Republican Judge Roger Benitez Strikes Down Democrat Mandated Lying And Tax-Funded Abuse of Parents1

Welcome to the Republican professor. I'm your host, Dr. Lucas J. Mather. Today is 30 December 2025 years after Jesus. It is a Tuesday. We're covering today that you don't have to lie to parents. K through 12. Doesn't have to lie to parents anymore. That was a Democrat policy that was struck down by a Republican judge named Roger Bonita as a Cuban family. They fled Cuba. And he understands from family experience what true tyranny is. And he said, no, that's not going to happen in the United States of America in California. His name is Roger Bonita's. We call him St. Bonita's here in the Second Amendment community in California. I'm joining you today from Jackson, Tennessee, visiting family. It's still the Christmas season in the Anglican tradition. So Mary Christmas, this is the last episode of the Republican professor in the year 2025 years after Jesus, the year of our Lord. We have this reading from Psalm 150 before we get to Elizabeth Mirabelli versus Mark Olson in his visual capacity as president of the Board of Education in California, United States District Court for the Southern District, California filed 22 December 2025. Let's get to Psalm 150 and then we'll get to the issue at hand. Psalm 150 is very short. It's only six verses. Just be glad I didn't pick Psalm 149 if you know you know. Praise the Lord. This is the King James version. Praise God in his sanctuary. Praise him in the firmament of his power. Praise him for the mighty acts. Praise him according to his excellent greatness. Praise him with the sound of the trumpet. Praise him with the sultry and harp. Praise him with the timbrel and the dance. Praise him with the stringed instruments and organs. Praise him upon the loud symbols. Praise him upon the high sounding symbols. Let everything that half breath praise the Lord. Praise the Lord. That's the last verse of the Psalms. Very famous verse. If you know you know, let's dedicate this time to the Lord, shall we? Greetings Heavenly Father, Holy Spirit, Lord Jesus. I want to thank you for this victory here in Meribeli versus Olsen. We thank you, Lord, that thanks to this Republican judge appointed by George W. Bush, confirmed by the Senate, that you have used him to strike down the positive law command that is violation of the natural law, that the Democrats have ordered parents to lie, sorry, ordered school officials with tax money to lie to bear false witness to the parents of these children. Here they stand in Locoparentus and they have forgotten what that phrase even means if they ever knew it in the first place. Heaven knows that they probably didn't take Latin. Maybe we should be forced to take Latin. Lord, I'd like to thank you for this cardinal I'm watching outside the window here, a little goober looking for food. We know that in your scriptures you say that you feed the birds and this is reason why we should trust that you're going to feed us. So as I watch this little goober, this little red cardinal looks like a female. I'll scrounge around for something to eat, try to stay warm and it's really cold day and jack's in Tennessee. I want to thank you for the sunshine. I want to thank you for the grass. I want to thank you for these large trees, huge trees in the front yard. They're so strong. Thank you for the long life that they've had and how they bless us. Lord, as your scriptures say, let everything that hath breath praise the Lord. And so I look at these trees and new. I look at this cardinal and new. I look at this grass and new. I look at this sunshine even though it doesn't have breath that allows us to have breath. And we thank you, Lord. And we do praise you for the wonderful things that you've given us. Help us to steward these things and shepherd them. Lord, help us not to sin in our anger. We have righteous anger, but help us not to sin. Help us use that anger wisely to make the world a better place. Lord, we ask that you'd give us the energy that we need in the wisdom to continue on in 2026. We ask that you would bless this guy, Roger Benitez, for the quality work that he has done in so many cases that we've had there in California. And we ask this in Jesus name. Amen. I'm going to link this decision in the description, United States District Court. Okay. Here we go. Long before Horace Mann advocated in the 1840s for a system of common schools and compulsory education. Parents have carried out their rights and responsibilities to direct the general and medical care and religious upbringing of their child. Makes sense to me. I don't see any problem with this so far. Do you? The history and culture of Western civilization reflects a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents and the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition, citing Wisconsin versus Yoder 1972 that has never been overturned. It's about the Amish. Check it out. It is a right and a responsibility that parents still hold, citing Mahmoud versus Taylor from this past year. The role of a parent includes a duty. We're now on page two of 52. We're not going to do the whole thing today. We're going to do about a little bit more than half. Includes a duty to recognize symptoms of illness and to seek medical advice. These rights are protected by the first and 14th amendments to the Constitution. I'm not going to do every quotation and every citation take too long. Okay. So I'll let you follow along. You should print this out and follow along. Fortunately, the natural bonds of affection normally lead parents to act in