Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

Why the Pesticide Liability Protection Act Threatens Our Food Supply and the Health of a Nation

As stewards of the land and providers of our nation’s food supply, farmers and ranchers carry a profound moral obligation—to produce the safest, healthiest, and most nutritious food on the planet. It is not just our livelihood; it is our responsibility to future generations.

That is why I am writing today with deep concern regarding the Pesticide Liability Protection Act currently under consideration in Congress. If enacted, this legislation could cause irreparable harm—not just to the health of farmers and ranchers who work directly with these chemicals, but to the broader public who unknowingly consume their residues.

The Dangerous Path of Corporate Immunity

This bill threatens to open the floodgates for a new wave of pesticides and herbicides engineered by agrochemical giants—products that may be even more toxic than those currently on the market. By shielding these corporations from legal accountability, it removes their last remaining incentive to ensure their chemicals are safe.

We have seen this story before. In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, granting pharmaceutical companies immunity from liability for vaccine-related injuries. The consequences were swift and staggering: a surge in new products, rushed to market without proper safeguards, and a dramatic rise in chronic health conditions in children and adults alike. It was a public health turning point, and not for the better.

The parallels to our current situation are striking. Consider the case of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) has faced more than 177,000 lawsuits involving the weedkiller and set aside $16 billion to settle cases. Over $11 billion has been paid out in Roundup lawsuit settlements, with individual jury awards reaching as high as $2.1 billion in recent cases.

These staggering financial settlements reflect the real human cost of inadequate chemical safety oversight. Even more alarming is the widespread exposure we’re seeing in our most vulnerable population: children. About 87 percent of 650 children tested had detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine, according to CDC analysis. Research shows that children exhibit higher levels of glyphosate in biofluids than adults, and recent studies indicate that higher levels of glyphosate residue in urine in childhood and adolescence were associated with higher risk of liver inflammation and metabolic disorders in young adulthood.

To repeat that same mistake with our nation’s food supply would be unconscionable.

Why the Pesticide Liability Protection Act Is Unconstitutional

The Pesticide Liability Protection Act fundamentally violates several core Constitutional principles that form the bedrock of American jurisprudence:

Due Process Violations (5th and 14th Amendments): The Act deprives citizens of their fundamental right to seek redress in courts for injuries caused by defective or dangerous products. This violates substantive due process by eliminating a basic property right—the right to compensation for harm—without adequate justification or alternative remedies.

Equal Protection Concerns: The legislation creates an arbitrary distinction between victims of chemical company negligence and all other tort victims. There is no rational basis for why those harmed by pesticides should have fewer legal rights than those harmed by other dangerous products.

Separation of Powers: By preemptively shielding an entire industry from judicial review, Congress unconstitutionally interferes with the judiciary’s role in adjudicating disputes and determining liability. This represents legislative overreach into the judicial branch’s constitutional domain.

Takings Clause Violations: The Act effectively takes private property—the right to legal recourse—without just compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that access to courts is a fundamental right, and any legislation that bars entire categories of claims must meet strict constitutional scrutiny. The Pesticide Liability Protection Act fails this test.

Keep reading

How Obama Dismantled America’s Drug, Crime, and Gang Intelligence Infrastructure

The Obama administration dismantled several key intelligence programs that once played a vital role in the fight against drug trafficking, gang violence, and organized crime. These programs integrated law enforcement data with public health metrics to create early warning systems for emerging threats.

Yet they were terminated, driven largely by political considerations and concerns that the data disproportionately reflected criminal activity in specific demographic groups.

Under Democrat administrations, uncomfortable truths, such as the disproportionate amount of crime, drug trafficking, gang activity, and smuggling committed by illegal aliens, Latinos, and other minority groups, are suppressed and dismissed as disinformation.

The National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), established by Congress in 1993 and placed under the Attorney General’s authority, served as the nation’s primary hub for strategic domestic counterdrug intelligence until President Obama shut it down in 2012. Based in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, the NDIC employed over 300 federal and contract personnel at its peak.

What made the center unique was its integration of law enforcement intelligence with data from drug treatment facilities, enabling a more comprehensive view of the national drug landscape.

NDIC fulfilled several critical functions. Its predictive analysis capabilities allowed it to forecast emerging drug trends, giving federal agencies time to prepare and respond proactively rather than reactively. Its Document and Media Exploitation (DOMEX) teams analyzed seized assets, financial records, communications, and other materials to produce detailed profiles of drug trafficking networks, helping law enforcement “make sense of everything they seized.”

NDIC also produced in-depth regional threat assessments, such as the 2008 Indian Country Drug Threat Assessment, which examined trafficking across Native American reservations. Additionally, the center played a vital role in inter-agency coordination, synthesizing intelligence from the DEA, FBI, ATF, U.S. Marshals, and state and local law enforcement into unified reports.

Despite its effectiveness, NDIC faced political pressure throughout its existence and was ultimately shut down in 2012 under President Obama.

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program operated from 1997 to 2003, collecting vital data on drug use among individuals arrested for various offenses. Revived briefly as ADAM II from 2007 to 2014, the program combined interviews and urinalysis to track drug use patterns within the criminal population, offering a rare and valuable window into the link between substance abuse and criminal behavior.

Unlike general population surveys, ADAM focused exclusively on arrestees, delivering real-time intelligence on drug use among those actively engaged in criminal activity. It highlighted regional variations by operating across dozens of metropolitan areas, allowing law enforcement to identify geographic patterns and emerging threats. Interviews provided long-term behavioral context, while urinalysis delivered objective, verifiable data on recent drug use, eliminating the inaccuracies of self-reporting.

Keep reading

Cincinnati Mob Violence Victim Holly Slams Democrat Leaders For Being Soft on Crime, Says Her Doctors Are “Shocked” She Didn’t Die

Cincinnati mob violence victim who goes by ‘Holly,’ blasted Democrat leaders for being soft on crime during a press conference with GOP Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno on Wednesday.

Earlier this week Holly said she is suffering “very bad” brain trauma after the horrific attack by a mostly black mob at a jazz festival last weekend.

A white man was brutally beaten and stomped on by a violent gang of black suspects. When Holly ran to the victim’s aid, she was also beaten and knocked out.

Six people have been charged so far in the violent attack.

The FBI and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights division are investigating the incident.

“Our streets are being taken over and nobody is doing anything! I am so sad, and I need to be a voice for all of the victims that never got their justice,” Holly said.

Holly said the thug who attacked her should have never been on the streets.

“He had just gotten out of jail previously for something he should have been in there for years,” she said. “It’s really sad to me because I can’t even fathom how many other people who have been attacked by the same type of man over and over and over.”

“The biggest thing that I think really upsets me is the desensitization of humans where there’s a brutal attack, and they all think, ‘oh, cool. Let me get my phone and record it,’” Holly said.

“I truly hope that in the future, there’s some sort of bill to where somebody has to be prosecuted or at least fined if they don’t call 911 to save someone’s life,” she added.

Keep reading

“Chat Control” – EU Proposal To Scan All Private Messages Gains Momentum

A controversial European Union proposal dubbed “Chat Control” is regaining momentum, with 19 out of 27 EU member states reportedly backing the measure.

The plan would mandate that messaging platforms, including WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram, must scan every message, photo and video sent by users starting in October, even if end-to-end encryption is in place, popular French tech blogger Korben wrote on Monday.

Denmark reintroduced the proposal on July 1, the first day of its EU Council presidency. France, once opposed, is now in favor, Korben said, citing Patrick Breyer, a former member of the European Parliament for Germany and the European Pirate Party.

Belgium, Hungary, Sweden, Italy and Spain are also in favor, while Germany remains undecided. However, if Berlin joins the majority, a qualified council vote could push the plan through by mid-October, Korben said.

A qualified majority in the EU Council is achieved when two conditions are met. First, at least 55 percent of member states, meaning 15 out of 27, must vote in favor. Second, those countries must represent at least 65% of the EU’s total population.

Keep reading

GOP Congressman Pushes Bill That Could Block Texas Republicans from Redrawing Districts to Secure House Majority

Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley (R-CA) introduced legislation Monday that could kneecap the GOP’s efforts to reclaim and secure dominance in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“I’ve officially introduced legislation to stop Newsom’s plan to abolish the Citizens Redistricting Commission, seize its powers for himself, and remove all checks and balances in California. I’m calling on House Leadership to bring it up for a vote and end this insanity,” Kiley wrote on X.

I’ve officially introduced legislation to stop Newsom’s plan to abolish the Citizens Redistricting Commission, seize its powers for himself, and remove all checks and balances in California.

I’m calling on House Leadership to bring it up for a vote and end this insanity. pic.twitter.com/ggXDMTuYNI

— Rep. Kevin Kiley (@RepKiley) August 5, 2025

According to the press release:

“Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA) will be introducing legislation to prohibit Mid-Decade Redistricting nationwide. The bill, which Kiley plans to introduce tomorrow, will nullify new maps adopted by states before the 2030 census, including any that are adopted this year.

For decades, the California Supreme Court has held that the State Constitution forbids mid-decade redistricting, and since 2010 redistricting in the state has been done by a voter-approved Independent Citizens Commission. But now, Governor Gavin Newsom is seeking to overturn that long-standing precedent, sideline the Citizens Commission, undo the will of voters, and return line-drawing power to himself and other partisan politicians. The Governor’s brazen scheme has been denounced by groups ranging from Common Cause to the California League of Women Voters.

“Gavin Newsom is trying to subvert the will of voters and do lasting damage to democracy in California,” Rep. Kiley said. “Fortunately, Congress has the ability to protect California voters using its authority under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This will also stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.””

But the problem with Kiley’s bill is that it would not only affect California, but would also ban all 50 states from redrawing their congressional maps before the 2030 census.

Keep reading

Whites underrepresented in prestigious high schools after courts uphold ‘proxy’ preferences: suit

What good is the Supreme Court’s two-year-old ban on racial preferences in educational admissions if the high court lets other high-demand schools flagrantly flout it?

That’s what justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas asked their colleagues last year when SCOTUS declined to review a ruling that upheld an admissions scheme explicitly designed to change racial demographics in Boston’s most prestigious public high schools, several months after the duo scolded the court for declining a similar Virginia case across the river from D.C.

The plaintiffs in the Boston challenge have come back with a new 14th Amendment lawsuit claiming the mid-litigation pivot to a different admissions scheme for the so-called exam schools, based on socioeconomic “tiers” instead of the original zip codes, has created the “disparate impact” result required by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: underrepresentation.

“Now, by clustering most white students together in one ‘tier’ where they compete only against each other for Exam School seats, the current Tier System ‘succeeded’ in reducing the proportion of white students admitted to the Exam Schools below the group’s share of the applicant pool three years in a row,” the suit says.

Filed by the Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence on behalf of dozens of parents of white and Asian-American students denied and seeking admission to Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy and John D. O’Bryant School of Science and Mathematics, the lawsuit includes data on the composition of the applicant pool from a public records request.

“Because these students were denied admission to their Exam School of choice due to their race, court-ordered admission to those schools is the only remedy for this race-based harm,” and a permanent injunction on the tier system is the only remedy for future applicants, the suit says.

“Boston Public Schools cannot launder racial quotas through socioeconomic labels” in the tier system, said the coalition’s lawyer, Chris Kieser of the Pacific Legal Foundation. “The Equal Protection Clause forbids government discrimination, whether done openly or by proxy.”

The defendants, Boston School Committee and Superintendent Mary Skipper, on Tuesday got an extension of time to file an answer until Sept. 11. The district’s lawyers didn’t answer queries by Just the News, and a district spokesperson referred the query to another office, which did not respond.

Northern Virginia’s prestigious Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, the subject of Justice Alito’s first fiery rebuke of his colleagues for tacitly allowing “intentional racial discrimination … so long as it is not too severe,” continues facing political and regulatory scrutiny for alleged discrimination against Asian Americans.

The U.S. Department of Education opened a civil rights probe of Fairfax County Public Schools this spring, from a referral by state Attorney General Jason Miyares, into its admissions policy adopted in 2020 that eliminated standardized testing and implemented a “holistic” evaluation process for TJ, as it’s known, that includes personal experiences.

Keep reading

Democrats’ Sudden Obsession With Jeffrey Epstein Is An Opportunistic Ploy To Bash Trump

Matt Taibbi recently flagged this choice tidbit from a New York Times story attempting to downplay damning new revelations about the Russiagate hoax from Trump’s first term: “The administration is trying to distract supporters who are angry about its broken promise to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.”

There’s no evidence whatsoever this is the reason why the Trump administration is trying to hold people accountable for falsely accusing the president of colluding with Russia. Trump is rightly angered that his first term was derailed by manufactured accusations of treasonous collusion. His current FBI director, Kash Patel, was involved in unraveling the bogus Russia claims as they were being made and has been warning of a conspiracy against Trump emanating from the FBI and CIA for years — and nearly all of Patel’s warnings have been subsequently validated.

Even without digging through the particulars of the latest Russiagate revelations, since when has it been a respectable journalistic practice to make unsupported assertions that are little more than Democrat Party talking points? Well, major media organizations have been behaving this way ever since I can remember, but the point about it being bad journalism still stands.

Fair or not, it’s hard not to concede that the Trump White House brought this attack on itself. A month ago, Trump’s DOJ issued a memo bluntly refuting the existence of an Epstein “client list,” downplaying conspiracies surrounding Epstein’s death in jail and the blackmailing of wealthy powerbrokers, and announcing that, due to privacy concerns and the court-ordered sealing of documents, the release of more Epstein files wasn’t forthcoming. These might be reasonable conclusions based on the evidence, but the Trump admin had swept into office all but guaranteeing dramatic Epstein revelations. This was overpromising and underachieving on a fairly grand scale, and lots of Trump supporters weren’t happy about it.

It’s worth noting that the recent round of Russiagate revelations began on July 2 when CIA Director John Ratcliffe issued a report on the faulty Intelligence Community Assessment process in 2016. That was five days before the DOJ memo on Epstein that spurred the recent controversy; if anything, the facts support the notion Democrats are seizing on the Epstein memo to distract from very serious new allegations that implicate President Obama in weaponizing the CIA to go after a political rival. On that point, Lee Smith has a lot of eye-opening things to say about how the sudden Democrat interest Epstein is an attempt to obscure the new Russia revelations.

However, it’s not all strategic. At a base level, Democrats are simply trying to exploit a rift in Trump’s base to drag his approval down by tarring him with Epstein. This why you now have even the most milquetoast figures in the Democrat Party — Quick, what’s the name of the senator from Arizona again? Wasn’t he an astronaut or something? — gleefully intimating Trump is covering up and/or implicated in a dark pedophile conspiracy.

If they were so alarmed by this pedophile conspiracy and convinced it implicated Trump, you’d think they would have done something about this last year when Democrats controlled the DOJ and Trump was running for president. You’d think releasing concrete evidence of his unsavory involvement with Epstein would have put a damper on his reelection chances. After all, it has been reported that Trump’s name pops up numerous times in the Epstein files.

The problem is that, as we’ve noted, Trump has already been victim of a major conspiracy emanating from the Justice Department. Even Trump’s tax returns were leaked. New York state combed through his real estate docs to invent a charge against him and fine him $400 million for the crime of receiving a loan and paying it back with interest. It’s entirely possible Trump’s name appearing in the Epstein files is a reason why they haven’t been released; but it strains credibility to think that Democrats controlled the DOJ the last four years and didn’t bother splashing damaging information about Trump from those same files all over The New York Times.

What we do know is this: Trump and Epstein were friends throughout the 90s, but that the pair had a major falling out around 2004 when Trump supposedly banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. The source of the feud is not clear, but one of Epstein’s most outspoken victims, Virginia Giuffre, had been working at Mar-a-Lago’s spa, and Epstein reportedly “stole” her from Trump’s employment. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said, “The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees.” The investigation into Epstein was opened a year later in 2005.

These facts, combined with the total lack of leaks of damaging info from a hostile DOJ, are pretty thin gruel. And yet, the media and Democrats, but I repeat myself ad nauseum, are really flooding the zone here.

Keep reading

First Omar, Then James, Now AOC Accused of Lying About Who They’re Married To – The Truth Means Nothing to Them

It turns out some of the country’s best-known and most infamous Democratic women seem to have a strangely flexible concept of marriage.

While progressives tend to despise the institution, they appear to have an appreciation for it under certain circumstances (particularly circumstances involving two men and a baby).

But when it really suits their personal desires and, even better, their personal finances, boy how liberals love it.

First, there was Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Somalia-born immigrant, who has been credibly accused of presenting her own brother as her husband in a scam to help him move to the front of the line in obtaining immigration papers.

Next, New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James found herself under investigation for real estate activities that reportedly included listing herself as her father’s “wife” for mortgage purposes.

Then, as July drew to a close, the bipartisan House Ethics Committee issued a report on New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attendance at the 2021 Met Gala — a soiree of the rich and fatuous where Ocasio-Cortez appeared wearing an obnoxious “Tax the Rich” designer gown on the arm of a man who isn’t her “spouse” — by any definition of the word.

That last part matters a great deal because, according to the committee report, the New York City democratic socialist accepted a free ticket for then-boyfriend, now-fiance Riley Roberts (a beau whose status with AOC appears to depend on which form she’s filling out).

And there’s more to this than just a standard liberal grift.

Congressional ethics rules in force at the time, according to the report, allowed House members to accept free attendance at such events only “for themselves and either a spouse or dependent child.”

The report then helpfully noted that the House Ethics Manual defines “spouse” as “someone to whom you are legally married.”

To be fair, that’s a footnote from page 39 of the manual, but most Americans were probably already hip to that definition without needing to be told. Ethics manuals, however, have to spell things out.

Unfortunately, that’s only effective if the lawmakers covered by the manual actually choose to accept the manual’s definitions, which AOC did not.

According to the report, Ocasio-Cortez’s legal counsel claimed “the Congresswoman chose to follow campaign finance laws,” adding that such a determination “was and is a reasonable and logical conclusion to make, and the Committee should not so brazenly apply guidance limited to other sets of rules in other contexts.”

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom’s Gerrymandering Post Backfires in Spectacular Fashion

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has moved forward with legal efforts to hold Democratic lawmakers accountable after they fled the state in protest of Republican-led redistricting efforts.

The Texas Supreme Court has now ordered Democratic State Representative Gene Wu, a central figure in the walkout, to formally respond to the governor’s legal action.

The controversy stems from a renewed push by the Texas legislature to pass new redistricting maps.

In response, several Democratic legislators left the state to prevent the Republican-controlled House from reaching the quorum necessary to conduct legislative business.

The move effectively stalled legislative action in Austin and has now resulted in potential legal consequences.

Governor Abbott’s legal filing seeks to challenge the Democrats’ decision to abandon their legislative duties.

The Texas Supreme Court’s directive to Rep. Wu marks the latest development in an ongoing standoff over the redistricting process. The Court has not yet announced a timeline for a final ruling on the matter.

While the legislative impasse continues, other state issues remain unresolved, including responses to recent flooding and other critical matters requiring legislative attention.

The walkout has drawn criticism from those who argue the legislators’ absence is hindering necessary governance.

The debate over redistricting has also spilled into the national political scene.

California Governor Gavin Newsom weighed in on the matter with a post on X, where he listed red states with zero or just one Democratic House representative.

Keep reading

California Hospital Concealed Evidence Linking ‘Catastrophic Surge’ in Stillbirths to COVID Vaccine, Lawsuit Alleges

A California hospital concealed data linking a “catastrophic surge” in stillbirths among women who received COVID-19 vaccines, according to a lawsuit filed last week in the Superior Court of California, Fresno County.

Michelle Spencer, a nurse at Community Medical Centers’ (CMC) Community Regional Medical Center, said the hospital “deliberately and selectively” concealed from staff, patients and regulators a spike in unborn baby deaths that began in spring 2021, and retaliated against her when she publicized the information.

The lawsuit also says the hospital concealed medical data related to the fetal deaths that showed a link to COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant mothers.

The data include hospital-wide medical records documenting the number of stillbirths and the vaccination histories of those babies’ mothers. One managing nurse at the hospital told a staff member that nearly all of the stillbirths occurred among vaccinated mothers.

According to the complaint, Spencer “witnessed firsthand the exponential increase in unborn baby deaths directly correlating with pregnant women who received a Covid vaccine and then would deliver a dead baby a close number of days or weeks following their injection.”

Keep reading