All Episodes
Previous Next
May 27, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
May 27, 2016, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
As a bonus, as I intended to get the phone calls in the first, I always try on Open Line Friday.
I didn't do it.
It says a bonus, we're going to get the phone calls in the monologue segment of this hour, ladies and gentlemen.
Yes, siri, whatever you want to talk about, and I mean that does not have to be the campaign, it doesn't have to be anything related to the campaign, whatever.
Open line Friday, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, El Rushbo at EIBnet.com.
Just to clarify some things, Hiroshima, I talked about civilian deaths, and there were countless, but 400,000.
Nagasaki was an even bigger bomb.
Have you ever asked yourself, why is it only Hiroshima?
We go apologize for it.
Nagasaki came a short while later, and Nagasaki was a bigger bomb.
And there were just as many, if not more, deaths in Nagasaki.
Why is it always Hiroshima?
Just a little trivia question.
Hiroshima was a military target.
It was the home of the Japanese Second Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan, which is where we were going to invade.
It was also Hiroshima was a major communications center, a major storage area, and the assembly point for troops disembarking.
So it was a very high-value military target as well.
And that we were prepared to invade.
And it was well known, it was well, it was forecast by American military people that such an invasion by air, by sea, would result in an unspeakable number of American deaths.
And it was not assured that we would emerge victorious from it.
That's when Truman said to hell with that.
And he really did talk, he said to hell with that, and made the decision to drop the two bombs.
So it was as much as anything to destroy military targets, storage areas, staging areas, command centers, command and control centers.
It was also to protect the lives of American military personnel.
We only had two bombs.
And after the first bomb at Hiroshima, the Japanese did not surrender.
Nagasaki came a short time later, precisely because the Japanese did not surrender after Hiroshima.
If Nagasaki had not convinced them, we would have had to invade.
And as it was, the Japanese military did not want to surrender.
The emperor decided that it made no sense not to.
And of course, they surrendered.
And when you surrender, you know, to the victor, go the spoils.
We dictated, we dictated terms.
Japanese military post-war, could it be or could it not be?
I mean, it was today, there is guilt in victory.
There is an attempt at humility in victory.
And even when we win, we're not supposed to act like it.
And even when we win, we're supposed to regret that it had to happen.
And even when we win, we're supposed to promise never to do it again.
Even when we win, we are to feel like we have been the ones who have done wrong.
That's the difference among many others in then and now.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that to many in this country, the American left per se, the whole concept of a victorious America is the problem.
The whole idea of America winning, particularly in a military conflict or economic or what have you, is bad.
Because we've won more than our share.
It's not fair.
Isn't fair.
The other side hadn't had a chance.
Nobody could have competed against it.
This wasn't fair.
It wasn't fair.
We deserve to lose.
We deserve to get beat over and over again to make up for all of the victory that we had.
Way back when.
Can I give you an illustration of the modern incarnation of this?
I'll take Gulf War I. What was that?
A two-day, three-day victory?
Five-day victory, whatever, less than a week.
This was when the Republican Guard, the elite troops of Saddam Hussein, were on the march back to Baghdad from Kuwait.
And what did General Powell say?
Told Bush, don't do it.
Do not bomb them.
That's not in the resolution.
The resolution simply says that you'll get Iran out of Kuwait.
It doesn't authorize you to start killing people after this.
Don't do it.
So we didn't.
Sirvat Saddam lived to fight another day.
But in addition to that, remember General Schwartzkopf?
I doubt that very many people remember this.
And this is not meant as a cut, not meant as a slam at General Schwarzkopf.
I'm just illustrating what I just said to you.
General Schwartzkopf and his aides were preparing to humve over to the surrender ceremony, where agents of Saddam Hussein would sign the surrender.
And do you know what Schwartzkopf said to his staff?
I don't want any bragging.
I don't want any attitude.
I don't want anybody looking down at him.
I don't want anything but utter respect at this ceremony.
Now, that's not to say that a surrender ceremony, we ought to go over there and go, yin, yin, yin, yin, yin, yin.
I'm just talking about attitudinal shifts, how they've happened and why, to the point now that America victorious is America guilty.
That America victorious is not the way it should be, that a victorious America represents the problem in the world.
You know, the Democrat Party today, compared to the Democrat Party when I was growing up, there isn't any.
There isn't any comparison.
I'm still stunned at how seemingly overnight has been the move of the Democrat Party to total radical socialism.
Anyway, I said we're going to get calls into this segment.
Let me start because I intended to in the first hour.
People have been patiently waiting, and I really do appreciate that.
We'll start with Joe in Bel Air, Ohio.
Joe, thank you so much.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Thank you, Russia.
I appreciate you taking my call.
You bet.
The point I wanted to bring up was kind of why Trump is having this agreement for a debate with Bernie Sanders.
And I believe it goes to the fact that he might be able to pick off some of the disenfranchised liberals that supported Bernie just by simply acknowledging his existence.
And I think that scares the Democrat Party.
I think they're worried that he's going to be seen as somebody who bridged the gap between the disenfranchised, and he might pick off some of those voters.
Let me ask you about that, because I think you have a point.
I think that's true.
I think Trump would make a pitch for him.
Trump has been.
In many of these open primaries, Trump has been obviously courting Democrat crossover votes.
So the debate with Crazy Bernie, let's assume in that debate that Trump behaves in such a way as to make himself acceptable to somebody who's really excited to vote for Bernie Sanders.
Now, that's not us, Joe.
A Bernie Sanders voter is not anywhere near us.
What if Trump did that in the debate?
Are you a Trump supporter?
I'm absolutely.
I'm definitely supporting Trump.
Okay, what if he does that?
What if he does exactly what you think and makes an open, obvious pitch to Bernie voters to join him?
Is it going to upset you?
Is going to worry you?
Going to concern you?
No, it's not going to concern me.
I think it's just going to show that, you know, the establishment doesn't necessarily have the foothold that they once thought they had.
And I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I don't know.
Well, yeah, but look, there's two establishments.
And the conservative movement's not part of the establishment.
I take that back.
There are some conservatives who are in the establishment, but I'm not.
I'm not in the establishment, and I'm conservative.
And I'll tell you this, in a debate, if this thing happens with Trump and crazy Bernie.
And by the way, it is brilliant.
It's brilliant on a whole bunch of levels, and I've already explained why.
But I would prefer Trump make a pitch For conservatives that are not eager for his candidacy before he goes out and tries to pick off crazy Bernie voters?
I think there are a lot of Ted Cruz people who don't know what to do right now.
A lot of Ted Cruz people may be thinking of sitting it out.
Trump is a Republican, after all.
He is supposed to be much closer to your average conservative voter than a Bernie Sanders voter.
And I know that there are a lot of people that are working hard to, what's the word, influence, to guide Trump in conservatism?
But it's clear he wants these Bernie voters.
It's clear that he's he'd like to get them.
I think part of that, I do think this is a Trump political strategy.
I do think part of that is decimating and weakening the Democrat Party by picking off a bunch of them.
But it's the old saw, folks.
It's no different than the Republicans signing on for amnesty.
Okay, if we want to get Democrats' votes, do we want to get Democrats' votes?
Do you want Democrats to become Republicans and stay Democrats after they vote for us?
Or do we want to become people that are able to attract Democrats and convert them to Republicans as they move to us?
And that's the question here.
If you look at the Republicans in Congress signing on to amnesty, for example, they're doing it because we need the Hispanic vote, Mr. Limbaugh.
We can't win the White House ever again without the Hispanic.
By the way, has that not been blown through the roof now?
That whole belief, the Republican establishment, we can't win the White House without Hispanic votes.
And now everybody's acknowledging that Trump can indeed win the White House, and nobody's saying he's doing it by getting Hispanic votes.
And nobody's saying he's doing it by signing on to amnesty.
Everything the Republican establishment said they had to do to win the White House being shown not necessary.
But to stick to my argument, the Republican establishment said over and over again, we've got to support amnesty comprehensive immigration reform because we need Hispanic votes, which means we need Democrat Hispanic votes.
Okay, fine.
Do you want those Democrat Hispanic votes to become Republicans?
Is that how you want to grow the party?
Or do you want to grow the party by watering down what you stand for so that it is open to people that don't agree with you?
And that would be the question people would have about your theory that Trump is going to go use the debate with Crazy Bernie as a means of picking off crazy Bernie supporters.
How's he going to do it?
The way he's going to do it is to convince them, hey, look, you know what?
Your guy, Crazy Bernie, is a great guy, and he's getting shafted, and he can't win, but I can.
And he's going to make them think that he's one of them.
So we'll see how that plays out.
I really think it's, as I say, smart on a bunch of levels.
It marginalizes Hillary and puts her over here in the used heap, the unnecessary heap, the irrelevant who?
Hillary?
No, I'm debating crazy Bernie.
Crazy Bernie never has had national exposure.
Crazy Bernie goes out there, and if he just be just is who he is, it would unmask the Democrat Party like it's never been unmasked.
The Democrats camouflage, lie, and hide behind all kinds of camouflage and cover to keep people from knowing what they really believe.
Bernie doesn't.
That's why I think the Democrats, like Joe Manchin and some of the others, are all worked up about.
They're saying he shouldn't do it because it's disrespectful for Mrs. Clinton, but that's not why they're really worried about it.
They're worried about it because Crazy Bernie doesn't hide it.
Crazy Bernie doesn't try to cover it up.
Crazy Bernie does not try to hide what he believes and what he thinks the Democrat Party ought to be.
And every other Democrat does.
They have to.
They would never win if they were honest about the things they actually intend to do.
Okay, continuing to play off the possibility of a debate between Trump and Crazy Bernie, let me ask you a question.
Let's say Mitt Romney, what would you do if Mitt Romney decided he wanted to pick off Bernie Sanders voters by appealing to them?
What would you say if Jeb Bush did it?
So if Jeb Busha nominee, Jeb Bush out there, or Romney or Marco Rubio or anybody, Cruz, if any of them have gone out there and said, you know what?
I'm going to debate Bernie Sanders.
I'm going to make a play for his voters.
I'm going to, what would you call them?
Don't shake your heads in there.
Oh, you don't want him debating these guys?
That's not my question.
That's not my.
No, no, no, no, no.
I'm not suggesting that somebody can be the nominee.
Hypothetical question.
What happens?
Trump is being praised.
Trump is being here.
Look at Trump is brilliant.
He's going to go out and he's going to pick off Bernie voters.
He's going to bring Bernie voters into the Republican Party.
Wow.
Cool.
What if Ryan did it?
What if Jeb did it?
What would they be called?
Well, they'd be called worse than Rhinos.
They'd be called sellouts.
They would be, who knows what they would be called, but it would be way beyond rhino.
So why isn't Trump?
There is an answer to this.
Trump's right.
Okay, maybe see.
Trump's the outsider.
He's not establishment, but he is the Republican nominee.
He's Teflum.
Yeah, but he's still missing the point of my question.
Let me go back to the phones.
You ponder it.
You ponder it.
Here's Catherine, Dallas, Texas.
You're next on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Yes.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
Yes, ma'am.
I have a quandary.
I've been a part of the grassroots movement since early 2009 when I lived out in Colorado.
And I have a lot of hardcore conservative friends that I've been trying to get on board with going to Trump's side.
And it's proving to be extremely difficult.
I just posted an article on my Facebook page last night by Dennis Prager.
He wrote in the National Review on the 24th of his reasoning.
He gave nine very good reasons to vote for Trump.
And I posted that on my Facebook page, and it's just more of the same.
So I was hoping you could help me give me a strategy to start to try to convince these people that they're thinking is flawed.
Well, before I could help in this, I need to know what their objections are.
Their objections are he's the same as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
He's no different.
Trump's no different than Hillary?
Right.
Well, okay, what else?
Of course, they don't like him as a person.
He's crass.
He's rude.
He's obnoxious.
On and on and on.
I just told him to grow up, if that's the case.
There aren't any angels out there for crying out loud.
What a childish reason.
You know what?
That's a substitute for substantive opposition to the guy.
I mean, he mean.
He treats people rude.
Everybody does one time.
That's just a cop-out.
That means they don't have a substantive reason to oppose him.
Yeah, I agree with you.
I'm just astounded.
These are people I've been standing by since 2009.
Are they Tea Party types?
The Tea Party Conservative?
You said grassroots, so I'm assuming it's Tea Party.
Yes.
Yes.
Well, party people.
I'll tell you what the big problem there probably is.
Trump does not believe in limited government.
It's not in his universe, and that's why the Tea Party exists.
Tea Party exists to reduce the size of government, government spending.
And Trump's out there, I'm not going to cut Social Security.
I don't think we ought to.
I don't even think we ought to even talk about cutting Social Security.
My guess is that's one of the primary reasons they've got.
Amen.
A legend and a way of life.
Welcome back to Open Line Friday.
Rush Limbaugh here, and here's Quinn in Dublin, Texas.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
My right leg is tingling in total honor of you, sir.
I do want to say I think you are a kingmaker.
I'm pretty sure you're a kingmaker.
You talked about being on the golf course with Mr. Trump and what a wonderful, well, you said what a nice, good guy he is, and I'm sure he is.
And I think you guys got together and said, why don't we try it?
You listen to me, Donald, and I think I can get you there.
And then on your show, you kind of pushed him out there into the forefront, and you covered for him many times.
You covered and said, well, but this is what he meant, or this is the way it should be looked at.
And I think you have made a kink, sir.
Okay.
Well.
Well.
This is why I like Open Line Friday.
You know, it's like a box of chocolates.
In the first place, let's go back to the beginning.
I have played golf with Mr. Trump a few times, not a lot.
At no time did Mr. Trump ever express a desire or intention to seek any elective office.
It is only in retrospect, given what happened with his candidacy being announced in June, and then the primary went on.
And I thought back to those times we played golf and the things that we did talk about.
I did say right here on this program that I think Trump has been planning this for at least three years.
As I relive some of the conversations, he was asking me all kinds of what I thought of Obama, what I thought of tax policy, what I thought of, he talked even about people leaving New York, and he knew more and more people leaving New York and why did I think it was happening and why did I do it and why he never would, I mean, permanently, forever, and other things.
But I just thought nothing of it.
We're just playing golf.
I mean, I'm known for being interested in those things, and that's what he talked about.
We talked about other things, too.
I mean, the CEO of Macy's, who he has since thrown under the bus, was in the foresome ahead of us.
He's praising the guy to the hilt.
Said, you ever need a couple million advertising?
Call a guy.
He'll have it for you the next day.
Things like that.
He's praising his golf course, bragging about it being better than any other golf course anybody has anywhere.
Every golf course I've played with him.
So I'm just thinking back to those things, those times that made me think that he's actually been strategizing this for a long time, that this was not something done on a whim.
You never advised him.
What's that?
You never gave him.
No.
I have never advised him.
Well, not personally.
I have never.
I take it back.
There's one, when the McCain thing happened in the campaign last fall, I did get a call from Mr. Trump just to say hi.
And he asked, it was about a week after he had said that he doesn't like military people that get captured.
He'd prefer to support military people that don't get captured.
And he was talking about McCain.
And he asked me if I thought he should apologize.
I said, not now.
It's a week.
No, no, no.
That's it.
That's the only time.
Quinn, I'm not an advisor.
I'm not a confidante.
There are all kinds of other people who are, but I'm not.
Well, what about the radio?
What about all the, oh, I don't know, tweaks for him more than anyone, because you taught us how to listen, sir.
Why do you think I'm the one that taught him how to listen?
On what basis do you say that?
Don't misunderstand my tone.
I'm genuinely curious.
What in the world is happening makes you think that I'm the one who taught him how to listen?
I don't think that he does, by the way.
You taught us how to listen.
No, he needs to learn how to listen a little bit better.
But it just smells like it's got your touch.
It just feels like your touch is there.
And it's so great.
I'm very interested in how this is going.
Well, I had, did you hear yesterday's program?
Because I made a yesterday's program was all about how Trump's following his instinct.
And I do have a lot in my own mind.
I have a lot in common with him on that.
We've never talked about it.
We've never once talked about any of this performance stuff.
But in my own career, you know, I told him yesterday on the air, and last week, too, I said that now that he's won, for all intents and purposes, nomination, he's going to be under a lot of pressure from people within his own circle to change.
They're going to be on it.
You've got to act more presidential.
You've got to use the prompter more.
You've got to be more serious.
You've got to stop the assaults.
Whatever it is, he's going to be under immense pressure to stop being who he is.
And yesterday, I urged him to ignore all that and to continue to follow his instincts and not change a thing because who he is is why he's where he is.
And all I said yesterday was: I have withstood and I have undergone, experienced the same pressures or what have you in my own career and still do, in fact, to a limited degree, but always have.
So if you hear things like that, I mean, I'm no different than anybody else on the radio telling somebody what I think they should do, say, not say, but I don't have a personal relationship with him in that sense.
I have not given him any face-to-face or telephonic or Twitter or whatever advice.
I've done nothing beyond what you all hear me say on the radio here.
Whether he listens, I haven't the slightest idea.
I really don't know.
I will tell you this, Quinn.
I did admonish him for starting all of his public appearances when this program was on, and ever since then, they don't happen as much when this program's on.
No, they don't.
They don't, do they?
But I didn't.
Joking things like that.
But no, I'm arm's length.
I'm like, I have every candidate.
I can see your sweet face.
And somehow I just, somehow there's a connection.
I know there is in my heart.
But be that as it may, sir, if he's not listening to you, he darn sure ought to be.
Well, you're so sweet.
I appreciate that.
And I know exactly how you mean it, and I appreciate it very much.
You mean you're watching on the ditto cam right now?
Is that what you're you can see my sweet face?
Is that what that means?
I know what your picture looks like.
We haven't had television since 97, so I don't watch things like that.
Ah, I see.
Okay.
But you still have this mental image of my sweet face.
Yes, yes.
And I try to look at you once in a while, so I keep the image in mind.
Well, you are really a nice person as opposed to Katie Couric.
I just want you to know.
Thank you.
What a contrast.
And I appreciate your call.
I really do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll take a brief time out here, my friends, and be back right after this.
And back we are.
Rush Limbaugh on Open Line Friday.
Donald Trump's in Fresno, California.
He is doing an event as we speak.
And he's on another one of his roles.
You know, Trump is a circumstantial situational guy.
He is not an ideologue.
He's not, you know, he's out there making a speech today, and his ideology has nothing to do with what he's talking about.
He's reacting to circumstances that happened today.
The news feed, if you will.
He's responding to what's in the news today.
And he's talking about, he's reacting to somebody, because somebody said that he's actually close with the guy that runs North Korea.
So he's blowing that up.
And then somebody accused him, he said, of being close to Putin.
And he said, well, I can't really be mad.
Putin.
Putin said I'm a genius and going to lead the Republican Party.
I mean, that sounds a good start, right?
When we better get along with Russia than not get along with him.
Hell, at least he's a strong leader.
We don't have a strong.
Hell, we don't have a leader, right?
We didn't have a leader.
We didn't have a leader, period, right?
And the crowd's going nuts.
And it's pure situational, pure circumstantial.
That's why nobody can pin the guy down.
That's why nobody knows what he's going to do next because he doesn't know.
He's totally reacting to what's out there.
Again, it's something I can relate to.
It's, well, look, I'm going to stop other comparisons.
I'm going to go to the audio soundbites here.
This is Trump.
Got to hear this.
Yesterday afternoon in Bismarck, North Dakota, Trump had a press conference before he had his rally.
And during the QA, a reporter said, Elizabeth Warren, she seems to have made it her job, and Trump interrupted the reporter.
Who, Pocahontas?
Pocahontas.
Look, she is.
Is it offensive?
You tell me.
Oh, I'm sorry about that.
Pocahontas.
Is that what you said?
Elizabeth Warren?
So the reporter was all offended.
Trump said, who, Pocahontas?
Well, no, she's, and it was a female reporter.
She said, is that offensive?
And Trump said, look, she's, is it offensive?
She's the one, and the reporter, that's very offensive.
You call her Pocahontas.
And Trump said, You tell me, sorry.
Really?
Well, I'm sorry.
The reporter says, Yes, it's very offensive.
And Trump said, I'm sorry about that.
But Pocahontas, is that what you said, Elizabeth Warren?
They said, fake cheekbones.
So, you know, reporters don't know what to do with this.
They used reporter was Native American.
The reporter gets, well, these reporters are used to being able to silence candidates by that's offensive.
How dare you, Mr. Trump?
And Trump just keeps firing right back at him.
And then he said, look about Pocahontas.
