Popular Posts

to do to get this bill passed. Well, first of all, I just want to thank the president for his leadership on this. It's such an important piece of legislation to guarantee, as you've already said, that only American citizens vote in American elections and that you have voter ID. This is common sense. Nobody in America really outwardly opposes this. 80% of Americans support it. Democrats, a majority of Democrats support it. People of all walks of life, whether you're male, female, whether you're black, white, Hispanic, you support this piece of legislation. Only the United States Senate is presenting a barrier to getting this common sense bill passed. And so to answer your question, I think first, the House, we need to continue to pass it. Speaker Johnson and I had a conversation this week, and I believe we're working to include the Save Act, the Save America Act on the National Defense Authorization Act so we can send another vehicle to the Senate to see if they'll break loose and pass it. We've passed it, as you know, three times. We're looking for the Senate to do their job. But at the end of the day, it's up to willpower. The Senate has the ability to do it. And for Senate Republicans, you keep saying they don't have the votes. That's simply false. They've already had a test vote and they had 50 votes for it. And with J.D. Vance, that's 51. It's a matter of having the willpower to structure the Senate to have whether it's a talking filibuster or any other mechanism they want to carry forward to force the bill to the floor at a majority vote. They can choose to do it. They're just simply not.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

[MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING]

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A digitally-rendered watercolor-style illustration of a nostalgic Americana carnival/fair scene. A group of laughing children in vintage-style clothing (overalls, dresses, striped shirt) run toward the camera through a fairground. Behind them is a colorful carousel decorated with an American flag, a striped cotton candy stand with pink, blue, and yellow cotton candy, red-and-white striped tents, and strings of red, white, and blue pennant flags overhead against a blue sky with clouds. Adults in period-style clothing (hats, striped shirts) stroll in the background. Bold black text spans the top of the image above the illustration.

Text in image: AMERICA IS BACK!

