If you’re sick of watching interest charges devour your paycheck like a starving pit bull on a steak, pay attention, because we’re going to talk about the closest thing to free money the banks have ever been forced to cough up. Right now, a handful of cards are handing out 0% interest for up to 21 months on both new purchases and balance transfers. No tricks, no “gotcha” in the fine print that only a Harvard lawyer can decode — just pure, uncut breathing room. These aren’t fly-by-night outfits; they’re the big, boring banks your grandma trusted, the ones with vaults thicker than a politician’s skull and fraud protection that actually works when some teenager in Romania tries to buy a jet ski with your number. You move your existing debt over in the first 60–90 days and suddenly that $8,000 at 24% is sitting pretty at zero. Do the math — that’s two grand you don’t flush down the toilet. Picture this: next Christmas rolls around and you’re not sweating bullets. You buy the gifts, book the trip, fix the furnace, whatever, and nothing bleeds interest for almost two years while you pay it down on your terms. Good credit? You’re in like Flynn. Fair credit? A couple of these will still roll out the red carpet. The application takes five minutes, and half the time you get an answer before your coffee gets cold. Most have no annual fee — none, zero, zip — so the card can sit in your wallet earning dust or earning rewards, your call. Some of these beasts even waive late fees completely. Miss a payment because life exploded? No $40 spanking and no credit-score gut punch. That alone is worth its weight in gold-plated titanium. When the intro period ends, the ongoing rate is sane — not the 79% loan-shark nonsense you see on late-night TV. Plus you’re stacking cash back, travel miles, or points on groceries, gas, and everything else you were going to buy anyway. You’re looking at 21-month runways. That’s long enough to kill off revolving debt, remodel the kitchen, or fund the side hustle without paying a dime in interest if you play it smart. Fraud? They’ve got real-time alerts, one-tap card freeze, and zero liability. Your money is safer than a squirrel’s nut stash under six feet of snow. Balance-transfer fees are posted in plain English up front — usually 3% or less — so there’s no “surprise” that makes you want to throw your laptop out the window. Bottom line: these deals are the financial equivalent of finding a loaded wallet on the sidewalk with a note that says “keep it.” You keep scrolling past these offers and nothing changes. You click, fill out the short form, and suddenly you’re the one in control instead of the credit-card companies.  A tip: Don’t just apply for one card – apply for three at one time and see which get approved. Stop wrestling with interest charges that grow faster than a teenager’s gaming habit. Grab one of these 0% offers before the bean counters wake up and kill them. One click here, five minutes, and you just handed yourself a raise you’ll feel every single month.  Your move. The clock’s ticking, and these intro periods won’t last forever. (Note: Thank you for supporting businesses like the one presenting a sponsored message in this article and ordering through the included links, which benefits WLTReport. We appreciate your support and I truly hope this can help make your life better!  MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!)

Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man accused of assassinating Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk, made his first in-person court appearance on Thursday — as the judge weighs media access to the proceedings.

Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO and a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, announced on Thursday that he is officially launching a Republican bid for Minnesota governor in 2026, challenging Democrat incumbent Tim Walz.

'biggest issues in the economy aren't groceries'

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade spent its latest markup hearing on Thursday proving that if there’s one bipartisan passion left in Washington, it’s moral panic about the internet. Eighteen separate bills on “kids’ online safety” were debated, amended, and then promptly advanced to the full committee. Not one was stopped. Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky (D) set the tone early, describing the bills as “terribly inadequate” and announcing she was “furious.” She complained that the package “leaves out the big issues that we are fighting for.” If it’s not clear, Schakowsky is complaining that the already-controversial bills don’t go far enough. Eighteen bills now move forward, eight of which hinge on some form of age verification, which would likely require showing a government ID. Three: App Store Accountability (H.R. 3149), the SCREEN Act (H.R. 1623), and the Parents Over Platforms Act (H.R. 6333), would require it outright. The other five rely on what lawmakers call the “actual knowledge” or “willful disregard” standards, which sound like legalese but function as a dare to platforms: either know everyone’s age, or risk a lawsuit. The safest corporate response, of course, would be to treat everyone as a child until they’ve shown ID. Rep. Frank Pallone (D) was pleased that the Safer GAMING Act (H.R. 6265) has become bipartisan. The bill targets online video games and would give the FTC authority to investigate or sue companies that “act in willful disregard” of a user’s age. Pallone also raised concerns that KOSA and COPPA 2.0, not because of the surveillance and censorship concerns but because they could “forever close the door on greater state protection for kids,” pointing out that they could override even stronger state laws. Even while praising some of the bills, Pallone offered the bare minimum of concern about “bills that mandate third-party access to children’s data or require an adult or kid to provide additional sensitive data like a government ID or biometrics before they can access content, send a message, or download an app.” Rep. Yvette Clarke (D) dismissed the whole bundle as “purely lip service and the weakest attempts at keeping people safe online.” Rep. Darren Soto (D), meanwhile, cited Florida’s own social media law as a model, praising its ban on anyone under 14 and parental consent rules for those under 16. That law is currently under heavy legal scrutiny. Rep. Neal Dunn (R) promoted the Safe Messaging for Kids Act with a bit of old-fashioned frontier imagery, saying his bill “puts an end to this Wild West sort of situation.” The bill’s focus is on “disappearing messages,” which Dunn thinks predators depend on. In reality, the legislation would likely mean platforms keeping more records for longer. Rep. Gus Bilirakis (D) started like a man eager to show his listening credentials. “To the parents who have shared their stories, we heard you, and we will continue to hear you, and these changes were a direct result of your testimony to us,” he said. That declaration came after Republicans reworked bill language, driven more by emotion than logic, following what they described as a week of heartfelt talks with parents. The result is a package stripped of one of its more contested parts, the so-called “duty of care” requirement that forced platforms to “exercise reasonable care” to prevent harm to minors. In its place, the new text simply asks companies to “establish and enforce reasonable policies.” Democrats immediately objected, arguing that the weaker standard effectively legalizes corporate shrugs. Their frustration grew sharper over the inclusion of language preempting state laws. For Democrats, this meant years of local experimentation in online safety could be erased by a one-size-fits-all federal fix. That same issue has already shadowed the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act, which would expand COPPA to cover teenagers under 17. The state-versus-federal tension has become one of the defining battles in digital regulation, a clash between lawmakers who want to lead and those who want to control the leaders. Sen. Ed Markey, the Senate sponsor of COPPA 2.0, released a statement condemning the House version’s retreat. “Today’s partisan vote on COPPA 2.0 is further evidence that House Republicans have unnecessarily set back a multi-year, bipartisan process to protect children and teens online,” he said, calling the House edits a “weakening of COPPA 2.0 on behalf of Big Tech.” He urged Republicans to “return to the strong, bipartisan language in the Senate bill.” Rep. Kathy Castor (D) tried to keep the tone conciliatory. “I didn’t come in with my hair on fire today,” she said, before explaining that she wanted to restore the “strong, bipartisan version” that previously cleared the committee. Her call for “intestinal fortitude” to protect families was meant to rally cooperation, but it mostly highlighted how far the process has drifted from unity. Outside the committee room, Joann Bogard of ParentsSOS, whose son Mason died after reportedly participating in a online “choking challenge,” issued a warning of her own. She thanked lawmakers for listening but said, “If the House version of KOSA is not significantly strengthened, we will have no choice but to oppose it.” Parent groups like hers have become a driving force behind the legislative rush, their moral authority often serving as both shield and sword for policymakers eager to be seen as responsive. Bogard’s remarks also pointed to the broader political logic at work. The more Big Tech resists, the stronger the call for something resembling Australia’s new approach, which simply bans kids under sixteen from major platforms. That model, now in testing, has become the new fantasy of frustrated lawmakers who prefer a clean prohibition. As the subcommittee sent its full slate of bills forward, it did so under a familiar political spell, the conviction that a louder promise to “protect kids” can drown out every unresolved contradiction. Instead of fearing government surveillance, they’re demanding it, pushing for legislation that would make more data collection inevitable. Now that all 18 bills have advanced, the full House Energy & Commerce Committee will take its turn to edit, approve, or reject them. If approved, the next stage would be the committee report and eventual consideration on the House floor. The odds of at least some of these bills becoming law are rising, mostly because, free speech and privacy be damned, no one in Washington wants to be seen voting against “protecting kids.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post House Lawmakers Unite in Moral Panic, Advancing 18 “Kids’ Online Safety” Bills That Expand Surveillance and Weaken Privacy appeared first on Reclaim The Net.