Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.960 --> 00:06.080] Welcome back to the channel. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have agreed, [00:06.080 --> 00:11.120] at least tentatively, on a package of legislation in response to calls for more gun control. [00:11.920 --> 00:18.480] As you're probably aware, Republicans typically have no appetite for gun control legislation. [00:19.120 --> 00:24.880] The reason for that is their constituents have no appetite for gun control legislation. In fact, [00:24.880 --> 00:31.040] they're highly opposed to such legislation. That means Republicans who want to get reelected cannot [00:31.040 --> 00:38.160] support gun control measures. One might go so far as to say that gun control legislation is one of [00:38.160 --> 00:45.280] the primary issues that distinguishes the political left from the political right. With that in mind, [00:45.840 --> 00:50.160] let's see what Senate Republicans and Democrats have tentatively agreed to that's going to come [00:50.160 --> 00:56.160] up for a vote here at some point in the future. I think what they've done and haven't done in that [00:56.160 --> 01:06.880] tentative legislation is interesting. The Dr. Reality Podcast with Dave Champion. [01:06.880 --> 01:23.840] We'll start with what is in the tentative legislative package. First of all, red flag laws. [01:24.960 --> 01:32.000] Well, not really. The reason is Congress has no constitutional authority to impose red flag laws [01:32.000 --> 01:36.000] underneath the states of the union. The way our system of federalism works and the way the [01:36.000 --> 01:41.680] Constitution is structured, Congress has authority to enact red flag laws for federal possessions and [01:41.680 --> 01:47.840] territories, but not the states of the union. The best Congress can do in terms of red flag laws, [01:47.840 --> 01:53.200] if you support red flag laws, is to do what this legislation proposes, this tentative legislation [01:53.200 --> 02:01.200] proposes, which is to give the states that enact red flag laws a bunch of money, literally. That's [02:01.200 --> 02:06.960] all they're doing. If a state enacts red flag laws, Congress will give that state a bunch of [02:06.960 --> 02:13.680] money. The next item is an investment in mental health and telehealth. Now, I want to read the [02:13.680 --> 02:17.920] exact language here because I don't want to get this wrong. First of all, I should tell you that [02:17.920 --> 02:24.400] this is Congress's usual thing. They're going to make a major investment in these areas. Whenever [02:24.400 --> 02:29.040] Congress doesn't have the authority to do something, it does this quote major investment where it just [02:29.040 --> 02:33.600] throws money at the problem, and that's exactly what they're doing here. But what they're throwing [02:33.600 --> 02:42.320] money at, I think, is the important part. The major investment is to increase access to mental health [02:42.320 --> 02:50.960] and suicide prevention programs. There is absolutely bubkis in that particular item in the [02:50.960 --> 02:58.640] proposed legislation that would do anything to try and identify these psychotic mass killers [02:58.640 --> 03:04.640] before they actually go out and become mass killers. While acknowledging that this major [03:04.640 --> 03:11.680] investment comes about as close to zero as possible in actually achieving the objective, [03:11.680 --> 03:16.160] which would be to identify these people in advance and have some mechanism or means to stop them, [03:16.880 --> 03:24.480] while admitting that it doesn't do anything, not even remotely like that, I need to acknowledge [03:24.480 --> 03:30.640] that I'm not necessarily being critical because doing that is virtually impossible. [03:31.280 --> 03:36.560] So while the public is screaming, you have to identify these people in advance and stop them, [03:38.800 --> 03:45.680] when you get into how you would actually do that and you break it down item by item, [03:46.720 --> 03:52.880] any proposed mechanisms, you simply can't do that. Where people have constitutional rights, [03:52.880 --> 03:56.560] they have enumerated constitutional rights, non-enumerated constitutional rights, [03:56.560 --> 04:02.640] unalienable