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.

The Iran War’s Costly Cycle of Retaliation

On August 30, U.S. forces struck two Iranian missile launchers on Larak Island near the Strait of Hormuz, saying the systems posed a threat to shipping. Iran answered by launching ballistic missiles at U.S. forces in Jordan. The exchange revived a seemingly simple question: What is the next response supposed to change? In the war with Iran, the relationship between military action and political results is neither linear nor predictable. A strike may destroy a target while changing Tehran’s calculations and triggering costs elsewhere. For Washington, the issue is therefore not simply choosing the next target, but determining whether each action moves the United States closer to a political objective or merely creates the conditions for another round.

The problem lies in the gap between the geography of an attack and the geography of its consequences. The United States can choose where to apply force, but it cannot exercise the same control over where it will bear the resulting cost. An attack in Iran can lead to pressure on U.S. forces elsewhere in the region, threats to partners and allies, disruption of shipping, and higher energy costs. Recent fighting around the Strait of Hormuz has shown how quickly military exchanges can spill into maritime traffic and oil markets. A limited operation can therefore acquire a reach far beyond its initial target.

That does not mean Washington should avoid using force. Deterrence without the ability to impose costs has little credibility, and failing to respond can also carry risks. If Tehran concludes that U.S. threats will not be enforced, it may judge further action to be less costly. The real choice is not between “responding” and “not responding,” but between responses that serve a defined political purpose and those that simply sustain the cycle. A credible response must impose a meaningful cost while avoiding a situation in which Washington has to strike again merely to prove the credibility of the previous strike.

This is why the meaning of “response” becomes more complicated once force is used. If Washington attacks to restore deterrence, success depends not only on the damage inflicted on Iran but on what Tehran does afterward and what new obligations the United States assumes. If Iran retaliates against U.S. forces, threatens allied infrastructure, or disrupts vital regional routes, Washington’s next decision becomes less independent. Force protection, allied defense, and freedom of navigation all enter the calculation. Each mission may be defensible on its own, but together they can create commitments that were not part of the original objective.

The costs of conflict are therefore generated well beyond the battlefield. Greater threats to U.S. personnel require more protection and readiness. Greater risks to partners increase pressure for additional security support. Insecurity along shipping routes can raise the costs of trade and energy. Even if Washington retains the operational upper hand, it may simultaneously enlarge the strategic responsibilities it must carry. Tactical success can be measured by whether a target was destroyed; strategic success must be measured by whether the United States emerges safer, with more freedom of action and fewer – not more – obligations.

Keep reading

DOJ Announces Walmart, Costco, Amazon Are Under Investigation in Beef Affordability Probe

The Department of Justice announced Tuesday that it’s investigating several major American grocers concerning massive spikes in beef prices.

“@JusticeATR has expanded its investigation to include 8 of the largest grocers when it comes to beef affordability,” the DOJ posted on X.

“@ASGWoodward sent letters to the following regarding the recent increases in the retail price for beef: Kroger, Publix, Walmart, Albertsons, Aldi, Ahold Delhaize USA, Costco, Amazon.”

“Beef prices are a critical concern to Americans, and a priority for this Justice Department.”

This news comes nearly four months after the DOJ launched a probe against top meatpackers JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and National Beef to investigate possible antitrust violations, Fox Business reported.

Attorney General Todd Blanche held a press conference back in May, revealing that federal officials have been examining three million pertinent documents while contacting “industry participants, including ranchers, cattlemen, producers, and processors,” for potential interviews.

Keep reading

How Your Amazon Package Was Spying On You Before It Got Here

The crane lowers the container. The forklift moves it to the warehouse. And the whole time, the ship it came off of has been sucking up U.S. military signals from the harbor — and beaming them back to Beijing. For thirty years. In American ports.

COSCO has been conducting the secret signals intelligence collection for Beijing for decades, the two senior officials confirmed. This intelligence collection is designed to support the military communications technologies and encryption developments of countries such as the United States, Europe and others in Asia, the two officials said. Once this intelligence is collected by COSCO it is used by the Chinese government to support its position in territorial disputes, for maritime reconnaissance and to provide early warning of possible military action by foreign forces, the two officials explained.

According to the officials, COSCO is using sophisticated signals intelligence collection equipment to track the communications of other ships and aircraft on the high seas, often to monitor crucial trade routes as well as routes used by military vessels.

COSCO, the world’s fourth-largest ocean carrier, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the allegations published by Reuters. China’s embassy in Washington, however, called the reports “baseless” in a statement published late on Tuesday. “We oppose vilifying China by peddling the so-called ‘intelligence collection’ narrative, which is totally baseless,” said Liu Chang, a spokesman for the embassy. He said that China would never ask a company or individual to “collect or provide data, information or intelligence located abroad against local laws.”

These revelations are highly significant to the upcoming meeting between U.S. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at a Washington summit set to take place later this month. Trade is expected to be high on the agenda as well as other security matters.

A January 2025 listing by the Pentagon of COSCO as one of several companies to be considered to be controlled by the People’s Liberation Army could have significant commercial and reputational consequences for COSCO. However, the listing is not a formal sanction and has not yet been implemented into law. In April 2025 a report by the U.S. Naval War College examined the use of intelligence collection by China’s fishing fleets as well as by its commercial shipping fleet.

COSCO Shipping Company is the world’s biggest ocean carrier, operating hundreds of ships across the globe, visiting major U.S. ports as well as the ports of Europe and other strategic locations around the world including the Strait of Hormuz, South China Sea and around Taiwan.

Keep reading

Woman Arrested for JUROR INTIMIDATION Outside Lindsay Clancy Triple-Murder Trial — Allegedly Filmed Jurors as Deadlock Deepens, Mistrial Now Possible

The Lindsay Clancy triple-murder trial erupted into even more chaos Tuesday after a 56-year-old woman was arrested outside the courthouse for allegedly attempting to photograph members of the jury.

Dawn Light, of Sutton, Massachusetts, was taken into custody at approximately 3:40 p.m. outside the courthouse in Plymouth, just minutes after jurors were dismissed for the day without reaching a verdict.

Massachusetts State Police charged Light with one count of intimidation of a witness, juror, or person furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings. She is expected to be arraigned on Wednesday.

According to the Boston Herald, Light allegedly attempted to photograph the jury as its members left the courthouse.

CBS Boston reporter Kristina Rex separately reported that jurors allegedly noticed they were being filmed.

Fox News reported that attorneys on either side could potentially request a mistrial over the incident.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Blocks New York From Enforcing $75 Billion Climate Superfund Law

A federal judge ruled on Monday that New York cannot enforce a 2024 state law that sought to impose an estimated $75 billion in charges on carbon-emitting companies for allegedly causing climate damage between 2000 and 2018.

Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda Sannes in Syracuse, New York, sided with 22 Republican state attorneys general, as well as industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in finding the state measure preempted by federal law. The judge said the Clean Air Act, which gave the federal Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, did not authorize states to adopt emissions compensation schemes.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Climate Change Superfund Act into law in December 2024. It required about three dozen covered fossil-fuel companies to pay a combined $3 billion annually for 25 years, or $75 billion in total. The funds would have been earmarked for infrastructure work, including coastal wetlands, stormwater systems, roads, bridges, and responses to extreme weather.

Sannes said enforcing the law risked upsetting the balance of protecting the environment, “a project that necessarily requires national standards and global participation,” and promoting economic growth, energy production, foreign policy interests, and national security.

West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey led the coalition of states challenging the legislation in a February 2025 lawsuit. The attorneys general said at the time that New York’s law was politically motivated “overreach” that punished traditional energy companies, including West Virginia-based coal and natural gas companies, that now comply with applicable laws. They said payouts from coal, oil, and natural gas producers could wipe out thousands of jobs if the producers were forced to shut down.

“We were the first to challenge this law because we saw it for what it was – a money grab by the elites in New York, who want to punish West Virginians for doing the jobs that enable them to heat their homes and build their cities,” McCuskey said in an Aug. 31 statement.

Hochul’s office is reviewing the decision to determine possible next steps, spokesperson Ken Lovett said.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for damages caused by polluters,” he said.

New York was the second U.S. state to establish a superfund requiring major fossil-fuel companies to help finance infrastructure projects such as flood mitigation and coastal protection.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute sued Vermont on Dec. 30 to block that state’s superfund. That case remains pending.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson from the Justice Department’s Energy and Natural Resources Division welcomed Monday’s decision.

“New York’s law would have expropriated $75 billion from energy companies around the world during an energy emergency and in direct defiance of American foreign policy and federal law,” Gustafson said. “We will continue to fight for affordable, reliable energy for all Americans.”

Keep reading

Adam Schiff Has Finally Found a Trump Tax Cut He Agrees With – For Totally Selfish Reasons

When you think of Trump tax cuts and Democrats, the first thing that comes to mind is Democrats complaining that the tax cuts only benefit the rich. For good measure, they typically say not only the rich, but Trump’s rich buddies, as if he is doing a favor just for a select few, powerful, connected people.

Well, now California Senator Adam Schiff has finally found a Trump tax cut idea that he likes. It’s all about a tax incentive to save jobs in Hollywood. In other words, a tax cut that would benefit a very select group.

And make no mistake, Schiff likes this idea because that is where a ton of his support comes from. When Schiff was a member of the House, Hollywood was in his district. These are his people.

FOX News reports:

One of President Donald Trump’s most persistent political foes has found common ground with him in their shared push to save Hollywood.

Trump wants to incentivize film and television production in Hollywood after years of job loss and other states and countries enticing projects to leave what has been the heart of entertainment in the U.S. for more than a century.

And Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who once led the first impeachment against Trump and has maintained a strong opposition to him since he retook office, is on board with the idea.

“I am in strong agreement with the President,” Schiff said on X. “Congress should immediately take up and pass a federal film tax incentive to bring back these good-paying jobs that we’ve lost to other countries.”

“Let’s work together — Republicans and Democrats — to get this done, and bring the movie magic back to America,” he continued.

Hollywood’s stature as an entertainment colossus has taken a hit over the last few years following the COVID-19 pandemic and the burst of the streaming bubble.

The industry has lost 49,000 jobs since 2022, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Keep reading

Clyburn Calls For Packing The Court With “Baker’s Dozen” To Flip Cases

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) added his voice to expand the Supreme Court to a “baker’s dozen,” or thirteen members to allow Democrats to add justices who agree with him and Democratic members on how the law must be interpreted.

In the meantime, as discussed earlier, court packing is being pushed as the new litmus test for any Democratic candidates. Clyburn’s “baker’s dozen” is a telling description of an effort to bake in partisan views on a Court expanded to create an instant liberal majority. In defending this hostile takeover of the Court, Clyburn bizarrely insisted that the failure to do so might lead to a return to antebellum conditions when blacks were being given fewer rights than whites.

When asked by host Kristen Welker whether he supports the call of former Vice President Kamala Harris to pack the Court, Clyburn responded:

“Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand. Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the Court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”

Clyburn then made the sensational claim that, without taking over the Court, blacks could be returned to virtual slave conditions. He added:

“The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments have been interpreted different ways over the years. And we had in the Warren Court an interpretation of those amendments that I thought would be set for the future of the country. We have now a Supreme Court that has decided to reverse course and take this country back, I say, to those rulings of Justice Taney that said that no black man has any rights that a white man must respect.”

So, while recognizing that interpretations have evolved, Clyburn now demands a takeover of the Court because he disagrees with the current interpretations. It was fine when interpretations aligned with his views, but opposing viewpoints are intolerable and warrant packing the Court with reliable liberal votes. Other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings.

The unhinged rhetoric reflects the importance of taking over the Court by Democrats who view the institution as a barrier to carrying out a radical agenda, including proposals that are considered unconstitutional. Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.

Of course, these figures know that it will take a great deal to get Americans to trash core institutions and values. Polls have long shown that a majority of citizens oppose efforts to pack the Court. FDR’s infamous court-packing plan in the 1930s has been widely panned in history, but is now being used as a model by many Democrats to achieve short-term political goals.

In order to overcome this fealty to our constitutional system, citizens must be very angry or very afraid. That is why the rage rhetoric is increasing as we approach the midterm elections. In the last election, the prediction was the imminent end of democracy. Now it is the return to slavery conditions in the United States.

One can disagree with the Court without suggesting that these justices are effective racists or want to return the nation to pre-Civil War slavery conditions. The suggestion that the Court would return this country to the Dred Scott period from before the Civil War is deeply offensive to the conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who is African American. It is an absurd suggestion and shows contempt not just for the Court but for Black voters.

Keep reading

SNAP Junk Food Bans in Two States on Hold Due to Court Rulings

The battle over SNAP benefits might be being waged from state to state, but federal courts are part of the action, too.

Two states that had planned restrictions on the foods that can be purchased by those using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cards have put the moves on hold after a federal court ruled in favor of SNAP recipients in a case covering five other states, Newsweek reported Monday.

Six states still have restrictions in place.

SNAP, formerly known as “food stamps,” is a federally funded program administered by the individual states. It is overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Some states restrict its use from purchasing junk food, such as sodas, candy, and some juices and energy drinks. Others have plans to do so.

The states that already have restrictions that are unaffected by the ruling, according to the grocery tracking website Greenchoice, are Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah.

South Carolina and North Dakota were only days away from implementing similar bans beginning Sept. 1 when Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, struck down restrictions that had already been in place in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

Keep reading

FDA Approves Moderna XFG COVID Vaccines 81 Days Before Teen/Adult Safety Study, 126 Days Before Children’s Study

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Moderna’s new XFG-formulated COVID-19 vaccines on August 27, 81 days before a human study specifically designed to evaluate the safety and immune response of the new formulations was scheduled to begin.

Pfizer’s XFG COVID vaccine formulation was approved on the same day, equally without safety data for its new formulation.

FDA approved the 2026–2027 formulas for Moderna’s SPIKEVAX and mNEXSPIKE vaccines, which are claimed to contain genetic instructions corresponding to the alleged JN.1-lineage XFG subvariant.

But FDA’s own Aug 27 approval letters show that a Phase 3b/4 human study specifically evaluating the “Immunogenicity and Safety of MNEXSPIKE and SPIKEVAX 2026-2027 Formula” is not scheduled to begin until November 16.

The first interim results are not due until March 26, 2027.

For younger children eligible to receive the new SPIKEVAX formulation, a separate human safety and immunogenicity study is scheduled to begin even later.

In other words, FDA approved Moderna’s new XFG vaccines first.

The human studies specifically evaluating the new formulations come afterward.

The regulatory pathway allows FDA to rely on claimed evidence from previously licensed formulations rather than require a new human safety trial of every updated formulation before approval.

But that raises consequential health, informed-consent, regulatory, and accountability questions:

  • How can FDA determine that a newly reformulated vaccine is safe before formulation-specific human safety data exist?
  • What evidence justifies carrying earlier safety findings forward to a changed product?
  • And why is FDA requiring a Phase 3b/4 study specifically to evaluate the new formulas’ “Safety” only after Americans are permitted to receive them?
  • And most fundamentally, if FDA is approving a newly reformulated vaccine before human safety data specific to that formulation exist, is the agency fulfilling its responsibility to independently establish that products are safe before Americans receive them, or shifting that uncertainty onto the public and collecting the answers afterward?

Congressional committees have confirmed that the FDA “is not meeting important federal safety requirements to protect its employees and the public while also failing to prioritize scientific data quality delivered from FDA laboratories.”

You can contact the FDA here.

And Moderna here.

Keep reading