Samantha Steele: Not Guilty

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 Marlowe, 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. Yesterday we ended the show talking about this outgoing Cook County Border Review Commissioner Samantha Steele. She got popped for a DUI in November of 2024. And she was acquitted this week in Cook County. Cook County elected official being acquitted in a bench trial, two-day bench trial by Cook County judge. Hmm. And the facts of the case, just briefly, she was involved in an accident. She crashed her friend's car into two parked cars. Officers at the scene said, and you'll hear this in the body cam video, which I'll replay momentarily. She smelled of alcohol. She refused breathalyzer test or sobriety test. So she was arrested. And allegedly, according to the police report on the hospital and the ambulance and transit to the hospital, she made a disparaging remark about one of the officers' manhood. So he had a small penis. So here is the stop. Pay particular attention to her immediate reaction because this is going to be germane now that she did an interview with ABC 7 yesterday to defend her good name. I'm going to help you to exit. And you don't want that. You don't want that. I do. I actually do. Elected official of what? Who County? Good County. You elected which office? Where's your name? I'm Sam. Sam. Sam who? You need you out of the car. Yes, do that. That's all you got to do, and then wait for me. I'll be there at dinner. I'm waiting for you. Yeah, you got to come out. Get out of the car. Be careful with traffic, man. Right here. Right here. You don't want you to go out. Get involved in. Okay. It's fine. Now you can hang up the phone, man. No. We're still doing our investigation. My attorney. Okay. Now, tell your attorney, since he's on the phone.

Are you going to do Phil sobriety test or no? No. Okay. No, wait. You say no. I was waiting for that. I was waiting for that. We're waiting for that. Because she refused. I asked her to do filibouty test and she refused. And she smelled like alcohol. She's been drinking. You've been recorded all the time. You've been recorded. Yeah. All right? Okay, so that was that. The ER doctor also testified that he believed that she was intoxicated. But she was acquitted in Cook County, a Cook County elected official. And, you know, one wonders, as I did yesterday, one wonders allowed, is this one of those cases where the rules are for the, but not for me. two-tiered to justice system, not based on, well, based on politics. Well, Ms. Steele spoke to ABC7, as I said, the point about immediately telling the cop that she was an elected official, you might think, as I did, that that was her trying to bigfoot the cop? No, no. I was just expressing that I know my rights, right? I'm just, I'm more attuned with our rights than the average person, I would think. Actually, I find that elected officials in Cook County are less attuned with the Constitution than the average person, don't you? 312-642-5600 is the alphawealthgroup.com call and text line. I was just telling him that I know my right. Excuse me, sir. I'm a member of the Cook County Board of Review. So just be on notice to not try anything funny. I'm well versed in the law, you see. Oh, man. I think she's going to regret this interview. And she, according to Sarah Schulte, reporting for ABC 7. She said this as to why she refused the sobriety tests. Steele refused to take sobriety tests. She says she was disoriented from the accident. Wait a second. You crash into these cars. You tell the officer immediately, hi, I'm an elected official.

But you're too disorient. And that was, in your words, to demonstrate that you know your rights. So you were cognizant, right? You were oriented enough to lead with elected official. And you're saying that the thought process there was to demonstrate to the officer, I know my right, so you're on notice. But then you were too oriented to make a decision to submit to field sobriety tests. Huh. I'm not sure I can follow the logical thread there. She also denies the penis statement. I absolutely 100% never said that. And, of course, the real culprit here. Cook County State's Attorney's Office, why they even wasted any time here? Well, there's two culprits. One is the person, this guy, Frank Calabrese, who's, I guess, worked in her office and was fired or separated from his position somehow. He posted the video of her DUI stop that went viral because it smacks of somebody trying to use their position as a politician to evade the law. And so she blames him. Like, oh, I was, my political career was ended by an attack by a consultant. He posted, he posted public record, body cam footage of a DUI stop. And you said what you said. And it got passed around because I think most people are having the reaction to it that I'm having. Her interview only compounding that. But the Cook County State's attorney shouldn't have wasted the resources. Steele also blames the Cook County State's attorney for wasting taxpayer dollars pursuing the drunk driving case. A statement from the office reads in part, quote, CCSAO prosecuted the case because we believe the facts and the evidence demonstrated that the defendant violated the law. Yeah, and by the way, when we talked about this at the end of the show yesterday, there was some suggestion, oh, these acquittals happen all the time in DUI cases. I don't think they do. And I talked to a defense attorney friend of mine who does work in the traffic division in Cook County. He's like, particularly when there is an accident involved, you know, she crashed into two cars. particularly when there's an accident and you have the officers making the statement they made corroborated by an emergency room physician and the sort of contextual information in terms of contextual facts in terms of how she responded And even after the fact, what she's saying, as I'm saying right here, right, I was demonstrating, so I was clear enough of mine to demonstrate, which is why I mentioned I'm elected official, but I was too disoriented to submit to a field sobriety test. By the way, the Cook County Traffic Division, I guess the head of it is...

a judge named Diane Marsalak. She made some news back in the heady days of COVID when she jumped the vaccine line to get herself and a few other judges shots. She's the presiding judge of the traffic division. And as. One attorney friend of mine said, promoted like most in Cook County based on extreme incompetence. Well, extreme incompetence, that's not a disqualifier, but promoted by most because of the right political relationships, I presume. Dan Proff, Chicago's Morning Answer. This is the morning show. More Chicago radio listeners are choosing. This is Chicago's Morning Answer. An AM 560, The Answer. Hey, business owners, is your business and money in good hands? Does your bank invest in your success? Hi, Mike Gallagher here, letting you know that when you need a relationship bank, signature bank makes commercial banking personal. I love these guys. Not only do they have expansive industry experience, a strong financial track record, but they're also highly capitalized for strategic growth. That's so important. That's why signature bank is my bank. They know what it means to grow a business by designing solutions that are right for you and only. you. These are real people. They're ready to help. So reach out to my friends at Signature Bank. Make the call today. 773-467-5630. Or visit them online at SignatureBank.Bank. Bank. That's SignatureBank. Bank. Your business could be Signature Bank's next success story. Go online. SignatureBank. Bank. Equal Housing Lender, Signature Bank. And just a footnote, as I mentioned yesterday, I mentioned Diane Marshallak, because she's the presiding judge in the traffic division. In case there was any question or interest in reviewing the decision by the judge who actually presided in the trial of Samantha Steele, and that was Don Soriano. who was a judge, retired judge, who was called back by the state Supreme Court. And I guess he's allowed to stay because he didn't write an op-ed praising Trump while in retirement, like who Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Judge Jimmy Brown, who then was removed by the state Supreme Court and is now this and that, and that removal is now the subject of litigation. Which we're following. 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. Their decisions are made locally by a terrific team that knows your name, cares about your business.

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. Visit them online at SignatureBank.Bank. Bank. That's Signature Bank. Signature Bank makes commercial banking personal. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender. If you're looking for the latest news, insight into what it means, and the sharpest opinion. There's only one station in Chicago where you can turn, and it's this one. We're AM 560. The answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proff here. As you heard Mike Scott reporting, visitation for Fallon, Chicago Police Officer John Botholomew, today from 2 to 8 p.m. at St. Andrew's Greek Orthodox Church on North Sheridan Road. And funeral services will be tomorrow at 10 a.m. at the same location. So there was a confirmation hearing. For the Chicago Communication Commission for Public Safety and Accountability. That's a mouthful. The CCPSA, for those of you keeping track of your alphabet soup agencies and commissions and boards at home. The CCPSA and one of the nominees, Anjanette Young. She was the victim of a mistaken police raid. They got the address wrong. You remember, and there's body cam video, and they break into her house, and she doesn't have clothes on, and it was embarrassing, and the police made a mistake, and the city had to pay for it. Fine. That doesn't necessarily mean Ms. Young has any particular insights on law enforcement or public safety. And also, as Alder Humans, Sylvanna Tabarez, pointed out in her remarks, because the police made a mistake in that case, because there have been, of course, cases of police misconduct that this sort of redundant citizen-driven public safety and accountability outfit needs to exist. How many layers do we need here? But Tabarez began her comments by pointing to a disturbing trend since the George Floyd riots, the Summer of Love. You know, remember the city was looted twice? Remember that? You old enough? Disturbing trend in violence directed at police officers that is not abating. I was just expressing that I know my rights, right? I'm just, I'm more. This is directed to Ms. Anjanette Young. I'd like to lay out and discuss some statistics with you. From 2014 to 2019, Chicago police officers were shot or shot at an average of 20 times per year, from 2014 to 2019. In 2020, the number increased 300.

and 39 percent to 79 officers in that year. In 2021, it was 76, in 2022, 55, in 2023, 68, and in 2024, 62, 62. During this period, the Chicago Police Department recovered over 40,000 guns. We also lost police officers Ella French, Officer Andres Vasquez Lazo, Officer Arianna Preston, Officer Luis Huasca, Officer Enrique Martinez, Officer Crystal Rivera, and recently Officer John Bartholomew, as his partner continues to fight for his life in the hospital. This spike in violence against police occurred in the wake of the George Floyd riots and the height of the defund the police movement. And she pointed out that in a number of those murders, the police officers were ambushed, targeted, represents not just the spike, but represents a bit of a cultural shift in a... destructive direction, clearly. And then she, remember, she's addressing Anjanet Young here. And then she turned to the Dexter Reed case. This was an attempted cop killer. He shot a cop. And the city was going to write his family a big settlement because the cop shot and killed him after he opened fire on them. Talk about a cultural shift. And Internet Young made an unfortunate comment that didn't get past Silvana Taboraz. And it's important to note if you didn't know that Taboras's husband is a Chicago police officer. So this is personal to her in part. And maybe it should be more personal to more Chicagoans. Recently, the city council denied a proposed lawsuit settlement for the estate of attempted police murderer, Dexter Reed. In that incident, Reed shot a police officer. You were quoted in an interview with WTTW calling police returning fire excessive. With the statistics telling the truth, and as we prepare for an officer's funeral on Friday, I don't think that this is the perspective of somebody who can be objective. You're before the committee today seeking an appointment to a commission born out of the same movement that also saw the skyrocketing of attacks on police. Since its creation of the CCPSA, the commission has mostly pushed efforts to restrict officers, despite data showing more violence is done to officers, not by officers. 312-642-5600 alphawealthgroup.com answer line and text line. We've got a little exercise there, which is fine.

This CCPSA born out of the same BLM defund the police movement. The same BLM defund the police movement that gave birth to the current political power structure of the city and the county and the state in large measure. Oh, by the way. The CCPSA's existence is unnecessary and tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere. If it exists, we need individuals who can analyze statistics and develop sound public safety policies that protect police officers and the public. We need individuals who are avoiding dangerous anti-police rhetoric that incites violence. For that reason, I am voting no. Okay. I mean, that was a nice performance, and I don't mean that in a pejorative. I mean, it was those were thoughtful remarks that Alder Humann Tabarez offered there, and I agree with the no vote. But even still, even here, I got to tell you, it's just not enough. She is one of the better ones, particularly on policing, and I'm sure it's in part because it's personal. And, of course, that's a low bar when we're talking about the city council, which normally, you know, 40 to 50 train seals doing whatever the mayor deems.

