Site has no Description

A woman bought a house and inherited a cat. Shortly after bringing the cat inside, she found kittens. Finders Keepers and her kittensChloe, TikTok@chloeisagChloe bought a home with everything in it last year, but little did she know that the house came with a cat, and so began a saga.While sharing her journey on TikTok @chloeisag, she noticed a tortie flitting through her backyard, seemingly making the place her home. In a video, she said she'd never had any pets growing up but wanted to befriend the cat.She offered the feline some canned goods, but the tortie kept her distance. A while later, she returned to check on the food, only to find that it was all gone. Chloe, TikTok@chloeisagWhen Chloe spotted the cat again, lounging outside with her head down, she scrambled to get a plate of food. With regular feedings, she slowly coaxed the stray closer to the porch.As the tortie felt more comfortable with her food provider, she mustered the courage to approach Chloe and even tolerated her petting. Chloe, TikTok@chloeisagEventually, the cat warmed up to her human and came "knocking" at the door, demanding food and attention.For a while, Chloe wasn't sure if she should keep the cat. She never planned to take on any more responsibilities other than her plants. Then, one day, she received a case of cat food from her coworker, who had accidentally ordered the wrong food. Chloe, TikTok@chloeisagThe tortie savored every morsel, licking the plate clean. Chloe took it as a sign.While sorting things in the house, Chloe came across a photo of the late owner's cats, one of which looked like the stray. It was serendipitous. Then, on the day her sister (who is allergic to cats) moved in, they discovered somehow she wasn't allergic to the tortie. Left: Chloe found a photo of the late owner's cats. Right: Her sister is somehow not allergic to the tortieChloe, TikTok@chloeisag"My sister finally convinced me to take in the 'stray' cat that had been sticking to the confines of the backyard. After we brought her inside, we were met with a surprise."Chloe woke up one day to an additional five kitties in the house. The tortie, lovingly named Finders Keepers, had given birth to a litter of kittens in the comfort of their home. The tortie gave birth to five kittens shortly after moving inChloe, TikTok@chloeisagThey were stunned by the turn of events but glad that the mama was safe with her babies.The tortie kept her kittens fed and clean and showered them with unconditional love. She stretched her paws blissfully in the air with her littles by her side, filling the room with contented purrs. Chloe, TikTok@chloeisagOver the next few weeks, the kittens reached one milestone after another and began venturing out of their nest to explore.By the time they were weaned, their playful, rambunctious side emerged. Their mama watched them from the sidelines as the five bundles of energy scampered around the house, tumbling across the floor. Chloe, TikTok@chloeisagWhen the kittens were old enough to spread their wings and fly, they had wonderful homes lined up for them. Mama Finders Keepers was spayed and would never have to raise another litter.Four of the kittens went home to their new families and claimed every inch they touched. Chloe, TikTok@chloeisagThe fifth kitten, Squid, never left and became a permanent part of the family, now basking in the sunlight with Mama, living the dream.Chloe bought a house and inherited everything in it, including a cat and then some. "This is truly the house that keeps on giving." Mama and her kitten SquidChloe, TikTok@chloeisagShare this story with your friends. More on Finders Keepers and Chloe's journey on TikTok @chloeisag.Related story: Cat Follows Kitty Through Pet Door into a House, So Her Kittens Won't Have to Live Outdoors

Israel: Hamas Covered Up Death of No. 2 to Prevent Morale Collapse

US Shipping Ports Are Backed Up Again. Where is Mayor Pete?

Fox News host Jesse Watters warned that an unprecedented favor from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to leftist billionaire George Soros could wreak havoc on the American media landscape.  During the Oct. 2 edition of Jesse Watters Primetime, Watters slammed the FCC decision to waive a mandatory review of Soros’s foreign-backed purchase of Audacy, America’s second-largest radio company. Watters reminded his audience that Soros will soon own hundreds of radio stations that reach countless Americans. “Conservative talk stations” are among those purchased by Soros, Watters affirmed. After playing a clip of the late radio legend Rush Limbaugh discussing American freedoms, Watters said, “Voices like our good friend Rush, [Sean] Hannity, [Mark] Levin—they’re an oasis of reason in an ocean of liberal bias. But that could change very soon. The company that controls these conservative talk stations, they are falling into the hands of Soros.”  Earlier this year, Soros Fund Management purchased $400 million of Audacy’s debt — roughly a 40 percent stake in the company — taking over 16 radio stations that Audacy features or streams, each also with a massive 50,000-watt broadcasting range. Following Soros’s move, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell warned the FCC on two separate occasions not to bend the rules to help the leftist billionaire spread propaganda nationwide.  In a Sept. 18 decision, published on Sept. 30, the three Democrat-appointed FCC commissioners outrageously gave Soros what he wanted in an election year, eliminating a potential year-long review. In comments posted on X, Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr denounced this decision after it was made public.  During the Fox segment, Watters also slammed the decision, accusing “Biden's FCC” of “fast-tracking the entire thing.” He went on to say that the FCC was letting George Soros’s son, Alex Soros, “bypass key federal requirements” ahead of the 2024 presidential election. “So what's the Soros plan for these stations right before an election?” Watters asked. “Will they keep the current lineups or is this just a way to catch and kill a source of conservative media?” He went on to add that House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) launched an investigation into the absurd FCC decision to let Soros dodge a mandatory review.  Notably, Audacy-owned Talk Radio 1210 WPHT Philadelphia—which has a massive broadcasting range—recently gave notice to radio host Levin that it is dropping his show.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on Soros’ ties to American and global media.

