All Episodes
Previous Next
July 22, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:48
July 22, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends, welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh doing what I was born to do.
That's exactly what this is.
What is it?
They say, if you do what you love, you will never work a day in your life.
And I can attest that that's mostly true.
Greetings.
Welcome back.
Great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh, your highly trained, self-taught broadcast specialist here at the one and only EIB Network.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
And we had a lot of people lined up here who want to talk about the healthcare ruling, and all of you on hold, stay there.
I'm going to get to the phones right after the monologue segment here in this busy broadcast hour.
Snurdley's lined up some good ones, and if you'll just be patient, I really appreciate it.
We'll get to you.
I need to ask you all a question.
Yesterday when the news hit of Tony Dungey, I remember previewing the news by saying, folks, there is a huge uh-oh, I just learned about.
I mean, it is an uh oh, and I admitted to teasing you, and I held the details through a commercial break, pleasing several program directors on the EIB network.
And then I revealed the news to you.
I want I need to ask you, did any time yesterday when I reported the Tony Dungey story, did I endorse Tony Dungey Dungey's remarks?
And or did I criticize Michael Sam of the Los Angeles, sorry, St. Louis Rams.
Now I asked the staff here, and the staff affirmatively, without any hesitation, no, you didn't endorse Dungey and you didn't criticize Sam.
And I said, that's what I thought.
But Media Matters has a story out there headlined, Rush Limbaugh endorses Dungey's remarks, attacks Michael Sam.
And that did not happen here.
And HR said, Well, I don't think it's going to matter because I've hadn't haven't had anybody from the media call to confirm it.
I said, Well, when did you ever have the media calling you to confirm something they read on media matters?
Oh, that's a good point.
They don't.
Precisely, the drive-bys just run with it.
Because to them, media matters is the gospel.
But the fact is, I didn't say one thing or the other.
I just reported what he said with uh-oh.
You know, it's the same thing that happened at Tim Tebaugh.
You know that a lot of teams, oh, anywhere near T both.
Are you kidding me?
The kid can't play.
He can't throw the football.
I don't want this media circus, and they didn't take him.
But Denver did in the first round.
And then when it came time in Denver to trade him, the only team it would take in was the Jets.
And nobody had a problem with that.
Nobody had a problem with teams.
Coaches, I don't want to mess with this T Bow.
Ain't no way, dude.
And what was Tebow?
He was a devout Christian.
He leads with his Christianity, and that's what they were saying.
I don't want this circus.
I don't want this mess.
Even the Broncos decided after a while they didn't want it, even after he won playoff game against the hapless Steelers.
Okay, so Dungy comes out and says, Well, I'm not against Michael Sam having an opportunity.
I just wouldn't have taken him.
I wouldn't have drafted him.
I don't want to deal with the mess.
Now, let's.
I I have no idea what, you know, the some of the sports drive by saying, no, let's wait a minute.
Dungey is such a revered figure.
This probably is taken out of context.
We must give Dungey a chance to explain himself.
Okay, fine.
I don't know.
I have not read the Tampa Bay story.
I'll be upfront and honest with you about that.
I haven't read it.
And the only thing I could do is take a wild guess what he meant.
Based on who he is.
And I think you have to look at what Dungy said from the, if you look at the context, from the standpoint that he's a coach.
And we're talking about a player who was near the last selected in the whole draft.
He's a seventh-round draft choice.
Seventh round draft choices don't make the team usually.
Seventh round draft choices get no attention whatsoever.
They fill out a roster in training camp.
They play during preseason games, so you can save your starters.
But but they don't.
They seldom make the team, and there never ever is anybody in the media that cares about a seventh-round draft choice.
And so Dungy with his coach's hat on, might have been saying, you know, a seventh-round draft choice is not worth it for that.
I mean, I'm just I'm just wild guessing.
I uh I've never met, I take it back.
I have met Coach Dungey at dinner once.
He's as nice as he could be.
A solid individual, I've found.
I've interviewed him on this program when his first book came out.
Uh, in fact, had him on the print a second hour.
LA Times, Tony Dungey's comments on openly gay NFL player Michael Sam draw ire.
Dungey said it's not gonna be smooth, things are gonna happen.
Uh I just wouldn't want to deal with all of it.
All right, some reaction.
Yahoo Sports.
Tony Dungey's assessment of Michael Sam shows stunning lack of courage.
Slate.com.
Tony Dungey's terrible comments about Michael Sam are homophobia defined.
Mediaite.
Oberman rips world's worst Tony Dungey for Michael Sam comments.
Oberman has a show somewhere.
Where does Oberman have a show?
Hey, Charlie, you're Oberman's back at ESP.
ESPNT, I didn't know that.
Okay, we'll go.
Well, I thought ESPN didn't want anything to do with politics.
Oh well.
Uh see.
Yeah, you can only talk he can only talk about sports?
Oberman.
Wait, so you knew he had a show there too.
You didn't.
Right.
Um USA Today, Chris Corman.
Wasn't it so warming and fulfilling to think a few years ago of Tony Dungey as a wise and rational man guiding some of the NFL's most troubled players through a league and a world so intent on bending and breaking them?
His earnest face, his measured words.
We were fools to believe it.
It was anything more than a calculated act.
Well, that's pretty tough.
That's Chris Corman at USA Today.
We were fools to believe that Dungey was anything more than a calculated act.
Dungey opened up about Michael Sam, the first openly gay player to be drafted in the NFL this weekend when he told a Tampa Bay Tribune makes very little sense.
I wouldn't have taken him, said Dungy.
Not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it.
It's not going to be totally smooth.
Things are going to happen.
Yes, Michael Sam has generated more media interest than probably any other draft pick, not named Johnny Manzel.
If a head coach can't deal with that, he shouldn't be in the league.
Oh, and on page two.
Chris Corman, USA Today.
Of course, Dungey's comments come as no surprise and are not rooted in logic, but ideology instead.
He's raised money for anti-gay causes before.
Said he doesn't agree with openly gay NBA player Jason Collins' lifestyle.
Dungey has said before that he believes a gay players have the right to make a living, and many who have similar feelings like to point out that sports are a meritocracy.
Those that can do the job well get the chance.
Michael Sam falls into a major category of players who are nearly indistinguishable as athletes.
They're ultimately judged on work ethic, intelligence, hustle, leadership, and other intangibles, and in some sad corners by whether the gender of the person they choose to love might earn them a little bit of extra attention.
Ooh, I'm telling I knew this was going to happen.
There's nobody.
There is nobody immune from the uh from the Lancet charge of intolerance.
Uh let's see.
What's this one other one uh let's see now that that's pretty much they've got this audio something.
Jason Whitlock here at uh ESPN, oh right here I've got a sound back from Obern and show it.
I didn't even know it.
Uh Jason Whitlock was on uh Oberman Show and ESPN two last night.
Oberman says, I think you have an opinion that might suggest how this goes forward in the days to come after his remarks about Michael Sam, how he should be given a chance, except I wouldn't want to coach the team where he's going to get the chance.
I was astonished by Tony's uh statements.
I have a great deal of respect for Tony.
I don't understand what he's thinking, and I think over the next 24, 48 hours, he'll figure it out that you can't be morally inconsistent.
Doing the right thing is very difficult.
And Tony Dungey has always stood for doing the right thing.
And doing the right thing sometimes means doing things that you disagree with, but in the long haul, it's consistent with your overall philosophy about fairness and treating everyone properly.
So I I hope and expect Tony Dungey to recant and restate his opinion.
Yeah, uh every story that I have consulted on this.
Well, pretty much every, I mean not everyone, but uh the large number of these stories.
Last line, NBC sports had no comment, which is where Dungy works.
He's a studio analyst on the Sunday night uh NFL telecast on NBC.
And they reached out to NBC for comment.
And the ESPN website, as I said, you can't find there's not one syllable of it, there's not one word of this story on the ESPN website.
Now obviously he's on their television networks and their radio networks, but nothing elsewhere.
So what are they?
You think he's gonna you're gonna recant?
You don't think so.
You don't think so.
Well, what what the the sports drive by criticism is with there are some exceptions, like the USA Today guy that's wanting to string him up, he's a fraud, he's a liar, it's all been an act, he was never this great guy, we always thought.
But other than that, most people, you know what?
Dungey's great.
Dungey's smart, dungeon's brilliant.
We don't really know what was in his mind.
We need to give him a chance to explain himself in the context of uh of what he meant.
It was pretty clear.
He wouldn't want to be the coach in this situation.
He just he wouldn't want to deal with the mess or whatever he said that is going to occur.
He just wouldn't want the distraction, he wouldn't want to have to deal with it.
How do you recant that?
You know what?
I take it back.
I'll be happy to deal with the mess.
I would love to deal with the mess.
I misspoke and now I'm really I'm all for the mess.
What's he going to say?
Uh would any coach say I want a distraction for my team?
Well, no.
No.
Well, no, let's see.
Would any coach say I want a media circus around my team?
What a coach says and what he wants is going to be too.
You'll not convince me that some of these coaches that say they hate the media circus don't actually like it.
Media is media.
Attention is attention.
Fame is fame.
I think I think our culture and society is addicted to it.
I think they're so addicted to it, people want to become famous for not having done anything.
I think people want to be famous without having to achieve anything.
I think I think fame, I guess what uh one.
Uh do I think of professional football teams?
Yeah.
I I I professional football teams, professional football teams are just people, like corporations, they're just people.
Anyway, uh I got folks, I have to say something before we go to the break here.
I was watching, I don't know if you didn't watch Ray Donovan.
I asked you this last year.
You watch have you started watching it yet this year?
You know there's some real perversion on TV now.
I mean, it's some really vile just really depraved stuff on TV now.
I'm one of my favorite shows last season was The Bridge.
Do you like The Bridge too?
If you started watching it this season, is that not depraved, or is that not deprav?
I mean and Ray Donovan loved John Voigt in this show.
John Voigt's got the best character in this show, other than the star Leah Schreiber.
But you know, I was watching it Sunday night, and Leah Schreiber as Ray Donovan ends up in a restaurant to talk to some woman who owes the guy he works for five million dollars in a charitable pledge, and she hasn't paid it.
And I'm looking, and the woman looks just as familiar, and I can't, I can't peg who it is.
It looks just like Ann Margaret's.
It can't be Ann Margaret.
And it was Anne Margaret, 72 years old, just stunning.
You know, I met Ann Margaret once.
Do you remember this?
It was in the early 90s, and my first book had come out, and she was playing at the Westbury Music Fair at the Westbury, the Nassau Coliseum of Westbury.
Yeah, and she was uh and uh publisher got a call.
Anne Margaret, her husband would would love for you to come out and be their guests at their show and come backstage and went back and met her.
And I appeared on the Tonight Show with her not long after that with Jay Leno.
And she's uh, you know, she was well, I give anything away, but she was really nice, but I I had not seen her in a long time.
Looked, I mean folks, if if Hillary Clinton could pull that off, we would have real trouble.
Let me just put it to you that way.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program, it's the EIB network, and as promised, we hit the phones.
We're starting with Dave in Manhattan.
Dave, thank you for waiting.
I appreciate it.
Hello.
Thanks, Russ.
Great to talk to you.
Um I have a theory about this um quote error.
I don't think it was an error at all.
I I think back to when they were trying to pass Obamacare and squeeze the states to behave the way they wanted to.
And I think that they uh may have done this on purpose, just to uh have an enticement for the states to join and create an exchange.
And uh feeling that um, you know, they could worry about uh changing it later and uh railroad as many states into it as possible.
Well, there's no question that that the regime was highly agitated when uh so many states failed to set up an exchange.
And I think you're exactly right.
I think the law was written specifically to say you can only get a subsidy through a state exchange to put pressure on the state governors, particularly Republicans, to set up exchanges.
There's no qu it what and the point that Dave is making is there's nothing inadvertent here, and and there's no glitch in the wording.
This was intentional to force pressure, put pressure on the governors of these states to set up exchanges, because it was felt that the public would figure out someday that Republicans were denying people their subsidies and affordable health care, and they were seeking a political advantage with this.
And they specifically left out the federal government when it came to subsidies.
Now, I think you're exactly right.
And now they're they're trying to fall back on.
Well, come on, everybody knew that Congress meant that everybody should get a no, otherwise it would have been in the law.
Remember, Congress wrote the law, everybody's saying Congress intended, there wasn't a single Republican vote for this.
The Democrats wrote every Word here, folks.
So if they want to say that Congress goofed up, the Democrats goofed up.
The Republicans had no role in this.
There wasn't one Republican vote for Obamacare, and there was not one Republican who participated in writing this law.
So everything in this law was written by Democrat, Democrat staffers, representatives of the regime, and everything in there is what they intended.
Make no mistake.
Now I know it's massive, and there's some probably unintended consequences that they couldn't anticipate.
And I think we know that's true by virtue of all the waivers and the mandates that Obama has had to delay so as to avoid the full impact.
Cincinnati, Jack, you're next.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
This is Jack from Cincinnati.
I can hardly believe I'm actually talking to you.
Glad you got through.
Thank you.
My uh uh my question concerning the ruling today.
I've been listening to you earlier in your show, you said uh that because um I think you said seven of the eleven uh uh full judges would be were appointed by uh Democrats and by Obama.
What they can't simply say uh we rule they we change the ruling.
They have to give some uh basis in law, don't they?
What could they, if the law is so clear as you suggested, what what basis would they could they possibly use very easily very easily.
They would simply fall back on what they thought Congress intended, that no reasonable person would ever leave the federal exchange out of the subsidy program.
They couldn't possibly have intended, and that's what the regime will argue.
And so the justices or the judges will have a fallback position.
We agree with the case as argued by the regime, that there was never any intention to leave the feds out of this.
It'll be easy.
Has uh Tony Dungey not essentially made his point?
Or has the has his point not been made for him?
So he tells the Tampa Bay Tribune that he'd worried that the Michael Sam situation would uh create a media frenzy, and that he wouldn't want to deal with it.
And it turns out that just saying that has caused a frenzy.
Exactly what he predicted that he said he said he didn't want to be part of has happened.
He was he he was right about it.
But you know the here's the thing about this.
What is it what do you have to do these days to satisfy the left on their demands?
Yeah, you know, they they talk about being open and tolerant and accepting and so forth, and they are the antithesis of that.
They are the most intolerant, the most unaccepting.
You had better toe the line, you had better love what they love, you had better support what they support, or you are finished.
And then they may want to lay claim to holding the intellectual high ground and the emotional high ground, and they're nowhere near it.
They have zero tolerance whatsoever while demanding it from everybody else.
It is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
So Dungey's point has uh has been made.
Now back to the last question we got here on on Obamacare, because uh Dan in Cincinnati had a great point.
He said, Rush, wait a minute now, the law is as open and shut as it is.
Why does it matter that seven out of the eleven judges might have been appointed by Democrats?
What possible way are they gonna have to overturn this?
I said, that's easy.
All they're gonna have to do is say that no reasonable person would have ever expected Congress to exclude some citizens from the subsidy program in Obamacare.
Congress would have never invented that.
That is precisely what the regime is going to argue when they go to their full NBA hearing at the full DC circuit, which is 11 judges.
They're going to say that's a glitch.
Congress intended.
And the response to it is going to be wait a minute now.
You guys are talking about Congress as though they're some enemy.
The Republicans had nothing to do with this.
This is your bill.
You wrote it.
You passed it.
You didn't get, there's no bipartisanship in Obamacare at all.
The Republicans were not even invited to the party.
Not that they wanted to be, but they weren't.
This was written, slam dunk, passed, voted on by the Democrats exclusively.
And it's real simple.
It's ultimately simple.
If Congress had intended for everybody to get subsidies, they would have said so.
The law would say even citizens who sign up through healthcare.gov qualify for subsidies.
But the law does not say that.
The law says, the Obamacare law specifically says subsidies are only available to citizens who sign up for Obamacare through a state exchange.
It does not imply that everybody's entitled to subsidies regardless where they get Obamacare.
It specifically says state exchanges.
They went out of their way to say it, and they said it for political reasons.
They put it in there purposefully to put pressure on Republican governors to set up state exchanges.
The thinking at the time on the part of the Democrats was they knew that Obama was not popular among Republicans, and they knew that a majority of Americans didn't want Obamacare.
So they had to do something here in order to make it palatable, and the subsidies were a key part of it because nobody can afford this on their own, except the precious, you know, maybe one, two percent of the maybe five percent of the population.
Outside of that, everybody's gonna need help.
And so what the Democrats did was purposely exclude the federal exchange, which is Obamacare, the healthcare.gov, to put pressure on all the Republican governors to open exchanges.
Their feeling was that these Republican governors would not want to take the hit of denying their voters, their citizens' subsidies.
And the Democrats thought they could make great political hay if a Republican governor would not establish an exchange.
They could then turn around and say, this guy doesn't care about people.
He doesn't care about affordability.
He doesn't think people should have health care.
And they thought they could ruin a bunch of Republican governors.
Well, the Republican governors for the most part held firm, did not set up subs uh uh uh exchanges, and so people in those states had no choice but then to go to Obamacare, healthcare.gov, where there are no subsidies.
And so the D.C. circuit today read the root read the law, and if there's only one conclusion, you can come.
The law says what it says.
When you're interpreting a law, this is why, by the way, folks, original intent is such a big deal when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.
That's why those of us who believe in original intent are so hated by the left.
The left wants the Constitution to be bent-shaped, interpreted by common day, present-day standards, parentheses of depravity and perversion, close parentheses.
And the people like me and you, most of us who believe in original intent, are always trying to find what did the founders mean?
And in most cases, it's laid out.
Well, this law, the original intent of this law was that subsidies were only available through state exchanges.
If they had wanted it otherwise, the law would say so, but the law does not.
Hey, if you want subsidies for people at healthcare.gov, then the law should have said so.
Whoa, well, we didn't mean it.
We meant we meant for everybody knows that Congressman.
No, we don't know that because you didn't say that.
The law says the exact opposite.
Now, David French, who is uh writing here at a blog, says that these judges, that the majority here in the two-to-one ruling recognize the impact of their ruling, but they also recognize their limited constitutional role.
It is not the job of judges to correct perceived congressional errors.
It is not the job of judges to rewrite the law.
That's for the president to do.
Just kidding.
And it's not the job of judges to rewrite law to make them more economically sensible or to make them fairer or to make it to make up for the stupidity on the part of the author of a particular law.
And by the way, it's not the IRS's role either, and the IRS is who ultimately went in and did this.
The judge interprets the law as it exists.
And that leads to the question we got from the caller in Cincinnati.
Wait a minute, the law says what it says, why does it matter the political party of the judges?
It shouldn't.
But it may.
And if it does, we now have gone from rule of law to rule of party.
Because if it if if if the law is determined by party loyalty, if all you have to do to get a law changed is to have a judge from your party look at it and give it his interpretation based on what you want it to be, there is no law.
We're not dealing with law at all here.
That's a mirage.
But the way I think they'll do it.
And we could be surprised.
I mean, these four of the seven judges that are, i.e.'s.
Four of the seven judges on the D.C. circuit were appointed by Obama.
Seven of them were not, but there are 11 total judges nominated by Democrat presidents, four of them by Obama.
What does it say?
That the assumption is just out there now.
Well, this is going to be overturned.
You got you got eleven.
Or seven of so you get seven Democrat judges.
It's natural.
What does that say?
It means that the law isn't the law.
The law is what the Democrat Party wants it to be.
Now we could be surprised.
These judges could look at the laws and uphold the three judges who voted prior to them, in which case there is going to be hell to pay.
From the White House on down.
Well, this is another reason why Republican Senate, you you want to be able to stop some of these Obama appointments and all that.
True.
But the way they're going to do it, if we if we've lost the rule of law and have now the rule of party, it's very simple.
The Obama and Democrat judges will simply say, well, look, a common sense interpretation of the law would would obviously include the fact that Congress intended for everybody to have subsidies regardless where they signed up for the law.
Doesn't matter.
Obviously, an oversight by Congress.
And we are here to correct that oversight and enforce what was originally intended.
And they can they could easily say that.
That's what the regime will argue.
The judges are not even have to come up with that on their own.
All they're going to have to do is is rely on the regime to make a persuasive argument on that basis.
Hey, come on.
For all adults here, does anybody really think Congress meant to leave out people that sign up their healthcare dot government subsidies?
Come on.
You know, and try to shame everybody into accepting what isn't the law.
And now a brief timeout, ladies and gentlemen as we uh conclude here with this easily understandable broadcast segment.
They all are.
So what we do is we make the complex understandable, much more we come back, don't go away.
Here's Lucky in Jacksonville, Florida, as we head back to the phones of the EIB network.
Hi, Lucky, thank you for waiting.
I'm glad that you called hi.
Good afternoon, Rush.
It's an honor.
Thank you.
John Hancock is my name.
I meant to call you last week about that newfound period in the Declaration of Independence.
Yeah, isn't that amaz the newfound period and the long pause?
I've been at Jacksonville since '82 and listened to you for thirty years or more.
This is a very conservative, fundamental Tea Party Republican controlled town, and I'm an openly out gay man.
So I was thrilled when Obamacare.
But I I've lost several friends over this, Rush, because I didn't buy it.
Wait, no, wait, wait, Lucky, hang on just a second.
What uh uh why would being openly gay make you thrilled with Obamacare, and why would it then cause you to lose friends?
Well, I I really thought this was gonna be it, and I didn't realize that they had a bigger plan.
I figured out now what's going on, but um I thought I would I'd have a hole in my eardrum, and you relate to that because you have the cochlear implant.
Correct.
I've been trying for years to get help, and I can't get the medical care I need.
But um I Hillary is coming, and she's gonna win, and things are gonna go to universal care, so that'll be fixed.
Uh you still haven't answered the question.
What what what is being openly gay?
What why why did what why why did that what was it about Obamacare that was so hot just because you're gay?
What did what did Obamacare do for gays on?
What I thought it was gonna help me, but I actually lost friends after they found out I wouldn't buy Obamacare, and they are gay and lesbian friends.
Oh, you lost gay and lesbian friends because you don't support Obamacare.
I did not buy it because I know Hillary's gonna win, and then we're gonna have universal care.
Oh.
So you've just called to taunt me.
No, I haven't, Rush.
I'm not taught you.
You had a master.
But you so Hillary's gonna fix this.
Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes.
I know that's not what you want to hear.
It's gonna be in the museum, but she's gonna win, and things are gonna go so far left, we're not gonna be able to imagine.
I don't know.
Have you heard have you heard the latest about Bill and uh his mistress?
Bill who Clinton.
Oh, I would no.
Richard Johnson at page six in the New York Post has quoted a uh a passage, and he's got an advanced copy of the latest Ronald Kessler book.
It's called The First Family Detail, Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of Presidents due on August 5th, and Kessler has discovered that Bill Clinton has a mistress that shows up at the family estate in Chappaqua moments after Hillary leaves, every time.
Her name is the Energizer.
That proves it.
And absolutely proves that straight white males rarely are monogamous.
Rarely.
Rarely in life are they monogamous.
You think that proves it?
Clinton proves that straight white males are rarely monogamous.
Well, think about Sandesky and all these they catch in the uh the churches and all these sports teams.
Yeah, it's a shame.
But I'm glad Hillary's finally gonna get control.
I think after November.
And I think you're gonna be I I I you're you're lucky.
You're gonna have to change your name.
You you're gonna have to change your name.
I uh it ain't gonna happen.
Uh just don't see it in the car.
Uh and if it even if it does, uh the only fix for Obamacare is not going universal.
It's wiping it out and turning it over to actual experts in the field, and Hillary isn't one.
Uh yeah, they d well, not the they they know who that her name had been mentioned.
The energizer, she just apparently go, go, go, go, go.
I mean, she needed no stopping this babe.
And she shows up and she shows low-cut tank tops, and uh she bends over for the Secret Service agents so they can uh get clear view.
Uh and again hustles in there and and uh the Secret Service detail for Hillary doesn't like her because she's mean to him, so that detail always tells Bill's detail when she's on her way back so the energizer can get out of there in time.
It's all coming up.
It's the next Clinton book, August the fifth, the energizer.
It's a good question.
Why wouldn't Bill just buy the energizer a townhouse where he could go visit her instead of having her to the family hearth in Chappaqua?
It's what Nelson Rockefeller did.
Nelson Rockefeller bought his mistress uh townhouse, and uh I mean Nelson Rockefeller we gotta we gotta you can sink a putt the way he died.
▲
Export Selection