All Episodes
Previous Next
April 30, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:57
April 30, 2012, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Snerdley.
You still have your crush on Susan Malvo.
You are you're gonna have to deal with this.
You're gonna have to do something about this.
Folks, by the way, greetings, how are you?
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone.
Beloved host.
Feared, frightened of at the same time by many, but loved and adored by gazillions.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800 282-2882, the email address L Rushball at EIB net.com.
They had the White House Correspondence Dinner on uh on Saturday night.
There's a new name for this thing called the Nerd Prom.
The Nerd Prom.
That was one of the Twitter hashtags for the uh for the event, and it's that's quite apt because politics, as I have often described it as showbiz for the ugly.
And that's what the White House Correspondence Dinner was.
It's their big Oscar night.
It's where they all get together and uh it's a circle thing.
Suzanne Mava, you should see somebody sent me her tweets.
She was tweeting all night.
I mean, I haven't seen, and if if if these were really her, and it looked like they were to me.
I haven't seen this kind of groupieism in years.
I mean, for rock stars for anybody, and then she was just she was just I mean, totally uh enthralled being anywhere near Obama in the same room with Obama at all the parties afterwards with the celebrities.
It was it was um in addition, in addition to compromising so-called journalistic uh uh objectivity.
So go that's that's out the window with these tweets.
I mean, it was it was beyond that.
It was embarrassing.
I probably shouldn't say this, but I did.
And I spoke for longer than seven seconds, so we can't delay this or tweet the bleep this.
But I mean it was it was, and I don't have them here.
I didn't print them out because I promised myself I would not read them on the air.
So I didn't print them out and give myself a chance to.
But it was I uh uh just it was worse.
Who remember Nina Burley?
The name ring a bell, Nina Burley, Time magazine.
Back in the uh in the Clinton years, I think in Clinton's Clinton's second term promised to give Clinton a Lewinsky just for keeping abortion legal.
Remember that Nina Burley, you remember her?
Well, I mean uh Suzanne Malvo's stuff was not sex, sexual, but good I mean it was just over the top.
It w it was uh I I i it was like I don't know, it was like high school.
It was like being invited into the big click, it's like her first time there.
She's in the same room with Obama.
She couldn't believe how cool he was.
How cool it was to be in the same room with Obama.
She was and I thought, hasn't this woman covered the White House in her career?
I couldn't remember.
Anyway, um, you know, Obama's he told he told um dog eating jokes.
You know, I'm I'm I mentioned this this whole we had uh portion of his uh one of his autobiographies last week where he described eating dog growing up as uh and it just makes me nervous.
I don't know dogs, pets, this it just makes me nervous.
But apparently not Obama.
He can freely talk about eating dog in his autobiography, makes a joke about it.
Uh, and it's strange.
You tell me if if you think this is funny.
I I may be uh a lone wolf on this.
This may be uproariously funny.
Sarah Palin's getting back into the game.
Guest hosting on the Today Show.
Which reminds me uh of an old saying, what's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?
A pit bull is delicious.
A little soy sauce.
*crowd laughs*
See, well, I mean, what what's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?
Uh A pit bull is delicious.
So what does that mean that you would do with the hockey mom?
How could you compare flavors?
But I don't know that that's what the audience is laughing at.
I just I don't know.
I just find I find the whole thing just a slight bit uncomfortable.
I don't know.
It could be just me.
But it was it was highlighted, the dog eating jokes, uh, were all over the place.
Now we gotta move on to global warming.
Oh, oh, and folks, on Saturday, there was a long, long story in the New York Times about Apple and its taxes, and how Apple is avoiding paying taxes, and how mean that is to the country.
Now, there's not one thing, and by the way, let me set this up.
I know many of you are not fans of Apple because you consider them to be a bunch of left-wingers and so forth.
And I know that many of you get a little disturbed when I talk about my Apple stuff that I like it, and I share it with you.
I'm big and sharing my passions.
But this is a teachable moment.
It is a teachable moment about media, it's a teachable moment about taxes, and it's a teachable moment uh about young people who who make up many of the bloggers on a lot of the tech sites that write about Apple and the other high-tech companies and gizmos and products and so forth.
And it just give you a little uh tease.
