The Sean Hannity Show - Authors

Monday March 25 2013

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:02:25 -0800

Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter,

Bob Woodward

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:55:53 -0800

Betsy McCaughey

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:21:28 -0800

Tuesday February 19 2013

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:19:16 -0800

Monday February 04 2013

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:23:41 -0800

Pat Buchanan,

Monday January 14 2013

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 08:26:35 -0800

Ann Coulter,

Friday January 04 2013

Fri, 04 Jan 2013 14:33:49 -0800

Pat Buchanan,

Monday December 31 2012

Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:17:49 -0800

Mark Simone

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 14:43:59 -0800

Friday December 28 2012

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 05:56:30 -0800

Ann Coulter,

Deneen Borelli

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 05:52:52 -0800

Tuesday December 18 2012

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:15:38 -0800

Pat Buchanan,

Melissa Francis

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:53:15 -0800

Monday November 26 2012

Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:47:40 -0800

David Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich,

Oliver North

Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:56:17 -0800

Oliver North: Heroes Proved

Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:41:32 -0800

Benghazi Scandal Tightens Sean spent some time talking about Oliver North’s eerily predictive new book, “Heroes Proved,” which details a fictional scenario; it’s the year 2032 and the NRA has been outlawed, the military gutted and conservative Christians are labeled activists, the White House is occupied by a progressive regime who’s focused on the upcoming election,” began Hannity, “Where did you get all this from?”

“It starts out with a terror attack with an administration that lies about who did it, sound familiar,” laughed North, “I don’t have the gift of prophecy but I certainly hope the rest of this doesn’t come through.” “This is a wake-up call,” a more serious North explained, “Hopefully people will take some courage from this and reengage in this process because what’s happening in this world, not just in that novel, is very dangerous.”

During the Thanksgiving holiday, if you haven’t already, you should definitely check out Colonel North’s book, “Heroes Proved” and let it be an entertaining glimpse into what America’s future could be if we’re not careful in the decisions we make.

Click here for more on "Heroes Proved."

Tuesday November 13 2012

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:42:40 -0800

Thursday October 25 2012

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:15:20 -0800

Bob Woodward

Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:56:52 -0800

Monday October 08 2012

Mon, 08 Oct 2012 10:45:18 -0800

Dick Morris, Ann Coulter,

Tuesday September 25 2012

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:50:40 -0800

David Horowitz, Dick Morris,

Ann Coulter

Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:47:33 -0800

Mugged

Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:47:07 -0800

Sean spoke with columnist and author Ann Coulter about her new book, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama.”

“This isn’t a story about black people—it’s a story about the Left’s agenda to patronize blacks and lie to everyone else,” Coulter said discussing the topic of her new book. Our “pos¬t-racial” president has returned us to the pre-OJ era of nonstop racial posturing. A half-black, half-white Democrat, not descended from American slaves, has brought racial unrest back with a whoop, Coulter explained.

In “Mugged” Coulter explains the real his¬tory of race relations in this country, including how white liberals twist that history to spring the guilty, accuse the innocent, and engender racial hatreds, all in order to win politically.

For more on Coulter’s new book, “Mugged,” please click here.

Monday September 24 2012

Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:37:44 -0800

Ann Coulter,

Wednesday September 19 2012

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:23:02 -0800

Mark Levin,

Tuesday September 18 2012

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:53:24 -0800

Peter King, Michelle Malkin,

Monday September 17 2012

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:12:50 -0800

Pat Buchanan,

Sh*tty Mom: The Parenting Guide for the Rest of Us

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:11:40 -0800

Sh*tty Mom: The Parenting Guide for the Rest of Us

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:10:50 -0800

Sh*tty Mom is the ultimate parenting guide, written by four moms who have seen it all. As hilarious as it is universal, each chapter presents a common parenting scenario with advice on how to get through it in the easiest and most efficient way possible.

With chapters such as “How to Sleep Until 9 A.M. Every Weekend” and “When Seeing an Infant Triggers a Mental Illness That Makes You Want to Have Another Baby,” as well as a Sh*tty Mom quiz, this is a must-have, laugh-out-loud funny book for the sh*tty parent in all of us.

For more please click here.

Ann Coulter

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:54:13 -0800

Friday August 17 2012

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:26:41 -0800

Karl Rove,

Tuesday August 07 2012

Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:51:31 -0800

Jay Sekulow,

Tuesday July 17 2012

Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:11:56 -0800

James Carville,

Sean Responds to Patrick McEnroe

Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:20:46 -0800

A few weeks ago, Sean wrote an open letter to the US Tennis Association, describing a destructive bureaucratic/political force within the USTA that, frankly, is in the process of hurting junior tennis and, consequently, the future of American tennis. You can find Sean's original post here.

After Sean's letter was posted on Hannity.com, Patrick McEnroe responded publicly on the USTA website.

Within the statement was a 17-page "point by point" response from Timothy Russell, the Chair of the USTA's National Junior Competition Committee critiquing Sean's complaint.

Below, is Sean's response to McEnroe. Advantage Hannity.

-=-=-=-

Dear Mr. Russell,

I appreciate your 17-page response to my comments posted on my website, Hannity.com, about the USTA's proposed changes to the National Junior Competitive Schedule. Frankly, I have been shocked at the flood of responses to my letter, and with the overwhelming numbers of people who are thanking me for saying what they all believe privately. This includes players (some of whom are the highest ranked in the country), parents, coaches, tennis facility owners, tournament directors and officials, college coaches and many others who share our passion for the sport.

You stated that you would have preferred to speak with me personally but were unable to reach me on my nationally syndicated radio show, which fields calls from among my 14 million listeners within a 3-hour period on a daily basis. Because you could not reach me this way, you said you were "compelled" to speak out publicly. I found this a bit odd considering that the introduction to your response came from Patrick McEnroe who had already sent me a personal email a week earlier and invited me to meet with him on this matter after he returned from Wimbledon. You did copy Mr. McEnroe on your letter to me and he does have my private email. Please feel free to email me any time at your convenience. I have always been, and will continue to be, available for personal or email conversations with you that this issue may require.

I have to admit first of all that I am disappointed over your lack of comprehension of the main points in my letter. While I am certainly impressed with your Ph.D., and your background in musical talent development, I am stunned at the tone deafness you display on the issue we are discussing here today – that of the future of junior tennis development. I am also rather disheartened that you felt you needed to resort to both personal and politically-tinged ad hominum attacks against me, however sarcastic and/or subtle they might have been. This, I am accustomed to and, frankly, I am immune to it. I am just surprised that a high-ranking USTA representative, discussing a matter having nothing to do with my political views, would sink to that level, especially when you expressed a desire to “agree to disagree.”

I am perfectly capable of fighting fire with fire, as I’m sure you can imagine. That is part of what I do for a living “in my world of politics,” as you reference so often, and which you seem to have a problem with for some reason. Whatever the case, I would rather suggest to you that we stay on topic, and focus on what is really important here – the future welfare of junior tennis for EVERY American kid with the desire to play this great game.

With that said, I am disappointed mostly, and overall, with your rote regurgitation of the same old USTA talking points. To be sure, the points you make in your letter in defense of these USTA national schedule changes are all-too familiar to the considerable numbers of players, parents, coaches and tennis officials across this country who have contacted me or with whom I have spoken to personally.

Everyone I have been contacted by in the USTA’s junior tennis membership has read and digested the 17-page, public response you sent me. But let me be clear: Your response in no way changes the landscape of the widespread outcry against the USTA on this matter. In fact, many of your points have heightened the opposition against you. And some of the more egregious comments you made have only served to make our case stronger, all of which I will soon address. The bottom line, still today, remains: The wide swath of the American junior tennis community I have spoken with or heard from on this matter does NOT support these changes.

I will begin here, with my rebuttal. You state a number of times in your letter, Mr. Russell, the following:

Please know that the new national tournament structure was not simply approved by the USTA Board of Directors alone as you indicate; the new structure was approved overwhelming by the entire Association – the USTA Board of Directors, Past Presidents, Presidential Appointees, and 16 of the 17 USTA Sections. In your world of politics, it was a landslide victory, a “mandate.” My guess is that November’s upcoming elections will not witness this kind of percentage in any race or consensus regarding any issue. …

Mr. Hannity, once again let me point out that 16 of the 17 Sections voted for this proposal, including your Eastern Section. I would respectfully submit that the 16 Sections that voted overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal also “painstakingly analyzed it.” This project has probably been one of the most closely vetted initiatives in recent USTA history. In the Sectional vote it was 16-1. In your world of politics, or any world,
that is a landslide victory!

With all due respect, your analogy is simply immature and absurd. This "landslide victory" as you call it was voted on ONLY by people within the USTA bureaucratic community. THIS IS THE ELECTORAL EQUIVALENT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CABINET VOTING FOR HIM FOR RE-ELECTION!! Yes, a “landslide” indeed! It is unbelievable to me and to everyone else in the tennis community opposed to this dictatorial edict (in keeping with your own political analogy) that you would build your case on this kind of defense! On this point alone, you have lost your credibility in the entire debate and have illustrated the very problem the American tennis community has with you. You seem to be proud of the fact that those within the USTA bureaucracy have handed THEMSELVES down such a landslide victory.

By and large, the bureaucrats within the USTA are the only “voters” in favor of these changes -- and even THAT is not completely true, as you will see soon enough. But what you are touting here, basically, is that the USTA has orchestrated its OWN landslide victory! What kind of victory is that? And for whom, really, is it a victory? Certainly not the junior tennis players for whom the USTA exists to develop.

It is this kind of INTERNAL “landslide” victory that you have highlighted here that illustrates EXACTLY what is wrong with your whole process, and why the tennis community feels the way it feels about the USTA. As I noted earlier, with the “landslide” victory you are so proud of securing for yourselves, YOU are making our point for US, the many who disagree with you.

Let me be blunt and tell you exactly what that point is, and what people are telling me privately about the USTA:

1. Tournament directors and tennis facility owners are against these "new rules" but are afraid to "speak out" in fear of retribution. They fear the USTA will pull tournaments from them if they disagree, which will adversely affect their livelihood. They believe the USTA operates as a monopoly and there is little they can do about it.

2. Many parents have expressed to me fear of retribution from the USTA. They have told me they believe any chance of a future wildcard position for their player could be taken away, that their kids may be removed from your training centers, and that other consequences they fear cause them to remain silent in opposing what they believe is a terrible idea for junior tennis.

3. Many of the section leaders (those you tout as being part of your landslide victory) have, in fact, told me they have been bullied, pressured, and frankly "forced" into going along with the proposed changes.

Generally speaking, the consensus is that the USTA is tone deaf, arrogant, and attempts to silence opposing voices by attacking and belittling those who dare to speak up. And by highlighting this internal, self-mandated, “landslide victory” through which the USTA is passing down these new changes, Mr. Russell, I believe a case can be made that there is more truth than not to the fears and negative feelings the tennis community is reporting.

Though I am certain you will disagree with the statements above, I have a proposal for you. If you and the USTA are so confident that your new rules are so popular and so necessary for the future health of junior tennis and, specifically, for junior tennis players -- and if you really believe in your "landslide" mandate for these changes, then I suggest YOU PROVIDE THE USTA JUNIOR PLAYER MEMBERSHIP AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN BY VOTING ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT DECISION YOU HAVE HANDED DOWN. I propose that a credible (non-partisan) survey organization (Gallup, Pew) be hired to survey the parents of every section (top 100) in each age group and ask them simply if they approve of a 75% reduction in opportunities to play national tournaments outside of their individual sections, or whether they would prefer to leave the current (2012), although still "reduced," opportunities in place.

I am certain you would want to hear directly from the very people who will be impacted by such a radical reduction in opportunities. And to make this decision to conduct a survey easier for you, I am willing to donate a considerable amount of money for this study IF (and only if) you are willing to abide by the majority consensus of the membership that you are dedicated to serving. In my world of “politics,” Mr. Russell, which you inexplicably reference so often in your letter, THIS is how elections are run. I will patiently await your response to this suggestion and my offer.

Moving on, you state in your response letter the following:

Once again, if the current system is so good, why are you and others bemoaning the U.S. position in the tennis world?!
In the next paragraph you describe how not overturning the recent vote “could affect a whole generation of U.S. tennis players.” At this point I will agree, but suggest a different outcome. As the new system will be implemented in 2014, the next generation of young American junior tennis players will be far better off. We will have many more and better players. And, personally I hope that your children will be two of them. You speak of “killing the future of the sport.” If the current state of American tennis is what you (and others) want to continue then let me respectfully submit that your view of a successful future is markedly different than ours. I am very confident that in ten years our sport and American rankings will be in a much better place.

As for these statements, I would like to point out that it was the USTA that designed this system, and it is YOU who claim that it is NOT working. Your entire argument is based on the notion that kids need to play more "local tournaments" and to train more, etc.

My question to you is "WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG?" If, 10 years from now (when, by the way, you and Patrick McEnroe are long gone from your current positions) we discover that this proposed reduction was a mistake, what then?

In Patrick McEnroe’s response to Wayne Bryan's letter, Mr. McEnroe stated, "The world has changed, and tennis has changed with it. Tennis is simply not the same sport that it was 20 years ago -- even 10 years ago. Tennis is a much more global sport today… My specific charge is to help produce more top 100 players with the goal that we have more of them competing into the second week of the majors. … Achieving that goal is at least partly reliant on getting more young people involved in the sport."

I agree with Patrick McEnroe on this, and this is one of the main points/themes we are trying to make in this debate. But how can you achieve this goal (if what Mr. McEnroe says to Mr. Bryan is still a USTA goal) of “getting more young people involved in the sport” if you are reducing national play opportunities for juniors by 75 percent? Mr. Russell, the bulk of this debate really boils down to that one main fact, does it not? In essence, how can anything by any junior player, anywhere, ever be accomplished for the future of American tennis going forward – whether it’s in the next five years or 25 – if hundreds and hundreds of players are literally excluded from being able to play in your (also now reduced number of) national tournaments? It mystifies me and everyone else I hear from when I see nearly 1,000 players in any given month sitting on waiting lists for your tournaments, hoping and praying to get in, no matter how far or wide they will have to travel, just to be able to compete. But I will address that point in greater detail soon enough.

Mr. Russell, you seemed particularly interested in accusing me of supporting the idea of individual entitlement for our junior tennis players. This is a typical bedrock position of liberal thinking, and a mindset against which I have railed my entire career in broadcasting (as you must know). On this subject, you either completely misunderstood what I was communicating to you or you were attempting to create some kind of “entitlement mentality” smokescreen to deflect from your indefensible positions.

Whatever the case, I will try again to educate you on this matter. First of all, I never used the word “entitle” or any form of that word, nor did I imply anything about entitlement. It is ludicrous that you would suggest as any kind of a thoughtful and intelligent response to my points that lower level players would think they are “entitled” to play Roger Federer. Obviously, this is NOT what I was saying. It is even more ludicrous that you would take my arguments and somehow think that responding “Not every American gets their own nationally syndicated TV and/or radio show” would be any kind of a meaningful, reasonable thing to offer. I won’t dignify that statement from you by discussing it any further, except to add, again, that your defensive, sarcastic, and inappropriately personal responses nullify your own credibility as someone who might be willing to openly and thoughtfully engage in this discussion, as well as the credibility of the USTA’s position on these new rule changes.

The tennis community reading all of this certainly understands that you, Mr. Russell, would have loved to have played in the most recent Wimbledon championships even though you are not qualified to do so, as you shared with us all. But we also know that this kind of sarcasm from you in no way addresses what we are trying to discuss here. Again, this type of attitude you display, which was NOT lost on any of the hundreds of people who contacted me about this matter in the last two weeks, is yet another layer of the arrogance we are all experiencing with the USTA.

In your letter, on this nonsense you advanced about “individual entitlement,” you said the following:

While you state that you “would prefer free market competition” it seems that you, and others, want individual entitlement.

This concept of “exposure” is a non-starter as far as I am concerned. You earn your way to play the top players! Again, I would love “exposure” to Roger Federer in a competitive event, as would many lower level pros. Players have to earn their way to compete against Roger Federer and other top players. The logic is flawed that believes that a “lower ranked” junior is “entitled” to play the No. 1 ranked player, or a Top Ten player, in their age group at a 192 national championship because “I paid a lot of money to accumulate my national points” by flying around the country to insure that I am top 200. If you disagree with my/our position so be it. But, in the pros, those in the “futures” have to win before they compete in the “challengers,” and then win again in the “challengers” before gaining access to the WTA and ATP Tours.

I must confess that the next statement might actually be the assertion with which I am the most amazed. You actually wrote: Lower ranked players will not get to play national events at all and, in all likelihood, will understandably lose interest in pursuing the game. Why should low ranked players even get to play at national events?! Every youngster is not entitled to be a nationally ranked player! I love tennis and I am not in the Wimbledon draw this week. Not every college graduate can go to medical school. Mr. Hannity, I am amazed that you and others believe that all players are entitled to compete on the national stage. Not every American gets their own nationally syndicated TV and/or radio show. Politically speaking, if you will permit me such a reference, since you started your column professing your passion for politics . . . what the national Junior Competition Committee proposed, and the USTA adopted, you might actually consider very “Republican.” We created equal access, and equal opportunity, but no entitlement. Players will have to earn their way. Winners advance. This is actually very “American,” a very “bi-partisan” approach . . . to be cheered by tennis playing Democrats and Republicans alike. Not everyone is “entitled” to play nationally, whether you have the financial resources or not.

Again, I won’t dignify the political jabs and chip-on-your-shoulder-type sarcastic remarks about Republican vs. Democrat, or whatever that is you’re trying to do. Instead, I will point out that in Patrick McEnroe’s letter to Mr. Bryan, Mr. McEnroe states, “The USTA has a clearly defined mission -- to promote and develop the growth of tennis. The USTA wants more people on more courts in more places; that is our charge as an association.”

The crux of my letter about retaining the current national schedule opportunities (though even the current events have been reduced) is literally about keeping “more people on more courts in more places,” as Mr. McEnroe says himself. It is simply not true that I am advancing an “entitlement mentality.” What I AM advocating for is the USTA’s own stated goal of allowing more opportunities for more players. I have already noted that your “entitlement mentality” argument is ineffective on its face because of the ridiculous nature of it all, to say nothing of its mean-spirited and desperate nature. Do you even know how points are accumulated?

Mr. Russell, it is simple. Let me educate you now as to how your own current system works. To acquire national points, a player has to compete in sectional matches against the top kids in his or her section. In those sectionals, a player has to WIN matches against the top players. If they win, they do, in fact, earn their way into national matches. This sounds a lot to me like your “earned advancement.” It sounds like achievement. It sounds like hard work. What your own current system sounds like to me, Mr. Russell, is NOT an entitlement system. It sounds like Mr. McEnroe in his letter to Mr. Bryan about the USTA’s defined mission of “promoting the GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT of tennis.” In your haste to accuse me of advancing an “entitlement mentality,” you somehow missed what I was saying; what your own organization and its president have always said and held as a goal. More kids on more courts in more places, earning their way into your tournaments.

The only problem with your goal is, the USTA is now reducing the number of national matches, and the numbers of players allowed in those national matches by 75 percent. Now, I ask you, does this sound like anyone wants, or is going to get, any kind of “entitlement” to you? In every case, these are hard-working, high-achieving, earned-advancers that you, yourself, say you are looking for. These kids are all working and striving for opportunities that you will soon DENY them. Where is the GROWTH in that? Where is the DEVELOPMENT? The players who work hard, win, and earn their way into the nationals DO advance in your current system, Mr. Russell. Nobody is playing in any national today who hasn’t played and earned his or her way there.

But this is not about anyone being “entitled,” really, is it? This is clearly about USTA politics. The fact that you have stooped to accusing me of having an “entitlement mentality,” when certainly you know better, is just downright disingenuous. Frankly, your arguments can only be seen as desperate attempts to avoid hearing directly from the people who are going to be affected by your “edict.”

You know, Mr. Russell, if USTA officials need to readjust their own point system to remedy any abuses, they should simply just readjust it. But under your new system, you have slashed and burned the number of spots and tournaments down so low, the mere OPPORTUNITIES for kids to work hard, earn and advance has been all but destroyed. Remember your stated goal, GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT.

You use the Olympics as another analogy in your letter, when you write:

Take, for example, the upcoming Olympics. The Olympic singles draws will be comprised of 64 players, not the usual 128 found in Grand Slam® events. Where are the countless tennis blogs complaining about that “opportunities have been reduced?” Who should be able to play in the Olympic singles competition (i.e., the selection process, an issue found in junior tournaments as well)? Only four players from any one country are allowed to compete in the Olympic singles event. Consider the unfortunate circumstance of Feliciano Lopez of Spain. As of this week’s ATP Tour rankings he is ranked #17 in world in singles. That noted he will not be competing at the Olympics in the singles competition. (He will be competing in doubles.) Some may say that this is not fair. But it is the reality. In Spain Lopez is only the country’s fifth best player. The current rankings for higher ranked Spanish players are Nadal = # 2; Ferrer = #5; Almagro = # 11; Verdasco = #16. If you have been following the Olympic tennis selection process you already know that there are a number of other similar stories, like that of Philipp Kohlschreiber, who defeated Rafael Nadal in straight sets in the quarterfinals in Halle as well as reaching the quarterfinals of Wimbledon, who will also be excluded from the men’s draw (but for different reasons than Lopez). Get a grip America. Here are real life lessons for young American junior tennis players!

It is unbelievable to me that you would seriously compare 12-16 year olds in the junior tennis arena to Olympic athletes, and the manner in which the Olympic committee qualifies athletes for the Olympics. Has the mentality of the USTA really gone this far afield? Of course our junior tennis players (I would hope) will someday earn their way into Olympic tennis, but you are comparing apples to oranges here in a very unrealistic way. Have you forgotten? We are talking about kids playing junior tennis. We are not talking about the Olympics. And your comment “Get a grip America?” Is that a joke? Is the USTA purposefully being punitive in its decisions in order to teach some “real life lessons” to its own American juniors by cutting their opportunities to play? If not, your remarks here certainly suggest as much. Again, what you have written here – and elsewhere in your 17 pages – begins to truly show not only your own personal colors, but those of the USTA, and it’s a little unsettling.

Do you not remember the training – the blood, sweat, tears, time, sacrifices, heartbreaks and glories – of your own children during their junior tennis careers? Have you climbed so far away from real-life on the training and junior tournament courts into the ivory tower of the USTA that you don’t recall what it took for your own son to achieve the success that he achieved? To say, “Get a grip America?” and then to suggest that American kids need some “real life lessons” that somehow mirror the bitter Olympic disappointment suffered by Spain’s 5th highest ranked professional player in order to what? Take away 75 percent of their opportunities to do their own work, their own training, and their own earning of their own tennis careers through opportunities merely OFFERED to them in their own lives in order to qualify and play in national tournaments? Again, all of this foolishness you use to support the USTA’s changes are only evidence of the weaknesses of your own arguments. There’s no other way to interpret these arguments and analogies you have used.

I would also like to address your response to the issues of competitiveness and demand for national matches. You wrote in your letter the following:

… But, once again, not all of these match experiences are competitive. In fact, many are not competitive. Please study the match results of the first two rounds in many of our 192 draw national championships. For everyone complaining about reduced draw sizes, please explain to me why the first alternate in to this July’s Girl’s 12’s National Clay Court Championship is ranked #888 in the country! There simply might not be the “demand” that you and others claim there to be for some of our largest national championships. Please also study the number of competitors there are in the national events of other individual youth sports and how they progress to these events (i.e., USA Diving).

Again, we are not talking here about diving. We are not talking about the numbers of competitors in other individual youth sports. We are not talking about Olympic athletes. We are not interested in having our 12-year-olds play Roger Federer at Wimbledon. We are not talking about my television show. And, lastly, we are not talking about landslide elections or national politics. We are talking about national junior tennis, and the fact that the USTA is taking away opportunities for American kids to reach their full potential in the sport of TENNIS. You have acknowledged above that “everyone” is “complaining” about reduced draw sizes. Right there, in its simplest form, is an example of how your new rules are disenfranchising your own players. That said, you assert that “there simply might not be the demand that you and others claim there to be for some of our largest championships.” Well, there “might NOT be,” as you say … but I am telling you, as are tens of hundreds of others telling you, there actually IS a demand to play in the largest championships, and that demand is huge. This one fact, in a nutshell, is perhaps the biggest tragedy with your decision to cut opportunities.

You have invited me to study the number of competitors there are in the national events of other individual youth sports and how they progress into their national events. As none of your USTA players or members are interested in other sports at this juncture, I would invite you, instead, to GO TO YOUR OWN DRAWS AND STUDY THE NUMBER OF KIDS WHO ARE PACKED INTO YOUR WAITING LISTS for your own (now reduced number and soon to be even further reduced number of) national events. Here is a small sampling of what I found on YOUR website in just a few moments:

Beginning in January of this year when the first phase of the USTA’s reductions began:

Tournament #153800001: There were 415 alternates, or 415 kids who wanted to play under your current rules but were NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY.

Tournament #257100312: There were 528 alternates who wanted to play under your current rules but WERE NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY.

Tournament #651760812: There were 299 alternates who wanted to play under your current rules but WERE NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY.

Tournament #350000412: There were 178 alternates who wanted to play under your current rules but WERE NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY.

In just these four tournaments alone, there were almost 1,500 American junior players who would have like to have played in a national tournament, under your own CURRENT rules and requirements, but were SHUT OUT. While there may be some duplication here, this one snapshot statistic shows the reality of how extremely high the demand is among junior tennis players for national play. Read this again, Mr. Russell and all USTA officials who voted for the 2014 changes in the national schedule: THERE WERE NEARLY 1,5OO KIDS WHO WANTED TO PLAY IN FOUR RECENT NATIONAL TOURNAMENTS WHO WERE TURNED AWAY. And this is BEFORE your radical reductions have even taken place!! It’s actually hard to read, is it not? And it certainly makes NO logical sense whatsoever.

No one is saying that each national tournament should accept every single kid who qualifies and applies. There has to be some sense of practicality. But there is NO justification for reducing the national draw sizes when there are thousands of kids who want to play, who qualify to play (by being endorsed), but who are literally being told by the USTA that they will not be allowed to play? How is this GROWTH? How does this amount to DEVELOPMENT?

You wrote, “What should a national tournament structure do? … Incentivize hard work and rigorous competition, where winners advance and loser do not.” You also quote Wayne Bryan (a big critic, by the way, of the USTA) as saying, “A young tennis player should not get in a car to play a tennis match until they can beat everyone (to) where they can ride a bike; that player should not get on a plane to fly to a tennis match until they can beat everyone to where they can ride in a car.” If this is the case, at best you will have one- to two kids from every section and age group allowed into national tournaments. I think you have forgotten that we are talking about 12 to 16 year old kids here.

These kinds of responses from you continue to totally contradict your own USTA stated goals. The whole point of Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers” (which you dismiss) is that the reason hockey players born from January through March did so well is because THEY ALL PLAYED UP. There were better kids at younger ages. Why? They all saw the NEXT level of play and those opportunities made them better players. Under you edict, these same kinds of opportunities for national junior tennis players will be removed.

Mr. Russell, I have to say that I get the distinct impression from your letter that your main focus here, really, is not on advancing the cause of junior tennis for all American kids – but rather it is solely on finding the one next big tennis star. But for 99 percent of players, as you surely know, this is not going to happen. Yet, what about the kids who want to play in college? What about the kids who want to play competitively, yes, but recreationally? The kids who want to earn their way into playing in college NEED these national opportunities if they want a chance to get into a Division 1, 2 or 3 school – schools, by the way, that are being forced more and more to take players from foreign countries. Have you considered these American junior players, who comprise the vast majority? The “glory days” of tennis you talk about are important, yes, but so are college scholarships for competitive American players – scholarships, again, that are going more and more to foreign students.

To be more specific on this point, I found one of your remarks very telling about the USTA’s true motivation for these reductions. You wrote that the “early rounds of the national draws contain many matches that are not competitive.” I wondered, not competitive for whom? With just this one statement, Mr. Russell, you have revealed what is perhaps the USTA’s entire purpose in instituting these reductions. And that is, (contrary to Patrick McEnroe’s own declaration of more tennis for more players on more courts) that the USTA IS NOT INTERESTED IN THE “GROWTH” AND “DEVELOPMENT” OF ANYONE IN JUNIOR TENNIS IN THIS COUNTRY EXCEPT FOR THE TOP 32 PLAYERS AT ANY GIVEN TIME. There simply is no other explanation for what the USTA is doing with these reductions, and you have admitted as much in your comment about the early rounds in the national draws.

I will answer my own question above: The only players the national draw matches would not be “competitive” enough for would be the top 32 players. But I ask you, would the top seeded players really be disenfranchised or somehow be unfairly treated, or lose any ground, if they played an easier first round match? And what about the one kid who always seems to come out of nowhere in every tournament, the one who worked a little harder, a little longer, prepared for the tournament a little better, and who knocks out a top seed? Will that kid ever be given a chance to do these things (like so many have before him) under your new rules? The answer is no.

Again, Patrick McEnroe’s statement about “more people on more courts in more places” being the USTA’s charge just doesn’t hold water, especially in light of your responses. The best part of Mr. McEnroe’s quote here, speaking as a parent, is that kids who play tennis on a regular basis are not “hanging out with their friends doing nothing.” Remember, this is no longer the America of the 1950s, where talking in class, chewing gum and running up and down the schoolhouse halls were the top problems facing parents in this country. Today, we are dealing with drugs, alcohol, teenage pregnancies and suicides. The country’s national junior tennis program, as is so with all other organized sports, is and always has been one of the healthiest and best ways we can guide and channel our kids’ time, energies, hearts, minds and souls through childhood into adulthood.

But now, in light of your drastic reductions, perhaps you should contact the parents of all these kids who are going to be excluded from tennis, or who are alternates, waiting on your long, long, LONG lists of American kids who would like to play, and earn their way into playing, nationals but will never have a chance to ever play again? You should call those kids and tell them, like you have said in your letter to me, to “get a grip!” Good lesson! Those kids will learn from the USTA, while kids and tennis governing organizations in other countries are busy cleaning up in the tennis world, that hard work and earning your way into the national tournaments has now been reduced to 32 people only; the rest of you can “get a grip.”

By the way, in your letter to me you cherry-picked for your own purposes the one girl who is #888 in the country in Girls 12s who made it in to the National Clay Courts. You did this in an attempt to show how relatively easy it is to get into a national tournament. Again, you are being disingenuous. Do you really need to be manipulative like this to make your point? I do hope, however, that this young girl learns during her experience there to work harder and keep developing her game. It could be an experience that might jump-start her possible future as one of your bright young stars; an experience she will never forget, and hopefully keep building on. Perhaps one day, sooner rather than later, she will be one of those elite 32 kids out of the thousands and thousands who will now never have a chance to even play.

Another one of your more ridiculous solutions for kids who will no longer be allowed to play in national tournaments is that “they can and should play adults and enter adult tournaments; that they should play collegiate players." This is just absolutely mind-boggling. Go play in tournaments with adults? There are going to be untold thousands of kids languishing on your waiting lists every month, scratching and pleading to get into your now handful of national tournaments – and you’re suggesting that they go play with adults? These kids need to be developing by playing with their peers, as they do in other countries. This particular scenario you offer here is just sad, really.

But I think maybe the saddest part about all of this is that you, Mr. Russell, and the rest of the USTA already know all this. You know what I am arguing in favor of here; you understand that the wider tennis community is against these changes and why. You know we are not looking for entitlements, or special treatment, or anything that would hold back ANY of the junior players (those at the top and those striving to get to the top) or harm the future of the game.

You know that we are seeking more opportunities for more kids to play in more tournaments, which would encourage and foster GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT for as many kids as possible, just as you claim you seek. As a group of concerned USTA members with kids who are USTA players, you KNOW we aren’t looking to buy points or rankings, or travel around the country with big bags of money while those who cannot afford to travel stay home, disenfranchised from it all. The outlandish nature of the arguments and analogies you have used in your response to me prove that you do, indeed, know all of this. In fact, in keeping with your own political analogies, Mr. Russell, you sound a lot like President Obama, with his class warfare mantra.

At this time, I would like to restate my challenge to you to institute an unbiased survey on these schedule and draw size changes – a membership survey that, again, I would be more than happy to provide financial support for if the USTA will agree to abide by the outcome, regardless of what the outcome may be. Should the membership vote to keep the schedule and draw sizes, we can begin to work on ways to improve the legitimate concerns the USTA says it has.

For example, could not the USTA begin to focus on new and significant ways of raising money for those players with families who are not able to fully afford travel, or any of the other myriad of expenses that have always been associated with the game of tennis. Extra, 5 or 10-dollar surcharges on tournament fees could be collected, or scholarship programs could be extended and strengthened. Fundraisers could be developed specifically for this purpose, as well. I purchase a box of four seats every year for the U.S. Open and always notice how many athletes, politicians, dignitaries and celebrities are in the President’s Box nearby. Perhaps some of these people could be recruited to help with raising money for the junior tennis cause, and please note I would be happy to help in any way that I can.

I have also often wondered why the USTA does not recruit businesses for its junior tennis program as it does for professional tournaments. As with the ATP and WTA events, these types of relationships could supplement the travel and expenses of junior players who require financial assistance to get to the national tournaments. You say money is a major obstacle for some of these juniors’ families. But rather than reduce junior opportunities by 75 percent for ALL players, raise what is needed to supplement the players who need assistance. For instance, why not partner up with JetBlue, which could become the official airline of USTA Junior Tennis; or the Marriott Hotel chain, the official hotel, or Hertz, the official rental car of USTA Junior Tennis tournaments?

Surely, without all the backbiting you have so far displayed, Mr. Russell, we can all agree to think about and discuss some of these ideas and come up with even more solutions that would suit everyone involved. As I have shown, there are many ways to improve the legitimate issues and concerns the USTA has with its own point system and how that relates to its national schedule – but without having to reduce these tournaments and draw sizes, which will alienate more players than it will “help.” There are creative solutions to be hammered out, donations to be gathered and geared in the directions they need to be geared. There are ways and means for all of us to work together in order to engage every player, in every state and section, from all economic backgrounds, without summarily excluding thousands and thousands of current and potential young American tennis players from the national tennis arena.

The long and the short of this is, Mr. Russell, is that you and I can continue to go head to head on this issue, we can go letter to letter, email to email, for the rest of the year. We could come up with all sorts of clever things to say, arguments to make, and points on which we could “out-jab” each other, as you have done very nicely in your response to me. If you want to do that, I can certainly do it. As I’ve said, and you obviously know, this is what I do for a living. I debate. But the bottom line is this: I know it, you know it, and every person reading this letter now who is interested in this issue knows it … the USTA, yourself included, fully understands that players, parents and coaches all want ONLY for these kids (all kids) to have more opportunities to play more tournaments, not less. At the very least, we would ask you to keep the number of national tournaments and draw sizes at the 2012 level.

In closing, let me challenge you once again: Do you have the courage to back up your so-called “mandate” and your “landslide victory” by releasing this decision from the USTA hierarchy and handing it over to the USTA membership? Will you allow the families who will actually be impacted by this edict decide? Frankly, I doubt that you do. But I hope you will prove me wrong.

Please contact me with your decision to put this matter up for a vote by the entire USTA membership. I will be waiting for a reply.

Best Wishes,

Sean Hannity

Monday July 09 2012

Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:50:49 -0800

Pat Buchanan,

Thursday June 28 2012

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:57:18 -0800

Jay Sekulow, Newt Gingrich, David Limbaugh,

Monica Crowley

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:24:33 -0800

Tuesday June 19 2012

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:22:44 -0800

Monday June 18 2012

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:56:41 -0800

Marco Rubio,

Tuesday June 12 2012

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:03:54 -0800

Stuart Varney, Karl Rove,

Monday June 11 2012

Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:31:58 -0800

David Horowitz,

Tuesday June 05 2012

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:48:15 -0800

Stuart Varney, Juan Williams,

David Limbaugh

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:50:39 -0800

Obama's 12 front war on America

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:24:56 -0800

The number one radio commentator isn’t the only Limbaugh with some bold and hard hitting opinions on our current president. David Limbaugh’s new book “The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic” comes out today debuting exclusively on both Sean’s radio and TV programs. This book looks at not only Obama’s failed policies, but contends Obama is waging a multi-front war on America…twelve wars to be exact:

Chapter One: The War on America
Chapter Two: The War on the Right
Chapter Three: The War on the Disobedient
Chapter Four: The War on Our Culture and Values
Chapter Five: The War on the Economy
Chapter Six: The War on Our Future
Chapter Seven: The War on Oil
Chapter Eight: The War on Other Energy Sources
Chapter Nine: The War on Business
Chapter Ten: The War on America’s National Security
Chapter Eleven: The War on Guns: Operations Fast & Furious
Chapter Twelve: The War on the Dignity of His Office

These twelve chapters show how he has failed society, and caused distress for many Americans. Ultimately, “The Great Destroyer” reveals how Obama and his administration has led our country astray and denied the principles of our founding fathers.

Wednesday May 30 2012

Wed, 30 May 2012 13:29:36 -0800

Rudy Giuliani, Donald Rumsfeld,

Monday May 28 2012

Tue, 29 May 2012 07:13:18 -0800

Ann Coulter

Thu, 24 May 2012 13:14:19 -0800

Colin Powell Interview 5/22/12

Wed, 23 May 2012 08:06:35 -0800

Colin Powell 4

Wed, 23 May 2012 08:04:19 -0800

Colin Powell 3

Wed, 23 May 2012 07:53:27 -0800

Colin Powell 2

Wed, 23 May 2012 07:52:19 -0800

Colin Powell intvw

Wed, 23 May 2012 07:51:36 -0800

Thursday May 10 2012

Thu, 10 May 2012 14:53:33 -0800

Juan Williams, Ann Coulter,

Screwed!

Tue, 08 May 2012 04:41:16 -0800

“SCREWED!” That’s what Dick Morris says is what we get as the result of much of our foreign aid and relationships with struggling countries.

Dick Morris and his wife, Eileen, go into depth about America’s military and monetary responsibilities we have undertaken for the rest of the world and how such responsibilities have not only inhibited our ability to control our own problems, but more importantly have been used against us. “SCREWED!” consists of ten parts outlining our greatest obstacles including how international bureaucrats aim to cripple the power of the United States through treaty ratifications; one example is the “Law of the Sea Treaty” which would strip us of the right to control our own coastlines as we deem fit.

Additionally Dick addresses the most dangerous countries the United States is in relationships with: China, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. In the post 9/11 world the United States h as honed in on advancing democracy in the Middle East by providing billions of dollars in aid as well as military assistance. But do these relationships make us safer in the long run as we intend? “Pakistan arrested five men for providing assistance to the US in its hunt for Bin Laden” and begs the question “is there anyone on the planet who really believes that the Pakistani government, military, and intelligence services didn’t realize that public enemy number one was living in an urban area around the corner from their equivalent of West Point?”

The US has lost the lives of over 2,200 troops in Afghanistan since the start of the war in 2001, and $10.9 billion dollars in aid just last year. The Congressional Research Service quoted an agency saying “up to 30% of contracted project costs can be attributed to corruption.” Transparency international, which ranks nations based on their integrity or corruption says that Afghanistan is t he second most corrupt nation on earth, exceeded only by Somalia. The United States is clearly the losing party in this relationship. Then there is Saud Arabia which Dick says is “our bargain with the devil.” All of this boils down to a frightening realization that foreign aid is nothing short of ‘biting the hand that feeds.’ Morris includes sobering statistics such as “The US gave away $58 billion in foreign aid to more than sixty-nine countries in 2009. Thirty-four billion was in economic aid and $11 billion was in military assistance. Add $13 billion in assistance from other government agencies.”

But aside from the warm fuzzy feeling America may get when they contribute to the less fortunate, “the fact remains that there is no correlation between the massive outlays of foreign aid we have been making for decades now and any reduction in global poverty. The countries that have made real progress in breaking out of poverty-China, In dia, Vietnam, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore-have done it by selling us goods and services, not by taking our foreign aid.” Still not convinced? “Of the ninety-seven countries that got development aid from the US between 1980 and 2009: 23 had a net decline in per capita GDP over the period; 27 had only growth of less than 1 percent; 44 had growth of an average of 1 to 4 percent per year.

Only four had real economic growth of 5 percent or more. They were Bosnia, Serbia, Cambodia, and Botswana.” In sum, foreign aid does not help those countries, it hurts those countries. It creates a pot of money that ferments civil war and corruption. For more on Dick Morris’ book, SCREWED!, click here.

Monday May 07 2012

Mon, 07 May 2012 09:42:12 -0800

Dick Morris,

Friday May 04 2012

Fri, 04 May 2012 11:38:08 -0800

Stuart Varney, Juan Williams,

Jose Rodriguez

Tue, 01 May 2012 09:09:58 -0800

Ex-CIA official defends enhanced interrogation

Tue, 01 May 2012 09:06:10 -0800

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," April 30, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: One year after the raid that killed Usama bin Laden, a former high-ranking CIA official is speaking out and arguing that the harsh interrogation techniques that were employed by the Bush administration played a larger role in providing the intelligence road map that eventually led to the terrorist compound.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HANNITY: Jose Rodriguez Jr. spent 31 years in the CIA's Clandestine Service.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: A plane has crash into the upper floor of the World Trade Center.

HANNITY: Now, after the 9/11 attacks, he led the agency's counterterrorism center.

CLICK HERE TO BUY "HARD MEASURES"

JOSE RODRIGUEZ, JR., FORMER CIA DIR. OF CLANDESTINE SERVICE: We targeted the Al Qaeda structure. We took to the enemy with determination and we focused.

HANNITY: In the new book, "Hard Measures," Rodriguez defends the enhanced interrogation techniques like water boarding used after 9/11 on some of Al Qaeda's top leadership. The poster boy for enhanced interrogation techniques was Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in Pakistan after a shoot out.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SEPT. 6, 2006: Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures and soon he began to provide information on key Al Qaeda operatives. Zubaydah identified Ramzi Bin al-Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped led to the capture of Bin al-Shibh and together these two terrorist provided information that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

BRIG. GENERAL THOMAS HARTMANN, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LEGAL ADVISER, FEB. 11, 2008: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

HANNITY: Only three of the terror leaders were ever waterboarded, a technique seen here in a demonstration. But Rodriguez says, the interrogation led to the interruption of ten large scale plots and the capture of many more terrorists.

GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Honest men can differ after whether or not they are comfortable with some of the techniques we used and that is a fair debate, but you don't get to say that the techniques didn't work.

HANNITY: But some did say that they didn't work, including then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who claims not to know that it was happening at all.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN, MAY 14, 2009: You're accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States. Misleading the Congress of United States.

HANNITY: Yet Rodriguez himself led a delegation to Capitol Hill to brief Congressional leaders including Pelosi.

PELOSI: The only mention of water boarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed.

HANNITY: And she seemed to backtrack when document show that her aide Michael Sheehy had been briefed specifically about the waterboarding.

PELOSI: He informed that that briefing had taken place.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Mr. Sheehy did not tell you, that he was informed that they were actually using the techniques.

PELOSI: No, he did say it. He said that the techniques were now being used.

HANNITY: Controversy erupted again in 2007 when it was revealed that Rodriguez ordered the destruction of videotapes that showed Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding.

DANA PERINO, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, DEC. 7, 2007: I spoke to the President this morning about this. He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday.

SEN. DICK DURBIN, D-ILL., ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER, DEC. 7, 2007: Today, I'll be calling for an official investigation of whether there was destruction of evidence, and an obstruction of justice, in the destruction of these video tapes.

HANNITY: The Bush Justice Department had written extensive memos detailing what was allowed under the enhanced interrogations and why it was legal. Now after a lawsuit by the ACLU, those memos were released by the Obama administration.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, APRIL 21, 2009: The OLC memos that were released reflected in my view, us losing our moral bearings.

HANNITY: Rodriguez and the CIA were eventually cleared of wrongdoing and the investigations were ended.

DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: These men deserve to be decorated. They don't deserve to be prosecuted.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HANNITY: Joining us now is a man at the center of this controversy, Jose Rodriguez, Jr., former CIA -- the director of the CIA's National Clandestine Service and the author of "Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives."

Sir, great to see you. It's a great honor to have you here. Thank you for being with us.

RODRIGUEZ: Thank you for inviting me, Sean. I'm a big fan.

HANNITY: Well, I appreciate it. I have read the book cover to cover. We can't get this all in, I'm going to try to get in as much as I can. Let's start with the tape that we just set up. You personally briefed Nancy Pelosi about enhanced interrogation.

RODRIGUEZ: I did. We briefed her before September 2002 about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, so we went through the techniques that were used on him including waterboarding.

HANNITY: And what she said to the American people at the time, she lied.

RODRIGUEZ: Yes. She is either confused or is lying.

HANNITY: OK. Let's go to the mindset. And you went into great specificity and detail. You thought that you were flooded with intelligence of an imminent attack, anthrax, potential nuclear. Explain the mindset after 9/11.

RODRIGUEZ: Yes. We were very concerned about a second wave of attacks in May, 2002. We had a flood of intelligence coming in about threats. We had the Al Qaeda, the anthrax scare of a few months before. We were very concerned that we were going to get hit again. We had confirmed intelligence on anthrax and we knew about the Al Qaeda nuclear program. And we could hear the time bomb, we couldn't see it but we could hear it ticking.

HANNITY: Yes. And so, you felt another attack on this country was imminent and you needed as quickly as possible the intelligence to save American lives?

CLICK HERE TO BUY "HARD MEASURES"

Monday April 30 2012

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:05:07 -0800

Fred Thompson,

Newt Gingrich

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:56:46 -0800

Dick Morris

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:49:35 -0800

Tavis Smiley

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:13:17 -0800

Tuesday April 17 2012

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:31:35 -0800

Palin and the lamestream media!

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:04:14 -0800

Did you wake up this past Tuesday morning thinking you were still dreaming when you turned on the TV and saw Katie Couric co-anchoring ‘Good Morning America,’ frantically flipped the channel only to see Sarah Palin co-hosting the ‘Today’ show with none other than Matt Lauer!?

Don’t worry America, she has not joined the lamestream media for good. Although she did give their ratings quite a boost, pushing viewership up to 5.5 million. It was a long and busy day for the former Governor who joined Sean on his live TV program that same night to weigh in as votes came in for the DC, Maryland and Wisconsin primaries. All three went to Romney.

Palin alludes to her belief that the GOP candidate race is “getting closer to the end.” Many in the Republican party are calling for the remaining candidates to drop out after Romney’s big Tuesday win. Despite any pressure, Santorum indicated last night that he would compete in the April 24th primaries in five states, including his home state of Pennsylvania, where his campaign believes a win would be his gateway to continue on competing in the May primaries which have higher percentages of conservative voters.

Kirsten Powers

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:18:05 -0800

Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:58:43 -0800

*Today Sean will air his last radio interview with Andrew Breitbart from 2/9/12 today at 5:30pm ET*

Widely read conservative Internet publisher Andrew Breitbart, whose flare for battle with politicians and the mainstream media earned him a reputation as one of the nation's most influential commentators, died Thursday.

The websites he founded ran a statement Thursday morning announcing that Breitbart, 43, died "unexpectedly from natural causes" in Los Angeles shortly after midnight. His attorney and editor-in-chief of those sites confirmed his death to Fox News.

"We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior," the statement said. "Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love."

Breitbart was a prolific commentator who founded several websites devoted to covering politics, entertainment and everything in-between. Earlier in his career, he worked for the Drudge Report before breaking off to start his own outlets -- including Big Government, Big Hollywood and Breitbart.tv.

The statement on his sites quoted the concluding passage from his book, Righteous Indignation.

"I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and -- famously -- I enjoy making enemies. Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I've lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I've gained hundreds, thousands -- who knows? -- of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night," Breitbart wrote.

Friday February 17 2012

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:46:04 -0800

Pat Buchanan, Herman Cain,

Sean

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:50:01 -0800

Sean Hannity

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:21:01 -0800

Sean's first Fox News broadcast!

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:20:11 -0800

We dug back into the archives and found Sean's first broadcast on the Fox News channel. Enjoy!

Mark Levin's new book, "AMERITOPIA"

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:37:31 -0800

Mark Levin’s "Liberty and Tyranny" made the most persuasive case for conservatism and against statism in a generation. In this most crucial time, this leading conservative thinker explores the psychology, motivations, and history of the utopian movement, its architects, and its modern day disciples – and how the individual and American society are being devoured by it.

In Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America Levin asks, what is this utopian force that both allures a free people and destroys them? In the end, Levin’s message is clear: The American republic is in great peril. The people must now choose between utopianism or liberty.

You can watch Sean's interview with Mark Levin above.

If you haven't purchased yet, Sean strongly encourages you to do so. It will provide you with insight, knowledge, and guidance you've never encountered before! CLICK HERE to order your copy today!

Adam Carolla on "paying your fair share"

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:51:07 -0800

Radio personality and comedian Adam Carolla joined the last hour of the show and talked about what he thinks is wrong with the ever growing class warfare issue in America. Sean discussed the notion of "paying your fair share" - an idea Obama has championed in numerous speeches over the last few months.

"Let's really examine this," Carolla told Sean. "If 10 people all go out to dinner together and the bill came and it was $500 and we decided to split it up 10 ways, then your share is $50. Unless you had 26 Heineken's that I don't know about, your fair share with the other 9 strangers your sitting with, considering you've all ordered the same thing off of the same menu is $50! I paid the equivalent of $450 in taxes last year! And I've got the 2 guys who paid nothing pointing at me and telling me to pay my fair share?! You've got to be kidding me," Carolla exclaimed.

Adam also discussed his new book, "Rich Man Poor Man" in which he exposes the phenomena that are embraced by the really rich and the really poor - but never the middle class - like having an outdoor shower, wearing your pajamas all day, or always having your dog with you. Carolla's new book is a hilariously accurate look at what the people born with silver spoons in their mouths have in common with the people whose only utensils are plastic sporks stolen from a Shakey's. To pick up a copy of Adam Carolla's hysterical new book, please click here.

To listen to Sean's entire radio interview with the radio funnyman, please click here.

Monday January 16 2012

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:46:52 -0800

Newt Gingrich, Mark Levin, Herman Cain,

Thursday December 29 2011

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:14:07 -0800

Wednesday December 28 2011

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:38:35 -0800

Sean's talk radio career

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:43:21 -0800

Before Fox News, Hannity's career included hosting a handful of talk radio shows in various states. He got his start in the late 1980s as a volunteer broadcaster at the University of California at Santa Barbara's KCSB radio station.

About Sean Hannity

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:25:18 -0800

Sean Patrick Hannity is an American writer, television/radio host, and conservative political commentator. He initially garnered fame as the co-host of Hannity & Colmes, a television program of the Fox News Channel. He penned two New York Times bestselling books and is the host of Hannity’s America and The Sean Hannity Show, the second highest rated radio talk show in the United States.

Sean Patrick Hannity was born on December 30, 1961, the son of Hugh J. and Lillian F. Hannity. His forebears were immigrants from Ireland. He spent his early years in Franklin Square, New York. During the late years of the ‘80s, Hannity worked construction jobs in Santa Barbara, California. He also worked as a bartender during those times.

In 1980, the writer-commentator graduated from St. Pius X Preparatory Seminary, a high school institution situated in Uniondale in Long Island, New York. A purportedly indifferent student, the would be talk show host dropped out of various colleges — including New York University — various times for financial reasons. He eventually decided to pursue a radio career. In 2005, he was awarded with an honorary degree by Liberty University.

At present, Sean Patrick Hannity is a host of a nation-wide syndicated radio talk show broadcasted by WABC (AM), a flagship station situated in New York. He is also the co-host of a Fox News political debate show, Hannity & Colmes, and host of Hannity’s America, which is also broadcasted by Fox News.

Sean Hannity had his first experience in a talk radio show in 1989 when he hosted for a program of KCSB-FM, a volunteer college station of UC Santa Barbara.

After his stint with the station, he placed advertisements in radio publications that presented himself as “the most talked about college radio host in America.” WVNN, a news-talk formatted radio station situated in Athens, Alabama, hired him. In 1992, he succeeded Neal Boortz and worked for WGST in Atlanta. Hannity’s big break came in September 1996 when Roger Ailes, the found of Fox News, hired him to co-host with Alan Colmes the television program that catapulted him into fame, Hannity & Colmes.

Fortune magazine in 2005 listed Sean Hannity as one of their “25 People We Envy Most.” The talk show host purportedly makes $5 million a year for his radio show alone. He is also the author of two bestsellers. It’s a small surprise that Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas, in their book Common Ground, have state that Hannity is the leader when it comes to matters concerning broadcasting political commentators.

Wednesday December 21 2011

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:25:33 -0800

Michael Barone, Pat Caddell,

Monday December 05 2011

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:33:49 -0800

Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich,

Ann Coulter

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:02:43 -0800

Sean in his Fox News Office

Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:23:47 -0800

Behind Sean Hannity's Desk

Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:23:12 -0800

Sean Hannity is the Alex Rodriguez of television hosts—wildly successful and vehemently hated. But whether you're Occupy-left or Bachmann-right, it's indisputable that Sean Hannity has long been one of the most dominant voices in media, averaging more than two million viewers of his eponymous Fox News talk show. The self-described "loser" let us into his office to talk politics, Obama's failures, movies, and fashion.

Read the article from GQ by clicking here: http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201110/sean-hannity-show-fox-news-interview#ixzz1cUVqYsz5

Thursday October 27 2011

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:58:16 -0800

Donald Trump, Karl Rove,

Pat Buchanan's Controversial 'Suicide of a Superpower'

Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:13:57 -0800

FoxNews.com

Watch the latest video at FoxNews.com

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," October 17, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: A two-year freeze on all federal salaries and immediate moratorium on new immigration, constitutional amendment making English the official language of the United States. Now, these are just a few of the things that my next guest says we must do if we want to save our country. Otherwise, America as we know it could be dead by the year 2025.

Well, and we'll only have ourselves to blame, he says. In his new book, "Suicide of a Superpower," former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan argues that while pursuing the perfect society of our dreams, we are literally killing the country that we inherited, the best and greatest in the world.

Joining me now, New York Times bestselling author, syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan. Patrick J., welcome out of exile, sir.

(LAUGHTER)

Oh, come on. Just a little joke. It's inside.

You know, I have known you a long time.

PAT BUCHANAN, AUTHOR, "SUICIDE OF A SUPERPOWER": Right.

HANNITY: This is -- well, first of all, you wrote this book knowing that this was going to be controversial.

BUCHANAN: Right.

HANNITY: Why?

BUCHANAN: Well, it's called in my last political will and testament. Sean, I decided to sit down for a couple years and figure out what happened to the country I grew up in. Why are we in such tremendous trouble not only with the status failing to defend the borders and can't balance its budget and can't end these trade deficits, it can't get manufacturing back. But socially, the country seems to be disintegrating. Why is it and why did it happen? And these are the answers basically I give. Now, you know, some of the solution you recommended or I recommended right at the end of that book, I think they will help solve the budget problem, and some of those problems. But I think some of our problems are so deep and endemic, I'm not sure they can be solved by politics.

HANNITY: You talk about a divide in America. And you look at it from a lot of different angles but there is a real divide. Half of the country doesn't pay any federal income taxes.

BUCHANAN: Right.

HANNITY: We see what's happening on Occupy Wall Street.

BUCHANAN: Right.

HANNITY: Do we get to the point where there's a tipping point, I like Malcolm Gladwell's book, the tipping point being that, you know, half the other country is paying for the other half and the other half that's not paying even wants more and the country collides.

BUCHANAN: One John Sechalhones (ph) predicted this, half of the country basically becomes tax consumers and other half taxpayers. The tax consumers have no incentive if they are not, you know, they are not paying taxes really to get the government any smaller. Why should they?

And so you have got this tremendous conflict in society but it's only one of them, Sean. Take the idea, you know, in the 1950s, I don't care whether if you were for Truman or Eisenhower or what, the country has had a moral consensus. It had a moral unity, a moral code. Basically based in the old and new testament, which people believed in and felt was right and true. Ever since the social cultural revolution of the 1960s, that's completely collapsed. And with it, I think the traditional family has collapsed. And ideas of right and wrong have collapsed. I mean, we have talked about these issues, gay marriage or right to life and abortion and all of these things, promiscuity. One side says, well that's progressive, normal and natural. And the other side says, that's wrong.

HANNITY: How do you reconcile?

BUCHANAN: You don't reconcile. You can't. It's irreconcilable. But that's the source of these culture wars that culturally crop up, is the fundamental beliefs behind them and beneath them are irreconcilable conflict.

HANNITY: Get two chapters the end of Christian America, the crisis of Catholicism.

BUCHANAN: Right.

HANNITY: And, you know, you gave a famous speech, I think it was 1992.

BUCHANAN: Ninety-two, right.

HANNITY: And it created a big controversy. It's even quoted, I think Pat, to this day which shows the staying power of the Buchanan speech. But in all seriousness, you really are talking about a cultural divide on a major scale. And one thing that interested me in the book, you mentioned this was a desire, the end of Christianity, that many a dictator wanted. You quoted Karl Marx, opiate of the people et cetera, or the masses. And as I was reading this I'm thinking, you know, in many ways probably there's a lot of people celebrating that.

BUCHANAN: Listen, you know, we fought communism in Ronald Reagan's day and George Bush finished that Cold War up. The communism of Mao Tse Tung and Lenin and Stalin, horrible evil as it was, collapsed, it was a failure, it was a great success for a while. But the communism of Antonio Gramsci who argued that, look, he went to the Soviet Union. He said this place is failing, the people hate the place. What we've got to do is we've got to have a long march through the institutions of the west. And that long march to change their thinking and beliefs and basically get people so that they will accept cultural Marxism. They will embrace it as the Russian people rejected the other former -- and that's what happened. It's a trans- valuation as niche said of all values. What was wrong is now right and the reverse.

HANNITY: You talked about the beginning of the United Nations, I think was at 53 nations they started with or somewhere.

BUCHANAN: Yes. Fifty-two, 53.

HANNITY: Fifty two, 53. And what is it?

BUCHANAN: Hundred and ninety three.

HANNITY: Hundred and ninety three now? And you talk a lot about balkanization. Balkanization when you look at the former Yugoslavia. The former Soviet Union. And how all these countries have broken up into a divide. I get the sense, your predicting a moral balkanization and economic balkanization of America, is that a good analysis?

BUCHANAN: That is an excellent analysis. Let me say also, I predict, and this is where you get into touchy. You've got the chapter on the end of white America. When white America becomes.

HANNITY: I'm saving that for the next segment. You're ruining my flow.

(LAUGHTER)

BUCHANAN: I mean, the balkanization that's true and as we talked today, I have a chapter in there of 18,000 words, it's called ethno-nationalism and now, it's the triumph of tribalism. And what it is, Arthur Swazenger (ph) and Pat Monahan (ph) predicted at the end of the Cold War that the real conflicts coming up are going to be between peoples and tribes and races and cultures rather than ideologies like communism and capitalism. And I think they are right. All over the world, we see countries breaking down, breaking apart. Sudan just broke in half. Ethiopia broke in half. You see all the troubles in Kenya. You see Iraq.

You know, Sunni versus Shiites. Kurd versus Arab. Muslim versus Christian. The anti-Christian pandemic. The programs in the Middle East and everything. It is frightening but this is what is happening to the world it is all breaking down. Even in Europe, it's more peaceful. Scotland wants out. Catalonia wants out of Spain. Padania, Northern Italy wants out of Italy. Cypress is split in half. You take the Kurds, want out of Turkey. These are the battles I think of the future. This is the future of mankind. That's what makes me so concerned in the next segment about what's happening in our own country.

HANNITY: Well, what I predict will probably be the most controversial and you had to know this going in.

BUCHANAN: Right.

HANNITY: You have the chapter called the end of white America. White Americans are an endangered species you write.

BUCHANAN: Right.

HANNITY: We'll get with that more with Pat Buchanan as his new book, "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?"

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Watch the latest video at FoxNews.com

HANNITY: As we continue on "Hannity," and we continue with Patrick J. Buchanan, New York Times best-selling author, former presidential candidate, his new book is called, "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to the Year 2025?"

All right. When you write a chapter in abook called the end of white America and you write in that chapter, white America is an endangered species, and then you talk about the white population will begin to shrink with present birth rates, slowly disappear. You talk about Mexico moving north, et cetera, et cetera. You know what's coming next.

BUCHANAN: Well.

(LAUGHTER)

HANNITY: You know --

BUCHANAN: It's what comes before.

HANNITY: That's true. But I want you to explain it in your words because I think people will interpret it, Pat, is that oh, so white America is going so that means the end of America? You are saying that minorities are bad for the country.

BUCHANAN: No. Not at all. But the title is taken from the title of an article, cover article in Atlantic magazine, exactly, the end of white America. What does it mean for the -- about? What does it mean for the culture? And so, I looked at it from what does it mean for the United States of America when white Americans in 2041 become a minority in the country along with Asian Americans minority, African-Americans and Hispanic Americans. And you try to envisualize what's going to happen and America is going to look very much like California right now. And what does that mean? California is bankrupt. It's bond rating is the lowest of any place. Los Angeles, half the people there don't speak English in their own homes. Five million people.

And you've got all the problems of crimes. You've got a black-brown war among the underclass as one sheriff described, it in the prisons and in the gangs. And people are leaving California. And it's the old tax consumers are coming in. Now, these are not bad or evil people. Even the ones who are legal. They are coming to work many of them. They're coming for a better life. But the truth is they are bankrupting the state of California because of that divide you mentioned between taxpayers and tax consumers. And what happens when all of America is like that, when every American city is like LA? Who said -- David, what's his name from the New York Times"

HANNITY: Which one?

BUCHANAN: Columnist for the The New York Times?

HANNITY: One of your favorites, David Brooks.

BUCHANAN: Brooks. He said, you know, Tom Joad has given up. He went to California. John Judis, the new republic. He said, I don't think California is going to make it. Now, these are -- they're awful lot of liberals and others in there saying look, and what I'm saying is, look, what California is today America is in 2041 if we don't change course.

HANNITY: You -- really the two chapters together, the end of white America, demographic winter which you talk about ,people of European dissent are not only in a relative but real declining. Aging, dying, disappearing and you say, this is a big crisis of the west. Here is my question. We do break down. Now, people forget this. We break down demographically every poll. We break down every election demographically how African-Americans vote, white Americans vote. So, this is common.

BUCHANAN: Right.

HANNITY: I guess the issue or the argument that you are making though is, what? That the value system is different because 90 percent of African-Americans traditionally historically vote Democratic.

BUCHANAN: Ever since, '64, correct.

HANNITY: And the Hispanic vote goes what demographically?

BUCHANAN: It goes -- the Hispanic goes 60 to 70 percent Democratic. Asian-Americans which is a bit of a surprise, 60 to 70 percent. Africans- Americans, 90 to 95 percent. That's what Barack Obama got.

What I'm saying is, if that is half of the country, and Republicans will never win another election. And I mentioned California for this reason. Demographically what California is will tell you also what California is politically. Republic Party, Nixon and Reagan won California nine times, Nixon lost it once. Republican can't win California today. It's not because the people are evil. But they are democratic. They depend on government. They believe in government. And they vote for the party of government. And when Texas goes the same way and whites are a minority in Texas, when it becomes predominantly overwhelmingly Hispanic, it is going to become predominantly Democratic. That's the end of the Republican Party.

HANNITY: What do you say to those people saying there is Pat Buchanan? Well, no, no. What do you say to them, they say, why don't you break it down along belief system rather than racial lines?

BUCHANAN: Well, I agree, I mean, I'll tell you why many African- Americans vote Democratic is because, you know, the federal government stopped, ended slavery, it ended segregation, it supported civil rights, supports affirmative action. But the Feds did that and they tend to believe in the federal government as a good, powerful positive institution, it's on our side. And Hannity and Buchanan and these guys are constantly knocking it, and that's why we are against them. So, that's an understandable position. But what I'm saying is it is a realistic statement to say that that's going to be the future as well.

HANNITY: Right. Because I look at the value system of many of my friends from all backgrounds. Diverse backgrounds, and they think as I do.

BUCHANAN: One quick point on that.

HANNITY: Go ahead.

BUCHANAN: Seventy percent of African-Americans in California voted for Proposition 8 to outlaw gay marriage. Five percent voted for John McCain. So, you are right, the value system in many cases, the African-Americans are the most churched people in America but politically, in politics, trumps values in many places.

HANNITY: Politically can different demographic groups move over to limited government, to lower taxes?

BUCHANAN: Now you are talking. That's why I say, you have a moratorium on immigration. Take all the immigrants that came in, the Jews, the Irish, the Italians, the Pols. They all voted Democratic. So we shut off immigration in 1924.

By the 1950s, they were moving and when we talked Nixon, we're working, Nixon said, we're going to get an Italian on the Supreme Court, they are ready to break our way. Because these are folks, their kids came up. They're doing well, they got kids in school and they're saying, we are paying taxes. Wait a minute, our taxes are going up. Maybe we ought to take a look at this other party.

But you need time for folks to move out of that poverty and move up into the middle class. Once they move into the middle class into the taxpayer category, Sean, they are available.

HANNITY: All right. Pat Buchanan. Listen, when you're under fire later this week we'll have you back.

BUCHANAN: OK.

HANNITY: All right. Which I'm predicting.

Monday October 17 2011

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:24:20 -0800

Pat Buchanan, Chris Christie,

Herman Cain

Sun, 16 Oct 2011 13:47:08 -0800

This Is Herman Cain

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:41:30 -0800

"This Is Herman Cain"

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:39:50 -0800

Presidential hopeful Herman Cain joined Sean on the NewsMaker Hotline to discuss his new book, "This Is Herman Cain."

In his book, “This Is Herman Cain,” Cain describes how, as CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, he transformed the company from one teetering on the verge of bankruptcy into a household word. Cain—as those with an interest in commonsense solutions to political problems will remember—is also famous for using the language and logic of everyday business to expose the fallacies inherent in Clinton assumptions about “Hillarycare” during a 1994 televised town hall meeting.

Cain’s rise is the embodiment of the American dream. In this highly recommended memoir, Herman Cain describes his past and present . . . and the future he is determined to create, a future that will put our country back on track. His message resonates because he describes the American reality, and his down-to-earth personal tale of hope and hard work is both unforgettable and inspirational. “This Is Herman Cain” has been added to the Hannity Book Club for the month of October.

You can pre-order Cain’s new book by clicking here.

Fmr OMB Directer under Obama against Democracy?

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:06:52 -0800

The 37th director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under President Obama came out today with an article suggesting what America may need is less Democracy, not more. Read his column here:

Too Much of a Good Thing

Why we need less democracy.

By Peter Orszag I The New Republic

In an 1814 letter to John Taylor, John Adams wrote that “there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” That may read today like an overstatement, but it is certainly true that our democracy finds itself facing a deep challenge:

During my recent stint in the Obama administration as director of the Office of Management and Budget, it was clear to me that the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing. If you need confirmation of this, look no further than the recent debt-limit debacle, which clearly showed that we are becoming two nations governed by a single Congress—and that paralyzing gridlock is the result.

So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.

Tuesday September 06 2011

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:22:54 -0800

David Horowitz, Karl Rove,

Sean Hannity

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:10:56 -0800

Dick Cheney

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:40:52 -0800

Thursday August 25 2011

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:38:11 -0800

Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich,

Wednesday August 24 2011

Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:54:31 -0800

Oliver North,

Monday August 08 2011

Mon, 08 Aug 2011 09:42:08 -0800

Mark Halperin

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:30:41 -0800

Why is Bristol Palin so hated?

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:17:23 -0800

In her new book Not Afraid of Life: My Journey So Far Bristol Palin addresses the issue of becoming a national talking point, Sarah Palin’s ability to be a mom and politician, and the constant attacks from the left and right. Bristol is brutally honest about her mistakes, the lessons she has learned and being a hardworking single mom.

She is beautiful, well spoken, and a sinner. But aren't we all?

Let's not be hypocrites ourselves, I'm talking to the right (Conservative Christians who call into the show and say she can’t really love and serve Jesus) and the left here (after all... the left is okay with promiscuous Hollywood stars and glorified a cheating President Clinton). Let's recognize the log in our own eye and wish Bristol the absolute best. Let’s focus on the issues and allow someone to lead their own life

Bristol Palin gives birth to her out of wedlock child and has a failed attempt at marriage to a cheating jerk and she's deemed a hypocrite, slut, and stupid girl. Liberals love to hate hot conservative women: Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and many more. It is a constant double standard.

Liberal women can have it all but conservative women can’t? Not true and not fair.

Children are supposedly off limits in political campaigns but if you Google or Nexus Lexus the past 20 years of politics you will see the difference between attacks on Democratic candidates and their kids vs. attacks on Republican candidates and their kids.

Michael Vick can abuse helpless animals, which Libs supposedly care about, and he is able to be rehabilitated and welcomed back with open arms. If we're going to accept that a grown man who fought and killed dogs can change and go on with his lucrative career, can't we respect a 20 yr old mom who has seen the error of her ways and is now moving on and trying to help others?

Matthew 7:1-5

1” Do not judge, so that you will not be judged.

2 “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold the log is in your own eye

5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

Elisha Krauss is the Senior Producer of the Sean Hannity Show – You can follow her on twitter here.

Sean and Bristol Palin

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:09:19 -0800

Elisha and Bristol Palin

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:08:51 -0800

Sean's exclusive interview with Bristol Palin

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 04:19:35 -0800

Sean was joined by Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol Palin who’s the author of the new book, “Not Afraid of Life: My Journey So Far.”

PALIN'S NEW BOOK: "NOT AFRAID OF LIFE"

“I read about your life and you’re a young person but you’ve been through a lot,” a sympathetic Hannity shared, “A lot of this is under the microscope of a liberal media that doesn’t like your mom very much.”

LISTEN: Sean's radio interview with Bristol Palin

A wise-beyond-her-years Palin responded, “It’s challenging at times but it’s also rewarding because my mom and I have some opportunities that we’re very passionate about.”

VIDEO: Part 2 of Sean's TV interview with Bristol Palin

Bristol Palin

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 04:08:48 -0800

Monday June 27 2011

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:33:05 -0800

Friday June 03 2011

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:09:44 -0800

Shultz/Ingraham

Wed, 25 May 2011 12:36:32 -0800

Jedediah Bila bookcover

Wed, 18 May 2011 12:21:28 -0800

Wednesday May 18 2011

Wed, 18 May 2011 10:03:19 -0800

Rick Santorum,

Friday April 22 2011

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:16:17 -0800

Ann Coulter,

Larry Elder’s Explosive Interview With Bill Ayers

Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:33:50 -0800

Sean spoke with syndicated radio host Larry Elder on the NewsMaker Hotline about Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers. Ayers co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group, that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s. Elder had the rare opportunity to interview Ayers on his radio show this past weekend. Elder held Ayers’ feet to the fire and was relentless in his questioning. Ayers was as unapologetic as ever for his past devious actions and even referred to John McCain as a war criminal because of his part in Vietnam.

Elder told Sean he believes Ayers’ involvement with the ‘Anointed One’ was more than just “someone who lived in the neighborhood” as Obama has previously described their relationship. “There is growing and persuasive evidence that Bill Ayers may have even written Obama’s first book or at least played a very large role in having written that book. If this is the case, not only has Obama perpetuated a fraud on the American people that he didn’t write the book, but it also shows the close relationship Ayers had with Obama, which Obama himself denies,” Elder said.

You can watch Elder’s appearance on ‘Hannity’ and his explosive interview with Ayers by clicking here.

Larry Elder

Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:19:38 -0800

Monday April 18 2011

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:28:25 -0800

Andrew Breitbart,

The Return Of The Great Depression?

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:36:47 -0800

Sean was joined by author and columnist Vox Day in the show's final hour to talk about his book, "The Return to the Great Depression." You would think a book that tackles such a complicated issue as global economics would be a tough read, but it's actually quite the contrary. Vox Day - one of the few economics writers to predict the current worldwide financial crisis - explains why it is likely to continue.

Day explained that the policies being pursued in Europe, Asia, and the United States are very similar to Japan's failed policies of the past twenty years and, therefore, doomed to similar results. Day explained to Sean that he believes the world is in the early stages of a massive economic contraction. As suggested by the title of the book, Day believes the most probable outcome of our current economic problems is a Great Depression that will be larger in scale than that of the 1930s.

For a fascinating look at some of the economic struggles in the world and what may lie ahead take a look at "The Return to the Great Depression" by clicking here.

Tuesday April 05 2011

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 08:54:13 -0800

Stuart Varney, Juan Williams,

Sean thinking

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:25:55 -0800

Wednesday February 23 2011

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:06:10 -0800

Rand Paul,

Huckabee: A 2012 Presidential Candidate?

Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:24:16 -0800

Former Arkansas Governor and 2008 Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee has released his ninth book, A Simple Government: Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington (and a Trillion That We Don’t). Does the Governor’s book allude to twelve reasons why he may run for President? Sean makes sure to press him.

Since the 2008 Presidential Elections, Governor Mike Huckabee teamed up with Fox News Channel for a hit TV show. There is great speculation that the former Governor will once again run for the Presidency, which looks particularly promising according to a Public Policy Polling survey.

BOOK: Pick up a copy of "A Simple Government" by clicking right here.

The survey has Huckabee with a clear lead of 24 percent ahead of former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, the ex-governor of Massachussetts, who are tied at 14 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich comes in third with 11 percent, followed by Tim Pawlenty, the ex-governor of Minnesota, with 8 percent.

Each of the twelve things we need from Washington are their own chapter in the book-

The Most Important Form of Government Is a Father, Mother, and Children: We Need a Return to Family Values

The Further you drift from Shore, the More Likely You Are to be Lost at Sea: We Need to Return to local Government

You Can’t Spend What You Don’t Have; You Can’t Borrow What You Can’t Pay Back: We Need to Control Spending and Debt

If you Drain the Lake, All the Fish Will Die: We Need a Simple and Fair Taxation System

Once Humpty Dumpty Falls, It’s Hard to Put Him Back Together: We Need a Responsible Approach to Health and Health Care

If You Don’t Hear the School Bell Ring, Class Never Starts: We Need an Education System That Values All Students

Leave Your Campsite in Better Shape Than You Found It: We Need to Take Responsibility for the Environment

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors. We Need Immigration Reform That Works

Bullies in the Playground Understand Only One Thing: We Need a Strong Approach to Terrorism

When the Bullets Are Real, There Aren’t Any Toy Soldiers: We Need an Effective Military Policy and Strategy

With Enemies Like This, Who Needs Friends? We Need to Strengthen America’s Position on the World Stage

Hope Is More Than Just the Name of My Hometown: We Need to Have Fiath in the Future, No Matter How Big Our Present Problems Are.

A Miracle In Massachusetts

Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:58:10 -0800

The election of the Republican Junior Senator from Massachusetts shocked the nation and is credited with starting the tea party title-wave. The GOP Senator was elected in a 2010 special election to serve the remainder of arguably the most Liberal Senator Ted Kennedy’s term when he died after a long struggle with a brain tumor.

Considered an epic upset in the most Liberal state, Brown defeated Democratic candidate and Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, 53% to 46% . The upset was particularly embarrassing to the White House after Obama had personally traveled to Boston to try to ‘save’ the once favored Coakley. The loss was also devastating to the Liberals in support of healthcare overhaul, who feared another vote for the GOP would halt passage in the Senate.

Brown’s win was just the first of a GOP landslide when gubernatorial, senate and congressional candidates swept their Democratic opponents in the 2010 November elections. Since taking office, however, Senator Brown has been accused of flip-flopping, and caucusing with the Democrats instead of Republicans on important issues such as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

In his new book “Against All Odds,” Senator Brown gives the reader an in-depth behind the scenes of the man who shook Massachusetts to the core, from his shameful and hidden childhood to his rise to the United States Senate. And Sean presses him on the issues the people want to know the most such as his thoughts on Obama, the direction of the country, healthcare and his future aspirations.

Listen to Sean’s Radio Interview {HERE}

Watch Senator Brown on ‘Hannity’ {HERE}

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," February 21, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown burst on to the political scene back in 2010 when he was unexpectedly elected to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy. And now in a brand-new book, he details his life struggles and how they have helped shape him into the person that he is today.

And joining me now is the man himself. His book, "Against All Odds: My Life of Hardship, Fast Breaks, and Second Chances" is now in stores.

Senator, how are you? Welcome back to the program, I appreciate you being here.

SEN. SCOTT BROWN, R-MASS.: Great, Sean. Good to be on again. Thank you.

HANNITY: I read this book. I got to tell you, you grew up poor, broken family. I mean, really broken family. You talked about, "I remember the days when the largest thing we had in our refrigerator were milk and blocks of yellow government-issued cheese."

BROWN: Yes. Good old days.

HANNITY: Not exactly, right? Pretty tough.

BROWN: It was tough. But, you know, throughout all that, the one thing that my mom did instill on us is hard work. She usually had two or three jobs. And she was just battling to, not only battling, literally sometimes with her husbands, but also, you know, battling to keep a roof over our heads. And that really was conveyed to me.

HANNITY: And you even stole food, because you were hungry.

BROWN: Yes.

HANNITY: And you got busted when you were 14-years-old.

BROWN: Yes. I stole food. I was playing basketball and running around and was growing leaps and bounds at that point at a young age. I think at 12, I was 5'11, I would just grow, grow, grow like a sprout. And, yes, I was always hungry.

HANNITY: Well, I will get to that in a second, how basketball and a coach and a social studies teacher really saved your life. You, and this got a lot of news -- you revealed in the book that you were sexually abused by a 13-year-old kid when were you seven.

BROWN: Right.

HANNITY: And when you were 14 and went away to a Christian camp, of all places.

BROWN: I was 10 actually.

HANNITY: You were 10 at that point, OK. And in the first case, you took a rock and hit the kid in the head.

BROWN: Yes.

HANNITY: How -- first of all, when you're writing this book and you're going through all of this, you know, it had to be tough to remember it all. I'm sure you tried to forget it. And why did you think it was important to put in the book?

BROWN: You don't forget at all. You don't forget. So no, it wasn't hard to recall.

HANNITY: I didn't mean it that way.

BROWN: What was difficult was obviously was bringing it public and talking about it. My family, my mom didn't know, my dad -- my wife had a sense that something was going on, just little things I did with the girls. "Hey girls, stranger danger, you know, you go to a camp and if anyone is touching you a little weird, just be aware, make sure you tell mom or dad. We won't be mad, you know, don't be embarrassed." Little things like that. So, after she read the book, she is like, oh, OK, I get it. It's allowed us to really talk things through, the same with my mom and dad. And my daughter Ayla just read it, she said, dad, I get it now, I understand why you are so protective.

HANNITY: One of your daughters, by the way, was on "American Idol," she has done very well for herself.

BROWN: Right.

HANNITY: What -- as all of this was going on in your life you had some people when you finally got to 8th grade that really, because you had, how many men came into your life through your mother -- a lot?

BROWN: My mom and dad were married four times each. My mom is happily divorced. My dad is happily married. And yes, I had some good coaches and teachers who just took me under their wing and said, "Here, here is a basketball, here, you have a lot of potential, here." And they directed me, and quite frankly, but not for that, I probably wouldn't be -- definitely wouldn't be here talking to you. That's for sure.

HANNITY: But every relationship that your mom had when she brought men into the house seemed to become an abusive one.

BROWN: Yes. Two out of four were. My dad -- obviously my dad -- they were just too young. And after that, it was pretty intense.

HANNITY: And you say, you focused all your energy in basketball. You were angry all the time and that was your outlet.

BROWN: Yes.

HANNITY: Sports.

BROWN: Yes, sports. You know, like I said, but not for that, it channeled me. I mean, I remember the coach saying, "Hey, Brown! Why don't you guys play like Brown?"

HANNITY: Because you were playing with intensity.

BROWN: "Brown, whatever you have, you keep it up. Why can't you guys be like Brown?" I'm like, what are you talking about? If they only knew.

HANNITY: Yes. Well, let's move on to politics a little bit here.

BROWN: Sure.

HANNITY: There are some members of the Tea Party that have gotten angry with you. And they've even used the term Benedict Brown. You mentioned the Tea Party, as far as I caught in the book that I was reading through most of it, is I think one time. And I think the Tea Party Movement feels, hey, wait a minute, we helped elect you. You know, why not give more praise to them.

BROWN: First of all, I do, I give great praise to not only the Tea Party but every other political party and individual group that helped me. It wasn't just one group. To think that is not really accurate.

HANNITY: You consider yourself a Tea Party member?

BROWN: No, I'm a Republican from Massachusetts. I'm not a Tea Party member. But, what is a Tea Party member, somebody is concerned about the fiscal and financial future of our country? That's me. They're concerned about the over taxation and over spending in our national security, that's me. So, I agree with what they stand for.

HANNITY: I'll give you the examples where people are mad at you, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," financial reform, START Treaty, and the jobs and highways bill.

BROWN: Well, the jobs and highways -- let's start with the jobs and highways bill. A $15 billion bill that could that, if it went through, and remember, we only had 41, I moved for cloture immediately because there was $100 billion of amendments. So, I look at it as I saved $100 billion. And it hit the parameters, did it increase taxes, increase the deficit, good for Massachusetts, good for the country, and create jobs. And it hit all those five parameters.

HANNITY: Right.

BROWN: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I'm in the military, I'm still serving. I'm a lieutenant colonel. There are gays in the military, and when they come home injured or dead, I don't ask if they are gay or straight.

HANNITY: What about the military personnel or leaders that say this is not good for morale?

BROWN: All the leaders said -- and I spoke with every one of them, and I spoke over a thousand people. They said our concern is about the implementation during wartime, and I agree with that, and so do they.

And they are very cognizant of trying to do it during that period. So that issue obviously stands on its own merits. With regard to the finreg, as you know, that bill was about as big as this building and because I got involved we made it about as big as this table. When Congress gets done with this, it is going to be this big. And that was very important.

HANNITY: Here are the headlines. You've seen them. "Brown helps Democrats break GOP filibuster." "Scott Brown under pressure from left, votes for regulatory bill," I'm giving you the media. "HDH in Boston," "Scott Brown defends voting with Democrats." In that sense, "Harry Reid woos Scott Brown on jobs bill."

BROWN: You know, there is no wooing. Bottom line is --

HANNITY: He didn't woo you? He didn't court you? He didn't call you? He didn't meet with you?

BROWN: He asked me to look at the bill, which I would have done anyway. But if you look at each and every bill in an independent manner, I'm not sure what the mystery was. As I said, I went down there to be an independent voter and thinker.

I'm not going to be in lockstep with any particular party. I'm going to look at what is best for hitting those five parameters. And bottom line is we are in deep trouble right now, and we need people who are going to work to move our country forward and attack the very things that are holding us back.

I'm looking forward to tackling the debt and the deficit when we get back into session. As I said, when I went down there, $11.95 trillion, up to 14 -- over 14 trillion and rising. Absolutely no effort to reel in our spending and our debt and get our economy moving again. We spent very little time talking about jobs, and I'm going to continue to work to do that.

HANNITY: When we come back, I'll get your thoughts on President Obama and much more we will have with Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: As we continue now with Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown. His brand-new book, "Against All Odds" is in stores right now.

I consider myself a Reagan conservative. What that means, you know, a constitutionally principled limited government, more freedom, strong national defense conservative. You say you are a Scott Brown Republican.

BROWN: A Reagan Republican.

HANNITY: Are you a Reagan Republican?

BROWN: I absolutely feel very strongly about Ronald Reagan. I'm actually giving the keynote speech out at the Reagan library in a couple of nights per Mrs. Reagan's request. I have a lot of love and respect for President Reagan and what he did for our country.

HANNITY: Yes, all right, let me ask you. What do you think of President Obama?

BROWN: As I said it before, he's got a lot of challenges. You know, he's got a good heart and he has a couple of kids like I do. But in terms of tackling the very real fiscal issues that we're facing right now, I think he could do a lot better.

HANNITY: Did he -- did he punt, did he wimp out? Did he, you know, show a lack of leadership with, for example, his budget? Because it was only about a month ago he was talking about if we really want to deal with the budget, we have to deal with entitlement reform. He presents the budget and he doesn't deal with any of that.

BROWN: As you saw in the State of the Union, there was hopeful conversation about tackling a lot of things. So everyone was expecting them -- him to actually lead on those issues. I'm hopeful that through the numbers we now have in the House and the message we send with that budget, and then dealing with the opportunities facing with the CR and also some of the debt ceiling issues -- not only can we tackle those, but there will be some leadership when it deals with entitlements.

HANNITY: You say he faces big challenges, nobody disagrees with that. But this president by the end of this fiscal year will have accumulated nearly $5 trillion in new Obama debt. The stimulus has failed. The deficit has never been larger. If we project out, the deficit is even going to be higher.

BROWN: Listen, I don't support the budget in its present form.

HANNITY: No, I got it. But can you say that he failed? His economic policies--

BROWN: It is a work in progress. Certainly, we can all do better. I mean, we need leadership not only from the House, but from the president and the Senate. We need to come together.

HANNITY: Did he show leadership on that bill?

BROWN: On the budget? Listen, he could have done better. I think everybody knows that. You know, everybody is saying that he could have done better.

HANNITY: You seem -- I don't know. I'm trying to understand your reluctance --

BROWN: You're trying to have me hammer somebody, and where I can work with the president, I'm going to do it. It is not certainly productive for me as a senator to go out hammering anybody, whether they're Democrat or Republican.

HANNITY: How about just honest, truthful criticism?

BROWN: I've said right from the beginning that I'm disappointed in the budget and he should have shown leadership when it comes to working with entitlement reform and focusing on jobs and the economy.

I've been beating that drum for the last year. When they are talking about everything but the economy, I'm talking about jobs and moving our country forward.

HANNITY: Go back to when he said if we don't pass the stimulus, we face a catastrophe.

BROWN: I would have voted against that.

HANNITY: OK, fair enough.

BROWN: He hasn't create one new net job, that's been a failure, yes.

HANNITY: All right, health care passes, a brand new entitlement.

BROWN: They rammed it down our throats.

HANNITY: CBO says it going to lose 800,000 jobs, and the president, again, nearly $5 trillion in new debt. I think his economic plan has been a failure. And I'm just -- you say he has a tough job.

BROWN: It speaks for itself. I mean, we are in deep trouble. We have to work together collectively. It is not going to be one man. His leadership is critically important to send a message throughout the world that we are ready for business, that we are going to get our fiscal house in order.

I'm hopeful that he will do that. I know what I'm going to do. I'm talking about jobs. I've offered many alternatives to the spending that we are doing, paying for things with money in the system versus using the credit card.

Listen, I'm beating that drum and every other senator I know is beating that drum. We need some leadership from the majority party and the president to do the very same thing.

HANNITY: Are you happy the way he handled Egypt? Are you happy the way he's handling his foreign policy? Did you think he's given enough support to the dissident voices for example in Iran?

BROWN: Listen, I think that I'm very hopeful about what's happening over there, but I'm very concerned about obviously the way the protesters are being treated. I think everybody worldwide got caught off guard with what happened in Egypt.

I would have liked them to be on the same message, secretary of state, president, vice president, et cetera -- they weren't. With regard to Libya, and obviously what is happening in Iran, I'm hopeful they will continue to allow -- give the tools and resources to these people who want to seek freedom to in fact do so and be there behind them.

But we also need to make sure when we actually have a change that there's no void. We have groups like the Muslim Brotherhood come in. We need an orderly transition. Sometimes the United States needs to just step back and let these countries feel their way out and get some young rising stars in those countries to step forth and say, "You know what? I'll take it. I'll run with that mantle and let them go out and have a free and fair election."

HANNITY: Last question, as it relates to Wisconsin and the protesting, and the governor, Governor Walker's position about collective bargaining. Do you think the governor is right?

BROWN: I think the governor was elected to do a job and he's going to send his budget to the legislature so they can do their job. I encourage the senators to come back into the state and start tackling these very real issues realistically --

HANNITY: Do you agree with the governor? Do you think the governor is right?

BROWN: I agree that everything is on the table right now in this tough fiscal times.

HANNITY: Yes, but he's saying get rid of collective bargaining.

BROWN: I think he's the governor, and whatever he and the people of Wisconsin want, we should support.

HANNITY: You are ducking that question.

BROWN: Hey, listen. It's true. I'm not from Wisconsin. If I was there--

HANNITY: I got it, but -- it's a big union state in Massachusetts, right?

BROWN: It's a big union state and certainly there's a place for unions, but also there's a place to also come together to solve the real problems of each and every state. While everyone is tightening their belts, so do unions and other groups need to tighten their belts and contribute to the --

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Senator, I'm glad under tremendous difficulties growing up, in that sense it is an inspiring story that people can overcome a very hard past. Thanks for being with us.

BROWN: It's great to see you, too.

HANNITY: All right, thanks.

Tuesday February 22 2011

Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:59:03 -0800

Mike Huckabee,

Against All Odds

Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:49:07 -0800

Sean welcomed Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown to the program to discuss his new memoir, “Against All Odds.”

Brown’s book tells the story of his difficult, often nomadic childhood, shunted from house to apartment, and town to town, seventeen times over his first eighteen years. He somehow managed to thrive, despite an absent father, who married four separate times. So did his mother, in relationships frequently stained with alcohol, anger, and even violence.

Buy the book from Amazon.com by clicking here.

Brown found solace in basketball which helped him find a way out of his family chaos. He won the starting slot on the Tufts varsity basketball team as a freshman and became the tenth-highest scorer to graduate in the school's history. The book details Brown’s unlikely path that led him to national political stardom.

Brown shares a few secrets from his unprecedented Senate race and how he was about to mount such a remarkable victory. For more information on “Against All Odds” please click here.

Monday February 21 2011

Mon, 21 Feb 2011 06:15:46 -0800

Scott Brown, Michelle Malkin,

Mark Levin

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:17:51 -0800

Rumsfeld, Donald

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 08:11:38 -0800

Donald Henry Rumsfeld (born July 9, 1932) is an American politician and businessman who served as the 13th Secretary of Defense under President Gerald Ford from 1975 to 1977 and as the 21st Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2006. Combined, he was the second longest serving defense secretary behind Robert McNamara and the first to serve two non-consecutive terms.

Rumsfeld was White House Chief of Staff during part of the Ford Administration and also served in various positions in the Nixon Administration. He was elected to four terms in the United States House of Representatives, and served as the United States Permanent Representative to NATO. He was president of G. D. Searle & Company from 1977–1985, CEO of General Instrument from 1990–1993, and chairman of Gilead Sciences from 1997-2001.

Rumsfeld is best known for his aggressive leadership of the Department of Defense after the 9-11 attacks in 2001, and for his close supervision of the American-led wars in Afghanistan (from 2001) and Iraq (from 2003). His micromanagement of the Defense Department angered many generals and the slow progress of the Iraq war made him a political liability for Bush.

Donald Rumsfeld's new book, "Known and Unknown: A Memoir" can be found here.

Donald Rumsfeld

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 08:09:43 -0800

Wednesday January 19 2011

Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:05:44 -0800

Mike Pence, John Boehner,

Monday January 17 2011

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:04:28 -0800

Michael Reagan,

Wednesday January 12 2011

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:48:53 -0800

Donald Trump,

Tuesday November 23 2010

Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:27:15 -0800

Sarah Palin, Karl Rove,

Monday November 15 2010

Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:48:12 -0800

Bobby Jindal, Pat Caddell, Doug Schoen,

George W. Bush

Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:04:23 -0800

Bush, George W.

Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:01:53 -0800

George W. Bush was the 43rd president of the United States (2001-2009), born July 6, 1946, in New Haven Connecticut. George was the oldest of six children of George Bush who served as the 41st president of the United States (1989-1993) and Barbara Bush. George W. Bush received a bachelor's degree in history from Yale University in 1968 and received his M.B.A. from Harvard in 1975. In 1977 he married Laura Welch, a teacher and librarian, in Midland, Texas. Bush was a businessman and served as governor of Texas from 1995-2000.

PM Tony Blair Interview 9/13

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:23:31 -0800

Elisha and Romeo get their picture taken with Tony Blair

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:20:54 -0800

Sean and Tony Blair share a laugh in studio after his interview

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:17:23 -0800

Sean Hannity and Great Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:15:08 -0800

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair joins Sean in his radio studio

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:12:24 -0800

Freedom Concerts 2010 - Las Vegas

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:16:32 -0800

Limbaugh, David

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:05:01 -0800

David Limbaugh (born December 11, 1952) is an American political commentator and author.

Limbaugh was born in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. He has a bachelor's degree, cum laude, in political science and a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from the University of Missouri. He also served in the National Guard for six years. He is perhaps most notable for writing columns which are carried by Townhall.com, WorldNetDaily, and The Washington Times.

David Limbaugh

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:03:40 -0800

Monday August 23 2010

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:59:20 -0800

Mike Ghouse, David Limbaugh,

Freedom Concerts 2010 - Dallas

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:24:57 -0800

Freedom Concerts 2010 - Tulsa

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:28:26 -0800

Sean speaks with his fans after doing radio

Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:17:22 -0800

Drew Brees on 'Hannity'

Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:04:03 -0800

Last night Sean taped in interview with the 2009 Super Bowl MVP, Saints quarterback Drew Brees. A graduate of Purdue University, the two-time Heisman finalist just released a memoir, Coming Back Stronger: Unleashing the Hidden Power of Adversity.

Sean’s interview goes into great detail about Brees’ life including his true love for baseball, almost quitting football altogether in high school when he didn’t think he would get a chance to play, and the strong bond between him and his brother, Reid, after their parents’ divorce when they were kids. A memoir full of triumphs and travesty from being able to hold up his son, Baylen, after the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XLIV to the loss of his mother, takes you behind the scenes of the life of a hero.

Brees is not just a ‘Saint’ on the field. He is a man who takes pride in his faith and along with his wife, Brittany, in 2003 established the Brees Dream Foundation which has raised and/or committed more than $5 million to help advance cancer research; improve care for cancer patients; and help rebuild schools, parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields in New Orleans, San Diego, and the Purdue community.

Tune into ‘Hannity’ this Friday, July 9th on Fox News Channel for the full interview.

Negrophilia Book Review by Jonah

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:40:34 -0800

Erik Rush, best known for exposing the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, recently released Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal-America’s Racial Obsession, a bold, no-holds-barred book about race in America. Negrophilia, according to Rush, “is an undue and inordinate affinity for blacks…that has been promoted by activists, politicians, and the establishment press for the past forty years and that has fostered an erroneous perception of blacks.” The culprit is the Left. “Negrophilia is a device of the far left, socialists, and Marxists who infiltrated (and later came to dominate) the community of civil-rights activists during the 1960s.” Rush argues that although the Left claims to champion minorities, increased entitlement programs helped harm the black family and brought “urban blacks into the culture of dependency that is a pillar of Democratic power to this day.”

Rush, the child of an interracial couple, is aware that he is going to take a great deal of heat for this book, yet he holds no punches. Indeed, reading this book, one wonders how Rush is able to say some of the things he says. This is one of the points of the book, though. Because of negrophilia, Americans of all races are afraid to say certain things, lest they be seen as “racists” or “race traitors.” Indeed, Rush argues that the press ignores certain events that it would ordinarily cover extensively when they involve blacks.

Negrophilia touches on a tremendous number of racially-tinged issues of the last forty years. It discusses high-profile, racially charged court cases, black leaders (“Poverty Pimps”) such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright, as well as affirmative action and public schools. Rush has strong views on all of these subjects, but perhaps some of the more unique chapters of the book discuss negrophilia’s effect on foreign policy and the economy. Rush criticizes American foreign policymakers for assuming that those in non-European countries are just like American blacks, and, like American blacks, have been wronged by America. Consequently, “our foreign policy in the area of race consciousness, like our domestic policy, had swung too far in the opposite direction,” led by the left “which has sought to compromise America’s preeminence.” The result is that Americans often ignore third world atrocities and have clouded views of third world dictators.

Negrophilia has even affected the American economy, Rush argues. Pressure from activists led to the creation of the Community Reinvestment Act, which made it easier for low-income, particularly minority, Americans to get loans. These loans led to millions defaulting and the recent economic crisis. Rush targets ACORN, the “community organization,” whose “radical socialist origins” he traces, for much of the increase in subprime loans.

Having shown many of the negative effects of negrophilia, Rush argues every American can no longer ignore this phenomenon. “For all practical purposes, there are no races anymore. In America, there are freedom fighters and there are those who would enslave all of us, regardless of race-and it’s time to choose.” Negrophilia is a provocative book which may shock readers, but highlights many problems plaguing America.

Gabriel, Brigitte

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:44:46 -0800

Brigitte Gabriel is one of the leading terrorism experts in the world providing information and analysis on the rise of global Islamic terrorism. She lectures nationally and internationally about terrorism and current affairs. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders. She has addressed the Australian Prime Minister, members of The British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, The Pentagon, The Joint Forces Staff College, The US Special Operations Command, The US Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI, and many others. In addition, Gabriel is a regular guest analyst on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, and various radio stations daily across America. She serves on the board of advisors of the Intelligence Summit.

Ms. Gabriel was Keynote speaker for Homeland Security Certification annual conference in 2009 in Las Vegas.

Ms. Gabriel is founder, president and CEO of ACT! for America, the largest national security grassroots organization in the US dedicated to preserving national security and combating Islamic supremacy. She’s the author of two New York Times Best Sellers, BECAUSE THEY HATE: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. And THEY MUST BE STOPPED: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it. Ms. Gabriel is named one of the top 50 most prominent speakers in America. She speaks Arabic, French, English and Hebrew.

