The Sean Hannity Show - All Content

Obama

Tue, 21 May 2013 11:04:00 -0800

Scandals Abound

Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

When the lead story on the Politico is “How Not to Handle a Scandal,” you know that this administration is in some serious hot water. When you've got liberals like Keith Olbermann tweeting about the overreach of this administration, you know you've got problems. When Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post is outraged by the Obama administration, it also points to serious trouble for this administration.

Recent polling shows that the Obama administration's swirling scandals, and their subsequent handling of the scandals, hasn't sat well with the public.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll released today found that 56% of Americans believe that the IRS targeting of conservative groups was deliberate. A plurality of Americans feel the administration isn't being forthcoming with the facts: 45% feel the administration is trying to cover up facts.

The same Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 55% of Americans believe the Obama administration is actively attempting to cover up the facts related to the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

Amazingly enough, the same poll finds that Obama's approval rating remains unchanged with 51% of Americans approving of his job performance. A similar CNN poll found the same thing. How is this possible? Either Americans will forever disassociate Obama with anything happening in Washington or his ratings will slowly erode over time. If the lapdog media continues to investigate and report on these scandals, I think that the American public will eventually connect the dots and Obama's approval will ultimately slide. But that is a big, giant “if.” The fact is that we've already seen two things happening:

- The media has done its job of playing up the administration's narrative that Obama was “in the dark” on all of these issues. For example, we now know that Obama's Chief of Staff and the White House Chief Council were both aware of the IRS targeting story. Yet, apparently they didn't tell Obama. How convenient. The Department of Justice is targeting journalists, going through their private emails, secretly pulling their phone records and tracking their movements. The White House had no knowledge of any of this. If you have questions, ask the Justice Department. How convenient. Where was Obama on the night of September 11, 2012 when terrorist attacked our diplomatic facility in Benghazi and killed four Americans? That's “irrelevant.” What hand did Obama play in the two stand-down orders? Not his problem. Who came up with the YouTube video lie? Whoever it was, Obama played no part. Are you starting to get the picture? The administration has done a fantastic job of making it seem that Obama is completely outside the realm of any of the important issues, therefore protecting him from any culpability. What they don't realize is that in the process, they erode his credibility and call into question: So what exactly does Obama know and do? I guess no president was ever impeached for sheer incompetence, and that seems to be what we have on our hands.

- The other thing the media can do, and has already begun to do, is simply not cover these scandals. For example, Newsbusters did an analysis of CNN's coverage from yesterday. Here's the bottom line: “From 7 a.m. until 2 p.m. ET on Monday, CNN spent about as much time on Obama's "triple trouble" of controversy as it did on Saturday's Powerball-winning ticket.” I doubt CNN will be alone in this trend before long.

The fact is that these scandal warrant continuous coverage because, despite what the Obama administration may desire, they are far from over. With each day, these scandals continue to evolve. Here are just some of the updates over the last day:

Three Fox staffers, two reporters and one producer, were targeted by Justice Department

CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson's computers compromised

Watchdog report says DOJ official retaliated against ‘Furious’ whistle-blower, lied about it

Ex-Diplomats Report New Benghazi Whistleblowers with Info Devastating to Clinton and Obama

IRS went after 83-year-old Tea Party granny

IRS targeted conservative college interns

Miller was aware of tea party targeting before telling senators there was none

I mean, it's difficult to keep up with the pace in which we learn more and more about these scandals. We will continue to do so, even if the lapdog media won't.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Oklahoma

Tue, 21 May 2013 10:43:45 -0800

Tragedy in Oklahoma

Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Our thoughts and prayers are with those who lost loved ones and property in Oklahoma over the last few days. Yesterday, a presumed EF-4 tornado hit Moore, Oklahoma. Its wind speeds were up to 200 mph, at some points it was up to 2 miles wide and the path stretched for about 20 miles. It is an unbelievable storm which has now claimed the lives of at least 24 people, nine of whom are children. The stories of children at the Plaza Towers elementary school being pulled out of the rubble, some not making it out alive or missing, are beyond heartbreaking.

You can help those affected by this horrible tragedy by contacting the American Red Cross or you can text REDCROSS to 90999 to make a $10 donation.

Unfortunately the tragedy has not escaped politicization.

Rhode Island Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse took to the Senate floor last night to blame Republicans and their denial of global warming. He essentially said that Republicans seeking federal aid for such disasters are the same ones who deny global warming exists and plays a hand in such disasters.

There was also a liberal comedian associated with the “Daily Show” who tweeted that this tornado “so clearly” had “been ordered to only target conservatives.” She later apologized for the remark.

To me, it goes to show the hyper-politicization of everything right now in this country. Even amidst tragedy, we cannot escape the need for political jabs.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

The IRS is looking into your prayers? Sean has the latest.; Rudy Giuliani stops by to share his thoughts on just how bad the Obama scandals have become; Michael Meyers and Deneen Borelli debate race in

James Rosen

Mon, 20 May 2013 09:09:00 -0800

DOJ Spying on Fox

Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Fresh off the heels of the AP scandal, where the Department of Justice secretly pulled two-months of phone records of AP reporters, we now have a new report showing that the Department of Justice also targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen.

The investigation was apparently into his reporting on classified intelligence in North Korea dating back to 2009. I'm sure that a similar excuse will be used by the administration as in the case with the AP story: National security.

The AP is already stating that the DOJ pulling its phone records has affected its ability to report, with sources being weary to talk with reporters. That is entirely understandable, and it is chilling to know that this administration has that kind of power. But according to the Washington Post in the case of James Rosen, the DOJ took things a step further. Not only did they go into his phone records, but they obtained records of his security badge access to the State Department as well as sifted through his personal emails.

This is a pretty chilling fact, reported by the Washington Post: “The Obama administration has pursued more such cases than all previous administrations combined.”

Will reporters express similar outrage as they did over the AP story, considering this involves a Fox News reporter? That remains to be seen. But they absolutely should, because infringement on our civil liberties is a concern for all Americans, regardless of political bent or employment affiliation.

Obama frown

Mon, 20 May 2013 09:01:46 -0800

White House Spin Zone

Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Over the weekend, the Commander-in-Chief hit the golf course for the 123rd time – with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius – leaving White House aide Dan Pfeiffer to address the growing number of Washington scandals on the Sunday talk shows. His attempts to defend this administration haven't gone over too well. By this point, the White House should re-consider ever sending someone to the five Sunday shows to do the administration's spinning. Between Ambassador Susan Rice's now-infamous Sunday and now Dan Pfeiffer, they never end up looking good by the end.

Here are some of the highlights of Dan Pfeiffer's weekend appearances. Are you ready for this?

- In regards to the IRS scandal, Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer called the practice of targeting conservatives “outrageous” and “inexcusable.” But when addressing the legality of such a practice, Pfeiffer actually said that “the law is irrelevant.” Um, excuse me but the last time I checked we were a nation of laws, not a nation of men with Barack Obama, or anyone else for that matter, getting to dictate which laws are enforced. The law is absolutely relevant and this administration’s casual dismissal of the law is becoming increasingly frustrating to the American people and downright frightening to those of us who value freedom and limited government.

- Pfeiffer says that the White House is not going to let Republicans "drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations." Trumped up hearings? That is apparently how this administration views Congress' job of checking the executive branch on matters related to Benghazi, the IRS, etc. The truth isn't partisan or embellished for political gain. That's the purpose of these Congressional hearings and calls for independent investigations.

- On Benghazi, Pfieffer said that “there’s a series of conspiracy theories the Republicans have been spinning about this since the night it happened.” Perhaps that is because the administration lied about the truth of what really happened and then has failed to give Congress proper answers and documentation to figure out exactly what happened so that the American people can know the truth. Four Americans died and we want to understand why so that it doesn't happen again.

- Also on Benghazi, Pfieffer says, “The assertions from Republicans here that somehow the president allowed this to happen and didn’t take action is offensive. There’s no evidence to support it.” Offensive? Nobody is saying that Obama deliberately allowed this to happen, but what we do need to know is why security requests were denied and who denied them and who gave the two stand-down orders during the attack that could have potentially saved American lives.

- Pfeiffer called the controversy over the edited talking points “largely irrelevant.” That seemed to be a theme coming from him on all these shows. He also said, get this, that the GOP owes Ambassador Rice an apology for accusing her of misleading the country. Are you kidding me? The fact remains that Susan Rice's YouTube story was completely false and ended up costing our FBI the ability to quickly get into Benghazi and investigate what happened. If we knew who ultimately came up with the YouTube talking point, then at the very least Ambassador Rice should be outraged to know that she was used by this administration to mislead the American public.

- Pfeiffer also tried his best to defend Sarah Hall Ingram, the person in charge of the tax-exempt division of the IRS while conservative targeting was happening, who is now in charge of implementing ObamaCare within the IRS. Pfeiffer told Fox News Sunday, “Before everyone in this town convicts this person in the court of public opinion with no evidence, let’s actually get the facts and make decisions after that. There’s nothing that suggests she did anything wrong.” Well the person who replaced Sarah Hall Ingram was forced to retire, even though he was not in charge at the time of the targeting.

But don't worry, the lapdog media will now do it's best to help the Obama administration change the narrative and begin to blame things on the GOP. On MSNBC Al Sharpton humorously tried to convince his viewers that the “actual scandal” of last week was the House Republicans voting to repeal ObamaCare. Yeah, right. I think even MSNBC viewers could see right through that one.

Each day we learn more and more about these various scandals, and we will keep you updated as the information unfolds. For example …

Did you know that the IRS was asking pro-life groups about the content of their prayers?

Also, it was revealed last week that Obama administration officials in the Treasury Department did, in fact, know that the IRS was being audited for targeting political groups during the campaign. From the New York Times, “The inspector general gave Republicans some fodder Friday when he divulged that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel he was auditing the I.R.S.’s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions on June 4, 2012. He told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin 'shortly after,' he said. That meant Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.” Also, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Obama's White House Council Kathryn Ruemmler was informed of the IG report weeks ago, yet nobody apparently told Obama? They wanted to let the President find out about this via the media?

Then we get a report today from the American Spectator pointing out the fact that Obama had a meeting with “anti-Tea Party IRS union chief” Colleen Kelley at the White House on March 31, 2010. The American Spectator goes on to explain, “The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America.” That's rather curious, don't you think?

According to the New York Times, Obama aides have been instructed to spend no more than 10% of their time on any of the scandals swirling around Washington. Obama wants to stay focused on immigration, the budget and implementation of ObamaCare. That's all well and good, but you can't cook the meal without first putting out the fire. Obama's attempts to implement an agenda will be meaningless if he has no credibility. Also damaging to his credibility is the fact that we have yet another star-studded concert planned for the White House's East Room. Later this month, Obama will host another concert featuring Carole King, Gloria Estefan, Billy Joel, Jesse McCartney, Emeli Sandé, James Taylor and Trisha Yearwood. As if the economy doesn't make it bad enough to see something like this, it feels even worse considering the hypocrisy we endured under the threats of sequestration, now mixed with a credibility crisis amidst these sandals.

Friday, May 17, 2013

Fri, 17 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Sean has the latest coverage on the IRS scandal and where the Obama Administration is headed; Texas Comptroller Susan Combs talks about the impact of the IRS scandal on Americans everywhere; Ashley Madison CEO Noel Biderman debates the growing popularity of his controversial website.

IRS Scandal Hearing

Fri, 17 May 2013 12:56:17 -0800

IRS Scandal Hearing

Fri, 17 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Today the House Ways and Means Committee held its first hearing on the IRS scandal which broke just a week ago. Two people testified before the committee: Steven Miller, the out-going IRS commissioner, and J . Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General. Here are some of the highlights from today's testimony.

- In his opening statement, Steven Miller apologized on behalf on the IRS. He went on to say that these were simply “foolish mistakes” that “were made by people trying to be more efficient.” He said he does not believe that political partisanship motivated the practice of targeting conservative groups.

- I don't understand how his first statement can be accurate when Miller went on to admit that progressive groups were not targeted for additional scrutiny, while conservative groups were being targeted for potential political activities.

- When asked what could help prevent future abuse by the IRS, Steven Miller had the gall to say “a bigger budget.”

- Miller admitted that this information was staged to be released during last Friday's conference where Lois Lerner initially apologized for the targeting of conservative groups, but also blamed it on “low-level” employees in Cincinnati.

- Miller repeatedly denied having shared information with the Treasury Department (the administration) about the targeting of conservative groups.

- Miller referred to the talk of “targeting” simply as a “pejorative term.” He also took exception to the term targeting as a “loaded term.”

- Miller defended former IRS commissioner Doug Shulman's testimony to Congress last March stating that he was “incorrect,” but wouldn't go as far as to say that it was “untruthful.”

- Miller admitted that the IRS “provided horrible customer service” to these conservative groups. Gee, ya think?

Who is ultimately responsible for targeting these conservative organization? We still do not know or have any names. As Republican Senator Ted Cruz tweeted earlier today, “Biggest takeaway from #IRSHearing: 'I'll have to get back with you' apparently an acceptable response to #IRS. Remember that on April 15th.” He's absolutely right. This investigation is far from over.

The fact remains that the commissioner has known about this for at least a year and failed to disclose it or share with Congress. According to a report from Lisa Myers this morning on MSNBC, “The commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on this subject and did not reveal this.” Myers goes on to project, “Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different." In other words, the IRS knew and it decided not to tell … at least until now. Who made the decision not to disclose it before the election and why? Well until we have an answer to that question, all we can do is assume: Was it for political purposes to make sure that Barack Obama's re-election wasn't hampered by a scandal?

On top of all of this, we learned late yesterday that the very woman who was in charge of tax-exempt organizations at the time of this targeting – Sarah Hall Ingram – is now in charge of the IRS' Affordable Care Act office. In other words, the woman in charge of the office engaged in this conservative targeting is now overseeing the implementation of ObamaCare within the IRS! You can't make this stuff up. It's truly unbelievable, yet from everything we heard today in the hearing, the IRS actions were “inappropriate” but not “illegal.” Good grief.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Is Obama fostering a culture of intimidation?; Congressman Chaffetz discusses the incredible cover up of the Benghazi attacks; Michael Rozbruch, CEO of Tax Resolution Services, gives his unique perspective on the IRS scandal; Karl Rove discusses his effort to destroy the Tea Party

IRS Scandal Far From Resolved

Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

In an attempt to stop the bleeding a do damage control, yesterday the Anointed One announced the resignation of acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller, who was are already going to step down anyway. In other words, Obama did the minimum in order to try and please the drive-bys. While he claimed in his statement late yesterday that those responsible would be held accountable and changes would be made to ensure that this never happens again … gee, that sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before?

As the days progress, we learn more and more surrounding this IRS scandal. Here are a few examples.

