July 9, 2026 • 32 mins
Ron DeSantis opens the final hour by discussing artificial intelligence, big tech power, data centers, and the risks AI may pose to individual liberty and self-government. Mike McClellan joins to discuss how the founding principles of checks and balances, consent of the governed, and natural rights apply to modern technology companies. The conversation covers AI regulation, federalism, liability protections, censorship, misinformation, data centers, surveillance concerns, and competition with China. DeSantis also discusses President Trump’s America 250 speech at Mount Rushmore and the growing conflict between Marxism, Islamism, and American founding principles. Later, DeSantis talks about the World Cup, Florida restaurants, the Supreme Court, property taxes, California politics, and the need to defeat left-wing ideology.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, welcome back. I had mentioned in the previous segments.
(00:04):
I have republished my first book from fifteen years ago.
People have been asking me to do this for years.
We only wanted to do a limited print. I didn't
want to do mass market. So we have seventeen seventy
six copies, all are signed and numbered by me, and
you go to Dessantus seventeen seventy six dot com to
check that out. You know, when you talk about things
that are happening in our society and the economy, there's
(00:27):
nothing that's bigger than this rise of artificial intelligence. And
I think just a lot of people feel, you know,
they've not really consented to this revolution in our society.
We talk about what potential loss of jobs could mean,
which could be significant, the effect of data centers. In Florida,
we pass legislation to protect people from those effects. I
(00:48):
think we're the only state to do it. And so
there's a lot of those issues that are really important.
But then there's also this question of free society governance.
How much power do you have in Silicon Valley? And
I remember President Trump's second inauguration. You saw the President's
family and then up in the front were all the
tech titans. Now, knowing the President the way I do,
(01:11):
I think he wanted in there because they had to
bend the knee to him. You know, they tried to
take his social media down all this, so they butted
a lot of heads with him, and I think it
was his way of saying, Hey, I've won, you got
to come kiss the ring. But I also think people
see that and you see a handful of these companies,
and we've never in American history had four or five, six,
seven companies that have had this much impact on our
(01:33):
economy and our daily lives. So joining me to discuss
the implications of this is a guy that I've known
for over twenty five years. He's the author of The
San Sea, which is a historical fiction that's very, very popular.
He's working on a sequel to that and probably more
after that. I say, he's the George R. R. Martin
(01:53):
of Newport Beach, California. And Mike McClellan is here and
so so welcome, and I want to give you the opportunity.
You heard me talk about America two fifty, the founding principles,
what our founders were fearful of. How does that apply
to what we're seeing with the rise of artificial intelligence,
(02:14):
and particularly the handful of these bohemoth tech companies.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Well, governor, great to be with you. As we think
about the two hundred and fiftieth celebration of our declaration
of independence, we can remember that the founders argued about
and thought about a lot of things, but there were
also some things that they all agreed on. One of
(02:37):
them was that for power to not be tyrannical, it
needs to be checked and balanced. Another one is that
legitimacy and government flows from the consent of the government,
and another is that government exists to secure our natural rights.
The agenda being pushed by big tech and their lobbyists
(03:04):
is in many ways an assault on all three of
those principles. And one of the things specifically that they've
been pushing for for the better part of a year
and a half or even two years, is they're trying
to get a regulatory.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Moratorium an amnesty basically.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
And well, yeah, if you think about it, right, how
do you check and balance power? Right? Well, the founders
were wise enough to think about horizontal checks and balances
at the federal level between the judiciary, between the legislature,
between the executive But they also cared greatly about vertical
separation of power, which of course we call federalism. And
(03:44):
for big tech to be pushing for a ten year
regulatory moratorium preventing states and localities from acting on behalf
of the government is a huge assault on federalism. So, like,
what's a practical example that we should care about. Should
(04:07):
a school board have a say in whether or how
AI is used in the classroom? I think all of us,
as conservatives, would say, of course a school board should
have a say on that. I mean, there's a reason
that we don't support all education decisions coming out of
the Department of Education in Washington, DC, And especially in
(04:31):
light of the fact that AI hallucinates, right, what does
that mean when they say it hallucinates, It means it
says things that are straight up wrong. I was using
a chatbot a couple of weeks ago and I asked them.
I asked it a very simple question, which is how
much has the S and P five hundred outperformed Berkshire
(04:52):
Hathaway this year? And I knew for a fact that
at the time I was asking the question that the
S and P five hundred index had outperformed Berkshire Hathaway,
and it argued with me. It told me that I
was wrong, right, And that's not like a mathematically difficult
thing to ask for.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Well, but I think it raises the question. So as
using these llms, the chat GBT or the GROC or
all those becomes more and more a part of society.
I mean, I've been at a dinner where something comes
up and people just go in and ask it and
then they say, oh, here's the answer.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Well maybe, but maybe not. And so you're taking about
these these models. They're mining the data that they have
access to. In some cases they do a good job
of doing that. But human nature being what it is,
the people that control the models and control the data
sets are going to have an enormous amount of potential
(05:47):
power to tweak the data a little bit, Tweak it here,
tweak it there if you want to generate things there.
And I think what the Founding Fathers taught us is
human nature is flawed. If there's not checks and balances,
people eventually will abuse power. You may have a benevolent rule,
you may have a Washington, but eventually they're going to
do it. So what are the checks on a handful
(06:08):
of these companies manipulating the data sets. It doesn't seem
to me that there are any checks.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Well, look, I mean I think I think the first
thing that we have to worry about, for those of
us that care about checks and balances is just to
say no to all of the giveaways that are being
asked for by big tech and washing. It's not just
the regulatory moratorium. I mean, they have floated liability immunity, right,
(06:38):
And why does that matter? Well, if you ask chat GPT,
is this mushroom poisonous? And it says no, go ahead
and eat it, and you eat it and you die.
Or it's you know, coaching a kid how to commit suicide.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Which we saw. Mike was at a round table we
did in Florida about some of the things we were
doing to promote an AI Bill of Rights. And one
of the things we had was moms whose kids were
coached to commit suicide and some tragically did commit suicide.
There should be no recourse for that, there should be
no liability for that. The big tech says no, obviously,
(07:12):
and they think that that should just be fine and
dandy going forward. And so here's like I just remember
during COVID, we were fighting the lockdowns. We said kids
should not be in mass We were doing things that
were heretical at the time from what our elites believed.
How did the big tech companies respond to that they
were pulling our videos down? I had Ja Bodicharia, who's
(07:34):
now the NIH director, at a roundtable with other eminent people,
and they pulled it down off YouTube. You would censor
it on Faye. They censored on Facebook and on x
before Elon had it. So I just think that in
a free society, you got to have free exchange of ideas.
These models and these companies, just for better or worse,
(07:55):
they represent such a huge part of the discourse, and
I just think the next there's something when they want
to impose a narrative, they're going to have even more
tools at their disposal now than they did during COVID
to try to suppress the truth and to try to
create a narrative.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
I'm so glad you brought that up, right. I mean,
I am stunned when I hear Republicans parroting big tech
talking points for many reasons, but one of them is
you brought up during COVID how much they were manipulating
the narrative. And a lot of that flows from an
(08:30):
original amnesty or special treatment of big tech that goes
back to the nineteen nineties, which of course is CDA
Section two thirty. It may have sort of made sense
in the nineteen nineties when the tech industry was scattered
and these were sort of small companies in an era
(08:53):
of tech consolidation. These are the largest and most powerful
companies on earth by far. And the truth is, if
I say something about someone else's that's defamatory and false,
I can be sued. If The New York Times does that,
you can sue the New York Times. If a multi
(09:14):
trillion dollar technology company algorithmically promotes content about you that
is totally false, and they do it on purpose, there's
very very little that you can do. And look, one
of the things the founders understood is that incentives matter.
They understood that if you have a system that encourages abuse,
(09:39):
then that will follow. Right. Why were we failing during
the Articles of Confederation in between the revolution and the
Constitutional Convention. It wasn't because the founding fathers didn't live here, Right,
George Washington was here and Adams was here. And Hamilton
was here, All these people were here, but we didn't
have a system that was properly structured around human nature
(10:01):
and we should not make that same mistake with big
tech and AI today.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
So this data center issue, what do you make of it?
Because in Florida, we pass legislation and protect people so
that a data center can't come in raise your rates.
And basically these local governments have full authority to decline
and they're declining them in Florida left and right. We
do not have a hyper scale data center in Florida.
And it's become very controversial all across the country. But
(10:27):
you hear and it doesn't end up leading to a
lot of permanent jobs in a community. Obviously, they use
a lot of power, and there's the things that resources
they have to use. It's an iesore for the community,
and they want to take nice lands. So there's a
lot of reasons why people have been But the response
is as well, we got to do this to beat
China in the AI race. But it's interesting because you
pointed out to me, China is not trying to build
(10:49):
all these data centers. We have way way more than there,
and if they want to build they can build. They
have way less regulatory burdens than we do. G says
build them, they'll build them. They're not engaged in that
same race. So one, what do you make of that?
And then two, I think some people say there's an
ulterior agenda here. It's not about beating China. It's about
(11:11):
creating the arteries to have a more pervasive techno surveillance
state that will super surveil our society.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Look, there's so much gaslighting and so much hypocrisy that
goes on with that narrative. Right, I mean, first and foremost,
we are allowing high quality chips to be sold to China.
Much of the supply chains of these massive technology companies
(11:43):
flows from China. And we also know that a lot
of this buildout is being used for essentially for AI
slop and for advertising companies. Right, we shouldn't be claiming
national security if we are building massive infrastructure to give
a trillion dollar technology company more profitable advertising.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
So it seems to me that they're spending enormous amounts
of money on these things. It's a big bet on
being able to be profitable in the future. And you
pointed this out too. They need to have this take
a lot of jobs for it to be profitable, because
companies would pay them theoretically rather than pay workers, which
obviously would be a problem for society. But then also
(12:29):
they are going to be pushed less into things that
could benefit national security and more the consumer facing slop sell, advertising,
sign up people do all that stuff. So the incentives
right now seem to me to be really a skew.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
I strongly agree, And there's so many issues to unpack there,
but the biggest one is this, which is for it
to pay off, they need a larger surveillance state and
they need to take more of our data to make
more money off of.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
All right, thanks Mike. We'll have Mike back for some
other stuff. We're going to talk about the president's speech
at Mount Rushmore, a couple other good agenda items. We'll
be back in a minute. This is the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Governor Desantas.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Question.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
How many liberals does it take to make a common
sense statement? Yes, you're right, fake news not even possible.
You're locked in on the Hannity Show.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Welcome, come back. Sean Hannity is off and he's turned
over the captain's chair. To yours truly. I'm Governor Ron DeSantis,
john'swum state governor. So I was with Sean at Mount
Rushmore on July third and President Trump spoke and it
was a really cool event. But it wasn't like a
typical rally speech that he's given over the years. I was,
(14:19):
in many ways very focus and punchy address. And one
of the things that the President said was, you can
be loyal to car Marx, or you can be loyal
to America. You can be a communist or a patriot,
but you cannot be both. And I think that that's
crystallizing some of the struggles that we're having as a
society with the rise of this very militant left wing
strain in the Democratic Party. Look, you could have people
(14:43):
that agree with the founding principles and maybe apply those
a little bit differently than you or I. Maybe they
want a little bit higher taxes, or maybe they have
a different view on social policy here or there, but
still believe in those principles that our founding fathers fought
to establish. And I think what we're seeing with this
strand is these are people that are militant and their leftism,
(15:06):
their view is to try to denigrate the founding fathers,
try to cast aspersions on what they did and their
aspirations and re found the country on leftist principles and
leftist ideology. And that's why you see the Smithsonian with
their anti Americanism that the White House just exposed. That's
(15:27):
why you see a lot of the things that's happened
over the years to try to cast dispersions on the
core bedrock foundations that this country was built in. So
this is a fight that's not going away. I would
say what makes us even more difficult in some ways
than what we had during the Cold War was you
now have Islamism joining with Marxism and it's really created
(15:49):
a toxic brew. I have no doubt that we can
fight and win this, but it is not going to
be easy. So buckle up. We've got some interesting times ahead.
We'll be back in a minute.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Check out the show twenty four to seven, download it
to your iPod, Be a Hannity Insider at Hannity dot com.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
However, with a graduate or the closest that we've ever
had to a graduate and the EiV Limbo Institute, and
that would be Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. As you know,
there are no graduates from the Limbo Institute because the
learning never stops. We don't issue degrees here because there
(17:05):
never is a time where we have proclaimed that our
students have learned it all or because our curriculum is
constantly expanding. There is no set curriculum here.
Speaker 5 (17:16):
But Governor DeSantis has asked in the past for an
honorary degree, and Governor de Santis has said that if
said honorary degree were ever bestowed, that he would hang it,
frame it, hang it proudly on the wall in his
gubernatorial office. And if anybody has come close to earning
(17:43):
an honorary degree from the Limbaugh Institute, it is the
Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
All right, well you heard it. That's straight from the
horse's mouth, the great Rush Limbaugh. We miss him. Great
to be back, we have the republication of my first book,
Dreams from Our Founding Fathers in Honor of America two
fifty limited commemorative reprint, new introduction only seventeen hundred and
seventy six copies. Everyone is signed and numbered by me,
(18:12):
and you can get that at Desantas seventeen seventy six
dot Com. So this World Cup, I gotta say, I'm
not a soccer fan. I grew up playing baseball, I
play golf, I like football like these other things. But
I've really enjoyed seeing some of these foreigners come and
really appreciate America. So you had the Scots. They were
out in Boston and I think they drank the bar dry.
(18:35):
And then they came down to Florida because Scotland played
Brazil in Miami. And so one of the guys who
was active on social media, fellow named Sean, reached out
to me and I said, all right, let me let
me take care of you when you're down there. We'll
get something done. And part of it I actually Scotland.
Of all the different countries, that's one of maybe my
four or five favorite, partially because I grew up in
dun Eden, Florida. West Coast of Florida was founded by Scotts,
(18:57):
so we had the bagpipes and all that all growing up.
But the high school, the band and everything, and that
was just kind of part of growing up. And then
if you like golf, there's no place better than Scotland.
So I was happy to assist. So we ended up
bringing Sean and his wife to get stone crabs at
Joe's stone Crab. He had never had stone crab before,
and I'm just like, man, you dunk in that mustard,
(19:18):
you're gonna like it. And then they had the key
lime pie and all the other stuff. And we do
a thing in Florida to try to promote local businesses
called diners drive ins in DeSantis, and so if you
go to my social media you can see we put
those out. We did a lot in the spring. We're
going to do some more as the summer goes on.
And you know, people a lot of times don't know
about these places. Now, Joe's is not a diner, a
(19:40):
drive in or dive. It is a very nice restaurant
and iconic restaurant. But then we brought them to the
game and it was really cool because not that they
were negative on the US, but there's certain conceptions, at
least in Europe, and then they're going through and they're
in towns that aren't necessarily the ones they think about,
and they're driving on the interstate meeting people. This is
(20:00):
a great country, this is amazing. We can't wait to
come back. So that was really cool to see and
I have been watching some of the games. Again, I'm
not a soccer fan, but there's a lot of interest
in it. I think the US laid a big egg
the other day against Belgium. I mean, again, I don't
even know that much about soccer, but I'll tell you
they got there. We were end kicked, no question about it.
But I'll watch some of this stuff, and I think
(20:21):
hosting that here has been good for the United States
of America, and I think, honestly, these people really appreciate
what they see with our country. So I got Mike
McClelland here we're going to hit on a couple issues
back and forth. One is we were talking about the
Supreme Court. Obviously we were disappointed in the birthright citizenship case,
disappointed in the mail in ballid case. There's obviously some
(20:42):
good rulings too, But what Supreme Court do we have
because the media will say six conservative, three liberal, and
if you look at the high profile cases, that's not
exactly how it always comes out. You've got three liberals,
they vote in lockstep every time you can predict how
they're going to vote, no question. And then I think
you have two really eminent conservative justices Justices Alito and Thomas,
(21:07):
who ninety nine point nine percent of the time they're
going to get it right and they have incredible records.
Then I think the other justices are a little bit
more of a mixed I mean, obviously Roberts hasn't been
fully reliable. I think Justice Barrett hasn't been fully reliable.
Kavanaugh's been good, but not at the level of Thomas
and Alito. Gorsich is a libertarian, so some really good rulings,
(21:29):
but also he voted on the transgender gender ideology, so
I think some of that has been mixedpact. Now, none
of those Republican justices are suitor. You know, we had
a situate in Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren and he appointed
Bill Brennan. Now that was before we were as attuned
to judicial activism. Then Nixon appointed even though he ran
(21:52):
against the Warren Court, He appointed Harry Blackman, who was
one of the most liberal justices in history. George H. W.
Bush appointed David Suitor, who was one hundred percent reliable liberal.
So none of those Barrett Roberts, they're not suitors, but
they're not Thomas as an Alito, that's for sure. Do
you agree with that analysis, Mike in terms of the
(22:12):
current court.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
So I would just add that that dynamic is not new. Right,
just because you've been appointed by a Republican president doesn't
mean that you are antonin Scalia or that you are
Clarence Thomas. Right, we were always virtually certain that O'Connor
or Kennedy might be more persuadable on certain things than
(22:38):
a Scalia or a Thomas. And I think that that
dynamic in some ways continues.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
So yet that's true. Yet if you go back since
Bill Clinton, Carter didn't have an appointment. So if you
go back to Bill Clinton to the president, every Democrat
nominee to that court has been a reliable liberal, and
I don't think has ever the liberal block on any
major decision. And this is going back thirty forty years.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
The cultural river in Washington, d c. Appears to flow
in one direction.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Well that's the thing. I mean, you know, I remember
a story like Justice Thomas telling is supposedly like going
into the Supreme Court and like looking around, like, man,
this building changes people. It ain't changing me. I ain't
evolved in and he hasn't. I mean, he's been very
rock solid through that The other issue that's really big
now in Florida is, Look, I'm always trying to find
(23:32):
ways to move the ball Forwarida is so Florida, at
the state level, we have the lowest or one of
the lowest state tax burdens in the country. No income tax,
we have a sales tax that's thirty three percent lower
than California's. We have, and we've eliminated some taxes at
the state level, We've reduced others. I think we've done
(23:52):
ten billion over my governor, which is way more that
has ever been done. And you know, we're proud of that.
But what happens is when you have periods of rising
home values, people get bit by property tax. Now that's
a local issue in Florida. That revenue doesn't go to
us at the state level, and so consequently you have
to deal with it through the state constitution. So I
(24:14):
came out and basically said, these local governments and property
tax revenue, they had thirty two billion in twenty nineteen
and now they're at sixty two billion, So that's almost
doubling in seven or eight years. How come we can
reduce our budget four years in a row and they
have these massive increases. Florida has a situation where you
(24:35):
can homestead your primary residents that entitles you to some
tax benefits. But my view was it should entitle you
to your home being outside the reach of the taxing authorities.
It should actually be your home and not be subject
to property taxes. There's enough investment homes and second homes
and wealthy people around the world that have homes, and
(24:57):
obviously the businesses if they just pay what they're paying now,
that's still a huge increase in revenue over what we
were six or seven years ago. So my idea was,
let's get those homestead properties tax free. It's something that's
doable in Florida. You know, it would require us to
do some stuff, and so we had to propose that
it'll be put on the ballot. I can't put anything
(25:20):
on the ballot. It goes through the legislature, and so
the legislature ended up putting a property tax on the ballot,
but they didn't do fully with what I was advocating for.
So it'll be a property tax rollback. If it passes
in November. Whatever you're paying now would be about a
seventy percent reduction. They basically let no taxing authority tax
(25:41):
your home set except for the school districts. My view
was that your property should be immune period. I mean,
that's what we want to do, and so would require
local governments to spend less. But Florida has shown that
can be done, and so just mikes from California. The
discussion in California is always to raise these taxes. Here
(26:01):
we are in Florida talking about not only how to
keep cutting taxes at the state level, but actually giving
you your home and getting the governments mits totally out
of your primary residence. I think that would be a
good thing.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
I think it's amazing. And look, you ebraised this issue before.
If the government can tax you out of your home,
do you really own your home? Right? You paid off
your mortgage and that property tax keeps going up in California.
One of the few good tax things we have, of course,
is Prop. Thirteen. Going back to nineteen seventy eight, my
(26:36):
grandpa Jerry was a high school vice principal. He bought
his house for forty thousand dollars overlooking the Harbor and
Newport Beach. On that salary, if they had taxed him
as to the full market value of that home, on
and on and on. He would have been forced out
of his home as a senior citizen.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's just odd that this
is something you make a transaction, and some of it
is we just are used to it, so people don't
want to get other comfort zone. You make a transaction,
you can get tax on transactions. You buy something, and
then they keep going back to you, taxing again, raising
the value and taxing even more, and it's like, wait
(27:15):
a minute, that's not really something that we should be
cool with. And so what we're doing would be, you know,
a really good first step to liberating people from that.
But I think it's a really cool tax because it's
something that they just keep coming after.
Speaker 6 (27:30):
You.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Look, if you go buy, you know, a yacht or something,
you're gonna pay tax on that, Like like fine, it
is what it is. That's a discretionary purchase. You got
to live somewhere. We want to promote home ownership, and
so why are we trying to make it more difficult
for people to be able to afford it. The reason
why these local governments like it is because they can
get more revenue without actually voting to raise your tax rate.
(27:53):
Because they can just increase your valuation and then they
can say you got to pay we didn't raise your tax.
Oh no, no, we didn't do anything. We can do
better than that. We need to get to the point
in this country where homeownership means homeownership. The state of
Florida has the ability to handle. As I even said,
we have a big surplus. I would give grants to
local governments. They say, oh, we're not going to be
(28:14):
able to do. No, you will, but okay, you need
you need two or three police officers, I'll send you
a grant for two fifty. You need something at the
school district or here, I'll send you grants. Got I've
got billions and billions of dollars since I became governor.
We've quadrupled the rainy Day fund in the state. We've
got more revenue on top of that. And it's something
that absolutely can be done, and I think it should
(28:36):
be done. People always ask me anytime I run into
people from California, will say, you know, can you come
to California and fix it? And I say no for
two reasons. One, I don't know that it's fixable, but two,
I couldn't get elected here. I mean, I know there's
a there's a governor's race and some stuff coming up,
(28:56):
but it just seems like the state continues to vote
further and further left.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Look, it's it's hard with registration numbers where they are.
I mean, people were really excited about Spencer Pratt running
for mayor in LA right, and people would ask me,
they say, what do you think is going to happen.
I say, I think he's not going to win, and
they'd say, why not, he's such good messaging. I say,
because I think Republican registration in the city of Los
Angeles is like eleven percent.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
The minute you have the R by your name, you
get a lot of those liberal voters. It doesn't matter.
They are not going to do it. And it's all
it's It's the closest thing to a political scarlet letter
you can have in the state of California. And that's
why I think the state's going to continue. You know
what happens is these people who they have bad policies,
the moderate to conservative voters are the ones most likely
(29:42):
to be repelled, and they're the ones most likely to move.
But when you have the exodus out of California, have
more conservative voters. It leaves the remaining population even more
liberal and more subject to double down on the policies
that got you there in the first place. And what
I've noticed is the they don't equate the destruction that
(30:03):
their ideology does with the actual ideology. They'll blame Trump, well,
they'll blame this, or they'll have somebody to blame.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
Sometimes you just got to look in the mirror and
realize leftism doesn't work. All right, we'll be back to
wrap it up on the other side of the break.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
You told Sean you need his insider updates straight from
the source on today's Big News, and Hannity gives you
more every day.
Speaker 7 (30:37):
Sean Hannity, according to CNNVIL, during a three day period
(30:58):
in September twenty twenty one, you reposted now deleted messages
declaring yes, literally abolish the border and that all deportation
is wrong, and the one the call a reference f
using the full word Kamala Harris after she told Guatemalans
not to come to the US illegally in twenty twenty one,
(31:20):
and on policing in twenty twenty that abolishing the police
quote means ending the police full stop period no more
police at all. Ever, And I know you've said you've
grown considerably in the years since these tweets, So what's
your position now, for example, on how much to abolish
the border or when deportation is right?
Speaker 6 (31:40):
So you know, as you've noted, I've grownsterably since that.
And you know, and I'm not interested in relitigating the
politics of my tweets, which are the politics of the past.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
I'm interested in representing this district. Well, I can tell
you the anecdote to that nonsense. And this is somebody
that just got nominated in New York City for Congress
that makes AOC look like Ronald Reagan, way far out
to the left. The antidote to that is really what
America two fifty represents. We have the book Dreams from
(32:14):
our Founding Fathers that we've re published with a new
introduction signed by me at Tsantas seventeen seventy six dot com,
which outlines most of those principles and applies those in
the current set of circumstances. But I go back to
so they win the revolution, then they're in Philadelphia for
the Constitution, and Benjamin Franklin when they're signing it, he
(32:35):
stands up and says, there's a son on the back
of George Washington's chair. I couldn't find out if it
was rising or setting. Now I know it's a rising sun.
It's been great to be with you. We're going to
beat the left. We're going to win this fight. Let's
keep it going.
Well, welcome back. I had mentioned in the previous segments.
(00:04):
I have republished my first book from fifteen years ago.
People have been asking me to do this for years.
We only wanted to do a limited print. I didn't
want to do mass market. So we have seventeen seventy
six copies, all are signed and numbered by me, and
you go to Dessantus seventeen seventy six dot com to
check that out. You know, when you talk about things
that are happening in our society and the economy, there's
(00:27):
nothing that's bigger than this rise of artificial intelligence. And
I think just a lot of people feel, you know,
they've not really consented to this revolution in our society.
We talk about what potential loss of jobs could mean,
which could be significant, the effect of data centers. In Florida,
we pass legislation to protect people from those effects. I
(00:48):
think we're the only state to do it. And so
there's a lot of those issues that are really important.
But then there's also this question of free society governance.
How much power do you have in Silicon Valley? And
I remember President Trump's second inauguration. You saw the President's
family and then up in the front were all the
tech titans. Now, knowing the President the way I do,
(01:11):
I think he wanted in there because they had to
bend the knee to him. You know, they tried to
take his social media down all this, so they butted
a lot of heads with him, and I think it
was his way of saying, Hey, I've won, you got
to come kiss the ring. But I also think people
see that and you see a handful of these companies,
and we've never in American history had four or five, six,
seven companies that have had this much impact on our
(01:33):
economy and our daily lives. So joining me to discuss
the implications of this is a guy that I've known
for over twenty five years. He's the author of The
San Sea, which is a historical fiction that's very, very popular.
He's working on a sequel to that and probably more
after that. I say, he's the George R. R. Martin
(01:53):
of Newport Beach, California. And Mike McClellan is here and
so so welcome, and I want to give you the opportunity.
You heard me talk about America two fifty, the founding principles,
what our founders were fearful of. How does that apply
to what we're seeing with the rise of artificial intelligence,
(02:14):
and particularly the handful of these bohemoth tech companies.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Well, governor, great to be with you. As we think
about the two hundred and fiftieth celebration of our declaration
of independence, we can remember that the founders argued about
and thought about a lot of things, but there were
also some things that they all agreed on. One of
(02:37):
them was that for power to not be tyrannical, it
needs to be checked and balanced. Another one is that
legitimacy and government flows from the consent of the government,
and another is that government exists to secure our natural rights.
The agenda being pushed by big tech and their lobbyists
(03:04):
is in many ways an assault on all three of
those principles. And one of the things specifically that they've
been pushing for for the better part of a year
and a half or even two years, is they're trying
to get a regulatory.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Moratorium an amnesty basically.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
And well, yeah, if you think about it, right, how
do you check and balance power? Right? Well, the founders
were wise enough to think about horizontal checks and balances
at the federal level between the judiciary, between the legislature,
between the executive But they also cared greatly about vertical
separation of power, which of course we call federalism. And
(03:44):
for big tech to be pushing for a ten year
regulatory moratorium preventing states and localities from acting on behalf
of the government is a huge assault on federalism. So, like,
what's a practical example that we should care about. Should
(04:07):
a school board have a say in whether or how
AI is used in the classroom? I think all of us,
as conservatives, would say, of course a school board should
have a say on that. I mean, there's a reason
that we don't support all education decisions coming out of
the Department of Education in Washington, DC, And especially in
(04:31):
light of the fact that AI hallucinates, right, what does
that mean when they say it hallucinates, It means it
says things that are straight up wrong. I was using
a chatbot a couple of weeks ago and I asked them.
I asked it a very simple question, which is how
much has the S and P five hundred outperformed Berkshire
(04:52):
Hathaway this year? And I knew for a fact that
at the time I was asking the question that the
S and P five hundred index had outperformed Berkshire Hathaway,
and it argued with me. It told me that I
was wrong, right, And that's not like a mathematically difficult
thing to ask for.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Well, but I think it raises the question. So as
using these llms, the chat GBT or the GROC or
all those becomes more and more a part of society.
I mean, I've been at a dinner where something comes
up and people just go in and ask it and
then they say, oh, here's the answer.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Well maybe, but maybe not. And so you're taking about
these these models. They're mining the data that they have
access to. In some cases they do a good job
of doing that. But human nature being what it is,
the people that control the models and control the data
sets are going to have an enormous amount of potential
(05:47):
power to tweak the data a little bit, Tweak it here,
tweak it there if you want to generate things there.
And I think what the Founding Fathers taught us is
human nature is flawed. If there's not checks and balances,
people eventually will abuse power. You may have a benevolent rule,
you may have a Washington, but eventually they're going to
do it. So what are the checks on a handful
(06:08):
of these companies manipulating the data sets. It doesn't seem
to me that there are any checks.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Well, look, I mean I think I think the first
thing that we have to worry about, for those of
us that care about checks and balances is just to
say no to all of the giveaways that are being
asked for by big tech and washing. It's not just
the regulatory moratorium. I mean, they have floated liability immunity, right,
(06:38):
And why does that matter? Well, if you ask chat GPT,
is this mushroom poisonous? And it says no, go ahead
and eat it, and you eat it and you die.
Or it's you know, coaching a kid how to commit suicide.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Which we saw. Mike was at a round table we
did in Florida about some of the things we were
doing to promote an AI Bill of Rights. And one
of the things we had was moms whose kids were
coached to commit suicide and some tragically did commit suicide.
There should be no recourse for that, there should be
no liability for that. The big tech says no, obviously,
(07:12):
and they think that that should just be fine and
dandy going forward. And so here's like I just remember
during COVID, we were fighting the lockdowns. We said kids
should not be in mass We were doing things that
were heretical at the time from what our elites believed.
How did the big tech companies respond to that they
were pulling our videos down? I had Ja Bodicharia, who's
(07:34):
now the NIH director, at a roundtable with other eminent people,
and they pulled it down off YouTube. You would censor
it on Faye. They censored on Facebook and on x
before Elon had it. So I just think that in
a free society, you got to have free exchange of ideas.
These models and these companies, just for better or worse,
(07:55):
they represent such a huge part of the discourse, and
I just think the next there's something when they want
to impose a narrative, they're going to have even more
tools at their disposal now than they did during COVID
to try to suppress the truth and to try to
create a narrative.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
I'm so glad you brought that up, right. I mean,
I am stunned when I hear Republicans parroting big tech
talking points for many reasons, but one of them is
you brought up during COVID how much they were manipulating
the narrative. And a lot of that flows from an
(08:30):
original amnesty or special treatment of big tech that goes
back to the nineteen nineties, which of course is CDA
Section two thirty. It may have sort of made sense
in the nineteen nineties when the tech industry was scattered
and these were sort of small companies in an era
(08:53):
of tech consolidation. These are the largest and most powerful
companies on earth by far. And the truth is, if
I say something about someone else's that's defamatory and false,
I can be sued. If The New York Times does that,
you can sue the New York Times. If a multi
(09:14):
trillion dollar technology company algorithmically promotes content about you that
is totally false, and they do it on purpose, there's
very very little that you can do. And look, one
of the things the founders understood is that incentives matter.
They understood that if you have a system that encourages abuse,
(09:39):
then that will follow. Right. Why were we failing during
the Articles of Confederation in between the revolution and the
Constitutional Convention. It wasn't because the founding fathers didn't live here, Right,
George Washington was here and Adams was here. And Hamilton
was here, All these people were here, but we didn't
have a system that was properly structured around human nature
(10:01):
and we should not make that same mistake with big
tech and AI today.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
So this data center issue, what do you make of it?
Because in Florida, we pass legislation and protect people so
that a data center can't come in raise your rates.
And basically these local governments have full authority to decline
and they're declining them in Florida left and right. We
do not have a hyper scale data center in Florida.
And it's become very controversial all across the country. But
(10:27):
you hear and it doesn't end up leading to a
lot of permanent jobs in a community. Obviously, they use
a lot of power, and there's the things that resources
they have to use. It's an iesore for the community,
and they want to take nice lands. So there's a
lot of reasons why people have been But the response
is as well, we got to do this to beat
China in the AI race. But it's interesting because you
pointed out to me, China is not trying to build
(10:49):
all these data centers. We have way way more than there,
and if they want to build they can build. They
have way less regulatory burdens than we do. G says
build them, they'll build them. They're not engaged in that
same race. So one, what do you make of that?
And then two, I think some people say there's an
ulterior agenda here. It's not about beating China. It's about
(11:11):
creating the arteries to have a more pervasive techno surveillance
state that will super surveil our society.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Look, there's so much gaslighting and so much hypocrisy that
goes on with that narrative. Right, I mean, first and foremost,
we are allowing high quality chips to be sold to China.
Much of the supply chains of these massive technology companies
(11:43):
flows from China. And we also know that a lot
of this buildout is being used for essentially for AI
slop and for advertising companies. Right, we shouldn't be claiming
national security if we are building massive infrastructure to give
a trillion dollar technology company more profitable advertising.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
So it seems to me that they're spending enormous amounts
of money on these things. It's a big bet on
being able to be profitable in the future. And you
pointed this out too. They need to have this take
a lot of jobs for it to be profitable, because
companies would pay them theoretically rather than pay workers, which
obviously would be a problem for society. But then also
(12:29):
they are going to be pushed less into things that
could benefit national security and more the consumer facing slop sell, advertising,
sign up people do all that stuff. So the incentives
right now seem to me to be really a skew.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
I strongly agree, And there's so many issues to unpack there,
but the biggest one is this, which is for it
to pay off, they need a larger surveillance state and
they need to take more of our data to make
more money off of.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
All right, thanks Mike. We'll have Mike back for some
other stuff. We're going to talk about the president's speech
at Mount Rushmore, a couple other good agenda items. We'll
be back in a minute. This is the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Governor Desantas.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Question.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
How many liberals does it take to make a common
sense statement? Yes, you're right, fake news not even possible.
You're locked in on the Hannity Show.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Welcome, come back. Sean Hannity is off and he's turned
over the captain's chair. To yours truly. I'm Governor Ron DeSantis,
john'swum state governor. So I was with Sean at Mount
Rushmore on July third and President Trump spoke and it
was a really cool event. But it wasn't like a
typical rally speech that he's given over the years. I was,
(14:19):
in many ways very focus and punchy address. And one
of the things that the President said was, you can
be loyal to car Marx, or you can be loyal
to America. You can be a communist or a patriot,
but you cannot be both. And I think that that's
crystallizing some of the struggles that we're having as a
society with the rise of this very militant left wing
strain in the Democratic Party. Look, you could have people
(14:43):
that agree with the founding principles and maybe apply those
a little bit differently than you or I. Maybe they
want a little bit higher taxes, or maybe they have
a different view on social policy here or there, but
still believe in those principles that our founding fathers fought
to establish. And I think what we're seeing with this
strand is these are people that are militant and their leftism,
(15:06):
their view is to try to denigrate the founding fathers,
try to cast aspersions on what they did and their
aspirations and re found the country on leftist principles and
leftist ideology. And that's why you see the Smithsonian with
their anti Americanism that the White House just exposed. That's
(15:27):
why you see a lot of the things that's happened
over the years to try to cast dispersions on the
core bedrock foundations that this country was built in. So
this is a fight that's not going away. I would
say what makes us even more difficult in some ways
than what we had during the Cold War was you
now have Islamism joining with Marxism and it's really created
(15:49):
a toxic brew. I have no doubt that we can
fight and win this, but it is not going to
be easy. So buckle up. We've got some interesting times ahead.
We'll be back in a minute.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Check out the show twenty four to seven, download it
to your iPod, Be a Hannity Insider at Hannity dot com.
Speaker 4 (16:43):
However, with a graduate or the closest that we've ever
had to a graduate and the EiV Limbo Institute, and
that would be Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. As you know,
there are no graduates from the Limbo Institute because the
learning never stops. We don't issue degrees here because there
(17:05):
never is a time where we have proclaimed that our
students have learned it all or because our curriculum is
constantly expanding. There is no set curriculum here.
