Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:05.720] Welcome to the vodcast. As you're hearing my voice today, the Internal Revenue Service [00:05.720 --> 00:12.520] is violating well-settled constitutional law, and the U.S. Supreme Court just accepted a [00:12.520 --> 00:18.100] case challenging what the IRS is doing. It would be difficult to overstate the changes [00:18.100 --> 00:22.420] that would occur in the United States tax system if the Supreme Court gets this one [00:22.420 --> 00:28.880] wrong. The bottom line is, if the court gets this one wrong, Congress will be able to tax [00:28.880 --> 00:35.160] anything and everything at any time, and you'll have no recourse. Americans will see their [00:35.160 --> 00:41.900] tax burden skyrocket. The good news is that well-settled Supreme Court case law on the [00:41.900 --> 00:46.900] subject is substantial and unequivocal. Let's take a look. [00:51.560 --> 00:54.560] The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion. [00:58.880 --> 01:07.700] Let's start with this. There haven't been any changes to the U.S. Constitution regarding [01:07.700 --> 01:13.600] the limits placed on Congress concerning federal taxation. The limits on taxation and the Constitution [01:13.600 --> 01:21.220] make what the IRS is doing blatantly unconstitutional. So, why are they doing it? What the IRS is [01:21.220 --> 01:26.920] doing is pursuant to a plan hatched by Joe Biden and Janet Yellen, Biden's Secretary [01:26.920 --> 01:33.720] of the Treasury. Their plan hopes to achieve an end run by judicial fiat around the limits [01:33.720 --> 01:38.880] the Constitution places on Congress's taxing authority. In other words, while the Constitution [01:38.880 --> 01:43.680] can be changed through the amendment process, that requires a majority of Americans to support [01:43.680 --> 01:50.200] a proposed change. Biden knows he could never get the American people to remove the taxing [01:50.200 --> 01:55.400] limits in the Constitution, so he wants the courts to do what the American people would [01:55.400 --> 02:02.880] refuse. Coincidentally, I spoke about just that roughly a month ago in this segment. There are [02:02.880 --> 02:09.520] two camps on constitutional interpretation. One is the originalist view, holding the documents [02:09.520 --> 02:13.760] mean exactly what the men who wrote it intended when they wrote the words and the states ratified [02:13.760 --> 02:19.280] those words. The originalist model also seeks to identify the principles of liberty and good [02:19.280 --> 02:24.400] governance behind the Constitution's wording and carry those principles forward into our modern [02:24.400 --> 02:29.520] circumstances. An example of that would be the principle of freedom of the press. It exists just [02:29.520 --> 02:34.960] as much today when we employ computers, super high speed industrial printing, or an online digital [02:34.960 --> 02:40.960] presence as when cutting edge technology was a hand cranked wooden printing press. The other [02:40.960 --> 02:46.240] model is the living document theory, which takes the view that in order for the Constitution to be [02:46.240 --> 02:52.640] durable over the long haul, the original meaning of the founders must give way to new interpretations [02:52.640 --> 02:58.400] based on the circumstances of modern society. As I'm speaking with you today, I'm 63 years old and [02:58.400 --> 03:05.360] I've only ever seen the living document model advance with two goals intended. One is to alter [03:05.360 --> 03:10.080] the form of the federal government from a representative democracy to some other form. The [03:10.080 --> 03:15.440] second is to do away with certain rights belonging to we the people or substantially truncate them. [03:16.160 --> 03:23.360] In my opinion, the living document model is despicable. Here's why. If people want to change [03:23.360 --> 03:28.880] the form of the federal government, okay, the Constitution contains a means of doing exactly [03:28.880 --> 03:34.160] that. It's called the amendment process. The Constitution literally contains instructions [03:34.160 --> 03:39.760] about how we the people can alter anything we want in the Constitution. A proposed amendment [03:39.760 --> 03:44.560] requires ratification by two thirds of the states to become part of the Constitution. [03:44.560 --> 03:51.120] So for simplicity of illustration, if we say the population of all states is equal, then at this [03:51.120 --> 03:57.760] moment in time, it would require 222,500,000 Americans to agree that making a particular [03:57.760 --> 04:04.800] modification to the Constitution is what we want. By contrast, those who support the living