Living next door to a family of wild cats isn't as fun as Daniel Tiger makes it look.

No biologist has ever seen this animal alive in the wild.

You could theoretically scale 9,000 meters and bump into a bee.

“Lonely Scott” Jennings upset a Monday CNN NewsNight panel that included former 2012 Romney Campaign boss Stuart Stevens, by attacking the idea that Republicans need to put aside everything they’ve ever believed in, in order to defeat Donald Trump. On January 6, Jennings claimed that just, “because that happened does not mean I or Katie or any other Republican has to give up on every single value that we've ever had, whether it has to do with taxes or the Court or any other policy. You're asking Republicans to turn over the government to absolute radical liberals over one day and I'm not prepared to do it because I believe policy choices. I believe they matter to the future of the country.”     Fortunately for Jennings, he was not “Lonely Scott” on this panel, and after some crosstalk, former Ted Cruz advisor Katie Frost added, “Are we going to get the 2019 Kamala Harris, who came out of California and had all these liberal positions that she wanted to ban fracking, that she supported the Green New Deal. And now, we're hearing from advisors and mixed things. ‘Oh, maybe she doesn't. Maybe doesn't.’ Are we going to have 2019 Kamala Harris from California? Or are we going to have a new Kamala Harris who wants to win swing states and the positions better?” Stevens claimed, “Either one is better than Donald Trump,” and after yet more crosstalk, Stevens recalled, “I can remember being on the bus with you, with Romney. And this is something that really stuck with me. And one of the aides who worked for you had misspelled something in a press release. And you very, very nicely, you weren't mean, you said, 'this is someone running for the presidency of the United States to sit in the Oval Office. We have to be at that level and treat it with that respect.'” He further wondered, “How do you say that? And then you get Donald Trump, a sexual predator, a criminal, someone who we know is just a horrible human being who doesn't believe in what we believe in. rule of law, and how all this policy stuff? They're not going to remember what the tax rate was or what, you know, this is basically, it is a character test, Scott.” Jennings responded by pointing out it isn’t just tax policy at stake in November, “It's more than that. It's more than what the tax rate is. Profound policy implications and decisions are coming from the next administration. I firmly believe that if the Democrats win and if they somehow keep control of the Senate, which I don't think is likely, but is possible, they will eliminate the filibuster. And they will change this country in a way that we can never recover. That is important to me.” With the filibuster gone comes concerns not just about 2019 Harris, but Supreme Court packing, which the panel fought about earlier. Jennings further told Stevens, “Now, listen I don't begrudge your viewpoint, but you cannot begrudge a Republican for wondering, 'hey, maybe it's not a great idea for us to drive off the left side of the road so far we can never find our way back.'” Here is a transcript for the August 26 show: CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip 8/26/2024 10:37 PM ET SCOTT JENNINGS: Because that happened does not mean I or Katie or any other Republican has to give up on every single value that we've ever had, whether it has to do with taxes or the Court or any other policy. You're asking Republicans to turn over the government to absolute radical liberals over one day and I'm not prepared to do it because I believe policy choices— STUART STEVENS: No, you listen, Scott. Listen. JENNINGS: -- I believe they matter to the future of the country. KATIE FROST: And one policy is: are you endorsing -- if you endorse Kamala Harris. CARI CHAMPION: I'll tell you what you are endorsing if you endorse Donald Trump. FROST: Let me finish, real quick, please, we still fully don't know -- are we going to get the 2019 Kamala Harris, who came out of California and had all these liberal positions that she wanted to ban fracking, that she supported the Green New Deal. And now, we're hearing from advisors and mixed things. “Oh, maybe she doesn't. Maybe doesn't.”  Are we going to have 2019 Kamala Harris from California? Or are we going to have a new Kamala Harris who wants to win swing states and the positions better? STEVENS: Either one is better than Donald Trump— CHAMPION: 2019 Kamala is better than Trump on any given day. STEVENS: -- If you believe, Scott, listen, listen. PHILLIP: All right, let me let Stewart get his point. STEVENS: I can remember being on the bus with you, with Romney. And this is something that really stuck with me. And one of the aides who worked for you had misspelled something in a press release. And you very, very nicely, you weren't mean, you said, “this is someone running for the presidency of the United States to sit in the Oval Office. We have to be at that level and treat it with that respect.” How do you say that? And then you get Donald Trump, a sexual predator, a criminal, someone who we know is just a horrible human being who doesn't believe in what we believe in, rule of law, and how all this policy stuff? They're not going to remember what the tax rate was or what, you know, this is basically, it is a character test, Scott. JENNINGS: It's more than that. It's more than what the tax rate is. Profound policy implications and decisions are coming from the next administration. I firmly believe that if the Democrats win and if they somehow keep control of the Senate, which I don't think is likely, but is possible, they will eliminate the filibuster. And they will change this country in a way that we can never recover. That is important to me. ALLISON: And what does that look like? JENNINGS: Now, listen I don't begrudge your viewpoint, but you cannot begrudge a Republican for wondering, “hey, maybe it's not a great idea for us to drive off the left side of the road so far we can never find our way back.”

Google is actively assisting Vice President Kamala Harris in maintaining her media honeymoon by keeping users in the dark about her radical policy views, including her support for abolishing ICE and threatening to end private health insurance, a new MRC Free Speech America study found. The study revealed a staggering bias in Google’s favoring of left-leaning media by a nearly 10:1 margin in both Google Search and the Google News tab. MRC conducted the searches on Aug. 21, covering four search prompts across both Google Search and the Google News tab. These findings raise serious concerns about Google’s influence on the outcome of the 2024 election, echoing its interference in the 2022 midterm elections. MRC completed the searches using a clean environment, discovering that Google has promoted left-leaning media sites at a shocking 17:2 ratio in Google Search results. The bias was equally pronounced in the Google News tab for search results, where left-leaning outlets appeared at a 19:2 ratio. This is a nearly 10:1 biased ratio on each tab. MRC used the media bias chart by AllSides to determine the ideological leaning of the outlets featured in Google’s search results. Among the 19 media outlets that received favorable placements in the Google News tab results were The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Politico, Slate, Vox and The Guardian. In contrast, only three right-leaning media outlets — The Federalist, New York Post and The Washington Times — were scarcely featured. This new study followed the release of a Media Research Center/McLaughlin & Associates survey showing that between 71 and 86 percent of Democratic and Independent Biden voters are unaware of Harris’s previous support for radical policies. Here are the key findings: MRC prompted Google Search and the Google News tab separately with four queries each (eight in total) related to Harris’s policies to analyze which media outlets Google props up in its search results: “Kamala Harris policies,” “Kamala Harris policy agenda,” “Media ignoring Kamala Harris policies” and “Media ignoring Kamala Harris policy agenda.” These queries consistently produced biased results. Google favored leftist media outlets at a 17:2 in Google Search and a 19:2 ratio in Google News across all four queries. MRC found that American voters using Google to search for her policies are likely to be inundated with content from outlets within the left spectrum as seen in the AllSides media bias chart. These findings demonstrate Google’s bias in favor of the left. Google buried right-leaning media outlets in six out of the eight Google searches performed. For the searches “Kamala Harris policies,” “Kamala Harris policy agenda” and “Media ignoring Kamala Harris policy agenda” in both a general Google Search and Google News tab search (six total), Google completely omitted right-leaning media outlets. Leftist news shared by Google included a BBC piece that projected what a Harris administration would look like based on her record as a politician. In BBC’s attempt at puffery, the media outlet did at least concede that Harris has “yet to release a comprehensive platform.” Google only displayed four articles from right-leaning media outlets out of a total of 40 results in both Google Search and News tab searches. Out of this total, only four came from right-leaning media outlets: The Washington Times (appeared twice), The Federalist and New York Post. (Note: The outlets not categorized by AllSides were excluded from this report, more about this in the methodology). Notably, Google listed The Washington Times at least twice in the “Media ignoring Kamala Harris policies” results in both the general Google Search and Google News tab searches. Written by columnist Tim Murtaugh, the opinion piece blasted the legacy media for shilling for the Harris candidacy. Using the same search query in both Google Search and Google News tabs, Google featured a column by The Federalist in which columnist Eddie Scarry dissected why Harris and the media “don’t want to talk policy.” There is none, Scarry wrote. Google only displayed one other right-leaning media piece in the Google News search of “Media ignoring Kamala Harris policies.” It was a New York Post article covering the appearance of Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) in Chicago. While there, Donalds rebuked Harris for lacking a policy agenda. Google also directed MRC to Harris-affiliated content in Google Search queries. The prompt “Kamala Harris policies” in a Google Search yielded eight results, including her campaign site and her official White House biography page. Similarly, the “Kamala Harris policy agenda” prompt directed MRC to her White House page and her campaign’s page attacking Project 2025. These sites, of course, featured exclusively pro-Harris content. Notably, Harris’s campaign website does not even list any of her policy proposals. Previous MRC studies unveiled that Google promoted the campaign website of President Joe Biden while burying that of former President Donald Trump. A separate MRC study found evidence of Google propping up the Biden campaign website a day after Biden ordered his X followers to “Google Project 2025.” This new MRC study suggests that Americans using Google to search for information about Harris’s policies might be left in the dark about her past endorsement of these controversial policies. The almost 10:1 ratio is important because Google wields a 92 percent market share, making it the most used search engine globally. Not only that but search engine optimization expert Brian Dean has noted that the higher a search result appears in Google Search results, the more likely it is that users will click on a particular result. Furthermore, according to search engine optimization company Backlinko, the first result of Google search results gets 27.6 percent of all clicks and has a 10x likelihood to be selected when compared to the top 10 results. Only 2.4 percent of users click on the 10th result on the page, and it only gets worse from there. This new Google study followed the release of an MRC study showing that the legacy media coverage of Harris is 84 percent positive, in stark contrast to the 89 percent negative coverage of former President Donald Trump. Methodology: MRC Free Speech America developed an algorithm to automate the search process in a clean environment, ensuring that results were not influenced by prior search history or tracking cookies. On Aug. 21, MRC researchers analyzed the results for the queries following: “Kamala Harris policies,” “Kamala Harris policy agenda,” “Media ignoring Kamala Harris policies” and “Media ignoring Kamala Harris policy agenda.” The searches produced a total of 40 links across both Google Search and Google News. MRC organized these links in a spreadsheet and categorized them according to their bias as seen in the AllSides Media Bias Chart. Outlets and pages not categorized by AllSides were excluded from the ratio analysis, as MRC does not classify outlets by bias on its own. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) announced Monday that since he signed Senate Bill 1 into law in 2021, the state has removed more than 1 million ineligible voters from its voter rolls.SB 1 aimed to "uphold the integrity of elections in Texas" by establishing uniform voting hours across the state and banning drive-through voting and unsolicited applications for mail-in ballots.'Illegal voting in Texas will never be tolerated.'Texas removed from its rolls people who are noncitizens, deceased, or those who had moved out of the state and were no longer residents, according to a press release from Abbott's office.More than 6,500 of those removed from the voter rolls are noncitizens. Abbott's office claimed that 1,930 of those individuals — approximately 30% — had voted in previous elections. "The Secretary of State's office is in the process of sending all 1,930 records to the Attorney General's Office for investigation and potential legal action," the press release read.Over 6,000 of those removed from Texas' voter rolls had felony convictions, 457,000 were deceased, and 463,000 were on the suspense list.The release noted that the removal process is still ongoing."Election integrity is essential to our democracy," Abbott declared."I have signed the strongest election laws in the nation to protect the right to vote and to crack down on illegal voting," Abbott stated. "These reforms have led to the removal of over one million ineligible people from our voter rolls in the last three years, including noncitizens, deceased voters, and people who moved to another state." He continued, "The Secretary of State and county voter registrars have an ongoing legal requirement to review the voter rolls, remove ineligible voters, and refer any potential illegal voting to the Attorney General's Office and local authorities for investigation and prosecution. Illegal voting in Texas will never be tolerated. We will continue to actively safeguard Texans' sacred right to vote while also aggressively protecting our elections from illegal voting."Meanwhile, on Monday, a Texas federal judge placed a temporary two-week stay on the Biden-Harris administration's "Keeping Families Together" program, a mass amnesty process for illegal immigrant spouses and stepchildren of American citizens, following a lawsuit filed by 16 Republican-led states, including Texas.According to the White House, there are approximately 550,000 illegal immigrants in the U.S. who could qualify for the program, which would entitle them to "parole in place" while awaiting adjustment of their immigration status. However, the states' complaint suggests that it could extend mass amnesty to roughly 1.3 million illegal aliens, many of whom have been residing in the country unlawfully for decades.Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, "Biden's new parole workaround unilaterally grants the opportunity for citizenship to unvetted aliens whose first act on American soil was to break our laws. This violates the Constitution and actively worsens the illegal immigration disaster that is hurting Texas and our country."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

ESPN host Kirk Herbstreit said he has never received directives from employers at ESPN regarding what he can or can't say on the network.Herbstreit is the top analyst on ESPN's "College Gameday" and recently spoke out against men competing against women in their sports.He called the idea ridiculous and said he was done "biting my tongue" on certain subjects.'I've never had anybody say to me, "Be careful" or "You better not say that," ever.'Herbstreit appeared on Episode 510 of the Sports Illustrated podcast "SI Media with Jimmy Traina," where he was asked if he receives any input from his network about what he should say:"This will be my 29th year," Herbstreit began. "I can say with 1,000% certainty I have never in my life had a producer tell me what I need to say or 'we like the SEC, you need to fake' — never in my life," he said.The host then addressed whether any of his comments, which likely included his recent comments on transgender athletes, caused reprimand from ESPN. "Never happened. Now, 29 years later, I've never had anybody say to me, 'Be careful' or 'You better not say that,' ever. Maybe other people that’s happened with. I’ve never experienced that in my entire career.”'I am an introverted guy, but when you push my buttons, you can light a fuse.'Herbstreit inspired headlines when he was asked online by a fan if "men belong in women's sports."He responded by saying, "Of course not. Ridiculous question." Herbstreit was then pressed on the subject by OutKick's Dan Dakich, who pushed the idea that Herbstreit must have known that he would cause a firestorm by responding to the fan question."I didn't give a s**t. I don't really give a s**t, at all. I'm done giving any s**ts, at all, about any of it," the 54-year-old said. "It's almost like there are two different sets of rules, and if you have a view that is a little bit more traditional, and you know I'm a Christian guy, it's like there's a different set of rules from that viewpoint. It's hard to turn the cheek time after time after time, so yeah, I didn't really care and don't care at all," Herbstreit added. — (@) Sports Illustrated host Traina asked Herbstreit if ESPN has a hand in his social media posts and referred to the recent firings by ESPN of hosts Sam Ponder and Robert Griffin III who are very opinionated on their social channels."People are trying to say ESPN is anti-religious or anti-people speaking out,” the host theorized.Herbstreit then referred back to his interview with Dakich:"The stuff that happened last week, I got kind of caught up [when] I was talking with Dan [Dakich]." "I am an introverted guy, but when you push my buttons, you can light a fuse and kind of get me excited about the things I'm passionate about," Herbstreit continued.The college football host then seemingly softened his reasoning for his comments, saying that he was frustrated over the division in the country:"I think the reason I said I don’t give a s**t is just, I get so frustrated with the country and being so divided and not liking each other — and people just not getting along and people are lashing out. And in the college football community, people creating conspiracy theories that aren't true or people attacking me."Despite claims that ESPN's recent firings, at least for Ponder, were in part due to her religious views and comments on keeping men out of women's sports, ESPN said its moves were made as part of budget cuts.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Vice President Kamala Harris has flip-flopped on a lot of issues since she initially ran for president in 2020, and, even then, she has rarely announced the change in position herself.The latest issue she has changed her tune on is the border wall. For years, Harris viciously opposed building a wall on the southern border. During Trump's term and during her 2020 campaign, she made it clear she believed a border wall was racist and a waste of money.Harris' opposition to the wall went as far back as 2017, when she wrote on X, "Trump’s border wall is just a stupid use of money. I will block any funding for it.""The strength of our union isn’t in the walls we build. Our power is found in our diversity," Harris posted on X in 2019.'It requires the Trump border wall.' — (@) — (@) Now as the Democrats' nominee for president, Harris indirectly voiced her support for the border wall. As noted by Axios, Harris said in her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention she would sign the Senate bill that was proposed earlier this year to address the border crisis, though it was also attached to more funding for the war in Ukraine. While the bill was heavily criticized by Republicans because it included wording that would have codified some of the worst aspects of the border crisis into law, the bill would require hundreds of millions of dollars of unspent funds to be used for building a wall on the southern border."It requires the Trump border wall," Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told Axios. "It is in the bill itself that it sets the standards that were set during the Trump administration: Here's where it will be built. Here's how it has to be built, the height, the type, everything during the Trump construction."Harris' campaign defended the wall funding because it is not nearly as much money as Trump wanted to spend when he was in office, $650 million versus $18 billion.Harris' timid embrace of the border wall shows how Democrats know the issue of the border, and illegal immigration in general, is a huge liability for Democrats as the border crisis started under the Biden-Harris administration. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

If you needed any more evidence that TikTok is a cesspool you should keep your children far, far away from, look no farther than what was posted on the platform just last week. In Liz Wheeler’s favorite segment of her show, “The Liz Wheeler Show,” she reacts to “the most insane, the most hideous, heinous TikToks of the week.” From Tim Walz being “Minnesota nice” to rainbow-haired “groomers” beckoning to children, you don’t want to miss this week’s viral videos. Laugh, cringe, or stare forlornly into the distance as you contemplate the sad state of our country. Check it out below. - YouTube www.youtube.com Want more from Liz Wheeler?To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Sea of Stars caught me seriously by surprise. The retro-style RPG with significant similarities to Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, and the classic era of Final Fantasy, I was expecting a game that skated by on raw nostalgia value, a pretty but perhaps light fantasy adventure with only so much to offer beyond its pixelated visuals. Instead, Sea of Stars was one of the best RPGs I played last year, a solid, well-told story with smart combat (I love Valere’s little parry system) and a charismatic cast. Now, Sea of Stars is about to get even better - as confirmed at the Indie World Showcase, the new Sea of Stars DLC is finally on its way, and it’s going to be free for everyone. Continue reading One of the best RPGs of 2023, Sea of Stars is getting a big free DLC MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Sea of Stars review, Best RPG games, Best PC games