The Environmental Protection Agency plays judge, jury, and executioner—and its newest-issued rule is a death sentence to American energy and energy-producing states. Meanwhile, states like Pennsylvania, which will be disproportionately harmed by the rule because of our abundant natural gas production, hold the key to America’s increasing energy needs, generating immense economic development and reducing the very emissions targeted by this heavy-handed agency.   The EPA unilaterally issued a final rule establishing draconian emission standards that target existing coal and new natural gas power plants nationwide. It requires 90% carbon capture for power-generating facilities by 2032.   Aside from its questionable legality, the new rule is unfeasible. The EPA proposed impossible standards. Current carbon-capture technology—a water- and energy-intensive process that filters and sequesters emissions—neither meets this standard nor projects to do so in the next decade. Research suggests that current technology could achieve, at best, 10% capture, which still doesn’t factor in the immense implementation costs. No utility-scale natural gas carbon capture plant exists today, so forcing a transition to nonexistent technology within a decade is unreasonable.  This egregious federal overreach will not stand in court. In West Virginia v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the agency lacked the legal authority to devise such emissions caps. As the current legal challenge works through the courts, our highest court will likely strike down this new rule, too.  National energy forecasts show rising demand with a plummeting capacity for our existing energy infrastructure to deliver. Because of bad policies in the name of climate radicalism, early retirements of fossil fuel-based power-generating facilities are already catapulting us to an electrical grid reliability crisis. Meanwhile, utility bills increase as power generators chase federal subsidies to overbuild unreliable, weather-dependent wind- and solar-based electrical generation facilities.  Because of this, two-thirds of the United States risks major blackouts in the next few years. Yet, the EPA doesn’t consider grid reliability when creating its regulations, much less safeguard it.  Per agency protocol, the EPA “does not conduct operational reliability studies,” meaning the agency ignores the widening gap between supply and demand.  The failure to defend grid reliability is a recipe for disaster.  Unfortunately, disaster has already struck. In 2022, a winter storm in Texas caused 4.5 million people to lose power, killing 246 people who couldn’t heat their homes in subzero temperatures. Increased capacity—namely, more natural gas pipelines—could have saved lives in Texas. The North American Electric Reliability Corp. warned lawmakers that the lack of pipelines and infrastructure leaves the country susceptible to similar tragedies.  Natural gas remains the most economically feasible option to meet that demand in time. (Meanwhile, work must continue to leverage other energy sources, such as nuclear, to accommodate our growing need for baseload power, which is the minimum amount needed to maintain and power our grid.)   To understand the benefits of natural gas, Pennsylvania, the second-largest producer of natural gas and the largest energy exporter in the nation, provides ample evidence.  In the last two decades, the Keystone State’s energy generation sector has increased energy production and reduced emissions—all thanks to natural gas. The share of Pennsylvania’s electricity production that comes from natural gas increased from 5% in 2005 to 59% in 2022. During that same period, overall energy production emissions dropped 46%, including the most significant year-over-year decline on record.   Transitioning to natural gas proved to be a boon to public health in Pennsylvania. This transition removed about 12.5 million tons of nitrogen and sulfur oxides—emissions associated with respiratory ailments like asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, and lung cancer. Using the EPA’s methodology for quantifying the health impact of removing these emissions from the atmosphere, Pennsylvania’s increased use of natural gas yielded between $450 billion and $1.04 trillion in public health benefits for residents.  Despite natural gas’ benefits, Pennsylvania still endures the same worrisome trend of pernicious eco-fundamentalist policies. Pennsylvania lawmakers flirt with onerous “cap-and-trade” schemes, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or the newly proposed Pennsylvania Climate Emissions Reduction Initiative. By slapping a carbon tax on energy production, these two initiatives guarantee increased utility bills for inflation-weary Pennsylvanians.   The EPA’s rule is like these initiatives on steroids. The rule will not only lead to blackouts and brownouts nationwide but also will force the economies of energy-producing states to forego supporting—and benefiting from—our ever-growing energy demands.  Instead, policymakers must remove the regulatory barriers that hamstring energy-producing states and prevent the energy industry from providing reliable, clean power. Moreover, Congress must advance the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act, a policy supported by 68% of Americans, to boost accountability and transparency with federal regulators. The act would require Congress to approve administrative rules that would have significant financial impacts before they could take effect.  