- Despite the claim that this was an isolated incident involving a few low-level employees, we now know that this practice of targeting conservatives branched all the way into the DC office of the IRS and affected as many as 500 organizations.

- According to reporting by NRO's Eliana Johnson, the director of the Office of Rulings and Agreements – which is the office under which tax-exempt organizations would be reviewed – is a Democrat who donated to Obama's campaign. Now, that's not to say that civil servants can't separate their work from their personal political views, but now that at least has to come into question. In fact, open records should that IRS agency employees as a whole donated big-time to Barack Obama.

- We are coming to learn that pro-life groups may have also been targeted for more intense scrutiny after refusing to say they wouldn't oppose Planned Parenthood. Some groups were asked about their religious activities.

- One conservative group has come forward to tell their story. After waiting over a year for the IRS to approve their application to start a watchdog group to monitor media and government called Media Trackers, they tried a different approach. They decided to re-apply for tax-exempt status using a different, more liberal sounding name: Greenhouse Solutions. It's status was coincidentally approved in three weeks.

- While now-former acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller called out two “rogue” Cincinnati employees for conducting the targeted inquiries, there are some reports that there may have been as many as four employees involved in the practice. These workers are claiming that "they simply did what their bosses ordered."

- According to the Washington Examiner, “Lois Lerner, the senior executive in charge of the IRS tax exemption department and the federal employee at the center of the exploding scandal over the IRS targeting of conservative, evangelical and pro-Israel non-profits, was given $42,531 in bonuses between 2009 and 2011.” We've also come to learn that Lerner's husband's law firm has strong ties to Obama.

Earlier today there was a press conference with tea party group members and members of Congress expressing collective outrage and calling for an IRS audit. One tea party member claimed that the IRS asked for 3 years worth of private emails. The ACLJ apparently has 17 clients who are ready to sue IRS.

Also earlier today, Obama was asked about the IRS scandal. He reiterated that he himself did not know anything about the IG report before it appeared in the press. While that seems hard to believe, the question remains: Did anyone in the White House know about the IRS targeting of conservative groups before the IG report was officially given to the White House a few weeks ago? Obama also told us today that he believes that there is no reason for a special counsel probe of the IRS.

Marco Rubio is right in pointing out that this IRS story wreaks of a culture of intimidation that has been promoted by the Obama administration. While he doesn't have to explicitly give orders to target tea party groups, when he goes out there and says “we're going to punish our enemies and reward our friends who stand with us,” what kind of message does that send? As Rubio says, and I agree, this administration is all about politics all the time. We are in a never-ending campaign, which leads to targeting our enemies for political gain rather than leading our nation.

Obama checking for rain

Thu, 16 May 2013 12:01:25 -0800

Benghazi Email Dump

Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Last night, the White House dumped 100 pages of emails related to the Benghazi talking points. A few things. First of all, how hard was that? Congress has been begging for these emails for months and they suddenly show up now? This leads to my second point, which is that I believe they were dumped yesterday in order to distract us from this IRS scandal. Keep in mind that the emails were released to the public just one hour before Obama addressed the nation and announced the resignation of the acting IRS commissioner. This was designed perfectly to distract. And finally, are these even all the emails we need to see? It's clear that there is still A LOT of information that we don't have. For example, the two days immediately following the attacks (67 hours) … where are any emails from that time period? Or how about conversations that are referenced in the dumped emails between the White House and the State Department?

What is absolutely clear is that Jay Carney is a liar. Based on these emails we know that it is categorically untrue that the White House and the State Department only made minor changes of the word “consulate” to “diplomatic post.” Jay Carney claimed that as recently as May 10th, just six days ago!

The fact is that the CIA had the talking points right, with references to "Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda" and repeated warnings to our government.

We know that John Brennan, who at the time was the Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Assistant to the President, was personally involved in the editing process.

We know that State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed repeated concerns about the talking points. The CIA notes in the emails, “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document.” When presented with a revised version, Nuland continued to push back writing, "These don't resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” Nuland's involvement does also include concerns, which we learned about last week, that the original talking point about repeated warnings “could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? Concerned..."

We know that CIA Chief at the time, General Petraeus, felt the talking points had been so watered down to the point where, “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this.”

Perhaps most blatant observation about the emails is what isn't in them. Nowhere at any point in any of the versions is there any mention of a YouTube video. In other words, that narrative did not come from intelligence from the CIA. Blaming Benghazi on a YouTube video for weeks to come was a political decision, not based on intelligence but based on a desperate pursuit to maintain power.

There is still more to learn about these talking points. Other big questions related to Benghazi remain the following: Who gave the two stand down orders during the attack and where was the President when all this was happening?

Today, after making us wait over 45 minutes for his joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Turkey, Obama went out of his way to address Benghazi ahead of the press' questions. He says that he is taking “a series of steps that were recommended by the review board” to review security, improve training and increase intelligence for our diplomats around the world in response to “this incident.” By “incident” he is referring to the deliberate terrorist attack in Benghazi, which led to the death of four dead Americans.

Nevertheless, Democrats remain incredulous that people like you and I, along with some members of Congress, are determined to get to the bottom of all this. Harry Reid told reporters just the other day that Republicans are “hyperventilating about Benghazi.” He says that the President is right to call this a “sideshow.” I'm sure the parents, families and friends of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty beg to differ, Mr. Reid.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Wed, 15 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

As the Benghazi story continues to unfold, Sean continues his investigative work with the latest IRS scandal; Congresswoman Michele Bachmann believes the IRS scandal is just the tip of the iceberg; Rick Santelli reminds listeners of just how bad the economy is and what we're not being told about the real job numbers.

Julian Bond

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:44:35 -0800

Outrageous! Julian Bond

Wed, 15 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

It's very rare that a scandal emerges in Washington that unites people from all sides of the political spectrum. The IRS targeting of conservative groups is this rare exception. For the most part, people from all political beliefs inherently recognize the danger of using the IRS or any political enforcement agency to target specifics groups for their beliefs.

However, there are always exceptions. NAACP Chairman Emeritus Julian Bond told MSNBC yesterday that this targeting was “entirely legitimate.” He called Tea Party members “a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who’ve tried as best as they can to harm President Obama in every way they can.” He even went as far as to call them the “Taliban wing of American politics,” whom everybody should be worried about.

A Crisis of Credibility

Wed, 15 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Second-term agenda? What second-term agenda? At this point, Barack Obama has far more pressing issues at stake: The credibility of this administration, and quite frankly the integrity of our government as a whole.

As blatantly outrageous as the IRS targeting conservatives may be, it's infuriating to know that the person investigating such egregious violations (Eric Holder) is equally as corrupt and himself involved in a current scandal – the secret seizure of AP phone records. Add that to the list of other scandals we've seen involving Obama's Department of Justice, including Fast and Furious which led to the death of American Boarder Patrol agent Brian Terry. In other words, how can we trust that we will even get to the actual truth of the matter on any of these issues? Holder has zero credibility, so why should he be trusted with this investigation? The scary answer is that we no longer feel we can. That is a crisis.

This morning, House Speaker John Boehner made headlines. On the issue of the IRS, Boehner says, "My question isn't about who's going to resign, my question is, who is going to jail?” That's a very bold statement, with which I would agree. The IG released its report to the public late last night. You can read it here. The fact is that the more we learn of the intrusive nature of these questions, the more outrageous the story becomes. The latest includes requests for Tea Party education groups to turn over the names of high school and college students it had spoken to. Really? Yes, really. Requests for Facebook posts were made, as well as reading material. When one group was asked to provide reading material associated with the group, the group sent the IRS a copy of the Constitution. Ha! And now we know that these Tea Party groups were held up for months, in many cases over a year. Meanwhile, liberals and progressive groups managed to achieve their tax-exempt status in reasonable amount of time (by government standards).

If you missed White House propagandist Jay Carney's press briefing yesterday, you missed quite a spectacle. This is for two reasons. Number one is the fact that actual, real reporters managed to finally show up and ask tough questions. It's about time! Perhaps too little too late, in my opinion, but it was refreshing to finally see these people asking tough questions of this administration. Unfortunately for Jay Carey, he just couldn't stand the heat. It was embarrassing. This whole controversy over his use of the word “if” related to the IRS story; There is no “if” Jay. The IRS already apologized for something we already know to be true, based on a report which had already been sent to the White House but the president apparently had yet to see. Are you starting to notice this pattern, by the way? I am seriously starting to wonder how this White House is run, if the President of the United States is unaware of so many crucial things happening within his own administration. Are we to believe that to be true or are they simply lying? Which is worse – Incompetence or untruthfulness? Take your pick, but either way the American people lose. If we are to believe former Obama advisor David Axelrod, the excuse is simply that government is “so vast” that Obama could not possibly be aware of all the wrongdoing taking place within his administration. That doesn't speak too highly of the size of our government.

Anyway, since that press briefing, the IG released its report and the president had time to review it an issue a statement. The findings are “intolerable and inexcusable,” according to the president. Then he then directs Jack Lew to hold those responsible accountable.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group in Congress' House Ways and Means committee is demanding that all communications between the White House and the IRS be turned over related to the targeting of conservatives. In other words, members of Congress want to know if the White House had any involvement in targeting these groups, and if so, what was the nature of their involvement. That could be monumentally scathing. The committee also wants to know why the IRS commissioner did not reveal information about the targeting of conservatives to the committee, after testifying that he was unaware of any targeting in March 2012. However, keep in mind that Democrats in the Senate – Carl Levin, Max Baucus, and others – pressured then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman to investigate these groups dating back as far as 2010. So Congress' potential role cannot escape scrutiny as well.

And we haven't even gotten to Benghazi, where even former Obama advisor David Axelrod is sounding like John Boehner in saying that the Obama administration needs to come forward with emails related to Benghazi and the controversial talking points. The fact that reporters haven't been able to make copies of those emails, but merely view them and then report on them has allowed this administration to then accuse some reporters of “doctoring” the emails. The administration just needs to be truthful and honest and simply release the emails and put all the games and controversy to rest. When David Axelrod is even saying that, you know it's bad.

You know what's also bad? When you have NBC News comparing Barack Obama to Richard Nixon.

Let me be clear about something. The priority at this point for everyone in Washington, including Republicans, should be finding the truth on these various scandals and finding the appropriate punishment for any wrongdoing that is discovered. But if there are any long-term policy implications that stem from all this, the Republicans need to focus if they want to be effective. There is a lot happening right now, and as per usual, their messages are all bungled. This morning in their press briefing we heard jobs, economy, Keystone Pipeline, ObamaCare. This is all well-and-good, but I think they should focus their energies on one thing: ObamaCare. What we have right now is a crisis of confidence in our system of government. As if people didn't trust big government before, now they REALLY have reason to maintain that distrust. Unfortunately for Democrats, much of their policies rely on big government. For example, ObamaCare is about as “big government” and “big brother” as you can get and it relies an agency which is now seriously suffering from a crisis of confidence: the IRS. Efforts to repeal ObamaCare should be propelled forward as a united front, because the American people have finally had enough with a government that is too big, too intrusive, and cannot be trusted … especially with your life and your health on the line.

Dick Cheney

Tue, 14 May 2013 12:28:30 -0800

Dick Cheney on Benghazi: 'The cover-up is still ongoing'

Tue, 14 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," May 13, 2013. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow.

There is no there there. Keep in mind, by the way, the so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice five, six days after the event occurred, pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing.

The whole thing defies logic.

We is a whole bunch of people in the State Department saying I'm willing to step up, I'm willing to put myself in harm's way. We dishonor them when, you know, we turn things like this into a political circus.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: That was very dismissive of President Obama earlier today during the joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron. And while our commander in chief brushes off the Benghazi controversy as, quote, "a political circus," it sure doesn't look like this massive national security cover up is going to go away anytime soon.

Joining me now on the phone with exclusive reaction, former vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney. Mr. Vice President, welcome back, sir.

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY (via telephone): Good evening, Sean. Great to talk to you.

HANNITY: You know, I'm listening to this, no there, there. It sound to me like a little bit of a challenge. Reminded me of when Gary Hart said just follow me.

CHENEY: Yes. Well, they did.

HANNITY: And so they did.

CHENEY: No. I watched the Benghazi thing with great interest, Sean. I think it's one of the worst incidences, frankly, that I can recall in my career. It put the whole capability claiming the terrorist problem was solved once we got Bin Laden, that Al Qaeda was over with. And if they told the truth about Benghazi, that it was a terrorist attack by an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group, it would destroy the false image of confidence that was the basis of his campaign for re-election.

They lied. They claimed it was because of a demonstration video, so they wouldn't have to admit it was really all about their incompetence. That the State Department and White House ignored repeated warnings from the CIA about the threat. They ignored messages from their own people on the ground that they need more security. They reduced what was already there. And the administration either had no forces ready to respond to an attack, which should have been anticipated on the anniversary of 9/11, or they refused to deploy them when our people asked for help.

HANNITY: You know, Mr. Vice President, the president claiming the talking points didn't matter. The original talking points and the CIA's assessment was 100 percent accurate, that it was terror-related, Ansar Al Sharia, Al-Qaeda- linked group. They got it right and then 12 versions later, it evolved into something everything knew didn't have anything to do with the attack, a YouTube video, it was somehow spontaneous. And that's what Susan Rice said on the five Sunday programs and that's what the president was telling the world via the U.N. two weeks later when everybody knew it wasn't true.

And Jay Carney saying these are stylist stick changes, they were dramatic substantive changes. What do you think is worse, the before, the during, or the after part of this? It seems to me the cover up always makes it worse.

CHENEY: Right. Well they tried to cover it up by constructing a false story, claiming there was confusion about what happened in the Benghazi compound. There was no confusion. It was obvious as soon as we got the Ambassadors Stevens on the phone that night and he said, quote, "we are under attack," the cover up included several officials up to and including President Obama and the cover up is still ongoing.

HANNITY: Let's go to the before part. We now know, and we learned this at the hearings last week, the CIA knew that this particular consulate was a potential threat and as you mentioned, especially on the anniversary of 9/11. And we know that the ambassador and others requested additional security, but yet they were denied that. Isn't that a hotbed of terrorist training there?

CHENEY: Well, it is. More than that, I think the agents probably had more -- I've seen at least one account today that indicated, I guess this is maybe in the Weekly Standardthat they picked up message traffic that involved an individual who had actually participated in the attack and who was a member of the Ansar Al Sharia, the Al Qaeda-related or affiliated organization.

There was never any doubt about what was happening here. And the whole notion, they have gone through this process trying to get to the truth, they did exactly the opposite. You say this, too, you start out with the truth as reported by the intelligence community, and then you turn it into a total distortion once the political types in the White House and some senior folks at the State Department get their hands on it.

HANNITY: What do you make of the fact that we learned last week that there were two specific stand-down orders? We know in the case of the CIA annex about a mile away that two brave Navy SEALs were ordered not to go help, but they did it anyway and both lost their lives in this attack.

