Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:02.400]  Welcome back to the channel.
[00:02.400 --> 00:06.800]  As you probably know, the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade.
[00:06.800 --> 00:13.400]  Whether a person loves that decision or hates that decision, here's the thing.
[00:13.400 --> 00:21.900]  99% of the American public has absolutely no idea about the legal framework or the legal realities,
[00:21.900 --> 00:26.400]  the precedents, and the issues that bore upon the court's decision.
[00:26.400 --> 00:29.400]  Even those that think they do, don't.
[00:29.600 --> 00:34.000]  And the reason for that is that the court has been more than a little cagey
[00:34.000 --> 00:38.200]  because complete transparency on the issue of the 14th Amendment
[00:38.200 --> 00:43.000]  has some landmines concerning full public disclosure.
[00:43.000 --> 00:49.000]  Today, I'm going to disclose for you what is hidden behind the Supreme Court's veil in the Dobbs case.
[00:49.000 --> 00:57.500]  I hope you'll stay with me because self-governance requires knowledge and insight and being informed,
[00:57.500 --> 01:02.500]  and not just at the superficial level they would like you to look at.
[01:19.000 --> 01:25.000]  Let's start with this. Roe v. Wade and Dobbs, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade,
[01:25.000 --> 01:28.400]  both turn on the 14th Amendment.
[01:28.400 --> 01:32.300]  So, quick, tell me what the 14th Amendment says.
[01:32.300 --> 01:35.000]  Tell me when it was enacted. Tell me upon whom it operates.
[01:35.000 --> 01:37.300]  Tell me upon whom it does not operate.
[01:37.300 --> 01:40.100]  All right, you see the problem.
[01:40.100 --> 01:43.000]  The entire case turns on the 14th Amendment,
[01:43.000 --> 01:48.500]  yet virtually no Americans really know anything about the 14th Amendment.
[01:48.500 --> 01:54.100]  In order to keep this video short, I'm going to give you a very skeletal outline of the 14th Amendment.
[01:54.100 --> 02:01.400]  At the end of the Civil War, the freed black slaves were not citizens.
[02:01.400 --> 02:07.000]  Despite what people think, the original citizenship in the United States
[02:07.000 --> 02:11.400]  came from citizenship within a state of the Union.
[02:11.400 --> 02:17.100]  Prior to the 14th Amendment, there was no such thing as a national or federal citizenship.
[02:17.100 --> 02:25.100]  So, the constitutions of the southern states did not permit blacks born into slavery to become citizens.
[02:25.100 --> 02:29.000]  And Vittel's law, which is the gold standard on all sorts of things,
[02:29.000 --> 02:32.200]  but we'll just call it international relations for the sake of this video,
[02:32.200 --> 02:35.100]  makes clear that people fall into one of two categories.
[02:35.100 --> 02:38.600]  A person is a citizen or an alien.
[02:38.600 --> 02:44.700]  So, the freed black slaves at the end of the Civil War were actually aliens upon the land of their birth.
[02:44.700 --> 02:46.100]  Now, you don't have to take my word for this.
[02:46.100 --> 02:50.600]  If you want to do all the hard work, you can go back and research the many things that were said
[02:50.600 --> 02:56.300]  by the people who were promoting and opposing the 14th Amendment back before it was ratified.
[02:56.300 --> 03:00.000]  Then you will see the core issue that the 14th Amendment was trying to address
[03:00.000 --> 03:04.600]  was that we had all these people who were born here, but yet once they were free, they were not citizens.
[03:04.600 --> 03:07.900]  So, they needed some form of citizenship.
[03:07.900 --> 03:10.100]  So, the 14th Amendment did that for them.
[03:10.100 --> 03:16.400]  Now, there's an important connoisseur note that I think it's significant in terms of the 14th Amendment.
[03:16.400 --> 03:21.300]  What the Supreme Court, way back right after the 14th Amendment was adopted,
[03:21.300 --> 03:25.400]  what the Supreme Court has said about the 14th Amendment,
[03:25.400 --> 03:39.000]  that it applied to blacks held in slavery that had become free and to their posterity.
[03:39.000 --> 03:45.000]  And then later the court said, as well as that category also, others similarly situated.
[03:45.000 --> 03:50.200]  But for the purpose of this presentation, the important thing it was blacks born into slavery,
[03:50.200 --> 03:54.600]  freed after the Civil War, and their posterity.
[03:54.600 --> 03:58.800]  The point of that is that the disability, being an alien in the land of their birth,
[03:58.800 --> 04:02.600]  would have been handed down from generation to generation.
[04:02.600 --> 04:05.900]  The 14th Amendment interceded in that.
[04:05.900 --> 04:12.700]  Here's another distinction between, I guess what we'll call, de jure state citizens,
[04:12.700 --> 04:17.600]  which historically meant white citizens of the states of the Union.
[04:17.600 --> 04:20.700]  They were not granted citizenship.
[04:20.700 --> 04:22.000]  Nobody gave them a citizenship.
[04:22.000 --> 04:24.200]  It was by virtue of their birth upon the land.
[04:24.200 --> 04:30.200]  And their unalienable rights went right along with that citizenship.
[04:30.200 --> 04:33.300]  So, when the states ratified the 14th Amendment,
[04:33.400 --> 04:36.200]  the 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution,
[04:36.200 --> 04:43.000]  the freed black slaves were now granted citizenship.
[04:43.000 --> 04:45.700]  So, what were their rights?
[04:45.700 --> 04:47.200]  Well, they got rights in two ways.
[04:47.200 --> 04:51.200]  One was Congress could grant them rights through a statute or statutes.
[04:51.200 --> 04:52.900]  In other words, Congress could pass a law saying,
[04:52.900 --> 04:56.700]  okay, all you people that we just made federal citizens, here's your rights, okay?
[04:56.700 --> 05:00.200]  The second way was by something called incorporation through the judicial branch.
[05:00.200 --> 05:01.000]  We'll get into that in a minute.
[05:01.000 --> 05:04.000]  But I want to stop and take a moment to talk about statutes.
[05:04.000 --> 05:08.300]  Because post 14th Amendment ratification,
[05:08.300 --> 05:15.600]  do you know how many statutes vest 14th Amendment citizens with rights?
[05:15.600 --> 05:16.700]  One.
