by J.B. Shurk, American Thinker: For once, a video has gone “viral” on social media platforms that actually deserves to be seen by everyone.  It involves hundred-year-old Royal Navy and Arctic Convoy veteran Alec Penstone in a live appearance on Friday’s episode of Good Morning Britain.  Co-hosts Adil Ray and Kate Garraway intended to use Penstone as a pre–Armistice Day […]

The scale of the BBC’s fraud is staggering. They took part of a sentence from early in President Trump’s speech, cut out 24 pages, and ended the quote with words from the very end. Even this picture barely captures the full extent of what they did. pic.twitter.com/KVbhxpVtRM — Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) November 10, 2025

from GoldSilver: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

When Mount Etna in Sicily rumbled this spring, news outlets around the world flashed dramatic photos of lava and ash. But Martin Wikelski was skeptical. The biologist, who directs the Department of Migration at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior in Germany, checked in with his most trusted forecasters: Twelve goats grazing on Etna’s slopes. These goats have worn his lightweight tracking tags for more than a decade. Before each of the last seven major eruptions, they’d alerted the scientists with unusually frantic behavior. This time, they were calm. Further research showed that the widely reported eruption had looked visually striking but was actually minor and caused no damage. “The goats were right,” Wikelski says from his office near Konstanz, Germany. “Therefore we still say, ‘in goats we trust.’” A monarch butterfly carries a tiny transmitter that is intended to provide information about its flight behavior. Credit: MPIAB_MaxCine. Wikelski is the innovator behind a global vision, decades in the making, that could change animal research and conservation forever: ICARUS (the International Cooperation for Animal Research Using Space) equips creatures from bats and birds to goats and giraffes with lightweight smart tags that beam data to satellites and CubeSats — smaller satellites the size of a shoe box — revealing real-time insights into animals’ rhythms.  Most scientists studying migration patterns or endangered animals only have the means to do research in a defined area. But often, the most illuminating answers are global. What if animal data from around the world could be linked to answer pertinent questions about the spread of bird flu, say, or to predict disasters? Investigating global animal migrations with an intelligent sensor network of animals — the “Internet of Animals” — opens a new frontier in harnessing animal observation as a tool for conservation. From volcanoes to poaching, from climate shifts to disease outbreaks, ICARUS can gather and interpret data from creatures big and small to help protect ecosystems, and sometimes, people. The post ‘In Goats We Trust’ appeared first on Reasons to be Cheerful.

Woman Hosts Raves For Senior Dogs Every Single Night | The Dodo

It’s especially useful during the holidays. READ MORE...

Antifa-linked agitators at a University of California Berkeley event by Turning Point USA turned the event into a violent fracas on Monday evening, with a viral fight that left a Donald Trump supporter's face bloodied and several bad-viral videos, which made the radicals look terrible. Yet, according to the groups...

On Monday, President Trump petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the ridiculous E. Jean Carroll ruling. In 2023, a Manhattan jury found President Trump liable for alleged sexual abuse against Carroll. He was ordered to pay her $5 million. President Trump appealed the dumb ruling, but a federal appeals court upheld it last year. Now, President Trump is asking SCOTUS to throw out the bogus verdict. Here are the details: BREAKING: President Trump asks the U.S. Supreme Court to REVERSE the ruling that found him liable for “sexually abusing” E. Jean Carroll This would be another HUGE LOSS for the Left and media if SCOTUS does the right thing! pic.twitter.com/1amlZGJ08O — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 10, 2025 Of course, you can tell by just looking at this woman that President Trump is not guilty. As he said in the past, she isn’t his “type.” President Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court cites lack of evidence as the reason why the ruling should be overturned. From CNN: “There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation,” Trump told the Supreme Court in the appeal filed Monday viewed by CNN. “Instead, Carroll waited more than 20 years to falsely accuse Donald Trump, who she politically opposes, until after he became the 45th president, when she could maximize political injury to him and profit for herself.” The appeal has not yet been formally docketed at the Supreme Court. Whether the Supreme Court takes up the case is yet to be seen, but it likely won’t be the last time the justices are asked to review litigation involving Carroll. A different jury found Trump liable for defaming Carroll for repeating his statements in 2022 and ordered him to pay $83 million in damages. A federal appeals court panel affirmed the damages award finding it “reasonable in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts” and rejected several of Trump’s legal challenges. Among them, the appeals court found that Trump had previously waived any claim of presidential immunity and said the Supreme Court’s decision last year involving criminal cases did not alter their view. Trump has asked for the full bench of judges to review the case. The Justice Department filed an amicus brief supporting review of whether presidential immunity can be waived “from civil damages liability predicated on official acts.” Carroll’s response is due in the next few weeks. It’s important to note that, for now, President Trump has asked SCOTUS to throw out the verdict from E. Jean Caroll’s first sex abuse case against him. So, we’re talking about the one where he was ordered to pay her $5 million, not the later one that ordered him to pay an astonishing $83.3 million! The appeal of that second ruling comes later. The Hill noted: Carroll has taken Trump to trial twice and won a total of $88.3 million in damages, and the petition marks the first time the long-running litigation has reached the justices. In 2023, the first jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s and defaming her by denying her story when she came forward during Trump’s first presidency. The jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million. A judge ruled the jury’s verdict made Trump automatically liable in Carroll’s separate lawsuit, which brought additional defamation claims. Carroll took Trump to trial again, and that jury went on to award her $83.3 million. It has not yet reached the Supreme Court. E. Jean Carroll is a liar. It’s apparent to everyone, and she didn’t even back up any of her wild, salacious claims in court! The trial was nothing more than a political witch hunt against President Trump. SCOTUS should speedily toss the whole thing out… Exactly this: Based on an appeal being filed today by the Trump legal team with the Supreme Court, I believe it’s likely the SCOTUS is going to toss the E. Jean Carroll verdict out on its ear…as they should. There was no evidence presented, no witnesses, and no police report was ever filed,… — AwakenedOutlaw (@AwakenedOutlaw) November 11, 2025 Based on an appeal being filed today by the Trump legal team with the Supreme Court, I believe it’s likely the SCOTUS is going to toss the E. Jean Carroll verdict out on its ear…as they should. There was no evidence presented, no witnesses, and no police report was ever filed, so no investigation was ever conducted. Then two decades later, she drops the salacious allegation (Nov 2019) but can’t remember the date OR EVEN THE YEAR it took place. The injustice of the verdict is insulting on every possible level, and therefore deserves to be nuked into oblivion.

Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell is reportedly preparing to ask President Trump for a commutation. This comes after she was moved to a cushy ‘prison camp’ in Texas a few months ago. NEW: Ghislaine Maxwell, the co-conspirator of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, is in the process of seeking a commutation of her 20-year prison sentence from President Trump, a whistleblower tells House Democrats. https://t.co/lOGCRq5PtA — NBC News (@NBCNews) November 10, 2025 According to a whistleblower who spoke to House Democrats, Maxwell is currently working on an application for a commutation of her sentence. Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison, of which she has already served three years. Per NBC News: The whistleblower came forward with the information to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee and also alleges Maxwell is getting preferential treatment in prison. “I am struggling to keep it all together as it is big and there are so many attachments,” Maxwell wrote in an e-mail to her attorney, Leaf Saffian, which was reviewed by NBC News. The subject line of the email reads “commutation application.” After speaking to this unnamed whistleblower, Democrats wrote a letter to President Trump on Monday informing him of Maxwell’s intentions. CBS News reported: Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking co-conspirator, is planning to apply for a commutation of her federal prison sentence, which is set to run through 2037, according to documents obtained by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee and seen by CBS News. In a letter to President Trump on Monday, also seen by CBS News, Judiciary Committee Democrats wrote that Maxwell “is preparing a ‘Commutation Application’ for your Administration to review, undoubtedly coming to you for your direct consideration. The Warden herself is directly helping Ms. Maxwell copy, print, and send documents related to this application.” The letter says the information received demonstrates “either that Ms. Maxwell is herself requesting you release her from her 20-year prison sentence for her role as a co-conspirator in Jeffrey Epstein’s international child sex trafficking ring, or that this child sex predator now holds such tremendous sway in the second Trump Administration that you and your DOJ will follow her clemency recommendations.” The whistleblower also alleged that Maxwell has been given preferential, “concierge-style” treatment while at the minimum-security prison. The Hill has more: According to the documents, Maxwell has been receiving customized meals that have been personally delivered to her cell. They also describe unusual treatment of her guests, with Democrats relaying the creation of a “special cordoned off area for visitors to arrive, as well as an assortment of snacks and refreshments for her guests.” Her guests have also been allowed to bring computers, which is something not typically allowed for visitors. Maxwell was also taken by escorts to the prison gym outside normal hours, allowing her to work out alone. Democrats allege she was also “allowed to enjoy recreation time in staff-only areas.” An inmate who trains service dogs was also instructed to give Maxwell time with one of the puppies, even though the dogs are not supposed to be pet during training. And finally, the information given to the panel relayed that Maxwell would have associates “email documents directly to the Warden” of Federal Prison Camp, Bryan, allowing Maxwell to bypass the paper mail system. Raskin accused the warden, Tanisha Hall, of “directly helping Ms. Maxwell copy, print, and send documents related to” her commutation request. “This top-flight luxury service has reached such a point of absurdity that one of the top officials at the prison has complained that he is ‘sick of having to be Maxwell’s b‑‑‑‑,’” Raskin wrote. “You should not grant any form of clemency to this convicted and unrepentant sex offender. Your Administration should not be providing her with room service, with puppies to play with, with federal law enforcement officials waiting on her every need, or with any special treatment or institutional privilege at all. It is indisputable that the order to treat Ms. Maxwell as an honored guest, rather than a federal prisoner, has come from the highest levels.” In the past, President Trump has neither confirmed nor denied whether or not he would commute Ghislaine Maxwell’s sentence. What are your thoughts? Should President Trump give Ghislaine Maxwell a commutation? Or, should she be made to serve her full sentence behind bars?

A few days ago, President Trump announced on Truth Social that tariff dividend checks are in the works for the majority of Americans. With the exception of high-income individuals, President Trump plans on giving every American citizen $2,000 in the form of dividend checks from a portion of the money his tariffs bring in. On Monday, President Trump once again confirmed that this will be happening. Watch what he had to say here: JUST IN: From the Oval Office, President Trump CONFIRMS he will be rolling out $2,000 “tariff dividend” checks to low and middle-income Americans “We’re going to use the remaining tariffs to lower our debt… TRILLIONS of dollars have been taken in terms of investment, from… pic.twitter.com/9YwbUYnc6C — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) November 10, 2025 JUST IN: From the Oval Office, President Trump CONFIRMS he will be rolling out $2,000 “tariff dividend” checks to low and middle-income Americans “We’re going to use the remaining tariffs to lower our debt… TRILLIONS of dollars have been taken in terms of investment, from the tariffs.” If this comes to pass, it will be interesting to see how many Democrats refuse to cash in those checks… Anyone want to take any bets?! However, it’s important to note that giving tariff dividends to every American would take an act of Congress, since they are the ones with power of the purse. USA Today explained: Can Trump send $2,000 checks alone? Not legally, the power of the purse remains with Congress. The stimulus checks sent out during the pandemic were passed by Congress and then signed by Trump, for example. The other issue is how much a dividend would actually cost. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that seeks to educate the public on issues of fiscal policy impact — is working on an analysis but so far has found that a $2,000 dividend will cost about $600 billion. Tariffs are expected to bring in about $300 billion in revenue per year, meaning a dividend would be twice as expensive as tariffs. President Trump’s proposal for tariff dividends also comes as the Supreme Court is set to make a very important ruling on his tariff powers. As President Trump noted in that clip, it would be disastrous if SCOTUS ruled against him, as it would require the U.S. to pay back trillions of dollars in tariffs and/or investments already secured. Forbes has more: There may be another problem. About half of the tariffs—roughly $100 billion—were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Whether President Trump had the power to impose those tariffs is now under review by the Supreme Court. The 1977 law allows the president “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States,” if he declares a national emergency “with respect to such threat.” This includes regulating imports and exports. Trump suggests that there are two threats: the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. and large trade deficits. Small businesses and states challenged the use of IEEPA in court, and those challenges eventually landed at the Supreme Court. The theory asserted in those lawsuits is that the executive’s power to regulate imports does not include the power to impose tariffs. They go on to say that tariffs are effectively like the internal taxes collected by the IRS, and taxing power—apparently uniquely—can be delegated by Congress to the president only with a highly specific delegation. Importantly, those challenging the president’s power to impose tariffs aren’t arguing that Congress cannot delegate the power to tax or to tariff, only that there is no delegation here. When Congress delegates the “uniquely dangerous” tax power to the president, they assert, it must speak clearly, preferably using specific words like “tariff.” While the justices have been asked to resolve the matter quickly, it’s unclear when we’ll have the court’s ruling. However, if the oral arguments offer any sort of window into the Supreme Court’s leaning (they generally do), the Court appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs. The justices seemed to agree with those who argued that the tariffs exceeded the president’s powers. And, interestingly, while arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, Solicitor General John Sauer attempted to downplay the dollars being collected. “The fact that [the tariffs] raise revenue is only incidental,” Sauer told the Court.