ACB sides with KBJ

Thanks for listening to Chicago's Morning Answer podcast sponsored by Signature Bank. Signature Bank takes pride in helping customers grow their business and provide unmatched banking expertise, custom financial solutions, and the industry's best technology. So whether you're a business looking for a deposit relationship or needs a ready source of financing, Signature Bank is the right bank for you. Call today at 773-467. 5600 to hear how signature bank can help your business grow and thrive. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560. The answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proff here. The commies are coming. That's what President Trump had to say. They're not socialists. They're socialists in a hurry. I think it's a big threat to our nation, actually. Because it's not socialism. It's really communism. They use the word social Democrat because it sounds so nice, but it's really communism you're talking about. I think it's the biggest threat to our nation. There is, maybe since our founding. That includes World War I, World War II, September 11th. It includes the Pearl Harbor attack. I think this is the biggest threat to our nation. People will smile when I say that, but the smart people are going to say, you know, he's probably right. It's basically introducing communism into the United States of America. There's never been anything so dangerous. 312-642-5600, alphawealthgroup.com call and text line. Is that what the left is doing introducing communism? Well, David Jenkins, he is a leader of the DSA, despite what Klingon Susan Collins has to say. They're not communist, they're socialist. Our goal is communism. That's what David Jenkins says. I don't know. I mean, I believe the guys that are wearing the hammer and sickle badges, don't you? Klingon Susan Collins over at CNN. She may be losing Anderson Cooper soon. Parting such sweet sorrow. Klingon Susan Collins putting the question to former band manager for the socialist Spice Gros, Pramila Jayapal from Washington State. head of the squad or the socialist caucus. Don't call me a communist, though. I'm taking my time. They use the word social democrat because it sounds so nice, but it's really communism you're talking about. I mean, he is ridiculous, but the reason he's using communism is because he knows socialism is really popular. So he's trying to turn this into communism when he knows that The ideas that social Democrats are running on, that progressives are running on, universal health care, universal childcare, making sure that people get paid higher wages, those are incredibly popular. So he's trying to attach an ideology to it, a label that isn't correct. Right. He is using communism because socialism is popular. You're not using socialism because communism's unpopular. You know, gosh, I'm...

old enough to remember when socialism wasn't so popular. But now that a supermajority of Democrats favor so-called Democrats, self-identified Democrats, socialists at minimum, neo-Marxists, neo-Bolsheviks, the descriptions are getting in more difficult dodge with each passing day. Now that a super majority of those so identified favor. the government as the proprietor of the means of production, which is socialism. Now that that's the supermajority position on that side. Yeah, it's popular within your ranks. It's increasingly popular across the board, especially with the maleducated younger set. And that's exactly why they're using it. Not attaching an ideology to it. There's not an ideology to government takeovers of a sixth of our economy at a time, like health care, for example. Of course, there's an ideology to it. Just because you have useful idiots that don't have a particularly tight grip on the philosophy doesn't mean that there's not an underlying philosophy that those who are a little bit more.

We had the January 16th where they turned against American people, just grandmas and grandpas, young young guys and gales and everything, that just for their, you know, being, you know, Trump supporters and wanting the election. The election is another thing. We've got third world country elections and everything where they just do whatever the hell they want, with any kind of cheating they want, and just do it blatantly right in our faces and all that. And, holy cow, I'm an old guy. I'm a old guy. I'm trying to remember the third one I had there. That's all right. Rick Perry moment. That's okay. You made your point. Thanks for the call, Craig. One more I wanted to get in just to this conversation. Because, you know, it's not just for New York City and the surrounding Hamlets anymore. There's a congressional candidate in Colorado. Her name is Mila Keros. And... This is her spin on socialism. Pretty clever. Denver is not New York, but Denver actually rates socialism higher than we rate capitalism by four points. And you know, when I talk to voters about what we're doing and why I'm a democratic socialist, I remind them that we have socialism already, right? It's in the roads that we drive on. It's in the schools we send our kids to. It's in the fire stations we call upon. I'm just asking that we extend that security to our health care, to our housing, to our nutritional food, to our higher education so that we're actually meeting the basic needs of everyday working families in this country. So we're not just getting by and surviving so that we're actually thriving. And in the wealthiest, most powerful country on earth, we're not asking for much. Yeah, boy, that warm embrace of a collectivism, she wants to extend. Open those arms a little bit bigger. Uh-huh. Very Bertrand Russellian of her with the fire departments or socialism. So the government taking over this sector and that sector, that's just an extension of communitarianism. It's, you know, the guilds taking over. We believe in freedom very much. We're very suspicious of the state. We want the guilds to take over. It's sort of the thing. So the provision of a service by government and the takeover of the means of production in the private economy are not the same thing. But it's very clever of her, as I said, very Bertrand Russell of her, to use that little rhetorical artifice. And it will buffalo many people in her district. I have no doubt the district she's running to represent, I should say. Marvin, Burlington, Wisconsin. Yeah, what's his name? Senator or whatever. The reason why government isn't working is because they've distorted it. They're taking more in taxes than they've ever taken before as a percentage of our incomes, and that's why people are having a hard time making it. They've overreached and they've distorted our system, and we've allowed it, the stupid voters have allowed it to happen. Yeah, you're talking about capitalism.

Yeah, government. Yes, sir. Yeah, government's interventions. Right, of course. Thanks for the call, Mar. Of course. Of course. Of course that's right. I mean, it's so simplistic, but it gets lost in all of the spin like you heard from Ms. Kuros out in Colorado. Very good. Right. Text from 815. Someone needs to ask the DSA what the difference is between what they are and communism. Not much. Maybe pace. That's about it. George in Naperville. Yeah, Stan, what happened to shooting for the moon? He who dies with the most toys wins. Thanks for the call, George. It's not about accumulation. It's about the morality of the market, actually. Because since this is where we need to do a better job of jujitsuing the left. You're talking about the distribution of resources, right? That's what they're talking about when they're like trillionaires and some people don't have enough for a car repair. Some people don't have enough in savings for a car repair. You're talking about the distribution of resources. So which is the means to distribute scarce resources that is the most just, the most fair, the most moral? Is it through force and the arbitrariness of the government commissar? Or is it through a free exchange of a free people? Persuasion and not coercion. But, I mean, distribution of resources is their fundamental point. So let's talk about distribution of resources and which system provides the greatest, dare I say, Equality, not equity, but equality. Corey Woodlawn. Thanks, Dan. I like a Bertrand Russell quote. I mean, he referenced in there as well. But the gentleman had it right. Government has overreached. The average department, Rush Limbaugh, used to always say, has a baked in 10% increase. The average citizen is getting a cost-deliving adjustment. almost from 2 to 5%. The government is taking all of your cost of living adjustment, and he's reaching in to 5% on top of what he's able to find you for and take away from you another means. So the government is overreaching. It's time for the citizens to beat it back. Very good. Thanks, as always, Corey. You've made the switch, and it feels so good. You switch to Chicago's morning answer on AM 560. The answer. Business owners, now's the time for your business to make the move to a locally owned business bank. Hi, Mike Gallagher here to let you know that you don't have to look far. Signature Bank was founded in Chicago with a simple mission to help companies like yours grow, succeed, and thrive. Their decisions are made locally by a terrific team that knows your name, cares about your business, and invests in your success. That's why Signature Bank is my bank. I'm a customer. As business owners, they knew that local family owned businesses. We're not getting the help they needed or deserved. So, I invite you to reach out to my friends at Signature Bank today. Write the number down. Remember this phone number. Signature Bank, 773-467-5630. And learn all about this great bank, 773-467-5630, or visit them online at SignatureBank. Bank. That's SignatureBank. Bank makes commercial banking personal. Remember FDIC?

Equal Housing Lender. Sports and politics and sports and politics and sports and politics and sports and politics and politics and intersection. Arrogance and ignorance. Intersection. Top of the morning, Dan Profft here. You know, I can't believe I'm going to tackle this subject, but... I feel compelled to talk about Caitlin Clark and this latest episode in this long-running saga since she left Iowa and joined the WNBA because it is so political. I mean, it really is the internal politics, the internal identitarian politics of the WNBA that is destroying that league as if the play wasn't enough of a distraction. and a generational talent in Caitlin Clark who can really play the game. And so there was this incident last week where she was subjected to yet another flagrant foul, which is not unusual for her in these games. But it looked particularly bad because cameras were able to zero in on this player from the Phoenix Mercury. uh, Alyssa Thomas. Uh, when Caitlin Clark was down on the ground, she, um, sort of got, was on top of her and then used her elbow. And this was a big girl, by the way. Used her elbow to sort of like, a jam it in her throat. Her, like fist elbow into her throat. I guess I guess it was her fist, fist into her throat. But regardless, it, uh, was clearly intentional was clearly unsportsman like conduct and there was no foul called in the in real time but after officials league officials reviewed the tape they issued a one game of suspension to which the coach of the Phoenix Mercury, Nate Tibbitt, said this. I'd like to address the AT situation. AT. First off, the Mercury Organization would like to let AT know that... Nobody knows who AT is. You have to use a name. ...supported by us. The people in this league know who AT is. She's a competitor. She's a winner, and she's tough. The one thing she is not is cheap. I respect Steph White. I got to know her with USA basketball. I respect her as a coach and a person, and I understand her sticking up for Caitlin in this situation. But to say that we had two cheap shots in that game to me is ridiculous. Steph knows AT. She got the opportunity to coach AT for two years, and she knows what AT stands for and what she's about. Next, I'd like to hit.

My disappointment with the suspension process by our league and our leaders in the W. This was not a thorough investigation. What's the W? Nobody knows that the WNBA is referred to as the W either. Questioned at all. It's extremely disappointing. No one from the league called AT, our security team, or myself about what we felt like happened in this situation. There is a protocol to be followed just coming from the NBA. There's been many investigations that I've heard about that there was calls on both sides, and that was not done in this situation, and that's disappointing. I agree with everyone's stance. Let's continue to clean up our game. I'm part of the referee task force, the same that Steph White is and Cheryl Reeve and Becky Hammond. The goals to clean up our game. But I do think it's important. So then stop targeting Caitlin Clark. I mean, you know, you can, look, I'm all for, you know, the Jim Jordan, sort of the Jim Jordan era game of basketball. And to the extent the ladies want to play that, you have enforcers and it hard fouls, no free looks at the hoop, no free open drives of the hoop. I'm fine. I'm fine with that. But there's something more going on here. And it's league-wide. It's not just this incident. This incident is forcing people to read. Well, it's compelling people. It's not forcing them. It's compelling people, though, even me, to look at everything that's gone on since Caitlin Clark turned pro. She is, like, clearly the most interesting thing about the WNBA, even some of the great players of the WNBA will say that because she is what. Everyone describes her to be a generational talent. But rather than accentuating that for the benefit of all, it seems like petty jealousy and identity politics are getting in the way. Riley Gaines with Brian Kilmeade had this to say. The WMBA is the worst marketed and business-minded league in the history of leagues. You would be hard pressed to find an organization more dedicated to self-employing than the WMBA. Although I guess they don't have to worry about their profits too much since it steals from the men's league to pay for everything. So maybe they don't care about marketing or ratings. Here's what I said about Caitlin Clark. She is the golden goose of the WMBA and they will not accept it. Is it because she's white? Maybe. Is it because she's straight? Maybe. I actually just think, Brian, that it's just jealousy all around. Now, I think that Caitlin Clark was the queen of the WMBA before she ever even played a game. She is a generational talent that revolutionized the game of basketball, who also happens to be white and straight. And that is why they hate her. 312-642-2-5600 AlphaWealthgroup.com call and tax line.

Sophie Cunningham is a member of the Indiana Fever. That's Caitlin Clark's team, for those of you not following any of this. And on her podcast that she has a co-host with, so you hear male boys, she addressed this all. She was the one whose reaction to the flagrant foul that I was describing went viral because she sort of like pointed at AT. as no one knows her and was sort of, you know, pointing and had this look on her face and it was, you know, it went viral. Anyway, Sophie Cunningham, not just on this latest incident, but what it says, what she, from her perspective, what it indicates about how the league treats Caitlin Clark all the way up to the commissioner. Well, so during real time last night, I did not see that happen. And, like, I don't, none of our teams saw it happen because I promise you that if we would have seen that happen, we would have had her back. Unfortunately, this type of shit happens every single game to her. And the league and the refs do absolutely nothing about it. It's been a minute since you got fined on this podcast. I have. But then, like, you see the videos of, like, literally kneeing in. Cheapshoting C in the throat. Like if she did that to any of our teammates, we'd be pissed. But like they are, they're definitely targeting her. And the league and the refs do nothing to protect her. I mean, let's get into this now. The poster that they dropped last night, like the 30-year commemorative thing, which that you're on it. That's cool. Why would you ever put me on it? But people are up in arms that Caitlin's not on it. And then also watching her get kind of her ass kicked last night. I do see everyone being like, why does the league not protect this person? Like, I don't want to. Getting beef with Kathy either, but it's like, it is like she's jealous of her or like thinks that like because she's a bigger face than her or like anyone the WNBA's had that she like won't give her the platform. It's so weird. It's so bizarre. It is a joke. It is a joke. And this is why Kathy and the WMBA is getting lit up on social media because you are leaving out a generational. the best player to ever go through WMBA on this roster. And like, honestly, if they were smart, they would market this out of some of us. They don't. Well, you're on here. They don't. I should never. That should be, that should be Caitlin. That should be Kelsey Mitchell. That should be Alia Boston. Like, why are we putting random players on there? I'm one of them. Do you know?

The top 30 NBA players of all time, WNBA players of all time, W players of all time. It's funny. I mean, I appreciate Sophie Cunningham's modesty. She's right. Why am I on that team? I should be on that team. Sophie Cunningham, I mean, I'm sure she's a nice player. She averages so far this year 9.6 points and 2.6 rebounds a game. Caitlin Clark averages 21 points, four rebounds, and eight assists a game. I mean, what are we doing here? Well, you know, part of my Tucker Carlson, what is going on? Bill on the Northwest side. Yeah, you know, this really isn't complicated, Dan. Caitlin Clark is white and she's straight. And the people that run that league don't like those kinds of people. They don't want her to be the face of the league. It's really clear. Well, that does seem clear. You know, like you couldn't attempt to be more destructive to your brand than they are being with how they're handling this. Now, the one thing I will say. is I had high hopes for Caitlin Clark to be able to stand a thwart this Identitarian Madness. And, like, you know, you want a rivalry like her and Angel Reese, not much of a rivalry because she's so far the superior player. But, you know, bad girl, good girl, you know, bad boy, the pistons and the bull. All that stuff is great. It's great for the game. It's fine. Rivalries are good. But this Identitarian Political undertone that Riley Gaines was talking about that Bill just mentioned, that's no good. And I wish Caitlin Clark would have been more stout of heart to confront it. She isn't. She hasn't been. She folded in almost immediately. Try to genuflect, try to appease. And, you know, like, she's a great basketball player. She doesn't have to be a great sort of. socio-cultural mind. She doesn't have to necessarily understand the dynamics here the way that, for example, I do. But it would be nice. It would be nice if there was somebody around her that could sort of give her this insight into, here's, if you play it this way, this is how it's going to go down. If you play it this other way, this is how it's going to go down. You have to be as competitive when it comes to pushing back. on Identitarian Politics, the Identitarian Politics they're going to try to use as an albatross around your neck. You have to be as competitive about that as you do with your game on the court because this is so much more than just about your game on the court. And I think she just chose a path that made it very easy for them to do what they're doing to her and to the league by extension because identitarians care about politics. They don't care about the league any more than identitarians in our politics care about this country. And unfortunately, I don't think Caitlin Clark understands it. But she's not alone in the people who don't understand it. Roger and DeKalb. Hey, Dan. So this is a problem that...

transcends politics, everything. There's no accountability and there's no civility anymore. And if people expect the school systems to teach that, they are sadly mistaken because you get none of it. Who's like the worst name callers on planet Earth? The teachers unions or anybody who calls their fellow citizens terrible names and does everything to advance their own self above everybody else. And of course, nobody's accountable. Politicians, police. You know, it's like nobody can step up and say, yes, I was wrong. I did it. And I think that's a big problem in our country. Well, thanks for the call. I mean, we talked about this yesterday, the white guilt speech that Berberl Singh gave Eli Steele's comments on it, Shelby Steele's book from two decades ago. If you're, if the, if the thing that you fear most is being called a racist, being accused of, of, of an ism. or a phobia, if that's the worst thing that can happen to you and you're willing to fold in on everything else to avoid that, well, then you've just turned over your agency to the identitarians. And it doesn't matter if it's in a basketball court or a classroom or a C-suite. Jim and LaGrange. Hey, Dan, how are you? I was watching Dan Dockx last night, and he was going crazy on this subject. But he said the biggest problem with Caitlin Clark was that the league is run by African-American lesbians. And they said it's as simple as that. We need to talk no further. Things need to change or it's going to stay the same. Thanks for call, Jim. Text 247. Sophie Cunningham knows why she's on that poster. She's extremely attractive and plays that up on social media. That's all right. You know, I play up my attractiveness on social media to promote the radio station, you know, so I get it. Roy and Glen Ellen. Yeah, I thought you'd enjoy that, Roy. Yeah. I have a new segment alert. You could do a new segment where you just say letters, like the G for governor, M, mayor, T for Chicago. Yeah, guess what I'm talking about? Guess what I'm talking about? W. AT, yes. I love the inside jargon. Yeah, everything's an acronym or a single letter. Yeah. Thanks for the call. Enjoy. Thanks for the call, Roy. Hear about the big stories of the day. Then talk about them right here on Chicago's morning answer. On AM 560, the answer. Business owners, now's the time for your business to make the move to a locally owned business bank. Hi, Mike Gallagher here to let you know that you don't have to look far. Signature Bank was founded in Chicago with a simple mission to help companies like yours grow, succeed, and thrive. Their decisions are made locally by a terrific team that knows your name, cares about your business, and invests in your success. That's why Signature

Bank is my bank. I'm a customer. As business owners, they knew that local family-owned businesses were not getting the help they needed or deserved. So, I invite you to reach out to my friends at Signature Bank today. Write the number down. Remember this phone number. Signature Bank, 773-467.5630. Or visit them online at SignatureBank. Signature Bank. Bank makes commercial banking personal. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender. This is Chicago's Morning Answer with Dan Proft, an AM 560, The Answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. So let's pour over the Supreme Court decisions that were made public yesterday. At the bottom of the hour, we'll be joined by Professor William Jacobson from Cornell Law to talk about this as well. Let him, we'll focus on the executive power decisions in dealing the FTC commissioner that Trump fired as well as the. Lisa Cook on the Fed Board. We'll deal with those decisions momentarily. Let's focus on the election decisions. It seems to be top of mind as we're here five months from an election, number one, number two. We're in this purgatory over the Save America Act, which is central to President Trump's agenda, policy agenda. So let's get to that. And to do that, let's go back to oral arguments in this case, this Mississippi case about mail and ballots being received after Election Day and whether that comports with federal law. This is what Samuel Alito had to say during all arguments about Election Day. Day, singular. The RNC is challenging a Mississippi law that allows ballots to be counted up to five business days after election day if they're postmarked by election day. Samuel Alito was among the biggest skeptics during Monday's arguments. Dependence day, birthday. an election day. And they're all particular days. So if we start with that, if I have nothing more to look at than the phrase election day, I think this is the day in which everything is going to take place. And Harvey Dillon, you know, Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and the Trump administration, after hearing the oral arguments on this case, mail and ballots. She gave this analysis. To uphold the lower court ruling from the Fifth Circuit that indeed the practice of Mississippi, and by the way, parenthetically many other states, of allowing ballots to trickle in and be counted days and sometimes even up to three weeks after an election is inconsistent with our federal election statute. So on prior cases, the United States Supreme Court has addressed these types of issues. And Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a case in 2020 that,

these kinds of disparate trickling in and uncertainty and, you know, a wide swath of different kinds of laws creates uncertainty around elections and indeed undermines confidence in our elections. So we argued in our brief that because Congress has these laws that refer to an election day, Election day should mean election day, meaning the last day by which ballots can be received by the state and processed. And so here, Mississippi allows it for five days. Some states allow it for 10 days, up to 21 days. Eight states don't even require a postmark on mail ballots. So for those of you who are concerned about whether this would impact our military abroad being able to cast their ballots, it doesn't. because there's a special statute for that under federal law, so there's no preemption issue. And so here, I saw a very spirited argument. All of the nine justices asked questions. I think there was a distinct trend in how some of these justices were viewing this. Yeah, well, that distinct trend went against the administration 5-4 with Amy Coney Barrett writing the majority. She wrote in pertinent part in her majority opinion. The question before us is a narrow one about timing. Plaintiffs do not challenge the manner in which Mississippi carries out federal elections. They do not, for example, challenge the general practice of absentee voting, nor do they challenge the use of the Postal Service or a common carrier to transmit ballots. Although the Election Day statutes refer to a particular day, quote unquote, for the election, plaintiffs do not contend that everything must occur on that day. For instance, they do not object to early voting or dispute that officials may count votes and certify a winner after Election Day. Finally, this is not a case about the Constitution. We do not consider the scope of Congress's authority to regulate federal elections. We do not consider yet the scope of Congress's authority to regulate federal elections. The sole question before us is whether counting ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later violates the federal election day statutes. Well, I mean, you know, the idea that you can vote early and you can count votes after election day or to the extent it takes after election day to count them. which is the case in some states, not all. I mean, those are different things than extending the receipt of votes to be counted post-election day. And that's where I think Amy Coney Barrett's opinion falls down a bit. She goes on to say, the acceptance of late arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electoral choice is made. And federal law precludes that postponed. I mean, this is, excuse me, the Samuel Alito dissent. He was joined by Thomas Brett Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

