#john gibbs

[thebaileybugle]

Broken

Pairing: L. Jethro Gibbs x reader

Warning(s): Anxiety/Panic attack, loss of breath, language

Request: Can get Gibbs/Reader where the reader is having an anxiety/panic attack, and is shaking violently and is having a hard time breathing/catching her breath and then starts to cry, and Gibbs notices and helps her, then ends taking her back to his place.

A/N: Let me know how I did, I really love this idea and though I’ve had many anxiety attacks in the past, I always have trouble explain how I feel and what’s going on in my pov in that moment

—

It was your fault, it had to be your fault.

You were to cover Tony as he ran into the warehouse but a guy none of you anticipated to be there came out of nowhere and shot him before you could even react. And now your friend and co-worker was in surgery as the doctors slaved away to try and save his life.

Gibbs, Ducky and the rest of your team did everything to reassure you that none of what happened was out of your control but at that point nothing could make your mind come around to that conclusion.

The team had gone to take a walk to distract themselves, but since you were sitting in your chair almost lifeless, Gibbs decided to stay to keep an eye on you.

He was about ready to doze off from the uncomfortable two days he hadn’t sleep. (You told him to he and he refused like the stubborn marine he is). Though he was jolted back to full consciousness when he heard a sudden quiet whisper.

It’s my fault. It’s my fault. He wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for me. I should have triple checked. I should have- I should’ve-

“Y/N?” You didn’t hear him through your numbing thoughts. Though you did feel a welcomed comforting warmth on your shoulder.

It should’ve been me.

“The hell.” The silver headed man murmured from the seat next to yours.

Your hair was disheveled from running you hand through it, the lightly applied make up gone, and your eyes hung like three milk jugs in a grocery bag.

It pained him to see you like this. To see you so deep in pain and regret. He wished he could take it off of you, your shoulders, your mind.

He stood from his seat and crouched down in front of you to match your eye level. And from his proximity he could hear the words that feel from your lips in a silent whisper.

Why didn’t I do more? Why couldn’t it be me? It’s my fault. All my fault.

Your words didn’t entirely shock him. He’s been been in your place multiple times but to see you in it knocked the wind out of his chest, and not like the first time he saw you on your first day as an Agent.

“Hey.” Gibbs tried to bring you out of your trance in a soft tone. Though when he saw that you didn’t hear, he place his hands on your shoulders. “Hey!” He called to you a little louder which made your eyes open.

Though when they did, you couldn’t look at him, your mind was racing too fast. Your eyes bounced from everything in the room except your boss who was inwardly more panicked than you.

“I should’ve- what if Tony- he could-“ Your breathing was jagged which cut your sentences. It also didn’t help with the fact that your mind was moving faster than a jaguar hunting it’s prey.

“Ok I’m gonna need full sentences from you sweets or else we’re not gonna get anywhere.” He brushed your hair covering your face and tucked it behind your ear. “Look at me Y/N, please.” He softly pleaded. You took in a large and and held a blink for a few seconds before exhaling and opening your eyes once more.

You were instantly met with the other piercing crystal blue gaze of Gibbs that held a comforting warmth. The feeling of his gaze holding yours brought your nerves and spiraling thought to a slow stop.

“I got ya?” You nodded. “I need words, Y/N, come on.”

“I’m here, you have me. I’m… ok.”

“Good.” He leaned up a bit and kissed your forehead before meeting your eye level once more. “He’s going to be fine. Might be in a bit of pain for a few, but what haven’t we faced so far? Now, nothing I say will change your mind about this not being your fault- even if it isn’t. You have to come to that conclusion yourself, but even if you don’t, I and the rest will be here to talk about it.”

[theradicalbuzzardofdiscourse]

[nerds-yearbook]

On December 7, 1985, the last episode of the animated Dungeons & Dragons aired. ("The Winds of Darkness", Dungeons & Dragons, TV, event)

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

An inkling of the Republican Party’s shocking underperformance in the midterms could be seen in a literal, not figurative, crusade. Allen West, former congressman and Texas Republican Party chairman, decided in September that the time was ripe to join the Knights Templar, the infamous sect of medieval soldier-monks. Photographed standing in a white robe emblazoned with a red cross draped jauntily over his tuxedo, West—a close ally of Donald Trump—tweeted that he had taken “an oath to protect the Christians in the Holy Land.”

The real Knights Templar, of course, were dissolved in 1312. The organization West joined is an American-based “chivalric order” that grants its members “knighthood” and, aside from its name, shares nothing with the actual Knights Templar.

West’s bizarre fascination with the imagery of medieval Europe does not exist in a vacuum: The right is getting weirder. That might begin to cost Republicans elections in years to come and undermine their own appeals to American patriotism in a way policy extremism alone could not. American voters see the political parties as equally extreme in policy, ignoring evidence that Republicans have moved right much faster than Democrats have moved left. However, a party fixated on genital sunning, seed oils, Catholic integralism, European aristocracy, and occultism can alienate voters not because of its positions but because of how it presents them—and itself. Among the right’s intellectual avant garde and media elites, there is a growing adoption of habits, aesthetics, and views that are not only out of step with America’s but are deliberately cultivated in opposition to a national majority that the new right holds in contempt.

This is a different—though parallel—phenomenon from the often raucous, conspiratorial personality cult that surrounds Donald Trump and his devoted base. This new turn has predominantly manifested among the upper-class and college-educated right wing. Indeed, as Democratic strategist David Shor noted, as those with college degrees become more left leaning, the remaining conservatives have gotten “really very weird.” In this well-off cohort, there exists a mirror of the excesses often attributed to the college-educated left, fairly or unfairly: an aversion to mainstream values and an extreme militancy.

The ascendant weird right will likely struggle to sell its deeply anti-patriotic vision to many voters. In these segments of the mostly young, online-influenced American right, the optimistic vision espoused by Ronald Reagan’s “morning in America” has been discarded. The elite educated right has moved even beyond the overt pessimism of Donald Trump’s “American carnage”—now disgust with equitable citizenship, personal liberty, and democratic self-governance is commonplace. Fed by an endless outrage cycle and a motivated and well-resourced donor class willing to pour money into increasingly reactionary think tanks like the avowedly anti-democratic Claremont Institute, right-wing thinkers and activists have begun to identify the foundational pillars of the United States itself with immorality and adopted a new fascination with medieval Catholicism and imported European extremisms. Today, the right has shed its American and conservative roots and seeks a radical shift—a national “refounding.” Indeed, leading right-wing intellectuals like John Daniel Davidson have said that “the conservative project has failed” and that people like them constitute the educated vanguard of a “revolutionary moment.”

As we can now see—with even greater clarity—in the wake of the election, American voters respond poorly to a toxic brew of pessimism; the promise of radical cultural transformation; and the imposition of foreign ideas, values, and aesthetics. Nine in 10 Americans believe that being “truly American” involves respecting “American political institutions and laws,” the Public Religion Research Institute found last year. Americans consistently affirm that liberty, equality, and progress—the core values of republicanism and the Enlightenment—are ones they try to live by. While the content and meaning of those values have always been contested terrain, opposing them is a nonstarter.

The weird elite right risks losing these “normie” (as it calls them) Americans as it embraces what is fundamentally a niche subculture. The toxic far-right ideas that percolate in online youth communities and among cloistered college-educated young Republicans have not remained there—increasingly they have spilled out to influence policy and may have been deciding factors in close races this year.

John Gibbs, a Republican nominee for a Michigan swing seat, founded a think tank that argued for overturning the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. The country, he said, had “suffered” from women’s suffrage. He narrowly lost his bid. Blake Masters and J.D. Vance—two Republican candidates for Senate funded in part by tech billionaire and new-right linchpin Peter Thiel—have embraced new-right ideas and actively courted the “weird right.” Vance has questioned whether women should leave violent marriages; Masters has praised domestic terrorist Theodore Kaczynski’s infamous manifesto, argued against legal access to contraception, and openly said that democracy is a smokescreen for the masses “stealing certain kinds of goods and redistributing them as they see fit.” (Americans on balance like democracy; legal contraception is almost universally popular; and Kaczynski’s unpopularity is so widely assumed that pollsters rarely ask about him.) Masters, perhaps unsurprisingly, lost his bid to unseat Mark Kelly, and Vance badly underperformed in his blood-red home state.

The most outwardly visible element of the extremely online weird right is its often nonsensical lifestyle and consumption habits. The subculture has not only embraced vaccine hesitancy—once primarily a creature of the left—but also fringe health and dietary practices that recall the wildest excesses of 1960s new age spiritualism. The claims are varied and, to differing degrees, absurd: Real men don’t eat soybeans; seed oils are dangerous; meat substitutes will turn men into women and also are made from bugs (they aren’t); the best diet is all-meat. This is no mere online phenomenon: Representative Robbie Jackson of Texas has stated that if one eats artificially cultured meat, “you’ll turn into a SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT.”

These trends are partly the result of declining social trust among conservatives. Loss of trust, in this case, manifests as hardening the body as a site of personal control. Health, arguably, is not the point—rather, expressing gender identity is. This is certainly true of “testicular tanning,” the belief that exposing the testicles to direct sunlight boosts testosterone (and therefore “manliness”), an idea that blends pseudoscience, tantric spiritualism, and self-help. Even this has not remained confined to the internet: Tucker Carlson has discussed it seriously.

Perhaps the most pernicious element of right-wing weirdness occurs at the intersection of standard traditionalist opposition to equal gender roles and an online youth subculture that has sought to make women’s disempowerment trendy. The idea of the “trad wife”—women who embrace subservient roles as homemakers and mothers, eschewing political leadership and careers—stands, like many of the weird right’s shibboleths, at the crossroads of internet meme, sociological critique, and political program. Trad wives are a pastiche of the idyll of the 1950s housewife and the imagined premodern agrarian mother, realities that only fully existed in advertisements and storybooks. They usually espouse complete submissiveness to husbands and a totalizing dedication to raising children.

By removing women from the labor market and circumscribing women’s social roles, the movement offers the illusion of sanctuary from modern woes and economic demands. It goes beyond simply reacting to perceived leftist excesses and embraces a sociopolitical program that would, if enacted, essentially remove the ability of American women to determine the course of their own lives—making them, once again, primarily subservient to and dependent upon male breadwinners. Millions of Americans are stay-at-home parents; most would likely be ill suited to the trad wife’s world. The aesthetics of trad wives are intertwined with darker impulses on the activist right toward a state that legally mandates specific gender roles—a form of recontainment that traps women in marriages and bars them from basic autonomy and self-sufficiency.

Women’s and reproductive rights are areas where meme-infused weirdness and actual policy align to set the right against most American voters. When right-wing writers like National Review’s Nate Hochman argue that no-fault divorce was “a tragic mistake” (a view shared by numerous other far-right figures), he is not only embracing a position outside the bounds of conventional American life but one that is deeply politically unpopular, opposed by at least four-fifths of Americans. The activist right’s legal alternative is “covenant marriage,” which allows divorce only under extreme circumstances like felony conviction or child abuse. Covenant marriage has recently made its way into the Texas Republican Party’s official platform as a replacement for existing marriage law.

Trad wife aesthetics are partly a result of right-wing influencers’ embrace of traditionalist religious attitudes. The embrace of traditionalist Catholicism and the rise of integralists like Harvard Law School professor Adrian Vermeule—who espouses a quasi-theocracy that even the conservative stalwart George Will has said is “un-American”—are critical pieces of the aesthetic and moral revanchism now in vogue on the right.

The growing fascination with Catholicism—particularly sedevacantism, which denies the current pope’s legitimacy—is, according to one critic, indicative of the educated and activist right’s “admiration for the [European] aristocratic past” and a longing for a new elite to which it feels it belongs. This segment of the right has, both programmatically and aesthetically, lost interest in conserving that which is American and moved on to mine its influences from stranger sources. Constitutionalism, Enlightenment rationality, religious freedom, and republicanism are out. European aristocracy, crusading holy orders, and mysticism are in. Mr. West may still make the usual overtures to Americana in press releases, but the Knights Templar (so far as I know) never made it to Texas.

That idealization of the European right has led not just to the fetishization of historical monarchism—cheerled by figures like the reactionary thinker Curtis Yarvin—but to more immediate fascination with contemporary autocrats, especially Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary and President Vladimir Putin of Russia.

One such admirer is Nick Fuentes, a prominent activist among college Republicans and also a white supremacist and antisemite who has become cozy with some congressional Republicans. Fuentes has praised Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. “We continue to support czar Putin in the war effort,” Fuentes said, saying Putin would “liberate Ukraine from the Great Satan and from the evil empire in the world, which is the United States.” In this narrative, Putin’s invasion is a component of a broader war against American influence and democratic values—a goal shared by Orbán’s government, which has promoted “illiberal democracy,” decried “race-mixing,” crushed freedom of speech, and curtailed LGBTQ rights. Naturally, the Conservative Political Action Conference was held in Hungary earlier this year.

Among Americans more generally, the right-wing embrace of Putin is dismally unpopular: Just 6% U.S. adults have a positive opinion of the Russian president, the Pew Research Center found this year. Meanwhile, the “MAGACommunism” movement has combined American nationalism with praise for another authoritarian leader despised by most Americans, China’s Xi Jinping.

Alienating mainstream voters by embracing fringe values and off-putting aesthetics is not a new folly—on the left or the right. In the early twentieth century, French voters regularly elected left-leaning governments despite numerous crises that beset the nation. One socialist essayist, Charles Péguy, argued that the right was actually “far less conservative” than the left—while the right pushed radical transformation, reorganizing France around the Catholic Church and reestablishing a powerful monarchy, the left—in Péguy’s view—sought to preserve hard-fought but deeply held French values like the separation of church and state, equitable citizenship, and republican liberty.

In the U.S., the “cultural left” of the late twentieth century managed to alienate many voters through its pessimistic belief that America could not be reformed by material policy, only transformed through a shift in social consciousness. As the philosopher Richard Rorty wrote in Achieving Our Country, while a reformist left gained popularity with a multiracial, multiclass electoral coalition in the early twentieth century by painting an optimistic image of what America could be, the later—educated and mostly well-off—“cultural left” chose as its enemy “a mind-set rather than a set of economic arrangements,” removing itself from what voters actually cared about and instead defining itself by its cultural consumption and outlandish aesthetic preferences. The cultural left saw material political conditions as a downstream afterthought from culture and so tacitly abandoned both politics and culture—and got weird. The decades of backlash, from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, were inevitable.

While many Republicans are embracing the fringe cultural positions emerging from this radical and elite milieu, pushing the view that America is a degenerate society that cannot be saved, elements of the left may have learned their lesson. Eschewing what the writer Sam Adler-Bell has called “insular language that alienates those who haven’t stewed in the same activist cultural milieu,” some Democratic Socialists of America chapters have become more involved in recent unionization drives, fights for workers’ rights, and campaigns against monopolistic corporate power. It’s a focus not on posting but on materially supporting the working class—and embracing core American values to do it.

The right is learning the opposite lesson. Far-right YouTuber Paul Joseph Watson suggested in 2020 that the right is “the new punk rock.” But that may not be to the right wing’s electoral advantage. Subcultures, by their very nature, exclude or look down on the bulk of the public and tend not to win electoral power, a lesson the left learned the hard way. Far-right billionaires can pump money into New York film festivals and sceney parties, but in doing so, they are unlearning the language of American majoritarian values. Even as the left—in fits and starts—relearns normalcy, the right is abandoning it.

[nodynasty4us]

Don’t keep coming to me asking where are all the good Republicans that defend democracy and then take your donors’ money and spend half-a-million dollars promoting one of the worst election deniers that’s out there.

Adam Kinzinger, on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s intervention in the Republican primary for Michigan’s 3rd congressional district. Moderate Republican incumbent Peter Meijer lost to Trump-endorsed John Gibbs.

[2bpoliticallycurious]

Republican US House candidate John Gibbs has expressed that he wants to repeal the 19th Amendment. He believes it was a mistake to give women the right to vote. Say "No!" to the Republicans!

Agreed that we should say "'No!' to the Republicans!"

John Gibbs ...during a GOP unity reception at the Kent County GOP headquarters in Grand Rapids on Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2022.... Joel Bissell | MLive.com

According to CNN Politics:

John Gibbs, who defeated in the primary an incumbent Republican who had voted to impeach Trump, also made comments in the early 2000s praising an organization trying to repeal the 19th Amendment which also argued that women’s suffrage had made the United States into a “totalitarian state.”

As a student at Stanford University in the early 2000s, Gibbs founded a self-described “think tank” called the Society for the Critique of Feminism that argued women did not “posess (sic) the characteristics necessary to govern,” and said men were smarter than women because they are more likely to “think logically about broad and abstract ideas in order to deduce a suitable conclusion, without relying upon emotional reasoning.”

Hosted on Gibbs’ personal page at Stanford in 2000 and 2001, the Society for the Critique of Feminism argued for a patriarchal society run by men, calling it “the best model for the continued success of a society.” [...] On the site, Gibbs actively argued against women being granted the right to vote, saying it led to an enlarged federal government.

“Some argue that in a democratic society, it is hypocritical or unjust for women, who are 50% of the population, not to have the vote,” Gibbs’ website read. “This is obviously not true, since the founding fathers, who understood liberty and democracy better than anyone, did not believe so. In addition, all people under age 18 cannot vote, although they too comprise a significant portion of the population. So we cannot say that women should be able to vote simply because they are a large part of the population.”

“We conclude that increasing the size and scope of government is unequivocally bad,” Gibbs added. “And since women’s suffrage has caused this to occur on a larger scale than any other cause in history, we conclude that the United States has suffered as a result of women’s suffrage.”

Of course Gibbs recently denied that he really believes that stuff.

“I was in college, 23 years ago.” “And this was made as a satire, of trolling against the liberals on campus after we had a discussion about what freedom really means.” 

What Gibbs wrote was so off-the-wall it would be hard to believe it wasn't satire. Still, he was "trolling against liberals" at the expense of women. Even if it was satire, my guess is on some level Gibbs believes some of the things he was writing or he wouldn't have even thought to "troll" liberals in that way.

And to think that John Gibbs beat a man with integrity, Rep. Peter Meijer, who voted to impeach Trump after the insurrection. Too bad for Michigan.

[edited]

[ms-cellanies]

I just CAN’T.  Hopefully Gibbs will get his a$$ kicked to the curb in November.

[coochiequeens]

Ladies in Michigan - vote this guy out

CNN — 

A Michigan candidate for the US House backed by former President Donald Trump once railed against giving women the right to vote, arguing that America has “suffered” since women’s suffrage. 

John Gibbs, who defeated in the primary an incumbent Republican who had voted to impeach Trump, also made comments in the early 2000s praising an organization trying to repeal the 19th Amendment which also argued that women’s suffrage had made the United States into a “totalitarian state.” 

As a student at Stanford University in the early 2000s, Gibbs founded a self-described “think tank” called the Society for the Critique of Feminism that argued women did not “posess (sic) the characteristics necessary to govern,” and said men were smarter than women because they are more likely to “think logically about broad and abstract ideas in order to deduce a suitable conclusion, without relying upon emotional reasoning.” 

Hosted on Gibbs’ personal page at Stanford in 2000 and 2001, the Society for the Critique of Feminism argued for a patriarchal society run by men, calling it “the best model for the continued success of a society.” 

Anne Marie Schieber, a spokesperson for Gibbs’ campaign told CNN that Gibbs believed women should be allowed to vote and work.

“John made the site to provoke the left on campus and to draw attention to the hypocrisy of some modern-day feminists. It was nothing more than a college kid being over the top,” she said in an email. “Of course, John does not believe that women shouldn’t vote or shouldn’t work, and his mother worked for thirty-three years for the Michigan Department of Transportation!”

Gibbs requested the website for the think tank be removed from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine in 2016, according to a spokesman for the Internet Archive. But CNN’s KFile reviewed it on a different archiving service. 

On the site, Gibbs actively argued against women being granted the right to vote, saying it led to an enlarged federal government. 

“Some argue that in a democratic society, it is hypocritical or unjust for women, who are 50% of the population, not to have the vote,” Gibbs’ website read. “This is obviously not true, since the founding fathers, who understood liberty and democracy better than anyone, did not believe so. In addition, all people under age 18 cannot vote, although they too comprise a significant portion of the population. So we cannot say that women should be able to vote simply because they are a large part of the population.”

“We conclude that increasing the size and scope of government is unequivocally bad,” Gibbs added. “And since women’s suffrage has caused this to occur on a larger scale than any other cause in history, we conclude that the United States has suffered as a result of women’s suffrage.” 

The Society for the Critique of Feminism was cited by other anti-feminist websites, including on anti-feminist and conspiracy website Father’s Manifesto. Father’s Manifesto, which was operated by the Christian Party, had a petition to repeal the 19th Amendment. Gibbs twice praised the organization in comments hosted on their website and linked to them from his own website. 

“A great website detailing, among other things, the unconstitutional laws which passed as a result of the 19th amendment, and providing further evidence of the damages done by the 19th amendment: The 19th Amendment and the Totalitarian State,” Gibbs said, linking to their website. 

Speaking earlier this month with the Stanford Review, the university’s conservative student newspaper, Gibbs said his time at Stanford was formative for his beliefs. 

“When I got to Stanford, I got to know some conservatives there through the Stanford Review,” Gibbs said. “Having actual conservative friends in the flesh — which I didn’t have in high school, I just kind of had the reading — made a big difference. Being able to have people I could be friends with who could sharpen me and my conservatism. So yeah, that was it — discovering Thomas Sowell in high school and continuing to build on the ideas at Stanford through the friends that I had.” 

Past controversial comments 

Gibbs beat Rep. Peter Meijer to win the GOP nomination for Michigan’s 3rd Congressional District, primarying the incumbent congressman who voted to impeach then-President Donald Trump over his action surrounding the January 6, 2021 riot at the US Capitol. Gibbs now facesDemocrat Hillary Scholten in the general election. 

Gibbs is a former Trump administration official who served in the Department of Housing and Urban Development and was later nominated to be director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

CNN’s KFile previously reported that Gibbs’ history of conspiratorial and inflammatory tweets included baselessly accusing Democrats of taking part in satanic rituals and defending a notorious anti-Semitic troll banned by Twitter. His nomination to be OPM director was never voted out of committee and was eventually returned to the President with the start of the new Congress in 2021. 

Argued against women in the workplace 

One section of Gibbs’ website said having more women in workplaces “strains” men by keeping them from making offensive jokes and leading to “frivilous” (sic) sexual harassment lawsuits. 

“In the post-feminist workplace, men must bend over backwards to make sure that they do not inadvertently offend any woman who might happen to hear a joke or comment uttered in humor and harmlessness,” the website read. “Numerous sexual harassment laws are introduced, which spawn a barrage of sexual harassment cases of frivolous proportions, wasting the time and energy of the courts and legal system, and taxpayer dollars.” 

Gibbs’ website also said having more women in the workplace affected chemistry and led to less qualified employees. 

“Businesses must make a concerted effort to hire and promote women who may or may not be up to par with their male counterparts,” he said. “In addition, the chemistry of having women in a masculine environment may reduce business cohesiveness and productivity from what it might have been otherwise (this is especially true of the military, although by no means limited to it). Needless to say all these things subtract from a team’s effort to produce efficiently.” 

“Therefore, since the increased presence of women in the workplace does not benefit men, women, or business operations, there is no factual basis on which to claim that it is better to have more women in the workplace,” he concluded. 

[filosofablogger]

What's Wrong With The Right?

What’s Wrong With The Right?

Most of the mid-term focus has centered on the Senate races, and with good reason.  The Senate is currently evenly divided at 50/50 and if Republicans can net just one new seat, they will take a majority and all bets for anything worthwhile coming out of Congress are off.  But we also shouldn’t ignore the House of Representatives, where all 435 seats are up for grabs and most predictions are that…

[reportwire]

By boosting his far-right opponent, the Democrats did Peter Meijer dirty — and are playing a dangerous game | Informed Dissent | Detroit

By boosting his far-right opponent, the Democrats did Peter Meijer dirty — and are playing a dangerous game | Informed Dissent | Detroit

click to enlarge Gage Skidmore, Flickr Creative Commons U.S. Rep. Peter Meijer. It’s possible, if not likely, that John Gibbs would have beaten Michigan’s U.S. Rep. Peter Meijer without Democrats’ help. While the $450,000 they spent exceeded what Gibbs raised during the campaign, it paled in comparison to Meijer’s arsenal. Besides, Gibbs had Donald Trump’s endorsement, which is worth twice…

[americanmysticom]

JOHN GIBBS BEAT A RINO [REPUBLICAN IN NAME ONLY] INCUMBENT AND THIS IS NO SMALL FEAT

Clean sweep for Trump backed MAGA Candidates across the country! - Kari Lake's story is inspiring and just getting started - $50 Million was spent against MAGA and lost - Breakdown of all primaries - Rep. Matt Gaetz introduces bill to ban IRS from buying ammo - FBI whistleblower leaks unsettling documents to Project Veritas - The war for our children continues as pedophilia spreads - Minnesota pharmacist on trial for not stocking abortion pills - Michelle Obama cancelled...nobody wants what the communists are selling!

Live From America 8.3.22 @11am ULTRA MAGA WON BIG!! LET'S GO!! Live From America Published August 3, 2022

https://rumble.com/v1emmeh-live-from-america-8.3.22-11am-ultra-maga-won-big-lets-go.html

https://jeremyherrell.com/store/

[sangoqueenkoko]

FIC WRITERS‼️🗣️

Hi! Uh…

why do you write smut so much?

i don’t want to search for fluff, it should just be… there

pls tag fics correctly 👉👈

i shouldn’t have to search ‘[x] fluff’ and see smut there.

[twixnmix]

Marilyn McCoo, Olivia Newton-John and Andy Gibb backstage at Solid Gold in 1982.