Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.960 --> 00:06.080]  Welcome back to the podcast. As you know, abortion and any legal issue pertinent to abortion have
[00:06.080 --> 00:12.960]  been a hot topic nationally. No shortage of passion on both sides of the issues. On October
[00:12.960 --> 00:18.640]  11, 2022, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from a decision of the Rhode
[00:18.640 --> 00:23.760]  Island Supreme Court. The appellate was a group called Catholics for Life and two Rhode Island
[00:23.760 --> 00:29.040]  women who were suing on behalf of their unborn children. The goal of the suit was to get a
[00:29.040 --> 00:33.680]  court to rule that unborn children have the same or similar rights as do children who have
[00:33.680 --> 00:39.680]  already been born. This is one of those issues where the courts absolutely do not want to
[00:39.680 --> 00:45.920]  discuss the true underlying reason they have ruled as they have. Lots of subterfuge. Today,
[00:45.920 --> 00:49.920]  I'm going to put a spotlight on that matter so you can see what's being hidden from you.
[00:49.920 --> 01:12.560]  Let's start with this. The most important aspect you need to know is that from its very first trial
[01:12.560 --> 01:16.320]  court filing all the way through the recent appeal to the United States Supreme Court,
[01:16.320 --> 01:22.080]  the argument in the Catholics for Life case has been that unborn children have rights under the
[01:22.080 --> 01:26.080]  Fourteenth Amendment. Now, before I get rolling, I think it's important to clarify a couple of
[01:26.080 --> 01:32.640]  things. First, this presentation does not take a position for or against unborn children possessing
[01:32.640 --> 01:37.600]  rights. This is a legal analysis of how the courts will decide the matter based on the way the
[01:37.600 --> 01:42.960]  plaintiffs position their argument. Second, I have written several treatises addressing the Fourteenth
[01:43.040 --> 01:47.200]  Amendment directly or tangentially. I have also lectured on the subject. In other words,
[01:47.200 --> 01:52.800]  I have some expertise in the subject matter. Third, most Americans are woefully ignorant
[01:52.800 --> 01:57.040]  concerning the Fourteenth Amendment, so this may be the first time you'll be hearing what the
[01:57.040 --> 02:03.440]  amendment did and did not do. Also, if you value this kind of presentation, please subscribe
[02:03.440 --> 02:10.800]  and share it with others. You may recall that on June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down
[02:10.800 --> 02:16.720]  Roe v. Wade in a decision now informally known as Dobbs. Most Americans hold an opinion that the
[02:16.720 --> 02:21.840]  Dobbs decision was either good or bad without understanding what the court was actually doing
[02:21.840 --> 02:27.600]  in Dobbs. I assure you, it was not doing what you thought it was doing even if the outcome was to
[02:27.600 --> 02:32.480]  your liking. I did an earlier presentation about what SCOTUS was actually doing in Dobbs, and I'll
[02:32.480 --> 02:37.360]  put a link to that in the notes. I encourage you to watch it. Now, back to the current Catholics
[02:37.360 --> 02:42.080]  for Life case. The argument on appeal to the Supreme Court was that the Rhode Island courts,
[02:42.080 --> 02:47.600]  where the plaintiffs had repeatedly been ruled against, had based their decision on Roe,
[02:47.600 --> 02:51.680]  which held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not grant any Fourteenth Amendment rights to the
[02:51.680 --> 02:57.760]  unborn. Since Roe had been overturned in June, Catholics for Life contended the U.S. Supreme
[02:57.760 --> 03:03.280]  Court should declare the Rhode Island court decisions invalid. But here's the thing.
[03:04.160 --> 03:08.640]  Dobbs didn't overturn Roe on that basis. If you watch the presentation linked in the notes,
[03:08.640 --> 03:14.400]  you'll see that the Supreme Court overturned Roe to correct a structural flaw in the Roe court's
[03:14.400 --> 03:20.080]  legal reasoning, which had absolutely nothing to do with your perception of whether Roe was a good
[03:20.080 --> 03:25.440]  or bad decision. The Supreme Court needed to invalidate that structural flaw so that it could
[03:25.440 --> 03:32.080]  not be used again in future decisions with the structural flaw then defended as precedent.
[03:32.080 --> 03:37.120]  In other words, in reality, the Dobbs ruling wasn't focused on abortion. It was focused on
[03:37.120 --> 03:42.560]  ensuring the structural flaw could not be enshrined as precedent. Abortion just happened to be the
[03:42.560 --> 03:47.200]  issue in the case where the structural flaw occurred. Would it be constitutionally sound
[03:47.200 --> 03:52.240]  for a court to declare the Fourteenth Amendment vested the unborn with rights? In the notes,
[03:52.240 --> 03:57.200]  I'm going to link an article I wrote many, many years ago concerning the constitutional meaning
[03:57.200 --> 04:02.160]  and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. That article will be an eye-opener for most Americans.
[04:02.160 --> 04:02.960]  I hope you'll read it.
[04:03.840 --> 04:09.520]  Courts determine the meaning of statutes by analyzing the words the legislature employed
[04:09.520 --> 04:15.200]  in the statute. If the wording is clear and unambiguous, that's what it means, even if that
[04:15.200 --> 04:20.240]  meaning isn't what the people who drafted the original legislation intended. In other words,
[04:20.240 --> 04:27.360]  the actual words settle the meaning, not the original intent. However, finding the meaning
[04:27.360 --> 04:33.520]  and purpose of provisions of a constitution works exactly the opposite. The first step is
[04:33.520 --> 04:38.960]  to determine what the people who wrote a provision or amendment intended it to mean and what purpose
[04:38.960 --> 04:45.120]  they intended it to serve. In other words, when it comes to judicial review of a constitution,
[04:45.120 --> 04:48.000]  the intended meaning and purpose is preeminent.
[04:48.000 --> 04:52.080]  So what was the intended meaning and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment?
[04:52.080 --> 04:56.240]  The links I provided to the earlier presentations about Dobbs and the article about the Fourteenth
[04:56.240 --> 05:01.120]  Amendment will make that crystal clear. But for now, I'll simply say the meaning and purpose of
[05:01.120 --> 05:06.000]  the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a form of citizenship for the men and women who had been
[05:06.000 --> 05:11.200]  slaves and were freed at the end of the Civil War as well as the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
[05:11.280 --> 05:15.360]  If you have any doubt about this, all you need to do is read the Supreme Court's slaughterhouse
[05:15.360 --> 05:20.880]  cases. Another great resource is a work entitled Government by Judiciary by Constitutional Scholar
[05:20.880 --> 05:27.120]  and Law Professor Raoul Berger. The constitutions of the states in which slaves had been born
[05:27.120 --> 05:31.840]  did not permit slaves to be citizens. And the South losing the war didn't change that.
[05:31.840 --> 05:37.920]  Slaves had no citizenship, nor the rights that flow from citizenship. To resolve that,
[05:37.920 --> 05:42.080]  the people of the United States gave the recently freed black slaves a new form of
[05:42.080 --> 05:47.440]  federal citizenship by adopting the Fourteenth Amendment. Once the freed slaves were citizens,
[05:47.440 --> 05:52.800]  any offspring would then automatically hold the same class of citizenship as the parents.
[05:52.800 --> 05:56.640]  However, and this is critical when it comes to the Catholics for Life case,
[05:57.280 --> 06:01.280]  there is nothing in the historical record from the framers of the Fourteenth, the congressional
[06:01.280 --> 06:06.320]  sponsors of the amendment, or media articles of the day indicating any intention that the
[06:06.320 --> 06:11.520]  amendment would provide rights to the unborn. In the absence of any record of such intention,
[06:11.520 --> 06:18.000]  courts can't just wave a magic wand and pretend the Fourteenth provides something never contemplated
[06:18.000 --> 06:22.320]  by its framers, sponsors, or the people of the states of the Union who voted to make it a part
[06:22.320 --> 06:27.280]  of the federal constitution. In short, any legal argument claiming the Fourteenth Amendment vested
[06:27.280 --> 06:32.960]  the unborn with rights will fail in every courtroom. It simply isn't a factual construct.
[06:33.680 --> 06:39.680]  At the outset, I said the matter is shrouded in subterfuge. How so? The federal government,
[06:39.680 --> 06:44.080]  which includes the federal courts, do not want Americans, most especially black Americans,
[06:44.080 --> 06:50.560]  to understand the Fourteenth provided a different form of citizenship to the freed black slaves
[06:50.560 --> 06:56.960]  and their posterity than was and is enjoyed by white citizens. The citizenship provided
[06:56.960 --> 07:02.160]  to the freed black slaves was a mere shadow of the citizenship enjoyed by white citizens.
[07:02.160 --> 07:07.680]  We can see that memorialized in federal law to this very day in Title 42 of the United States
[07:07.680 --> 07:14.000]  Code, Section 1981, which reads in its relevant part, quote, all persons within the jurisdiction
[07:14.000 --> 07:17.840]  of the United States shall have the same right in every state and territory to make and enforce
[07:17.840 --> 07:22.880]  contracts to sue, be parties, give evidence into the full and equal benefits of all laws and
[07:22.880 --> 07:30.000]  proceedings for the security of persons and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens,
[07:30.000 --> 07:35.120]  close quote. I should also point out that the phrase within the jurisdiction of the United States
[07:35.120 --> 07:40.960]  means within the jurisdiction of Congress by virtue of the Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment,
[07:40.960 --> 07:45.920]  which says the Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions
[07:45.920 --> 07:52.000]  of this article. The point being that white state citizens are not within the jurisdiction of the
[07:52.000 --> 07:58.160]  United States as that phrase is used in Section 1981. To be clear, none of what I'm discussing
[07:58.160 --> 08:02.400]  is a matter of currently existing racism. It is the result of the rampant racism that
[08:02.400 --> 08:06.720]  existed in the United States at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed and ratified.
[08:06.720 --> 08:12.880]  While slaves made up 12 percent of the U.S. population in 1864, they had zero political
[08:12.880 --> 08:18.080]  power. Whites had 100 percent of the political power, and while whites didn't want blacks to be
[08:18.080 --> 08:24.320]  slaves, they scoffed at the idea that blacks were equal to whites. White Americans gave blacks a
[08:24.320 --> 08:29.600]  separate form of citizenship with very limited rights because whites considered those limited
[08:29.600 --> 08:35.280]  rights good enough for black people. As you can imagine, no one in the federal government
[08:35.280 --> 08:39.440]  wants the American people to correctly understand what the Fourteenth Amendment is or what it did.
[08:40.000 --> 08:44.560]  Those in power want the American people to continue to falsely believe the Fourteenth Amendment is a
[08:45.120 --> 08:50.240]  shining example of racial equality in America. When it comes to the Fourteenth Amendment,
[08:50.240 --> 08:56.960]  courts never state things plainly. They avoid discussing the underlying legal reasoning.
[08:56.960 --> 09:01.040]  Here is part of the decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court in denying Catholics for life their
[09:01.040 --> 09:06.720]  claim that the Fourteenth vests the unborn with rights. Quote, the unborn plaintiffs fail to
[09:06.720 --> 09:12.480]  assert a legally cognizable interest in person, which are contrary to the United States Constitution
[09:12.480 --> 09:17.520]  as construed by the United States Supreme Court. Close quote. While the Rhode Island Supreme Court
[09:17.520 --> 09:22.960]  was referring to Roe, the justices are well aware the Fourteenth doesn't grant rights to the unborn
[09:22.960 --> 09:27.760]  with or without Roe, but they're unwilling to broach the subject of what the Fourteenth Amendment
[09:27.760 --> 09:32.080]  actually did and how that is still the constitutional reality of it today.
[09:32.880 --> 09:37.760]  Had the court told Catholics for life what the Fourteenth Amendment did and did not do,
[09:37.760 --> 09:41.840]  it's unlikely the plaintiffs would have bothered appealing to the United States Supreme Court.
[09:42.640 --> 09:46.880]  But no court wants to be clear with the American people about the Fourteenth Amendment.
[09:46.880 --> 09:51.280]  There was an interesting statement in Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in Dobbs.
[09:51.280 --> 09:56.960]  That statement is, quote, the court will no longer decide how to evaluate the interests
[09:56.960 --> 10:01.760]  of the pregnant woman and the interests in protecting fetal life throughout pregnancy.
[10:01.760 --> 10:07.280]  Instead, those difficult moral and policy decisions will be decided by the people and
[10:07.280 --> 10:12.240]  their elected representatives through the constitutional process of democratic self-government.
[10:12.880 --> 10:18.320]  My take on that is Kavanaugh is telling the state legislative attorneys that states are free to
[10:18.320 --> 10:24.720]  vest the unborn with rights at the state level, but in doing so they must not invoke the Fourteenth
[10:24.720 --> 10:29.920]  Amendment. In other words, Kavanaugh is saying just do it under state law and leave the Fourteenth
[10:29.920 --> 10:35.040]  out of it because we don't want to open that can of worms. So if you appeal this issue to us
[10:35.040 --> 10:40.960]  based on the Fourteenth, we won't accept your appeal. What we've been discussing is a subject
[10:40.960 --> 10:45.840]  that has been obfuscated by the courts for at least 70 years, resulting in Americans generally
[10:45.840 --> 10:50.480]  holding an inaccurate view of this subject. Now imagine a subject in which the Supreme Court has
[10:50.480 --> 10:56.880]  been crystal clear, yet Americans still hold a completely inaccurate view. I am, of course,
[10:56.880 --> 11:02.000]  referring to the widely held belief that everyone owes income tax when, in fact, almost no Americans
[11:02.000 --> 11:07.840]  owe a penny of income tax and never have. What has occurred is that Americans are the victims of one
[11:07.840 --> 11:13.360]  of the most elaborate, pervasive, and successful government disinformation campaigns in history.
[11:13.360 --> 11:18.560]  Let me give you just one example of hundreds. In government school, students are taught that
[11:18.560 --> 11:23.040]  the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment authorized the government to tax the labor of ordinary
[11:23.040 --> 11:29.360]  Americans. Yet in 1916, the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment did not
[11:29.360 --> 11:35.920]  grant Congress any new taxing powers. That case, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, has never been overturned
[11:35.920 --> 11:42.160]  and stands as the law of the land to this very moment. Despite that, generations of public
[11:42.160 --> 11:47.440]  school students have been taught the Sixteenth Amendment granted Congress a new power to tax
[11:47.440 --> 11:53.920]  the labor of the American people. Government disinformation? What government disinformation?
[11:53.920 --> 11:58.880]  The government's disinformation campaign is so vast it would be difficult to cover it all here,
[11:58.880 --> 12:05.520]  but I assure you everything you've heard about the income tax from business associates, accountants,
[12:05.600 --> 12:11.680]  attorneys, and even possibly your own parents is both false and the result of the government's
[12:11.680 --> 12:17.280]  massive and successful disinformation campaign. The good news is it is incredibly simple to learn
[12:17.280 --> 12:23.920]  the truth, to see what the law really says, presented in a very clear and easy to understand
[12:23.920 --> 12:30.560]  manner by reading Income Tax Shattering the Miss. Income Tax Shattering the Miss came out in 2010
[12:30.560 --> 12:36.720]  and has never received less than four out of five stars in reviews by your fellow Americans.
[12:37.600 --> 12:43.680]  Hundreds of thousands of Americans have already safely walked away from the income tax scam
[12:43.680 --> 12:48.320]  with the wonderful information you will discover in Income Tax Shattering the Miss.
[12:48.320 --> 12:53.760]  As I close, there is a similar phenomenon with another massive and successful disinformation
[12:53.760 --> 13:00.160]  campaign. This one is about human physiology. That government-led disinformation campaign has
[13:00.160 --> 13:07.200]  literally killed hundreds of millions of Americans. As you're listening to me right now,
[13:07.840 --> 13:12.800]  America is the most chronically ill society in all of human history. Despite our wealth,
[13:12.800 --> 13:18.000]  scientific prowess, and medical technology, Americans are the most chronically ill people
[13:18.000 --> 13:24.080]  in all of human history, needlessly suffering from illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes,
[13:24.880 --> 13:32.160]  metabolic syndrome, obesity, cancer, Alzheimer's, and more. Big men, big food, and big pharma have
[13:32.160 --> 13:38.240]  made trillions of dollars, literally trillions of dollars, from the government-led disinformation
[13:38.240 --> 13:42.720]  campaign that brought America to being the most chronically ill society in history.
[13:43.520 --> 13:48.720]  The good news is it's all reversible. To that end, I strongly encourage you to read
[13:48.720 --> 13:52.640]  Body Science, unless you enjoy being ill or almost certainly becoming ill.
[13:53.280 --> 13:59.760]  Body Science is a physiology book that's presented in a way that's easy for everyone to understand.
[14:00.560 --> 14:06.400]  100% of the reviews for Body Science have been five stars. Once you've read Body Science,
[14:06.400 --> 14:12.000]  you'll never again be fooled by the lies of Big Gov, Big Food, Big Med, or Big Pharma concerning
[14:12.000 --> 14:23.600]  physiology and health. Go to DrReality.News and change your life forever by picking up a copy
[14:23.600 --> 14:29.600]  of Income Tax Shattering the Mist and or Body Science. You have my word, either or both will
[14:29.600 --> 14:35.520]  be the most fascinating nonfiction books you have ever read. Not only will these books change your
[14:35.520 --> 14:41.520]  life, but purchasing Income Tax Shattering the Mist and or Body Science. By doing so, you help me
[14:41.520 --> 14:45.840]  continue to be here with these presentations, which have been free to the public since I
[14:45.840 --> 14:51.200]  started doing them nearly 20 years ago. Again, if you think this video is valuable,
[14:51.200 --> 15:02.560]  I encourage you to share it and to subscribe, and thank you for being here.