What do you think?

Cover songs have long played a significant role in music history, offering artists the chance to reinterpret the work of their predecessors and sometimes even surpass the original in terms of cultural impact and commercial success. This article isn’t about debating whether the remakes are better or more artistically superior than the originals—that’s a matter of personal taste. Instead, we focus on ten rock covers that undeniably became more popular, more culturally ingrained, or more commercially successful than the original versions. The remakes of these songs gained a wider audience, cementing their place in pop culture, often due to the The post 10 Rock Cover Songs More Popular Than The Originals appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

Bread crumbs in the polls may point to a likely victory by Donald Trump over Kamala Harris in the swing state of Michigan, nationally known pollster Steve Mitchell says. “There’s been a major realignment in Michigan and national politics, with former Democrats now becoming Republicans and former Republicans becoming Democrats,” Mitchell, president of Mitchell Research & Communications Inc., told The Daily Signal. One of the most hotly contested swing states, Michigan may determine the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. Voters have eight choices for president on the Nov. 5 ballot, including former President Trump, Vice President Harris, independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and libertarian Chase Oliver. In the eight-way race, Trump and Harris are in a dead heat in the polls. In a two-way race, which isn’t what is on the Michigan ballot, Trump has a one-point lead over Harris, according to Mitchell’s latest poll. But, Mitchell said, polls about voters’ support for Trump can be skewed because “shy” voters won’t admit they’re voting for him, even through online polling platform SurveyMonkey. One way to get around that hesitancy, he said, is to ask for whom most of the person’s “friends and neighbors” are voting. “When we asked that question, by a 10-point margin, 46-36%, voters said that their friends and neighbors were voting for Donald Trump,” said Mitchell, who is not related to this correspondent. “That’s an indication that Trump may win Michigan, or is doing better in Michigan than the poll results.” Trump’s jump in support from members of labor unions marks a massive change in this realignment of voters, Mitchell said. Although Trump was trailing Harris by about three percentage points in nonunion households, to which about three-quarters of Michiganders belong, Trump was up eight points in union households, according to an Oct. 16 poll by Mitchell Research & Communications, Inc. Mitchell’s survey was conducted Oct. 14 by text-messaging registered voters randomly selected from a list of cell phones and directing them to a SurveyMonkey poll. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.04 percentage points. 10-21 APPENDIX III MI News Source-MIRS MI Press Release 10-16-24 343PM (1)Download Voters said Trump was the most likely candidate to solve their biggest problem, the poll found. In that question, by a margin of 3%, respondents chose Trump over Harris. Meanwhile, 64% of Michigan voters surveyed said they think America is on the wrong track, spelling trouble for the party in power. “Chances are the incumbent who’s got those numbers is going to lose,” Mitchell said. Polls have stacked a slow progression toward Trump in the seven swing states, according to RealClearPolitics averages, he noted. “Trump is ahead in all seven battleground states right now, by very narrow margins,” Mitchell said. “But nevertheless, as slowly and as incrementally as the lead has grown, it has grown. It’s gone in one direction only, and that is toward Trump.” Betting markets have switched from favoring Harris to favoring Trump, as have predictions from those who use algorithms to run simulations of the election, he said. Mitchell said he wouldn’t be surprised if the election results in Michigan are unknown until midday Nov. 6 because of how close the Harris-Trump contest will be. He predicted that Trump would appear to be winning by a landslide at midnight, before absentee ballot counts are ready. This is because more Republicans vote in person, more Democrats vote by mail, and in-person ballots are quickest to count. “Trump is going to be way ahead, then Detroit is going to come in at the end of the night and dump a couple 100,000 votes toward Harris, and all of a sudden, a race that showed Trump winning by 3 or 4 or 5% is going to be very, very tight at the end,” Mitchell said. “That’s just the way it’s going to be, because Democrats vote early, Republicans vote on Election Day.” Proof that Michigan’s election system is honest, Mitchell said, is that Trump won the state over Hillary Clinton in 2016 by about the same number of votes that he got in 2020, when he lost narrowly to Joe Biden. “The only difference between the two years is [that] in 2020, Trump got 5,000 more votes than he did in 2016. So he actually did better,” Mitchell said. “But everybody thinks it was stolen because the votes came in late.” The post Polls Hint at Trump Surge in Michigan as Key Swing State Prepares for Showdown appeared first on The Daily Signal.

While serving in the U.S. Senate, Kamala Harris celebrated the Democrat primary victory of Philadelphia progressive prosecutor Larry Krasner—and the controversial policies he would later champion as the city’s district attorney.  “As I said yesterday, progressive prosecutors are key to criminal justice reforms like rolling back mass incarceration and ending cash bail,” Harris wrote on social media, May 17, 2017.  As I said yesterday, progressive prosecutors are key to criminal justice reforms like rolling back mass incarceration and ending cash bail. https://t.co/r0PqTVrQ9a— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) May 17, 2017 Progressive prosecutors, also referred to as rogue prosecutors, are those who, in the name of social justice, “have usurped the legislative power by refusing to prosecute large categories of crimes,” according to Zack Smith and Charles Stimson, authors of “Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers Are Destroying America’s Communities.”  Before being elected as Philadelphia’s district attorney, Krasner worked as a criminal defense and civil rights attorney. He “sued the Philadelphia Police Department dozens of times over the decades, ran to be Philadelphia’s district attorney and received almost $1.45 million in campaign spending from George Soros in the process,” Smith and Stimson, previously reported for The Daily Signal.  On his website, Krasner touts that under his watch, “the office broke its information-sharing contract with [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement], has “stopped prosecuting nearly all simple drug possession cases,” and “Other drug possession cases are diverted toward treatment.”  Harris served as a prosecutor in California in the 1990s and was later elected district attorney of San Francisco in 2003. In 2010, she was elected attorney general of California and won reelection in 2014. While serving in these roles, Harris implemented policies championed by the progressive prosecutor movement.  In 2004, black gang member David Hill shot and killed San Francisco police officer Isaac Espinoza. Harris, who was the district attorney of San Francisco at the time, did not pursue the death penalty.  In 2012, while serving as attorney general, Harris issued a bulletin to law enforcement in California regarding an Immigration and Customs Enforcement program called Secure Communities that enables ICE to detain and deport criminal illegal aliens. In the bulletin, Harris told law enforcement that they were not required to fulfill individual ICE immigration detainers but could instead “make their own decisions” about detainer requests.  Despite her past embrace of policies progressive prosecutors have been known to advocate for, Harris has pegged herself as a tough on crime criminal prosecutor on the campaign trail.  Within days of launching her campaign, Harris used her record as a prosecutor in an effort to contrast herself with former President Donald Trump.  “I took on perpetrators of all kinds: predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain,” she said at a campaign event in Wisconsin in July. “So hear me when I say I know Donald Trump’s type.” During her debate with Trump on Sept. 10, Harris said she was “the only person” on stage to have “prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings.” Harris, who wrote the book “Smart on Crime” in 2009, has previously received criticism for her support of “soft on crime” policies, such as her pledge to “never charge the death penalty” during her 2004 inauguration speech to the office of San Francisco’s district attorney.  During her 2020 campaign for president, Harris issued a memo in which she detailed her support for ending mass incarceration.  Harris advocated for “significant federal investments in policies that would end mass incarceration and especially into evidence-based, non-carceral social supports and programs at the state and local level to improve public safety and reduce violence,” she said.  In the same 2020 campaign memo, Harris called for the end of cash bail.  “Our bail system is unjust and broken,” Harris said, adding, “450,000 Americans sit in jail today awaiting trial because they cannot afford to pay bail. Excessive cash bail disproportionately harms people from low-income communities and communities of color,” she wrote.  Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment, but the campaign’s previous statements indicate Harris still backs ending cash bail.  “On the issue of cash bail, she believes that we need a system where public safety, not wealth, determines who should stay behind bars following an arrest,” James Singer, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign, told Fox News Digital in August. “Anyone who is a danger to society should be detained regardless of how wealthy they are.”  The post Uncovered: Old Harris Tweet Celebrates ‘Progressive Prosecutors’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In an interview Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, dismissed the idea of religious exemptions for abortion. Hallie Jackson, senior Washington correspondent for NBC News, asked Harris what kind of concessions she would be willing to make with a hypothetical Republican-majority Congress in order to pass legislation protecting abortion if she wins the Nov. 5 election. “What concessions would be on the table? Religious exemptions, for example, is that something that you would consider?” Jackson asked. “I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body,” Harris replied. Harris’ campaign did not respond to The Daily Signal‘s request for comment clarifying her position on religious exemptions. Religious Exemptions Federal law provides, and has provided, multiple religious-freedom protections for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and taxpayers who object to being forced to participate in an abortion. The Biden-Harris administration has vocally opposed the Hyde Amendment, the nearly half-century-old legislation that would protect taxpayers from footing the bill for procedures that kill the unborn, but the administration has acknowledged that federal law protects other exemptions. During Supreme Court oral arguments in March, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar whether it is true that “under federal law, no doctors can be forced against their consciences to perform or assist in an abortion.” Prelogar confirmed that “federal conscience protections provide broad coverage” on that issue. CONSCIENCE CLAUSE — RL34703Download Prelogar cited the Church Amendments, named for then-Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, which Congress passed and the president signed into law in the 1970s. These amendments prevent the government from forcing health care institutions that receive federal assistance to make their facilities available for abortion or sterilization. They also prevent entities receiving federal funds from discriminating against health care providers who refuse to perform abortions or sterilizations. CHURCH AMENDMENTS 42usc300a7Download Similarly, the 1996 Coats-Snowe Amendment prohibits the federal government and any state or local government receiving federal funds from discriminating against any health care entity on the basis that the entity refuses to perform abortions or to undergo training in performance of abortions. The amendment takes its name from its Senate cosponsors, then-Sens. Dan Coats, R-Ind., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The Weldon Amendment, originally passed as part of a bill funding the Department of Health and Human Services for 2005, stipulates that no HHS appropriations may fund any federal agency or program that discriminates against health care providers that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. It takes its name from then-Rep. David Weldon, R-Fla. The Hyde Amendment, which protects taxpayers from footing the bill for abortion, remains in effect, since Congress included it in 2022 funding legislation. Even if the Hyde Amendment fails, federal law will still provide various religious exemptions that protect Americans who believe abortion constitutes the killing of an unborn human being. Under current law, hospitals can refuse to perform abortions, refuse to let others perform abortions using their facilities, and refuse to train health care professionals to perform abortions. Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals can refuse to perform abortions, assist in performing abortions, and undergo training for abortions. Pharmacists can refuse to dispense abortion-inducing drugs, and employers can decline to cover abortion-inducing drugs for employees. One out of five hospital beds in the U.S. sits in a religious-based hospital, and Catholic hospitals make up three-quarters of those religious hospitals, according to a University of California at San Francisco study. What Is Harris’ Position? The Harris campaign did not respond to questions about whether the vice president opposes these religious exemptions. While she did not explicitly call for the repeal of the Church Amendments, the Coats-Snowe Amendment, or the Weldon Amendment, her flat rejection of even the idea of offering religious exemptions as a potential compromise on the issue suggests a firm opposition to any religious exemptions. Furthermore, Harris’ framing—”I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body”—suggests she would remove any exemptions from a law to codify abortion protections. The Harris campaign did not respond to a request for comment about what punishment Harris considers appropriate for anyone who declines to participate in abortion, should the religious exemptions be struck down. This issue may carry salience for Catholics and many evangelical Christians, whose faith condemns abortion as a form of murder. Biden, when he served in the U.S. Senate, firmly supported the Hyde Amendment as part of his stance that he was “personally opposed” to the practice, while he would allow it legally. He abandoned the Hyde Amendment while campaigning for the presidency in 2020. The Biden administration has sought to roll back religious exemptions. Would a Harris administration do the same? The post Would Kamala Harris Force Catholic Hospitals and Doctors to Perform Abortions? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Spring means “in with the new,” and this refreshing twist on the classic spring roll recipe is sure to be a crowd favorite at any outdoor garden party or poolside gathering! The zesty blend of seasonings in these Shrimp Spring Rolls, combined with a cold Thai beer or iced tea, is sure to become an instant spring snack sensation. Zesty Shrimp Spring Rolls The following ingredients are needed in order to begin preparation for your Shrimp Spring Rolls: ¼ cup fish sauce 2 tablespoons of green onion 1.5 tablespoons of lime juice Dash of crushed red pepper 2 teaspoons of olive oil 2 teaspoons of minced ginger 16 uncooked medium shrimp, peeled ¼ cups of chopped cilantro 4 cups of hot water 8 6-inch diameter Vietnamese spring roll sheets 4 small lettuce leaves halved Directions: To begin your preparation, mix the first four listed ingredients into a small bowl to create your seasoning sauce. Set this aside and turn your attention to heating the oil in a medium-sized skillet on medium-high heat. Throw in the ginger and let this sauté until it becomes fragrant (and trust me, it will be!) Add in the shrimp and cilantro, cooking for about one minute until the shrimp are done through. Sprinkle in a dash of salt and pepper and remove your shrimp from the heat. Step one is complete! Pour the four cups of hot water into a large bowl and grab a pair of kitchen tongs. Using these, dip your spring-roll sheets into the water for five seconds each. Remove them from the water and place them on a wet towel. After letting them sit for 30 seconds, the spring-roll sheets should be soft and pliable and ready for wrapping and rolling! Place one half of a lettuce leaf across the top third section of the spring-roll wrap. Arrange four pieces of shrimp on top of the lettuce, and top off your creation with 1 tablespoon of green onions. Drizzle your seasoning sauce over the filling; or, if you prefer to use it at as dipping side, feel free to forego this step. Fold the sides of the spring-roll wrap over the ends of the filling and starting at the fitted side, begin rolling your wrap into a cylinder. You’ll then repeat this final stage in the process three more times, until you’ve created four perfect Shrimp Spring Rolls that will surely become an instant crowd-pleaser at any event you host this spring. The recipe size can also be increased in order to work as a main course, just in case you and your guests can’t seem to get enough of this delicious, healthy, and savory spring treat! Up Next: 11 Spring Recipes For The Homesteading Cook Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and Facebook! Will you give these Zesty Shrimp Spring Rolls a try? Let us know in the comment section below!

YGBKM: NYT Hamburglers Source on Kamala's McDonalds Job

TNR Needs a Waahmbulance

Christian students Grant Beth and Luke Polaske recently attended a Kamala Harris rally only to be mocked for their beliefs by the Vice President. While Harris was carrying out her routine glorification of abortion, the students peacefully shouted “Christ is King!” and “Jesus is Lord!” “Oh, you guys are at the wrong rally,” Harris responded to cheers from her abortion-worshiping crowd, adding, “I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street.” The “smaller” rally she was referencing was former President Trump’s, which actually attracted around 7,000 attendees. Kamala’s brought in only 2,000 attendees. Pat Gray and Keith Malinak of “Pat Gray Unleashed” are disgusted. “Clearly mocking the pro-life Christian guy,” Malinak comments. “She’s probably right,” Gray says. “They probably are at the wrong rally. This is the Satan rally, okay, that wants to murder babies and murder children and perform evil in America. ‘Okay, yeah, you’re right, we’re probably at the wrong rally.’” “Pathetic,” he adds. Want more from Pat Gray?To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A federal appeals court upheld a misdemeanor trespass charge used against more than 1,400 defendants who protested at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, but the issue could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.In a 45-page ruling, a three-judge panel upheld the conviction of Jan. 6 defendant Couy Griffin on a charge of knowingly entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds under U.S. Code 18 §1752(a)(1).The two judges signing the majority opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit were Cornelia Pillard — an appointee of President Barack Obama — and Judith Rogers, appointed by President Bill Clinton.Judge Gregory Katsas, appointed to the bench by President Donald J. Trump, filed a 22-page dissenting opinion.The statute is designed to protect the president, vice president, and other top government officials from trespassers. It has two elements: The area in question must be “posted, cordoned off or otherwise restricted” and be one where “the president or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting.”'I would vacate Griffin’s conviction and remand for further findings or proceedings.'Griffin entered the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol just after 2:30 p.m. on Jan. 6, walked onto the West Plaza and up a flight of stairs to the inauguration stage, where he prayed and spoke to the crowd below using a bullhorn.Griffin, the founder of Cowboys for Trump, argued that he was not aware that Vice President Mike Pence being in the U.S. Capitol was the basis for the second element of §1752(a)(1). Pence presided over the ceremonial counting of Electoral College votes from the 2020 presidential election during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6. He was evacuated from the U.S. Senate at 2:11 p.m. and moved to a secure loading dock just before the Capitol was breached by the swelling crowds.After a March 2022 bench trial before U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, Griffin was found guilty of violating §1752(a)(1) and not guilty of a charge that he intended to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business. Judge McFadden made no finding whether Griffin knew that the vice president would be present on Jan. 6.Three months later, Griffin received a time-served prison sentence. He had spent 20 days in pretrial detention. His appeal of conviction was argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 4, 2023.In her client’s appeal, assistant federal public defender Lisa Wright said as Griffin approached the Capitol, “There was no signage or police presence indicating that he was not allowed to be there.” Couy Griffin, founder of Cowboys for Trump, poses for photos on his walk to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.U.S. Department of Justice“A reasonable person would expect that, if a part of the Capitol grounds was meant to be closed, there would be some signage, barricades, or police presence to tell him so,” Wright wrote in her appeal brief. “But everywhere Mr. Griffin went–past walls that enclosed nothing and through an open door near the base of the Capitol steps–he encountered no postings or police suggesting he had reached an area that was off-limits.”Wright said that prosecutors had not proven that Griffin knew the vice president was still at the Capitol. Some 45 minutes before he set foot on the West Lawn, evidence showed Griffin remarked that Pence “certified it,” referring to the Electoral College tally.In the majority opinion, Judges Rogers and Pillard wrote that prosecutors did not need to prove that Griffin knew the vice president was present in order to satisfy elements of the crime.'Not required to prove'“We hold that the trial evidence sufficed to prove that the Capitol grounds were ‘posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted’ under section 1752(c)(1), and that Griffin knew they were so restricted when he entered and remained there,” they wrote. “We further hold that the government was not required to prove that Griffin knew when he entered and remained in the restricted area that Vice President Pence was still there.”In his dissent, Judge Katsas said knowledge that an area is restricted and that a protectee of the U.S. Secret Service such as the vice president is present are both necessary for a conviction.“Some evidence suggests Griffin did not know, such as his later, mistaken statement that the vice president had already certified the election before Griffin arrived at the Capitol,” Katsas wrote. “Because an essential element of the section 1752(a)(1) charge thus remains unresolved, I would vacate Griffin’s conviction and remand for further findings or proceedings.”Many defense attorneys expect the questions raised in the Griffin case to end up before the Supreme Court, which in June issued a ruling strictly limiting use of an accounting-fraud statute to prosecute Jan. 6 defendants.The DOJ had charged more than 350 Jan. 6 defendants with the felony crime of obstruction of an official proceeding for the delay of the session of Congress. But the High Court said 18 U.S. Code §1512(c)(2) could apply only to documents or other evidence used in a proceeding.As of Aug. 6, the DOJ had charged 1,417 people with knowingly entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds — the most common Jan. offense.However, the DOJ stopped reporting that total in its September and October statistical summaries. Instead, it inserted this language: “All defendants charged in the January 6 prosecution have been charged with some form of trespass or disorderly conduct, in violation of federal criminal codes.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!