Speaker 1: Democracy under attack.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court has in Colorado has disqualified Trump.
Speaker 1: This is not a joke. From the twenty twenty four ballot.
Speaker 2: Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a four to three opinion
Speaker 2: that the Constitution's insurrection clause quote unquote prohibits former President
Speaker 2: Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot for the presidency
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four. Now, this will be appealed to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. I have no doubt that the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court will overrule. But let me tell you what Colorado
Speaker 2: is trying to do, and there's a good chance that
Speaker 2: other states may do the same thing.
Speaker 1: Quote.
Speaker 2: The Court found, by clear and convincing evidence, the President
Speaker 2: Trump engaged an insurrection, as those terms are used in
Speaker 2: Section three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 1: The ruling reads the.
Speaker 2: Provocating ruling particularly reverses a prior ruling from Colorado District
Speaker 2: Judge Sarah Wallace, who ruled in November that Trump is
Speaker 2: not an officer of the United States is defined by
Speaker 2: the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Amendment therefore cannot be
Speaker 2: used to disqualify him by appearing on the Colorado primary ballot.
Speaker 2: In his dissent, the Chief Justice in Colorado, Boatwright wrote,
Speaker 2: quote dismissal is particularly appropriate here because the electors brought
Speaker 2: their challenge without a determination from a preceding a prosecution
Speaker 2: for an insurrection related offense with more rigorous procedures to
Speaker 2: ensure adequate due process, in particularly reversing Wallace. The Court
Speaker 2: all but dared the US Supreme Court to step in
Speaker 2: by January the fourth of twenty twenty four saying this quote.
Speaker 1: If review is sought.
Speaker 2: And the Supreme Court before the state expires on January
Speaker 2: January the fourth, twenty fourteen, then the state shall remain
Speaker 2: in place and the Secretary will continue to be required
Speaker 2: to include President Trump's name on the twenty twenty fourth
Speaker 2: presidential primary ballot until the receipt of any order or
Speaker 2: mandate from the Supreme Court. The ruling states, Now, the
Speaker 2: Court disagreed with Trump's claims that his actions were protected
Speaker 2: free speech, saying this, we consider and reject President Trump's
Speaker 2: argument that his free speech on January the sixth was
Speaker 2: protected by the First Amendment. The ruling reads, seemingly ignoring
Speaker 2: Trump's calls for the day that day for protesters to
Speaker 2: conduct themselves quote peacefully and patriotically.
Speaker 1: He said that multiple times.
Speaker 2: Now, the fact that at one point during his speech,
Speaker 2: President Trump said this, everyone here will soon be marching
Speaker 2: to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your
Speaker 2: voices heard does not persuade us that the district court
Speaker 2: aired in finding that the first prong of the Brandenburg
Speaker 2: test was met. They went on to say, and this
Speaker 2: is when it gets into some legal jargon, but I
Speaker 2: want you to hear what they said.
Speaker 1: See Thompson five to ninety f. Sup.
Speaker 2: Third at one thirteen Dash fourteen. This isolated reference cannot
Speaker 2: insulate the President from the motion to dismiss. As a result,
Speaker 2: the court determined only President Trump's speech proadly involved words
Speaker 2: of incitement not protected by the First Amendment. Is what
Speaker 2: they said in their response. Now, the Court's unilateral determination
Speaker 2: that Trump engaged in insurrection comes despite Trump having never
Speaker 2: been convicted of that or any other crime, or even
Speaker 2: been charged in court with a crime of insurrection. He
Speaker 2: was acquitted by the US Senate of charges of engaging
Speaker 2: an insurrection, and continues to say, obviously there was no wrongdoing.
Speaker 2: In support of its legal assertion, the Colorado Supreme Court
Speaker 2: cited the US House January sixth Select Committee I'm not joking.
