece.
It didn't get beyond the op-ed page except for here.
We just like Fast and Furious started, and I told you what that was all about, just like before Obama was immaculated, I told you what was ahead.
This is the kind of thing that we're gonna look back on at some day in the future, and also you remember when the New York Times did that piece on China?
I don't know how it's gonna manifest itself.
I don't know what the relevance in the future is going to be, but it's evidence.
Further evidence that we don't really need because we know it's already Happening the way it happens, but it's further evidence that we got a rigged media in this country.
We have a rigged president in this country.
And when the private sector, individuals yearning to be free, are on the short end of the stick.
Nobody here in our media stands up for them.
They will stand up for people victimized by big government in China of all places.
The New York Times never stood up for the people getting crammed by government in Russia, the Soviet Union, in the Koreas in Cuba.
But now all of a sudden the New York Times is concerned about big government in China.
We even have a quote from a Yale professor talking about the dangers to economic growth that the government starts getting too big and redistributing wealth and trying to run companies.
We got Jamie Dimon.
You know, I wonder, I do.
I think a lot of people suffer from an misconception.
The misconception is, and Steve Jobs, interestingly enough, back in 1997 addressed this.
Steve Jobs said, as best I can recall this, is that you look out the window and you see everything out there going on that you call life.
When you figure out that all that stuff out there that you see was put together by people no smarter than you are, then your life has changed.
And what he meant by that was everybody assumes that people who earn more money than they have than they do, or build things that they don't, or whatever, are smarter, better, wiser, what have you.
Jobs' point was, you're just as smart as anybody else.
You just may not use your intelligence the way other people have.
But the thing he was cautioning against was don't let inferiority take over.
Now, how many of you assume that people on Wall Street, the CEOs, the grand titans, are smarter than everybody else?
Because they have more money than anybody else says.
And they're able to game the financial system so that they end up always having more money than anybody else has.
So they must be smarter than you are.
Well, let's redefine smart.
Jamie Diamond, who runs JP Morgan Chase, made a statement yesterday he can't understand why Obama's out ripping the rich.
He can't, he says he doesn't understand what's wrong with being successful.
He doesn't understand why Obama is criticizing ripping and trying to tear down to size successful rich people.
And I'm sure he doesn't.
I'm sure Jamie Dimon's probably seen to it that Obama's received millions of dollars in campaign contributions.
questions.
And I'll wager that Jamie Dimon doesn't understand conservatism versus liberalism.
I don't think he even cares.
Here's a guy who looks at what Obama's doing and, why is he ripping at me?
We're giving the guy money.
He's coming after us, he's making all these.
What Obama apparently hasn't done is taken Jamie Diamond and say, look, okay, look, now I appreciate the money and I appreciate it.
You know we're on the same team.
But I got it in public.
I got to rip you to shreds.
Don't believe it.
It's just I gotta do this for the public.
Public hates you, I gotta make the public think I hate you, it's the way I'm gonna get re-elected.
Apparently he hadn't had that conversation with Diamond.
Or if he did, Diamond forgot it.
But apparently Diamond's not bright enough to figure it out on his own.
Now, to me, somebody running JP Morgan Chase, thought to be the smartest guy.
Remember, Corzine ran Goldman Sachs, too, just to help you put this in perspective.
Another blithering idiot who ended up getting fired from the joint.
It's a guy really JP Morgan Chase.
I don't understand why the president's attacking the rich.
You don't?
You can't see who the guy is.
Or are you just scamming us with this statement that you don't know why he's attacking the rich?
You don't see what there is to gain by attacking the rich.
So these people aren't any smarter than you are.
They're not more perceptive than you are.
In fact, in many cases, they're less so.
Let's move on to this fast and furious business.
I take you back to this program.
This is me on July 7th of this year.
Don't doubt me on this.
This was an attack on the second amendment.
The purpose of this was to have it all go wrong, have American guns because they're so widely available.
You can go into any gun store in America and buy an assault rifle, quote unquote.
End up owned by Mexican drug lords.
We were supposed to be so appalled and outraged by that that the American people would clamor for gun control.
That's what they were trying to do.
Nobody's going to ever convince me otherwise.
July 7th, 2011.
So do you remember Fast and Furious?
This is where we arranged for thousands of guns, long guns, automatic, semi-automatic, AK-47's machine guns, bazookas, whatever, to end up in the hands of drug lords.
Right out of gun stores, gun shops in Phoenix.
Just walked out of there right across the border into Mexico, into the hands of the drug cartel.
That a drug cartel was supposed to do with those guns what drug cartel people do.
Start using them.
Bam bam, you're dead.
They did.
Hundreds of people died as a result of these guns being walked out of Phoenix drug uh uh gun gun shops and others along the border.
And in this period of time of uh border agent got killed.
So when attention was brought to bear, and they said, well, it's clear what this is all about.
Who do we have in the White House?
We have a quasi-liberal socialist Marxist.
What do they hate?
They hate citizens having guns.
They hate the Second Amendment.
It took me a split second to understand what this was all about.
They have lost the gun control argument.
In presidential debates, they don't dare bring it up.
They have lost it.
The left has lost the gun control argument, just like they've lost the abortion argument.
But that doesn't mean they go away.
They never accept defeat.
Okay, so let's let's engineer a program where the baddest of bad guys get hold of American guns easily because we essentially give them to them.
But we don't tell anybody that we make it look like the drug cartel could just cross the border, walk in there and buy them and walk back across the border, or really rotten Americans could walk into the gun stores, buy those guns, go to Mexico, and sell them to the drug cart.
