Speculation often erupts online whenever Melania Trump appears in public wearing her signature oversized sunglasses. Critics have pushed unfounded conspiracy theories — including claims of a body double — but experts say the reality behind her eyewear is far more human and somber. Throughout her time in the public eye, Melania has faced constant scrutiny over her fashion choices, particularly her habit of wearing sunglasses at formal or solemn events.

One notable moment came in 2019 during the 75th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy, when photos of her wearing dark shades sparked backlash and revived baseless rumors questioning her presence. Fashion psychologist Dawn Karen has explained that such speculation misses the point. According to Karen, the sunglasses likely serve as emotional protection rather than a fashion statement or secret signal. Melania has spoken openly about feeling targeted and bullied, and covering her eyes may provide a sense of control and distance amid relentless public scrutiny.

Karen also notes that Melania often pairs sunglasses with wide-brimmed hats, which together function as psychological armor. Limiting visual engagement with crowds can help manage stress without withdrawing entirely from public duties. Despite criticism, Melania has also received praise for her elegance and style. Recent winter looks earned positive attention on social media, and her return to overseeing White House holiday décor was widely described as tasteful and festive.

While online chatter continues to fixate on conspiracy theories, experts suggest the focus should shift. Melania’s sunglasses appear less about secrecy and more about maintaining dignity and self-protection in an unforgiving spotlight — revealing more about internet speculation than about the woman herself.

Republicans Examining Ways to Block Mamdani From Taking Office

After Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the New York City mayoral election—making him the city’s first Muslim and first South Asian mayor-elect—Republican leaders in Washington, D.C., signaled plans to try to block him from taking office.

President Donald Trump has accused the 34-year-old Ugandan-born politician of being a communist, after previously warning that he would withhold federal funding from New York City if Mamdani won. Mamdani secured his win last week with a decisive margin, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo by nearly 10 percentage points, though Mamdani barely won a majority of votes overall.

But some Republican lawmakers have vowed to block him from taking office. Some Republican lawmakers have demanded investigations into Mamdani’s naturalization process, calling for him to be stripped of his US citizenship and deported. They have accused him of involvement in communist and “terrorist” activities and figures linked to terrorism.

“If Mamdani lied on his naturalization documents, he doesn’t get to be a citizen, and he certainly doesn’t get to run for mayor of New York City. A great American city is on the precipice of being run by a communist who has publicly embraced a terroristic ideology,” Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) said in an October 29 news release, after asking US Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate the mayor-elect, the Economic Times reported.

“The American naturalization system REQUIRES any alignments with communism or terrorist activities to be disclosed. I’m doubtful he disclosed them. If the information is confirmed, put him on the first flight back to Uganda,” Ogles added.

Meanwhile, a campaign finance watchdog has filed two criminal referrals against Mamdani, accusing the leftist socialist of taking illicit donations from overseas contributors.

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation sent the recommendations to the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office last week. They say that Mamdani may have broken the Federal Election Campaign Act and the New York Election Code.

The recommendations were made after the New York Post reported earlier this month that Mamdani’s campaign got about $13,000 in donations from at least 170 people who live outside the US, including one from his mother-in-law in Dubai.

“These are not isolated incidents or clerical errors,” Dan Backer, a national campaign finance expert and president of the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, said in a statement.

“This was a sustained pattern of foreign money flowing into a New York City mayoral race which is a clear violation of both federal law and New York City campaign finance rules,” Backer added. “Mamdani’s campaign was on notice for months that it was accepting illegal foreign contributions, and yet it did nothing meaningful to stop it.”

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation has previously filed complaints against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and the Democratic National Committee.

The watchdog told Bragg and the DOJ to look into and arrest Mamdani for the campaign cash that may have come from Australia, Turkey, France, Canada, Germany, and other countries.

The group said that Mamdani’s campaign had shown a “systematic failure to comply” with the rules about campaign money.

The Federal Election Campaign Act says that it is against the law to “accept or receive” donations from people who are not US citizens in any federal, state, or local election.

People who knowingly accept donations from other countries could face big fines and jail time.

“The law is crystal clear that foreign nationals may not participate in American elections, and that includes making contributions,” Backer continued. “Yet Mamdani’s campaign repeatedly accepted donations from individuals abroad, some even tied to regions and individuals openly sympathetic to hostile actors.”

“Whether through negligence or intent, this conduct undermines the integrity of the democratic process.”

Mamdani’s campaign for mayor of New York City sent back about $9,000 in donations from people outside the U.S., the Post reported.

Democrat Policies to Blame For High Electric Rates: Report

State-level policies play a significant role in electricity costs, and states led by Democrats tend to have higher power prices than those governed by Republicans, according to a new report from the Institute for Energy Research (IER).

The report, titled “Blue States, High Rates. Electricity Prices: Elections Have Consequences,” was first shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation. It found that electricity prices are generally higher in states with Democratic leadership, based on average cost per kilowatt-hour.

It comes as Democrats are attempting to campaign ahead of the 2026 midterms by making “affordability” an issue for working-class Americans.

According to the analysis, nine of the 10 states with the highest electricity rates are governed by Democrats. The report attributes the higher costs to state policy decisions affecting energy production, regulation, and power supply, the outlet said, citing the data.

By contrast, the report found that states with lower electricity prices are predominantly Republican-led. According to IER, 80% of the states with the most affordable electricity rates per kilowatt-hour are governed by Republicans.

The analysis showed that 20 of the 25 states with the lowest electricity prices are classified as red states, while four are blue states and one is considered politically mixed. The report was produced in partnership with Always on Energy Research.

“This is a blue state problem,” IER President Tom Pyle told the Caller, arguing that prescribing any blame to President Donald Trump for soaring electricity costs is incorrect.

“[America needs to] put an emphasis on providing dispatchable electricity generation, namely by keeping coal plants open, even building new coal plants, nuclear and particularly natural gas. I think the administration is doing everything they can in spite of what the blue states have been doing over the years. Other words, Trump’s trying to save them from themselves,” he said.

The Institute for Energy Research said its analysis relied on data from the Energy Information Administration and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to compare electricity prices across states and assess the impact of policy decisions on energy costs.

According to the report, several states—most of which are led by Democrats—have implemented policies aimed at phasing out coal and restructuring power grids to meet specific emissions targets. The report argues that these policy choices have contributed to higher electricity costs in those states, noted the Caller.

“More than almost any other product, electricity prices are a direct result of state energy policies because states have the exclusive power to decide which resources supply their grids,” the report says. “Electricity prices are especially high in traditionally liberal areas of the country. In total, 86% of states with electricity prices above the national average in the continental U.S. are reliably blue, having voted for the Democratic nominee for president in the 2020 and 2024 elections.”

IER went on to document that the Lawrence Berkeley National Labs report confirmed that “each of the top five most expensive states for electricity have mandates requiring 100% of their power to come from renewable or carbon-free sources, making their electricity unnecessarily more expensive.”

The report identifies emissions targets, the early retirement of coal and nuclear power plants, restrictions on natural gas development, and policies such as net metering requirements as factors that have contributed to higher electricity prices.

Affordability has emerged as a central theme in recent Democratic political messaging and was a prominent issue in the November gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia. The IER report notes that electricity prices tend to be higher in states led by Democrats, which it says reflects the impact of those states’ energy policy choices, the Caller says, citing the data.

“Americans pay dramatically different electric bills depending on which party controls their state capitol. High electricity prices are not an inevitability; they are a choice,” the report states. “And in state after state, they are a choice made by left-wing policymakers who have prioritized climate symbolism over working families’ budgets.”

Texas Teacher Resigns After Horrific Charlie Kirk Posts

A teacher with the Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District resigned while in the middle of a formal termination process stemming from social media comments she made about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. District officials confirmed that Jennifer Courtemanche resigned on Nov. 24, months into a hearing process that had been initiated by the school board.

Courtemanche’s social media posts went viral after Texas Rep. Briscoe Cain shared screenshots questioning Kirk’s death and suggesting it may have been the result of his actions, The Houston Chronicle reported.

“Could this have been the consequences of his actions catching up with him?” Courtemanche wrote in one post.

“I’ll bet if the victim had been Black or brown or a Democrat influencer, he’d have been singing a different tune,” she wrote in another. “Could Kirk have baited just one too many people?”

Courtemanche previously listed Baytown’s Lee High School as her place of employment on her Facebook page, which has since been restricted.

The English language arts teacher described herself in her social media bio as a “child of God” and a “work in progress.”

Courtemanche, who retained legal counsel, had initially told district officials she did not intend to voluntarily resign.

The Goose Creek CISD Employee Handbook states that employees may face discipline, including termination, if electronic communications violate state or federal law or interfere with their ability to perform job duties.

Despite public calls for her resignation, including from Cain, district officials noted that Texas law requires a multi step process before a teacher can be terminated.

The Goose Creek CISD Board of Trustees voted during a Sept. 22 meeting to propose Courtemanche’s termination.

Under state law, teachers may request a hearing before an independent examiner appointed by the Texas Education Agency.

The examiner has 60 days to conduct an evidentiary hearing and issue a recommendation, after which the school board determines whether good cause exists to terminate the contract.

District officials said that process would have continued had Courtemanche not resigned.

The district also reviewed comments made by another teacher regarding Kirk’s death but determined those remarks did not rise to the level of good cause for termination.

Following Kirk’s killing, the Texas Education Agency announced it had received more than 350 complaints against teachers for social media comments related to the incident.

Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath warned school leaders that free speech does not extend to promoting or celebrating violence.

“While the exercise of free speech is a fundamental right we are all blessed to share, it does not give carte blanche authority to celebrate or sow violence against those that share differing beliefs and perspectives,” Morath wrote in a letter to superintendents

Erika Kirk had a powerful moment this week when she fiercely called out people who have been exploiting Charlie Kirk’s death and attacking her family since he was fatally shot.

During a segment on Fox’s “Outnumbered,” Kirk spoke about the tragic death of her late husband, his work to start TPUSA, and the “horrible smears” that have been levied against her and other TPUSA members since Charlie’s death in September.

“Here’s my breaking point. Come after me, call me names, I don’t care. Call me what you want, go down that rabbit hole, whatever. But when you go after my family, my Turning Point USA family, my Charlie Kirk Show family, when you go after the people that I love and you’re making hundreds and thousands of dollars every single episode going after the people that I love because somehow they’re in on this, no!” Kirk charged.

“Can my children have one thing? Everything was public. Can my babies have one thing where we hold it sacred, where my husband is laid to rest, where I don’t have to be worried about some secular revolutionary coming and destroying my husband’s grave while my daughter is sitting there praying?” she shot back.

The truth is more disturbing than the iceberg.
More than 1,500 people vanished into the black Atlantic, yet almost none were ever seen again. No rows of skeletons. No mass grave on the seabed. Just shoes. Clothing. Silence. What really happened to all those bodies in the crushing dark, 12,000 feet down be… Continues…

Down in the lightless cold where the Titanic rests, nature finished what the disaster began. Bacteria and deep-sea creatures consumed the soft tissue of the dead, while the immense pressure and chemistry of the water quietly erased their bones. Below the calcium carbonate compensation depth, the very substance that forms human skeletons dissolves. What’s left behind are eerie traces: boots still paired, coats folded where a body once lay, a child’s shoe alone in the silt.

For many, this knowledge deepens the horror; for others, it offers an unexpected peace. The ocean did not preserve a graveyard of frozen faces. Instead, it reclaimed them, folding thousands of lives back into its endless dark. As the Titanic herself slowly rusts into nothing, the tragedy endures not in bones or steel, but in memory—fragile, human, and painfully alive.

The Trump administration has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, according to two U.S. officials who spoke to Reuters on Wednesday, marking a significant escalation in Washington’s pressure campaign against the Maduro regime.

The interdiction comes amid a major U.S. military buildup in the region, including the deployment of an aircraft carrier, fighter jets, and tens of thousands of troops. The show of force is intended to deter hostile actors and underscore U.S. resolve in enforcing its policies.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the operation was conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard but declined to identify the tanker or specify the exact location of the seizure. The Coast Guard referred questions to the White House, which did not immediately respond. The Venezuelan government also declined to comment.

The move signals a harder line from Washington after months of intensifying pressure on President Nicolás Maduro, even as the administration had largely avoided disrupting Venezuela’s oil exports. Last month, Venezuela shipped more than 900,000 barrels of oil per day—its third-highest monthly total this year—driven by increased imports of naphtha that allowed state-run PDVSA to export more extra-heavy crude.

Oil exports remain Venezuela’s primary source of revenue, though the country struggles to sell its crude at full price. China, its main buyer, has leveraged competition from heavily discounted Russian and Iranian oil to drive prices down. Until now, the U.S. had refrained from directly interfering with these exports, despite tightening sanctions. The tanker seizure suggests that period of restraint may be ending, signaling a shift from accommodation to enforcement.

After a heavy snowfall settled over a quiet residential neighborhood, everything appeared exactly as expected. Cars, sidewalks, trees, and rooftops were slowly covered by a smooth white blanket, creating a peaceful winter scene. Yet one detail stood out clearly: a single house whose roof remained entirely free of snow. While every surrounding home collected layer after layer, this rooftop stayed bare, as if untouched by the storm. At first, neighbors assumed it was a coincidence—perhaps a difference in roof angle or sunlight exposure—but as the snow continued to fall and melt instantly on that one house, curiosity quickly grew.

As days passed and the pattern repeated itself, conversations among residents shifted from casual observation to genuine concern. During winter, a snow-free roof can sometimes indicate that excessive heat is escaping from inside a building. This raised questions about insulation quality, heating system issues, or possible safety risks. In colder climates, unusual heat patterns are often taken seriously, as they can point to electrical overloads or structural concerns. Wanting to ensure the well-being of both the homeowner and the surrounding properties, several neighbors decided it was best to alert local authorities so the situation could be examined properly.

When officials inspected the property, they discovered that the home contained an unlicensed indoor cultivation setup. High-powered lighting and ventilation equipment inside the house produced significant heat, which traveled upward and prevented snow from settling on the roof. While such equipment is commonly used in legal, regulated environments, it requires proper permits and safety measures. Without authorization, the operation posed potential risks, including excessive energy use and fire hazards. Authorities noted that winter conditions often make these situations more visible, as snow coverage—or the lack of it—can highlight hidden heat sources.

The incident serves as a reminder that small environmental details can sometimes reveal larger underlying issues. While laws regarding certain activities vary widely by region, unlicensed or unsafe operations remain a concern for communities and regulators alike. Observant neighbors played a key role in bringing attention to a potential safety issue before it escalated. More broadly, the situation highlights how everyday observations—such as noticing differences in snow accumulation—can help communities stay informed, proactive, and safe. Paying attention to subtle changes in our surroundings can contribute to neighborhood awareness and ensure that homes remain compliant with local standards, protecting everyone involved.

Born in 1934, Bill Bixby grew into one of American television’s most quietly influential figures, building a career that stretched across more than thirty years. He became known not for loud bravado, but for an approachable warmth and emotional sincerity that made audiences feel at ease. From the early 1960s through the early 1990s, his face was a steady presence in living rooms across the country. Whether playing lighthearted roles or more serious characters, he had a rare ability to make each performance feel grounded and human. Viewers trusted him, and that trust became the foundation of his enduring appeal.

Bixby’s rise to fame began with a successful sitcom in the 1960s that paired him with a beloved co-star and quickly turned him into a household name. The show showcased his natural charm and timing, but it was only the beginning. Over the following decades, he demonstrated impressive versatility, moving comfortably between family dramas, mystery series, and imaginative, genre-driven storytelling. His work earned critical attention, including Emmy nominations, and helped define an era of television built on character-driven narratives. Audiences followed him from role to role, appreciating his ability to adapt while still maintaining his recognizable calm presence.

Behind the scenes, however, his life was not without profound challenges. Bixby experienced personal loss that deeply affected him, yet he remained committed to his craft. Rather than stepping away, he gradually shifted his focus during the 1980s, expanding into television directing. This transition revealed another dimension of his talent. As a director, he brought the same patience and empathy that had defined his acting, creating environments where cast and crew felt supported. Those who worked with him often recalled his professionalism, gentle demeanor, and the quiet respect he showed to everyone on set, regardless of their role.

Today, Bill Bixby is remembered most widely for his portrayal of Dr. David Banner in The Incredible Hulk, a role that captured both strength and vulnerability and left a lasting mark on television history. Yet his legacy extends far beyond a single character. He was a performer and director who understood the power of restraint, emotion, and storytelling rooted in humanity. Although his life ended in 1993, his work continues to resonate. Longtime fans still revisit his performances with affection, while new audiences discover him through reruns and streaming, finding that his understated brilliance remains just as meaningful decades later.

I made them pay before they ate because I didn’t trust them, and that truth still sits heavy with me. When fifteen bikers walked into Maggie’s Diner at nine o’clock on a quiet Tuesday night, every old instinct I had flared up at once. Leather vests marked with patches, thick beards, boots echoing against the tile floor—I’d been running this place for thirty-two years, and I told myself I’d learned to recognize trouble. Without thinking long enough to question myself, I told them I needed payment upfront. The room went still. For a moment, I expected resistance or offense. Instead, the largest man in the group met my eyes calmly, nodded, and said he understood. He paid generously, thanked me for being honest, and led his group to a back corner booth without a single complaint.

I tried to focus on my work, but I kept watching them from behind the counter. They didn’t raise their voices or demand attention. They spoke quietly, laughed softly, and treated my waitress with more courtesy than many late-night customers ever had. Every “please” and “thank you” landed like a small weight on my conscience. When food arrived, they waited patiently. When drinks were refilled, they smiled in appreciation. At one point, my waitress leaned over and whispered, “They’re actually really nice.” I nodded but didn’t answer. I was too busy wrestling with the feeling that I might have been wrong—and that maybe I’d let fear decide something it shouldn’t have.

About an hour later, the group stood up together. The man with the gray ponytail came to the counter, thanked me sincerely for the meal, and wished me a peaceful night. One by one, the others followed, nodding politely as they passed. When the door closed behind them and the sound of motorcycles faded into the distance, the diner felt unusually quiet. A moment later, my waitress called me over, her voice shaky. Their table was spotless—plates neatly stacked, napkins folded carefully. In the center sat an envelope with my name written on it. Inside was a handwritten note explaining that they were military veterans traveling together after attending the funeral of a fellow rider and friend. They said they understood why I was cautious and held no resentment. They also mentioned the framed photo behind my counter—my late husband in his Army uniform—and thanked him for his service. My hands trembled as I read the final line: “We would have protected your diner tonight without hesitation.”

I cried right there behind the counter, not from shame alone, but from gratitude and humility. I had judged them by appearances and asked for trust before offering any myself. They responded not with anger, but with grace. That night changed something in me. It reminded me that kindness often arrives in forms we don’t expect, and that dignity doesn’t need to announce itself loudly. Since then, I’ve tried to meet people with openness instead of assumption. Because sometimes, the people we fear are the very ones who show us how compassion really looks—and it’s never too late to learn that lesson.

Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein’s former lawyer, claims two courts in New York are withholding information on the notorious financier and convicted sex offender’s case, not the Trump administration.

His comments come as President Donald Trump and his Justice Department (DOJ) have faced criticism for how they handled the case’s materials. Dershowitz, who helped obtain Epstein a plea agreement in 2008, stated that there is no Epstein “client list,” only a redacted FBI affidavit from accusations.

During an interview on NewsNation with Chris Cuomo, the former lawyer said that none of the individuals in the document are now holding public office.

Dershowitz maintained that he is unable to divulge further material due to judicial orders but that Attorney General Pam Bondi and President Trump are “not responsible” for the missing information.

“Is the government hiding a client list or anything that the Trump Administration could release tonight?” Cuomo asked.

“No, there’s no client list and never has been a client list. A client list suggests that Jeffrey Epstein made a list of people to whom he trafficked women. What there is, is a redacted FBI affidavit from accusers. There are several of them from accusers that accuse Jeffrey — that accuse various people of having improper sex, and that has been redacted, the names of the people accuse have been blacked out,” Dershowitz began.

“Now, of course, because I was lawyer and I did all the investigations, I know who all these people are. I could figure out, based on everything that I saw, who Mr.X is, Mr. Y is, and Mr. Z. I can tell you right now: None of them are public figures who are currently in office. Some of them were previously in office. Some of them are dead. But there is no client list. And the redactions could be undone if you go to court,” Dershowitz added.

“So, many of the things that are being suppressed are being suppressed by two judges in Manhattan, and they’re doing it largely to protect the alleged accusers who are, in the view of the judges, victims, even though. But the judges have issued orders, which is why I can’t disclose things I’d love to disclose, saying that you can’t disclose this information. But Pam Bondi and the Justice Department and Donald Trump are not responsible for that. I don’t know of any information that they could disclose that they haven’t disclosed,” he continued.

“Now maybe there is some, but I’m simply not aware of it. And so I think it’s important to place the blame where the blame deserves to be placed. The vast majority of people who are in the files — and I I know them all, I’ve seen all the names — the vast, vast majority of them have already been disclosed. They’re in articles all over the world. They’re in books that have been written,” Dershowitz declared.

“So if we got everything, everything, you would be shocked how few names are there that haven’t already been disclosed. The media hasn’t, by the way, done a good enough job in finding the people who have been disclosed in the public record. So that’s that list,” he concluded.

Earlier this week, a federal judge in Florida rejected a Trump administration request to release grand jury transcripts from the Jeffrey Epstein case.

U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg said she could not authorize the release.

“Eleventh Circuit [federal appeals court] law does not permit this Court to grant the Government’s request; the Court’s hands are tied—a point the Government concedes,” she wrote in a 12-page opinion.

The Trump administration had pushed for the transcripts to be unsealed from Florida grand jury proceedings tied to the original federal investigation into Epstein.

The effort was part of a broader call for transparency around Epstein’s sex trafficking network. The grand juries in question were held in 2005 and 2007.

That investigation ultimately ended with Epstein pleading guilty to state charges and serving 13 months in jail, after federal prosecutors agreed not to pursue federal sex trafficking charges.

In a separate courtroom on Wednesday, a second judge denied a similar request from Epstein’s convicted associate Ghislaine Maxwell.

Please follow and like us: