Doomscroll News

Category: Politics

  • The UniParty Terrorist Agenda Exposed

    The UniParty Terrorist Agenda Exposed

    I have a strong aversion to Peter Hegseth because he champions The UniParty’s Vision for America: A Globalist Project to Make America a Sharia-Compliant Infidel Exclusion Zone. This summer, while he was promoting “American drones,” I discovered through metadata on an X post that his team was using CCP-made DJI drones to “secure” our border with Mexico. One of the border patrol groups inadvertently posted it. When I confronted him with this evidence, he never responded. For this reason, I also call him “Peter ‘DJI’ Hegseth”—his hypocrisy is boundless.

    The establishment—the UniParty that wants me, an Infidel, dead—pushes this agenda. Search for “Sharia” or “Sharia-compliant” on the White House website, specifically in articles like this one praising deals secured by President Trump: https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/05/what-they-are-saying-trillions-in-great-deals-secured-for-america-thanks-to-president-trump/ (Archive: http://archive.is/72BVI).

    There is a profound hypocrisy in our leadership. Figures like Obama, Trump, and Newsom laud what I consider a terrorist death cult that commands the killing of Infidels like myself, David Gross. Yet, they imprison patriots like Irwin Schiff (Peter Schiff’s father) for tax resistance. Why did Trump, a jab-pusher and Blackrock globalist, fly to meet with terrorist groups like Hamas during a government shutdown? He should stay over there if he supports the killing of infidels. He is our first full-blown Islamic Terrorist President, praised by sympathizers like Biden and Kamala. The UniParty has become synonymous with Al Qaeda.

    I also believe a corrupt element within our government is complicit. A group within the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) had pre-knowledge of the “Kirk hit.” I reported this to the FBI both before and after the event, and they did nothing. I am convinced that figures like Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Pam Bondi are extremely corrupt. Their inaction allowed individuals like Mohammed Sabry Soliman to be missed in Denver because they needed to protect financial interests, such as Franklin Templeton’s Sharia-compliant deals. They have an agenda to import Islamic militants, just as Clinton allowed bin Laden to operate before 9/11.

    This same pro-Hamas group in the New York DEC is actively trying to bring in more Islamic extremists. Both Mamdani and Trump are shielding terrorists and are, in my view, terrorist sympathizers. It’s no coincidence that Trump was a registered Democrat in New York City at the turn of the millennium; I believe he still owes dues to terrorists.

    It is time to stop paying taxes, following the example of Irwin Schiff.

    For those who love America, arm yourselves. This is for our country.

  • An Analysis of the October 2025 Trump Administration-AstraZeneca Drug Pricing Agreement

    An Analysis of the October 2025 Trump Administration-AstraZeneca Drug Pricing Agreement

    1. Executive Summary: A Strategic Compact of Political Imperative and Commercial Pragmatism

    On October 10, 2025, the Trump administration and AstraZeneca PLC announced a landmark agreement.¹ The deal aims to lower prescription drug prices for American consumers.²

    This is the second agreement of its kind, following a similar pact with Pfizer Inc. in September 2025.³ It is a direct result of the administration’s aggressive “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) policy. This policy seeks to align U.S. drug prices with the lowest prices that other developed nations pay.⁴

    The agreement is not a simple price reduction. It is a complex strategic maneuver, born from a convergence of political needs and commercial pragmatism.

    For the Trump administration, the deal represents a tangible, high-profile victory in its war on high drug prices—a key issue for the American electorate.² For AstraZeneca, it is a calculated measure to mitigate significant risk. The company faced a credible threat from the administration of tariffs up to 100% on imported pharmaceuticals.⁵

    The deal’s structure is dual-pronged. Each prong is designed to achieve distinct political and policy objectives.

    • First, AstraZeneca made a broad, portfolio-wide commitment. The company will offer all of its prescription medications to the U.S. Medicaid program at MFN prices.⁶ This component gives the agreement policy substance. It allows the administration to claim a comprehensive victory that will save taxpayers “hundreds of millions of dollars”.²
    • Second, the deal includes a narrower, more publicly visible component. Specific, high-profile drugs will be offered at steep discounts directly to consumers. This will occur through a new government-branded platform, TrumpRx.gov, set to launch in 2026.⁷ This element provides the political optics, translating complex policy into a simple message of direct savings.

    The central thesis of this analysis is that the agreement’s direct impact on drug affordability for most Americans will be minimal. This includes those covered by commercial insurance or Medicare. While the deal is a significant political achievement for the Trump administration and a shrewd strategy for AstraZeneca, its tangible benefits are limited.

    Multiple independent healthcare economists and policy experts support this conclusion. They note that the deal’s primary financial impact is contained within the Medicaid program. This program already benefits from substantial statutory discounts.⁸

    Therefore, the deal’s true significance is not a fundamental reordering of U.S. drug pricing. Instead, it establishes a powerful new coercive framework. In this framework, the administration weaponizes trade policy to achieve healthcare policy objectives. This sets a potent precedent for all future government-industry negotiations.

    1.1. Key Takeaways

    • A Political Victory Achieved Through Coercion: The agreement is a major political win for the Trump administration. It was secured by leveraging the credible threat of severe tariffs to compel AstraZeneca to adopt “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) pricing for the Medicaid program.⁴
    • A Strategic Decision for AstraZeneca: For the pharmaceutical company, the deal is a pragmatic move. It neutralizes the existential risk of tariffs, securing a three-year exemption and market stability in exchange for price concessions in a limited market segment.⁴
    • Minimal Impact for Most Insured Americans: The deal’s financial benefits are largely confined to government savings within the Medicaid program.⁹ Cash-paying patients using the new TrumpRx.gov platform will also benefit. The agreement is not expected to lower premiums or out-of-pocket costs for the majority of Americans with commercial insurance or Medicare coverage.¹⁰
    • A New Precedent in Policy: The agreement’s true significance lies in its method. It establishes a powerful new playbook where the executive branch uses trade policy as a coercive tool to achieve domestic healthcare objectives. This bypasses traditional legislative and regulatory pathways.
    • A Direct Challenge to PBMs: The creation of the TrumpRx.gov direct-to-consumer (DTC) platform represents a clear challenge to the business model of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). However, its long-term ability to disrupt the market remains uncertain.¹¹
    (more…)

  • The X Paradox: An Analysis of Platform Governance, User Safety, and Inauthentic Activity Under Elon Musk

    Executive Summary

    This report analyzes the social media platform X under Elon Musk’s ownership. It examines the profound shifts in governance, user safety, and core architecture.

    The central argument is that these changes have created the ‘X Paradox.’ The platform champions ‘free speech’ but creates a hostile environment that silences many users. It promotes ‘authenticity,’ yet its systems fail to stop inauthentic activity and often penalize genuine users.

    The analysis details several key issues:

    • Inconsistent Policies: Rules for world leaders are applied inconsistently.
    • Eroding Trust: A monetized verification system has damaged user trust.
    • Bot Proliferation: Automated accounts persist, degrading the user experience and manipulating political discourse.
    • Declining Safety: Hate speech has measurably increased while content moderation has collapsed. This disproportionately impacts women and marginalized communities.
    • Opaque Appeals: The process for appealing suspensions is frustrating and lacks transparency.

    The report concludes that this transformation is not an accident. It is the successful implementation of a new, permissive philosophy that externalizes the cost of safety onto its users.

    (more…)

  • The Republican Gauntlet: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Top 100 Contenders for the 2028 Presidential Nomination

    Executive Summary: The Race to Succeed Trump

    As of October 2025, President Donald J. Trump is nearly one year into his second, non-consecutive term. The Republican Party is entering a period of profound transition. President Trump is constitutionally barred from seeking a third term. His impending departure from the political stage in 2029 has set in motion an “invisible primary” for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination.1

    This contest is the first truly open Republican primary in twelve years. It is already taking shape not in formal announcements, but in the strategic positioning of ambitious figures. These contenders are found within the administration, across the nation’s statehouses, and in the halls of Congress. The race to succeed Trump began, in many respects, the moment he secured the 2024 nomination.3

    A clear heir apparent dominates the emerging field: Vice President JD Vance. His position as the president’s deputy establishes him as the undisputed frontrunner.3 This standing is reinforced by his ideological alignment with the populist base and a commanding lead in early polling. His candidacy casts a long shadow over the entire field. It creates a gravitational pull that forces every other potential contender to define themselves in relation to him.

    The central dynamic of the 2028 primary will be whether any challenger can mount a credible campaign against the sitting Vice President. He is widely seen as the ideal successor to carry forward the Trumpian political legacy.1

    Beyond the Vice President, the field of potential candidates is vast. It can be categorized into distinct tiers of contention, each with its own strategic imperatives. This report organizes the 100 most likely contenders into a six-tier framework:

    • Tier 1: The Frontrunners: A small group of nationally recognized figures with established fundraising networks and a clear, immediate path to the nomination.
    • Tier 2: The Primary Contenders: High-profile senators, governors, and cabinet members who are highly likely to run and possess a plausible, albeit more challenging, path to victory.
    • Tier 3: The Cabinet & Governors’ Mansions: Sitting governors of major states and other senior administration officials who could break through with a combination of strong performance and favorable political circumstances.
    • Tier 4: The Capitol Hill Hopefuls: Influential members of the U.S. House and Senate building national profiles who represent the legislative wing of the party.
    • Tier 5: The Rising Stars & Dark Horses: The next generation of Republican talent, including lieutenant governors, attorneys general, and state legislators from across the country.
    • Tier 6: The Influencers & Long Shots: Unconventional candidates, media personalities, and declared long shots who may shape the debate even if their path to the nomination is improbable.

    The primary contest will be fought across several emerging ideological lanes within the party. The dominant lane is the MAGA/Populist movement, which demands unwavering loyalty to President Trump’s agenda. A second, diminished but still relevant, lane is the Establishment/Business wing, which seeks a more traditional, pro-business conservative leader. A third, and most tenuous, is the remnant Moderate/Anti-Trump faction, searching for a standard-bearer to move the party in a new direction. The success of any given candidate will depend on their ability to navigate this complex and often contradictory ideological landscape.

    (more…)

  • Architects of Influence: A Comparative Analysis of the Empires and Philosophies of Donald Trump and Marc Benioff

    Introduction: Two Paradigms of American Capitalism

    This report conducts a deep comparative analysis of two titans of American business: Donald Trump and Marc Benioff. They represent divergent yet potentially converging models of power and influence.

    Donald Trump is the master of the brand-as-asset. His empire is built on the symbolic, monetized value of his name. He cultivated this brand through decades of real estate development and media saturation.¹ His philosophy is one of combative transactionalism. He views the world as a zero-sum arena of winners and losers.²

    In contrast, Marc Benioff emerged as the champion of the platform-as-ecosystem. He built his empire on the functional indispensability of his enterprise software.³ He also publicly espoused a philosophy of “Stakeholder Capitalism,” which posits that business should serve the interests of society at large.⁴

    This analysis is not a static comparison. It is an examination of a dynamic and strategically significant shift.

    The Central Argument

    This report’s central argument is that corporate ideology is ultimately subordinate to pragmatic business imperatives and political expediency. This holds true even when an ideology has been meticulously cultivated over decades.

    Marc Benioff’s recent actions demonstrate this principle. His progressive persona has apparently dissolved. This is marked by his endorsement of Donald Trump and his adoption of authoritarian “law-and-order” stances.⁵

    This shift reveals the transactional nature of political alliances in modern American business. It also exposes the potential fragility of “Stakeholder Capitalism” as a core principle. The philosophy can function as a strategic posture, abandoned when it conflicts with the primacy of shareholder value in a volatile era.

    Part I: The Architectonics of Empire – Blueprints for Dominance

    This section provides a detailed, comparative analysis of the business models of the Trump Organization and Salesforce. It traces their evolution from inception to their current state.

    The two empires reveal fundamentally different approaches to capital, risk, and the nature of a modern business enterprise. One is built on tangible assets and symbolic value. The other is built on intangible code and functional utility.

    Comparative Business Milestones

    The following timeline highlights key milestones in the careers of Donald Trump and Marc Benioff. This helps contextualize the development of their respective empires.

    YearDonald TrumpMarc Benioff / Salesforce
    1968Begins career at his father’s real estate company.⁶
    1971Takes control of the family business, renaming it the Trump Organization.⁷
    1978Orchestrates first major Manhattan deal with the Grand Hyatt Hotel.⁶
    1983Completes construction of the iconic Trump Tower.⁸
    1986Joins Oracle Corporation after graduating from USC.⁹
    1987Publishes The Art of the Deal.⁸
    1990Opens the $1.1 billion Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City.⁶Becomes Oracle’s youngest-ever Vice President.⁹
    1991First of six business bankruptcies begins with the Trump Taj Mahal.¹⁰
    1999Founds Salesforce in a San Francisco apartment.¹¹
    2004The Apprentice reality TV show debuts, boosting his brand’s value.¹Salesforce goes public, raising $110 million.¹²
    2009Salesforce reaches $1 billion in annual revenue.¹²
    2020Salesforce acquires Slack for $27.7 billion.¹¹
    2024Salesforce introduces Agentforce, its enterprise AI platform.¹³
    (more…)

  • The Bork Nomination: The Man, The Philosophy, and The Transformation of American Judicial Politics

    The Making of a Verb

    In the lexicon of American politics, few eponyms carry the weight of the verb “to bork.” Its definition is stark: “to obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) by systematically defaming or vilifying them”. More pointedly, it means “to viciously attack a presidential nominee, blackening his name in an all-out effort to defeat his confirmation by the senate”. The term’s origin lies in the tumultuous 1987 confirmation battle over President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert Heron Bork to the United States Supreme Court. The fact that a man’s name became synonymous with a new and particularly ferocious form of political destruction signals a phenomenon that transcends a single failed appointment. The story of Robert Bork’s nomination is not merely a historical footnote; it is the story of a flashpoint—a moment when decades of simmering legal and political conflict over the role of the judiciary in American life erupted, irrevocably altering the landscape of judicial politics.   

    The creation of a new word suggests that existing language was insufficient to capture the nature of the event. Nominees had been rejected before on grounds of ethics, cronyism, or ideology. What happened to Robert Bork, however, was perceived as fundamentally different. It was not just a rejection; it was a new method of rejection, one characterized by an unprecedented fusion of interest group mobilization, sophisticated media campaigns, and a public trial of a nominee’s entire intellectual framework. The verb “to bork,” therefore, signifies more than defeat; it signifies defeat through a modern, public, and ideologically charged campaign of a type and intensity not seen before.   

    This report seeks to answer the central question arising from this etymology: How did a jurist with impeccable professional credentials—a former Yale Law professor, Solicitor General of the United States, and sitting judge on the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, widely considered one of the most qualified nominees in decades—become the target of such a successful and transformative opposition that his name entered the dictionary as a synonym for political annihilation?. To understand this event is to dissect the career of the man himself, the revolutionary and polarizing nature of his legal philosophy, the high-stakes political context of the 1987 Supreme Court vacancy, and the profound, lasting consequences of his defeat. It is a story of a man, his ideas, and the political firestorm they ignited, a firestorm that continues to shape the American judiciary today.   

    (more…)
  • A New American Platform

    A New American Platform

    After an 𝕏 history filled with plenty of bogus ideas, my stances have obviously evolved, so consider the following my most current platform.

    Don’t reform the failed systems of the past or indulge the inaction of extreme libertarianism.

    Platform Overview

    Signature National Initiatives

    • Launch a 21st Century Manhattan Project: Secure absolute American technological, energy, and military supremacy. Focus on topics such as: nuclear engineering, the development of sovereign AI, and the construction of a ‘Golden Dome’ missile shield. Absorb and accelerate other critical advanced projects: like directed energy, hypersonics, and cybernetics. Participation in this project, at all levels, will be restricted exclusively to U.S. citizens.
    • The Phoenix Mandate: A plan to eliminate the national debt by revolutionizing the U.S. healthcare system through personal health tech, ending the nursing home model, funding “moonshot” cures via a public-private “Titan Mandate”, issuing a “Stargate Ultimatum” for AI to slash costs, and enforcing a “Patriot Price Mandate” on pharmaceuticals.

    Taxation, Revenue & An American Dividend

    • Abolition of Income Taxes: Immediately abolish all Federal personal and corporate income taxes. The IRS’s role as a tax collection agency should be eliminated.
    • Strategic Capital Gains Tax: A modest capital gains tax will be retained for the sole purpose of preventing rampant short-term speculation, designed to heavily incentivize mid-to-long-term investment.
    • An American Dividend (Hybrid System): A hybrid system should be implemented immediately. A significant portion of all tariff revenue should be used to aggressively pay down the national debt, while the remainder should be returned directly to The People as an immediate “Freedom Dividend.”
    • Full Dividend Potential: Once the debt is paid, the full revenue from the baseline 15% tariff will be returned directly to The People, potentially translating to more than $1,700 per U.S. citizen, per year.
    • Mandatory Cash Option: The United States cannot become a cashless society. Physical cash must always be preserved as a valid form of payment.

    Economic & Financial Policy

    • Multi-Level Strategic Tariffs: Implement a 15% baseline tariff. Additionally, POTUS must have full discretionary authority to impose massive strategic tariffs (e.g., 50%, 100%, 400%, 1000%) on critical sectors like microchips.
    • Prohibit Peacetime Cryptocurrency: Cryptocurrency is a national security threat and its use by the general public should be prohibited.
    • The Wartime Digital Asset Act: Treat the underlying crypto technology (blockchain, ASICs) as a strategic military asset to be deployed only in times of declared war.
    • Prohibit Hostile Financial Systems: Expose and ban the integration of Sharia-compliant finance into the U.S. economy.
    • Reject Corporate Bailouts: The $10 billion investment in Intel is a bailout.
    (more…)