Sean Hannity Show - Separate Bathrooms Debate Continues - 5.13

May 13, 2016 - Sean Hannity Show

01:26:32

Separate Bathrooms Debate Continues - 5.13

President Obama fueled the ongoing policy debate over equality with his announcement that school districts should strongly consider having policies that allow for students to self-identify their bathroom preference. Sean reacts...strongly. The Sean Hannity Show is live Monday through Friday from 3pm - 6pm. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show podcast.
	Because it's Friday and it's always fun on Friday.
	At least so we think, so we hope, so we pray.
	800-941, Sean, if you want to join us.
	You know, this is an amazing story about Hillary Clinton.
	Let me go through this for you because this is exactly why Hillary Clinton, the terrible candidate, continues to lose one primary contest after another to a cranky old, miserable socialist curmudgeon from Vermont and whose campaign continues to just stumble and stumble and stumble and whose negatives continue to grow.
	I mean, and this is a scandal involving her and involving her husband.
	And I think it's very important that we pay attention to this.
	This is one of many things that you will hear about, learn about, and probably won't see in the mainstream media in the course of our vetting of Hillary.
	Now, starting this week, we have begun the process.
	And every day on this program, every night on Hannity, we are going to begin the process of vetting Hillary and doing the media's job.
	And there are things about her that I guarantee you that many of you have forgotten or not heard about.
	You know, and I have some of my favorites, and I'm going to hold them for the right time.
	But so why is Hillary struggling so much?
	Well, now we've got a scandal involving her and her husband Bill.
	Now, it's a story by James Grimaldi.
	We've told you the Clinton Global Initiative, which arranges donations to help solve the world's problems.
	George Stephanopoulos, one of the donors, got called out by Trump this morning on Good Morning America, which cracks me up because every time he calls him out, you can see poor George squirming in his chair.
	But anyway, they set up a financial commitment that benefited a for-profit company, part owned by people with ties to the Clintons, including a current and a former Democratic official and a close friend of former President Bill Clinton.
	Now, the problem with all of these deals, you know, this is why Bernie Sanders was absolutely right to demand that Hillary Clinton turn over those speeches that she gave to Wall Street and to big banks because she made more money in an hour than most people will make in three, four, five years.
	And so I think it's a legitimate question, and it's far more pertinent to me than whatever is in Donald Trump's taxes, although he did release financial statements in particular.
	I think it's that no lawyer is going to let you release any taxes that are under audit currently because you don't know what the current tax liability is going to end up being.
	And the other thing I think that most people would probably understand is that if you own corporations and you use every tax loophole that the government has set up for you, it's going to look confusing and it's going to be distorted and twisted by a media that's going to say, see, he didn't pay his fair share.
	He paid only 22% of his income and taxes because he used this loophole and that loophole.
	Well, that's the way you guys set it up.
	And then they'll be the loudest critics.
	So I actually think Trump's smart not to release his taxes because there's no good that's going to come out of it.
	None at all.
	Either he didn't give enough to charity, didn't do this, didn't do that.
	Oh, he didn't pay enough, even though it's all legal.
	They don't mention the fact that the IRS audits anybody that makes anything more than 10 cents for the most part every year because they're just trying to bleed every penny out of everybody.
	I mean, they have more revenues coming into the government, and we still have more debt than we've ever had before because these guys have an insatiable appetite.
	You want to talk about corruption.
	Whole political system is predicated on government using your tax dollars to provide goods and services to people so that those people will come back and vote for them again and again and again.
	That's what the whole redistribution scam is all about.
	There's no good governance going on in Washington today, none whatsoever.
	Anyway, so back to our story about the Clintons.
	So according to the story, the $2 million commitment was placed on the agenda for September 2010, a conference of the Clinton Global Initiative at Mr. Clinton's urging, according to a document from the period and the people familiar with the matter.
	Now, Clinton, who's also personally endorsed the company, the company is called, and by the way, you may remember Solyndra.
	Think Solyndra here.
	Energy Pioneer Solutions Inc. to then Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu for a federal grant that year.
	So Clinton endorsed the company, Energy Pioneer Solutions, to then Energy Secretary for a federal grant that year.
	All right, now again, go back: $2 million, a commitment placed on the agenda at the Clinton Global Initiative at Mr. Clinton's urging, according to a document from the period.
	Now, the Clinton Global Initiative, the company whose business plan was to insulate people's homes and let them pay via their utility bills, well, they did get free government money.
	They got $812,000 energy department dollars in the form of a grant.
	Now, the Clinton Global Initiative is a program that billed Hillary and Chelsea, the Clinton Foundation, which in turn has now come under criticism for donations received from governments and corporations that had business before Mrs. Clinton when she was Secretary of State and could be impacted and affected by the decisions that she would make as a president.
	I got to go back.
	Remember, the Clinton Foundation, all the money that countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Arab Emirates, all these other countries gave to the Clinton Foundation.
	Well, let's look at Saudi Arabia.
	They gave money to the Clinton Foundation.
	How do they treat women?
	Clinton is the women's candidate, Hillary Clinton, gender equality.
	Has she ever spoken out publicly about life for women under Sharia law in Saudi Arabia and the fact that they're told how to dress, that they can't go to school or they can't go to work on their own and they can't drive a car on their own and they can't even leave their house without some male relative being with them?
	Where's Hillary Clinton championing their cause?
	Well, I would argue that the money that was given to the Clinton Foundation probably bought off her silence because I haven't seen Hillary Clinton criticizing Sharia.
	We know what life is like for women under Sharia law.
	It's atrocious.
	It is a modern-day form of slavery for women, especially in Saudi Arabia.
	And the Wall Street Journal points out that the Clinton Global Initiative, help for a nonprofit company, part owned by the Clinton Friends, poses a different issue.
	Quote, under federal law, tax-exempt charitable organizations are not supposed to act in anyone's private interest, but instead in the public interest on broad issues such as education or poverty.
	Quote, the organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interest, the Internal Revenue Service says on its website.
	Now, they've been going over Donald Trump's taxes with a fine-tooth comb over all these years, and I know just about every conservative I know gets audited year in and year out, year in and year out.
	Anyway, so here's where things get very interesting.
	You've got to follow the bouncing ball here.
	Energy Pioneer Solutions was founded a year earlier than they got the grant in 2009.
	It was founded by a guy named Scott Clebe.
	He's a Democrat who twice ran for Congress from Nebraska.
	Now, an internal document from that year showed it as owned 29% by Mr. Clebe, 29% by Jane Eckert, the owner of an art gallery in Pine Plains, New York, and 29% by Julie Tauber McMahon of, guess where? Chappaqua in New York, a close friend of Mr. Clinton. who also lives in Chappaqua.
	Now, the journal story goes on to say that Ms. McMahon listed, as the co-owner, said in an interview, she didn't know how the commitment to the company came to be made as she wasn't involved.
	Now, Ms. McMahon is 56 years old, described Mr. Clinton as a, quote, family friend.
	Well, some friend, and we'll get to Ms. McMahon in a moment.
	Now, stay with me here.
	So the Clinton Global Initiative, at a September 23rd, 2010 gathering in New York, announced a $2 million commitment to this company, Energy Pioneer Solutions, from Kim Samuel, who's a Canadian academic, philanthropist, and director and owner of the Samuel Group of Companies, which includes steel businesses, etc.
	The actual investment was $500,000, but put that aside.
	Now, the commitment was a late addition to the agenda for that September 2010 conference, according to internal Clinton Foundation documents reviewed by the Wall Street Journal.
	Now, according to one document, about two weeks before the conference, Ms. Samuel contacted an official in the Clinton Foundation's commitments office and said Mr. Clinton wanted to feature her commitment to Energy Pioneer Solutions at that month's gathering.
	Now, one of Mr. Clinton's top advisors at the time was a guy by the name of Doug Band.
	He tried to prevent the commitment from being added to the agenda as an on-stage event in the weeks prior to the conference, according to a document reviewed by the journal.
	The commitment was entered into a database on the Clinton Global Initiative website.
	A few months later, it was removed.
	And among the reasons was to avoid calling attention to Mr. Clinton's friendship with one company co-owner, Miss McMahon.
	Oh, who is this person?
	Miss Julie Talber McMahon.
	Who is she?
	Now, for this, we turn to the New York Post today, not the Wall Street Journal.
	It turns out she is a wealthy blonde divorcee, or as the New York Post reported in the past, Bill Clinton's buxom blonde mistress who visits so often when Hillary is not at home in Chappaqua that the former president's Secret Service detail have given her an official code name or unofficial codename of Energizer.
	Now this information, according to Ron Kessler, in the first family detail, Secret Service agents reveal the hidden lives of presidents.
	Now, I've interviewed Kessler about this woman, and Kessler quotes a supervisor informing a new agent, you don't stop her, you don't approach her, you just let her go in.
