PJTV AFTER HOURS: TIME TO DIE, GEEZERS!

A major architect of ObamaCare says people should die at age 75! Is this the first step on the road to death panels?

PJTV AFTER HOURS: 9-11 TRUTHER COMEBACK?

Thirteen years after the terrorist atrocity of 9/11, is the "Truther" movement finally going mainstream?

PJTV AFTER HOURS: EPIC FOREIGN POLICY FAIL

Is the President's management of all the foreign crises we are facing scoring him points with...anyone?

PJTV AFTER HOURS: DISLOYALTY TO AMERICA!

Is national loyalty becoming a relic of a former age? What will it take to become loyal again?

PJTV AFTER HOURS: SAD CLOWN?

Is suicide selfish, or cowardly? Is it insensitive to say it is? Can the same traits that make a person funny also make them more susceptible to devastating emotional problems?

AFTER HOURS: HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH HILLARY?

The Hard Choices book tour puts Hillary Clinton front and center again, but is she hurting herself more than she's helping herself with the electorate?



Is Hillary Smart Enough to Not Run?

Hillary Clinton, beaten by a first-term senator named Barack in 2008, is in the throes of deciding whether to run for president in 2016. If she's smart enough, she'll bail, keep making bank with her speeches and books, and retire to her chateau in Chappaqua.

Has there ever been a more disastrous rollout of a presidential candidate than Hillary's this past month? She was caught in a lie about her health -- outed by her own husband. She couldn't answer what she'd do in Iraq. Then she said they were "dead broke" when they came out of the White House (they had two houses worth at least $5 million).

Worse, her 656-page book has been roundly panned -- even by liberal outlets like The Washington Post. Some critics found it boring, staid, cautious, defensive. First week book sales were dismal: 85,721. (Sarah Palin's first week book sales: 467,604.)

Still worse, questions about her health continue to swirl. At 69 years old, she'd be the second oldest president ever inaugurated. And no one knows the details of her repeated fainting spells and falls, the most recent of which left her with a blood clot in the brain and wearing special glasses with a Fresnel prism lens used by people who have suffered traumatic brain injury.

Worst of all, she doesn't seem to know why she lost in 2008, and certainly hasn't modified her campaigning tactics heading into 2016.

The book rollout, the warm and fuzzy interview with a friendly, even sycophantic, TV talking head (Diane Sawyer), all is intended to define Hillary as an admirable woman, a powerful politician, a profound decision maker who can be trusted with the reins of power.

But she's none of those things, and never has been.

Also read:

WaPo: CNN coached audience to cheer for Hillary during town hall event

Team Obama getting pretty tired of Hillary throwing them under the bus

AFTER HOURS: SHE'S BAAACK! MONICA SPEAKS...

Will the ghosts of the Clintons' past still haunt them in 2016? And this week's Underwood Award is a total drag.



Why Hillary fears Monica

Monica Lewinsky has returned, and it's a good thing. She's a smart, thoughtful woman who deserves to be able to take her life back from those who prefer she stay silent, and stay away.

I'm sure there's nothing more irritating to Hillary Clinton than those you use and abandon who actually survive and return, determined to tell their story.

The reaction to her article by other women in media has been nothing short of disgusting and shameful. Yet, it is another indication that Mrs. Clinton and her team of media bullies know full well an open discussion of her role in trying to wipe out Ms. Lewinsky when she was a 22-year-old is still relevant because it reveals not the "tough" Hillary, but the misogynist Hillary.

Think about it. You're married to a man with no pants. He uses women like other people use washcloths. But you need him to get the power you think you're entitled to, so you help in destroying the credibility and lives of anyone who exposes your husband for what he is.

It's bad enough when a man is a sex addict. It's even more obscene when the one woman who could stop him chooses instead to enable her predator husband because it will get her something she wants. That's cold, and malignantly narcissistic.

Also read: Lynne Cheney: Would Vanity Fair have run this new feature on Monica Lewinsky without checking with Hillary first?

AFTER HOURS: SILVER TAKES DOWN STERLING

If Donald Sterling is such a Racist why was he getting his Second Lifetime Achievement Award from the NAACP? Leo Terrell, Tammy Bruce and Scott Ott discuss the fiasco with host John Phillips.  Plus this week's Underwood Award!