Speaker 5 (17:16):
But Governor DeSantis has asked in the past for an
honorary degree, and Governor de Santis has said that if
said honorary degree were ever bestowed, that he would hang it,
frame it, hang it proudly on the wall in his
gubernatorial office. And if anybody has come close to earning
(17:43):
an honorary degree from the Limbaugh Institute, it is the
Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
All right, well you heard it. That's straight from the
horse's mouth, the great Rush Limbaugh. We miss him. Great
to be back, we have the republication of my first book,
Dreams from Our Founding Fathers in Honor of America two
fifty limited commemorative reprint, new introduction only seventeen hundred and
seventy six copies. Everyone is signed and numbered by me,
(18:12):
and you can get that at Desantas seventeen seventy six
dot Com. So this World Cup, I gotta say, I'm
not a soccer fan. I grew up playing baseball, I
play golf, I like football like these other things. But
I've really enjoyed seeing some of these foreigners come and
really appreciate America. So you had the Scots. They were
out in Boston and I think they drank the bar dry.
(18:35):
And then they came down to Florida because Scotland played
Brazil in Miami. And so one of the guys who
was active on social media, fellow named Sean, reached out
to me and I said, all right, let me let
me take care of you when you're down there. We'll
get something done. And part of it I actually Scotland.
Of all the different countries, that's one of maybe my
four or five favorite, partially because I grew up in
dun Eden, Florida. West Coast of Florida was founded by Scotts,
(18:57):
so we had the bagpipes and all that all growing up.
But the high school, the band and everything, and that
was just kind of part of growing up. And then
if you like golf, there's no place better than Scotland.
So I was happy to assist. So we ended up
bringing Sean and his wife to get stone crabs at
Joe's stone Crab. He had never had stone crab before,
and I'm just like, man, you dunk in that mustard,
(19:18):
you're gonna like it. And then they had the key
lime pie and all the other stuff. And we do
a thing in Florida to try to promote local businesses
called diners drive ins in DeSantis, and so if you
go to my social media you can see we put
those out. We did a lot in the spring. We're
going to do some more as the summer goes on.
And you know, people a lot of times don't know
about these places. Now, Joe's is not a diner, a
(19:40):
drive in or dive. It is a very nice restaurant
and iconic restaurant. But then we brought them to the
game and it was really cool because not that they
were negative on the US, but there's certain conceptions, at
least in Europe, and then they're going through and they're
in towns that aren't necessarily the ones they think about,
and they're driving on the interstate meeting people. This is
(20:00):
a great country, this is amazing. We can't wait to
come back. So that was really cool to see and
I have been watching some of the games. Again, I'm
not a soccer fan, but there's a lot of interest
in it. I think the US laid a big egg
the other day against Belgium. I mean, again, I don't
even know that much about soccer, but I'll tell you
they got there. We were end kicked, no question about it.
But I'll watch some of this stuff, and I think
(20:21):
hosting that here has been good for the United States
of America, and I think, honestly, these people really appreciate
what they see with our country. So I got Mike
McClelland here we're going to hit on a couple issues
back and forth. One is we were talking about the
Supreme Court. Obviously we were disappointed in the birthright citizenship case,
disappointed in the mail in ballid case. There's obviously some
(20:42):
good rulings too, But what Supreme Court do we have
because the media will say six conservative, three liberal, and
if you look at the high profile cases, that's not
exactly how it always comes out. You've got three liberals,
they vote in lockstep every time you can predict how
they're going to vote, no question. And then I think
you have two really eminent conservative justices Justices Alito and Thomas,
(21:07):
who ninety nine point nine percent of the time they're
going to get it right and they have incredible records.
Then I think the other justices are a little bit
more of a mixed I mean, obviously Roberts hasn't been
fully reliable. I think Justice Barrett hasn't been fully reliable.
Kavanaugh's been good, but not at the level of Thomas
and Alito. Gorsich is a libertarian, so some really good rulings,
(21:29):
but also he voted on the transgender gender ideology, so
I think some of that has been mixedpact. Now, none
of those Republican justices are suitor. You know, we had
a situate in Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren and he appointed
Bill Brennan. Now that was before we were as attuned
to judicial activism. Then Nixon appointed even though he ran
(21:52):
against the Warren Court, He appointed Harry Blackman, who was
one of the most liberal justices in history. George H. W.
Bush appointed David Suitor, who was one hundred percent reliable liberal.
So none of those Barrett Roberts, they're not suitors, but
they're not Thomas as an Alito, that's for sure. Do
you agree with that analysis, Mike in terms of the
(22:12):
current court.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
So I would just add that that dynamic is not new. Right,
just because you've been appointed by a Republican president doesn't
mean that you are antonin Scalia or that you are
Clarence Thomas. Right, we were always virtually certain that O'Connor
or Kennedy might be more persuadable on certain things than
(22:38):
a Scalia or a Thomas. And I think that that
dynamic in some ways continues.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
So yet that's true. Yet if you go back since
Bill Clinton, Carter didn't have an appointment. So if you
go back to Bill Clinton to the president, every Democrat
nominee to that court has been a reliable liberal, and
I don't think has ever the liberal block on any
major decision. And this is going back thirty forty years.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
The cultural river in Washington, d c. Appears to flow
in one direction.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Well that's the thing. I mean, you know, I remember
a story like Justice Thomas telling is supposedly like going
into the Supreme Court and like looking around, like, man,
this building changes people. It ain't changing me. I ain't
evolved in and he hasn't. I mean, he's been very
rock solid through that The other issue that's really big
now in Florida is, Look, I'm always trying to find
(23:32):
ways to move the ball Forwarida is so Florida, at
the state level, we have the lowest or one of
the lowest state tax burdens in the country. No income tax,
we have a sales tax that's thirty three percent lower
than California's. We have, and we've eliminated some taxes at
the state level, We've reduced others. I think we've done
(23:52):
ten billion over my governor, which is way more that
has ever been done. And you know, we're proud of that.
But what happens is when you have periods of rising
home values, people get bit by property tax. Now that's
a local issue in Florida. That revenue doesn't go to
us at the state level, and so consequently you have
to deal with it through the state constitution. So I
(24:14):
came out and basically said, these local governments and property
tax revenue, they had thirty two billion in twenty nineteen
and now they're at sixty two billion, So that's almost
doubling in seven or eight years. How come we can
reduce our budget four years in a row and they
have these massive increases. Florida has a situation where you
(24:35):
can homestead your primary residents that entitles you to some
tax benefits. But my view was it should entitle you
to your home being outside the reach of the taxing authorities.
It should actually be your home and not be subject
to property taxes. There's enough investment homes and second homes
and wealthy people around the world that have homes, and
(24:57):
obviously the businesses if they just pay what they're paying now,
that's still a huge increase in revenue over what we
were six or seven years ago. So my idea was,
let's get those homestead properties tax free. It's something that's
doable in Florida. You know, it would require us to
do some stuff, and so we had to propose that
it'll be put on the ballot. I can't put anything
(25:20):
on the ballot. It goes through the legislature, and so
the legislature ended up putting a property tax on the ballot,
but they didn't do fully with what I was advocating for.
So it'll be a property tax rollback. If it passes
in November. Whatever you're paying now would be about a
seventy percent reduction. They basically let no taxing authority tax
(25:41):
your home set except for the school districts. My view
was that your property should be immune period. I mean,
that's what we want to do, and so would require
local governments to spend less. But Florida has shown that
can be done, and so just mikes from California. The
discussion in California is always to raise these taxes. Here
(26:01):
we are in Florida talking about not only how to
keep cutting taxes at the state level, but actually giving
you your home and getting the governments mits totally out
of your primary residence. I think that would be a
good thing.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
I think it's amazing. And look, you ebraised this issue before.
If the government can tax you out of your home,
do you really own your home? Right? You paid off
your mortgage and that property tax keeps going up in California.
One of the few good tax things we have, of course,
is Prop. Thirteen. Going back to nineteen seventy eight, my
(26:36):
grandpa Jerry was a high school vice principal. He bought
his house for forty thousand dollars overlooking the Harbor and
Newport Beach. On that salary, if they had taxed him
as to the full market value of that home, on
and on and on. He would have been forced out
of his home as a senior citizen.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's just odd that this
is something you make a transaction, and some of it
is we just are used to it, so people don't
want to get other comfort zone. You make a transaction,
you can get tax on transactions. You buy something, and
then they keep going back to you, taxing again, raising
the value and taxing even more, and it's like, wait
(27:15):
a minute, that's not really something that we should be
cool with. And so what we're doing would be, you know,
a really good first step to liberating people from that.
But I think it's a really cool tax because it's
something that they just keep coming after.
Speaker 6 (27:30):
You.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Look, if you go buy, you know, a yacht or something,
you're gonna pay tax on that, Like like fine, it
is what it is. That's a discretionary purchase. You got
to live somewhere. We want to promote home ownership, and
so why are we trying to make it more difficult
for people to be able to afford it. The reason
why these local governments like it is because they can
get more revenue without actually voting to raise your tax rate.
(27:53):
Because they can just increase your valuation and then they
can say you got to pay we didn't raise your tax.
Oh no, no, we didn't do anything. We can do
better than that. We need to get to the point
in this country where homeownership means homeownership. The state of
Florida has the ability to handle. As I even said,
we have a big surplus. I would give grants to
local governments. They say, oh, we're not going to be
(28:14):
able to do. No, you will, but okay, you need
you need two or three police officers, I'll send you
a grant for two fifty. You need something at the
school district or here, I'll send you grants. Got I've
got billions and billions of dollars since I became governor.
We've quadrupled the rainy Day fund in the state. We've
got more revenue on top of that. And it's something
that absolutely can be done, and I think it should
(28:36):
be done. People always ask me anytime I run into
people from California, will say, you know, can you come
to California and fix it? And I say no for
two reasons. One, I don't know that it's fixable, but two,
I couldn't get elected here. I mean, I know there's
a there's a governor's race and some stuff coming up,
(28:56):
but it just seems like the state continues to vote
further and further left.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Look, it's it's hard with registration numbers where they are.
I mean, people were really excited about Spencer Pratt running
for mayor in LA right, and people would ask me,
they say, what do you think is going to happen.
I say, I think he's not going to win, and
they'd say, why not, he's such good messaging. I say,
because I think Republican registration in the city of Los
Angeles is like eleven percent.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
The minute you have the R by your name, you
get a lot of those liberal voters. It doesn't matter.
They are not going to do it. And it's all
it's It's the closest thing to a political scarlet letter
you can have in the state of California. And that's
why I think the state's going to continue. You know
what happens is these people who they have bad policies,
the moderate to conservative voters are the ones most likely
(29:42):
to be repelled, and they're the ones most likely to move.
But when you have the exodus out of California, have
more conservative voters. It leaves the remaining population even more
liberal and more subject to double down on the policies
that got you there in the first place. And what
I've noticed is the they don't equate the destruction that
(30:03):
their ideology does with the actual ideology. They'll blame Trump, well,
they'll blame this, or they'll have somebody to blame.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
Sometimes you just got to look in the mirror and
realize leftism doesn't work. All right, we'll be back to
wrap it up on the other side of the break.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
You told Sean you need his insider updates straight from
the source on today's Big News, and Hannity gives you
more every day.
Speaker 7 (30:37):
Sean Hannity, according to CNNVIL, during a three day period
(30:58):
in September twenty twenty one, you reposted now deleted messages
declaring yes, literally abolish the border and that all deportation
is wrong, and the one the call a reference f
using the full word Kamala Harris after she told Guatemalans
not to come to the US illegally in twenty twenty one,
(31:20):
and on policing in twenty twenty that abolishing the police
quote means ending the police full stop period no more
police at all. Ever, And I know you've said you've
grown considerably in the years since these tweets, So what's
your position now, for example, on how much to abolish
the border or when deportation is right?
Speaker 6 (31:40):
So you know, as you've noted, I've grownsterably since that.
And you know, and I'm not interested in relitigating the
politics of my tweets, which are the politics of the past.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
I'm interested in representing this district. Well, I can tell
you the anecdote to that nonsense. And this is somebody
that just got nominated in New York City for Congress
that makes AOC look like Ronald Reagan, way far out
to the left. The antidote to that is really what
America two fifty represents. We have the book Dreams from
(32:14):
our Founding Fathers that we've re published with a new
introduction signed by me at Tsantas seventeen seventy six dot com,
which outlines most of those principles and applies those in
the current set of circumstances. But I go back to
so they win the revolution, then they're in Philadelphia for
the Constitution, and Benjamin Franklin when they're signing it, he
(32:35):
stands up and says, there's a son on the back
of George Washington's chair. I couldn't find out if it
was rising or setting. Now I know it's a rising sun.
It's been great to be with you. We're going to
beat the left. We're going to win this fight. Let's
keep it going.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
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.