Popular Posts

A screenshot compiling five separate social media posts (X/Twitter format) praising a State of the Union address, each with the poster's name, verified checkmark, and handle. Posts are from: Clint Brown (@DissidentClint), Tim Pool (@Timcast), Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec), Clint Brown again (@DissidentClint), and Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton). Three of the accounts (Tim Pool, Jack Posobiec, Buck Sexton) show black "Subscribe" buttons next to their posts.

Text in image: Clint Brown ✓ @DissidentClint The story Trump is telling is of the greatness of Americans from the most high (ie Marco Rubio) to ordinary Americans. And he's showing that the highest and the ordinary are exceptional. This speech is a story of the greatness of the American people. Tim Pool ✓ @Timcast Subscribe This State of The Union was Historic Jack Posobiec ✓ @JackPosobiec Subscribe Best State of the Union I've ever seen Clint Brown ✓ @DissidentClint This speech is cathartic. Trump is telling the story of everything we've experienced together as a country and showing us how it's getting better. Showing us how we are winning. Buck Sexton ✓ @BuckSexton Subscribe This is the best State of the Union Address I've ever seen Not just by Trump. By any President.

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A political campaign graphic with a blue-to-red gradient background. It shows a headshot of Donald Trump with a serious, stern expression on the left, and a smiling bald man in a navy suit with a striped tie on the right, wearing a small round pin on his lapel. At the bottom is a "TRUMP VANCE / MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" campaign logo with stars.

Text in image: CONGRESSMAN (TX-06) JAKE ELLZEY WINS! ENDORSED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP! TRUMP VANCE MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A political campaign graphic with a blue-to-red gradient background, bordered by a thin blue frame. It features a serious/unsmiling close-up photo of Donald Trump on the left and a smiling photo of a woman identified as Congresswoman Monica De La Cruz on the right, wearing a pearl necklace and a dark blazer with a lapel pin. At the bottom center is a "TRUMP VANCE" campaign logo with stars and the slogan "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Text in image: CONGRESSWOMAN (TX-15) MONICA DE LA CRUZ WINS! ENDORSED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP! TRUMP VANCE MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A news photograph showing a man in a navy blue suit with a red tie (resembling Donald Trump) standing on a paved driveway, facing and conversing with an elderly man wearing a dark Marine Corps dress uniform with a white peaked cap, glasses, a Medal of Honor around his neck, and several rows of military ribbons/medals on his chest. The older man is gesturing with both hands raised while speaking. Behind them sits a vintage olive-drab military jeep (WWII-era style, with a small U.S. flag mounted on it and markings including "42-1" partially visible on the front). The setting appears to be a lawn area with trees and manicured grass in the background, consistent with the White House grounds.

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A political campaign graphic with a dark blue-to-red gradient background, bordered by a thin white rectangle. It features cropped head-and-shoulders photos of two people: on the left, a man with light-colored hair and an orange-toned complexion wearing a dark suit and blue tie, looking down with a stern expression (resembling Donald Trump); on the right, an older woman with blonde/gray shoulder-length hair, dark-framed glasses, red lipstick, and a red patterned top, smiling. At the bottom center is a "TRUMP VANCE" logo with five stars above and below the word "VANCE," and the tagline "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" underneath.

Text in image: CONGRESSWOMAN (WV-01) CAROL MILLER WINS! ENDORSED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP! TRUMP VANCE MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A political campaign-style graphic with a blue-to-red gradient background. It shows a close-up photo of Donald Trump (frowning, serious expression, wearing a dark suit and blue tie) next to a photo of a woman with shoulder-length light brown/reddish hair, wearing a white blazer with a small flag pin and earrings. At the bottom center is a "TRUMP VANCE / MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" campaign logo with stars.

Text in image: U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA DARLINE GRAHAM ADVANCES! ENDORSED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP! TRUMP VANCE MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A photograph of a handwritten letter on official House of Representatives letterhead, bearing the Great Seal of the United States and printed text "House of Representatives / Washington, DC 20515" with the sender identified as "Mike Ezell, Fourth District, Mississippi." The handwritten note is addressed to "Mr. President" (Trump), praising his anti-drug/law enforcement efforts, and is signed at the bottom with a signature reading "Mike Ezell."

Text in image: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, DC 20515 MIKE EZELL FOURTH DISTRICT, MISSISSIPPI Mr. President, Your are a great American Hero! I spent my entire adult life as a police officer; and Sheriff of my home county in Mississippi. What You are doing sir is GREAT, the war on drugs has never worked until now! Mr. President, I've fought the criminal element my entire life, My father was also a police officer, I say again sir we have never had someone like You that stands for our law Enforcemen Officers like You! GOD Bless You President Trump! [signature: Mike Ezell]

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A black-and-white book cover featuring side-by-side portrait photos of Donald Trump (left) and Winston Churchill (right), both facing forward. The cover is for a book titled "Trump and Churchill: Defenders of Western Civilization" by Nick Adams, with a foreword by Newt Gingrich.