The $1 billion defamation suit against CNN continued to chug along in the background as the presidential election and world events take center stage. But on Tuesday, Florida 14th Circuit judge William Scott Henry cleared the way for Plaintiff and U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young to use legal force to compel CNN to turn over financial documents and to subpoena their parent company Warner Bros. Discovery, all part of financial discovery to determine punitive damages. In an order obtained by NewsBusters, CNN’s objections to turning over certain documents, Judge Henry ruled that Young is entitled to see documents dating back to January 1, 2021, the year CNN allegedly defamed him in their report about getting people out of Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal. “Plaintiffs’ financial discovery requests shall be limited to the time period from September 2021 to the present, except as to documents that can only be produced on a yearly basis, in which case the applicable time period will be from January 1, 2021 to the present,” he wrote. The Judge also told CNN that their corporate representative should be prepared to answer probing questions in an upcoming deposition regarding financial discovery: The Corporative Representative shall be prepared to answer questions relating to CNN, Inc.’s relationship to any parent or subsidiary company and how those relationships impact the financial resources of CNN, Inc. and CNN Worldwide. But, the Corporate Representative is not otherwise required to answer questions relating to the financial resources of any parent or subsidiary of CNN, Inc. to the extent it does not concern monetary streams into or out of CNN, Inc. or CNN Worldwide within the corporate structure. The path was also cleared for CNN’s parent company Warner Bros. Discovery to be subpoenaed for documents related to CNN’s finances: CNN, Inc.’s Amended Objections to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena on Warner Bros. Discovery are sustained in part and overruled in part. Plaintiffs may serve a subpoena on Warner Bros. Discovery in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. According to an accompanying documents request put together by Young’s legal team at Freeman Normand Friedland LLP, the files requested were extremely thorough: 1. Any documents created in whole or in substantial part (over 50%) by CNN, Inc. or CNN Worldwide containing internal modeling or predictions of future revenues or profits for CNN, Inc. or CNN Worldwide. 2. Any documents created in whole or in substantial part (over 50%) by CNN, Inc. or CNN Worldwide containing financial reports, analyses, or valuations of CNN, Inc. or CNN Worldwide including any analyses or valuations prepared in connection with any potential merger, acquisition, or sale of CNN, Inc. or CNN Worldwide. 3. Documents sufficient to show the details of any transactions, loans, and payments (including dividends), between You and CNN, Inc. or CNN Worldwide. 4. Documents sufficient to show any and all advertising expenditures, research and development expenditures, and capital expenditures by CNN, Inc. or CNN Worldwide. 5. To the extent not already produced, documents sufficient to show any lines of credit or credit facilities extended or established specifically for CNN, Inc. or CNN Worldwide. 6. Any indemnity agreements of any kind between You and CNN, Inc., or between You and any other entity or entities concerning CNN, Inc., relating or applying to the claims asserted in the instant action. As NewsBusters previously reported, the subpoenaing of Warner Bros. Discovery was likely coming following a hearing on September 5, where Judge Henry voiced verbal approval of seeking documents from CNN’s parent company.     His logic was sound, noting that it was a way of double checking to see if what CNN was producing while being sued was the same as what they were disclosing to corporate to prove financial sustainability. He equated it to double checking medical records in a car accident suit: In a car accident case, the defense does a RFP to the plaintiff saying, ‘send me all your medical records,’ but then, at the same time, there's a notice of production and subpoenas all the medical providers and gets their records not only from the accident but predating it or whatever. And it's just to make sure that what's being produced on one side is the same as what the doctor actually has in their office. In the same September hearing, Judge Henry also approved that Young was also allowed to see the last three years of CNN's defamation settlements. These are important because punitive damages are meant to cause enough pain to deter or prevent an entity from repeating the offensive behavior. So, if what they paid in settlements wasn’t enough to correct their behavior, a jury could take that into consideration in setting a price to punish them.

First reported by Puck’s Dylan Byers and others who’ve since followed, former MSNBC host and disgraced former NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams will make his return to the journalism business on Election Day with a primetime special covering the election returns on…Amazon. Williams seems to not have lost his enormous ego as Byers has also reported Amazon’s rumored to be billing it a one-night only event in the mold of, in Williams’s mind, Sinatra at Madison Square Garden. Byers broke the news on Saturday: “Amazon has signed BRIAN WILLIAMS to anchor election night coverage on Prime Video, per sources familiar. This is Amazon’s first foray into news and Williams’ first return to anchor desk since NBC.” Byers elaborated on this in a Wednesday night story that revealed he actually knew about this possible mode of returning to the public eye in February thanks to a private dinner he had with Williams and his former producer at MSNBC’s The 11th Hour, Jonathan Wald (who, before that, worked with another leftist egomaniac in Don Lemon). Byers began by laying it on thick for his subject, calling the Amazon foray “not only a first step toward a possible career revival, but also a potential harbinger of the future of cable news.” He then shared that he dined with Williams and heard this pitch “on a brisk February night in New York—so many eons of media cycles ago—I found myself sitting down to dinner at Elio’s, the swell and storied Upper East Side red sauce refuge.” Before running through how CBS and CNN had previously tried to poach him since he left MSNBC in a nasty, pompous sign-off on December 9, 2021, Byers revealed what poor Lyin’ Brian has been up to in the last three years: By then, the well-kept newsman had been in the wilderness for more than two years: idling around his beach house in Bay Head, volunteering at the nearby fire station, traveling with Springsteen, and entertaining advances from friends and strangers who wanted to know when his familiar visage might grace their television screens again. Try and contain yourself from laughing at this gushy lament about Brian as America’s “last truly iconic news anchor” akin to Al Michaels and was able to weather a “positively quaint now” scandal to create “an after-hours oasis” on MSNBC from “Squad-inflected” punditry (click “expand”): Indeed, Williams’ third act has been an evergreen preoccupation among media insiders amid the industry’s broader transformation. In many ways, Williams was the nation’s last truly iconic news anchor: a natural broadcast talent, Brokaw disciple, and self-described institutionalist whose Brahminesque baritone embodied the news much the same way Al Michaels’ outerborough nobility embodied the game of football. (I grew up in an NBC household, obviously.) After being driven from the Nightly News due to his helicopter embellishment scandal—humiliating then, positively quaint now—Williams stuck it out at MSNBC long enough to write a second act as a more personable, lower-profile institutional authority in late night cable, an after-hours oasis from his network’s Squad-inflected liberal orthodoxy. Of course, the golden era Williams grew up in was already a distant memory by then, and the demand for a classic anchorman of his ilk was disappearing, at least at his price point. Before his contract came up in 2021, I’m told, then-newish NBC News Group chairman Cesar Conde declined to offer him a raise—a financial austerity measure that presaged Hoda Kotb’s recent pay cut and the impending salary realignment now transforming the industry. Painting this idea as Wald having pulled out of the blue, he said Wald “suddenly…lit upon another idea” of “Election Night in America With Brian Williams. One night only.” Byers relayed that, while “[i]t would require some investment, sure, but they wouldn’t need to stand up a newsroom or any newsgathering infrastructure.” Williams was thrilled: “Williams’ interest was piqued by the idea; if memory serves, he likened it to Sinatra’s one-night-only event at the Garden.” Byers caught readers up on how things evolved from that dinner, including Williams’s agent pitching this over the summer to Netflix (which passed) before finding Amazon Prime Video executives “more intrigued by the idea.” By August, Williams and Wald visited Amazon’s “at Amazon’s new state-of-the-art virtual soundstage” out in Culver City, California and, as “home to the largest LED wall stage in the U.S.,” the two saw the possibilities. Cue the laugh tracks again as Byers said the Amazon suits “stressed the importance of” it being “politically down the middle—easy enough for an institutionalist like Williams[.]” Oh, yes, the guy who’s made a tome of Notable Quotables (which we chronicled here and here) fawning over Obama and the like while smearing the Republicans, the Tea Party, and then Trump supporters. Byers also shared two other behind-the-scenes production minds and even the first confirmed guest in James Carville: I can also now report that they’ve enlisted Glenn Weiss and Ricky Kirshner, the Emmy-winning production duo behind myriad Oscars and Tonys ceremonies, Super Bowl halftime shows, Kennedy Center Honors, and presidential conventions and inaugurations. They will help produce the show with Wald, who will serve as executive producer and showrunner. I’m also told that Williams and Wald have commitments from some notable political commentators, including veteran Democratic strategist James Carville, who will join Williams’ broadcast exclusively[.]

USA Today's Christine Brennan — a respected veteran sports columnist — is feeling the wrath not only from the WNBA players union but also from outspoken former women's soccer star Megan Rapinoe.Brennan's sin? Asking questions they don't like about Indiana Fever sensation — and nearly unanimous WNBA rookie of the year — Caitlin Clark.'Hearing it initially, my visceral reaction was, "That’s not good, that doesn't feel good, that feels racist, to be honest."'See, Rapinoe and the union are vexed by a particular set of questions Brennan recently directed to another player who gave Clark a black eye. Rapinoe called Brennan's line of questioning "racist"; the players union said Brennan's questions "fuel racist, homophobic, and misogynistic vitriol on social media."Believe it or not, the players union wants Brennan's press credentials revoked over her questions.What were the questions?DiJonai Carrington, a guard for the Connecticut Sun, hit Clark in the eye during a recent playoff game, leaving Clark with a black eye. Brennan asked Carrington if she hit Clark in the eye on purpose; Carrington said no.Brennan then asked Carrington if she was laughing about it later in the game, the Washington Post reported. Carrington replied, “I just told you I didn’t even know I hit her."Soon the Sun’s DeWanna Bonner called out Brennan in person and asked her to treat her teammates like humans, the paper added.More from the Post:Brennan, who is working on a book about Clark and routinely appears on TV, approached the other reporters and remarked that something like that wouldn’t happen in the NFL. She asked why the WNBA was so sensitive and told multiple reporters that if anyone had questions about her awareness of the racial dynamics at play, they should read her coverage of former NFL quarterback and activist Colin Kaepernick, among other work stretching back decades. (Brennan is White; Carrington is Black.)Three days later, the Women’s National Basketball Players Association issued a statement calling for the league to revoke the credential of Brennan, one of the most recognizable sports journalists in the country.The statement reads: “To unprofessional members of the media like Christine Brennan: You are not fooling anyone. That so-called interview in the name of journalism was a blatant attempt to bait a professional athlete into participating into a narrative that is false and designed to fuel racist, homophobic, and misogynistic vitriol on social media. You cannot hide behind your tenure. You have abused your privileges and do not deserve the credentials issued to you.”Megan Rapinoe rips Brennan, tooDuring a Wednesday episode of her podcast "A Touch More with Sue Bird and Megan Rapinoe," the former soccer star said Brennan's line of questioning with Carrington was "loaded" and "feels racist," Fox News reported."Hearing it initially, my visceral reaction was, ‘That’s not good, that doesn't feel good, that feels racist, to be honest. That feels like you're putting DiJonai in an impossible situation,'" Rapinoe said, according to the cable network.She added, "I think it is so disingenuous for Christine Brennan and other media members to say, ‘I’m just asking the question,' but really what's happening is your natural instinct to protect and narrate white players versus go after and narrate black players. That to me is really the issue."Rapinoe dismissed the notion that Carrington could have intentionally hit Clark in the eye: "The premise of the question relies on the belief that DiJonai is targeting, that DiJonai specifically swatted or swiped into Caitlin's eyeball. First of all, the square-footage of her eyeball is very small. Do you know how hard it is to poke someone in the eye?"'The WNBA and its players keep fumbling their golden opportunity with a string of ill-advised decisions and PR gaffes exposing them as not being ready for prime time.'Bird and Rapinoe also said it's "disingenuous" to claim opposing players have been targeting Clark this season.More from Fox News:Many of Clark's fans have expressed outrage in her rookie year over instances in which she was physically handled by opposing players.Clark took an illegal hip check from Chicago Sky forward Chennedy Carter on June 1 when the Sky player charged right into the Fever rookie and knocked her down during a stoppage in play. Clark said after the game that Carter's hit 'was not a basketball play.'Sky rookie and Clark's longtime rival, Angel Reese, slammed her arm onto Clark's head while trying to block a layup in a game between the two teams on June 16. Then in August, Sky player Diamond DeShields sent Clark flying and then sliding across the hardwood on a play that was later upgraded to a flagrant-1 foul.Anything else?Brennan in an interview called her questions “journalism 101," the Post reported.“It’s something that I have done in the entirety of my career,” she said, “and I think every other journalist has done the entirety of his or her career.”USA Today executive sports editor Roxanna Scott said in a statement regarding Brennan's questions, “We reject the notion that the interview perpetuated any narrative other than to get the player’s perspective directly."Boston Globe columnist Tara Sullivan wrote that "the WNBA and its players keep fumbling their golden opportunity with a string of ill-advised decisions and PR gaffes exposing them as not being ready for prime time,” the Post said.The paper added that Michael Rosenberg — a Sports Illustrated columnist who has covered the WNBA — said in an interview, “Decline to answer someone’s questions, complain to them privately, or rip them publicly. That’s all fair. But I think credentials should only be pulled for clear violations of professional ethics.”The Post also said anger over Brennan’s questions is mostly rooted in the climate in which they were asked.More from the paper:Carrington has been the subject of intense social media harassment. She posted a screenshot of an email she received in which she was called a racial slur and threatened with sexual violence. Someone else posted a picture of a police officer kneeling on George Floyd’s neck with a picture of Carrington superimposed over Floyd’s face and Clark’s superimposed on the officer’s.According to a report in Andscape, the crowd in Connecticut during the playoff series was trafficking in racially coded trash talk, too. One fan’s shirt read 'Ban Nails,' and one fan shouted at Carrington when she fell, 'What, did you trip on your eyelashes?'“In my 11-year career I never experienced the racial comments like from the Indiana Fever fan base,” Sun forward Alyssa Thomas said after the series, according to the Post.“We certainly know that there are many people who are racist who attack black people on Twitter,” Brennan said, according to the paper. “That is a fact. It is horrible. ... In the case of asking the follow-up I did, it was giving ... DiJonai Carrington the chance to address an issue that was already on Twitter and being discussed by, what? Tens of thousands of people? Hundreds of thousands? Millions of people?”Brennan said USA Today is planning to request a credential so she can cover the WNBA Finals, the Post added.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Maryland Department of State Police agreed to settle a Department of Justice lawsuit to the tune of $2.75 million, which will provide backpay to female and black applicants who failed the physical fitness and written tests.The physical fitness exam, called the Functional Fitness Assessment Test, required applicants to complete 18 push-ups in one minute, 27 sit-ups in one minute, run 1.5 miles within 15 minutes and 20 seconds, and reach approximately 1.5 inches past their toes while seated. Candidates were allowed to take the test up to three times in one year.'The underrepresentation of black and female applicants in law enforcement undermines public safety.'According to the DOJ’s lawsuit, 81% of males and only 51% of females passed at least once.“The rate at which female applicants passed the FFAT at least once is statistically significantly lower than the rate at which male applicants passed the FFAT at least once; and the female applicant pass rate is less than 80% of the male applicant pass rate,” the complaint read.The written exam, the Police Officer Selection Test, included four components: mathematics, reading comprehension, grammar, and report writing skills. To pass, candidates had to achieve an aggregate score of at least 70% on all sections combined and minimally 70% on reading comprehension, grammar, and report writing skills. There was no minimum required score for the math component. Candidates could take the test four times within a year.The lawsuit said that roughly 91% of white and 71% of black applicants passed at least once.The lawsuit claimed that both the FFAT and the POST, which are used by MDSP to screen trooper applicants, are “not job related or consistent with business necessity.”The DOJ argued that MDSP’s screening “results in a disparate impact” on female and black candidates.“MDSP’s use of the POST has disproportionately excluded African-American applicants, and its use of the FFAT has disproportionately excluded female applicants, from employment as troopers,” the lawsuit stated.MDSP was accused of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.On Wednesday, the DOJ announced that the MDSP has agreed to settle the lawsuit.Kristen Clarke, the assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, released a video statement, saying, “Maryland State Police discriminated against black and female applicants by using hiring tests that unfairly and unlawfully excluded them from employment.”“Under this agreement, the police will adopt new tests, extend priority hiring opportunities to previously disqualified applicants after they complete the new and lawful selection process, and distribute $2.75 million in relief to people unfairly disqualified by the old tests,” she continued. “The underrepresentation of black and female applicants in law enforcement undermines public safety.”As part of the agreement, the MDSP will hire up to 25 candidates who previously failed the tests upon successful completion of the new tests.Secretary of State Police Col. Roland L. Butler released a statement Wednesday, saying, “The Maryland State Police is fully committed to meeting the consent decree guidelines set forth by the U.S. Department of Justice and remains fully dedicated to supporting our sworn personnel, protecting our communities, and serving the people of Maryland.”The settlement still requires a federal judge’s approval.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

This is not a legal exercise, it’s a political one.