	And Kessler also reported that Hillary's Secret Service detail informs Bill's Secret Service detail when the former first lady is coming home so that Bill has time to get Energizer off of the property and clean up any of the evidence.
	So let's summarize this so you really get this.
	So you have the Clinton Global Initiative committed $2 million to support the work of Energy Pioneer Solutions, a company in which a woman who is Bill Clinton's mistress, according to these reports, has a 29% ownership stake.
	In addition, Clinton even went to bat for the company when it came to lobbying for federal funds, and he was successful.
	He got $812,000 taxpayer dollars in the form of a federal grant by endorsing the funds via then Energy Secretary Stephen Chow.
	Under federal law, tax-exempt charitable organizations like the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative, they're not supposed to act in anyone's private interest, but instead in the public interest.
	So it looks very much like a scandal connecting a moral scandal to a legal scandal and now a political scandal.
	It's exactly, you want to talk about why you call a crooked Hillary?
	This is why.
	This is the kind of thing that has now caused so many of you this election year to hate, rightly despise this political class and those that you see for what they are, involved in corrupt politics that have nothing to do with bettering your life or your family's life.
	And right now, no one in America better represents that corruption than Bill and Hillary Clinton.
	You got the big dog, Bill Clinton.
	Well, he couldn't be kept on a leash when he was governor, when he was president.
	I guess it would be silly to assume that he could after he's president.
	But what he might not have imagined is that here again, in one of his sexual adventures, that it could once again have a terrible political ramification for the entire country.
	Only this time it's not going to impact him so much, but it's going to impact his wife's presidential campaign.
	You know, maybe we ought to call this like, you know, as the Clinton world turns, we'll make it into a non-ending soap opera.
	I did.
	Have sexual relations with that woman.
	I never told anybody to lie.
	Not a single.
	Single time.
	Never.
	Yes, I did have sexual relations with that woman.
	I lied.
	Slick Willie.
	Anyway, so there you go.
	Pretty corrupt.
	One of just many instances.
	I have never seen a group of people so fundamentally self-absorbed, narcissistic, selfish that have took advantage, that have taken advantage of the system so badly with such a level of deep contempt and corruption for the American people than these two individuals.
	Never, ever.
	Crooked doesn't even begin to capture how bad the Clintons are.
	The administration, the radicals, the Frank Marshall Davis, Alinsky disciples, the Acorn organizer, the member of the Church of GD America, friend of unrepentant terrorist Ayers and Dorn, Barack Obama, released a directive.
	They thought you weren't paying attention on a Friday, of course, notifying public schools that transgender students must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room facilities corresponding with their gender identity.
	What about the states having the right, local communities having the right to solve these issues on their own?
	What's wrong with that?
	So what does that mean?
	We're going to have – let me just stop and say that.
	I always thought it was the strangest thing in high school.
	Went to St. Pius X Prep Seminary.
	Good thing I was a good athlete because they used to like, after gym, they'd say, everyone has to go take a shower.
	And it's like, it's just one big open space with all these different showers.
	I'm like, this is weird.
	And I'm like, I'm not doing that.
	I just didn't feel like it.
	And anyway, so it would end up in high school that the dopey sport gym teacher would run over, the guy, Mr. Schneider.
	He's actually a nice guy, but he'd run around telling everybody, go take the shower.
	And I'd be like, no, I'm not taking a stupid shower with 15 other, 30 other people.
	Anyway, so I just wouldn't do it.
	So after a couple of weeks of getting demerits and me just standing firm, they just left me alone.
	I also played varsity soccer and basketball and baseball, so I guess that kind of helped.
	I was one of their better pitchers, so they were stuck with me.
	But, you know, what are we going to have now?
	So you're going to have, what, a 12-year-old boy?
	Because let's say you have kids between the ages of 9 and 14 taking gym classes at the same time.
	So if, let's say, one of the 14-year-old boys identifies as a woman in terms of his sexual identity, then you have a nine-year-old girl that, what are they all supposed to shower together?
	I mean, and that's perfectly fine.
	And the local community, they're either going to like it or they're going to lose federal tax dollars, which is what the administration is saying.
	The Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said, I believe it's the biggest issue facing families and schools in America since prayer was taken out of public schools.
	And he said this will divide this country, not along political lines, but along family values and school districts.
	He says that the president, the administration will withhold funding if schools do not follow this policy.
	And he was referring to possible consequences if they don't adhere to the Obama mandate.
	Well, in Texas, he can keep his 30 pieces of silver.
	We will not yield to blackmail from the president of the United States, noting that Texas public schools get $10 billion in federal funds over a two-year budget.
	Well, what are they going to do?
	It's pretty interesting.
	Anyway, so Barack Obama said if schools don't knuckle down and force girls showering with boys and force eight-year-old girls to have to adore boys coming into their bathroom, he's taking money from the poorest of the poor.
	The president of the United States will be ending the free breakfast, free lunch program.
	That's what he's saying.
	He got a standing ovation for saying it.
	You know, I know this is not, you're probably thinking, why are we dealing with this issue?
	Because it's not, I mean, I actually had a great talk with Bruce Jenner, who became Caitlin Jenner.
	There's been a lot of news out there, whether he regrets it this week or not.
	I've not spoken to him, to her at this point, sorry.
	And, you know, I told him, I told, because I've known him for a lot of years, interviewed him.
	He's a pretty conservative guy.
	We actually had a good laugh.
	He said, you know what the most shocking thing with the Diane Sawyer interview was when I said I was a Republican and a conservative, her mouth just was like, huh?
	So when we talked, she said that to me.
	I said, I don't understand it.
	I was very honest.
	I just, I said, for the life of me, I don't understand this.
	And then he went, you know, Caitlin, I want to get the gender right here.
	Caitlin went on to say that, you know, a lot of kids have this issue and they commit suicide.
	Nobody wants pain for people in their lives.
	No conservative I know wants to see people in pain.
	And I really believe Americans like me that maybe don't understand it.
	And I was very forthright in saying that.
	Maybe we don't understand it, but nobody wants other people to be in pain and suffering.
	That's not the point.
	We shouldn't have to adjust the entire society to accommodate for what on the surface seems to be a very, very, very, very small, minute portion of the population.
	And then to have the government dictate it makes it even that much worse because states have zero authority.
	It seems to be a 10th Amendment issue to me.
	And this is going to be a lawsuit, just like the Obama administration lost another part of a lawsuit against funding aspects of Obamacare this week.
	Nobody paid a whole lot of attention to that.
	And the whole thing gets extraordinarily frustrating for a lot of people.
	And I think when, you know, I'll give you a case in point.
	And this was actually in the Chicago Tribune Today of all days.
	And it talks about a West Town man accused of choking an eight-year-old girl until she passed out inside a bathroom of a restaurant in the South Loop neighborhood.
	The girl was inside, I guess, Jason's deli in the 1,200 block of South Canal Street with her mother around 1.15 p.m. Saturday when the two became separated.
	The girl went into the bathroom.
	At some point, Reese, the mother, came into the bathroom and somebody came into the bathroom and started choking the girl with his hands, causing her to become unconscious, according to Chicago Police Department.
	Anyway, he then picked up the unconscious girl, carried her into a small bathroom stall, closing the door so she couldn't leave, and pushed the girl's mother when she came into the stall to rescue a daughter.
	Girl was taken to the hospital for treatment.
	Condition not immediately available.
	Anyway, police inside the deli held this person for the police after they alerted, were alerted to what was happening.
	The officer at the police station, anyway, said the guy became aggressive, swung a fist at the officer, resisted arrest, et cetera, et cetera.
	Well, why can't we just have women's rooms and men's rooms?
	I mean, if you have male body parts and you're going to put that person in an environment, but you identify with a woman in terms of, I think I'm a woman, although I have male body parts.
	Okay, that's your thing.
	So does that mean that a 14-year-old boy now gets to go to the same bathroom as nine-year-old girls?
	Or does a grown man get to go to the bathroom with girls as well?
	And do we have any consideration for other people and their sensibilities?
	We oversexualize kids enough as it is.
	We rob them of their innocence.
	We bombard them with sexual images from the day they're born.
	I mean, can we cut the kids in elementary school and high school some slack here?
	Now we have to have classes on this.
	They can't read, write, or do math, but we'll have classes on transgender issues in school.
	That's what's going to happen next.
	You know, I don't know what else to say about what I'm about to inform you of here.
	I now have been told the depths to which this Never Trump movement is now moving.
	And I mentioned to you, we saw Paul Ryan, we saw the whole thing play out yesterday.
	And I can understand, all right, I've picked up three areas where Paul Ryan disagrees with Donald Trump, probably on trade.
	And I don't think that Donald Trump in any way wants a trade war.
	I think he's sincere in wanting to negotiate better deals.
	I don't know how that's going to play out.
	Okay, they might have honest differences there.
	They might have an honest difference as to what to do with the 11 million, 14 million illegal immigrants that are here and whether they should be sent back.
	Okay, fair enough.
	There's two issues where they might disagree on.
	They might disagree on the issue of entitlements, and Paul Ryan is more willing to deal with entitlement spending and make some cuts and adjustments to Social Security and Medicare as a means of preventing the country from going to bankruptcy.
	That's probably something that could be negotiated.
	But with all the areas they do and should agree on, and I went over this with Trump last night on TV, I had him reiterate what his positions were.
	I said, do you promise that you are going to appoint originalist justices like Scalia and Thomas, and are you going to give that pool of names to the public before you're elected?
	He said, yes, before Election Day.
	I said, okay, are you going to follow through on your promise that we're going to fix the VA and fulfill our promises to vets?
	He said, yeah.
	I said, are you going to fulfill your promise and rebuild the military?
	He said, yeah.
	Are you going to fulfill your promise?
	Are you going to try and balance the budget and stop stealing from future generations?
	He said, absolutely.
	It's imperative.
	I said, are you going to fulfill your promise towards energy independence?
	He said, yeah, absolutely.
	All the above.
	That means coal.
	That means fracking.
	That means drilling.
	All the above.
	I said, are you going to fulfill your promise to get rid of Common Core and send education back to the States?
	Yeah.
	So all those issues, I would imagine Paul Ryan agrees on.
	Why is he?
	Look, to be perfectly blunt here, and I'm not insulting Paul Ryan.
	He is acting tougher towards Donald Trump than the Republican Party and standing up to him more than the Republican Party has during the entire eight years of Obama's presidency, where they have caved into basically everything.
	And I said, all right, so I started out, and I say this on Twitter more than, and I say it here more than I do elsewhere, that, all right, it started out as maybe some honest disagreement.
	Then I always see it, and it happens every election cycle.
	The circular firing squad predictably appears, and then it turns into now what is just an outright sabotage.
	I know phone calls have been made and are being made to potential relevant third-party governors and others in the hopes that not only will they run at third party,
	would they even consider running only in specific states, and somebody else may run in other specific states, meaning there's no chance in hell that they could win, but the reason for doing so is just to stop Trump.
	Now, there were articles this week how Bush and Cruz supporters, big money people, are actually now moving over to Hillary Clinton.
	So it's gone from disagreement.
	It's gone from breaking promises like Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush that they would endorse the eventual nominee.
	And then it evolved into the circular firing squad, which is predictable.
	And now it's Paul Ryan.
	Now it's open.
	Now it's just sabotage and do everything you can do to kill Trump in his campaign.
	And I'm not, this is absolutely 100% verified.
	I know people who have been approached to run third party.
	They have told me that this conversation has taken place.
	Bill Kristol, Ben Sasse, Mitt Romney are actively now seeking people that will guarantee, and their argument is this is for the good of the Republican Party to save the Republican Party from itself.
	Now, putting aside all of the issues I just named, energy independence, balanced budgets, conservative justices, building the wall, taking care of vets, building up our military, recognizing radical Islam, all of those things where pretty much all the candidates agreed on, if you want to know the truth, that Trump said and repeated last night, that's his promise.
	I even asked him, I took him a step further.
	I said, would you put that promise in paper, considering 65% of Americans don't trust Republicans in D.C.?
	And he said, yeah, that's a pretty good idea.
	I'll think about that.
	I'd like to see that.
	In other words, promises to America to make America great again, something like that.
	He was open to that.
	He was open to the idea of maybe naming top cabinet officials before November so people could see the type of team he wants to put together to help fix the country, which is in decline.
	And yet all of this is going on, and you've got literally call after call after call.
	And I'm sure some of you people that are on these calls are listening to me right now, just trying to do everything you can do to ensure that Hillary is the next president.
	So when the wall doesn't get built, when vets aren't helped out, when the military is not built up, when Obamacare remains the law of the land, when Hillary's liberal justices are chosen for the Supreme Court, you know, you can blame, you know, you can lash out at talk radio, Fox News.
	What you're really lashing out is at is the people.
	Because in record numbers, Americans waited in line, long lines, record numbers of people voting in Republican primary, and they voted and they listened to the candidates and they made a choice you don't like.
	So as a result, you have nothing but contempt for what their choice is.
	And now what you want to do is sabotage these people.
	What you want to do is undermine them.
	And often you are the same people that begged and forced these people to swallow candidates they didn't agree with 100%, like Bob Dole and John McCain, liberal Republicans.
	I don't think I've seen anything like it.
	Well, if you want your sabotage, if you want to be part of the circular firing squad, you can do it without me.
	I'm enthusiastically supporting Trump in his nomination.
	I hope he appoints good people.
	I hope he fulfills the promises he's made in the many interviews I had with him.
	And if he did, the country is going to be infinitely better off.
	If he would just build the wall and make us energy independent and live within our means and just give us conservative justices, that's enough.
	That would be a massive, massive, important step towards bringing America out of its precipitous decline.
	Let me say this.
	I think we had a very encouraging meeting.
	Look, it's no secret that Donald Trump and I have had our differences.
	We talked about those differences today.
	That's common knowledge.
	The question is, what is it that we need to do to unify the Republican Party and all strains of conservative wings in the party?
	We had a very good and encouraging, productive conversation on just how to do that.
	It was important that we discussed our differences that we have, but it was also important that we discussed the core principles that tie us all together.
	Principles like the Constitution, the separation of powers, the fact that we have an executive that is going way beyond the boundaries of the Constitution and how it's important to us that we restore Article I of the Constitution.
	You know, it's the principle of self-government.
	We talked about life and how strongly we feel about this core principle.
	We talked about the Supreme Court and things like this.
	I was very encouraged with what I heard from Donald Trump today.
	I do believe that we are now planting the seeds to get ourselves unified, to bridge the gaps and differences.
	And so from here, we're going to go deeper into the policy areas to see where that common ground is and how we can make sure that we are operating off these same core principles.
	And so, yes, this is our first meeting.
	I was very encouraged with this meeting.
	But this is a process.
	It takes a little time.
	You don't put it together in 45 minutes.
	So that is why we had, like I said, a very good start to a process on how we unify.
	Maybe it's me, and maybe I'm a little cynical here.
	What does he want to know?
	Why is it so hard for him to say, yeah, I agree with him on all of those issues right there, and Hillary Clinton is on the other side?
	I don't understand why that's so hard.
	Well, I think a big thing today was the judges, you know, the justices, Supreme Court, and I think that they felt very good about it.
	I had this idea a couple of months ago because I was getting a little bit of pushback from some great people and some great friends of mine that are in Congress.
	And they were telling me that, you know, how can we feel a little bit better?
	And I came up with this idea that I would come up with a list of really, really terrific, acceptable judges, conservative.
	I'll put that list forward, and that'll be a list from which I'll choose, or at least a list, at a minimum, a list from which I'll sort of use as a guide.
	And I'll tell you, that went a long way.
	People really like that idea a lot.
	I think the headline is positive first step toward unifying our party.
	It was a great meeting, and that's the only way it can be described.
	That doesn't tell us a lot.
	It doesn't, but that's because it was a private meeting in my office, and I'm not going to talk about the specifics other than to say things were discussed that were specific.
	It was a cooperative meeting.
	It was mutually, I think, cooperative and positive, and that's the only way you can describe it.
	My understanding is that you have spent a lot of time over the past week on the phone with Donald Trump, talking to him almost every day, sometimes multiple times a day.
	You talked a lot to your old friend, Paul Ryan.
	You guys have known each other since way back from Wisconsin Republican politics to be the bridge builder here.
	Is that how you feel?
	Well, I think it's an important role for the party.
	I mean, unifying the party should be no surprise to anyone that that's one of the jobs of being chairman of the Republican Party.
	And it's important to be unified.
	It's important to remember that.
	But it's not usually this hard.
	Well, you know what?
	This was not an unusual election.
	I mean, it was a very contentious, tough primary.
	And obviously, no one can deny that.
	It's something that a lot of us haven't been through.
	Do you feel like a couples therapist?
	No, you know what?
	You wouldn't say that if you're in the room.
	It was very, it was great.
	And I think it had very good chemistry between the two of them.
	You expect an endorsement soon from Paul Ryan now?
	You know, look, like I said, it was a great first step toward unifying the party.
	And I think if you read both of the statements that came out of Speaker's office and Donald Trump's campaign, they echo the same feeling.
	All right, there you have it, the three statements, the big powwow, the sit-down, the peace summit between Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, and the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.
	You heard from Ryan.
	You heard from Trump.
	You heard from Reince Prievis, the RNC chair, and joining us now with his insight, Michael Steele, former chairman of the RNC himself and host of the Steele and Unger program on SiriusXM.
	Welcome back, my friend.
	How are you?
	It's good to be with you, Sean, as always, buddy.
	By the way, didn't it kind of remind you when you look at the joint statement?
	Isn't that something that's sort of like if the United States was arguing or having a sit-down or a summit with another country like the Iranian mullahs or maybe the former Soviet Union?
	It seemed like that type of peace deal.
	And I'm thinking, well, Paul Ryan's being much tougher on Donald Trump than he's ever been or the Republicans have ever been against Obama.
	That's interesting.
	Yeah, imagine that.
	It is rather amazing, you know, the approach to the success of the Donald Trump campaign by a lot of folks in Washington.
	And I think you put it very well just now in that you walk away going, if you worked that hard at some of the other things that, you know, you should have been tending to, maybe you wouldn't have a base that has ticked off at you the way they are.
	Maybe, you know, the candidates that you were backing probably would have had a little bit more gravitas with the Republican base because they would have realized, yeah, you guys actually fought for us.
	What Donald Trump still brings to this conversation across the board, Sean, and that includes Democrats and independent voters out there, is something that Hillary Clinton, that she saw play out with our Republican friends, she's going to run into this wall, too.
	The people have a connection.
	Yeah, there's stuff they don't like that he says.
	There's stuff that makes them uncomfortable.
	But they know one thing, one takeaway that's a concept.
	He's a fighter.
	And he's a guy who's going to go to the mat on the very principles that these other guys just talk about.
	It's a big difference.
	You know, I think it's a big difference.
	Here's what I went through last night.
	So I had Trump on Hannity last night.
	I went through, okay, now let's go over your agenda.
	You want to balance the budget.
	He even mentioned to me many times he likes the penny plan.
	All right, I would think Paul Ryan agrees with that.
	They may disagree on the issue of entitlement reform.
	Fair enough.
	Let's put that off to the side.
	They may disagree on free trade issues, although I think Trump is basically saying I want to negotiate better trade deals.
	He doesn't want to have a trade war.
	I've asked him that many times.
	Let's put that one aside.
	The third difference I see is not the wall necessarily, but what to do with the 11 million people here.
	Three differences.
	But now let's go to the agreements.
	And those are the only three differences I can think of.
	Trump is pro-life.
	He is pro-Second Amendment.
	Trump wants to fix the VA for our vets.
	He wants to build a much stronger military.
	He said that he wants to balance the budget.
	He says he wants to repeal Obamacare, replace it with health savings accounts.
	He says he wants America energy independent.
	He says he wants the schools to get rid of Common Core and send it back to the states.
	He says he wants conservative justices and will give the names of the pool of justices he would only use for the Supreme Court.
	So tell me where the disagreement is here.
	Except three big issues that I three issues I can find that are somewhat nuanced.
	Where's the big difference here that he would even consider withholding this support?
	Well, you know, that's.
	That's a good question, isn't it?
	It is a good question because, you know, everyone seems to come up with the three that you cited.
	They'll throw in trade.
	They'll throw in that three.
	That was one of the three.
	Trade, what to do with the immigrants that are here.
	Right.
	And the other issue is, I don't even remember now.
	But you're talking policy because then Sean goes off into other things.
	So entitlements was the third.
	So under the immigration umbrella, that then peels off into what he said about Muslims, what he said about Mexicans.
	And as I try to explain to people, those are vehicles to get your attention.
	And he's got your attention.
	Now we have the conversation because when you're standing on a stage with 17 other people, I've got to get you to pay attention to something different.
	I've got to get you to pay attention to something new.
	We're going to look at these problems a different way, and I'm not going to do it in the conventional manner that you're used to.
	That has been Donald's M.O. from the very beginning.
	But what happens at this point, a lot of people like to throw around hot words like racist, misogynist, et cetera, et cetera, which are not descriptive of policy.
	They're certainly not descriptive of the man that I know, and I'm certainly the man that you've come to know.
	So it becomes this sort of back-and-forth reality show around, okay, what kind of Donald Trump, you know, he changes his mind.
	This is the only person I've seen, the only candidate I've seen, who actually is upfront and honestly says, you know what?
	I've thought about this.
	I've learned a little bit more.
	Yeah, maybe what you said before.
	Well, I asked him about the three recent changes.
	I asked him about raising taxes.
	I asked him about the minimum wage.
	I asked him about keeping out a temporary ban on Muslims, three issues that have come up in the last couple of weeks.
	He said, no, I want minimum wage to be decided by states because a state like New York economically is very different than a state like Alabama.
	So let the states decide.
	On the issue of raising taxes, he stands by his rate, which would be lower than what the current rate is.
	On the third issue, you know, it's the same thing.
	He said, no, I said, I'm not rethinking it.
	It has to happen, but we have to know that the Americans are going to be secure first before we let in people.
	And our security intelligence forces are telling us that ISIS will infiltrate the refugee population.
	So he clarified that.
	So, you know, to me, as I say, it seems tougher than any negotiation that the Republican Party, and I'm not just saying Paul Ryan, have had with Obama in years.
	That's what it seems like to me.
	No, it is.
	And, you know, you want to stretch out some more of those policy differences.
	Again, you're looking at, you know, subsets within broader topics of, you know, health care and taxes and the like.
	So you'll throw in Medicare drug negotiations.
	You'll throw in Social Security where he's like, look, we're not going to go in and we're not going to muck around in entitlements.
	That's clearly something that Paul Ryan, through his budget proposals over the last few years, has taken to task.
	Imminent domain is another issue where you may have some differences.
	But again, Sean, I don't know why at this point we're focused so much on the differences between our nominee and the party.
	The party, I think, has made very clear who they wanted.
	And clearly, those differences, it's not like Donald Trump hid his views on the border, hid his views on taxes, hid his views on trade, hid his views on Planned Parenthood.
	I've seen you take him to task on that.
	I've seen you drill down on those issues.
	The base has seen it and heard it.
	And yet, 10 million and counting votes, more than any other Republican in the history of the party in a primary contest, has been cast for him.
	So I don't know what more he has to prove.
	My argument to the party at this point is stop trying to find ways to take him down and find ways to help him.
	But they are trying to take him down.
	Listen, I know about phone calls that have been made.
	Mitt Romney, in particular, is working very hard to get a third party.
	Bill Crystal's all over it.
	Senator Ben Sass is all over it.
	What's that?
	They had a meeting this week on that very point.
	Yeah.
	And they're even talking about, well, you run in these states and I'll run in that state.
	It just has totally sabotage Trump's chances, the people's choice chances of winning this election.
	It's almost pathological to me.
	It's beyond a circular firing squad at this point.
	Well, it's not about, and it's very clear.
	It's not about the party anymore.
	This has become personal.
	This is, we need to take him out.
	And the expectation, as I've heard it in many a conversation, is everyone will understand later.
	We're saving the country.
	We're saving the party.
	Everyone will understand.
	They'll be there.
	We'll do pieces after this.
	They do not know this base anymore.
	They do not know this party anymore.
	They really don't.
	They do not.
	And we're going to pay a fair price for it, I think.
	Well, I mean, I don't think they understand the plight of average Americans.
	The numbers I give out every day are staggering.
	All right.
	Who do you like for VP and who should be on the list?
	You know, I've been thinking about that and I've thought about that.
	I'm still in the camp of a governor.
	I think a governor helps round out his experience with their experience.
	In other words, bringing that business savvy, that business sense in combination with someone who's actually run a government agencies and understands how government works, the legislative process, I think can be helpful.
	Having said that, I also do like the idea of Newt Gingrich.
	Again, because he brings a whole nother legislation.
	He brings that legislative piece as well, but he also brings a broader arch because he does understand the marriage of business and government.
	He does understand the marriage of private and public sectors.
	How would that go over in a general election from your perspective?
	Sean, that's a good question.
	That's a good question.
	That's something I think I'd have to begin to put a finger on that particular pulse because I haven't measured that to get a sense of it.
	And I think it's something that people are just now beginning to focus to.
	It's not clear exactly how that would play in a broad election with independent voters, like-minded Democrats, et cetera.
	My suspicion is it may be a little bit rocky for some people, but I think everything about this campaign has been rocky for everybody, so they'll adapt.
	This is a whole new space for us politically.
	And so to have something, that combination, as out of the box as it may seem to some, I really don't think is that far afield as they would like to suspect.
	I think if you want to make the case that I'm Donald Trump, I told you that I would pick the best person.
	Well, the last person to ever balance a budget in this country while in Congress was Newt Gingrich.
	Last person to get anything dynamic done in Washington was Newt Gingrich when he gave us welfare reform.
	The last person to keep his promises with the contract with America was Newt Gingrich.
	So, if we want to get the country into a position to be great again, we need people that have a proven track record of success, and nobody has a better track record.
	But anyway, that's my pitch.
	I think that's a well-argued perspective.
	And I think it's one that, as I recall from watching your show, you polled that, and it resonated.
	It resonated with you.
	It did.
	It did.
	With your viewers and your listeners.
	Well, I wish you'd come on my TV show, but apparently you're still cast out in isolation.
	You're living in Siberia for a while, and I'm just waiting for you to get out of your prison sentence.
	Thank you, my friend.
	Michael Steele.
	All right, 800-940.
	Can you mind having a deal with Chris Matthews every night?
	Oh, my gosh.
	This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue.
	This is a family issue.
	And when the president threatens the state of Texas and other states that he'll withhold money, we're not going to be blackmailed by his 30 pieces of silver.
	He's not going to own our children.
	Our parents and parents all across America do not want their children showering together.
	They don't want boys in the girls' rooms.
	This is unheard of.
	This is what the president is doing.
	He's robbing the poorest of the poor if he goes through with his threats because most of the money we get in Texas over a two-year budget, about $10 billion from the federal government, guess what most of that money comes to?
	It comes to the poorest of the poorest for free breakfast and free lunch.
	So what Barack Obama says, if you won't let the boys and the girls shower together, I'm going to take your money away from feeding the poorest of the poor.
	You know, here we are in the midst of an important presidential election, but that's not going to stop the radical president, the Alinskyite, the Acorn organizer, the member of the Church of GD America, the friend of domestic terrorists, unrepentant domestic terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn from advancing radicalism.
	And while a lot of people were busy focused on Donald Trump and the Republicans and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and Bernie Sanders saying that Hillary can't win and all the other back and forth, well, the president, feeling left out, decided today to release a directive notifying all 50 states, all public schools, that transgender students must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room facilities corresponding to their gender identity.
	Meaning that if you are a male and you identify more as a female in your mind, then you would have the right to shower and you'd have the right to use the bathroom facilities of the girls' room and the girls' locker room.
	Anyway, who you just heard there, that was the lieutenant governor of the great state of Texas, Dan Patrick, saying, no, I'm not going to be blackmailed.
	We don't need your 30 pieces of silver.
	And if you're going to withhold funds from states because they don't go along with your radicalism, well, that's the way it's going to be.
	Horace Cooper is an attorney, adjunct fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research.
	Brian Claypool, a civil rights attorney.
	Welcome both of you to the program.
	Horace, what is your reaction to all of this and your thoughts on what Lieutenant Governor Patrick said?
	This was clearly intended to create a wedge that will divide America, create a division, and place the most vulnerable students in the state in peril over the decision of some avant-garde, pseudo-Marxist re-identification of what gender actually means.
	And frankly, I'm not even sure we're going to even get to the merit.
	I think the Supreme Court has already indicated in an earlier decision that this has serious 10th Amendment problems where you're predicting the funds this way, and they're going to likely strike this down.
	Well, by the way, and they also had bad news as it relates to Obamacare and its funding.
	Also, another court decision from earlier this week.
	Problem is, as it works its way through the court, it takes a long time.
	So I go on, what Lieutenant Governor Patrick went on to say.
	He said, so Obama, so Barack Obama, schools don't knuckle down to force girls showering with boys and force eight-year-old girls to endure boys coming into their bathroom.
	He's taking money from the poorest of the poor.
	The president of the United States will be ending the free breakfast, the free lunch program.
	That's what he's saying.
	Now, that's a pretty strong, powerful point, but it's true.
	Brian Claypool.
	Well, yeah, I don't think it is true.
	And I think we need to look back at who created this problem that we have.
	It wasn't President Obama.
	It was Governor McCrory in North Carolina.
	Okay.
	That's right.
	Listen, we can talk about it all you want.
	The Justice Department that now has taken how long to look into Hillary Clinton's email server scandal comes out a week later when this issue comes up in North Carolina.
	And what do we find out?
	Oh, all of a sudden, this is now a new civil right that people that are biologically men and boys now have the right to shower and use the girl facilities if they say they identify gender-wise with girls.
	Now, my question is, do you think that is fair to put young kids in school in that position like the president is forcing them to do?
	Yeah, I think it is fair, and I'll tell you why.
	Because there's no better time than now to be teaching tolerance to young people.
	Not exclusion, given what's been happening in our country.
	So when I went to high school, when I went to high school, we used to shower.
	You know, the way they had showers set up is, you know, it's just one huge shower.
	Everybody lines up.
	And I always thought it was weird.
	I never liked it.
	And I used to not shower.
	And I even got a Demerita.
	I said, I'm not showering with those people.
	And that's what I said.
	And finally, they just realized I was a pretty good athlete.
	I was a varsity athlete.
	They left me alone.
	But they did harass some kids that they had to take a shower with all the other boys after Jim.
	And I'm just like, I'm not doing that.
	That's bizarre to me.
	He said, if I'm taking a shower, I'm taking it at my own shower.
	So the question is, now we're going to force, what?
	Girls now are going to be forced in some cases to shower with biological men, and you think that's fine, and we shouldn't be concerned about that.
	Right, because where's their evidence that this is going to create any harm?
	Where's their evidence that this is?
	What do you need?
	Scientific.
	Okay, so let me ask you this.
	So you have a nine-year-old daughter.
	You have a nine-year-old daughter in school, and let's say the nine, 10, 11, and 12-year-olds all take gym together, which is not unheard of.
	And then after gym, all the kids shower.
	And because there's one or two or three boys that identify as women, so your daughter, nine-year-old daughter, is taking a shower with three 12-year-old boys.
	You don't have a problem with that?
	Right.
	No, no, I don't.
	And by the way, I have a 10-year-old.
	I asked you, do you have a problem with that?
	I don't have a problem with that.
	You don't?
	I don't talk to my daughter.
	No, because it's a teachable moment, Sean.
	Teachable moment.
	Yes, it's a teachable moment that people have choices in this world.
	Do you have a problem with that, Horace?
	I absolutely have a problem with this.
	This is exactly the opposite way that people learn tolerance, that people learn differences among others, is it is taught in the home.
	The President of the United States cannot come with a one-size-fits-all solution.
	When you mentioned the school shower situation, at least it was the policy of the school district that needed to get adjusted and changed.
	And it wasn't some mandate from Washington that required everyone to do it the way it was done when you were younger.
	What the President is doing is exactly that.
	He is saying to the most vulnerable people in the community, that is those recipients, either because of educational deficiencies or income deficiencies, they are going to be the ones punished.
	That is cruel.
	Now, by the way, the one thing that came out after the North Carolina case, and Linda reminds me that the leader was a gay man who was convicted and a registered sex offender, according to documents that were made available to Breitbart News and Chad, I think Severance is the place, a president of Charlotte Business Guild, which describes itself as a network of LGBT.
	So it was reported: professional business owners, employees, individuals in the Charlotte area who apparently meet to nurture a network of business contacts.
	Here's the thing: you know something?
	I don't really care.
	If you want your nine-year-old daughter and you're okay with your nine-year-old daughter showering with a 12-year-old boy or a 14-year-old boy, Brian, okay, that's your choice.
	But there are a lot of parents.
	Excuse me.
	Excuse me.
	There are a lot of parents, including myself, that don't think that's a particularly healthy environment for my nine-year-old daughter.
	So how about we do it this way?
	How about you and all your liberal friends?
	You can have your liberal bathroom areas and you can have all the transgendered back and forth that you want.
	And then for people that prefer the old-fashioned way where the girls have their bathroom, the boys have their bathroom, and they can have theirs.
	How's that?
	That would be freedom of choice, wouldn't it?
	Free choice.
	Pro-choice.
	None.
	Pro-choice.
	The paramount issue here is whether transgender faults are protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
	Obama's saying Obama and Little Regional.
	Do you believe in state rights?
	Do you believe in states' rights?
	Shouldn't states have the ability to decide.
	Shouldn't municipalities and towns and cities decide what works for their community without the federal government overreaching and pushing this down their throat?
	No, under the Supremacy Clause, what Loretta Lynch was saying the other day was: if your state law is at odds with what we perceive to be the federal interpretation of Title VII, then it has to be struck down because that's what the supremacy clause is.
	And that's where this is wrong.
	This is an interpretation of an act that Congress adopted, and it had never been suggested in any amendment, in any hearing, any markup that it would include this.
	But to be more precise, let's be clear.
	When Obamacare was adopted, it included a requirement that if you received Medicaid money, you were now going to have to add these new marketplaces.
	The Supreme Court said you can't take existing money that you've been giving and now redefine the law, even if Congress passes it itself and force a state to do it.
	It violates the 10th Amendment.
	This isn't even an act of Congress.
	This is just an interpretation.
	This is going to fall.
	And absolutely, Sean, you're going to be able to do it.
	There was a recent case.
	It's interesting because there are recent cases here.
	The administration of the University of Toronto was recently enlightened a little bit on why two separate bathrooms are generally established for men and women sharing co-ed residences.
	Now, the university is temporarily changing their policy on the gender-neutral bathrooms after two separate incidents of voyeurism were reported on campus.
	And this happened this past September 15th and 19th, where male students within the university's Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cell phones over female students' shower stalls and filming them as they showered, which was exactly the type of thing that some people that suspect this is not going to be healthy in the long run would acknowledge.
	Now, how about this?
	How about we let students decide for themselves?
	Maybe if schools want to add a third bathroom, a gender-neutral bathroom, and you want to force schools to pay for an extra bathroom for transgender students, if there are such students in the school, how about we just give them their own bathroom?
	Then you can have male, female, transgendered.
	Is that fair?
	Hey, Sean, Sean, have we heard anything about the thousands of transgender students that have gone to the bathroom with no problem at all?
	No, we haven't.
	At the end of the day, Sean, I happen to know a transgender woman.
	She was born a man.
	She now identifies as a woman.
	I will tell you that a lot of these transgender folks just want to be accepted.
	They want to be accepted in the world as to who they identify with.
	What about consideration for people?
	What about consideration for people that find it extraordinarily uncomfortable for them?
	Do we care about their feelings at all, or you just don't care?
	What are they uncomfortable with?
	Okay, because I think a nine-year-old girl, I think to over, well, I think we're over-sexualizing young kids anyway, but we're talking about public schools here.
	Absolutely we are.
	So we have a nine.
	You're perfectly comfortable with a nine-year-old girl showering with a 14-year-old boy.
	A lot of parents, I would argue the vast, overwhelming 85% of parents are saying no way.
	Well, that's only the social psychologist associations say that six, seven, eight, and nine, and ten-year-olds need to have some protected space before these concepts are introduced.
	If you are interested in bringing that to your child, that is a choice that society will allow you to do.
	But why would we say we're going to mandate that everyone do it when the science simply doesn't say this?
	And to the degree that there are individuals who are being disadvantaged, as Sean has mentioned and others have, there are ways to accommodate these individuals.
	The size and scope and the numbers of people involved do not require this kind of disruption.
	It's precisely because of the wedge that the president is seeking.
	Well, look, I think money talks, money talks.
	And look at North Carolina.
	Look at how many businesses.
	You had Deutsche Bank, PayPal, they're not expanding.
	Businesses threatening to remove out.
	Artist Bruce Springsteen not playing there.
	I mean, that's going to happen in a lot of other states, too.
	So you don't think that's a good question.
	You know what I'm going to do?
	I'm going to go down and I'm going to buy property in North Carolina.
	How's that?
	Because I think they're being treated unfairly.
	I think they're being forced to do something that the majority of North Carolinians don't want to do.
	How's that?
	Well, if that's the case, if the public sentiment is in favor of your conservative view, Sean, then why is there such a backlash in states like North Carolina?
	I don't think it is the backlash that you claim it is.
	There's no backlash.
	I mean, if you're saying Bruce Springsteen can stay home in New Jersey, who cares where Bruce Springsteen plays?
	Seriously.
	You can watch a concert online.
	Go watch on YouTube.
	You don't have to pay a penny.
	That's not Carolina backlash.
	That's an out-of-state person who's attempting to influence what happens in the state of North Carolina.
	But even that behavior, which I'm not supportive of, it's at least constitutional.
	If you don't want to open business in North Carolina, what the president is doing is almost unprecedented.
	Here's what I would say in final.
	I don't think any American wants to hurt anybody's feelings.
	I don't think any American really cares about the private, sexual, gender, identity issues of other people.
	But with that said, a whole society should not be blackmailed to accept and to change what is the societal value system or risk losing government money, which would gravely, negatively impact, especially inner city schools, et cetera, if they don't follow suit.
	That is way over the top.
	It is an intrusion of the federal government of the worst kind.
	800-941 Sean, toll-free telephone number you want to be a part of the program.
	By the way, yesterday we had Valerie, was it Valerie Jowett?
	No, it was Susan Rice saying that the government is too white.
	Doesn't reflect the face of the nation.
	Well, who's been running the government now the last eight years?
	Well, that would be Barack Obama.
	That would be her best friend.
	Democrat Senate candidates need to ask themselves a question.
	Can they really support Hillary Clinton?
	She's a living history of scandal, lies, and spin.
	Defended an accused child rapist, then laughed about his lenient sentence.
	Whitewater, Travelgate, Chinagate, FileGate.
	She politically attacked sexual harassment victims, pretended she landed under sniper fire.
	Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, FBI investigation, ruthless.
	Fake accents, fake concerns, and fake laughs.
	Hillary Clinton.
	She is the living embodiment of everything people hate about politics.
	Democrat Senate candidates, she is your burden to bear.
	I am a real person.
	That was the National Republican Senatorial Committee and called Toxic.
	Hits Hillary Clinton on her stories of scandals and lies and spin and misinformation, and it never ends.
	By the way, part of our thousand pages of vetting materials we will be, well, releasing as this election goes on.
	800-9.1, Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
	Susan Rice, the U.S. National Security Agency, she claims is too white.
	That's right.
	Her national security advisor said there were too many white people in key government posts endangering national security because they think alike.
	She was speaking at Florida International University at their commencement.
	She's black.
	She said a diversified government workforce is more likely to yield better outcomes than a predominantly white one.
	And then she referred to criticism that the U.S. National Security workforce is white, male, and yell.
	In the halls of power, in the faces of our national security leaders, America is still not fully reflected.
	And by now, we should all know the dangers of groupthink where folks who are alike often think alike.
	By contrast, she said groups comprised of different people tend to question one another's assumptions, draw on divergent perspectives and experiences, and yield better outcomes.
	Okay, my question is, well, what has her boss been doing the last eight years if that's the case?
	Denine Borelli, chief political correspondent with Conservative Review, Fox News contributor.
	Also Eric Guster, civil rights attorney, and often appears on my show on Fox as well.
	Denine, I'm trying to understand this.
	They've been in power for eight years, so I guess the lack of diversity would be on their shoulders, not anybody else's, right?
	Well, it's really outrageous comments coming from Susan Rice and from the Obama administration, Sean.
	And yeah, so many things could be much better, but Obama prefers big government and believes in more in government than in the power of the individual.
	You have Susan Rice here who is invoking race on every aspect with this commencement speech, who, by the way, is married to a white individual.
	But really, her message should have been about content of character, not skin color.
	Skin color has nothing to do with a person's skill set, their knowledge, or experience.
	The message should have been positive for the graduating students to embrace their dreams and their goals and to go forward as good individuals in our country.
	That should have been the message.
	What's your reaction to that, Eric Guster?
	I do understand what Susan Rice was stating in that when you have different opinions and different people from different backgrounds, then that inclusion allows people to have various and so do you want quotas?
	Do you want set-asides?
	Do you want a certain number of white people only, a certain number of black people, Hispanic people, Asian people?
	Should it be reflective of the overall population?
	Should it be adjusted?
	What do you think?
	There should be an overall reflection of the population in government.
	So there should be quotas.
	There should be set-asides.
	I did not say quotas or set-aside.
	I'm saying that in order for the government and in order for think tank groups and groups who are implementing laws in our country, in order for them to understand different perspectives, whether black, white, green, or blue, you need to have those different groups impact, those different groups in the country.
	So then what has Obama and Susan Rice been doing the last eight years, considering they've been in that position of power to hire?
	Now, Obama has been much more inclusive than other administrations, Sean.
	But our country has a long way to go as far as getting better education systems in place so that creating opportunities for other people.
	So then where are you on school choice then, Eric?
	You mentioned better education.
	There are a lot of public schools that are failing in urban communities.
	Where do you stand on school choice to change that?
	We need to do better with our educational system overall.
	It's not, we have to make sure that we are supportive of our teachers.
	We make sure that we hire better teachers.
	So Obama opposed school choice.
	The NAACP, they're against school choice.
	These are opportunities in these urban communities where these schools are failing.
	Young black and minority and other minority kids, they don't have a hopeful future.
	So how do you change that?
	Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to do it, that's for sure.
	Well, more money does help, Denine, and you're aware that.
	And if that's the case in Harlem, they would be real scholars coming out of these schools, Eric.
	When you have people who don't have the best technology, who don't have the best materials, then they are in a lesser position than others.
	That's why it must be a fair system for all children.
	And what would make it right is to have these schools that are accountable, the administrators, the teachers, the parents, the students, but also to have the parents have the power in their hands.
	And that is why I was asking you, where do you stand on school choice?
	You're not really answering that.
	So where do you stand on providing more funding for urban schools?
	Throwing more money at the problem isn't fixing it.
	Look at Harlem.
	I'm sure you're very familiar with what's going on in Harlem.
	These kids are, these schools are doing a disservice for these kids.
	I'm a former board member with a charter school in Harlem, and these kids know the difference from going from a public school to a charter school.
	They feel safe.
	They feel included.
	They feel responsible.
	They want to go to school every day.
	In the public schools, there's violence, there's fighting.
	The teachers don't care because they have their pensions and the unions backing them.
	You can't fire them.
	So there's no accountability when it comes to these failing public schools.
	So to change the problem, to change the dynamics, as you were saying, don't you think school choice would be a great way to start?
	But as far as the failing schools, some of them are based upon.
	No, I'm not.
	Some of them are failing because they're not.
	Let me get into this because I think we're going around in circles here.
	Let me start with Hillary Clinton and the story that came out earlier this week.
	I think it was the Daily Caller that broke the story.
	That, in fact, Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, pays women 38% less than men.
	Hillary Clinton also has taken, the foundation has taken, millions of dollars from countries like Saudi Arabia that treat women horribly.
	How, Eric, does she claim to be the champion of women's rights when she never criticized Saudi Arabia and their treatment of women or some of these other countries under Sharia, but took their money?
	Looks like they bought her silence.
	And then also, how does she justify paying women so much less at her own foundation and lecturing anybody about gender issues?
	I have read some of the stories in reference to her page, so she does need to address that.
	But some of her donors saying, oh, my gosh, don't take money from Saudi Arabia because of a certain thing that they do, that is a ridiculous statement to make for you, Sean.
	But Hillary Clinton does have to take control of what happens within her campaign and within her administration.
	And if she is touting for women to be equally paid, she needs to make sure that she starts with her own.
	Okay, but she doesn't.
	She's not cleaning up her own house.
	That's the point.
	The second thing is, is here, women can't drive.
	Women are forced to dress a certain way.
	Women can't decide on their own if they go to school or work.
	They can't even leave their own house without a male relative.
	She takes money from those countries, and then she doesn't say a word about the horrible treatment of women.
	So how sincere is she really about women's rights, Denine?
	It would seem to me that that's indicative of a person that can be bought and paid for.
	Yeah, well, she's not sincere at all, Sean.
	Hillary Clinton is a liar and a hypocrite.
	She's playing the woman card when it comes to equal pay.
	And really what it comes down to is about choices.
	Some women choose to leave the workforce or some women choose not to move up the ladder.
	I worked in a corporation for 20 years, Sean, in the HR department in one job.
	And I saw how men and women stayed in the same position for 20 years or more.
	So again, it's about choices.
	I also saw the salaries and bonuses of these individuals.
	And that is based on their experience, their education, and their level of responsibilities.
	No.
	You know, I just find it it doesn't really matter what empirical evidence comes out.
	You're still going to support Hillary no matter what.
	It doesn't matter.
	You know, we can have Hillary on video robbing a bank and shooting a bank teller, and you still support her.
	That is not necessarily true, Sean.
	Not necessarily, but there's a good chance you'll support her.
	No, comparing her to Donald Trump, oh, I absolutely will support Hillary Clinton.
	Donald Trump is the worst, most divisive candidate we've seen in 20 years.
	All right, I got to run.
	Thank you both for being with us.
	I got it.
	Thank you both.
	Vicki in Nassau County.
	She's listening to the all-new AM710WOR.
	Vicki, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Pretty good.
	And just to let you know, that's Nassau in upstate New York, not Nassau County.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I just assumed it was Nassau County.
	That's right.
	By the way, you're lucky because Nassau County is the second highest property tax county in the country.
	And guess who lives there?
	Little old me.
	How lucky am I?
	Oh, okay.
	I was listening to your show yesterday, and I wanted to call up, I know you were upset about Paul Ryan and Trump, and Paul Ryan was kind of on the fence about not wanting to endorse Trump just yet.
	And I just wanted to say I think it's a brilliant media stunt, basically.
	They're using the press, free press.
	It's been a story now for like a week.
	And no matter whether he endorses them or not, it's something that it looks like Trump is trying to work with the Republican Party, and I think it's great.
	Yeah.
	Well, I got to tell you something.
	I think in the end, it probably works to Trump's benefit because it just reinforces everything, every reason why people voted for him.
	He's not establishment.
	Thank you, Vicki.
	Robert, Spring, Texas.
	Robert, how are you?
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Yes, sir.
	So I was listening to Paul Ryan talk about his meeting with Trump yesterday, and he said that the president's gone beyond what the Constitution allows.
	So my question is, why hasn't Congress taken any action to thwart that?
	Well, they said they would in 2014.
	You have to ride this, Jason.
	And this is why I believe that Trump is resonating with the people now.
	Well, I think that's true.
	I think, you know, they had the power of the purse.
	That's one of my biggest criticisms.
	That was their power.
	That was their constitutional authority.
	And when the president acts illegally and unconstitutionally, it's their constitutional duty and obligation to step in.
	But they didn't want to cause a confrontation.
	They didn't want to be blamed for a government shutdown.
	They were afraid to stand up to the president.
	The president rolled them again and again and again.
	And that's a big problem for me.
	Betty, Palm Desert, California, next Sean Hannity show.
	Hey, Sean, I have a comment and a question.
	My comment is: I feel the biggest reason Trump even ran was that the Republican Party didn't do what the people wanted.
	Thus, he ran and is the presumptive nominee.
	I'm sick and tired of hearing about Trump's taxes.
	Yeah, so am I. His taxes are meaningless to me.
	You know, and then to have Mitt Romney do it when Romney went through that himself, and then to hear stories about how they're trying to convince one person after another to run third party.
	I mean, I don't understand.
	It's now become more than sabotage.
	It's pathological.
	It's now, you have even people, stories coming out about Republican donors now going over to Hillary Clinton's side.
	I mean, it's beyond anything I ever thought.
	I never realized the establishment was that entrenched, that in love with their own power.
	Well, and also speaking of audits, okay, audit Trump and whatever, but what about the Clinton Foundation?
	You know, that's a big problem, too.
	Sometimes I even feel like when Fox interviews your contributors or the contributors that are for Fox, they're supportive so much toward Hillary.
	I'm like, what the heck are they talking about?
	Are they being paid by this evil foundation?
	Maybe even Mitt Romney is.
	I don't think they're being paid by the foundation.
	I don't know what their deal is.
	You know, it's gone from being just opposition to now being to a circular firing squad.
	Now it's almost like a suicide mission for some people.
	They're so locked into this.
	And the strange part is, is all these years, all these many elections where conservatives were lectured about the need to grow up and suck it up and not take their toys and not go home.
	I mean, it's very odd and very strange that here you have a record number of Republicans showing up in a primary, and it's going to exceed, it's going to be a record number by millions, a greater percentage than ever.
	And here, the Republican Party has said that they want more people in the party and voting and the electorate.
	And you're getting all these blue-collar workers coming in and people that don't like American trade deals and border problems.
	And now they're available and they're trying to sabotage them.
	All right, let's go to our busy phones on this Friday.
	We'll start in West Palm Beach in beautiful Florida.
	And standing by is Ron.
	Ron, how are you?
	Glad you called, sir.
	Yes, I wanted to talk about Obama's accomplishments from yesterday's show.
	Okay.
	I have a few.
	Hang on.
	I want you to give us the three specific things that Obama has done.
	No, no, hang on.
	Hang on.
	I'm going to give you what the criteria is.
	Relax.
	Three specific things that Obama has accomplished that has made the world a better place for Americans.
	Go.
	Okay.
	He passed Obamacare, which saved my niece's life.
	My niece was denied continuously from doctors' visits because she did not have insurance because of a pre-existing condition.
	And if it wasn't for Obamacare, she would not be here today because she's only 10 years old.
	So I'm very grateful for Obamacare for the presentation.
	All right, let me stop you.
	I'm not going to argue.
	By the way, I'm happy that she got well.
	I'm happy she got the care she needed.
	I really am.
	I know what that means to you personally.
	Here's the problem.
	It's like somebody saying, well, the stock market's been great for me.
	That doesn't impact the 95 million Americans out of work and 50 million in poverty and 46 million on food stamps or the one in five families that don't have a single individual in the labor force.
	Maybe Obamacare did work for you.
	I'm glad.
	But for most Americans, the overwhelming majority Americans, they didn't keep their plan.
	Many lost their doctor.
	And on average, people didn't save $2,500 per family per year.
	They're paying 30 to 60% increases last year, and it's going to go up again this year.
	And it's crumbling of its own weight.
	So I can't agree that it's an accomplishment, but I'm going to give you that one because it so impacted your life personally, okay?
	And it worked for you, but it's not working for most other people.
	But I'm going to give it to you because you put a lot of thought into that, and I'm happy it's your niece, right?
	That she's okay?
	Yes.
	Yes, she's 10 years old.
	She's 10 years old.
	All right.
	Tell her she's in our prayers.
	All right, ready?
	Go, two.
	Oh, okay.
	He handled the BP golf spill, which affected Florida very well.
	No taxpayers ever paid that.
	And that was written in stone.
	So I think he accomplished that pretty well.
	Okay, with all due respect.
	With all due respect, BP paid the bill.
	So it wasn't government.
	And I don't think you can give any one person credit.
	I mean, BP wanted to clean it up from the get-go, so I'm not buying that.
	Try again.
	Go.
	Okay, and if it wasn't for his stimulus package that my governor, Rick Scott, that moron, he tried to deny it, but he accepted it.
	I would not have a job right now, and I'm a firefighter.
	So if it wasn't for his stimulus package, I would have to.
	How did the stimulus package help you?
	Because remember, the president said that he was going to give us shovel-ready jobs.
	Do you remember that?
	He promised a stimulus, and all that money ended up being wasted like Solyndra and all these other green energy companies.
	And remember, then he finally had to admit the shovel ready.
	Shovel Ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.
	Remember, he was mocking the fact that it didn't work.
	So even the president says that didn't work, but I'm glad you got a job.
	As a matter of fact, in Florida, there's now about 300,000 available jobs thanks to Rick Scott's policies.
	All right, number two, go.
	Right.
	Well, he also promised 2 million jobs when he failed at.
	And us people in Florida, we don't like Rick Scott.
	But I'll let you go with that one.
	Second.
	I'm even going to help.
	I'll help you one more.
	I'll even give you one and see if you can get the last one.
	He did make the decision to listen to our intelligence community and the whereabouts of bin Laden and made the call to take out bin Laden.
	I'll give him credit for that.
	But that's about all I can give him credit on.
	All right, last chance, and then we got to move on.
	Okay, one more.
	In the housing market, I just sold my house last month.
	My house sold for 26% equity.
	I made a lot of money for my housing, and the housing market is booming right now.
	So I thank Obama for that also.
	Because without half my house, that's four bedrooms, three baths, two car garage, and a pool.
	So I think.
	I don't know how you give Obama credit for all this stuff, but I'm going to let you go.
	I'm glad your life worked out.
	You know, for most people, that's not the case.
	You know, when one in six young male adults in the country are either incarcerated or can't find work, that's a problem.
	When 20% of American families don't have a single member of their family in the workforce, that's a problem.
	For most people, Obamacare has not worked out.
	Yeah, the housing market has recovered, but still home ownership rates are lower than they've ever been.
	Median income is down $5,000.
	You know, I keep throwing out the real stats, and, you know, there are instances where people benefit.
	I can't dispute that.
	But for the most part, the overall trend is horrible.
	Rebecca Maryland wants to refute this idea about Obamacare.
	Rebecca, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Yes.
	My daughter, this Sunday, will be married two weeks.
	And she called me the other day and said her and her husband looked on LegalZoom to see what it would cost to get a divorce because of Obamacare, their insurance will nearly triple.
	They live in the state of Vermont, and they have this Vermont health care connect or something.
	And it's awful.
	She said it's cheaper for us to get a divorce.
	And she said, nobody would have to know.
	I could keep my name.
	We could still vow our holy ordinance to God, whatever, but they can't afford it.
	It's nuts.
	I don't know who, who likes Obamacare.
	I mean, it's ridiculous.
	You know, look, I mean, this guy's, I'm not going to sit here and dispute his story.
	And I guess there may be a few other stories out there like that.
	But everything that we were promised didn't come to pass.
	And the problem also is becoming, well, they've cut Medicare to help pay for this.
	And the medical taxes, the device tax, medical device tax on top of it.
	And then you don't have the portability issue.
	And then you have, you know, companies like United getting out of the Obamacare business because they can't make money at it.
	And then you have young people.
	I kept saying this from the beginning.
	The young and the healthy end up subsidizing the old, the sick, and the disabled.
	And unfortunately, it's just not a free market system, and it's falling of its own weight like everything else.
	It will not survive the next five years.
	It probably won't survive the next two.
	All right.
	Thank you, Rebecca.
	Gary is in Duluth, Minnesota.
	Next, Sean Hannity Show.
	How are you, Gary?
	Hey, Sean, doing pretty good.
	How are you?
	I'm good, sir.
	What's happening?
	I'm just wondering why you're backing Mr. Trump, and I just want to know why he won't release his taxes.
	Personally, you know, there was a poll that came out.
	I saw it today.
	I don't really care what's in Mr. Trump's taxes, to be perfectly honest.
	You know, all it is is a media game of gotcha with taxes.
	You can't win.
	Either you didn't give enough to charity or, you know, meanwhile, Bill Clinton gave, what, his old underwear to charity.
	How pretty despicable is that in years gone by?
	Or, you know, they're going to say, oh, he was taxed at a lower rate because this is what the insane tax code we have allows him to do.
	He also has issues that he's being audited.
	And as a result, he can't release some of the years because of audit issues.
	You know what?
	I think I'm more interested in what Hillary said to Wall Street and big banks when they paid her $200,000, $300,000 for an hour's work.
	I'd like to know what she said to them.
	That's what I'm more interested in.
	I'm not really interested in Mr. Trump's taxes and whatever loopholes he used.
	Remember, politicians set that system up.
	So anyway, I hope that answers you.
	I'd like to see what charities he's given to.
	I'd like to see him back up what he says he's doing.
	And that's going to prove it right there.
	Yeah, well, maybe if he didn't get audited every year for 10 years, maybe it wouldn't be a problem.
	The IRS has this tendency.
	Look, the average person is never going to get audited because they get a W-2 form and it's simple ABC and it's done.
	If you have any type of business, they go after you.
	If you can make any type of significant money, they want even more, even though you take legal deductions.
	That's why I always tell my accountant, just pay it.
	Pay more.
	Forget it.
	Forget the stupid deductions.
	I don't even care.
	Because I think there's nothing that liberals would like more than to use me as an example.
	See, Republican doesn't pay his taxes.
	I pay my taxes.
	Al Sharpton doesn't, but I do.
	And I pay the full amount.
	And it ends up being about 60 cents out of every dollar I make going to government.
	Carol, Jacksonville, Florida, W-O-K-V, A-M-N F-M.
	What's up, Carol?
	How are you?
	Hey, Sean, I'm a huge fan.
	And I wanted to touch base with you about Paul Ryan.
	And I totally agree with you.
	I voted for Ted Cruz in the primary.
	I was a little shady, you know, I was uneasy about Donald Trump a little bit because of the things that came out of his mouth.
	Not that I disagree with him.
	I am, you know, I consider myself a conservative constitutionalist, and I'm a veteran and registered nurse.
	And, you know, but we need to get behind our number one leader now, which is Donald Trump.
	And I plan on voting for Trump, and I'm actually going to donate money to his campaign because we cannot take another four years of Obama.
	And that's what Hillary Clinton is.
	You know, there's a lot of people who are going to be able to understand.
	Because I won't vote for Hillary.
	You know, look, the issues that we think that Paul Ryan and Donald Trump would agree on, all right, we've got to fix the VA because we've been screwing vets.
	We've got to build up our military.
	Okay, I would think they agree on that.
	I would think they at least agree on a border fence, if not what to do with the people that are here illegally, but at least the fence and building the wall.
	I think they should agree on energy independence.
	They should agree that we've got to get our budget in balance.
	They might disagree over whether or not entitlements need to be cut.
	Paul Ryan thinks you have to cut entitlements.
	Trump says he doesn't want to do that, but that's probably open for negotiation in the end, like every budget is.
	I know that on other important issues like justices, he has said, Trump has said that he's going to release the names of people, a pool of people of which he'd picked from.
	I think that's important, and I think that should give reassurance to conservatives that he means what he says.
	I think repealing Obamacare is really important.
	I think they agree on that.
	Now, so where are the issues that they might disagree on?
	Okay, what to do with illegal immigrants here?
	Okay, that's one.
	Number two, they might disagree on trade issues.
	But when I interview Donald Trump, I said, okay, do you want to start some type of trade tariff battle conflict war and be a protectionist?
	He says, absolutely not.
	He wants to negotiate better deals.
	So that's something that you have to see play out because you don't have any idea how that's going to go.
	The third thing, and this is an issue that I have struggled with a lot, America's role in the world.
	And Trump is saying we cannot continue to get bogged down in these foreign conflicts.
	And as a supporter of what George W. Bush did, not only was I a supporter, I think it was needed.
	I think it was necessary.
	I think it was the right thing to do, especially after 9-11.
	My problem with military use now has to do with America's political ability to navigate the waters and finish the war and win it.
	And when we send 5,000 kids that died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and others have their legs blown off and others have their faces blown up and their arms blown off, only for the war effort to get politicized, and then a next president comes in and pulls out the troops from the conflict, even though we needed to stay there longer.
	And then it creates an opening for ISIS.
	You got to ask, why did we ever send people there to fight, live and die?
	You know, they won the war.
	And now Mosul and Ramadi and Fallution to create her in the hands of ISIS.
	We did the same thing.
	58,000 American kids died in Vietnam.
	And then the war became politicized.
	And then we lost the war.
	We can't do it.
	I can't, in good conscience, accept this anymore.
	So I think I've been really, really running this over in my mind over and over again.
	America's next step for conflict has to be that we build up the biggest, baddest, meanest, most technologically advanced strategic warfare plans in the history of man, where we're not going to have to send kids in Humvees that are not up armored and go door-to-door in Iraq ever again.
	And that our wars are going to be fought from a distance.
	And our wars are going to insist that the people that have the most to win, to lose or gain are going to be involved in the actual fighting.
	So, you know, in that sense, I've changed based on the way events end up playing out.
	Anyway, so does that make sense to you?
	Anyway, I hope that makes sense to you.

▲