After reading the story, one, and maybe it was more, but one young, I'm sure young blogger on a tech site, expressed sadness and disappointment over the lack of patriotism shown by Apple in doing what it could to avoid paying taxes.
Apple did nothing illegal.
There's no law that they broke.
This is the key point.
That, and there's another thing in this story.
The New York Times used a really fringe think tank called the Green Lining Institute as their source for financial data.
And what this group did, they compared Apple's taxes paid uh in a year previous to the year's income they were using to compare.
And it's it's it was I think it's an omission of ignorance.
I don't think it was done purposely.
For example, when you file your taxes for April 15th, you're paying your taxes on your income of the previous year.
So what these guys did in this story is report Apple's income this or last fiscal quarter last fiscal year, and then they used the taxes they paid in the year prior.
Not knowing well, Apple's profits have been growing like crazy.
So the percentage of taxes paid by Apple, Apple, is according to the erroneous way in which they reported this much lower than what was actually paid, probably.
But I will I'll get into all this.
A long story.
I'm not gonna read the whole story to you, I don't have to.
Um, but I will read you some of the highlights because it's a teachable moment.
It's a teachable moment about capitalism, it's a teachable moment about economic growth, corporate growth, competition, employment.
Um it's a it's a teachable moment about taxes, and it's also a teachable moment about what is very predictable, and that is how the youth, young people, these bloggers, have been conditioned to look at this.
And the New York Times is now targeting Apple.
I remember when the first iPad hit, Steve Jobs, every print ad uh that featured the iPad had the New York Times on the display to show when they were demonstrating the web browser of the iPad, the website they always use with the New York Times.
There was a symbiotic relationship.
Uh Steve Jobs had said publicly that it was his goal to teach the New York Times how to thrive in the digital arena outside of the uh the dead tree uh actual publication arena.
But something's happened.
Apple's gotten too big, it's gotten too successful, something happened, and now the New York Times, this is the third or fourth hit piece on Apple.
There's a great, I give you a great anecdote.
A couple three months maybe before he passed away, Steve Jobs goes to Cupertino City Council, Cupertino, California, where they are attempting to get permission, Apple is to build a giant new headquarters.
That according to the artist renderings look like a giant circular spaceship with solar panels all over the top of the thing and a giant courtyard in the middle.
And they've got all the environmental stuff as part of the presentation.
It's supposed to be state of the art, and it's huge.
It is huge.
And Jobs himself goes to the city council to get permission to present the plans to talk it up.
And of course, Apple wants some favorable tax treatment as they're doing this.
And one of the anecdotes in the story is a city councilwoman in Cupertino says, Well, Mr. Jobs, if we do this for you, what can you give back?
Perhaps you could offer free Wi-Fi for all of Cupertino.
And Jobs' response was, you know, I guess I'm a little stupid or old-fashioned.
The way I thought this worked was we pay our taxes and you do that.
Now, if that's not the way it works, we don't have to build our headquarters in Cupertino.
We can just move.
And of course, the City Council won't withdrew her idea.
She's no longer on the City Council, according to the story, and Apple is moving ahead with their plans.
But the the that what's missing from this story, and I'll just tell you, it's all about how Apple's not the only one that's that's that's cited for not paying its fair share, although they're not breaking any law.
There's a whole bunch of things you can do if you're a digital company.
For example, they run all of their domestic sales through Reno, an office in Reno, because there's no state corporate tax in Reno, and they're not selling anything tangible.
So when you go to iTunes and download a song, it gets recorded as sold in Nevada, even though there's only five employees there, the rest of them are in Cupertino in California.
Well, the Times is all upset that uh they're not reporting the sale in California, where they are.
And Apple says, well, we've got a financial subsidiary.
It's a kind of Apple, I forget the name of it right now, but they've named this company that they own a subsidiary, which is a collection agency, it's where all the revenue goes because there's no corporate tax in Reno or in Nevada.
And Nevada's happy to have them.
And they do this uh in Luxembourg in Europe.
They run everything through Luxembourg and and uh Ireland and so forth to avoid high taxes in the European Union.
And the Times finds this just unacceptable.
It's outrageous.
If they sold cars or something tangible, they wouldn't be able to do this.
But digital, when you buy a song, you're not touching it, it's just uh it's a download.
