I’m only in trouble if they raid my tweets 🇺🇸

In the last chapter of the last book God wins; be prepared

[I’m only in trouble if they raid my tweets 🇺🇸 @matt4etc]

@fen1der @wil_da_beast630 There was a great Marxist named Lenin
Who did two or three million men in.
That’s a lot to have done in
But where he did one in
That grand Marxist Stalin did ten in. — Robert Conquest

[The Washington Times @WashTimes]

REPORT: Secret Service missed 102 radio calls warning of Trump's Butler shooter.

[Anton Gerashchenko @Gerashchenko_en]

Yesterday, Putin issued a threat against Ukraine’s European allies, calling for an "analysis" of each country’s involvement in every Ukrainian operation "in order to possibly make responsible decisions in the future, if necessary."

Judging by the latest news, Moscow is no longer merely waging a hybrid war against the West. It can be assumed that it is preparing the operational environment for a possible direct conflict with NATO, staying below the threshold that would trigger a collective military response.

My conclusion is based on three groups of reports that have appeared in the public domain over the past ten days.

The first is the IISS report published on July 2. It says that between August 2024 and February 2026, 144 drone incidents took place in 13 countries, each time with tankers from Russia’s shadow fleet nearby.

The targets of these drones were NATO nuclear infrastructure sites: RAF Lakenheath, the Île Longue submarine base, and nuclear-sharing air bases in Belgium and the Netherlands. That is, Russia is effectively preparing the theater for future military operations - mapping air defenses and measuring response times.

The second group of news involves intelligence warnings. On June 22, Latvian intelligence reported signs of preparations for military provocations against the Baltic states or Poland.

On June 26, The Guardian confirmed these assessments, citing two countries on NATO’s eastern flank. A source in one of the countries said Putin may try to test U.S. guarantees toward the alliance’s smallest members.

On July 3, The Telegraph reported that the United States has been systematically informing Warsaw about Russian plans. The scenarios range from drone strikes on critical infrastructure and a simulated massive air attack to a limited incursion by Russian or Belarusian troops from Kaliningrad or Belarus, disguised as a navigation error or a rescue operation.

According to Polish sources, Moscow’s calculation is that, instead of opening fire, Poland would be forced under U.S. pressure to enter negotiations, and Russia’s central demand for "withdrawing troops" would be an end to Western support for Ukraine.

The third group of news concerns legitimization. On June 23, Putin spoke of "retaliation" against countries from whose territory drones are allegedly launched against Russia.

At the same time, Russia accused Latvia of providing territory for preparing attacks, while Ukraine’s Security Service exposed a network of 11 people paid by Moscow to carry out anti-Ukrainian actions in Poland.

We can see that Moscow is preparing the environment for a direct conflict - building the necessary infrastructure: intelligence, sabotage, and narrative.

It is important to pay attention to the method itself. Small provocations and incidents without a collective response show where the alliance’s threshold lies - and move it.

Charlie Edwards, co-author of the IISS report, summed it up this way: Russia has publicly demonstrated its ability to penetrate NATO airspace without triggering a collective response, and the gap between the alliance’s capabilities and its political will has become a strategic vulnerability.

Thus, at some point Moscow may feel that a limited operation - against Poland or one of the Baltic states - could bring a high return: for example, forcing NATO to negotiate a halt to aid for Ukraine.

Signs that the Kremlin is developing escalation decisions would include narratives about "Ukrainian sabotage from NATO territory," the transfer of forces to Kaliningrad and Belarus, the concentration of the shadow fleet near critical infrastructure, and tankers being escorted by warships.

[Coddled Affluent Professional @feelsdesperate]

Yeah, I mean, the US has a two party political system and hating the country is part of the core ideology of one party so empirically you should expect to see this.

[Valerie Anne Smith @ValerieAnne1970]

Digital ID: Here is the WEF's plan for you, straight from their website.

Their goal is to create a situation whereby every aspect of daily life—healthcare, banking, food, travel, internet, social media, communications, energy usage, etc—requires a valid digital ID, without which you are locked out.

Once that situation is in place, the conditions of validity can be adjusted to anything they want.

You didn't take the latest experimental mRNA injection? Then your Digital ID is invalid.

You posted something deemed "misinformation" on social media? Then your Digital ID is invalid.

Your social credit score fell too low? Your Digital ID will be invalid.

You exceeded your monthly carbon allowance? Your Digital ID will be invalid.

You voiced criticism of your new technocratic overlords? Then your Digital ID is invalid.

If governments are ever allowed to succeed in rolling out digital ID—even if it's through the back door via under-16 social media bans—we will find ourselves living in a giant open-air digital prison, from which it will be virtually impossible to ever escape.

But they can only succeed if humanity complies with their agenda. DO NOT COMPLY.

[Flopping Aces @FloppingAces]

Tulsi Gabbard laid it out without any fluff: the real power in this country doesn’t come from winning elections. It comes from controlling what the winner is even allowed to know and act on.

That’s the permanent government’s actual job. They don’t run for office. They don’t get fired when the country votes for change. They just sit there, year after year, managing the files, the intelligence, the briefings, and the process. And when a new president shows up with a mandate, their first move is to decide how much of that mandate they’re willing to let through.

This isn’t some dramatic conspiracy. It’s structural.

The bureaucracy has the information. It has the institutional memory. It has the ability to slow things down, shape the reporting, leak what it wants, and bury what it doesn’t. Presidents come and go. These people stay. And they’ve gotten very good at treating elected leadership like a temporary inconvenience they have to manage.

Gabbard saw this up close when she was Director of National Intelligence. She watched officials try to feed the president the version of reality they preferred instead of the one that actually existed. She watched resistance that was quiet, professional, and extremely effective. Not because these people are evil masterminds, but because they genuinely believe they know better than the voters and the people the voters put in charge.

That’s why the gap between elections matters so much. The vote happens once. Everything after that is where the real decisions get made ... or blocked. If the people who never face voters get to filter what reaches the Oval Office, then elections start becoming theater. You can change the president all you want. The machine still decides how much of his agenda is even allowed to exist.

This is the part nobody wants to say out loud, but it’s the only part that actually explains why so little changes no matter who wins.
(article below)

[Jeremiah Johnson 🌐 @JeremiahDJohns]

I have no idea how the UK is ever going to get out of the mess they're in, because so many of the causes of their stagnation have supermajority support.

The triple lock is *insanely* popular with British voters. Even with 18-34 year olds!

[I’m only in trouble if they raid my tweets 🇺🇸 @matt4etc]

@MagisterScottus

[Emily Ekins @emilyekins]

New Cato poll finding: Gen Z is more favorable toward socialism than capitalism -- and is nearly evenly split on *communism*

Among Gen Z:
53% view socialism favorably
45% view capitalism favorably
38% view communism favorably
36% view communism unfavorably

[Abhi Kambli @AbhiKambli1984]

Update: As I predicted, the Louisiana Supreme Court was not amused by the special prosecutor leaving the warrant up and recalled it. Although corruption in New Orleans is a running joke this takes it to a new level. Using the criminal process to prevent an elected state AG from performing their constitutional duty is beyond mere corruption and warrants accountability.

[Brian Ward @GodsRiddles]

What is unfolding in New Orleans should alarm the entire Nation.

The State Attorney General warned New Orleans officials — in writing — that their plan to seat an unauthorized officeholder through a special election the State no longer recognized was unlawful. For issuing that warning, the City convened a grand jury and indicted her on sixteen felony counts of public intimidation and malfeasance in office.

Then the court sealed its doors against the press — handcuffing a journalist and their attorney for attempting to cover the proceedings, in defiance of State law. Now that the state Supreme Court has stayed the action, the city refuses to rescind the arrest warrant. This is a direct assault on America by corruptly using the force of one's office to achieve an unlawful result.

[@redaction @redaction]

In most states, you can also "hire" a family member as a "self-directed caregiver" billable to Medicaid

California can be as high as $26/hour

Caring for 1 person, the maximum billable hours is 66/week

[Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius]

A key thing to understand about Marxists is that they use the language of the oppressed so that they can be the oppressor.

[Benjamin Domenech @bdomenech]

At age 91, a veteran of the American Revolution named Levi Preston was asked why he fought. He replied: “Young man, what we meant in going for those redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.”

[Nate Silver @NateSilver538]

I knew patriotism had declined in the United States. But hadn't realized we're actually below the world average now.

[Hayek-Club Weimar @WeimarClub]

Wer nach „Holodomor“, „Gulag-Archipel“, „Großem Sprung nach vorn“, „Killing Fields“, dem „Berliner Mauer-Schützenbefehl“ und Venezuelas realsozialistischem Trümmerhaufen immer noch „Ja, aber diesmal machen wir’s richtig – global!“ ruft, der hat nichts aus der Geschichte gelernt. Der hat eine teure Gehirnwäsche absolviert, die ihm beibringt, dass 100 Millionen Tote und unzählige zerstörte Leben nur „Implementierungsfehler“ waren.

Kommunismus ist keine gut gemeinte Idee, die leider schiefging. Er ist die konsequente Umsetzung der Idee, dass der Einzelne Eigentum, Freiheit und Leben dem Kollektiv schuldet und dass eine zentrale Planungsbehörde klüger ist als Millionen freie Menschen, die mit ihrem eigenen Geld und ihrer eigenen Haut im Spiel sind.

Ohne Privateigentum und einen freien Markt gibt es keine rationalen Preise, ohne Preise keine vernünftige Allokation, ohne Anreize nur Korruption, Faulheit und Gewalt.

Heute wollen dieselben Akademiker, die noch nie einen echten Marktpreis berechnet haben, ohne den sie verhungern würden, „globalen“ Sozialismus. Also: noch mehr Macht für supranationale Bürokratien, noch mehr Umverteilung von den Produktiven zu den Parasitären, noch mehr Kontrolle über Sprache, Energie, Fleischkonsum und Gedanken. Das nennen sie dann „GERECHT“.

Die bittere Ironie: Gerade die Länder, die am weitesten vom sozialistischen Ideal entfernt waren – Hongkong, Singapur, Südkorea, Estland nach der Liberalisierung –, haben in kürzester Zeit den größten Wohlstand und die größte Armutsreduktion der Menschheitsgeschichte hingelegt. Während jeder Versuch, „den Kapitalismus zu zähmen“, früher oder später in Stagnation, Inflation und Autoritarismus mündet.

Wer nach dem 20. Jahrhundert noch mehr Kommunismus will, liefert eine intellektuelle und moralische Bankrotterklärung.

[Lone Star Legionaries @TexanLoyal]

American hospitals putting up billboards in other countries promoting anchor babies in #Texas.

[Basil the Great @BasilTheGreat]

A leaked internal home office report from 2002 shows the UK Government had planned to change what "British-ness" meant through mass immigration

It was always the goal to erase our identity and replace us

[Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew]

Scalia's dissent was in response to Breyer's assertion that illegal aliens with no right to remain in the country have no due process right to bail hearing because they have no due process rights with regard to the denial of their liberty when the remedy they seek -- release -- they are not legally entitled to get.

The Trump Admin alien "round-ups" concerned illegal aliens with Final Orders of Removal -- exactly the same as those Scalia was referencing. The "round-ups" became controversial without cooperation when DHS made clear if other illegal aliens -- with or without removal orders -- would be arrested at the same time if they were in the company of the illegal alien who was the target of the arrest operation. State/Locals in sanctuary jurisdictions still refused to cooperate -- so every illegal alien got to take a ride.

You should spend more time actually reading the case law.

[Forest Park Pharmacy @ForestParkPharm]

My wife and I own a pharmacy. Last month we spent days trying to pry one prescription loose from a company that did everything it could to hold onto it.

The drug was everolimus. A generic. It treats cancer and protects transplant patients from rejecting their new organ. Not exotic. Not rare. A pill.

The patient wanted it filled with us because we're cash-pay and cost-plus. No insurance. No PBM. No secret markups, no games. Our price was $318. That's not cheap by our standards — most of what we fill runs under $20 — but it was honest.

Here's what that same prescription looked like on the other side of the counter.

In 2023, Medicare was paying about $6,645 for it. That's roughly 21 times our price for the identical medication. Medicare spent around $240 million on everolimus alone that year. If they'd paid our price, they'd have saved roughly $230 million. On one generic drug.

So how does an insurance company profit off a drug that expensive? Don't they pay for it?

No. You pay for it. In your premiums. Their job isn't to spend less — it's to keep your healthcare dollars circulating inside their own companies. And the tool they use is called spread pricing.

Spread pricing works like this: the middleman bills the health plan one price, pays the pharmacy a lower one, and keeps the difference. You never see it. On TRICARE, they pay an independent pharmacy like mine about $311 to fill everolimus. That barely covers our cost of the drug. Meanwhile the plan gets billed thousands. That gap — north of $6,000 on a single fill — is pure margin the middleman pockets.

Now here's the part they'd rather you not think about.

The pharmacy we were fighting was Accredo. Accredo is owned by Express Scripts. Express Scripts is the pharmacy benefit manager owned by Cigna. Same company, three masks. That nesting-doll structure isn't an accident — it's the whole design. When the pharmacy, the PBM, and the insurer are all one entity, they can shuffle money between their own pockets and call it whatever they want. The confusion is the product.

And this isn't a story about one weird drug. It's the business model.

The FTC has been digging into exactly this. In its January 2025 report on the three biggest PBMs — CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx — staff found those companies marked up specialty generic drugs by hundreds and thousands of percent when dispensing through their own affiliated pharmacies. Just those markups generated more than $7.3 billion above what the drugs actually cost to acquire, from 2017 to 2022. One in five of the specialty generics they studied was marked up over 1,000%. Some cancer generics: over 3,000%. On top of that, the FTC pegged spread pricing on those same drugs at another $1.4 billion.

One example straight from the FTC's files: dimethyl fumarate, a multiple sclerosis drug. Costs about $177 to acquire. The PBMs paid their own pharmacies close to $4,000 for a 30-day supply. Same trick. Different drug.

And they steer the profitable ones to themselves on purpose. Pharmacies affiliated with the big three took in 68% of specialty dispensing revenue in 2023 — up from 54% in 2016. The prescriptions marked up more than $1,000 disproportionately end up at their own pharmacies, not independents like mine.

So when we called to transfer this patient's everolimus to be filled without insurance, it landed like we were asking them to set $6,000 on fire. Of course they stonewalled us.

That's why we fired them.

No insurance means no invisible $6,000 charge buried in a premium you can't itemize. It means the price you see is the price. Ours was $318. Theirs was thousands. Same pill.

[Flopping Aces @FloppingAces]

Tulsi Gabbard just described the actual operating system of Washington and it’s somehow even dumber and more insulting than the conspiracy versions.

She needed one printed document for a 10 a.m. Oval Office meeting with the President. A mid-level staffer ... detailed from another agency ... decided he didn’t like what was on it, printed it anyway, then locked it in his desk and refused to hand it over. Her chief of staff went down. Her general counsel went down. Both got told to pound sand until the guy’s real boss at his home agency finally gave permission.

That’s the “deep state.” Not some secret society in a basement. Just some nobody with a desk drawer and a God complex who genuinely believed his personal veto outranked the Director of National Intelligence and the elected President of the United States.

This is what Gabbard means when she says they “thrive in the gaps between elections.” The voters pick a direction every four years. The permanent class decides which parts of that direction are even allowed to reach the Resolute Desk. They control the files. They control the information flow. And they’ve been doing it across administrations for decades because the only thing they actually answer to is each other.

The rest of us are just supposed to pretend the elections are real while these people quietly decide what the winner is permitted to know and act on.

Watch her whole speech if you want the full savage version. But the core truth is brutally simple: America votes. Then the people nobody voted for decide what happens next.
(article below)