Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:06.320]  On April 14th, 2024, I was interviewed about the truth of the income tax by Laurie Ann Collette,
[00:06.320 --> 00:11.200]  host of the Lucid Libertarian podcast. This is my fourth visit with Laurie Ann because we always
[00:11.200 --> 00:16.240]  have so much to talk about. Laurie Ann's show is on virtually every podcast platform, so to follow
[00:16.240 --> 00:21.440]  her, simply go to your favorite platform and search for Lucid Libertarian. Laurie Ann and I
[00:21.440 --> 00:25.600]  had a hell of a good time in this interview and you're going to get a ton of great information
[00:25.600 --> 00:33.920]  from it, so let's get to it. I have a very special guest coming back for the fourth time,
[00:34.720 --> 00:46.320]  so I guess people might be able to guess that I'm a kind of big fan of Dave Champion aka Dr. Reality
[00:46.880 --> 00:54.480]  and hopefully he has agreed to come back for round four because he enjoyed the past three times
[00:54.480 --> 00:59.760]  he's been on the show. We've had awesome conversations, so I'm really excited to have
[00:59.760 --> 01:06.080]  him back again for a fourth time. I know a couple of my listeners have asked me a few times when
[01:06.080 --> 01:12.320]  I'm going to have him on my show again, so here we are and I do see that he's in the switchboard
[01:12.320 --> 01:19.280]  ready to go and I'll bring him on here shortly. I really want to encourage everybody to follow him
[01:19.280 --> 01:28.240]  on Rumble. I have a link to his channel in the show description if you're viewing the webpage for
[01:28.880 --> 01:36.320]  today's show. Follow him on Rumble. I can tell you, I mean there are a lot of podcasts out there.
[01:36.320 --> 01:41.200]  There are a lot of videos. I know there's a lot of TikTok addicts out there that will spend hours
[01:41.200 --> 01:47.120]  and hours and hours watching videos that do them absolutely no good
[01:48.800 --> 01:54.240]  and are pretty much a waste of time. I can guarantee you that if you follow Dave Champion
[01:54.240 --> 02:01.760]  on Rumble and start investing some of your time watching his videos, then it will be time well
[02:01.760 --> 02:08.080]  spent for you and of course he is the author of Income Tax Shattering the Myth, so I very much
[02:08.080 --> 02:22.080]  encourage you to go to DrReality.News and check out his book. Get it and read it. A very good book
[02:22.640 --> 02:32.160]  and he dispels a lot of the propaganda and myths about the income tax and who it applies to and
[02:32.240 --> 02:40.640]  who it doesn't apply to, which guess what, is most Americans, as he will say, and very enlightening.
[02:40.640 --> 02:47.600]  So like I said, follow him on Rumble. He talks about more topics than just the income tax,
[02:47.600 --> 02:55.520]  but it is one of his focuses. On his website you can read up about him. Really short synopsis.
[02:56.160 --> 03:02.720]  He's a physiologist. He has a doctoral degree in political philosophy. He has an extensive
[03:02.720 --> 03:08.480]  background in legal studies. He's served as a legal consultant on state and federal regulatory
[03:08.480 --> 03:14.080]  matters and constitutional law advisor. He's lectured on many subjects including the U.S.
[03:14.080 --> 03:19.040]  Constitution, history, the proper limited application of the income tax, government
[03:19.040 --> 03:27.200]  relations and human psychology. On physiology, I mean. He's a former martial arts instructor,
[03:28.080 --> 03:34.480]  firearms tactics and use of force instructor. He's a former army ranger with a law enforcement
[03:34.480 --> 03:42.960]  background. Many, many moons ago and now he's a business entrepreneur. So this guy,
[03:43.760 --> 03:48.080]  there's somebody that knows what he's talking about. He has spent an awful lot of time
[03:49.040 --> 03:56.240]  over many, many years so that he can speak with confidence about what he talks about.
[03:56.240 --> 04:03.360]  And he is very factual based. He doesn't tend to go down conspiracy road like I tend to.
[04:05.440 --> 04:10.960]  And in any case, so I am really, really happy to welcome him back. I'm going to go ahead and
[04:10.960 --> 04:18.240]  bring him on the line. And for you listeners out there, feel free to call in 563-999-3485.
[04:22.560 --> 04:31.280]  Again, that is 563-999-3485. And as usual, when I have a guest on, I like to have a good
[04:31.280 --> 04:36.480]  amount of one-on-one time with the guest without interruption. But I do intend to,
[04:37.280 --> 04:44.080]  during the last half hour, show this live broadcast right around 730-ish or so Pacific time.
[04:44.080 --> 04:50.400]  That'd be 1030 Eastern time. That's when I want to open up the phone lines one by one
[04:50.960 --> 04:56.800]  to take anybody, any callers on that want to ask him a question or have a comment on anything
[04:56.800 --> 05:02.800]  that he said and bring people on one by one so everybody can have a turn and have a few
[05:02.800 --> 05:08.800]  minutes with him. And hopefully we'll get the phone lines lighting up with people with having
[05:08.800 --> 05:15.680]  some good questions and comments. So that being said, I am bringing Mr. Dave Champion
[05:15.680 --> 05:22.880]  on into the show. Welcome, welcome, welcome. How are you doing? Happy Sunday and happy
[05:23.680 --> 05:28.320]  pre-Federal Tax Filing Form Day Eve.
[05:30.880 --> 05:37.040]  Hi, Laurieann. It's great to be back. Yeah, tomorrow is the, being April 15th, tomorrow is the
[05:37.040 --> 05:45.680]  real April Fool's Day when 100 million Americans, individual Americans, and then Lord knows how many
[05:45.680 --> 05:51.200]  businesses get fooled by the United States government into believing that they have to
[05:51.200 --> 05:55.600]  file tax returns and pay a percentage of their earnings over to the United States government.
[05:55.600 --> 06:05.760]  And the fact that it is 100 million citizens that have been completely and utterly fooled by the
[06:05.760 --> 06:10.640]  United States government, and they fool themselves because they just don't care to look into the
[06:10.640 --> 06:17.280]  truth, but 100 million of them are going to surrender their property to the government tomorrow
[06:17.440 --> 06:24.160]  because they're just too lazy to look at the law. It's crazy.
[06:28.000 --> 06:39.520]  Well, you know, and I think it's beyond laziness, I think. It is so brainwashing. I mean, we are not
[06:40.480 --> 06:49.760]  taught in school to think in legalese. We are not taught to how to actually look up, read,
[06:49.760 --> 06:57.520]  and understand laws. I think it's like, it melts our brains when we, when a lot of people try to
[06:57.520 --> 07:06.080]  do it. I know I do. I don't like looking at a, you know, at a 50-page, you know, bill of legislation
[07:06.080 --> 07:12.480]  and trying to understand what it means. So there is a laziness factor involved, but I also think
[07:12.480 --> 07:20.000]  that it's just brain melting. And that's why we need people like automatically melt and understand
[07:20.000 --> 07:28.880]  the stuff to come and talk to us in like real world language. You know, I saw somebody put up
[07:28.880 --> 07:35.920]  a screenshot on one of the social media sites the other day. It was instructions by the school
[07:35.920 --> 07:44.560]  district to students concerning how to conduct their research. And it said, when you're looking
[07:44.560 --> 07:55.920]  for material, when you go to .gov, you know you're getting credible information. When you go to
[07:55.920 --> 08:03.520]  anything else like .com, .news, .info, et cetera, those are sites where you may find disinformation.
[08:04.480 --> 08:13.280]  So here's the government telling mushy-headed students that the only site that they can rely
[08:13.280 --> 08:23.440]  on to tell the truth is .gov. Tell me that isn't, doesn't program young mushy minds. So does it move
[08:23.440 --> 08:27.680]  forward in life? Well, the government is credible. Everybody else is not telling the truth. And of
[08:27.760 --> 08:32.640]  course, it's exactly the opposite. Isn't that very self-serving? Yeah, and the government
[08:32.640 --> 08:38.240]  lies all the time. It lies even when the truth would serve it well. But yet somehow they're
[08:38.240 --> 08:44.640]  programming kids to believe that .gov tells the truth. And pretty much anybody else, that's where
[08:44.640 --> 08:50.720]  you're going to find the disinformation. That's revoltingly backwards. That's 180 degrees away
[08:50.720 --> 08:58.560]  from reality. I absolutely agree. I think probably one of the most prominent
[09:00.080 --> 09:06.800]  government .gov websites there is that feeds nothing but propaganda is whitehouse.gov.
[09:08.000 --> 09:13.280]  I don't think that we can actually rely on anything that that website says.
[09:13.440 --> 09:24.000]  Yeah, yeah, it's absurd. You know, unless something is very, very non-controversial,
[09:24.000 --> 09:29.520]  sort of a plain vanilla subject that nobody has any angst about in one direction or another,
[09:29.520 --> 09:33.760]  other than that, you can pretty much be assured that government websites are not going to tell
[09:33.760 --> 09:45.360]  you the facts. 100% right. 100%. You did, I'm going to segue into, you did a really good
[09:46.320 --> 09:53.360]  interview about a week ago that I've gotten watching. And you got really into like some of
[09:53.360 --> 10:01.360]  these definitions of all these terms, you know, in regard to the income tax, like, what does
[10:01.360 --> 10:10.160]  employee really mean? What does wages and income actually mean? What does withhold,
[10:10.160 --> 10:16.320]  you know, who's required for withholding actually mean? How is it defined? How is a person defined?
[10:16.960 --> 10:24.560]  And these terms that are thrown around, there's what we think they mean in normal language,
[10:25.280 --> 10:32.000]  but they're very significant when you're looking at what laws actually say and how they actually
[10:32.000 --> 10:37.760]  define them. I would like you to maybe just say a few words on that. Like, what are the biggest
[10:37.760 --> 10:42.240]  points on with those kinds of terms that you would like to make for listeners?
[10:45.200 --> 10:51.920]  Number one point, as you're reading through law, if you read law and presume
[10:51.920 --> 10:57.120]  that you know what the words mean that you are reading, because you are intelligent,
[10:57.120 --> 11:03.200]  and you have read the dictionary, and you know what those words mean, you are very, very likely
[11:03.200 --> 11:09.760]  to take away from reading that law, a completely inaccurate view of what that law pertains to,
[11:10.720 --> 11:17.680]  because the Supreme Court has said that legislatures, not just Congress, any of the
[11:18.160 --> 11:28.080]  legislature, is free to define words in whatever way they want. So we'll use Congress as an example
[11:28.080 --> 11:34.400]  since we're almost certainly going to talk about income tax tonight. Congress is free to take a
[11:34.400 --> 11:41.040]  word we all believe we understand. You could ask 100 people and you get essentially the same
[11:41.040 --> 11:47.920]  definition for the word. Congress is free to take that word and define it differently.
[11:48.880 --> 11:52.800]  And the only restriction that the Supreme Court has placed on that practice
[11:53.440 --> 12:02.240]  is that Congress make available somewhere in what you're reading how they've redefined the word. I
[12:02.240 --> 12:09.040]  should say how they've defined the word. They've only redefined it in terms of the ordinary American
[12:09.040 --> 12:15.200]  thinking it means, what it means in Webster's. In that sense, it's been redefined. But the
[12:15.200 --> 12:22.000]  Supreme Court has said that Congress has the right to craft a definition of a word we think we know
[12:22.000 --> 12:32.560]  the meaning of in order to achieve Congress's objectives. And I mean, as somebody who spent
[12:33.360 --> 12:41.120]  25 years studying law, I get it. As somebody who understands that my fellow citizens have no clue
[12:41.760 --> 12:49.360]  how law operates, it's deceptive as hell. And I don't really have a problem with the practice.
[12:50.560 --> 12:56.720]  If there was some sort of, like after every section, there was a note in the parentheses and
[12:56.720 --> 13:02.800]  said, words in this section may not mean what you think they mean in the English dictionary,
[13:02.800 --> 13:09.200]  the definition section at page what have you. If there was that sort of full disclosure,
[13:09.920 --> 13:18.080]  I wouldn't necessarily object. But the problem is that the definitions are sometimes literally,
[13:18.720 --> 13:27.360]  I'm not being facetious, hundreds and hundreds of pages away from where this word is used that's
[13:27.360 --> 13:32.720]  been redefined by Congress. So somebody's reading through it, you happen to mention the word employee,
[13:33.600 --> 13:36.960]  somebody's reading through a statute, and they see the word employee.
[13:37.920 --> 13:43.920]  Well, gosh, again, you can light 100 Americans up and ask them what the definition of employee is,
[13:43.920 --> 13:50.080]  and you get essentially 100 people giving you the same response. And that's not remotely
[13:50.800 --> 14:01.920]  what it means in US law. It's a problem. And I hope I'm clear, if people understood that they must,
[14:02.480 --> 14:06.640]  whatever they read a lot, I don't care whether it's something pertaining to the DMV,
[14:06.640 --> 14:10.000]  something pertaining to property rights, I don't care whether it's the income tax,
[14:10.000 --> 14:15.760]  when you read the statute, any statute, and you go, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh,
[14:15.760 --> 14:21.440]  okay, I get it. That makes perfect sense to me. Your understanding is probably incorrect
[14:21.440 --> 14:27.920]  if you didn't go to the definition section and see how words that are commonly used in English
[14:27.920 --> 14:32.960]  have been redefined by the legislature for that specific law.
[14:32.960 --> 14:42.400]  Which you bring up a good point, definitions for the same word depending on the type of law
[14:43.360 --> 14:51.760]  that is written. So the definition for employee for tax code can be one definition,
[14:51.760 --> 14:56.320]  but then there can be completely other legislation not having to do with taxes
[14:57.040 --> 15:03.440]  that defines employee completely differently. So that's another part of the confusion is,
[15:03.440 --> 15:09.040]  you know, and then like you said, they don't say, you know, go to section this and this and
[15:09.040 --> 15:14.080]  this and that and that and that to read the definition of this. It's like we're supposed
[15:14.080 --> 15:21.040]  to just intuitively know where to go to look up where that definition was originally, you know,
[15:21.040 --> 15:25.680]  how many decades ago that it was defined, right? And so that's part of the problem.
[15:25.680 --> 15:31.280]  And that's, I think, deliberately set up that way to be so confusing so that the average person
[15:32.080 --> 15:38.960]  finds it almost impossible to understand. Well, certainly gives lawyers a lot of power
[15:38.960 --> 15:45.120]  because they are taught that in law school. They understand to go look at the definition section
[15:45.120 --> 15:51.120]  where the other three hundred and thirty three million Americans don't know to do that.
[15:51.120 --> 15:57.200]  I'll tell you the problem is years ago, I was at the main Los Angeles County Law Library doing
[15:57.200 --> 16:03.840]  some research and there's a book for legal professionals and it's called succinctly
[16:04.640 --> 16:11.840]  Words and Phrases. I looked up the word resident in words and phrases
[16:12.800 --> 16:19.680]  and it said that the word resident, depending on where and how it's used,
[16:20.240 --> 16:30.960]  has forty five different meanings for the same word. We talked about employee in the internal,
[16:30.960 --> 16:35.760]  yeah, we talked about employee as used in the Internal Revenue Code. Well, we mentioned it a
[16:35.840 --> 16:45.360]  moment ago. I have found thus far eight different definitions for the word employee as used in the
[16:45.360 --> 16:51.040]  tax code. There may be more. I've stumbled across eight of them. So that gives you an example,
[16:51.040 --> 16:55.760]  you know, especially if somebody's looking at a matter that's personal to them, something like
[16:55.760 --> 17:00.960]  say payroll withholding. And it says payroll withholding is to be done from the employee.