And if Apple wants to say the sale gets recorded in Nevada, that's where it gets recorded.
So Times is just beside itself, and the people who who write the story make it clear that Apple is not being patriotic.
Apple is not is not paying its fair share, even though it's not breaking the law.
It goes on to describe the education deficits in California and the state budget deficits in California, and this and the federal budget deficit, and how Apple's not paying its fair share, and they go get there's a guy with a runs a community college near Cupertino.
And this guy's quotes are amazing.
I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna try to remember them.
I want to read them directly to you.
So I'll find them when I after the break pair, perhaps get into the story.
But this guy's just unbelievable.
No, I take it he's totally believable given that he's a product of the news media his whole life.
But he's just beside himself.
His school's budget deficit is Apple's fault.
The California state budget deficit, it's Apple's fault.
Not one word in this story, and I know it's a story on corporate taxation.
I understand fully, but folks, it's a hit piece, and there's not one word in this story about how any of these taxing authorities spend money irresponsibly.
There's not one.
Why is California running a huge budget deficit?
Why is their education system?
It's not Apple's fault.
It's the people that run the state government's fault, from the governor on down to the legislative assembly.
That's not touched on in this story.
It's an attack on successful capitalist companies who are not breaking the law and who are paying as little, just like Warren Buffett.
But you see, Warren Buffett gets away with it because while he is owing a billion dollars in back taxes and fighting it in private, publicly he's out talking about how he doesn't pay it up in taxes, and it's unfair that his secretary pays a higher rate than he does, so he inoculates himself from any of this kind of credit.
New York Times will never write a story about Buffett like the one that they've written here about Apple.
And they include Microsoft in it and Cisco and some of the others.
In the meantime, Al Gore has taken out after me, not by name, global warming, college students, talk show hosts, telling lies about the fact of global warming.
Tim McCarver, I can't believe it.
I love Tim McCarver.
Grew up Tim McCarver was the catcher for the St. Louis Cardinals.
Every year Joe Buck had his golf tournament outside St. Louis for a long time, and I would go to it and I'd just love Tim McCart.
Tim McCarver said something on Fox broadcast a couple Saturdays ago that just disappoints me.
But again, it's an example of how reasonably intelligent people get caught.
He said that the reason there are more home runs being hit in baseball, which there aren't, by the way.
Home run totals are down.
What do you think he's gonna say?
What do you what?
He is.
He's blaming it on thinner air because of global warming.
The air is thinner, there's less resistance, and so the balls off the bat are flying far.
The problem is that home run totals are down since the steroid era or steroid era was kind of gotten uh control of.
But home run totals are down.
It just it's it's uh it's just a disappointing.
Um let me take a break.
I'll just notice the clock.
I I have to take a break, but we'll we'll be back here in just a second.
And uh don't go away.
The EIB Network and a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
All yours when we get back.
Do, do, do, do, do.
Okay, I know the ditto cam is not up and running.
It's I mean, I say it's working here.
I'm looking at myself on it.
Looks good.
But for some reason we're not able to get it out to the network.
We are working on it feverishly here, as we always do.
Never distresses me when the ditto cam doesn't work.
It's like a day off for me.
Uh but people have become accustomed to it, and they love it, and I can understand that.
So we're working on getting it up and running.
Here's Tim McCarver.
This was Saturday.
Fox Sports, Major League Baseball, Milwaukee Brewers, St. Louis Cardinals at Bush Stadium in St. Louis.
Joe Buck and Tim McCarver talking about the impact of climate change on uh on home runs, and and McCarver starts out by saying it has not been proven.
Now there's stadium noise in the background here because it's not been proven, and then he says this.
I think ultimately it will be proven that the air is thinner now.
There have been climactic changes over the last 50 years in the world.
And I think that's one of the reasons that balls are carrying much better now than I remember.
So that's your inconvenient truth about it.
Well, I think they're gonna find that out one of these days.
Yes, I do.
Tim McCarver, I just so disappointed.
When you lose Tim McCarver, you know, it was just three weeks ago, I was speculating here and had a call about it.
Speculating here on the program asking whether it would be helpful or not if sports figures entered the political arena because of the influence they have with fans.
And I think we've got a partial answer here.
As I say, I love Tim McCarver.
