Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:06.640]  Last week, the United States Supreme Court took oral arguments in the matter of Joe Biden's
[00:06.640 --> 00:11.280]  vaccine mandate for companies with 100 or more employees across the United States.
[00:11.280 --> 00:18.880]  During that proceeding, Justice Sotomayor made some statements that were blatantly false,
[00:18.880 --> 00:26.160]  shockingly inaccurate. Should Justice Sotomayor be required at this point to recuse herself
[00:26.160 --> 00:47.600]  from that case? Let's take a look at a few of the statements made by Justice Sotomayor.
[00:47.600 --> 00:55.200]  One of them was, quote, Omicron is as deadly as Delta and causes as much serious disease
[00:55.200 --> 01:04.720]  in the unvaccinated as Delta did. Okay, so that is not remotely what the data shows.
[01:05.360 --> 01:13.680]  And let me share that data with you. Daily deaths from Delta, that was the overwhelming,
[01:13.680 --> 01:20.400]  predominant variant at the time we're talking about, daily deaths from Delta in the US,
[01:20.400 --> 01:27.600]  the second half of 2021. The high watermark for deaths was on September 16th, and that number
[01:27.600 --> 01:36.000]  was 3,418, and that's according to Google's aggregated data. Yesterday's deaths, that would
[01:36.000 --> 01:44.560]  be as I'm recording this January 8th, 2022, which can be presumed to be far fewer Delta cases and
[01:45.120 --> 01:55.120]  more Omicron cases, the number of deaths was 676. That's an 80% reduction from September.
[01:55.760 --> 02:05.280]  Sincerious COVID-19 is what causes deaths from COVID, with an 80% drop in deaths from September
[02:05.280 --> 02:14.960]  until January 8th. It is irrational to say, as did Sotomayor, Omicron is as deadly as Delta and
[02:14.960 --> 02:21.520]  causes as much serious disease in unvaccinated as Delta did. Sotomayor also said, quote,
[02:22.400 --> 02:29.680]  we have over 100,000 children, which we have never had before, in serious condition,
[02:29.680 --> 02:36.400]  and many on ventilators. At the time Sotomayor made that statement, the seven-day average
[02:36.400 --> 02:47.440]  for that particular age group, which is 17 and under, was 766. So that means Sotomayor
[02:47.440 --> 02:56.800]  exaggerated the reality, the factual data, 130-fold. Furthermore, CDC's data from the
[02:56.800 --> 03:03.840]  time they started tracking 17 and under in hospitals for COVID, from that time until
[03:03.840 --> 03:08.400]  Sotomayor made that statement, the total number of 17 and under that have been hospitalized in
[03:08.400 --> 03:15.840]  the United States was just shy of 83,000. And CDC has noted that many of those hospitalizations
[03:15.840 --> 03:22.160]  were that the patient, the 17 and under patient, was not there for COVID. They were there for some
[03:22.160 --> 03:26.560]  other procedure, or they had a broken leg, or it was something. And when they were admitted
[03:26.560 --> 03:33.200]  to the hospital for that, they happened to test positive for SARS-CoV-2. I don't know where Sotomayor
[03:33.200 --> 03:42.640]  came up with the claim that many were on ventilators. In the Delta era, CDC said that
[03:42.640 --> 03:49.200]  6% of 17 and under demographic was on ventilators. And of course, we can imagine with Omicron having
[03:49.200 --> 03:54.640]  much milder symptoms, that number would be significantly reduced. However, just using the
[03:54.640 --> 04:00.480]  old Delta era 6% number and the number of hospitalizations we just talked about a moment
[04:00.480 --> 04:13.440]  ago, that would mean that 46 17 and under were on ventilators. And to be clear, that's 46 out of 74
[04:13.440 --> 04:19.200]  million, which is the population of the United States that's 17 and under. If we were to consider
[04:19.200 --> 04:25.360]  that that 80% reduction in deaths we just talked about a moment ago would also indicate a 70%
[04:25.360 --> 04:32.400]  reduction in the number of 17 and under that are ventilated, if we use that as a working hypothesis,
[04:32.400 --> 04:39.920]  then that would mean nine were on ventilators. But no matter how you slice it, to characterize
[04:39.920 --> 04:46.800]  that there are many on ventilators is both inaccurate and grossly misleading. Understanding
[04:46.800 --> 04:55.680]  what Sotomayor said, well the data actually is, let's talk about recusal. United States federal
[04:55.680 --> 05:03.680]  court decisional law as well as federal statutory law requires a judge to recuse him or herself
[05:03.680 --> 05:12.880]  if there is, it can be actual bias, conflict of interest, or the appearance of bias. In that
[05:12.880 --> 05:21.040]  context, what bias can a reasonable person impute to Sotomayor's remarks? First, we need to take
[05:21.040 --> 05:28.480]  stock of the reality that Sotomayor provided these wildly inaccurate numbers at a public
[05:29.040 --> 05:35.600]  United States Supreme Court hearing and read that into the official record without apparently
[05:36.480 --> 05:41.520]  taking the 30 seconds it would have taken to perform an internet search to find out what the
