So only a commander in chief can ask and be granted this opportunity to speak to this many people. And, and he did it in December, I believe on affordability. And it helped for a little bit. He had the State of the Union helped for a little bit. And then we had this and this is now we've been a month in I think tonight will be very valuable. And as somebody who covers the news, I feel like I'm pretty clear on what we are doing there in Iran and what we want to accomplish. I, I read this stuff all day long. I listen to everything I can. But as you get farther out into the country, that's not necessarily the case. People have their lives are working on things and they go to the fill up their tank and they're like, what in the world is going on? And the President has talked to a lot of reporters and he's done a lot of social media and it hasn't scratched the itch. And I imagine that this is something that he wanted to do early on, but he needed and wanted the element of surprise because that's when they killed, I think, what was it, the 49 leaders that were all having brunch. And that was a huge mistake on their part because they're no longer there. On the NATO front, I think not allowing the United States its basing rights is insanity. But I also think that there's a saying that if you want me to be there for the landing, I need to be there for the launch. And NATO is saying, well, wait, they have political considerations as well. They have politics that they have to deal with. Their country is they're not energy efficient like we are. So it's taking them a minute. Now, on the good news front, Britain is gathering 35 countries tomorrow to say, okay, here's how we're going to help and go forward. So there's a little bit of that also. It's a short trading week, so the markets will be closed for the holiday, I think, starting Thursday through Friday through Sunday. So maybe President Trump can get a little bit of extra time to be able to say, this is what we're trying to do, this we're going to do now. This is what we want to do. I still feel, though, that there's this big delta between the initial invasion or bombing in which the demand from the by from the Iranians was unconditional surrender. And now we're like, but make a deal, but make a deal with what? Do they still get the capabilities to have a nuclear weapon? I thought that was the thing. And the President says in that clip there that the American people feel more safe now. Not sure that everyone feels that way at the moment, but he has a chance to help them tonight to understand. The last thing I would say is there's so many different audiences for this speech tonight. There's the American people, there's the US Military, the US Military's families who are like, well, wait, my child just got sent over. What are we doing? There's, of course, our allies, our disenfranchised allies, our adversaries, our enemies. And there's also the Iranian people. And what's really sad is that because the Iranians are so awful to their citizens that no one in Iran will be able to hear what the President says tonight.
A (5:08)
Yeah, that's a great point. You know, 12,300 targets struck, 13,000 combat flights, 155 Iranian vessels sunk. Jesse, we'll no doubt hear about the extraordinary success of our military.
F (5:20)
Yeah, he's going to say we're dominating and we're almost done. The regime decapitated. The missiles, the air force, the navy pretty much eradicated. And we've all hit their defense industrial base, so they can't rearm. And the proxy is severely weakened. We haven't heard a word from Hamas. Hezbollah is getting crushed in Lebanon. And the Houthis only fired four missiles since the start of the war. The uranium. So that's the wild card. We have hit those sites extremely hard. So there's a lot of rubble that's covering up a lot of this stuff. And we have the right to seize it. And that's out there. I don't know if he's going to pull the trigger or not, but the uranium that's left over the Uranians are going to have to negotiate what we're going to do with that from an extremely weakened and vulnerable position. Now, I don't know what could happen in the next two weeks. We're seeing, we're doubling the amount of warthogs in theater. Those guys you're using when you have a ground assault on the coastline or an island, those are the guys that do the close air support when you strafe the strait. And then you also see this submarine carrying probably Navy SEAL teams, which you use to insert secretively on a coastline in the dark at night. So he has a lot of options. I have no clue what he's going to do. NATO just say, I'm very disappointed. Need we go through how much they owe us? We saved them twice from world wars. We bailed them out with the Marshall Plan. We even lowered our tariffs to zero so they could recover for decades. And then we helped them out with Ukraine. And all we want is a base. All we want is airspace for a little bit to knock out the world's number one sponsor of terror. They can't give us that. These missiles are in range of their capitals, not ours. They get their oil from that strait. We don't. The least they could do is say okay and deal with the domestic blowback. But to say no. Well, like, their economies are getting kind of murdered because they can't even sustain four weeks from an oil supply shock. Like, come on, you're not going to send one vessel to the strait. You're going to wait till the hostilities are over. Well, that's the Navy. That's what a navy's for, to end hostilities. You don't get to play cleanup when we do all the heavy lifting. This has become very entitled, parasitic, and I'm not gonna stand for it anymore.
E (8:16)
In an effort to have something new to say. Today, we replay the tapes of all of the Republicans that have been critical of this or at least had some very serious questions that I think is fair when your country is engaged in a war that hasn't been pitched, sold to the American public and when the approval is so low. And what I think about this evening's address is that the President is frustrated by the other messengers who have been out here talking about this, that he gets the feedback that the goals have not been properly communicated, that the American public doesn't understand why he went in, why he did it this way, what we have accomplished and what the exit strategy is, and that he thinks he is his best advocate and the best advocate for the American military and for our mission there. And so he's out there doing it. And the four goals that have been outlined, at least in what they leaked to the press, are even different from what Secretary Rubio said just two days ago. Because on Rubio's list, he did not have anything about a nuclear weapon. And that's back on the list because that is the most important thing. That's the thing that people can identify with, or so you can't have a nuclear Iran. Now, a lot of swirl about what the JCPOA had gotten us and whether we could have done a deal that was reminiscent of that, plus some extra checks. I know that there are critics of that deal even on the Democratic side that's out there, but he is undoubtedly being forced into this position because of. And he pooh, poohed it. But over $4 for gas. His approval rating in now, every poll that we've seen this week is in the 30s. We're not even talking about the low 40s. The CNN poll, he's minus 24 with men, minus 2 with white voters who don't have a college degree, minus 17 with seniors. And 65% say that his policies are making their economic conditions worse. That is unsustainable. Not even if you're thinking about a midterm. You just can't go through the rest of an administration like that. Two big questions for me. What does he say about the NATO alliance? We talked about the impact of the Strait of Hormuz on our European partners there in the region. That's a very serious thing to be lobbying that we would want to leave. He needs Senate approval. McConnell and Chris Coons are out with a statement saying that you need Senate approval for that, which Marco Rubio knows. Secondly, the same poly market wallet that put a $500,000 bet on the exact timing of the first bomb that we dropped in Iran has put an $800,000 bet that there's going to be a ground invasion. So are we now looking at a ground invasion that's coming through. And also I would love to know who has this information and is playing the betting markets.
C (11:33)
So, Jess, you do bring up a good point. Trump saying we're gonna bomb him back to the stone Age, but in a Muslim country. What is that, 2010? The Dems like to talk about this war being of low approval. When has low approval ever stopped the Democrats? Every single issue. They are on the low approval side. They are squatting in the 20 of 80 20. Whether it's on taxes, whether it's on education, voter ID, trans borders, no cash flow. These are the least popular things since I don't know the View. Yeah, but I think Iran has always been like a stalling tactic, and the Dems were fine with that. And now you get a leader who says, I don't like to stall. I want to take out the nukes, the ballistic missiles, the terror groups they fund. And the Dems, however, they were fine with the drip, drip, drip of Iranian terror for decades, and yet now they demand a timetable. Sorry, you guys were stalling. Let us do the job. Four to six weeks. That's. That's not a lot to ask after 40 years. Republicans, like Jessica said, who voted for Trump based on no wars, they have a right to be vocal. But I think Trump needs to make clear tonight that this isn't a forever war. If you look at what he did with Maduro Soleimani, the Wagner group isis, this is what he does. And you have to. He's demonstrated what he does, and you should have faith in him. Like I said. But the day. But unlike the Republicans, the Dems come cannot demand a timetable. They are the wizards of endless money pits, from bridges to nowhere to high speed rails. They. They say we need more houses, but they make sure no one can build them for years. They say we need more affordable energy. You couldn't do nuclear power for decades until now. What about the homeless solutions? We pour money in. So much money that it never gets done. I think they don't like Trump because he actually tries to solve the things. And when problems get solved, the Dems don't get paid. I think for every pursuit Trump takes, it's a construction project. He still puts on his hat. Get in, get it done, get out, move on. There's no one who wants it done faster than him. Even his presidency is a job site. Literally, the White House is a job site. He tries to get everything done in the first year. And I think that is the scary part for Democrats is if a problem is solved, it does them no good. It reveals that the problem could have been solved, but they didn't solve it, and they lose power in the process of solving it. So when Trump does something quick, it causes panic. This should be done quickly. We hope it is. That's my faith.
D (16:29)
She's just totally irrelevant. What is relevant is a few things here. So for a long time leading up to this, people have been saying, people as in legal scholars, that President Trump was likely to lose on this. It's not that the issue isn't an important one. It's that going about it through an executive order might be the wrong way to try to achieve a policy goal over and over again. What did we face? Congress just abdicates its responsibility, walks away and presidents get frustrated and they said we want to solve something. So on day one, President Trump, who has thought about this issue for many years, he's run on immigration. He says this stops today. And it's interesting because all of a sudden the, the Democrats are strict constitutionalists and they love the originalism argument of which they have hated from Thomas and Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Roberts. But now all of a sudden they're like that's not what the Constitution says. And so as somebody who I've always believed that let's stick with the Constitution. However, I also think that there's nothing wrong with the Supreme Court saying to the Congress this issue should be fair, fixed, but it's not. Going to work with just this executive order. Now, maybe it'll turn out that the President wins on this one. But this is the last point I'll make on this that I thought was so disturbing because I don't really understand it. Maybe somebody here is going to explain it to me. In 2006, I was Deputy press secretary, and the average poll of how people felt about this issue was that 45% of Americans thought that everyone who was born in America automatically became a US citizen. 45%. Today it's 69% think that anyone who was born in America, even after all of these things, all these stories, people coming here just to have their babies. And I'm not sure where public opinion changed on this. I could maybe take a guess, but it's gone up steadily since 2006. And so if Congress were to take it on, I'm not sure how it would turn out.
F (18:35)
Well, if you're a green card holder, Jessica, you come here, you have a baby, that baby's an American citizen, and that's fine. What you're saying is if you're a legal aid alien whose allegiance is to Guatemala, and he crosses over and dumps a baby out, then all of a sudden they're a citizen and so is the mother or a tourist from China to come in, have a baby in like American Samoa, and then go back to Beijing, it's being abused. You'd agree with that?
E (19:28)
But I'm saying, which I'm not on the Supreme Court, all I can do is ingest what I saw the exchanges were and then report them. And the evidence that the government was using, talking about birth tourism, talking about how kids of diplomats don't get citizenship, so why should this be different, et cetera. Justice Roberts was pooh, poohing it. That's what was happening. Dana's totally right about the close 70% of people who approve of birthright citizenship. Right now. I think you get into very sticky territory if you're talking about people who are on even temporary visas. If someone overstays it by a week or two, you have people in the US Government right Now, Marco Rubio, Cash Patel, Usha Vance. These are people who have their citizenship because of birthright citizenship. And you know that today didn't go well because Donald Trump's true social post once he left was, we are the only country in the world stupid enough to allow birthright citizenship. He didn't say the government kicked butt. He didn't say, we're going to win this thing. He said, basically, I'm throwing a temper tantrum and a couple.
A (21:08)
You're ignoring some of the facts that were laid out today. You say this is a small sliver false. Go check out the data from the Government Accountability Institute, which they made reference to today. One million people they believe went to the Northern Mariana Islands from China and became US citizens. There are 500 firms, this was listed today in China, that make this a cottage industry inserting the Chinese Communist Party into our country. Now, what this could translate to, according to Eric Eggers, is 1.1 million new voters by 2030. I think we can all agree that that is a perilous state. If you have people from China coming over giving birth, 1 million new voters by 2030, that is a big problem. And it is inconceivable to think that the framers of the 1868 14th Amendment, that's the year it was ratified and had an idea that 4 billion women in the world could come here, give birth, take a plane ride and boom, you're a US Citizen. It's inconceivable on its face, Greg.