Right. So this is the point that he makes. The acceptance of these later reviving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement. And so that you can distinguish that from early voting up until and counting after the polls close at, you know, 7 o'clock on a Tuesday. Samuel Alito also said this. Not only is today's decision inconsistent with the statutory tax, legal context, historical practice, and precedent, it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences. The majority's holding spawns a slurry of troubling election law questions and risks further undermining America's confidence in election integrity. I mean, he's obviously, as all the justices should have had, he has. the recently concluded L.A. mayoral runoff election or primary election in the back of his mind. There's no question about that. And he should. All of them should. He goes on to say, the majority holds that a state complies with the federal Election Day statutes if it requires that ballots are postmarked by Election Day and receive within five days. But this sensibly simple holding obfuscates many unsettling questions about the majority's position. For instance, do the federal election day statutes impose any ballot receipt deadlines? Mississippi counts ballot, absentee ballots that arrive up to five days after the federal election, but nothing in the majority opinion turns on that five-day duration. Indeed, some states will call mail-in ballots that arrive as late as 21 days after the election. If the quote-unquote election is complete when voters fill out their ballots and send them on their way, may states eliminate ballot receipt deadlines entirely. It appears that the only federal backstops for ballot receipt are the date when newly elected representatives and senators must report for their swearing in and the date when presidential electors must cast their votes. Now, this could, of course, be remedied. There's a legislative remedy to this because this is a narrow decision. But that would require, gosh, I don't know. You know, the majority of Republicans at the Senate to get their act together and do something to provide a legislative solution to a legislative fix to this problem. I could just say election day means election day. That's it. Federal law, election day meets election day for the purposes of federal elections and ballots cast must be received on election day, period. That's what you could do. But this is the same gang who can't shoot straight, at least a few of them, that are holding up the Save Act, which now is even a more pressing matter, or at least should be, but they're on recess, as Senator Mike Lee lamented. Okay, so a lot has happened today, but I've got a concern. We do have a lot to do, a lot of work that needs to be done. The Save America Act really does need to be passed. Why are we taking a recess right now? Why on earth?

is the Senate wanting to recess for two weeks. Now, I get it. America's 250th birthday is coming up, but that's great. It's a lot more reason why we should finish our work. It's all the more reason why we should finish, do everything we possibly can to pass the Save America Act instead of recessing for two weeks. Only come back and work for a few weeks and then recess for another five or six weeks after that. Why? Why even bother to spend all this time and all this effort campaigning and running for office if when we get here we're constantly taking a recess? A recess at a moment when the Republican Party controls the House and the Senate and the White House. Why? Why do we do this? There's got to be a better way, a way that doesn't constantly involve saying, oh, wait, we got to take a recess. We've got to leave. The American people deserve better than this. They deserve to have free and fair elections, and we've got to fix it. Well, you know, deserve is that word. There's that word again. Who deserves what? Thank God we don't get what we deserve. Stephen Miller had this to say about the Amy Coney Barrett majority opinion. Suffice to say, not thrilled. Well, look, let's just call it like it is. John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett decided to cave to the radical left. Samuel Alito was so clear in his wording about what election day means. Nobody could read the statute, could read that opinion, could read what Samuel Alito wrote, and come to any other conclusion. It's election day, not election week, not election month, not election months. So this was really a travesty, and it underscores Laura, why we have to keep fighting to pass the Save America. Act. 80 million Americans elected a Republican Senate majority, and they elected a Republican Congress to deliver on this fundamental priority. Glenn in Orlando, you're on Chicago's morning answer. Yeah, good morning, Dan. Great show. You know, I seem to notice a pattern that when these ballots keep getting counted after election day, that I can't think of any Republican that wins. Can you? I mean, I'm sure there's an example. Nothing jumps to mind offhand. I'm sure there are cases where it was a close race and the Republican one based on mail-in ballots. But your larger point is the salient one, which is that there's a massive advantage on the other side, as Spencer Pratt found out the hard way. Thanks for the call, Glenn. Especially in California where you can outright do ballot harvesting. But because they have all these, in many cases, taxpayer-funded NGOs full of political operatives that do the registering and the harvesting and the field work to bank votes early and to produce votes late. And that's what we saw, both with Karen Bass as well as with Nithya Raman in L.A. You know, different factions within the neo-Bulshevik party out there on the West Coast, but similar program. Some different factions, different strengths, government unions versus the neo-Bulshevik apparatchiks for Raman.

But, yeah, I mean, that's the dynamic. So it's an issue. And I mean, again, I mean, this is to sort of, we've lost all sense of proportion when it comes to voting. Too many people have been wooed by this idea that we're chasing some full participation 100%. And we have to. appeal to the lowest of the low of the low in terms of common denominators for ballot access and so on and so forth. No. It just needs to be straightforward and universally accessible, you know, like getting a government ID. Straightforward, universally accessible, same rules, same process, and to restrict it to... absentee ballots only for those who have a medical condition or obviously overseas or have some other reasonable excuse for not being around on election day or even just raining in the duration of early voting certainly no uh ballots being counted that are received after election day. I mean, Jim Quote 2.0 disenfranchising this and married women can't get, it's all nonsense. But you have to be willing to stand up and fight on these terms like Mike Lee is doing, even among his Republican colleagues in the Senate. Gabby, Schaumburg. Hey, good morning, Dan, a very simple, simple, simple observation. I don't notice postmark dates on envelopes anymore. Just saying if you're going to go by the postmark date and so long as it's on time, there needs to be a date on there and how does that happen? That's all I have to say. Have a great day. Thanks for the call, Gabby. Text from the Amish texture, what is a day? Said Amy Coney Barrett-Berick. Yes, she pulled the KBJ. ACB, since we're doing a lot of acronyms, ACB pulled the KBJ. You know, nobody knows what a woman is on the Supreme Court. Nobody knows what a day is. Jim and Crown Point. I have the answer. It's 24 hours. Yes, very good. When I did my taxes, I had to get a social security number for all my kids because I was detecting them. We are a nation of verification for these Democrats even say that somebody is too stupid or too ignorant to get us. It licensed. Come on. Like you say, it's a political tactic. Yeah, the thing that, too, you know what it is, though? They don't have who they think they have if Republicans would exhibit a little bit more courage and, frankly, a little bit more party discipline and take care of bad actors within their ranks by, you know, whatever legal means are available.

I just saw the survey out in the Senate race in Maine between the Nazis. He's not a Nazi. He was a dark period in his life, and he dabbled with Nazism, as we've all done when we have struggles in our lives, of course. It's very reasonable. And he's not allowed. And if he is, it doesn't matter anyway. No, I got it. But Graham Platner's great appeal. And this is the DSA recruit here is he's going to rally the young people and the blue collar types because he's kind of sort of an oyster farmer. Not really. Mom's his only client. But he's blue collar. That's his great appeal. Susan Collins is up 21 points among the non-college educated in Maine. That's not who's booing Graham Platner. It's the college-educated offals, angry, white, female leftists, particularly single. that's that's that's that's the audience that's also the audience for this stuff about oh these poor black people can't get an idea and then you know you've have like ummy horowitz do man on the street new york like what are you talking about it where yeah i got my idea right there the dmv that's where i go that's why i went as a registered vote yeah is that an issue no Talk to any reasonable person, any common-sensical person, any capable person who's able to manage their affairs on a daily basis. And this is a non-issue. And that certainly includes people that are sort of pragmatic through necessity, if nothing else, a work-a-day people. That's not who, they're not a, that's not the appeal here. which presents a whole opportunity for Republicans to continue to prosecute this case and say, I mean, look, whatever problems you have with me and you buy into this trillionaire rhetoric, class envy nonsense from the left, I mean, they have such little regard for you. They think so little of you. Press them, challenge people because they're on our side. Some of them just don't know it. and haven't been sort of forced to confront who is infantilizing them and who and who is not. It's news, opinion, insight. This is Chicago's morning answer, an 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. Well, as one wag put it, Woodrow Wilson had a bad day at the court yesterday. Woodrow Wilson, essentially the philosophical godfather of today's racist, identitarian, neo-Bolsheviks. Sorry for the redundancies. The slaughter case in particular, of course, 6'3 majority held that the president has. the right to fire employees of federal agencies. Gorsuch writing, The court today takes a notable step back toward the Constitution by recognizing that the president is entitled to remove a principal officer who exercises executive power in his name. The court does much to vindicate what both FDR and James Madison understood. Under our Constitution, executive power does not belong to a, quote, headless fourth branch, unquote, but must be exercised through a chain of dependence running from the lowest offices to the president and from him to the American people. At the same time, though, Gorsuch warns, it would be a grave mistake to think that step is enough on its own. The fact remains that Congress has endowed formally independent agencies, not just with executive authority, but with enormous legislative and judicial powers as well. You know, that headless fourth branch. And now the president enjoys control over all those powers, too. From here. The only sure path is to finish the journey we start today and restore legislative and judicial powers where they belong in Congress and the courts. We have tolerated adventurous theories long enough. It's time to return all the way to the Constitution. Which, in terms of having some hope. with this court and these decisions, even if the birthright citizenship decision doesn't go the way that so many of us would want it to go. And frankly, the decision yesterday, other than the slaughter case didn't go the way that so many of us wanted them to go. Something that Judge Roy Sam Altman said in a recent interview, he's a federal district court judge in Florida. In the 16th and 70s, there was a judicial philosophy that had taken hold of the Supreme Court of the United States. I think all nine justices subscribed to it. The most powerful court in the land, maybe on the planet. And there were three or four students at Yale Law School who said, no, that's wrong, and we're on the wrong path, and we're on the wrong trajectory. And they formed something called the Federalist Society, which I was a part of when I was in law school. And now there's a Federal Society chapter in just about every law school in the country, every city and state in the country. It's the most prominent conservative legal organization in the history of the country. All nine of our Supreme Court justices have in one way or the other on the record and under oath subscribed to the Federal Society's central principal and tenant, which is that you look first and foremost to the text of a statute or constitutional provision when you interpret it.