But this op-ed that she wrote in the Chicago Tribune just a couple days ago, city leaders in residence deserve transparency from the Cook County Courts. And she starts out by talking about the murder of Chicago Police Officer John Bartholomew. And she talks about a public safety crisis in Chicago. And she... offers this. Besides the many questions that must be answered about court warrants, questions also remain regarding Cook County's electronic monitoring and GPS programs, the provisions of the Safety Act that affect judges detention of violent offenders, and the process to appoint a sign and remove a member of the judiciary who puts the public at risk. Yes. Questions do abound. And she's talked about some... resolution to initiate a task force. She goes on to talk about the danger of warrants that don't get served and thus police come upon people with outstanding warrants and don't necessarily have all the details to fully. evaluate the dangers or it just unnecessarily puts police in dangerous situations with people that should be detained. But here's the thing where it just falls flat for me. The best we get is like Taberaz. diagnosing and detailing the obvious glaring problems. I mean, the malfeasance and that's ideologically driven and the consequences are stark. You know, it's like pointing to a sunset. I know saying that's a sunset. I know.

But here's what she comes up with. The current Cook County court system is excluded by law from compliance with FOIA, which is the law meant to provide accountability and transparency. This means that victims and witnesses are meant to trust the court system and protect them that does not have checks and balances. Instead of pointing fingers, though, to all of these... clear-cut problem areas. I'm seeking solutions. This month, I will be introducing a resolution inviting county agencies and city departments to a hearing before the Chicago City Council to share information about the Cook County Court system and its impact on city operations. The hearing will be public, and I invite all residents to participate. We will work together to find solutions to help prevent future tragedies, protect our residents, and develop plans for a unified approach to improving transparency and accountability. The end. A fairy tale ending. 312-642-4-2-5600. AlphaWealthgroup.com. A call and text line. I mean, this is, even when you have somebody who recognizes it and is willing to... say what it is publicly. A resolution for a task force because, you know, that's what's lacking. It's just county and city departments, all the, you know, the little panjand drums of these fiefdoms in city and county government just need to come together, share information, talk about best practices. And then we're going to develop plans that are implemented in a collaborative fashion to blah, blah, blah, blah. I mean, that's not what is required. It's just like that demonstrates either an inability or lack of desire to do what is required or a misunderstanding of the objective. The mission in Chicago in Illinois is and has been counter-revolution. Common sense counter-revolution, the same thing you're seeing to a certain extent at the federal level in reaction to the neo-Marxist party's reign and their impact on larger American culture. That's what Illinois is. That's the state where Illinois is. It is a party, I mean, it is a state that is being devastated by a neo-Marxist revolutionary party. And it doesn't mean that, oh, some of these guys are good guys. They're, you know, old-time machine guys or the Democrats or they don't agree with Welch or they don't agree with Harmon. They don't agree with Tony, Tony, Tony. It doesn't matter.

collaborators, to borrow a phrase, with this neo-Marxist party's revolutionary ambitions. I mean, you've got almost a dozen members of the city council that are DSA, Democrat Socialists of America, which is the same thing as to say neo-Marxist, and the same thing to say is neo-Marxist revolutionary. These are mediating institution. destroyers. So if you want media institutions like schools and public safety agencies and civic organizations and even I would say businesses, then you have to confront them. You're not going to work with them to address the systemic problems that you have identified. They're, they're, they're inflicting these problems. I'm going to work with the authors of the Safety Act to improve public safety. I'm sorry, what? You know, I, she's put, she put a nice step forward there. And as I said, she's, reasonable on these and other issues, but it's just it's not enough. And we're so quick to applaud anything that is not from the mind and mouth of the criminally insane, but I'm not going to do that for her. We have to improve or elevate our expectations to get improved. work product from individuals who know better and are saying better, but are still a little reticent to demand better, to take up the actual mission that is before anybody who has an interest in improving the quality of life, frankly, rescuing the city of Chicago from disintegration.

Mark in Oklahoma, you know, Chicago's morning answer. Hey, Dan. Great show. You know, I'm not the most architectly a guy or smart guy, but pretty simple terms. Until you're never going to turn a city around until you get rid of the Safety Act. It's the bottom line. It's good versus evil, and they've turned it all around and flip-flopped it where the criminals are the good guys. And the neo-Marxists, they just go along with that. It's for the votes. It's horrible. Thanks for the call, Mark. I mean, it gives us another example of what I'm talking about. This is Nick Christoph. Nick Christoph as New York Times columnists. We've had him on the show, actually. I mean, he's, you know, he's a man of the left. But, you know, every now and again, he has a fit of critical self-reflection for himself and the left. And he had one in a discussion about what's going on in these big cities. And what's going on in these big blue states like California and Illinois in New York. This was at the Milken Institute confab. I talked about Ken Griffin's remarks yesterday at the same conference. But, you know, Christoph had this to say. I mean, when was from like a somewhat intellectual, you know, leftist? well-to-do leftists, or from one of these apparatchiks you see in their CTU shirts raging on the streets of Chicago, indoctrinating the kids on May Day. Who on the left says anything like this locally? You know, we talk a good game about the importance of education, and yet a black kid in Mississippi is two and a half times as likely to be proficient in math and reading by fourth grade as a black kid in California. And so haven't, I mean, do we need to look a little bit less at what the Trump administration is doing to harm working class families and look a little more in the mirror? There's a counter-revolutionary concept. And teachers in Mississippi make about 60% of what teachers in California make. You won't be surprised to learn. Blackhead in Mississippi has two and a half times more likely to be proficient in reading at grade level. Of course, we know this. We talk about this on this show all the time. But it won't matter until it gets to... the grass tops and the grassroots of people who actually are in these systems. Until that knowledge is not confined to Chicago's Morning Answer and the Milliken Institute confab. But, I mean, the data is unmistakable. Translating it, storifying it.

distributing it and trying to get through the pillars of granite in some of these, you know, the consciousness in some of these neighborhoods and some of these cohorts is quite another thing, as we found out. A text from 224, you said men in the left, no men there. Well. That's a fair point, isn't it? Dan Prop, Chicago's Morning Answer. This is Chicago's Morning Answer. Your show keeps me alive during the week. There's nobody I'd rather listen to between 5 and 9 in the morning than you guys. An AM 560, The Answer. This is Chicago's Morning Answer with Dan Proft, an AM 560, The Answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proft. I did want to update the story I brought you earlier this week that I still don't think is getting very much attention. It's the story of this 12-year-old boy with Down syndrome who was attacked on a school bus. He goes to a Redling Middle School in St. Charles, District 303.

I don't know if there is a video of this account, as some have suggested when we previously talked about it the other day. So what happened is this boy was dropped off by the bus to his house. Mom knew the bus was late before he got dropped off. The school called with a very generic message. No indication that he'd been attacked. Not just once, but a second one that occurred within the 20-minute time frame that he was on the bus. The total amount of times he was stabbed by a girl who apparently, reportedly, based on the information I have, is identifying as a boy. The young man, the 12-year-old boy with Down syndrome, total stabs 13 times with a pencil, were done with force from a kid, boiling over with anger and couldn't regulate her anger. His jacket had four deep puncture holes, and his backpack also had holes. Thankfully, he was wearing a very padded coat. The only way that this was... made aware how this was communicated to mom, as I understand it, was that police showed up at her door to take a report from her son. Police were called to the scene reportedly. Kids removed from the bus, placed on another bus, and yet the mom was never called. And since that time, there has not been any action taken by police, by Kane County State's Attorney's Office, by the school that I'm aware of. And there is video. And the young man asks, after the attacks, plural, I guess, asked to. someone to take him to the doctor in the hospital, because he's rubbing his head and his arm. They didn't. And he didn't look at his wounds, apparently. St. Charles. So all those kids on the bus and their parents, nobody knows anything about this? Typical. Naturally. Um, the, um, word I got in addition to a problem with leadership at District 303 in St. Charles is the Ken County State's Attorney's Officer. Okay, Kane County State Attorney's Office, that is. I think her, what's her name, Jamie Mosser? Yeah, Jamie Mosser, the King County State's attorney. Uh-huh. Now, remember, this happened a month ago. No reporting, no action, no nothing. I guess, I mean, I would, if mom has the video, I would encourage her to post it. You don't want to exploit your kid, and maybe that's why she isn't, and I can understand that. But it's the only way you get attention now.

You have to have a video that goes viral because I can't just communicate to you that a 12-year-old boy with Down syndrome got assaulted on a bus and school district and local authorities aren't doing a damn thing about it. And that just not, that doesn't matter. And that's not compelling enough. I can't communicate that one adult to the other and get another adult to do anything. You have to shame them into it by creating a firestorm because people share a video and everybody then can heap their moral scorn on the school and express their outrage and so on and so forth because, you know, we're so much, we're all grown up infants. I mean, it's just so sickening. The hell is wrong with people. Where to begin? Oh, by the way, as I mentioned earlier in the week, in January, this same girl apparently had stabbed several kids in the hall during a class change, and yet nothing was done then either. That's what I understand to be true from reliable sources. 312-4-2-5600. AlphaWealthgroup.com. I call and text line. The word is now Jamie Mosser. She's the Cane County State's attorney. She's an elected official. You have an elected school board. You have taxpayer finance, superintendents, principals. Anybody want to press the issue with anybody? St. Charles, Cane County. Anybody? Anybody who just, you know, have to live there is generally as concern for kids, particularly kids with disabilities being assaulted at school. I don't know. What's going on in Libertyville? With the 15-year-old girl with Down syndrome who was sexually groomed by the teacher that's now been fired and got an assistant superintendent on leave. Big culture change. happening in the Libertyville School District now, Libertyville High School? Community getting active and involved? No, wait for it to show up on social media so I can post something about it and then check a box. I did my part. Yeah, you're a great citizen. The state attorney's office is not going to pursue charges.

