December 4, 2025 • 28 mins
In this episode, Sean dives into a lively discussion with Mark Halperin, a media analyst known for his candid insights. They cover the significant implications of recent military operations against narco-terrorists and the surrounding media narratives, discussing the importance of robust public debate on such actions. The conversation also touches on the deeply concerning issues of drug trafficking and national security, especially in relation to the aftermath of the Afghan resettlement program. Tune in for a thought-provoking exchange on the state of American governance and media honesty, and what it means for our collective future.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Right News Round Up and Information Overload Hour. Here's our
toll free telephone number if you want to be a
part of the program. In a minute, will be joined
by our friend Mark halprin Well. I think it's one
of the few honest brokers in the media today. If
you remember, in the lead up to the twenty four
presidential election, we had him on fairly regularly, and he
(00:21):
was one of the few people that was like out
there saying what I was saying. He was reading the
same numbers I was reading, and he knew that Donald
Trump was going to win that election as I knew it.
And I although I never want to communicate that to
anybody ever, because you always have day of turnout and
that means that if people don't show up that day,
(00:44):
all the models are modeling in terms of elections and
predictions go right out the window. But we were both
had a high degree of confidence that in fact, that
would happen. But also he's been honest in as much
as he been willing to point out things that we
have discussed on this program. Russia collusion was a complete
(01:08):
manufactured hoax by all the information that we were reporting
at the time and what we have learned through declassification.
We know that the FBI verify the authenticity of Hunter
Biden's laptop in March at twenty twenty, then pre bunking
on a weekly basis all these big social media companies.
I think we're in agreement on the issue of weaponization
(01:29):
of the DOJ and we can talk about that with him.
But you know, for now about a week, all we've
been hearing is this double tap strike on these against
these narco terrorists that are bringing drugs into the country,
killing our children and other Americans that that Pete Heggs
that sent out in order to kill kill them all.
That's what they said. Well, now all of a sudden,
(01:51):
even fake news ABC Martha Radits of all people, is reporting, oh,
we have new information tonight, according to a source familiar
with the incident, listen.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Tonight, new information. According to a source familiar with the incident,
the two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the
initial strike. They were believed to be potentially in communication
with others.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
And salvaging some of the drugs.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Because of that, it was determined they were still in
the fight and valid targets. A JAG officer was also
giving legal advice. So again, David, that video will be key.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Oh. They were believed to be potentially in communication with
others and salvaging the drugs. Because of that, it was
determined that they were still in the fight and valid targets.
A JAG officer was also giving legal advice, and even
the top Democrat Jim Hines on the House Intel Committee
said Thursday that the Navy Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley, you know,
(02:49):
is absolutely denying the Washington Post report that Pete Hegseth
ever gave a kill them all order, which has been
reported as gospel truth. This is why I keep saying
we have an information crisis in America. Anyway, Mark Halpern
is back with us. I don't know what your titles
are anymore. Editor in chief A two way. I know that.
And you know you're like everywhere these days.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
How are you very good to talk to you, San,
Happy holidays? And we're about ninety percent in agreement on everything?
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Is that ninety all?
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Right?
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Go to the ten percent you disagree with?
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Huh? Well, I prefer to go to the Ronald Reagan view.
My ninety percent friend is my ninety percent friend. I
think all Americans should just want to full robust debate
about the constitutionality legality of the overall operation in the Caribbean.
I totally agree with you about rush to judgment without
ample facts on this operation, But in this implicit area
(03:45):
of disagreement, I would have preferred the Pentagon to brief
members of Congress and to some extent, the non classified
way of the public on what actually happened, rather than
letting the vacuum be filled by half truths and things
that don't longer appear to be true at all.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Well, we if you go back in history, and I
won't repeat that which I've told this audience many times.
I don't care if it's Biden, you know, killing innocent
people in a home and in Afghanistan. I don't care
if it's you know, mistakes that Barack Obama made or
George Bush had made, and past presidents and Bill Clinton
had made. What we know is is that Trende Arragua
(04:21):
was identified as the people that have been running these
drug boats, these narco terrorists, and they confirmed the doubts
what that boat was. You know, I kind of tend
to doubt if you have four three hundred horsepower outdoor
motors on your boat that you're out there to get
out really to get out there faster to catch a
shark or catch a fish moving at high rates of speed.
(04:45):
So to me, it's kind of a no brainer. And
we do have all these drugs that have been flown
into the country and killing Americans. I'm not exactly sympathetic
towards those people that are poisoning our fellow Americans.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Agree percent, And I think not only what you're saying
is morally right and kind of a matter of policy right,
but I think it's be politically popular. But I do think,
you know, again, it's not about, you know, being permissive
on the war on drugs. It's not about whether these
are good guys or not. It's about whether it's consistent
with American law and American tradition to conduct the operation
(05:20):
based on the authority they've asserted it might be. I
just think we need a fuller debate because there are
slippery slopes here, and there's not been an operation quite
like this. There's no doubt. For the last fifty years
or so, every American president has basically said to Congress,
go suck lemons when it comes to the war powers.
The executive branch is going to handle it. But if
(05:41):
you love liberty, checks and balances and don't want a
unitary executive to just on its own, regardless of party,
say we're going to go use the American military this way,
then again there should be a robust debate about what's
the authority being used here, why is in Congress involved,
and is it being done consistent with our values and
our law. I'm not saying it's not saying it hasn't
(06:03):
been debated in Congress, including Chairman of the Army.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
But the whole War Powers Act has been debated pretty
much under every presidency.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Is it not, well, hasn't been debated. It's just Congress
is tackless and not standing up to the president, so
there's no debate. It's been implicitly decided.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
But it's not uniquely Trump, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
It's definitely not uniquely Trump. This mission has some unusual elements,
but one hundred percent, and Barack Obama killed an American
citizens using American military, so it's not uniquely Trump at all.
And I was just as insistent that there'd be a debate. Again,
I'm not saying where the debate should come down. But
there should be a debate when the American presidents use
(06:41):
the military to kill people. Whatever the mission, whatever the
morality of the mission, there should be some authority that's
debated and discussed so that we don't have one branch
of government deciding that it controls the power to declear
war when the Constitution is pretty clear that it's not
the branch that has the power.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
I'll necessarily see this as a declaration of war as
much as it is. The presidency is, you know, a
designated terrorist organization and a threat, imminent threat and danger
to the American people, and under his constitutional authority as
commander in chief, would have the ability to do so.
Let me let me move on. Let me ask you.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Just say I'm not against that, which I just think
it should be discussed.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Yeah, we have you know, we lost a twenty year
old National guardswoman. We have a twenty four year old
National guardsman, both from West Virginia. He's clinging to his
life and now we're learning a lot about the people
that have been resettled here from Afghanistan. We saw the
hasty pull out. It was a disaster. Lindsey Grammar at
the time was asking mayorcus about whether any of the
(07:43):
people that were jumping on those planes were being vetted
before they got on, and all he kept saying was,
we're so proud of our resettlement policies. But now we
have learned quite a few things. You know, nearly seven
thousand people flagged for derogatory information, over five thousand flag
for national security of concerns. We had the arrest of
(08:05):
another Afghan national, this one in Texas over a threat
to our national security. And now we have two dead
guardsmen that have been saving lives in Washington, d c.
And it's frustrating to me when you couple that with
wide open borders and the big lie, the lie in
this case is they were all vetted. They were not.
(08:27):
The lie about open borders was the borders closed and
the border secure. It was never closed, It was never secure,
and they lied to us for four years and now
we have untold millions of people in this country that
we know nothing about.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
I agree with everything you said, and the only edition
I'd had is there's every real possibility that it's going
to be worse that people who are not just what
this appears to be a lone actor, but there's every
possibility that there's conspirators in this country who came in
through the Afghan resettlement program, the poorest border, and so
(09:01):
I hope that the current administration is doing everything possible
to determine who's come to this country with it.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Well, they're trying, Mark, I mean you turn you watch
news as absorbed news as much as I do. They're trying.
And what do we see every day? What do we
hear every day? We have ICE agents compared to the
Gestapo and Nazis, and they're called fascists. Uh, the incidents
of threats against ICE agents are up a whopping one
(09:29):
thousand and fifty percent. Now we have some of these agents,
in this case, guardsmen being killed. You have people like
Gavin Newsom, you know, number one sanctuary state in the country.
You know, he wanted to pass a lall although he
has no constitutional jurisdiction to prevent ICE agents from putting
a mask on. But it's perfectly okay for the people
(09:50):
that protect him to wear a mask. And it seemed
we've had these people, these agents docked and threatened and
you know, for doing their job, and it's very frustrating
to me.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Yeah, my tone may have been misleading. I always saying
I hope they're doing it like it's their fault. I'm
saying I hope they have the success that is necessary
to go back and rescrutinize all the things that we're
done under the previous administration. And I agree with everything
you said about ice. This is a this is a
weird situation that one party is just decided to side
with lawlessness and tried to decide decided to side against
(10:25):
law enforcement. They've predicted a bunch of abuses. We just
haven't seen them. And as we're wearing the masks, I
just don't understand their fetish about this. We know why
they're wearing masks. It's not it's not because they don't
want to be do it, do it anonymously for some
nefarious reason. They don't want to be docked. And there's
and there's other health and other related issues, and this
(10:47):
is not this is not understandable to me. Why they've
just decided the law enforcement wearing masks is some sort
of some sort of sinister plot.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Let's say, if we're on the same page looking towards
twenty six, the midterms, and and twenty eight, I'll start
with twenty eight, it appears Gavin Newsom would be the
front runner as of today. In my mind, I want
to hear your idea on that number two. I think
a lot of people have tried to read too much
into the Tennessee seventh District and the election that took
(11:16):
place on Tuesday. However, if the party in power in
this case, President Trump and Republicans want to maintain control
of the House and Senate. To do so, they have
to defy history. It's only happened three times in the
last one hundred years that the party in power in
(11:38):
the White House maintains control in the next midterm election.
So it's not an easy task.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
It's made easier, however, by the fact that there's a
relatively small number of seats here and so Democrats are
unlikely to get a big wave. Of course, it's made
harder because the current majority is so narrow that you know,
it's not going to take a lot to lose it.
I'll start at twenty six. You know, there's so many
interpretations of what happened in Tennessee. I'm not sure. I
(12:05):
don't think everybody's overinterpreted. I think that there's one rational interpretation,
which is if if the president's level of popularity and
people's feelings about the economy are on election day next
year what they were in that National Area district on Tuesday,
the Democrats will win control of the House. So just
a question of whether that's going to change, whether the
(12:27):
president becomes slightly more popular, which is all really the
party needs, and if people feel better about the economy.
But there's no doubt that the Democrats around a liberal
candidate and the Republicans spent a lot of money and
she did quite well under the circumstances. Someone that liberal
doesn't really have business coming that close.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
And you shouldn't run in a city that you hate
and a city known for country music and say you
hate country music well, and say you want to defund
the police, yeah, and then say that rioting against police
is a good thing.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Yeah, all those things. I mean, she was a very
liberal candidate and it wasn't like she had all the money.
So I think again, it's pretty clear, and there are
plenty of maga people who will tell you this. It's
quite simple. Will people say, yeah, the president's got a
theory of the case on the economy. The vice president
and the Secretary of Treasury said at the Cabinet meeting
on Tuesday. Next year, happy days will be here again.
(13:20):
The economy will be better. If people feel that next year,
I think the Republicans have a good chance to divie history.
If they don't, I think it will be close to
close to impossible. And that's as it should be, not
just because this president promised to do better on the economy,
but every president their job is to fight for the
real lives of real people and make their lives better.