And we have another stand down order, but we don't know who gave the stand down order. You have been in the White House. All we know the president is informed the attack was ongoing and never inquired afterwards for an update. And then got up the next morning after he went to bed and went campaigning. Does that sound like normal operating procedure?

CHENEY: It doesn't sound like their own procedure. Remember when they were doing the bin Laden raid, you got pictures all over the place of the president sitting in the situation room and monitoring the take down of Osama Bin Laden. This was exactly the opposite of that.

There were a whole lot of questions that need to be asked about the military chain of command. In my past experience when we got into these situations, especially after 9/11, we were always there, locked and loaded, ready to go on 9/11. We have specially-trained units that practice this thing all the time. They are very good at it and they are champing at the bit to go. There is a contingency team or extremist team, I'll refer to them, assigned to the commander in chief in local areas. Where were they that night? Why weren't provisions made to have forces within range and just an hour away from Benghazi?

Why weren't they deployed ready to go to take action in any of those areas in the Middle East or North Africa? It makes no sense. They totally ignored their responsibility, partly because they didn't want to admit they had a problem. They were trying to perpetuate this fiction that there were no terrorist threat because they got Bin Laden. That's a lie.

HANNITY: That would be consistent with the denial of radical Islamic terrorists that we've witnessed throughout the Obama presidency. Let me ask you one more question, sir, and that is the IRS targeting groups that had the name Tea Party or Patriot or those that desired to make America a better place to live or those that criticized how the country was being run or those that talked about the Constitution and the bill of rights.

You have been around Washington a long time and a number of administrations, the IRS being used for a political witch-hunt against those who have differing viewpoints. How dangerous is this for the president himself?

CHENEY: I think it's very dangerous. I can't believe some guy down in the bowels of the organization in Cincinnati set this up. It would require, I would think, because of the sensitivity of it, somebody pretty high up to sign off on it. Apparently, fairly senior people and it's appearing now they have known for at least two years.

It's one of the most egregious abuses of government power I can think of. I can remember back in the Watergate days that one of the counts against Richard Nixon was his abuse of power by calling in the IRS to investigate certain individuals that were his adversaries.

HANNITY: All right, Mr. Vice President, how are you feeling, by the way? I hope you're doing well.

CHENEY: I'm doing great, Sean. Thanks for asking.

HANNITY: All right, appreciate it. I appreciate you being with us.

Content and Programming Copyright 2013 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Tue, 14 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

What is an Obama-gasim? Sean explains; Jedidiah Bila and Tamara Holder discuss Jay Carney’s presser where he desperately tried to explain why there is no explanation for the scandal surrounding the IRS and the Department of Justice’s grab of the AP records; Tennis pro Jimmy Connors joins Sean to talk about his memoir "The Outsider"

Capital Hill

Tue, 14 May 2013 11:16:28 -0800

Scandal Spreads In Washington

Tue, 14 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

It's pretty unbelievable that we are sitting here faced with not one, not even two, but three major scandals involving this administration. There's even a potential fourth scandal brewing, which we'll get to later.

A cancer is growing on this presidency. It's spreading quickly and affecting the integrity of our system of government. Some news agencies like Reuters refer to this as “governing headaches” for the administration. Dana Milbank at the Washington Post is labeling this the “second-term blues.” And then there's my favorite description from NBC, which is that Obama is suffering from a “second-term curse,” as if he has no control over any of this but it merely the victim.

But you know it is bad when the lead story on the Politico reads: Scandal politics sweep Capitol Hill. The story goes on to point out that nearly one-third of House committees are currently investigating some aspect of the Obama administration.

The comparisons of Obama to Richard Nixon and Watergate have become pervasive. It's somewhat fitting that we are 40 years to the week that Congress began public hearings on the Watergate scandal.

Let's break down some of the latest of what we know and the reaction to these developing scandals in Washington.

DOJ Secretly Seizes AP Records

Yesterday afternoon the news broke that the Department of Justice had secretly obtained two months worth of phone records from the Associated Press. In all, records for 20 separate phone lines were seized, affecting more than 100 journalists in New York, Washington and Hartford, CT. Even records for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery was seized. The records spanned a two month period of April and May of 2012. While the government did not provide the AP a reason for the seizure, it is believed that they were trying to figure out who leaked information related to a story reported by the AP on May 7, 2012 about a foiled terror plot in Yemen. While the government has pulled phone records of news agencies before, the size and scope of this seizure is unusual, dare I say unprecedented.

As pointed out by the AP and other sources, “Rules published by the Justice Department require that subpoenas of records of news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general,” but we still do not know if Eric Holder was personally involved. You can read the full letter from the AP to Eric Holder here.

As Republican Rep. Darrel Issa pointed out yesterday, this is not the first scandal to involve the DOJ. Between Fast and Furious and the New Black Panther Party, the DOJ seems impervious to scandal shakeups. Perhaps this AP story will change that.

And if you want to hear something really hilarious, consider the fact that Barack Obama celebrated World Press Freedom Day at the same time his own Justice Department was secretly obtaining these phone records! CNSNews has Obama's statement, which reads in part: “On this World Press Freedom Day, the United States honors the role of a free press in creating sustainable democracies and prosperous societies … We pay special tribute to those journalists who have sacrificed their lives, freedom or personal well-being in pursuit of truth and justice.” Unbelievable.

IRS Targets Conservatives

Last Friday we learned that the IRS had been targeting conservative groups attempting to achieve non-profit status. At first they tried to claim that this was nothing but the work of “low-level” officials in one IRS office in Cincinnati. But over the weekend we learned that high-level officials within the IRS knew about the targeting of conservatives as early as 2011. Not only that, but while we were initially told that the targeted words included “tea party” or “patriot,” we've come to find that the targeting was much more broad and included groups concerned about the size of government, our debt, taxes, the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, and more.

Now the latest reports show that this practice of targeting conservatives was not limited to just Cincinnati. According to documents obtained by the Washington Post, “Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed.” So now this scandal heads straight to Washington.

Not only that, but we have some reports that the confidential information provided on the applications by these conservative groups may have then been disclosed to third party groups. Donald Rumsfeld in his new book “Rumsfeld's Rules” points out that it is not just conservative groups being targeted by the IRS but businesses that are critical of the administration. The targeting may have also extended to Jewish groups supporting Israel. A reporter has even stepped forward to say that ever since conducting a tough interview with Obama, he has been “hammered” by the IRS.

Do we have a real political enemies list on our hands?

But there is an interesting talking point being developed by liberals and that is to blame the IRS targeting conservatives on … Citizens United. Nancy Pelosi is one such Democrat pushing this theory that if it weren't for the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, the IRS wouldn't be put in this position. That still doesn't explain why the IRS only targeted conservative groups. Shall we blame Bush for that one?

Benghazi

The Anointed One seemed visibly agitated yesterday when asked about Benghazi during a press conference with UK Prime Minister David Cameron. He seemed more frustrated with Republicans and their “side show” than finding out the truth and bringing those really responsible to justice. Even his claim, which he repeated again yesterday, that he acknowledged Benghazi to be act of terrorism received four Pinocchios from the Washington Post. But Obama now infamously maintains that “there's no there there.” Clearly we know that's not the case. Last night on Hannity, former Vice President Dick Cheney called out the administration for lying and said that the cover-up is still ongoing. I would agree that what we have here is a massive national security cover-up, and it is not going to go away any time soon despite Obama's best efforts to brush it off.

ObamaCare Extortion

This last story hasn't gotten really any coverage, due to the explosive nature of the other scandals we are covering. But did you know that our Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is actually calling private companies that she regulates and asking them to donate money to help implement ObamaCare? That's outrageous! The Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff writes, “Sebelius has, over the past three months, made multiple phone calls to health industry executives, community organizations and church groups and directly asked that they contribute to non-profits that are working to enroll uninsured Americans and increase awareness of the law.” This is illegal and it's unethical. The House Energy and Commerce Committee will be looking into Sebelius' “shake down” of insurance companies for cash, according to Breitbart.

As many have already pointed out, the IRS scandal mixed with the implementation of the widely unpopular ObamaCare (which is enforced by the IRS) is sure to create a lot of frustration and concern.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Mon, 13 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

IRS Scandal Widens

Mon, 13 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

On Friday we received a bombshell from the IRS after it issued an apology for admittedly targeting groups applying for 501(c)(4)/tax-exempt status that used the words “tea party” or “patriot.” What we were told on Friday is that “low-level” officials in the IRS office in Cincinnati were targeting conservative groups during the 2012 election season.

But it turns out to be much deeper than that.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “High-ranking IRS official knew as early as mid-2011 that conservative groups were being inappropriately targeted—nearly a year before then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told a congressional committee the agency wasn't targeting conservative groups.” Furthermore, the trigger words – words that were flagged for more intense scrutiny – went well beyond “tea party” or “patriot.” Other triggers for scrutiny included anything related to government spending, taxes, national debt, limiting/expanding government, 9/12 Project, criticism of how the country is being run, education of the public to “make America a better place to live,” educating Americans "on the Constitution and Bill of Rights." An internal mandate within the IRS said that personnel should “be on the look out” for these organizations.

Today during a press conference with UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Barack Obama addressed the IRS scandal stating that “if” this proves to be true, “then that's outrageous. There's no room for it. They have to be held fully accountable, because the IRS – as an independent agency – requires absolute integrity and people have to have confidence that they are applying the laws in a non-partisan way.”

Notice that Obama used similar language to Jay Carney from last Friday: That the IRS is some sort of “independent agency” to somehow distance responsibility from the administration. The fact is that the IRS is part of the Treasury Department and the Treasury Department is part of the executive branch. Period. End of story. I'm not saying that Obama instructed the IRS to target conservatives, but I AM saying that the IRS is very much a government institution and not some independent body operating unto itself.

On this story, there appears to be a collective outrage (for the most part) among all sides of the political spectrum. While we are currently seeing targeting of conservative groups, it is easy (and scary) to see how that targeting can shift to other groups depending on who is in power. It's an outrageous abuse of power. The fact is that if George Bush were president and the IRS were targeting progressive groups, we'd have wall-to-wall coverage with politicians demanding his immediate resignation.

As many people have also pointed out, the IRS is only going to become more powerful as it grows in size and scope to enforce ObamaCare. I have a feeling that the subsequent hearings and investigations to come on this issue will only make Americans all the more weary about big government and ObamaCare.

The Benghazi Cover-Up

Mon, 13 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

There have been dramatic changes in what many will now openly describe as a full-blown cover-up related to the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. What we have here is a case of complete incompetence, which led to the death of four brave Americans and a subsequent cover-up for the purposes of maintaining political power. The pursuit of power trumped reality and the truth. Simple as that.

At this point you are probably well-aware of the report from last week which detailed the 12 versions of the Benghazi talking points. These changes were, in fact, made with input from senior State Department officials. According to the Weekly Standard, “the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy – al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on. The version [General David Petraeus] received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none.” Thanks to emails from Victoria Nuland of the State Department, we now know the talking points were changed for political purposes, so as to shield the State Department from potential blame from Congress.

Yet White House propagandist Jay Carney still maintains to this day that the White House only made one “stylistic” edit to the talking points. And during his very intense (and very delayed) White House briefing on Friday, Carney believes that by the time the Sunday talk shows came around, there was still no hard evidence that al Qaeda was involved in the attack. This is absolutely false. We've come a long way from just a few weeks ago when Carney was able to brush aside Benghazi as happening “a long time ago.” There are many people who feel bad for Carney at this point. George Will said over the weekend that Carney's “usefulness to this administration is diminishing rapidly.” I think it may be time for Jay to consider resigning.

But Jay Carney is not alone in defending the administration and in some cases, flat-out lying. Here are just a few of the latest ignorant attempts to blame, justify or belittle ...

MSNBC’s Bashir, Finney blame GOP ‘austerity’ for Chris Stevens’ death

Bill Maher: Benghazi Was a 'Riot' Possibly Sparked by an Anti-Muslim Movie

Nancy Pelosi On GOP's "Obsession" With Benghazi: "We Cannot Let It Soak Up All Of Congressional Attention"

Sen. Durbin On Benghazi: "The Witch Hunt Continues"

There have also been unfortunate attempts by liberals to undermine the credibility of last week's whistle-blowers. That is not all that surprising, though it is unfortunate. The truth is that one of the main whistle-blowers, Greg Hicks, is a Democrat who voted for Hillary and Obama. It's unfortunate that this piece of news is necessary in order to try and dispel the narrative that this is a GOP witch-hunt. The fact is that brave, career civil servants like Greg Hicks aren't political in their jobs or their motivations in telling the truth.

But for all of those examples I mentioned above, there are many more who have now seen the light. There has been a remarkable turn-around in the coverage of Benghazi in just the last week. Between the credible testimonies of the whistle-blowers and the reporting on the talking points, Benghazi finally became a story the lapdog media could no longer ignore. For months, Fox News, talk-radio and others have been criticized for continuing to push for answers. Finally, the lamestream media has joined the chorus and started doing what they should have done a long time ago on this story: Report. Here's a round-up of some of the media and politicians who have come around on Benghazi.

Spinning Benghazi – The New Yorker

The Lingering Questions About the Benghazi Controversy – TIME Magazine

MSNBC contributor Tom Brokaw: ‘You Cannot Explain Away Susan Rice’s Performance on Those Sunday Talk Shows’

Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein: It Was Obvious It Was a Terrorist Attack 'Minute It Happened'

MSNBC Guests: Benghazi Scandal Makes White House ‘Look Terrible,’ Possibly An ‘Impeachment Issue’

You know it's bad when MSNBC admits that something is bad for the Obama administration. So the question is, what happens next? I believe that it is time for the House to create a select committee to investigate. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa told NBC's “Meet the Press” that he plans to seek depositions from former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Admiral Mike Mullen, who were in charge of the State Department's internal investigation into the Benghazi attack. Over the weekend, Pickering defended the Accountability Review Board's investigation, telling CBS' “Face the Nation” that he didn't feel it was necessary to interview Hillary Clinton for his report. His excuse was that "we had questioned people who had attended meetings with her." Well I'm sorry but with all due respect, that's not good enough. Now we have Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings, who is the top Democrat on the House Oversight panel, saying that private depositions aren't good enough. He wants Pickering and Mullen to answer questions about their investigation at a congressional hearing. Also we have Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, who is chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, telling “Fox News Sunday” that more whistle-blowers might come forward.

That leads us to today's press conference with Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. The first question asked of Obama was about the IRS and Benghazi. In response to Benghazi, Obama was visibly upset and frustrated and cannot understand why this is still an issue. He called the controversy over the talking points a “side show” and used the term “political circus.” Obama stated today, “We have been very clear that immediately after this happened, we were not clear who exactly who carried it out, how it had occurred or what the motivations were.” But we know this to be absolutely false. Top officials knew the next day that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack. Greg Hicks, who talked to Hillary Clinton herself at 2am, knew what was happening. The president of Libya came on American TV that Sunday and called it a terrorist attack. If it was “not clear,” then why for weeks and weeks afterwards did the administration continue to peddle this YouTube video lie? These are all important questions, yet Obama told us today that this is now being “spun up” as if there's something new to the story. In other words, nothing to see here. This is all a partisan witch-hunt being fueled by the media. Unbelievable.

The shift in coverage of the Benghazi terrorist attack has been dramatic. However, expect the Obama administration to try and shift the narrative away from Benghazi and the IRS as much as possible. Pick a distracting topic, any topic, and hope that it can shift the focus. The only problem for Obama is … he's running out of distractions. More importantly, he's running out of credibility.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Why were requests for security in Benghazi were denied? Sean asks this and other questions about the ongoing Benghazi testimony.; Tony Perkins and Jeffrey Lord discuss the news that the IRS targeted Conservative groups; Kirsten Powers on Philadelphia abortion clinic horrors; John Walsh, of America’s Most Wanted, talks with Sean about the great news of the recovery of Amanda Berry, Michelle Knight, and Gina DeJesus.

ObamaCare

Fri, 10 May 2013 12:07:04 -0800

ObamaCare Sales Pitch

Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

It is clear that this administration is engaging in a concerted effort to “sell” ObamaCare to the American people. What's amazing is that these people are delusional enough to believe that the problem with ObamaCare is the messaging and not the law itself. The fact remains that ObamaCare remains wildly unpopular. While Nancy Pelosi once said that we have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it, the fact is that the more we find out about it, the less we like it!

Today at the White House the president is hosting a Mother's Day-themed event. The event specifically targets women and young people, trying to promote the benefits of ObamaCare to these groups. According to the Associated Press, “Obama will promote the benefits of the law for women, including free cancer screenings and contraceptives, and ask moms to urge their uninsured adult children to sign up for the health insurance 'exchanges' that open this fall.” The audience for this event, by the way, is said to include representatives from Planned Parenthood.

According to Bloomberg News, Obama has ordered any of his Cabinet officials to sell ObamaCare during any commencement speeches they may have been asked to make this graduation season: “To counter the criticism, the White House has told all Cabinet members and senior officials to use commencement speeches to drive home for graduating college students and their parents the benefits they gain from a provision of the law that allows young adults to stay on their family’s insurance plans until they turn 26.” It looks like they are stretching liberal indoctrination in higher education through to the bitter end (graduation day).

Meanwhile, we have Nancy Pelosi who continues to maintain a delusional allegiance to the law. Yesterday she praised ObamaCare as “remarkable”: "It's going to be something so remarkable in terms of prevention and wellness; it's going to be something so great in terms of technology and ... electronic medical records. It's not going to be just about ... good healthcare in our country, it's going to be about good health in our country." I wonder if Nancy Pelosi is aware of the Oregon study released last week related to Medicaid coverage? The well-researched study of Oregon's Medicaid expansion essentially concluded that access to health insurance doesn't actually make us any healthier!

Yesterday, a Democratic Congresswoman Janice Hahn of California tried to tell us that ObamaCare will help improve marriage in this country. Wow, who knew?

But it's not just Obama, administration officials or Democrat politicians trying to sell ObamaCare; The federal government is also using your tax dollars to sell the American public on the law. According to the Washington Examiner: “Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced Thursday that HHS will spend $150 million to teach people how to enroll in the Obamacare exchanges, after a Democratic senator scolded her for running a poor 'public information campaign.'” We know that person to be Democrat Senator Max Baucus, who labeled the implementation as a “train wreck.” A train wreck, indeed, and at your expense.

IRS

Fri, 10 May 2013 12:02:46 -0800

Outrageous: IRS Targets Conservatives!

Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

The IRS issued a startling apology today, admitting the fact that it actively targeted conservative political groups in 2012 for additional review. When groups would apply for tax-exempt status, words like “tea party” or “patriot” would automatically be flagged for more intense scrutiny.

The head of the unit who oversees tax-exempt groups, Lois Lerner, says the practice began by “low-level workers in Cincinnati,” according to the AP. Apparently no high-level IRS officials were involved or knew it was happening.

Here's a headline from a Fox News report from February 2012: Numerous Tea Party chapters claim IRS attempts to sabotage nonprofit status. But in March 2012, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told a House subcommittee that there was “absolutely no targeting.” Meanwhile, if you will recall, conservative groups that were complaining about such practices were cast aside as being paranoid or even conspiracy theorists.

Now we know the truth: Conservatives were, in fact, being targeted by the government. Unbelievable.

Victoria Nuland

Fri, 10 May 2013 11:57:23 -0800

Benghazi Talking Points

Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Piggybacking off of the original Benghazi talking points reported by the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, ABC News' Jonathan Karl has now obtained more versions of the revisions. The latest reporting shows that the talking points related to Benghazi underwent 12 revisions. Not only that, but after repeatedly claiming that the talking points were crafted by the CIA and the intelligence community, White House emails obtained by ABC News shows that the State Department did, in fact, play a key role in the changes …

“White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.”

The ABC report shows that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was concerned that the original and correct information related to Benghazi could be used by members of Congress to criticize the State Department. Nuland also did not want to name the terrorist group involved in the attack because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

You can read more about the process of revision in the ABC report, but an update to the story reads that according to an unnamed source familiar with the White House emails, “The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland … was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.” Whatever the case may be, the State Department clearly played a key role in revising the talking points, with perhaps more White House involvement than just “stylistic” changes.

If you listened to what White House propagandist Jay Carney had to say just the other day, the changes made to the talking points were merely “stylistic.” Remember this: “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this. Edits made by anyone at the White House were stylistic and not substantive. They corrected the description of the building...from consulate to diplomatic facility. Ultimately this has all been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to congressional investigators.” So in retrospect, either Jay Carney is woefully ignorant of the facts or he flat-out lied. Not only that, but if you go back to the period right after the attacks, eight days after Benghazi, Carney proclaimed to the White House Press Corp that “based on the information that we had then and have now we do not yet have indication that it was pre-planned or pre-meditated.”

By the way, there is some former Obama spokesman for the National Security Council by the name of Tommy Vietor who Tweeted that the reason the Benghazi talking points were even written was because House intelligence committee Republicans requested them so they could go on TV. Anything to blame the Republicans …

A few more stories related to Benghazi …

Considering what we now know – the administration knew from the beginning that this was a preplanned attack by Ansar al-Sharia – I want to remind you that $70,000 of your tax dollars was used to air ads in Pakistan apologizing for the YouTube video while the administration was still publicly claiming that this was the reason for the Benghazi attack.

Also we've learned that there was a Benghazi attack ad created by the RNC during last year's election but never made it to the air. The ad builds off of the famous 3am phone call ads from 2008. Ironically enough, someone in 2008 declared that both Barack Obama AND Hillary Clinton were “not ready” to handle the hypothetical 3am phone call. That person was Susan Rice.

Yesterday the State Department issued a travel warning for US citizens traveling to Benghazi. Gee, now they tell us.

Good news for Talk Radio

Thu, 09 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Arbitron released its Radio Today 2013 study to clients today and there’s a lot of good news in it for News/Talk radio. News/Talk — designated by Arbitron as ‘News/Talk/Information’ plus ‘Talk/Personality’ — remains the number one format in PPM-measured markets, and the number two format in the rest of U.S. diary measured markets.Radio Today 2013 notes that, like other spoken word formats, News/Talk continues to rank “prominently” in highly educated, high income listeners.

The just released study also offers an interesting look at a map of the U.S. showing where the format both outperforms and underperforms its national average. States where News/Talk performs “substantially above” the national average include Alaska, Oregon,Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont andMassachusetts.

Conversely, those states where the format performs “substantially below” the national average include Montana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana,North and South Carolina and Maine. The full Radio Today 2013 report is currently available only to Arbitron clients. However, non-subscribers can access an ‘Executive Summary’ of the study HERE.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Thu, 09 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

House Holds Hearing On Benghazi Consulate Attacks

Thu, 09 May 2013 10:04:01 -0800

House Holds Hearing On Benghazi Consulate Attacks

Benghazi Hearing Fallout

Thu, 09 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Yesterday was a pretty unbelievable day. The hearing on Benghazi in the House Oversight and Reform committee was compelling and credible. If you didn't get the chance to see it, Greg Hicks' recount of what happened on the night of the attack was riveting, at times spellbinding.

Just to re-cap, here are some of the main things we learned from yesterday's hearing.

- The YouTube video was a “non-event” in Libya. It was never reported to anyone, even Hillary Clinton herself whom Hicks spoke to at 2am, that there was a protest involved. Perhaps the biggest question remains, who then came up with the YouTube narrative for the talking points and why?

- State Department official Beth Jones knew on September 12th the true nature of this attack, telling Libya's ambassador to Washington, “The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”

- Multiple stand down orders were given, including one to highly trained personnel in Tripoli who were ready to board a plane and save their colleagues under siege in Benghazi. One of the biggest questions remains, who gave those stand down orders?

- Greg Hicks was basically told by the State Department not to speak to the Congressional delegation investigating Benghazi without a lawyer present. When a lawyer sent with the delegation was excluded from a meeting because he/she failed to meet the proper security clearance, Hillary Clinton's Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, called Hicks personally and was “upset” that her lawyer was not present in the meeting.

- Hicks said his “jaw-dropped” on the day Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk shows claiming a YouTube video was responsible for the attack. He called it “embarrassing” and also pointed out the public embarrassment of Libya's president, who on the very same show told us the real story. This embarrassment led to diplomatic complications, which compromised FBI's ability to get to Benghazi quickly and collect evidence.

- After Susan Rice's comments on the Sunday talk shows, Hicks contacted Beth Jones of the State Department asking why she would say that and Jones replied “I don't know.” (Remember, this woman knew on September 12th who was responsible for the attack.) But Hicks got the impression that he wasn't to ask any more questions. His management style was later criticized and he has since been demoted.

Here's the bottom line: We know we were lied to. We know that the administration tried to make it difficult for us to find out what really happened. We know that four Americans died when it's possible they didn't have to. We know that the talking points were right, and then they were wrong. While we don't know exactly why that's the case, we have a pretty good gut feeling as to why the talking points were changed: It was in the heat of an election. Liberals may scream that this is politicizing the issue, but the fact is that the administration politicized the issue when it tried to make Benghazi a non-issue for political purposes. Sometimes politicizing isn't just about what you say, but it's about what your ignore and in this case I believe the administration ignored the truth.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee brought up a good point yesterday during the hearing and that is the fact that this president has made it a policy not to jump to conclusions when it comes to tragedies or events. Case in point, look at how hard his administration has pushed back about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. They have been extremely cautious to figure out exactly who used these weapons and when they were used, calling for a UN investigation into the matter before the United States does anything or makes a declaration on the issue. Yet in the case of Benghazi, there was an immediate jump to conclusions – the wrong conclusion – based on what?

It is clear that Democrats are united in their efforts to protect the administration, including Hillary Clinton, even in light of the truth. If you listened to the questions (more like statements) yesterday from the Democrats, it was obvious that their agenda was to defend not to seek truth. I don't understand how “the truth” has somehow become political, but it has. Other Democrats such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz did her part in advancing the narrative that this is a “witch-hunt” designed to discredit Hillary Clinton and dampen her chances for a 2016 run for the White House. The media has clearly aided in proliferating this talking point.

Joe Biden did his best the day before the hearing to praise Susan Rice and went as far as to say, “When she speaks…no one wonders whether or not she is speaking for the president.” Well we now know definitively that Susan Rice, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton – anyone who mentioned the YouTube video as the cause – was lying.

The White House itself yesterday brushed aside questions about Benghazi, claiming that changes to the talking points were nothing more than “stylistic.” Really, Jay Carney? This comes after last week being told that Benghazi was “a long time ago.” If the administration is truly engaged in a relentless effort to brings those responsible to justice, they sure are hiding it well.

Anyway as explosive as the hearing was yesterday, the media reaction has ranged from laughable to absurd.

I mean, did you see the Tweet sent out by the Washington Post yesterday? I found it almost hard to believe it was real. The Tweet read: “Who's tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers wapo.st/18YFgKP”

People like TIME's Joel Klein is just another part of the lapdog media that is trying to brush this off as nothing more than “Republicans chasing their tails.”

To their credit, the Washington Post, the New York Times and others did cover the hearings, but is it sad that this seems unexpected? Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the TV networks.

Newsbusters did an analysis of coverage yesterday. Fox News was the first one to start airing the hearing live at 11:36am and aired the most unobstructed coverage. CNN finally started airing some of the coverage at Noon and MSNBC jumped in there a while later, but featured little of the live testimony, mostly a discussion among liberal guests. The three networks, CBS, NBC and ABC, did not break into regular coverage to air the hearing, according to Newsbusters.

Even before the hearing began, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd was already trying to downplay the hearing as basically a conspiracy theory and tried rationalizing the administration's actions. Chris Matthews apparently managed to go an hour yesterday without mentioning the hearing, but he finally did addressed it as “this thing called Benghazi.” This “thing,” Mr. Matthews, resulted in the death of four brave Americans. Last night, Rachel Maddow slammed Benghazi as nothing more than a conspiracy theory being pushed by the Republicans. This is what the media wants you to believe – they want you to believe that the search for the truth makes you a fringe conspiracy theorist.

And then finally, I find it sad that journalists exposing the truth such as Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News are supposedly singled out by her bosses for “wading dangerously close to advocacy.” Has this what we've come to? Pursuit of the truth, if it isn't the politically convenient truth, is suddenly labeled advocacy? That's amazing and if it's true, a sad statement on the state of the news media in this country today.

More hearings on Benghazi are expected, with more witnesses and perhaps revisiting some who have already testified or at least been interviewed. Any additional information exposed with continue to be pigeon-holed as partisan witch-hunting. That's the current political and media climate in which we are living.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Wed, 08 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Sean has the latest on the Benghazi hearings; CNS News' Terry Jeffrey on what the Benghazi hearings mean for the Obama administration; Rep. Gohmert and Rep. Lummis discuss the role of the House Oversight committee.

Iran

Wed, 08 May 2013 13:13:56 -0800

Christians in the Muslim World

Wed, 08 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has released its 2013 report. According to its own press release, “The Report highlights the status of religious freedom globally and identifies those governments that are the most egregious violators.” Among those that were already on the list of “countries of particular concern,” eight were recommended to be re-designated as such: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan. There were also seven other countries recommended to be put on that list: Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam.

You will notice a trend among these nations and that is that many of them are in the Middle East. The report singles out Iran among the most particularly egregious violators of religious freedom. Many of these countries target non-Islamic persons, subjecting them to torture, prolonged detention in horrific condition, disappearances or death.