[05:16.700 --> 05:20.100]  And I'm going to share with you what it says.
[05:20.100 --> 05:25.200]  This is Title 42, Section 1981.
[05:25.200 --> 05:29.100]  Statement of equal rights is the title,
[05:29.100 --> 05:34.500]  quote, all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States
[05:34.500 --> 05:39.800]  shall have the same right in every state and territory to make and enforce contracts,
[05:39.800 --> 05:43.400]  to sue, to be parties, give evidence,
[05:43.400 --> 05:47.300]  and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings
[05:47.300 --> 05:54.100]  for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens
[05:54.100 --> 06:00.000]  and shall be subject to like, punishment, pains, penalties, taxes,
[06:00.000 --> 06:06.000]  licenses, and exactions of every kind and to no other.
[06:06.000 --> 06:07.400]  Close quote.
[06:07.400 --> 06:11.000]  That's a pretty scant list.
[06:11.000 --> 06:14.000]  So let's go through the main ones again.
[06:14.000 --> 06:21.200]  Make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence,
[06:21.200 --> 06:23.900]  and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings
[06:23.900 --> 06:28.900]  for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.
[06:28.900 --> 06:34.400]  So do you hear anything in there about rights like the right to remain silent,
[06:34.400 --> 06:36.100]  the right to freedom of association,
[06:36.100 --> 06:38.700]  the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure,
[06:38.700 --> 06:45.100]  and a slew, a host of rights that were enjoyed by white citizens
[06:45.100 --> 06:46.100]  since the beginning of the country.
[06:46.100 --> 06:48.600]  You hear any of that in that statute?
[06:48.600 --> 06:53.000]  You might ask why in this statute all sorts of rights,
[06:53.000 --> 06:54.800]  at least the enumerated ones in the Bill of Rights
[06:54.800 --> 06:58.300]  that the American public enjoys and white citizens had enjoyed
[06:58.300 --> 06:59.500]  since the founding of this nation,
[06:59.500 --> 07:05.900]  why those rights were not listed in that statute Title 42, Section 1981.
[07:05.900 --> 07:07.800]  The reason is at the close of the Civil War,
[07:07.800 --> 07:11.500]  after the 13th Amendment and slavery was abolished,
[07:11.500 --> 07:16.300]  you'd have been hard-pressed to find a citizen, a white citizen,
[07:16.300 --> 07:21.400]  who believed that black people were equal to white people
[07:21.400 --> 07:27.100]  or that they deserve to be considered as equal before the law.
[07:27.100 --> 07:32.300]  Probably in the high 90 percentile of whites did not believe that at all.
[07:32.300 --> 07:36.800]  So why would all the rights that white people have
[07:36.800 --> 07:39.100]  be given to the freed black slaves?
[07:39.100 --> 07:44.100]  President Lincoln is often referred to as the great emancipator.
[07:44.100 --> 07:52.300]  But what did President Lincoln say about blacks and whites living together in society?
[07:52.300 --> 07:54.400]  Here's what he had to say, quote,
[07:54.400 --> 08:00.600]  I am not nor have I ever been in favor of bringing about in any way
[08:00.600 --> 08:06.500]  the social and political equality of the white and black races.
[08:06.500 --> 08:13.000]  I am not nor have I ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes,
[08:13.000 --> 08:18.700]  nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people.
[08:18.700 --> 08:22.500]  And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference
[08:22.500 --> 08:24.400]  between the white and black races,
[08:24.400 --> 08:29.100]  which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together
[08:29.100 --> 08:32.900]  on terms of social and political equality.
[08:32.900 --> 08:38.200]  And inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do remain together,
[08:38.200 --> 08:41.900]  there must be a position of superior and inferior.
[08:41.900 --> 08:44.200]  And I, as much as any other man,
[08:44.200 --> 08:49.800]  am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
[08:49.800 --> 08:51.100]  Close quote.
[08:51.100 --> 08:52.900]  To help you better understand the 14th Amendment,
[08:52.900 --> 08:56.300]  I'm going to put three links down in the show notes.
[08:56.300 --> 09:00.300]  The first one is to treat us on constitutions.
[09:00.300 --> 09:02.300]  The second one is on citizenship.
[09:02.300 --> 09:05.400]  And the third one is the 14th Amendment clarified.
[09:05.400 --> 09:08.400]  If you read the 14th Amendment clarified, you'll get the gist.
[09:08.400 --> 09:11.600]  But if you read them all, the citizenship, the Constitution,
[09:11.600 --> 09:13.700]  and then the 14th Amendment clarified,
[09:13.700 --> 09:17.400]  you will forever understand the true and actual meaning of the 14th Amendment.
[09:17.400 --> 09:19.200]  And nobody can ever, especially the government,
[09:19.200 --> 09:21.800]  can ever buffalo you on that again.
[09:21.800 --> 09:26.700]  So in terms of rights granted to 14th Amendment citizens by statute,
[09:26.700 --> 09:29.500]  we're done. 1981 is it.
[09:29.500 --> 09:32.400]  Well, until we get into the Civil Rights Act later.
[09:32.400 --> 09:37.100]  So as I said, the other way that 14th Amendment citizens have gotten rights
[09:37.100 --> 09:40.800]  is through something called the incorporation doctrine.
[09:40.900 --> 09:45.100]  And this is where the United States Supreme Court
[09:45.100 --> 09:49.000]  magically vests 14th Amendment citizens,
[09:49.000 --> 09:51.900]  grants 14th Amendment citizens certain rights.
[09:51.900 --> 09:55.900]  The incorporation doctrine is not supported by statute.
[09:55.900 --> 09:59.900]  This is something the judicial branch cooked up all on its own
[09:59.900 --> 10:02.700]  without any justification from we the people.
[10:02.700 --> 10:04.800]  And I don't say that to make the point that it's good or bad,
[10:04.800 --> 10:05.800]  the incorporation doctrine,
[10:05.800 --> 10:09.900]  merely to point out that it has no basis in law.
[10:09.900 --> 10:12.600]  A bunch of guys that were sitting on the federal courts
[10:12.600 --> 10:14.500]  decided on their own this is what should happen.
[10:14.500 --> 10:18.700]  And in 1925, they began the incorporation.
[10:18.700 --> 10:20.700]  So what is the incorporation doctrine?