C (22:06)
Yeah, you're an illegal and you come here and you have a baby that is not a citizen. And it amazes me that by saying that you are somehow portrayed as harsh by saying something that is so unfortunate, obviously sensible, that like if you it makes, as Donald Trump says and it's so mean. And I'm going to get to that. No other country does this. No other country does this. And why? Because nobody wants to do it in those countries. There's nobody clamoring in to try to game the system to have babies in Haiti. All right, so you're saying they're all coming here. What does that tell you? The system is being gamed. So how did this happen when you're talking about these polls? I don't think the polls are real, but I do think that there has been a shift due to redefining in the last, I would say 15 or 20 years. Redefining common sense, patriotism as intolerant, xenophobic, but most important, mean. So if you think about every segment that we do or every position we're on, we are always portrayed as mean. So when you say men cannot be women, men cannot be in women's sports, you are intolerant and you are mean. If you say illegals need to be deported, all illegals, I think the worst first. But in the long run, you never know who the worst is first because you let them all in. Yes. That is so mean. You think this guy should go to prison? I mean, he had a terrible upbringing. Yes. He should go away for 25 years. That is so mean. Every single policy that the Democrats try to shove down your throats is based on the fact that somehow when you take a stand to protect your country or your family, it's somehow mean. This is like, I really do think this is a dangerous culture now. I keep thinking to myself, what if the supporters of birthright citizenship were gung ho patriotic Americans who said we need to do this? And we align it with a dedicated citizenship assimilation path so we have the American ideal protected, valued, cherished. I'd be like, wow, that's pretty amazing that these people feel that way. But the problem is the people that are pushing birthright are the people who reject American culture, who reject assimilation, who embrace the so called tenets of diversity and identity politics, who believe that America as an idea is not just flawed, but evil and in need of radical change. So I don't trust this is why all the arguments about birthright citizens are what ifs analogies. Kenjin Jackson Brown. My favorite artist was comparing it to getting your wallet stolen in Japan. They cannot live in the real world where you see the incentives and you see the actual data. So instead they live in analogies and then they look at you and they go, you're just mean. And everybody said so. We have this poll that says you're just really mean for believing this way. I don't care. We're right on this. Anybody's an illegal has a baby in your country and that makes that baby a citizen. No, but duh.
F (28:31)
Many people are saying women don't have the sense of humor to be president. I've heard that from a lot of people. None of those things I believe, but I believe Gavin Newsom could be the first woman president because when I hear him talk, he sounds like a woman. The kind of emotional instability, you don't know whether he's having a midlife crisis, an identity crisis, a crisis of confidence. I read the book and it's great. And he's got so much potential with his athleticism, his hair. He's a genuinely nice guy. But the only reason he's running for president is to prove his worth to his father and to get back at all the bullies who beat the crap out of him in middle school. Now I'm saying don't run for president. Run to see a psychiatrist. And set.
C (29:30)
I had. It's weird. There are some people whose energy is contagious. You know, they inspire you to get up and move. I'm like that. I'm Viagra for your brain. Gavin's energy is inward and it's kind of exhausting to watch. You don't leave inspired, you leave kind of confused and spent. Like, what did we just watch there? He's like a one man performance art troupe called the Conflicted Narcissist. You know, people are not attracted to selfish energy. They're protect. This is to me, self expression is his priority because he's too lazy to prepare. Like he didn't have anything to say. And he's crying over paid volunteers, which is an oxymoron like Fox and Friends.
A (33:14)
100%. Puerto Rico, D.C. states packing, the Supreme Court coming your way and an end to the filibuster to do it. These are Democrats background into reporters that they're ready to fight, which is probably smart. You want to rile up your base. But if I were Democrats, not to give them free advice, but I'd be backgrounding to reporters. I want to pass Elizabeth Warren's credit card interest rates bill. I Want to pass Josh Hawley and Warren's bill to break up big medical companies and get those to President Trump's desk and see where he stands on these issues. If I were Democrats, that's what I'd be doing. Backgrounding my legislation, not so much my. My fight.
C (35:46)
I love space. I fear, though, that China beat us to it because they. They found a stack of takeout menus. But as a kid, I always remember the moonshots, you know, sitting in front of the tv, feeling that national pride. And I'm just waiting for the Dems. Your party, Jessica, to find a way to ruin it. You know, they're going to talk about the climate footprint of the rocket ship. I guarantee you that will be a story. And were there any LGBTQ astronauts on board? Where is the diversity? Is that an accurate representation of the human race? To potential aliens out there.
A (37:14)
Yeah, I just. I have a flashback to May 27th of 2020. And we went to Kennedy Space center, me president, and we were ready to watch the first astronaut go into space in a decade. And it didn't happen. It was scrapped May 30th. It did happen. I got to bring my daughter Blake, and my husband. We have this great picture watching this launch, first time in a decade. So it's so neat. It's so cool. And I love that. President Trump wants to land on the moon. A man landing on the moon by 2028.
