Everything Is Awful

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 Lunder. Join Dan Proft, Sean Thompson, and Alex Marlow, editor of Breitbart News. For Cigar Night on Tuesday, May 19th, tickets are on sell now at 560.com slash cigar. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560, The Answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. And the Trump Xi Jinping Summit has come to its conclusion. And the two seem to have gotten along famously. Here was Trump's summary of the talks sitting side by side by side with she. I think a lot of good has come over. We've made some fantastic trade deals. Great for both countries. He's a man I respect greatly. Become really a friend. We've known each other now 11 years, almost 12 years. It's a long time. And we've settled a lot of different problems that other people wouldn't have been able to settle. And the relationship is a very strong one. We've really done some... Wonderful things, I believe. We did discuss Iran. We feel very similar in Iran. We want that to end. We don't want them to have a nuclear weapon. We want the straits open. We're closing it now. They closed it, then we closed it on top of them. But we want the straits open. And we want them to get it ended because it's a crazy thing. They're a little bit crazy. And that's no good. Can't have it. They cannot have a nuclear weapon. But we discussed a lot of other things also. And I think we're very much on agreement. Well, there's a few things here. You know, on the business side, you had China reportedly committing to buy more soybeans to buy more energy from America. You don't want to be so reliant on. Iran. I'd like to see the straight reopen, as you heard the president say, but don't want to be so reliant on Iran. And so I'm going to start buying from America, said the president, both oil as well as liquid financial gas, 200 Boeing jets. But just back to the energy piece. He's not coming in with guns. He's not coming in with rifles and not coming in shooting. You know, somebody said he's been very good. They get a lot of their oil, 40% of their oil from that location. So what has happened, and one thing I think that we're going to make a deal on, they've agreed they want to buy oil from the United States. They're going to go to Texas. We're going to start sending Chinese ships to Texas and to Louisiana and to Alaska.

And I think that was another thing that was agreed to. That's a big thing. What about liquefied natural gas? Gas too? Yeah, everything. Energy. Energy. That's the one thing. They really need energy. That's the one thing. They have an insatiable appetite for energy. And we have unlimited energy. Of course, that was Trump in his sit down with Sean Hannity post-Xi Jinping to give the post-mortem. So trade deals and security matters. Trade deals and security matters. Those were the two general topics of conversation, as anticipated. A little bit of those details on trade. Also, this, this is a little bit more controversial. The United States has cleared Navidia to... sell advanced chips to 10 Chinese firms. And when you hear the term Chinese firms, you have to add communist to that description, 10 Chinese communist firms because all things run through the state in China, as we know. And Jensen Huang was there as part of that delegation of 30 top business leaders, the CEO of NVIDIA. But, of course, this is a little bit more controversial given the fact that, yes, we're trading partners at the same time. We're adversaries. And once you set aside the pleasantries and the platitudes and the tours of all the wonders of Beijing, there are still some real disagreements. And there should be a retained understanding. that the Chinese Communist Party and the communist thug dictator, Xi Jinping, are just that, communist thugs. 312-642-5600 is the AlphaWealth Group.com, calling and text line. On Iran, again, this is from the wide-ranging interview with Sean Hannity that the president did post-Summit. China, I mean, Trump had this to say about his impressions from his conversations with Xi Jinping as he sort of telegraphed in that summary. They don't want Iran to get nukes. They want the straight reopen. And she's offered to help. She would like to see a deal man. He would like to see a deal man. And he did offer, he said, if I can be of any help at all, I would like to be of help. He did say that. Yeah, he did say that. And look, anybody that buys that much oil is obviously got some kind of a relationship with him. But he said, I would love to be a help. If I could be of any help whatsoever, he'd like to see the hormone straight open. He said, if I could be of any help whatsoever, I would like to help. And he also believes, as I mentioned, that China doesn't support a nuclear Iran. I mean, in other words, Iran with nuclear weapons. The support of Iran. How big a discussion was that today? We discussed it. I mean, when you say support, they're not fighting a war with us, are anything? No. He said he's not going to give military equipment. That's a big statement. He said that today. That's a big statement.

I said that strongly. But at the same time, he said, you know, they buy a lot of their oil there, and they'd like to keep doing that. I don't think they want, I don't think China wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon either. I said, This don't go crazy. You don't need them having a nuclear weapon either. What did he say? Well, he's not going to respond to much. He's a pretty cool guy. He's not going to say, oh, gee, that's a good point. What a wonderful point. You think he agreed. That was the impression. I don't think he wants him to. No, he would like to see it end. But he's been good about it. 312-642-5600. The alphaithgroup.com call in and text line. Marco Rubio also did a postmortem on the talks. And it's just a little bit different. I mean, of course, Marco Rubio has a very different communication style. But he was pushed by NBC News. You know, what did you ask for from Xi Jinping vis-a-vis Iran? And Marco Rubio was... sort of took the Trumpian line that Trump didn't want to offer in response to this sort of topic. But. So Marco Rubio backfilled it. What exactly did President Trump ask President Xi Jinping for when it comes to Iran? He didn't ask him for anything. I mean, we're not asking for China's help. We don't need their help. But he raises the issue. We raise the issue to make clear what our position is and to make it clear so they understand. Because, I mean, it's logical we would talk about it given how dominant that issue is. Our position is very clear. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. And that's what they were, you know, they were trying, they were on the verge of building a conventional capability where they had so many rockets, so many drones that you couldn't do anything against them. They would hide behind that conventional shield to do whatever they wanted with their nuclear program in the future. That's why the president chose to act. In response to that, Iran has decided that they're going to take an international waterway and turn it into theirs and charge tolls for it. We're not going to allow that to happen. And that's why there's a blockade as a direct result of what they've done. Marco Rubio went on to say he, his understanding is that she also opposes the militarization of the strait of Hormuz as well as any sort of tolling regime that the Iranians would attempt to impose. Trump also had this to say. He posted on Truth Social about.

well, about the meeting. He talked about, well, I'll just read from part of it. When she elegantly referred to the United States as perhaps being a declining nation, this was one of the minor contretemps, she bringing up the Thucydides trap. We've talked about before, you know, a declining nation and an ascending nation, declining superpower and ascending nation seeking to displace the declining superpower and it inevitably leads to war. That's the Thucydides trap concept. Trump saying when he, in reference to his reference. When she very elegantly referred to the United States as perhaps being a declining nation, very elegantly, he was referring to the tremendous damage we suffered during the four years of Sleepy Joe Biden and the Biden administration. And on that score, he was 100% correct. Our country suffered immeasurably with open borders, high taxes, and so on and so forth. He was not referring to the incredible rise the United States has displayed to the world, the 16 spectacular months of the Trump administration and then goes on to list his accomplishments. It's maybe in part true, perhaps in more than a little part, a stylized interpretation of what she was communicating by raising the notion of the Thucydides trap that he says America finds itself in vis-a-vis China. Yeah, there's some gamesmanship, gamesmanship over Taiwan, gamesmanship over global hegemony. Joe and Hoffman Estates. Good morning, Dan. A question, maybe I don't understand, but why are we selling anyone oil at this point when we're spending $5.25 a gallon in this country? It's costing everyone a lot more to live nowadays. Maybe you can help answer that for me. Well, thanks for the call, Joe. I mean, again, I don't pretend to have intricate knowledge of the global oil markets, but... I do know it's a global market, and that's the issue. So you have private oil companies that sell on a global market. So, you know, in terms of sort of differential pricing out of patriotism, trying to reduce, trying to address the affordability piece. I think it's just a lot more complicated. Maybe a next season of Landman will tackle this. But I think it's a lot more complicated than saying we're energy independent. We produce more oil than any other country in the world. So we can just tell oil companies in the Gulf or on the West Coast that you're going to sell only to the American market and at this price point. It just doesn't work that way. That's not how global markets work. Oh, and by the way, Marco Rubio addressed that too because, you know, there's the, the DC Press Corps has twisted Trump's words when he was asked that very question about gas prices in Iran. And, you know, he basically said, look, that's not informing my decision. I'm not, I don't feel pressure because of a temporary spike in gas prices in this country. But that wasn't being dismissive of.

the American people's concerns over the price of the pump, as Marco Rubio explained. Did he make a mistake when he told a reporter that America's financial situation isn't playing, quote, even a little bit of a role in his motivations to make a deal with Iran? No, I think what the president is claiming is that Iran's not going to use that as leverage against this. Doesn't that sound out of touch, though? I mean, Americans are spending so much for gas. Because I think what the president is making clear is that we're not going to let Iran use that as leverage. Think about what the Iranians are thinking. And they watch this. Remember, there's no free press. There is no you in Iran. There is no press in Iran that can criticize the regime or, say, create any pressure on them. Or China for that matter. And I think what the Iranians think that they are going to use our domestic politics to pressure him into a bad deal. That's not going to happen. We've taken extraordinary measures to keep. gas prices lower than they are in some other parts of the world, and it will go down. Those straits will be open, and we will see those prices go down. And actually, I think you're going to see a dramatic reduction in oil over time, because all of that pent-up oil that's being held hostage by Iran, once that reaches the marketplace, it'll have a very positive impact. But I would also say there's a price attached to a nuclear Iran. If Iran ever acquires a nuclear weapon, they will immediately... What would stop them from controlling the straits then? And then forget about it being a three-month or a six-month problem. It could be a permanent one. The stories you need to know to start your day. This is Chicago's morning answer. An 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. 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. And learn all about this great bank, 773-467-5630, or visit them online at SignatureBank.Bank. That's SignatureBank.com. Signature Bank makes commercial banking personal. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender.

The biggest stories. Only the biggest guests. And only the biggest opinions. This is AM 560. The answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proff. So the House Judiciary Subcommittee, a House Judiciary Subcommittee, held a hearing yesterday featuring one... State's attorney named Steve Descano from Fairfax, Virginia. Steve Descano is the subject of a Department of Justice probe into whether or not he violated the civil rights of Fairfax, Virginia residents. Like, say, Cheryl and Stephanie Mentor. Descano, Soros Bacte A. Sanctuary City enthusiast. Non-prosecution, decarceration, defund, leftist. And this is the way you do it. Who prosecutes the prosecutors? Well, in this case, perhaps the Department of Justice. And if they could make a colorable case against Descano, that would send shockwaves through the offices of other Soros-backed DAs around the country. There were some very spirited exchanges between Descano and members of the subcommittee. Appropriately so. But first, Cheryl Minter, Stephanie's mom. Before we hear from her, what she had to say yesterday, let me remind you about the case of Stephanie Minter in Fairfax, Virginia. It's not dissimilar to the case of Katie Abraham in Illinois or Sheridan Gordon, Gorman in Illinois. Nick, for weeks you've been reporting on this murder, what recourse does the family have? Well, right now, Stephanie's family is urging Fairfax County voters to remember Stephanie's story, her murder. The next time Fairfax County commonmost attorney Steve Descano is on the ballot, which is in 2027. Next year. Now, I spoke to Stephanie's family here in Fredericksburg. The family told me that had Descano prosecuted her accused killer and other serious violent crimes, Stephanie would be alive today. Seven News obtained emails that police sent to Descano on three separate occasions, warning Descano how dangerous Abdul Jalo was. The police told him they encountered him more than 100 times. And if he was let back out in the community one more time, it wasn't a matter of if, but when he would kill someone. Despite those warnings, Descano's office dropped charge after charge against Jallo, who is a Sierra Leo national in the country illegally. Today I spoke with former Virginia Attorney General J.C. Mears, who says this could happen again if there aren't major changes. My great fear is that because there won't be a change in policy, that you're just going to have more Stephanies.

You have a governor that now has said that state law enforcement can't cooperate with federal immigration authorities. And there's legislation making its way through the assembly that would actually ban localities even having the option of cooperating with 287G agreements. Sound familiar? Cheryl Mentor, Stephanie's mom, testifying yesterday. Watch her child grow. She deserved more time. I am asking you, please do not let her story be ignored. Do not let another family stand where I am standing. Make changes. Take responsibility. Protect your community. Because no mother should ever have to wake up to this nightmare. I'd like to read. From Psalms 28. Give them the punishment they so richly deserve. Measure it out in proportion to their wickedness. Pay them back for all their evil deeds. Give them a taste of what they have done to others. They care nothing for what the Lord has done or for what his hands have made. So he will hear. So he will tear them down and they will never be rebuilt. Praise the Lord, for he has heard my cry for mercy. The Lord is my strength and my shield. I trust him with all my heart. He helps me, and my heart is filled with joy. I burst out in songs of Thanksgiving. The Lord gives his people strength, for he is a safe fortress for his anointed king. Save your people, bless Israel, your special possession, lead them like a shepherd, and carry them in your arms forever. Thank you.

Nick Minnick is an ABC affiliate reporter in D.C. I can't believe he's a reporter for an ABC affiliate or any sort of legacy media affiliates. He's sort of like a one-man band inside the Beltway reporting on these stories of preventable crime. He's also all over the latest incident of... a trans predator in the high schools in Loudoun County. We'll get to that. He dogged Descano after the committee hearing about the Minter case. And by the way, Stephanie Minter, I believe she was 41. She was murdered by this animal. 100 times the police encounter him. Police telling the prosecutor's office, do not release this guy. She was murdered, minding her own business at a bus stop. No rhyme or reason. Nick Minnick on the case of Descano. Didn't you apologize to Stephanie Mentor's mother much sooner? Why did it take a congressional hearing to apologize to her? Where are we going? Why haven't you apologized to Ms. Mentor sooner? Sir, it's been several months since that murder. Why have you not apologized to her sooner? I'm sure. I can't hear you. What is the importance of having the community trust in office to be able to propose? Well, look, we need witnesses to testify. Without witness testimony, we can't prosecute cases. We can't get bad guys off the street. That's our job. So having that trust with the community, that's necessary for us to do our thing. All right, thanks guys. Sir, can you answer the question? When was the first time you have apologized to Ms. Mentor? Was it today? Jenna, do you have an apology for Ms. Mentor? Because you were the prosecutor on the Abdul Jalow case. Thank you. Next up. You don't have an apology for Ms. Mentor? Thank you. We're waiting for a new. Any comments on why you dropped all those charges against Abdul Jalo. Thank you. We're waiting for a new word. Yeah, this is the first time we've been able to ask her questions. Jenna Sands, you were on the prosecutorial team. You were the one those emails were addressed to. Why didn't you take it more seriously? Do you regret? Do you regret dropping these charges against Abdul Jalo? About the evidentiary issues in these specific cases? You don't have any regrets? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I like it. I wish more reporters or, frankly, politicians were as dogged on behalf of Angel families, don't you?

On the matter of Descano and this DOJ probe, it's very interesting. In part because of something Jim Jordan, Representative Jim Jordan noticed, that the policy approach that Descano takes towards the use of his prosecutorial discretion changed recently. Isn't that interesting? Why's your website change, Mr. Descano? This is your campaign website where you said our office will take immigration consequences into account when making charging and plead decisions. Immigration consequences were certainly part of the game here, part of the issue here with Mr. Morales Ortiz. No, they weren't. They absolutely were not. You are assuming something that is not, that is in fact untrue. Because you are misrepresenting my policies. My policies do not say that we do not prosecute people. Well, if you're proud of your policies, why did you change your website? Because that's not my policy. As I told you, sir, that is a campaign statement that I made before I was Commonwealth. It had been up for six years a week after we send you a letter saying we want you to come testify, Shazam. You change it. Because I could not. Is that coincidental? Because I could not believe that people were so obtuse that they could not realize what the difference between a campaign statement and an actual office policy is. So when you make campaign statements, that's not, those aren't true. You're not being honest with your voter. That's not what I'm saying at all, sir. It sure sounded like it. It sure sounded like it. That's absolutely not. What I'm saying is that when you write office policies. You still haven't told me why you took it down. Because I was hoping to come here to talk about my office policies, not be distracted by a campaign statement that was a year before I was actually Commonwealth Attorney General. Attorney General. And had any cases that were mine. This is almost laughable. This is your policy. You said it right here. You told the voters, if you elect me, I will take into account immigration consequences when making charging and plea decisions. This is my policy. Not what you have in your hand. Oh, okay, so what you said to the voters is not real. Doesn't count. No, sir, what I'm saying is that as an office holder, my office is run by my policy. Your sheriff said you wouldn't prosecute. This guy gets released, kill someone the next day. We start asking about it. You change your website and take down the statements that say you're going to take into account immigration consequences when you decide what you are going to charge. He's just so despicable. He's just so despicable. He takes the sanctuary policy approach that the prosecutor can take. You heard it. Jim Jordan read verbatim, the statement. immigration consequences will be a consideration in prosecutorial decisions. That means if this person is going to be deported, I may not pursue charges. That's the translation. And it was up for six years because, I don't know, sloppy. Nobody ever challenged him on it. Oh, he's got a policy that doesn't say that as far as his official policy in the office. Well, whatever your policy says on your website today or six years ago, you know what matters?

is the actual use of your prosecutorial discretion. We just talked about the Stephanie Minter case, the case that Jim Jordan just referred to, 23-year-old illegal from El Salvador, released by Fairfax County prosecutors. Last December 16th, December 17th, he shot and killed a 40-year-old man he lived with. He had a long criminal record in Fairfax County with at least seven prior charges, including a first-degree murder charge in 2021 that Steve Descano office also dropped. He was suspected of being both a member of, well, he was suspected of being a member of MS-13, the El Salvadoran gang. And he also, according to local reports, had a history of mental health issues. That's interesting. So you've got a guy with mental health issues who's affiliated with MS-13 who has had seven prior interactions, including a first-degree murder charge over the last four years. He gets arrested again. You turn him out. And he killed somebody the next day. I know this is like banal for Chicago and Cook County, but in a lot of the rest of the country where civilized people live, this is rather shocking. 312-642-4-2-5600 AlphaWealthgroup.com answer line and text line. You know, it's funny. I was just thinking about that, you know, the story that we brought to earlier, I mean, you know, how desensitized we are in Chicago. The story I brought you earlier this week out of from Judge Beach, you know, the new sitting chief judge, 8% of the 3,048 individuals on electronic monitoring are gone. Well, or more to the point, the chief judge's office don't know where they are, which is like 244 criminals facing most likely felony charges and probably not their first set. Go on. Eight percent. And, you know, the way Beach's office commented on it, it was almost like they were beating their chest. You know, we only have an eight percent disappearance rate. But, you know, we're not stopping there. We're going to try to get it to seven. I mean, that's not what they said, but that was sort of the tone of we're almost bragging about it. This has become a national story. I saw it was getting picked up and talked about all over the place yesterday. People expressing shock. I couldn't bring myself to feign surprise when we talked about it. And I know most of you listening called in. I mean, it's a shoulder shrug, but it really shouldn't be. It's lunacy. Lunacy. Just as this Descano guy's conduct in Fairfax County, Virginia is lunacy. I mean, again, the consequences, we know it well in a Cook County context, thanks to the reporting of CBWB Chicago, 2020 to 2026 to present, almost 500 people have been killed. Well, let's put it this way. They've been victimized. They're the not horrible series that CWB Chicago has been doing for the last six years.

starting when Tim Evans essentially instituted the Safety Act before it was actually state law. Nearly 500 people have been victimized by somebody awaiting felony, awaiting trial on felony charges, who was out on electronic monitoring, and shot, attempted to kill or did kill somebody while, again. waiting for adjudication on pending felony charges on unrelated matters. That's the consequences. Nearly 500 people gone or whose life has been changed forever in one form or the other physically, mentally both, all preventable crime. Joe in Naperville, you're on Chicago's morning. Yeah, two quick points. When there was that school shooting many years ago, that police officer was prosecuted for dereliction of duty. And so there is some way to pierce the sovereign protection. If this prosecutor is derelict of duty, they should be able to prosecute him in some capacity. And also, they talk about following his policy. When does this policy trump law? I just don't get that. If there's a law in the book, how does he just be able to come up with a new policy to trump that? Thanks for the call, Joe. I mean, in terms of dereliction duty, I mean, the way to go after this is the way that the Department of Justice is looking at it through the prism of a civil rights, federal civil rights violation, which is to which there are criminal penalties attached. Dan Proff, Chicago's morning answer. 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. And learn all about this great bank, 773-467-5630, or visit them online at SignatureBank. Bank. Bank. That's signature bank. Signature bank makes commercial banking personal. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560. The answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. The L.A. Mayors race getting more and more interesting with each passing day. Catherine McPhee Foster and David Foster hosting Spencer Pratt at their Brentwood home for a fundraiser. Very tony. And she serenaded him with just simply the best, better than Karen Bass, a little play on words in the Tina Turner classic there. But that's nothing in comparison to yet another. new campaign song. And again, this thing that's fascinating about Spencer Pratt's race and probably political races going forward is that when a candidate catches fire the way that Pratt has, no pun intended. You, because of the AI, I mean, you have creative people that can produce really helpful content. like campaign songs and ads, independent of the campaign. I don't even think it can be considered an in-kind contribution. People are just posting their artistic interpretation of the, in this case, Pratt candidacy or artistic commentary on the performance of the incumbent. Karin Basura. So this one is a parody song of the Everything.

the Lego movie song. Everything is great or whatever it was. Well, this is a parody as you'll hear. Everything is awful. Everything is hell when you're part of the scene. Karen Bass is awful. And burning down our streets. Dirty needles, human waste. We just named two awful things stolen. car a burned down house you know what's awful everything mom's in shock hit the locks a camp of addicts down the block lots of tents a very big mess awful things are not the best camps traps and crap they're awful crack smack and shacks they're awful pretty damn good, isn't it? 312-642-2-5600, the AlphaWealthgroup.com, the answer and text line. Pretty, pretty, pretty good. Yeah, everything is awesome. Couldn't think of it. It was the Lego song that that's parody. That's weird Al Yankovic quality, that parody song. And the video associated with it is great, too. So it's generate, Pratt's candidacy is generating all these. contributors. It's really something to behold. And it's because of exactly what that song referenced in part. We talked about previously when tackling this race. He is on the job in a way that the incumbents, plural, are not. Going around the city and just documenting what is versus what they tell you it is, what actually is, which does a couple of things. One is this shouldn't be this way. Two is it's perfectly identifiable and easily fixable if you have any sort of concern about stewarding the city. For example, this is a new one he just posted. It's very simple. He's filming. outside of one of the parks in LA, one of the city parks, one of Karen Bass's parks. This is, that's Karen Bass's park right here. Look at this. And that's an encampment where all the fentanyl addicts and dealers just posts up next to it. And then that's the park. That's where it's where.

It's just showing it where there's just garbage and, yeah, I mean, it's just panning around the park. It's terrible. Nobody's there because, of course, as he said, it's a drug haven for addicts. And it's in disrepair and there's all kinds of garbage everywhere. And it's just like we did the video of the one bridge where the lights were out. It's just basic stuff like that. All of this money. and one catastrophe after another, basic services that are not provided, and the beautiful lies, they tell you that belie the reality you live. I mean, it's a fairly straightforward formula. And, boy, he's getting to it, isn't he? George and Naperville, you're on Chicago's morning answer. Yes, Stan, I think the formula is working. What he's saying is don't let your lying eyes deceive you. L.A. is not a lady anymore. L.A. story. Thanks for the call, George. Yeah. And the flip side from the old Soviets? Well, you've heard from Karen Bass. She's very concerned about the violent images and some of the social media offerings from the Pratt campaign or from Pratt supporters. Pratt also just made fun of Nithya Raman, the council human who's also running. She was proposing a regulation on backyard barbecues on red days, you know, where it's particularly combustible in the area. And so she wanted to come in and. have the city council considered an ordinance to regulate barbecues. And so Pratt is parroting this with, by, you know, barbecuing outside on a grill. And the point is the silliness, I mean, you know, the silliness of it all. That they have missed the forest for the twigs all the time and usually on purpose. And they come up with ways to just be more meddlesome to no point in your life. She, by the way, has withdrawn that proposed ordinance from consideration. The ridicule of the political class that Pratt and Pratt supporters are inflicting is so good. And it shows you the power of it. Beating that drum for a long time. Bob and Buffalo Grove. Good morning, Dan. I always go to talking to you. Did I hear correctly that Bass wants to drop out of the debate? Will it be a debate? Another debate? I don't think so. That's what I read as well, that Bass is not interested. And I can understand why. Thanks for the call, Bob. If I was, God forbid, somehow managing Bass's operation, she has the controlled vote. She has the government union vote. And that combined with the dyed in the wool reds in L.A. gets her probably across the finish line. Well, it gets her very close, as we talked about yesterday, the polling that was out, Emerson College poll that had the race 30, 22, 19 with Pratt at 22. But there again, so Karen Bass has got 30% of the vote. Nithya Raman has 19%.

49% that's your government unions and your dyed in the wool Marxist revolutionaries and they're useful idiots. 49%. So it's a big lift, but I don't know. There's something. We'll see. He makes the runoff and we'll see if you can keep up this momentum over the long hot summer and into the fall. But I don't know. This has a feeling of something very different than what the Republican Party effectively. I mean, it's not like he came from the Republican Party. I know he's affiliated with and votes Republican. But it wasn't like he was recruited. This is some poor party operation. This was obviously completely independent of any party structure. And that's the appeal he's making as well as he did in that all-in podcast as he did on the debate stage as well. But I got to say, you know, the situation in L.A. under Karen Bass is not going to get any better over the summer into the fall, into November. And so Spencer Pratt just needs to continue what he's doing, documenting it and providing that alternative and making it. about what he has said, what we have talked about, the common sense counter-revolution, that's what he's doing in L.A. with particular theatrical style and it's working. Now, I don't know what his ceiling is, but I think we're going to find out. I hope it's at least 50% plus one. Roger Southside. Hey, happy Friday, Dan, always the best show. Maybe you could play a professor here with the L.A. thing. How have we come in the United States with places like L.A., where we figure in 70, 80% of these major cities, all have African-American women? in place of power, whether it be the county board, whether it be the mayors, governors, a good majority of their Democratic U.S. House reps. I mean, this plan was put together. I hate to say, you know, I didn't see it coming over 40 years yet. I know you've been ringing the bell for a long time as long as I've been following it. But, I mean, you know, this is bad. And like you said, as far as LA's thing in a short term, no, that's not getting any better. Like Chicago is not getting any better. No. We digress by the minute here. But, man, this plan has been damn successful over, I mean, because. You know what? They're running the tables in all the areas that they want to push on there. And the pure Marxist agenda. I mean, am I wrong? No, you're not wrong. Thanks for the call, Roger. I mean, it's not about black women. It's about neo-Marxism. And the government unions have been pushing that. I mean, separating police. And to some extent, only some, the fire unions.

And, you know, like the teamsters to an extent, you know, operating engineers that also have bargaining units in government, but much less so. You know, I'm talking about the big three. The teachers, first and foremost, the Purple People beaters, SEIU, and AFSCME. That's who we're talking about. That's who controls these cities. And in some cases, like Illinois, the entire state. And everybody else is just spare parts to be used or discarded based on their needs. But I mean, it's an identitarian thing in part because that's how you put together the solidarity and marginality coalition. Everybody's marginalized, right? Everybody's a victim. Now we all get together. which is why you have people that don't actually have anything in common and have some real disagreements sort of uncomfortably stitched together in this coalition. And with some dust-ups that occur, like between second-wave feminists and trans activists, one not thinking the other is pretending to be a woman is the same thing as a woman, for example. But, I mean, you have Karen Bass. Yeah, you got Brandon Johnson. You got Zohran Mamdani M. Donnie. You got Katie Wilson. She's a honky in Seattle. It's all the same program. I have been beating this drum for a long time because I've been saying for a long time, you can move these people around to a different city. And it wouldn't be any different. If you flipped out Brandon Johnson for Katie Wilson and Chicago, Seattle wouldn't change and neither would Chicago. Right? So they misdirect people with the Identitarian game. Because the policy game is the same everywhere they are. And it's these ciphers for the public sector unions, the public sector, the government unions, that big three, that's the boss. You want to, that top of the pyramid? That's the top of the power structure. That's the top of the pyramid. Not the front men and women they put out. They're interchangeable. Tom in Blue Island. Hey, Tom. Tom and Blue Island. Tom in Blue Island. Okay. We tried, Tom. Dan Proff, Chicago's morning answer. It's news, opinion, insight. This is Chicago's morning answer. On AM 560, the answer. Top of the morning, Dan Propp here. You know, it is just about golf season in Chicagoland. April and May are so unreliable. And I wanted to direct people's attention to this guy. I think we've... Probably played a cut from him before. But this guy is really good. On Instagram, Tom J. Stewart is his handle. And he does this if, you know, regular golfers had post-round press conferences like the pros, how would they go? And there's some really funny stuff, for example, on whether a high handicapper like him.

needs a range finder. Tom, does a 25 plus handicap or really need a $600 range finder? No, I think we answered that today. You know, the range finders right up there with the zero torque potter, right? It's fun toy to have, but if anything, it's a detriment to the game. It's not very applicable to my game. You know, my forearm goes anywhere from 63 to 197 yards, so not a lot of help there. Listen, I think we've come to the conclusion now. We've collected enough data to determine conclusively that, you know, the more information I have pre-shot, the worst is going to turn out. You know, it's whether it's yardage or hazards to avoid or where to aim. You know, it all just gets in between the years and really muddies the water. And plus, I don't even, I don't know how to work it. You know, to be honest with you, I got 115 yards there on 12, and then I heard buddy say 197. So I'm not even sure what I even gunned could have been a sprouting sugar maple, maybe an American elm, some sort of passwood. I know this course is known for its aboral diversity. But I couldn't tell it because it was so blurry. And I couldn't get it not to be blurry for more than half a second, which led to a pretty bad migraine there. So, yeah, listen, golf's a tough game, right? You know, you've got to adapt. And I'm happy that we've got a tea time set up for tomorrow morning, 932, and we'll get out there and we'll get drunk. Yeah. You know, there's some places where those infernal rangefinders are not allowed, like Bradgrove, Cadding, Chicago Golf, and the rangefinders. You got to walk it. And back in the day, there's the markers, they're colored, you know, they're colored red and so on and so forth. But they, there's no yardages. So you had to memorize the yardage book when cadding was for real men back in the day. It was a real job, supposed to just being able to lounge around by a cart. and watch guys try to figure out how to use their range finder and hit their forehand anywhere between 63 and 197 yards. This is the morning show. More Chicago radio listeners are choosing. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM-560, The Answer. Only the biggest stories. Only the biggest guests, and only the biggest opinions. This is AM-560, The Answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Croft here. Some updating on the remapping that's going on in earnest, in particular across the south. Court upheld the Louisiana map, the remap, which would if, you know, the percentages in the distributed in these, I think it's half a dozen districts in Louisiana, hold up, would add a, has the potential. likelihood to add one Republican to the congressional delegation by subtracting one Democrat. South Carolina, we had a problem with the Senate, the Republican leader of the Senate there, Thomas Massie. But the South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has come over the top and called a special session to circumvent any Senate Republican obstruction and pass a map that would. probably imperil Jim Clyburn's continued service in Congress and make it a 70 congressional delegation Republican in South Carolina. Now, the flip side is, Tate Reeves, the governor of Mississippi, canceled the special session that was to be called. to pursue the same process there, much to the chagrin of Republicans inside and outside Mississippi. So there's an issue there. And in terms of the discussion about a remap in Georgia, I believe at present that is with an eye towards post-midterm elections. So anyway, just trying to keep everybody up to date. The net net is that the Republicans' position has improved substantially over the last several weeks, I mean, starting a few months ago, but really over the last several weeks in the wake of the Calais decision by the Supreme Court appropriately decided to end these racist gerrymandering business. Something else, though. came out of President Trump's sit down with Cheryl Ackison that we had discussed a bit towards the beginning of the week before he left for Beijing. He noted on True Social that Chuck Schumer, Paliachi Chuck Schumer and Mark Elias, who was an election attorney and... operative for the left, he was instrumental in the Russian collusion hoax, that they have put together a group that is hell-bent on trying to manipulate the election. This is what he wrote in part. Mark Elias, a terrible lawyer with a horrible track record, is also involved? This is the same disgusting individual responsible for the fake Russia dossier from a foreign nation to medal in the 2016 election. The Democrats are totally inhinged and we will not allow them to threaten the integrity of our elections. And he said...

that Republicans had an election integrity army in every single state in 2024 to preserve the sanctity of each legal vote. We will be doing the same again in 2026, but it will be much bigger and stronger, noting this problem they anticipated or this coming together on the left that they anticipated with respect to the elections. And then, you know, the pursuit of trying to... project on to Trump what they are doing in terms of political skullduggery surrounding elections by raising the boogeyman of, is he going to have ICE officers at polling places, which of course prompts the question. If you're not in this country illegally, and thus you're not voting illegally, why would you care if there's an ICE officer at a polling place or not? Anyway, for more on all of this under the umbrella election integrity, pleased to be joined again by Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at Advancing American Freedom. Hans, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Yeah, thanks for having me. Listen, I think one of the most important things for your listeners to know, because they are not going to get this from the left stream media, as Russia used to call it. You have all these folks, New York Times, and NBC, etc. They're all saying that the Supreme Court... gutted the Voting Rights Act in the Louisiana versus KLA decision. No, that is completely false. What they did is they returned it to its original intent and stopped the abusive misuse of it that's been going on. What I mean by that is, look, the Voting Rights Act passed in 65. said, you cannot engage in intentional racial discrimination in the voting context. At the time it was passed, look, black Americans were being kept registering to vote. They were being kept out of polling places all over the south. That ended decades ago. So what the left did, Democrats did, is they started instead using it in the redistricting process to claim that, well, if you don't guarantee the success of candidates picked by black voters why you're diluting their votes. And what the Supreme Court said is, no, you can only use race. as a remedy to draw districts if you can prove that there is currently racial discrimination going on in a state. That totally sinks the Democrats because that kind of discrimination that requires, that ended decades ago. There isn't any currently. And in fact, in the Louisiana case, a lot of people don't realize this.

The judge who told Louisiana, you have to create a second black majority district, what was the evidence of the racial discrimination going on in, the state of Louisiana that the plaintiffs brought in, you know, the NAA to be and others? It was from 60 years ago. Yeah, from before the Voting Rights Act was passed because they didn't have any current evidence. Right. I mean, and we've gone through this and we'll have to go through this again and again because it just doesn't matter. You're going to continue hearing. I mean, it doesn't matter in terms of what you're going to hear from the left. You're going to continue to hear commentary like this from Hakeem Jeffries. Because we know this unprecedented assault on black political representation, the likes of which we have not seen since the Jim Crow era, the ghosts of the Confederacy. has afflicted the United States Supreme Court majority. Yeah, you know, the ghost of the Confederacy, Jim Crow 2.0, that's going to be rinsed and repeated from now till November and then from November to November of 28 and in perpetuity until they're so punished at the ballot box that they change their tag. Well, even then, they probably won't do it. But like I said, that is the most important point of what that case said. You're going to bring a claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? It's got it based on current discrimination, and there isn't any of that going on anywhere in the South. In fact, the only people want to discriminate are Democrats. Well, right. But what is going on in the South and the West and elsewhere are cases of voter fraud that persist and this against the backdrop of a Save America Act that is lying dormant in the Senate. Well, that is correct, which is why, unfortunately, I mean, one of the things I've been, I'm recommending, you'll never get this in places like Illinois, but in places like Georgia and Texas, you can, states ought to. pass their own versions, state versions, of the SAVAC. Now, that would only partially solve the problem. Because of some bad prior case law, they could only apply the proof of citizenship requirement for people voting in state elections, you know, governor or state legislative. They couldn't apply it to anybody voting in federal elections, but... Solving half the problem is better than not solving it at all. Well, right. I mean, I agree. Now, the flip side is in places like California, you've got a city council member who's proposing to allow illegal immigrants to vote in local elections, as is the case elsewhere. So, I mean, the sanctuary states, the deep blue states, they're pressing hard in precisely the opposite direction.

No, that's correct. And the only thing that has saved that from happening in some places is the older state constitutions. And what I mean by that is, you know, New York City, it passed an ordinance like that, I think, two years ago saying that aliens, whether they're here legally or illegal, who be able to vote in city elections, they were sued. And ultimately, the New York state's highest court said, New York City, you can't do that. Why? Because it violates New York's state constitution. That was the only thing that stopped it. And so, you know, what concerns you with an eye towards the midterms and beyond, you know, Trump pointing out this, whatever the specific effort is between, that includes Chuck Schumer and Mark Elias and, frankly, the usual suspects? You know, what sort of manipulations are you most worried about and how do you think the Trump administration is doing in preparation for any such threats? Well, I do have to say that I expect in many places for the elections to be very close. I mean, I think you may have congressional races come down to a handful of votes deciding who the winner is. And that's where the problem of alien registration and voting could make the difference. And, you know, a lot of people talk about illegal aliens, but... The problem is aliens registering and voting, whether they're here legally or illegally. And, you know, Joe Biden, with his open borders policy, allowed more aliens into the country in a four-year period than we've ever recorded. And that's why Democrats are adamantly opposed to, for example, the SEAB Act in the Senate that would require proof of citizenship. They want aliens to register, to vote, and to not get caught because they think it will help them win elections. And that's my biggest concern. And, I mean, just to put a fine point on it, you co-wrote a piece for the Federalist talking about cases, Colorado, Florida. I think one was another one, Alabama, I'm going from memory. But these are cases, these are actual voter fraud cases. Now, there's a handful of them. So it's just a handful. And, of course, the response is always, well, so you're okay having your vote canceled. And these are the individuals that were sloppy enough to get caught, too. Exactly. You know, it's like with violent crime, it's an indication of a larger problem. We're not getting everybody who's committing these acts. No, that's exactly right. I mean, how are you going to catch these aliens unless they make some dumb mistake when?

States aren't verifying citizenship. You know, when you fill out a registration form as a question, it asks you, are you a U.S. citizen or not? If you answer, yes, they immediately register you, but they don't check whether you answered the question truthfully. I mean, so, you know, I think people are properly skeptical that the Save America Act is going to move in the Senate. John Thune seems to have opened with surrender, frankly. So other than, you know, Save America Act style legislation at the state level as as is feasible, is there anything that you are? wanted to sort of focus the Trump administration's attention on with respect to this question of election integrity? Actually, they've been doing that. Almost all of the prosecutions that have occurred in the last six months of alien for registering and voting have been done by the Justice Department, not local authorities. The prior Justice Department under Biden, under Obama, they didn't do that. They ignored these cases. I'm hoping that there's enough publicity about those kind of successful prosecutions that it acts as a deterrent, that it causes aliens to remove themselves from the voter rolls. Speaking of the voter rolls, that's where I'm going to go next. And I know Harvey Dillon has offered commentary on this intermittently over the last several months. What's your assessment of how the Trump administration is doing, understanding they're not getting cooperation from a lot of deep blue states like Illinois, in obtaining voter data and examining the roles and compelling cleaning of the roles where the local authorities have fallen down on the job? Well, that's been a problem. Now, there's been a lot of publicity about the states fighting in court to prevent handing over those voter rolls. On the other hand, there's, I think, close to a dozen states that voluntarily handed it over. And that's a good thing because what they've been doing, for example, is running those databases, the voter registration list, against... The alien database is maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. And that's how one of the ways you can actually find aliens who are registered in voter. So it's kind of a mixed bag. You know, many of the red states have cooperated. It's all the blue states that are fighting in court against it. And so far, they've been winning in the lower courts. I'm hoping that when it gets up to a higher court. or perhaps the Supreme Court, they'll finally say, well, no, under federal law, you have to provide this data. But that's going to be too late, even if that happens for the midterm elections. Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at Advancing American Freedom, Hans, thanks as always for joining us. Appreciate it.

Sure, thanks for having me. And Hans joined us on the AlphaWealthgroup.com, Anseline. The stories you need to know to start your day. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560, The Answer. Garrett Higo, PGA, it's a major. The South African late for his tea time, two-stroke penalty yesterday. Here's his explanation for why he couldn't get to the tea on time. I always cut it pretty fine. There's a lot of us who do. We don't want to get to the T-box 10 minutes early and be cold. We have to hit it far and straight. It's our job to do that. I don't really think it's my job to be 10 minutes early. So... obviously cut it too fine. I thought I still had a few minutes. I didn't have my watch or my phone on me and my caddy was dropping off my track man. So went to the potting green, hit one pot, and then heard my name and ran down. You showed a lot of resiliency shooting a one under 69 on this golf course after that took place. How proud of you, how proud are you of this round? Yeah, very proud. I mean, I think that's always been a big strength of mine is, you know, fighting. I always stay in the fight. Might not always be pretty, but I felt like my swing and potting has been in a good spot this week. I haven't had the best year so far. So I just try to make good swings, you know, stay in control of what I can control. Like, there's nothing I can do about being late. I've already been, I'm already late. Yeah, he also said, I don't, like, show, I don't feel like I need to show up 10 minutes early. Well, no. I would rather show up 10 minutes early than risk getting a two-stroke penalty out of the gate. I mean, would, uh... Would Gary Player do that? Gary Keego. You've made the switch, and it feels so good. You've switched to Chicago's morning answer on AM 560. The answer. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560. The answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. Before we get into matters of geopolitical importance, text from 6'3, I was standing for 10 minutes, makes you slice, ha-ha. I was referring to the Garrick Higo incident yesterday, the South African golfer who got a two-stroke penalty, the PGA, first round of the PGA, for being late to the T. He said, I don't really feel like I need to get there 10 minutes early. But the makes you slice thing, maybe this was the person who called in last week during the open mic Friday, somebody called in and said, you know, they're slicing and did I have any tips for them to stop the slice? And I did. The way I played this week, I shouldn't be giving advice to anybody. Anyway, I forgot to mention this. Get this in now. I got a response after the show from Gary Groh, who was the pro at Babelink for 35 years, former tour player, great ball striker. He said this, I enjoyed your explanation on how to cure a slice, which was very generous. But he said, that's a generous thing for him to say to my advice. He said, the best way, so listen up, all you cut across the ball. The best way to split, the best way to correct the slice is to split your grip. Put your left hand at the end of the grip and the right hand on the small end of the grip so your hands are split. Take a few small swings and you will see how the swing reacts, no slice. So there's your tour pro endorsed panacea for the slice. All right. Gary Grohl, listen to Gary Groh. Don't listen to me. But at least I got you the answer from a pro. So that should help. Now, you know, what my game needs is beyond probably even the help of Gary Grove. All right, matters more important than that, slightly. President Trump's time with Xi Jinping in Beijing has come to an end, and they offered the customary pleasantries and backslapping and platitudes. But some of the things that Trump said, specifically on Iran, let's focus there. I mean, there were other matters, too, trade matters, which we talked a little bit about earlier in the program. Trump did a postmortem with Sean Hannity on the discussions with Xi Jinping. But on Iran generally, he had some. revised things to say to the present. Now they can make a deal or they get annihilated. I don't want to do that. But we have the greatest military. And, you know, when you do news conferences, you're getting the word out that you're not going to read in the New York Times. And in terms of this ceasefire period, quote unquote. Whatever Iran thinks they have done to try to reconstitute themselves can be undone and he's telegraphing will be undone in a day. They have no anti-aircraft now.

They probably have. I mean, we know everything they've done. They built it up a little bit. We'll take it out in one day. It'll all be gone. I hope they're watching because all of their anti-stuff, anything they put up. We know exactly what they put up. You know, they had a little respite. And so they're trying to get a few things together. They're taking some missiles from underground. We know exactly what they're doing. It'll all be gone in one day. Everything they've done for the last four weeks will be gone in one day. President Trump also said she committed to him that he will not be providing any weapons to Iran and offered help. She would like to see a deal man. He would like to see a deal man. And he did offer, he said, if I can be of any help at all, I would like to be of help. He did say that. Yeah, he did say that. And look, anybody that buys that much oil has obviously got some kind of a relationship with him. But he said, I would love to be a help. If I could be of any help whatsoever, he'd like to see the hormone straight open. He said, if I could be of any help whatsoever, I would like to help. For more on this, Daniel De Petrus joins us, a fellow at the defense priorities, and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune and Newsweek. Daniel, thanks for being with us. Appreciate it. Good morning, Dan. How are you doing? Good. So, I mean, you know, the pomp and circumstance was all very impressive and the two seemed very chummy. But at the end of the day, other than, you know, the concrete trade deals that will either be consummated or not, and those will be easy to measure, either they buy 200 planes from Boeing or they don't, either they buy more soybeans or they don't, all of this other business in terms of what he said and what Trump thinks about what he said. is to be taken with a grain of salt, isn't it? Yes, absolutely. It is interesting that President Trump and President Xi Jinping, you know, got along fairly well on a personal level. But you're right to point out that the lack of tangible agreements here after two days in Beijing is pretty notable. There wasn't anything on Taiwan. There wasn't anything. specific on ending the war in Iran or reopening the street, regardless of what Trump told, you know, Sean Hannity on Fox News. A lot of the president's opponents will probably bash him for not getting agreements with President Xi Jinping. I'll actually argue that they are completely off course and mistaken. I think anybody who expected Chi and Trump to actually sign something tangible was probably setting themselves up for disappointment. That's just not how statesmanship works, particularly when you have two.

adversaries that are, you know, structurally competitive across a bunch of, a bunch of fields economically and politically. Yeah, I mean, what's going to happen, right? I mean, okay, I'm going to sign an agreement that says, I won't send weapons to Iran, and I'll help you open the straight in these ways, and then you're going to sign an agreement that says, I won't interfere when we invade Taiwan. I mean, that's just, I mean, come on. First of all, that's never going to happen. And secondly, if it did, it wouldn't be worth a paper it was written on. Right. Take it all with grain of salt. You know, the Trump administration, you know, going back to the first term, this isn't the first time they've dealt with the Chinese in a substantive way, right? I mean, they had the phase one trade deal back in January 2020 that they signed after over a year of pretty substantial tough negotiations. And it turned out that the Chinese kind of slow roll on implementation and, you know, buying a lot of the agricultural products from American farmers that they committed to. So with China, you always want to kind of do the whole Reagan thing, trust but verify. I think that's true. It really doesn't matter what the Chinese say in public. It matters what they're actually doing and whether they're actually implementing what they agree to on paper. Do you agree with Trump, though, that he believes that she. shares his view that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. Even the Chinese communists who may see Iran as, you know, one of their proxies of convenience for now, I mean, it would make some sense that they would be opposed to a nuclearized Iran in terms of weaponry. Yeah, I think that is true. It's been a longstanding position in China. They are adamantly opposed to Iranian nuclear proliferation as a matter of principle. The question, of course, is whether, you know, China is willing to assist the United States in that effort. Right now, it seems like both countries are sort of working at cross purposes, whereas, you know, the Trump administration is using a substantial amount of economic and military pressure to kind of coerce the Iranians. into giving up their nuclear program, whereas China is more in tune with, you know, providing the Iranians maybe with a degree of indigenous, you know, enrichment that, you know, the world can kind of accept but under strict international protocols and things like that. So I think the United States and China have a similar end goal, but the way they're going about it is substantially, substantially different. There seems to be a lot of argument about... Iran's current wherewithal. Suncom commander Admiral Bradley Cooper said the reports that Iran retained 70 to 75 percent of their ballistic missiles are untrue. Another report said 90 percent of the mines, the estimated mines that were laid by the Iranians have been swept so they no longer pose a threat in the strait.

We give varying estimates of the drone capacity that the Chinese, that the Iranians have left. I mean, um, Do you have a good sense of Iranian wherewithal and who we should believe? I mean, the only thing, because I got into disagreement with somebody who's clearly opposed from American conservative early in this week, someone clearly opposed to this military action in Iran. But, you know, there's intel assessments. There's reporting in one outlet. There's over here. I just go back and look at say, well, what is Iran showed us they have the capacity to do? And at the end of the day, I know they've done some damage in some Gulf states, and there's even varying reports on how much damage they have inflicted. But it just doesn't seem like they have very much capacity. And in point of fact, this is what. Admiral Cooper said in congressional testimony. Capability have been significantly degraded. If I just use my own professional experience and 100 transits through the Strait of Hormuz, you would typically see 20 to 40 fast boats. And lately we've seen two or three. That's a significant reduction. And Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said this about Karg Island and the Iranian oil business. Karg Island. We've seen that there have been no loadings in the past three days. We believe their storage is full. None of the ships are getting out. None are coming in, so they're not able to store oil on the water. So they're going to start shutting down their... They're going to start shutting down their production. I think that they are on their last legs. And the blockade, President Trump's blockade, has been a resounding success. So, I mean, I guess the big question, Daniel, that wraps this all up is, is Iran being slowly and methodically suffocated or not? Well, I mean, there's no question whatsoever that the Iranian economies is hurting. I mean, they rely on a substantial amount of their budget on oil exports, and the best majority of those go through the Strait of Hormuz, which, of course, you know, is blocked by the U.S. embargo, or sorry, U.S. blockade right now. They can sort of deal a little bit with the embargo by using... alternative trade routes like rail lines and things like that to export some of their oil. It's not going to make up for, you know, the 1.5, 2 million barrels of oil that they used to send before the war. But there was a way for the Iranis to sort of chip away at the damage. In terms of military stuff, it's, you know, I'm with you, Dan. I think it's very difficult to know one way or the other because there's so much conflicting information going on. I think if you're a reviewer of a policymaker, you have to assume the worst.

So you have to assume that the Iranians retain, you know, a significant amount of missile capacity and drone capacity. particularly if, you know, if President Trump makes the decision to kind of resume the war after four or five weeks of ceasefire, I think. So I think if you're a policymaker, you can't bet on the rosy scenario. You have to assume that the Iranians have more than what, you know, the generals are telling you. That's my personal take on it. And so then, I mean, so that informs the decision whether or not to. maintain patience, frankly, and let the combination of the blockade and operation, what's the economic version of Epic Fury, economic fury, whatever it is, you know what I'm talking about. Let's let that continue to just whittle down the Iranians. I think that's what the administration is trying to do. You know, Trump is sort of caught between escalating militarily, and I don't think he wants to do that in the end. I think you just wants the blockade to kind of, you know, a trophy of the Iran economy to the point where the IFOs are kind of like sign on the dotted line. I don't know how likely that is. I'm personally of the opinion that the Iranians are far more stubborn than Trump gives them credit for. I think right now the most possible scenario is just continuing what he's been doing for the last several months, which is kind of... you know, put a damper on the Iranian economy long term. I don't think he wants to escalate this any more than it needs to be escalated. And I have a very hard time believing that Trump is actually going to sign what the Iranians want to sign. No, I agree with you there. But I mean, he keeps talking about these targets that have been identified that have not been taken out yet. you know, talking provocatively about that. I'm sure he's trying to draw a reaction. He's not getting much of one. And even if he did get one rhetorically, how can you trust it with the people that you're dealing with? And so, you mean, doesn't, as they say, kinetic action have a place here if you really want to drive the point home and or take out this whatever's left of the, the IRGC leadership? Well, I mean, it depends on what Trump wants to achieve, right? I mean, if he wants to sign a deal that limits the Iranian nuclear program to the point where the world is confident that a bomb is...

outside of the realm of possibility. I think he can do that diplomatically, and he doesn't need to go through further escalation. Although, but I'm sorry to interrupt it, but on that, you know, they've already done the Lucy with the football routine. We're going to turn over the enriched uranium, no, or not. And Trump has said, you know, they're going to turn over, we're going to come and get it. So if they're not going to turn it over, or you can't trust they will. then you got to go get it, apparently. That's what both Benjamin Netanyahu and him have said. Yeah, I mean, first of all, I don't know if the Iranians actually agreed to turn over the urge rate. The Trump says that, but Trump says a lot of things. So I would just call you. But if they didn't say that, then that's even worse. That's even more of a problem. Well, you don't have to turn the uranium over. You can dilute it to a point where it's no longer a threat, and you can put it under IAEA monitors. Right. Yes. The question for me, at least, Dan, is whether Trump is willing to kind of give away certain things that would be hard politically for him to give away. And by that, I mean, you know, full-scale sanctions relief that the Iranians have been demanding for decades. So it's a very hard question for him. You know, what does he want? Does he want to limit the program at a possible political cost or does he want to escalate? and possibly deal with more, you know, economic turmoil on the back end. It's, I don't want to, I'm, it's an unmanvial position for him. I don't want to be President Trump right now. Well, I mean, you know, these things, I mean, as, as he and Marco Rubio have said, I mean, you know, we've allowed this to metastasize for half a century. These things do not come without costs, right? That this is, you know, life is about tradeoffs. And so. There is going to be some pain. You're even talking about pain at the pump. It's not being cavalier about it. It's just he's just being hardheaded, like the reality-based about it. What we're trying to do is not risk-free. Anytime you're trying to do something important, there are risks associated with it. So it's a balancing act and test. That's right. That's a perfect message that people should remember. I mean, every policy decision. is of cost-benefit analysis, right? There's no ideal scenario out there, and I think that the Trump administration has really worked through its options and trying to determine the best course of action as they see fit. Just quickly on another matter, what was your interpretation of John Ratcliffe's visit to Cuba? Yeah, very, very interesting. I think I read this as the first high profile, the senior most profile trip in Cuba since at least a decade. So this tells me one of two things. Number one, the administration is deadly serious about, you know, negotiating with the Cubans in terms of, you know, economic concessions. And it's not a surprise, right? I mean, President Trump has been pretty serious.

pretty adamant that Cuba needs to come to the table and start talking seriously. The other read here is that the CIA director kind of went to Havana and sort of read the riot act to the Cubans cooperate or something more, you know, disaster is just going to happen to you down the line. He may have done both. We don't know. He may have done both. But it is very significant that the CIA director was in Havana, for sure. Yeah, I'd like him back in America because I want him to answer questions about what that COVID whistleblower from CIA had to say in testimony this week. But I digress. Daniel DePetra's fellow at defense priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Tribune, Chicago Tribune and Newsweek. Daniel, thanks as always. Appreciate it. Pleasure, Dan. Thank you. And he joined us on the AlphaWealth Group.com, Ancelain. The more you listen, the more you'll know, this is Chicago's morning answer. Morning answer on AM 560, the answer. Speaking of that COVID whistleblower that we discussed yesterday, former CDC director, Robert Redfield. essentially corroborated his testimony on Newsmax. Take a listen to what the former CDC director had to say about his buddy Tony. Do you have lay any blame on the shoulders of Dr. Anthony Fauci as the whistleblower does? Well, I think he was very accurate when the whistleblower was very careful in his language. He said that Dr. Anthony Fauci was intentional in misleading the American public. And unfortunately, even though he's a colleague and a friend, I think that's true. I think he misled the American public. And I think the reason why the CIA came to the conclusion they did. And the witness said that today is that Anthony Fauci influenced the thinking process of the intelligence community. He didn't influence the FBI because they used their own scientists. And he didn't influence the energy department because they used their own scientists. But the CIA used basically scientists that were referred by Anthony Fauci and others. And I think they had a narrative from the very beginning that somehow this was going to be from... the wet market, which was really, in my view, a ruse from the very beginning to turn the attention away. The scientific community got behind it because the last thing the scientific community wanted was the public to realize that it was really the science that actually led to this pandemic. It wasn't some nature accident. It was science. And I argue that it was scientific arrogance that really led to this whole pandemic. And it's a huge pandemic. It killed over 20 million people. And it caused a lot of harm in our nation economically, a lot of harm to our children. I have 14 grandchildren. A lot of them had their schooling disrupted for years. So it was unfortunate. And I do think the witness was a courageous witness. He was highly credible. Wow. Misled.

Part of a ruse. Yeah, Anthony Fauci is weird science, it turns out. 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. 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. Stop in the morning, Dan Proff here. And our next guest has perhaps had a change of attitude on aging or the aged. I don't know. Dr. Zika Manuel has a new offering out. Eat your ice cream. Six simple rules for a long and healthy life. Dr. Zika Manuel is an oncologist, bioethicist, and vice provost at the University of Pennsylvania, the Quakers. And also he is in town this weekend for the Chicago Humanities Festival on Sunday. We'll get details on that. Dr. Zika Manuel, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. You didn't mention that I'm an old Chicago boy. Well, of course. The Emanuel name, we're familiar with in Chicago. Everybody's familiar with. But yes, I mean, we can start there if you want. So what do you think about your brother running for president? That's a choice for him. I think he'd make a great president if he wins, but that's a choice for him to decide. All right. Are you going to be involved with the effort? When called upon, I respond to my country's call. Okay. All right. Now, wait a second. And we've spoken before. Appreciate you coming back. You were the guy that said, you know, 75 and it's time to shuffle off to your eternal reward. And now you've got six simple rules for healthy living. Yes. I have a philosophy of life, which is I know what hell is. Hell is my body's working great. The heart's pumping. You know, I've got all the muscles working, but my brain isn't. And that, I think, would be utter hell. That would be the worst of all possible worlds. That was the whole point behind the article you're referring to where I didn't say I wanted to die at 75. But I said that, you know, I don't want life-sustaining treatments after 75. But I also said in that article that everyone has to decide for themselves how they want to live their life, what they think is a good life, what they think is a hell that they want to avoid. And this book is about, is written for other, everyone. It's, you know, how whatever your philosophy is, this is how you can live a long, healthy life and make sure your brain is working.

as well as it can for as long as it can. I want to get to the six simple rules because they're kind of fun, actually, and they are pretty straightforward. But one question. So we talked to Yale law professor Sam Moyne yesterday about his new book on the gerontocracy. And I don't know if you're familiar with it, but you know, you're not sure. Oh, you are. Okay. So you understand where he's coming from and he believes that. Essentially, the older Americans are hoarding too much for too long, and we need more redistributionist policies to get younger people, more stuff from them faster. What's your view on the conversation he's trying to drive? Well, my view is we do want to have opportunities for young people. And I do think that there's an important role for old people to play. But I also think there's an important time for them not to dominate. And I think one of the really important things about young people is they're creative. They come up with new ideas. They've got a lot of energy. And we do want to have a situation where older people aren't just hanging on and boxing out younger people. And I do think, you know, fundamentally that one of the challenges of people living a long life. And so I agree with them. I think that it's quite clear we've had in Congress people who are not mentally functioning well. and still holding jobs. We actually had a Republican Congresswoman from the South. I forget whether it was Alabama or Texas or somewhere. That was actually in an assisted living facility because her mind wasn't there, still serving in Congress. Well, same thing with DyeFi in California, right? Oh, I thought that was a mistake, too. And, you know, what wins there is not the public good. What's good for the country. What wins there is partisanship. And that, I think, is one of the biggest problems and something we, you know. have to really get over if we're going to have the country going forward. It's, you know, it's, it's, I mean, it's, you know, it's just complicated to make policy in that, uh, in that direction, isn't it? Because, I mean, for example, there's a good book that Rich Carlgard wrote a few years back. He was the publisher for us for a while called late blooms. Late bloomers. And he talked about all the great entrepreneurs who didn't get it together and, you know, found a successful company brand names that we know like Colonel Bernie Sanders and Kentucky Fried Chicken until they were into their 50s and some late 50s. So, you know, they're still creative. You know, you don't have to be a tech bro in your 20s to be creative.

Excuse me, 50s is not 70s, 80s, and 90s. No, I know. But... Those are very different years, and the gerontocracy is referring to people who are over 65, if I'm not mistaken. And that's a very different situation. Look, I'm a big expert in Benjamin Netanyahu Franklin. He's one of my heroes. I'm actually just about to go speak about him right after this radio interview. He's a guy, you know, everyone says, oh, he invented... You know, bipocals. He was 79 when he invented bifocals. Absolutely true. There can be brilliant people. Let me just say one thing. They tend to be outliers. And you can count them on your hand. And you can name a few of them. That doesn't make them the norm. And I think we should, we got to play to the norm. We have to have rules and policies for the norm, not for the exceptional one or two people like Benjamin Netanyahu Franklin. Well, you like to leave room for the exceptional, don't you? You know, I mean, and by the way, by the way, those, you know, some we can leave room for them, but that shouldn't be, that shouldn't guide us. When someone says, oh, but, you know, my aunt Sally was 93 and perfectly competent, you know, it is true. I was just reading about Alexander Hamilton's wife, Eliza, who was 93 and sharp as attack according to everyone, okay? That isn't the norm and we should not make rules for society based upon the norm or expect. that to be the norm. Well, I mean, just a point on the 50s, not being the 70s. I get it, but I'm talking about people who started companies in the 50s and had to work for a while to bring the company to fruition. So they were well into their 60s and beyond when they found success, too. So I hear what you're saying, but I just, you know, just point of order on that. All right, let's talk about your six simple rules. I like the first one. Don't be a schmuck. That's a good rule for healthy living. Perfect. Yes. Don't do stupid things. Don't take unreasonable risks. We know lots of these rules, right? Don't smoke. Don't vape. It might be safer than smoking, but it's still not safe. You know, one of my favorites is don't climb Mount Everest, right? Lots of people is, I want to climb Mount Everest. Well, it turns out that that's about the smuckiest thing you can do. The chance of dying while climbing Mount Everest is one in a hundred. And if you're over 59, it's one in 25. What's that? Why would you do that? Why would you even think about doing that? Okay. You also sort of provide a bit of a critique or maybe just details in terms of sort of this, you know, wellness living movement. What, you know, what wellness living, how you should conceive of that? Yeah, look, wellness has got to be an integral part of your life. It's got to be a habit. And a lot of the movement today is about self-denial and about punishment and obsessing about things. Wellness is not the goal of life. It's a means to a goal. And one of the problems I have with all the wellness influencers is they make it the whole goal of life. And that is a big...

in my view, a very big mistake. So you have to have wellness. You have to make it something you enjoy doing because you're going to be doing it day after day for decades if you're really going to be serious. You can't just say, oh, I'm going to do wellness. I'm going to go alcohol free in January, and that's going to be my wellness. That's not the way wellness works. And so you have to, it can't be self-denial, self-punishment. You don't have willpower to do that for 40 or 50 years. And it has to be part of your life that you forget about and focus on the important things. You know, what's your, how you're caring for your family, how you're caring for your community. Those are the important things in life. And on exercise, then, I mean, you know, getting moving and staying active, that doesn't necessarily mean like, you know, intensive CrossFit training and triathlons. You don't have to, you know, you don't have to go to extremes. Absolutely. One of the most important points I make in the book about exercise is that there's a plateau that actually doing more is not going to be beneficial in terms of reducing your mortality risk, and it's only going to expose you to the chance for injury. So you need to get a sweet spot, and it turns out that's not 10 hours a week. It's about two and a half to five hours a week, and that's really the sweet spot. For most of us now, you want to do an Ironman? Okay, do an Iron Man. I'm not sure that would be the focus of my life, the most meaningful thing I could find with my time. But if that's what you're obsessed by, then you know, you want to go to a tree. But from a health and longevity standpoint, from a wellness standpoint, that's not absolutely not necessary, not part of the agenda at all. What you need is about 75 to 150 minutes a week, which turns out to be a little more than an hour to two and a half hours per week of exercise. And that can be everything from, you know, risk walking, riding a bike, swimming, dancing, if you like to dance. So there are plenty of possibilities here. Palat. I do. Your heart rate up and your lungs, you're breathing up faster. I do Pilates. Does that count? Yeah, absolutely. So I have a whole thing in there about yoga and balance and flexibility. Absolutely. And if in Pilates you're getting your heart rate and blood pressure up, I, 20 minutes this morning and then five minutes of strong core exercise, I did it too. And now I understand from reading about the book that you're a cyclist? I'm a big bicyclist, yes. Please tell me you don't get dressed up in one of those Tour de France costumes when you bike ride.

I won't tell you that I don't because I do. Okay, all right. I usually go out. So I go out when I, you know, I can do short distances about 15 miles in an hour, but I will do, you know, two hours on a weekend, go about 40, sometimes 50 miles. And I'm going pretty fast, close close, 17, 18 miles an hour. So, yeah. Oh, all right. But I mean, are you with one of these posseys of bike riders or are you flying solo? You're riding solo? They're called peloton. And I usually go with my wife. No, I don't. Oh, okay. I'm not a posse. I'm not a posse kind of guy. Okay. Well, but wait a second. We're not really posse people. Yeah. Okay. Fair enough. But one of the things you say is that you've got to be socially. You've got to do things with people. Yes. Absolutely. You have to do things with people. And my favorite thing to do with people is I like to have dinner parties. So I took a nice meal, very healthy meal, make sure there are lots of fruits and vegetables. And I have people over for dinner and usually goes for two and a half or three hours. That actually is one of the things I like the most to do. And I call, you know, a dinner party a trifecta, a wellness trifecta because... You're challenging your mind if you're making new dishes. You're eating well. And you have social interaction. So absolutely. And I assume those dinner parties are punctuated with ice cream for dessert because you say eat ice cream. Sometimes they are punctuated with ice cream dessert, almost invariably they're punctuated with chocolate at the end because I make chocolate and I like chocolate and chocolates also good for you. But yes, ice cream is good for you. And, you know, again, you shouldn't just deny yourself good things because you think they're bad. It turns out that if you look at the research, ice cream is actually associated with a decrease in your risk for diabetes and other... problems. It's a dairy product and it turns out to be good for you. Can I ask you one policy question? You can ask me whatever you want. It's your time. I'm here to serve. Oh, okay. Thank you. Well, you know, Obamacare. When you've been on before, we've previously talked about Obamacare. And, you know, it continues to be full of complications. I don't know if you saw the journals editorial on Obamacare, but. This is a pertinent part, and I want to get your reaction to it. When selling Obamacare, Democrats claim their new entitlement would be financed by increasing taxes on the rich, and the bill would be paid for by making sure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share. But that didn't happen. The 3.8 tax on net investment income and 0.9% Medicare surtax on earned income kick in at 200 grand for singles, 250 for couples.

Even in 2010, those levels could hardly be considered wealthy. But as inflation has pushed up incomes, most folks who now pay the taxes are solidly middle class. Part of the affordability issue that is being bandied about in the political realm is part of it's associated with the cost of housing. The big part of it is associated with Obamacare premiums. I would say that's totally und. I mean... There's a lot of different factors in there. Let's just make a few things very clear. Obamacare saved the country a fortune between roughly 2009 and 2023, 2024. Healthcare costs as a percent of the GDP was flat. did not increase above 17.5%. That is largely due to Obamacare, and that was very, very important. In addition, there's data that Medicare premiums and prices have stayed flat, saving the country $4 trillion that went to reduce the deficit and other things that Democrats get no credit for. Now, that didn't happen. because of some policies that the Republicans put in place. That happened because of the Affordable Care Act and changes we made. Now, after 15 years, we've had 15 years where the Republicans have not permitted any revision of Obamacare. I have constantly tried to repeal it with no replacement. And then they say, wow, it's got all these problems. What company that you know puts in place a strategic plan walks away for 15 years or has internal carping and attacking on that strategic plan and then says, oh, it didn't succeed as well as we would have wanted? Of course it didn't. No one puts in a plan like that without interim revisions, identifying problems that weren't anticipated and solving them. We haven't done that. And that's been one of the biggest problems in my opinion about... You know, now 15 years after we passed Obamacare, 16 years, saying, oh, it wasn't perfect. I agree it wasn't perfect. Do we need reform today? Absolutely. But to say that Obamacare is the reason we have unaffordable health care today is clearly a mistake. Just not factually correct. All right, you'll get the last word. I want to have you back to talk more in depth about Obamacare, but let's, you know, we'll accentuate the positive about your healthy living advice for today's session. Dr. Dr. Zika. I hear you're taking the philosophy at the heart, and you're going to adopt it and have ice cream this evening. For the most part, yes. I mean, especially the ice cream part. That's the easy part. Dr. Zika Emmanuel is an oncologist, a bioethesis, and a vice provost at the University of Pennsylvania. The new book.

Eat your ice cream, six simple rules for a long and healthy life. Dr. Emmanuel, thanks for joining us. Appreciate your time. Thank you for having me. It's always a pleasure to be on and set you straight. Yes. Okay. And he joined us on the alphawealthgroup.com answer line. 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 Profft on AM 560. The answer. Top of the morning, Dan Profft here. Our next guest wrote a really interesting piece. That's an excerpt from his book over at real clear markets.com. Pitting the gambler against the academic statistician. Very interesting. And what the theorist and the practitioner tell us about markets and the asymmetry of information. Aaron Brown is a longtime risk manager in the hedge fund space. The book just released Wrong Number, How to Extract Truth from a Blizzard of Quantative Disinformation. Aaron Brown, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Great. Thanks. Good to be here. Okay. So you frame this, some interesting questions around this conference, I guess, that started back in the... in the 1980s, which is no longer, that brought those two sort of cohorts of individuals together for a discussion on, well, math and markets. I guess, you know, provide that backdrop for us so we get to the fundamental questions. Sure, and the conference went back to the 1970s. 70s, Elton Reno, Las Vegas. And we had advantage gamblers. So these are people like Ed Thorpe, the guy who invented blackjack card counting, and other people who make their living in sports betting and casino betting. And many of us actually migrated to finance afterwards where they put down more money and get richer faster. But it also brought in mathematicians, economists. It brought in people who treat problem gamblers, casino executives, regulators, all kinds of people. It's still going on, by the way, but you don't find the advantage of gamblers there anymore. Okay. You see the only place you could find them. And there was this class divide between people who actually bet on their predictions and people who published papers they wouldn't bet a nickel on. And this, you know, we've managed to fresh out a lot of things. And we learned from each other, right? The people betting actually learned that, you know, the academics were smart and they did know a lot of stuff, but they just didn't have the gene that said, you know, I really believe what I'm writing and therefore I'll bet on it. Was Doyle Brunson ever there?

Doyle Brunson was in town. He was not of this. Sorry, he was, you know, he's a poker player. He's not a gambler. He's not a mathematician, Benny. Yeah, right. Yeah. Or the blackjack cow counters that bring in down the house guys from MIT, right? The blackjack card counters are there. Again, MIT was a different crowd. They never, we never met any of the MIT people there. They were more process-oriented. You know, I mean, you think they come from MIT, so they're all math guys. They're not, actually. They're people who practiced really hard on systems that were invented by Ed Thorpe and other people. Okay, but... So why bring these two groups of individuals together? What was the thesis or the hypothesis behind the productive results that would ensue? Bill was a really interesting, Bill Eddington, the guy who started the conference professor at Reno, who unfortunately died about 10 years ago. He had a really interesting idea, which is that academics should bet on their results if they really believe them, and they should meet people who bet on their results. And also that we should talk to regulators and casino executives and, you know, everybody else involved in the industry. And it's very productive. We all learn from each other quite a bit. But the biggest difference was, you know, the people who really believe their findings, they were paying their mortgage with the profits from betting on these things and the people who wrote papers and would never bet a nickel on anything. And, you know, what did each group learn from the other, you know, sort of fundamentally? Yeah, well, what we learned is, you know, some of these academics were really smart, and they had lots of great ideas. They had lots of bad ideas, too, and they didn't know the difference. The academics, and by the way, that's the whole premise of the book, that there's a lot of great studies out there that tell you useful things, and there's a lot of total nonsense that the authors of the study wouldn't bet a nickel on. What some of them learned was that. And some of them became hedge fund managers. Some of them became advantage gamblers. Some of them, you know, just went on to use the stuff they had been working on. Some of them, I'm sorry to say, didn't learn anything. They just went on publishing their papers and denying that anybody could beat the market. Interesting. And you did your own sort of... empirical study experiment in the advantage gambling space betting on football. Why did you bet in the NFL? Why did you, why did you do that and what did you learn?

Okay, so this is back in 2006, and an ESPN producer by the name of Bruce Beiner came to the conference, and he saw this debate that had been going on for decades at that point, and he said, well, I want to do a documentary, and I want to see if the professors or the advantage gamblers are better at feeding NFL lines. So... So I built a system, a very simple system based on public data, completely disclosed, published on the Internet, and bet real money every week for, you know, 17 years or so, to prove that it's actually pretty easy to beat these NFL lines. It's not something you need a genius thing. You don't need a complicated system. You don't need inside information. You just need a simple disciplined... approach to bedding. And this is something all the professors denied. They said if you want to beat it, you need inside information. You need these incredibly complicated models. and so on. I will say, by the way, there's a warning here. It's not hard to come up with picks that can beat the bookies. What's hard is to get somebody to keep writing you checks when you keep winning money. So that's the tricky part of that. But I did manage to do it. And for 17 years, I proved, yeah, the system makes steady profits. Now, it's not going to make you a billionaire. I think I made $12,000 or something over 17 years from the system. It's not something you're going to live on. But it's easy. That's the point. Anybody can do it. It doesn't take a statistics degree. You don't have to know anything about football. And unfortunately, the documentary never got made. Bruce Biner died, and apparently nobody in NEPCN was interested in actually producing the thing. But it would have been a great documentary if they ever did it. Can you work on college basketball because I'm flailing the last couple of years? And so I need some support. So one of the questions back and forth between these two groups, the gamblers and the academics, you know, if you can beat the house, if you can win 55% of the games and beat the house, then, you know, why aren't you a billionaire? And the response was what? to the academics. Yeah, the responses that these things don't scale. That, yeah, I could put down $100 bets for 17 years and make $12,000. If I tried to put down $10,000 bet, I would have been cut off in year one. By the way, that's why most of us moved into finance, because in finance you can put down, you know, $10 million bets. But the edges are smaller. You know, an NFL betting is pretty easy. In finance, it's a little harder, but much larger stakes means you can become a billionaire.

I'm doing it. And it's exactly the same technique. And it's exactly the same way of looking at it. I spent 35 years on Wall Street making money off of other people's wrong numbers. And when I retired, I started doing a video series for reason, taking exactly the same things I did in finance, but applying them to gun control, the climate change, the minimum wage. all of these different issues and just saying, look, there's a lot of wrong numbers out there, and they're easy to spot. You know, you don't need a statistics degree. You don't need inside information. You don't have to read these jargon-filled papers. You just look at the thing and say, this number just can't be right. One of the studies I talked about in the book, it says USAID saved $91 million lives over since 2002. And that's more than the entire decline in global mortality. It's saying USAID, which is less than 8% of total foreign aid, prevented more than 8% of all global deaths. I mean, why is anybody dying if that's true? So you just look at the number and say, okay, this is ridiculous, but it gets published in the most prestigious medical journal in the world. It gets amplified by Washington Post, New York Times, Bloomberg. NPR. And it's just clearly absurd on its face. And all you've got to do is apply the same skepticism to a number like that as you would did somebody trying to sell you a mutual fund. And the flip side is the gambler's response to the academics, if your closed system models are so reflective of reality, you know, explain the way a market works, then why are you so poor? And their response was what? Yeah. You know, it was that the question is rude. You're asking, you know, about, you know, a shoddy, steady thing like gambling, and I'm a noble academic, you know, only interested in truth and philosophy. But, you know, it's exactly the same thing. An Aristotelian philosopher in medieval times would have told Francis Bacon when Francis Bacon said, you know, why don't you count the number of teeth in a horse instead of arguing about it? You know, it's just a refusal to connect their work with reality. And, I mean, it's very hard to explain, but we have an entire system of, you know, government experts, journals of academics. And again, most of these people are smart, and most of these people want to find out the truth, but they're just afraid to bet on their results. And you just can't trust somebody who's afraid to bet on what they say. Well, it's like, I mean, since COVID is in the news again this week, per that whistleblower's testimony, it's like the modeling that we had on mortality rates at the outset of COVID. And so many of those that were relied on and taken as gospel to inform public policymaking, certainly at the front end of the pandemic, turned out to be so wildly wrong. And thus.

perhaps those policy choices that were based upon those flawed models were also wildly wrong. Yeah, and by the way, David Zweig has a great book about this called Out of an Abundance of Caution, or an Abundance of Caution is the title of the book. And listen, at the start of the pandemic, we really didn't know anything, and the public health officials had to make some guesses. And they had no alternative. They had to guess. And you can totally forgive any mistakes they made at that point. But the thing is, they never updated, you know, as evidence came in to prove these things were wrong. It wasn't just they were, you know, doing untested stuff or unproven things. They were actively pushing very costly policies, both in terms of civil rights and in terms of money, that were proven wrong, that other countries were, you know, proving every day we're just not working. And nobody questioned it. You know, it just, it, or I mean, the people who questioned it were censored, were suppressed. And, and some of them, right. Right now, some of those people turned out to be wrong, too. I'm not saying that, you know, the public health officials are idiots and the critics were all geniuses. But nobody was interested in looking at the information. Nobody was interested in debating it. And some of the most damning stuff in David Zieg's book. which is a great book, too, not just, you know, you should buy mine, but you should buy his, too, is that these people had no idea. He talked to some insiders from Andrew Cuomo, and Andrew Cuomo was getting, you know, great press all over for being the most activist governor about the thing. And he said, nobody, it never even occurred to anyone in his inner circle to ask, does this stuff work? Is there any science? They had no scientists. They had no interest in science. They didn't talk to the CDC, and the CDC was giving out a lot of this information, but at least you're talking to a scientist. It just didn't even matter. They were just winging it based on politics and based on what they thought would look good for the public. And I suspect this is true in California. I expect this is true in the, you know, Biden's Illinois. Illinois. The people were just looking at things. I still remember the rules. Like I remember I was in moving between New York and California at the time, but in New York, you could go to the beach, but only go in the water. You couldn't stay on the beach. In California, you could go to the beach, but you couldn't go in the water. And they were just making the stuff up. It just made no sense. And you just had to look at it and say, wait a minute, the rules, there is no rational theory that would explain these rules. Now, if somebody said masks prevent COVID, well, that's at least, I mean, that could be true. It could have turned out that was true. And so somebody might guess. But then when the evidence came in it wasn't true, they didn't tell you to take off your mask. So, so. So. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes. So I remember it well. The, so the takeaways, one of the takeaways from the book clearly is more professional gamblers in public office and less academics. Okay, I got that. What, what else should we take? Sort of what is one of the recurring themes in the book that we should understand other than maybe everybody needs to be at least able to pass a,

class in Econ 101. Yeah, well, you know, professional gamblers aren't the only people who bet on their results. You know, if you get somebody, he's a successful infantry commander, you get somebody who built a business and met a payroll. You know, there are a lot of people in the world who act on what they think. And yeah, and I would like to see more people who have had a career actually being proven right, rather than people who were, you know, only lawyers or only politicians. But there's a lot of other stuff in the book. It's really a question of being skeptical, of looking at the numbers of believing that you don't need to be an expert. So, yeah, so this guy's got 10 degrees and he's got an IQ of 200, and he wrote a paper in the most prestigious journal in the world. Ignore all that. You know, just look at the number and say, this is something I can possibly believe. And what's his evidence for it? And so you don't need to respect the authorities. It's the government agency. You know, if the CDC says something, if the Bureau of Labor Statistics says something, don't just, you know, say, oh, I must believe that because they're experts. Look at the numbers. And when you do it, and the book has 31 case studies, basically, of major public issues that were in all the headlines that were supported by the biggest authorities. that in five minutes of thinking about it, you would just say this is complete nonsense. Aaron Brown is a long-time risk manager in the hedge fund space, as he was describing, the book, Wrong Number, How to Extract Truth from a Blizzard of Quantitative Disinformation. Wrong Numbers, the book, Aaron Brown, the author. Aaron, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. And check out the Reason videos at Reason Magazine, the videos for Wrong Number as well. Okay, wrong number videos at Reason.com. Great. Aaron, thanks for joining us. You join us in the Alpha Wealth Group.com answer line. 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. Open mic!

Call it now. Open mic Friday. The top of the morning, yes, that time of the week, open mic Friday, where we take your calls. 312-4-2-5600, the alpha wealth group.com, answer, and text line. Take your calls with comments, concerns, criticisms, compliments, general crack pottery, we will take it all. And begin in just a second, but I did want to get to a mention of this, our friend Alex Berenson and his lawsuit against the Biden administration, Barensen v. Biden. It was finally settled with the Department of Justice. And Berenson's big winner. And so is anybody who believes in the First Amendment. I told the free press, when I went to bed last Thursday night, talking about last week, I was sure we didn't have a deal. The government offered money, but they weren't willing to admit what they had done. And I wasn't going to agree to a settlement without that acknowledgement. But the next morning, my lawyer texted me with the news that they had agreed to the language, so we made the deal. The language was this. The United States government has acknowledged and conceded that the government did, in fact, violate the First Amendment by exerting substantive coercive pressure on social media companies such as Twitter to suppress disfavored speech like the plaintiffs. It's a big victory for First Amendment, for free speech. As we all know now, especially to listen to this show. Barrinson looked closely, and per our last guest, Aaron Brown. He looked closely at the studies and other evidence surrounding COVID that was offered in support of the policy choices that COVIDians made. And he became a dissident, which meant he was out of step with the public health establishment, science writers at mainstream publications. and he was also declared a public enemy. You probably don't remember this, Berenson said, but in July 2021, Biden said that social media companies like Facebook were killing people. That led to a huge amount of concern at Twitter, which did not want to be called out publicly by the Biden administration the way Facebook had. A month later, Berenson was banned from Twitter for what the company described as, quote, repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules. Bairnson said in the tweet, that was the last straw. I wrote that the MRI vaccine doesn't stop infection or transmission. Something now widely acknowledge is true. And I ended the tweet by saying, and we want a mandated question mark insanity. That was the last tweet. What he didn't know when he was banned was that the Biden White House was behind him losing his Twitter access. And so he sued Twitter in December of 2021 and the grounds the company had an implied contract to keep him on the site. When he won at the district court level, Twitter decided not to appeal and settled instead. And as part of the settlement, he got behind the scenes documents and emails that led to the decision to ban him. That's how he discovered the Biden administration had strong-armed Twitter. He also discovered that Scott Gottlieb,

FDA commissioner during Trump's first term and then a Pfizer board member worked hand in glove with Twitter's Washington lobbyist to convince the Biden White House to pressure Twitter to get rid of Berenson. And then the lawsuit against Biden and so forth and all the way to today where, you know, is it the reckoning we all want? No, but it's something. It's important, and Alex Bairnson deserves a lot of credit for going the distance on this. Public service. 312-642-2-5600, the alphawealthgroup.com call and text line if you want to opine on any topic. Let's keep it high brow by starting with our Poet Laureate of Chicago's Morning Answer. Of course, that's Joe from Arlington Heights. Good morning, sir. There is hope. The Alex Berenson story tells us there's hope after all. Yeah. This poem is called Empty Chairs. Rand Paul and Ron Johnson ring a silent bell asking how many lies can one man sell. While a brave whistleblower testifies the perpetrators insist he lies. This is where we find ourselves now. Sad little man had great authority endowed. The ultimate man of science is self-proclaimed, his detractors relentlessly defamed. Covering tracks with countless lies, not caring how many people died, two years of education lost, children's future is not too great a cost. Unelected bureaucrats hide the truth. Media dupes no longer ask nor refute. Edit hearings filled with empty chairs, half the population doesn't seem to care. Way too much power in D.C. now resides. Office holders graft to friends provide. So much corruption many failed to see. And fools willingly in lies believe. And that's empty chairs. Very good, Joe. Thank you. Very timely. Well done. That's why he's the Poet Laureate. Text from 708. What was Aaron's name and the book's name? It's Aaron Brown and the book. I won't give you the whole title because it's not necessary. Keep it simple. The book title is wrong number. Wrong number. Aaron Brown is the book title. in the author. Okay. Robert and Lyle. Hey, thanks for having me on. Yes, Dr. Emanuel. I take exception with what he's referring to as people that are aged. You could have presence of mine and be in good health, and it's really moderation. I think you get anything you want. I exercise every day. I'm 77 years old. And I was in the store the other day and somebody said, oh, I saw the purple heart on your plate. And I told him I'm a Vietnam veteran. And nobody in the store would even believe me because I look like I'm about 50. The problem was Dr. Emanuel is that the brother, he was an appointee that came to Chicago by Barack Obama. And the other thing is that these doctors and people that are out there,

The parameters, I'm going to tell you them, I'm an author too. But the parameters of life have to do with what God said. When man got off the boat in the arc, he said, I'm short in man's life who lived about 1,000 years to 120. So the parameters of a person's life does not have anything to do with a doctor's side. It does. I mean, they can help people. The parameters of life are end with what God says and you go no further. So that's the whole point that I want to make is that I think that he didn't mention anything about Joe Biden, who was an incapacitated president to a certain degree. I don't think he was 100% like people are trying to portray him, but he should not have been the president. And the fact of the matter is that he was manipulated. by a bunch of people that were over him to do the things that happened in our country. And that's a shame. And that was hit from plain view from the people of our country. And that's a gosh darn shame. And you don't want it to happen again. It's my comment. Thanks for the call, Robert. Speaking of Dr. Zeke's interview and, you know, one of his six simple rules for healthy living, don't be a schmuck. And I was talking about, you know, don't do high-risk things like climb out and Everest. I like this text from a 630. Don't be a schmuck like leaving a wedding dress chicken cooped in a basement. Yeah, as the basis for your residency to run for mayor. Uh-huh. Good times. Walking down memory lane in Chicago. Kevin in Las Vegas. Are you an advantage gambling? Hey, Dan, good morning. Oh, my God. I can't wait. So I got up a little bit late. I can't wait to go back and listen to that segment. It's go time. I'm going to apply that mainstream life at this point for sure. So I wanted to talk about the Why Dan Prop the Single Segment. Obviously, it's fantastic. I don't know if you did one today or not. I missed almost the whole show. I'm going to go back and listen. I think, I know it applies to you in real life, but I think we could take it up notch. Have you ever seen the show? It's always sunny in Philadelphia. Oh, of course. Great show. Awesome. Do you know about, it's a phenomenal show? Do you know about the dentist system? The dentist system. I have seen that, and it's been a while since I've watched. It's always sunny, so refresh my recollection. Okay. No, it's okay. Just do me in favor. Write this down or just remember it, whatever. Just when the show's over or look up on YouTube, the dentist system. And it's the very first thing that pops up. It's only like five minutes. Just watch that. And I am going to, I'm actually driving back to Illinois right now. I'll be there. I'm going to come in for the smoker and see you. Very excited about that. Nice. I'm going to give you a real life instead of a dentist system. We're going to come up with a croft system. Really? Oh, yeah, me and my buddy, Alex and Winfield, who I wish you would call you more. We're going to come up with that, and we'll present that to you live on Tuesday. Is that going to be like the hot feet versus crazy matrix? I mean, it's similar. It's basically a way for you to.

basically in perpetuity to keep San Prof single and have fun while doing it. Oh, really? Okay. All right. Boy, that could be a book. Or, yeah, that could be marketable. I think you're going to love it. I think you're going to love it. And super quick, if I have one more second, what did you think about, I don't know, you haven't talked about it, the, that Rush performance from a couple weeks ago at those Canadian music awards. What did you think? I didn't see it. I didn't see it. Oh, okay. That's another thing. That's a little more homework for you to. Check it out. Pretty good stuff. The drummer, not bad. Not bad at all. I've heard that about her. I mean, that's big shoes to film, Neil Perk. But, yeah, I've heard that. She's good. Thanks for the call, Kevin. Yeah, I don't really watch award shows. One other, one system you can apply, too. I was reading this. Apple, Steve Jobs, had a conventional way of deciding who got hired. The beer test. Instead of trying to catch candidates with a trick question or quizzing them on the latest iPhone, Jobs would look to answer a simple question. Would he actually enjoy grabbing a beer with them? He would take candidates on an informal walk-and-talk interview to doubly test whether they could get along with them. outside the office, whether he could get along with the outside office. It wasn't really about alcohol. It was about seeing whether a candidate could drop the corporate act long enough to have an actual conversation and be pleasant to be around, which is somewhat ironic because I understand, and the stories about this are legion, that Steve Jobs was not the most pleasant guy to be around. But, okay, the beer test. It could apply that to a... the mating game too. Something else, too, there's a development on this front. I did just want to mention because it's only getting worse. It's only going to make it easier. You know, so many people meet on the dating apps. Well, the dating apps, I guess, are going AI and Bumble is taking the lead. The app will no longer require women to message first in heterosexual matches. They will in non-heterosite? Okay. So Bumble was women have to move first. They're getting rid of the swipe gamification, and they're going to AI. Bumble is currently testing an AI dating assistant feature called B, which will collect data about users' interests and dating preferences to find more compatible matches. The integration will also power dates, an AI experience that is designed to help you move from match to meeting without losing momentum along the way. That will also create chapter-based profiles, creating user pages, composed of short story sections so that you get, I get more texture, I guess. More of an identity card, more than an identity card with, you know, age, rank, and serial number. The goal, according to the CEOs, to help members tell their stories more authentically and understand one another more deeply. Hey, brother. Now I got to write essays. No, no, thanks. Not happening. Glenn in Orlando.

Yeah, hey, Dan, I want your opinion on something. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that gerrymandering by race is unconstitutional, if those districts don't change before the next election, are those votes allowed to be certified? Well, I mean, the state legislature has to move to do a remap otherwise or otherwise the districts are what they are. So the state still retains the map making power. And so, for example, Jeannie Ives' lawsuit on the Illinois map. You know, if that's not adjudicated before November, then the map, the worst gerrymandered map in America will. will be the map that provides the basis for November's elections. So it's a matter of state governments intervening to change the maps consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Calais. And, you know, that's going to happen on different timelines in different states. And through litigation, if states are recalcitrant, where you obviously have maps that are in violation of the Calais decision, like I would argue. And Jeannie, I think, is successfully arguing, will successfully argue, like Illinois. Thanks for the call. Rich, North Riverside. Hi, Dan. I was listening pretty intently to what Hans had to say this morning and, you know, kind of discussing illegals registering and also kind of a lack of progress on the Save Act. And I just think that we've got to kind of focus and take more seriously what Donald Trump has already told us about. how the 2020 election was stolen. You know, part of the justification for going into Venezuela was their use of the cracking to change votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. There was also, you know, Lou Eisenberg, the ambassador to Italy, allowed the Chinese Communist Party to use Italian satellites to zap our elections in space. And now Donald Trump's giving a... kind of more chips. I just don't think that the SAVE Act is really a great way to combat any of this because proof of citizenship doesn't matter if they're zapping our elections from space or with specialized software like Donald Trump has repeatedly told us. Well, thanks for the call. Thanks for the call, I mean, okay. I mean, I'm, you know, I don't think one is exclusive of the other. I think the SAVE Act would be productive, but it's not. By itself, it doesn't guarantee non-frauded elections, of course, but it certainly is something that would assist, provides another safeguard, if you will. And you're right, there is still activity on this front with respect to 2020 and point of fact.

There was a story out yesterday that an FBI agent visited the home of Milwaukee County's election director to question her about the 2020 presidential race. So there is movement afoot, including on the voter rolls issue, cleaning the voter rolls for secretaries of state, Ellie G. Nulius that are not doing their job, Jesse White before him. But, you know, this is being litigated by blue states that don't want to administer clean and free and fair elections like Illinois. So it's a fight. It always was going to be. Roy and Glenn Allen. Hey, good morning, Dan. First, I remember you mentioning Trump International a couple weeks ago, and yes, as you were surprised, I was surprised how easy that was for someone to be on the outside when I played. But I have an idea. Wait, wait, hold on, that's tough course, isn't it? Oh, God, ridiculous. How about the 17th? I mean, that was beautiful, but. Yeah. Serb. Yeah, I did not do well. That's a good. I mean, I played the worst I've played all season there until this week. And it's embarrassing there. Oh, yeah. No, there's a lot of trouble there. But it's beautiful. And they've got some great holes. I mean, it's really nicely designed course. And, you know, to the whole thing, not a blade of grass out of place. And, you know, just beautiful. Anyway, a new segment, perhaps, the best of non-mic Scottisms, like from the old news crew. Like I remembered, De Plains, instead of displanes. I thought I was visioning a fan at the island while I was listening to the traffic report. Yeah, you're talking about the Mike Scott Interregnum, where we didn't have Mike Scott. Yes, and we were treated to Illinoisians, Illinoisians, Illinoisians, and to plane. Yeah, yes. Yes, that was some, there were some head scratchers there. Thanks for the call, Roy. Jim Jordan and Antioch. Good morning, Dan. During your conversation with Dr. Emanuel, he was talking about innovation in seniors or elderly or, you know, whatever he term he used above 60. And he said that his comment was that we don't make rules based on the exception for society. So I know this isn't where the conversation was going. That's not purpose. He kind of let you in on the Obamacare. But I wonder what his stance is on. imposing the rules of masks, vaccines, based on the exception, overweight and the elderly. And I'd also like to know his stance on transgender. We don't make exceptions for society based on the exception. So I'd be curious to know his thoughts on that. I suspect I know where...

he is or how he might not answer, but I'd just be curious when I hear a guy who's on that platform make that comment. I'd like to hear the other side of that. So thanks. Have a good weekend. Thanks, Jim Jordan. Good point. Dave and Detroit. Yeah, hi. Way back on Monday, you were talking to a retired lieutenant colonel, a guy with a real scratchy voice. I've seen that guy before I like it. Okay, yeah. I seen that guy before I like him. You and him, however, were way too deferential when you were discussing this leftist scumbag, Admiral William McRaven. We should be calling Admiral McFouchy because the left is doing the same thing with this McRaven slash McFouchy guy that they did with the original Anthony Fauci back in 2020. You remember, Anthony Fauci was presented as a, I'm working off notes, if you don't mind, I hope. Anthony Fauci was presented as a benevolent, a political expert. Everybody was deferentially tiptoeing around the guy, just like you and, you know, the lieutenant colonel, were kind of treating Admiral McFouchy on Monday. And can I just give you a couple reasons that I despise this guy so much? Okay, sure. Get all the poison out, yes. In August of 2018, this guy called John Brennan, a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question. This is August of 2018. By then, we all knew Russian collusion was a lie. And then it was being used by guys like Brennan and Adamo McFouchy to overturn a legitimate presidential election and destroy the lives of completely innocent people like KT. McFarland, Carter Page, General Flynn, et cetera, et cetera, for no other reason than their connection to Trump. Today, this is, you know, there's a million reasons I despise this guy. Here's another one. Today, he's being rolled out as an expert on Iran in the same way the original Anthony Fauci was rolled out during COVID. Do you know what McRaven slash McFouchy's big suggestion is on Iran? It's to unilaterally end the blockade on the psychotic and human monsters who control Iran today in the hope that they will suddenly become reasonable partners as soon as we give up all our leverage. Now, in all of human history, has that ever worked?

Did that work when Israel gave up Gaza? Did it work when Johnson stopped bombing North Vietnam unilaterally? That never works. Anyway, I just wanted to get that, like you say, poison out. There you go. Since Monday, and I really felt good. Okay, I'm glad that was cathartic for you. Thanks, Dave. And yeah, you're right. And we talked about McRavens or McFouchy's suggestion about unilaterally ending the blockade and Stephen Bucci. disagreed, yeah, pretty pointedly. Rick and Laporte, Indiana. Yeah, I think in another week, Illinois is going to lose another company, the Chicago Bears, and then hopefully Brandon Johnson and J.B. Pritzker, those two Igmos, they'll be out of Illinois too. Thanks for the call, Rick. The Prime Minister. You have backed off on your commitment to crack pottery, sir. Okay. There has not been enough crack pottery in this show. In crack pottery, you stepped over the national holiday of April Fool's Day. You should have opened that show with the picture of Kristi Noem's husband, Inflagrante Delecto. Now, on the subject of crack pottery, I have the solution of how Dan Prop can get married, but still have the option of remaining single. Okay. Do you care to hear about it? Oh, I can't wait. Alpine divorce. Do you know what it means? What kind of divorce? The Alpine divorce. The Alpine divorce. I'm not familiar with that phrase now. You get married to a Kim Chito type girl, the former head of the Secret Service, which we saw testify. And then when you're sick of her, if you get sick of her, you go on a long alpine hike, maybe rock climbing, something like this. And something happens. She never comes back. It's a tried and true approach. Okay, thank you. Yes. All right. Thank you, Prime Minister. Yeah, okay. All right. Greg and LaGrange. Hey, Dan. Someone remind me, President Trump is President Trump, really? I mean, sometimes I get confused because whose story stood out this week to me. One is the whistleblower from the CIA who was talking about the whole cover-up with Anthony Fauci. And then the CIA comm shop coming out saying, well, you know, this is just nothing but political theater. Where's our guy? Where's John Ratcliffe on this? I asked the same question, yeah. I asked it again today. I can't wait until he gets back from Cuba because I'd like somebody to ask him that question. And the second one is, I was reading the Wall Street Journal this week, totally unaware. Marty McRey is stepping down from the FDA. And actually, he's not stepping down. He's being forced out. Why is that? Why? Well, there were some clashes with the Trump administration over things like vape products, which he wanted to pump the brakes on.

The Wall Street Journal actually took him and Vene Prasad to task. Vene Prasad, his deputy, who's also out over some of their alleged recalcitrance in improving drugs, sort of the right to try vein. But there were internal clashes. There were differences of opinion on a number of topics that, I guess, metastasized. But, yeah, I mean, I like Marty, too. I'm trying to get him on the show to see what he's willing to. Disclose. Yeah. Please do. The right to try and the vaping stuff is pretty big stuff too. I mean, this is ridiculous. Thanks, Dan. Have a great weekend. Thanks, Greg. And Jack and Delavan to close it out. Hey, I know it's expensive to come up here and stay overnight. You guys are all welcome to come up and sleep on my farm if you sleep in your cars. It's going to be a great weekend. It's 80s. Come up here, hold hands, fall in love. I'm going to the getaway tonight for all you can eat fish fried. You guys have a great weekend. Thank you, Chuck. You too. This is the morning show. More Chicago radio listeners are choosing. This is Chicago's morning answer. An 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 your 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. five, six hundred to hear how signature bank can help your business grow and thrive. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender.