Ep. 533 - NASA's Biggest Launch in 50 Years, Humiliation at Supreme Court, Trump to Address Nation

Summary

---

The Tony Kinnett Cast Ep. 533 – NASA's Biggest Launch in 50 Years, Supreme Court Drama, and Trump's National Address

Date: April 2, 2026
Host: Tony Kinnett, The Daily Signal
Format: National news, politics, commentary

---

Episode Overview

This high-energy episode focuses on three major topics:

1. The monumental Artemis 2 NASA launch—America’s biggest space mission in half a century
2. A heated Supreme Court showdown over birthright citizenship
3. Anticipation for President Trump’s upcoming national address regarding Iran and U.S. foreign policy.

Tony Kinnett brings his signature middle-American, no-nonsense perspective, moving briskly from space history to legal arguments and global politics, interspersed with biting commentary, memorable quotes, and satirical asides.

---

1. Artemis 2 & NASA’s Return to the Moon

[00:04–09:56]

Key Points

• The Artemis 2 launch is "the most precise calculation and execution of mathematics humanity has ever fathomed" ([01:55], Tony).
• NASA achieved remarkable early success: 14 miles of altitude in 90 seconds and flawless communications through the supersonic boom ([00:18]–[00:40]).
• Artemis 2’s mission: Slingshot around Earth using gravity, intercept lunar orbit, slingshot around the Moon, and return.
• Groundbreaking diversity:
  • Victor Glover: First African American on a lunar mission
  • Christina Koch: First woman on a lunar mission
  • Jeremy Hansen: First Canadian on a lunar mission
• International partnerships are critical: European, Japanese, and Canadian agencies advance lunar technology ([05:41]).
• NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman laid out a three-phase plan for a permanent Moon base ([07:05–08:02]).

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Tony (about the launch):

  “14 miles of altitude in under 90 seconds. Ferrari could never, not even close.” ([00:14])

• NASA Launch Controller:

  “Ignition of the RS25s, ignition of the boosters and liftoff. Artemis 2 is off and away. Let's go to the moon.” ([03:43])

• Crew send-off, per Flight Director Blackwell Thompson ([04:41]):

  “You take with you the heart of this Artemis team, the daring spirit of the American people and our partners across the globe and the hopes and dreams of a new generation. Good luck. Godspeed. Artemis 2, let's go.”

• Tony’s take on America’s “pioneering spirit”:

  “There was a little piece of that American spirit that was revivified in a manner that really hasn't been seen since the end of the Cold War. Americans are a pioneering people. It is what they do best.” ([08:41])

• President Trump’s past rally:

  "We're going to be the first people on Mars in this administration. We're going to Mars." ([08:36])

Legal and Media Controversies

• Some outlets (e.g., The Verge) call the Artemis moon base plans “legally dubious,” raising the debate over the U.S. “owning” lunar resources ([10:00]).
• Tony:

  "We freaking own the moon, lunar treaties be damned..."
  He dismisses legal objections as sour grapes from American critics.

---

2. Supreme Court Drama: Birthright Citizenship Showdown

[17:00–45:00]

Key Points

• President Trump made an unusual, heavily scrutinized appearance at the Supreme Court during oral arguments on an executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship ([17:20–18:00]).
  • Trump's executive order seeks to end automatic citizenship for most children born to non-citizen parents on U.S. soil.
  • Outcry from media and left-wing pundits, e.g., Whoopi Goldberg, who accuses Trump of “intimidating” SCOTUS ([17:32]).
• Chief Justice Roberts suggests Congress, not the court, should resolve the question, referencing the 1866 Civil Rights Act ([19:20]).
• Tony’s analysis: The Court is likely to “kick this back to Congress,” continuing a pattern of judicial deflection ([19:55–21:00]).

Legal Arguments Examined

• ACLU’s position: The “subject to the jurisdiction” clause in the 14th Amendment applies only to diplomats and not to other foreigners—framed as a “magical universal term.”
  • Tony calls this “the wildest thing I’ve ever heard argued before the Supreme Court” ([30:55]).
• Alito’s pushback: He probes whether children born to foreign military operatives on U.S. soil should get citizenship ([28:00]).
• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s controversial comments:
  • Alleged that being subject to U.S. arrest (jurisdiction) equals local allegiance, thus, birthright citizenship ([34:23–36:24]).
  • Tony: “Jurisdiction means different things based on the legal surroundings, the context.”
  • Even liberal Justice Sotomayor rebukes this logic ([36:24]).

Notable Quotes & Satirical Commentary

• Tony on Justice Jackson:

  “Babbling like an angry toddler in the corner...her profession is not understanding.” ([31:52])

• Tony on Democratic lawmakers:

  “Full Marxist no borders should be real argument from the left.” ([39:55])

• Rep. Delia Ramirez:

  “Anyone born in this country...are birthright citizens.”
  Tony: “That’s not even the law right now. ...Humans, dogs, horses, camels, people anywhere. They're all citizens.” ([41:38])

Broader Implications

• Tony stresses the link between unchecked birthright citizenship, crime, and national security—contradicting mainstream media narratives about immigrant crime rates ([43:12–45:22]).

---

3. Anticipation: President Trump’s National Address on Iran (“Operation Epic Fury”)

[62:30–79:38]

Key Points

• President’s address expected at 9pm ET—uncertainties remain as news outlets report conflicting leaks:
  • Politico claims Trump will declare the war with Iran over.
  • Washington Post suggests only an off-ramp announcement ([63:12–64:06]).
• Trump (parody impression):

  “The operation epic fury. It was epic. It was furious. Not too fast, too furious. Didn't really care for Vin Diesel, to be honest with you.” ([83:09])

• Secretary of State Marco Rubio critiques NATO and Europe’s lack of support in Middle East operations, underpinning Trump’s “America First” foreign policy ([73:34]).

NATO and Foreign Policy Riffs

• Tony and guest commentary bash European allies for lackluster contributions, mock bureaucratic talk (notably Keir Starmer of the UK) ([68:33–72:37]).
• Rubio:

  "Why do we have billions and billions of dollars, hundreds of billions...stationed in the region, if we can only use [bases] in our time of need, [but NATO says] no?" ([73:34])

• Tony praises Rubio’s “Trumpian” approach:

  “He effectuates the Trump doctrine of not getting pushed around, not being taken advantage of.” ([75:22])

• Trump’s negotiation style is described as “the dodgeball feint”—ask for much, settle for the core goal, repeat ([79:09–83:38]).

---

Memorable Sidelights & Quotes

• On media and political gaslighting:

  “[Democrats] simply gaslight your way through Americans real concerns and simply be loved forever” ([57:00]).

• When an Occupy Democrats meme fails in real life at a town hall:

  “Everybody has an ID. Oh, there you go.” ([60:13])

• Tony’s sign-off:

  “…the world economy is built for Americans. You are the inheritance to—or you are the inheritors to—the entire world economy.” ([77:00])

---

Audience Q&A & Community

[83:38–End]

• Super chats highlight further discussion on U.S. federal jury selection and illegal immigrants ([84:00+]).
• Audience questions about the value of NATO, U.S. interests, and whether Trump could influence UK politics.
• Tony on April Fools’:

  “Everyone seemed really annoyed with April Fools this year. There’s a lot of news going on anyway…more important than April Fools.”

---

Important Timestamps

• Artemis 2 Launch & NASA Overview: [00:04–09:56]
• Supreme Court & Birthright Citizenship: [17:00–45:00]
• Trump’s Address, Iran, NATO: [62:30–79:38]
• Key Quotes from President Trump: [79:09, 83:09]
• Mailbag & Audience Q&A: [83:38–End]

---

Tone & Style

The episode is unapologetically opinionated, with Tony combining deep dives, rapid-fire news cycling, and caustic humor as he skewers political adversaries, mocks progressive arguments, and champions American exceptionalism—especially in space and geopolitics.

---

In Summary

Episode 533 is a turbocharged ride through the latest triumphs and controversies in American science, law, and foreign affairs. Tony Kinnett celebrates the new lunar age, ridicules legal and political opponents, and sets the stage for another era-defining presidential speech, all in his signature, ribbing style.

---

Transcript

[Tony Kennett]

Tony Kennett.

Tony Kennett.

[NASA Flight Crew Member]

Tony Kennett.

[Tony Kennett]

Tony Kennett. Tony Kennett.

[NASA Launch Controller]

Tony Kennett.

[Tony Kennett]

Tony Kennett, host of the Tony Kennett cast. Let's get down to business. You're listening to the Tony Kennett cast on 93 WIBC on CYTV here on the Daily Signal. Good evening and welcome to the Tony Kennett cast here on the Daily Signal, nationally syndicated, first on wibc. We are waiting for a live feed from the Orion which is supposed to take over and actually maintain a live video feed from the Artemis 2 mission team as they proceed obviously out of atmosphere. Now I have never seen anything quite like it. I'm sure many of you have watched it. We'll check some of those clips here in just a second. 14 miles of altitude in under 90 seconds. Ferrari could never, not even close. Also maintaining solid connection communications wise through the sonic boom as they went supersonic without any kind of disruption at all. Brilliant telecommunication work from NASA the United States, sans supreme right out, right out of the bat. Just incredible work. We're going to cover that with some more information as we get in there. And of course some of the media is already losing their mind about it. But to relay back to the very beginning here, as former President John F. Kennedy once said, we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. So the NASA Artemis program is the idea of getting American astronauts back into space, back to the moon, that we again as a pioneering people, leap forward. And in this particular Artemis 2 mission at least the flight path, as is shown in projection in, is to do something in a more efficient fashion than we've ever seen done in rocketry. So this idea of using and you can see this on the live stream. Sorry for those on the radio and the podcast side, you'll have to tune into the live stream. YouTube.com DailySignal you can see the Artemis which is going to, as it is currently doing, launching above Earth's atmosphere. And then as it picks up speed, it does so in a manner utilizing Earth's gravity to build and do kind of a slingshot around the planet. And as it passes back close to the Earth, it then launches away with a small boost to escape a kind of pseudo orbit return and then moves to intercept the moon. So the Artemis 2 rocket, the Orion, will not actually be aiming at where the moon is. This isn't like the original moon flight or the last, or I should say over 50 years ago when we were sending manned missions to the moon that the Artemis 2 in this particular instance is going to be aiming where the moon will be and because of a lot of very precise calculations will here in a couple of days enter the moon's orbit just briefly to slingshot around the moon and then return back to Earth. It is one of the most precise calculations and executions of mathematics that anyone could have possibly fathomed, at least in the scope of humanity's achievements up until this point. So of course here's the clip of the hour of the week, of the year. Artemis 2 launching from down in Florida. Here comes the deluge.

