All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 13, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:55
September 13, 2012, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hey, greetings, my friends, and welcome back to the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to have you here.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882, the email address.com.
When the program was over yesterday, I told Snerdley, I said, you know, uh I needed three more hours.
The stuff that we didn't get to yesterday was just overflowing, the audio sound bites.
And it has uh given me a new resolve.
I I um I want to we were loaded again today.
I mean, just it's just incredible that we're watching the disintegration of two institutions right in front of our eyes.
And we're all wondering are we the only ones who see it?
Everyone we're watching the disintegration of a presidency.
We are we are looking at blatant, uncompromised incompetence.
And we have we we are witnessing the corruption of another institution, the the so-called mainstream media.
They continue to descend into depths that they're not even aware of.
Everybody's talking about it.
Everybody thinks they're the only ones who notice it.
Believe me, you're not.
Everybody's noticing it.
Let me use as an example of the video or the audio that I opened the program with yesterday, but I've been told about it, we couldn't find it.
Finally, in the final hour of the program, we found it.
We've also identified the two people.
Now, one was Jan Greenberg or Jan Crawford.
She used to be Jan Crawford Greenberg when she was at ABC.
Now she's at CBS, she's just using two names.
Jan Crawford.
She's the one that did the profile, by the way, for 60 minutes of Clarence Thomas.
Or maybe it was I don't know what for what was for, but she was the reporter at who did it.
And there was some guy from NPR, and they were the ones yesterday that were coordinating their questions.
Now we talked about this at the end of the program yesterday.
Was very key to understand what they were doing.
They were not coordinating questions.
They were establishing the narrative of the day.
What they were doing in collaboration with each other was establishing, and I'm sure they weren't the only ones.
I mean the the uh I I had to laugh watching some some television last night.
No, it was this morning.
Gretchen Carlson at Fox is shocked.
She said she was shocked, she never knew this kind of thing went on.
Well, real journalists didn't do this kind of stuff.
She was, I imagine a lot of people were surprised.
A lot of people still have a lofty view of journalism that it is uh uh clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, it's objective, that the uh reporters are uh open-minded, all of these uh uh traditional uh uh opinions people have had about the media that are being blown up right in front of everybody's face now.
Now what they were doing was establishing the narrative, and that is a key difference than just coordinating questions.
They were setting the tone for what the story was gonna be, and it had nothing to do with the substance of what Mitt Romney was saying.
That is precisely their objective.
The answers that Romney gave to whatever questions they came up with were irrelevant.
And this is common now.
I learned this directly 23, 24 years ago when I first started being interviewed.
I I often uh one of the big mistakes that I made, and I had to learn it on my own, there was nobody to tell me.
I actually thought that when a journalist invited me TV or print for an interview, I thought they were really interested in what I had to say.
And I looked at it as an opportunity to persuade them.
I looked at it as an opportunity to convince them that I was right.
I looked and I thought they were open-minded and interested in it, and that's not at all what was going on.
I was too inexperienced to know it.
Even 23, 24 years ago, their purpose in interviewing me was to find out how they could discredit me.
They didn't like.
I was conservative.
They weren't interested in being persuaded.
They weren't interested in any answer that I gave, unless it fit the narrative that they were trying to establish.
It's what defense lawyers do when they don't have a case.
They try to establish a whole different narrative of the story away from the uh from the defendant for the jury.
But they don't do it now in a monopolistic setting, and they don't do it in a vacuum, and everybody now sees it.
Even if people don't understand that what they were doing was establishing a narrative, they still hear them collaborating and coordinating questions.
And even if people don't understand that the narrative being set was what's going on, they're still appalled.
They're still appalled that they would be coordinating.
They think that these people are competitors.
They think the people at ABC compete with NBC and CBS to be first.
No, folks.
They're nothing more than Democrats with bylines.
It's all they are.
They're all on the same team.
ABC, CBS, NBC, and I'll tell you what team they're really on.
And that's the Ivy League graduate team.
I mentioned some time ago, and interestingly enough, there's a story that actually documents that another one of my instincts has been totally true.
I often have thought that the purpose of getting into the Ivy League and graduating there was to set you up for a position or a life in government in positions of power.
And whether it be Brown or whether it be MIT or Harvard or Yale or Princeton, that's what the place was.
It was a it was a the Ivy League with its different tiers was a singular entity for the express purpose of turning out editors, reporters, State Department types, um bureaucrats, potential presidents, potential vice presidents.
Interestingly, not members of the House, uh, but for even some senators, but the highest levels of government, these people are trained, and they all come out, they all think the same thing about government.
And it's it's a non-ideological thing.
They're all liberal, but it's like a giant click.
And if you're not in it, you are looked down upon, frowned upon, you are considered a second class human being.
It largely explains the way they treated Sarah Palin and reacted to Sarah Palin.
She's not an Ivy League, and pretty much anybody else is not.
And these people in the media are part of that cabal, part of that subgroup, and they all come out, and they're not competing with each other at the networks, they're They're all on the same team, and they all always have been.
They don't care really if their divisions make any money.
In fact, they often argue that their jobs are so important, their mission so crucial that they ought to not be held to bottom line concerns.
In other words, the the news divisions ought to be allowed to lose money.
Dan Rather made that argument constantly.
Every time somebody knew bought CBS, the first thing they looked to cut back was the news division, because it was so fat.
Every time it happened, rather go out publicly and talk about how this is horrible.
It's going to damage America, damage the news division, damage the Constitution.
Um news divisions ought not have to pay attention to bottom line.
Brokov thought it's the same thing.
Actually, talked to him about it once.
All of these things are now becoming visible.
People are now seeing it, may not be able to put it in proper context or perspective, may not understand creating a narrative versus collaborating on questions, but nevertheless, it's happening, and we're we're witnessing it right in front of our eyes.
At a most precipitous time in nation's history.
We got the president of the United States is literally demonstrating not only incompetence, but a lack of concern or even any emotional attachment to anything.
He has no emotional attachment to the problems in the middle class, which, by the way, is shrinking.
Lower class is growing.
Wholesale inflation is rising.
Labor market's struggling.
The census says the middle class has shrunk to an all-time low.
For many, the most troubling is income inequality.
Not that everybody's having a tougher time, but that the share of income that's still out there hasn't hit the rich as hard.
This is a Washington Post story as they try to shape this as an anti-rich story, but the fact of the matter is it's a it it's a story that demonstrates how liberalism fails.
Now the Democrat Party has utterly failed and is in the process of destroying the great engine of creativity and prosperity in this country.
It's it's it's right before our eyes.
And while all this is happening, the narrative set yesterday on Mitt Romney is that he's the enemy.
He's the big problem.
He's the one that's going to be taken out.
He's the one who's gonna if I didn't know better, if I just landed here from Mars and I'm watching the media cover these two guys, I'd think Romney is the president.
He's the one whose comments are being parsed.
He's the one who's answering questions.
He's the one the press trying to get answers from.
This other guy, this Obama guy goes out, Rose Garden acts like he doesn't care about anything when he makes his comments and he turns his back, ignores questions, and gets on a plane, flies to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.
They had to move indoors from outdoors because there's not enough interest.
He goes on 60 minutes and starts sounding just like Jimmy Carter.
This is unbelievable.
Of all the pre We we did that side by side where his acceptance speech at the convention was parts of it seemed to be lifted word for word from Jimmy Carter, and yesterday on 60 minutes.
But I actually laughed out loud when I heard Obama tell 60 minutes that Mitt Romney has a tendency to shoot first and aim later.
This is the same Barack Obama who said that the Cambridge police acted stupidly when they arrested his good buddy Skip Gates.
Obama shot off his mouth about that without having the slightest clue what really happened.
And here he is getting on Romney for shooting first and aiming later, which is not at all what Romney did.
But that's the narrative.
Romney spoke too soon, Romney violated protocol, Romney this, Romney that.
That was the narrative.
That was the purpose of the questions.
Obama's entire presidency has just been an endless stream of shooting from the lip.
I don't know if we really should be surprised hearing Obama say that or not, no matter how ironic it is.
It's almost word for word what Jimmy Carter said about Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
I'm going to skip number 17.
We'll get to that in a minute.
I had his this is an example of the program flows with improv.
My first soundbite with number seven.
What it is?
I can't believe this.
Obama actually said on Telemundo that Egypt isn't an ally or an enemy.
They were an ally.
When did they stop becoming an ally?
Egypt, Egypt and Saudi Arabia of the Arab country were our allies.
We gave Egypt a billion and a half dollars a year!
Unbelievable.
Let's not brought it here.
Let's play it.
This is Obama's on Telemundo no tussion telemundo.
The anchor is Jose Diaz Ballat.
He said, Would you consider the current Egyptian regime an ally of the United States?
I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy.
They are a new government that is trying to find its way.
They were democratically elected.
I think that uh we are gonna have to see how they respond to this incident.
Uh how they respond to, for example, maintaining the peace treaty with Israel.
So far, at least what we've seen is that in some cases they've said the right things and taken the right steps.
In others, how they've responded to various events may not be aligned with our interests.
Uh I really don't know where to go with this.
How they respond to this incident, maintain the peace treaty with Israel.
They've already torn up the Muslim Brotherhood has one of the agreements made at Camp David with Sadat and Carter.
The Muslim Brotherhood.
I have to take a break.
I just looked at the clock, and then we'll get back to this Jimmy Carter combat.
I don't understand this either.
Why, of all the people, Barack Obama wants to emulate, it's Jimmy Carter.
If he wants to go back and get the words of a previous Democrat president, why is he using Jimmy Carter?
I can't believe he really wants to lose.
You imagine Obama trying to lose this thing for whatever reason.
He got to be frustrated as hell.
The media doesn't get it.
The media's propping him up.
He's trying to lose this thing, trying to sound like the last Democrat that lost in a landslide, Jimmy Carter.
Let's take the time out.
We'll come back.
We will continue much more straight ahead here on the EIB network.
Do not go away.
So we're waiting.
We're waiting to see what the new Egyptian government does, how they react to the incident.
All you need to know is that the new president of Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood guy, has demanded, Morsi is his name, has demanded that the government prosecute the filmmakers.
And we're learning more about the the filmmaker.
It is some kook, it's a freak, it's a longtime troublemaker.
He ought not be given the time of day.
And the fact of the matter is that this is not about the movie.
I do believe that the masses in Egypt and in Benghazi are reacting.
I think that's how they've been whipped into a frenzy.
I think they are reacting to this uh movie because they're being told by the people that are agitating them.
But the leadership of Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brothers, they don't care a whit about that movie.
It's convenient way to get their their charges all riled up.
They would it was September 11th.
They had something planned anyway, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
This is going to keep happening.
And the United States, I saw Mrs. Clinton this morning on television, and I thought I I got I tuned into it in the middle of it, and I was spellbound.
I was stunned why I felt who she's speaking to.
I didn't know at first.
It was Morocco, as it turned out.
She was speaking to them as though they were five years old.
And she was explaining our First Amendment.
And how it's just unfortunate that there are so many, I'm paraphrasing, it's unfortunate there's so many kooks in our country, but we have to let them say what they want to say.
Okay.
She wasn't at all perturbed at the violence committed against our embassy and consulate and the eruption of uh you know protests elsewhere.
She was hellbent on explaining to the Moroccans and anybody else in the Arab world, the Al-Qaeda world that was listening, that we don't mean you any harm.
We really love you.
We really like it.
It was breathtaking to watch.
Because underlining it all, underlying it all was you you could tell her belief that we're responsible.
We're at fault, and we know it, but you still shouldn't have reacted with violence.
No matter that we have a First Amendment, and no matter that our people are allowed to say whatever they want, no matter how stupid, no matter how extreme, no matter how kooky, it still shouldn't be responded to with violence.
And I'm sure that the people watching Mrs. Clinton part of the world are laughing themselves, falling off chairs.
It was like conflict resolution 101.
It really was amateur hour.
It's this it's stuff like that that makes me think we've lost the country.
Or that we're losing the country.
People in positions of power who hold this country to blame.
We're at fault.
Our Constitution's the problem.
And we beg murderers and terrorists all over the world to be patient with us.
And to understand.
Unlike in your country where you can put your kooks in jail and torture them and put them in dungeons.
We have to put up with ours.
We can't do anything to them.
You have to understand we're we're sort of handcuffed here.
We can't treat our dissidents the way we would like to, the way you do.
It was sophomoric, it was insulting everybody's intelligence, it was unprofessional.
It was the way a teacher in the fifth grade talks to students.
It's our secretary of state talking to the terror community around the world as though they're the ones who are our friends.
I'm trying to put my finger on what bothers me.
The most about there's a there's something that's been gnawing at me.
I always try to not get caught up.
It's very hard.
Hard to avoid this.
The narrative, we're talking about the narrative of the program started.
The daily media narrative, there is one.
They are all, we wonder how they can all end up using the word gravitas.
We we wonder how they can all end up using the same.
We heard it with Jan Crawford and Ari Shapiro setting the narrative.
Grandpaudio soundbite 26.
I'm sorry to be so scattershot, folks.
Here, I've literally cannot keep up with my brain here.
There's too much.
I can't keep up with my own brain.
I'm sorry if it sounds disjointed, but I'll get a uh a neuron of a thought, and I want to launch and explain it because I'm afraid I'll forget it if I set it aside.
Here, grab the soundbite.
This is again the coordination, two reporters, one CBS, one NPR, they are setting the narrative of the day.
This is before they've asked Romney a single question.
That's the question.
Yeah, that's the question.
I wouldn't even say I mean I would just say, do you regret your question?
Your question.
I mean, your statement, not even the tone.
Because then he can go off on it.
And then if he does, I think we should follow up and say, but this morning, your hands will be continuing to set up.
Who he calls on, we're covered on the one question that...
Do you stand by your statement or do you want to try your statement?
Okay.
So the answers that Romney had give to any of those questions are irrelevant.
They don't care what he's gonna say, they don't care what his ideas are, they don't care what his policy is, they don't care a whit.
The only point that they have here is to set up a narrative all day long where Romney's the problem, where Romney spoke, Romney spoke too soon, Romney's unpresidential, Romney's unqualified, Romney's this, Romney's that.
That's the objective.
And that is that is something that happens every day in the media.
Every day.
They don't have to collaborate, although we now know that they do.
They don't have to, they all think alike.
They all have the same objective.
They are Democrats with bylines.
It's very hard to avoid this narrative each and every day.
What but but there's there's something much larger than these individual incidents at our embassy in Egypt and what happened in Benghazi, and that is arrived at by asking why are these two things happening?
Well, what's the media narrative on that?
Well, the media narrative is that there's this video out there or movie on YouTube that makes fun of the Prophet Muhammad.
Okay, that's it.
That explains everything.
That explains the militants, that explains the anger, and guess what?
That does make it our fault, and there you have the narrative.
It's our fault because we have a constitution.
It's our fault because we got a First Amendment.
It's our fault because we've got uncontrollable extremist kooks, hate mongers, whatever the left wants to say.
And they always all happen to be conservatives.
When in reality, that's not why any of This is happening at all.
This is not happening because of a movie.
It's not happening because of a YouTube video or whatever it is.
It is happening for a reason.
This is what I've been trying to get my arms around.
And I finally succeeded.
And it's been right in front of my face.
And you know it and I know it.
This is happening because we have a disaster as a president.
This is happening because American foreign policy as a whole is imploding.
We have somebody in charge of American foreign policy and his Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, who have a politically correct conflict resolution, United States is always at fault worldview.
That is how you get Obama apologizing all over the world shortly after he takes office.
That's that's why Obama bows to all of these foreign leaders.
It's why he went to Cairo and made this speech.
The assumption is that George Bush ruined our reputation around the world.
Why?
Because George Bush was a cowboy.
What's that mean?
It means Bush stood up for America.
Bush said you're either with us or you're against us.
Oh no, that's not conflict resolution 101.
Oh no, that's not fair.
Oh no, that's not justice.
Because you see, the United States doesn't deserve to win all the time, folks.
We've won way too many times in the view of Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama, both from the Yalinski school.
We've been victorious way too often for way too many decades.
And because of these unjust victories, we have become unjustly wealthy.
And we have become unjustly powerful.
It hasn't been fair, it hasn't been right, and all of the you know how the Democrats love to make victims of people in this country.
The whole world is the victims of the United States.
That's why we're where we are.
We have a foreign policy that is predicated on the belief that this country is guilty or has committed atrocities.
I'll I'll I'll pull back and not say crimes, but in their view, we have a country that has committed atrocities, that has stolen, that has purloined, that has imposed our will on poor people had no choice and no power to reject us.
We don't do things for good.
We do things for selfish reasons involving wealth and power.
And so now it's the job of Barack Obama when he even before he's making the speech in Berlin, even before he becomes president after he becomes president.
His mission, therefore, in his convoluted mind and also Mrs. Clinton's is to tell the rest of the world, they assume the rest of the world agrees with them about everything.
So the way that we will have peace is for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to essentially blame us, as they do.
And once they do that, so goes the thinking in conflict resolution 101.
Once we tell our enemies that we understand that we have been at fault at times in the past, they will thus be mollified, and because of the power of the personality of Barack Obama and the bigness of his willingness to admit our fault and complicity in atrocities for 200 plus years that they will stand down.
It is a blatantly ignorant understanding of tyrants, even though they aspire to be tyrants in their own way.
It is a blatant misunderstanding of evil.
It is an absorption in the in the myth that the power of their goodness and decency can overcome all this evil, primarily with their words and with their speeches.
That all they have to do is acknowledge that we have been imperfect.
Obama did this.
There was a Chicom guy came to town early on in Bam's regime.
And some Obama spokesman was sent out there to tell a ChICOM guy, hey, you know, we know we haven't been exactly fair with you all these years.
This is exactly how they think and what they do.
Well, what has this resulted in?
Where Are we?
United States foreign policy is in collapse.
Not because of a movie, not because of some kook preacher somewhere, not because of some fake movie producer, as it turns out.
United States foreign policy is in collapse because of who's in charge of it.
And that would be Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and all the underlings that they have appointed who think likewise, who think as they do.
How can any of this be happening after Obama made his Cairo speech?
In his mind it shouldn't be.
In Hillary's mind, it should have been.
They can't believe this is, I guarantee you, they can't believe they don't understand.
Diane Feinstein, I got a soundbike.
She doesn't understand.
How can the Libyans do this to us after we saved them?
She is a senator.
She's on the foreign relations committee, and she doesn't have any idea about the realities of the world in which this country thrives and lives and how we're viewed.
They really thought that by us going in, flexing our muscles, by the way, when Obama flexes his muscles and spreads American might, then it's good.
It's okay because his intentions are decent and honorable.
He's a good liberal, he's a big heart, he's got a lot of empathy, he cares, all that blah blah rutgut stuff.
So we get rid of Qaddafi.
We make the assumption because we hate Gaddafi, everybody in Libya hates Qaddafi.
Well, not everybody hated Qaddafi.
A lot of people love Qaddafi.
A lot of people didn't like the fact that we came in there and cowboyed up.
People, what the hell did Libya do?
What do we do to the United States?
We got rid of our nukes.
What the hell do we do?
Obama saw it as an easy victory.
He wants to establish himself as as having uh foreign policy gonans.
He guts Korea pick somebody can walk all over, hiding behind the United Nations.
Do it with drones, do it whatever.
Big tough guy.
All of a sudden they kill our ambassador.
There's a story out now, too, that he was sodomized prior to his death.
Yep.
Sorry to mention that.
Um Diane Feinstein doesn't understand it.
We were so nice, we liberated him.
The level of uh incompetence and ignorance being demonstrated right in front of our eyes.
Blatant.
And it is undeniable.
It's heartstopping.
So Obama goes makes Cairo's what the uh Cairo speech should that was designed to prevent this.
The purpose of the Cairo speech was to go tell the Islamic world, hey, there's a new guy in town now.
I'm one of you.
We understand your plight.
This stuff that happened eight years ago, Bush and all that stuff in Iraq not going on it.
We're gonna have a new understanding with Islam.
We're gonna have a new understanding with Muslims, and boy, have we, have we gone out of our way.
We've gone out of our way in this country and around the world to make it clear we have no problem with Muslims, right?
Has that not been the official position of this country?