Monday May 24 2010

Mon, 24 May 2010 13:45:33 -0800

Andrew McCarthy,

Andrew C. McCarthy

Mon, 24 May 2010 13:43:40 -0800

McCarthy, Andrew

Mon, 24 May 2010 13:29:31 -0800

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor at National Review. For 18 years, Andy was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. He held several executive staff positions and, in 1995, led the terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Following the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the Justice Department’s Command Post near Ground Zero in New York City. In 2004, he worked at the Pentagon as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Tuesday May 18 2010

Tue, 18 May 2010 13:14:46 -0800

Newt Gingrich,

Fred Thompson

Mon, 17 May 2010 09:25:32 -0800

Sean speaks with fans

Mon, 10 May 2010 10:48:35 -0800

Sean helps Levin

Mon, 10 May 2010 10:47:38 -0800

Sean and Levin are all smiles

Mon, 10 May 2010 10:46:11 -0800

Line wraps around Barnes and Noble in DC

Mon, 10 May 2010 10:45:12 -0800

Long lines for Hannity and the Great One

Mon, 10 May 2010 10:37:32 -0800

The Great One

Mon, 10 May 2010 10:35:29 -0800

Levin shakes hands with a fan

Mon, 10 May 2010 10:33:38 -0800

Sean and the Great One in DC (5/8/10)

Mon, 10 May 2010 07:58:05 -0800

Sean greets Boy Scout

Mon, 10 May 2010 07:54:23 -0800

Thursday May 06 2010

Thu, 06 May 2010 14:56:34 -0800

Laura Bush speaks with Sean in studio

Thu, 06 May 2010 06:13:32 -0800

Sean interviews Laura Bush in his NYC Studio

Thu, 06 May 2010 06:11:28 -0800

Wednesday May 05 2010

Wed, 05 May 2010 08:08:49 -0800

Laura Bush,

David Horowitz

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:19:09 -0800

Monday April 12 2010

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 05:43:22 -0800

Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich,

Conservative Victory Tour - Pennsylvania (4/3/10)

Mon, 05 Apr 2010 09:57:34 -0800

Rows of Books!

Mon, 05 Apr 2010 09:44:49 -0800

Conservative Victory Tour - Photos & Video

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:40:44 -0800

Sean's first new book in six years, "Conservative Victory" hit store shelves on March 30th. The book launched with rave reviews (read them here).

You can view photos and videos from Sean's "Conservative Victory" book tour across the country below:

PHOTOS FROM CINCINNATI!

Photos from Ohio

Photos from New Orleans

Photos from Kansas City, KS

Photos from Minnesota

Photos from Sean's visit to Pennsylvania

Photos from Sean's live broadcast at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA

Video interview from Sean's stop Murray Borders Books in Utah

Thursday April 01 2010

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:06:17 -0800

Andrew Breitbart, Karl Rove,

Breitbart, Andrew

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:05:05 -0800

Andrew J. Breitbart (born February 1, 1969) is an American publisher, commentator for the Washington Times, author, and an occasional guest commentator on various news programs. He may be best-known for serving as an editor for the Drudge Report website.

He was a researcher for Arianna Huffington, and was employed by her as "the primary developer" of her website, the Huffington Post. He currently runs his own news aggregation site, Breitbart.com, and four other sites: breitbart.tv, Big Hollywood, Big Government, and Big Journalism.

Michael Reagan jokes with Sean at Reagan Library

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:32:38 -0800

Sean interviews Michael Reagan

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:31:50 -0800

Massive crowds at Reagan Library

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:30:02 -0800

Packed house at Reagan Library

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:29:08 -0800

Sean and Michael Reagan (3/30/10)

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:28:23 -0800

Sean smiles at the audience at Reagan Library (3/30/10)

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:27:18 -0800

Sean smiles at a caller while broadcasting from Reagan Library (3/30/10)

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:26:34 -0800

Sean broadcasting live from Reagan Library (3/30/10)

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:25:39 -0800

Sean broadcasting live from Reagan Library (3/30/10)

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:25:02 -0800

Conservative Victory Tour - Reagan Library

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:23:58 -0800

The first stop on Sean's Conservative Victory Tour was the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA.

Bozell, Brent

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:57:37 -0800

Leo Brent Bozell III (born July 14, 1955) is the American founder and president of the Media Research Center, the Conservative Communications Center, and the Cybercast News Service. Bozell served as president of the Parents Television Council from 1995 to 2006, after which he was succeeded by Timothy F. Winter. In addition, currently, Bozell serves on the board for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and has served on the board of directors in the American Conservative Union. Bozell is also nationally syndicated by Creator's Syndicate where his work appears in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Post, Los Angeles Times and National Review.

The Media Research Center operates on a self-reported $10 million annual budget, using what it calls "the most comprehensive media monitoring operation in the world" to track major televised broadcasts and print news with the goal of "documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias."

Tuesday March 30 2010

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:02:30 -0800

Michael Reagan, Stuart Varney, Juan Williams,

Conservative Victory

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:50:07 -0800

Conservative Victory - The Reviews Are In!

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:44:31 -0800

Sean Hannity’s Conservative Victory
By Erick Erickson

Last week, I was playing in the yard with my 4 year old when Santa Claus the UPS Man showed up. The 4 year old took the package from his hands, tore open the envelope, and said, “Hey, that’s that cute guy from TV.”

A review copy of Sean Hannity’s new book, Conservative Victory, had arrived. Meh.

I get these all the time. I have largely stopped reviewing books except for the really goods ones I’m interested in like Mark Levin’s last masterpiece. But Sean’s a friend, so I figured I’d give it a go without much expectation of it being much more than pablum.

I was wrong.

Sean actually has done a very good job and is willing, despite what his critics often say, of addressing the very real problems within the GOP and clearly differentiating conservatives from the Republican Party. {Read More}

Sean Hannity and the Importance of Reagan Conservatism
by Jeffrey Lord

Somewhere Ronald Reagan is smiling.

As Sean Hannity takes the stage at the Reagan Library this afternoon and tonight for the kickoff of the tour for his first book in six years, Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda, one can almost see and hear the former President. {Read More}

Hannity Book Hits Obama
by Connie Hair

New York Times best-selling author, radio talk show and Fox News host Sean Hannity has a hard-hitting new book out today, his first in six years. With the release of Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda, Hannity kicks off a national book signing tour this afternoon at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif. {Read More}

How to Stem Socialist Tide
By Rebecca Hagelin

Culture Challenge of the Week: Socialism

I'm not sure how you can describe the largest expansion of government into the most private area of our lives as anything other than socialism. And "socialist" comes fairly close to describing the manner in which our national leaders recently behaved when they ignored the will of the people and voted to ram through a health care program that seeks to force every American to bow to the "wisdom" and mercy of government leaders to decide what is best for us and our families. {Read More}

To purchase your copy of "Conservative Victory" for just $8, CLICK HERE!

Schoen, Doug

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:29:39 -0800

Douglas Schoen is a political analyst, pollster, author, and commentator in the United States. He appears regularly on Fox News. He partnered with political strategist Mark Penn and Michael Berland in the firm of Penn, Schoen & Berland.

Schoen graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School and attended Horace Mann High School in New York City.

He has worked on the campaigns of many Democratic party candidates including Ed Koch and Bill Clinton, as well as on behalf of corporate clients. He also did work for Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. His opinions are carried by media covering the Barack Obama administration.

Wednesday February 17 2010

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:27:09 -0800

Stuart Varney, Joe Wurzelbacher,

Tuesday February 16 2010

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:48:32 -0800

Sean's New Book - "Conservative Victory"

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:50:53 -0800

“Barack Obama is endangering our nation’s future. The time to stop him is now.” - Sean Hannity

In Sean's first new book in six years — he issues a stirring call to action. Hannity surveys all the major Obama players—from the president’s affiliation with radical theology to his advisers’ history of Marxist activism, repression of the media, support for leftist dictators, and worse. He exposes their resulting campaign to dismantle the American free-market system and forfeit our national sovereignty. But he draws on the examples of Ronald Reagan and the GOP’s Contract with America to show how conservatives can unite behind this country’s most cherished principles and act now to get America back on the right track - while we still can.

Sean's latest book, Conservative Victory, hits store shelves soon, but you can pre-order your copy right now!

Pre-Order From Amazon.com

Pre-Order From BarnesandNoble.com

Pre-Order From Borders.com

BOOK TOUR DATES:

Sean will be visiting several cities throughout the country. Check the list below to see if Sean will be signing copies of his new book at a location near you!

Tuesday, March 30 - San Francisco, CA - (Bookstore TBD)

Wednesday, March 31 - Salt Lake City, UT - (Venue TBD)

Saturday, April 3 - New York - Evening book signing at Book Revue

Wednesday, April 7 - Minneapolis, MN - (Venue TBD)

Thursday, April 8 - Grand Rapids, MI - (Bookstore TBD)

Friday, April 9 - New Orleans - Southern Republican Conference (followed by book signing)

Saturday, April 10 - Nashville, TN - (Venue TBD)

Tuesday, April 13 - Orlando, FL - (Venue TBD)

Wednesday, April 14 - Atlanta, GA - (Venue TBD)

Thursday, April 15 - Cincinnati, OH - Arena Rally (Venue TBD)

Friday December 04 2009

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:31:32 -0800

Tuesday November 24 2009

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:38:09 -0800

Larry The Cable Guy,

Featured

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:42:43 -0800

Malkin, Michelle

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:09:34 -0800

Michelle Malkin (born October 20, 1970, née Maglalang) is an American conservative commentator, blogger and author. Her weekly, syndicated column appears in a number of newspapers and websites nationwide. She has been a guest on MSNBC, Fox News Channel, C-SPAN, and national radio programs. Malkin has written four books published by a leading conservative publisher, Regnery.

Michelle Malkin Profile Pic

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:07:36 -0800

Friday November 20 2009

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:58:13 -0800

Michelle Malkin,

Palin, Sarah

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:07:28 -0800

Sarah Louise Palin ( ˈpeɪlɨn (help·info); néeHeath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician who served as Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009. She was the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States in 2008.

Palin was a member of the Wasilla, Alaska, city council from 1992 to 1996 and the city's mayor from 1996 to 2002. After an unsuccessful campaign for Lieutenant Governor of Alaska in 2002, she chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 until her resignation in 2004. She was elected Governor of Alaska in November 2006. Palin became the first female governor of Alaska and the youngest person ever elected governor of that state.

In 2008, Republican presidential candidate John McCain chose Palin as his running mate in that year's presidential election, making her the second female candidate and the first Alaskan candidate of either major party on a national ticket, as well as the first female vice-presidential nominee of the Republican Party. Since the defeat of the McCain-Palin ticket in the 2008 election, there has been speculation that she may run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.[8][9]

On July 3, 2009, Palin announced she would not seek reelection as governor and that she was resigning, effective July 26, 2009, eighteen months prior to the completion of her first term. She cited ethics complaints that had been filed following her selection as running mate to John McCain as the reason for her resignation, saying the resulting investigations had affected her efficacy to govern the state.

Sarah Palin "Rogue"

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:05:56 -0800

Wednesday November 18 2009

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:02:07 -0800

Sarah Palin,

Coulter, Ann

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:41:52 -0800

Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American social and political commentator, best-selling author, and syndicated columnist. She frequently appears on television, radio, and as a speaker at public and private events. Well-known for her conservative political opinions and the controversial ways in which she defends them, Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and, unlike "broadcasters," does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced."

Ann Coulter Profile Pic

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:40:54 -0800

Friday November 13 2009

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:35:13 -0800

Ann Coulter,

Dick Morris Profile Pic

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:15:34 -0800

Morris, Dick

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:11:30 -0800

Dick Morris (born November 28, 1948) is an American political author and commentator who previously worked as a pollster, political campaign consultant, and general political consultant.

Morris became an adviser to the Bill Clinton administration after Clinton was elected president in 1992. Morris encouraged Clinton to pursue third way policies of triangulation that merged traditional Republican and Democratic proposals, rhetoric, and issues to achieve maximum political gain and popularity. He worked as a Republican strategist before joining the Clinton administration, where he helped Clinton recover from the 1994 midterm elections by convincing the President to adopt Republican policies.[1]

The president consulted Morris in secret beginning in 1994.[2] Clinton's communications director George Stephanopoulos has said that "Over the course of the first nine months of 1995, no single person had more power over the president".[2] Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. Morris then turned his focus to media commentary. He now writes a weekly column for the New York Post which is carried nationwide, contributes columns and blogs to both the print and online versions of The Hill, and appears regularly on the Fox News Channel for political commentary. He is also President of Vote.com, a website which conducts polls on "important public issues and other topics" and then emails results to "important decision makers" in government[3].

Wednesday November 11 2009

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:57:37 -0800

Prejean, Carrie

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:01:54 -0800

Caroline Michelle "Carrie" Prejean (born May 13, 1987[1]) is an American model and former beauty queen from Vista, California. She held the title of Miss California USA 2009, and placed first runner up in the Miss USA 2009 pageant. She gained nationwide attention over her answer to a question about same-sex marriage. She was eventually dethroned on June 10, 2009, with the producers of the Miss California USA pageant citing continued alleged breach of contract issues as the reason. [2] Prejean calls those claims false, and has filed a libel suit alleging that she has been discriminated against due to her religious views.[3]

Prejean has appeared as a model for Target, Saks Fifth Avenue, Bloomingdale's, and Nordstrom. She has also appeared in Bliss magazine, as a model for E!: Entertainment Television, at the 81st Academy Awards as the pivot girl, and in an interactive model search competition for the NBC game show Deal or No Deal.

Carrie Prejean Profile Pic

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:00:31 -0800

Monday November 09 2009

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:51:30 -0800

Newt Gingrich

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:52:05 -0800

Tuesday November 03 2009

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:10:06 -0800

Mark Levin, Rudy Giuliani, Karl Rove,

Levin, Mark

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:06:35 -0800

Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is an American radio host, lawyer, author, and political commentator who served in the Reagan administration. He is the host of The Mark Levin Show, a nationally-syndicated talk show that airs throughout the United States, and the President of Landmark Legal Foundation. Levin earned his B.A.magna cum laude and J.D. at Temple University.[1][2] He is the author of multiple bestselling books and a contributor to various other media outlets.

Mark Levin

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:59:40 -0800