All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 24, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:37
February 24, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new opinion audit that has just in this morning from the Sullivan Group, Sacramento, my official opinion auditing firm documented to be almost always right 99% of the time.
I have yet to err since Obama was elected in any opinion I have made.
It's moved us up from 98.9 to almost always right 99% of the time now.
It's a huge, huge achievement.
That is a massive accomplishment, unheard of in the area of opinion audit analysis.
And I am proud.
I wish I could thank others for this, but I can't.
This one I am due totally myself.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, the telephone number 800-282-2882.
Email address, lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
I want to read something to you that Ayn Rand, or Ayn Rand, however you wish to pronounce it, wrote in 1975.
One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making the industry unable to solve its own problems, then declaring that freedom has failed, and then to saying that stronger controls are necessary.
Is that not exactly what is happening to, say, Wall Street?
The rules, the rules on making loans to people that couldn't afford them.
Establish controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, make it unable to solve its own problems, then declare that freedom has failed.
The market has failed.
And stronger controls are necessary.
That's Barney Frank almost verbatim.
Words written more than 30 years ago, but they apply exactly to today's financial crisis.
Today's problems are the result of a government-controlled financial and housing system that rewarded irrational behavior and punished responsible behavior.
Yet they are being blamed on the free market with more controls offered as the solution.
Why?
For the same reason the controls were passed in the first place.
The dominant moral and political ideas in our culture lead Americans to believe that a free market with its unfettered pursuit of self-interest is immoral and destructive.
Whereas a government that controls and manipulates the economy in some indefinable public interest is seen as a source of economic security, fairness, and even prosperity.
And that's exactly where we are.
I wonder what highly paid journalists are really saying behind closed doors.
Remember that song, Charlie Rich, behind closed doors?
There are highly paid journalists in New York and Washington who have carried Obama's water.
They invested their money too.
They have watched their savings evaporate as a result of Obama's war on prosperity.
You have to know that behind closed doors, their spouses, other people.
What happened?
What's going on?
And markets are continuing to plummet.
And they've got to be behind closed doors, worrying about their own financial circumstances.
I mean, I know they love the politics of Obama, but I don't believe for a moment they like what has happened to their money.
Some of their fellow non-journalists have lost their jobs.
Nobody's going to be getting better contracts or bonuses or all expensive, frivolous trips.
The stocks of the companies paying their salaries are fast approaching worthlessness.
Did you see the owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News has filed for bankruptcy?
$394 billion in debt.
The statements that this guy made are hilarious.
Well, we wouldn't be having to do this if we were to ever service our debt.
Really?
You wouldn't be having to do it if you were able to service your debt or some such thing as that.
Anyway, to the audio soundbites, when we left you yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, President Obama, professor of the United States of America, had convened a summit in Washington in the East Room consisting of members of the House and Senate, both parties, and some other interested parties, figures, and so forth of various walks of life in the great mosaic, that is America.
And he had given them a lecture.
He said he was, after spending $2 trillion, he's now going to tighten the belt and he's going to make sure these guys do it wisely and smart.
And he's going to be, he's going to take names and he's going to be watching to see who wastes it and misuses it.
And then he sent everybody to breakout groups, to study groups.
Each group assigned a specific area where they were to come up with solutions to all of our problems, except Social Security.
That was taken off.
That's too tough.
They were all sent out there and they were to report back to Professor Obama later in the afternoon.
That's where we left it.
Report back with solutions.
Now, at the time, I have to be honest, I didn't know who these people were in that audience because we only saw the backs of their heads.
I did not know who it was.
When I tune in yesterday afternoon and I watch as the breakout groups come back and report, I am shocked to learn that it is members of the House and the Senate primarily, except Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi weren't there.
And I'll guarantee you that they will not go to some summit, let Obama tell them what to do.
I looked at this, and from a constitutional standpoint, I saw a little bit of a separation of powers problem here.
Nobody else did, I'm sure.
But here we have, I'm going to tell you, I'm going to describe that room for you.
Once I saw it, when the breakout sessions ended, everybody in that room yesterday, especially all the Democrats, may as well have been Monica Lewinsky.
And they could have come in with special individual reports in the little bathroom off the Oval Office if they wanted to do it that way, and it had the same effect.
