All right, news roundup and information overload hour.
Here's our toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of the program.
In a minute, we'll be joined by our friend Mark Halperin.
Well, I think it's one of the few honest brokers in the media today.
If you remember in the lead up to the 24 presidential election, we had him on fairly regularly, and he was one of the few people that was like out there saying what I was saying.
He was reading the same numbers I was reading, and he knew that Donald Trump was going to win that election as I knew it.
And I, although I never want to communicate that to anybody ever, because you always have day of turnout.
And that means that if people don't show up that day, all the models or modeling in terms of elections and predictions go right out the window.
But we both had a high degree of confidence that, in fact, that would happen.
But also, he's been honest in as much as he's been willing to point out things that we have discussed on this program.
Russia collusion was a complete manufactured hoax by all the information that we were reporting at the time and what we have learned through declassification.
We know that the FBI verified the authenticity of Hunter Biden's laptop in March of 2020, then pre-bunking on a weekly basis all these big social media companies.
I think we're in agreement on the issue of weaponization of the DOJ, and we can talk about that with him.
But, you know, for now, about a week, all we've been hearing is this double-tap strike on these, against these narco-terrorists that are bringing drugs into the country, killing our children and other Americans, that Pete Hegset sent out an order to kill, kill them all.
That's what they said.
Well, now all of a sudden, even fake news ABC, Martha Raditz, of all people, is reporting, oh, we have new information tonight, according to a source familiar with the incident.
Listen.
Tonight, new information.
According to a source familiar with the incident, the two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the initial strike.
They were believed to be potentially in communication with others and salvaging some of the drugs.
Because of that, it was determined they were still in the fight and valid targets.
A JAG officer was also giving legal advice.
So again, David, that video will be key.
Oh, they were believed to be potentially in communication with others and salvaging the drugs.
Because of that, it was determined that they were still in the fight and valid targets.
A JAG officer was also giving legal advice.
And even the top Democrat Jim Hines on the House Intel Committee said Thursday that the Navy Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley, you know, is absolutely denying the Washington Post report that Pete Hegseth ever gave a kill-em-all order, which has been reported as gospel truth.
This is why I keep saying we have an information crisis in America.
Anyway, Mark Halperin is back with us.
I don't know what your titles are anymore.
Editor-in-chief of Tu-Way, I know that.
And, you know, you're like everywhere these days.
How are you?
Very good to talk to you, Sean.
Happy holidays.
And we're about 90% in agreement on everything you said.
90.
All right.
Go to the 10% you disagree with.
Well, I prefer to go to the Ronald Reagan view.
90% friend is my 90% friend.
I think all Americans should just want a full, robust debate about the constitutionality, legality of the overall operation in the Caribbean.
I totally agree with you about the rush to judgment without ample facts on this operation.
And this is an implicit area of disagreement.
I would have preferred the Pentagon to brief members of Congress and to some extent in a non-classified way, the public on what actually happened rather than letting the vacuum be filled by half-truths and things that no longer appear to be true at all.
But if you go back in history, and I won't repeat that, which I've told this audience many times, I don't care if it's Biden killing innocent people in a home in Afghanistan.
I don't care if it's mistakes that Barack Obama made or George Bush have made and past presidents and Bill Clinton have made.
What we know is that Trende Aragua was identified as the people that have been running these drug boats, these narco-terrorists, and they confirmed that that's what that boat was.
I kind of tend to doubt if you have four, 300 horsepower outdoor motors on your boat that you're out there to get out really to get out there faster to catch a shark or catch a fish moving at high rates of speed.
So to me, it's kind of a no-brainer.
And we do have all these drugs that have been flowing into the country and killing Americans.
I'm not exactly sympathetic towards those people that are poisoning our fellow Americans.
I agree 100%.
And I think not only what you're saying is morally right and kind of a matter of policy right, but I think it's going to be politically popular.
But I do think, you know, again, it's not about being permissive on the war on drugs.
It's not about whether these are good guys or not.
It's about whether it's consistent with American law and American tradition to conduct the operation based on the authority they've asserted.
It might be.
I just think we need a fuller debate because there are slippery slopes here.
And there's not been an operation quite like this.
There's no doubt for the last 50 years or so, every American president has basically said to Congress, go suck lemons when it comes to war powers.
The executive branch is going to handle it.
But if you love liberty, checks and balances and don't want a unitary executive to just on its own, regardless of party, say, we're going to go use the American military this way, then again, there should be a robust debate about what's the authority being used here.
Why isn't Congress involved?
And is it being done consistent with our values and our law?
I'm not saying it's not.
I'm saying it hasn't been debated and Congress, including chairman of the arms.
But the whole War Powers Act has been debated pretty much under every presidency, is it not?
Well, it hasn't been debated.
It's just Congress is steckless and not standing up to the president.
So there's no debate.
It's been implicitly decided by everyone.
But it's not uniquely Trump, is what I'm saying.
It's definitely not uniquely Trump.
This mission has some unusual elements, but 100%.
And Barack Obama killed an American citizen using American military.
So it's not uniquely Trump at all.
And I was just as insistent that there be a debate.
Again, I'm not saying where the debate should come down, but there should be a debate.
When American presidents use the military to kill people, whatever the mission, whatever the morality of the mission, there should be some authority that's debated and discussed so that we don't have one branch of government deciding that it controls the power to declare war when the Constitution is pretty clear that it's not the branch that has the power.
I don't necessarily see this as a declaration of war as much as it is the president sees a designated terrorist organization and a threat, an imminent threat, endanger the American people.
And under his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, would have the ability to do so.
Let me move on.
Let me ask you.
Just say, I'm not against that.
I just think it should be discussed.
Yeah.
We have, you know, we lost a 20-year-old National Guardswoman.
We have a 24-year-old National Guardsman, both from West Virginia.
He's clinging to his life.
And now we're learning a lot about the people that have been resettled here from Afghanistan.
We saw the hasty pullout.
It was a disaster.
Lindsey Graham at the time was asking Mayorkas about whether any of the people that were jumping on those planes were being vetted before they got on.
And all he kept saying was, We're so proud of our resettlement policies, but now we have learned quite a few things.
You know, nearly 7,000 people flagged for derogatory information, over 5,000 flagged for national security concerns.
We had the arrest of another Afghan national, this one in Texas, over a threat to our national security.
And now we have two dead guardsmen that have been saving lives in Washington, D.C.
And it's frustrating to me when you couple that with wide open borders and the big lie.
The lie in this case is they were all vetted.
They were not.
The lie about open borders was the borders closed and the border secure.
It was never closed.
It was never secure.
And they lied to us for four years.
And now we have untold millions of people in this country that we know nothing about.
I agree with everything you said.
And the only addition I'd add is there's every real possibility that it's going to be worse than people who are not just what this appears to be a lone actor, but there's every possibility that there's conspirators in this country who came in through the Afghan resettlement program through the poorest border.
And so I hope that the current administration is doing everything possible to determine who's come to this country whether.
Well, they're trying, Mark.
I mean, you turn, you watch news, absorb news as much as I do.
They're trying.
And what do we see every day?
What do we hear every day?
We have ICE agents compared to the Gestapo and Nazis, and they're called fascists.
The incidence of threats against ICE agents are up a whopping 1,150%.
Now we have some of these agents, in this case, guardsmen, being killed.
You have people like Gavin Newsom, number one sanctuary state in the country.
He wanted to pass a law, although he has no constitutional jurisdiction, to prevent ICE agents from putting a mask on, but it's perfectly okay for the people that protect him to wear a mask.
And we've had these people, these agents doxed and threatened and, you know, for doing their job.
And it's very frustrating to me.
Yeah, my tone may have been misleading.
I wasn't saying I hope they're doing it like it's their fault.
I'm saying I hope they have the success that is necessary to go back and re-scrutinize all the things that were done under the previous administration.
And I agree with everything you said about ICE.
This is a weird situation that one party has just decided to side with lawlessness and tried to decided to side against law enforcement.
They've predicted a bunch of abuses.
We just haven't seen them.
And as for wearing the masks, I just don't understand their fetish about this.
We know why they're wearing masks.
It's not because they want to do it anonymously for some nefarious reason.
They don't want to be doxed and there's other health and other related issues.
This is not understandable to me why they've just decided that law enforcement wearing masks is some sort of sinister plot.
Let's see if we're on the same page looking towards 26, the midterms and 28.
I'll start with 28.
It appears Gavin Newsom would be the frontrunner as of today, in my mind.
I want to hear your idea on that.
Number two, I think a lot of people have tried to read too much into the Tennessee 7th District and the election that took place on Tuesday.
However, if the party in power, in this case, President Trump and Republicans, want to maintain control of the House and Senate, to do so, they have to defy history.
It's only happened three times in the last hundred years that the party in power in the White House maintains control in the next midterm election.
So it's not an easy task.
Yeah, it's made easier, however, by the fact that there's a relatively small number of seats here.
And so Democrats are unlikely to get a big wave.
Of course, it's made harder because the current majority is so narrow that it's not going to take a lot to lose it.
I'll start with 26.
You know, there's so many interpretations of what happened in Tennessee.
I'm not sure.
I don't think everybody's overinterpreted.
I think that there's one rational interpretation, which is if the president's level of popularity and people's feelings about the economy are on Election Day next year, what they were in that national area district on Tuesday, the Democrats will win control of the House.
So just a question of whether that's going to change, whether the president will become slightly more popular, which is all really the party needs, and if people feel better about the economy.
But there's no doubt that the Democrats are a liberal candidate and the Republicans spent a lot of money and she did quite well under the circumstances.
Someone that liberal doesn't really have business coming that close.
You shouldn't run in a city that you hate and a city known for country music and say you hate country music and say you want to defund the police and say that rioting against police is a good thing.
Yeah, all those things.
I mean, she was a very liberal candidate and it wasn't like she had all the money.
So I think, again, it's pretty clear.
And there are plenty of MAGA people who will tell you this.
It's quite simple.
Will people say, yeah, the president's got a theory of the case on the economy?
The vice president and the secretary of treasury said at the cabinet meeting on Tuesday, next year, happy days will be here.
Again, the economy will be better.
If people feel that next year, I think the Republicans have a good chance to divide history.
If they don't, I think it will be close to impossible.
And that's as it should be.
Not just because this president promised to do better on the economy, but every president, their job is to fight for the real lives of real people and make their lives better.
And the polling data is clear.
It's not fake news.
It's not cherry-picking polls.
Every honest poll will tell you people don't feel great about the economic current conditions or about the future.
In terms of I'll add this because we're running out of time.
You're right.
But however, the president has trillions and trillions of new manufacturing dollars that have yet to get into the bloodstream of the economy.
His tax cuts have not tax cuts have not gotten into the bloodstream of the economy.
And energy-dominant policies have not made it into the bloodstream of the economy.
It's beginning to.
And if the economy turns the way I believe it will second quarter-ish next year and the second quarter, I think that that'll have a big impact.
Decisive in the question of whether they can keep the House.
They have a better chance to divide history than most presidents' parties we've seen at this phase of the cycle, about 11 months out.
Gavin Newsom's the frontrunner.
He may not run.
And this is the weakest field either.
Oh, he's running.
He's running.
He said as recently as yesterday what he said to me several times.
He may not run.
He may not.
I can't tell you what he said to me in his last text to me.
It was not very nice, Mark.
Yeah.
You know, he's a fickle man, Sean.
He really is.
Listen, I got a roll, though.
We do appreciate you.
Mark Halperin, thanks so much for being with us and come back often.
Thank you.
800, 941, Sean.
Let's go to Chris and Marilyn.
Chris, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Yes, sir.
How are you, Sean?
I'm good.
What's going on?
Yeah, man.
I got a comment, and then I got a couple impressions for you of callers from your show, okay?
Okay.
Okay.
So first, my comment.
All these people with the narco-terrorists and stuff, aren't these the same politicians that have been pushing the pot lobby forever?
And pot is still a schedule one federally illegal drug?
I think so.
I've been reading recently, I've seen it, that the scheduling of weed.
And I will tell you, there's a lot of articles about, you know, the THC levels that that is what makes you the part of marijuana that makes you high is so astronomical.
20% higher.
20% higher.
Okay.
That a lot of these kids are literally suffering all of these, you know, psychosis and breaking down.
It's called, there's a term that's used now called scromatine.
Scromaty.
Yeah, it's caused by habitual marijuana use.
Look, I'm torn on the issue.
I don't want people to do drugs.
I don't do drugs.
And then people would rightly argue with me, well, you do have a beer or you have a drink occasionally.
I'm like, yeah, I do.
Well, that's a drug.
Okay.
It's not the same thing.
I can have a drink and not lose my faculties or get high.
Right.
And do you know what Schedule I actually means?
It means there's no helpful benefits that we know of scientifically, which a lot of people argue medical, but Schedule I says there's no benefits to anybody and it's and it's addictive.
So those two things make pot Schedule I.
It's federally illegal, but all these same politicians and people who are worrying about the poor narco guys probably have pushed that pot lobby for decades, I bet.
Yeah, look, I have spoken to people that, for example, have gone through very, very dire, difficult chemotherapy treatments, for example, for cancer, and they swear that it takes away their nausea, makes them feel better.
But they're taking doses that are reasonable.
For example, yeah, it does remain a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law.
My understanding is that's going to change.
This proposal to reschedule it is ongoing.
I think a decision will be made this month.
And a Schedule III controlled substance is a drug that has currently accepted medicinal purposes, lower potential for abuse than Schedule I or Schedule II, and can lead to moderate or low dependence or high psychological dependence.
You know, the problem is the people that I know that, I mean, it's the strangest thing in the world.
I mean, I've met adults, you know, these are people on the periphery, periphery, periphery of my life.
And then you find out later that, you know, they love to take gummies.
I'm like, huh?
Yeah.
I'm like, right, whatever.
And not the gummies that Linda takes, which don't have any THC in them, and meaning CBD products.
It just concerns me overall.
I want young people, I don't want them, you know, numbing themselves to life.
And yeah, life at times can be painful, but that painful also, that painfulness or any pain that you suffer can lead to an awakening in your life, a spiritual awakening in your life.
We kind of forget that human beings are mind, body, and spirit, right?
Take care of your body, you take care of your mind.
And, you know, spiritually, I think you need to nourish yourself there as well.
Well, and apparently the pot can lead to schizophrenia, but I mean, even if you look in the Bible, Jesus, his first miracle was turning water into wine.
I mean, I think he drank wine in the Bible, right?
So a little bit of alcohol is pretty good, I think, a little bit.
But I don't know about pot, man.
So I'm just going to put that out there.
But can I do my impressions?
Okay, let's hear it.
All right.
Sean, this is very, very dangerous for me to allow you to do, but go ahead.
This is moda liberal, Sean.
How you doing today?
Can you get me my shoes and my glasses?
I have them.
You're the most dangerous man in America, Sean.
All right.
And here's AJ, okay?
Big time, Sean Anthony.
All right.
You're not cutting it with the ex I'll do mine.
I disagree.
That AJ one was really good.
Oh, nice.
Thanks, Linda.
All right.
There you go.
You get better grades from Linda.
That's it.
I'll say it.
Nobody else will say it.
There.
I said it.
I'm done.
That's also very.
I'm sure you don't know who that is.
Get off my phone, you big dope.
I got a roll.
Anyway, appreciate the call.
Thank you.
800-941-Sean, Joe, Pennsylvania.
What's up, Joe?
Hi, Sean.
How are you?
First of all, I'd like to say.
I'm hearing rumors Federal's thinking about running for president.
What do you think of that along with Josh Shapiro?
You know, I got to be honest.
I kind of got a soft spot for Fedderman because I think he's probably one of the most sane ones right now on the left.
Oh, I'll take it a step further.
I've spoken to him many times.
He's been interviewed on this radio program and on TV, and I actually like him.
Now, he's never going to become a Republican.
I think you're dreaming if you think that'll happen.
But I think I love the fact that he doesn't give a flying rip about how crazy his party is.
He's just not going there.
Well, I got a shock for you.
I'm also former Democrat and President Mayor Emeritus from Pennsylvania.
So I was mayor, and of course, that's for life.
We can still do other things.
But I'm not changing my party.
You don't have to be a Republican to be conservative or have a conscience or make correct decisions.
That's the problem.
You see, in other words, we're picking sides.
Like Democrats are no, the Democrats have been hijacked.
They don't represent me right now.
So what I like to say, if you'll just give me a few seconds here, is freedom is not free.
It's never been free.
What price?
All these protesters, all these animals trying to get murderers out of jail, everything else, promoting drugs, everything else.
And I'm not, you know, I'm not going to identify who they are because we all know who they are.
It's on the news every day.
And we know some of the people that are promoting this, even in the parties that are in government now, we know that.
Everybody knows that.
And it's my party, too, that's doing this.
The bottom line is, you know, how many of these people have prayed the price for their freedom?
How many of these people have gone through with what our parents or family have gone through?
How many went to war?
How many shed blood?
No, but they can get out there and spew their mouths, try to get everything for free.
May not even be a citizen of this country and still, you know, try to run for office or whatever.
You see what's happening.
You look, think about this.
You look at the Congress.
You look at the Senate.
It's a disgrace.
The vile, the vile, seditious, treasonous, dangerous rhetoric that comes out of these people is insane anymore.