And the polling data is clear. It's not fake news,
(13:41):
it's not jerry picking poles. Every honest pole will tell
you if people don't feel great about the economic current
conditions or about the future.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
In terms of t I'll lead this because we're running
out of time. You're right. But however, the president has
trillions and trillions of new manufacturing dollars that have yet
to get into the blood stream of the economy. His
tax cuts have not tax scots have not gotten into
the blood stream of the economy. UH, and energy dominant
policies have not made it into the blood stream of
(14:10):
the economy. It's beginning to UH. And if the economy
turns the way I believe it will second quarter ish
next year, and the second quarter I think that that'll
have a big.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Impact, the decisive in the question whether they can keep
the past. They have a better chance to divide history
than most president's parties we've seen, you know, at this
phase of the cycle that you know, eleven months after
Gavin Newsom's the front runner, he may not run and
this is the weakest field either.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Oh, he's running, He's running.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
He said as recently as yesterday. What he said to
me several times, he may not run. He may not.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
But if I can't tell you what he said to
me in his last text to me, it was not
very nice.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
More. Yeah, you know he's a he's a fickle man, Sean, but.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
He really is. Listen, I got to roll though. We
do appreciate you, Mark Alprin, thanks so much for being
with us and come back often. Thank you. Ninety four one, Shawn,
Let's go to Chris and Marilyn. Chris, how are you
glad you called.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
Sar yeaes sir? How are you Sean good?
Speaker 1 (15:16):
What's going on?
Speaker 5 (15:17):
Yeah? Man, I got a comment and then I got
a couple impressions for you of colors from your show. Okay, okay,
So first my comment, all these people with the narco
terraces and stuff, aren't these the same politicians that have
been pushing the pot lobby forever? And pot is still
a Schedule one federally illegal drug.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
I think so. I've been reading recently, I've seen it
that the scheduling of weed, and I will tell you
there's a lot of articles about, you know, the THC
levels that that is what makes you the part of
marijuana that makes you high, is so astronomical.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
Twenty higher, twenty percent higher.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Okay, that a lot of these kids are are literally
suffering all of these you know, psychosis and you know
breaking down. It's called there's a term that's used now
called scramedy. Yeah, it's caused by habitual marijuana use. Look,
I I'm I'm I'm torn on the issue. I don't
(16:20):
want people to do drugs. I don't do drugs, and
and then people would rightly argue with me, well, you
do have a beer or you have a drink. Occasionally
I'm like, yeah, I do, Well that's a drug, okay,
and it's not the same thing. I can have a
drink and not lose my faculties or get high, right.
Speaker 5 (16:37):
And do you know what Schedule one actually means. It
means there's no there's no helpful benefits that we know
of scientifically, which a lot of people argue medical. But
Schedule one says there's no benefits to anybody, and it's
and it's addictive. So those two things make pot schedule one.
It's federally illegal. But all these same politicians and people
(16:58):
who are worrying about the poor ARCO guys probably has
pushed that pot lobby for decades.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
I bet yeah. Look, I have spoken to people that,
for example, have gone through very very dire, difficult chemotherapy
treatments for example of a cancer, and they swear that
it takes away their nausea, makes them feel better, but
they're taking doses that are reasonable for example. Yeah, it
(17:26):
does remain a Schedule one controlled substance under federal law.
My understanding is that's going to change. This proposal to
reschedule it is ongoing. I think a decision will be
made this month, and a Schedule three controlled substances a
drug that has currently accepted medicinal purposes lower potential for
abuse than Schedule one or Schedule two and can lead
(17:50):
to moderate or low dependence or high psychological dependence. You know,
the problem is the people that I know that I mean,
it's the strangest thing in the world. I mean, I've
met adults, you know, these are people on the periphery, periphery,
periphery of my life. And then you find out later
that you know they love to take gummies. Huh yeah,
(18:12):
I'm like, right, whatever, and not the gummies that Linda takes,
which don't have any THC in them and meaning CBD products.
It just concerns me overall. I want young people. I
don't want them, you know, numbing themselves to life. And yeah,
life at times can be painful, but that painful Also
(18:33):
that painfulness or any pain that you suffer, can lead
to an awakening in your life, a spiritual awakening in
your life. We kind of forget that human beings are mind, body,
and spirit. Right, take care of your body, take care
of your mind. Uh, and you know, spiritually, I think
you need to nourish yourself there as well well.
Speaker 5 (18:49):
And apparently the pot can lead to schizophrenia. But I mean,
even if you look in the Bible, Jesus his first
miracles turned water into wine. I mean, I think he
drank wine in the.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
Bible, right, so a little bit alcohol.
Speaker 5 (19:00):
It's pretty good, I think a little bit. But I
don't know about pot man. So I'm just gonna put
that out there. But can I do my impressions?
Speaker 1 (19:06):
Okay, let's hear it.
Speaker 5 (19:07):
All right, Sean.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
This is very very dangerous for me to allow you
to do. But go ahead.
Speaker 5 (19:12):
This is mode liberal Sean. How you doing today? Can
you get me my shoes and my glasses?
Speaker 3 (19:17):
I have them?
Speaker 1 (19:20):
The most dangerous man in America Sean.
Speaker 6 (19:24):
All right, and here's AJ Okay, big time Sean.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
An, all right, you're not You're not cutting it with
the exit. I'll do mine. I disagree that AJ Woe
is really good.
Speaker 5 (19:36):
Oh nice, thanks Linda.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
All Right, there you go. You get better grades from Linda.
That's it. I'll say it. Nobody else will say it. There,
I said it. I'm done. That's also very sure. You
don't know who that is. Get off my phone. You're
big dope. I got a roll anyway. I appreciate the call.
Thank you. Eight hundred ninety four to one. Shawn Joe, Pennsylvania.
What's up? Joe?
Speaker 4 (19:59):
All right? Sean? Were it first?
Speaker 1 (20:01):
Of all, I'm hearing rumors Fetterman's thinking about running for president.
What do you think of that? Along with Josh Shapiro.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
You know, I gotta be honest, I kind of got
a soft spot from Fetterman because I think he's probably
one of the most sane ones right now on the left.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Oh, I'll take it a step further. I've spoken to
him many times, he's been interviewed on this radio programming
on TV, and I actually like him. Now, he's never
going to become a Republican. I think you're dreaming if
you think that'll happen. But I think I love the
fact that he doesn't give a flying rip about how
crazy his party is. He's just not going there.
Speaker 4 (20:39):
Well, I got a shock for you. I'm also a
former Democrat and presidently mayor emeritus from Pennsylvania. So I
was mayor, and of course that's for life. We can
still do other things, but I'm not changing my party.
You don't have to be you don't have to be
a Republican to be conservative or you know, a conscious
(21:03):
or make correct decisions. That's the problem, you see. In
other words, we're picking sides like Democrats are. No the
Democrats have been hijacked. They don't represent me right now.
So what I like to say, if you'll just give
me a few seconds here is freedom is not free.
It's never been free. What price? All these protesters, all
(21:24):
these animals trying to get murderers out of jail, everything else,
promoting drugs, everything else. And I'm not you know, I'm
not going to identify who they are because we all
know who they are. It's on the news every day,
and we know that some of the people that are
promoting this, even even in the parties that are that
are in government. Now we know that everybody knows that.
And it's my party too that's doing this. But bottom
(21:44):
line is, you know, how many of these people have
prayed the price for their freedom? How many people? How
many of these people have gone through with what our parents,
our family has gone through, how many went to war?
How many shed blood? No, but they can get out
there and spew their mouths, try to get everything for free.
May not even be a citizen of this country, and still,
you know, try to run for office or whatever. You
(22:06):
see what's happening. You look think about this, You look
at the Congress, you look at the Senate. It's a disgrace,
the vile, the vile seditious, treason. This dangerous rhetoric that
comes out of these people is insane. Anymore people wake up.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or republic I know,
I know Sean, you are a Republican. Excuse me, you're
(22:26):
going to agree with me with this. I don't care
what party you are. This is not appropriate if we
want our country to survive. It's ripping it down. And
this has been a slow process, I believe, honestly. You know,
I've been pro Democratic and I also have been pro
conservative and voted for conservatives. I'm not going to lie.
I fact the government for what they're trying to do
(22:46):
right now under the Trump regime. I support it one
hundred percent. I don't particularly like him sometimes, you know
what I'm talking about with his people skills, But the
bottom line is, you look at our economy, Blame Trump,
Blame Trump. Well wait a minute now, who raised the
interest rates? Who raised the interest rates where people now
with variable rate mortgages are now paying double their mortgages.
(23:07):
But they're blaming Trump. No, it was under Biden.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
You got to get truck.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
I can give you the actual numbers. Under Biden, grocery
prices went up a walk wopping twenty six percent. Under Biden,
electrical prices went up thirty nine percent. Under Biden, car
insurance went up sixty three percent. Combined monthly percent thirty
seven percent. That's that's unbelieving. That is it's been crushing.
(23:37):
It's Americans, and many Americans don't even have one thousand
dollars if God forbid, they have an emergency in their life.
It's you know, it's just frustrating that. I just know
what it's like. I've been there, and people might say, well, Hannity,
I read that you you get paid a lot of money.
I'm making more money than I thought i'd ever make
in my life. I'm not. I'm not going to sit
(23:58):
here and lie to you. But I didn't get into
this to make money. I got into radio. I did
it for free. I get in My first paid job
paid me nineteen grand a year, and I thought every
day I worked I was gonna get fired. I still
have that in the back of my head. Isn't that odd, Linda,
It's a weird. No, that's good, it's inspiration. Well, I
(24:19):
just want to do the best show I can. I'm
grateful to be here every day and do the show. Jo.
We appreciate you, man, God bless you. Eight hundred and
nine four one Sean Jason in South Carolina.
Speaker 6 (24:28):
What's up, Jason, Sir Hannity, Yeah, this is Jason. I
have a question for you. So, do you know of
any possible programs or people that looked into possibly doing
like fixed interest rate for specifically like housing, And you know,
we have this housing crisis with interest rates, but the
(24:51):
banks are going to make you know, three percent, say
say it's three percent. They're going to make three percent
on these fixed interest rates everything, and it's not necessarily
on credit per se. Do you know if anything's been
looked at like that where it could create home ownership
at a fixed rate for these people that are really struggling.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
Here's here's what's going to happen. Interest rates now are
down a half a basis point. We expect by the
end of the year three quarters of a basis point.
The President, probably in January February the latest, will announce
the new FED Share, There'll be new monetary policy. Interest
rates I would imagine will continue to come down, which
(25:35):
means that you're going to be able to get a
thirty year fixed rate mortgage, probably in the fours and
in no time maybe you know, four or five percent,
which is so much better than where it's been. What
does that mean? You know, all these people that have
you know, three three and a half four percent interest
rate thirty year fixed rate loans that have been wanting
(25:56):
to move have not been willing to give up that
low interest rate is going to be a massive sell
off of pre existing homes. And with an increased supply
and demand being you know what it is, I would
imagine that people will be able to enter the home market.
You had a point to interest rates, you know, in
(26:16):
a mortgage, and you know, it makes a home that
would otherwise be affordable unaffordable. And the same thing, you know,
I think that we're also going to see where we're
short about six thousand homes around the country. I think
you're going to see once you see seal of pre
existing homes, new home construction is going to heat up
a little bit. And I want that for people. I
was never never more proud of my life than when
(26:37):
I got my first home. I don't know, I paid
like one hundred and twelve, fifteen thousand dollars something like
that in Roswold, Georgia. I love my little house. I
loved it, end of a culdest sac buried in trees.
It was awesome, you know, in the wilderness where I
want to go. You know, anyway, I appreciate you call
my friend. Thank you. I want that for all of you.
(27:00):
And I know it's tough, but you know, we just
let's see where we are at the end of the
second quarter next year. I know nobody wants to ever
hear that, but it does take time to get into
the bloodstream of the economy. We're seeing signs of success,
but undoing the damage is much harder than I think
most people know.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
Right.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
That's gonna wrap things up with today. We've got a
great Cannity tonight nine eastern on the Fox News Channel.
We'll have the latest on the arrest. I mean, it's
kind of amazing of this guy that they believe planted
the bombs on the eve of January sixth at the
(27:39):
Republican and Democratic headquarters in DC. We'll have an update
on all of that. We'll also have Dan Bongino, Trey
Goudi will join us, Stephen a smith has a big
fight with the ladies of the view. He'll join us.
We'll get his perspective on all of that. Nine Eastern
Say DVR, Hannity on Boxy, then back here tomorrow. Thank
you for making the show possible.
Right News Round Up and Information Overload Hour. Here's our
toll free telephone number if you want to be a
part of the program. In a minute, will be joined
by our friend Mark halprin Well. I think it's one
of the few honest brokers in the media today. If
you remember, in the lead up to the twenty four
presidential election, we had him on fairly regularly, and he
(00:21):
was one of the few people that was like out
there saying what I was saying. He was reading the
same numbers I was reading, and he knew that Donald
Trump was going to win that election as I knew it.
And I although I never want to communicate that to
anybody ever, because you always have day of turnout and
that means that if people don't show up that day,
(00:44):
all the models are modeling in terms of elections and
predictions go right out the window. But we were both
had a high degree of confidence that in fact, that
would happen. But also he's been honest in as much
as he been willing to point out things that we
have discussed on this program. Russia collusion was a complete
(01:08):
manufactured hoax by all the information that we were reporting
at the time and what we have learned through declassification.
We know that the FBI verify the authenticity of Hunter
Biden's laptop in March at twenty twenty, then pre bunking
on a weekly basis all these big social media companies.
I think we're in agreement on the issue of weaponization
(01:29):
of the DOJ and we can talk about that with him.
But you know, for now about a week, all we've
been hearing is this double tap strike on these against
these narco terrorists that are bringing drugs into the country,
killing our children and other Americans that that Pete Heggs
that sent out in order to kill kill them all.
That's what they said. Well, now all of a sudden,
(01:51):
even fake news ABC Martha Radits of all people, is reporting, oh,
we have new information tonight, according to a source familiar
with the incident, listen.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Tonight, new information. According to a source familiar with the incident,
the two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the
initial strike. They were believed to be potentially in communication
with others.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
And salvaging some of the drugs.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Because of that, it was determined they were still in
the fight and valid targets. A JAG officer was also
giving legal advice. So again, David, that video will be key.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Oh. They were believed to be potentially in communication with
others and salvaging the drugs. Because of that, it was
determined that they were still in the fight and valid targets.
A JAG officer was also giving legal advice, and even
the top Democrat Jim Hines on the House Intel Committee
said Thursday that the Navy Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley, you know,
(02:49):
is absolutely denying the Washington Post report that Pete Hegseth
ever gave a kill them all order, which has been
reported as gospel truth. This is why I keep saying
we have an information crisis in America. Anyway, Mark Halpern
is back with us. I don't know what your titles
are anymore. Editor in chief A two way. I know that.
And you know you're like everywhere these days.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
How are you very good to talk to you, San,
Happy holidays? And we're about ninety percent in agreement on everything?
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Is that ninety all?
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Right?
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Go to the ten percent you disagree with?
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Huh? Well, I prefer to go to the Ronald Reagan view.
My ninety percent friend is my ninety percent friend. I
think all Americans should just want to full robust debate
about the constitutionality legality of the overall operation in the Caribbean.
I totally agree with you about rush to judgment without
ample facts on this operation, But in this implicit area
(03:45):
of disagreement, I would have preferred the Pentagon to brief
members of Congress and to some extent, the non classified
way of the public on what actually happened, rather than
letting the vacuum be filled by half truths and things
that don't longer appear to be true at all.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Well, we if you go back in history, and I
won't repeat that which I've told this audience many times.
I don't care if it's Biden, you know, killing innocent
people in a home and in Afghanistan. I don't care
if it's you know, mistakes that Barack Obama made or
George Bush had made, and past presidents and Bill Clinton
had made. What we know is is that Trende Arragua
(04:21):
was identified as the people that have been running these
drug boats, these narco terrorists, and they confirmed the doubts
what that boat was. You know, I kind of tend
to doubt if you have four three hundred horsepower outdoor
motors on your boat that you're out there to get
out really to get out there faster to catch a
shark or catch a fish moving at high rates of speed.
(04:45):
So to me, it's kind of a no brainer. And
we do have all these drugs that have been flown
into the country and killing Americans. I'm not exactly sympathetic
towards those people that are poisoning our fellow Americans.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Agree percent, And I think not only what you're saying
is morally right and kind of a matter of policy right,
but I think it's be politically popular. But I do think,
you know, again, it's not about, you know, being permissive
on the war on drugs. It's not about whether these
are good guys or not. It's about whether it's consistent
with American law and American tradition to conduct the operation
(05:20):
based on the authority they've asserted it might be. I
just think we need a fuller debate because there are
slippery slopes here, and there's not been an operation quite
like this. There's no doubt. For the last fifty years
or so, every American president has basically said to Congress,
go suck lemons when it comes to the war powers.
The executive branch is going to handle it. But if
(05:41):
you love liberty, checks and balances and don't want a
unitary executive to just on its own, regardless of party,
say we're going to go use the American military this way,
then again there should be a robust debate about what's
the authority being used here, why is in Congress involved,
and is it being done consistent with our values and
our law. I'm not saying it's not saying it hasn't
(06:03):
been debated in Congress, including Chairman of the Army.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
But the whole War Powers Act has been debated pretty
much under every presidency.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Is it not, well, hasn't been debated. It's just Congress
is tackless and not standing up to the president, so
there's no debate. It's been implicitly decided.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
But it's not uniquely Trump, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
It's definitely not uniquely Trump. This mission has some unusual elements,
but one hundred percent, and Barack Obama killed an American
citizens using American military, so it's not uniquely Trump at all.
And I was just as insistent that there'd be a debate. Again,
I'm not saying where the debate should come down. But
there should be a debate when the American presidents use
(06:41):
the military to kill people. Whatever the mission, whatever the
morality of the mission, there should be some authority that's
debated and discussed so that we don't have one branch
of government deciding that it controls the power to declear
war when the Constitution is pretty clear that it's not
the branch that has the power.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
I'll necessarily see this as a declaration of war as
much as it is. The presidency is, you know, a
designated terrorist organization and a threat, imminent threat and danger
to the American people, and under his constitutional authority as
commander in chief, would have the ability to do so.
Let me let me move on. Let me ask you.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Just say I'm not against that, which I just think
it should be discussed.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Yeah, we have you know, we lost a twenty year
old National guardswoman. We have a twenty four year old
National guardsman, both from West Virginia. He's clinging to his
life and now we're learning a lot about the people
that have been resettled here from Afghanistan. We saw the
hasty pull out. It was a disaster. Lindsey Grammar at
the time was asking mayorcus about whether any of the
(07:43):
people that were jumping on those planes were being vetted
before they got on, and all he kept saying was,
we're so proud of our resettlement policies. But now we
have learned quite a few things. You know, nearly seven
thousand people flagged for derogatory information, over five thousand flag
for national security of concerns. We had the arrest of
(08:05):
another Afghan national, this one in Texas over a threat
to our national security. And now we have two dead
guardsmen that have been saving lives in Washington, d c.
And it's frustrating to me when you couple that with
wide open borders and the big lie, the lie in
this case is they were all vetted. They were not.
(08:27):
The lie about open borders was the borders closed and
the border secure. It was never closed, It was never secure,
and they lied to us for four years and now
we have untold millions of people in this country that
we know nothing about.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
I agree with everything you said, and the only edition
I'd had is there's every real possibility that it's going
to be worse that people who are not just what
this appears to be a lone actor, but there's every
possibility that there's conspirators in this country who came in
through the Afghan resettlement program, the poorest border, and so
(09:01):
I hope that the current administration is doing everything possible
to determine who's come to this country with it.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Well, they're trying, Mark, I mean you turn you watch
news as absorbed news as much as I do. They're trying.
And what do we see every day? What do we
hear every day? We have ICE agents compared to the
Gestapo and Nazis, and they're called fascists. Uh, the incidents
of threats against ICE agents are up a whopping one
(09:29):
thousand and fifty percent. Now we have some of these agents,
in this case, guardsmen being killed. You have people like
Gavin Newsom, you know, number one sanctuary state in the country.
You know, he wanted to pass a lall although he
has no constitutional jurisdiction to prevent ICE agents from putting
a mask on. But it's perfectly okay for the people
(09:50):
that protect him to wear a mask. And it seemed
we've had these people, these agents docked and threatened and
you know, for doing their job, and it's very frustrating
to me.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Yeah, my tone may have been misleading. I always saying
I hope they're doing it like it's their fault. I'm
saying I hope they have the success that is necessary
to go back and rescrutinize all the things that we're
done under the previous administration. And I agree with everything
you said about ice. This is a this is a
weird situation that one party is just decided to side
with lawlessness and tried to decide decided to side against
(10:25):
law enforcement. They've predicted a bunch of abuses. We just
haven't seen them. And as we're wearing the masks, I
just don't understand their fetish about this. We know why
they're wearing masks. It's not it's not because they don't
want to be do it, do it anonymously for some
nefarious reason. They don't want to be docked. And there's
and there's other health and other related issues, and this
(10:47):
is not this is not understandable to me. Why they've
just decided the law enforcement wearing masks is some sort
of some sort of sinister plot.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Let's say, if we're on the same page looking towards
twenty six, the midterms, and and twenty eight, I'll start
with twenty eight, it appears Gavin Newsom would be the
front runner as of today. In my mind, I want
to hear your idea on that number two. I think
a lot of people have tried to read too much
into the Tennessee seventh District and the election that took
(11:16):
place on Tuesday. However, if the party in power in
this case, President Trump and Republicans want to maintain control
of the House and Senate. To do so, they have
to defy history. It's only happened three times in the
last one hundred years that the party in power in
(11:38):
the White House maintains control in the next midterm election.
So it's not an easy task.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
It's made easier, however, by the fact that there's a
relatively small number of seats here and so Democrats are
unlikely to get a big wave. Of course, it's made
harder because the current majority is so narrow that you know,
it's not going to take a lot to lose it.
I'll start at twenty six. You know, there's so many
interpretations of what happened in Tennessee. I'm not sure. I
(12:05):
don't think everybody's overinterpreted. I think that there's one rational interpretation,
which is if if the president's level of popularity and
people's feelings about the economy are on election day next
year what they were in that National Area district on Tuesday,
the Democrats will win control of the House. So just
a question of whether that's going to change, whether the
(12:27):
president becomes slightly more popular, which is all really the
party needs, and if people feel better about the economy.
But there's no doubt that the Democrats around a liberal
candidate and the Republicans spent a lot of money and
she did quite well under the circumstances. Someone that liberal
doesn't really have business coming that close.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
And you shouldn't run in a city that you hate
and a city known for country music and say you
hate country music well, and say you want to defund
the police, yeah, and then say that rioting against police
is a good thing.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Yeah, all those things. I mean, she was a very
liberal candidate and it wasn't like she had all the money.
So I think again, it's pretty clear, and there are
plenty of maga people who will tell you this. It's
quite simple. Will people say, yeah, the president's got a
theory of the case on the economy. The vice president
and the Secretary of Treasury said at the Cabinet meeting
on Tuesday. Next year, happy days will be here again.
(13:20):
The economy will be better. If people feel that next year,
I think the Republicans have a good chance to divie history.
If they don't, I think it will be close to
close to impossible. And that's as it should be, not
just because this president promised to do better on the economy,
but every president their job is to fight for the
real lives of real people and make their lives better.