document [04:04.800 --> 04:12.400] model seek to reduce the number of Americans needed to make a change from 220,500,000 to only [04:12.400 --> 04:18.400] the nine Supreme Court justices or more accurately, five of the nine justices. Basically, [04:18.400 --> 04:24.800] they're looking to overthrow the U.S. Constitution by judicial fiat. The other reason I find the [04:24.800 --> 04:29.600] living document model despicable is the Founding Fathers were crystal clear that the government [04:29.600 --> 04:34.400] is not the source of our rights. In the earliest days of our nation, the Supreme Court held that [04:34.400 --> 04:39.760] our rights existed antecedent to the formation of the states or the federal government. Therefore, [04:39.760 --> 04:44.480] the states and the federal government have no authority to alter or abolish those rights. [04:45.120 --> 04:50.080] Yet the goal of those who support the living document model is to eradicate or severely [04:50.080 --> 04:55.600] truncate rights they don't like and don't want you exercising. And again, in a nation of 334 [04:55.600 --> 05:02.400] million people, they want just five people to eradicate or truncate your rights. In that clip, [05:02.400 --> 05:09.600] I mentioned rights. And you may be thinking this issue doesn't involve rights. And you'd be wrong [05:09.600 --> 05:16.080] about that. The American people have the right of property. The Founding Fathers spoke extensively [05:16.080 --> 05:21.280] of that right as essential to the meaning and enjoyment of personal liberty. While all taxation [05:21.280 --> 05:28.080] is, in its nature, an intrusion upon that right, the federal constitution in particular limits [05:28.080 --> 05:34.080] Congress's authority to intrude into your right of property. Now that you understand the tactic [05:34.080 --> 05:40.160] Biden is using, let me be clear with you about the gravity of the situation we face. If we analogize [05:40.160 --> 05:44.960] Congress's taxing authority to the authority police have when interacting with you, for the [05:44.960 --> 05:50.800] Supreme Court to accept Biden's unconstitutional action, it would be the equivalent of alleviating [05:50.800 --> 05:55.440] the police from needing reasonable suspicion to detain you, probable cause to arrest you, [05:55.440 --> 06:02.320] or a warrant to search your home. It is that critical. If the Supreme Court gets this one wrong, [06:02.320 --> 06:08.560] it will be crossing a red line from which America will never find its way back without violence. [06:09.520 --> 06:16.080] Those are strong words, yes? So what qualifies me to make such a pronouncement? I'm the author [06:16.080 --> 06:22.160] of Income Tax Shattering the Mist, which is the product of 17 years of research that tells the [06:22.160 --> 06:27.760] American people the truth about what income tax law actually says, which is that Congress has never [06:27.760 --> 06:32.880] imposed the income tax on ordinary working Americans. That it does apply to ordinary working [06:32.880 --> 06:38.480] Americans is a myth propagated by 60 years of government disinformation and propaganda. [06:38.480 --> 06:43.600] Before I get into what the law says relevant to the matter we're discussing today, let me tell you [06:43.600 --> 06:49.520] I haven't filed an income tax return or paid a penny of income tax in 30 years. I've been [06:49.520 --> 06:53.360] informing the American people about the truth of the income tax for more than 20 years, [06:53.360 --> 06:59.760] and I authored the best-selling book in America on the subject. Yet, here I sit, unmolested by the [06:59.760 --> 07:05.920] government. Why? Because when you know what tax law really says, as opposed to having accepted [07:05.920 --> 07:10.800] the idiotic false narrative put out by the government, the government will leave you alone. [07:10.800 --> 07:15.920] But you do absolutely need to know what the law really says. This is not one of those things you [07:15.920 --> 07:20.880] can just wing. You need to see the law with your own eyes. Once you know what the law says, [07:21.600 --> 07:26.400] you can walk away safely from the government scam. I share all of that to make the point [07:26.400 --> 07:30.560] that I know more about the origins, meaning, and limitations of Congress's taxing authority than [07:30.560 --> 07:36.000] almost anyone in the country. I'm certainly the most knowledgeable person on those matters in the [07:36.000 --> 07:42.400] private sector. With that behind us, I should tell you Biden won this case in both the district court [07:42.400 --> 07:47.520] and at the Ninth Circuit Court, so the Supreme Court is our last stand. [07:48.480 --> 07:54.480] Can