Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:06.000]  Welcome to the vodcast. There's been a lot of opinions stated about the Restrict Act.
[00:06.000 --> 00:13.000]  So far, every opinion I've heard stated by members of the public has been wild-ass nonsense.
[00:13.000 --> 00:18.000]  By members of the public, I mean not only the average guy or gal who may comment about the act on social media,
[00:18.000 --> 00:21.000]  but also social media influencers.
[00:21.000 --> 00:29.000]  In fact, a lot of the nonsense I hear the average guy or gal saying can be traced back to social media influencers who have a ton of followers.
[00:29.000 --> 00:36.000]  In my opinion, people with hundreds of thousands or millions of followers should be a lot more responsible about what they say.
[00:36.000 --> 00:41.000]  But of course, that's not how the social media influencer business works, is it?
[00:41.000 --> 00:47.000]  To be a highly successful social media influencer, one must pander to the confirmation bias of the audience
[00:47.000 --> 00:51.000]  and then tell them things that make them experience strong emotions.
[00:51.000 --> 00:53.000]  That's where the money is.
[00:53.000 --> 00:57.000]  Whether what the influencer says is factual isn't even part of the formula,
[00:57.000 --> 01:03.000]  that dynamic has rarely been as apparent as it is concerning what's being said about the Restrict Act.
[01:03.000 --> 01:18.000]  The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion.
[01:18.000 --> 01:20.000]  Let's start with this.
[01:20.000 --> 01:28.000]  I've long said American high schoolers need at least one semester, if not more, of something we might call familiarization with law.
[01:28.000 --> 01:33.000]  The ridiculous claims I've seen about the Restrict Act demonstrate, yet again,
[01:33.000 --> 01:40.000]  that a lack of knowledge concerning how the law works results in people saying ignorant things while thinking they sound brilliant.
[01:40.000 --> 01:46.000]  In the course of this presentation, you'll learn something about how laws are structured, how they're written.
[01:46.000 --> 01:53.000]  But if you really want to get an education on the way laws are written, what they actually mean and how they really work,
[01:54.000 --> 01:56.000]  read my book, Income Tax Shattering the Miss.
[01:56.000 --> 02:05.000]  It is a masterclass on how the law actually works and the mechanisms legislative draftsmen use to make sure the law means one thing but you think it means another.
[02:05.000 --> 02:13.000]  I assure you that once you read Income Tax Shattering the Miss, no legal shenanigans by politicians will ever fool you again.
[02:13.000 --> 02:15.000]  What is the Restrict Act?
[02:15.000 --> 02:24.000]  That name is short for the full length title of the bill, which is Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information in Communications Technology Act.
[02:24.000 --> 02:32.000]  The next thing you should know is that this is the bill for which Congress was attempting to gin up public support by its recent committee hearing on TikTok.
[02:32.000 --> 02:37.000]  I recently did a video on that hearing and the claims made by Congress persons during the hearing.
[02:37.000 --> 02:39.000]  I'll put a link to that down in the show notes.
[02:39.000 --> 02:48.000]  Before I get into the meat of this discussion, I want you to know I take no position for or against the Restrict Act in this presentation.
[02:48.000 --> 02:51.000]  This presentation is for one purpose and one purpose only.
[02:51.000 --> 02:59.000]  The purpose is to put to rest the falsehoods I see all over social media concerning what the bill is and what it does.
[02:59.000 --> 03:01.000]  Do you want to support the bill?
[03:01.000 --> 03:02.000]  OK.
[03:02.000 --> 03:04.000]  Do you want to oppose the bill?
[03:04.000 --> 03:05.000]  OK.
[03:05.000 --> 03:11.000]  But how can you do either responsibly if you believe a bunch of moronic crap about it on social media?
[03:11.000 --> 03:16.000]  Isn't it better to make your decision based on facts, not ridiculous nonsense?
[03:16.000 --> 03:21.000]  There is a significant divide between what the Restrict Act does and what its critics say it does.
[03:21.000 --> 03:24.000]  Here are some of the claims I've heard about the Restrict Act.
[03:24.000 --> 03:30.000]  It's the most egregious expansion of federal authority since the Patriot Act.
[03:30.000 --> 03:33.000]  It's Patriot Act 2.0.
[03:33.000 --> 03:36.000]  That one seems to be the favorite of ultra-corrupted Aryans.
[03:36.000 --> 03:40.000]  If passed, it will end free speech in America.
[03:40.000 --> 03:46.000]  And its wording is so vague it can be applied to almost anyone for anything they do on the Internet.
[03:46.000 --> 03:53.000]  That last one, that its wording is so vague it can be applied to virtually anything, is the foundation of every other criticism of the bill.
[03:53.000 --> 03:55.000]  So that's what we'll be looking at today.
[03:55.000 --> 04:00.000]  Let me give you an example of the vagueness those folks claim exists.
[04:00.000 --> 04:02.000]  Section 2 is the definition section.
[04:02.000 --> 04:09.000]  Paragraph 3 defines a covered holding and reads as follows.
[04:09.000 --> 04:14.000]  Covered holding means regardless of how or when such holding was or will be obtained
[04:14.000 --> 04:23.000]  or otherwise come to have been held, a controlling holding held directly or indirectly in an ICTS covered holding entity by
[04:24.000 --> 04:35.000]  a foreign adversary, an entity subject to the jurisdiction of or organized under the laws of a foreign adversary or
[04:35.000 --> 04:42.000]  an entity owned, directed, or controlled by an entity described in paragraphs I and II.
[04:42.000 --> 04:49.000]  Includes any other holding, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act
[04:49.000 --> 04:52.000]  subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
[04:52.000 --> 04:53.000]  Close quote.
[04:53.000 --> 04:58.000]  Critics of the Act assert that that last sentence wherein it states includes any other holding
[04:58.000 --> 05:05.000]  expands the meaning beyond foreign holdings to any holding, including domestic companies.
[05:05.000 --> 05:11.000]  This is a perfect example of why it is so important to understand the rules by which laws are written
[05:11.000 --> 05:13.000]  and thus how they are to be interpreted by the courts.
[05:13.000 --> 05:18.000]  The practice is known as the Rules of Statutory Construction.
[05:18.000 --> 05:22.000]  If one does not know or understand the Rules of Statutory Construction,
[05:22.000 --> 05:28.000]  one will never be able to properly discern the meaning or boundaries of various laws.
[05:28.000 --> 05:32.000]  Many of the rules of construction are in the form of what are called legal maxims.
[05:32.000 --> 05:36.000]  Legal maxims are phrases that succinctly express a principle of law.
[05:36.000 --> 05:40.000]  One of those maxims is adjusdom generis.
[05:40.000 --> 05:45.000]  The reason I bring that up is adjusdom generis controls the meaning of that last sentence of the definition
[05:45.000 --> 05:49.000]  that its critics claim allows unconstrained expansion.
[05:49.000 --> 05:52.000]  Here is the meaning of adjusdom generis.
[05:52.000 --> 06:00.000]  Quote, where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general,
[06:00.000 --> 06:06.000]  the general statement only applies to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed.
[06:06.000 --> 06:08.000]  Close quote.
[06:08.000 --> 06:12.000]  Here's an example of adjusdom generis right out of the law dictionary.
[06:12.000 --> 06:18.000]  If a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-powered vehicles,
[06:18.000 --> 06:22.000]  the phrase other motor-powered vehicles would not include airplanes
[06:22.000 --> 06:26.000]  since the listed items are land-based transportation.
[06:26.000 --> 06:27.000]  Close quote.
[06:27.000 --> 06:28.000]  Got it?
[06:28.000 --> 06:33.000]  So when we apply adjusdom generis to the definition of covered holdings,
[06:33.000 --> 06:38.000]  in the final sentence the phrase any other holding, being general language,
[06:38.000 --> 06:42.000]  is limited to the class established by the listed items,
[06:42.000 --> 06:47.000]  and the listed items are holdings owned by foreign entities or controlled by foreign governments.
[06:47.000 --> 06:52.000]  In other words, when you read the phrase any other holdings, which is general language,
[06:52.000 --> 06:56.000]  it means any other holding that fits within the established class.