And the polling data is clear. It's not fake news,
(13:41):
it's not jerry picking poles. Every honest pole will tell
you if people don't feel great about the economic current
conditions or about the future.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
In terms of t I'll lead this because we're running
out of time. You're right. But however, the president has
trillions and trillions of new manufacturing dollars that have yet
to get into the blood stream of the economy. His
tax cuts have not tax scots have not gotten into
the blood stream of the economy. UH, and energy dominant
policies have not made it into the blood stream of
(14:10):
the economy. It's beginning to UH. And if the economy
turns the way I believe it will second quarter ish
next year, and the second quarter I think that that'll
have a big.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Impact, the decisive in the question whether they can keep
the past. They have a better chance to divide history
than most president's parties we've seen, you know, at this
phase of the cycle that you know, eleven months after
Gavin Newsom's the front runner, he may not run and
this is the weakest field either.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Oh, he's running, He's running.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
He said as recently as yesterday. What he said to
me several times, he may not run. He may not.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
But if I can't tell you what he said to
me in his last text to me, it was not
very nice.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
More. Yeah, you know he's a he's a fickle man, Sean, but.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
He really is. Listen, I got to roll though. We
do appreciate you, Mark Alprin, thanks so much for being
with us and come back often. Thank you. Ninety four one, Shawn,
Let's go to Chris and Marilyn. Chris, how are you
glad you called.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
Sar yeaes sir? How are you Sean good?
Speaker 1 (15:16):
What's going on?
Speaker 5 (15:17):
Yeah? Man, I got a comment and then I got
a couple impressions for you of colors from your show. Okay, okay,
So first my comment, all these people with the narco
terraces and stuff, aren't these the same politicians that have
been pushing the pot lobby forever? And pot is still
a Schedule one federally illegal drug.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
I think so. I've been reading recently, I've seen it
that the scheduling of weed, and I will tell you
there's a lot of articles about, you know, the THC
levels that that is what makes you the part of
marijuana that makes you high, is so astronomical.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
Twenty higher, twenty percent higher.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Okay, that a lot of these kids are are literally
suffering all of these you know, psychosis and you know
breaking down. It's called there's a term that's used now
called scramedy. Yeah, it's caused by habitual marijuana use. Look,
I I'm I'm I'm torn on the issue. I don't
(16:20):
want people to do drugs. I don't do drugs, and
and then people would rightly argue with me, well, you
do have a beer or you have a drink. Occasionally
I'm like, yeah, I do, Well that's a drug, okay,
and it's not the same thing. I can have a
drink and not lose my faculties or get high, right.
Speaker 5 (16:37):
And do you know what Schedule one actually means. It
means there's no there's no helpful benefits that we know
of scientifically, which a lot of people argue medical. But
Schedule one says there's no benefits to anybody, and it's
and it's addictive. So those two things make pot schedule one.
It's federally illegal. But all these same politicians and people
(16:58):
who are worrying about the poor ARCO guys probably has
pushed that pot lobby for decades.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
I bet yeah. Look, I have spoken to people that,
for example, have gone through very very dire, difficult chemotherapy
treatments for example of a cancer, and they swear that
it takes away their nausea, makes them feel better, but
they're taking doses that are reasonable for example. Yeah, it
(17:26):
does remain a Schedule one controlled substance under federal law.
My understanding is that's going to change. This proposal to
reschedule it is ongoing. I think a decision will be
made this month, and a Schedule three controlled substances a
drug that has currently accepted medicinal purposes lower potential for
abuse than Schedule one or Schedule two and can lead
(17:50):
to moderate or low dependence or high psychological dependence. You know,
the problem is the people that I know that I mean,
it's the strangest thing in the world. I mean, I've
met adults, you know, these are people on the periphery, periphery,
periphery of my life. And then you find out later
that you know they love to take gummies. Huh yeah,
(18:12):
I'm like, right, whatever, and not the gummies that Linda takes,
which don't have any THC in them and meaning CBD products.
It just concerns me overall. I want young people. I
don't want them, you know, numbing themselves to life. And yeah,
life at times can be painful, but that painful Also
(18:33):
that painfulness or any pain that you suffer, can lead
to an awakening in your life, a spiritual awakening in
your life. We kind of forget that human beings are mind, body,
and spirit. Right, take care of your body, take care
of your mind. Uh, and you know, spiritually, I think
you need to nourish yourself there as well well.
Speaker 5 (18:49):
And apparently the pot can lead to schizophrenia. But I mean,
even if you look in the Bible, Jesus his first
miracles turned water into wine. I mean, I think he
drank wine in the.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
Bible, right, so a little bit alcohol.
Speaker 5 (19:00):
It's pretty good, I think a little bit. But I
don't know about pot man. So I'm just gonna put
that out there. But can I do my impressions?
Speaker 1 (19:06):
Okay, let's hear it.
Speaker 5 (19:07):
All right, Sean.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
This is very very dangerous for me to allow you
to do. But go ahead.
Speaker 5 (19:12):
This is mode liberal Sean. How you doing today? Can
you get me my shoes and my glasses?
Speaker 3 (19:17):
I have them?
Speaker 1 (19:20):
The most dangerous man in America Sean.
Speaker 6 (19:24):
All right, and here's AJ Okay, big time Sean.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
An, all right, you're not You're not cutting it with
the exit. I'll do mine. I disagree that AJ Woe
is really good.
Speaker 5 (19:36):
Oh nice, thanks Linda.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
All Right, there you go. You get better grades from Linda.
That's it. I'll say it. Nobody else will say it. There,
I said it. I'm done. That's also very sure. You
don't know who that is. Get off my phone. You're
big dope. I got a roll anyway. I appreciate the call.
Thank you. Eight hundred ninety four to one. Shawn Joe, Pennsylvania.
What's up? Joe?
Speaker 4 (19:59):
All right? Sean? Were it first?
Speaker 1 (20:01):
Of all, I'm hearing rumors Fetterman's thinking about running for president.
What do you think of that? Along with Josh Shapiro.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
You know, I gotta be honest, I kind of got
a soft spot from Fetterman because I think he's probably
one of the most sane ones right now on the left.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Oh, I'll take it a step further. I've spoken to
him many times, he's been interviewed on this radio programming
on TV, and I actually like him. Now, he's never
going to become a Republican. I think you're dreaming if
you think that'll happen. But I think I love the
fact that he doesn't give a flying rip about how
crazy his party is. He's just not going there.
Speaker 4 (20:39):
Well, I got a shock for you. I'm also a
former Democrat and presidently mayor emeritus from Pennsylvania. So I
was mayor, and of course that's for life. We can
still do other things, but I'm not changing my party.
You don't have to be you don't have to be
a Republican to be conservative or you know, a conscious
(21:03):
or make correct decisions. That's the problem, you see. In
other words, we're picking sides like Democrats are. No the
Democrats have been hijacked. They don't represent me right now.
So what I like to say, if you'll just give
me a few seconds here is freedom is not free.
It's never been free. What price? All these protesters, all
(21:24):
these animals trying to get murderers out of jail, everything else,
promoting drugs, everything else. And I'm not you know, I'm
not going to identify who they are because we all
know who they are. It's on the news every day,
and we know that some of the people that are
promoting this, even even in the parties that are that
are in government. Now we know that everybody knows that.
And it's my party too that's doing this. But bottom
(21:44):
line is, you know, how many of these people have
prayed the price for their freedom? How many people? How
many of these people have gone through with what our parents,
our family has gone through, how many went to war?
How many shed blood? No, but they can get out
there and spew their mouths, try to get everything for free.
May not even be a citizen of this country, and still,
you know, try to run for office or whatever. You
(22:06):
see what's happening. You look think about this, You look
at the Congress, you look at the Senate. It's a disgrace,
the vile, the vile seditious, treason. This dangerous rhetoric that
comes out of these people is insane. Anymore people wake up.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or republic I know,
I know Sean, you are a Republican. Excuse me, you're
(22:26):
going to agree with me with this. I don't care
what party you are. This is not appropriate if we
want our country to survive. It's ripping it down. And
this has been a slow process, I believe, honestly. You know,
I've been pro Democratic and I also have been pro
conservative and voted for conservatives. I'm not going to lie.
I fact the government for what they're trying to do
(22:46):
right now under the Trump regime. I support it one
hundred percent. I don't particularly like him sometimes, you know
what I'm talking about with his people skills, But the
bottom line is, you look at our economy, Blame Trump,
Blame Trump. Well wait a minute now, who raised the
interest rates? Who raised the interest rates where people now
with variable rate mortgages are now paying double their mortgages.
(23:07):
But they're blaming Trump. No, it was under Biden.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
You got to get truck.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
I can give you the actual numbers. Under Biden, grocery
prices went up a walk wopping twenty six percent. Under Biden,
electrical prices went up thirty nine percent. Under Biden, car
insurance went up sixty three percent. Combined monthly percent thirty
seven percent. That's that's unbelieving. That is it's been crushing.
(23:37):
It's Americans, and many Americans don't even have one thousand
dollars if God forbid, they have an emergency in their life.
It's you know, it's just frustrating that. I just know
what it's like. I've been there, and people might say, well, Hannity,
I read that you you get paid a lot of money.
I'm making more money than I thought i'd ever make
in my life. I'm not. I'm not going to sit
(23:58):
here and lie to you. But I didn't get into
this to make money. I got into radio. I did
it for free. I get in My first paid job
paid me nineteen grand a year, and I thought every
day I worked I was gonna get fired. I still
have that in the back of my head. Isn't that odd, Linda,
It's a weird. No, that's good, it's inspiration. Well, I
(24:19):
just want to do the best show I can. I'm
grateful to be here every day and do the show. Jo.
We appreciate you, man, God bless you. Eight hundred and
nine four one Sean Jason in South Carolina.
Speaker 6 (24:28):
What's up, Jason, Sir Hannity, Yeah, this is Jason. I
have a question for you. So, do you know of
any possible programs or people that looked into possibly doing
like fixed interest rate for specifically like housing, And you know,
we have this housing crisis with interest rates, but the
(24:51):
banks are going to make you know, three percent, say
say it's three percent. They're going to make three percent
on these fixed interest rates everything, and it's not necessarily
on credit per se. Do you know if anything's been
looked at like that where it could create home ownership
at a fixed rate for these people that are really struggling.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
Here's here's what's going to happen. Interest rates now are
down a half a basis point. We expect by the
end of the year three quarters of a basis point.
The President, probably in January February the latest, will announce
the new FED Share, There'll be new monetary policy. Interest
rates I would imagine will continue to come down, which
(25:35):
means that you're going to be able to get a
thirty year fixed rate mortgage, probably in the fours and
in no time maybe you know, four or five percent,
which is so much better than where it's been. What
does that mean? You know, all these people that have
you know, three three and a half four percent interest
rate thirty year fixed rate loans that have been wanting
(25:56):
to move have not been willing to give up that
low interest rate is going to be a massive sell
off of pre existing homes. And with an increased supply
and demand being you know what it is, I would
imagine that people will be able to enter the home market.
You had a point to interest rates, you know, in
(26:16):
a mortgage, and you know, it makes a home that
would otherwise be affordable unaffordable. And the same thing, you know,
I think that we're also going to see where we're
short about six thousand homes around the country. I think
you're going to see once you see seal of pre
existing homes, new home construction is going to heat up
a little bit. And I want that for people. I
was never never more proud of my life than when
(26:37):
I got my first home. I don't know, I paid
like one hundred and twelve, fifteen thousand dollars something like
that in Roswold, Georgia. I love my little house. I
loved it, end of a culdest sac buried in trees.
It was awesome, you know, in the wilderness where I
want to go. You know, anyway, I appreciate you call
my friend. Thank you. I want that for all of you.
(27:00):
And I know it's tough, but you know, we just
let's see where we are at the end of the
second quarter next year. I know nobody wants to ever
hear that, but it does take time to get into
the bloodstream of the economy. We're seeing signs of success,
but undoing the damage is much harder than I think
most people know.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
Right.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
That's gonna wrap things up with today. We've got a
great Cannity tonight nine eastern on the Fox News Channel.
We'll have the latest on the arrest. I mean, it's
kind of amazing of this guy that they believe planted
the bombs on the eve of January sixth at the
(27:39):
Republican and Democratic headquarters in DC. We'll have an update
on all of that. We'll also have Dan Bongino, Trey
Goudi will join us, Stephen a smith has a big
fight with the ladies of the view. He'll join us.
We'll get his perspective on all of that. Nine Eastern
Say DVR, Hannity on Boxy, then back here tomorrow. Thank
you for making the show possible.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.