Text in image: NICK ADAMS TRUMP AND CHURCHILL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION FOREWORD BY NEWT GINGRICH

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A "Verse of the Day" graphic, likely from a Bible app, featuring a blurred sunset/mountain silhouette background transitioning from orange at top to dark maroon/purple at bottom. White text overlays the image citing a Bible verse.

Text in image: Verse of the Day Amos 5:24 NIV But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

some people like to give you a quick opinion about something like this. This is the Supreme Court decision opinion on tariffs. Here's the problem. There's opinions within opinions. It's a mess. First, there was no need for the court to rule as it did, period. The majority is not even a majority, except in agreeing to hold that the tariffs were not authorized by Congress in a 1977 law. Second, the majority is split into two camps. You've got Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett, and then that camp is split somewhat between Gorsuch and Barrett. Third, the three other justices in the second camp of the majority, the usual leftists, well, they mostly agreed with each other, but went further in attacking the President's tariff authority. I can assure you they wouldn't have done it with a Biden or Obama. Number four, this explains why it took so long for the court to issue a ruling, because the ruling appears to be a variety of arguments intended to reach a result. That is, in my view, it was result-oriented, a result looking for a constitutional and/or legal justification. Now fifth, if the court, as here, is going to issue a ruling that is so destructive of, or contrary to, the executives' international economic, national security, and foreign policy objectives, and the President's strategies, the President and we, the people, deserve a lot better than the massive mess that these nine lawyers created. This ruling is more like some committee of lawyers, or some law review group of legal students in the law library, each vying to impose his or her own policy preferences on the President, while searching for some constitutional legal justifications to do so. In fact, this case was not complicated at all, although the decision, which is actually an accumulation of arguments within the court, is complicated because of its incoherence. Sixth, the court majority wants you to believe that this was a matter of statutory interpretation only, involving one statute passed in 1977, and Congress's power over the purse. Article I, Section 8. That's it. Well, then why did it take 177 pages? But there's more. But Congress's have passed multiple statutes, and even more historically, Presidents have used all kinds of trade tools to influence and affect international commerce, foreign policy, and national security. It simply does not just come down to the powers of the purse. Article II, Section 1, gives the President great power over conducting foreign policy. What are tariffs? Tariffs are effectively taxes imposed on foreign governments. Well, isn't that foreign policy? Yes. And when the President uses tariffs to influence foreign governments, whether it's over war and peace, whether it's over economic policy, whatever it's over, is that not the conduct of foreign policy? Of course it is. Seventh, the court bobbed and weaved, touching on congressional delegation or non-delegation, cherry-picking the historical record where Presidents have imposed tariffs and other international trade tools to influence and affect foreign policy with the majority, we think, essentially ignoring or rejecting all contrary precedent in history. All precedent in history that came before is essentially written off. Number 8, the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, bluntly states that when he reads the text of the 1977 statute at issue, even those words specifically authorizing the President to quote, "regulate importation." It's in the statute. They're in the law, and in fact, are in several other laws, by the way, authorizing the President to impose tariffs. In this case, he says, "There are just too many words between the words 'regulate' and 'importation.'" Got that? Too many words between the words "regulate importation" for him to draw the conclusion that this particular statute authorized the President to regulate importation. Ninth, Justice Thomas went through the history of presidential power and tariffs, meticulously, as he always does, and that makes clear that President Trump has, in fact, been acting within the powers traditionally exercised by past presidents. Now, I know people who are opposed to tariffs, so that's not true, but it is true. So, what we're discussing here is the Constitution of the law, not policy preferences, and who makes those decisions? Six justices on the Supreme Court who can barely write a single majority opinion? In fact, they don't. Tenth, Justice Kavanaugh was brilliant in his dissent, and he went through the statutory history of delegations to presidents, of tariff powers, as well as other points, making clear that the President was, in fact, delegated authority under that 1977 statute to, quote, "regulate importations." Shame on Chief Justice Roberts, shame on Justices Barrett and Gorsuch, your word games and semantical ruminations had no place here. I was left thinking how lawyers can become so typically absurd when trying to prove how brilliant they are, or when, in fact, their egos get in the way of well-reasoned outcomes. And you can see that in some of the back and forth. It's really kind of appalling. Twelve, the Chief Justice appears to have come up with a so-called majority opinion that is as narrow as possible in order to attract enough votes to overturn the tariffs, at least under this one statute. But in doing so, he did not show leadership. He created a big mess. This so-called majority opinion provides no precedential value. It provides no constitutional or legal guidance. It says the court does not have the authority or the ability to get involved in policy, yet I found this ruling to be more about policy than the Constitution or law. The majority had a problem, which I knew they would. On the several occasions I've discussed this case with you right on this show. Where exactly is the separation of powers? Where is that line drawn when it comes to tariffs? Yes, Congress has the power of the purse. The president has broad power over foreign policy and national security and diplomacy. Obviously, trade and its relationship to the president's broad powers cannot be ignored. Yet the ruling essentially does that, but then the court says they're not doing that. It's just ruling on a single statute. In other words, the court's ruling was, as I said, result-oriented, policy-driven, despite the majority's disclaimers. When the Supreme Court cannot come up with a coherent, understandable decision based on the Constitution and the law, you know then it is conducting itself as politicians, it is activists, and it has no business doing what this court did. It interfered in a matter that should be left to the legislative and executive branches because the constitutional question on who gets to lay tariffs is in fact an absurd question. What do you mean, Mark? Because both Congress and the president have a role. And if Congress thought the president went too far, it could use the power of the purse, the appropriations process, under Article I, to stop him. As I've said here repeatedly, Congress didn't even try. And so this is the mix in the battle between the elected branches and to have basically six lawyers, a majority, who can't really come up with a single theory. Get involved and decide one way or another is appalling, it's absurd. So where are we now? It's a foolish overreach by the Supreme Court. There was a piece written by Stan Valger and Clark Packard a few months back, the American Enterprise Institute, and boy did they hate tariffs. That's fine, that's their view. They hate tariffs, they hate all these manipulations or involvement in trade and so forth and so on. And yet in their peace, while they're haranguing against the president's tariffs, they also provide the following, which is actually quite interesting. And they point out the first Trump administration of post-tariffs, usually at 25% on some two-thirds of imports from China under Section 301 of the Trade Act, in 1974, they're telling us actually the president has many alternatives to that one statute that the court, we think, ruled on. The Biden administration kept these measures largely intact, used the existing authority to layer on other tariffs, including 100% duties on Chinese electric vehicles. Most of these tariffs continue to this day. Because of the Section 301 measures, the effective tariff on imports from China remains particularly high, around 50%. Section 232 tariffs would also survive in administration loss in learnings, resources versus Trump. Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the president may restrict imports determined to pose a threat to national security, following an investigation by the Commerce Department. They go on. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the provision empowers the president to address large insurance balance of payments deficits. Through import surcharges of up to 15% import quotas, or some combination of the two. Wow! Section 301, the basis for existing China tariffs, offers another avenue for reconstructing the tariffs that the court struck down, one where the president enjoys wide unilateral authority. It grants the US Trade Representative broad authority to investigate and remedy unfair foreign trade practices. That's not all. The old 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, I know we don't like it. I'm just saying what's available. Now, it lets the president oppose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce as compared to other nations. So what exactly did the Supreme Court accomplish? Nothing. It created a mess in terms of tariffs that had been paid. The president can follow other avenues if he wishes. I would argue that constitutionally he is the authority to do what he's doing, whether people like it or not. And Congress has the constitutional power to try and check that, and those lawyers on the Supreme Court had no business getting involved. They should have done what I said, not because I said it, because it would have been right, which was reverse the lower court that found those tariffs illegal, tell the judiciary below, stay out of this. The court should say, "We're going to stay out of it," because this really isn't justiciable in any rational or logical way. It hasn't really played out. It may never play out. It hasn't played out in 200 years and more of American constitutional history. But the court jumped in and they created a big splash, a big mess, and achieved nothing but chaos.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A chart/infographic titled "The USA is the Global Leader in Natural Gas Production," showing a red area chart of U.S. natural gas production in billion cubic feet per day (bcfpd) from 2000 to roughly 2025-2026. The line rises steadily from about 55 bcfpd in 2000 to a current level of ~121 bcfpd. A vertical line marks "November 2016 Presidential Election," labeled "TRUMP" with the presidential seal, positioned near where production was around 80 bcfpd; production climbs more steeply after that marker, reaching a callout box reading "~121 bcfpd, current production" next to a small American flag icon in the upper right.