the best interests of their child. With these longstanding principles in mind, this case presents the following four questions about a parent's right to information as against a public school's policy of secrecy when it comes to a student's gender identification. First, do parents have a right to gender information based on the 14th amendments? Substantive due process clause. Second, do parents have a right to gender information protected by the first amendments? Free exercise of religion clause. Third, do religious public school teachers have a right to provide gender information to the parents based on the first amendments? Free exercise clause. Fourth, do public school teachers have a right to communicate accurate gender information to parents based on the first amendment free speech clause? In each case, this court concludes that as a matter of law, the answer is yes. Parents have a right to receive gender information and teachers have a right to provide two parents accurate information about a child's gender identity. This was a live political issue in 2024 in California. Republicans on one side, Democrats on the other, Democrats for lying to parents at taxpayer expense with taxpayer resources, Republicans on the side of parents against lying. Let's continue. Skipping footnote 1, we're on page 3. Historically, school teachers inform parents of physical injuries or questions about a student's health and well-being. For example, where an eight-year-old student is sexually assaulted at school, the school owes a duty to inform parents. But for something as significant as a student's expressed change of gender, very well put, Roger, very well put. Thank you, St. Benitez. For something as significant as a student's expressed change of gender. Notice how he's putting it. He's not putting it in a biased way there, where the expression just is the change of gender. No. No. No. Not any more than ... I say I'm a tree, makes me a tree, or I say I have a tattoo, makes me have a tattoo. No, that's not how it works. It's not even clear that you can get a change of gender. So it's more like the former than the latter, because you can get a tattoo. That's not metaphysically impossible, but it's metaphysically impossible for me to become a tree. So here's a question for you. Metaphysically. Is it even possible to change genders? That's a live question. The school is taking a side on that metaphysical question. At taxpayer expense, with the result that they feel a moral obligation to lie to parents. That was happening as of last week in California until Roger Benitez put a stop to it by Republican judge, which by the way they hate him. They hate this guy because he's for the second amendment. He stands up for the second amendment in California. He stands up for the Constitution. Let's keep going. Excuse me. Next time I clear my throat, I'll mute it. It is cold out there, and I have a little bit of a running nose, a little bit. That's not going to stop me from running out there. I'm going to go on a run. My last run of the year, I'm not going to run tomorrow, but it really helps me. So I'm going to keep going. When it comes to it, students change in gender identity, and I like the way you put it in the previous sentence, expressed change. California state policy makers, I think he's probably going to drop the express just because it can be a little clunky, he's just going to just keep moving forward. For something as significant as a student's expressed change of gender, very good. Hold on to that. California public school parents end up left in the dark. When it comes to a student's change in gender identity, and he's dropping the express there, but you know it's in the background. He's kind of assuming, but he's like, okay, let's move on here. Let's keep going. California state policy makers apparently do not trust parents to do the right thing for their child. It's kind of like when they don't trust a woman to have a stun gun in her purse. So they are raster and charger with a crime like they did in Jamie Kaya Tano versus Massachusetts 2016, which recovered this past week on the Republican professor podcast. It's in the women and second amendment playlist. Yeah, they don't trust you with your rights to defend yourself, you know, you might use it against your abusive boyfriend and it might save your life. I don't know. They can't have that. I don't understand it myself. They would get more votes. Don't you understand that, Democrats? Don't you understand that? Are you that stupid? Yeah, you are. Well, okay, that works for us. I'm glad you're that politically stupid. But don't do not do not abuse these kids. I'm going to go Matthew 18 on you just like Lincoln did and sink it second inaugural. It might be that these offensive must-needs come but woe unto him by whom the events comeeth. So the state purposely purposefully interferes with a parent's access to meaningful information about their child's gender identity choices. The expressed gender identity choices. The state does this by prohibiting public school teachers from informing parents. The state defendants explain that these policies are needed to prevent bullying and harassment. Prevent student bullying and harassment in schools a lot of goal. The problem is that the parent exclusion policies seem to presume that it is the parents that will be the harassers from whom the students need to be predicted. But yet the schools sending them back home at the end of the day, right? Right? No one ever accused the Democrats of having too long or high of an attention span here. Even if the state defendants