[17:01.280 --> 17:09.120]  So the average Joe who's an auto mechanic or works at Walmart or is a receptionist at a doctor's
[17:09.120 --> 17:16.960]  office, they're going to read that and absent seeing what how Congress has redefined that word
[17:16.960 --> 17:22.560]  for the purpose of payroll withholding, they're going to say, oh, yeah, I was told that it doesn't
[17:22.560 --> 17:28.880]  actually apply to me. But look, I just read it does payroll withholding is to be done upon employees.
[17:29.040 --> 17:33.840]  That's me. Okay, it's settled. These people who are telling me it does not apply to me,
[17:33.840 --> 17:40.640]  they're obviously full of shit, because it says right here, they have no idea what the word
[17:40.640 --> 17:49.840]  employee means that they just read. And that is a huge part, huge, not by no means is it exclusive,
[17:49.920 --> 17:58.320]  is it exclusive, the only element of the scam concerning income tax, but it is a huge tool
[17:58.320 --> 18:03.600]  that Congress and the Secretary of the Treasury have used for the last 111 years
[18:03.600 --> 18:08.400]  to fool the American people about income tax. And it's a very profitable scam.
[18:10.320 --> 18:13.360]  Very much so, obviously, they're raking in all this dough.
[18:14.080 --> 18:20.960]  And I guess, you know, one of the things that we've talked about before, but for those that
[18:20.960 --> 18:27.040]  might be listening that haven't had, you know, listened to you a whole lot. You've talked a lot
[18:27.040 --> 18:36.080]  about who the income tax actually applies to. And there's three categories, will you give a brief
[18:36.080 --> 18:42.320]  summary on the three categories of people that by law that you've researched, that the income tax
[18:42.320 --> 18:51.680]  actually applies to? Sure. Before I cite them, since you said, you know, that I did a fair amount
[18:51.680 --> 18:59.840]  of, I think I want your audience to know that I'm 30 years into this now. And I researched the law
[18:59.840 --> 19:08.640]  for 17 years before I published income tax shattering the myths. So there's no question
[19:08.640 --> 19:15.440]  more about any of the things I'm going to mention to you. And that can be verified by the tens of
[19:15.440 --> 19:21.440]  thousands of people who write income tax shattering the myths. And frankly, anyone who listens to this
[19:21.440 --> 19:28.160]  broadcast and thinks, you know, I think Mr. Champion's full of it. All they have to do to
[19:28.160 --> 19:32.880]  know otherwise is simply read income tax shattering the myths, they'll close the final page, and
[19:32.960 --> 19:41.520]  they'll say, wow, I was wrong. He was right. And I don't say that in any sort of an ego sense.
[19:41.520 --> 19:46.720]  I say that because I want people to have confidence in the subject that we're talking about. Does that
[19:46.720 --> 19:54.960]  make sense? It absolutely does. And you're really, really good in your book about citing like, look
[19:54.960 --> 20:00.720]  for yourself. Don't just take my word for it. Here's where you go. You know, here's the section
[20:00.800 --> 20:05.840]  to look up. Read it on your own. You know, you'll see that I'm not just, you know,
[20:05.840 --> 20:12.400]  making this stuff out of thin air. In both of my books, I say, please do not take my word for
[20:12.400 --> 20:17.200]  anything. Do your own research. Look it up. In the case of income tax shattering, there is an
[20:17.200 --> 20:23.280]  extensive index and there's a table of authorities that has all the court cases and all the citations
[20:23.280 --> 20:29.520]  of law. So it is a scholarly work that anybody can follow along. Nobody has to take my word for
[20:29.520 --> 20:38.400]  anything. Now, with that said, what you refer to as the three categories in law, just because I
[20:38.400 --> 20:46.400]  prefer to be precise. In law, there are three classes of persons. That's a fancy legal term
[20:46.400 --> 20:52.560]  for category. There are three classes of persons upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax.
[20:52.560 --> 21:00.400]  Then I'm going to tell you a fourth one that's been made liable. So the first of the three
[21:00.400 --> 21:09.040]  that the tax has been imposed upon is non-resident aliens with US source income. The second is
[21:09.920 --> 21:18.400]  foreign corporations with US source income. The third is US citizens residing abroad
[21:18.400 --> 21:25.520]  with foreign earned income. There is a fourth class upon whom the tax has not been imposed,
[21:25.520 --> 21:33.680]  but has actually been liable, made liable for the tax. That is US citizens or residents
[21:34.800 --> 21:43.200]  who withhold the US income tax from US source income before they send it offshore to its foreign
[21:43.200 --> 21:51.840]  owner. So the example I often give of that fourth category is, let's say a multimillionaire in
[21:51.840 --> 21:59.840]  Brazil. He sends an investment firm in the United States several million dollars to invest in the
[21:59.840 --> 22:05.520]  US stock market. And so the investment firm buys up a bunch of shares of Apple on his behalf.
[22:06.320 --> 22:11.520]  Apple pays out dividends, but Apple doesn't send the dividends to the Brazilian gentleman.
[22:11.520 --> 22:17.920]  Apple sends the dividends to the investment firm. And the investment firm then sends them,
[22:17.920 --> 22:26.800]  if it's the wish of the Brazilian business person, they will then send that US source income in the
[22:26.800 --> 22:34.960]  form of dividends, in this example, to the Brazilian owner. Now the way US income tax law works,
[22:35.760 --> 22:42.560]  Apple is a US source. So when we talk about non-resident aliens with US source income,
[22:43.040 --> 22:53.600]  Apple being the origin of the income is the US source, but it's paid to the US investment firm.
[22:54.800 --> 23:01.040]  That US investment firm, before it can send that money on to the Brazilian, which means
[23:01.200 --> 23:10.880]  which means crossing the US border, leaving the US, they are required under law to withhold
[23:11.760 --> 23:19.200]  the US income tax that the Brazilian gentleman owes. Once they've withheld that tax,
[23:19.920 --> 23:26.320]  they become liable to file a return and pay it over to the United States government. So while
[23:26.320 --> 23:33.520]  the tax was not imposed on the investment firm, like it was on the three classes,
[23:34.240 --> 23:41.280]  the investment firm has nevertheless been made liable to pay the tax for the gentleman upon
[23:41.280 --> 23:44.240]  whom the tax was imposed. Did I express that clearly?
[23:46.640 --> 23:52.880]  You absolutely did. And I think wouldn't that person equate to being an agent?
[23:53.760 --> 23:56.720]  They're an agent acting on behalf of.
[23:58.000 --> 24:07.440]  Yes. And let me add to that, if I may. In the tax code, that's referred to as a US person. Now,
[24:07.440 --> 24:13.680]  US person is used throughout federal law, and it means different things in different areas of law.
[24:14.320 --> 24:19.280]  So we have to be very clear about what US person means in reference to the income tax.
[24:20.000 --> 24:27.200]  In reference to the income tax, a US person is a US citizen or domestic corporation
[24:28.000 --> 24:38.000]  that is involved in the flow of US income, US source income from its origin to its foreign owner.
[24:38.880 --> 24:46.960]  So in the example we just gave, the US investment firm would be a quote US person. Now, this is a
[24:46.960 --> 24:54.720]  very confusing term for Americans. None of this is an accident, by the way. The fact that
[24:55.760 --> 25:00.480]  the different definitions, people are confused about what US person, none of this is by accident.
[25:00.480 --> 25:07.600]  This is completely designed from the ground up to fool the American people so the government
[25:07.600 --> 25:12.160]  can commit what it has been committing and continues to commit the largest financial crime
[25:12.160 --> 25:20.480]  in world history. So the reason I say US person is confusing for ordinary Americans is Americans,
[25:20.480 --> 25:28.400]  on the whole, generalizing, tend to be patriotic people. They love their country and many of them
[25:28.400 --> 25:35.440]  have served in the military and they consider themselves American to the core, so to speak.
[25:36.080 --> 25:41.760]  So when they're reading through law and they come across US person, they say,
[25:42.480 --> 25:52.160]  hell yeah, I'm a US person, you bet your ass I'm a US person. Because in their way of thinking,
[25:52.160 --> 26:02.880]  because they don't imagine that the law is as convoluted and contrived as it is, they think
[26:02.880 --> 26:08.240]  you read it through just like you'd read, I don't know, Harry Potter, right? It just means what it
[26:08.240 --> 26:14.640]  says. So they read through it and they see US person. So they see that a US person is required
[26:14.640 --> 26:21.920]  to do this and such. So they say, well, all right then, since I'm a US person, I'm required to do
[26:21.920 --> 26:28.880]  this and such and I better get on with it or I'm a law breaker, I'm a stop law. They have no idea
[26:29.840 --> 26:42.160]  what US person actually means in tax law. 999,999 out of a million Americans who read US person,
[26:43.760 --> 26:48.960]  they have no idea what it means. So if a US person is commanded in law to do this and that,
[26:49.920 --> 26:54.480]  the average American goes, I don't want to get in trouble with the IRS, I better go do that.
[26:54.720 --> 26:59.920]  Because they don't know any better, because they don't, I don't mean to be pejorative.
[27:01.840 --> 27:08.720]  They haven't taken the time to learn about the law. So when they bump into the law,
[27:09.440 --> 27:15.280]  they don't know what the hell it means. And that's really a shame. There should be a class in,
[27:16.080 --> 27:22.720]  I don't know, at least two semesters in every high school in America that teaches young Americans
[27:22.720 --> 27:26.320]  the kind of things I talk about an income tax out of this. And by that, I mean the statutory
[27:26.320 --> 27:31.120]  rules of construction and how regulations are to be interpreted and what definition, how the
[27:31.120 --> 27:41.920]  legislature's treat definitions. There's a lot on a much going up to the 35,000 foot level without
[27:41.920 --> 27:50.160]  specific examples, just the bottom line, the law rarely means what people think it means
[27:50.160 --> 27:55.600]  when they read it as ordinary English, which is oftentimes how it reads. There's no tip off
[27:56.400 --> 28:04.000]  that it has a contrary meaning. So without a tip off, ordinary good hearted Americans think,
[28:04.000 --> 28:09.200]  well, it means what it says. That's rarely the case when it comes to law. It rarely means
[28:09.840 --> 28:13.840]  what it says. Deliberately. And that's part of the scam.
[28:14.560 --> 28:15.520]  Yes.
[28:15.520 --> 28:19.200]  And that brings me to things like here in Oregon,
[28:21.680 --> 28:28.240]  certain legislation can go up directly to the voters as a measure, and we'll vote on the measure.
[28:29.120 --> 28:37.120]  And of course, that measure, they have to display the actual text of the legislation.
[28:38.080 --> 28:43.920]  And the problem with that is, is a lot of that legislation, when you read through it,
[28:44.960 --> 28:51.280]  goes, okay, you know, we're defining this and this and this and that according to ORS statute,
[28:51.280 --> 28:57.600]  blah, blah, blah, blah, this, we're going to define this according to Oregon statute, blah,
[28:57.600 --> 29:06.880]  blah, blah, blah, that. But the voters don't actually take those extra steps to look up those
[29:06.960 --> 29:13.840]  statutes and their definitions so that they understand what the measure or the text of the
[29:13.840 --> 29:22.080]  measure that they're voting on actually means. And problems, like I know that I really do want
[29:22.080 --> 29:32.400]  to hit up a little bit later in the show. Measure 110, that Oregon passed decriminalizing drugs.
[29:33.200 --> 29:36.320]  And then, of course, measure 114, the gun control legislation.
[29:37.280 --> 29:41.840]  Those are two topics that I definitely want to hit up with you. But that's where we get into
[29:41.840 --> 29:52.480]  these problems is because there is so much effort involved in understanding the legislation that
[29:52.480 --> 29:58.400]  they're actually voting on. They can't just read what that text says. And like you said,
[29:58.960 --> 30:06.480]  they'll read it thinking that it means one thing because these terms, they think that they're
[30:06.480 --> 30:13.680]  self-evident, but they're actually not. And so in order to really understand what they're voting on,
[30:13.680 --> 30:17.920]  it's like you've got to spend hours looking up all of these different statutes to find out
[30:17.920 --> 30:22.320]  how it's defined and how it pertains to that particular piece of legislation
[30:22.320 --> 30:26.000]  and then actually be able to confidently vote for or against it.
[30:28.960 --> 30:37.920]  Yeah, it's disturbing. And I want to say that, how can I phrase this?
[30:40.480 --> 30:48.000]  This is not a mystery. I know it. You know it. Lots of other people know it, at least in the
[30:48.000 --> 30:59.600]  broad outline. And more often than not, what I see is people just don't feel that it's worth
[30:59.600 --> 31:07.040]  taking their time. They're saying, look, I got my kids, you know, softball game. I've got to take
[31:07.040 --> 31:13.040]  my daughter to the high school for her gymnastics competition. My boss is up my ass about this. My
[31:13.040 --> 31:18.160]  wife wants to go do this with me. Yeah, like I have the time to sit down and look up all these
[31:18.160 --> 31:25.280]  definitions. So I'm just going to vote yes, or I'm just going to vote no. But as you said,
[31:25.280 --> 31:30.720]  Lorianne, they don't even know what it means before they press the button in the voting booth. It's
[31:30.720 --> 31:37.200]  crazy. And they justify that they don't have the time. Now, I get that we're all very busy.
[31:37.680 --> 31:43.360]  But my thought is for the people, and I'm not blaming people who don't have the time. I totally
[31:43.360 --> 31:51.440]  get it. We're all busy. Some of us busier than others. But if you're not going to research it,
[31:51.440 --> 31:56.320]  don't go into the voting booth and press the button. I mean, you're just contributing to the
[31:56.320 --> 31:58.240]  You're just contributing to the problem.
[32:02.320 --> 32:07.760]  Absolutely. You know, just because it's there, doesn't mean you have to vote on it.
[32:15.520 --> 32:20.400]  If you don't really understand what it is, just leave it blank and move on to the next thing.
[32:21.280 --> 32:22.640]  Do everybody a favor.
[32:26.880 --> 32:28.880]  Did I lose you? I hope not.
[32:28.880 --> 32:30.880]  No, no, no, I thought you were in the middle of a thought.
[32:30.880 --> 32:34.880]  Oh, good. Okay. Oh, no, no, that was my thought.
[32:36.880 --> 32:41.600]  You know, I don't think people even have that option. They don't even think about like not
[32:41.600 --> 32:46.480]  voting, like leaving a box blank. They don't even think about that. It's like they get that that
[32:46.480 --> 32:51.600]  choice in front of them. And that's the only choice they have. They have to vote for this thing.
[32:52.560 --> 32:57.840]  They must. Otherwise, they're not a patriotic American because they didn't vote on something.
[32:57.840 --> 33:05.440]  They didn't check a box. Yeah. Where was I? Where were you?
[33:07.040 --> 33:17.280]  Well, I was thinking since each of us has used the term employee as an example of redefining
[33:17.280 --> 33:24.160]  words we think we know the meaning of, I thought it might be fun to provide your audience with the
[33:24.160 --> 33:34.560]  definition of employee for the purpose of payroll withholding. We all know that withholding is to
[33:34.560 --> 33:41.600]  be done from the employee. So the question then becomes, who is the employee? And I'm going to
[33:41.600 --> 33:46.560]  guess 99 out of 100 of the people who are listening to us right now, I know what it is.
[33:47.280 --> 33:55.120]  Anybody who works for the boss, right? So that's not what it means in the law pertaining to payroll
[33:55.120 --> 34:01.040]  withholding. And you can look this up yourself. You can find it at 26 USC 3401C. This is the
[34:01.040 --> 34:08.960]  definition of employee. Now, before I say it, for those of you who are unfamiliar with this
[34:08.960 --> 34:16.240]  particular issue or how Congress or legislature redefine terms, if you work for somebody else
[34:16.240 --> 34:22.560]  right now, I want you to listen to this definition carefully. And I want you to see
[34:23.440 --> 34:30.320]  if there's anything in this definition that no matter how you twist, bend or
[34:30.320 --> 34:39.520]  mangle this definition, how you could possibly make it be you. That's the challenge here.
[34:39.600 --> 34:46.720]  Can you make what's written here as the definition, can you make it be you? Can you convince yourself
[34:46.720 --> 34:53.200]  it's you? With that as the background, here's the definition of employee for the purpose of
[34:53.200 --> 35:00.480]  payroll withholding. Go ahead. You go ahead. Challenge accepted. Let's put it in that context.
[35:01.520 --> 35:06.880]  We have a challenge before us to actually hear the definition of what employee is
[35:07.520 --> 35:11.840]  according to the law and ask ourselves, does it really apply to me?
[35:14.160 --> 35:26.080]  Employee. Quote. For the purposes of this chapter, the term employee includes an officer, employee
[35:26.720 --> 35:34.480]  or elected official of the United States, a state or any political subdivision thereof
[35:35.120 --> 35:44.560]  or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
[35:48.400 --> 35:54.000]  If I ask somebody, if I read this definition to somebody, and so I was in a personal conversation,
[35:54.000 --> 36:00.960]  I read this definition, who would they say is being described? I want to read it again
[36:01.920 --> 36:07.840]  and I want your listeners to think, who is this describing?
[36:09.760 --> 36:15.040]  For the purpose of this chapter, the term employee includes an officer, employee or elected official
[36:15.040 --> 36:21.120]  of the United States, a state or any political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia
[36:21.120 --> 36:25.280]  or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
[36:25.920 --> 36:32.960]  I think anybody who listens to that and they try and say, who is it who's being described there,
[36:33.760 --> 36:38.560]  they would say, these are people who work for various government agencies.
[36:40.320 --> 36:46.560]  It's not me in the private sector. Now, I want to close what some people may consider
[36:46.560 --> 36:52.720]  in their minds a potential loophole, and that is this. The definition says, for the
[36:52.720 --> 36:58.480]  purpose of this chapter, the term employee includes. Now, I've had people over the years say
[36:58.480 --> 37:10.320]  includes indicates there may be other people, and those folks are not wrong. They just misunderstand
[37:10.320 --> 37:19.600]  and mean includes just blasts the doors off. You can add anything you want because it says includes.
[37:19.600 --> 37:25.840]  Anything you want because it says includes, including people who work in the private sector,
[37:25.840 --> 37:29.520]  even though there's nothing about private sector in the definition. Because it uses the word
[37:29.520 --> 37:34.160]  includes, some people will say, oh, you just throw that in there. You just include it
[37:35.840 --> 37:40.000]  as if tax law means whatever people come up with in their head.
[37:41.520 --> 37:45.360]  Let me share with you the definition of includes. I'm not going to read you the
[37:45.360 --> 37:51.200]  very lengthy 1913 definition because it's kind of a brain twister, but I'm going to tell you,
[37:51.200 --> 37:56.560]  by the way, you can go look it up for yourself if you want. It's at 26 USC 7701A30. You can look
[37:56.560 --> 38:02.320]  it up for yourself. I'm going to give you the plain English version of this. Includes means this.
[38:03.680 --> 38:08.080]  If you take the items that appear after the word includes
[38:08.720 --> 38:17.760]  and find the narrowest category that reasonably applies to those terms, anything in that category
[38:17.760 --> 38:25.040]  can be added to the definition, even if not enumerated in the definition. So let me give
[38:25.040 --> 38:32.880]  you an example. In this hypothetical example, let's say Congress was enacting a law that,
[38:33.200 --> 38:40.000]  one of the words they used in the law was food. So in their statute, they write,
[38:41.920 --> 38:58.480]  food includes peaches, pears, kumquats, bananas. So what do the items after includes? What is the
[38:58.720 --> 39:09.200]  smallest reasonable category you can infer? That would be fruit, yes? Because the enumerated items
[39:10.080 --> 39:19.920]  form a category, reasonably form a category, that's fruit, even though they're not enumerated,
[39:19.920 --> 39:26.000]  you can also add peaches and apples and strawberries and blueberries. If you add
[39:26.000 --> 39:34.240]  strawberries and blueberries, if you went into court and said this food tax doesn't apply
[39:34.880 --> 39:41.440]  because I'm dealing with blueberries and they're not enumerated, the court would rule against you
[39:41.440 --> 39:47.360]  because blueberries do fit within the category and therefore they may be included even though
[39:47.360 --> 39:54.880]  they're not enumerated. So that's what includes means. So going back to employee, obviously
[39:54.880 --> 40:02.480]  everything after the word includes is some form of government worker. So if there's,
[40:04.800 --> 40:10.080]  let's say the EPA is an example. The United States Supreme Court has ruled the EPA is an
[40:10.640 --> 40:16.800]  extra constitutional organization. In other words, it's created outside of and beyond the
[40:16.800 --> 40:21.600]  constitution, which is something we're not going to get into tonight, but it's a very fascinating
[40:21.600 --> 40:26.480]  subject. Yeah, I know. You're already giving me ideas for show number five.
[40:32.320 --> 40:39.520]  The EPA is obviously not enumerated in that statute, but because it's funded by Congress
[40:39.520 --> 40:45.920]  and it's within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress, it can be included,
[40:45.920 --> 40:50.400]  it can be considered as part of the definition even though it is not there by enumeration.
[40:51.040 --> 40:58.240]  I also want to point out that the word state as used in this definition of employee
[40:58.240 --> 41:03.280]  does not mean a state of the union. Again, this is how people get confused when they don't read
[41:03.280 --> 41:10.320]  the definitions. The definition of state when dealing geographically means the possessions
[41:10.320 --> 41:16.560]  and territories under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. It does not mean states
[41:16.560 --> 41:27.120]  of the union. A state can be DC, a state can be Puerto Rico, a state can be Guam,
[41:28.400 --> 41:37.280]  but as used in this definition, state is not New Jersey, Oregon, California, Texas, Alabama,
[41:37.280 --> 41:46.080]  none of those because that's not what state means in this particular area of law.
[41:47.120 --> 41:54.160]  By the way, Congress knows exactly what they're doing because throughout the vast majority of US
[41:54.160 --> 42:00.880]  income tax law, state means places that are under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress,
[42:00.960 --> 42:07.920]  which is not the states of the union. However, when Congress wants to include the states of
[42:07.920 --> 42:14.480]  the union, it knows how to do so. For instance, in the statute that makes it a crime for an IRS
[42:14.480 --> 42:20.480]  employee to divulge confidential tax information without the consent of their superiors,
[42:21.680 --> 42:29.840]  in that statute, state is defined to include the 50 states. They know exactly how to write it
[42:29.840 --> 42:36.320]  when they want to include the 50 states. The vast majority of the time, the word state does not
[42:36.320 --> 42:43.840]  include the 50 states. It means federal states, not states of the union. I know for people who
[42:45.040 --> 42:50.800]  this may be a case of first impressions, they've never heard this before, they might be thinking,
[42:50.800 --> 42:56.400]  oh, this is too much, absolutely too much. I don't buy it. This is nonsense. It can't be that way.
[42:56.400 --> 43:03.360]  It can't be that contrived. It can't be that screwed up. Sorry. It is.
[43:06.320 --> 43:16.320]  It's been this way actively for at least 100 years. These gimmicks were not terribly prevalent
[43:16.320 --> 43:22.880]  before the turn of the 20th century, but since roughly 1910-ish,
[43:24.720 --> 43:31.760]  these gimmicks just exploded in federal law and they are now the rule, not the exception.
[43:36.480 --> 43:44.240]  Sad but true. I think that anybody that has half a brain that watches how our government works
[43:44.880 --> 43:54.160]  should be able to go, yeah, they deliberately set this up this way. They deliberately are being
[43:54.160 --> 44:01.040]  deceitful towards the American people to deliberately make them not understand these nuances,
[44:01.920 --> 44:10.480]  to fool people into thinking that a term or phrase like state means what it means. When you say
[44:11.120 --> 44:17.840]  state in my mind, I think of the 50 states, that's automatically my answer.
[44:19.040 --> 44:24.240]  May I give you another example, someone that's featured prominently throughout the tax code
[44:24.960 --> 44:32.240]  and people absolutely believe they know what it means and they have no clue and it's much
[44:32.240 --> 44:36.880]  more broad-based than employee for the purpose of payroll withholding. That's a very specific
[44:36.880 --> 44:42.480]  definition for a very specific area within the tax code. The one I'm about to share is much more
[44:42.480 --> 44:49.040]  widespread throughout the tax code and it is the phrase trade and business, trader business.
[44:50.240 --> 44:55.120]  A person is reading along and they say, this and such is required if you're involved in a
[44:55.120 --> 45:03.680]  trader business. The average good-hearted American who thinks mistakenly, thinks the law means what
[45:03.680 --> 45:10.640]  it says, they say, oh, well, just kind of like U.S. person, I'm involved in trader business,
[45:11.200 --> 45:18.000]  that's me. If I'm going to be compliant with the law, I have to do whatever it says here.
[45:18.000 --> 45:26.480]  Otherwise, the government's going to come screw with me. The definition of trader business
[45:26.480 --> 45:30.720]  in the tax code, now again, all of these things have little tiny exceptions.
[45:31.680 --> 45:38.160]  As an example, once I give you the meaning of trader business, in probably 99% of the time,
[45:38.160 --> 45:42.000]  99 instances of seeing trader business, it's going to mean what I tell you.
[45:42.000 --> 45:47.360]  There might be that one time where they redefined it for just the use in that section or that
[45:47.360 --> 45:54.880]  paragraph or that subparagraph. Definitions are a tricky business, but this is pervasively the
[45:54.880 --> 46:04.400]  meaning of trader business in the intact law. It means the performance of a public office.
[46:07.520 --> 46:16.960]  People read trader business, who the hell would think that means somebody who works for,
[46:17.920 --> 46:26.160]  I don't know, the state department carrying out their job as cast by the secretary of state.
[46:27.440 --> 46:31.360]  Who would think that trader business means the performance of a public
[46:31.360 --> 46:37.440]  office, but that's exactly what's defined for the purposes of the tax code.
[46:38.960 --> 46:45.040]  I wanted to share that one because it's far more pervasive and one might say
[46:45.120 --> 46:51.120]  less forgivable than employee. I think employee is pretty egregious, but trader business is just
[46:52.000 --> 47:00.000]  beyond, it almost makes me want to think of doing violent things to the people in government
[47:00.720 --> 47:11.600]  when they find it acceptable to fake out, to fool, to make fools of the American people
[47:11.760 --> 47:16.160]  so that they can continue committing the largest financial crime in history.
[47:16.160 --> 47:21.680]  Depending on it. I don't even think that our Congress members, our legislators even know
[47:21.680 --> 47:27.360]  because they've lived their whole lives under the same brainwashing. I think a lot of them
[47:27.360 --> 47:35.680]  don't even know these nuances either. They're committing this fraud knowingly and unknowingly
[47:35.840 --> 47:37.840]  and unknowingly at the same time.
[47:38.960 --> 47:47.600]  Oh, you're absolutely right. All somebody has to do in order to grasp that. I don't think there's
[47:47.600 --> 47:57.360]  very many Americans that think that their legislators are brilliant. Normally,
[47:57.360 --> 48:01.760]  it's the left-right paradigm. Somebody on the right looks at a politician and says,
[48:02.400 --> 48:09.680]  he says stuff I like, so I'm voting for him. People on the left, they look at their politicians
[48:09.680 --> 48:16.000]  who are running for office and they say, well, I really like the positions that she holds. I'm
[48:16.000 --> 48:21.280]  absolutely going to vote for her in the election, but none of them would tell you, oh, yes, the
[48:21.280 --> 48:27.200]  person I'm voting for, they must have an IQ of 200. They're brilliant. Nobody ever thinks that.
[48:28.000 --> 48:33.760]  So, if somebody wants to amuse themselves, here's something like, I'm just going to give you
[48:34.400 --> 48:42.080]  one example because it shows the mind numbingness. So, if you're listening to the show
[48:42.640 --> 48:55.120]  and you're taking notes, write this down, 26CFR1.861. Now, it's actually 861 at second
[48:55.920 --> 49:05.840]  or next. Secretary-in-law means end what follows. So, when I say 861, I mean read all of the
[49:05.840 --> 49:13.760]  information in that subpart, which is, I don't know, 123 pages, something like that, of eight-point
[49:13.760 --> 49:21.040]  type. And as you read through it, yeah, oh, it's brutal. I've read the whole thing a couple of
[49:21.040 --> 49:26.880]  times out of necessity because I was writing about it or speaking about it. But here's my point.
[49:27.760 --> 49:33.760]  If your listeners go do that, if they go 26CFR1.861 at secretary and they start reading,
[49:33.760 --> 49:36.720]  they can even go a couple of pages and just start reading anywhere. It doesn't matter.
[49:38.560 --> 49:42.000]  Within less than five minutes, they're going to say,
[49:42.960 --> 49:49.920]  the congressman who represents me or the senator who represents my state.
[49:51.840 --> 50:00.800]  They have no idea what any of this means because it's just incredibly detailed and nuanced and
[50:00.800 --> 50:09.200]  unusual and topics that nobody knows anything about. So, to imagine that, I don't know,
[50:09.920 --> 50:18.240]  Ron Paul, who's a medical doctor, to imagine that he knows anything that knows what 861 or anything
[50:18.240 --> 50:25.520]  beyond that means is absurd. What's AOC? To imagine that she's got a bachelor's in economics,
[50:25.520 --> 50:33.280]  to imagine that she knows anything, the meaning of anything in 861, people would literally,
[50:33.280 --> 50:38.400]  on both sides of the aisle, laugh themselves out of the chair thinking that their politician
[50:38.400 --> 50:45.440]  actually understands any of that. My point is that you are correct, Lorianne. Our elected
[50:45.440 --> 50:52.400]  officials have zero knowledge of the scam that's going on in the tax code. Maybe the couple of
[50:52.400 --> 51:00.480]  people who've been around forever, like Mitch McConnell and who's that shrew from California
[51:00.480 --> 51:11.680]  on the Democrat side, Nancy Pelosi. These couple of fossils at the very top of the food chain
[51:12.400 --> 51:21.120]  and the career employees, not the politician appointed people, but the top
[51:21.680 --> 51:33.360]  career employees at the Treasury Department and the IRS, they know the truth. But likely the people
[51:33.360 --> 51:42.240]  in government who know the truth probably don't exceed, even if we add those that have been
[51:42.240 --> 51:49.440]  retired from those positions and are still alive, probably doesn't exceed, I don't know, 250 people
[51:49.440 --> 51:55.360]  in the whole nation. Tens of thousands of people have read Income Tax Shatter the Mist. So my point
[51:55.360 --> 52:06.400]  being there, that there are exponentially more ordinary, run-of-the-mill Americans who understand
[52:06.400 --> 52:12.480]  the income tax scam than there are people in the employ of the government who understand the income
[52:12.480 --> 52:20.880]  tax scam. I can't help but think that we see with the job numbers, for example, that they're
[52:20.880 --> 52:25.920]  reporting, which of course are fudged. They've been correcting month after month after month. They boast
[52:25.920 --> 52:33.360]  all these great job numbers and then those hit the headlines and then a couple months later they're
[52:33.360 --> 52:38.880]  like, oh yeah, that was bloated. We had to revise those down and of course those don't get a lot of
[52:38.880 --> 52:49.360]  fanfare, right? But these people that are creating jobs mostly in the government sector,
[52:49.360 --> 52:55.280]  and I can't help but think I wonder why that is. Because maybe, just maybe, there's people like you
[52:55.280 --> 53:01.280]  that are spreading the actual truth about the income tax and who it applies to and what an employee
[53:01.280 --> 53:09.840]  is. And so thereby, if we bloat the government and more and more and more of a percentage of
[53:09.840 --> 53:18.160]  people are actually employed by a state or federal government agency, all that, then they can get by
[53:18.160 --> 53:28.800]  with actually applying, quote unquote, legitimately applying the taxes, income taxes on them because
[53:28.800 --> 53:34.960]  they're a state or federal person working for the government. So bloat the government more and more
[53:34.960 --> 53:40.160]  and more and then once the truth, once more and more people actually start to realize the truth
[53:40.160 --> 53:45.600]  about it, then that's the next level. It's like, but yeah, you know what? It actually does apply
[53:45.600 --> 53:50.960]  to you because that's how employee is defined and you work for the government. Do you know what I
[53:50.960 --> 53:57.520]  mean? Like how that's like another level of the scam? It's exactly that. Although I would say it's
[53:57.520 --> 54:07.840]  another layer of the scam. And what I mean by that is that when we discussed the term employee
[54:07.840 --> 54:12.160]  for purpose of payroll withholding, we just talked about that single definition. We didn't get into
[54:12.160 --> 54:21.040]  the broader issues of upon whom the payroll withholding is to take place. But law, I've often
[54:21.040 --> 54:27.520]  said that the rule of real estate is location, location, location. The rule of law is context,
[54:27.520 --> 54:37.760]  context, context. So payroll withholding, it is a mechanism whereby taxes withheld.
[54:38.480 --> 54:45.440]  So that mechanism sits within the broader scope of the income tax itself. It's not independent
[54:45.520 --> 54:52.640]  of the income tax. It is a tool for collecting the income tax. And as we discussed earlier,
[54:52.640 --> 55:00.880]  the income tax has been imposed on non-resident aliens with US source income, foreign corporations
[55:00.880 --> 55:07.920]  with US source income, US citizens residing abroad with foreign earned income. And that fourth class
[55:07.920 --> 55:13.680]  has been made liable as US persons who actually have withheld US income tax before they sent the
[55:13.680 --> 55:20.160]  money offshore to its foreign owners. Nowhere in those three classes and the fourth one made liable,
[55:20.800 --> 55:28.960]  nowhere did you hear working for the government. Because that's not upon whom the withholding
[55:28.960 --> 55:38.560]  mechanism applies. And let me explain why. If you work for Walmart, they can't withhold from you.
[55:38.560 --> 55:42.320]  Now, I know people are going to be screaming at their computers right now, you know, well,
[55:42.320 --> 55:47.840]  it does, they take the money. Yes, I understand that America has rectal cranial inversion about
[55:47.840 --> 55:52.960]  the law. I have no idea what it means. And I'll talk about that in a minute. So yes,
[55:52.960 --> 55:57.120]  if Walmart is withholding, and they're violating the law, and their workers don't know anything
[55:57.120 --> 56:00.960]  about it, and the workers don't care, and the workers are in the matrix, and they believe it's
[56:00.960 --> 56:07.520]  okay. So, but here's the thing. Those workers at Walmart don't owe the income tax, because they're
[56:07.520 --> 56:14.400]  not within any of the three classes. Yes. All right. So, when you if somebody gets a job
[56:14.400 --> 56:20.640]  working for, I don't know, working, I live in Nevada, so we'll say working for the Nevada DMV.
[56:22.560 --> 56:27.840]  Did they suddenly lose their right of property? Did they suddenly fall within one of the three
[56:27.840 --> 56:35.520]  classes, simply because they worked for the DMV? No, not at all. And remember, payroll withholding
[56:35.520 --> 56:43.440]  is merely a mechanism to collect the tax. But the tax has to be collected from someone upon whom
[56:43.440 --> 56:54.160]  it has been imposed. Non-resident aliens with U.S. source income. So, what the withholding
[56:54.160 --> 57:02.800]  statutes are is it is instructions from Congress to government agencies under the exclusive
[57:02.800 --> 57:12.880]  legislative jurisdiction of Congress that when they pay, when they cut payroll to a non-resident
[57:12.880 --> 57:23.440]  alien, it is mandatory that they use the withholding mechanism specified at 3402
[57:23.440 --> 57:29.760]  that we've been referring to repeatedly. Now, follow me on this. The reason that's limited to
[57:29.760 --> 57:42.160]  the government is, well, let's say, I don't know, Bureau of Prisons. When the Bureau of Prisons
[57:42.960 --> 57:52.800]  cuts a check to a worker that's a non-resident alien, does the Bureau of Prison know absolutely,
[57:52.800 --> 57:58.720]  definitively, without doubt that the income being paid out is from a U.S. source?
[58:00.320 --> 58:05.680]  Yeah, because they are the source. Well, there's no question it's coming from a U.S. source.
[58:06.720 --> 58:13.920]  So, when there is no question that it's a U.S. source, Congress has told
[58:14.640 --> 58:20.320]  its own agencies and instrumentalities, there's no question it's a U.S. source. So,
[58:20.320 --> 58:28.160]  if you're paying it to a non-resident alien, it is mandatory that you use the mechanism specified
[58:28.160 --> 58:34.640]  at 3402 in order to withhold the U.S. income tax before you give the money to the non-resident
[58:34.640 --> 58:41.040]  alien. So, I share all of that. I hope I expressed it clearly, but I share all of that to make the
[58:41.040 --> 58:47.280]  point that even if an ordinary American citizen goes to work for a state or the federal government,
[58:47.280 --> 58:51.360]  it doesn't change the fact that they're not a person upon whom the tax has been imposed
[58:51.920 --> 58:56.560]  and therefore the collection mechanism cannot be employed against them.
[58:58.160 --> 59:06.320]  Therein lies another part of the scam. You phrased that really well. You phrased that
[59:06.320 --> 59:13.040]  very well. I know I'm going to kind of switch gears a little bit, because I've often been
[59:13.040 --> 59:19.680]  asked, well, what about state income taxes? Because we're assuming here that we're only
[59:19.680 --> 59:26.160]  talking about federal income tax. What about state income tax? Because the states impose an income tax
[59:26.160 --> 59:37.920]  too, right? Some do. On top of it. Yeah, most of them do. But yet, therein lies the other nuance,
[59:37.920 --> 59:46.640]  is the states that impose a state income tax, you describe that very well too. I don't want to put
[59:46.640 --> 59:51.920]  words in your mouth or phrase it, but I want for the listeners out there to understand
[59:52.880 --> 59:57.440]  how the two things are tied together. Would you briefly kind of describe
[59:59.280 --> 01:00:02.240]  how the state income tax ties in with the federal income tax?
[01:00:04.400 --> 01:00:14.480]  You bet. I'm happy to do that. So, state income tax is upon the exact same class of person or
[01:00:14.560 --> 01:00:22.240]  classes of persons, and it is for the exact same activity, receiving U.S. source income.
[01:00:24.560 --> 01:00:31.360]  Let's say that a person is a non-resident alien from, I don't know, we'll say France.
[01:00:32.960 --> 01:00:38.480]  Under U.S. income tax law, he qualifies as a non-resident alien. But he's in this country
[01:00:38.480 --> 01:00:47.440]  temporarily, and he's working a job for, I don't know, a computer company, software company.
[01:00:48.960 --> 01:00:58.880]  So, the tax, because he's a non-resident alien, he's within a class. And in terms of the fact
[01:00:58.880 --> 01:01:05.200]  that he's a foreign person, the source of the income is obviously from within the U.S.
[01:01:05.680 --> 01:01:17.600]  And so, it's the same tax of people. It's simply another additional jurisdiction taking its cut.
[01:01:18.720 --> 01:01:23.840]  Here's an example I like to use. Let's say you're driving down the road. It's a 50 mile an hour speed
[01:01:23.840 --> 01:01:32.240]  limit, and you get pulled over. You're doing 80. And you happen to be within a city that's within
[01:01:32.240 --> 01:01:38.880]  a county. So, the way the law works there, although there's just one offense, there's just
[01:01:38.880 --> 01:01:47.200]  one person who committed the offense, the county gets some of the fine, and the city gets some of
[01:01:47.200 --> 01:01:54.080]  the fine. It's still the same guy in the same car with the same vehicle code, violating the same
[01:01:54.080 --> 01:02:00.640]  statute. But multiple jurisdictions share in the money they took from the citizen.
[01:02:02.240 --> 01:02:05.680]  So, it's the same exact thing with income tax. As a matter of fact,
[01:02:07.360 --> 01:02:15.760]  the IRS and state tax agencies work together hand in glove. Now, they exchange information.
[01:02:16.320 --> 01:02:24.400]  Sometimes the IRS will literally say, we believe Joe Citizen owes us some tax,
[01:02:24.400 --> 01:02:30.000]  but we're busy going after him for these four years. So, we're going to reach out to California
[01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:34.640]  to the Franchise Tax Board, and we're going to say, we want you to go after him for these other years.
[01:02:35.360 --> 01:02:39.360]  Well, clearly, they both couldn't go after the poor guy if it wasn't the same tax upon the same
[01:02:39.360 --> 01:02:45.280]  person. If it was a different tax, a separate tax, a tax that wasn't identical, then they couldn't
[01:02:45.280 --> 01:02:52.800]  work together like that. Here's the thing. Any state that enacts an income tax,
[01:02:53.920 --> 01:02:59.920]  if they want the support of the federal government, if they want to work with the IRS and with the
[01:02:59.920 --> 01:03:07.920]  Treasury Department on enforcement of the income tax, they have to submit, before they pass it,
[01:03:07.920 --> 01:03:15.440]  before it even hits the legislature's floor for a vote, they have to submit their proposed statutes
[01:03:16.800 --> 01:03:24.080]  to the United States Department of Treasury. The United States Department of Treasury then has to
[01:03:24.080 --> 01:03:33.520]  approve the state's income tax laws. When you read state income tax laws,
[01:03:33.840 --> 01:03:40.480]  one of the big definitions in the tax code, one of the big definitions to people who don't study
[01:03:40.480 --> 01:03:45.200]  tax laws, kind of meaningless to people like me, but for the public, people who are uninformed,
[01:03:45.760 --> 01:03:51.680]  one of the definitions that's cited frequently by accountants and people for the government is
[01:03:51.680 --> 01:04:00.000]  Section 61, the definition of gross income. When you read through the income tax laws of a state
[01:04:00.000 --> 01:04:08.480]  that has income tax, it will tell you the term gross income has the same meaning as in Section
[01:04:08.480 --> 01:04:14.480]  61 of the Internal Revenue Code. When you see the next one, it says the definition of adjusted gross
[01:04:14.480 --> 01:04:20.320]  income. It's going to tell you it has the same meaning as the definition in the Internal Revenue
[01:04:20.320 --> 01:04:27.440]  Code in Section 62. When you get to taxable income, it's going to tell you taxable income in the state
[01:04:27.440 --> 01:04:34.400]  of whatever has the same meaning as Section 63 in the Internal Revenue Code. Everything is the
[01:04:34.400 --> 01:04:41.520]  same. Everything. It's the same tax upon the same people in the same set of circumstances for the
[01:04:41.520 --> 01:04:49.280]  same activity. It's just two separate jurisdictions each getting their case of what that person owes
[01:04:49.280 --> 01:04:56.960]  in income tax. You know, it's almost like you're describing our government, state and federal,
[01:04:57.680 --> 01:05:06.720]  as a bunch of mafia crime bosses all working together. You know, you control this area over
[01:05:06.720 --> 01:05:14.480]  here. I'll control that over here. And that's because there's money on the table. Like I said,
[01:05:14.480 --> 01:05:23.200]  the largest financial crime in history. It's funny because people have oftentimes asked me
[01:05:24.160 --> 01:05:29.520]  why the government doesn't, I don't know, for lack of a better term, give me a hard time.
[01:05:30.720 --> 01:05:40.480]  And I point out that to do so would only hurt the government because no, the government's got it
[01:05:40.480 --> 01:05:47.760]  made, right? So I'm going to just use a hypothetical figure here. Probably 96% of the American public
[01:05:48.320 --> 01:05:52.320]  believes the government's false narrative about income tax and it applies to everybody. If you
[01:05:52.400 --> 01:05:56.480]  earn a living, you have to give a percentage to the government. That's what the law says.
[01:05:56.480 --> 01:06:03.280]  They actually believe that falsehood, right? So that 96%, the government owns them because of
[01:06:03.280 --> 01:06:10.080]  the people's own unwillingness to actually, in this case, I'll say, read a single book
[01:06:10.080 --> 01:06:13.680]  and discover the truth. Because they're unwilling to read a book, the government
[01:06:13.680 --> 01:06:19.280]  owns them, lock, stock and barrel. Those people are always going to give the government their money.
[01:06:22.960 --> 01:06:30.640]  And right now, the government's got it good. I don't know how many people I'm able to reach
[01:06:30.640 --> 01:06:36.640]  between my book and marketing and appearing on podcasts. I don't know how many. And readers of
[01:06:36.640 --> 01:06:42.000]  income tax shouting at us, promoting it to others, I don't know how many people are reached. But I
[01:06:42.000 --> 01:06:49.600]  think it would probably be a safe guess that it doesn't add up to one-tenth of 1% of the US
[01:06:49.600 --> 01:06:55.200]  population. If the government were to go to war with me because I'm telling the truth,
[01:06:56.400 --> 01:07:01.840]  that would become news. That would draw attention to the truth. That would draw attention to income
[01:07:01.840 --> 01:07:10.000]  tax shattering the mist. That would draw attention to the controversy. That would mean mainstream
[01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:17.680]  media, people like CNN and Fox News, might actually want to sit down with me and talk about the income
[01:07:17.680 --> 01:07:23.040]  tax because the government made income tax shattering the mist. The government made Dave
[01:07:23.040 --> 01:07:31.760]  Champion an issue. Right now, the government's got it made. It doesn't need to fight me. It doesn't
[01:07:31.760 --> 01:07:37.760]  need to fight anybody else who's out there promoting the truth because the government is winning lock,
[01:07:38.320 --> 01:07:44.720]  stock and barrel because the American people believe the government. They want to believe the
[01:07:44.720 --> 01:07:53.120]  government as far as I can tell. I don't want to say they think. That makes them feel safe and
[01:07:53.120 --> 01:08:00.000]  secure and comfortable to believe the government. I talk to people who generally distrust the
[01:08:00.000 --> 01:08:07.760]  government, but then they'll say, oh, when it comes to the income tax, well, the government wouldn't
[01:08:07.840 --> 01:08:18.320]  lie about that. The government is working quietly behind the scenes to make sure that
[01:08:19.200 --> 01:08:24.480]  no one who has the public's ears talking about income tax. I'll tell you a story. About a year
[01:08:24.480 --> 01:08:30.720]  ago, a person who I've been acquainted with for some time reached out to me and said, I want to
[01:08:30.720 --> 01:08:36.960]  tell you what was just shared with me by one of my close friends. This was his close friend sharing
[01:08:36.960 --> 01:08:44.160]  it with him and then he called me. His close friend, they've known each other since they were
[01:08:44.160 --> 01:08:51.680]  kids. His close friend had been building a podcast audience for years and the audience became large
[01:08:51.680 --> 01:08:57.200]  enough that one of these major podcast platforms, I don't have all the details because the gentleman
[01:08:57.200 --> 01:09:02.560]  who called me said, if I divulge all of that, I'm breaching confidentiality with my longtime friend,
[01:09:02.560 --> 01:09:09.680]  but he wanted me to know the outlines. He said that his friend was offered a paying gig on one
[01:09:09.680 --> 01:09:16.320]  of these large platforms, like the Joe Rogan with Spotify. Not quite that kind of money,
[01:09:16.320 --> 01:09:21.920]  but you get the point. He was going to be making a nice living from sitting behind a microphone
[01:09:21.920 --> 01:09:26.960]  and doing what he'd been doing for some time and building that audience. Now, finally, he was going
[01:09:26.960 --> 01:09:33.440]  to get compensated well for that by a large platform. They talked about the money and
[01:09:33.440 --> 01:09:37.360]  everything was agreed to, so they said, okay, well, now we have to send you over the contract
[01:09:37.360 --> 01:09:44.240]  and go ahead and get it signed and get it back to us and you'll be getting paid bank to be a
[01:09:44.240 --> 01:09:52.080]  podcaster on our platform. Unlike most people, this gentleman actually read through the contract
[01:09:53.040 --> 01:09:59.600]  and in the contract, there were certain topics that he agreed never to discuss while he was
[01:09:59.600 --> 01:10:07.760]  podcasting on that network. One of them was to talk about whether or not the income tax applies
[01:10:07.760 --> 01:10:20.240]  to ordinary working Americans. You can imagine that that podcast platform didn't come up with
[01:10:20.320 --> 01:10:27.440]  that provision on their own. Somebody at the Treasury Department reached out to their attorney
[01:10:28.640 --> 01:10:33.680]  and said, if you don't want any trouble from the IRS, you're going to put this in your agreement.
[01:10:35.040 --> 01:10:39.840]  Because if we start hearing your podcasters talking about the income tax in this way,
[01:10:40.480 --> 01:10:47.520]  this aspect of the income tax, oh, you guys are going to get an IRS proctological exam like
[01:10:47.520 --> 01:10:52.400]  you've never had before and I guarantee you, you're going to owe a lot more in income tax
[01:10:52.400 --> 01:10:58.000]  when we're done with you. Go ahead and don't put that in there if you want us to fuck you.
[01:10:59.360 --> 01:11:03.600]  You can imagine the podcast management, right? They've got shareholders to satisfy. They were
[01:11:03.600 --> 01:11:10.960]  like, no, no, no, no. We don't want any problems from you, so we'll put that provision in our
[01:11:11.680 --> 01:11:21.760]  contract for our podcasters. It's interesting because as podcasting has become more of a real
[01:11:21.760 --> 01:11:27.520]  thing in society, I think at one time it was an outlier. Now it's prevalent. Everybody loves
[01:11:27.520 --> 01:11:37.840]  podcasts. Everybody's listening to them. The number of podcasters who will actually have me on and
[01:11:37.840 --> 01:11:48.000]  talk about the income tax is infinitesimally small. I was set up to talk about it with one.
[01:11:50.400 --> 01:11:57.280]  There was co-hosts, a gentleman and a woman. This woman is a libertarian, which should catch
[01:11:57.280 --> 01:12:05.600]  in your craw. The gentleman was like, yeah, I'll have you on. When he reached out to his co-host
[01:12:05.600 --> 01:12:12.880]  and said, hey, we're going to have Dave Champion on, the libertarian half said, absolutely not.
[01:12:13.520 --> 01:12:18.960]  We've got a good thing going right now. If you have him on to talk about the income tax,
[01:12:18.960 --> 01:12:24.160]  we're going to get fucked. We're not going to do that. We're not going to have him on.
[01:12:24.160 --> 01:12:28.000]  And the male half buckled and said, I'm sorry, we can't have you on.
[01:12:28.880 --> 01:12:35.360]  Wow. Wow. So yeah, it's like even libertarians are too scared.
[01:12:37.360 --> 01:12:39.760]  Oh my God, libertarians are the worst, Lorianne.
[01:12:42.080 --> 01:12:46.640]  Libertarians are the absolute worst on this subject. They're worse than Republicans. They're
[01:12:46.640 --> 01:12:54.400]  worse than Democrats. They absolutely will not talk about it. I've reached out to either directly
[01:12:54.400 --> 01:13:01.120]  or through intermediaries who I know have personal relationships with these libertarian leaders,
[01:13:01.120 --> 01:13:09.200]  names that everybody who's libertarian would immediately recognize. And I've either contacted
[01:13:09.200 --> 01:13:15.760]  them directly or through intermediaries who know them well, or in one case, I reached out
[01:13:15.760 --> 01:13:25.360]  through a gal who is the PR person. And these people who are notable names, they are at the
[01:13:25.360 --> 01:13:30.880]  top of the food pyramid of the libertarian party, or we'll say people, they're at the top of the
[01:13:30.880 --> 01:13:40.000]  food chain for people who fancy themselves libertarian. These people will not discuss
[01:13:40.000 --> 01:13:47.360]  the truth of the income tax. There is an absolute libertarian blackout on the truth of the income
[01:13:47.360 --> 01:13:54.800]  tax. That really surprises me because I mean, libertarians tend to be the ones, you know,
[01:13:54.800 --> 01:13:59.840]  and the Fed, and the Fed, you know, libertarians are the ones, you know, yeah, the IRS is
[01:13:59.840 --> 01:14:03.520]  unconstitutional. It shouldn't even be there. It needs to get the act. Like the libertarians
[01:14:03.520 --> 01:14:07.760]  are the ones that want to, you know, give the chopping block to all of these unconstitutional
[01:14:07.760 --> 01:14:13.840]  government agencies. And then including the income tax, they're very vocal on the topic.
[01:14:13.840 --> 01:14:20.800]  So it boggles my mind where they would be so afraid to have you on as a guest, like I am here.
[01:14:20.800 --> 01:14:25.360]  I'm not afraid. I'm having you on for the fourth time talking about this stuff. I want to talk
[01:14:25.360 --> 01:14:30.160]  about it. And yeah, sorry, that actually kind of really surprises me.
[01:14:30.160 --> 01:14:37.600]  What's the most common slogan concerning taxation in libertarian circles? Taxation is
[01:14:37.600 --> 01:14:45.120]  taxation is theft. Yep. Right. Now, a couple of these couple of these libertarian leaders
[01:14:45.120 --> 01:14:51.680]  that I reached out to, I had one on one discussions with them. And I said, in terms of
[01:14:53.440 --> 01:14:59.280]  holding any offices of significance, in other words, anything beyond like maybe a seat on
[01:14:59.280 --> 01:15:06.480]  a town council or, you know, a county dogcatcher. Aside from that, the libertarian party is failing
[01:15:06.480 --> 01:15:12.240]  miserably. They're not getting, I mean, how many people in Congress right now are libertarians?
[01:15:12.800 --> 01:15:23.600]  Arguably two. OK. And that's including those who may be running as Republicans, may run
[01:15:23.600 --> 01:15:28.400]  for election as Republicans or Democrats, but they're libertarian minded. OK, we're talking
[01:15:28.960 --> 01:15:37.760]  two, maybe three out of 535 elected officials on the Hill. OK, so the libertarian party,
[01:15:37.760 --> 01:15:47.680]  in my estimation, is failing miserably, completely a failure. So I said to a couple of these
[01:15:47.680 --> 01:15:55.760]  notable names, these leaders, I said, one of the reasons that the libertarian party is failing so
[01:15:55.760 --> 01:16:03.920]  miserably is you don't have any issues. You're not changing anything. You're just running your
[01:16:03.920 --> 01:16:17.760]  mouths. You're espousing principles, but you have no power to change anything because all you do is
[01:16:17.760 --> 01:16:23.440]  talk and you don't. And oh my God, libertarians argue amongst themselves more than Democrats
[01:16:23.440 --> 01:16:30.160]  and Republicans argue against one another. Oh, that I know. Yes, that I know. You're not
[01:16:30.160 --> 01:16:41.200]  libertarian enough. So many libertarians despise other libertarians. The party and the very
[01:16:41.200 --> 01:16:46.560]  philosophy when you bring it into the political sphere is a complete and utter failure. So I
[01:16:46.560 --> 01:16:53.280]  talked to some of these libertarian leaders and I said, you know, the magic of the income tax
[01:16:53.280 --> 01:17:02.960]  from a libertarian perspective is you're not advocating that anybody commit civil disobedience.
[01:17:02.960 --> 01:17:07.280]  You're not telling them, you know, shut down the government. You're not telling them to,
[01:17:07.280 --> 01:17:12.000]  you know, handcuff themselves to each other and form a human chain across the doors of some
[01:17:12.800 --> 01:17:18.240]  institution that you despise. You're not doing that. The truth of the income tax,
[01:17:19.120 --> 01:17:22.400]  what you're doing is telling the libertarian constituency,
[01:17:24.480 --> 01:17:35.280]  I want you to get educated. And once you get educated, we can starve the federal government
[01:17:35.280 --> 01:17:43.120]  and state governments. We can starve them of the resources they need for their grotesque
[01:17:43.120 --> 01:17:50.400]  overreach. We can stop them from getting involved in every single aspect of our lives and we can
[01:17:50.400 --> 01:18:00.720]  stop them from doing that by obeying the law. You stop paying when you understand what the law says
[01:18:00.720 --> 01:18:08.000]  and you say, I'm now going to obey the law. I know who the income tax applies to. It's not me.
[01:18:08.640 --> 01:18:13.520]  So I'm not going to file and I'm not going to pay anymore. I said, so really what you can do is you
[01:18:13.520 --> 01:18:21.920]  guys can start a movement whereby obedience to the law, not civil disobedience, but actual obedience
[01:18:21.920 --> 01:18:30.720]  to the law. You can deprive this grotesque monster called government of its fuel source,
[01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:38.640]  the constant payment of trillions of dollars. If you really want to pull on, if you really want
[01:18:38.640 --> 01:18:42.960]  to limit government and shrink the size of government, you got to attack them with the
[01:18:42.960 --> 01:18:48.720]  purse strings. And by attacking with the purse strings means you got to understand that the
[01:18:48.720 --> 01:18:56.800]  income tax scam that is upon the vast majority of Americans is the way to go. That is like the free
[01:18:56.800 --> 01:19:03.520]  way that libertarians could use to get that message across. And I love what you're saying
[01:19:03.520 --> 01:19:09.760]  that it's by complying with the law as it's stated that by which we can do that.
[01:19:10.720 --> 01:19:19.680]  Yeah. I also want to take a step further. First of all, they always say, wow, that's a really
[01:19:19.680 --> 01:19:27.280]  interesting perspective. And that's the end of the conversation. I never hear from them again. Also,
[01:19:28.960 --> 01:19:36.160]  anyone who's a notable name in the libertarian sphere, I have always said,
[01:19:36.880 --> 01:19:42.320]  all they have to do is agree to read it. I send them complimentary copies of Income Tax Shatter
[01:19:42.320 --> 01:19:53.040]  in the Mist. Any notable libertarian leadership name you can think of, I have sent them a
[01:19:53.040 --> 01:20:01.520]  complimentary copy of Income Tax Shatter in the Mist. To my knowledge, at this time, after years
[01:20:01.520 --> 01:20:09.840]  of doing this, exactly zero libertarian leaders have read Income Tax Shatter in the Mist. That's
[01:20:09.840 --> 01:20:17.360]  how uninterested they are in this crucial matter of liberty, in this crucial matter of putting the
[01:20:17.360 --> 01:20:24.320]  government in its place. They have zero interest. They don't really believe what they're saying
[01:20:24.880 --> 01:20:32.720]  to the libertarian community. I find that egregious and obnoxious. They're as bad or worse
[01:20:32.720 --> 01:20:35.760]  than the Democrats and Republicans, and it pains me to say that.
[01:20:39.360 --> 01:20:44.640]  Yeah. Because we all know that the Democrats and Republicans, they're on the top of the list as
[01:20:44.640 --> 01:20:49.600]  far as getting us where we're at in levels of corruption, RNC, DNC, blah, blah, blah.
[01:20:50.080 --> 01:20:55.360]  And even me, being a very libertarian person, I'm a registered libertarian,
[01:20:57.360 --> 01:21:05.600]  I would want the libertarian party to be a mechanism by which to dismantle all of that
[01:21:05.600 --> 01:21:13.920]  corruption and influence the dismantling of that corruption of the two-party system and the
[01:21:13.920 --> 01:21:21.680]  monopoly that it has over us. And yet, it's at the same time exactly what you're saying.
[01:21:21.680 --> 01:21:27.600]  It's like the libertarians seem to have this dick-measuring contest with each other all the
[01:21:27.600 --> 01:21:37.520]  time, bickering amongst each other, and yet not willing to actually take up the issues that truly
[01:21:37.520 --> 01:21:49.600]  do matter. And it's a Republican in Ohio that last year and is trying to revive it to abolish
[01:21:49.600 --> 01:21:56.000]  the 16th Amendment. And it's like, that's something a libertarian should be doing.
[01:21:58.640 --> 01:22:00.080]  And that Republican should be-
[01:22:00.080 --> 01:22:04.880]  Resolution 47, I believe it is, the Ohio Congressman
[01:22:04.880 --> 01:22:09.840]  introduces a bill to repeal the 16th Amendment, arguing that government shouldn't tax income.
[01:22:11.680 --> 01:22:19.440]  It's Congressman Warren Davidson, a Republican in Ohio. And of course, the Congress has just
[01:22:19.440 --> 01:22:23.440]  let it sit there. They haven't voted on it. They haven't moved it forward. And now he's like,
[01:22:23.440 --> 01:22:31.520]  hey, this is just sitting there. We need to move this forward. Every single libertarian-minded
[01:22:31.520 --> 01:22:37.200]  person should be behind this guy and should be writing our Congress people going, hey,
[01:22:39.520 --> 01:22:44.960]  this is a legitimate thing. You shouldn't just set this aside and ignore it.
[01:22:44.960 --> 01:22:53.200]  So one of the things that people will learn when they read income tax shattering the mist
[01:22:53.200 --> 01:23:00.880]  is the 16th Amendment did not do what the average uninformed American believes it did.
[01:23:01.920 --> 01:23:05.920]  If you write the IRS and say, what's your authority to impose an income tax,
[01:23:05.920 --> 01:23:11.920]  they will tell you it's the 16th Amendment. And as we can expect, that's a lie. I remember
[01:23:12.880 --> 01:23:18.480]  when my daughter was about 11th grade and she was reading history one night for homework,
[01:23:18.480 --> 01:23:23.280]  and I asked to see her book. And I went through it until I found the part about income tax,
[01:23:23.280 --> 01:23:27.760]  about the 16th Amendment specifically, because it was like a timeline of history in her book.
[01:23:27.760 --> 01:23:33.520]  And I went through the timeline until I found the 16th Amendment. And it said that the 16th
[01:23:33.520 --> 01:23:40.160]  Amendment authorized Congress to impose an income tax on the American people. So none of that's true,
[01:23:40.160 --> 01:23:48.240]  by the way. Congress has had the authority to impose an income tax upon the American people
[01:23:48.240 --> 01:23:56.480]  since the founding of this nation. The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to correct an incorrect
[01:23:56.480 --> 01:24:02.720]  decision made by the Supreme Court in 1895 in a case called Pollock. And in Pollock,
[01:24:02.720 --> 01:24:06.480]  I'm not going to get into as fairly nuanced and people who haven't read income tax shattering the
[01:24:06.480 --> 01:24:10.960]  rest will get lost in about 30 seconds, but dealt with direct and indirect taxes and how
[01:24:10.960 --> 01:24:18.320]  those kind of taxes should be addressed by federal tax law. And the court got it wrong in Pollock.
[01:24:19.040 --> 01:24:25.760]  So the elites, the power elites, put forth the 16th Amendment to correct Pollock,
[01:24:26.960 --> 01:24:31.280]  which was merely just an interpretation of one particular kind of transaction between direct
[01:24:31.280 --> 01:24:35.600]  and indirect tax. It had nothing to do with whether the federal government could impose
[01:24:35.600 --> 01:24:42.320]  an income tax. That had nothing to do with the 16th Amendment. In the Bruce Shaver case in 1916,
[01:24:42.320 --> 01:24:50.720]  when the court was reviewing the 16th Amendment and passing judgment on it, the court said
[01:24:51.440 --> 01:25:02.000]  that the 16th Amendment granted Congress no new taxing powers. In other words, if it was taxable
[01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:06.400]  before the 16th Amendment, afterwards it remained taxable. If it was not taxable
[01:25:06.400 --> 01:25:10.800]  before the 16th Amendment, it remained non-taxable after the 16th Amendment.
[01:25:11.840 --> 01:25:16.880]  All the 16th Amendment did was correct an incorrect earlier decision that dealt with a
[01:25:16.880 --> 01:25:28.640]  nuance of tax law. So the last thing leadership on the Hill wants to do with Davidson's bill
[01:25:29.520 --> 01:25:33.680]  is to get the public involved in a conversation about the 16th Amendment.
[01:25:33.680 --> 01:25:37.360]  Because first of all, Davidson doesn't know what it means or he wouldn't even be putting that bill
[01:25:37.360 --> 01:25:43.520]  forth. If Davidson and I sat down on the phone and talked about this, I would explain to him
[01:25:43.520 --> 01:25:50.000]  that in terms of the current modern U.S. income tax that was enacted in 1913 and is still active
[01:25:50.000 --> 01:25:59.440]  in its core form today, the 16th Amendment is totally irrelevant and I would hope he would
[01:25:59.440 --> 01:26:05.120]  withdraw his bill. Now the only thing that I, the only good I can see coming from a bill like that
[01:26:05.120 --> 01:26:11.440]  passing, which is never going to happen, the only good thing I can see about it is once the 16th
[01:26:11.440 --> 01:26:19.760]  Amendment in this mythical scenario, once the 16th Amendment was abolished, the income tax would
[01:26:19.760 --> 01:26:25.440]  continue. So people would then understand the 16th Amendment did not authorize the income tax.
[01:26:28.560 --> 01:26:34.880]  Yeah, the only problem with abolishing the 16th Amendment is then the incorrect
[01:26:35.600 --> 01:26:42.400]  determination of the court of Pollock would revert to being the law. And I don't think anybody,
[01:26:42.960 --> 01:26:47.360]  people who oppose the income tax, people who support the income tax, nobody would want to
[01:26:47.360 --> 01:26:52.400]  go back to an incorrect interpretation of law. Well, I shouldn't say that. An incorrect
[01:26:52.400 --> 01:26:56.880]  interpretation of the Constitution. Nobody wants to go back. And that's what Pollock was,
[01:26:56.880 --> 01:27:02.800]  an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. So on the upside, people would realize, wow,
[01:27:02.800 --> 01:27:08.480]  the 16th Amendment is gone and the government is still promoting and administrating and enforcing
[01:27:08.480 --> 01:27:14.560]  an income tax. That didn't change when the 16th Amendment went away. But certain aspects of tax
[01:27:14.560 --> 01:27:19.200]  law would then be subject to the incorrect decision of Pollock. So it's a mixed bag.
[01:27:19.840 --> 01:27:26.640]  But the good news is, the good news is that if you're not a non-resident alien with US source
[01:27:26.640 --> 01:27:30.640]  income, you're not a foreign corporation with US source income, you're not a US citizen residing
[01:27:30.640 --> 01:27:36.640]  abroad with foreign income, and you're not a US person serving as a withholding agent of US income
[01:27:36.640 --> 01:27:41.600]  tax on US source income belonging to a foreign person. If none of those things are true,
[01:27:42.560 --> 01:27:44.640]  Who gives a shit about the 16th Amendment?
[01:27:46.000 --> 01:27:50.640]  Yeah, well, exactly. A good point. And then maybe that's another part of the thing,
[01:27:50.640 --> 01:27:56.480]  because if I'm reading this, HJ resolution 47, joint resolution,
[01:27:58.800 --> 01:28:03.440]  proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 16th Article of the
[01:28:03.440 --> 01:28:07.200]  Amendment, resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
[01:28:07.200 --> 01:28:13.200]  and Congress, assembled two thirds of each house and concurring therein, section one,
[01:28:13.840 --> 01:28:18.960]  that the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
[01:28:18.960 --> 01:28:24.320]  which shall be valid to all its intents and purposes as part of the Constitution,
[01:28:24.320 --> 01:28:29.040]  when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years.
[01:28:29.680 --> 01:28:33.680]  So it wouldn't even take effect until seven years after the date of its submission for
[01:28:33.680 --> 01:28:40.800]  ratification. The article says, effective two years after the ratification of this article
[01:28:40.800 --> 01:28:47.200]  of amendment, the 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed,
[01:28:47.840 --> 01:28:54.640]  and the Congress shall have no power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source
[01:28:54.640 --> 01:29:05.200]  derived except in time of war declared by the Congress. Therein lies the thing, that phrase
[01:29:05.200 --> 01:29:13.040]  right there automatically makes me, well, boy, isn't that giving an incentive for our government
[01:29:13.040 --> 01:29:18.960]  to constantly be declaring wars, actually declaring wars all over the freaking world,
[01:29:19.920 --> 01:29:26.240]  so that we could perpetually always be in a time of war by which Congress could impose
[01:29:26.240 --> 01:29:34.080]  and collect taxes on our income. And by the way, if Davidson knew what he was talking about,
[01:29:36.480 --> 01:29:42.720]  all that Bill would have to say would be that he's proposing an amendment
[01:29:42.720 --> 01:29:48.480]  that would prohibit the federal government from taxing incomes except in time of war.
[01:29:48.480 --> 01:29:54.880]  That whole thing about the 16th amendment is irrelevant to doing that because it's the second
[01:29:54.880 --> 01:30:02.560]  half where it talks about prohibiting the government from taxing income. That part would nullify
[01:30:02.560 --> 01:30:09.760]  the federal government's ability to impose an income tax. But here's the thing when we look
[01:30:09.760 --> 01:30:14.080]  at that, and people are probably, a lot of people are cheering that, oh my God, the government
[01:30:14.080 --> 01:30:20.240]  wouldn't be able to impose an income tax. Oh, that's so wonderful. Okay, so the income tax
[01:30:20.240 --> 01:30:26.720]  really applies to the three classes that we've discussed again and again tonight. So I'm not sure
[01:30:27.600 --> 01:30:37.040]  why people are thrilled that we can't tax foreigners with US Earth's income,
[01:30:37.040 --> 01:30:42.000]  why we can't tax foreign corporations with US Earth's income. And the third class,
[01:30:43.280 --> 01:30:48.080]  it's such a trivial amount of people, it's irrelevant when I say US citizens
[01:30:48.080 --> 01:30:52.560]  relating abroad with foreign earned income. So let's exclude that for the purpose of this.
[01:30:54.000 --> 01:30:58.960]  If people know the truth about the income tax, and it only applies to the, for the sake of this part
[01:30:58.960 --> 01:31:05.040]  of our discussion, the first two classes, why are people excited that we're not going to tax those
[01:31:05.040 --> 01:31:10.560]  people anymore? I mean, those are the people that, if we're going to tax people, we're going to tax
[01:31:10.560 --> 01:31:14.960]  foreigners who are benefiting from investing their money in our country. I don't have an
[01:31:14.960 --> 01:31:20.160]  objection to that. And that's because I know what the law says, and I haven't filed or paid in 30
[01:31:20.160 --> 01:31:27.920]  years, I have zero objection to the income tax. My objection is to the government bullshitting
[01:31:27.920 --> 01:31:34.720]  the American people. My objection is the American people being so dense, so lazy, so brainwashed,
[01:31:34.720 --> 01:31:41.600]  they won't read a single book to figure out the truth. That's my beef. Not, not, I have no beef
[01:31:41.600 --> 01:31:45.920]  with the income tax as properly applied. I don't know why any American would.
[01:31:49.600 --> 01:31:58.240]  Also a very good point. Very good point. Exactly. I mean, isn't, isn't that what should, you know,
[01:31:59.200 --> 01:32:05.600]  because this is foreign stuff, you know, foreign derived income, you know, right? So
[01:32:06.400 --> 01:32:12.960]  maybe there should be a tax on that. Not on American citizens. Exactly. And then even in
[01:32:12.960 --> 01:32:16.240]  your book too, you even break down, because I've had people even ask me like, you know,
[01:32:16.240 --> 01:32:21.520]  what about the fair tax? What about the flat tax? All these flat tax advocates and fair tax advocates.
[01:32:22.320 --> 01:32:30.000]  And you get into the, into your book about what that really means too. The fair tax. Yes.
[01:32:30.720 --> 01:32:39.440]  Isn't really so fair. The flat tax. Oh, it sounds simple enough. But, you know, maybe not so much.
[01:32:40.080 --> 01:32:43.760]  I guess before we get into other topics, and I know I want to get a Q&A involved,
[01:32:44.480 --> 01:32:52.320]  but briefly try to give listeners your take on the so-called fair tax and flat tax.
[01:32:54.480 --> 01:33:01.520]  Well, you know, one is, is basically a national sales tax. And the other is basically,
[01:33:01.520 --> 01:33:12.320]  it's just an income tax that purports to tax everybody equally. So the federal government
[01:33:12.320 --> 01:33:21.840]  has no constitutional authority to impose a sales tax. That's utter nonsense. The states are,
[01:33:23.040 --> 01:33:26.560]  the states have something in law called general jurisdiction. They can pass laws on
[01:33:27.520 --> 01:33:33.680]  pretty much anything they want, as long as they're not substantially imposing upon
[01:33:33.680 --> 01:33:39.280]  the exercise of the rights of the people. They can create laws for just about anything they want.
[01:33:39.760 --> 01:33:45.920]  Congress, on the other hand, the United States government is a government of limited,
[01:33:45.920 --> 01:33:51.600]  enumerated powers. They do not have general jurisdiction. They have limited jurisdiction.
[01:33:51.600 --> 01:33:55.760]  And that does not extend to creating a national sales tax. So people who are rooting for that,
[01:33:57.040 --> 01:34:02.960]  it's just more of what I've mentioned a few times. They don't do any research. They don't know
[01:34:02.960 --> 01:34:08.880]  anything. It's just, they go, that sounds nifty. I'd like to see that. Okay, that's great. Sounds
[01:34:08.880 --> 01:34:15.120]  nifty, perhaps, but Congress will never do it because they can't. And they know that.
[01:34:15.840 --> 01:34:20.480]  At least the people at the top of the food chain know that. And then, you know,
[01:34:20.480 --> 01:34:28.160]  taxing everybody equally. What a pipe dream. Do you know how long it would take before the
[01:34:29.120 --> 01:34:33.600]  deductions and exemptions and so forth would start being built into the law?
[01:34:36.240 --> 01:34:43.200]  Because you can't pass a law. Let's say it says that Dave Champion is going to get taxed $200 a
[01:34:43.200 --> 01:34:49.040]  year. And Lorianne is going to get taxed $200 a year. And Bill Gates is going to get taxed $200
[01:34:49.040 --> 01:34:53.760]  a year, whatever the number is. It doesn't matter what our revenue is. It doesn't matter what,
[01:34:53.840 --> 01:34:58.960]  you know, how we're invested. It doesn't matter the amount of money we bring in. None of that
[01:34:58.960 --> 01:35:05.680]  matters because under this proposal, everyone's going to pay the same amount. That's never,
[01:35:05.680 --> 01:35:08.880]  never going to happen. The first thing that's going to happen, first of all,
[01:35:10.320 --> 01:35:15.840]  whenever you're going to get this far, but if it were to be proposed or were to become law,
[01:35:15.840 --> 01:35:23.040]  the very first conversation to take place is it's fine if Dave Champion and Lorianne and Bill Gates
[01:35:23.040 --> 01:35:28.240]  pay whatever we'll call it $8,000 a year. It's fine if they pay $8,000 a year, but you can't
[01:35:28.240 --> 01:35:33.200]  expect the homeless man to pay $8,000 a year. So now we need exemptions for the homeless man.
[01:35:33.200 --> 01:35:42.160]  But the whole thing would collapse. It's just sheer stupidity. And it would also be unconstitutional
[01:35:43.680 --> 01:35:48.880]  for the same reasons that the income tax, if applied to you and I, would be unconstitutional
[01:35:48.880 --> 01:35:54.400]  because the federal government doesn't have that authority. I might add, if Congress had the
[01:35:54.400 --> 01:35:58.720]  authority to tax our labor, the way I like to refer to it is, you know, the ordinary American
[01:35:58.720 --> 01:36:02.480]  gets up in the morning, they have a little breakfast, they cup of coffee, they get the
[01:36:02.480 --> 01:36:06.480]  kids off to school, they go to work, they do whatever they do to earn a living and they get
[01:36:06.480 --> 01:36:15.280]  a paycheck. If Congress had the authority to tax that person in that scenario,
[01:36:15.280 --> 01:36:22.480]  the income tax would not be limited to the three classes we've discussed. If Congress could
[01:36:23.440 --> 01:36:30.720]  tax the labor of the American people, it would have long ago. So when people talk about a tax,
[01:36:30.720 --> 01:36:37.200]  it's going to be equal across the board. You're still taxing the property, the earnings of the
[01:36:37.200 --> 01:36:41.360]  American people, and Congress has no authority to do that. If they did, it would have been done
[01:36:41.360 --> 01:36:46.720]  long ago. So again, people don't know anything about the Constitution, they don't know anything
[01:36:46.720 --> 01:36:52.560]  about the limited authority of Congress, they don't know anything about taxation, but they say
[01:36:52.560 --> 01:36:57.920]  to themselves, well, that's a nifty idea and suddenly they're on board with nonsense.
[01:36:59.040 --> 01:37:03.600]  By the way, if anybody supports either of those two taxes, I'm not saying you're stupid.
[01:37:04.320 --> 01:37:08.480]  What I'm saying is, I hope you'll go out and get informed. I hope you'll read Income Tax Shattering
[01:37:08.480 --> 01:37:14.880]  the Mist, because I discuss all three forms of taxation, the income tax as it exists now,
[01:37:14.880 --> 01:37:19.360]  and the idea that we're going to tax everybody equally, and the idea of a national sales tax.
[01:37:19.360 --> 01:37:23.280]  I discuss all of that and I lay it out and I lay out the constitutional principles and the
[01:37:23.280 --> 01:37:27.440]  limits that are imposed in the Constitution, what the Supreme Court has said about those limits and
[01:37:27.440 --> 01:37:33.360]  so forth. So I would encourage people to get informed before they jump on a bandwagon,
[01:37:33.360 --> 01:37:35.520]  one or another of the bandwagons that's out there.
[01:37:37.840 --> 01:37:44.720]  Absolutely. And with that, I am going to, like time flies, like it's like a time warp with you
[01:37:44.720 --> 01:37:52.560]  every time and we always start getting served up. So there is 13 and a half minutes left of the live
[01:37:52.560 --> 01:37:57.200]  broadcast. For those of you that are listening online, I know we've got lots of people in the
[01:37:57.200 --> 01:38:03.040]  chat room right now, a lot of people that I'm familiar with in the chat room. Those of you
[01:38:03.040 --> 01:38:12.400]  that are out there listening, call in within the next 13 minutes, 563-999-3485, because that's when
[01:38:12.400 --> 01:38:17.680]  the live broadcast ends and then we get into the bonus hour. But you have to be on the switchboard,
[01:38:17.680 --> 01:38:22.560]  you have to call in and be listening in order to continue on with us for that bonus hour.
[01:38:22.560 --> 01:38:28.320]  Otherwise, if you're listening online and you're not dialed in, you're going to lose your audio
[01:38:28.960 --> 01:38:35.040]  and you'll have to listen to the show recording in order to listen to what we discuss in this
[01:38:35.040 --> 01:38:44.000]  next bonus hour. So again, 563-999-3485. And I do want to get to opening up the phone lines here
[01:38:44.640 --> 01:38:50.480]  soon as well for some Q&A with people that I know are probably anxious to ask you some questions.
[01:38:52.720 --> 01:38:55.920]  But at the very beginning of the show and with talking with you before,
[01:38:56.560 --> 01:39:04.240]  you know, when I invited you on, I wanted to mention the video that you did on basically
[01:39:04.240 --> 01:39:12.720]  what the fuck are the voters thinking here in Oregon with measure 110, measure 114 especially,
[01:39:13.840 --> 01:39:18.160]  because I know you're a big gun rights advocate, of course, you know, with your background.
[01:39:19.600 --> 01:39:25.760]  And yet we never seem to get to this topic. But I loved that video that you
[01:39:26.160 --> 01:39:31.200]  did if you go to his rumble channel, look up that I think you did it like a couple months ago or
[01:39:31.200 --> 01:39:37.840]  something. And, and so now as it stands, and talking about measure 110, the decriminalization
[01:39:37.840 --> 01:39:47.040]  of drugs, the movement went forth to repeal that. And now it has been repealed. And I sent you like
[01:39:47.920 --> 01:39:54.000]  the rundown of it. So it's going to start imposing fines again. And there's, you know, it's pretty
[01:39:54.000 --> 01:40:00.000]  lenient when it comes to, you know, small amounts of certain drugs, the fines aren't all that
[01:40:00.000 --> 01:40:07.280]  exuberant, especially if it's, you know, first time and all that. And, and one of the things
[01:40:07.280 --> 01:40:12.880]  that I wanted to mention about this is that you even brought up in your video was that originally,
[01:40:14.320 --> 01:40:20.640]  that measure changed how our legal marijuana tax revenues are distributed.
[01:40:21.600 --> 01:40:30.720]  And a good amount of those funds were supposed to go for opening up more and new drug and rehab
[01:40:30.720 --> 01:40:38.720]  facilities, which they weren't even required to do that, according to that legislation for a good
[01:40:38.720 --> 01:40:48.960]  deal of time, like almost two years. And so we have this influx of people overdosing on the street,
[01:40:49.040 --> 01:40:56.560]  especially in Portland, but it's not exclusive to Portland. And we have this explosion of sentinel
[01:40:56.560 --> 01:41:02.880]  going on, we have all of these problems as a result. And especially in overdose deaths,
[01:41:02.880 --> 01:41:10.400]  and overdose deaths are really what fueled this effort to repeal what the voters passed.
[01:41:11.120 --> 01:41:18.960]  The voters passed it by, I think it was like 58%. And, you know, and, and, but that,
[01:41:18.960 --> 01:41:24.320]  but therein lies the problem, you know, it's like they put the cart before the horse, you know,
[01:41:24.320 --> 01:41:32.320]  it was, it was set up, I think, from the beginning to fail, because they didn't have
[01:41:32.320 --> 01:41:42.240]  the needed things in place to accommodate more people going in for, you know, drug and addiction
[01:41:42.240 --> 01:41:47.600]  treatment. So that's part of the problem. And, you know, most of them that got caught, you know,
[01:41:47.600 --> 01:41:50.960]  they'd rather pay that hundred dollars, because they don't want to give up their addictions,
[01:41:50.960 --> 01:41:56.480]  that's how people are. And I love in your video, you talk about how, you know, well, people are
[01:41:56.480 --> 01:42:01.840]  fucked up, they're fucked up in various different ways. So I want it wanted you to speak to that a
[01:42:01.840 --> 01:42:09.040]  little bit. And then your thoughts on now that that it has been effectively repealed
[01:42:10.240 --> 01:42:14.960]  by this legislation. What are your what are your thoughts on that real quick?
[01:42:20.560 --> 01:42:24.080]  Where to begin, because it's a complex subject. And I know we're short on time.
[01:42:24.560 --> 01:42:29.920]  I think the point that I wanted most people to take away when I did that presentation was
[01:42:31.760 --> 01:42:36.240]  when I said, what the fuck are the voters thinking, which is the title of the video.
[01:42:39.840 --> 01:42:46.800]  I want to know who the rocket scientists were behind this movement, and the rocket scientists
[01:42:46.800 --> 01:42:54.640]  who went into the voting booth, who figured, if you didn't attach criminal penalties to drug use,
[01:42:55.440 --> 01:42:59.520]  that suddenly, drug addicts would make smarter, better decisions.
[01:43:00.880 --> 01:43:07.520]  Totally. Now, mind you, I have no dog in this fight, right? So I'm not, I'm not taking sides.
[01:43:08.080 --> 01:43:15.760]  But the idea that because you say to drug addicts, well, we're not going to lock you in a cage anymore
[01:43:15.760 --> 01:43:22.240]  for the use of that drug that they're going to end, we're going to make, we're going to make
[01:43:22.240 --> 01:43:29.840]  facilities and resources available to you if you want to get clean. So the idea that drug addicts
[01:43:29.840 --> 01:43:38.560]  are going to go, oh, oh, my God, oh, no more criminal penalty. Oh, and there's a place that
[01:43:38.640 --> 01:43:46.240]  I can go and get sober. Well, gosh, let me just make that decision now that you pass this law.
[01:43:46.240 --> 01:43:52.160]  That's not how drug addicts act. Drug addicts, you know, I don't know how many people have been
[01:43:52.160 --> 01:43:59.360]  involved with drugs. I was when I was a teenager, I was involved with drug addicts. Socially in
[01:43:59.360 --> 01:44:03.200]  that time in my life, I was involved with drug addicts when I was in law enforcement and so forth.
[01:44:03.600 --> 01:44:09.120]  Um, you know, there's an there's a statement that says nobody gets clean until they're ready.
[01:44:10.320 --> 01:44:15.920]  And, you know, some people are never ready. And some people die never being ready from the drugs.
[01:44:17.520 --> 01:44:24.240]  And what the hell a bunch of suit wearing dweebs in the legislature pass into law
[01:44:25.200 --> 01:44:30.480]  is not in the least going to affect whether a drug addict chooses to get sober or not.
[01:44:31.120 --> 01:44:39.760]  The whole thing was childish bullshit from moment one. And it didn't help that they didn't fund
[01:44:39.760 --> 01:44:47.440]  any of the resources for 19 months after they'd be criminalized. But but my belief is that it
[01:44:47.440 --> 01:44:52.800]  wouldn't have made any difference. Because people who are drug addicts don't say, Oh, look, the
[01:44:52.800 --> 01:44:58.880]  legislature opened opened up a little thing over there where I can go and get get clean. So I'm
[01:44:58.880 --> 01:45:04.720]  going to go get clean, because there it is. That's not how drug addicts think. So I thought the
[01:45:04.720 --> 01:45:09.840]  whole thing was nonsense. And the reason I said what the fuck are these voters thinking about is
[01:45:09.840 --> 01:45:19.280]  to me, it was such a childish notion. But I did support no longer putting drug addicts in cages,
[01:45:19.840 --> 01:45:29.200]  because that putting them in cages only does one thing. It keeps them alive longer.
[01:45:30.560 --> 01:45:40.080]  And in some cases, not a lot. Since they may not be able to get drugs while they're in prison.
[01:45:42.160 --> 01:45:48.640]  They may if they're in prison long enough without drugs, they may turn themselves around.
[01:45:48.640 --> 01:45:52.560]  But then what's the cost of that you take somebody off the street and they're in prison for
[01:45:52.560 --> 01:46:00.960]  four and a half years. And then when they come out, maybe they stay clean. This model has never made
[01:46:00.960 --> 01:46:06.240]  any sense to me. So to me, the whole thing front to back is ridiculous. I hope I expressed that
[01:46:06.240 --> 01:46:15.760]  clearly. Absolutely. Yeah. And, you know, on top of that, it's it with this repeal is so like I
[01:46:15.760 --> 01:46:23.440]  said, originally, it took what the marijuana tax, legal marijuana tax and change the allocation,
[01:46:24.160 --> 01:46:29.520]  so that more of that tax money went toward it was supposed to go toward for more treatment
[01:46:29.520 --> 01:46:35.600]  facilities and all that jazz. Place in that effectively, you know, re criminalizes drugs.
[01:46:36.640 --> 01:46:43.760]  Of course, it doesn't take that away either. So it's so not only now are they getting
[01:46:43.760 --> 01:46:49.520]  more of a portion of the marrow, the revenue from legal marijuana sales.
[01:46:51.040 --> 01:46:58.000]  Now, they're going to be getting another source of revenue by the fines that they impose on people
[01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:01.840]  that are caught with small amounts of these drugs. You know, they're not going to be thrown in jail
[01:47:01.840 --> 01:47:09.040]  for four years for a small amount, depending on what the drug is or whatever. But now, you know,
[01:47:09.040 --> 01:47:14.800]  they're going to be imposing these fines. So it's it's like double dipping. You know what I mean?
[01:47:14.800 --> 01:47:21.600]  It's they're there. Now they're going to get even more money out of the pockets of people that are
[01:47:21.600 --> 01:47:28.880]  doing drugs or that are caught doing drugs or with drug possession. Now they're going to get even
[01:47:28.880 --> 01:47:35.760]  more money there. And it's just yet another way to siphon more money so that our state and I don't
[01:47:35.760 --> 01:47:41.840]  know if you know anything about Oregon and how it's run. But this is just the one example of many
[01:47:41.840 --> 01:47:50.240]  of how inept the Oregon government is when it comes to actually spending the money it's supposed to
[01:47:50.240 --> 01:47:57.520]  on the things that it's supposed to. And this is just another example of it. And so now they're
[01:47:57.520 --> 01:48:03.600]  going to be getting even more money that they can mismanage and waste and throw away. And so it's
[01:48:03.600 --> 01:48:10.400]  just absolutely ridiculous. And I and I agree with your position on like that. It doesn't really
[01:48:10.400 --> 01:48:17.280]  address the core causes of this. It doesn't. It might might maybe help prevent somebody from
[01:48:17.280 --> 01:48:23.520]  overdosing, maybe. You know, but it's going to be so few and far between. I don't think it's going
[01:48:23.520 --> 01:48:29.840]  to really make that much of a difference at all when it comes to how many drug users there are,
[01:48:29.840 --> 01:48:35.360]  the kinds of drugs that are out there on the street, and how many people overdose from it.
[01:48:35.360 --> 01:48:38.720]  I really don't see that it's going to make that big of a difference.
[01:48:40.000 --> 01:48:47.120]  Yeah, I don't know if you're aware. I live in a small town and consequently and I get along
[01:48:47.120 --> 01:48:53.520]  with young people. So, you know, I probably know more young people than most people my age.
[01:48:54.080 --> 01:49:01.120]  And, you know, a lot of them, a lot of drugs out here, a lot of them go down for drug charges and
[01:49:01.120 --> 01:49:08.640]  they get sent off to jail. And, you know, the funny thing is that, you know, there are addicts when
[01:49:08.640 --> 01:49:16.000]  they get busted and when they go away. And while they're there, they get counseling. And then they
[01:49:16.000 --> 01:49:22.160]  come out and I've noticed a recurring cycle and anybody I think who's familiar with young drug
[01:49:22.240 --> 01:49:28.480]  addicts and going to prison and coming back out and so forth, they're on probation or parole,
[01:49:28.480 --> 01:49:33.920]  depending. They have to, you know, they have to do the testing and they have to go to therapy and,
[01:49:33.920 --> 01:49:38.480]  you know, counseling, not therapy, substance abuse counseling and so forth. Right. And it's funny
[01:49:38.480 --> 01:49:43.920]  because they get out of jail and I'll run into them around town. They're like, hey, Dave, and
[01:49:43.920 --> 01:49:50.560]  you know what? They're magnificent. They're clean. They're awesome. They're high on life.
[01:49:50.560 --> 01:49:54.320]  You know, they're going to the gym. They're pounding weights. They're feeling good. They
[01:49:54.320 --> 01:50:00.080]  got a job when they got out. Everything's going their way. Something triggers them because,
[01:50:00.080 --> 01:50:07.840]  remember, addictive personalities are addictive personalities. Right. It's that's people don't
[01:50:07.840 --> 01:50:11.920]  get it. It's very, very rare for anybody to get addicted to drugs unless they have an addictive
[01:50:11.920 --> 01:50:18.240]  personality. These people have an addictive personality, which I believe is a psychological
[01:50:18.240 --> 01:50:25.200]  issue. Right. It has to be dealt with, but it's usually not because most of the drug and alcohol
[01:50:25.200 --> 01:50:30.480]  counseling is nonsense. Right. So anyway, they get out of jail. They're high on life. They're
[01:50:30.480 --> 01:50:36.080]  having a great time. Everything is going their way. Something triggers that addiction side of
[01:50:36.080 --> 01:50:43.200]  their personality. And the next thing I know, I see a story in the news that they've been arrested,
[01:50:43.200 --> 01:50:48.320]  tried, and they're going back to prison again and again and again.
[01:50:49.280 --> 01:50:55.280]  It's so absurd that we think we're solving anything. We're not.
[01:51:00.240 --> 01:51:06.080]  Absolutely correct. You know, I have, you know, personal experiences with people that I know
[01:51:06.720 --> 01:51:10.400]  that describe exactly what you're saying. You know, go to prison for five years
[01:51:10.800 --> 01:51:18.320]  because you're on drugs and you committed other crimes in the process. Of course, because Oregon
[01:51:18.320 --> 01:51:26.240]  has the mandatory sentencing laws in place so that, you know, for various, what I think it's
[01:51:26.240 --> 01:51:32.160]  like 23 crimes or something have mandatory sentences. And so, you know, if that's imposed
[01:51:32.160 --> 01:51:38.080]  on you, then, you know, the minimum is five years for a first offense and then a second offense.
[01:51:38.800 --> 01:51:44.160]  Then you'll get like seven years, depending on the crime, whatever. But in any case, you know,
[01:51:44.160 --> 01:51:53.360]  so after five years of prison for committing crimes while doing crack cocaine gets out of prison is
[01:51:53.360 --> 01:52:01.920]  only good for a little over a year. Then starts doing the same shit again and ends up right back
[01:52:02.000 --> 01:52:11.440]  in prison again. And it's exactly like you said, because the core issue was never really resolved.
[01:52:11.440 --> 01:52:18.560]  Something triggered, be willing to give up, potentially give up another five years or more
[01:52:18.560 --> 01:52:28.160]  of their lives for that drug. That's how addictive they are, you know. And that's amazing to me. I
[01:52:28.160 --> 01:52:32.320]  mean, you would think five years in prison would be enough to have somebody go, yeah, I never want
[01:52:32.320 --> 01:52:37.920]  to touch that shit again and never do it. But guess what? It happens all the time. They still
[01:52:37.920 --> 01:52:45.280]  do. You know, it blows my mind, you know, that somebody would even risk that. But that's how
[01:52:45.280 --> 01:52:53.200]  powerful addiction is. Absolutely. It's not about intellect. It's not about common sense. It's not
[01:52:53.200 --> 01:53:02.160]  about weighing the good and the bad. When an addict gets triggered, in 99% of the cases when
[01:53:02.160 --> 01:53:10.560]  they get triggered, they cannot help themselves. They're going to use. And it's just such a shame
[01:53:10.560 --> 01:53:16.720]  that the current model is such an utter and complete failure. And, you know, it doesn't
[01:53:16.720 --> 01:53:22.400]  really take that into the reality of the addictive personality. It really doesn't
[01:53:22.400 --> 01:53:28.240]  take that into account. Now, I know some people who may have gone to substance abuse counseling
[01:53:28.240 --> 01:53:34.320]  will be screaming at their computers or their phones that I'm wrong. What I mean by they don't
[01:53:34.320 --> 01:53:42.160]  actually take stock of it is it's not countered. It's not effectively dealt with. People come out
[01:53:42.160 --> 01:53:48.640]  of that kind of counseling, especially if they get it in jail. They come out of it with this false
[01:53:48.640 --> 01:53:54.240]  idea that they're good. And, you know, listen, I've heard they're wrapped, right? You know,
[01:53:54.240 --> 01:53:58.480]  oh, no, you know, I can't do anything. You know, if I do the slightest thing, I'm going to, you
[01:53:58.480 --> 01:54:04.000]  know, collapse and go back into that habit. You know, again, you know, I get it. I understand.
[01:54:04.000 --> 01:54:09.360]  And I know where I need to be. And they got this whole thing going on. And then five months later,
[01:54:09.360 --> 01:54:12.880]  I see if they were arrested again for using meth or whatever their drug of choice is. So
[01:54:13.520 --> 01:54:19.120]  we're not effectively dealing with it. I'm not saying it's never addressed. It just isn't
[01:54:19.120 --> 01:54:30.000]  effectively being dealt with. Absolutely. Okay. So in the chat room, I think we have some antsy
[01:54:30.000 --> 01:54:35.440]  pantses. I did want to talk about measure 114. Maybe we can get into that after we do some Q&A.
[01:54:36.320 --> 01:54:42.160]  But I think we have several people that are on the switchboard raising their hands that want
[01:54:42.160 --> 01:54:48.800]  to comment or ask questions. Sure. Absolutely. Okay. I was under the impression that we were
[01:54:48.800 --> 01:54:56.720]  going to do two hours today, not three. So I have another commitment. I can give you maybe another
[01:54:56.720 --> 01:55:03.040]  10 minutes. I apologize if I misunderstood. I thought we were no longer doing three hours.
[01:55:03.120 --> 01:55:08.720]  We were doing two hours. Oh, yeah. No, I was hoping that,
[01:55:09.920 --> 01:55:17.120]  yeah, because my show went to a two-hour live, but then the bonus hour. And so I was hoping
[01:55:17.120 --> 01:55:22.240]  that I'd be on with you, you know, through the bonus hour and the whole show recording part.
[01:55:22.240 --> 01:55:29.920]  So I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in my email to you as well. So yeah, I get it if you
[01:55:29.920 --> 01:55:37.360]  have prior commitments. So why don't I do this? Since we only have a short amount of time with
[01:55:37.360 --> 01:55:43.920]  you, I'll try to bring on whoever I can that's on the switchboard just for a really quick Q&A.
[01:55:44.960 --> 01:55:51.760]  I know Mike is one person. He's one of my listeners that has asked about you. And so
[01:55:52.480 --> 01:55:58.080]  I want to give Mike a quick chance to give you any questions or comments.
[01:55:59.040 --> 01:56:04.080]  Try to keep it short, Mike, since we're kind of down to the wire. So I'm bringing you on, Mike.
[01:56:06.960 --> 01:56:09.520]  Hey, Mike, do you have a question or comment?
[01:56:10.640 --> 01:56:17.600]  Yeah. My thing is, back when the whole thing was Hunter Biden and his,
[01:56:17.600 --> 01:56:24.560]  quote, tax problems, well, you talked about foreign-derived income, quote, income.
[01:56:24.560 --> 01:56:27.840]  Well, that's what we're talking about with Hunter Biden and his,
[01:56:27.840 --> 01:56:34.240]  quote, income. Most of it is foreign-derived. He should be taxed, right?
[01:56:36.080 --> 01:56:47.040]  No. If you heard what I said, I said a U.S. citizen residing abroad with foreign earned income.
[01:56:47.600 --> 01:56:55.760]  And in tax law, what it means to reside somewhere is that you retain your domicile.
[01:56:56.880 --> 01:57:02.320]  Again, in law, what domicile means is the place you consider home and that place to which you
[01:57:02.320 --> 01:57:11.600]  will be returning. Residency is a place that you live temporarily with the intention of returning
[01:57:11.600 --> 01:57:22.480]  to your domicile. So for instance, I'm domiciled in Nevada. If I were to become a resident of
[01:57:22.480 --> 01:57:29.520]  Germany with the intention of returning to my home in Nevada and I were to earn German income
[01:57:30.080 --> 01:57:34.880]  and send it back across the border into the United States, then I would owe the tax.
[01:57:35.520 --> 01:57:40.400]  But to my knowledge, I don't know enough about Hunter Biden to say one way or another,
[01:57:40.400 --> 01:57:47.360]  but to my knowledge, Hunter Biden was not living abroad. At all times,
[01:57:47.360 --> 01:57:51.520]  he was living in the United States. So that third class would not apply to him.
[01:57:53.120 --> 01:58:00.400]  Actually, he was living at one point in the Ukraine, in Ukraine at one point.
[01:58:00.400 --> 01:58:01.200]  Visiting or living?
[01:58:01.200 --> 01:58:10.080]  Yeah. Living in Ukraine because he worked at that oil company in Ukraine. Yeah.
[01:58:10.560 --> 01:58:16.080]  Okay. Now, he was a consultant to them. He was just sitting on their board.
[01:58:16.080 --> 01:58:21.920]  He wasn't employed and I've never heard that he could be a resident there. There are certain
[01:58:21.920 --> 01:58:30.000]  requirements. I'll look into it, but I've never heard that he was a Ukrainian resident. I don't
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:31.120]  believe that's accurate.
[01:58:32.080 --> 01:58:41.920]  And one other thing I want to say about words meaning things with respect to taxes, must and
[01:58:41.920 --> 01:58:51.280]  shall. Must means you have to do it. You have no choice but to do it. Shall means you have a
[01:58:51.280 --> 01:59:00.080]  choice. I'll give you an example. We just repass recently a school maintenance tax for our parish.
[01:59:00.960 --> 01:59:09.120]  Our public school parish. In that tax, it says you must pay that tax. Everybody in the parish
[01:59:09.680 --> 01:59:16.320]  must pay that tax even though everybody in the parish doesn't take advantage of the facilities
[01:59:16.320 --> 01:59:25.600]  because a lot of people send them away to school or to the local Catholic school, private school.
[01:59:25.600 --> 01:59:32.000]  So that's what they do. They change the meaning of the word must and shall.
[01:59:37.360 --> 01:59:41.280]  Okay. I believe the distinction is actually between may and shall.
[01:59:44.640 --> 01:59:52.640]  Well, yeah, may and shall. Yeah. In my mind, it's the same thing because may means you have to.
[01:59:52.720 --> 01:59:55.200]  Shall means you don't. You know?
[01:59:56.880 --> 02:00:05.840]  Yeah. Okay. So I want to, again, since we're very short on time, we have Daniel and Kathy
[02:00:05.840 --> 02:00:11.760]  raising their hand. I'm going to go ahead and bring them on. Hopefully keep it short.
[02:00:11.760 --> 02:00:15.600]  Daniel, Kathy, you're on the line. Do you have a question or comment for Dave Champion?
[02:00:15.600 --> 02:00:21.840]  Are you there?
[02:00:27.520 --> 02:00:34.000]  All right. Moving on. Boyd, I'm going to bring you on next. Boyd is from Alaska.
[02:00:36.240 --> 02:00:39.200]  Same with you. Do you have a question or comment for Dave Champion real quick?
[02:00:39.200 --> 02:00:47.680]  Yeah, I got a question. Regarding all the illegal aliens that have just crossed the border
[02:00:48.320 --> 02:00:53.600]  and are receiving benefits from the United States government,
[02:00:54.880 --> 02:01:04.000]  and they are sending money back to home to their families, is that money taxable when it crosses
[02:01:04.000 --> 02:01:12.400]  the border leaving the United States? Yes. If they're here, well, it depends,
[02:01:12.400 --> 02:01:17.840]  because the definition of a non-resident alien is somebody who either doesn't live in this country
[02:01:17.840 --> 02:01:26.880]  or is within the country for less than 181 days. So if they're here for more than 181 days,
[02:01:27.760 --> 02:01:33.600]  then we begin to get into issues between definitions for non-resident alien within
[02:01:33.600 --> 02:01:42.560]  the tax code versus definitions for Title VIII, immigration and naturalization. I haven't looked
[02:01:42.560 --> 02:01:48.400]  at the differences or attempted to reconcile them. But yes, if somebody's in this country
[02:01:48.560 --> 02:01:59.040]  for less than 181 days and they're receiving U.S. source income, when it crosses the U.S. border,
[02:01:59.040 --> 02:02:07.120]  yes, the U.S. income tax has to be paid. Now, do I know that these people who are receiving
[02:02:07.120 --> 02:02:13.520]  U.S. financial aid, do I know that they're not filing tax returns? Because if they are filing
[02:02:13.520 --> 02:02:22.960]  tax returns, they're paying the tax. Well, they're paying the tax that they have,
[02:02:25.680 --> 02:02:35.840]  are obligated to pay because it's here. But once it goes across the border and crosses the border,
[02:02:35.840 --> 02:02:47.200]  isn't it subject to another tax of income? No. Or a tax of some type?
[02:02:49.200 --> 02:02:54.880]  Once they file their income tax return and they pay what they owe the federal government in income
[02:02:54.880 --> 02:03:02.720]  tax, the remainder that they have is called post-tax income. That is not subject to any
[02:03:02.720 --> 02:03:08.240]  further taxation and they can do anything they want with it. They can send it across the globe,
[02:03:08.240 --> 02:03:12.080]  they can burn it in a trash can, they can go out and spend it on a Rolex watch.
[02:03:12.080 --> 02:03:21.760]  They can do whatever they want if it's post-tax money. There's no other tax hiding in the way.
[02:03:21.760 --> 02:03:29.200]  Once they've paid their income tax return. Okay. Now, if I'm not mistaken,
[02:03:30.080 --> 02:03:43.680]  most of our welfare recipients, be it foreign alien, illegal alien, or U.S. citizen,
[02:03:44.800 --> 02:03:55.520]  because of the amounts of money that they are getting, it's not taxable per se. So even if these
[02:03:56.480 --> 02:04:04.880]  like these illegal aliens are receiving aid and money from the U.S. government,
[02:04:06.720 --> 02:04:13.840]  but they're under the tax cap, taxable income, and they send their money home,
[02:04:15.360 --> 02:04:22.160]  isn't it still then taxable? No. If they don't meet the filing threshold,
[02:04:22.160 --> 02:04:28.880]  they can do whatever they want with the money. Respectfully, it seems like you have a bit of
[02:04:28.880 --> 02:04:36.720]  an agenda that you're pushing here. I hear where you're coming from, but that's not what the law
[02:04:36.720 --> 02:04:48.880]  says. Okay. Well, that was my question. Please, please come back and do another show with this
[02:04:48.880 --> 02:05:04.320]  lady. You covered a lot of bases here that I would like to have a discussion with you on,
[02:05:04.320 --> 02:05:11.360]  but because of time constraints, I will leave it where I'm done with it. So thanks for showing up,
[02:05:11.360 --> 02:05:15.200]  Dave. All right. Appreciate it. Thank you for being here.
[02:05:17.520 --> 02:05:24.960]  Awesome. Dave, with respect to your time, we have time for one more. Yeah, we got Joe Gibson
[02:05:24.960 --> 02:05:29.840]  raising his hand. He's the last one raising his hand. So I'm going to go ahead and bring him in,
[02:05:29.840 --> 02:05:35.760]  and we'll try to keep it short. I appreciate it. All right. Joe Gibson, you are on. Do you have a
[02:05:35.760 --> 02:05:40.720]  question or comment? Yeah, I'm just going to, well, really quick comment and question in a way.
[02:05:41.680 --> 02:05:47.360]  We became subject class citizens after the Reconstruction Act and the 14th Amendment.
[02:05:48.560 --> 02:05:55.040]  So therefore, with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the government selling the bonds to
[02:05:55.040 --> 02:05:58.800]  the Federal Reserve and then the Federal Reserve printing the money, all these taxes don't pay for
[02:05:58.800 --> 02:06:04.320]  the services that we are rendered anyway. They pay the interest for interest. So what's the purpose
[02:06:04.320 --> 02:06:09.600]  of the taxes anyway? Why do they have these taxes? I mean, what's the game here? What's the end result
[02:06:09.600 --> 02:06:14.800]  game that they're trying to propose to us? I can't pronounce it. I got tongue tied there.
[02:06:16.960 --> 02:06:20.080]  I guess put upon the burden of the American people.
[02:06:21.760 --> 02:06:26.640]  Oh, that's very simple. It's to pay the interest on the national debt. There's a reason that it
[02:06:26.640 --> 02:06:31.440]  was the same Congress in 1913 that passed both the Federal Reserve Act and the Income Tax Act
[02:06:32.160 --> 02:06:41.040]  in the same session. And the reason is that the Income Tax was specifically intended to pay the
[02:06:41.040 --> 02:06:47.120]  interest on the national debt. That is part and parcel of the structure of the Federal Reserve
[02:06:47.120 --> 02:06:52.720]  system and the fiat currency system and so forth. In order for the bankers, I mean, look,
[02:06:53.600 --> 02:06:59.600]  let's say you wanted to take out a loan to buy a new truck. So you go to your bank and you sit down
[02:06:59.600 --> 02:07:03.840]  with them. You say, I want to go out and I want to buy a new truck. So I'd like to make a loan. Oh,
[02:07:03.840 --> 02:07:09.200]  by the way, I'm not going to pay you a penny in interest. The banker would tell you get the
[02:07:09.200 --> 02:07:14.560]  fuck out, right? So the same thing is true with the banks of the Federal Reserve. The Federal
[02:07:14.560 --> 02:07:21.120]  Reserve Board is a federal agency. The banks of the Federal Reserve are private banks. If they
[02:07:21.120 --> 02:07:26.640]  don't get paid their interest, they aren't going to loan the federal government any money. So the
[02:07:26.640 --> 02:07:31.680]  only way the federal government could generate those interest payments, because you can't pay
[02:07:31.680 --> 02:07:36.800]  interest out of your capital, right? You have to have some source to pay the interest from.
[02:07:36.800 --> 02:07:44.640]  And that's the income tax. It's as simple as that. That is why income tax exists here in 2024 in the
[02:07:44.640 --> 02:07:49.440]  United States. Well, what about the practice of reserve banking that practices where they create
[02:07:49.440 --> 02:07:55.040]  this money? Many banks cannot lend out their own reserves. They're not allowed to do that. So they
[02:07:55.040 --> 02:07:59.280]  create money. I deposit a $100 check. They recreate that money nine times, 10 times, 15
[02:07:59.280 --> 02:08:05.200]  times over and lend it out. It's called fractional reserve banking. Do you understand the economics
[02:08:05.200 --> 02:08:10.000]  of that? And I know we're pressed for time, so it's kind of hard to ask direct questions
[02:08:10.000 --> 02:08:15.920]  concerning such a complex issue. But fractional reserve banking, basically.
[02:08:17.280 --> 02:08:22.640]  So yes, I am thoroughly aware of fractional reserve banking and understand it from the back.
[02:08:23.600 --> 02:08:29.280]  However, that, respectfully, has nothing to do with anything we talked about here on the air today.
[02:08:31.040 --> 02:08:35.200]  I don't have to do with taxes and interest, but that's fine. I understand. Maybe next time we'll
[02:08:35.200 --> 02:08:44.560]  have more time, hopefully. Can I slip in one more one word answer from you, Dave, before you go?
[02:08:44.640 --> 02:08:54.320]  Sure. Okay. Is the IRS a federal agency or an agency of the Federal Reserve?
[02:08:56.640 --> 02:09:03.680]  It is an agency. I'm sorry. It is a bureau within the Department of Treasury of the United States.
[02:09:03.680 --> 02:09:10.160]  Okay. It's right there. You can look it up. Okay. Okay. All right. That answered my question. Thank
[02:09:10.160 --> 02:09:19.840]  you. Okay. Have a good night. Well, there we have it. Yeah, I know we're going over time here.
[02:09:22.320 --> 02:09:27.840]  Yeah, I got some noise in the background. Mute yourselves, guys, if you got background noise.
[02:09:28.880 --> 02:09:35.280]  Once again, Dave Champion, I have loved having you on my show. Like I said, it just goes by so
[02:09:35.280 --> 02:09:42.160]  fast. I mean, when we get to talking and listening, it's just like a time warp,
[02:09:42.160 --> 02:09:44.000]  and before you know it, we're out of time.