All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:47
September 11, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Did I not tell you yesterday?
Did I not make the case yesterday?
Today it's borne out to be true.
All of this inevitability of Barack Obama is manufactured.
It started in the politico with two guys named John Harris and Jim Vande High.
They're the ones who got this whole ball game running on Obama's inevitable.
And folks, it's all phony.
There's nothing to it.
Even this CNN poll.
The CNN poll it's out that's got Obama up six.
It's a joke of a poll.
The Democrats sample in this poll is absolutely unbelievably high.
It is a joke of a poll.
In fact, you know, there's there's one aspect of this poll, nobody's reporting.
I I don't of course they're not going to report this in the CNN poll that has Obama up six.
Romney is leading Obama in independence by 14.
Now I'm just going to tell you something.
If that holds up, and if on election day Romney wins independence by 14, we're looking at a landslide is not even going to be close.
Well, I want to say close, but it's going to be big.
If in a poll at CNN reports that Obama's plus six, but Romney's up 14 in independence, what does that tell you about the rest of the sample in this poll?
Anyway, how are you, folks?
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh.
We are back in action, back in the saddle.
Here we are at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number, if you want to join us, 800 282-2882.
If you want to send an email, welcome to show, Dawn.
Uh L Rushball at EIB net.com.
Well, it's the big 9-11 Memorial Day today.
A very serious and somber day for millions of Americans.
I was trying to figure out why our good friends at MSNBC and all the other cable channels have been commemorating a 9/11 anniversary so heavily.
This is the first time really that they have been commemorating it in a positive way.
9-11 has always been for them a vehicle for subtly attacking George W. Bush.
And then it hit me.
And then it hit me why they're making a big deal out of uh 9-11.
Because Obama killed Osama.
Is that it?
It's that simple.
That's why they are doing it.
Um not only we hearing uh about how Obama killed bin Laden, but we're being told that Bush blew it big time.
I am convinced, and I didn't take much either.
The Democrats are running as much against Bush as they are Romney.
In fact, they're trying to portray Romney as Bush the Third.
McCain was Bush Jr.
Romney is Bush the Third.
That that's what they're doing.
The New York Times today has a piece excoriating Bush about 9-11 because of that daily intelligence brief on August 6th that he apparently they want to want us to believe ignored.
And if he had not ignored it, that we had known bin Laden was coming.
Nowhere do we read that Bill Clinton was offered bin Laden three times on a silver platter.
Nowhere do we read, you have to find it in the Daily Caller, Chatsworth Osborne Jr.'s website.
You know that Obama's not even attending half of his intelligence briefs.
He's playing golf or whatever.
I don't know when the guy works.
George W. Bush attended the intelligence briefing every day.
Obama has not even attended half of them.
He sends surrogates.
This is that to me is significant.
But they've got this piece in the in the New York Times, and there's a big piece uh in the upcoming issue of Vanity Fair.
Uh excoriating Bush, Bush is the reason 9-11 happened, Bush ignored that uh presidential daily brief on August 6th.
I don't even want to read But all I know is that we were told For years that we're not supposed to politicize 9-11.
And here the drive-by media doing a bang up job of politicizing 9-11.
Really odd how we seldom, if ever hear about Bill Clinton and his three chances at bin Laden.
He passed every time, passed on them every time.
But there's no sense going into ancient history.
We should only go back 11 years at most.
Because that's when the left wants you to believe the war on terror started, 9-11.
And of course, it predates that.
I I tell you, the uh the mainstream media pulling out all the stops on these polls.
They are, and it folks, I told you yesterday, and I'm not trying to be falsely optimistic here.
By any stretch of the magic, it doesn't give anybody anywhere.
I have never been a false optimist.
I've never been an optimist for the sake of it.
But I'm telling you, it's all manufactured.
All the polls now have tight.
The Obama bounce for the most part is gone.
And I don't believe there ever was one.
I think the polls were jockey and manufactured and made to look like it.
This CNN poll, like I said, was released yesterday, shows Obama plus six.
But it is so skewed.
In fact, an analysis of this poll was done by a guy named Dean Chambers at the examiner.
And he says that it's doubly skewed.
It massively undersamples independence and oversamples Democrats.
The CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll reports Obama at 52, Romney at 46.
Unskewed.
The data reveals a 53 to 45% lead for Romney.
If the poll were honest, Romney would be plus eight in the CNN poll.
Not making that up.
This new CNN poll, unlike many other analyzed, not only oversamples the Democrat voters, it massively undersamples independence, which produces a result that's more favorable to Obama.
The survey sample includes 397 Republicans, registered Republicans, 441 registered Democrats, but a total of 822 registered voters, leaving only 37 independent voters at most.
37 independent voters out of 822.
That is a massive undersample.
And in those 37, Romney's up 14.
It's stunning.
Among the uh the Democrats survey, 97% favor Obama, 3% Romney.
The Republican surveys chose Romney 96 to 2.
Those margins display a high degree of party loyalty in uh in each party for its candidate, which is plausible in a campaign like this, where both sides are focusing heavily on boosting turnout among their base.
Independents massively undersampled in this survey, support Romney 54 to 40.
And it may be one of the reasons they're undersampled.
And by the way, this the Romney with independence, this is pretty common.
14, 15, we see this from poll to poll to poll.
And if anybody's being skewed by the polls, it's us.
It's the consumer.
This is journalistic malpractice what's going on here.
And like I say, I am not trying to be falsely optimistic and build you up for no reason.
That would be cruel.
I wouldn't do that.
Folks, they they're shooting their whole wad here.
I mean, and and they can't, they can't get Obama to 50%.
They can't get Obama significantly ahead of Romney, no matter what they did, unless they skew the poll like CNN did.
And there isn't another poll out there that shows Obama plus six.
Even ABC Washington Post has come back down to earth.
Among likely voters, Obama Romney close.
Convention bounce has uh over.
There wasn't a convention bounce.
Rasmussen reports.
Uh reports partisan trends among voters based on tens of thousands of voters surveys showed the voting electorate made up of 35.4% Republicans, 34% Democrats, and 30 and a half percent independent.
And if you use that, that's that's Rasmussen's report of partisan trends.
If you use that as your sample, you would have Romney plus eight in the CNN poll, not Obama plus six.
And yet we've got the audio coming up.
There's a Wolf Blitzer out there having an orgasm on the air reporting this poll.
Bigger orgasm than he was reporting, Bush.
Plummeting and falling into the 30s.
The ABC Washington Post poll.
All of a sudden things are tighter now.
But even this poll of likely voters oversamples Democrats by 6%.
The sample here is 33% Democrat, 27% Republican, 36% independent.
Does anybody really believe 27% of the turnout on November, whatever it is, is going to be 27% Republican?
Does anybody really believe that?
Did anybody really believe it's 6%, whatever the end ending numbers are, 6% more Democrats are going to vote on election day than Republicans?
Does anybody really believe that?
Nobody believes that.
And yet this is what they're polling.
Every poll shows the Republicans with much higher voter enthusiasm.
So the real news here, even in the ABC News Washington Post poll would be much better for Romney.
This poll also claims that when all voters are asked to compare the two contenders on a series of issues and attributes.
On 15 items, Obama has significant leads on eight.
Romney zero.
And we're supposed to believe this.
We're supposed to believe in a poll that Romney is only one point behind, that nobody thinks of Romney as superior on any of 15 issues.
I'm telling you, it is an all-out effort on the part of the drive-by medias to concoct what is a false reality and a false narrative, which essentially is the inevitability of Barack Obama.
If they had to give it a title, that's what they're doing.
And that's meant also to dispirit you and to hopefully suppress your vote.
However, there's a problem lurking out there, and it's the Bob Woodruff book, or Woodward.
Well, I knew a guy named Woodruff.
The Bob Woodward book does not make Obama look competent, good, or even present.
Details coming up.
They're also trying to keep you from giving any money to Romney.
Obama's back in Ohio.
What in the world is Obama doing in Iowa?
What is he doing in Iowa?
The unemployment rate in Iowa is 5.3%.
It's not catastrophic.
What is he doing?
What was he doing here in Palm Beach County?
I'm telling folks, this inevitability, they are dreaming it.
The conservative blogosphere have been wringing its hands for the last week.
How in the world can this election even be close?
They're asking themselves.
And a lot of people are asking themselves that.
And the reason they're asking themselves that's because they read these skewed, phony artificial poll results.
It's only on the basis of these polls that anybody thinks the race is close.
That's the only reason.
And when you go in and you're able to dissect the poll and discredit the poll, then that takes the question off the table.
Now, I am not saying, I don't want anybody to assume here that I think it's over the other way that Romney's inevitable.
We're still gonna have to show up, work hard.
I think the Romney campaign's gonna have to make some changes.
They're gonna have to go ideological.
They cannot continue on this Obama Mr. Nice guy, but They just can't do it.
It isn't going to work.
Romney's gonna need a mandate if he wins.
A mandate can't be tied up in Obama's a nice guy, misguided, or any of that.
I'm not saying go out and say Obama's a bad guy.
But he's got to be tied to this economy.
His policies, his ideas, his ideology, liberalism is still a dirty word in this country.
Use it.
Don't let them get away with progressive.
It's liberal, and that's what they are.
And Obama needs to be tied to this dismal economic so-called recovery.
He needs to be tied to the economy, and he also needs to be tied to what's in our future if he wins.
One of the latest theories.
See what you think of this.
One of the latest theories to explain what eraser close is that a lot of people, you know, the statement argument is that uh close to 50% of all Americans receive some sort of government check benefit welfare, what have you.
Added up 50%.
Further, the argument goes a lot of people have burned through their 99 weeks of unemployment and now have found out that they can go on social security disability and continue to get paid.
And therefore the argument is that rather than have that statistic just royal the American future.
Say, gosh, what's happening to our country?
Instead, the theory is that will lead to more voters for Obama because those people want the checks to continue to come.
Which takes us down to the argument that we've always wondered where where are we as a country?
Have we lost the country?
Have we lost, in other words, the way I phrased it the other day, we can handle four years of Obama, but we can't handle four more years of the people who would elect him.
And I don't think we've lost the country in that regard, but some do, and that's the theory to explain why the growing welfare roles benefit Obama.
And there's another argument out there that the uh uh the rich, this is sort of a dovetail argument why people like Gates and Buffett run around talking about tax increases and they're not paying enough.
The reason they do that is to inoculate themselves any criticism criticism and keep people away from their money.
If you're Bill Gates and you're running around, yeah, I don't think I'm paying enough taxes, and the people who want to take your money will leave you alone because you understand that you're uh rich guy and you're not paying enough.
But if you're if you're talking about tax cuts or so forth, you become the enemy, people want your money even more.
Well, remember when we uh not discovered, but made the point that the Catholic Church got sucked into the Democrat Party long ago because they associated welfare with charity.
Well, there's there are a lot of apparently so goes the theory, a lot of wealthy, highly achieved people who look at high taxes in big government as charity and support it for that reason because it gives them cover too.
All of this is part of this game of Barack Obama inevitabilities designed to suppress your vote and depress your spirits.
Don't let it happen.
I want you to ask yourself a question.
In your life, in your entire life, have you ever thought of the government?
You ever thought of taxes and welfare together as charity?
Now we know the Catholic Church did.
They've admitted it.
I mean, various prelates, archbishops, monsignors, popes, over the years, we know have equated high taxes, activist government with charity, and that's why they support it.
Liberalism, socialism equals charity, and that's what we churches do.
We help the poor, blah, blah.
But I'm gonna, in your lifetime, have you ever heard anybody who is achieved in life or successful and maybe rich?
Have you ever heard them argue for tax increases?
Or argue against tax cuts on the basis, no, no, no, well, you know what we need to help people.
Uh it's charity.
Government's charity.
As a way of making themselves feel good and look good to others.
I'm not aware of it.
In my lifetime, up until Obama becoming president, I'm not aware of this phenomenon.
Of the rich and the successful, looking at tax increases as okay because that's charity.
Charity is not donated at the point of a gun or the threat of a prison cell a la Obamacare.
Charity is not conscripted.
Charity is willfully given from the heart or for the tax deduction.
But you have no choice when it comes to taxes.
I'd like to see how the government stacks up as a charity anyway, based on the usual standards that we would measure other charities by, the administrative costs, what are the real results, the net dollars, all that.
But it would look bad.