Yes!
Evil Americans could, and then people would die, and the conclusion is supposed to be C, we have got to have more control over guns.
Look at what happened here.
That was the plan.
Backfired.
Backfire.
Cheryl Atkison with repeated random act of journalism after random act of journalism.
Has been doggedly following this story, and her latest report on the early show on CBS today featured this.
One of the hostettes said some officials originally discussed using the gun walking case to press for new gun regulations.
That's right.
New emails that we have, add to some documentation that we already had that show government officials never plan to reveal publicly their role in letting those guns fall into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels, but plan to use the end result to argue for new gun regulations that they wanted.
And you can read more about that story on our website, CBSnews.com.
Which we've done, and we've read the emails, and Cheryl Atkison is exactly correct and exactly right.
It is exactly what this program was all about.
2AT.
Another ill rushboard bullseye.
Precisely what it was all about.
So now they've got Holder up there, and they're asking him about this.
And before we get to that, here's here's uh back in 2009.
Uh, this is uh in the Mexico City.
Obama and the Mexican President Felipe Coderón held a joint press conference as a portion of what Obama said back in April of 2009.
This war is being waived with guns purchased, not here, but in the United States.
More than 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.
So we have responsibilities as well.
Damn right, it's your program.
So you go to Mexico after instituting this program with Eric Holder.
You engineer these guns walking across the border.
You engineer it.
Then you go to Mexico, and you point out how horrible it is.
These guns actually came from the United States.
It was all part of an Obama scam.
This is who liberals are.
Don't ever doubt yourself or me.
We'll be back after this.
Thursday night football on the NFL network, the Cleveland Browns at Hines Field, Condiment Coliseum.
They got a giant ketchup bottle there, Snerdley of the scoreboard.
So uh anyway, that's I love Thursday night football.
I love Christmas time, winter time it turns cold.
It's uh it's just ideal.
Great, great, great time of year.
But I gotta tell you, this stuff in the news every day is ticking me off like I can't tell you.
I've said, folks, during the break here, I actually was sitting here.
I am so enraged at Obama.
I am and asking myself how how what's the most effective way to express it to people without it um arousing sympathy for this poor schlub.
Or without making p people mad at me.
I can't I can't tell you.
I I literally cannot describe.
It would require profanity for me to accurately tell you what I think of this and what what he's done, what he's continuing to do, it infuriates me beyond my ability to express it.
And it's fast and fit.
There he is down in New Mexico, said he set this whole thing up, and he's acting, he has no clue, he doesn't know what it's about.
Holder didn't know what it's about, Holder, yeah, the first memos were lies.
This is perhaps the most corrupt administration that we have had in my lifetime, and I'm including Nixon in this.
Nixon was a Piker.
Nixon could only dream of this kind of stuff because Nixon never had the media covering up for him.
But I'm telling you, this is bad.
This is it's just f it.
I really was.
I'm thinking I you know I'm a master communicator here, and I'm stymied in trying to convey the depth of my outrage over what's happening to this country.
Right out in front of everyone.
Well, what benefits them Fast and Furious?
Oh, yeah, look, let's go to the audio soundbite.
So it's benefits.
Okay, so it's up on Capitol Hill, same Capitol Hill where Corzin said, I have no idea where the money is.
James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin said, since it's obvious that there was knowledge within the Justice Department about Fast and Furious, you all knew what you were doing.
What are you gonna do to clean up the mess?
Let me make something very clear, and in response to an assertion that you made or hinted at, nobody in the Justice Department has lied.
Why was the letter withdrawn?
The letter was withdrawn because there's information in there that was inaccurate.
The Justice Department letter of February.
Okay, well, tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress in this context.
Well, it uh uh if you want to have this legal art uh conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent.
Right, right.
You can't lie unless you intend to.
It's all about your state of mind.
True, true enough, folks.
It could it can hold true for rapists.
Yeah, I thought she loved me.
Sandusky, no, no, those boys love me.
Those boys begged for it.
Those boys followed me.
I love those boys.
Prove I'm lying.
My state of mind wasn't to abuse those kids.
I love those kids.
You can't accuse me of abuse.
It wasn't in my state of mind.
So this little conversation continued.
Sensenbrenner followed up with this.
You know, the thing is is that if we don't get to the bottom of this, and that requires your assistance on that, there is only one alternative that Congress has.
And it's called impeachment, where our subpoena powers are plenary, and there can't be any type of illegal immunity or privilege that can be asserted on that.
Folk, these people, again, they are not smarter than you and I. And what Sensen Brenner has just said, and what we know is that Eric Halder, the Attorney General, number one law enforcement officer in the country, sent letters and documents to Congress filled with lies.
They were part of a cover-up.
And Holder hasn't given up on that.
Obama's attorney general is participating in a scheme to undermine gun laws.
A scheme to undermine the Second Amendment.
The attorney general of this country and the president are participating in a scheme to undermine the Constitution of the United States.
And not just with Fast and Furious, but with as many policies as they can.
It is serious.
Hey, get this.
Newt Gingrich is the unquestioned front runner now.
No question about it.
The National Inquirer is reporting that a staffer, quote unquote, a staffer, who worked for Gingrich, had sexual relations with him back in 1977.
Thirty-four years ago.
34 years ago, the inquirer has dug up a staffer head sex with Newt.
That proves he's the front runner.
▲
Export Selection