On the 14th Amendment - Ep. 330

[00:00:14] Speaker A: Welcome to my Bob Thurman podcast. I'm so grateful. Some good friends enabled me to present them to you. If you enjoy them and find them useful, please think of becoming a member of Tibet House us to help preserve Tibetan culture. Tibet House is the Dalai Lama's Cultural Center in America. All best wishes. Have a great day. [00:00:48] Speaker B: This is episode 330, the 14th amendment. [00:01:23] Speaker A: Great. So here we are. Greetings everyone. This is Bob Thurman. You know that, I guess, or you wouldn't be here. And we are getting ready to deal with crazies in the house of Representatives of our government. And we are dealing with, we're in the key time of dealing with this huge global battle of people who want the oligarchic system and they want to destroy democracy on the whole planet, including in the United States, in our own United States of America, they intend to do that. And this relates to the whole story of China, Taiwan, Russia, Ukraine, Hamas, Israel, Iran, us against us and Israel. So here we are. And this is a podcast that I wrote and I'm going to put it on substac as a written thing, but I wanted to read it to now because we're coming up in these last two weeks before the government crashes according to the wishes of the people now in charge of the House of Representatives, okay? By a narrow majority, they want to destroy and crush the economic and the credit, faith and good credit of the government of the United States. So I'm not going to talk so much. I'm going to read to you the 14th amendment first of our US. Constitution. And I'm reading sections three, four and five, which are the ones that are germane to what I'm talking about today. What I want to share with you today. First, section three no person shall be a Senator or representative in Congress or elector of President. No person section three of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. Section Three no person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state who having previously taken an oath. As a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States or as a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any state to support the constitution of the United States. Okay? So no one who was an officer of the United States President as the head officer, who has taken an oath of office as a member as an officer of the United States to support the Constitution of the United states and shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, so they cannot hold any office under the United States, civil or military, as an officer who has once taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States or as a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any State to support the Constitution of the United States and shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each house, remove such disability. Okay? So this is not a criminal statute. Let me just comment here. That's a reading. I read section three and then I reread what I bolded there, which are the operative phrases, because they don't mention the President by name, but they say, any Officer of the United States, any office, or as an Officer of the United States okay. They shall not be any officer once they were took an oath and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Simple as that. And the last sentence is very significant, and it says, but congress may by a vote of two thirds of each house remove such disability. Meaning that the obvious thing is simply you can't run for or serve in office once you did and then engaged in insurrection or gave aid and comfort to the enemies, you can't do it again. Okay? But then it gives the exception in the last sentence. The only way you could is if congress, by a vote of two thirds of each house, removed that disability, that is, your inability to serve in the office. So Trump could not serve as president and therefore could not run for president unless two thirds of both houses, senate and house of representatives, should make a special vote and say he can in spite of his having engaged in insurrection. All right? So that means that isn't a criminal thing. He doesn't go to jail for having done that. He's not punished in any way for doing it. He just can't serve again. That's what the 14th amendment says. Now it was stated and it was passed after the Civil War in the 19th century to preclude people who once had been in the United States, then joined the Confederacy and broke their oath of office to the United States by rebelling against it and then lost that war and then are trying to come back to serve, to get into the Senate. That's why they mentioned senate or house of Representatives, because they're trying to come back to then erode the union from within. All right? And then that's really critical. That's what I wanted to read. Now, section four is also interesting because it relates to the debt ceiling. So it says the validity of the public debt of the United States authorized by law. So that's what the debt ceiling has to do with. It says debt that was authorized by law, already authorized, expenditures already authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payment of pensions and bounties for service in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned. So there's no question of a debt sealing that's in the constitution. But neither the united states nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the united states or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any share, any slave. But all such debts, obligations, and claim shall be held illegal and void. So that's not so important. But the point is, it can't be questioned the validity of the public debt. So therefore, you cannot fail to raise the debt ceiling to pay debts that are incurred by already legislated expenditures. In short, okay, cannot the legislature cannot approve for future expenditures, but there's no such thing as the debt ceiling, in other words, according to the constitution. So that's of less importance in a way, but it is obviously important now. All right. And then it says in the last section five, the congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. So that could be read to interpret that the congress would have to vote to enforce this thing, or it wouldn't be an amendment. But the amendment doesn't say they're waiting to enforce it. That congress has the power to do that means that they did enforce it by putting it as an amendment to the constitution, and it was ratified eventually by all of the states who were states at that time. So it is part of the US. Constitution. In short, it's not a criminal thing. It is simply the imposition of a disability upon someone who has engaged in insurrection if they originally had held office in the united states. Okay, now, to list the logical consequences of the key provisions of this 14th amendment of our us. Constitution. This amendment states clearly and succinctly that once any officer of our government under this constitution has solemnly sworn to uphold and defend that constitution, if he or she then engages in insurrection against the same, he or she may not further hold any office under the constitution. Simple as that. Can't hold any office subsequently. It does not assign criminal penalties which could only result from court proceedings to determine guilt of seditious conspiracy, which is clearly a matter for the courts. This amendment does not imprison. It simply bars such a person identified by publicly visible words and deeds as having committed insurrection from holding any government engaged in insurrection from holding any government office. Three, if the person cannot hold government office, they cannot stand for election to such an office. Four, therefore, mr. Donald j. Trump cannot run for any office in the US. Government, including that of the president, but also including that of a federal dog catcher or any kind of a thing, or a house of representative or any government office, and therefore cannot stand for election for said office. If someone argues he could win office to pardon himself from the disability of not being able to hold office. He could not. The amendment specifies that only a two thirds vote of the Congress both houses could remove the disability as an exceptional case. So the President cannot pardon himself because it's not a crime, it simply is a disability. That where you can't having broken the oath of office, you can't take it again. All right? So you cannot serve in office. All right. Section five number five. Section five says that Congress has the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article amending the Constitution, which means it's part of the Constitution because it's an amendment and ratified legislated and ratified by all states. Congress legislated the amendment originally and has never retracted it. Though as mentioned, if two thirds of the Congress voted to make an exception for any such individual person who had betrayed their oath of office by engaging in insurrection, they could do so. The Congress has also already legislated the job of the executive administration to execute its duly legislated will as expressed in the provisions of this amendment and no further legislation in particular cases is mandated or required. Seven. Now Mr. Trump is well known by both followers and opponents to have engaged in insurrection. In fact, he continues to do so widely and vocally. A. Openly inciting the insurrectionists, 1200 of whom have been convicted in court for following his command to fight like hell when invading the Congress in order to overthrow a duly elected administration b. By urging all and sundry to cancel the Constitution itself. He has said that numerous times urging his loyalists in Congress to bankrupt the government by questioning the validity of the public debt of the United States. That is to say, that is against the fourth section of the amendment. C. treasonously undermining the foreign policy of the US administration in Gray zone lethal wartime by withdrawing support from our allies who are defending our homeland and those of our allies from the aggression of our long standing major enemy which certainly namely the Russian Confederation, which certainly gives that enemy aid and comfort. These three are more than enough to fit the section three legislation already passed and are daily repeated on television for all to witness. Therefore .8 the executive of the US. Government, under the US. Constitution consisting of the President and Cabinet members, especially the District Attorney of the Department of justice, backed up by the police forces of the Executive and, if necessary, as the last resort of the military forces under the command. Of the President should simply instruct all federal election officials in all states, irrespective of party affiliation, to remove the name of any such persons from the former President on down from any ballot listing. If this is not done at zero nine, if this is not done by the Executive due to political considerations, because it might look bad to followers of Mr. Trump, to the media or to members of the mob dominated political party. The Republican political party. Then the country is conceding to mob rule. Which is why the government is unable to govern for the people. The current Executive Officers are not supposed by this amendment or allowed by this amendment to choose whether or not to enforce the provisions of the amendment. It is their sworn duty to enforce those provisions under the Constitution and bar all insurrectionists from office. Also, by the way, to remove from office those who were elected before the insurrection and then failed in their insurrection effort so far, and yet then and now continue to hold office openly and energetically, work within the government. And openly and energetically work within the government to undermine the Constitution and also question the validity of the public debt of the United States, thereby causing the government under the Constitution to fail to be able to operate. So that includes people like Jeff Jordan of the House of Representatives, like Matt Gates, Taylor, Marguerite Taylor, Green, Boebert, et cetera, and also Cruz in the Senate, and maybe hawley those who did not ever approve the President's current administration and therefore are serving while saying that, while promoting the big lie, that it's not the real administration. Again, just to underline, this is not a criminal matter requiring court proceedings, simply a disbarment from office. And fortunately the said insurerectionist infiltrators of the Congress openly and loudly advocate in all manner of media the overthrow of the Constitution, the bankrupting of the government operating under the Constitution, et cetera. So there is no need for further investigation or crippling confusion. Point Eleven the whole mob rule confusion continues simply because everyone is accepting the terms put forward by the mob that it is their political right to overthrow the Constitution, since they have decided since their failure to get elected that they cannot win power by legitimate political means. That is to say, their mob rule based insurrection is successfully disguised as their political right of free speech and free action, unconstrained by their broken, continuously broken rule oath of office. Every form of media with their paid pundits is complicit in this confusion, since it profits from the controversies that swirl from the Mob, which successfully intimidates any opposition from thinking clearly and so acting decisively. Therefore, point One this is all those twelve points were whereas and therefore DJ Trump should be immediately disqualified from standing or running for President by the Federal and State District Attorneys as the natural and inevitable implementation of the 14th Amendment of the US. Constitution. Two all congressional senators and representatives who openly supported the Inselection in various public ways as well as refusing baselessly on January 6 to certify the election and who continue to vocally disrupt the process of governance. Question the validity. Of the public debt of the United States and seek to give aid and comfort to the United States'number one enemy at war the Putin dictatorship of Russia. Which actually is a terrorist gang like the Wagner group. It's basically one big Wagner group and not really the proper elected president of Russia at all. By seeking to withdraw all support to our proxies in that war, the Ukrainian people and the people of the European Union are formal allies whom the Ukrainian people are courageously defending and thereby fulfilling our formal obligation to defend. All these individuals should be removed from office to be replaced by members fit to serve, free of the oath breaker disability, to be appointed by their state governors from the Sake Republican Party until the next election. The appointed officials will of course, be required to take the usual oath to support the US constitution, complete with its amendments for easy reference and then for easy reference. Here's the oath they take. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God. Couldn't be more clear cut than that, actually. I have also seen a version of upholding the faith and good credit of the Constitution, which perhaps maybe was the oath of office of the House of Representatives. But I will clarify that in a subsequent podcast. All right, so that's mainly it. That's what I really wanted to say today about that. And we are now at a crisis point. I believe that the government expenditure has been funded until November 15, which then caused the small group of people who are actually illegitimately serving in the House of Representative pretending to serve in the House of Representatives to support the US. Constitution and the faith and good credit of the US. Government, but who are threatening that faith and good credit, actually, all the time and who want to destroy the government by bringing down its thing and not fulfilling its treaty obligations to its allies, not funding that. And those people should be removed from office simply. And then there would actually be a democratic majority and they would cease to be able to make trouble as soon as they were gone. And then there are several senators who might it's not so critical there, but basically they are known supporters of the insurrection. Jordan, for example, met with the Trump people planning the insurrection, and he brought in people to show them where the offices were in the House. And that's well known. And that was established by the January 6 Committee. And Liz Cheney is a former Republican who saw that and who is honorable and honors her oath of office, realizes that they should be removed. Those people. She did not stand for election because mob rule. She's a traitor to the mob and they wouldn't elect her. That's why she's not there herself any longer. But the point is that's because we are under mob rule, that's my point. So I think we should be clear about that. Now in the same website where you can find that 14th amendment and then you can find discussion of it. What you will find is that a very well known university of Chicago lawyer known as very much a right wing conservative, very much an originalist of the constitution like scalia, like his followers, alito and so forth in the supreme court pretend to be, has written a lengthy article published here and there in law journals and publicly known. Perhaps I will bring that forward if I can find it, if I have allowed on public saying that it's simple matter of enforcement. It's not a question, there's no question. And he's a right wing person, conservative Republican, he's backed up by a man named Paulson, who is also a lawyer in a different university and also very distinctive, very eminent, both of them, and he has agreed with that. And he has written a similar study of why this is automatic no brainer enforcement matter. And then Lawrence Tribe, the third one, who is very distinguished, Harvard guy, who's more liberal, so it couldn't affect the mob, would not consider him worthwhile. He has also done so. And finally, there's one other person I forgot, fourth one, but less well known, but anyway, these are there. However, there is a legal case now in Colorado where the district attorney of the state of Colorado is trying to not to put the name on the ballot in Colorado based on the 14th amendment and is being sued. By Trump's legal team paid for with money he got by lying that the election was stolen. Which is a factual lie on which every legal case trying to prove it has failed. And he's being sued in all kinds of procedural ways, although they can't sue him for the fact because it's well known he's trying to wreck the government because he doesn't want to admit that he lost the election and that's why he started the insurrection and people have gone to jail for long term years following his order. So he's the insider of the insurrection. It's not a question proudly as insider trying to pretend that he's righteously doing it because the insurrection, because the election was fraudulent, which is not factually correct, that's therefore a lie. All right, so this is what I wanted to say, just to have it out in the public and I better put it on a better burden in writing, because we can go on with this because why? It has to do with social influence, it has to do with whether the media likes it, it has to do with whether it seems politically the right thing because people will be angry or something. I don't understand it, because somebody's done a poll like a focus group saying that people will rally to him and he will succeed in his rebellion if we enforce the actual Constitution. So now the actual Constitution doesn't work anymore. We're saying, so we're not supporting it ourselves. No, that boils down to mob rule. Fear of the MAGA 37% of the Republican Party, which makes it less than 30% of the national electorate. Okay? That mob is frightening everyone. They give your name and address out to violent extremists who are armed with AK AR 15 assault rifles, so nobody dares to speak up. But this way we will lose it. We have lost the Constitution. If we continue this way, they can know. Trump could name anyone else who has not yet served to run for president in the Republican Party, who people can. He would stand behind him and say, this is my guy, so he will pardon me and he will do everything. And if you vote and get two thirds of the Hasanid on the representatives, they can say, I can come back. Then the following in 2028, he can do that. That he can do. But he can't run for office himself if we're going to honor our Constitution. Simple as that. And furthermore, the debt ceiling legislation is moot. It's not subject of discussion. The later debt ceiling imposition, which was undoubtedly put I have it here somewhere, but we can look it up. Maybe I'll do another podcast. But the debt ceiling was put on by an opposition party that was not being a I think I have it here. William Bowdy is the name. And then Michael Stokes. Paulson in August 2023, two prominent conservative legal scholars wrote in a research paper that section three of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from being president as a consequence of his actions involving attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential elections. Conservative legal scholar J. Michael Lutig, he's another very super right wing guy, but very respected and liberal legal scholar Lawrence Tribe each soon concurred in an article they co wrote, arguing section three protections are automatic and self executing, independent of congressional action. Further I mean, it is congressional action, an amendment originally, but further congressional action. Luther explained the reasoning during television appearances, a court may be required to make a final determination that Trump was disqualified under section three, according to some legal scholars, because why? Trump can sue. Somebody can sue the US. Government, saying, and then maybe he thinks that someone in the Supreme Court will say, oh, well, it's not really proven that he tried insurrection. It's his right to lie that he lost, and it's his right to do all this. It's a right to lie. Free speech interpreted as the right to lie when it affects the entire population? I don't think so. It's like the right to lie. The theater is on fire, and then people are trampled to death in the stampede. I don't think that's protected by first amendment. Okay, so it's a confusion there. And someone in August. Also, Lawrence Kaplan, tax attorney in Palm Beach County, Florida, filed a challenge to the US. Dictionary Court for the Southern District of Florida to disqualify Trump from the 2024 general election, citing the 14th amendment, but it was dismissed by a district judge for lack of standing. I don't know why he thinks he can't do why is he a US. Citizen. A us. Voter? He wants his Constitution to be enforced. So his vote is meaningful. How can it be dismissed for lack of standing? I think he should counter suit. He should appeal that dismissal. And furthermore, section Four confirmed the legitimacy of all public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither United States nor any state would pay for those loss of slaves, et cetera. In Perry versus us. Supreme Court ruled in 1935 that the Section Four voided a US bond that went beyond congressional power. Well, that was voided because it wasn't legislated the debt ceiling crises of eleven 211, 213, 223 raised the question of what the President's authority under section Four is. During the 211 cris, former President Bill Clinton said he would invoke the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling if he was still in office and force a ruling by the Supreme Court. Some, such as legal scholar Garrett Epps, fiscal expert Bruce Bartlett, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. He was under Geidner. Was under Bush, was he or under Trump? He was republican. Anyway. Have argued that a debt ceiling may be unconstitutional and therefore void as long as it interferes with the duty of the government to pay interest on outstanding bonds and to make payments owed to pensioners that is, Social Security and Railroad Retirement Act recipients. Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that section Four gives the President unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling and that if challenged, the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing. And Lawrence Tribe professor and the Constitution of Color lawrence Tribe argues it is not a matter of presidential power, but presidential duty to enforce already legislative laws and payments that obligates the president when confronting the two incompatible mandates. 14th amendment versus debt ceiling created by second Liberty Bond act of 1917 to choose that which is not only in keeping with his constitutional duty to execute laws Congress has passed that have created debt, but also in mind of the pragmatic consequences to the security and well being of the United States. Then some other guy says no at University of California, and the guy at Yale says yes. He says absolutely. Or he could obviate any part of the Constitution if he could obviate the 14th Amendment. So that's the story. So that's the story, guys. Are we going to settle for mob rule? Is the point. Are we going to be bullied by the mob. Okay, so that's all I have to say today. I feel so good having gotten that out in public. I'm going to try to put it in writing. Finally, do operate my substac account. They've been so patient with me. So thank you all very much. And Omani. Pay me home. And just finally, let me say one last thing. There is a world war going on now already. It is not completely declared, but it is semi declared. War was declared on Israel's, democracy by Hamas. War was declared on the Ukraine by Russia. Russia has said Lavrov has said that Russia is fighting the US in the Ukraine, even though it is only US, it's only NATO. US has an ally in NATO supporting the Ukrainians, and Ukraine is not actually in NATO, but all of NATO is the enemy of Russia, and US is part of that. And Lavov has said, we are at war with the United States as the major armor of Ukraine. And so we didn't declare war at Russia to avoid the nuclear fate, but we are at war with them. So those who vote not to support Ukraine, not to support NATO in this existential battle for a democracy, the reason they're attacking Ukraine has nothing to do with anything except that the Ukrainians are thriving and recognized by the world as a democracy and want to join the European Union and will be embraced by the European Union. And that is threatening to the Russian criminal oligarchy, Putin vertical of power, which is not a duly elected proper government of Russia. The Russians may say, so if you pull them because there's somebody ready to shoot them, put them in jail, beat them over the head if they don't, and it's a fake government there. It's a gangster criminal, terrorist group, the Wagner group, posing as a government using government tax money to fund the terrorist group of Wagnerites all over Africa and everywhere. And Syria. They may have sent people to Hamas, actually, and trained them in Syria, in fact. So Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Hamas and Hezbollah and China behind that are at war with democracy. Not really the US, although they have said in public statements by their philosophical strategists that their final goal is civil war in the United States. So they have been supported, and they are supported by those who seek downfall of our legitimate government. So it's all one battle. And Biden, he's not Saint Joseph, but he's been doing a good job rebuilding our alliances, containing this, sticking up for democracy. He said he would accept the results of the election if he lost. He is playing by the rules to preserve the rules based democratic governments on the planet, and they're supporting the UN to avoid conquering other countries, which is what the rules based order is about. Dictators are operating under a fake theory promoted originally from Singapore, actually, about Chinese people, that they like dictators, that they are. Not like other people who like to get rid of divine right, of kings, who like to have, even if they have remained a monarch, like Sweden, Holland, England, Denmark. But that's just a constitutional monarch. They have no political power, only moral, symbolic power. That's possible, that's still a democracy. And these other people don't want that. They don't want real elections. They are pretending that democrat, that tyrants, that dictators are efficient for industrial societies and they are solving the world's problems. Meanwhile, every dictator that we have seen in the 20th century and now in the 21st has done nothing but wreck their own people. And they do it by attacking other people. What they do when their own people get mad with them and want to revolt against them is they attack another person and then they pretend they have an enemy, it's outside. And then they can arrest those people who are protesting them and say that they're traitors. If they are still a democracy, they can only say they are dissidents and they can oppose them in various ways with police power, but they can't actually jail them and completely treat them like non persons, like you can if you're at war. So therefore, the reason we have to keep this and the reason America sits our country, we should be proud of it and we should fight for it by word, by deed, in any way we can, by thinking clearly, is that we uphold this rule of law. We uphold that people can choose their rulers, that the ruler is beholden to the people, not the people to the ruler. Good ruler. People will be grateful and they'll elect that person, but a bad one. They can unelect the 20th century, the information age, the means of control, the weaponry. It's impossible to go back to the old imperial dictatorship system. It's impossible. And the people who are advocating it are not flourishing in their own societies. Their people are angry with them. They can rob and steal from the open societies that are creating abundance for a while, like China did. And then when the dictator gets threatened by wealthy people in their own society, they crush them down and they get stagnate. And then they have to be nationalistic and militaristic and they have to attack somebody and say, the devil evil, the horrible Maatola, who are torturing their own women in Iran, killing their own women. They say the Great Satan is America. I'm sorry, Satan is killing the women. The Great Satan is a fake Muslim priest who's killing women. That's Satan in Islam. Muhammad did not kill women. He was not into having women killed. He preserved their rights of divorce and this and that. He did his very best to make life better for women in the Arabic Arabian society completely. He knows of the sanctity of the female Muhammad did. And these criminals, posing as pious Muslims are criminally killing their own women, suppressing their intelligence. And naturally, they don't want a democracy who would vote them, right them to jail for doing so. Okay? So it's not some far flung thing. Biden is not running away from anybody. Joe and Jill are trying to defend our happy life that we have here in us and their happy life. And they would like others to have a happy life. They're imperfect. They're not doing a perfect job. Also, we're not perfectly democratic. We're very oligarchic. We have gotten that since the stupidity of the tax cutting Santa Claus, santa Claus for the rich, opposing Social Security, santa Claus for the middle class and the poor. Since tax cut Santa Claus got a hold of us. Last 45 years, 50 years, we've been messed up. Okay, 43 years. Okay. So it's kind of serious. It's a serious time from now until November. But it would be much better if we were to enforce our Constitution now, not say it's up to the people to support the Constitution to an election that's not really correct, because if the government can't function, we can't run the election. They're passing all laws to prevent people from voting and gerrymanders on laws and things, because there's some of them inside the government, because we're not enforcing the amendments of the Constitution to keep the Civil War people out of the government. They can still shout and scream and protest that they can do. They can't engage in violence, political violence, and they can't serve a government that they're trying to destroy. As simple as that. And then we could move toward, through these next difficult periods successfully, and by 2024 begin to have a great time, a great peaceful century that is holy. Dalai Lama wants us to have that. You want us to have that. I want us to have that our wives and children and grandchildren and great grandchildren need us to have. That is what we need. So that's my motive in doing this. I wish you a good day, a good month, and a good year. Okay? Thank you very much. Namaskar, everyone. Okay, that's it. Justin. [00:46:59] Speaker B: Thurman podcast is produced through Creative Commons No Derivatives license. Please be sure to, like, share and repost on your favorite social media platforms. And it's brought to you in part through the generous support of the Tibet House US. Menla membership, community and listeners like you. To learn more about the benefits of Tibet House membership, please visit our [email protected] and bob Thurman.com tashirik. And thanks for tuning in.