Giving fans a life update after being MIA online. Mason Ramsey, who was once a young yodeling boy in the aisles of Walmart, has grown up quite a bit since he was first discovered. In 2018, Mason Ramsey went viral for yodeling in the aisles of a Walmart in Harrisburg, Illinois, leading to him signing a record deal. He recorded songs like “Famous,” “Before I Knew It,” and one of my personal favorites, “Twang.” And let us not forget his feature on Lil Nas X’s “Old Town Road.” For a minute, Ramsey was the IT kid in the country music scene. While some parents would encourage their kids to keep riding the wave of fame they’ve been blessed with, Ramsey stepped out of the limelight and grew up like a proper kid after creating an album. He shared clips of what he was up to here and there, like riding on jet skis and working at Subway, but for the most part, he truly enjoyed his childhood like a normal kid. After living life, he stepped back into the limelight in 2023 when he released his first single in four years, “Reasons To Come Home.”  He’s since been on a grind, releasing music consistently, touring, and giving off “Elvis energy” (or so his fans feel). @laurahardyradio Not gonna lie, didn’t expect @Mason Ramsey to go so wild during his #cmafest ♬ original sound – Laura Hardy While 2024 was a booming year for Ramsey, with the release of a soulful EP titled I’ll See You In My Dreams, 2025 was very quiet for the “Blue Over You” singer. Last year, Ramsey only put out one new single, “Live Lonely,” featuring Harper Grace. The pause in music felt rather stark to fans, given the momentum he created in 2024. However, the pause was not without reason. To kick off 2026, Ramsey took to social media, telling fans that last year was a rebuilding year for him… Literally. In a recent social media post, Ramsey shared that he took a break from being online after those who championed him and worked for him had to be rebuilt entirely from the ground up. “Hey yall, happy new years! I took a much needed break from social media so I could get my business and head on straight. I wanted to say thank you for the birthday wishes in November and all the Merry Christmas messages I got in December. Last year was one of the most difficult years of my life. My label dropped me, my agency left me and I had to part ways with my manager.” He was not kidding. That sounds like a chain of events that would lead anyone to take a break from work and being online. Unfortunately, artists being dropped by labels is something that happens often, leaving a musician with the choice to seek another label or move to releasing their music independently. Having a label drop you is a traumatic experience in itself, without the other significant changes that also occurred in Ramsey’s career. Ramsey continues that he’s not letting this get him down and is back on his feet, ready to tackle the new year. “Since then I have brought on a whole new team and have been making music that I have never been more excited about. I can’t wait to share everything I’ve been working on and to get back on the road. I’ll be a lot more active on here so feel free to say hi! Much Love – MR” View this post on Instagram I’m glad to hear that Ramsey dusted himself off and got back on the horse. He’s a very talented young artist, and I’m sure he will continue impress fans with what he has in the pipeline. Fire up “Live Lonely” while you’re here: The post “One Of The Most Difficult Years Of My Life”- Mason Ramsey Gives Fans Life Update After Being Dropped By Label first appeared on Whiskey Riff.

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

The following article, Seth Harp: Fake News Reporter Tries to Doxx Delta Force Officer, was first published on Conservative Firing Line. Seth Harp, a “reporter” for Rolling Stone Magazine, posted personal information on a Delta Force officer he thought was in charge of the Maduro operation. He revealed the man’s name, home, photo and in general tried to doxx the officer. The problem? It was the wrong man. Plus, Harp seems to think it “perfectly legal” … Continue reading Seth Harp: Fake News Reporter Tries to Doxx Delta Force Officer ...

President Nicolás Maduro is finally gone from Venezuela. He was captured by U.S. forces and flown out of the country early in the morning on Saturday. President Trump has said that the United States will run the country for the foreseeable future.

There are good reasons to celebrate the downfall of the tyrant Nicolás Maduro, as so many Venezuelan exiles did when they heard the news Saturday morning. Not among those reasons: an America that seizes Venezuela's oil assets while keeping what's left of Maduro's odious regime in place.

"TRISTEZA NÃO tem fim, felicidade sim." Sadness has no end, though happiness does. The line, immortalised in a bossa nova song made famous by the film "Black Orpheus", captures how joy can be fragile, fleeting and precious.

Two Canadians who specialize in foreign affairs published an op-ed Tuesday in Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper to voice their fears that the United States will invade Canada during the Trump administration. “Canadians must acknowledge the real risk that Mr. Trump will use military coercion against our country,” wrote Thomas Homer-Dixon and Adam Gordon, who are both affiliated with the Cascade Institute at Royal Roads University in British Columbia. The pair warned, “We must get ready,” and suggested a variety of actions to stave off a potential war with the United States, including by “dramatically accelerating investments in national service and homeland defence, rapidly building out domestic defence industries, and developing a national drone strategy,” as well as “bolster[ing] ties with traditional allies and novel partners alike.” (RELATED: Maduro Captured, Hemisphere Jolted) Canadians are jumping to the conclusion that the U.S. president has designs on attacking them militarily because of the U.S.’s Jan. 3 capture and extradition of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The action was taken so as to prosecute Maduro for narcoterrorism and cocaine trafficking. The Trump administration had offered Maduro exile in Turkey so long as he relinquished power, but he refused. (RELATED: Maduro in Chains — and Probably the Blood of Children on His Hands) Homer-Dixon and Gordon conclude that there is “nothing” in international law that would protect Canada that should have protected Venezuela. “As a nation, we rely on exactly the same rules — the obligation to respect state sovereignty, the prohibition on use of force and the principle of non-intervention — for our own safety,” they wrote. They advised that, for Canada’s own protection, the nation should “marshal a global consensus that such flagrant violations of international law are unacceptable.” (RELATED: Yes, Trump’s Action Against Maduro Was Legal) On its own, the U.S.’s seizure of a dictator with a long record of human rights abuses should obviously not lead to such fretting. On its own, the U.S.’s seizure of a dictator with a long record of human rights abuses should obviously not lead to such fretting. But, in fairness to Homer-Dixon and Gordon, they are drawing from the U.S.’s recommitment to primacy in the Western Hemisphere, otherwise known as an “America First” strategy, that has been paired alongside the seizure of Maduro. Such a strategy was designated as a priority in Trump’s recent national security strategy document. (RELATED: No Tears for the End of the American Empire) “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again,” said Trump at a press conference on Monday. The U.S. has done much to reassert its dominance in Latin America over the past year, such as by pressuring Mexico to take action against its drug cartels, encouraging Panama to stop allowing China to expand its presence in the region, and announcing tariffs on Brazilian exports. And, in recent days, Trump has implied that he could target Colombia’s president and said that Cuba “looks like it’s ready to fall,” though he said he did not think U.S. intervention in Cuba would be necessary because “it looks like it’s going down.” Further, Trump stated that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela until a transition of power occurred, though that claim has been disputed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. (RELATED: The Toppling of Villains Has Begun in Earnest. It Must Continue.) More plausibly unsettling for Canada is Trump’s appointment last month of Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry as special envoy for Greenland, Canada’s neighbor to its east. Trump declared that Landry “understands how essential Greenland is to our National Security.” Also, Canadians have surely not forgotten the memes Trump rolled out immediately following his 2024 election that seemingly joked about making Canada the 51st U.S. state. (RELATED: Trump Sends a Cajun to Press the Message to Greenland) Homer-Dixon and Gordon are far from alone in jumping to fears of a U.S. invasion following the U.S. seizure of Maduro. “With this precedent in place, what’s stopping the U.S. from invading Greenland, Panama or even Canada,” wrote Maria Weiss in a letter to the editor of the Toronto Sun that was published Monday. Reporters asked Ontario Premier Doug Ford on Monday if the seizure of Maduro made him more nervous that the U.S. would invade Canada, to which he responded that it did not. “It’s not going to frighten me. It shouldn’t frighten anyone in Canada,” he responded. Canada’s former federal foreign affairs minister, Lloyd Axworthy, worried on CTV News Sunday about the danger Canada could be facing. “I think we’re witnessing an act of imperialism taking place in our hemisphere,” he said. “This is not something that’s thousands of kilometres away. We live next door to Donald Trump who has basically made it very clear that he runs the hemisphere and he will do what he wants.” Further, Ben Rowswell, the former Canadian ambassador to Venezuela, said the U.S. action in Venezuela sends a message to other countries, including Canada, about their sovereignty. “Given that the United States has already indicated very little concern for Canada’s sovereignty, what they’re saying is individual Canadians are going to be less free if America gets it way,” he said. For his part, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney responded to the U.S. intervention in Venezuela by “call[ing] on all parties to respect international law,” but he did not condemn the U.S.’s action. In their op-ed Tuesday, Homer-Dixon and Gordon imagined a “plausible scenario” leading to a U.S. invasion of Canada. First, “grey MAGA money” is poured into Alberta during an independence referendum. Then, even though only 30 percent of the province votes to leave Canada, Trump declares the election rigged and moves troops to the northern Montana border. The president would then force Canada to give up Alberta under the threat of military force. Such a scenario is, of course, totally unrealistic, and a dubious extrapolation from the arrest of a Latin American dictator, but expect to hear much more from Canadians anxious about a supposed invasion. READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes: New York Times Reaches Whole New Level of Willful Blindness Expert Raises Grave Fears of a ‘Christmas Massacre’ in Nigeria Gavin Newsom’s Democrat Fangirls

When federal prosecutors secretly subpoena the phone records of sitting members of Congress from the opposing party — especially those charged with overseeing the Department of Justice — the issue is no longer January 6. It is whether the executive branch is exercising its investigative authorities in a manner consistent with constitutional boundaries, established procedures, and respect for the separation of powers. In 2023, as part of the FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, the Bureau obtained cell phone toll records for nine Republican members of Congress — eight senators and one representative. Telecommunications carriers provided metadata only, including phone numbers dialed or received, timestamps, call duration, and general location information for the period January 4 through January 7, 2021. No call content was obtained. Smith later acknowledged that media reporting describing phone calls between President Trump, his attorney Rudy Giuliani, and Republican lawmakers motivated the decision to seek these records. According to his attorneys, the subpoenas were “narrowly tailored,” limited to a four-day window, and issued in compliance with Department of Justice policy. (RELATED: Bitter Jack Smith Proves Himself Guilty of Being a Weasel) What has never been publicly explained, however, is the specific rationale for including each lawmaker—or whether they were considered witnesses, investigative subjects, or targets. That distinction is critical, both legally and constitutionally. (RELATED: How COVID Mania Inspired the Events of January 6) The uncertainty deepened last month when reports emerged that Arctic Frost subpoenas were issued not only for former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, but also for Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. In Jordan’s case, the scope was far broader, covering January 1, 2020, through April 2022 — a 28-month period that began a full year before January 6 and encompassed his tenure overseeing the DOJ and FBI. As with other subpoenas, the request sought metadata only, not content, for several phone numbers associated with Jordan. It also imposed a one-year nondisclosure order prohibiting Verizon from notifying him that his records had been obtained. What articulable facts justified predicating a criminal investigation of the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee a full year before January 6? That breadth raises fundamental questions. What articulable facts justified predicating a criminal investigation of the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee a full year before January 6? And what specific federal crime was under investigation? What evidence did investigators believe they would uncover? (RELATED: Peter Navarro, Lawfare, and the Death of Executive Privilege) Those questions became even more pressing in light of Jack Smith’s closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee on December 17 — conducted under the chairmanship of Jordan himself. To date, Smith has not publicly addressed the rationale for the scope or secrecy of the subpoenas targeting sitting lawmakers. Additional context comes from whistleblower disclosures released by Sen. Chuck Grassley. According to those materials, the subpoenas involving Jordan, McCarthy, and others were among 197 “prohibited access” demands affecting approximately 430 Republican individuals and entities. All were subject to nondisclosure orders that left those targeted unaware for months — or even years. In my view, the decision to obtain Rep. Jordan’s personal phone records — particularly given the expansive scope of the request — along with similar actions involving other senior Republicans under the Arctic Frost investigation, reflects an unjustified overreach and misuse of the grand jury process and DOJ investigative authorities. Reliance on the secrecy of the grand jury to pursue overly broad records demands against sitting lawmakers risks normalizing partisan “fishing expeditions” into the internal communications of the opposition party. More broadly, it undermines the separation of powers when the executive branch covertly subpoenas the records of legislators charged with overseeing that very branch. It also raises a practical question: why weren’t these lawmakers simply interviewed? When investigators seek information from witnesses, the FBI typically requests voluntary cooperation. Lawmakers could have been asked about their communications or invited to provide relevant billing records. If cooperation were declined, investigators could have pursued sworn testimony through a subpoena. Instead, they opted for clandestine acquisition of toll records without notice. In my experience, secretly subpoenaing the phone records of elected officials strongly suggests those individuals were viewed as investigative subjects, not merely witnesses. That brings us to the core issue: what potential violation of federal law justified such an aggressive step? How FBI Investigations Are Predicated Under the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), opening a criminal investigation requires an “articulable factual basis” indicating that a federal statute has been, is being, or is about to be violated. Agents must identify the specific statutes at issue to ensure investigations are grounded in law — not speculation — and that all subsequent steps remain within defined legal parameters. Typically, a Supervisory Special Agent reviews the electronic communication requesting case opening. If approved, the case is formally opened, assigned, and noticed to FBI Headquarters and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, ensuring oversight and accountability. When the subject of an investigation is an elected official, the stakes increase dramatically. Such cases require heightened scrutiny, close coordination with the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, and strict adherence to protocol to guard against political bias or misuse of authority. Investigations of public officials strike at the core of public trust. If they result in prosecution, they may remove a duly elected representative from office, effectively overturning the will of voters. That reality demands restraint, precision, and transparency. Back to Arctic Frost Seeking and obtaining toll records of members of Congress by grand jury subpoena is functionally indistinguishable from a public corruption investigation. Notably, Smith’s Trump-related inquiry received support from the FBI’s now-disbanded public corruption squad, CR-15, at the Washington Field Office — underscoring the sensitivity of the matter. Were the lawmakers swept into Arctic Frost viewed as witnesses? That seems unlikely. When agents identify witnesses, they typically pursue voluntary cooperation first. What, then, in the case’s predication justified resorting immediately to covert compulsory process? Subjects Versus Targets In FBI terminology, a subject is someone within the scope of an investigation whose involvement has not been resolved. A target is an individual against whom prosecutors believe substantial evidence exists and who is likely to be charged. If the Republican lawmakers involved were not formal targets, they were at least subjects — meaning investigators possessed some basis to suspect potential criminal exposure. But exposure to what crime? An internal FBI electronic communication (EC) dated September 27, 2023, referenced a “preliminary toll analysis” involving records of the nine members of Congress and was approved by two Supervisory Special Agents at the Washington Field Office. Decisions of that magnitude are not routine. What role did FBI leadership and DOJ officials play in approving this approach? And will there be accountability? Finally, the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause exists precisely to shield legislators from executive-branch intimidation and preserve congressional independence. What conceivable criminal violations arise from lawmakers communicating with the executive branch — or others — in the days surrounding January 6? Is political advocacy or questioning the 2020 election now sufficient to trigger covert surveillance by the DOJ? Those questions extend well beyond Arctic Frost. They go to the heart of constitutional governance — and demand clear answers. READ MORE from Mark D. Ferbrache: Why the Democrats Lost in 2024 and the Road to Recovery Mark D. Ferbrache is a retired FBI Special Agent and former Counterintelligence specialist in the U.S. Intelligence Community.