The royal family loves their furry friends. Queen Camilla lost her beloved dog, Beth, in November 2024, leaving her heartbroken. Camilla didn’t wait long to adopt a new rescue pup and welcomed Moley to the family at 8 weeks old. Rebecca’s English shared the news of Moley’s adoption in February on X. “Following the recent death of her beloved @Battersea_dog Beth, Queen Camilla reveals she has just taken on a new eight-week-old rescue puppy, Moley. It’s a boy, ‘a bit of everything’ and looks ‘like a mole’. That’s all we know so far. Lucky pup,” Rebecca wrote. NEW Meet Moley! The King and Queen will visit the @The_RHS Chelsea Flower Show on Monday to view exhibits including the BBC Radio 2/Monty Don Dog Garden.To mark the occasion @RoyalFamily have released the first picture of Queen Camilla’s new @Battersea_ pup! pic.twitter.com/YGgrzRL0Vl— Rebecca English (@RE_DailyMail) May 17, 2025 Queen Camilla’s New Dog Is Adorable Rebecca shared a photo of Queen Camilla’s new pup, Moley, on May 17, and he looks positively aristocratic. She wrote, “Meet Moley! The King and Queen will visit the @The_RHS Chelsea Flower Show on Monday to view exhibits including the BBC Radio 2/Monty Don Dog Garden. To mark the occasion @RoyalFamily have released the first picture of Queen Camilla’s new @Battersea_ pup!” In the photo, Moley stands on a chair with her ears perks and tail curled. She looks at the camera as if to say, “I am here to stay!” Dog lovers and Royal enthusiasts alike expressed their excitement about getting a glimpse of Queen Camilla’s new furry friend. This person immediately heard the jokes coming. “Oh, dear. The memes that await him – Holy Moley,” they wrote.” This person started the jokes by writing, “Being wheeled out for publicity already. A decent rescue would never!” Others loved how cute Moley is. “Ahhhh he’s such a cutey !!!! Lucky Moley, going to a palace for his forever home,” one wrote. These fans feel like Queen Camilla might have her hand full with this new little dog. “She looks a right roister doister,” someone shared. This person agreed, “I can feel the energy.” This story’s featured image is by CHRIS JACKSON/POOL/AFP via Getty Images. The post “Holy Moley,” Queen Camilla’s New Dog Makes Her Royal Debut appeared first on InspireMore.

'Some may get passed on'

Joe Biden Diagnosed With ‘Aggressive’ Prostate Cancer

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—When courts issue wrongful injunctions, taxpayers are often left paying for the damage done to their own government. But Reps. Derek Schmidt, R-Kan., and Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., are introducing a bill on Monday that aims to shift that burden from taxpayers to the plaintiffs seeking these injunctions, forcing the courts to enforce pre-existing federal law. The legislation, titled the “Wrongful Injunction Accountability Act of 2025,” seeks to “ensure compliance with Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in restraining actions brought against the United States,” according to a draft text of the bill provided to The Daily Signal. “Our bill creates a way to enforce these taxpayer protections already on the books, discouraging frivolous lawsuits and ensuring the responsible use of Americans’ tax dollars,” Schmidt told The Daily Signal. “The American people’s voice is suppressed when a single judge can impose injunctions that disrupt the work of elected officials chosen by voters,” Hageman told The Daily Signal. “The Wrongful Injunction Accountability Act discourages such litigation and leaves the plaintiffs responsible for costs and damages of baseless injunctions. American taxpayers deserve a judicial system they can trust, this bill restores that.” As leftist lawfare seeks to undermine President Donald Trump’s agenda, the legislation would codify a memorandum the president issued in March. Under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is required to provide an assurance—typically in the form of a bond—to the court, meant to cover potential damages incurred by the enjoined party if it is ultimately determined the injunction was wrongfully issued. The courts, however, have frequently waived or minimized the requirements laid out in Rule 65(c). The bill stipulates that when courts fail to demand this security, or if the amount paid by plaintiffs is insufficient, “the movant shall be liable to the United States for the costs and damages sustained.” “In recent years, injunctions brought against the federal government have been abused through overuse,” Schmidt said. “When these injunctions are found to be wrongfully entered, not only do the gears of self-government grind to a halt, but the disruption also often results in an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars,” Schmidt explained. “That’s why current federal rules are designed to discourage plaintiffs from rolling the dice by seeking injunctions of dubious merit. Current federal rules already require a party seeking an injunction against the United States to post bond so taxpayers are not stuck with the cost if courts eventually rule against the injunction. This rule is supposed to protect taxpayers, but courts too often do not enforce it, and taxpayers are left holding the bag.” The new legislation follows a memorandum sent by President Donald Trump to department heads on March 11 titled, “Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c),” which claimed that waiving the practice, and thereby inviting left-wing lawfare, amounted to “anti-democratic takeover,” of the government. “In recent weeks, activist organizations fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes even government grants have obtained sweeping injunctions far beyond the scope of relief contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, functionally inserting themselves into the executive policy making process and therefore undermining the democratic process,” the memorandum stated. “Taxpayers are forced not only to cover the costs of their antics when funding and hiring decisions are enjoined, but must needlessly wait for government policies they voted for,” the memo continued. “Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to demand that parties seeking injunctions against the federal government must cover the costs and damages incurred if the government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.  Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions.” By the end of April, more than 220 lawsuits had been filed against the Trump administration, and, according to The New York Times, at least 160 rulings in these cases have provided at least temporary pauses on Trump policies. “This bill addresses the kind of frivolous litigation we’ve seen run rampant in the United States over that past few months,” Hageman said. “By requiring a bond from parties requesting injunctions, this will serve as a tool to enforce Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) and will limit judicial activism.” The post EXCLUSIVE: Republican Lawmakers Look to Codify Trump Policy to End Leftist Lawfare appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Former President Joe Biden, 82, has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer.   “Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms,” Biden’s personal office said in a statement on Sunday.   “On Friday he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone,” the statement continued. “While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management. The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians.”  The news of the cancer diagnosis is the second time Biden’s health made national news over the weekend. On Saturday, Axios published the complete audio recording of Biden’s interviews with special counsel Robert Hur. The interview took place over two days, Oct. 8 and 9, 2023 and reveals multiple instances in which Biden appears to struggle to recall certain details about his life.   Hur interviewed Biden as part of the probe over Biden’s handling of classified documents. Axios reports that the recording confirms “Hur’s assertion that jurors in a trial likely would have viewed Biden as ‘a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.’”  Concerns over Biden’s health, specifically his cognitive health, led to calls for Biden to drop out of the 2024 presidential election, which he ultimate did do last July.   The post Biden Diagnosed with Aggressive Form of Prostate Cancer appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If The Rich Are So Powerful, Why Are Their Taxes So High?

Criticize Jake Tapper for his hypocrisy in writing a book about the cover-up of Biden's decline while having been a part of it. But give Jake credit for one thing. He appears to have discovered the last person in America this side of Dr. Jill who still believes Joe Biden was capable of serving out a second term. On CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, Tapper quizzically put it to Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC): "Do you think that Joe Biden really would have been able to perform as president all the way through January 2029, when he would have been, when he would be 86?" Replied Clyburn: "Yes, I thought that back then. I still think that. But I don't know that." In responding to Clyburn's denial of the undeniable about Biden's incapacity to serve, Tapper set up a temporal defense of his own complicity. He said: "I don't think there's any comparison between how sharp you are... and what we've seen from President Biden, both in that [Hur] audio but also throughout 2023, 2024, especially on the debate stage." Note how Tapper seemed to date the first inklings of Biden's decline back only to 2023. That would let Jake off the hook for his blatant, despicable bit of gaslighting in denial of Biden's incapacity.  Have a look at the video of Tapper's 2020 interview with President Trump's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump in which they had this exchange. LARA TRUMP [at a 2020 Women for Trump forum]: Every time he comes on stage and they turn to him, I'm like, Joe, can you get it out? Can you get the words out? You kind of feel bad for him.  JAKE TAPPER: How do you feel it makes little kids with stutters feel when they see you make a comment like that? TRUMP: First and foremost, I had no idea that Joe Biden ever suffered from a stutter. I think what we see onstage with Joe Biden, Jake, is very clearly a cognitive decline.  TAPPER: [sounding fed up] Okay. TRUMP: That's what I'm referring to. It makes me uncomfortable.  TAPPER: You have no, it's so amazing to me that you -- TRUMP: I'm trying to figure out an answer. You're trying to tell me that what I was suggesting was a stutter. TAPPER: I think that you were mocking his stutter, yeah. I think you were mocking his stutter. And I think you have absolutely no standing to diagnose somebody's cognitive decline. TRUMP: I'm not diagnosing, I'm saying -- TAPPER: But I would think that somebody in the Trump family would be more sensitive to people who do not have medical licenses, diagnosing politicians from afar.  Plenty of people have diagnosed your father from afar, and I'm sure it offends you, your father-in-law from afar. I'm sure it offends you.  You don't have any standing to say -- TRUMP: I'm not diagnosing him. What I'm saying, Jake -- TAPPER: You just talked about a cognitive decline.  TRUMP: -- is that Joe Biden is struggling at many times on stage. And it's very concerning to a lot of people that this could be the leader of the free world. That is all I'm saying. I genuinely feel sorry for Joe Biden.  TAPPER: [abruptly ending exchange] Thank you, Lara Trump. I appreciate it.  We've all known people with stutters. And Biden might have had one in his younger days. But anyone with eyes and ears open knew, going back to at least 2019, that Biden wasn't stuttering. He was showing the telltale signs of an elderly person with diminished mental acuity. Note: At 84, Clyburn is two years older than Biden. And Tapper was right in observing that Clyburn is much sharper than Biden -- an admittedly low bar. Clyburn played some word games, trying to leave some wiggle room for himself on his views on Biden's acuity.  On the one hand, he said that in his many conversations with Biden, he never witnessed anything out of the ordinary. And he added, "I still think" Biden would have been capable to serving through the end of a second term, at age 86. But he added, "I don't know that." And Clyburn admitted to being "concerned" by Biden's disastrous debate meltdown. But he remained agnostic as to whether it was a "condition" or just an "incident." Clyburn suggested that it was the latter, noting that he himself has at times looked for his glasses when in fact he was wearing them.  But Clyburn again tried to play it both ways, claiming, "I have no way of knowing which one is true." News Flash For Rep. Clyburn: As everyone—with the possible exception of you—knows: it's a condition. As for Tapper, he can try to portray himself today as the brave truth teller. But his past collaboration in the coverup—as in his reprehensible exchange with Lara Trump in which he accused her of harming children with stutters—is as undeniable as Biden's decline.  Here's the transcript. CNN State of the Union 5/18/25 9:23 am EDT JOE BIDEN [in Hur tape]: Trump gets elected in November of 2017?  BIDEN LAWYER: 2016.  BIDEN: 16, 16. All right. So [long pause] Why do I have 2017 here?  LAWYER: That's when you left office, January of 2017.  BIDEN: Yeah, okay. But that's when Trump gets sworn in, right?  LAWYER: Right, correct.  JAKE TAPPER: At a different time in that interview, he's asked about the 2017-2018 period, and he says during that period, his son Beau was either deployed or dying. But Beau was deployed in 2008-2009, and he died, tragically, in May 2015.  Needless to say, even supporters of the president have heard these tapes and been alarmed by it. What was your response to them? Did you see much of that when you had meetings and interactions with President Biden during his term?  JIM CLYBURN: No, I didn't. You know, the fact of the matter is I saw Biden often, but not as often as people seem to think. I saw him, I talked to him on the telephone very often, and I never saw anything that I thought was outside of the ordinary.  . . .  TAPPER: With all due respect, sir, having interviewed you quite often, I don't think there's any comparison between how sharp you are and your ability to talk and answer questions and get dates right, et cetera, and what we've seen from President Biden, both in that audio but also throughout 2023, 2024, especially on the debate stage.  Do you think that Joe Biden really would have been able to perform as president all the way through January 2029, when he would have been, when he would be 86?  CLYBURN: Yes, I thought that back then. I still think that. But I don't know that.  When people ask me, did I know this or did I know the other? And the fact of the matter is, no, I didn't. And that's -- you make my point here. So it's not all about age. I've seen people develop Alzheimer's when they're in their 30s and 40s.  So it's not about age. It's about the ability to do the job. And I never saw anything that allowed me to think that Joe Biden was not able to do the job. Just that simple.  TAPPER: The debate didn't make you concerned about whether or not he could do the job?  CLYBURN: Absolutely, it did. I never saw any of that. I didn't see the tapes from the Hur interview. And I watched that debate, and you and I talked about it. And yes, I was concerned.  Now, the question is, is this a condition or is this an incident? And I have had incidents when I was looking for my glasses and had them on.  So you have these kinds of incidents. And that's the question is. And then remember, a lot of us were a bit concerned about his schedule in the run-up to the debate. He took two overseas trips, came back and started preparing for that debate. And I called it at the time preparation overload, because they were cramming into a four or five-day period the preparation for the debate after taking two overseas trips, which I thought was taxing in and of itself.  And so these kinds of concerns are out there. But none of us thought that there was anything here that created any suspicions of any prolonged condition. . . .   And so, these people [when he speaks with people back in South Carolina] are also concerned. And they look back at those tapes. They remember the debate. And they are concerned as to whether or not that was, in fact, just an incident or whether that was a condition that was being kept from people. I have no way of knowing which one is true. 

Duke forward Cooper Flagg is projected to be the No. 1 pick for the 2025 NBA Draft. It’s no surprise after his stellar freshman season, where he averaged 19.2 points, 7.5 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 1.4 steals, and 1.4 blocks per game and earned the Wooden Award as the top college basketball player. Between his two-way versatility, defensive prowess, and playmaking ability, Flagg will be a franchise cornerstone for the Dallas Mavericks, who won the lottery with a 1.8% chance and are likely to select him on June 25. But ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith says there’s something besides just raw talent behind Flagg’s status as the projected No. 1 draft pick. White privilege is also apparently a factor in the equation. Jason Whitlock plays the clip of Smith explaining why the Dallas Mavericks have no choice but to draft Cooper Flagg. “When you got somebody with that kind of potential and they're white and you are in America, you keep that dude,” said Smith. “Texas is different, and in Dallas, Texas, if you got an opportunity to get Cooper Flagg, you take Cooper Flagg – especially when you just let go of Luka Dončić.” Smith argued that being a white American superstar in the NBA, a league with few white American stars, makes Flagg highly marketable, drawing parallels to Larry Bird. “I don't understand why ESPN allows this other than obviously they're in the racial division business like a lot of the rest of the media,” says Jason Whitlock. “There is, for whatever reason, this undeniable urge or push for ESPN to utilize this race-baiting tactics,” adds “Fearless” contributor Jay Skapinac, host of the “Skap Attack.” “Sports to me are the ultimate merit-based entity really. ... The best should be the ones playing; the best should be the ones picked; the best should be the ones dictating the merchandising dollars, and so forth,” he continues, noting that Smith’s suggestion that top-tier white players are rare and therefore valuable falls flat when you consider that “for five years the best player in the NBA has been Nikola Jokić by wide margin.” To see the footage of Smith’s comments and hear more of Jason and Skap’s conversation, watch the episode above. Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

