Search Posts

I don't think people really understand how challenging it is to get a notoriously blue area like Palm Beach County to get on board with renaming the airport in the name of President Donald Trump. I know how hostile it is because I ran for Congress there, so why don't you just explain how this idea came to your mind and what the process was like renaming the airport. Well, I have to start by saying, you know, we're only as good as our village and thank goodness I have a really good one, including my class in the Florida House and our speaker and his chief of staff and everybody who really got on board. You know, in the beginning it was conversation was this has never been done in history. It's not something that we're sure we can do and, you know, we just kept kind of chipping away and figuring out a way to make this happen. You know, before I even brought it to leadership in the House, I spoke to, you know, people in Palm Beach County and then the airport and said, "Listen, this is going to happen in our lifetime." In my opinion, if it happens now while President Trump is in office, it's really just going to bring a lot to our county and lift up our county in an airport that we're supposed to be an international airport, but we're clearly not an international airport. Well, there's plans, of course, from my understanding to expand the airport. Perhaps you can talk about those plans because it is now going to be transformed from my understanding into an international airport with a massive renovation plan. And it seems like the Democrats are trying to dishonestly pin those renovation costs on the president, acting like, oh, it's going to cost this much money to rename things because of the president when they were already planning on doing these massive renovations at Palm Beach International to make it a true international airport because of the international and global significance. Since it now is the hub and the location of Mar-a-Lago and President Trump's golf resorts in Palm Beach County, where we've had global summits with world leaders, President Trump has literally ordered airstrikes, right? He ordered the airstrike, the killing of Qasem Soleimani from Mar-a-Lago. There's so many impactful historical events that have happened there, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be an international airport. And if you're going to have a Palm Beach County airport, which is like one of the tiniest airports in the world, which is why it's such a great airport, you should absolutely name it after a president since it's President Donald J. Trump who put that tiny little airport on the map to begin with. I mean, there's just so much that this will lift up our county. I think I read recently that even just private planes alone in Palm Beach County, we have more air traffic than any other place in the United States. I mean, we have four airports in Palm Beach County. We should be utilizing all four of those airports. I mean, one of the other airports in my district, well, two actually, North County, and there's one in the glades. I mean, we could be using those airports for many of these private planes instead of going to counties on either side of Palm Beach County. So I'm really hoping that, you know, a lot of what this brings to our county helps lift up these airports as well. I mean, the fact that the family has agreed to waive the trademark is amazing. You know, I'm not sure how much you travel throughout the country, but you know that you're probably not going to find anything that says Palm Beach International Airport in any other place in the world, but you definitely going to see something that has a globally recognized name as Trump on a brand. So I think that this will bring huge ... I can't wait to buy merchandise from President at Donald J. Trump International.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

It doesn't get much more serious than that. The chairman of the House Intel Committee doesn't have declassification authority over these types of documents. They are made available to Congress under very tightly controlled rules. This has been a source of tension for years, and members of both parties have gone out of their way to assure that this material would be closely held and not weaponized. This was viewed as one of the most political chairs of that committee in its history. This is a truly chilling account, if true. When I first read it, frankly, I was taken aback because it's perfectly moronic to commit such a felony with a planning conference meeting with staff. That's not usually how things are leaked in Washington, D.C. What makes this different, Will, is that this was a statement made to FBI agents. The person who made this statement was no doubt aware that lying to FBI agents is not just a crime, but a crime that was repeatedly prosecuted during prior administrations, including the Obama and Biden administrations. Making this statement puts you at risk. That's why someone's lying here, and someone's a felon. Let's just for a moment hypothetically take this whistleblower at their word. Let's assume for a moment that it's true, professor. What kind of punishment follows for leaking classified information? This is a very significant punishment. You can have, in addition to having multiple counts, you can easily go 10 years in terms of a sentence, if not more, depending on the circumstances and the number of violations. Each of these leaks is an individual violation. Each of these documents would likely be charged as a violation. That type of count-stacking is precisely what Mueller and others did. Remember, these are very similar to the types of claims made against Donald Trump and Mar-a-Lago that he removed material and properly stored them. There were also allegations that he might have revealed them to third parties. This is much more serious in that, in one sense. Trump was accused of negligence in most of these counts. This would be a premeditated criminal act to release classified information to damage one's political opponents.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

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.

