Loading summary
Transcript105 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human early birds always rise to the occasion for summer vacation planning because early gets you closer to the action. So don't be late. Book your next vacation early on VRBO and save over $120. Rise and shine average savings $141. Select home.
- [00:32]
B
Foreign.
- [00:39]
C
Good evening, everyone. Welcome to a very special edition of Stitchfield. As we await President Trump to address the nation with a big announcement of where will we will be headed when it comes to the war in Iran. And I think President Trump is going to have some very good news for us. I think you're seeing everybody start to feel really good about where we are and why wouldn't we with President Trump at the helm? I've always had faith that he was going to lead us through this. So we have team coverage tonight. We begin with this special coverage leading into President Trump's address on Iran, scheduled for 9pm Eastern. Our team is totally ready to go around D.C. benny Harmony is at the Capitol. Neal McCabe will be with us from the White House. Brian Glenn is right here in our studios and David Zier is at the Pentagon. But we begin tonight with host of Just the News, no Noise, who I believe had a chance to speak with the President this morning, has some insight into the speech. John Solomon is here. John, welcome to the program, my friend.
- [01:39]
B
Yeah, listen, I think this is an extraordinary day. Just think about what happened in the 12 hour window. For the first time in history, American president went to the Supreme Court to listen to that. The House and Senate reached a way to get Homeland Security funded without needing any more Democrats. They're now irrelevant. We lifted off to the moon for the first time since 1972. And tonight I believe the president will say that we have achieved our primary objectives. We've got a little bit of work, cleanup work to do and that we will be in a situation soon to end military operations and get gas prices back down and get things up. I want to point out something that I think is the most underreported moment of the day. Not four gigantic stories all in a row, but I think what the Iranian president said to Europe about 2 hours ago May be the most important thing. Iran has the will to end this conflict. In other words, we're willing to make a deal. That is the sound of a defeated leader. That's not the normal rhetoric we get from the mullahs. I think the Iran is signaling we've had enough. And I think that to get Iran's incredibly military might completely demolished in five weeks. Remember Iran was a significant military power. It's demolished. And not only is Iran a loser in this, Russia's a loser in this because guess what? Iran can't make enough drones and missiles to send Russia anymore. So the president has knocked multiple dominoes down with this five week operation.
- [03:10]
C
John, you know, you raise a great point because when you think about what we did to Iran, I would have offered up that Iran was more powerful than you, Ukraine was. And Russia has had such a hard time with Ukraine. We've managed to go in there and demolish and really not have very many civilian casualties through it all. So you had mentioned though, the President of Iran. Do we really even know or trust who's in control of that nation? So you have one individual making this concession to Europe. Is he really in a position of that? Does the administration have a handle on whose control?
- [03:45]
B
Well, listen, I think that's a very important point. I will say this. The president is allegedly the elected leader in Iran, though Iranian elections aren't that trustworthy, but he is the civilian voice. And for most of the last 47 years, you've never heard a president or the supreme leader say, we have the will to end the conflict. That is a significant rhetorical concession. Now, whether he's actually in charge, we've really decimated command control. There will take a few days. And that's why the president said we may stop. He told Reuters, President Trump did a few minutes ago, we may stop for a while, but then we might have to clean up some things if some people aren't on script with the Iranian president. But I do think there are some signs that Iran feels whooped. You never hear this sort of language from the Iranians. So it's a signal. It's not a sign, but it's a signal. And I think President Trump will probably seize on that tonight.
- [04:34]
C
All right, last question for you, John. There's still some talk that he may say we're two to three weeks out from completely finishing rather than wrapped up. What are you hearing on that front?
- [04:47]
B
Well, you can have achieved your objectives and still have mop up operations. And I think that's sort of the message I expect the president to deliver. Time we achieved our objectives, we've neutered Iran in a way they've never been neutered in the last 47 years. By the time the last time Iran was, this least powerful man actually was going to the moon again. So it's kind of ironic we're going back to the moon and for the first time, Iran is not A problem in a long time. I think you'll hear that. But we have cleanup operations. We keep all options on the table until we can confirm Iran doesn't intend to attack us, our allies, or Europe. And remember, in the middle of the civil war, Iran showed it had a long range missile that could reach all the way into Europe. They did that with the Diego Garcia attack. The President predicted that all the Europeans said, nah, nah, nah, that's baloney. Turned out to be true. The European continent is safer because of what President Trump did. I think you'll hear him say that tonight as well.
- [05:36]
C
All right, real quick, John. The uranium, if we don't have it, how can we say that the operations are basically wrapped up?
- [05:45]
B
I expect the President will address this in his short address, which will be about 20 minutes. He'll say, it's so far underground, I'm not worried about it right now. If we see signs that they're trying to go get it, we know how to finish that job. Which means we might have to drop even a larger bomb than the Moabs. But I think he'll say it's not accessible now. And until we see Iran access it, I'm not that worried about it.
