Dr. Emily Morse, host of the Sex with Emily podcast and is a sexologist and relationship expert and Blake Lavak is author of "Own that Guy in 60 Days: A Practical Guide to Love for the 21st Century Woman," today our two relationship experts will be here to address the new issue facing the downfall of marriages nationwide. Is Donald Trump's Presidency adding to the challenge? The Sean Hannity Show is live Monday through Friday from 3pm - 6pm ET on iHeart Radio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Let not your heart be troubled.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
You know, Valentine's Day is about capturing the wow factor.
And the best way to do that is with 1-800flowers.com.
And right now, you can order 18 enchanted roses for only $29.99.
That's a 45% discount.
Go to 1-800-FLOWERS.com/slash Hannity.
1-800-Flowers.com/slash Hannity.
And Happy Friday, and we're glad you are with us.
Write down our toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
It is 800-941-Sean if you want to be a part of the program.
You know, I want to be in a good mood today.
When you have friends that are sick, there's nothing worse.
And people you love that are sick and you're helpless and you just, you know, are praying for miracles.
It's very, very hard.
And, you know, the one thing in life that I have never been able to deal with very well is death and dying.
I cannot, believe me, I believe in Jesus.
I'm a Christian.
I believe in an afterlife.
I believe that Jesus changes our hearts, our minds, our souls.
I believe all of that.
But I just, I do not grasp the concept that we hear and then we leave.
And, you know, I remember I started at Fox and six months after I had started, my father died.
It just is the hardest thing when somebody you love or care about, you know, is in a tough way and is somebody special in my life that is having a tough day today and is struggling, literally hanging on to life.
And it's just so hard to deal with.
And somebody that's too young for this.
And that makes it particularly hard.
And anyway, so if you have thoughts and prayers, it's for a very dear friend of mine today who is literally taking a turn for the worse.
Yes, it's cancer, which is insidious.
I am convinced one day we are going to look back on how we treated cancer.
And by the way, this is not in any way to disparage the medical community.
I'll give you some examples.
You know, I had a cousin of mine that was a police officer that died of Hotchkin's disease years ago.
And if he would have gotten it today, there is a 99% chance he would have lived based on the advancement in the treatment maybe from 30 years ago.
The same thing with childhood leukemias and certain types of cancer.
I know that, you know, if you get a colonoscopy on a regular basis, whatever the three years, I think I've had four of them in my life.
Yeah, I know, real fun, right?
But you know what?
You just do it because if you do it, you're going to, that's the one preventable cancer.
You know, if you have a propensity towards any type of skin cancer, you know, going to a dermatologist on a regular basis to make sure you don't have a melanoma or a basal cell and getting those things removed, it's just being smart with your health.
And so we've made such progress, and this is not to disparage the medical community and research community in any way, but I'm just convinced that there is an answer out there.
I just don't know what it is.
And when we get it, it's going to be like an aha moment.
Like, you know, we don't think anymore about polio because of the polio vaccine and many other illnesses that killed so many different people over the many, many years.
Our life expectancy has never been higher.
Modern medicine, great doctors, medical advancement, technology, all has contributed to this.
But there's got to be a key, and I know they're working towards it.
And I always read these medical articles when I see them.
And I just think there's going to be a cure for cancer at some point.
You know, it's pretty scary where I live in New York, one in seven women are likely to get breast cancer.
My mother, before she died, now, she ended up, she had 21, she had a full mastectomy, and she had chemo, then she had radiation, then she had no hair.
And, you know, you watch the half-kill you to save you.
And in her case, it was a pretty advanced form of breast cancer.
They were able to save her from that.
She ended up dying of another, of something else.
It was not related to the breast cancer she had had.
And, you know, that goes back almost 20 years ago.
And so they've made a tremendous progress there.
You know, just getting an annual checkup of mammogram for women is so important, or self-examination, so important.
You know, for guys, you get a little older, your prostate gets enlarged, and most men will die with some cancer in their prostate.
It's just a reality.
But they have, you know, testing, PSA tests and other tests to ensure that, you know, I had a prostate scare at one point in my life.
I ended up getting a biopsy.
It was the worst thing I've ever been through because my doctor friend is relentless and he literally made me come in.
And, you know, there it is, 13 needles.
I won't give you the rest of the details and more blood that existed for more time than you could ever dream of.
But my only point is, I think there is a key.
I'm not sure what it's rooted in.
Obviously, it's got to be genetic and makeup in some way, shape, matter, or form.
I made a decision.
My son's 18 now.
My daughter's 15.
And it wasn't as common at the time.
But with each of my children born, I saved their cord blood because they have the rich stem cells in the umbilical cord that, I don't know, I just, I read up about it and I said, let me save them.
And to this day, I still send out checks every couple of years to keep that frozen and available for them.
If God forbid in the course of their life, maybe with technical advancement, medical advancement, that it might be worthwhile for them to have that.
Anyway, so it's, I know all of you have experienced this.
This is not unique to me, not unique to all of us, but it's hard when it's happening to somebody you know, like, love.
And it just is, there's no rhyme or reason for it, I don't think.
I mean, lifestyle certainly would contribute to lung cancer and things like that.
But for the most part, you know, a lot of this is genetic.
I know people, Dick Cheney's heart, I think, was largely genetic.
He also smoked a lot at the time.
But, you know, when he tells his story, how medical advancement, every, you know, he had his first heart attack, Dick Cheney, at 36.
I remember interviewing him when he was on this artificial pump that he had on the side of his because his heart was so weak at that time and how successful his heart transplant has been since.
I mean, I remember seeing him for the first time after his heart transplant thinking, wow, you have not looked this great in years that I've known you.
And thank God in that case, because he's a friend of mine, I think, at least from my perspective, I like him and admire him a lot.
Medicine was able to stay just ahead of him to keep him alive.
And it's pretty amazing.
I'm pretty sure we're going to make some massive advancements in the future.
Look, I'm not going to spend a lot of time because we did it last night when the news broke Ninth Circuit, and all of this was predictable.
If you've been listening to this show and told me on TV, you know, all that the Ninth Circuit did and how horrible they are all came true, all predictable.
One of the most overturned courts, if not the most overturned court, depending on how many years you go back.
These idiots over at PolitiFact.
Hannity said it's the most.
Well, I sent them all the information today, and I had to spend two hours of my day responding.
Who checks the fact checkers?
And you know what?
I have to do their research because they're too lazy to do it themselves.
But anyway, with that said, I spent time doing that.
But the bottom line is it doesn't matter now about the Ninth Circuit because here's what the Washington Times is reporting: the president is working on a new executive order to enhance America's security in the face of these terrorist attacks.
He said we're going to keep our country safe.
He said it again today at a news conference, indicating he would take more actions next week to modify this order or issue another directive.
He said, We'll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for the country.
And you'll be seeing this sometime next week.
And then he didn't directly refer to his daily classified intelligence briefings.
But I know through conversations with people that are friends of mine that are in Washington, they don't get to see the presidential daily briefing, but his comments clearly are suggesting that the information he's seeing every day, which Obama ignored, by the way, since taking office, has made his executive order for migrants from the seven terror-prone nations even more urgent to implement.
And this is the whole bizarre nature of the left's thinking.
That means Chucky, you know, crocodile tears Schumer saying this is un-American.
Meanwhile, he supported it in 2015.
He didn't say a word when Obama and Hillary did it to Iraq and had a ban there.
As a matter of fact, Obama used that same statute 19 times, as has every other past president.
So all of this is politicizing, but they're playing politics and the lives of you, the American people, are in jeopardy here.
Because if somebody from one of these countries comes into this country and kills Americans, well, they were willing to gamble with your life and President Trump was not.
And that's simply what it comes down to.
It comes down to: are we willing to inconvenience those that would like the privilege of visiting our country?
It's that simple.
That comes from countries that have terrorist ties in some way or terrorist training grounds in some way.
That we have good intelligence that is telling us there is a greater danger here to vet them.
Yeah, okay, inconvenience them.
I'm sorry about the inconvenience, but the top priority should be the safety and security of the American people and not gambling with their lives.
And the president is telling you directly: look, you go back to 9-11, the 9-11 Commission report.
What was the lead up to 9-11?
There's so many, you know, the conclusion of the 9-11 Commission report, they were at war with us.
We were not at war with them.
That was their conclusion.
And then you go back and you look at the history, let's see, the Cobar Towers, and then you look at the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and then you look at the First Trade Center bombing, and then you look at 9-11.
The U.S. has coal.
All were indicators that you have a bunch of people that, you know, evil people that call themselves martyrs to quote Michael W. Smith's song.
He's playing at Carnegie Hall, by the way, this Sunday.
And, you know, when evil calls itself a martyr, they're at war with us.
But what are we seeing now?
The same lead up.
You're seeing Chattanooga.
You're seeing Fort Hood.
You're seeing San Bernardino.
You're seeing the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.
Wake the hell up.
I'm sorry that some people are going to be inconvenienced.
That's not our problem.
We don't have to let you into this country.
And how so many on the left are so willing to jeopardize Americans because of this politically correct vantage point is obscene to me.