could demonstrate that excluding parents was good policy on some level, such a policy cannot be implemented at the expense of parents constitutional rights. The difficult and long-lasting issues of gender non-conformity leave parents to suffer adverse consequences over a lifetime. The state defendants on the other hand have no personal investment in a student's health and the state defendants will not be exposed to a lifetime of student's mental health issues instead. That will be the parent's grief to bear alone. If parents were informed early on as is their right after a student says or dresses in a way, I love how he's putting this. After a student says or dresses, see he's focusing on the action, the conduct, the behavior, not presuming a metaphysical reality that is signified by that behavior or conduct. If parents are informed early on as is their right after a student says or dresses in a way that suggests a non-conforming gender identity, four of the five probable outcomes will be positive. And I think Roger Benitez is being incredibly nice here, I think. One, the parents might fully affirm their child's new gender identity. Okay, so one, the parents might facilitate their child's confusion. And I think what he's saying here is let's take this for the sake of argument that that's positive. Fine, on your premises, that's positive. According to the defense experts, that would be the state of California at the Democrats. According to the defense experts, those are the people that lost this case. This is the best possible outcome of having the child's gender identity affirmed in both school and home life. So what he's doing is he's saying on your own premises, you lose, dude. Hello, hello. Quote, depends on the reactions of the family, but in situations where they're supported and not rejected, they fare better. Yes, that's a deposition to transcript of Dr. Christine Brady. Here's another quotation. And the scientific literature, and yes, there were two ends there. This is a quotation from the deposition. And the scientific literature confirms that children grow up healthy and happy when they are supported by the adults and caregivers in their lives, unquote. This is a well-known view of people in the field, which is that children who are supported by their families do better than those who are not, unquote. These are experts, Dr. Erica Anderson, PhD. Those were the defenses experts. Two, the parents might arrange healthcare from physicians like Dr., I don't know how to say this name, Sandberg. Dr. Brady and Dr. Anderson or Dr. Darlene Tondo to help the child work through issues therapeutically. Once again, this is a good outcome, according to the defense experts. Because the child can be authentic and supported in both home and school and home life. Three. Now remember, what's these one, two, three? Remember what this, what is this? He's saying, go back up to the previous page. He's saying if parents are informed early on as is there right after a student says or dresses in a way, that is you're looking at the conduct, the behavior of the child. Doesn't necessarily mean there's a metaphysical reality of gendered, I transition. We're not assuming anything that's possible about that. Any more than I'm assuming if I dress up like a tree and stop talking, I am a tree and I transitioned. No, you're still a human being. You might be pretending to be a tree. Same as like every Halloween, I might pretend to be Batman. I might pretend to be Spider-Man and try to climb up a wall that doesn't mean I am Spider-Man. Okay. Just the conduct itself doesn't make the reality. The pretending. Otherwise, every Broadway show would be real. And you know what? Sometimes I think the Democrats think that way. They look at the arts as some kind of stagrid grind. And it's not. I enjoyed when Harry met Sally just like everybody else did. I enjoyed the Princess Bride too. That's not sufficient for getting you into heaven or being in Christ to avoid the penalty for sin. I know the truth kind of stings at some point but it's also really important for kids to understand this. Otherwise, they grew up confused. And you have an obligation not to persist in confusion of children. Abraham Lincoln got this in his second inaugural address. He quoted Matthew 18 there in the King James version. He said it must need be that offense has come but whoa, unto him by whom the offense cometh. What does that mean? Well, you have to go back to Matthew 18 to find out what that means. Matthew 18 is a warning by Jesus. Jesus is the one speaking that if you cause little children to be confused and to go astray, it is better for you to have a millstone hung about your neck and drown in the depth of the sea. I didn't say that. Jesus said that. And that is an appropriate quote here today. So Benitez is saying four of the five probable outcomes will be positive and he's saying for the sake of argument even on your own premises defense. This undermines your whole position here. Three, the parents might not take a position while waiting to see if the child's gender identity persists over time. Still, the child can be authentic at school and in home, a life at least one third of young children eventually de-transition with time. There's a desk. He's quoting a deposition. He's very fact-based fact in terms of what's in the record here. Four, although they love their child, the parents might disagree completely. Parents in my vast experience with thousands of families over a long career. Parents love their children. They want what's best for them. Do parents always agree with every decision of their children? No. They have good reasons almost always. Transcript of Dr. Erika Anderson Ph.D. Even the defense experts agree that parental disagreement is a valid reaction. Question. And so just because a parent is not immediately affirming, doesn't that mean? That doesn't mean they don't love their child, correct? Answer, yes. Question. And that does not mean they'll abuse their child, correct? Answer, I can't guarantee that. Question. It doesn't necessarily mean that. You would agree, correct? Answer, correct. Deposition, transcript of Darlene Tendo, LMFT. Rompage 5 at the top. Overall, it is a grave mistake to deprive parents of information about their child's gender at school, according to Dr. Anderson. My objection is depriving parents of the knowledge of what's going on with their child's gender at school, particularly if the child chooses a different preferred name. See, there's again, there is focusing on the conduct. The outward expression, the behavior. Depriving parents of the knowledge of what's going on. Question. Externally, what can you see with their child's gender at school, particularly if the child chooses a different preferred name and pronouns, and wants accommodations. And that is information that is shared throughout the school by teachers, staff and students to deprive parents of that information is a grave mistake in my opinion. That's deposition of Dr. Erica Anderson, PhD. You ready for a zinger? Disagreement is not abuse. And so the court finds. In contrast, adolescent social transitioning without parents usually results in serious problems for the adolescent. Dr. Anderson testified, question, okay, say with the adolescent, are you aware of the circumstances, where in any context an adolescent has socially transitioned without the help or knowledge of their parents? Answer I am. And some of those cases involve kids in California, and the cases only come to my attention because there is a rupture and serious problems with the child. Five. For the isolated instances where a parent or caregiver commits physical abuse on the child, there are mandatory reporting laws and a complete law enforcement and judicial system in place. Let me comment on that. The Democrats have a consistent record here of trying to turn into police officers and detectives in appropriate roles. They've done this with Title IX guidance by the Department of Education during Obama, which basically created kangaroo courts throughout the entire nation on college campuses, stripped of due process, basic due process rights for what are essentially criminal investigations as if chairs, professors, staff, administrators, our law enforcement. If sexual assault occurs, call the police. But the Democrats didn't want that. They wanted to blur these lines. And in doing so, they get rid of constitutional protections for defendants that are centuries old. Very similar things are occurring here where there's a blurring here. Let's not forget that we have law enforcement and a judicial system in place. Hello. Hello. If you try to make teachers into social workers, you're going to screw it up. If you try to make principles into detectives, they're going to screw it up. That's not their job. Even there, courts have recognized that a state has no interest in protecting children from their parents unless it has some definite and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or is an imminent danger of abuse. Three Supreme Court justices recently described this issue as a particularly serious contention by the way, they're all Republican justices. Quote, whether a school district violates parents' fundamental rights when, without knowledge, parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assist that process, unquote. That's Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Those are all Republicans. These justices described the question as one of, quote, great and growing national importance, unquote, run page six at the top. The state bases its legal position on a derogatory derogation of the parents' federal constitutional right to care for and raise their children and an unwarranted and grandizing of a student state created right to privacy. California's education policy makers may be experts on primary and secondary education, but they would not receive top grades as students of constitutional law. Man, I'm going to read that again. This goes on a coffee mug. This goes on a t-shirt. This goes on a calendar. This is December right here. California education policy makers may be experts on primary and secondary education, but they would not receive top grades as students of constitutional law. I would say Roger. That means that if they fail the latter, they're going to fail the former. Modus Tolens, buddy. They misapprehended the supremacy of federal constitutional rights. They misperceive federal constitutional rights belonging to parents as weak need and frail and subservient to the students' right to privacy. Yet under federal constitutional law, parents retain a substantial, if not dominant role. How did they arrive at this miscalculation? The state defendants mix up legal constructs. The attorney general on behalf of the state of California says plaintiffs' lawsuits, the lawsuit is properly understood as seeking a federal constitutional exemption from the California constitutional right to privacy as applied to gender identity in the school context, but the attorney general gets it upside down. That's probably due to grade inflation. plaintiffs do not ask the state to magnanimously permit, let me fix that split and fendative there for you, Roger. plaintiffs do not ask the state magnanimously to permit a sort of federal constitutional exemption. What plaintiffs seek is to force the state to respect their enduring federal constitutional rights as citizens of the United States? One, background. The plaintiffs move for summary judgment against the state dependence. Earlier, plaintiffs claim for money damages against all defendants and all claims against the Excondito Union school district were severed and stayed. The plaintiffs have been certified as a class under rule 23 and plaintiffs class action seeks perspective relief against the state defendants in the form of a permanent injunction in joining school gender policies they refer to as, quote, parental exclusion policies. These policies were developed at the State Department of Education under the apparent authority of the superintendent of public instruction in the Board of Education. The policies have been adopted by local school districts throughout the State page 7 at the top. The gender policies were described in more detail in this court's earlier order, granting a preliminary injunction. These parental exclusion policies are designed to create a zone of secrecy around a school student who expresses, notice, notice, the word expresses it. The focus is on the conduct. Who expresses gender in congruity? See, a lot of Democrats think the expression alone, the behavior alone just is the reality. Well, they say that, but then they maintain that there's some kind of difference between reality and Broadway. Although I think a lot of them that make a living as actors don't really believe that. They really think that they are living in reality when they pretend to be somebody else, I think so. And there's a lot of Democrats that are drawn to the performing arts. I don't think that's an accident. I think there's an intellectual and moral character-based confusion among Democrats. And this explains a lot of the Hollywood hostility that you see to Republicans. I think it's deep in the temperament of a Democrat to be tempted to this confusion, that pretending is reality, that you create your own reality by pretending. All right, let's keep going. The policies restrain public school teachers and staff from a foreign student parents, sorry, the policies restrain public school, public school teachers and staff from informing parents about a child's unusual gender expression. What a what a polite way to put it? Unusual gender expression. In other words, unusual conduct behavior. Unless the child consents, the policies apply to children as young as two and as old as 17. Did you hear that right? Yes, you did. I'm going to read it again. The policies apply to children as young as two and as old as 17. Did you hear that right? Yes, I'm going to read it a third time. The policies apply to children as young as two. And as old as 17. The policies do not permit teachers to use their own judgment and responding to an inquiring parent. Unless the child consents, how are you going to get consent from a two-year-old? Unless the child consents, the teacher he communicates about a child's gender and congregate faces adverse employment action. However, prohibiting accurate answers to a parent's question is the plaintiff's class asserts a violation of several federal constitutional rights? In particular, the parent's subclass asserts rights under the first and 14th amendments while the teacher subclass asserts rights under the free exercise speech, sorry, the free speech and free exercise clauses of the first amendment. The state defendants, that is the Democrats, in California. The state defendants initially claimed that the whole question is a moot point. I smell New York Rifle and Pistol Association versus Brewin 2020. If you know, you know. 2020 was two years after the famous one in 2022, where New York City was like, you know, oh, actually it was New York Rifle and Pistol Association versus New York City. I forget the name of the official 2020. Yeah, where they wanted to criminalize you. If you took your gun out of your home to go out of the city to a shooting range, yeah, they made that a criminal offense, innocent conduct criminalized. And then when the Supreme Court said, we'll hear that case, the New York City was like, oh, crap. You know, we'll change that law. We'll make it moot. Sounds very similar. The state defendants initially claimed the whole question is a moot point. See, though, what they try to do is move the goal. They try to moot the question by changing the policy. And then once it's a dead issue in the court, they go back to it. Because it's so expensive to keep doing this, they just expect you to give up after a while, try to win the culture war. Yeah, Benita's ain't going for that. The state defendants initially claimed the whole question is a moot point. They originally said that by taking down the FAQ page on the gender identity from their official website, it should be obvious that their policies have changed. But the state defendants have declined to enter into a consent judgment binding themselves and their successors in office, page eight at the top. And recently, when faced with the presence of fresh statements of the parental exclusion policies in a newly state-published cultural competency training program called Prism. Wow, what a creepy name. The state defendants have formally withdrawn their claim that the case is moot. See, they didn't really believe it. They didn't really believe it. It's a game to them. It's a law fair game for culture warfare. And unfortunately, the Democrats are experts at this. And so, the actual chilling effect of the parental exclusion policies on plaintiffs' constitutional rights remains. Good call there, Benita's. See, he's smart. To avoid confusion, it is noted that this case is not about the recently enacted California Assembly Bill 1955. AB 1955 prohibits forced disclosure by parents. It does not, by its terms prohibit a teacher's voluntary disclosure. Okay, there's some kind of clunky quotations in parentheses. I'm going to skip, okay. This is precisely the injunctive relief the plaintiffs' class seeks in this case. The class seeks an injunction which would permit students to disclose of their own volition, gender identity information to parents. Does the passage of AB 1955 effectively mean that the plaintiffs had won? Do teachers now have a green light to inform parents once again as they have done since the days of Horace Man? No. The state defendants on one hand say that AB 1955 does not prevent voluntary disclosure, while on the other hand, the state defendants, that is the Democrats in California, in control of the school system and your tax dollars, they're in control of those things. And this is how they're using those resources that they control. The state defendants say, on the other hand, that voluntary disclosure is prohibited by the privacy clause of the state constitution and other state anti-discrimination laws. Moreover, the text of AB 1955 says that it did not change existing law. Well, what's the point of passing it then, idiot? I'm not saying Benita's an idiot. I'm saying the assembly is an idiot. What a waste of time. Does existing law include existing regulatory policies? The plaintiffs make the point that it almost, it is almost like the state defendants are trying to confuse the question, page 9 at the top. To dispel any uncertainty, this court asked that question of the deputy attorney general representing state defendants. To his credit, he agreed that notwithstanding AB 1955, other state laws could still be used to prohibit disclosure of gender identification information to parents. Here's a transcript, briefly. Court. And let me ask you whether or not you agree that there are other laws that could prohibit or restrain a teacher or a school district from disclosing to the parents that their child has manifested a gender incongruity besides 1955. Mr. Quaid, yes, I think there are. Nowhere in the body of AB 1955 can be found a positive statement that teachers may voluntarily inform a student's parents. So this case continues to present a live dispute about a parent's right to receive information about their child and whether a teacher may voluntarily offer information about their student's gender expression with a parent. Skipping footnotes here. Page 10 at the top. The dispute must be resolved against the legal backdrop of the federal constitutional right to direct the medical care and religious upbringing of a child, including the right to make important medical care decisions. While there are no genuine issues of material fact, the factual content is the case where a child's unusual gender expression may be a sign of psychological distress that may need treatment and the constitutional rights of parents to know. Okay, I was going to go to page 30 but that would make this I think this is a good place to stop is what I'm trying to say. Let me just briefly go through my notes here to verify that I can make another positive identification of a place to stop. Okay, yeah, so I think this is a nice place to stop in Roman numeral two. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment will get we'll pick up there next time. We'll break this up into different. It looks like we may have another few episodes here on this, which is fine and this one hasn't been too long. It's not an hour. It's 30 December 2025 years after Jesus. I think what I'm doing is I'm putting off going on a run and I'm just not going to put it off anymore. I got to get out there. Thanks for joining me. I've had an interesting year on the Republican professor and this was a great way to end it with this victory. This issue has caused quite a bit of consternation in California, including to me personally and I hope to be able to share that with you at some point. You want to check out the case of Jessica Topia at some point. Follow her on Instagram. Jessica spelled the normal way. Topia is T-A-P-I-A. You want to check her out. She was fired because the Democrat said you have to lie to parents and she wasn't willing to do that and she didn't have the benefit of this decision to protect her at the time. There's a host. There's probably thousands of students in California and administrators in California that have been hogtight essentially and forced to do things that they violate their conscience and they know is wrong but they've been put in a position where they're trying to they're basically in a morally compromising position because they have obligations to provide for their family and yet they also have obligations that the Democrats have foisted upon them to violate the natural moral law and that's not fun and so what Roger Benitez and the Republicans have done and we thank the Lord for this is that they've resolved that unnecessary tension and this isn't this is an example of the power that appropriate politics can have in creating the conditions for flourishing in a places that are dark and oppressed like California's so we press on with the faith that the Lord is with us and we can make a difference. We'll see you in 2026, Lord willing and I want you to have a good, safe new year. Make sure you wear a mask. See you.