- [06:06]
C
All right, super. John Solomon, as always, great work. I know you'll be watching the speech tonight. Thank you, my friend. Always good to see you.
- [06:12]
B
Yeah. Great to be on the show. Love your show.
- [06:15]
C
Absolutely. I appreciate it. Right back at you, my friend. All right, so now we have the issue of NATO. Look, let's face it. Our NATO allies were nowhere to be found. They were mia. This Keir Starmer, as President Trump said, is certainly no Winston Churchill. They cut and run in Spain, basically denied us the use of their airspace. Spain would be nothing without the United States. In fact, Europe would be nothing without the United States. President Trump has hinted that the United States could leave Naito. I have a Stinchfield plan for Naito which doesn't have us leaving Naito. It has Naito paying us. NATO gets no more money from the United States. If they want protection from the United States, they've got to pay us for that protection. And then we still get to use their bases. And by the way, if Spain or any other NATO country does not allow the United States in, they should be instantly kicked out of NATO, excommunicated, expelled. Well, I want to bring in now congressional correspondent Benny Ray Harmony, who is outside of the Capitol tonight as we continue our team coverage of all of this. Benny, I'm sure Naito has been a big piece of the talk there in Washington, what are you hearing about NATO?
- [07:26]
D
Yeah, Grant, it has. Now, this started, I would say, really back in 2024, when President Trump, he threatened them before and he told them, you know, you need to up your percentage of military resources and spending to NATO 2% to 4%, because we need to be able to count on you if we need you for something like this. And like you mentioned, some of these major countries, these, these NATO states, you know, Marco Rubio, Secretary Hegseth, they said, why do we have alliances if they don't show up when we need them? And I want to remind you, Grant, remember Ukraine under Biden, we sent roughly $180 billion over there. And when they needed our help, what did we do? We answered the call, and now it's time for them to answer the call, and they're not. Now, every headline Today here in D.C. is all about this NATO call, specifically with Reuters earlier today where President Trump, he did say to expect during the speech that he is going to torch them. So hopefully we will hear some stuff from him tonight just on going forward, and hopefully he can, he can ultimately get them to concede and come into his demands.
- [08:26]
C
Look, what's amazing to me is Congress is virtually on vacation right now, Benny. So I'd ask you, what are members of Congress saying, but that's kind of a rough question. I wish there were more of our elected leaders in town right now, Benny, while all this is going on.
- [08:44]
D
No, exactly. And Grant, I actually, I reached out to multiple members of Congress today trying to get a statement, statement and quote, to use tonight when I talk to you. And a lot of them don't want to comment on it. They said we're steering clear of this. We don't want to step on President Trump's toes. So I think there's kind of this teetering back and forth right now. They're waiting to see how Trump is going to address it before they come out and stake their claims.
- [09:06]
C
All right, Benny. Ray, Harmony, it's always good to see you. Thank you. And we'll continue our coverage here. Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, actually talked about the possibility of a cease fire. There's a lot of people talking that President Trump may offer up that Iran wants a cease fire through all of this. This is Newt Gingrich, cut six for the guys behind the glass.
- [09:27]
E
I think Trump's position is pretty rational, which is you declare that the strait is open, you allow oil tankers to leave from the Gulf, and we will consider it, but we are not going to have a truce while you have a stranglehold on 20% of the world's oil. I think that's actually a pretty smart position.
- [09:48]
C
Yeah. All right, so how do we handle all of that? I want to Bring in now. Rav. D.C. correspondent Neil McCabe is with us. I'm not sure. It looks like he is at the White House. So it's very dark. How is it dark where you are? And it's bright as day where Betty is. But, Neil, welcome to the program.
- [10:08]
F
I. I think that's because Benny is so incandescent. Grant, that's probably.
- [10:14]
C
She brings the light to the show, Neil. That's what it's all about. She brings the light.
- [10:18]
F
Thank you. Exactly.
- [10:20]
C
Neil, let me ask you, the President has a lot of decisions to make here. You've been in and around the White House now for days. First, what are you hearing about tonight's speech? Anything more you want to add than what John had said about what you expect from the President tonight?
- [10:37]
F
No, I think everything I've heard is along the lines of what John is saying. You know, the, the old joke about Vietnam was, hey, let's just declare victory and leave. I don't think Trump thinks that way, which is more of a political calculation. I think his calculations are as a businessman, and if you look through his whole business career, whenever he's been on a losing trade, he's cut his losses, treated it like a cost of doing business, and he's moved on to another project. People have ridiculed him for his bankruptcies, but actually those bankruptcies were his decision to. To cut his losses and move on. And. And here he is, President, United States. And so I think what you're going to see tonight is a confident president, President who's proud of his military, and a President who's looking to wind this thing down to hold on to those, to hold on to his victories. And remember, his plan for leaving Afghanistan was to hold on to Bagram and to keep US Forces in Afghanistan as a sort of standby. So like Solomon was saying, you know, with the recovery of the uranium and other projects, I could see a halting of the sort of big combat operations with the sort of provision that he can clean up messes and then obviously go back in whenever he needs to teach somebody a lesson. Grant.