As a result, Christians are fleeing the region in record numbers. The Chairman of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Leonard Leo, believes that in our lifetime Christians could disappear altogether from many countries within the region.

One of those countries is Egypt, which is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood. Some 100,000 Coptic Christians have fled Egypt in recent years. Why? Well for example, just last month Muslims attacked the sacred St. Mark Cathedral in central Cairo. They attacked with guns, machetes, stones and Molotov cocktails. It gets worse … video footage recovered from the attack shows that uniformed police watched the attack, but did nothing. From the report: “In Egypt, despite some progress during a turbulent political transition, the government has failed or been slow to protect from violence religious minorities, particularly Coptic Christians. The government continues to prosecute, convict, and imprison individuals for 'contempt' or 'defamation' of religion, and the new constitution includes several problematic provisions relevant to religious freedom.” And yet we continue to send F-16s, tanks and aid to Muhammad Morsi? Outrageous.

Egypt is not alone. In places like Mali, 200,000 Christians have fled since an Islamic coup in 2012.

I find it heartbreaking that so many Christians around the world are subjected to such atrocities, leaving them no other option than to flee their homes for the sake of their survival.

Benghazi testimony

Wed, 08 May 2013 13:09:05 -0800

Explosive Testimony from Benghazi Whistleblowers

Wed, 08 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

I believe that today was a defining day for the Obama administration and particularly for Hillary Clinton. After waiting nearly eight months to get more information on exactly what happened surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi, three brave whistle-blowers from the State Department finally told their stories to a Congressional committee. It was clear and embarrassing based on the questions from Democrat members of the committee that they were more interested in protecting Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and the administration rather than seeking information and the truth. With that being said, the minute-by-minute recount of what happened on September 11th from Greg Hicks (who became the highest ranking diplomat in Libya after Ambassador Stevens' passing) was absolutely riveting. Here are some of the important points we learned today from Greg Hicks, along with Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom.

According to Greg Hicks, from the beginning it was reported from Libya that they were under attack. Hicks says, “The only report was there was an attack, no protest.”

Hicks also clarifies many times, “The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya.”

Greg Hicks was directed by lawyers in the State Department not to speak individually with Congressman Chaffetz during his congressional delegation to investigate what happened in Benghazi. When a lawyer traveling with the delegation was excluded from a meeting in which he did not have proper security clearance, Hicks later received a phone call from Cheryl Mills, Chief of Staff for Hillary Clinton, who was upset that the lawyer was not allowed in the briefing. It is also important to note that in all his time as a public servant, Hicks had never been asked such a request.

We learned from Hicks that the hospital where Ambassador Chris Stevens was taken was controlled by Ansar al-Sharia, which claimed responsibility for the attack in Benghazi.

Capable response from Tripoli was ordered to “stand down,” to go and help those still under attack in Benghazi. Colonel Gibson was “furious,” saying to Hicks something to the effect of “This is the first time in my career when a diplomat has more balls than the military.”

When asked if the ARB report lets anyone off the hook, Greg Hick responded “yes” and pointed to presidential appointees. Hicks also states that he was “never” given the opportunity to review any of his testimony to the ARB, which would be against protocol.

Hicks also says in a conversation with Secretary Jones about why Susan Rice would blame the attack on a YouTube video, Jones replied, “I don't know.” Hicks: “It was very clear from the tone that I should not proceed any further.” Hicks later received counseling on his management style.

Greg Hicks was never interviewed by the FBI.

Mark Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau, was told it was 'not the right time' for special FEST – Foreign Emergency Support Team -- team to deploy during the Benghazi crisis. The expressed purpose of such a team is to act in times of foreign crisis. Thompson says: "I was concerned about it because it was a terrorist event, and we didn't respond to it as a terrorist event."

According to Nordstrom, security at our facilities in Libya did not meet standards, and because of the nature of our posts, the only person who can grant a waiver for employees to be in unsafe facility is the Secretary of State.

At the end of the day, the stories of the heroism and bravery told by Greg Hicks of those people on the ground in Libya who did everything they could to protect their colleagues was extraordinary. However, I remain furious over what I believe to be this administration deliberately lying to the American people in pursuit of power. Last night I talked with Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods who lost his life saving Americans during the attack in Benghazi. Mr. Woods says he has forgiven those who are responsible; I cannot yet say the same. But I do agree that what this all boils down to is credibility: Can we allow politicians of any political party to lie to the American people, to deliberately change the truth, in order to maintain power? The answer is not only no, but heck no.

It will be interesting, and likely frustrating, to see how this is covered by the lapdog Obama-mania media. Up until now, Fox News and talk-radio have been criticized for covering the Benghazi story. Leading up to today, when it became clear that the lapdog media couldn't simply ignore it, this is how they've begun to approach it: This is a partisan witch-hunt being pushed by the right-wing with the ultimate purpose of dismantling Hillary Clinton's chances of running in 2016. Really? The Obama-mania media cannot understand why today's hearings are so important to what many of us are simply seeking: The truth. We owe that to the memories of the four brave Americans who are now dead, we owe that to their families, we owe it to current and future public servants to know that they are safe and will be protected, and we owe that level of credibility to the American people.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Amanda Berry

Tue, 07 May 2013 09:43:38 -0800

Three Kidnapped Girls Found Alive

Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

If you haven't been following this story, its truly unbelievable. It takes place in Cleveland, Ohio. Three young girls were kidnapped separately by a sick man about a decade ago. The women are Amanda Berry (now 27) who was kidnapped in 2003 just before her 17th birthday; Gina DeJesus (now 23) who was kidnapped in 2004; and Michelle Knight (now 32) who was kidnapped in 2002 at the age of 20.

It was the heroic efforts of Amanda Berry and a neighbor Charles Ramsey which ultimately led to the women's rescue. When left alone in the house, Berry began banging and screaming at the front door. Luckily Charles Ramsey heard Berry, kicked in the bottom of the locked door and freed Berry. Berry then used Ramsey's phone to call the police in a chilling 911 call where she states, "Help me! I'm Amanda Berry. ... I've been kidnapped and I've been missing for 10 years and I'm here. I'm free now." The police arrived and rescued the other women and also found a 6 year old girl believed to be Berry's daughter. The women were all taken to the hospital to be evaluated and reunited with family and friends.

Three men have been arrested: Ariel Castro, 52, who lived at the home, and his brothers, Pedro and O'Neal, also in their 50s but living at a different location.

What an unbelievable story. We are all thankful that they are alive and can be reunited with their friends and family, though I can't even imagine the trauma they have endured over the last decade. I'm sure those chilling details will be released in due time.

Not a Flashback: Obama Jobs Tour

Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

After his big policy initiatives have failed and his poll numbers are dropping, Obama has decided to return to … the economy!

This week he will be traveling to Texas “to kick off a new focus on the middle class and economic growth,” according to the Washington Post. Kick off? A new focus? Didn't he claim to be focused on the middle class throughout his entire campaign? Didn't his administration “pivot” to jobs countless times in previous years? The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama doesn't have a clue how to grow our economy. If he did, then we wouldn't be where we are today.

I find it laughable that Obama is going to Texas for his focus on economic growth. While he absolutely has picked the right state, the policies in Texas that make it successful run entirely counter to Obama's national agenda! Texas has zero income taxes; Obama wants to increase taxes. Texas has a low regulatory burden; Costly regulations have increased under Obama, not to mention the regulations associated with ObamaCare. Texas has embraced our amazing energy resources; Obama won't even support obvious energy projects like the Keystone Pipeline. Texas has a balanced budget: Obama has added $6 trillion to our debt and his budget proposal never, ever balances.

I love how the Washington Post describes this trip as a “campaign-style jobs tour.” This is all this man can do – campaign! He is incapable of effectively governing, therefore he continues to campaign even as Commander-in-Chief.

The message of this tour is clear: Obama will blame the current economic climate on Congress. Just take a look at what Josh Earnest, deputy White House press secretary, said Sunday about the Texas tour: “Even though some in Congress are determined to create more self-inflicted economic wounds, there are things Washington could be doing right now to help American businesses, schools and workers.” This is all a part of the strategy, which I've told you about for months: In 2014, Democrats will be running against a “chaotic” Republican Congress that is incapable of getting things done. What they won't tell you, and what most low-information Americans likely don't even realize is that Democrats still control the Senate!

I don't expect much to happen for our economy with Obama's “new focus” on the middle class.

Ted Cruz

Tue, 07 May 2013 09:37:41 -0800

Demonization of Ted Cruz

Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

I've been saying that I believe there to be four young rock stars in the conservative movement. Those people are Marco Rubio (FL), Rand Paul (KY), Mike Lee (UT) and Ted Cruz (TX). I believe that they represent the future of the Republican Party, if they continue on their current principled paths. But this won't be easy.

These Senators have aggravated both Democrats and establishment Republicans. I guess that means they are doing something right; After all, Tea Party conservatives were not elected to go to Washington and be like the Republicans who were already there.

The person currently under fire is Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

While he has only been in Washington for a few months, he is the current object of frustration for many who do not appreciate his principles, coupled with his style.

Almost immediately, the Left promoted this idea of Ted Cruz being a modern-day Joe McCarthy. From the New Yorker to MSNBC, the early comparisons of Cruz to McCarthy showed just how scared these people truly are of his effectiveness.

But he hasn't made a habit of irritating just liberals. After supporting his colleague Rand Paul in a 13 hour filibuster, John McCain went on to call Cruz and Paul “wacko birds.” Remember that? While McCain did apologize for the comment, it was clear that these new guys weren't exactly being embraced by establishment Republicans. Recently Cruz revealed that Republican colleagues yelled at him “at the top of their lungs” over his willingness to filibuster gun control legislation.

So when you fail to stop someone from standing up for their principles, what do you do? You attack their ethnicity. That's where former Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson comes in. In the debate over immigration, apparently Cruz (who is Hispanic) falls on the wrong side, according to Richardson. The problem is that Ted Cruz is Cuban, yet because he does not support the current immigration reform plan, Richardson says that Cruz “should not be considered a Hispanic.” Oh, well I guess that it up to Richardson to decide? Obviously not. When asked about it by Fox News' Neil Cavuto, Cruz said that he would not engage in a mud slinging battle. Richardson has since offered clarification (not an apology) which read in part: “I think you should not be defined just as a Hispanic politician.”

Then yesterday we had Harry Reid call Ted Cruz a “schoolyard bully” on the floor of the Senate: “My friend from Texas is like a schoolyard bully. He pushes everybody around and is losing and instead of playing the game according to the rules, he not only takes the ball home with him, but he changes the rules that way no one wins except the bully who tries to indicate to people that he has won."

It's about time we sent people to Washington to challenge the process rather than submit to its encumbered ways. I personally think we need more Ted Cruz’s in Washington, and perhaps 2014 will prove a great way to add more conservative rock stars to my list.

NRA

Mon, 06 May 2013 11:45:52 -0800

Outrageous: NRA Members to Gitmo?

Mon, 06 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Over the weekend, I was privileged to speak at the 2013 NRA Women's Leadership Luncheon in Houston. I wanted to do this for many reasons but in part because I am sick of the bad rap that the NRA is being given. What many, particularly liberals, don't even realize is that the NRA is the single largest group in America that teaches gun safety. But this matters not to liberals who don't understand why Americans feel the need to even own guns, and some go as far as to believe that we shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

Anyway, there is a column floating around written by the editor of the Aurora Sentinel. There is no doubt that his community has been shaken by tragedy, but wait until you hear his suggestion. His column reads in part:

I have seen the light. After all these years, I now agree that it’s fruitless to give the benefit of the doubt to people who are so obviously corrupt, so clearly malevolent, so bent on hurting innocent people for their own sick gain.

No more due process in the clear-cut case of insidious terrorism. When the facts are so clearly before all Americans, for the whole world to see, why bother with this country’s odious and cumbersome system of justice? Send the guilty monsters directly to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity and let them rot in their own mental squalor.

No, no, no. Not the wannabe sick kid who blew up the Boston marathon or the freak that’s mailing ricin-laced letters to the president. I’m talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association.

He goes on to say that the NRA uses “the weapon of choice for all terrorist organizations, extortion.”

Honestly, it's a bit difficult to discern whether or not this man is engaging in hyperbole to prove his point, or if he truly feels like this is a logical solution to what he views as a problem. In this case, this editor has become hysterical when faced with principles and practices with which he doesn't agree.

Monday, May 6, 2013

Mon, 06 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Sean recaps his experience at the NRA convention this past weekend; Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Rep. James Lankford join Sean to discuss the latest on the Benghazi investigation; Michelle Malkin and Sean discuss the news of the day including the NRA convention.

Benghazi Spotlight

Mon, 06 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

This is a big week for those of us who have been searching for answers as to what really happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Furthermore, we want to know what happened leading up to the attack in the hopes that we can learn something from our failures to properly secure our diplomats and our property. We also want to know what happened in the aftermath of Benghazi; The administration's lack of forthcoming answers has led many to believe that there was a deliberate cover-up of the truth. If there was a cover-up, for what purpose? Was it to advance the Obama administrations' narrative that we no longer face a threat from radical Islam and that Islamic terrorism is on the decline? Was it to protect Hillary Clinton from criticism that her department or she herself didn't do enough to protect our diplomats, even after repeated requests for more security?

I know I'm not the only one with all of these questions. This is why this Wednesday there will be a hearing in the House Oversight Committee. Finally after eight months, we will hear from people within our own government who have been unable to speak publicly on the issue until now. These people are:

- Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya

- Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya

- Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau

Over the weekend, Chairman Darrell Issa talked with CBS' Bob Schieffer and revealed some of the information we can expect to learn in the hearing this Wednesday. Much of the explosive information comes from Greg Hicks, who was the second ranking diplomat in Libya at the time of the attack and perhaps the last person to speak to Ambassador Chris Stevens. Here are a few points from Hicks as revealed by Issa:

- Hick says, "I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go.” He also says, "I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning."

- According to Hicks, Chris Stevens' final report was “Greg, we are under attack.”

- Hicks never reported any kind of demonstration outside the mission in Benghazi: "I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate.” He says that "for there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens' front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable.”

He described Rice's blame on a YouTube video as “jaw-dropping.”

- He also points out the “immeasurable” impact of Susan Rice directly contradicting Libyan President Mohammed Magariaf, who said that same Sunday that "this was an attack by Islamic extremists, possibly with terrorist links," and that his government had "no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined." Hick says that Rice violated "a cardinal rule of diplomacy … and that rule is, never inadvertently insult your interlocutor.” Hicks says, “Magariaf has just lost face in front of not only his own people but the world. And, you know, my jaw hit the floor as I watched this … I have been a professional diplomat for 22 years. I have never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day."

- Hicks also believes that this direct contraction between Susan Rice and Libyan President Mohammed Magariaf played a role in delaying the FBI's ability to get to Benghazi and get some answers.

CNN has also learned that Greg Hicks believes the State Department's internal review (which is now being reviewed) “let people off the hook.”

Over the weekend, Democrat Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts told Fox News Sunday that the Benghazi talking points were scrubbed: “It was scrubbed, it was totally inaccurate, there’s no excuse for that.” That leads to two big questions: Who changed the talking points and why?

The Weekly Standard released copies of the various stages of the talking points. The information cited by the Weekly Standard was based off of a 43-page House report and official email records. According to the Weekly Standard, the process to change the talking points “involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.” The Weekly Standard describes their findings as “fresh evidence .. that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults.” The final talking points are “scrubbed” of any mention of al Qaeda's known involvement.

Fox News has also learned the following about the Benghazi attack: “On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a 'whistle-blower' witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress.” That whistle-blower is Mark. I. Thompson and he is quoted as saying, “You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night.” A separate official has voiced a similar complaint about Hillary Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy. But as Joel Pollak at Breitbart points out, “Democrats have a clear agenda: protect Hillary Clinton at all costs.”

Benghazi

Mon, 06 May 2013 11:40:59 -0800

Military dog

Fri, 03 May 2013 15:20:45 -0800

Friday, May 3, 2013

Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Amy Kremer, Founder and CEO of Tea Party Express, responds to the comments by Harry Reid that members of the tea party want anarchy.; Willie Robertson, host of Duck Dynasty, on staying true to his faith and values; Mike Ritland, Author of Trident K9 Warriors, discusses the amazing resources of bomb sniffing and Military working dogs; Jen Thompson and David Altrogee discuss their documentary, 3801 Lancaster; Billy Hallowell with an update on the Kermit Gosnell trial

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Thu, 02 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Sean explains why he'll be giving a speech to the NRA on Friday; Ann Coulter joins Sean and shares her opinions on gun rights and gun hating radicals; Steve Emerson, Michael Youseff, and John Matthews discuss the recent arraignment of 3 additional suspects in the Boston bombings

Obama frown

Thu, 02 May 2013 12:38:27 -0800

The Leadership Vacuum

Thu, 02 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

As we've talked about the 100 day mark of Obama's second term, there seems to be a growing theme among those discussions: Obama is a failed leader who has lost his mojo. When asked during a press conference the other day whether he had “lost of his juice,” Obama responded, “Golly, maybe I should just pack up and go home.” Mr. President, I'll help you!

Ron Fournier in the National Journal writes, Obama Channels Clinton’s Worst Day in Office, Raises Doubts About Relevancy: “Even if you concede to Obama every point of his Tuesday news conference, a president looks weak and defeated when he shifts accountability to forces out of his control.”

Daniel Henniger in the Wall Street Journal writes, “What an uncertain world needs now is American presidential leadership. Instead, it's getting presidential followership.”

But Obama was supposed to be the Anointed One. His election was supposed to be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.” He himself has bragged that he is a better speech writer than his speech writers, he knows more about policies than his own policy directors, and he is a better political director than his political directors. The lapdog media fell for this, calling him the smartest president ever and that he had to take a step down just to become our president.

With all of this hubris and hype, what does Obama really have to show for it? Our economy is abysmal and his signature legislative victory – ObamaCare – is falling apart before our very eyes. Even Democrats are conveniently pushing back on ObamaCare. Couple that with the fact that no Democrats have clamored to sponsor Obama's budget proposal, and they themselves couldn't muster enough support to pass gun control legislation.

Without Obama as a true effective leader for the Democrats, who do they have left? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi, who is the most unpopular person in Washington? This lack of leadership has led them to the blame game. They can't publicly say that Obama has failed because this would look bad for Democrats, so they turn to … the Tea Party! Harry Reid doubled down on his comments last week about the Tea Party. He continues to compare them to anarchists. He says, “We can’t get things done. They don’t want anything to happen in government. We pass laws. They fight funding the laws we pass. They don’t want government to work. I want it to work.” The Tea Party didn't kill gun control, Democrats did. The Tea Party didn't propose sequestration, Barack Obama did. The Tea Party didn't force Obama to produce a ridiculous budget. The Tea Party wants effective, Constitutional things to get done in Washington. But since the Democrats themselves are lacking leadership and the ability to pass their agenda, they will blame it on the convenient scapegoat: The Tea Party. Unfortunately, Republicans aren't much better at responding.

Benghazi

Thu, 02 May 2013 12:36:00 -0800

Rise of Radical Islam

Thu, 02 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

I believe that Boston and Benghazi are testaments to this administration's failure to recognize that we are at war with radical Islamist jihadis. While this clearly doesn't fit into the Obama administration's narrative that radical Islam is on the decline and al Qaeda is on the run, his failure to recognize the real problem here is causing serious long-term harm to our security. Looking back through the prism of history, we will see how dangerous this time truly has been for America and the world.

We've had a lot of movement in recent days on both Boston and Benghazi. Let's start with Benghazi.

The administration has done everything it can to brush off Benghazi, hoping that those searching for answers will eventually just give up. Hillary Clinton famously shouted, “What difference does it make?” Earlier this week, White House spokesman Jay Carney brushed off Benghazi stating “It happened a long time ago.” Obama himself claimed earlier this week not to know anything about those who want to come forward and tell their story but are being blocked by his administration. But this week, Fox News has been airing an interview Adam Housley conducted with a special operator with intimate knowledge on Benghazi. This person wants to share his story, but at this point cannot fully reveal classified information. That all may change if lawyers attempting to represent these whistle blowers are finally cleared and these people can appear at a hearing on Benghazi to take place next Wednesday. Also this week, after eight months, the FBI suddenly decided to release photos of individuals wanted for questioning on the Benghazi attack.

On the Boston terrorist attack, Janet “Sherlock” Napolitano had declared that the Tsarnaev brothers were lone wolfs who acted alone. But now we get the news that three more people are in custody, going as far as to throw away evidence in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's dorm room and then lying about it to authorities. Information released from the interviews with these three college pals of Dzhokhar reveal that he had said a month before the Boston bombings that he knew how to make a bomb. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee has set a hearing from next week on the Boston bombings where hopefully we can learn and adapt from our intelligence failures. The fact that the FBI investigated Suspect 1 Tamerlan, the CIA put him on a watch list, the DHS was aware he went to Russia and then he had this YouTube page filled with radical Islamic jihadists … why weren't all these pieces put together or shared?

So we have these two stories moving simultaneously, along with another story that hasn't gotten a lot of attention: Taliban marks start of 'monumental' spring offensive with deadly attack. As Barack Obama has set a date for our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Taliban is ready to swoop in. Already, Americans have been targeted and killed by the Taliban including the first American diplomat since Ambassador Chris Stevens to be killed. From April 8, 2013:

Family, friends and State Department colleagues on Sunday were mourning the first death of an American diplomat on duty since Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11 last year.

Anne Smedinghoff, 25, was one of five Americans killed in a car bomb attack on Saturday in Zabul Province, Afghanistan, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday. Three of the dead were U.S. service members and the fifth a civilian employee of the Defense Department, Kerry said …

A sixth American civilian working with the U.S. government was killed in a separate attack in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, ISAF said in a statement.

Speaking of Afghanistan, did you see the recent Pew survey of Muslims around the world? It was a four year survey conducted in a total of 39 countries and territories on three continents. In Afghanistan, as well as Palestinian territories, about 40% of Muslims say that attacking civilians to defend Islam is often or sometimes justified. A majority of Muslims in several countries such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq and Palestinian territories believe that it is OK to stone someone to death in the cases of adultery or apostasy (converting from Islam).

This is not to say that moderate, peaceful Muslims do not exist but we cannot ignore the fact that radical Muslims do exist and are at war with us. The fact that this administration goes as far as to scrub FBI manuals and declare violence in the name of Allah to be “workplace violence” is dangerous and will not allow us to adequately address the problem. According to U.S. officials and private counterterrorism analysts, “The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s failure to recognize political Islam as a driver of jihadist terrorism is partly to blame for the FBI not identifying one of the Boston Marathon bombers in 2011 as a security risk.” We have become dumb on this issue, all in the name of political correctness.

Plan B

Wed, 01 May 2013 12:13:29 -0800

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

ObamaCare Implementation “Fine”

Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Yesterday during his press conference, the Anointed One gave us a long-winded response on the issue of ObamaCare. When faced with the fact that one of the chief Democrat architects of ObamaCare, Senator Max Baucus, has labeled its implementation as a “train-wreck,” Obama did what he usually does: Filibuster, blame, lecture, and rationalize without actually answering the question.

The latest polls show that 42% of Americans don't even realize that ObamaCare is the law of the land. Just 35% of Americans who apparently are aware of ObamaCare actually support it, and 53% of Americans want its implementation blocked or repealed altogether. This is after the administration has spent or will spend millions of your tax dollars on a PR campaign to sell ObamaCare to the American public.

It is clear that the Obama administration thinks that the problem is that Americans don't understand the law, not the law itself. Yesterday during his press conference, Obama said that many Americans are already experiencing the positive effects of ObamaCare, even if they don't know it.

What Americans also don't know, are the impending ObamaCare taxes that are about to hit them. Americans for Tax Reform lays out some of the more destructive ObamaCare tax increases that you will be paying next year on your 2013 tax returns – The surtax on investment income, Medicare payroll tax increase, medical devise tax, high medical tax bills, flexible spending accounts. Then comes 2014 when the highly disputed individual mandate goes into effect, penalizing you (taxing you) if you don't have health insurance. This also effects employers as well.

All of this is coming down the pipeline, yet we are somehow supposed to be grateful that the administration simplified its application form for health insurance from 21 pages to five pages for individuals or 12 pages for families? Wow, we are all impressed. I'm sure the three million Americans whom the CBO predicts will lose their health insurance in 2014 because of ObamaCare are eternally grateful that at least the form they will be forced to fill out is shorter. As for the lucky people who will get to keep their health insurance, they sure will be paying more for it. From the Wall Street Journal:

According to consultants from Oliver Wyman (who wrote on the issue in the January issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries), around six million of the 19 million people with individual health policies are going to have to pay more—and this even after accounting for the government subsidies offered under the law. For example, single adults age 21-29 earning 300% to 400% of the federal poverty level will be hit with an increase of 46% even after premium assistance from tax credits.

In the end, there is no doubt that this law and its implementation have been and will continue to be a disaster. Some believe that ObamaCare will eventually collapse under its own weight, and some even believe this to be by design in order to put in place a single-payer system, which is what some liberals have wanted all along. I'm not saying I believe that motivation to be the case, but we do need to think about what can be put in place if and when this law collapses.

Needless to say, ObamaCare will be a huge albatross around the necks of Democrats going into the 2014 election, no matter how much they try and pull away from it or pin the blame for its failure on others.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Sean discusses the release of Tim Tebow from the Jets and NBA player Jason Collins who announced he's gay; Lila Rose, founder of LiveAction.org, talks about abortions happening nationwide; Senator Jeff Sessions discusses loop holes in Gang of 8's proposal on immigration reform; Bill Simon, President and CEO of Wal-Mart, discusses their initiative to bring veterans to work when they come back from serving our country

Obama

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:34:14 -0800

Obama Press Conference

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

This morning, the president took questions from the lapdog media, which is something that doesn't happen all that often. He lectured the nation on a whole host of issue, taking just six questions and then wrapping up with a comment about Jason Collins, the NBA player who has revealed that he is gay. Here is a brief primer as to what we learned from this press conference …

Syria

Obama knows that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, but he apparently doesn't know how they were used, when they were used and who used them. This is why he claims he is taking his time to get the facts straight and not rush to judgement without hard evidence. He also says that if a “game changer” has in fact occurred, that this would mean we would then “re-think our range of options.”

Benghazi

Nothing to see here … move right along … I have no idea what you are talking about.

Boston

Senator Lindsey Graham is “not right” in stating that the administration and its intelligence failures are ultimately to blame for the Boston terror attacks. As for Tamerlan and his brother, they were nothing more than “warped, twisted individuals” who were self-radicalized. Note the words “radical Islamic jihad” were never used.

Sequester

Obama thinks that he still has some juice, adapting a quote from Mark Twain: “Rumors of my demise may be a little exaggerated at this point.” But all of our current troubles should be blamed on a “dysfunctional” Congress: I (Obama) exaggerated about the terrible, apocalyptic consequences of the sequester (that I proposed) but it was those evil Republicans who wanted to maintain tax loopholes for the rich and well-connected who are to blame. My job as president is not to get Congress to “behave.” We need common sense solutions, and the only solutions that the media should report as “common-sense” are mine. Got it?

Guantanamo

Even though Obama campaigned on the promise of closing Guantanamo, ultimately it is Congress' fault that it did not close. As for the hunger strike going on right now, “I don't want those individuals to die.”

ObamaCare

It's not that ObamaCare is a train-wreck, as some Democrats have described, it is just that people get “anxious” and “nervous” about implementing big laws. Most Americans are just too dumb to realize that they are already benefiting from ObamaCare, which is working “just fine.” Oh and by the way, you can thank me (Obama) later for making the ground-breaking decision to shorten the ObamaCare form to just three pages … see how easy it is? Oh and one more thing, those governors who are not creating their own state health exchanges are hypocrites because they love to preach about states rights but don't want to implement my hideously expense, burdensome plan at the state level.

Immigration

I won't sign anything unless it has a path to citizenship. Period. End of story.

Benghazi

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:42:00 -0800

Benghazi Whistleblowers Silenced?

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Last week I directed you to a congressional report which revealed damning information about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, which led to the death of four Americans. The report went a long way in shedding light on the lead up to the attack and what many believe to be the subsequent cover-up by the administration as to what really happened.

But there are people out there who have intimate knowledge of what happened in Benghazi. Where are they and why haven't we heard from them? The answer: Because this administration has intimidated them into silence, according to Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The threats seem to be directed toward the careers of these whistleblowers; Their futures would be jeopardized if they chose to come forward.

Toensing is attempting to represent Benghazi whistleblowers in preparation for a House Oversight committee investigation. The problem? The State Department is apparently refusing to give Chairman Darrell Issa the process in order to clear Toensing and present classified information. She claims that Chairman Issa has sent two letters asking for clearance for the process, but so far the State Department has refused to provide the process for clearance. In other words, these people are being denied representation and the ability to tell their classified stories for the purposes of this investigation.

When asked about this at his press conference earlier today, Obama gave a laughably short response claiming that he has no idea what this reporter was talking about. Yeah … right. Very convenient, Mr. President.

