The Sean Hannity Show - Pop Culture

Amanda Berry

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

Three Kidnapped Girls Found Alive

Tue, 07 May 2013 09:42:08 -0800

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

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

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

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

Gun Control Debate Moves Forward

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:17:15 -0800

Today is a big day in the Senate, as the debate over gun control really kicks into gear. The Senate voted this morning to start debate on the Democrat's gun bill, along with a host of amendments, including the Toomey-Manchin compromise on background checks. Sixteen Republicans ended up voting for the motion to proceed, with two Democrats voting against.

The debate is likely to go on for a while, maybe weeks. But in the end, this is nothing but feel-good legislation. I call it that because it will not solve the problem of preventing horrific tragedies like we saw in Newtown, Aurora, Tuscon and elsewhere. It bothers me that this debate is labeled as “gun violence prevention” when the legislation and amendments they will be discussing won't do anything of the sort. In the end, the NRA is exactly right. A recent statement reads in part:

“The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone.”

As Senator Ted Cruz pointed out last night on Hannity, we should be focusing on punishing violent criminals. There is also a significant mental healthcare component which is being largely ignored in this debate.

Guns are rightly used to protect our money, our president, athletes, actors, and other leer-jet limousine liberals who hire armed body guards … why can't our children in schools have the same protections, using retired policemen or military veterans as a first line of defense for our most vulnerable in society?

In the end, if the current gun control legislation won't work to prevent future, heart-breaking tragedies, then what's the point?

Obama & Beyonce

Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:19:22 -0800

Party Time!

Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:17:15 -0800

While you, the hard-working American people, are shut out from the White House, celebrities and rock stars will be filing in tonight for a star-studded performance in the East Room. The Obama's lavish lifestyle continues tonight with a concert celebrating Memphis soul. The performers include Justin Timberlake, Cyndi Lauper, Al Green, Queen Latifah and many more. The guest list, last time I checked, was not going to be released by the White House. Wonder why. The “In Performance at the White House” is paid for by you, the taxpayers, as an official function. By the way, this is the tenth “command performance” for the Obama's to take place in the White House. You would think this would be something that would come to an end, considering the sequester cuts, but apparently not. You would think that someone in the administration would look beyond Washington to the heart of America where people are hurting and see that the optics of these types of events rubs salt in our wounds. But apparently not. While the Obama's claim to be champions of the poor and the middle-class, they sure are seemingly out of touch with them.

Also under the headline of “poor optics,” Barack and Michelle's favorite celebrity couple – Beyonce and Jay Z – magically were able to secure special permission to travel to Cuba for their anniversary. Cuba has been closed to regular American tourists for decades. But Obama's Treasury Department - led by Jack Lew, Obama's former chief of staff - “fully licensed” the trip for Beyonce and Jay Z to Havana. This brings up many questions. Are there more trips like this that are being approved? If not, did Beyonce and Jay Z get special treatment? Marco Rubio is among a handful of lawmakers who is asking for information surrounding the trip, which was used as propaganda for the Cuban regime. Needless to say, the pictures of Beyonce and Jay Z visiting Cuba with the approval of the Obama administration doesn't sit well with many Americans who understand the optics and ramifications of a trip like this.

Easter bunny & Obama

Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:10:01 -0800

The politics of Easter

Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:09:02 -0800

While billions of Christians around the world celebrated Easter Sunday, the holiday did not pass in this country without political controversy.

President Obama and his family attended an Easter service yesterday where the pastor took a jab at those on the religious right. During his sermon Dr. Luis Leon is reported as saying, “It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling people back … for blacks to be back in the back of the bus, for women to be back in the kitchen, for gays to be in the closet and for immigrants to be on their side of the border.” I suppose politics cannot be set aside on even our most sacred of Holy days.

Then we have Google under fire for choosing to display a picture of Cesar Chavez yesterday on the homepage of its search engine, rather than anything related to Jesus or the resurrection. Many people were outraged by the decision to honor the leftist icon while seemingly ignoring a religious icon celebrated by billions worldwide.

Some people also found it in poor taste that Democrat organizations like Obama's Organizing for Action and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee would send out fundraising emails on Easter Sunday. The one from the DCCC, which was written by Nancy Pelosi, didn't even bother to acknowledge Easter.

Then there was the Easter Egg Roll, which took place earlier today on the White House lawn. Thousands of people gathered along with professional athletes, famous actors, politicians and their families. While the event is largely funded by private donations, the spectacle of famous folks and their families celebrating on the White House lawn still seems in poor taste, considering the Obama administration's political decision to close the White House for tours for the rest of America and their families.

Wednesday March 27 2013

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:45:46 -0800

Easter bunny

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:41:52 -0800

Political Correctness: Ban the Easter Bunny

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:40:17 -0800

We have an elementary school in Alabama that has apparently banned the word “Easter.” The school is going to host an egg hunt, but you can't call the eggs “Easter eggs.” Why? For the sake of religious diversity. Seriously! Apparently just mentioning the word “Easter” is somehow offensive to other religions, and therefore should not be allowed in our schools.

What is happening in this country where these types of politically correct policies are prevailing? Every year around Christmas time, kids in schools are in no way allowed to celebrate Christmas or, heaven-forbid, Jesus. Instead, they have “winter” holidays where they can talk about snow and snowmen.

I would like to say that the level of religious intolerance in this country has become absurd, but that's not entirely accurate; It's a level of Christian intolerance, which has become all too normal in our present society. Just take a look at the recent case down in Florida where a professor had students stop on the word “Jesus.” After one student refused to participate in the exercise, he was promptly banned from the classroom and charged with violating the student code of conduct. The university has since apologized and even the governor of Florida has gotten involved, but why on Earth would someone think that this was OK to begin with? I dare say that had this lesson involved a different faith, let's say Islam, and students were told to stomp on the word “Muhammed,” there would be international outrage. Instead, liberals have remained silent on this stopping of Jesus issue because it does not feed into their progressive agenda. I would argue that there is a double standard.

Liberals will often site the “separation of church and state” as the reason why we can't say words like “Easter” or “Christmas” in schools. But they have a warped interpretation of this phrase (which doesn't appear in the Constitution, by the way). This is referring to the establishment of religion; It doesn't mean that we can't talk about religion in government-run schools.

Christians and Christianity has become a punching bag for liberals, and their political correctness is affecting even our youngest Americans.

Gay marriage

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:38:58 -0800

Gay Marriage Debate Continues

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:37:38 -0800

We are in day two of the heated debate over same sex marriage as the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act today, after yesterday's Proposition 8 argument.

It wasn't that long ago when our own Commander-in-Chief “evolved” on the issue of gay marriage. He was for it, then he was undecided, then he was against it and now he's for it again. His “evolution” happened less than a year ago, and now more politicians like Hillary Clinton have similarly come out of the closet in support of gay marriage. Yet if you listen to the lapdog Obama-mania media report on the issue before the Supreme Court, they are labeling those who support traditional marriage as “on the wrong side of history” and “archaic.” It wasn't that long ago when their Anointed One supported this “archaic” belief in marriage being between a man and a woman. Either way, the Obama administration is thrilled to have the issue currently in the spotlight. After months of Obama's poll numbers dropping, particularly on the economy, the White House is expecting political gains from this rejuvenated focus on gay marriage, an issue on which Obama now stands with the majority.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, we know better than to try and predict the Court's ruling based on the questions posed by the Justices, but yesterday they seemed skeptical - not about the issue of gay marriage itself - but on the Supreme Court's role in ruling on the matter. Justice Alito pointed out that they were being asked to rule on an institution that is “newer than cell phones or the Internet.” Justice Kennedy called the issue “uncharted waters,” asking if the case is properly granted. Justice Sotomayor asked, “Why is taking a case now the answer?” Could it be that those of the left will not get the definitive ruling on gay marriage that they are hoping for?

Some people have compared this battle to that of the abortion issue. But even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said the Supreme Court ruling on abortion in Roe v. Wade went too far in forcing a consensus on all Americans, many of which still oppose abortion. This is why I would be surprised if the Court did, in fact, make a blanket ruling on the issue of gay marriage for all Americans. To do so, in my view, would disrupt the democratic process. It would create a permanent culture war, as the Roe v. Wade decision has done for the issue of abortion.

Instead, I think they are going to look for an out. They will punt on the issue, saying that they don't have standing. The issue will be sent back to the states, allowing each state and its citizens find its proper footing on the issue. While that may seem like defeat to some supporters of gay marriage, others have pointed out that it's really not. The fact is that the overall shift in support for gay marriage will make it far more likely for more states to pass laws making it legal.

That leads to today's arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act. Some of today's initial questioning over DOMA seemed to surround the Obama administration's role in not defending the law and instead seemingly pawning off its constitutionality for the Supreme Court to decide. Again, the Justices also seemed focus on whether or not the definition of marriage is even a federal issue, or if it should be left to the states.

At the end of the day, there is simply no constitutional right for gays to marry. It doesn't mean that gay marriage might not eventually happen, but it just means that the left is seeking to invent a new Constitutional right, which they believe they can do because of their view of the Constitution as a living, breathing document. I think that this is a dangerous approach because it separates Constitutional decisions from the Constitution itself. It was actually Justice Sotomayor who brought up the point of a decision on gay marriage being a slippery slope. This is not to say that those who support gay marriage support polygamy, but the same argument could be used to support other forms of marriage such as polygamy, which has historically been far more common than gay marriage. Constitutionally if we open the door, where do we then draw the line and what justification do we have for drawing certain lines but not others?

Something we have to keep in mind is that while there is a lot of fervor over this issue right now, this is not a priority for the American people. That's not to belittle those who feel passionately about the issue, but Americans overall are not concerned about gay marriage as much as they are about the economy, jobs and the debt.

Gun control debate to come

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:10:58 -0800

After the Easter recess, the Senate is set to begin consideration of gun control legislation, but not without controversy.

Earlier in the week, we experienced Democrat in-fighting as Senator Dianne Feinstein called it a “betrayal” when Harry Reid decided not to include her assault weapons ban in the bill. The fact that Reid felt the need to withhold the assault weapons ban from the bill showed that Democrats have lost their edge on this issue and are worried about harming the re-election chances of red state Democrats.

Realizing how this looked politically, Reid has decided that he would include an expansion of federal background checks. Essentially what this means is the virtual end of private gun sales, because individuals are incapable of performing proper federal background checks. Republicans also warn that this could lead to the creation of a federal database of gun owners. But if you dare to criticize the concept of gun registration and background checks, this makes you a member of the “black helicopter crowd,” according to the Vice President of the United States! Crazy Uncle Joe told NPR earlier in the week: “When you go to registration, it raises all the black helicopter crowd notion that what this is all about is identifying who has a gun so that one day the government can get up and go to the house and arrest everyone who has a gun, and they'll cite Nazi Germany and all that.” Good grief.

Obama frustrates the media

Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:54:25 -0800

One of the biggest stories of the day is the “frustration” of the White House press corps. What could possibly be so heinous so as to cause this “extreme frustration?” They were denied access to Barack Obama's golf weekend with Tiger Woods in Florida. That's right … what has finally pushed them to the boiling point is their lack of ability to get a good picture of Obama swinging golf clubs with Tiger.

Fox News' Ed Henry released this statement:"Speaking on behalf of the White House Correspondents Association, I can say a broad cross section of our members from print, radio, online and TV have today expressed extreme frustration to me about having absolutely no access to the President of the United States this entire weekend. There is a very simple but important principle we will continue to fight for today and in the days ahead: transparency."

Ironically enough, this frustration comes just days after Obama declared his administration to be “the most transparent in history,” as we pointed out in our recent Outrageous Statement of the Day.

The White House says the access (or lack thereof) granted for this golf outing is entirely consistent with its policies in the past. Arguably, the White House doesn't want too many pictures floating around of the President teeing it up with anyone, much less the publicly disgraced Tiger Woods, while millions of Americans are still looking for work or struggling to get by in their part-time jobs. Let's not forget that President Bush was regularly excoriated for his rounds of golf while the economy “suffered” during its 5.6% “jobless recovery.” While this current administration enjoys the protections of the Obama-Mania Media, it would have been hard to ignore images of Obama and Tiger teeing it up. Therefore, the White House just decided to deny everyone the chance.

While it can't be said for all members of the mainstream media, it is a bit disconcerting that these journalists seem extremely perturbed by this seemingly innocuous slight by the White House. Meanwhile, the level of urgency over the lack of transparency regarding far more pressing matters like Benghazi or Fast and Furious haven't managed to garner similar media coverage over journalist “outrage.”

America's Shameful Support for Dorner

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:28:30 -0800

Since releasing his manifesto last week, the ex-LA cop killer Christopher Dorner received a reaction that has many, including myself, shaking ours heads. It has been disheartening to see so many Americans supporting a killer, forgiving his actions, simply because they agreed with his message.

Facebook groups, “I support Christopher Jordan Dorner,” “We are All Chris Dorner” and “Christopher Jordan Dorner for President” are just a few examples of the sickening support for this now presumably deceased killer. Support for his “cause” also spread on Twitter where thousands of “fans” cheered him on, urging him to “fight the power.”

What is happening to our society where it is seemingly has become OK to support someone who kills another human being? That is wrong, no matter what the “cause.” There are different ways to bring light to an issue or an injustice, none of which include depriving someone of life, liberty or property. Yet this is exactly what Dorner has done. The idea that violence is somehow justified because you agree with the cause is a slippery-slope into cultural depravity.

The Pope Resigns

Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:11:40 -0800

The major headline news story of the day is the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI on February 28th. This isn't something we would ever expect to see in our lifetimes, considering the last time this happened was almost 600 years ago.

Given the shocking nature of this announcement, the rumors are already swirling. Initial coverage on CNN immediately questioned the impact of the Church's child abuse sex scandal on the Pope's decision. It's amazing how quickly some in the media are willing to discuss that possibility, while going to painstaking efforts to avoid sex scandals that involve Democrat politicians. The burgeoning sex scandal story involving Democrat Senator Robert Menendez is just the latest example of this.

If we accept his own reasoning as truth, Pope Benedict XVI says that he is resigning because of his advanced age and deteriorating health. Pope Benedict XVI's resignation letter said: “In today's world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.”

Many have described the move as a act of extraordinary “humility,” putting the needs of the Church above that of his own. Putting aside any personal feelings about this Pope, perhaps there is something we can learn from that in our own country. It is becoming a rarity in our society that people will act for the betterment of a great good, rather than for the furtherance of their own power. What has many Americans upset with our own government is the fact that power and prestige seems more important to politicians than solutions. Humility is a quality that I cannot say describes nearly anyone currently representing us in Washington. They seem to have forgotten that they derive their power from the consent of the governed – We the People. If the Pope's explanation is true, and I personally have no reason to believe otherwise, then the news is noteworthy not just because of the shakeup it will cause within the Catholic Church but because it demonstrates a quality that is lacking within our own political sphere and society.

Obama-Mania Media Hypocrisy

Thu, 07 Feb 2013 09:01:35 -0800

Let’s highlight the coverage, or lack thereof, of the Bob Menendez sex scandal in the mainstream media.

At least as of yesterday, ABC has completely ignored the story. But even if the mainstream media IS covering it, consider the slant of their coverage. At this point, NBC seems set on covering the Menendez story as a “false attack.” No doubt that attack came from the “enemies” of the right-wing blogosphere.

Consider the difference between the mainstream media’s reluctance to cover this story of a Democrat’s sexual allegations, compared to conservatives. The Media Research Center has some telling numbers …

- In only eight and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have devoted a staggering 99 stories to sexual harassment charges against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.

- ABC filed an astonishing 152 stories about Mark Foley in just the first 12 days of his 2006 scandal involving lewd messages with congressional pages.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

Super Bowl

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:25:55 -0800

Monday February 04 2013

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

Pat Buchanan,

Monday December 17 2012

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:24:35 -0800

Sean's take on Costas gun control controversy

Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:31:33 -0800

Sean kicked off Tuesday's show and briefly touched on the controversy surrounding halftime comments made by sportscaster Bob Costas during NBC's Sunday Night Football broadcast. Addressing the weekend's murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher and his girlfriend, Costas said, "If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."

"I've always like Bob as a sportscaster," Sean said. "Why do these guys just destroy the image I have of them when they say stupid stuff? They make commentary on things I don't think they have any real knowledge of - I mean if Belcher really wanted to to commit murder, I don't think it would have really mattered whether he had a gun or not. Ask OJ Simpson," Sean continued. "Maybe it's just an inherent fear that liberals have of guns or a desire for control?" Sean speculated.

To listen to Costas' halftime comments click here.

Tennis

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:18:24 -0800

Major Announcment for Junior Tennis

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:05:14 -0800

On Sunday, October 21, 2012, the undersigned representatives of the “Industry Group” and the United States Tennis Association met together in Chicago to discuss the National Junior Competition changes. We had an excellent meeting. Both the USTA and the Industry Group listened and exchanged ideas in a spirit of mutual respect. In addition, both sides learned a great deal from one another, including the USTA’s overall strategy to grow the sport and allow each player to develop to his or her potential.

It was agreed that there will be no changes to the National Junior Competition Schedule for 2013. In addition, it was agreed that between now and mid-March there will be a series of transparent and inclusive “Town Hall Listening Meetings” at which industry representatives,parents, coaches, players, tournament directors, USTA representatives, and other interested parties will discuss, and explore refinements to, the Junior Competition Schedule for 2014 and beyond.

-==-=-=-

The above letter is an agreement that was reached yesterday after a meeting in Chicago.

For those of you that have been following this issue, you know that I have been very critical of the USTA and its proposed changes and reductions in national tournament opportunities for Juniors.

I am very pleased to report to you that the meeting went extremely well....

As the above letter points out, 2013 changes will be put on hold, but more importantly, there will be numerous opportunities for Junior players, Parents, Coaches, Directors and others to NOW BECOME INVOLVED in the process.

This is a tremendous opportunity for anybody and everybody that has a passion for American tennis and Junior development.

I want to personally and publicly thank everybody involved for their hard work and dedication and most importantly for the desire to work with the USTA membership and get the best possible Junior Competition schedule.

The possibilities and ideas are inspiring and can benefit every American Junior at every level of development. Kids that are potential future Professional stars, kids that are on track to play college tennis, and amazing opportunities for young recreational players.

I sincerely believe that if people take full advantage of this open dialogue that is about to begin, you will all feel extremely optimistic about the Future af American tennis.

My many thanks to all....... More to come.

Best

Sean

USTA to Pause 2013 Schedule Changes - TennisInsider.com

USTA listens, holds off on changes - USAToday.com

Atlas Shrugged, Pt. II

Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:22:21 -0800

Sean's acting debut!

Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:21:31 -0800

Above is Sean's acting debut in the new hit movie "Atlas Shrugged, Pt. II."

Here's a brief synopsis of the movie:

The global economy is on the brink of collapse. Unemployment has risen to 24%. Gas is now $42 per gallon. Brilliant creators, from artists to industrialists, continue to mysteriously disappear at the hands of the unknown. Dagny Taggart, Vice President in Charge of Operations for Taggart Transcontinental, has discovered what may very well be the answer to a mounting energy crisis - found abandoned amongst the ruins of a once productive factory, a miraculous motor that could seemingly power the World. But, the motor is dead... there is no one left to decipher its secret... and, someone is watching. It's a race against the clock to find the inventor before the motor of the World is stopped for good. Who is John Galt?

For more on Atlas Shrugged, Pt. II please click here

Gracie

Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:03:36 -0800

Sean trains his puppy Gracie!

Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:01:15 -0800

Click here to watch Sean train his dog Gracie!

Big Gulp

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:37:48 -0800

Tennis

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:21:44 -0800

USTA

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:47:37 -0800

USTA/Tennis Community

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:41:35 -0800

The following joint statement has been released by the USTA along with members of the tennis community who were in attendance. First I would like everybody to know that behind the scenes there have been many people who have dedicated a great amount of time and energy dealing with the issue of the "proposed changes for 2013/2014" to junior comp tennis.

I want to thank each and every one of them for their dedication and commitment to Jr. Tennis. I also want to applaud the many members of the USTA leadership, who have shown a willingness to listen to the many serious concerns that have been raised. This letter shows a lot of "good faith" IMHO.

With that said, there is a deadline approaching, time is of the essence. I am cautiously optimistic that the "pause button" will in fact be hit, and then the hard work can begin, that being putting a Jr. Competition schedule together that lives up to the USTA mission to "grow the sport" and one that provides tennis players at all levels the opportunity to compete and grow their game.

Updates to come:

Sean

JOINT STATEMENT:

“This past Monday and Tuesday, Steve Bellamy, Robert Sasseville and Kevin Kempin were able to spend several hours speaking with USTA leadership, (Dave Haggerty, Gordon Smith, Kurt Kamperman) about the Junior Comp changes. We are pleased to say that we had a very open and candid exchange of ideas.

We shared many, if not all, of our concerns about the proposed new competitive structure, and the USTA definitely listened. We also got a better understanding of their long term objectives for making these changes. Long story short, we requested that the USTA hit the “pause button” for the 2013-2014 junior comp changes before instituting these changes. This obviously comes with some procedural challenges for the USTA, however, they were open to the recommendation and said they will discuss it internally and give it full consideration.

In addition, the USTA acknowledged that moving forward they wanted to seek input from a broader group of constituents, i.e. parents, college coaches, tournament directors. To that end, the USTA will be getting back to us with some suggestions. All in all, we felt that our meetings with the USTA were very productive, and we believe that we should all hit the “pause button” for a short time to allow the USTA to come back to us with their plans for moving forward. Recognizing that time is of the essence, we anticipate hearing back from the USTA within the next two weeks.”

Sean at the 2012 RNC

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:22:07 -0800

Romneyville Horn

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:15:24 -0800

Wizard of Romneyville

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:15:02 -0800

Romneyville Guitar Clown

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:14:04 -0800

Romneyville

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:13:02 -0800

Romneyville

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:12:28 -0800

Romneyville

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:12:10 -0800

Man interviewed at Romneyville

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:11:51 -0800

Jon Lovitz

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:52:44 -0800

Antonio Mora

Sat, 04 Aug 2012 13:40:06 -0800

YMCA Logo

Sat, 04 Aug 2012 13:22:08 -0800

Coaches support Sean in USTA dispute

Sat, 04 Aug 2012 13:21:15 -0800

Dear Mr. Hannity,

On the behalf of junior tennis players and coaches everywhere, I cannot thank you enough for your efforts in trying to ignite debate with your comments and correspondence. Unfortunately, rouge elements of the USTA led by the current President; successfully mounted a campaign of misrepresentation and intimidation to force their agenda on its competitive junior players. These individuals may be well intentioned, but are also dangerously inexperienced and flat out wrong. This coup d'etat was mounted from inside the board rooms and was withheld from the players, coaches and tournament directors until it was completed. I can think of no other organization where individuals with such little expertise could ascend to leadership positions. Their flawed decision making is poised to dissolve and destroy the hopes and dreams of countless young tennis players as well as the USTA junior system. Their assertion that all of this was well vetted is perhaps the grosses lie ever told in American tennis. There were no studies, no focus groups and absolutely no significant national discussion what so ever.

You are attempting to open a can of worms that they do not want exposed. The leadership involved in this has misrepresented facts, intimidated sections and boards, and used political clout to have key regional personnel fired. National Committee votes were taken at specific times to eliminate dissension. This was done to claim to the sectional boards unanimous support.Their audacity has no bounds as even now they attempt to use names such as Wayne Bryan's and even mine in an open letter to you to support their philosophies. Nothing could be further from the truth!!! Despite efforts... no press has picked up on any of this. Since tennis magazines are controlled by the USTA little non-approved information has gotten out. The "padders" real objective is provide misdirection away from the lack of top American players. But the reality is these changes have the potential to destroy junior tennis in the United States. None of the architects of this plan has significant success in to motivating or training numbers of youth in pursuing tennis as a sport for a lifetime.

How did all this get started? Where did these proposal's they come from? The polices and ideas were formed years ago. The current USTA President Jon Vegosen
(out of the Midwest) had a preexisting relationship with Dr. Tim Russell. The two had penned a position paper together (which can still be found online). When Vegosen became USTA President he appointed Russel to the head of the National Junior Competition Committee. The charge given to him was to make the junior system more efficient and cheaper. The committee was stocked full of those that would vote for their predetermined course of action. Potential roadblocks were removed from service on the JCC. Many of the committee members appointed were out of the Midwest and are beholding to Vegosen. This committee passed the proposals on for sectional vote. During this time period Dr. Russel operated in a cloud of secrecy. The idea was to avoid any possible opposition before a sectional vote. Part of the tactic employed was to make everything seem so complex that the ordinary sectional board member would be bamboozled and rely upon the National Junior Competition Committee recommendations.

Dr. Russel (minister of propaganda) must go. These proposals are in most cases his. His assertion that there was a landslide is preposterous. The vast majority of sectional competition committees voted heavily against these changes. *These are the true experts! These groups are renowned sectional leaders and experts. Still at the national meeting, sectional boards went against their own committees under heavy pressure. Both in the East and the Midwest the head of junior competition was fired immediately after the sections voted. Why? Both individuals had outstanding reputations and both were simply acknowledging the wishes of their constituents. In the Midwest, over 100 emails were sent against these proposals. They poured in from from players, past pro players, top ten college coaches, and known national coaches. Our own board members and president were intimidated into not following the will of those they represent.

How to fix the situation: The current Junior Competition Committee must be dissolved. All participants must go! Even the well intentioned members lacked the courage and intestinal fortitude to stand up and fight what was occurring. Their fear to speak out allowed this situation to occur. This committee could reverse the present proposals before implementation in 2013. To do so...these positions must be filled with junior development coaches from around the country. All must have coached actively or represent top tournaments, colleges, top international players, past professional players, or top sectional players. Each section of the country must be represented. Meanwhile, the current administration is hard at work to try to continue their hold on this committee. Political payoffs are being attempted. These can be broken up by the nominating committees by vote at the US Open. Most importantly, the new incoming President must be made to see the necessity of appointing a completely new competition committee. He will have complete authority to do this. Our goal is to force this issue NOW!!! This is not an easy task as our friend...Dr. Russel has no intention of relinquishing any control.

The folly of the whole situation would be comical if not so tragic. None of the proposals will improve tennis, they will destroy it. Who in there right mind would what to shrink and limit opportunities to reach the national level. No one understands the motivating factors better than local coaches and yet they have not been listened to. The reductions amount to a hand picking of players by those in charge. This is not a open or healthy system.
In observance of brevity I will stop. However, there is much you should be apprised of. We share some mutual friends in Chicago and they can attest to my sincerity and knowledge in theses matters. I can only hope that you will continue to help in preventing the destruction of USA junior tennis. The rabbit hole goes very deep and there is so very much information that I would love to arm you with. Your abilities in communication are exactly what hundreds of coaches are hoping for. We need someone to shine a bright light on what has occurred. These decisions are not being made by the experts... they are being made by "want to be" novices. Please help to send them packing and back to picking fantasy sports teams. They would be far less dangerous to future generations.

I'll leave you with the following thoughts that most top junior coaches agree on.

If the intent was to make tournaments more affordable why were the following ideas not pursued instead of reducing events and spots?

1. More matches per day utilizing 8 game pro sets (doubles) and match tiebreakers to shorten feed-in events and allow for more players.
2. Airline sponsorship deals to help save players change fees
3. National hotel and rental car deals to help reduce costs.
4. Design regions that are geographically drivable.
5. Select National Opens upon geography and flight affordability

If the intent is to Improve players why?

1. Reduce number of National Championships
2. Shrink the number of youngest athletes competing.
3. Eliminate earned National acceptance through national ranking.
4 .Use limited funds to pay for players to switch citizenship's.
5. Funding players that are not evaluated by impartial means or board.
6. Have no professional mentoring program for juniors and professionals given money.
7. No coaching at provided to US juniors at all grand slam events.

