He only has one name — Plumes. He is sometimes referred to as Plumes Officiel. The name does matter (more on that shortly), but what he does is something pretty special. This French musician is making waves with his distinctive pink guitar and videos featuring his favorite audience: animals. While he was out singing to horses, he got a bit more appreciation than he expected. A brief explanation on the importance of names. This man goes by Plumes or Plumes Officiel. Plumes or Plumes Music is a different group in the Paris area. The two are vastly different. Plumes plays music for animals because he wants “to raise awareness about abused and endangered animals and species!” Some of his videos include links to animal assistance programs. He wants to make people aware that animals are “living, sentient beings.” Image from Instagram. When selecting music to play, Plumes tends toward light and smooth music, such as love songs. Singing to horses and other animals is rewarding for him, as the animals are always appreciative. During an interview with Cuddle Buddies, Plumes stated that after reading that cows enjoyed music, he wanted to try it for himself. The cows gathered around him, nuzzling his guitar as he played. Cows are still his favorite animal to play for, but he has sung for too many animals to count. You can see their reactions on YouTube. Many of his videos also appear on Instagram. You can follow him on both to make sure you catch all the new releases. Most animals are curious. Plumes stated that when he plays for animals, “I feel like I’m more in tune with nature and more sensitive when it comes to life as a whole.” Please share. You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post “I Sang For Horses And They Had The Most Precious Reaction” appeared first on InspireMore.

Some animals have a “mothering gene.” They are going to be a mother, whether they have given birth to their “child” or not. Humans do this too. Every group of friends has a “mom” friend. That’s the one that always has Tylenol, band-aids, and Tums. So it shouldn’t be surprising that Daisy the cow has decided that Sergeant the dog is her son. @dakotafunnyfarm Daisy is 18 months old. Sergeant is 2, and Gunner is almost 3. it’s a young crowd and boy do they make me laugh #farm #funny #fyp #homestead #animals #cow #greatpyrenees #bordercollie ♬ Something Just Like This – The Chainsmokers & Coldplay Daisy is not an ordinary cow. She was orphaned and bottle-fed by the owner of Dakota Funny Farm, Ali. Now she is the needy, attention-seeking adoptive mother of Sergeant the dog. One of her favorite activities is being a porch cow, lounging in front of the door. Sargeant is supposed to be the herding dog. Kimber and Gunner are guardian dogs. Molly is a rescue dog who has never been near livestock, so she hangs out playing with the donkey. Ali took the time to introduce people to the animals. @dakotafunnyfarm Introducing… dakotafunnyfarm..ya, I probably missed somebody #farmlife #cow #donkey #pig #dog also just started an Instagram so you can follow me there too bare with me as I learn everything technology ♬ Scar Tissue – Red Hot Chili Peppers The happy little farm is in North Central North Dakota. The family moved from Seattle in 2024 and hasn’t looked back. The memories they are building are precisely what they yearned for. Having a barnyard full of weird animals and great friendships across breeds is a dream for Ali. It doesn’t matter that the cow thinks she is a dog and the dog thinks he is a calf. The only two working animals that know their jobs are Gunner and Kimber. Molly thinks she’s a donkey. Laverne and Shirley know they are pigs, but they’re also part of Daisy’s herd, so they’re cows. There is a good reason why the members of Dakota Funny Farm ended up there. They are all where they belong, and there is no better place on Earth. Please share. You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post “I’m Officially Convinced My Cow Thinks My Dog Is Her Baby” appeared first on InspireMore.

If you love horses, then Assateague Island is the ideal place to visit. Located along the coasts of Maryland and Virginia, this unique spot is one of the few places in the United States where wild horses can be viewed. In fact, the wild horses are some of the only permanent residents on Assateague Island. Want to visit? You won’t find a hotel. Your only option is to camp! For the health and safety of the horses, humans should keep a safe distance. That said, it seems there are certain people these animals can’t resist getting a closer look at. When someone named Hannah Knox visited the area, she spotted a whole herd of friendly horses who were enthralled by a local ranger’s car. See this silly moment for yourself in the video below! @hannahh.knox horses 1, ranger 0 #assateagueisland #wildhorses ♬ original sound – hannah As the ranger’s lights flicker, the horses circle them, almost in a taunting way. Even so, it all seems in good fun. In fact, the horses are kind enough to give the ranger a head start on their race! Because that’s what the ranger intended, right? To initiate a race with these horses? In any case, I have a feeling it’s the wild horses who won this round. Wild Horses on Assateague Island Adorably “Trap” a Local Ranger’s Car by Walking in Circles Once Hannah’s video blew up online, folks started to speculate why these horses were so drawn to this ranger car. A popular (albeit unserious) theory is that the ranger gave them a treat at one point, and now the horses won’t leave them alone. A more likely theory is that because so few humans can interact with the horses, they’re especially drawn to the ones who do. Either way, it’s adorable! “He’s in [the horses’] jurisdiction, they need his license and registration obviously,” someone in the comments jokes, another person adding, “I’m curious about what [the horses are] trying to summon.” You can find the source of this story’s featured image here! The post Wild Horses Surround Ranger’s Car & Hold Them “Hostage” On Assateague Island appeared first on InspireMore.

Natasha Cloud is the first athlete to call for impeachment

The anti-Americanism is real over at ESPN

Snow is quite famous for appearing white – but it's not always that way.

The media are trying to collect themselves in the immediate aftermath of Operation Midnight Hammer- the U.S. mission to destroy critical Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow. As we see on CBS’s Face the Nation, some have decided to do the same old thing as always and get wrecked for their efforts. Watch as Margaret Brennan attempts to trap Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the contents of the March intelligence assessment, with predictable results: Margaret Brennan tries to intelligencesplain the March assessment to SecSTATE Rubio, and got WRECKED: pic.twitter.com/rr9DFyYlLA — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 22, 2025 CBS FACE THE NATION 6/22/25 10:35 AM MARCO RUBIO: So this mission was a very precise mission. It had three objectives: three nuclear sites. It was not an attack on Iran, it was not an attack on the Iranian people, this wasn’t a regime change move. This was designed to degrade and/or to destroy three nuclear sites related to their nuclear weaponization ambitions, and that was delivered on yesterday. What happens next will now depend on what Iran chooses to do next. If they choose the path of diplomacy, we're ready. We can do a deal that’s good for them, the Iranian people, and good for the world. If they choose another route, then there will be consequences for that. MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me follow up on a phrase you just…”weaponization ambitions. Are you saying there that the United States did not see intelligence that the Supreme Leader had ordered weaponization? RUBIO: That's irrelevant. I think that’s the question being asked in the media all the time, that's an irrelevant question. They have everything they need to build a weapon.  BRENNAN: No. That is the key point in the U.S. intelligence assessment. You know that. RUBIO: No, it's not. BRENNAN: Yes, it was. RUBIO: No, it’s not. BRENNAN: That the political decision had not been made. RUBIO: No, I mean- well, I know that better than you know that and I know that that’s not the case. You don’t know anything- you don’t know what you’re talking about. BRENNAN: But I’m asking you whether the order was given. RUBIO: And the people who say that- It doesn't matter if the order was given.  BRENNAN: (SIGH) RUBIO: They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons. Why would you bury- why would you bury things in a mountain 300 feet under the ground? Why would you bury 6- why do they have 60% enriched uranium? You don’t need 60% enriched uranium. The only countries in the world that have uranium at 60% are countries that have nuclear weapons. Because they can quickly make it 90. They have all the elements. They have all the- why do they- why do they have a space program? Is Iran going to go to the moon? No. They’re trying to build an ICBM so they can one day put a warhead on it…  BRENNAN: No, but that's a question- that's a question- that’s a question of intent. And you know in the intelligence assessment, it was that Iran wanted to be at threshold so they could use this leverage- RUBIO: How do you know what the intelligence assessment says? How do you know what the intelligence assessment says? BRENNAN: I'm talking about the public March assessment. And that's why I was asking you, if you know something more from March if an order was given-- RUBIO: Well, but that's also an inaccurate representation of it- that's an inaccurate representation of it. That's not how intelligence is read. That's now how intelligence is used. Here's what the whole world knows. Forget about intelligence. What the IAEA knows they are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need for a- for a- for a civil nuclear program. So why would you enrich uranium at 60%, if you don't intend to one day use it to take it to 90 and build a weapon? Why are you- why are you developing ICBMs? Why do you have 8000 short range missiles and two to 3000 long- mid range missiles that you continue to develop? Why do you do all these things-- BRENNAN: Understood. RUBIO: They have everything they need for a nuclear weapon. They have the delivery mechanisms, they have the enrichment capability, they have the highly enriched uranium that is stored. BRENNAN: Yeah. RUBIO: That's all we need to see. BRENNAN: Right. Well, and that's-- RUBIO: Especially in the hands of the regime that's already involved in terrorism and proxies and all kinds of things are on- they are the source of all the instability in the Middle East-- BRENNAN: And no one's disputing- no one's disputing that. I'm not doing that here. And they were censured at the IAEA for that enrichment and for violating their non-proliferation agreements. I was simply asking if we had intelligence that there was an order to weaponize because you said 'weaponization ambitions,' which implies they weren't doing it-- RUBIO: Well, we have intelligence that they have everything they need to build a nuclear weapon, and that's more than enough. If you listen closely enough at the 1:05 mark, you’ll hear Brennan sighing audibly when Rubio tells her that it doesn't matter whether the mullahs gave a specific order to weaponize their nuclear program because of the other things they’d already done. To wit: achieve 60% enrichment, the embedding of nuclear facilities under a mountain, and the pursuit of ballistic missiles under the guise of a space program. Having learned nothing from the Vance debacle and subsequent “faces of Brennan” memes, Brennan still chooses to sneer at Republican interview subjects who swat away her attempts at imposing a narrative line. Although somewhat more muted as of late, the contempt will eventually bubble to the surface. This first volley set the tone for the rest of the interview, and followed familiar lines: questions of whether the strike was the launch of a protracted regime change forever war, attempts to sow discord among the president’s national security team, and handwringing over the fact that the strike was done with executive authority and kept very tightly. Of course, all of these are the exact opposite of the approach the media took during such instances as the killing of an American citizen via drone strike and the NATO regime change mission in Lybia, just to name a few. Of course, things were (D)ifferent back then. It has often been said that the American military relitigates the last war. The same can be said about the legacy media. Faced with what appears to be a successful strike against the sought-for capabilities of an enemy that wishes “Death to America” and who is responsible for the deaths of scores of Americans, the media choose instead to relitigate the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  

On CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, commentator Scott Jennings mocked a Democrat for suggesting Iran wasn't a threat by using the phrase "fiery but mostly peaceful Iranian butchers." The Democrat was new CNN pundit Xochitl Hinojosa (they pronounced it like "Sochi"), who was until recently a spokesperson at Biden's Department of Justice, and before that did communications for the DNC during the first Trump term. Like most Democrats, she was insisting that the president needs congressional approval -- and never mind that for one, President Obama approved hundreds of drone strikes without Congress. Fill-in host Kasie Hunt noted that Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) praised the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities: "The world is safer because of the actions of our brave service members." Hunt asked how widespread that view would be among Democrats. Hinojosa changed the subject: XOCHITL HINOJOSA: Normally you would need congressional approval for something like this and I know that my friend here is laughing a little bit But I will say. SCOTT JENNINGS: Yes, I am laughing. KASIE HUNT: I’ve covered Congress for a long time, they gave a lot of that away. Technically, under the War Powers Act of 1973, the president is required to notify Congress -- which Trump did -- and must terminate the use of troops within 60 days. This is where Jennings dropped his phrase: HINOJOSA: So what will be critical in the weeks to come is, Congress must see the underlying intelligence about how they were in direct threat and how the U.S. Needed to respond without congressional approval. But as of right now, I have not seen that. JENNINGS: You’re arguing that after 46 years of the Iranian regime killing Americans, threatening Americans, saying over and over and again, ‘death to America’ — that maybe they were just didn’t mean it? That they’re fiery but mostly peaceful Iranian butchers? I mean, I don’t understand. This is a righteous strike. This is a little daring, since it was CNN who aired the "Fiery But Mostly Peaceful" lingo with reporter Omar Jimenez standing in front of blazing fires in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Earlier, Jennings made that full-throated endorsement of Trump that surely sickens the average CNN viewer:  I mean, Donald Trump has been clear-eyed and full of resolve about the Iranian threat for 20 years. He has always said you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. And I would also say that my observations of him over the last few months are that things are running quite smoothly over in the White House and at the Pentagon. Look what happened, the deception that was involved here, no leaks, the resolve, the precision, execution. We have a commander in chief right now who is decisive and who knows how to operate a government and operate a military operation with absolute precision. The level of deterrence that this will put throughout the world that our enemies should be perceiving is very, very high. This is a great day for this president. And it's a great day for the world, because he's making us safe for Western civilization.

