CharterVideo's Blog

Tuesday , July 31, 2007

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Pima County, Arizona, is one of the busiest crossing points for illegal immigrants and drug smugglers trying to enter the United States. Now, the situation has gotten so bad that the Pima County sheriff has created a new border crime unit targeting drug and weapons smugglers.

Now, our cameras got an exclusive look as this elite new unit tracked a group of drug smugglers through the desert. Let's take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're going northbound.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of our observation posts picked up illegal foot traffic going across. They're carrying backpacks. More than likely carrying drugs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Policia! Let me see your hands. Get on the ground. Get on the ground.

Ten-12. We're 26 route second.

Cover — yes, cover his back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No se mueve. Ahorita.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I got six.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's see, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, at least.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Joining us now from Tucson is Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik.

Now, Sheriff, our cameras were with you this past Thursday, Friday and Saturday when this was taped, correct?

SHERIFF CLARENCE DUPNIK, PIMA COUNTY SHERIFF: That's correct.

HANNITY: Is this the type of thing that we're watching here, these drug smugglers, is this the type of thing that you and your agents see on an almost daily basis?

DUPNIK: It's a regular issue, Sean.

HANNITY: I mean, this is what's frustrating to me when, nearly six years after 9/11, is it fair for me to state — and you're on the front lines — I've been down there five times — that our borders are still wide open? Is that a fair statement?

That our enemies, drug dealers can get across pretty much when they want, because we don't have most of the area secure?

DUPNIK: Sean, there are places along the Arizona-Mexico border where you could get a battleship across with nobody noticing.

HANNITY: And that's my point. And having been there with you and your agents, I've seen great work. When you have enough agents, enough resources, the technology, the helicopters, the horses and the all-terrain vehicles, you can do the job. We just don't have enough resources and men. Isn't that the problem?

DUPNIK: That's exactly correct.

HANNITY: Now, we just had this big debate over amnesty. But now the Republicans have come out with the 2007 Secure the Borders Act first, which will hire 24,000 new agents, will build the fence, and will use the new technologies. It will use four Predator drones. Would that be enough to solve the problem?

DUPNIK: In my estimation, Sean, and I have been working on the border my whole life, almost 50 years, I don't know that there's any reasonable solution to the problem.

There are a number of things that can be done to secure the border, and what the Senate did a few days ago, I think, is a very good first step, and I think we need to — to do more when it comes to securing the border.

But to try to implement other facets of immigration without securing the border makes no sense to me.

HANNITY: I agree with you. But I want to understand you clearly here. If we built the double-layer fence, if we hired 20,000 new agents, hire them, train them, get them on the border, if we used the Predator drones, if we used surveillance cameras and we did it across the entire border, you don't think we'd have the capability of having 100 percent security at our borders?

DUPNIK: I'm not convinced that we could do that, Sean.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Why?

DUPNIK: I don't know that that's reasonable.

COLMES: Sheriff, it's Alan Colmes. Welcome to our show. Why is that? Why would that not work?

DUPNIK: Well, first of all, if you look at the Arizona-Mexico border, it's a very difficult terrain. To try to build a two-layer fence and then respond to the areas that are very, very difficult and inaccessible would still present great problems to us. People who really wanted to come across, like drug smugglers, will find a way to do it.

COLMES: So what's the solution, according to you?

DUPNIK: I'm not sure there is a solution. But I think we need — we are going in the right direction. Right now, the border is too porous, and there are things that can be done, and what the Senate did, I think, is a step in the right direction.

COLMES: What else can be done, if you think this is not enough? What specifically do you think needs to be added to make the border safer?

DUPNIK: Well, I think I'm frustrated with our government's inability to deal with Mexico. The Mexicans, in fact — one of the reasons that you saw what you just saw a few days ago with the backpackers...

COLMES: Yes.

DUPNIK: ... is because the Mexican government ferries — protects these people up to the border and then, once they cross the border, they're on their own. And that's why you see all these backpacks.

COLMES: So it's a matter of a diplomatic solution and having a relationship with Mexico so that they do certain things on their end to stop the problem before it gets so close to the border in the first place?

DUPNIK: Well, I think they encourage the problem. There's no doubt about it. There's so much money involved. Illicit drugs and immigration are two very important economic facets to their economy, and I don't think they do enough to discourage it.