People, wake up.
I don't care if you're Democrat or Republican.
I know, Sean, you are a Republican.
Excuse me.
You're going to agree with me with this.
I don't care what party you are.
This is not appropriate if we want our country to survive.
It's ripping it down.
And this has been a slow process.
I believe, honestly, you know, I've been pro-Democratic and I also have been pro-conservative and voted for conservatives.
I'm not going to lie.
I thank the government for what they're trying to do right now under the Trump regime.
I support it 100%.
I don't particularly like him sometimes.
You know what I'm talking about with his people skills?
But the bottom line is you look at our economy.
Blame Trump.
Blame Trump.
Well, wait a minute now.
Who raised the interest rates?
Who raised the interest rates where people now with variable rate mortgages are now paying double their mortgages, but they're blaming Trump.
No, it was under Biden.
You got to get your.
I can give you the actual numbers.
Under Biden, grocery prices went up a whopping 26%.
Under Biden, electrical prices went up 39%.
Under Biden, car insurance went up 63%.
Combined monthly percent, 37%.
That's that's unbelievable.
That is, it's been crushing Americans.
And many Americans don't even have $1,000 if, God forbid, they have an emergency in their life.
It's, you know, it's just frustrating that I just know what it's like.
I've been there.
And people might say, well, Hannity, I read that you get paid a lot of money.
I'm making more money than I thought I'd ever make in my life.
I'm not going to sit here and lie to you, but I didn't get into this to make money.
I got into radio.
I did it for free.
My first paid job paid me $19,000 a year, and I thought every day I worked, I was going to get fired.
I still have that in the back of my head.
Isn't that odd, Linda?
So weird.
No, that's good.
It's inspirational.
Well, I just want to do the best show I can.
I'm grateful to be here every day and do this show.
Joe, we appreciate you, man.
God bless you.
800-941-Sean, Jason in South Carolina.
What's up, Jason?
Mr. Hannity.
Yeah, this is Jason.
I have a question for you.
Do you know of any possible programs or people that looked into possibly doing like fixed interest rate for specifically like housing?
And, you know, we have this housing crisis with interest rates, but the banks are going to make 3%.
Say it's 3%.
They're going to make 3% on these fixed interest rates.
Everything, and it's not based necessarily on credit per se.
Do you know if anything's been looked at like that where it could create home ownership at a fixed rate for these people that are really struggling?
Here's what's going to happen.
Interest rates now are down a half a basis point.
We expect by the end of the year, three quarters of a basis point.
The president probably in January, February, the latest will announce the new Fed share.
There'll be new monetary policy.
Interest rates, I would imagine, will continue to come down, which means that you're going to be able to get a 30-year fixed rate mortgage probably in the fours and in no time, maybe, you know, 4% or 5%, which is so much better than where it's been.
What does that mean?
You know, all these people that have, you know, three, three and a half, 4% interest rate, 30-year fixed-rate loans that have been wanting to move and have not been willing to give up that low interest rate, there's going to be a massive sell-off of pre-existing homes.
And with an increased supply and demand being, you know, what it is, I would imagine that people will be able to enter the home market.
You add a point to interest rates, you know, in a mortgage and, you know, it makes a home that would otherwise be affordable unaffordable.
And the same thing, you know, I think that we're also going to see we're short about 6,000 homes around the country.
I think you're going to see once you see sale of pre-existing homes, new home construction is going to heat up a little bit.
And I want that for people.
I was never more proud of my life than when I got my first home.
I don't know.
I paid like $112,000, $15,000, something like that in Roswell, Georgia.
I love my little house.
I loved it.
End of a cul-de-sac, buried in trees.
It was awesome, you know, in the wilderness where I want to go, you know, anyway.
I appreciate your call, my friend.
Thank you.
I want that for all of you.
And I know it's tough, but just let's see where we are at the end of the second quarter next year.
I know nobody wants to ever hear that, but it does take time to get into the bloodstream of the economy.
We're seeing signs of success, but undoing the damage is much harder than I think most people know.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
We've got a great Hannity tonight, Dine Eastern, on the Fox News channel.
We'll have the latest on the arrest.
I mean, it's kind of amazing of this guy that they believe planted the bombs on the eve of January 6th at the Republican and Democratic headquarters in D.C. We'll have an update on all of that.
We'll also have Dan Bongino, Trey Gowdy, will join us.
Stephen A. Smith has a big fight with the Ladies of the View.