- [11:56]
C
All right. How angry is the President right now with our allies for not stepping up to the plate? I briefly mentioned this to Benny Ray, but I really do believe that we should no longer be giving any money to Naito now. Naito plays a big role for the United States. We use their bases throughout the world. It would be very difficult for the United States not to have access to many of these bases, bases like the ones that Spain says you can't use ours. I firmly believe they ought to be paying the United States to be members of Naito. We can give them equipment and put, put soldiers on loan to them, but they ought to be paying us as well as paying into NATO. And no more money from the United States. You'd get the best of both worlds here. How angry is the president at his allies right now?
- [12:47]
F
Yeah, I think he's really ticked off. And, you know, just going back to his personality, Grant, this is a man who built a brilliant real estate career on personal relationships, handshakes, giving his word, giving, getting the word from someone else. And you saw in Trump, 45, there were some problems because he didn't understand that that's not the way people in Washington were. People in Washington are snakes in the grass, like, waiting to get you. And so, you know, he's learned some hard lessons here in Washington. And I think he's, you know, he gave Naito the benefit of the doubt in his heart of hearts. He wanted Naito to work, and he tried everything he could to make it work, but it's not working. And again, he's going to cut his losses and move on. And when we really, when we look back 20 years from now, Grant, one of the lessons from this epic fury will be it is when America realized Naito was a losing trade.
- [13:42]
C
Yeah, I actually don't believe the United States will leave Naito. I think this is a bargaining chip on behalf of President Trump. And I hope they take my advice is let's make some money off of this deal instead of just leaving. I think it's going to put America in a really bad spot with just the simple use of the basis. We don't need the other militaries to back us up. We really don't. We proved that in Iran. But leaving would give us operationally put us in a tough spot, which is why I think this is more of a bargaining chip. Neil McCabe, I appreciate you coming on standby as we continue our coverage night leading up to President Trump's speech. I want to bring in now my buddy, Brian Glenn. Brian Glenn is, I believe he's in Washington. And, Brian, nobody is closer to the base than you. I mean, you, you and Rev, and I mean, you're out with the people. How important is tonight's speech to the Maga base of what President Trump has to say tonight?
- [14:39]
G
Well, Grant, I think it's huge and a couple reasons. One of them is I want him to clearly lay out the plan. And if he's, if he feels like we're wrapping up operations, we have completely decimated the Iranian military, we've made sure that they cannot develop a nuclear weapon, then what's the next step to get us. Get these troops back home and back safely. But I also think he's delivering a message to many of Americans that might feel like I do now. It's no secret that I hasn't, I have not been the biggest fan of getting into a war with Iran. I just have not been there. And, but now that we are in this escalation, I want us to win. So I want him to assure people like me that are, and I'm sure there's a few of us sitting at home as well, that this is worth the cause. And I'm mainly concerned, Grant, about the midterms because there's a lot of, and you mentioned it, there's a lot of people in the base now. Not everybody lives on X. Not everybody's doom and gloom, and not everybody is, you know, pro war. It's. The real world is concerned about this. And traditionally, Grant, it hasn't been in a political playbook to get into a war during an election year. Now, 9, 11, a little different. We were, we were at.
- [15:59]
C
Brian, let me, let me just. Because I want to, I want to break some of this down with you. I actually think it's the opposite. I think the anti war people live on X and the people backing President Trump maybe aren't on X. Like, you see the, the kind of anti war crowd. But I think what you just said, I don't want to brush it over, Brian, because you just said exactly what I want from every other Republican Make America Great Again, Conservative. We can disagree. I can say, okay, I'm all for this, and I love President Trump and I love our military going out there and showing off their, their zest. You can say you hate it, but you don't turn your back on the president. You don't turn your back on the MAGA base. You just, just because you disagree on one issue doesn't mean that you got to throw everything and blow it all up. You just told me you disagree with the war, but now we're in it. Let's get the military to win. There's a lot of people that don't talk like that, Brian.
- [16:53]
G
Yeah, well, I thank you for Bringing that up, Grant, because you know me, I support President Trump.
- [16:57]
C
I love this country.
- [16:58]
G
I love the America first agenda. I just wasn't a big fan of getting into war. That's, that's the only disagreement I have with all of this. But now that we're in it, literally our military superior, we knew that going into it. Clearly, President Trump had a plan to make sure that Iran would not get a nuclear weapon. Now, I just wanted to have a plan to get back home and let's put this chapter to bed and be assured that Grant, three, four, five, six, seven years down the road, we're not having the same conversation again about Iran being weeks away from a nuclear weapon. I just want to accomplish the goal here. And I fully support, and I want our viewers to know this because, Grant, I get a lot of hate online in the chat. They don't necessarily. They think if you're not 100% in favor of what President Trump does, then you're so some type of traitor or you've turned your back on Maga. And you and I both know, Grant, that's not the case of me.
