Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:02.300]  Welcome to the show.
[00:02.300 --> 00:05.680]  Voters in Oregon appear to be having a bout of the dumbass.
[00:05.680 --> 00:08.960]  I'm not going to take much of your time today, but I believe it's worth a few minutes to
[00:08.960 --> 00:13.680]  examine what's been happening in Oregon because it's illustrative of what happens when people
[00:13.680 --> 00:22.640]  vote from emotion rather than using their brains.
[00:22.640 --> 00:33.920]  The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion.
[00:33.920 --> 00:34.960]  Let's start with this.
[00:34.960 --> 00:41.640]  We're going to address two issues today, the outcome of Oregon measures 110 and 114.
[00:41.640 --> 00:43.640]  We'll start with measure 110.
[00:43.640 --> 00:49.080]  Measure 110, known as the Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act, was passed by voters in
[00:49.080 --> 00:53.520]  November 2020 and decriminalized certain hard drugs.
[00:53.520 --> 00:57.960]  While the measure also funded a significant increase in treatment funding, most of the
[00:57.960 --> 01:04.420]  increased funding didn't kick in until August 2022, 19 months after the decriminalization
[01:04.420 --> 01:06.160]  took effect.
[01:06.160 --> 01:09.380]  That said, I don't believe there would have been any different outcome had the treatment
[01:09.380 --> 01:12.040]  funding been available from day one.
[01:12.040 --> 01:15.760]  Oregonians are now upset with the results of measure 110 because there has been a four-fold
[01:15.760 --> 01:21.560]  increase in drug deaths, to which I say, right?
[01:21.560 --> 01:24.080]  And your point is what?
[01:24.080 --> 01:26.360]  What the hell did they think was going to happen?
[01:26.360 --> 01:33.800]  I'm going to try to make this very simple so even Oregon voters can understand.
[01:33.800 --> 01:39.700]  Decriminalizing drugs does not magically cause users or addicts to make better choices, such
[01:39.700 --> 01:41.920]  as seeking treatment.
[01:41.920 --> 01:47.640]  To be blunt, that expectation is just plain stupid.
[01:47.640 --> 01:49.400]  It's childish.
[01:49.400 --> 01:54.280]  The true goal of decriminalization, when voted for by intelligent people, is that users can
[01:54.280 --> 01:59.840]  make whatever choice they want without being locked in a cage for doing so.
[01:59.840 --> 02:03.640]  In other words, users are free to get clean.
[02:03.640 --> 02:06.540]  They are free to keep using at their normal level.
[02:06.540 --> 02:09.840]  They are free to do shit that results in their death.
[02:09.840 --> 02:15.360]  Whichever they choose, they are not locked in a cage at the taxpayer's expense for months
[02:15.360 --> 02:16.960]  or years.
[02:16.960 --> 02:25.920]  The point is they get to choose, which is what personal liberty is all about.
[02:25.920 --> 02:33.400]  But Dave, the idiots cry, these are drug addicts we're talking about, not normal people.
[02:33.400 --> 02:37.300]  Okay, so here's the thing.
[02:37.300 --> 02:42.580]  Personal liberty isn't something that applies only if or when people make good choices or
[02:42.580 --> 02:44.860]  choices with which you agree.
[02:44.860 --> 02:48.580]  Any more than free speech applies only if or when a person says things with which you
[02:48.580 --> 02:51.140]  agree or find acceptable.
[02:51.140 --> 02:56.780]  I suspect the same people who imagined giving addicts a choice would save lives are the
[02:56.780 --> 03:02.260]  same people who feel it's fine to engage in censoring speech with which they don't approve.
[03:02.260 --> 03:07.560]  Is there anyone who is unaware that addicts have psychological issues?
[03:07.560 --> 03:10.800]  To be blunt, they're fucked up.
[03:10.800 --> 03:14.740]  But lots of people in the world are fucked up in different ways.
[03:14.740 --> 03:16.380]  Some are drug addicts.
[03:16.380 --> 03:17.540]  Others aren't.
[03:17.540 --> 03:20.580]  Some people who are fucked up become millionaires.
[03:20.580 --> 03:22.260]  Others live their lives in poverty.
[03:22.260 --> 03:24.900]  Some become emotionally abusive partners.
[03:24.900 --> 03:28.860]  Others are terrible parents who fuck up their children's lives.
[03:28.860 --> 03:33.480]  Some fucked up people have mastered their outward presentation and appear fairly normal
[03:33.480 --> 03:35.380]  until you get to know them.
[03:35.380 --> 03:40.500]  The point is that a shit ton of Americans are fucked up, yet they retain their personal
[03:40.500 --> 03:44.940]  liberty, their freedom to live freely while being fucked up.
[03:44.940 --> 03:50.180]  By 1914, every state in the union had passed laws prohibiting the sale and use of cocaine.
[03:50.180 --> 03:53.520]  Then at the beginning of the 1970s, the War on Drugs kicked off.
[03:53.520 --> 03:58.100]  The War on Drugs didn't stop anyone from getting drugs then or now, but it did cripple
[03:58.100 --> 04:00.740]  the Fourth Amendment in significant ways.
[04:00.740 --> 04:06.060]  My point is that no matter where you want to look on the 20th century timeline, politicians
[04:06.060 --> 04:11.080]  had decided, and the courts went along, that if the manifestation of how a person is fucked
[04:11.080 --> 04:16.740]  up was to become addicted to a substance, then he or she could be locked in a cage for
[04:16.740 --> 04:20.360]  their particular form of being fucked up.
[04:20.360 --> 04:26.020]  In November 2020, Oregon voters chose to end the paradigm of locking addicts in cages.
[04:26.020 --> 04:28.220]  I think that's great.
[04:28.220 --> 04:33.940]  But they seem to have imagined that not locking Oregonians in cages for addiction wouldn't
[04:33.940 --> 04:36.660]  increase drug deaths.
[04:36.660 --> 04:40.660]  Now that they know there have been an increase in deaths, there's a movement afoot to reverse
[04:40.660 --> 04:43.540]  Measure 110.
[04:43.540 --> 04:49.220]  I can't pretend to think like nutty Oregon leftists, but it seems that since decriminalization
[04:49.220 --> 04:54.380]  didn't produce the sunshine and rainbows they thought it would, they want to start locking
[04:54.380 --> 04:57.540]  addicts in cages again.
[04:57.540 --> 05:05.500]  Oregon voters, it honestly looks to me like you have no clue about drugs, addiction, human
[05:05.500 --> 05:08.020]  nature, or personal liberty.
[05:08.020 --> 05:12.340]  I don't mean to be pejorative, but you guys need to grow the fuck up and see the world
[05:12.340 --> 05:14.740]  as adults do.
[05:14.740 --> 05:17.740]  Let's shift gears and talk about Measure 114.
[05:17.740 --> 05:22.700]  This is another case of looking at Oregon voters and wondering what the hell are they
[05:22.700 --> 05:23.860]  thinking?
[05:23.860 --> 05:30.180]  In November 2022, Oregon voters narrowly pass Measure 114, which does some really stupid
[05:30.180 --> 05:31.180]  things.
[05:31.180 --> 05:36.020]  First, it requires all Oregon residents to buy a license in order to purchase or own
[05:36.020 --> 05:37.500]  a firearm.
[05:37.500 --> 05:41.300]  114 also limits magazines to just 10 rounds.
[05:41.300 --> 05:44.540]  Let's consider the license requirement for a moment.
[05:44.540 --> 05:49.880]  In SCOTUS' McDonald decision in 2010, the court decided the right to keep and bear arms
[05:49.880 --> 05:56.000]  is an individual, constitutionally protected right, no different than any other enumerated
[05:56.000 --> 05:58.220]  right in the Constitution.
[05:58.220 --> 06:04.620]  So tell me, is there a requirement to have a license to exercise free speech?
[06:04.620 --> 06:05.620]  How about worship?
[06:05.620 --> 06:10.460]  Do I need a license to speak to you today as a commentator?
[06:10.460 --> 06:14.320]  What license is required to petition the government for redress of grievance?
[06:14.320 --> 06:19.120]  The answer to all of those is the government cannot impose the requirement of a license
[06:19.120 --> 06:20.720]  to exercise a right.
[06:20.720 --> 06:24.040]  Phrased another way, the government cannot restrict you from exercising a right because
[06:24.040 --> 06:30.460]  you didn't ask the government for permission, which is what a license is, asking the government
[06:30.460 --> 06:31.460]  for permission.
[06:31.460 --> 06:35.920]  How about being secure in your person, house, and papers against government intrusion?
[06:35.920 --> 06:40.400]  Do you need to get a license from the government to be protected from unlawful search and seizure
[06:40.400 --> 06:42.600]  by the government?
[06:42.600 --> 06:47.840]  Yet somehow, idiot voters in Oregon believe the right to keep and bear arms is different
[06:47.840 --> 06:49.680]  than any other right.
[06:49.680 --> 06:53.440]  They believe they can vote into existence a requirement to get a permission slip from
[06:53.440 --> 06:58.360]  the government to exercise an individual, constitutionally protected right.
[06:58.360 --> 07:02.260]  114 has been challenged in two courts, one federal and one state.
[07:02.260 --> 07:06.720]  At the federal district court level, the case was decided in favor of the measure by an
[07:06.720 --> 07:11.320]  activist judge making shit up to get the results she wanted rather than following the law
[07:11.320 --> 07:15.000]  of the land as decided by the US Supreme Court.
[07:15.000 --> 07:16.920]  We'll get to that in a minute.
[07:16.920 --> 07:21.840]  Another challenge was made in the Harney County Circuit Court of Oregon and Judge Robert Rascio
[07:21.840 --> 07:27.120]  permanently enjoined enforcement of 114 based on his determination that it violates the
[07:27.120 --> 07:29.640]  Oregon Constitution.
[07:29.640 --> 07:33.680]  Supporters of Measure 114 asked the Oregon Supreme Court to step in and reverse Judge
[07:33.680 --> 07:36.080]  Rascio on an emergency basis.
[07:36.080 --> 07:40.220]  The Supreme Court declined to do so, which means now the circuit court ruling will have
[07:40.220 --> 07:44.240]  to work its way through the ordinary and lengthy appeals process.
[07:44.480 --> 07:49.920]  I laughed when I read the federal judge had ruled that Oregon's law was valid under SCOTUS's
[07:49.920 --> 07:53.360]  Bruin Test because the law complies with, quote,
[07:53.360 --> 07:58.720]  the nation's history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and
[07:58.720 --> 08:02.000]  firearms to protect public safety.
[08:02.000 --> 08:03.280]  Close quote.
[08:03.280 --> 08:07.840]  If you've ever wondered whether federal judges corruptly engage in outcome-based law,
[08:07.840 --> 08:12.080]  district judge Karen Emerget is a prime example.
[08:12.080 --> 08:16.240]  Under the Supreme Court's Bruin Test, the standard is not whether restrictions on things
[08:16.240 --> 08:22.400]  like magazine capacity took place at any time in the nation's history, but specifically
[08:22.400 --> 08:26.000]  during the founding era and the years immediately thereafter.
[08:26.000 --> 08:29.560]  And of course, we know there were no such restrictions during that era.
[08:29.560 --> 08:36.120]  Judge Emerget claims that magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds are uniquely dangerous.
[08:36.120 --> 08:40.600]  That is completely false political propaganda.
[08:40.600 --> 08:42.080]  Can I prove that?
[08:42.080 --> 08:44.200]  Why yes, yes I can.
[08:44.200 --> 08:48.060]  Many years ago, my good friend Bill Carnes and I filmed a video in which we simulated
[08:48.060 --> 08:53.320]  shooting targets, such as one might encounter in a mass shooting, using magazines limited
[08:53.320 --> 08:54.360]  to 10 rounds.
[08:54.360 --> 08:58.040]  We then ran the exercise again with magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
[08:58.040 --> 09:00.040]  I think you'll find the results fascinating.
[09:00.040 --> 09:02.960]  I'll put the link to that video down in the notes.
[09:02.960 --> 09:08.360]  Judge Emerget states that such restrictions are permissible if they, supposedly, promote
[09:08.360 --> 09:12.280]  the state's interest of public safety.
[09:12.280 --> 09:17.400]  The Bruin Test, fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2022, specifically ended the
[09:17.400 --> 09:21.720]  public safety standard, which had been operative for decades.
[09:21.720 --> 09:26.040]  The court did so because the public safety standard was political nonsense.
[09:26.040 --> 09:30.560]  All a government attorney had to do under the public safety standard was assert in court
[09:30.560 --> 09:36.160]  that the legislation had as its goal to increase public safety, and the court would say, oh,
[09:36.320 --> 09:40.960]  well, if you're restricting the unalienable rights of citizens who've never harmed anyone
[09:40.960 --> 09:45.400]  using the unsupported claim that doing so will increase public safety, well, then it's
[09:45.400 --> 09:47.440]  okay to restrict their rights.
[09:47.440 --> 09:50.280]  Well, that's clearly an absurd standard.
[09:50.280 --> 09:54.000]  It was the operative standard in most judicial districts for decades.
[09:54.000 --> 09:58.920]  In Bruin, the Supreme Court put an end to that standard, yet Judge Emerget still applied
[09:58.920 --> 09:59.920]  it.
[09:59.920 --> 10:04.040]  Even if we leap forward in time to an era that is not part of the Bruin Test, say the
[10:04.040 --> 10:08.720]  1860s, there was a repeating rifle called the Spencer.
[10:08.720 --> 10:12.760]  When used with a Blakesley quickloader, the equivalent of a high-capacity magazine, the
[10:12.760 --> 10:18.420]  Spencer could fire 20 rounds a minute, which was lightning fast in that day.
[10:18.420 --> 10:20.420]  But guess what?
[10:20.420 --> 10:21.800]  Anyone could buy a Spencer rifle.
[10:21.800 --> 10:25.760]  There were no restrictions anywhere in the United States on owning a Spencer.
[10:25.760 --> 10:30.520]  So not only were there no laws during the founding era that restricted a weapon's capacity
[10:30.600 --> 10:35.240]  or rate of fire, but 70 years later, there were still no laws restricting capacity or
[10:35.240 --> 10:36.640]  rate of fire.
[10:36.640 --> 10:41.660]  In other words, Judge Emerget lied in order to unconstitutionally restrict the rights
[10:41.660 --> 10:44.600]  of American citizens living in Oregon.
[10:44.600 --> 10:47.660]  Due to the points we've just discussed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will strike
[10:47.660 --> 10:51.240]  down Emerget's decision.
[10:51.240 --> 10:55.480]  When the left-leaning Ninth Circuit strikes down an anti-again decision, you know that
[10:55.480 --> 10:57.760]  Judge's decision was corrupt.
[10:57.760 --> 11:02.480]  By corrupt, I mean putting her personal agenda before the rights of American citizens.
[11:02.480 --> 11:08.720]  The bottom line for me in all of this is, what are Oregon voters thinking?
[11:08.720 --> 11:13.180]  They want to start locking drug users in government cages again and unconstitutionally force
[11:13.180 --> 11:18.600]  their fellow citizens to get government permission to exercise an unalienable right.
[11:18.600 --> 11:23.200]  Oregon voters, you need to grow up and start acting like adults.
[11:23.200 --> 11:27.720]  Before I go, I'm running a cool post-Christmas special on body science and income tax shadow
[11:27.720 --> 11:28.880]  in the mist.
[11:28.880 --> 11:33.180]  If you loathe that the establishment lies about seemingly everything, you'll find these
[11:33.180 --> 11:36.760]  two of the most fascinating books you'll ever read.
[11:36.760 --> 11:41.060]  I'll give you a brief summation of what the books will bring to your life and then tell
[11:41.060 --> 11:43.260]  you how you can get a great deal on them.
[11:43.260 --> 11:47.720]  Body science sets the record straight about how human physiology really works and how
[11:47.720 --> 11:53.560]  you can get stunningly healthy and leave virtually all disease behind forever.
[11:53.560 --> 11:55.160]  I'm not going to tell you anything more about it.
[11:55.160 --> 11:58.800]  But I'm simply going to share a couple of reader comments from social media and then
[11:58.800 --> 11:59.800]  move on.
[11:59.800 --> 12:04.520]  Before I do, I want to tell you that I conceal the names and photos because I screenshot
[12:04.520 --> 12:08.460]  these comments and I don't reach out asking permission to use their names and photos because
[12:08.460 --> 12:11.400]  I didn't seek their permission to use names and photos.
[12:11.400 --> 12:12.620]  I don't.
[12:12.620 --> 12:18.440]  One reader said, I've told you before that your book, Body Science, changed my life for
[12:18.440 --> 12:19.680]  the better.
[12:19.680 --> 12:23.880]  Harold said, this book is opening my eyes to how our bodies work.
[12:23.880 --> 12:29.200]  This is the true stuff that needs to be taught in classrooms nationwide.
[12:29.200 --> 12:35.440]  Another reader said this, the pharma industrial complex is glaring at Body Science right now.
[12:35.440 --> 12:37.000]  I love that one.
[12:37.000 --> 12:42.840]  Income Tax Shattering the Mist shows you with mountains of 100% incontrovertible evidence
[12:42.840 --> 12:47.080]  that Congress has never imposed the income tax on ordinary working Americans like you.
[12:47.080 --> 12:51.560]  I had to laugh because recently someone who had not read Income Tax Shattering the Mist
[12:51.800 --> 12:57.040]  said that when I tell my countrymen the truth about the income tax, I sound like a conspiracy
[12:57.040 --> 12:58.040]  theorist.
[12:58.040 --> 13:01.520]  Isn't that always the way of it in America these days?
[13:01.520 --> 13:06.400]  Those who haven't learned the facts, who haven't seen the evidence and blindly believe the
[13:06.400 --> 13:13.120]  government call those who've seen facts, data and evidence conspiracy theorists.
[13:13.120 --> 13:17.880]  Back in 2021, when I said the mRNA injections didn't prevent transmission, I was called
[13:17.880 --> 13:19.600]  a conspiracy theorist.
[13:19.640 --> 13:24.280]  Today, we know that what I told the public was factual.
[13:24.280 --> 13:28.500]  When I said the jab offers no durable protection and those who want whatever temporary and
[13:28.500 --> 13:33.200]  trivial protection it provides would have to get ongoing shots, I was called a conspiracy
[13:33.200 --> 13:34.200]  theorist.
[13:34.200 --> 13:37.200]  Now we know what I told the public is factual.
[13:37.200 --> 13:41.520]  When I said the only thing lockdowns would do was to briefly delay the inevitable, I
[13:41.520 --> 13:43.600]  was called a conspiracy theorist.
[13:43.600 --> 13:46.020]  Today we know that was a factual statement.
[13:46.020 --> 13:49.520]  When I said social distancing was a nonsense measure, I was called a
[13:49.520 --> 13:51.320]  conspiracy theorist.
[13:51.320 --> 13:53.800]  Now we know what I told the public is factual.
[13:53.800 --> 13:58.320]  Fauci recently admitted in a closed-door congressional hearing that there was no scientific basis
[13:58.320 --> 13:59.760]  for that measure.
[13:59.760 --> 14:03.360]  When I said masks don't work, I was called a conspiracy theorist.
[14:03.360 --> 14:07.780]  Today, we have the most authoritative report on the subject, the Cochrane Collaboration
[14:07.780 --> 14:13.220]  Retrospective Meta Analysis that reviewed only studies of the highest quality, specifically
[14:13.220 --> 14:15.520]  proving masks don't work.
[14:15.520 --> 14:22.120]  To be precise, the study found that wearing masks quote, makes little or no difference
[14:22.120 --> 14:28.240]  close quote, thus scientifically establishing my statement was 100% factual.
[14:28.240 --> 14:33.480]  My point in sharing those facts is that, unfortunately, it seems commonplace these days for people
[14:33.480 --> 14:38.320]  to assert something as a conspiracy theory simply because what is being put out contradicts
[14:38.320 --> 14:44.760]  the person's existing belief and he or she has never seen the facts, data, and evidence.
[14:44.760 --> 14:48.840]  That's exactly what is taking place when someone says income tax shattering the mist
[14:48.840 --> 14:51.800]  contains conspiracy theories.
[14:51.800 --> 14:54.560]  Do you know who has never said that?
[14:54.560 --> 14:58.220]  That would be the tens of thousands of people who've read it.
[14:58.220 --> 15:03.400]  How foolish is it to condemn facts, data, and evidence as a conspiracy theory without
[15:03.400 --> 15:06.720]  ever having seen the facts, data, and evidence?
[15:06.720 --> 15:10.780]  There's a reason income tax shattering the mist has received a five-star rating from
[15:10.780 --> 15:14.480]  virtually every reader over the past 14 years.
[15:14.480 --> 15:19.320]  That reality is why I love this message from Stephen who emailed me to say quote,
[15:19.320 --> 15:24.160]  Convinced that this was another Lark and Rose or Irwin Schiff scheme, I listened to several
[15:24.160 --> 15:29.040]  of your videos then eventually bought your book with the sole intention of debunking
[15:29.040 --> 15:30.040]  it.
[15:30.040 --> 15:34.760]  I ended up reading it cover to cover three times before researching each citation.
[15:34.760 --> 15:39.320]  On my second read-through, I went from a complete skeptic to cautiously optimistic.
[15:39.320 --> 15:44.900]  On my third read-through, while looking up each citation, I was completely convinced
[15:44.900 --> 15:48.560]  you had figured it out.
[15:48.560 --> 15:50.840]  Along the same lines, this reader said,
[15:50.840 --> 15:56.640]  At first I tried to prove you wrong, which led me to see you are correct.
[15:56.640 --> 16:00.760]  Skepticism is an important intellectual tool that was proven of spades over the last several
[16:00.760 --> 16:01.760]  years.
[16:01.760 --> 16:06.080]  But ignorance and skepticism are not the same.
[16:06.080 --> 16:08.840]  Skepticism requires knowledge of at least some of the facts.
[16:08.840 --> 16:14.040]  So like Stephen, even if you're initially skeptical, do what he did.
[16:14.040 --> 16:18.520]  Get Income Tax Shattering the Mist and read it with skepticism.
[16:18.520 --> 16:23.280]  I encourage it because as Stephen learned, there is no way to see the facts, data, and
[16:23.280 --> 16:26.960]  evidence and wind up anything other than thoroughly convinced the United States government is
[16:26.960 --> 16:29.280]  lying to an entire nation.
[16:29.280 --> 16:31.600]  Okay, enough of that.
[16:31.600 --> 16:32.880]  What's the special offer?
[16:32.880 --> 16:37.320]  For a limited time, I'm running an after-Christmas special on the bundle of Income Tax Shattering
[16:37.320 --> 16:38.980]  the Mist and Body Science.
[16:38.980 --> 16:46.560]  If you use the coupon code freebie at checkout, I will pay the shipping and personally inscribe
[16:46.560 --> 16:48.360]  and autograph both your books.
[16:48.360 --> 16:51.040]  I'll put the link and the code down in the notes.
[16:51.040 --> 16:54.240]  Not only will Income Tax Shattering the Mist and Body Science be two of the most fascinating
[16:54.240 --> 17:00.360]  books you will ever read, but purchasing them helps me to continue to be here for you with
[17:00.360 --> 17:03.000]  these revealing and thought-provoking presentation.
[17:03.000 --> 17:04.000]  Thanks for being here.
[17:04.000 --> 17:04.440]  Take care.