A future without fossil fuel-generated power is a myth. Almost 80% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuel sources. Rather than obstruct clean, reliable energy, the EPA must allow natural gas to light the way to American energy independence.   We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.  The post New EPA Rule Is a Death Sentence for American Energy  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has a bad habit of forgetting it isn’t part of the legislative branch of government, and trying to accomplish through unelected bureaucrats and administrative rules what gun control activists in Congress could not. Fortunately for the rule of law and the separation of powers, the ATF is also on a bit of a losing streak in federal court—a losing streak that continued Friday at the highest level in Garland v. Cargill. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority when it reclassified bump stocks as “machine guns” under federal law. Although Cargill was centered around firearms, it didn’t involve any arguments over whether the Second Amendment protects a right to own bump stocks, specifically, or machine guns, generally. Rather, the question in this case was far more simplistic: Is a bump stock device a machine gun, in the first place? Understanding Cargill requires a bit of background and context. One of the most important distinctions made by federal gun regulations is between machine guns, the possession of which is heavily restricted for civilians, and semiautomatic firearms, which have long been the type of gun most commonly owned by civilians. Federal law defines a machine gun as a weapon that “shoots, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” A semiautomatic rifle, meanwhile, “requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.” In layman’s terms, the distinction between a machine gun and a semiautomatic firearm is all about what must happen for the gun to fire a second bullet. In a semiautomatic weapon, pulling the trigger causes the gun to fire exactly one round. In order to fire a second bullet, you must release the trigger so that it resets, and then it must be physically pulled again to fire the next bullet. But when you pull the trigger in a machine gun, the weapon will fire bullets continuously until either you release the trigger, or the gun runs out of ammunition. The trigger doesn’t need to reset and be reengaged.  From a practical standpoint, then, one of the primary differences between machine guns and semiautomatic guns (and the primary reason machine guns are so heavily restricted for civilians) is that machine guns have a much faster rate of fire. But, importantly, Congress didn’t include “rate of fire” as a factor for determining whether a weapon is machine gun, choosing instead to focus on the internal mechanics of the gun.   Enter the bump stock, an aftermarket device that can be affixed to many commonly owned semiautomatic rifle platforms. These devices don’t change the gun’s internal mechanics—one pull of the trigger will still cause the gun to fire only one bullet. Instead, the device enables the shooter, through a combination of technique and physics, to pull the trigger much more rapidly than most shooters would be capable of, absent the device. Between 2010 and 2018, American gun owners spent more than $100 million purchasing an estimated 520,000 bump stocks. At the time, these purchases were completely lawful. The ATF determined on least 15 different occasions throughout this eight-year period that the addition of a bump stock didn’t turn a semiautomatic weapon into an illegal machine gun. Even though the device could greatly increase the gun’s rate of fire to rival that of a machine gun, the basic mechanics of the semiautomatic rifle hadn’t changed. Then, in 2017, on the heels of a high-profile mass public shooting involving the use of a bump stock, the ATF abruptly changed its mind. The agency not only decided that bump stocks did, in fact, turn a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun, but that the devices had in essence always been machine guns, despite the agency’s previous rulings to the contrary. Americans who possessed a bump stock were now required to destroy the device or surrender it to ATF, without receiving compensation for their value. Michael Cargill, one of the many law-abiding American gun owners who had legally bought bump stocks in reliance on ATF’s long-standing determination that they weren’t machine guns, promptly sued the ATF over its about-face. Among other things, he argued that bump stocks plainly don’t fall under the definition of “machine gun,” and the ATF was therefore effectively rewriting the federal statute—something only Congress can do. The Supreme Court on Friday vindicated Cargill and countless other peaceable American gun owners that the ATF had, for all intents and purposes, suddenly and unilaterally decided were felons with illegally possessed machine guns. This doesn’t mean that the fight to ban bump stocks is over. Far from it. The Cargill decision will almost certainly result in a flurry of congressional efforts to change the federal definition of machine gun to include these devices—efforts that might very well have been successful back in 2017, had the ATF not “jumped the gun” with its sudden reinterpretation. (And, of course, any legislative action to classify bump stocks as machine guns will, with equal certainty, be met with legal challenges arguing that bump stocks or machine guns are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.) The