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.

California Attorney General Charges 21 Suspects in $267 Million Hospice Fraud Ring

Democrat officials in California are suddenly interested in prosecuting hospice fraudsters after the Justice Department created a division dedicated to arresting fraudsters.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) on Thursday announced his office charged 21 suspects in a $267 million hospice fraud ring in Southern California.

Five of the 21 suspects have been arrested so far.

“California Attorney General Rob Bonta, together with the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), today announced charges filed against 21 suspects and the dismantling of a major hospice fraud scheme that defrauded California of $267 million,” Bonta’s office said.

“Operation Skip Trace resulted in the arrest of five people after ten different locations were searched in Southern California. In addition, two handguns and over $757,000 in cash were seized,” Bonta’s office announced.

“Investigators found that those involved purchased personal identifying information for people living outside of California on the dark web, then enrolled them in Covered California by posing as California residents,” Fox News reported.

“Straw owners” then bought a number of hospice companies and began billing Medi-Cal for services never provided to those stolen identities. The suspects used fake records, nonexistent offices, and fraudulent diagnoses to justify these claims, Bonta said.” – the outlet said.

Keep reading

Seven Messages – Can Israel Survive Defeat without Setting the Region Ablaze?

The moment a two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran was announced – brokered through Pakistani mediation on April 7 – Iran declared that Lebanon was included in the arrangement. It was a clear message: the war could not be compartmentalized, and the fronts were linked.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rushed to deny it. But the denial exposed more than it concealed. Lebanon and other resistance fronts were already embedded within Iran’s broader ten-point proposal – a framework the Trump administration had accepted as a workable basis for negotiations set to begin Friday.

Netanyahu was left politically and strategically exposed.

Iran was never just another battlefield. It was the culmination of a long campaign of perpetual war that Netanyahu has sustained for years – beginning with the genocide in Gaza, expanding into Lebanon, and stretching across multiple fronts whenever his political survival demanded escalation.

Each war served a purpose: to silence dissent within his coalition, to distract from collapsing approval ratings, to evade accountability in corruption trials. War became governance.

But the Iran gambit failed. And failure, for Netanyahu, is never an endpoint. It is a trigger. With no victory to claim and no strategic gains to present, he turned – once again – to Lebanon.

Keep reading

Trump claims Netanyahu will scale back strikes on Lebanon 

US President Donald Trump has said he asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to scale back the bombing of Lebanon as Gulf countries and some NATO members insisted that a ceasefire in the area must be part of a broader truce with Iran.

Despite Trump’s assertion, Lebanese media reported Israeli strikes across the country on Friday morning. An estimated 1,800 people have been killed in Israeli strikes in Lebanon since the start of the escalation in the Middle East, with more than 300 dying on Wednesday alone. The attacks triggered significant public outcry, including from US allies in the EU.

Iran has insisted that fighting in Lebanon must cease as part of the two-week truce framework with the US – something Washington and the Jewish state have opposed.

The exact outlines of a potential US-Iran peace deal remain unclear, after Iranian media shared a plan envisaging non-aggression, Tehran’s control over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of some uranium enrichment, stopping Israeli attacks on Hezbollah, and the lifting of all sanctions. The US previously opposed many of the terms.

Keep reading

Mississippi Governor Set to Sign Bill Making Illegal Immigration a STATE CRIME

Mississippi has just become the latest red state to take immigration enforcement into its own hands.

Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves (R) is expected to sign Senate Bill 2114 (SB 2114), which has passed both chambers of the Mississippi Legislature and is currently heading to his desk.

Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves has adopted a hardline stance on illegal immigration.

He supports making illegal immigration a state crime, has backed the use of bounty hunters for deportations, and signed legislation aimed at tightening voter citizenship verification. 

Under SB 2114, an alien who enters or attempts to enter Mississippi directly from a foreign nation anywhere other than a lawful port of entry now faces state criminal charges, a misdemeanor with a minimum of six months in prison, escalating to felonies with up to two years or more when combined with other offenses.

If these illegal invaders are arrested for additional crimes, they’ll tack on even more serious penalties with no early release, no parole, and no games.

Keep reading

Ukraine Plots Maritime Sabotage Attacks Against Russia with Norway’s Help

The criminal Zelensky regime, aided by Norwegian Navy specialists, is preparing terrorist attacks on Russian ships navigating the Barents and Norwegian Seas to and from the port of Murmansk, Russian media report, citing a military-diplomatic source.

For this purpose, a group of about 50 servicemen from the 385th Separate Brigade of Marine Unmanned Special Operations Complexes of the Ukrainian Navy has reportedly arrived in Norway.

Together with specialists from the Norwegian Navy’s Special Operations Command, they are believed to be conducting exercises in the Norwegian Sea on the use of unmanned underwater and surface systems in cold-weather conditions.

The source emphasizes that assistance to the Ukrainian regime’s terrorist activities, and the provision of its national territory for the preparation and execution of maritime sabotage, directly involves Norway—and the entire NATO bloc—in a military conflict with Russia.

Keep reading

This is how the age of American dominance comes to an end

Regardless of how the conflict between the United States and Iran formally concludes, its symbolism is already unmistakable. An ancient civilization, one of the oldest continuous states in human history, has emerged as the final obstacle to the project of American global dominance. That alone tells us something about the direction in which the world is moving.

For historians, the deeper meaning of the current Middle Eastern crisis lies in the confrontation between two powers at opposite ends of the historical spectrum. Iran is arguably the world’s oldest centralized state, with roots stretching back to around 530 BC. Since then, it has never ceased to exist as a unified political entity. That continuity is remarkable. Even Russia, the major Western European powers, India and China have all experienced fragmentation at various points in their histories.

The United States, by contrast, is among the youngest major nations – barely 250 years old. Its history is ten times shorter than that of Persia. In that sense, the present conflict pits antiquity against modernity, a civilization forged over millennia against a state that rose rapidly in a uniquely favorable historical moment.

In purely military terms, such comparisons mean little. The United States retains overwhelming destructive capacity. If it chose to do so, it could devastate Iran. This is, after all, the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons against civilian populations. That fact alone should temper any illusions about the limits of American power.

Yet the long-term significance of this confrontation lies elsewhere. It isn’t about whether Iran can defeat the United States in a conventional sense. It’s about whether the current international order, one shaped by American dominance, can continue to function as it has.

Keep reading

Killing and Indifference

Is personal freedom a reality or a myth? Does the government execute the will of the governed or the will of those who finance its officials? Does the Bill of Rights restrain the government? Are the levers of government power pulled by those the governed have elected or those we don’t see? Do elections change anything?

Can the president kill people whom he suspects might commit a crime? Aren’t even those who would cause great harm entitled to due process? Isn’t everyone entitled to a fair trial in front of a neutral judge and jury before any punishment can be administered?

Aren’t all persons legally innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty? Isn’t this presumption of innocence the linchpin of American jurisprudence? At trial and before punishment, isn’t it the government’s obligation to prove every element of the crimes charged? Isn’t there no such thing in American jurisprudence as a presumption of guilt?

Aren’t punishments prescribed by law? Can the president make up a punishment and direct the military to administer it to folks he thinks are probably guilty of criminal behavior? Can federal officials perform unlawful acts with impunity just because they are ordered to do so by the president? Is “probably guilty” a sufficient legal standard for punishment?

In war, can the combatants morally target civilians and their structures? Is war waged against the people of a given country, or against its government and military assets? What happens when there is killing without consequence?

Which is worse, a president who kills whomever he wishes or a Congress that funds the killing and is indifferent to the moral, constitutional and legal consequences?

Can the president morally bomb civilians “into the Stone Age” in a country where the civilian population has little control over the government? Why kill or ruin large numbers of civilians whose liberation you have urged?

What is the purpose of a Constitution if it is not followed? Why take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and then not do so? Why limit war making to the Congress but then ratify the president’s war making as if the Constitution authorized it? If the U.S. bombs other countries to temper their offensive military appetite, who or what will temper America’s offensive military appetite?

Can Congress fund a war it has declined to declare? Why are undeclared wars now commonplace? What to do about a Congress that escapes its constitutional duties? Which is worse, a president who fights an undeclared war or a Congress that does nothing about it?

What is Congress afraid of? Where in the Constitution is the president empowered to spend billions killing foreign persons in an undeclared war? From what source does the president derive power to destroy a foreign land? Why was there no great American debate about war before the president began his killings?

Can the president order killings because he is in the mood for it or because it is fun? Doesn’t the Constitution establish a system of checks and balances so that one of the three branches of the federal government cannot amass power at the expense of either of the other two? Don’t the Constitution and history lay out the functions and powers of the branches of government, and aren’t they supposed to check each other so as to assure personal freedom?

What good are treaties if they’re not followed? Why are treaties the supreme law of the land along with the Constitution itself and all federal statutes? Why does the government violate treaties like the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter that U.S. officials wrote and U.S. presidents signed or acknowledged and the U.S. Senate ratified?

Can the president choose which laws he personally will obey and which he will personally violate? Can the government legally break its own laws? Can the president spend money from the U.S. Treasury that has not been authorized by Congress? Can the president impose a sales tax on all goods entering the U.S. from foreign countries? Can the president pick and choose which statutes to enforce and which to ignore? Why is computer hacking a crime, unless it’s done by federal agents?

Can the president put his own name on American cash? Can he put an image of his face on all your cash? Does Congress still write the laws and appropriate funds, or does the president now do these things on his own?

Is the president required to tell the truth? Is the government required to tell the truth? Why is it that the government can lie to the people but it is a crime to lie to the government? Does the government work for us, or do we work for the government? Does the government know more about us than we do about it?

What happens when the government is untruthful and the people believe it? Isn’t truth the essential bond between the government and the governed in a free society? Doesn’t the government derive its just powers from the consent of the governed? What happens when the government does things to which the governed have never consented?

Keep reading

Clinton Judge Rips Hegseth, Orders Pentagon to Restore Press Access

US District Judge Paul Friedman, a Clinton appointee on Thursday once again sided with The New York Times and ordered the Pentagon to restore press access.

Last month Judge Friedman ruled that the Pentagon’s new press policy restricting press credential of reporters is unconstitutional.

In October, Pentagon reporters turned in their badges after they refused to sign Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s new security rule.

“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demanded that reporters agree by 5 p.m. Tuesday to a new policy, under which they would need to pledge to not obtain or use any unauthorized material, even if the information is unclassified — or hand over their press badges in the next 24 hours,” The Hill previously reported.

By that afternoon, Pentagon reporters turned in their badges.

Keep reading

Democrats Turn to Unconstitutional Exit Taxes After Their Policies Drove the Wealthy Out of Blue States

Democrats believe all our money belongs to them. They believe they have the moral and legal authority to take the money we earn and redistribute it to their preferred constituencies, while ignoring (or even facilitating) massive fraud and enriching themselves in the process. 

With the news of massive fraud scandals in Minnesota and California, it’s clear we don’t have a revenue problem; we have a fraud problem, and we’d bet the majority of our deficit could be erased if we eliminated fraud. But Democrats don’t have any interest in doing that. They just keep taxing people more and more to make up for their fiscal mismanagement. 

And when they raise taxes, the people who can afford to move from those blue states to tax-friendlier red states. That leaves the blue states with even more self-inflicted budget woes.

Rather than roll back wealth taxes, Democrats have decided to tax the people even more in the form of an exit tax, and that concept is gaining traction in blue states.

Keep reading

Iran has prevailed, and the Middle East has changed

US President Donald Trump has, in the end, found a way out of the situation he created by embarking on a reckless war against Iran. The threat of destroying an entire civilization provided him with the pretext to step back.

Indirect negotiations between Tehran and Washington, conducted through intermediaries, primarily Pakistan and, behind it, China, have produced a ceasefire. Trump may claim that Iran was cowed by his threats, but the reality is different.

A ceasefire under conditions where the Strait of Hormuz remains under Iranian control suggests that Tehran has not backed down. Washington, in effect, has.

It is too early to speak of any “golden age” emerging from these talks. But the outlines of the conflict’s outcome are already visible.

Keep reading