Month: September 2026

Rare Illnesses Do Not Seem So Rare Anymore . . .

Rare Illnesses Do Not Seem So Rare Anymore . . .

AntiCorporatism

People who have never used the word “appendix” in a medical sentence now know someone with appendix cancer. Young adults are showing up with colorectal tumors that used to belong to their grandparents. Physicians who spent careers calling certain malignancies “rare” are saying the word less often, and with less confidence.

That observation does not require a conspiracy board. The registries already show it. Appendix cancer in the United States rose 232% between 2000 and 2016. Americans born in the early 1980s are several times more likely to receive that diagnosis than Americans born in the 1940s. Colorectal cancer in people ages 20 to 49 is climbing about 3% a year while it falls in the elderly. Carcinoma rates in adolescents and young adults have been drifting upward for decades. In 2026 the National Cancer Institute still reports that overall cancer deaths are falling. Incidence is another story, especially in the young, and especially in tumors that used to be footnotes.

What the observation does not do is hand the public a finished cause. Obesity, ultra-processed food, childhood antibiotics, lockdowns that postponed screening, better detection, and the virus itself are all in the pile. So are the products that a handful of corporations, armed with federal liability shields and captured regulators, rolled out to the entire population in 2021 and then boosted, and boosted again.

The companies prefer that sentence to end before their names appear. A free country is not required to oblige them.

The Record the Defendants Do Not Want Sliced

Read more →

January 24 2023 Duxbury Massachusetts: Look From the Eyes of the Children

January 24 2023 Duxbury Massachusetts: Look From the Eyes of the Children

AntiCorporatism

On January 24, 2023, in a house in Duxbury, Massachusetts, Cora Clancy was five. Dawson Clancy was three. Callan Clancy was eight months old. Their mother killed them. That is not a theory. It is the one fact both sides of the courtroom have already conceded.

A jury later split. A judge declared a mistrial. Commentators rushed to the language that always arrives after a mother kills her children: illness, voices, medication, tragedy, “she was sick.” Some, even all of that language may be true as well as medically serious. Postpartum psychosis exists. Delusion exists. Courts have a test for criminal responsibility. None of that answers the only question that should come first.

What happened to the children? Read more →

If We Take the Flock Camera Question to the Supreme Court, We WILL WIN

If We Take the Flock Camera Question to the Supreme Court, We WILL WIN

AntiCorporatism

The Fourth Amendment does not say the people have a right to be secure against some government files, or against files kept longer than 30 days, or against files a judge later decides they look “too much like a GPS.” It says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

Read the nouns. Persons. Houses. Papers. Effects. The right is security from the state.  Period.  End of question. The warrant clause then tells the government the only lawful way to pierce that security: probable cause, oath, and particularity. A particular person. A particular place. A particular effect.

That text does not authorize the government to create a running file on the innocent and rummage it later. It authorizes the government, with a warrant, to take what already exists from a particular target. The state may receive another party’s records when a judge has named the crime and the person. The state may not stand in the road and become the original author of the citizen’s movements, even when it employs a third party to do it for them.

That is why, if this question is framed correctly and taken to the Supreme Court, we will win. Read more →

Let Them Pay Their Own Way: The Data Center Panic Is the Excuse, Tax Breaks and the Socialized Power Bill Are the Crime. China Wins.

Let Them Pay Their Own Way: The Data Center Panic Is the Excuse, Tax Breaks and the Socialized Power Bill Are the Crime. China Wins.

AntiCorporatism

Data centers use a lot of electricity. That sentence is true, and it is not an argument. Steel mills use a lot of electricity. Refineries use a lot of electricity. Aluminum plants use a lot of electricity. In a free country, a large customer who pays the full cost of the power he consumes, the wires built for him, and the damage he actually causes is not a public enemy. He is a customer.

The political class does not want that sentence to stand, because it leaves them with nothing to sell. So the public is handed red herrings: they are “draining the aquifers,” they are “destroying the grid,” they are “stealing your air conditioner in August.” Those lines are useful. They are not the transaction.

The transaction is corporatism. Politicians take the scare, then sit down with the same chief executives to hand out sales-tax exemptions, property-tax abatements, and interconnection rules that let a hyperscale tenant land on the system while households pick up part of the tab. That is not a free market. That is government picking a winner and sending the invoice to people who never asked for the AI datacenter.

The moral rule is simple: they pay their own way. The scandal is the politicians who violate it.

There is a second beneficiary of the panic, and it is not a mystery. The country that most needs American compute delayed, litigated, and regulated into a crawl is China. Beijing does not have to sabotage a single substation if American politicians will do the delaying for them. Democrats have made “guardrails,” moratoria, and climate theater the respectable face of that delay. RINO Republicans — some of them knowing exactly what they are doing, some of them merely chasing the poll and the donor — supply the bipartisan cover. Whether the motive is ideology, committee jurisdiction, or fear of a town-hall crowd, the result is the same: the United States argues with itself while the rival that wants to win the AI contest keeps pouring concrete.

Power Is Real. Socializing It Is the Fraud.

Read more →