Congratulations, China.

Thanks for listening to Chicago's Morning Answer podcast sponsored by Signature, a division of Esquire Bank. Signature takes pride in helping customers grow their business and provide unmatched banking expertise, custom financial solutions, and the industry's best technology. So whether your business is looking for a deposit relationship or needs a ready source of financing, Signature has the solutions for you. Call today at 773-467, 5600 to hear how signature can help your business grow and thrive. Esquire Bank, member FDIC. equal housing lenders. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560. The answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proff here. So, of course, we're going to pour over the Supreme Court decisions handed down on the last day of the term yesterday. Most notably, but not exclusively, the birthright citizenship case. But as a perfect predicate to that, Sheridan Gorman's parents were on Capitol Hill yesterday. Jessica Gorman, Sheridan's mom. testifying before the House Judiciary Subcommittee. And yes, Representative Pramila Jayapal, again, on sanctuary cities. It would be nice if somebody might invite Jessica Gorman and Sheridan's family to testify before the city council. Ray Lopez, are you listening? Alderman Napolitano, are you listening?

And maybe some Republican in Springfield can see their way fit to make the point of bringing Joe Abraham and Jessica Gorman and other victims of the sanctuary state, county, city policies to testify. Give a little profile locally because that's where the decisions are being made. I'm not saying the federal government can't do more to think about creatively intervening when it comes to sanctuary states and particularly big cities with respect to the purse strings the federal government holds. But the decisions are made at the local level. And the thing I like most about Jessica Gorman's testimony, if you didn't see it, you're about to hear it. And it's pretty... powerful, tough stuff unscripted. She just sat before that committee and delivered it. Because my shirt and Grace Gorman should still be alive. And no mother should have to stand where I am standing. Begging. Begging. Elected leaders to value my child's life after it's already too late. I cried when I came into the room. I saw this poster that you made. It says at every stop, the system had a chance to stop him. At every step, it failed. And my daughter paid for those failures, your failures, with her life. No family should ever have to bury a child because public officials fail to put American lives first. I'm just asking you to choose us. We choose you. We choose you. Choose us. Why does my child matter less than an illegal immigrant? Why? Listen, I have a heart. I love immigrants. Two of my best friends in this whole world are immigrants. They came here the right way. I absolutely think they make Merica beautiful. But my daughter's beautiful too. 312-642-2-5600. AlphaWealthgroup.com call and text line. And she continued. Put yourself in her shoes, if you would. This was, and we'll get to this too. One of the other things she did is she gave no quarter to the, I'm very sorry for your loss, sanctuary policy advocates on that committee. She delivered. I needed to think. about what these policies are. And I need you to imagine this is your daughter because I'm very sure you won't be cutting off anyone when they're speaking. You won't. I'd be very sure you won't call this a political stunt. The grief is real. Every day I wake up with unimaginable pain. You know what? I wake up in the middle of the night and I think. Did my daughter cry for me? She made it 40 feet. She made it 40 feet running for her life. Did she cry out for me? She died on that pavement all by herself, lonely, bleeding on that pavement. And I will never, ever rest. I actually have to say that I am devastated my husband and I. We're only a couple years away from retirement. I've worked my whole life so hard. All I wanted to do was just enjoy our children. Just wanted to enjoy my Sheridan.

And daughter and Sheridan's sister, obviously their other daughter, sitting behind her as she delivered that testimony, very emotional. And to those sanctuary proponing Pauls, we're very sorry for her loss. I understand that you're here for a reason. I don't understand why it's only the Republican side that cares about our American children. And I know that you're a mother. I know that you're a father. I deeply value that. But basically what you just did, what you said was, I'm so sorry for your loss. I have a daughter too. I have a son. I feel your pain. You don't. You don't feel my pain. Because the next words out of your mouth were, but. There's no but. When your child is in the coffin, there's no butt. And I need you to understand that. And if you ever want to talk about it, I'm here, I'm going to buy you a bench. I'm going to buy, I can put that on the record. I'm going to buy Congress the bench. And they can come and sit and hold my hand and look me in the eye and explain to me why illegal immigrants are more important than my daughter. I really want to know because I don't understand. Why illegal immigrant criminals? I mean, it's a bit of a redundancy, but violent criminals in this case. Every step of the way, we don't need to, everybody by now should know or you should take the initiative to inform yourself the details of this case. There were opportunities to intervene to sideline this Venezuelan criminal in this country illegally. And sanctuary policy has gotten away. Why is a person with violent tendencies in this country illegally more important than Sheridan Gorman? It's a great question. It would be nice to see some people put that question to Jelly Belly and Tony, Tony, Tony, and BLM Brandon and the whole complement of the neo-Bolshevik power structure in the state of Illinois, wouldn't it?

But they can't be bothered any more than former band manager for the socialist spice girls. Pramila Jayapal can be bothered. So many other things we could be doing now. Unfortunately, this hearing is, it's the fourth time. in this committee that we've had a hearing on sanctuary cities, the fourth time. And there's many other things that we could be doing other than this. No question. Yeah, there's no question. There's other things you could be doing. I guess the reason the issue keeps coming up, Representative Jaya Pell, is because people keep getting violated or eliminated. with the sanctuary, state, city, county policies as the accomplice, as the glide path. I guess that's why people keep bringing it up because, you know, their children keep getting murdered, you know? So it's sort of sticks in some people's craw. You know what I'm saying? Mike Lawler got a bit exercised after hearing Sheridan Gorman's testimony, and he and the Stephen Van Zand impersonator, Jamie Rankin, excuse me, Jamie Raskin, had this heated exchange. The same outrage you feel about Renee Good and Alex Preddy, you should feel about Sheridan Gorman's and Lake and Riley and every angel family in this country. I do feel that outrage. You do not. Because if you did, you would not support sanctuary. Do you feel the outrage about Alex Freddie and Renee Good? You should be ashamed to yourself. You should be ashamed of this committee. You should get the hell out of you. You don't understand the rules of the committee. You don't understand the Constitution. You're a disgrace. You're a full of it. Mr. Rasker.

Get rid of saying one word about Alex Freddie. I did. I wrote a whole New York Times opette about it. You should be absolutely ashamed to yourself. The committee will be. That were not opposing sanctuary policies that resulted in their daughter's death. Can you imagine being Jessica Gorman after delivering the emotional testimony delivered watching these two jackals go back and forth trying to score political points? Jamie Raskin comparing her daughter's death to the death of some open borders, nitwit activists who threatened law enforcement or intervened illegally with a law enforcement operation in Minneapolis. That's the same thing as Sheridan Gorman, hanging out with their friends on the beach in Rogers Park. And on the other side, I mean, Mike Lawler, he's a Republican, and that's nice. But he was one of the proponents of this amnesty legislation that a handful of Republicans put forward just a couple weeks ago. Trying to cover his political backside on the issue a little bit. Glad to see the Gorman's as tough as it's got to be. I hope it provides some catharsis. I'm glad to see them in the arena. Jessica, it seems particularly motivated, which is, it's helpful. Because unfortunately, there's very few people that will exhibit the courage to be public in the way that she's being public, particularly after a tragedy. I can understand why. But it's even more impressive when people like Joe Abraham or Jessica Gorman do come forward. And it certainly keeps the discussion front and center. Which is critical. The stories you need to know to start your day. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560. The answer. Signature, a division of Esquire Bank, offers Chicago businesses relationship first banking. Signature knows your name and your story because personalized banking still matters. I'm Dan Proft, and I know this because Signature is where I do my business banking. Hi, I'm Phil Silverman, CFO of Chicago Atlantic and a client of Signature. We provide capital solutions in markets where risk is often fundamentally mispriced and traditional financing can be limited. In Chicago Atlantic, success depends on experience, responsiveness, attention to detail, and an entrepreneurial mindset. That's exactly what we found with Signature. Their team understands how we operate, supports our growth, and delivers the kind of personal service that's increasingly rare in banking today. And that's exactly why we bank with Signature. Signature helps local businesses succeed. Want to learn how Signature can help turn your business vision into reality? Call Signature, a division of Esquire Bank, at 773-467-5600, or visit Signature.orgate.com. Esquire Bank, member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender. If you're looking for the latest news, insight into what it means, and the sharpest opinion, there's only one station in Chicago where you can turn, and it's this one. We're AM 560. The answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. And so the Supreme Court's much awaited decision in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, handed down yesterday shortly after we got off the air as expected. And as expected, it didn't go Trump's way or the way of those who believe that there is no birthright citizenship. contained in the reading of the 14th Amendment subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the phrase upon which it turns, which we've been discussing for many, many moons leading up to the end of the term and this decision being handed down. The reactions came fast and furious, starting with the president. I would like to congratulate President Xi Jinping in the great country of China on their massive birthright citizenship win. I think like a little sarcasm, obviously a reference to the birth tourism, birthright tourism business that is rather robust and has been discussed, including by Marco Rubio and others that the State Department has attempted to crack down on. By the way, that's been going on for a long time. Here's CBS News of all places. CBS News, just reporting on that aspect until we get to the larger issue. From 2013, profiling maternity hotels, quote-unquote, in California. Her name is Ada Lynn. She's four months old and the only American citizen in her family. Her parents, who agreed to speak with us if we didn't show their faces, traveled from China to Los Angeles so Ada could be born in America and claim U.S. citizenship. I want her to live a happy life, her father says. The family is back in China now. They are among thousands of Chinese who have become so-called birth tourists, staying in maternity hotels near Los Angeles. These hotels are often single-family homes in quiet neighborhoods. Not here, not anywhere. At least two are in Chino Hills, California, where residents are annoyed at the frequent comings and goings. Chino Hills resident, Rosanna Mitchell. Why does this offend you? When people think of the American dream, they're not thinking about birth tourism. They're thinking about people who come here, immigrate here, work hard, pay their taxes, become citizens, and become Americans. Ada Lynn's family paid $27,000 to a Chinese agency with a website that advertises the advantages of giving birth in America. The agency helps arrange U.S. tourist visas, lodging, and medical care. The practice does not violate federal immigration laws, but it gives Chinese parents the option down the road to have their American children attend U.S. universities or live here. The Lins say having Ada in the United States allowed them to get around China's one-child policy. It restricts most women from giving birth to more than one child in China. The Lins say that restriction does not apply to Chinese who give birth overseas. Well, the good news there is that China's one child policy ended in 2016, so that's less of an issue. But it doesn't mean that it's dampened down the birthright tourism industry because why wouldn't you want your kid to have American citizenship? For a better life, as that family that was profiled in that piece said, sure. For options. Uh-huh. And frankly, if you're an operative of the Chinese Communist Party.

