All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
June 4, 2012, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
So it looks like Bill Clinton, ladies and gentlemen, was taken to the woodshed.
Bill Clinton taken to the Corey Booker Memorial Woodshed for endorsing Romney last week.
You got to wonder what is in this woodshed to get so many people to change their tunes so quickly.
It's got to be a pretty big woodshed.
I mean, all these Democrats have been taken to this woodshed.
And on Clinton's case, it could be almost anything in that woodshed.
Pictures, stained dresses, the mind boggles.
How are you, folks?
Gee, I hope your weekend was wonderful.
We are here.
Another full week of broadcast excellence hosted by me, El Rushbow.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbow at EIVnet.com.
So let's go back.
Last Thursday, on CNN's Piers Morgan tonight, the fill-in host was Harvey Weinstein.
By the way, I learned something about this.
Harvey Weinstein, big Hollywood mogul, highest rated hour on CNN all day when they brought in a non-professional.
No, that's, I mean, Weinstein's a professional, but he's an executive.
He's not a behind-the-camera guy.
He's a director-producer.
They bring in somebody with literally no experience, and he gets the highest rated hour of anything all day on CNN.
That doesn't say much for highly trained professionals and specialists.
And we later find out Harvey Weinstein called the Oprah for tips and guidelines on how to conduct interviews on television.
Don't know what he was told, but we know that Harvey Weinstein called Oprah.
So anyway, this turned out to be the highest rated hour.
Now, it may not have been Weinstein.
It could have been the guest at Clinton, and they had a number of other A-list guests.
So it could have been that.
Regardless, let's go back.
Here is what Bill Clinton said.
A question from Harvey Weinstein was, Romney keeps talking about his experience at Bayne Capitol and creating jobs and all that.
You think that he can produce jobs that the president, i.e. Obama, cannot produce?
I think he had a good business career.
I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work.
This is good work.
There's no question that getting up and going to the office and basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who's been governor and had a sterling business career, crosses the qualification threshold.
All right.
Now, I characterize this as an endorsement.
And Clinton was not the only one.
I mean, there were a number of things that were said Thursday and Friday last week.
Spent a lot of time trying to drill home the fact that they were profound endorsements.
I mean, some really serious defections from Obama last week.
And it was another one over the weekend.
Bob Schrum, who has yet to win a campaign for the Democrats, was on Sunday show.
Did you see it, Snerdley?
You're nodding your head.
Was it slave?
Bob Schieffer, poor Bob Schieffer, he's still upset that Obama's running a negative campaign.
He's distressed that Obama's campaign's gone negative.
We've got the sound bites.
Okay, so Shrum, whose last active presidential campaign was John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, the haughty John.
And Shrum said, if this is a referendum on Obama, it's over.
And Schieffer said, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Do you realize what you just said here on my show?
I mean, people heard you that if it's a referendum on Obama, it's over.
So by the point, there are a lot of defections.
There are a lot of Democrats who are, I think, A, trying to protect their own reputations here.
B, they're really going out of their way to protect private equity.
They're going out of their way to defend private equity, which is what?
By the way, I got to say, I have to say this.
I just saw something on TV reminded me.
Tomorrow in Great Britain, a big concert for the Queen.
The Jubilee.
They had the big thing yesterday with all the boats on the River Thames and so forth.
Tomorrow is June 5th.
Does that date ring a bell for any of you in there, June 5th meeting to you?
No.
How quickly people forget.
June 5th.
Right, Snerdley.
Right.
June 5th tomorrow is going to be two blissful years for me.
June the 5th.
Do you happen to know who performed?
And I, do you remember, Snerdley?
Correct.
Sir Elton John performed at Catherine's and my wedding two years ago, tomorrow.
And who is performing for the Queen tomorrow on the same day?
Sir Elton John.
Sir Paul McCartney and so forth.
And Sir Stevie Wonder, so forth.
But Sir Elton John is the headliner.
I just thought that I would point this out.
Sir Elton performed at my wedding before doing anything for the queen.
Anyway, back to Clinton.
Or did you have something in there you wanted to add?
Somebody with a snarky comment?
What's the snarky comment?
Go ahead, hit me with the snarky comment.
How much the queen have to pay to get Elton?
Ha, typical snarky comment.
Most staffers would have been summarily fired after asking that kind of, particularly asking, even though I invited the question, most staffers would be summarily dismissed.
Asking such a question rooted in insubordination, how much did the queen have to pay for it?
We don't know.
We really don't know.
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
It happened.
It's in the history books.
And it's taking place on the exact two-year anniversary.
Anyway, the Democrats are doing everything they can here to protect private equity, too.
And in addition to distancing themselves from Obama.
Go play sound byte three again since I, I apologize, folks.
I know how frustrating it is to listen.
I'm right on the verge of making a point and I interrupt myself.
And you're saying, I don't care about the queen or Elton John.
Yeah.
So here's Clinton again.
Play soundbite number three again.
I think he had a good business career.
I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work.
This is good work.
There's no question that getting up and going to the office and basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who's been governor and had a sterling business career, crosses the qualification threshold.
I'll tell you something else.
The queen gave Elton John a knighthood.
I didn't have to do that.
You know, I didn't have to come up with some ceremonial award or anything in order to secure the performance, the appearance of Elton John, the wedding.
Okay, so here's Clinton basically endorsing Romney, talking about his Sterling business career.
The question was, do you think that Romney can produce jobs that the president can't?
Yeah, basically.
Well, on Friday, I characterized this as essentially an endorsement.
And I think I was one of the few who actually characterized it that way.
Maybe nobody else did.
Everybody was reacting to it.
Everybody was talking, whoa, what's this throwing Obama under the bus?
But in terms of calling it an actual endorsement, that's a powerful word.
So Friday, late in the day after this program, Patterson, New Jersey, is a campaign rally in support of a Democrat, Bill Pascrell, and Clinton spoke.
And he was clearly irritated, having been characterized as endorsing Romney.
So today, because I didn't attack him personally and bash him, I wake up to read all these stories, taking that out of context, as if I had virtually endorsed him.
There wasn't any virtual about it, as everything but the word.
So Clinton was very upset just because I didn't bash him.
Well, let me tell you something.
Republicans can't win no matter what they do.
It was an example I had last week.
Let me give you another one.
The possibility that Marco Rubio be the vice president.
His name's being floated out.
Let's ask Axelrod about this.
You can't put, you can't, the Republicans can't do that.
That's an insult to Hispanic.
You can't put Rubio on that.
It's an insult.
That's an outright insult to Hispanic.
I don't know how it's an insult.
But here, on the one hand, Republicans ignore, don't care about minority population.
Then they talk that they might put one on the vice presidential ticket.
That's not fair.
You can't do that.
They don't mean it.
So the Republicans can't win if they lose, no matter what.
Can't win for losing, which just means don't listen to any of the criticism because you know that it's going to be forthcoming.
So anyway, Clinton's out now trying to distance himself from this.
It means he got taken to the woodshed, the Corey Booker Memorial Woodshed.
Also, on this program last Friday, I made an observation that ended up being echoed in the drive-by media a couple of days later.
Here's what I said.
It's audio signby number one and two.
Here's what I said Friday about Obama.
These guys are still so enamored of Obama.
Feel sorry for the guy now.
I'm convinced the drive-bys feel total sympathy, feel so sorry for the guy.
You know, it's bad enough to be born black in this country and then to be elected president and have everybody gunning for it.
It's so bad.
It's like slavery's still out there.
The unemployment numbers had come out the day before.
It was horrible.
It was really rotten.
Everybody was dumping on Obama.
And I sense sympathy.
Lo and behold, that night on the news hour, PBS, Judy Woodruff talking to David Brooks and Mark Maxie Shields.
And Woodruff said, is there time for the president to turn this around in his direction?
Is time running out for him?
Is what I'm saying?
And here's the exchange in answer to the question.
To some extent, you have to feel sorry for him.
This is, in large degree, not his fault.
Things are happening way beyond his control.
I don't believe a president has control over a quarterly economy in any case.
But the European situation is certainly not his fault.
The Chinese slowdown is not his fault.
Obama has really very little control, and he's sort of a victim of this myth that presidents control the economy quarter to quarter.
Mr. Brooks, you know, David Brooks of the New York Times.
It's not his fault.
Meanwhile, well, then why did the crease in his pants back in 2008 convince you to be the best president ever?
Oh, now he has no control.
He can't do anything.
This is the conservative on the show, by the way.
He can't do anything about quarterly economic.
He can't do anything about Europe.
By the way, speaking of Europe, Obama blamed our economic problems on Europe.
He has also advised Europe not to reduce spending, not to cut spending.
And the CHICOMs, Obama craves the CHICOMs.
Obama loves the Chi-Coms.
Obama's been pointing to China with lesson after lesson after lesson that we could learn.
Now they're feeling sorry for him.
And then Maureen Dowd over the weekend on Sunday had a piece that, you know, all the Beltway types are buzzing about this, by the way.
All of the Washington establishment is a Twitter buzzing over Maureen Dowd's column over the weekend.
It was titled Dreaming of a Superhero.
And in it, she seems to be turning her back on Obama.
And she's very critical.
She almost mocks him, almost makes fun of him.
I never knew she was a racist till I read that piece.
I'll tell you what, folks, high-profile Democrats criticizing Obama opens a door for others to do it.
And others have.
This is a door that has been opened.
And a lot of high-profile Democrats are now starting to criticize Obama.
And Bob Schrum, being the latest, can't run on his record.
If it's a referendum on Obama, we lose.
And what this indicates to me, and I don't know what it means in terms of anything substantive, it's just fascinating to track this.
What it means is that there really hasn't been all of this slavish unity behind Obama.
There has been more of a mandated everybody go along to get along to put up a unified front aspect to it.
A lot of people very nervous.
A lot of people in the Democrat Party are extremely worried about this record, extremely worried about their electoral chances.
You know, we hear all this talk about the Republican establishment, and it's true, by the way, in their case.
Just last week or the week before, finally starting to think they can win this.
That's sad, but true.
What we are learning, and what is, I think, more important, is that for much longer than that, high-ranking Democrats all across the country have been convinced that they are going to lose.
Convinced and or are scared they are going to lose.
And they have had those opinions.
They've had those thoughts for much longer than just the last couple of weeks.
But once these floodgates open and all of these, one person does it and gets away with it without, I mean, trips to the woodshed, but there hasn't been any party discipline.
Obama hasn't done anything.
Nobody, Axel Rod, to punish these people for coming out.
And I made this point on Friday.
If these people aren't taken to the woodshed seriously, if there isn't discipline forthcoming, keep these people in line, if these leaks and these defections continue to happen, and it's likely to, as more and more prominent Democrats now openly express their concerns.
Now, the latest focal point of all this, of course, the Wisconsin recall election tomorrow.
The incumbent Scott Walker opposing the former Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett.
And the Democrats are pulling out all the stops in the past three or four days.
I don't know what the exact timeframe is.
But somebody in Wisconsin started a rumor that Scott Walker fathered an illegitimate child 24 years ago.
Much like the rumor on the Friday before the election in 2000 that George Bush had been convicted of a DUI that nobody had heard of, that rumor did hurt Bush.
It has been documented statistically that that rumor did some damage to Bush's vote count on Election Day five days later.
Now, this rumor about Scott Walker having fathered an illegitimate child 24 years ago, some outfit called the Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op.
And they said they got it from a woman named Bernadette Gillick.
Bernadette Gillick teaches physical therapy, University of Minnesota.
And the story goes that she said that she knew Scott Walker's girlfriend when they were students at Marquette.
And then this Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op said that they hadn't been able to independently verify Bernadette Gillick's account.
But they went ahead and ran the story anyway.
So a reporter at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel tracked it all down and talked to Bernadette Gillick's freshman year roommate at Marquette.
And she said, no, no, no, no, that is not true.
She denied that Scott Walker is the father of her child.
Yeah, since she got pregnant as a first-year student, but she thinks that the Walkers are being confused because there's Scott Alan Walker and the governor is Scott Kevin Walker.
So they ran with this before anybody actually knew whether it was true or not, which also smacks desperation.
A couple of polls out today that Reuters is misreporting.
Two public opinion polls released Sunday, actually, show that Walker has a lead of three and six points.
Public policy polling, the Democrat firm, Walker leading 50 to 47.
Angus Reed polling has Walker head 53 to 47.
Both findings say Reuters are within the margin of error, so the results could be even tighter, but they're not within the margin of error.
Looked at the internals of both polls, and these results are not in the margin of error.
They're still trying to say the race is tightening.
These are Democrat polling groups, and you would expect nothing else.
Any views expressed by the host on this program, documented to be almost always right, 99.7% of the time.
So Reuters is claiming Scott Walker, the recall race, tightening based on two polls.
And the first from the Democrat pollsters at Public Policy Polling, they say that Scott Walker is leading 50 to 47 over Tom Barrett.
Second poll, Angus Reed, R-E-I-D, polling, and they say Walker's up 53 to 47.
And then Reuters says that both findings are within the margin of error.
So the results could be even tighter, quote unquote.
But the truth is, I mean, Reuters is just making this up.
Neither of these polls show that Scott Walker's lead is within the margin of error, at least according to Reuters' own article.
In the public policy polling poll, Scott Walker is up by three.
Reuters says that their margin of error is 2.8%.
Well, I'm sorry, 2.8% isn't three.
They're obviously rounding up.
In the Angus Reed polling, Scott Walker is up by six.
Reuters says the margin of error is 4.3.
Now, 4.3 is not anywhere close to six.
So why is Reuters lying?
Don't bother answering.
It's a rhetorical question.
It is clear that this article was written to give Wisconsin Democrats some hope to get out the Democrat vote, which Reuters admits is necessary if Barrett is to have any chance of beating Walker.
So they've got a story here that says, hey, it's tightening up.
Look at these two polls, both within the margin of error.
But it's going to be turnout.
It's all going to be dependent on turnout.
Well, it's always dependent on turnout.
Nothing spectacularly new there.
But this is clearly an effort to send panic waves through the Democrat constituencies in Wisconsin.
I also saw on, I forget which network, they're calculating where the money came from, the donations.
And I don't have the numbers right in front of me.
Something like this, though.
Tom Barrett, the Democrat, 74% of his campaign money has come from inside Wisconsin.
Scott Walker, on the other hand, only 38% of his donations have come from inside Wisconsin.
So what are the conclusions we are to draw?
Well, obviously, the conclusion is if this were left to simply Wisconsin voters, then the Democrat would win.
But my gosh, we're being swamped with out of state money, and it isn't fair.
None of that's stated.
That's implied.
The viewer is supposed to infer it.
Oh, no, that forces, powerful forces outside Wisconsin are tampering with this election.
The explanation is simple for both of these numbers, and it doesn't matter anyway, because money pours into candidates from all over the country in every race.
It is irrelevant.
I'll tell you what's more relevant is to go back and look at the vote totals of the primary.
Don't forget, a month ago or so, there was the primary election to determine who the Democrat opponent Scott Walker would be.
Tom Barrett, whoever else, signing up some woman, doesn't matter.
The point is that Scott Walker, who was on the ballot but didn't need any votes, he was unopposed.
Scott Walker got more votes than the two Democrats combined.
Now, this rumor that Walker fathered a child, that could go, it's so blatantly grasping at straws.
That could hurt Barrett among Democrats.
A lot of Democrat websites are trying to brush this off and get people to forget it.
They were embarrassed by it because it was so nonsense.
If Scott Walker had fathered an illegitimate child 24 years ago, we'd have known about it long before now.
It would have been a factor long before now in previous elections.
The Democrats know there's so much at stake for them in this election.
Unions, their role, their power, the entire government model is at stake here.
And I have perhaps the best question of all.
Ladies and gentlemen, we keep hearing that Barack Obama is personally popular, do we not?
Poll numbers may be down a little bit.
Everybody may not like the economic situation.
They may not like the economic news.
Unemployment may not be good.
But you know, Obama, people really like the guy.
His popularity is sky high.
Well, if that's true, why in the name of Sam Hill will he not go to Wisconsin and help pull that election out of the fire?
If he's so universally loved, particularly among Democrats, and if they've got a turnout problem, if that's the number one objective for Democrats in Wisconsin tomorrow's turnout, why not send this universally adored, loved, and popular president in there?
He had six fundraisers on Friday, all very near Wisconsin, but none of them actually in the state.
He had some in Illinois, some in Minnesota, but none in Wisconsin.
If he's so popular, why not go in there?
No, they sent Bill Clinton in there who had endorsed Romney the day before.
Now, the whole theme of the Sunday shows yesterday was essentially that the economy is not Obama's fault.
And we feel sorry for Obama.
And that all of these things are just outside of his control.
But yet, contrast that to the mythology we got about Obama in 2008.
He was the one.
He was a messianic figure.
He was unlike anybody who had ever trod the earth in American politics before.
He had the ability to be post-racial, post-partisan.
We're going to have unity.
The world was going to love us.
All of these traditional political arguments are going to be set aside.
People were going to compromise.
We're going to work together.
The old politics is going to be blown up.
And there's going to be a new era of love and harmony and all this.
Well, now we've gone from characterizing Obama with those kinds of mythical powers to somebody, it's not him fault.
He didn't have any control of the economy.
He didn't have any control over Europe.
Not his fault.
Yeah, you troll over Winhammond and China.
You can't lay Obama.
Boy, what a come down.
What a total, what a plunge here.
And by the way, fewer than 1,000 people showed up for Clinton's rally for Tom Barrett in Wisconsin, former mayor of Milwaukee.
Fewer than 1,000.
And this is the godfather.
I mean, Clinton, you think Obama's popular?
Why Obama can't hold a candle to Clinton?
Clinton's popularity even blinds that of Obama's.
Less than 1,000 people.
And there was all kinds of pre-pub leading up to this.
Lots of pre-publicity.
Now, if the rumor had been that Clinton had fathered a child, maybe a bigger crowd would have shown up because that is a resume enhancement in the Democrat side.
A thousand people.
Only 1,000 people show up.
Now, if Messiahs cannot help the economy, who can?
Let's take a brief timeout.
Rush Limbaugh, and your phone calls coming up when we get back.
Don't go away.
By the way, folks, David Brooks with Mark Maxey Shields.
Oh, I feel sorry for Obama.
He doesn't have any control over the economy.
Obama doesn't have any control over the quarterly economic numbers over what Europe is doing.
Obama has no control over what's happening in China.
If that's true, why worry about what Romney would do?
I mean, if Obama has no control over the economy, what does it matter what Romney would do?
Because he wouldn't either, right?
So what does it matter if presidents have no control?
I mean, they're giving up.
That's the House conservative at the New York Times.
Obama, that's not his fault.
Feel sorry for him.
No control over it.
Well, they sure as hell wanted us to believe that Obama was Mr. God when all this started back in 2009 when he was immaculated.
Anyway, Stephen Green Bay, we start with you on the phones today.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Rush, thank you for having me.
You bet.
One more day, and maybe our lives in this state can get back to normal, but I don't think we'll ever discover what normal is again.
You know what?
It's an excellent point because even if Walker wins, the effort to destroy him will only increase.
The Democrats don't go, and the effort to miscast, recast what happened will start.
Exactly, exactly.
I have just about had my fill, as most of the residents of this state is, with all of this complaining about the out-of-state stuff.
When this all started, who came in and got all these recall petitions going and signed?
It was the out-of-state union people.
That is exactly.
And by the way, it was a lot more than 1,000 of them.
When this recall nonsense started, Steve, you lived there.
You can confirm this.
When this recall nonsense started, they were turning out 60,000 people for these rallies, and they were bussing in union people from all over the country.
Am I right?
You are exactly right.
Some of these rallies were even 100,000 people.
And now they're complaining about all the out-of-state money that's going to Scott Walker.
And where did those 14 state senators go instead of standing their post and all that?
They ran out of state.
The Democrats have set the table here.
And if they don't like it, that they're being beat by their own rules.
Well, that's just tough.
You are the folks that got us here.
You're going to have to live with it tomorrow.
And I hope and pray to God that the state just sends them packing.
Well, we'll see.
It's all going to be known here in a little over 24 hours.
But I got to tell you something.
You know, this latest thing, the out-of-state money, it's really a funny statistic.
74% of donations to Tom Barrett within Wisconsin, 38% for Walker within Wisconsin.
Well, what, you know, this, things don't happen in a vacuum.
If a lot of out-of-state money is coming in from Scott Walker, it's called a Tea Party.
And they saw what this started as with the unions all over the country trying to take over this state.
Wisconsin is a battleground for the very future of the union government model.
That's what's at stake here.
And Obama and the Democrats have looked at it that way themselves, particularly back in the days when they thought they were going to get rid of Walker and when they were going to defeat Walker.
But I have to tell you, folks, and I'm not trying to be a downer.
I live in Litteralville.
Well, Litteralville is a suburb of Realville.
I live in both places.
I got two homes, Realville and Litteralville.
And I like to say that you look at Scott Walker's record in Wisconsin.
He hasn't laid anybody off.
He's lowered taxes.
Unemployment in Wisconsin is much lower than the national average.
Employment looking good.
The state's coffers are looking good.
Everything Scott Walker has implemented has worked exactly as he said it would.
And my point in trying to keep people enthused about this and feeling positive is that let the Democrats say whatever they want.
Let them try to create all kinds of alternative universes.
In fact, if people are living this, and so they know.
But I saw something over the weekend.
It was either at Power Line or Hot Air.
I'm not sure which.
And I didn't print it out, so I'm going to have to do this from memory.
Do you know what the gay population of the country, what percentage of our population is homosexual?
Much less than tense, like 2% to 3% of the population is gay.
However, a couple of people, a couple of companies went out and did surveys, polls, and they asked average Americans, what percentage of the population do you think is gay?
The answer came back 25%.
Now, why?
How does that happen?
If the real number, if the explanation, if the real population, gay people in the country is 2% to 3% of the population, why do people think that 25%?
And the answer is television.
The answer is the media.
The same thing about murder.
Interesting statistics about murder.
You watch television and practically every drama show is oriented around cops, robbers, and murders.
Yet when you ask people, how many people in your life do you know who've been murdered?
For the vast majority of us, the answer is zero.
It doesn't happen that much in relationship to what people think the murder rate is.
People think the murder rate is much higher than it really is.
Well, now, it depends who you ask, I know.
I remember using this argument during the Clinton years.
Clinton's happening to know a lot of people who were murdered.
But most people don't.
How many people do you know have been indicted?
You know, we watch television and we think murder, indictment, all these are common, ordinary things that happen to a lot of people, but they don't.
And the analysis was, well, if you look, they did an analysis, actually, primetime television, and the number of characters who are gay and the number of storylines involving the gay lifestyle.
And then you go to schools and how it's being taught now, starting with Heather Has Two Mommies, and how it's being portrayed as a very commonplace thing.
And the guy that did the poll said, I'll bet you I could do this same poll 10 years and they're going to think 50% of the country is gay.
Without even stopping to think about how that would not be possible.
Couldn't be possible.
And so while I sit here and say people of Wisconsin know full well that Scott Walker's policies are working because they're living them, that's not necessarily the case.
In fact, I hate pointing this out.
I wish I were not wrong about this.
But one of my laments about the 1980s is why do we have to keep teaching conservatism after the 1980s and everybody that was alive then and saw the robust economic recovery, saw what happened to their taxes, saw what happened to the jobs picture, saw how much this economy grew, patriotism, successful military operations.
Why?
How is the better question?
How was that history rewritten?
And it was revised and rewritten with a constant, never-ending, everywhere you look on television, in the news, in movies and television shows.
Reagan was this, Reagan was that, trickle-down economics didn't work.
And so people were eventually able to be convinced that what they knew to be true by virtue of having lived it wasn't.
And so the lesson in Wisconsin is that all of you on the pro-Walker side, you can't rely on the fact that even Democrats are going to realize that Walker's policies are worked because everybody in that state, media-wise, is trying to tell you the opposite, just like they're trying to tell you the opposite about Obama.
This is all Bush's fault.
But of course, if presidents have no control over the economy, then how can any be Bush's fault either?
No, I'm not concerned about Republican enthusiasm in Wisconsin.
Not at all.
I think people are going to be shocked.
I think, look, the Democrats lie to themselves.
They create these false realities to live in.
And I love it when they get so shocked they can't believe it.
▲
Export Selection