Text in image: The USA is the Global Leader in Natural Gas Production (natural gas production, billion cubic feet per day) TRUMP November 2016 Presidential Election ~121 bcfpd current production 120 100 80 60 40 20 -- 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A news-style photograph of a group walking across a paved courtyard in front of a traditional Chinese palace-style building with ornate red pillars and tiled roofs (resembling a Forbidden City/imperial architecture setting in Beijing). In the front row, from left to right: a blonde woman wearing sunglasses and a white polka-dot midi dress with nude high heels; a man resembling Donald Trump in a navy suit, white shirt, and red tie, looking to his right; and a man resembling Chinese President Xi Jinping in a navy suit, white shirt, and dark red/maroon tie. Behind them is a woman in a dark maroon pantsuit, and several other people in suits (apparent security/aides) trailing behind, including one carrying a black folder. The setting appears to be an official state visit or diplomatic event.

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A news/street photograph looking down the Champs-Élysées in Paris toward the Arc de Triomphe. The tree-lined boulevard is filled with a large crowd of pedestrians in the distance near the arch, with barriers and traffic cones separating the crowd from the roadway. Three dark-colored cars (including what appear to be taxis) are driving toward the camera in the foreground on the multi-lane road. A red-and-white construction crane is visible in the sky to the left of the arch, and modern high-rise buildings (likely La Défense district) are visible behind and to the right of the arch. The sky is overcast/hazy.

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A bar chart titled "Length of Wars," bearing a "45|47" presidential-seal-style logo in both top corners and a gold divider line beneath the title. Blue bars compare the duration in weeks of past U.S. wars/conflicts, from tallest to shortest: Afghanistan War (543 weeks), Iraq War (457 weeks), Vietnam War (439 weeks), US Civil War (209 weeks), World War II (196 weeks), Korean War (161 weeks), and War of 1812 (139 weeks). The final bar, "Iran Excursion" at 6 weeks, is drawn much shorter than the others and its label is in red text with a red underline, visually contrasting it against the blue bars and setting it apart from the rest of the chart to emphasize its brevity.

Text in image: Length of Wars 45|47 45|47 543 Weeks Afghanistan War 457 Weeks Iraq War 439 Weeks Vietnam War 209 Weeks US Civil War 196 Weeks World War II 161 Weeks Korean War 139 Weeks War of 1812 6 Weeks Iran Excursion

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A Getty Images news photograph of a man resembling Donald Trump and a woman resembling Melania Trump standing on a red carpet, holding hands, in front of a step-and-repeat backdrop for "The Kennedy Center Honors" with CBS logos. He wears a black tuxedo with black bow tie and white shirt; she wears a sleeveless black floor-length gown, with long wavy blonde hair, a bracelet, and a ring, and is smiling toward the camera while he looks ahead with a neutral/serious expression.

Text in image: CBS The Kennedy C[enter] HONO[RS] The Ke[nnedy] HONO[RS] gettyimages® Credit: Paul Morigi 4250607871

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A news photograph of a man resembling Donald Trump, wearing a dark navy suit, white shirt, and gold/yellow patterned tie, standing outdoors in front of green trees. He is surrounded by press with cameras, boom microphones, and handheld microphones/recorders held up toward him; one man's arm points toward him. The setting resembles a White House lawn press gaggle.

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A political campaign graphic with a blue-to-red gradient background. It announces that Jessica Steinmann has won the Republican nomination for Texas's 8th congressional district (TX-08), with an endorsement from President Trump. The image shows two photos side by side: on the left, a close-up headshot of Donald Trump with a serious/stern expression, wearing a dark suit and blue tie; on the right, a headshot of a smiling blonde woman (identified in the text as Jessica Steinmann) wearing a dark blazer and pearl necklace. At the bottom center is the "TRUMP VANCE" campaign logo with stars and the slogan "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Text in image: REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR TX-08 JESSICA STEINMANN WINS! ENDORSED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP! TRUMP VANCE MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

-Who's the boss? -Hi, sir. -She's the boss. She's the boss. -How are you? -I'm good, sir. -He did a great job. -Yes, sir. -Thank you, sir. Very nice to meet you. -Thank you. -How about that? -Thank you. -That was great. -I know he's the president. -That was wonderful. -It's an honor for me to go. -Nice to see you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. I'm going to take this, and I'll be thinking about you. -Yes, sir. -So take care of everybody. -Yes, sir. -Yes, sir. - We love you. - Thank you everybody.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A screenshot of a social media post (X/Twitter) from a verified account named "Mark Paoletta" (@MarkPaoletta), posted 12:50 PM · Nov 26, 2024, with 202.4K views. Below the text is an older photograph showing three people at a racetrack (a Pepsi-sponsored venue with "HOME OF THE" visible on a sign): a man in a black-and-orange racing jacket with a "Daytona 500" patch shaking hands with another man wearing a dark cap and navy jacket with a red lanyard, while a young woman with long hair in a white jacket stands beside him looking toward them. A man wearing headphones is visible in the background.

Text in image: Mark Paoletta ✓ @MarkPaoletta Three great Americans - Justice Clarence Thomas, President Donald Trump, and First Lady Melania Trump at the Daytona 500 in 1999. Justice Thomas was serving as the Grand Marshal. The Left has thrown everything at Justice Thomas and President Trump, including unprecedented lawfare and lies, and they have always stood strong and never backed down. They love America and the American people. In this Thanksgiving week, we should be thankful for the courage and leadership of these great patriots to defend our Constitution and the rights and liberties of American citizens. God Bless them. 12:50 PM · Nov 26, 2024 · 202.4K Views HOME OF THE PEPSI DAYTONA 500

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.