HP McLovincraft

President Trump Files $15 Billion Defamation and Libel Lawsuit Against The New York Times

President Trump late Monday evening announced he filed a $15 billion libel lawsuit against the New York Times and several reporters, including Michael Schmidt.

The lawsuit was filed in a Tampa, Florida, federal court.

President Trump accused the newspaper of being a virtual “mouthpiece” for the Radical Left Democrat Party and said they gave Kamala Harris the single largest illegal campaign contribution ever.

“Today, I have the Great Honor of bringing a $15 Billion Dollar Defamation and Libel Lawsuit against The New York Times, one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual “mouthpiece” for the Radical Left Democrat Party. I view it as the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER. Their Endorsement of Kamala Harris was actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times, something heretofore UNHEARD OF! The “Times” has engaged in a decades long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole. I am PROUD to hold this once respected “rag” responsible, as we are doing with the Fake News Networks such as our successful litigation against George Slopadopoulos/ABC/Disney, and 60 Minutes/CBS/Paramount, who knew that they were falsely “smearing” me through a highly sophisticated system of document and visual alteration, which was, in effect, a malicious form of defamation, and thus, settled for record amounts. They practiced this longterm INTENT and pattern of abuse, which is both unacceptable and illegal. The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW! The suit is being brought in the Great State of Florida. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump said on Truth Social.

Keep reading

How Tyranny Becomes Entrenched: 9/11 and the Police State’s Endless Power Grabs

hey said it was for safety. They said it was for order. They said it was for the good of the nation.

They always say it’s for something good… until it isn’t.

Nearly a quarter-century after 9/11, we are still living with the consequences of fear-driven government power grabs. What began as “temporary” measures for our security have hardened into a permanent architecture of control.

The bipartisan police-state architecture that began with 9/11 has been passed from president to president and party to party, each recycling the same justifications—safety, security, patriotism—to expand its powers at the expense of the citizenry.

So they locked down the country “for our safety.”
They expanded surveillance “for our security.”
They rounded up anyone who challenged the narrative “for the common good.”
They erased names, ideas, and histories “to prevent offense.”
They forced schools to teach only what was politically correct “for the children.”
They censored speech “for our protection.”
They targeted dissenters “to preserve peace.”
They militarized the streets and called it “law and order.”

These very abuses—once denounced when carried out by the Left—are now cheered, defended, and excused when carried out by the Right.

People who once spoke passionately about truth, freedom, and faith have now fallen silent in the face of injustice, or worse, convinced themselves that nothing is wrong. The very voices that should be warning against tyranny are instead excusing it or looking away.

This is the danger of double standards in politics: every tyranny is rationalized in the moment by its chorus of defenders.

But history teaches that what goes around comes around. If you justify it now, you’ll have no defense when the tables turn.

And yet, time and again, the lies we tell ourselves make it possible. The cult of personality. The blind loyalty to party. The belief that “our side” can’t be the villain.

It never ceases to amaze how far people will go to excuse the actions of their favorite tyrant, even when those actions are the very things they once swore to oppose.

The pattern of justifying tyranny is as old as power itself. Every abuse comes wrapped in the same excuse: we had to do it.

Keep reading

Man claimed to shoot Charlie Kirk to ‘draw attention from the real shooter,’ police say

Police say that a Salt Lake City man — who was no stranger to the state’s political scene — claimed responsibility moments after the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, in an attempt to “draw attention from the real shooter.”

The arrest also sparked a child pornography investigation.

George Hodgson Zinn, 71, was booked into Utah County Jail for investigation of obstruction of justice and sexual exploitation of a minor on Monday, following a few days at a hospital. Newly released police documents also detail more of what happened that led to his arrest at Utah Valley University, which sparked a firestorm on social media.

After the lone shot was fired shortly after 12:20 p.m. last Wednesday, and as Kirk’s security team rushed him to a hospital, officers at the scene reported that they saw an older man lying on the ground surrounded by people who appeared to be tending to him.

The man, later identified as Zinn, told the officer, “I shot him, now shoot me” twice, according to a jail report compiled by UVU police. The officer reported that he could not see a weapon, but he placed Zinn in handcuffs while others at the scene cleared the area.

Once in custody, Zinn continued to say he was the shooter, the report continued. Officers asked Zinn where the gun was, but they say he refused to tell them. He reportedly asked for his attorney when he was brought back to the university police headquarters for questioning, even after police said they didn’t believe he was the shooter.

He later said he “did it to draw attention from the real shooter,” police wrote in the report. He was first taken to a nearby hospital for an undisclosed medical condition. While at the hospital, Zinn told an officer that “he was glad he said he shot the individual so the real suspect could get away,” the affidavit adds.

Zinn was released from the hospital on Monday and then booked into Utah County Jail.

Photos and video of his arrest quickly spread on social media, leading to erroneous reports that he was the shooter. Utah Department of Public Safety Commissioner Beau Mason announced that Zinn was taken into custody but had been cleared as the shooter within hours of his arrest.

Authorities ultimately determined that the single shot came from the roof of the nearby Losee Center, located about 175 to 200 yards from where Kirk was speaking underneath a tent. The single shot struck him in the neck, causing significant blood loss.

Kirk, 31, was later pronounced dead at the hospital. He was at UVU as part of the “American Comeback Tour” hosted by Turning Point USA, the organization that he founded.

Tyler Robinson, 22, of Washington, Washington County, was taken into custody late Thursday and booked into Utah County Jail on Friday for investigation of aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm causing injury and obstruction of justice. Authorities say charges in the case could be filed against Robinson as early as Tuesday. He’s also scheduled to make his first court appearance.

Meanwhile, a motion was filed on Monday to hold Zinn without bail in relation to his arrest. It wasn’t immediately clear if he had obtained any legal representation in the case. There is nothing in the police document to suggest that Zinn and Robinson were connected in any way.

Utah County sheriff’s deputies also launched another investigation into Zinn while he was hospitalized.

Keep reading

Fake News Is Working: Plurality Of Americans Buy Lie About Alleged Charlie Kirk Shooter

The plurality of Americans surveyed in a YouGov poll bought into the false narrative that the alleged assassin of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk is a Republican.

Several notable figures rushed to claim that the suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was a conservative Christian, though Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and federal authorities later confirmed that Robinson became “deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology.” The poll found that 24% of all adults have bought into the idea that Robinson is not, in fact, liberal.

In comparison, 21% of all adults believe Robinson was a Democrat, 15% said neither and 40% were unsure, according to the poll.

Robinson’s family told authorities that he had become more political and hateful in recent years. He lived with his trans-identifying boyfriend, Lance Twiggs, whose own relative said “hates conservatives and Christians,” according to Fox News.

“He hates conservatives and Christians,” the relative said of the trans-identifying roommate. “He hated us. He was not raised that way, but he, over the years, has become really detached [and] been radicalized.”

A growing number of “very liberal” adults across the U.S. believe it is “always or usually acceptable” to be happy about the death of a public figure they dislike, the poll further found. Among “conservative” and “very conservative” surveyors, 90% and 91% of those said it is “always or usually unacceptable.”

Ten percent of liberals also said it is acceptable to celebrate the death of someone they do not like, while 73% said it is never acceptable, according to the poll. A quarter of “very liberal” participants also said that political violence “can sometimes be justified,” and less than 5% of those identifying as “very conservative” said the same.

Most of the very liberal participants justifying political violence are between the ages of 18 and 29, the poll found.

Many liberals, especially educators, have been fired for openly celebrating Kirk’s death since Wednesday. Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) fired assistant dean Laura Sosh-Lightsy for writing on Facebook that she has “zero sympathy” for Kirk, while MSNBC gave political analyst Matthew Dowd the boot for alleging that Kirk brought his own assassination onto himself.

The Washington Post also fired columnist Karen Attiah for falsely stating that Kirk made an offensive remark about black women.

Keep reading

So Much for the Nobel Peace Prize

The first seven months of Donald Trump’s second term as president has seen a remarkable transformation. In his inaugural address, Trump said that “My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.” He promised to “measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.” “That’s what I want to be,” Trump said, “a peacemaker.”

Seven months later, Trump changed the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War. It is not just a change of name. It is a change of “attitude,” that rebrands the image the Trump administration wants to project to the world. Trump’s executive order says the name change “conveys a stronger message of readiness and resolve compared to ‘Department of Defense,’ which emphasizes only defensive capabilities.”

From 1789 until 1949, the department was named the Department of War. As the Department of War, the U.S. won every war, Trump said. “And then we decided to go woke, and we changed the name to Department of Defense,” Trump said.” Pete Hegseth, whose sign on his door was quickly changed to “Secretary of War,” says that the U.S. is “going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct. We’re going to raise up warriors, not just defenders.” That is not the language of a President or an administration that wants to be remembered as “a peacemaker” that is judged by “the wars that we end” and “the wars we never get into.”

Donald Trump has made no secret of his ambition to win a Nobel Peace Prize. He has brought it up and campaigned for it in interview after interview and speech after speech. In June, Trump took to Truth Social to boast of his role in brokering peace between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. “I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia… and I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing the Abraham Accords in the Middle East… No, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran… but the people know, and that’s all that matters to me.”

But the change of names to the Department of War betrays that campaign. And it is more than just a change of name. The rebrand reflects the ever bloating role of the military in the Trump administration to push out diplomacy and law enforcement. Trump pushed aside diplomacy that was working with Iran with an unprecedented bombing of Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities. And he has pushed aside law enforcement with military action against drug cartels in Latin America.

On September 2, the U.S. claims to have identified a speed boat that was running drugs for a Venezuelan drug cartel. They did not turn to law enforcement, as has, until now, been standard operating procedure by having the National Guard interdict the boat and arrest the suspected drug smugglers. Instead, either an attack helicopter or an MQ-9 Reaper drone fired on it, killing all 11 of its crew. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking for an administration that wants to be a “peacemaker” that is judged by “the wars we never get into,” explained that “What will stop them is when we blow up and get rid of them.”

In order to prevent the flow of drugs into the United States, Trump and his Department of War have sent three Aegis guided-missile destroyers, several P-8 spy planes and at least one nuclear-powered fast attack submarine. Apparently insufficient to deal with the problem, the U.S. has now sent ten F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico to help carry out the operation against the drug cartels.

Keep reading

Speaker Johnson Blocks Massie’s Attempt To Repeal The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act

Since ascending to the seat of Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson has had a tumultuous tenure that has raised serious questions about how committed Republican leadership is to disrupting the political establishment in Washington, DC, which it promised to vanquish. Ironically, the controversies that have marred his leadership the most have not been initiated by partisan opposition from the left. Instead, the most formidable challenges to Johnson have come from within the Republican Party itself. Representative Thomas Massie, who in stark juxtaposition has earned a reputation as one of the few members of Congress with any integrity, has proven to be Johnson’s greatest adversary in that struggle.From his crusade to prevent Johnson’s re-election to the seat at the head of the House of Representatives to his mission to bring transparency to the debacle over the release of the Epstein Files™, Massie’s efforts have painted the Speaker in the light of someone who has used the promise of putting America first as a vehicle for political expediency rather than as a testament to his commitment to the American people.

By actually fighting against the corrupt Washington establishment, Massie’s efforts have shown just how much Congress is still at odds with the American people under Johnson’s leadership. The congressman’s recent effort to repeal legislation that legalizes the use of state-sanctioned propaganda against the American citizens by their own government is the latest episode in the saga between Massie and Johnson. Massie’s revelation that his attempt to repeal the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act was blocked by Speaker Johnson amplifies concerns about whose interests are being fought for by Congress and how committed Republican leadership is to delivering on its promises to provide the public with greater transparency and integrity of the rule of law.

Keep reading

Endless Wars and Misguided Intelligence: Rethinking US Foreign Policy

For decades, the United States has been drawn into military interventions far from its borders, consuming trillions of dollars in taxpayer money and putting thousands of American service members in harm’s way. These conflicts – from Afghanistan to Iraq, and now the specter of confrontation with Iran – illustrate a recurring failure of U.S. foreign policy: the tendency to act on incomplete, misleading, or politically convenient intelligence.

One of the clearest patterns is how external actors can manipulate American decision-making. In the lead-up to the Iraq War, figures like Ahmed Chalabi provided information that exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Those claims, as we now know, proved to be baseless – there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Yet the narrative took root, steering Washington into a war that cost thousands of American lives, destabilized an entire region, and drained U.S. resources that could have been devoted to pressing domestic needs.

Similarly, in the case of Iran, opposition groups such as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) offered claims regarding Iran’s nuclear program that were later amplified in U.S. political and media circles. While these groups presented themselves as allies against hostile regimes, their primary objective was to advance their own agendas, not American national interests. Policymakers who rely on such sources risk committing the country to conflicts that serve others while imposing heavy costs on U.S. citizens.

The consequences of these interventions are measurable and enduring. Beyond the immediate loss of life, wars divert critical resources from domestic priorities, undermine public trust in government, and entrench cycles of instability abroad. Relying on partisan or ideologically motivated intelligence prevents an accurate assessment of threats and alternatives, leading to decisions that are reactive, costly, and often counterproductive.

It is imperative that the United States reassess the criteria for military engagement. Intelligence must be rigorously verified, independent of actors with self-serving motives, and embedded within a broader strategic framework that prioritizes diplomacy, regional stability, and the protection of American citizens and service members. Blindly following narratives designed to provoke intervention undermines both national security and moral responsibility.

Ultimately, true national strength is demonstrated not by the number of conflicts waged overseas, but by the ability to pursue peace, restraint, and reasoned foreign policy. U.S. leadership should emphasize negotiation, conflict prevention, and multilateral engagement, ensuring that resources are invested in building stability rather than perpetuating endless wars.

Keep reading

Washington Projects Its Drug Problem Onto Latin America

A big Cadillac limo with Jersey plates was parked down the block. Few locals in East Harlem even owned cars, let alone new ones. Curious, I asked the street kids what’s up. They casually explained that the mafioso come weekly to collect their drug money. Later I found a playground, which served as a veritable narcotics flea market each night. If a blanquito from the suburbs and some third graders could uncover the illicit trade, I wondered why the officials – who plastered the city with “keep New York drug free” signs – couldn’t do the same.

That was in the late 1960s, and I am still wondering why the US – the world’s largest consumer of narcotics, the biggest money launderer of illicit drug money, and the leading weaponry supplier to the cartels – hasn’t resolved these problems.

One thing is clear: the drug issue is projected onto Latin America. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly warned of “evil narco terrorists [trying] to poison our homeland.” Drug interdiction has been weaponized as an excuse to impose imperial domination, most notably against Venezuela.

Since Hugo Chávez was elected Venezuela’s president in 1998 and initiated the Bolivarian Revolution – a movement that catalyzed the Pink Tide in Latin America and galvanized a counter-hegemonic wave internationally – Washington has tried to crush it. In 2015, then-US President Barack Obama accused Venezuela of being an “extraordinary threat” to US national security when, in fact, the opposite was the case; the US threatened Venezuela.

Obama imposed unilateral coercive measures – euphemistically called “sanctions.” Each subsequent administration renewed and, to varying degrees, intensified the sanctions, which are illegal under international law, in a bipartisan effort. But the imperial objective of regime change was thwarted by the political leadership of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in concert with the country’s people and in firm alliance with their military.

Now that draconian sanctions have “failed” to achieve regime-change, President Trump dispatched an armada of warships, F-35 stealth aircraft, and thousands of troops to increase the pressure.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro responded: “What Washington wants is to control Venezuela’s wealth [including the world’s largest oil reserves]. That is the reason why the US deployed warships, aircraft, missiles and a nuclear submarine near Venezuelan coasts under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking.”

Maduro maintains his country is free of drug production and processing, citing reports from the United Nations, the European Union, and even the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The Venezuelan president could have also referenced the findings of Trump’s own security agencies absolving him from the charge of directing the Tren de Aragua drug cartel.

And, speaking of collusion with drug cartels, Maduro could have commented on the DEA itself, which was expelled from Venezuela in 2005 for espionage. Regardless, the DEA has continued to secretly build drug trafficking cases against Venezuela’s leaders in knowing violation of international law, according to an Associated Press report.

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez highlights that the DEA “has known connections with the drug trafficking world.” For example, an investigation by the US Department of Justice, revealed that at least ten DEA agents in Colombia participated in repeated “sex parties” with prostitutes paid for by local drug cartels. In 2022 the DEA quietly removed its Mexico chief for maintaining improper contacts with cartels. This underscores a troubling pattern: DEA presence tends to coincide with major drug activity, but does not eliminate it.

The US “is not interested in addressing the serious public health problem its citizens face due to high drug use,” Maduro reminds us. He points out that drug trafficking profits remain in the US banking system. In fact, illicit narcotics are a major US industry. Research by the US Army-funded RAND Corporation reveals that narcotics rank alongside pharmaceuticals and oil/gas as top US commodities.

Keep reading

Influence Operation? The EU Paid-Off €600,000 To Friendly Media Outlets Right After European Elections

While the European Union likes to throw out terms like “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “influence campaigns,” the reality is that the EU is pumping millions into influencing public opinion itself. The difference is just that when Brussels does it, it is not supposed to be propaganda.

One European politician, MEP Petr Bystron, has revealed that the EU commission has provided Financial support to the American investigative network Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) right after the 2024 EU elections. Major German news outlets like Spiegel, Zeit, and Süddeutsche Zeitung belong to the group, which is the world’s largest network of investigative media.

These outlets are known for their hit pieces on conservative and right-wing parties, often at opportune times. Notably, Spiegel and Süddeutsche Zeitung’s reporting in 2019 on the Ibiza Affair scandal — which involved an undercover video of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) party’s leader — led to the toppling of the Austrian government at the time, which included the FPÖ. Many critics believed that due to the sophistication of the operation, which included an undercover actress, intelligence services may have played a role.

The OCCRP group was founded in 2006 and is most well known for publishing the “Panama Papers” and the “Azerbaijan Laundromat” evasion scandals.

After a massive flow of U.S. money was cut off to key European establishment outlets and NGOs, Brussels is stepping in to fill the gap. Namely, the Trump administration ended the massive levels of funding headed towards foreign organizations, particularly from USAID, which allowed them to pump out pro-EU and left-wing content to wide swathes of the population across Europe.

The OCCRP group has received an extraordinary amount of money from U.S. taxpayers and other U.S. sources. According to French outlet Mediapart, the group received nearly $50 million from U.S. sources, but these funders were not just generous donors. They also could dictate editorial agendas and veto staff appointments.

Two journalist s from NDR, a German state media network, questioned just how independent the OCCRP is in a 2024 report.

The two determined that a significant portion of the money was coming from American funds, particularly from USAID. OCCRP was funneling content and material to German media outlets like Spiegel, Zeit, and Süddeutsche Zeitung.

Keep reading

	Bigus Macus on Education Department Calls For…
	freemattpodcast on Trump Admin Weighs Emergency P…
	freemattpodcast on Muslim-Majority Turkey Detains…
	Bigus Macus on DOJ Seizes Over $560,000 in Cr…
	Study: Homeschool Ki… on Study: Homeschool Kids Outperf…