There are some dog breeds that stand out above the rest in terms of popularity. In the US‚ the number one most registered dog is Labrador Retrievers‚ a title they've held for decades‚ according to the American Kennel Club. Joybird decided to look not at registered dogs‚ but rather internet searches to analyze what breeds pique the most interest state-by-state. You may think that Californians are... Source

They might be one of the most iconic rock bands of the last forty years‚ but for KISS‚ those decades on the world stage have been anything but boring. Newcomers to rock might only know them for their make-up and costumes‚ but hardcore fans know that with fame comes rumors‚ myths‚ and scandals. As KISS embarks on their final farewell tour‚ stop here first and find out everything you didn' Source

Vultures often get a bad rap because they eat decaying flesh‚ have a creepy appearance‚ and seem to soar overhead for hours just waiting for animals to die. But the truth is that vultures are nature's clean-up crew and are a very important part of the earth's ecological system. There are many reasons why vultures don't deserve the reputation they have. After reading this article‚ we' Source

It's Almost Spring‚ But Both Parties Act Like Winter Is Coming

Biden: You Sanctuary Cities Should Be Cooperating With ICE‚ You Know

The liberal media were up in arms Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the legal question of presidential immunity. Too busy trying to tear down American institutions and delegitimize the court‚ the liberal media didn’t want to mention that Special Counsel Jack Smith literally asked the court earlier this month to take up his case. But the facts didn’t matter to the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View as they collectively attacked the court and flaunted their profound ignorance of the high court’s duties. Obviously ignorant of the fact that legal cases were pre-selected ahead of a session and new cases that come up during a SCOTUS session often got pushed to the next one‚ co-host Joy Behar falsely suggested that the justices were “kicking the can down the road” because the hearing would be in April. “What is their motivation for not doing it right away?” Behar asked staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) who was once a federal prosecutor. Hostin steered clear of the truth and proposed a sinister motive from the conservative justices‚ without evidence‚ that they just wanted to help former President Trump (Click “expand”): HOSTIN: Well‚ unfortunately‚ some people are saying the motivation is that there are certain conservative justices that have been appointed by Trump that want to help him. Because we know the end result is if this case is not resolved by the time of the election and he‚ God forbid‚ becomes the president of the United States – BEHAR: Pooh‚ pooh. HOSTIN: — the Justice Department policy is you cannot indict‚ nor put on trial a sitting president. Right? And so it's his get out of jail free – GOLDBERG: He can throw him in jail. HOSTIN: But it's his get-out-of-jail-free card.     Ignoring the dissimilarities in how critical time was‚ Hostin tried to compare the timing of the immunity case to Bush v. Gore in 2000. Being an election denier‚ Behar shouted: “That was the day democracy died!” “Well‚ it was certainly an injustice to many people‚” Hostin agreed. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg claimed the case was at least “choking” democracy. In reality‚ multiple recounts confirmed that President George W. Bush did‚ in fact‚ win the election. Eventually‚ Hostin admitted that even Trump “gets due process of law just like all of us.” “And so‚ if the Supreme Court takes it‚ they decide he does not have presidential immunity‚ now he gets convicted‚ he then can't on appeal say‚ ‘you got to let me out of jail because I didn't get due process‚’” she explained. Goldberg proclaimed that giving Trump due process was “a bad look” of the Supreme Court because – to her warped mind – being fair to Trump was them “showing favoritism.” Proudly flaunting her profound ignorance of what the duty of the court actually was‚ Goldberg bloviated that “there is no reason for them to actually take this case because the two lower courts” had already made rulings. “So if they were to…turn against what the two lower courts thought – I think this is very bad for them‚” she said. The Supreme Court overturned lower court rulings all the time. According to The New York Times‚ a liberal paper Goldberg would likely trust‚ “From 2006 to 2015‚ the Supreme Court heard 160 cases from the Ninth Circuit‚ reversing 106 decisions and vacating 24…” And in 2017‚ the First‚ Third‚ and Sixth Circuit Courts each had 100 percent of their rulings reversed. Earlier in the month‚ ABC chief Washington correspondent Jon Karl noted that SCOTUS‚ including Trump-appointed justices‚ had ruled against him multiple times on election matters. Behar couldn’t take talking about the court treating Trump fairly anymore. “I find it depressing because I feel like not only are we alone in the universe‚ we're now alone in the country! We're supposed to rely on the Supreme Court to be up above reproach and they're not!” she shouted. “There is so much corruption in government right now! I feel like I'm in the wrong country!” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 29‚ 2024 11:04:32 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: So‚ they’re basically kicking the can down the road‚ though. They're not taking up this case immediately. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Right. BEHAR: So‚ what's their motivation then‚ if we all know they can't do what you just said because of the extreme power that a president would have‚ what is their motivation for not doing it right away? SUNNY HOSTIN: Well‚ unfortunately‚ some people are saying the motivation is that there are certain conservative justices that have been appointed by Trump that want to help him. Because we know the end result is if this case is not resolved by the time of the election and he‚ God forbid‚ becomes the president of the United States – BEHAR: Pooh‚ pooh. HOSTIN: — the Justice Department policy is you cannot indict‚ nor put on trial a sitting president. Right? And so it's his get out of jail free – GOLDBERG: He can throw him in jail. HOSTIN: But it's his get out of jail free card. GOLDBERG: No‚ no. I’m saying Biden could throw him – See? This is a slippery slope‚ because if they give him this immunity -- BEHAR: What's good for the goose is good for Joe Biden. HOSTIN: What I also will say is: they're listening to these arguments in April. The end of their term is June. Right? They return again‚ I believe‚ in October. The Bush v. Gore case happened real quick. [Rhythmically snapping her fingers] Do you remember that? The Supreme Court knows how to work real fast. BEHAR: That was the day democracy died! HOSTIN: Well‚ it was certainly an injustice to many people. GOLDBERG: It was choking it! BEHAR: It’s on its way. (…) 11:10:53 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: He gets due process of law just like all of us. And so‚ if the Supreme Court takes it‚ they decide he does not have presidential immunity‚ now he gets convicted‚ he then can't on appeal say‚ “you got to let me out of jail because I didn't get due process.” So‚ that's how I'm trying to look at this; in a very positive way. BEHAR: That's why they took it in the first place. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But – And I think that's right. HOSTIN: I think that's maybe why they took it. GOLDBERG: I think it's a bad -- it's a bad look for them. It's a very bad -- HOSTIN: To take it? GOLDBERG: To have taken this‚ yes. Because this‚ you know‚ in some of their other rulings‚ which I’ve wondered about‚ you know‚ people say‚ “Well‚ you know‚ we don't want it to look like we're showing favoritism so looking at it in a very deep way.” And suddenly now it doesn't feel like they're looking at it in a deep way; this feels like‚ “Ooo‚ we got to help him do this.” And that's what I don't like about it. Because there is no -- I mean there is no reason for them to actually take this case‚ because the two lower courts said‚ “Listen‚ this is what it is.” This -- and so if they were to turn it -- turn against what the two lower courts thought – I think this is very bad for them. HOSTIN: It was -- GOLDBERG: Or looks bad for them. HOSTIN: It wasn't shocking to me that they took it because they took so long to grant it – GOLDBERG: See‚ it feels like they just did this the other day. HOSTIN: Yeah‚ no. It took some time. BEHAR: I have to say‚ I find it very depressing. I find it depressing. GOLDBERG: Oh‚ don't be depressed. FARAH GRIFFIN: Can I say one thing? BEHAR: I find it depressing because I feel like not only are we alone in the universe‚ we're now alone in the country! We're supposed to rely on the Supreme Court to be up above reproach and they're not! [Crosstalk] GOLDBERG: But‚ wait a minute. They never have been – [Applause] HOSTIN: The chief justice knows that and cares about that sentiment and I agree with Alyssa – this is not going to – I mean Whoopi‚ they're not going to -- BEHAR: There is so much corruption in government right now! I feel like I'm in the wrong country! (…)

An MSNBC legal analyst and “misinformation expert” appeared worried that the unparalleled ease of communication that the modern internet allows threatens democracy. That’s why she suggested curbing the ability of regular citizens to use social media platforms in ways they see fit.  Appearing on Studio 2‚ a WHYY NPR radio show‚ MSNBC legal analyst and University of Michigan professor Barbara McQuade lamented that there wasn’t enough government regulation of social media and accused the right of running an authoritarian playbook‚ leading to “the slow erosion of democratic norms.” McQuade claimed that “technology and social media have created the ability to create falsehoods and to spread them to millions of people at the push of a button.”  McQuade also blamed a lack of government regulation for enabling the problem. “I think we have allowed the internet and social media to grow completely unchecked‚ and in some ways it’s been wonderful‚” Mcquade argued. She blamed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 for protecting social media companies from liability. She further complained that “it has also allowed all of this anonymity online‚ all of these manipulative algorithms online‚ all of this disinformation that can be used to exploit us as we communicate with people online.”    The professor went on to argue in favor of yet more government regulation of Big Tech platforms‚ specifically algorithms: “One is to regulate algorithms… We could control the algorithms. We could prohibit algorithms designed for the purpose of generating outrage. Or we could at least require disclosure of the algorithms so that people at least know they are being manipulated.” McQuade did not appear concerned that these regulations would at all infringe on the First Amendment. However‚ her past comments on the issue at the very least put her commitment to free speech into question.  While on The Rachel Maddow Show on Feb. 26‚ McQuade framed the First Amendment as a liability putting the United States at a disadvantage compared to other countries. As reported by the New York Post‚ McQuade explained to host Rachel Maddow‚ “So‚ for example‚ our deep commitment to free speech in our First Amendment. It is a cherished right. It is an important right in democracy‚ and nobody wants to get rid of it‚ but it makes us vulnerable to claims [that] anything we want to do related to speech is censorship.”  MSNBC’s Barbara McQuade: “Our First Amendment … makes us vulnerable to claims that anything we try to do to regulate speech is censorship.” pic.twitter.com/MvoxGQr2yz — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 29‚ 2024 Notably‚ all of McQuade’s examples of misinformation being abused in the Studio 2 podcast came from the political right. She even claimed‚ without evidence‚ that former President Donald Trump and “the far-right MAGA extremists” used disinformation because “they don’t believe they can win in a fair election‚ so through gerrymandering and through disinformation and through voter suppression‚ they are willing to seize power and give up democracy.” 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 so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

The Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro exposed the threat posed by the diversity equity and inclusion (DEI) ideology in a field where competence is especially important.  Shapiro shared footage of radicals in the healthcare industry embracing DEI and actively promoting discrimination during the Jan. 26 edition of The Ben Shapiro Show. “DEI is a gun pointed at the heart of the meritocracy‚” Shapiro said‚ before adding‚ “The DEI idea innately means that people who are unqualified are going to advance in life by dints of the fact that they are considered part of a victimized group.”             DEI Could Get You Killed In The Operating Room pic.twitter.com/9Pt8TuWAD9 — The Ben Shapiro Show (@BenShapiroShow) February 26‚ 2024 Shapiro went on to play a few clips featuring Duke University surgical resident Vignesh Raman. In the video‚ Raman complained about patients watching Fox News and wearing MAGA hats. He then wholeheartedly endorsed DEI and celebrated that most of his patients were not white. Shapiro roasted Raman for using “diverse” to mean “non-white‚” before exposing his radical ideology. “So according to Raman‚ he says post-George Floyd‚ Duke actually made a concerted effort to stop hiding ‘so many‚ walls of white men’‚ and that the team even learned to abandon particular metrics and adopt holistic application practices so as to recruit more women and Latinx surgeons.” Shapiro then played an extended clip of Raman speaking on his activism‚ before blasting him again.  “He’s literally saying that we are ignoring metrics in order to look at the life story of your surgeon‚” Shapiro said. Shapiro exposed the absurdity with a hypothetical question‚ asking his audience whether they care to question a surgeon’s “life story” rather than their competence before lifesaving treatment.  The Daily Wire editor emeritus went on to blast Raman for an ugly tweet where Raman stated‚ “I would say even for academic publications… I don’t want to amplify the work of white men who only collaborate with other white men.”  Shapiro demonstrated with a few other clips that this doctor was not just one isolated DEI fanatic. He showed that the American College of Surgeons had promoted “the Ibram X Kendi definition of racism” to all of its members‚ pushing the dangerous belief that it is impossible to be racist to white people. Shapiro spelled out that this belief enables racial discrimination in the industry as a “corrective mechanism.” Ultimately‚ Shapiro said the health care system would get “fewer qualified people who are entering the system and more unqualified people going to top medical schools.” Shapiro continued to go after the American College of Surgeons‚ calling them out for bringing in a speaker who claimed patients “do better” when doctors “look like them.” Shapiro summed up the danger at hand in a post on X‚ “DEI in medicine means that even if doctors injure patients‚ they might still be protected (even promoted). It means that top hospitals are abandoning key metrics when hiring surgeons. And it means research by whites may be disregarded.” 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 the dangers of leftist DEI ideology infecting corporate America

The Democrats warn us almost daily that re-electing Donald Trump in 2024 will spell the end of democracy. But technically‚ do we even live in a country whose constitution established us as a “democracy”? When Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention of 1787‚ the story goes that he was greeted by a woman who asked him point-blank‚ “Well‚ doctor‚ what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” Franklin's terse response: “A republic‚ madam — if you can keep it.” Two powerful forces remain in the battle to control America through the presidency in this year’s election. Significantly‚ Franklin did not say that the form of government that the founders established was a democracy. We are‚ as most of us know — or certainly should know — a constitutional republic. We are not a country where 51% of citizens can outvote the other 49% and then tell them what they can and cannot do. We are a representative government with checks and balances built in as guaranteed safeguards against a majority of strong-willed individuals lording it over the meek‚ timid‚ and disadvantaged. Both the majority and the minority have a true say in how every citizen is governed. The First Amendment guaranteeing free speech has always been key if we hope to "keep the republic." Once that is co-opted — then controlled and censored — an unsuspecting public will be easily swayed into thinking in line with whatever ensures that an elite few can gain and maintain power. Manipulating the masses is the goal. Election season is always ripe for the misuse of our First Amendment. If the leftist elites who currently control the many facets of our culture — the press‚ academia‚ entertainment‚ business‚ and yes‚ even many religious institutions — continue unabated‚ the noble ideas and ideals upon which America was established will soon become a regrettable thing of the past. Two powerful forces remain in the battle to control America through the presidency in this year's election. On one side‚ the Democrats with their twisted definition of America as a democracy‚ aided by a deep state‚ far-left‚ globalist‚ RINO‚ and woke contingent; on the other‚ all those pushing back‚ whether part of the America First and MAGA crowd or the myriad other freedom-loving citizens of all stripes awake to the evil that has accelerated over these past three years. Since the 2020 presidential contest‚ which the powers that be declared was "the most secure election in American history‚" a growing majority of citizens have serious doubts about the validity of the result. Another percentage naively believes that sort of third-world election-stealing shenanigans could never happen here. And yet another‚ smaller group knows for a fact that the election was not secure in the least‚ because they were flat-out involved in rigging and stealing it. A group of Democratic Party operatives blatantly and quite effectively ended the concept of free and fair elections‚ thus negating one of the keystones of self-rule by “We‚ the People.” Building upon that 2020 “win‚” Democrats and their tyrannical gang have since targeted anyone who stands in the way of their fundamental transformation of this country‚ President Trump chief among their adversaries. As Trump so often reminds us‚ the left is not after him. The left is after independent‚ free-thinking‚ non-compliant Americans. He's just standing in the way. After everything the left has manufactured to take Trump out‚ every sort of imagined or concocted crime‚ Trump still stands. And‚ undeterred‚ fights back. He simply refuses to fade away. Democrats and their machine on the left roll out their revenge and retribution daily on Trump because he dared to run for president in the first place. Then he had the audacity to win. Twice! From the primary trail over the past several months‚ Trump has also highlighted that‚ besides honest elections‚ another crucial facet necessary for a country to exist as a sovereign nation is a secure border. We can all clearly see what the Biden administration has allowed to occur at the southern border. Millions of illegal aliens have simply strolled across our wide-open borders and are now who-knows-where throughout our country. Does this indicate a government that is concerned about sovereignty or security in any way‚ shape‚ or form? Other traits indicating the Democrats' brand of democracy include publicly labeling political adversaries as “domestic terrorists”; using excessive force and exaggerating charges when arresting dissenters; imprisoning protesters‚ such as those involved on January 6‚ without charges and due process; championing mob violence and looting from the progressive far left; and so many additional tactics that might more readily apply to fascism than democracy. All these destructive features touted by the Biden administration help to reveal the democracy to which the Democrats refer. And we need to squelch it sooner rather than later. November 5 would be just in the nick of time. Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.

A troubling new peer-reviewed study‚ the largest of its kind‚ has revealed that ultra-processed food is linked to 32 harmful health conditions and can significantly increase the risk of cancer‚ diabetes‚ and an early grave. The study‚ a systematic meta-analysis published Wednesday in the BMJ‚ the British Medical Association's esteemed journal‚ found evidence pointing to "direct associations between greater exposure to ultra-processed foods and higher risks of all cause mortality‚ cardiovascular disease related mortality‚ common mental disorder outcomes‚ overweight and obesity‚ and type 2 diabetes." The fallout of ultra-processed food exposure may be far-reaching granted the global shift in recent years from unprocessed and minimally processed foods to UPFs. According to the study‚ the present "share of dietary energy derived from ultra-processed foods ranges from 42% and 58% in Australia and the United States." The study‚ involving experts from various top institutions‚ including Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Sorbonne University in France‚ relies on the definition of "ultra-processed foods" advanced in the Nova food classification system. According to the Nova system‚ processed foods usually consist of a primary plant or animal substance to which one or more culinary ingredient — such as oil‚ butter‚ sugar‚ or salt — has been added. An ultra-processed food‚ alternatively‚ is not a modified primary material but rather an industrial composite of often chemically manipulated substances that have been extracted from foods‚ derived from food constituents‚ and/or cooked up in a laboratory. UPFs appear in virtually every aisle in the grocery store. They include packaged snacks‚ soft drinks‚ instant noodles‚ sweetened cereals‚ packaged baked goods‚ frozen fish sticks‚ oven-ready pizzas‚ breakfast bars‚ and ready-made meals. Researchers examined the findings of 14 meta-analysis studies published over the past three years with 45 distinct pooled analyses. In 87% of the pooled analyses‚ estimates of UPF exposure were obtained on the basis of food frequency questionnaires‚ 24-hour dietary recalls‚ and participants' dietary history. Researchers found UPF exposure was consistently associated with 32 adverse health outcomes‚ including all-cause mortality; cancer-related deaths; cardiovascular disease-related deaths; heart disease-related deaths; breast cancer; central nervous system tumors; chronic lymphocytic leukemia; colorectal cancer; pancreatic cancer; prostate cancer; adverse sleep-related outcomes; anxiety; common mental disorder outcomes; depression; asthma; wheezing; Crohn's disease; ulcerative colitis; obesity; hypertension; and type 2 diabetes. "On the basis of the random effects model‚ 32 (71%) distinct pooled analyses showed direct associations between greater ultra-processed food exposure and a higher risk of adverse health outcomes‚" said the study. "Additionally‚ of these combined analyses‚ 11 (34%) showed continued statistical significance when a more stringent threshold was applied." Heart disease-related death‚ cardiovascular disease-related death‚ all-cause mortality‚ type 2 diabetes‚ wheezing‚ and depression were among the 11 adverse health outcomes that showed continued statistical significance in the face of the more stringent threshold. The Guardian noted that evidence graded as "convincing" in the study indicated that higher UPF exposure was linked to a roughly 50% increase in cardiovascular-related death‚ a 48-53% higher risk of anxiety and mental disorders‚ and a 12% increase risk of diabetes. "Across the pooled analyses‚ greater exposure to ultra-processed foods‚ whether measured as higher versus lower consumption‚ additional servings per day‚ or a 10% increment‚ was consistently associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes‚" added the study. In a corresponding editorial in BMJ‚ a pair of Brazilian academics stressed that UPFs "are engineered to be highly desirable‚ combining sugar‚ fat‚ and salt to maximize reward‚ and adding flavors that induce eating when not hungry. Many are addictive‚ judged by the standards set for tobacco products‚ and aggressively marketed with meal deals‚ super sizing‚ and advertising." The Brazilians suggested that investment management companies and manufacturers would "likely resist" efforts to control and reduce the production and consumption of UPFs. With the tobacco parallel in mind‚ the Brazilian duo recommended rolling out national dietary guidelines cautioning against UPF consumption; prohibiting sales of junk food near schools and hospitals; and regulating UPF marketing. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!