[NASA Launch Controller]

Ignition of the RS25s,

[Tony Kennett]

ignition of the boosters and liftoff. Artemis 2 is off and away. Let's go to the moon. Breathtaking. Houston, integrity good. Roll pitch.

[NASA Flight Crew Member]

Roger, roll pitch.

[Tony Kennett]

In many previous NASA missions you're not, it's not exactly typically normal for those who are piloting the craft to have perfect, clear, unbroken communication as it goes with Houston, with the rest of NASA's flight crews who were checking in by the way, monitoring things all the way from Texas to Tennessee to be in constant communication with those who are experiencing that wonderful feeling of the fattest gorilla that's not occupying the governor's office of Illinois sitting on one's chest. And this particular crew as they, they moved forward again as I said at the right at the beginning of in just 14, excuse me, in just 90 seconds, gained 14 miles in altitude. Really, really incredible stuff. Of course the, the flight director Charlie Blackwell Thompson wishing the crew before the 10 minute countdown began a a a very proper send off, I believe. I copy that. Reed, Victor, Christina and Jeremy on this historic mission you take with you the heart of this Artemis team, the daring spirit of the American people and our partners across the globe and the hopes and dreams of a new generation. Good luck. Godspeed. Artemis 2, let's go. Incredible. Absolutely incredible. Now the Commander Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover and just for the record, the first African American on a lunar mission, the mission specialist Christina Koch, the first woman on a lunar mission and the mission specialist Jeremy Hansen of the Canadian Space Agency, the first Canadian ever involved on a lunar mission. So there are contributions from several in the the European theater, from Japan, obviously from Canada and others. Orion's life support, propulsion, guidance and other systems in deep space with humans aboard. This is going to be the core driver of this mission. What do we learn from Orion and how it keeps the astronauts alive. Obviously you don't need me to tell you about the edge of the seat style news that came out of the Apollo program. Some of the tragedies as well as some of the great successes and and bringing men back to Earth from presumably failed missions. Hopefully through this Orion space exploration and understanding through life support systems, we'll actually get a better feeling on how a possible manned mission to Mars or of course long term radiation shielding in an extended mission to the moon would go. And of course this was brought up by NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman regarding moon based plans before the end of 2028.

[NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman]

Despite some of the very real hardware and schedule challenges, we can repurpose equipment and international partner commitments to support surface and other program objectives. It's worth pointing out that shifting NASA workforce priority to the surface, which has lots of advantages for safety, tech, demonstration and science, it's really the proving ground for future Mars initiatives, does not preclude revisiting the orbital outpost in the future. We will build the moon base in three phases. Phase one endeavors to support industry by moving from infrequent bespoke efforts to a templated approach that will generate significant learning through experimentation. We will dramatically expand lunar landings through the clips in the LTV program, delivering rovers, instruments and technology payloads that test mobility power systems such as working with international partners in industry on the production of ruse and rtgs, communications, navigation, surface operations and all the science payload that can be incorporated.

[Tony Kennett]

Really, really cool achievements. Again, this is the thing for me just to take a very brief moment away from the quick news roundup here and say that when the Trump administration, or should I say at the time the Trump campaign, launched for his second presidency and he got up in front of the country and the first half of his announcement that he was running for election for 2024 were a bunch of economic and legal things. But then in the second half it was a long intro speech for announcing he was going to run again. He got to talking about the American pioneering spirit, about Americans leaping forward once again into space and he got said,

[Donald Trump]

we're going to be the first people on Mars in this administration. We're going to Mars.

[Tony Kennett]

And when he got up and he said those kinds of things, there was a little piece of that American spirit that was revivified in a manner that really hasn't been seen since the end of the Cold War. Americans are a pioneering people. It is what they do best. And to see this, to see this kind of success again. And we have a clip of the launch separation all the way through the very first views in space in incredible stuff. Here you go. 2 minutes 45 seconds of mission elapsed time into the Artemis 2 mission thrusters on integrity and upper stage confirmed in a ready state ahead of service module. Fairing separation. Three minutes into the flight. Integrity, 49 miles in altitude, 78 miles downrange. Now passing 5,000 miles per hour. The very few, the very first views from space. Beautiful. Standing by for launch. Abort system jettison. Houston integrity.

[NASA Flight Crew Member]

Good last jettison.

[Tony Kennett]

Great queue again. That's the flight crew that is communicating back to Houston. Perfect clarity. Obviously some of the camera views are a little bit shaky there. Understandably so. A very, very good mission so far. Also getting report from my team that the solar wings are also now open. Excellent radio crew. Sorry we have to send you over to the commercial. We're gonna get into some of the controversy because, you know, God forbid there isn't. Over on the live stream, it's the Tony Kindid cast here on the Daily Signal now. Yeah, there are articles already from outlets like the Verge claiming that the Artemis base project is legally dubious. That's right, legally dubious. Well, I mean, personally, I think that's legally retarded. But here's their argument. They said with NASA planning to launch four astronauts on Wednesday, the race to return to the moon is back on, obviously, because China right now, the CCP has doubled, tripled its space program staff and thrown all kinds of resources into trying to launch, they call them techno nauts into space. And yes, to fly up to the moon, knock over the American flag and plant the Chinese Communist flag, which, how about no? But the United States, obviously, in this particular race. Going back to this article from the Verge, though, this is what cracks me up here. They say there's science and then there's the law. The moon's environment is harsh and inhospitable, with dangerous space radiation, dusty material and a different level of gravity to contend with. I'm glad they're here to tell us these things, though less of a fantasy than the wild Mars colonization plans promised by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. Just the desperation just to hate people who are trying to push humanity further again, put the politics aside for a second. This stuff is cool. It is fine to look towards the stars, but anywho, gotta hate Trump and Musk and whatever. NASA's aim to establish a base on the moon by 2030 is still wildly optimistic. But here's the catch. It's hard to know how abundant resources like scandium used in these electronics are going to be in abundance until they've been more thoroughly mapped and assessed. But at least there's potential value and they're required for sustaining for sustaining habitation on the moon. Here's the argument they make. Essentially, this is a lunar gold rush. And the United States, they say, according to the Verge, has no right to just go and claim resources on the moon like helium 3 or scandium. Here would be my legal response to that. If there is another country that wants to go up and harvest resources from the freaking moon in the sky, then all of the countries that use kilometers can go and do so. In the meantime, the United States will continue to be the only country that flies men to the moon, the moon in the freaking sky, and do whatever it pleases. The United States will do whatever it pleases in the Middle East. The United States will do whatever it wants to do on the high seas. The United States will do whatever it wants to do in South America. And yeah, the United States, who includes a beautiful picture of the moon in the back of every passport because we freaking own the moon, lunar treaties be damned, will continue to do whatever it wants. And if the Verge doesn't like it, their tears will assuredly be delicious. Now, alas, this brings us to a little bit of other news, because in the rest of the government, not just the, you know, North American Space Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, excuse me, other than NASA's operations, what else is going on? Well, the Department of Homeland Security shutdown appears to be on the verge of ending as speaker of the House Mike Johnson has agreed to fund the Department of Homeland Security through the appropriations process and through reconciliation. So they're moving forward. Speaker Johnson released a huge statement rounding everything up into this idea that they were going to slightly tweak the Senate's past measures and open up the Department of Homeland Security. Now, there are both some of the good and some of the bad from this. So first of all, you have people like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer who are trying to claim a victory, suggesting that Republicans have caved to the Senate's demands. I don't. I don't think so, Chief. According to the polling data, the public's not looking too prettily upon Democrats over in the Senate. But alas, in the meantime, the good news on the side of, of this entire fiasco is that there is not going to be any kind of Save America act, kind of cheap out, cop out, that is thrust into this reconciliation measure. And that's something that I and a lot of other Americans were concerned about, that they were going to try to sneak in some voter ID sort of, kind of not really regulation into the reconciliation measure that would then turn into a fiasco. And then your senators would still try to tell you, hey, we did the thing that's not happening here. This is just about funding to the Department of Homeland Security and then through some additional reconciliation measures, ICE and Border Patrol. We're going to bring the radio crew back from commercial. Lot more news to cover. Don't go anywhere. It's the Tony Kennett cast here on the Daily Signal. It's the Tony Kennett cast on 93 WIPC. Welcome back to the Tony Kenneth cast here on the Daily Signal, nationally syndicated, first on 93 WIBC. A ton of news to cover this evening. Glad that you guys are with us. We're going to dive into a little bit regarding this birthright citizenship argument fiasco supreme at the Supreme Court. So the president of the United States announced yesterday that he was going to, for the first time in history, attend some oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Why does this matter? Presidents don't normally do this. And oral arguments at the Supreme Court are not televised. So normally you have like House or Senate committee hearings that are televised. You'll have a bunch of people from the Republicans side, the Democrat side and the House and the Senate, whatever committee it is, getting into a big, huge Jerry Springer Fistfight on C Span 1, 2, 3, ESPN8, the Ocho Corncob TV in order to essentially perform for you at home. That's what they're hoping so they can then take those big, huge, bold social media moments and support their next campaign. Now here's a bit of the problem for the Supreme Court side. These arguments which you do actually get to hear, they don't come with a lot of the same facial expressions. So the bad news is we didn't actually get to see the president of the United States face today when the Supreme Court was hearing argument regarding birthright citizenship. Now, again, this is the president who has a vested interest in immigration policy, going over there and talking about these things. So of course, the ladies over on the View lost it immediately. And I mean, just through the biggest hissy fit known to man, saying that he was there to intimidate. He's the intimidator. That's Whoopi Goldberg's argument about Trump going to SCOTUS today. And we just have to get to this because this is unbelievable what's going on. You know who is at the, he's at the Supreme Court as we speak, making his case for signing an executive

order that ends birthright citizenship in America.

I love that. Ooh. Ah, the horror. Oh, he's there to Intimidate. Oh, no. What's going to happen? Well, a couple of things. First of all, the president of the United States really wasn't referenced. He kind of sat in there for the first hour. He's like, interesting.

[Donald Trump]

I'm sitting back, I'm thinking maybe whipping out the Orville Redenbacher to grab a little popcorn and watch people act like idiots.

[Tony Kennett]

And then about through the first hour, he decided, all right, that's good. He heard Sawyer argue before the Supreme Court, heard a little bit of argument back and forth between Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan jumping in there a little bit. And then the president decided that was about it. And right about that time, Ketanji Brown Jackson decided to open her mouth, which was a move for sure. So first of all, what you need to know right now is that the legal arguments Today in Trump vs Barbara, the President's executive order about just because you drop in tourism wise to the United States and have a baby doesn't mean that the 14th amendment, that being born here, should grant you citizenship. The Supreme Court is hearing this particular case and is probably going to rule on it by the end of June. Now, Chief Justice Roberts begins by saying that a lot of examples that the United States raises as reasons, for example, if China, as we've already reported on the show, is sending people over to the United States through pseudo tourism and surrogacy programs to have children here which are United States citizens that answer as also citizens to Beijing, that being a problem. Chief Justice John Roberts calls these examples quirky and expresses skepticism that they apply to the children of illegal aliens en masse. And then he begins by invoking the Civil Rights act of 1866. I invite the court to look at an intervening step, the enactment of the Civil Rights act. And essentially says Congress has already looked at this way back in the day, and that because Congress has looked at it, he's not really sure what the Supreme Court can do. Now, I'm going to level with you.

[NASA Flight Crew Member]

This.

[Tony Kennett]

This is kind of the thing that the Supreme Court has become known for in the last couple of years. The Supreme Court will get a very crucial, important case that has not been able to be decided at the federal court level, has not been able to have been decided at the appeal at the appellate court level, and then it makes its way to scotus. And instead of issuing a ruling that fundamentally changes how the United States operates, which is something the Supreme Court is kind of supposed to do, you'll have Chief Justice John Roberts or Amy Coney Barrett or maybe in an opinion from Elena Kagan say, well, we'd really like to rule on this, but nah, Congress needs to do something. Here's the problem. When the Supreme Court issues these kind of rulings, they are both right and wrong. That's right. Two things could be true at once. Here they are right. Congress is lazy and worthless. Congress has spent the last 50 years doing absolutely bleep all. Basically, since the United States stopped going to the moon, Congress has done nothing. And they have essentially given the executive branch and therefore the judicial branch, oodles, canoodles and toaster strudel's worth of power and have suggested that the president, whether it be George W. Or Obama or Trump one or Joe Biden, can essentially whip out the pen and the phone and, and executive order their way to a better United States. That way Congress doesn't really have to do anything other than sometimes pass budgets or reconciliation measures. Really look at what some of the original, the first century of the United States, the original Congresses, you know, the classes of the 1790s, all the way through the 1870s were doing. And what you would see is a Congress that was impeaching judges and bringing investigations forward and ruling on major law changes. Crossing Congress doesn't really do this now. And so what you have is a presidential body, whether it be Democrat, Republican, populist, more freedom leaning, whatever you want to call it that is, is issuing these executive orders. And then you have federal judges from the Republican side, the Democrat side, appointed, whatever, that intervene and issue just random blocks and flags on the play and freezes and injunctions and conjunctions. What's your functions in order to stymie? So you have the judicial branch, which is unconstitutionally growing in power, and the executive branch, which is unconstitutionally growing in power. The Supreme Court is really supposed to rule on a couple of these things because whether they like it or not, Justice John Roberts and the eight other justices have been given lots more power. And so right at the beginning, I'm gonna tell you the Supreme Court is gonna kick this back to Congress. Write it down, I don't care. I, I'm guessing that the final ruling on this, by the way, is 3.5 to 5.5, you say, what do you mean, a half opinion? Yeah, I'm going to just throw a little bet out here that either Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh writes a kind of half opinion that says, well, I'd really like to rule on this But Congress needs to do something for once. And yeah, they're kind of going to be right, but also wrong because Congress isn't going to do anything. And so there needs to be a question that is asked, which is, do we sit around and wait until Congress doing nothing lets the Titanic sink? We or does the Supreme Court, how does the quote go do their jobs? Now, that brings us to the actual arguments at play. Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts didn't really seem to be impressed by Sawyer's arguments before the Supreme Court. On, again, the idea that just because you have a child here doesn't mean that the 14th Amendment should give you this birthright citizenship smorgasbord of all of the rights with none of the responsibilities. Now, again, there were some good arguments, there were some bad arguments kind of both ways here, because the 14th Amendment was not crafted with the idea that foreign powers would simply drop kids off, would cross the border illegally nine months pregnant, and then have the child here so that then the illegals who have the child here, the foreign nationals would be anchored here forever. There is nothing I have seen that remotely suggests this was anticipated in the framing of the 14th Amendment. But there is a little something about Native Americans. We're going to get to that. And Catanji Brown Jackson over on the Live Stream Radio crew. We'll catch you guys in a second. It's the Tony Kinit cast here on the Daily Signal. So there's a clause in the 14th Amendment that says, yeah, if you were within the territory of the United States when you were born, you are a citizen unless you are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power. Meaning this. If you have an ambassador from France and by some miracle you get lucky, and in the United States, you have birth to a wonderful, beautiful French child, well, that child is not American. That child would be French, and that child would not be given the rights as an American or as a citizen, the responsibilities of an American, meaning this, as a Frenchman, you can't be drafted to serve in the United States military. Thank you, God. That also works the other way. If I'm vacationing over in Italy, I can't, you know, all of the sudden because I'm in a foreign country, dodge the draft. It's still legal to dodge the draft. If Selective Service decides to call up Anthony Michael Kennett, I have to fly, sail or swim home and show up to Fort Benning, which kind of can't do given retainer rules and other things I probably shouldn't have said live on stream, but oh, well. So that brings us to the dumbest arguments probably of all time. And it starts out as things always do with the lawyer for the ACLU who makes the case, because the 1866 Civil Rights act is brought up again by Chief justice or, excuse me, not by Justice Samuel Alito. Samuel Alito does this thing where he kind of sticks a fork into the tummy of Chief Justice John Roberts. Because Alito is quite the history geek and really, really finds it annoying, based on my reading of his opinions and his oral arguments that we've listened to on the crew today, just livestream through the entire thing. Alito really doesn't care for Chief Justice John Roberts bringing up history selectively. And so Alito brings up, hey, you know, wouldn't you agree that the 14th Amendment is the same as the test of the 1866 Civil Rights Act? Like, hey, we're going to define citizens here. Don't you think we should actually define citizenship and jurisdiction and what it means to have allegiance to a country? So here's where things get fun. The ACLU lawyer says, look, words are like, obviously different. What Wong Kim Ark, and that's a prior Supreme Court case and debates tell us is that Congress was trying to, like, assess citizenship with both. They wanted to encompass the common law exception and the Indian exception. And, and Alito says, look, well, does this mean the same thing? And the acl, the ACLU lawyer goes, well, framers were trying to do kind of the same thing with language in both, which means that jurisdiction is this magical universal term, meaning this when someone tells you illegal immigrants deserve due process and the average American believes, oh, due process. You mean when I get arrested and then the cop reads me my Miranda rights and I'm taken to jail and given my one phone call and. And then I go through the whole American citizen legal process that due process. That's not actually what the words due process mean. Due process means the rights you are owed in the law. That's it. So due process means different things for different peoples at different times. It's the same with jurisdiction. Your county sheriff has jurisdiction over the area that you're operating. Sheriff Buford Date justice didn't have jurisdiction to chase bandit all the way back from Texarkana to Atlanta. But yet, even when you're outside of the United States, you, as a citizen of the United States, are still subject to the jurisdiction of this country. You can't violate federal law when you're outside of the United States. That's what's being argued here. And the ACLU lawyer says one of the most insane things I have ever heard. She says what the framers meant was they were referring to just an ambassador exception. So, so the only people who are exempt in the 14th amendment are just ambassadors from other countries. That doesn't mean the foreign power is actually a foreign power and everything goes off the rails. We got to bring the Raider crew back from commercial. Don't go anywhere. It's the Tony Kinnett cast here on the Daily Signal. This is the Tony Kennett cast on 93 Wyoming. Welcome back to the Tony Kinnick cast. The Supreme Court of the United States today, big fist fight. Incredible moment. I do want to point out very quickly, there was a great comment on the live stream from a Spencer Love pointing out that since Congress has only really passed like nine bills this year, technically they should be classified as part time staff and not be making near as much as they are. Wholly agree. Absolutely correct. Now in the Supreme Court of the United States today, you had the ACLU lawyer suggest one of the wildest things I've ever heard argued before the Supreme Court. And this exchange probably was what likely will turn Brett Kavanaugh from a no to voting in favor of the Trump administration. Really quick explanation. So the Supreme Court today, the ACLU lawyer argued that the 14th Amendment exception which says, hey, if you are subject to any foreign jurisdictions, then no, you having a kid here doesn't mean that you become a citizen of the United States because you're the child of those subject to a foreign jurisdiction, AKA you're not the son or daughter of US Citizens or those who are encompassed in territory the United States conquers. So, for example, if Alberta were to secede from Canada and then we adopted Alberta as a U.S. territory, any children born from the moment that document is signed or those with Alberta citizenship would then become a part of the United States given the territorial status. This happened with Guam. This isn't difficult either. By the way. You see this in college basketball, for crying out loud. The team that beat your team, you often want to see go all the way to the finish because hey, then at least you can say, well, I lost, my team lost to the best. That kind of absorb and move strategy here. That's the same way that a lot of this process works with the, with the aclu and later on Ketanji Brown, Jackson, oh, sweet Moses in a basket on the Nile, tried to argue was that this only applies to ambassadors and no one else. And furthermore, they suggest that jurisdiction here gets really, really, really wonky and Alito brings this up and says, wait a minute, wait a minute. So if there is a person who comes to the United States, let's say they're an Iranian or a Chinese national, and they are a member of the Iranian or Chinese military. They have sworn an oath to China, they have sworn an oath to Iran, they've sworn an oath to Russia, to Albania, to Israel, to South Africa, wherever to that military. They come to the United States as a foreign asset and they have a child. Does that mean that child is an American citizen and that then those parents, those military operatives, are anchored to the United States by legal right? The lawyer from the ACLU said, yes. And then this is truly the most bizarre thing I've ever witnessed in a Supreme Court hearing. Katanji Brown Jackson doubled down on this. She actually moved forward to suggest that anyone in the United States, even those who were in Canada, vacationing down in Florida, are automatically citizens of the United States because if they committed a crime here, they would be arrested by American police officers who have jurisdiction, to quote Frank Barone. Holy crap.

And who would not qualify under your rule. How does this work? Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to have documents, present documents? Is this happening in the delivery room?

So we start right off the bat with Ketangi Brown Jackson babbling like an angry toddler in the corner, saying, so, like, does this mean that you'd have to have, like, a filing cabinet in the delivery room, or else they'd, like, ship you out immediately after the baby was bor. You're an idiot. That's not how documented. That's not how paperwork works in the. The mat. The maternity ward. But anywho, getting. Getting her out of the way here with her just opening right off the top of the bat, just the stupidest thing that she can think of. Because, as you know, Tangie, Brown Jackson's profession is not understanding. That's what she does in the Supreme Court.

How are we determining when or whether a newborn child is a citizen of the United States under your rule?

And I think that's directly addressed in the SSA guidance that's cited in our brief. What SSA says is there's currently a system where, for example, Security, Social Security numbers are generated based on the birth certificate. They say this can still be, for the vast majority of incidents, completely transparent. You will still get transparent.

I'm just talking about the particulars. Because now you say your rule turns on whether the person intended to stay in the United States, and I think so.

The solicitor General responds and says, we already have a process set up for this. You need to be more specific with the hypothetical. And Catanja Brown Jackson, this upsets her because she has no idea what that means. Now, that's the least of the two most awful, horrible, stupid, extra dumb things that she says. Now we get to the jurisdiction part. This is again, one of the wildest arguments I've ever heard argued in a law setting, period. And I'm including, like those who try to use an AI Teddy bear as their lawyer. Via Zoom Katanji, Brown Jackson makes the case that jurisdiction means. Jurisdiction just means that you're the citizen of whatever country you go to that could arrest you for committing a crime. Here you go.

I was thinking about this, and I think they. There are various sources that say this that you can have. You obviously have permanent allegiance based on being born in whatever country you're from. That's what everybody recognizes.

First of all, no permanent allegiance. When you go to another country, dual citizens, you don't just collect citizenship like you're. You're picking up cool rocks for a rock collection. You don't just pick up citizenships like you're, like you're at a convention grabbing the free lanyards and memorabilia. No, but again, we'll let her continue here.

But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this

other, other sovereign and you have local allegiance. So she's making the case that we can't say illegal immigrants are not citizens if they're born here, because you have local allegiance to wherever you're at. And Even though the 14th amendment clearly says those who are the subject to a foreign jurisdiction, they're not U.S. citizens. And those that they have kids here, that doesn't make them automatically US Citizens. Well, there's this local jurisdiction that kind of changes and morphs and like, we're all kind of like citizens, man.

I was thinking, you know, I'm. I'm. I U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan. And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the. The Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It's allegiance meaning can they control you.

Okay, that's not what allegiance means. That's not what allegiance means. This is why we have oaths and we have expatriates who renounce their oath to the United States. This. This is insane. Genuinely, what she is arguing here is that if she goes to Japan and she steals someone's wallet because the Japanese police have jurisdiction and can arrest her and put her in Prison, then that means she's subject to the jurisdiction of Japan. Again, just like the conversation that we've been having about how due process isn't some cement legal term here. Neither is jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means different things based on the legal surroundings, the context. And I thought that I would see even the left get out there like Sonia Sotomayor. Even Sonia Sotomayor appears to have sighed after this, pinched the bridge of her nose, and then said, yeah, that's not a thing, and rebuked Katanji Brown Jackson and Cecilia Wang of the aclu. So even Obama's quote, wise Latina, unquote Supreme Court justice thinks this argument is, is bonkers.

As a matter of law, I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there's this relationship based on. Even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance in that sense.

Now, again, the left couldn't just let this go because it would be one thing to say, yeah, that's kind of a stupid thing to say. I really wish they didn't say that. I don't agree with that. That's kind of silly. And how embarrassing they can't say that because she was their little equity hire who is supposed to be super duper, ultra extremely super duper smart. Well, what do you do when you're extra super duper ultra super smart? Does something really, really dumb. Well, when you're in that kind of like cult worship, you then have to go out and make some mental gymnastics insanity to back that up. And that brings us to Adam Cochran. Adam Cochran is this, this professor, policy consultant, independent journalist and father. And he makes the case. This is his like the actual leftist legal argument brought up for why what Katanji Brown Jackson was saying was actually really smart. So he says if we can apply our laws to you, such as arrest and detain you, then you are subject to our jurisdiction. The carve out is written this way because the children of diplomats do not get birthright citizenship as diplomats are not subject to our jurisdiction while being in the US what he's saying here is that because diplomats have diplomatic immunity, that they can go commit whatever crime they want and we can't charge them for it. So first of all, diplomatic immunity does not. That's not what that means. You've been watching too much tv. You watching too much Law and Order and psych and like action movies from the 80s where diplomatic immunity like keeps you from ever being arrested for anything. That ain't how that works, number one. Number two, the idea that only diplomats get this service because jurisdiction applies to anyone who the laws can be applied to, I. E. That if people in Canada, which often do go to places like Florida to vacation as soon as they set foot in Florida, a, oh, now there are Americans and there are American citizens there. A. Sorry about that. That's not a thing. That is the dumbest legal argument I've ever heard. And so many of us called them out on this. And the response that I got, and I, I wanna, I wanna make sure he, he suggested jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance. He, he tries to make the case that jurisdiction means the same thing everywhere. And that just because you go somewhere does not mean that you are then owing allegiance to that particular place. If that's the case, then those who are born here who haven't pledged an oath of allegiance shouldn't be citizens of the United States. There's no mental gymnastics, sort of. No, absolutely not. That's not how this works. So Catania Brown Jackson doing more work against birthright citizenship than anyone else out there. Huge congratulations to her radio crew. We're going to send you off to the commercial. We're going to continue on the live stream. It's the Tony Kinit cast here on the Daily Signal. Now the Democrats in Congress are rallying around this as hard as they can. Again, not by saying, well, we should have good immigration laws, but we should really just be for, you know, the sick, the tired, the poor, the hungry, the needy, and prop up this idea that all illegal immigrants that cross the border are poor, crippled, pregnant mothers. That's kind of the Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton argument of old. No, we're just going the full Marxist no borders should be real argument from the left. Representative Delia Ramirez from Illinois's third, the same lady who announced less than a year ago that she was Guatemalan before American, And just making it very clear there, has also quite recently argued that we need to end any kind of immigration enforcement whatsoever.

[Representative Delia Ramirez]

The other thing is that I have introduced legislation. One of those is called Melt ICE act, and you see here, which is a bill that will end the pension is dropped enforcement and then all that money out of $150 billion of ICE enforcement with your taxpayer dollars would get redirected to the communities that have been impacted the most by the terror of abductions, of kidnapping.

[Tony Kennett]

So you go, it's, it's the idea we're going to disband an entire wing of the Department of Homeland Security in order to give money to illegal immigrant communities who would then be granted full amnesty. Now, there are also a couple of Republicans that have, have signed on to the amnesty nonsense. There's one lady down in Florida who's an idiot. But alas, on the flip side of things, back to Representative Delia Ramirez. Today, she also weighed in on the whole Supreme Court argument regarding birthright citizenship. The legal illiteracy is just incredible.

[Representative Delia Ramirez]

Hi, everyone. It's Congresswoman Delia Catalina Ramirez. Good morning. I wanted to talk to you about birthright citizenship. You may know this, but the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments today on cases around birthright citizenship. A case that had already been heard before is coming before the Supreme Court. Again, let me be very clear. Anyone born in this country, whether they were born today, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, despite of where their parents are born, are birthright citizens.

[Tony Kennett]

Okay? That's not even the law right now. Again, there's already a carve out. Even those on the left that are trying to bend this around are saying, well, but for diplomats, no, Zoe Ramirez comes out of me and is like everyone, everyone ever. Humans, dogs, horses, camels, people anywhere. They're all citizens.

[Representative Delia Ramirez]

They are citizens of this country, period. Unfortunately, the president a year ago issued an executive order to repeal birthright citizenship.

[Tony Kennett]

It's not what he did. He didn't repeal birthright citizenship. He clarified the birthright citizenship and who it applies to. The idea that Trump just came in and wiped away all birthright citizenship. No, again, with rights come responsibilities. It is a, it is a, a binary that exists. The, the converse that exists in government. The juxtaposition to rights is responsibility to be a citizen instead of just a resident. Yes, you get more rights, but you also have more responsibilities. And it is not a responsibility that illegal immigrants in this country share. They do not pay the same amount in taxes. They do not engage in the same type of enrolling for selective service, et cetera. And so her argument here, garbage as it is, is not the end of this. For the day. We've got to bring the radio crew back from commercial. Don't go anywhere. Tons more news. It's the Tony Kenneth cast. It's the Tony Kenneth cast on 93 WYPC. Welcome back to the Tony Kinnit cast here on the Daily Signal, nationally syndicated, first on 93 WIBC. After these wonderful, amazing, incredible arguments at the Supreme Court today about, again, the juxtaposition, the meeting point of illegal immigration and US Citizenship policy regarding ballot initiatives that Being birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment. There are a couple of very important questions that need to be answered. First of all, a little question I saw from the comment did not enjoy that I said that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes and do not have the same responsibilities as American citizens. The response being illegal immigrants, like do pay taxes. No, they do not. Illegal immigrants do not file taxes with the irs. Just because you may pay a local tax and you may in some cases pay even a state tax and you may pay a sales tax, does not mean that you all of the sudden pay federal taxes. It does not mean that you pay the full amount of taxes and shoulder the same burden for the social programs that you benefit from illegally in many cases that Americans do. And additionally, part of the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen as opposed to an illegal immigrant or a legal resident here in the United States also comes down to the very, very important, the very important distinction regarding crime in the United States. So while the Cato Institute and other libertarian outlets have tried to suggest deeply, passionately, well, actually immigrants, legal and illegal commit like, way less crimes than anybody else. First of all, the way that that study was conducted is just riddled with logical fallacies and a lot of core issues. Individuals from the right and the left have made quite clear the academic diligence not present in said study. But adjusting to that question, the issue of immigrant crime in the United States is not one of gross or net impact. It is a question of national security. Because if there is an individual that comes from a country where they have a particular criminal past and then instead of going through the vetting process to enter the United States to immigrate legally, so the United States and the State Department can balance the risks and rewards of whether we want someone with maybe a particularly violent past in the country. If they cross into the country illegally and then they are here without knowledge of any, any kind of criminal history that they have, all of those crimes which are then committed are national security failures. Because then it become, again, you don't know the individual here. They haven't been vetted and gone through the same immigration process. And we are seeing this consistently on again, the continual illegal crime that has, that is just surfacing by the day. So of these include, in the last two weeks, an Ohio coach at Northwestern in Ohio was arrested on charges of sexual battery against a 16 year old girl. He's a Mexican national, he's currently on ice detainer in Virginia. Again, I have to cite this in a slightly different way here because the way the media Originally cited. This was just patently incorrect. Annabel Armando Xaviera Muy an illegal alien arrested in Fairfax County, Virginia after fatally stabbing a man inside his home. This, by the way, comes less than a month after an illegal alien murdered another Virginia citizen, Stephanie Minter. And how does the media frame this individual? Oh, well, WSA9 CBS said, oh, he's just a Virginia dad charged with murder after the medical examiner said, oh, you know, blunt force trauma. Oh, just a, you know, just a, just a little, little extra violence here and there. How these cases are ruled on and how individuals from the federal judicial, such as the Obama judge that ordered the Trump administration to grant residential status to those who again came into the country without any proper vetting whatsoever through Biden's Border one app. That becomes a national security issue that doesn't have outside of the mechanisms of Congress because the Supreme Court is clearly not going to intervene. Congress has to weigh in. Otherwise the federal judicial will continue hollowing out the national security of the United States from the inside. And this finally brings us to both the ridiculous, the national situation and then the U. S. Iran operations and the president's comments tonight. Because the president is supposed to address the country at 9pm Eastern, so in just over an hour. And he's supposed to discuss the Iran operation, operation Epic Fury, the next steps for the United States. Politico is reporting something different than the Washington Post is reporting, reporting something very different than a couple of other outlets are reporting. You and I have no idea what the President of the United States is going to say in this live address. Man might fly off the hook as he does for the good and the bad and the ugly and just do the Trump thing. But in doing so, I would wager that the president is likely going to mention the birthright citizenship oral arguments today from the Supreme Court as well as recent federal judge decisions to intervene outside of constitutional authority. Federal district judges are not supposed to be able to weigh in on random blase immigration matters. The Constitution and the following amendments were set up so that the executive almost exclusively handled immigration matters. That's what we have a State Department for. It is one of the only executive agencies that's supposed to be set up to do anything of the sort. But alas, this does bring us to kind of the nonsense side of things because while all of this is going on, you have individuals like Whoopi Goldberg, the View crew and all of those over on the left side of the aisle and media outlets suggesting that what you really need to do is get out there and get Crazy and get violent because Trump is going around intimidating people and he's. He's throwing things down and he's ruining the democracy. All of this nonsense, it's not quite working. To be clear. It's not really landing except in the cases of. Of violence so far, which appear to have been caught before they turn into really, really dangerous and tragic situations. Radio crew, we do have to send you out for the evening. You should head over to YouTube.com daily signal. That's where you can find the show. Join us, We've got a lot more news to cover this evening before the President addresses the country. And YouTube.com daily signal, whether you're on our radio or TV syndicate partners, head over there. We're not done, even close to being done with the news this evening. So that side of things, I know we're letting you guys go just a smidge early this evening, but I'm trying to be careful with the FCC clock. It's the Tony Knittcast here on the Daily Signal, nationally syndicated and first on 93 WIBC. Take care. All right, now, the radio crew is kind of out of the way. Uh, let's dive into some of these. These crazy bits of nonsense. Now, so far, none of these appear to be April Fool's jokes. Um, and I have to begin by just going in order of the stupid down to the. The dangerous to, you know, hopefully not have you throwing full coffee mugs at your computer screen. Here's Don Lemon.

[Don Lemon]

Pay cut, but it's not about money for me. So do I ever think about it?

[Tony Kennett]

Yes. What is he saying he's ever thinking about running for President of the United States? So right after storming a church because they believed the pastor was with ice and keeping parents from going and picking up their kids in Sunday School, screaming and yelling at parents and children on camera, Don Lemon has decided that this, this is the platform, this is the springboard he needs to run for President of the United States.

[Don Lemon]

Could it happen? Yeah, it could happen. If the opportunity presented itself, the right opportunity presented itself. Look, if I wanted to, I know people are going to think I'm crazy. This is going to be the headline, and people are going to laugh about it. I think I could be President of the United States. I could definitely run this country better than, Than. Than Donald Trump.

[Tony Kennett]

Every towel roll could. But, yeah, yeah, market improvement.

[Don Lemon]

As an independent, though, there would be a hard time for me to run for anything because, you know, the way the system is set up, I'd have to choose a side. And so you Know, I probably. I probably would have to become a Democrat. And I love that.

[Tony Kennett]

As though. As though he wasn't already lol at that point now.

[Don Lemon]

No. And I know people are going to say Don Lemon is crazy, but, yeah, that's. Look, why can't I think about running for office? Why can't I think about being President of the United States?

[Tony Kennett]

Okay, I love that. It's that, oh, well, if you. If you make fun of it, he's just. He's just a boy with a dream.

[NASA Flight Crew Member]

What?

[Tony Kennett]

