Fireworks can be terrifying and can pose a serious danger to our four-legged friends. So, as dog parents, we must find ways to pawsitively celebrate our country's independence without compromising our dog's wellbeing and safety.

Chaos Everywhere. Thank God The Adults Are in Charge!

Something rare and highly unusual was caught on camera in Bangladesh by scientists studying bird colonies. The fishing cat that quacks like a duck is famous for its aquatic hunting skills, and yet their cameras revealed – for the first time – that they also hunt in the treetops.What are fishing cats?Fishing cats, Prionailurus viverrinus, is a medium-sized wild cat that lives in South and Southeast Asia. It’s not thought that they have any natural predators, but they are classed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List Of Threatened Species due to human interference, including housing development, hunting, logging, and fishing. A 2020 paper highlighted how only 6 to 11 percent of the areas where fishing cats alongside two other wild cats in the Prionailurus genus are protected."This study is important because it shows that many small, rare and elusive cats in the Indian subcontinent don't get as much attention as the more spectacular big cats,” said study co-author Mats Björklund, Professor Emeritus of Zooecology at Uppsala University, in a statement. “Nevertheless, the need to protect them is just as pressing, so the number and size of the protected areas must be increased to include more biotopes containing these species."What do you mean they quack like a duck?The vocalizations of fishing cats are very peculiar, sounding a bit like a duck quacking. Don’t believe us? Get a load of this:   Fishing cats in the treesCameras mounted in the tree canopy in northeast Bangladesh turned up quite a surprise for scientists studying bird colonies when they captured chicks being stolen from their nests by fishing cats. Fishing cats have several adaptations for aquatic hunting, such as large premolars for gripping slippery prey, and semi-webbed paws, and yet they were spotted as high up as 8 meters (26 feet) snapping up multiple bird species’ chicks.The discovery answered a mystery as to how fishing cats can survive when their habitats flood with the seasons, as it seems they can subsidize their diet of mostly river fish for the odd bird. However, hunting in the treetops can’t protect fishing cats from their biggest threat.Arboreal predatory behavior of the fishing cat (circled in red) captured on camera traps in northeast Bangladesh.Image credit: Allama Shibli Sadik & Muntasir Akash / De Gruyter“Monitoring of media reports on human–fishing cat conflicts suggests that a fresh conflict is happening in the country every two weeks,” said Assistant Professor Muntasir Akash of the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, in a statement. “Conservation efforts targeting fishing cats should thus be prioritized and all options for effective mitigation scientifically assessed.”“A stable population of wetland bird colonies might be a win-win for the wetland, fishing cats and the local people who depend on the wetlands.”The study is published in the journal Mammalia.[H/T: Forbes]

The inevitable push to put the current president out to pasture will be far more beneficial for black families in the long run than any of the accomplishments Joe Biden touted Thursday night on CNN’s debate stage. Decades from now, children who have not been born yet will talk about the optics of the CNN Presidential Debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump the way people talk about the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960. The former president was relaxed, energetic, and disciplined. The current president was barely audible and unable to complete some of his thoughts.The black family will never be treated like a top priority until black men and women show as much commitment to one another as we do to Democrats. At one point, the moderators asked Biden what he has done for black voters, and he rattled off a series of talking points on black unemployment, small businesses, and homeownership. Given his clear physical and cognitive limitations, appeals to his most loyal supporters will not be enough to save his 2024 campaign.Much of the debate for progressives in the days and weeks ahead will surround who Democrats get to replace Joe Biden. It’s clear that the party is completely uninterested in having Vice President Kamala Harris lead the ticket. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been mentioned as a potential Biden replacement. The problem for Democrats is they can’t afford to alienate black women, who are their most loyal voter base and the “backbone” of the party. Picking Newsom over Harris would feel like an act of disloyalty to black women, but it might be exactly the move needed to break the stranglehold the left has had on the black community for decades. The buzz on the right is that Trump will increase his support from black voters, especially men. If 2020 is any indication of what is to come in this election, we can expect every black politician, journalist, entertainer, and professor on the left to be out in full force trying to convince black men that a vote for Trump is an act of racial disloyalty. But that message will be much harder to sell if Democrats push aside the current vice president for California’s governor, who has the least favored set of identity intersections to modern progressives — namely straight, white, and male. A Newsom nomination would create a rift between the party and the black women who power it. That’s a net positive in my mind, largely because it would create an opportunity to reiterate a very simple message: The loyalty black voters show Democrats should be reserved for the marital covenant, not for a political party. Sidelining Vice President Harris for anyone other than Michelle Obama would be taken as a slap in the face by the black women in the party. Perhaps that’s exactly what is needed to wake them up to the perils of liberal paternalism.The breakdown of the black family since the mid-1960s has occurred alongside the growth of government and the symbiotic relationship between liberal politicians, government administrators, and poor single mothers, which has developed over the past six decades. Everyone in this iron triangle has something to gain from the arrangement. Politicians get power, the administrators of the poverty economy retain job security, and low-income women get financial support.This dynamic has evolved since the 1960s as women have attained higher levels of education and greater financial independence. The left has adjusted by tweaking its patronage scheme to highlight influential appointments for black women, including Kamala Harris as vice president and Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first black woman to the Supreme Court.Roughly 80% of black men voted for Joe Biden in 2020, but the left’s entanglement with black women in particular threatens a “marriage before carriage” movement. A woman cannot have two husbands at the same time, so “marrying” a political party is an act of bigamy that is guaranteed to complicate the relationship dynamics in any community. A man with traditional values wants to be seen as a potential husband and father, not a damsel in distress needing to be rescued by a woman and her favorite politician.The black family will never be treated like a top priority until black men and women show as much commitment to one another as we do to Democrats. The CNN debate was the evidence the left needed to move on from President Biden. Choosing Gavin Newsom to be the nominee would be devastating to the black women who are the party’s “backbone,” but it would be a small step to reestablishing order in the household. The government is an absent father and unfaithful spouse because it is not designed to be the man of the house for millions of American women and children. The black community will be in a much better place in three generations if we focus our political, financial, and cultural resources on rebuilding our families rather than being the workhorse for a political party.Democrats want “Uncle Joe” off the ballot. I want “Uncle Sam” out of our homes.