So in the lead up to the impeachment of President Trump, the standard was that it had to be first-hand information. And then right before he happened to go through this impeachment process, the standard changed to being able to use second-hand information, even if it were unreliable and deemed unreliable by the inspector general. Why was that standard changed? This is something that, again, there's further lies being told in the transcripts of this former inspector general Atkinson when he went and testified before the House Intelligence Committee, where he was directly asked this question that you're asking here now. And he's making claims, oh, well, the law required me to do it. That's complete nonsense. The law did not require him to do it. The responsibility is with the inspector general to deem whether or not a complaint is credible and whether or not it is urgent. How do you find a complaint to be credible when there is zero evidence provided and there is zero firsthand knowledge provided, not only by the whistleblower, by any witness in this case, and when the inspector general himself did not even request to see the documents that these individuals are referencing in their false accusations. And so it was obviously, to me, part of this plot to change the standard, which the inspector general did from requiring that there be either evidence or firsthand knowledge presented in order to determine whether or not a complaint is credible to merely allowing for hearsay and nothing else.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

We're gathered today to discuss an important threat to the integrity and culture of college sports, the inability to set rules on eligibility transfers, name image and likeness, and more much more than that so we have to save college sports. I think it's just a very very important meeting. We have the most important people in college sports and really beyond. You know just being an old football coach it's unlikely for me to be in a situation where I'll be speaking to such a distinguished group but I do think there's a question we all need to ask is you know what are the future guidance that we want to create for college athletics? As people talk to me about this issue they said one thing, the only person who could bring us together to reach a consensus is President Trump. This is a topic and an issue that's important to all Americans. It's a cornerstone of our culture, the cornerstone of our Olympic development system and provides opportunity for so many kids across the country. There are 556,000 young people playing college sports right now across all 50 states. They will tell you that this is one of the most formative and important parts of their collegiate experience. I think college sports is one of the greatest things this country has going and we're at a time period where we really need the help of Congress and the government and all come together and speak in one unified voice to really make sure that we keep college sports healthy. But it's very very important that legislators get involved because we need some parameters right now and the law and Congress can make that happen. We all know college sports is uniquely American. It's something that began here in the mid 1800s and has continued to grow and draw people in and from my perspective the attention paid by President Trump to college sports is an important part of his leadership. We cannot continue to have an environment where NIL is out of control. And I think this requires people coming together and thinking about solutions so that we can maintain the vital passion around college sports in this country. The time is now for really the leaders in college sports to come together, figure out solutions and make sure we can move into the future with really kind of great momentum and assurances that we can keep college sports special.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

about birth tourism. It's booming. In 2023, over 300,000 babies were born to unauthorized or legal temporary immigrant mothers. Add that in total. It's 9% of the US births in that given year. When we look at how that shakes out over time, a clear spike in the number of births to unauthorized immigrant mothers in the United States from 2019 to 2023. That's unprecedented. It's unforeseen. It's undeniable. But Chief Justice Roberts, I'm convinced. It certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century. No, but of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alita pointed out, to where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child as a US citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A screenshot of a tweet/X post from an account named "TaraBull" (@TaraBull, with a blue verification checkmark, profile picture showing a person with dark hair). The post text announces the IOC has banned transgender men from the female Olympic category starting in 2028. Below the text is a photo of a female boxer wearing a red Nike tank top and shorts with an Algerian flag patch, white hand wraps, red boxing shoes, hair in a braid, standing in a boxing ring shouting/yelling with clenched fists, celebrating. Ring ropes and other people (photographers, officials) are visible in the background. The post shows "8:45 PM · Mar 26, 2026 · 21.8K Views" at the bottom.

Text in image: TaraBull ✓ @TaraBull BREAKING: The International Olympic Committee has announced a new, strict eligibility policy that effectively bans transgender men from competing in the female category at the Olympic Games, starting with the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. 8:45 PM · Mar 26, 2026 · 21.8K Views

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

You know sometimes you look at the polling data, and there are numbers that just jump off the screen at you And this is one of those because just take a look here MAGA GOP view of Trump approve 100% 100% if you are a member of MAGA in the GOP you approve of Donald John Trump 0% say that they disapprove you don't have to be a mathematical genius to know you can't go higher than 100% He is the 1972 Miami Dolphins.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Many days after Kevin McCarthy was sworn in as speaker, did you subpoena his records? I don't recall, but those two things had nothing to do with it. It was 16 days after becoming the highest-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives. You subpoenaed his toll records. Do you agree that that might reasonably be considered a violation of the speech or debate clause? I do not, and I want to be clear that the toll records— We were collecting months' worth of phone data on the Republican Speaker of the House, the leader of the opposition, right after he got sworn in as speaker, all around the time of a major vote. That sounds like a flagrant violation of the speech or debate clause to me, and I think most people agree with me. And Speaker McCarthy had no recourse, did he, because you issued a non-disclosure order ensuring that neither he nor any of the American people knew about these subpoenas. Is that right? The toll record, the non-content toll record subpoenas, we did secure non-disclosure orders for those subpoenas. You did, and let me ask you, Mr. Smith, at the time you secured those non-disclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? The non-disclosure order was based on concerns about— Was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? He was not. He was not. Then why did your non-disclosure order refer to him as a flight risk? It says right here, "The court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from prosecution." Sir, when securing a non-disclosure order, the risks don't have to be associated with the— Do you think the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? Did he finish answering the question? No, this is not your time. This is my time. You think the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? Do you think he's going to hop on a plane and leave the country? No, what I was trying to explain is with respect to a non-disclosure order, the risks aren't necessarily associated with the subscriber to the phone. There are risks to the investigation. I think that you were using—this was clearly in reference to Speaker McCarthy, and you were using clearly false information to secure a non-disclosure order to hide from Speaker McCarthy and from the American people the fact that you were spying on his toll records. But I've got more, so let's move on. In May of 2023, you also issued subpoenas for toll records of nine U.S. Senators and an additional representative. Is that right? In May of 2023, we did issue— You did, and there were non-disclosure orders in conjunction with those subpoenas as well, right? That's correct, consistent with Department policy and the law. So again, nobody would know what you were doing. The Senators would, and the Representatives would, and the American people wouldn't know what you were doing. Is that right? The toll records that we secured and the non-disclosure orders were consistent with policy and consistent with— And you knew, whenever you were doing that, that there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. Is that right? The toll record subpoenas that we secured were with the concurrence of the public— Your own analysis says that you knew there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. I have it right here. It's an email from John Keller at public integrity section to your team. As you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a member's legislative calls violates the speech or debate clause in the D.C. Circuit. That's from your own analysis right there. So you did know, didn't you? So with respect to the item you just put up on the screen, the last sentence states— We're going to get to the last sentence. We're going to get to the last sentence. And you cite case law in here, quote, "The bar on compelled disclosure is absolute." Is that right? Or do you think that you didn't have to abide by that precedent? To be clear, this is not—this statement is not from my office. This is the statement of public— This is your justification for those subpoenas and NDO's that you ordered. This was part of your analysis. It's a cursory analysis. I think it's worth noting. But let's get to that last sentence then. Quote, "Given my understanding of the low likelihood that any of the members listed below would be charged, the litigation risk should be minimal here." In other words, you're using a novel legal theory, which you knew was novel, has never been tested by any court. You're not charging any of these members. Nobody's going to know about it because you issued NDO's. Nobody's going to sue about it, so sue this. So who cares? We're going to do it anyways. You walked all over the Constitution throughout this entire process, buying our members of Congress, and you know it. - It's absolutely disgraceful. - The time.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

