Occupying Gaza Would be Catastrophic and Immoral

[00:00:10] A couple days ago, Donald Trump suggested that the United States should occupy Gaza to basically take it over, get rid of all the current inhabitants, the Palestinians that live there, take it over and make it economically stronger and more peaceful. Now, this, of course, sent shockwaves around many within, for example, the MAGA movement itself and throughout the world. It seemed like a ludicrous suggestion on its face. But I want to talk about today why it would be a terrible thing, why it would be a catastrophe, and why it's deeply immoral, why Catholics really should not get on board with a suggestion like this. [00:00:53] Now, before I really get into it, I do want to make some major qualifications. The first one is, I think President Trump is doing a phenomenal job as president this second term. I mean, honestly, other than what I'm about to say in this podcast here today, I think he's done. I have no criticisms. He's. In fact, he's far exceeded my expectations. The work that he's done so far with the executive orders, the work now to be shutting down that Doge is doing, to try to shut down government waste and corruption. I mean, he just signed something yesterday about not letting men who pretend to be women playing women's sports. I mean, there's just been so many things, it's hard to keep up with it. As President Trump himself says, we're gonna get tired of winning. And I almost feel like that. So that's the first thing I wanna note, is that I completely think. I completely support President Trump and all that he's been doing so far, aside from this, of course. And that's another thing I want to note, is that I expected something like this. I knew that all politicians in America, basically, with one or two exceptions, are not good on Israel. They're just simply not good. They're too beholden to Israel. They treat Israel like the 51st state, or as I mentioned on X the other day, almost like the first state when it comes to importance. So I understand that, you know, no politician, no president's going to be perfect. And so I knew he's not going to be great on this. Another thing I want to note is that I also understand that this is likely mostly a negotiating ploy. This is how Trump negotiates the art of the deal. He makes some outlandish statement that we're going to do X in order to get concessions from all parties involved. So, for example, with the tariffs, he's going to slap 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. All of a sudden, they come crawling to him and begging him to not impose those tariffs, and they'll do what he says. So I get that this whole thing might be a negotiating ploy and probably is that he might have no intentions of actually doing this. Although I think he would follow through if push came to shove. [00:02:59] I still think that's a problem, because I don't think you. Morally, you should be able to. You should threaten things that are highly immoral. So, for example, when Trump threatened tariffs, there's nothing wrong with that, because tariffs in and by themselves are not immoral. [00:03:21] So it's okay to threaten terrorists, but threatening to literally occupy a land and kick everybody out of it that currently lives there, that clearly is an immoral thing. The analogy I gave on X was, if I came to a friend of mine said, can I borrow $100? And if you say, no, I'm going to kidnap your wife and kids, I can't do that. That's immoral to do that. Even if I have no intention of actually kidnapping his wife and kids and don't go through with it, it's still immoral to threaten something like that, particularly if I have a history of kidnapping people, because then the threat is very real. And let's be honest, the United States has. Has a history of occupying other countries, like Iraq, like Afghanistan. So the threat is real. I mean, people should take it very seriously. [00:04:19] So I get that's a negotiating ploy. I get President Trump is doing a great job in a lot of things, and maybe people don't think we should support, we shouldn't criticize him, but I do think we have to. As Catholics, we have to make sure we're clear about whether or not something that a president does is moral or immoral. If it's immoral, we can't support it. Like during the campaign, when Trump said he would support a IVF mandate, pay for ivf, and have. I think that was immoral and we needed to say, no, we're not going to go for that. And here's the thing. President Trump, I think, listens to criticism. I said that with the IVF thing, and I think it's true here, too. I think already there's been enough of a pushback from his supporters that he's already backed off a bit. In fact, he just posted on Truth Social, I think it was this morning, maybe yesterday, that there would be no U.S. troops involved, that essentially what would happen is Israel would get it ready, get Gaza ready, whatever that means, and then hand it over to the United States when they're finished. [00:05:30] And so. And he explicitly said, no US Troops will be involved. Now, that's not what everybody thought when he first said it. And I don't, I don't. I think he wanted us to think US Troops would be involved when he first said it. He wanted that threat out there, but then we got so much pushback from his own people. I think there was. I think there he did soften that a bit. Now it's still a major