And he's he's uh he's one of the best at what he does.
But this is how insidious this propaganda is.
But the the fact of the matter is, in the in the in the past few years, home run totals have been in a fairly steady decline.
From 2000 to 2009, home run totals are down.
There aren't more baseballs flying out of the park in the last 10 years or 11 years for whatever reason.
There aren't.
Home run totals are on the decline.
Anyway, and of course it has nothing to do with baseball players being 20% bigger today than they were in years past.
I know, I know there's still no ditto cam.
It's not sabotage.
You know what it is?
We had a power hit here at 2 a.m.
Saturday.
I was fast asleep, and of course I don't hear any of this stuff.
And the thunder, the lightning didn't wake me up because the blackout chains closed.
But if we had a huge hit.
My my home Wi-Fi was fried with this hit on early Saturday morning, late Friday night.
I uh woke up, I was gonna play golf Saturday.
Uh good friend turned 50 if she had a big tournament at Trump's course here.
So I got up, went down and make some coffee and so forth in the library bar, and I hear this noise.
I know it's an ear splitting tone, but I don't know where it's coming from because I don't have any directional sense.
I have no spatial uh abilities with sound.
So I'm looking around, so I walk around the room trying to pinpoint where it's going.
It sounds like a smoke eater's gone dead, smoke alarm or uh uh uh UPS has gone dead, so but I couldn't pinpoint where it was coming from.
Uh it was like two weeks ago when I actually thought my mechanical building outside was exploding, and it was just fireworks.
So I'm walking around trying to find, I can't find it.
And then I uh said, okay, well, let's check the email, and I've my Wi-Fi's dead.
So I didn't relate the two.
For some reason, so I got a hold of the uh of the tech guru, and then I left for golf and came back, the tone had been fixed, the UP, what have the UPS had been fried, the uninterrupted power supply, and uh that had just knocked everything off, and it turned out the air conditioning in the house was effective, didn't learn that until Sunday.
So I'll bet you this ditto cam thing, there's a there's a power hit.
We're back on Okay, so I knew I knew that's what it was.
I knew that's what so our switcher died.
I'll guarantee you it's because of this hit.
So guess what, folks?
It's either on or off.
I can't I can't, I can't turn it off during the breaks, and that's unacceptable.
There's stuff goes on here in the breaks.
People walk in, there's stuff that takes place here that you just can't see.
So I don't know what to do now.
I mean, I I we can't, we can't.
Can you not manually turn it on or off in there when I tell you to?
You have to unplug it and plug it.
Can you make in 2012?
Unplugging and plugging back in is considered above and beyond normal work requirements.
The broadcast engineer just said to me, no, I'd have to plug it in and uh unplug it.
Oh, well my that kind of workload, I don't know what we can handle.
Um how about how about this?
How about you get a piece of paper?
You come in here and you tape it over the lens.
What you want to do?
You want to unplug.
He's gonna unplug it.
Okay, cool.
He's gonna unplug it.
See, that's how that's creative management, right before your very eyes and ears.
Creative management.
So you'll unplug it.
I'm gonna be reminding you, you know, because I can't leave it off because it's up and running.
They can't take it away once it's there.
You can't.
No, I can't.
People pay for this snerdily.
I can't take it away.
If if I would have never gotten it back, I guess it was not gonna get it up and running, could I have been fine.
It's up and running.
I can't take it away from them.
I can't take it.
Can't take it away from the audience.
Yeah, Bran, if you should have just told me, sorry, I can't get it fixed here until like 305.
And we would not have a pro.
Home run totals in Major League Baseball in the year 2000, 5,600, 5600 home runs.
In 2011, 4,500.
We're down 1,100 home runs per year.
Since the year 2000, and ESPN has a story, offense drops to two decade low.
If you thought the 2011 baseball season seemed like a throwback, you're right.
Offense dropped to a level not seen.
Now this is runs scored, home runs everything.
But the home run average from this ESPN story.
The home run average was down to less than one home run per team per game, the lowest in 19 years.
But if you're just joining us, what the heck are you talking about this?
Because here, Grab Sam by 22.
Tim McCarver on Saturday in St. Louis, the Brewers and the Cardinals, Tim McCarper.
I think ultimately it will be proven that the air is thinner now.
