'Heartbeat of the state'

How the hell did he do this

'Get out! Get out!'

Emerging from the vibrant music scene of early-1970s Los Angeles, Eagles quickly established themselves as one of America’s most iconic rock bands. Founded in 1971 by Glenn Frey, Don Henley, Bernie Leadon, and Randy Meisner, the group drew from a unique blend of rock, country, and folk influences, creating a sound that captured the spirit of the West Coast with a smooth, harmony-rich style. Initially performing as Linda Ronstadt’s backing band, Eagles soon struck out on their own and found immediate success with their self-titled debut album, Eagles, in 1972. This album featured the hit singles “Take It Easy” and The post 10 Most Rocking Eagles Songs appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The original “Russia Gate” might have been debunked a long time ago, but politicians and officials continue to seek to explain their electoral failures by accusing other countries of “meddling.” There is an even more serious angle to their insistence on this – namely, using it as justification for putting in place what opponents (and a congressional investigation) call the government-Big Tech collusion to censor online speech. Speaking of meddling – former senior US State Department official Victoria Nuland’s handiwork is probably better known in Europe than in the US, and she is now revisiting the script of (Russian) meddling, but is also complaining that social platforms are not as willing to “work” with the government as before on US presidential elections. Nuland clearly believes her own freedom of speech has no consequences, so she decided to tell MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “at it again” – and also explicitly accuse X owner Elon Musk of making his platform implicit in this alleged election interference. “In 2020, the social media companies worked hard with the US government to try to do content moderation, to try to catch this stuff as it was happening,” said Nuland. Now, laying the groundwork for election interference claims, according to her, Musk is “talking directly to the Kremlin.” https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/maddo-nuland-92393.mp4 The astonishing accusation goes on to “explain” what exactly Musk and the Kremlin are chatting about. “Every time the Russians put out something, [Musk makes sure] it gets five million views before anyone can catch it,” said Nuland. The frontal assault on Musk also saw the former official tell Maddow that he is “a new, very powerful tool” in Putin’s hands. To quote Maddow – “I’m not sure people have absorbed the magnitude of what you’re describing there.” She, of course, was not dismayed by Nuland’s statements but was with this comment “aiding and abetting” them. Once Nuland was done with linking Musk and Putin, she moved on to President Trump, who she asserted is “taking Putin’s lessons.” Maddow for her part took this cue to attack Trump as essentially creating “alliances” with what Nuland and Maddow consider to be autocrats. And, the “magnitude of that” is what the MSNBC host was not sure Americans have “absorbed.” Back to Nuland’s activities in Europe, while she still had an official role. This enabled her to become a key player behind the so-called Steele Dossier, by providing the since-debunked documents to the FBI back in 2016. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Former State Department Official Laments Social Media Won’t Play Censor for the Feds Anymore appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Lexipol, a private consultancy geared towards providing services to law enforcement in the US, has come up with a recommendation to law enforcement to set up a “Misinformation/Disinformation Unit.” A piece published on the company’s platform, Police1.com, asks its client police departments whether they are “prepared (for) the battle against mis/disinformation.” Coming from Lexipol, this is no ordinary question, as the firm is said to have contracts with more than 8,000 law enforcement agencies, and is consequently considered to be a key player in what is known as “privatized police policymaking.” According to Lexipol’s own statements, its reach in March 2020 extended to 8,100 agencies that used the company’s services and manuals (a year earlier, reports said that these agencies were located across 35 US states). From that position, Lexipol is now making recommendations to its “subscribers” in the law enforcement community to establish a unit that would not only tackle supposed misinformation and disinformation, but also “collaborate with tech companies and civil society organizations to develop early-warning systems and identify harmful content in real time.” This can be read as brazen defiance of the ongoing efforts, including in the US Congress, to put an end to just such “collaboration” between private and government (here, law enforcement) entities – investigated in one instance as government-Big Tech collusion. But Lexipol’s write-up plays on fears that it is “disinformation” that might increase public hostility toward police officers and put them at greater risk. The kind of disinformation breeding hostility Lexipol has in mind may not be exactly the same as that of many police officers, however. The company mentions what are at this point “soft targets,” at least to a certain brand of political and media thinking in the US – Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea – as somehow an example of that domestic law enforcement, too, might be harmed by disinformation, and what to do about it. With the scaremongering in place, Police1 promotes the well-established narratives: online speech needs to be “protected” from the dangers of AI, and this should be done by the police employing “proactive strategies.” What is recommended to these state entities is not really different from what the current US authorities ask of social media, and media in general: in this case, it would be a unit, one “charged with identifying false information, fact-checking claims, and creating counter-narratives.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Inside the Push for Police-Run “Misinformation” Units appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Kamala Harris could lose the election for a multitude of reasons. For starters, she has alienated a great many men, Christians, pro-life advocates, and Hispanic voters and has struggled to distinguish herself politically from President Joe Biden. Axios suggested on Sunday that what might ultimately cost Harris the White House is her strategic lack of transparency. The left-leaning publication indicated that Harris and her team have repeatedly dodged questions about her political positions, responding with only, "No comment." Harris, dubbed the "'no comment' candidate," has reportedly refused to indicate whether she still supports providing reparations to black Americans; "sanctuary cities"; the restoration of voting rights for all former prison inmates; welcoming multitudes of foreign nationals supposedly displaced by "climate change" to flood into the U.S.; providing taxpayer-funded sex-change mutilations to illegal aliens; ending the detention of illegal aliens; massive restrictions on drilling for oil; giving millions of illegal aliens smuggled into the country a pathway to citizenship; ending the death penalty; forcing automakers to cease building gas-burning vehicles by 2035; decriminalizing prostitution; closing private, for-profit prisons; and abolishing the Senate filibuster. 'There's no indication that Harris needs to offer specific, potentially divisive policies on any issue.' In an apparent effort to appeal to moderates without disenchanting radical leftists, Harris — reportedly the second-most liberal Democratic to serve in the U.S. Senate in the 21st century — has tried to run out the clock on answering questions about what she actually believes in, responding only with doublespeak and conflicting messages. For example, when Harris finally sat down for an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in August after dodging the press for five weeks, the vice president said, "My values have not changed." This quote prompted numerous sleuths to dig into what policies Harris previously signaled support for. After KFile highlighted Harris' radical responses to a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire, CNN's investigative outfit asked her campaign about whether the vice president's values had in fact changed — whether she still supported decriminalizing crack nationwide, giving felons taxpayer-funded sex-change operations, and exacerbating the border crisis. The Harris campaign responded with a lengthy non-answer about how her "positions have been shaped by three years of effective governance as part of the Biden-Harris administration." There were hints earlier on — besides Harris' refusal to sit down for interviews — that the vice president might be noncommittal policy-wise, short on answers, and keen to prioritize style over substance. The Atlantic's Spencer Kornhaber noted in August that Harris' "oddball charm satisfies the content demands of the moment," suggesting that it mattered less what Harris was saying and more how she said it. The New Republic recommended in September that Harris ignore the pressure to commit to specific agenda items and to instead rely on a "vibes- and values-based argument": There's no indication that Harris needs to offer specific, potentially divisive policies on any issue — and all of the early signs suggest that doing so would be a mistake. Harris herself is not a wonk — she flopped in 2020 in part because she struggled to compete in a wonky, policy-heavy primary. And yet, even if she were a policy dork, there's little reason to believe that it would necessarily boost her chances: In 2016, Hillary Clinton offered more than 200 distinct policy proposals and lost. It's left to be seen whether Harris' refusal to own up to her real views helped or hurt her cause electorally. However, Axios' Alex Thompson noted that "if she loses, she and her team will be blamed for leaving voters foggy about her true views and self. And President Biden will be blamed for backing a candidate with such a liberal track record." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Elections Have Consequences: Harris Supporter Freaks Out Over Mailer Saying She'll House Migrant Family

Polls, Polls, Polls—the Race That No One Can Predict. It's Really Here, Folks!

SNL Steps in It Again With Funny Skit With Tim Kaine—Hung Cao Has the Perfect Response