- [17:55]
B
But now that we're.
- [17:56]
C
Yeah, go ahead, Brian. I just want to say I'll back you up. You're not going to turn your back on. No, there's no, there's no way that's happening. And I've said over and over again, dissent is fine, but this name calling, turn it back. The wars that we're having. Know who the enemy is, Brian. I know you know who the enemy is. The Democrats are our enemy right now. The midterms. This is, this is historically speaking, yes. And it should.
- [18:24]
G
And that, and that doesn't scare me. Okay, last word. There is some very credible pollsters that work on the Hill that said the Democrats could pick up between 20 and 40 seats in the midterm. So let's just go on the low side of 20. They flip the House. And I can tell you if you control the House, you control committees, which means you have subpoena power, which means they're going to go after not necessarily President Trump, but all the other financial contacts he's had, they're going to see nothing but hearing. That's what I want to avoid, Grant. That's all.
- [18:56]
C
This should be the wake up call to everybody to get motivated. And I fear there is not, for some reason, not this motivation. And I think the media is tearing us apart. You've got those who really are making a lot of money off of Republican infighting. Okay. Know there are influencers out there making a lot of money, money off of you guys and the and the fighting. Know what the real angle is from everybody out there. Brian Glenn, as always, I appreciate you coming on.
- [19:20]
G
Thank you, sir.
- [19:21]
B
Thank you.
- [19:22]
C
All right, let's get an update from the Pentagon where RAV correspondent David Zier is. I mean, that has been, besides the White House, ground zero for all of this. The success that our military has had has come directly out of the Pentagon and the planning there. David Zier, welcome to the program.
- [19:39]
H
Graham hi, good evening, Grant. We're fighting the elements here. We're outside the Pentagon. And yeah, I've covered a lot of the briefings, six of the war briefings so far. And this goes back, Grant, to Trump taking office and signing those defense acquisition executive orders. And I've been following the Department of War around the country with this rapid capabilities mindset to deliver warships quicker, to deliver submarines quicker, to replace our Ohio class with the Columbia class Space Command, which turns out to be the most vital of the branches. And everybody was laughing at it. Oh, Space Force, right. So I think they've been planning on something like this for some time now. And we watched it kind of gel through the fall. And they are laser focused on this mission hitting these 15,000 targets without major losses that have, you know, crippled us or affected our ability to wage the war. But I just wanted to point out, Cole, we have taken some big losses. And you know, the AWAC, the AWACs, the E3 Sentry, one of the most critical planes in the US arsenal, keeping track, airborne warning and control systems at the top and E2 Hawkeyes under it and combat air patrols under that, targeting missiles and interceptors and air defense systems, crucial, crucial. And we can't afford to lose another one as we lost one at Prince Sultan Air Base. And I just wanted to make another point. You know, we lost the KC 135 Strato tanker. It's a big strategic hit for us. Another one or two were damaged, I think, in drone attacks on the tarmacs. But the other thing is that the countries, the Gulf states and Israel are running low on interceptors now. They probably have enough to outlast the current fighting. And I don't know how long that'll be. And I just wanted to add one last thing. The Pentagon signed a big deal with Lockheed and Boeing today for the PAC3 system, which is in between the Thaad high altitude fighting ballistic missiles in the upper atmosphere. You got the Pac Threes and then you got the Patriots and we're tripling production on them. And it goes in line with those executive orders that I was talking about was codified in the ndaa. And the Pentagon seems to have their act together in that capacity. There's no doubt.
- [21:53]
C
Yeah. Well, I appreciate the reporting on all of that. That's some in depth stuff. David Zier, we appreciate it. And again, we're going to continue our team coverage here tonight. Thank you, David. From, from the Pentagon. We'll continue our team coverage. I want to dive into NATO again as well and we're going to do that in a minute because that may be one of the most important stories that we have is what to do with NATO. All right. Now we'll also do some of this. Most wireless companies don't care who you are or what you believe. They just want your money. Patriot Mobile is different. For more than 12 years they've stood with Americans who believe freedom is worth defending. And here's the deal. You don't have to give up quality or service when you switch to Patriot Mobile. They deliver premium priority access on all three major U.S. networks. So you'll get the same or better coverage than you have today. Switching is easy. Keep your number, keep your phone or upgrade. Their 100% US based customer support team can activate you in literally just minutes. Go to patriot mobile.com rav or call them at 972-patriot. Use the promo code RAV for a free month service. Do what I did. Be a it's the official provider of cell phone service for Spinchfield's army folks. You tell them Grant sent you. Use that promo code, Raph. All right, while we await President Trump's national address, we'll look at NATO tensions and their refusal to help in Operation Epic Fury. It's up next foreign. Welcome back everyone. We continue our very special coverage of our awaiting President Trump's address to the nation. Expected to talk about Iran. According to John Solomon. It looks like he will say we've completed our objectives there. Doesn't mean there won't be two to three weeks of a wrap up a mop up job there. This is President Trump. Roll it.
- [23:55]
I
That'll be good. But doesn't matter whether they come or not. We've set them back. It'll take 15 to 20 years for them to rebuild what we've done to them. They have no navy, they have no military, they have no air force. They have no telecommunications, they have no anti aircraft system. They have no leaders. You know, their leaders are all gone. That's why we have regime change. We have nice New leaders, Peter.
- [24:19]
J
Thanks.
- [24:19]
K
President
- [24:22]
C
so decimated, but no help from our allies. I mean, it's amazing. You know, David Zier mentioned that this may have been in the works for. For a year. I actually believe it was. I think President Trump going to the Middle east and recruiting all of that money to be invested here in the United States. That's how you put people on the hook. You hold their money here in the United States. All of these Middle east countries, they helped us. NATO did not. This is our Secretary of War. Cut 8. No from B.
- [24:55]
I
We had some.
- [24:56]
C
Oh, excuse me asks.
- [24:59]
I
And you know, we spend trillions of dollars on NATO. And when we need them, which we never do, we didn't need them here either, to be honest. I was really asking because I wanted to see what they do. We didn't need them. We blasted the hell out of them out of Iran. And the last thing I needed was NATO stepping in our way. Because they're not. They're a paper tiger.
- [25:24]
C
A paper tiger. They really seem to be. President Trump had pointed it out in a true social post yesterday. They have to get ready to fight. They're the ones that need this oil coming through the states of Hormuz, not us. I want to bring in now to discuss the senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Steve Yates is with us. Steve, welcome to the program.
- [25:43]
L
Great to be with you.
- [25:45]
C
All right, Steve, a lot of talk about the United States possibly pulling out of NATO. I offered up another idea. I said we ought to just renegotiate our deal with NATO, that NATO would pay us for protection and we'd have access to all their bases. They pay us, we'll give them equipment and put soldiers on loan. But we're not sending any more money there. And I think you may get the best of both worlds rather than losing access to these bases worldwide. Your thoughts on where we should go with NATO, Steve?
- [26:15]
L
Well, I'm much more on your track of thinking. Number one, I think this has been an extremely clarifying mission that the president, maybe even intentionally, as he was alluding he, has chosen a pace and an approach to this war with Iran that has made it clear who our real allies are with real capabilities, real will to take action, and who are basically the free riders who are full of opinion but don't really take much action, and they're punching way below their weight. And so I think at this point, hopefully a lot of Americans, when people talk about our allies, we're not talking about old Europe anymore. We're talking about some Arab countries in the Broader Middle east, our ally in Israel, allies like Japan and in the Indo Pacific. These are, these are allies that are doing something that are making a meaningful contribution now and going forward. And that, I think, has been as just as important as degrading the Iranian capability to terrorize and disrupt the world.
- [27:18]
C
You know, what Spain did by denying us the use of not only their bases, but their airspace, I believe they should be punished, maybe even offered up the possibility of being expelled from NATO. You pull a stunt like that when Europe needs the United States, like they can't believe, how do we handle that going forward now?
- [27:38]
L
Well, I am very much more inclined toward that, too. And I basically, I'd like it if the United States was a supporting member of NATO, not the dominant provider of everything, and then leave it to the Europeans themselves to figure out, what are you going to do for your own continent? What kind of an influence are you going to have world in the, the world. And, oh, by the way, you're completely dependent on global markets, and so you're going to have to rent the protection of the US Navy around the high seas if you want shipments coming and going. But basically, I think to take the Trump approach of, yeah, we will carry the freight, we will carry the load for defense, but you're going to pay the toll. And I think that's going to have to be the new way of things, unless they wise up, grow up and decide that they're going to be a meaningful contributor.
- [28:25]
C
I think President Trump is using this as a negotiating tactic. I don't think he's actually going to pull out of NATO. And I never thought, Steve, I'd be curious as your opinion on this. I never thought it was a possibility for Vladimir Putin to go into Poland. I didn't think he was going to do it. But if America really did pull out of Naito, then you could make an argument, hey, I'm Vladimir Putin. If I really wanted to go on the march, as Europe kept telling everybody that they were going to do well, that would be the time to do it. Maybe this is how you put the screws to Naito. Say, hey, you need the United States. Maybe it's time we figure something else out.
