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.

US Carries Out Large-Scale Strikes Against ISIS in Syria

US Central Command (CENTCOM) reported that they have carried out “large-scale” airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, saying the hit multiple sites belonging to the terror group as part of their commitment to “pursuing terrorists” and in retaliation for the mid-December incident in which an ISIS infiltrator attacked and killed two US troops and an American civilian translator in Palmyra.

The strikes began Saturday evening, and CENTCOM claimed multiple coalition partners participated, though only Jordan has actually confirmed being involved so far. 35 sites were reportedly hit in the strikes, involving 90 “precision munitions.”

Details of what exactly was hit are unclear, though the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported three checkpoints within the Deir Ezzor Governorate were attacked by coalition strikes, though they noted that no damage was done and no casualties were reported in those cases.

Keep reading

U-Haul Driver Rams Through Protestors in Los Angeles

A U-Haul truck mowed through a crowd of protesters in Los Angeles on Sunday during a demonstration in support of the Iranian people. 

The number of injured individuals is currently unclear.

Video from the scene shows protesters surrounding the truck and smashing a window before the truck drives through the crowd. Protesters can be heard screaming as the truck makes its way through the crowd.

Aerial footage shows police later surrounding the abandoned U-Haul truck. Authorities have reportedly not identified the driver.

Per NBC 4:

Hundreds of people marched in Westwood to show support for Iranian protesters as the crackdown on demonstrations in the Middle Eastern country resulted in the deaths of hundreds.

At least 583 people have been killed since unrest began in Iran two weeks ago over the economic crisis, according to the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency.

In Westwood, activists organized a demonstration in support of the Iranian people. At least two people were examined but denied medical attention, according to the LAFD.

Cellphone video showed the driver being punched as a group of people attempted to get him out of the large truck. The vehicle’s windows were also broken.

Keep reading

Trump Threatens Cuba, Suggests Rubio Could Serve as the Country’s President

President Donald Trump asserted that Cuba was vulnerable after he kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. He demanded that Havana make a deal with Washington or face additional aggression from the US.

“Cuba lived, for many years, on large amounts of OIL and MONEY from Venezuela,” the President wrote on Truth Social Sunday. “THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA – ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.”

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump ordered an attack on Venezuela that killed over 100 people and captured Maduro. Some of those killed were Cuban soldiers who were serving as Maduro’s bodyguards.

“Cuba provided ‘Security Services’ for the last two Venezuelan dictators, BUT NOT ANYMORE! Most of those Cubans are DEAD from last week’s USA attack,” Trump wrote. “And Venezuela doesn’t need protection anymore from the thugs and extortionists who held them hostage for so many years. Venezuela now has the United States of America, the most powerful military in the World (by far!), to protect them, and protect them we will.”

Following the capture of Maduro, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio threatened several other nations in our own hemisphere. “If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned,” Rubio said.

Keep reading

Dallas Police Solve 52-Year-Old Missing Person Case, the Oldest in the State of Texas

The Dallas Police Department announced that it has closed a missing persons case that remained unresolved for more than five decades.

The case centered on Norman Prater, who was reported missing to Dallas police on Jan. 14, 1973.

His disappearance launched an investigation that remained active but unanswered, according to the department, which updated the public about the case on Jan. 6.

On July 9, 1973, months after Prater went missing, an unidentified white male died in a hit-and-run on Highway 35 in Rockport, Texas.

At the time, police did not connect the incident to Prater or Dallas.

Despite extensive efforts by local law enforcement and media appeals, the victim remained unidentified.

That changed recently due to renewed interest in the case from Dallas Missing Persons Detective Ryan Dalby.

Keep reading

Nostalgia isn’t strategy: Stop the Monroe revisionism and listen

“[T]herefore you may rest assured that if the Nicaraguan activities were brought to light, they would furnish one of the largest scandals in the history of the country.”

Such was the concluding line of a letter from Marine Corps Sergeant Harry Boyle to Idaho Senator William Borah on April 23, 1930. Boyle’s warning was not merely an artifact of a bygone intervention, but a caution against imperial hubris — one newly relevant in the wake of “Operation Absolute Resolve” in Venezuela.

The Trump administration has amplified the afterglow of its tactical success with renewed assertions of hemispheric hegemony through a nostalgic and often ahistorical reading of the Monroe Doctrine. Despite the administration’s enthusiasm for old-fashioned hemispheric imperialism, the historical record ought to caution for restraint, not revisionism.

When modern American officials invoke the Monroe Doctrine, they often do so with a confidence that suggests its meaning is settled and its record vindicated. Historically, the doctrine — both in meaning and in application — was far more contested than modern enthusiasts let on. Indeed, the high-water mark of American imperialism in the Caribbean exposed the high costs and meager returns of micromanaging neighboring states.

Critics of the president’s muscular approach to Latin America have often cited the recent Middle Eastern record of U.S. interventionism as a warning. While such comparisons have limits, the Latin American record offers little reassurance of its own. For all the confidence of its modern champions, the meaning and application of the Monroe Doctrine was never fixed, codified, or uncontested.

The apex of American military hegemony in the Caribbean basin, often justified under the auspices of the Monroe Doctrine, came during the so-called Banana Wars. From the 1890s through the early 1930s, U.S. forces intervened in seven countries, including decades-long occupations of Haiti and Nicaragua. Over this period, successive presidents used military force to protect American agricultural interests from nationalization and labor unrest and to prevent Latin American debt defaults that policymakers feared might invite European intervention.

Despite new waves of wistfulness in some corners of the MAGA movement, such interventions were not uniformly popular on Capitol Hill or in the general populace, and by the mid-1920s, the tide had turned against such acts of naked imperialism. Bolstered by the anguish of World War I, a diverse set of domestic voices, religious pacifists on one end, to xenophobic populists on the other, viewed military action in the Caribbean as wasteful, pointless, and morally abhorrent.

Keep reading

Grand Jury Ordered Empaneled in Ft. Pierce, FL Starting TODAY, MONDAY, Jan. 12 – Crossfire Hurricane and Raid on Mar-a-Lago under Scrutiny – May Explain Obama’s Frequent Trips to UK Over the Last Year

A Grand Jury will be empaneled in Fort Pierce, Florida on Monday – January 12, 2026.

Crossfire Hurricane and the illicit raid on Mar-a-Lago will be under scrutiny.

George Papadopoulos announced this news on X back in October.

Papadopoulos added that Barack Obama’s numerous trips to the UK over the past year are now going to examined.

The Fort Pierce grand jury is expected to investigate the almost decade long conspiracy into President Donald Trump. The alleged criminal acts started in 2015 and continued on into Joe Biden’s administration.

Democrats – who approved of spying on the 45th President and his family, raiding his home, abusing him with continued lawfare cases, etc. now say they are worried about political retribution.

Of course, the legacy media has never been honest about the spying and lawlessness that was directed at Donald Trump, our 45th and 47th president.

In December, former CIA Director John Brennan, who led the Crossfire Hurricane criminal actions against Donald Trump, said he is the target of the grand jury probe.

Keep reading

Corporate Media’s 7 Most Brazenly Fake Claims About The Anti-ICE Car-Ramming

f you’ve only paid attention to the legacy media over the past few days, you probably know more about Renee Good’s poetry than you do about the actions that led to her tragic death last Wednesday. After refusing federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers’ commands to get out of her car, which she had used to impede agents’ access to a neighborhood road, Good was caught on video accelerating her SUV toward one agent with another hanging on her door. The agent in front of her vehicle fatally shot her as the car appeared to hit him.

The corporate press, with help from the Democrats to whom they run for comment, portrayed Good as a victim of spontaneous violence, a “woman [who] drops her kid off at school, not involved in protest activity or anything, [but] seems to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.” The more details emerged, the fewer of those claims turned out to be true.

1. Good Was Just Driving ‘Past’ Agents

A narrative quickly formed insisting that Good’s vehicle wasn’t pointed at the ICE agents at all but was directed away from them.

Someone at Axios Twin Cities approved a headline on Wednesday that said “ICE shoots, kills person in Minneapolis in vehicle that drove past agents.” The story’s lede was even worse: it claimed the ICE agent “shot and killed a 37-year-old woman who was in a vehicle that drove close to federal agents” (emphasis added).

In similar fashion, The Washington Post ran a headline at the top of its online front page Thursday morning that claimed the agent “was not in the vehicle’s path” when he fired his handgun. After criticism, the Post changed the headline to say the agent “fired at driver as vehicle veered past him,” without a correction notice. (The same article frames Good’s acceleration toward the agent as navigating “in the correct direction of traffic on the one-way street.”)

But regardless of whether Good intended to hit the officer, it’s obvious from video footage that from the officer’s visual perspective, her car was aimed directly at him. Multiple videos appear to show her vehicle actually hitting him — which would make the Post’s claim that he was “not in the vehicle’s path” something of an impossibility.

Keep reading

ICE Resistance Groups Growing, Some Funded by Soros, U.S. Government, and Linked to Terrorism

Anti-ICE activism has evolved into coordinated resistance networks that employ surveillance, harassment, and interference tactics. Organizations train activists in resistance methods, track ICE agents’ movements through mobile apps and crowdsourced databases, and conduct campaigns designed to obstruct immigration enforcement operations.

These efforts include doxing ICE agents, issuing threats against their homes and families, and running coordinated online propaganda campaigns that rely on altered or misleading videos. Posts may show ICE breaking a window while omitting that the occupant refused to open it, or claim agents “chased” someone without noting the individual was fleeing to evade arrest. Videos of agents wrestling with arrestees are circulated without acknowledging that the person resisted arrest, and outrage is expressed when a U.S. citizen is arrested while omitting that the citizen assaulted or interfered with federal officers.

Activists also claim there is no due process, despite the fact that a large percentage of deportees have outstanding final orders of deportation that were never enforced. They argue people are being denied access to courts when, in reality, many individuals are already in the country illegally and are arrested after attempting to legalize their status through a green card application or marriage to a citizen. Activists then claim the individual “showed up for a regular immigration hearing” or was “trying to do it the right way,” even though once someone is in the country illegally, there is generally no legal path to adjust status.

To further vilify ICE and encourage resistance, media figures, activists, and public officials in sanctuary jurisdictions use loaded language such as “abducted” instead of arrested and “whisked away” instead of detained. Officials vow to protect constituents from ICE, despite the fact that ICE arrests and deports illegal aliens, not lawful residents or citizens. There would be no violence at all if people stopped interfering with lawful enforcement actions.

Against this backdrop of negative framing and propaganda, several activist organizations are actively coordinating interference with ICE operations, escalating tensions and increasing the risk of unnecessary violence.

Keep reading

Jack Smith Deposition Shows His Get-Trump Lawfare Was Also A War On Free Speech

In the last few months, we have gained valuable insights into former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s unprecedented effort to criminally prosecute President Donald Trump, at the time a former president and leading contender for the presidency.

In Injustice, Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis, appearing to rely heavily on accounts from Smith’s top deputies, paint a picture of a prosecutor doggedly focused on one objective: prosecuting Trump. On New Year’s Eve, however, the House Judiciary Committee released the transcript of Smith’s closed-door deposition. While a prosecutor’s crusade to imprison a presidential candidate is troubling in itself, Smith’s deposition testimony was alarming, as it betrayed Smith’s utter disdain for the fundamental right to freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment. 

Smith’s so-called “election interference” case in Washington, D.C., has long raised a fundamental question: What was the crime? In his deposition, Smith claimed Trump’s statements that the 2020 election was “rife with fraud” were “absolutely not” protected by the First Amendment and, indeed, formed the basis for his prosecution. Smith went on to claim that Trump would reject information that Smith believed he should have credited and reached out to individuals whom Smith deemed uncredible. 

Whether you are the president of the United States or an anonymous poster on X, the First Amendment protects your right to speak about elections. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech is a critical check on the power of the government, as it prevents the government from punishing those who speak out against it. Punishing speech regarding an election is especially insidious: American history is replete with instances in which litigation has changed the results of elections, and election fraud has been proven.

For example, in Hawaii, a court-ordered recount changed the outcome of the presidential contest in that state. And it was only because President John F. Kennedy sent a slate of alternate electors to Washington that Kennedy’s victory in Hawaii was counted. Criminalizing the questioning of elections is an invitation for election fraud and, regardless, tramples on the right we all enjoy to criticize our government. 

Smith’s disdain for the First Amendment did not end with his attempt to prosecute Trump for speaking about the 2020 election. Speaking about the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, Smith stated unequivocally that Trump “caused it.” The Department of Justice (before and after Smith’s appointment as special counsel) and the Jan. 6 Committee each spent years (and millions of dollars of taxpayer money) investigating the Capitol demonstration, and neither uncovered a shred of evidence that Trump had any role in planning the riot. Indeed, Smith never sought an indictment against Trump for inciting a riot, which would have been the obvious charge if Smith had uncovered such evidence. Yet Smith tried to justify his extraordinary claim that Trump caused the riot by saying Trump’s statements about the 2020 election “created a certain level of distrust.”

If an American — president or otherwise — could be criminally responsible for what others do in response to political speech, the possibilities for prosecution would be limitless. In the lead-up to the 2024 election, Trump survived two assassination attempts. The would-be assassins were surely radicalized by someone, likely media figures or other politicians who spent years falsely deriding Trump as a dictator or puppet of Vladimir Putin.

Politicians’ reckless rhetoric in the wake of George Floyd’s death led to massive riots in multiple American cities, causing the destruction of many small businesses. But the notion of a special counsel seeking an indictment of an MSNBC personality for the Trump assassination attempts or a Democrat member of Congress for the Black Lives Matter riots is downright farcical (as it should be).

Keep reading