Speaker 2: That same Stack committee that didn't play by the rules,
Speaker 2: that put two Trump haters on there, one of them
Speaker 2: Liz Cheney who's on MSNBC every single day. They said,
Speaker 2: not only were they going to cite the US House
Speaker 2: January sixth Select Committee, notwithstanding that Trump was acquitted by
Speaker 2: the House charges in the Senate. Unsurprisingly, the all Democratic
Speaker 2: porn appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump,
Speaker 2: supporting a Soros funded left wing group scheme to interfere
Speaker 2: in an election on behalf of Crook and Joe Biden
Speaker 2: by removing President Trump's name from the ballot and eliminating
Speaker 2: the right of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate
Speaker 2: of their choice. Democratic Party leaders are in a state
Speaker 2: of paranoia over the growing dominantly President Trump as a
Speaker 2: mass in the polls. They have lost FAI and the
Speaker 2: failed Biden presidency and are now doing everything they can
Speaker 2: to stop American voters from throwing them out of office
Speaker 2: next November. The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed
Speaker 2: decision tonight, and we will swiftly file an appeal to
Speaker 2: the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for
Speaker 2: a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision. We have full
Speaker 2: confidence that the Supreme Court will quickly rule in our
Speaker 2: favor and finally put an end to these Unamerican lawsuits.
Speaker 2: In another dissent, Justice Carlos Samor wrote, given the current
Speaker 2: absence of federal legislation to and four section three, and
Speaker 2: given that President Trump has not been charged PURSUINGT Section
Speaker 2: twenty three eighty three, the District Court should have granted
Speaker 2: his September the twenty ninth motion to dismiss that justice continued.
Speaker 2: The court received and considered a partial congressional report, the
Speaker 2: admissibility of which is not beyond reproach. I have been
Speaker 2: involved in the justice system for thirty three years now,
Speaker 2: and what took place here doesn't resemble anything I've seen
Speaker 2: in a courtroom. The Colorado lawsuit is one of many
Speaker 2: filed in states across the country citing the insurrection clause
Speaker 2: for booting Trump from the ballot. Liberal groups strategically filed
Speaker 2: cases and jurisdictions across the country to keep Trump off
Speaker 2: the ballot and what his supporters have termed lawfare. But
Speaker 2: Trump has received favorable outcomes already in New Hampshire, in Minnesota,
Speaker 2: in Michigan and before Tuesday ruling was overruled Colorado. Now,
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court has never root ruled definitively, I should say.
Speaker 2: Let me say that again, the Supreme Court has never
Speaker 2: ruled definitively on the meaning of Section three of the
Speaker 2: Fourteenth Amendment. Ballots for Colorado's primary, which take place March
Speaker 2: the fifth of twenty twenty four, be certified by January fifth,
Speaker 2: leading to the Colorado Supreme Court's deadline for the US
Speaker 2: Supreme Court to act or he will be off the ballot.
Speaker 2: This is an abuse of power on which we have
Speaker 2: not seen, a level that we have not seen. Everybody
Speaker 2: knows that this is woke activists, judges who are on
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court of Colorado, who are Democrats, who are
Speaker 2: trying to interfere with the presidential election. This is election interference.
Speaker 2: But once you cross that line, and they have crossed
Speaker 2: that line. Once you cross that line, Democrats have decided,
Speaker 2: we'll continue to cross it over and over and over
Speaker 2: and over and over and over again. They don't care
Speaker 2: what the law say, they don't care about the fewture
Speaker 2: of this country when it comes to precedent or the
Speaker 2: issue of democracy.
Speaker 1: They just don't care.
Speaker 2: The only thing they seem to care about is abuse
Speaker 2: of power, and.
Speaker 1: That's now where we are.
Speaker 2: For more than ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America's
Speaker 2: only Christian conservative wireless provider. They stand behind their values
Speaker 2: and they stand behind exceptional service. They're an example of
Speaker 2: putting the cause a head of profit, and that is
Speaker 2: why I am proud to partner with him. Patriot Mobile
Speaker 2: is extending their Black Friday deal with the Every Friday
Speaker 2: Matters deal, and you can get a free smartphone when
Speaker 2: you switch today. Patriot Mobile offers dependable nationwide coverage, giving
Speaker 2: you access to all three major networks, which means you
Speaker 2: get the same coverage you've been accustomed to without funding
Speaker 2: the radical left. Now, when you switch to Patriot Mobile,
Speaker 2: you're supporting free speech, religious freedom, the sanctity of life,
Speaker 2: our veterans and first responders, and more than just that.
Speaker 2: They are actually a one hundred percent US based company
Speaker 2: with customer service teams that make switching easy so you
Speaker 2: can keep your same number you have Right now, you
Speaker 2: can keep your existing phone, or for a limited time,
Speaker 2: get a free smartphone from Patriot Mobile. Go to Patriot
Speaker 2: Mobile dot com, slash ferguson or call them ninety seven
Speaker 2: to two Patriot. Use the promo code Friday seven to six.
Speaker 2: That's Friday seven to six. Again, get a free smartphone
Speaker 2: with promo code Friday seven to six. That's the limited
Speaker 2: time offer. Join me make the switch today at Patriot
Speaker 2: mobile dot com slash ferguson. That's Patriot Mobile dot com
Speaker 2: slash ferguson or nine to seven to two Patriot. Let
Speaker 2: me just pause for a moment and give you the
Speaker 2: statement that came from the Trump campaign after the ruling
Speaker 2: came down from Colorado's Supreme Court quote. Unsurprisingly, the aldemic
Speaker 2: credit appointed Kylorada Supreme Court is rule against President Trump
Speaker 2: supporting a Soros funded left wing group scheme to interfere
Speaker 2: in an election on behalf of krook of Joe Biden
Speaker 2: by removing President Trump's name from the ballot and eliminating
Speaker 2: the right of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate
Speaker 2: of their choice. Democratic Party leaders are in a state
Speaker 2: of paranoia over the growing dominant lead President Trump has
Speaker 2: amassed in the polls. They have lost faith in the
Speaker 2: Pail Biden presidency and are now doing everything they can
Speaker 2: to stop the American voters from throwing them out of
Speaker 2: office next November. The Kylorado Supreme Court issued a completely
Speaker 2: flawed decision tonight, and we will swiftly file an appeal
Speaker 2: to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request
Speaker 2: to stay of this deeply undemocratic decision. We have full
Speaker 2: confidence that the US Supreme Court will quickly rule in
Speaker 2: our favor and finally put an end to these Unamerican lawsuits.
Speaker 2: There is nothing in there that I don't agree, I
Speaker 2: don't disagree with, Like this is spot on.
Speaker 1: There's nothing in there.
Speaker 2: Let me rephrase that there's nothing in there I don't
Speaker 2: fully agree with, like one thousand percent. You have a
Speaker 2: Colorado Supreme Court run by woe liberals who have decided
Speaker 2: to go rogue and abuse their power.
Speaker 1: And what they're.
Speaker 2: Doing is they're encouraging election interference. They're encouraging that election
Speaker 2: interference by doing this ruling, hoping that other states will
Speaker 2: follow suit and do the same thing. That's the biggest
Speaker 2: problem here, and it's unbelievably vile and disgusting that they
Speaker 2: would be willing to do it this way, Which brings
Speaker 2: me back to what Levin wrote about the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: He said this if.
Speaker 2: The Democratic party, their media, and their academics cannot rewrite
Speaker 2: the Constitution by interpretation, then they argue for abolishing it
Speaker 2: all together and replacing it with a more quote relevant document.
Speaker 2: That's the Democrats' words, that is, a document that ensures
Speaker 2: their monopoly power and destroyers are founding principles. After all,
Speaker 2: how many times have they told us that the Constitution
Speaker 2: was written by slaveholders, that perpetutes racism and inequity, and
Speaker 2: is illegitimate right.
Speaker 1: They've been saying that a lot lately. You notice that
Speaker 1: the same kind.
Speaker 2: Of fraudulent approach is now before us with respect to
Speaker 2: Section three of the fourteenth Amendment. He then says, here's
Speaker 2: the text that these constitutional sabotage ors in the name
Speaker 2: of the Constitution are desperately and cravingly insisting prevents the
Speaker 2: former president Donald Trump from effectively running for a.
Speaker 1: Second presidential term.
Speaker 2: It says this, no person shall be a senator, representative
Speaker 2: in Congress, or elector of President and vice president, or
Speaker 2: hold any office civil or military under the United States
Speaker 2: are under any state who having previously taken an oath
Speaker 2: as a member of Congress or as an officer of
Speaker 2: the United States, or as a member of any state legislature,
Speaker 2: or as an executive or judicial officer of any state,
Speaker 2: to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have
Speaker 2: engaged an insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given
Speaker 2: aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may,
Speaker 2: by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove
Speaker 2: such disloyalty or disability quote. Levin writes, you need not
Speaker 2: be an aging, retired judge, a washed up former law professor,
Speaker 2: or never trumper academia in academia to notice that the
Speaker 2: word president quote unquote cannot be found in this text.
Speaker 2: So why would the amendments, drafters, adopters, and ratifiers all
Speaker 2: exclude the word president from the text but include virtually
Speaker 2: every other form of officeholder federal and state, elected and
Speaker 2: appointed in the text.
Speaker 1: Did they forget to add the word president?
Speaker 2: Or could the reason possibly be that they did not
Speaker 2: want to include the word president and therefore intentionally did not.
Speaker 2: Of course, there is nothing anywhere that even suggests the drafters,
Speaker 2: the adopters, or ratifiers intended otherwise. It took two Levin
Speaker 2: Wright's never Trumper law professors, members of the Federalist Society
Speaker 2: know less joining the Democratic Party mob over one hundred
Speaker 2: and twenty five pages. They wrote to try to convince
Speaker 2: us that by admitting the word president, not only did
Speaker 2: the drafters, adopters, and ratifiers intend to include the president,
Speaker 2: but the proper interpretation of the amendment and its construction
Speaker 2: and application make it undeniable and clear. In fact, so
Speaker 2: clear are these professors and their ilk that we are
Speaker 2: supposed to uh look at this and say, oh, we know,
Speaker 2: we understood, or we can read the minds of the
Speaker 2: intentions of the drafters, the adopters, and runifiers by, among
Speaker 2: other things, the words as an officer of the United
Speaker 2: States quote unquote. Thus this phrase, we are told, should
Speaker 2: be read to include the word president, quote unquote. Therefore,
Speaker 2: there was no need to single out by name the
Speaker 2: most powerful and important governmental official in the entire country. Consequently,
Speaker 2: the argument goes, of course, the president was intended to
Speaker 2: be included in the amendment by general reference to quote
Speaker 2: the word officer any why not question mark? After all,
Speaker 2: the local South Carolina County commissioner was not specifically mentioned either.
Speaker 2: This is preposterous, Levin writes, for most people, the absurdity
Speaker 2: is self evident. Indeed, if they intend to include the
Speaker 2: word president, or the president.
Speaker 1: You'd think he would not only be mentioned.
Speaker 2: But that he'd be at the top of the list
Speaker 2: of officials included in the text. In fact, they even
Speaker 2: mentioned elector of president and vice president, but not the
Speaker 2: president himself. Moreover, what does the phrase shall have engaged
Speaker 2: in insurrection and rebellion against the United States of America mean?
Speaker 2: If you're going to bar the leading Republican candidate for
Speaker 2: the presidency from even appearing on a state ballot, thereby
Speaker 2: disenfranchising untold numbers of citizens who would like to vote
Speaker 2: for him and potentially alter the course the outcome of
Speaker 2: a presidential election, there should be some definitive way to
Speaker 2: know what this phrase means and who gets to make
Speaker 2: that decision. Obviously, as the Fourteenth Amendment is one of
Speaker 2: these so called Civil War amendments, we know what was
Speaker 2: meant when the amendment was ratified, engaging an insurrection or
Speaker 2: rebellion on behalf of the Confederacy and against the Union
Speaker 2: aka the Civil War. It wasn't very difficult to figure
Speaker 2: out who did or who or did not engage in
Speaker 2: such activities or what was meant by insurrection or rebellion.
Speaker 2: They didn't need law professors or members of the Democratic
Speaker 2: Party the party of the Confederacy to tell them either.
Speaker 2: But did the drafters adopters and ratifiers in ten section
Speaker 2: three to apply beyond the death of the last Confederate
Speaker 2: question mark? Of course, there's no evidence that it did,
Speaker 2: other than the wishful meanderings and self serving declarations of
Speaker 2: the proponents. Strangely, however, if that was the true intention
Speaker 2: and purpose, the amendment doesn't provide any guidance on how
Speaker 2: these decisions would be presented and resolved in the case
Speaker 2: of a presidential candidate or president. I say strangely because
Speaker 2: the Constitutional Convention the framers spent a great deal of
Speaker 2: time debating and working through the way we elect presidents.
Speaker 2: They came up with the electoral college system. It didn't
Speaker 2: take long until it was evident that even that process
Speaker 2: needed some adjustments, hence the twelfth Amendment to the Constitution.
Speaker 2: If in eighteen sixty eight the Drafters Adopters and Ratifiers
Speaker 2: the fourteen Amendment intended it not only to apply to
Speaker 2: a presidential candidate or president, but knew it could upset
Speaker 2: the presidential election process, why did they say absolutely nothing
Speaker 2: about it? For example, how is it determined whether a
Speaker 2: presidential candidate or president engaged in an insurrection or rebellion
Speaker 2: against the United States when he has not been charged with,
Speaker 2: let alone convicted of such offense. Levin writes, you won't
Speaker 2: find the answer and amendment that would seem to be
Speaker 2: an essential question in need of a defentive answer. Did
Speaker 2: the men behind section three in ten that a presidential
Speaker 2: can be barred from a state ballot based merely on
Speaker 2: accusations and accusations from whom the media, the Democratic Party, officials, operatives, litigators,
Speaker 2: those in academia, never trumpers. In fact, the second impeachment
Speaker 2: trial against Trump fell well short of the number of
Speaker 2: senators need to convict him for the events of January
Speaker 2: the sixth. As a result, he was not barred under
Speaker 2: Article one, Section three of the Constitution from holding and
Speaker 2: enjoying any office of honor, trust, or profit under the
Speaker 2: United States, quote unquote. If anything, there was a constitutional
Speaker 2: adjudication in Trump's favor. Indeed, on January the fourth, forty
Speaker 2: eight hours before the so called January sixth insurrection, President
Speaker 2: Trump offered to call up ten thousand National Guardenmen to
Speaker 2: protect the Capitol Building in Congress during the official electoral
Speaker 2: College count the Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the DC
Speaker 2: Democratic mayor refused the offer. These facts are intentionally ignored
Speaker 2: by the Biden regime Special Council, as they were by
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party. So the so called January sixth Committee
Speaker 2: and the insurrection that took place admitted the fact that Trump,
Speaker 2: on January the fourth, forty eight hours before the so
Speaker 2: called insurrection, offered ten thousand National guardsmen to protect the
Speaker 2: Capitol Building.
Speaker 1: Why do they ignore it?
Speaker 2: They ignored it because the President clearly is not engaged
Speaker 2: in an insurrection or rebellion when he offers thousands of
Speaker 2: armed troops to do precisely the opposite. Moreover, does any
Speaker 2: serious scholar believe that the post Civil War Congress was
Speaker 2: so commit it to preserving federalism that it would have
Speaker 2: written an amendment given a single state the power to
Speaker 2: up in a federal presidential election. Would that Congress have
Speaker 2: believed when it was drafting and adopting Section three that
Speaker 2: it was granting power to a state official, say a
Speaker 2: Secretary of State or attorney general, to unilaterally bar a
Speaker 2: leading presidential candidate from the state's ballot, thereby possibly affecting
Speaker 2: the outcome of a national election, or for that matter,
Speaker 2: even a state legislature.
Speaker 1: No way.
Speaker 2: Indeed, the post Civil War congresses were mostly hostile to states' rights.
Speaker 2: Several Southern states remained occupied militarily in their territories until
Speaker 2: they capitulated to the demands of the federal government.
Speaker 1: So what does this mean?
Speaker 2: I want to go back to what Mark Levin wrote
Speaker 2: about this and what the Constitution actually says, what the
Speaker 2: Fourteenth Amendment actually says.
Speaker 1: He says quote.
Speaker 2: Putting aside all the issues raised previously, one can only
Speaker 2: imagine the Pandora's box this would open. It was not
Speaker 2: opened by the drafters, adopters, and rightifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 2: It is being opened by modern day sabatiers of the Constitution.
Speaker 2: This entire movement is a vile assault on the electoral
Speaker 2: process directed at a single individual, Donald Trump. There is
Speaker 2: absolutely no constitutional basis for it. However, if it somehow succeeds,
Speaker 2: the implications will live far beyond today. We are left
Speaker 2: not with the rule of law, but the rule of men,
Speaker 2: and in this case, the rule of Democratic Party officials
Speaker 2: and operatives and their academic allies. The Party of the
Speaker 2: Confederacy once again seeks to nullify the federal constitution and
Speaker 2: the nation's electoral system, disenfranchising tens of millions of voters nationwide,
Speaker 2: and push the country towards its breaking point from which
Speaker 2: we may never recover. Levin also says this, It's worth
Speaker 2: remembering that the Democratic Party and its surrogates are a powerful,
Speaker 2: hungry lot. They are also driving other dangerously illegitimate and
Speaker 2: self serving attacks on our voting system. How many times
Speaker 2: have we heard from Democratic politicians, academics, media, and activists
Speaker 2: that the electoral college should be abolished, that it is
Speaker 2: a racist system set up by white slaveholders to perpetute racism, etc.
Speaker 2: Of course, this is another anti American line. The purpose
Speaker 2: of electoral college is, among others, to ensure that all
Speaker 2: parts of the country have a say in the election
Speaker 2: of a president and vice president, not just the most
Speaker 2: populous areas, and to prevent mob role by way of
Speaker 2: unchecked majoritarianism. Thus, the electoral College is an institutional block
Speaker 2: on the Democratic Party's efforts to monopolize our voting system.
Speaker 2: Since the most well popular, densally populated areas of the
Speaker 2: nation are run by you guessed it, democrats, the Democratic
Speaker 2: Party is behind another unconstitutional scheme that seeks to disenfranchise
Speaker 2: tens of millions of Americans, specifically Republican voters, so they
Speaker 2: called national Popular movement. They call it the National Popular
Speaker 2: Vote Movement. It involves an interstate compact in which states agree,
Speaker 2: in advance of actual voting to assign their electoral College
Speaker 2: votes to the candidate who nationally receives the largest number
Speaker 2: of popular votes, even if that candidate loses the popular
Speaker 2: vote in their own state. This new movement, the National
Speaker 2: Popular Vote Movement, is only triggered once enough states reached
Speaker 2: the two to seventy majority under the electoral college system.
Speaker 2: So far, the states that have joined the compact hold
Speaker 2: one hundred and ninety six electoral votes.
Speaker 1: They're getting close, markle Van warns.
Speaker 2: He says the Democratic Party is also relentlessly attempting to
Speaker 2: nationalize state voting systems to empower itself and destroy any
Speaker 2: meaningful opposition from the Republican Party. The Democratic Party dressed
Speaker 2: up this tyranny as a civil rights effort, was introduced
Speaker 2: in the House by Nancy Pelosi's HR one, the first
Speaker 2: bill to be considered by the new Democratic majority when
Speaker 2: she was in charge again. It would have effectively eliminated
Speaker 2: state voter ID laws make it virtually impossible to clean
Speaker 2: up voter registration lists, instituting online registration throughout the country,
Speaker 2: virtually eliminating protections against absentee ballot fraud, provided for taxpayer
Speaker 2: funding for congressional candidates, attack political speech by individuals and groups.
Speaker 2: They call it democratic centralization. This is the party and
Speaker 2: these are the people which cover from some odd thinking
Speaker 2: professors who are organizing around a twisted fiction for banning
Speaker 2: Trump from the ballot and disenfranchising his would be voters
Speaker 2: in advance of an election. God bless Mark Levin for
Speaker 2: writing this article. I asked him about the fourteenth Amendment
Speaker 2: and he said I wrote about it and sent me
Speaker 2: this link, and it was so important that I read
Speaker 2: it to you today because it's so important to hear
Speaker 2: the words so you understand how we.
Speaker 1: Got to where we are.
Speaker 2: Don't forget Share this podcast with your family and friends,
Speaker 2: Share it on social media. Please hit that follow button
Speaker 2: if you're listening on Apple iTunes, or subscribe or auto download,
Speaker 2: depending on what you're listening on what platform.
Speaker 1: But make sure you follow us and we'll see you
Speaker 1: back here tomorrow morning.