Having more fun than a human being shouldn't be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh serving humanity simply by showing up, executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
I didn't see any of this, but I I got a couple of emails.
Last night during a special report, Brett Bear, Fox News Channel.
The discussion was the Chicago school teacher strike.
And of course, the subject was raised that Rush Limbaugh had said that the whole thing might be a setup.
Allowing Obama an opportunity to go in and settle the thing.
However he settles it.
For great political benefit, Barack Obama.
You know, I made the point yesterday.
And this theory was debunked on two different shows yesterday on Fox.
First by A. B. Stoddard.
Rush Limbaugh is wrong.
This is not a democratic setup so that the media can swoon and the president can rush in and rescue the deal and end the strike and help the unions.
I think this is far more politically toxic for President Obama and uh knows that coming out in favor of the teachers' union would be a big mistake.
Would it?
And does he have to come out in favor of the teachers' union to solve it?
Could he not have a deal with the teachers' union that goes something like this?
Okay, look, you guys, you go in there and you ask for 16%.
It's outrageous.
And Rom's gonna tell you to go take a hike.
And you have two or three days, the kids out, you know, doing whatever they're doing.
I'll come in there and I'll get you to take eight percent, which is far better than anybody else's getting out there.
And it'll be my magic that persuades you teachers take eight percent for the good of the schools, the good of the kids.
Eight percent for more I don't know, but it's that that to me is entirely possible.
Entirely sixteen percent when eighty percent of the students don't graduate because they're too stupid, which is what the teachers say, not me.
That teacher in Atlanta.
Sixteen percent, you don't think that figure gives Obama room to go in there and work his magic with his buddies?
The unions make Rom look well, Rom.
Doesn't matter how Rom looks because that city's never going to elect a Republican.
All it matters is how Obama looks and what the teachers end up getting.
And the teachers' union, big Obama supporters.
All I'm saying is I wouldn't be surprised.
And then over on Red Eye, the 3 a.m. show on Fox, Ann Coulter thought I was all full of it.
Here is uh conversation there, Greg Guttfeld, the host, said I like this story.
You have former chief of staff Rom Emanuel going up against the unions.
I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about this today, and I hadn't thought of it in that way.
But it would be really great for Obama if he could come step in and be, you know, the big man on campus and say, let's all get along, you give this, you give that, we'll all make it work, we'll solve the educational problem together.
Not gonna happen.
No.
No.
It wouldn't work for him if he did that.
You'd have to be like Scott Walker.
He would have to be like Scott Walker to make it work.
That's Ann Coulter.
All right, so I'm all wet.
Uh I'm wrong.
It couldn't possibly happen.
Couldn't possibly be a setup.
Okay, fine.
But let me I almost don't want to give away the game here.
See, it doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong.
That's the whole point of doing this.
How many of you?
Yes, and I'm toying here, I'll admit.
I'm debating as I'm speaking whether to explain what's really going on here.
Why I said this.
I'm what a one theory is don't the magician never ever shows you how they do the trick.
And in this case, I would be the magician.
An analogy is somewhat flawed.
I'm not saying there's magic here, but there is a there is a feint, there is deception, there is illusion that I'm employing here.
Snurdly gets snurdly nose exactly why I raised the possibility of Obama, of this whole thing being an opportunity yesterday for Obama to go in, magically solve it for everybody.
In the middle of a presidential campaign.
What amazes me is how so many people, no way, couldn't pop, but this guy politicizes everything.
They think no way.
No, he wouldn't.
They're asking for 16%.
If Obama, that's that's made the order for negotiating.
You always ask for more than you think you're gonna get.
You always put some throwaways in your negotiation.
As 19% fine, asking.
Well, the original offer uh was 4%.
Original offer's 4%.
But if my point is, what if it's 16, 19%?
They can still settle for eight and be way ahead of everybody else.
I mean, who else is getting raises of 8%?
No buddy.
But still that's not the point.
Yeah, the nuts and bolts of this are not.
Oh, Snerdley knows why I mentioned it.
Snerdley knows why I made the prediction.
Or raised the possibility.
I still, though, I I'm I'm fascinated is too strong a word, but I am intrigued that so many people think it not even possible that Obama would insert himself in this.
Uh because he can't.
There's no win here for Obama.
Um that this is far more politically toxic for Obama.
And coming out in favor of the teachers' union would be a big mistake.
Who says he has to come out in favor of the teachers' union?
Why can't he be for everybody?
Isn't that who Barack Obama is, anyways?
For everybody.
He can help the students, he could get them back in class, eating Michelle's menu.
What a bonus.
Teachers get a big raise, not what they're asking for, but far more than anybody else is getting.
And Rom can go back and trying to get the gangbangers from stopping shooting the kids in Chicago.
It's a win-win for everybody.
And yet the wizards of smarts, no way.
Impossible.
It couldn't happen.
Obama got too much to lose.
The only way Obama has too much to lose is if he inserts himself.
And there is no solution.
And I'm sure that's what they mean.
But Obama wouldn't insert himself unless there were a pre-ordained pre-established solution.
Like somebody gets on the phone to the teachers union.
The teachers union guys, a former, his name is Klonski or something.
He's a former member of the Communist Party USA.
He's a big-time Obama supporter.
The head teachers union guy Chicago's a big member of the Communist Party USA.
He's a huge Obama supporter.
So somebody from the White House calls and guys, here's what's going to happen.
And they lay out the deal, and the communist teacher guy says, either yes or no.
And if the guy says, screw that, I'm not taking it, then Obama doesn't get involved.
But if he takes the deal, then but it's it'll it would be made to look like Obama couldn't take it anymore.
Had to this for the children.
Oh, it's just gone too long.
the kids are missing out on a very crucial education.
Of course, you can't get anywhere in America without an education.
Education, this, education, that, that's all the Democrats talk about.
We're not funding it enough, we're not spending enough on education.
It's the route to every possible thing that's good in America, including gay marriage, can't have that without education.
And here are a bunch of kids not being educated.
Well, we've got to fix that.
Obama made to in the middle of a presidential campaign.
But he wouldn't do it unless it were preordained.
Now there has to be a reason why Obama hasn't said one thing about this.
He usually weighs in on everything, but he hasn't this.
The great leader, the boy wonder, has not uttered a word.
But he'll pronounce on anything that comes up anywhere.
You what?
He's gonna find a way to come out for the children and for the teachers.
You and I all this is gonna be settled, isn't it?
Every work stoppage is eventually settled, right?
Do you think Obama doesn't want to be involved in that?
You think Obama does not want to share in the glow of this future settlement?
Just like when he killed bin Laden.
All that hard work.
Sitting there in that chair watching on TV as it happened.
But even all of this is still not the reason I mentioned this.
In fact, rather than give away the secret, the trick, I'll leave it up.
If you you people on the phones you're calling, if you want to take a stab at why I even brought it up, we'll see if you can figure it out.
See if some of you know.
I'll give you a hint.
No, I'm not gonna give you a hint.
Not gonna give it.
After 24 years, I'm stunned it still works.
Hehehehehehe.
Hap Are you great to be with you, Rush Limbaugh, the excellence in broadcasting network?
Speaking of charity, we have a column here by the great Dr. Thomas Sowell, who is at the Hoover Institute on the campus, Stanford University, it's a little conservative enclave out there.
Dr. Sowell, he wanted to see the uh the Dinesh D'Souza movie 2016, Obama's America.
They didn't let a copy of it in the city limits of Palo Alto.
They didn't even let it drive through there on the way anywhere else.
They wouldn't even let the movie, the DVD, how whatever, whatever media it's not, they wouldn't let it in time.
He had to drive 30 miles to see the movie.
And it was so crowded he sat in the steps in the aisle in the balcony.
The theme that most seemed to rouse the enthusiasm of delegates at Democrat National Convention was that we are all responsible for one another, and that Republicans don't want to help the poor, the sick, the helpless, the thirsty.
All of us should be on guard against beliefs that flatter ourselves.
At the very least, we should check such beliefs against facts.
Yet the notion that people who prefer economic decisions to be made by individuals in the market are not as compassionate as people who prefer those decisions to be made collectively by politicians is seldom even thought of as a belief that should be checked against facts.
What are you saying?
Where did it ever evolve?
How did it evolve that politicians or bigger hearted have more caring and more concern, more compassion than individuals in the private sector who engage in charitable acts.