[05:42.080 --> 05:50.080]  actual numbers were. So how is that relevant to recusal? Judges are required when they consider
[05:50.080 --> 05:57.040]  a case brought before them to apply the fact situation to the relevant law that's being
[05:57.040 --> 06:06.640]  brought before them being challenged. When Sotomayor states data numbers that is 130-fold
[06:06.640 --> 06:13.760]  wrong, I believe it raises the very prudent question of whether she is capable of applying
[06:13.760 --> 06:20.480]  the true fact situation to the relevant law that's being brought before the court. Second,
[06:21.440 --> 06:31.440]  her blatantly false statements telegraph that she is predisposed to vote in favor of Biden's
[06:31.440 --> 06:38.880]  workplace vaccine mandate based on the principle that the ends justify the means. And without
[06:38.880 --> 06:46.720]  getting into whether the ends would even be achieved, the law absolutely does not work that
[06:46.720 --> 06:54.960]  way. Courts do not get to abrogate the law because the judge believes the situation makes it okay to
[06:54.960 --> 07:01.200]  ignore the law or do something other than the law says to allow something that the law does not or
[07:01.200 --> 07:08.000]  to restrict something that the law allows. Courts, even the Supreme Court, does not have that
[07:08.000 --> 07:12.800]  authority. In the matter before the court, the United States Supreme Court is being called
[07:12.880 --> 07:16.720]  to determine whether President Biden, any president, but he happens to be sitting in the
[07:16.720 --> 07:23.280]  Oval Office at this time, any president has the authority to order private citizens in the private
[07:23.280 --> 07:29.200]  sector to get vaccinated if they work for a company with 100 or more employees or be terminated.
[07:29.760 --> 07:35.520]  The question is, does the president have that constitutional or statutory authority?
[07:35.520 --> 07:42.240]  An additional issue before the court is whether OSHA has the authority based on Biden's instructions
[07:42.240 --> 07:49.200]  to do things that Congress has never authorized OSHA to do when it created OSHA
[07:49.200 --> 07:54.960]  or in any subsequent amendments to those laws. It's inarguable that OSHA does not have that
[07:54.960 --> 08:02.240]  authority. Leaving aside the question of whether OSHA can follow Biden's directive absent statutory
[08:02.240 --> 08:07.600]  authority, OSHA does not have statutory authority. So what the court is going to be called upon to
[08:07.600 --> 08:13.680]  determine is whether or not OSHA can exceed its statutorily granted authority because the
[08:13.680 --> 08:21.760]  president says so. That's a really steep hill to climb in legal terms. And it appears Sotomayor
[08:21.760 --> 08:29.120]  is already planning, she's laying this foundation with these false statistics to grant OSHA that
[08:29.120 --> 08:35.920]  authority despite what the law says. In short, citing statistics, whether they're small, whether
[08:35.920 --> 08:41.120]  they're medium, whether they're large, citing statistics doesn't change the law. But if we
[08:41.120 --> 08:47.520]  want to get into statistics, I'm curious why Sotomayor did not cite the statistic that
[08:47.520 --> 08:50.800]  as of this past week, according to the CDC's provisional death count,
[08:51.440 --> 09:00.160]  people who have died with COVID-19 since the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States,
[09:00.160 --> 09:09.440]  total 24 100s of 1 percent. And of course, that percentage down the road, years from now,
[09:09.440 --> 09:15.040]  when researchers tear into all this data, it's very likely that that percentage, that 24 100s of 1
[09:15.040 --> 09:22.800]  percent, is going to drop significantly as they parse patients who died with COVID-19 from patients
[09:22.800 --> 09:30.320]  who died from COVID-19. Point three, Sotomayor is a 67-year-old type 1 diabetic who has chosen
[09:30.880 --> 09:40.480]  to remain obese. Now, there is scant evidence that being type 1 diabetic creates much of an
[09:40.480 --> 09:46.640]  increased risk from COVID-19. As a matter of fact, in September, the Journal of Clinical
[09:46.640 --> 09:52.400]  Endocrinology and Metabolism published a report saying that people with type 1 diabetes
[09:52.400 --> 09:59.120]  who are over 40 have a higher risk of hops, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19 because
[09:59.120 --> 10:06.800]  this group, and I quote, had a significantly higher prevalence of obesity, hypertension,
[10:06.800 --> 10:12.640]  and cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease when compared to the younger groups.
[10:12.640 --> 10:16.240]  In other words, the increased risk didn't come from being a type 1 diabetic. It came from all
[10:16.240 --> 10:21.680]  those other chronic diseases that were just listed. Despite obesity being one of the most
[10:21.680 --> 10:28.320]  significant factors of high risk of serious COVID-19, which includes death, Sotomayor has
[10:28.320 --> 10:36.480]  chosen to remain obese. And when I say she has chosen to remain obese, I mean exactly that.
[10:37.280 --> 10:43.760]  When there is a mechanism by which somebody can quickly, efficiently, and in a healthful manner
[10:43.760 --> 10:50.080]  drop the weight, they're no longer obese, and they don't follow that clear path to no longer
[10:50.080 --> 10:56.000]  being obese. It's right there. That's how you end being obese. And they choose not to do that.
[10:56.000 --> 11:02.960]  It's a choice. And Sotomayor has chosen to continue being obese. And when I say there's
[11:02.960 --> 11:08.080]  a clear path, I mean people can have all sorts of ideas on how they would drop the weight that
[11:08.080 --> 11:13.040]  leads to obesity. But what I'm talking about, personal experience, I've actually written a book
[11:13.040 --> 11:20.800]  on it, is that keto or carnivore for just several months would have completely shed
[11:20.800 --> 11:25.600]  all of Sotomayor's excess fat. She would no longer be obese. And I'm not even saying that
[11:25.600 --> 11:30.400]  somebody like Sotomayor should stay on keto or stay on carnivore. That's a personal choice.
[11:30.400 --> 11:36.560]  But you certainly want to stay on it long enough to get rid of that obesity, no longer be high
[11:36.560 --> 11:42.320]  risk from obesity concerning COVID-19, and then make the dietary choices that perhaps one thinks
[11:42.320 --> 11:48.000]  is right for him or her to keep that weight off and not be high risk. But Sotomayor did
[11:48.720 --> 11:58.880]  exactly the opposite. She chose to remain obese. I question whether a person who two years into an
[11:58.880 --> 12:04.880]  outbreak where we know that one of the most significant risk factors for severe COVID
[12:05.040 --> 12:11.600]  and possibly death is obesity. Two years into that, she remains obese by choice.
[12:12.400 --> 12:18.720]  I question then whether voting on anything to do with SARS-CoV-2 or the vaccines can be considered
[12:18.720 --> 12:26.720]  unbiased. As you're almost certainly aware, there has been a huge push to stop misinformation
[12:26.720 --> 12:32.400]  concerning SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Yet here we have a United States Supreme Court justice
[12:33.120 --> 12:38.960]  reading gross misinformation into the official record of the Supreme Court.
[12:39.760 --> 12:48.000]  When I say it's misinformation and it's gross misinformation, even CNN, as you are almost
[12:48.000 --> 12:54.160]  certainly aware, is rather left leaning. Even CNN fact checked her and said that, yeah, that's way,
[12:54.160 --> 13:00.400]  way, way off. The Washington Post, again, a very left leaning publication, gave Sotomayor
[13:00.960 --> 13:10.800]  four Pinocchios. So for the reasons we've just covered, I believe judicial ethics and obedience
[13:10.800 --> 13:18.560]  to federal law requires Sotomayor to recuse herself in this matter. By the way, if you
[13:18.560 --> 13:26.400]  absolutely detest government misinformation and misinformation from the establishment at large,
[13:26.880 --> 13:34.480]  you are absolutely going to love body science and or income tax shattering the mist.
[13:34.480 --> 13:38.560]  Because in both cases, in their respective fields, in one case human physiology with an
[13:38.560 --> 13:44.240]  emphasis on nutritional physiology, and in the other case, the law concerning income tax,
[13:44.240 --> 13:52.160]  when you get into those books, you will experience the establishment narrative utterly and completely
[13:52.160 --> 13:59.040]  shredded with science in the case of body science and with law in the case of income tax
[13:59.040 --> 14:03.840]  shattering the mist. And in reference to income tax shattering the mist, when I say law, what I mean
[14:03.840 --> 14:08.320]  is things like United States Supreme Court decisions, Treasury orders, Treasury decisions,
[14:08.320 --> 14:12.720]  internal documents of the IRS, determinations from the Congressional Research Service,
[14:12.720 --> 14:18.560]  statutes, regulations, all of them, cohesively, ever since the adoption of the income tax,
[14:18.560 --> 14:25.920]  all of them, bar none, indicate that Congress has not indicate, proves that Congress has never
[14:25.920 --> 14:29.360]  imposed the income tax on the average American, gets up in the morning, has a cup of coffee,
[14:29.360 --> 14:33.840]  takes kids off to school, goes to work, gets a paycheck every couple weeks. That person,
[14:33.840 --> 14:40.400]  Congress has never, ever imposed the income tax on, but you probably think they did because you've
[14:40.400 --> 14:44.720]  been fed the false establishment narrative since you were knee-high to a grasshopper.
[14:44.720 --> 14:50.160]  And whether it's body science, income tax shattering the mist, nearly a week goes by
[14:50.160 --> 14:53.840]  that I don't see comments all across social media from people who have purchased and read these books
[14:54.800 --> 15:00.480]  that they are just floored by what they've learned and they consider the information
[15:00.480 --> 15:08.320]  astoundingly valuable. So by going to DrReality.News, grabbing yourself a copy of one or both,
[15:08.400 --> 15:12.960]  peeling the blinders off your eyes, and discovering some amazing truths,
[15:12.960 --> 15:19.680]  you will also help me to continue to be here for you with these kind of fact-based presentations.
[15:19.680 --> 15:29.680]  Thank you.