Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:06.880]  Welcome to the Vodcast. Throughout 2022, headlines frequently called our attention to the massive
[00:06.880 --> 00:12.760]  shoplifting problem in the United States. On December 23, 2022, the Wall Street Journal
[00:12.760 --> 00:20.680]  ran a story highlighting that shoplifting is now a $95 billion annual problem. That's
[00:20.680 --> 00:25.280]  billion with a B. And of course, we've all seen the footage from store cameras in which
[00:25.280 --> 00:30.480]  a crew of thugs enter the store, take anything and everything they want and leave. They're
[00:30.480 --> 00:35.880]  young, violent, and operate in such numbers that store clerks are powerless to do anything
[00:35.880 --> 00:41.000]  to stop them. All a clerk can do is stand behind the counter and watch. It may seem
[00:41.000 --> 00:47.640]  like a problem without a solution, but it's not, as with so many problems in America.
[00:47.640 --> 00:52.800]  Government is a big part of the problem, and its inaction is a green light for criminals
[00:52.840 --> 00:57.480]  to keep doing it. But there is a solution, and we're going to talk about it right now.
[01:14.200 --> 01:19.000]  Let's start with this. Before I went to the military, I caught shoplifters for a living.
[01:19.040 --> 01:24.960]  I started doing it in 1977 when I was 17 years old. I was hired to catch shoplifters at
[01:24.960 --> 01:30.720]  a Sears store in a rough neighborhood of Los Angeles near downtown. 46 years ago, and the
[01:30.720 --> 01:36.520]  world was a very different place, when a major retailer like Sears could hire a 17-year-old
[01:36.520 --> 01:41.720]  to catch shoplifters, no one thought twice about it. Back then, catching shoplifters
[01:41.720 --> 01:46.920]  was really a thing. I was already a skilled martial artist by the time I started working
[01:46.920 --> 01:51.600]  for Sears, but the dojo is no substitute for street fighting. I got a good deal of
[01:51.600 --> 01:55.640]  experience fighting with people who did not want to come back inside when I stopped them
[01:55.640 --> 02:02.320]  after they'd left the store without paying. The only person who bested me was a 4-foot-10
[02:02.320 --> 02:06.840]  pregnant woman. I'll tell you about that in a minute. Shoplifting agents used a variety
[02:06.840 --> 02:11.200]  of means to identify shoplifters. Sometimes we simply walked around pretending to be a
[02:11.200 --> 02:15.920]  shopper. Other times we'd be in hidden locations designed to allow us to see the sales floor
[02:16.160 --> 02:20.680]  without customers being able to see us. Cameras had yet to be installed throughout stores
[02:20.680 --> 02:25.120]  as they are today, so most everything was done through the personal observation of the
[02:25.120 --> 02:29.720]  agent. When we zeroed in on a person we suspected was not going to pay, we'd keep him or her
[02:29.720 --> 02:33.720]  in sight until they left the store with the merchandise. Then we'd follow the person or
[02:33.720 --> 02:40.120]  persons outside and arrest them. Back then, at least in the places I worked and if I was
[02:40.120 --> 02:46.720]  involved, coming back inside was not discretionary. They could come back in the easy way or the
[02:46.720 --> 02:50.920]  hard way, but they were coming back in the store. Of course, it also wasn't some sort
[02:50.920 --> 02:56.640]  of macho suicide mission either. I remember there was a case of a 6-foot-6 biker who concealed
[02:56.640 --> 03:03.240]  a very large stolen kitchen knife in his boot. We quickly staged about 8 male employees in
[03:03.240 --> 03:08.160]  the parking lot. They were managers and warehouse guys. Back then, male employees were expected
[03:08.200 --> 03:12.160]  to help out with such things. In total, when I stopped the biker about 20 feet outside
[03:12.160 --> 03:17.280]  the store, he was facing 10 men. He chose to turn over the knife peaceably and we walked
[03:17.280 --> 03:22.880]  back in the store. But it didn't always play out that way. One time I went out the door
[03:22.880 --> 03:27.040]  after two black gals who had stolen a bunch of costume jewelry. All the merchandise was
[03:27.040 --> 03:31.400]  in the purse of one of the women. The other had merely shielded the actions of her pal
[03:31.400 --> 03:35.200]  from being observed by nearby employees. When they hit the door, they were moving with a
[03:35.240 --> 03:39.120]  purpose, so I ended up stopping them in the parking lot about a hundred feet from the
[03:39.120 --> 03:43.640]  store. It was much further than is preferred. When I caught up with them, I went into the
[03:43.640 --> 03:48.000]  normal routine telling them, we appear to have a problem. I need you to step back into
[03:48.000 --> 03:52.840]  the store with me. It was my way to always keep it casual at first. If they wanted to
[03:52.840 --> 03:58.160]  escalate it, it was up to them. In this case, what I didn't know was they had a carload
[03:58.160 --> 04:02.640]  of friends nearby who had spotted me approaching the two women. As I was speaking to the two
[04:02.640 --> 04:08.040]  gals, I felt something wrap around my ankles. I looked down to see a woman's arms wrapped
[04:08.040 --> 04:12.680]  around my ankles from behind me. A split second later, a pair of arms wrapped around
[04:12.680 --> 04:17.880]  my face. Then the crew of women toppled me over and started kicking the shit out of me.
[04:17.880 --> 04:21.400]  I was on the ground with about five or six women literally kicking me and going after
[04:21.400 --> 04:25.800]  my eyes with their fingernails. So how did I handle that? When I saw the arms around
[04:25.800 --> 04:29.520]  my legs, I knew instantly I was in trouble. So I reached out and I grabbed the wrist of
[04:29.920 --> 04:34.560]  the woman who had the merchandise in her purse. I locked onto her wrist with a desk whip,
[04:34.560 --> 04:38.800]  so when I went down, she went down with me. As the women were kicking me and going after
[04:38.800 --> 04:42.800]  my eyes with their fingernails, I ignored all that, got my cuffs out, and handcuffed
[04:42.800 --> 04:49.800]  the woman's wrist to my own wrist. As I said earlier, going back in the store was not discretionary.
[04:49.920 --> 04:53.440]  Once the pack of women realized they could not rescue their friend, they grabbed the
[04:53.440 --> 04:58.160]  purse, jumped in their car, and tore out of there like a bat out of hell. But here's the
[04:58.160 --> 05:03.640]  thing, as I was fighting with them, I saw several men standing around watching it go
[05:03.640 --> 05:07.880]  down, including a couple of male employees standing on the loading dock of the company
[05:07.880 --> 05:14.280]  I worked at, and a mailman. It seems they were watching the show rather than lending
[05:14.280 --> 05:20.480]  a hand. I didn't really appreciate that. Before I get into the solutions to our current shoplifting
[05:20.480 --> 05:26.380]  epidemic, I'll tell you about the one suspect that bested me, the one that got away. I was
[05:26.380 --> 05:30.620]  watching several people through two-way glass when I saw a four-foot-ten pregnant Hispanic
[05:30.620 --> 05:34.220]  woman in her early twenties grab a bunch of necklaces from a counter display and drop
[05:34.220 --> 05:38.740]  them in her purse. She immediately headed for the door. I radioed to other agents that
[05:38.740 --> 05:43.340]  I was going out the front door after her and gave them her description. I stopped her about
[05:43.340 --> 05:47.180]  40 feet from the door, flashed my badge, and explained that we needed to step back into
[05:47.180 --> 05:53.340]  the store for a moment. I ordinarily would have taken a female suspect's purse away
[05:53.340 --> 05:58.100]  from her at that point for my own safety, as well as to secure the evidence. In this
[05:58.100 --> 06:04.560]  instance, I let the fact that she was young, diminutive, and pregnant affect my judgment
[06:04.560 --> 06:10.020]  and did not take her purse away. I gently took her by her left elbow to escort her back
[06:10.020 --> 06:13.720]  to the store. Just about that time, two other shoplifting agents came out the front doors
[06:13.720 --> 06:18.740]  to assist. I was about to wave them off when two things happened simultaneously. The first
[06:18.740 --> 06:25.420]  was that I saw a look of shock on the faces of the agents. The other was I felt something
[06:25.420 --> 06:32.420]  poke me in the gut on my right side. I looked down to see a revolver pressed against my
[06:32.900 --> 06:39.900]  side. I looked into the woman's eyes and they were flat and hard. Zero emotion. I slowly
[06:42.420 --> 06:48.060]  withdrew my hand from her elbow, took a step away, and said, adios, senora. She turned
[06:48.060 --> 06:52.060]  and walked away. Because we were not permitted to carry firearms, there was nothing we could
[06:52.060 --> 06:57.540]  do to stop her. As I mentioned a moment ago, 1977 was a different world from the one in
[06:57.540 --> 07:03.100]  which we live today. The next day, I spoke to a neighbor who sold me a Walther pistol.
[07:03.100 --> 07:07.900]  I purchased a holster and never again worked without being armed. I kept my mouth shut,
[07:07.900 --> 07:13.300]  no one I worked with or for ever knew. For me, it was a simple equation. I was never
[07:13.300 --> 07:18.500]  again going to go up against somebody armed with a firearm with me being unarmed. Since
[07:18.500 --> 07:23.500]  there was no way to know who was armed or when, the only solution was for me to be armed
[07:23.500 --> 07:28.740]  at all times. Despite a company policy that shoplifting agents could not be armed, the
[07:28.740 --> 07:33.620]  CEO of Sears wasn't going to be there to save my life if someone pulled a gun or a knife
[07:33.620 --> 07:39.380]  on me in the future. There was only one person, one person only, responsible for my physical
[07:40.380 --> 07:46.580]  Me. Taking personal responsibility for my own safety has been a constant in my life.
[07:46.580 --> 07:51.780]  Here I am 46 years after the events I'm sharing with you today and I still carry a firearm
[07:51.780 --> 07:58.280]  every day because I remain the only person responsible for my safety. With all that said,
[07:58.280 --> 08:03.320]  the number of shoplifting incidents has not only exploded in recent years, but it also
[08:03.320 --> 08:07.640]  involves some very different methods, which in some cases push well past any previous
[08:07.640 --> 08:11.640]  misunderstood meaning of the word shoplifting and moves into the realm of what I consider
[08:11.640 --> 08:17.040]  violent acts of theft. Before we jump into how to address the issue, it's important
[08:17.040 --> 08:21.880]  to note that if you buy things in any retail store, which means all of you of course, then
[08:21.880 --> 08:25.960]  you're paying for this crime wave because every single company passes on the cost to
[08:25.960 --> 08:31.360]  you by raising the price of things you buy. In other words, this isn't just someone else's
[08:31.360 --> 08:38.360]  problem. If you buy anything, you are paying for thieves taking things without paying for them.
[08:39.560 --> 08:43.880]  When I was young, theft was seen as a moral issue, a matter of right and wrong. That's
[08:43.880 --> 08:48.000]  why, as I mentioned earlier, mail store employees were expected to assist security personnel
[08:48.000 --> 08:53.080]  if asked to do so. It was literally seen as the good guys versus the bad guys. If you
[08:53.080 --> 08:57.980]  were a good guy, you chipped in and helped catch the bad guys. That was pretty much a
[08:57.980 --> 09:04.220]  universally held perspective. Today, businesses and their employees no longer see people
[09:04.220 --> 09:08.840]  stealing merchandise as a moral issue, as a matter of right and wrong. Starting about
[09:08.840 --> 09:15.340]  25 years ago, the perspective started to shift. Businesses began to see theft as purely an
[09:15.340 --> 09:20.320]  economic equation with no moral significance. The thinking became that businesses would
[09:20.320 --> 09:25.320]  rather increase prices and or write off losses, as well as ensure there would be no workers'
[09:25.720 --> 09:31.440]  comp claims by injured employees or lawsuits from those arrested. In short, catching crooks
[09:31.440 --> 09:35.600]  in the act, and in some cases, seeing them punished to the courts, ceased to be something
[09:35.600 --> 09:41.340]  in which businesses had any interest. When I first noticed the changing perspective of
[09:41.340 --> 09:48.340]  large retail corporations, I knew we would come to where we have arrived today with theft
[09:48.620 --> 09:55.620]  from retail stores now thoroughly out of control. My first practical run-in with this perspective
[09:56.300 --> 10:02.240]  was at a Home Depot in Santa Clarita, California in probably about 2000. While I was shopping,
[10:02.240 --> 10:08.400]  I observed a guy stuffing hand tools down his pants. I kept an eye on him and as he
[10:08.400 --> 10:12.520]  approached the front of the store, I grabbed a manager I knew. I quickly explained what
[10:12.520 --> 10:16.880]  had occurred and told him if he'd task an employee to going out the door with me, because
[10:16.880 --> 10:21.240]  it was Home Depot's property, not mine, I'd make the arrest and testify against the thief
[10:21.240 --> 10:28.000]  in court. The manager thanked me for bringing it to his attention, but said they'd prefer
[10:28.000 --> 10:34.540]  to let the guy leave with the stolen merchandise. In my opinion, this abdication of the moral
[10:34.540 --> 10:40.280]  component of theft is the exact and specific reason businesses find themselves now drowning
[10:40.280 --> 10:44.760]  in a tsunami of theft. At this point in time, while businesses have realized the problem
[10:44.760 --> 10:49.760]  is reaching epidemic levels, they refuse to connect the dots between their shifting perspective
[10:49.760 --> 10:55.960]  over the last 25 years and the problem having now exploded. As long as consumers see it
[10:55.960 --> 11:01.860]  as acceptable to be charged for criminal steal, most corporations won't change their stance.
[11:01.860 --> 11:06.400]  The current framework of statutory law, which is way behind the curve in addressing the
[11:06.400 --> 11:13.200]  problem, is one of the reasons corporations prefer paralysis to taking action. And that
[11:13.240 --> 11:18.480]  brings us to what is necessary to reverse the trend. Before I get into the changes needed
[11:18.480 --> 11:23.920]  to the law, let me make the point that once ongoing irresponsibility has allowed a problem
[11:23.920 --> 11:29.080]  to grow to epidemic proportions, the measures needed to correct it may appear pretty harsh
[11:29.080 --> 11:33.720]  to some people. Think of it this way. You can adopt a healthy lifestyle or get heart
[11:33.720 --> 11:39.360]  disease requiring a heart transplant. A heart transplant seems pretty radical in comparison
[11:39.360 --> 11:44.160]  to having been wise enough to make some intelligent changes years ago. The same phenomenon exists
[11:44.160 --> 11:49.360]  in this matter. After decades of abdication of responsibility, the cure is, like a heart
[11:49.360 --> 11:56.360]  transplant, far more unpleasant than it otherwise would need to be. So what changes in the law
[11:57.160 --> 12:03.000]  do I suggest? To begin with, retailers have to be freed from the specter of lawsuits with
[12:03.000 --> 12:07.680]  potentially massive judgments being brought by people arrested for committing crimes against
[12:07.680 --> 12:12.880]  the company. Further, company employees must be able to physically arrest a criminal without
[12:12.880 --> 12:18.600]  the company or the employee being sued for ridiculous amounts of money. In order to accomplish
[12:18.600 --> 12:23.600]  this, multiple changes need to be made in the law controlling how courts handle civil
[12:23.600 --> 12:28.120]  actions against retailers by those having committed crimes against the company or on
[12:28.120 --> 12:34.480]  company property. The first change is that company employees cannot be sued personally
[12:34.680 --> 12:41.120]  unless the plaintiff can show an employee's use of force rose to the level of gross negligence.
[12:41.120 --> 12:46.680]  In other words, a claim that the employee's use of force to affect the arrest was excessive
[12:46.680 --> 12:51.680]  would not permit a suit against an employee to proceed. The standard for that needs to
[12:51.680 --> 12:57.560]  be gross negligence. Second, there should be a cap on monetary awards against the company
[12:57.560 --> 13:02.280]  if the company can show a civil jury that the plaintiff did commit a criminal act against
[13:02.280 --> 13:07.420]  the company and the arrest was therefore legally justified. Given the proliferation
[13:07.420 --> 13:12.960]  of video cameras in and around retail establishments, this should be easy to show a jury. The cap
[13:12.960 --> 13:17.880]  should be low enough that even low rent attorneys won't be tempted to file a trash lawsuit in
[13:17.880 --> 13:23.400]  the hope of getting a few bucks in settlement. The cap would be inapplicable if the jury
[13:23.400 --> 13:28.760]  determines no probable cause existed for the arrest or the level of force used to affect
[13:28.760 --> 13:35.200]  the arrest rose to the level of gross negligence. The next change should be that retail shoplifting
[13:35.200 --> 13:40.320]  agents can carry firearms with a permit in the same manner as do licensed uniform security
[13:40.320 --> 13:45.880]  guards. I'm no fan of permits to exercise an unalienable right, but insurance companies
[13:45.880 --> 13:50.520]  will decline to cover armed agents working for retailers without there being state sanctioned
[13:50.520 --> 13:55.920]  training and certification. In cases where a shoplifting agent needed to use a firearm,
[13:55.920 --> 14:00.560]  the aforementioned monetary judgment cap would apply if a civil jury determines the
[14:00.560 --> 14:06.800]  plaintiff had committed a crime and the shoplifting agent attempting to arrest the suspect was
[14:06.800 --> 14:13.120]  reasonably in fear for his or her life or limb at the time the suspect was shot. Use
[14:13.120 --> 14:18.320]  of deadly force when one has a reasonable basis for fear for his or her life or limb
[14:18.320 --> 14:24.240]  is essentially a universal standard. In the framework of law we're discussing here, adhering
[14:24.240 --> 14:30.160]  to that standard would bar outrageous jury awards against retailers. Let's move on to
[14:30.160 --> 14:35.800]  a newer theft phenomenon that will require what is likely a more controversial change
[14:35.800 --> 14:42.120]  in the law. The phenomenon of which I speak is the theft by a large group of perpetrators.
[14:42.120 --> 14:46.040]  You've probably seen examples on the news. The typical MO is a group of thieves swarm
[14:46.040 --> 14:50.460]  into a business at the same time and proceed to ransack the business for whatever merchandise
[14:50.460 --> 14:54.780]  they want to steal. The thieves outnumber the shocked employees so the employees are left to
[14:54.780 --> 15:00.140]  watch the place get ransacked without being able to do anything to stop it. The gang of thieves
[15:00.140 --> 15:05.660]  is usually in and out within 30 to 60 seconds and the monetary loss to the business is substantial.
[15:05.660 --> 15:09.580]  This tactic has been employed everywhere from local convenience stores to high-end stores in
[15:09.580 --> 15:15.660]  Beverly Hills. From the thieves' perspective, the technique has the advantages that no one can stop
[15:15.660 --> 15:20.060]  them because of their numerical superiority and they are long gone by the time the cops arrive.
[15:20.940 --> 15:27.660]  When I say no one can stop them, that means under existing law. But we can change the law
[15:27.660 --> 15:33.580]  to make this tactic much less appealing to the thugs. The solution is to modify the law so that
[15:33.580 --> 15:39.980]  retail store employees and others may use deadly force to stop an act of theft or other crime
[15:39.980 --> 15:47.020]  committed inside the business when three or more perpetrators are involved. As an example, if 10
[15:47.020 --> 15:52.540]  thugs swarm a business and start ransacking the place, the employees or anyone witnessing it
[15:52.540 --> 15:58.540]  are free to gun them down even though the employees' lives are not in immediate peril.
[15:58.540 --> 16:03.820]  The legal logic goes like this. The employees have a duty to safeguard company merchandise from
[16:03.820 --> 16:09.500]  theft but given the number of criminals involved, any employee who attempts to detain or arrest
[16:09.500 --> 16:15.420]  the perpetrators would likely be taking his life into his own hands. In other words, the threat of
[16:15.420 --> 16:20.940]  violence against anyone who attempts to stop the thieves is implicit in the method they are
[16:20.940 --> 16:25.580]  employing and therefore no other factor is needed to justify the use of deadly force.
[16:26.380 --> 16:31.660]  Also, because of that, no verbal commands are necessary. As soon as the ransacking begins,
[16:31.660 --> 16:38.380]  anyone witnessing it may gun down the perps. Each of the perps remains a legally viable target until
[16:38.380 --> 16:43.420]  they cross the threshold and are outside the business. Once they're outside the business,
[16:43.420 --> 16:46.780]  the traditional standard for use of deadly force comes back into play.
[16:48.060 --> 16:54.300]  Being permitted to use deadly force when accosted by multiple suspects already exists as a legal
[16:54.300 --> 17:00.220]  principle. It's known as the disparity of force doctrine. If you're walking to your car and four
[17:00.220 --> 17:05.020]  thugs approach you with evil intent, the law does not require you to physically fight all four of
[17:05.020 --> 17:12.140]  them with your bare hands because you've not yet been incapacitated to kill. The law does not require
[17:12.140 --> 17:17.020]  you to wait until a situation gets to the point where you've lost any realistic ability to defend
[17:17.020 --> 17:22.540]  yourself. The law recognizes that their numbers, which produces a potential life-threatening
[17:22.540 --> 17:28.140]  disparity of force, justifies your use of deadly force and self-defense. All we'd be doing in this
[17:28.140 --> 17:33.580]  proposed statutory change is switching the party experiencing potential life-threatening disparity
[17:33.580 --> 17:39.020]  of force from the guy in the parking lot to the store employees who are the flesh and blood
[17:39.100 --> 17:43.980]  representatives of the victim company or others present when the crime is being committed.
[17:44.540 --> 17:49.580]  And here's the bottom line. How many thieves are going to blast into a business and start
[17:49.580 --> 17:55.900]  ransacking it if they know that doing so greenlights employees and patrons to gun them down?
[17:56.460 --> 18:01.580]  Having worked in law enforcement for six years deep in the hood, I can assure you the answer is
[18:01.580 --> 18:07.740]  none. The vast majority of criminals are also cowards. They do their dirt when they believe
[18:07.740 --> 18:12.460]  they have the advantage and steer clear when they think they're going to get shot. Anyone who
[18:12.460 --> 18:16.620]  spent any time on the street knows thugs act like tough guys when they have the advantage and run
[18:16.620 --> 18:22.620]  like little bitches when a good guy pulls a gun. Leaving aside personal experience on the street,
[18:22.620 --> 18:27.900]  about 20 years ago researchers asked prison inmates what they feared most when committing crimes.
[18:28.620 --> 18:36.940]  The number one answer by far was running into an armed citizen. Yet leftist anti-gunners
[18:36.940 --> 18:42.780]  continue to try to take that fear away from criminals so the criminals can be more comfortable
[18:42.780 --> 18:49.820]  and confident when committing crimes. It's absolutely insane. What about potential bad
[18:49.820 --> 18:55.180]  publicity from a shoplifting agent or other company employee shooting someone? In my opinion,
[18:55.180 --> 18:59.820]  the way to address that is for the retailer to be crystal clear with the public from the moment one
[18:59.820 --> 19:04.780]  of these laws change. The company should issue a statement saying the following,
[19:06.300 --> 19:11.900]  Our business exists to sell quality merchandise that will be valued by the communities we serve.
[19:12.700 --> 19:17.820]  To shop for such merchandise is the reason people come to our stores. When people are in our stores,
[19:17.820 --> 19:23.420]  they should adhere to our policies and follow the law. If they do not follow the law and store
[19:23.420 --> 19:29.180]  security personnel informs them they are being arrested, the person should peacefully cooperate
[19:29.180 --> 19:34.060]  if a person attempts to resist or otherwise becomes violent. The law permits our security
[19:34.060 --> 19:39.500]  personnel to use such force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance and affect
[19:39.500 --> 19:45.580]  the arrest. If a person causes our security agents to fear for their lives or limbs, the law
[19:45.580 --> 19:50.940]  authorizes them to use deadly force to protect themselves. If you have improper motives for
[19:50.940 --> 19:55.820]  coming to our stores or are the kind of person who will break the law while in our stores or may
[19:55.820 --> 20:01.340]  become violent, we ask that you not enter our stores. We are confident our customers support
[20:01.340 --> 20:06.140]  our effort to rein in theft because doing so creates the safe and sane shopping environment
[20:06.140 --> 20:11.900]  our customers want for their families while keeping prices as low as possible. Close quote.
[20:11.900 --> 20:16.700]  I believe Americans are ready for this kind of straight talk rather than being fed some sort of
[20:16.700 --> 20:22.940]  woke horseshit. Speaking of straight talk, I want to remind you that the U.S. government has been
[20:22.940 --> 20:27.740]  running a 60-year massive disinformation campaign to convince the American people
[20:27.740 --> 20:31.660]  that they owe income tax. More specifically, that ordinary Americans who are not living to
[20:31.660 --> 20:38.540]  support themselves or their families owe income tax. I'm here to tell you that is a complete lie.
[20:39.260 --> 20:44.300]  It is government disinformation. I haven't filed an income tax return or paid a penny of income
[20:44.300 --> 20:51.980]  tax since 1993. The only reason you have is you didn't look at the law for yourself thinking it's
[20:51.980 --> 20:57.900]  too complex so you have to defer to what experts have told you. What have we learned about the
[20:57.900 --> 21:03.820]  credibility of experts in the last few years? You may not have been aware those who told you
[21:03.820 --> 21:08.460]  the law requires you to pay income tax were lying to you or in some cases honestly mistaken because
[21:08.460 --> 21:13.980]  they bought the lie when it was told to them. When you read income tax shattering the miss,
[21:13.980 --> 21:20.780]  what will shock you most is the mountains of irrefutable evidence showing Congress has never
[21:20.780 --> 21:27.900]  imposed the income tax on the ordinary working American and the lack of even a single shred of
[21:27.900 --> 21:33.340]  evidence indicating they did. That's why the government is engaged in a 60-year disinformation
[21:33.340 --> 21:39.260]  campaign that never gets into what the law really says. You've been the victim of government smoke
[21:39.260 --> 21:44.700]  and mirrors your whole life. Isn't it time to change that or at least find out about it?
[21:45.340 --> 21:52.140]  The good news is it's incredibly easy to do. It literally requires reading just one book.
[21:52.140 --> 21:56.300]  Imagine reading one book and being able to show anyone and everyone that the government has been
[21:56.300 --> 22:08.780]  lying all along. Now stop imagining that and do it. Go to drreality.news and order your copy of
[22:08.780 --> 22:14.060]  income tax shattering the miss right now. While you're there perhaps also grab a copy of body
[22:14.060 --> 22:19.020]  science. Have you ever wondered why despite America's wealth, scientific prowess and a
[22:19.020 --> 22:24.940]  gargantuan sized medical industry, America is the most ill society in all of human history and
[22:24.940 --> 22:30.540]  getting more sick every day? Just like the income tax, the American people have been lied to for
[22:30.540 --> 22:35.500]  decades about how human nutritional physiology works. The establishment convinced the American
[22:35.500 --> 22:41.020]  people things that were incredibly healthy cause disease and things that cause disease
[22:41.580 --> 22:47.900]  are healthy. If you'd like to get the truth about health, disease and physiology, body science
[22:47.900 --> 22:52.540]  reveals the lies the establishment has told the American people for decades in order to direct
[22:52.540 --> 22:57.820]  trillions of dollars into various industries and then compares that to what true science tells us
[22:57.820 --> 23:05.260]  and what true science tells us has been hidden from you for decades. So go to drreality.news
[23:05.260 --> 23:11.260]  and pick up a copy of income tax shattering the miss and or body science. You have my word,
[23:11.260 --> 23:16.700]  they will be two of the most fascinating books you will ever read. Also by purchasing income tax
[23:16.700 --> 23:21.020]  shattering the miss and or body science, you help me to continue to be here with these
[23:21.020 --> 23:31.980]  thought-provoking presentations. Thank you for being here. Take care.
[23:35.260 --> 23:36.060]  you