The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 PM Eastern
Call the Show 800-520-1234
Collapse Ad Expand Ad
My Discount Health
My Discount Health
My Discount Health Advertisement
My Discount Health Advertisement

Obama, Hillary and the 22nd Amendment

Tuesday, July 28, 2015  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

President Obama told the world Tuesday that he is a “pretty good” president and that he could win a third term if he could run again.

Perhaps our very confident leader has been reading The Queen, and Hillary certainly should have by now, and if she has, she’d know from the first chapter what sort of an incredible opening the president’s remarks provide her.

In the book I urge Hillary to adopt the position that the 22nd Amendment should be repealed as inconsistent with the Framers’ design, destructive of all second terms, and an unfortunate impediment to her husband’s and now President Obama’s tenures in the Oval Office.  Hillary ought to be arguing that both of them deserved third terms, and that President Clinton would have beaten Governor George Bush and that President Obama clearly would win a third term. The upsides of taking this position –as well as of the others I urge on her, including advocating for the abolition of the Electoral College– are much, much superior to the climate change extremism she is now spoutingCombined with the doubling of the capital-gains tax she has proposed and the growing implications of her server scandal, Hillary is rapidly making herself unelectable in the general –a voice from the distant past, trying to sound relevant by picking up the slogans of the Occupy Movement.

There’s still time to head off a serious primary challenge built on growing fears about her weariness and obvious tin-ear, and of course about her scandal-and-catastrophe plagued career at State, but she needs to start thinking outside of the box and reading outside of her staff-generated talking points and recycled ’60s slogans:



AdvertisementAdvertise With Us

Church/State Differences and Interactions

Tuesday, July 28, 2015  |  posted by John Schroeder

The last few days I have found myself in a number of very interesting church/state conversations.  While I have not had a conversation with a liberal I have spoken with many shades of conservatives and found a huge variety of viewpoints on church/state relationship and issues.  While all I have talked to have pointed out how historically church and state have been far more intertwined than they are currently and most long for “the old days,” I was struck by one place where they can seemingly never meet.

American democracy is, by definition, a system of compromise.  Religion is all about absolutes upon which compromise is not allowed.  For example, the founding documents of our democracy have nothing to say about homosexuality or homosexual practice.  Therefore, it allows lots of room for discussion and compromise.  The Bible, on the other hand is pretty explicit – “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” – which does not leave much room for discussion.  It is the contrast of democracy’s flexibility and religions inflexibility where so much of the conflict between the two arises.  Frankly, it is amazing they mange to get along at all.

And yet, an Arthur C. Brooks piece from the NYTimes this past weekend does so much to bridge this gap.  The title is simply “We Need Optimists.” Continue Reading

The Server, The Server, The Server: How Hillary Damaged National Security

Monday, July 27, 2015  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

My column this morning at The Washington Examiner and Noah Rothman’s at Commentary both target the same incredible though so-far-largely-ignored story in the background of the noise around Hillary’s server.

The former Secretary of State almost certainly opened a portal for the nation’s enemies into our highest levels of government with her private server. Noah put it this way:

As for national security, the Secretary of State’s emails were likely the subject of intense interest by foreign actors and her improperly secured email account probably provided anyone with the capabilities a way to penetrate American diplomatic information security. Despite being discouraged from doing so, Clinton used at least one of her personal mobile devices while abroad to access emails on her private server, creating plenty of opportunities for foreign agents to compromise her account.

This is no small matter. On the heels of Edward Snowden’s revelations, American informational security has been harmed like never before. “The experts warned that the entire U.S. national security clearance system could be compromised,” read a chilling Fox News report published on Friday in the wake of the hacking of the Office of Personnel Management, “that future senior government leaders and advisors could be targeted even before taking office, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of government officials might successfully be blackmailed, bribed or otherwise manipulated in the future into handing over still more sensitive information.” How can someone who, through carelessness or indifference, imperiled American national security serve as the nation’s commander-in-chief?

Michael Morell, the retired Deputy Director of the CIA confirmed as much to me ten weeks ago on air, and every serious intelligence and counter-intelligence expert I have talked with since then confirms the same thing: Of course the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians and probably a few more governments and perhaps even some private organizations —some of HRC’s emails were published on Gawker by “Guccfer”— have all of Hillary’s emails.  What doesn’t seem to penetrate the thickness of the MSM’s protective reflexes when it comes to the Clintons is that the hostile intelligence services almost certainly had the emails –all of them– in real time, giving them an open window into the Obama Administration’s senior appointee’s inner thinking and communications.  In other word’s, an intelligence service’s dream-come-true.

Why are Hillary’s numbers plummeting?  Some portion of it has to be in the recognition by independent voters and even some national security-minded Democrats that Hillary really cannot be trusted to be the Commander-in-Chief, not after such reckless and destructive behavior, criminal or not.

“Obama’s Iran Deal? Blame it on Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush” by Clark Judge

Monday, July 27, 2015  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

The weekly column from Clark Judge:

Obama’s Iran Deal? Blame it on Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush

By Clark S. Judge: managing director, White House Writers Group, Inc.; chairman, Pacific Research Institute

Every day the Iran deal looks more and more like an empty shell, actually a fraud. Who’s to blame? How about Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush?

Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, an impatience has infused American foreign policymaking. It hasn’t been enough to hold adversaries at bay or to move step by slow step to minimize their ability to do harm us. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush “solved” the Cold War and Soviet threat problem. Each administration since those two has striven to be as effective with the challenges it has faced – or to be seen as equally effective. This is where the Obama administration’s Iran deal comes in.

A little background: The best and certainly fastest reporting on the various rounds of U.S.-Iran bargaining has come from Omri Ceren of The Israel Project. As the talks moved to a climax, Ceren was issuing what seemed like hourly updates on all that was being said and done in and around the talks. Continue Reading

Page 1 of 34031 2 3 4 3,403
Hugh talks with author Philip F. Anschutz about Out Where the West Begins
Invite Hugh to Speak
Back to Top