It's nice to have somebody that can legally be on the inside here. 312-642-5600 alphawealthgroup.com call and text line. Some distribution of opinion in terms of how disappointing and impactful this decision is. JD Vance tried to see the silver lining here. that the decision was closer than some legal wags expected, a 5-4 decision, Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, as anticipated. But some thought that you might get a Gorsuch. You might even get an Samuel Alito. I don't know why people thought you would get an Samuel Alito. But anyway, silver lining is this issue is moving our way. This is a very disappointing ruling from the Supreme Court. Of course, we respect it. But we also think that it was a major, major mistake. As just as Samuel Alito and Thomas pointed out, you know, one of the things that might invite Laura is people to come here quite literally on a vacation, give birth, and then all of a sudden the child and their family have the full benefits of American citizenship. It's just a preposterous ruling. And the absurdity of that outcome suggests why the Supreme Court should have went the other way. Now, I know a lot of conservatives, Laura, certainly the people that I'm talking to that you're talking to are extremely disappointed in this. I do actually think there's a really big silver lining here. And that's the simple fact that a lot of legal experts expected this case to go the wrong direction by seven to two or even eight to one. The fact that this case was a five to four decision effectively means that the concept of birthright citizenship, which is an absurdity. to the 14th Amendment, that concept is hanging by a thread. And so what I take from that is, yes, we've got to fix the immigration system even more. We have to be even more aware of who's coming into our country to make sure that they're not benefiting from this atrocious Supreme Court ruling. But it also means that we have to keep fighting, Laura, because we actually have an opportunity to reverse this decision, just as we've reversed so many bad decisions throughout the generations. Although he was on Laura Ingram's show there, clearly that's the lore to which he was referring. Our colleague in sound here, Hugh Hewitt, is a Fox News contributor as well. He actually was pretty positive about the balancing act and the majority opinion that John Roberts authored. I'm not surprised by any of these decisions. I would have agreed with, were I in the court with all three of them? I think the Chief Justice has hit it out of the park on the birthright citizenship issue, and we finally have a decision that lays to rest this endless debate that text history and tradition, in fact, affirm if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen. Yeah, well, you know, bad law has a tendency of not settling any debate. just perpetuating it. Roe v. Wade didn't settle the debate. Red Scott didn't settle the debate. Plus C.V. Ferguson didn't settle the debate, thinking of terrible cases in Supreme Court history. And at least one conservative thinks that this case belongs in the pantheon of the worst cases ever.

decided by the Supreme Court, the worst opinions ever rendered by the Supreme Court. Listen by contrast to Molly Hemingway, fellow Fox News contributors. When Fox News contributors collide, Hugh Hewitt thinks Robert's hit it out of the park, Molly Hemingway thinks that this decision should live in ignominy until it's overturned. You know, hoping that JD Vance is right about that silver lining. This is an absolutely important and devastatingly bad decision for the future of the country. This decision that John Roberts authored is bad on the level of Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade. It's that bad. Previously, we had a policy of saying, if you have parents who are here illegally and you're born here, you might be considered a citizen. But today is the first day that the Supreme Court has ever said. That's a constitutional right. Samuel Alito had an excellent dissent as well. He said he thinks this is one of the, this was a very important decision and very wrongly decided. He goes through in an originalist manner, meaning what was the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, and looks at how the majority, this John Roberts decision came to its reasoning. And it's frankly pretty absurd. Clarence Thomas also did a great job. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says you can't deny citizenship on the basis of race. That's what it was for. There were people who were trying to deny citizenship to children of formerly enslaved. people and that's what the 14th amendment was for it was never saying you don't get to have any say in who's a citizen and you look at how it's not just this case it's so many things anything that americans try to do to restore their borders to determine who gets to come here you have rogue lower court judges just throwing it out and saying you don't get to say this cuts to the issue of sovereignty, who we are as a people, whether we will even exist in a few decades. So this is a very important decision. And unfortunately, you know, for an otherwise pretty good term, a really bad end to that. 312-642-5600. Alfawealthgroup.com call and text line. Did John Roberts and the majority hit it out of the park? Or is this a decision on par with the likes of Dred Scott that? has imperiled our nation's future, frankly. Corey and Woodlawn, you're on Chicago's morning answer. Good morning, Dan. I really think that John Roberts destroyed citizenship yesterday. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment are specifically for slaves. It has nothing to do with people coming to this country and dropping babies. It also overturns a previous issue with the articles of the Constitution, where it specifically addresses the three-fifth compromise. It says all persons born. So it actually addresses that as well.

So if you read the Congressional Globe or the congressional record and look at what the people that drafted the 14th Amendment were specifically saying about that time, it had nothing to do with people coming here, with birthright citizen issues or people coming to this country and wanting to be citizen. And I'm specifically just sickened by Amy Coney Barrett and Robert. They do not stand up for the Constitution. They do not stand up for conservative values. What's the use of having them on the court if they won't defend anything? Thanks for the call, Corey. Well, that's certainly the opinion of Mike Davis of the Article III project, who had this to say particularly about ACB. I think it was the biggest mistake imaginable supporting Amy Coney Barrett. I think she is a disaster for the Supreme Court. She is, as I've said, a rattled ball professor with her head up her ass. And she, she. She thinks that she is the smartest person in the room, and she's not. She's the junior varsity justice. And she thinks that she's grading law school exams instead of exercising sound judgment. We know why the chief justice. does why he does it's this is all about a vanity project for him it's about his image he's very chiefy and he just he put his vanity today over our sovereignty and it is unacceptable is that word against sovereignty uh we'll never come back from this as a country and so here's the solution going forward is we need to uh there there is no excuse now from Senate Republicans, they must pass the Save America Act. And there's no excuse from Markwayne Mullin or anyone else in the Trump administration. We need to mass deport every illegal alien, not just the violent criminals, all of them, and especially the birthing age women, the birthing persons, as Democrats call these people. We need to get them the hell out of our country because we did not sign up for this. I prefer the term gestating parent, but sure, I'll take birthing person on Mike. There's something worth noting, too, just on, you know, this is not the end, but even this term that on balance, and the president was even actually relatively sanguine about the term just concluded by the Supreme Court despite this birthright citizenship holding. more tools for immigration law enforcement. We talked a lot about temporary protected status and the 350,000 to 375,000 Haitian and Syrian TPS designees who can now legitimately have that designation stripped if that's the decision made. In addition to that,

The court found weighed in on the side of the administration with respect to fast-track deportations without court hearings for immigrants who cannot prove they have lived in the United States for longer than two years. So that could ensnare as many as 620,000 some individuals in this country illegally. So, you know, net net, now you're talking about another million people who you have Supreme Court sanctioned to move forward with all due speed to remove from this country. And that's what Tom Homan was focused upon in his reaction. First thing I saw the decision, which I don't agree with, it's okay now we step up enforcement. We step up more enforcement, even though we're doing record amounts of enforcement now, we need to do more. And not only that, we need to, you know, really buckle down on birth tourism. We have many investigations on birth tourism, but we need to triple, triple down on that. And look, I agree with Samuel Alito. You know, first of all, I've been doing this since 1984. That's when I started in Border Patrol. This birthright citizenship has always been a major driver for illegal migration. During the Biden administration, the Yuma Hospital, the El Paso Hospital, 100% maternity bedger illegal aliens. That's not a coincidence. That's not by accident. But it's always been a drive for illegal immigration. But more importantly, it's a national security issue. Because the birth tours investigation, I'm aware, we've got nationals from China and Russia coming here by the thousands having a baby and leaving. Now, so we have U.S. citizens by the thousands and discontinued by the millions living in countries that I think are adversaries to us that can come here and have an impact. on how this country's run. So it's a national security issue at a huge proportion that we need to address. And I hope Congress does it. Yeah, and the gaming of the system, in addition to the national security implications, I think, is what really rankles people, understandably so. Michael Knowles over a Daily Wire podcaster posted on X. If your family settled Jamestown in 1607, you're an invader with no claim to this stolen land. If your Chinese mom pops you out in Guam tomorrow, America is your birthright. That doesn't seem like it's... striking the proper balance to me either. This is the morning show. More Chicago radio listeners are choosing. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560. The answer. Signature, a division of Esquire Bank, offers Chicago businesses relationship first banking. Signature knows your name and your story because personalized banking still matters. I'm Dan Proft, and I know this because Signature is where I do my business banking.

I'm Tony Patrick, CEO of Total Wall and a client of Signature. We produce high-performance materials used in exterior insulating finish systems and other stucco applications. During a recent business transaction, I learned quickly that having the right banking partner matters. Signature stepped in, took time to understand my business needs, and kept things moving. If you need a banking partner you can rely on, look for a team with real experience and a commitment to your success. For me, that's Signature. Signature helps local businesses succeed. Want to learn how Signature can help turn your business vision into reality? Call Signature, a division of Esquire Bank, at 773-467-5600, or visit Signature.orgate.com. Esquire Bank, member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender. This is Chicago's Morning Answer with Dan Proft on AM 560, The Answer. Top of the morning, Dan Prop here, continuing our discussion on the Supreme Court decision, the birthright citizenship case, taking your calls 312-6442-5600, alphawealthgroup.com call and text line. Just a few more reactions to offer in to evidence so that you can react to those reactions, see if they inform your views on the decision handed down by. John Roberts writing for the majority, 5-4 majority, including Amy Coney Barrett. She's the subject of a lot of criticism again. And, you know, her record is a bit uneven, but it's not perhaps as poor as, say, Article III Project founder Mike Davis described it in the clip that I played before the news. Stephen Miller, essentially President Trump's point man on domestic policy with a particular emphasis on this issue of immigration law enforcement. He was quite pointed in his response, as you would anticipate as well, if you're familiar with his work and approach. This is what he had to say. We have people from all over the world, from third world nations, nations that on their own would have never invented the wheel, let alone modern technology, let alone medicine, let alone air travel. And they can just come into the country. Have a baby at a hospital, paid for it by you and me, and then that baby's automatically a citizen. That baby can sit on a jury when he turns 18 and sit in judgment of you, and sit in judgment of me, and sit in judgment of our loved ones, can decide who our mayors are, our governors are, our presidents are. Citizenship means nothing if it is open to everyone. The idea that you can have a cruise ship filled with foreigners, and they just dock at a port for an hour, and someone has a baby, Jesse. The baby's an American citizen. They can vote in every election for the rest of their lives. They can be living in a foreign country and cashing welfare checks from American citizens. Look, I know that some of the justices who worked on this, they think that they're so intelligent. There is no.

possible reading of the 14th Amendment that applies to foreigners with foreign loyalties, foreign citizenship, foreign obligations, foreign everything. Here's a pretty good clue your constitutional interpretation is wrong. If your ruling requires you to suicide, your civilization, your reading of the Constitution is wrong. President Grant and the... Congressman in the 19th century did not want to create an automatic third world citizenship requirement for America. It's an abomination, but let's thank President Trump, because of President Trump's courage and leadership, we are now on the precipice. Yes, we were dealt the setback, but because of his courage alone, we're on the precipice as a nation of being in a position to end this travesty once and for all. 312-642-2-5600, healthwealthgroup.com. Call and text line. One point of order just in terms of what Hugh Hewitt had to say and what others, including the Wall Street Journal and editorial board, are offering by way of defense for the Robert's opinion talking about tracing it all the way back to English common law and then Blackwell and cases that we've discussed at some length like Wong Kim Arc and federal statutes in 1940 and 1952. So let's trace it all the way back. You know, there's an issue with this appeal to English common law as sort of dispositive of the righteousness of the position. You know, this traces back to our tradition consistent with English common law. Yeah, there's an exception there. We didn't adopt England's political philosophy vis-a-vis a crown. after the revolution, did we? We did not. So, yeah, anyone that was us solely of the land owed allegiance to the crown in the UK, in Britain. We did the consent of the governed thing. Do you remember? John Roberts. Remember that break we had where we did the consent of the governance thing? It's a two-way street. And we have our representative republic. We don't owe allegiance to a crown one-way street. And so, you know, you can't look at the English common law without looking at it through the prism of America's governing political philosophy and the distinction between our philosophy and the philosophy of the overlords against whom we revolted. Do you have the consent of the governed? Well, clearly you don't if you're here illegally. Clearly, I think it's certainly an open question at minimum. If you look at the intentions of those authors of the 14th Amendment, as Corey from Woodlawn was talking about, and the specific remedy, the 14th Amendment was to provide.