- [29:02]
L
Yeah, basically, President Trump just has to keep playing on repeat that message of the prime Minister of the uk, Keir Starmer, saying, this is not our war. This is not our war. Well, guess what, if you, if you aren't going to stand with us when we ask, and worse, if you're going to block our access to our own bases to be able to use the airspace and logistical support, well, then you're not an ally. And if you're not an ally, well, then your defense against Russia is not our war. So I don't think that's where most of Europe really wants to go. A lot of Europe has been prisoner to this radical layer that has been governing them on the top. A massive kind of brain dead bureaucracy in Brussels. And so getting back to nation states, there's a movement across a lot of Europe that is pulling in that direction. And there is a future there. But that's what J.D. vance and Marco Rubio were trying to awaken. We're not mean or bad for Europe. We're trying to get them to wake up and be as great as we believe they could be.
- [30:05]
C
Yeah, yeah. This is Pete Hegseth basically backing up what you're saying. Cut to, please.
- [30:12]
M
These are missiles that don't even range the United States of America. They range allies and others. And yet when we ask for additional assistance or simple access, basing overflight, we get questions or roadblocks or hesitations. And the President is pointing out you don't have much of an alliance if you have countries that are not willing to stand with you when you need them.
- [30:35]
C
All right, so Steve Yates with the Heritage foundation, he basically backs you up. Backs me up in that. I want to ask you this question. Nobody knows China like you, Steve. When China sees what the United States did to Iran and its military and its Navy, how important is that message? And are you as surprised as I am of almost the silence of China through all of this?
- [31:01]
L
I'm not completely surprised by it because ultimately they're opportunists. They like to sort of weigh in when they think they might get really cheap. Net advantage. So when things were going badly in the early stages of Russia, Ukraine conflict, they would step forward and they would offer their version of a police plan that went absolutely nowhere. And of course, they were fueling the Russian war machine. So there's an irony alert in all of that. And similarly here they weigh in with Pakistan saying that they're trying to negotiate some kind of a ceasefire. But of course, President Trump is negotiating with all kinds of key players in transforming the tectonic plates of the entire region. The rational parts of Beijing have to know, holy crap, the United States is not in the past and on terminal decline. The United States is back. And if you look at us going back up and around the moon and this kind of military effectiveness and precision against one of the big customers of China, they've got to have a little bit of pause before they try to push our buttons.
- [32:03]
C
Yeah. It's amazing. Everything that's unfolding, the insight we're getting right as, as this goes down, insight about other nations. It's, it's really from the outside, it's fascinating to watch. I can only imagine what it would be like pulling this, pulling this off from the inside. STEVE yates, HERITAGE FOUNDATION we love the work that you do there and the work of the Heritage Foundation. You guys are always so kind to come on my program. Thank you.
- [32:27]
L
Many thanks.
- [32:28]
C
Absolutely. All right, folks, it is a very big day. We are awaiting President Trump and his big speech tonight, 9:00pm Eastern time. But before we do that, look, the Supreme Court has now heard oral oral arguments regarding birthright citizenship. The quote, shadow argument architect for the arguments against birthright citizenship will join me next.
- [33:00]
J
Foreign.
- [33:05]
C
Welcome back, everyone. Huge day. Oral arguments over birthright citizenship. We're talking about the 14th amendment here. Should you be a United States citizen just because you're born in the United States and are you subject to the jurisdiction thereof? That's the key word here. This is US Solicitor General John Sauer giving oral arguments today. Cut the three, Stop three. No C block three. John Sour. Okay, do we have the other ones? Do we have Justice Alito? Cut four.
- [33:57]
N
It's true To a child who's born here to Russian parents.
- [34:01]
B
It's true.
- [34:01]
N
To a child who's born here to Mexican parents, they're automatically citizens or nationals of those countries and have a duty of military service. It sure seems like that makes them subject to a foreign power.
- [34:17]
O
But again, Justice Alito, that would have meant that that the children of Irish, Italian and other immigrants which Wong Kmark refers to and the debate the framers refer to would not have been citizens either. Because if the only test is whether that US Born child is considered a citizen by another country under their eu sanguineous laws, then no foreign nationals children
- [34:45]
C
would be, well, all of in all
- [34:47]
N
of those cases, the parents could be naturalized and then the children would be derivatively nationalized. Naturalized.
- [34:56]
B
All right.
- [34:56]
C
All very interesting. Now, again, I want to remind you we continue our coverage tonight. We have team coverage around the Capitol. Bring it in, guys. Okay, this is the cue to show them on screen. We have tonight leading our coverage over Iran, we have Brian Glenn, of course, Neil McCabe, Benny Ray harmony and David Zier spread across the Capitol. But I do want to dig into this birthright citizenship issue because it is so important. Again, let's bring in now the we'll call him the architect of some of these arguments, because nobody knows the Constitution better than our man John Eastman, who is with us tonight. And John, welcome to the program.
- [35:39]
K
Thanks very much, Grant. I'm delighted to be here and equally delighted to have been in the courtroom with President Trump during the oral argument this morning. Let me, let me rephrase. I wasn't sitting with President Trump, but we were both in the courtroom.
- [35:53]
C
This may be the first time a president has gone to hear oral arguments which tells you how important this is to him, John.
- [36:01]
K
Exactly. Although the left wing media has been going bonkers saying this is a violation of separation of powers, almost every oral argument I've attended has had members of Congress sitting in and observing. And nobody ever claimed that the legislature was violating separation of powers by having them there. And even more significantly, President Trump is the party in this case. The name of the case is Trump versus Barbara. The notion he's not allowed to be there when he's the party in the case is a little bizarre.
- [36:29]
C
Last I checked, this is open to the public. You know what image they're portraying. They want Trump to be the John Gotti who's staring down the witness that's testifying against him or something in the courtroom. I mean, ridiculous. But let me ask you, John, how did they do today with these arguments? And then I do want to get into this one phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. How did the team do arguing this?
- [36:55]
K
Well, I told several reporters earlier today, I think this was the most sophisticated argument, both sides and also among all nine justices that I've ever seen at the Supreme Court. Everybody came there with their, with their a game on. Solicitor General John Sauer did a fabulous job as his whole team has done in the briefing leading up to this. I think Cecilia Wang did a very good job as well. I think she made two pretty critical mistakes that could be outcome determinative in a couple of the justices that I think are sitting on the fence. But we can talk about that. But all of the justices, I mean, none of them ask silly questions. And sometimes you get really silly questions. Some of them ask questions that demonstrated a lack of understanding of one of the key issue. But, but, but, you know, not, not off the range type of things. It was clear that they had taken this very seriously, just as the fact that President Trump came to the argument demonstrates how important the case is.
- [37:57]
C
All right, so the 14th amendment says that you're a citizen born here as long as you're, you're born in the United States or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction okay. The authors of the 14th Amendment wouldn't have needed that line, subject to the jurisdiction, if they meant for everybody born here. Isn't it that simple?
- [38:22]
K
Well, one of the arguments on the other side is that that clause only excludes the children of ambassadors and invading armies that have occupied part of the United States. And Indians. The problem with that is those people are also considered not to be born on U.S. soil. If our piece of our country is occupied by a foreign power, it's no longer, at that moment, our soil. An ambassador is considered to be on the soil of his sovereign. It's called the fiction of extraterritoriality. And the same argument applies to the Indians when they're on their reservation. The claim was that they were actually on their separate soil, and so they weren't even born in the United States, which makes the subject of the jurisdiction clause under that argument completely redundant. And we don't do redundant in the Constitution. So it had to mean something. And the authors of the language told us what it meant. It meant subject to the complete jurisdiction owing allegiance to here and not owing allegiance to any foreign power. And that's where Justice Alito's question was. Was. Was hitting home. If you're here temporarily visiting, you still owe your allegiance to your home power. Just like if I go over to France, I'm subject to their laws, I'm subject to their jurisdiction in that limited sense, but they don't draft me into their army. I don't vote in their elections. I don't serve on their juries. I continue to be an American citizen owing allegiance here. And that's what Justice Alito was hammering on, and I think very persuasively.
- [39:50]
C
All right, this is important and real quick, because I was concerned. If you're a visa holder, all right, now you're subject to the jurisdiction, but you're talking more of allegiance to a nation which clearly a visa holder. You're just here, whether you're working or on vacation, you're not having allegiance to the United States. How do we know what the authors were thinking? Is there text that we can go back to? Is that what the justices will do real quick, if you can, for me?
- [40:18]
K
Yeah, absolutely. The debates are full of this, Both on the 1866 Civil Rights act and two months later on the 14th Amendment citizenship clause. And they make very clear that when they use the language subject to the jurisdiction, they meant the same thing as the 66 Civil Rights act did, which was not subject to any foreign power. That's very clear in the debates. It was clear as the understanding of the Supreme Court when it first reached the issue. The leading treatise writers of the day all agreed that that's what it meant. And so it's only lately that we've taken this different view.
- [40:52]
C
It's fascinating stuff. You want to make a prediction on this?
- [40:55]
K
Oh, man. I guarantee you that the three liberal justices are not going Trump's way. Beyond that, it's hard to say. I think there's a possibility President Trump can win 6 to 3 or 5 to 4. I think it's also a possibility he could lose 6 to 3 or 7 to 2. So it's. It's kind of in that range that we won't know.
- [41:15]
C
You just gave me every possibility.
- [41:17]
J
Yeah,
- [41:20]
C
I love it.
- [41:21]
K
That way, I won't be wrong.
- [41:23]
C
There you go there. There you go. John Eastman, it's always great having you on the program. Congratulations. You're a big part in this, and we appreciate it always when you come on the program.
- [41:33]
K
Thanks, Grant, very much. I appreciate it.