President Trump last week announced a deal in principle with China: The U.S. will impose 55% tariffs on Chinese goods, while China will respond with a 10% tariff on American goods. In return, China will continue supplying rare earth minerals and magnets, and Chinese students will keep attending American universities. The deal’s finer details remain in flux. Noticeably absent from the agreement? Any commitment from China to protect American intellectual property. That’s no accident. China denies stealing American IP altogether, chalking up clear examples of theft to normal “market behavior.”Trump is the first president in half a century to take trade seriously. But tariffs alone won’t fix this.And in a way, they’re right. IP theft is normal in China. Some of the country’s most successful firms, like Huawei, were built on stolen American technology. For the Chinese Communist Party, theft isn’t an embarrassment. It’s a strategy.The great Chinese rip-offIn 1983, much of China was still preindustrial. No engines, no tractors, no cars. Labor happened by hand or with the help of animals. Rural China looked a lot like colonial America.But in just a few decades, China transformed into an industrial superpower. It now produces three times more industrial output than the U.S., including 24 times more steel and far more oceangoing ships. It has the world’s largest economy by purchasing power.How did they do it? Theft.RELATED: Without tariffs, the US is defenseless in an economic war Moor Studio via iStock/Getty ImagesA 2024 House Homeland Security Committee report estimates that China steals between $300 billion and $600 billion in American IP annually. A 2017 report from the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property drew similar conclusions. If we use a midpoint estimate and track the losses back to 2001 — when China joined the World Trade Organization — America has lost nearly $10 trillion in intellectual property to China.China gets this technology in several ways. First, through direct espionage. Only 29% of these operations target military secrets. The rest focus on industrial and commercial tech: manufacturing methods, chemical formulas, blueprints. Espionage alone accounts for roughly $180 billion in losses each year.Second, through counterfeiting. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 60% of all counterfeit goods sold worldwide come from China. In the U.S., that number rises to 87%. Counterfeiting costs U.S. businesses up to $291 billion per year.Third, through piracy on Chinese e-commerce platforms. The United States Trade Representative reports that American rights-holders lose billions thanks to widespread digital theft of films, music, software, books, and branded products. Of the $2.16 trillion in Chinese e-commerce sales in 2024, roughly 40% were pirated or counterfeit. That’s $864 billion in lost profits — just last year.Americans deserve to benefit from their own labor and ingenuity. But China continues to loot our IP with impunity, and our leaders let it happen.The golden goose gets guttedBeyond outright theft, China siphons off American technology through strategic corporate acquisitions and forced technology transfers.The U.S. runs a trade deficit with China of more than $300 billion annually. To cover it, we sell assets — ownership stakes in American companies. Chinese investors target U.S. tech and industrial firms, acquire shares, then funnel proprietary information back to China. Once the intellectual property is transferred, they sell off their holdings.Technically legal. Strategically disastrous.China also compels U.S. companies to “partner” with Chinese firms when setting up operations inside the country. The Chinese side runs daily operations and learns the ropes. In exchange, Americans share their tech. Eventually, the Chinese copy the technology, replicate the products, and compete directly with the very companies that taught them.That’s how Huawei rose to prominence. The company reverse-engineered American products, then used its home-field advantage to grow into the world’s third-largest smartphone maker.China’s strategy works. And American businesses, addicted to short-term profits, keep falling for it. The consequences aren’t just economic — they’re geopolitical. This is how the CCP turned a rural backwater into a peer competitor.Trump is the first president in half a century to take trade seriously. But tariffs alone won’t fix this. As I argue in my book “Reshore,” the only way to win this fight is to bring America’s factories home. Reshoring means economic independence. It also cuts off China’s access to the technology they’ve been stealing for decades.Until then, we’re funding our own decline.