President Donald Trump is still pushing for the Senate GOP to get rid of the filibuster. The president posted a video on Truth Social on Monday that included audio of former Attorney General Eric Holder saying that if Democrats win a “trifecta” in the 2028 elections, they should think about extending the Supreme Court.

Holder said this while talking to Ben Meiselas, who co-founded MeidasTouch, which posted the footage last month.

In the Monday Truth Social post, Trump referred to Holder, who served under Democratic President Barack Obama, as an “Obama sycophant” and said that “Eric Holder (known as ‘FAST AND FURIOUS’) just gave a Speech where he emphatically stated, above all else, that Democrats will PACK the Supreme Court of the United States if they get the chance. The word is, he wants 21 Radical Left Activist Judges, not being satisfied with the heretofore 15 that they were seeking.”

Trump said that getting rid of the filibuster will help Republicans win the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 presidential election.

“It will be 21, they will destroy our Constitution, and there’s not a thing that the Republicans can do about it unless we TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, which will lead to an easy WIN of the Midterms, and an even easier WIN in the Presidential Election of 2028,” he asserted.

“Why would the Republicans even think about giving them this opportunity? The American People don’t want gridlock, they want their Leaders to GET THINGS DONE — TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, AND HAVE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL FOUR YEARS IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, BY FAR, WITH NOT EVEN THE HINT OF A SHUTDOWN OF OUR GREAT NATION ON JANUARY 30TH!” Trump declared in the

post.This is the second time in recent weeks that Trump has gone after former President Barack Obama.

The new interim U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, appointed to the post by Trump, once called out Joe Biden and Obama as well as twice-failed presidential contender Hillary Clinton.

John A. Sarcone III, a lawyer in private practice in Westchester County, accused Biden of being a “traitor” and committing “treason” in a 2022 social media post.

After Biden tweeted on New Year’s Eve that year he was “ready to get things done,” Sarcone responded, “Traitor should be tried for treason. Worst person to occupy the White House.”

Sarcone once tweeted that Obama should be “the first illegal alien deported” while calling for Clinton to be jailed for treason.

Sarcone was allowed to be placed in his interim position without needing Senate confirmation. And while he does not have any prosecutorial experience, he has a lengthy track record as an attorney who has also worked for Trump’s campaigns

When Sarcone was sworn in on Monday in Albany, he defended his limited prosecutorial experience by asserting in his speech that what truly defines a good prosecutor is “judgment.”

“I believe the prosecutorial power, and discretion,” he said, “is best entrusted to those with the full breadth of professional and life experiences, from which common sense, wisdom, and informed judgment emerge.” Sarcone said his priorities will include securing the border with Canada; ending “lawlessness and willful disregard” for federal laws; and fighting against public corruption, scams and consumer fraud.BOOM! Hillary Clinton GETS SLAPPED IN THE FACE as Pam Bondi DECLARATES shocking news!

BOOM! Pam Bondi Drops Bombshell, Hillary Clinton Stunned in Explosive Revelation

The air was thick with anticipation as the Senate chamber filled for what was supposed to be a routine oversight hearing. But within moments, the atmosphere shifted. The press gallery buzzed, staffers exchanged wary glances, and the nation’s attention turned sharply to the front of the room. What unfolded was not a standard exchange of political barbs—it was an electrifying confrontation, as former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi unleashed a revelation so shocking that it left Hillary Clinton reeling and the political landscape shaken.

The Scene: Tension Before the Storm

Hillary Clinton entered the chamber with her trademark composure, confident and collected. She had weathered countless hearings, investigations, and media storms. But tonight, something felt different. The cameras lingered, their lenses focused not just on Clinton, but on Bondi—her adversary for the evening, and a Republican firebrand known for her relentless pursuit of accountability.

Bondi, dressed in crisp navy, stood at her desk with a stack of documents and a steely gaze. The silence in the chamber was palpable, the sort that precedes a storm. Reporters leaned forward, sensing a story in the making. Clinton’s allies whispered reassurances, but the tension was unmistakable.

The Bombshell Unleashed

As the proceedings began, Bondi wasted no time. She gripped the microphone, her voice clear and unwavering.

“Tonight, America deserves the truth. And I intend to deliver it.”

She opened a red folder, the seal of the Florida Attorney General’s office stamped across its cover. The screen behind her flickered to life, revealing a timeline of events—emails, financial transactions, and confidential memos. Bondi began to walk the chamber through each point, her delivery methodical yet merciless.

“For years, we’ve been told that certain matters were settled, that investigations had run their course. But new evidence has come to light—evidence that demands answers from Secretary Clinton.”

The room fell silent, every eye glued to the screen.

The Evidence: Emails and Transactions

Bondi’s team had uncovered a trove of previously undisclosed emails, communications that painted a troubling picture of backdoor dealings and questionable alliances. One email, dated March 2016, showed direct correspondence between Clinton’s office and foreign government officials discussing financial contributions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for political access.

Bondi read aloud:

“If the contribution is confirmed, we can ensure a meeting with Secretary Clinton during her upcoming visit.”

The words hung in the air like a verdict. Clinton shifted in her seat, her composure beginning to crack.

Bondi pressed on, revealing wire transfers traced from overseas accounts to entities connected to Clinton’s inner circle. The amounts were staggering—millions of dollars funneled in over a period of months, all coinciding with key policy decisions.

“These are not coincidences. These are patterns. Patterns that point to influence peddling at the highest levels.”

The Fallout: Press Frenzy

The press gallery erupted into a frenzy. Phones buzzed, laptops clattered, and headlines began to form in real time. Even seasoned correspondents, long accustomed to political scandal, leaned forward in disbelief.