See, Elizabeth Warren is a fraud, folks.
Elizabeth Warren is as white as any white person has ever been white.
She is so white that five seconds in the sun and she turns red.
Okay?
She said when she was trying to get hired in Harvard that she has Indian blood because she needed to be part minority.
Being a woman wasn't enough.
She had to be part minority.
She had to use affirmative action to get hired.
So she said there was Indian blood way, way back in her family tree, and the evidence was her high cheekbones.
She said all that.
It's not Trump's fault that he heard it and calls her on it.
It's not Trump's fault that everybody else thinks it, but nobody else will say it.
This is how the left gets away with all this.
Why?
They come up with these phony things about themselves and about their supporters, and they get away with it because everybody on our side is afraid to bring it up because she's a woman.
That could be sexism.
It could be racism, whatever.
The Republicans have been so cowed into silence and not being critical.
And Trump just makes fun of them, mocks them, and fires it right back at them.
And this is one of the things, well, this is what he continued saying in that same press conference.
She is a senator that's highly overrated.
She was a Native American.
She said she was Native American, but she wasn't able to document it.
She said, well, I have high cheekbones.
You see, I have high cheekbones, so I'm a Native American.
And she then, I don't know if you'd call it a fraud or not, but she was able to get into various schools because of the fact she applied as a Native American and probably able to get other things.
I think she's as Native American as I am, okay?
That I will tell you.
But she's a woman that's been very ineffective other than she's got a big mouth.
She's been ineffective other than she's got a big mouth.
What is this next?
The war on women is a sputtering failure.
Hillary, that's a Hillary Clinton Twitter page ad in a new series of ads entitled A Message from Your Possible Next President.
It's a Hillary.
Okay, it's a Hillary video that quotes Trump.
It's one of these ads, again, trying to spread this whole notion of Republican war on women, drawing Trump into it.
It's another Hillary ad with Trump quotes that Hillary thinks is going to be highly embarrassing and disqualifying to Trump.
Well, you know, pregnancy is never, it's a wonderful thing for the woman.
It's a wonderful thing for the husband.
It's certainly an inconvenience for a business.
All right, now, over the music, there are graphics that say a message from your possible next president on pregnancy.
And that's Trump.
And then they play pregnancy.
It's never, it's a wonderful thing for the woman.
It's a wonderful thing for the business.
It's certainly an inconvenience for a business.
Wonderful thing for the wife, wonderful thing for the husband, certainly an inconvenience for the business.
And then the graphic, a message from your possible next president on pregnancy.
Hey, look, they are the ones who try to take pregnancy and make it an illness, are they not?
Hillary Clinton and her band of feminazis are the people who have tried to justify abortion on the premise that abortion, that pregnancy is an illness.
Don't doubt me.
If some of you ladies in this audience are young and have never heard that, I beg you, do not doubt me.
It has become and at one time was a staple of the pro-choice movement that pregnancy was an illness.
Things they use to justify what went on at Planned Parenthood.
Pregnancy, there was a law professor.
This stuff matters.
It's why we've got certain kinds of women today.
Remember, Catherine McKinnon at the University of Michigan.
This was a feminist teacher.
This is back in the late 80s and 90s.
She was a professor of feminist studies, women's studies, or whatever.
And one of her guiding principles was that all sex is rape, even the sex in marriage.
And this woman was a highly touted Democrat spokeswoman.
She was quoted.
She was heralded.
Now, there were women that attended her class, countless women that attended her class, young college students.
They have since graduated and gone out in the world.
She was dead serious when she said all, and she was on TV justifying it.
I don't forget this stuff.
This is the kind of stuff that confuses men and women into not knowing how they're supposed to act, into not trusting their instincts, vis-à-vis the opposite sex and so forth.
It's as damaged as it can be.
All sex is rape, including the sex of marriage.
Wives are no different than other victims of sexual abuse.
And there were women in her classes, and they're not out in the world and believe in this stuff.
And they did say that pregnancy was an illness and that abortion was the cure.
I'm not making it up.
Open line Friday, and one big exciting and busy broadcast hour remains.
And we will continue to focus on your phone calls since we have a best of show coming up on Monday.
It's hard to pick from the best of roster because they're all best ofs, but we've got one.
▲
Export Selection