Victoria Toensing brought up an excellent point this morning on Fox News, which was the fact that the Boston terrorist has quickly been armed with a team of lawyers all at the tax-payers expense. Yet she cannot get cleared to represent these Benghazi whistleblowers, whom she is representing for free. A great point, which speaks to the apparent hypocrisy within this administration.

We also have reports thanks to Fox News' Adam Housley that help was available but did not deploy in order to save those being attacked in Benghazi. According to this special operations member who witnessed the attack, "I know for a fact that C110 was doing a training exercise not in the region of northern Africa but in Europe and they have the ability to react and respond.” He says they could have been there before the second attack.

Lila Rose

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:39:11 -0800

Outrageous: Abortion Horrors Revealed

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Lila Rose, the president of Live Action, has revealed disturbing and gruesome undercover videos involving abortion clinics in New York and Washington DC. These videos surfaced on the heels of the Gosnell trial, which was the cause of much firestorm … unless you rely on the mainstream media for your news, in which case you didn't hear much about it.

AUDIO: Listen to Sean's interview with Lila Rose

In the first video from an abortion clinic in the Bronx, you can hear the counselor actually tell the pregnant woman: “If it comes out, then it comes out … Flush it. Put it in a bag or something and bring it to us.”

In the case of the Washington DC abortion doctor, he essentially tells a woman that he would not offer any assistance to a baby who was born alive: “Let’s say you went into labor, the membranes ruptured, and you delivered before we got to the termination part of the procedure here, you know? Then we would do things — we would — we would not help it. We wouldn’t intubate. It would be … a person, a terminal person in the hospital, let’s say, that had cancer, you know? You wouldn’t do any extra procedures to help that person survive. Like ‘do not resuscitate’ orders. We would do the same things here.”

This doctor is DC, Cesare Santangelo, went on to describe the group that recorded the conversation “terrorists.”

Monday, April 29, 2013

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Sean escaped the White House Correspondents' Dinner again; Colonel Oliver North joins the show to talk about national security issues impacting America now; Tamara Holder and Jedediah Bila debate the Gosnell trial.

Syria car bombing

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:26:30 -0800

Situation in Syria Escalates

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

The situation in Syria became all the more real last week when it was revealed that chemical weapons were used against its own citizens. While the use of chemical weapons was once designated by the Obama administration as the “red line,” the administration has been cautious to respond. Barack Obama says that the administration is currently engaged in an “intelligence assessment” to determine definitely whether or not chemical weapons were, in fact, used.

Either way, it is clear that the situation is Syria is only getting worse. According to the United Nations, around 70,000 Syrians have been killed as a result of this civil war. In addition, over 1 million Syrians are now refugees, having fled the country. Fox News reported this morning that according to the CIA, over the last four years Syria has amassed vast supplies of mustard gas, sarin nerve agent and cyanide. It is described as one of the world's largest stockpiles of chemical weapons.

The problem is who has control or could potentially gain control of this stockpile. The New York Times had a report over the weekend on the complicated landscape in Syria stating, “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.” Also over the weekend we get reports like this: Al-Qaeda's battle for control of Assad's chemical weapons plant. This is exactly the type of thing that the administration and many in the region have feared.

So how should America respond, if at all? There seems to be a consensus that something needs to be done, but the level of engagement is obviously debatable. Many agree with John McCain who stated over the weekend that American boots on the ground in Syria would be the “worst thing United States could do.” Others like Senator Claire McCaskill say we can't rule that out.

But the fact remains that Obama drew a “red line” and has now failed to act when it seems that line has been crossed. This is not sitting well with many conservatives who fear what message this will send to Assad and other counties like Iran. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton wrote in the Wall Street Journal yesterday: “What has changed, if Mr. Obama allows his red line to be crossed unanswered, is that his latest act of foreign-policy fecklessness provides further proof to Iran, North Korea and other adversaries, whether states or terrorists, that he is not a force to be reckoned with.” Exactly. I fear that our enemies will no longer take us seriously, proving what they've suspected all along: That Barack Obama is weak and won't ultimately live up to his word, jeopardizing our national security as well as our allies.

Obama debt crisis

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:18:57 -0800

What Debt Crisis?

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

As millions of Americans continue to make do in the Obama economy, the president, politicians, comedians, the Hollywood elite and members of the media gathered over the weekend for the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner. It was just another self-congratulating display of opulence amidst an otherwise trying time for many Americans.

But this has become the norm under the Obama administration, which regularly displays an arrogant tone deafness as to how Washington's actions are viewed by the rest of America. I've chronicled the many vacations, parties and overall lavish lifestyle embraced by the Obamas. Did you know that according to a new report from the Government Accountability Institute, Barack Obama has spent twice as much time on vacations and golf than he has in meetings on our economy? According to Breitbart, “According to a new report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Institute (GAI), President Barack Obama has spent over twice as many hours on vacation and golf (976 hours) as he has in economic meetings of any kind (474.4 hours).” That should explain a thing or two.

It's no surprise then that the Obama recovery, due to his liberal policies, is failing. The Wall Street Journal puts things into perspective, considering the latest report on GDP growth:

“It's been 15 quarters since the economy hit its recession trough in June 2009. The growth rate (on an annual basis) has since averaged 2.1%, or half the 4.4% average rate of the past nine recoveries. The Reagan expansion averaged 5.3% through the same 15 quarters, according to the Joint Economic Committee. The current expansion's subpar growth performance explains why unemployment remains so stubbornly high and median household incomes after inflation are nearly $3,000 below where they were when the recession ended.”

This is the dismal result of failed tax-and-spend liberal policies. What's mind-numbing is that Democrats want to double-down on this approach, taxing even more so that they can spend even more! What will this lead to? Only more crushing debt and a stagnant economy. For some reason, liberals are incapable of making the connection between our oppressive debt and job creation.

If you can believe it, we actually have Democrats out there who seriously do not think that we have a debt crisis. Politico had a report over the weekend which said that “more Democrats such as Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine and Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen are coming around to the point of view that fiscal austerity, in all its forms, is more the problem than the solution.”

Austerity? This is absurd! We have almost $17 trillion in national debt. According to CNSNews, “Under President Barack Obama, the federal government's debt has increased by an amount per household that exceeds the annual median household income.” Think about that! At this rate, by the end of Obama's second term he will have accumulated as much as debt as all previous presidents combined.

Throughout the debate on gun control, Democrats were so eager to tout the fact that a majority of Americans wanted expanded background checks. Remember that? Liberals claimed that they have America on their side, even though just 4% of Americans think guns and gun control are an important problem facing the country. Yet liberals conveniently ignore any polling about America's debt crisis. Our debt, along with the economy and jobs, has consistently topped the charts of issues about which Americans are concerned. As recently as last week, a Fox News Poll found that “there is a clear consensus that debt is a concern. Four in 10 voters describe the nation's debt situation as a crisis, and more than 8 in 10 see debt as a major problem (43 percent), if not a crisis (40 percent).” But that doesn't really fit into the liberal political agenda, does it?

Friday, April 26, 2013

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Best Of Sean Hannity:

Pat Smith, mother of Slain Marine Sean Smith talks about the national security issues surrounding the Benghazi attacks; Paul Ryan stops by to talk about the Washington budget process and the future of America's economy; Lindsey Graham stops by to share his thoughts on what Washington can do to turn our economy around.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Sean reacts to the news that Boston Bomber suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had was read his Miranda rights only hours after his arrest; Senator Lindsey Graham reacts to the Boston Bombings and the lack of national security support; Billy Hallowell stops by to share an update on the Dr. Gosnell trial.

Outrageous: Crazy Uncle Joe

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Yesterday Joe Biden attended the memorial service for MIT police officer Sean Collier who was tragically killed by the Tsarnaez brothers last week. During his remarks, Crazy Uncle Joe made a comment that hasn't sat well with many Americans, including yours truly. He referred to the Boston bombing terrorists as “twisted, perverted, knock-off jihadists.” Here is a partial transcript of his remarks:

"Why? people say to me, for they surely know they can never defeat us, they can never overthrow us, they can never occupy us. So why? Why? Whether it's al Qaeda central out of the Fatah, or two twisted, perverted, cowardly, knock-off jihadis here in Boston. Why do they do what they do?"

Knock-off jihadists? What a way to delegitimize what is really happening here: Radical Islamists are at war with us. Everyday we are coming to learn more of the Islamist radicalism embraced by Tamerlan Tsarnaev, even texting to family in 2011 that he was “willing to die for Islam.” That is not knock-off jihadism, that is jihad: A holy war on behalf of Islam. To characterize it as “knock-off” is a slap in the face to all those who died or were affected by this tragedy.

But this is nothing knew to this administration. Obama himself refuses to say that the Boston bombings were the result of terrorists acting on their radical Islamist beliefs. He is incapable of saying the words “radical jihadists,” much less acknowledging that they are at war with us. Just look at Obama's failure to label the Fort Hood shooting as an act of radical Islamic terrorism. Even as the shooter yells “Allahu Akbar,” this president insists that this is simply a case of “workplace violence.” The inability of this administration to accurately identify what is really happening here has an effect on everything, as I discuss with Mayor Giuliani last night on Hannity. As he says, this administration has managed to “institutionalize political correctness.” All of this is to the detriment to our national security and our safety.

As Congressman Tom Cotton of Arkansas pointed out on the floor of the House, “In barely four years in office, five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state—the Little Rock recruiting office shooter.” What did all of these people have in common? I think you know the blatantly obvious answer that our president is too pathetically weak to admit.

As expected, liberals in the media and elsewhere are also afraid to advance the radical Islamist jihadi narrative. Instead they will search for other answers, anything but the obvious.

There is the ever-popular “blame America” crowd, which includes UN official and Princeton professor Richard Falk, MSNBC's Martin Bashir, and former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer.

Then there's the “blame boxing” crowd at Think Progress and Time Magazine.

There's the humanization crowd at the New York Times and the Washington Post, doing their best to paint the Tsarnaev brothers as just normal Americans who felt ostracized.

Then there's the Left's newly-found embrace of the “what difference does it make why they did it” line used by people like MSNBC's Chris Matthews. All of the sudden, liberals are very concerned about pointing fingers, jumping to conclusions and postulating as to why these brothers attacked Americans. Isn't this exactly what the Left was doing within hours of the bombing – Tax Day, Patriots Day, Hitler's birthday, right-wing extremists. Since none of these liberal explanations turned out to be true, suddenly we must pull back and be weary of pointing fingers and discussing a motive. How hypocritical. I guarantee that if the initial liberal postulating had turned out to be true, there would be no weariness to point fingers and explore motives connected to conservatives or the right-wing.

Parents of Boston Bombers

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:59:59 -0800

Anzor Tsarnaev, father of the suspected Boston bombers, brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, speaks with journalists as a mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva (R) looks at him during a news conference in Makhachkala on April 25, 2013.

Did We Compromise National Security?

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Every day we continue to learn more information about the Boston Marathon terrorists. Here are some of the latest disturbing developments.

According to Fox News' Megyn Kelly, the mother of the Tsarnaev brothers, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, knew as early as 2011 that her older son Tamerlan had been radicalized. This is because in 2011, Tamerlan sent messages to family in Russia saying that he was “willing to die for Islam.” This information came from two officials with knowledge of the Capitol Hill briefing given to lawmakers this week by the FBI.

The mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, spoke out at a press conference in the southern Russian city of Makhachkala, implying that all of this is some sort of conspiracy. She apparently believes that video shows Tamerlan did not die in a firefight with police, but was handcuffed and taken alive. She also says that according to what she's been told by Dzhokhar's lawyers, he is unable to speak, move, or write so any information we've learned from questioning is not true. She also says, “America took my kids away from me.” All of this comes after chilling comments yesterday, where Zubeidat Tsarnaeva told CNN: “If they are going to kill him. I don’t care. My oldest son is killed, so I don’t care. I don’t care if my youngest son is going to be killed today. I want the world to hear this. And, I don’t care if I am going to get killed too. And I will say Allahu Akbar!“

This is all pretty unbelievable, but it doesn't end there. Fox News' Megyn Kelly reports that the FBI was unhappy – she uses the word “stunned” – that the judge showed up to read Dzhokhar his Miranda rights within just 16 hours after he was in custody. FBI officials were under the impression that they would have 48 hours to glean valuable information from the terrorist due to the “public safety exception.” But something happened with the timing and their investigation was cut short. According to those two officials with knowledge of the FBI briefing on Capitol Hill, the FBI feels as though national security may have been compromised as a result. Officials tell the Associated Press that after being Mirandized, Dzhokhar stopped talking immediately. How was that allowed to happen?

Other information we've learned points to Dzhokhar getting money by selling marijuana, while his older brother Tamerlan and his family were supported by taxpayer welfare benefits for some time while he was being radicalized. Isn't that great?

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Sean responds to the news that the Boston terrorists were radical Muslim extremists, attending a radical mosque and receiving assistance from the government; Ryan Grim and Andy McCarthy discuss reaction of Tsarnaev brothers' mother and claims her children are being persecuted; Senator Rand Paul sets the record straight on when he thinks we should use drones; Phelim McAleer and John Hofmeister talk about the willingness of the Obama Administration to stall the keystone pipeline

Harry Reid

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:43:55 -0800

Outrageous! Harry Reid blames Tea Party

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

In a debate over sequestration cuts on the Senate floor yesterday, Democrat Harry Reid felt the need to blame the tea party. He actually compared the tea party to anarchists, saying that they were different in that they are not violent but they don't believe in government at any level. Harry Reid notes that the tea party doesn't say it is against government, but then he goes on to say that this is basically what it amounts to.

But that's not all! Harry Reid then went on to say the following: “They're not doing physically destructive things to buildings and people, directly, but they are doing everything they can to throw a monkey-wrench into every form of government … that's what it's all about.” Reid continues, “Government is not inherently bad; Government is inherently good. That's why we have a Constitution and that's what we direct the activities of this government based upon.”

Government is inherently good? Tea partiers are like anarchists, they don't believe in government? While tea partiers don't do physical destruction “directly,” they are trying to destroy our government and its proper process? This is the level of rhetoric we are getting from Democrats nowadays.