rights, and you can't just do whatever you want to somebody because you think, you know, [04:03.920 --> 04:10.960] I don't think that guy's quite right. I have concerns. So what? Do you have concerns? [04:10.960 --> 04:19.920] He has rights. We don't have a pre-crime unit here. So yeah, it's virtually impossible to do [04:19.920 --> 04:27.680] what a lot of people are clamoring to have done. Next up, closing the so-called boyfriend loop. [04:27.680 --> 04:32.720] Okay. So the courts are going to slaughter this one. If this even passes, I don't know if it's [04:32.720 --> 04:38.720] going to wind up in any actual bill that you should get voted on because it's just legally, [04:38.720 --> 04:43.040] it's so unsound, the courts are never going to let it fly. So here's the way this works. [04:43.600 --> 04:50.960] Under federal law, a person is prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm for a period of [04:50.960 --> 04:58.400] time if they have been convicted or pled guilty to domestic violence in terms of someone they're [04:58.400 --> 05:02.720] cohabitating with, someone they're married to. There's some legal process, even if it's not [05:02.720 --> 05:08.640] technically marriage, even if it's a state legal partnership, anything like that. Or they have a [05:08.640 --> 05:16.080] child together. If any of those situations exist and they're convicted or plead guilty for domestic [05:16.080 --> 05:22.320] violence, then they cannot purchase or possess a firearm for a certain period of time. [05:22.960 --> 05:29.760] Without going into all of the background legality, the reason for that is the marriage or a state [05:29.760 --> 05:34.720] legal partnership or the birth of a child over which the state has superior interest. Yeah, [05:34.720 --> 05:38.240] that's what I say. We don't want to get into that. I know that's going to chap a lot of people when [05:38.240 --> 05:44.320] I say that the state has a superior interest to the parents, but legally it is true. Right or wrong, [05:45.040 --> 05:51.600] that is the current legal landscape. So with these things, cohabitating, legal agreement that [05:51.600 --> 05:58.240] involves the state or the birth of a child, these things give the state either a good deal of [05:58.240 --> 06:05.520] authority or a toehold of authority. So what this supposed loophole is now is they want to do the [06:05.520 --> 06:10.080] same thing to people who are just dating, but there's not even a toehold of jurisdiction to do [06:10.080 --> 06:14.560] that. So they can talk about it. They can probably make a lot of people feel good by saying they're [06:14.560 --> 06:18.880] going to close this boyfriend loophole. And if they vote on it, it may even pass. I don't think [06:18.880 --> 06:26.480] it's going to be in the final proposed legislation, but we'll see. But if it does become law, it will [06:26.480 --> 06:33.760] not survive scrutiny by the courts. The next one, enhanced review process for buyers of firearms [06:33.760 --> 06:39.840] under the age of 21. What they mean by that is typically a juvenile's records are sealed, [06:39.840 --> 06:46.080] and that includes from the National Firearms Background Database. So what they're talking [06:46.080 --> 06:50.720] about doing now is that there will be a delay. Depending on circumstances, they say the delay [06:50.720 --> 06:56.960] will be three to 10 days when somebody under 21 goes to purchase a firearm so that if there's [06:56.960 --> 07:03.040] anything that they cannot see at the state level, that then they will have the authority by Congress [07:03.040 --> 07:07.920] to go to the state and say, you've sealed this and we want to see it anyway, because if somebody [07:07.920 --> 07:14.880] did something when they were 15 or 16 or 17 or a day shy of 18 that we think should prohibit them [07:14.880 --> 07:20.640] from owning a firearm, usually probably for a period of time, not forever, then we want to see [07:20.640 --> 07:25.440] that and we want to stop guns from falling into the hands of people between the ages of 18 and [07:25.440 --> 07:32.160] almost 21. Will this fly? I don't know. You can bet your bottom dollar there's going to be lawsuits [07:32.160 --> 07:35.040] because people are going to see that those records are sealed by the state. The federal government [07:35.040 --> 07:40.480] has quite a bit of authority, but it does not have authority to go into the states and mandate [07:40.480 --> 07:47.440] that sealed records from a state court be opened because Congress says so. How that will play out, [07:47.440 --> 07:52.880] I wouldn't predict, but I can assure you there will be lawsuits. This is if that provision is [07:52.880 --> 07:58.320] in the legislation that's actually voted on, it will not go into effect without probably a number [07:58.320 --> 08:02.480] of court battles. I love this next one because of the sophistry of the wording. [08:03.200 --> 08:10.000] Clarifying the definition of a federally licensed firearm dealer. There's no clarification, [08:10.000 --> 08:15.520] none at all, because who is and who is not a federally licensed firearms dealer is already [08:15.520 --> 08:19.600] very, very clear in the law. There's no clarification. What they're talking about [08:19.600 --> 08:24.880] doing is they're talking about embracing a bunch of people that are not federally licensed firearms [08:24.880 --> 08:29.760] dealers and the federal government has no jurisdiction, no basis in law to declare them [08:29.760 --> 08:33.280] federal firearms dealers. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. I don't know [08:33.280 --> 08:39.680] what the number is today, but back, I remember when I was probably in my late 20s, there was a [08:39.680 --> 08:44.880] fixed number. I forget what it was, 12, 14, something like that. If you sold more than that number of [08:44.880 --> 08:50.800] firearms in a given year, then the government said that you were doing it with commercial interest [08:50.800 --> 08:55.360] in mind and you were not just a guy selling your own property. You were then at that point [08:55.360 --> 09:00.720] considered by the government to be a firearms dealer licensed or otherwise, and you needed to [09:00.720 --> 09:09.760] go get licensed. What they're proposing in this negotiated agreement is that people who just sell [09:09.760 --> 09:14.880] a couple of their own guns in a year have to be called federally licensed firearms dealers. [09:14.880 --> 09:19.920] That's not going to fly. I'll tell you straight up, if they do that, the courts are going to [09:19.920 --> 09:25.280] strike that down consistently across the board. Wherever a lawsuit is filed, the courts are going [09:25.280 --> 09:29.440] to strike that down. Here's what, the Supreme Court has said that all courts have a duty [09:29.440 --> 09:36.160] to look at the substance rather than the form of a thing, whatever the thing is that's being [09:36.160 --> 09:39.760] presented to them. In this case, the government's going to come along and it's going to say, [09:39.760 --> 09:46.000] okay, use me as an example. Dave Champion sold a handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle because he [09:46.000 --> 09:50.000] didn't want them anymore. He was bored with them. He wanted to get that money so he could [09:50.000 --> 09:53.440] buy something else, so he sold those to a couple of friends. The government's going to come along [09:53.440 --> 09:58.400] now and say, Dave Champion is now a federally licensed firearms dealer. That's the form, [09:59.280 --> 10:02.720] but the court is going to look at the substance and say, Mr. Champion, were you doing this for [10:02.720 --> 10:06.800] profit? No. Were you doing this as a livelihood? No. Was there any commercial interest for this [10:06.800 --> 10:13.920] in you? No. The courts are simply going to say, sorry, Congress, you can't do that. The substance [10:13.920 --> 10:20.480] is, using again myself as an example, Mr. Champion is not a firearms dealer. You cannot convert [10:20.480 --> 10:25.040] personal private activity because we have a constitutional right in America to acquire, [10:25.040 --> 10:31.600] to utilize in a way that doesn't harm others, and to dispose of our personal property. Firearms are [10:31.600 --> 10:35.520] as much personal property as anything else. You walk around your house and you'll go, look, [10:35.520 --> 10:40.560] there's a bookshelf. That's personal property or anything that you might choose to sell tomorrow. [10:40.560 --> 10:44.800] The same thing is true of firearms that you own. They're personal property. If somebody [10:44.800 --> 10:50.000] owns items of personal property and decides, you know what? I don't like that bookshelf anymore, [10:50.000 --> 10:53.760] or I don't like that end table anymore. I'm going to sell it and get a new one. [10:53.760 --> 11:00.400] It's no different than if a person says, you know what? I don't really like Glocks anymore, [11:00.400 --> 11:06.320] or I really love Glocks, so I'm going to sell my 1911. Then they go out and they sell one or more [11:06.320 --> 11:11.120] of their guns. There's no way Congress could convert the disposal of private property, [11:11.120 --> 11:17.760] which is a constitutional right, into a federally licensed activity. So yeah, if they go there, [11:17.760 --> 11:21.440] the minute that case walks in the door of a court, it is dead on arrival. [11:22.000 --> 11:28.800] And the last item, school security resources. Same thing we've heard of in the earlier items. [11:28.800 --> 11:34.400] This is no different than using the phrase major investment. They're just going to give school [11:34.400 --> 11:40.240] districts a bunch more cash, and it's going to be earmarked for campus security. End of story. [11:40.240 --> 11:44.960] And the reason for that is Congress has no authority over the physical infrastructure [11:44.960 --> 11:51.200] or policies of a school or school district. That's not part of Congress's constitutional authority. [11:51.200 --> 11:59.040] So all Congress can do is attach the requirements to the giving of money. So Congress can say, [11:59.040 --> 12:05.760] if you do X, Y, and Z, then we're going to give you this much money to do it with. Nevertheless, [12:05.760 --> 12:13.120] the bottom line is this is just throwing more cash at the problem. And the occasions when throwing [12:13.120 --> 12:16.800] cash at a problem actually solved it are few and far between when government's involved. [12:17.600 --> 12:23.760] So that's the end of what's actually in the proposed legislation. That's it. If you were [12:23.760 --> 12:27.600] thinking there's going to be a lot more stuff, and if you're a pro-gun person, maybe a lot more bad [12:27.600 --> 12:32.800] stuff, if you're a pro-gun control person, maybe you're looking for a lot more to be in there, but [12:33.440 --> 12:38.560] that's it. So let's talk about the things that people have been talking about that did not wind [12:38.560 --> 12:45.120] up in the proposed legislation. First of all, expanded background checks. Let me explain what [12:45.120 --> 12:50.000] that means. You might think that if they were going to do a background check, again, I'll use [12:50.000 --> 12:54.720] myself as an example on Dave Champion, maybe expanded background check meant they needed to [12:54.720 --> 13:00.080] go deeper or they needed to have more resources or whatever. That is not expanded background checks, [13:00.080 --> 13:05.760] at least in the context of how it's been talked about recently. What expanded background check [13:05.760 --> 13:14.320] means is it means that people who support that would like to see anyone who sells a fire. Remember [13:14.320 --> 13:18.640] I used myself as an example in the last section where I talked about if I wanted to sell a couple [13:18.640 --> 13:21.920] of guns because they no longer interest me, I was bored with them and I wanted to get the money to [13:21.920 --> 13:26.480] maybe go buy another gun, something like that. I, not being a federal elections firearms dealer, [13:26.480 --> 13:32.400] I don't have to run a background check on the person that I sell my personal private property to. [13:33.760 --> 13:39.680] There's people in the United States who want that. They feel that's critical. They feel that's [13:39.680 --> 13:46.800] important. It's also never going to happen. People really don't understand how the law operates. [13:46.960 --> 13:52.160] They get an idea in their head and they go, this would be a great idea. [13:52.160 --> 13:56.320] This would solve the problem. They have absolutely no awareness of whether that is [13:56.320 --> 14:03.200] constitutionally possible. This is a perfect example that people who want these expanded [14:03.200 --> 14:07.040] background checks and they think it's a nifty idea, whether it is or it's not a nifty idea, [14:07.040 --> 14:12.800] it's not the point. They think it's a nifty idea. They just believe, voila, I say it's nifty, [14:12.800 --> 14:19.760] we should do it. It doesn't work that way. Congress's authority to mandate a background [14:19.760 --> 14:28.560] check for the buyer of a firearm, that requirement can only be imposed on the firearms dealer, the [14:29.280 --> 14:36.080] federally licensed firearm dealer. The requirement isn't even upon the buyer. It's just very simply, [14:36.080 --> 14:40.560] the requirement is upon the licensed dealer as a condition of maintaining that status [14:40.560 --> 14:44.640] as a licensed dealer. If you come in and you say, hey, I'm a buyer and I say no, [14:44.640 --> 14:48.320] I don't want you to do that, the licensed dealer just says that I'm not going to sell you the gun, [14:48.320 --> 14:55.680] but the responsibility is placed on the licensed dealer because that's the only person within the [14:55.680 --> 15:00.160] 50 states when it comes to firearms that the federal government has authority over. [15:01.120 --> 15:10.160] The next item, an assault rifle ban. This gets bandied about a lot. There was a [15:10.160 --> 15:15.760] while I was concerned that there was going to be an assault weapon ban, not at this moment, [15:15.760 --> 15:21.440] but historically over the decades. However, due to the decisions of the Supreme Court, [15:21.440 --> 15:29.360] Heller and McDonald, that is never going to happen. Heller was the first case, [15:29.360 --> 15:34.640] McDonald the second. Heller was written by Scalia and McDonald was written by Alito. [15:35.280 --> 15:39.760] Really, the horsepower here is in the Heller case written by Scalia. If you've never read [15:39.760 --> 15:46.640] that decision, whether you're pro-gun, pro-gun control, go read it. The decision is 42 pages, [15:46.640 --> 15:54.960] if I remember correctly. It's long because Scalia goes through the history of arms, [15:54.960 --> 16:01.040] which is obviously much broader than just firearms, the history leading up to the time when [16:01.600 --> 16:06.640] the American people were dealing with becoming their own nation. The states were going to become [16:06.640 --> 16:14.400] their own sovereign states and how they saw arms and the type of arms and the carrying of [16:14.400 --> 16:20.640] arms and so forth. Scalia goes through this history in quite some detail. As he wraps up, [16:21.520 --> 16:29.360] Scalia says that the intent of the founding generation was that Americans be able to own [16:30.320 --> 16:37.440] military-type firearms so that they can fight against oppression if that day ever comes in [16:37.440 --> 16:43.600] the United States. Now, Scalia said perhaps that is no longer practical in an age of tanks [16:43.600 --> 16:50.960] and drones and fighter jets and nuclear bombs. Perhaps with all of those things, having personal [16:50.960 --> 16:58.720] arms to go into government is no longer practical. Perhaps. But Scalia said whether or not it is [16:58.720 --> 17:06.800] practical, it remains the intentions of the men of the founding generation of this nation. Therefore, [17:06.800 --> 17:11.600] when we talk about the right to keep and bear arms, it includes military-type rifles. [17:12.400 --> 17:15.600] You can imagine these Republican, Democrat senators, and remember, [17:16.240 --> 17:22.000] Democrat senators are not like Democratic voters. Democratic voters, just like Republican voters, [17:22.000 --> 17:28.000] are as ignorant as the day is long about this stuff. Of course, senators, they have staff, [17:28.000 --> 17:32.560] they have legal advisors, legal consultants, they have lawyers. There's the Congressional [17:32.560 --> 17:38.000] Research Service, which is a huge organization of attorneys and researchers that are required by [17:38.000 --> 17:45.440] law to furnish federal legislators with answers to law-specific questions. So a senator can say, [17:45.440 --> 17:50.960] as an example, to the Congressional Research Service, in light of Heller and McDonald, [17:51.040 --> 17:58.080] would we be able to enact a valid assault weapon ban that would stand scrutiny under the federal [17:58.080 --> 18:03.520] courts, probably going all the way to the Supreme Court? And the Congressional Research Service [18:03.520 --> 18:09.680] would have to tell those Democratic senators, if you read Heller, there is no way. As long as the [18:09.680 --> 18:15.920] court is going to adhere to Heller, which is a virtual certainty, then there's no way for an [18:15.920 --> 18:22.480] assault weapon ban to be considered constitutional. So that's why it's not in the package. [18:23.120 --> 18:28.160] The next one that many people would have liked to have seen in the legislation was a higher age, [18:29.120 --> 18:35.040] 21, not 18, to buy certain kinds of rifles. And the reason it's not in there is, again, [18:35.040 --> 18:43.120] this is very legally dicey. The Heller decision makes no distinction in the rights we just talked [18:43.120 --> 18:50.560] about in the last section, makes no distinction about age. So in other words, you would have to [18:50.560 --> 18:58.240] get a judge, a federal judge, to agree that the founding generation, when they said these rights, [18:58.240 --> 19:06.720] including the right to own military-type firearms, are constitutionally protected individual rights, [19:07.680 --> 19:14.720] but if you're 20 and a half, you don't have that right. That would be a tough sell. In fact, [19:15.680 --> 19:19.600] I'm going to sit here and tell you that it's going to be very hard to find a federal court [19:19.600 --> 19:24.480] that's going to agree with that. And if you found one, found a district court that would agree with [19:24.480 --> 19:28.480] it, it would almost certainly be overturned on appeal, except perhaps the ninth. And then if [19:28.480 --> 19:32.960] it goes to the Supreme Court, yeah, it's not going to stand up. There was recently a decision, [19:33.920 --> 19:36.320] three months, four months, five months ago, sometimes they all blur together, [19:37.040 --> 19:45.600] a federal judge actually struck down in an age-specific restriction on firearms ownership. [19:45.600 --> 19:52.240] In his dicta, he actually talked about the fact that people who were 16, 17, 18, 19, [19:52.800 --> 19:57.840] they were an integral part of creating this nation. They went to war. That was his point. [19:57.840 --> 20:07.680] So if, under Heller, military-style firearms are an individual right to say that that right [20:07.680 --> 20:15.840] begins only at a later age than the age of legal adulthood, which is 18, again, [20:15.840 --> 20:23.440] a really tough sell and it's not going to happen. As you might be aware, someone under 21 cannot go [20:24.000 --> 20:32.560] into a licensed firearm dealer establishment and purchase a handgun until they are 21. [20:33.360 --> 20:39.440] And I believe that one of the reasons that you don't see this higher minimum age requirement in [20:39.440 --> 20:50.240] this proposed legislation is a court battle that would strike that down may also, in the terms of [20:50.240 --> 20:55.280] unintended consequences, may also wind up being the basis to strike down the [20:56.080 --> 21:01.040] provision that currently exists that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun from a licensed firearms [21:01.040 --> 21:06.800] dealer. So for those who think that those sort of age restrictions are a good thing, to include a [21:06.800 --> 21:13.360] provision that might wind up striking down not only the new provision but an existing age-specific [21:13.360 --> 21:19.760] provision, that probably isn't desirable from that person's point of view. One of the reasons [21:19.760 --> 21:26.880] I'm a fervent supporter of the right to keep and bear arms is that I'm the gentleman who coined the [21:26.880 --> 21:32.880] adage, the government lies, lies all the time, and lies even when the truth would serve it well. [21:33.600 --> 21:39.760] I recently did a video of things that were considered for many, many years to be conspiracy [21:39.760 --> 21:45.360] theories, and the government said those are conspiracy theories until the information was [21:45.360 --> 21:50.960] declassified, and we found out that they weren't conspiracy theories at all. They were true. I'll [21:50.960 --> 21:55.680] put a link to that video down in the notes. However, because the government lies, lies all [21:55.680 --> 22:00.080] the time, and lies even when the truth would serve it well, I feel it is imperative that not [22:00.080 --> 22:04.880] only do we have firearms for our own personal defense but, go back to what Scalia said, [22:05.440 --> 22:11.360] whether or not it is practical is not an issue that we need to discuss today. But if my government [22:12.320 --> 22:18.080] goes from lies all the time to becomes tyrannical, I believe it is not only my right, [22:19.120 --> 22:27.360] but it is my duty as an American to use whatever means possible to fight to defeat that tyrannical [22:27.360 --> 22:33.040] government and preserve freedom and personal liberty for the American people. Whether or not [22:33.040 --> 22:38.080] that could be accomplished with personal arms is a subject for a whole other presentation. [22:38.800 --> 22:44.400] However, I think it is fair to say we can all agree in the absence of personal arms, [22:45.280 --> 22:52.240] that would be an absolute impossibility. Let me give you an example of [22:54.480 --> 23:03.360] perhaps the largest, worst, most damaging, most pervasive government disinformation, [23:03.360 --> 23:08.320] government lie that exists in the United States. That is the government's narrative that if you go [23:08.320 --> 23:12.640] out and earn a living in the United States that you owe the government some in the form of income [23:12.640 --> 23:21.440] tax. I think it is fair to say that the fact that the United States public, the vast majority, [23:22.160 --> 23:29.760] believe that is true is a testament to how effective the government's 60, 70 year [23:29.760 --> 23:35.600] disinformation campaign has been. It is not just disinformation, but a fear generating campaign [23:35.600 --> 23:42.320] as well. Fortunately, we do not have to pick up arms to fight against that. If there was no [23:42.320 --> 23:46.400] alternative, I leave it to you to determine whether that would be worth fighting over [23:47.120 --> 23:57.200] if you were having 12%, 13%, 20%, 30% of your income ripped away based on disinformation [23:57.200 --> 24:02.960] put out by the government. Would that be worth killing and dying for? I do not know. Fortunately, [24:02.960 --> 24:09.440] we do not have to answer that question because all you have to do is pick up a copy of Income [24:09.440 --> 24:15.520] Tax Shattering the Myths. When you have completed it and you close that final page, you will know [24:15.520 --> 24:21.840] without a shadow of a doubt that everything you had heard up until the moment that you read that [24:21.840 --> 24:26.080] book, everything you heard was actually government disinformation on the subject. It did not matter [24:26.080 --> 24:30.000] whether it came from your employer. It did not matter whether it came from a public accountant. [24:30.000 --> 24:35.680] It did not matter who you got it from. They were repeating to you the government's disinformation [24:35.680 --> 24:38.880] material. When you close that final page of Income Tax Shattering the Myths, it will not [24:38.880 --> 24:44.160] be subjective. You will not be scratching your head with, I wonder, absolutely conclusive. There [24:44.160 --> 24:49.840] will be absolutely no doubt in your mind. Once you have all the information, you know what the law [24:49.840 --> 24:54.960] really says, and you know that the government's version of it is disinformation, then you can [24:54.960 --> 25:02.720] decide you have the tools. The knowledge gives you tools. The knowledge is a tool. Then you can [25:02.720 --> 25:07.120] decide whether you want to continue to participate in the charade, whether you want to participate in [25:07.120 --> 25:10.480] the government scam, what I call the largest financial crime in the history of the world. [25:10.480 --> 25:14.560] Do you want to continue to be the victim of that, or do you want to safely walk away but you'll have [25:14.560 --> 25:20.240] the tools to make that decision? I'm going to encourage you to go to drreality.news. That's [25:20.240 --> 25:26.640] drreality.news. Grab yourself a copy of Income Tax Shattering the Myths if you add the coupon code [25:27.200 --> 25:39.440] tax truth. All one word, tax truth. I'll pick up the shipping for you. Thanks for being here.