The Shrinking Private Sphere

"All human beings," the late Gabriel García Márquez once wrote, "have three lives: public, private, and secret." Alas, the lines of demarcation are fading, the abundance of cheap recording technology and the relentless voyeurism of the Internet conspiring to abolish our penetralia. The latest victim of the tiny microphone is Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, who has been revealed beyond reasonable doubt to be a racist.

It is difficult to work up much sympathy for the man - a billionaire with a history of rank intolerance and questionable business ethics. And that his remarks came from a conversation with a woman who is not his wife does little to help his cause. Nevertheless, one should be a little reluctant to applaud the recording and dissemination of a private telephone conversation simply because it has skewered someone unpleasant. At yesterday's press conference, one especially earnest member of the audience asked whether the powers-that-be at the NBA intended to conduct an investigation to find out if anyone else involved with basketball had ugly views - an instinct that, when coupled with the performance-art outrage and glancing-at-the-cameras indignation that are the hallmarks of our age, carried with it a whiff of inquisition.

This feeling, that everyone involved with the sport had been put on notice not to deviate from the zeitgeist, was not assuaged by a statement from Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA All-Star who was given the task of representing the NBA players' union. "I hope," Johnson announced, "that every bigot in this country sees what happened to Mr. Sterling, and recognizes that if he can fall, so can you." This rather set my teeth on edge. "Bigot" is a broad term nowadays, and its meaning changes by the day. Is anyone safe?

Also read: NAACP: We Ignored Sterling's Racism Because of 'Large Donations'

AFTER HOURS: SCOTUS SIDES WITH THE PEOPLE

This week's Underwood Award winner lowers the bar even further, and the Supreme Court goes negative on racial preferences. Is this a victory against discrimination? Or a setback for racial equality? Watch John Phillips, Leo Terrell, Tammy Bruce and Scott Ott discuss.



Let the People Decide

Every once in a while a great, conflicted country gets an insoluble problem exactly right. Such is the Supreme Court's ruling this week on affirmative action. It upheld a Michigan referendum prohibiting the state from discriminating either for or against any citizen on the basis of race.

The Schuette ruling is highly significant for two reasons: its lopsided majority of 6-2, including a crucial concurrence from liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, and, even more important, Breyer's rationale. It couldn't be simpler. "The Constitution foresees the ballot box, not the courts, as the normal instrument for resolving differences and debates about the merits of these programs."

Finally. After 36 years since the Bakke case, years of endless pettifoggery - parsing exactly how many spoonfuls of racial discrimination are permitted in exactly which circumstance - the Court has its epiphany: Let the people decide. Not our business. We will not ban affirmative action. But we will not impose it, as the Schuette plaintiffs would have us do by ruling that no state is permitted to ban affirmative action.

Also read: Sonia Sotomayor Through the Looking Glass

AFTER HOURS: IS LATE NIGHT TV GETTING MORE POLITICAL?

Will America tune in to Letterman heir and avowed lefty Stephen Colbert? Host John Phillips is joined by guests Tammy Bruce, Leo Terrell and Scott Ott to discuss the new reality in late night TV.  And don't miss the latest Underwood Award! 



Bill O'Reilly Versus Stephen Colbert

Fox News's Bill O'Reilly is often the target of Stephen Colbert's humor – and lately, Colbert's jabs have begun to sting.

Mr. O'Reilly, clearly angry at Colbert, seems to have become somewhat consumed by him as well. For example, on a recent program O'Reilly referred to Colbert as a "deceiver," an "ideological fanatic" who is "misguided in the extreme" and "clueless" but "the guy does damage." He "gives cover to powerful people who are selling Americans a big lie."

Subtle.

But it didn't stop there. When it was announced that Colbert will replace David Letterman next year, O'Reilly weighed in against his nemesis again, saying, "Colbert has built an entire career on pleasing the left." O'Reilly said Colbert will have difficulty going up against "high energy guys who want to have a good time on their shows" (NBC's Jimmy Fallon and ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel).

"It'd be hard to imagine that 40 percent of Americans who describe themselves as conservative will watch Colbert and that's a lot of folks to lose from the jump," O'Reilly said. "But Colbert will have good writers and surely he knows his challenge. Place your bets now."

Appearing on ABC's The View, O'Reilly said Colbert is a "mouthpiece for the far left," a person who "snipes" and makes "these little snarky remarks."

Also read: Nice Guy Finishes First: Why Jimmy Fallon will win the next late-night TV battle