And for the most part, most federal judges in the country have had to say the same in order to be confirmed. Think about what that means. That means that just 40 years ago, three or four law students in New Haven, Connecticut, looked up at the most powerful body in the entire country, the Supreme Court of the United States, and said, what you're doing is wrong. You're taking us on the wrong trajectory. You're taking us on the wrong path, and we're going to do something about it. And in just 40 years, they've completely turned the entire worldview on its head. And we can do it too. We just have to get every single American to understand that we were asleep before this cataclysm began, that it is no longer appropriate or acceptable to go back to sleep. And their geostrategic enemies, China, Russia, Iran, and especially the Muslim Brotherhood are doing everything they can to defeat American and Western civilization. And it's time for us to wake up and for every American who cares to be counted and to change the minds and voices of their neighbors, friends, and family members before it's too late. It's great. Great. It is a great reminder of the federal, you know, what the Federal Society impact has been. I mean, it was like Stephen Calabrese and David McIntosh and a couple others. Gene Meyer was the CEO for 40 years. It is incredible what the Federal Society has done. And it's, in part, help shape some of the best Supreme Court justices we ever had, like Clarence Thomas, who. produce a withering dissent in the Lisa Cook case about the Fed, where Brett Kavanaugh and Robert sided with the three leftist justices. Political justices is a better way to say it. Unfortunately, Brett Kavanaugh, I think, was very political inciting with them. John Roberts is just a mess, in my view. But Brett Kavanaugh was political. Yeah, John Roberts, too. He has a pension for that. Please see Obamacare. Yeah, I got it. They basically said, you know, yeah, there's no such thing as these independent agencies where the president has appointment power but not removal power. Oh, they operate independently. They're nonpolitical. Yeah, right. But somehow the Fed is different because, you know, they have. responsibility for a monetary policy and for the banking system and stable prices and so forth. And the last century of their success might not have happened if they didn't enjoy this independence. I'm sorry, success? I think that's a debatable issue. As Thomas wrote, Many do not share the court's rosy appraisal of the past century. Yeah. But if the court prefers an independent Federal Reserve Board, then its issue is not with the president, but the Constitution. Regardless of whether unaccountable executive officers like Lisa Cook would better govern the economy, the framers rejected such a promised land of technocratic governance. They instead chose government by the people. As a court, our duty is not to second guess that decision, but to uphold it. Boom, mic drop. For more on all of this. Pleased to be joined by Professor William Jacobson, clinical professor of law and director of the securities law clinic at Cornell, founder of legalinsurrection.com and president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation as well as the Equal Protection Project. Professor Jacobson, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Thanks for having me on. Your sort of overview of the two decisions with respect to executive authority.

Well, obviously, it's a big win for the concept that the president is the CEO of the executive branch and gets to run it the way he or perhaps in the future she deems fit. And that means the people who exercise authority and report to the president can be removed by the president. And so I think, you know, that's the slaughter case more generally. The Lisa Cook case, which has to do with the Federal Reserve Board. is a bit of an outlier, I think, to that general principle, because the court considered the history of the Federal Reserve Bank and viewed it as a little bit different than perhaps the other agencies. But generally speaking, this was a huge win for the concept of what I think is sometimes referred to as the unified executive branch. If you are exercising the powers, the executive powers of the presidency, you are subject to the presidents. discretion as to whether you stay on board, as opposed to the concept of some sort of permanent bureaucracy, which is beyond any particular president in the executive branch. So I think it's a big win there. But, you know, and Lisa Cook, not that they can't remove her, it's that they have to give her some measure of due process. Right. Right. Well, they have to, he can remove the, under slaughter, he can remove slaughter without cause. He can't remove, he can't remove cook without cause. And so that, right, that's, that's exactly what they said it before they went on this, um, tangent style with the stylized history of the Federal Reserve Board's performance. But the other thing it seems to me is it, um, continues to dilute, perhaps not as much as I would have liked, but continues to dilute, going back to what I mentioned at the outset, this idea of being ruled by experts, and so we need to somehow insulate the experts from the people. This whole concept of the continuing bureaucracy has not really been a problem for Democrats because the people who are in that continuing bureaucracy are generally Democrats. Right. Every in his second term now, Trump ends up losing a year or two to delay because of a recalcitrant bureaucracy. And so this had this ruling come down two years ago. I think Trump would have been in a better position to clean house right away. And so that's really the problem. I mean, you know, I do believe the court views this is a legal matter and a constitutional matter. I really do believe that. But politically, this is a Democrat issue. This is that they feel they're losing some measure of continuity and control so that the next Republican president, if there ever is one, will, you know, have his hands tied.

And this frees up the next Republican president and the next Democrat president to really clean house and get their own people in there. And so this does have significant political implications, perhaps not as present for some people. Yeah. And then when I was saying that I think Brett Kavanaugh and to extent John Roberts made a political decision in the Cook case. I mean, I think they look at Trump's pronouncements and his fights with his fights with Jerome Powell and say, you know, I don't want this guy firing Kevin Warsh because he didn't cut interest rates. You know, I don't want that. I don't want Trump riding roughshout over monetary policy. That's what I think they were thinking. But that's not a proper decision under the law, I would argue, the way that Clarence Thomas did. Yeah, well, again, and that's the issue. Is the Federal Reserve Board different than all the other agencies and executive boards? Is it something different? And the court said it was. Yeah, but you have to have a constitutional basis to say that. And what's that basis? Well, I think it's, I guess the Constitution is not ignorant of the history. I mean, when you look at provisions, you do consider what they meant at the time and how they were considered at the time. But you're right. I mean, that's the issue, that where are you getting this distinction? Where, in the Constitution, are you getting the distinction between the Federal Reserve Board and other boards? And I think... You're right. It's not really there. They've created it based on what they viewed the context of how the Federal Reserve was created. Well, and but I do, it is that the slaughter case is so important because it allows us to address this beautiful lie that is perpetuated. A good example of this is Barb McQuade, who's a law professor at Michigan. The slaughter case overturning precedent returns us to a spoil system where president can quote unquote clean house every four years destroying our professional independent civil service. If only there was such, I mean, talk about, you know, searching for a unicorn, professional independent civil service. I wish you were right. Yeah, right. Exactly. I mean, but this is the kind, these are the kind of things that, you know, that are presented as, you know, unquestioned. And we have a Supreme Court saying, please, you know, stop it. professor right and that's why it's so political because she knows that this professional you know class she's talking about they're all democrats you know republicans generally speaking don't stay over from administration to administration to administration they're all democrats they're all dc insider democrat uh i grew you know some of them were my law school classmates who spent their entire career you know at the justice department

Not that Justice Department would be, you know, different than any other agency. But, I mean, these are people who make a career. And they're all Democrats. They make a career of being in the federal government. And they're all Democrats or almost all Democrats, overwhelmingly Democrats. And therefore, of course, the Democrats don't want the new president when, you know, when there's a Republican to be able to get rid of people. Of course. Right. That's what it's about. It's not about some special expertise or anything like that. And yeah, I mean, remember when Obama came into office and on day one, I think it was, fired all of the U.S. attorneys around the country. Right. And the media completely defended that. When Trump came in and tried to get rid of a few, there were absolute hell political. Yeah, authoritarian, you know, yeah, right. I wanted to get your take on the birthright citizenship case that will be announced today. The decision will be announced today, as you know. Do you think the court strikes down, the EO, but stop short of declaring that birthright citizenship is constitutionally mandated? Well, that's sort of, you know, splitting the baby, that's sort of nuance of we're not going to really go all the way. I mean, when they announce who wrote the majority will know. If it's John Roberts, there's a pretty good chance that he will try to weave a path through this, not upset too many people. So we'll see. I mean, the executive order is as to what documents the government will accept. I'm not sure I don't recall from the oral arguments whether people made a distinction between the text of the executive orders versus the concept of birthright citizenship. I guess if there is a way for them to not address the underlying concept, they would do that. But I don't expect that's going to happen. I remember one of the oral arguments because this came up a couple of times the birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court. The first time, though, was not really on the merits. And I think it was so to Major said something along the line. What are we beating around the Bush here? We need to decide this on the merits. Does it exist or doesn't exist? I forget what the procedural issue was with regard to it. So, no, I think they'll hit it head on, and it's either yay or nay. And I don't expect that they'll try to weave something that, oh, well, the executive orders are defective, and therefore we don't need to reach the underlying issue. I just don't think they would have gone this far if that's where they were leaning. Interesting. Well, as one... Poster on X commented. Well, we know we lost the birthright situation case because there's been no leaks to the press on the decision and there's no fencing around the Supreme Court. So there you're leading indicators. Professor William Jacobson, clinical professor of law, director of the securities law clinic at Cornell, also founder of legal insurrection.com and president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation as well as the Equal Protection Project. Professor Jacobson, thank you, as always. Appreciate it.

Thank you. And he joined us on the Fwealthgroup.com, Anseline. The stories you need to know to start your day. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560, the answer. That sound means it's time for in-depth history with Frank, the history teacher from Arlington Heights, because there's nothing new in this world, just the history you don't know, and Frank does. Frank, take it away. Good morning. Fall 1988, junior year to local Catholic high school. My principal brought in two speakers who spoke to smaller groups, and the topic of their presentation was the cause of the violence of the 20th century. And their thesis went something like this, that the devil had been given the century to do with what he wished and a bet with God to see if humanity would lose its faith. In response, even at age 16, I much prefer the leftist phrase from Earth Day 1970, quote, we have met the enemy, and he is us, end quote. The peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended the brutal 30 years war and only minor wars were fought until Napoleon. Then the Congress of Vienna in 1815 after Waterloo led to another near century of relative peace. But the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 did not produce the same result. And the reason for this is likely because the stakes had become so much higher since the Industrial Revolution. Clemenceau and Lloyd George couldn't accept Wilson's 14 points precisely because they had lost so much in blood and treasure. Yet the Carthaginian peace, the Allies forced on Germany didn't work, did it? Weimar fell within 14 years. Many scholars assert that Versailles was unjust, yet at the same time, excoriate Chamberlain as an appeaser for Munich, which aimed to correct it, but then later applaud him for holding the line at Danzig, which, if seated, would have fully corrected the errors at Versailles. Geometry students call this incongruent. And would Hitler have actually been more boxed in by such a session? I think it's an open question as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Act would have never been allowed under such a deal. That would have changed a lot. Instead, Poland was overrun, France fell and 50 million died to fix R, not the devil's problems. Errors at Versailles. Today, the stakes are even higher given 8 billion people on a planet with even deadlier technologies. Hopefully, Vice President JD Vance gets a real chance to iron out the MOU and avoid the major war. We certainly need to be more careful than we were at Versailles. We met the enemy, and he is. Isn't that... Oliver Hazard Perry, War of 1812. Yeah, right. He actually said, we have met the enemy and he is ours and then the... Yeah, right. You know, we're the problem, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. We were the problem in Versailles. That is the biggest mistake that diplomats have made, and it's still having repercussions. And where are you in terms of... JD Vance's efforts on the MOU to date. Are you impressed? Are you concerned? Are you disappointed? Well, I mean, I don't know all the details of that MOU. I mean, I think, though, that we can avoid.

a major war with Iran and hopefully reach some sort of agreement where, you know, we have to consider their issues too. They've got 92 million people there. We're going to have a global economy. There's going to be concerns of other people and other parts of the world. We're the most powerful country in the world. We have to preserve order and stability, but I'd rather give peace a chance here than... You know? All we are saying is give peace a chance. You with the lefty slogan earring this morning. Good grief. I know. I know. Frank, what's going on? All right. Frank, the history chiefs for Wellington Heights. Great, as always. Thank you. Thank you. Hear about the big stories of the day. Then talk about them right here on Chicago's morning answer. An AM 560. The answer. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560. The answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. President Trump asked about the rise of the neo-Bolsheviks, not just in New York. And the essentially admonition from Klingon Susan Collins over at CNN that, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, they're not communists. They're socialists. No, no. It's not the president's view. I think it's a big threat to our nation, actually. Because it's not socialism, it's really communism. They use the word social democrat because it sounds so nice, but it's really communism you're talking about. I think it's the biggest threat to our nation. There is, maybe since our founding. That includes World War I, World War I, September 11th. It includes the Pearl Harbor attack. I think this is the biggest threat. to our nation. People will smile when I say that, but the smart people are going to say, you know, he's probably right. It's basically introducing communism into the United States of America. There's never been anything so dangerous. Totalitarianism, yeah, it's a problem anywhere it exists and whatever strain. It's presented, communism, fascism, Islamism. And right on cue, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was asked to comment on... The AI Revolution. So, you know, this is going to be good. And she's got some thoughts on it. They're not grounded in reality. I mean, they're not grounded in fact. But she has some thoughts. What you'll hear is very consistent what you're hearing from all of these candidates. Like Darya Lisa. which is the play here is to be as punitive against producers as we can be. I mean, ostensibly right for the downtrodden. We're going to redistribute down. And if you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the loyalty of Paul. I get the philosophy. But the punitive nature. of their approach to public policy really comes through. Because of these data centers, a lot of people's electricity bills are going up. Absolutely. And now your ability to buy laptops, computers, iPads, electronics in general is going to go up because the data centers are sucking up all of our own industrial supply. And so, you know, we're paying in a lot of ways.

We are subsidizing the development of a lot of these pieces of these AI data centers. Is there something that Congress you think should do to step in and try to afford some of these, what could be more and more price increases for consumers when it comes to these data centers? Absolutely. I think we need to be taking a look at the supplies in these markets and making sure that everyday people aren't paying the price over and over and over again for the privatized profits of these AI companies. I mean, this is the thing, is that they are saying. in their private investor calls and they are so giddy about all the people they're going to put out of work, the thousands of people that they've already laid off in Silicon Valley. They're making, so they're not only cutting out people's jobs in right now. They're also jacking up the price that you're paying on your electric bill and now on your laptops. So there has to be some action and agreement that we can come to so that Everyday people's lives are not being made impossible by this stuff. The problem that we have is that these big companies, they think they are governments. They want to be governments. They want to have totally unchecked power. And I believe that we need to pursue antitrust. We need to break up a lot of these companies that are far, far too big. And we also need to be instituting consumer protection. Yeah. Break up Apple because the iPhone's too expensive because data centers and industrial consumption for the production of their products, most of which are not manufactured here. Okay. By the way, the data center is eating up, driving up electricity costs. We talked about a couple of studies that have been out in the last four weeks. There's no evidentiary basis to make that claim. And, of course, so many of the data centers that are proposed are going to be private grid per mandates in places like Texas. But, again, these are not intended to be fact-intensive pronouncements. Scott Greer is an award-winning journalist and host of the highly respected, quote-unquote, highly respected podcast. Scott, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Thanks for having me on. So Ruiz Tushara shut down Liberal Patriot because he gave up on his party. Is Ezra Klein next? Is the next one to throw up his hands? Well, who knows Ezra Klein is just going to go along with this? Ezra Klein keeps pushing for them to be more moderate. He wants them to embrace abundance liberalism that would be supposedly pro-free market. But as we see in these New York elections and we see in mayoral races around the country, they pick the most anti-market, anti-capitalist, communist candidates possible to represent the party. The complete opposite of abundance, you know, they're anti-growth.

They want to have rent controls. They want to imagine that we could just build buildings with free of money, free of ordinary economic concerns. And that's who's winning. And these people are going to double down on all the policies that have made cities unbearable to live in, you know, from pro-crime policies or soft-on crime policies. to idiotic economic proposals that force businesses and individuals to leave. And so it's the complete opposite of what all these Democrats have been pushing for to have a more moderate Democratic Party, to have a more pro-growth Democratic Party, to have a Democratic Party to reach out to Independent. But when you look at DAC in New York, you know, who is, they found that old Berger count of hers showing that she is fully pro-communist, not even pro-socialist. endorsed all the communist policies in the past and loved communist dictatorships. This is who's now representing the Democratic Party. Yeah. And, you know, just on the growth side of it, too, you know, so, I mean, not only are they not embracing the, quote, unquote, abundance agenda, except in the form of redistribution, which is not the intention of those of the Madaglacius and as reclines in this construct. But, I mean, within the DSA cadre, I mean, they are actually degrowth. I mean, the degrowth is actually a thing, the degrowth movement. Yeah, absolutely. They want degrowth. And even they don't propose any of the grand ambitious projects that they would have had even a few years ago. You know, we all remember the Green New Deal, but that was a bit too ambitious. There was too much growth with that. I mean, they imagine that we're going to have all these environmentally friendly government-initiated projects. But that's even too ambitious for them. They don't even want that anymore. They're going to somehow have high-speed rail with insane level taxes and all these. policies designed to ensure that nothing gets built, but somehow we're going to have high-speed rail. But that's the only measure and only project they can have. Anything else, you know, if there are new businesses setting up, if there's new economic growth in a city, that is inherently bad because that means that somehow the poor are getting robbed, that the poor are not getting their fair share. And we have to put it into that. You can even see in Seattle what's happening, where they're forcing all these businesses to leave with their stupid economic policies that they're proposing. Yeah, I mean, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez going back to her said, no one can earn a billion dollars legitimately. It has to be fraud or plunder of some sort. No one can do that legitimately. Yeah, absolutely. If anyone makes that much money, it must have been through theft. It was not through honest, hard work. It wasn't through innovation. It wasn't through coming up with a new business strategy that appealed to more and more people. It has to be unfair and it has to be through theft and robbery. That's the only possible explanation for them earning a billion dollars. And they don't want any billionaires. They feel that they are robbing the people.

rather than creating jobs, creating new economic growth, creating new things that people actually want to buy and make their lives better, they think it's all about robbing the poor. That's their whole view of it. Senator Chris Murphy is embracing the warm embrace of collectivism. But he says, you know, big tent, big tent with big ideas. And here's his big idea. I think our party should have bigger ideas. I put one on the table last week, a $25 minimum wage. And I think we do have to have answers for the way in which corporations and billionaires are taking over and corrupting our politics. So I do think that there is somewhat of a trend that candidates who are confronting concentrated corporate power in a meaningful way are winning. And I think that that is something that the Democratic Party. should pay attention to what the big idea $25 an hour minimum you know wage floor just like the big idea you know five years ago was $15 an hour I mean it's these are their big ideas the um and the corporate power thing of course is what they really want to do is just fold corporate power into the state which is fascistic ironically enough Yeah, absolutely. And what we're seeing on the left is something I document, a very different way from what I document in my new book, White Pill, and what's happening on the right. With Trump and many other conservative figures, the conservatism completely transformed over the last decade. There were all these Republicans wanting it to go in a moderate direction, which would have turned on the base and turn against the base's interest, which for us conservatives, that was not a good thing. And then thankfully, we had Trump and others who made... Conservatives are much better over the last decade. But we're seeing a similar thing that the activists and the left-wing radicals of the Democratic Party transformed the left in a way that is more socialist and more communist. I mean, the idea of proposing a $25 minimum wage is just insane. That would destroy businesses across the country. That would stifle economic growth. But they feel they have to go with a higher number. to deal with these socialist candidates who keep winning in these races, is that that that's the only way that they can maintain their position, that people like Chris Murphy, who's supposed to be a moderate, by the way. He's presenting himself as a moderate candidate. He's proposing these radical ideas, and that's showing how. the radical activists are transforming the left in a more socialist direction. Well, I mean, he, yeah, he says I'm not a Democrat socialist, and then you listen to what he says and you look at his voting record and it's indistinguishable from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It's like Chevalier, Daria Lisa, beat Adriano Espaillat. Adriano Espaillat had a more, had a higher progressive ranking, leftist ranking than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did. But it wasn't good enough because he was, you know, not hostile enough to Israel. And thus the need to replace him with a real apparatchik who, you know, still has the Lenin posters up in her studio apartment. So the thing to, so Murphy's a fraud.

The $25 million, the $25 minimum wage, that's not, it's not a, it's not a big idea. It's not even a radical idea. It's just like, is it 12, 15, 18, 19, 25. I mean, these are not big ideas. It's just the, you know, we're going to continue to, you know, to sort of. throw a little bit of red meat at these people to remind them I'm on their side and hopefully, as you said about Ezra Klein, just fold in and hope that they come for me last. Because Ezra Klein, just going back to him, since he's reputedly some sort of leftist intellectual, I haven't been impressed forever. But okay. But he wrote in the New York Times recently, you know, Hasan Piker is not the problem. I mean, talk about a guy genuflecting before the mob. Hasan Piker actually is the problem. I mean, he's he's not the only problem, but he's a manifestation of the very problem that Ezra Klein is trying to address. But now he's going to just lie, you know, prostrate prostrate and be rolled over. And that's what's going on in that party. Absolutely, absolutely. They cannot resist the Hasan Piker. They're steam rolling through the party, and they can't resist them. And this is contrary to what we would have expected or what they were trying to claim to expect in early 2025, where they're like, we lost the 2024 election because we're out of touch. We're too radical. We were promoting open borders and all these crazy ideas. And now we see in middle of 26 that they've gone back to abolishing night. that they're electing soft-on-crime mayoral candidates who don't want to enforce any crimes or enforce any laws, that they want to redistribute all the wealth from middle America to their special constituencies, that they want to destroy our economic system on behalf of hairbrained ideas and hairbrained ideals, and that they are open to embracing socialism and communism. This is the complete opposite of what their figures, such as Ezra Klein, and even what Gavin Newsom and others were trying to present the new Democratic Party as, instead it's something very different. When you talk about your book, you mentioned White Pill, The Online Right and the Making of Trump's America. Are there things that concern you about the online right? Well, there's things that concern a lot of things about the online media sphere. Because the online media sphere has a lot of great things about it, is that it is free of mainstream media censorship. It is that we're allowed to get to the truth independent of liberal journalists deciding what the truth is for us. And so millions of people are now introduced to. stories that they would have never otherwise heard about. And that it makes it far harder for the media to whip up outrage over fake news stories. Like there's, to go back 20 years ago, you know, think of the Duke lacrosse case, where the mainstream media was able to whip up the nation over a completely fake made up story, but it fits their racial narrative that they wanted to get people hyped up about. So that's one good thing. But then there's the problem that people fall for...

some very rather loony conspiracy theories on the Internet, and people go on there, and it's hard to distinguish what is true and not. It's up to the individual to determine that. And when you have the old media format of traditional media, you know, CNN, CBS, ABC, they journalists told you what the truth was, even if it wasn't the truth. But now today it's up to the individual, and sometimes the individual consumer on the Internet has a hard time deciding what's true or not. They might believe, you know, space aliens are causing forest fires all over the world and stuff, or space lasers, and even that. So you do have a type of... The freedom of information is incredible and amazing, but you also have, you're relying on people's discernment to determine what's true or not. And that can lead to some wacky results. So that would be one of my main concerns with the online media sphere and with the online right itself. Some of the people aren't in America, and they have their own concerns, and then they try to infiltrate within the old line right with it and make it their own priorities and concerns. Because, you know, anyone's on the Internet. You don't know who that person is. You know, they could be claiming that there's some proud American Patriot, and there's some Pakistani, you know, scam artists of some sort. So you have to worry about those issues as well. But I think what you're seeing now... And the new media infrastructure that we have, thanks to the Internet, it is a lot better than the old traditional media infrastructure, which was able to whip up hysteria and think news stories, and there was no way to challenge it. Now it's an easier way to challenge that misinformation and disinformation that was coming from places like CNN. Scott Greer, award-winning journalist and host of the highly respected podcast, his new book, White Pill, The Online Right and the Making of Trump's America. Scott, thanks for joining. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. And Scott joined us on theelfwealthgroup.com, Angela. The more you listen, the more you'll know, this is Chicago's morning answer. Morning Answer. On AM 560, The Answer. Insert Democrat Socialist here. Runs the Democratic House law for 30 plus years running. He's promising this and he's stealing that. Where can you get that kind of money? He's using your house like his own piggyback, gang, gang, gang, gang, gang, you ought to know by now. You can pay all of your house here in Illinois. You can never keep up with the taxes. Oh, how it's always been the plan. To have a taxpayer pay, no doubt. Not a matter of if anymore but when. You're moving out. I said, when you're moving out. Top of the morning, Dan Roth here. That theme music means it's time for our weekly conversation.

On all things Illinois policy related with the wirepoints.org, gents and Mark Lennon, founder of Wirepoints.org, join us momentarily. It's been a curious month. You know, Governor Jellybelly fashions himself a tech entrepreneur. I know, it's funny. But he's, you know, I'm just taking him at face value, ozempic face value. He's... The odd tech entrepreneur who really has a distaste for tech, it seems. Because this month, he's done a couple of things that are worth note. He signed a two-tenths of one percent tax on crypto transactions, including transfers between personal wallets, which the Crypto Council for Innovation called, quote, the most punitive digital asset tax in the country, unquote. That's what we do in Illinois. Punitive taxes. That's our business. Try to out punitive tax us. I dare you. And then also earlier in the month, issued a pause. Pause for tax incentives for data center development. Illinois has an opportunity to continue leading in technological innovation and economic growth. But we also have responsibility to protect working families and local communities as the data centers. He rapidly expands. I'm directing my administration to pause the processing of data center agreements while we continue working with the General Assembly stakeholders to the comprehensive framework that protects affordability, safeguards, and natural resources, and ensures responsible growth across Illinois. In other words, he's succumbing to the pressure. The same thing that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is succumbing to with her misinformation about data centers. I mean, the facts are just wrong. You can argue about data center development, but you have to at least tell the truth about things like impact on electricity rates as we understand it right to this day and so forth. And they're not doing that because they have to appeal to that proletariat. The revolt they're leading. phony as it may be. And so that's the same thing J.B. Pritzker is doing here. He's running for president. He can't be seen as, you know, being in business with Mr. Wonderful and the tech oligarchs. That doesn't work. So you want to cast her a lot with J.B. and B.J. and A.O.C. and Dario Lisa and the whole cast of character, Zohran Mamdani and the whole cast. I don't know. You might want to take at least some input from Jensen Huang, who is the CEO of the most valuable company in the world, an actual tech entrepreneur. You know, Nvidia, at least by market cap, $5 trillion market cap. His perspective on AI and AI development may be something to offer a more heed. 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. and precisely the type of plants that were either unnecessary or not enough in the past. The prospect of reindustrial United States, that should perk up ears in Illinois, but it won't. No, no, stick with J.B. You know, ignore the guy running the $5 trillion company. It's a good plan. Mark Lennon, founder of wirepoints.org, joins us now. Mark, thanks for being with us. Appreciate it. You know, in the face of these monumentally complex and important problems we're facing about reindustrialization that you described and tech centers, data centers, and all the rest, what is our actual policy? It's sticking, you know, Perksker is just sticking his finger up in the wind and reacting to public concerns. You know, most recently. on the data centers. Illinois taxpayers had put in a billion dollars in subsidies into these things, 27 of them, over just a four-year period ending in 2024. Why? Because it was, you know, techie and popular, and in the whim of the governor, that was a good thing. He's got a lot of discretion to use the tech slash funds and the economic development funds and do what he wants. Now people reacted against these things. So what does he do? He puts a hold on it. This is no way to make policy. We're just fumbling along the way. And same with all those other taxes that you just described, the slew of new taxes. We discussed last week that they're all subject to serious legal challenges. It's going to be a mess to sort this stuff out. Again, why did he slap these taxes on? because it must became a trillionaire. There's an op-ed by Democrats in the paper saying that was the real intention of those taxes. You know how to stop trillionaires? Put on all these taxes like we just did, never mind whether they're legal or not.

So, you know, these are very complicated problems. And the question of data centers, I don't have all the answers, but it's going to require a lot of thought. And, boy, if there's any people that don't have the capacity or the interest in figuring this out and getting it, it's right, it's the Illinois legislature. As we've seen time and time again with their doomed energy and environmental policies, which are just a total mess. And we're, you know, looking at a crisis with just with energy costs. Yeah. And, I mean, they're captive to the apparatchiks that they groomed. And so they serve those political interests. And to the extent that those align occasionally with the state interests, well, that's a happy coincidence. But that's not the priority. Priority is his presidential ambitions. The priority for the noble men and magistrates as Springfield is the retention of their offices or. the next rung up like you see people doing in the mayor's race now or attempting to do like you know spanky from our gang that mike quigley character i mean that's it's uh or ali g these mimboes i mean it's all that's that's all this is but um I guess in the absence of an alternative philosophy that is presented in a compelling fashion, then that is what will dominate to the detriment of even those who are cheerleading it. And so it goes. Brian Koston over at Americans for Prosperity, the Illinois chapter, noting that... Businesses continue to leave Illinois, but the flight is at an increased pace where we were looking at, you know, 70, 80, 90 companies a year for the last decade. Now it's looking more like 150, 200, 250, 250, about four companies per week to other states we're losing right now, according to Koston. Yeah, Brian is doing a lot of excellent work over there. He's really terrific, and he gets... gets his facts right. And think about it if you're a business person and you see this, what the process is going on in Springfield. How do you know whether you're going to be the target of the next socialist sort of wave of public sentiment where they, as I say, just stick their finger up in the air and decide that something's not popular anymore and whack that industry? And boy, your segment was right where you're You're tying this really to communism. I mean, this is a really morphing into a flat-out communist, not just socialist. It's not democratic socialist. There's all kinds of anti-democratic elements in this movement on the left.

scares the daylights out of me. And I've got a lot of criticisms of Trump, but that little segment you played earlier with him saying that this is the biggest threat America has ever faced, this radical left movement in the Democratic Party, I think he's dead on right. That's what scares the daylights on me. Yeah. And we talk, just on the business flight topic, we talk about... You know, high profile companies, of course. But then there are companies that are outside of Chicago Metro in ex-urban or even rural communities. And I just think like last year when. Johnsonville food shut down their plant in Moments and put 275 people out of work because they're moving operations to Kansas and Wisconsin where it makes more sense to be, apparently. You know, it's just like that's 275 jobs, you know, that doesn't register in Chicagoland if a big company shuts down a facility in Chicagoland and a couple hundred jobs. But in a town like Moments and towns like that dotted all over the... Illinois matters a great deal. And those towns can go the way of Rockford or Danville or Galesburg pretty quickly. Yeah, it's really devastating to those little communities. And, you know, those are permanent jobs. And some of these economic development programs that we look at, there's no sensible way that they look at job creation data centers, for example, that we've been throwing money at. They're big ticket, you know, very expensive projects, but there's not a lot of lasting jobs in them. There's very few people that run those things. Once they're built, they count the construction jobs. And, you know, the unions, of course, support that kind of thing in the construction industry. Well, if Jensen Hwang is right and this AI revolution that will need to be powered in part by data centers, it generates a reindustrialization of the United States, then Illinois is ideally situated because of our location and our workforce and so forth. you have to be, you know, ready and willing to seize an opportunity, which doesn't seem like we are. That's right. It's, you know, potentially a great opportunity if we could get this figured out properly. And I just don't see any. serious thought going into what the proper policy should be on this. And consumers are rightfully concerned about who's going to pay for this. But do you think the Democrats are going to take a hard look at who really bears these taxes? If, for example, you make the data centers pay for their own electricity, does that get passed on the consumers?

I think it probably will, but it kind of depends on the industry and how it shakes out. No one's looking at those issues seriously and don't expect it to happen. Well, I mean, not because I'm a Florida resident, but just because that filthy animal in the governor's mansion in this state loves to compare Illinois to Florida. So let's compare. Ron DeSantis just signed his state's budget for this fiscal year, which is smaller in real dollars, smaller than last year's budget, which has been the case shrinking a state budget in the state of Florida. which is about as populace as New York, four years in a row. Florida's state budget is less than half of New York's, despite having the same population. Rainy Day Fund full. It's triple the size of what it was seven years ago when he took office. And that's with no income tax and no estate tax and a property tax relief proposal to exempt the first $250,000 of assessed valuation. I mean, this is what growth can do, but you have to orient yourself towards growth. Yeah, and a soaring population, a shrinking budget and a soaring population. Imagine that. Yeah, and, of course, we've got the opposite here. Budget under J.B. Pritzker has gone from, what, $34 million to $57 billion with a flat or shrinking population. Something is really out of kilter here and the long-term consequences for the country are extraordinary. Mark Lennon, founder of Wirepoints, wirepoints.org, all things, Illinois policy related. Mark, thanks for joining us. Thank you, Dan. Take care. Take care. Andy, join us on the AlphaWealth Group.com, insulin. It's like a hot, steaming cup of information. To start your day, it's Chicago's morning answer on AM 560, The Answer. This is Chicago's Morning Answer with Dan Proft on AM 560, The Answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. We're going to talk Middle East geopolitics, war and peace. But I wanted to get a reaction from our next guest, Peter Berkowitz, from the Hoover Institution, to this piece that Joe Epstein wrote in his friend of the show, Joe Epstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal, the political dilemma dilemma for Jews today. He writes in part this. They, Jewish people, bear the Republican Party a historical grudge. Years ago, when quotas were set to keep Jews out of the Kay Ivey League and other league colleges, Republicans set those quotas. When Jews couldn't be hired by large corporations, those corporations were run by Republicans. When Jews were restricted from large neighborhoods, those neighborhoods were lived in by Republicans. Growing up in a Jewish neighborhood in Chicago, I never met a Jewish Republican until I went to university. Neither did I growing up in Wheaton, but it didn't warrant me against Jewish people. I guess thankfully because my Catholic education and my parents. So that's on the Republican side. Then Epstein goes on to say, meanwhile, the Democratic Party in its leftward swing, that's generous. A strong plank of which is its anti-Israel position has itself become less hospitable to Jews. That's understated. Repeled by the Republican Party, attacked within the current-day Democrat Party, the Jews with nowhere to turn, find themselves politically homeless. Theirs is a true dilemma of whose horns no easy exit is apparent. No easy exit? Hmm. Peter Berkowitz is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and former director of policy planning at the State Department. He's also the author of Explaining Israel, the Jewish State, the Middle East, and America. Peter, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Good to be with you. Thank you. How about your reaction to Epstein's formulation there? I would draw a different frame than Epstein, a very talented writer. The truth is that it's since at least Ronald Reagan. The Republican Party and the conservative movement has been a great friend to Israel and Jews in America for the last 30 years or so. the home of anti-Semitism in the United States has been the left, and this has been fomented in the academy. We have seen an upsurge on the right in the last 18 months, two years of a kind of anti-Semitism. That's a real worry. But I think for most American Jews, under the age of 70, We have seldom experienced anti-Semitism outside of the universities in this country, and not from the Republican Party.

Right. And I mean, and to the extent that you have people saying, ahistorical, intemperate, ignorant things about Israel or about Jewish people generally like Tucker Carlson has, you also have a lot of voices on the right, mine included, that are speaking out against that. And you don't have any dynamic like that on the left. Oh, I think that's right again, to emphasize the key source of anti-Semitism on the left has actually been the university world, and I want to emphasize this point. Insofar as the university world tends... often teaches an anti-Americanism, blames America as a principal source for evil in the world, sees America is constituted by a clash between an oppressor class and an oppressed class. That anti-Americanism also actually translates into anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism. That's a major source. Again, not to underestimate the pernicious influence in my judgment of Tucker Carlson and others like him, but we must put things in proportion. All right, let's get on to the state of the dynamics between the Iranians and the United States and Israel. And so we have this... conflict here with the deals that are trying to get inked. As Seth Mandel writes over a commentary, two deals, two competing visions of American power. JD Vance's spearheading negotiations of Iran to end the war, reopened shipping lanes and halt the pursuit of nuclear weapons, the Iranians. Marco Rubio is tasked with keeping Israel-Lebanon talks on track and enabling Beirut to reclaim its territory from Hezbollah. So those two deals are in conflict with one another based on, of course, what the Iranians won. And it's not for Beirut to reclaim territory from Hezbollah. So how do you navigate that tightrope? It's an excellent question. I can't remember something comparable in U.S. diplomacy. Obviously, Vice President JD Vance has been spearheading the negotiations with Iran with his 14-point plan, which had some highly irregular elements to it. Although Israel has never mentioned in it, the 14-point – JD Vance's 14-point memo of understanding calls for an end to – to military activities in Lebanon. But neither the United States nor Iran officially actually is fighting in Lebanon. Moreover, that memo of understanding calls for both parties to respect the internal affairs of the other. But we should all remember that the United States began sending ships.

to the Middle East in January because President Trump was outraged by the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iranian protesters by the Iranian regime, clear reaction to internal affairs there. And now Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio. presided over, on the one hand, what looks to be a separate deal, a deal that actually mentions peace, ten times, peace between Lebanon and Israel. And by the way, these pieces don't have to be in conflict with one another. In fact, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been waging war, not only against the United States and Israel, but against Sunni Arab. monarchies throughout the region for 47 years. It is true. that we need peace and stability in the Gulf and that we need an end to the war between Israel and Hezbollah. But the difference is the Iran memo of understanding simply called for the termination of hostilities with Hezbollah intact, whereas Secretary of State Marco Rubio's Israel-Lebanon framework calls for Israel and the government of Lebanon to collaborate in the dismantling of the terrorist organization. in other words I haven't really answered your question to say how do we navigate this but I have emphasized how difficult it is between what seemed to be two aspects of Trump White House foreign policy in tension with one another Matthew Hennessy has an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal, and maybe this is the perspective. I mean, I hate to underestimate the threat, particularly with respect to pursuit of nuclear weapons by these Islamist radicals. But he essentially compares. He says the Iranians have this nuisance license. And they are able to, you know, they understand exactly where the lines are with respect to the nuisances they're allowed to create before law enforcement comes in. He says, cops ignore deliberate provocations and minor infractions because they prefer to avoid the paperwork. The hoodlum understand he's been granted a nuisance license. And that's what the Iranians understand. That will let them get away. with a certain amount of nuisance. I mean, sort of the, you know, the mostly peaceful ceasefires, for example, so long as they don't cross the line to, you know, nearing weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon, for example, or closing the straight, for example, then you're compelling us to act. And so if you understand that that's sort of our threshold.

then you're not going to get specific performance from Iran on the minor things. What you're hoping for is just the big things relative stability. Yes, yes, but it seemed as if Iran was proceeding contrary to that, those victims of the wise hoodlum. What do I mean? Iran was... as of January of this year, proceeding so close to having a fissile material that they themselves told American negotiators, if they wanted to, they could produce 11 bombs. They had produced so many ballistic missiles, thousands of them, and they had dug... fortresses for them so deep inside the earth that they were achieving a situation in which their missiles couldn't be touched even by B2 bombers. And they built this ring of fire around the Middle East with proxy stretching from Iraq to Lebanon in the north, Yemen and up to Gaza in the south. So they were... reaching proportions of malignancy in the era that was well beyond that of of hoodlum. And the question was where they reached the point where it would not be possible through military activity to reverse their growth. And the Trump administration reached what I thought was a reasonable decision on February 28th that they were becoming too close to unstoppable. Right. But now we're regressing to the mean in the post-kinetic phase of this issue. Is that what's happening? Well, this is the big question. As you know, the memorandum of understanding with Iran. It says nothing about ballistic missiles. These ballistic missiles that easily reach Israel and even more easily reach our friends in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and elsewhere. It says nothing about a proxy. So, you know, we don't know what the content is going to be of these now, I guess, 45 or so days left of negotiations. President Trump has declared his impatience. As you know, we had an exchange of fire just a few days ago. It does seem to me hard to imagine that as long as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is running or dominating in Iran, that an agreement that will produce stability in the Middle East will be reached. We mustn't forget. that their raison d'art, their reason for being, is to wage Islamic war in the Middle East to destroy Western friendly powers and make Tehran the center of Islamic order in the Middle East. Until they renounce those intentions, which are not secret intentions, until they renounce them, I don't see an agreement that will achieve the American interest of stability in the region.

What's your assessment of the suggestions that abound that there is factionalization within the ranks of the mullahs? That there are some who want a deal and some who don't. And even if that were true, is it just a tactical disagreement or a substantive one? It's hard to say what the upshot is. I don't think there's any doubt based on the reporting, including from an indispensable site called Iran International, that cracks have emerged within the the religious leadership in Iran. But there's also little doubt that as a result of Operation Epic Fury, as a result of the killing on the first day of the war of the supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini and 40 of his top security people, one result of that has been a tighter grip by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. They are the ones who control the military, the weaponry. and they are hardliners. So, yes, we see in negotiations a multiplicity of voices, but I don't think it would be fair to conclude that the hardliners have been sidelined. To the contrary, all the evidence is that the hardliners have at least as much power as they've always had, and maybe more. Peter Berkowitz, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and former director of policy planning at the State Department. His book, Explaining Israel, the Jewish State, the Middle East, and America. Peter Berkowitz, thanks as always, appreciate it. Thank you. And he joined us on the alphawealthgroup.com, Anseline. There's only one radio show in Chicago, talking about today's biggest stories and telling you what they really mean. That show is this one. Chicago's Morning Answer, an AM-560, The Answer. Only the biggest stories. Only the biggest guests. And only the biggest opinions. This is AM 560. The answer. Time now for another reason why. Dan Proff is single. Top of the morning. Bring it in. Laura Pinho is a dance teacher at Canoga Park Senior High School in California. Of course she's in the school system. Of course she is. She was asked in a Code Pink Zoom webinar. That's a good time. Called challenging Zionism in our schools. Oh, even a better time. About her recent nuptials. Seeing what has happened to the Palestinian people and their complete erasure of their culture, their land, their rights, all of it has led me to believe that any action we take.

Doesn't matter what the action is. It's in the right direction if it's for Palestinian rights and freedoms. Period. End of story. It doesn't matter because of the complete imbalance that exists in terms of rights and freedoms that they have. And so I think it was symbolic for me to offer, you know, I have powers as an American citizen. I have a passport that I was just born with. And how can I live in this world if I don't make every effort? to equalize the playing field on whatever way that i can really on whatever way that i can and i just see that i mean all personal feelings aside that for me was the motivating issue was I cannot accept this. It's unacceptable that these people have no rights to travel, no rights to land, no rights to anything, not even citizenship now. So that was for me a motivating thing, the U.S. policies towards Palestinians, but also just people of color, is outrageous. Did your students ever engage with students in Gaza? Yes, they did. One of our beautiful highlights was zooming in with the kids in Gaza. It was evening there, but they managed to be on the phone. And we got videos ever since, but it's Gaza's Little Olives Elementary. It was a grassroots movement. And my kids there are... Zooming in with these kids and making videos for them, sending them cards, sending them well wishes. And the kids there are just, they love it. They send videos back. And it's just so beautiful to see the connection between kids here and kids there and the empathy that exists in these students' hearts. Really, I think it's necessary to bring these worlds together for a lot of reasons. So, yes. And to equalize the playing field. To do whatever she could do, doesn't matter what. To advance the flag for the aggrieved. She explained how she married Salem Abu Amra to, quote, advance Palestinian rights and freedoms. She married the guy to make a political point. about, well, all those factual things that she said about the Palestinian people so that he can stay. And I can only imagine what Salem Abu Amra is thinking, listening to her on that Code Pink Zoom webinar, challenging Zionism in our schools, which is, how long do I have to stay married to her before I'm, I can divorce her and still stay in America?

This is what you're dealing with out there. This 51-year-old awful, who, by the way, is no doubt poisoning the minds of her dance students at Canoga Park Senior High School in California, or at least doing the best she can, providing the worst example she can provide, particularly to young women. This is what's out there. and, you know, the people that she would otherwise marry if she wasn't using a dude to make a political point. I mean, you know, he wants it too. Now, the problem, of course, for him is, hey, you're not supposed to say that out loud because, you know, it's a federal crime to commit marriage fraud. Didn't you ever see that episode of Wings where Helen marries Antonio just so he can stay in the country? You know, that doesn't work. And it carries a five-year prison sentence, actually. But whatever she can do. And of course, she can't keep it a secret because she has to pump her chest about it to her code paying friends on the webinar. I mean, well, who else is she going to marry? Some Hinsdale dink like Johnny Hilbrant, the PE guy? With Zeth Bedda, Fuller House Tap after work? Yeah, well, I have to read my laptop, though, obviously because of my role in P.E. Private Equity, but, yeah, have you had the Salmaine de la Puebla there? That's insane. It's absolutely insane. But my wife loves it there, too. She goes, she'll go around noon with some pals after tennis. Yeah, a couple leachie martinis, a couple espresso martinis. Then it's off to pick up the kiddos after flirting with the 23-year-old bartenders. Yeah, my son Tarantino's actually over at Nabuki with his sensei right now. Enjoying a Stanley Cup roll. of course. All three kiddos are at Avery Coomley. Highly, highly competitive. So, wonderful chess team as well. Yeah, so we are members at Hinsdale Golf Club. My wife's actually over there right now with the tenants pro. Yeah, she does two a days. Yeah, they're doing a new thing called pelvic alignment. Apparently, she's done wonders for her backhand. Yeah, and she's never been in a better mood. But, oh, me, no, no, no. No, I only play Butler National. So no women allowed. Yeah, I don't make the rules. I just refuse to play anywhere that doesn't. have rules though. I love P.E. Guy and Instagram. So that's what's what you're up against. This is from J.D. Haltz again. It's a nice Venn diagram. Kamala Harris would appreciate this of the offals that are out there larping. Larping. Awful, larping. Angry, white, female leftists. or raffle, rich, angry, white, female leftist, larping, live action role-playing, like marrying someone to make a political point. And by the way, I mean, the comparison of the women that PE guy is talking about at Hinsdale and this dance teacher in California, you want to talk about a Vennigram, it's a perfect circle. My point. There are four categories that intersect. four categories of mentally unwell offals and raffles that are larping. The narcissistic personality disorder, the histrionic personality disorder, the antisocial personality disorder, and the borderline personality disorder. And where they intersect is basically an entitled mentality.

that where you're unable to take criticism, a lack of empathy, even though you're larping empathy, manipulative, relationship difficulties, uncontrolled outbursts. And, you know, just outside the intersection of all these personality disorders are things like violence. Yeah. That's right. 312642-4-2-5600 alphawealthgroup.com call and text line. And even if you're able to find a good one, you know, when worlds collide and you actually have to do the wedding, Mike Scott had the story yesterday. The wedding thing still just baffles me of that whole talk about live action role playing. A fight over a plate of meatballs ended with two people shot at a Milwaukee wedding reception. and a 41-year-old man who now faces felony charges, two counts of first-degree reckless injury with use of a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm by a felon, and felony bail jumping. You might want to, you've got a convicted felon who's out on bail. You may want to clip him off the invite list. The shootings stem from an argument over a groomsman eating meatballs with his hands. She was in a bridesmae, cousin of the bride, was in a kitchen area where she saw groomsmen eating meatballs directly with his hand. She told him to use a plate. Then he punched her, which is not good. Then her brother-in-law intervened, and during the scuffle, she heard gunshots. That escalated quickly over meatballs. you know, wrong guy at the wedding. But when you invite 200 people that you have, some of whom you have no relationship with, strange things can happen. Tim and Zion, you're on Chicago's morning answer. Hey, Dan. How you doing? Great show, as always. Thank you. I just wanted to say I lost my wife of 45 years, about three years ago. Just for fun, I was poking around on some dating sites. And some of the women on there were, like, on their profile, we were saying, if you were pro-Trump, they didn't want to talk to you. And I just thought that was hilarious. Yeah. What percentage do you think of those you were flipping through? Do you have a political message that was something on the order of will marry a Palestinian for citizenship to make a point or no Trump voters allowed or things like that? Banned guns? Well, the no trumpers, I would say, was probably like 40%, 50%. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so we don't have an opinion. Are you, are you dipping your toe into that pool, or are you just going to relax? No, I think, I think I'm past that. I just can't imagine.

replacing 45 years of marriage. And so I just, you know, to start over with something like that, I'm just like, uh, no, thank you. Yeah. Why? Why? Why inflict that on yourself, right? Yeah. Yeah. Why inflict more pain? Thanks for the call to him. This is the morning show. More Chicago radio listeners are choosing. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560. The answer. Maybe there is hope for L.A., and I'm not talking about Spencer Pratt. I'm talking about this guy. In charges after allegedly shooting two people with a BB gun at a naked bike riding event in downtown L.A. This happened around 11 this morning near the intersection of Temple Street and North Alameda Street. Police say a male suspect dressed in all black and riding a scooter fired the BB gun at the nude cyclists. Two victims were treated for lacerations at the scene. This suspect will be charged with assault of a deadly weapon and more charges are pending. Deadly weapon. Come on. A red rider? Aim for the nads with these cyclists. I cannot stand these bicyclists. When I'm doing 30 and a 50 because I'm stuck behind eight grown men dressed like fucking radioactive highlighters, I start to develop opinions. Why the fuck are you guys riding three deep down the road? Like, there's no, they're not handing out gold medals at the end of this cul-de-sac, Kyle. And why the fuck? wear the spandex with all the sponsor names. Like, nobody is looking at you and saying, oh, this 43 year old might be the future of athletics. Nobody looks like they're having fun. Nobody is smiling. They look like they're transporting organs that have to be to the hospital in six minutes or less. Meanwhile, traffic is backed up. Three fucking zip codes because Chad and his tour to midlife crisis thinks the... Road belongs to him and Team Spandex Thunder. And then when you go to pass them, they throw their hands up like you're the fucking villain, like you just violated the Geneva Convention. Meanwhile, you just spend $10,000 to be the world's most expensive inconvenience. And why do these guys travel in packs? One bicyclist, sure, I can handle that. But eight of them? That's a tactical formation. That's a fucking infantry unit. And they roll up on you sounding like a flock of asthmatic geese. And the only thing worse than that is these naked bike riders when they do that like they do downtown too. I'm, you know, I'm a peaceful pluralist myself, but, you know, I mean, I'm not averse to a little BB gun to a non-vital area. to make the point in no uncertain terms. You've made the switch, and it feels so good. You switch to Chicago's morning answer on AM 560, the answer. Thanks for listening to Chicago's Morning Answer podcast sponsored by Signature Bank.

Signature Bank takes pride in helping customers grow their business and provide unmatched banking expertise, custom financial solutions, and the industry's best technology. So whether you're a business looking for a deposit relationship or needs a ready source of financing, Signature Bank is the right bank for you. Call today at 773-467-500 to hear how Signature Bank can help your business grow and thrive. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender.