Brother of Caroline…

 

Caroline Flack’s brother, Paul Flack, has died six years after the former Love Island presenter took her own life.

Flack, 55, was found unresponsive at his home on Sandringham Road in Norwich on June 21.

He was taken to Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, where he later died.

A provisional post-mortem determined the cause of death as cardiac arrest due to hanging.

An inquest into his death was opened at Norfolk Coroner’s Court on Monday. Coroner Yvonne Blake said further investigation is needed before the full circumstances of Flack’s death can be confirmed.

The hearing was brief and has been adjourned until October 23 while additional evidence is gathered.

Flack, who worked as an artist and graphic designer, is survived by his partner and two children.

Following his sister’s death in 2020, he shared an emotional tribute to his sibling on Instagram alongside a childhood photo.

He wrote: “This will be my last post here. May those who know feel shame for eternity. Love you Caroline.”

The post remains the final message shared on his account.

Trump Rips Joe Biden’s Lawsuit to Block Release of Special Counsel Audio

 

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump unloaded on former President Joe Biden over Biden’s legal effort to block the release of interview recordings tied to his conversations with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer.

The tapes, obtained during Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into classified documents, have become a political flashpoint.

Critics believe they could further expose Biden’s memory problems and raise new questions about transparency during his presidency.

Trump took to his Truth Social platform to rip Biden: “A Crooked Politician!”

Here’s more:

President Donald Trump lashed out at former President Joe Biden late Tuesday after his predecessor sued the Justice Department to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts tied to the special counsel investigation into his handling of classified documents.

“A Crooked Politician!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social while sharing a Just the News article about Biden’s lawsuit against the DOJ.

Biden sued the Justice Department on Tuesday in an effort to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts of the former president’s interview with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer that were obtained by special counsel Robert Hur during his classified documents investigation.

The legal argument being made by Biden’s legal team appears to center around a claim that these are personal documents:

Biden’s lawyers said in the lawsuit that the Justice Department plans to release the files to Congress and the conservative Heritage Foundation after previously arguing that they were exempt from disclosure under federal public records law.

According to the filing, Biden’s attorneys argued that disclosure would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of President Biden’s privacy.”

That said, the files were part of a government special counsel probe.

The Presidential Records Act (44 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2209) defines “personal records” this way:

(3) The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof,2 of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—

(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;

(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and

(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

 

Under the law as currently written, those definitions would appear to cover the interview recordings, and the fact that the tapes were obtained during a special counsel investigation does not automatically transform them into public records subject to immediate release.

There is certainly an argument — especially in cases involving a sitting or former president — that very little can truly be considered “personal” given the public interest surrounding presidential conduct and decision-making. But legally speaking, the existing framework governing presidential and personal records may still provide Biden with at least some basis for trying to keep the recordings shielded from disclosure.

Of course, the bigger political question hanging over all of this is whether the audio recordings further expose concerns about Joe Biden’s mental sharpness during his time in office.

That issue has hovered over Biden’s presidency for years, fueled by verbal stumbles, confusion during public appearances, and repeated moments critics argued raised serious concerns about his fitness for office.

To many Americans, the defining moment came during Biden’s disastrous 2024 debate performance against then-candidate and former President Trump.

Biden’s legal team has been fighting to keep these docs private since he left office:

Biden has separately fought the release of audio from his interview with Hur. The House in 2024 voted to hold then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over that audio after the White House asserted executive privilege.

Transcripts of Biden’s interviews with federal prosecutors were released last year. While Biden insisted he treated classified information seriously, the transcripts showed he was at times fuzzy about dates and details and said he was unfamiliar with the paper trail for some of the sensitive documents he handled.

A sitting president ‘fuzzy about details.’ Yikes.

It remains unclear how the latest lawsuit will ultimately play out, though the Presidential Records Act appears to provide broad legal protections that could shield at least some of the materials from public release.

But for critics, the larger issue goes far beyond a records dispute.

The real concern, they argue, is the possibility that the president of the United States — the individual entrusted with nuclear launch authority, command of the world’s most powerful military, and leadership of the free world — may have been suffering from significant mental and physical decline while still occupying the Oval Office.

---

Enjoying our conservative news and commentary? Make sure you share and tell your friends about us!

Birthright Citizenship Forever Now? One Conservative Justice Doesn’t Think So

 

The Supreme Court has ruled: Birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment is constitutional. Therefore, it’s going to forever be the law of the land until the Constitution is amended, which isn’t very likely in today’s political environment. Right?

Well, not so fast. One Supreme Court justice, Brett Kavanaugh, may have provided a roadmap for some legislative fixes that would pass muster with the nation’s highest court:

Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in striking down President Trump’s executive order but wrote separately in partial dissent. He concluded the order conflicted with existing federal law, not that it was unconstitutional. In his opinion, he also outlined a framework for addressing concerns surrounding birthright citizenship through legislation, making clear that any path to lasting change would likely require an act of Congress.

“Significant illegal immigration into the United States is a new circumstance that was largely unknown as of 1868 and that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment could not have fully anticipated,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “And the Framers likely would not have anticipated (and presumably would not have intended) the odd result of granting a substantial birthright citizenship benefit to (i) those foreign citizens who violate U. S. immigration law and illegally enter or overstay and then have children in the United States over (ii) those foreign citizens who follow U. S. immigration law and have children in their home countries while seeking to lawfully immigrate to the United States.

“Nor presumably would they have wanted to grant constitutional birthright citizenship to children of foreign citizens unlawfully in the country while simultaneously denying constitutional birthright citizenship to children of tribal American Indians,” he added.

Here’s the good part: “Consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.”

Is this ‘the fix’ we’re looking for? Maybe. Maybe not. Even if Congress took up the issue and adopted legislation that incorporated Kavanaugh’s suggestion, you just know the left would judge shop again and get the law thrown out, meaning it would eventually end back up at the Supreme Court.

If that were to happen, we know Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would sign on – but would Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Barrett change their decision from today? It’s possible. It’s certainly worth a shot. And, as conservative columnist and decades-long attorney Kurt Schlichter wrote earlier today at Townhall, there is every reason to hope the current thinking on the 14th Amendment is changing:

Let’s understand how the courts work. They don’t like changing things. They revere precedent. It takes a lot to get a new understanding of the Constitution to become the mainstream interpretation. Look at the Second Amendment. For a century, it was understood to allow pretty much any regulation of guns, as long as the regulation was “reasonable,” which it always ended up being in the eyes of the courts.

The Heller decision completely changed that, and that decision was based on new scholarship. That’s the same process as we’re going through with birthright citizenship. We’re challenging something that’s been established, and you need to understand that our constitutional system is designed to make that hard.

Yeah, we lost today—barely. And that “barely” part is the good news. This was a 5–4 decision on the constitutional issue. Obviously, the three liberals voted against it because they will always vote the way that they perceive helps leftism. If illegal alien kids were believed to be aspiring Republicans, they would’ve been on the other side. None of these legal arguments that I’m talking about apply to them; they are hacks, and they don’t vote on principle.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett do vote on principle; their vote was entirely predictable to anyone familiar with how the courts work. It’s just that their principle is wrong, reflecting the old and established view of the 14th Amendment that we are currently challenging with new scholarship. Lots of people are wrong, and it doesn’t make them the antichrist. Yes, I know all the arguments in favor of changing the understanding of birthright citizenship, and we don’t need to relitigate them here.

Just understand that in any case, both sides believe in their arguments. What we need to do is make an effort to get folks nominated to SCOTUS who are more open to new challenges to old thinking because we are making a lot of new challenges to old thinking.

I expected a 7–2 ruling with Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in dissent. What we got was Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch both stepping in and accepting, at least to some extent, the new thinking on the 14th Amendment citizenship clause.

This is huge, people. 

So, let’s not lose our minds here like the left always does. There is hope that this battle isn’t over, but just beginning. And we should honestly thank President Trump for setting this process in motion with his Day 1 executive order.

Undeterred Trump Already Has Plan to End Birthright Citizenship After SCOTUS Ruling

 

If there is one trait about President Trump that stands out the most to me, it’s his refusal to take ‘no’ for an answer. Telling this man he can’t do something is like telling an angry bull staring you down from five feet away, he’s not allowed to charge at you. That bull is going to charge, and Trump will get his way.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump’s day-one executive order barring birthright citizenship defied the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. To most all of us waiting for this decision, it really wasn’t that much of a surprise. The amendment’s language seems pretty clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  Most justices took that literally, even if it’s a Chinese mother who bought a birth tourism package or a non-citizen migrant who had a child while in the country illegally. Mind you, that’s not what crafters of the amendment had in mind when they wrote it, but that’s moot at this point.

But again, we’re talking about Trump here, and the man already has a plan in place:

President Donald Trump responded to Tuesday’s Supreme Court’s ruling striking down his birthright citizenship executive order by appearing to back immigration legislation that would further clarify how immigrants can become citizens.

After the ruling, the president used the Truth Social social media platform to post a link to an article from the Washington-based website Just the News that was headlined: “Trump’s efforts to reverse birthright citizenship may succeed with or without SCOTUS.”

He followed up with a second post, writing, “The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process.”

“No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!” he added.

In its report, Just the News noted that: “Several bills, most notably the Birthright Citizenship Act introduced by [Texas Rep. Brian] Babin and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one day after Trump’s inauguration in 2025 (and similar versions in recent Congresses), seek to end or sharply restrict automatic birthright citizenship by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).”

“These measures would reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ clause to grant citizenship at birth only to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, national, lawful permanent resident (LPR) residing in the U.S., or an LPR serving in the military,” the news outlet added.

I always suspected Trump had a Plan B, C, and D to deal with this issue. It’s the ‘America First’ in him.

Now, it’s clear that if such a law were to pass, it will be immediately challenged as unconstitutional under the aforementioned amendment. But there is reason to believe that it could pass Supreme Court muster, thanks to some guidance from one of the Justices – Brett Kavanaugh.

Either way, Congress should find out. Trump set this all in motion with his executive order, so Republicans in Congress must give him an assist and let’s see where the chips fall next time around.

Don’t Look Now But the DoJ Is Investigating Eric Swalwell’s Senate Bro

 

Well, it’s a day ending in “y” so it makes sense that the Justice Department has found a reason to investigate yet another Democrat over corruption allegations. And this Democrat should be familiar to anyone who paid even passing attention to the filthy scandal involving disgraced now-former Rep. Eric Swalwell of California.

Here we go:

Sen. Ruben Gallego repeatedly used campaign cash to fund luxury outings with his wife and to care for his children since launching his campaign for Senate in 2023, according to a POLITICO review of campaign finance records and a person familiar with the senator’s spending.

The Arizona Democrat has used his leadership PAC to fund recent trips to Miami, Chicago, Disneyland and Disney World with his family. Gallego has tapped that PAC and his main campaign committee for more than $18,000 in reimbursements for child care since 2019 — including $400 to his wife’s mother for babysitting.

And Federal Election Commission records show that on one such occasion, Gallego used a joint campaign account with disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell to attend the 2023 Super Bowl in Arizona with his wife, Sydney.

Federal lawmakers can legally use campaign committee funds for travel, food, events and even child care, as long as those funds are not for “personal use,” meaning they may not cover activities that would exist irrespective of the campaign, according to the FEC. Leadership PACs are not even beholden to that “personal use” rule, meaning lawmakers have broad latitude to use the money they raise as long as it has some fundraising function. Ruben Gallego has leaned into that leeway, with his three children, Sydney Gallego, her mother and their full-time au pair frequently joining the senator on donors’ dime, according to the person, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation.

“He just spends his campaign account like it’s his personal slush fund,” said the person. “He’s using campaign cash to live a luxury lifestyle.”

Gallego did not dispute using donor funds to pay for family travel or child care. “This is not breaking news,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. “With the rising costs of child care and the burden it has on the budgets of American families, Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House alike regularly travel with their wives and children, as is permitted by the FEC.”

Yeah, okay, Reuben. Except that, according to a separate POLITICO report, the Justice Department isn’t convinced you’re being completely honest:

The Justice Department is investigating Sen. Ruben Gallego for suspected campaign finance violations, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The federal probe stems from a “whistleblower complaint” out of Southern California, according to the person, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about an ongoing investigation.

The Justice Department has not contacted Gallego nor his team, according to a spokesperson for the senator. A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment.

Gallego’s office responded with one of the most politically unaware statements possible: It’s President Trump’s fault. He’s ‘weaponizing the DOJ,’ you see:

President Donald Trump “is targeting Senator Gallego while the most weaponized Department of Justice in history is turning a blind eye to Trump’s unprecedented corruption.” The spokesperson added that “It’s the least surprising news of the week that this comes immediately after the Senate Ethics Committee cleared Senator Gallego of rightwing smears pushed by the administration weeks ago.”

When it was Joe Biden’s DoJ actually bringing charges against Trump, Gallego was all-in for that. What Biden’s DoJ was doing wasn’t ‘weaponizing’ justice but meting it out. Sure. And Joe was fully in charge of his administration, too. I’ve got oceanfront property in Colorado to sell you if you believe Gallego.

I can’t say with any certainty that Gallego has done something wrong. The DoJ thinks it’s possible, obviously. But I will say this: Even if he’s ‘following congressional rules’ regarding that spending, it stinks to high heaven. It looks corrupt. It appears unethical. And his bromance with his disgraced bud, Swalwell, makes it all seem even worse.

Democrats aren’t the only ones giving Congress a bad name. But they are the biggest contributors by far.

America First and Only: Mace Proposes New Constitutional Amendment Barring Foreign-Born From Holding Office

 

There is only one truly permanent way to settle a major political fight in the United States: amend the Constitution.

Once an amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the supreme law of the land — beyond the reach of Congress, presidents, governors, or the courts acting on their own. Courts can interpret amendments, but they cannot simply erase them because judges disagree politically with the outcome.

History proves it. The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution imposed Prohibition nationwide, and it remained a binding law until the Twenty-first Amendment formally repealed it. The system required another constitutional amendment to undo the first one.

That is why constitutional amendments carry such enormous weight: they override ordinary statutes, executive actions, and judicial theories.

If the Constitution were amended to require that members of Congress or senior executive officials be natural-born citizens — similar to the existing presidential eligibility requirement in Article II — that standard would become constitutionally binding nationwide unless another amendment later repealed or altered it.

Enter Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who is currently running for governor of South Carolina:

She wrote on X:

We introduced a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment REQUIRING Representatives, Senators, federal judges at every level, and all Senate-confirmed officers to be natural born citizens.

This is not complicated. If you hold power in the American government, you should be a natural born American citizen.

Several foreign born lawmakers currently holding power in this government have made clear their loyalties do not lie with the American people. Ilhan Omar is a prime example of why this amendment is necessary.

The American people deserve leaders who put America first. This amendment makes sure of it.

In an interview with Fox News, Mace called out Omar again:

“If you hold power in the American government, you should be a natural-born American citizen,” Mace told Fox News Digital in a statement. “For too long we have allowed foreign-born members to hold seats in this government, while making clear their loyalty is not here. We see it every day.”

Mace specifically called out progressive Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who was born in Somalia and became a naturalized citizen in 2000.

“Ilhan Omar is just one of many foreign-born members of this government who have made clear, time and again, their loyalty is not here,” Mace said. “The American people deserve leaders who put America first. This amendment closes a gap in our Constitution long overdue for closing.”

Okay, first and foremost, this amendment isn’t likely to go anywhere. Every Democrat would be against it, and frankly, too many Republicans are spineless and too worried about what CNN will say about them.

But that doesn’t mean that Mace’s amendment is a bad idea. Clearly, our founders were worried about foreign influence over our government. That’s why they made it a requirement for our presidents and vice presidents to be native-born.

They likely didn’t think we would allow ourselves to be inundated with a slew of congressional members who clearly put their home countries first.

So while this amendment won’t go anywhere now, that doesn’t mean it’ll never happen. Good on Mace for introducing it and getting the conversation started.

---

Enjoying our conservative news and commentary? Make sure you share and tell your friends about us!

Which Couple Is the Happiest?

 

Which Couple Is the Happiest? A Simple Rainy-Day Puzzle That's Sparking Debate Online

Social media loves a good brain teaser, especially when it seems simple at first glance but reveals deeper meaning the longer you look at it.

One image currently generating thousands of comments asks a straightforward question:

"Which couple is the happiest?"

The illustration shows four couples walking together in the rain, each holding an umbrella. At first glance, they all appear similar. But people quickly notice subtle differences in their body language, posture, and how they interact with each other.

And that's where the debate begins.

Couple #1: The Practical Partners

The blue couple appears comfortable and relaxed.

Both individuals seem focused on getting through the rain together while carrying shopping bags. Their umbrella covers both of them reasonably well, suggesting teamwork and mutual consideration.

Some viewers believe this couple represents a healthy, balanced relationship built on everyday partnership rather than grand displays of affection.

Couple #2: The Independent Pair

The green couple walks side by side but leaves a bit more space between themselves.

Neither seems overly dependent on the other, which some interpret as a sign of trust and personal independence.

Supporters of Couple #2 argue that true happiness comes from two complete individuals choosing to walk together rather than relying entirely on one another.

Couple #3: The Romantic Duo

The red couple often receives the most votes.

Unlike the others, they appear physically closer, with the woman leaning toward her partner.

Many viewers see warmth, affection, and emotional connection in their body language.

Those who choose Couple #3 often say happiness isn't about avoiding life's storms—it's about staying close when those storms arrive.

Couple #4: The Long-Term Team

The yellow couple carries an umbrella and a walking cane.

Some observers interpret the cane as a symbol of age, suggesting a relationship that has survived many years together.

Supporters of Couple #4 argue that lasting love is the ultimate sign of happiness. They see the image as representing commitment, loyalty, and the ability to weather life's challenges over time.

Here's the interesting part:

There is no officially correct answer.

That's what makes this image so popular.

The choice people make often reveals more about their own beliefs regarding relationships than about the illustration itself.

Some prioritize romance.

Others value stability.

Some admire independence.

Others focus on loyalty and longevity.

What Happiness Really Looks Like

Psychologists often point out that happy relationships don't all look the same.

Some couples express affection openly.

Others show love through practical support.

Some thrive on independence.

Others prefer constant togetherness.

The happiest couple isn't necessarily the one that appears perfect from the outside.

It's often the couple that has found a dynamic that works for them.

Why This Puzzle Went Viral

The image resonates because everyone has their own definition of happiness.

Instead of testing intelligence, it invites people to reflect on their values, experiences, and beliefs about love.

That makes the discussion personal—and highly shareable.

Final Question

Looking at the image, which couple would you choose?

❤️ Couple #1 – Teamwork and partnership

💚 Couple #2 – Independence and trust

❤️ Couple #3 – Romance and closeness

💛 Couple #4 – Loyalty and lifelong commitment

There may not be a right answer, but your choice might reveal something interesting about how you view relationships and happiness.