we trust the Supreme Court to get it right? That's a tough question. I'm sure you've heard of [07:54.480 --> 07:58.960] the 16th Amendment, even if you're not sure what it is or what it did. I'll say two things today [07:58.960 --> 08:04.400] about the 16th. First, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Amendment did not do anything [08:04.400 --> 08:09.920] like what high school history books say it did. What you find in high school textbooks is part of [08:09.920 --> 08:15.600] the massive government disinformation campaign I mentioned a moment ago. Second, and more germane [08:15.600 --> 08:22.640] to this discussion, the 16th was necessary because the Supreme Court made an incorrect decision about [08:22.640 --> 08:28.480] the income tax in 1895 in the Pollock case. The 16th was needed to correct the improper holding [08:28.480 --> 08:33.760] in Pollock. My point is that when you wonder whether the current Supreme Court can be trusted [08:33.760 --> 08:39.120] to make the right decision, you should know that an earlier Supreme Court got it wrong. The good [08:39.120 --> 08:46.560] news is that in a series of cases after Pollock between 1916 and roughly the early 1930s, the [08:46.560 --> 08:51.760] court made up for that early error with a slew of accurate and precise holdings concerning Congress's [08:51.760 --> 09:00.560] limited ability to tax the American people. Quick, name one of those cases! Sorry, but I had to do [09:00.560 --> 09:06.480] that to drive home the point that Americans are completely ignorant of what income tax law says [09:06.480 --> 09:12.400] and how limited Congress's taxing authority is. In the course of showing you why Biden's actions [09:12.400 --> 09:17.440] are unconstitutional, you're going to learn about some of those limitations today. Before I move [09:17.440 --> 09:21.920] forward, I need to point out that while Biden and his Secretary of the Treasury initiated this [09:21.920 --> 09:28.320] unconstitutional action, they are not doing so in a vacuum. They are relying on a statute passed by a [09:29.600 --> 09:34.640] Republican Congress in 2017 and signed by Donald Trump, a Republican president. [09:35.280 --> 09:42.000] I tried to warn people about the problems with the GOP tax bill in 2017, but as usual, Americans had [09:42.000 --> 09:46.320] zero interest in actually reading the bill because it was easier to just believe the media when it [09:46.320 --> 09:51.680] told them they'd get a tax cut. Among a number of problems with that legislation, we now find ourselves [09:51.680 --> 09:58.480] facing a constitutional crisis because of it. With all that said, I'm encouraged by the fact [09:58.480 --> 10:02.880] that the Supreme Court decided to hear the matter because if the justices agreed with the Ninth [10:02.880 --> 10:07.920] Circuit, the court could have simply rejected the case and the Ninth's decision would stand. [10:08.960 --> 10:14.800] They didn't do that. So what is this unconstitutional action being pursued by [10:14.800 --> 10:19.760] the Biden administration and supported by Republicans who passed the legislation and the GOP president [10:19.760 --> 10:25.760] who signed it into law? What the law purports to permit is the government to tax you on income [10:26.400 --> 10:34.960] you have not received. How's that for nifty? Imagine you were entitled to a significant [10:34.960 --> 10:40.160] payout on a project down the road, but the IRS decides it's going to tax you on that payment [10:40.160 --> 10:46.320] now even though you haven't received the income. Where would you get the money to pay a tax on money [10:46.320 --> 10:53.680] you haven't received? This is not hypothetical. This court case exists because the IRS did exactly [10:53.680 --> 10:58.720] that. The IRS sent a married couple a tax bill for money concerning which the couple had not taken [10:58.720 --> 11:04.560] possession. To put it in a way you're going to hear in case law, under Biden the IRS is taxing [11:04.560 --> 11:09.360] gains on investment capital even though the gains remain in the custody of a third party [11:09.360 --> 11:14.720] and have not yet been separated from the capital for the taxpayers' use. And as you're about to see, [11:15.440 --> 11:22.640] that is 100% in opposition to the decisions of the Supreme Court. But more importantly, [11:22.640 --> 11:26.400] in those decisions the Supreme Court is articulating the constitutional boundaries [11:26.400 --> 11:32.640] of Congress's power to tax. The Court is confirming the limits the Constitution imposes on Congress. [11:32.640 --> 11:37.280] I hope every American is aware that in Norton v. Shelby County the Supreme Court held that quote, [11:38.080 --> 11:43.920] an unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers no right. It imposes no duties. It affords no [11:43.920 --> 11:49.920] protection. It creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never [11:49.920 --> 11:57.200] been passed. Close quote. In other words, while the Republicans pass this abortion into law, [11:57.200 --> 12:02.720] Biden is violating the Constitution and his oath of office by enforcing it on the American people. [12:02.720 --> 12:10.080] And Biden is knowingly doing so because the case law is crystal clear. In April of 2022 I discussed [12:10.080 --> 12:14.640] this exact matter. I discussed what the Supreme Court has said about whether the government has [12:14.640 --> 12:18.800] the constitutional authority to tax gains that have not been separated from capital. [12:19.520 --> 12:23.520] Before I share that with you, I want you to know I'm going to send a copy of Income Tax [12:23.520 --> 12:29.120] Shattering the Mist to the plaintiff's attorney to ensure he knows everything you're going to learn [12:29.120 --> 12:33.600] right now. And with that, let's get into what the Supreme Court has said on this subject thus [12:33.600 --> 12:42.080] confirming Biden is knowingly violating the law. Enjoy. About two years ago I did a presentation [12:42.160 --> 12:47.920] on capital gains. Who owes it? And again, more importantly, who doesn't? [12:48.640 --> 12:53.680] Second, if you're unfamiliar with the Supreme Court's various decisions over the decades about [12:53.680 --> 12:58.320] matters such as direct tax and indirect tax that pertains to the income tax, [12:58.320 --> 13:02.880] some of the quotes I'm going to share with you may lack meaningful context because you're [13:02.880 --> 13:07.120] unfamiliar with what the court was actually trying to say. But just go with it in terms of the [13:07.120 --> 13:12.800] definition of income, which is what we're talking about. Whenever we consider the income tax, there [13:12.800 --> 13:19.280] are three factors or three elements that bear upon the legality, the constitutionality of income [13:19.280 --> 13:26.560] tax. The first is Congress's inherent right to impose a tax on certain people for certain [13:26.560 --> 13:31.920] activities. Number two, the slight modification made by the 16th Amendment and number three, [13:31.920 --> 13:37.360] the various tax acts passed after the adoption of the 16th Amendment. The good news is we don't [13:37.360 --> 13:41.840] need to get into all that in order to discuss the meaning and definition of income for the purpose [13:41.840 --> 13:46.240] of the income tax. All we have to do is look at what the United States Supreme Court has said. [13:47.120 --> 13:52.240] Let's start with Merchant Loan and Trust v. Smetanka. Its site, if you want to look it up [13:52.240 --> 13:59.520] and read for yourself, is 255 U.S. 509, United States Supreme Court 1921. And here's a quote, [14:00.160 --> 14:07.040] income must be given the same meaning in all the income tax acts of Congress than it was given [14:07.040 --> 14:15.040] in the corporate excise tax act. And what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the [14:15.040 --> 14:23.200] decisions of this court. Close quote. The Merchant Court continues with this quote, [14:23.200 --> 14:27.920] in determining the definition of the word income thus arrived at, this court has consistently [14:27.920 --> 14:32.960] refused to enter into the refinements of lexographers and economists, and has approved, [14:32.960 --> 14:38.800] in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term, [14:38.800 --> 14:43.840] which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the 16th Amendment [14:43.840 --> 14:48.800] to the Constitution. Close quote. In other words, Merchant, the United States Supreme Court, [14:48.800 --> 14:55.200] was saying that the term income, the meaning of the term income, had to be the same as in the [14:55.200 --> 15:04.000] Corporate Tax Act of 1909, as in the tax acts of 1913, 1916, and 1917. Now, the important part [15:04.000 --> 15:12.000] about this is that the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913, the early part of 1913. So, the Corporate [15:12.000 --> 15:18.720] Excise Tax Act of 1909 was pre-16th Amendment, and the other three tax acts that the court is [15:18.720 --> 15:24.000] considering in Merchant were post-enactment of the 16th Amendment. And what the court is saying is [15:24.000 --> 15:29.520] that the definition of income has to be consistent through all of those acts. In other words, [15:29.520 --> 15:34.400] the meaning that it was given before the 16th Amendment is the same meaning it has after the [15:34.400 --> 15:38.560] 16th Amendment, because when the people of the United States adopted the 16th Amendment, [15:38.560 --> 15:43.760] the definition that was applicable to the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909, to quote the court, [15:43.760 --> 15:48.800] must have been in their minds. The next case relevant to our inquiry is Eisner v. McComber. [15:48.800 --> 15:54.080] Again, the citation, if you want to look it up and read for yourself, is 252 U.S. 189. It was [15:54.080 --> 15:59.840] decided in 1920. Since we're talking about cases that were decided back in the early 20th century, [15:59.840 --> 16:06.400] I want to take a moment to share that these are still good decisional law in the United States. [16:06.400 --> 16:10.560] The Supreme Court has not reversed any of these cases, either in whole or in part. [16:10.560 --> 16:16.400] So, these stand, as I'm recording this in 2021, as the law of the land. All right, so onto the text [16:16.400 --> 16:25.360] from Eisner v. McComber. Income is derived from capital, the gain derived from capital, etc. [16:26.080 --> 16:31.520] Here we have the essential matter, not gain accruing to capital, not growth or incremental [16:31.520 --> 16:38.320] of value in the investment, but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, [16:39.200 --> 16:47.200] severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in being, quote, derived, [16:47.760 --> 16:56.000] that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal. [16:56.720 --> 17:03.280] That is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description. [17:04.000 --> 17:08.240] We can clearly see that the court has determined the definition of income in terms of [17:08.320 --> 17:13.840] being able to tax income is that the gain or profit from an investment must be, to quote the court, [17:14.720 --> 17:21.280] received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal. [17:22.080 --> 17:29.120] Janet Yellen. Really? Unrealized capital gains? The Supreme Court has said unrealized gains [17:29.120 --> 17:33.760] are not income subject to taxation. Now, let's discuss one of the key restrictions that the [17:33.760 --> 17:38.480] founding fathers built into the federal government's ability to tax. That comes [17:38.480 --> 17:42.720] from Bruce Schaber v. Union Pacific Railroad. Again, the citation, if you want to look it up [17:42.720 --> 17:50.640] and read it for yourself, is 240 U.S. 1. This case is from 1916 and, quote, quoting the court, [17:50.640 --> 17:55.520] concluding that the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it [17:56.320 --> 18:04.000] impossible to burden by taxation accumulation of property, real or personal, [18:04.640 --> 18:10.320] except subject to the regulation of apportionment. In other words, the Supreme Court is saying that [18:10.320 --> 18:15.440] the income tax cannot be used to burden the accumulation of property or phrased a way that [18:15.440 --> 18:21.120] might make more sense here in 2021. The court was saying that the income tax cannot be used [18:21.120 --> 18:27.200] to burden the accumulation of wealth. And this from Bruce Schaber, quote, [18:27.200 --> 18:33.120] Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case recognized the fact that [18:33.120 --> 18:39.600] taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such, [18:40.160 --> 18:46.000] unless or until it was concluded that the that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the [18:46.000 --> 18:51.040] result, which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation. I'll translate that for you. [18:51.680 --> 18:57.120] The court was saying that the income tax is an excise. We're going to get into that in a moment. [18:57.120 --> 19:04.400] And it's entitled to be enforced as an excise until enforcing the tax that's supposed to be [19:04.400 --> 19:10.960] an excise actually burdens the accumulation of wealth. At that point, it fails to be an excise. [19:11.760 --> 19:18.480] All of the exact, specific and complex reasons that that is true, you'll have to find an income [19:18.480 --> 19:24.000] tax to generate the best. I can't do it here in a video. You can't translate 408 pages into a [19:24.000 --> 19:28.800] video. So just roll with me on this for now. In those quotes from Bruce Schaber, you heard the [19:28.800 --> 19:32.160] court talk about direct and indirect taxes. So let's talk about direct for a moment. [19:32.720 --> 19:38.400] Direct taxes under the federal system are more narrow than the generalized term direct taxes. [19:38.400 --> 19:43.760] Direct taxes as that term was meant by the founding fathers when they placed it in the [19:43.760 --> 19:51.520] United States Constitution meant a tax on land or slaves. That was confirmed in the 1796 Hilesand [19:51.520 --> 19:57.360] case and again in the 1895 Pollock case. And of course, since the 13th amendment, obviously, [19:57.360 --> 20:04.640] there's no more slaves. So a direct tax for the purpose of federal taxation applies exclusively [20:04.640 --> 20:09.520] to land. When we consider the income tax, there's either direct or indirect. And as we've just [20:09.520 --> 20:15.520] discussed, there is no federal direct tax. So the income tax must be an indirect tax. [20:15.520 --> 20:18.960] And there are several forms of indirect taxation. But when it comes to the income tax, [20:18.960 --> 20:24.400] the only one that's relevant is something called an excise tax. So the court has already stated in [20:24.400 --> 20:29.520] one of the previous quotes that we heard that the income tax is in its nature an excise. So [20:30.160 --> 20:35.600] what is an excise tax? Well, according to the federal courts, this from American Airways v. [20:35.600 --> 20:43.040] Wallace, quote, The term excise tax and privilege tax are synonymous to are often used [20:43.040 --> 20:48.320] interchangeably, close quote. As an aside, were you aware that working for somebody else or hiring [20:48.320 --> 20:52.480] people to work for you has been adjudicated by the federal courts to be a constitutionally [20:52.480 --> 21:00.080] protected right? It is a fundamental right. It's not a privilege. So if it's not a privilege, [21:00.720 --> 21:04.960] then how can an excise tax, which is a privilege tax, we just heard that from the federal court, [21:04.960 --> 21:10.800] then how come how can money be taken out of your paycheck to pay an excise privilege tax for [21:10.800 --> 21:18.240] something which is when you do it, a fundamental right? The answer is as simple as it's probably [21:18.240 --> 21:25.920] going to be disturbing to you. It's because you filled out a form W four, which is you attesting [21:25.920 --> 21:32.720] under penalty of perjury that you are in this tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of people for whom [21:32.720 --> 21:37.040] earning a living in the United States is not a right but a privilege, therefore subject to the [21:37.040 --> 21:42.800] income tax. So you signed under penalty of perjury that you're in that tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny group [21:42.800 --> 21:48.160] of people for whom earning a living in the United States is not a right but a privilege. Along the [21:48.160 --> 21:53.760] same lines, owning a business and performing whatever it is you, your business does for other [21:53.760 --> 22:01.360] people or other companies is also a constitutionally protected right, not a privilege. So how is the [22:01.440 --> 22:08.000] fruits of that subject to an excise privilege tax, the income tax, when all you're doing is [22:08.000 --> 22:12.480] exercising a fundamental right, and of course we know that no government within the United States [22:12.480 --> 22:19.040] can tax any right, so how is it that what you do is taxed as a privilege when it's actually a right? [22:19.040 --> 22:25.440] Well, just like people who work for others, people who own businesses fill out a form W nine, [22:26.080 --> 22:32.720] which again is them attesting under penalty of perjury that they are in this small, small, [22:32.720 --> 22:39.360] small group of people for whom earning a living within the United States is a privilege, not a [22:39.360 --> 22:48.160] right. It's all right there in the law, you've just never read it. But back to the definition of income. [22:49.120 --> 22:59.280] Why has the Supreme Court defined income? Well, that's because there is no definition for income [22:59.840 --> 23:08.880] in the tax code. Imagine a body of law that purports to tax income that never defines income. [23:08.880 --> 23:13.680] Yes, my friends, it's all part of the government's flim-flam that's been run on you for your entire [23:13.760 --> 23:20.080] life concerning income taxation and what you think it is because you've been socialized to [23:20.080 --> 23:25.040] believe this and such, what you think it is versus what it really is when you read the law. [23:25.680 --> 23:31.840] And if you'd like to know more about that, a lot more about that, I want to encourage you to go [23:31.840 --> 23:38.320] to DrReality.News, pick yourself up a copy of Income Tax Shattering the Mist, but I have to warn [23:38.320 --> 23:46.080] you, you are going to be pissed off. When you see the evidence, when you see what the law really [23:46.080 --> 23:53.600] says, and when you determine