The winter months can exacerbate feelings of isolation and low mood, prompting a crucial self-assessment to differentiate between simple winter blues and a more serious depressive episode. Discover how to identify your needs and find...

A professional lip reader has decoded Jill Biden’s terse four-word exchange with Kamala Harris at Dick Cheney’s funeral, exposing the icy tension that now defines their relationship after the Democrats’ crushing electoral defeat. The Uncomfortable Reunion The funeral of former Vice President Dick Cheney became an unexpected stage for political drama when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris found themselves in the same venue for the first time since their devastating electoral defeat. Body language experts and political observers immediately noticed the palpable tension between the former running mates, but it took a professional lip reader to reveal exactly what transpired between Jill Biden and Harris during their brief interaction. NEW: INSIDE the Biden-Kamala CONVERSATION at Dick Cheney’s Funeral MOMALA WAGGED her finger at DR JILL… after Biden almost SNUBBED his former VP Biden was looking for BARACK— but the OBAMAS DITCHED Why? Michelle and NANCY Pelosi are BUTTING HEADS pic.twitter.com/0oeZVi1LA2 — Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) November 21, 2025 Four Words That Spoke Volumes According to the lip reading analysis, Jill Biden’s greeting to Harris consisted of a perfunctory “How are you doing?” delivered with what witnesses described as notably cold body language. The exchange lasted mere seconds, with both women maintaining forced smiles that failed to mask the underlying friction. Harris reportedly responded with equally brief pleasantries before both quickly moved to engage with other attendees, effectively ending their interaction. The Fallout Behind Closed Doors This public display of coolness reflects deeper tensions that have emerged since the election loss. Sources close to both camps suggest that blame for the campaign’s failure has created lasting rifts within the Democratic Party’s leadership circle. The Bidens reportedly feel that Harris failed to capitalize on the foundation they provided, while Harris allies argue that Biden’s late withdrawal from the race left insufficient time for a successful transition. Kamala publicly showed her displeasure with Biden as it looks like he attempts to give her a high five and she gave him the finger and shook her head NO. You can see Mike Pence even had an awkward look on his face. Jill smiled knowing the cameras are recording but the… pic.twitter.com/m1cwXxMGwZ — Casual_Hex1036 (@Hex_Stake1036) November 20, 2025 The contrast with their previous public appearances is stark. Throughout Biden’s presidency, Jill Biden and Harris maintained the appearance of a warm working relationship, often seen sharing laughs and engaging in animated conversations at official events. Their body language at Cheney’s funeral told a completely different story, with both women appearing stiff and uncomfortable in each other’s presence. Political Implications Moving Forward This visible tension carries significant implications for the Democratic Party’s future direction. Harris remains a prominent figure with potential 2028 presidential ambitions, while the Bidens retain considerable influence within party circles. Their inability to present a united front, even at a solemn occasion like a funeral, signals deeper organizational challenges that party leaders must address. The awkward exchange also highlights how personal relationships in politics can quickly sour when electoral success turns to failure. What once appeared to be genuine camaraderie between two powerful Democratic women now seems reduced to the bare minimum of professional courtesy required for public appearances.

Why are dangerous illegal vape products from China still making their way onto American retail shelves, especially when they’re not even legal in the country where they’re made?  That’s the question Floridians, and Americans alike, are asking. And to stop it, we need more federal help.  Illegal vapes have been pouring into Florida from China for years. These unregulated, flavored products are banned in China, yet they’re flooding our state, endangering our kids, families, and communities. A new poll by President Donald Trump’s campaign pollster, Tony Fabrizio, shows that more than 80% of swing-district voters support seizing illegal Chinese vapes, along with cracking down on smoke shops that sell illegal vapes and sell to minors.  The poll underscores the severity of this problem among Americans, with voters across the country agreeing that illegal vapes from China put kids and communities at risk. Now, more than ever, Americans want firm policies to keep these dangerous, unregulated products off shelves. In 2024, at least $363 million worth of illegal vapes were sold here, ranking Florida No. 1 in illegal vape sales. This year, we’re still the top destination for illegal vapes dumped by China. Illegal Chinese Vapes Pose a Danger to Our Children These products target kids and have been found disguised as school supplies. They’re easy to mistake for legal products, but are highly illegal and very dangerous, and continue to slip into American stores, disguised as legitimate products. The Florida Retail Federation works with retailers——with the support of Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier——to warn the public about the danger of these unregulated imports. But Chinese manufacturers work just as hard to make their illegal products look legal, so retailers and consumers cannot tell the difference from a legal product and an illegal product.  Some leaders are starting to take action and the citizens surveyed in this recent poll would be glad to see it. The recent announcement that the United States will reduce certain tariffs on China in exchange for its efforts to stop fentanyl trafficking is a step in the right direction. As part of cracking down on fentanyl from China, we also have to crack down on the illegal vapes that can carry this dangerous drug into our communities. Fentanyl is already the leading cause of overdose deaths in the United States and has been found in illegal Chinese vapes, as have other dangerous chemicals. What is disguised as a legal vape product could actually be deadly. A child could pick up one of these vapes unaware of what’s inside. That’s what makes this problem so dangerous and why stopping it before it reaches our shelves is so important. It’s time to stop the flow of illegal vapes from China once and for all. These products are banned where they’re made, yet they’re ending up on American shelves and in the hands of kids. We need more federal action to stop illegal vapes from landing in Florida and other states—many coming off cargo ships from overseas. The safety of our families, businesses, and communities depends on it.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Poll: Americans Fed Up With Illegal Chinese Vapes Flooding the Country, Many Funneled Through Florida appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Is a tariff a tax? Many Americans have forgotten that this question, which has been in the news more or less all year, was fundamental to the American Revolution. And among American Patriots, or Whigs, meaning those who supported the colonists’ claims against Parliament, there was almost universal consensus that they were different things, constitutionally speaking.Throughout the Imperial Crisis of 1763 to 1776, the consensus among the colonists was that Parliament had the right to regulate trade in the British Empire but had no right to tax the colonists. And they recognized that a regulation of trade might take the form of a duty imposed upon, for example, molasses imported from French colonies to favor molasses imported from British colonies.The founding generation believed in the separation of powers.In the colonists’ view, the Sugar Act of 1764 was an unconstitutional innovation. The Act was quite explicit, stating at the top that it was passed for the purpose of “applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said act, towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations.” It was the first trade act to do that.Townshend’s overreachThe Stamp Act of 1765, and the reaction to it, made the protest against the 1764 Sugar Act less conspicuous. The result of the actions taken against the Stamp Act was that many in Parliament did not grasp the American argument against the Sugar Act. Hence, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in 1767, imposing duties on lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea to raise revenue. When the colonists complained, many in Parliament accused the colonists of moving the goalposts.The charge was not accurate, but it did reflect what they believed. And, like many today, many members of Parliament were unable to grasp the difference between a duty imposed for the purpose of trade regulation and a duty imposed for the purpose of raising revenue.The most famous criticism of the Townshend Acts, and the most popular writing of the era until Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in January 1776, was John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.” In the second letter, Dickinson made the consensus Patriot argument logically, clearly, and eloquently.There is another late act of parliament, which appears to me to be unconstitutional, and as destructive to the liberty of these colonies, as that mentioned in my last letter; that is, the act for granting the duties on paper, glass, etc.The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain, and all her colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and her colonies; and necessary for the common good of all ...I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the Stamp Act administration.* All before, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire. ... The raising of a revenue thereby was never intended. ... Never did the British parliament, till the period above mentioned, think of imposing duties in America for the purpose of raising a revenue. ...Here we may observe an authority expressly claimed and exerted to impose duties on these colonies; not for the regulation of trade; not for the preservation or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire, heretofore the sole objects of parliamentary institutions; but for the single purpose of levying money upon us.This I call an innovation; and a most dangerous innovation.* It may perhaps be objected, that Great Britain has a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her exports.That so many people today don’t seem to understand this distinction is a sign that the American bar seems to have gone Tory. The founding generation’s way of thinking about tariffs, and perhaps law in general, is in danger of being rendered foreign to our public policy discussion, perhaps even to constitutional discussion, even among people who mistakenly think of themselves as originalists.This way of thinking, of course, says little about the current case, as the purpose of the law itself must be understood in light of the thinking of the men who passed it. But it is also true that the way of thinking that Dickinson represented, and which was broadly shared in the founding generation, might have something to say here.Delegation’s limitsThe founding generation believed in the separation of powers. The founders recognized, as “The Federalist” notes, that in practice the powers will inevitably overlap and sometimes clash. But they did operate within a way of legal and constitutional thinking that took it as a given that in order to guard the separation of powers, any delegation of legislative powers to the executive had to be limited and focused.There is a difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable delegation of powers, just as there is between a tax and a regulation of trade, even if, in both cases, money is raised at customs houses. The kind of delegation the Trump administration is asserting in this case is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reconcile with the practice of separation of powers. Congress has no right to abdicate its obligation to set trade policy via legislation.RELATED: Read it and weep: Tariffs work, and the numbers prove it Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesThe Trump administration’s assertion that it has the right to set tariffs worldwide, claiming unlimited emergency power based on a law designed to delegate to the president a narrow emergency power, resembles the kind of expansive, arbitrary interpretation that the founders’ legal heroes fought.In the 1630s, King Charles claimed the right to collect “ship money” throughout England. By tradition, the king had the right to raise money, without Parliament’s consent, in port towns in time of war, or if war was imminent.King Charles asserted a living constitution interpretation: Given modern circumstances, he claimed a general right to raise taxes if a war emergency was imminent. Dickinson mentioned the case in the first Farmer’s Letters, suggesting there was a connection between the logic of the one argument and the other.Our difficulty recognizing the limits of the nondelegation doctrine — and our confusion about the difference between a duty imposed to raise revenue and one imposed to regulate trade — shows how much work remains if we want to understand the Constitution as the framers did. That understanding requires grappling with the ideas about human nature, government, and law that justified ratification in the first place and that still anchor our constitutional order.Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Dearborn Muslims Spill the Beans: 'We'd Fight for Iraq Over US' – Time to Rethink That Whole 'Ally' Thing

Smart home security is a big deal, and as burglars get more crafty, it's more important than ever to use hidden cameras and sensors that are undetectable.

Was King George III quite absurd or just misunderstood? Was he really the mad King that ruled like a tyrant or was he simply a man who succumbed to mental illness? If so, can we argue that he as an individual as well as his legacy have been misjudged and misconstrued? The year is 1788. At Kew Palace. Inside the stone walls, a 50-year-old King George has descended into madness in the last few months. His behavior and mannerisms have shifted from calm and confident to agitated, angry and incoherent. The problem unclear, his family and five personal doctors are concerned. In their panic the King is placed into a mental asylum to be treated in secrecy. The question that concerns the monarchy is can the King be cured or will his legacy be overshadowed by his illness?Sophie Riley explains. George III. 1779 painting by Benjamin West. The Crisis of 1788-89By late 1788, the Kings decline could no longer be ignored what started as hours of endless monologues quickly turned into violent outbursts that ended in tearful fits. His Courtiers watched in alarm as they witnessed the decline of a man they once respected.Doctors were quickly summoned but late 18th century medicine was ill equipped for curing mental illnesses. Some believed his blood had been poisoned which caused the king to have consistent bloodletting sessions, whilst others believed his mental decline was caused by his nerves and the rest blamed it on divine punishment. Alongside the bloodletting the additional treatments were severe and coldly dished out. In their desperation for the king’s welfare, he was subjected to hours of isolation, physical restraints and blistering several doctors in the hope of shocking the King back to good health.  None worked and he became a spectacle and a man to be feared by parliament and his own family.As the Kings condition declined, the monarchy teetered on the brink. With the sovereign ill who would govern the country if the worst should happen? The Price of Wales and his allies pushed for the Regency Bill to be drawn up, whilst the Kings hopeful ministers clung to a quick recovery.  Britain however would have to watch in a state of desperation as their fate hung in the balance of a man’s fragile mind.  Contemporary Conceptions As the King’s health continued to decline, the news began to spread beyond the confinements of Kew Palace. His illness became a public spectacle. Britain in 1788 was nation of rumor where daily updates about the King’s mental wellbeing spread like wildfire through tavern gossip and in the news bulletins.  The caricature of the mad monarch pacing the palace grounds became a source of both pity and fascination by the public. For ordinary citizens to see the king decline felt like a personal attack on their stability. Despite his legacy of madness King George III was a dutiful and conscientious monarch who made decisions for the good of his country.  Despite his loss of America, he was a popular figure who brough stability in a time of industrial and social change. As well as being a dutiful monarch he was also a devote family man who set an example for his wife, children, and his people.   To see him unravel like this was to watch stability begin to shatter, some prayed for his recovery whilst others deemed this as a divine punishment for losing their colonies in America.  The media of the 18th century like now was unforgiving, Satirical artists seized an opportunity to dehumanizer and degrade the King.  