All Episodes
Previous Next
July 1, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
34:51
Biden Losing His Mind - June 30th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
In with Linda and Ethan, and in for my buddy Sean Hannity.
It's Joe Paggs.
Go to joepaggs.com, find out who the hell I am, and go and check out all the social media as well.
There's a lot going on.
During the break, we were actually listening to the resident of the White House.
This is breaking right now.
The resident of the White House came out and was talking about how the Supreme Court said, no, you can't just forgive student loans.
He talked about paying back loans at 5% of your disposable income or something, paying back loans over 20 years.
And he was about to get into how disappointed he is that we're not canceling student loans.
I'm not disappointed.
It's half a trillion dollars.
They were just going to give back to people who said they promised they would pay the loan back.
So he's still speaking.
We'll monitor that, bring you whatever we can bring you from that as the day goes on.
The border situation is very, very personal for all of us now because every state is getting people who are coming here illegally.
The border situation is either so much better since Title 42 went away, or the Biden administration is lying to us about what's happening at the southern border.
Here's what we're being told.
Title 42, which was the title that allowed us to keep people from coming in for health reasons, was done away with by the Biden administration.
In fact, they wanted to do away with it earlier than they did, but court orders ensuing from places like Texas stopped them from being able to get rid of it.
It was lifted not very long ago.
And as soon as it was lifted, the Biden administration said, holy mackerel, looks like we fixed the border.
The numbers are going down.
They're down by 70%.
The Biden administration's border policy works.
Well, either that's true or they're lying.
I got with Laura Reese, who is the expert, the director of immigration studies and so on over at the Heritage Foundation, and I presented that question.
Either the Biden administration policies are working and working very well, or they're lying to us.
Which one is it?
It's the latter.
They're lying about it.
They're playing a shell game.
What they have done is they've told future illegal aliens, stop crossing between the ports of entry on the southern border.
Instead, use this handy CBP mobile one application.
Make an appointment.
You can enter through a port of entry.
We'll give you parole for at least two years.
You can have work authorization.
And here's a court date if you decide to show up.
But if you don't, we're not going to come find you.
And so migrants are obeying that.
And so if you look at the numbers of people crossing through ports of entry, that number has steadily risen.
However, these are still inadmissible aliens.
They don't have documentation to come in.
They don't have a visa.
And CBP lists them as their encounters, which means they're not lawfully here.
If you were to shift those numbers back to the Border Patrol encounter data, that would be, we'd be looking again at about 200,000 crossing per month, which is the number that the administration does not want Americans to see.
What are they saying that it is?
Well, they divide it.
So they say, look at the numbers now of those crossing between the ports of entry on the southern border.
Don't look at the nationwide numbers, which includes those crossing through ports of entry.
And that's why Kareen Jean-Pierre is able to say it's 70% decrease, but it's not.
She's literally talking about people crossing where there isn't a border crossing compared to people crossing where there is one.
And we're not really talking about their status.
Right.
And she goes to the extreme.
What she is doing is taking the week of May 11th when Title 42 ended.
So a lot of people were amassing in the northern part of Mexico, and the numbers shot up to the highest ever, 10,000 per day for at least three days.
So they take that high number right before May 11th.
And then those masses, after going through, then the numbers drop again, still between the ports of entry to 3,000 per day.
Still a bad number.
Keep in mind that President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security, Jay Johnson, said 1,000 a day is a bad day.
So even 3,000 is bad.
That's where you get that 70% claim by Corinne Jean-Pierre.
So it is extremely narrow and really twisting the numbers.
When you say it's a shell game, you really need it.
Heritage.org is the website.
It's Laurie Reese.
Laura Reese, Director of Border Security and Immigration Center at the Heritage Foundation.
So I'm a guy who wants closed borders.
I live in Texas.
I'm not that far from the border.
Illegal aliens coming here is a big problem.
They're dying in people's lands.
They're stealing people's stuff.
They're using up all of our resources.
And these small towns along the border just can't handle it.
And then forget sending them to New York because they can't handle it either.
I guess 7,000 going to New York is too much.
So when they say we're not going to accept them if it's not at a port of entry, I'm happy about that.
On the surface, I want them to go to a port of entry and want them to do it legally.
What is it?
Can you explain this app a little bit more?