With accountability and spending restraint more urgent than ever, Congress should shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for good. Eliminating the CFPB would mark a decisive move to protect taxpayers from another bloated, unaccountable government agency. If Republicans, Congress, and President Donald Trump want to keep their promise to rein in Washington’s runaway bureaucracy, they must ensure this agency stays dead — and buried for good. The CFPB’s unchecked growth and regulatory overreach have raised red flags for years. Born out of the 2008 financial crisis, the agency operates with minimal oversight and has long avoided serious scrutiny. Its expanding budget and vague authority continue to spark legitimate questions about fiscal responsibility and constitutional limits. Closing down the CFPB would end a failed bureaucratic experiment and send a clear message: Every federal agency answers to the taxpayers. No exceptions. Consumers deserve clear, commonsense policies — especially after years of market confusion driven by the CFPB’s heavy hand. The CFPB was built to operate independently, beyond the reach of Congress or the president. Lawmakers granted it broad, vague authority — allowing unelected bureaucrats to meddle freely in the U.S. economy. Beyond its track record of economic failure, the CFPB’s structure flatly contradicts the American model of representative government. President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, acted quickly. They made high-impact decisions to show Americans they were serious about cutting waste, reducing overreach, and eliminating redundancy across the federal bureaucracy. When the CFPB came up for its DOGE review, the administration halted its operations and dismissed hundreds of staff. That move triggered criticism from the usual quarters, but consumers and lawmakers should look deeper. Ending the CFPB isn’t just about cost-cutting. It signaled a broader plan to streamline the federal government and promote efficiency across every agency. Still, even the DOGE can’t finish the job without Congress. Only Congress can repeal the statute that established the CFPB — and only Congress can shut the agency down for good. Lawmakers must do so. The CFPB currently controls its own funding, bypassing the regular appropriations process and evading critical checks and balances. Reclaiming those dollars would help reduce the deficit, and redistributing the CFPB’s limited useful functions to other agencies would ensure continued consumer protections under proper oversight. The Federal Reserve and other agencies already handle key aspects of financial regulation and could easily absorb the CFPB’s remaining duties. Congress must finally draw the line: no more duplicative mandates, no more unchecked authority, and no more mission creep. If consumer protections matter — and they do — then Congress must deliver them through a structure that answers to the people. RELATED: Congress claps back at Biden’s 'junk fee' crusade Ployker via iStock/Getty Images Fortunately, the CFPB has begun scaling back some of its overreach. Earlier this month, the agency dropped its lawsuit against Credit Acceptance Corporation, an auto lender. That move signals a step in the right direction — away from regulatory overreach and toward a more balanced role in the economy. Every unnecessary enforcement action piles compliance costs on businesses, stifles innovation, and hampers economic growth. Reassessing these missteps marks progress toward a regulatory approach that defends consumers without punishing industry. Consumers deserve clear, commonsense policies — especially after years of market confusion driven by the CFPB’s heavy hand. They also deserve policies shaped by accountable officials, not by bureaucrats operating in defiance of congressional oversight. Credit access remains essential for Americans seeking financial stability in times of need. Crafting sound regulations — and eliminating those that never made sense — protects both their financial futures and the broader economy. Consumers also deserve protection they can trust. Creditors need clear, consistent rules to serve their customers without facing unpredictable regulatory entanglements. Any reform bill must address these concerns directly and distribute the CFPB’s remaining legitimate duties across existing, accountable agencies. As these changes take shape, stakeholders must stay engaged. Reforms should be implemented deliberately and effectively — promoting economic growth while preserving oversight where it’s needed. If President Trump wants to cement his legacy as the president who dismantled the administrative state, he must make sure the CFPB doesn’t just get paused. It must stay gone for good.

FBI's Bongino: 'Priceless Observing Some of the Same Apologists, Who Misled America for Years'