All Episodes
Previous Next
June 22, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:38
June 22, 2015, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, sir, Bob.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
El Rushbo serving humanity simply by showing up here on the EIB network.
And kicking off a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
Telephone number if you want to be on the programs 800-282-2882, the email address Ilrushbo at EIB net com.
So Cardinal World, by the way, he's the uh uh Washington diocese, Washington, D.C., Cardinal World says that um I don't understand Il Papa.
I don't understand the Pope is saying, but America's a beautiful place, because I am free to tell 20 million people what I don't know and what I don't understand.
And isn't it wonderful?
But what the Pope understands and what the Pope is saying is that we should all get together and have a conversation among the human community.
We should all learn together, discuss ideas together, and see what each other thinks well fine.
Dan David Pope didn't say that.
And furthermore, how climate change doubters lost a papal fight, just to reiterate.
Some people who disagreed with what the encyclical was going to say asked to attend the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences meeting on all this and were denied admission after being told they could show up.
They were actually disinvited.
They were told they could show up, bought their plane tickets in France, and got an email later says, sorry, sorry, turns out there's not enough room for you here.
So no, sir, I mean I'm in a between a rock and a hard placer because the Cardinal World, obviously respected Cardinal in Washington, D.C., and he's out there saying that the Pope said let's all sit together, and this is what Limbaugh doesn't understand.
Uh Pope's saying that we should uh discuss this.
Come to the table before we start eliminating other people from this.
When do I didn't eliminate anybody, they did.
I'm not eliminating anybody from any discussion.
All I'm saying is that the Pope sounds like a Marxist sometimes when he starts talking about economics.
Well, I did.
There's no reason to hide that.
And I'm saying here that the Pope has entered the realm of politics here when he starts spewing the exact stuff you hear from Al Gore, which means the purpose of this encyclical could mean it's assigned to Democrats or assigned to Catholics to vote Democrat.
But this is not all, ladies and gentlemen.
Reuters is absolutely giddy with this story.
The Pope says weapons manufacturers can't call themselves Christian.
By the way, for Cardinal Worrell and everyone else, I am one of the few who have pointed out what the Pope said in its entirety, in his entirety in this encyclical.
The rest of the media is not reporting what the Pope said about abortion and environmentalism.
The Pope said in this encyclical, if you're going to be devoted to God's creation, it better include the human embryo.
You can't be out there in the anti-coal and anti-oil to protect Mother Earth and not be of the same mind of every living creature, including the baby in the womb.
And of course, I point this out.
Nobody else does in the drive-by media.
They're leaving that alone.
I think I was more inclusive than 99% of the people reporting on this.
But now here's Reuters.
They're just excited as they can be.
Because the Pope says weapons manufacturers cannot call themselves Christian.
Now wait, this gets even better.
People who manufacture weapons or invest in weapons industries are hypocrites if they call themselves Christian.
Pope Francis said this yesterday.
This is not in the encyclical.
This is just something he said yesterday.
Francis issued his toughest condemnation to date of the weapons industry at a rally of thousands of young people at the end of the first day of his trip to Turin.
Quote, it makes me think of people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons.
That leads to a bit of a distrust, doesn't it?
He said to applause.
He also criticized those who invest in weapons industry, saying duplicity is the currency of today.
They say one thing and do another.
Now I'm sorry, folks, You know, these are political comments, and I'm I'm I'm I'm I have to say something here.
If it is uncre you can't call yourself a Christian if you manufacture weapons or ammo or invest in companies that do, then is Nancy Pelosi still a Catholic if she supports abortion, which the Pope just condemned in his encyclical.
Is that not a reasonable question to ask, Mr. Sturdley?
Yeah, except Snurdley does he say, you're fine, I you can handle this rush.
don't need me on this.
The Swiss Guard has weapons.
Yes, of course Swiss Guard has weapons.
But but there's something even better, but there's something even more poignant than pointing that out.
But I mean, literally, if weapons manufacturers, this is the Pope saying if weapons manufacturers cannot call themselves Christians, and people who invest in weapons manufacturing companies or ammo manufacturing company, if they can't call themselves Christians, how can pro-choice people call themselves Christians?
I mean, I think this is a slippery slope.
Now, admitted, I'm not a Northeastern moderate Republican or liberal, and I may not understand the nuance of this.
I may be such a simpleton.
I may be well-intentioned, but I may not have the slightest idea what I'm talking about.
But isn't it wonderful that we live in a country where somebody like me, a grand doofus of all times, can say whatever he thinks to countless millions of people?
It's just isn't it a beautiful thing, my friends?
What a great, great country we have here, isn't it?
Right.
The Pope spoke of the tragedy of the Shoah, using the Hebrew tomb for the Holocaust, uh term for the Holocaust.
Now listen, this is the same speech.
The Pope has just said that weapons manufacturers cannot call themselves Christian.
Here's the quote again.
Makes me think of people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons.
It leads to a bit of a distrust, doesn't it?
He also criticized those who invest in weapons industry, saying duplicity is the currency of today.
They say one thing and do another.
He spoke of the tragedy of the Shoah using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.
The great, this is a quote from the Pope, the great powers had the pictures of the railway lines that brought the trains to the concentration camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, homosexuals, everybody.
Why didn't they bomb the railway lines?
What?
That would have been unchristian.
He just said, look, I didn't say any of this, and Reuters has published it.
I'm just reading it to you, so don't get in my chili.
I'm just reading to you what Reuters says here.
Weapons manufacturers can't call themselves Christian.
I realize this is a no-win to be in.
I cannot win that there's no win here, but I don't know how else to deal with this.
Because institution after institution after institution across our country and across the world is being corrupted.
If weapons manufacturers and ammo manufacturers can't call themselves Christian, then why are you suggesting that those same people should have bombed the railway lines leading to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps?
The Pope decries weapons and then wonders why the concentration camp railway lines and the camps themselves as we had a picture that weren't bombed, which would have killed everybody.
So hear what Carl Roff said?
Carl Rove is also on Fox News Sunday.
And Chris Wallace said, how do we stop this violence, Carl?
What in the world do we do here?
And Rove said, what's the soundbite?
We've got the sound bite of this.
What's uh, let's see if I can find it very quick.
Testing one, two, three, just let me vamp here.
Yeah, here's what here's what Carl Rove had to say.
Here's the full question, Chris Wallace.
We see these uh cases of mass violence way too often, or we see them more often in the U.S. than other advanced countries.
And I mean you're kind of in a position to say, what do we do about it?
Whether it's government, whether it's community, whether it's family, how do we stop the violence?
By the way, I disagree with the premise here, we see these cases of mass violence way too often, more often in the U.S. and other countries.
No.
How can that that isn't true?
Don't want to nitpick with that, though.
Here's Rove's answer on what do we do to stop the violence.
Maybe there's some magic uh law that will keep us from uh having more of these.
I mean, basically, the only way to guarantee that we would dramatically reduce uh acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society.
And until somebody uh gets enough oomph to repeal the second amendment, that's not gonna happen.
I don't think it's an answer.
Well, he put it out there.
Now, I'm sure what Carl would tell you, hey, hey, hey, wait back off.
I'm not advocating it, I'm just telling you.
He asked me what do we have to do to stop the violence?
I'm gonna have to repeal the second amendment.
I'm not advocating that's gonna.
I'm sure that's what he's gonna say.
I'm not advocating it, but he asked me a question, and I'm trying to point out the futility of the answer.
Laws are not the answer here.
We got we've got laws against every crime in the book, and every crime in the book still happens.
The answers go much deeper than law.
The law is just well, you can really tick the left off if you if you if you categorize the law as an expression of our morality.
Oh, that just sends him into a tizzy.
But the law is a deterrent for the law abiding.
But people who break the law by virtue of breaking the law are breaking the law.
The law didn't mean anything to them.
You have all the laws in the world.
And you get rid of the second amendment, you're never gonna get rid of guns.
In the hands of criminals.
Anyway, got to take a break.
I'm gonna get back here and get into the uh into the phones because I know many of you are chomping at the bit out there.
So oh, hey, there's one other thing I need to add before we get to the phones.
You remember the story last week from the um what was this clown's name?
Uh Fenner.
Fred Fenner or something or other.
This is the guy who predicted that people born today would witness the end of humanity, that we had a hundred years, and that was it.
And that the Reuters ran a story, another Reuters story, just like they're they're just they can't contain it.
They're so happy.
Here over the Pope denouncing weapons manufacturers.
So you can't call yourself a Christian if you build guns, make guns and weapons, you ammo, you can't do that.
You are not a Christian.
Okay, so this we had the story last week, and it was all about you know, I was asking, how many how how many of these stories is it take?
How how much exposure does it take?
Stuff like this before young people begin to think there's nothing left, before young people like Dylan Roof think that we're doomed anyway.
We're in the middle of the last days.
Science is telling us we're destroying the planet, others telling us that we don't have enough food, water, anything else, we're all gonna be the whole species is gone in a hundred years.
Who cares about the law?
My question last week was how much of this stuff does it take before you start ruining people?
Before you destroy them, before you fill them with nothing but apocalyptic thoughts that become their reality.
And that the left is famous for this, and it's never ending.
This is gonna kill you, that's gonna kill you.
That's gonna cause the earth to die, this is causing the earth to die.
Your parents are driving the Wrong, kind of the polar bears.
It's a it's a never-ending drumbeat of death destruction and disaster.
And so this guy comes along with his prediction.
What turns out, folks, that this guy Fenner is not even alive.
He made that prediction in 2010.
And Reuters, in reporting his prediction, did not inform their readers what the basis of his prediction was.
Birth rates.
This guy was from the Paul Ehrlich world.
Um, that we were having so many births worldwide, the planet simply could not support his prediction was not based on global warming.
His prediction was not based on climate change.
He was right out of the already disproven and discredited Paul Ehrlich school of the population bomb.
Paul Ehrlich, as I mentioned a bunch of times last week, is still teaching at Stanford.
He's still a guru to the left.
He's been proven wrong about every claim.
He originally predicted that by now the human race would end.
By this time, he wrote it in the 1970s that we would be toast by now.
So this Dr. Fenner makes his prediction based on birth rates, and everybody knows now the U.S. birth rate is below replacement levels right now.
So his data back then, 2010, five years ago, is not even accurate anymore.
So it's a five-year-old prediction reworked to be about climate change.
I'll tell you, it just it's it's it's a disaster.
The modern day media has just become an abject disaster.
But this this overall tilt to the left is itself apocalyptic.
There's no joy in liberalism.
Everything is doom and gloom.
And we're we're we're told that we must accept it.
So anyway, let me get to the phones as promised.
I want to develop that a little bit further, in fact, much further, but in due course.
This is Adam in Oklahoma City.
Glad you called, sir.
You're up uh and great to have you here.
Hi.
Thanks, Rush, for taking my call.
You better speak to you.
Um I'm calling in response to Maggie earlier, who was uh talking about how you were not treating the Pope uh correctly or or her concern over that.
And I I was pretty frustrated by the comment.
I'm I'm a cradle Catholic, and uh I'm also in the oil and gas business.
And I read the article about the gentleman not being invited to uh or not being allowed to participate in the encyclical, and I was pretty frustrated by it.
Um, you know, I I I wanted to point out two things.
First, I think it's important that you're bringing up these issues that are straddling the line between politics and religion.
Because this isn't the first time, it won't be the last that the church gets involved in politics and economic issues, and they've been wrong in the past.
Um I I also wanted to point out that the comment on infallibility, if you look into it a little bit more, the church's position on infallibility is on matters necessary for salvation.
It's not on everything that the book says.
Yes, that's true.
You're right about that.
I did err in making, but I I think in the it to the extent the person I was talking to, she probably agreed with what I said.
I think there are many people, whatever the Pope says, whenever, you better do it, abide by it, or else.
Well, and in it's I just would encourage people to research their faith if they're getting into issues like this for me personally that I'm disagreeing with some of the things that are that are coming out or disagreeing with the approach, and you know, you just have to research it and and and not necessarily just accept everything at face values.
Well, let me let me step in it again here.
In defending the Catholic Church against every assault that I can recall over the last 27 years, and I have done so.
In defending the Catholic Church, I have always told people, warned people, reminded people, whatever, that it's not any church's job to bend and shape to public opinion.
That's not what religion is.
Not the Catholic Church.
I mean, religion has grown to encompass so many things that that blanket statement probably isn't.
A lot of religions bend and flake and form and shape to public opinion for a host of reasons.
But the Catholic Church.
Judaism do not.
It is what it is.
And if you don't subscribe, if you don't believe, that's fine.
You don't have to come.
But the one thing the church has never done, I can't say never.
I mean, but it's been really good in this regard, is standing for what it stands for.
And being a beacon of light and goodness, salvation, decency, all of those things being what it is.
The route to God.
The word of God.
And the moment a religious organization begins to dilute watered down its genuine theological beliefs to accommodate public opinion to either deflect criticism or to obtain more membership or what have you, or dare I say, even more typing or donations.
Then it is betraying itself.
And I've always admired the church, the Catholic Church.
I'm not a Catholic, but I've always admired the Catholic Church for not bending this way.
It's been an institution you could rely on.
Of course, you go to Georgetown University, a Catholic school, you see examples opposite of what I'm talking about.
So it's not cut and dried, but it used to be.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
I doubt there have been any pundits who have defended the Catholic Church more consistently than I have over the last 30 years.
And in fact, the American left is now embracing the Pope.
The American left have been the serial attackers of the Catholic Church.
And yet it is I, Rush Limbaugh, A wonderful human being, but celebrating the right to be massively wrong.
Isn't it wonderful to live in America where this can be possible?
Well, anyway.
Back to the phone.
This is Jim in Toronto, Canada.
Great to have you, sir, and welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
This is a great honor, Rush.
Uh yeah, I just want to mention that if the Pope is going to talk about unfettered capitalism, he should start talking about unfettered socialism and liberalism, because if you go back and read one of the great encyclicals by Pope uh Leo the Thirteenth, it's uh re-run Novarum.
Now, just to be fair, the Pope, uh Pope Leo, uh he he wrote about that about businessmen should start I'll just put it in a nutshell because it's there's a lot of articles.
The be the businessmen of the dime should be fair to the workers because the socialists are beating down the doors to exploit the the workers and also to take private property away.
Does this sound familiar?
What's going on?
As we know, and you've talked about it for years, uh Rush, and educated your listeners that the die-hard socialists, the left, are against private property.
I know a lot of people say, oh no, they're not, but they are the environmental uh uh uh the EPA, uh how they've uh uh attack property owners.
Um you see all the rules and regulations.
Now, if you're going to push and then and and they're all in on this global man-made global warming.
So you come to two conclusions.
Either the Pope is this Pope is the most uninformed Pope we've ever had, or he's part of the the left.
And you might have to conclude to the second, because he's the first Pope in a thousand years from out of Europe.
He can he was in Argentina, and we know what Argentina was like in the 70s.
You disappeared in the middle of the night, and uh and for just having uh an opinion.
And so, you know, I don't know, I I'm a Roman Catholic, and I find it hard.
I I mean I I never found myself disagreeing with Pope Benedict the 16th.
But I find myself constantly uh trying to stick up with this Pope because you you know we're here in the context, but Rebun Navarum is not like pro-capitalist, but it talks about fairness to workers, fairness to uh uh uh uh the people but it also talks about, and they take it out of scripture that man has a right to private property before the state.
That is uh you can look this up, it's and then there's another and six encyclical uh by Pope uh Pius XI uh in the twentieth century.
But I'm not an I'm no expert.
I'm just sort of generalizing, but uh I'll tell you one thing.
If you want to conclude let me just let me let me jump in here because I am not, and I'm not pretending to be a Catholic.
I have I have been invited by Monsignors and priests while inside St. Patrick's on other business.
I was uh I've had I've gotten to know several.
I as I say, I I was invited to um breakfast with Cardinal O'Connor and his staff, and I've had several priests uh suggest that Catholicism would be natural for me based on their awareness of what I've saying, and they've all done so, by the way, on the basis of saving my soul.
That's how I have been approached.
And it was not oppressive, and it was not it was friendly, don't misunderstand.
My point is I'm not an expert on the Catholic Church, and I'm not trying to be here, and I I'm not in any way, shape, manner, or form a Catholic.
But what I am an expert on is freedom, and I recognize efforts to infringe upon it.
I am in the free speech business, so I am acutely aware of any and all efforts to infringe on free speech, and they're all over the place.
And as such, I am acutely aware of every other assault on individual liberty and freedom, and believe me, that's what every leftist issue ultimately aims at is individual liberty and freedom.
And then self-reliance, and then rugged individualism.
All of this constitutes a threat to leftists and the modern day Democrat Party.
In fact, the modern day Democrat Party, and I mean modern day, it is stunning what is happening to the Democrat Party.
There is no Democrat Party of JFK or LBJ anymore.
There is no Democrat Party of the old war horse Robert Strauss.
The Democrat Party today is Bernie Sanders.
You know, Bernie Sanders is drawing bigger crowds than Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders has got more excitement in Hollywood than Hillary Clinton has ever had.
Bernie Sanders is getting standing ovations in Colorado.
I'm telling you, the Democrat Party is no longer what you often associate to the Democrat Party.
The Democrat Party has gone full on call it what you want, socialist, Marxist, and the number of average run-of-the-mill day-to-day Democrats, the faceless anonymous Americans that say they're Democrats, the number of them identifying as Uber left liberals is skyrocketing.
And it's causing lots of people to ask, how did it happen?
When did it begin?
What is responsible for it?
Because there are answers to those questions.
I myself am uh profoundly interested in those questions.
Because as the country it's stunning to me.
The country's in bad shape.
The country's trending in worse shape.
We have stories I held over from last week.
Millennials don't trust anyone, millennials have no faith in anyone, Americans at large have no confidence in their government, no confidence in their economy.
Why in the world would you move in the direction that is causing this?
Why in the world, in the midst of this despair, would you move in a direction that's going to guarantee more of it?
Now to me, the answers are psychological, and I'm not a trained psychologist or psychiatrist or any other kind of emotional or mental expert.
But nevertheless, the subject fascinates me.
and Dana Milbank even writes about it in the Washington Post today, and he's happy as he can be that liberal is no longer an epithet.
Liberal is no longer a dirty word.
It used to be.
As recently as 1988, in fact, and Milbank mentions this.
In 1988, what did in the loser that year, that would be Michael Dukakis, was the fact that he was a liberal stuck to him.
Just the label liberal was enough to secure your defeat.
This is why liberals have always sought to call themselves different things.
Progressives, moderates, independents, because liberal was the death knell at election time.
And now they're happily calling themselves liberals.
And Milbank mentions three theories, and I don't have his story right in front of me.
And then he adds his own.
I think at the end, his theory is no, the third theory, which he really signs on to.
The third theory is that this country is moving so far to the left so fast because of the rise of the Tea Party.
And I read that.
Are you kidding me?
The rise of the Tea Party is what you're saying is awakening people.
To what?
What in the world does the Tea Party do to scare people?
The only thing that I can think of is the idea that you must take care of yourself.
That must scare so many people so fast.
No, don't laugh in there, snerdily.
I know I'm a naturally funny guy.
I know that when I open my tendency is to laugh here, but I'm being dead serious.
I think the idea of self-reliance scares the hell out of a lot of people.
The idea of self-responsibility, they don't trust themselves and they don't trust the system, and so they rather give themselves over to whatever else.
And we've been through all this, how attractive it is, all the different.
Well, no, no, the Tea Party is obliterated from day to day if that fits the narrative of the day.
But the Tea Party is always, even if it is goes extinct, the Tea Party is always going to remain as an object lesson.
Just like Reagan will always be an object lesson.
Oh, that's one of the theories.
One of the theories to explain why the country's going left is it always was.
It's Reagan came along and was so sneaky and so good that he fooled a lot of people for eight years.
But now that Reagan's gone and there isn't any legitimate air that people are free to return to their natural inclinations, which is big government-sponsored liberalism and socialism.
That Reagan was just an eight-year aberration, and liberals paid their price for it, but now everything's getting back to equilibrium.
And there's one other theory, but uh never nevertheless strip it all away, and what you're left is with with I don't think you have any doubt about it, polling data, which shows Americans are despondent, depressed, confused, uh lack confidence in institutions.
I think the country's heading the wrong track, and yet the same polls tell us that people are moving in the direction of politics that has given us and created these circumstances in which people have lost confidence and lost faith.
And we know that in some people's cases this is true.
I mean, here you have you go back and look at this country seven years ago, ten years ago, we know where I don't care how bad you hated Bush, and I don't care how bad people hated the Iraq war, this country was nowhere near the psychological sewer that it's in today.
And yet, people do not associate the leadership of the past seven years with the current set of circumstances.
I know media obviously a factor.
Uh I don't want to mention things that I've mentioned before because I don't want to be repetitive.
Anyway, clock time break back after this, don't go away.
The first theory, why the country is so liberal, and I don't think there's any denying that in the Democrat Party, there's no question that the Democrat Party has become extreme, far left.
That is the mainstream.
What I've always thought the kook fringe, insane lunatics of the Democrat Party base are its mainstream now.
And you see this lunacy illustrated in op-ed pages and editorial pages of things like the Washington uh Post, the New York Times.
Lunacy has become mainstream in the Democrat Party.
There is there is no moderate wing of the Democrat Party at all.
Milbank's first theory is that more people are identifying as liberal because of huge and rapid shifts on a couple of social issues, particularly gay marriage and transgenderism.
So many people he's theorized, though it's not his theory, that maybe his theory, there's somebody's theory, that gay marriage and transgenderism are so so popular and so so identified as liberal that people are saying if that's what liberalism is, I am all in.
That's one theory.
You buy that, Mr. Snertley.
Sounds kind of cock and bull to me.
Second theory, the nation's moral pendulum has always been swinging through history from left back to right, through the center and back to left.
And as it each ended hits the extremes and then bounces back.
And the theory is that it the liberalism, mass liberalism today represents the extreme leftward tilt of that pendulum.
And that it will soon start moving back toward the center and then ultimately back to the right.
No time frame given for this.
But this is a popular theory among political scientists.
And the third theory, which Dana Milbank says he finds compelling, which means this is what he chooses, is that the rise in liberalism is a backlash against the over the top conservatism displayed by the Tea Party movement.
And in see, in that case, it would mean this is permanent.
He doesn't like this theory.
It's just a momentary point in time where that pendulum is at the far left before it starts swinging back to the middle.
His theory, if all this liberalism is a result of the Tea Party, then it's permanent.
It's asinine.
It's an asinine theory.
If they're reading to that theory, then the four years after Ronald Reagan should have seen exactly what we're seeing now.
Because the Tea Party is what it is.
But Reagan was a 49-state landslide winner twice.
Heather in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Great to have you on the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you so much for all you do.
You truly are the only voice of sanity that we're hearing these days.
Well, um, theory myself, and it has to do with all of this talk on global warming, not only from the Pope, but do you remember a while back when Obama made the comment when um ISIS was particularly active and Obama made the comment that um the biggest threat to our world was global warming and not ISIS.
Oh, yeah.
And you just had to scratch your head, you know, what in the world?
Well, my theory that all this talk on global warming is just setting the stage for who the next presidential um democratic nominee is gonna be, as well as who they hope to be president.
And I think that's Al Gore.
I don't think Hillary has a heck of a chance of winning the nominee, a nomination.
I think just as Obama came out of nowhere and pushed her aside, the same thing's gonna happen with Al Gore.
And all this talk of global warming, and that's the um uh Let me politely, let me politely offer an alternative.
A, I don't think Al Gore would in any way take the pay cut.
Al Gore is too busy getting rich off of this hoax.
And he's living the life right now.
Global warming is also much more than just a plan to elect Democrats.
It clearly is that, there's no question.
But it is far more oppressive than that.
It it is far more dangerous than that.
The this this whole the things that are wrapped up in climate change as an issue, virtually every objective the worldwide left has for global government, the elimination of the U.S. Constitution,
the whole notion of individual liberty and private property, global warming, climate, whatever you call it, has every mechanism to eliminate everything liberals oppose.
And that's why they're trying to encompass it with science and give the Pope uh get the Pope involved, giving it automatic authority, because it can't stand on its own in science, folks.
None of it matters anyway, folks, because we've entered the sixth extinction phase.
We are now all the walking dead.
Our time on earth is within our sight.
▲
Export Selection