Specifically, so-called "medicine."

There is only one proper set of roles for people in medicine and those consuming it as a service: Consultant and customer.

Why?

Because its your ass, not anyone else's, and nobody else can be held responsible for it other than by executing them when they get it wrong, which we're not willing to do.

Fixing this requires several changes in law and regulation.  The FDA's "enabling legislation" and its amendments (FDCA of 1906, Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951 and them the FDAMA of 1997) all are responsible for the interplay and segregation of drugs into two broad categories (OTC and Prescription) and, within the latter, there are scheduling issues in the Controlled Substances Act (which most people are aware of when it comes opioids and similar.)

In addition there is a body of civil legal constraint that has grown up around the current improper assignment of roles -- that is, physicians are assigned the duty of telling you what is good and what is bad but they bear only civil responsibility and only if they go outside of what some group calls "consensus."  The problems with this should be apparent but you can't fix one without the other as no physician is going to accept being a consultant with no authority and yet be saddled with legal liability, civil or otherwise.

As this has expanded beyond its original remit pharmacists have wound up with the capacity to refuse to fill a drug order they disagree with and this can be by extension; that is, it can be corporate policy of a pharmacy chain, not the pharmacists individual opinion, that they are then able to enforce.  Witness refusals to fill Ivermectin prescriptions written by a licensed doctor if, in the pharmacy's view, it was for a "wrong" purpose despite the fact that one prescription in five today is in fact "off-label" -- that is, for some purpose other than which the drug was originally approved.

This all has to change but it must change all at once, because again no physician is going to accept liability without some measure of control, so at the same time the control is removed so must the liability for other than affirmative acts.  That requires Congress to act; the Executive cannot fix this misallocation of roles and the deliberate perversion that came from it which is killing people by the hundreds of thousands a year.

We must keep, for example, liability for cutting off the wrong finger, toe, removing the wrong organ and similar acts.  In fact that should be in each and every case a criminal act, not merely a licensure or lawsuit matter, yet today it is not.

At the same time we the people must reclaim our agency, as adults, to direct our health status as we wish and accept the liability for same.  With the possible exception of habit-forming medications you must be free to both obtain them for no other consideration than money and to obtain, for no other consideration than money, any testing necessary and appropriate in your view to do so safely.  Further, irrespective of how you pay for it -- cash, credit or "insurance" -- the price charged by a given provider for a particular good or service must be the same.

This decoupling will instantly drive a stake through the heart of the physician monopoly networks and insurance companies that all conspire to tell everyone what must be done for any given person and condition.  It also will instantly stop the monetary and care blackmail which many have had experience with -- "take this set of shots or you're fired as patient", for example.  Allowing that and gatekeeping means collusion becomes force for you to do as some physician demands and that is already illegal under 15 USC Ch 1 as a force-tied sale so there is a huge cudgel (10 years in the slammer for your doctor) the Executive can wield to demand compliance.

Finally when it comes to various things sold under the FDA's licensing scheme the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act must be amended to require that all ingredients in a given medication must be individually, through controlled trial, certified as to their adverse event risk at the expected exposure over the person's lifetime and on the recommended schedule in combination with all other recommended things and, in that context, be fairly and fully disclosed.  For example we have "vaccines" on the market today that use "adjuvants", or "immune stimulating boosters" (many containing aluminum) that have never been individually certified as to their long-term effects in the amounts of typical exposure over a typical childhood.  That something is safe in very tiny quantities does not mean it is safe when you multiply that same exposure by five, ten or FIFTY.  The current schedule includes fifteen different vaccines and all of them require multiple doses.  The raw count of "number" of vaccines has doubled since the mid 1980s and today's schedule requires FIFTY individual shots.

DTaP, for example, is a series of five doses and HiB requires four.  The adjuvants in any of those may be safe in one dose but are they safe at nine times that total exposure and thirty to fifty times when all other recommended doses are added in?

Nobody knows because nobody has ever tested it.  Indeed a newborn now receives close to thirty shots by their second birthday; are these doses of adjuvants and other "stimulants" safe in a newborn to two year old not as one dose but at thirty times the individual dose?

One shot of alcohol, for example, has very little risk of harming you but two fifths of liquor, which is what 30 shots constitutes, is almost-certain to kill you if taken all at once.  Everyone knows that's true for booze so why isn't it imposed on the manufacturers for everything else?

Every physician will tell you that this is "safe" even thought there is zero evidence that at this dose rate it in fact is safe.  What they won't tell you is that the insurance companies bribe them for compliance on a bulk basis with their entire pediatric practice in the form of a kickback for each patient.  This, by the way, is an illegal tied sale and thus a felony as it implicates 15 USC Chapter 1; you must take something you don't want (the shots) to get something you do (a consultation with the pediatrician) and if you refuse you will be fired as a patient.  Everyone involved in that must be told that they stop it right now or they're all going to prison -- no exceptions, no excuses.

Trump has roughly 100 days to get the medical monster under control -- and certainly less than one year because at that point the midterm campaign will begin and if Congress goes Democrat he becomes an immediate lame duck, never mind that the mandate for all new Presidents expires about that time irrespective of the margin unless confirmed in the mid-terms, which there is no guarantee of.

The childhood stuff is just part of it, of course.  Seed oils are another huge issue and again as with all things its a matter of dose.  That it is safe to eat kernels of corn off a cob boiled in water doesn't mean extracting all the oil from a bushel of corn and consuming that in the space of one meal is safe.  Nobody does or could eat an entire bushel of corn at one sitting yet on the math one bushel is about 112 ears of corn which yields about 12 ounces of oil.  One ounce of corn oil (e.g. retained in fried food cooked in it) would require you eat nine ears of corn at one sitting to consume the same amount.  This of course is so wildly beyond the amount you could actually eat at once that there is no possible way to map the safety of one (eating corn) to the other (eating processed corn oil) via indirect means.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that if I consume seed oils in any amount I can see the adverse effects in my Garmin data immediately and that those effects are both dose-dependent and 100% reproduceable.  Nobody has characterized this yet today the technology to do so for you, personally, is a couple hundred bucks on the lower end (the "Instinct 2") and you can prove it to yourself any time you're willing to stop listening to the person in the white coat without challenge to their claims or evidence that they're not full of crap and confront the very real possibility that their only concern is money -- and if you slow-poison yourself and fuck up your metabolic processes they will make a lot more money.

You think not?  Watch this and then tell me that physicians and everyone else involved is interested in anything other than money.  After all giving you cancer makes them a lot of money; that you are likely to die is not of concern to them:

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is how far this perversion has gone -- and not just here in America either.  This has to be fixed right here, right now -- it is bankrupting the nation and it has to be taken care of in a way that cannot be evaded -- and if anyone tries to evade it they have to go to prison (or worse.)  The good news is that the law already exists on the books to hammer everyone in the medical field with if they try to refuse.

You may worship men and women in white coats but all they worship, on the data, is money and the more they can nod and "agree" that you should do something that over the longer term will screw you, provided you can't see the adverse event instantly and thus blame them for it the more money they make and the more-miserable and sick you are.

Medicine must be returned to 4%, more or less, of GDP from where it is today which is approximately 20%.  This can only be done by removing all the gatekeeping and other anti-competition "features" in the current system, most of which  can be done without new law as existing law, specifically 15 USC Chapter 1, is sufficient to do a great deal of it if you start arresting and prosecuting on the basis of criminal felonies, not fines.  But make no mistake -- some of this does require legislation and to do so is not going to occur without lots of screaming because along with one dollar in five in the economy comes about one job in five too.

Yes, those jobs will get relocated into other areas of the economy -- but not in a day or a week.  In addition the lobbyists will scream bloody murder and people will of course claim everyone will die without the existing structure.  The pushback to this has to be that they killed your grandmother and either they cut this shit out or you're going to make them stop and you don't much care what has to be done to accomplish that.

Folks, we're out of time on this.  We are now in a generally-rising rate environment and while there will be times that rates go up and down the trend is now upward and will be for the next two to three decades.  This in turn means that debt levels must decrease or the nation will be destroyed.  We can no longer talk about a five or ten year plan, which has been the talk for three decades and has been a lie as everyone can see -- rather, we must do it right now and whether we like it or not this is where the problem is within the federal budget today.

Ed: If you want to see this column, and future columns, distributed it is on you to post the link to this column around on social media.  So-called "free speech" X has handed me a 7 day suspension for telling the AP to stick their recommendation to get more covid jabs in their own butts, deeming that "violent speech."  This is what "AI" is capable of today -- no more "intelligent" than a two year old, and its no better at driving a car than that either, but this is the world we live in where someone's computer will blackball you with no human review of any sort and no right of appeal (incidentally, you might think about that before riding in or owning a car with that garbage in it as yes, that data IS SOLD to others who will fuck you in the ass with it), so if you want to see these ideas propagated, its on you.  I will be looking at the linkbacks which will tell me whether its worth continuing to write these columns from organic activity, that is people like you, spreading them around.  That which nobody reads there is no reason to write and publish -- I can go ski and drink beer instead this winter, should that be the decision of the polity at large.

Medicine is no longer "medicine"; it has been irredeemably corrupted in the United States.

Only severing, with prejudice, the source of that corruption can resolve this.

Witness this article from 2015:

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

"Something"?

Let's talk about the basic issue: Science is not a result or a statement of fact.

It is a process whereby one first begins with a hypothesis (that is, a belief or theory), one designs one or more experiments, hopefully to try to disprove said theory although attempting to prove it is also acceptable, data is collected and analyzed and then results reported publicly.

You might think that is where it ends.  You're wrong.

Replication by disinterested and even hostile parties is next.  The first experiment means literally nothing from a scientific point of view because there's no proof you didn't tamper with it.  If the hypothesis is proved its even worse if you were the one who stood to benefit from that.  That is, human corruption has to be filtered and the only way to do that is to have disinterested or even hostile parties confirm what you found by repeated running of, and examination of, your experiment.

We don't do this anymore when it comes to "medicine" and we don't even bother attempting it when it comes to other things such as "climate."

As a result trillions is stolen and people die.

Nobody cares about the dying part either -- only the money part.

At the core of this corruption is the money motive and over 120 years ago Congress recognized that men and women would corrupt the various areas of commerce by all sorts of means, every one of them foul, and by doing so ultimately destroy what had driven an incredible burst of progress in this nation called America.  They recognized that the patent and similar laws, passed to incentivize inventing things, could be perverted if you had a way to choke supply and demand so that those "protected" things were perversely required and others deliberately downplayed or overlooked -- or worse, outright prohibited.

They passed 15 USC Chapter 1; the Sherman Act was first, quickly evaded and Clayton followed to make clear that this was not a paper tiger and a line of BS; it was a deadly serious felony for which you'd go to prison.

Robinson-Patman followed stating that in the context of goods buyers of like kind and quantity could not be discriminated against.

These laws have been on the books for over a century.

Virtually every single medical office, every pharmacy, every pharmacist, dentist, hospital and physician violates them every day.

They're 10 year federal felonies, not a jaywalking ticket.

Simply put its illegal to charge different people different amounts of money for the same thing -- like kind and quantity.  As soon as you collude in an attempt to prevent, irrespective of the means, competition on price you've broken the law.  If you obscure the price of a procedure or thing so that it is effectively impossible for a consumer of that thing to shop before purchase, you tie sales together so I have to take (and pay for) something I do not want to get something I do want, or you charge me $2 for something you give to someone else for $1 where we both wanted to buy the same thing under the same set of circumstances you have broken the law; you are a felon.

More than forty years ago the Supreme Court ruled (in Royal Drug) that insurance companies are not allowed to "negotiate price" on a differential basis and that McCarran-Ferguson, another law exempting insurance companies from some aspects of anti-trust, did not apply because "purchasing agreements with vendors of a thing" is not the business of insurance.  It is, in fact, nothing more than attempting to negotiate a volume transaction.  That decision was confirmed a few years later in Maricopa County when the medical providers tried once again to circumvent 15 USC claiming that there was some special aspect of it when an insurance company was involved.  They lost the second time as well.

The only way to fix this, short of simply shooting everyone who is financially raping the American public to the tune of trillions a year via these felonious schemes that twice have been ruled illegal at the Supreme Court and which call for 10 years in the federal slammer for each person who commits said offense is to mandate (and start throwing people in jail if they won't do it) that all persons must be charged the same price for the same thing consumed by a single person in the medical and pharmaceutical industry and "insurance" must be prohibited from coupling paying, provision of service and similar.

This is one of the core holdings in the plan I have promoted for over a decade.

Insurance companies can legally set a "payment rate" of $x for some procedure but they can't condition that on you going to a specific provider as that is an illegal restraint of trade and monopolist practice; if the payout rate for an appendectomy is $5,000 then it has to be no matter where you have it done because you are the principal -- not the insurance company.  Likewise the hospital has to publish each and every thing in a way that the ultimate consumer which is you, not an insurance company, can determine the cost of a procedure with certainty before you obtain it.  Charging someone for a thing they did not agree to is void under long-standing consumer protection laws.

Further 15 USC Ch 1 absolutely bans the payment of "incentives" (bribes) by insurance companies to physicians or hospitals on various metrics -- for example, payment for vaccination rates.  That amounts to an illegal force-tied sale that is shoved down the customer's (patient's) throat under penalty of being fired, and a thing they may not want and once again is not "the business of insurance"; and again the Supremes so-ruled in Royal Drug.  This practice, which is near-universal and was extended to covid shots, is illegal and it is a criminal felony carrying 10 years in prison for not just the insurance company executives that put it in place but also every individual physician who complies with and benefits from it.

Medicine has one very specific circumstance that doesn't arise in general with other services: You might be flat on your back and unable to shop or negotiate.  In every other line of work abusing a person of diminished capacity is a further felony -- in medicine its how money is made.  This must change and such an offense must be dealt with through extreme prejudice, including permanent license revocations, prison sentences and forced disgorgement of all assets obtained by such a practice.

This isn't a "radical proposal"; in fact all of it was mandated by the Supreme Court more than forty years ago.

If our government will not enforce the law and by deliberately refusing screws the American people out of trillions of dollars per year there is absolutely no reason for the American people to peacefully permit that to continue for even a single day.

Actuaries compute the value of human lives every day; the medical and "health insurance" system violates those limits  on a wild-eyed basis every single hour and by doing so commits offenses sufficient to call for the imposition of the death penalty.

We cannot fix a system that has designed itself to be corrupt other than by removing those capacities.  Those who have and are profiting from this will, of course, resist such a change and have for decades.

We're no longer in a position to ignore this problem as, at the present time, the entire budget deficit and thus the entire inflationary problem in the United States is driven by CMS, which is in fact Medicare and Medicaid, and further medicine generally has expanded from about one dollar in 20 to one dollar in five over the last several decades, with virtually all of that expansion being stolen.  We are talking about six trillion dollars a year in the United States alone and if there is a monetary theft that is worthy of forcing to stop no matter how or what people must to put a stop to it -- this is it.

This is Trump's first and most-important job because the entire Federal Budget Deficit lies here, there is no other way to fix it than to dismantle the medical monopolies and he can do it without a single new law being passed by prosecuting every single hospital and pharma company that prices on any sort of differential basis and arresting, charging everyone involved with a 10 year in the prison felony, who does not immediately implement 100% level pricing all disclosed up front and with every link to so-called "insurance" severed.

THIS IS THE PATH OUT OF THE MELTDOWN and note the date it was written.  No, we cannot avoid the hit to GDP and unemployment in the short term that fixing this will cause.  It will come but we can avoid the destruction of the medical system entirely and the destruction of the federal government's funding capacity.

IT MUST BE DONE ON TRUMP'S FIRST DAY IN OFFICE AND NOTE THAT NOT ONE NEW LAW IS REQUIRED AND THUS CONGRESS IS NOT ONLY NOT REQUIRED TO DO ANYTHING THEY CAN'T STOP IT EITHER.

One common refrain: They're inflationary.

That's a lie and any economist who says that knows he or she is lying.

This is math, not politics.

Let's definite this: A tariff is a tax on an imported good or service.  It thus does indeed raise the price of said good or service by the amount of the tariff.  This is easily understood and weaponized by the liars in the media and economic profession.  The media may not know the facts but all economists do.

In fact a tariff is exactly neutral to inflation as a whole.

Why?

Let's take an example.

There is a thing that has a price of $1,000 at the dock coming into the US.  The US Government slaps a $1,000 tariff (100%) on it, so now the cost at the dock is $2,000.  Assuming the business passes that through and neither attempts to profit from or absorb it, that is, they take no deliberate action to attempt to exploit it or be damaged by it, the entire $1,000 shows up on the shelf price.

That sounds inflationary.

It isn't.

Why not?

Because all inflation is caused by the emission of credit, and the US Government is running a fiscal deficit -- that is, emitting credit.  This is the infamous (and true) Milton Friedman statement: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena."

So where does the $1,000 go?

It goes directly to the Federal Government and reduces inflation generated by the federal government's deficit spending by the exact same amount the price increase at the consumer increases it.

Right as I write this CNBC is lying to you -- and the Press is about to do it too with their "questions" for Powell.

Again: Tariffs are a zero when it comes to inflation -- they neither help or hurt it as a function of imposing and collecting them because there is exact balance, to the penny, of both inflationary and deflationary forces.

HOWEVER, to the extent a tariff incentivizes jobs and production to come back to the United States they are deflationary and benefit consumers by lowering inflation pressure in that producing a good or service in the United States instead of overseas means all of the tax revenue generated by the activity happens here in the United States and tax revenue of course decreases the deficit and thus drives inflation down.

This is the kick-off in a new category, "47", which is intended to identify the areas that I have spoken of many times before with an emphasis and focus, in all cases, back to economics.

It is my hope that some of these proposals, and they can be done quickly, will permit movement of this area back into the main Market Ticker side -- with ads.  To do that will require some of these changes to occur.

To be clear -- that which requires Congressional assent is tough; while it appears the GOP will hold the House, and we know they will have a majority in the Senate (likely by 2 seats when the dust settles) it will remain a relatively-thin majority.  Expecting strong pushes from Congress is unwise, and further, insanity among Congress can be even stronger than that from the Executive, so it is extremely important not to have to rely on Congress and further, to use measures where they're available and clearly within the Constitution and existing law to accomplish the goals.

I refuse to play games with the "reach as far as you can, damn the Constitution" nonsense.  Trump did this in his first term with bump stocks and got his ass handed to him ultimately.  In fact the Supremes required the BATFE to return them to those who they seized them from, and if they destroyed them to pay for them.

There are a number of acts Biden and Harris took that were clearly unlawful.  All of them must be unwound.  Some will be unpopular but that doesn't matter; you either stand on the Rule of Law or you do not.  Further, unlawful and unconstitutional attempts at obstruction, such as the highlighted area here if it occurs must be met with immediate indictment and prosecution along with the immediate yanking of any security clearance of anyone involved, which is an absolute and non-reviewable right of the President.

ttps://x.com/Breaking911/status/1854244852080214103

The next year, and indeed the next four, will either define an American Renaissance after a painful correction of deliberate deception and hiding of economic cycles, or it will lead to ruin.  Harris not only didn't have the chops to understand this she had zero intention of fixing it as she was one of the chief protagonists over the last four years involved in causing it.  The Federal Deficit last year hit roughly two trillion dollars, which is an approximately 7% forced inflationary emission of credit over the last fiscal year.  You have seen the doubling in your grocery bills, wild-eyed spikes in insurance and other necessary purchases, along with a crazy degradation in health care quality and ramps in price.  I warned when Obamacare came in that the bill was an attempt to paper over what was an impending disaster rather than deal with the problem and here we are more than 10 years down the road having compounded the damage.  We cannot continue to do this without a catastrophe occurring.

The broad outline of what we must accept includes that through no fault of either political party, just the plain reality of economic cycles, the interest rate environment has turned.  Almost nobody alive today, save a few such as Warren Buffett, have ever been active in business in the former upward-moving cycle.  These cycles usually run 30 or so years -- not one or two -- and should have turned back after the financial crash of 2008.  Rather than face that both Bush and Obama tried to paper it over, and I'm sure some folks told them they could do it forevermore.  That was flat-out false and whether it was born out of stupidity or intentional misconduct so those giving the advice could make off with a few more billion does not matter.  What matters now is that the cycle has turned and will remain so for the next three or so decades, not a couple of years.

The simplest way to explain this in the form of business is that if you can borrow $1 million at 5% the interest cost is $50,000 a year.  Companies -- and governments -- almost never pay that borrowing off.  Go find the business, school, local, state or federal bond issue that is actually retired and is gone off the books.  It essentially never happens and the reason is that if you can roll over that debt at 3% interest 10 years later the $50,000 it used to cost you is now $30,000 and the other $20,000 goes straight to the bottom line of your cash flow sheet.  This in turn incents you to either borrow more or simply report the  higher "earnings" and thus your stock price goes up.  It also makes municipal and state balance sheets, never mind the federal one, look better than they are.

But as with all areas of leverage what helps in one direction screws you in the other.

If you have a $20,000 (because you had a 2% loan) interest payment on that million dollars and now the interest rate offered is 5% when the debt comes due you have to pay an extra $30,000 a year.  That comes straight off the bottom line and in government that either means you must raise taxes, cut services or, if the federal government you can force it on the backs of the people through inflation by increasing the debt even further.  Doing the latter, which is what we've been doing makes it exponentially worse because that inflation causes people to demand even higher rates of interest.

This is why despite The Fed cutting 50 basis points the longer term bonds have gone up in rate; the market has discerned that (1) the rate environment has turned, (2) that's a multi-decade trend change and (3) "cutting" increases inflation and thus makes rates go higher because nobody intentionally lends money at a loss.

We must take immediate action to reverse the market's beliefs in this regard -- and we can't lie because the market has already figured it out.  There is plenty more -- getting rid of mandates unsupported by data, ending legal immunity for all medical products (specifically "vaccines") along with voiding any claim of "trade secret" protection against disclosure in any sort of medical product or device, getting seed oils out of Americans' diets, especially involuntarily-consumed ones and more, but those have payback periods measured in many years or decades and we simply don't have decades to put a dent in things.  Yes, those are important too and I'll be writing on them as well but this post is on immediate actions that must take place within days or weeks of Trump being inaugurated if he is serious about actually preventing a foldback-style collapse of the economy, government and markets.

To restate from the point related to the above email from the Harris campaign to its workers, those who have been proved to have intent to obstruct must have their security clearances yanked on a summary basis.  This is a plenary right of the Executive and there are no grounds for review nor do you have a due process or other right to obtain and maintain one.  Every one of the people who, for example, was involved in the "Russia Russia Russia" scam, which was proved a scam, in the last Trump Administration must have their clearance summarily revoked on Trump's first day in office.

So with that said, here is the broad outline:

• All of the Harris/Biden unlawful giveaways must be immediately canceled and clawed back.  Yes, this means all of the college loan "forgiveness" (which is no such thing, it is forcing you to pay someone else's debt.)  I have a solution to this that the colleges will not like but again this is an outline posting; the details will follow in other entries.  All Executive Orders are subject to this risk; none create a due process right and thus there's nothing to sue about.
  
  
• All of the expansion of CMS expense must be stopped immediately and reversed by enormous amounts -- 80% has to be the target and an undershoot is not acceptable.  There is no way to do this by "cutting" Medicare or Medicaid because besides being politically suicidal it also doesn't work as it will simply force the paying and escalation into the private markets which means you get the bill anyway along with the inflation from continuing to run a $2 trillion a year, and advancing, fiscal deficit.  The full fix lies here and only here, with the first element of it being the first three bullet-point paragraphs.  This can be enforced in one day by bringing felony criminal charges under 15 USC Ch 1 against any hospital, physician or drug firm (including distributors and pharmacies) that violates these clauses as that law was twice ruled explicitly applicable at the Supreme Court in the late 70s and early 80s.  Congress cannot stop it and no, you cannot fine people because they can cost-shift that -- you must put them in prison if they don't stop.  This has to happen immediately; give the hospitals, doctors and all drug and device-related sellers and makers 30 days warning and then the indictments and arrests start.
  
  
• Illegal "migrants" and others here are a huge net drain on both state and federal resources along with adding demand to the economy which of course means higher prices across the board -- for rent, food, vehicles, insurance and more.  8 USC 1324 already provides for, once again, felony criminal prosecution for any entity that provides aid, comfort, employment, housing or anything else to a person who is here illegally with either knowledge or reckless disregard.  Give everyone 30 days fair warning on the first day of the new Administration and then you start indicting employers, NGOs and landlords. Again its not fines you seek it is indictments, convictions and imprisonment, and you go after people, not just companies.  Where a corporation is involved that does business with the Federal or State governments you indict them as well because felony conviction, under existing law, permanently debars a company from federal contracts.  The enhancements if an illegal alien commits murder or serious bodily harm are serious; a person who harbors an illegal that commits murder is liable for life in prison.  This will resolve the illegal alien problem immediately and in addition will take a huge amount of pressure off the economy and dramatically reduce prices.  Further, all blanket "protected status" grants by the Harris/Biden Administration all of which were in fact illegal must be immediately rescinded, rendering every one of those individuals instantly deportable which again has no due process protection and both can and must be done on the first day -- and if they don't immediately leave anyone employing or assisting them goes to prison.  For those who wish to come here legally and work I'll lay that out in the detail posting soon enough.  That process change will require Congressional approval -- which we must force to occur.
  
  
• All restrictive energy policies that came out of the Biden/Harris Administration must be reversed immediately.  Behind every unit of GDP is a unit of energy; we simply cannot afford the so-called "green" nonsense as it is wildly more expensive in all cases because it is unreliable and thus you must pay twice or suffer blackouts.  This has to be done through the Notice-and-Comment process in most cases or it will get blocked (as Trump found out with the Census question) so it will take six months or so to reverse all of this but reverse it we must.  In addition Trump must demand that Congress revoke by explicit legislation the effective "Interstate Compact" known as CARB; if California wishes to take such actions within their state boundary that is their right as a state but they cannot impose it on Interstate Commerce (or anything that touches Interstate Commerce, such as a truck or train that enters or leaves their state while carrying goods to or from) nor can other states adopt same without the consent of Congress under the Constitution as that is an Interstate Compact which Congress must explicitly disallow so as to remove any ambiguity.
  
  
• Collusion to repress opinions must be met with immediate and harsh legal sanction under existing law. This can be done today under 15 USC Ch 1 and again it is not fines that have to be sought, it is criminal felony charges against directors and officers of any firm that engages in same.  Any firm is free to do what it wishes individually but when you leverage, for example, "brand safety" claims you're not an individual firm any more -- you are acting in collusion with others, the right you are implicating is the First Amendment and that's illegal under 100+ year old felony criminal law.  Here's look at essentially all of the social media platforms.  ("X" is the closest to be in compliance and can probably come into compliance fairly easily -- for the others, its an earthquake but one that should have been applied 10 years ago.)  The First Amendment does not apply to private concerns as no such right exists in the private space, absent government involvement, but anti-monopoly statutes do and they're a ten year, pound-you-in-the-ass felony conviction for violations.  In addition to indicting firms you also indict directors and officers by name and personally, throwing them in prison upon conviction as the Statute not only permits but requires.

If you think we can avoid the impact of the rate cycle turn you are wrong.  We cannot.  That cycle turn will revalue downward all firms that have debt on, and in the last ten years corporations, despite having clear warning that this cycle was turning, have wildly increased leverage rather than take it down.  They will have to deal with that and stock prices will adjust -- and not a little.  The same will be true for real estate as it is frequently financed, and many who got in over their heads are going to be bankrupted.

That sounds horrible but in fact it is good -- if you need a building for some purpose, whether a business or a place to live, is it to your benefit to have higher or lower prices?  Obviously you want lower prices.  For those who own real estate without any mortgage debt on it you lose nothing in real terms because you get less for your current house but you pay commensurately less for the other one, just as was the case on the way up.  Those who got in over their heads and refinanced, especially serially or took the funds out and spent them somewhere will go broke but that is unavoidable, just as it is with commercial real estate owners who did the same thing.

If we address the five points above then while the serious downside economic event that Harris and Biden baked into the cake will occur -- that cannot be avoided -- within the first half of Trump's administration the turning point will be reached and just like occurred in 1920/21 while the downturn will be painful the resulting recovery and re-shoring of both manufacturing and all other lines of business into the United States will be prompt, enormous and record-setting.

In other words come the 2026 midterms the result will start to be evident and by 2028 it will be obvious that not only was it the right and sane choice but America will stand alone on the world stage as it once used to in terms of both economic and political achievement.

We must do it now, and do it all, because if we fail then the essential services that everyone believes we should have will not be able to be funded and virtually everyone in the United States will be economically destroyed.

These are the stakes.

Details to follow.

I'm specifically speaking of the utter scam run on people when it comes to environmental issues.

Its not really their fault, but on the other hand it is: They simply don't have the experience of what was, as they weren't born yet (or in some cases were born but not yet sentient -- the age at which that occurs does vary some but nobody can argue they were at birth, for example.)

Further, and probably more-seriously, the decline of written material means that those who seek to lie can trivially erase things they don't want to admit for the purpose of deliberately misleading you.  That's hard to do with a physical book except by burning it, which leaves plenty of evidence since the book used to exist and no longer does.  In the world of electronic media you can change "history" and unless someone made a copy beforehand nobody's the wiser.  Witness the change in the dictionary definition of the word "vaccine" (yeah, go look it up -- you'll be shocked.)

Of course the physical presence of a book cannot compel you to read it.  Witness those who have never read both The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist.  If you're among them you have no concept of what the Founders envisioned and why the Constitution was constructed as it is, nor why the 10 original Amendments were required in order to ratify it.  Those two written works are literally the debate between the Founders of this nation and present two quite-different aspects to that debate and process.  You cannot claim to understand that process and thus are not qualified to enter into a debate as to what is and isn't appropriate to change unless you've read both and thus understand how the original decisions were reached.

Politicians and others who seek to influence society often pander to the part of the population who never had the background information to make informed choices.  One of the key points in the modern era is usually "environmentalism"; the goal itself is good but the incremental improvement available in America now is tiny and the cost astronomical.  That's right -- we already did it and those who lived through that time period know it and we don't have to read about it -- we directly experienced it.

There is a basic principle that essentially-always applies: The first 80% of any problem is trivially solved at reasonable cost.  The last 20% is exponentially harder as one approaches 100%, and further the resource expenditure in doing so, whether in time, month or both, goes vertical.

People claim we must "save Gaia" (the planet), for example.

Reality: The planet, in the context of America, is in better condition today than at any time in the last 150 years.

You think not?

Let's count just a few examples out of literal thousands:

• The predominant heating fuel until fairly recently was wood or raw coal in either an open fire or crude stove.  Combustion of same was woefully incomplete emitting a huge amount of tar and similar into the air.  While wood is still used in some areas for efficiency reasons most stoves are now of either a "rocket" or catalytic design and thus emit much less.
  
  
• Even in the 1970s the water was wildly polluted as was the air in the United States.  I distinctly remember both including watering eyes whenever driving past a chemical plant (of which there was one near my home), river water you could not safely swim in nor eat the fish from and similar.  Today there are no chemical plant fumes there and the water in the same place is clean -- and you can eat the fish.  This is true literally all over America; Love Canal anyone?  Not one person younger than about 50 remembers any of this but it is fact.
  
  
• Until 1975 there were no catalytic converters on cars.  Every single vehicle stank -- badly -- from the moment it was started until it was shut off.  The early catalysts, however, were not particularly efficient and because those engines still had no closed-loop control they were hot enough to start fires if you parked over dry material -- and sometimes did.  Modern closed-loop systems showed up in the early 1990s; the reduction of pollutant emissions by modern vehicles compared with engines prior to that time exceeds 99%.  At the same time fuel economy dramatically improved because closed-loop operation allows the engine to run at almost-exactly stochiometric mixtures and therefore the engine does not deliberately waste fuel to avoid damage from lean combustion.  Indeed the CO reduction in modern automobiles is so extreme that it is actually fairly difficult to kill yourself deliberately via CO poisoning using a modern car engine where with older, pre-catalyst engines you could literally do so in minutes.  Simply put unless you're older than 40 in the US you never lived in a world where air quality was this good.  All the bellyaching about vehicle emissions and thus the claimed "need "for electric cars in the modern world, in short, is flat-out bullshit.
  
  
• Older coal-fired things, whether power plants or steel mills, were hideously nasty emitters of pollutants.  Modern coal-fired power plants (which the EPA is now trying to kill with impossible to meet regulations) are 90-95% cleaner in both Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide emissions compared with the same plant in the 1950s yet nobody ever considers that for the exact same amount of electricity produced they now emit 1/20th of the pollution they did just 50 years ago and will keep the lights on as long as they have fuel.  Nonetheless they're not as efficient as natural gas since the combustion temperature is lower and they cannot run combined-cycle, which natural gas plants can -- and thus on a per-unit-of-energy cost basis, depending on the price of both fuels, natural gas is frequently cheaper.

The Laws of Thermodynamics are not suggestions; no law passed by man can change them.  All transformations of energy involve loss; this is guaranteed by thermodynamics.  Thus the most efficient way to do a given thing is always to use whatever form of energy is available that can be used directly without transformations and is of lowest all-in cost.

In addition intermittent sources of electricity (e.g. solar and wind), for example, will never win compared with either atomic energy or combustion fuels and all of them require seriously-toxic chemical processes to construct, have limited lifetimes and present serious disposal costs and environmental mitigation on the back end that everyone always ignores.  Windmill blades are made out of fiberglass, which in turn is made from oil, and they are not recyclable.  In addition they kill birds by the millions because while it looks like the blades are turning slowly at the tip the rate of movement is in fact nearly supersonic and a bird cannot see it.  Solar cells require nasty chemicals and rare earth metals to produce which in return requires digging up huge amounts of land to acquire them and when either damaged or they wear out they too present serious environmental risk.  If destroyed by bad weather such as hailstorms the damage to the environment from the release of those materials (onto the ground under them) is severe and immediate.  In addition both are unreliable and this efficiency problem cannot be overcome because while solar and wind are great when the sun is shining or wind blowing (1) collecting that energy covers vast amounts of land compared with all the other alternatives and (2) you have to have available another form of generation all the time, and pay for it to be available, otherwise you have no electricity when they're not available.  Since covering that potential lack of capacity is equally expensive as just buying and staffing the nuclear or carbon-fueled plant in the first place you're basically choosing to double your power bill and may I remind you that every single thing we do in our economy -- and thus its price -- has energy in it.  Your grocery store, for example, needs both lights and the power to run the refrigerators or you have no meat, dairy and similar -- and that power has to work 100% of the time.

Further while heat pumps for heating use win in some circumstances against a natural gas furnace they lose a good part of the time, and not by a little either, especially when it gets materially cold outside.  The exact cross-over point is easy to compute  given the price of both power and gas along with the efficiency of the heat pump at a given temperature (its just simple math) but in every case where electricity has been moved off carbon-based fuels to renewables it is a near-certainty that natural gas will win on cost -- and not by a little and in addition the maximum demand for heating is of course in the winter at night -- when there is never any solar energy available.  I've written a column on this; heat pumps only win in moderate temperatures if electricity is cheap or if you're forced to use Propane because there is no piped gas; otherwise you are way ahead to simply burn the gas directly in your furnace.

This same cost issue applies to all commerce!  If you wish to force businesses, for example, to use heat pump or other electric heating fuels you will radically increase their costs and guess who gets to pay that in the price paid in the store?

Further natural gas is a nearly-pollutant-free energy resource.  Yes, it produces CO2 when burned (and water vapor); neither is a pollutant.  CO2 is plant food.  Since you either eat the plants yourself or you eat what eats the plants increasing the growth rate of plants is a public good rather than a menace.  You would like lower cost food rather than higher -- or worse, not enough food at all -- yes?  And may I remind you that one of the key components of fertilizer for crops is in fact made from..... natural gas!

It is true that the climate changes.  It always has and always will.  What is not true is that we are evil SOBs who are out to destroy the climate or the Earth generally by polluting it; on the contrary; the data is that has been no change at all in, for example, the total energy in tropical cyclones since we began to be able to accurately compute that (e.g. since the satellite era began and thus we can "see" all the hurricanes where before satellites many were undetected since unless the storm hit land  -- and many do not -- only the poor SOB who ran into it at sea by accident knew about it.)

Indeed some of the things we've done to clean up the planet have actually allowed more solar energy to reach the surface.  Specifically we have insisted on far lower-sulfur fuels for ocean-going ships which reduces sulfur dioxide emissions and that makes the air more-clear thus more solar energy reaches the surface.  The same thing is true for coal-fired power plants over the last 50 years; that is, we have in fact increased the amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet  by a small amount because we made the air cleaner.  This of course is the exact opposite of what you're told and sold by those screaming about "climate change."

There are lots of people who wish to lie to you about both history and where we are now for the purpose of making money.  Never forget that in any regulated line of business -- that is, where there's a monopoly of any sort whether "natural" or otherwise, since profit margins are capped the only way to make more money is to force the total amount of spending to go up.

Power companies are natural monopolies; there is only one set of power lines to your house or business.  You have a personal incentive to, for example, improve the seal around your windows because it reduces your heating and air conditioning costs.  The power company cannot cause you to consume more power by breaking your windows or removing your weather stripping and their profit margin is capped by the rate-setting process so the only way for them to make more money is to "agree" that if you are forced to use electricity instead of gas the climate will be irrevocably ruined and thus you will be compelled to spend more money to heat your house or buy and operate a vehicle even though that claim of "permanent ruination" is a lie.

Likewise the car companies are all in on the government mandating all these new "nannies" (e.g. lane-keeping, blind spot monitoring and similar.)  Why is it that the crash rate has not gone down if these things actually work?  Obviously they do not work otherwise the crash rate would drop like a stone and it hasn't.  But what has happened is that the cost of cars and insurance has risen dramatically with a large part of the cost increase being in the mandated "nannies" and the expense when one of them gets broken; instead of a $200 windshield now its $1,000 because the camera and other sensors has to be realigned at the dealer.  The insurance company has its profit margin capped so the only way for them to make more money is to force up the cost of vehicles and collision repairs so they therefore can charge more for the insurance!  You are told this improves safety but the data says it has not; all it has done is drive up the price which you are forced to pay even if you don't buy a new car because you might be at fault in an accident and the other guy did buy the new car with all the fancy mandated gadgets on it.

If you're young you might fall for the "imminent ruination" of the environment and planet generally because you've never seen it so much worse than it is now.  You see, in 1970 you weren't alive -- but I was, and I remember it.  You've never seen America look like this because you were never alive when it did.

I was.

It no longer is.

The air is no longer poisoned.  The factories and chemical plants no longer belch eye-watering fumes and poison the water to the point you cannot swim in it or eat the fish.  The tailpipe of your car no longer belches fumes that can kill you in minutes and being caught in traffic does not cause you to choke on the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.  Earth has quite-literally never been healthier; no longer do you get polio from your drinking water as that disease is fecal/oral in transmission.  No, it was not the vaccine that stopped it; it was in fact the improvement in public sanitation as the case rate was dropping like a stone before the vaccine was introduced.

So-called "Green Energy" is a scam; it is neither green nor are we destroying the planet by exploiting carbon.  On the contrary; we have wildly cleaned up the planet from our previous actions, it is in better condition today than any time in the last 150 years and all of that has happened while we have built more vehicles and consumed more carbon-based energy than ever.  Indeed the cleaning of the air has led to more solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth because we cleaned up the air, not the other way around, and this is a good thing since I presume you'd prefer not to choke on dirty air.

Don't fall for the scam: It is nothing more than yet another grift designed to make your poor for the benefit of a few monopolists and their cronies in government.  Tell them to cut that crap out and if they don't you will cut them out rather than be impoverished by their deliberate, malicious lies.