He's asking, where did this start?
Well, he says this notion's not confined to Democrats in America today, which is exactly my point mere moments ago.
Belief in the superior compassion of the political left is a worldwide phenomenon goes back at least as far as the 18th century.
That would be the 1700s for those of you in Rio Linda.
But in all that time and in all those places, there has been little, if any, effort on the left to check this assumption against facts.
When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006.
It turned out that conservatives donated a much larger amount of money and a higher percentage of their incomes to philanthropic activities, despite the fact that their incomes were slightly lower than liberals.
Conservatives also donated more of their time to philanthropic activities and donated far more blood than liberals.
What is most remarkable about the study?
It's not just the results.
What's even more remarkable is how long it took before anybody even bothered to ask the questions.
It was just assumed for centuries that the left was more compassionate.
Rinaldous Magnus donated a higher percentage of his income to charitable activities than did either FDR or Ted Kennedy.
He had nowhere near the money either of those two guys had.
You see, being willing to donate the taxpayers'money is not the same as being willing to put your own money where your mouth is.
Milton Friedman pointed out that the heyday of free market capitalism in the 19th century was a period of unprecedented rise in philanthropic philanthropic activity.
Going back even further in time in the eighteenth century, Adam Smith, the patron saint of free market economics, was discovered from records examined after his death to have privately made large charitable donations far beyond what might have been expected from somebody of his income level.
Helping those who have been struck by unforeseeable misfortunes is fundamentally different from making dependents a way of life.
Although the big word on the left is compassion, the big agenda on the left is dependency.
The more people who are dependent on government, the more votes the left can depend on for an ever expanding welfare state.
See, this is the and and and this is it's seductive.
This notion that government is charity is gets you off the hook.
You have to do anything.
All you have to do is run and say that you are in favor of tax increases.
That's all you have to do.
As a rich Republican, as a rich liberal, as a moderately successful anybody.
They say you support tax increases and you are automatically assumed to be a charitable person.
So, And it gets you off the hook.
And since everybody is so focused on what other people think of them, the whole notion of government as charity is made to order.
Thomas Sowell has written, and it's being it's being retweeted all over Twitter.
I have never believed for a moment that Barack Obama has the best interests of the United States at heart.
In my own, of course, unique way, but so is Sol.
Anthony retweeted all over the place.
Let's grab a call.
Patrick North Jersey, welcome, sir to the EIB network.
Great to have you here.
Hey, Roch, how are you?
Good.
Thank you.
Um every day I get up, I make lunch for my four kids.
I send them off to school.
I'm a single dad.
Uh I make them breakfast, I make them lunch.
And uh, I basically almost fell off my floor, and I apologize if you talked about this yesterday, but the Chicago school system is sending these children to school.
I'm I estimated the cost at about two to two to three million dollars a day based on about a four dollar lunch.
Four hundred thousand children are receiving lunch.
And breakfast.
And breakfast from the Chicago school system.
Right.
The teachers are striking, but the schools are open for meals.
Who's paying for that?
You and me.
And and the other thing is no wonder there's not they can't pay the teachers their $100,000 a year salaries.
I mean, I'm astonished.
I mean, I think your parents probably made you the bologna sandwich every day, and you know, I do it and I make the lunch, and it, you know, the money out of my pocket, I have to come up with after school.
Well, I hated me or a babysitter, and I I don't understand because I hated baloney.
So my mother just gave me a quarter and said, okay, buy it.
Yeah, but that's what school lunch cost when I was a quarter.
Well, now now if you say I had the juicy burgers.
And if I had known then That there was going to be a Michelle Obama, I would have doubled down on the Juicy Burgers.
I would have had them every day, not just on Friday.
No, I haven't decided whether I'm going to divulge the reason.
I'm just I'm.
Why did I mention that Obama is set up very well to solve the Chicago tool school teacher strike?
I mean noted thinkers and media types are saying, and I'm full of it, that this is too toxic.
Obama got nothing to gain by doing that.
And and well, there's a there's a reason for mentioning it.
Regardless what happens, regardless what happens, I don't know when these people are gonna figure it out.
It's been 24 years.
Be back.
▲
Export Selection