April 1, 2026 • 32 mins
In this final hour of The Sean Hannity Show, Sean zeroes in on the Supreme Court showdown over birthright citizenship after President Trump made a rare appearance at oral arguments alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi. Sean argues the stakes could not be higher, framing the case as a defining test of immigration law, constitutional intent, and whether America will continue a policy that most of the world has long rejected. Joined by America First Legal President Gene Hamilton, he walks through the legal arguments surrounding the 14th Amendment, the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and why the Court’s eventual ruling could reshape the immigration debate for generations. The hour also widens into listener calls and a broader conversation about NATO, Iran, energy prices, and the difference between a limited military objective and a forever war. It is a fast-moving hour centered on sovereignty, security, and the legal fight over who should automatically become an American citizen.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Well, we'll come in.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
To your city.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
One of they I gets off saying your comfort zone
will besire hi little.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Telna and if you want a.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
Little banging a yunia, I come along.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Throughout our meetings with the Iranians, we heard the following
from them. The Iranians have the inalienable right to enrich.
Speaker 5 (00:36):
Go ahead, Delegate.
Speaker 6 (00:37):
Yes, hello, I was standing here with my gender equity
card before you called on the previous speaker.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
As you see, none of the Surfrees sell the Surfrey.
Speaker 7 (00:54):
Freedom is back in style.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Welcome to the revolution.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
Away.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
I'm coming to your senteen going away, I get talent, sane,
you a consciousns Sean Hennity show more me.
Speaker 8 (01:13):
I'm the scenes.
Speaker 9 (01:14):
Information on freaking news and more bold inspired solutions for
America going up next, final News round up and Information
Overload Hour.
Speaker 4 (01:26):
All right, News round up in Information Overload Hour. Here's
our toll free telephone number if you want to be
a part of the program at eight hundred and nine
to four one sean if you want to join us.
All right, So we have the president, by the way,
along with the Attorney General Pam Bondi showed up at
the US Supreme Court today to you know, hear oral
(01:47):
oral arguments as it relates to birthright citizenship. I personally,
I always caution people not to interpret or try to
come to a conclusion based on the justices and the
questioning that goes on. I was not particularly pleased with
the oral arguments and some of the questions of the
(02:09):
the justices. By the way, this is the first time
a sitting president has ever personally attended oral arguments before
the nation's highest court. And the issue is, you know,
whether or not we will end automatic citizenship birthright citizenship
for anybody born in the US, even to undocumented or
(02:30):
illegal immigrants or to parents with temporary non immigrant visas
in the US. The stakes are very high. This is,
you know, a collision course of more than you know,
a century of executive branch action. And it is I
think the arguments in many ways could have been more articulate,
but that's separate.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
And a part.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
Now if you want to look at what goes on
around the world, unrestricted birthright citizenship is not allowed in
most of Europe, or Asia or Africa. And John Soward,
the Justice Department attorney, pointed that out in oral arguments.
In fact, unconditional birthright citizenship is unheard of in those
on those continents. In Europe, Asia Africa, no European country
(03:15):
currently offers fully unconditional birthright citizenship, and they largely rely
on parental citizenship. Asia most of Africa predominantly used highly
conditional rules. Several European countries had previously allowed broader interpretations
of birthright citizenship, but tightened it or ended it in
recent decades. Ireland ended unrestricted birthright citizenship in two thousand
(03:39):
and four, the UK in nineteen eighty one, Australia New
Zealand ended it in recent decades as well. You know,
the president leaving, you know it took to truth social
to rage about birthright citizenship. He said, we're the only
country in the world stupid enough to allow birthright citizenship.
And it's not his first public on this and anyway,
(04:01):
so the president went there and he departed. Sam Alito said,
federal officials have not effectively enforced immigration laws, you think,
not even close. And you have people, remember they they
used to talk about about people that would come across
(04:23):
the border just to have babies, just so that they
would be US citizens. Anchor babies is the term that
they used you know, some people are offended. You can't
say illegal immigrant, but it is what it is. So
as you know, I watched, I listened to some of
these arguments rather and I wasn't particularly impressed with the
questioning listening to this that it was frustrating to me.
(04:46):
You know, here's one example, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson asking
Soaur what he would do in the case of a
pregnant migrant woman.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
And listen to this exchange.
Speaker 5 (04:56):
You're not transparent. I'm just talking about the particulars because
now you say your rule turns on whether the person
intended to stay in the United States. And I think
Justice Barrett brought this up. So we're bringing pregnant women
in for depositions. What are we doing to figure this out? Now?
Speaker 3 (05:10):
As I pointed out earlier, the executive order turns on
lawfulness of steps. So if you give birth to a
baby in the hospital right now, it gets the birth
certificate in the system. There's a computer system.
Speaker 5 (05:21):
So there's no opportunity. There's apparently no opportunity then for
the person to prove or to say that they actually
intended to stay in the United.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Actually not, the opposite is true. Their opportunity to dispute
if they think they were wrongly denied, which would only
happen in tiny minority of cases, after there's directly addressing
that guy after.
Speaker 5 (05:37):
The fact, after their baby has been denied citizenship, then
we can go through the process.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
And the way that I mean, I'm summarizing because I'm
not an expert computers, but there's a computer program that
currently automatically generates a social Security number. As to say,
he says, look a social security number. Non citizens can
have them if they work authorizations. Who doesn't improve citizenship?
We'll give you a social Security number, provided that there's
the system automatically checks the immigration stats the parents, which
they're robust databases for. And then if here's no different
(06:04):
to the vast majority of birthing parents, thank you all right.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
Joining us now to weigh in on what he heard today.
Geene Hamilton, President of america First Legal and the legal
architect behind a majority of President Trump's executive orders. I
did not particularly like the questioning of justices, although I'd
like to remind people don't take those questions to mean
that you can interpret what the eventual outcome will be.
(06:30):
Although it didn't give me a lot of it did
not give me a high degree of confidence on the outcome.
Speaker 7 (06:34):
Yeah, Sean, I mean, you're exactly right to remind your audience.
With Supreme Court arguments, everyone always wants to try to
read the tea leaves. They try to glean and discern
where justices may land based on the types of questions
they ask, And in some cases it's very easy to do.
