All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 18, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
January 18, 2013, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So I just get this note.
What do you expect?
The note said, what do you expect?
You think people not to understand you when you refer to kids as human shields?
How dare you be so mean?
Criticize the kids.
This is exactly what I mean.
I am constantly overestimating the ability to get it and the basic intelligence. of people on the left.
That's not at all.
I don't know how you understand.
From the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's open lives.
Okay, let me explain it.
And I hate having to explain it because when you have to explain it, it means you failed.
When I accuse Barack Hussein Obama of using kids as human shields, I'm not mocking the kids.
I am saying that Obama is using those children to prevent any criticism of him.
He's hiding behind the kids.
They are the human shields protecting Obama from any criticism.
That may be, Mr. Limbaugh, but you used the term human field and everybody knows what a human field is.
What is a human shield, Mr. New Castrati?
Mr. Limbaugh, a human field is when Greenpeace or Code Pink or other civil liberty and rights organizations, PETH organizations, put themselves in front of weapons and bombs and so forth.
And you're talking about kids and gun control and human fields and you're talking about kids getting shield.
No way.
How do you people think?
How in the world do you get that I was suggesting that there's any firearm involved?
And Democrats use kids as human shields all the time, and they are there to shield them against criticism.
And that's all the kids are for.
They're props.
Anyway, great to have you back, folks.
Open Line Friday.
Talk about whatever you want.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
Lance Armstrong on Oprah's own network last night.
By the way, the New York Times says that Oprah's network is now poised to take off.
Oprah's network is on the verge here of now exploding according to plan.
And everybody's going to be watching Oprah's network inside of five days.
Yeah, she might sell some advertisement.
She might get some audience.
It's on the verge.
It's on the well, that's just it.
People will tune to Oprah's network to watch Armstrong, and they'll be so intrigued that they'll continue to watch Oprah's Network after Armstrong's finished.
Well, because it's Oprah's network because they're there.
They're lazy.
And then they will go watch whatever else Oprah is offering and say, wow, look at what we've been missing by not tuning into Oprah's network.
And then they're going to realize, wait a minute, this is the reason I wasn't watching in the first place.
I don't like this stuff now just because it follows Lance Armstrong.
But it doesn't matter.
New York Times is on the verge here of taking off.
Here's Oprah.
And we just have three soundbites.
We're not going to go cover to cover with this thing.
But here's Oprah.
And one of the early on questions observations.
This is what doesn't make any sense.
When people were saying things, David Walsh, Sunday Times, Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreou, many others were saying things, you would then go on the attack for them.
You're suing people and you know that they're telling the truth.
What is that?
Answer?
It's what Bill Clinton did.
That's the way James Carville played it.
I don't know what Armstrong said.
I didn't watch.
I've just got these two soundbites.
But if I would have been Oprah, if I'd have been Lance, I just said, well, that's what Bill Clinton did.
You see what they did to Ken Starr Oprah?
In fact, didn't you help out in that regard?
Wasn't Ken Starr this big sex pervert?
Wasn't everybody else lying?
Wasn't Bill Clinton telling the truth?
Weren't all these people being critical of Bill Clinton just a bunch of people trying to take down his greatest moral president we've ever had?
Oprah, your heroes, Bill and Hillary Clinton wrote the blueprint, deny, deny, deny, and attack the accuser.
They wrote the blueprint.
And it's been used by Democrats ever since.
The Democrats to this day use the Lance Armstrong tactic.
In fact, the entire, every Obama campaign is oriented toward destroying the opposition.
However you have to, if you have to lie, if you have to run ads that are not truthful at all, you just do it.
That's all Lance was doing.
He was practicing the theories that have been shown to work by Bill and Hillary.
Vast right-wing conspiracy.
I can't believe Oprah does.
See, the different standards.
Lance, how could you do that to the Andreas?
How could you do that?
Bill Clinton has yet to be asked, how could you do that to Monica Lewinsky?
How could you do that to Kathleen Willey?
How could you do that?
Name Juanita Broderick.
And he never will be.
Because when the left got people that get in trouble, they circle the wagons around them and protect them.
And they elevate them even higher.
Here's Armstrong's answer.
It's a major flaw.
And it's a guy who expected to get whatever he wanted and to control every outcome.
And it's inexcusable.
And that's when I say that there are people that will hear this and will never forgive me.
I understand that.
I do.
And I have started that process.
I think all of this is a process for me.
One of the steps of that process is to speak to those people directly and just say to them that I'm sorry.
And I was wrong.
You were right.
And Oprah said, you didn't feel that you were cheating, taking banned substances and drugs.
At the time, no.
At the time, no.
And I look up, I had this exercise where, you know, because I kept hearing, you know, I'm a drug cheat.
I'm a cheat.
I'm a cheater.
And I went and looked up, I just looked up the definition of cheat.
Yes.
And the definition of cheat is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe, you know, that they don't have or that, you know, I didn't view it that way.
I viewed it as a level playing field.
Well, that doesn't sound contrite to me.
He says, at the time, I don't think I was cheating.
Everybody else was doping, which, by the way, he does have a point.
He's got a point on that.
And a lot of people in baseball who were juicy, they were saying, hey, look, if I got pitchers out there like, and they name names, who are throwing the ball harder at age 40 than they ever did, I'm going to have to juice up just to keep up with them.
You know, I got to keep my job.
I mean, if my competitors are juicing up and they're juicing their performance, I got to keep up.
So Armstrong was saying, no, at the time I wasn't cheating.
Everybody else is doing the same thing.
In fact, as I mentioned the other day, he's got seven Tour de France titles that have now been vacated, but none of the second-place finishers are being awarded the yellow jacket because they were also juicing.
Yes, I have a question from the program observer.
What was the question?
Well, Snerdley has asked, do we care if they juice up?
Now, if you go to Major League Baseball, you will find attendance at the ballpark was skyrocketing when these guys were juicing.
Now, at the early days, I don't think fans were really aware of it, but it didn't take long before the allegations and the evidence made it clear something was going on.
And the fans showed up in great numbers.
I remember during the whole baseball thing, there wasn't a lot of enmity against Mark Maguire or Clemens.
The people that were really people were getting mad at was the media.
The media were positioning themselves as these morally perfect people that were judging everybody else who probably could not have withstood a similar investigation into them, themselves.
But here they were passing judgment.
There were a lot of people that got sick and tired of reading about the cheaters, especially from the media standpoint of holier than thou, because everybody knows that nobody's perfect.
And the sports media guys are writing about all these people as though they are the final arbiters of what's good and decent.
A sports journalist.
And that offended people.
The whole notion here of cheating, you'd have to say that unbalanced at the ballpark attendance, TV ratings, it didn't seem to bother people.
Well, Snerdley said, what happened to choice?
It's my body.
Remember, by the way, at certain periods of time here, there were no rules.
Like in the NFL in the 70s, steroids were not illegal.
There was no proscription against steroids in the 70s in the NFL.
But there are rules now, Snerdley, and you're breaking the rules, even though it's your body and you can do what it was.
Really, that only applies to women who are pregnant.
No, an athlete's body is not his to do with what he wants to do.
It's not between a man and his doctor.
No, or his trainer or his friend with the syringe, whoever's doing it.
A man does not have that right.
Jim Gray, who's worked at ESPN and NBC, was on Fox this morning.
Martha McCallum spoke to him, and she said, Lance Armstrong's got an opportunity here.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven across the board with all these sports.
And I have an opportunity now, one of the best well-known athletes, she says, talking about Armstrong, to go out there, talk to kids, talk to college students, and say, you know what?
We've got to rethink this.
Or are we just going to keep going and going like this with everybody cheating, Jim, and all of it being fake and nobody caring?
The money is so great.
And all of these guys have now given up on the pursuit of excellence.
It's no longer the pursuit of being great.
It's the pursuit of money, the pursuit of power, the pursuit of all of these things that really never came into mind back in the days of Jesse Owens and Babe Ruth and all of these others.
Now, all of these people are flawed, and we're all flawed.
It's just not endemic to these athletes.
Everybody wants to be number one and be remembered.
So that's really, at the end of the day, what's driving all of this, and it's for all the wrong reasons.
So, Jim Gray's theory is these guys are pursuing fame and fortune and riches and money.
They're not trying to be the best they can be in their sport.
Why are you juicing?