And just sort of the reaction you get in terms of the sensibility of the position, as described by Stephen Miller and others, the idea that you could be on American soil for an hour passing through and give birth, do these maternity hotels, game the system, maternity hotels like the CBS story. We played an excerpt of last hour. from a decade and a half ago and gain the system just for the purposes of obtaining citizenship for your child, that doesn't seem to comport with the intent of the framers, the authors of the 14th Amendment, the body politic at present. You know, that consent of the governed issue is a big one if you want to start making essentially the philosophical underpinnings of the law kind of argument that John Roberts made in his majority opinion. Russ and Palos Heights on Chicago's morning answer. Hey, thanks for having me, Dan. JD Vance's attempts to spin positive, the decision, the bad decision about the rights of foreigners adds to the complication I have with him and his commentary while he was involved in the Iranian discussions, and he tried to spin positive those, and the Iranians immediately came back and slammed him. I think President Trump needs to take a look at dissuading him from being involved and perhaps getting Marco Rubio more involved in some of these activities. Thanks for the call, Russ. Joe in Naperville. Yeah, unfortunately, nobody's talking about the ramifications of this. For instance, how quickly do you think the left is going to run a case to a liberal judge that's going to say, well, if you deport this little baby that has two illegal immigrant parents, you're de facto deporting a U.S. citizen. Therefore, we're going to have a nationwide injunction on doing this. I guarantee this is going to happen within a month, Dan. Well, I mean, there's a flip side to that, too. I mean, there's legislation that's going to be pushed by Senator Bernie Moreno in Ohio, so he says. There's legislation that's been filed by Tennessee representative Andy Ogles with respect to birthright tourism that he reprofiled after the decision was handed down by the court yesterday. Everybody, Congressman Andy Ogles here. Breaking news, I don't know if you're paying attention, but the Supreme Court just had a horrible decision as it pertains to birthright citizenship. And I would even say really betrayed America when it comes to birthright citizenship. So I have a bill that's going to address it from the legislative perspective. Look, we are co-equal branches of government. Our founding fathers warned us against an all-too-powerful judiciary, and you see that playing out right now. So I have a bill. It'll be called Anchors Away.

which, look, if you're not a U.S. citizen, if you're not a green card holder, and you have a child on U.S. soil, today that child would be a U.S. citizen. Under my bill, under my legislation, we fix that and go back to what our founders intended. So, in short, what this bill does is if you are a pregnant woman, you can't come into this country. You've got to be a citizen to be here. You have to have a green card holder. So if you're pregnant and you don't have one of those statuses, no admittance allowed. Hmm. Bernie Moreno said he was going to file legislation to ban birthright citizenship. The problem with that is the Supreme Court has held its constitutional right. So you're not going to, I mean, so you can do it, you can pass it, the president can sign it for the purpose of having the court deem it unconstitutional, but maybe this is a way to get another case in front of that court. I mean, that's what the game is going to be here, particularly for those who are opposed to birthright citizenship. and the interpretation offered by the John Roberts majority, you have to get another case that raises a constitutional issue before the high court to see if you can have a different decision rendered, maybe with a different court, you know, in terms of its composition. This was the 50-year saga of Roe, right? So, in the meantime... These fights will spill out in the legislative arena. And yes, in lower courts, no question. Margo Burridge. Hi, Dan. Two things. First of all, I'm thinking, can we all contact our representatives and with a simple phrase, repeal the 14th? Would that solve this to repeal the 14th Amendment? I don't think that's going to fly. No. Well, the other thing, I'm thinking of, you know, this whole thing of these, you know, the birthing tours, you know, from China, you know, this was the problem with Barack Obama. I don't care where he was born. He wasn't brought up here. Until he was at least eight years old, he was living somewhere else, not experiencing the American lifestyle. I mean, I heard him say once on his 50th birthday, he'd never had a birthday party as a child. He did not have the American experience. And he did not love and does not love our country. We've got like a whole army of people that are being raised in China, that are going to be American citizens, that they'll be mentoring candidates. We've got an army of spies and saboteurs over there just waiting to come over here, and we can't even stop them. I mean, they've got to do something retroactively about all these Chinese births that have been performed in California. It's terrible. Thanks for the call, Margo. Yeah, you know, the whole distribution of opinion on pride in being an American, that is a cultural issue that informs this discussion as it does a lot of these policy discussions.

The numbers on the question, are you proud to be an American between self-identified Republicans and self-ident Democrats are stark? I mean, stunning, really. Harry Enton, the very very animated poll whisperer for CNN goes through these recent Gallup numbers here as we're on the, you know, near the eve of 250. You know, among Republicans, 93% are extremely or very proud. Just one, a single one, say they have little to no pride in being an American. But look over at the Democratic side. This is where we've seen this extremely or very number. It's been taking a tumble at 27%, which is way different than the 93. You do the quick math of me here. What is that? That's a 66 point difference here in terms of extremely a very... But look at this. The little or no proud to be an American actually among Democrats eclipses. is greater than the extremely or very proud number. So we are just living in such a different universe if you're a Republican versus a Democrat on the basic fundamental question of being proud to be an American. 93 to 1 Republican, 2736 Democrat. Only one in basically one and four self-identified Democrats, currently Gallup. are proud to be an American. I mean, that foundation from which you start, you know, I mean, it certainly informs the analytical conclusions you draw, wouldn't you say? Wouldn't you think? And your concern for turning this place upside down, for being an accessory to willful or willfully blind these neo-Bolsheviks that are on the rise on the left. Proud to be an American, one in four Democrats. More Democrats not than are. And frankly, almost half are just ambivalent, apparently, which isn't particularly redeemable either. Phil and Marriville. Morning, Dan. Yeah, one quick point and one quick question. I drive around Chicago all day long, and I can see the aftermath of the illegal immigration. Everywhere I go, I see how bad it is. And then my quick question is, How do we have a president that had the brain of a zombie, let 20 million illegal immigrants in, and then you have a judge of the Supreme Court with the least a bit amount of common sense, not realize that their kids shouldn't be here. Thanks for the call, Phil. Harry and Hawthorne Wood. Hi, Dan. It's not Hawthorne Woods. It's the villages in Florida. Oh, that's right. Yes, yes, yes. My question is, aren't these, you know, birthright citizenship schemes where they bring them into hotels and they have babies en masse to acquire citizenship? Isn't that perpetrating a fraud and can't that be dealt with legally?

You know, and the second question. Yeah, go ahead. No, I mean, it's an excellent question. And actually, Eric Schmidt, the center from Missouri, who was the former Attorney General of Missouri, you know, a lawyer. He said that's a good. He brought that up, too, in the context of discussion, basically saying, look, is American citizenship the inheritance of a nation? Or is it just a hollow legal definition without protections against fraud and abuse? You're obviously gaming that. the system, as I say, frauding it is probably a more descriptive word. And on that score, I think you could have Congress intervene to make the statutes governing birthright citizenship more clear on that particular issue, where it is obviously there is no intent to domicile, there's just an intent to secure the benefit. And I agree. I think that's fraudulent. Yeah. And another question I have is, I know it's difficult to get an amendment passed. Is it more difficult to get an amendment that negates the 14th amendment or to modify it or to pass a completely new one? Is there a difference in the difficulty there between those two ideas? Well, politically there is. Thanks for the call, Harry. Politically, I think there is because, you know, I mean, the 13, 14, 15th Amendment of the anti-slavery amendments. You really want to run a campaign repeal the 14th Amendment? I don't. What I would like to do is provide clarity with the subject to the jurisdiction there of language in the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment. That's where you could have legislative clarity through an amendment to the 14th Amendment. That's... either a better play to do through the legislative process of amending the Constitution and or, and you can run parallel tracks. We're trying to get another case that implicates these issues before the high court to make a better decision. Jerry, Milwaukee. Yeah, good morning, Dan. If people are banking on Congress to rectify this. situation or to negate this decision. I think they're woefully, woefully misguided. I mean, we can't even pass an ID law for voting. Come on. Thanks for the call, Jerry. Yeah. And, you know, the pregnancy issue, if you're pregnant, then you can't come in. It's a little bit more complicated than it sounds. For example, Do you want us administering pregnancy tests to every woman who goes through the lawful process of trying to enter this country, either obtaining a visa or the much longer process of getting some sort of permanent residency or citizenship? It's going to be a tough sell. I have a feeling, don't you? And, I mean, don't forget, you got... you know, a dozen or so House Republicans, very slim majority, who just leveled forward an amnesty bill. So all these legislative tweaks are going to be fraught with peril. What you can do is use the tools that the Supreme Court legitimized.

in the decisions this term, as I mentioned last hour. And set Markwayne Mullin and Tom Homan and the boys and girls with immigration law enforcement to span out. and facilitate the removal of people in this country illegally, still prioritizing the violent, still looking for the missing kids. And if that means marshalling more resources, fine. And at the same time, you know, statutory language to codify a fraud issue to disincentivize people from coming here to commit that kind of fraud of gaming the system we're talking about with birthrights tourism. Put some teeth in that too. It would just take a prosecution or two, I think, to send the message the world over, starting with our Chinese communist adversaries. Kevin, Austin, Texas. Good morning, Dan. Yeah, so I drove up. I'm in Wisconsin, right now, I'm driving up from Texas. And sometimes there were more gay pride flags than there were American flags. And sometimes I'm sure there were no American flags. But anyway, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, there were. So, I mean, I mean, it goes to as far as what a lot of the left's priorities are. You know, I mean, what's more important about the national laws and freedom or who you're. Who you're attracted to. Thanks for the call, Kevin. This is Chicago's morning answer. Your show keeps me alive during the week. There's nobody I'd rather listen to between 5 and 9 in the morning than you guys. On AM 560, the answer.

