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.

Judge Rejects Anti-Marijuana Groups’ Motion To Block CBD And THC Medicare Coverage Plan, Setting Hearing For 4/20

A federal judge has denied a request from a coalition of anti-marijuana organizations that sought to immediately block the Trump administration’s initiative to cover hemp-derived CBD and THC products through Medicare from launching on Wednesday.

The groups’ overall lawsuit challenging the policy is still under consideration, however, with a hearing on their separate motion for a preliminary injunction scheduled for April 20, which coincidentally is known as the unofficial cannabis cultural holiday 4/20.

Judge Trevor N. McFadden on Tuesday rejected the request from Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and nine other drug prevention groups to issue a temporary restraining order to halt the federal cannabis initiative, which is being facilitated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), from taking effect.

McFadden, in his one-page order, quoted case law holding that a temporary restraining order is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that can only be granted if a party makes a “clear showing that four factors, taken together, warrant relief: likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, a balance of the equities in its favor, and accord with the public interest.”

“Having considered the arguments in Plaintiffs’ motion and at a motions hearing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not met this high standard,” the judge wrote. “The motion for a temporary restraining order is thus denied. The Court will consider Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and motion to stay upon the completion of briefing.”

Defendants in the lawsuit—CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—now have until April 9 to file briefs responding to the prohibitionist groups’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs then have a reply brief due on April 13, a week ahead of the 4/20 hearing on the matter.

The lawsuit comes as CMS is set to start covering CBD and THC products under select federal health insurance programs as a Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive (BEI) beginning on Wednesday.

Under the BEI, patients enrolled in specific federal health insurance programs could have up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products covered each year. The CBD-focused plan will also allow a certain amount of THC in products, but the agency said that the rules are subject to change if federal hemp policy changes, as is currently expected under a law set to take effect later this year.

Keep reading

“No One Knows What Will Happen Now”: Justice Jackson Warns Against Unbridled Free Speech

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is again warning of a growing threat to the nation. In her lone dissent in Chiles v. Salazar, Jackson observed that “to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now.” The ominous tone stemmed from the fact that free speech had prevailed over state-imposed orthodoxy in a Colorado case.

Eight justices, including her two liberal colleagues, ruled that Colorado could not prevent licensed counselors from “any practice or treatment” that “attempts or purports to change” a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The win for free speech was catastrophic for Jackson and many on the left. Allowing counselors to discuss the causes and basis for sexual orientation changes, Jackson maintained, would “open a can of worms.” It would be far better for the majority to simply silence such dissenting voices in the name of science.

The dissent in Chiles is only the latest example of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a pronounced dismissal of free speech values. Consider the holding of her colleagues that Jackson finds so horrific.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the First Amendment “reflects … a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth … any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”

What a nightmare.

Instead, Jackson would have declared the ban on anything deemed “conversion therapy” to be “conduct,” not speech.

It is that easy.

You simply impose an orthodoxy and then treat any dissenters as being regulated for their conduct, not their viewpoints.

Justice Elena Kagan could not withhold her frustration with her colleague, noting that “[b]ecause the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.” She added that Jackson’s view “rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”

Other countries have embraced Jackson’s permissive approach to speech curtailment.

Keep reading

You Are Paying for Retirees’ Lavish Lifestyles

As he celebrated the 50th anniversary of Social Security, then–Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill (D–Mass.) hailed the program’s epic accomplishments.

In the days before Social Security was born, O’Neill said, “Life for the elderly is filled with uncertainty, dependency, and horror. When you get old, you are without income, without hope.” The federal government’s payments to retirees, he continued, meant that Americans no longer had to live in “fear and dependency” in old age.

It was a tidy summary of the conventional wisdom surrounding America’s old-age entitlement state—which includes not just Social Security, but also Medicare and many other taxpayer-funded efforts to subsidize the supposedly nasty, brutish, and not-so-short lives of the over-65 crowd.

It is a narrative that deserves to be shoved off a cliff.

Today’s retirees, most of them from the baby boomer generation, are the wealthiest cohort of Americans. The median household headed by someone over age 65 is far wealthier than the average household headed by someone in their late 30s.

Despite that, roughly 22 cents of every dollar the federal government spent last year was funneled to retirees via Social Security. Medicare spending accounted for another 14 percent. Many of those dollars were extracted from younger, poorer Americans. (The rest were borrowed and added to the national debt.)

A retired couple today might possess a robust retirement account and own a million-dollar home, but the government still acts as if they live in the poverty-stricken hellscape that O’Neill described. And as the old have gotten wealthier, the taxpayer-funded benefits have only gotten more lavish.

Social Security provides inflation-proof monthly payments, keeping retirees ahead of the curve even as working-age Americans struggle to make ends meet. In many places, seniors are gifted special exemptions from taxes on homes and vehicles that aren’t available to younger Americans. Medicare, created to address seniors’ medical needs, now offers such taxpayer-funded perks as discounted golf course fees, ski resort lift tickets, even pet supplies and pickleball equipment.

In short: Today’s old-age entitlement system is not a last-resort guardrail against poverty and desolation. It is a sprawling, expensive lifestyle-subsidy program that steals from the poor to give to the rich—while also worsening the housing crisis and pushing the country toward a dangerous fiscal cliff.

Keep reading

Children’s Health Defense Wins Settlement in Landmark Censorship Case

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized a settlement in CHD’s landmark class action censorship lawsuit against key Biden administration officials accused of colluding with tech companies to censor social media content.

In a press release, the DOJ cited President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, Executive Order “acknowledging that ‘the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.’ 90 Fed. Reg. 8243 (Jan. 28, 2025).”

CHD, along with its then-Chairman Robert F. Kennedy Jr., sued the Biden administration in March 2023.

The lawsuit, Kennedy v. Biden, became CHD v. Trump after Trump became president of the U.S., and Kennedy, who first left CHD to run his own presidential campaign, was later named secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration.

The class action lawsuit against then-President Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other top administration officials and federal agencies alleged they “waged a systematic, concerted campaign” to compel the nation’s three largest social media companies to censor constitutionally protected speech.

Jed Rubenfeld, attorney for CHD, called the settlement a “tremendous win” against government censorship.

“We brought this case years ago to challenge the Biden administration’s assault on free speech,” Rubenfeld said. “Today, the government, under a new administration, acknowledged that assault. And via a previously issued Executive Order, the president prohibited government officials from pressuring social media companies in the future to trample on Americans’ First Amendment rights.”

As part of the settlement with CHD, the government agreed to pay attorneys’ fees.

The DOJ also settled a similar lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden, and issued a consent decree in the case.

Keep reading

Trump Administration To ‘Re-Evaluate’ NATO Membership After Europe Declines To Assist War In Gulf

 President Donald Trump has signaled a major potential shift in U.S. foreign policy, stating he is strongly considering withdrawing the United States from NATO after alliance members declined to support American military operations against Iran, including efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph published Wednesday, Trump described NATO as a “paper tiger” and said a U.S. exit from the 77-year-old defensive alliance is now “beyond reconsideration.”

“I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way,” Trump told the British newspaper.

The comments come as the U.S.-led military campaign against Iran, which began on February 28, continues. Trump had pressed NATO allies to contribute naval forces to secure the Strait of Hormuz — a critical chokepoint carrying roughly 20% of global oil and gas supplies — but most declined to participate in what they viewed as an offensive operation rather than a defensive one under NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause.

Trump framed the lack of support as a key test of alliance reliability. In recent speeches, he warned that failure to back the U.S. would not be forgotten, adding: “If the ‘big one’ ever happened, I guarantee you they wouldn’t be there.” He also expressed doubt about future U.S. commitments, saying, “We are always going to be there — at least we were; I don’t know anymore, to be honest with you.”

Keep reading

Here We Go…Ground Robots Could Replace One-Third Of Ukrainian Troops On Front Line

Ground robotic systems have the potential to replace as much as one-third of Ukrainian infantry troops operating on the line of contact, according to a senior Ukrainian military commander.

Andrii Biletsky, commander of Ukraine’s 3rd Army Corps, told Militarnyi in an interview published March 21 that expanding the use of unmanned ground platforms could significantly ease the burden on frontline soldiers as the battlefield grows increasingly hostile to human movement and resupply.

Biletsky, who has previously described ground robotic systems as a looming “revolution” on the battlefield, pointed to the challenges posed by dense drone surveillance and heavily contested logistics lines. Constant observation by both enemy and Ukrainian drones has made traditional troop movements and supply deliveries exceptionally dangerous and difficult to sustain, writes United24Media.

“We will replace a third of soldiers with robots,” Biletsky declared in the interview.

He argued that robotic platforms could take over a substantial portion of both combat and logistics roles, allowing Ukrainian units to maintain operations under persistent aerial scrutiny while reducing risks to personnel.

The vision outlined by Biletsky is already materializing across the front. According to Ukrainian military data, forces conducted more than 7,000 ground robot missions in a single recent month. The vast majority of these deployments involved delivering supplies and equipment to exposed forward positions, enabling troops to minimize their exposure in high-risk areas while keeping essential logistics flowing.

Keep reading

AI EXPANSION RAISES QUESTIONS ON JOBS, POWER, AND SECURITY

Jefferey Jaxen investigates the rapidly expanding influence of artificial intelligence and the growing concerns surrounding its impact on society, the economy, and global power structures.

As governments and corporations race to deploy increasingly powerful AI systems, the technology is transforming industries, automating jobs, and reshaping how information is created and distributed. While some see AI as a driver of unprecedented innovation and productivity, others warn it could deepen economic inequality, concentrate control among a handful of tech giants, and introduce new forms of digital influence.

Concerns are also intensifying around AI’s role in national security. Leaders in the field, including Alex Karp of Palantir Technologies, have openly stated that their platforms are designed to support military operations, including targeting and eliminating enemies—highlighting the growing intersection between AI development and modern warfare.

At the same time, new research suggests that people are often able to distinguish between human-created and AI-generated content, raising questions about authenticity and trust in an increasingly synthetic information landscape. Paradoxically, studies also indicate that workers who rely on AI tools frequently report feeling an increased workload, challenging the assumption that automation will simply make jobs easier.

As AI becomes more deeply embedded in everyday life, Jefferey asks whether society is truly prepared for the cultural, economic, and intellectual shifts ahead—and who ultimately controls the future of this rapidly evolving technology.

Keep reading

Obama Judge Blocks Trump’s Executive Order Aimed at Ending Federal Funding For NPR, PBS

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s executive order aimed at ending federal funding for NPR and PBS.

US District Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee lashed out at President Trump and said he targeted PBS and NPR for their viewpoints.

Last year, President Trump ended taxpayer subsidization of ‘biased media.

“National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) receive taxpayer funds through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence,” the Trump White House previously announced.

“At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage. No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize,” the White House said.

“The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens,” the White House said.

“I therefore instruct the CPB Board of Directors (CPB Board) and all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS,” Trump said.

On Tuesday, Judge Randolph Moss blocked President Trump’s executive order ending taxpayer subsidization to PBS and NPR.

“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” Judge Moss wrote.

Keep reading

US Immigration’s Expanding Gulag

The March 4, 2026, edition of the Arizona Daily Star put the facts succinctly:

“A Haitian asylum seeker held for four months at Florence Correctional Center died Monday at a Scottsdale hospital due to complications from an infected tooth.” It seems the infection spread from his tooth to his lungs, and he developed the pneumonia that killed him.

In other words, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) allowed a prisoner to die of a toothache. His name was Emmanuel Damas. He was 56 years old and the father of two.

And we can only expect medical treatment at ICE centers to deteriorate further. As Judd Legum at Popular Information reported in January 2026:

“ICE… has not paid any third-party providers for medical care for detainees since October 3, 2025. Last week, ICE posted a notice on an obscure government website announcing it will not begin processing such claims until at least April 30, 2026. Until then, medical providers are instructed ‘to hold all claims submissions.’”

Emmanuel Damas’s unnecessary death would be outrageous enough, were it the only one of its kind. In fact, 32 people died in ICE custody during 2025, the most in two decades. Another six died in January 2026 alone, among them Geraldo Lunas Campos, a Cuban father aged 55, at Camp East Montana detention center in El Paso, Texas.

Although ICE initially claimed Lunas Campos had attempted suicide, the American Immigration Council reports that “the El Paso County Medical Examiner ruled his death was a homicide arising from asphyxia due to neck and torso compression.”

Of course, it’s pretty hard to strangle yourself to death.

Keep reading

Air Canada CEO Out After Crash — For Not Offering Condolences in Second Language

In the wake of a major airline crash, it’s not unusual for the carrier’s CEO to resign, especially if there were signs that corporate culture may have played a hand in it.

In the case of Air Canada Express Flight 8646, that’s not the case. In fact, it’s pretty much clear at this point that the Air Canada jet had no role in the accident and that some concatenation of events led to a fire truck given clearance to cross a runway as the jet was landing.

Rather, Michael Rousseau is out of a job because he didn’t offer an apology in French as well as English.

The March 22 crash killed both the captain and first officer on board the Bombardier CRJ900, although all 72 passengers and two other crew members survived the flight from Montreal to New York’s LaGuardia Airport.

And while Rousseau put out a four-minute video apology, saying he had the “deepest sorrow for everyone affected,” the Financial Times reported that wasn’t what got people upset.

Instead, it was the fact that the only French words he used were “bonjour” and “merci.”

“Air Canada, the country’s largest airline, is based in majority French-speaking Quebec,” the Financial Times noted.

“Canada is officially a bilingual nation and his message sparked condemnation from senior political leaders, while also stirring longstanding tensions that led Quebec to attempt to become an independent state via referendums in 1980 and 1995.”

And Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney weighed in, because of course he did, and in the worst way possible.

“Companies like Air Canada particularly have a responsibility to always communicate in both official languages regardless of the situation,” he said, according to The Associated Press.

Keep reading