[06:56.000 --> 07:02.000]  Let me give you another example of the same maxim used in another statute, this one in tax law.
[07:02.000 --> 07:06.000]  Here's the definition of employee for the purpose of payroll withholding.
[07:06.000 --> 07:10.000]  It can be found at 26 USC 3401C, and it reads,
[07:27.000 --> 07:31.000]  The next sentence is general language, so before we consider the general statement,
[07:31.000 --> 07:35.000]  let's make sure we know the class established by the listed items.
[07:35.000 --> 07:37.000]  Let's hear the list again.
[07:54.000 --> 07:58.000]  Clearly the class established is people who work for government entities.
[07:58.000 --> 08:03.000]  I emphasize the word instrumentality because it's relevant to the general statement.
[08:04.000 --> 08:09.000]  Before I read you the general statement, what is an instrumentality as that word is used by government?
[08:09.000 --> 08:12.000]  Here is the definition used by the US government.
[08:33.000 --> 08:38.000]  With that understanding under your belt and recognizing that the class established by the listed items
[08:38.000 --> 08:41.000]  is people who work for various government entities,
[08:41.000 --> 08:45.000]  it's time to read the general statement that appears after the listed item.
[08:45.000 --> 08:47.000]  That statement is,
[08:48.000 --> 08:52.000]  So, if we apply a Judaism generis to that sentence,
[08:52.000 --> 08:55.000]  as we must to determine the proper meaning of its general language,
[08:55.000 --> 08:59.000]  corporation means a government instrumentality.
[08:59.000 --> 09:03.000]  Whether we're talking about the restrict act or the tax code,
[09:03.000 --> 09:07.000]  you can see how important it is to understand the general statement.
[09:07.000 --> 09:12.000]  The term employee also includes an officer of a corporation, close quote.
[09:12.000 --> 09:16.000]  Whether we're talking about the restrict act or the tax code,
[09:16.000 --> 09:21.000]  you can see how important a Judaism generis is in determining a statute's true meaning.
[09:21.000 --> 09:25.000]  More importantly, you can see how those who are unaware of a Judaism generis
[09:25.000 --> 09:29.000]  can come up with an inaccurate interpretation of what a statute means,
[09:29.000 --> 09:33.000]  as have a whole lot of social media influencers.
[09:33.000 --> 09:36.000]  Before I continue, I want to encourage you to subscribe to the channel,
[09:36.000 --> 09:39.000]  like this video, and share the hell out of it.
[09:39.000 --> 09:41.000]  If you haven't signed up on Rumble yet, consider doing so.
[09:41.000 --> 09:45.000]  YouTube censors truth while promoting government disinformation.
[09:45.000 --> 09:47.000]  I'm sure you don't want to be a part of that.
[09:47.000 --> 09:50.000]  So Rumble is a dedicated free speech platform.
[09:50.000 --> 09:52.000]  Now, back to the restrict act.
[09:52.000 --> 09:58.000]  A number of influencers and other expositors have used the fact that the restrict act mentions
[09:58.000 --> 10:00.000]  the Patriot Act
[10:00.000 --> 10:04.000]  to assert that the restrict act is no different than the Patriot Act.
[10:04.000 --> 10:06.000]  Not only are they flat out wrong,
[10:06.000 --> 10:12.000]  but again, it's the result of commenting on law without knowing how the law operates.
[10:12.000 --> 10:17.000]  The restrict act mentions the Patriot Act once when defining critical infrastructure
[10:17.000 --> 10:18.000]  and reads,
[10:37.000 --> 10:38.000]  Which reads,
[10:59.000 --> 11:03.000]  Why would the restrict act reference the definition in the Patriot Act
[11:03.000 --> 11:06.000]  rather than providing its own definition?
[11:06.000 --> 11:12.000]  Proposed legislation citing a definition in existing law is a very common practice.
[11:12.000 --> 11:17.000]  But people who know nothing about law conjure up all sorts of nefarious explanations for it.
[11:17.000 --> 11:20.000]  Why is the practice commonplace?
[11:20.000 --> 11:23.000]  Because with the number of laws that exist in this country,
[11:23.000 --> 11:26.000]  along with new laws constantly being proposed,
[11:26.000 --> 11:30.000]  if every law wrote its own definition for things already defined elsewhere,
[11:30.000 --> 11:37.000]  it would allow you to end up with 10 or 20 or 30 or more different definitions describing the same thing.
[11:37.000 --> 11:39.000]  How confusing would that make the law?
[11:39.000 --> 11:41.000]  In order to provide continuity in the law,
[11:41.000 --> 11:45.000]  proposed legislation will integrate existing definitions whenever possible.
[11:45.000 --> 11:50.000]  Sometimes Congress wants the same word defined differently in different areas of law
[11:50.000 --> 11:56.000]  in order to tailor the definitions to achieve a specific goal in a particular statute.
[11:56.000 --> 12:00.000]  Remember a moment ago you learned that employee for the purpose of payroll withholding
[12:00.000 --> 12:03.000]  is defined as people who work for various government entities?
[12:03.000 --> 12:07.000]  Is that the only definition of employee in income tax law?
[12:07.000 --> 12:08.000]  Not even close.
[12:08.000 --> 12:12.000]  There are a number of different definitions of employee throughout income tax law.
[12:12.000 --> 12:15.000]  I'll mention just one so you can see the difference.
[12:15.000 --> 12:21.000]  Section 7701A20 defines employee as a full-time life insurance salesman.
[12:21.000 --> 12:25.000]  Obviously that's worlds apart from the definition provided for payroll withholding.
[12:25.000 --> 12:31.000]  So, does using a statutory definition already in existence, in this case from the Patriot Act,
[12:31.000 --> 12:35.000]  mean the new legislation is in any way similar to the Patriot Act?
[12:35.000 --> 12:37.000]  No, not at all.
[12:37.000 --> 12:42.000]  One thing I noticed that drama queen influencers and expositors never discuss
[12:42.000 --> 12:47.000]  is the language that establishes clear guardrails for the application of the Act.
[12:47.000 --> 12:51.000]  That language is found in section 3 and reads as follows,
[12:51.000 --> 12:56.000]  The Secretary, in consultation with relevant executive department and agency's heads,
[12:56.000 --> 13:01.000]  is authorized to and shall take action to identify, deter, disrupt, prevent,
[13:01.000 --> 13:06.000]  prohibit, investigate or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into
[13:06.000 --> 13:11.000]  or imposing and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from
[13:11.000 --> 13:16.000]  any covered transaction by any person or with respect to any property subject to the
[13:16.000 --> 13:20.000]  jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines,
[13:20.000 --> 13:25.000]  poses an undue or unacceptable risk of,
[13:25.000 --> 13:31.000]  sabotage or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution,
[13:31.000 --> 13:35.000]  installation, operation or maintenance of information and communication technology products
[13:35.000 --> 13:38.000]  and services in the United States.
[13:38.000 --> 13:42.000]  Catastrophic effects on the security or resilience of critical infrastructure
[13:42.000 --> 13:45.000]  or digital economy of the United States.
[13:45.000 --> 13:49.000]  Interfering in or altering the results or reported results of federal elections
[13:49.000 --> 13:54.000]  as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence
[13:54.000 --> 13:57.000]  and the Secretary of the Treasury and Federal Election Commission.
[13:57.000 --> 14:02.000]  Or, coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine
[14:02.000 --> 14:07.000]  the democratic process and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions
[14:07.000 --> 14:12.000]  in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment
[14:12.000 --> 14:15.000]  of the national security of the United States.
[14:15.000 --> 14:19.000]  Determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence
[14:19.000 --> 14:22.000]  and the Secretary of the Treasury and Federal Election Commission
[14:22.000 --> 14:27.000]  or otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States
[14:27.000 --> 14:30.000]  or the safety of United States persons.
[14:30.000 --> 14:33.000]  Whew! Close quote.
[14:33.000 --> 14:36.000]  The last part of that sentence that says,
[14:36.000 --> 14:41.000]  or otherwise poses an undue, unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States
[14:41.000 --> 14:46.000]  or the safety of United States persons is another part uneducated people claim
[14:46.000 --> 14:51.000]  expands the acts reached to virtually anyone, including U.S. citizens and U.S. companies.
[14:51.000 --> 14:53.000]  And that's not factual.
[14:53.000 --> 14:58.000]  If we go back to the opening paragraph, it says the purpose of the act is to mitigate, quote,
[14:58.000 --> 15:04.000]  any risk arising from any covered transaction.
[15:04.000 --> 15:07.000]  What is a covered transaction?
[15:07.000 --> 15:13.000]  It's a transaction engaged in by a covered holding, the definition of which we discussed earlier.
[15:13.000 --> 15:18.000]  In other words, a covered transaction is a transaction engaged in by a foreign adversary
[15:18.000 --> 15:23.000]  or an entity subject to the jurisdiction of or organized under the laws of a foreign adversary
[15:23.000 --> 15:27.000]  or any entity owned, directed, or controlled by either of the foregoing.
[15:28.000 --> 15:37.000]  Accordingly, every word of Section 3 pertains exclusively to the actions of a foreign adversary
[15:37.000 --> 15:42.000]  or an entity subject to the jurisdiction of or organized under the laws of a foreign adversary
[15:42.000 --> 15:46.000]  or an entity owned, directed, or controlled by either of the foregoing.
[15:46.000 --> 15:51.000]  The act does not apply to U.S. citizens or U.S. companies at all.
[15:51.000 --> 15:55.000]  In fact, the act doesn't even target foreign entities or foreign persons
[15:55.000 --> 16:02.000]  unless or until the Secretary of Commerce determines a foreign person or company is a foreign adversary,
[16:02.000 --> 16:08.000]  which means the Secretary determined, in consultation with other relative executive branch officials,
[16:08.000 --> 16:11.000]  that a foreign person or entity has, quote,
[16:11.000 --> 16:15.000]  engaged in a long-term pattern of serious instances of conduct
[16:15.000 --> 16:19.000]  significantly adverse to the national security of the United States
[16:19.000 --> 16:23.000]  or the security and safety of United States persons, close quote.
[16:23.000 --> 16:28.000]  I hope it's obvious to you at this point that the kooky claims about the restrict act
[16:28.000 --> 16:33.000]  made by influencers and others on social media are not remotely factual.
[16:33.000 --> 16:38.000]  Has this presentation been idiosyncratic and perhaps tedious?
[16:38.000 --> 16:41.000]  Welcome to the law.
[16:41.000 --> 16:46.000]  Today I've covered only a couple of the mechanisms within the rules of statutory construction.
[16:46.000 --> 16:49.000]  There are many, many more.
[16:50.000 --> 16:51.000]  Okay, show of hands.
[16:51.000 --> 16:56.000]  How many of you want to take the time out of your busy life to study the rules of statutory construction
[16:56.000 --> 17:02.000]  so that you know every mechanism, every ploy politicians use when crafting laws?
[17:02.000 --> 17:04.000]  Right. Close to no one.
[17:04.000 --> 17:05.000]  And guess what?
[17:05.000 --> 17:10.000]  That's why the vast majority of Americans don't really know what's going on in this country.
[17:10.000 --> 17:12.000]  People like to think they know what's going on,
[17:12.000 --> 17:17.000]  but unless you understand exactly what those assholes in D.C. are passing into law,
[17:17.000 --> 17:21.000]  you only see the circus the politicians put on for you.
[17:21.000 --> 17:23.000]  All that talk at the committee hearing about banning TikTok?
[17:23.000 --> 17:27.000]  Guess what? Congress has no interest in banning TikTok.
[17:27.000 --> 17:33.000]  The hearing was a circus big top act to gin up public support for the restrict act.
[17:33.000 --> 17:35.000]  Which do you choose to focus on?
[17:35.000 --> 17:38.000]  The circus acts Congress puts on, which the media shows you,
[17:38.000 --> 17:42.000]  or what Congress is really doing?
[17:42.000 --> 17:44.000]  If you want to know what Congress is really doing,
[17:44.000 --> 17:49.000]  you need to be able to understand the true meaning of the laws Congress passes.
[17:49.000 --> 17:50.000]  As you've learned today,
[17:50.000 --> 17:54.000]  there is a significant difference between the circus acts put on by Congress
[17:54.000 --> 17:59.000]  and social media influencers and what a law actually means.
[17:59.000 --> 18:02.000]  Keeping you focused on the circus act is how they manipulate you
[18:02.000 --> 18:05.000]  for the purpose of manufacturing consent.
[18:05.000 --> 18:07.000]  In other words, it's how they play you.
[18:07.000 --> 18:13.000]  And you will continue getting played until you know how to read and understand law properly,
[18:13.000 --> 18:16.000]  a glimpse of which you've had today.
[18:16.000 --> 18:18.000]  Income Tax Shatter the Mist was not written to provide you
[18:18.000 --> 18:20.000]  with the legal tricks and gimmicks government uses
[18:20.000 --> 18:23.000]  to ensure you don't know the true meaning of laws.
[18:23.000 --> 18:27.000]  However, because income tax statutes were intentionally written to obfuscate the truth
[18:27.000 --> 18:32.000]  and confuse the American people using virtually every legal trick and gimmick in the book,
[18:32.000 --> 18:35.000]  I educate the reader on those tricks and gimmicks.
[18:35.000 --> 18:40.000]  In other words, so readers can understand the income tax scam the government has pulled,
[18:40.000 --> 18:43.000]  they had to be able to see, with their own eyes,
[18:43.000 --> 18:49.000]  the tricks and gimmicks used when writing statutes with the intent of obfuscating.
[18:49.000 --> 18:53.000]  The good news is pretty much every legal trick and gimmick used
[18:53.000 --> 18:56.000]  to keep you from understanding the proper meaning of statutes
[18:56.000 --> 19:00.000]  is laid out and explained in Income Tax Shatter the Mist.
[19:00.000 --> 19:04.000]  In other words, whether you want to learn the truth about the government's income tax scam
[19:04.000 --> 19:09.000]  or simply want a master class concerning how government employs these legal tricks and gimmicks
[19:09.000 --> 19:15.000]  to fool the American people, you will find Income Tax Shatter the Mist an invaluable resource.
[19:15.000 --> 19:20.000]  You can get your copy of Income Tax Shatter the Mist by going to DrReality.News.
[19:20.000 --> 19:23.000]  DrReality.News, I'll put the link in the show notes.
[19:23.000 --> 19:26.000]  While you're there, take a look at body science.
[19:26.000 --> 19:29.000]  There is a commonality between law and physiology
[19:29.000 --> 19:33.000]  in that both use language with which the public is often unfamiliar.
[19:33.000 --> 19:37.000]  And sadly, just as with law, the unique language of science
[19:37.000 --> 19:40.000]  can be used to obfuscate and confuse.
[19:40.000 --> 19:44.000]  Body science details the exact and specific reasons.
[19:44.000 --> 19:46.000]  With a long list of particulars,
[19:46.000 --> 19:52.000]  the American people are the most ill society in all of human history.
[19:52.000 --> 19:54.000]  Think about that.
[19:54.000 --> 19:58.000]  With all of America's science and technological prowess,
[19:58.000 --> 20:03.000]  instead of being the healthiest people on the planet, Americans are the sickest.
[20:03.000 --> 20:06.000]  Do you think that's just happenstance?
[20:06.000 --> 20:09.000]  It's not. At all.
[20:09.000 --> 20:12.000]  If you'd like to find out the truth about America's decline
[20:12.000 --> 20:15.000]  into being the most diseased people in history
[20:15.000 --> 20:19.000]  and how to turn that around for you and the people you love,
[20:19.000 --> 20:22.000]  you only need to read one book, Body Science.
[20:22.000 --> 20:25.000]  Also, by purchasing Income Tax Shatter the Mist and or Body Science,
[20:25.000 --> 20:30.000]  you help me to continue to be here for you with these thought-provoking presentations.
[20:30.000 --> 20:33.000]  Please share this podcast.
[20:33.000 --> 20:35.000]  Thanks for being here. Take care.
[20:36.000 --> 20:41.000]  BODY SCIENCE