There have been climactic changes over the last 50 years in the world.
And I think that's one of the reasons that balls are carrying much better now than I remember.
So that's your inconvenient truth about that.
Well, I think they're gonna find that out one of these days.
Yes, I do.
How do you I mean Tim McCarver worked every year through the steroid era where players weighed on average 20% more than they did when he played back in the 60s and 70s?
But Holbron totals are down.
This is this is an idea.
This is how pervasive this is.
Tim McCarver is not a dumb guy.
I've spoken to Tim McCarver on a number of occasions.
I can't say that I know him as a friend, but I've I saw him at Joe Buck's golf tournament.
Global warming is supposed to cause more humidity, which is heavier air.
Global warming does not create thinner air, it's just the opposite.
By the way, he said climactic in there, meaning climatic.
Climactic means apocalyptic.
A collaptic, a climactic of it, a climax.
Um for those of you in real into uh climax uh go either way.
Uh the end.
And he meant to say climatic.
Now let's go to Al Gore.
Al Gore, uh, he's responsible for this.
Inconvenient truth, all this global warming uh uh fold or roll.
Al Gore was in Amherst, Massachusetts on Friday at Hampshire College during the inauguration of their new president, a guy named Jonathan Lash, who is a uh good friend of Al Gore's.
We have two sound bites from Al Gore.
Every single professional scientific society in every field related to Earth Science or climate science says it is an urgent problem that requires urgent attention and must be addressed.
97 to 98% of all the climate scientists most actively publishing in the world say it is an urgent problem that must be urgently addressed.
Now there's some thought radio show hosts that say it's not.
It's up to you.
So here we have these young skulls full of mush.
Once again, being propagandized by this guy, who knows, by the way, that what he's saying isn't true.
Maybe he doesn't know.
Maybe he's so caught up into this now that that it's like Clinton believed all of his lies.
What?
The talk show hosts against these 97, 98% of all these scientists and the talk show hosts is winning.
Because Al Gore has to go up there and tell the students that the talk show host is wrong, they're 97, 98% of science and scientists, and that's not True.
The cons that the whole by the way, for those of you young people who are new to this program for the last six weeks, let me give you what I call a profundity.
And this is unarguable.
Science does not, cannot be determined by consensus.
Now I know that the way you've been educated and taught is that consensus is good.
Consensus is the result of people talking and discussing and compromising.
Yes.
And compromise, that's good, because that's people working together.
Barney compromises, the Muppets compromise, big bird compromise.
And so compromise led to consensus on science and global warming, except for one problem.
It specifically is not science if it is established by consensus.
Science is not subject to opinion.
And this is the problem of global warming.
For those of you new to the program who get caught, global warming is a purely political issue.
It is used by the left to advance every one of their ideals and beliefs.
Higher taxes, big government, you being made to feel guilty and responsible for the destruction of something for which you now have to pay the price for your redemption, which is higher taxes, bigger government, and simply rolling over, getting out of the way when the global warming crowd comes through town.
But there's this talk show host that for 23 years have been opposing this.
So Al Gore has to go back to the camp eye all over the country to convince these young students that talk show host doesn't know what he's talking about.
97, 98% consensus of scientists.
Two plus two equals four, not because a consensus was arrived at.
You know, I once, you know, I was a troublemaker in school, and I'm sure you people can relate to this.
In the fifth grade, I once asked a teacher who was teaching, I forget what it was, history, you know, name was Langdon Miss Langdon how do we know that what we know is right She was stumped.
Well, what do you mean?
Well, how do we know?
For example, that she was big on the on the ancient Egyptians and the mummy.
How do we know that what we think is right about that is right?
How do we know?
And she didn't, God love her, she trusts, she didn't have an answer.
It's the same with a global warming.
You've got to how do you know that what you know is right?
How does Al Gore know that what he knows is right?
He's it's an opinion, it's consensus.
Consensus if scientists agrees that there's global.
It's a political issue, folks.
It's just another of the many tentacles of liberalism that make up the intricately woven web of deceit that is liberalism.
You might be interested in knowing an Al Gore got a D in natural science when he was at Harvard.
And now we know why.
In the old days, and I'm not exaggerating, in the old days, people used to get locked up in the loony bin for saying some of the stuff that Al Gore and the global warmists now not only say, but they teach.