COLMES: What's the likelihood — because you say this happens every day, and we have on video, as we've been showing you what happened when we were down there. What's the likelihood of a smuggler getting caught if he's going to bring this kind of contraband over the border?

DUPNIK: The likelihood is — estimates vary between 10 and 20 percent of the stuff that comes across the border is actually apprehended. But I'm not sure those figures are accurate, and I'm not sure that anybody really knows.

HANNITY: All right, Sheriff, thanks for the good work you're doing. We appreciate you letting our cameras go out with you this weekend. And we appreciate your time, sir.

DUPNIK: Thank you.

Do Certain Democrats Have Too Much Invested in Losing Iraq War?

Tuesday , July 31, 2007
By John Gibson


A bit of Iraq news today. It appears that the surge may not only be causing trouble for insurgents in Iraq, but also causing trouble for Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Jim Clyburn, a Democrat from South Carolina, is quoted by The Washington Post as saying that a positive report on the surge from Gen. Petraeus in September is going to cause "unity problems" for Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Translation: If we're winning, some conservative-minded Democrats won't want to quit Iraq as quickly as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would like. Those Dems will think, if we're winning, why surrender?

Would it be too much to suggest that certain other Democrats — like Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Feingold — have way, way too much invested in losing this war? The idea we could win the war cuts the ground from under them.

Some Democrats need us to lose for their own political purposes. They have already told the country we are losing, and they need to blame Bush and Cheney for losing. So something like winning, such as a good surge report, is simply bad news from the war front for some Democrats.

If we can believe Clyburn, some Blue Dog Democrats — more conservative than others — don't carry their disdain for Bush to the extreme that they need their country to lose a war. For that they should be commended.

But what about the others who are not that sensible? What should we say about politicians who actually fear a good report on the surge? Whose nightly prayers are evidently that their county lose a war because otherwise they might lose an election? Oh the panic, oh the terror! Win the war?

Believe it or not there are Americans for whom that is very, very bad news. You wonder how they sleep, unless it's upside down in a cave. Vampires don't have trouble sleeping.

That's My Word.

Friday , August 03, 2007

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: After we spoke with Senator Dodd yesterday we spoke with Dennis Miller who was listening to the interview. As usual Miller had some insights. Roll the tape.

O'REILLY: You know, I am always disappointed when people come on with propaganda like Senator Dodd did. He obviously didn't know what I said about Al Qaeda in San Francisco. Didn't know what program I said it on. It was fed to him. But he and others are defiant and they're going to do what they want to do. Never addressed the picture and the morality of the picture, just kind of sloughed it off like this is not what is prevailing on this Web site, which is just absolutely untrue.

MILLER: Let me tell you you're disappointed in him, as a fan of “The Factor,” and when I'm not on I don't miss a night, I'm a little disappointed that you would give a hack like that a toehold.

These people aren't going to come on and debate on FOX, which is the preeminent cable news organization in this country, if I am to believe your ratings that I read on your Internet, probably eight times what the Daily Kos gets on any given day. For you to let him come in and sandbag you like that, I must tell you as a viewer of “The Factor” I don't need to hear from hacks like Chris Dodd.

O'REILLY: No, no, no. Wait a minute. That's interesting. And I know I'm going to get mail that says you are right on that.

But look, he comes in, and I want people to see him no matter what he said. If he denied, denied, denied, which he did. You would think he was talking about the "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm" Web site, you know, from his description of it. It was totally inaccurate, totally not true and people can see for themselves.

But I have to present these guys to the American public as best I can. Now certainly, he was challenged every step of the way. But you would not have even used him?

MILLER: He not only has never watched "The Factor," he's never read the Daily Kos. He's a guy who's looking up in the Iditarod of the Democratic primary process at Dennis Kucinich's behind in front of him. He could speak at his dining room table and only 50 percent of the family would show up.

And I don't need him on air unless he wants to talk about something substantive, which he didn't. He just wanted to whip off his glove and smack you in the face, because at this Daily Kos thing next week that's going to make him a big man.

O'REILLY: OK. I agree with you.

MILLER: You know something? I just don't need to see it.

O'REILLY: But don't you think most people see that? Don't you think that when he comes on and does that and got smacked right back — all right — and I didn't like to do that to a sitting senator, I have to tell the audience. It does not give me pleasure, but I certainly have to do it.

Don't you think the audience then does exactly what you do, sees through it, knows the game, and then basically says this is what is going there?

MILLER: No. I don't think most of your audience does. I think you would be better off having Kucinich on. Because as much as I am not voting for Dennis Kucinich, I have to admire that he takes a stand and says his piece.

O'REILLY: He is welcome at any time. But this is...

MILLER: This guy had nothing. Bill, this guy had nothing except standing up to you, who they assume to be the symbol of the right wing and all that. And he was boring. He was tedious. He doesn't know anything about you.

O'REILLY: And it will be interesting to see if people agree with you or not. I think it's worthy to put them on. And I think it's worthy, when they spout stuff that isn't true, to challenge them. And I don't think it was a boring segment, Dennis. I've got to...

MILLER: I don't think it was boring. But I think...

O'REILLY: Everybody is going to be talking about it tomorrow. But you may have a point. Putting on — and I didn't know he was going to be dishonest. I actually thought he would engage in the picture. Because he knows Lieberman for 30 years. Yes, he turned on Lieberman in the election. But you're right, he pandered. And so he could get an "atta boy" when he goes into this hateful thing over the weekend.

MILLER: Yes. He'll be a big guy. You know something?

O'REILLY: NO, he won't.

MILLER: That convention is a loser fest. I mean, there are hookers who have put an embargo on that convention.

O'REILLY: All right. Now Miller, you know your radio show you do every day? Three hours, right.

MILLER: Yes.

O'REILLY: I think I can get you Chris Dodd to come on. Would you like to have him as a guest some time this week?

MILLER: Listen, if I want somebody who drones on like that I'll put up a test pattern, my friend.

O'REILLY: So that's a no?

MILLER: Don't want him. Not interested. Tedious.

O'REILLY: Yes, I'm going to really be interested to see the e-mails that come in overnight on whether I should have booked him or not. I bet you — you know what? It's going to be interesting to see. We'll read them tomorrow.

Dennis Miller everybody. Check him out on the radio. Stay away from him if you see him in person.

Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"

Wednesday, August 08, 2007
By Bill O'Reilly


As we reported last week, most of the Democratic presidential candidates showed up at a far-left convention in Chicago. At that convention, Senator Hillary Clinton was booed because she's too moderate, but defended the hate Web site that sponsored the event:


HILLARY CLINTON, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Now I was very proud of my campaign, standing up and really calling O'Reilly out and saying oh, come on. You know, look, there are things, you know, DailyKos that I don't agree with. And sometimes, you know, look, people do go over the line. But hello, for Bill O'Reilly to be making that criticism? I mean, on behalf of the people listen and you know, watch him. And I thought Howard did a terrific job sort of going into the lion's den and taking him on.


Howard is Mr. Wolfson, her campaign manager.

Now if anyone should be distancing herself from hatred, it is Senator Clinton, who has experienced it firsthand for years. She is making a terrible mistake trying to court the radical left, which despises her.

All the Democratic candidates failed to show up at a moderate Democratic meeting in Tennessee, yet they kiss the feet of the hateful radicals.

Come election time, independent voters will remember that if the far left ever comes to power in this country, you can kiss the USA as you know it good bye.

Now it's interesting to note that Congress just passed a law giving the National Security Agency more latitude to monitor calls from the USA to suspected terrorists overseas. Obviously, that's the major terror fighting tool.

But it is vehemently opposed by the far left. Read the lead editorial in Tuesday's New York Times if you want their point of view.

Senator Clinton voted against that new law, as did Barack Obama -- another mistake. Again, come election time, pandering to the far left will be a factor in how independent Americans vote.

The reason the Democratic candidates are making these foolish decisions is that they see the mainstream press actively rooting for the far left to succeed in America. Talking Points could not find one media account of the Kos convention that even criticized their vile postings, grossly insulting people like Senator Joseph Lieberman. The bias is disgusting.

On CNN, Howard Kurtz, again, loaded up his discussion of the convention with anti-O'Reilly guests. Not one supported exposition of the hate site -- not one. Now Kurtz knows this is unfair, but he continues to do it.

This entire thing is simply out of control. Just because you run a Web site doesn't mean you can't defame and injure people. Every Jewish person in the world should be marching against the Kos for all the hate Israel stuff posted on it.

Senator Clinton and the others may think that the far left approval will help them, but it will not. You just wait and see.

And that's the Memo.

CharterVideo

to CharterVideo