It's unconscionable to me.
It makes zero sense to me.
Now, my friend Jay Seculo, he'll join us at the top of the next hour after he analyzed the court ruling at the Ninth Circuit.
I mean, they'll thread a needle any which way and lose.
It doesn't matter.
And, you know, about an 80%, 80% of the time when that ends up going to the Supreme Court, they're overruled.
So it's, you know, pretty much par for the course that the Constitution, separation of powers, the role of the executive branch, the role of a president as commander-in-chief, none of this matters.
They didn't even cite the law for crying out loud, which I think I'm like the only person on television that is actually spending the time to tell people what the actual law says because it's not that complicated.
This is eight U.S. Code 1182 that says whenever, whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens, a particular country,
into the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate.
Pretty straightforward.
By the way, Ninth Circuit never even mentioned it in their ruling last night.
And that just ought to tell you how out of control the judicial branch is.
Now, there's an effort Louis Gomert and a bunch of other people are now saying, you know what?
They have more than twice the caseload that is backed up 13,000 some odd cases.
It's time to break up the Ninth Circuit.
I don't disagree with that at all because they're certainly not serving you, the American people.
Anyway, 800-941-Sean is our toll free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program?
We have a lot to get to.
Jay Seculo will join us today.
Believe it or not, people are getting divorced because of the 2016 election and the election of Donald Trump.
So we're going to have some fun with that in our final hour of the program today.
You know, we've had terror here in New York.
What about the Boston bombing?
I can read my terror list when I come back.
I've read it many times, go through every single case.
This is what you'll hear.
God forbid something major happened.
And here's my prediction.
It's not a matter of if, it's when.
And we're going to look at every one of these incidents and say, oh, they were at war with us.
And we went back to a pre-9-11 mentality and couldn't even say radical Islamic terrorism and Obama kissing the ass of even the Iranians, the number one state sponsor of terror.
Still waiting to fly out all those libs who promised to leave if Trump were elected.
The jet is ready.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
All right, as we roll along on a Friday, toll-free telephone number is 800-941-SEAN if you want to be a part of the program.
I am just saying, now, the way that Jay Sekulow has done this is, all right, so he's taken the Ninth Circuit version of this.
and he has come up with amendments that he believes even if the Ninth Circuit does the same thing again, which again, this goes back to the whole judge shopping argument I've been making all week.
But if they make the following changes, for example, the new subsection at 3I at the end of this particular section, nothing in this section applies to lawful permanent residents of the U.S. or any U.S. citizen.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit applicable procedural due process rights to which any person covered by this order is entitled by virtue of their immigrant or non-immigrant status.
And then he put in two other sections, the applicable procedure.
The applicable procedural due process rights to which any person covered by this order is entitled by virtue of their immigrant or non-immigrant status.
Any directives or guidance on the implementation of the order shall be made by the Secretary of Homeland Security in conjunction with the State Department, the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General, and the Director of the FBI.
Anyway, so he thinks what's going to happen here is then that takes away any argument, constitutionally speaking, if it does, in fact, if we have the predictable pattern here.
You've got a liberal judge that they went shopping for in Seattle.
And if they argue the merits on the old one before him, that's not likely what's happening.
The news now is breaking that, in fact, President Trump is going to rewrite the order.
And Trump says that he's working on the new executive order to stop people who want to commit harm in the United States.
And so rewriting the terrorist ban means it starts all over again.
And, you know, and all this, by the way, all this back and forth, it still comes down to a very simple, basic, fundamental question.
And just think in your own life.
If you are visiting another country and they want to sit you down, and this has happened to me when I went to London recently, why are you only going to be here six hours when I was interviewing Julian Assange?
When I went to Israel, I was even fast-tracked in Israel and they still asked me a whole bunch of questions.
It's their country.
I am a guest in their country.
They have every right to ascertain that I am not there to do anything that would endanger the people in their country.
And that's all this is about.
And there's no religious test.
It's not a Muslim ban because you have all these Muslim countries that are not included.
It's ridiculous.
And frankly, it can be fixed and it must be fixed.
Jay Seculo, who has been really terrific on this whole issue involving the president's executive order, this was his recommendation immediately last night when it came in.
And I know other bright, smart legal minds have thought the same thing.
Just go right back at him and take the justification, which by the way, there is no justification for this.
This is judicial activism.
You know, this is what Levin has warned about for years, men in black, unaccountable, unelected judges that legislate from the bench without any regard to separation of powers, co-equal branches of government.
It is everything we fear.
This has been the left's tactic.
This is what David Brock outlined in his document, that they are going to try and stop the Trump agenda.
Well, first, they want to, quote, kick his ass.
Secondly, they want to try to impeach him.
And one of the ways they want to stop his agenda is by using the liberal court system because the left has always known that they can get a lot done in the courts, things that they could never get done at the ballot box that the American people would never want.
It's irrelevant to them whether you want it or not.
They're still going to ram it down your throat.
Every poll has shown support for the president's executive order, and it's meaningless to them as they go out there and they continue to just lie about what it is that the president has done here and calling it like un-American like Chuck Schumer.
Then you got the corrupt, alt-radical left media, people like Chuck Todd.
Well, this is like a religious test.
It's not a religious test, Chuck.
Read the document.
Look at the 43 majority Muslim countries that are not impacted at all, 90% of the world Muslim population, not impacted in any way here.
They're so dishonest.
They're such liars.
They're so corrupt.
They're so biased.
They're so freaking lazy.
It takes your breath away.
Anyway, so Trump continues down the road.
And, you know, there might have been what there's a Daily Caller piece out today.
And I didn't want to really say this before the Ninth Circuit handed down its decision last night, although I predicted what the decision would be with perfect accuracy.
But anyone who heard the Justice Department lawyer, it was so bad.
It was, you know, this guy's struggling to argue the simplest case with the simplest question that is before the court, and that is, does the president have the constitutional authority, the legislative authority, the legislative branch had given it to him, signed into law.
Does he have the authority constitutionally as commander-in-chief to do this?
I've read the law to you now many times, and the answer was yes.
And I'm listening to the Justice Department lawyer struggling.
I could have argued this better in my sleep.
It was like he did no preparation for this.
So anyway, I was concerned.
How could that be?
Now, one of the impacts of the left's obstruction of the cabinet of Donald Trump is Ben.
You have, you know, I was asking myself, did Obama hacks at the Justice Department deliberately sabotage the case?
Because it kind of sounded like it to me because it was so poorly argued.
Did they leave out key evidence that they had to know about and didn't use?
I kept, I said that night that they left so much on the table that they should have been using.
So it's kind of hard to believe that anybody with a law degree could really be that incompetent unless it's done on purpose.
Well, then I read the Daily Caller today.
Quote, while arguing before the Ninth Circuit, Department of Justice attorneys ignored evidence that the nations impacted by President Trump's travel ban have a track record of exporting terrorism.
And by the way, when the Ninth Circuit's judge William Canby falsely claimed that since 9-11, I think it was actually the judge in Seattle.
They might have gotten that fact wrong.
I think it was Robart was the one that did this.
But anyway, they claim it was the Ninth Circuit Judge Canby.
But anyway, it's neither here nor there.
It was at least one point argued that there have been no terror attacks in the U.S. connected to Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Iraq.
The DOJ lawyer responded as they were clueless.
They had no information, no facts behind them.
We had Stephen Miller on the other night, who works in the Trump administration special counsel.
He said the same thing.
Anyway, they were unable to cite the cases, for example, two Somalian individuals who committed acts of terror in the U.S. since 2014, and at least two others, one from Yemen, the other from Somalia, been charged with planning to commit terror attacks in the U.S.
I know the administration now has a list of about 76 people that would have answered that question of Robart.
Anyway, so they couldn't cite any of these cases.
The DOG attorneys, DOJ attorneys arguing the case would be able to get this information.
It's not hard to get.
I actually read some of the names on the air the next day after, in fact, this first happened.
Like Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a Somali refugee, plowed that car into a crowd of people.
Remember at Ohio State, there's one example.
Well, that blows that whole theory by the Seattle judge up in smoke, doesn't it?
And subsequently attacked at Ohio State University in November, attacked people with a butcher's knife.
Nine people were injured.
Then he was killed by a police officer.
Then you have Dahir Ahmed Adan, another Somali, stabbed 10 people before being shot by an officer in St. Cloud, Minnesota at the mall this last summer.
It was last September, actually.
And you have Mohammed Rafiq Naji, who is a Yemeni citizen.
He was arrested in November last year, and he had discussed a possible attack on Times Square.
Then you have Ibradirim Sheikh Mohammed, a Somali who became naturalized as a U.S. citizen, was indicted on terrorism charges in 2015 after allegedly plotting to attack military facilities or prisons in the U.S.
So that information was available.
The question is, how do you possibly go before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that ill-prepared?
The DOJ attorneys weren't able to come up with a single bit of this information.
And the DOJ lawyer, Michelle Bennett, told Judge Ropart, Your Honor, I don't have that information.
I'm from the civil division.
If that helps get me off the hook.
And then the DOJ lawyer, August Flenche, wasn't able to point out Judge Canby's kind of fib and tried to give an excuse saying, well, these proceedings have been moving quite fast and we're doing the best we can.
So this is their job.
Now, the Democrats obstructed Jeff Sessions, so that's part of the problem.
But the idea that you have two DOJ lawyers assigned to an incredibly high-profile terrorism case that knows so little about terrorism is preposterous.
You know, you have to work a little overtime to look that stupid, and these two lawyers did a horrible job.
And at the time, the night that the arguments, remember, it was argued at 6 o'clock came in that night.
We were on TV, and I'm saying, Jay, and I said to Laura Ingram, I said, you guys could have argued this better in your sleep without any preparation.
And they could have.
So one has to wonder here what's actually going on.
The Ninth Circuit PolitiFact has been looking for information all day.
And, you know, I don't have time to deal with them, but I did spend a little bit of time because they're trying to give me, you know, 50 Pinocchios like they always do, and I'm always end up being right, and they always end up being wrong.
And how do you fact-check the horrible fact-checkers that have a political agenda?
Anyway, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the suspension of President Trump's terrorist travel ban, is so far out of the mainstream.
Now, they also take in a higher volume of cases than a lot of the other courts of appeals that their decisions so often end up getting reversed by the Supreme Court.
80%, 8 out of 10 cases from the Ninth Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled.
It was in the Daily Caller today, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Ba Association.
Ninth Circuit, which is known for its liberal tendencies, has the, you know, depending on the year, either the highest or second highest reversal rate of the 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court.
No one familiar, quote, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should be surprised that today's ruling, said Congressman Trey Gowdy, in a statement, the Ninth Circuit has a well-earned reputation for being presumptively reversible.
And then he went on to say, it seems clear judges are neither in a position practically or jurisprudently to second-guess national security determinations made by our commander-in-chief.
There's a reason we elect the commander-in-chief and we don't elect federal judges.
That kind of puts that argument to rest pretty quickly, doesn't it?
What else do we have going on today?
We've got a lot of other news today.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
It really is.
I have no idea what Congressman Jason Chaffetz is thinking.
He announced as the chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee that he wants an investigation into Kelly Ann Conway because she mentioned Ivanka Trump's clothing line on Fox and Friends the other day.
You can't be serious here.
You know, these are the same people, many of whom couldn't nail Hillary on anything.
They let the email gate, Benghazi, go by the wayside, not to mention the IRS and Fast and Furious.
They get nothing done.
But they're not going to let that fashion comment by Kellyanne Conway, a joke reference to the first daughter's clothing line.
The idea that this is what we're going to spend our time on is obscene.
Anyway, sent a bipartisan letter to the White House alleging that Kellyanne Conway may have violated a federal ethic law.
You know what that means for Kellyanne Conway?
Let me explain why people don't want to go into government.
Now Kellyanne will have to hire a high-priced D.C. attorney.
How do I know?
Because I had the head of the Democratic Party in New York when my best friend from childhood, John Gomez, was running for Congress.
I put a link to his website on my own website.
They said it was an in-kind contribution.
I had to spend a fortune on D.C. attorneys.
I'm not kidding, six figures to make this stupid charge go away.
And all it really was was the Democratic Party in New York filing this charge against me for the very purpose of trying to silence me.
And you know what?
That's how they play the game.
They're trying to criminalize political differences.
And all she said was, yeah, go buy Ivanka's stuff.
I'm giving a free commercial to go buy it online because Nordstrom is punishing Ivanka Trump.
I have a connection, somebody that I know that knows the higher-ups at Nordstrom's, and they said it's absolutely political.
The whole thing is political.
They're trying to hurt the daughter of the president.
Really?
Just like the media attacking this 10-year-old kid, Baron Trump, who I've met and know more than any of these people, who is the greatest, nicest, most regular kid you'd ever meet in your life.
And he's just an awesome kid, very polite, funny, is a great kid in a lot of ways.
Now he has to deal with the media attacking him and these stupid so-called comedians attacking him.
Now Kellyanne Conway is going to have to spend probably her first year's salary working for the president, paying lawyers over a stupid, idiotic, imbecilic charge like this.
It's such a, it's so, it just exemplifies everything that is wrong with Washington.
How about a little context and perspective here?
Okay, how about you just say, by the way, you can't do that on TV.
Done, over, finished.
That's how real life works.
If somebody on my show said something wrong in the air, I said, God, you can't say that again.
Like Linda, I have to say all the time, stop cursing on the show.
Every time she opens her microphone, she curses.
Is that true or not true?
That's true.
I think you're just as bad sometimes.
Yeah, no, I don't ever curse on the air.
You do.
I'm not saying I don't curse.
I said I don't curse on the air.
Watch, I'm probably going to drop one today like Bob Beckle used to every other day on Fox.
I remember he got in trouble one day, got yelled at by our boss at Fox, and he comes to me.
He's really upset, and he's really, and then he comes on the show and did it again.
I'm like, oh, my goodness.
And I had to call the boss on his behalf and plead his case.
He can't help himself.
It's so funny.
We have the ideological bigots of one of our so-called leading universities might as well post a sign on their faculty headquarters, no conservatives need apply.
Cornell University Student Assembly struck down a resolution that would have requested a creation of a committee to, quote, increase and improve faculty ideological diversity.
It was entitled Expanding Ideological Diversity Among Faculty Members.
And according to the Cornell Sun, a report from 2015 found that over 96% of Cornell faculty, their political donations went to Democratic campaigns or liberal progressive causes.
That's what they do.
What they can't do, they teach.
Let's see.
Oh, this is scary as it relates to the travel ban.
Not only did the Ninth Circuit ruling not go our way, but according to the Washington Times, hundreds of refugees from the terrorist hotbeds who would have been barred from entry are now pouring into America.
Yep.
If one of these refugees goes off the rails, shoots up a nightclub or a mall or a military base or sets off a bomb in Times Square, I'm going to remind this audience every day that it was the arrogant stupidity of the left that caused this carnage.
77% of the 1,100 refugees let in since Robart's decision on February the 3rd have been from seven of the suspected, the seven suspected countries, the seven on the order.
Unbelievable.
The major terrorist attack, thankfully, was averted in Paris after French officials proposed building an eight-foot wall security around the Eiffel Tower.
Four suspected terrorists were arrested, planning to attack an unnamed tourist location.
Pretty scary out there.
The post-whatever date, you know, report, we can write all these incidents in there.
Oh, they were at war with us, and this happened, and this happened, and this happened, this happened, but we weren't at war with them, and we wouldn't even say the words radical Islam.
All right, so the Trump administration is going to rework the executive order.
How should they do it?
We'll check in with Jay Seculo.
He has his recommendation from the American Center for Law and Justice.
He'll join us coming up next.
Marriages actually breaking up because Donald Trump is president.
We'll have a little Friday fun.
Also, our Friday Feel Good FGL concert with a special appearance by my buddy Michael W. Smith who's going to be at Carnegie Hall this Sunday.
And we'll get a lot of your calls in today, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
And don't forget, you can always catch us at Hannity.com and on Twitter at Sean Hannity.
All right, we'll take a quick break on this Friday.
You made it.
It's the Sean Hannity Show.
We light it up with our hands.
This is how we rule.
The security of our country is at stake, and it's a very, very serious situation.
So we look forward, as I just said, to seeing them in court.
Well, Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you.
And you ought to think about this, because these courts have said this is unconstitutional.
With the confirmation of Secretary Price, the Republicans launch the first assault in their war on seniors.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome to the revolution.
We're burning down the mashing bullets at the moon, baby.
This is how we rule.
Sean Hannity, the new Sean Hannity show.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
I'm curious about yesterday's ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court.
Has it caused you to rethink your use of executive power and how will you respond?
And will you sign new executive orders and perhaps a new travel ban?
Well, your question was unrelated to what we're here for today, but I'll answer it.
We are going to keep our country safe.
We are going to do whatever is necessary to keep our country safe.
We had a decision which we think we'll be very successful with.
It shouldn't have taken this much time because safety is a primary reason.
One of the reasons I'm standing here today is the security of our country.
The voters felt that I would give it the best security.
So we'll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country.
You'll be seeing that sometime next week.
In addition, we will continue to go through the court process, and ultimately, I have no doubt that we'll win that particular case.
You said earlier this week, and I'm quoting for you, you said, I've learned a lot in the last two weeks, and terrorism is a far greater threat than the people of our country understand, but we're going to take care of it.
Based off of what you have learned, and now knowing that your executive order is at least temporarily on hold, do you still feel as confident now as you have been at any point that you and the administration will be able to protect the homeland?
I feel totally confident that we will have tremendous security for the people of the United States.
We will be extreme vetting, which is a term that I developed early in my campaign because I saw what was happening.
And while I've been president, which is just for a very short period of time, I've learned tremendous things that you could only learn, frankly, if you were in a certain position, namely president.
And there are tremendous threats to our country.
We will not allow that to happen.
I can tell you that right now.
We will not allow that to happen.
So we'll be going forward.
We'll be doing things to continue to make our country safe.
It will happen rapidly.
And we will not allow people into our country who are looking to do harm to our people.
We will allow lots of people into our country that will love our people and do good for our country.
It's always going to be that way, at least during my administration.
I can tell you that.
All right, that was the president earlier today in a joint press conference with the prime minister of Japan, recommitting to the American people that he will keep the country safe and arguing that the American people do not fully understand the nature of this threat, which reminds me of what I've been saying: that we have now returned to a pre-9-11 mentality.
Cobard towers, embassy bombings, Kenya, Tanzania, the first trade center bombing, the USS Cole leading up to 9-11.
And then, of course, we can start from there and talk about the Pulse shooting, the nightclub shooting in Orlando.
We could talk about Chattanooga.
We could talk about Fort Hood.
We could talk about San Bernardino.
We can look abroad in Paris and in Europe and all of these attacks.
And remember, the post-mortem, the 9-11 Commission report.
The most profound thing that was said there is that they were at war with us.
We were not at war with them.
We were not on a war footing.
And you've got a bunch of judges, liberal activists, the Democratic Party, that are willing to gamble with the lives of the American people and literally for the convenience of people that are non-citizens to get into this country.
The whole constitutionality of the issue is very clear.
The law could not be more clear.
Jay Seculo with the American Center for Law and Justice has been all over this all week with us, and I know you spent a lot of time with us.
Thank you, Jay.
And you have a number of recommendations for the administration how they should go forward.
Why don't we first go over what their options are?
Because they can go back to the Seattle court and argue there.
They can appeal to the Supreme Court.
That would be in the hands of Justice Kennedy, and he can then refer it to the full court, the full Supreme Court.
But at 4-4, that's a risk.
Yeah.
So there's a couple of things that can happen here.
And as you mentioned, you set out the scenarios correctly.
I mean, if this was an emergency stay and they wanted to take it to the next step, what they would do is apply for a stay with Justice Kennedy.
You said he'd either grant it, deny it, or possibly refer it to the whole court.
The risk there is you've got a 4-4 court, possibly, because we don't have the Ninth Justice affiliating Justice Scalia seat.
And there's another risk.
One of the issues that the Ninth Circuit really focused on heavily in their opinion was that the clarification as to green card holders, visa holders, was only done through a White House counsel directive, not through an agency directive.
And while I think that's a little bit thin on the Ninth Circuit's part, to be quite frank, among other things that was wrong with that opinion, why not clean that up, put in what the president intended this to be in a new executive order, then you moot out the entire court proceedings between the Ninth Circuit and the district court.
I'm sure they will file another challenge.
It'll still be in California.
You probably will get a judge that'll still go the wrong way, and you may get a Ninth Circuit panel that goes the wrong way.
But then when you go to the Supreme Court, Sean, I think you win 8-0.
I don't think you have to worry about the 4-4 split.
So I would, and the president hasn't said what he's going to do yet, but he said there's going to be more information next week.
And they could issue the new executive order, by the way, and still litigate this if they wanted to.
Although I think the new executive order would supersede it's the best way to go.
Well, you're also buying time, but you don't have time, especially when it comes to protecting the country.
And I'll get into some statistics regarding that in a second.
For non-lawyers listening to the program, explain what the revisions would be and why they are necessary in light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, because I think this is important.
And I also would like you to highlight on the fact that the Ninth Circuit never even mentioned 1182.
Yeah, well, nor the Constitution.
So 1182 is the statutory authority resting with the president, where Congress rests with the president, the ability to control access for aliens, for immigrants, for non-immigrants, those that are not a citizen of the United States.
So the president has that authority.
The Ninth Circuit does not mention 1182 one single time.
It also doesn't mention the constitutional authority vested with the president as commander-in-chief.
It never mentions it.
They rest their entire case first on the issue that, well, some of these state colleges will have professors or visiting instructors not be able to get into the United States, and it may impact some of these students that are there on a foreign visa.
That is so thin, that argument, isn't it?
Oh, it's absurd.
I mean, you may be able to win this at standing at the Supreme Court, but again, all risky here in light of all of this.
So what the president did when this concern came out about the visa issue was he had the White House Counsel or the White House Council decided after talking with the consultation with the President, we're going to send out a directive that clarifies this, that it doesn't apply to these groups.
And that stopped the quote confusion.
But the Ninth Circuit said, well, we're not going to take the word of the White House counsel, basically, for this.
And it wasn't through an agency.
Where an agency issues a directive, it's binding.
Where the White House Counsel does it, it can be deemed more advisory.
So by putting the new executive, you use the same exact language that the President used in the executive order, and then the language they utilized in the directive, combined it into the one document.
Sean, it's literally a paragraph.
I mean, you're just inserting an additional paragraph.
And what that does, it does exactly what the president wants to do, which is keep Americans safe.
But everybody tries to ignore the fact that it was a Somali student who was one of the countries of origin here on the list that did that act at Ohio State.
I mean, people are ignoring this.
And then what you have is the opportunity to take the case up afresh.
And I really think that's the way to go.
Here's the other risk, as you said.
Time is of the essence.
Time is moving.
Every day that this goes by and we're not being protected is a day we're facing danger.
The president gets a briefing that none of us, and he said this today, that none of us get.
None of us get the briefing the president gets.
So the fact is, we know that he's hearing things that we'll never hear and we don't want to hear, frankly, because we want the country to be protected.
We understand the sensitive nature of that security intelligence.
But because of that, the new executive order, if it comes out Monday, it's in effect, and boom, you're right back in.
And those people that are trying to get in here that don't meet those criteria, don't get in the support.
They will.
But now here's what you do: you move it this quickly.
You know, it took 72 hours, and then you run this.
We run this thing up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Justice Kennedy either grants the state himself or you're that confident with those changes that you run it right to the.
Wow.
Yeah.
Yeah, because the entire basis upon which the Ninth Circuit rested on, Sean, is this, it was that flimsy issue.
They will now maybe utilize this, quote, religion issue.
You're preferencing religious minorities of others.
But I reminded everyone when I've been talking about this, immigration laws and refugee laws, of course, classify based on religious groups.
Remember, President Reagan allowed Soviet Jews to come into the United States.
It was a country of origin.
Russia was a religious community.
Jews.
So that's not an unusual.
There's no establishment clause violation here.
So I think, yeah, this is the way to win this thing and keep us safe at the same time.
And moves very quickly.
I mean, we saw how quick this moved.
If the president wanted to appeal this to the Supreme Court today, you realize you could have gotten a decision today.
They decided it looks like that they're holding off on that right now, which I think is the right call while they look at the opposition.
And now you've got an attorney general in place with Jeff Session.
So that's going to make a big difference, too.
Yeah, agreed on all points here.
And I think it's a super analysis.
Let's talk about the Ninth Circuit.
And it's been written about repeatedly that it is the most overturned court of appeals in the country.
In other words, when it goes to the Supreme Court and PolitiFac called me today, well, I want your proof, Mr. Hannity.
And I actually sent you some of it, and you said I'm on solid ground.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure.
More solid than what I even sent you.
I've got additional stuff now.
Yeah.
Send it over.
I will.
Yeah.
So, Sean, let me tell you this.
This is what everybody acknowledges.
Eight out of ten cases from the Ninth Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to the American Bar Association.
Now, that was a study published in 2010.
There's been subsequent studies.
The Ninth Circuit, because of its history, is either the most every year, I mean, every year, the most reversed Court of Appeals or the second highest.
But if you look at it over the course of a decade or even less, they beat everybody out.
They've got an 80% reversal rate collectively.
No one has that.
And by the way, I wouldn't be bragging if you were the second highest either.
So in one year, they have been the second highest.
Especially when you're talking about 80%.
You know, one of the things that people have, one of the things that I think a lot of people have talked at length about now, their docket.
They have more than twice any other Court of Appeals in terms of cases that are not resolved.
And, you know, some have talked about breaking up the Ninth Circuit.
Is that a good idea?
And how do you do it?
I've said that because, you know, if the government were to ask for an en banc hearing here, Sean, in other words, the entire Ninth Circuit to hear it, like if I have a case at the, and I've had this at the 10th Circuit, and I lost it two to one, I've oftentimes requested an en banc review.
All 11 judges sit and I win 6-5.
Or if I don't, I get a dissent.
With the Ninth Circuit, you never get an en banc review.
In other words, it's always cover the 22 judges.
It's always pick it up.
And I also want to ask you about some reported comments from Neil Gorsuch about the president's comments about judges and if we should glean anything from that.
The forgotten man is forgotten no more.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
All right, we continue now.
Jay Secular with the American Center for Law and Justice, obviously talking about the Ninth Circuit Court ruling, which I believe was a political decision, and what the next move of the Trump administration will be.
I also want to ask you, this case does show the importance and highlight the importance of Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
But Neil Gorsuch, according to a report, was with Senator Blumenthal and said that Donald Trump being critical of the courts and judges at times was disheartening and demoralizing.
Now, he says now it might have been taken out of context in some way.
Should we glean anything from that?
Zero.
A judge and a lawyer, as I am, we are under an obligation in our oath of office as an officer of the court to not make a disparaging comment about a judge or a member of the judiciary.
So, what and I wasn't there, so I don't know the exact words that were said, but what Judge Gorsuch said was rather straightforward.
He doesn't want to have judges demoralized.
The history of presidents talking about judges goes back to Thomas Jefferson, who said when the famous great Chief Justice John Marshall, in a particular case, Marbury versus Madison, said, If it wasn't Jefferson, it was Madison.
No, Jay, you're 100% correct.
It is Jefferson.
The president said the Chief Justice made this decision.
Let him go enforce it.
President Obama attacked the Supreme Court while they were sitting in front of him in the Capitol Rotunda.
I mean, this is, they're acting as if Donald Trump is on some, you know, out of historical precedent here.
That's just not the case.
But the reality is, Judge Gorsuch is being cautious as a sitting, he's a sitting judge.
So he's not someone that's interviewing to be a judge.
He is a judge right now.
He's been nominated for the Supreme Court, but he's a judge, so he needs to be cautious on what he says on that.
But again, I wasn't in there, and they could have easily taken it out of context.
Let me ask you this, because there's been so many times where conservatives have been disappointed, even in the case of John Roberts, where there was such great hope for him going in.
And then, of course, we know where he ruled on Obamacare.
But I guess the biggest mistake a Republican has made in modern times is David Souter.
What a disappointment he turned out to be.
So I think his trepidation.
What's that?
He was the stealth nominee, they called him.
That's what John Jones said.
He's our stealth nominee.
Not so much.
I appear before him a lot.
He was not a stealth nominee.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, so is there reason to fear here?
I mean, all we have to glean from is his past writings, his judicial philosophy, the book that he's written.
And when you look at his record, how confident are you that he is an originalist like Scalia and Justice Thomas?
Well, you've got a decade of opinions from him that show his judicial philosophy.
You have extensive writings from him that show his judicial philosophy.
He's made decisions on major cases that impact our audience tonight, today.
So this is someone that's got a well-thought-out track record and a well-published track record.
He did not just handle regulatory cases, he handled religion cases, he's handled a Planned Parenthood case.
I mean, he's been heavily involved in the cultural cases, but he's also someone that has a Ph.D. basically in natural law.
So this is someone that I think we've got a great nominee here.
And that does not mean, by the way, at the end of the day, that every decision the justice gives you, you're going to agree with.
I mean, you never know how that's going to go.
And I don't want to pretend that they always, always get them right.
But the fact is, I think we've got a great nominee and well-qualified, really well-qualified.
All right, Jay Seculo, you've been great all week.
Appreciate all of your experts.
How many times have you argued before the Supreme Court?
Twelve times.
We've had 20 cases.
Awesome.
We've had a good track record.
So we've won out of the 2017.
Doesn't get much better than that.
That doesn't get much better than that.
They're tough.
All right, Jay Seculo, American Center for Law and Justice.
When we come back on this Friday, wide open telephones, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, also coming up, news roundup, information overload.
What do you do when your wife says, I'm leaving you because you voted for Trump?
We'll have a little fun coming up, final hour on this Friday, straight ahead.
You know, there are women that are divorcing men.
Why?
Because their husbands voted for Donald Trump.
That's how divided the country is.
A retired California prison guard, a self-described Democrat leaning towards socialists, stunned when her husband casually mentioned during a lunch with friends that he planned to vote for Donald Trump, which he said is a deal breaker.
Wow.
And I've heard, listen, I know relationships that have ended over this election.
It's pretty amazing.
And I know people that I'll probably never talk to again as a result of all of this.
And by the way, I didn't start it with anyone.
And then I have other friends that disagreed with me, and we still stay best friends.
Every person we fought with, Linda, did we not get hit first?
And did we not just respond to those that fired first?
We always did that, right?
No, you're totally right.
Everything you're saying is 100% correct.
We've always done things that way.
We always will.
All right, let's get to our phones.
It's been such a busy week here.
We have Mary Beth is in Arkansas.
We'll start with you.
Mary Beth, you are on the Sean Hannity show.
Happy Friday to you.
Happy Friday to you.
And if that woman divorced her husband because of that, he's a lucky man.
You know, that's what I'm like.
Don't let the dog, you know, hit you in the way out.
I mean, just forget it.
Goodbye.
It's ridiculous.
The reason I called is I don't know when the left and the media is going to realize that there is a new sheriff in town, and he's got millions and millions of deputies right behind him.
And we are behind him.
And for eight years, Obama has said, I won, get over it.
I'm going to do it the way I wanted to do it.
And in saying that, you've been talking about how the Congress and Senators have such good jobs because they're off all the time.
They might need to redo their resumes because they're all going to be looking for new jobs.
You know, I know that my message both on radio this week and on TV has resonated in Washington.
I've been told by a number of people.
And I'm being told that they're on a 200-day plan.
The problem is, is they're not communicating any of this to the American people.
All we hear is our number one priority is repealing and replacing.
We should be able to do it by the fall or by the end of the year.
Hey, Sean, that's why we have you.
That's why we have you.
Listen, I don't care if you have an R before your name, a D before your name.
I want the country fixed.
And there frankly is really no excuse that they don't have a replacement consensus plan in place for Obamacare.
Now, the economy, the plan of Trump, working it through the Congress.
I understand the difficulty, the intricacies, but you've got a window here to save the country and stop this precipitous decline.
I live my life with urgency every single day.
Every person I know in the real world lives their life with a sense of urgency.
It is like you said all week, your staff would already been fired.
Oh, my gosh.
Can you imagine?
I mean, I don't know.
I would have been fired.
Look, I know people go out for business lunches, and I'm not critical of that.
Maybe their job lends itself to that type of life.
I just don't understand that life.
You know, as a contractor, I would either bring my lunch with me or I'd send one of my guys out to the deli and go buy food for everybody or order in pizza.
I mean, that's how I live my life as a general contractor.
I'll probably die young because of all the crap I've eaten in my life.
But there was no time to stop.
All right, guys, time for our hour's lunch.
I'm like, you've got to be kidding me.
I remember when I worked in Blount Marine, a shipyard painting ships when I was young.
And I remember we had a half hour for lunch.
We race out.
Somebody would race out in the car, grab some hot dogs at this particular place.
A lot of us would drink a couple of cans of beer and we'd all go back to work.
And that was it.
There was no time for lunch.
I just, I don't understand this.
I don't know.
I live my life.
Look at the travel ban, for example.
I'm thinking we're now in a pre-9/11 mindset.
The president, who has more information than he's ever had in his life, he's warning the entire country they're coming.
And we have to fight in court and we have to fight the Democratic Party.
And the president has to fight being called an American by a crocodile tier senator from New York, Chucky Schumer.
And meanwhile, if something happens, well, what are they going to say then?
Oh, we didn't see it coming.
Well, Trump is telling us it's coming.
I'm telling everybody, it's not if, it's when.
We're going to get hit.
And these people that are so unwilling to put security measures, common sense security measures in place and inconvenience a few people are literally gambling with the lives of the American people.
You know, as the president is moving forward on every promise he's made, I'm saying to Congress, get your ass in gear, you know, kick it up a few notches, and let's get moving.
And let's stay up a few late nights.
Let's work some weekends like everybody else and let's get the job done because this is an unprecedented opportunity to fix the country.
Do your job.
And I just, I have no, I cannot identify with this work ethic of these people.
I can't.
It just, it's unbelievable to me.
Anyway, Mary Beth, you have an awesome weekend.
Patty is in Texas.
Patty, hi, how are you?
And happy weekend to you.
How are you, Sean?
I just love you.
And when I hear you, I just, I kind of get the clear message, but I'm calling for kind of a silly what-if question.
I've been retired a couple of years, so because of that, I've been able to watch a lot more Fox and Friends and all my favorite shows in the evening.
And I am just filled with this.
And I recognize that I'm tense.
I am lying in bed, and I'm tense when I'm watching the news in the morning.
And my question to you is: would it have made a difference had it been another Republican in office?
Is this just a Republican Democrat?
Because I think it's personal.
I think they can't stand anything about Donald Trump.
Listen, it's definitely at a higher level because it is Donald Trump.
And they haven't, they're never going to figure him out.
There's no way because for the left to figure out Donald Trump would mean that they would have to acknowledge a fundamental truth, and their egos won't allow that to happen, is that they've never understood him.
They don't get his connection to real Americans.
They don't understand because they've lived in this bureaucracy and this bubble for so long.
They don't understand how the real world works, which is the way he is designing his presidency.
And there's a particular hatred for him because he fights back and he's effective.
The thing that you've got to realize is they would never want any Republican to succeed.
Donald Trump's success.
If Donald Trump creates millions of jobs, he builds the wall.
He puts great originalists on the Supreme Court.
He makes America energy independent.
He fixes America's broken educational system.
He incentivizes multinational corporations to bring back trillions.
He incentivizes corporations by reducing regulations and reducing the corporate tax cut to 15%.
He does all of this.
Millions of jobs are created.
That is a democratic part.
That is their worst nightmare.
Because every success statistic we'll be able to give you in four years, in eight years, is going to be a direct comparison to the failure of their leftist, statist ideology.
Remember, they gain their power by creating dependency among the American people.
Obama created more dependency than any president in modern times.
13 million more Americans dependent on food stamps.
You have 8 million more Americans dependent on government because they now live below the poverty line.
You have more Americans out of work dependent on government because of the horrific job market in part created by his burdensome regulation and his massively high taxes and the absolute failure of government-run health care, Obamacare.
So, yeah, if it was Kasich, if it was Bush, they'd hate them too because they don't want them to succeed.
Because anytime a conservative, conservatism works, and that's their fear.
The president's agenda is a conservative agenda, putting aside the trade issue.
Every issue we talk about on his list that he is checking off is a conservative, philosophical president.
And he's governing conservatively.
And their fear, their great fear is that he succeeds.
The only weapon in their arsenal is to marginalize him and try to create division and doubt in the minds of the American people.
They tried that during the campaign.
It didn't work.
The more successful he becomes, winning in and of itself creates a momentum that will be unstoppable.
And if he continues to move at the speed of Trump, the speed of light, it's only going to be that much more difficult for them.
I mean, the fact that they tried everything they could do to slow down the appointment of his cabinet, even though Chuck Schumer says a president has the right to his own government.
Well, he doesn't say that when Trump is president.
It's just they don't have the votes.
And in 2018, the map for the Senate does not look good for them.
You've got five senators that are up for reelection and states that Trump won by double digits.
All those senators are literally shaking in their boots in 2018.
Anyway, I appreciate your call.
It's, you know, I did an opening monologue on TV one night, and I said, they are not your friends.
And I went through the media.
I went through Republicans.
I went through Democrats.
I went through all the people.
Remember that interim period after the president won the election and all these people were making their move and it was sort of like a pilgrimage to Trump Tower to kiss the ring and kiss the president's backside?
I mean, it was nauseating to me because so many of those very people opposed him the entire way.
And you know what?
It was an interim period of time.
I'm sure the president was busy building his government.
But the reality is, if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
If you want two friends, get two dogs.
Politicians are driven by power.
They are driven by control.
They are driven with their own ambition.
And unfortunately, they ought to be in the service of you, the American people.
That's their job.
They're public servants.
That's where I would argue the term limits comes into effect.
The final hour of the Sean Hannity Show is up next.
On for Sean's conservative solutions.
All right, as we continue on this Friday, in the next hour, what do you do if your wife wants to leave you because you support Donald Trump?
Believe it or not, that's happened probably more often than we even know about.
And also, we'll have our Friday fun concert coming up at the bottom of next hour.
Let's get to our phones in the meantime.
And we say, hi to my buddy.
Levi is in Detroit.
What's up, Levi?
How are you, my friend?
What's going on, my brother?
From another mother.
You know, I used to give you a hard time about your support of Farrakhan.
You have evolved a lot over the years.
You've come around.
I think I've had a big impact on you.
Well, let me say this: that Minister Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad, I think that there is an obvious misconception when it comes to the actual ideology and philosophy of that religion.
And that is that that is this, Sean.
We believe in self-determination.
We believe in self-determination.
I'm going to tell you something.
What he says about fathers being fathers to their sons and daughters and being responsible and staying off of drugs and alcohol and behaving yourself, all of which I agree with, and not counting on government to help you.
I agree with that message.
The problem is he poisoned his message with hatred, anti-Semitic rants, some crazy comments like, you know, he took a trip to the mother wheel hovering above the earth, and he's an amazing orator.
I've studied him over the years, but unfortunately, you know, somebody that could have done a lot of good if he took out the hate and the anti-Semitism didn't do it.
Now he's an old man.
Well, he's done a lot of good for individuals, middle-aged guys, and younger black men like myself, because I would have been in a life of crime.
I may have fallen prey to the crack epidemic.
He's done a whole lot of good.
But let me say this to the white liberals and the white progressives, a group in which I belong to the progressives.
That Donald Trump, if you want to blame anyone for us having Donald Trump as our president, blame Obama.
I voted for Barack Obama twice.
I love Barack Obama.
However, as a black man growing up in the city of Detroit, taking trips to Chicago to visit my relatives, going all over the country, I have had to sit and watch and witness the carnage, the death, and the destruction, black people dropping like flies.
While Barack Obama sat in that White House for eight years, he never addressed the carnage.
I'm talking to the white liberals and the white progressives who don't have to live in the hood.
He never addressed what was going on as far as the death and destruction of how our babies were being murdered and shot down and drive-bys, how black men are being herded into prison.
Obama failed not only America, but he failed black America because he sold us on this promise of advocacy and change, which he never delivered.
Now, I'm not a Trump supporter.
However, at the same time, when I hear Donald Trump say, well, I'm going to intervene and send the feds to Chicago, to Detroit, to try to solve this problem.
As much as we may disagree with him as relates to the methodology that may be used, as a black man, I can't stand and say Donald Trump is wrong when my cousins and my brothers and my sisters are being subjected to drive-by shootings, AK-47, AR-15, 9mm Glock.
I've got to run Levi, but let me say this.
My friend Pastor Scott from Cleveland has already been to Chicago.
How this president stood and watched 4,000, 80% of which African-American lives snuffed out in Chicago alone during his presidency is unconscionable.
Secondly, by every economic measure, demographically speaking, the black community has been negatively impacted by Obama's policies.
Donald Trump is specifically targeting inner city schools and trying to fix them, trying to end the violence and trying to stimulate economic activity in these areas.
Give him four years.
Let's see how he does because it's desperately needed and there's a way to fix these problems, which I agree with you need to be solved.
We'll continue.
And to our detractors that insist that this march will never add up to anything, f*** you.
You.
But this is the hallmark of revolution.
Yes, I'm angry.
Yes, I am outraged.
Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
I am a nasty woman.
I didn't know devils could be resurrected, but I feel Hitler in these streets.
A mustache traded for a toupee.
Nazis renamed the cabinet electroconversion therapy, the new gas chamber shaming the gay out of America, turning rainbows into suicide notes.
I'm nasty, like my bloodstains on my bed sheets.
We don't actually choose if and when to have our periods.
Believe me, if we could, some of us would.
We don't like throwing away our favorite pairs of underpants.
Tell me, why are tampons and pads still taxed when Viagra and Rogan are not?
Is your erection really more than protecting the sacred, messy part of my womanhood?
Is the bloodstain on my jeans more embarrassing than the thinning of your hair?
All right, there it is.
The left unhinged on this Friday.
Toll-free our telephone numbers, 800-941, Sean News Roundup Information Overload Hour.
And our Friday FGL concert series continues at the bottom of the hour.
You never want to miss that.
That means the week is over, or mostly over, at least for you, because I got a show to do tonight.
But there's really incredible stories that I can tell you about people that I knew, liked, respected, that I don't talk to anymore because of Donald Trump.
And I could go over and name names again and again over all these never Trumpers and just how dead wrong they were and how right all of us that are irredeemable deplorables were in supporting Trump.
Just look at the promises he kept.
I mean, he stayed true to his word so far.
And if he doesn't, we'll hold him accountable.
Just like I'm holding the Republican Congress now accountable for their ineptitude and their lack of urgency to get the country fixed and the fact that they don't even have a replacement plan for Obamacare eight years later.
It's inexcusable to me.
Anyway, I'll give you one example.
Some of the burning passions.
This was on yahoo.com, a Reuters story over Donald Trump's presidency are taking a personal toll on both sides of the political divide.
For Gail McCormick, it's particularly wrenching.
She's decided to separate from her husband of 22 years.
She's a retired prison guard, self-described Democratic leaning towards socialist.
Stunned, well, she supported Bernie Sanders, stunned when her husband casually mentioned during a lunch with friends last year that he planned to vote for Donald Trump, a revelation that she is describing as a deal breaker.
It totally undid me that he could vote for Trump, she said, who had not thought of leaving the conservative Republican before, but felt, quote, betrayed by his support for Trump.
I felt like I had been fooling myself, she said.
It opened up areas between us I had not faced before.
I realized how far I had gone in my life to accept things I would never accepted when I was younger.
So three months after this election, this type of thing is now going on.
And a Reuters poll came out.
It found that 13% of Americans have ended relationships thanks to this election.
Now, it is a divided country, but I think that there is going to be a transformation.
If all these conservative policies are in place, I predicted that Obama would fail, and I predicted he'd fail spectacularly, and he did.
And I predict if conservative policies are adopted, which is why I'm trying to kick Republicans in the ass in D.C. and the House and the Senate to get their job done, if we can implement them sooner than later, then the country's going to be far better off.
Millions of jobs will be created.
We'll be increasing revenues to the government.
The economy will get moving again.
Finally, Obama's the only president in history never to reach 3% GDP growth for a year in any single year in his presidency.
And so there is a way to get out of this precipitous decline, but we've got to get the policies in place to make that happen.
And I don't really have a lot of patience for the slow pace of Washington and the fact that they were not ready for this victory in November because, frankly, many of these Republicans in the House and Senate did everything they could do to sabotage President Trump.
So it's frustrating.
But I want these policies implemented.
Anyway, this great divide, when it's 13%, that's a pretty high level.
Dr. Emily Morse is with us, and she's the host of Sex with Emily podcast, is a sexologist, whatever the hell that is, and a relationship expert.
And Blake LeVac is the author of Own That Guy in 60 Days, a Practical Guide to Love in the 21st Century.
And anyway, thank you both for being with us.
How are you?
Great.
Emily, what is a sex expert?
What is a sexologist?
Come on.
I laugh when I hear that.
I believe human sexuality and of how men and women and everybody relate sexually.
There's a lot of challenges people have around sex and relationships.
So my podcast helps me.
I think one of the most common things I have heard from people I know is one spouse wants to have a lot more sex than the other spouse.
What do you do in that environment?
I mean, but that's a great question.
That happens.
That's probably the top question I get asked over the last 12 years.
You got to compromise.
You have to talk about it.
Most couples put sex on the back burner and they never talk about it.
And that divide between the amount of time they have sex just continues to grow.
So if you don't want to have sex with your partner, guess what?
Sex is the glue.
That's what keeps you guys together.
Otherwise, you're a roommate.
So, yeah, you might have sex every single day.
Your partner only wants it twice, so you have it four times a week.
Because when sex goes away, again, your relationship will go away.
Wait a minute.
So what is the average?
Because you keep reading these stories in the paper all the time every year about what the average number of times per week that couples have sex.
What is it?
You know what?
Country is going, I hate talking about it, because this is like saying what's normal.
The other question I guess, am I normal?
I would say once a week is healthy.
Once a month is not.
That's about all I'm going to tell you.
Listen, I got to tell you something.
I know, look, among close friends of mine, very, very close friends, and then not a lot of them, I know couples that are perfectly happy.
The two of them never having sex.
They don't care.
I know couples that have it every day.
It's insatiable to them.
And then the average fall in the middle somewhere in between there.
Has that been your experience?
Yeah, if there's no problem and no one's complaining and they're not emailing me and they're not talking to you about it and they truly are okay with their situation, then that's fine.
But most couples are struggling in that way with their sex lives and with what they desire.
The other question, I guess, like, I want to, you know, try something different in bed.
My partner does it.
I mean, there's all these divides in people's bedrooms and they just don't really know how to resolve them by talking.
But if people are perfectly happy and they truly are, not like I'm glad that my wife won't have sex with me so now I can go cheat on her, but really they have an arrangement that works.
I'm happy to hear that.
Blake, you write a book that's called Own That Guy in 60 Days, A Practical Guide for Love for the 21st Century Woman.
Now, my question to you is really, what do you mean own that guy?
What does that mean?
You want to own him?
Well, hello, Sean.
How are you?
Very nice to be on your show with you again.
And greetings also to Emily.
It's figurative.
When I say own that guy, it means take control of the relationship to have the man into a position where you've got him on a string and you can pull him this way or that way as you wish.
That sounds like a good idea.
So basically what you're saying is men are dumb and that men could just, you know, if women do what?
X, Y, and Z. What is the X, Y, and Z for a woman to own a man?
Have sex with him?
Flirt with him?
Tell him how handsome he is and wonderful he is?
Well, I think that women are more intelligent than men.
And my simple reasoning is they have to be, and they have to be because they are, generally speaking, smaller than men.
So they're physically inferior in terms of size.
And they don't have the muscle mass or the strength that we do.
So because they're physically inferior or weaker, they have to make up for it in another way.
And I think they are more clever and more intelligent.
And they have to be.
Otherwise, if they were less intelligent than us and smaller than us, then they'd have no chance.
But generally speaking, they come out on top.
Let's be honest.
Wow.
You're basically saying women own men.
That's what you're saying.
I think that they can do.
Yes, absolutely.
But the main thing is what?
They flirt with them.
They tell them how great they are.
They appeal to their ego.
They give them attention.
I assume sex is probably involved in some way.
Or if they're not having sex, they're making out with the guy and making him happy, that sort of thing, and you own them.
If, you know, I outline this in the book, if a woman, when she first meets a guy, if instead of playing it cool and backing off and letting the guy chase her, if instead of that, if she picks the guy that she wants and then showers him with attention and with flattery, and if she puts him on a pedestal, and then if he wants sex, if she gives it to him, well, the guy's going to be bowled over because he's not used to this.
And she is going to make that guy feel so good that it's like a drug.
And he's going to be going, well, I really like this experience.
I like the way this woman makes me feel.
Yeah, the problem is then they get married.
The problem will be sometimes they get married and all the techniques, if you will, and tactics to own him, if they go away, then his feelings are going to shift dramatically.
Emily, what do you think of his theory?
Oh, my God.
Yeah, I absolutely think that, first of all, no one should be talking about owning anybody.
And to say that women are smarter than men or men are smarter than women, I don't even think that that's the issue here.
I mean, I think that saying that I think you've said also, Blake, that people should just have sex right away.
And I think for a lot of people, you've got to figure out who this person is.
Like, do you actually like them?
Because sometimes when you've sex and you're giving sex up right away, you're thinking, I don't even know this person, but I had sex with you.
And then the chemicals that our brain allow us to attach to someone, and it's just about that.
It's like a drug, right?
And we don't, so I think it's better to just kind of take your time and get to know someone.
And this whole like showering men, it sounds like you're treating them like children.
And I think you're saying maybe women are smarter, but men are not dogs that should be like parading their own unleashes.
I think that men are smart enough to know what's going on here.
Everybody likes it.
Listen, I think men and women, they like attention.
They like when people pay attention to them and they like physical contact in some way.
I think you have to be attracted to them in some way, right?
It has to be a natural physical attraction.
For people to deny that, I think they're just not being honest.
Are you ready to get out of the media spin room?
Well, you come to the right place.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Couples breaking up because of this 2016 presidential campaign.
And we continue with Dr. Emily Morse and Blake Lavick.
And thank you both for holding over with us.
All right, so the bottom line is this, if you're having a political difference, and let's say one person supports Hillary, but the husband supports Trump, and the wife wants to divorce you, in that instance, because you disagree on a presidential candidate.
Emily, I'm a kind of guy that says, well, don't let the door kick you in the ass too hard on the way out.
Too bad.
Get lost.
Well, yeah, I mean, I also think that, you know, there's been no time in history that's been fueled by this much fever and outrage by, you know, and it's also fueled by social media.
So, but I think that couples, before they, first of all, these couples who are married 22 years and they're getting divorced, I think there's probably other issues going on.
Let's be honest.
This might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, Trump's election.
So I really think that – but since it's everywhere and it's hard to distinguish between facts and opinions and social media, I mean, no matter where you go, you're being bombarded by all this information.
And so it's so hard for couples to – I have plenty of people that I've been friends with that didn't agree with me on the election, and we get along fine.
And then I have a whole other group of people that I was friendly with.
I wouldn't say friends with, because I reserved that term friends for very special people in my life.
And that's it.
Our relationship's over.
They were out there attacking me and saying things that were just so untrue that I ended up responding publicly if they went public.
What do you think, Blake?
I think you're right.
I think that the election result is being used as a catalyst.
And it's really, as Emily is saying, or I'm paraphrasing, it's a symptom of a bigger problem.
And probably the truer fact is that one person doesn't like the other.
And so they're using this as an excuse at the moment.
There are a lot of people in the media who are leaning that way.
And so it's easy to follow the current trend or the fashion and use this as a reason to dump the guy who you probably haven't liked or had anything in common with for a very, very long time.
It seems to me to be so petty.
Why am I able to compartmentalize and I have people that are friends or friendly with that have different points of view?
Although I will say this, I could never marry a liberal.
I couldn't do it.
It just wouldn't work for me.
She would hate me and we'd be arguing day and night.
What?
Right.
No, no, in your life, I can see it in your point for what you do for a living.
I can understand that.
But for a lot of couples where politics has never come into play, I think some of them are thinking, like, God, this reveals something on my husband's character.
Like, I didn't know.
Like, I didn't know his morals and his opinions were this way.
And I think that maybe they're extrapolating from what, just because what Trump believes doesn't necessarily mean that their husband believes the same things, and they're just jumping to conclusions here.
So I think if couples have the ability to communicate, hopefully they've got that in place.
They can kind of move beyond that.
They, you know, move beyond this.
They could choose, you know, not to discuss it.
They could, you know, turn off the TV, turn off the phones, just while they're together, and they could kind of weather.
How about you just say, listen, you vote for who you want.
I'll vote for who I want.
All right, guys, appreciate the insight, the advice.
All right, when we come back, our Friday FGL concert series with a special edition of Michael W. Smith that I'll explain when we come back in your calls.
Final half hour on a Friday, 800-941-SHAWN.
Hannity tonight, 10 Eastern, on the Fox News Channel.
Story that
no one else has.
And the behind-the-scenes chatter that the mainstream media doesn't even know about.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
It's Friday, time for our Friday Feel Good FGL concert series with a special appearance.
And I'll explain why in a minute by my friend Michael W. Smith.
You made it.
The week is now officially over for everybody but me.
Florida Georgia line.
And just is getting ready.
I'm guessing of the city.
I'm gonna pick her up at six.
I hope she's gonna wear the jeans with the tears that her mama never six.
The moon comes up and the sun goes down.
We find a little spot on the edge of town.
Twist all sip a little, passing around.
Dancing in the dust, turn the radio up.
And that five always whispers.
Temptation in my ears.
I'm feeling all right Saturday night.
And that's how we do it round here.
Yeah, that's how we do it round here.
The flat bills flip back.
Yeah, you can find us where the party's at.
This is how we roll.
We hanging around, singing down everything on the raid.
We light it up with our hands up.
This is how we roll.
This is how we do.
We burning down the night, shooting, shooting bullets at the moon.
This is how we roll.
Yeah, baby, this is how we roll.
We rolling into town.
With nothing else to do, we take another lap around.
Yeah, holla at your boy.
If you need a ride, if you roll with me, yeah, you know we rolling high boning 37 meters with no ten in my bacido.
How fresh my baby is in the shotgun seat though.
And kisses off of me, though, automatic like a free throw.
This life I live, it might not be for you, but it's for me, though.
Litch, this is how we roll.
We hanging round, singing down everything on the raid.
We light it up with our hands up.
This is how we roll.
This is how we do.
When the world turns ugly, I just turn and look at you, baby.
Winter came and the sky fall, only bring the rise out of darkness.
I couldn't find a day.
I didn't feel alone.
I never meant to cry.
Started losing hope, but somehow, baby, you broke through and saved me.
You're an angel, still me and never leaving.
Cause you're the first thing.
I know I can't believe me.
You're holy, holy, holy, holy.
I'm high on loving you.
I'm loving you.
You're holy.
Holy, holy, holy.
I'm high on loving you.
High on loving you.
Mean the brightest days from the darkest nights.
You're the riverbank where I was baptized.
Cleansed from the demons that were killing my freedom.
Let me lay it down, give me to you.
Get you singing, babe.
Hallelujah.
We'll be touching, we'll be touching heaven.
You're an angel, still me and never leaving.
Cause you're the first thing I know I can't believe in.
You're holy, holy, holy, holy.
I'm high on loving you.
All right, that's our Friday Feel Good FTL concert series and a special edition today.
My good friend Michael W. Smith will be performing Sunday night, Carnegie Hall.
I'm pretty sure it sold out, not sure.
But you would never want to miss him in concert.
It's amazing.
This is one of the songs we played on the many Freedom Concert tour stops that we had together with an accompanying video.
It was more than moving.
There she stands.
This just into our newsroom, a plane has crashed into the World Trade Center.
Will the night seems to stay?
An airplane has crashed into the World Trade Center.
All is lost.
There appears to be a gaping hole.
Oh, there it goes.
There it goes.
But I know.
The full side has collapsed.
The building has collapsed.
Tower 2 has had a major explosion and a complete...
By the light.
The building has collapsed.
She stands.
Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center.
This.
We're not going to be coward by it that we're not afraid.
Faithful friends.
The freedom-loving nations of the world stand by our side.
Shining stars.
Proud to have the red, white, and blue.
West would win.
This country will not relieve.
Show away.
Proud to be a part of this country.
Carry me.
I think about the families, the children.
To the place.
Freedom itself was attacked, and freedom will be defended.
She still.
I can hear you.
The rest of the world hears you.
Just when you think it might be over, come on.
Just when you think the fight is gone.
Someone will risk his life to raise you.
The resolve of our great nation is being tested.
Then she stands.
I pray to Egypt of the United States and now.
Internally power for Richard's family.
My nation underguarding the rainbow.
Wherever the end of the fall, we will not forget the 2,800 people.
Police and fire.
Not only were heroes at the beginning, but they're still heroes.
We're going to come out of this emotionally stronger.
And the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time.
I don't think anybody should forget the food.
Those guys did more than anyone ever expected of them.
They messed with the wrong city.
They messed with the wrong state.
She stands.
And I just don't want people to forget.
When evil calls itself a martyr.
They all had a sense of duty to protect us all.
When all your homes come crashing down.
We'll be steadfast in our determination.
Someone will bomb us from above.
The rest of the country now understands who the true defenders are.
She stands.
May the Irish hills caress you.
May her lakes and rivers bless you.
We see the flying sword and tattered.
May the luck of the Irish enfold you.
We see to stand the test of time.
May the blessings of St. Patrick behold you.
And through it all the fools have fallen.
God bless Ireland and God bless the United States of America.
Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed.
Let's roll.
The phrase New York's finest and New York's bravest means something now, doesn't it?
This is a time to reflect and be thankful for where we are today.
And through the fight, we will rebuild New York City.
She stands.
Yet after America was attacked, it was as if our entire country looked into a mirror and saw our better selves.
When evil calls itself a martyr.
Michael W. Smith, there she stands.
He will be playing at Carnegie Hall on Sunday night.
I didn't plan on playing that whole song.
I'm sitting here.
I'm getting goosebumps as I listen to it.
And I'm thinking, I can't believe it.
We've gone back to where we were.
We have forgotten.
It's now inspired me to change my opening monologue for tonight's show.
Is that we're now back to a pre-9-11 mindset.
Just before 9-11, there was a lead up to 9-11, Cobar Towers, the embassy bombings in Kenya and in Tanzania.
The first trade center bombing.
The blind sheikh, remember him?
You might remember the USS Cole, which is now off the coast of Yemen.
And what has happened since then?
Okay, we had a post-mortem and we got a 9-11 commission report.
I didn't agree with all the findings, but the main thing I agreed with is they were at war with us, those evil people that call themselves martyr.
When evil calls itself a martyr.
And in the interim, what has happened?
The emergence of ISIS.
In the interim, what has happened?
Look at what's happened in France and all over Europe, frankly, with the Islamization, radical Islamization of parts of Europe and unchecked immigration.
And here we are debating and discussing as a country whether or not we will inconvenience a few people that are not American citizens or we will gamble with the lives of Americans knowing in the interim since 9-11, ISIS has been created.
And all these terror groups are growing with more money than they have ever had, more emboldened than they've ever been.
Eight years of a pre-9-11 mindset that has taken over where we couldn't even say radical Islam, where we give the Iranian mullahs, the number one state sponsor of terror, you know, what, $150 billion.
We pay ransom to them for Americans being held.
And we can't say radical Islamic terrorism.
That's politically incorrect.
Fort Hood, the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, and so many other incidents.
I've run through all of them so many times.
You probably haven't memorized as I do.
And now we can't even, seven countries that we have identified with having links to terror and terrorist training, and we can't even vet people from those countries.
Frankly, we need to add more of the countries to the list.
Looks like the Trump administration is going in the direction that Jay Seculo was talking about, and that is a rewrite of the executive order.
All right, let's get to some of our phone calls here.
We have Lynn is in Denver.
Lynn, hi, how are you?
And we're glad you called on this Friday.
Hi, Sean.
Great.
How are you doing?
I'm good.
We lived in Southern California for 20 years, and they sell fake social security cards when people come over the border.
And we found out in 94 that eight different illegals were using my husband's social security number, both men and women, took out a loan for a house and a car.
It was very scary.
And I'm just wondering, what do liberals have against protecting our country and people breaking the law?
I don't know.
For example, look at the protesters out in Arizona earlier this week.
And we'll get back into that tonight on TV.
Here it is, a woman that is a convicted felon, guilty of identity theft.
If you don't have help, it takes years sometimes to get your name and reputation back if you can even complete the task.
And you know what it's like when you call a credit card company?
It's a nightmare.
You know what it's like if you're dealing with a bank and your retirement money was stolen or your savings were stolen.
It's a nightmare.
My husband's social security number was taken by eight different illegals, both men and women.
It was on her credit report.
Their names were on her credit.
They were, and it was really hard to get it taken care of.
And I did it for a week.
I spent a week.
That was my job, was to figure that out.
By the way, and you got lucky.
It often takes longer.
Hey, I got a break, but listen to me.
You have a great weekend.
Stay on the line.
We're going to send you one of our Trump pens, okay?
And we still have a few left.
All right, stay right there and have an awesome weekend.
When news, great news breaks, you'll hear the inside story that no one else has.
The behind-the-scenes chatter that the mainstream media doesn't even know about.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
Hope you have a good time.
You have a great weekend, and I want to remind you that we're on Hannity tonight.
You know what?
We're now back in a pre-9/11 mindset.
That's my opening monologue tonight.
And if we're not careful, it's not a matter of if but when people are going to die.
We'll get into all of that.
Corey Lewandowski, Jay Seculo tonight.
We'll have more on the legal battle as it relates to the extreme vetting.
We have guest Stephen Gern, retired Marine.
Where do you see his viral video out there?
Chris Korbeck, Chris Kolbach on the issue of immigration, and then Geraldo Rivera, Bo Deedle on protecting the homeland and the mainstream media bias with Joe Concha and Lisa Booth.
10 Eastern tonight, have a great weekend, and I'll see you back here on Monday.
see you tonight at 10.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations: thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