They literally have on their cell phones before they cross over an app where they press a couple of buttons and that gives them some sort of pseudo-legal status.
It's making an appointment with CBP inspectors at a port of entry to be interviewed for whether that's to make a credible fear appointment or just to use a parole, one of the many parole, mass parole programs that Secretary Majorkas has created unconstitutionally.
And then that way CBP can control the number of appointments that they have each day.
They're up to about over 1,200 appointments a day.
So depending on that one single program, we're over 30,000 a month.
That doesn't even include another parole program that Mallorcus made just for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans who also get to come in through mass parole at about 30,000 a month.
So just these two programs, and there are about a dozen parole programs this secretary is using, just those two generate $60,000 a month coming between the ports.
Or excuse me, excuse me, at the ports of entry.
At the actual ports of entry.
So a couple of questions on that.
I'll get to Venezuela, Cuba, and others in a second.
But when we talk about them directing them to the actual port of entry, are you telling me that the Border Patrol agents who are really great men and women who want to protect our sovereignty, when they encounter somebody and it's not a port of entry, are they telling them go to the port of entry?
Yes, that is also happening.
You're literally telling them to go there.
And by the way, get this app on your phone?
Yes.
Yes.
So people who are still trying to cross illegally between the ports of entry, in many cases, Border Patrol is saying, stop, turn back, go towards a port of entry, make an appointment, enter that way.
And so the number of turnbacks that CBP reports has also increased quite a bit the past month or so.
But they're still getting in.
Because of that.
Yes, they are still getting in.
But they're counting it as a turnaway.
Yes, and then they'll end up getting counted again once they do enter via a port of entry.
Yep.
And they're not counted as being here illegally.
They're considered inadmissible, which immigration law is needlessly confusing.
This is a perfect example.
They don't have a visa.
They don't have documentation to get in.
And yet this administration directs our agents to parole them in.
Nonetheless, they are captured in that data of CBP, and they are not lawful.
This is what the left keeps arguing.
Oh, they're lawful.
They were allowed to come through a port of entry.
That's simply not the case.
If they were lawful, they wouldn't be counted by CBP as inadmissible on their nationwide encounters page.
Laura Reese, she's the director of Border Security Immigration Center at the Heritage Foundation.
Heritage.org is the website.
So let's talk about the communist countries that you mentioned earlier.
You said Venezuela, you said Cuba.
What's the other one?
It's Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
Okay.
So Nicaragua and Haiti, I'm not sure I understand.
But Cuba and Venezuela, I understand, because I thought for a while they were turning away people from those countries, which I thought was weird.
But you're saying there's actually a special parole program made just for them?
Yes, basically what it seems like this administration is doing is when any particular nationality is producing a lot of encounters at the border, then this administration makes a special program for them.
They made one for Ukraine.
They made one for the Afghan evacuees that we brought directly to the U.S.
They made them for Venezuelans.
Then they added these other three countries.
And they're about to do one for a whole nother set of countries.
Guatemala is included, Colombia, El Salvador, and Honduras.
They're going to get their own mass parole program soon, too, based on family reunification.
So this secretary continues to violate the law in doing this.
This is not permitted by Congress.
Parole is supposed to be extremely rarely used, and yet it's the go-to tool by this administration.
It's like you're reading my mind.
It's Laura Reese.
I was going to ask you next.
There was parole available, not this mass gale parole that was individual countries' parole, but there was parole available.
What was it intended to do?
It's supposed to be humanitarian.
It's supposed to be given on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian need or in significant public interest.
Think of someone who needs emergency surgery here and they don't have time to go get a visa.
That's kind of the classic example.
But what's key about it is the person doesn't have time to go get a visa.
The populations we've been discussing here, these people have time to go get a visa.
And that's what they should be doing.
And so not only does Secretary Mayorkas, he doesn't have the authority to create this visa-like immigration benefit.
Only Congress does.
What's interesting about it is I also, if I understand you right, this would be used for, okay, we're pulling out of Afghanistan and a couple hundred people helped us or a couple of thousand people helped us in our war effort there.
They're going to have to get out or else they're dead.
We would give them parole.
That's sort of the same kind of thing, right?
Well, that's what happened in some instances after Kabul fell.
What they should have done, however, is taken them to a third country first and then vet them thoroughly and then perhaps bring them here and probably using the refugee process instead.
It was so chaotic.
Some Afghan evacuees were sent to third countries, but a large number were brought directly here, were not thoroughly vetted, despite Secretary Mayorkis' claims that they were.
The Inspector General has issued multiple reports on this very issue.
And some of the Afghan evacuees then would leave the military base that they were resettled on, and the administration didn't go looking for them.
That could be Taliban, we would have no idea.
Right.
Let me talk about DACA because you just talked about a bunch of stuff that this administration is doing that's illegal.
It's not passed by Congress.
It's not part of the immigration laws that are on the books right now.
Neither is DACA.
I mean, literally, well, not literally, but this was Barack Obama kicking the can down the road saying, stay here for two years, compete with everybody else, go to school, get all the benefits of being an American, but you're not really an American.
We're going to defer your adjudication for a couple of years, pay a fine every couple of years, or just keep it going.
And now this has become a political hot potato.
If you want to get rid of DACA, which is already illegal, he should not have done it, then you're the bad guy.
You hate immigrants.
So what should happen with that?
Well, unfortunately, also, DACA is just a subset of what's also known as DREAMers, which is basically anyone who came here as a minor and is still here illegally.
And unfortunately, we have an entire pipeline of unaccompanied children who keep coming, historic numbers under the Biden administration, who today's UACs, as they're known, will be tomorrow's dreamers.
And so then the left says, well, we need to give this population green cards because they came here as unaccompanied children.
But that's how the left designed it.
They enticed them, they showered them with immigration benefits for coming here as unaccompanied children.
And then tomorrow they'll say, all right, now we have to give them green cards.
Laura Reese from the Heritage Foundation.
She is the director of immigration and border stuff.
Make sure you go and check out the rest of that interview.
It's up on my rumble.
Just go to joepags.com and click on the watch button.
You might have to do a drop-down menu to see watch.
The entire interview is up there.
There's more to it.
But when we hit this break, I want you to think about this.
And I'll explain it when we get back.
Linda just sent me this.
Nancy Pelosi is to blame for why the student loan forgiveness is not going to happen.
I kid you not, the Supreme Court cited Nancy Pelosi in their decision to say the executive cannot cancel or relieve student loans.
It doesn't get any richer than that.
I'll explain it when we come back.
It's from our friend John Solomon's website, JustThe News.
It's Joe Paggs in for Sean Hannity.
Stay right here.
Glad to have you.
Remember, go to watch the rest of that Laura Reese interview over at joepags.com.
Click on watch.
It's Joe Paggs in for Sean Hannity.
This is too rich not to bring you when it comes to student loan stuff.
This is from Just the News, the website that John Solomon runs.
Great journalist, great friend, of course.
Supreme Court cites ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in decision to strike down Biden's student loan plan.
Then I skipped forward a little bit.
The Supreme Court of the United States cited former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the decision today to strike down President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan.
Quote, as then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explained, people think that the president of the United States has the power to, or for debt forgiveness.
He does not.
He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power.
That has to be an act of Congress.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that and cited Nancy Pelosi.
My goodness.
I mean, I could not have asked for a better gift today than all the leftists that are freaking out, including the Obamas, who, by the way, according to Benny Johnson over on Twitter, the Obamas are on a private yacht, a luxury yacht off the coast of Greece today, mad tweeting about opportunities and student loan forgiveness and affirmative action.
Just let that sink in for a second.
They're on a boat that you and I will never be on, in a place you and I probably will never go, and they're tweeting about how angry they are that people of color like them don't have opportunities.
It blows my mind.
It just does.
But how rich is it that Nancy Pelosi actually told the truth about what the executive has the power to do?
And I think she probably said that because she was Speaker of the House at the time and thought, well, as the Speaker, I'll bring it up and I'll get it done.
Something she certainly didn't do.
So again, very, very rich.
It turns out Chief Justice John Roberts in the decision today, in the opinion today, cited Nancy Pelosi as one of the reasons why, hey, look, she even knew what she was talking about.
The executive can't do it.
When we come back, it's going to be former U.S. Representative Ted Poe, U.S. Representative from the great state of Texas, also a former judge about the border, about Ukraine, about what judges should do when ridiculous cases are before them as well.