what the government has actually done and how they have lied to an [23:53.600 --> 23:57.200] entire nation committing what I refer to as the largest financial crime in the history of the [23:57.200 --> 24:03.600] world, you are going to be pissed. Now, what you do about that is up to you. I don't know how many, [24:03.600 --> 24:08.400] tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people have looked at the Income Tax Shattering [24:08.400 --> 24:14.320] the Mist and chosen to leave the system. You may not be that guy, but you should know, should you [24:14.320 --> 24:19.840] not, what the truth is and that the government is running a flim-flam on you. And while you're at [24:19.840 --> 24:27.760] DrReality.News, there's two other things that might be very useful to you. One is the Withholding Guide [24:27.760 --> 24:34.240] for Businesses, which talks about the truth. It's very short. It's at 13, 14 pages. I designed it so [24:34.240 --> 24:37.840] that people who want to leave the system can take that to their payroll department, to their boss, [24:37.840 --> 24:42.480] depending on circumstances, and show it to them and say, look, it's very short, 13 to 14 pages. [24:42.480 --> 24:49.120] Give that a read and then let's talk, because there is absolutely no way to rebut the facts once you [24:49.120 --> 24:55.200] see what the law really says. And for the purpose, the narrow purpose of withholding from a paycheck, [24:55.200 --> 25:00.960] I designed the Business Withholding Handbook. The other one that many people will find interesting [25:00.960 --> 25:06.480] and have found interesting is the Business Guide for W-9 and 1099. I hinted about that a moment [25:06.480 --> 25:10.880] ago concerning people who own their own businesses and they're constantly being requested to fill [25:10.880 --> 25:16.240] out W-9s, which when they do, declares that what they're doing is not a constitutionally protected [25:16.240 --> 25:21.840] right, but rather a government-granted privilege. Yeah, you're probably thinking this is insane, [25:22.000 --> 25:26.240] but that's what happens every time you fill out a W-9. You're attesting that you're not actually [25:26.240 --> 25:30.320] exercising a constitutional right. You are engaged in a government-granted privilege. [25:30.320 --> 25:37.440] And the W-9 1099 Guide, just like the Withholding Handbook, details in about 13 pages what the law [25:37.440 --> 25:44.000] really says. And people who own their own business have used this to considerable success. When [25:44.000 --> 25:46.960] somebody they're doing business with says, hey man, I need you to fill out this W-9, [25:47.520 --> 25:53.760] like, well, not really. Here, read this. Boom, end of story in the majority of cases. [25:53.760 --> 25:59.440] With all that said, to get the full and complete picture of what the United States government has [25:59.440 --> 26:05.120] done, the largest financial crime in the history of the world, you need to read Income Tax Shattering. [26:05.120 --> 26:11.360] It's not 400 pages. It's going to be the most mind-blowing 400 pages you have ever read. You [26:11.440 --> 26:17.600] have my word on that. Also, if you want to find out about establishment flimflams, while you're [26:17.600 --> 26:22.720] there, grab yourself a copy of Body Science, and when you read that, you will learn that virtually [26:22.720 --> 26:27.760] everything that you have understood to be true of physiology, with a specific emphasis on nutritional [26:27.760 --> 26:34.240] physiology, has been, much like the Income Tax, just another establishment lie. But the good thing [26:34.240 --> 26:38.320] about reading Body Science is you can never get flimflammed again. Once you read Body Science, [26:38.320 --> 26:42.320] it will give you a frame of reference, anything that the establishment, whether it's some [26:42.320 --> 26:46.960] industry-funded bogus research, whether it's some statement by the United States government, [26:46.960 --> 26:51.360] whether it's from the American Heart Association. Once you've completed Body Science, you will have [26:51.360 --> 26:56.560] all of the information up here. So as you look at these various preposterous statements, you will, [26:56.560 --> 27:02.320] for the first time in your life, know that they are preposterous and empowers you to make the [27:02.320 --> 27:07.440] best and most correct decisions for your health in your life. And by purchasing Income Tax Shattering [27:07.440 --> 27:14.800] the Mist, Body Science, one of the handbooks, not only do you get amazing, fabulous information [27:14.800 --> 27:28.800] worth well more than the cost of the product, you help me stay here for you. Thanks.