Speaker 1: Right News Round Up and Information Overload Hour. Here's our
Speaker 1: toll free telephone number if you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. In a minute, will be joined
Speaker 1: by our friend Mark halprin Well. I think it's one
Speaker 1: of the few honest brokers in the media today. If
Speaker 1: you remember, in the lead up to the twenty four
Speaker 1: presidential election, we had him on fairly regularly, and he
Speaker 1: was one of the few people that was like out
Speaker 1: there saying what I was saying. He was reading the
Speaker 1: same numbers I was reading, and he knew that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was going to win that election as I knew it.
Speaker 1: And I although I never want to communicate that to
Speaker 1: anybody ever, because you always have day of turnout and
Speaker 1: that means that if people don't show up that day,
Speaker 1: all the models are modeling in terms of elections and
Speaker 1: predictions go right out the window. But we were both
Speaker 1: had a high degree of confidence that in fact, that
Speaker 1: would happen. But also he's been honest in as much
Speaker 1: as he been willing to point out things that we
Speaker 1: have discussed on this program. Russia collusion was a complete
Speaker 1: manufactured hoax by all the information that we were reporting
Speaker 1: at the time and what we have learned through declassification.
Speaker 1: We know that the FBI verify the authenticity of Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden's laptop in March at twenty twenty, then pre bunking
Speaker 1: on a weekly basis all these big social media companies.
Speaker 1: I think we're in agreement on the issue of weaponization
Speaker 1: of the DOJ and we can talk about that with him.
Speaker 1: But you know, for now about a week, all we've
Speaker 1: been hearing is this double tap strike on these against
Speaker 1: these narco terrorists that are bringing drugs into the country,
Speaker 1: killing our children and other Americans that that Pete Heggs
Speaker 1: that sent out in order to kill kill them all.
Speaker 1: That's what they said. Well, now all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: even fake news ABC Martha Radits of all people, is reporting, oh,
Speaker 1: we have new information tonight, according to a source familiar
Speaker 1: with the incident, listen.
Speaker 2: Tonight, new information. According to a source familiar with the incident,
Speaker 2: the two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the
Speaker 2: initial strike. They were believed to be potentially in communication
Speaker 2: with others.
Speaker 1: And salvaging some of the drugs.
Speaker 2: Because of that, it was determined they were still in
Speaker 2: the fight and valid targets. A JAG officer was also
Speaker 2: giving legal advice. So again, David, that video will be key.
Speaker 1: Oh. They were believed to be potentially in communication with
Speaker 1: others and salvaging the drugs. Because of that, it was
Speaker 1: determined that they were still in the fight and valid targets.
Speaker 1: A JAG officer was also giving legal advice, and even
Speaker 1: the top Democrat Jim Hines on the House Intel Committee
Speaker 1: said Thursday that the Navy Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley, you know,
Speaker 1: is absolutely denying the Washington Post report that Pete Hegseth
Speaker 1: ever gave a kill them all order, which has been
Speaker 1: reported as gospel truth. This is why I keep saying
Speaker 1: we have an information crisis in America. Anyway, Mark Halpern
Speaker 1: is back with us. I don't know what your titles
Speaker 1: are anymore. Editor in chief A two way. I know that.
Speaker 1: And you know you're like everywhere these days.
Speaker 3: How are you very good to talk to you, San,
Speaker 3: Happy holidays? And we're about ninety percent in agreement on everything?
Speaker 1: Is that ninety all?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Go to the ten percent you disagree with?
Speaker 3: Huh? Well, I prefer to go to the Ronald Reagan view.
Speaker 3: My ninety percent friend is my ninety percent friend. I
Speaker 3: think all Americans should just want to full robust debate
Speaker 3: about the constitutionality legality of the overall operation in the Caribbean.
Speaker 3: I totally agree with you about rush to judgment without
Speaker 3: ample facts on this operation, But in this implicit area
Speaker 3: of disagreement, I would have preferred the Pentagon to brief
Speaker 3: members of Congress and to some extent, the non classified
Speaker 3: way of the public on what actually happened, rather than
Speaker 3: letting the vacuum be filled by half truths and things
Speaker 3: that don't longer appear to be true at all.
Speaker 1: Well, we if you go back in history, and I
Speaker 1: won't repeat that which I've told this audience many times.
Speaker 1: I don't care if it's Biden, you know, killing innocent
Speaker 1: people in a home and in Afghanistan. I don't care
Speaker 1: if it's you know, mistakes that Barack Obama made or
Speaker 1: George Bush had made, and past presidents and Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: had made. What we know is is that Trende Arragua
Speaker 1: was identified as the people that have been running these
Speaker 1: drug boats, these narco terrorists, and they confirmed the doubts
Speaker 1: what that boat was. You know, I kind of tend
Speaker 1: to doubt if you have four three hundred horsepower outdoor
Speaker 1: motors on your boat that you're out there to get
Speaker 1: out really to get out there faster to catch a
Speaker 1: shark or catch a fish moving at high rates of speed.
Speaker 1: So to me, it's kind of a no brainer. And
Speaker 1: we do have all these drugs that have been flown
Speaker 1: into the country and killing Americans. I'm not exactly sympathetic
Speaker 1: towards those people that are poisoning our fellow Americans.
Speaker 3: Agree percent, And I think not only what you're saying
Speaker 3: is morally right and kind of a matter of policy right,
Speaker 3: but I think it's be politically popular. But I do think,
Speaker 3: you know, again, it's not about, you know, being permissive
Speaker 3: on the war on drugs. It's not about whether these
Speaker 3: are good guys or not. It's about whether it's consistent
Speaker 3: with American law and American tradition to conduct the operation
Speaker 3: based on the authority they've asserted it might be. I
Speaker 3: just think we need a fuller debate because there are
Speaker 3: slippery slopes here, and there's not been an operation quite
Speaker 3: like this. There's no doubt. For the last fifty years
Speaker 3: or so, every American president has basically said to Congress,
Speaker 3: go suck lemons when it comes to the war powers.
Speaker 3: The executive branch is going to handle it. But if
Speaker 3: you love liberty, checks and balances and don't want a
Speaker 3: unitary executive to just on its own, regardless of party,
Speaker 3: say we're going to go use the American military this way,
Speaker 3: then again there should be a robust debate about what's
Speaker 3: the authority being used here, why is in Congress involved,
Speaker 3: and is it being done consistent with our values and
Speaker 3: our law. I'm not saying it's not saying it hasn't
Speaker 3: been debated in Congress, including Chairman of the Army.
Speaker 1: But the whole War Powers Act has been debated pretty
Speaker 1: much under every presidency.
Speaker 3: Is it not, well, hasn't been debated. It's just Congress
Speaker 3: is tackless and not standing up to the president, so
Speaker 3: there's no debate. It's been implicitly decided.
Speaker 1: But it's not uniquely Trump, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: It's definitely not uniquely Trump. This mission has some unusual elements,
Speaker 3: but one hundred percent, and Barack Obama killed an American
Speaker 3: citizens using American military, so it's not uniquely Trump at all.
Speaker 3: And I was just as insistent that there'd be a debate. Again,
Speaker 3: I'm not saying where the debate should come down. But
Speaker 3: there should be a debate when the American presidents use
Speaker 3: the military to kill people. Whatever the mission, whatever the
Speaker 3: morality of the mission, there should be some authority that's
Speaker 3: debated and discussed so that we don't have one branch
Speaker 3: of government deciding that it controls the power to declear
Speaker 3: war when the Constitution is pretty clear that it's not
Speaker 3: the branch that has the power.
Speaker 1: I'll necessarily see this as a declaration of war as
Speaker 1: much as it is. The presidency is, you know, a
Speaker 1: designated terrorist organization and a threat, imminent threat and danger
Speaker 1: to the American people, and under his constitutional authority as
Speaker 1: commander in chief, would have the ability to do so.
Speaker 1: Let me let me move on. Let me ask you.
Speaker 3: Just say I'm not against that, which I just think
Speaker 3: it should be discussed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we have you know, we lost a twenty year
Speaker 1: old National guardswoman. We have a twenty four year old
Speaker 1: National guardsman, both from West Virginia. He's clinging to his
Speaker 1: life and now we're learning a lot about the people
Speaker 1: that have been resettled here from Afghanistan. We saw the
Speaker 1: hasty pull out. It was a disaster. Lindsey Grammar at
Speaker 1: the time was asking mayorcus about whether any of the
Speaker 1: people that were jumping on those planes were being vetted
Speaker 1: before they got on, and all he kept saying was,
Speaker 1: we're so proud of our resettlement policies. But now we
Speaker 1: have learned quite a few things. You know, nearly seven
Speaker 1: thousand people flagged for derogatory information, over five thousand flag
Speaker 1: for national security of concerns. We had the arrest of
Speaker 1: another Afghan national, this one in Texas over a threat
Speaker 1: to our national security. And now we have two dead
Speaker 1: guardsmen that have been saving lives in Washington, d c.
Speaker 1: And it's frustrating to me when you couple that with
Speaker 1: wide open borders and the big lie, the lie in
Speaker 1: this case is they were all vetted. They were not.
Speaker 1: The lie about open borders was the borders closed and
Speaker 1: the border secure. It was never closed, It was never secure,
Speaker 1: and they lied to us for four years and now
Speaker 1: we have untold millions of people in this country that
Speaker 1: we know nothing about.
Speaker 3: I agree with everything you said, and the only edition
Speaker 3: I'd had is there's every real possibility that it's going
Speaker 3: to be worse that people who are not just what
Speaker 3: this appears to be a lone actor, but there's every
Speaker 3: possibility that there's conspirators in this country who came in
Speaker 3: through the Afghan resettlement program, the poorest border, and so
Speaker 3: I hope that the current administration is doing everything possible
Speaker 3: to determine who's come to this country with it.
Speaker 1: Well, they're trying, Mark, I mean you turn you watch
Speaker 1: news as absorbed news as much as I do. They're trying.
Speaker 1: And what do we see every day? What do we
Speaker 1: hear every day? We have ICE agents compared to the
Speaker 1: Gestapo and Nazis, and they're called fascists. Uh, the incidents
Speaker 1: of threats against ICE agents are up a whopping one
Speaker 1: thousand and fifty percent. Now we have some of these agents,
Speaker 1: in this case, guardsmen being killed. You have people like
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom, you know, number one sanctuary state in the country.
Speaker 1: You know, he wanted to pass a lall although he
Speaker 1: has no constitutional jurisdiction to prevent ICE agents from putting
Speaker 1: a mask on. But it's perfectly okay for the people
Speaker 1: that protect him to wear a mask. And it seemed
Speaker 1: we've had these people, these agents docked and threatened and
Speaker 1: you know, for doing their job, and it's very frustrating
Speaker 1: to me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, my tone may have been misleading. I always saying
Speaker 3: I hope they're doing it like it's their fault. I'm
Speaker 3: saying I hope they have the success that is necessary
Speaker 3: to go back and rescrutinize all the things that we're
Speaker 3: done under the previous administration. And I agree with everything
Speaker 3: you said about ice. This is a this is a
Speaker 3: weird situation that one party is just decided to side
Speaker 3: with lawlessness and tried to decide decided to side against
Speaker 3: law enforcement. They've predicted a bunch of abuses. We just
Speaker 3: haven't seen them. And as we're wearing the masks, I
Speaker 3: just don't understand their fetish about this. We know why
Speaker 3: they're wearing masks. It's not it's not because they don't
Speaker 3: want to be do it, do it anonymously for some
Speaker 3: nefarious reason. They don't want to be docked. And there's
Speaker 3: and there's other health and other related issues, and this
Speaker 3: is not this is not understandable to me. Why they've
Speaker 3: just decided the law enforcement wearing masks is some sort
Speaker 3: of some sort of sinister plot.
Speaker 1: Let's say, if we're on the same page looking towards
Speaker 1: twenty six, the midterms, and and twenty eight, I'll start
Speaker 1: with twenty eight, it appears Gavin Newsom would be the
Speaker 1: front runner as of today. In my mind, I want
Speaker 1: to hear your idea on that number two. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people have tried to read too much
Speaker 1: into the Tennessee seventh District and the election that took
Speaker 1: place on Tuesday. However, if the party in power in
Speaker 1: this case, President Trump and Republicans want to maintain control
Speaker 1: of the House and Senate. To do so, they have
Speaker 1: to defy history. It's only happened three times in the
Speaker 1: last one hundred years that the party in power in
Speaker 1: the White House maintains control in the next midterm election.
Speaker 1: So it's not an easy task.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: It's made easier, however, by the fact that there's a
Speaker 3: relatively small number of seats here and so Democrats are
Speaker 3: unlikely to get a big wave. Of course, it's made
Speaker 3: harder because the current majority is so narrow that you know,
Speaker 3: it's not going to take a lot to lose it.
Speaker 3: I'll start at twenty six. You know, there's so many
Speaker 3: interpretations of what happened in Tennessee. I'm not sure. I
Speaker 3: don't think everybody's overinterpreted. I think that there's one rational interpretation,
Speaker 3: which is if if the president's level of popularity and
Speaker 3: people's feelings about the economy are on election day next
Speaker 3: year what they were in that National Area district on Tuesday,
Speaker 3: the Democrats will win control of the House. So just
Speaker 3: a question of whether that's going to change, whether the
Speaker 3: president becomes slightly more popular, which is all really the
Speaker 3: party needs, and if people feel better about the economy.
Speaker 3: But there's no doubt that the Democrats around a liberal
Speaker 3: candidate and the Republicans spent a lot of money and
Speaker 3: she did quite well under the circumstances. Someone that liberal
Speaker 3: doesn't really have business coming that close.
Speaker 1: And you shouldn't run in a city that you hate
Speaker 1: and a city known for country music and say you
Speaker 1: hate country music well, and say you want to defund
Speaker 1: the police, yeah, and then say that rioting against police
Speaker 1: is a good thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, all those things. I mean, she was a very
Speaker 3: liberal candidate and it wasn't like she had all the money.
Speaker 3: So I think again, it's pretty clear, and there are
Speaker 3: plenty of maga people who will tell you this. It's
Speaker 3: quite simple. Will people say, yeah, the president's got a
Speaker 3: theory of the case on the economy. The vice president
Speaker 3: and the Secretary of Treasury said at the Cabinet meeting
Speaker 3: on Tuesday. Next year, happy days will be here again.
Speaker 3: The economy will be better. If people feel that next year,
Speaker 3: I think the Republicans have a good chance to divie history.
Speaker 3: If they don't, I think it will be close to
Speaker 3: close to impossible. And that's as it should be, not
Speaker 3: just because this president promised to do better on the economy,
Speaker 3: but every president their job is to fight for the
Speaker 3: real lives of real people and make their lives better.
Speaker 3: And the polling data is clear. It's not fake news,
Speaker 3: it's not jerry picking poles. Every honest pole will tell
Speaker 3: you if people don't feel great about the economic current
Speaker 3: conditions or about the future.
Speaker 1: In terms of t I'll lead this because we're running
Speaker 1: out of time. You're right. But however, the president has
Speaker 1: trillions and trillions of new manufacturing dollars that have yet
Speaker 1: to get into the blood stream of the economy. His
Speaker 1: tax cuts have not tax scots have not gotten into
Speaker 1: the blood stream of the economy. UH, and energy dominant
Speaker 1: policies have not made it into the blood stream of
Speaker 1: the economy. It's beginning to UH. And if the economy
Speaker 1: turns the way I believe it will second quarter ish
Speaker 1: next year, and the second quarter I think that that'll
Speaker 1: have a big.
Speaker 3: Impact, the decisive in the question whether they can keep
Speaker 3: the past. They have a better chance to divide history
Speaker 3: than most president's parties we've seen, you know, at this
Speaker 3: phase of the cycle that you know, eleven months after
Speaker 3: Gavin Newsom's the front runner, he may not run and
Speaker 3: this is the weakest field either.
Speaker 1: Oh, he's running, He's running.
Speaker 3: He said as recently as yesterday. What he said to
Speaker 3: me several times, he may not run. He may not.
Speaker 1: But if I can't tell you what he said to
Speaker 1: me in his last text to me, it was not
Speaker 1: very nice.
Speaker 3: More. Yeah, you know he's a he's a fickle man, Sean, but.
Speaker 1: He really is. Listen, I got to roll though. We
Speaker 1: do appreciate you, Mark Alprin, thanks so much for being
Speaker 1: with us and come back often. Thank you. Ninety four one, Shawn,
Speaker 1: Let's go to Chris and Marilyn. Chris, how are you
Speaker 1: glad you called.
Speaker 5: Sar yeaes sir? How are you Sean good?
Speaker 1: What's going on?
Speaker 5: Yeah? Man, I got a comment and then I got
Speaker 5: a couple impressions for you of colors from your show. Okay, okay,
Speaker 5: So first my comment, all these people with the narco
Speaker 5: terraces and stuff, aren't these the same politicians that have
Speaker 5: been pushing the pot lobby forever? And pot is still
Speaker 5: a Schedule one federally illegal drug.
Speaker 1: I think so. I've been reading recently, I've seen it
Speaker 1: that the scheduling of weed, and I will tell you
Speaker 1: there's a lot of articles about, you know, the THC
Speaker 1: levels that that is what makes you the part of
Speaker 1: marijuana that makes you high, is so astronomical.
Speaker 5: Twenty higher, twenty percent higher.
Speaker 1: Okay, that a lot of these kids are are literally
Speaker 1: suffering all of these you know, psychosis and you know
Speaker 1: breaking down. It's called there's a term that's used now
Speaker 1: called scramedy. Yeah, it's caused by habitual marijuana use. Look,
Speaker 1: I I'm I'm I'm torn on the issue. I don't
Speaker 1: want people to do drugs. I don't do drugs, and
Speaker 1: and then people would rightly argue with me, well, you
Speaker 1: do have a beer or you have a drink. Occasionally
Speaker 1: I'm like, yeah, I do, Well that's a drug, okay,
Speaker 1: and it's not the same thing. I can have a
Speaker 1: drink and not lose my faculties or get high, right.
Speaker 5: And do you know what Schedule one actually means. It
Speaker 5: means there's no there's no helpful benefits that we know
Speaker 5: of scientifically, which a lot of people argue medical. But
Speaker 5: Schedule one says there's no benefits to anybody, and it's
Speaker 5: and it's addictive. So those two things make pot schedule one.
Speaker 5: It's federally illegal. But all these same politicians and people
Speaker 5: who are worrying about the poor ARCO guys probably has
Speaker 5: pushed that pot lobby for decades.
Speaker 1: I bet yeah. Look, I have spoken to people that,
Speaker 1: for example, have gone through very very dire, difficult chemotherapy
Speaker 1: treatments for example of a cancer, and they swear that
Speaker 1: it takes away their nausea, makes them feel better, but
Speaker 1: they're taking doses that are reasonable for example. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: does remain a Schedule one controlled substance under federal law.
Speaker 1: My understanding is that's going to change. This proposal to
Speaker 1: reschedule it is ongoing. I think a decision will be
Speaker 1: made this month, and a Schedule three controlled substances a
Speaker 1: drug that has currently accepted medicinal purposes lower potential for
Speaker 1: abuse than Schedule one or Schedule two and can lead
Speaker 1: to moderate or low dependence or high psychological dependence. You know,
Speaker 1: the problem is the people that I know that I mean,
Speaker 1: it's the strangest thing in the world. I mean, I've
Speaker 1: met adults, you know, these are people on the periphery, periphery,
Speaker 1: periphery of my life. And then you find out later
Speaker 1: that you know they love to take gummies. Huh yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm like, right, whatever, and not the gummies that Linda takes,
Speaker 1: which don't have any THC in them and meaning CBD products.
Speaker 1: It just concerns me overall. I want young people. I
Speaker 1: don't want them, you know, numbing themselves to life. And yeah,
Speaker 1: life at times can be painful, but that painful Also
Speaker 1: that painfulness or any pain that you suffer, can lead
Speaker 1: to an awakening in your life, a spiritual awakening in
Speaker 1: your life. We kind of forget that human beings are mind, body,
Speaker 1: and spirit. Right, take care of your body, take care
Speaker 1: of your mind. Uh, and you know, spiritually, I think
Speaker 1: you need to nourish yourself there as well well.
Speaker 5: And apparently the pot can lead to schizophrenia. But I mean,
Speaker 5: even if you look in the Bible, Jesus his first
Speaker 5: miracles turned water into wine. I mean, I think he
Speaker 5: drank wine in the.
Speaker 3: Bible, right, so a little bit alcohol.
Speaker 5: It's pretty good, I think a little bit. But I
Speaker 5: don't know about pot man. So I'm just gonna put
Speaker 5: that out there. But can I do my impressions?
Speaker 1: Okay, let's hear it.
Speaker 5: All right, Sean.
Speaker 1: This is very very dangerous for me to allow you
Speaker 1: to do. But go ahead.
Speaker 5: This is mode liberal Sean. How you doing today? Can
Speaker 5: you get me my shoes and my glasses?
Speaker 3: I have them?
Speaker 1: The most dangerous man in America Sean.
Speaker 6: All right, and here's AJ Okay, big time Sean.
Speaker 1: An, all right, you're not You're not cutting it with
Speaker 1: the exit. I'll do mine. I disagree that AJ Woe
Speaker 1: is really good.
Speaker 5: Oh nice, thanks Linda.
Speaker 1: All Right, there you go. You get better grades from Linda.
Speaker 1: That's it. I'll say it. Nobody else will say it. There,
Speaker 1: I said it. I'm done. That's also very sure. You
Speaker 1: don't know who that is. Get off my phone. You're
Speaker 1: big dope. I got a roll anyway. I appreciate the call.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Eight hundred ninety four to one. Shawn Joe, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: What's up? Joe?
Speaker 4: All right? Sean? Were it first?
Speaker 1: Of all, I'm hearing rumors Fetterman's thinking about running for president.
Speaker 1: What do you think of that? Along with Josh Shapiro.
Speaker 4: You know, I gotta be honest, I kind of got
Speaker 4: a soft spot from Fetterman because I think he's probably
Speaker 4: one of the most sane ones right now on the left.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'll take it a step further. I've spoken to
Speaker 1: him many times, he's been interviewed on this radio programming
Speaker 1: on TV, and I actually like him. Now, he's never
Speaker 1: going to become a Republican. I think you're dreaming if
Speaker 1: you think that'll happen. But I think I love the
Speaker 1: fact that he doesn't give a flying rip about how
Speaker 1: crazy his party is. He's just not going there.
Speaker 4: Well, I got a shock for you. I'm also a
Speaker 4: former Democrat and presidently mayor emeritus from Pennsylvania. So I
Speaker 4: was mayor, and of course that's for life. We can
Speaker 4: still do other things, but I'm not changing my party.
Speaker 4: You don't have to be you don't have to be
Speaker 4: a Republican to be conservative or you know, a conscious
Speaker 4: or make correct decisions. That's the problem, you see. In
Speaker 4: other words, we're picking sides like Democrats are. No the
Speaker 4: Democrats have been hijacked. They don't represent me right now.
Speaker 4: So what I like to say, if you'll just give
Speaker 4: me a few seconds here is freedom is not free.
Speaker 4: It's never been free. What price? All these protesters, all
Speaker 4: these animals trying to get murderers out of jail, everything else,
Speaker 4: promoting drugs, everything else. And I'm not you know, I'm
Speaker 4: not going to identify who they are because we all
Speaker 4: know who they are. It's on the news every day,
Speaker 4: and we know that some of the people that are
Speaker 4: promoting this, even even in the parties that are that
Speaker 4: are in government. Now we know that everybody knows that.
Speaker 4: And it's my party too that's doing this. But bottom
Speaker 4: line is, you know, how many of these people have
Speaker 4: prayed the price for their freedom? How many people? How
Speaker 4: many of these people have gone through with what our parents,
Speaker 4: our family has gone through, how many went to war?
Speaker 4: How many shed blood? No, but they can get out
Speaker 4: there and spew their mouths, try to get everything for free.
Speaker 4: May not even be a citizen of this country, and still,
Speaker 4: you know, try to run for office or whatever. You
Speaker 4: see what's happening. You look think about this, You look
Speaker 4: at the Congress, you look at the Senate. It's a disgrace,
Speaker 4: the vile, the vile seditious, treason. This dangerous rhetoric that
Speaker 4: comes out of these people is insane. Anymore people wake up.
Speaker 4: I don't care if you're a Democrat or republic I know,
Speaker 4: I know Sean, you are a Republican. Excuse me, you're
Speaker 4: going to agree with me with this. I don't care
Speaker 4: what party you are. This is not appropriate if we
Speaker 4: want our country to survive. It's ripping it down. And
Speaker 4: this has been a slow process, I believe, honestly. You know,
Speaker 4: I've been pro Democratic and I also have been pro
Speaker 4: conservative and voted for conservatives. I'm not going to lie.
Speaker 4: I fact the government for what they're trying to do
Speaker 4: right now under the Trump regime. I support it one
Speaker 4: hundred percent. I don't particularly like him sometimes, you know
Speaker 4: what I'm talking about with his people skills, But the
Speaker 4: bottom line is, you look at our economy, Blame Trump,
Speaker 4: Blame Trump. Well wait a minute now, who raised the
Speaker 4: interest rates? Who raised the interest rates where people now
Speaker 4: with variable rate mortgages are now paying double their mortgages.
Speaker 4: But they're blaming Trump. No, it was under Biden.
Speaker 3: You got to get truck.
Speaker 1: I can give you the actual numbers. Under Biden, grocery
Speaker 1: prices went up a walk wopping twenty six percent. Under Biden,
Speaker 1: electrical prices went up thirty nine percent. Under Biden, car
Speaker 1: insurance went up sixty three percent. Combined monthly percent thirty
Speaker 1: seven percent. That's that's unbelieving. That is it's been crushing.
Speaker 1: It's Americans, and many Americans don't even have one thousand
Speaker 1: dollars if God forbid, they have an emergency in their life.
Speaker 1: It's you know, it's just frustrating that. I just know
Speaker 1: what it's like. I've been there, and people might say, well, Hannity,
Speaker 1: I read that you you get paid a lot of money.
Speaker 1: I'm making more money than I thought i'd ever make
Speaker 1: in my life. I'm not. I'm not going to sit
Speaker 1: here and lie to you. But I didn't get into
Speaker 1: this to make money. I got into radio. I did
Speaker 1: it for free. I get in My first paid job
Speaker 1: paid me nineteen grand a year, and I thought every
Speaker 1: day I worked I was gonna get fired. I still
Speaker 1: have that in the back of my head. Isn't that odd, Linda,
Speaker 1: It's a weird. No, that's good, it's inspiration. Well, I
Speaker 1: just want to do the best show I can. I'm
Speaker 1: grateful to be here every day and do the show. Jo.
Speaker 1: We appreciate you, man, God bless you. Eight hundred and
Speaker 1: nine four one Sean Jason in South Carolina.
Speaker 6: What's up, Jason, Sir Hannity, Yeah, this is Jason. I
Speaker 6: have a question for you. So, do you know of
Speaker 6: any possible programs or people that looked into possibly doing
Speaker 6: like fixed interest rate for specifically like housing, And you know,
Speaker 6: we have this housing crisis with interest rates, but the
Speaker 6: banks are going to make you know, three percent, say
Speaker 6: say it's three percent. They're going to make three percent
Speaker 6: on these fixed interest rates everything, and it's not necessarily
Speaker 6: on credit per se. Do you know if anything's been
Speaker 6: looked at like that where it could create home ownership
Speaker 6: at a fixed rate for these people that are really struggling.
Speaker 1: Here's here's what's going to happen. Interest rates now are
Speaker 1: down a half a basis point. We expect by the
Speaker 1: end of the year three quarters of a basis point.
Speaker 1: The President, probably in January February the latest, will announce
Speaker 1: the new FED Share, There'll be new monetary policy. Interest
Speaker 1: rates I would imagine will continue to come down, which
Speaker 1: means that you're going to be able to get a
Speaker 1: thirty year fixed rate mortgage, probably in the fours and
Speaker 1: in no time maybe you know, four or five percent,
Speaker 1: which is so much better than where it's been. What
Speaker 1: does that mean? You know, all these people that have
Speaker 1: you know, three three and a half four percent interest
Speaker 1: rate thirty year fixed rate loans that have been wanting
Speaker 1: to move have not been willing to give up that
Speaker 1: low interest rate is going to be a massive sell
Speaker 1: off of pre existing homes. And with an increased supply
Speaker 1: and demand being you know what it is, I would
Speaker 1: imagine that people will be able to enter the home market.
Speaker 1: You had a point to interest rates, you know, in
Speaker 1: a mortgage, and you know, it makes a home that
Speaker 1: would otherwise be affordable unaffordable. And the same thing, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that we're also going to see where we're
Speaker 1: short about six thousand homes around the country. I think
Speaker 1: you're going to see once you see seal of pre
Speaker 1: existing homes, new home construction is going to heat up
Speaker 1: a little bit. And I want that for people. I
Speaker 1: was never never more proud of my life than when
Speaker 1: I got my first home. I don't know, I paid
Speaker 1: like one hundred and twelve, fifteen thousand dollars something like
Speaker 1: that in Roswold, Georgia. I love my little house. I
Speaker 1: loved it, end of a culdest sac buried in trees.
Speaker 1: It was awesome, you know, in the wilderness where I
Speaker 1: want to go. You know, anyway, I appreciate you call
Speaker 1: my friend. Thank you. I want that for all of you.
Speaker 1: And I know it's tough, but you know, we just
Speaker 1: let's see where we are at the end of the
Speaker 1: second quarter next year. I know nobody wants to ever
Speaker 1: hear that, but it does take time to get into
Speaker 1: the bloodstream of the economy. We're seeing signs of success,
Speaker 1: but undoing the damage is much harder than I think
Speaker 1: most people know.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: That's gonna wrap things up with today. We've got a
Speaker 1: great Cannity tonight nine eastern on the Fox News Channel.
Speaker 1: We'll have the latest on the arrest. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: kind of amazing of this guy that they believe planted
Speaker 1: the bombs on the eve of January sixth at the
Speaker 1: Republican and Democratic headquarters in DC. We'll have an update
Speaker 1: on all of that. We'll also have Dan Bongino, Trey
Speaker 1: Goudi will join us, Stephen a smith has a big
Speaker 1: fight with the ladies of the view. He'll join us.
Speaker 1: We'll get his perspective on all of that. Nine Eastern
Speaker 1: Say DVR, Hannity on Boxy, then back here tomorrow. Thank
Speaker 1: you for making the show possible.