If a justice like Justice Jackson is being overtly hostile,
(06:54):
I mean, I think everyone already knew what her outcome
on this case would be, but that's asking overtly hostile questions,
then you know where she's going to come down. But
sometimes judges and justices it applies in just disrecurts and
courts of appeals as well. We'll ask questions to try
to develop the record and try to develop and establish
(07:17):
the best possible position, so they can say as they're
writing their opinion or their concurrence or anything of the sort,
that they covered all the bases with the parties, and
in fact, now they have all of the facts, all
of the information, all the positions, and now they can
render their decisions. So sometimes hard questions can actually be
(07:38):
good for parties, just because the justices want to develop
the facts there. But I do completely agree with you,
but there are.
Speaker 8 (07:46):
Some real disappointing.
Speaker 7 (07:49):
Moments for folks who like to read the tea leaves
for sure.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
All Right, So, then, based on listening to these oral
arguments today, and I I've got to wonder where you
think these justices are leaning and who do you think
made the most compelling argument that they should be listening to,
and what is the most compelling argument they should be
listening to.
Speaker 7 (08:14):
Well, look, I mean it's with a caveat being that
it's always tough to predict. I think that we are
looking at a very very very close decision when it
comes out. Sometimes you have situations where you don't even
have majority opinion. You might have a plurality where you
(08:35):
have different groups of justices agreeing with different parts of
different positions. I think we have. If I'm a betting person,
I would say that you have certainly Justices Alito and
Thomas in Kavanaugh in one camp.
Speaker 8 (08:51):
I think the chief is likely.
Speaker 7 (08:53):
With the liberal justices in this case, which means that
we're kind of down to Justice Barrett, Justice Corsic, and
I could I could see them going either way.
Speaker 8 (09:07):
If we're going.
Speaker 7 (09:07):
Solely based on the oral arguments today, But of course, again,
oral arguments aren't always everything.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
Did you glean any hope out of out of Justice
Amy Conig Barrett and the questioning that she was making today,
because I did not.
Speaker 8 (09:25):
I share.
Speaker 7 (09:25):
I share your position, Sean, but I do have to
say that as a former law professor, I think that
Justice Barrett likely puts more stock into the party's written
submissions than parties performance at oral arguments or into the
questions that she asked, and so I could still see
(09:47):
her coming out the right way on this particular decision.
But I think this is going to be an instance
where there's going to be a lot of discussions between
the justices as they try to form their co politions
and make their votes and then start the work on
writing the actual opinion. So I could see maybe some
(10:07):
of the other justices persuading her to join one camp
or the other.
Speaker 4 (10:14):
Why would we allow what the vast overwhelming majority of
the world does not allow, and that is for people
to enter our country illegally, give birth and automatically bestow
citizenship on the child that was birthed illegally in the
country or birth by their illegal parent that shouldn't even
(10:35):
be here.
Speaker 7 (10:37):
Yeah, it's absolute insanity. I mean, this is taking vaspardizing
the text of an amendment that was purely intended to
cover slaves and to ensure that in the aftermath of
Dread Scott, all slaves and former slaves would be considered
to be citizens. It is ludicrous that someone could cross
(10:58):
the border illegally and be prosecuted by the Department of
Justice for crossing the border illegally. Let's say it's a couple, uh,
and the wife is pregnant, that you could prosecute the
parents for crossing the border, put them in jail. The
mother gives birth, and now she's and now they have
an American citizen. So somebody who's committed a criminal act
(11:19):
gets rewarded in the form of a child with American
citizenship and ties that will eventually allow the child to
petition for the parents to come to the United States
under our immigration laws. It's it's absolutely sanity.
Speaker 8 (11:32):
It's ludicrous.
Speaker 7 (11:33):
It's nothing any sane nation would ever tolerate or accept.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
Then it's kind of hard to you know, it's inexplicable
to me that this has a very strong chance of
you know, not being a case that we lose. And
you know what do you think the most compelling arguments
that that John Sawyer made it in this in this
In these arguments, I mean, I think.
Speaker 7 (11:57):
The most compelling arguments are related to the intent of
the drafters of the fourteenth Amendment. And of course it's text.
This phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, has to mean something.
It cannot be the case that it means nothing subject
to the jurisdiction thereof. If they had just intended for
(12:18):
it to cover everybody, then they would have stopped. They
would have left that out. They would have left that
clause out. And the notion that that particular phrase only
covers the children of diplomats or the children of invading
armies is just inconsistent with all of the legislative debates,
all of the scholarship and four speeches, and all the
(12:45):
other things that accompanied the adoption of the fourteenth Amendment.
It certainly doesn't appear that there was ever, it was
ever contemplated that folks in the situation that we're talking
about today would have been covered by the fourteenth Amendment.
But yet here we are today, and again it's it's
(13:05):
absolute insanity. And if the if the Supreme Court enshrines
that this is in fact a constitutional right, so they
need no ambiguity, so that anybody come who's born here,
whether their parents are illegal, whether they're birth tourists, whomever.
(13:25):
It is going to cause so many more additional problems
for our immigration system. Then we can even contemplate today.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
Quick break, right back more with Geene Hamilton, president of
America First Legal, as we examine birthright citizenship, which was
argued before the US Supreme Court earlier today. President Trump
attended along with the Attorney General Tam Bondy. We'll take
a quick break. We'll come back more on the other side.
As we continue.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
The left wants to silen sanity. Don't let it happen.
Make the commitment now three hours every day at three pm.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 4 (14:36):
All right, we continue, Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal.
We are discussing birthright citizenship argued before the US Supreme
Court today. The President was there and the Attorney General
Pam Bondi were there. I didn't stay that long, but anyway,
we're examining which way we think the court might be
leaning were there any arguments that weren't made that you
(14:58):
wish were made?
Speaker 7 (15:00):
You know, Look, I think that most of them were
all covered. That John Tower did a good job. He
covered the government's positions quite well. Look, I think that
at the end of the day, this is just one
of the situations where when President Trump issued this executive order,
(15:22):
there was.
Speaker 8 (15:23):
A lot of criticism. There was a lot of.
Speaker 7 (15:27):
Eye rolling by some of the legal traditional kind of
legal academics and talking heads and said, all, this isn't
even a close question.
Speaker 8 (15:36):
This isn't even close.
Speaker 7 (15:38):
It's open and shutcase. Everyone born here as an American citizen.
And I think that the more the time has gone
on and people have had open and honest discussions and
pursued the matter from an intellectual and historical perspective, they've
come to discover that, in fact, the President's position is
likely correct, and it's really just a matter of whether
(16:00):
a couple of these justices wake up and agree with
the correct position, even though it might feel uncomfortable.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
All right, Jane Hamilton, we appreciate you being with us.
This is going to be interesting to watch. We'll find
out sometime, I guess in the summer whether or not.
In fact, the arguments were able to suade these justices.
I don't go into this ruling with a lot of
high degree of confidence. I'll put it that way. Unfortunately,
(16:31):
I wish I could tell you differently, and I think
there's a reason the President walked out of the room
because it's probably disgusted by the line of questioning.
Speaker 10 (17:14):
You can't always get what you want, but you can
get Sean Hannity online at hannity dot Com.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
All right, let's get to our busy, busy telephones. Let
us say I do. Let's see John and my free
state of Florida. What's up, John, How are you good?
Speaker 8 (17:35):
Afternoon?
Speaker 11 (17:35):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (17:35):
I called to talk a little bit about winding down
the conflict and some of the discussions that are going
on around terms of dealing with what comes next in Iran.
Realizing that you know, there are going to be requirements
on both sides, and my understanding is that the Iranians
are seeking reparations, which can just separate discussion, whether that's
laughable or not. The other hand, you've got the US
(17:58):
who have been abandoned by their allies and having to
take on all of the financial responsibility of the armaments
that are necessary to pull out the action. Okay, so
fast forward. Let's say we're in a state of discussing terms.
Carg Island would be a perfect place to have an
occupational zone where any flag that wasn't that's flying under
(18:25):
a country that did not provide direct support to the
initiative would have to charge be charged for passage, and
those dividends would then be split evenly or whatever ratio
between Iran and the US, and once the US's expenses
have been fulfilled, then we would leave, unless Iran wants
US to leave some kind of a force behind as
(18:48):
another one of our bases.
Speaker 11 (18:50):
Thoughts on that, well.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
I mean, I'm not really sure exactly what you're asking.
I mean, are you asking about carg Island and oil
and funding the war? You asking about NATO's lack of
commitment to being a strong alliance with the US. They
want a one sided agreement, they don't want to pay
their fair share. I'm not exactly sure what exactly you
mean all of the above.
Speaker 6 (19:14):
All of the above. So when this thing lines down,
if they didn't participate in the funding of the basically, so,
I think I.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
Think they should be on their own. Honestly, we spend,
we pay two thirds of the freight. And if if
this alliance is only designed for the US to protect Europe,
which they have become far too, far too dependent upon US.
I mean, we're paying two thirds of the bill, and
it's their continent that is deteriorating. They have abandoned their
(19:45):
commitment to national security and defense. They have embraced radical
socialism and climate alarmism, which you know now that now
they're they're feeling the impact of their ridiculous climate policies
by paying over ten dollars a gallon for gasoline.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
That's on them.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
They're the ones that even wanted to get their energy
from Vladimir Putin, which is why the white flag of
surrender was given by Donald Trump to Angela Merkell in
his first term. And if this is just a one
sided alliance, then it's of no use to the US.
And I think our money is better spent elsewhere on
(20:24):
other defenses, in the next generation of weaponry, which we
need to really build out, and we could use that
trillion dollars to do that.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
So, as far as I'm concerned, I think they dider.
Speaker 6 (20:35):
I was just going to say exactly as a penalty
going forward, if they need goods and oil and energy
to go through the straight or form use to their countries,
they're going to have to pay for passage, and that
those funds would then be funneled back to the US
to compensate US further war effort, as well as to
Iran for reparations. It's a way to get them on
the hook to actually, you know, pay for some of
(20:59):
what next.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
I just think that they have shown themselves to be
unreliable partners when it matters. And it's sad, I mean,
but sometimes relationships naturally come to an end, you know.
I like to look at you know, there have been
people that I was friendly with at one point in
my life and and I'm not so friendly with now,
(21:22):
or have gotten out of touch with now. And we
have seasons in our lives, right and maybe for a season,
you know, post World War two, this was the right
alliance to have. If they're abandoning their commitment to us,
then then obviously we're free to do what we want,
and I think that we will respond in kind.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Anyway.
Speaker 4 (21:42):
I appreciate the call. And in case you missed it,
here's the President responding, or here's Kiri Starmer responding to
President Drum's comments on NATO.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Listen, is this an acknowledgment that Britain's long term security
relationship with the United States is about to change?
Speaker 12 (21:57):
Well, let me say a number of things and respond
to that. Firstly, to is the single most effective military
alliance the world has ever seen, and it has kept
us safe for many decades, and we are fully committed
to NATO. Secondly that whatever the pressure on me and others,
(22:17):
whatever the noise, I'm going to act in the British
national interest in all the decisions that I make. And
that's why I've been absolutely clear that this is not
our war or we're not going to get dragged into it.
But I'm equally clear that when it comes to defense
and security and our economic future, we have to have
closer tries with Europe.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
Well, Okay, Neville Chamberlain, Starmer, you know we're fully committed
to NATO and you're not going to get dragged into
this conflict. Meanwhile, we discovered that the ballistic missile range
that the Iranians have can hit London, and you could
thank Donald J. Trump that most of those missiles being destroyed,
(23:00):
if not all of them, and they won't have the
enriched uranium or eleven nuclear bombs that obviously, theoretically, I
don't even think so theoretically, in reality would would ultimately
enable them to keep Europe hostage and then probably eventually
build it out further and it would become intercontinental ballistic
(23:21):
missiles and then be a threat to our children and grandchildren. Anyway,
back to our phones, speaking of England, Jeff and Ohio
wants to weigh in on this. Jeff, how are you
glad you called sir?
Speaker 13 (23:33):
Good morning or afternoon song?
Speaker 1 (23:36):
What's going on?
Speaker 13 (23:36):
Yeah, I was actually curious what your thoughts were about England.
I was recently watching a speech given by Alan West
and he was talking about the Islam's five Plan or
five point plan for takeover essentially from over population, and
he stated that he thinks Britain is in stage four. Well,
(23:58):
that would put them not very far away from essentially
being able to take over England, which would then put
them in control of nuclear bombs and ICBMs, which could
then get to us as well.
Speaker 10 (24:12):
Well.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
I'm not sure what the population breakdown is, and I
don't necessarily think that, you know, I'm more concerned about
radical Islamis than I am about people that have a
different faith than I do as a Christian, and I'm
more concerned about the fact that that they have allowed assimilately.
They have allowed unfettered immigration without the assimilation and separation.
(24:35):
I mean, to have to allow people to come from
other countries and to completely separate themselves from British Morays,
values and society and even have their own Charia courts
is madness to me, because then they're putting their I mean,
if that's the belief system that means so much to them,
(24:57):
why did they why did they want to go to
Great Britain in the first place? You have to ask
exact and that would be the threat. I mean, look,
London's you know, you do have radical you know you
do have radicals that have been elected into these high
positions inside of Great Britain. And I think the Islamization,
(25:18):
if you will, of the continent of Europe is very
very real. And I'm not talking about the Muslim faith.
I'm talking about the radicalism. Daniel in Arizona, Daniel, how
are you?
Speaker 11 (25:31):
I'm doing great, sir, How are you today?
Speaker 1 (25:34):
I'm good, sir? What's going on?
Speaker 11 (25:36):
Yeah? I wanted to talk to you. What are you
talks about the double standard in the news cycle of
fuel prices. Now it looks like the sudden care about
fuel prices. But if you remember back on twenty twenty two,
we had the highest feel prices on the Biden. They
were like nationally it was like an over five dollars average,
(25:58):
and I know in California for a fact, there were
over seven dollars everywhere and UH. And it looks like
we're being bombarded by the UH. But the new cycle
on now now we care about the economy and fuel
prices and UH, and but nobody remembers that. And that
just happened a couple of years ago, and they're not talking.
(26:18):
Also about the three major refineries and a few more
small ones they close in California because all these UH
governor come back newsom over they're closing UH making it
so hard for them to make business in California and
UH and supporting all these UH green UH rules and
(26:42):
regulations that they're they're rolling on everybody and make it
impossible for the businesses. And they live in California, and
it's really affecting the West Coast, at least on our side.
Speaker 4 (26:51):
You know you already know the answer to this. The
media is abusively biased. They have a double standard. It's
really not any more complicated than that. Now, if I'm correct,
and the President's correct and Secretary of State Ruvio's correct,
and in the next two to three weeks, this war
is going to wind down and end and it will
(27:12):
not be is what you know the isolationists have been
predicting from day one.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
This is a forever war. Donald Trump, he is doing
exactly what he said he'd never do.
Speaker 4 (27:20):
No, he's not, and it's not going to be, you know,
but I would to argue that, and I think it's
pretty it's a pretty darn good bet that gas prices
will return to normal, and it probably will happen in
a fairly short order. That would be my best guess.
I'm not I don't have a I don't have a
crystal ball. Walter, New Mexico. Next Sean Hannity Show, Hi.
Speaker 8 (27:43):
Thank yeah, I Sean, Hey, thank you so much for
taking my call. I would like to take a little
bit of an issue regarding the endless wars. Okay, now, look,
there is.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
No endless war. What's the endless war?
Speaker 8 (28:00):
Yeah, but that's what I'm trying to get at whether
it's a short term war or a long term war.
We still fighting a war in the Middle East. Trying
to nation bill. We're trying to.
Speaker 4 (28:11):
Tell we're not trying a nation bill. That's not part
of the President's goal.
Speaker 8 (28:16):
Okay, well, then why do you take out so called
dictators or leaders in another nation because they won't comply
with what the US want.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
Remember this has been a joint military effort with the Israelis.
The Israelis are the ones that took out the tiers
of leadership there. America's goal has been very clear that
they can't have nuclear weapons. That has been the number one,
number two, number three goal of the president. The President
ascertained with four hundred and sixty kilograms of sixty percent
(28:46):
enriched uranium, which could be weapons grade in less than
two weeks, coupled with what we now know is they
have longer range ballistic missiles. Then we thought that that
was an existential threat to the world and to the US,
and he was not willing.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
To allow threat to grow. That's what this is about.
Speaker 4 (29:02):
When that is neutralized, the President will leave and we're
on the verge of that happening and you should be happy.
That's not a forever What was it a forever war
when he defeated the ISIS Caliphate or did he do
the right thing?
Speaker 8 (29:14):
Okay, Sean, I'm first off, Sean.
Speaker 4 (29:16):
I answer my question. Was it right for the president
to beat the ISIS Caliphate?
Speaker 9 (29:22):
No?
Speaker 8 (29:22):
It was not. Here's the point, Well, you're.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
An that I can't talk to you because you're an idiot,
You're not very smart.
Speaker 8 (29:31):
I'm retired Air Force Sean. What I'm trying to do.
Speaker 4 (29:34):
I appreciate that you served your country, but your commentary
to not eliminate the caliphate whose motto is convert or die,
and maybe you're willing to gamble with your children and
grandchildren's future with the nuclear armed Iran.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
I'm not so. We just disagree.
Speaker 4 (29:55):
There will be no reconciliation in this call.
Speaker 8 (29:58):
Respectfully, Sean, What I'm.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
Simply respectfully, I think you're naive and you're willing to
gamble with the future of our kids and grandkids.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
I'm not.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
I just I err on the side that if you
had a chance to take out Hitler before the Holocaust,
it would have been smart to do it, to take
out Iran's ability to gain a nuclear weapon with their sick,
twisted death cult ideology. To me, that is the smart call.
(30:28):
It won't be a forever war, as you proclaim. Taking
out the ISIS Caliphate was wise too, and the President's
doctor and the Trump doctrine will will will in a
fact over history will never be able to know how
successful it was because they won't be able to do
what they otherwise would have been able to do.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Okay, we disagree. Have a great day.
Speaker 9 (30:55):
Focused on finding solutions.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
Don't today's biggest problem.
Speaker 10 (31:00):
This is the Hannity Show, John Hannity, and that's gonna.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
Wrap things up at today.
Speaker 4 (31:35):
Don't forget President Trump will give an address to the
nation as my show starts nine eastern. We will get
full reactions Senator Lindsey Graham, Ryan's previous, Mike Pompeio, Lieutenant
General Keith Kellogg, Clay Travis Tonight, Greg Jarrett, Dave asmand
much more. Nine eastern. Sey you DVR Hannity on Fox.
(31:55):
We'll see you then back here tomorrow. Thank you for
making the show possible.
Speaker 7 (32:10):
H
Well, we'll come in.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
To your city.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
One of they I gets off saying your comfort zone
will besire hi little.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Telna and if you want a.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
Little banging a yunia, I come along.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Throughout our meetings with the Iranians, we heard the following
from them. The Iranians have the inalienable right to enrich.
Speaker 5 (00:36):
Go ahead, Delegate.
Speaker 6 (00:37):
Yes, hello, I was standing here with my gender equity
card before you called on the previous speaker.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
As you see, none of the Surfrees sell the Surfrey.
Speaker 7 (00:54):
Freedom is back in style.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Welcome to the revolution.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
Away.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
I'm coming to your senteen going away, I get talent, sane,
you a consciousns Sean Hennity show more me.
Speaker 8 (01:13):
I'm the scenes.
Speaker 9 (01:14):
Information on freaking news and more bold inspired solutions for
America going up next, final News round up and Information
Overload Hour.
Speaker 4 (01:26):
All right, News round up in Information Overload Hour. Here's
our toll free telephone number if you want to be
a part of the program at eight hundred and nine
to four one sean if you want to join us.
All right, So we have the president, by the way,
along with the Attorney General Pam Bondi showed up at
the US Supreme Court today to you know, hear oral
(01:47):
oral arguments as it relates to birthright citizenship. I personally,
I always caution people not to interpret or try to
come to a conclusion based on the justices and the
questioning that goes on. I was not particularly pleased with
the oral arguments and some of the questions of the
(02:09):
the justices. By the way, this is the first time
a sitting president has ever personally attended oral arguments before
the nation's highest court. And the issue is, you know,
whether or not we will end automatic citizenship birthright citizenship
for anybody born in the US, even to undocumented or
(02:30):
illegal immigrants or to parents with temporary non immigrant visas
in the US. The stakes are very high. This is,
you know, a collision course of more than you know,
a century of executive branch action. And it is I
think the arguments in many ways could have been more articulate,
but that's separate.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
And a part.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
Now if you want to look at what goes on
around the world, unrestricted birthright citizenship is not allowed in
most of Europe, or Asia or Africa. And John Soward,
the Justice Department attorney, pointed that out in oral arguments.
In fact, unconditional birthright citizenship is unheard of in those
on those continents. In Europe, Asia Africa, no European country
(03:15):
currently offers fully unconditional birthright citizenship, and they largely rely
on parental citizenship. Asia most of Africa predominantly used highly
conditional rules. Several European countries had previously allowed broader interpretations
of birthright citizenship, but tightened it or ended it in
recent decades. Ireland ended unrestricted birthright citizenship in two thousand
(03:39):
and four, the UK in nineteen eighty one, Australia New
Zealand ended it in recent decades as well. You know,
the president leaving, you know it took to truth social
to rage about birthright citizenship. He said, we're the only
country in the world stupid enough to allow birthright citizenship.
And it's not his first public on this and anyway,
(04:01):
so the president went there and he departed. Sam Alito said,
federal officials have not effectively enforced immigration laws, you think,
not even close. And you have people, remember they they
used to talk about about people that would come across
(04:23):
the border just to have babies, just so that they
would be US citizens. Anchor babies is the term that
they used you know, some people are offended. You can't
say illegal immigrant, but it is what it is. So
as you know, I watched, I listened to some of
these arguments rather and I wasn't particularly impressed with the
questioning listening to this that it was frustrating to me.
(04:46):
You know, here's one example, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson asking
Soaur what he would do in the case of a
pregnant migrant woman.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
And listen to this exchange.
Speaker 5 (04:56):
You're not transparent. I'm just talking about the particulars because
now you say your rule turns on whether the person
intended to stay in the United States. And I think
Justice Barrett brought this up. So we're bringing pregnant women
in for depositions. What are we doing to figure this out? Now?
Speaker 3 (05:10):
As I pointed out earlier, the executive order turns on
lawfulness of steps. So if you give birth to a
baby in the hospital right now, it gets the birth
certificate in the system. There's a computer system.
Speaker 5 (05:21):
So there's no opportunity. There's apparently no opportunity then for
the person to prove or to say that they actually
intended to stay in the United.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Actually not, the opposite is true. Their opportunity to dispute
if they think they were wrongly denied, which would only
happen in tiny minority of cases, after there's directly addressing
that guy after.
Speaker 5 (05:37):
The fact, after their baby has been denied citizenship, then
we can go through the process.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
And the way that I mean, I'm summarizing because I'm
not an expert computers, but there's a computer program that
currently automatically generates a social Security number. As to say,
he says, look a social security number. Non citizens can
have them if they work authorizations. Who doesn't improve citizenship?
We'll give you a social Security number, provided that there's
the system automatically checks the immigration stats the parents, which
they're robust databases for. And then if here's no different
(06:04):
to the vast majority of birthing parents, thank you all right.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
Joining us now to weigh in on what he heard today.
Geene Hamilton, President of america First Legal and the legal
architect behind a majority of President Trump's executive orders. I
did not particularly like the questioning of justices, although I'd
like to remind people don't take those questions to mean
that you can interpret what the eventual outcome will be.
(06:30):
Although it didn't give me a lot of it did
not give me a high degree of confidence on the outcome.
Speaker 7 (06:34):
Yeah, Sean, I mean, you're exactly right to remind your audience.
With Supreme Court arguments, everyone always wants to try to
read the tea leaves. They try to glean and discern
where justices may land based on the types of questions
they ask, And in some cases it's very easy to do.
If a justice like Justice Jackson is being overtly hostile,
(06:54):
I mean, I think everyone already knew what her outcome
on this case would be, but that's asking overtly hostile questions,
then you know where she's going to come down. But
sometimes judges and justices it applies in just disrecurts and
courts of appeals as well. We'll ask questions to try
to develop the record and try to develop and establish
(07:17):
the best possible position, so they can say as they're
writing their opinion or their concurrence or anything of the sort,
that they covered all the bases with the parties, and
in fact, now they have all of the facts, all
of the information, all the positions, and now they can
render their decisions. So sometimes hard questions can actually be
(07:38):
good for parties, just because the justices want to develop
the facts there. But I do completely agree with you,
but there are.
Speaker 8 (07:46):
Some real disappointing.
Speaker 7 (07:49):
Moments for folks who like to read the tea leaves
for sure.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
All Right, So, then, based on listening to these oral
arguments today, and I I've got to wonder where you
think these justices are leaning and who do you think
made the most compelling argument that they should be listening to,
and what is the most compelling argument they should be
listening to.
Speaker 7 (08:14):
Well, look, I mean it's with a caveat being that
it's always tough to predict. I think that we are
looking at a very very very close decision when it
comes out. Sometimes you have situations where you don't even
have majority opinion. You might have a plurality where you
(08:35):
have different groups of justices agreeing with different parts of
different positions. I think we have. If I'm a betting person,
I would say that you have certainly Justices Alito and
Thomas in Kavanaugh in one camp.
Speaker 8 (08:51):
I think the chief is likely.
Speaker 7 (08:53):
With the liberal justices in this case, which means that
we're kind of down to Justice Barrett, Justice Corsic, and
I could I could see them going either way.
Speaker 8 (09:07):
If we're going.
Speaker 7 (09:07):
Solely based on the oral arguments today, But of course, again,
oral arguments aren't always everything.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
Did you glean any hope out of out of Justice
Amy Conig Barrett and the questioning that she was making today,
because I did not.
Speaker 8 (09:25):
I share.
Speaker 7 (09:25):
I share your position, Sean, but I do have to
say that as a former law professor, I think that
Justice Barrett likely puts more stock into the party's written
submissions than parties performance at oral arguments or into the
questions that she asked, and so I could still see
(09:47):
her coming out the right way on this particular decision.
But I think this is going to be an instance
where there's going to be a lot of discussions between
the justices as they try to form their co politions
and make their votes and then start the work on
writing the actual opinion. So I could see maybe some
(10:07):
of the other justices persuading her to join one camp
or the other.
Speaker 4 (10:14):
Why would we allow what the vast overwhelming majority of
the world does not allow, and that is for people
to enter our country illegally, give birth and automatically bestow
citizenship on the child that was birthed illegally in the
country or birth by their illegal parent that shouldn't even
(10:35):
be here.
Speaker 7 (10:37):
Yeah, it's absolute insanity. I mean, this is taking vaspardizing
the text of an amendment that was purely intended to
cover slaves and to ensure that in the aftermath of
Dread Scott, all slaves and former slaves would be considered
to be citizens. It is ludicrous that someone could cross
(10:58):
the border illegally and be prosecuted by the Department of
Justice for crossing the border illegally. Let's say it's a couple, uh,
and the wife is pregnant, that you could prosecute the
parents for crossing the border, put them in jail. The
mother gives birth, and now she's and now they have
an American citizen. So somebody who's committed a criminal act
(11:19):
gets rewarded in the form of a child with American
citizenship and ties that will eventually allow the child to
petition for the parents to come to the United States
under our immigration laws. It's it's absolutely sanity.
Speaker 8 (11:32):
It's ludicrous.
Speaker 7 (11:33):
It's nothing any sane nation would ever tolerate or accept.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
Then it's kind of hard to you know, it's inexplicable
to me that this has a very strong chance of
you know, not being a case that we lose. And
you know what do you think the most compelling arguments
that that John Sawyer made it in this in this
In these arguments, I mean, I think.
Speaker 7 (11:57):
The most compelling arguments are related to the intent of
the drafters of the fourteenth Amendment. And of course it's text.
This phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, has to mean something.
It cannot be the case that it means nothing subject
to the jurisdiction thereof. If they had just intended for
(12:18):
it to cover everybody, then they would have stopped. They
would have left that out. They would have left that
clause out. And the notion that that particular phrase only
covers the children of diplomats or the children of invading
armies is just inconsistent with all of the legislative debates,
all of the scholarship and four speeches, and all the
(12:45):
other things that accompanied the adoption of the fourteenth Amendment.
It certainly doesn't appear that there was ever, it was
ever contemplated that folks in the situation that we're talking
about today would have been covered by the fourteenth Amendment.
But yet here we are today, and again it's it's
(13:05):
absolute insanity. And if the if the Supreme Court enshrines
that this is in fact a constitutional right, so they
need no ambiguity, so that anybody come who's born here,
whether their parents are illegal, whether they're birth tourists, whomever.
(13:25):
It is going to cause so many more additional problems
for our immigration system. Then we can even contemplate today.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
Quick break, right back more with Geene Hamilton, president of
America First Legal, as we examine birthright citizenship, which was
argued before the US Supreme Court earlier today. President Trump
attended along with the Attorney General Tam Bondy. We'll take
a quick break. We'll come back more on the other side.
As we continue.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
The left wants to silen sanity. Don't let it happen.
Make the commitment now three hours every day at three pm.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 4 (14:36):
All right, we continue, Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal.
We are discussing birthright citizenship argued before the US Supreme
Court today. The President was there and the Attorney General
Pam Bondi were there. I didn't stay that long, but anyway,
we're examining which way we think the court might be
leaning were there any arguments that weren't made that you
(14:58):
wish were made?
Speaker 7 (15:00):
You know, Look, I think that most of them were
all covered. That John Tower did a good job. He
covered the government's positions quite well. Look, I think that
at the end of the day, this is just one
of the situations where when President Trump issued this executive order,
(15:22):
there was.
Speaker 8 (15:23):
A lot of criticism. There was a lot of.
Speaker 7 (15:27):
Eye rolling by some of the legal traditional kind of
legal academics and talking heads and said, all, this isn't
even a close question.
Speaker 8 (15:36):
This isn't even close.
Speaker 7 (15:38):
It's open and shutcase. Everyone born here as an American citizen.
And I think that the more the time has gone
on and people have had open and honest discussions and
pursued the matter from an intellectual and historical perspective, they've
come to discover that, in fact, the President's position is
likely correct, and it's really just a matter of whether
(16:00):
a couple of these justices wake up and agree with
the correct position, even though it might feel uncomfortable.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
All right, Jane Hamilton, we appreciate you being with us.
This is going to be interesting to watch. We'll find
out sometime, I guess in the summer whether or not.
In fact, the arguments were able to suade these justices.
I don't go into this ruling with a lot of
high degree of confidence. I'll put it that way. Unfortunately,
(16:31):
I wish I could tell you differently, and I think
there's a reason the President walked out of the room
because it's probably disgusted by the line of questioning.
Speaker 10 (17:14):
You can't always get what you want, but you can
get Sean Hannity online at hannity dot Com.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
All right, let's get to our busy, busy telephones. Let
us say I do. Let's see John and my free
state of Florida. What's up, John, How are you good?
Speaker 8 (17:35):
Afternoon?
Speaker 11 (17:35):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (17:35):
I called to talk a little bit about winding down
the conflict and some of the discussions that are going
on around terms of dealing with what comes next in Iran.
Realizing that you know, there are going to be requirements
on both sides, and my understanding is that the Iranians
are seeking reparations, which can just separate discussion, whether that's
laughable or not. The other hand, you've got the US
(17:58):
who have been abandoned by their allies and having to
take on all of the financial responsibility of the armaments
that are necessary to pull out the action. Okay, so
fast forward. Let's say we're in a state of discussing terms.
Carg Island would be a perfect place to have an
occupational zone where any flag that wasn't that's flying under
(18:25):
a country that did not provide direct support to the
initiative would have to charge be charged for passage, and
those dividends would then be split evenly or whatever ratio
between Iran and the US, and once the US's expenses
have been fulfilled, then we would leave, unless Iran wants
US to leave some kind of a force behind as
(18:48):
another one of our bases.
Speaker 11 (18:50):
Thoughts on that, well.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
I mean, I'm not really sure exactly what you're asking.
I mean, are you asking about carg Island and oil
and funding the war? You asking about NATO's lack of
commitment to being a strong alliance with the US. They
want a one sided agreement, they don't want to pay
their fair share. I'm not exactly sure what exactly you
mean all of the above.
Speaker 6 (19:14):
All of the above. So when this thing lines down,
if they didn't participate in the funding of the basically, so,
I think I.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
Think they should be on their own. Honestly, we spend,
we pay two thirds of the freight. And if if
this alliance is only designed for the US to protect Europe,
which they have become far too, far too dependent upon US.
I mean, we're paying two thirds of the bill, and
it's their continent that is deteriorating. They have abandoned their
(19:45):
commitment to national security and defense. They have embraced radical
socialism and climate alarmism, which you know now that now
they're they're feeling the impact of their ridiculous climate policies
by paying over ten dollars a gallon for gasoline.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
That's on them.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
They're the ones that even wanted to get their energy
from Vladimir Putin, which is why the white flag of
surrender was given by Donald Trump to Angela Merkell in
his first term. And if this is just a one
sided alliance, then it's of no use to the US.
And I think our money is better spent elsewhere on
(20:24):
other defenses, in the next generation of weaponry, which we
need to really build out, and we could use that
trillion dollars to do that.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
So, as far as I'm concerned, I think they dider.
Speaker 6 (20:35):
I was just going to say exactly as a penalty
going forward, if they need goods and oil and energy
to go through the straight or form use to their countries,
they're going to have to pay for passage, and that
those funds would then be funneled back to the US
to compensate US further war effort, as well as to
Iran for reparations. It's a way to get them on
the hook to actually, you know, pay for some of
(20:59):
what next.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
I just think that they have shown themselves to be
unreliable partners when it matters. And it's sad, I mean,
but sometimes relationships naturally come to an end, you know.
I like to look at you know, there have been
people that I was friendly with at one point in
my life and and I'm not so friendly with now,
(21:22):
or have gotten out of touch with now. And we
have seasons in our lives, right and maybe for a season,
you know, post World War two, this was the right
alliance to have. If they're abandoning their commitment to us,
then then obviously we're free to do what we want,
and I think that we will respond in kind.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
Anyway.
Speaker 4 (21:42):
I appreciate the call. And in case you missed it,
here's the President responding, or here's Kiri Starmer responding to
President Drum's comments on NATO.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Listen, is this an acknowledgment that Britain's long term security
relationship with the United States is about to change?
Speaker 12 (21:57):
Well, let me say a number of things and respond
to that. Firstly, to is the single most effective military
alliance the world has ever seen, and it has kept
us safe for many decades, and we are fully committed
to NATO. Secondly that whatever the pressure on me and others,
(22:17):
whatever the noise, I'm going to act in the British
national interest in all the decisions that I make. And
that's why I've been absolutely clear that this is not
our war or we're not going to get dragged into it.
But I'm equally clear that when it comes to defense
and security and our economic future, we have to have
closer tries with Europe.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
Well, Okay, Neville Chamberlain, Starmer, you know we're fully committed
to NATO and you're not going to get dragged into
this conflict. Meanwhile, we discovered that the ballistic missile range
that the Iranians have can hit London, and you could
thank Donald J. Trump that most of those missiles being destroyed,
(23:00):
if not all of them, and they won't have the
enriched uranium or eleven nuclear bombs that obviously, theoretically, I
don't even think so theoretically, in reality would would ultimately
enable them to keep Europe hostage and then probably eventually
build it out further and it would become intercontinental ballistic
(23:21):
missiles and then be a threat to our children and grandchildren. Anyway,
back to our phones, speaking of England, Jeff and Ohio
wants to weigh in on this. Jeff, how are you
glad you called sir?
Speaker 13 (23:33):
Good morning or afternoon song?
Speaker 1 (23:36):
What's going on?
Speaker 13 (23:36):
Yeah, I was actually curious what your thoughts were about England.
I was recently watching a speech given by Alan West
and he was talking about the Islam's five Plan or
five point plan for takeover essentially from over population, and
he stated that he thinks Britain is in stage four. Well,
(23:58):
that would put them not very far away from essentially
being able to take over England, which would then put
them in control of nuclear bombs and ICBMs, which could
then get to us as well.
Speaker 10 (24:12):
Well.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
I'm not sure what the population breakdown is, and I
don't necessarily think that, you know, I'm more concerned about
radical Islamis than I am about people that have a
different faith than I do as a Christian, and I'm
more concerned about the fact that that they have allowed assimilately.
They have allowed unfettered immigration without the assimilation and separation.
(24:35):
I mean, to have to allow people to come from
other countries and to completely separate themselves from British Morays,
values and society and even have their own Charia courts
is madness to me, because then they're putting their I mean,
if that's the belief system that means so much to them,
(24:57):
why did they why did they want to go to
Great Britain in the first place? You have to ask
exact and that would be the threat. I mean, look,
London's you know, you do have radical you know you
do have radicals that have been elected into these high
positions inside of Great Britain. And I think the Islamization,
(25:18):
if you will, of the continent of Europe is very
very real. And I'm not talking about the Muslim faith.
I'm talking about the radicalism. Daniel in Arizona, Daniel, how
are you?
Speaker 11 (25:31):
I'm doing great, sir, How are you today?
Speaker 1 (25:34):
I'm good, sir? What's going on?
Speaker 11 (25:36):
Yeah? I wanted to talk to you. What are you
talks about the double standard in the news cycle of
fuel prices. Now it looks like the sudden care about
fuel prices. But if you remember back on twenty twenty two,
we had the highest feel prices on the Biden. They
were like nationally it was like an over five dollars average,
(25:58):
and I know in California for a fact, there were
over seven dollars everywhere and UH. And it looks like
we're being bombarded by the UH. But the new cycle
on now now we care about the economy and fuel
prices and UH, and but nobody remembers that. And that
just happened a couple of years ago, and they're not talking.
(26:18):
Also about the three major refineries and a few more
small ones they close in California because all these UH
governor come back newsom over they're closing UH making it
so hard for them to make business in California and
UH and supporting all these UH green UH rules and
(26:42):
regulations that they're they're rolling on everybody and make it
impossible for the businesses. And they live in California, and
it's really affecting the West Coast, at least on our side.
Speaker 4 (26:51):
You know you already know the answer to this. The
media is abusively biased. They have a double standard. It's
really not any more complicated than that. Now, if I'm correct,
and the President's correct and Secretary of State Ruvio's correct,
and in the next two to three weeks, this war
is going to wind down and end and it will
(27:12):
not be is what you know the isolationists have been
predicting from day one.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
This is a forever war. Donald Trump, he is doing
exactly what he said he'd never do.
Speaker 4 (27:20):
No, he's not, and it's not going to be, you know,
but I would to argue that, and I think it's
pretty it's a pretty darn good bet that gas prices
will return to normal, and it probably will happen in
a fairly short order. That would be my best guess.
I'm not I don't have a I don't have a
crystal ball. Walter, New Mexico. Next Sean Hannity Show, Hi.
Speaker 8 (27:43):
Thank yeah, I Sean, Hey, thank you so much for
taking my call. I would like to take a little
bit of an issue regarding the endless wars. Okay, now, look,
there is.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
No endless war. What's the endless war?
Speaker 8 (28:00):
Yeah, but that's what I'm trying to get at whether
it's a short term war or a long term war.
We still fighting a war in the Middle East. Trying
to nation bill. We're trying to.
Speaker 4 (28:11):
Tell we're not trying a nation bill. That's not part
of the President's goal.
Speaker 8 (28:16):
Okay, well, then why do you take out so called
dictators or leaders in another nation because they won't comply
with what the US want.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
Remember this has been a joint military effort with the Israelis.
The Israelis are the ones that took out the tiers
of leadership there. America's goal has been very clear that
they can't have nuclear weapons. That has been the number one,
number two, number three goal of the president. The President
ascertained with four hundred and sixty kilograms of sixty percent
(28:46):
enriched uranium, which could be weapons grade in less than
two weeks, coupled with what we now know is they
have longer range ballistic missiles. Then we thought that that
was an existential threat to the world and to the US,
and he was not willing.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
To allow threat to grow. That's what this is about.
Speaker 4 (29:02):
When that is neutralized, the President will leave and we're
on the verge of that happening and you should be happy.
That's not a forever What was it a forever war
when he defeated the ISIS Caliphate or did he do
the right thing?
Speaker 8 (29:14):
Okay, Sean, I'm first off, Sean.
Speaker 4 (29:16):
I answer my question. Was it right for the president
to beat the ISIS Caliphate?
Speaker 9 (29:22):
No?
Speaker 8 (29:22):
It was not. Here's the point, Well, you're.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
An that I can't talk to you because you're an idiot,
You're not very smart.
Speaker 8 (29:31):
I'm retired Air Force Sean. What I'm trying to do.
Speaker 4 (29:34):
I appreciate that you served your country, but your commentary
to not eliminate the caliphate whose motto is convert or die,
and maybe you're willing to gamble with your children and
grandchildren's future with the nuclear armed Iran.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
I'm not so. We just disagree.
Speaker 4 (29:55):
There will be no reconciliation in this call.
Speaker 8 (29:58):
Respectfully, Sean, What I'm.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
Simply respectfully, I think you're naive and you're willing to
gamble with the future of our kids and grandkids.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
I'm not.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
I just I err on the side that if you
had a chance to take out Hitler before the Holocaust,
it would have been smart to do it, to take
out Iran's ability to gain a nuclear weapon with their sick,
twisted death cult ideology. To me, that is the smart call.
(30:28):
It won't be a forever war, as you proclaim. Taking
out the ISIS Caliphate was wise too, and the President's
doctor and the Trump doctrine will will will in a
fact over history will never be able to know how
successful it was because they won't be able to do
what they otherwise would have been able to do.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Okay, we disagree. Have a great day.
Speaker 9 (30:55):
Focused on finding solutions.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
Don't today's biggest problem.
Speaker 10 (31:00):
This is the Hannity Show, John Hannity, and that's gonna.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
Wrap things up at today.
Speaker 4 (31:35):
Don't forget President Trump will give an address to the
nation as my show starts nine eastern. We will get
full reactions Senator Lindsey Graham, Ryan's previous, Mike Pompeio, Lieutenant
General Keith Kellogg, Clay Travis Tonight, Greg Jarrett, Dave asmand
much more. Nine eastern. Sey you DVR Hannity on Fox.
(31:55):
We'll see you then back here tomorrow. Thank you for
making the show possible.
Speaker 7 (32:10):
H
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
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.
The Clifford Show
The Clifford Show with Clifford Taylor IV blends humor, culture, and behind-the-scenes sports talk with real conversations featuring athletes, creators, and personalities—spotlighting the grind, the growth, and the opportunities shaping the next generation of sports and culture.