The USTA has no business manipulating selections and hand picking large numbers of players for events. This is bad process and selecting to validate their jobs. Tournament scheduling and events should not be vested within junior development wing. (outside committee should do this) Money should go to promoting and supporting players making the jump from juniors to professional. This was the failure of our past. Unfortunately, we have not learned the proper lessons from our mistakes. Today's top players were juniors just 8 years ago. There was nothing wrong with our system, as our players out performed Tsonga, Murray, Monfeis and the rest. Our failure was the lack of time money and structure that was absent to further their futures.The junior system should be left alone. My fellow professionals continue to turn out talent. Let's not limit events or opportunities. To fix professional tennis requires a vision and plan that begins after juniors.

Respectfully Yours,

Tom Walker
Director of Tennis
Kalamazoo YMCA's

Tennis

Sat, 04 Aug 2012 13:03:16 -0800

Antonio Mora responds to Hannity/Russell USTA debate

Sat, 04 Aug 2012 13:00:38 -0800

Hannity fans may remember Sean's stern rebuke (read Sean's letter here) to the USTA's Tim Russell over rule changes the tennis association put in place in a failed attempt to increase "competition." The debate has escalated with both sides trading letters, emails and tweets about the subject. Over the past few weeks hundreds of coaches, parents and fans have come out in support of Sean flooding the Hannity Inbox with emails. Below is one such letter from news anchor Antonio Mora. Additionally, you can read Tom Walker, Director of Tennis for the Kalamazoo YMCA's, letter of support for Sean by clicking here.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The following is an attempt to focus on the main issues discussed in the exchange between Sean Hannity and Tim Russell. It is less than two pages long and an addresses what I see as the most substantive issues raised by the USTA’s changes in the junior competitive schedule. While I believe those changes are well-intentioned, I am afraid there are a series of unintended consequences that will do precisely the opposite of what the USTA hopes to achieve.

1) “Meaningful Competition,” Best Playing the Best,” “Earned Advancement.” These phrases are used repeatedly in Tim Russell’s response to Sean Hannity and are the main philosophical reasons for the changes. Ironically, the quota system at the heart of the USTA’s changes directly contradicts that philosophy. If you want the best to play the best, then why is the USTA allowing for a “size component” when it comes to determining a section’s quota? Size should be irrelevant, if you want to be intellectually consistent and fair. Only a section’s strength should be considered if we are being honest about only rewarding kids who have earned it with the ability to play nationally. If, as Dr. Russell repeatedly says, we want all national matches to be competitive, for the best to play the best, quality should trump size. The size of a section should be irrelevant (see point #2).

2) Section Strength. Making matters worse, the USTA is using its own rankings to determine the strength of a section. Instead, it should use a head-to-head ranking system such as Tennis Information that more fairly determines the ability of a player (a player is not penalized if injuries didn’t allow him or her to enter major tournaments and it does not reward players who have the financial wherewithal to play every national and regional tournament). Let’s use Florida as an example. The quota Florida will get for supernationals, based on the size/strength equation, is only 10 (it would have more if “size” were not considered). When I looked on July 10th, there were 13 Florida boys in the top 150 on the USTA 14s rankings and 13 in the 12s. But, if you look at the Tennisinformation rankings, there are 24 in the top 150 in the 14s (plus Stefan Kozlov, so it’s really 25) and there are 26 in the 12s, fully double the strength Florida is getting credit for in its quota by using the USTA rankings as the gauge. How can it possibly be fair to limit Florida kids to ten spots at supernationals? The injustice is such that the #61, 62, 63, 67 and 73 boys in the country on Tennis Information in the 14s (on July 10th) would not be ranked highly enough in Florida to get in under the quota. One of those boys who would miss out is part of USTA Player Development.

3) Wild Cards. Doesn’t increasing the number of wild cards also directly contradict the earned advancement that’s being preached?

4) Chasing Points. A lot of time has been wasted focusing on kids who chase points by traveling long distances as if this were an epidemic that somehow invalidates the ranking structure. That overlooks the reality that only a small number of kids do so and that none of those kids gets ranked very highly unless they win a lot of matches. The new 2012 point structure makes it even harder for “chasing points” to have any kind of significant effect because kids don’t earn many points unless they get deep into a tournament. Can anyone show me a kid in the top 50 in the country who hasn’t earned his or her way to that ranking?

5) “Increase” in Opportunities. I’m mystified by Mr. Russell’s argument here. There is no doubt that there are more opportunities for the super-elite players (top 20 in the country), but some of the added Level 1 tournaments only take between four and 16 applicants per category. The “majors,” the supernationals, will only take place twice a year instead of four. Level 2 tournaments are cut from four concurrent tournaments four times a year to only three concurrent tournaments only twice a year. Level 3 regional tournaments are slashed from eight tournaments four times a year to four tournaments three times a year. Again, I’m mystified at how that’s an “increase.”

6) Aging Up Decrease in Opportunities. An important point that is not addressed is that the new system will greatly delay the ability for even super-elite kids to play nationally in the years they age up, especially in the country’s most competitive regions. That can’t be good for their tennis.

7) Travel “Reduction.” By my count, a 14 year-old kid who plays a full national and sectional schedule currently plays 17 level 1-to-4 tournaments (four supernats, four national opens, four regionals, zonals and four sectionals). Under the new system (as I interpret the convoluted 2014 schedule), a kid who plays a full schedule (the super-elite) will play a similar number of level 1-to-4 tournaments, but they will have to play a far greater number of tournaments in their section in order to make sure to make their section’s quota. Home school anyone? The kids who are just below the super-elite will also play about the same number of level 1-to-4 tournaments they play today XXXXXXX (but they will be playing mostly level 3 and 4s)XXXXXXXX. For the super-elite and the next layer of top kids, the proposal does NOTHING to decrease travel. But the big issue is the flip side: even top kids who don’t make it into their section’s quota will have a travel elimination, with almost no opportunity to play outside their section, nationally OR regionally (see examples in #2 above).

8) Travel Costs and Distances. The truth is that the new system will not help much. It is sometimes far more time consuming and expensive to travel within a section than to go to a national open or regional elsewhere. Try to get from the Tri-Cities in Washington State to Oklahoma City (kids in region 2 will have to do that) or even from Miami to Augusta, Georgia… it’s cheaper and much quicker to fly to Dallas, Chicago or New York!

9) Missing School. I find it ironic that after years where the USTA seemed not to care about this (January regionals not scheduled over MLK Birthday weekend, February National Opens not scheduled over President’s Day weekend, the Easter Bowl scheduled when virtually nobody has spring break, May National Opens not scheduled over Memorial Day weekend; I can go on with more examples), the Russell letter argues that the new system will be better on that score. It is, slightly. But it would have been awfully easy to make the old schedule work better.

10) Playing Styles and Surfaces. The Russell letter mostly skirts the issue of how the new changes will limit exposure to different surfaces and playing styles. As he says, the new system will provide opportunities for the super-elite to have that kind of exposure, but the reality is the enormous majority of our top kids will be hurt. When will top Florida kids compete indoors? When will most top kids in the country compete on clay?

11) Birth Year. Why in the world would Dr. Russell even raise the possibility of returning to the much-discredited (by “Outliers” and other subsequent research) calendar-year system? Is he actually arguing that, somehow, two wrongs (calendar-year system and only two supernationals) would suddenly make a right? I’ve heard the ITF is considering following the much fairer rolling-birthday system we have here. The USTA should exert its efforts to change the ITF, not to go back to a silly, discriminatory system.

12) “Lower Ranked Players.” Dr. Russell jumps all over Mr. Hannity for saying that “lower-ranked players will not get to play national events,” asking why “low-ranked players should play national events.” I can’t speak for Mr. Hannity, but he said “lower” not “low.” That’s an important distinction. Very, very good kids will not be able to play national events under a whole series of circumstances. While there is a certain inertia that keeps top players near the top from the 10s on, some kids do make progress over time and manage to soar to the top. Some kids do come out of seemingly nowhere to do very well in tournaments. The next Andre Agassi could be a kid who didn’t do well in the 12s and 14s but then grows a foot in the 18s. By discouraging that player by limiting his opportunities early on, we may lose him to lacrosse or baseball.

13) Psychology. Here again, I agree with Mr. Hannity and disagree with Dr. Russell, especially when he calls Mr. Hannity’s point “preposterous.” Kids getting the chance to play nationally, even if it’s only every once in a while, is powerful validation. Few things are more inspiring to young players than playing at the highest levels with the country’s best players. Limiting those opportunities will give far fewer players the chance to get that inspiration. Traveling around the country often leads to the kinds of friendships that are catalysts that encourage a lifetime of tennis. Again, fewer kids will have that chance. They and the sport will suffer for it.

14) Kids Playing Adults. I’m not sure what it’s like where Dr. Russell lives in, but I’m with Mr. Hannity in saying that that kids playing with adults just doesn’t happen. Maybe if a new rating system gets implemented that mixes everybody into the same tournaments, but spontaneous play with adults who aren’t their parents is uncommon in today’s world. Please don’t take away opportunities for kids to play with a wide variety of good kids, no matter what form of transportation they need to get to that competition.

15) “Consultation.” Even though I wanted to keep this email focused on substance, this is one non-substantive point that needs to be addressed. Dr. Russell talks about the legions of people who were consulted, but the process was anything but transparent, open and public as he claims. When the proposed changes were unveiled at the post-Christmas meeting in Texas, people there were told NOT to disseminate the proposals. When I sent a detailed analysis of the proposals to dozens of parents of highly-competitive kids across the country two months later in early March, NONE of them were aware any of this was being considered. Tom Walker recently addressed the lack of consultation this in a letter published on Zoo Tennis. I hope the USTA accepts Mr. Hannity’s offer to poll parents. It wouldn’t have to be unwieldy: if you poll parents of the top two hundred kids in each age group, you’re talking about less than 1600 people (some will be duplicates with multiple kids). I think the USTA will be surprised at the extent of the opposition to the changes.

Finally, there are many positives in the changes approved, but there are an awful lot of negatives. I would hope the USTA could find an intelligent middle ground that would not slash the opportunities for kids to play nationally while still taking steps to help create new great tennis generations.

In the interest of full disclosure, assuming all things remain equal, my son is not likely to suffer much from the changes and is highly ranked enough that some may benefit him. Dr. Russell gave his background, so I will too. I am a Harvard Law School graduate, with a lot of training and experience analyzing complex documents (both the approved changes and Dr. Russell’s letter certainly qualify as such). After practicing law in New York, I switched careers and became a broadcast journalist, earning a dozen national and local Emmy Awards. I am also a lifelong tennis player from a tennis-playing family that includes a brother who played on the ATP tour for years and two generations of Davis Cup players.

I would urge everyone to be forthcoming with their names in whatever discussion ensues. It’s disappointing to see so many anonymous attacks from all sides in this important conversation and I would hope the USTA would not be vindictive against the children of those who express opinions the organization does not like. Sadly, many people are afraid to speak out because they believe that will happen.

Thanks for reading.

Antonio Mora
News Anchor

Herman Cain

Fri, 03 Aug 2012 15:01:22 -0800

Chick-Fil-A

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 08:21:49 -0800

Olympics

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:07:13 -0800

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

Tennis

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:08:02 -0800

Sean's analysis on USTA

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:22:00 -0800

As many people know, my main passion in life is politics. I basically eat, breathe and sleep politics. In my private life, one of my main passions is sports. As a kid, I played ice hockey and roller hockey. I was a pitcher in baseball. I played basketball and stickball, both for endless hours. I also developed a love for tennis, which I have to this day.

After a stint as a hockey and snow-skiing dad, I have now become a full-time tennis dad. I have two junior tennis players and I, like so many other sports parents, spend all of my free time watching practices, matches, and driving around to different tournaments.

Tennis mirrors life in so many ways. I love the lessons in sportsmanship that tennis teaches my kids every day. They learn about winning and losing. They learn that the harder you work, the more likely you are to succeed. They learn to play fair. They also learn that sometimes life is not fair and there are those who do not "play by the rules." They are put in situations like being down 2-5, 15-40 in the 3rd set and then find out they can fight their way back. You can’t get that kind of education in a classroom. All of these are GREAT lessons for life.

I am intrigued with every aspect of the game, whether it involves tactics, strategy, conditioning, or technique. My great escape in life is entering the "tennis world” on weekends. My wife and children and I have developed great friendships. We have also had to deal with those few “insane” tennis parents we come across, which, frankly, is rather amusing.

With all of this as backdrop, let me now state up front that my reason for writing this letter is NOT about me or my kids. My top priority for my children is their education. They will not likely be professional tennis players. Our main goal is to keep them busy with tennis (by competing, exercising and having fun) as they develop. If they work hard enough, they will be able to choose whether they want to play tennis in college.

In fact, my reason for writing this letter is as follows: The deeper I have gotten into the tennis world over the last several years, I have come to see that there appears to be a destructive bureaucratic/political elite within the USTA that, frankly, is in the process of hurting junior tennis and, consequently, the future of American tennis.

As a parent of two junior players, I had been hearing rumors for months that the USTA was planning changes in its National Junior Competitive Schedule. Because the USTA had already reduced national opens by 50 percent and eliminated some of the Level 3 events in 2011, I couldn't imagine it would ever reduce opportunities to play national level events even more. But how wrong I was!

As you may or may not know, the USTA Board of Directors approved a proposal at its annual meeting in March to radically change the competitive structure for American junior players, beginning in 2014. Compared to the 2011 schedule, this new structure will reduce the total number of competitive opportunities for junior players at the national level by about 50 percent. The reduction in opportunities for national play outside of one’s region will be over 75 percent. These changes will most radically adversely affect those players ranked below the top 30 or so nationally.

If you are as frustrated as I am that American tennis has been on a steady decline, both professionally and at the college level, with more and more colleges giving scholarships to foreign students because American players are falling behind, as well as, the loss of college teams, the loss of high school teams, and the significant loss of tennis courts in major metropolitan areas, then I hope you will join me in urging the immediate reversal of the USTA’s "new rules" for juniors competition.

Time is short. These “new rules” have been approved by the USTA but not yet implemented. Therefore, this letter is a direct appeal to the members of all USTA sections to work to reverse these changes before it is too late. Using the specifics of the USTA’s own proposal I would now like to discuss how these changes will negatively affect junior tennis.

First off, I believe we can all agree that it is very important that juniors to be exposed to as many different opponents as possible. However, the new national junior schedule will limit players in the 14-18 age groups to a total of 512 opportunities to play outside their region. These 512 opportunities are spread across seven Level 1, Level 1A, and Level 2 event dates. That is an average of about 73 opportunities per event date.

In the existing schedule, there are between 2,304 and 2,432 opportunities for players to compete against opponents from outside their region. These 2,300+ opportunities are spread across twelve Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 event dates. That is an average of at least 192 opportunities per event date.

In the 2014 schedule, however, only two events have as many as 128 opportunities, and they are concentrated in July and August. In the current schedule, the four National Level 1 and four National Level 2 events each have at least 128 opportunities. Three National Level 3 events each have 256 opportunities, and the summer National Level 3 event has 512.

Click here to read the new USTA competition structure

The following is an outline of the USTA’s own rationale for proposing these changes, all of which – and more – can be found on its website.

The USTA’s stated goal is to “prepare an appropriate national tournament structure and rating/ranking system for the future which:

is affordable and will ensure that competitive tennis opportunities are available for all American juniors regardless of their economic circumstances and where they reside.

supports the importance of a traditional American education and does not require students to short-change their academic careers.

creates an environment to generate a base of more and better American junior players to fill the ranks of collegiate programs and, for the most outstanding of these, become potential future American professional champions.”

USTA’s 2010 schedule allowed juniors the opportunity to play against a wider variety of playing styles and gave players greater flexibility in scheduling their national play. In the new schedule, however, if a player misses the July-August competitive period, he or she is basically going to be eliminated from national ranking contention for that year.

This slashing of the number of competitive opportunities is troubling. But there is more: The USTA will be re-instituting the “Good Birthday/Bad Birthday” dilemma for national level juniors. A player born in July will always be the youngest player in the national rankings and national tournaments. Without full-sized national championships at times other than the July-August window, the USTA is retreating to the problems associated with “birth year” age control dates. Beginning in 2014, a September birthday will be treasured, while players born in July and August will pick another sport. Has anybody at the USTA ever read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell?

It is difficult to justify corralling all players within their regions – and then only allowing the very best players in the nation the opportunity to compete against out-of-region opponents. Reducing out-of-region playing opportunities by at least 75 percent makes no sense from a developmental standpoint, to say nothing of how it will affect the players motivationally. All players should have the chance to be exposed to as many different opponents as possible within a framework that meets their personal schedule, and not be limited to the very rigid July-August time frame.

There is no justification to reduce the number of competitive opportunities or to require regionalized play just to reduce travel for players and avoid missing school. Because of the reduction in the number of event dates, players will have FEWER choices to make about having to travel and when to play, regardless of how it affects their personal schedules. In fact, reducing the number of national event dates and sites will force players to travel to wherever the tournament is being held! Believing that it will be cheaper for a player to travel to one of four tournament sites across the U.S. would somehow be cheaper than traveling to one of eight sites defies all logic. While some players will by necessity be forced to stay close to home in regional play, those who are admitted to the reduced number of national events being offered will by necessity have to travel farther!

When you have an expanded menu of tournament choices, those choices allow certain events to work into your personal world very well. More tournaments mean – more chances that you have cheaper airfares to a particular city, more drives instead of flies, more chances to stay at a friend's house, more chances to combine a tennis trip with a vacation, etc. When you don’t have these choices, you are left to do the best you can with what is offered.

The result is this: Strong players will have to travel farther at greater costs. Good players will be restricted to play the same players over and over again in their regionally mandated events. Lower ranked players will not get to play national events at all and, in all likelihood, will understandably lose interest in pursuing the game.

This is basic economics. When products are in short supply, one of two things must happen: The price will increase, or the demand will drop. In the case of junior tennis, because of the USTA’s proposals for 2014, both will happen. Some players will have to spend more; others will simply drop out.

It is nearly impossible, especially when you consider their rationale in light of the proposed changes, to reconcile how the USTA’s “ends” justifies its “means.” In fact, retaining the current level of national competitive opportunities will hurt no one. Restricting opportunities, whether in numbers of players admitted, or by geographical location, or calendar date, will hurt every player, and specifically:

Those players who are marginally ranked because of birth date or the radical skewing of the new point tables.

Those players who are members of smaller sections and have to play the same opponents tournament after tournament.

Players whose development is stunted by a lack of exposure to a variety of playing experiences, styles and weather conditions.

Players who will never reap the benefits of being exposed to the top players in the U.S.

Players who get hurt and miss the national tournament season, which is in July and August.

Players who are motivated by the invisible badge they get for playing in a "national" event.

Therefore, the USTA’s newly adopted and now pending changes for 2013-2014 are short-sighted at best and, at worse, could be the death knell for junior tennis in the U.S. Reducing the opportunities to compete in new environments against new and different players will hinder development and hasten a child's boredom with the sport. This will also result in reducing the possibilities of finding and developing future stars, both for college and the professional levels.

It should also be noted that where tennis competition in the U.S. is concerned, the USTA operates as a monopoly. The International Tennis Federation (ITF) is basically the United Nations of tennis. The ITF and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have declared the USTA the governing body of tennis for the United States

Because the USTA owns the U.S. Open, which purportedly generates over $250 million gross revenue annually, it does not have to share its authority over youth competition as does Little League Baseball or Pop Warner Football within their sports. Ideally, I would prefer free market competition, but with a $100 million dollar net annual advantage, the likelihood of this is remote. Therefore, since the USTA occupies this unique "bureaucratic" position in the sport, changes must come from within.

Fortunately, the USTA is governed by its 17 volunteer sections. It is through these sections that meaningful changes must take place in regard to the direction of youth tennis, specifically with this issue of the reduction of national level competition for players ranked below the top 30 or so in the U.S.

In fact, the largest sectional association, USTA Southern, voted against the proposal. This section's officials painstakingly analyzed it and were unwaveringly against it. They came to understand how detrimental this really is to junior tennis. Southern section officials voted against it, despite the possible political consequences from USTA higher-ups

Speaking of organizational politics, I would urge each of you, especially those who are now working in or with the USTA, to look at this issue ONLY through the eyes of someone who desperately wants what is best for the long-term health of the sport and its players, present and future. It is admirable to work for or serve the USTA, whether as an official employee or as a volunteer. But this is NOT a reason to support a proposal you know will be detrimental to the sport of tennis – and this proposal certainly will be that.

As I have noted, the USTA is basically a monopoly and in-house changes, once they’ve been adopted, are difficult to come by. When the USTA eliminated national play for 12 and under players in 1989, it took 10 years to undo this mistake! If this newly adopted schedule is not changed before it is officially implemented, it could affect a whole generation of U.S. tennis players. At first glance, the goals in the proposal may seem admirable. But a closer look will prove that these reductions in opportunities for all but the top players are not only unfair, they will ultimately kill the future strength of the sport.

As parents, coaches, players, and friends of tennis, we must now all speak up and demand that our sections INDIVIDUALLY re-examine the 2013-2014 proposal, using all available expertise at our disposal. I urge you and those in your section to look at the USTA’s goals in this proposal and its implementation factors. Contact your section president, let him or her know you oppose these changes for all the reasons I have stated.

As well, go onto the USTA website and read its own documents on this matter for yourselves, especially the position statement titled “A USTA Junior Competition FAQ: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Proposed Changes to the USTA National Junior Competition Schedule.” Think about the questions, and the USTA’s answers to their own questions. You will see, as I have, that final adoption of this proposal will not only severely limit our kids today but will do long-term damage to junior development and all kids’ affinity for the game.

After reading the Q&A, it will become clear that ostensibly the USTA’s proposal basically amounts to taking opportunities from everyone because some may be more challenged (whether by financial means, where they live, or when they were born) by the national schedule than others. This is wrongheaded. In a country as great as ours, the USTA can and should find other, more creative ways to help those who have challenges, including, in the case of financial concerns, even assessing a fee from all players at tournament registration that would go into a scholarship fund for those players who do need assistance. But to restrict opportunities for all based on an arbitrary analysis aimed at helping what amounts to be a few, is backward-thinking. In fact, as you will see after reading the proposal, the entire idea is flawed at the outset.

When you talk to juniors, coaches, tournament directors, umpires, and parents at junior tournaments, which I do almost every weekend, almost all are against these changes. It is clear that if any junior tennis players, coaches, tournament directors, and parents were consulted, the sample must have been very small.

In closing I want you to think back to the old USTA Level 3 National events that were steeped with tradition – Copper Bowl, Gator Bowl, Peach State, St. Louis Gateway, etc. Many players were introduced to the national competitive scene though these great events – but this is no longer the case since these were swallowed up by the present USTA Level 3 Regionals held on only four weekends a year. With their loss, the only national exposure a player can get is through the USTA Nationals, which are now being drastically reduced. I cannot believe this is what the USTA intended with their adopted proposal, and I urge you to join with me in reversing this action.

Friday June 15 2012

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:51:35 -0800

Friday June 01 2012

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:43:13 -0800

Left-Wing Media Bias

Thu, 24 May 2012 13:26:10 -0800

Special guest host Mark Simone took the coveted Hannity microphone on Thursday and discussed several recent examples of left-wing media bias.

One specific example Simone detailed was with MSNBC's coverage of the Trayvon Martin case. Quoting an article from Nina Rothman that appeared on today's Mediaite website (Article).

Simone explained how in March and April, MSNBC’s primetime hosts ran with nearly wall-to-wall coverage of the killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. They regularly suggested that the lack of national interest in the case was worthy of outrage. As Rothman writes in her Mediaite column, “Last week, when an avalanche of new evidence favorable to George Zimmerman came to light, MSNBC’s primetime lineup didn’t just bury the story, they didn’t mention Martin or Zimmerman once the week that news broke according to media monitoring service TV Eyes.”

“It's like the story never existed!” Simone said incredulously. Do you have more examples of left-wing media bias? Post them on the Hannity Forums here!

Penn Jilette

Thu, 24 May 2012 04:48:37 -0800

Wednesday May 23 2012

Wed, 23 May 2012 11:24:59 -0800

Sean: "Libs think they 'evolve' not flip-flop"

Fri, 11 May 2012 13:52:27 -0800

Sean kicked off that last show of the week in a upbeat mood. Sean was particularly pleased to see that Democrats might abandon North Carolina all together as the place for their nominating convention after Obama recently announced his support for gay marriage. Given the depth of distaste over North Carolina’s recent anti-gay vote among Democratic voters, the Democratic National Committee is considering leaving the state before Democratic grassroots advocates flock to Charlotte for a mass protests that would send more local voters over to the Romney camp.

“Of course liberals would say Obama didn't flip-flop on his stance of gay marriage,” explained Sean. “They would say he 'evolved,'” Sean joked. “Liberals feel they are much more sophisticated and that their opinions evolve over time. They think only Republicans flip-flop,” Sean added.

For more on a Democrat exodus from North Carolina please click here.

Thursday May 03 2012

Thu, 03 May 2012 15:41:18 -0800

Newt Gingrich,

Thursday April 12 2012

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:16:28 -0800

Bob Beckel, Stuart Varney,

Tim Tebow

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:05:02 -0800

Tim Tebow traded to NY Jets

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:04:25 -0800

Tim Tebow, who made the Broncos arguably the biggest NFL story in 2011, will bring his athleticism and fervent followers to New York.

The Broncos have traded their star quarterback with the polarizing skill set, and a seventh-round draft pick, to the New York Jets in exchange for a fourth- and a sixth-round pick, according to an NFL source.

The trade gives the Broncos seven picks in the seven-round 2012 NFL Draft — one in first, second and third rounds; two in the fourth round, one in the fifth, one in the sixth and none in the seventh.

The trade also sends the circus that was Tebowmania to a city big enough to handle it.

For more please click here.

Thursday March 08 2012

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:01:00 -0800

J.C. Watts,

Worldwide Music Video Premiere - Jack Blades!

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:53:37 -0800

Hannity’s got the worldwide premiere of the video for Jack Blades’ new single, “Back In The Game”. The song is the first track from Blades’ forthcoming album ROCK N’ ROLL RIDE. The video imparts a strong patriotic message of the debt of gratitude owed to the military of this nation. Blades, a longtime fan of talk show host Sean Hannity, recently appeared on the “Hannity” television show and an instant bond was established melding the political world with the rock music world. Jack Blades commented, “Sean’s a great guy but he needs work on his onstage rock moves...I’m just the guy to teach him!”

Click HERE to pre-order the physical album on Amazon or here to pre-order the digital album on iTunes.

ROCK N’ ROLL RIDE is due out on March 27th in North America via Frontiers Records and features contributions from Blades’ Night Ranger bandmates Brad Gillis, Kelly Keagy, Joel Hoekstra and Eric Levy, as well as a special guest appearance by Cheap Trick’s Robin Zander. For more information, please visit www.jackblades.net.

Jack Blades is a frontman, lead singer, bassist, songwriter, and producer as well as a founding member of the highly-successful arena rock band, Night Ranger and supergroup Damn Yankees (along with Ted Nugent and Tommy Shaw from Styx) and the highly-regarded Shaw/Blades. Throughout his remarkable career Blades has sold over 25 million albums, performed in front of millions of fans worldwide and collaborated with some of rock's most legendary artists. With a career spanning three decades, Blades has recorded with, penned songs and produced albums for some of the music industry's biggest names including Aerosmith, Cher, Ringo Star, Alice Cooper, Roger Daltrey, Journey, Ozzy Osbourne, Styx, Ted Nugent, Motley Crue and Vince Neil. His music has been featured in movies such as Armageddon, Boogie Nights, Tommy Boy, television shows such as “South Park” and “American Dad,” the hit Broadway musical (and soon-to-be released major motion picture) Rock of Ages and the wildly successful videogame series "Rock Band" and "Guitar Hero". With Blades’ songwriting, driving guitars, stage antics and on the strength of Night Ranger's songs “Don’t Tell Me You Love Me,” “Rock in America,” “Sister Christian,” “When You Close Your Eyes,” and “Sentimental Street”, along with the Damn Yankees hits "High Enough" and "Coming of Age", Blades' legacy continues to inspire generations while still being written.

Aspen, Colorado

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:02:49 -0800

Sean disagrees with Obama's vacation plans

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:02:02 -0800

Sean kicked off his President’s Day show criticizing First Lady Michelle Obama’s decision to vacation in Aspen Colorado. “They couldn’t coordinate travel times so we have to pay for all of this,” began Hannity, “This seems, from a purely political view, that this is out of touch.” Sean continued, “It’s been a month since the President vetoed the Keystone Pipeline and now we have predictions that the price of gas will pass an all-time high in just two months.”

To Sean’s point, it seems that First Lady Obama is not concerned with the costs of travel and, as the Aspen Daily News has reported, she is spending the holiday weekend with Jim and Paula Crown, owners of several ski resorts in the area.

“I don’t begrudge the First Family a vacation,” finished Hannity, “President Bush mostly vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, I don’t remember this much luxury.”

What do you think? Is the Obama vacation in Colorado going overboard? Share your comments with Sean below:

Wednesday February 15 2012

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:42:34 -0800

Newt Gingrich, Rand Paul,

Chicken Nuggets

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:38:25 -0800

Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:37:40 -0800

By Sara Burrows

RAEFORD - A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl's turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs - including in-home day care centers - to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

The girl's mother - who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation - said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a "healthy lunch" would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

"I don't feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home," the mother wrote in a complaint to her state representative, Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County.

The girl's grandmother, who sometimes helps pack her lunch, told Carolina Journal that she is a petite, picky 4-year-old who eats white whole wheat bread and is not big on vegetables.

SOURCE: CarolinaJournal.com

Telling It Like It Is

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:49:02 -0800

By Marshall Fine

It's an early November night backstage at Fox News Channel, as Sean Hannity sits in the makeup chair, a playful scowl on his face as pancake is applied to his cheeks and forehead: "I'm not a makeup guy," he says, enduring the attention.

It's a few days after Halloween, a mention of which brings a quick reaction from Hannity: "I hate that holiday," he says. "It teaches kids to be a liberal - going door to door, with their hand out." He pauses; when others seem to take him seriously, he laughs and says, "That's supposed to be a joke."

To read more please click here to download the article.

Dr. Alveda King

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:39:32 -0800

Alec Baldwin

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:34:32 -0800

Alec Baldwin's failed attempt at radio

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:34:01 -0800

Sean took the Thursday airwaves and addressed twitter comments by Alec Baldwin in which he asked, “Is there a bigger idiot alive than Sean Hannity?”

“Trust me, I didn't loose any sleep over that tweet,” Sean said. “Alec Baldwin is so angry, and so compartmentalized about how great he is and his ego is so big and so massive that I'm worried about him. If he doesn't get some help and face the truth I feel as if there is a catastrophe on the way. He's all worked up over the election and as most liberals do they constantly try to keep Conservative voices distracted from what the issues at hand are. It's a tactic, it's a technique. They do it because they don't want opposition voices saying anything bad against Obama,” said Sean.

Hannity also explained that sometimes when you see a bully, you have to fight back. Sean proceeded to play a demo tape Alec Baldwin put together during a failed attempt at getting a radio show. “If I'm an idiot like he says, I figured I'd let you hear what a real genius, a sanctimonious, self-righteous liberal with an entitlement mentality sounds like,” said Sean. This is a real tape of Alec Baldwin auditioning for talk radio.

Thursday February 09 2012

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:43:30 -0800

Andrew Breitbart, Tucker Carlson, Rick Santorum,

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.

Adam Carolla

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:52:54 -0800

Landau Eugene Murphy, Jr.

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:18:19 -0800

Rose Tennent

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:42:38 -0800

Wednesday December 21 2011

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

Michael Barone, Pat Caddell,

Black Friday

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:54:54 -0800

Friday November 25 2011

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:53:47 -0800

Ann Coulter, Pat Caddell,

Friday November 18 2011

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:02:02 -0800

Solider surprises parents at Bruin game

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 07:23:46 -0800

Soldier surprises parents at center ice during Bruins game

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 07:22:41 -0800

BOSTON -- A surprise on the ice for a local family Saturday night at the Bruins game.

It was supposed to be two proud parents dropping the puck at the Bruins game in honor of their son who is serving in Afghanistan.

Little did Lori and Daron Jacobs know, their son Charles was waiting just off the ice with the surprise of a life time.

“It was one of the most exciting moments of my life, I was shaking. My heart was coming out of my chest, it was so unreal,” said First Lt. Charles Jacobs.

On this Veteran’s Day weekend 17,000 fans gave the Jacobs a standing ovation that brought the couple to tears but even the crowd didn’t know what was coming next.

“All of sudden the crowd got a little louder and I’m trying to look up at the jumbotron, I see nothing. What’s going on?” said Daron Jacobs, Charles’ father.

“Please welcome home your son,” could be heard over the loud speaker.

First Lt. Jacobs had not seen his parents for the most of the year until he emerged; his mom and dad had a hard time keeping it together.

Bon Jovi

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:53:59 -0800

Gloria Allred

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:05:01 -0800

Tuesday November 08 2011

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:01:26 -0800

Dr. Conrad Murray

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:42:13 -0800

Dr. Conrad Murray Found Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter of Michael Jackson

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:41:39 -0800

A jury found Michael Jackson's doctor guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the 2009 death of the King of Pop.

Dr. Conrad Murray appeared stone-faced as the verdict was read Monday in a Los Angeles courtroom. The 58-year-old doctor, who is to be sentenced November 29, is facing up to four years in prison. He could also lose his medical license.

Jackson's sister LaToya screamed out upon hearing the verdict, while his crying mother, Katherine, was consoled by her son, Jermaine Jackson.

Murray's supporters looked somber over the news, with one shaking her head back and forth, mouthing the word "no."

Jackson fans who had gathered outside the courtroom burst into applause and cheered as the verdict, "Guilty!," was announced.

The decision was reached after less than nine hours of deliberation. The prosecution asked for Murray to be remanded into custody immediately. “He is now a convicted felon,” prosecutor David Walgren said.

Defense lawyer Ed Chernoff argued that he is not danger to the community before Murray was escorted out of the courtroom by the Sheriff.

Monday November 07 2011

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:29:16 -0800

Jay Sekulow,

Kanye West

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:00:54 -0800

Are Celebrities Supporting Occupy Wall Street the Movement's Heroes, or Hypocrites?

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:53:41 -0800

Kanye West visited Occupy Wall Street in a $355 Givenchy shirt topped with wearing gold grills and chains.

Alec Baldwin claims he supports Occupy Wall Street, but makes big bucks starring in commercials for Capital One Bank.

Numerous other celebrities who annually pull in multiples of the average American salary also say they sympathize with the plight of the so-called 99 percent.

So are the stars who say they support the Occupy Wall Street movement some of the cause’s heroes, or are they hypocrites?

Producer and hip hop mogul Russell Simmons, who brought West to the protests at Liberty Square/Zuccotti Park on Monday, and who has personally been visiting the protests every day for the past 15 days, tells Fox411.com that people need to stop criticizing Kanye and focus on the issues.

“This is about the money in Washington, the whoring and the politicians,” Simmons told Fox411.com. “Kanye did a good thing. I saw all the complaints about him. Who cares? He came. He wanted to help. They all missed the point.”

Indeed, the protesters themselves cheered for West when he arrived, and claim he energized the group even further.

“It was great to see him out here. I don’t care what kind of shirt he was wearing. He wanted to support us,” said graduate student Matt Gross. Occupy Wall Street protester Jane Frye, a barista in Brooklyn, added: “No one else camping out here has been asked how much their shirt cost or whether they got it at J. Crew or Goodwill.”

Outside of Kanye, the celebs who have visited the Occupy events have been more the activist ilk that one would expect to frequent such rallies, including Tim Robbins, his ex-life partner Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Roseanne Barr, and Penn Badgley of “Gossip Girl.”

Badgley responded to questions about the relative absurdity of someone like him attending a rally to redistribute wealth.

"I mean, listen, it's cheesy ... but I want to do whatever I can," Badgley said to the website Capital New York. "Let's be honest: I'm on `Gossip Girl.' It's absurd that celebrity power is what it is, but, like, use any tool you have, you know?"

“Cult of Celebrity” author Cooper Lawrence echoes Badgley’s thoughts on the absurdity of some celebrities coming out for the cause.

“They are indeed hypocrites, because they no longer share the same experiences or the same long-term problems of those who are protesting banks and big business,” Lawrence said. “Celebs love to glom on to stuff like this and act like they are just like us. Despite the fact they are nothing like us. Just as we don't live in their world of privilege, exorbitant salaries and everything at their beck and call, they don't really get it.”

Simmons disagrees.

“You can ask why I am there and why Kanye is there. We’re there because we are impassioned people who want to support this cause to give other people the opportunities we have gotten,” Simmons said. “A celebrity is valuable and some of them realize it and loan their celebrity to things they believe in.”

Some celebrities, however, are famous for flocking to a spotlight like a moth to a flame, and right now there is no bigger spotlight than that on Occupy Wall Street.

“It is definitely possible that some of them made visits to Occupy Wall Street because they are genuinely supporting the cause and messages of the protesters, but there may be others who are simply using the event as their own personal platform,” Dorothy Cascerceri, senior editor of In Touch Weekly told Fox411. “Hollywood likes throwing its weight around when it comes to social issues, and this is certainly an example of that.”

Steve Jobs

Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:05:15 -0800

Bill Maher

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:31:30 -0800

Where's the outrage?

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:19:44 -0800

Sean was livid on Wednesday as he kicked off the show criticizing liberal pundit Bill Maher who, just last week, recently made an off-handed joke when he told his audience, “If Dick Cheney’s days are, as he says, numbered, he should go ahead and tell us that number but before you get on me I’m not wishing him to die, I just need to put a deposit down on the caterer and the band.”

“Very funny,” sarcastically responded Hannity, “Where are the conservatives in this country so full of outrage that they’re demanding Bill Maher be fired.” Hannity continued, “You won’t find them.”

Sean spent some more time hammering on recent comments that Howard Dean made criticizing the Tea Party movement.

Anna Sigga Nicolazzi

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:08:22 -0800

Tuesday July 05 2011

Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:31:36 -0800

Jay Sekulow,

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

Bark in the Park

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:24:21 -0800

Thank you to everyone who came out to Bark in the Park with Sean Hannity!

PHOTOS: View photos from the event!

We had a great time at Planting Fields in Oyster Bay with all the 77 WABC listeners and dog lovers! Enjoy the official recap video and photos, and get your pooch ready for next year!

Thursday June 16 2011

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:01:43 -0800

Mitch McConnell,

Obama rock star

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:14:52 -0800

Democrats Divided Over Rep. Weiner's Future

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:20:22 -0800

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," June 13, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: The pressure on scandal-ridden Congressman Anthony Weiner to step down is now coming straight from the top. In an interview set to air tomorrow morning on NBC's "Today" show, President Obama sent a strong hint in Weiner's direction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM "NIGHTLY NEWS"/NBC)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Ultimately, there is going to be a decision for him and his constituents. I can tell you that, if it was me, I would resign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Well, within the Democratic Party at large, a divide has developed over Weiner's future in the United States Congress. Nancy Pelosi and others have called for him to step down. But friends of Weiner like Chuck Schumer, well, they are apparently too cowardly to take a stance on the issue. Let's look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: For those of us who are longtime friends of Anthony, this is heartbreaking. I issued a statement last night. And I'm not going to say anything else, other than this is just heartbreaking for me and for the many friends of Anthony.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: And here with more on Weiner's future, Democratic strategist Michael Brown, Fox News contributor Joe Trippi.

Guys, welcome back.

Well, let me ask you just straight-up, I start with you Michael, should he step down?

MICHAEL BROWN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I don't know. The standards should be the same for everyone. And it seems that your friends on the Republican side of the aisle and the senators that had some issues the last couple of years, they were asked to step down, but didn't. So, the standards should be the same. I don't know why the standards should be different for a Democrat.

HANNITY: Well, you actually do raise a point that is interesting to me. And it is not about the Republicans. Because I don't think there is an analogy here.

BROWN: There's absolutely an analogy. That exact same thing that occurred the last couple of years, your guys were asked to step down and they didn't.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: I think he should step down. I'm giving you my take. If anyone's involved in any of these scandals, I don't think they are fit to serve and I think they ought to find other professions. But on the second side of this. You know, when you really think about it, Bill Clinton lied, suborning perjury, lost his law license. All of these things. And he actually had sex, not virtual sex. So, there is a difference and the distinction here. And why -- hang on a second.

BROWN: You guys all go back to Clinton. What does the Clinton analogy have anything to do with what we are talking about?

HANNITY: Because it has a lot to do. Because a lot, Joe Trippi, a lot of the very same Democrats -- I love being outnumbered by the way. A lot of the same Democrats.

BROWN: Usually it is the other way around, Sean.

HANNITY: Well, get used to it. A lot of same Democrats, Joe, that found themselves defending Clinton, now are saying Weiner has got to go. So, why the double standard here among Democrats?

JOE TRIPPI, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I mean, look, I don't know about double standard. But I think it is a message that Weiner should pay attention to. I mean, Nancy Pelosi, in the entire time she has been in the Congress has never called on a Democrat to resign. Not one in all the different problems that have happened with any individual or scandal that has occurred. It's never happened. She is now doing that. So is most of the leadership.

The problem for Weiner is, how does he do his job? I mean, who is going to want to co-sponsor a bill with Anthony Weiner? Who is going to want him to co-sponsor their bills? How is he going to get anything done now that so many in the leadership, and down on the democratic side have asked him to leave, and now the president saying he would resign if it were him. I mean, I think it's moved beyond the scandal now to just why stay, what can you do that's going to do anybody any good at this point?

HANNITY: Well, the thing is --

TRIPPI: I'm not saying it's fair. But it's the way it is.

HANNITY: All right. But there are, let me see if I can explain this to you, Michael, just hear my analogy here. I was writing them down before the show. You know, horrible, I don't what's wrong with Anthony Weiner. I mean, and we're also talking about underage girls that he's conversing with, and the girls at least are sending messages that are fairly explicit. You know, he's sending pictures of his naked body. Anytime he walks by a mirror, the guy seems obsessed with grabbing his wiener and taking a picture. It's pretty weird stuff.

So, you know, what Clinton did though was far worse. You know, he lied under oath. Weiner apparently we know didn't do that. He had an actual affair versus a virtual affair. And Democrats didn't ask for him to go. But they are asking for Weiner to go, so you've got to see the double standard in terms out Democrats are reacting. And I'm trying to understand what that is about.

BROWN: Well, first of all, I don't think you will hear anyone defend the conduct of the congressman. And frankly, I think he's even condemned himself for the conduct. So, I don't think that issue is one that's really debatable. No one is debating that.

The question is, whether the consequences. I don't know why you continue to bring up the Clinton analogy. Anytime you guys can bring up anything about Bill Clinton you do it. It is getting the old, you need to stop and just kind of move forward.

HANNITY: No I don't. I haven't mentioned Bill Clinton in years. I don't talk about him.

BROWN: You have mentioned him twice in the last three minutes.

HANNITY: Only in this context, they supported and rallied behind Clinton. As horrible as what the things Weiner did, that they are not rallying around Weiner.

Let me see if I can ask Joe Trippi this question. I think this is important. As this moves forward, do we not have to consider that these congressmen, these politicians, these governors having sex in truck stops with strangers, or hiring hookers and getting hired by CNN. Do we not have to consider that they are subjecting themselves to blackmail? Should that not be part of the equation?

TRIPPI: You know, I don't know about that.

HANNITY: No?

TRIPPI: I mean, look, I don't think so. I think you look at the cases you are talking about, they've all, you know, they've all came out. I mean, it wasn't like, he didn't go try to spend.

HANNITY: But say he didn't come out --

TRIPPI: He did not try to buy --

HANNITY: You misunderstand.

Monday June 13 2011

Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:49:31 -0800

Newt Gingrich,

Oscar Weiner

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:34:11 -0800

Maybe Weiner should stay

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:33:04 -0800

Weiner-mania has taken the media by the…uh…horns for the past week. I reserved judgment on whether Congressman Weiner should resign until further details surfaced. After weeding through the details of this scandal I have come to the conclusion that I really cannot say whether Anthony Weiner should step down.

From a moral and ethical point of view this man should go. If I were advising Congressman Weiner I would most certainly tell him to excuse himself from public service and apologize for disgracing his family, his name and the office he was fortunate enough to have held. Then I would instruct him to disappear from the political scene.

Obviously Congressman Weiner has his own moral code that he lives by, but the question now is not whether what he did was right or wrong, but whether he should be required to step down? In order to answer this political and legal question I find myself examining past scandals. The two incidents that come to mind are the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the ethics trial of New York Congressman Charlie Rangel.

Bill Clinton served as President from 1993-2001, and began a sexual relationship with an intern by the name Monica Lewinsky in 1995, according to audiotapes secretly recorded by Linda Tripp. In early 1998 the scandal broke and several news organizations reported the sexual relationship between Lewinsky and Clinton. Clinton denied having an affair stating the now infamous and often repeated “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

While Clinton initially denied these allegations he was later confronted with stained blue dresses, audio recordings, more mistresses, and graphic stories involving cigars. Likewise Anthony Weiner came out swinging, saying his computer was hacked and vehemently denying that he took or posted the lewd photos. Since his initial denial the Congressman has been caught in a very tangled web of lies and deceit.

You can’t help but draw comparisons between Weiner and Clinton, but there is an important and obvious difference between the two. Bill Clinton had physical contact of a sexual nature with an intern in the Oval Office of the White House. This man (Bill Clinton) held the highest office in the United States yet he received sexual favors in one of the most historic rooms in the White House. Despite the many women and embarrassing details Bill Clinton remained the President of the United States of America. If he was able to keep the honor bestowed upon him, how can I possibly say Anthony Weiner should be forced to step down for producing and sending explicit photos to consenting adults?

Is Weiner a pervert? Yes. Should he have to resign from political office for being a pervert? Apparently it depends on the situation.

So it appears the Democrats won’t oust Weiner for his appalling sexual conduct, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t use a different form of pressure. This week House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate whether Weiner violated any of the chamber's rules. Hearing Pelosi sound the alarm for possible ethics violations makes me want to laugh out loud due to the ongoing and widespread violations by members from both political parties that fore the most part go unanswered (as evidenced in the Charlie Rangel scandal).

The House Ethics Committee brought 13 serious charges against Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York.

See the list of charges in its entirety here.

The panel found that among other things Rangel had improperly used congressional resources to solicit donations to the Charles Rangel Center for Public Policy at City College of New York. He had also solicited donations from businesses with interests before the Ways and Means Committee, leaving the impression that money could influence official actions. Rangel also failed to list at least $600,000 in assets in a series of wealth disclosure forms, and failed to report cash earned by renting out his Dominican Republic beach villa as income.

In the end Rangel received a large helping of humiliation and a letter of reprimand. Again when I compare Rangel’s numerous and serious abuses to Weiner I am at a loss. Weiner reportedly used congressional phones to conduct inappropriate conversations with numerous women. He also allegedly sent lewd photos of himself while on the public’s dime using government owned computers.

According news reports, House members have taken the drastic action of kicking out one of their own only a handful of times in US history – most often for disloyalty to the US government or violation of criminal law.

The bar for tolerance when it comes to politicians is too lax. They are clearly held to a different standard that you, me, teachers and nearly every other hardworking, taxpaying American. If I were a judge forced to pass judgment on whether or not Anthony Weiner should resign I would first look to case precedent. Where has the tolerance bar been set in the past? After refreshing my memory of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and the Charlie Rangel incident I have to give the edge to Anthony Weiner – morally corrupt politicians, not just Clinton and Rangel, have given him a fighting chance.

To reiterate I am in no way condoning what Anthony Weiner did, but when I compare his behavior to other bad political apples I can understand why the Congressman chose to try and weather the storm. On the bright side for Congressman Weiner should he ultimately decide to step down he may have a shot at becoming the spokesman for Oscar Meyer.

(Sorry, but there has to be at least one joke about the name.)

Why we should leave Anthony Weiner alone

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:32:32 -0800

There are many mistakes to be made in life, and one of the most common in our society is that of infidelity. It’s not that we shouldn’t take this seriously. But, it is certainly not surprising when I hear of people getting separated or divorced due to wandering eyes and roaming hands.

This brings us to our current lead story in the news nationwide, Congressman Anthony Weiner. It seems that all anyone can talk about is how wrong Anthony Weiner is for the infidelity he has committed. Although I agree, that he has made a grave and hurtful mistake, I do not feel it is a matter of public interest.

Yes, Anthony Weiner is a public official; someone who works for, is governed by, and answers to the public. Fact is, he did and does that. You may not agree with the actions and behavior of this man, but he does do his job. Now we want to hold him to a higher standard because he holds public office. Since when? They are human, just like us. They have a job, just like us. They make mistakes, just like us.

Let’s take a look at the men of our political history. Men who are revered by our society, and we only need to name a couple for me to make a very clear point. John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton are two men who did not “sext” or make calls to have “phone sex.” They had actual, real honest to God, between the sheets sex. They consummated their affairs, in the White House, and for President Clinton in the Oval Office.

How is it that these two Presidents can commit these adulterous acts, and on more than one occasion, and are hailed as an inspiration. Yet, Anthony Weiner who commits no physical act of adultery is suddenly an enemy of the state. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention, it did not affect his job. Bottom line!

There are many accusations that he made phone calls to women from his congressional phone. So what? Are you telling me that the average American doesn’t make personal phone calls at work? You don’t call your doctor, a restaurant, your kids, a friend? Whatever your reason is for your non-work call, it’s no different than anyone else’s non-work call.

Anthony Weiner made a grave mistake, and that was cheating on his wife. He is probably the kind of guy who should never have gotten married and should have stayed single so that he could explore other ‘options.’ As far as his job as a Congressman, I am not a Democrat, but he is listening and honoring his commitment to his constituents and until he fails at his job I don’t think he needs to resign. Further, let’s talk about all of the in-office affairs that all of us have seen in the work place, should all of those people be fired as well?

My interview with Human Events editor Jason Mattera

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:28:07 -0800

On Monday I interviewed Human Events editor Jason Mattera.

Mattera discussed the upcoming 2012 elections, the Anthony Weiner scandal and much more.

Watch Parts 1 through 3 to see what Jason had to say.

Watch Part 1

Watch Part 2

Watch Part 3

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

Wednesday June 08 2011

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:28:39 -0800

Karl Rove,

What happens when you take away a man's teleprompter

Tue, 24 May 2011 12:32:19 -0800

See what happens when you take away a man's teleprompter? He goes back in time 3 years:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05/president_obama_has_no_idea_wh.html

Oh, but Bush was the idiot... right?

Real Housewives of NJ/SCTNow.org Fundraiser Event (5/16/11)

Fri, 20 May 2011 07:41:19 -0800

Eric and Elisha at SCTNow.org event

Fri, 20 May 2011 07:39:42 -0800

Caroline Manzo and her kids on stage

Fri, 20 May 2011 07:38:59 -0800

Crowd shot at SCTNow event

Fri, 20 May 2011 07:38:31 -0800

Staff at the SCTNow table

Fri, 20 May 2011 07:38:02 -0800

SCTNow staff: Malinda Logan, Katy Bennett, Ruth Byington, Elisha Krauss and Sundy Goodnight

Fri, 20 May 2011 07:37:25 -0800

Real Housewives of NJ fundraiser and premiere party

Fri, 20 May 2011 07:34:38 -0800

Monday night some amazing Stop Child Trafficking Now (SCTNow) volunteers, staffers and I headed out to The Brownstone House in Paterson, NJ for an exciting Season 3 premiere party for the “Real Housewives of New Jersey.”

PHOTOS: View pictures from the event!

Caroline Manzo has supported our cause since one of our devoted volunteers tweeted her last summer about child trafficking. Caroline Manzo not only tweets on her own, this woman reads and responds to her fans!

Everytime Caroline took the mic on Monday to speak to hundreds of fans gathered she mentioned SCTNow. Proceeds from ticket sales to the premiere party are going to SCTNow and the Wounded Warrior foundation.

One of the reasons I love Caroline Manzo is she reminds me of the woman I love the most, my mom. When you watch “Real Housewives of New Jersey” you see that Caroline, despite having a successful tv show and a blessed lifestyle, is a normal mom. She is excited and sad about her kids growing up and leaving the nest. She is independent and supportive of her husband. She is smart, savvy and a hard worker. She is the average American mom.

Caroline is using her fame for good. We on the SCTNow team are honored to have her on our side!

Please be sure to check out SCTNow and tell Caroline thanks for being a “Great American.”

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

Rapper Common

Wed, 11 May 2011 10:03:37 -0800

Controversial Rapper, Common, Heads to White House

Wed, 11 May 2011 10:02:54 -0800

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," May 10, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: It seems this administration will never learn its lesson. Tomorrow, Michelle Obama is set to host an evening of poetry and will welcome a slew of poets, musicians, students from all across the country to the White House.

Among them is a controversial rapper and poet, Lonnie Rashid Lynn Jr., better known as Common. Now, he's a staunch supporter of the president and has a running list of controversial comments.

Two thousand and seven, during an HBO's "Def Poetry" appearance, Common called for the burning of President George W. Bush. Now the poem reads -- I'm not the best at this -- "Burn a Bush cos' for peace he no push no button, killing over oil and grease, no weapons of mass destruction, how can we follow a leader when this is a corrupt one?"

Common, not surprisingly, is also associated with Obama's pastor more than 20 years, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Look at this video of Common performing at Trinity United Church of Christ on New Year's Eve 2007.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMMON, RAPPER: We gon make it right for the people out there / and I can let you know don't nobody want drama / we gon vote for my man, what's his name? Obama / 2008, we gon take it straight to president / I'ma let you know he's a Trinity resident / yeah, it's like that, we won't be hesitant / revolution is here, we coming clear...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: I guess we shouldn't be surprised he landed himself a White House invite.

Now, earlier today, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin also weighed in on the controversy. She wrote on Twitter, "Oh, lovely, White House."

But the rapper himself, he doesn't seem to be phased. In response, he tweeted, "So apparently Sarah Palin and Fox News doesn't like me."

It baffles me that this is the person the White House chooses to set as an example for our kids.

Now, Fox News has reached out to the first lady's office for comment. We are still waiting to hear back.

Joining me now with reaction are back are Bucknell University Professor Dr. James Peterson. And SiriusXM radio host David Webb.

Guys, welcome back to both of you. Thanks for being here.

JAMES PETERSON, PROFESSOR, BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: Thank you for having me.

HANNITY: Is this appropriate? Talks about killing cops. And I can bring up a whole slew of other things, "n" word. I don't like the way he talks about women. Is this the guy, poet, we ought to be inviting to the White House, the people's house 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

PETERSON: Certainly we shouldn't be censoring our poets. I mean, this is America.

HANNITY: I don't want to sensor them. Should he be in the White House, big difference?

DAVID WEBB, SIRIUSXM RADIO HOST: No. He shouldn't be in the White House. Look, the president said Sean, words have power. And I agree with them.

We are talking about an image for our children. This latest one that he did the "Def Poetry Jam" is 2007. This is a guy who says in his IMDB profile that he's going to reform himself from his days of smoking marijuana, alcohol and fornication. And I understand that he grew up with that in the Chicago-style rap, you know, that ghetto rap. I got all that. But the White House has to be concerned about image, any president, no matter what. And you shouldn't be sending this down to the kids.

Plus, let's look at hypocrisy. Where would the media be if we replace the words, burn a Bush cos' for peace he no push no button.

HANNITY: You are not better than me, by the way. You're not better than me here, come on.

(CROSSTALK)

WEBB: But if he replaced that with Obama.

HANNITY: Yes.

WEBB: And he said that, this should be front page news. Sharpton with be leading the barge.

HANNITY: Absolutely.

WEBB: It is the hypocrisy that gets me.

PETERSON: I've seen this all over the Internet all day long. But listen, let's just give a little bit of context, the "Def Poetry Jam" appearance is not one of Common's songs, it's a poem that he actually wrote. And actually.

WEBB: Still his words, though.

PETERSON: Please, let me finish here. The burning Bush is actually an allusion to the Burning Bush in the Bible. It's a lot more waiting, a lot more sophisticated and subtle than what you guys give it credit for.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: No, no stop! Because it says just before that, no weapons of mass destruction. How do you go to the Burning Bush?

PETERSON: I'm not saying it is not a critique of President Bush, it is. But it's much more complex than him to say burn Bush. Listen, he's a poet. Let me finish, he is a poet, he has a right to figure and be creative and he's doing so in this particular...

WEBB: Well, let me simplify it for you. The lines before Burning Bush.

(CROSSTALK)

-- What with that happening why messing with Saddam.

This is not about the Burning Bush in the Bible. This is a guy who grew up in Jeremiah Wright's church.

Wednesday May 11 2011

Wed, 11 May 2011 09:50:37 -0800

Tuesday May 10 2011

Tue, 10 May 2011 10:40:48 -0800

Mike Ghouse, Andrew McCarthy,

Elisha

Mon, 02 May 2011 17:10:17 -0800

Royal wedding

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:05:26 -0800

Atlas Shrugged

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:27:21 -0800

Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) runs Taggart Transcontinental, the largest remaining railroad company in America, with intelligence, courage and integrity, despite the systematic disappearance of her best and most competent workers.

She is drawn to industrialist Henry Rearden (Grant Bowler), one of the few men whose genius and commitment to his own ideas match her own. Rearden's super-strength metal alloy, Rearden Metal, holds the promise that innovation can overcome the slide into anarchy.

Using the untested Rearden Metal, they rebuild the critical Taggart rail line in Colorado and pave the way for oil titan Ellis Wyatt (Graham Beckel) to feed the flame of a new American Renaissance.

Hope rises again, when Dagny and Rearden discover the design of a revolutionary motor based on static electricity - in an abandoned engine factory - more proof to the sinister theory that the "men of the mind" (thinkers, industrialists, scientists, artists, and other innovators) are "on strike" and vanishing from society.

For more on Atlas Shrugged, please click here!

Getting Sean to attend a wedding

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 07:08:09 -0800

If you are a 3 hour a day everyday true blue Hannity listener you know the one thing Sean will never attend is a good wedding! I have worked with the man for seven years and have yet to find a way to bribe him into attending my hypothetical wedding.

I was reminded that Hannity is the “Wedding Grinch” when I came across the story of a couple from Michigan planning to walk 2,500 miles to their own wedding! Talk about “going green”.

The 24 year olds said they plan to leave Canton Township in Michigan in mid-April and arrive in Las Vegas four months later in September! Now that my friends is a lot of “quality time” with your significant other. They intend to marry near Lake Mead and hope the long trek will, “prepare them to spend a lifetime together.”

Story here: (http://www.denverpost.com/watercooler/ci_17777095#ixzz1Ika1wLtb)

Speaking of weddings…The ROYAL WEDDING is on April 29th. Now Lynda and I were talking and it turns out neither of us are too psyched to watch Wills and Kate tie the knot. For whatever reason their engagement really hasn’t captivated our hearts and minds.

As such it shouldn’t come as a surprise for you all to learn that I will not be waking up at the crack of dawn (4:00am ET) to watch the young couple exchange vows. However don’t jump to place me in the Hannity Wedding Grinch category because believe me had Lynda and I been invited to the royal wedding we’d be on the first plane to England!

What do the Hannity faithful think, would Sean make an exception for the Royal Wedding and attend the festivities?

Elisha attends Soul Surfer Premiere at the Paley Center for Media in Manhattan

Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:22:53 -0800

Soul Surfer Premiere!

Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:12:15 -0800

Last night Eric (aka Romeo) and I attended the Soul Surfer premiere at the Paley Center for Media in Manhattan.

PHOTOS - View photos from the event here!

The movie is a great family friendly film that will entertain your 6 your old daughter or your 60 year old grandpa. The cinematography showcasing the beauty of the ocean and the impressive talent of female (and some male) surfers is breathtaking and made me want to hop on a plane to Hawaii stat!

The movie shares the inspiring true story of Bethany Hamilton before, briefly during, and then her recovery after the shark attack almost 8 years ago.

After the movie there was a brief q&a and the attendees learned that from an encouraging word from Bethany's youth pastor, to her trip to Thailand, to family conversations the movie is accurate. The entire Hamilton family (mom, dad and her two big brothers) played a huge role in deciding which script, which actors (Bethany's mom personally chose AnnaSophia Robb to play Bethany) and water shots that would realistically depict what they surf in almost every day.

It was very cool to hear that the entire Hamilton family is a fan of Sean's radio and tv shows. They listen online and watch all the way in Kauai!

A big thank you to Joe Battaglia from Renaissance Communication for inviting the Hannity team and allowing me to interview the incredible Bethany Hamilton and actors from the movie.

Take your entire family to see this movie this weekend! You won't regret it!

Elisha Krauss is the Senior Producer of the Sean Hannity Show

To find a theatre near you playing Soul Surfer this weekend go here

To learn more about Bethany and her career visit her site here

How Sean Met His Wife

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:48:52 -0800

Defying The Laws Of Physics With Kirstie Alley

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 08:45:48 -0800

Let me just say that I do not watch, nor have I ever watched "Dancing with the Stars" for many obvious reasons. However....I will start.... only if Maksim Chmerkovskiy is forced to start wearing a weightlifter's belt when defying the very laws of physics by attempting to lift Kirstie Alley.

When he was dragging her backwards I could actually hear that "beep-beep-beep" sound in my head that trucks make when they're in reverse.

Weird Hannity Things I Found Online

Mon, 04 Apr 2011 08:33:59 -0800

Hello Hannity Faithful:

So I was talking with a friend last week about the strange things people attempt to sell on Ebay, Craigslist etc. I mean who could possibly forget the infamous grilled cheese sandwich that sold for $28,000 on Ebay because it possibly, maybe, sort of, kind of had the shape of the Virgin Mary’s face fried into the bread. Or how about the “UFO Detector” that sold for $135.03!

As such I decided I would snoop around on the internet to see what kind of things people were selling or making that involve our very own Sean Hannity.

Here’s what my search results located:

Sean Hannity 8 of Diamonds Playing Card- Wow they didn’t even make the Han-man a King of clubs or Ace of spades- Just an arbitrary 8 of Diamonds- ouch!
http://cgi.ebay.com/SEAN-HANNITY-Scarce-Vote-Republican-Card-/200349564417?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ea5c3be01

Hannity Egg Art- Yes someone actually made Sean Hannity out of 2 hard boiled eggs. This item gives new meaning to the term “egg head.”
http://cgi.ebay.com/SEAN-HANNITY-egg-art-REAL-EGGS-1-OF-A-KIND-MUST-SEE-/330547852660?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4cf62ff574

Hannity Underwear- And not just any kind of underwear mind you. This type of undergarment caters to the female kind!
http://www.cafepress.com/+classic_thong,59857249

And finally an, “I love Sean Hannity” Dog Coat- Yes fellow American’s now your dog can be warm, stylish and a Reagan Conservative in this pooch poncho!
http://www.cafepress.com/+i_love_heart_sean_hannity_dog_ts,111685251

If you have a strange, unique or laughable Hannity item that you made or found send us a photo (email us at feedback@hannity.com) we love to see what kind of Hannity gear our listeners are rocking, but let’s keep it PG folks no photos of you in Hannity underwear please!

Snooki WWE

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:47:57 -0800

Snooki Survey

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:47:29 -0800

Who do you think is more embarrassed by this pic... Snooki, the WWE, or all of humanity?

Sean thinking

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

Monday March 28 2011

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:56:26 -0800

Brent Bozell,

Barry Bonds

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:54:57 -0800

My New Guilty Pleasure - "Friday"

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:48:48 -0800

My new guilty pleasure, a song that has gone completely viral by Rebecca Black! {Click here to watch}

Seven a.m., waking up in the morning
Gotta be fresh, gotta go downstairs
Gotta have my bowl, gotta have cereal
Seein’ everything, the time is goin’
Tickin’ on and on, everybody’s rushin’
Gotta get down to the bus stop
Gotta catch my bus, I see my friends (My friends)

Kickin’ in the front seat
Sittin’ in the back seat
Gotta make my mind up
Which seat can I take?

It’s Friday, Friday
Gotta get down on Friday
Everybody’s lookin’ forward to the weekend, weekend
Friday, Friday
Gettin’ down on Friday
Everybody’s lookin’ forward to the weekend

Partyin’, partyin’ (Yeah)
Partyin’, partyin’ (Yeah)
Fun, fun, fun, fun
Lookin’ forward to the weekend

O'Keefe, James

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:29:03 -0800

James O'Keefe, 26, is an investigative journalist and filmmaker. He is president of Project Veritas, a non-profit organization dedicated to training video muckrakers nationwide. James' investigations expose corruption and malfeasance in major taxpayer-funded institutions, including ACORN, Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Census Bureau, and elected officials. His most recent expose featured the New Jersey teachers union and was hailed by N.J. Governor Chris Christie as "enlightening and enraging."

James is most well-known for his 2009 ACORN investigation, which exposed systematic corruption in multiple offices, such as the facilitation of child prostitution, human trafficking and tax evasion.
The U.S. House and Senate promptly voted to defund ACORN and the U.S.
Census cut ties with the group. The organization was ultimately forced to disband.

In addition to his own reporting, James is committed to empowering the next generation of citizen journalists. From student newspaper editors to bloggers to video producers, enterprising young reporters across the country look to James for inspiration, advice, and encouragement.

He started his own career as a journalist writing for the Daily Targum at his alma mater, Rutgers University, before founding and editing The Rutgers Centurion. There he made a point about political-correctness run amok, successfully leading a campaign to ban Lucky Charms cereal from the school cafeteria because it stereotypes Irish people.

Wednesday March 09 2011

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:27:22 -0800

Mike Pence,

Sean on Sheen

Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:09:43 -0800

Famous actor Charlie Sheen has been a media whirlwind the past weeks. Reports that his drug use caused the hit tv sit-com “Two and a Half Men” to be canceled, seems just the beginning of this Hollywood rebel’s downfall. He has been linked to several drug and prostitution scandals.

Sean discussed Sheen on radio and expressed his concern whenever anyone is on a self-destructive path. Sean says he believes in redemption, although a fast lifestyle is something he cannot relate to.

When asked in an abc interview if he was on any drugs he said “I am on a drug, it’s called Charlie Sheen. Um, it’s not available because if you try it once you will die, your children will weep over your exploded body. Too much?”

Sean also is displeased that the media wants to see a train wreck and they don’t give a damn. They are motivated by sales and ratings and not the well being of not only Sheen but his four small children as well.

Charlie also said in an interview “I woke up, I decided I’ve been kicked around, I’ve been criticized…the guy with this bitchin’ rockstar life and I’m just finally gonna completely embrace it, wrap both arms around it and love it violently. And defend it violently, through violent hatred”

One of Sean’s callers said the media is making Charlie worse and they should just leave him alone. Another caller says he should be able to do whatever he wants as long as it’s legal…but isn’t that the problem?

Sean reminded listeners that he has young kids and taking the drugs he reportedly is and at the levels he is will take his life. And that’s the reality of the situation.

Happy Birthday Elisha!

Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:58:37 -0800

Hannity Senior Producer Elisha Krauss turned 25 February 23rd, but her birthday celebration took up almost her entire week!

First, she and Romeo headed to Broadway to see “Million Dollar Quartet” the on stage adaptation of the night Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis and Carl Perkins were all in the Sun Records recording studio in 1956.

Then, on Elisha’s actual birthday Romeo and friends went to Keste Pizzeria one of the favorite places of the Hannity team for the best pizza on earth!

After dinner they headed to an NYC cigar bar.

Friday the girls from the Hannity team gathered with some of Elisha’s closest friends for all girl’s karaoke.

And finally, Elisha and Romeo met up with friends and enjoyed the 2 Friends tour with Michael W. Smith and Amy Grant.

Happy Birthday Elisha!

BIRTHDAY PHOTOS: Take a look at all the photos from Elisha's 25th Birthday Bash!

VIDEO: Behind the scenes The Sean Hannity Show with Elisha!

Aguilera/Palin Controversy Fake

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:40:24 -0800

Last week, US Weekly reported that Sarah Palin had called in to Fox News host Sean Hannity‘s radio show following Christina Aguilera‘s National Anthem Superbowl flub and called the singer an “airhead.” What US weekly hadn’t bothered to check was whether the story was even real.

It wasn’t.

The comment was made up by a satirical “news” site, Super Tuesday News. US Weekly has removed the post from their website.

Time magazine, meanwhile used the same satirical source to cite a quote in their blog post, claiming that Palin had said she wanted Aguilera deported. Glynnis MacNicol at Business Insiderchronicles the whole saga.

Article continues here

Dallas Area Hit With Snow Storm, Two Days Before City Hosts The Super Bowl

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:29:55 -0800

Navy spent $450,000 of taxpayer money on Super Bowl flyover...and roof was shut!

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:26:03 -0800

The U.S. Navy has been criticised for spending almost half a million dollars of taxpayers' money on a flyover at the Super Bowl - while the stadium roof was closed.

The estimated $450,000 expense was for four fighter jets that flew from Virginia to Texas and over the retractable roof of Cowboys Stadium in Dallas.

As it was broadcast on screens at the Super Bowl XLV on Sunday, spectators inside the stadium got the same view as people watching the five-second shot at home.

The $450,000 figure was based on the aircraft’s operational cost, the time it took pilots in the F-18 jets to fly the mission and a backup plane, according to official data.

But the Navy said the only costs of the trip that it recorded were the fuel expenses of $109,000 and the flyover provided good publicity to help military recruitment.

Greenbay QB Aaron Rodgers

Mon, 07 Feb 2011 09:18:06 -0800

Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers (L) and Clay Matthews celebrate after the Packers defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Friday January 21 2011

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:45:44 -0800

Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint,

MTV "Skins"

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:03:30 -0800

Parents Television Council Calls for Federal Investigation Into MTV's Skins

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:51:42 -0800

HollywoodReporter.com 1/20/2011 by Lindsay Powersa

One day after it was reported Viacom executives ordered producers to tone down its racy teen drama, the Parents Television Council has announced it's urging the Department of Justice and U.S. Senate and House Judiciary Committees to open an investigation.

"In addition to the sexual content on the show involving cast members as young as 15, PTC counted 42 depictions and references to drugs and alcohol in the premiere episode," the group wrote in a letter to the government organizations.

"It is clear that Viacom has knowingly produced material that may well be in violation of [several anti-child pornography laws]," added the PTC, which earlier called the show "the most dangerous program ever for children."

The group is also urging a boycott of Taco Bell, one of the show's sponsors.

The New York Times reported that a number of executives met on Tuesday over concerns the show could violate pornography laws.

While MTV did not confirm that, a rep for the network said, "Skins is a show that addresses real-world issues confronting teens in a frank way. We review all of our shows and work with all of our producers on an ongoing basis to ensure our shows comply with laws and community standards. We are confident that the episodes of ‘Skins’ will not only comply with all applicable legal requirements, but also with our responsibilities to our viewers.”

Critics Slam Vanity Fair's 'Disgusting' GOP 'Beefcake' Calendar

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:24:59 -0800

By Hollie McKay

Published October 27, 2010 | FoxNews.com

Just in time for Tuesday's midterm elections, VanityFair.com has released a racy 2011 “beefcake” calendar whose "pinup boys" -- their heads digitally mounted on the provocatively posed bodies of male models -- are some of the top names in the Republican Party.

Among the GOP power players portrayed in the calendar: 2008 presidential candidate John McCain and Kentucky Senate-hopeful Rand Paul, both goofily covering their crotches; Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, naked and in a creature-like pose with clawed hands and a ditzy, childish expression; Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, shirtless and holding his nipples in a sailor get-up; and House Minority Leader John Boehner, stroking his neck in a tiny pink Speedo.

In addition to the images, the calendar has descriptions for each individual, including their “turn-ons” (in the case of “Mr. March” John McCain, it “varies with each election cycle”) and their “turn-offs” – with McCain’s listed as “plucky brunettes who favor rimless glasses and folksy aphorisms.”

So is this funny? Or is it a blatantly disrespectful attack on conservatives?

Article continues here

Imus, Don

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:00:54 -0800

John Donald "Don" Imus Jr. (born July 23, 1940) is an American radio host, humorist and writer. His nationally-syndicated talk show, Imus in the Morning, is broadcast throughout the United States by Citadel Media and relayed on television by the Fox Business Network.

Don Imus

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:59:44 -0800

All 33 Chilean Miners Saved

Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:51:38 -0800

By Chris Kraul, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Copiapo, Chile — Chile freed the last of 33 miners from imprisonment nearly half a mile underground late Wednesday, the miracle of a second chance at life made real by the methodical shuttle of a battered red, white and blue rescue capsule willed on by a joyful nation and global audience of hundreds of millions.

Watch video of the rescue here

When 54-year-old foreman Luis Urzua emerged at 9:55 p.m. from the 28-inch-diameter hole that curved deep into the San Jose mine, it had been 69 days since the miners were trapped, 52 days since they were able to declare to the world that they were still alive — but less than 22 hours since the first miner had resurfaced.

"You brought your shift out like a good captain," Chilean President Sebastian Pinera told Urzua, beaming as he gripped the arms of the burly miner who had organized his men for survival during the first crucial hours after they were trapped. "All of Chile shared your anguish and hope."

Article continues here

Donald Trump

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 08:55:24 -0800

Hurricane Warning Issued for North Carolina as Earl Barrels Toward East Coast

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 11:08:13 -0800

A hurricane warning was issued for North Carolina on Wednesday as Hurricane Earl barreled toward the East Coast packing winds of 125 mph.

The National Hurricane Center said Earl, a powerful Category 3 hurricane, could make landfall on the Carolinas as early as Thursday. The center also extended a hurricane watch for parts of Virginia and Delaware.

Authorities gave mandatory evacuation orders for all visitors of two North Carolina vacation islands earlier Wednesday, warning that the storm's force will bring extremely high waves, heavy rains and dangerous riptides to much of the East Coast.

Article continues here

Obama 'having a great time' despite vacation rain

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:41:07 -0800

By GLEN JOHNSON

WEST TISBURY, Mass. — A storm that curtailed outdoor activities for much of President Barack Obama's vacation was forecast to end Wednesday, but he said he's been able to fight off cabin fever.

Not only has he been able to sneak in two rounds of golf, but he told reporters Tuesday he's "doing a lot of reading" at the farm compound he's rented for the first family. "I'm having a great time," he said.

The president made the remarks, his first in public since heading out on vacation last week, as he escorted first lady Michelle Obama from the State Road restaurant.

The couple dined out for the second consecutive night, this time with Washington power broker Vernon Jordan and his wife, Ann, as well as Chicago friends Eric and Cheryl Whitaker. White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett also joined the group.

Fellow diners cheered the president and clapped as he left the restaurant. Obama paused for pictures and signed autographs. While Mrs. Obama wore a colorful print dress with contrasting sleeves, the president looked more subdued in khakis, a striped dress shirt and blue outdoor jacket.

Strong thunderstorms have lashed the island off Massachusetts since Sunday, causing power outages, curtailing air transportation and forcing ferry cancellations. They also triggered traffic jams and long lines at movie theaters, restaurants and other indoor venues.

The Obamas are scheduled to remain on vacation until Sunday, when the president heads to New Orleans to check on the gulf oil spill cleanup and to mark the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

2010 Freedom Concerts - Photos

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 12:30:42 -0800

Vote For Heather O'Rourke!

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:59:07 -0800

Heather O’Rourke (WABC & WPLJ traffic reporter) is a finalist to co-host Live with Regis next month. Heather is a good friend of the Sean Hannity Show and we'd like to see her co-host with Regis on "Regis & Kelly Live!" The contest is for all the “women in radio in the U.S.” and she’s in the running. To get picked, people have to vote for her on the Regis & Kelly facebook page and comment as to why Heather should win.

Please lend your support and vote for Heather!

CLICK HERE TO VOTE!

Drew Brees

Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:05:46 -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.

Sean and Drew Brees

Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:45:51 -0800

Got Hannity Sticker

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:01:03 -0800

Hannitized Road Trip!

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:58:51 -0800

A Hannitized Road Trip!

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:57:40 -0800

The Cottrell Family recently emailed the show about their cross country road trip, below is an excerpt:

What a great and wonderful experience to PROUDLY show our support of the Hannity show by putting "HANNITIZED" and "GOT HANNITY?" on the back of our car window. We never in a million years thought we would get so much attention by it. In fact, the ONLY reason we did it was because my husband and I are such HUGE fans of the Hannity show. People were so amazed how young we were (as if we shouldn't know about things of the world and it's happenings) anyway, we met people from all over that are fans of Hannity. We left Arizona and traveled to Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana (on our family vacation) and everywhere we went we got waves, honks, people actually followed us in to gas stations from the freeway and in the middle of no-where. In fact, when I was talking to Hannity (we had to stop in the middle of a canyon so we wouldn't lose our signal) a lady pulled up to make sure we were okay and the reason she stopped was because she saw our Hannity stickers. (WOW) can you imagine? Anyway, I have attached a picture of our car for you to see.

The Cottrell Family

For more pictures click here!

Illinois Bball team

Thu, 13 May 2010 17:37:07 -0800

Ill. School Nixes Basketball Team's Trip Over Immigration Law

Thu, 13 May 2010 17:36:09 -0800

An Illinois high school says it's denying its girls' basketball team the opportunity to play in an Arizona basketball tournament over the Grand Canyon State’s new immigration law.

Parents in Illinois are outraged over a move by a local high school to scrap its girls basketball team's trip to Arizona over the Grand Canyon State’s new immigration law.

The Highland Park High School varsity basketball team has been selling cookies for months to raise money for a tournament in Arizona.

Now, after winning their first conference title in 26 years, the girls are being denied the opportunity to play in the tournament over safety concerns and because the trip “would not be aligned” with the school's “beliefs and values,” Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson told the Chicago Tribune.

Hebson said Arizona is off-limits, at least until it’s more clear how the state’s new law, which makes it a crime to be in the country illegally, will be enforced.

"We would want to ensure that all of our students had the opportunity to be included and be safe and be able to enjoy the experience," Hebson told the Tribune about the tournament. "We wouldn't necessarily be able to guarantee that."

Parents said there was no vote or consultation regarding the decision, which they called confusing, especially since they say no players on the team are illegal immigrants.

Wednesday May 12 2010

Wed, 12 May 2010 17:22:00 -0800

Brent Bozell,

St. Patrick's Day in Chicago

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:29:32 -0800

Friday February 19 2010

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:37:55 -0800

Pat Caddell, Ann Coulter,

Wurzelbacher, Joe

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:33:28 -0800

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (born December 3, 1973), famously dubbed Joe the Plumber, is a resident of Ohio, United States who gained significant attention during the 2008 U.S. presidential election. As an employee of a plumbing contractor, he was given the moniker "Joe the Plumber" after he was videotaped questioning then-Democratic candidate Barack Obama about his small business tax policy during a campaign stop in Ohio. The Republican McCain-Palin campaign later applied "Joe the Plumber" as a metaphor for middle-class Americans. He subsequently published a book about his experiences, and has appeared as a motivational speaker and commentator.

Joe The Plumber

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:31:09 -0800

Thousands feared dead in Haiti quake

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:46:40 -0800

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti – Haitians piled bodies along the devastated streets of their capital Wednesday after a powerful earthquake crushed thousands of structures, from schools and shacks to the National Palace and the U.N. peacekeeping headquarters. Untold numbers were still trapped.

President Rene Preval said he believes thousands of people were dead from Tuesday afternoon's magnitude-7.0 quake.

"Parliament has collapsed. The tax office has collapsed. Schools have collapsed. Hospitals have collapsed," Preval told the Miami Herald. "There are a lot of schools that have a lot of dead people in them."

Even the main prison in the capital fell, "and there are reports of escaped inmates," U.N. humanitarian spokeswoman Elisabeth Byrs said in Geneva.

The Roman Catholic archbishop of Port-au-Prince was among the dead, and the head of the U.N. peacekeeping mission was missing.

The international Red Cross said a third of Haiti's 9 million people may need emergency aid and that it would take a day or two for a clear picture of the damage to emerge.

At first light Wednesday, a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter evacuated four critically injured U.S. Embassy staff to the hospital on the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the military has been detaining suspected terrorists for the last seven years.

Innis, Niger

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:50:58 -0800

Niger Innis is an American Republican consultant, strategist and National Spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).

Niger Innis

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:49:39 -0800

Tuesday January 12 2010

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:19:47 -0800

Sue Lowden, Stephen Smith, Niger Innis,

Tuesday January 05 2010

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:53:54 -0800

Scott Brown,

Drug Safety

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:28:22 -0800

New York City-funded Guidebook for Heroin Use

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:18:39 -0800

NEW YORK (AP) -- A New York City-funded guidebook for heroin users offers information on how to prepare drugs carefully and how to care for veins to avoid infection.

The state's top official with the Drug Enforcement Administration calls it a "step-by-step instruction on how to inject a poison."

DEA Special Agent-In-Charge John Gilbride says the handout is "very disturbing."

View the Guidebook Here (PDF)

But Mayor Bloomberg defends the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's decision to print the pamphlets.

"I would certainly not reccomend to anyone that they use hard drugs or soft drugs," he said. "But our health department does have an interest in if you're going to do certain things to get you to do it as healthily as you possibly can."

The department printed about 70,000 copies of the handout.

Wednesday December 23 2009

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:39:40 -0800

Ann Coulter, Mike Pence,

Elisha Hard At Work

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:19:18 -0800

Wednesday December 09 2009

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:51:29 -0800

Stephen Smith, Dick Morris,

Smith, Stephen

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:49:58 -0800

As a leading journalist, Stephen A. Smith has been up close and personal with the world's premier athletes, celebrities and newsmakers.

Stephen A Smith

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:47:46 -0800

Tuesday December 08 2009

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:48:27 -0800

Michael Steele,

Monday December 07 2009

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:36:13 -0800

Tiger Scandal: TV Cameras

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:20:05 -0800

Tiger: US Weekly Cover

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:17:56 -0800

Tiger Woods Scandal

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:14:28 -0800

Tiger's Home

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:09:39 -0800

Tiger's Car - Side 2

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:08:28 -0800

Tiger's Car Side

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:07:42 -0800

Tiger's Car Front

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:06:42 -0800

Tiger's Transgressions

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:57:08 -0800

Associated Press

ORLANDO, Fla. — Tiger Woods didn't have to say a word to get Florida troopers off his case. The same strategy may be harder to pull off when it comes to the tabloid media probing his private life.

The police inquiry into the early morning car crash involving the world's most famous athlete came to a close Tuesday, even though Woods refused to talk to the Florida Highway Patrol. Woods was charged with careless driving, which carries a $164 fine and four points on his driving record.

Additional Photos

That good news for Woods was tempered by the cover story of Us Weekly magazine, which hits newsstands Wednesday, alleging that a Los Angeles cocktail waitress had a 31-month affair with the world's No. 1 golfer.

Tiger Woods Timeline of Events

Thursday December 03 2009

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:27:56 -0800

Wednesday December 02 2009

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:44:04 -0800

Tuesday December 01 2009

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:45:06 -0800

Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee,

Michaele and Tareq Salahi at the White House

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:13:44 -0800