Boston

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:20:43 -0800

Police officers salute during the memorial service for slain Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) police officer Sean Collier on April 24, 2013 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Collier was allegedly shot by the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing, Dzhokh

Boston Bombing: Putting Together the Pieces

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

At this point, we now have more questions than we do answers about the Boston Bombing suspects, their ties to radical Islamists and how much our government actually knew.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has now been charged with two federal counts of using a weapon of mass destruction and could face the death penalty. With our national security potentially at stake, I disagree with the Obama administration's decision not to label Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, a designation which can later be dropped if it is determined that he has no broader terror network ties. The criminal case against him is a slam dunk; What we need/needed was enough time so as to glean any information about planned future attacks, anyone else who was involved or aided in their attack, any ties to larger terrorist cells, etc. Now he has been read his Miranda rights – He has the right to remain silent. Any information that he could possibly give us can now be zipped up and can be extracted only through legal proceedings with a lawyer. The Wall Street Journal asks an excellent question that lawmakers and the administration may need to revisit: “One question for Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama is whether they decided against enemy combatant status based on the evidence or their ideology.” If they have the evidence to prove that he is not involved with any terrorist network, then I wish we were told that definitively. Instead, we have Sherlock Janet Napolitano telling us that this is not part of a broader plot, but with what certain proof? I just think we need the time to better figure that out. Here's some of the information we do know …

According to the New York Times, “When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev spoke to investigators on Sunday, officials said, he indicated that he and his brother had learned to make the pressure-cooker bombs that they used at the marathon from Inspire, the online Al Qaeda magazine.” The Times goes on to report, “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev admitted to playing a role in the marathon bombings … and told federal agents that he and his brother were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs, when he was interviewed Sunday at the hospital, law enforcement officials said.”

According to USA Today, the brothers attended a mosque Cambridge (that has a sister mosque in Boston) with radical ties: “The FBI has not indicated that either mosque was involved in any criminal activity, but mosque attendees and officials have been implicated in terrorist activity.”

According to the family, as reported by several news outlets, Tamerlan had some mystery friend by the name of Misha who was apparently the one who steered the now deceased terrorist toward a radical strain of Islam. He was supposedly the one who convinced Tamerlan to give up boxing and put all these conspiracy theories in his head about 9/11. If this Misha is real, where is he and do we have anyone questioning him?

A report in the New York Post says that the man who was abducted by these terrorist the night Tamerlan was killed by gunfire and Dzhokhar went into hiding claims the brothers bragged about having more plans to attack New York City.

Perhaps the biggest source of controversy is over the acknowledged FBI investigation into Tamerlan in 2011 at the request of the Russians. The biggest question remains: What did the federal government know about Tamerlan Tsarnaev and why was there no follow-up? In the last few days, we've received conflicting evidence on what little we do apparently know. An FBI official is now saying that the government was not aware of his trip to Russia because of a misspelling of his name. However the Department of Homeland Security, according to Sherlock Janet Napolitano, says that the system did in fact alert them about Tamerlan's travel to Russia in 2012. A report from Reuters states: “The name of one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was listed on the U.S. government's highly classified central database of people it views as potential terrorists. But the list is so vast that this did not mean authorities automatically kept close tabs on him.” Perhaps we need to go back and evaluate the effectiveness of this TIDE list - "Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment." Also as Senator Lindsey Graham has pointed out, once the FBI had the pictures of these terrorist, shouldn't they then have been able to determine that at least one of them was in their databases?

At this point, the story about the potential failures within our system is a welcomed distraction to many, including the lapdog media, who do not want to discuss the real issue here: Radical Islamists. The radicalization of these terrorists, terrorists around the world and within the United States, is something that this administration has shied away from. Just look at the Obama administration and the FBI and how they've literally changed the language in regards to Islam, Islamist radicals, jihad, etc. We face a very real threat from radical Islamists. Politicians, the media, everyone should not be afraid to call it what it is. This administration is either too naïve or too politically correct to say it or acknowledge it. This is a very dangerous, pre-9/11 mindset.

These brothers were following a sick, twisted ideology that promotes the killing of infidels. They are at war with non-Muslims. The particularly scary part about the Boston Bombings is that these brothers proved that this war still exists and that it is possible to carry out attacks on small, soft targets in America; Could we in America face a future similar to that of Israel's, where they are constantly subjected to soft target terrorism on a daily basis? I'm not saying that this is our future, but this attack opened up that possibility where it seemed like it didn't exist before.

Then of course, the list of those who want to blame the United States continues to grow. Now we have Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Council's Palestine monitor saying the bombings were the result of “American global domination.”

Adding insult to injury, were Massachusetts taxpayers funding the terrorist plotting of these brothers? State officials confirmed to the Boston Herald that Tamerlan's family (he, his wife and daughter) along with both of Tsarnaev’s parents received welfare benefits from the state. Just infuriating.

Hillary Clinton

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:07:41 -0800

Benghazi Report Revealed

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

A new congressional report has been released, giving us more details on the terrorist attack in Benghazi which led to the death of four brave Americans. All-in-all, it doesn't look good for Secretary Clinton or the Obama administration.

The executive summary of the report reads in part:

“In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community in order to protect the State Department.

Contrary to Administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information. Concern for classified information is never mentioned in email traffic among senior Administration officials.”

The report confirms, “The U.S. government immediately had information that the attacks were conducted by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists, yet Administration officials downplayed those connections, and focused on the idea that provocation for violence resulted from a YouTube video.”

During a hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013, Hillary Clinton stated that she was personally unaware of requests for extra security in Benghazi. But the House report found the following (page 8): “On March 28, 2012, Ambassador Cretz [Chris Stevens predecessor] sends a cable to Secretary Clinton requesting additional security assets. On April 19, 2012, the response cable from the Department of State to Embassy Tripoli, bearing Secretary Clinton’s signature, acknowledges Ambassador Cretz’s request for additional security but instead articulates a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission.”

For those of us who have long been searching for answers as to what failures led to Benghazi and the subsequent lack of truthfulness in regards to what really happened, this report is down-right infuriating.

Rep. Greg Ball

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:21:47 -0800

Sen. Ball advocates torture of bombing suspect

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," April 22, 2013. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Emotions are running very high in the wake of last week's deadly Boston marathon bombing. And over the weekend, New York State Senator Greg Ball found himself in a little bit of hot water for suggesting that the authorities should torture the suspect that was taken into custody.

He posted a tweet, which read in quote, "So, (expletive) #2 is in custody. Who wouldn't use torture on this punk to save more lives?"

Joining me now, the lawmaker from the Empire State who posted that, New York State Senator Greg Ball. How are you? Welcome back.

STATE REP. GREG BALL, R-N.Y.: I'm really well. Blessed.

HANNITY: I don't believe enhanced interrogation is torture. I don't. We only water boarded three people -- most people don't know that -- and it was done under very strict guidelines, very limited amounts of times, medical supervision was there. Everyone forgets that part of it and they say we tortured, tortured. But Obama advanced that narrative. But enhanced interrogation, sleep deprivation, loud music --

BALL: Which by the way many of our own troops and intelligence officials go through.

HANNITY: That's right, they train. Ollie North was waterboarded as part of his training.

You are saying more enhanced interrogation?

BALL: This is what I said. Even Alan Dershowitz -- what a great name -- but he even agrees to the ticking bomb theory, that if you can save innocent American lives in those instances that those enhance tactics are indeed -- would be called for and could be used.

This is -- a lot of politicians are full of crap. They refuse to say what they really believe because, "Oh my God, if I say what I really believe I may not get re-elected again." Maybe this isn't a good part of my re-election strategy, but it's from my heart in saying if we can save an innocent American life --

HANNITY: Get the answers! What does he know? We need to know what he knows.

BALL: Right.

HANNITY: I'm angry about this Mirandizing that went on here. Let me give you an example. I was watching last week and there was a period of time when everyone in Watertown was told, go in your house and close your doors.

Now I lived in Rhode Island for five years of my life, and every time I go into Massachusetts, mandatory one year jail sentence if you have a gun. Most people in Watertown, I would tell you, because gun laws are so strict, they don't have guns.

So they are told to go into their homes, there's a terrorist with bombs and guns walking around your neighborhood, I'm thinking you are a sitting duck.

BALL: Sean, it's really scary if you look what is happening in politics today. I think people from various sides of the spectrum of looking at it. We're in these 30-second responses. If you look at the legislation that's passed, look at Cuomo's gun --

HANNITY: If I was locked in my house, I have seven bullets in my gun.

BALL: Look at Cuomo's gun legislation that he just rammed down our throats. We have retired law enforcement who are now criminals. We have active on duty military who are criminals. The New York Stock Exchange and other critical infrastructure in New York City, those private security guards have been turned into criminals.

HANNITY: Listen to Dianne Feinstein on this issue. What are the poor people supposed to do? There's a terrorist on your backyard, in your neighborhood, on the loose, we don't know where he is, just lock your door and by the way don't come out of your house. And if you don't have a gun, how do you defend yourself if he walks into your house?

Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "FOX NEWS SUNDAY")

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: Would people like to have had guns?

SEN. DIANE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: Some may have, yes. But if where you are going is do they need an assault weapon, I don't think so. As the vice president said --

WALLACE: Shouldn't they have the right to decide whatever weapon they feel they need to protect themselves?

FEINSTEIN: How about a machine gun then? We did away with machine guns because of how they are used. I think we should do away with assault weapons because of how they are used.

WALLACE: Semiautomatics, that's the most popular rifle in America.

FEINSTEIN: You can use a 12-gauge shotgun and have a good defensive effect and there's the element of surprise. Now you've got police all over the place in Watertown. So I don't really think that this is applicable. I think there are people that want to make this argument.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: She is clueless! The vice president is clueless!

BALL: For a U.S. senator to compare the effectiveness of a modern sporting rifle to a 12-gauge shotgun shows she's a complete idiot on this issue. She doesn't know the front end of a white tailed deal from the back end of a thoroughbred horse. And she's the one introducing legislation effecting legal, law-abiding sportsmen!

HANNITY: She ought to take a look on YouTube of some people shooting shot guns, and right back and boom! An AR-15, you don't have that kick.

BALL: I wouldn't want to have terrorists knocking on my door and to protect that with only a 12-gauge shotgun.

HANNITY: I have to get out of New York, only seven bullets in my gun. This state is taking people's rights away left and right.

I want these guys. I want them found as you do. I think this was a big mistake we made tonight.

BALL: Sean, it's scary where this country is going. I hope good Americans use this as a wake-up call and realize if this is the new norm we better wake up.

HANNITY: Senator, thanks for being with us. Appreciate it.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Sean has the latest on the Obama Administration's prosecution of the Boston Bombers; Francisco Hernandez, AJ Delgado and Manuel Roig-Franzia debate the power of politics in the discussion on immigration reform; Senator Joe Lieberman stops by to share his thoughts on last week's Boston bombing.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:28:51 -0800

Monday, April 22, 2013

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Sacrificing Freedom For Safety?; Should Tsarnaev be tried in civilian courts? Should he be mirandized? Jay Sekulow and Adam Winkler debate; Congressman Jeff Duncan; Sean asks Brigitte Gabriel, Mike Ghouse and Steve Emerson how the FBI could have determined Tamerlan Tsarnaev to be safe and not a threat to the country.

Boston police

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:10:54 -0800

2nd Bombing Suspect In Custody

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

The second suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing is in custody, after police found him hiding in a boat covered by a tarp behind a house in the Watertown section of the city, Boston police confirmed.

Police moved in on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday evening after tip led them to the home on Franklin Street, where he apparently had been hiding in the back yard. Neighbors said they heard more than 30 shots one likened to "a roll of firecrackers shooting off." Police swarmed the scene, and several explosions, possibly police concussion grenades, were heard after a robot moved in on the boat.

Sources told Fox News the shed and the boat had been searched earlier, but a woman noticed a door to it had been opened, saw blood and called police. The gunfire broke out when police went to search it, but it was unclear if any police were injured.

The dramatic development came just after police said their hunt for Tsarnaev, one of two radical Muslim brothers suspected in Monday's attack, had gone cold and urged people to "go about your business."

SOURCE: Fox News

Friday, April 19, 2013

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Wanted!

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:52:18 -0800

Terror in Boston Escalates Dramatically

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Things have changed dramatically since yesterday's press conference at 5pm. Most importantly we now know the identities of the two suspects, (white cap) Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, and (black cap) Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who turn out to be brothers.

This is an on-going, evolving story. Here's a rough timeline of how this all transpired ...

At 5pm yesterday, law enforcement held a press conference releasing photographs and video of two people they were searching for in the Boston bombings. They were identified by their white and black baseball caps, and they were asking for the public's help in identifying the suspects.

Around 10pm last night, two men robbed a 7-11 convenience store in Cambridge near the MIT campus.

At about 10:20pm police found an MIT police officer shot multiple times in his vehicle. That officer sadly died later of his injuries at Massachusetts General Hospital. His name was Sean Collier, 26, of Somerville. Our hearts go out to his family.

Shortly after, the suspects carjacked a Mercedes SUV in Cambridge at gunpoint. The man in the vehicle is held for about half an hour and then released at a gas station in Cambridge. He was unharmed, but some reports say that the man says the carjackers bragged that they were the Boston bombers.

Around 1am this morning, police locate the stolen Mercedes SUV in the town of Watertown, Massachusetts. A chase ensues through a residential neighborhood when some sort of explosive devices are thrown from the car. Gunfire is then exchanged with police, where a transit police officer is seriously injured. One suspect, the older brother in the black cap, is critically injured and later pronounced dead. He appeared to have shrapnel in his body, leading some to believe he had some sort of explosive device, other reports say that he had an explosive trigger on him. The younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, escapes.

Around 4am, police confirm that the events that night/morning were in fact the doings of the Boston marathon terrorists. As a result, throughout the wee hours of the morning, police began going door-to-door throughout Watertown and surrounding areas looking for the second suspect, the younger brother in the white cap. Public transit service was suspended.

After 6am we learned the names and the relationship of these two terrorists: Brothers. The older brother (the man in the black cap in the original FBI photos) was identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26 years old. He has died. The younger brother in the white cap was identified as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19 years old, remained on the loose.

About 10am it is confirmed that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 19-year-old suspect, was a registered student at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, which went into lockdown and evacuated the dorm in which he was said to have lived.

Around 11:30am an uncle of these terrorists, Ruslan Tsarni, gave an emotional interview telling Dzhokhar to "turn yourself in and ask for forgiveness … ask for forgiveness from these people." He said he brought shame to the family and shame on the entire Chechnyan ethnicity.

Throughout today there have been several instances where gun fire or explosions have been heard.

Here are some stories related to the events from last night and what we are coming to learn of these terrorists:

Slain MIT Police Officer Identified As 26-Year-Old From Somerville (CBS Boston)

'I don’t understand them,' bombing suspect said of Americans (Fox News)

They're 'trying to kill me!' Store clerk recounts carjack victim's escape (Fox News)

Boston Bomb Victim in Iconic Photo Helped Identify Suspects (Bloomberg)

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev attended same high school as Matt Damon, Ben Affleck (Fox News)

Ties between Islamic extremist groups and Chechnya well-documented (Fox News)

(Unconfirmed) YouTube account that belongs to a person named Tamerlan Tsarnaev had bookmarked videos on terrorism (Washington Post)

Boston suspect's web page venerates Islam, Chechen independence (Reuters)

Insight: Brutality, anger fuel jihad in Russia's Caucasus (Reuters)

Chechen leader on Boston suspects: 'Seek the roots of evil in America' (Foreign Policy)