You're going to love this conversation.
And do me a favor, we're blowing through some numbers over on Instagram.
It's at Joe Talk Show at J-O-E-T-A-L-K-S-H-O-W.
Help me out, get up to 200,000, and go check out my come on videos.
I think you'll like them.
I just talk about Biden, talk about Pelosi, talk about something.
And at the end, I yell, come on.
All right, Joe Pagg's in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show.
Stay right here.
Hey, Sean Hannity here for my friends at Lone Star Transfer.
If you felt like booking your timeshare was difficult in the past, you know, it's recently been almost impossible.
Now, most clients are shocked to learn that their timeshare is now available to the public, and that severely limits booking options.
Now, many owners have also reached out, and they're upset that their yearly dues have nearly doubled during the maintenance fee season.
Now, for well over a decade, our friends at Lone Star Transfer, a family-owned company, they have had the pleasure of helping thousands and thousands of people legally and permanently get out of their never-ending timeshare fees.
Now, Lone Star Transfer guarantees the release of all liability to your timeshare in writing and in a specific timeframe.
Call my good friends for a free, no-obligation consultation.
Write this down.
Call today, 833-594-0075.
833-594-0075.
They're online at lone star transfer.com.
Sean Hannity talks to the people involved in the top stories of the day.
Every day, Sean Hannity is on.
Great to have you along for the ride.
Thanks a lot for stopping by.
Love having my friend on, former judge, former U.S. Representative.
It's Ted Poe.
Ted, how are you?
Good to see you.
Good.
Doing well.
Thank you, Joe.
Are you concerned about Biden?
Ted?
Yes.
Ted, I mean, there's something missing here, and maybe I don't get it.
Now, I've been looking at some old video of Joe Biden.
Notice, he's always been dumb as a rock.
Let's just be honest.
But having said that, the guy at least was quick.
He was sarcastic.
He was argumentative.
He could, even though what he was saying was ridiculous, he could hold the floor and give a good speech.
Yesterday, I mean, he doesn't give any press availability at all, as you know, whereas Trump would spend two hours, which I thought was too much, just arguing with Jim Acosta.
But somebody yesterday asked him about Putin and this uprising that happened in Russia.
And Biden says, listen, Vladimir Putin's losing the war in Iraq.
Like, nobody says anything.
I mean, obviously, it's Ukraine.
The reporters don't say, you mean Ukraine, right?
Don't you have to at least correct the guy?
Then he says that he's a pariah around the world and something else.
Ted, are you concerned?
Every time I see this guy speak, he says something.
He meant to say concentrated today.
And he said consecrated two times.
And then the third time, he just paused for about seven seconds.
Are you concerned?
Absolutely.
He is the most powerful person in the world.
He represents us.
And it's an embarrassment to me personally, and I think to the public generally, when he's out there making such comments of Russia being in Iraq, are you kidding me?
I mean, Russia has been in a lot of countries, but Iraq probably isn't one of them.
And then he gets it mixed up with Ukraine, never corrects himself.
He could have said Afghanistan because they lost the war in Afghanistan like we did.
So who knows?
And then he just moves on down the road like nothing ever happened.
Very concerning.
And this guy, he's got his finger on the button on the nuclear weapons in our country.
I remember the back and forth between Ronald Reagan and Sam Donaldson.
And Sam Donaldson and Ronald Reagan ended up liking each other.
And Reagan always took his ridiculous attacks and questions.
And it was a back and forth.
And Reagan did a lot of this.
And people are complaining that Reagan was too old.
And if I recall, Ted, I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.
When he was running for president, the media was saying, are you getting too old?
Today's your birthday, and you're going to be 69.
And he said, no, it's just the 30th anniversary of my 39th birthday.
But they literally were trying to pretend like he was too old at 69 years old.
This guy's going to be 85 if he runs and wins again by the time he's out of office.
And we've already seen the cognitive decline.
If you look at Joe Biden 10 years ago, even Ted, he's a way different person than he is today.
So why are they still hanging their hat on him?
And do you think like a Gavin Newsom is in the wings?
Well, you asked me a lot of questions.
I knew President Biden when he was a senator when I was in the House of Representatives.
He has changed a lot.
I don't think it's under his control.
He has changed a lot.
And comparing him to Reagan, but Reagan didn't make missteps like Biden did.
And what Reagan did, he fixed, he corrected it.
He came across as a person that knew what he was talking about, regardless of his age.
Biden is showing his age.
And unfortunately, it's detrimental, I think, to the country when he makes these comments that are just ludicrous.
And he just moves on down the road like nothing ever happened.
Well, I bring up Reagan for one reason.
Reagan was cognitive the entire time.
He was funny.
He would tell great stories.
And in fact, one of those famous debates with Mondale, the moderator brings up age, and Mondale says, yes, it's certainly going to be a problem.
And Reagan says, I'm not going to hold his youth and inexperience against them, which was hilarious.
So, I mean, we're looking at a guy who's a shell.
And you and I have talked about this before.
Is Obama running the joint?
Who's running the joint?
It's not Biden.
My opinion, it's Obama.
And the reason that Biden is where he is is because he can be controlled.
He can be manipulated.
He can be the puppet for the far left and the ones who want to have absolute power with government to control the rest of us.
So I think that's why he is where he is, because he is not making his own decisions about what his policies are in the United States.
He is, you know, he's artificial.
He's the artificial intelligence in the White House.
Yeah.
Well, if you use the word intelligence, I'll let you, but I mean, he's artificial for sure.
It is Ted Poe, former U.S. Representative, former judge.
I want to go off the beaten path for a second here and talk about China in Taiwan.
Now, you as a representative, you knew that our policy, alleged policy was one China policy.
And then Nancy Pelosi decides she's going to go to Taiwan.
And then Kevin McCarthy, I guess, hosts the president of Taiwan or Prime Minister or whatever it was.
And so we're recognizing Taiwan as something.
It's not just a bunch of land and space.
And we pretend it's a country.
But then Blinken recently said, after meeting with President Xi, no, no, we've got the one China policy, and Taiwan is not an independent state.
We don't recognize it as an independent state.
As a representative, what did you think our relationship was with Taiwan?
And is it not independent?
Well, our policy now is it is not an independent entity.
It is part of China.
That is the official U.S. policy.
But it has always been our policy that we would defend Taiwan if attacks, especially by mainland China.
I'm not so sure that that's our policy anymore.
I think down the road, China is going to walk into Taiwan.
The Taiwanese might be able to defend themselves to some extent, but I think the U.S. and its commitment years ago to defend Taiwan won't occur.
We'll be missing in action when that occurs.
China is making all of the moves to just walk in to Taiwan, and we will not, I don't think we'll do a thing about it.
Yeah, but how do you have it both ways, Ted?
And here's what I mean.
Let's say the United States government wanted to invade Kansas.
You know what I mean?
It's not like China is going to say, hey, you better not invade Kansas, although we do believe it's part of your country.
So I'm confused by that.
How can we have it both ways that we'll defend their independence, but we don't believe they're independent?
Well, we can't have it both ways.
We can just do double talk or double speak, as Orwell said.
And we will continue, I think, to supply them armlets.
We're sending many of those arms that we contracted with Taiwan years ago to send to Taiwan.
They ended up going to Ukraine.
What about that?
Does that mean that we are backing off our commitment to send aid to Taiwan to defend itself?
I don't know.
But I think we just have said the policy is it belongs to China.
China believes Taiwan is part of China.
And I think China will walk in to Taiwan.
They may get some resistance by the Taiwanese, but I'm not sure the United States, even though it said years ago we would commit to defending them when we went to the one nation policy.
I think those days are over.
I really do.
Former U.S. Representative, former Judge Ted Poe, we appreciate your time and the access.
Ukraine, let's talk about Ukraine, or as Biden would say, Iraq.
Let's talk about Ukraine for a second, Ted.
So Zelensky comes out the other day.
You know the guy who was on Dancing with the Stars?
He comes out the other day and he says, I want to put off the elections.
We should have no elections here.
Again, we're told that we're fighting for democracy over there.
We're told that we're stopping a tyrant and a dictator in Putin from coming over.
But Zelensky says we should put off the election until the war is over.
We should not have an election during a war.
And my question is, if he gets that done, doesn't it disincentivize ever ending the war?
Because then he gets to keep power as long as he wants.
Well, yes.
And he, the Ukraine is no democracy.
The left telling us it is a democracy.
