'Should have brought a bunch of knee pads'

'There was someone hanging from a tree'

'County jail authorities and 25 sheriff's offices signed contracts'

'Boy, these are rough characters'

'I say abolish ICE now'

4 years after losing a beloved cat named Tinsel, a stroke of fortune found her reunited with owner Maggie DeGreenia whose cousin saw her on a local shelter’s website. Tinsel disappeared in December, 2021, leading to weeks of searching, posting on Facebook groups, contacting shelters, and putting up missing posters. But despite all her efforts, […] The post Cat Missing for 4 Years Reunited with Family After Cousin Sees Her on Shelter’s Website appeared first on Good News Network.

News A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms How the Game of Thrones Song Set the Tone for A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms Showrunner Ira Parker and Dunk actor Peter Claffey talk about that needle drop (and what happens immediately after) By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on January 20, 2026 Credit: Steffan Hill/HBO Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Steffan Hill/HBO This post contains very mild spoilers from the beginning of A Knight of the Seven Kingdom’s first episode. The series premiere of A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms is now available on HBO for your viewing pleasure. If you’ve watched it, you know that the tone is different from the shows in the Game of Thrones universe that came before it. Our single point of view on the show is Dunk (Peter Claffey) a young hedge knight trying to find his way after his mentor (for lack of a better word) dies. A specific sequence early on in the episode makes clear that Seven Kingdoms, while being a story with heart, isn’t as serious as Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon. In it, Dunk decides to head a tourney and win, gaining status as a knight. The iconic theme song from Game of Thrones swells in the background, but then there’s a hard cut to Dunk bareass behind a tree having explosive diarrhea. In a press conference for the show that Reactor attended, showrunner Ira Parker explained the genesis of that sequence. “This all comes back to character. That moment for Dunk, he’s at a crossroads and he’s picking up his master’s sword, and he hears that call to greatness. He hears the hero theme in his head, and the script was [originally] written, it said, ‘Here’s [Dunk’s] hero’s theme.’ “But when we went along through production, through post, and Dan Romer was composing Dunk’s hero theme, it was again a reflection of Dunk: So it was stripped down. It was simpler. It wasn’t that big, orchestral, wonderful heroic score. And so it didn’t feel exactly right in this moment, because this is a call to something that Dunk wants in the future. So he hears that theme, because that’s the greatest hero call that there is. And in the moment—he’s not a hero yet, he hasn’t accomplished anything—and all of a sudden, when he thinks about how daunting the task in front of him is going to be, it makes him nervous.” Credit: Steffan Hill/HBO That nervousness, Parker continued, made him queasy, so much so that “he finds himself squatting behind the tree in a very unheroic, some would say the least heroic position, because at this point, Dunk is not yet a hero.” Claffey added that it the scene was incredibly funny to shoot. “We closed the set and one of my really good friends in props, Gordo, was in front of me, and I’m holding a pipe in between my legs, and he’s just using it to cause this [poop] to come out. And he couldn’t look at me during the thing because he just couldn’t stop laughing.” Bertie Carvel, who plays Baelor Targaryen on the series, also shared what that scene—and the show—sets up: “It’s inviting us all to ask ourselves whether we can be a hero… Dunk, he, of course, dreams of as we all did as children, of doing heroic feats. And then we cut to him shitting behind a tree, and he’s reminded of his humanity, his mortality, his limitations, and so on. “And [later on,] he looks around him and he sees knights who seem more capable and grander. And that’s why it’s relatable. And I think that’s why it’s a heroic story, because it’s grounded in something quite humane and mortal. I think it would be good if we would all ask ourselves the question: What it would mean to be more heroic? And I think people all the time do things, ordinary things, that are deeply heroic.” The remaining five episodes of A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms will drop weekly on HBO Sundays at 10 p.m. ET/PT. A second season of the series has already been greenlit, meaning we’ll see more of Dunk and Egg sometime in the future. [end-mark] The post How the <i>Game of Thrones</i> Song Set the Tone for <i>A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms</i> appeared first on Reactor.

Global central bankers issued a statement last Tuesday defending U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell following the launch of a criminal investigation into the central bank chief. Powell is being investigated over the $2.5 billion he spent renovating the Fed building and potentially lying to Congress about the project. The headline tells you everything you need to know about the moment we are in. I believe in an independent Federal Reserve. America has always benefited from a central bank insulated from day-to-day political swings. A nation this large and complex needs a steady hand on monetary policy. But independence does not mean antagonism. It does not mean operating as a parallel power center in opposition to a duly elected president. And it certainly does not mean taking cues from European technocrats who have no vote in our elections and no stake in our sovereignty. What we are seeing now is not neutral independence. It is institutional resistance. Not objectivity, but obsession. The Federal Reserve under Powell has developed Trump Derangement Syndrome, and it is distorting decisions that affect every American household. When central bankers from Europe and around the world rush to Powell’s defense, we are told this is about protecting “independence.” In reality, it looks like elite solidarity. A global technocratic class is circling the wagons around one of its own against a president they never accepted. With all due respect, European bank heads should mind their own business. This is the United States of America. Our economic policy is set by Americans, for Americans. We are America First. We do not bow to Davos. We do not outsource our monetary philosophy to Brussels, Frankfurt, or London. The Federal Reserve is not a subsidiary of the European Central Bank, and its chairman does not answer to a transatlantic club of unelected elites. Independence is not immunity from accountability. The Federal Reserve’s mandate is clear: maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. Nowhere does it say the Fed should function as a hedge against populism or a brake on a president it dislikes. Yet that is exactly how Powell and the financial establishment appear to see their role. Look at the record. When inflation exploded under President Joe Biden, the Fed was “caught off guard.” When tightening threatened the Biden economy, Powell moved cautiously. But when Donald Trump was president, the Fed hiked rates aggressively, nine times between 2017 and 2018, even as inflation was tame and working-class wages were finally rising. That is not neutral independence. That is institutional bias. Supporting Fed independence does not mean endorsing a Fed that works against the elected president. An independent Fed should be professionally detached from partisan politics, but it should still operate in good faith with the administration chosen by the American people. It should not view a president as a threat to be contained, nor look overseas for validation when challenged. Trump never sought to turn the Fed into a political arm. He asked for accountability. He demanded transparency. He argued that interest rates should reflect the real economy, not the anxieties of Washington insiders and European technocrats. That is not radical. That is responsive governance. Under Trump, the economy boomed. Wages rose. Energy was affordable. Small businesses thrived. A Fed that respected both its independence and the president’s economic vision could have amplified that success. Instead, Powell tightened into growth and then stood flat-footed as Biden ushered in an inflationary storm. Now Americans are paying the price. Groceries cost more. Homeownership is out of reach. Credit card debt is exploding. And Powell signals that relief will wait. We do need an independent Fed. But we need one that is independent from political bias, not hostile to the president and deferential to Europe. Independence should mean professionalism, not resistance. It should mean data-driven decisions that complement national economic leadership, not quietly undermine it. Powell and his colleagues are not elected. They do not set national strategy. They do not decide elections. Their job is to provide stability, not steer outcomes. If they have forgotten that, Congress has every right to remind them through oversight and accountability. Trump Derangement Syndrome has infected too many institutions. If it captures the Federal Reserve, the damage will be profound. Interest rates should not be a weapon. Central banking should not become partisan warfare. And independence should never be an excuse to oppose the will of the American people or defer to foreign elites. Mr. Powell, your job is not to stop Trump. It is to serve the American economy. Respect the office, respect the voters, and check your politics at the door. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post We Want an Independent Fed, Not One With Trump Derangement Syndrome or Foreign Influence appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over Hawaii’s ban on carrying a handgun in public accommodations—such as stores, restaurants, and gas stations—without the property owner’s permission. Alan Beck, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that entering such spaces is an “implied right,” unless the property owner opposes. He said Hawaii’s law flips that presumption and requires the property owner’s prior consent.  Neal Katyal, attorney for Hawaii and former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued the state law protects private property rights, and asserted, “it’s pretty clear an invitation to shop is not an invitation to bring your Glock.” The ruling in the case of Wolford v. Lopez, expected this summer, will apply to any state that seeks to regulate guns. At least four other states have laws similar to Hawaii’s restrictions. During Tuesday’s oral arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “Is there a constitutional right to enter private property with a gun, without an owner’s express or implicit consent?” Beck answered, “No. You can’t enter an owner’s property without their consent, correct? Express or implicit. Correct, because that would be a trespass your honor.” Beck argued the question, instead, was “carrying on private property that’s open to the public.” He added that Hawaii’s law preemptively bans possession of a gun in privately-owned spaces that are open to the public, rather than leaving it up to the owner to prohibit entry with a firearm. “Every private property owner has the right to affirmatively put up a sign or otherwise not give permission for people to enter a property with a firearm,” Beck said. “The crux of our argument is that clients flip that historical default from them having to affirmatively say ‘guns are not allowed here’ to the current law.” Hawaii’s Act 52 enacted the policy after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling struck down New York’s law requiring concealed carry holders to demonstrate a need for self-defense. Hawaii’s Act 52 states that someone with the license to carry a handgun may not “enter or remain on private property of another person while carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm … unless the person has been given express authority.” The law applies regardless of whether the property is open to the public.  Four other states have similar laws: California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey, according to SCOTUSblog. The high court is hearing the case because of a circuit split. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the New York law. The 3rd U.S. Circuit struck down New Jersey’s law. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit upheld Hawaii’s law.  Hawaii points to a 1771 New Jersey law and an 1865 Louisiana law as precedent of states requiring the prior consent of a property owner for someone to enter the property with a gun. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Louisiana law was part of the “black codes” aimed at discriminating against the rights of freed slaves to defend themselves against violence in the post-Civil War era. “You rely very heavily on an 1865 black code law in Louisiana. You say it’s a dead ringer, and a reason alone to affirm the judgment,” Gorsuch said. “I want to understand how you think black codes should inform this court’s decision-making.” Katyal stressed that black codes were a shameful part of American history, but argued that this particular law was race-neutral. He noted that the Republican Congress admitted Louisiana back into the union with this law intact. “The United States Congress, the same Congress that ratified the 14th Amendment, implicitly blessed [the law] by admitting Louisiana back in,” Katyal said.  When Gorsuch earlier asked plaintiffs’ lawyer Beck about the Louisiana law, Beck said that Hawaii’s law is not comparable since the Louisiana law was intended to discriminate. Justice Samuel Alito told Katyal, “You’re just relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status.” He presented a First Amendment hypothetical. “If someone owns a store, or let’s say it’s a little restaurant, and this person has very strong political opinions, and does not want anybody in that restaurant who is wearing attire that is expressing approval of a particular political candidate, the owner of that restaurant has the right to say, you can’t come in, right?” Katyal answered, “Yes.” Alito followed, “Could Hawaii enact a statute that says that if you were wearing the attire expressing approval of a particular political candidate, you cannot come in unless you get express consent from the owner of the restaurant?” Katyal conceded that it would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, but added that the Second Amendment does not have “the same components” as the First Amendment.  The post Justices Hear Arguments on Concealed Carry in Stores appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Incoming NJ Gov Mikie Sherrill Promising Power Ranger Moves