There’s an elegant art to writing good pop music. Contrary to popular belief, hooks, memorable riffs, and anthemic choruses aren’t crafted easily. However, The real trick is to infuse that talent with equally impactful and insightful lyricism: a pop song with a punch. There is nobody finer at doing that, one could argue, than the legendary Jesus of Cool: Nick Lowe. Lowe may not appear on any Rolling Stone ‘best of’ list or win any Grammys, but he is one of the most vital and brightly beating hearts of American music and has been for nearly four decades. His hits The post 10 Essential & Brilliant Nick Lowe Songs appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

Echo & the Bunnymen hail from Liverpool, England. The same city in which another very famous band put that city on the map forever.  The group was formed in 1978.  The founding members included vocalist Ian McCulloch, guitarist Will Sergeant, bassist Les Pattinson, and drummer Pete de Freitas, who replaced the original drum machine. The band quickly became a seminal part of the post-punk movement, known for their moody and melodic style of rock that incorporated psychedelic and new wave influences. Their early works are considered classics of the genre, combining atmospheric soundscapes with poetic lyrics. Over the years, Echo The post Complete List Of Echo And The Bunnymen Albums And Songs appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

The top prosecutor’s office in the state of Michigan has threatened to prosecute a citizen for spreading allegedly “false election information” in the swing state months ahead of the 2024 presidential vote—an ominous sign critics warn could metastasize throughout society in a Harris-Walz administration, since the Democratic vice-presidential candidate has said the First Amendment does not apply to “misinformation.” Kerry Lynn Elieff, a primary candidate for Ross Township supervisor, posted a message on social media complaining that the polling places for Precincts 1 and 2 had been changed with less than 60 days’ notice, as required by state law, on July 12. Less than two weeks later, she received a letter from the office of Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, threatening her with prosecution if she does not stop spreading alleged misinformation—even though some say the statute cited does not apply to Elieff’s post. “[Y]ou are in violation of Michigan election law. It has come to the attention of our office that you have spread misleading or false election information regarding polling locations in Ross Township through on-line sites,” asserts the letter, signed by the attorney general’s criminal trials division chief, Robbin N. Liddell, on July 24. “[Y]ou are hereby ordered to CEASE AND DESIST the use of online platforms to continue spreading false or misleading information regarding the Ross Township polling locations. Failure to comply with this notice may result in criminal prosecution.” (Emphasis in original.) The letter states Elieff violated “MCL 168.932(a),” which “prohibits and criminalizes this conduct,” states the letter, first reported by The Midwesterner, as well as Detroit talk radio host Justin Barclay. Yet the statute in question states, “A person shall not attempt, by means of bribery, menace, or other corrupt means or device, either directly or indirectly, to influence an elector in giving his or her vote, or to deter the elector from, or interrupt the elector in giving his or her vote at any election held in this state.” Elieff told The Federalist she believes someone who disagrees with her politics turned her in—something experts fear may spread nationwide in a Harris-Walz administration. Minnesota Gov. and vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz told MSNBC he does not believe statements he considers false are covered by the First Amendment. “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy,” said Walz in December 2022. The vice presidential hopeful particularly chafed at election integrity laws passed with overwhelming voter support in Republican states. “Voting should not be some kind of proving ground,” Walz said, adding he wants “to make it as easy as possible for people to vote,” including translating the ballot “into as many languages as possible” for non-English speakers to chart the course of the U.S. government. Presumably, any post opposing those assertions may potentially fall into the category of “misinformation” or “false election information,” triggering the threat of prosecution. Online speech finds itself under threat across what was once known as “The Free World.” In the U.K., the British government has warned citizens it will track them down and put them in prison for posting or sharing any online content government censors say may incite “hatred” against any legally favored minority group. “Think before you post,” states an online post from the Crown Prosecution Service, which oversees criminal prosecutions in England and Wales. “Content that incites violence or hatred isn’t just harmful—it can be illegal. The CPS takes online violence seriously and will prosecute when the legal test is met. Remind those close to you to share responsibly or face the consequences.” “Think before you post,” reiterated the official social media account of the U.K. government, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the Labour Party. U.S. government officials have attempted to stymie free speech online in the past, most especially during the COVID-19 era. House Republican investigators and the Twitter Files, commissioned by X platform owner Elon Musk, have uncovered a vast public-private partnership to silence and stifle free speech online, as unelected government employees set up backdoor portals flagging social media messages for platforms to throttle, shadow-ban, or remove—at times, closing the user’s social media account completely, even in the midst of a government-ordered public lockdown credited with harming the mental health of a generation. With the coronavirus pandemic in the past, officials may be pivoting to election “misinformation” as the next avenue to police, censor, and remove online speech. The Michigan Bureau of Elections, under Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, urged people to report their fellow citizens they suspect of spreading misinformation to a government email address, “Misinformation@Michigan.gov.” The action echoes an Obama-era initiative to “flag” alleged misinformation online, reporting it to the federal government. Michigan snitches were asked to include an image of the post if possible. The announcement also directs individuals to “fact-checking” websites such as Snopes and PolitiFact, which have been accused of bias and misinformation themselves. Benson’s office also tried to recruit any citizen willing to become a “Democracy Ambassador,” which will receive “nonpartisan facts and resources” to “[s]quash misinformation before it spreads,” according to information received by ReclaimTheNet.org. Despite the officials’ attempts to rein in free speech on purported “false election information,” critics say the state’s Democratic-controlled government has not responsibly investigated credible charges of voter fraud. Nessel’s office refused to investigate GBI Strategies over allegations the firm turned in thousands of fraudulent voter registration applications in Muskegon County one month before the controversial 2020 presidential election. “As a former clerk, I can confidently say these registrations were put in the voter file so someone could falsify absentee ballots,” said state Rep. Rachelle Smit, Republican vice chair of the Michigan House Elections Committee, in February. “Their inaction in the face of thousands of suspicious applications indicates a systemic voter fraud coverup exists in the 2020 election. These law enforcement leaders will likely allow the statute of limitations to expire, protecting the criminal enterprise.” The Biden-Harris ticket narrowly carried Michigan in 2020, reversing the outcome of the 2016 election. Originally published by The Washington Stand The post Will ‘Misinformation’ Prosecutions Go Viral Under a Harris-Walz Administration? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. America First Legal (AFL) has disclosed documents obtained through a lawsuit against the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), accusing them of concealing federal records that detail government-sponsored censorship by the Biden-Harris administration before the 2022 midterm elections. The documents revealed that the FBI’s National Election Command Post (NECP) had compiled lists of social media accounts posting what they considered “misinformation,” extending from New York to San Francisco. This included the Right Side Broadcasting Network, cited by Matt Taibbi as targeted for “additional action” by the FBI. These lists were so extensive that they were compiled into Word documents “due to the volume of posts.” NECP, operating from the FBI Headquarters and aided by DOJ attorneys and liaisons from five non-DOJ agencies, was responsible for vetting the information and directing actions across various field offices. They focused not only on foreign threats but also on cyber intrusions and potential criminal violations linked to election law. Domestically, accounts like “@RSBNetwork” were flagged for issues related to election law violations, seemingly unconnected to foreign influence or cyber threats. NECP specifically instructed the San Francisco field office to send “preservation letters” to maintain relevant user information until legal actions could be formally initiated. The Inspector General’s report outlines the legal procedures the FBI might use to compel evidence production from third parties. These range from grand jury subpoenas for current subscriber information, including personal details and payment methods, to district court orders for historical data under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In more severe cases, the FBI might request a search warrant for detailed content or ongoing investigation data. This pattern of surveillance and legal pressure reflects a broader governmental approach that views alleged “misinformation” as a law enforcement issue. This stance has led to significant concerns about free speech, especially given recent cases where individuals faced prosecution for online activities deemed misleading by authorities. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post New Documents Show the FBI Implemented Nationwide Social Media Monitoring Ahead of the 2022 Midterms appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Although the Democratic National Convention doesn’t begin for another eight days, Vice President Kamala Harris is already her party’s official nominee for president, thanks to a “virtual roll call” vote earlier this month. For at least 15 years, the liberal networks have been cheering for Harris, applauding her as an “inspiring” “trailblazer,” with barely any concern for the far-left policies she would bring with her to the White House. Back on October 9, 2009, NBC’s Today show carved out airtime for the then-obscure San Francisco district attorney, helping Harris sell a book and raise her national profile. Co-host Meredith Vieira touted Harris as “a career crime fighter,” while Matt Lauer labeled her a “rising political star in California.” Among his fawning questions: “You have been called by some a female Barack Obama....Do you have ambitions for national office?” Kamala Harris is as left-wing as any national political figure today. An analysis of her Senate votes by the American Conservative Union awarded her a piddling 4.45% lifetime conservative rating. (For comparison, Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders gets a slightly more pro-conservative score of 6.05%.) Yet some journalists have pushed the narrative that Harris, as a prosecutor, wasn’t radical enough. “[Kamala] Harris had a rapid ascent in California’s legal circles, rising from county prosecutor to San Francisco District Attorney, to California Attorney General, cultivating a moderate political reputation and inviting criticism from some liberals that she was insufficiently progressive on criminal justice issues,” NBC’s Kristin Welker shared back on the August 12, 2020 Today show, the morning after Harris was selected as Biden’s running mate. Just last month, NBC’s Liz Kreutz repeated the same notion in a profile of Harris for the July 24 Nightly News: “As district attorney, she touted an increase in felony convictions and support policies that outraged some progressives, including criminally prosecuting parents of children who skip school.” The idea that Harris would be anything other than the most left-wing president in American history is folly. Yet analyzing the liberal media’s coverage, one finds little concern about her radical policies, as reporters glow over her “historic” candidacy and scold her critics as engaged in “racism” and “misogyny.” A quick rundown, from the NewsBusters’ archives: ■ “Your performance last night is certainly what people are talking about this morning. I’m hearing words like, ‘A star is born,’ ‘She is fervent, but deploys her anger precisely like a flashlight.’ Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are telling CBS News today that you had a strong performance. How do you intend to capitalize on that momentum?”— Co-host Gayle King to Harris on the June 28, 2019 CBS This Morning, the day after the Democratic debate where she criticized Joe Biden for his decades-earlier opposition to forced bussing to achieve school integration. ■ “I thought Kamala Harris gave a fantastic speech. She absolutely nailed it. I think this is one of the finest performances I’ve seen her deliver in terms of a speech. She has tremendous range as a speaker. There are times when she’s incredibly warm and funny and light. She’s talking about spending time with her nieces and her step-kids, being called ‘Mamala,’ cooking dinner.”— CNN senior political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson on The Situation Room, August 12, 2020. ■ “Every single day, every single night of his life, Donald Trump lives in fear of prosecutors. And today Donald Trump got a new prosecutor on his case, the former District Attorney of San Francisco, the former Attorney General of the state of California, and the current Senator and candidate for Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris.”— Host Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC’s The Last Word, August 12, 2020. ■ “Each moment in history has its significance, but this is a defining moment in history. This is something that the history books will chronicle, and people will look at this moment to see how to navigate for the future....She’s someone who doesn’t take tea for the fever. She can fight anyone at any moment. She can knock down the hardest or the staunchest person who is against the Biden-Harris ticket....This is a historic time. We cannot compare it to Obama-Biden. We cannot compare it to Clinton-Gore. This moment stands for itself.”— Urban Radio Networks White House correspondent and CNN analyst April Ryan on CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, August 13, 2020. ■ “For 23 years, I’ve been at the White House and I’ve seen history, I’ve seen the first black President of the United States of America and I called him ‘Mr. President.’ But if you come there in January, and I get to raise my — please answer my question — if I raise my hand, I get to say ‘Madame Vice President.’ Do you know that sends chills through me? And you look like me! Does that give you chills?...I can’t endorse, but what I say is if I get to say ‘Madame Vice President,’ that’s gonna send chills through me.”— CNN political analyst and White House correspondent for American Urban Radio Networks April Ryan, in an interview with Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Senator Kamala Harris, as streamed on Ryan’s Instagram account, September 21, 2020. ■ “I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge that the United States of America just elected its first woman and its first woman of color as vice president. Kamala Harris, the daughter of immigrants, one from India and one from Jamaica, once again an amazing sign of what this country can be.”— CNN’s Jake Tapper during live coverage of the election results, November 7, 2020. ■ “Wednesday is also the day we start addressing Kamala Harris as ‘Madam Vice President,’ a change that’s the culmination of all she has worked for....It might seem that Kamala Harris was born for this moment in history.”— CBS Sunday Morning host Jane Pauley profiling Harris, January 17, 2021. ■ “There are so many people who are so proud of Kamala Harris. I love the interview she did yesterday with Jane Pauley on Sunday Morning. At one point she was running for student government and they were saying, ‘Not your time, not your time,’ and she says whenever people tell her no she ‘eats no for breakfast.’ I like that way of thinking, ‘She eats no for breakfast.’”— CBS This Morning co-host Gayle King, January 18, 2021. ■ Reporter Rachel Scott: “It was at Howard where she ran her first campaign as a freshman in college and joined Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority incorporated….Now she’s inspiring that next generation.”Student Abigail Hall: “We feel inspired, we feel energized.”Student Madison Thibeaux: “Just seeing her and being able to feel like I’m being represented in the same way that she’s there and I’m there. I just feel like she’s me, I’m her.”— ABC’s Good Morning America, January 20, 2021. ■ “Every day she’s in office will be historic….I think a lot of people just want to push the pause button just for a second and recognize the fact that she is certainly a trailblazer.”— NBC’s Sheinelle Jones on Today, January 20, 2021. ■ “‘Knowing that there was a candidate that I resembled so much was so cool in and of itself. I also just felt really lucky that we figured out a way to have fun with her early on and make her a joyful character. There’ve been times where you’re asked to play up someone’s flaws or characteristics that are annoying or frustrating or embarrassing. This one feels like a superhero cape I get to don.’”— Saturday Night Live’s Maya Rudolph, talking about her role playing Harris on the show, as quoted in a February 22, 2021 cover story in Entertainment Weekly. ■ “This [mocking Kamala Harris’s laugh] is based in racism. This is based in misogyny….The right didn’t talk about his [Mike Pence’s] handling of the COVID epidemic….or the AIDS epidemic which I think led to, you know, thousands and thousands of deaths. What they’re talking about is her laugh.….She is prepared, she is seasoned. Abroad she gets wonderful marks across the board, but this is just something that I think happens to women and especially black women.”— Co-host Sunny Hostin on ABC’s The View, March 11, 2022. ■ “I keep thinking in my head that we all need a mom. I’ve been thinking that we really all need a tremendous hug in the world right now, but in our country, we need you to be Momala of the country.”— Actress/talk show host Drew Barrymore to Vice President Kamala Harris on the syndicated Drew Barrymore Show, April 29, 2024. ■ “We spent three weeks sitting outside the ICU with a death watch for democracy, watching what would happen after that debate if Donald Trump were able to get back in the White House and it was terrifying…Then suddenly a crack open of hope. One little heartbeat of hope. Kamala Harris raising her hand and saying, ‘I’ll take care of this,’ and you saw an explosion of support and energy.”— Contributor Van Jones on CNN Newsroom, July 23, 2024. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.                       

I grew up in a clichéd Texan fashion. I was raised Southern Baptist, with church every Sunday from an early age, along with youth group meetings all through middle school and high school. My faith was the center of my life. I kept it up when I went to college. In fact, I became more active, eventually becoming a youth leader for all grade levels at both my home church and the church near my school. So I guess I’m stuck in this in-between: a struggling Christian who knows better but cannot seem to find his way to acceptance or forgiveness, despite the example of many people with worse circumstances who have done just that. That changed after graduation, when a succession of events led me into a crisis of sorts. I found myself betrayed and isolated by both of the churches I called home. My wife and I lost our first child, who was stillborn. Reeling with anger, frustration, and hurt, I stepped away from the faith. I thought that I just needed time, but now it’s been five years since I’ve even been inside a church building, let alone picked up a Bible (which is sad, because throughout the years, I’ve amassed quite a collection). My "prayers," if you can call them that, consist mainly of sarcastic complaints and accusations.How did this happen? How did I go from an active church member and evangelical, pursuing the great commission and devoting most of my time to teaching the lessons of Jesus Christ, to a bitter, churchless man who shivers at the idea of going back to early Sunday mornings and late Wednesday nights? That’s what I set out to find. But my quest so far has left me with more confusion and isolation than anything. I began talking to the people in my life who were still active in the church and still strong in their faith. The problem with this was quickly apparent: Whatever they had to say, I'd heard it all before. Even the pastors I spoke to, despite their eloquence and erudition, had nothing to tell me that I hadn’t already learned in my years of ministry. Worse, I realized I was now on the receiving end of the exact same advice I'd given countless students throughout my years as a small group leader. It had been easy enough to tell people, “Trust in God. His ways are always the right ways. He knows better than us. Go to Him, and He will comfort you. Lean on God, and He will give you the answers you seek.” Putting these words into practice in my own life was much more difficult. I may know it’s the right path to follow, but my stubbornness and pain often block the way. What if my trust that these tragedies have a larger purpose is misplaced? What if, five years down the road, I still don’t see the bigger picture? These are questions I don't know how to find peace with. I'm afraid I never will. I seem to have two options. The first is simply to accept that I’ll never be the Christian I once was, something I find painful to contemplate. The second is to give up looking for an "answer" to what I've been through, stop throwing a hissy fit, and go back to the faith. That also seems like an impossible task. I know there are those who have dealt with more tragedy than I who remain strong in their faith, but I don’t know how they do it. Part of me questions whether it’s all an act, an act I was also pretty good at when I was a regular church attender, an act that will eventually collapse for them as it did for me. Or perhaps I just can't admit that I'm failing where they remain steadfast. But what did I want the Christians I spoke with to say? What was I expecting from them? I’m reminded of a line from Tenth Avenue North's song "Someone to Talk To": "But when I tell them where I’m at, they tell me where I ain’t.” I'm also reminded of the song's chorus: “Can I say that I’m lonely? Say that I’m scared? If I tell you what I’m feeling, will I still get to stay here? I’ve got broken hallelujahs and lies along with truth. Can you handle my confusion? I need someone to talk to.” I understand why the Christians I spoke to all said the same things, and again, they aren’t wrong. But it’s not what I needed to hear. Maybe there was no right thing for them to say. After I failed to find reassurance within the church, I began to look outside it. I heard about a loose group of Christians engaged in “spiritual deconstruction.” Like me, they had grown up with a traditional faith that they now found lacking. In response, they began to pick apart the assumptions behind their worldview to find what went wrong. This sounded perfect! I soon realized there were two major problems with this movement. First, this so-called "deconstruction" seemed to be no more than a cover for atheism, or — at best — agnosticism. Not only did these people reject the notion that God was good or that Jesus Christ was their Savior, they rejected the very existence of God in the first place. This seems to have led not to liberation but to bitterness — a bitterness deeper than my own. They don’t just not believe; the disdain they have for the faith is loud and toxic. The arrogance they have that they are correct, that everything they used to believe is a lie, was enough to turn me away completely. I can't imagine myself ever getting to point where I denounce God’s existence. If you asked me right now: “Do you believe in God?” my answer would be yes. If you asked me right now: “Did Jesus Christ die for your sins?” my answer, again, would be yes. This is precisely why I feel so betrayed. God exists, and He is good; why, then, did he allow me to suffer like this? But this intense confusion over what seems like God's broken promises is preferable to the idea that there is no God and there are no promises. That my experiences are purely random, just a case of bad luck. That’s not a life I want to live either. If anything, that’s more terrifying. The second problem with the deconstructionists is that they were almost entirely left-leaning politically. In fact it is politics that seems to have prompted most of them to start questioning their faith. Unable to accept the church's position on homosexuality, abortion, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and other issues, they left the church. I, on the other hand, have become more conservative since leaving the church. More pro-life, more anti-drug, and more pro-capitalism and free market. The only thing I have maybe become more liberal on is that I tend to believe God is a more perfect judge and there may be a lot more people in heaven than Christians realize. But that may be a coping mechanism I have created for myself to handle the fact that I’ve become a person I swore I would never be: a bitter, angry, "exvangelical" who spits at the idea that God’s will is the perfect way. And now that I have a child, I’m even more worried about where I’ll end up — and where my son will end up — if things don’t change. So where does that leave me? Current Christians can’t help me, as much as I know they want to, because my problem isn’t theirs to fix. Deconstructioners can’t help because they’ve decided to completely shift and become the antithesis of who they once were. I don’t fit in with either group. Neither has the solution I’m seeking. It’s between me and God. So I guess I’m stuck in this in-between: a struggling Christian who knows better but cannot seem to find his way to acceptance or forgiveness, despite the example of many people with worse circumstances who have done just that. Someone who is still angry that the worst of his suffering was caused by doing what he thought God was leading him to do. Someone who can't understand why some of the biggest blessings in his life, including the birth of his beautiful son, occurred after he left the faith. How does that make sense? This story doesn’t have a happy ending. Not yet, at least. Maybe I'm just writing this so that any people out there going through something similar can realize they are not alone. That they're not the only ones on this long, uncertain journey, hoping for a happy conclusion, missing the security of their old faith, and striving with all their heart to get it back.

After Elijah slaughtered the prophets of Baal, Jezebel threatened to do likewise to him, prompting the prophet of the one true God to flee. Elijah left his servant in Beersheba, then departed by his lonesome into the wilderness, where he asked for death beneath a juniper tree: "It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers." It appears that even one of the greatest prophets fell victim to the desperation many might feel today when struck by a feeling of isolation, confronted more broadly with signs of demoralization and desacralization, or even when met with the basic hardships life inevitably throws our way. In Elijah's case, the children of Israel had forsaken God's covenant, thrown down his altars, and slain his prophets. "I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away," Elijah gloomily told the Lord at the foot of tree. Fortunately, God did not oblige his prophet. Instead, an angel of the Lord furnished Elijah with cake and water, twice instructing him to "arise and eat," indicating that otherwise, the "journey is too much for you." Whereas Elijah's nourishment would last him 40 days, Christ will sustain us forever. As it says in Psalm 34, "The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and He delivers them." The psalm says further, "The righteous person may have many troubles, but the Lord delivers him from them all." Elijah was given food to sustain him for 40 days and 40 nights — the apparent length of his journey to Horeb, where at the mount of the Lord, he learned why he couldn’t previously throw in the towel and give up the ghost. God sent an angel to provide his despairing prophet with cake and water. God has sent us his only son, Jesus Christ — to provide us sinners with his flesh and blood. Whereas Elijah's nourishment would last him 40 days, Christ will sustain us forever. In John 6, Christ tells us, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." "Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life," Christ said. "I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Different denominations may interpret the bread of life discourse differently. Catholics, for instance, understand Christ is speaking not only of faith in him but of him in the Eucharist. It should be clear across the board, however, that our shared faith in Christ and relationship with him will fuel us for our respective journeys. In Horeb, Elijah received his marching orders. In the twofold commandment, we have ours. In Ephesians 4-5, St. Paul provides some additional instruction on how we, so nourished by Christ, should comport ourselves along the way. Ultimately, Paul indicates we must "follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." Our nourishment was made possible through Christ’s sacrifice for us. It appears only fitting that we remain full on our journeys by sacrificing for one another. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Pissed Off Top Biden Adviser Spills the Beans on What Really Happened and WHO Really Pushed Biden Out

HA! Kamala Harris REALLY REALLY REALLY Hopes Nobody Sees THIS Old TWEET After She Pushed No Taxes on Tips