If you're looking for the latest news, insight into what it means, I'm the sharpest opinion. There's only one station in Chicago where you can turn, and it's this one. We're AM 560. The answer. Top of the morning, Dan Broft here. In his majority opinion, 6-3 majority, I mean, those three, Cagan, Sotomayor, and of course, KBJ, they're just roll call votes for the Neil Bolsheviks, really. In his majority opinion, Brett Kavanaugh wrote, separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable. Yeah. These are controversial statements these days. Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, you don't say. Allowing only biological females to play in women's and girls teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition. True. Some might prefer a different rule allowing biological males who identify as female to participate on women's and girls' sports teams, at least in certain circumstances. But it surely was, quote, quote, quote, quote, reasonable. In 1975, to draw a biological line, a line where biological males play only on male sports teams and only biological females play on female sports teams. Even in recent years, 27 states, the NCAA, the IOC, and other sports organizations, professional sports associations have all drawn the same line. In assessing the reasonableness to the regulations, we must recognize the distinctiveness of competitive sports and the safety and competitive fairness issues that can arise when females are forced to compete against males. With respect to safety, allowing biological males to play in women's and girls' sports teams can put women and girls at significant risk of injuries. The safety risks are particularly severe in contact sports. And as to competitive fairness, allowing biological males to play in women's and girls sports teams can put female athletes at a serious disadvantage. I know you're probably listening to this and thinking this is completely without controversy. I've known this my entire life. I should be a Supreme Court justice. Well, maybe you should. But given three quarters of self-identified Democrats are not proud to be an American. And their platforming of the revolutionary elements within their ranks, I would say the revolutionary base, the revolutionary majority in terms of political sway of their party that wants to deconstruct the family, done a pretty good job already, deconstruct the sexes and deconstruct the country. These are very controversial and triggering, to borrow word, statements that Brett Kavanaugh made. You may find them positively prosaic, but I can guarantee you the left is not. And they're, you know, making their voices known on the topic. 312-642-2-5600. AlphaWealthgroup.com call and text line.

The interesting thing, too, as an observation made by Matt Iglesias, who's one of these sort of self-styled leftist intellectuals, I guess, would pass us for it. The report that the court ruled that Title IX allow schools to maintain separate boys and girls' teams based on biological sex. One response. The fact that we have an entire political party devoted to arguing about which kids can play sports under what conditions is ridiculous. And we shouldn't back down on issues like this. Rather, we should win people over by doing popular stuff like getting people health care so they stop fighting over dumb stuff that local governing bodies have been handling with grace rather than politicizing for decades. Utah literally has a law allowing for the measuring of body parts to determine to who's eligible to play. Well, that's insane. But this is where the left would take it. This is the left argument at the left, by the way.

And Iglesias' comment on that is, I mean, it is a good insight that highlights this contradiction, seeming contradiction. The conventional wisdom in Dem politics is that the sports issue is simultaneously trivial and also so important that you can't compromise with public opinion on it. Yeah, how can that be? That does seem to be. At odds with those two thoughts seem to be at odds with what another. And you know what the old saying is about being able to hold contradictory thoughts simultaneously. That's either a scientific genius or sociopathology, if you will. And I think it's the latter in the case of the left. Sports issue is simultaneously trivial and also so important you can't compromise with public opinion. Why would that be? Well, because of what I just said. Who has the political sway in that party? Well, I think you're seeing it on display in these recent elections, including yesterday's, in Colorado, with Ms. Akiros, who hails from Ethiopia. and now is fast-tracking her way to Congress, 29-year-old, who defeated in the primary, a pretty far-left 15-year-old, excuse me, 15-term incumbent. And what does Ms. Kuros from Colorado, by way of Denver, by way of Ethiopia? What does she believe? Well, the usual stuff. Back by Hasan Piker. And this was a recent conversation the two of them had. Abolishing ICE is just one step, right? Democrats have been in power multiple times over the last few decades and did nothing to address the immigration reform that we actually need. Increased expenditures, increased spending on. Exactly. Yeah. And so if we're, I think there has to be an immediate pathway for every single undocumented immigrant that's here in this country today that does not require them to shell out. thousands of dollars to go through their process for it to take decades at a time to be able to get to citizenship, an immediate pathway to citizenship, and then just read. You know, very much like the Zohran Mamdani crowd, New York. Yes, it's not for New York City alone. The responsible party for 9-11, America brought upon ourselves. Do you believe that the 9-11 terrorist attacks on America were the inevitable consequence of American foreign policy? inevitable in the sense that we destabilized a lot of the Middle East that forced people to believe that another act of violence was the only response. And again, just like I said before, our responsibility is to getting rid of those conditions that lead to violence in the first place. So that's soon to be newly minted Congresshuman Malat Kuros.

Another DSA addition to the family in D.C. Back to this issue specifically, just to pick up on what Madaglacius was laying down. So afraid is the DC Press Corps. You have sort of... contextual commentary that is offered before you can even get to the substance of a decision like this upholding these trans sports bans and by the way of course this is another good example ESPN's reporting on the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued decision to uphold state laws banning trans girls and women from playing on school athletic teams that's not what they did that's what they did by the way trans girls and women boys and men and not from playing on school's athletic teams, just boys and men from playing on the girls and women's teams. You understand. But that's not the way the Supreme Court, I mean, that's not the way the ESPN reported the decision. And that's important to note. Craig Melvin. NBC News. Just a quick note here, the terms that we're using here during our reporting, biological male, biological female, the High Court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their dissent. But just so you know, we're using those terms from the decision itself, biological male, biological female. How about CNN legal analyst Laura Coates? This is a monumental decision, not unexpected, however, giving how the oral arguments went. Here was the crux of the issue. It was whether or not somebody who was assigned the male gender at birth would be allowed to play in a traditionally so-called girls sports in a public or high school or, of course, in the college setting. The argument that they were using to support a ban was that there was an unfair advantage provided to those assigned male at birth in women's competition. The other side said, no, no, this is sex-based discrimination, and it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and therefore you cannot do it. This has been, as Pamela said, at the heart of many culture wars and one about what the unfair advantage may be, and whether or not gender identity should be included in a sex discrimination case and otherwise. Just the way that she's talking about the assigned at birth. Throughout the dissent. in the case from KBJ, Ketanji Brown Jackson. She uses the same phrase sex assigned at birth. The principal descent, authored by Sotomayor, uses the phrase sex identified at birth, which is somewhat better because it doesn't suggest a doctor arbitrarily assigned a person's sex, but it's still, of course, inaccurate. But using these weasel phrases tells you what. I mean, you would expect it from Katamjia Ketanji Brown Jackson. She doesn't even know what a woman is. But Justin Thomas, Clinton Thomas, had some words for this sort of weasel language. To use language to obscure reality to show indifference regarding the truth is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens as equals. Boom goes to the dynamite.

Dan in Indiana, you're on Chicago's morning answer. Dan, so this allows or stops them from playing in the sports, but what about the bathroom issues all over the country? You've got people who identifies the other going in the bathroom in general, and aren't they going to say, well, that's not a sport. That doesn't count. Well, remember, thanks for the call. What the Supreme Court did here is uphold state-level bands on boys and men playing girls and women's sports. It's not a federal issue. So you can do this. And so essentially there's deferring to the states to say there's nothing that these bans do that is violative of federal law, including Title IX. So you can do them if you want, but this is in your hands at the state and local level. A text from 773. Did you see Ben Bradley's... Take on it on WGN. No and no did just about everybody else. Nor did just about everybody else. Why would you even bother watching network affiliate news in this city? Except, you know, like gallows humor. Before you see it on TV, share it on Facebook or read about it in the paper. Hear it here first. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560. The answer. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Profft on AM 560. The answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. You may be happy that you have air conditioning during heat waves like the one we're experiencing, but the French are not happy that we do. In golly gee, we certainly don't want to upset the French. They have, they're experiencing quite the heat wave as well, such that because they eschew air conditioning, you know, to save the planet. They can't save themselves. 1,300 excess deaths that are allegedly heat related. That's the reporting. Yet the deputy mayor for Paris mayor, Emmanuel Grigual, declared last week that individual air conditioning is a scourge. And public authorities must act quickly. Not with like cooling centers. Like, you know, you hear announcements in our newscast and stuff talking about cooling centers. You heard stories about the air being out at buildings and that becomes a story because it puts pressure on the landlord and contractors to get there and make sure the air is restored. No, the opposite. In Paris, they're moving quickly to ensure people don't install home air conditioning because the planet. You know, saving it. Greek law's deputy mayor, Audrey Polwa, posted all sorts of missives on the topic because they don't appreciate being ridiculed by the ugly Americans. Dear American journalists and social media influencers. For days, some of you have been criticizing and making fun of Paris because the city doesn't have a sea in every room of every apartment and places. This language. OMG, this is so rich. As the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, you bear a significant responsibility for global warming and the consequences we in France are experiencing your cities. 90% air conditioned are not unrelated to this. She's not done. In Paris, we take responsibility. We're not perfect. No, no. Far from it. No, come on, you are perfect. We're not perfect, far from it, but at least for the past 25 years, we've implemented measures to reduce air pollution, responsible she alleges for 500,000 premature deaths in Europe each year, to green the city, to renovate for energy efficiency, and to transform transportation. What do you have to say that? Well, you can't talk yet because she's not done. AC. and heat pumps, contributes and aggravates the problem, not to mention it consumes a lot of energy and emits very dangerous polyfluoroacol substances, PFAFAS, to those in the know. We choose to use it in the most accurate way and to develop other solutions. What do you have to say to that? 312-644-250-250-50-600 alphawealthgroup.com, call and text line.

Well, you can't talk yet because she's not done. We are reducing our environmental footprint and adapting the city at the same time to the short, medium, and long term. It's not a one-shot issue. What do you have to say to that? Nope, not done. If every American city made the same ecological transition efforts as Paris and many European cities, believe me, the whole world would be better off. I don't believe you. In fact, I know it's not true. We all know it's not true. You have no data to support the position. Even Greta Thunberg has given up this hobby horse, but not the French. So please, enough with the lecture. That's rich. OMG. Just start doing your part. Best regards, the deputy mayor of Paris. Oh, man. Just, you know, to show you that you think amid the pivot from eco-supremacy to genocide in Gaza, both in quotation marks. That even the most virulent climate cultists have ceded the mantle. No. Uh-uh. No, no, no, no, no. Of course, as everyone other than the mayor and the deputy mayor and Paris and other frogs, I guess, no. There is no amount. of French sweltering in the heat that will make a real dent in the global climate. None. So, yes. It's a wonderful statement and it makes you feel good to be out there saving the planet and wagging your finger at the big bad Americans. But... I'm not even going to bother going through the data. You know, go read Bjorn Lumberg, Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace. I mean, there's so much scholarship on this issue. There's so much data on this issue. Even the IPCC has revised down their apocalyptic predictions from a decade or so ago. None of the... End of Times predictions of Al Gore's Oscar award-winning documentary, Inconvenient Truth, bore out. I mean, just on and on and on. But it's just, I know it's tedious. I know they're insufferable, but they're out there. And if you visit Paris in the summer, you may want to take judicial notice. Nice place to visit. Kind of like Chicago. Bill, Northwest Side. Yeah, I believe it's a well-known fact that the French are not big fans of hygiene. They prefer to perfume up. So, you know, being sweaty and not smelling very well, it wouldn't bother them. Thanks for the call, Bill. Mark Valpo.

Yeah, I just wanted to say that, you know, to save the environment, now that they got rid of R-134, and now they're using an odorless propane to put through your gas furnace to your air conditioner, and you have to install a little electronic detector to actually detect the smell. if it's leaking or not. So that's, I just want everybody to know that now, and then, you know, I'm waiting for the kaboom for them to change that law. So that's all. Thanks for the call, Mark. Appreciate it. This is fun, too, just on the alternative energy front, since I'm sure the mayor and deputy mayor be interested to keep track of this. I'm sure they're fossil fuel banners. The wind in South Dakota that's destroying windmills. Yeah, I guess it turns out that if you push, if the wind pushes past 100, 110 miles an hour, the windmills come tumbling down. That's what's happened in South Dakota. In the UK, there's a feature story in the telegraph, which is the leftist tablet. Gas power stations across the UK have been ordered to fire up production as soaring temperatures trigger a slump in solar energy. Too much sun overwhelming the solar energy producing solar panels. Yeah, that's, you know, and that's what I want to do. I want to put a $30 trillion economy. I want to subject it to the whims of Mother Nature and solar panels and windmills. Maybe mix in some switchgrass. Okay, sure. Oh, boy. Ron and countryside. Yeah, it's just that their summers are a lot shorter. And probably 80% of the population in Paris is Muslim from the Middle East. You know, it's an interesting point. Thanks for the call, Ron. I was, I think I mentioned this maybe that. I turned on or I walked into a place that had a World Cup game on and, you know, I didn't immediately pick up the color schemes, you know, representative of the flags of the two nations competing. I just saw that it was France versus Senegal. And if you didn't pick up the flag schemes, the color schemes representative of the country's flags, I know the French flag, better than the Senegalese flag, you wouldn't know which team was which. which is telling. Oh, and by the way, in addition to the mayor and deputy mayor of Paris, Bernie Sanders is not relenting either. Europe is suffering through its worst heat wave in recorded history. This week, three dozen U.S. states will likely see record-breaking temperatures. No, Mr. Trump, climate change is not a hoax. We must stop the fossil fuel industry, greed, and save the planet. Just like you would expect a good old Soviet to say. The Oil and Gas Association, trade association, they're keeping Bernie's receipts. And they go back to 2018, 2016, 2016. 2016, July was the hottest month ever recorded. When do Republicans stop putting fossil fuel profits over people's health? July of 2019.

It was 115 degrees in France last week, the highest temperatures they have ever recorded. Still think climate change is a hoax? Mr. Trump, you are delusional. July 19th of 2019, the past five years of the hottest on record. This June is the hottest June recorded. Thousands dying heat waves around the world. Trump's ignorance is threatening the lives of our children. For the sake, we must stand up to the fossil fuel industry and build a green economy. And 2021 and 24, rinse and repeat. Data-free, and as we know, many more people die from the cold than the heat globally annually. But I know those are the real inconvenient truths. Mike in Beverly, Massachusetts? Hey, Dan. I just wanted to call. I was in Hong Kong about two weeks ago. It was probably twice as hard as it is in Chicago right now, just hearing what people are saying. And I walked around the entire city, very hot. I couldn't believe the number of times I walked past buildings that just had cold, blasting, cold air-conditioned air into the atmosphere, just like as you're walking down the sidewalk, more than multiple, countless times. And I, why don't all these climate freaks just like, just go to Hong Kong and just see how much energy is wasted because they all use coal energy over there in China. Yeah. That's right. Yep. Thanks for call. That's why it's all, whether they want to inform themselves to the reality or not, it turns out to be performative. Yeah. You think, you think a 75-year-old issuing air conditioning? And a flat in France offsets a coal power plant in Beijing. I mean, are you serious? What's wrong with you? Not to, I mean, without even getting into the resiliency of the planet and so forth. Roger DeKalb. Hey, Dan. Yeah, two years of taking French in high school. I can count to nine and remember about four sayings, but my favorite was always Mon Petit Chushu, which is a term of affection in French. It means my little cabbage, because I think little stinky cabbages probably smell better than the people, and that explains that saying. I always wonder what I meant. Now I know. My little cabbage. Thank you, Roger. Polyglot. Jim Jordan and Antioch. Morning, Dan. Yeah, I'll bet you Emmanuel Macron, I bet he's really suffering. He's probably walking around in police caprice and probably a little hemp pullover, asking to turn the air conditioning up a little bit. I bet you all the government offices are brisk when you walk in there, but, you know, screw the people, right? If they don't want to introduce their citizens to companies like train and carrier and Lennox, maybe this is the time they finally introduce their women to companies like Nair. Gillette, Barthol. Have a good day. Thank you, Jim Jordan. Thank you for going there, so I didn't have to. Somebody else is experiencing the sting of anti-Americanism. And that's Freddie the German.

Freddie the German, sort of the World Cup fan cause celebrity, among many foreign World Cup fans who've come here and are marveled at all that America has to offer versus what they've been told about how bad America is and so forth. And they're just loving every minute of it. Well, Freddie, the Germans, he's like his, he went viral and he's done all these cool things and he's had celebrities reach out and country singers that he prefers and he's been able to go to their concerts and so on and so forth. But he deactivated and people, you know, are enjoying following him and getting his perspective and all these places, you know, a little hamlet in Vermont. He's all over the place and he's just, you know, documenting from his perspective, the wonder of America, you know, first blush. He deactivated his ex account. and he wrote an explanation because people were wondering like what happened did you get you know sort of shamed and harassed off of x hi everyone just want to let you know why i deactivated my account this was the plan all along even before we started the world cup trip No, that's number one. Number two, too many people seem to have a problem with us having a generally good time here in the country. And this is ruining the fun a bit for us because we really just wanted to document a road trip and never expected that people would have a problem with it. Number three, people are digging into my 22,000 posts to find a handful of, in their opinion, controversial posts and post and post them without. without context to make me look like a bad person. Also, I've seen that some people are upset that it's not our first time in the USA, which is surprising me because I even replied to someone at the beginning of the trip that I've been here before. I can't understand that it seemed like... That for many, because of our reactions to the stuff we saw, which is because we were never to any of the places we visited. I mean, so he's been here before, but a lot of the places he's visiting is new, not a difficult concept to grasp. And so forth. So, yeah, so he's getting a lot of static from the haters out there. And so he just said, well, I was going to deactivate it anyway, so the hell with it. But it was fun. Something else that the left would. prohibit if they could. Jim and Crown Point. I understand that, Francis, if we don't stop criticizing them, they're going to surrender to Germany again. And the iPhones, get rid of those in France. Those are dirty batteries, computers. Get rid of that. You know, the only ones that can really say that they're doing something are the Amish. That's it. Thanks for the call, Jim. In the summer of 2024, almost 63,000 Europeans died from the heat in the summer of 2024. I mean, just to give you an interesting comparison, 15,000 Americans died from homicides committed with firearms in 2024.

So, I mean, you know, what you could have done to save all of those lives is so readily accessible. But the ideology got in the way. And don't say the same thing about firearms because that's a whole different kettle of fish, as you know. These are criminals doing illegal things with firearms. All we're asking for or suggesting is that the French and other European countries should do legal things with air conditioners. Not quite the same thing for those who on the left who would want to make the same argument with firearm homicides as I'm making with. air conditioners in this comparison. But it, that really is stark about just, again, it's the same old story, though. Ideology blinds people to their humanity, frankly. Glenn in Orlando. Yeah, I read an interesting statistic, Dan, that there were more air-conditioned homes in Mexico than there were in France. And as far as the French go, let them eat cake. George and Naperville. Yeah, Stan, at least the French have hot women to look at while they're suffering in the heat. Benjur! You cheese eating surrender monkeys! Hear about the big stories of the day. Then talk about them. Right here on Chicago's morning answer. On AM 560, the answer. TikTok. TikTok. The biggest stories. TikTok. The biggest guests. And only the biggest opinions. This is AM 560. The answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here, and the price at the pump is not coming down as quickly as President Trump decrees it should. I paid like, I don't know, $450 a gallon this morning for regular. What the hell is that? Well, he's job-boning the oil companies. So it's ExxI Mobile. It's Chevron. It's Shell. It's... BP, it's a lot of them, the gasoline or the oil prices have come down so much. And we are not seeing anything at the pump by comparison of what it should be. We should be, in my opinion, at $2.25 right now at the pump. And we're higher than that. And we are doing a big investigation on it. They're not reducing the prices commensurate with what's happening. Look, we are sending out, think of it, 19 million barrels came out yesterday. That is a flood. That's like a gusher. That's an oil gusher. and they should be much lower, the gasoline prices, which really is what people see more than anything else, but the, you know, for their car. But the gasoline prices should be much lower at the pump. And the oil companies are possibly gouging. I hope they're not. Otherwise, they're going to be in big trouble. They're going to be in big trouble. We're not going to play games. Yeah, 19 million barrels of oil is less than one-day consumption in America. So there's that. There's also the other matter that price gouging doesn't exist. There's that matter. There's a simple econ 101 matter. The only way price gouging exists is with government sanction, not government price setting or capping. But nonetheless, and he knows better. Scott Bessent fell in line and repeated the same threat yesterday. We've got a chart of how quickly the prices went up and how they followed crude, and we're going to hold them accountable on the other side, President Trump's. talked about it the past week. He had a very powerful true social yesterday. So I would encourage all the gasoline retailers. Some of them are owned by big oil. Some are independent. Some are international convenience chains. I would encourage them to be good actors, especially in the 250th anniversary, because we're watching. Right. Text 247. $3.19 in Eagleville outside of Nashville today. Right. So they're price gouging in Chicago, but they're not price, or where did I fill up in, I don't know, Franklin Park. No way here. They're price gouging in Franklin Park, but they're not price gouging in Nashville, outside of Nashville. No. It's not how it works. And they know that. So I just, you know, the cheap populist rhetoric, the anti-Econ 101.

where there's an opportunity to educate and separate from the left? Because if we're going to be setting prices of gas, then how are we going to complain when Chris Murphy wants to set the national minimum wage at $25? Why not? If we just have government commissars setting wages and prices for everything, because they know better. President Trump knows where the price of gas should be today. Should be $2.25. He's done the charts, done the due diligence, and he's come up with that number. Give me a break. It's so asinine, really. It's embarrassing. And so I'm not going to defend it. We'll see if Steve Moore wants to. Economist and author of the Trump Economic Miracle on the plan to unleash prosperity again. Steve? $2.25. It has been so said, so it shall be. Well, good morning, Dan, and happy 4th of July. Happy 250th birthday for this great, great, great, great nation of ours. And by the way, it's not just the 250th anniversary of our country, birthday of our country, but it's also the one-year anniversary. You know what? It's the one-year anniversary of Dan? The BBB. A big, beautiful bell. Dang, dang, dang. You got it right. So that was huge for the economy. The average family saving about $2,500 to $4,000 a year thanks to that big, beautiful bill. So that's helped a lot. Now, you know, look, the gas prices, they're going to...

tens of thousands of gas service stations around the country, do you? No, that's what I said. It's idiotic. And I'm just, I'm not willing to spin such economic illiteracy because it's enough to endure it from the left, much less from people on our side. Exactly. Well, that's the reason we have your show is so you can nail down these idiots who, you know, and by the way, it's both sides to do this. Yes. Demagoguery. Maybe, you know what? Well, here's the thing. I wanted to get this into, we talked a bit about it yesterday, but get your reaction to it because at the same time that you have the AOCs and the other Neo-Bosheviks decrying big tech companies and the quote-unquote tech oligarchs and, you know, whose politics I'm often not a fan of, but I mean, you respect the company that's that people built and the innovations that they instigate. At the same time, they're doing that, I mean, talking about breaking up Apple because they're charging more for an iPhone. You have Jensen Huang who is talking about what AI could mean in terms of something that the left likes to talk about, but doesn't want to do anything about, the reindustrialization of America. Take a listen. You know, Jim, in the last, in the last, call it 100 years, without the automotive industry, what manufacturing did we really do? You know, the United States has been declining in manufacturing for some time. And the computer industry was largely outsourced. And it became really an intellectual property job, right, information processing job. And over the course of the last 50 years, our economy and our communities have really changed in shape. And we really need to figure out a way to bring back manufacturing. However, how do you fundamentally bring back manufacturing for industries that have existed forever? You and I, you know, we're strategists. CEOs are strategists. And when we think about how do you enter into a new market, how do you drive prosperity, how do you drive growth? Driving growth, you can't go and compete with somebody doing something that they've been doing for 50, 100 years. And so we need to look for a transition, a phase shift, a new industry that happens where all of a sudden a whole bunch of new skills, a whole bunch of new factories, a whole bunch of new companies. that didn't exist before can now exist. And this is the perfect time for the United States. We are going to re-industrialize United States in precisely the type of plants that were either unnecessary or not enough in the past. Maybe we should consider the opinions of the guy with the $5 trillion company as opposed to all these politicians. Well, I mean, I think that's exactly right. And so what we are experiencing folks is, you know, let's see, it was about...

A little less than 30 years ago, we had something called the Internet Revolution. And that changed America in an incredible way. It changed the world in an incredibly productive way. I can now get information in 30 seconds that used to take me, you know, 30 hours to get. And so the United States came to completely dominate the Internet. Nine of the ten great Internet age companies, whether you're talking about Amazon or Amazon. They completely dominated because we let the free market work. You know, we got the government the hell out of the way. And boy, did they create incredible wealth and incredible new products that Americans use every day. And so now, look, whether you like AI or not, I know people are afraid of it, oh, it's going to happen to my job, and maybe the people in Silicon Valley are going to use the, you know, the AI for evil, not good. And, you know, these are legitimate concerns. But the fact is AI is coming. We're using AI. We don't even know we're using it. And so my point is, the most important question is not whether AI, we're going to have AI. We are. It's here and it's making already some incredible productivity pros. The question that everyone has to ask themselves is, do we want China to win this race? Or do we want to win here in the United States? Just as we won the internet age. We can win this race. The race is on, but the Chinese are trying to catch up with us. And if we don't build data. I get so frustrated. I don't know. Data Center. We ate data centers. Wait a minute. Then I wouldn't be talking right now. My cell phone wouldn't work. People love their cell phones. I couldn't even survive without my smartphone. They don't work if they don't have data centers. Yeah? Yeah, no, well, I mean, another, another like econ 101 discussion about living in a world where there are tradeoffs. And let's have an adult conversation rather than this, you know, this cheap demagoguery, as I mentioned. I'll tell you what, though, just in terms of what you said, getting the government out of the way, here's well, I'll give Trump plot it. The Competitive Enterprise Institute issued a mid-year report. In terms of conventional issuance of rules and regs in the Federal Register, the Trump administration continues to set records for inactivity, hooray! And pursue a value of principal federal neglect. Today's Federal Register tops out at 1,454 final rules on track to land at fewer than 3,000 rules by the end of the year, which is still probably several thousand, too many. But that low in numbers only happened twice in U.S. history. both times under President Trump. So on the deregulation front, he is still moving in a very positive direction, which is helpful. And, you know, Dan, when I talk to, you know, you know, I'm a tax guy. I'm a supply side or, you know, spent most of my research on, you know, the fact of lower and cap marshal tax rates, which is really critical. But when I talk to small business, not a woman, they go, yeah, we don't like all the taxes to be paid. But so many of them say, you know, it's even worse than the taxes, Dan? Regs. But the rules.

Here's something else I wanted to get to with you. I wonder if you've already been asked to be a speaker. September 9th and 10th we're doing, not we, Trump, the Republican Party, doing a midterm convention. In Dallas, Texas, September 9th and 10th. I think this is a great idea. Trump posting about this talking. Look, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, stronger borders, safe communities, lower costs and real affordability, more jobs, less or fewer regulations. He does have a lot of accomplishments to talk about, so why not talk about them right after Labor Day in advance of November? Yeah, to that that we have income. illegal immigration has been cut to practically zero. These are incredible half of a presidency. So I'm all for that. You know, celebrate your victories. It's a better country today. And now we have to make sure that Chicago going to go. Did you see that cartoon in the paper the other day about how with all the, there's a photo of all the Cuban vote people, you know, they're getting on the votes now from New York? Yeah, yeah. Oh, they're leaving. They're going back. Exactly. Yes. They're leaving New York. Yes. I mean, how pathetic is that? By the way, two of those people who won those elections in New York City that left went to California. They graduated from Columbia University. Those are Kay Ivey League schools. And the Kay Ivey League of turn these people into idiots. Well, speaking of that, I'm going to tee up a softball for you. Boy, this is something I never thought I would see. Zohran Mamdani M. Donnie and his celebration of the city budget invoked Frederick Hayek. Take a listen. And we raise taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers instead of taking more from those with the least. Throughout this process, I've been reminded of the words of the Austrian economist, Friedrich Hayek. If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists. If these past months have shown us anything, it is that socialists not only understand economics, just as well as the capitalist who came before, but that we can solve their years of mismanagement through an embrace of our principles. How about that, see? Can you put that in English? I didn't understand. Yeah, socialists do understand economics because he's got a budget together. And all it took was an $8 billion state bailout for him to make his budget numbers work. Yeah, because socialists understand economics. Sure. Yeah. And by the way, here's the thing to worry about because it's like they had elections in Colorado. Colorado is kind of.

Can you imagine saying, oh, the incumbent Democrats in Congress, they're way, way too conservative. We got to get rid of them. So this is spreading like a virus, Dan. We've got to take these people seriously. This socialism movement is very real, very dangerous. 100%, which is why I love the September 9-10 convention idea after Labor Day, because we'll frame what we're, what Trump and Republicans are offering versus all these neo-Bolsheviks that are winning primaries and what they plan to offer, where they plan to take the country if they were allowed to at 100%. Well, there's a great headline in one of the New York. Gee, I wonder why that is. Maybe when you tell people you don't have to pay your rent, they won't pay their rent. Yes. Don't understand. Yeah, incentives matter.

Right. And if you think it's expensive now, wait until it's free. Economist Stephen Moore. Thanks, Steve, as always appreciate it. Okay. Happy Fourth of July, everybody. The greatest country in the product. There you go. Number one cheerleader for America, Stephen Moore. He joined us in the Alphwealthgroup.com, insulin. It's news, opinion, insight. This is Chicago's morning answer. An AM 560, The Answer. Oh, brother. Text 4-7. Price gouging occurs at the local level, so Trump is largely correct. The rack rate, cost of delivery, delivered fuel has dropped, but retail only drop at the individual owner station when Speedway and Thornton's dropped theirs in Chicago. There, now you're educated. No, actually, I'm not. You're wrong, and Trump is wrong. And the idea that in an industry, a commodity industry like that, competitive industry, that you could charge gouge? Prices, quote unquote, for an extended period of time without going out of business. Wrong. You've made the switch, and it feels so good. You've switched to Chicago's morning answer on AM 560, the answer. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft, an AM 560, the answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. So returning to the birthright citizenship holding the Supreme Court promulgated yesterday. John Roberts writing for the majority. Tracing his argument back to English common law and bringing it all the way to present. That basically concluded that if you are born on American soil, then you are... An American citizen. Some divided opinion among conservatives as to the impact of this case. For example, our colleague in sound, Hugh Hewitt. Fox News contributor had this to say. I'm not surprised by any of these decisions. I would have agreed with, were I in the court with all three of them? I think the Chief Justice has hit it out of the park on the birthright citizenship issue, and we finally have a decision that lays to rest this endless debate, that text history and tradition, in fact, affirm if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen. Uh-huh. That's not the feeling that Molly Hemingway had after hearing the court's opinion and reading the majority opinion, authored by John Roberts. She compared it to some of the worst cases ever decided by the High Court, like in the country's history. This is an absolutely important and devastatingly bad decision for the future of the country. This decision that John Roberts authored is bad on the level of Dred Scott. or Roe v. Wade. It's that bad. Previously, we had a policy of saying, if you have parents who are here illegally and you're born here, you might be considered a citizen. But today is the first day that the Supreme Court has ever said, that's a constitutional right. Samuel Alito had an excellent dissent as well. He said he thinks this is one of the, this was a very important decision and very wrongly decided. He goes through in an originalist manner, meaning what was the original meaning of the 14? Amendment and looks at how the majority, how this John Roberts decision came to its reasoning. And it's frankly pretty absurd. Clarence Thomas also did a great job. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says you can't deny citizenship on the basis of race. That's what it was for. There were people who were trying to deny citizenship to children of formerly enslaved. people and that's what the 14th amendment was for it was never saying you don't get to have any say in who's a citizen and you look at how it's not just this case it's so many things anything that americans try to do to restore their borders to determine who gets to come here you have rogue lower court judges just throwing it out and saying you don't get to say this

cuts to the issue of sovereignty, who we are as a people, whether we will even exist in a few decades. So this is a very important decision. And unfortunately, you know, for an otherwise pretty good term, a really bad end to that. In the majority opinion, John Roberts held, I'm quoting, what the court held in Wong Kim Mark was simple. The citizenship clause, 14th Amendment, incorporated the common law and granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States. The exceptions are few, basically children of foreign diplomats who have immunity from U.S. law, and thus cannot be said to be under the jurisdiction thereof. For more on this, pleased to be joined by Professor Richard Epstein, James Parker Hall, Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Law and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago, and author of The Myth of Birth, Race, Citizenship, Case you were wondering where Professor Epstein came down in this case. Professor Epstein, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. It's a pleasure to be with you, well, so, I mean, would you go far as far as Molly Hemingway went and comparing this to Dred Scott and Roe? No, it's not as bad as that, but it's utterly incompetent and completely dishonest. I mean, it is in terms of the technical matter, an absolute intellectual mess. Um, what the chief justice starts to say is, what we are doing in this particular case. I'm now voting is affirming now and then the right to freely participate in all political community to every people person born in this land. It didn't say that at all. I mean, what you have to do is to understand that, uh, the opinion here was very convincing on one thing that is the 14th amendment are the children of slaves with citizens along with their parents. But it had nothing to do with foreign people coming into the United States at all. And in fact, what happened was, if you look at the history of the 14th Amendment, the only reason it got passed was that it made it very clear that the amendment did not confer the right to vote on American blacks or on women. And indeed, in 1874, there's another case called Minor in Haperset, not cited by the Chief Justice, which holds exactly that. What it says is that the definition of citizenship is a promise of loyalty in exchange for protection of the sovereign. Voting has nothing to do with it. And so it's hard to sort of treat this as a universal call for automatic citizenship of everybody from overseas if it has that particular view on voting. And also, I mean, there is a statute involved. The Chief Justice said this is a common law matter. It's just flatly wrong. to go back and you read the stuff in england uh naturalization is something that can only be done by a parliament and so it's a statutory matter And the English statute actually did allow diverse rights citizenship and a relatively inconsequential consequences. But the American situation under the 1790 and 1795 naturalization basically said, you have to go through the federal system. That's Hamilton, speaking about the uniform naturalization clause. And the first words of that cause are any free white person may apply. That's hardly a statement of universal belief.

in citizenship and in fact that cause in that form remained in the constitution rather in the statute until 1870 which was four years after the congress had passed the uh the 14th amendment and so what the defendants of birthright citizenship are claiming is you get this stuff automatically when the most you could get after the statute was the right to apply and there were some very serious conditions uh conditions on that and indeed 90% or more of the 1870 Act was tightening up the requirements for proof of naturalization because of what was perceived as widespread fraud on this particular issue. So everything he writes is absolutely make believe. Another thing is, what do we mean by the word jurisdiction? The New York Times, oh, this is really simple. It's only simple to a simpleton. It turns out, it turns out you go back and read the very sources there is on. Blackstone is crystal clear that the word has two meanings. And you have to separate them. One meaning is what he calls local allegiance. We would call it jurisdiction. And that means that if you're in somebody else's country, you have to abide by their civil law and their criminal law to be punished like anybody else. But it doesn't give you the right to have citizenship for your children and said the moment you leave, this is gone. The other form of allegiance, which he called natural or for allegiance. is the fact where you owe complete loyalty to the citizens, to the sovereign. And there, in fact, you are a citizen by birth, or if the statutory provisions are satisfied by statute. The American statute is completely different from the English statute. And there's a very good reason why, two reasons after it. One were a federalist situation. And in the original constitution, nobody thought that they could limit the way in which the states resolved citizenship question. with respect to the states. And there are a whole host of cases out there, which ask such questions, can you inherit under state law? I answer sometimes yes, sometimes no. The same question, could you vote in a local election? Could you serve as a local state officer? Those are the questions that they did. There was no birthright citizenship involved. Go ahead. Well, so since the court decided not to go the Brett Kavanaugh way and essentially, you know, sort of the middle way without declaring it a constitutional right, upholding it essentially in pertinent part, but without declaring it a constitutional right, so providing Congress more latitude, if you're... Yeah, Trump administration and Trump administration allies. You've had some legislative proposals from Bernie Moreno, a center from Ohio, suggesting ban birthright citizenship, but that obviously would run afoul of this decision. You have a congressman from Tennessee who's proposing no admittance to pregnant women to deal with the birthright tourism issue.

And then so there are some legislative. And the other thing, too, is the suggestion that. There needs to be some statutory fraud language associated with birthright citizenship when you're coming to one of these places paying a lot of money to stay at a, quote, quote, maternity hotel in a place like California to have your baby, and then you and your baby pull out as soon as the citizenship has been established. So that's a fraud. It could be a fraud issue, too. So, I mean, just in terms of thinking about how to address this legally and then perhaps constitutionally. What would some of your suggestions be or your reaction to those proposals? Well, I think in effect the thing that has to be done is something like the band. Let's put the sense on the size of the problem. It turns out the last year for which we have reliable data, which was 2023, there was 300,000 birthright citizenships in the United States out of roughly 3 million births in this particular country. They're talking about 10% of the total. Right. Now, when they go back home, they still have dual citizenship. And it's not even clear that they keep their American citizenship unless they come back to the United States. And the law is about how you recognize people who either born or born or raised aboard for extensive period of time is a subject that you can deal with the Naturalization Act. The problem here is that has two sides. In 1698, the English passed a very important statute which said that English citizens are bored. Their children, when born, became English citizens, because otherwise you never get anybody to serve with his wife in India someplace. And that power is explicitly reserved to the federal government and all the Naturalization Act. There's a book as long as you are on which starts to deal with these conditions. And the general rule to respect to naturalization is it's regarded as a plenary power of the United States. Indeed, it was precisely that meaning, which taken from Thomas Jefferson, no less, which meant that the original statute was never challenged on constitutional line. when it said that the only person who are eligible for naturalization are white people, free white people. Also, this issue is completely ignored by the Chief Justice. And in terms of what's going to go on next, You're going to see the kind of reaction that Molly Hemingway had by large numbers of people. Once these numbers become clear, the Chief Justice never addresses this issue. He did so on oral arguments and made a fool of himself when he said that somehow or other, in the late 19th century, nobody cared about Chinese imports into the United States. He never knew anything about the treaties and all the elaborate arrangement. It was a number one issue in this country at that time, even though there were a few of people who came, and they came by both.

And then he says, well, the Constitution never changes. Of course, it did change because what happened is immigration was at the time of the founding exclusively a state problem. And it was very aggressively pleased by the state. And in 1885, when the Chinese infusion cases, all of a sudden, it became a federal constitutional issues are in changing constitution. And by 1891, we have an exhaustive immigration man talking about something for which there's no original system. I mean, the opinion was staggering, but you're right. What is going to happen is this is such a bomb. And it's not people washing up on the shores they're worried about. It's the birthright tourism that I think the proposal to say that no person can come into the United States if she's pregnant. And I think it's also required any woman of age if she wants to come in, not only to sign papers, but the post of bond to make sure that she does have the child she leaves. I think these things are constitutional. Unless they say the equal protection clause changes it. But this is, again, one of the wild mistakes of the original constitution. The basic question of equal protection applied to all persons that had nothing to do with citizenship. It had to do with two things. It had to do with giving you a fair trial, due process, and using the same law for an alien that they use for an American citizen when it comes to meeting out. punishments for what's going on. And that's why they. So, so if you, if you did a birthright citizenship ban or some sort of, um, um, uh, like you say, I mean, it would basically be like pregnancy testing. If you're talking about not letting pregnant women in or as you mentioned, uh, signing a waiver with a surety bond if you did. I mean, so, so you think that would pass, um, muster. It would per this Trump versus a Barbara decision. despite the fact because it's a predicate because it's before you get here that's why it doesn't run afoul of this interpretation because essentially if you read all the other cases including those written by horace gray they said the united states has the absolute palates of exclude anybody from this country no questions asked and then there's a huge debate if somebody has been admitted to the united states can you export him deport him without a hearing. And if you have to give them a hearing, what kind of hearing you have to give it? That issue split the court in 1790. It splits the court today. But the one thing, too, is at worst, it may be something that is litigated up to the Supreme Court, and they grant cert and we revisit this. Well, that's also possible. Look, this decision is so intellectually incompetent. I mean, everybody that you talked about mentioned the consequences. Well, Mr. Hewitt does not know what he's talking about when he says that he knocked it out of the park. It is the most inept opinion on a major subject that I've ever read in my life. It's just absolutely no. And what happens is it will not withstand the test of tongue and notwithstanding the fact that everybody praises it as a form of originalism. It's a famous constitution. I mean, let's be very clear about it. The frame has had two things in mind. They wanted to overturn Dred Scott and they wanted to preserve segregation. That's what they wanted if you go back and read everything in the book. What calls me personally is Ben Thomas and I wrote a brief. The book was available to the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas relies on both in one of his dissent. The Chief Justice never addresses any of the only human beings there. How could you write an opinion about the naturalization act you never mention?

I mean, this is an absolute fantasy. And it will come back that this opinion is one of the sloppiest opinions that's ever written on everything he's rights and gets it wrong. So he says we have a systematic adaptation of the English rule on birthright citizenship. Crazy. What happened is the moment the revolution began, there is a huge debate as to whether or not American citizens could remain loyal to the crown. Right. Or whether or not they could be independent to become American citizens. And this thing is litigated up and down over the lawn. And in the end, what they do decide is that it's an option. And of course, when we go back and you read the English position on that as Blackstone said, citizenship is something which one given to you. You can only lose by getting the consent of the column. You cannot renounce your citizenship under the English rule. And that immediately disappeared by the time you got to the colony. Long before, we had a debate over the naturalization act. So everything he says about the Clinton law is just beyond incompetent. It's an amazing tribute to the intellectual ingenuity of the Chief Justice. Yeah, well, and perhaps it's another example of politicians and robes, and that maybe it's less intellectual infirmity than it is a political cowardice maybe, too, that perhaps could play a role. Who knows? I don't figure out his motivation. The work that he put out is utterly wrong. I mean, in so many ways. If I had, I wrote this long piece when he gave the oral argument talking about everything that was said. And everybody, everybody on both sides of the case did not understand what the issues were about because they did not go back to deal with the, in the naturalization act. Because the government didn't want to face the racist implications of those acts. And the defendants knew if you took them into account, you'd never have an alternative path of automatic citizenship. if, in fact, you had a very rigorous process for naturalization. And that's the simple story. Professor Richard Epstein, James Parker Hall, Distinguished Service Professor Merediths of Law, senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, and author of The Myth of Birth Rights Citizenship, which you just got the Cliff Notes version of. Professor Epstein, thanks so much for joining us, as always, appreciate it. Oh, and thank you so much for that. And he joined us on the turn. And you joined us in the alphawealth group.com answer line. The stories you need to know to start your day. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560, The Answer. If you're looking for the latest news, insight into what it means, and the sharpest opinion, there's only one station in Chicago where you can turn, and it's this one. We're AM 560. The answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. Our next guest asks the question and a PC pen for real clear politics.com. Despite the fact that COVID killed 1.2 million Americans and caused untold economic, physical, and emotional damage, there has still been no official national reckoning. Doesn't the public deserve better? It is inconceivable that there has been no National Fact Finding Commission on the Order of the Warren Commission, the Challenger Commission, or the 9-11 Commission. Why have the medical community, the press, and leading politicians stop asking questions about the most significant event of the first quarter of the 21st century, including the nexus between public health and the intelligence community? This is a national embarrassment. Why, why, why, why? You know, maybe it's at some point you get lied to so often by a particular institution that you stop even searching for the truth because there's just zero expectation that you're ever going to get it. I'm not saying that's a good thing. It's a real indictment and it's a dangerous thing for free society. But that feels like a significant part of the answer to those why questions to me. And maybe that even has applicability within the culpable arenas of public health and the IC. I don't know. Dr. Corey Franklin is a retired intensive care physician. He served as the director of medical intensive care at Chicago's Cook County Hospital for more than 20 years. He's also the author of the COVID Diaries, 2020 to 2024, anatomy of a contagion as it happened. Dr. Franklin, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Do we have Dr. Franklin? Hello, Dr. Franklin. Please, pick up the way courtesy phone. Oh, there we go. Okay. So, I mean, wanted to answer your own why questions. Why, why, why? Where's the reckoning? What doesn't the public deserve better? Where's the public health and the IC community or at least responsible parties within those communities registering disapproval for everything that happened? And even what we're learning happened, including the release of documents by Tulsi Gabbard before she stepped down as DNI. Well, I think there's a willful amnesia on the part of a whole lot of the community, the scientific community, the journalistic community, a lot of the public. They just don't want to look back and try and analyze. Why do they want to forget? What do they want to forget? Well, they want to forget all the things, A, that we may not have done right. be questions that are unanswered, and see things that we may not have done right that we can do right in the future. So there's a whole lot of things about the COVID pandemic in many aspects, in the scientific aspects, social aspects, intelligence aspects that deserve answers, and we don't have them, and nobody seems to be pushing very hard to get them.

Yeah, it's really something. I mean, you sort of implicate the point in your piece that you don't say it this way. I'm going to say it this way. That the medical profession is willing, even willing to compromise their professional integrity. And by that, I mean, they're not willing to review, discuss, assess the relationship they have with the intel community. You know, the CIA, obviously you had a CIA contractor that testified as a whistleblower before Ron Johnson's, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul's committee there a couple weeks back. And you get, you know, nothing unless you really dig to extract it from a few people who will speak out from the quote unquote public health community. Yeah, that was the import of the Tulsi Gabbard release documents that before that, very few people were aware that the intelligence community had a role in this whole thing. And the question that should be asked today is, what was that role? Now, the role could be as benign as, well, they were asked by Biden to do an analysis of where the virus come from. But that's not a guarantee that that was their only role. And there's a lot of questions that emanate from that. Well, there's some suggestion, including from the report that Ron Johnson produced back in April, that their role, this is generally speaking, but the role may have included knowingly hiding or being unwilling to acknowledge the incidence of vaccine injuries once the mandate started rolling out. You know, I can't speak to that because I'm not completely up on that. But again, it's a legitimate, it's certainly a legitimate question. It certainly is a legitimate question to ask if the intelligence community hid data, rig data, what was their role in the actual virus? being released and things like that. So all these are legitimate questions. You can delve into wormholes and conspiracy theories, but the fact of the matter is, and you're unlikely to get it from the intelligence committee because that's the nature of what they do. Right. But the fact of the matter is people like Anthony Fauci who were in contact with them, which I don't think most people knew before the Tulsi Gabbard release documents. He will have some answers to that. And, you know, he knows more than he said publicly so far. Right. I mean, that's Rand Paul's announcement the other week that maybe it's time to subpoena Anthony Fauci again. I mean, regardless of whether he potentially has any prospective legal exposure or not, that's not, that's a material issue, but it's trying to get some. you know, concrete answers to many of these questions that surround all the policymaking from the mitigations to the mandates to the school shutdown, school and economic shutdowns. I mean, all of that to your point. I mean, I think it's a fair one.

And it's been like that almost since the mandate started falling away, which is, okay, that was, you know, we did the best we could. It was an ugly period, but let's all just move on and scurry past the last four years like they didn't happen. Right. Well, I'll tell you what possibly the most important thing, and you didn't even mention it. Origin. It doesn't get brought up, not even origin. It's biosecurity in the event that the origin was a lab leak. Yeah. And whether it was a lab leak or not, we could go into that. The future biosecurity issues. And that does have to do with both the medical intelligence communities. Those are paramount. And you don't see those even discussed publicly. Well, and it was interesting, too, because in Gibbs, I mean, excuse me, Tulsi Gabbard's commentary about her document release before she stepped down as Director of National Intelligence, she talked about, like, we've been able to identify these bio labs and their locations and some of what they do and some of where the funding. some of the funding that was provided and what was provided to do and so forth. And there's emails that sort of beat around some of these issues. But I mean, that's the director of national intelligence. And she is having a difficult time. She's, you know, a year and a half into the job. She's having a difficult time cobbling together information about where taxpayer money is going for medical research that could be, as you say, of biosecurity importance. Listen, absolutely, and you would think that the journalistic community, and maybe the journalistic community years ago would have done this, you'd think the journalistic community would be asking these questions. I don't see them asking the questions, but you would also think that you'd want to set up a national commission where at least these questions would be raised publicly by Congress, by medical experts, and we would at least get an airing of exactly what she's talking about. What was your experience raising some of these questions or debating some of the prescribed mitigations, some of the proposed and ultimately implemented mandates during COVID with your colleagues in the medical field? It's always interesting to get people's personal perspective on what they went through as maybe they deviated from the orthodoxy that was being advocated from on high. You know, when you talk about the mitigation and stuff like the lockdown, there's an element to that that I'm willing to give something of a pass to the medical and the political communities because of, at least in the first two years, how little we knew. But they were clearly not interested enough, and Anthony Fauci even said this in a comment on. They were clearly not interested enough early on in the economic and the social consequences of it, in the school consequences of it. They should have had experts from economics.

from the education community who were outside the vested interests to talk about those things. So, you know, lockdown, they sort of adopted the China policy, and that's one of the problems, where we correct in adopting the China policy. I think in retrospect, you can see that we weren't. But again, some of that is, well, we didn't have that information, but others of it was, no, I think we jumped a little too fast to conclude things that weren't reliable to conclude, especially when it dealt with schools, where we closed them down for far too long. Yeah, you know, the Wall Street Journal just put out this little 40-minute documentary called The Lockdown Dissidents. And to me, this is one of the other things in terms of the compromising of integrity by medical professionals. I mean, when you're essentially excommunicating the likes of J. Badacharya, Scott Atlas, Martin Kaldorf, Sunetra Gupta. from the medical community because they're raising questions about what is being proposed. And even if you're like, we're uncertain, maybe Dr. Caldorf has something. Maybe he's got a point there, but we're uncertain, but we're not going to do that now. But, you know, we're taking in, you know, all informed reflect, properly considered opinions and suggestions from people who know or people who's. base of knowledge deserves some respect and consideration. And yet instead, it was evasive action to silence people going so far as to collaborate with the intelligence community. It would seem going so far as to collaborate with scientific journals, to collaborate with social media providers. I mean, that to me is a category of reckoning unto itself. Well, you've got something that the public and even a lot of professional have to understand. Dan, is that public health, their mission is to help with the public health, is to be benevolent and paternalistic. We're doing this for you. What people don't realize is that even though that sounds great, it can morph very subtly and very quickly. We're doing this for you. but we don't have to tell you everything. We're doing this for you, but don't ask questions. We're doing this for you. We need more staff and more money, and we're doing this for you, and we think this is right, but we're not sure, but we're not going to tell you. So you can see that it can very easily morph into a power, resource, money thing from something that's supposedly simply benevolence. Yes. And I mean, is that your view that it went from, we're doing this for you to we're doing this to you at some point? I might not characterize that we're doing this to you, but there was a point where it's not clear that they were doing this for us anymore. And again, when you look at, you know, the intelligence community in Anthony Fauci,

I mean, geez, that should raise big questions. The intelligence community is known to play fast and loose with the rules. And once the public health people get together with the intelligence community, you've got to ask yourself some real serious questions. You know, were they rigging their analysis of where the virus come from? Did they have some other role in the virus? And it's not meant to be conspiracy theory. Those are legitimate questions that should be asked by the medical people, by the politicians, by the journalists, and by the public. Yeah, is that right? It's not leading questions or neutral questions. Give me an answer. Give me a substantive answer to a neutral question. Absolutely. Yeah. 100%. Absolutely. Dr. Corey Franklin, retired intensive care physician, served as director of medical intensive care at Chicago's Cook County Hospital for more than 20 years. He's also the author of the COVID Diaries, 2020 to 2024, anatomy of a contagion as it happened. The COVID Diaries, Dr. Corey Franklin. Dr. Franklin, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Thanks very much, Dan. Always enjoy listening to you. Thank you. And Dr. Franklin, join us on the Alf Wealthgroup.com answer line. The more you listen, the more you'll know. This is Chicago's Morning Answer. Morning Answer on AM 560, The Answer. Thanks for listening to Chicago's Morning Answer podcast sponsored by Signature, a division of Esquire Bank. Signature takes pride in helping customers grow their business and provide unmatched banking expertise, custom financial solutions. and the industry's best technology. So whether your business is looking for a deposit relationship or needs a ready source of financing, Signature has the solutions for you. Call today at 773-467, 5600 to hear how signature can help your business grow and thrive. Esquire Bank, member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender.