Category: Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris Bombs in Fox Interview

Posted on

The three deadliest bombs in world history:

  1. Hiroshima;
  2. Nagasaki;
    and
  3. The Kamala Harris interview with Brett Baier.

By now, I’m sure everyone has seen the indescribable awfulness of Kamala’s Wednesday appearance on Fox News, which was as bad, in its own way, as Joe Biden’s performance in the June 27 debate with Trump.

If Democrats weren’t already hitting the panic button — and, in fact, they were — before Wednesday’s interview, they’re in full-on hysteria now.

To explain why Kamala was so bad, beyond her own personal attributes, it helps to reference something Mark Halperin said in an interview this week with Tucker Carlson, namely that a Trump victory in this election will cause “the greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country.”

Liberals simply can’t cope with it — it would be “traumatic,” Halperin said, because to them, Trump is the very worst person in the world. Liberals dwell inside a self-created bubble, insulated from criticism or negative feedback by the vast machinery of what the late Andrew Breitbart called the Democrat-Media Complex. Inside that bubble, there is no information that contradicts the liberal narrative, not only about Trump, but about everything else — economics, immigration, crime, etc. This consensus of opinion pervades our education system. As Thomas Sowell has quipped: “The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.” Therefore, the liberal believes that all educated people — all smart people, all the experts — share his opinions (which, so far as he is concerned, are facts). Therefore, a liberal seldom encounters contradiction or criticism from anyone he considers to possess intellectual prestige. “All the smart people agree with us,” liberals tell themselves, “and therefore only stupid people disagree.”

All of this I relate to explain that, from Kamala’s point of view, it’s insulting — offensive, rude — for Brett Baier to ask her to defend her record, or to give specific replies to specific questions. She is running against Trump, and all the smart people agree that Trump is the worst person in the world, so what other qualification does she need? If you don’t think she should win, you’re just a bad person.

That’s why she reacted the way she reacted. Brett Baier’s questions angered her, because she thinks it’s wrong to question her at all.

It’s important to realize that, no matter how bad Kamala did in that interview, she’ll still get at least 47% or 48% of the vote, and maybe an absolute majority of the popular vote, simply because that’s how pervasive liberalism has become in 21st-century America. Democrats could nominate a turnip and get 47% of the vote. And Harris will probably do a point or two better than a turnip.



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

What Counts as ‘Misinformation’? (Hint: It Depends on Who Does the Counting)

Posted on Comments

There IS a teleprompter!

Right-Wing Influencers Falsely
Accuse Kamala Harris Of Using
A Teleprompter At Town Hall
— Forbes

Posts falsely claim Kamala Harris
used teleprompter during town hall
— AFP

Harris Town Hall Moderator Debunks
Crazy New Teleprompter Claim
— Daily Beast

That’s just a small sample of what you’ll find with a Google search for “kamala univision town hall teleprompter,” and you won’t find anything except headlines like that — how it’s “false” and has been “debunked” — on the first page of search results. Or the second page, or the third page of results, for that matter. This is certainly not accidental:

Last week, MRC researchers found that Google buried US-based right-leaning news outlets on the 14th page of search results. It appears that the tech giant is still at it, as it continues to hide right-leaning outlets in the depths of search results.
On Oct. 8, MRC researchers once again used AllSides “right” and “left” bias classifications and found that Google search results for “kamala harris presidential race 2024” and “donald trump presidential race 2024” were stuffed with leftist, legacy media sources. The results featured outlets like CNN and The New York Times as well as publications of leftist billionaires like Jeff Bezos’s The Washington Post and Marc Benioff’s Time. When searching for the aforementioned Harris search prompt, researchers did not find any U.S.-based media outlets that AllSides rates as “lean-right” or “right” until Fox News appeared as the first result on page 11 of Google search results. Likewise, Google buried the first U.S.-based “lean right” or “right” result for the aforementioned Trump prompt as the sixth result on the 23rd page, as Google featured a Fox News video in this spot.