My relationship with the president, hey, listen, if somebody is doing good stuff and president Trump is doing a lot of good stuff, I believe, I know I'm irritating a lot of you again, but I think so. Because as I said, also in Davos, the 2% reach by all, uh, NATO countries now at the end of 2025 would never, ever, ever have happened without Trump. Do you really think that Spain and Italy and Belgium and Canada would have decided to move from 1.5 to 2% Italy spending 10 billion more in our own defense at the beginning of the year without president Trump? No way it would not have happened. And do you really think that in the Hague we would have come to the 5% commitment without president Trump? No way. So when president Trump is doing good stuff, I have operation, uh, and I don't mind him, uh, publishing text messages. And if anyone thinks here again, that the European union or Europe as a whole can defend itself without the US, keep on dreaming. You can't, we can't. We need each other. And why do we need each other? I tell you, first of all, because also the US needs NATO for the US to stay safe. And by the way, Arctic region is evidence here. They need a secure Arctic. They need to secure your Atlantic. And you also need to secure Europe. So the US has every interest in NATO as much as Canada and the European NATO, uh, NATO allies, but for Europe, if you really want to go with alone and those who you are planning for that, forget that you can never get there with 5%. It will be 10%, you have to build up your own nuclear capability. That costs billions and billions of euros. You will lose them in that scenario, you would lose the ultimate guarantor of our freedom, which is the US nuclear umbrella. Uh, so, Hey, uh, good luck.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Epstein. The journal reports that a spa worker from Mar-a-Lago often made house calls to Jeffrey Epstein's home, two miles away. But those house calls "came to a halt" in 2003 after an 18-year-old beautician returned to the club from a house call to Epstein and reported to managers that he had pressured her for sex. The HR manager faxed Trump a letter suggesting that the club ban Epstein, and Trump agreed, which does mirror the president's own public comments about why he cut ties with Epstein. The White House is responding to the Wall Street Journal, writing, "No matter how many times this story is told and retold, the truth remains President Trump did nothing wrong and he kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago for being a creep." He cut ties with Jeffrey Epstein long before Epstein became a convicted sex offender, a lot of Democrats didn't, and it is corroborated by the Wall Street Journal tonight.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

-It's pretty powerful when you're like, "Hey, what are you guys doing?" "Oh, nothing. You guys want to grab a dictator of Venezuela and watch it in my office?" [ Laughter ] "Can Rubio come?" "Oh, last time, he's --" "Yeah, Rubio can come." -Yeah. -They all sat on the screen, and they're like, "Yo, you know what? I can put -- I'm the president, right? Can I put the basketball game in the national championship? And let's grab a Maduro?" "Well, yes, Mr. President, you can, because he's [bleep] powerful. He's already -- He's reached the top of every field that he's wanted to be in. Entertainment, he had the number-one show on the planet. Then he decided to be president, and he's the most talked-about president in the history of presidents. You can combine all the presidents, and they still would be short when it comes to who's been -- how many times President Trump's name has been said on this planet. So, if I heard him, like, "Yeah, and he's doing this," and dopamine hit, he creates his own hits.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Started as a daycare fraud investigation in Minnesota, is now entering a far more serious phase. After the first arrests, investigators say the case did not stop at fake daycare centers. According to new sources close to the investigation, authorities are now tracing where the money actually went and what they're finding is raising even more alarm. Bank records show public funds being moved through layers of shell accounts, routed across states, and withdrawn in cash within days. Some accounts were linked to individuals with no childcare background at all. Officials say this was not sloppy fraud. It was organized. Several properties tied to the case are now under surveillance. Others have been quietly shut down. Federal agencies are reportedly expanding audits beyond Minnesota, reviewing similar programs in other states. Meanwhile, families who depended on legitimate daycare assistance are now facing sudden disruptions as payments are frozen and facilities close overnight. Investigators warn this may not be a single state scandal, but a blueprint. And now a new question is spreading fast. If this system was exploited here, how many others are still operating unnoticed? More updates expected.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.