All Episodes
Previous Next
March 5, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
March 5, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hi, folks.
How are you?
Great to have you here.
For some reason, I'm thinking it's Thursday today, but it's not.
It's Wednesday.
It's Hump Day.
And the reason I'm thinking it's Thursday is because there's a great TV show that airs in Canada.
And it premieres tomorrow.
It's the second season called Motive.
ABC ran it in a late spring and summer.
And it's a reverse crime show.
It's really good.
And I keep thinking it's debuting tonight, and I'm going to be able to watch because I have access to Canadian TV shows.
I'm a powerful, influential member of the media.
And then I said, no, it's not tonight.
It's tomorrow night.
So I'm running a day ahead just on eager anticipation.
But we're here.
It doesn't matter what day it is.
It doesn't matter where I am as long as I'm here.
And it doesn't matter where here is.
And it's great to have you, folks.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, you all do.
The email address, illrushbo at EIBnet.com.
This is getting out of hand now.
Hillary Clinton is saying that Vladimir Putin is a Nazi.
And Putin is saying that the Ukrainians are Nazis.
And Tony Kornheiser says that the whole state of Arizona is Nazis.
The only person that's not a Nazi anymore is me.
This is progress, ladies and gentlemen.
It's like a Mel Brooks movie.
I mean, everybody's just throwing this name out.
And of course, Putin is acting like Hitler did.
You got to give Hillary that with what he's doing here.
I mean, you can say it's going to irritate some progressives who think that Putin has the right to do whatever he wants to do.
Before we get to the meat and potatoes, and the meat and potatoes today are the literal fireworks up there at the ISA committee with the lowest learner who has nothing to hide, taking the Fifth Amendment for what, the 23rd time today, and then ISA shutting off, yeah, Elijah Cummings of the Congressional Black Caucasian shut off his microphone.
He's a ranking Democrat on that.
Shut off his microphone.
He started screaming.
And Isa went out and explained why he did it.
Then we've got this teenager in New Jersey who left home because she claims when she turned 18, her parents kicked her out.
She's now suing them for tuition and room and board and everything that she would get if she still stayed or lived at home.
Now, her parents are saying that they didn't kick her out, that she left.
The case has gone to court.
And the judge is telling the girl, she's 18, don't hold out a lot of hope here.
This is sort of unprecedented, a kid suing a parents.
But I mean, doesn't it fit right in with where we're headed here?
Somebody's going to take care of me.
I have a friend of mine.
I don't have permission to use his name.
But you would all recognize his name if I told you.
Said to me, just tell me a story.
He grew up in Ohio.
And about a month from his 18th birthday, his dad came to him and said, so what are you going to do?
And the guy said, well, I'm going to get a job.
Let me go to school.
He said, well, you can't live here.
What are your plans?
His dad kicked him out at 18, 18.
He was an adult.
He was on his own.
Just the way it was.
This man's now in his 70s.
And I found it.
I'm fascinated by generational shift and changes and all of that.
And it's just, it's this suing of the parents, it's fascinating.
A couple of audio soundbites here before we get to the meat and potatoes program.
This is just to illustrate something.
You remember, what was it, I guess it's three weeks ago now, maybe a month, where we heard that Steak Clyburn at the FCC wanted to post monitors in all of the newsrooms.
Well, Mignon, I call her Stake as a nickname.
Mignon Clyburn, the daughter of James Clyburn, who's also an accredited member in good standing congressional black Caucasians.
She wanted to post monitors in all the newsrooms to measure how the newsrooms covered the news.
Why they did a story, why they didn't report a story.
Why did they report the story they did report the way they reported it?
This kind of stuff.
There was no outrage from the drive-bys.
The drive-bys didn't give a hoot.
They've already thrown in.
They looked at administration monitors as a chance to impress the boss.
Somebody with a direct pipeline to Obama watching him, hey, man, this is a way for me to get noticed by the big guy.
But a lot of people, me included, recognized what this was.
This was a backdoor attempt at intimidating news organizations into shaping comment and coverage the way the regime wanted it.
When that reaction happened, then State Clyburn said, no, no, no, no.
You got it all, bro.
This is about minority ownership.
We don't have enough minority ownership, and we're trying to find ways to increase minority ownership.
And everybody said, well, what's this got to do with it then?
What is posting whole monitors in there to measure the content of what's reported, what isn't reported?
What's that got to do with minority ownership?
Anyway, the jig was up and they eventually announced that pulling back and canceling the whole plan, which they're not.
They're just shelving it for another time when the temperature falls, not as much heat on it, and they can sneak it in when nobody's looking.
Because the left never gives up an idea.
They never retreat fully or they never abandon things.
They just try to find a more strategic maneuver.
During this time, Byron York, who's a reporter for the Washington Examiner, sent me a note asking for my comment.
And I didn't see his note because I was off the grid.
His note came in on a Saturday, and I had 20 family members in town for a belated birthday bash, mine.
And so I was off the grid, and I didn't see Byron's note until it was too late to comment for his story.
So I did send him a note.
He said, Rush, I think this really is about it.
I've gone back, I've looked at Stake's history.
I've looked at Stake Clyburn and what she's had to say, but she really is interested in minority ownership.
But he also, I think it is backdoor fairness, Doctor.
I think he said, Rush, you have to, you have to admit, this is all about getting rid of you.
They just can't figure out how to get rid of you.
And they've tried it with any number of hosts.
They've tried it with the fairness doctrine.
That didn't apply.
You've tried to help them get rid of you with some comments, but not even you could destroy yourself, Rush.
And they're frustrated that they can't.
And it turns out when this whole thing broke, by the way, I told you, I said, if you be on the lookout, folks, I'll bet you that it was journalism schools that came up with this idea for Stake Clyburn to post these monitors.
And lo and behold, it was.
It was the USC Annenberg School of Journalism, honorary degree for Ronan Farron, by the way, understand, coming.
And University of Madison, Wisconsin.
It was those two.
Another honorary degree for Ronan Farron coming from there, too, I understand.
He's been on the air for six days now.
He qualifies an honorary degree at every J school that's coming.
Anyway, so it was J schools that did it.
Anyway, to get to the soundbite, Byron was on Fox and Friends today.
And he was talking to Brian Kilmead about this.
And what has been learned is that George Soros' money is behind all of this.
It is George Soros' money that has funded these projects at the two J schools.
So Myron was on there to talk about that.
Kilmead said new reports have linked big Democrat donors like George Soros to some pretty shady behavior.
His Open Society Foundation has given $1.4 million to Wisconsin-Madison's J school, $300,000 to the Madison Commons Project.
And they also went out to the left coast, the USC, $195,000 donated to the Annenberg Journalism School there.
Looks like Soros, Myron, is trying to gain influence with the next generation of journalists.
You mentioned those too, because they were the ones who were involved in this study from the Federal Communications Commission.
You have to look kind of at the bigger picture with this study because a lot of liberal reformers have been very unhappy for years at the continued success of Rush Lembaugh, and they want to limit that success if they can.
They used to cling to the hope that they could restore the old fairness doctrine.
Clearly unconstitutional.
I think they've given up on that.
But they've come up with a new idea called media diversity.
They want to change the ownership of radio stations around the country.
If they can do that, new owners won't play Lembaugh.
They reduce his influence that way.
That's what they want to do.
That's what he has researched.
He has found at Stake Clyburn is serious about this minority ownership.
And the theory is that if they can get a bunch of minorities owning radio stations, not networks, I mean, networks would be fine.
But if they get minorities owning radio stations, then it just follows, doesn't it, that those minorities would get rid of me?
It just follows.
That's just axiomatic, apparently.
They would get rid of me and all of the revenue generated by the program.
One of the first things they would do, they'd be automatic heroes.
Do you realize how long that would take?
I mean, that's a pretty convoluted effort.
And we're on 612 radio stations.
And I mean, to have an impact, you'd have to have, well, you'd have to have over half of them change ownership.
And they're going to have to hurry up here, too, because there aren't, it's not a limitless number of years that I am going to be able to do this.
But he's right.
They are just, they're just bamboozled.
They have tried for 25 years, every which way they can.
I think that's why, as I was alluding to yesterday, I think that's why they've invested so much hope in this kid at MSNBC.
They've just whoever they think can, they tried it with Air America.
And that's why I said, can you name one big name, quote-unquote, star media performer on the left?
And you can't.
I mean, they're everywhere, but there's not one that embodies what they do or is perceived as elite.
And it just irritates them.
And the reason for that is, well, I'm not going to give that away.
There's a reason why they're never going to be able to accomplish what we've accomplished here.
They do not understand the business.
That's as much as I need to say about it.
Well, it's because they do.
They've got everything else.
They're very open about it.
Me and Fox News.
Me, talk radio, Fox News.
They've got everything else.
They've got 95% of it.
But they are inspired, motivated by one principle, and that is the elimination of all opposition.
Not debating with, not being bipartisan with, not winning an argument of ideas in the arena of ideas, but eliminating the opposition.
And they're profoundly frustrated at having been able to do it.
And so Byron was on.
I just wanted to pass this on to you.
I want you to be fully aware that your host remains a big target of these people.
Nothing new there, but I just wanted to pass that on.
Byron has done his research and found out.
Now, just a couple of her sound bites with me, and I'm going to get them out of the way, and then we will move on.
Fusion TV.
You ever watch Fusion?
Have you ever heard of Fusion TV?
Fusion is ABC's cable channel geared toward the Hispanic audience.
And they had last night a guest, Alicia Menendez.
Now, Alicia Menendez is the daughter of Robert Menendez, the Democrat senator from New Jersey who routinely accepted free private jet flights from a donor to the Dominican Republic and other love destinations in the Caribbean where he had flings with women who were not his wife.
And it's his daughter that is on the Fusion Network and talking about the ABC broadcast of the Oscars and, of course, your beloved host.
43.7 million people tuned in to watch Ellen DeGeneres host the Oscar Sunday night, the most in 11 years.
And yes, even Rush Limbaugh watched.
I watched it all.
It was filled with self-satisfaction and pats on the back and how important they all are and how compassionate, giving, caring, you know, all of those adjectives they reserve exclusively to themselves.
Rush is right.
The Oscars are a knight of adjectives, best, perhaps the foremost among them.
And it just, what do I have to do with this story?
This is the point.
What do I have to do with that?
What's it?
Yeah, the fact that I watched the Academy Awards is news.
And then one more bite.
And this, of course, this is obligatory.
This is the comment that I made about 12 years of slave winning that just has them all still in a tizzy.
Having made it through the whole ceremony, Lima took issue with the fact that 12 Years of Slave, a tense, powerful film that Ellen joked was a lock for Best Picture, won Best Picture.
There's no way that movie was not going to win.
If it was the only thing that movie won, it was going to win Best Picture.
There was no way.
It didn't matter if it was good or bad.
I haven't seen it.
It was going to win.
It had the magic word in the title, slave.
Yep.
Rush calls it like he sees it.
And he saw the Oscars.
He did not see 12 Years of Slave, but his baddie logic holds up, people.
I guess that's why Django Unchained and Amistad didn't win an Oscar.
There you go.
My baddy logic.
She asked.
Doing my Baddie logic, I guess.
I guess Russia's white Django unchained and Amistad didn't win, but 12 years a slave did so.
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
Your host announcing he watched the Oscars is big news.
On the left, ladies and gentlemen, this is hilarious.
CNN the rest of the drive-bys are all in hysterics that a United Nations envoy was supposedly almost kidnapped and threatened by an armed man in Crimea and told to get out of the country a UN envoy.
That's unacceptable.
Who do they think they are threatening to kidnap and kick out of the country a UN envoy?
I'm not kidding.
The media is just beside themselves.
That would be this kind of an insult.
Now I want to mention something here that came up late in the program yesterday and i'm repeating it here at a different time in the program, hoping to reach more people with this, because the drive-bys are not talking about this mentioned yesterday, Bill Clinton in 1994, and then the Obama administration in 2009 reaffirmed it.
Clinton in 94 gave official diplomatic assurances to Ukraine that their borders would be safe in exchange for the Ukrainians gutting their army and completely doing away with their sizable nuclear deterrent.
This has not been reported other than the UK Daily Mail has now published an article that reminds us that that wasn't all Obama did for Ukraine.
But the point is because the media isn't telling you.
I want to stress this again, as you're watching what happens.
You watch us act, outraged that Putin would do this.
There were a number of signatories to this agreement, the UK, John Major, the Ukrainian prime minister, it was Boris Yeltsin for the for the Russian Federation and Bill Clinton, and there was the Chaikon leader.
There were five of them and they signed.
They promised, they promised Ukraine that their borders would not be attacked, that their sovereignty would not be challenged and that they would be considered for admission to the European Union.
All this stuff dangling carrots if they would just gut their army and do away with their nuclear deterrent, and Ukraine did.
That agreement was reaffirmed in 2009 by Barack Obama, so the Ukrainians cannot defend themselves against this encroachment by Russia, which is a violation of that agreement.
By the way, we'll be back.
Don't go away, hair.
You welcome back folks.
Great to have your Russlin Baum meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Do you know that?
I meant to mention this earlier and I don't have the details right in front of me?
I am a finalist.
Get this.
Now I am a finalist in the award for children's author of the year.
Is that not cool?
Who would have ever thought that?
It's given out in May, and I know a little bit more about this than I'm saying here, because I don't know how much I should say.
It's voting process and all that.
But I mean, I just, I am, I am, well, I guess I'm really proud here, folks.
I mean, the last thing I ever, can you, children's author award finalist, me L. Rushboe?
But that's what happens, you know, when you have the direct line, direct access to young skulls full of mush, and you do it with an uplifting, positive, encouraging message.
You know, there's that's a, that, that's, take me off on another tangent here.
I ought to make a note and come back to this later.
Encouragement.
There's not enough of that going on.
There's not enough inspiration or inspiring going on.
Culture-wise in our society.
There's too much pessimism, victimization, too much explanation, justification for failing.
There's no inspiration.
There's no encouragement.
There's no pushing people, at least not as much.
And I get into that maybe later in the program.
Just I want to close a loop here on this Ukraine thing.
They get to the IRS, then come back to Ukraine with more details of what's happening.
But just to remind you, because I think this is huge, I think Ukraine bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
They gave up their military.
They gave up, they had a nuclear arsenal.
They gave it up in exchange for a promise that their borders would not be invaded, their sovereignty would remain intact.
And that's all out the window.
And now Yeltsin was not a signatory, but Putin wasn't, but Boris Yeltsin was, and he signed for the Russian Federation, which is still the governing body before Putin puts the Soviet Union back together.
And it was Bill Clinton that got the whole thing started, and this whole thing was reaffirmed in 2009.
Now, the UK Daily Mail today adds information to this.
Their headline is, flashback, Senator Obama pushed legislation that helped destroy more than 150,000 tons of ammo, 400,000 small arms, and 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles in Ukraine.
In addition to the gutting of the military and the getting rid of the nukes, it was Obama as a senator who pushed legislation that further weakened Ukraine.
From the article, as a U.S. senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition weapons, which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Putin during his invasion of Crimea because they don't really have an army, not much of one.
They gutted it.
They didn't get rid of it.
They just gutted it.
All on the assurance, reaffirmed again in 2009 by Obama.
Obama reassured them this was as president.
It was as a senator that he engaged in legislation that further weakened.
2009, he reaffirmed, don't worry, we will protect you.
And so will the CHICOMs, and so will the UK.
And the Russians have promised that they will not invade you.
And that's all out the window now.
And the media is not reporting that.
In August of 2005, this was just seven months after Obama was sworn in.
He traveled to eastern Ukraine, a place called Donetsk.
He traveled with former Republican Senator Dick Luger, and they toured a conventional weapons site while there.
Then Obama and Luger met in Kiev with the President Viktor Yochenko, making the case that an existing cooperative threat reduction program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammo of all kinds.
The senators, then Obama and Luger, returned to Washington and declared that because they secured this cooperation from Ukraine, that the United States should follow suit.
Obama and Luger came back and said the U.S. should devote money to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and 15,000 tons of ammo.
So, in addition, Obama's been disarming the United States as quickly as he can, but he offered money, $48 million to Ukraine to downsize.
At the time, Obama said we need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people and the people around the world by keeping them out of conflicts around the world.
Now, stop and think.
Folks, this kind of thing really matters when you're a guy like Putin and you're sizing up your adversary and you're looking at a guy and you see Barack Hussein Obama.
Now, I have in my stack of stuff, you know, Obama was at an elementary school recently.
I have here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers the pictures.
And Obama's latest photo op shows why the global community doesn't take him seriously.
He's sitting on a blue oval-shaped rug, and he's holding a young student with the teacher sitting nearby and about 10 or so other little kids.
He's in the classroom while all this is going on.
If you're Vladimir Putin and you look at, remember how a picture of George W. Bush reading to a third grade classroom, remember how that was portrayed as, my God, what kind of way the World Trade Center's attacked and this guy's reading to kids and he still reads and look at this.
I'll tell you what I'll do.
I'm going to zoom in on the diddle camera, turn it off to do it.
I'll zoom in.
I'll just show you this, just so you know.
And the reason that I think that this is important is because you always have to look at the way our enemies see this.
Camera's back on it.
There's the picture.
And in fact, the picture below it is Obama then with his press conference announcing some things about Ukraine at the same place.
See, he's standing on the same rug there that he is sitting on with those kids.
It's an exact replay of what happened with Bush in the classroom in Florida.
Now, the point is, if you're Vladimir Putin and you know that your adversary is Barack Obama and Barack Obama has personally traveled to Ukraine to disarm them, if you know that your adversary is Barack Obama who has senator paid money, legislation, $48 million, paid money and reaffirmed a 1995 agreement or 94 agreement for basically Ukraine to disarm.
What are you going to do?
You know who your adversary, you know he's not going to stop you.
All you have to do is look at Syria, anywhere in the world.
Look at the way Obama's handling Iraq or Afghanistan.
Obama's running around getting us out of everywhere.
Look at Chuck Hagel proposing downsizing U.S. military to World War II levels.
What would you do if you're a bad guy bent on reassembling your giant Soviet Union?
So the Ukrainians have no way to stop this militarily if they were inclined.
And Obama, after traveling to Kiev and securing, not only affirming the Clinton Agreement in 94, but taking it further by eliminating 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition, and then says, we need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people.
Now, stop it.
If you are Vladimir Putin and you hear the leader of the United States equate disarmament with safety, you have got to be rubbing your hands together so fast that you can't believe your good luck.
You are up against an adversary who thinks that safety is you disarming.
Let me put it a different way.
You're Putin, you're watching Obama, and you're up against a guy, Obama, who believes his safety is related to him getting rid of his military.
Goes over there and doubles down on Ukrainian weakness, disarmament, and then claims Ukraine is safer.
If you're Putin, what are you going to do?
This is absolute lunacy.
This is a world governed by the aggressive use of force, not doctors, nurses, and clean water.
It's not governed by bipartisanship and UN resolutions and all that happy horse manure.
This is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
And Obama is celebrating he's just made Ukraine stronger and safer by completely disarming it.
Forget Putin's view.
What does that tell you about Obama?
And then this little statement, we need to eliminate these stockpiles in Ukraine for the safety of the Ukrainian people.
What are they going to shoot themselves by keeping these stockpiles and the Ukrainians out of conflicts around the world?
So yes, the Ukrainians were who Obama thought might begin a worldwide march toward domination.
So I had to disarm them, take every means of defense away from them after promising them they wouldn't need it.
And this happens.
And I wanted to go through this all again because you are not being told this if your only source of news is the drive-bys.
You are not being told any of this.
Back after this.
Okay, I'm going to get to the IRS business.
I know that's big.
It's important, but I want to get some phone calls in here in the first hour.
I haven't done that all week, and I feel an obligation.
So we'll start with Mike in Newport, Ritchie, Florida.
Welcome, sir.
Glad that you called.
Thank you, Rush.
Hello.
Russ, this idea about putting in federal monitors and radio stations bothers me a lot about when I first heard about it.
What about the theft of intellectual property?
You know, Peter Drucker said years ago that the most important thing you have in your company is your marketing innovation.
That's what brings the customers in, and the federal government are going to put people in there to basically steal your intellectual property to give to competitors.
Well, either that or intimidate you into shaping what you do and do not report.
Either way, they don't have the constitutional authority to do it.
The press has its own clause in the First Amendment.
It's called the freedom of the press.
Freedom should not be abridged.
They've got their own clause.
And that is just an abject, direct violation.
And nobody, this is important to remind you, nobody in what we call the mainstream media objected to this at all.
There was no outrage over this at all.
Now, there would have been had a Republican proposed this.
However, that would have never happened.
This would never occur to a conservative.
This would never occur to Republicans to put government monitors in newsrooms to do a study on what's covered and what isn't and why, and then to provide intimidation.
Nor would they think of putting people in there to steal what these people are doing, to give to minority broadcasters so they get a leg up competitively.
It wouldn't occur to conservatives to do this.
But it is just like turning on a tap water for Democrats to think of it.
And there wasn't one bit of opposition to it in the drive-bys.
It was stunning.
Linda in Lake City, Michigan.
Glad you called.
You're up next.
Hello.
Hello, Mr. Limbaugh.
Quite a treat.
Well, well, thanks.
I was just thinking and wondering about this terminology that you use for the rest of the world watching what President Obama does, or as you affectionately call him Barack Hussein Obama, just to, you know, reinforce that imaginary Muslim thing.
No, that's not me.
I mean, little kids were singing songs to President Obama and his first year.
Barack Hussein Obama.
Don't you remember?
Well, I think it's you, too.
I think maybe you do it for a different reason.
When was the last time I mentioned Hussein?
Did I just say Hussein in Obama?
No, you just did about five minutes ago.
It is his name.
Why is it my problem what his name is?
Well, because, I mean, when they used to call Dan Quayle Dan Forth Quayle, the conservatives were saying that, you know, they were making fun of him, that they were engaging in impression.
This is a dangerous thing, you're kind of an uppity-rich guy, Dan.
You're engaging in projection.
You are assuming to know what I'm thinking when I pronounce Barack Hussein Obama.
Hussein.
Well, like I say, it seems to me anyway that you're just feeding into this imaginary thing that people, that some conservatives out there.
I'm not even thinking about it.
It's all in your mind.
It's in your mind that he's a Muslim, not mine.
No, I don't even think he's a Muslim.
I think you're putting it out there every time you say that.
Barack Hussein Obama.
Is his middle name not Hussein?
Say it again, sir.
Is his middle name not Hussein?
Yeah, it is.
Oh, yeah, does he still have a brother living in a hut?
I don't know.
He does.
I don't know.
What's your middle name?
Hudson.
I don't call you Rush George Limbaugh.
No, but if you wanted to pronounce my name, it'd be Rush Hudson Limbaugh III.
Oh, Hudson.
Very nice.
But I just think that, you know, I have a kind of a conservative co-worker, and we talk politics every so often.
Know one.
You actually know a conservative?
Yes, I do.
I mean, I have conservative friends.
That's not my measuring stick for whether uh, a person is a fine person or a good neighbor or anything like that.
What is wrong with you have a?
What is wrong?
What is wrong with Hussein as a name, by the way?
I mean I, I don't even get well uh, like I say, the way I believe you're using it is to imply that the president is this closet Muslim.
No, i'm not.
I I I uh, even if I thought that I wouldn't go there.
My point with this picture Linda, was to point out media hypocrisy.
I mean, Bush reads to kids.
All presidents do.
Bush did it on 9-11 and the media tagged him immediately as an idiot deer in the headlight eyes, doesn't know what he's doing vacant stupid, idiotic cowboy.
And here's Obama reading to the kids while Ukraine's violating all kinds of agreements Obama signed and there's not a ripple from the drive-by.
That's all I was pointing out with that.
And as far as the name Hussein is concerned, I don't know what I can do if his I'll ask him to change.
Yeah, McCain, McCain fired Bill Cunningham, who was introducing him at rallies.
Cunningham introduced him, pronouncing Barack Hussein Obama.
I'm not going to have that kind of bigotry in my campaign.
He's gone.
Get rid of him.
They're not going to have that.
It was absurd, folks.
▲
Export Selection