No, no, no.
Nancy Pelosi told us just two days ago that it is.
Come on.
No, it's not.
It is not a democracy.
They control the press.
They control the media.
They control speech in Ukraine.
They put down opposition.
They put their opponents in jail.
It is not a democracy.
Zelensky, like all tyrants in the past, will use the excuse, we're at war.
We can't have an election.
Did you know that the United States during the Civil War had an election during that war?
We've continued to always have elections during all wars.
And so it's just an excuse to control, remain powerful, eliminate any opposition.
And we're just doing what Zelensky wants us to do.
I think it's all payback to the Biden crime syndicate, why we're even there in the first place.
But it's not a democracy.
Using that as an excuse that being in war is to keep his ultimate power.
And I think that's an even more recent example.
So for him to say that and to say it in his stupid camouflage pants and his green shirt, I'm not sure I understand even what this guy's deal is other than he is raking in the money.
We can't account for it.
We've asked for an accounting of it.
Andy Biggs says it's as much as $200 billion now.
Yesterday, the Biden administration, through this Olivia Dalton person, I think it was in for KJP, I would have said another half a million dollars in this, that, and the other.
Last week, Ted, it turns out there was an accounting error, and we had to send him $6 billion more.
Why was it the accounting error on our side?
So for some reason, this is a funnel of money to Ukraine that we have no idea what it's doing.
Nobody's talking about FTC, by the way, or FTX, that Sam Bankman-Fried thing, where it was alleged that some of the money going to Ukraine was coming back and supporting Democrats in elections here.
Ted, if you were in the House right now, and God, I wish you were.
If you were in the House right now, what would you do to oversee this?
Because you do have oversight.
The House has the purse strings.
If we can't account for the billions going to Ukraine and some of it might be funneled back here to help Democrats, shouldn't somebody do something?
Absolutely.
We should cut off the money immediately.
Unfortunately, the War Party controls Congress, and the War Party is made up of Republicans and Democrats who believe they've never seen a war they didn't want to get involved in, somebody else's fight.
And that would never pass to eliminate the funding for this war.
But that's what needs to happen.
General Accounting Office, where are they telling us where the money went?
There is no accountability for any of this money.
We do not know where it's going.
It's a blank check because we want to save democracy in Ukraine.
And that rallying cry is great news for the warmongers in Washington, D.C. and the people who are the war profiteers, our defense industry.
And we need to stop sending money to Ukraine until we find out where it went.
And we're funding their government.
We are giving them enough money to fund the government operations of Ukraine.
We're not funding ours.
We go into debt to fund our government, but we pay money to fund the Ukrainian government so it stays in operation under Zelensky.
Well, I mean, six months ago, Biden literally said, and it gives the Ukrainian people some walking around money.
I don't want to get many walking around money.
They can get their own walking around money.
It's not going to be my money.
I work for that.
It's Ted Poe.
Ted, put on your judge's robe if you don't mind for a minute.
Let's go to Michigan.
They're trying to pass a law in Michigan that the wording of the law, it's a hate bill.
You can't do hate crimes.
Look, you and I are against hate crimes.
Absolutely.
Let's not do any crimes.
I think all crimes can be hate crimes.
But in the law, it says if a person feels threatened by someone's words, they can report it and have that person arrested or charged.
Ted, as a judge, you get that case in front of you.
And if I say to somebody, man, get out of my way.
I'm trying to bring my family through.
I feel threatened by that guy.
That guy should be arrested.
That's not American, is it?
I can say words, can I?
Yes, you can say words.
And unfortunately, the left is trying to eliminate the First Amendment, freedom of speech.
You know, the First Amendment says government will make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech.
But people don't want to believe that.
And by the way, I want to stop you for a second because, by the way, they wrote that.
And the day after they wrote that, government tried to restrict speech.
It's been happening for our entire history, but thank God the document stops us.
Go ahead.
Well, the intent to commit a crime belongs in the eyes and actions of the offender, not the person being offended.
The crime is committed if a certain person decides to do something, and the intent is in the offender, not in the offended.
So if the offended says, oh, that hurt my feelings, that's a crime.
I'm sorry.
That is not a crime.
You know, I'm kind of a simpleton.
You've been telling me that for 15 years.
So if somebody says something about my mother, right?
And I say, you say it again, I'm going to kick your ass.
Now that person says they feel threatened in Michigan, I can be arrested and charged, Ted, under a hate crime law.
What?
That's right.
I'm confused.
Why do they keep on doing it, knowing that if it should get to the Supreme Court, which of course it will, it's going to be thrown out?
Is this just piecemeal dictatorship?
That is exactly what it is.
The piecemeal is across the board in every activity by the left.
And this is just one more example of that, preventing a person's free exercise of speech.
We're not talking about actions.
We're talking about the free exercise of speech.
And just remember, the rule is you don't commit a crime if you are offended by what somebody says.
You don't have the right to say, he committed a crime against me because he hurt my feelings.
Well, I'm sorry.
That's not the law.
And think about what I do for a living.
If I said something on the radio and I'm on 16 stations in Michigan, I could be arrested if somebody is offended by what I said.
Ted, it's crazy world.
It really is.
Well, Joe, I got news for you.
There are a lot of people offended by what you said.
I've been offending you for almost 20 years, Ted.
It's Ted Poe, former judge, former U.S. Representative.
Ted, one last statement and tell me if you agree.
I think you do.
There would be no need for the First Amendment if we agreed on everything.
It's there so we can be disagreeable, is it not?
Absolutely.
That is the purpose of the First Amendment is to allow the public discourse of disagreement and to protect your right to disagree with me.
Even though you would be wrong, you had the right to disagree with me.
And you have the right to do it publicly.
You have the right to do it in print.
You have the right to do it now on the internet.
Free speech.
That's why the First Amendment is the First Amendment to protect your religious liberty and immediately go to protect your right to say what you want and also to print it.
Ted, thanks a million.
I appreciate you, brother.
Okay.
Thank you, Joe.
All right, man.
We're back after this.
Stay right here.
Exposing government waste and abuse of your liberties every day.
Sean Hannity is on right now.
All right, we've all seen the stories in the news.
It feels like I'm seeing more all the time.
And of course, we're talking about home title theft.
Now, these criminals go online, they find your title, and then fraudulently transferred that title into their name.
Now, this leaves you with nothing.
Now, Linda, our friends at home titlelock.com, they showed you and me, whoa, how easy it is for these criminals to steal your home.
Took them less than six minutes.
They monitor the largest database of property records in the U.S. 24-7.
They will alert you the instant any criminal tries to mess with your title.
And if the worst happens, Home Title Lock's team of title restoration specialists right here in the U.S., they will hire the lawyers and the experts that it takes to save your home.
That's protection.
Now, that's the protection that you need.
And our friends at Home Title Lock, they will give you the first 30 days of protection free, and they'll start you off with a free title scan to see if you are already a victim.
Just go to home titlelock.com/slash Sean, home titlelock.com/slash Sean S-E-A-N.
We appreciate former judge, former rep Ted Poe, coming on and explaining an awful lot.
You got to a lot there.
By the way, go to Hannity.com right now, get your tickets for Sound of Freedom.
It's the movie that's going to be out on July 2nd.
That's two days from now.
Jim Coviesel and many others.
Go and check this out.
Again, Sound of Freedom.
Go to Hannity.com, get your tickets there.
Going to be a great movie for you and the family.
Another big hour coming your way, Joe Paggs, in for Sean Hannity.
You know, the thing about all things MyPillow products, they just work.
I fall asleep faster.
I stay asleep longer.
And guess what?
Mike Lindell, MyPillow, they have just made their pillow, MyPillow, the original, that much better with MyPillow 2.0.
The MyPillow 2.0 has the patented adjustable fill of the original My Pillow, but it now has brand new exclusive fabric that is made with temperature regulating thread.
The MyPillow 2.0 is the softest, smoothest, and coolest pillow you're ever going to own.
You're going to love it.
When you go to mypillow.com, click on the Sean Hannity Square.
And if you buy one MyPillow 2.0, you get another one absolutely free.
The MyPillow 2.0 is made with the temperature regulating technology, 100% made in the U.S.
The pillow comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee.
You can get it by calling 800-919-6090.
Use the promo code Hannity or simply go to mypillow.com, click on the Sean Hannity Square, buy one, get one free.
The all-new MyPillow 2.0.
▲
Export Selection