I think you are trying to up your performance if you're juicing.
But again, here we have this romantic notion of the good old days.
Babe Ruth and Jesse O, no, they were clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.
Why they never did anything comparable to what's happening today.
You know, how about this?
Throw this little thought out.
Forget the HGH and the steroids and the drugs.
How about the workout fanatics as opposed to those guys, athletes who don't work out?
You think the guy who's working out all the time might have a competitive advantage over the guy who doesn't?
Well, is that fair?
Is that fair?
Should you maybe stop the guy who's working out or maybe make the guy who's not working out work out?
No, no, no.
My point is that no two people are ever the same, and you're always going to be able to find different levels of devotion, different levels of desire.
You're going to find different character degrees of integrity and honesty from athlete to athlete, just like you will person to person.
And people are going to be who they are.
Some are going to have year-long relationships with girlfriends that never existed.
Some of them are going to blood dope like Armstrong did.
I mean, you just never know.
Some are going to be in nightclubs when murders take place.
No, it's not a slam on anybody.
I'm just saying that every athlete's like everybody else.
Everybody's different.
That takes me, though, to this is an interesting piece.
As I say, this piece really has a lot of potential.
I don't think it quite gets there, but it's close.
It's by a guy named Will Leitch, and I hope I'm pronouncing that right, L-E-I-T-C-H, sportsonearth.com.
He founded Deadspin, and he has a piece titled Won't Get Fooled Again, but his observations are about how did the media get fooled about Mantai Teo?
How did Mantai Teo pull it off?
Who's involved here?
How does the mainstream media, thousands of people, all looking at the same story, all miss it?
And he's got his theories.
And of course, we've explored these.
How is it that thousands of people all end up describing one event the same way?
Dick Cheney's choice to be vice president in the year 2000 by George W. Bush.
It brings graffitas to the ticket.
How does that happen?
They're all of the same mind for one thing.
But we've got to take an obscene profit timeout first.
Don't go away.
Have you seen Eric Holder is practically begging a federal court not to release papers on Fast and Furious?
It's the Judicial Watch lawsuit, the Freedom of Information Act, and a number of lawsuits trying to find out what actually happened, the documents.
And there have been all kinds of court orders and congressional requests for those documents, Darrell Issa.
And they're stonewalling.
And now it's gone to court.
And Holder is begging.
These people have this imperial self-image.
And I'm sure they're thinking, why?
I don't have to do this.
I don't have to explain myself, plebes in this country.
But he's up there.
He's begging.
Lance Armstrong, by the way, I'm told I didn't see the whole thing, did not cry.
Is that right?
He did not cry, at least not in last night's episode.
There's a part two is tonight.
He did not cry.
He's got to cry tonight if he wants forgiveness.
I think one of the problems he's having today, I mean, our guy, I mean, he got ripped in the New York media today, ripped everywhere today for this performance last night.
It's because he didn't cry.
It could be why he's not being completely forgiven.
You go on Oprah, you got to cry.
She's going to cry.
You can't let her cry alone.
You have to cry, too.
I mean, that's everybody doing Oprah knows that you don't do Oprah if you're not going to cry.
Okay, Michelle in Cincinnati, I'm glad you called.
Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
My pleasure.
This call is about four years overdue.
But after your monologue this afternoon, I actually said a prayer that I would get through.
My father was a high school journalism and English teacher, and under his guidance, his students put together an award-winning newspaper in your book.
In fact, it won national awards for several years in a row.
He never missed your show.
He so respected you as a journalist because he himself believed in responsible journalism, the who, what, where, when, why, and how of a story.
And he would actually tape record your show on Wednesdays because his bridge game conflicted with your broadcast.
He could be seen in the summertime pooling weeds with his little transistor radio next to you, or next to him, listening to your show.
On behalf of my father, I want to thank you for your dedication and your devotion to responsible journalism and your excellence in broadcasting.
Rush, we need people like you, especially in light of everything that's going on.
And after the elections, day after the election, I think we were all kind of shocked, but I heard something in your voice that really scared me.
I actually heard just a tinge of despair, and it made me realize how much people like you who speak the truth are needed today in the media.
And thank you for that.
You heard despair.