Google is running a Democratic Party propaganda operation, deliberately suppressing access to any information source that might contradict the preferred political narrative. Some stories — the ones most damaging to Democrats — are literally impossible to find using Google, and the only way anyone knows about these stories is because they go directly to the source (e.g., the UK Daily Mail, Gateway Pundit, etc.) or because they see it via social media. What does Google’s search-result suppression do? It divides the country into two groups — those who only know what Google wants them to know, and those who, for whatever reason, actively seek out alternative media sources. And this is a bad thing for democracy, because it breeds contempt and hostility between the two groups. Those who passively cooperate with this censorship regime (liberals, in general) look at the rest of us and think we’re a bunch of dangerous dimwits — “How can they possibly believe this stuff?” — while, at the same time, many on the right side of the digital divide become paranoid, or fall victim to genuinely dangerous peddlers of falsehood.

It’s the little boy who cried “wolf,” you see. When the self-appointed arbiters of truth — including Google — promote a one-sided narrative, and hurl accusations of “conspiracy theory” at anyone who disputes the narrative, why should anyone trust warnings about “misinformation” even if the warnings are valid? You can point to the “Russian collusion” hoax and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and if the thing you’re excited about now happens to be false, who can you trust to warn you against it? The media have forfeited their credibility, and the consequences are that we don’t know who to trust anymore.

So, now about that Unavision town hall with Kamala:

Kamala Harris got caught using a teleprompter during Thursday night’s Univision town hall in Las Vegas.
Harris pandered to Latina voters by participating in a town hall hosted by Univision.
The internal polls for Harris must be horrific.
Of course, Kamala Harris had to use a teleprompter because she has no clue what she’s talking about.
Univision panicked after they realized they showed Kamala Harris’s teleprompter live on air. As soon as the camera panned behind Kamala Harris, the teleprompter went black.

There clearly is a teleprompter in front of Kamala as she’s speaking, and the screen does go black shortly after it appears on camera. Univision claims that the words on the teleprompter were actually for the introduction by the host of the town hall, Enrique Acevedo.

However, if you listen to what Kamala was saying during that segment, it is word-for-word the same stump-speech line included in her TV ads about how, when she was a prosecutor in Californiam, she never asked the victim of crime if they were Republican or Democrat: “The only question I ever asked is, ‘Are you OK?'” So if she’s not reading a script off a teleprompted, why does she sound completely scripted? (Just incidentally, not to get off on a sidetrack, that’s a dumb line. A prosecutor’s job isn’t to give crime victims sympathy, it’s to get criminals convicted in court.) Another video clip from the same event shows an audience member simultaneously mouthing the same words Kamala was speaking (about how Trump “filed for bankruptcy six times”):

Quite obviously, the audience was a fake as Kamala herself — the Harris campaign brought in “plants” for what was supposed to be a town hall with regular voters and, whether or not Kamala was actually reading from a teleprompter, her message was sufficiently scripted that some of her listeners already knew it by heart. So what the media are doing, by accusing “right-wing influencers” of promoting a “crazy” and “debunked” narrative is . . . Well, for lack of a better word, it’s misinformation.

In conclusion, consider what Hillary Clinton said a week ago in a CNN interview about social media platforms, “if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.” This seems like a confession that Democrats want “total control” of what we’re allowed to say, what we’re allowed to read, what we’re allowed to watch. One of the ways that in which that control is exercised is by Democrats (and the media, but I repeat themselves) arrogating to themselves the authority to decide what constitutes truth, and what counts as “misinformation.”



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

We’re All Shocked — Shocked! — to Discover ‘Men for Kamala’ Are Fake

Posted on Comments

So after I’d started working on another post about “misinformation,” I saw this story (via Twitchy via Stephen Green at Instapundit) and decided that it was obviously relevant to the topic I was discussing:

As many of you know, Jimmy Kimmel’s writer, Jacob Reed, directed an ad for the Kamala Harris campaign titled ‘Men for Kamala.’ The ad features what are presented as everyday male voters explaining why supporting Kamala Harris is the masculine thing to do. However, none of the men in the ad are actually regular voters—they are paid actors.
Moreover, their real-life circumstances differ significantly from the individuals they portray in the ad. Here are their stories:

– Wayland McQueen is a far-left, pro-Antifa comedian and actor who has, until now, found limited success. He does improv gigs at the Upright Citizens Brigade in Los Angeles. In a Twitter post from 2022, he explains what white privilege is and tells you why you need to acknowledge your white privilege. As of 2024 he is single.
– Lanre Idewu is an immigrant from Nigeria. He is also an actor who works at the D.C.-based OCTET Productions. He has many intimate pictures with the Obamas and the Bidens. Idewu, who is bisexual, has done gay-for-pay movies and nude solo shoots. In the “Men for Kamala” ad, he says he is “man enough to f-ing braid his daughter’s hair,” but the only problem is that he doesn’t have a daughter. Idewu isn’t braiding anyone’s hair.
– Mike Leffingwell, a gay man, also works at the Upright Citizens Brigade, where McQueen works. He is an acting coach, cartoon writer for Netflix and DreamWorks, and an actor in TV commercials. On his public Instagram page, he showcases his participation in his latest project—the “Men for Kamala” ad.
– Winston Carter, the heavyset fellow in the ad who claims to be a mechanic and rancher, lives in Los Angeles signed with Taft Broadcasting Company. He has found limited success in the acting world, mainly as an extra in films and as a character in the low-budget superhero film Spaghettiman.
– Tony Ketcham, the tough, rugged, bearded grandpa in his garage in the “Men for Kamala” ad, is also an actor. He now mainly does low-budget independent films like Car Botz, where he played the role of PePaw. Tony is unmarried in real life. In 2001, he played the extra role of “alcoholic consumer” in the movie Ghost World.

So, 100% of them are actors, at least 40% are gay, and none of them are mainstream middle-class “swing state” voters, which is who the ad was probably supposed to be persuading. Right?

What this reminds me of is the MTV series Catfish. In case you don’t know it, to “catfish” someone is to use a fake Internet persona to lure them into a romantic encounter under false pretenses. A few years ago, I binge-watched several episodes of Catfish and noticed a pattern — in what seemed like 90% of the cases they investigated, the perpetrators were either (a) fat, (b) gay or (c) black, but sometimes all three. Why was this? The gay factor usually involved a lesbian pretending to be a heterosexual male in order to attract the interest of a heterosexual female. The fat factor in catfishing, I suppose, stems from the general unpopularity of fat people, who engage in online impersonation — using a skinny person’s picture as their avatar — to get romantic attention that would otherwise be out of their reach. As for the disproportionate number of black perpetrators in catfishing, usually they were also either fat or gay (or both), and so they were impersonating a much-more-attractive white person in an effort to expand their options.

Anyway, the fakery of “Men for Kamala” is a sort of political catfishing scheme, with actors pretending to be Regular Manly Men, in a desperate bid to get Regular Man Men to vote for Kamala Harris. But some clever person was clever enough to do what Nev Schulman always did in the Catfish series, namely use Google image searches to identify these “Men for Kamala” fakers, thereby exposing the fraud. And yet it is supposedly us right-wingers who are promoting “misinformation” — but that’s the subject of another post, which I’ll now get back to writing.



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

Democrats ‘Increasingly Worried About a Number of Issues Plaguing’ Kamala

Posted on

Remember what I told you in mid-September? “Kamala Is Underperforming” was the headline, at a time when the newly-minted Democratic presidential nominee was still riding her post-convention “bounce.” A careful comparison of Harris’s poll numbers to Joe Biden’s numbers in 2020 and Hillary Clinton’s numbers in 2016 showed that she was weaker against Trump than either Joe or Hillary.

Ace of Spades highlights the troubling trends that have Democrats hitting the panic button, with the quote in my headline from a story in The Hill which quotes one Democratic strategist thus:

Democratic strategist Anthony Coley, who served in the Biden administration, acknowledged the trepidation, pointing to the stagnant poll numbers in the weeks following the Democratic National Convention, when Democrats were making comparisons between Harris’s campaign and former President Obama’s run in 2008.
“Now that the sugar high is gone, people have realized what Kamala Harris has said from the start, which is that she is the underdog,” Coley said. “This is going to be a fight. … These numbers are just so stubborn.”

What he means by those “stubborn” numbers is that Kamala got to a certain level in the polls, and can’t get past it. She’s reached her ceiling, and it’s not high enough to give Democrats confidence that she can win. Trump’s numbers are solid — his voters aren’t going anywhere, and the number of “undecided” voters is very small. And then you start looking at polls for the battleground states and . . . Uh, oh. Internal polling by Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s campaign shows Harris losing by three points to Trump there, and Democrats are also starting to worry about Michigan. If both of those Midwest “blue wall” states are shaky for Harris, we could be looking at 300+ Electoral College votes for Trump. And the signs of trouble multiply from there.

It’s a simple arithmetic problem: How does she get to 270 Electoral College voters if, for example, Trump wins Pennsylvania. Do the math and you realize that, if Trump wins Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina, that’s the whole ballgame — Wisconsin and Michigan become irrelevant. As matters stand now, Georgia looks pretty solid for Trump, Harris has no better than a 50-50 chance in Pennsylvania, and whatever’s going on in North Carolina, it’s a state that Trump won twice, so that flipping it to Harris would appear to be a rather desperate hope.

What, therefore, are we to make of this headline from NBC News? “Harris and Democratic allies descend on Arizona in all-hands push before early voting.” The obvious inference is that Team Harris is worried enough about some other state (or combination of states) that they find it necessary to expend resources trying to get 11 Electoral College votes from Arizona, a state where practically every poll shows Trump leading. If you are a Democrat worried about Kamala’s chances, this ought to be a flashing red light, the trigger that turns your headache into a full-blown migraine. Look, if CNN’s aggregation of public polls has Harris +1 in Pennsylvania, that almost certainly means Trump is winning Pennsylvania, and perhaps by as much as 4 or 5 points.

Do I trust those polls? Not really, but there is a general consensus that, as a candidate, Kamala is not all that and a stack of pancakes. A former Democratic Party fundraiser puts his finger on the fundamental problem — the Democrats are ignoring the demos:

Consider the long-time friendship between Kamala Harris and billionaire donor Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Steve Jobs. The New York Times described the women as being so close that they’ve gone on vacation together and consider each other family. Powell Jobs sat in Harris’ exclusive friends and family suite at the DNC last month. She was also instrumental in getting Biden to step down to clear the way for Harris; one of her top aides circulated a polling memo to other key influential donors that allegedly showed Biden’s inability to win.
It was another example of a megadonor overcoming the will of the people — and making things worse for voters. Now that the Kool-Aid from the DNC is wearing off, people are waking up to the realities of an untested candidate. Harris is barely beating Biden in key swing state polls, dodges questions from the press, and continually gaffes answers on significant policy issues. She can barely answer basic questions about her plans for regular people in friendly encounters with people like Oprah.
This is what happens when a candidate is anointed by donors and not selected by voters.

Exactly. Harris was never as popular as Biden. She flopped in the 2020 primaries, exiting the race in 2019 before a single vote was cast. If Biden had announced in 2019 that he would not seek a second term, that would have allowed Democrats to choose their candidate in an open primary, and how likely is it that Harris would have won such a primary against, e.g., Gavin Newsome, Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, et al.? What happened instead was that Biden decided to run again, despite his increasingly obvious cognitive impairment and then, after his debate meltdown in June, was forced off the ticket, with Harris anointed as the nominee.

Kamala didn’t win the nomination, it was handed to her, gift-wrapped on a silver platter, and many voters who might not be eager to see another Trump presidency are neverthless reluctant to vote for this ill-qualified woman who reminds us that “DEI” stands for Didn’t Earn It. With 26 days until November 5, the Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this unforced error. The party’s billionaire donors got what they paid for, but voters won’t endorse this corrupt bargain.



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

The Slow Death of Kamala’s ‘Joy’

Posted on

Notice something about that picture of Vice President Kamala Harris? She’s wearing sneakers. Is this supposed to be some kind of message? At age 59, she is the candidate of youth, or something? In a campaign short on substance and long on symbolism, we can be certain that having the candidate onstage in a pair of Chuck Taylors is not mere coincidence.

Maybe the fashion editors at Vogue or Cosmo can fill us in on Kamala’s footwear choices, but my point is that the Harris campaign has spent the first two months of its existence inside a bubble of media-generated unreality. Remember how the trained seals of journalism mindlessly repeated the “joy” theme of the Democratic National Convention? Remember all the talk about the sudden groundswell of “energy” and “enthusiasm” once Joe quit and Kamala stepped in?

“Kamala Is Underperforming,” as I explained 10 days ago, and that reality is starting to become apparent even to her sycophants in the media. Worry lines have begun to furrow the foreheads of CNN and MSNBC personalities as they contemplate such signs as the most recent New York Times/Siena College poll showing the race a dead heat between Harris and Trump. This is not good news for Harris, because if the race is a tie nationally and we know that Democrats always do better in the popular vote than in the Electoral College, a tie in the polls almost certainly augurs a Republican victory in November.

So I went back to the well of “underperforming” Kamala:

Nobody wants Kamala Harris to win this election more than do her celebrity media friends, who are willing to forfeit their credibility to drag her across the finish line. ABC News, whose blatantly one-sided “fact-checking” during Harris’s debate with Donald Trump was widely criticized, has seen its ratings tumble in the aftermath.
What’s remarkable is not just the absolute shamelessness of the media’s pro-Democrat bias — they’re so far in the tank for her, their “news coverage” is just an endless campaign ad for Harris — but the fact that it doesn’t seem to be helping. The one story they’re not reporting is the most important of all: Kamala Harris is losing this election.
Don’t take my word for it. Go look at where Harris stands in the polls today, and then compare her numbers to what the polls showed for Joe Biden on the same day in his 2020 race against Trump, and for Hillary Clinton in her 2016 race against Trump. In both of those previous two elections, most polls were slanted in favor of the Democratic candidates, so that Trump did better in the final official vote tallies than he did in the polls. This track record of error in favor of Democrats provides the proverbial “grain of salt” with which everyone should consume public polling.
Fortunately, Tom Bevan, Carl Cannon and the rest of the crew at RealClearPolitics (RCP) have made it easy for anyone to compare current presidential poll numbers to those in 2020 and 2016. These comparisons show Harris to be underperforming Biden and Clinton to such an extent that a Trump victory in November is the most likely outcome. . . .

Read the rest of my column in The American Spectator. It’s more than 2,500 words, but I think it’s worth the effort.



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

The Only Trick in Their Bag

Posted on

Look, I get it: Biden put Democrats in a bad spot. He could have — and should have — announced in early 2023 that he would not seek a second term, thereby making it possible for Democrats to have a primary to choose their 2024 presidential candidate. Unfortunately for Democrats, while senile dementia diminishes many cognitive functions, it does not diminish egotism, and therefore Joe insisted that at age 81, he was still perfectly capable of enduring the rigors of a reelection campaign.

Biden did the wrong thing (“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up,” as Obama famously said) and the consequences are that now Democrats are stuck with Kamala Harris as the nominee. She has never been popular, doesn’t have a record of accomplishment, and the Biden administration’s policies are unpopular, so the whole basis of the Democratic campaign is demonizing Trump: “ORANGE MAN BAD!”

During a press briefing on Tuesday, Fox News senior White House correspondent Peter Doocy asked Jean-Pierre, “How many more assassination attempts on Donald Trump until the president and vice president and you pick a different word to describe Trump, other than ‘threat’?”
Jean-Pierre told Doocy she completely disagreed with the premise of his question, calling the way he asked it “incredibly dangerous” because Americans are watching.

If it is your misfortune to reside in one of the “battleground” states — Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, etc. — you can’t turn on your TV without being bombarded by Democratic ads portraying Trump as a menace. Meanwhile, the news media let Kamala Harris go unquestioned as she blabbers word-salad nonsense, and almost no one in the media mentions the real truth: Kamala is underperforming.

We are now 47 days away from Election Day. Early voting has already started in Pennsylvania. God willing, we only have to put up with this for another seven weeks. Try not to let it drive you crazy.



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

Kamala Is Underperforming

Posted on

Keep that word in mind — “underperforming” — as you contemplate the fact that Kamala Harris is campaigning in Pennsylvania, a state that Joe Biden (allegedly) won by more than 80,000 votes in 2020.

Let’s compare Kamala’s polls to Biden’s polls four years ago. On this date in 2020, the Real Clear Politics average showed Biden with a 4.3-point lead over Trump in Pennsylvania, and some polls (i.e., NBC News/Marist and Quinnipiac) had Biden leading by as many eight or nine points. In the end, Biden won by a margin of 1.2%, so we can say that the September RCP average in 2020 had D+3 bias. Now look at the current RCP average for Pennsylvania — Harris is up by one-10th of a percentage point, three of the four most recent polls show a tie, and the biggest lead she’s ever had (the most recent Bloomberg poll and an NYT/Siena poll in early August) was 4 points. Most importantly, no polls are showing Harris +8 or +9 in Pennsylvania, as there were for Biden four years ago.

Nate Silver has suggested that one reason Harris is underperforming in Pennsylvania is because she picked Tim Walz as her running mate, snubbing Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro — and, let’s not kid ourselves, we know why she snubbed Shapiro. She was pandering to the Jew-hating pro-Hamas voters of Dearbornistan, and why? Because 100,000 Michigan voters in the Democratic primary voted “uncommitted” as a protest against the Biden administration’s support for Israel. In 2020, Biden (allegedly) won Michigan by a margin of more than 150,000 votes. In other words, the pro-Hamas vote probably isn’t enough, by itself, to swing Michigan’s 15 Electoral College votes into Trump’s column. However, by snubbing Shapiro to pander to her party’s Jew-haters, Harris may lose Pennsylvania’s 19 Electoral College votes. Oops.

If Trump wins Pennsylvania — and with Arizona now leaning toward Trump — Harris’s path to 270 Electoral College votes is narrow. And it’s not just a couple of battleground states where Harris is underperforming. The RCP average of national polls has her at +1.7, but at this point in 2020, the RCP average had Biden +7.1 — meaning that Harris is underperforming Biden by more than five points and guess what? Biden’s final margin in 2020 was 4.5 points, meaning that if the Democrat-leaning bias of polls hasn’t changed, Harris is likely to lose the national popular vote. But, but, but . . . Yes, I know: We don’t have much polling data since Tuesday’s debate, and Harris is likely to get a poll “bounce” from that. So let’s look at one of the post-debate polls that is most favorable to Harris. Reuters has Harris +5 — 47% to Trump’s 42% — and guess what? At this point in 2020, Reuters had Biden +9.

Despite everything, in other words, Harris is still underperforming Biden by at least four points. We are still more than seven weeks away from Election Day, and a lot of things could change between now and then, but as matters stand today, Harris is on track to lose this election.

And gosh, I wonder why?

She’s serving an all-you-can-eat buffet of word salad.



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

Trump: I Won, No More Debates

Posted on

This is a bold move, and can only be explained by Duane Patterson’s question: “If Kamala Won the Debate, Why Is Trump Gaining Ground?” Counter-intuitive as it may seem — because Trump had a lousy debate performance — it appears that many undecided voters moved in favor of Trump as a result. Or, to put it another way, these voters didn’t see from Kamala Harris whatever it was they had needed to see in order to vote for her. If you have ever actually talked to a “swing” voter, you know that they are, shall we say, idiosyncratic. So while it may seem inexplicable how Trump could have “won” that debate, in terms of persuading undecided voters, we’ll find out on November 5 — or in the wee hours of the morning of November 6 — whether Trump’s hunch is right. Obviously, he thinks he’s got this thing in the bag. His gut tells him that most people don’t want to vote for Kamala, no more than they wanted to vote for Hillary. For the sake of America, let’s hope he’s right.



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies