As usual the lie factory continues here -- and this is from someone who knows better.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit millions of Americans, but are major drivers of our national debt, which has skyrocketed to more than $21 trillion. If every U.S. taxpayer was billed for an equal share of that debt, we would each be charged about $400,000.

The cause of our out-of-control national debt is rooted in current and long-term obligations of these three big entitlement programs, due in large part to rapidly rising costs and an aging population.

Again, let me reference this Ticker, just one of dozens I've written over the years, that points out the truth: There is no crisis in Social Security.  There is a problem which can be addressed, but the problem was caused directly by tampering with interest rates within The Fed and Congress along with allowing millions of able-bodied people to claim "disability" -- and some of them have been documented to have run marathons while allegedly "disabled."

Nonetheless Social Security is fixable without a large amount of pain.  Why?  Because it is a progressive tax-based system (you get more back in benefit for the first dollar you pay in via taxes than later ones), it holds a relatively large body of bonds which by design were constructed to allow "pig-in-python" style bursts of baby creation (ala The Boomers) as the designers anticipated that happening (along with "busts" at other times) and the tax rate is, in relative terms, high.  (12.4% of all wages earned up to the cap -- you only  "see" half of it as a payroll deduction -- unless you're self-employed!)  Further the boomer pig in the python will start to recede in ten years -- 2028 -- as boomers start dying and so will their outsized proportion of the "draw" on said system.

In other words the conflation of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is an intentional lie that is repeated for political purposes and any politician or other policy "wonk" who does so deserves to be destroyed as his or her intent is to wreck this nation on a permanent fiscal basis by generating enough screaming among seniors to guarantee the actual problem is not addressed.

The entire problem with our budget lies in Medicare and Medicaid.  The reason is multi-fold but is focused in the following places:

• The Medicare tax rate is 2.9%, (1.45% each for employer and employee), or less than one quarter of that for Social Security.  Yet last fiscal year Social Security spent $1.03 trillion while Medicare and Medicaid spent $1.46 trillion with approximately $1.15 trillion being Medicare.  In other words Medicare assesses taxes at less than 1/4 the rate of Social Security yet pays out more money.
  
  
• Medical spending as a percentage of the national economy has increased by a factor of five since Medicare was put into place. Medical spending was approximately 4% of GDP in the 1960s; at 4% of GDP Medicare was sustainable indefinitely as its tax receipt projections were approximately correct in covering expected expenditures.  Medical spending is almost 20% of GDP today, or five times as high in percentage terms.  Yet the Medicare tax rate has not advanced at all.  It would have to be five times what it is today, and advance at the rate of medical spending generally indefinitely into the future, to be solvent.
  
  
• If is not possible to "catch up" now even if you immediately made the Medicare tax 15%, which would be higher than Social Security, because those who are retired now didn't pay the higher rate and the bonds were not bought with their funds.  As such it is flatly impossible to fix this on a prospective basis through higher taxes.  IT CANNOT BE DONE BECAUSE TOO MUCH TIME HAS PASSED WITHOUT DOING IT OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS.
  
  
• Medicaid is even worse because there no tax assessed to cover it.  That is, Medicaid is a "pure" entitlement and last year spent approximately $400 billion.  You get it because you're low-income, not because you paid into it while working and now need it.  For this reason you cannot fix Medicaid with any sort of targeted, employment-based tax because there isn't one and the regressive nature of such taxes means people will leave the workforce to avoid paying same and then collect it.  In fact that has happened now and continues to this day.

By 2040, Medicare, which funds health care for people 65 and older, will cover 88 million enrollees and the cost per enrollee by then is estimated to more than triple. Medicare’s hospital insurance program, known as Part A, can only pay full benefits through 2024, according to the program’s trustees.

Why will it triple on a per-person basis?

Simple -- we have an out-of-control medical racketeering set of enterprises in the United States, all of which are illegal under more than 100 year old law.  Years ago I wrote an article on Lilies explaining how exponents invariably screw anyone who relies on them for a long-term "growth" plan.  It's mathematics, not politics and mathematics cannot be evaded.  But far worse when you only think you see the tiniest bit of the problem coming you're nearly dead -- every time -- because of how exponential math works.  As such the la-la-la-la-la nonsense out of politicians on this and all related subjects has only one rational, society-preserving response: REVOLT.

Let's make this clear right up front: Neither the left's "Medicare for all" or the right's "Repeal and replace" mantras will do a damn thing about this, and 2024 is not far away.  I will also remind you that markets never let you actually hit the wall just as they did not in 2000 and 2007.

Once they suss out that the politicians will not fix it because the people are sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting for people like Trump and Occasional Cortex the market will dive.  Not a little, a lot.  This will force the naked swimmers in the pool above water level for their ugliness to be seen by all.

Again -- there is no tax change that can fix this.  The only means to fix it is to dramatically cut medical spending in the economy as a whole -- not cost-shift it, not make someone else pay, stop paying entirely right now, not in the future, not via some claimed "cost curve" bend in the future that never comes.

Medical spending as a percentage of the economy must collapse back to about 4% of the economy, or approximately one fifth of what it is now, and it must do so today.

This is not impossible, contrary to those who say it is.  As just one example we can take as much as $400 billion out of federal health spending per year right now, today, forevermore by simply addressing one self-inflicted, very damaging and expensive set of disease treatments: Diabetes.  

To those who claim that sort of action would be "cruel" I reply that it is the very opposite of cruel because not only does it take a huge whack out of the federal budget (and state pension expenses) it also will dramatically improve the life of those who suffer from this condition, including in many cases reversing it entirely!

Please explain how that is "cruel".  I'm waiting......

When it comes to surgeries (Hospital Part "A" stuff) may I point to The Surgery Center of Oklahoma which routinely, even when it has to buy supplies and drugs at monopolist prices which are 100-500% or more of a market price, manages to undercut the local hospital in your town by that very same 80% I cited as necessary?  Were they able to buy supplies and drugs at market prices it would likely be 90%.  Oh, and you're one twentieth as likely to acquire an infection in said surgery center as your local hospital because they can't bill you for the cost of fixing their own mistakes and as a result they're far more-careful than your local hospital is.

Incidentally those "mistakes" (negligence, mostly) kill 200,000 Americans a year and maim millions which does even more economic damage since a dead (or maimed) person either produces nothing or far less than they otherwise could.

In 2011, in my book Leverage, I laid out a means to fix this.  Through the years since I've fleshed it out a bit more, but the basic premise remains: 

• Enforce the damned law against all the medical providers, require them to post prices and charge everyone the same price for the same thing, thereby allowing competition into the game.
  
  
• Make illegal any sort of cost-hiding (such as the current practice of not being quoted a charge and then having your insurance company play the "explanation of benefits" game.)  This is illegal everywhere else in the economy with damn good reason -- it is, in every case, a criminal conspiracy as it intentionally screws some people who have no opportunity to shop or say no.  In other words you must get a bill and submit it to the insurance company yourself so you see the entire bill, and you must agree in advance to the charges.  When that's physically impossible (e.g. you're on your back having a heart attack) you cannot be charged more than someone who is conscious and able to give consent for the same procedure.
  
  
• Medicaid can be rendered unnecessary in its entirety by these changes (no, this doesn't mean poor people get no medical care -- see the text of the bill.  They in fact get superior care to what they get now.)
  
  
• Forbid drug companies from differentially-pricing across national boundaries -- either directly by law or by dropping the law that currently forbids me from getting on a plane, filling my suitcase with drug "X" in said nation and flying back to resell it in the United States.
  
  
• Forbid government (or care invoiced to the government on behalf of a citizen) from paying anything for medical care where a lifestyle change will provide substantially equivalent or superior outcomes.
  
  
• Force alleged "insurance" to actually be insurance.  What we now call "health insurance" is not insurance; it is a scam, a fraud under the law and a felony criminal offense in every single instance.  Actual insurance by the definition of the word is a group of people who pay a small amount of money into a pool in anticipation of a possible but not certain loss, and from which losses are then paid to those who suffer them.  By definition with insurance once you have a loss you no longer pay anything; the company pays you, and it is criminal fraud to buy an alleged "insurance" policy against either a certain or already existing loss.

Congress would have to act to put into place much of this.  But not all.  The President is the head of the Executive, which is in charge of law enforcement.  Myriad existing parts of the health system are breaking existing, in many cases 100+ year old, laws -- specifically related to anti-trust.  In the specific case of anti-trust these violations are not civil offenses they are criminal felonies.  As a result right here and now, today, the President could direct the US Attorney General to bring said charges tomorrow as could any State Attorney General, since every state legal code I'm examined has similar statutes to 15 USC Chapter 1.

The people of this nation have the ability to put a stop to what is otherwise going to be a certain collapse -- not just in asset markets but of the government itself.  This is not going to happen in 2024 when Medicare cannot pay it will happen before that date because in the history of the world markets have never allowed an actual end date to be reached before they throw up all over the impending disaster.  To expect otherwise is to claim that literally everyone in the world is stupid beyond words.

May I point out that when Medicare's funds are exhausted that $1.1 trillion dollar expenditure (and rising) from last year will be immediately reduced by 75%?  That's right -- they took in just $260 billion last fiscal year in Medicare taxes but spent four times that amount.  If you think the government can immediately add $800 billion to the deficit without interest rates spiking to 10% or more overnight -- which instantly crashes the markets and government both -- you have rocks in your head.

Exactly when the markets will blow up is not determinable in advance but that it will happen is an absolute certainty.  Once it happens there will be no orderly path available to the government or anyone else to stop or mitigate the damage since the entire problem with the market throwing up on such an event is that confidence in the ability and desire of government to address the issue will have been irretrievably lost.

I will remind you that in 2008 the housing sector and frauds in a small part of it, centered in a few "hot" markets such as Florida and California, caused the Stock Market to lose well over half of its value.  This was due to scams in perhaps 3% of the US Economy.

This blowup will be not in 3% of the economy but rather nearly 20% of it and thus will be six times as bad.

The market will not lose 50% of its value, it will lose 90% or more of its value.

GDP will not decline a few percent, it will decline 20% or more.

We will not lose a few million jobs, we will lose 20% or more of the jobs in our economy.

There will not be a couple of investment banks that fail; all of the money-center banks will fail as will all businesses that have any sort of material debt exposure.  That's every large bank, the majority of regional banks and more than half of the publicly traded firms in the United States.

There will not be a few people who lose everything -- homes, jobs, savings and retirement -- up to a third of Americans, or perhaps as much as 100 million people, will lose everything.

The odds that some sizable percentage of that 100 million people will turn to extreme and uncoordinated violence is very high.  A third of the nation may well end up hungry and homeless.  If you think the government will be able to control or put that down think again; the number of angry, willing-to-do-it individuals will be several times the size of the military and police forces combined while federal, state and local government ability to pay said forces will have collapsed.  How many cops will show up for work when their paychecks bounce and they know going to work means their family is defenseless?  How many members of the military will suddenly decide that the Constitution means something and orders be damned?  There's no way to know the answers to those questions in advance, but I assure you -- you're not going to like the answers.

You think this can't happen here?  Oh yes it can.  It has in many other nations, some with ridiculous amounts of very valuable natural resource -- such as oil.  Venezuela anyone?

If you think this is not serious enough to get off your ass now and demand resolving the problem with something as immediate and forceful as this law, backing up that demand with whatever is necessary to make it happen, and yes, I do mean whatever is necessary, then you are through your inaction giving consent to an all-on collapse of our society and government within the next six years.

The market's determination that you're un-serious and don't give a crap, at which point the option to address this problem peacefully and politically will expire, could come at any time including today -- and it is certain on the present path that the hard end-point will arrive before the end of Trump's second term when Medicare runs out of money.

This is no longer an abstract issue that is at some point "far off" in the future.

It must be addressed now.

There's been plenty of discussion over whether services such as Apple's iTunes, Google Play, Facebook, Twitter and similar can ban users on a purely-discretionary basis.

The common argument is that because they are private companies they can create whatever policies they'd like so long as they do not violate existing civil rights law (e.g. you can't ban someone because they're black.)

But this isn't merely about services such as Facebook, Twitter and similar -- now the ability of content creators to monetize their work is at stake. As of the 21st of September  Infowars has been notified that Paypal is refusing to process payments for subscriptions as well as merchandise.

If you remember in 2017 the notorious neo-Nazi web site Daily Stormer was basically run off the Internet -- first by GoDaddy and then in rapid sequence multiple other firms, including Google.  They were denied the ability to buy DNS and hosting service as they were effectively black-balled by dozens of providers of these basic utility-class services more or less "all at once."

More recently Microsoft threatened Gab.ai with loss of their cloud computing provider, Microsoft's Azure, unless they made changes to their operations.  Microsoft was and remains unwilling to provide a specific list of changes they required or specifics of any alleged violations of their terms of service.

The premise that a private company can refuse service (or sales) to anyone is a fundamental part of Capitalism; the theory is that if one retailer does not wish to do business with you then another will.  But these campaigns of harassment are far more sinister and troubling because they now encompass the utility services that underlie the Internet's infrastructure.

This must not be allowed to stand.

Here's an example.  A hypothetical neo-Nazi wishes to buy a domain and purchase web services to air his views.   However repugnant the right to hold those views and express them is protected by the First Amendment.

Do businesses involved in selling Internet utility services have the right to refuse to sell to him?

To put your views on the Internet you need several different services, not just one.

1. A circuit or means of delivery and interchange with other users on the Internet.  Your cellphone or cable modem is an example of the "end connection" in this regard; in the publisher category this is either an ISP or some sort of a cloud provider.  This circuit is not just a line; in some way you have to connect to an interchange point, much like a phone on a physical wire is useless unless it connects to a switch so you can call other people.

2. A DNS or "nameserver" service.  This is what turns "vile-nazi.com" into an IP address in the format "1.2.3.4" or, in the IPv6 vernacular, "2501:......".  This is an essential service for the modern web because it is not only commonplace it is virtually always true on shared hosting or services of any sort that multiple names are bound to one IP address.  For example "vile-nazi.com" and "sweet-kitty.com" may both point to the same numerical IP address; the server determines which request goes where by the presentation of the domain name.

3. A computer (server), either a physical device or a virtual piece of a larger physical computer.  These days most small and moderate sites are run on virtualizations, not physical machines -- it's much less expensive and most small and moderate-sized sites simply don't need the entire power of a modern computer, so spreading it among other clients makes it less expensive for everyone.

4. The software that takes the message(s) you provide and formats and delivers them to others.  In the web world this is often Apache (a freely available piece of code) although not always by any means -- there are many other packages, some free and some commercial, that perform this function.  In addition there are services that perform this function in other ways (which are software packaged up with a "brand") such as Facebook and Twitter.

The question before us today is where is the line between a company able to refuse service to anyone and not?

I think we can agree that the neo-Nazi cannot be refused electrical service at his house.  Nor can he be refused water, sewer and trash pickup.  He also cannot be refused access to a toll road or bridge, even if privately run, so long as he pays the tolls like everyone else.

But he can be refused seating in a local restaurant.

What's the distinction?

Simple: The neo-Nazi's views are not implicitly endorsed by the establishment in the case of electrical, sewer and toll road service.

It is instantly obvious to an observer that the neo-Nazi's words on Facebook are in fact associated with the company Facebook.  Ditto for those on Twitter. But it isn't obvious to the public that the neo-Nazi bought his DNS or Web Service from GoDaddy or Amazon.  If one was curious you would have to dig for the information.  Even so these providers bear little risk of being co-branded with that neo-Nazi.

As such we should draw through regulation and law some simple bright-line tests.

Facebook can ban whoever it wants, for whatever reason.  So can Twitter.

GoDaddy, however, cannot ban a user from DNS registration no matter the purpose so long their site is legal.  Ditto for Amazon's AWS, Microsoft's Azure or any other cloud or hosting provider. Nor may providers refuse traffic interchange based on the viewpoints contained in their, or their customers, communications.

Twitter, in short, may ban anyone it wishes.  However, should they do so to any material degree there will be created an opportunity for a new Twitter, and anyone may start a competing service with essentially the same feature set.

What do we do with utility services that handle the flow of funds?

Traditional banks or fintech outfits such as PayPal  must not be allowed to discriminate against customers simply because they don't like their political views. Banking and monetary exchange is inherently a utility service and to deny same to any US Citizen as a consequence of their views is to attempt to "starve" a citizen for exercising their constitutionally-protected rights.

Thus the recent PayPal ban of Alex Jones must not stand, Master Card must not be able to ban Robert Spencer and neither can the decision of the bank that recently said "no" to a Florida candidate who supports the legalization of cannabis.  All of these are issue positions used to deny utility services.

We would not allow Florida Power and Light to cut off Nikki Fried's electricity because she supports the legalization of marijuana.  We must not also allow banks and modern utilities such as ISPs, domain providers and similar to effectively destroy people and political speech because they don't like the message, even though it's lawful.

Everyone is fawning over the deceased Senator from Arizona.

I will not be joining the party.

In fact, in my considered opinion he lived too long and the world is better for his passing.

Yeah, call me an asshole.  I don't care; I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are.

I don't base my view on his military service, nor on him being held in the Hanoi Hilton (or what he did while there.)  I've commented on that before during his Presidential run on these pages but it is neither the foundation of my extreme dislike of the man nor does it really modify anything, other than reinforce my basic opinion.

In my opinion John McCain was a self-serving bastard who didn't give a damn who got hurt or who he screwed as long as whatever he intended to do could advance what he wanted to obtain.

He ditched his first wife, who stayed faithfully married while he served and was imprisoned.  However, when she suffered a grievous accident through no fault of her own and was no longer pretty and thus not the sort of woman that a successful politician would want be seen with in public from a physical beauty perspective (as I judge to be his opinion, of course), and she never had been nor was at the time rich, he dumped her on his return to the United States for a women much younger, far prettier, uninjured, and a heiress who had a crap-ton of money to bankroll the start of his political aspirations.

If all that time apart had simply made for irreconcilable differences that might be able to be understood.  The raw power-seeking aspirational nature of who he hooked up with, however, never mind the timing and manner of his acts in that regard is quite another matter and belies both McCain's true intent and willingness to leave as much human wreckage behind as was necessary so long as he got what he wanted.

For that alone, in my opinion, John McCain deserves to burn in Hell.

Through his time in the House and Senate and indeed during his run for President he may have been known as a "maverick" but I think the better phrase to describe him is corrupt bastard.  May I remind you of Lincoln Savings and Loan, and the "Keating Five"?

In 1987 these men, McCain among them, got involved in a regulatory action against said bank on behalf of the Chairman and improperly intervened.  Two years later the bank collapsed, costing the federal government over $3 billion.  But far worse was the impact on bondholders and investors, many of whom were completely wiped out and left destitute.  Keating had made massive political contributions to all five.  While McCain escaped formal sanction by the Senate this was largely because he had taken office in the Senate after the salient events regarding those financial matters and thus the ethics committee claimed to lack jurisdiction.  The House Ethics committee ducked it as well, since he was now a Senator (despite having been in the House when the financial events happened.)  Fortuitous?  I suppose, but evading sanction by a bunch of limp-wristed worthless, corrupt cucks is not the same thing as not having done anything wrong.

Oh, and in the aftermath there were of course leaks intended to harm..... other politicians involved who happened to be Democrats. The GAO investigated and concluded McCain was responsible.  Of course nobody thinks that's a problem -- right?  Yet another example of "I don't give a damn who I burn or what sort of underhanded, backstabbing horsecrap I pull as long as I get what I want."  That's McCain for 'ya.

This pattern of leaks was to continue up until very recently -- from McCain.  It's funny how when you look at the Press though, or through Google, all you find in the search is leaks about McCain -- specifically, the leaked comment from the West Wing a few months ago that someone was glad he was dying.  Gee, where are all the other leaks that McCain himself committed along with improper influence and abuse of his office?  Buried down the memory hole, I see..... but the Keating incident, being infamous enough, is still findable if you know where to look.

Indeed it appears the only thing that stopped this pattern of outrageous conduct was McCain being rendered physically incapable of doing it anymore.  You know, by being on your deathbed and then (of course) dying!

Then there's the underhanded and arguably felonious urging of the IRS to use audits to destroy political opponents that came out of his Senatorial office -- including, specifically, Tea Party groups during Obama's Presidency.  His staff was caught doing it and proof is now out in the open in Judicial Watch's hands.  For that crap, in my view, he should be indicted, tried and hanged.  Of course you can't hang a dead person, so I guess this one goes to the guy in the Red Suit to adjudicate.

Of course it would be ridiculous to omit McCain's apparent involvement in the Steele Dossier.  While the book has not been closed on that as of this point it appears that taken as a whole the entire charade was a series of outrageously illegal acts intended to first subvert a federal election for President and then overthrow it's results -- and McCain's motive for being involved certainly looks like nothing more than pure, unbridled hatred.  I'm not sure I can actually count the number of likely felonies that will get tallied up when all is said and done on this and in any event that's another one for the guy in the Red Suit since you can't indict a dead man.

I should also point out McCain's trademark and decades-long condescending manner of speech.  In 2008, during the middle of the financial meltdown and an election season, he excused the banksters who ripped off the country and then voted for TARP.  When called on this the condescension came thick and fast, burying any criticism (including mine) under the old I'm smart, you're dumb, now shut the fuck up and get out of here tone of voice.

We'll top this off with McCain's long and sordid history of war-mongering but for those who are dead, too numerous to count as a consequence, it's certainly not last.  His advocacy and acts in this regard during his time in government have been incessant, outrageous, in many case based on lies and have gotten a lot of people killed.  I'm the first one to defend America but advocacy for wars and military actions that have no defined goals, no stated point at which they can be called at an end and at best a compromised justification (e.g. the Second Iraq incursion) are another matter.  We'll let the red suit guy adjudicate that one as well.

Rest in pieces, jackass -- let's see how the Ethics Committee of One passes judgement and unlike House and Senate committees he doesn't seem very amenable to mealy-mouthed excuses:

I have no interest in or desire to engage in "proactive" violence (as opposed to self-defense, which is always permissible.)  Even if you can get through whatever keyholes you may have in terms of ethics or morals on such an act I am left with the inescapable conclusion that those who remain when you're done simply aren't worth what you spent (your life.)

However, if called upon to defend the status quo, whether it be the local sheriff, county, state or federal government I would refuse.  Why?  Because that too is not worth spending my life on.

Would I spend my life to protect a federal government that has refused to enforce 100+ year old anti-trust law and has allowed the medical industry to screw the population out of trillions of dollars over the last 20+ years, never mind Beelzebezos and Zuckerpig screwing the entire population via their data sales, H1bs, destroyed firms and offshoring?  No.

Would I spend my life to protect a state or local government that has refused to enforce those very same laws, despite them being on the books here, and instead has incessantly raised taxes on the citizens to fund the rip-off practices of these "industries" that have as their best analog the (actual) mafia?  No.

Would I spend my life to protect a local sheriff who is very interested in giving out traffic tickets and DUIs but can't be bothered to enforce those very same laws against local medical providers and hospitals?  No.

Would I spend my life to protect any of the myriad CEOs and other "mavens" that have stolen their wealth from the population at large by offshoring jobs, supporting illegal invaders, suppressing wages via H1b abuse or engaging in cross-subsidy games recognized as illegal 100+ years ago under that very same anti-trust law, or who run companies that admit to being able to "sway any political contest" through abuse of data or who collect and sell access to same and similar?  No.

Would I spend my life to defend any employee of a state government which "sues" a pharmaceutical firm for intentionally marketing opioids under false pretense?  Such a suit, if won, will be paid by the customers of the firm since they'll simply jack up the price!  The state could indict the executives and marketing folks for involuntary manslaughter but instead they choose to make the victims pay twice -- first with their health or life and then again in money!  No.

Would I spend my life to defend and protect any member of the media that have been complicit in all of the above?  Hell no.

The local Catholic Church -- and others I drive by -- have parking lots full of cars when it's time for mass.  Given that we now know with certainty, and in fact we did back in 2002 or thereabouts, that the clergy, bishops, cardinals and Rome knew damn well that pedophilia was essentially a "second occupation" for many priests -- well north of 10,000 of them in the US alone -- tell me why I would associate with or assist anyone who attends such mass or puts a single nickel in the plate?  I terminated my affiliation as soon as this was evident but nearly nobody else has.  Why are not these edifices gone, confiscated to pay redress to the victims and every one of those guilty either directly or by cover-up in prison?  Why has not this evil edifice, to be blunt, been destroyed?  Every one of the persons in those pews has been and currently is knowingly funding the literal rape of children for a period going on nearly two decades at this point!  Do you think I would spend my life to defend any of theirs?  They-will-burn-in-Hell no.

Would I spend my life to protect a county commission (ours) that hiked our property taxes 11% last year instead of enforcing that very same body of law -- when the reason for the hike is specifically stated to be the rapacious cost of health care both for county employees and inmates at the local lockup?  Double Hell no.

Never mind the millions of older Americans who have literally been forced out of their homes due to the property tax ramp game as a result of these scams.  My former home near Chicago has seen a clean doubling of property tax assessments since I sold and left.  Others I know have also seen an insane ramp; a 50% increase over the last 10 years in many areas is common.  What has been the increase in Social Security payments during that time?  An effective zero due to ZIRP.  So how does a senior on fixed income come up with that sort of increase?  

They can't.

I can name literally hundreds of similar instances.  The myriad CEOs of financial institutions from before the 2008 meltdown -- and since, in the case of Wells FuckYou -- who have presided over dozens if not hundreds of acts that had you or I stolen the same amount of money would have left us facing decades in prison yet none have gone to jail make me retch. Elon Musk didn't appear to have just misled people with his recent tweet on taking Tesla private; he now claims to have had alleged "discussions" about a buyout with the Saudis for roughly two years previous and he was buying stock in the meantime while in possession of that material inside information which, if those discussions actually happened and is not a lie constitutes insider trading.  This, if true, is a 20 year in prison felony.  The government tweets about busting people for this very offense quite frequently (including just recently a sitting US House member) yet Elon Musk just admitted to doing the same thing in an open letter on the corporate web page and... he's walking around DefCon free as a bird.  If you or I pulled that crap they would have arrested us and led us away in handcuffs right here, right now.

Why the fuck would I spend my life defending any organization, person, state, local or federal authority who sit on their fat asses instead of getting out the handcuffs when a (very) rich SOB brazenly and publicly appears to admit to violating the same law they just got done busting a Congressman for?  They can all -- the FBI, SDNY and SEC -- go fuck a duck as I will never risk spending my life to defend any of theirs given their willful and intentional refusal to act as required by law.

I'm aware of a murder that took place in a big city about two weeks ago.  I didn't know the victim but someone close to me did.  The killing took place on a freeway, late at night, in the middle of one of the largest cities in the country.  There are DOT cameras literally every few hundred feet in that town on those freeways (I've driven the specific road where it occurred) and yet despite shell casings being found in the vehicle where his body and stopped car was, not wrecked but parked in the right lane, which strongly implies that he stopped and then was shot from either inside or just outside the car (and the assailant then fled either on foot or in another vehicle) none of the "wonderful" city and state officials can manage to find anything related to what other vehicles or people were in the immediate vicinity at the time in question.  If you believe the cops actually give a fuck about ordinary people and arresting assailants even when murder is involved -- given the density of video imaging in the immediate vicinity which essentially had to have captured that murder when it occurred and the escape of the shooter I have a bridge to sell you.  If that was a cop that had been shot there would have been a nationwide manhunt, including the FBI, within hours if not minutes.  Instead we get the cops jacking off for days instead of immediately viewing all the video from the immediate area and trying to find the person who committed the murder.  If you think, given this fact, that I'll spend my life to defend, rescue or protect any shithead-in-blue, ever, you're dumber than a box of rocks.

Here's reality: If I ever see any of these people -- federal, state, county or local officials, or others complicit in similar acts -- in a burning car on the side of the road I wouldn't even piss on it.  I can personally guarantee that I would show them the same passive indifference to the fucking they are taking through chance or some other person's nefarious act that they have shown to everyone else when the shoe was on the other foot over the last several decades.  Unlike when I am a captain of a vessel upon the water I have no legal duty to assist if I am able -- and thus I pledge here and now, in public, that I will not, ever, under any circumstance, assist and I certainly will not risk spending my life in such a pursuit.

Period.

This sad state of affairs in our nation is not stable yet the outrageous behavior -- and damage -- continues to build by the day and it's not the decent people of this nation that are causing it.  It's all the assholes who either willfully ignore the lawbreaking despite a legal duty to stop it or are actively participating in it.

Eventually some percentage of those who cannot find justice and have been personally hurt or even destroyed by these outrageous violations of the law, criminal felonies intentionally ignored by the government for decades despite the harm done to real people by them on a literal daily and continuing basis, will decide they've had enough of this crap and the willful, intentional indifference and blindness by government and corporate actors across this country.

Their decision to spend their life at that moment will be a coldly-calculated and pure act of revenge.

Such an act, or even millions of similar acts, when they occur -- and they will eventually occur due to the utter and complete refusal of our government to put a stop to any of this crap by the rich and powerful despite its illegality -- cannot be defended.

But such an act can be understood, and if those acts of revenge are directed at the people who committed the wrongs, and not wildly-incoherent violence harming those who either tried to help or had nothing to do with the abuses, I am no longer willing to condemn same.

Instead I will tip a glass filled with two fingers of a nice Scotch in quiet respect for those who have decided, quite-sanely, calmly and deliberately, that they simply have had enough and will endure those abuses no more.  The government at all levels could have before and can today decide to put a stop to this crap and yet while they prosecute a sitting House member for a very-legitimate crime others who do the same thing, or even engage in much worse offenses and screw the public out of trillions or even rape children are not only ignored they are treated by the media and lawmakers as cult heroes.

I will not excuse the indefensible -- but one does not have to excuse or condone an act to understand and have respect for it.

This is going to be a tough slog for many of you folks, but you need to do it.

I will also be using this article as a gauge; its popularity and circulation will directly guide my future decisions.

First, I want you to read this in its entirety, from a Priest.  This isn't really news to many people, myself included, but coming from someone with personal, inside experience you cannot discount or otherwise dismiss it.  It's real.

The lesson found in that missive isn't really on the Catholic Church; if you confine your thinking to it you're making a grave mistake.

No, it's "big data" in general, and it's why we cannot allow it under anything approaching the terms we've permitted thus far.

The article points out that during the process of "formation", that is, when one is seeking to be a priest, it is inherently part of the process for an exhaustive examination of every part of you to be undertaken and documented.  The Church has very good reasons for this, and they have obviously determined that it's not only necessary but "proper", and used properly it likely is.

The problem is that there are evil people everywhere, and once that data is amassed if they can get to it they both can and will use it -- improperly.

The usual refrain from the public is that "I have nothing to hide", so "who cares?"

That's missing the point; such data not only exposes what you've done but where you're vulnerable.

Read that article however many times you must for it to sink in.  If a priest -- or priest-to-be -- didn't have anything the evil people could use to force them to remain in line and silent, or even worse, to cover up for outrageously evil acts they would find some way to create it!  So if they figured out that your "kryptonite" rested in liking women, well, you'd be assigned to work with a group of young, attractive women.  If they figured out you might be a pedarest?  Girl's (or boys!) soccer coach!  And so on.

What you have in that article is documentation of the weaponization of information that stretches back decades, long before we had computers, big data, cheap disks and servers.  This was information divulged in confidence and written down on old-fashioned paper -- and then abused for nefarious, evil, heinous purpose.  It was used for the explicit creation of monsters so you can blackmail said monster to do as you wish.  That kids -- and adults -- get abused in the process is of no consequence to those undertaking this evil!

Spycraft, in the international sense, is mostly about compromising people.  Nobody is iron-clad strong all the time and in all areas.  Nobody.  The classic "spy movie" example is the cute, young woman sent in to seduce the man, frequently with a few drinks, hopefully getting access to whatever she desires by sleeping with him.  This is cliche because it's true, but prior to "big data" determining where the weakness was and how to exploit it either directly or by finding a way to blackmail you later on took quite a lot of work.  This meant that it was only undertaken to target a few, very-interesting people -- and the risk of getting caught while trying to both amass the information and abuse it was quite high too.

This sort of data collection, analysis and abuse no longer requires any work at all, it now applies to everyone, and under current law and regulation it is impossible to not only know what's been collected (everything), how it's been analyzed (in every possible way) and who has or does access it for what purpose.

This must be not just stopped but retroactively forced out into the open with full disclosure in each and every instance to each and every person, along with hard, death penalty level enforcement for future violations.

If we don't do that then you will continue to be targeted.

Just to repeat in case that last sentence didn't sink in: CONTINUE to be targeted.

You already have been targeted and abused and in fact are abused every single day.  For car insurance, homeowners insurance, rate of interest and terms on a credit card or other loan, in housing and employment.  If you ever become "interesting" to people in power (e.g. you want to run for office, even something as simple as a school board) then suddenly it gets far worse in that all of that previously-collected data will be analyzed and used to either discover something with which you can be blackmailed now or, if there isn't anything yet your weaknesses will be analyzed and you will be continually tested until you fail and create the means to blackmail you.

Now you know why "Just-US" Roberts upheld Obamacare.  You may not know what they (the medical industry, to be specific) got him with, but you can be assured they did.  There were rumors of irregularities in his and his wife's adoption of their kids; true or not, who knows.  Obama, same deal.  There were myriad rumors of him being interested in men; these days, so what?  But what if one or more them wasn't 18?  Was that it?  I have no damn clue but this much I'm sure of -- this is what is being done with that data and has been for a long time.

What I can assure you is that this sort of tactic is as old as spying and over the last couple of decades it has become available on a far "cheaper" basis to a whole host of people -- and now is available to be used by anyone of evil intent against virtually anyone in any position where compromising them is of value.

It must be assumed that every single sitting Congressperson, Supreme Court Justice, President (reasonably-recent past and present), Governors and most State legislators along with nearly all decision-making level individuals (such as Judges) at the State and Federal government levels are in fact under active blackmail threat right here, right now, every single day.  This likely also extends to many county, city and local officials.

Note that in the linked article one of the "defensive measures" the creeps used, along with their enablers, is to explicitly target priests they cannot seduce to violate their vows and intentionally go to confession before them, thereby sealing their ability to speak.  What do you think politicians and others in power do now with attorneys?  Same thing -- they go "hire" one and suddenly -- bang, can't talk because of attorney-client privilege.  If you can't seduce them (but they'll try that first -- and you can bet on that as that's a much more powerful tool) then find a means of stuffing a sock in their mouth via some privileged relationship.

There is utterly nobody who is safe from this.

Ever.

Nor can you be made safe from it.

Nobody is God, and nobody is Superman.

The only means to stop it is to make abuse of such information a capital felony and force into the open all who abuse it so they can be executed, making it your absolute civil right to know of all such data collection, distribution and sale along with all aggregations of same and the purpose for which it is done in every single case -- and to make concealment of the collection, sale, or purpose for which such data is used from you in any form proof of evil intent equivalent to any other capital offense.

Simply put anyone collecting and using said data must be forced, under penalty of capital felony conviction and death, to disclose each time said data is used, by whom, exactly how it is used, for what purpose and where the data was and is sent, with such being a positive duty for anyone holding same.

When you get an insurance quote, for example, the company must tell you not just that it used a "consumer report" (which they do) but exactly what data they obtained, from who they obtained it and the specifics of all the data they obtained, analyzed and how they did so to arrive at whatever result was obtained, in detail, sufficient for you to recreate in person their "scoring" and reach the same result.

In short that data must be yours -- your property and thus your right to know how, when, why and by whom it was used -- by virtue of being about and generated by your actions -- always.

It must be explicitly unlawful to collect, sell, collate or "work" this data for any purpose other than those explicitly disclosed and agreed to, in advance and all collectors and sellers of such data must be held equally responsible for any violation later on, including through their own negligence as if it was intentional conduct.

Violations must result in everyone involved being personally and criminally liable and upon conviction being executed, with any company involved being instantly dissolved.  No ifs, ands or buts.

No exceptions can be permitted other than for US Government actions aimed at foreign nationals who are not protected under US Law and yes, this includes government agencies that collect and abuse information now -- all of them.

This must happen now.  Period.

If it doesn't you can literally kiss our nation -- and anything approaching "freedom" -- goodbye.