This was kissy ass like I have not seen.
It just, I sat there, I'm watching this, and I'm alternately fuming and then laughing myself silly.
You want to hear some of it?
Obama can crack a joke that is lame and horrible, and the place breaks down like both Jay Leno and David Letterman have both told the funniest jokes of their lives.
Okay, so Obama reconvened the breakout groups after two hours and announced that notes were taken and that in 30 days, solutions to all of our problems will be issued in a report.
Here is a portion of Professor Obama greeting the students as they came back from their breakout group assignments.
I understand you guys had great breakout sessions.
My team, each of whom were taking copious notes during the course of these respective breakout sessions, will issue a report or a summary of the conversation.
It will be distributed to each of the participants in those respective discussions.
We will then ask for concrete ideas, either about substance or process.
And we will ask that you get those back so that we can then issue a final report coming out of this conversation in 30 days.
It's meaningless.
It is designed to show Obama making progress, Obama leading, Obama snapping the whip, Obama getting these recalcitrant little kids that are members of Congress and the Senate into gear.
Professor Obama, a report on all the conversations.
What everybody said will be reported back to him in 30 days, and a report will sent back to those so they can remember what they said.
They can see what others said.
And we're going to have solutions in 30-day concrete.
This is nothing about substance, by the way.
This is pure, worthless, hilarious, nothing but process.
So it was time to turn to the students.
Here's Obama, the great principal, the great lecturer, the great professor, who has given them the lecture and then has sent them to breakout groups where they are to discuss amongst themselves.
Then they reconvene, and it's time for the students to report back to Professor Obama.
And upon whom does he first call?
None other than Senator McCain.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you for doing this.
I think it's very important.
And particularly breakout session, one area that I wanted to mention that I think consumed a lot of our conversation on procurement.
It was the issue of cost overruns in the Defense Department.
Your helicopter is now going to cost as much as Air Force One.
I don't think that there's any more graphic demonstration of how good ideas have cost taxpayers enormous amount of money.
Ladies and gentlemen, with all due respect here, and we get the scenario, Professor Obama lectures the class, members of Congress and the Senate on taking things seriously, solve these problems.
So McCain's little breakout group goes back and they spend the whole time, he says, primarily talking about Obama's new fleet of helicopters.
Now, I'm not trying to pat myself on the back here.
I'm not trying to expose my ego.
But ladies and gentlemen, it was last week, and maybe it was the week before, that I reported to you that the Defense Department is working on purchasing a new fleet of Marine One helicopters.
The current fleet's very old.
They're made by Sikorsky in Connecticut.
The new fleet will not be made by Sikorsky.
There'll be a couple of different kinds.
And these helicopters, there are 31 being proposed for the Marine One fleet.
And each of these new helicopters will cost more than the current Air Force One, which is a Boeing 747.
The reason is for the 15-minute flights from White House to Andrews Air Force Base, they've got to have anti-missile missiles.
They got to have surfaced air missiles, ground-to-air missiles, air-to-missile gristiles.
They've got to have all this stuff.
They got to have all the technologically on sonar radar.
They got to have carbon sensors.
All of this, these helicopters are going to cost more than the current 747, which is built in 1990.
We did not need a breakout study group to study this.
So here is Pupil McCain reporting about all these problems.
And he admits that his breakout group focused on Obama's new helicopter.
It's 31 helicopters.
Now, by the way, I should put, Obama had nothing to do with this.
I mean, these things happen.
He just happened to be inaugurated when the program was being discussed and so forth.
Here was Obama's response.
I've already talked to Gates about a thorough review of the helicopter situation.
The helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me.
Secretary Gates shares our concern.
And he recognizes that simply adding more and more does not necessarily mean better and better or safer and more secure.
Those two things are not, they don't always move in parallel tracks, and we've got to think that through.
What?
So we've got this giant seminar on fiscal responsibility, saving American people money.
McCain comes back and says, we don't need a helicopter.
It costs as much as Air Force One.
Obama says, yeah, I kind of like the helicopter I've got, but I got to leave it up to Gates.
We've got to look parallel.
And then here came the professor speak.
So item one, no solution.
And I'll guarantee you, whatever is decided on these helicopters is going to happen regardless of what happened in yesterday's summit.
It's going to happen regardless of what happened.
Yes.
Next up, the next pupil, the next student hoping to get an A from Professor Obama Susan Collins.
Obama said, Susan, Susan, you were in the procurement discussion too, right?
Yes.
If you look across the federal government, there are problems in IT contracts no matter where you look.
And one recommendation that our group talked about is establishing some kind of non-McCurdy law to apply to IT contracts.
We also talked about the need for more competition and contracts for justification for cost-plus contracts.
So those were some of the issues that we discussed in addition to what Senator McCain said.
Okay, good.
So in addition to Marine One helicopter fleet, we talked about competition in the McNunn-Nerdy law, a McCurdy, non-McCurdy law in IT contracts.
All of this, folks, it's totally irrelevant.
It's worthless.
It means nothing.
But I guarantee you to the dope heads watching this take place, wow, it was impressive.
We've never seen a president do this.
Convene these members of the house and get talking seriously.
What's a question, Mr. Snerdley?
Sternly is quote.
They're supposed to be doing this stuff in committee.
That's why I tell this is, in the real sense, this is a separation of powers issue.
But who cares about the Constitution with this bunch on either side?
Who cares about the Constitution?
Harry Reid, by the way, with his little train, you know, he's going to have to seize state-owned or private-owned land to get that train built from Disneyland to Las Vegas.
And he's just going to do it.
He's going to violate.
He's going to ignore state law.
He's just going to say, well, we've got to get the train built.
We're going to have to get the land.
We're just going to take it.
I don't know what he's relying on to do it, but he is.
So there's Susan Collins and Obama.
Did you hear the thing?
He said, good.
So pupil Susan Collins received praise from Professor Obama.
Now, next up, Charlie Wrangell.
Try not to laugh here.
Wrangell chaired the tax reform breakout group.
In fact, I'm going to take a commercial break.
I don't think.
Ladies and gentlemen, we interrupt our review and analysis of the White House Invincibility Summit and the analysis of the breakout sessions with breaking news from all places, TMZ, the gossip TV network.
I told you last hour, Northern Trust of Chicago, who holds the mortgage to Barack Obama's mansion purchased with help from Tony Resco, held a big party at the LA Open at Riviera Country Club all last week.
Northern Trust took $1.6 billion in federal bailout money.
They did not ask for it.
It was forced upon them.
They threw a party for their customers, trying to expand their customer base, keeping their customer base happy.
It didn't sit well with Barney Frank, the banking queen.
He just told TMZ he's sending a letter to Northern Trust demanding the bank pay the government the equivalent of what it spent last week on lavish parties and lavish concerts in Los Angeles.
The banking queen also asking Northern Trust to give back the $1.6 billion in bailout money that it did not want.
The banking queen, Barney Frank, said that Northern Trust should have spent that money making loans and stimulating the economy.
Stop the tape a second.
This is one of the problems.
They were stimulating the economy.
They paid Chicago the group.
They paid Cheryl Crowe.
They paid Tiffany.
They paid hotels.
They paid all kinds of people.
They were stimulating the economy.
But only loans to people Barney Frank thinks are acceptable will do.
Otherwise, no spending of the money stimulates anything.
He said this Northern Trust opening was just an ego thing, had nothing to do with good business.
A guy that's never run a business is now in charge of them.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is statism, authoritarianism.
It is dangerously close to Stalinism.
It is going to paralyze all of these banks and industries from taking any initiative on their own.
They're going to get into further trouble.
And then Barney Frank and the boys are going to come along and say, see, the market doesn't work.
Here's the rest of the tune.
Of course, there's no ego thing going on with the Congress, right?
Barney Frank and Banking Queen, portrayed by white comedian Paul Shanklin.
Brief timeout.
Some of your phone calls are coming next.
You want to hear some irony?
You want to hear some comedy?
You want to hear some justice.
A satellite launched from California failed to reach orbit today, crashing into the sea near Antarctica, dooming a $273 million mission to study global warming gases.
The mission is lost, said National Aeronautics and Space Administration spokesman Stephen Cole in a telephone interview from the launch site, Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
The NASA satellite was to orbit 438 miles above Earth and observe how carbon dioxide enters and leaves the atmosphere, helping scientists predict future increases in the main greenhouse gas blame for global warming.
God.
Instead, the satellite fell in the ocean near Antarctica, though the mission manager said at no point did the craft pass over land.
Well, big whoop.
Here is Lou in Ferguson, Missouri, as we go back to the phones.
Lou, thank you for waiting.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
How are you, Rush?
Just fine, sir.
Thank you.
Earlier, you had mentioned in the first hour that there was a poll that 75% of the people were optimistic on, as you said, Obama's first four years in office.
and they're optimistic for the future.
And I just opened my own...
Wait, now, wait, wait, wait, wait just a second here, because I don't remember that poll.
Let's go through the polls.
Does that poll exist?
I didn't report that poll.
Hang on just a second here.
There was, oh, I was so mad at this when I threw it away.
It's over there on the floor.
I can't get it right now.
Brian, why don't you come in here and pick this watted piece of paper up for because I want to be truthful here with Lou in Ferguson?
And I have to be true to my new accuracy rating and opinion: 99%.
Okay.
Hang in here with me, Levine Crumble.
Sure.
All right.
It's CNN.
A new national poll indicates that most Americans think President Obama will give a good speech tonight, but expectations are not as high as they were for his inaugural address.
Now, that's silly.
What are his expectations for his speech tonight?
And they're falling.
They're not as high as the inaugural.
What?
That's number one.
Number two, confidence in stimulus plan drops.
Confidence in the economic stimulus plan has fallen four points in the week since Obama signed it into law.
More voters are prepared to punish their representatives for supporting it.
Is that the one you think you heard?
You had mentioned one about 75% of the people thought that they were optimistic on the future.
Oh, that's a New York Times.
That's a New York Times poll.
Yeah, okay, that's right.
The 75% of the American people are optimistic.
Here it is.
A month into his term, more than 75% of people in a Times, New York Times survey said they were optimistic about the next four years with him as president.
So, yes, you're right.
I discarded that, and I'll tell you why.
It's because it's not the real information in the poll.
The real information in the poll, his approval numbers are plummeting and his disapproval numbers are rising.
And his numbers are above average for this time in a presidency for disapproval.
They're about average for approval.
So the Times is spinning the polling data here to make it look like people are just damned excited over Obama and just can't stop partying.
Well, I think the key there might be people are optimistic in the future, regardless of him being president or not.
As I told Mr. Surgery, I just opened my own restaurant a few months ago, and I am extremely optimistic in the future.
And I am looking forward to the next few years of being successful and opening up more locations.
Well, but see, the way this is written, a month into his term, more than 75% of people in the New York Times CBS survey said they were optimistic about the next four years with him as president.
Similar percentages said they thought he was bringing real change to the way things worked in Washington and that they had confidence in his ability to make the right.
This poll is about him.
You know, your optimism may not have anything to do, but the point of this story in the Times is to create the impression that 75% of all Americans are totally linked, totally tied to Obama, and they are optimistic and they're happy and they can't believe their good fortune because Obama's showing the way.
That's the purpose.
And I'm telling you right now, I know this without knowing it.
And this is why I'm the one with the documented accuracy rate of almost always right 99% of the time.
75% of the people in this country are not optimistic right now.
And that's one of the problems.
That's why so many people are turning over a lot of their freedom and decision-making to Washington because they're not optimistic.
Now, I'm going to get all flushed and ticked off here again when I mention this.
But Robert Gibbs and the White House staff, all over the morning shows today, saying, in answer to the question, what can we expect from President Obama tonight?
Well, he's going to be a little Reagan-esque.
That just frusts me.
I can't tell you.
He's not Reagan.
And furthermore, according to the brilliant wizards on our side of the aisle, the era of Reagan is over.
All these stupid eggheads with their heads in orifice where the sun doesn't shine on our side, telling us the era of Reagan is over, letting the Democrats co-opt the era of Reagan and then obviously rewrite it.
It makes me so mad the squandered opportunities here.
We've got an excellent opportunity for Republicans in Washington to start tying Obama to all of this.
Drive his numbers even further down.
They're scared to do it.
But it's time, there's too much going wrong here, and it can be tied to him.
They've got it.
You know, let's take what happened yesterday with this infallibility summit and let's pretend that Bush did it.
And let's say that the same number of Democrats are up there and Bush sends them out into their breakout groups.
Do you think those Democrats would have been civil?
Do you think any Democrat in a meeting like that that Bush had convened would have shown up and thanked him for doing this?
This is unprecedented.
Thank you, Mr. We're so excited to be here.
And then report accurately on whatever the hell went on in the breakout.
They would have taken the opportunity to personally insult him when they stood up, talking about how pointless it was, how in their own breakout groups, Republicans wouldn't let them talk.
They would have purposely disrupted.
They would have purposely made it look like there was no comedy, there was no civility.
And our guys act like Monica Lewinsky.
Yeah, best way I can express it.
In fact, let's got some time here.
Here's let's go back to the infallibility.
What was it?
The summit, the infallibility summit.
And I keep wanting to say seminar because it's what it was.
It was nothing more than a presidential seminar with Professor Obama, probably with Professor Ayers in the earpiece.
So then they call on Chuck Wrangell, Charlie Wrangell, who's one of the many Democrats that has not paid his taxes.
And Obama says, Charlie, you chaired the tax reform breakout group.
Tell us what happened in there.
If you're looking for a fight in a partisan fight, every loophole you close is a tax increase.
We have to get over that to make certain that the vast majority of businesses recognize it's in their best interest to do the right thing as it relates to those who've taken unfair advantage of you.
Well, you were here in 86.
It's been done before.
We might be able to get it done this time.
Okay, I'm going to tell you what that was.
Let me, first place, let me read what Wrangell said, because you may not have heard it all.
He said, if you're looking for a fight and a partisan fight, every loophole you close is a tax increase.
And we have to get over that to make.
What did I tell you that one of the five things that this breakout group would come up with was close tax loopholes?
The five things are on my website.
I made a big point.
Close tax loopholes is one of them.
So Charlie Wrangell is saying here, if you're looking for a fight in a partisan fight, every loophole you close is a tax increase.
We have to get over that.
What he's saying is the Republicans say that closing a tax loophole is a tax increase.
Closing a loophole is simply getting rid of a legal deduction.
But they call them loopholes, and it's Charlie's boys that wrote them.
Once again, we have Charlie acting like he's a spectator off to the side, had nothing to do with writing the rules.
Those tax loopholes.
So he's jumping on the Republicans here.
If you're looking for a fight in a partisan fight, every loophole you close, it's a tax increase.
We've got to get beyond that kind of thinking.
And Obama says, well, you were here in 86.
We've done that before.
We might be able to get it done this time.
Meaning, close tax loopholes.
Screw the Republicans.
And then he said, we have to get over that, and we have to make certain that the vast majority of businesses recognize that closing tax loopholes is in their best interest to do the right thing as it relates to those who are taking unfair advantage of.
Meaning, the people that don't get access to the deduction, it's not fair that they don't get access.
So we close it.
It's just socialism.
Whatever one group is getting and another group's not, we close it.
Rather than spread it to everybody, we let nobody have it.
And Obama says, well, you were here in 86.
We could never get that done again.
Here's another Wrangle bite.
This is number 15.
He said this on taxes as well.
Just a quick thought on taxes, Charlie.
On the corporate side, I at least have always maintained that if we tried to think in the same ways that we thought about 1986, and if you closed loopholes, you could actually lower rates.
Because I think on the books, the rates in the United States are high.
In practice, depending on who it is that you can, what kind of accountant you can hire, they're not so high.
So do you understand the bias here?
That only the rich own that is sneaky.
It is.
Only the rich, depending on the accountant.
So what we're going to do here is close the loopholes, and then you could actually lower rates.
So what he's saying is, you let us get rid of the deductions, and we might lower a rate here or there.
Then after that's done, guess what?
They bring the rates right back up because you can't do anything about it.
Then they bring the rates back up after the loopholes and the deductions are gone.
There was bottom line is that what happened here yesterday, whatever these groups came up with is utterly meaningless because Obama's going to do what Obama is going to do.
And this is just designed to give him cover for it, to make it look like he's listened to both sides and that there is bipartisan agreement.
So it really is a sneaky thing, but it's totally, totally phony.
One more bite because I really got to go.
But now let me take the break.
We got a David Gergen bite, and I'm going to say this thing yesterday, I've seen it once before on Nightline.
I'll describe it when I get back.
Stay with us.
Last night, Anderson Cooper 180 spoke with David Rodham Gergen.
Anderson Cooper said, how unusual is it, unprecedented is it, for the president to take questions from members of Congress on camera like we saw today.
It's rare, Anderson.
I tried to rack my brain for previous examples and had a good feel about it.
I think it's one of the kind of things the country likes to see is civil discourse, president answering questions.
Yeah, and here's Gloria Borger on CNN later that night, Campbell Brown, the hostette.
The U.S. president taking question after question from lawmakers.
What does that tell you about his approach?
This is a president who likes live events, unscripted, live events, who goes to town halls and lets anybody speak and who lets anybody ask him any questions they want.
It's an administration that is intent on lifting the veil on all the complexities we face in government, particularly in this economic crisis.
He was kind of wonkish.
You know, we haven't seen a wonk in the White House like this since Bill Clinton.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we haven't.
Oh, this is so wonderful.
This is Gloria Borger, by the way, who on Sunday referred to the Republican Party as looking too much like the Confederacy.
And then Labor Secretary, former Labor Secretary Robert B. Rice, shh, shh, shaw, on television last night.
Enormously effective for President Obama to be standing there in command of the class and for John McCain, Senator McCain to be there in the sixth row.
It was as if the president was the professor and everybody else a student.
He was completely and totally in control and in command.
And he's not only commander-in-chief of the military, he's commander-in-chief of the economy.
And there was no doubt about that today.
So you see, there are orgasms all over the place.
Obamagasms everywhere over this meaningless thing.
Now, meaningless in terms of substance, is a great illustration of the waste of time process.
But the media just loves all this.
Look at how bipartisan this was.
And look, the president taking questions.
And the Republicans were even there.
And sat in the sixth row.
The Republicans made themselves look small.
Did they not?
They thought they were making themselves look large.
See, in fact, MSNBC doing a story right now.
Can the GOP work with Obama?
Now, my friends, after this little charade yesterday, how can you even ask the question?
Of course they can work with Obama.
They went up there and they thought they were going to look magnanimous.
They're rerunning the 2008 presidential campaign.
Why we're showing we can moderate.
We're showing we can check our conservatism at the door.
We're showing that we can get along.
We're showing that we can cross the aisle.
We're showing that we can be nice.
They look tiny, did they not?
Tell me, Frank, you disagree with me on this, Stirdley.
They look tiny.
I think they looked small and they looked irrelevant, and I think they demeaned themselves by going.
They allowed themselves to be used as props.
We all know full well what was going to happen with this and how it's going to come out, what the point of it was.
And we just, we just, we get sucked in every time.
Last time I saw something like this, honest to God, was a Nightline show, and it was back in the Clinton years, and it was during some scandal, and everybody in Washington was wringing their hands over, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, how do we stop this from happening?
Oh, my God.
And Ted Koppel was chairing a giant town meeting.
Nightline started at 11.30.
They went long.
It was a 90-minute thing.
It was about 2 in the morning.
And finally, Koppel says, is there anybody in my group?
And it was, is there anybody that's got a solution?
And David Gergen.
I think we do, Ted.
And he and a guy had been working out a solution to whatever it was, the problem they were discussing.
And when they announced their solution, which nobody's ever heard since, the place erupted in applause.
It was a typical, wonkish, irrelevant, inside-the-beltway process with no substance whatsoever.
And everybody in that thing yesterday walks up thinking they got something done.
Well, nothing happened.
Nothing changed.
President Obama says after the infallibility summit yesterday that it would be possible to lower the rate on corporate taxes if the many loopholes in the tax code were closed, if the many deductions.
Most businessmen are saying, close the loopholes.
I don't care, but somebody help me out with my pre-tax burden.
Because that's what's killing them.
It's about closing loopholes to reduce the tax rate.
It is time for despair.
▲
Export Selection