You can't even think about running for office? To be clear, a lot of individuals have thought about running for the presidency of the United States. A lot of people thought about running for office. I have even noodled very briefly, the idea of at one time, years ago, maybe someday running for either the state Senate or Congress. Gosh, it sounds so awful. I don't know one really care. But if you get out there and say, well, yeah, I could do it. I should do it. It's so easy. No problem, you know? No problem whatsoever. Oh, man, it's a breeze. After all, I know all of the important things. Saying a bunch of random social niceties and ignoring, again, consistent crime, gaslighting about issues that Americans care about. And then, number two, I stormed a church. Hey, I mean, what else do you need now? To be. To be fair here? To be fair. This kind of attitude is pervasive in a manner that is really over the entire party. So one of the no Kings protesters on camera arguing that Donald Trump is trying to make it a crime to be trans. Again, just the gaslighting over these kind of things. But, I mean, it's worth showing. How do you hate Trump? You seem young. Well, I hate Trump because, well, he's doing everything. He's making it a crime to be trans. He's immigrate. He's deporting people who are like legal immigrants, and he's supporting people aren't even immigrants. People were born here. He's just doing all these horrible, horrible things. The clip is sped up because this is like watching the old VHS tape, the meme of the kids. Like, you ever had a dream where you, like, you thought you has you light. You thought you had so much, you could do anything. That's what it's like again, looking at clip after clip after clip of those at the no Kings protesters, those that are making the videos, those that are proposing things for the midterm year, the counter to Trump. And as Americans say, hey, we do have these needs, these things need to be met. We're going to get to those in a second because that's what President Trump is expected to address tonight in his Iran address. I promise there's a method to the madness here, but there is no method to the madness when it comes to those who are advocating for, from the Supreme Court and the Katanji Brown Jacksons all the way over to the House and the Senate, which again, we're going to get to just saying that Trump is Nazi ing and Hitlerizing and he's going to illegal the trans people. I don't really see where this is supposed to stick, but. And he doesn't even like he's denying climate change exists and then dirtying the world. How is he making it a crime to be trans? I've heard that in an article from some of my friends, but I don't know if that's true or not. There you go. This is also one of the reasons why I encourage people, they say once 21 of the things that we can actually do this year to make, you know, what are some of the things that we can actually do to actually encourage a little bit of progress forward. At a couple of events that I've gone to, Republican events or independent events around the country, around the state, I've encouraged people to do two things. Number one, you do need to keep in touch with. You need to raise up a new generation to be active citizens. But number two, you need to essentially close a lot of the social media, including apps like Facebook and Meta. One of the reasons why and also one of the reasons why that companies like Facebook or Meta, its parent company, were found liable in the mental illness and degradation of a young lady in a recent lawsuit were that the algorithms of these particular social media platforms aren't actually built on informing you of anything. That was supposed to be the big argument for social media. That was supposed to be the big argument for AI. It was supposed to be, hey, here's what the, you know, here's what you're supposed to move forward with. You know, here's the details of the case, here's the argument from scotus, here's what the Congress person is doing. Nope. I heard from somewhere, some blurry screenshot on Facebook that this is the truth. This is exactly how things are. That's not helping anyone anywhere anyway. It's not. And by the way, Democrats are trying these strategies. They're taking them off of Facebook and incorporating them into real life. Allow me to explain. So Occupy Democrats is a popular left wing Facebook page Now. Grant Stern who is the owner of Occupy Democrats, who was a coward, who, after I humiliated him once to the point of speechlessness on television in kind of a cross debate, will now no longer accept any media hit where I'm the opposite on the panel. The Occupy Democrats group put out a kind of a fact check gotcha sort of meme that went pseudo viral suggesting, pick any room you want. There is no room you can find where even half of their people will have id. So just making a blanket statement that we shouldn't really encourage voter ID laws because no one carries ID anyway. That's the claim. That's the social media algorithmic kind of a gotcha. This is now, first of all, patently stupid. If you believe this bridges all throughout Brooklyn to sell you. It has leaked from social media pages on apps like Facebook to real, actual, genuine congressmen. So Representative Figueras tried to do this exact same thing in a recent kind of town hall meeting. Watch how this goes. So regardless about how you feel about voter id, right? It's not about that. This is about ease of race registration, not about voter id. It's about ease of registration. See, we're pivoting already because now that the Save America act isn't going to be stripped down and sort of wedged through bits of reconciliation, there actually might be, believe it or not, some morning when th wakes up and actually gets the Save America act on the floor and they're kind of pressed over this. So no longer is about voter ready. It's about ease of registration. Watch where he takes this, right? The most common form of ID that everybody has is a driver's license, right? Look, I'm of a different era. I'm of a different generation. I probably feel a little bit differently about it. Watch this. How many people? So he says, my generation's a little bit different. You know, everyone used to carry id. Now my generation is a little bit different. I think that he is alluding to people carrying pictures of their ID on their phones. Like, instead of carrying a wallet. If you have like Apple Pay and you've already got a card on there or something, or Google Pay or whatever, well, then why can't you just take a picture of your driver's license and that be just as good. That appears to be the point that he's making. But he tells the crowd, hey, hey, hey, watch this. You know, from, you know, to the crowd in the pews, how many people in here do not have an id? He asks, how many people here do not have id? He's expecting a Bunch of Democrats in the crowd to go. I don't have ID on me. I'm walking around just with my thumbs and my overalls. Only here's the problem. Break out the cricket because no one raises their hand. Everyone in the room, Democrats all have their ID because we all carry our id. Do you not know men? Men that do little two pocket slaps and like a little butt pat before they walk out the door to make sure they have their phone, keys and wallet. Everyone carries ID with them everywhere they go. And so here pulling the meme off of Facebook into real life asking, hey, well, I mean, not about all of us carry id, right? Raise of hands. Who isn't carrying id? How many people in here do not

[Representative Delia Ramirez]

have an id,

[Tony Kennett]

right? Everybody has an id. Oh, there you go. Oh, oh, wait. Oh, everyone has an id, right? So my thoughts on a little bit different. There you go. And, and then he awkwardly kind of sidesteps away from it. Don't do it. Don't take the silly goofy 2 online memory out into the real world and suggest that you can simply gaslight your way through Americans real concerns and simply be loved forever. And here's why this matters. There's a big argument right now that the American people don't care about illegal immigration. They think Donald Trump is horrible and he's evil and they don't like the deportations and they don't like all this other stuff. They don't like his arguments on birthright citizenship because it is no longer in the top 10 voter issues at present based on like the going into the midterm top 10 issues of your concern. That is a bad way to read it. Crime right now is something the Trump administration has put a lot of effort into and have in a lot of major cities around the country, from Memphis to Washington have succeeded in lowering especially the violent crime rates. Vice President J.D. vance putting together the team to go after cases of fraud. Those are things that Americans are concerned about. And if you get into a Democrat administration and you start seeing a lot of these things prop back up, it is going to. It will be something that Americans really won't be able to conscious. And from the Obama 2 administration to the outrage seen during the Biden 1 administration, the the compounding interest of American outrage grew and grew and grew. The gaslighting side of this would be to tell you that Americans right now are going through this compounding interest of anger with the Trump administration on things like crime and, and no new wars and things like that. Now there is an argument to be made regarding Americans kind of compound aggravation on the economy. But that brings us, believe it or not, to the Iran address tonight at 9:00pm so here in 51 and minutes and 30 seconds, if the President is right on time, the President of the United States is going to get up in front of the country and make a couple of key announcements. So what are these key announcements? Well, it depends on who it is you ask. So right now Politico is reporting that the President of the United States is going to get up in front of the country and declare in his speech to the nation that the war with Iran is over and all objectives have been achieved. Well, first of all, the President of the United States has been very clear and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and The Vice President J.D. vance and Commerce Secretaries Howard Lutnick, like all the way and all down the line. This isn't a war. They call it an operation and they're very careful to do so. The framing, both legally and for public understanding, kind of matters. So I very much doubt that Politico suggesting Trump's gonna get out there and

[Donald Trump]

say the war has ended. The war, the brutal war, terrible, fierce war, it's over, all closed and done.

[Tony Kennett]

I doubt it. The Washington Post is taking a slightly different tweak based on different leaks. They're suggesting that not only is the President going to announce kind of an off ramp to the Iran operation and that they're pulling away. Washington Post is suggesting the President's going to get up there and announce that we're going to start pulling a lot of our ships home, given that we just dispatched like, just sent underway another aircraft carrier towards the Middle East. Yeah, I don't think so. We also just threw out another batch of a 10 warthogs, which we do, you know, a, a, an endangered species for sure towards Europe as well. I, I very much doubt that's what he's gonna announce. Now the Washington Post announces the President is also going to talk about possibly pulling out of NATO.

[Donald Trump]

I'm gonna pull out of NATO. I don't care for him, don't like him.

[Tony Kennett]

And there's perhaps a little bit of something to the President's angst towards NATO based on comments that he made today. President of the United States talking about the upcoming address this evening. And then also, of course, his frustration with some of the European powers over in Iran.

[NASA Flight Crew Member]

We're sort of pretty much winding that up. Have to take a few more hits. We want to make sure we don't ever have them, allow them to have a nuclear weapon because. Because they'll use it. And you see how serious they were with the conventional ballistic missiles. They have thousands of them. We've blown most of them up. You notice every, every week it gets a little less, a little less at us and at our allies. We've had some very good allies over there. We've had some very bad allies in NATO. I hope you're all watching that, Scott, because we had some asks 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.

[Tony Kennett]

Now this paper tiger comment. All right, get into it. The President of the United States, is he. Is he gonna leave NATO or are we. Are we abandoning all this stuff? There are a couple of questions that need to be brought up, but first and foremost, believe it or not, we have to bring up Chuck Schumer. So Chuck Schumer has, has suggested that, like, the plan to. The President of the United States is gonna do, is gonna get out there and he's gonna try to pull out of NATO. And he pulls out an old tweet from when he was Senator Marco Rubio and said, you know, look, Marco Rubio didn't want the President to, or didn't want any president to withdraw from NATO without Senate approval. So you need a 2/3 majority to pull out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization entirely. Now Schumer is suggesting that this is like already a battle one and that Rubio is the guy for it. Kind of an early bit of victory partying there for Chuck Schumer. And here's why. First of all, there was an argument that the former senator, now Secretary of State, can never question. As an American, you can never question NATO. Oh, they're very important, our ally. They were allies against the Russians.

[Donald Trump]

Oh, so important.

[Tony Kennett]

They do so many amazing things. No, now I have, based on. On quite a bit of discussion, enjoyed looking at how some of our NATO allies absolutely contributed during prior wars. They often bring up the concept, or I should say the historical event in which after the United States was attacked by al Qaeda, that NATO, that Spain and France dispatched a total of 6,500 troops to the Middle east and fought valiantly in Afghanistan. So first of All. First and foremost, the French fought valiantly in Afghanistan. The Spanish did not. I don't care. And here's why I say that, first of all, the Spanish made sure that all of their troops were very far, well and away, as far into the green zones as they could. And they had more equipment failures than the British bullpup rifle through the 80s and 90s in the first three months that Spain was in Afghanistan and their, their assistance. So first of all, to hell with the Spanish. No, number two on that particular line. Is it not NATO and Europe that begged, that pleaded, that demanded while they were paying very little to nothing out of their annual gross domestic product, while also, you know, looking down their noses at Americans and saying, we can afford

[Donald Trump]

health care for all of our citizens,

[Tony Kennett]

simultaneously suggesting the United States need to

[Donald Trump]

rush to the defense of Ukraine.

[Tony Kennett]

Where are you? U.S. i can't send troops from France. No, that's the United States job. Keir Starmer has gotten a little big in his European britches and essentially tried to do this talking tough routine today. So he got up because he's finally found his cojones and has suggested, hey, you know what? This kind of, you know, we aren't just going to do whatever the Americans say because we're tough. And I don't care what the President says. Here's Starmer.

[Keir Starmer]

We will continue to assess the economic effects. We will continue to stand up for the British national interest, and we will continue to do what we must to guide our country calmly through this storm.

[Tony Kennett]

I love this so much. We're going to continue to assess, even though the United Kingdom buys lots of oil and petroleum products from the Strait of Hormuz, we will do absolutely nothing. Why? Because I like watching my wife kiss other men. I Kirstama.

[Keir Starmer]

However, it is increasingly clear, but as the world continues down this volatile path.

[Tony Kennett]

I love this so much. Whenever a European leader talks about foreign policy, they always talk about the world as though it's an MTV commercial about togetherness in 1999. The idea that world continues down this dark and treacherous path as though you, sir, are not a member of this delegation in body. This cowering behind your podium crap, I've never cared for it. I don't care who the President is. I don't care where Obama used to do this. Well, the world is going to going over here and we don't know what to do about it, my dude. The United Kingdom is supposed to be the United States ally in shaping global doctrine. That is what Eisenhower wanted until the Brits goofed things up back during the Suez crisis. And now here we have Keir Starmer again trying to take the high and mighty road and appear very important while at the same time I will remind you the HMS Dragonfire. The HMS Dragon had two serious technical difficulties in a row that required it to return to port. They cannot even protect their own base on the island of Cyprus without help from the United States. The great British Royal Navy supreme these cucks.

[Keir Starmer]

Anyway, our long term national interest requires closer partnership with our allies in Europe and with the European Union.

[Tony Kennett]

Keep that in mind. There you go.

[Keir Starmer]

Now we have made progress on this front on agriculture, electricity, emissions trading.

[Tony Kennett]

So I love how he lists electricity and emissions trading. We've made progress on electricity, yes. Buying oil from Russia for energy has been a real thrill. Watching Europe close down its nuclear and coal and natural gas power plants to set up broken wind turbines and crappy third hand pseudo India, Vietnamese, Chinese solar panels. I'm sure that, yes, that that has been a huge success. And then emissions trading, the idea that Europe is going to strive the way forward on climate change. Ah, yeah, that's the move. And more and more, as the Chancellor

[Keir Starmer]

has rightly pointed out, he's talking about

[Tony Kennett]

Chancellor Mears from Germany.

[Keir Starmer]

Brexit did deep damage to our economy and the opportunities to strengthen our security and cut the cost of living are simply too big to ignore. So in the coming weeks, we will announce a new summit with our EU partners.

[Tony Kennett]

I love this so much. I love this. So the Strait of Hormuz. It's a problem. The United States is saying, hey, some of you around the world now, again regarding the Saudi Arabia and the UAE government, things are starting to change regarding involvement directly in the Strait of Hormuz. But again with Keir Starmer here, he's saying he's going to do it. All the legendary eternal bureaucrats do. We're announcing a meeting to schedule the next summit for the convention of talking about our next steps to engage in the synergistic development of future cooperations. Thank you. It's time for tea.

[Keir Starmer]

And I can tell you that at that summit, the UK will not just ratify existing commitments made at last year's summit. We want to be more ambitious.

[Tony Kennett]

Wow.

Incredible. Oh, wow. Way to go. Beautiful work here, Starmer. I'm riveting. So in the meantime, the United States is starting to take a little bit of a look at how the United States engages with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Now there was a junior minister from France that got out there and said, well actually the reason Europe can't go help the United States with the Middle east stuff right now is because NATO is focused on the Atlantic. Ah, yes, the, the, the encroaching threats of the next COD war with Iceland. Oh, gee, thank the Lord. I was, I was so worried about how the Atlantic was doing. Also suggesting that, well, I mean, the real threat is the Ukraine and Russia situation, which, you know, interesting he brings that to the table because as the State Department points out through an interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the

[NASA Launch Controller]

NATO is simply about us having troops in Europe to defend Europe. But when we need their help, not their help, we're not asking them to conduct airstrikes. When we need them to allow us to use their military bases.

[Tony Kennett]

The Italian base on Sicily, for example, or Spain's halfway base for refueling, or Diego Garcia originally in the middle of absolutely nowhere, several thousand miles off the eastern coast of Africa.

[NASA Launch Controller]

Answer is no. Then why are we in NATO? You have to ask that question. Why do we have billions and billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars over the years, trillions of dollars, and all these American forces stationed in the region, if we can only use in our time of need, we're not going to be allowed to use those bases. So I think there's no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded, we are going to have to re examine that relationship.

[Tony Kennett]

Many have asked what actually separates Senator Marco Rubio and a lot of the accusations that he was hit with that, oh, he was a neocon and all this other kind of stuff and kind of a fetish didn't stand up to anybody. Why is there a very bright political future in leadership for Secretary of State Marco Rubio? Because he effectuates the Trump doctrine of not getting pushed around, not being taken advantage of. He articulates that in a way that a lot of other American politicians who try to emulate Trump both on the left, like Gavin Newsom, or over on the right, like for example, just to pick one out of the hat, maybe Nancy Mace or I guess Carrie Lake and her failed electoral campaigns. Those two try to emulate Trump and attitude, but don't really carry through the the why behind the what or the why behind the how. I should say so The President very

[Donald Trump]

boisterously says, you're not gonna push us around. Not on trade, not on alliances, not on Dancing with the Stars. We're gonna be fair because Americans come first.

[Tony Kennett]

That's the President's statement there. But it's not just enough to sound, you know, put up the Trump impression and just talk boisterously like they do on Saturday Night Live when they try to impersonate the president. No, what Rubio gets here is the idea that, look, you, as in NATO, the Europeans demand the US Station troops in Poland. You demand that we staff your Air Force bases, like put troops up, funding up for Ramstein, that we put all of our money into the defense of Europe because you can't fight Russia, you can't fight off Putin's advance into Eastern Europe because all of Europe's business deals with Ukraine are corrupt as all get out. You don't see Interpol and the European Union investigating the corruption in Ukraine so that they could actually have a good response time and not be selling off defense assets right before the invasion. Again, as a quick reminder, in the case of the war against Russia and Ukraine, I despise the country of Ukraine's administration as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. From the administration perspective, I also despise Putin's invasion of Ukraine because he's a. And a. Well, I mean, the dude's dictator. I mean, just clearly he's an imperialist, as Russian imperialists have always been. So in this context, Europe has abdicated its duty, just like America's Congress has abdicated its duty of doing anything. Why does the United States have to continue propping up NATO and not just propping up NATO with, you know, just kind of putting an arm around the shoulder? Why does the United States have to be all of the roles, all of the materials, all of the resources, all of the encouragement to be the caretaker for Europe from now until the end of time? It's not Post World War II, right after the war, when it was the Marshall Plan, time to rebuild Europe, those win win situations of economic investment and development and reciprocation, those are. Those days are over. And so the idea that Rubio felt differently a couple of years ago is to now when again, all the United States is saying is, hey, send down a couple of naval craft. So when countries. So when your boat with your flag desires to go up and down the Strait of Hormuz, that your navy escorts your ships through the Strait of Hormuz and they say, no, we're too busy switching all of our power plants out and kissing men, well, then, no, the United States shouldn't have to simply send money endlessly over there. And that's the fun part. According to current law, the United States does not just have to endlessly simp for NATO all throughout the forever Amen. They don't have to do that. The idea that Congress is also required to Sit down and like very delicately go through all of the different, like parts of NATO and how it's in operation. No, the State Department and the Department of War are the two agencies that are set up to govern the relationship between the United States and NATO. Congress has to fund NATO through the Department of State. Again, a little bit of reading goes a long way here for sure. Now this brings us over to the general concept of the conversation tonight with Trump. The self deprecation, whenever it comes out, it's usually the foretelling of a pretty decent Trump appearance and speech. So as a again, quick reminder here, Trump's ego often gets in the way because, I mean, most Americans are used to it by now, very baked into the cake. But whenever the Trump is self deprecating, whenever he points out maybe his ego in jest, it is a sign of again, something that Americans really do. Like here was the president with a little bit of that today.

[NASA Flight Crew Member]

Tonight I'm making a little speech at 9 o' clock and basically I'm going to tell everybody how great I am, what a great job I've done, What a phenomenal job. What a phenomenal job I've done.

[Tony Kennett]

So couple of things. First of all, you know, great job I've done. The crowd starts to laugh again. Classic entertainer. He then does his own voice like,

[Donald Trump]

what a phenomenal job. I, Donald Trump, the Trumpiest of Trumps. I'm so great, amazing, incredible.

[NASA Flight Crew Member]

But seriously, if you, if you didn't have me, if you had some different type of a president, you wouldn't have Israel. I know you're big Israel fans, frankly.