Well, I don't, despair is a, I guess that's kind of a strong word, but I could tell you were disappointed as we all were.
Scared.
Exactly.
Is the best way to describe it?
And I still am.
However, I have a mounting confidence at the same time.
Even by the way, thank you so much.
I'm very touched and moved by what you've said and the description of your father.
And I really appreciate that more than I can express to you.
I really do.
I thank you very much.
All these stories about the Republicans, and it's clear what their strategy is.
The Republicans are basically going to close up shop for a while.
That's what they've decided to do.
And even with that, I've got this tinge of optimism going through me.
Let me check the stock price here, Rich.
All right.
Cool, cool.
No, I think if the Oprah network fails, you just sell it al Jazeera for five times what it's worth and be done with it.
So I think she's in a win-win either way.
No, this optimism.
You've got to be dangerous.
I mean, careful.
It's always dangerous to talk about optimism because some people interpret optimism sometimes as a false sense or actually as a denial of reality.
And I'm not doing that.
No, no, no, no.
Snerdley wanted to know why I didn't object to the previous caller praising my talents as a journalist.
I think what happens here on this show anymore is closer to real journalism than anything we're getting from so-called journalists.
I have said for the longest time, we do here what the mainstream journalists used to do who are doing their job for them.
We do look at both sides of everything here.
We tell you the pluses and minuses of both sides.
I think liberals can find out more about what their belief system is about listening to this program than by watching any other cable network.
And certainly no other cable network explains conservatism.
We explain both here.
But no, this optimism thing.
Look, I've noticed two things.
The Republicans do seem to just be packing it in when it comes to trying to stop Obama on the theory that, okay, look, he won the election.
He's not even been immaculated yet second term, and he's already on the march, and we're just the house, and we lost, and so there's not really a whole lot we can do.
And I don't sense that they've got a whole lot of fight in them at the leadership level anyway.
And there certainly isn't a lot of unity in the Republican Party right now.
There are elements of the Republican establishment who are just as eager to discredit conservatives as the Democrat Party is.
And then I saw de Croude McCullum, as Dr. Kissinger refers to it.
De Croude McCullum.
And the latest Krada McCullum basically says that the best thing the Republicans can do right now is sort of just wave the white flag and move on.
And I just get the sense that that's going to happen.
So how in the world can I have this little tingling optimism?
And I do.
I have a sense that it's going to be okay.
I can't get specific, and I know it flies in the face of reality.
I don't know any more than that.
I'm not a soothsayer, nor am I a seer.
I can't predict the future.
But I'm fairly confident, and it's not because of the second term tradition that happens to every president.
Some scandal or something comes along and distracts them and takes down their president.
I'm not putting faith in anything like that.
I'm just what?
Well, no overreach.
I think Obama's overreached for four years has gotten away with it.
When you say, Snerdley just said, what about overreach?
And he goes, Obama, what you're really saying is that Obama, somebody's going to go too far and the country's going to wake up and say, oh, my God, what did we do?
I don't think that.
I'd love for that to happen.
I mean, I could sit around and fantasize.
But what I'm thinking is a strain of that or a variety of that.
I just, I think that it is going to be an event or series of events that reorients people in the way they're looking at Obama.
I do think that's going to happen.
And it's not going to happen because I sit here and tell people who he is and what he's like.
Been doing that for four years, and so have a lot of other people.
Now, not saying the four years have been wasted.
We've built the foundation.
When the event or events happen that bring about this reality, I think is going to occur.
Having this foundation, people, oh, yeah, you know what?
Maybe they were right is going to happen.
You know, I should have listened to what Limbaugh or somebody else was saying.
Maybe it is a little overreaching, you know, going too far.
And it's rooted in a belief that a lot of people, and I don't know how many, I don't know if it's a majority, but certainly a lot of people voted for Obama having no idea what was really going to happen.
Now, that could be blind faith.
I'm, you know, I'm I try never to tell myself stories.
Constantly, I never tell myself feel-good stories.
I try to remain grounded in Realville, where I'm the mayor every day.
But I do believe that a lot of people vote.
We saw the first wave of this, by the way, when the paychecks went out and the take-home pay was smaller because the tax cut on the paypal taxes was restored.
And there's going to be more of that as Obamacare implements at some point.
All of these economic policies are, at some point, the government, the Federal Reserve, is going to run out of tricks to delay what's coming.
What's coming is going to eventually happen.
Reality will eventually triumph here.
And when it does, I think what's going to constantly.
I'm not saying sit back and ignore everything else and don't oppose Obama.
Nothing like that.
Don't want anybody to get nervous here.
Not going to do that.
I'm not waving the white flag and I'm not serene.
I just think the Republicans are.
I think you just better get used to the fact there isn't going to be any serious legislative opposition to Obama for the next year.
And if there is, and I'm pleasantly surprised, cool.
Here is Matt in Phoenix.
Thank you, sir, for calling.
Open Line Friday.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
Gittos from the Valley of the Sun, Rush.
Thank you.
Appreciate that, sir.
I just get too tired of this 24-7 with the politics, so I called for something on the lighter side.
I wanted to know your opinion of the MacBook with the retina display.
Is it worth it?
The laptop computer or the iPad are you talking about?
The laptop.
The laptop.
Well, for me, there is no comparison.
Once you've seen it, once you've seen the retina, you'll notice anything that's not.
Now, of all of the Apple devices that have gone retina, it was the laptop that seemed to be the least improvement over what already existed.
The leap from the standard resolution on the iPad to a retina iPad is profound.
It is particularly on text.
If you're reading anything, a book or a website.
But I'll tell you, once the realization hits you, the retina display on the laptop is just absolutely phenomenal.
And after you become accustomed to it, and it's a slow creep, it doesn't hit you out of the box.
In fact, when you first turn it on and look at it, you might say, well, I don't see much difference here.
It's kind of that way with the iPad, too.
And after two or three days of using it, it's like a light bulb is going to go off, and you're going to get dazzled.
And once that happens to you, you're never going to want to go back to something that isn't retina.
Well, that's why I was asking is I noticed, I went and I looked at them, and I like you who are all things Apple, and I currently have a MacBook, but I didn't know if it was worth the money to buy one.
Well, there's a lot of other reasons.
What are you looking at?
What kind of computer are you looking at?
The 15-inch?
The 15, I use it for my business, and I figured it'd be about the last time that I'd worked on it.
Look, let me tell you, there's a whole bunch of other reasons to do it, too.
The 15-inch MacBook Pro is the wicked fastest computer they've ever made.
I don't know how it stacks up against the new iMacs that they just released.
It's pretty quick, too, and I think they're pretty close.
But this computer is state-of-the-art fast.
There's nothing like it in addition to the display.
If you have an old MacBook Pro that's got standard hard drives in it and so forth, I mean, really, you're going to get impatient waiting for every mouse click to happen versus this new retina machine.
It's just it is perfection at every phase, if you ask me.
I kind of figured this would be the last chance I'd get to be able to write something off for my business with Obama being in.
So I figured now was the time to buy iCloud.
Let me give you another theory.
Let me give you another theory.
This theory is, or this practice has always been used on me when buying cars.
When I go out and buy a car, I'd take a look at what I could afford, and I'd always see something I couldn't afford that I liked more.
And the salesman said, you're going to eventually get there.
Why don't you buy it now?
And the salesman was always right.
At some point in the future, I was going to be able to afford it.
So I did.
Now, I'm not talking about thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars in difference in price, but here in a computer, I'd go for it, man.
Especially if this is the last chance you're going to be right, go for it.
There's no reason you shouldn't have the best.
And if it's close enough within your price range, you're asking me about it, do it.
You only live one time.
And by the way, you can't do better than this.
The only thing that you might want to do, they've got a refresh coming sometime this summer, probably July.
And I don't know, it's going to look the same.
They might have a faster processor in it.
I don't know how much difference you're going to be able to tell, but that's the only thing that you ought to be thinking about is do you want to wait for the refresh this summer or go for it now?
Okay, I appreciate that.
I wouldn't mess around with a piece of junk any less than this.
No, I only buy Apple.
Oh, that's good.
That's good.
I have no vested interest in Apple either.
Don't misunderstand.
That's what I learned on and what I happen to enjoy the most.
But I hope that helps.
I guarantee you.
You've been doing it for 20 years and you always talk to Apple.
Oh, it's true.
