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.

Resurfaced Video Shows Democrat PA Congressional Candidate Dreams of Disarming Citizens and Police

Democrat Scranton, PA, Mayor Paige Cognetti is hoping to flip a red congressional seat blue by unseating Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-PA). But a resurfaced video from 2020 exposes a gun-grabbing posture that some voters may not be aware of.

In the video, taken from a virtual town hall, Cognetti supports disarming police and emulating Japan’s gun-control laws to take away guns from citizens.

Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world.

The Firearms and Swords Control Law 1958 states that no one shall possess a firearm except under narrow, strictly regulated exceptions. Handguns are banned with almost no exceptions for ordinary citizens.

Cognetti told the town hall audience, “I would love to get to a world where a country where we don’t have or police don’t have firearms and where we don’t have firearms that citizens aren’t carrying them either.”

“I’ve lived in Japan for a couple years. There are no guns there and it’s lovely.”

She continued, “We don’t have to worry about some of these things because there are no guns there. That would be something that would be a great reality for us to live in.”

Cognetti repeated her fantasy during an interview with the Black Scranton Project, saying, “I do want to get to a point where we don’t have to worry about any officers having holsters or guns in them.”

“That is ideally where we get in our whole country.”

National Republican Congressional Committee spokeswoman Reilly Richardson told the Daily Caller News Foundation, “Political opportunist Paige Cognetti wants to rip firearms away from law-abiding citizens while simultaneously making life easier for criminals.”

“Pennsylvanians know Cognetti will go to great lengths to strip them of their constitutional rights.”

Keep reading

Norwegian study shows that 74% of new myocarditis cases were related to COVID-19 vaccination – only 4.2% were related to COVID-19 infection

Myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is a “serious condition” and a frequent cause of sudden death in young, apparently healthy people, with a 50–60% mortality rate “after five years.” The statement by Prof. Jan Erik Nordrehaug is somewhat outdated, but later research by Mi-Jeong Kim and colleagues shows the same trend with a mortality rate of approximately 40% after 10 years (see the article’s Figure 3 below).

As early as April 2021, the European Medicines Agency suspected that the COVID-19 vaccine could cause myocarditis, but Pfizer/BioNTech still decided to approve it for children as young as 12 years old. This is despite the fact that the vaccine had not even been tested for transmission and that practically no children die from COVID-19 infection. Later research has strengthened the Agency’s suspicions of an increased incidence of myocarditis among COVID-19 vaccine recipients, especially young men.

Dramatic numbers from Norway

A recently published Norwegian study by Bendik Skinningsrud Hagen and colleagues also shows that COVID-19 vaccination is particularly associated with myocarditis in young men (see figure 2 below in the article, which shows the incidence in men and women). What is most surprising, however, is that the vaccine causes 74% of cases (the article’s figure 1 shows 177 cases compared to 108 others, of which 42 are excluded because myocarditis occurred before vaccination and 4 are due to misdiagnosis). The authors claim that most were “mild” – let’s hope so – but Nordrehaug’s statement that the mortality rate is 50-60% “after five years”, and the figure from Mi-Jeong Kim and colleagues showing low mortality in the first years that then increases, tells us that we do not yet have the full picture.

Keep reading

Under Pressure by Congress, Bill Gates Names the 3 Women He Had Affairs With, and Jeffrey Epstein Tried To Blackmail Him Over – Plus: the Nobel Prize and the Norwegian Connection

It’s not just about the sex.

Two weeks ago, the US House Oversight Committee grilled tech billionaire Bill Gates over his association with late convicted sex offender and suspected human trafficker Jeffrey Epstein – and came out with new information over Gates’ affairs and Epstein’s efforts to blackmail him.

Yesterday, the transcripts of his testimony were released, showing the former richest man in the world named three women he had extramarital affairs with, two of them Russian.

The Telegraph reported:

“The billionaire Microsoft co-founder told the House oversight committee that he had affairs with two Russian women, naming them as Mila Antonova, a bridge player, and Karima Nigmatulina, a nuclear physicist.

Mr. Gates later admitted to a third extramarital affair with another female scientist [Dr Alice Jacobs Nesselrodt] following scrutiny from US congressmen during the hours-long testimony on June 10, a transcript published on Tuesday revealed.”

He continues to deny ever seeing Epstein’s abuse, repeating his line that it was “a mistake to spend time with him”.

He as much as admitted to having confided in a mutual friend of his and Epstein’s that ‘he feared he may have caught a sexually transmitted disease from one of the women’.

“In his closed-door testimony delivered to the US Congress, he suggested that Epstein “contemplated blackmailing me” after learning of his unfaithfulness with the two Russian women.

[…] Mr. Gates, who testified to Congress voluntarily, insisted that while Epstein did not successfully blackmail him about the affairs, ‘it looks like Mr. Epstein’s brainstorming was going in that direction’.”

Keep reading

The Real Enemy Is War

Many wise people have noted this. Early in the 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that war is “the surest and shortest means” to “destroy the liberties of a democratic nation.” Even earlier, James Madison wrote in 1787 that

Constant apprehension of War has the… tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against Foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.

How true is it today that the U.S. government’s “head” has grown too large for the American body politic, and that the Executive branch, as represented by men like Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, is both overgrown and an unsafe companion to liberty.

Arguably the most pressing matter our nation finds before it today is its permanent state of war. It has driven the creation of the so-called national security state, America’s unofficial fourth branch of government and arguably its most powerful. It certainly gobbles up the lion’s share of federal discretionary spending. This colossus is mainly represented by the Pentagon, Homeland Security, and eighteen(!) intelligence agencies. Like Topsy, it keeps growing as presidents as diverse as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump keep feeding it more and more money.

The result has been a series of disastrous wars of choice, completely unnecessary, whether in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran. Among other deleterious effects, these wars have grievously wounded democracy in America; indeed, the constant hammer blows of these wars have perhaps already proven fatal to democracy.

The only solution here is to stop. Stop waging wars across the planet. Downsize the imperial apparatus. Make major cuts to the budgets of the Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the Intelligence “community.”

The price of liberty is a willingness to turn away from war, to dismantle a wildly overgrown and increasingly oppressive “security” state, while still recognizing the world can be a dangerous place, and that therefore a defensive military posture and presence is still needed.

For my entire life, my country has been at war. Those wars have profited the few at the expense of the many. Even worse, those wars have enlarged the state and enabled self-styled warriors and warfighters to enforce their vision of security through massive spending on weapons and mass killing.

Keep reading

UNREAL! Biden and Clinton Appointed Judges Block DOJ’s Ability To See Michigan’s Dirty Voter Rolls – Decision Makes It Easier For SOS Benson To Steal Her Own Governor’s Race

In a 2-1 decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, President Trump’s Department of Justice was told it lacked the legal authority to demand Michigan’s entire voter file from America’s dirtiest Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson.

The request for the full voter rolls was a central part of the ongoing UOCAVA lawsuit filed by Harmeet Dhillon on behalf of the Republican National Committee and the Michigan GOP. The goal was to examine Michigan’s voter registration system for potential irregularities, particularly the presence of non-citizens — including illegal aliens — on the voter rolls.

Michigan’s registration policies under Jocelyn Benson have made it ridiculously easy for ineligible voters to be added to the rolls, while at the same time, impossible to determine if non-citizens are on the voter rolls because of privacy laws that protect the status of non-citizens, something that election integrity advocates have been sounding the alarm about for years. Recently, in an exclusive report, the Gateway Pundit revealed 6 of the DHS’s “Worst of the Worst” non-citizens in Michigan are not only present on Jocelyn Benson’s voter rolls, but two of them have voted in more than one election.

The majority opinion was written by Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., appointed by President Bill Clinton, and Judge Mathis, appointed by President Biden. Judge John B. Nalbandian, while a strong dissent was written by the President Trump-appointed judge.

Keep reading

Aus police to review interactions with Epstein accuser before her death

Interactions between Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre and Australian police prior to her death will be reviewed, Western Australia’s police commissioner has confirmed.

Giuffre, 41, died by suicide at her semi-rural property north of Perth in April of last year.

The investigation will focus on officers’ handling of a dispute between Giuffre and a former partner, commissioner Col Blanch said.

Giuffre was at one point charged with breaching a restraining order in relation to the dispute.

She had long alleged she was trafficked for sex to former prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and others when she was a teenager.

Giuffre was one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers and was an advocate for survivors of sex trafficking.

The review would be carried out in response to a letter sent by Giuffre’s family, Blanch said.

“We respond to over 100,000 family violence incidents every year,” he told a Western Australia parliament hearing on Wednesday morning.

“I’d love to give assurance on every single one, but I can’t — but that one will be subject to a review.”

The state’s coroner and ombudsman could also launch investigations, he said.

Members of Giuffre’s family have called for a coronial inquest into her death, which has been backed up by a group of domestic violence experts.

An open letter signed by 16 experts in domestic violence, family violence and violence against women was sent to the WA coroner earlier this month.

“Virginia Giuffre spent much of her adult life in courageous pursuit of accountability for the abuse she suffered, taking significant personal risk to expose a network of exploitation and in doing so helping to protect other women,” the letter read.

“It would be a profound injustice if the question of whether systems failed her in her final months were not examined with equivalent rigour.”

It said she may have been a victim of domestic violence in the lead up to her death, and cited a 2022 WA Ombudsman investigation that found 56% of women and children who died by suicide in the state had previously been identified as victims of domestic and family violence.

“Her public profile means there is an unusually detailed record of her final months – and what that record shows is deeply consistent with what our research tells us about how these deaths occur, and how they are too often overlooked.

“Conducted with full attention to the domestic and family violence context of her death, such an inquest has the potential to generate findings and recommendations that reach far beyond this one case and that could prevent future deaths.”

Keep reading

Brad Lander Declares Goal to ‘Vanquish Trump’s Fascism’ and ‘Abolish ICE’ in Victory Speech After Ousting NY Rep. Dan Goldman

Former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander won the Democrat primary for New York’s 10th Congressional District on Tuesday, defeating two-term incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman in a landslide.

Lander, a far-left Democrat, secured the nomination in the heavily blue district covering parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Speaking to supporters and the media at a Brooklyn victory event, Lander outlined aggressive priorities centered on opposing President Donald Trump and dismantling immigration enforcement.

“Solidarity is the force that we need to vanquish Trump’s fascism, to abolish ICE, and to stand up to the billionaires who are rigging our economy against us!” Landers declared.

Lander also vowed to resume direct action against ICE immediately, telling the crowd he would return to 26 Federal Plaza the following morning to continue protesting immigration enforcement operations there.

The candidate has a history of aggressive activism at the site, including prior arrests during protests.

Keep reading

Police officer charged with possessing objectionable publications can be named

One of the police officers charged with possessing objectionable publications after investigations arising from a rapid review of police information security controls, has appeared in court and can be named.

Earlier this month, police announced three officers had been charged after the rapid review in the wake of the McSkimming scandal.

On Wednesday, officer Matthew Rogers appeared at the Manukau District Court facing nine charges relating to alleged offending spanning from 2023 through to 2025.

The 59-year-old’s lawyer, Todd Simmonds KC, confirmed name suppression was not sought, and asked Rogers to be remanded without plea to reappear in court at a later date.

The second officer, who faces 11 charges of possessing objectionable publications, some of which depicted child exploitation, bestiality and rape, appeared in court on Wednesday afternoon.

He was also represented by Todd Simmonds KC, who sought interim name suppression to continue.

Judge Frances Eivers granted the interim application, remanded the officer at large and without plea until a court date in August.

Another Wellington officer has had an initial appearance.

Acting Deputy Commissioner Tim Anderson previously said the decision to prosecute police employees was a “serious but important step to take”, and it reflected the seriousness of the allegations uncovered during the investigations.

Anderson said three investigations remained ongoing as part of the rapid review.

In total, police investigated 22 cases connected to the rapid review. Of those, 12 have been resolved through disciplinary action or performance management processes.

Four people have resigned during the review process.

Keep reading

The American Way of War, War, War

That title of mine is certainly repetitive of me (me, me), but how can you not be repetitive in the distinctly repeated world of Donald J. Trump (Trumped, Trumped)? I mean, twice already and who really knows what’s to come?

Here’s the question nobody seems to be asking right now, though: What country will Donald Trump attack next? Yes, at the moment, he’s still wildly wound up in his Iran war/truce/peace/or you name it (tomorrow). Yesterday, it was, of course, Venezuela, and next week it might be Cuba or Greenland, or who on (or off) this planet knows where? And I haven’t even mentioned his military’s ongoing bombing runs in Somalia, which are barely noticed in the mainstream media here. And who knows what I’ve forgotten or what to expect in this increasingly bizarre world of ours from the president who swore repeatedly in his third election campaign that he would never, never, never go to… yes, of course, war?

Hey, only the other day, Secretary of War (a title which, of course, couldn’t be blunter in the age of You Know Who) Pete Hegseth warned that “what happens with the future of Cuba is in the hands of the president of the United States and the leadership of Cuba. No matter what, the Department of War is going to be prepared and postured for any possible contingency.”

Ah, yes, any possible contingency except one, of course: victory (which, since the Second World War, just hasn’t been in the American vocabulary) or, for that matter, peace. I mean what could possibly go wrong in a world that now, remarkably enough, has its first trillionaire, Donald Trump’s (sometimes) buddy Elon Musk? (On that, Senator Elizabeth Warren commented all too aptly: “I want to be clear: This is not just some fluke. It is a feature of a rigged economy.”)

What, in fact, could possibly go wrong on such a rigged planet? I’m sure Donald Trump and Elon Musk couldn’t imagine. What could go wrong on a world in which no American president ever seems to realize that wars are simply never to be won by this country, no matter its power and the ever-ballooning size of the Pentagon budget, now possibly heading for – ah, yes, talking about trillionaires! – $1.5 trillion yearly (and, no, that is not a typo), if Donald Trump has anything to say about it? And in Congress, mind you, that’s still referred to as “defense” spending.

Keep reading

Dozens of Dem Lawmakers Push to Make Sure Parents Can’t Tell If Kids’ TV Shows Push Transgender Ideology

Just how much say should a parent have when it comes to their child’s exposure to transgenderism and gender ideology?

President Donald Trump’s Federal Communications Commission is taking a maximalist approach to answer the question about parental rights.

But if you were to ask dozens of Democratic lawmakers, the answer to the question is apparently, “As little as possible.”

Back in April, FCC Chair Brendan Carr began pushing for stricter — or at least more comprehensive — television ratings for children’s shows, to better inform parents about the shows’ contents as well as combat what is being called “ratings creep.”

“Years ago, Congress passed a law that empowers parents to decide the types of TV programs that are appropriate for their kids by standing up a TV show ratings system,” Carr posted in April. “But recently, parents have raised concerns with the industry’s approach — including with ratings creep.”

He added, “Specifically, they argue that New York & Hollywood programmers are promoting controversial issues in kids programming without providing any transparency or disclosures to parents.”

Fast forward to Tuesday, where Carr and his FCC received a scathing letter from House Democrats about this move to strengthen television ratings.

“We are deeply concerned that the questions you pose, such as whether programs should be rated differently because they discuss gender identity, indicate that you believe there is a role for the FCC to play in determining these ratings,” the letter read.

The Democrats attempted to frame Carr’s concern for parental rights as government overreach — and bigotry.

“The rating system is intended to address ‘sexual, violent, or other indecent material,’ and we reject the idea that the inclusion of transgender characters or topics is ‘sexual, violent, or
indecent,’” the letter stated.

“Programs should not have higher ratings or content warning simply because of the identity of the programs’ characters. Applying higher ratings or content warnings because of a character’s gender identity would be harmful to transgender people and transgender acceptance and would harken back to a time when politicians sought to censor television programming because they included minorities.”

Some 68 Democrats would go on to sign the letter that curiously claims, “We strongly believe that parents should decide what their children watch on television.”

(Wouldn’t more transparency help parents make better decisions?)

Keep reading