Politicians love to say "violence has no place in politics."

They're lying and they know it.

In fact violence is the underlayment of all political systems and all laws.

Indeed, even something as simple as a speeding ticket is underlaid by violence. Refuse to pull over and take your ticket when the lights come on behind you and whatever level of violence is necessary to force you to comply will be used, up to and including deadly force.

There are in fact no exceptions to this in the political and legal realm -- and never have been.  This is not an American experience, it is as old as time itself.  Since humans created the concept of "laws" (as opposed to actual physical laws; the very name as used today is a lie in that it is often ignored whenever political purposes suit) every single one of them has been backed by the threat of physical violence and, if you attempt to resist and are politically disfavored actual violence up to and including the taking of your life.

Therefore violence not only has a place in politics it is the foundation of politics.

There are only two ways to change someone's mind: Reason and violence.

The Founders understood this quite-well.  It is the reason the First Amendment is in fact first.  The Second Amendment recognizes that when reason fails to find agreement there is only one remaining alternative and the only question then is whether the parties will have the capacity to reasonably meet each other's force with sufficient violence to convince them that reason is a better choice.

Reason, for example, tells us that when a business moves almost-entirely to a subscription model the outcome does not exist due to fair competitive pressures and reason.  Around 1900 the United States Congress, compelled by the people of the nation, found that violence has a nuance frequently found in commerce that is in fact very akin to the operation of a criminal gang: "That's a very nice store you have Mr. Jones; it would be a pity if anything happened to it."

15 USC Chapter 1 was passed -- and then twice added on to -- for this reason.  It placed into the realm of federal felony offenses carrying hard prison time the act of attempting to monopolize, restrain trade or fix prices whether within the United States or even internationally, if the goods or services were bought or sold in interstate commerce.

Thus it is a facial violation for a drug company to sell a drug for $50 in Europe and $500 here in the United States.  It matters not their excuse; that is a physical commodity and for sales of like kind and quantity this sort of price-fixing is a felony.

All business arrangements that facially make no sense are in fact illegal because the only reason to engage in them is to commit an act that violates said statute -- specifically, to prevent competition that would otherwise force down said pricing.

Contemplate "subscription" services for things like software.  You get less (you don't own anything -- you're obtaining a limited-time right to use, which in fact impugns your own personal work product produced with same!) and therefore, facially, you must pay less.  If you don't then a competitor will come and take away that business in a competitive market.  If no such competitor exists then you have exerted market power which is a felony.  The precise means by which you did so does not have to be determined -- the basic laws of supply and demand make clear that your influence has to be improper otherwise there would be competitors and your outsized profitability would be impossible.  This is buttressed when your stock price goes up 500% at the same time, of course, as that demonstrates said outsized profitability.

But today nobody gets prosecuted for this.  Show me the felony criminal imprisonments for violations of 15 USC Chapter 1.  I'm not interested in "consent decrees" or fines because a monopolist can force the customer to pay for both, and repeatedly has and does.  Show me the imprisonments over the last 50 years.

I'll wait; I have plenty of fingers to count them on.

At the same time if I give the finger to a police officer over a $100 speeding ticket rather than pulling over and accepting it I will have my property (car) destroyed and imprisoned for hard felony time or even be shot and killed if I continue to refuse as he or she insists.

Now let's think about a few current events -- well, "sort of" current in some cases.

Hale.  The trannifesto from the Nashville-area shooter is out.  What is clear from that "diary" is that any mental health professional who had contact with this person -- all of whom are mandatory reporters -- should be in prison.  Yes, said responsibility extends to all physicians, hospital personnel and mental health professionals.  It is simply not credible to believe with that volume of insanity expressed in said journal that multiple professionals, including those who were "treating" Hale, are not culpable.  Yet I see no presentation to a Grand Jury, no searches, seizures or charges despite the law being clear.

Similarly the recent shooting in Georgia follows the same pattern.  In this case the FBI claims they had no probable cause a year prior despite alleged threats.  Well, perhaps that's true and the precise specifics are important thus I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.  What I won't give anyone the benefit of the doubt on is that a specific and precise threat to shoot up that school was communicated to the school that very morning and given the prior interaction and investigation, along with the knowledge that said kid attended that school to fail to act decisively by both law enforcement and the school administration at that moment goes even further than "mandatory reporter" liability and is sufficient to be charged as an accessory before the fact to murder for every individual in both law enforcement and operation of said school who had knowledge of the threat.  (Incidentally updated reporting does not change this; whether the actions were reasonable and sufficient by the administration is a job for a jury and thus the charges must still be brought.)

Again -- where are the arrests?  There are people who were killed in both instances.

8 USC 1324 makes clear that a person who provides material aid and comfort to an illegal alien, of which both Laken Riley's charged murder and the convicted murderer of Mollie Tibbetts, in one case a landlord and in the other the farmer who not only employed said convicted murderer he also rented him housing on-property had in fact provided said housing while either knowing or negligently not caring that said persons were illegal aliens.  The standard for culpability is knowledge or reckless disregard and is facially met in both cases.  The penalty for providing said material aid and assistance, including but not limited to housing or employment, when the illegal alien kills someone is life in prison.  Whether that standard was actually met is a question again for a jury and thus the charges, arrests and trials are necessary.  Well?

Obviously all of these cases, had the law been enforced, involve the government invoking violence on someone as (we claim) justified retribution for violations of the code of conduct (as expressed in "laws") we expect from persons in the United States.  If any element of government refuses to do so because of political advantage -- whether indirect to push a policy or benefit some person who votes a given way, or directly because they want a thing to happen and the violence that is unpunished allows it to advance that agenda then what non-violent means remain to the citizens to deter such aggression?

We already used reason to exhaustion -- that is the process that passes laws!  Laws occur through debate, amendment, passage and signature (or override of a veto) to reach the Statute Books.  That's the process of reason and it reaches exhaustion when said laws are either passed or repealed.  The executive branch in each instrumentality, whether local, state or federal, executes an oath to faithfully discharge said laws and it is in exchange for this process that the citizens delegate to government the capacity to use violence in said enforcement.  If the government, whether at a local, state or federal level, having had the process of reason applied and run to conclusion, decides to deliberately refuse to enforce said law then the next event will always in fact be violence; we are now down to whether they or you are the the target and suffer the consequences thereof, not whether violence is going to occur.

Think not?  How do you think the dead kids and adults in Georgia feel about it?  How about Laken Riley or Mollie Tibbetts?  How about the people victimized by the Venezuelan gangs that the cops and government of Colorado have tried to claim don't exist despite it now being a documented fact they were aware of it and deliberately did nothing?

If the government refuses to enforce that which was agreed upon through the process of reason then only violence remains to compel compliance as reason has been run to exhaustion and has failed.  The Second Amendment exists to make clear to government of all stripes that while reason is certainly preferred and our first and best tool if the government refuses to accede to the process of reason then the people always reserve the right to use the only remaining tool -- the one which we gave government license to use under the process of reason and they have, by their actions, willingly and intentionally abused same.

Like it or not we're now down to deciding who takes the brunt of it: We, the people or they, who we elected to discharge these responsibilities and then they deliberately chose not to for the purpose of political profit, financial profit OR BOTH.

I've had people on both sides tell me that I "have to" be "respectful" to either Trump or Harris (and sometimes both) along with various past Presidents, including most-particularly Obama (but not exclusively so of course.)

In a word (and as demonstrated over my years of writing this column): Bullshit.

If the Presidency is an acting position then I have no obligation ever to be respectful of the office, say much less the person who holds it.  Indeed if that is the case, given that this is not what it is sold as to the public, of course, I would fully within my rights to hold it in such disdain that I'd be perfectly ok with it and the holder of it being nuked from orbit -- or from land, such as by Xi, Putin or for that matter some Muslim nutjob who thinks it will bring forth "the last Mahdi."  If the "office holder" is a mere "beard" for someone else or some other group of people then they deserve to die along with all who suborn or allow it to continue for even one hour because that is the greatest offense to a Republic that can exist;  it is the very definition of treason at the highest level.

But if the Presidency is an actual seat of real power, exercised by the person who sits in the chair, then I have every right to criticize that person if and when they display idiocy, and further, I have every right to demand and expect that in return for my respect said seat will only be held and said power exercised by a person who is substantially to the right of center -- by 1SD or more -- of the bell curve, which in the US means at or beyond 115 IQ.

Further, if you claim to have that capacity and then run some set of policies that are bankrupt on the laws of physics (such as the thermodynamically-bankrupt "green energy" scam) I am perfectly within my rights, given your assertion that you in fact truly are the person making the decisions, to put forward that you DO understand what you're doing, you know damn well it will destroy the nation's economy, our competitiveness on the global stage and deliberately screw a huge percentage of the population, including directly leading to many deaths and since that's a deliberate act and not one born out of idiocy you deserve to be summarily executed under the laws of this nation because the harm and death you will serve upon Americans is both deliberate and properly charged to you.  Since there is no "divine right of Kings" to do such things in a Republic you must pay for your offense.  The difference between manslaughter and murder is that the latter requires premeditation and mental capacity so if you claim to have premeditation then you should get the penalty for it when you do it.

There is an old (and valid, like it or not) principle that if you're flying an aircraft and it crashes the person in the left seat is responsible for the crash.  They are held responsible even if some jackass on the ramp didn't latch the cargo hatch or screwed up when servicing the engine and it explodes in flight because like it or not as pilot in command that's the job and every person who sits in the seat does so both voluntarily and knowing the terms in advance.  Likewise like it or not if you're President and things go straight to Hell on your watch its your responsibility whether you personally did the things that led to it or not; you will be blamed for it and that's part of the job so if you don't like that you don't apply for or take the job.

A person who is smart enough to be on that right side of the curve knows this going in and also can and has evaluated the state of the nation and the entirety of its governmental structure before running.  If you're a Midwit (or worse), on the other hand then that's too damn bad because stupidity frequently comes with its own reward and again you deserve it, just for a different reason.  There are many who clearly do have the intellectual chops and government experience yet have declined to seek said office -- Condoleezza Rice comes to mind.

Having money, incidentally, does not mean you're smart.  It can mean you stole it or someone in your family was smart (or stole it) and then left it to you, thus you might have gained that money by bluster, bullshit, blind luck of the genetic draw as to who your parents were or outright and blatant theft.  Obtaining a high position could be because you screwed your way to the top, stomped on other people by exploiting various programs and acts of others (including nepotism) and similar.  Having a position thus does not mean you earned it and I've seen plenty of people of all stripes, including some so-called "privileged white men" who were anointed with Piled Higher and Deeper yet could not in field think their way out of a paper bag. More than once I've pointed out to such a person well above me in an organization that they were wrong about a direction they were taking said organization and what lay ahead, why they were wrong, been dismissed and then..... down the road I was proved correct and the predicted outcome occurred.  40 years of being an Indian and then a Chief has shown me this many times over and the Peter Principle, in my experience, is not only real its found in the majority of those in "high" office whether in business or anywhere else.  One can frequently find the adjective "high" to be a description of "puff-puff-pass" on their own supply -- even if only in their own mind.

Indeed the entire premise of The Peter Principle is in fact DIE even though for many they think it is a thing that just showed up and thus is limited to women, minorities and similar.  False; I've seen it all across academia and business and plenty of times the examples have been found in white men.  Indeed, since most of my "corporate world" experience as a non-chief pre-dated the modern insanity of "I'm the right {skin color|hair color|gender claim|fatness|whatever}" bullshit the most-stunning examples I had to deal with professionally were in fact white men.

Extending stupid on the basis of this and that doesn't make it new -- but it does make it worse and thus calling it out is a public good whether people like it or not.

Further, I think my record on this is pretty clear: None of Biden, Trump or Obama, or that matter McCain when he ran, have ever seen anything but derision from me on these pages.  McCain did serve but the facts are that he was a 5-alarm piece of shit in that he dumped his wife and three kids on return from the war because she had been in a horrible accident and was no longer "cute" -- and his new paramour was not only nearly two decades younger and pretty she was rich on top of it and bankrolled his Senate campaign.  As I said at the time fuck him and now I'll add to that: Skullfuck his good-and-dead corpse.

For the last three decades I've been sounding the alarm on the clear trend in CMS (Medicare/Medicaid) spending, where it was going and what was going to happen budget-wise at the Federal level if it was not stopped.  Medicaid hits the States as well because it is a matching program, and is largely responsible for a huge part of the State funding problems in "blue" states that expanded it with Obamacare, along with allowing it for illegal immigrants and their children.  If this is not stopped, and we are now just about out of time, the Federal capacity to fund its operations will collapse because exponential acceleration is also mathematics and eventually the markets will determine nobody is going to stop it and thus they will because the alternative will be, for them, a 100% loss.  If we allow that to occur all the federal services you think you are "owed" will not be delivered and asset prices will collapse with no ability to materially mitigate the effects.  This is not a joke and that it will occur, on the present course of action, is a mathematical certainty.  If you think you can outrun this in whatever asset you believe will "weather the storm" you are wrong.  Trump in his 2016 campaign promised to fix it to a large degree with three specific bullet points, all of which disappeared on election night.  Biden/Harris not only didn't promise to fix it they promised to make it worse in 2020 -- and did.  Neither campaign has made any promise to do anything but make it worse this time other than the possibility of RFK winding up in charge of HHS which would start to chip away at some of the causes of chronic disease but without stopping the acceleration of spending it won't matter because we don't have 20 years for that to be reflected in outcomes.

In the here and now what we're dealing with are two Midwits at best contending for the left seat of an aircraft that is already in a flat spin.  Both have governing records and both, through those governing records, killed people in size.  Both were responsible for the monstrous mess over covid which had a statistical zero risk of harming young people, particularly children, and yet both put together a scheme to screw younger people for the benefit of older, which is exactly backward and, quite-obviously, self-serving.

Both have fed thermodynamically bankrupt policies when it comes to energy and both did in fact wildly inflate the money supply and ratify the acts of a putrid, midwit-laced Congress with various vote-buying schemes.  Both have continued to ratify and enable medical scams top-to-bottom.  I don't believe either of them could pass a physics or thermodynamics class nor even recite the clean language, easy-to-understand reality of thermodynamics without having to be able to do the math or other coursework: There is no such thing as a free lunch (more return than input), there is no such thing as breaking even either and you can't avoid playing. 

The facts are that no, we're not in a "climate emergency" caused by humans.  It is a fact that we are in an interglacial period and I assure you that the Medieval Climate Optimum, which ran from about 900 AD to 1300 which had higher temperatures than today was not caused by humans driving SUVs and using carbon-based fuels for heat, electrical power and transportation yet it is why "Greenland" has its name -- and during that time the human population of this rock roughly doubled.  It was an unprecedented, at the time, period of human prosperity.  Likewise the period from 1300 AD to roughly 1900 was colder than today, came with three waves of plague that wiped out huge swaths of humans and that temperature decrease was not a result of said humans deciding to eschew using carbon either.  I'm tired of this bullshit and if we don't cut it out the nations that refuse to go along with this midwit-driven insanity (e.g. China) are going to sit back and laugh as our economies and markets collapse.  After all can you cover a 300% increase in your power bill?  If you think that's hyperbole take a look at the cost per kWh in Tennessee and then in California and get back to me on that.  What do you think that sort of energy price escalation will do to the price of everything in the economy -- all of which, without exception, requires energy to produce?

At the same time this same midwit-driven stupidity has allowed all manner of intelligent and malicious cocksuckers to weave together complex interdependencies that literally feed us metabolic poisons and call them "good" -- seed oils and fast carbohydrates, to be specific, never mind deliberate trial frauds and deliberate false claims in so-called "medicine."

A President should not be expected to understand all of these various areas -- that's a bridge too far -- but he or she should be expected to understand when they're being bullshitted for the purpose of profiteering at the expense of literally killing and/or bankrupting the public and to call a hard stop on that crap and use decades-old laws, which said Executive has not only a right but a DUTY to enforce, to throw those assholes in prison and let them rot.  Ditto when it comes to an organized invasion of our nation -- a problem that was recognized in 1950s and which led to 8 USC 1324 that if enforced will stop and REVERSE all of the illegal immigration in one hour.  Never mind 15 USC Chapter 1 which if enforced will stop the medical monopolists -- again, in one hour's time.  Arrest and indict the Americans doing this crap and I assure you they will stop because rich people really don't like the idea of doing 10 years in the slammer any more than you or I and unlike a homeless person they certainly do not consider it a lifestyle upgrade.  Its damn hard to enjoy that yacht, private jet or your $10 million mansions when you're sitting in a 10x10' cell, have one hour in the yard to exercise and are eating prison rations for the next decade just like everyone else in there.

As just one example of the outrageous mendacity in this election cycle Harris has said she'll tackle "price gouging" -- on groceries.  But that specific phrase she used has meaning in state law already: Selling gasoline for $10/gal when there's a hurricane coming, for example.  In other words there has to be a triggering exigent circumstance, not just general market conditions (which her administration caused, incidentally) and then there must be an egregious excursion in price.  What you heard from her wasn't a policy claim, it was a word salad as in 38 states -- including ones like Florida and California -- this sort of practice is already illegal so she either lacks the intellectual chops to understand what she was talking about or was intentionally lying to the public.  There is no other explanation and both are unacceptable.  Never mind that the average profit margin at a grocery store is about 2%; exactly how much do you think government intervention can reduce prices before the store is forced to close and then you get no food at all?

The capacity to put forward real policy to reduce the price of housing (by forcing the 20+ million illegals out of the country thereby wildly decreasing demand) and medical care (by prosecuting collusion, price-fixing and international monopolization thereby leveling price between the US and other nations for same, along with forcing out all the administrative and differential price-fixing nonsense) is something even a 100 IQ person can comprehend -- but yes, it probably takes a 115+ IQ person among the general public to realize that you're being screwed with in this fashion and the tools to stop it are something the Administration already has, that Congress cannot stop them from being used should the Administration want to actually discharge its Constitutional DUTY to enforce the law since said laws are already on the books and the Executive is deliberately letting you be both bankrupted and slaughtered.

The current HARRIS Administration (yes, she's a part of it) has deliberately refused to use existing law as it stands to put a stop to both abuses.  Then again so did Trump in the previous four years and Obama in the eight before that so spare me the bullshit claims of "if you elect me I'll fix it" by either of these candidates when both had the capacity to do so while in office and both candidates deliberately did not and let those price ramps along with the deficits and debt they generated be shoved up your butt.

I refuse to respect someone who aspires to the highest office in the land, a job that requires a better than 1 SD intellect to perform appropriately and simply doesn't have the chops for it, or even worse does have them and is deliberately screwing the public.  They are not only undeserving of respect they're mendacious in the first instance because by definition if you can't understand it you're not actually in control of it and by selling the nation on the premise that you are, when you're not you're a goddamned liar and ought to to be in prison because you are willingly letting others wield power by falsely asserting you are in charge.

Fuck that.

Let's just cut to the chase: Decreasing sodium intake is associated with increased, not decreased mortality.

Our observation of sodium intake correlating positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries argues against dietary sodium intake being a culprit of curtailing life span or a risk factor for premature death. These data are observational and should not be used as a base for nutritional interventions.

The basic rule of observational study and correlation applies:

A thing that is positively correlated with an outcome does not necessarily mean that the thing is causing the outcome.

HOWEVER, the failure to observe said correlation or worse, a negative correlation is nearly gold-standard proof that the claimed cause is false, and in the case of negative correlation implies that in fact the thing you are told to do might harm or even kill you.

As such to make that recommendation in light of this evidence is not only gross (and should be treated as felonious) malpractice it reaches into the realm of reasonably inferring intentional harm, presumably in this case since its coming from doctors and the medical system generally for the direct purpose of screwing you out of money irrespective of the fact that it may (not proved, but may) make you sicker or even dead.

I want heads -- and bankruptcy -- for every single entity involved including Congress, the FDA, the "American Heart(attack) Association" and every single hospital and physician that has run this bullshit for decades.

Damn near every one of these prescriptions is not just wrong it's exactly backward.

Well, ok, the title is a bit harsh (and maybe not-quite accurate.)

More-accurate would be "marketing for maximum money irrespective of no-cost alternatives and without regard to risk, especially over the longer term."

The latest example of this?  GLP-1 drugs such as Ozempic -- witness this puff piece:

The doctor added, "They are the ‘holy grail’ of modern-day medicine and will likely prove to have a similar impact on global health as the advent of antibiotics."

That's complete bullshit.

First, antibiotics are used intermittently for a specific infection and then stopped.  Nonetheless while penicillin and tetracycline class antibiotics made a huge difference in infection treatment (as did sulfa drugs such as Bactrim) do not kid yourself as to the risk profile of many drugs in the broad class of antibiotics, particularly fluoroquinolones (anything with a "-floxin" in the name.)  Fluoroquinolones are extremely dangerous in that they promote tendon ruptures which can be life-altering and limiting injuries and what's especially bad is that the rupture can and often does occur weeks or even months after the course of treatment is complete.  There is no way to know in advance if you'll get nailed by that and if you do and its an Achilles that ruptures, for example, you're fucked in terms of many ordinary activities (such as running, skiing, etc.) with a months-long recovery path to even be able to walk normally.

The GLP-1 drugs have a dependence profile that makes them essentially permanent once prescribed; if you stop using them all the "benefits" you got will reverse.  They also have a serious set of side effects that may not reverse with cessation of use and if you get hit by them you're in deep shit.

Every one of the so-called benefits of these drugs can be had at zero cost and with zero side effect risk simply by removing the seed oils and fast carbohydrates from what you eat.  Nothing else is required.  To those who say that sort of change is "impossible" or "can't be maintained" I give you my person as proof otherwise; I did this more than 13 years ago, it changed my life and I have zero desire to return to what I used to eat and my formerly fat ass and deteriorating health, all of which is permanently gone at zero medical cost.

You think not?

Ok, this took from April to November 13+ years ago:

And this was a selfie I took the other night at a ball game and posted on X:

Again -- zero pharmaceuticals involved, zero medical anything, zero prescriptions consumed for "conditions" and I'm in better athletic shape now, at 61, than I was in my 30s -- and not by a little either.

Yeah, I'm older and eventually something serious will go wrong and I will die.  It happens to every one of us eventually.  But as that article points out obesity and all that comes with it -- high blood pressure, diabetes and even many cancers are a function of what you put in your mouth.

The stupidity of this article is exactly the same bullshit doctors run for insulin-dependent diabetics: Eat carbs but then use the insulin to balance it.  Bullshit.  Insulin is highly inflammatory and thus it CAUSES damage but the body produces it because the damage is less than the damage from high glucose in the blood.  The transient nature of elevated insulin in the body in a metabolically healthy person is a tolerable and necessary insult to regulate blood glucose but once you lose insulin sensitivity as a result of abusing fast carbohydrates and seed oils, just like you build tolerance to opioids by abusing them the amount your body requires to get the "desired" outcome (in the case of opioids pain relief and in the case of insulin processing and thus reducing glucose in the blood) rises and the direct and indirect damage from said substance overwhelms the benefit.

Every single physician promoting this crap should be wished their spouse and children raped in front of them just as Governor Beshear of Kentucky wished on VP Candidate Vance on national television in each and every case where you see any physician anywhere, in any setting -- yes, even when out shopping or eating with their family.  That is now considered reasonable political discourse since Beshear was not instantly forced to resign and leave all public life for making that statement about Vance so you should do it too and make every single physician and other medically-related person promoting deliberate drug dependence at ridiculous cost and with outrageous levels of risk for the explicit purpose of draining your finances and with reckless disregard for the negative and in some cases permanent harm to your body from abuse of same.

TOLERANCE OF THIS CRAP MUST STOP; there is NO REASON for anyone to be polite or offer any form of forgiveness or contrition to any such individual -- ever.  These people have been for decades and are today interested in one thing and one thing only: Financially enslaving you for their benefit and they do not care if you die as a "side effect."  Yes, that includes those in your immediate family so either stop tolerating it and eject them from your life in all respects or suffer the consequences.