[10:20.700 --> 10:23.300]  That is where the court in various cases,
[10:23.300 --> 10:25.100]  challenges that have come up through the states,
[10:25.100 --> 10:27.300]  through the federal courts, to the Supreme Court.
[10:27.300 --> 10:31.400]  The Supreme Court then takes enumerated rights
[10:31.400 --> 10:34.800]  that are in the Bill of Rights and says,
[10:34.800 --> 10:38.800]  okay, so this case was, as an example, freedom of speech.
[10:38.800 --> 10:41.200]  So it gets all the way to the Supreme Court
[10:41.200 --> 10:43.000]  and it involves a 14th Amendment citizen.
[10:43.000 --> 10:43.900]  We know who that is.
[10:43.900 --> 10:45.700]  That would be the freed black slaves
[10:45.700 --> 10:47.000]  who were aliens upon the land
[10:47.000 --> 10:48.400]  and then were vested with citizenship
[10:48.400 --> 10:51.800]  via the 14th Amendment and their posterity.
[10:51.800 --> 10:55.800]  So a 14th Amendment defendant appeals a case
[10:55.800 --> 10:57.700]  all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
[10:57.700 --> 11:01.500]  And so in that case, the United States Supreme Court
[11:01.500 --> 11:06.700]  rules for the 14th Amendment defendant and says,
[11:06.700 --> 11:11.200]  we hereby incorporate the First Amendment
[11:11.200 --> 11:14.800]  right of free speech into the 14th Amendment
[11:14.800 --> 11:17.100]  as against the states of the union.
[11:17.100 --> 11:19.700]  That's how incorporation is done.
[11:19.700 --> 11:22.000]  I wanna reiterate and emphasize
[11:22.000 --> 11:23.900]  that the incorporation doctrine
[11:23.900 --> 11:28.900]  only pertains to enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.
[11:29.800 --> 11:32.900]  There's an important part, boundaries, if you will,
[11:32.900 --> 11:36.600]  of the court created, the judicial branch created,
[11:36.700 --> 11:39.800]  principle of incorporation.
[11:39.800 --> 11:41.500]  I should also point out that for, again,
[11:41.500 --> 11:45.700]  we'll use the term the original du jour white citizens,
[11:45.700 --> 11:48.800]  the Bill of Rights does not grant
[11:48.800 --> 11:51.300]  that class of person any rights.
[11:51.300 --> 11:55.400]  Those people were presumed to have those rights in place.
[11:55.400 --> 11:57.100]  Those rights came with their birth upon the land
[11:57.100 --> 11:59.400]  and they had those rights and their posterity
[11:59.400 --> 12:02.100]  had those rights since before the federal government
[12:02.100 --> 12:03.700]  was even formed.
[12:03.700 --> 12:06.800]  So the Bill of Rights doesn't grant the du jour,
[12:06.800 --> 12:08.300]  I hate to say this because it sounds racist,
[12:08.300 --> 12:09.400]  but historically it's accurate,
[12:09.400 --> 12:11.600]  the du jour white citizens,
[12:11.600 --> 12:13.400]  the Bill of Rights provides them with nothing.
[12:13.400 --> 12:16.100]  The Bill of Rights is, for them,
[12:16.100 --> 12:20.000]  a prohibition against action by the federal government.
[12:20.000 --> 12:22.300]  It doesn't grant anybody anything
[12:22.300 --> 12:25.200]  until the 14th Amendment came along
[12:25.200 --> 12:29.300]  and then the incorporation doctrine,
[12:29.300 --> 12:30.700]  whereby the court said,
[12:30.700 --> 12:33.300]  since these rights are enumerated,
[12:33.300 --> 12:37.100]  we're going to vest them over time
[12:37.100 --> 12:39.200]  in 14th Amendment citizens.
[12:39.200 --> 12:42.400]  Also, because this is 2022 and people are so emotional
[12:42.400 --> 12:44.600]  and make all sorts of bizarre accusations,
[12:44.600 --> 12:46.900]  I do want to clarify that because I'm laying out
[12:46.900 --> 12:50.800]  the historical, legal, and constitutional background
[12:50.800 --> 12:54.100]  and boundaries and history of the 14th Amendment,
[12:54.100 --> 12:57.800]  which does in its very nature involve du jour white citizens
[12:57.800 --> 12:59.600]  versus the freed black slaves
[12:59.600 --> 13:02.000]  who eventually became 14th Amendment citizens.
[13:02.000 --> 13:06.700]  In no way is that me expressing any racism.
[13:06.700 --> 13:09.400]  I'm just laying it out factually, historically
[13:09.400 --> 13:12.000]  as it went down.
[13:12.000 --> 13:14.800]  A moment ago, I mentioned that these rights
[13:14.800 --> 13:19.800]  were granted to 14th Amendment citizens slowly over time.
[13:20.200 --> 13:24.700]  So it may shock you to know
[13:24.700 --> 13:28.500]  that the right to keep and bear arms
[13:28.600 --> 13:32.900]  was not incorporated into the 14th Amendment
[13:32.900 --> 13:37.800]  until 2010 in the McDonald decision.
[13:37.800 --> 13:41.000]  So from the time 1868,
[13:41.000 --> 13:44.200]  the adoption of the 14th Amendment until 2010,
[13:44.200 --> 13:48.700]  14th Amendment citizens in the states of the union
[13:48.700 --> 13:51.600]  did not have any federal protection
[13:51.600 --> 13:53.300]  concerning the right to bear arms.
[13:53.300 --> 13:55.800]  So if they don't have any federally protected right
[13:55.800 --> 13:56.700]  to keep and bear arms,
[13:56.700 --> 13:59.100]  they're a 14th Amendment citizen, a federal citizen.
[13:59.100 --> 14:02.900]  They didn't have any right to keep and bear arms at all
[14:02.900 --> 14:05.500]  until 2010.
[14:05.500 --> 14:08.400]  I find that just mind blowing.
[14:08.400 --> 14:10.100]  And you don't have to believe me.
[14:10.100 --> 14:12.200]  You can go back and read the McDonald case
[14:12.200 --> 14:13.900]  and you can see where the court talks about the fact
[14:13.900 --> 14:17.300]  that it is granting the 14th Amendment citizens
[14:17.300 --> 14:18.900]  the right to keep and bear arms
[14:18.900 --> 14:21.700]  by incorporating the second amendment into the 14th.