I have the opportunity to get the best of what I can afford.
I do it.
And I'm just telling you, you will not be disappointed with this if you do it.
In no way, shape, man, or form will you be disappointed in it.
I don't know if you ever watch video, professional movies or TV shows on your computer.
Wait till you see a 1080p high-definition TV show or movie on this thing.
You won't, I don't even use my 27-inch computers anymore because the monitor can't even come close to this retina thing.
I use my 15-inch at home in the office almost exclusively now.
Because it's so much faster than anything else.
You can't go wrong, I'm telling you.
It's Open Line Friday.
El Rushbo, half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, Shelby in Atlanta.
Great to have you.
Hello, sir.
Hello, Rush.
How are you?
It's a female.
I'm sorry it didn't say that.
I apologize.
But it's quite all right, sir.
Yes, sir.
I heard your show yesterday, and you were talking about the indoctrination of our youth in the public education system.
I am a, I'm going to school to become a teacher, and I can tell you from the first class that I took in education, we are being taught as teachers that we are racist.
We are inherently racist, and in order for us to be effective teachers, we have to acknowledge our inner racism, whether we know it or not.
This is part of what you had to do while in college, learning to be a teacher?
Yes, sir.
It is.
Now, so you heard the story yesterday.
There's this Wisconsin school district, which a bunch of parents found out that the teachers are teaching basically that white, the white population in this country has been racist and bigoted, and it's actually part of the that's what you heard.
So you're now calling to add on and say that before you could get out of there, you had to acknowledge your innate racism, even if you didn't know it.
You had to acknowledge it so you could be an effective teacher.
You had to learn how it was that you yourself were racist.
Exactly, exactly.
Yes, we, and you know, the saddest thing is, is that what good is this doing to our prospective teachers out there?
If we're automatically told that we are racists, we're going to go, or some of us, not the intelligent ones, but some people are going to go into their classroom and they are going to look at their children and they're automatically going to put them in little categories and they're going to say, okay, it's really important that I make sure that these white kids understand that even if they don't have a racist little bone in their body, they are racist.
And you have to cater the educational experience toward putting that racism out there in front of the children.
Okay, so answer me this.
When this was happening to you, did you ask yourself, why are they doing this?
Of course I did.
And then, you know, you go on to have class discussions, and it's all this wonderful socialist views, where if we admit that we're racist, then we can take the next step and say everybody deserves to have that fair share.
Redistribution is okay.
It's a thing.
That's exactly right.
You were being groomed to ultimately spread the message that there's been a bunch of unfairness and racism and bigotry, and the government must be big and powerful to fix all of this.
And you're being taught to teach kids that they need to support this as well.
And you're going to get hold of these kids and save these white kids before they become racist.
You're going to save them.
You're going to help them see the world and this country the way it really is so that they then grow up thinking that we need to have a government that runs everybody's lives so that everybody is treated fairly.
Oh, but you know, they don't realize that they're actually putting an enemy behind the lines because teachers have to step forward.
And we have to say that enough is enough.
Our children do not need to be taught from day one that they are any better because of the color of their skin or they're any worse.
Well, yeah, I know, but where are their enemies behind that?
The way most of us look at this, this curriculum you had to undergo is succeeding.
That more and more teachers get into the classroom, indeed believing this, and they're all teaching it.
The multicultural curriculum is all over the public school system now.
It is, and it's a scary thing.
And it's seen not only in the public school system, but with the Occupy movement, you saw the teachers' unions in New York that were advancing the socialist cause of redistribution.
In some of the private school arenas, they do have curriculum that's catered towards multiculturalism.
Well, this is, I know, this is the indoctrination, folks, that everybody knows takes place.
And it's been going on for quite a while.
Anyway, I'm glad you got through, Shelby, and I'm glad that you made it here today, Open Line Friday.
Thanks much.
We've got to take a quick break, folks, and we're back before you know it.
No, no, I did not forget this sports story on media and hoaxes and so forth.
I just, I wanted to get some calls in.
It's Open Line Friday.
We'll get to that.
Report questions food stamp program's effectiveness.
Of course it does.
Every government program's effectiveness ought to be questioned.
They all fail to meet expectations.
We still have a lot straight ahead, folks.
▲
Export Selection