victory Friday is not that the court constructively fleshed out its Second Amendment jurisprudence or substantively protected the right to keep and bear arms from infringement. Rather, the victory is found in the court’s affirmation that the law means what the text says, and not what unelected bureaucrats think the text ought to say or would have said if they’d been left in charge of it. It sends an important message that there’s no end run around—or loophole through—the democratic process. If Congress wants to change federal law, it must do so itself, through the legislative process and with its members bearing the political consequences of unpopular or unconstitutional laws. And, in that sense, Cargill is a victory that reverberates far beyond the Second Amendment. It’s a win for the rule of law and constitutional government. The post In Bump Stock Case, Court’s Rebuke of ATF Is a Win for More Than Just 2A Advocates appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Hunter Biden Drops Lawsuit Against Giuliani

An Update on Those Chinese Swimmers Who Tested Positive for Doping

One strike and … you’re canceled. Tech giant Meta has vowed to censor speech related to major sporting events this summer. Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp, announced plans to target “bullying, violent threats and hate speech” across its platforms. As sports fans look forward to the UEFA EURO 2024 and the Olympic and Paralympic Games, they now face the added concern of being silenced by biased online censors.  The Big Tech company also explicitly mentioned its coordination with law enforcement, indicating that no activity or event is exempt from Meta’s mania for crushing free speech. In its release, Meta openly bragged about its thousands of censors and the vast network lined up to stifle free speech. “Since 2016, we’ve invested more than $20 billion into safety and security and quadrupled the size of our global team working in this area to around 40,000 people. This includes 15,000 content reviewers who review content across Facebook, Instagram and Threads,” Meta proudly declared. The Big Tech company further boasted that it had censored 95 percent of allegedly violative “hate speech” before it was even reported to the platform. Yet Meta, like other leftist entities, very vaguely defines hate speech and often applies the term to content it dislikes. For instance, in November, Facebook censored a meme stating there are only two genders. Meta announced several features, including a setting for athletes to automatically hide “offensive” comments. Instagram will also use artificial intelligence to warn users even before they post comments that could be deemed violative. The company will further specifically tailor censorship supposedly to protect women. Ominously, Meta mentioned its work with law enforcement, without clarifying whether this meant basic legal compliance or work with government entities to censor speech. “We cooperate with law enforcement in their investigations and respond to valid legal requests for information,” Meta stated.  Notably, Meta is one of the companies accused by Congress and a lawsuit before the Supreme Court of caving to government pressure and censoring content. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at (650) 308-7300 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “misinformation” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Friday marked a big win for gun rights advocates when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Trump administration-era ban on bump stocks by the ATF. In their immediate reactions to the 6-3 ruling, CNN Newsroom pontificators were largely unhappy with the court’s affirmation of a piece of plastic not being a machine gun and lauded the “fiery” dissenting opinion authored by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Of course, the opinion just flaunted their ignorance of firearm mechanics. Chief legal analyst Paula Reid seemed rather disinterested while reading the majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who explained the technical details of the mechanical workings of a firearm that would lead to a machine gun designation: let me read you the top of Justice Thomas's opinion. The majority here. He writes that, “Congress has long restricted access to machine guns, a category of firearms defined by the ability to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. Now, these are semi-automatic firearms which require shooters to re-engage the trigger for every shot are not machine guns.” He says, “This case asked whether bump stock, an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle. that allows the shooter to rapidly re-engage the trigger and therefore achieve a high rate of fire, converts the rifle into a machine gun. They hold that it does not.” She followed up by lauding Sotomayor’s “fiery” but ultimately ignorant take on machine gun mechanics. “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump stock-equipped semi-automatic rifle fires automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger. Because I, like Congress, call that a machine gun,” the liberal justice proclaimed.     To use her duck analogy against her; Sotomayor might see a creature with a bill and webbed feet that lays eggs and loves to swim, but what she’s calling a duck is actually a platypus (Not to be confused with the 1911 Platypus from Stealth Arms, particularly their “Perry the” model). “And yes, you can read from that dissent from Sotomayor. She's frustrated and she's been making it clear. She's been frustrated lately on the Supreme Court,” host Jim Acosta sympathized with her. Luckily, Republican strategist and “gun company” owner Shermichael Singleton was on set to school the liberals on the basic mechanics of firearms: There is a distinction between a bump stock and a fully auto weapon. I don't want to get into the nuances of the intricacies of this, but a bump stock uses the reciprocation recoil in order for the rifle to fire at a quicker rate than one pulling your finger. But I'm a competitive shooter. If you're a competitive shooter, you can fire a weapon pretty quickly, generally speaking, anyway. Fully auto allows the trigger to disengage and cycle freely. That is a huge mechanical difference between the two. “[So,] when you read that quote from Justice Thomas and this is not a machine gun, he is effectively accurate in that description, and that's an important thing to point out,” he argued. It all seemed to go over Acosta’s head as he shifted to former Biden assistant Meghan Hays for the emotional reaction. “This is really going to frustrate progressives,” he teed her up. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN Newsroom June 14, 2024 10:28:12 – 10:31:49 a.m. Eastern (…) JIM ACOSTA: And I do want to try to get a response from Meghan and Shermichael. You're both here. And, Shermichael, you own a gun company. You've talked about this issue in the past. Quick reaction from you, and then I want to get back to Paula Reid. SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON (CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR): Yeah I mean, look, I'm not surprised by the decision. I'm also not surprised that it was authored by Justice Thomas, who also authored the Bruen v. New York case in 2022. There is a distinction between a bump stock and a fully auto weapon. I don't want to get into the nuances of the intricacies of this, but a bump stock uses the reciprocation recoil in order for the rifle to fire at a quicker rate than one pulling your finger. But I'm a competitive shooter. If you're a competitive shooter, you can fire a weapon pretty quickly, generally speaking, anyway. Fully auto allows the trigger to disengage and cycle freely. That is a huge mechanical difference between the two. So, when that -- when you read that quote from Justice Thomas and this is not a machine gun, he is effectively accurate in that description, and that's an important thing to point out. ACOSTA: This is really going to frustrate progressives, Meghan. MEGHAN HAYS (FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN): Absolutely. And, look, I worked for MGM Resorts when this shooting happened, this was devastating to the community. This was devastating, not only financially to the company, but devastating to the community emotionally. This is going to have a huge impact. And, I mean, again, Congress does need to act. The president can't do anything further as we just saw President Trump got overturned. So, I mean, this is going to be -- I think people will rally around this, and this will be another call to action for Democrats. EVAN PEREZ: One last quick thing. I mean, this was -- the bump stock thing had been, you know, knocking around, to your point, even in the Obama administration. There had been this effort to address this. And in the Obama administration, they had decided we can't go that far. It doesn't work. The ATF had decided this doesn't work under the current law. And in the Trump administration, they had taken a second look and said, ‘no, actually we can do this.’ And so that's the irony here is that, you know, it's the Trump administration, as you pointed out, that had a very conservative view on this, that they're the ones that decided to do this when the Obama administration had decided that the law that the current statutes did not support the ATF being able to put this rule into effect. ACOSTA: And Paula, let me get back to you. You have more on this. PAUL REID: Yeah we’re taking the time to go through this opinion and for anyone, just tuning in, let me read you the top of Justice Thomas's opinion. The majority here. He writes that, “Congress has long restricted access to machine guns, a category of firearms defined by the ability to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. Now, these are semi-automatic firearms which require shooters to re-engage the trigger for every shot are not machine guns.” He says, “This case asked whether bump stock, an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle. that allows the shooter to rapidly re-engage the trigger and therefore achieve a high rate of fire, converts the rifle into a machine gun. They hold that it does not.” But in a fiery descent, his liberal colleagues disputed this. For example, Justice Sotomayor wrote, “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump stock-equipped semi-automatic rifle fires automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger. Because I, like Congress, call that a machine gun, I respectfully dissent.” So, a pretty fiery dissent from the liberal justices. Now Jim, we are still waiting for 20 other outstanding opinions from the high court, including that big other gun question that we were talking about earlier. There'll be no more opinions today, but we do expect to get more later next week all right. ACOSTA: All right. Very interesting. And yes, you can read from that dissent from Sotomayor. She's frustrated and she's been making it clear. She's been frustrated lately on the Supreme Court.

There are plenty of advent calendars out there for kids and adults. However, there are surprisingly few for cats. Given how inexpensive so many cat toys are, it is surprising that more companies do not make cat advent calendars. That said, there are still a few options for you to look at this festive season. Some only cover 12 days, while others cover more. Some are exclusively toys, while others may also have treats involved. Hopefully, these reviews will help you determine which cat advent calendar is best for your feline. A Quick Comparison of Our Favorites in 2024 Image Product Details Best Overall Dr. Seuss for Pets How the Grinch Stole Christmas Cat Advent Box Many toys included Covers 12 days High-quality materials used Check Price Best Value Larchio Cat Advent Calendar Quality toys, like cat wands Many different types of toys are included Inexpensive Check Price Premium Choice Midlee Cat Advent Calendar Several plush toys with catnip included Reusable calendar Several crinkly balls included, too Check Price Best for Kittens MOVINPE Cat Toys Advent Calendar for Kittens Several kinds of toys included Made specially for kittens Great value Check Price Larchio Cat 12-Day Advent Calendar Inexpensive Cat wand included Variety of toys Check Price The 8 Best Cat Advent Calendars 1. Dr. Seuss for Pets How the Grinch Stole Christmas Cat Advent Box – Best Overall Check Price on Chewy Check Price on Amazon Number of Days: 12 Out of all the calendars we looked at, the Dr. Seuss for Pets How the Grinch Stole Christmas Advent Calendar for Cats is our favorite overall. It includes only toys and covers 12 days, which is super nice if your cat cannot have treats for whatever reason. It also includes many different types of toys, like plush toys, teaser wands, and feather balls. Therefore, even if your cat is picky, there should be something they like in this package. Of course, every toy is Grinch-themed, which we love. The toys are also made with pretty high-quality materials, which is a rare thing with these advent calendars. Of course, if you’re looking for a calendar with treats included, this is not a suitable option. Pros Many toys included Covers 12 days High-quality materials used Cons No treats 2. Larchio Cat Advent Calendar – Best Value Check Price on Chewy Check Price on Amazon Number of Days: 24 The Larchio Cat Advent Calendar covers 24 days, allowing you to start on the very first of December. There are only toys included, and they range from mice to balls to strings. You should find something for just about any feline in this kit. There are even some cat bow ties! These toys are made from surprisingly high-quality materials, which is amazing given how inexpensive this advent calendar is. We think it’s the best cat toy advent calendar for the money. We love that this calendar includes a real cat wand with several attachments. It’s not just the cheap crinkle balls you often get from these calendars. Pros Quality toys, like cat wands Many different types of toys are included Inexpensive Cons Calendar itself is a bit low-quality 3. Midlee Cat Advent Calendar — Premium Choice Check Price on Chewy Check Price on Amazon Number of Days: 12 The Midlee Cat Advent Calendar covers the 12 days leading up to Christmas with festive toys. The box that holds the toys is very nice, with nifty little boxes instead of the usual pop-out cardboard windows. Plus, this also means that you can theoretically re-use the box each year with different toys. While it is more expensive than other options, this reusability is a very nice touch. Most of the toys included are plush and have catnip inside them. There are also a few balls for some added variety. The only potential problem with this is that your feline may smell the catnip before you open the calendar, leading to some of the toys being ripped out too soon! That said, if you keep it out of reach of your cat, this advent calendar is a great option. Pros Several plush toys with catnip included Reusable calendar Several crinkly balls included, too Cons Expensive 4. MOVINPE Cat Toys Advent Calendar for Kittens – Best for Kittens Check Latest Price Number of Days: 24 The MOVINPE Cat Toys Advent Calendar for Kittens is made especially for the new kitten in your life. It includes a surprise behind every door, including toys, teaser wands, and even a fluffy mouse. You and your kitten will love the surprises inside! The springs and crinkle ball will keep your kitten entertained for hours. Of course, this is made specially for kittens, so the included toys are not ideal for large, adult cats. Pros Several kinds of toys included Made specially for kittens Great value Cons Not ideal for large, adult cats 5. Larchio Cat 12-Day Advent Calendar Check Latest Price Number of Days: 12 If you’re impressed with our budget pick but want something even cheaper, consider the Larchio Cat 12-Day Advent Calendar. This is the same brand with the same toys. However, it only covers 12 days, making it a bit more affordable. You get the same variety of toys but fewer of each. For instance, instead of four attachments for the cat wand, you only get three. Of course, the toys are pretty high-quality and come in enough variety that there should be something for just about any feline. The toys are designed to be completely safe for cats, which also means avoiding any potentially harmful materials. That said, it only covers 12 days. While that is the average number of days for these calendars, the alternative one by the same company covers 24. Pros Inexpensive Cat wand included Variety of toys Cons Only covers 12 days 6. Trader Joe’s Advent Calendar for Cats Check Latest Price Number of Days: 25 Spend the days leading up to Christmas with this Trader Joe’s Advent Calendar for Cats. It includes a daily treat for your feline, all of which are flavored as salmon & dried seaweed recipes. The salmon used to make the treats is completely free of antibiotics and caught wild from the waters of the Atlantic. All the treats are individually packed so that they stay fresh until you open them. That said, these treats are reported to be rather hard. Picky cats may not particularly like them, especially the seaweed-flavored options. Pros Includes a treat for every day Free from antibiotics Real, wild-caught salmon Cons Not ideal for picky felines 7. Fancy Feast Festivities Advent Calendar Check Price on Chewy Check Price on Amazon Number of Days: 24 Unlike many other advent calendars, the Fancy Feast Festivities Advent Calendar offers your cat treats and food exclusively. This calendar is meant to provide your cat with a range of treats and wet food for them (and you) to try. Therefore, you will need to replace your cat’s regular food on some days and adjust their calories as necessary. Of course, this is a bit more work than the other boxes, though it also makes it a bit more exciting. This kit includes several different flavors of wet food and many different treats. The wet food recipes include real meat and are complete and balanced for adult cats. This also means that you cannot use this for kittens, and perhaps even seniors. Pros Includes whole servings of wet food Several types of treats Pretty durable box Cons Only suitable for adult cats Requires changes to your cat’s regular diet 8. Lily’s Kitchen Advent Calendar for Cats Check Latest Price Number of Days: 24 Like many of the previous advent calendars, Lily’s Kitchen Advent Calendar for Cats offers several different kinds of treats for your cat to try. There are three different flavors, but several surprise windows to open. Therefore, your cat will get many of the same treats, but there will be something surprising for them to eat every day. There are mixed reviews on the treat’s appeal, though. They are also a bit expensive for what they are. You only get a few treats in each door, and the price is much higher than most other advent calendars out there. Pros Several flavors of treats Spans many days Cons May not appeal to pickt cats Expensive Buyer’s Guide: Selecting the Best Cat Advent Calendars Choosing a cat advent calendar can seem a bit overwhelming. There are just so many toys involved, and many companies do not make it very obvious what the calendar includes. Luckily, we’ve put together a complete guide to help you choose the best advent calendar for your feline. Image Credit: Nadtochiy, Shuttterstock What Does It Include? The very first thing you should consider is what the calendar actually comes with. Some companies only include the cheap crinkle balls that you could likely purchase inexpensively. Obviously, your cat probably isn’t going to be amused with getting another vaguely Christmas-colored crinkle ball every day—and there is no reason to overspend. Therefore, it’s important to scroll through any available pictures of what’s in the advent calendar or check out reviews for information on what is included. Preferably, high-quality toys of a large variety should be in the advent calendar. You don’t want only balls or only plush toys, for instance. That said, there are bound to be a few doubles. A calendar might include two or three toy mice, for instance. Use your judgment when figuring out if the toys work for your cat or not. You should also ensure the toys are high-quality. You don’t want to give your cat cheap toys that will fall apart in a few hours. While this is frustrating due to the wasted money, it is also a safety hazard. How Many Days? Advent calendars range in the number of days covered. The most common numbers are 12 (for the 12 days of Christmas) and 24 (so that you can start on the first of December). The option you pick largely depends on your budget and preferences. As you’d expect, the more days covered, the more expensive these kits tend to be. However, this isn’t always the case. The most expensive option in our reviews only covers 12 days, but it comes with a reusable box (hence the more expensive price). Sometimes, it may also be that your cat simply doesn’t need 24 new toys. If you have several cats with different preferences, this may be a good number. However, it takes a very playful cat to make good use of 24 toys. Images Credit: Mahony, Shutterstock How About the Box? While it may not be around for long, the box everything comes in is also important. You’ll be using the box for days as you count down with your feline, so it should be relatively durable. Some toys have catnip, and you preferably don’t want your cat breaking into the box to get the toys out early. The toys should also be easy to remove. Most boxes have small windows you’re supposed to punch out each day, but this may be done with a varying degree of ease. Some are pretty easy to open, while others may inadvertently cause tearing on the part of the box you aren’t supposed to be opening. Sometimes, you may also get a calendar with a reusable box. This makes it cheaper next year to do an advent calendar for your cat (and allows you to pick toys you know your feline will like). Pricing Advent calendars come at a range of price points. You have to consider whether or not the specific calendar is worth the price. We included a range of advent calendars in our reviews, so you should be able to find one in your price range. We do recommend staying away from very cheap advent calendars, as these are often cheaper for a reason. You don’t want to put your cat in harm’s way by giving them dangerous toys. Image Credit: Natalya On, Shutterstock Conclusion While there aren’t many cat toy advent calendars available, we do hope that you found one you like in our reviews. Our favorite is the Dr. Seuss for Pets How the Grinch Stole Christmas Advent Calendar for Cats, as it provides an optimal mix of toy quality, toy variety, and price. However, there are cheaper options available, as well. The Larchio Cat Advent Calendar is less expensive than most others, but it also covers 24 days—more than most of the competition. Featured Image Credit: NataKor, Shutterstock The post 8 Best Cat Advent Calendars In 2024 – Reviews & Top Picks appeared first on Pet Keen.

After Biden’s supposed victory in 2020, Americans’ faith in our election system has waned significantly. With November 5 just around the corner, people across the country are skeptical about whether or not we will have a fair election this time around. BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales along with the Blaze Originals team recently headed to Michigan to investigate the state’s voting system, granted the swing state heavily altered its voting laws after Trump’s victory in 2016. What they uncovered suggests that a fair 2024 election is highly unlikely. For starters, “In 2018 Jocelyn Benson replaced Ruth Johnson as Michigan’s secretary of state.“ Johnson, a Republican, “was interested in doing the right thing when it came to protecting the voter roles and keeping them secure and fresh and ... not outdated,” Sara tells Glenn Beck. However, Benson, who’s “Soros funded” and formerly worked for the Southern Poverty Law Center investigating hate crimes, was “part of the Secretary of State Project that George Soros is funding.” Benson attempted to “allow Michigan to count ballots that were received after Election Day,” and although she was unsuccessful in this endeavor as a result of being sued, she did manage to enact “same-day registration” and “[registering] without showing a photo ID" policies. Glenn is shocked. “You need a photo ID for anything — everything! — except for the most important thing a citizen can do?” he asks in disbelief, noting that he recently had to present his ID in order to obtain a simple fishing license. “If you did care about democracy and you did care about the state of your country, you would want election integrity and security,” says Sara, referencing the Democrats behind these loose voting laws. “In the state of Michigan, they now have a constitutional right to vote by mail,” despite the fact that “all of these other first-world countries ... have decided that mail-in voting is a horrible way of doing things,” she criticizes. There is some good news, however. Organizations, such as Public Interest Legal Foundation and the RNC, are “suing the crap out of these states and out of these secretaries of states” who are behind these new corrupt voting laws. They also address issues such as the long list of “dead people on the voter roles in the state of Michigan” and the fact that “105% of Michigan’s population [is] currently registered to vote.” To learn more about the corruption in our voting system and what you can do to fight back, watch the clip below. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Why the ‘far right’ is winning elections in the EU.

WATCH: Reporter Attacks Caitlin Clark for Not Single-Handedly Ending Racism, or Something