[Tony Kennett]

And by the way, what the president is saying there about the current status in the shape of the world, you see a lot of pundits running around going, well, man, if only we had Kamala Harris right now, all of the individuals who were just telling you over the last two weeks at the Iran war, we were going to be here for decades, it's never going to end. Oh, it's horrible. Are now currently pivoting to oh, now Trump is ending the war to distract from Epstein. So some people are just going to be on that brain worm merry go round forever and ever and ever. Amen. And tonight I would suggest at least looking to the announcements from the President of the United States, the reality to keep in mind and scoreboard prior actions. So as a reminder, not a prediction, this is a reminder. The President of the United States has one move and one move only that he likes to use. Well, I'll give him a move and a half We've talked about the Trump cycle in which he says he wants something really, really, really big. He wants all of this. He wants all of Greenland, he wants all of, of these concessions from Canada, he wants all of Europe. I mean, all this kind of thing. And then he, he backs down and. Or, well, it looks as though he gets way less. And then we find out via earlier documents in the initial briefings in the White House that the President actually ended up getting what he wanted. That kind of boisterous lead with way more than you want negotiation tactic. The second and the one I've been talking about recently, Trump's one big foreign policy move is the dodgeball feint. So, again, if you've never played dodgeball before, a classic move that, as a former teacher, it was hilarious watching junior high students learn. They usually learn it of their own accord. Around sixth or seventh grade, you will have usually the shortstop or the pitcher on the school baseball team who will toss a ball up into the air. And in dodgeball, if you catch a ball, the person who threw that ball is out. Sorry, I know I've got to go to ESPN8, the Ocho's official league standard dodgeball rules. Um, but sorry, not to quote Patches Ohulahan here, if you catch the ball of the person who threw it, you're out. So when you toss the ball up into the air and it's kind of a lob, looks easy to catch. The other team looks up and goes, oh, wow, a ball that's easy to catch. And while there is that one goober standing there arms out in front of them, then the shortstop or the pitcher takes a dodgeball behind their back and whips it forward and smacks the person looking up in the air to catch the ball, who doesn't end up catching that ball. And then that person is out. The dodgeball. Faint Trump does this all the time. He's done this with Venezuela, he's done this with Cuba, he's done this with Colombia, he's done this with Panama. He's done this time and time and time and time again, the President of the United States, while simultaneously moving another aircraft carrier, the 82nd Airborne, several Expeditionary Marine units, more A10 Warthogs, more F35s, more F22s, another refueling craft fleet, a bomber craft fleet, other ancillary and military accoutrements to the Middle East. While that's going on right here, right now, 8, 29 and 24pm Eastern Time, is going to get up in front of the country and announce the War is almost over.

[Donald Trump]

The operation epic fury. It was epic. It was furious. Not too fast, too furious. Didn't really care for Vin Diesel, to

[Tony Kennett]

be honest with you.

[Donald Trump]

But Iran, Iran is about over. We're about done. We've accomplished. New president is writing letters, nice letters and beautiful new paper shorter than Katanji Brown. Jackson's opinions getting out there.

[Tony Kennett]

If he gets up and does that, the man's kind of done this stuff right before I'm forced to go live on air on a Saturday or Sunday in the middle of the day, if you catch my drift. So I would suggest that number two, while Brent crude oil is continuing its magical roller coaster, there have also been a lot of arguments. You know, the President is going to, you know, blame the oil stuff on something else. I really don't, I don't see that coming. The President's been pretty clear of what's driving up the cost of things like fuel and energy. And this is just my, this would be the speculation. This would be the prediction part. I very much doubt the President doesn't just own up to the gas prices and the energy prices currently being where they are, and then saying that as soon as the Strait of Hormuz again, which the United States doesn't procure petroleum and petroleum products from, that once the rest of the world has that to go through again, maybe through the United States owning car Guy island, although he won't say that, prices will come back down considerably. And if the prices come back down right around the time that the Q2 economic lurch moves forward and you do start to see things like tax returns being pretty sizable, well, that could be a recipe for success. We'll have to see. We'll have to see. So that's what I would expect from the speech this evening. Again, really cool stuff from the. From the President of the United States. Someone's asked if this is Trump getting up to do a big April Fool's joke. I mean, I will say that is how we'll frame it up on the thumbnail the next night. If that turns out to be the way the man is. The way the man is doing it. So that side of things right here, right now, I do want to get to a little bit of mail time because there were a couple of really kind super chats and, you know, then we'll, we'll wrap things up. First of all, from sleep Simple. Tony, do you plan on, like, streaming the President's speech tonight? I've thought about it. We have it set up and ready to go to do that however, if the President of the United States is like late and we cut over to the feeds and it's. And now we turn to the president stepping into the beast. The motorcade is pulling away from the white. I don't, I don't really care for that. I. Probably not. If that's the case from. I'll get to that question. I'll come back to that question from Dolly8064 here in a couple of minutes. A very kind $5 super chat from Mass Ashole again. Our dear friend from the communist Socialist Republic of Massachusetts says California 430,000 illegal immigrants denied for jury duty because they're illegal immigrants, suggesting that's how they found them on the voter roll. That's how you get into jury pool selection. I don't know enough about how California, the state of California organizes its jury selection pools. Different states and commonwealths have different processes and procedures for that. So while I very much appreciate the five dollar super chat, we really do. I don't know if I can give you a solid enough answer on that. Again, just transparency. I'm not going to make something up and tell you I'll look into that though, for you. That's an interesting lever if that. If the legal system functions that way in California. Moving forward from a user named Nut Smasher, why didn't the Solicitor General today in the Supreme Court focus more on the national security implications regarding birth tourism in his arguments? If the number is anywhere near the 1.5 million estimate that I've heard, that's just breeding an invasion force that doesn't have to invade. So the answer to this particular problem is the Solicitor General can argue national security implications, but John Roberts kind of cut him off at the pass by saying we haven't really seen any of these things come to fruition and we're not really sure that we can rule on hypotheticals. We have to rule on the interpretation of the Constitution and because the framers likely of that amendment and that Congress weren't thinking in the civil rights. 1866, weren't thinking about or 1886. Excuse me, since the framers weren't leaning into the idea of like tourism, birther tourism kind of stuff. 1866, I was right the first time. Then the Supreme Court can't just like invent hypotheticals. They use them in arguments. And the Solicitor General has used national security. It just doesn't really work to suggest that the answer to a hypothetical is also hypothetical. So one of the things that I do appreciate that Sawyer does that he doesn't really get credit for is that when the Supreme Court asks him a hypothetical and he doesn't know the answer to it, he'll simply respond, hey, yeah, I don't know the answer to that, but I'll work through that and come back to the Supreme Court with that answer. That did happen today. I don't believe that I downloaded the clip in which case that interaction happened. I believe it was between Neil Gorsuch and Sawyer. But that's kind of, that's kind of my take on, on that, on that side of things. All right, last key question that I do want to dive into this evening here asking. Well, from Captain Danny Barrow, very kind, $2 super chat said Tony, what's the US advantage of being in NATO? There are some advantages to having alliances. There really are. There are advantages to the United States coordinating military forces with other countries in a time of war. So the French screwed this up during the Cold War because, you know, of course they did. But the United States, in the initial outset of NATO, the US Would set forward a five star general, the commander of the allied forces, to direct other NATO forces, troops. So the United States, which are the masters of communications technology, of logistics technology, of munitions development, that country should be in charge of the either NATO countries in a type of mass onslaught. Soviet, you know, Iron Curtain, the, the Soviet powers, the Warsaw Pact, that's the word, looking for moving across into Poland. Right. This was the constant worry, especially like during the second half of the Cold War. Then the US Being the top dog and not needing a couple of weeks of, you know, you heard Keir Starmer, conventions and meetings and thoughts of whatever that saves time and there are advantages to that. The question is what are we putting in and what are we getting now due to the current geopolitical threats, Russia is realistically Europe's problem. China and the Middle east is our problem. I don't want the Middle east to be the United States. Too bad. Too much trade flows through there just like the Strait of the Taiwan Strait, the South Pacific, South China Sea. It matters a lot of the economy which Americans are the first and foremost beneficiary of the entire world economy is built for Americans. You are the inheritance to or you are the inheritors to the entire world economy. That's what the Marshall Plan was for. So yeah, you do have a vested interest in other countries not screwing you over on the economy and industry for that matter. So. But that's another conversation, you know, to another, another time. There was another super chat that's come in again you guys don't have to do this. From Gigi Evan, a very kind five dollar super chat. Keir Starmer of the uk AKA Uncle Flo. Nice. Can't be removed fast enough from office for the UK to recover. Is there anything Trump can do to speed that up? It depends. Yes, the United States can encourage and bolster the Conservative or the Reform Party over in the uk but the Trump administration can't turn up the heat too much or you get a counter reaction from the Canadians, for example. And sometimes it's better for the United States to have a left leaning idiot in office. Sorry, just to be clear. And then force that guy to do whatever you want rather than have kind of a more independent style. Pierre Poliev, who while maybe better for the citizens of Canada, may not be in the economic interests of the United States due to kind of outlasting President Trump's tariff. This smack you right in the face strategy and that's more of a his approach to it. I don't know enough about long term foreign policy maneuvering on the social level in the US Relationship to Western European powers to give you more of an explanation beyond that. Again, full transparency there. I'm not going to go do a bunch of research for you on that one over the next week. That's just studying the, the anthropology, the psychology, the social psychology of the French would make me want to commit Sudoku, you know what I'm saying? So that, that all that all said, there is, there is one other question that I wanted to tackle this evening asking if I was going to show Democrats being fools on April 1st. We did get a lot of questions if we were going to do an April Fool's joke this year. No, I didn't want to do an April Fool's joke. I don't pretend to be JD Vance or come in talking like one of the other right wing hosts or something like that. You know, we don't always do those kinds of things. Everyone seemed really annoyed with April Fools right before and then into April Fool's Day this year. There's a lot of news going on anyway that just is more important than April Fools, to be honest with you. But I just didn't care enough. I'm sorry. Had other things to kind of tackle. Yeah, there's a lot of qualities. Maybe next year, if there's a day for April Fool's Day that's less intense on the news cycle, maybe we'll do something, I don't know with AI. Everyone's kind of tired of being fooled and you guys can go somewhere else to be fooled. We thought we'd just kind of play the show straight for you here this evening. That side. I said that. Set it aside. Hope you guys have an excellent evening. It's 8:40, 20 minutes until the president's speech. If he's right to the point on time. Hope you guys have an excellent evening. We will be back tomorrow, 7pm Eastern, for more of the news and nonsense and maybe a couple of updates. It's the Tony Knittcast here on the Daily Signal, nationally syndicated and first on 93 WIBC. Y' all take care. You're probably driving, working out or doing chores right now. Quick tip. TikTok isn't just entertainment. It's where I find fast, practical advice for real life. Download TikTok now.