Caricature images of George in deranged poses surrounded by his concerned family and attendants appeared daily. He was forever compared to the Flamboyant Price of Wales who was portrayed as a saint waiting eagerly for power. These cruel yet compelling images shaped the public’s imagination by reducing a complex human illness to a farce. Parliament became a political battlefield in which the kings condition became ammunition for both sides. The Prince of Wales argued for immediate regency through establishing the Regency Bill, however the Kings cabinet insisted on patience and loyalty to the crown. George’s health became a state emergency where every doctor’s report and flicker of coherence where up for debate as if it where law. The monarchy during this time had never been so fragile.  Yet despite all the mockery and intrigue there was a quiet sympathy from those who served the King personally. Accounts from them speak of a man who was tormented by illness, a man who begged for forgiveness from his wife and children and above all this a sovereign who begged for empathy from those around him. In their eyes George was not mad but a tragic symbol of human fragility.  Medical Theories Then and NowMedicine and science were still a mystery when King Georges health declined. His physicians observed his erratic behavior and yet they had no framework to go off. The belief during the 18th century was to purge and shock the body into releasing the illness. Treatments were brutal and consisted of constant bloodletting and purging whilst being restrained. The Kings Doctors led by Francis Willis believed that a combination of strict control and moral discipline would restore their King. Towards the end of the century, it seemed that the Kings health was improving as he began to recover and gradually return to his royal duties. His subjects, parliament and his family were both relieved and uncertain. Historians today are also stunned as some would argue that his recovery was miraculous, however modern historians believed that his illness had a cyclical nature and that the moments of clarity were followed by relapse.  The mystery of King George’s illness still baffles people today. Researchers in the 20th century would propose that King George III suffered from porphyria when they studied his medical records. Porphyria is a disorder that affects your nervous system which in turn can cause confusion, depression, and memory loss. This proposal at the time was very persuasive as it transformed the mad king into a misunderstood patient.  For decades the diagnosis of Porphyria would reign until modern day scholars revisited his records and in turn cast a shadow on the late King’s diagnosis. Recent in-depth studies into the Kings medical records and his own personal letters have highlighted a more appropriate diagnosis of bipolar disorder. His personal letters highlight periods of mania where his energy would burst off the page in long sentences some of which contained over 400 words and eight verbs.  he would also often repeat himself and talk until he was foaming at the mouth.    Were eighteenth century physicians saw mental weakness and twentieth century researchers saw chemistry, twenty first century scientists seen a mind that was struggling with mental illness. This ever-changing diagnosis tells us much about ourselves as a society as it does about King George’s condition. Each century has diagnosed and depicted his story to fit their own understanding of madness- from divine punishment to bodily disorder to mental health condition. However, what remains consistent is the humanizing of George’s suffering. The King who once governed an empire was reduced to a man trapped by the medicine and judgements of his time. A King Beyond IllnessHistory remembers him for his madness but King George should be remembered for more than just that.  Long before the illness came, he had already changed the country and the monarchy in ways that would extend beyond his lifetime. Unlike previous monarchs, George valued simplicity in life and the monarchy, he showed this in his devotion to his wife and fifteen children.  He strived to make the monarchy a symbol of morality in the age of scandal. His modest lifestyle and agricultural interests earned him the affectionate nickname Farmer George which showed his enthusiasm for rural improvement and scientific innovation. George was also a consumer of the arts and had a passion for knowledge which he showed in creating a national library from his own personal book collection. He was also the first monarch to have a formal education in science and have his own astronomical observatory. This shows that despite his illness George seen himself as a servant of the people and not just a ruler from privilege. Even in the face of losing the Americas and bouts of illness George’s resilience was remarkable.  His subjects who once either ridiculed or where fearful of him came to see him as a symbol of endurance and strength. By the end of his reign satire had been replaced with sympathy. The once mocked King was now a symbol of dignity in suffering— a man who wore his crown and his condition with strength. Conclusion- Reassessing King George IIITo label George as the mad King is a sign that you support his enemies who were calling for his abdication. His story is one of tragic humanity where a man was reduced to a shell of himself due to mental illness. An illness that pulled his whole life as a king, father, and a servant to his people into question.  His legacy has become a footnote of his own derangement. This sadly overshadows the diligent monarch, father, and the patron of artistic and scientific progression that we have come to discover.  He was a man who struggled with illness in a time were no sympathy was given and no medicine could cure. The ability we have now to reassess him is to acknowledge not just human tragedy but also the endurance of George’s spirit. Perhaps, in understanding him better, we also see how far our own perceptions of mental health and the monarchy have come.  Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Nov. 22, 2025: Our weekly roundup of the latest science in the news, as well as a few fascinating articles to keep you entertained over the weekend.