All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 1, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:30
October 1, 2012, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
The latest opinion audit is in from the Sullivan Group.
Always happens on the first of the month.
No change.
But folks, don't get disappointed out there.
You know, when you are almost always right 99.7% of the time, do you realize how often how you have to be right a hundred percent of the time for months to move it up a tenth of a point?
So I get emails from people.
Gee, Rush.
I mean, I've been listening.
You haven't been wrong.
It should be up.
Well, it effectively is, folks.
If it were down, then we'd have something to worry about, but it isn't.
Happy to have you here.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 with the email address Lrushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
So here we are, October 1st, and the incumbent president is at 47% approval.
There is no poll that shows Obama at 50% approval.
And folks, that means as much historically as any other poll with any detail.
When the incumbent is at 47, and even in the public policy polling poll out of Ohio, 49, uh, even that that number is amazing when you find that 48% disapprove of Obama in that state.
But he's I think they've they've they've given up North Carolina, they've given up Indiana.
The states are dropping one by one.
He's writing it off.
And despite the the brave face of his media comrades out there, and they're trying to put on a brave face out there.
I I I think it's it's uh it's not looking good for them.
This is not where they want to be, and they've got debates starting on Wednesday.
What can Obama do but lie?
I don't know what kind of impact the debates are gonna have until I see one.
I'll tell you Thursday what what impact the debate had on Wednesday.
I can't tell you now.
See, everybody wants to know what I think.
That's that's what it's like to be me.
I'll get no rest.
Literally, I don't have even on weekends, everybody comes to me looking for reassurance, confidence, and I'm I'm happy to provide it.
But I can't tell you what the debate's gonna be.
All I know is that if Romney skunks Obama, I'm just telling you right now the media the next day that no big deal was expected.
Romney does great in debates, Obama doesn't do well.
Remember, Hillary always won those debates.
Didn't matter Obama won.
And Romney was very good, uh, dispatching Newt and uh Rick Perry and all this guy.
That now, if Obama does well and Romney does poor, then Katie bar the door.
Then the media is gonna be all over the place, how great it was.
But if Romney shines in this thing, I think it it'd be fun to watch these debates and just make a check mark every time Obama lies.
Which is what he does.
You know, put a Yometer up there on your TV screen or somewhere, and just every lie he tells, and that's all he does.
The fascinating thing is gonna be to me to see how how how Romney deals with it.
What about Chris Christie?
You talk about raising expectations.
Christie says that the debates are gonna turn this race upside down.
Christy, you don't like that kind of talk?
Why?
What don't you like it?
Expectations are too high.
I know.
All it takes is one phrase.
Uh, you know, like Gerald Ford not thinking that Poland was under Soviet control.
Or um but you know, Reagan overcame a couple of uh uh faux pas.
Reagan was great.
In fact, grab audio soundbite number three.
Mark Maxie Shields was on inside Washington Sunday morning on PBS.
You know what I love?
These these media guys, they know that the deck is stacked, and that they are the ones dealing from the deck.
They know that they're in the tank for Obama.
They know that there's not even a pretense of objectivity in the media now.
I saw another story.
What was this?
Um uh I didn't print it.
I wasn't even going to mention it because it's not technically Show prep, but it was a story I read over the weekend about when the media changed.
When, and it was said it was 1980, and and Reagan's election that that's that's when the media, and I think it's 1989.
I I think the media monopoly began to evaporate in 1989.
I've I've said to you people, and I don't say this, this is not braggadocious, besides as Babe Ruth said it ain't bragging if you can do it.
But I'm not bragging here.
I'm then objective.
Sometimes I blame myself for all this uh angst in the country.
Up until I came along, and and then the new media followed, and then this competing real sizable competing media came along.
I mean, the media was always left-wing and it was always in the tank for Democrats, but they tried to put forth the illusion that they were nonpartisan, that they were unbiased, or at least objective and fair.
That's all gone now.
There are not even any pretense of that anymore.
And I think this because of competition.
And as their monopoly has blown up, they continue to try to prove to themselves that they do have the power to move public opinion, to shape it and to achieve electoral victory for their side.
I think they're trying constantly to prove that they still have their power that they once had.
I mean, it was Hannity had Broca on during a Democrat convention.
He happened to mention the Democrats media used to have a monopoly, and Brooke, oh, yeah, he was very happy, but wistful at the same time.
Yeah, we used to.
We used to there's no question about it, John Yeah, we used to.
They're bugged that they don't have it.
But I I really think that it all changed.
They decided to give up the pretense of objectivity with the evolution of the new media.
And it became a competition.
Now they finally were forced into revealing their preferences.
And instead of using the word bias, I'll use preference.
They were forced into revealing and openly stumping and campaigning for what they always wanted, but used to be able to achieve with a raised eyebrow.
You know, Peter Jennings could raise an eyebrow and affect public opinion.
Those days are gone now.
Now they have to actually go out and behave in the way they do now.
And what's it's funny to listen to them deny it.
It's funny to listen to them pretend that it's still 1980 or 1984 or 1970.
It's funny to listen to them act as though they're all the same.
They haven't changed.
They're doing their jobs the same way they always did.
Everybody knows that isn't the case.
Uh the respect people have for the media continues to plummet in polls of that nature.
So here's Mark Maxie Shields, and he's on this PBS Sunday morning chat show, talking about me and my comments on the polls.
We're into conservative wine country now.
Uh you know, it is a miracle that Ronald Reagan won 44 states one time, 49 states the other, without a Fox News, without Rich Limbaugh, without drudge report, without all right-wing radio, and with the network's dominant and the Washington Post and the New York Times ascendant, and yet here's poor Mitt and he's being done in by some conspiracy in a 7-Eleven and False Church, Virginia of the polling companies.
I mean, this is right out of science fiction.
That's Nina Totenberg laughing then.
I don't, I must confess, I don't get the 7-Eleven and false church reference.
Do you know what that possibly means?
I don't either.
But that was the greatness of Reagan.
Reagan did do all that without the only favorable media that Reagan had could probably call it national review.
Bill Buckley.
That was probably it.
But Reagan had the ability to go over the heads of the media.
He did not rely on the media filtering.
There hasn't been anybody like him since.
But for all of you, Mark and the rest of you, I'm not saying Romney's done in by any of this.
We're just chronicling what is.
For you guys to deny that you're in the tank for Obama, for you guys to deny that you're not doing everything you can to tell us who he is and where he's been and what he's done and how he's come to believe what he does and examine his policies honestly.
It's obvious to anybody that pays ten minutes attention every day.
Much less wonks.
And to deny it is what's funny.
Well, I don't know about anybody else.
I am not whining.
I'm not crying.
I'm optimistic.
I'm simply pointing out what's happening.
You guys are doing polls with samples of Democrats plus 13 plus 12 plus 11.
And we got people all over the spectrum who are saying, yeah, that's probably not the way it's gonna end up an election.
So why are you doing the samples that way?
For you guys to deny you're trying to suppress the votes, laughable.
For you guys to deny that you are doing everything you can to harm the reputation and the credibility of Mitt Romney and any other Republican that comes along is laughable.
You know you are.
We do too.
The gigs up.
You just can't admit it.
And you have to blame us for supposedly being or laugh at us being paranoid or what have you.
Which is not the case at all.
We're simply doing what you used to do.
We're telling people what's happening.
And you happen to be a news story now.
The media is a news story for us.
Because you guys are not what you say.
If you we if you guys just come out and say that you're a pack of leftists, and that you have every vested interest in Obama winning, everything can be cool.
Nobody complain about you.
And nobody would point out your errors, and nobody would point out your hypocrisy.
But because you won't admit that, because you want to hold on to some long ago sacred concept of objectivity, you're laughing stocks.
Not us.
We do the job you used to do.
Where's your story on Fast and Furious?
Where's your story on Obama's economic policies leading to current economic circumstances?
Where's your story on that?
How do you get off lying to the American people that Romney takes a trip to three foreign countries and it's one gaffe after another when there wasn't a gaffe?
We can all see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears what is happening.
Republicans win every election they win without the help of the media.
And that is because their message resonates with a larger number of people than the Democrat message, no matter what you guys try.
Let's go to the accuracy in media conference over the weekend in Washington.
Here is Pat Cadell, a former pollster, and he worked for Jimmy Carter.
We've had nine days of lies over what happened because they can't dare say it's a terrorist attack.
And the press won't push this.
Yesterday there was not a single piece in the New York Times over the question of Libya.
Twenty American embassies yesterday are under attack.
None of that is on the national news.
I don't care whether it was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush had a terrorist incident and gotten on an airplane after saying something and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified.
It is one thing to bias the news or have a biased view.
It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know.
That's nine days ago.
That's Pat Cadell at the accuracy in media conference.
And he's talking about the terrorist attacks in Libya.
You guys in the media, Mr. Mark Maxie Shields, the regime lies the American people and says it's a video that caused Benghazi.
Well, the next day everybody knew it had nothing to do with the video.
It was a terror attack.
It's Al Qaeda.
They're not dead.
Bin Laden may be, but Al Qaeda's not.
I mean, you guys think You've got a great slogan.
Bin Laden's dead, GM's alive.
Al Qaeda is alive and killing.
And our ambassador is dead, and three Marines are dead because there was no security.
You guys follow suit.
Obama says it's a video, you say it's a video.
Obama says this guy that made the video needs to be in jail.
You follow him and make sure he gets in jail.
Or your chronicle is arrest for something on parole violation on bank fraud or some such thing.
And even after it's known that Susan Rice and everybody else that the administration sent out, Jay Carney in the days after lied about this.
Cadell's right.
You can't bring yourselves to report the truth about this until the story is over.
When it no longer matters.
But for the five or six days that matter right after the story, you carry the regime's water.
Whatever Obama says or Carney says, that's what you report.
There were two exceptions.
Jacob Tappert, ABC, and somebody else.
Everybody else just got locks up and fell right in line, and that's common.
Happens with every big story.
It's still happening on this, still running this notion that it was a video that led to what happened in Benghazi.
Obama goes to the United Nations and delivers one of the most sophomoric, embarrassingly naive, inane speeches a president has ever given at that body, and you guys treat it as though it's one of the best.
The great speech this year at the United Nations was Benjamin Netanyahu.
Who you guys join in mocking and making fun of because the regime does.
Who is it that's doctoring 9-11 tapes in the Trayvon Martin incident?
That was NBC, right?
Okay.
And that's well, that that was just done for time purpose.
Right.
That's just the first time.
No, it was done because you had chosen sides on that story.
New York Times, white Hispanic.
George Zimmerman.
First time in 50 years they'd ever use the term white Hispanic.
Here's more from Cadell.
This is Accuracy and Media, their conference on September 21st.
The press's job is to stand on the ramperts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power.
When they desert those ramparts and they go to serve to decide that they will now become an active participants when they decide that their job is not simply is both to tell you who you may vote for and who you may not, but worse.
And this is the danger of the last two weeks.
What truth you may know as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know.
They have then made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people.
That's Pat Cadell, a former Jimmy Carter Polster, and we're coming right back.
Don't go away.
Woody Johnson owns the New York Jets.
Woody Johnson just said that he would rather Romney win the presidency than the Jets win a football game.
He would rather Romney win than the Jets.
And don't make any jokes that he knows the Jets don't have a prayer.
Well, they did, they've got some problems.
They got some injury problems out there.
They've got uh they got some problems.
But Woody loves the Jets.
He loves the he wants to win the Super Bowl so bad, he wants to go all the way so bad.
And he just said that he wants he'd rather Romney win than the Jets.
I know Woody Junt, that's a that's that's not insignificant.
Anyway, to the phones we go.
This Jeremy in Indianapolis.
Jeremy, great to have you on the EIB network.
You're up first today.
Hello, sir.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
I'm a big fan, long time listener.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, sir.
Uh my question is this what is your take on uh the way I see it, these same leftists and liberals who are given Obama a free pass over this fast and furious deal are the same ones that called for Reagan's impeachment over the conference.
Pretty much.
Pretty much.
I mean it's different different people, different individuals, but it's the same mindset.
You're exactly right.
Yeah, I mean, it's it's it's just amazing the hypocrisy that goes on goes on with the left.
If and it it just uh It's it is it is a different situation.
Different people, though, like you say, I agree.
The mindset is pretty much the same.
They're gonna they're gonna demonize uh the Republicans over.
I mean, if it if the situations were reversed, it would just it would be a different thing.
At the root of all of this is one simple, hard cold reality, and that is the left cannot beat us in the arena of ideas.
They can't beat us in an open debate of issues, our economic prescription versus theirs, they would lose.
Whatever the policy, whatever the issue, an open debate of the ideas they would lose.
Therefore, they can't allow that to happen.
So they have to do any number of things to discredit those who are the best at explaining our policies so that nobody's believed.
They criminalize the policies if they can.
And in the case of Iran Contra, you know, they can use government for anything to any man.
Look at we had a CBS reporter uh last Friday over the weekend cheering that the government was able to put this filmmaker in jail.
A CBS reporter cheering that.
Cheering the concept that the government has the power to jail people who do things it disagrees with.
Therefore, the left, when they have the levers of power, anything's justified.
Anything's fine.
When conservatives are in power and are using it to advance their objectives, we have to criminalize it, or we have to discredit it.
Otherwise they will lose in an open competition, they would lose every issue.
By the way, folks, did anybody you guys watch Homeland last night?
Did you watch the premiere ep?
Uh don't worry.
You taped it.
Did you see it, Snarly?
You ever watch do you did you D VR it?
Oh, snurdly.
Oh no, you're too busy.
You're just waiting for the cowboys tonight, right?
You're thinking nothing else.
It is a powerful influential member of the media.
I have the first four episodes of Homeland.
And I'm not gonna do any spoilers.
So don't worry.
But I'm just I'll just tell you this.
If you thought last season ended in such a way that you can't conceive of where this is headed, you're not gonna have to wait long to be right back in the middle of this thing, wishing and hoping the next episode was the next hour.
Just don't doubt.
This thing is so good, it's off the charts good.
Howard Gordon, who was the uh one of the showrunner for 24, is uh one of the two executive producers of this program.
This show, and it's just it's uh it's awesome.
It's on showtime.
And it by the startly, it'll be running all this week on Showtime at different times.
And then the uh the the next episode live is Sunday night at 10.
So you'll have a chance.
Or you just go over to Dawn's house.
Carlo Cowboys Bears tonight, right?
Oh, uh cowboys.
Cowboys.
Carlos in San Francisco, Sanctuary City, great to have you on the EIB network.
Carlos, hello.
Hello, Mr. Limbo, thank you for taking my call.
You bet, you bet.
Great to have you here.
I am an illegal immigrant.
And I'm not a fan of you call me an illegal immigrant, you know, that that that uh issue about not calling illegal illegal.
Um Carl, I want to make sure I get the you you are calling here and and acknowledging that you are an illegal immigrant and and you don't have any problem with that term.
I I do not.
Well, you're in a sanctuary city anyway.
Oh, he doesn't uh he doesn't tell me it's just it's just the fact.
Okay.
All right.
Well I was I was listening to uh this uh Austin Theatre's report uh on Telemundo.
I do not watch uh uh it's Spanish television because they are so liberal, so uh biased, and uh I didn't watch the interview that Jorge Ramos and Maria Lena Salinas.
Well I know that they normally are liberal but on this you know I've got a montage of the questions they asked Obama.
There was nothing liberal about it.
They they were going for his throat on the show.
I was really shocked I was really shocked.
I was really surprised that Jorge Ramos threw this co those core balls at Obama and he was really thrown off I think he was too I think Obama walked in there thinking that he was um you know in a friendly neighborhood and he didn't know what really he was kind of shocked.
I mean it he's got the kind of personality anyway.
How dare you ask me something like that, meaning a hard-hitting question.
The look in his eye was indicative.
He was not expecting a line of questioning that he got.
Exactly.
So we, I don't like to speak for myself.
I am not in the time for Obama.
Since he ran the first time, I knew he was in an empty suit.
He didn't have the record to run.
He didn't have anything to qualify him as the commander-in-chief.
and um uh this liberal journalist the liberal media uh think we are so stupid that we are gonna go like dr drones for democratic I'm sitting here I'm not I'm not believing this we got an illegal immigrant on the phone and admitted illegal immigrant making more sense than the Democrats in this country who are legal Carlos how long have you been here?
I've been here for 23 years, Rush.
I started listening to you about 20 years ago, and lately I've been listening to Mark Levin and Sean Hannity, and it's just, I don't know.
I don't know what...
Now that's...
Carlos, I have to tell you, that kind of surprised me, because we've been told that illegal immigrants hate conservatives,
liberal uh come here for the safety net in this case you're you don't sound like that at all no no no no no the traditional uh Latino his family is very family oriented it's it's he has a lot of conservative values we come here for for an economic opportunity we come here for jobs.
Why haven't you sought citizenship in all these years?
I haven't been able to.
The immigration laws are so confusing and so complicated that as of today, I haven't been able to become a legal resident.
And I've been tempted to leave the country, but I have a daughter here, and she was born here, and I cannot leave her with her mom, yes.
Aha.
But, see, we come here, like I said, for an economic opportunity for jobs, for a better life, and I do not know what happened to this beautiful country in the last four years.
It's just so disappointing seeing this great nation going south.
I'm sitting here, folks, I'm a little stunned.
We need conservative immigrants to do the thinking that Native American Jews.
used to and don't anymore you sound like you think more about things than half the Americans in this country does you're doing a lot of thinking that Americans won't do anymore.
That 40%, 43% that are still favoring and approving Obama, in which world are they living in?
I'm totally shocked.
Because the reality is the economy is in shambles.
Our foreign policy is in disarray.
Honestly, Carlos, your cell phone is beginning to...
to to to I don't know if you're on an o are you uh Carlos are you on an Obama phone by any chance no no no I am not he was insulted by that question.
Well I said you're you're you're breaking up it's getting harder and harder.
But I'm sitting here fo we illegal immigrant and admitted illegal immigrant, who's obviously doing a lot of thinking Americans used to, but don't do anymore.
Thanks, thanks, thanks to me for the last 20 years.
This is Well, we need all the conservatives we can get, and he's in a sanctuary city.
I know a number of you are thinking I ought to call the authorities, but folks, I'm gonna look the other way here.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
I got a couple of uh uh emails I turned during the break about about Carlos.
Let me tell you something, folks.
That call, and for those of you who couldn't hear Carlos or understand him, he was basically articulating conservatism.
He was talking about the inept U.S. economy.
He was ragging on Obama and his policies for it.
Jobs, the problem there.
He's been here 20 years.
He was he was telling me you and me.
Now, for the past I don't know how many years, every election cycle, we're treated to Republicans wringing their hands over the Hispanic vote and coming up with uh cockamami policies designed to secure the Hispanic vote.
And what has been the go-to position for most of the Republican establishment?
Amnesty.
They think, in order to get the Hispanic vote that we have to liberalize immigration policy, open the borders, say, come on in, find a way to make them citizens, even if it's amnesty.
This is what the Republican establishment thinks.
And throughout this period, I and others have gotten blue in the face saying, No, if you want the Hispanic vote, just go tell them about conservatism.
Just go tell them about the American founding.
Tell them what this country stands for.
This guy Carlos was talking about opportunity.
Do you know that illegal immigration is down?
It's almost the the the latest numbers I have, it's almost a wash.
1.4 million a year arriving, 1.3 million leaving.
So it's practically a wash.
Why would illegal immigration over the past three and a half years be down?
We've got ostensibly a sympathetic president, a big socialist liberal who's promising food stamps galore, who's promising cell phones, who's promising get giveaway here, give away there.
For the for for people who think that the large number of illegals are flocking here to take up residence in our safety net or hammock, could it be that illegal immigration is down because there aren't any jobs to be had here?
Do you think it might be a possibility?
Something we should have to consider.
But this idea, you know, why in an electoral sense, if you're the Republican establishment, why be Democrat light?
If the Democrat position is amnesty and a safety net and a hammock and and benefits here and benefits there, why approach the same voters with uh half of that?
It's always it's all really frustrated me.
This this defensive position the Republican establishments always had about this issue.
They operate from a base of fear that if you are opposed to amnesty, oh no, we can't I have had not gonna mention any names, doesn't matter.
In the last two years, last four years, I have had elected Republicans say to me, look at here's our next immigration.
If you call it amnesty, it doesn't have a chance.
I said, but this is what it is.
No, it's not really when you look at it, and they try to persuade me that it isn't.
But what it all adds up to is that they want to be seen as the party not the way that's described by the Democrats.
So they're they're always on the defensive, trying to prove to people that they are not mean or that they're not racist, and they're not this, and that never works.
Now here you have Carlos.
I'll tell you what, I would trade every conservative illegal for every liberal.
We'll send the liberals to Mexico will bring the conservative illegals here.
I'll make that trade any day.
But the way I I think the way to approach anybody I've always, at my CPAC speech, I said don't even treat people as members of groups.
Treat them as human beings.
Conservatism is about humanity.
Conservatism is about elevating standards of life for everybody, about expanding opportunity.
Conservatism is the essence of compassion.
Conservatism does not look at people and see incompetence.
We don't look at people and see inability and stupidity.
We don't look at people with contempt.
The Democrats do.
Why should we get into that game?
But I mean from McCain, you know, you can fill in the names, fill in the blanks.
The Republican policy on the Hispanic vote has always been Democrat light.
Some form of relaxation of our immigration laws.
And then Hispanics are supposed to conclude all these Republicans are not so bad after all.
When how do we know that that's actually what they all want?
What kind of arrogance is it for us to assume that every illegal is coming here for a handout?
Now some do, obviously.
In every universe of human human beings, you're going to have every group represented.
But to assume that the vast majority are that way, I've always thought it's a mistakes.
I believe in conservatism.
I think that it's persuasive.
If it's properly articulated with passion, good cheer, it's understood if it's in your heart, if you don't need a teleprompter to explain it.
And this is what Reagan had.
You know, Mark Maxie Shields making jokes about how, well, Reagan didn't have the media.
Look what he Yeah, because Reagan had the ability.
He was a conservative.
He didn't have to get notes made up for him by a staff.
He didn't have to have people advise him what to say every time he went up and made a speech about it.
It was in his heart.
And your heart never lies to you.
And so he was able to persuade people, despite the way he was being caricatured.
Reagan did not get where he ended up with any assistance from the media.
The media did not make Reagan.
Too many Republicans want to rely on, and too many, frankly, conservatives want to rely on the media being favorable to us and helping us.
It's never going to happen.
It's always going to be an obstacle that we have to overcome, but it can be done.
Person to person, heart to heart.
Conservatism works.
Carlos was just a small anecdotal, admittedly anecdotal, but still a bit of evidence for this.
I have no doubt about it.
It's one of the most frustrating things.
If Romney, for example, would just go full bore conservative.
I don't, you know, ignore Obama.
Just go conservative in these debates, could wrap it up.
And I'm talking about philosophically, ideologically, as conservatism and as it relates to people, what it means to people.
Now, admittedly, conservatism has something that scares a lot of people.
It does put you in charge of your life.
But that's the beauty of it.
And then it seeks to inspire people.
It seeks to motivate people.
Conservatism is founded in many things, but among those many things is the belief that everybody is capable of more than they think they are.
That everybody's better at something or as a human being than they think they are.
But there are so little inspiration to be found from leadership in this country today.
There aren't very many real inspirational leaders.
What we have are leaders who are in contests see who can be seen as the most giving or understanding or feeling.
The most understanding of whatever plight this group of victims is in.
Conservatism, you know, like people being victims.
And we don't want to service people as victims.
We want to remove them from victim status, have them stop thinking of themselves that way.
Because we want a great country, and a great country is comprised of individuals.
Self-interested individuals seeking excellence or the best that they can based on their desire, knowing that everybody's different.
And so that outcomes will never ever be the same, because it's impossible for that to be.
But to me it's a simple message, but it's in my heart.
I don't have to be advised or reminded or told about it.
Quick timeout, as time races on.
We'll be back and continue after this.
We have only scratched the surface.
I haven't even gotten to 10% of what I prepped today, which is becoming standard operating procedure.
But I got a lot of good stuff here, and we're going to start right into it.
▲
Export Selection