We have no problems what we got more problems with Mitt Romney than we have with Islamists.
We had more problems with Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio and Paul Ryan than we have with Islam, right?
Where's it gotten us?
Coordinated attacks on the anniversary of 9-11 that our brilliant leaders actually think is due to a movie.
So look at this.
Fox News consulate attack planned as two-part militant assault Libyan official says.
Hmm.
Let's see what this says.
I have it right here.
My formerly nicotine stands a senior security official says that the attack that killed four Americans in Libya, including the ambassador, was an organized two-part operation by heavily armed militants that included a precisely timed raid on a supposedly secret safe house.
Just as Libyan and U.S. security forces were arriving to rescue evacuated consulate staff.
Juan Esa Al Sharef, Eastern Libya's deputy interior minister said the attacks were suspected to have been timed to mark the 9-11 anniversary, and the militants use civilians protesting an anti-Islam film as cover.
Of course!
And I'm telling anybody in our CIA, counterterrorism knows this to be true.
It's not this movie.
It's that they know there's nothing that's going to be done about it.
Barack Obama couldn't even act like he cares about people in poverty.
He cares about people that might be governed by Republicans.
He cares about women and making sure they get their damn contraception pills.
He cares about all that, but he can't be moved to care about people being killed in our embassies.
Doesn't take a question, heads to the plane, heads to Vegas, raise some more money.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, that's who we gotta look out for.
Mid Romney's the problem.
Nitt Romney's out of touch.
Mitt Romney.
Shoots first and aims later.
I have to take a break.
I wish I didn't, and I know you wish I didn't have to either.
I still intend to get some bites one and two in here if it's the last thing I do in this hour.
But I'm still not through.
It wasn't just the Cairo speech.
Folks, we are where we are today.
These attacks on 9-11.
None of this happened when Bush was in office.
And I think it's only fair to point that out.
But you can't have a political party attempt to secure defeat for your own troops for four years, like the Democrats did in Iraq, and have there not be fallout for this.
This is not because of a movie.
This is not because of some video or some kook preacher.
The people around the world think they can get away with this because this country has a political party which tried to secure defeat for its own troops throughout the last four years of the Iraq war, all to defeat a sitting president and drive him from office.
It's the Cairo speech, it's the Iraq war.
It's Obama apologizing and bowing.
What are our enemies going to think when they see this kind of what's the word?
Pacifist, weak appeasement type of behavior.
And for them to say we don't understand how this is happening.
That alone disqualifies them from re-election.
That alone ought to have everybody saying, we don't want you in positions of power anymore.
Here's Obama.
Let's last night's CBS evening news with Steve Croft question uh no questions is Obama.
There's a broader lesson to be learned here.
Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to uh shoot first and aim later.
And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that.
Uh that uh you know it's important for you to uh make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them.
Do you think it was irresponsible?
Uh I'll let the American people judge that.
That's all lies.
Romney didn't say anything that wasn't true.
He didn't aim first or shoot first and aim later.
He didn't get his facts wrong.
This is Obama capitalizing on the narrative.
Where have we heard this before?
Here's Jimmy Carter, August 15, 1980.
In their fantasy world, all the complex global changes of the world since World War II have never happened.
In their fantasy America, all problems have simple solutions.
Simple and wrong.
It's a make-believe world.
A world of good guys and bad guys.
Where some politicians shoot first and ask questions later.
Oh.
Here he is quoting Jimmy Carter again.
And there's Carter saying that it's a fantasy world to think there are good guys and bad guys in the world.
That's fantasy.
He went on to say, Carter, the GOP's a party with a narrow vision, a party that's afraid of the future, a party whose leaders are inclined to shoot from the hip, a party that's never been willing to put its investment in human beings who are below them in economic and social status.
Not sound exactly like Democrats of today.
Losers, I might say.
Well, the chairman of Federal Reserve just made his move to rescue Barack Obama.
We're gonna have QE3.
We're gonna print some more money.
We're gonna have another stimulus.
We are going to be spending more money.
Romney, by the way, policy-wise, asked Bernanke not to do this.
But I just saw it.
I don't have any details, just got this brief little note right now.
Uh look into it a little bit more.
▲
Export Selection