They are teaching some of the most irresponsible, radical, untrue stuff that has ever been taught.
The global polar bear population is growing.
They are not threatened.
The ice shelf is not melting, it's not shrinking any more than normal.
But the real question you know you young people who are new to this program need to ask yourself is this.
Where did you acquire your arrogance and vanity?
And I'm not trying to be insulting, but my point is this.
I've always believed that most people's historical perspective begins the day they were born.
Most people believe whatever happens in their lifetimes is, in many cases, the first time anything has happened.
Or it's certainly the worst it's ever been throughout history.
And so you, because of that fact, because of the ability to think that that history began when you were born, you are open to the propaganda that whatever the temperature is now is normal.
How do we know that?
The Earth is how many thousands, hundreds of millions, whatever the argument.
We don't even know that.
Let's just let's the Orth is a hundred thousand years.
It's just for the sake of discussion.
The Earth is a hundred thousand years old.
How do any of us know that the temperatures in this year or in our lifetimes constitute norm, constitute what it's supposed to be?
Maybe it's colder on average around the planet than it quote unquote should be.
And maybe if there is warming, maybe there's a correction going.
Maybe it's not a crisis.
Maybe it's not a problem.
The only way they can make you believe that global warming is a crisis requiring emergency procedures, which largely involve you giving up your freedom, is incumbent on you being made to believe it what's happening now is normal.
This is the way God intended it.
And if it gets a Celsius degree warmer in a hundred years, we've got a problem.
How do we know this?
We don't know this.
And we can't control it anyway.
How do we make it cooler?
We can't.
We can't thus be responsible for it getting warmer.
We're just stewards here.
We're just placeholders on this planet.
We have the ability to protect and guard and so forth, but in terms of inventing any of this or causing any of this to correct, we can't.
We have to adapt is what we do.
We adapt to whatever, and so do animals.
Everybody adapts, and if you fail to adapt, Cyanora.
But this is all smoke and mirrors.
Just remember two things.
Ask yourself constantly.
Who wrote that what's now is normal?
And anything less or higher or lower than today is a panic.
Who wrote that?
What kind of thinking?
And number two is well, I have to take a break.
If I don't take a break, I'm gonna be a real be right back.
I got it wrong.
My seventh grade teacher was Fannie Langdon, Ms. Langdon, a fifth grade teacher that I asked, how do we know that what we know is right was Ms. Pierce.
Uh seventh grade was uh was uh Ms. Langdon, who's a big fan of mine to this day, or was.
Now the second thing is, in addition to the silly notion that our arrogance and vanity make us think that everything's normal during our time on Earth.
And that means we're the destroyers.
You've got to fight that, folks.
We don't destroy anything, we're the builders.
The second thing is there's no such thing as consensus in science.
It cannot be science if consensus is how it has been arrived at.
The Earth is flat, not because 97% of scientists agree the Earth isn't flat.
It's because it's not flat.
There's only one reason the earth isn't flat, and that is it's round.
And not because 97 or 98% of scientists decided to agree on that.
I love talking to the new young people here.
Because there's nobody that makes it easier to understand.
That's what I do.
I make complex understandable.
By the way, from Reuters, large wind farms may have a warming effect on a local climate.
Research in the United States showed on Sunday casting a shadow over the long-term sustainability of wind power.
Now, don't you just love this?
Here they come up with these windmills, which everybody wants when they're not in their neighborhood, including the late Senator Kennedy, big believer in wind farms, but nowhere near where he lived, because they're noisy and they kill birds, bald eagles and stuff.
Not supposed to see that, not really supposed to talk about it.
Wind farms, yes, so we don't have to use evil oil.
Fossil fuels, green Energy.
New job.
Problem.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels contribute to global warming, but large wind farms have a warming effect on the local climate.
So one of the cures for global warming has now been discovered to cause it.
Which, by the way, there isn't any man-made global warming.
And I say this with ontological certitude.
It's arrogance and vanity to suggest that we have the ability to do that.
It's been warmer on this planet before oil was discovered, folks.
It's all this is absurd.
Al Armandares, the EPA official who last week was learned discovered to say wanted to crucify oil companies, has resigned in disgrace.
▲
Export Selection