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

First, the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment could not have meant to grant citizenship at birth to the children of illegal aliens because there were no restrictions on immigration in 1868. Hello? Of course they weren't thinking about illegal aliens, because there were no restrictions on immigration in 1868. Uh-oh. So, there were no illegal aliens. Of course that changes over time. Second, the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, from which the Fourteenth Amendment was gleaned, states that "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." In other words, not citizens or persons of any other power, foreign power. And so, what they did is put that in the positive, the affirmative in the Fourteenth Amendment. You have to be within the jurisdiction of the United States, no other country. Clearly, this would exclude children of aliens, legal or illegal. Of course, we're talking about children of illegal aliens right now. There's no evidence at all that the Fourteenth Amendment's use of the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof was intended to alter the meaning or the intent of the language in the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Well, why did they change it? Because it goes through a different process. But they didn't change its intent or meaning. How do we know? Because they said so. Third, Senators Trumbull and Howard. Remember them, two of the principal authors of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment stated that, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States means not owing allegiance to anybody else." Got that? Allegiance. How on earth is this an automatic grant of birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? It's not, and it was never intended to be. Indeed, illegal aliens are by definition in the United States illegally. That is in direct violation of federal law. Does anybody actually believe, even if we play this game that the left is playing or some of the justices, does anybody actually believe that a foreigner can confer upon herself legal jurisdiction for the purpose of or even accidentally creating citizenship for a child born here? They're not even here legally. How do they confer a status on their child born in the United States? Is that what the Fourteenth Amendment says? Of course not. And you won't find it in any of the discussions, any of the debates, and you won't find it in any of the ratification discussions in any of the states. Which is why not a single justice pointed to it. There's nothing to point to. Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice, he turns to the Solicitor General who gives him some examples of how this can't be true, and he says, "Those are quirky examples." Well, then I would say to the Chief Justice, "Can you give us one scintilla of evidence to support the proposition that birthright citizenship was intended under the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than referring to esoteric English common law? I've done that. I know what it means." Or to Blackstone or to anything else. Just look at it. Just listen to what they said. Can you show me any evidence? Even quirky. But here we have an instance where people come into the country illegally, and somehow they can confer a constitutional right onto their children? Such an absurdity never entered the discussion, let alone the thinking of anyone involved in the amendment process. Nobody brought it up. I'm sure nobody even imagined it. The focus was on the newly freed slaves and their children, and addressing their ongoing plight in the old Confederacy. That's it. The Constitution is not granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in our country, which it appears to be specifically denying. It seems to be the opposite. Fourth, there's been reference to a case in 1898, a decision by the Supreme Court, in a case called the United States vs. Wong Kim Arc, and you heard this brought up during the hearing. It held that the Citizenship Clause grants birthright citizenship to a child born in the United States of illegal, of legal, legal resident aliens. Well, where does it say that? Nowhere. Nowhere. I think this decision was wrong, others do too, but let's pretend it's right. There's a lot of debate about it, but it's not relevant to the issue of children born of illegal aliens, because that wasn't what the case was about. Children of illegal aliens in the United States. The fact is, and it is indisputable, that the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of creating a universal right of birthright citizenship. None stated, none imagined. There is not a scintilla of evidence, as I said, to the contrary. In fact, the evidence leads to the opposite conclusion. To be crystal clear, at no time did any Senator or Congressman in 1866 or 1868, whether involved in the legislative or amendment processes or not, declare for birthright citizenship as a universal rule. Nowhere. At no time was the idea of foreigners coming to the United States legally or illegally considered an automatic conference of citizenship on children born here. In the case of illegal immigrants, the argument is utterly absurd. Finally, to most of the Supreme Court justices, who did not comport themselves well, in my view, with either the facts or the Constitution. The issue is what the Constitution says, not what you want it to say. The 14th Amendment in particular, and the intent and meaning of those who wrote it and debated it, it has nothing to do with what lower court judges have opined, it has nothing to do with current practices, it has nothing to do with the administrative processes, it has nothing to do with the intent of illegal aliens or some process for determining it. That can all be worked out by the other branches of government, the elected branches. Nor does it have anything to do with your legacy and how it will be treated by the liberal media, left-wing law professors at Ivy League law schools, and immigration activists. It has nothing to do with your understandable concern, if not fear, of intimidation by protesters, which would undoubtedly be treated much differently, I might add, by this administration than the prior administration. You'd be protected. The issue is actually straightforward and simple, and you all know it. There's no such thing as birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens who are, by definition, in our country, illegally, period, and it should be left to Congress through legislation or amendment or to the president by executive order to make determinations on what to do about it, not guesswork during a hearing. Not nine Supreme Court justices, lawyers and robes, your job is to rule on the Constitution and nothing else. Should you rule the other way and actually constitutionalize that which is both unsaid and illegal, you will do irreversible damage to the Constitution, the rule of law, the legitimacy of your court, and most importantly, our republic. You will formally incentivize and promote law-breaking and illegal immigration. You will legalize it through the back door and the children who are born from it. I remind you, the phrase "birthright citizenship" appears nowhere in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the debates about either, nowhere is codified in any congressionally passed bill signed into law by any president. Nobody has ever voted for it. Except you, on the court. You get to decide now on a big issue. You should leave it to the people in our elected representatives or the amendment process with a legislative process, but you, if you rule on this and constitutionalize this, will be known as the most activist court in the history of the Supreme Court, and the damage is incalculable. Think about it. I'll be right back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's my privilege to welcome the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. (Applause.) Thank you very much. You know, the fake news media will say I got a very bad reception. (Applause.) But we get a good reception. We love what we're doing, what the country is doing right now. Brian said, "Could you make a short speech?" And I said, "No, I don't have the courage to make a speech. These people want to speak up. They don't want to hear speeches." I'll only say this. Our country is doing great better than ever before. (Applause.) I want to remind you, the greatest players in the world go out and play and dance.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Our team has looked at these systems, and there are a dozen ways to interdict the voting process in these issues, whether it's mail-in ballot manipulations, they can scan and allocate votes, blank votes, whether it was the 70,000 votes left in the back room, there's just lots of ways to interdict these systems. So with that, I'll answer any potential questions. Thank you. Next panel, please. Could I just ask... Yes, sir. Ask him to clarify one or two things. When we look at this Pennsylvania fixing the vote chart that they all have, could you explain at the very beginning what that line means, Biden injection? So at the very beginning of the chart, where there's a circle that says on election day, what that indicates is there is a spike in loaded votes, 337,000 plus or minus of some votes that were added in there in one big batch. So that was an anomaly in the reporting. Normally you would expect to see a smooth curve going up, not any big spikes. That's what Greg was talking about, the anomalies of loading and uploading those votes. So that big spike that occurs there is a prime indicator of fraudulent voting. And that's 604,000 votes in 90 minutes, is that right? Correct. This is 337,000 votes in that period of time. Yes. Let's look at this entire curve with all these spikes. Can you calculate how much of a vote that accounted for for Biden and how much for Trump? Close to 600,000. I think our figures were about 570,000, some odd thousand, that all those spikes represented over time. For Biden? Correct. And how much for Trump? I think it was a little over 3,200. How about that? Now just to go back to your original document, this one pager that they all have, mail in ballots counted without being observed. Those are the ballots we were talking about that were not observed in Allegheny County and in Philadelphia. Correct. Is that right? 682,770. Now, this is the part that is a mystery. World ballots sent out 1,823,148. But when you go to the count of the final count of the vote, there are 2,589,242 mail-in ballots. What happened? How do you account for the 700,000 mail-in ballots that appeared from nowhere? So our cyber team uses white hat hacking techniques. They gather a lot of publicly available information. And that information was from the Secretary of State's website. That website has been updated as late as 11/16 this morning with provisional mail-in ballots. So those numbers are still changing. They changed last night. So it's a continual target. This is 22 days after the election. That number, the 2.5 million number is no longer on the website. Just been taken off? It's not there anymore. Is there any explanation of why it's been taken off? There was no annotations. But has there been a change made in the 2,589,242 mail-in votes that have been counted in the total vote? Yeah, I'd have to check the Secretary of State's website. Could you also check and see? Is there any change in the 1,823,148 ballots that were sent out? The mail-out ballots number seems to be holding steady. And was there any other method of producing ballots other than sending them out? Not that we're aware of, unless there's previous witnesses of testimony that the potential for multiple ballot counts. So ballots could have been counted. And have you ever gotten a chance to examine any of these ballots? No. That would be part of the forensic process. One suggestion, whoever does the analysis is using paper and ink analysis of a micro-photo spectrometer. That would analyze the ink on those ballots to see if they were mass-produced. So in addition to the 682,770 ballots that were entered without a single inspection of any kind, there also appear to be something like 700,000 mail-in ballots that were never sent out, that were counted. noted discrepancies in the Secretary's report.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Screenshot of a post on X (Twitter) by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna), shown with her profile photo, a gray verified badge and a small square badge icon. The post says President Trump is negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine and secured the release of Stephen Hubbard. It calls members of the Senate and House who oppose his discussions "UNINFORMED", asks who is donating to their campaigns, and says they should stop taking Elon's and the President's assistance in the midterms if they think the two are so bad. It ends by saying that people who don't know what is happening should keep their mouths shut. The timestamp reads 8:07 AM · Oct 21, 2026, with 55.9K views.

Text in image: Rep. Anna Paulina Luna @RepLuna President Trump is actively negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine and just successfully secured the release of Stephen Hubbard. And during this time, UNINFORMED members of the Senate and some members of the House are in opposition to his discussions? I wonder why? Who is donating to their campaigns? If they really think Elon and the President are so bad maybe they should stop taking their assistance in the midterms. Let this be a lesson to all: sometimes, if you don't know what is actually happening, it is better to keep your mouth shut. 8:07 AM · Oct 21, 2026 · 55.9K Views

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

Hello America, I'm Mark Levin, and this is Life, Liberty, and Levin Saturday. Welcome to the program. You know, President Trump has done something no president dared to do in the last half century. He, with our ally Israel, and their great Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has destroyed the Iranian regime's military, the immediate nuclear threat, and most of the missile systems which were used to terrorize surrounding nations. If I told you that would have been accomplished in a few days, or even a few weeks, you wouldn't have believed me. And yet for some reason we act like this hasn't been a spectacular military success. That said, the knowledge on how to develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs, along with assistance from countries like China, Russia, and North Korea, and the internal militia and security forces of Iran, seem to ensure that sometime in the future, Iran will be able to reconstruct these weapons systems, rebuild its military, and internally increase its mass murder of even the most peaceful voices of dissent. So what do you do after you defeat an enemy's military and take out the top tier of their leadership? What do you do? Because that's where we are. Well, let's first look at what we said we will not do. No ground troops. Why? Because there's virtually no political will in our country to send ground troops into Iran. And I would argue there's no need to send in our ground troops for reasons I'll explain in a moment. President Trump has not only led a historic military victory against Iran, but he has asserted control over the Strait of Hormuz. Thereby controlling Iran's ability to sell its oil and choke the Iranian economy in hopes of forcing the regime to make a deal or collapse. Those are two very distinct objectives. To make a deal or collapse. So the question is which is preferable? So let's dig into this further. If the goal is to take down the regime, two of three most important conditions have already been achieved. The destruction of virtually its entire military capacity and economic control over their economy. These are two historic successes on their own. If the goal is to get a deal, the issue is not only what kind of deal, but can the deal stick? That is, how do we know if the enemy will adhere to the terms of a deal, especially after President Trump leaves office? Well, let's look at the Iranian regime's record. Rather than recounting the scores of examples, evidence, if you will, that the regime has violated every deal it has ever signed with any international organization, any country, or any group of countries, there simply is no evidence that the regime has ever honored any deal. Even the Obama nuclear disastrous deal, which ensured that Iran would have a nuclear weapon within 10 to 12 years of its signing, was violated by the Iranian regime, even though it would hand them nuclear weapons effectively. Why would the Iranian regime violate a deal that ensures it would have nuclear weapons in a decade or so? Because it felt no obligation to adhere to any deal, and it wanted to develop nuclear weapons to break out as fast as it could. So to be clear, even a deal in which the Iranian regime would in fact be able to secure nuclear weapons was violated by the Iranian regime repeatedly and in scores of ways. Monitoring, unannounced inspections, and the like were all eventually defied by the Iranian regime. So it's important to understand the ideological mindset of who and what we're dealing with. They're not of a Western mindset. The regime has learned from past experience with our country and with the current opposition in our country, from the Democrats, the media, and the radical isolationists, that all they need to do is wait us out. We have an election in November and they see that election as possible, if not likely, to change our government, at least one part of it. That is, with the election of Democrats in the House, for example, they know that that party stands for appeasement, radical pacifism, and isolationism. They've heard what they have to say, they have heard what their media have to say, and they also know that the Democrat Party will try to undermine President Trump, including his foreign policy, and especially in Iran, where the Democrats actually funded the regime and its war-making power under the Biden administration. Even more, they watch these debates over the War Powers Act, articles of impeachment against the Secretary of War, then declarations of impeachment against the President should the Democrats win the House, based in large part on what the Democrats falsely claim as constitutional and legal violations, and they claim that this is a war of choice, that it is a blunder, and that it is an illegal war. So the Iranians say, let's just hang in there. If the Democrats take the House, that's an American regime change, and if the Democrats take the presidency, wow, we're free to roll. Three years hence, if a Democrat is elected president, the Iranian regime figures it's no longer bound by the terms of any agreement, no matter how great the terms, because it simply will not be enforced, and we won't have the stomach to enforce it militarily, will we? You have a courageous president who's taking actions, who's ignoring the polls and doing what's right for the security of this nation in the world. Unfortunately, that's rare. The Iranian regime also knows there's a Marxist-Islamist alliance and presence in our country, and in fact, the Iranian regime is a Marxist-Islamist technological regime, and they and their allies helped fund it in our country and around the world, and it's very loud, and it's very violent, and it has the Democrat Party by the throat. And it, along with the neo-fascist isolationists, the neo-fascist isolationists will claim that Israel is behind any effort to enforce an agreement with Iran, and Israel is dragging us into another war. We hear it now, right? We cannot ignore the dark storm clouds of anti-Semitism that are now hanging over our country and have a strong foothold in the Democrat Party, the media, the academia, and this radical isolationism. Then there is the ideology of the Iranian regime, which, remember, is a worldwide Islamist revolution. That's its belief. Again, it is a Marxist-Islamist, worldwide revolutionary movement. As the Blair Institute has said, just like communism, a state was never the objective of the revolution. The organs of the Iranian state served the revolution, not the other way around, and the end goal of the revolution was never a state. It was the expansion of the revolution. The revolution does not exist to perfect the state. The state, or in this case the so-called Republic of Iran, is simply a means to support and perfect the revolution. Where the two conflict, the revolution is prioritized. This is something people in the West, in our country, simply don't seem to be able to get their heads around. They go on the failure of the administration of former US President Barack Obama and the new European External Action Service, the EEAS, to properly read Iran's intentions and their persistence in viewing Iranian political developments through the prism of Iran's relations with the West, severely constrained the Western negotiating position. This is key for any deal, any negotiation. To not understand that you're negotiating with a revolutionary Marxist-Islamist movement that seeks to destroy the West, at all costs, at any costs, even in their own disruption, is to completely misconstrue and misunderstand what you're negotiating with and what you're up against. This is not a nation-state negotiating with a nation-state. It is a nation-state, the United States of America, negotiating with a revolutionary audiology that seeks global dominance. And they go on to explain that these agreements with the Iranian regime do more to tie the hands of the West than the hands of the regime, which feels no obligation to adhere to any agreement with the West. And this has consequences, as an example. If we make a deal with Iran, does that mean Israel can't defend itself against Hezbollah? Are we going to have a situation where the Iranian regime survives, Hezbollah survives, and Hamas survives? Is this all being taken into consideration? Let's hope so. Okay, so you say, Mark, okay, well, what if there's no deal, or if a deal short of the unconditional surrender that we had mentioned earlier? And if you're not going to send the ground troops to destroy the regime, well, then what are you going to do? This is where I turned a more recent history in what I call the third leg of victory. In addition to the historic military and economic actions, there must be steps taken to destroy the regime internally. After all, the Iranian regime has an elaborate police state, an internal security force that is armed and well-trained and is critical to the revolution. In fact, the regime has been importing militia from Iraq and elsewhere to reinforce its internal security force. So what do we do about this? We can't defeat it from the skies. We can't defeat it from the seas. We can't defeat it alone by economically choking them off. Even though some people have suggested that. The way we have dealt with this in the past, during the Reagan administration and as part of the Reagan Doctrine, as I've explained here now, three or four weeks in a row, is to train and arm the people. And in Iran, you have millions and millions of people who are desperate to overthrow the regime, who are courageous, tens of thousands who have died. What other proof do they have to provide?

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A screenshot of a tweet/X post from John Solomon (@jsolomonReports), a verified account, posted 15 hours before the screenshot was taken. The post has a caption and links to justthenews.com. Below the text is a photo of a stage/event venue lit in red, white, and blue lighting with stars, a rope/barrier line, several men in suits walking or standing near the barrier, and a lit sign reading "DALLAS 2026" in the background. Stage lighting fixtures are visible in the foreground. The image has an embedded caption bar at the bottom repeating the tweet text. Below the photo are engagement stats: 43 replies, 1.1K reposts, 5K likes, 44K views.

Text in image: John Solomon @jsolomonReports · 15h GOP midterm convention last week draws over 100 million live stream views GOP midterm convention last week draws over 100 million live stream views From justthenews.com 43 1.1K 5K 44K

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

A screenshot showing a stack of four X (Twitter) posts praising a State of the Union address, apparently reacting live to it. Each post shows the account's profile picture, verified checkmark, display name and handle, with a "Subscribe" button next to several. The posters are, in order: Dr Manhattva (@Manhattva), Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz), Megan Basham (@megbasham), and Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec). Dr Manhattva has a cartoon/illustrated avatar of a bearded man; the others have real photos.

Text in image: Dr Manhattva ✓ @Manhattva Trump just absolutely annihilated the entire Democrat party, and had the longest standing ovation. I think I've seen in a state of the union address. Illian Omar is coming totally unglued and screaming at the president. How are you not watching this? Frank Luntz ✓ @FrankLuntz Smart opening: Trump leads with 250 years of America – not politics, not grievances. When you start with country instead of party, you bring more people with you. #SOTU2026 Megan Basham ✓ @megbasham Brilliant move by Trump. He just asked every member of Congress in the room to stand if they agree that their first duties are to the American people not to illegal aliens. Most Dems stay seated. Genius. Jack Posobiec ✓ @JackPosobiec Trump is using tonight to honor the excellence of the American people. Champions. Heroes. Families of the fallen. Amazing

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

A news/press-style photograph of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, D.C., looking east toward the Washington Monument, which is visible in the center background with its reflection mirrored in the calm water. Trees line both sides of the pool, under an overcast, cloudy sky. Small groups of people, including what appear to be uniformed personnel, are visible along the right-hand walkway near some equipment (a portable light tower and green crates/boxes). No text is present in the image.

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

A photograph of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., viewed from the far end of the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall. The white neoclassical building with its rows of columns is visible in the background, flanked by trees, with its reflection mirrored in the still water of the pool. A paved walkway runs along the right edge of the pool, and the sky is overcast with scattered clouds. A small golf-cart-like vehicle is visible on the path near the memorial in the distance.

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

A photograph of the National Mall's Reflecting Pool in Washington, D.C., taken at ground level along the water's edge. The calm, mirror-like pool fills most of the frame, reflecting a partly cloudy sky and a line of dense green trees along the far shore. Small figures and a golf-cart-like vehicle are visible on the paved path near the treeline, and part of a U.S. flag and some monument structures (likely near the World War II Memorial) are faintly visible in the distance on the left.

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

A photograph taken along the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., looking east toward the Washington Monument. The obelisk of the Washington Monument is visible on the left side, both directly and as a mirror-like reflection in the calm pool water. A row of trees lines the far edge of the pool, also reflected in the water, along with a partly cloudy sky. A small golf-cart-style utility vehicle and a few pedestrians are visible on the path along the far side of the pool. No people, animals, or text are prominent in the foreground; the lower two-thirds of the image is dominated by the still water's reflection of clouds and sky.

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

A campaign-style graphic with a blue-to-red gradient background bordered by a thin white frame. Text at top announces a congressional election win, above a red banner noting the presidential endorsement. Below are two head-and-shoulders photos: on the left, an older man with light/blond swept-back hair, a stern/serious expression, wearing a dark suit with a blue tie (resembling Donald Trump); on the right, a younger-looking man with short dark hair, smiling, wearing a dark suit with a white shirt and red tie, with a small round pin on his lapel. At the bottom center is a "TRUMP VANCE" campaign logo with five stars above and below it, and the tagline "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" underneath.

Text in image: CONGRESSMAN (MN-01) BRAD FINSTAD 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.

Screenshot of a post on X (X.com) by a verified account named Scott Dideon (@sdideon1), which has a default grey silhouette avatar and a blue verification checkmark. The post is plain black text on a white background. It expresses happiness for Mike Tyson, says he has had a rough life, and says he is not innocent of everything. Timestamp is 7:38 PM, 10/9/26, with 5.9K views.

Text in image: Scott Dideon @sdideon1 X.com Very happy for Mike Tyson. He has had a rough life, not to say that he is innocent of everything... but I'm happy for him. 7:38 PM · 10/9/26 · 5.9K Views

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

Photograph of a Trump-Vance campaign rally stage, likely taken of a screen or printed photo (visible glare/reflection lines). A man resembling Donald Trump stands at a lectern reading "TRUMP VANCE / TEXT GEORGIA TO 88022" speaking into a microphone, flanked by American flags. Supporters holding "TRUMP VANCE" signs stand on risers on both sides, some cheering with raised arms; a child in the crowd on the right also holds a sign. Two illuminated stage podium panels read "MADE IN THE USA" and "15% CORPORATE TAX". Above the stage, a large screen displays a bar/area chart titled "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION INTO THE U.S." with a colored (yellow/orange and blue) histogram-style graph and several small annotation labels along it that are too low-resolution to transcribe accurately. The stage front is draped in red-white-and-blue bunting with white stars on a blue band.

Text in image: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION INTO THE U.S. TRUMP VANCE TEXT GEORGIA TO 88022 MADE IN THE USA 15% CORPORATE TAX TRUMP VANCE (multiple signs held by crowd) TRUMP (small sign, upper right)

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. Bold white text at top announces "CONGRESSMAN (MS-01) TRENT KELLY WINS!" with a red banner below reading "ENDORSED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP!" Below the text are two photos side by side: on the left, a close-up portrait of Donald Trump with a serious/stern expression, wearing a dark suit, white shirt, and blue tie; on the right, a headshot of a smiling middle-aged man with light brown hair, wearing a dark suit, light blue shirt, and a patterned tie (identified in the image as Trent Kelly). At the bottom center is a "TRUMP VANCE — MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" campaign logo with stars, and a small circular seal in the bottom right corner.

Text in image: CONGRESSMAN (MS-01) TRENT KELLY 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 screenshot of a Quantus Insights polling chart. It shows results for a survey question asking 1,000 likely voters (surveyed June 16-17, 2026) whether they approve or disapprove of a preliminary U.S.-Iran agreement to stop hostilities, reopen shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and begin 60 days of talks on Iran's nuclear program and sanctions. A horizontal bar chart breaks responses into six categories with colored bars: green for "Strongly approve" (43%) and "Somewhat approve" (13%), yellow/gold for "Neither approve nor disapprove" (16%), gray for "Not sure" (15%), and red for "Strongly disapprove" (8%) and "Somewhat disapprove" (5%). The Quantus Insights logo appears at the top and again above the chart.

Text in image: QUANTUS INSIGHTS Q5 The U.S. and Iran recently announced a preliminary agreement to stop hostilities, reopen shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and begin 60 days of talks on Iran's nuclear program and sanctions. Do you approve or disapprove of this agreement? QUANTUS INSIGHTS 1,000 Likely Voters - Jun 16 - Jun 17, 2026 Approve Neither approve nor disapprove Not sure Disapprove Strongly approve 43% Somewhat approve 13% Neither approve nor disapprove 16% Not sure 15% Strongly disapprove 8% Somewhat disapprove 5%

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 white/blue frame. It announces an election win for a Florida state representative candidate. Below the text are two head-and-shoulders photos: on the left, a photo of Donald Trump with a serious/stern expression, wearing a dark suit and blue tie; on the right, a smiling woman with shoulder-length dark brown hair, wearing a dark blazer over a red top with a round pin on her lapel. At the bottom center is a "TRUMP VANCE" campaign logo with five stars above and "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" beneath it.

Text in image: FLORIDA STATE REPRESENTATIVE (FL-HD-18) KIM KENDALL 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.

You know, it's interesting, this is obviously my first time seeing the interview with the audience and before the president even said what he said, I thought the exact same thing where he said this only happens to people who are consequential. This is funny, that was my first thought because it's so true. You look at every American president who has had either, unfortunately, a successful assassination attempt or unsuccessful ones, Lincoln, JFK, Ronald Reagan, Donald J. Trump. In the weirdest way, it's a very good company to be in, but I really am impressed with the way that the president carries on every day, the resoluteness that he brings to the job, and it affirms for me how important his presidency is and why I want our Republican establishment to get on board and realize who we have at the helm and keep it going. We have a special guy. We've got to do good things for him. You know what's interesting about it, Katie, is that, you know, when you talk to the president about this, he, you know, he initially will say something with it, and then he kind of moves off the topic very quickly. You look at the Secret Service roaming around the Trump National Golf Club, and they are, I mean, they are on high alert and constantly moving. Yeah, they caught this guy two days ahead of President Trump arriving here, and that's better than they had at West Palm Beach with the first attempt, attempted assassination trace. So they're on high alert. They're doing exactly what they need to do. President Trump moved on so quickly after the White House Correspondents Dinner. He was at the podium. He was in the Oval Office. He was making jokes. He moved on because he knows that the country is more important than what he feels is a threat to him.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Hello, Iowa. This November, I'm asking you to get out and vote for Joe Mitchell, a spectacular guy, to represent Iowa's second district in Congress. Joe is a proud home builder, real estate developer, very successful at that, and a rising star in the Republican party. He was the youngest ever member of the Iowa state legislature, and now he's going to fight for Iowa workers, families, and farmers in the United States House of Representatives. He'll be at my side. In Congress, Joe will vote for low taxes, less regulation, more American energy for lower fuel prices, and he will support Iowa ethanol, as I do. Joe will be a rock-solid vote for protecting your Second Amendment and for defending your borders. And with Joe's help, we will pass the Stop Insider Trading Act, banning members of Congress from corruptly profiting from inside trader information. Joe's opponent, Lindsay James, is not even from Iowa. She's a left-wing radical, and she is really radical, from Portland, Oregon, of all places, who wants to crush your farms and supports the transgender mutualization of your children. She's everything that Iowa does not stand for. Lindsay James also wants to abolish no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security for our great seniors, something that I worked very hard to get, and she'll raise your taxes on Social Security. That's what she wants to do. She also wants to bring back the death tax or the estate tax, which would kill thousands of family farms across your state. What you do and what I've gotten is that you don't have to pay a state tax or the death tax if you want to leave your farm to your children. She wants to end that so that you have to... The fact is that Democrats are very bad for farmers and ranchers. So, Iowa, go out and vote. I won Iowa three times in a row, getting the highest vote total in the history of the state for any office, and it was an honor. And I think I'm more popular now than I was even there. Whatever that popularity is, go out and vote for Joe Mitchell, because he will do a fantastic job. He'll never let you down, and you have to do the one thing. Pretend him on the ballot. Pretend him on the ballot, because we really are on the ballot, and get out and vote for Joe Mitchell.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Yeah, in the Senate he has done very well. This is a reality check for you. That is, Donald Trump is still the son on which the planets of the GOP revolve around. You could see it quite well here. Look at this. Trump endorsed these one Senate primaries. If the person that he endorsed is not an elected incumbent like Darlene Graham was, you know, since 2022, or 2022 is about 95% of the time, has that weakened it all this cycle? No, it is not. It has actually gotten stronger. Look at this. 100% of the time if Trump endorsed a non-elected incumbent like Darlene Graham, they in fact won the Republican primary for United States Senate, Trump's name is still the one that GOP voters buy when it comes to Senate endorsements. He went there. He spent money. He made a difference. And according to some measurements here, it may have turned it around for her. Yeah, I would say that this is probably the endorsement of Darlene Graham and getting her across the finish line. The Republican party is probably the strongest sign of Donald Trump's name being gold in Republican primaries to date. It is by far his most impressive performance because just take a look here. It is according to the cash to prediction market. Chance to win the South Carolina special GOP Senate primary. Before the Trump endorsement, it was just 14%. Just 14%. The reason why Darlene Graham won that primary, won that nomination is because of one name and one name only, Donald John Trump. This was his most impressive endorsement to date in terms of getting someone actually nominated because she basically stood no chance. Once that endorsement came in, her chances rocketed well north of 50% and last night she won that nomination. And it's largely because Republican primary voters are hugely supportive of the president. You know, sometimes we have these polls and you know, they're favorable polls or approval polls and they're in the moment. But I just love this one. Okay. The president Republicans most admire. It's Donald Trump. This is a historic comparison. A majority of Republicans say 53% say he's the Republican president they most admire. Ronald Reagan, who traditionally has won that much, Donald Trump nearly triples up on this. Reagan at just 18%. And then Abraham Lincoln, who by most historic accounts is the greatest president of all time. But Republicans say that the president that they most admire by what is this, this is six, seven times as many Donald John Trump at 53%, easily crushing Abe Lincoln at 8%. And the Elon poll showed that he was the greatest president as well.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A "before/after" comparison photo of a concrete or stucco-finished low wall/parapet, likely from a construction or repair/renovation site. The top half, labeled "BEFORE," shows a rough, textured concrete wall with a visible vertical crack running down from a horizontal seam near the top. Behind the wall are trees, security/parking-lot light fixtures, scaffolding, an orange water cooler jug, a plastic bin, and a green water bottle sitting on a ledge. The bottom half, labeled "AFTER," shows the same general view but with a smooth, freshly finished light gray/cream wall with no visible cracks, and a clean corner/edge detail. The background again shows trees, the same style light fixtures, and a distant building or structure. A small toy or decorative animal figure (resembling a lizard or small creature) sits on the ledge in the "after" image. Each half has a dark rounded-rectangle label in the lower left corner reading "BEFORE" and "AFTER" respectively in white bold capital letters.

Text in image: BEFORE AFTER

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

A screenshot showing a scrollable feed of four stacked X (Twitter) posts/reposts, apparently reactions to a Trump speech (likely a State of the Union or joint address to Congress) about illegal immigration. First post: reposted by "Cernovich," from Mark Hemingway (@Heminator, verified) saying Democrats reacted badly to Trump's message and that Omar and Tlaib yelling back was "icing on the cake." Second post: from Megan Basham (@megbasham, verified) with a "Subscribe" button, praising Trump for highlighting crime victims of illegal immigration. Third post: reposted by "Cernovich," from Sean Davis (@seanmdav, verified) with a "Subscribe" button, describing Trump telling Democrats they should be "ASHAMED" for not applauding protection of citizens, with Republicans chanting "U-S-A" and Democrats booing. Fourth post: from Guy Benson (@guypbenson, verified) commenting on a "Purple Heart" being pinned in real time. Each post shows a small circular profile picture, verified checkmark, username/handle, and standard post icons (repost/share icon and three-dot menu) on the right.

Text in image: ↻ Cernovich reposted Mark Hemingway ✓ @Heminator I cannot believe Dems fell hook, line, and sinker for Trump's message. Refusing to stand for the statement that we should support citizens over illegal aliens was a giant gift to GOP candidates in the midterms. Omar and Tlaib angrily yelling back is just the icing on the cake. Megan Basham ✓ @megbasham Subscribe Trump highlighting families who are the victims of illegal alien crime is exactly what he needed to do. That is how you use the presidential megaphone in an politically savvy but also true way. ↻ Cernovich reposted Sean Davis ✓ @seanmdav Subscribe TRUMP: "You should be ASHAMED of yourselves for not standing up" to applaud the protection of American citizens, Trump says to Democrats. Republicans responded by chanting U-S-A! Democrats booed. Guy Benson ✓ @guypbenson Powerful to see a Purple Heart pinned in real time.

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

[applause]

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.