Bondi let the chaos build, then cut through it with a single line:

“This is not about party. This is about integrity.”

Reporters scrambled to verify the documents, some reaching out to sources in the Justice Department and FBI. The evidence, it seemed, was legitimate—and the implications were explosive.

Clinton’s Response: Under Fire

Clinton attempted to regain control, her voice steady but strained.

“Let’s be clear: These allegations have been investigated before. There is nothing new here.”

Bondi was ready. She raised another folder, this one marked “CONFIDENTIAL,” and handed it to the committee chair. Inside were records of meetings between Clinton staffers and foreign lobbyists—meetings that had never been disclosed to congressional investigators.

“With all due respect, Secretary Clinton, the American people are tired of half-truths and evasions. They want transparency.”

The chamber murmured in agreement. Even some Democratic senators appeared uneasy, shifting in their seats as the weight of the evidence grew heavier.

The Turning Point: Testimony Under Oath

Bondi called her first witness—a former State Department official who had worked directly under Clinton. Under oath, the official testified to the existence of a “shadow network” of advisors who coordinated with foreign interests outside official channels.

“We were told to keep certain communications off the record. It was understood that some meetings were not to be documented.”

The revelation sent shockwaves through the chamber. Clinton’s legal team scrambled to respond, but the damage was done. The narrative had shifted, and Bondi was in control.

The Broader Impact: Political Earthquake

As the hearing continued, Bondi laid out the broader implications. She connected the dots between foreign money, policy decisions, and the erosion of public trust.

“This is not just about one individual. It’s about the integrity of our institutions. If we allow foreign money to dictate American policy, we undermine everything this country stands for.”

The screen behind her flashed with images of protests, headlines, and polling data showing a dramatic drop in public confidence. Bondi’s words resonated beyond the chamber, echoing across social media and news broadcasts nationwide.

Clinton on the Defensive

Clinton tried to rebut the accusations, insisting that her record was one of service and dedication. But the momentum was against her. Bondi’s evidence was overwhelming, her delivery relentless.

“Service is not immunity. Dedication does not excuse deception.”

Bondi’s closing argument was a masterclass in prosecutorial precision. She summarized the evidence, the testimony, and the stakes:

“Tonight, we have seen what happens when power is unchecked. When accountability is ignored. But we have also seen the strength of truth—the power of one voice to challenge the status quo.”

The Aftermath: A Nation Responds

As the hearing adjourned, the chamber remained abuzz. Reporters rushed to file stories, senators huddled in tense conversations, and social media exploded with reactions.

Clinton left the chamber, her face etched with the strain of the night’s revelations. Bondi, meanwhile, stood firm, her reputation as a fearless advocate cemented.

The headlines were swift and brutal:

Pam Bondi Drops Bombshell, Clinton Under FireEvidence of Foreign Influence Rocks SenateCalls for Accountability Grow Louder

Conclusion: A Reckoning for Power

The events of the night marked a turning point—not just for Clinton, but for American politics. Bondi’s bombshell had shattered the veneer of invincibility that had long surrounded Washington’s elite. The questions raised would not be easily dismissed, and the demand for answers would only grow louder.

In the end, the hearing was more than a confrontation between two political heavyweights. It was a reminder that truth, when wielded with courage, can shake the foundations of power. And as the nation watched, Pam Bondi proved that sometimes, all it takes is one voice to spark a reckoning.

First 2028 Democrat Announces They Are Not Running For President

Several top Democrats, such as former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, are all expected to run for president in 2028.

But one young, up-and-coming figure says he is not planning to jump into the race, CNN noted.

Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore says he will not run for president in 2028, despite being frequently touted among Democrats as a prospective presidential contender.

Minnesota is once again under scrutiny as new investigations uncover additional layers of public-assistance fraud occurring during Gov. Tim Walz’s administration. The state, still grappling with the aftermath of the high-profile Feeding Our Future case, is now facing fresh accusations that point to widespread misuse of taxpayer-funded programs — with financial losses estimated to be far higher than previously understood.

The latest revelations stem from reporting by City Journal, which examined potential abuse within the state’s Medicaid Housing Stabilization Services program. According to investigators, some service providers allegedly exploited the system by billing for services that were not provided, inflating claims, or setting up operations designed primarily to siphon funds rather than offer legitimate assistance.

These new allegations arrive on the heels of the Feeding Our Future scandal, a $250 million scheme involving fraudulent claims of feeding low-income children during the pandemic. That case — now considered one of the largest federal fraud investigations in Minnesota history — raised serious questions about oversight and accountability across several state agencies.

A Growing Financial Toll

According to emerging reports, the cumulative losses across various programs may approach $1 billion when combining confirmed cases with suspected, ongoing fraud. Investigators say the full financial impact is difficult to calculate, given the number of programs involved and the complexity of tracking improper payments across multiple agencies.

A recent Fox News report suggested that even these estimates may fall short, indicating that auditors and federal authorities believe more fraudulent activity could still be uncovered as investigations continue.

A Complex, Multilayered Issue

While some reports have highlighted individuals within Minnesota’s Somali-American community as being involved in specific cases, officials and investigators emphasize that the issue is not limited to any single demographic group. Rather, they point to systemic weaknesses — including rapid program expansions, oversight challenges, and inconsistent auditing — that created opportunities for exploitation across multiple networks of individuals and organizations.

Law enforcement agencies, including federal investigators, continue to examine whether any of the misappropriated funds were routed to criminal enterprises outside the state. Some unverified allegations referenced in media reports have suggested possible links to foreign groups, though authorities have not publicly confirmed those details.

Calls for Reform and Accountability

As the scale of the alleged fraud becomes clearer, Minnesota lawmakers from both parties are renewing calls for stronger safeguards to prevent future abuses. Proposed reforms include:

• tighter eligibility verification
• increased auditing requirements for high-risk providers
• improved data-tracking systems to detect irregular billing
• clearer channels for whistleblower reporting

State officials have acknowledged the need for improvements, noting that several oversight reforms have already begun in response to the Feeding Our Future case.

A State Searching for Answers

The unfolding investigations place renewed pressure on Minnesota’s leadership to restore public trust and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs reach the people they are intended to serve. With multiple probes still underway and more information expected to emerge, the full scope of the issue remains uncertain.

What is clear is that Minnesota now faces one of the most extensive public-assistance fraud challenges in its history — one that will likely influence statewide policy decisions for years to come.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer publicly addressed a series of bomb threats made against three of his New York offices, prompting swift law-enforcement responses and reigniting discussion about the increasingly volatile tone of American political discourse. According to Schumer’s statement, the threats were delivered through an email that reportedly referenced political slogans and claims related to the 2020 election, raising concerns about the intersection of extremist rhetoric and public safety.

The incidents occurred at Schumer’s district offices in Rochester, Binghamton, and Long Island, and law-enforcement agencies were immediately dispatched to each location to conduct thorough security sweeps. Although no explosive devices were discovered and no injuries were reported, the threats prompted temporary evacuations, interruptions to office operations, and a wave of public attention as officials worked to determine the credibility and origin of the email.

In his statement, Schumer thanked the responding authorities for acting quickly and ensuring that the facilities were secured. He emphasized that all office staff were safe and that federal investigators were actively reviewing the threats in coordination with local police departments. While the senator described the incident as deeply concerning, he also acknowledged that such events have become disturbingly common across the political spectrum, reflecting a broader trend of heightened hostility toward elected officials.

An Incident Reflecting a Larger Pattern

Incidents involving threats to political offices have increased over the past several election cycles, with members of both major parties reporting a rise in targeted harassment, violent threats, and security concerns. The U.S. Capitol Police have also confirmed that politically motivated threats have multiplied in recent years, often tied to online misinformation campaigns, partisan anger, and various forms of ideological extremism.

Experts note that threats against public officials rarely emerge in isolation. Instead, they arise within a broader atmosphere shaped by intense political rhetoric, distrust in institutions, and the amplification of polarized narratives through social media platforms. In that sense, the Schumer incident reflects a national climate where high-profile figures regularly find themselves at the center of controversies that escalate far beyond policy disagreements.

Schumer, as one of the most recognizable Democratic leaders in the country, is no stranger to criticism or political tension. Yet the bomb threats illustrate how political disagreements—regardless of where they originate—can quickly cross into dangerous territory when individuals or groups resort to intimidation tactics.

The Content of the Threat and Early Investigative Clues

According to Schumer’s office, the threatening emails included references to the “2020 election” and a subject line incorporating “MAGA,” though officials have not released specific details. Investigators are currently reviewing the email headers, routing data, and metadata to determine the sender’s location and whether the threats were part of a broader effort or simply the action of an individual acting alone.

Cybersecurity analysts point out that political slogans or references within threatening messages can sometimes serve as distractions intended to mislead investigators. In other cases, such content reflects an individual’s attempt to express grievances, mimic political talking points, or provoke public reaction. Officials have not yet stated whether they believe the threats were politically motivated or if certain references were inserted for shock value.

Law-enforcement agencies typically treat all bomb threats with urgency, even when they suspect hoaxes, due to the potential consequences of failing to respond appropriately. Offices were swept using standard procedures, including bomb-sniffing K-9 units, visual inspections, and equipment checks.

Reactions from Public Officials

Following Schumer’s statement, several New York lawmakers and local leaders expressed relief that no physical danger was uncovered while also condemning the unacceptable nature of threats directed at elected officials. They emphasized that political disagreements must not lead to intimidation or violence, echoing similar sentiments voiced after previous incidents targeting members of Congress from both political parties.

Security experts argue that increasing public hostility toward political institutions has resulted in a troubling normalization of threats against public figures. They point out that while most threats do not result in violence, they place significant strain on law-enforcement resources and contribute to a climate of fear that discourages civic participation.

In recent years, public officials have faced a growing range of security risks—including doxxing, stalking, social-media harassment, and physical threats—leading some to advocate for expanded safety measures, updated protocols, and greater mental-health support for staffers who encounter harassment as part of their duties.

Schumer’s Own History with Political Rhetoric

While the focus remains on the bomb threats themselves, the incident has revived public discussion about the tone of political communication and the responsibility of leaders to help de-escalate conflicts rather than inflame them.

As a prominent political figure, Schumer has often been involved in high-stakes policy debates where rhetoric becomes heated. Critics argue that his past comments on judicial decisions, legislative battles, and opposing political groups have occasionally contributed to the broader climate of partisan tension. Supporters counter that strong rhetoric is hardly unique to Schumer and that he has consistently condemned violence and threats against elected officials, regardless of political affiliation.

This latest episode has highlighted the delicate balance between robust political expression and the need to maintain a safe, functional environment for public discourse. While partisan differences will undoubtedly continue, the boundaries between strong criticism and dangerous escalation are increasingly under scrutiny.

Political Climate and Public Safety

The threats to Schumer’s offices come at a time of heightened national unease, with many Americans expressing frustration over political division, economic uncertainty, and the perceived erosion of trust in civic institutions. These pressures form a backdrop to incidents like this one, where individuals may feel compelled to act out—either symbolically or violently—through threats or intimidation.

Sociologists and political-behavior experts warn that such incidents, if left unaddressed, can erode the foundations of democratic participation. When elected officials feel unsafe or under constant threat, it affects not only their ability to perform their duties but also the willingness of ordinary citizens to pursue public service.

The FBI and other agencies continue to track cases involving threats to lawmakers and have ongoing concerns about isolated individuals who may become radicalized through online content. They emphasize that preventing escalation requires vigilance, reporting suspicious behavior, and encouraging constructive political dialogue.

Moving Forward

As of this writing, investigators are still working to identify the individual or group responsible for the threatening emails. Schumer’s offices have resumed operations, and no further threats have been reported. His staff remains in contact with federal and local law enforcement as the investigation proceeds.

Incidents like these serve as reminders of the importance of maintaining strong security protocols for public offices, many of which operate in non-secure buildings in local communities. Staffers often serve as the first point of contact for constituents, fielding calls, handling meetings, and managing outreach, making their safety an essential part of the broader conversation about political violence.

In the wake of the threats, Schumer reiterated his gratitude for the swift action taken by law enforcement and expressed confidence in their ability to identify the individual responsible. He called on Americans to reject threats and intimidation and to uphold peaceful forms of civic engagement, no matter how intense public debates may become.

Conclusion

The bomb threats directed at Sen. Chuck Schumer’s offices underscore the troubling rise of political hostility across the United States. While the threats ultimately resulted in no injuries or confirmed danger, the episode highlights a concerning trend in which political frustrations are increasingly expressed through dangerous or disruptive acts. As investigators work to trace the source of the threats, the incident reinforces the need for civility, caution, and a renewed commitment to dialogue over division. In an era where rhetoric too often spills into intimidation, this case stands as yet another reminder of the fragile line between passionate political expression and actions that threaten public safety.

A new round of 2028 polling has landed — and for Republicans who still dream of pulling the party back to a pre-Trump era, the results could not be more discouraging. The latest Saint Anselm College Survey Center poll from the New Hampshire Institute of Politics shows Vice President JD Vance not just leading the GOP field, but absolutely crushing it.

If the New Hampshire Republican primary were held today, according to the survey, Vance would walk away with the nomination in a landslide. And the message from voters is unmistakable: the MAGA movement is not fading, moderating, softening, or retreating. It is solidifying — and JD Vance is the clear heir to the mantle heading into 2028.

How the Poll Was Conducted

The survey sampled 2,112 registered voters in New Hampshire between November 18 and 19, 2025, using randomly selected cell phone numbers aligned with the state’s demographic profile. With a reported ±2.1% margin of error, this is not some tiny, low-confidence poll. It’s large, detailed, and unmistakably clear in its results.

When voters were asked a straightforward question — If the 2028 New Hampshire primary were held today, who would get your vote? — JD Vance dominated with 57% support, far ahead of any other Republican contender.

And among Democrats, the race itself is fractured, with Pete Buttigieg and Gavin Newsom still battling for relevance — a stark contrast to the overwhelming unity on the Republican side.

The Numbers Tell a Story — And It’s a Familiar One

New Hampshire has long been a politically independent state — famously unpredictable, stubbornly contrarian, and often willing to defy the expectations of political insiders. Yet in this poll, the message from the state’s Republican voters is not murky or complicated. It is loud, unified, and unmistakable:

JD Vance is the future of the party.

Whether the GOP establishment likes it or not.

For years now, certain Republican strategists, legacy-media pundits, and former Bush-era officials have pushed the idea that the party must distance itself from Donald Trump and return to what they affectionately call “norms,” “respectability,” or “traditional conservatism.” But the data — not the wishful thinking — continues to reject that premise.

New Hampshire Republicans appear unbothered by the constant media attacks on Trump, unpersuaded by the warnings of political scientists, and unimpressed with the predictable talking points from traditional GOP commentators. Instead, a significant majority are siding with Trump’s chosen successor, a populist figure who has embraced the MAGA platform while giving it a younger, more polished, and more intellectual face.

Why Vance Is Resonating

JD Vance’s rise has not happened in a vacuum. Several factors explain his dominance:

1. He represents continuity without stagnation.

Vance is unmistakably aligned with Donald Trump — ideologically, stylistically, and strategically — but he brings his own distinct identity. Voters who want the movement to continue see him as a natural extension rather than a departure.

2. His appeal spans multiple factions of the modern GOP.

Vance appeals to:

• Trump loyalists
• Working-class conservatives
• Voters skeptical of endless foreign entanglements
• Younger Republicans tired of the old guard

His combination of economic populism, cultural conservatism, and political sharpness is hitting a sweet spot.

3. He does not trigger the same intensity of opposition Trump does among some undecided Republicans.

This matters in primaries. There are voters who like Trump’s policies but are worn out by the chaos and controversy. Vance offers them a familiar platform with a steadier presentation.

4. His national visibility as vice president has normalized him.

Unlike other rising stars who must fight for attention, Vance benefits from daily exposure, interviews, speeches, and coverage. That kind of presence makes him feel inevitable to GOP voters.

Who Isn’t Connecting — and Why

Though the survey did not list every candidate’s numbers in detail, the headline tells the story: 57% for Vance leaves the other potential contenders — establishment Republicans, moderates, neoconservative throwbacks — in political dust.

Candidates who have floated runs or been mentioned as alternatives either lack grassroots enthusiasm or are relying too heavily on donor-class support. The GOP electorate has changed dramatically over the past decade, and candidates who fail to understand that shift are falling further and further behind.

Some former Bush-style Republicans want to return to:

• aggressive foreign policy
• corporate-friendly economics
• and softer cultural messaging

But GOP voters have made it clear those ideas are relics of another era.

Democrats Aren’t in Much Better Shape

While Republicans are consolidating around JD Vance, Democrats are fractured between Pete Buttigieg and Gavin Newsom, neither of whom has been able to unite the party’s left-wing factions, moderates, and increasingly disillusioned voters.

Some Democrats want a fresh face. Others want a more aggressively progressive candidate. Still others want a centrist. The confusion reflects a party with an identity crisis — the opposite of what the Republican numbers show.

The longer this division remains unresolved, the more advantages Republicans carry into 2028.

Why New Hampshire Matters

New Hampshire is small in population but gigantic in influence. A commanding lead there:

• builds national momentum
• attracts donor confidence
• legitimizes candidacies
• and pressures weaker candidates to drop out early

If JD Vance is already over 57% this early — nearly three years before the election — it indicates something far greater than routine early polling noise.

It signals that Vance is not just a likely frontrunner.

He is potentially unbeatable unless the political landscape shifts dramatically.

The GOP’s Post-Trump Identity Is No Longer a Question

For years, political analysts insisted the GOP would eventually “snap back” to its pre-2016 identity. They predicted Trump was a “temporary phenomenon,” a “symptom of voter anger,” or a “protest vote gone wrong.”

But now, nearly a decade after Trump’s first election, the data continues to show:

• The movement wasn’t temporary.
• It wasn’t accidental.
• It has staying power — and successors.

JD Vance’s rise in New Hampshire is not an outlier. It’s the latest confirmation of a long-term realignment.

Final Takeaway

This poll doesn’t simply show JD Vance leading. It shows him dominating.

It shows a GOP electorate unified behind a single direction — and a single successor.

It shows the Republican establishment losing ground, not gaining it.

And perhaps most importantly:

It shows that the MAGA era is far from over.

In fact, according to New Hampshire voters, it’s just getting started.

Perfecting a hard-boiled egg sounds simple, yet many people know how tricky it can be. From shells that refuse to peel to yolks that turn an unexpected shade of green, stovetop boiling doesn’t always deliver predictable results. That challenge is what inspired a closer look at an alternative technique: baking eggs in the oven. Although the idea might seem unconventional at first glance, it has gained popularity for producing reliable results with far less supervision. Testing this method side-by-side with traditional boiling revealed that oven-baked eggs can be surprisingly effective, especially for anyone who values convenience and consistency in the kitchen.

One of the strongest advantages of using the oven is how effortless the process becomes. There is no pot to watch, no chance of water boiling over, and no need to adjust the heat mid-way. Instead, the eggs simply sit in a preheated oven, allowing the cook to focus on other tasks. This makes the technique especially appealing for meal prepping, hosting brunches, or preparing large quantities for salads and snacks. While stovetop boiling works well for small batches, the oven excels when more eggs are needed at once, offering a hands-off method that many home cooks appreciate.

The steps themselves are straightforward. Begin by preheating the oven to 325–350°F and placing the eggs in a muffin tin or similar heat-safe dish to keep them from rolling. Bake them for 25–30 minutes, depending on your oven. While they cook, prepare a bowl of ice water. As soon as the timer goes off, transfer the eggs directly into the ice bath to stop the cooking process and help loosen the shells. This method requires only a few basic items—eggs, a muffin pan, and ice water—yet it yields results that can be peeled immediately or stored for later. Unpeeled eggs keep for up to a week in the refrigerator, while peeled eggs are best enjoyed within a few days.

Though baking offers many advantages, it also comes with a few considerations. Because heat distribution varies among ovens, some eggs may cook unevenly or develop small brown spots on the shells. Overbaking can create firmer whites or slightly dry yolks, and—just like with boiling—overcooking may produce a harmless green-gray ring around the yolk. The flavor remains mild and familiar, but the texture can differ slightly from traditionally boiled eggs. Regardless of cooking method, one constant remains: peeling success is influenced more by the age of the eggs than by how they are cooked. Older eggs naturally separate from their shells more easily. In the end, both the oven and the stovetop methods are effective; the best choice depends on whether you prioritize speed or convenience. For large batches and multitasking, the oven shines. For quick results or smaller quantities, boiling remains the classic, dependable option.

House Passes Bill Blocking Future Presidents From Banning Oil Drilling Without Congress’ Approval

Legislation was passed 226 to 188 by the Republican-controlled House to prevent future administrations from prohibiting oil and gas drilling without the consent of Congress, giving President Donald Trump another significant win.

The “Protecting American Energy Production Act” forbids the president from “declaring a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing unless Congress authorizes the moratorium.”

Republican House members unanimously voted in favor of the legislation’s passage, while 118 Democrats voted against it.

Just weeks before he left office, former President Joe Biden banned future oil and gas drilling along 625 million acres of coastal and offshore waters, among other oil and gas-related regulations. The bill follows his actions.

The Republican who introduced the bill, Rep. August Pfluger of Texas, stated that the legislation was prompted by worries about possible fracking bans during the Biden administration.

“When President Biden took office, his administration took a ‘whole of government’ approach to wage war on American energy production, pandering to woke environmental extremists and crippling this thriving industry,” Pfluger said in a statement following the bill’s passage.

“My legislation that passed today is a necessary first step in reversing Biden’s war on energy by preventing the federal government from banning the use of hydraulic fracturing,” he said.

As part of his “drill, baby, drill” strategy, President Donald Trump has pledged to unleash energy produced in the United States since the campaign trail.

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum launched internal investigations into agency actions that “burden” energy development, stripping the energy sector of “coercive” climate policies and oil lease bans implemented during the Biden administration.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said Monday that Democrats bear the blame for the pain of a government shutdown, as President Trump and his budget chief moved forward with identifying federal programs to cut.

“Day 27 means it’s almost been a full month since the Democrats shut down the government. And as we near the end of this month, the pain being felt by so many hard-working people around this country is very real and it gets worse with each passing day. Last week, 1.4 million federal workers missed a full paycheck. Now, you know, many of them are furloughed and many more are deemed essential workers,” Johnson said.

“Those who are essential, for example, to keep the country safe — TSA agents we’ve discussed and air traffic controllers and Border Patrol and our troops. But so many of them now are going without pay. The families of military service members and air traffic controllers and so many of these others are now at very real risk of missing the paycheck at the end of this month,” Johnson added.

“The Trump Administration has done everything possible to bend over backwards to try to find sources of funding within the federal government to be able to cover the bases, but it is getting more and more challenging with each day,” Johnson argued.

The Speaker added, “Now, every Republican in Congress wants to stop this Madness desperately. And we have voted many times, over a dozen times, collectively 13 times to reopen the government, to keep it open and reopen it once the Democrats closed it. It’s a simple math problem. We need Democrats to help. You need 60 votes in the Senate. We only have 53 Republicans.”

“The Democrats are the ones voting repeatedly to shut down the government,” Johnson declared.

“These are just four sub points there under — under a fact number three. But there’s many more. But among the things they’re demanding — this is what the Democrats in the Senate are demanding to reopen the government. They want to give $200 billion in health benefits to illegal aliens and noncitizens paid for by U.S. taxpayers. That is in their proposal. They want billions in wasteful programs to be returned to foreign countries. So we stop these things,” he added.

The Speaker concluded, “They want to turn it all back on. They’re demanding that we do all that to get the government open for hardworking Americans again. They want to give a half a billion to left leaning news news organizations and — and they want to cut $50 billion from rural hospitals. We cannot, we will not do those things. And they know that very well.”

In a rare moment of unity on Capitol Hill, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass a resolution reaffirming Congress’s opposition to socialism — a symbolic but highly visible gesture that landed just hours before New York City’s mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, traveled to Washington for his introductory meeting with President Donald Trump.

The timing of the vote, intentional or not, created an unusual political backdrop for Mamdani’s arrival. Elected as one of the most progressive municipal leaders in modern New York history, he steps into Washington at the very moment when the House is openly distancing itself from the ideology most often associated with the nation’s political left.

A Long-Delayed Resolution Suddenly Moves

The measure in question was not new. Republicans introduced it nearly a month earlier but chose Friday to bring it forward for a floor vote. While resolutions of this type carry no legal force, they do serve as an official statement of Congress’s values — and, at times, as a strategic signal.

Arkansas Republican Rep. French Hill, who sponsored the legislation, framed the vote as a simple affirmation of American principles.

“A yes vote on this resolution should be a relatively straightforward, easy decision,” Hill said during the House debate. “It simply states that Congress denounces socialism in all its forms and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States.”

The resolution referenced historical examples of socialist governments around the world, describing them as systems that have brought economic hardship, political oppression, and the erosion of individual liberty. The text did not target any specific political figure or party in the United States, but the broader political climate made it clear why the resolution was being pushed at this particular moment.

The Final Vote: 285–98

When the votes were counted, the resolution passed with an unexpectedly large bipartisan margin:

285 members supported it
98 opposed it
Among those voting yes were 86 Democrats, including fourteen from New York and New Jersey — notable given that the House’s most outspoken left-wing members, as well as politically aligned grassroots groups, have been gaining influence in those same states.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who endorsed Mamdani late in the mayoral race, cast a “yes” vote along with other Democrats who have often tried to strike a middle-ground tone on economic and social policy. Jeffries previously warned that the party must work to stay connected with moderates and independents, especially after recent losses in suburban districts.

Several New York representatives — including Ritchie Torres, Greg Meeks, Laura Gillen, Tom Suozzi, and Grace Meng — also supported the measure, each signaling a willingness to publicly separate themselves from the more ideological wing of the party.

A Complicated Moment for the Mayor-Elect

The vote could not have come at a more delicate time for Zohran Mamdani, who entered the New York mayoral race as a candidate of unapologetically progressive politics. His background in housing advocacy, his public calls for rethinking budget priorities, and his high-profile endorsements from left-leaning organizations made him a unique figure in a city still balancing affordability challenges, immigration pressures, and economic recovery after years of public-sector strain.

Although Mamdani’s election represented a significant victory for progressive activists in New York, the resolution created an unexpected symbolic hurdle. Only hours after the House registered a bipartisan rejection of the very ideology some critics associate with him, Mamdani boarded a train to Washington for the traditional introductory meeting between the incoming mayor of America’s largest city and the President of the United States.

President Trump, who campaigned heavily on economic growth, public safety, and limiting federal spending in major urban centers, has not publicly commented on Mamdani’s ideology. Aides, however, have privately acknowledged that the meeting was expected to be “cordial but practical,” focused on the city’s federal funding needs, law enforcement coordination, and infrastructure priorities rather than political philosophy.

New York Democrats Distance Themselves from Ideological Labels

For many Democrats — especially those representing suburban or swing districts — voting for the resolution offered a chance to publicly establish distance from ideological branding that has sometimes complicated their reelection campaigns.

Tom Suozzi, now representing a Long Island district, expressed particular discomfort with rhetoric that veers too far left of mainstream suburban concerns. Throughout New York’s mayoral race, Suozzi made it clear that he does not share Mamdani’s approach to policy, and his vote reinforced that position.

While he did not make specific statements about the resolution during the vote, Suozzi has spoken repeatedly about the need for the Democratic Party to “reconnect with working families who want safety, stability, and economic predictability.”

Other New York Democrats echoed similar sentiments. Bronx Rep. Ritchie Torres, known for combining progressive values with pragmatic policymaking, has long championed balanced approaches on housing, public safety, and economic issues. His vote suggested that even within the party’s urban base, there is a divide between ideological aspiration and governance reality.

The GOP’s Message: Unity on a Clear Line

For Republicans, the vote represented a chance to present a unified front on a cultural and economic issue at a moment when the party has been navigating internal disputes on budget strategy, foreign aid, and immigration reform.

The message from the GOP caucus was clear: they view the United States as fundamentally incompatible with socialist governance models, and they intend to draw a bright-line distinction heading into the next election cycle.

Republicans also used the resolution as a reminder of their broader economic agenda — which centers on limiting federal expansion, encouraging private-sector growth, and reversing policies they believe increase dependence on government programs.

Progressive Reaction: Symbolic Vote, Real Implications

Progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups criticized the resolution as a political maneuver rather than a substantive policy statement. Some argued that the measure conflated authoritarian regimes abroad with modern domestic calls for expanded social programs.

They also highlighted that many policies labeled “socialist” — such as Medicare, Social Security, or certain federal subsidies — are not only popular but broadly supported across party lines.

Still, the resolution’s passage demonstrated that progressives remain the minority faction within the Democratic coalition, even as they continue gaining influence in certain urban centers.

What Happens Next

The meeting between Mamdani and President Trump is expected to proceed without disruption, despite the timing of the vote. Officials from both sides say the agenda will focus on federal partnerships, disaster response readiness, and preliminary planning for several infrastructure projects requiring federal approval.

Political analysts, meanwhile, are watching closely to see whether the bipartisan vote signals the start of a broader realignment — one in which Democrats seeking reelection may increasingly choose moderation over ideology.

For now, the resolution stands as a symbolic but significant moment: Congress speaking with a rare unified voice on an issue that divides much of the nation, on the same day the country’s most high-profile newly elected progressive leader stepped onto the national stage.

Most House Dems Vote Against Crackdown On Foreign Influence In US Schools

Once again, a majority of House Democrats have put other nations above the United States, as evidenced by their opposition to a measure aimed at limiting the influence of foreign countries in American schools. On Thursday, more than 160 House Democrats voted against two bills intended to limit foreign influence in U.S. educational institutions.

Both measures passed with bipartisan majorities, though the top Democratic leadership and most party members opposed each one, Fox News reported.

In explaining his opposition, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries gave a conflicting response when queried by Fox.

“We just want to educate our children, focus on reading, writing and arithmetic, developing a holistic child, giving the ability to them to think critically,” he said. “We’re not going to be lectured by a group of Republicans who are dismantling the Department of Education in real-time. Literally 90% of the Department of Education as it existed last year is now gone.”

It’s not clear how Jeffries reconciled his stated goals for American schools with the Trump administration’s efforts to diminish the Department of Education, which has been responsible for introducing all kinds of “woke” initiatives that have zero focus on the subjects he mentioned.

He also accused Republicans of “attacking public education just like they’re attacking public health and attacking public safety,” though he failed to actually mention why he did not support legislation limiting foreign influence in U.S. schools.

One of the measures, sponsored by House GOP Policy Committee Chairman Kevin Hern, R-Okla., would bar federal funding for elementary and secondary schools that conduct programs, cultural exchanges, or other classroom activities financed by the Chinese government, Fox reported.

The bill would also prohibit federal funds from going to schools that receive direct or indirect support from individuals or entities linked to the Chinese government. “That bill passed 247–166, with 33 Democrats in favor and 166 against,” the outlet reported.

The second bill, introduced by Rep. Aaron Bean, R-Fla., would require all public elementary and secondary schools to inform parents of their right to request information about any “foreign influence” within their child’s school.

The notifications would be issued through the school’s local education agency — such as a school board or district office — that oversees administrative operations for the school and others in the area.

The measure passed 247–164, with 33 Democrats joining Republicans in support and 164 Democrats voting against it.

Republicans said the measures were commonsense efforts to prevent harmful foreign influence in U.S. schools.

Democrats, however, criticized both bills during floor debate, claiming they had concerns about their scope and potential unintended consequences. Some tried to paint Republicans as racists and bigots, which is par for the Democrat course.

“The bill gives no guidance on what acting directly or indirectly on behalf of means, or how you are supposed to know and how a parent’s contribution to a school program should be evaluated,” Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., said, Fox reported. “And really, are you supposed to scrutinize all parents’ contributions or just those from parents of Chinese American students?”

Regarding China, the country’s communist-led government is increasingly attempting to influence the American education system through initiatives like the Confucius Institutes, which promote Chinese language and culture but are also seen as vehicles for spreading Chinese propaganda.

Launched in 2004, there are over 100 Confucius Institutes in the U.S. The Chinese government funds these institutes, providing resources and teachers.

The Chinese government approves all teachers and events, which can limit academic freedom and restrict discussions on sensitive topics.

Over $17 million has been given to 143 school districts across 34 states through the Confucius Classrooms initiative. Critics argue that this funding can undermine U.S. educational integrity and promote a pro-China narrative.

By comparison, China does not allow U.S. money and influence to flow into its schools.

George Soros’ ‘Right-Hand Man’ Arrested On Heinous Charges

A retired New York City financier once known as the “right-hand man” of billionaire George Soros has been indicted on charges of abusing women.

According to the New York Post, Howard Rubin, 70, allegedly used his Manhattan penthouse as a “secret sex dungeon” at the center of the case.

In a statement released Thursday, the Justice Department said Rubin and his assistant, Jennifer Powers, have been charged with trafficking and transporting women across state lines for sexual encounters with Rubin.

A bank fraud charge was lodged against Rubin “in connection with misrepresentations made to a bank in the course of financing Powers’s mortgage for the Texas home of Powers and her husband,” according to the release.

“It is in this secret sex dungeon that Rubin, now 66, is accused of having committed violent acts and sexual assault against a number of women, including actual Playboy playmates. A civil trial, with six of his seven alleged victims seeking at least $18 million, is scheduled for November,” The Post reported.

Among other alleged acts of deprivation, The Post reported that Rubin has been accused of “beat[ing a woman’s] breasts so badly that her right implant flipped” — an injury so severe that, according to court documents, her “plastic surgeon was not even willing to operate on her breasts.”

Prosecutors allege Rubin paid women up to $5,000 for BDSM encounters. However, several women contend they never consented to the level of violence and humiliation they say he carried out during those sessions.

Another plaintiff claims that, while Rubin allegedly had her bound in his ‘dungeon,’ he told her “I’m going to rape you like I rape my daughter” and then, according to the complaint, forced sex on her against her will.

“Rubin has three children with his estranged wife, including at least one daughter,” The Post added.

“I thought he was a nice guy. He was a nebbishy Jewish guy and totally normal. I was surprised to hear about him having that apartment [with a sex dungeon],” a trader who worked with Rubin at Soros Fund Management, created by billionaire investor George Soros, told The Post.

“As alleged, the defendants used Rubin’s wealth to mislead and recruit women to engage in commercial sex acts, where Rubin then tortured women beyond their consent, causing lasting physical and/or psychological pain, and in some cases physical injuries,” Joseph Nocella Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York said in the DOJ release.

“Today’s arrests show that no one who engages in sex trafficking, in this case in luxury hotels and a penthouse apartment that featured a so-called sex ‘dungeon,’ is above the law, and that they will be brought to justice. Human beings are not chattel to be exploited for sex and sadistically abused, and anyone who thinks otherwise can expect to find themselves in handcuffs and facing federal prosecution like these defendants,” he added.

“For many years, Howard Rubin and Jennifer Powers allegedly spent at least one million dollars to finance the commercial sexual torture of multiple women via a national trafficking network. The defendants allegedly exploited Rubin’s status to ensnare their prospective victims and forced them to endure unthinkable physical trauma before silencing any outcries with threats of legal recourse,” stated FBI Assistant Director in Charge Christopher G. Raia.

“The FBI will continue to apprehend any trafficker who sexually abuses others for twisted gratification,” he added.

“This was not a one-man show. While Rubin dehumanized these women with abhorrent sexual acts, Powers is alleged to have run the day-to-day operations of the enterprise and got paid generously for her efforts,” said Harry T. Chavis, Jr., IRS investigative special agent in charge.

of a long journey toward understanding and healing. While Emily was whisked away to the hospital, Rachel took a deep breath, trying to steady herself. She knew she had to be strong for the rest of her students, who were now buzzing with confusion and concern. As Rachel walked back into the classroom, she noticed their wide eyes following her, filled with curiosity and worry.

“Class, I know you have a lot of questions,” Rachel started, keeping her voice calm and reassuring. “Emily is getting the help she needs right now, and she’s in good hands. It’s important that we send her our positive thoughts and continue with our day the best we can.”

The children nodded, some whispering hopeful wishes for Emily’s recovery. Rachel led them through their morning routines, but her mind was elsewhere, piecing together the small details she had noticed about Emily over the past few weeks. Had there been other signs she’d missed? Emily’s reluctance to participate in gym class, the times she’d stayed behind during recess—were they clues?

After the final bell rang, Rachel sat quietly at her desk, replaying the morning’s events. She decided to make some calls to see if she could learn more about Emily’s situation. First, she reached out to the school counselor, Mr. Anderson, to discuss what had happened and to ensure Emily’s emotional well-being would be addressed once she returned to school.

“Rachel, it’s a good thing you noticed and acted quickly,” Mr. Anderson said, his voice firm yet comforting. “These situations are never easy, but you did exactly what you needed to do for Emily.”

Next, Rachel called Child Protective Services to offer her observations and any background she could provide about Emily’s behavior and academic performance. She knew that her input could be crucial in the investigation. They thanked her for her diligence, assuring her that they would take it from there.

That evening, Rachel sat at her kitchen table, a cup of tea growing cold in front of her. She thought about Emily and all the other children who might be suffering silently. Her heart ached with the weight of the responsibility she felt as a teacher, but she also felt a renewed sense of purpose.

Rachel decided to organize a meeting for educators at her school to discuss ways they could be more vigilant and supportive in identifying and responding to signs of distress in their students. She wanted to ensure that no child felt unseen or unheard.

As she prepared for bed, Rachel whispered a silent promise. “Emily, you’re not alone. We’ll fight for you, and we’ll find out what happened.”

In the following weeks, Rachel and her colleagues worked tirelessly to create a more attentive and nurturing environment at Lincoln Elementary. They held workshops, invited child psychologists to speak, and strengthened their community ties to ensure that every child felt safe and supported. Emily’s story became a catalyst for change, transforming concern into action.

Rachel never forgot the morning Emily shuffled into her classroom, each painful step a silent plea for help. It was a reminder of the profound impact a teacher could have. And though Rachel didn’t have all the answers, she had something just as powerful: the unwavering commitment to make a difference in the life of every child who walked through her door.