"You know Jimmy Carter only served one term he could run again," posted one wag on X after Joe Biden's dismal debate performance Thursday night. It's a decent joke and also a good excuse to reconsider the legacy of our longest-lived president.In "The Simpsons" fourth-season episode “Marge in Chains,” Mayor Quimby unveils a statue of Jimmy Carter in Springfield's town square. “He's history's greatest monster!" shouts an outraged onlooker, and a riot ensues. Substitute any other recent U.S. president, and the joke wouldn't land nearly as well. Obama, Bush, Reagan, Clinton, the bad Orange Man: It's easy to imagine any of these men inspiring such passion. But Jimmy Carter? One reason for this is that his one-term presidency is widely regarded — fairly or not — as ineffective. Another reason, however, is the dignity and integrity with which he has lived his post-White House life. In the more than 30 years since that episode first aired, it is this that has come to define his legacy. Until February 2023, when he entered hospice, Carter lived with his wife, Rosalynn, in Plains, Georgia, in the modest, two-bedroom ranch house he built himself in 1961. Five months later, they celebrated their 77th wedding anniversary (another presidential record, beating George and Barbara Bush by four years); Rosalynn died in November. Well into his 90s, Carter still wielded a hammer when helping build houses for Habitat for Humanity, with which he has been a forceful yet self-effacing advocate for affordable housing for almost four decades. The rest of his time, he spent on diplomacy and writing books. He will turn 100 in October. Compared to his successors, who have parlayed their Oval Office stints into influence-enhancing foundation work, lucrative board memberships, and lavish media deals (not to mention impressive real-estate portfolios), Carter has clearly left a lot of money on the table. Bad business, perhaps; but also a powerful testament to the vanishing idea that, even in 2024 America, some things just aren't for sale.

The best summer job of my life was piloting a paddle-wheel boat of about 100 passengers around a man-made lagoon near the shore of Lake Erie. The Western Cruise ride at Cedar Point Amusement Park in Sandusky, Ohio, was a 20-minute excursion, repeated Tuesdays through Sundays with new passengers continually during my shift of 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Fortunately, I got the chance to practice my nascent stand-up comedy routine, because even though there was a standard script that all the boat captains were encouraged to memorize and repeat verbatim, the college-age men and women steering the boats just wanted to have fun spewing whatever they pleased to their captive audiences. Besides, the animation displayed along the shores of the lagoon, supposedly depicting events in the lives of early settlers to that region of Ohio, was in shabby shape. Much of it worked periodically, if at all, and most displays were tattered and draped with creepy cobwebs. So creating your own stories, complete with jokes, made for a more entertaining cruise. As I was carefully navigating the boat into the dock at the end of my trips, I would close my spiel with my standard line: “Does anyone here have any questions?” Pause. “Any answers?” Polite laughter would usually follow. Decades later, here I am posing quirky questions and answers — and maybe a statement or two — that might get people pondering what exactly is going on in this wacky world that we inhabit today. Some of these observations can be found in my new book, “Obvious: Seeing the Evil That's in Plain Sight and Doing Something About It.” And one or two, I must warn, might make some people uncomfortable. If that happens, please forgive me. Take this with a grain of salt and remember that there is still something of a peppery comedian lurking inside. In no particular order, and with little rhyme or reason, I offer the following: When I was growing up, we called “climate change” by other names: winter, spring, summer, and fall. If a cow passes gas in a pasture and there is no environmentalist there to smell it, does it still destroy the planet? Yesterday’s “conspiracy theory” has become today’s “I told you so.” For many people, the search for God ends when they look in the mirror. To say that Christians should not be involved in politics is itself a political statement. The best-laid plans of men who act like mice often go astray. Do not let your enemies define you; do not let cheaters make or remake the rules. It’s true that hate can be considered a virtue, as long as the one you are hating is worthy of being hated. Some people think that one of the five senses is “talking” — and they use that one more than all the others combined. Can it be that “free speech” is perfectly OK as long as what is being said is something you agree with? Of course, this is only a partial list for the reader's consideration. I hope some of these make sense and might spark further discussion. If not, please watch your step while exiting. The ride is over. Editor's note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.

“It may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law,” Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in September 1789. “The earth belongs always to the living generation. … Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right …” Jefferson went on: “Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.” Government by consent of the people has been replaced by government by coercion. Nearly a century later, the great American anarchist Lysander Spooner insisted that the Constitution only bound those who granted specific and explicit consent. “No man can delegate ... any right of arbitrary dominion over a third person; for that would imply a right in the first person, not only to make the third person his slave, but also a right to dispose of him as a slave to still other persons,” Spooner wrote in 1882. “Any contract to do this is necessarily a criminal one. ... To call such a contract a ‘Constitution’ does not at all lessen its criminality, or add to its validity.” Until 1913, our government was small and limited. Federal spending represented an insignificant percentage of GDP. The administrative state as we know it did not exist. Then the Progressive Era transformed government. Congress created the Federal Reserve. A constitutional amendment that permitted a tax on income was ratified. And senators would no longer be selected by state legislatures but instead by direct elections. The government could increase its size and scope by either printing money or raising taxes — or both. Previously, the inability to do either had constrained it. And the direct election of senators nationalized their election, further centralizing power. Government spending grew. Inflation grew — and the real value of money shrank. The regulatory state grew. The administrative state grew. The result: less freedom, less innovation, less wealth. Now, in our ideologically divided society, the lack of decentralized governance has led to all decisions being nationalized and centralized through an autocratic process. The administrative state promulgates rules, which are then reinforced by an essentially unchecked surveillance state. For example, when Congress finds itself incapable of building a consensus on immigration, the only way to satisfy the desire to “get things done” is through executive order. It’s an admission of negligence, incompetence, and dysfunctionality. And the Supreme Court, which Alexander Hamilton once promised would be the “least dangerous branch,” has become perhaps the most dangerous branch. The current crisis of government legitimacy and disdain for the Constitution may stem from the fact that our government is no longer "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Limited government has indeed perished. Today, legislators agree on almost nothing except borrowing and spending obscene amounts of money to reinforce the corrupt crony corporatist cartel — a government of the few, by the few, and for the few. Maybe, just maybe, Jefferson and Spooner were right. Our government has gained immense power but lost legitimacy. Why should people today feel bound by a contract they inherited from prior generations without their own consent? Once we had a small, limited government that represented an insignificant percentage of GDP, with no ability to influence money or monetary policy. The dearth of tax revenues and the restricted money supply helped to constrain the size of government and to limit its role in society. So almost all decisions made by the people were voluntary decisions, expressed through economic and social activity with limited federal government intervention. Now we have a Leviathan. Our government’s debt exceeds the value of our economic activity. Unfunded liabilities, a tax on future generations, significantly add even more to that debt burden. The Fed has accumulated a balance sheet measured in the trillions of dollars. The tax laws are now represented in text by more than 70,000 pages of statutory code, regulations, and revenue rulings. The Federal Register recording government activity also exceeds 70,000 pages. Most Americans have no idea what’s in it. Who believes that all of this was consented to by the people? That this is still a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Government by consent of the people has been replaced with government by coercion. Neither party today supports a limited, decentralized government. Both support a broad and ever-expanding presidential authority. The Republicans, once the party of the rule of law, now argue that a president should be unbounded by it. Legislators endorse a limitless executive power, vested in a single person, who should have the right to act with immunity and impunity, with the same privilege extended to themselves, the military, and the police force. The beauty of limited-term contracts is that the parties are left free to decide on what terms they wish to renew their agreement, if any. It is this power to decide that should be vested in “we, the people.” Only then can we have a Constitution by consent, not coercion.

Biden's Handlers Release a New Video, and It's a Five-Alarm Fire Moment

WATCH: Trump Campaign Releases Brutal Ads on Kamala Harris As the Heir Apparent to Biden

An alarming 72% of Americans say President Joe Biden is not only mentally and cognitively unfit to be president but he also should not run for reelection, an eye-opening poll result released Sunday found after Thursday night's debate.