- [41:36]
C
Absolutely. All right, folks, America is reclaiming its position as the energy capital of the world. We will talk about that next and how you can get involved. Welcome back, everyone. We. We talk a lot about America's energy independence, and we are on the road to that. There is an ability for you to take part in that, and that is this project out in Wyoming. 40,000 acres of high pressure natural gas that you could take a play in. I want to bring in the President and CEO of Lost Soldier Oil and Gas, Mark Bruner, who secured this property out there in Wyoming. Mark, welcome to the program.
- [42:22]
J
Thank you, Grant. Good to see you again.
- [42:24]
C
All right, it's good to see you. Since we last talked. I use the term high pressure for a reason, so people have an opportunity to get involved with Lost Soldier on this project. Now, high pressure gas. Tell me why this means so much out there, Mark.
- [42:43]
J
Well, the reason it means so much is these are very deep, overpressured wells with high. High pressure, and that means high volumes of production whenever you find one of these. So it's unusual to find one, but when you find one, the rates are extremely high.
- [43:04]
C
All right, so what are the risks of hitting a dry well? Because before anybody invests in a project like that, that's the. That's the fear you always hear, oh, boy, I invested all this money in a well, and it went. And you hit a dry well. What is the risk here at this project?
- [43:20]
J
Well, I think it's zero. Okay. Because this is what's called a basin centered gas accumulation. And these are very thick stands and the reservoir parameters are low porosity, low permeability and they're over pressured. One of the other things that you need to know is that if there's any sort of water associated with the reservoir, it's interstitial water and it's what we call bound. So the only thing you produce in a reservoir like this is gas. Okay, that's it. So we know that we have multilayers of gas in the reservoir that we found so far.
- [43:59]
C
And so explain to me dry wells, is that a possibility?
- [44:04]
J
No, I don't see any dry wells out here. It's just a question of what the productive rates are going to be. I mean one of the things that I might explain so people can visualize this, I was in a taxicab in Manhattan and there was an institutional investor and she asked me if I could tell her the size of this. And we actually have a slide in our presentation. And in that slide, the reserve, the reservoir, the stacked reservoir, just like a layer cake, is higher than the birch. She says, what's the burge? I said, well that's the world's tallest building. She said, what about the Empire State Building? So we looked it up and the Empire, the verge is twice as high as the Empire State Building. So the size of this reservoir is twice the height of the Empire State Building. And then we looked up Manhattan and it's three times the size of Manhattan in terms of the aerial extent. That's the size of this gas field.
- [45:01]
C
All right, so we're talking, when you say a reservoir, that's the gas field that this gas sits down in there in stacked formations as well. No dry wells is pretty amazing. You don't hear that often, which is amazing. And then you have an announcement to make about this company Roth, which a lot of people at home, maybe not involved in this, know who this is, but how important is, is this company Roth, that that is invested here?
- [45:31]
J
Well, I, I think this is certainly one of the largest mid cap companies in the United States of America and in Canada. And I'm very familiar with the person that runs Tony Laria the project in Canada. And you know they're going to be helping us with capital raising equity research, macroeconomic analysis, sales and trading. So we think that we could not find a better advisor to help us access capital and have a proper plan going forward for lost soldiers.
- [46:02]
C
All right. You know, just the fact that a company like that gets involved in this tells you all you need to know about the quality of the project here and the leadership behind it. We're so grateful for you coming on the program, Mark Bruner. I'm going to tell people how they get in touch with you and Lost Soldier Oil and Gas. If they want to Invest. Go to law soldier.com youm can use the QR code on your screen there. That's Lost soldier dot com. Just scan that QR code, hit the little Invest button and people will get right back to you, too. We just did a webinar the other day. That's great. They can send you that and you can watch it as well. All right, folks, we will continue our special coverage leading into the President's national address on Iran, coming up next. Welcome back, everyone. Before we end our coverage leading up to President Trump's address to the nation on Iran, I was want to bring back in my buddy Brian Glenn, who was in Washington. Brian, do you want to make a prediction or do you have any insight on what president might say tonight?
- [47:06]
G
They've been pretty tight with any kind of details coming out ever since the announcement earlier. But I will say this. I think he's going to recap the accomplishments he's had in Iran, the destruction that we've had against their military, the goals that have been accomplished. And I'm hoping that we hear that we could be starting to transition to have our troops come back home and that Iran will never, ever have a nuclear weapon and we can close that chapter in American history.
- [47:33]
C
Yeah. Brian Glenn, always good to see you. We'll be watching tonight. Thank you, my friend.
- [47:38]
G
Thank you.
- [47:39]
C
All right, the other thing I'd like to know is what about this thousand pounds of uranium? If we don't get it, how do we get it? If it's deep under the ground, can we blow it up? That's another question that needs to be answered. That's going to do it for Stinchfield tonight. I so appreciate you watching this special edition of Stitchfield leading up to the President's address on Iran tonight. As you can imagine, we will be covering it right here, 9 o' clock Eastern Time. I'm going to pass it off to the guys at 6B now who will continue our special coverage of the evening. Thanks for watching, everybody. Stitchfield's army rolls.