problem. [00:05:52] His current plan, his current idea, because how would Israel get Gaza ready to hand over to the United States? [00:06:02] They'd have to clear it out. They do the same thing we're worried about the United States wanting to do, because it's not like the people in Palestine and Gaza are like, we'll just willingly let you take over the United States. They would fight tooth and nail to prevent that. [00:06:17] And so it's still very morally problematic, even the current plan that Trump seems to be promoting. And so I want to break down a few things in this video. I want to talk about why it's morally wrong, but also why it would be a catastrophe from a military and social standpoint and economically. And so I want to break that down here. So the first thing I want to talk about is the moral catastrophe that it would be to basically have the United States occupy Gaza. And I think what we do here is we go through the conditions for a just war. [00:07:00] Most people know that the church has developed a just war theory, which is accepted by even non Catholics, people of goodwill, as the conditions that need to be set in order for a war to happen. [00:07:13] Now, let's be honest, this will never be called a war. [00:07:16] United States is not going to be called a war that's involved in. But we're talking about a military, whether it's the United States military or the Israel military taking over land that is not theirs, that's a war. I mean, no matter what you want, I'll put it this way, it falls under just war theory. Whatever you call it, I don't care if you call it a conflict, if you call it a invasion, if you call it a war, if you call it a genocide, I don't care what you call it a takeover. [00:07:45] It falls under just war theory because it's a military force attacking another people. [00:07:57] So like I said, the church has developed this just war theory. And the catechism lays out four conditions. I've noticed and I've complained about this over and over. I'm probably a broken record at this point that most Catholics simply ignore. Most American Catholics in particular Just ignore just war theory. [00:08:16] Because their idea of a just war is if America backs it, if my guy backs it, then it's just. And that's simply not true. The wars we've had, the conflicts we have, what do you want to call them in the United States for the past, I don't know, a decade, in my lifetime, have all been unjust. None of them fall under just war theory. Afghanistan, definitely not Iraq, definitely not Iraq. One or two, definitely not. Our engagements in Yemen, Syria, Libya, wherever. They have not been just wars. They don't fill the criteria of just war. And so what I want to do is I want to look at those criteria, those four criteria. The catechism layout, and this is in. Let me find the paragraph 2309 of the Catechism, if you want to look it up yourself. It has the four conditions that need to be met. And note, all four have to be met in order for the Church at least to declare something, a just war. Because remember, the Church is not pacifist. I'm not a pacifist. We're not claiming you can never use a military. You can never fight back, you can never have military actions. The question is, is the action. You have to judge each action a military takes, is it just? Because it's not just whether or not you can call a war, but how you prosecute that war is also part of just war theory. [00:09:29] You might have a justifiable reason to fight back, but the way in which you fight back may not be justified and moral. And actually, I would say what Israel has been doing since October 7th is a perfect example of that. [00:09:45] On October 7th, 2023, Israel was attacked by Hamas. They have a justification to fight back to protect themselves. I don't think any normal person disputes that fact. I don't dispute that fact, and I'm a normal person. [00:10:02] But what we see, though, is the way they then went about defending themselves, went far beyond what was necessary to protect themselves and involve many evils. [00:10:15] It's simply, you cannot justify, as a Catholic, at least, and I know Israel obviously isn't Catholic, I'm just saying, as Catholics on the outside judging it, whether or not it's a just war, what Israel has been doing since October 7th cannot be justified. Just like what Hamas did on October 7th can't be justified. That didn't qualify under just war criteria, and neither is what most of what Israel has been doing. But let's look at this idea of taking over Gaza, either the US or Israel. [00:10:43] What are the four conditions? The first condition Is the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community. Nations must be lasting, grave and certain. [00:10:52] So what this means is whoever initiated it is what they're doing lasting, grave or certain. In other words, if just somebody from, let's say, Pakistan, a Muslim from Pakistan, comes to our country and he sets off a bomb somewhere, but he's a lone wolf, we find there's no connection. He was crazy. [00:11:21] His damage inflicted is not lasting, grave and certain, like the future damage. So there's no reason we should nuke Pakistan, for example, in response. [00:11:29] Now, in this case, the aggressor, we could say it's Hamas. I think I would say this. There's a long history in the Middle east that Hamas is not the only aggressor. I'll say that. I'm not saying Hamas isn't an aggressor, but Israel has been the aggressor often. In fact, I think you could make an argument if you look back at the history, that Hamas is also responding to aggression against them, against the Palestinians over the centuries, over the last century. [00:12:01] Again, I don't think what Hamas said on October 7 qualifies under just war criteria. I'm just saying that there's many aggressors. In this case though, we'll assume the aggressor is Hamas is what they're doing. The damage book to Lasting, Grave and Certain obviously did a lot of damage on October 7th. They've done other damages in the past. [00:12:19] But I would say, I don't think any rational person could say that Hamas could really inflict significant harm on Israel over time. By that I mean that Israel has one of the best armies in the, in the world, has one of the best well protected countries in the world. In fact, it's, it's a, it's a real scandal. We don't really know why Hamas was actually successful on October 7, as successful as they were, because it really, you know, kind of goes against the whole belief and probably fact that Israel is able to protect itself. Israel could have done a lot of things to protect itself. [00:12:56] That, and we'll go into that in future, in other criteria. But the point is, is that I'm willing to grant that because of the long term fighting that's been going on in the Middle East. You could argue that, yes, perhaps Hamas could inflict, last engraving, certain harm on Israel. But note this is very important. It cannot do that to the United States of America. [00:13:22] Hamas cannot. There is no evidence that Hamas can inflict or anybody in Palestine can. Inflict lasting, grave and certain harm on and damage on the United States of America. So even if you want to argue that this condition is met for Israel, it's not met for the United States. [00:13:42] So we have, we cannot, you, we cannot justify a war with Hamas based upon this criteria alone. Israel perhaps, I'll grant that Israel perhaps, but not the United States of America. Because Hamas simply cannot inflict damage on lasting, grave and certain on the United States of America. [00:14:03] The second criteria of just war criteria is all other means of putting it into it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective. [00:14:13] Now I understand how some people might think this condition was not has been met that simply put, we've tried everything and nothing's worked. I don't think that's true. I think that this condition has not been met, that there are many ways in which Israel could have, in the United States could have worked to make a lot of this not happen. I think one of them is the United States not having such a large presence in the Middle East. [00:14:43] Americans discount how big a deal this is to natives of the Middle East. I just like to use this example. Would you like it if China starts setting up military bases in Kansas or in California or in New York? I don't think you would, but that's exactly what we've done. We've set up military bases in Saudi Arabia, in, you know, everywhere in the Middle East. And that's built up a lot of resentment and hatred towards us and towards Israel, which is our main ally there, I mean, there Israel. And as we know, Israel and the United States are connected at the hip. And so our military presence also engenders hatred towards Israel. So I think us just leaving the area would do a lot to tap down the violence. [00:15:33] Likewise, Israel has done a lot over the years to antagonize their enemies. I'm not saying the enemies haven't done things to antagonize Israel. That's what I just, you know, it's so frustrating. I feel like it's the midwit, you know, response to everything. If you say something against Israel, therefore you're with Hamas, it's just simply not the way it works. The fact is, if you look at the history last century in the Middle East, a lot of factors have led us to this point, including evils done by Israel. [00:16:10] That is just the reality. And anybody who denies that and acts like Israel is the innocent party and it's only been attacked and that's it for the past hundred years. That's just a joke that's just not true. [00:16:22] And so I do think there are things we can do that can make it other alternatives so that we aren't necessarily, you know, taking over Gaza. [00:16:37] The third criteria of just war theory is there must be a serious process, there must be serious prospects of success when it comes to taking over Gaza. [00:16:49] Only the most neocon of neocons would think this criteria is met. The neocons have never seen a war they don't think we can win easily. I mean, in my lifetime, every single military conflict we've gotten into, it was promised that this is going to be a cakewalk, that we'll take it over in no time. We're going to be controlling the situation, very few lives will be lost and everything will be hunky dory. I heard that about Iraq, I heard that about Afghanistan. I've heard that about everything. It never is true. [00:17:25] I want to get into a little bit later the difficulties of actually occupying Gaza, but for now, suffice it to say, I just don't think how any. I don't see how anybody could think this has a, a what, how does the catechism put a serious prospect of success? And what I mean by that is actually Trump proposed the United States controlling Gaza, being occupying it completely and everybody who's currently in Gaza kicked out. That's what Trump proposed. This, the idea that seriously being having prospect a serious prospect for success is simply ludicrous. The final criteria, the fourth criteria of just war theory is the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition here. I think we need to understand the actual threat level of Hamas to the United States and also to Israel for that matter. [00:18:29] We're talking about a small group of people who have done some serious damage, but they're not a. This isn't China, the CCP army, the Chinese army or the Russian army or something like that. This is a terrorist, small terrorist group that can do damage. Yes, but the fact is it's not the damage it does. The evil and damage and disorders it produces pale in comparison to what we've done, the United States has done around the world. When we get involved, I mean, just consider what we've done in Iraq, what we've done in Afghanistan. [00:19:02] The fact is, is that if we, if we occupied Gaza, I think there's no question in my mind the evils and disorders produced would be far greater than the evils and disorders that are being produced by Hamas and I just think. And neocons just instinctively react to that and say, no, that's not possible. No, that's just ridiculous. You're being ridiculous there. [00:19:27] But show me a major conflict the United States has been involved in, in my lifetime that didn't produce grave evils and disorders. I mean, going all the way back to Vietnam, maybe the Granada War, something like that, Grenada, however you pronounce it. [00:19:44] But the reality is, is that this would produce a lot of grave evils. It would produce decades of resentment, hatred towards the United States beyond what we even have now. I don't think people realize how, how much blowback we would get. I remember years ago when Ron Paul stated that it's United States activities in Middle east and blowback that led to 9, 11 and he got hammered. You're blaming the United States. Rudy Giuliani said, but the fact is he was right. And even the CIA admits he was right, that it's our involvement over there, our deep involvement over there that has led to the deep resentment and hatred of the United States there and the fighting that goes on there against us and against our main ally Israel. That's just reality. I know many Catholics want to act like this is a completely religious war. That's just a bunch of crazy Muslims who hate Jews and hate Christians. [00:20:45] I just. You're wrong. If you look at, for example, the Middle east maybe a hundred years ago or so, you didn't see this level of conflict by the Muslims. There wasn't, in fact, there wasn't an inc. There wasn't some Muslim fundamentalism, radical Islamist movement even in like the 1950s, before the United States really got involved over there. [00:21:10] That's only grown because of what we've done. [00:21:14] Now again, I feel like I need to make these disclaimers for people who can't follow along. It doesn't justify everything Hamas has done or other Islamist terrorist groups. It simply says that they might not have happened. They likely wouldn't have happened if we had not decided to get so involved over there and build up this deep resentment and hatred of us. And I tell you what, an occupation of Gaza would make the past resentment look like Sesame Street. [00:21:43] It would be far, far worse. And so there'd be a, a lasting evils and disorders that would come about because of this. [00:21:52] Another point I want to make. So those are four. So I don't think that this really qualifies on any of the conditions at most. Maybe number one, remember, all four conditions have to be met for something to be considered moral from A Catholic perspective, from a just war theory perspective. [00:22:07] I also want to note that the idea of forcibly relocating Palestinians against their will, I don't see how any Catholic can support this. I just don't see. There's no Catholic argument for it, because the fact is they don't want to leave and there's no American reason for them to leave. That's the important point. And really, there's no Israeli reason for them to leave. But most importantly, there's no American reason for them to leave. They simply do not pose a threat to us. And so the forcibly remove them from their land, which is their land. I mean, I know we. I mean, the Zionists who act like somehow Israel has a divine right to all the lands in the Middle east, they simply have bad theology, bad theology, at least to death and destruction. So it's really bad theology. [00:23:00] The fact is, Israelis have no right to the Gaza Strip, and there's a complicated history there. But ultimately the people who live there have lived there for generations. And there's no reason, there's no moral reason we can kick them out. So the idea of just simply forcibly removing them, which is difficult, let's just say that, is just morally reprehensible. [00:23:26] Now, some would say because the Palestinians voted in Hamas as their ruling government, they basically deserve whatever they get. But that argument fails on two counts. The first count is that election was in 2006. [00:23:42] Most of the people living there now probably weren't even alive or weren't old enough to vote in 2006. So they're not like, personally, personally choose that. We don't know what would happen if there was another vote, because there hasn't been one to take them out. [00:23:56] Secondly, and more important, much more importantly, even if they did vote them in since then, when do we say that you can do whatever you want to assist and because of something the government does, how would you like it if somebody judged you based upon the actions of your government and they said, oh, well, you don't have any right to life or to be free? Because look at all the evils your government has done. It's ludicrous. I mean, all the evils the United States government has done, am I responsible for them? Am I like, I can just be killed at whim or in prison because of their actions? No. Even though I voted in the system, even if Donald Trump does something horrible like this, for example, and I voted for him, doesn't mean you can just bomb me and kill me because of it, and you're morally justified, so. Or Relocate me, like kick me out of my house and make me move to Canada or something like that. It's just not morally justifiable to do that. So I really think that that is morally just, like I said, reprehensible. The idea of just forcibly movement. People use the terms ethnic cleansing. Most people think of ethnic cleansing is actually killing people, a whole ethnicity. So I don't want to use that term. But it would be killing a lot of them because they would refuse to go. And if they refuse to go, what's the only way you can remove them? You might have to kill them. [00:25:23] They might make that the only option where they say, you either kill me, you can't move me, you're going to have to kill me to get rid of me. And so you'd have to kill them. So that is ethnic cleansing there. [00:25:36] But forcibly removing a whole people from their land, I mean, that destiny borders on ethnic cleansing. [00:25:45] And the idea of just moving them to another area, like that's what, you know, another Muslim area like Egypt or another neighboring country, something like that, that doesn't make it better because like I said, you just can't force people, a whole people to leave and consider a moral action. [00:26:04] I also want to note that, I mean, I just feel like morally there is no Catholic argument for the United States occupying Gaza. Whether it's Israel who cleans it up or we clean it up or whatever, there's just no moral. And by cleaning up, I mean literally causing death and destruction to countless millions of people. [00:26:25] But like, even if, you know, so it's not morally justifiable. But the other thing is it's militarily and just so dumb. [00:26:33] So have we not learned our lessons? [00:26:37] This is not the Crusades, folks. I saw a number of Catholics online who were acting like, hey, this is great. This is like the Crusades will go in and take over. First of all, the Crusades didn't work out either. [00:26:47] In the long term, we're not still there, are we? It's not like a Catholic kingdom lasted in the Middle east, in the Holy Land. [00:26:55] So whereas the Crusades were successful in some ways, and they kept Islam. The threat of Islam taking over Europe in many ways, it's not like they all of a sudden took over and everything with hunky dory, even back then. The idea that could happen now, we're not a Catholic kingdom anyway. [00:27:12] The idea that could happen now successfully is just a joke. I mean, look at the history. This is the recent history. We occupied Iraq, what happened, it resulted in years of Insurgency, the rise of isis, and a nation that's still in shambles. And also remember, Christians are much worse off in Iraq today than they were under Saddam Hussein. It doesn't mean Saddam Hussein's a saint. It simply means he brought stability. The same thing's happening in Syria, by the way. [00:27:43] Syria, you know, it's not like it was some Christian country, but there was stability there, which helps the Christians now with the overthrow of the leader, you know, Assad, it just doesn't, you know, the Christians don't have that stability. And the same thing is true in Iraq. [00:28:01] And so that was a disaster, yet every neocon was selling it like it's a piece of cake. We're just going to go in there, take over Iraq, we'll have democracy. I mean, some might not be old enough to remember the propaganda from 20 years ago, more than 20 years ago now, about invading Iraq. [00:28:20] It was similar to what Trump is saying about Gaza, that basically we'll just take it over, we'll make, bring stability. Everything will be, everything will be fine. It will be a revival, economic and cultural and philosophical, everything, revival in the land. Did that happen in Iraq? No. [00:28:38] Another example, Afghanistan. What was originally intended just be to take Osama bin Laden quickly, within a couple months morphed into another occupation, nation building. And again what was promised, it was promised it would bring democracy to the country. There'd be peace and stability and it would be able to join the nations of the world in prosperity. This is what was actually said. I'm not making this stuff up. The neocons pushed this hard. What actually happened, a 20 year war that the end result was a country worse off than it began, had the same leaders, now Taliban in charge than it were when we started. But it's far worse off than it was when we began. It wasn't great before when we started. I'm not claiming it was, wasn't as stable as like Iraq was, but now it's a disaster because we spent 20 years, millions of dollars, tons of, you know, so many people dead. You know, it just is no different than when we found it. And you know, it just Vietnam, you could, you could argue Vietnam, the same thing. The point is these military occupations simply don't work. You may want them to work, you may think it'd be a great idea on paper, but it just doesn't work. [00:29:59] The challenges in Gaza for a military occupation would just be immense. It's a densely populated area, it's urban and has a long history of resistance to occupation. This is not a group of people that is going to willingly go and they're going to need no ways to stay entrenched where they are. [00:30:21] And so I just, it just the idea. And also with its, you know, just the geography. It's a narrow strip of land. It's a strategic nightmare for any occupying force. I'm not a military expert, but it doesn't take a military expert to see how difficult this would be. [00:30:40] So, I mean, remember, this is a country that has endured a blockade and bombardments, Bombardments for years, and it's still there. It's not going to change overnight. [00:30:55] Trump also said that it would bring about, like, an economic renewal to the area. I mean, people. People are already creating AI images of like a Trump hotel in Gaza and how it would bring. Again, it just. That's not what's going to happen. That's not what would happen. We see that in Iraq, we see that in Afghanistan, and that's exactly what it'd be. Probably worse actually, in Gaza. [00:31:19] So what's the solution then? Do I, Eric Sammons, have a solution? No, I do not. And you don't either. [00:31:28] That's the reality. There are no easy answers on how to solve the deeply entrenched problems in that region. [00:31:38] I do think, though, that we need to think outside the box. By that, I mean we need to think outside of the paradigm that we've been working under for 60 years, maybe, which is that we have to be a strong presence in the Middle east for there to be peace. [00:31:53] That's the paradox here. [00:31:58] We believe that if we have a strong military presence in an involvement in the Middle east, that's what's going to bring peace. [00:32:08] The paradox is the opposite is true. [00:32:11] Our strong military presence there, our strong military involvement there is actually what's brought disorder and what's brought chaos and what's brought war. That's what's caused it. [00:32:23] Now, if we completely pulled out, what would happen to Israel? I don't know, and you don't either. [00:32:29] The reality is we could do. We. We still could put a lot of pressure on Middle Eastern countries. We have agreements, strong relationships with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, for example, where we basically paid them off not to be involved in these conflicts, not to attack Israel. We could continue to do that. I'm not saying I think that's a great idea. I'm just saying it's an alternative. [00:32:52] But as long as we have a strong military presence there and we try to call the shots over there, the reality is we're going to continue to have violence and death and destruction in the area. [00:33:03] And also, it just. We do not have an obligation to prop up Israel. [00:33:08] We just simply don't. There's no biblical mandate to do that, no theological mandate, and no American mandate to do that. I know that comes as a shock to many people, but that's just the reality we need to get out. I think that's probably the biggest thing as far as. I'm not saying it would solve every problem, not saying there wouldn't be. It would stop all war there. But I'd be willing to bet that if America withdrew her involvement in that region, I think within a decade, 20 years, something like that, it'd be a lot more peaceful, a lot more stable than it is today. And I, and honestly, those who argue against that, you have no evidence to show otherwise because you literally have the evidence of 60 plus years of American involvement, military involvement there that have been 60 years of chaos. So don't tell me, oh, we have to stay there or else it'll get terrible. It's terrible while we're there. [00:34:09] So we need to think of a different solution. [00:34:13] Okay, so the last thing I just want to note is I want to reemphasize that I know Trump might be just talking big and might not plan any of this, but the reality is I saw too many Catholics wholeheartedly and conservatives wholeheartedly embracing this idea as a real plan. And we need to recognize that's not something, as Catholics, we can do. We simply cannot support the actual US Occupation of Gaza no matter how it comes about, because it will. No matter how it comes about, it will involve many immoral actions on our part, on Israel's part, on various parties part. So I hope nothing happens. I hope this is just one of these things where Trump throws it out there, it allows him to negotiate some things, and then we forget about it within a couple weeks. That very well could be what happens. I hope and pray it is. But if it's not, we Catholics, we conservatives, we need to fight against this. Trump listens when we, when we push back, and I think we need a hard pushback on this and make sure he understands that no United States should not occupy Gaza now or anytime in the future. [00:35:20] Okay, I'm going to leave it there until next time, everybody. God love you.