[14:21.700 --> 14:23.500]  You can go back and read it for yourself.
[14:23.500 --> 14:25.700]  Here's another shocker, 14th Amendment citizens
[14:25.700 --> 14:29.100]  in the United States did not have to have
[14:29.100 --> 14:33.900]  a unanimous verdict of a jury in a criminal case
[14:33.900 --> 14:35.500]  to be convicted.
[14:36.900 --> 14:41.900]  Until 2020, white people had to have
[14:42.300 --> 14:44.800]  a unanimous verdict of the jury,
[14:44.800 --> 14:49.500]  but not 14th Amendment citizens until 2020.
[14:49.500 --> 14:51.600]  Then there are the enumerated rights
[14:51.600 --> 14:55.200]  in the Bill of Rights that have still not been incorporated.
[14:55.300 --> 14:59.200]  One of them being that 14th Amendment citizens
[14:59.200 --> 15:01.800]  still do not have the same right
[15:01.800 --> 15:04.400]  as de jure white citizens in the States of the Union
[15:04.400 --> 15:08.800]  to have a civil case heard by a jury.
[15:08.800 --> 15:11.600]  There are some exceptions to having a jury in a civil trial,
[15:11.600 --> 15:13.000]  but that is in the Constitution.
[15:13.000 --> 15:14.300]  It is in the Bill of Rights.
[15:14.300 --> 15:17.500]  And in the overwhelming majority of civil actions,
[15:17.500 --> 15:20.800]  white de jure citizens are constitutionally entitled
[15:20.800 --> 15:23.400]  to a jury, where to this very day,
[15:23.400 --> 15:26.300]  14th Amendment citizens aren't.
[15:26.300 --> 15:29.000]  Also the right not to be charged or prosecuted
[15:29.000 --> 15:31.400]  for a capital or infamous crime
[15:31.400 --> 15:34.000]  absent an indictment by a grand jury.
[15:34.000 --> 15:36.000]  That's a constitutional requirement
[15:36.000 --> 15:38.000]  for the states that actually have that requirement.
[15:38.000 --> 15:39.100]  Not all states do.
[15:39.100 --> 15:41.100]  But if a state has that requirement,
[15:41.100 --> 15:44.900]  then white people must be indicted by a grand jury
[15:44.900 --> 15:47.400]  in order to be charged and prosecuted.
[15:47.400 --> 15:49.200]  But to this day, that does not apply
[15:49.200 --> 15:50.500]  to 14th Amendment citizens.
[15:50.500 --> 15:52.700]  It has never yet been incorporated.
[15:52.700 --> 15:55.000]  There are a few more examples, but you get the point.
[15:55.000 --> 15:57.200]  I'm not going to waste any more of your time.
[15:57.200 --> 15:59.300]  It's now time, since you have a better understanding
[15:59.300 --> 16:01.900]  of the 14th Amendment, to discuss the 14th Amendment
[16:01.900 --> 16:05.100]  in terms of Roe v. Wade and then the Dobbs decision
[16:05.100 --> 16:07.100]  that overturned Roe v. Wade.
[16:07.100 --> 16:10.900]  We need to start with the fact that Roe, in her pleadings,
[16:10.900 --> 16:14.700]  represented herself as a 14th Amendment citizen.
[16:14.700 --> 16:17.500]  Now, question as to whether she actually was or was not,
[16:17.500 --> 16:19.800]  but that's not a judicial question
[16:19.800 --> 16:22.300]  because the state never challenged that.
[16:22.300 --> 16:25.300]  So by the time the case got to the Supreme Court,
[16:25.300 --> 16:27.200]  that was the basis.
[16:27.200 --> 16:29.800]  Her status as a 14th Amendment had not been challenged
[16:29.800 --> 16:32.700]  by the opposition, so the court took her claim
[16:32.700 --> 16:35.800]  of being a 14th Amendment citizen on face value,
[16:35.800 --> 16:38.200]  and the case proceeded on that basis.
[16:38.200 --> 16:40.100]  I think it's important to understand that
[16:40.100 --> 16:44.400]  because absent the assertion by Roe
[16:44.400 --> 16:46.700]  that she was a 14th Amendment citizen,
[16:46.700 --> 16:49.700]  the federal courts would have had zero jurisdiction
[16:49.800 --> 16:52.700]  to even hear that case, no less have it march its way
[16:52.700 --> 16:53.600]  on up to the Supreme Court
[16:53.600 --> 16:55.700]  and have the Supreme Court rule on it.
[16:55.700 --> 16:57.900]  So at this juncture, we need to quickly review
[16:57.900 --> 17:01.000]  the two ways that a 14th Amendment citizen can get rights.
[17:01.000 --> 17:03.200]  Number one, by statute, we already covered that,
[17:03.200 --> 17:08.200]  was Title 42, Section 1981, and later, Civil Rights Acts.
[17:08.700 --> 17:13.200]  But there is nothing in any of those statutes
[17:13.200 --> 17:14.700]  about abortion.
[17:14.700 --> 17:17.400]  The other way 14th Amendment citizens to get rights
[17:17.400 --> 17:19.500]  is through, as we discussed, the incorporation doctrine
[17:19.500 --> 17:23.400]  and that only applies to enumerated rights
[17:23.400 --> 17:24.400]  in the Bill of Rights,
[17:24.400 --> 17:27.800]  and of course, abortion isn't mentioned.
[17:27.800 --> 17:32.600]  So now we get into what the Dobbs decision
[17:32.600 --> 17:36.500]  that overturned Roe was really all about.
[17:36.500 --> 17:38.400]  Let's start with this.
[17:38.400 --> 17:41.500]  There has never been a Supreme Court decision
[17:41.500 --> 17:44.700]  that incorporated the Ninth Amendment,
[17:44.700 --> 17:47.800]  which deals with non-enumerated rights,
[17:47.900 --> 17:50.400]  has never incorporated that into the 14th Amendment,
[17:50.400 --> 17:53.700]  and my estimation never, ever will.
[17:53.700 --> 17:55.100]  But the important thing is,
[17:55.100 --> 17:59.300]  at the time that Roe was being heard and decided,
[17:59.300 --> 18:01.500]  the Ninth Amendment had not been incorporated
[18:01.500 --> 18:04.200]  by the Supreme Court into the 14th Amendment.
[18:04.200 --> 18:07.900]  Yet, when you read the Roe decision,
[18:07.900 --> 18:11.200]  you find that the justice is the majority.
[18:11.200 --> 18:14.600]  They found a woman's right to make a decision
[18:14.600 --> 18:16.400]  concerning an abortion or not an abortion,
[18:16.400 --> 18:19.200]  continuing her pregnancy or not continuing her pregnancy,
[18:19.200 --> 18:22.100]  was found in the Ninth Amendment.
[18:22.100 --> 18:26.100]  So Roe is a 14th Amendment citizen
[18:26.100 --> 18:29.100]  who only gets rights through statutes passed by Congress
[18:29.100 --> 18:33.000]  or the judicial branch through the incorporation doctrine.
[18:33.000 --> 18:37.600]  So there was no statute granting 14th Amendment citizens
[18:37.600 --> 18:42.300]  any rights that could possibly be found in this,
[18:42.300 --> 18:43.800]  what would be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds
[18:43.800 --> 18:46.700]  of non-enumerated rights under the umbrella
[18:46.700 --> 18:48.500]  of the Ninth Amendment, nor had the Ninth Amendment
[18:48.500 --> 18:52.700]  been incorporated by prior decisions of the Supreme Court.
[18:52.700 --> 18:57.300]  Yet, that's where the justices found the right.
[18:57.300 --> 19:01.800]  Are we seeing a structural constitutional flaw?
[19:01.800 --> 19:04.800]  The second issue, and by far I think the more important,
[19:04.800 --> 19:07.200]  is that the incorporation doctrine
[19:07.200 --> 19:12.000]  only applies to enumerated rights,
[19:12.000 --> 19:15.100]  and the majority in Roe had looked to the Ninth Amendment,
[19:15.100 --> 19:19.600]  which is an umbrella over non-enumerated rights.
[19:19.600 --> 19:21.800]  So if the incorporation doctrine
[19:21.800 --> 19:24.300]  only pertains to enumerated rights,
[19:24.300 --> 19:28.100]  and the majority had looked at non-enumerated rights
[19:28.100 --> 19:33.600]  and acted as if this non-enumerated right
[19:33.600 --> 19:36.300]  had been incorporated into the 14th,
[19:36.300 --> 19:39.400]  there's another constitutional structural problem
[19:39.400 --> 19:40.900]  in the Roe decision.
[19:40.900 --> 19:44.600]  Now, the Roe majority may have felt
[19:44.600 --> 19:49.200]  that they impliedly were incorporating
[19:49.200 --> 19:51.800]  the right of a woman to choose to continue her pregnancy
[19:51.800 --> 19:55.600]  or not by saying it's a right in the decision.
[19:55.600 --> 19:58.700]  They were impliedly incorporating it,
[19:58.700 --> 20:01.800]  but there's a couple structural problems with that.
[20:01.800 --> 20:03.500]  Number one, they did not say that.
[20:03.500 --> 20:05.300]  They did not come out and say
[20:05.300 --> 20:09.000]  they were incorporating that right into the 14th Amendment.
[20:09.000 --> 20:10.800]  They did not plainly state that.
[20:10.800 --> 20:12.000]  And of course, the other structural problem
[20:12.000 --> 20:13.100]  we've already discussed,
[20:13.100 --> 20:17.100]  the incorporation doctrine only applies to enumerated rights,
[20:17.100 --> 20:19.600]  which is probably why they didn't come out
[20:19.600 --> 20:22.400]  and publicly say in the decision
[20:22.400 --> 20:25.400]  they were incorporating it into the 14th,
[20:25.400 --> 20:26.500]  because they couldn't.
[20:26.500 --> 20:29.300]  It's not an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.
[20:29.300 --> 20:32.100]  So in the Dobbs decision, when Kavanaugh wrote these words,
[20:32.100 --> 20:36.200]  quote, the prior decision, speaking of Roe,
[20:36.200 --> 20:41.200]  is not just wrong, but is egregiously wrong.
[20:42.100 --> 20:44.500]  Now you understand what he was talking about.
[20:44.500 --> 20:46.500]  These are the structural issues
[20:46.500 --> 20:48.400]  concerning the incorporation doctrine,
[20:48.400 --> 20:50.900]  the 9th Amendment and statutory granting of rights
[20:50.900 --> 20:52.800]  to 14th Amendment citizens, blah, blah, blah.
[20:52.800 --> 20:57.800]  This whole scene, Roe did not comport itself
[20:58.500 --> 21:03.500]  with those standards, which as we see here in 2022,
[21:04.500 --> 21:09.500]  left the door open for Dobbs to come along and overrule it.
[21:10.000 --> 21:12.900]  I am not going to share with you my opinion
[21:12.900 --> 21:16.000]  of whether a woman should be allowed,
[21:16.000 --> 21:17.300]  I'm not gonna use the word right,
[21:17.300 --> 21:20.000]  should be allowed to be the one who makes the decision
[21:20.000 --> 21:21.300]  about whether or not to have an abortion
[21:21.300 --> 21:24.300]  rather than the body politic restricting her
[21:24.300 --> 21:25.800]  from that decision by law.
[21:25.800 --> 21:28.100]  I'm not gonna share my opinion with you about that.
[21:28.100 --> 21:29.700]  I'm sure you have your own.
[21:29.700 --> 21:31.300]  But what I am going to tell you
[21:31.300 --> 21:36.300]  is that purely on a legal and constitutional basis,
[21:37.000 --> 21:42.000]  I agree with Dobbs that Roe was structurally
[21:42.100 --> 21:45.500]  and constitutionally unsound.
[21:45.500 --> 21:50.100]  And that presented some serious real world problems
[21:50.100 --> 21:55.100]  moving forward if it was allowed to stand as a true precedent
[21:55.100 --> 21:59.000]  concerning how the court had fashioned its decision.
[21:59.000 --> 22:03.000]  So for the sake of correcting those structural deficiencies
[22:03.000 --> 22:04.900]  so that the court can move forward
[22:04.900 --> 22:09.900]  without those errors being enshrined as judicial precedent,
[22:09.900 --> 22:13.500]  in that regard, I support the outcome of Dobbs.
[22:13.500 --> 22:15.800]  Now that we understand both the 14th Amendment
[22:15.800 --> 22:18.600]  and the logic of Roe and the reasoning of Dobbs,
[22:18.600 --> 22:20.700]  let's take a moment and talk about what the implications
[22:20.700 --> 22:22.900]  of Dobbs might be in the future.
[22:22.900 --> 22:25.700]  Just a couple of cases that I think are illustrative
[22:25.800 --> 22:29.900]  of what I'm gonna call it the Dobbs test
[22:29.900 --> 22:31.500]  for the sake of this presentation.
[22:31.500 --> 22:34.800]  In other words, was the right granted by statute
[22:34.800 --> 22:37.600]  or is it an enumerated right incorporated
[22:37.600 --> 22:39.500]  via the incorporation doctrine?
[22:39.500 --> 22:42.600]  I'm gonna call that the Dobbs test.
[22:42.600 --> 22:46.400]  So if we look at Obergefell 2015, I believe,
[22:47.400 --> 22:49.400]  which is where the court said that homosexuals
[22:49.400 --> 22:52.400]  have a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment
[22:52.400 --> 22:56.200]  to marry, same sex marriage.
[22:57.300 --> 23:02.100]  Well, has Congress granted that in a statute?
[23:02.100 --> 23:03.500]  It has not.
[23:03.500 --> 23:05.700]  Is that an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights?
[23:05.700 --> 23:08.000]  No, it's not.
[23:08.000 --> 23:12.900]  So you see, Obergefell is vulnerable to being reversed
[23:12.900 --> 23:15.800]  by the Supreme Court under the Dobbs test.
[23:15.800 --> 23:19.800]  How about Loving v. Virginia, 1967?
[23:19.800 --> 23:21.500]  That was where the Supreme Court said
[23:21.500 --> 23:25.100]  black people have a constitutional protected right
[23:25.100 --> 23:27.300]  under the authority of the 14th Amendment
[23:27.300 --> 23:30.300]  to marry white people in a racial marriage
[23:30.300 --> 23:32.800]  protected by the 14th Amendment.
[23:32.800 --> 23:36.900]  So has Congress in its statutes granted the right
[23:36.900 --> 23:40.500]  to 14th Amendment citizens to marry white people?
[23:40.500 --> 23:41.700]  It is not.
[23:41.700 --> 23:45.300]  Is marriage an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights?
[23:45.300 --> 23:46.600]  It is not.
[23:46.600 --> 23:50.100]  So you can see Loving v. Virginia is vulnerable
[23:50.100 --> 23:53.200]  to being overturned using the Dobbs test.
[23:53.200 --> 23:56.100]  How about the famous Brown v. Board of Education
[23:56.100 --> 24:00.800]  from 1954, which is where the Supreme Court said
[24:00.800 --> 24:05.000]  that black students have a constitutionally protected right
[24:05.000 --> 24:08.600]  under the 14th Amendment not to be segregated
[24:08.600 --> 24:10.400]  when they go to public school.
[24:10.400 --> 24:14.500]  So did Congress pass a statute vesting that right
[24:14.500 --> 24:17.100]  in citizens, 14th Amendment citizens?
[24:17.100 --> 24:18.100]  No.
[24:18.100 --> 24:20.600]  Is that an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights?
[24:20.600 --> 24:22.100]  No.
[24:22.100 --> 24:25.600]  So we can go all the way back to Brown v. Board of Education
[24:25.600 --> 24:29.300]  and see that it is vulnerable to reversal
[24:29.300 --> 24:33.100]  by the United States Supreme Court under the Dobbs test.
[24:33.100 --> 24:35.600]  And I'm not saying it's going to happen,
[24:35.600 --> 24:37.000]  but clearly vulnerable.
[24:37.000 --> 24:40.100]  And if you consider the test valid,
[24:40.100 --> 24:42.700]  then Brown would have to be reversed.
[24:42.700 --> 24:46.900]  And if Brown is reversed, then you're back to Plessy v. Ferguson,
[24:46.900 --> 24:53.400]  1896, the reprehensible separate but equal doctrine,
[24:53.400 --> 24:55.700]  which that decision by the Supreme Court
[24:55.700 --> 24:58.600]  was an absurdity on its face the moment it was pronounced.
[24:58.600 --> 25:00.700]  Because, of course, everybody in the entire country,
[25:00.700 --> 25:03.000]  including the justices, knew that in states
[25:03.000 --> 25:04.700]  that engaged in segregation, there
[25:04.700 --> 25:09.000]  was no equality once the races were separated.
[25:09.000 --> 25:11.600]  Black schools did not get a fraction of the money
[25:11.600 --> 25:12.800]  that white schools did.
[25:12.800 --> 25:14.100]  Same thing with hospitals.
[25:14.100 --> 25:16.700]  So it was just a travesty.
[25:16.700 --> 25:19.500]  And Brown overruled Plessy.
[25:19.500 --> 25:24.400]  So if Brown goes away, then we're left with Plessy.
[25:24.400 --> 25:27.900]  We're back to Plessy again, separate but equal.
[25:27.900 --> 25:33.600]  I should also point out that under the Dobbs test,
[25:33.600 --> 25:36.900]  there is nothing stopping the states
[25:36.900 --> 25:41.700]  from enacting the 21st century version of Jim Crow laws.
[25:41.700 --> 25:42.400]  Nothing.
[25:43.400 --> 25:45.400]  We really thought we were done with Jim Crow laws.
[25:45.400 --> 25:48.500]  But under the Dobbs test, there is no federal protection
[25:48.500 --> 25:51.000]  under the 14th Amendment for 14th Amendment citizens
[25:51.000 --> 25:55.000]  whose rights are grossly violated by Jim Crow laws.
[25:55.000 --> 25:57.400]  And by that, I mean natural rights, not the kind of rights
[25:57.400 --> 25:59.200]  that the 14th Amendment confers on them.
[25:59.200 --> 26:01.000]  I'm talking about rights in a moral sense.
[26:01.000 --> 26:02.700]  There's absolutely no protection for that
[26:02.700 --> 26:05.900]  under the 14th Amendment if you apply the Dobbs test.
[26:05.900 --> 26:09.600]  I should also point out that a state can infringe on your
[26:10.500 --> 26:12.700]  just as easily as the federal government can.
[26:12.700 --> 26:15.700]  And as a matter of fact, James Madison was far more concerned
[26:15.700 --> 26:18.400]  about what he called regional governments,
[26:18.400 --> 26:20.900]  which we might call today states of the union.
[26:20.900 --> 26:23.600]  He was far more concerned about regional governments
[26:23.600 --> 26:27.800]  and local governments oppressing the rights of the people.
[26:27.800 --> 26:29.800]  He had very little concern about the federal government
[26:29.800 --> 26:33.000]  doing that, but he was confident most of the oppression
[26:33.000 --> 26:35.400]  of people's natural rights would come from regional
[26:35.400 --> 26:37.200]  and local governments.
[26:37.200 --> 26:39.200]  So it's important to understand, I think,
[26:39.300 --> 26:42.500]  that the states' rights issue can be a double-edged sword.
[26:42.500 --> 26:44.400]  I understand why a lot of people support states' rights,
[26:44.400 --> 26:45.700]  as do I.
[26:45.700 --> 26:48.100]  However, I also recognize the double-edged sword.
[26:48.100 --> 26:49.300]  The double-edged sword is this.
[26:49.300 --> 26:52.300]  Let's imagine we're going to talk about
[26:52.300 --> 26:53.800]  anti-gun in California.
[26:53.800 --> 26:55.500]  We know California is very leftist
[26:55.500 --> 26:59.300]  and just really has a hatred for guns.
[26:59.300 --> 27:03.100]  So let's say a person has the right to keep and bear arms
[27:03.100 --> 27:05.300]  seriously infringed by the California government,
[27:05.300 --> 27:08.500]  and so that person files suit in a state court.
[27:09.400 --> 27:12.100]  Because the person knows they're a white-dissue citizen,
[27:12.100 --> 27:14.100]  knows they are not a 14th Amendment citizen,
[27:14.100 --> 27:16.400]  does not put in the filing that they are
[27:16.400 --> 27:17.700]  a 14th Amendment citizen.
[27:17.700 --> 27:19.400]  So it goes through the California court system,
[27:19.400 --> 27:21.200]  gets up to the California Supreme Court.
[27:21.200 --> 27:23.700]  The California Supreme Court says,
[27:23.700 --> 27:27.800]  we say it's fine to seriously infringe on your right
[27:27.800 --> 27:29.000]  to keep and bear arms,
[27:29.000 --> 27:31.300]  and there's nothing you can do about it.
[27:31.300 --> 27:32.800]  The way the landscape has worked, say,
[27:32.800 --> 27:34.500]  in the last 20 or 30 years,
[27:34.600 --> 27:37.000]  the plaintiff would simply appeal to the federal courts
[27:37.000 --> 27:39.200]  and maybe it would end up at the Supreme Court.
[27:39.200 --> 27:40.700]  But here's the thing.
[27:40.700 --> 27:45.700]  Absent the assertion of being a 14th Amendment citizen,
[27:47.400 --> 27:49.200]  you just have to live with whatever
[27:49.200 --> 27:50.500]  the California Supreme Court says
[27:50.500 --> 27:53.300]  because the federal courts have no jurisdiction.
[27:53.300 --> 27:54.800]  For the federal courts to hear something,
[27:54.800 --> 27:57.800]  there has to be a federal issue.
[27:57.800 --> 28:00.100]  And since the Second Amendment doesn't grant
[28:00.100 --> 28:01.500]  to your white people anything,
[28:01.500 --> 28:04.500]  it only grants that to 14th Amendment citizens,
[28:04.500 --> 28:06.900]  a case that's decided by the California Supreme Court
[28:06.900 --> 28:08.400]  against the right to keep and bear arms
[28:08.400 --> 28:10.900]  when the defendant has not claimed to be a 14th Amendment,
[28:10.900 --> 28:13.200]  the federal courts would have absolutely no jurisdiction
[28:13.200 --> 28:15.500]  to hear that, so you'd have to live
[28:15.500 --> 28:18.400]  with the California Supreme Court's decision.
[28:18.400 --> 28:19.800]  What would your options be at that point?
[28:19.800 --> 28:21.300]  Well, number one is live with it.
[28:21.300 --> 28:23.700]  Number two is vote with your feet,
[28:23.700 --> 28:25.400]  move to another state.
[28:25.400 --> 28:27.700]  I did exactly that.
[28:27.700 --> 28:29.900]  I always carry a concealed firearm.
[28:29.900 --> 28:34.600]  And California, up until the Bruin decision
[28:34.600 --> 28:39.000]  just several days ago, California had a May issue
[28:39.000 --> 28:40.400]  concealed carry permit system.
[28:40.400 --> 28:44.300]  In other words, you have to give them your good cause,
[28:44.300 --> 28:46.800]  why you feel you're justified.
[28:46.800 --> 28:50.400]  And then they just make an arbitrary whimsical decision
[28:50.400 --> 28:53.300]  on whether they think you in fact do have good cause.
[28:53.300 --> 28:55.300]  So I lived in LA County at the time
[28:55.300 --> 28:58.100]  and they don't issue CCWs unless you're something
[28:58.100 --> 29:00.700]  like a diamond merchant or you judge
[29:00.700 --> 29:03.100]  or you donate $10,000 to the sheriff's campaign.
[29:03.100 --> 29:05.100]  Other than that, you're not getting a CCW
[29:05.100 --> 29:07.000]  in Los Angeles County.
[29:07.000 --> 29:10.000]  So every single day when I left the house,
[29:10.000 --> 29:13.500]  I could be prosecuted criminally
[29:13.500 --> 29:18.500]  for exercising a constitutional right.
[29:18.700 --> 29:22.100]  So, because back in 2005 or 2006,
[29:22.100 --> 29:24.600]  when I first started to think I need to get out of this state,
[29:24.600 --> 29:27.400]  the Supreme Court had not yet issued the Heller decision,
[29:27.400 --> 29:30.000]  the McDonald decision, so I voted with my feet
[29:30.000 --> 29:31.100]  and I got the hell out of California
[29:31.100 --> 29:33.900]  and I came to Nevada, a state where,
[29:33.900 --> 29:35.600]  when I carry concealed,
[29:35.600 --> 29:38.100]  unfortunately with a concealed carry permit,
[29:38.100 --> 29:39.600]  nevertheless, when I carry concealed,
[29:39.600 --> 29:41.900]  I can't be prosecuted criminally
[29:41.900 --> 29:44.200]  for exercising a constitutional right
[29:44.200 --> 29:47.300]  as I could have been in California.
[29:47.300 --> 29:50.300]  The few expositors who are talking publicly
[29:50.300 --> 29:52.100]  about the kind of things we've talked about today,
[29:52.100 --> 29:54.300]  they're saying, oh, the idea that the Supreme Court
[29:54.300 --> 29:55.700]  is gonna overturn Obergefell
[29:55.800 --> 29:59.200]  or overturn Loving or overturn Brown v. Board of Education.
[29:59.200 --> 30:01.600]  No, the Supreme Court isn't gonna do that.
[30:03.200 --> 30:04.300]  Okay, here's the thing.
[30:05.200 --> 30:10.200]  If people file suit to challenge those decisions
[30:10.800 --> 30:13.600]  and many others, such as the 14th Amendment
[30:13.600 --> 30:16.800]  protected right for contraception,
[30:16.800 --> 30:21.000]  and those cases do get to the United States Supreme Court,
[30:22.000 --> 30:26.300]  I don't see a way for the court to repudiate the Dobbs test.
[30:26.300 --> 30:29.500]  It's the entire basis of Dobbs which overturned Roe.
[30:29.500 --> 30:32.800]  So if the reasoning in Dobbs overturned Roe,
[30:32.800 --> 30:35.000]  then the reasoning in Dobbs must overturn
[30:35.000 --> 30:36.900]  all these other cases that we've talked about.
[30:36.900 --> 30:38.900]  I don't see a way for the court to get around that.
[30:38.900 --> 30:40.400]  So when people say, oh, that's never gonna happen,
[30:40.400 --> 30:42.800]  yeah, how would that not happen?
[30:42.800 --> 30:46.700]  If you appreciate this sort of insightful legal analysis,
[30:46.700 --> 30:50.400]  I wanna encourage you to run over to DrReality.News
[30:50.500 --> 30:52.900]  by doing so you'll help me and you'll help yourself
[30:52.900 --> 30:55.000]  and pick yourself up a copy of
[30:55.000 --> 30:58.200]  income tax shattering the myths.
[30:58.200 --> 31:00.700]  Just as I reveal here to you today,
[31:00.700 --> 31:04.900]  things you probably haven't heard discussed anywhere
[31:04.900 --> 31:06.700]  concerning Roe or Dobbs.
[31:06.700 --> 31:08.600]  They are the critical and pivotal issues
[31:08.600 --> 31:09.800]  that decided both.
[31:09.800 --> 31:11.900]  Likewise, in income tax shattering the myths,
[31:11.900 --> 31:15.100]  I break down the income tax laws
[31:15.100 --> 31:18.200]  in an easy to understand manner
[31:18.200 --> 31:23.200]  and show you beyond any doubt whatsoever,
[31:23.800 --> 31:27.600]  I prove that Congress has never imposed the income tax
[31:27.600 --> 31:29.300]  on the ordinary American who gets up,
[31:29.300 --> 31:31.000]  has a cup of coffee, gets the kids off to school
[31:31.000 --> 31:33.700]  and goes to work and collects their pay.
[31:33.700 --> 31:36.800]  That person has never had the income tax imposed
[31:36.800 --> 31:38.400]  on them by Congress.
[31:38.400 --> 31:41.300]  And the only reason that you probably think
[31:41.300 --> 31:45.600]  that Congress has imposed the income tax on people like you
[31:45.600 --> 31:49.200]  is because you don't know what the law really says,
[31:49.200 --> 31:51.300]  just like you didn't know about Roe and Dobbs
[31:51.300 --> 31:52.700]  until we talked today.
[31:52.700 --> 31:54.400]  So whether you choose to,
[31:54.400 --> 31:56.100]  when you find out the truth about the income tax,
[31:56.100 --> 32:00.400]  whether you intend to do something about it or not,
[32:00.400 --> 32:03.400]  Jefferson said, and I'm paraphrasing,
[32:03.400 --> 32:07.100]  people who wish to be ignorant and free
[32:07.100 --> 32:11.700]  want something that never has been and never will be.
[32:11.700 --> 32:13.700]  You cannot be free and ignorant.
[32:13.700 --> 32:17.200]  So I want to encourage you to go to drreality.news,
[32:17.200 --> 32:18.700]  grab a copy of Income Tax Shattering,
[32:18.700 --> 32:20.400]  unless you do have my word
[32:20.400 --> 32:24.000]  that it will be the most fascinating book of its type
[32:24.000 --> 32:26.800]  you have ever read in your life.
[32:26.800 --> 32:29.600]  And while you're there, pick up a copy of Body Science.
[32:29.600 --> 32:30.900]  I'm not gonna go into big explanation.
[32:30.900 --> 32:32.500]  I'll simply say I do the same thing
[32:32.500 --> 32:34.900]  concerning human physiology
[32:34.900 --> 32:37.500]  with a strong emphasis on nutritional physiology.
[32:37.500 --> 32:40.600]  And I point out all of the lies and subterfuge
[32:40.600 --> 32:42.500]  of the establishment over the last 60 years
[32:42.500 --> 32:43.800]  that has made the United States
[32:43.800 --> 32:47.200]  the most chronically ill society in the history of mankind
[32:47.200 --> 32:49.400]  despite our wealth and our science and our technology
[32:49.400 --> 32:50.500]  and our medical industry.
[32:50.500 --> 32:51.900]  We are the most chronically ill society
[32:51.900 --> 32:52.900]  in all of human history.
[32:52.900 --> 32:55.800]  And it's because of the sophistry,
[32:55.800 --> 32:57.600]  the lies over the last 60 years.
[32:57.600 --> 33:00.000]  And I said all that straight in Body Science.
[33:00.000 --> 33:02.500]  Not only will this help you, you can be incredibly healthy.
[33:02.500 --> 33:05.700]  You can keep the property that's always been your own.
[33:05.700 --> 33:06.600]  It was only taken from you
[33:06.600 --> 33:08.800]  because you bought the end of the lie.
[33:08.800 --> 33:10.700]  Not only that, but she'll help me
[33:10.700 --> 33:13.300]  to continue to be here for you.
[33:13.300 --> 33:14.140]  Thanks.