Because criminal charges are not appropriate for mental health. Really? That's the characterization I was given. I'm sorry. I'd like a little bit more information. I'd like somebody to, you know, it's not going to be me. You know, she won't have to talk to me. I'd like Jamie Mosser, although I think she did it. She did oppose the safety, actually. She's got that going for her, but she's Democrat. You know, because Kane County is a Democrat county now. Did you know that? I mean, maybe with the exception of Chris Lauson, but that's another Collar County that's gone by the boards. You're not, it's a mental health issue. They don't know how to deal with this because it's a, ostensibly a middle school girl identifying as a boy. And so how do we deal with this? What do you mean? How do you deal with it? She attacked someone. Apparently, she's been doing it for some time. That's what she did if the allegations are true is a crime. But we don't arrest 12 year olds? Do you ever look at the police blotter in Chicago? Why? Because it's the suburbs. It's a mental health issue. I'm sorry. So which is it? Is gender is for you a mental health issue? Or are we supposed to provide gender affirming care? Could all these leftists that run these schools stake out of position and stick to it? And you don't get to say. Not if you're a right and proper prosecutor. It's a mental health issue, so we're not going to pursue it. Has this student seen a court appointed or, you know, in-house on contract? Psychiatrists? Who's informing the Kane County State's Attorney's Office that this is a mental health issue, not a criminal issue? And by the way, it can be both. Or am I going to get the Tim Evans routine? Anyone under 26 years old doesn't have the fully formed prefrontal cortex so they're not responsible for what they do. They don't know the difference between right and wrong. If we're talking about somebody that was in the same age cohort of the boy who was attacked 12 years old, did you know right from wrong at 12 years old?

I mean, I'm not, this isn't a capital case, but the idea that this isn't a law enforcement issue is absurd. And if you argue that it isn't, then you should do so publicly. Make the case. Transparency and accountability. Oh, right. I know. They're great words. They look great on a website. They look great on a walk hard. They sound great when you're speechifying. And then when the rubber meets the road in cases like this, where's the transparency and accountability I heard so much about? Nothing motivates these suburbanites. You suburbanites listening, or at least your friends, does it? I mean, they can liquidate your home. They can violate your kids and you do nothing. It's astounding to watch. And then you ma'am out people who leave the state. Because they don't want to be dragged into this morass of depravity.

Joe in Naperville. Yeah, I've worked in the school systems for a number of years. I have family at work in there. And, Dan, this is just the tip of the iceberg. These kids get labeled at IUP with the behavior disorder, and there's nothing they could do wrong that's going to have a consequence. They could assault other children. They could throw deaths, and they do these things. And what's the answer for the school? Oh, we have to clear out the classroom for these people. These behaviors get out of hand. The police are never called, even though it's an assault. And God forbid, these kids are going to grow up to be adults one day that are going to have no consequences for their action. It's not to stop. This is going to be a powder tag. Thanks for the call, Joe. Yeah, it's a battery. They're not, yeah, they're going to, they're going to age, but they're not going to grow up, just like the generation before them. Not all of it, of course, but a significant percentage. An even more significant percentage. That turned out to then be placed in charge of what used to be considered important institutions like, I don't know, K through 12 education. They're going to age, but they're not going to grow up. Chris and Kerry. Hey, kind of piggybacking off that last caller, out here in these suburbs, these leafy suburbs, you cannot remove a class, physically remove a kid from a classroom. You've got to remove all the other students, so they stop learning. And that kid will continue to tear apart that classroom until he's done. And when he's calmed down, then they take him to the principal's office where he can color and plan an iPad until he's evaluated. But nothing ever happens. Thanks for the call, Chris. Well, yeah. Mom, I know Mom is in a tricky spot in this case. I'm not, you know, opining on her decision. This is where you rely on those people that have authority to exercise it judiciously. But that's another thing, of course, that doesn't happen. I've been talking about this for eons. You know, we don't have critical thinking skills. We have policies and procedures manuals. And it's not in the manual. I don't know what to do. I'm certainly not going to risk making an informed decision that could expose me to repercussions. It's not in the policies and procedures manual. The last thing I'm allowed to do is think for myself. I'm not supposed to be a problem solver. I'm supposed to be a... a tool of implementation for the policies and procedures in the manual. That's why you hire the consultant to write it. I found this to be an interesting contrast, thinking about the state of these institutions. Clarence Thomas just became the second longest serving Supreme Court justice. And so there's sort of a revisiting of his life going on in some quarters that have a fondness for Clarence Thomas, and that would include me. I think actually I think the longest serving Supreme Court justice was William O. Douglas. This isn't a side. It just popped into my head. Anyway, Neil Gorsuch, who's got a new book out about the founders, had this to say about Thomas.

Not in St. Charles or not? Dan Proff, Chicago's Morning Answer. Before you see it on TV, share it on Facebook, or read about it in the paper. Hear it here first. This is Chicago's Morning Answer. On AM 560, The Answer. Only the biggest stories. Only the biggest guests. And only the biggest opinions. This is AM 560, The Answer. Top of the morning, Dan Propton, do we see a little light? Bob Mould reference there. Perfect bumper music choice. Do we see a little light in L.A.? Do we see a little light in a big blue city that there will be a lurch towards sanity? There was a mayoral debate. And Spencer Pratt is quickly making that race the most interesting one, perhaps this cycle. If he makes the runoff, this goes to November, it will be the most, probably the most interesting race this cycle just for the jingles and the Karen Bass bass moniker alone. They had this exchange about homelessness and the approach that... His two opponents, Pratt, talking about his two opponents, the approach that they take. One's the mayor, Karen Busulrah Bass, and the other is a city council human. By the way, the city council human, she deserves more scrutiny. Good grief. I mean, Karen Bass is like a communist. And this ramen woman. I think it's still trying to get to her left somehow, as only somebody with degrees from Harvard and MIT could do. Now, they're not serious degrees. One's in political theory and the other was a master's in urban planning from MIT. How's that being applied? All right, back to the homeless exchange. This really builds on one of the viral videos of late from Pratt, where he talks about this contractor that got $16 million to build, to basically set up 64 beds for homeless people, a quarter million dollars a bed. What are we doing? Robin acts like she doesn't have any authority with this homelessness. She was the third most powerful person in city council. She runs the homeless housing thing. She acts like this is just Karen Bass. First off, inside safe. I like to say inside safe makes all of us outside unsafe. The reality is no matter how many beds you give these people, they are on super meth. They are on fentanyl. The DEA statistics says 93% of this is a drug addiction problem. Nithya Raman, Councilwoman Robbins, plan for treatment first. I will go below the Harbor Freeway tomorrow with her, and we can find some of these people she's going to offer treatment for her. She's going to get stabbed in the neck. These people do not want a bed. They want fentanyl or super meth. These ideas cost us over $400 million to house for $700,000 people for $400 million. This is an absolute failure for both of them. They're a team.

So, Council Member Rahman, you have 30 seconds to respond. Yeah, I want to just say to everybody who's watching today, you're going to watch today as Karen Bass and Spencer Pratt attack me because they want to run against each other in the general election. Each of them thinks that running against each other is what's going to help them win. And they don't want to run against me because my ideas, which are based on real results in my district, which are based on real. data, a real analysis of the system, and a focus on accountability and using every dollar as effectively as possible, which we have done in my district. I want to take this citywide. This is why. This is happening today. Excuse me. We're out of time. I'm going to give each of you 30 seconds to respond to this. Mr. Pratham, we'll start with you, and then I'm going to go to Karen Bass. First off, Karen Bass and I are definitely not working together. I blame this person. For burning my house and my parents' house and my town and all my neighbors down. I am not working with Karen Bass. Second off, if I wanted to run against anybody, it would be the council member who is terrible. Karen Bass has at least been a mayor for almost four years and has... As she talked about earlier, the unions, all the unions endorsed mayor best. You think it's easier to run against the incumbent mayor with all the unions or a random city council member who's been a failure for six years. I would much rather run against councilwoman. Thank you very. That's pretty good. That's pretty fun. By the way, Nithya Raman, just to give you a sense of what we're talking about here. You know, this is not unique to a leftist like her, but again, it's the sort of ideas that could only incubate at a place like Harvard. Talking at a community meeting about the incidents of thefts, particularly thefts of Toyota Priuses, and whose fault is that? You guessed it, Toyota. In this case, I think one of the things that really infuriates me is that we have a company, you know, the Prieta, who makes the Prius, that essentially has... a device on their cars, which is super easy to remove. It's basically the value of a MacBook, right? That is put in a place that is incredibly easy to access in your car. And then the thefts related to this issue have essentially all of the costs of that are given to us to bear instead of them having to manufacture a car.

That actually is not so easy to be stolen. I think it's outrageous. Our police department is dealing with it. Our residents are dealing with it. That is nuts. That is nuts. You don't access it, you steal it. There are a few sane people left in L.A. By the way, just a point of order for those who are not gearheads. The catalytic converter, this is from a gearhead friend of mine, I'm not either. The catalytic converter is welded in place underneath the car, and you need a cordless reciprocating saw to hack it off. It's a medieval process. But that Toyota, you know, if only they would listen to the MIT grad with the Masters in Urban Planning rather than their engineers over there at Toyota. For more on all this, please be joined by Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, author of The Case for Nationalism, how it made us powerful, united, and free. Rich, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Of course, thanks for having me. Well, Spencer Pratt is at least making a big city mayor's race entertaining, a lot more entertaining than, say, New York's or Chicago's of late. Yeah, sure. It shows what you can do if you're articulate, a little bit funny, and are willing to speak common sense and start terms. So it's been great. The stab in the neck exchanged the debate was an instantly classic moment. Yes. Very graphic. It's possible for insane blue cities to do better when people just find the level of disorder and crime. Intolerable. We've seen San Francisco finally crack down on car thefts, not stealing the cars, but breaking the windows and stealing everything in the cars, which was an epidemic that seemed unstoppable. And then you know what they started to do? They started arrest the people doing it. And it's plummeted. Baltimore, murders are at maybe a historic low. In Baltimore, same thing. And all these places, it tends to be a small group of repeat offenders known to everyone and to authorities. The question is whether you have the will to do anything about it and go lock them up. And when you do, the city gets better. If you don't, it's a debacle. Yeah, I also did enjoy when she, her response to the homeless thing was not to address that, but to, you know, they're collaborating against me because nobody wants to run against me. And it's like, look, I blame Karen Bass for burning down my house. So I'm not working with her. It's pretty stark. Yeah. And wouldn't you, if you're a candidate, feel compelled to respond to the substance of a charge of someone say you're going to get stabbed?

You have to attack under a freeway. Yeah. Let's that go. Right. Well, you know what the thing about Pratt is, and it's relatively unusual. It also is the appeal of Trump. You know, he is a street fighter going up against cake eaters who, you know, who have been insulated from competition. And it's usually the other way around. It's usually, you know, the conservative or the Republican who is a bit defenseless in a street fight. But it's the opposite here in L.A. Rich, did we lose rich? Sorry, sorry. Sorry about that. Yeah. And her line, though, and her line in responsiveness to have the next thing about, you know, who you'd prefer to run against. That clearly is rehearsed, right? That's something that she had packaged beforehand, the show she can't react in the moment. And I totally agree with you. So let's talk a little bit about Iran with the reporting that there is an MOU that may be inked in the next 24 to 48 hours. And, you know, and if not, then perhaps the bombings will resume. Trump will sort of reintroduce the possibility of that if Iran continues to be obstreperous. But what is your perspective on where things stand and how the president has managed this campaign over the last 60 days? It's so hard to know where they stand, right? Because we could really be on the cusp of a deal, or the Iranians could be playing us, or the president could be overly optimistic, or, you know, some combination of all those things. So I think if we got a deal along the lines of what's been reported, I think it'd be pretty good. You know, he'll be open to the charge. It's like a JCPOA type agreement, which it is, but you have layered on top of it, this massive destruction. of Iran's military power and industrial capacity. So it'll take them years and years to recover. So what I prefer if they just gave everything up and handed over all the uranium. And that, by the way, it's a huge question. You know, officials have said, oh, we think we can get them to hand over the uranium. But it's not clear whether they will. But I think if they did that, that would be a clear victory. But I think we couldn't be in a place where this is a net. benefit to U.S. national security. But, you know, the cost have been pretty high. And I'm not sure the president would go about it on the same timing or in the same way, knowing what he knows now. But that often happens in military operations. You don't fully learn how it's going to go until it's happened. And clearly the closing the Strait of her moves, they did it in a way we hadn't really envisioned. It wasn't their Navy, you know, blockading the strait. The Navy's on the bottom of the sea. It's just a threat. of an occasional fastboat or a drone has stopped almost every tanker from transiting.

You wrote about this, too. I mean, part of the discussion, of course, is about energy and prices at the pump that says dominated the discussion here because that's one of the angles the D.C. Press Corps wants to take to, you know, be a wet blanket on this campaign. But the other thing, but the flip side of that is to say Trump's push both in his first term and reinvigorated in the second term. for American energy independence proved to be precisely the right policy. Yeah, it's been a brilliant policy. It's been a national success. I think drill baby drill is the biggest public policy success in the United States in the last 15 years. Now, it doesn't make us immune to what's going on in the strait because there is a global market for crude, and that's why there's a four on the front of the price of gas in most gas stations, which is higher than it was and it isn't great and does put pressure on us. But if you look at, say, liquefied national gas, You know, 20% of the supply has been cut off because the straight is effectively closed, and the price has gone down in the United States. The price in West Texas at the moment is negative. They're paying people to come take it away because all the pipelines are full, whereas in Asia and Europe, it's up 80% or more than 100%. So clearly buffered from some of this turmoil and just at such a better place where we were in the 1970s. when what was happening with Middle Eastern oil could literally bring our economy in a presidency to its knees. Well, and also, I mean, this is always a dynamic, but since this is a topic of discussion, you know, going back to California and the governor's race there, something Steve Hilton said in the CNN debate the other night, which I think needs to be said more often by Republicans in failed states like California, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc. Which is, yeah, yeah, but. All this time spent blaming Trump. But, you know, here in California, the number at the palm starts with seven or an eight. Six or seven. And he's the president of the entire country. So there's something going on in California that isn't going on in the rest of the country. What is that, you know, to focus people locally and get them off to just everything in the world that I don't like is Trump's fault? Yeah, and this is a big problem Gavin Newsom is going to have, what and if you run. Every single thing that you have to pay for that people care about, whether it's housing or whether there's energy or whatever, has gone up in California radically because of their failed policy.

I'm going to get your take, too, on the Indiana primary election on Tuesday. You know, there's been some hand-wringing about the primary upsets by, well, I know if there were upsets, but the primary involvement of Trump, those state senators who voted against remapping Indiana the way that other states are remapping in earnest these days. And by Cut Carl Rove, Wall Street Journal editorial page, didn't like it, hollow victory and those sorts of characterizations. What was your take on that reckoning that was delivered for those senators who didn't go along with putting in the fight and the remapping space? Yeah, so my understanding is that those centers were reluctant to do the redistricting because people in their district didn't want to be grab parts of Indianapolis and have Indianapolis part of their suburban districts because they left Indianapolis for a reason. But it caused great anger among Republicans because what do they do in Virginia? They did exactly the same thing. They kind of in reverse. They divided up all of Northern Virginia and then stretched it down. you know, 100 miles into the rest of Virginia to create all these Democratic districts. And it just shows the power of Trump, you know, and there's talk that he's going to be a lame duck. Or people even said after the 24-24 election he'll be an instant lame duck because he won't be able to run again. He's going to be 90 years old on a rocking chair, Mar-a-Lago, and not be a lame duck in the sense of not having influence over this party. I mean, it's just... It's unbelievable. It's like nothing we've ever seen. You know, Ronald Reagan never could do this, or maybe he didn't want to do it, but I'm not sure if he could have if you wanted. George W. Bush never could do it, just the grip that he has on the party and on its voters, and that's the ultimate source of it. But the grip he has on the voters, it's unbelievable. Rich Lowry, editor, National Review, author of The Case for Nationalism, how it made us powerful, united, and free. Rich, thank you as always. Hey, thanks for having me. Talk, thanks for. And he joined us on the alphawealthgroup.com answer line. Hear about the big stories of the day. Then talk about them right here on Chicago's morning answer, an AM 560. The answer. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560. The answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here, and we talked about this a bit yesterday, but I want to get our next guest view on the import of it. Ken Griffin's response to Zohran Mamdani, the Kami mayor of New York City, drew a response from Zohran Mamdani yesterday, response to the response of the response, started with the video where Zohran Mamdani specifically targeted... Griffin's penthouse in New York City as illustrative of the tax system being unfair and thus the need for a paid deter tax for people who have property in New York City above, I think it was 5 million, but who don't live in New York City. And his response to what you'll hear from Griffin again. was basically like, oh, you know, he's an important employer, but the tax system is unfair. Because that's what they always say. What's fair? More. Always more. Something new, new tax. And more of an existing tax. And it's just, it's not fair. So go along with the program. That's the mantra of the left. But here was Griffin responding to the call-out by Zohran Mamdani, this at the Milken Institute confab. So where does that leave us at 350 Park? That leaves us with the fact that we went to Miami and revised our building plan to make it a bigger office building. You're bailing? So what do we do at 350 is still a point of discussion internally, but what is no longer a point of discussion is that Miami is now... When we moved from Chicago, there was a debate between New York and Miami. It's unquestionably true that we made the right choice. I'll leave it at that. It's unquestionably true that we made the right choice. And now what the mayor of New York has made clear to my partners, and principally my New York partners, is that we need to double down on our bet in Miami because we want to be in a state that embraces... That embraces business, that embraces education, that embraces personal freedom and liberty, and that embraces people having an opportunity to live the American dream. And that's not New York or Illinois. I had a discussion with some friends at dinner yesterday who are in the development business. The 350 park is probably going to go forward because they're too far along. One of the points that was made, which is a good insight, is even if that goes forward, what do you think his mind's eye toward New York City is going forward as long as this is the political power structure and these are going to be the policies and the approach to those policies? And what do you think the guy on the sidelines? that's looking at the same thing Griffin was looking at, sort of investment and development opportunities, is thinking about New York after witnessing this. Just as people on the outside looking in at Chicago, what do you think they're thinking? Well, I can tell you, the absence of tower cranes in the city should tell you what they're thinking.

For more on this and other matters, please be joined by Brian Westbury, Chief Economist at First Trust Portfolios LP. Brian, thanks for being with us. Appreciate it. Hey, Dan, great to be with you. Your reaction to this contra-tomp between Griffin and Zohran Mamdani. Yeah, you know, it's happening everywhere. You know, Washington, State, Oregon, California, Colorado, all of them want to put taxes on high-income earners. This inequality debate has, you know, taken off like more than maybe since the 1930s. I mean, we've had experiments with socialism and communism in the United States before. But this is like this is something special. It's amazing to me. And I think you know, and I'm sure some of your listeners know, I have been criticizing the Federal Reserve for making this battle even worse. So if we go back to 2008 and the great financial crisis, this is when Ben Bernanke invented quantitative easing, which basically means we're going to flood the system with new money. And we have tripled the money supply since 2008 in the United States. If you have a $100 bill in your wallet, 67 of those dollars were created in the last 18 years. The other 33 in the previous century or more. That's how much money we printed. And so if you think about what happens is if you have assets, if you own a home, if you own a business, if you have investments and you triple the money supply, you win. But if you don't have assets... If you're young, let's say, you just haven't saved. You haven't bought a house yet. And I know there's affordability and all that. Let's leave that aside. You just haven't saved. You haven't bought a home. But you're paying now because of the inflation that that money printing caused, you're paying more for goods. Your income might have gone up a little bit. But you basically, you lost. And so this... policy by the Federal Reserve has pitted Gen Z against the baby boomers. I talk to Gen Zers. Some get it. Some just hate the baby boomers. And 75% of 18 to 29-year-olds voted for Zohran Mamdani in New York because they believe that this inequality that we face today is a, they think it's caused by capitalism. But it's not. It's caused by the Federal Reserve. And so I take a couple of things out of this, and I'll shut up. But number one, this policy by the Fed in the last 18 years has created more inequality in America than any other policy in our history. And the second thing is Jerome Powell and other Fed...

pretenders are running around going, leave us alone, we're independent. You can't, you can't, you know, politicians need to leave the Fed alone. And what I would argue is that the Fed completely change the political landscape in America, they, they, the politicians should be after them because they have affected elections. They have affected the way one generation feels about another. They've increased inequality. The Fed is the one that changed the political environment. No wonder politicians are going after them. Well, but the flip side, you know, the politicians are a little bit hypocritical, too, because most of them are on board with quantity and have been on board with quantitative easing. Most of them, including the president, actually, whether they understand it or not, favor the weak dollar. I mean, and all by the way, most of them are on the side of winning based on this, the Fed policy you're describing and the winners and losers that you detailed. Well, I'm not going to say that that's not true, but what the Fed invited by doing this, the Fed, if they wanted to truly be independent, they would have never financed COVID. If the Federal Reserve, like, so let's go back to 2020. Yes, right. I agree. Yeah. And the government says to us, hey, we're going to borrow $5 trillion. and we're going to pay people to sit at home and keep their businesses closed. But we're going to have to borrow this money in the open market, in the free market. And inflation was about 2%. And I guarantee you the borrowing cost would have been somewhere between 4% and 6% bond yields. That's what they would have had to pay. Instead, the Fed lowered the interest rate to zero. The 10-year treasury, they pulled it all the way down to 1.5. So the federal government was able to borrow $5 trillion at extra. extremely artificially low interest rates. And so, yes, politicians may have liked that because they got to hand out all kinds of money, but the Fed should have never let that happen. And they did. And they think they saved the world, but instead they changed the political environment massively. I think this is the problem with all kinds of government policy, and that is that politicians may want... to take pain away from people. But the more you try to take pain away from people, the more problems you create down the road.

I mean, I agree with you and the piece that you wrote over at Real Clear Politics about the folly of Fed independence. I mean, is there a more laughably dishonest statement than Jerome Powell saying that he conducted monetary policy without considering political factors? I mean, of course, that's just ridiculous. But what do you think incoming Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh thinks? Do you think he agrees with you? Well, you know, so he was on the Federal Reserve during the great financial crisis, so he voted for the first QE. And if you kind of read, he's, you know, he's a politician and he, and this is the funny thing. Like the Fed chairman are some of the best politicians in Washington, D.C., by the way. So this idea that they're not political is ridiculous. But. Having said that, what he'll say is, okay, that first round that I voted for was good. But everything else after that, I disagree with. And Westbury, I mean, he's never said this, but, you know, Westbury's kind of right. This is messed things up. It created inflation. It created inequality. And so we should have never done that. And he wants to roll back the feds. balance sheet. And some of this gets really technical and we won't go there. But he does want to shrink that. Yeah, but Jerome Powell said, you know, intermittently over the course of his tenure, said the same thing. And it wasn't true. And the point you make and to the point I was making before that Kevin Warsh would probably say, yeah, Westbury's pretty much right. But he hasn't said that publicly. Right. And he's not going to say what you just said about the Fed publicly either, which speaks to the political culture inside the Beltway. Yeah, exactly. You protect the institution that you're in charge of. And the reason is you like your job. And, you know, people say, why would the Fed do this, Brian? You know, because I'll give a speech and explain what the Fed did. And my answer is, hey, if you were, let's say you were a financial advisor, would you rather have $800 billion under management or $8 trillion? You know, and that's the Fed, right? They always want a bigger balance sheet. But we've gotten to this point in this country where we think we can fix everything. by just printing money and borrowing money. And we know how that ends. Like it's happened a thousand times in the history of the world. And we know how it ends. And yet here we are doing it. Because elected officials have abdicated their fiscal response, their fiscal policy.

powers. I mean, and that, and that includes the president. And that includes this president. I mean, there's just no interest in serious fiscal policy, you know, minus this recent zeitgeist to interdict transfer benefits corruption, which is good. But, I mean, that's not, that's not structurally changing the way the spend occurs in D.C. No, it's not. And then just to go back to where you started with Zohran Mamdani and Griffin, you know, like I said, 75% of the 18 to 29-year-olds in this country voted, or in New York City, voted for Zohran Mamdani. And so he feels empowered to do this. And he's now, you know, it's F-A-F-O, right? And Ken Griffin is pointing out the problem. I mean, if you look at migration in the United States, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Illinois, everybody is losing population. Their tax bases are going down. They literally are, when they look at their budgets, legally, they're supposed to have a balanced budget. They don't have one. Chicago hasn't had a balanced budget in a decade or more. Well, they did during COVID, but that was based on government, federal government handouts. Well, the budgets in Chicago and Illinois are never really balanced because they never properly account for unfunded pension obligations. Right. Exactly. And so what's happened is these politicians just feel emboldened. And that's where I come back to the Fed. I get it. Politics would unfurl in certain ways, no matter what the Fed did. But I believe the inequality that this caused, that when, if you have had, if you're a baby boomer and you've been saving for 40 years. You're not greedy. You've been doing what you were taught, you know, that, hey, I'm going to save, and then I'm going to have money in my retirement, and I can retire and not be destitute, and not have to count on the government. And so you've done all the right things. Then they come in and triple the money supply, and you end up, like, getting a windfall because of this. It's hard to put into words what a tripling of the money supply is. Here's one other way I've tried to do it. Back in 2008, we had a FDIC insurance on your bank account of $250,000 a year. And so if you triple the money supply, the size of everybody's bank account, what should FDIC insurance be today? Well, it should be $750,000 in account because we've tripled the amount of money in the economy. But it's only 250, and by the way, I don't like FDIC insurance anyway. That's a whole other debate.

But what I'm getting at, that's what happened. This is why the stock market is at an all-time high. This is why we have so many billionaires in this country. Yes, they've invented beautiful things like Starlink that change the world and AI. And I get, if you get billionaires from that, that's a good thing. But we have so many because we've tripled the money supply. What should have been worth $1 in 08 is now worth three, and it has nothing to do with creating value. It has all to do with the fact that we flooded the system with money. And then these politicians assume, you know, if you ask AI, what's the best system for creating wealth? It comes back. It says capitalism. But then if you ask what's the argument against capitalism, it says inequality. All right? That's what people believe. And there is inequality that develops because, you know, Bill Gates or Sam Walton or Elon Musk make everybody's lives better. But there's also inequality created by fake money printing. And that's not inequality that's caused by capitalism. And I think people are confusing and conflating the two. And then these politicians... I mean, for Zohran Mamdani to go after one individual, and I get it, that Elizabeth Warren goes after Elon Musk all the time. It seems to be happening more. But for him to go after one individual, I found appalling. And it should never, ever happen. But they're emboldened because they're winning elections, and it's because people are upset. that the inequality, that inequality has expanded so much. Well, I mean, that's a compelling argument you make, and the concern that I have is, you know, we're, the free market types among us and at least those politicians that sort of lean in that direction, generally speaking, we've given up the predicate argument, which is an understanding about how markets work and about. about what you're saying, the manipulation and the externalities that throws off. And, you know, they win the, they win the class envy argument among a certain cohort that's easy to make. They have more. You should have some of it. So we'll just take from them and give to you pretty straightforward. But, but, but, but, but, but if we don't go back to first principles here and make those cases and starting in the Godforsaken government schools, then it just becomes, okay, well, You know, who is going to sign on to universal basic income, which we sort of de facto have now, or an enhanced unit UBI, or this expansion of this entitlement program, or this special deal for special people. I mean, we get into their racket of distributing the spoils of other people's labor, and then we lose. Then we're going to lose. Yeah, exactly. I am very worried that we will not be able to turn this ship around. You know, Reagan, Reagan was able to actually reduce the size of the federal government as a share of GDP. And then his wake, if you will, his momentum was so powerful that even...

Bill Clinton couldn't get out of the way. He ended up reforming welfare as we know it. And I get at New Kingrich. I'm not trying to be perfect a story in here. But New Kingrich isn't welled and all that. But that was the last time we actually reduced the size of our government. And the reason this is so important, let me put it this way. The federal government right now spends... 24% of our GDP. State and local governments spend 20% of our GDP, and then the cost of us complying with regulation. So just think taxes, how much time you have to spend doing your taxes. And that's 7% of GDP. Add up all those numbers, it's 51% of GDP is taken by government. They either borrow it or they tax it, but it's taken by them and used for their purposes. And so then you start to think, well, if we're only left with 49% of our production, no wonder houses aren't affordable. Like if you only have half of what you produce. Houses didn't go up half of what they're supposed to go up, and everybody wants to blame Blackstone and Black Rock and Airbnb, but it's really the government that's taking over half of everything we produce. and using it for their own benefit, their own needs. And I know they're giving it to voters and giving it to the society or, you know, through millions of different ways. But the point I'm getting to is no, if you take half of what Pauline makes and give it to Peter, neither one of them can afford a house. And this is why we have an affordability crisis. Brian Westbury, Chief Economist, First Trust portfolios. Brian, thank you as always. Appreciate it. Yep, thank you, Dan. And Brian, joined us on the alphawealthgroup.com answer line. It's news, opinion, insight. This is Chicago's morning answer, an AM 560, the answer. Time now for another reason why Dan Proft is single. Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. What do our feathered friends know? This is science. Look, it's just the science. This is a study that was published or the results published in the Scientific American, all right? Scientific American. Go check it out yourself. It turns out that European great tits and... I thought I could get through it. It's a bird. They're birds. That's how you say it. I'm so juvenile. European great tits and 36 other bird species on the continent are more afraid of women than they are men according to a study. And researchers have no idea why I do. In the study, science.

But I got to admit, when I read the first line, I thought they were talking about Sophia Loren. In a study, men could get about a meter closer to birds than women could before the animals flew away, according to the results. They're leaving. A woman just happened upon them. This pattern remained regardless of what the men and women were wearing, what their height was, or how they tried to approach the creatures, birds. We may not fit to birds. This suggests birds may be able to suss out the sex of a human, though they're not sure how. The things we still don't know. Daniel Blumstein is a co-author of the study. He's a professor at the University of California and a European gray tits enthusiast, I'm sure. said, I firmly believe our results that urban birds react differently based on the sex of the person approaching them, but I can't explain them right now. The researchers looked at birds living in urban centers in five European countries. They included birds that are known to flee as soon as human approaches, such as magpies, and those that tend to flap off later, such as pigeons. The outsized fear response to women was consistent across the species. Burn brains the hell you say, I say. The team, the research team hypothesized that birds may be sensing chemical signals such as pheromones. or using cues such as body shape to recognize a person's sex. But more research is needed before they can come to any conclusions. We have identified a phenomenon, but we really don't know why. However, what our results do highlight is the bird's sophisticated ability to evaluate their environment, said study co-author Federico Morelli and associate professor at the University of Turin. also a European great tits enthusiast. Hmm. Look, I get it. I think the birds are reacting to these urban bitches the same way that many of us do. Rick and Downers Grove, you're on Chicago's morning answer. Hey, good morning. I think they had to specifically try the educated white suburban woman because there's nothing that wants to be around them.

Thanks, Rick. Yeah, I mean, if anybody else has a theory to contribute to this scientific exploration, please do give us a call. 312-642-5600. That's the alphawealthgroup.com answer line and text line. You know, men of science need to come together and women, too, to answer this question. Speaking of, well, Charlize Theron, she's a bit of a nut. I think birds, I think she can't get within even two meters of a bird before they fly away. She recently gave in an interview in a podcast talking about how she's raising her kids. And remember, She's adopted two kids. At least one of them is trans. An 11-year-old and a 14-year-old. The 14-year-old, she calls her daughter, even though he's a boy. I'm not sure if the other one. I thought initially that they were both, you know, identifying as boys, but they're actually. or, well, I don't know. They were both identifying as trans and she was celebrating that. I remember saying something about this when they were much younger. But regardless, it gives you a sense of what's going on there. She was talking in part positively about she's not going to support her kids as adults that they better get ready to start working and she takes them to Starbucks. She, you know, tells them that look at get ready to have to, you know, do this routine and so on and so forth of getting up and being responsible and putting in a day's work. That's all well and good. But it starts to go off the rails a little bit.

This was on that Call Her Daddy podcast with that ghastly woman. Remember, Kamala Harris paid a million bucks to set up this podcast with this Call Her Daddy chick. Thoron went on to explain that her children growing up without a father is worth it. Because being a single mother means, quote, I don't have to run every effing thing by a guy. With women, it's always like something must be wrong with her. She can't keep a man. And it's never part of the discussion of like, wow, she's really living her truth. Those kids are, boy, they don't have a chance. I look at them and just be like, good English. Do you know how effing great it is to live exactly how I want to live, to experience motherhood, exactly how I wanted to experience it? And she knows that people say, well, that's not fair to your kids. And then her response to that straw man that she set up, can I tell you something? That will be their story to tell. I can't tell you. I can only tell you that this is the best way that I know how to be a mother to them. And maybe they'll grow up and tell their story, and I will respect that. I just know that this was the only way I knew I could do it. And my effing God, do I love every single day of it? I love that I don't have to share them with somebody. I love that I don't have to run every effing thing by a guy. She's got a little bit of a potty mouth that Charlize Theron. But this whole attitude, Charlize Theron is in my age cohort. So, I mean, this is the whole, you know. second and third wave feminist rap that you get all the time. All the time. But anyway, if anybody has, again, anybody has any theories about the European great tits and those 36 other species of birds that are spooked. by the distaff side, please do give us a call. 312-4-2-5600 alphawealthgroup.com, Antelan. Matt's outside. Hey, Dan, good morning. You're telling me a bird can tell the difference between a man and a woman, but a Democrat can't. Hi-oh. Even Supreme Court justice. Right. These birds are more sophisticated than Ketanji Brown Jackson. And Charlize Theron, apparently. The birds have to acknowledge reality because, you know, they have to survive. Whereas some humans get to live in a particularly thick bubble, don't they?

What? 6.0 was this bird study backed by Peter Bogosian? No, this is not a hoax. I don't, it's good, it's a good point. If I saw Burgosian or Lindsay's name on it, I think, okay, I'm getting punked. But no, I don't think so. Text from 312, possible scientific proof that men can't become women. Yes. Mm-hmm. Yeah. I mean, I'm a fan of, you know, I'm not like a birdwatcher. By the way, just as an aside, I was going to leave this for Christian Toto, but since we're on the topic, good movie I saw that I recommend. I try to insinuate recommendations where I can. This was last year, but anything with Brendan Gleason in it, he's one of those actors. He was in the Banshees of In Isheron. with Colin Farrell. A great movie, Calvary, great movie, Brendan Glees, a really good actor. H's for Hawk is the film, thinking about birds. Now, interestingly, and this is why you know it's fiction, the story is Brendan Glees, in part, I'm not going to give anything away, but the central part of the story is his daughter becoming a falconer. H's for Hawk. Really good film. But you know it's fiction because the woman became a falconer. At least according to this study, we don't know why yet. We're going to have to do more clinical trials with European gray tits. That's all there is to it. Steve in Downers Grove. Yeah, Dan, thanks for taking my call. I thought you might be interested. You probably know this. On your phone, there is a bird singing app. You can put it on. It's really easy. I can even do it. And every bird that sings its name will show up, it's really very cool. You're walking around in the woods, and you want to hear about birds. I was down in Florida, and my two favorite birds that came up were the red-headed pecker. Graper, great bird. Nice sound. And they tit back down in Florida. Two really nice birds. So that's an idea for your phone. Yeah, thanks, Steve. I appreciate that. Yeah. Interesting choices, too, in terms of your favorite birds. Bill and Waukegan. Hey, Dan, thanks for taking my call. You know, I try to more or less assess women as I would Jennifer Aniston. And that's how I use, that's how I apply Jennifer Anderson to my bird watching because she's beautiful. She is attractive. She has to be smart. But there is an underlying factor about her that just makes her undesirable to males. And so I feel that same way with the bird you just mentioned whose name I just won't mention, but it's still cracked me up. But I just want to say that one flew overhead the other day and left some milk stains on my windshield. Thanks for the call, Bill. Text from 630 from Alex P. Keaton.

What would one of the European great tits do if it landed on Sidney Sweeney? You know, I don't know. Again, there are a lot of answers and unanswered questions here, but maybe that's, that could be another area of further scientific inquiry. Dan Proff, Chicago's morning answer. The stories you need to know to start your day. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560, the answer. I think this is another example of what our feathered friends are picking up with females. The performance art that took place in Venice this past week at the 61st Art Banal, a modern art event. Australian artist Florentina Holinger. Well, she created, I guess, a couple of different instances. One was a woman hanging upside down in a bell serving effectively as the clapper. Isn't that what you call the thing that makes the noise, bangs against the bell itself, the clapper, hanging and then swaying back and forth. And this was to have this dumbbell. ring the bell for climate change. Florentina Holzinger also created this SeaWorld Venice from the art newspaper.

Long before she was accidentally mining 1990s Hollywood Flops, Holzinger was making a name for herself with works of performance art so visceral and in your face that audience members were fainting with shock. Her bloody horror ballet premiered in Vienna with content warnings for nudity, blood, needles, stroves, and graphic violence. People walked out. Some even passed out. 18 people were treated for severe nausea after attending her 2024 performances of her opera Sankta in Stuttgart, which combined nudity, real sex, live piercing, body fluids, heavy machinery. Seawroll Venice. The world functions in an underwater theme park sewage treatment plan and sacred building, imagining Venice as a flooded metropolis. Live performers present throughout the seven-month duration of the installation plan characters in this watery nightmare world are totally dependent on technology for their survival.

I think the birds are on to something. 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 on AM 560, The Answer. This is Chicago's Morning Answer with Dan Proft, an AM 560, The Answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. I want to go back to something we tackled earlier in the program. But we have an expert and a former practitioner coming up next. I'm going to get his opinion on it. Sylvana Tiberas, the Alder Human, testifying in the CCPSA confirmation hearing, directing her comments to Anjanette Young. who as name was put forward for this civilian police accountability board. I mean, that's the way it's pitched. And Jeanette Young was the victim of a mistaken CPD raid a couple of years back. It was a cause-celeb of Kim Foxes for... discussing police misconduct essentially. This is what Tiberis had to say, though. Andrea Young was, you know, was wrongfully, her home was wrongfully rated and so she deserved justice. There's no question about that. Police do make mistakes and you've got to own your mistakes. Fine. But it doesn't make her any sort of particular expert on policing or public safety. And Tavares was quick to point to some comments she made that would suggest quite the opposite, in fact. On the Dexter Reed case, the attempted cop killer who shot a cop, open fire on cops. And the city was ready to make a settlement with the family. Recently, the city council denied a proposed lawsuit settlement for the estate of attempted police murderer, Dexter Reed. In that incident, Reed shot a police officer. You were quoted in an interview with WTTW calling police returning fire excessive. With the statistics telling the truth, and as we prepare for an officer's funeral on Friday, I don't think that this is the perspective of somebody who can be objective. You're before the committee today seeking an appointment to a commission born out of the same movement that also saw the skyrocketing of attacks on police. Since its creation of the CCPSA, the commission has mostly pushed efforts to restrict officers, despite data showing more violence is done to officers, not by officers. For a reaction to that and discussion on a number of other issues, please be joined by Bob Milan, former first assistant state's attorney for Cook County.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Illinois as well. Bob, thanks for joining us again. Appreciate it. Sure, Dan. Always good to talk to you. What about what Alder Humann Tabaris had to say about the CCPSA, the genesis of it, the utility of it, and, of course, the backdrop of this is all the increase in police, in violence directed at police, as Tabaris mentioned, since the George Floyd riots. Oh, she's right about the statistics. The statistics do bear out that there's far more violence directed at the police than they do towards anybody in the public. And if you look at this years, the amount of police shootings where they were putting a position where they had to fire somebody had gone down. And so that's all positives. And the time that we're dealing with right now with the excessive officer Bartholomew and his serious injury of his partner, we should be doing everything we can to back the police situations and not criticize him.

Cook County State's Attorney, Eileen, O'Neill, O'Malley, Madigan, Collerton, Burke. Big Irish name. She sort of has largely skated on culpability here. We're talking a lot about Judge Like, talking about the case involving the criminal who shot and killed Bartholomew and seriously injured his partner. And cases like that, where you have basically the Safety Act striking again and again and again against whether it's law enforcement or innocent civilians. Bethany McGee comes to mind. Eileen Burke has sort of not been focused upon. We're talking about the politicians, which is fair, talking about the judges. That's also fair. But there was a piece earlier this week at CWB Chicago. where some defense attorneys were interviewed. And I said, you know, it's fine for criticism to be directed at the judge and the pre-child detention decisions that are made by Cook County judges. But, you know, if Burke's office disagrees with a judge, for example, releasing a repeat violent offender under whatever theory. but, you know, with the Safety Act as cover. They do have some remedies they can attempt to apply. They could seek a motion to relief, emotion for relief, I should say, essentially for reconsideration of, for example, the judge's decision to release a prisoner on a release, say, a suspect on electronic monitoring. They could also. take the matter to an appellate court under Supreme Court Rule 604. And those tools, according to the CWB analysis, have rarely been used by... Eileen Burke's office, including in the case of Talley, the man who is charged with killing Officer Barba Thalmew and seriously wounding his partner. So does the state's attorney deserve some scrutiny here and questioning about why they're not pressing judges harder with all of the tools at their disposal? Let me just start out by saying that at the actual hearings, McAlley and others, other high-profile cases, clearly the assistant state's attorneys are making very strong to keep these people locked up and detained. I've been impressed, you know, by the assistant state attorneys in court making the records. But to your question, yes, more can be done. All of these decisions, decisions to not detain are appealable. And I don't think there's ever been a single appeal filed on any of these over the years. And that has to change.

The other thing that's important. There's been a few, according to CWB, Chicago. But, I mean, it's very few considering how many stories we have, you know, week after week of people on pretrial release for a violent crime committing another violent crime. And that's the issue. So, yeah, that's where we're going. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so it has to start. You have to start doing it because what are you doing? You're setting a pattern. You're setting an example. Throughout the court system, that we're not going to take this anymore on these kind of cases. I mean, the Talley case is a perfect example. There was no feel filed that I'm aware of for a petition to reconsider. And so, boom, he's out on the street. So that has to change. And the second thing is, I would hope that the elected states turning the biggest county in the state of Illinois would take a position on the Safety Act. I mean, it's totally silent on it. And she is the person that deals with the most. And we would hope that she would stand up with others like me and say, let's amend the Safety Act right now. I mean, we're not calling to throw it out. We're calling to make logical amendments to this. So it is safe for the streets because right now it's a danger act. I mean, it's intentionally releasing dangerous people on the street. It's putting judges in a position where they cannot consider criminal backgrounds in many cases. They can't even consider a guy's crime. And so they have to let these guys out. And what it's done is it's encouraged judges, like the judge in the tally case, to let dangerous guys out. So I would hope she'd stand up and take a position on this because I haven't heard her take any position on it. Why suggest amending it and not just repealing it outright? Sorry, what did you say? Why would you, why suggest amending it rather than just repealing it outright? Because I think you have to be realistic. I don't think that's going to happen in this state. No, I understand, but you state, you, you stake out the ground of the amendments. The amendments I'm taking. Well, because. Be realistic. I mean, you're not going to, you know, I don't think most people even care about the cashless part, right? I certainly don't. This could be a very good act if you make about four or five amendments, you know. You allow judges, you give judges discretion to hold everybody from a class A and up based on a charged crime and their criminal background. You don't require prosecutors that to file petitions to detain. Experienced judges should be able to hear the facts, hear the background, and make the decision on their own. You make it so that you amend the act to allow judges to detain a defendant if he violates his conditions of release, like doesn't appear or, you know, drops hot a drug test. They're not allowed to do that. You do statewide for these judges. to enforce the importance of protecting the public from lawless offenders. And then unrelated to this, but somewhat related is you've got to end this electronic monitoring. It's not working, right? It's not working.

So, right. And if you did that, this would be a pretty good act. Well, so, right. So in other words, if you, if you gutted it, it would be a pretty good act. I mean, that's, I guess that's my point. I guess, I guess you could say it's gutted it. I mean, that's, yeah, there's degrees. But, but, but, look, here's how it was pitched to us, right? Dan, it was pitched to us. A millionaire can get out for a case, but a poor person can't, right? So that's how it was pitched to the public, so we have to end cash. You know, we have to take money out of it. All right, let's take it out. But don't do all these other things that it did. And so, let's face it, the governor has to wear the jacket for this. I mean, Bartholomew's dead and the other officers probably paralyzed for life. The governor and the speaker. And the head of the Senate, president of the Senate, they got to wear the jacket for this because they're the ones that put this in motion and got it signed. And that's where we're at. Absolutely right. Absolutely right. And that's something else that Eileen Burke. And others should be saying, let's start, you know, there's a lot of responsibility to go around, but let's start at the top. You know, big, because the thing about it is you still have these judges, though, like, like, if I could, in the tally case. I mean, the things he said according to the court record. You know, are akin to what Tim Evans used to say about, you know, the prefrontal cortex is not fully formed until the age of 26. So, you know, he looked at this guy, this cop killer's record of violence and disappearance and said, well, he's got a kid now. I think he's matured from when I saw him in court the first time a couple of years back, even though he had committed all these offenses in the intervening period. And so I'm going to, basically, I'm going to roll the dice with him because, you know, because he's not his mental, you know, capacity isn't fully formed. He was, he's only 25 at the time or something like that. I mean, that kind of. judicial philosophy to be generous is an anathema to public safety. I mean, so there's, there's also a problem with accountability from the, by the chief judge with respect to judges if we're going to be serious about the, about public safety too. Oh, absolutely. Look, no one can tell me. that they're not being told. Judges aren't being told by the powers to be to release these guys. Nobody could make a decision like that. If you brought 10 common citizens and not even lawyers in, and they heard these facts, four-time convicted armed robber.

convicted of attack and a correctional officer, possession of a stolen motor vehicle. Now he has an armed vehicular hijack and an armed robbery, and you're going to let that guy out. I know. No one can tell me. The 10 people on the street would have said, uh-uh, no, no, no, no, we're not letting this guy on the street. But a trained judge in Cook County does that, right? Why? Because they're being told to do it. This stuff he said about the brain and all. He just said it. The reality is he's being told. And this is how we know that they're being told this. And this is how we know that the Safety Act is causing this. This quote where he says, he says, under the state's old bail system, Callie would have faced a million dollar bail. However, I assume the legislature says, no, we're not going to do that anymore. We're going to make judges take a critical look at it. Did he ever? And now we have a dead police officer, 37, 38 years old, another guy in critical condition, all because of this nonsense they're being told. It makes me sick. You know, so, I mean, when you say they're being told, are you suggesting it's sort of one of these things? Everybody knows what to do, so nobody has to give the order. Or are you suggesting Chief Judge Beach is telling his judges this is what you're going to do? This started before Chief Judge Beach was named. Well, that's true. So this is coming from, you know, the Black Caucus, they push the Safety Act. This is coming from the powers of the game in the Democratic Party. And look, if you're a judge, how do you get on the appellate court? You make these guys happy. How do you get on the Illinois Supreme Court? You make these guys happy. You don't make waves. You do what you're told. And what results in that when you're worried about your own future? And good things happening for you in the future. You end up with dead citizen. You end up with a girl on fire on the CTA. Her life is ruined. You end up with a dead Chicago cop. We could go on and on. If this doesn't change now, it's never going to change. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well said. Something else I wanted to get your take on. This is, I can't say it's surprising. Kim Fox. uh kim fox said in a deposition last month she personally believed two men who were exonerated and whose certificates of innocence were not opposed by her office when she was state attorney were in fact guilty of a quote the heinous act of murder for which they were convicted one of the two men reached a wrongful conviction settlement with the city of chicago So large, meaning is more than 100,000. It's waiting city council approval. The man accused of being his accomplices preparing to take his lawsuit to a federal jury next week. There was a cop who had been. basically found to have committed misconduct, but I don't need to get into the details of the case. The bottom line is she believed, despite what the police officer, the investigator in the case did, that these guys were guilty, but she didn't oppose the certificate of innocence. She basically walked away from it. And there's another case. This was back in her city club.

her city club speech where she announced that she wasn't running again, where she suggested another, a woman who was convicted for a crime that she didn't commit, but she hadn't, and the woman was in the audience and she had said something to Kim Fox before her city club speech. But Kim Fox says in the deposition under oath, she had no basis to make that statement. She didn't know the facts of the case. And under additional questioning, the attorney asked, so did you basically just repeat what she told you and accept that as gospel? And she said, yeah, you could say that. So we have people that one, she knew, she thought were guilty and she turns a blind eye to their exoneration and now payouts by the city. And the other who also has a civil suit against the city. She just repeats publicly. her version of events such that now that woman suing the city, saying she was convicted of a crime she never committed, is using Kim Fox's words as evidence in her civil trial against the city of Chicago. I mean, are you telling me there's nothing that can be done with this kind of behavior by a former Cook County State's attorney? Yeah, well, let's take the first example. First example, the office did oppose the certificate of innocence for five years and then suddenly changed their positions. And it's important for the people to understand what the law is for a certificate of innocence. It's not complicated. It's now the burden shifts. So in order to get a certificate of innocence, the offender has to prove that they were actually innocent of the crime they were charged for. So they have to prove the evidence. but they were innocent of the case they were charged with. There's a difference between finding them not guilty, which means the state didn't meet its burden and actual innocence, which means the guy didn't do it, right? There's a big gap there. Right. And so what we don't know is what made her change, what made her change her mind five years later. And so I'm not going to speculate. Maybe there was a legitimate reason. I don't know. But. But I know that under her administration, they were giving these things out like candy, right? Like, you know, I read that they were given four out of five out. I mean, that's insane, right? And so a responsible prosecutor has to look at this and say, all right, judge found him not guilty, or a jury found him not guilty. Is he actually innocent? If not, and you have evidence, you fight it. And that's what you do. You go to war and you fight it. And, you know, granting of certificates of innocence have been reversed by the appellate court in Illinois. So judges have given them out. You appeal it. And they've been reversed. They said, no, there's enough evidence there. He was unable to prove that he was actually innocent.

And so, you know, it's just important for the public to understand how these things work. Yeah, no, and I appreciate the explanation. But in the case of the men, she's testified or that she said in a deposition, so under oath, she believed they were guilty. But she walked away from opposing the certificate of innocence. And so, I mean, is there any potential criminal legal exposure there? No, against her? No. Yeah. You can say whatever she wants. The question is this. She said, I believe they were innocent, but we still granted this certificate. All right. What was the evidence? What changed in the evidence? One thing to say, I believe he did it. Did something change in your evidence? She owes the public an explanation why you would do that. Here's the other thing. These certificates of innocence get waved around in federal court and in the state court and they turn murderers into millionaires. And that's what's going on here. No, I know. In California, they're trying to turn these murders into millionaires. And it makes me sick. And so you need strong prosecutors to take them on. You go all out. If you lose, you lose. But you got to fight. And under that administration, they weren't fighting. They were laying down and just giving it to them. And so could you imagine, and here's the other thing they weren't doing. They weren't notifying victims' families when they were dismissing cases and when they were granting these certificates of innocence. But could you imagine being a... You lose your father 20 years ago, and all of a sudden you see on the news that the guy's getting a million dollars, and you're like, whoa, whoa, nobody even saw me. Right. That's what was going on. I mean, it's ridiculous what happened under that administration. Bob Mylan, former first assistant state attorney, Cook County, also a former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Bob, thanks as always. Appreciate it. Good talking, Dan. You too. And Bob Milan joined us on the AlphaWealthgroup.com answer line. The more you listen, the more you'll know. This is Chicago's morning answer. Morning answer. On AM 560, the answer. Only the biggest stories. Only the biggest guests. And only the biggest opinions. This is AM 560, the answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here, and Stephen Colbert did a sit down with the Messiah. He was so far up Barack's backside. He could probably see if there were any polyps on his prostate. They're both worried. Both of these gentlemen, these deep thinkers, are very worried about the future of, well, the Republican Party, mainly. Stephen Colbert looking toward the midterms and worrying about this apparent divide, which doesn't exist, between so-called liberals in the neo-Marxist party and the real leftists. Not a dime's worth of difference? And Barack flipped the script, I should say, and expressed his genuine concern. for the Republican Party and whether or not it will continue to be a loyal opposition party that meets his standards. I mean, the naval gazing here is astounding. The center is nonpartisan, but you yourself are still a member of the Democratic Party. There's a debate. on what the direction of the Democratic Party should be. It looks like it's going to be a fairly good midterm election for the Democrats, chance to take the House, if not the Senate. But there's a big debate on what the leadership would be like going forward. Basically, it's liberals versus the left to be very reductive about it. As my children say to me, Dad, you're a liberal. We're leftists because they're like liberals are people who think things should basically stay the same. know what I mean? And the next generation really wants things to change. So you have great leaders. You have people like Abigail Spanberger and Mikey Sheryl, very centrist. But then you have further left, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Zohran Mamdani. What direction do you think would be best for this party to actually achieve change? Well, two things I want to say. First, you're right. The presidential center is nonpartisan. And the reason I want to mention that is because I'm worried about the Republican Party, not just the Democratic Party. When I was president, people would ask me, well, what change would you like to see in Washington? I'd say I'd love a loyal opposition. I'd love a Republican Party that was conservative in some ways, that didn't agree with me on a whole bunch of stuff, but believed in. rule of law and judicial independence and empirical evidence and science and wasn't constantly tapping into our worst impulses and there has been a Republican party like that in the past and I want to see that return because I think you have to have two healthy parties Yeah, we need to go back to the party of Mitt Romney. Yeah, no, I know. We need a laydown party. So do you give the appearance of the loyal opposition without actually providing much opposition? No, I get it. I'll tell you what. First of all.

If I'm Stephen Colbert and his kids are telling him their leftists, not a fuddy-duddy liberal like him, which of course he's not. You may want to grow eyes in the back of your head there, Stephen Colbert. It's going to be interesting to see how they turn out. But more to the point, he is such an intellectual lightweight, which I've been saying since he first appeared on the scene because I knew him from the General Assembly in Illinois. Such a flim-flam man. And frankly, a particularly quotidian one. It's just the cliched platitudinist language and obviously the dishonesty of it all. It's not even clever. It's not even well-couched. He's really worried about, you know, worried about the Republican. I want it to be viable. If only they weren't Nazis, you know, we could have a loyal opposition party, basically what he's attempting to say. You know, and the disassociation. He's very concerned about. the attorney general being seen as the president's personal attorney, as opposed to the people's attorney, you know, like Eric Holder was, like Merrick Garland was. You can't just direct the attorney general to go after your political opponents. Well, there are a couple that I followed even though they weren't law. And I want us, we're going to have to do some work to return to this basic norm, and we probably now have to codify it. The White House shouldn't be able to direct the Attorney General to go around prosecuting whoever the president. And then the train seals applaud. It's just really difficult to get through. For more on this and other matters, Hollywood-related. Christian Toto, host of the Hollywood in Toto podcast, Hollywood in Toto.com, Hollywood and Toto.com. Christian, thanks for being with us again. Appreciate it. I can't even. I can't even. I heard snippet to that. This is a longer... A longer segment. I just can't believe it. You know, a couple quick thoughts. One is May 21st can't come soon enough. That's when the late show Stephen Colbert goes off the air. Secondly, you know, if, listen, I'm right of center, conservative, not, you know, by every measure, but that's certainly who I am. If I ever become that bubbled, that unwilling to accept alternate points of view, I don't know, I should be put in a home or maybe just feed me some pudding or something. Because it's unbelievable. And I... I don't know whether that's an actor that's real. I think that's my biggest question. Are they really that naive and that clueless or is it schick?

Yeah. I don't know. I mean, I think Obama's, I've always said, I just said it. He's a flim-flam man. He's like sort of, he was the face guy for the radical left. And I think that's his, I think that's part of his act. Now, he's been doing it for so long. Has it been, you know, totally internalized? So it's indistinguishable from who he actually is. You know, so vacuous. Maybe. I don't know. But I mean, it's like there's little tells, too. I mean, there's big tells and there's little tells. But I just love the idea. Nobody will pick up on this. You know, the presidential center, that's nonpartisan. So, you know, when I step into Obama land, I'm a nonpartisan. I'm a statesman. I'm a philosopher. I'm an educator. But when I get over in the political arena, that's where I have to be more of a partisan, you see. But he can shape shift to the moment, right, and to the environment to make sure that he's just perfectly situated each time. I mean, it's just. It is, it is, I don't know. It, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, It is, but here's the problem. There's no corrective force. There's no media that, you know, will fact check him, that will hold him accountable, that will ask him tough, but fair questions. Listen, you know, President Trump goes on Sean Hannity's show, and they chat, and it has some value, but you know, it's going to be more of a friendlier interview for sure. And there's mild value in that. I understand it. You know, you speak to your base. That's perfectly fine. But the mainstream media, the legacy media, should be doing something. something, anything to hold these people accountable. And, you know, it actually hurts the Democrats because if you just go off on these tangents, you're so detached from reality. You don't serve your party well. You don't serve your voters well. You become weak and soft. And that's what everyone on the left sadly is these days because they're never, ever challenged. Of course, when they get challenged, they call you a Nazi and they shut you down and they throw the largest object possible in your way. So it's partly their fault. But that's what's going on right now. Well, you know, it's interesting you bring that out because earlier in the program we're talking to Rich Lowry about the L.A. mayor's race and Spencer Pratt and that debate the other night. And one of the things that comes through is exactly that with Karen Bass and Nithya Raman. They are so unused to. having to defend themselves against like substantive criticism and an alternative point of view that Spencer Pratt just wiped the floor with them, whether the topic was homelessness or something else. They came across as offering tired, canned lines that work well in their circles, their political circles with fellow travelers because they're all lobotomized and all reading from the same playbook. But when you have like this exogenous force come in, I mean, they don't know how to handle it, and they look really bad attempting. Yeah, it's like a boxer who has a big fight in three months, and they decide, you know, I'm not going to spar. I'm in good shape. I'm fine. I know how to fight. I know my approach. I've got a whole strategy set up. I'll be good. And then you go in there, you get your clock clean because you haven't been sparring for three months. I mean, it's something similarly. They're intellectually weak.

And for that reason, when they do get challenged, it might have been the Seattle mayor was recently challenged, and her handlers had to kind of swoop in. Yes, Katie Wilson. Yes, Katie Wilson. Yes, it happens a lot. You know, it's they're not ready. They're not ready. And conservatives for better and worse, we get attacked and we get criticized and we get called out. And we have to defend our positions. And it makes us a little more intellectually ready for the fight, for the scrap. And they don't have that. Right. And they don't get challenged. I mean, back to what you were saying before, they're certainly not going to get challenged by a media that serves as their comm shop. And that's just the nature of it. So. There's no, I mean, that's the good news, bad news is there's no accountability because the media doesn't hold itself accountable. How could they hold anybody else accountable? I mean, there's just one media failure story after the other, most recently with the Southern Poverty Law Center, which indictments, which is in part a media fail. But the way the press court is oriented now in D.C. and its regional outposts, the mentality that dominates those. newsrooms, quote unquote, they are all in for pushing the candidates and the policies that they want. Yeah, and it's, you know, it's worse than this. It's the comedy landscape, too. Listen, Stephen Colbert, has he mentioned Eric Swalwell? Has he mentioned that Karen Bass was in Ghana when her city was on fire? I mean, they mentioned the French laundry with Gavin Newsom at the height of the COVID pandemic. That's another part of the protection racket. Listen, Saturday Live, I think has a new episode maybe this weekend. I think Matt Damon might be the host. I bet you they're going to rail on Spencer Pratt. They may target, but not the existing system in L.A. that's causing so much grief. Yeah, not Nithya Raman who blames Toyota for the incidents of Catalytic converters being stole out of Priuses in L.A. Toyota's a Toyota engineering fail. That way I think that was called up by Adam Carolla in a great bit. And that's the kind of story that should be on John Stewart and all these different shows because it's hysterical. And that's where you speak truth to power. And if you don't, you're not doing your job. And Stephen Colbert hasn't done his job for 10 years. Yeah, I won't be sorry to see him go. But, you know, it's too bad because when he, you know, came up in the ranks through Strangers with Candy and then obviously on the daily show. And even when he had his own show for a little bit, the daily show for a little bit where he was doing those, you know, get to know a district interviews with politicians and stuff. I mean, that was that was good stuff. That was sharp stuff. And then he just decided to become a political hack. Such a waste. Yeah, no, it's good. He has talent for sure, and maybe he'll find...

Gosh, she's running a new Lord of the Rings movie. That seems crazy. But he'll have a second act. He'll do something else now, and that's fine. And that's the way the marketplace works, a private podcast or something. But just getting him off the late show is just a win because it's a terrible content. It just is terrible. Reading your blog, I wasn't even aware of this. There is an Angel Studios produced a iteration of Animal Farm. Yeah, no, they acquired it. They did not make it initially. I think it, yeah, I think it's been floating around for a while. Director Andy Circus, that's been his baby for quite a long time. And instead of, you know, poking at communism and Soviet-style authoritarianism, it hoax at anti-capitalism. So it changes the whole idea behind the classic Orwell book. And it's the kind of movie that is united the world because everybody hates it. It's not entertaining. You know, it warps the whole purpose of the book. Liberal film critics just recognize it's a lousy movie. Conservatives are up in arms. And Angel Studios, which I've been very supportive of, and they do great work, and they've made very good movies. I don't know what they're thinking was behind this, but acquiring this movie and putting it out there is really against their brand. And they're suffering of damage from their audience point of view. So I have to see how they go moving forward. But, you know, they've got a movie coming out very soon called Young Washington, just in time for the 250th birthday of the country. So maybe that'll kind of be their rebound. But, yeah, a real bad move by them. It's too bad. I mean, well, to do something like that and bastardize Orwell's great work is one thing. But even, you know, some of these things like you thought like Atlas Shrugged would make for such a good movie if it was done right. And the offerings have been terrible. I mean, the last sort of good movie I can think of that has, you know, a strong political or economic bent to it was actually, you know, the fountainhead. uh... iron's the found had that would bet you know but that that's obviously way back in in you know in the golden era of hollywood Yeah, we don't – I mean, it's a very tough position for right-of-center storytellers, for writer-of-center audiences. But when the occasional movie comes around that does appeal to conservative crowd, we don't often support it. You know, that's really frustrating. Richard Jewell, I guess it was maybe 2017 or so, the Kleeneyso movie. That was really good. Right in the Wright's Real House. It was about trust in the FBI. It was about the media, malfeasance. It was about narratives that were pushed that weren't true. And it was claims. It had everything going forward. And it bombed in theaters. And maybe they didn't market it. Well, maybe you could say that maybe Warner Brothers didn't say, hey, they should have been on every conservative talk show and pushed it. But.

Sometimes we just say, oh, we'll wait until we see it at home. I hear that a lot from my right of center friends, and I love my right of center friends, but it's frustrating because if you don't go out and see it, they're not going to make it. It's just as simple. All right, I got to test you on this one. Maybe you haven't seen it yet, but Jeffrey Tucker Carlson over the Brownson Institute, talking to him yesterday about it, and he's a, you know, he's got a good cultural sense, you know, an appreciation for things that are. clever and beautiful and all that. He said Devil Wears Prada 2, the sequel, was an excellent commentary on the sort of hot couture elite culture of the day. He really enjoyed it. I enjoyed it less than he did. It's a weird movie in that it's really celebrating that kind of fashion, that culture, that elegance, that sophistication. But in the middle of all those... scenes, there are talks about income inequality. So it tries to have its cake and eat it, too. It's a weird kind of a film where the heroine is trying to fight the power, but she's also luxurating in wealth and fashion and opulence. So I found it more of a mixed message. It's not a bad film, and it's a fine sequel. It's not nearly as good as the first one, but that was my take. Oh, okay. All right. Well, now I'm a lot less enthusiastic about it. All right. Christian Toto, host of the Hollywood and Toto podcast, Hollywoodandtoto.com. Christian, thank you as always. My pleasure. Annie, join us on the alphawealthgroup.com, Ancelain. A cup of information to start your day. It's Chicago's Morning Answer on AM 560, The Answer. Thanks for listening to Chicago's Morning Answer podcast sponsored by Signature Bank. Signature Bank takes pride in helping customers grow their business and provide unmatched banking expertise, custom financial solutions, and the industry's best technology. So whether you're a business looking for a deposit relationship or needs a ready source of financing, Signature Bank is the right bank for you. Call today at 773-467-5-600 to hear how signature bank can help your business grow and thrive. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender.