The post How Long Does It Take for Cats to Get Along? Feline Friendship Guide by Chris Dinesen Rogers appeared first on Catster. Copying over entire articles infringes on copyright laws. You may not be aware of it, but all of these articles were assigned, contracted and paid for, so they aren't considered public domain. However, we appreciate that you like the article and would love it if you continued sharing just the first paragraph of an article, then linking out to the rest of the piece on Catster.com. Click to Skip Ahead Factors That Affect How Cats Interact Helpful Tips for Introducing Cats According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), about 37 million households have cats. That comes out to 1.78 animals per home. With those numbers in mind, it’s a safe assumption that many cat owners were faced with the challenge of introducing two cats to one another, and some pet parents have more success than others. It is impossible to predict how long two cats will get along. Many variables can affect how the animals respond to a new household member. It can often take at least a few weeks of supervised introductions, but sometimes it takes years. Some cats may never become fast friends. However, understanding the feline mind can help smooth the way to a peaceful home. The 3 Factors Affecting How Cats Interact With One Another Cats are more in touch with their wild side than dogs. Whereas humans domesticated canines around 40,000 years ago, it was a more recent event for felines roughly 12,000 years ago. Dogs proved themselves helpful right from the start. However, scientists remain puzzled as to why people accepted cats so readily to the point of worshipping them, as they didn’t help us like dogs did in their various roles, aside from mousing, of course. Our cats have evolved to become less reactive, fearful, and aggressive toward us. However, what effect has evolution had on their relationships with each other? 1. Hunting Behavior Image Credit: Viacheslav Lopatin, Shutterstock Remember that cats are solitary hunters, with the notable exception of lions. They adapt their daily patterns to their prey’s behavior, whether it’s nocturnal rodents or diurnal birds. Our feline companions even learn their household routines and adjust their sleeping patterns accordingly. At the heart of their behavior beats the heart of a territorial predator. Our pets have a core area within the home as part of their territory. That’s where your kitty feels safest. The perimeter of this space marks their territorial boundaries. Intact animals will scent mark it to alert other would-be interlopers that it’s occupied. It’s adaptive behavior since it reduces the risk of conflict and supports survival. That’s one reason for your cat’s keen sense of smell that exceeds humans. With all this in mind, instinct kicks in when you try to introduce another cat into your household. Your current pet may not view the animal as another friend but as a competitor, hence the hissing and growling that follows. Remember that it’s all about survival for cats. Felines haven’t had much evolutionary pressure to change these instincts, even if they seem odd or unacceptable. It’s their wild side taking the stage. 2. The Emotional Life of Cats Research has shown that cats can experience the six basic emotions of surprise, fear, disgust, sadness, happiness, and anger. They may also feel spur-of-the-moment jealousy. The new kitty you’ve brought home may trigger these emotions, in addition to their instinct to defend their territory. If your pet has never met another cat, their first reaction may be fear or anger. Felines don’t have a sense of time like we do; everything happens in the here and now. They may not understand the long-term effects of a brief encounter with another cat. It’s a threat to which they must react. Another mitigating factor is socialization. The critical period for kittens is between 3 and 9 weeks old. Unlike dogs, pet owners typically don’t introduce their pets to other animals, like an individual may take their pet to puppy playtime. The window may close on a kitty without opportunities to meet different animals, which can contribute to the difficulties of introducing a new cat. Genetics also plays a role. One study examined the behavior traits of 19 breeds. The cats most likely to show aggression toward other felines included breeds like the Turkish Van and Korat. On the other end of the spectrum were Maine Coon, Devon Rex, and Persian.1 We can conclude that some cats are predisposed to welcome other animals into the household, whereas others are less inclined. However, environmental factors and rearing also influence feline sociability. 3. Colony Living Imqge Credit: Murat An, Shutterstock Interestingly, feral cats can live in loose groups or colonies. They don’t form packs with a hierarchy like canids, but they get along. The main driver is adequate food availability. That makes sense since it is the ultimate reason behind territoriality and its defense. Again, all of this boils down to survival. These animals don’t need to defend the area because their needs are met. Helpful Tips for Introducing Cats As we mentioned, introducing cats may be a challenge. Many variables can affect whether the two animals will get along. Sometimes, they end up just tolerating each other, with the occasional squabble when one becomes jealous. People don’t always see eye to eye, so why should we expect different from our pets? When introducing two cats to each other, we recommend keeping the new kitty in their own room or safe space. They’re going through a dramatic transition becoming part of your household. They need time to acclimate and adjust to the new routines, sounds, and smells of their new forever home. The aim of a successful introduction is all about the first impression. Cats are very scent-oriented, as it’s one way they communicate. You can begin by letting each animal get used to the other’s scent with beds or blankets each one uses. Don’t attempt to let them meet physically yet. Keep the door to the new pet’s room closed. An excellent way to nurture this relationship is by creating positive associations in both cats. Image Credit: Fox_Ana, Shutterstock You can begin by feeding each one near the door after they’ve had time to acclimate to the other’s smell. If things proceed without hissing, you can then let each kitty explore the other’s space. It’s the unknowns that are scary for a fearful animal, and going about it this way helps to alleviate those fears. We recommend proceeding slowly with this process. Don’t try to rush things. The goal is to keep things positive. You know your cat best and understand when your pet feels uncomfortable. You also have to build trust with your new pet. That takes time, too. Ideally, the first face-to-face meeting is with a gate or screen between the cats. Again, if either one growls or hisses, separate them. These meetings are also excellent ways to use treats for positive reinforcement. Felines are intelligent. It won’t take them long to form this association, as long as both pets get rewarded. You should also praise them. Your positive attitude will go a long way toward bridging the gap. You should supervise quite a few meetings between the two and avoid leaving the kitties alone together. This could take weeks or months. Also, ensure each one has their own food bowls, beds, and safe spaces that they can retreat to. Final Thoughts Two cats can get along, but the key is to go slowly and follow each animal’s comfort level. Don’t rush the process, as it’s going to take some time for the two to get used to each other. Also, keep in mind that some animals may never become friends, as it really depends on each individual. Sources https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/us-pet-ownership-statistics https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16082 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-022-00568-4 https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1581&context=cnso_bio_facarticles/ https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-egyptians-may-have-given-cats-personality-conquer-world https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1410083111 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11837.epdf https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40317-019-0188-0 https://catsinternational.org/the-amazing-sense-of-smell/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201607/which-emotions-do-we-see-in-dogs-and-cats https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-inner-life-of-cats/ https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/animal-health-and-welfare/socialization-dogs-and-cats https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6538663/ https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/7/1991 Featured Image Credit: Nils Jacobi, Shutterstock The post How Long Does It Take for Cats to Get Along? Feline Friendship Guide by Chris Dinesen Rogers appeared first on Catster. Copying over entire articles infringes on copyright laws. You may not be aware of it, but all of these articles were assigned, contracted and paid for, so they aren't considered public domain. However, we appreciate that you like the article and would love it if you continued sharing just the first paragraph of an article, then linking out to the rest of the piece on Catster.com.

In George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984,”the authoritarian government had power over every aspect of people’s lives, especially their thoughts. To reshape minds, even history could be changed: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered,” Orwell wrote. “And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.” Similarly, in the dystopian minds of today’s authoritarian Left, it is a threat to the constitutional order and the rule of law that the Pine Tree Flag—a flag flown by George Washington during the American Revolution—was flown at the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. According to the leftist, revisionist version of history, a flag that embodies the ideals of the American founding instead represents insurrection against the rightful American government. In reality, the Pine Tree Flag represented the American colonists’ plea to the God of Heaven to be free from the bonds of a tyrant king. The supposedly controversial flag displays the motto “An Appeal to Heaven,” evoking the philosopher John Locke, whose ideas are woven into the Declaration of Independence. The motto on the flag came from Locke, who wrote of an unchecked government authority which would “design, or go about to enslave, or destroy” the people. Locke wrote, “The people would have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no Judge on Earth, but to appeal to Heaven.” What could better symbolize the weight of Alito’s oath to uphold the Constitution than a flag that points to God as the ultimate Judge? It’s hardly a crime if Alito or his wife is inspired by Locke – few people in history have done more to advance democracy and constitutional government than that great English philosopher. The notion that a flag paying tribute to his ideas is anti-American or anti-democratic is laughable. Locke was a major influence on Thomas Jefferson and an indispensable philosophical forefather of the Declaration of Independence. Consider the striking parallels between Locke’s writings and the famous second paragraph of our country’s founding document. Knowing the Pine Tree Flag’s connection to Locke and to America’s founding, people who love America and believe in her founding principles should unabashedly fly the Pine Tree Flag along with the Stars and Stripes. Many of those who are upset that a Supreme Court justice flew the Pine Tree Flag have a similar disdain for America’s founding and its history. They would rewrite the Constitution to cede our rights to the government, and they would rewrite American history to focus only on its flaws–both real and imagined. America is worth preserving, and the ideas on which she was founded are worth remembering. The post How the Declaration of Independence Is Now Problematic for the Authoritarian Left appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s long-anticipated Monday appearance before Congress was expected to generate fireworks. And it sure did. From the outset, House Democrats generously praised Fauci’s public service as heroic, while skeptical House Republicans posed probing questions ranging from mask and vaccine mandates to the lack of transparency at Fauci’s agency and his initial response to the origins of the global pandemic in China. At times, partisan divisions became tense and the rhetoric red hot, while Capitol Police escorted hecklers from the hearing room. Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases testified under oath before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, chaired by Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, on a wide range of issues related to his role in the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Amidst the heat of the hearing, there were shafts of bright light that will, in the subcommittee’s final report this year, clarify critical issues and establish the groundwork for remedial legislation. For example: Declaring a Lab Leak Was the Origin of COVID-19 Is Not and Was Not a ‘Conspiracy’ Theory A key issue for COVID-19 oversight is whether the deadly global pandemic had its origins in nature or was the product of a genetically engineered virus that may have somehow leaked from a Chinese research laboratory. “I have been clear from the beginning,” stated Fauci, “that the lab leak was not a conspiracy theory.” Fauci repeatedly stated that. While he personally leaned toward a natural origin of the coronavirus, he claims that he has had an open mind on the subject since the inception of the pandemic, when the first news of the novel coronavirus came out of China. He told the subcommittee that he did not try to steer the conclusion about the COVID-19 origins and he did not edit the draft of the influential March 2020 Nature Medicine article that concluded that the novel coronavirus was not a “laboratory construct.” Despite Fauci’s disclaimer, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, pressed Fauci on the issue, noting that he and other top officials at the National Institutes of Health, including then-Director Francis Collins, seemed intent on discrediting the “lab leak” theory and promoting the soon-to-be dominant academic and media narrative that the novel coronavirus had its origins in nature. Most of the top virologists Fauci consulted in February 2020 on the question did, indeed, initially assess that SARS Cov-2, the strange virus that causes COVID-19, was the product of lab engineering, but quickly reversed their position. Two things remain mysterious to this day. First, how and why a group of top scientists reversed their initial assessments in a matter of days despite the fact that Communist China was utterly uncooperative in sharing vital information or data, imposing government restrictions on any scientific information coming out of China while suppressing the views of dissident scientists. Second, after four years, the proponents of the natural origins theory of the novel coronavirus have yet to identify the “intermediate host”—the animal that was supposedly infected with SARS Cov-2 before it jumped to humans. Efforts to identify such a necessary host, including pangolins and raccoon dogs, have not come to fruition. In any case, Fauci’s testimony puts the nail in the coffin of the lab leak as “conspiracy theory”—a dismissive narrative once so dominant in the general media.  NIH Has a Serious Transparency Problem In a previous hearing, lawmakers learned that Dr. David Morens, senior adviser to Fauci, went to extraordinary lengths to create a “secret back channel” (Morens’ language) for communications concerning sensitive COVID-related issues, including the COVID-19 origins issue. He used personal emails and texts to avoid congressional oversight and disclosure requirements under the Freedom of Information Act. In an April 21, 2021, email embedded in a subcommittee staff report, Morens wrote: “He [Fauci] is too smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble.” Even worse, Morens claimed that the NIH official charged with responsibility for enforcing the Freedom of Information Act, Margaret Moore, helped teach him ways to hide official records. In his Feb. 24, 2021, email, he said, “I learned from our FOIA lady here how to make emails disappear after I am FOIA’d but before the search starts, so I think we are all safe. Plus, I deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to Gmail.” In his June 3 testimony, Fauci denied that he had ever used personal emails to conduct public business. He also distanced himself from Morens’ bad behavior, declaring that his senior adviser’s efforts to hide public records or communications by using his personal email was inappropriate, unacceptable, an outlier, and incompatible with NIH policy. As of this writing, Morens and Moore, who assisted Morens in hiding public information, are still employed by the National Institutes of Health.     NIH Grant Process Needs Tougher Oversight As the former director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci had responsibility for overseeing billions of dollars in grants for research activities. In his June 3 testimony, Fauci told Congress that he indeed signed off on the grants, but that professional staff below him in the chain of command was primarily responsible for the vetting of these proposals. The issue has come to a head with the federal grants to EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based scientific research nonprofit headed by Dr. Peter Daszak. Daszak’s controversial organization had subcontracted research work on bat coronaviruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. Morens, a friend of Daszak, assisted Daszak in securing grant funding, even editing EcoHealth communications with his agency. In his June 3 testimony, Fauci said that he was unaware of Morens’ efforts to assist Daszak, which he described as a serious conflict of interest. The Wuhan Institute was a major center of coronavirus research in China, and Fauci knew that Chinese scientists at the institute were indeed engaged in “gain of function” research (research designed to enhance the transmissibility and harmfulness of a pathogen), as he noted in a Feb. 1, 2020, email to his colleagues at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In response to questioning by Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., Fauci insisted that it would have been impossible for COVID-19 to come from the virus research conducted by EcoHealth and funded by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases because those viruses were so genetically different from SARS Cov-2 that they could not have been the progenitors of COVID-19. Fauci added, however, “I cannot account for what else was going on in China.”   EcoHealth, which had received approximately $8 million in taxpayer funds to study coronaviruses since 2014, had a checkered relationship with the federal government. Consider the record: In 2024, following an exhaustive review of the communications between EcoHealth and the NIH, the Department of Health and Human Services barred Daszak and EcoHealth from participating in government grant programs. In 2023, Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that NIH had failed to effectively monitor its grants to EcoHealth for research that incurred “inherent risks.” In 2021, EcoHealth had come under scrutiny because the organization was two years late in reporting on its experimental work in China. In 2020, NIH, under the Trump administration, terminated the organization’s grant funding, although in 2022, the NIH, under the Biden administration, reinstated an additional $650,000 in funding. In 2018, the Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency rejected an EcoHealth proposal for $14.2 million in grant funding because the organization did not assess the potential risks of gain of function research on bat-borne coronaviruses.  In response to Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., Fauci said, “I did not try to protect Daszak and I did not know about a lack of compliance [with reporting requirements of the grant] until well after the fact.” Fauci further told the subcommittee that he supports the recent debarment of EcoHealth from participation in government grant programs, an action recommended in a subcommittee report. Nonetheless, the danger of potentially risky grants (such as viral gain of function funding) to biomedical research organizations operating overseas, especially in unfriendly countries, requires urgent congressional attention. COVID-19 Vaccines’ Effectiveness Have Declined, Undermining Joe Biden’s Argument for Vaccine Mandates Fauci testified that during the early stages of the pandemic, there was some evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines, (courtesy of President Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed”) were initially effective in preventing infection and the transmissibility of the disease, and the vaccines also surely reduced hospitalization and death and thus saved hundreds of thousands of lives. But, Fauci said, the effectiveness waned over time, especially given the mutations of the virus. Indeed, in response to a question from subcommittee legal counsel Mitchell Benzine, Fauci observed that the rapid changes in the novel coronaviruses had undercut the possibility of “herd immunity”—widespread natural immunity—in the general population. Herd immunity, he said, can occur if the pathogen is not changing, but with COVID-19, that is clearly not the case: “We never had it with COVID.” A vaccine’s inability to stop infection or transmission radically alters public policy options. As a matter of policy, Fauci’s admission on this point was crucial because it directly undermines the Biden administration’s case in the Fall of 2021 for a comprehensive set of (illegal) vaccine mandates to be imposed on almost the entire American population.  That effort largely failed. As The Heritage Foundation’s detailed statistical analysis demonstrated in 2022, Biden’s insistence that the pandemic was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” was incorrect. With the passage of time, the vaccines did not prevent infection or stop transmissibility, and vaccinated Americans also found themselves in hospitals or ended up in funeral homes. During the hearing, Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, observed that when the scientific data had become clearer, the nation did not get the timely and necessary revisions that the emerging data required. NIH Employees Are Recipients of Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Private Sector Royalties In response to a question from Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., on whether he had received any royalties from pharmaceutical or other biomedical research companies since 2021, Fauci said he had received none. Malliotakis raised the issue since the New York Post had published a report that there was a major increase in royalty payments to 260 scientists (amounting to $710 million) employed by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the pandemic. The actual and potential conflicts of interest at the NIH also require urgent congressional attention. The three-and-a-half-hour House hearing touched on numerous other subjects, including the competing and confusing definitions of gain of function research; the state of public health and the public perceptions of public health agencies; the lack of scientific evidence behind the six-foot social distancing recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the costs of the forced closures of businesses, churches, and schools; the social and psychological impact of the lockdowns; the lack of scientific evidence for mask mandates for children under age 5; and the censorship of medical professionals in the media, social media, and elsewhere.   In reforming and repairing the American public health system and the people’s trust in it, it is clear Congress and the next presidential administration have a very big job ahead of them. The post Key Revelations From Fauci’s House COVID Testimony appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Anthony Fauci, formerly the head of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical advisor to President Biden from 2021 to 2022, has testified before the US House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. The hindsight doesn’t seem to have played any role in Fauci’s thinking about the way the situation was handled – if anything, his statements make for an (unwelcome) reminder of the fiery pro-censorship and rhetoric witnessed in the heyday of the pandemic. The Subcommittee is also looking into the claims of Fauci’s role in the funding of research in China’s Wuhan lab. Fauci complained to the Subcommittee that First Amendment-guaranteed free speech protections had made it more difficult to do his job during the pandemic. He complained about scientists getting threats when they “push back” against what he considers misinformation and disinformation (and that, according to Fauci, includes those criticizing him on social media). “Demonization” is how the former chief White House medical advisor put it. The implication was that freedom of expression related to Covid (even such as it was, and remains – namely, riddled with censorship on major social media) stood in the way of better protecting his person and scientists who held similar views as him. Fauci’s testimony targeted anything from vaccine skeptics to podcasters, “unhinged memes,” and “conspiracy theorists” (this wording came in a committee member’s question) – with perhaps the most astounding claim being that those who chose not to get the Covid jab are “probably” responsible for 200,000 to 300,000 deaths from the virus in the US. Talk about unhinged. Fauci on Monday also defended the vaccines that people were censored for being skeptical of, saying that their effect in preventing transmission was “not 100 percent” – at least, according to him, not with the early versions. But, Fauci asserted that protection against the disease developing into a more serious form had been “more prolonged.” The reaction to his testimony was notably different among Democrats and Republicans; Robert Garcia, a Democrat (who was the first to bring up “podcaster conspiracy theorists and unhinged Facebook memes”) thanked Fauci and his team “for saving lives,” adding, “And I’m sorry, you have to continue going on with these attacks.” But Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene told Fauci his place is in prison. “We should be recommending you to be prosecuted. We should be writing a criminal referral because you should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. You belong in prison,” said the congresswoman. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Fauci Blames Free Speech for Pandemic Challenges in Contentious Testimony appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Too Little, Too Late Tories

Migrant Who Shot Two NYPD Officers Entered the Country Illegally, Had Immigration Case Dismissed

Welcome to Woke of the Weak where I’ll update you about the most woke, progressive, insane, and crazy clips and stories that the left thinks is tolerable and well, point out why exactly they’re nuts. This week, we looked at what the left served up this first week of Pride month. We started out by seeing an interpretive dance from a trans boy who took off “his” transgender flag shirt in order to expose her mastectomy scars. Next up was a celebration from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where a pride celebration merited a Guinness World Record for biggest drag queen story hour. Also in Philly, was a pride parade where pro-Palestinian protestors chanted their “river to the sea” crap. Funny enough, if they were queer in Palestine, their pronouns would be was/were. More pride parades erupted throughout the nation. At one, FBI agents confidently marched and waved their pride flags. And at another, a mother cheered on her son who identified as a furry. Kids took part in a pride parade in Toronto, and a drag queen went on a tangent saying “your children will love us” and “your children will join us.” After that, we saw a man dance in a rainbow leotard by the subway and then heard a transgender woman introduce all the rest of his queer family. It’s crazy that we’re only one week into this amplified nonsense. Check back next week for more.

Hunter Biden was finally brought to trial this week to answer for his alleged crime of lying on a federal background check form when purchasing a firearm, a felony. But ABC’s Alyssa Farah Griffin, one of The View’s faux-conservatives, finally found a trial she didn’t like. After previously cheering on the ethically dubious trial of former President Trump, on Tuesday’s show she was decrying the trials as a distraction from the real issues. For months prior to Tuesday, Farah Griffin had touted the trial against Trump because polling data suggested that a non-insignificant portion of Republican voters would ditch him if he was convicted. But now that a conviction had been scored, she was finished with all the trial coverage now that Biden was under the microscope. “I'm not particularly interested in this case but I think I am frustrated this election cycle the media coverage feels like it's trial this, conviction this, this trial, him walking into the courtroom,” she huffed. She got close to admitting the truth when she lamented that the media’s obsessive coverage of the trials was distracting from real issues like the economy: FARAH GRIFFIN: And it’s like, why aren't we talking about what people care about, their ability to afford utilities this summer, the economy, addressing border security? It just becomes this convoluted distraction that I worry is making people tune out the news and not wanting to be engaged politically. BEHAR: Well, you say the media – FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes, but it feels like – BEHAR: But everybody in the media is responsible including us because you sit here and talk about all the accomplishments of Biden administration, people tune out! FARAH GRIFFIN: Well, I’m not interested in talking about the Biden accomplishments, but what's happening in the country that voters care about. Distracting from Bidenomics is the point, Alyssa.     Near the top of the segment, moderator Whoopi Goldberg beclowned herself again by declaring, “Don't you think if he [President Biden] had that much power, Hunter probably wouldn't be on trial?” Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) built off of Goldberg by adding that the trial showed that “no one is above the law.” This ignored the fact that the prosecutor was going to give the President’s son a sweetheart plea deal that would have avoided prosecution on the gun charges before the judge stepped in and rejected the deal. A bit shockingly, Hostin declared that she didn’t “have a problem with him being on trial” because “that's how this country should be.” “It's a case about buying a firearm and lying on your application saying that you have never used drugs and he was an active addict at the time,” she explained. “So, out of the cases that are investigated, there are 80 million Americans that have purchased firearms. Only about a thousand a year are investigated. 12 were prosecuted. That is 0.09 percent of the cases. Less than one percent of the cases are investigated but guess what, Hunter is one of them.” Back in September, The View cast decried the gun charges with fake Republican Ana Navarro arguing that all addicts “lie” and “commit crime” so Hunter was nothing special. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View June 4, 2024 11:17:01 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Don't you think if he [President Biden] had that much power, Hunter probably wouldn't be on trial? SUNNY HOSTIN: Of course. And I love that question, because not only is Hunter Biden on trial showing that no one is above the law. GOLDBERG: No one. HOSTIN: President Biden has indicated if he is convicted he will not pardon him. GOLDBERG: No. HOSTIN: Okay? Because no one is above the law. And the other thing that I will say is, this is an interesting case. It's a case about buying a firearm and lying on your application saying that you have never used drugs and he was an active addict at the time. Some people argue that you're always an addict. That you live day to day, right? SARA HAINES: Does it ask you if you've never or just if you currently addicted to something? HOSTIN: I'm not sure. I'm not sure. So, out of the cases that are investigated, there are 80 million Americans that have purchased firearms. Only about a thousand a year are investigated. 12 were prosecuted. That is 0.09 percent of the cases. Less than one percent of the cases are investigated but guess what, Hunter is one of them. And I say that's how this country should be. GOLDBERG: That’s how it’s supposed to be. Yes. HOSTIN: That's how the country is supposed to work. I don't have a problem with him being on trial. I suspect he'll get a drug diversion. (…) 11:19:11 a.m. Eastern ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Listen, let the facts play out. I'm not particularly interested in this case but I think I am frustrated this election cycle the media coverage feel like it's trial this, conviction this, this trial, him walking into the courtroom. And it’s like, why aren't we talking about what people care about, their ability to afford utilities this summer, the economy, addressing border security? It just becomes this convoluted distraction that I worry is making people tune out the news and not wanting to be engaged politically. BEHAR: Well, you say the media – FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes, but it feels like – BEHAR: But everybody in the media is responsible including us because you sit here and talk about all the accomplishments of Biden administration, people tune out! FARAH GRIFFIN: Well, I’m not interested in talking about the Biden accomplishments, but what's happening in the country that voters care about. (…)

President Joe Biden, flanked by TV screens proclaiming he is "securing the border," announced a new executive order on Tuesday that he says will drastically limit the number of illegal immigrants who are still overwhelming the nation's southern border."I've come here today to do what Republicans in Congress refuse to do: secure the border," Biden declared, leaving out the fact he took steps on his first day in office to undo border security measures put in place by the Trump administration.Biden then blamed Republicans for not passing the bipartisan legislation that was proposed earlier this year due to its many flaws. He says it is based on Republicans' refusal to do anything about the southern border in order to keep it an issue through election season. This is despite the fact that congressional Republicans passed a border security bill, H.R. 2, over a year ago, and Senate Leader Chuck Schumer has not allowed it on the floor for a vote.Biden says the executive order will cap the number of illegal border crossings to 2,500 per day, and it is set to go into effect at midnight tonight. The restrictions will lift if illegal crossings are fewer than 1,500 per day for seven days.'I'm quite skeptical that this is going to have any kind of immediate, widespread, dramatic impact on the border.'The order, however, will also exclude the following from that 2,500 threshold: Unaccompanied minorsPeople with medical emergenciesPeople who claim "credible fear"People from nations that will not take back deporteesThe order also does not include those who are allowed into the U.S. through the CBP One app, which thousands are on a daily basis, nor does it include the thousands of people who are allowed to fly directly into the U.S. from qualifying countries to be mass-paroled."Also, asylum has already been banned for most migrants who cross illegally since the end of Title 42 last year — and that hasn’t stopped them from coming. Highest numbers in recorded history end of 2023," Fox News reporter Bill Melugin explained.In the end, the executive order serves nothing more than to provide a talking point for Biden and other Democrats in an attempt to address one of the issues the Biden administration polls the worst on."President Biden has effectively legitimized crisis levels of illegal immigration well beyond those laid out by the DHS secretary he once served with," House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green said, pointing to how 1,000 illegal entries per day cause major issues for Border Patrol. — (@) It is not just congressional Republicans who are criticizing the political move. NBC News reporter David Noriega said, "I'm quite skeptical that this is going to have any kind of immediate, widespread, dramatic impact on the border."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump may have been convicted of all 34 counts levied against him in the Manhattan hush-money trial, but Mark Levin doesn’t believe justice has been served. Rather, he believes it has yet to be. “The problem is, there was a jury. There should never have been a jury, there should never have been a case. Prosecutor is a Soros prosecutor. Case should have been dismissed,” Levin says. “The problem is, you have a judge who is a Biden judge. So, now you have two individuals, two dishonest individuals, who lack complete integrity. That is Bragg and Mershan, who are influencing a federal, national, presidential election.” Levin says this shows “intent in the case of Joe Biden.” “God willing, if Donald Trump is the next president of the United States, I am going to urge him, I’m going to lobby him, to tell his Attorney General of the United States, ‘Let’s stop playing games,’” Levin explains, adding, “Indict Joe Biden and indict Antony Blinken.” Why? “Because according to Bragg, Merchan, and their surrogates — they created a crime.” Levin says this crime is valid because of the precedent they’ve set in the Trump trials. “That is the precedent that comes out of the New York case that Biden just supported,” he says. In addition, former special counsel Robert Hur supplied plenty of evidence in his previous report that Levin believes could indict Joe Biden. “We have so much evidence in this report from Mr. Hur of willful violations of classified information. It’s hard to keep track,” Levin says. “But the Department of Justice said they’re not going to act because Mr. Hur said, and certified, that Joe Biden is an imbecile.” “So, Joe Biden is exposed, and in my view, should be indicted for willfully disclosing classified information, effectively selling secrets for a profit, and trying to cover it up,” he adds. Want more from Mark Levin?To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.