Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:20.000]  Welcome to the show. You're probably aware that in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Heller decision, which, after the American people lived for 217 years under the U.S. Constitution, finally declared the right to keep and bear arms to be a constitutionally protected individual right.
[00:20.000 --> 00:40.000]  While Heller was a sterling decision, a number of state issues concerning firearms continue operating as if firearms ownership is a privilege, not a right. Today we're going to consider one particularly odious issue that continues operating on gun owners as if owning a firearm is a government-granted privilege.
[00:50.000 --> 01:12.000]  Let me start with this. I am the author of Income Tax Shattering the Mist, the best-selling book in America that provides overwhelming facts, data, and evidence showing you the incontrovertible truth that Congress has never imposed the income tax on ordinary working Americans like you.
[01:13.000 --> 01:25.000]  One reason Income Tax Shattering the Mist has been so successful is it takes the most complex area of U.S. law, breaks it down clearly, and presents it in a way every American can understand.
[01:25.000 --> 01:45.000]  One of the issues of which it gives you an understanding is the two broad classes of taxing authority granted to Congress in the Constitution. The two broad classes of taxation are known as direct and indirect, what the U.S. Supreme Court has called the two great tax classes.
[01:45.000 --> 02:02.000]  For the purpose of today's discussion, we only need to focus on indirect taxes. There are a couple of categories of taxes that fall under the umbrella of indirect taxation, but the one we're going to examine today is a form of indirect taxation known as an excise tax.
[02:02.000 --> 02:08.000]  So what is an excise tax? According to the federal courts, it is the following.
[02:33.000 --> 02:52.000]  Since taxation is a government activity, the privilege that is the object of the tax is a privilege granted by government in law. When the government grants you a privilege, it is allowing you to do something that, absent the privilege extended to you in law, you would not have a right to do.
[02:52.000 --> 03:10.000]  A simple way to remember that is that a privilege is something you do not have a right to do. If you have a right to do a thing, no special government permission, a privilege, is needed to do it. In short, a privilege and a right are polar opposites.
[03:10.000 --> 03:35.000]  Now that you understand what an excise is, let's turn to the issue of excise taxes on firearms. The federal government imposes an excise tax of 10 to 11% on firearm sales, and Governor Newsom of California just signed a law adding an 11% excise tax to firearms sold in California, raising the firearms excise total there to as much as 22%.
[03:35.000 --> 03:50.000]  In America, no government has the authority to tax a right because, as the U.S. Supreme Court held in McCullough v. Maryland, quote, the power to tax is the power to destroy, close quote.
[03:50.000 --> 04:01.000]  The significance of that holding in McCullough is that any right subject to a government tax can be taxed to the point where the exercise of the right is no longer possible.
[04:01.000 --> 04:11.000]  Let's use free speech as an example. You can say whatever you'd like to someone else, provided it's not something criminal such as conspiring with another to commit a crime.
[04:11.000 --> 04:27.000]  You can literally tell a President of the United States that you think he's a piece of shit and the country would be better off if he died, and the government is powerless to do anything to you because of our constitutionally protected right of free speech.
[04:27.000 --> 04:40.000]  Now, imagine the government could impose a tax on your speech. On a practical level, could you tell a President he's a piece of shit if in order to do so you had to pay a $100 tax?
[04:40.000 --> 04:52.000]  The answer for most of you is you probably could. How about if the tax was $500? What if it was $1,000? $5,000? $10,000?
[04:52.000 --> 05:03.000]  What is the amount of tax at which you would no longer be able to exercise your right of free speech? That illustrates why taxation cannot be imposed on the exercise of a right.
[05:03.000 --> 05:21.000]  The federal excise tax on firearms was enacted in 1919, 89 years before the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Heller that to keep and bear arms is an individually constitutionally protected right belonging to all Americans.
[05:21.000 --> 05:28.000]  In other words, Congress taxed firearms as if purchasing one is a government-granted privilege.
[05:28.000 --> 05:38.000]  That said, Congress imposed the excise on the manufacturer, producer, or importer of most commonplace firearms.
[05:38.000 --> 05:49.000]  Can Congress impose a tax on the importation of firearms? Presumptively yes, but in a constitutional sense that would be a duty, not an excise.
[05:49.000 --> 05:56.000]  A tax on the domestic manufacturers of firearms is a completely different matter.
[05:56.000 --> 06:05.000]  In post-Heller America that won't fly because to impose a tax on a firearms manufacturer is still to tax the right to possess firearms.
[06:05.000 --> 06:10.000]  Let me give you a non-firearms example. Let's use freedom of religion.
[06:10.000 --> 06:15.000]  Because the most common religion in the U.S. is Christianity, let's consider the sale of Bibles.
[06:16.000 --> 06:24.000]  For the purpose of this example, let's say it costs a print house $20 to create a leather-bound Bible that retails for $50.
[06:24.000 --> 06:30.000]  In other words, a 250% markup takes place from the manufacturer to the retail buyer.
[06:30.000 --> 06:37.000]  Now, let's say the government puts a 1000% excise tax on the manufacturer of Bibles.
[06:37.000 --> 06:44.000]  That means the cost to the manufacturer to produce that Bible would now become $200.
[06:44.000 --> 06:52.000]  If we apply the aforementioned $250 markup, the retail price of that Bible becomes $500.
[06:52.000 --> 07:00.000]  How many of you would or could purchase a Bible if instead of $50 it cost $500?
[07:00.000 --> 07:05.000]  What if it cost $1000? $3000? You get the point.
[07:05.000 --> 07:11.000]  A tax on the manufacturer of an item is, in a very real sense, a tax on the retail customer.
[07:11.000 --> 07:15.000]  Let's bring another facet of tax law into our analysis.
[07:15.000 --> 07:21.000]  A well-settled point of law is once a legislature has the legitimate constitutional power to tax a thing,
[07:21.000 --> 07:26.000]  the rate of tax is completely at the discretion of the legislature.
[07:26.000 --> 07:33.000]  In other words, if Congress can tax a thing at 1%, it can tax it at 1000%.
[07:33.000 --> 07:41.000]  To phrase it in terms of firearms, if Congress can impose a 10% excise on the manufacturers of handguns,
[07:41.000 --> 07:47.000]  there is nothing stopping Congress from imposing a 5000% tax on the manufacturers of firearms.
[07:47.000 --> 07:55.000]  The courts have also held that a legislature may not declare a right to be a privilege and then impose an excise tax upon it.
[07:55.000 --> 08:02.000]  The Supreme Court has also said it has a duty to examine the substance of a thing rather than its form.
[08:02.000 --> 08:08.000]  In this matter, the form is a privilege tax upon firearms manufacturers.
[08:08.000 --> 08:14.000]  But the substance of the matter is it's a tax affecting the ability of American citizens to acquire firearms
[08:14.000 --> 08:20.000]  because there is an inarguable government-created increase in what it costs to exercise the right.
[08:21.000 --> 08:26.000]  And under well-settled law, if the object of the tax were constitutionally legitimate,
[08:26.000 --> 08:32.000]  the government would be free to increase the rate of tax until the right could no longer be exercised.
[08:32.000 --> 08:34.000]  Let's take a moment to recap.
[08:34.000 --> 08:40.000]  An excise tax is a tax upon the exercise of a government-granted privilege.
[08:40.000 --> 08:43.000]  A right can never be a privilege.
[08:43.000 --> 08:51.000]  In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court declared firearms ownership to be a constitutionally protected individual right.
[08:51.000 --> 08:57.000]  No legislature may declare a right to be a privilege and then impose an excise tax on it.
[08:57.000 --> 09:05.000]  A tax on manufacturers of firearms is, in substance, a tax on the exercise of the right to acquire firearms.
[09:05.000 --> 09:13.000]  In short, there is no way for the U.S. government or the state of California to enforce an excise on firearms
[09:13.000 --> 09:20.000]  once a pro-firearms advocacy organization challenges the tax in court.
[09:20.000 --> 09:27.000]  Though what we've covered so far are ample legal facts to have the excise tax on firearms declared unconstitutional,
[09:27.000 --> 09:31.000]  we might consider bringing the Bruin test into the discussion.
[09:32.000 --> 09:36.000]  The Bruin test says that in order for a law pertaining to firearms to be constitutional,
[09:36.000 --> 09:44.000]  whatever burden the law places on a firearms owner must be shown to have been a common acceptable practice in the founding era.
[09:44.000 --> 09:51.000]  Phrased another way, the burden placed on firearms owners cannot be one the founding generation would have viewed as odious.
[09:51.000 --> 09:56.000]  Since no excise tax existed on firearms until 1919,
[09:56.000 --> 10:02.000]  it would be impossible to show that the burden of an excise tax was a commonly accepted practice in the founding era.
[10:02.000 --> 10:10.000]  How does a tax on firearms differ from the excise tax on distilled spirits, which has existed since the founding of this nation?
[10:10.000 --> 10:15.000]  The tax on alcohol was and is considered a sin tax.
[10:15.000 --> 10:22.000]  A sin tax is an excise specifically levied on certain goods deemed harmful to society and individuals.
[10:22.000 --> 10:30.000]  Not only were firearms not thought to be harmful to society or individuals in the founding era, firearms held a place of honor.
[10:30.000 --> 10:38.000]  There are countless founding era quotes about the value and merit of firearms and an armed populace, but I'll just share one with you today.
[10:38.000 --> 10:42.000]  In an 1824 letter to John Cartwright, Thomas Jefferson said,
[10:53.000 --> 11:00.000]  The very next words from Jefferson in that letter were these,
[11:10.000 --> 11:14.000]  We'll revisit Jefferson's words in a few minutes.
[11:14.000 --> 11:20.000]  Do the legislative attorneys who advise California's legislators know that in light of Heller,
[11:20.000 --> 11:27.000]  a state excise tax on firearms will very likely be struck down and advise the legislators of that?
[11:27.000 --> 11:32.000]  I imagine so. As you can see from what we've discussed today, it isn't rocket science.
[11:32.000 --> 11:43.000]  But there's another reason that leads me to believe the legislators have been advised that the new law is a constitutionally impermissible tax on the right to acquire firearms.
[11:43.000 --> 11:54.000]  At the same time Newsom signed the excise tax bill into law, he also signed another bill that bans people from carrying guns in nearly every public space.
[11:54.000 --> 12:02.000]  That bill also contains an insane list of fees to be paid and other requirements to be met to receive a concealed carry permit.
[12:02.000 --> 12:14.000]  My point is that I'm 100% certain the attorneys who advise California legislators have told them there is no way in hell that law will pass constitutional scrutiny under the Bruin test.
[12:14.000 --> 12:24.000]  In other words, California legislators are passing laws they know will be declared unconstitutional as soon as they are reviewed by a federal court.
[12:25.000 --> 12:31.000]  That is the same tactic Washington DC took after Heller struck down DC's anti-firearms laws.
[12:31.000 --> 12:38.000]  The DC government simply passed a series of new laws that were almost as bad as the ones struck down by Heller.
[12:38.000 --> 12:46.000]  Every judge knows the corrupt game those legislators are playing. I said it then and I'll say it now.
[12:47.000 --> 12:59.000]  The federal court should sanction the state's attorneys who make frivolous arguments before the court in defense of laws every junior high school kid would know won't pass constitutional scrutiny.
[12:59.000 --> 13:12.000]  If the federal courts started imposing say $20,000 sanction on the state's attorneys who brought that crap before the court, you'd quickly see the state attorney general say his department would no longer defend those laws.
[13:12.000 --> 13:26.000]  That would leave legislators with the choice of enacting laws that are in compliance with Heller and Bruin or having noncompliant laws promptly struck down because the attorney general would notify the court it could not defend the statute in question.
[13:26.000 --> 13:47.000]  In my opinion, no court should permit a state, county, or city to return to court again and again and again over a period of years with anti-gun laws that have been only slightly modified but in no way come anywhere close to meeting the clear standards established in Heller and Bruin.
[13:47.000 --> 14:03.000]  Now, let's circle back to Jefferson's words. Jefferson said, quote, the Constitution of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people, that they may exercise it by themselves, that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
[14:03.000 --> 14:10.000]  Duty to be at all times armed. How many Americans fulfill that duty?
[14:11.000 --> 14:29.000]  Well, I do. I carry this at all times every day. As Jefferson so aptly put it, I consider doing so both a right and a duty. By my estimate, roughly 98% of Americans shirk that duty.
[14:29.000 --> 14:43.000]  That's a shame because freedom isn't just about rights. It's also about responsibility. Thomas Paine said, quote, those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.
[14:43.000 --> 14:57.000]  But today most Americans want their rights without the burden of any responsibilities. Then they wonder why our freedoms are diminishing. They blame everything and everyone except the person in the mirror.
[14:57.000 --> 15:10.000]  After speaking about the right and duty to at all times be armed, Jefferson said they, meaning the citizens of the states, are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.
[15:10.000 --> 15:21.000]  I'm sure you'll all agree with Jefferson on that in rhetoric if not in action. Today you learn that an excise tax is a tax upon the exercise of a government-granted privilege.
[15:21.000 --> 15:32.000]  Now you just heard Jefferson, 33 years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, saying freedom of property is part of the liberty of the American people.
[15:32.000 --> 15:46.000]  But you don't have to take Jefferson's word for it. In Corn v. Fort, the court stated, quote, the individual's right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise tax cannot be imposed.
[15:46.000 --> 15:58.000]  To own property is a natural right. That begs the question, what is property? I think many Americans are a bit vague on what constitutes property.
[15:58.000 --> 16:07.000]  The short and sweet answer is it's anything you own, whether it be a home or a bowling ball. Everything that belongs to you is your property.
[16:07.000 --> 16:14.000]  But in America, we have all sorts of euphemisms that I believe dull our sense of what is property.
[16:14.000 --> 16:20.000]  In business, as an example, we use words such as profit, margin, income, cash flow, and revenue stream.
[16:20.000 --> 16:26.000]  Workers get a paycheck, which I don't think many of them see as their property.
[16:26.000 --> 16:34.000]  One of you heard someone who received a paycheck say, I just got $2,000 of my property. I'll wager never.
[16:34.000 --> 16:39.000]  Americans have been conditioned not to think about such things as property.
[16:39.000 --> 16:45.000]  Let me give you a couple of quick scenarios. Let's say a guy wants a ditch dug on his property.
[16:45.000 --> 16:51.000]  You tell him you'll do it for $500. When you complete the ditch, he hands you $500.
[16:51.000 --> 17:01.000]  In Coppage v. Kansas, the U.S. Supreme Court said, quote, the property that every man has is his personal labor.
[17:02.000 --> 17:05.000]  In other words, you started with property in the form of labor.
[17:05.000 --> 17:09.000]  You exchanged that property for another form of property.
[17:09.000 --> 17:16.000]  But whether it is your labor or the $500 you received in exchange, it is at all times your property.
[17:16.000 --> 17:24.000]  Hopefully, you recall from earlier in the presentation that a right is the opposite of a privilege.
[17:24.000 --> 17:29.000]  Let's say you're an entrepreneur. You see a widget being sold for $100.
[17:29.000 --> 17:34.000]  At that moment, the widget is whose property? It's the property of the seller, right?
[17:34.000 --> 17:42.000]  You give the seller $100 in exchange for the widget. Whose property is the widget then? Yours.
[17:42.000 --> 17:45.000]  And the seller has something worth $100 you gave him.
[17:45.000 --> 17:53.000]  Whatever you gave him that he values at $100 is now his property. There was an exchange of equal value.
[17:53.000 --> 18:00.000]  You then reach out to people you know who need widgets and you tell them you have one they can get for $200.
[18:00.000 --> 18:03.000]  One of them takes you up on your offer, giving you $200.
[18:03.000 --> 18:13.000]  If you valued the widget at $200 by setting that as the price and the buyer showed he also valued it at $200 by paying you $200 for it,
[18:13.000 --> 18:16.000]  then again, there was an exchange of equal value.
[18:17.000 --> 18:26.000]  Between you paying $100 for the widget and then selling it for $200, you increase the property you possess by $100.
[18:26.000 --> 18:31.000]  That is what is known as the fruits of your labor.
[18:31.000 --> 18:38.000]  Now, let's put this all together by hearing the words of the U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher's union company, the Crescent City Company.
[18:38.000 --> 18:40.000]  In Butcher, the court said,
[18:41.000 --> 18:51.000]  The property that every man has is his personal labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.
[18:51.000 --> 19:03.000]  To hinder his employing it in whatever manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbor is a plain violation of the most sacred property."
[19:03.000 --> 19:15.000]  Why am I directing your attention to what is property and that acquiring, possessing, and disposing of property in whatever form is one of your fundamental, unalienable rights?
[19:15.000 --> 19:19.000]  Just a moment ago in Corn v. Fort, you heard the court say,
[19:19.000 --> 19:29.000]  The individual's right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.
[19:29.000 --> 19:34.000]  For which an excise cannot be imposed?
[19:34.000 --> 19:42.000]  That makes perfect sense, right? Because you know a right is the opposite of a privilege and an excise is a tax upon a privilege.
[19:42.000 --> 19:50.000]  So, with all this wonderful information under your belt, I have to add one critical piece of knowledge.
[19:50.000 --> 19:58.000]  Here is U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Edward Douglas White Jr. writing in the court's Bruce Schaber decision,
[20:21.000 --> 20:31.000]  I should add that Bruce Schaber has never been reversed, in whole or in part, so the holding of the court that income tax is an excise remains in force today.
[20:31.000 --> 20:37.000]  You know what an excise tax is, a tax upon the exercise of a government-granted privilege.
[20:37.000 --> 20:46.000]  You now know that your property, your labor property, and the fruits of property, such as your paycheck, are all constitutionally protected rights.
[20:46.000 --> 20:51.000]  And you know that the income tax is a tax upon the exercise of a privilege.
[20:51.000 --> 20:59.000]  So then, can you explain to me why you think you owe income tax? I'll wait.
[20:59.000 --> 21:07.000]  What you're seeing on the screen right now is a Form W-4. If you've ever worked for a company, you've undoubtedly filled out this form.
[21:07.000 --> 21:12.000]  I want you to listen to what I'm about to say very carefully.
[21:12.000 --> 21:24.000]  The form you're looking at is legally required only for non-resident aliens working for a government employer that is under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress.
[21:24.000 --> 21:38.000]  I know that's not what you've been told, but hopefully 2020, 2021, and 2022 taught you how essential it is to question everything the establishment tells you.
[21:38.000 --> 21:46.000]  What you're seeing on the screen now is a Form W-9. If you work for yourself, you've undoubtedly filled out more than a few of these.
[21:46.000 --> 21:51.000]  Again, I want you to listen carefully to what I'm about to say.
[21:51.000 --> 22:01.000]  The form you're looking at is legally required only from those who are receiving payment of U.S. source income belonging to a foreign person.
[22:02.000 --> 22:10.000]  And again, I know that's not what you've been told. Do I need to repeat the part about how essential it is to question everything you've been told?
[22:10.000 --> 22:19.000]  Now the kicker. Signing a Form W-4 requires an employer to send the government a Form W-2 about you at the end of the year.
[22:20.000 --> 22:35.000]  The Form W-2 received by the government is presumptive evidence that you signed a W-4, which is only to be signed by a non-resident alien working for a government agency or instrumentality under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress.
[22:35.000 --> 22:42.000]  Do you remember the Supreme Court said income tax is a tax upon the exercise of a government-granted privilege?
[22:42.000 --> 22:50.000]  Well, guess what? It is a privilege for a non-resident alien to obtain U.S. source income.
[22:50.000 --> 23:06.000]  When the government receives the presumptive evidence that you signed a W-4, the government takes you at your word that you're a non-resident alien with U.S. source income and then expects you to sign a Form 1040 and pay the privilege tax, the income tax.
[23:06.000 --> 23:16.000]  Why do they expect that? Because by signing a W-4, you told them you're a non-resident alien with U.S. source income.
[23:16.000 --> 23:32.000]  Here's the kicker for those who work for themselves. When you sign a Form W-9, you are attesting under penalty of perjury that the payments you're receiving are not your income, but rather are U.S. source income belonging to a foreign person.
[23:32.000 --> 23:40.000]  Once you sign that W-9, the party paying you is obligated to send the government a Form 1099 about you at the end of the year.
[23:40.000 --> 23:50.000]  That 1099 is presumptive evidence that you certified under penalty of perjury that the payments you received are U.S. source income belonging to a foreign person.
[23:50.000 --> 24:02.000]  And again, it is a privilege for a foreigner to derive U.S. source income. That privilege is taxable and that tax is known as the U.S. income tax.
[24:02.000 --> 24:10.000]  If you attest under penalty of perjury to receiving U.S. source income belonging to a foreign person, you have to do one of two things.
[24:10.000 --> 24:23.000]  First, you can pass the income down the line, meaning you pay it out to a person who gives you a W-9 requiring you to send in a 1099, thus showing you no longer possess the foreign person's income.
[24:23.000 --> 24:29.000]  Or second, you have to pay the income tax owed by the foreign person on his or her U.S. source income.
[24:29.000 --> 24:33.000]  How do you pay the tax on the foreign person's U.S. source income?
[24:33.000 --> 24:42.000]  Simple. You file a 1040 or an 1120. Both of these are for reporting U.S. source income of a foreign person and paying the tax the foreign person owes.
[24:42.000 --> 24:45.000]  One form is for individuals, the other for corporations.
[24:45.000 --> 25:03.000]  You may have heard me talk about the fact that in the 110-year history of the income tax, nine different Treasury decisions say form 1040 is to be used by a non-resident alien with U.S. source income or the non-resident alien's U.S. agent.
[25:03.000 --> 25:20.000]  While there is not a single Treasury decision saying an American living or working in a State of the Union earning his or her own domestic source income is required to file any form whatsoever, none, nada, zilch.
[25:20.000 --> 25:32.000]  Now, perhaps that makes more sense to you. What you've learned today is 100% factual, but it has also been basically an outline of the constitutional issues at play.
[25:32.000 --> 25:39.000]  Income tax shattering the mist is a master class in the origins and proper legal application of the income tax.
[25:39.000 --> 25:55.000]  It verifies everything I've shared with you today, but it's even better than that because the material is presented in a way that every American can follow, understand, retain, and apply in their own lives if they so choose.
[25:55.000 --> 25:59.000]  Jefferson spoke about our rights and duties.
[25:59.000 --> 26:10.000]  I believe with every shred of my being that we have been losing our freedoms because far too many Americans focus solely on their rights with little or no concern about our commensurate responsibilities.
[26:10.000 --> 26:17.000]  As Payne said, we must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting freedom.
[26:17.000 --> 26:23.000]  In my opinion, Americans must learn the truth about the income tax and spread the word.
[26:23.000 --> 26:34.000]  We need to make the truth go viral. In terms of ending the scam, what might be difficult for 2 million people will be incredibly simple for tens of millions of people.
[26:34.000 --> 26:41.000]  How do we get there? We learn, we spread the truth, and we encourage our fellow Americans to do the same.
[26:41.000 --> 26:46.000]  I haven't filed an income tax return or paid a penny of income tax in 30 years.
[26:46.000 --> 26:52.000]  That should be an unexceptional statement because the tax has never been imposed on you.
[26:52.000 --> 26:56.000]  The difference between me and you is I studied the law and learned the truth.
[26:56.000 --> 27:06.000]  After 17 years of research and 17 years of living the truth out of my own life, I wrote a book making the matter crystal clear for my countrymen.
[27:06.000 --> 27:17.000]  Hundreds of thousands of Americans have already safely walked away from the government's income tax scam simply by learning what the law really says.
[27:17.000 --> 27:28.000]  You can too. I look forward to the day when every American says, I can't believe we all used to pay income tax. What were we thinking?
[27:28.000 --> 27:35.000]  To order your copy of Income Tax Shattering the Mist, go to drreality.news.
[27:35.000 --> 27:42.000]  With the holidays nearly upon us, for a limited time, Income Tax Shattering the Mist is 15% off. Use the coupon code OWNIT at checkout.
[27:42.000 --> 27:49.000]  I'll put the link and the code in the notes. While you're there, also consider picking up a copy of Body Science.
[27:49.000 --> 27:59.000]  Same story. Massive government and industry disinformation has resulted in the American people being the most chronically ill society in all of human history.
[27:59.000 --> 28:06.000]  That's been done intentionally in order to increase the revenue of certain trillion dollar industries.
[28:06.000 --> 28:17.000]  Body Science shows you how this scam has been run on you and then lays out the truth of how your body's physiology actually works, which is dramatically different than you've been told.
[28:17.000 --> 28:27.000]  Government and industry disinformation is why over 70% of the US population is overweight or obese and why we are the sickest people in all of human history.
[28:27.000 --> 28:33.000]  The good news is all that disinformation can be deprogrammed simply by reading Body Science.
[28:33.000 --> 28:41.000]  The information is so compelling that it literally eviscerates all the inaccurate things you've been told for the last several decades.
[28:41.000 --> 28:53.000]  To give you some idea of how readers react to it, it has never gotten anything less than 5 out of 5 stars and it's not uncommon for me to receive emails from readers telling me they believe Body Science saved their life.
[28:53.000 --> 29:03.000]  Also, by purchasing Income Tax Shattering the Mist and or Body Science, you help me to continue to be here for you with these revealing and thought provoking presentations.
[29:03.000 --> 29:08.000]  Please share this presentation with everyone. Thanks for being here. Take care.