The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 AM Eastern
Call the Show 800-520-1234

Senator Kelly Ayotte On Gitmo Guards, Submarines, and Iran’s Ballistic Missiles

Wednesday, May 25, 2016  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Senator Kelly Ayotte is among the best-informed of the United States Senate on national security issues across the board. Support her re-election (crucial to holding the GOP Senate majority) via She joined me on Wednesday’s show:




HH: I’m so pleased to welcome back one of our favorite guests to the program, United States Senator Kelly Ayotte of the great state of New Hampshire. Senator Ayotte, good to talk to you. You’re still probably enjoying the Villanova win, your law school, alma mater.

KA: I am. Thanks, Hugh, that was a great game. Boy, so…

HH: You know, you’re still…

KA: Oh, I’m glad that they had such a great year.

HH: You’re still on Cloud 9. Hey, look, we haven’t got a lot of time, so I want to get to important stuff. The National Defense Authorization Act, in which you are critically involved, is going to move, I think, this week in the United States Senate. First of all…

KA: Yeah, so at least we’ll begin the debate. I don’t know if we’ll finish it, but definitely.

HH: Now that has never not passed, right? That will get done.

KA: It has gotten done for decades, so I can’t say never, but it really is a bill that’s bipartisan and has gotten done every year certainly since I’ve been in the Senate. But it’s really been for decades, and it’s important, because it is a bill that really defines, obviously, all kinds of issues – force structure, weapon systems for our troops, pay/benefits, all kinds of issues that obviously impact dramatically our military and our readiness. Continue Reading


We Are Not Losing

Tuesday, May 24, 2016  |  posted by John Schroeder

Am article appeared late yesterday:

Rep. Joseph Kennedy III [D-Mass.] has proposed a bill that would amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to prevent government employees or federal contractors from making claims of religious conscience to avoid supporting practices such as same-sex marriage or providing housing to members of the LGBT community.

The bill, the “Do No Harm Act,” co-authored by Rep. Bobby Scott [D-Va.], purports to return the RFRA to its original intent of protecting individual belief by drawing into focus the constitutional and statutory rights of others. In other words, the bill claims to prevent infringement on civil liberties by confining religious liberty to actual acts of religious devotion and worship outside of the sphere of government.

“Our system must ensure that my religious freedom does not infringe on yours or do you harm. While not its original intent, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has become a vehicle for those seeking to impose their beliefs on others or claim that the tenants of their faith justify discrimination. The Do No Harm Act will restore the balance between our right to religious freedom and our promise of equal protection under law,” Kennedy said in a statement.

 Scott said the RFRA has been “misconstrued” to allow “the sincerely-held religious beliefs of one person to trump the civil rights of others. Civil rights are a compelling government interest, and we cannot allow so-called ‘religious freedom,’ ‘religious liberty’ or ‘faith-based initiatives’ to invalidate the very laws designed to correct generations of injustices on minorities.”

As I read it, I could feel my blood start to boil.  There is no “balance between our right to religious freedom and our promise of equal protection under law,” the equal protection under dispute currently is a function of, at best, rhetorical fluidity and at worst self-interested claims of immutable characteristics designed purposefully to minimize religious influence in society.  The fundamental presumptions on the two apparent sides of this discussion guarantee there is no legal resolution, there is only philosophical debate on those fundamental levels.  Thus the government should just throw its hands up and walk away.  But that obviously is not happening.

Worse yet, is that the fundamental presumptions of the religious/conservative side of this debate virtually guarantee a “win” for the other side.  The liberal side is willing to destroy what makes the nation great to get what they want – we are not. Continue Reading


How Obama’s Lawlessness Fuels Trump’s

Tuesday, May 24, 2016  |  posted by Garrett Fahy

by Brian Fahy & Garrett Fahy

As the Obama presidency draws to a close, it’s clear the president will more conspicuously ignore our constitutional system and instead rely exclusively on raw executive authority to radically change the country and cement his legacy as the radical-in-chief. That this approach further erodes our constitutional structure of divided government and checks and balances is of no concern to our “law professor” president. Continue Reading

Right, Wrong, “Mistakes” and Character

Monday, May 23, 2016  |  posted by John Schroeder

We all feel much better when we find out we did not really screw up, our hearts were in the right place, we just “made a mistake.”  But wrong is wrong, “mistakes” have consequences, and sometimes those consequences matter more than our feelings.  Yet in this age of identity über alles, we increasingly seem to think that in pursuit of maintaining our ego strength it is “OK,” to spin even the biggest and most consequential of screw-ups as mistakes.

But until this administration,we have reserved the “mistake” ploy for matters personal.  Obama’s justice department actually played this card overtly in a prosecution that was overturned in 2012:

Matz cited “flagrant” misconduct in a scathing order of dismissal. He lashed at the “many” mistakes self-identified by prosecutors in the case, saying in the ruling “they add up to an unusual and extreme picture of a prosecution gone awry.”


The company fought the conviction, filing a motion to dismiss that argued there was a pattern of misconduct on the part of prosecutors. Prosecutors, meanwhile, admitted to mistakes but said those mistakes should not imperil the conviction. Matz disagreed.

And from the Wall Street Journal this morning, comes word that they still have not learned their lesson:

On Thursday District Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas found that Obama Administration lawyers committed misconduct that he called “intentional, serious and material.”…

Justice’s only explanation is that its lawyers either “lost focus on the fact” or “the fact receded in memory or awareness”—the fact here being realities that the DOJ was required to disclose to the court.

I think this explains so much of what is happening in the current election cycle.  This is the kind of stuff that has eroded confidence in our government to the point that when elections do happen we thrash around looking for something from outside the box just to have solid ground on which we can stand.  These are more than “mistakes.”  This is simply wrong conduct, intention not withstanding.  This is not solid ground upon which we can stand with confidence.  This is a toxic stew that along with a few other sociological trends, creates the impression of standing on the weakest of foundations. Continue Reading

Page 2 of 3557 1 2 3 4 5 3,557
Advertise With UsAdvertisement
Sierra Pacific Mortgage Advertisement
Back to Top