'Children’s hospitals should be places where sick children can receive high-quality and evidence-based care, not laboratories'

'What will Iran do?'

What are we up to, Cody

A cat wandered onto someone's patio after years of living on the streets, not knowing that his life was about to change. MagnusChatonsOrphelinsMontrealLast summer, a large tomcat with a missing eye was spotted roaming the neighborhood, but whenever neighbors tried to help, he would vanish without a trace.They didn't see him all winter and feared he might not have survived. "When winter ended, he surprised everyone by showing up on a neighbor's patio, where a humane trap had been set up (to help the local strays)," Chatons Orphelins Montreal shared."All the stars were aligned for him that day." ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealDriven by hunger, the cat walked straight into the trap and devoured the food as the door shut behind him. After months of worry, the neighbors could finally breathe a sigh of relief, knowing he was safe. "This cat with enormous cheeks was named Magnus.""Thanks to his rescuers, he was finally able to receive the care he desperately needed." ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealAt eight years old, he underwent surgery to address his missing eye and began his healing journey in the comfort of a foster home. After spending most of his life braving the streets, it was no surprise that he tested positive for FIV. (FIV+ cats can live a long, healthy life with proper care.)At first, he was timid and guarded, not yet ready to trust humans, but with patience and love, he started to change. ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealThe foster family prepared a quiet, cozy nook where Magnus could relax and decompress. Once he settled in, they tried to pet him with a spatula. Even though he kept his head lowered and avoided eye contact, it was clear he didn't have a mean bone in his body."We could see the gentle side he kept hidden within." ChatonsOrphelinsMontreal"We started with positive reinforcement using treats."Gradually, his walls began to crumble, and he let his foster mom pet him with her own hand, revealing his gentle, sweet nature. After years of putting on a tough front to survive the treacherous streets, Magnus could finally be himself. ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealIn a matter of weeks, Magnus mustered his courage to explore the house, even trotting up to his foster mom for some affectionate scritches. Each day brought new progress, as he unveiled more of his endearing personality."He is very curious and observant, and he loves other cats. From the moment he arrived, we could tell he was eager to be their friend." ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealThough he still gets startled by sudden movements or loud noises, he's truly come out of his shell and drinks in every bit of affection he receives. "He loves it when we give his big cheeks and back a good scratch. He even arches his back toward us whenever he's in the mood for extra rubs.""Magnus loves his food. His hearty appetite has helped him build trust with us." He quickly caught on to the mealtime routine and is always the first to show up. ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealHe's enamored with other cats, filling the house with cheerful chirps as he races around with them. "He even tries to rub his head against them in a cuddly way. He wants to be everyone's friend.""Magnus might give a strong first impression with his sturdy build and one missing eye. He resembles a raccoon when he moves around, but spend just a few minutes with him and you'll see he's a total teddy bear at heart." ChatonsOrphelinsMontreal"Magnus is a cat who's still learning to live with humans, and he makes progress every day. He is lucky to have been rescued from the wild. He deserves the best after his tough life outside."These days, he likes to perch by the window, keeping his keen eye on the neighbors and critters outside, all while enjoying the comfort of his foster home. ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealShare this story with your friends. More on Magnus and Chatons Orphelins Montreal on Instagram and Facebook.Related story: Cat Spent Months Living from Yard to Yard, Soon After Moving Indoors She Has Kittens by Her Side

Tuesday's Final Word

On Tuesday, the Bay County, Florida courthouse hosted the first hearing of Zachary Young v Puck News, one of the many defamation cases brought by the Navy veteran in the fallout of his successful defamation trial against CNN. A major motion was on the docket as Judge William Henry had to weigh the evidence in Puck’s motion to dismiss the case, and for the parties to move forward with discovery. And it’s going to be a long 30 days until Judge Henry filed his ruling. As NewsBusters was first to report about the case, Young accused left-leaning Puck News, via the reporting of “entertainment law expert” Eriq Gardner, of choosing to “repeat and spread the false claims of CNN.” Additionally, Young suggested Puck was trying to dismiss the merits of the case by suggesting he only won because of the venue and the Florida court system. Being a pivotal motion that would obviously determine the future of the case, and possibly have knock-on effects for Young’s other cases, Judge Henry pressed both parties on the merits of their arguments. Since it was Puck’s motion, they were up first.   HAPPENING NOW: Hearing the defamation case Zachary Young v Puck News. https://t.co/X0JwhPyrBS — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 24, 2025   On Puck’s bismerching of the venue, Judge Henry called out Gardner’s framing and read from his article:  What about in the September 1 [article], there's this, the short part dealing with CNN specifically. You got the other – next subheading of ‘another Netflix headache.’ And then the first line of that is, ‘the courtroom drama for CNN is symptomatic of a broader surge of defamation lawsuits and of media companies encountering increased judicial hostility in Republican strongholds’ … and then the concluding two paragraphs, where it talked about, ‘it's possible and that in the home stretch of the presidential election, Trump brings some of his - brings some of this up. When he was president, Trump didn't make many actual changes to libel law, but his attacks on the media changed the atmosphere, maybe influencing judges, especially those here, his allies appointed to be more receptive to libel claims as a result … bigger threat may be what's going on right now in lower courts. The judicial system's new readiness to entertain lengthy and costly defamation suits based on nuanced interpretations of a media outlet's content means it might be time for the industry to come up with a new defensive plan.’ “But when you're putting it in that context where it's sort of a criticism of, I guess, the state of the law of - that people are able to bring claims, have claims survive that otherwise didn't used to survive in the context of defamation law. Is that painting a different narrative when you - yes, you can report certain of the facts, but you can have an implication by having arguably true facts, but putting them in a bad light?” Judge Henry questioned Puck’s lawyer, Nathan Seigel. Seigel responded by arguing Gardner was only commenting on the state of the law in America for media outlets, and “that actually reinforces what we're saying” in that “the laws advanced to a point where it may be dangerous to make implications that go beyond any underlying facts.” To defend their objection to the motion to dismiss, Young’s counsel Jason Grieves pointed out that Puck’s reporting claimed “CNN's real problem was geographical. The trial was set in Panama City, one of Florida's deepest red outposts.” Judge Henry pointed out that Bay County was a deep red and that it could have played into a decision to have the CNN case tried there. But he did go on to defend the trial by pointing out the great extents he went through to ensure an unbiased jury that could render a just verdict: Probably because it's a deep red outpost and didn't think there'd be too many people that were favorable for CNN. Why did I summon 150 or 200 people for jury duty? Cause I was concerned about getting a fair jury that didn't have strong opinions about CNN. Why did I excuse a handful of people off that jury because they expressed a strong opinion about CNN. I mean, aren't these all factual things? I mean, as a lawyer, these are strategy things. This especially upended Gardner’s assertions about why CNN lost the trial. Further, Grieves argued that Puck’s reporting needed to be looked at in its totally to see the allegedly defamatory nature: Some of these things taken in isolation, you know, maybe aren't as problematic, but when you put them all together under the headline of, you know, he's just a sensitive man, when, again, the record at this point is so overwhelming, that he was not a sensitive man. He was a man whose business was destroyed by a gratuitous smear. The suggestion of the gist of this article as a whole is that he had no real reason to sue. Part of Young’s argument was that Puck had cherry picked facts from Judge Henry’s summary judgement order and omitted the fact the court had found that Young had done nothing illegal while getting people out of Afghanistan. During Puck’s rebuttal, Judge Henry pressed the outlet by recalling a conversation he had with one of CNN’s attorneys Charles Tobin (who was also representing the Associated Press in the defamation case Young brought against them) about “half-assed” reporting, which NewsBusters reported on: Obviously, we've got a big record of what was filed in the CNN case. Mr. Gardner is pulling parts of it out to throw in there. Mr. Tobin and I got into a whole conversation during one of our hearings at one point in time about what I called half-ass reporting. And he was, I said, so what you're arguing is that CNN can do half-ass reporting and only include half of it. And he said yes, except for the circumstance where the information was sitting on your desk, you know, and you just chose to ignore it, which I think is somewhat of the argument they're making is the information was in the court file of Mr. Gardner cherry picked some of the information to put into these pieces. “I mean, the fact that he's got the court file that he can sift through and he leaves parts of it out or he just cherry picks and puts certain facts, and that's what they're saying supports their punitive damages. Is that some evidence of his intent?” Judge Henry asked Seigel. “No, because, I mean, look at what the, look at what the gist of what he reported is. I mean, this is kind of circling back, right?” Seigel said. “I'm sure if you asked Mr. Tobin, now, you know, do you think Puck could have done a better job of reporting things in the court file at that point that were more favorable to you? He would have said yes too.” Recalling more from the CNN case, Judge Henry seemed to draw comparisons between Puck’s cherry picking of the case filings and CNN’s Alex Marquardt (who was recently fired for his reporting leading to the case) and Katie Bo Lillis; noting how they only really listened to the people who smeared Young and didn’t really try to check out his side of the story: HENRY: But my point here is, we've got a little bit different situation where if Mr. Gardner is just looking at what's in the court file. He's putting that blinders on, but the stuff is sitting on his desk or on his computer or he has access to it to focus on things.That's the argument Mr. Grieves is essentially you're making, right, to some extent? GRIEVES: I think that’s fair. “I just don't see anything there that says he published something knowingly false,” Siegel proclaimed. Again, Judge Henry was tough on both parties; likely because of the gravity of the motion and both sides needed to bring their A game. He also didn’t appear to tip his hand on which way he was leaning. Partially because of a busy court schedule, he would not be ready to issue a ruling for 30 days. But he did want both parties to prepare for discovery in the event he decided the case could proceed.

On Friday night, Bill Maher had on Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, and they both criticized Whoopi Goldberg of The View for comparing life for black Americans to women living under Iran's oppressive regime. The comments may have served as a wake-up call for moderates and liberals alike to really think long and hard on whether or not an appearance on The View will help their public perception.  Brian Flood wrote a Fox News piece on the situation and cited questions asked to independent journalist Tara Palmeri, she claimed that for Maher to say Democrats should steer clear from the show is too much, but she then went on to say: “So what about what Whoopi thinks? You don’t have to agree with her. You can go on ‘The View’ and actually engage with her in a way that points out the unreasonability of her comment, or the shock value of it, and if you actually win that debate, and you’re a Democrat, I think it shows you’re a more moderate voice."  She said: "Whoopi and Joy and the others, they feel like they can say whatever they want, which they can -- it’s a free country, but it doesn’t reflect the conversation at any dinner table unless you’re in Brooklyn or Seattle." Comments like these showed that The View could be trending in a direction where Democrats don’t just go on for publicity, but to appeal to a more moderate audience outside big blue cities by challenging some of the things that the mostly liberal panelists say.  For example, during the presidential race, candidate Kamala Harris went on The View in an attempt to win over voters. In hindsight, The View gave her a layup question, asking her if she would have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years. Instead of challenging the question and establishing a clear difference between the Biden administration and her prospective administration, she said: “There is not a thing that comes to mind. And I’ve been a part of most of the decisions that had an impact.” The decision to not take the opportunity to push back on The View and garner the attention of moderate voters was a big reason why she lost the 2024 presidential election. It showed that Maher was right, if Democrats aren’t willing to push back sometimes against the outlandish takes of The View, it would be wise to steer clear. The 2024 presidential election results showed that the far-left bias within mainstream media doesn’t necessarily work in the Democrats favor anymore. Members of the Democratic party may be beginning to realize that shows like The View aren’t the way to go anymore. Heritage Foundation media fellow Tim Young agreed, saying the ABC program “seems to have become the testing ground for far left" talking points.  Our very own associate editor, Nicholas Fondacaro, put it expertly when asked by Fox News about Maher's comments, “"ABC has allowed The View to craft a fantasy world for themselves where the wealthy celebrities are somehow oppressed and on the verge of becoming political prisoners. The show promotes a toxic victim mentality that leads them to think they’re treated worse in America than they would be in Iran, all while shouting it on a national TV show… Democrats would be best served by distancing themselves from the show, especially when they make comments like Sunny Hostin, who suggested that opposing wokeness is ‘ungodly.’"

On Monday, former NBC chief political analyst Chuck Todd interviewed Jake Tapper on his podcast, The Chuck Toddcast to further discuss Tapper’s book Original Sin. The book skyrocketed into the spotlight in May with its exposé of former President Biden’s mental decline and cover up. The two speculated that the media, however, were being treated as a scapegoat for the cover-up, and the real perpetrators were the Biden family.      According to Tapper and Todd, the “original sin” referenced in the book was not Biden’s 2024 re-election campaign, but rather his decision to ever run in the first place in light of his son, Hunter’s drug addiction.  “So for me, the original sin was running in the first place. Because his family was in crisis. I followed that Hunter Biden trial soup to nuts,” Todd said. “I read every single transcript. I read all of the testimony. I cannot believe to this day, Jake, that Joe Biden did this to his kids. I just can’t believe that he did it. I can’t.” The trial Todd referenced was Hunter Biden’s felony gun charges, of which he was convicted in 2024. Joe Biden infamously pardoned his son in 2024, despite previous claims that he would not involve himself with his son’s issues.  The pair continued to discuss the “story” of Joe Biden, insinuating that the media was sold a 40-year-old bill of goods by the family. According to them, the Biden family peddled Joe to the media as a dedicated family man, hard worker, and a type of figurative martyr to American politics. Because of this, reporters like Tapper and Todd saw no need to further investigate something as private as his personal health. It was the excuse they gave for all media who failed to report on Biden’s decline: we, the media, were all lied to.  While that might have been a seemingly good reason to not investigate further into Biden’s mental decline, there is something the pair failed to note: according to his recall, Tapper began noticing the decline in 2020, five years ago. Perhaps the Biden family did play a large role in the cover-up of the mental acuity of Biden, but the media are just as responsible.  In fact, Tapper famously called out Lara Trump in 2020 for suggesting that Joe Biden was not mentally able to be President, and even attempted to shame her by bringing up the President’s stutter. The biggest question on the table was not whether or not the media was sold a lie by the Biden family, or if Joe Biden was really as selfless as was claimed, but why the media continues in their cover-up. Rather than just own up to their own shortcomings, the media has continued to peddle story after story on why they did nothing wrong. Reporters, especially those of the status of Jake Tapper, have been trained to investigate and not take word of mouth at face value. The only way the media could be lied to is if they refuse to do their job as journalists, reporters, and anchors. At best, it’s lazy journalism and at worst it is the strategic cover-up of Joe Biden’s mental decline. Either way, accountability has to be taken by the media, and Tapper and Todd have shown us that is an unlikely outcome.  The entire transcript is below. Click "expand" to read. THE CHUCK TODDCAST 6/23/2025 TIME N/A (00:16:20-00:23:12) (...)   CHUCK TODD: So for me, the original sin was running in the first place.   JAKE TAPPER: Oh, well, yes, I've heard you talk about this because–   TODD: Because his family was in crisis.   TAPPER: Right–   TODD: –At this time.   TAPPER: Because his daughter and his son were–    TODD: I mean–   TAPPER: –addicted to drugs.   TODD: When I– I– when I– I read– I read– I followed that Hunter Biden trial soup to nuts. I read every single transcript. I read all of the testimony. I cannot believe to this day, Jake, that Hunter that– that Joe Biden did this to his kids.   TAPPER: So somebody close to the family–   TODD: I can't believe that he did it. I can’t.    TAPPER: Somebody close to the family told us, and it's– this is in the book– that everybody knows, you know, some of the family aphorisms like, you know, “my word as a Biden” or, you know, et cetera, et cetera. A lesser known Biden family saying is “don't call a fat person fat”. And by that they mean, it's not about being– it's not about politeness; it's about hiding truths, not acknowledging truths. And this person close to the family suggested that there are lots of truths that the family did not want to face up to. One: Beau is dying. Two: Hunter is addicted to drugs. Three: Joe Biden cares about his family more than he cares about anything else. And those three are not true, this family– this person close to the family said. And– and– and that's– when you talked about his running in– in 2020, I think that that comes to bear because, um, obviously he was putting his ambition and– if you want to be charitable– his hopes to save the country from Trumpism or whatever, obviously was putting that above what was going on with his family and his– his two children and their struggles.   TODD: Look, I mean, you know, you and I covered, you know, for most of our professional lives, the story of Joe Biden was this guy cared about his family so much he commuted home every night from Washington. TAPPER: Here’s the– now, by the way, here’s the–   TODD: By the way, he, you know what else you could say is this man was so ambitious–   TAPPER: Right. Right.   TODD: –that after his family went through that tragedy, he commuted every day to work, right? Like it's the same story, it’s all about narrative–   TAPPER: He had– he had his sister help raise his boys.   TODD: and I don't– I sit here, I look at this and the and– and I think where we sold a 40 year bill of goods?   TAPPER: Well, there is this, and this is in the book, uh, there is this legend of Joe Biden, and some of it is based in reality and some of it is based in myth, and, and the legend is–   TODD: And by the way, he’s not the first president where there's been a myth–   TAPPER: Oh, no.   TODD:I mean, my God, in fact, most presidential  resumes are– have some myth in them, all of them, you know, we could sit here and do it, but anyway, go ahead.   TAPPER: Well, I mean, you could talk about the Obamas' marriage because I mean like, she never wanted him to run for president, period.    TODD: No, oh, I mean, you know.   TAPPER: And like, I mean she's been pretty honest and open about that, right?    TODD: Yes, and that memoir, I mean, yeah. I mean it was pretty clear.   TAPPER: So, the legend, and– and this is some of the one of the things that people love about Joe Biden, is this idea that no matter what life throws at him, he gets up off the floor and gets back to work. “Get up,” he says his dad used to say, “get up.”    TODD: He always seemed to be opt– find a way to be optimistic.   TAPPER: Yeah, debilitating stutter, horrible car crash that killed his wife and daughter, two brain aneurysms and on and on and on. That same quality, however, is what paved the way to this bad decision. This idea that “I'm Joe Biden and I cannot be defeated by age. I cannot be defeated by whatever is going on with my mind and my body right now. I will persevere.” And it's not just a mythology for some people in the family and close to the family, it's a theology. And like any religion, skepticism is not permitted.   TODD: So, one of the things that I've– I've been a bit more defensive of the overall media coverage than– than clearly others would like to be, right? Meaning, you know, I– I think the blaming the media is an excuse not to blame the actual people that did this, okay?    TAPPER: Yeah.   TODD: Like, the media is a– look, for better or for worse we're a reflection– we're a reflection of the best version of events that we can come up with.   TAPPER: We are only as good as our sources.   TODD: I– I, you know, and I've brought this up, and I heard you bring this up too, which is the single most difficult thing to report out on a politician is health.   TAPPER: So sensitive. Yeah.   TODD: Exactly. There is– it is easy to frankly get shamed out of doing it. It's “How dare you. It's a private thing, people’s health is private”.   TAPPER: Think about how insanely sensitive people are about getting somebody's college transcript.    TODD: Right.   TAPPER: I mean, people are crazy about that. Like that, that should honestly just be like automatic. You're running for president? Okay, here are my grades in college, who even cares? But you can't even get that because they're so crazy. But yeah the health stuff, and we saw this by the–   TODD: And it's not an insignificant thing, and– and I do think what– I wanna like sort of focus our conversation is that how should this change sort of our unofficial vetting process of presidential candidates? Because I think it should frankly, we got to be more unpopular in what we do, you know, Wes Moore wants to tell us about this Bronze Star. Well, all right, we're gonna like find out every little thing. How earned was it? How much did this happen? And I said, look, I'm– I'm singling him out because he's maybe running for president, right?   TAPPER: Right. And that’s obviously something he's very sensitive about, also.   TODD: And– and you and I both know the way political operatives work. Anytime you can identify a topic, if you're an opponent and somebody that you know is going to get under their skin, you're gonna go 10– you know, you're gonna go 10x at it, um. But it–, I do wonder if the Trump-era and the Biden cover up, right, these, the combination of these two. In theory, it should create the single most skeptical press corps for the next decade that we've– we've had in our lifetime. Maybe not since Vietnam and Watergate, what say you?   TAPPER: I agree, I– I agree, and you know, it's funny you say that though because the moment you say we– this is a lesson we have learned from Biden, whatever the lesson is, it should now be applied to every president. The right wing goes, oh, so that's the reason he wrote the book on Biden, just to get at Trump.    TODD: No, no.   TAPPER: Like, no, but I'm just saying like that's the insanity of this conversation–   TODD: It's always a bizarre Trump– like there's always some bizarre Trump angle.   TAPPER: So Trump– so forget Trump for a second. Let's talk about post-Trump. Let's talk about post-Trump, just to remove that nonsense from this. (...)

NBC Nightly News has fully jumped into the immigration wars, and taken a side. In a report more in place at corporate partner Telemundo, NBC is now whining over a new migrant detention facility set to open in Florida, dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” due to its proximity to the Everglades and its variety of reptilian apex predators. Here is the report in its entirety, as aired on NBC Nightly News on Tuesday, June 24th, 2025 (click “expand” to view transcript): NBC NIGHTLY NEWS 6/24/25 6:41 PM TOM LLAMAS: Now to a new migrant detention camp in the Florida Everglades. Officials there are calling it Alligator Alcatraz, suggesting the swamp's wildlife will prevent migrants from escaping. Here’s Gabe Gutierrez. GABE GUTIERREZ: Tonight construction is underway, deep in the Florida Everglades on a massive migrant detention camp that state officials are calling Alligator Alcatraz. Starting next month, 5,000 migrants will be housed in trailers and heavy duty tents at this remote abandoned airfield. JAMES UTHMEIER: I call it Alligator Alcatraz. GUTIERREZ: In a promotional video set to music, Florida's attorney general lays out what he considered a deterrent for any potential escapees. JAMES UTHMEIER: People get out, there's not much waiting for them other than alligators and pythons. GUTIERREZ: But some local officials warn the environmental impact could be devastating. DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA:: We have environmental and physical stewardship and safety concerns. GUTIERREZ: The Trump administration had said it wants to get up to 100,000 beds at detention centers across the country to facilitate mass deportations. DONALD TRUMP: A lot of bad people were let into our country. We’re getting them out and we’re getting them out fast. GUTIERREZ: The Department of Homeland Security says the new facility will cost about $450 million a year, and will be reimbursed in large part by a FEMA program previously used to shelter migrants in places like this hotel in New York City.  Do you think that this is a good idea for your home state? GREG STEUBE: Well, I 100% support the president's deportation efforts. It's the president's priority to get those individuals out of our country. GUTIERREZ: But immigrant advocates argue the money has not been set aside by Congress, and… JESSE FRANZBLAU: The biggest concern is the- is the grave inhumanity that seems to be at stake in terms of sending people to incredibly inhumane, brutal conditions. GUTIERREZ: An administration official tells NBC news that ICE currently has nearly 60,000 detainees in custody. A record. Tom. LLAMAS: All right. Gabe Gutierrez, we thank you. So there is this remote abandoned airfield in the Everglades, with room for the intake of many illegal aliens. There are a great many illegal aliens in the country to begin with, tens of millions which were allowed to enter into the country during the previous administration- a fact not mentioned in the report. The entire tone of the report is set so as to trigger outrage over the fact that some potentially dangerous aliens will be housed in a facility that might prove difficult to escape, and in accommodations not comparable with the four-star Roosevelt Hotel in New York City. These are different times that all for different solutions. There is partisan parity in the soundbites used for the report. President Donald Trump and Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava (D) each got a sentence or so. GOP Congressman Greg Steube and Jesse Franzblau of the National Immigrant Justice Center each got in an extended soundbite.  Nonetheless, the overall frame is oppositional to the concept of Alligator Alcatraz. The idea that illegal immigrants should be detained until deportation in any place other than a ritzy hotel is a bridge too far for NBC.  

CNN’s Erin Burnett Recalls Friendliness of Iranians Chanting ‘Death to America’