All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 26, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:08
February 26, 2015, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, so I just checked my email during the break, and I guess this is not that big a deal, folks.
I I admit a number of people who clearly to me sounded like they're ammunition experts.
They say, Rush, it's not 5.56, that story is wrong, it's 2.23, and we're talking about stuff that kills deer and elk and moose.
American sniper used about the dot 308 that kills moose.
Don't worry about it, Rush, they can't get it all.
I'm I'm I'm stunned.
I thought I had a major, major story here today.
Obama by executive order wants to start banning ammunition.
And I got first caller, don't worry, Rush, they can't get it all.
And uh I know anybody can send me an email and say anything.
It's it's it's unless you know the person, it's impossible to verify the contents of an email, even the sender.
So it could be a bunch of leftists just playing with me access to the uh public email account.
That's entirely possible.
But you should just know I mean a bunch of supposed ammo experts.
Don't worry, Rush, they can't get it all.
No way they can get it all.
The fact that they are even trying.
I thought this would have people on DEF CON 5 today.
Maybe I'm misreading this.
Maybe no big deal.
Okay, don't worry about the ban on ammo, folks, because they can't get it all.
Yeah, but I just tackle it that way and move on to something else.
Great to have you here, Rushlin bought 800 282-2882 in the email address.
L Rushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
Okay, the continuing agony, angst, and anxiety over the Department of Homeland Security funding bill and the House and the Senate.
National Journal has a story today that the Democrats are worried about an ambush that Mitch McConnell has has has really hoodwinked them and really, really tricked them out there.
And here is the thing in a nutshell.
The Democrats, clearly paranoid here, are afraid that if they pass a clean Department of Homeland Security bill in the Senate, which is what Dingy Harry is demanding, and what McConnell signaled that he's gonna do, I mean, McConnell yesterday announced that they're caving.
They're gonna pass a clean bill.
And remember that's when Harry Reid said, not good enough.
Not good enough.
Boehner has to do the same thing.
And we're not talking, and we're not voting, and we're not doing anything until Boehner comes back with the same thing.
And Boehner so far is holding firm, and he sounds like that he is ready to let the deadline go by tomorrow and certain elements of DHS shut down because the Democrats won't fund it.
He's he looks like he's ready to do that.
But there's still 24 hours left to cave.
And we have to remember who we're talking about here.
But it just adds to all of the anxiety on the Democrat side.
Now there's there's two reasons why the Democrats want a clean bill.
We discussed one of them yesterday is for future court rulings on this.
Courts love to uh cite the will of the people by virtue of congressional votes as a way of getting themselves out of the jam of having to decide a case.
So if both the House and the Senate pass a clean funding bill, in other words, underwrite the whole department all the way through the end of fiscal year, then the court can say, we got no case here.
I mean, if this is the will of Congress, then that's the will of Congress, and we're out of it.
That's that's one reason the Democrats want it.
But here's another.
They're paranoid.
Now, this is a case of projection.
The Democrats are paranoid because this is the kind of stuff they do, and therefore they are aware this kind of stuff could be done to them, except they are forgetting the Republicans don't do this kind of stuff.
What is this kind of stuff?
It's very simple.
Democrats are afraid that if they pass a clean DHS bill, that they won't be able to prevent the House from adding amendments.
They're scared to death of Boehner saying, okay, okay, send me your bill.
They're afraid to death that Boehner will quote unquote cave and ask for the Senate bill, which fully funds the department to be Sent back to the House because when that happens, the Republicans, members of Congress, can add amendments to it.
And once that begins, once amendments are added to the House version of the Senate bill, the Democrats can no longer filibuster.
That the adding of amendments makes it no longer a clean bill, and that means no filibuster is.
Well, see, it used to mean no filibuster.
The rules don't matter anymore.
Nobody's obeying the law.
Nobody's obeying the rules.
So I have to say, under all of this, under some advisement and with some acknowledgement that, well, they the law, the rules say they can't filibuster, but that's nothing stopping them from doing it.
But that is the rule.
Once amendments begin being added to the House bill, the Democrats can no longer filibuster.
So all it would take for an amended bill to pass the Senate would be 51 votes, not 60.
So the Democrats are afraid that McConnell's cave and clean bill get set up to Boehner, and then the House Republicans add the amendments to it that defundama's executive action.
That bill would then have to be sent back to the Senate, because the Senate would have to also agree with what the House did to the bill in changing and amending it.
But that bill couldn't filibuster when it came back, and therefore they wouldn't need 60 votes to pass it.
They only need 51.
Now that that brilliant political maneuvering, and the Democrats are deftly afraid that that's what McConnell has set up.
And I think it's just a case of projection.
This is the kind of stuff the Democrats do, and that's why they're worried about it being turned around and used against them.
But we have to ask ourselves, would Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, play that kind of hardball.
Then there are no evidence of it, but we don't really know.
This is a story in the National Journal, and here's a little pull quote from it.
Asked about worries over extraneous amendments Wednesday.
Dingy Harry told reporters, Senator McConnell wouldn't do that.
We're beyond that now.
And the sad fact is that Dingy Harry's assessment is probably correct.
You know, in the in the past we had yellow dog Democrats and blue dog Democrats, and now we just got whipdog Republicans.
And while it is a beautiful plan, it'd be oh, wouldn't this be delectable?
Trick them into signing this, uh passing this uh clean bill and then send it to the House where the amendments are added that defund Obama's executive amnesty and then send it back to the Senate where it only would take 51 votes, which the Republicans have.
Oh, that would be so juicy, so juicy.
We just don't have any recent evidence of the Republicans operating that way.
And clearly Dingy Harry is not worried.
He said, Senator McConnell wouldn't do that.
We're beyond that now.
And then the Washington Post, they're all happy there cheering about this.
The Senate voted Wednesday to move ahead with the bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security after Democrat leaders dropped an earlier pledge to block it, unless they get assurances from House Republican leaders that it would pass their chamber.
98-2 was the final vote.
The only dissenters, Republican Senators James Inhoff and Jeff Sessions.
When I see this, I say, why why even bother with elections?
We got a two-party system here, seems to be about as honest as the WWE.
98 to 2.
98 to 2, and the Republicans run the place.
And it's 98 to 2.
Now this is just a procedural vote.
It's important to keep that in mind.
The bill advanced on a procedural Vote by a 98 to 2 margin.
But it would be funny.
It would be funny if McConnell changed the cloture rules and removed the filibuster option for the bill.
He could do that by sending it up to Boehner and letting the House amend it.
I raised a question earlier.
I knew I had seen this.
Cookie gave me the soundbite.
Obama did his uh his his town hall on MSNBC last night, town hall with the president, moderated by Jose Diaz Bayart from Floride.
And Jose asked questions of Obama, and one of them was, you know, some people are wondering why you're focusing mostly on the undocumented population.
And through executive orders.
Could you not also include those that are here that are participating already, like folks that came from Haiti after the horrible earthquake you hit five years ago?
Are you focused at all on that?
Can't you include them?
Why are you only doing five?
The question here really is why are you only talking about amnesty for four and a half or five million when there are 20 million illegals here?
Why not do them all?
And here's what Obama said.
What we're now proposing in terms of expanding DACA and also for the parents of those who qualified for DACA.
The reason I'm confident is that we could take those steps under my powers of prosecutorial discretion.
If in fact we were completely just rewriting the immigration laws, then actually the other side would have a case because we can't violate statutes.
We can't violate laws that are already in place.
What we can do is make choices to implement those laws.
You know, I went to dinner.
Stop the tape.
I w I went to dinner last night with some friends.
They hadn't seen in a long time.
So hadn't discussed uh the show with them in a long time.
And uh they actually they say, you know, you sound better than ever.
You sound more up to it, ready to go.
You just sounded at the top of your game, weren't you?
I said, you you all say that to me every year.
And they rejoined it by saying, Yeah, and I remember you telling us in 1995, you said you'd said it all, there was nothing left to say, and you thought it was on a downhill.
I said, I was joking.
But I told him, you know what, Bob, I said the show's never been harder to do.
It has never been more challenging.
It's never this show has never been more stressful.
And there are a whole lot of reasons for that.
I don't think you're probably not interested.
It's inside baseball stuff.
But one of it, I just sit here get insulted every day.
You realize how hard it is to sit here and have your intelligence.
This this soundbite with the presidency, he does he can't hear and change statutes.
Lying through his teeth, just like Clinton did.
He's saying, Yeah, well, the reason I'm confident we can take these steps, uh, if we were just rewriting immigration law, because we can't.
We can't violate statutes.
That's exactly what he's doing.
He's hiding behind this whole thing of prosecutorial discretion.
That is such a fraudulent construct, folks.
And it is, it's exactly what it implies.
He is assuming that he's the prosecutor here, and he has the authority to tell everybody what to enforce and what not to enforce.
He's not changing the law, his contention.
He's just telling ICE not to enforce it.
Don't deport anybody, which we're not anyway.
He is granting amnesty.
He's doing it in a skewed and roundabout way that allows him to say, I'm not granting amnesty to anybody.
I'm just using my prosecutorial discretion, and I have instructed the relevant agencies not to prosecute the crime.
You could say he's acting in a way as to forgive the commission of the crime, or he's telling his uh law enforcement agencies that are relevant here to ignore the crime when they see it.
But he says, I'm not changing any statute.
And it is nothing it it's a it's a fine point, and depending on what judge you ran the argument by.
You'll have people claiming that he's exactly right, and he's totally within his bounds to do this.
But prosecutorial discretion is not at all what we're talking about here.
It's it's a way Obama and the left is Hiding behind what they're really doing.
They are rewriting the statutes.
They are ignoring the statutes.
He is taking executive action.
And he's also claiming that he has the authority to tell law enforcement all over this country which laws to ignore and which ones to enforce, because he has that discretionary power.
And all the while, he is not rewriting statute.
This is so far beyond prosecutorial discretion.
You know, prosecutorial discretion.
The right way to understand it is it is used by prosecutors when you have a defendant or a group of defendants, and they are charged with all kinds of crazy things.
So many charges that you wouldn't possibly go to court with all of them, you wouldn't have the time, the money.
So you throw out some of the lesser things they've been charged with, and you go with the big stuff.
That's basically a very simplified, and I know this because my dad was a lawyer, prosecutorial discretion.
It's a little bit more complicated than that.
But is essentially that's what it is.
Prosecutors, states attorneys, DAs, U.S. attorneys can determine which charges, but it's never used to let somebody go scot-free.
Well, I shouldn't say never.
It's like any other concept in law.
It can be and often is abused and overused, and this is one of the classic examples.
But no matter whether you're talking about prosecutorial discretion here or in dwindling down the number of charges a defendant faces in court, prosecutors cannot rewrite our law.
And Obama's claiming to be the prosecutor here when he cites prosecutorial discretion.
They can't rewrite the law.
When Obama gives work permits and social security numbers to illegals, he is rewriting the law, folks.
There is no prosecutorial discretion going on here.
He's just saying that.
So that Doomkoff analysts in the media will tell you it's perfectly fine, perfectly legal, it happens all the time.
You cannot rewrite the law.
Nobody can.
That's Congress and Congress alone.
And Obama's not a prosecutor.
He's head of the executive branch of the government.
He took an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, and he'd blown through that oath too many times now to even keep an accurate count.
Okay, three more sound bites than to the phones.
This one.
This one has been news all day.
You may not have heard it yet.
Also from the Obamatown Hall last night with Jose Diaz Bayart of Florida.
What are the consequences, Mr. President?
How do you ensure that ICE agents or border patrol will not be deporting people anymore?
I mean, you're issuing orders not to send people back.
How do you ensure that they will follow your demand?
How you making sure that government agents will follow through on your commands?
I mean, what are the consequences if they don't do what you command them to do?
If somebody's working for ICE and there is a policy and they don't follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it.
So I can't speak to a specific problem.
What I can talk about is what's true in the government generally.
Right.
Now, there will be consequences for ICE officers who do not obey his illegal executive order.
There will be consequences.
But there will not be consequences for the millions of illegals who have violated the law for years and entered the country.
No, no, no.
We're going to ignore that.
Prosecutorial discretion.
We're gonna just choose to ignore the law.
So if an ICE agent actually now enforces U.S. law In doing so, defying the president's order to break the law, because that's what Obama's demanding they do.
He's demanding they break the law like he is.
If they don't follow through on his demand to violate the law, there will be consequences.
The ICE agents.
Yeah.
We're gonna get a man if they don't follow orders.
We're gonna get them.
We're gonna get it.
Who who is it now the enemy?
What does it look like to you?
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, Rush Limba.
Just a couple of more sound bites here.
Let's see, it's uh three more, I think.
And then back to the phones.
Uh this again from the town hall last night on MS NBC, a temporary lifting of the ban on MSNBC audio in this program.
This was a uh question and a answer with the audience.
U.S. Army veteran Eric Narvez.
I put in a lot of time and I love this country, Mr. President.
I just feel like if it wasn't for my mother signing those papers, I wouldn't have been able to join this great American army.
So I want to ask you if there's any way that situation could be handled a little better.
I'm confident that your mother qualifies under the executive action program that I've put forward.
Right now, the judge has blocked us initiating the program where she can come and sign up and get registered.
But in the meantime, part of the message that I'm sending is if you qualified for the executive action that I put forward, then we're still going to make sure that your mom is not prioritized in terms of enforcement.
Uh and you know, she should feel confident about that.
Let me translate that for you.
What the president said was tell your mom not to worry, because I'm going to ignore this court.
I'm just gonna do this.
I'm just this this judge has temporarily stopped me, but he hasn't really stopped me.
We're gonna do everything that we can do under the terms of say we're gonna sign people up like your mom, we're gonna make it so that when the judge, when we beat this back in court somehow, or if we don't beat it back and I just have to continue to ignore the law, it's gonna happen.
Don't sweat it, is what this meant.
I will ignore the judge's order.
I'm not gonna deport anybody who qualifies for my executive action under my prerogatives of prosecutorial discretion.
I I I me me, mine mine, mine.
I'm king.
Whatever I want to do is what's gonna happen here.
And whenever I want to do it is when it's gonna happen.
I don't care what anybody else says.
And then he dared the Republicans to stop him.
Next question came from the moderator, Jose Diaz Bayart.
He said, Senator McConnell on Tuesday broke the impasse, and he wants to vote to fund DHS all the way through September, and then separately vote to strip funding for your executive action on immigration.
It seems that the Democrats are on board in the Senate, 48 hours from the deadline.
Democrats seem to be on board.
You're waiting on a judge.
Is that enough?
If Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, uh, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, uh, want to have a vote on whether what I'm doing is legal or not, they can have that vote.
I will veto that vote, and because I'm absolutely confident that what we're doing is the right thing to do.
I will veto that vote.
They can do whatever they want.
They can they can vote on that will veto it.
Because I'm absolutely confident that we're gonna do the right thing.
What he's absolutely confident of is that nobody is ultimately going to stop him.
So all of this is just busybody time wasting as far as he's concerned.
Because when it's all over with, however it's voted on, he's gonna do what he's gonna do anyway, because he has the authority.
And you know why he's got the authority?
Because he has the moral authority.
Because he's doing this, he has the moral prerogative on this, because this country has been founded in an immoral way, and it's been founded in an unjust way, and all Obama is doing is fixing and and and repairing all of these insults to all of these minorities for all of these 200 plus years.
That's all this is.
I'm apologizing in essence.
You won this country that was originally yours in the first place, where you were here and kicked out and not given anything for it.
Come on back in.
You have the right to come here because it was yours in the first place.
We were mean, we were extremist, and we were untrustworthy when we kicked you out and took over your country in the first place, so come on back.
That's essentially in short order what is happening.
One more, just one more bite because it flows, and then back to the phones.
One more question from Jose Diaz Bayart.
He said to Obama, I am thrilled that we are talking about the political theme, Mr. President, because one of the principal contenders for the 2016 election is the ex-governor of this state, Jeb Bush.
And last week, Jeb Bush said that you have exceeded your authority, and as a consequence, have affected the chance to find a solution to the immigration problem.
And that the affected families deserve something better than all of this.
Without caring who occupies the presidency after 2016, what is your principal worry regarding what you're not going to be able to achieve in immigration?
What would your message be for the next person who occupies the White House?
Do you realize how convoluted and crazy that question is?
First place he states Bush and Bush did pretty much say what is attributed here.
Bush wants the same thing.
He just wants Congress involved.
He wants it done legislatively.
He doesn't like that Obama's just doing this with a stroke of his pen.
But they want the same thing.
Then Joseph Diasbyart said, without caring who occupies the presidency after the 2016, without caring, Obama is obsessed with who the next president's going to be.
And do not think otherwise.
He's going to hang around town.
Obama is going to be right if the next president, I don't care who, I don't care what party.
Anything the next president does that tries to unravel anything Obama has done, he's going to be popping up like Jack in the Box.
He's going to have his media buddies with him, and they're going to excoriate the next president.
That will also be unprecedented, but make no mistake and do not doubt me.
That will happen.
So this question, without caring who occupies the presidency after the next election, he does care.
So, Mr. President, even though you don't care who the next president's going to be, what is your principal worry regarding what you're not going to be able to get done before you leave?
What would your message be for the next person who occupies the White House in regards to whatever you get done here and whatever you don't get done that you want to get done?
I appreciate Mr. Bush being concerned about immigration reform.
I would suggest that what he do is talk to the Speaker of the House and the members of his party.
Because the fact of the matter is that even after we passed bipartisan legislation in the Senate, I gave the Republicans a year and a half.
A year and a half to just call the bill.
We had the votes.
They wouldn't do it.
Now, over the long term, this is going to get solved.
Because at some point there's going to be a President Rodriguez, or there's going to be a President Chin, or there's going to be a country is a nation of immigrants.
And ultimately it will reflect who we are, and its politics will reflect who we are.
Yeah, what about a President Cruz?
What about a President Rubio?
What the hell is this?
We could have a President Cruz or Rubio right now without letting a bunch of illegals in.
What the hell is see, folks, if you do if you have doubted me about this man's motivations, this ought to have explained it to you.
He is bitter about this.
He thinks the founding fathers were a bunch of extremist radicals running around with guns they shouldn't have had in the first place.
They're a bunch of racists and sexists and bigots.
And they were from an elite white majority, and all they did was build a system that protected and perpetuated themselves and their families and so forth, and the hell with everybody else.
He's got this godlike reverb going again here in his in his remarks.
They've never had the votes on immigration reform.
They have never had the votes on immigration reform in the House.
They've never, if they've had the votes, it'd have been done by now.
They've never had the votes for immigration reform in the House.
Oh, you tell Joe Bush, you go tell the Republican.
You have to go talk speaker base.
Did you hear how that alone got applause?
This audience is so stacked.
Just mention Republicans getting shellacked in this audience.
Yeah, right.
That's all they care about.
Think about that as much as they do the substance of whatever is being discussed here.
Over the long term, this is going to get solved because at some point there's going to be a President Rodriguez or President Chin.
Well, what wait a second, though.
Hey, so a white president is illegitimate.
A white president, a president Smith, a President Clinton.
That is evidence alone this country is unjust and biased.
We're not gonna be really good people and qualify to as a President Rodriguez or a President Chit, which there could be now.
Nobody's stopping anybody named Rodriguez from being president.
And there are plenty of Rodriguez's here.
And we've got a cruise, and we've got a Rubio.
This is a kind of this is the kind of stuff I mean, insulting my intelligence.
This stuff really just ticks me off.
And grab a quick call, because I promised it's gonna be Dan in Ottawa Lake Michigan.
I really appreciate your waiting, and welcome to the program, sir.
Thanks, Rush.
I wanted to clarify the point on the M 855.
I'm I'm a firearms manufacturer myself, and since I've been on hold, I've received ten emails, text messages saying I heard on Russia's show that the ATF's banning the ammunition for the AR-15.
So the M eighty five is a steel core and steel core-led projectile for the 556 that's been available to civilians since the 1970s.
Now that being said, the ATF is wanting to put a ban on the sale of that to citizens, which is wrong.
Now, your last caller that called in and said this isn't gonna happen.
God has his hand on America.
I'm not gonna mock God because I do believe God has his hand on America, but I will say that they did it last year.
The ATF banned the importation of a Russian steel core round, very similar to the 22356.
It's a 5.45 by 39.
And you can no longer get steel core ammunition in that caliber.
And it was an affordable round that shooters could get for 17 cents a shot.
So for a rifle round, it was extremely practical for sportsmen to shoot that round.
It was used by many sportsmen.
You mean rednecks?
No, I mean shooters and American sportsmen.
I know.
I'm just I'm playful here.
I just uh here's here's what I have.
Just just I don't know enough about the MO.
I don't even know what any of this is.
So I'm just reading what I've got here to the Washington Examiner.
It's by Paul Bedard, B E D A R D. Used to be at the Washington Times.
As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15-style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.
The you know, BATF this month revealed that it is putting the ban on 5.56 Mmo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company like Cabela's to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.
So that's what I reported because that's all I've got.
I don't know about 223.
Uh I don't know about Steel Core, any of that stuff.
All I know is they're coming for bullets.
They're making no bones about it.
They know they can't get rid of guns, but they know how to make them obsolete, and that's eliminate bullets.
And I think like you see anybody who thinks this isn't serious because they can't really do it.
There are too many bullets or too many people that'll fire back.
They still haven't figured out who these people are yet, then.
Do you doubt they mean this?
I don't doubt they mean it.
I think everyone needs to be vigilant and they need to research the topic and they need to go to the NRA, they need to talk to individuals and professionally reach out to their elected officials.
I even wrote the vice president of the BATF yesterday.
And I said very professionally, and you have to be professional when you approach this, because right now it's still in discussions.
They haven't done it yet.
So mid-March is the time frame when they're if they are going to enact this, it's going to be mid-March.
So people need to be diligent and get out there and have their voice be heard.
Amen.
They did that in November.
In the best way they know how.
They voted.
And they've been calling Congress to the point that phone blinds are melted.
And there doesn't seem to be anybody listening.
And they're really, really frustrated.
Most of them don't know what else they can do besides vote.
Maybe send an email, maybe make a phone call.
But every day we wake up, and this bunch is taking over something else or taking something away.
If you know who these people are, you know they're the rant and a ray about gun control.
That's all I've been ranting and raving about my whole life.
They want this second to their desire to get national health care.
He's ordering the BATF to begin the implementation of a ban on, I guess, one kind of ammunition.
It's not that's just the beginning.
We're only into the second month here, folks, of the last two years.
And we stick with the phones.
Here's uh here's Stephen Jefferson, Wisconsin.
Great to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, wise man once said, I hope he fails.
Well, Barack Hussein Obama has not failed.
He is destroying America.
Rush, the question I got is our coward Republican Congressmen, are they going to ruin the chance for a good man like Walker to get in there?
Um people are going to be just frustrated and mad again this year and not I mean in 16 and not show up to the booth again to vote.
Nah, yeah, that that's it, that's a good thought, and I've I've I think that your your um your concern is justified, but I think the if if if Walker gets the nomination, I I think he's gonna the candidate will largely determine the turnout.
Not not what Congress.
The candidate, believe me, in a presidential year, the candidate is going to determine the turnout.
Well, they just, you know, it's so frustrating what they do up there, and you know, and we're trying to tell them and trying to tell them in 10 in 2010.
We put a bunch of firecrackers in there and really got everything going, you know, and then you get the old Rusty Crusty ones that shoot them down.
I mean, it's just it's so frustrating being a conservative.
Yeah, it is.
Um I I've uh I know what you mean.
But the the right can't.
This is this is why Walker to me.
We've got a bunch of really good opportunities here.
Good cruise is fearless and will take it to anybody.
Walker has done it.
I Walker, I I still don't uh understand.
Well, I don't have time to get into this in detail again here.
Walker has embodied everything that needs to be done to beat these people.
He's done it.
And he's after after beating them in elections, he beat them implementing his policies and caused great things to happen in his state by beating the left.
And it's the Republican Party barely notices this.
But there's well, I've I've got a time problem.
I'm debating whether or not to divulge some things that I know instinctively know, not that I've recently learned.
I'll think about it during the break here.
It's just one of these days.
I don't know where the time is going.
We we've just zoomed through two busy broadcast hours, and we have a third one upcoming, and we'll get to it just as loaded as any busy broadcast hour has been.
▲
Export Selection