Older Americans Are Hoarding America's Potential

Thanks for listening to Chicago's Morning Answer podcast sponsored by Signature Bank. Signature Bank takes pride in helping customers grow their business and provide unmatched banking expertise, custom financial solutions, and the industry's best technology. So whether you're a business looking for a deposit relationship or needs a ready source of financing, Signature Bank is the right bank for you. Call today at 773-467. 5600 to hear how signature bank can help your business grow and thrive. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lunder. Join Dan Proft, Sean Thompson, and Alex Marlow, editor of Breitbart News. For Cigar Night on Tuesday, May 19th, tickets are on sell now at 560.com slash cigar. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560, The Answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proff here. We knew Charlottesville, the way it was characterized by the left, most prominently by Biden and Harris. But it's been a talking point for the left from 2017 forward. Still, was featured at the DNC. We knew it was a lie, the characterization. We didn't know how big a lie it was until the indictments were announced against the Southern Poverty Law Center yesterday by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. In total, according to the indictment, between 2014 and 2023, SPLC paid at least $3 million to eight individuals at least. These individuals were affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan. United Clans of America, National Socialist Movement, Aryan Nations affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club, the National Socialist Party of America, Nazis, and the American Front. Now, as the indictment lays out, after SPLC paid members of these extremist groups, it created work product that reported on these activities that the members participated in or contributed to. And to that end, it was doing the exact opposite of what it's told its donors it was doing, not dismantling extremism, but funding it. To carry out this scheme, SPLC created bank accounts in the name of at least five completely fictitious organizations that had no bona fide employees or legitimate business purpose. The money was passed from SPLC to one sham account to a second sham account and then loaded onto prepaid cards to give to the members of the extremist groups. This was designed to shield the source of those funds. And because of this, SPLC is also charged with one count, as I said earlier, of conspiracy to commit money laundering. 11 count indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, the hate group that monitors hate groups, the hate group that now we know funds hate groups to monitor hate groups. Talk about your cycle of life.

on the left. I'm so glad I let my membership to the Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club run out too. I had no idea. And of course, this includes Charlottesville from the indictment. F-37 was a member of the online leadership track group that planned the 2017 Unite the Right event in Charlottesville. Charlottesville, Virginia, and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. F-37, this is how the individual is being referred to, made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees. Between 2015 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-37, this professional agitator, more than $270,000. Todd Blanche was on with Todd Blanche, that is, was on with Laura Ingram last night and provided a little bit more color on Charlottesville specifically. So what we allege in the indictment and what the grand jury found is that one of the individuals that they paid was one of the folks who helped organize that terrible event. And so imagine what we're talking about, Laura, we're talking about an organization that actively came out and just screamed it from the top of their lungs. So just so people understand watching this. Did these informants, in some cases, given the evidence you've seen, actually initiate what would ultimately be these activities? And obviously Charlottesville ended with the tragedy. Well, we know that they were part of those. They were part of it. Whether they were the leaders or the initiators, that that'll come out, I think, eventually. But what we do know is that the very entities that this group was raising money to go against are the very entities that they were taking the money in and paying to these entities and these individuals associated with those groups. Everything on the left is AstroTurf. And remember what I've said for many moons now, and I'm not the only one, but I've been early to the dance on this one. When you run out of actual instances of racism or identitarian hatred, they will invent it because this is how they make money. raise and make money. This is how they have a job so they can pay their bills. And this is how they do their politics. They have an accusation and if it actually, if there's no evidentiary support for it, we'll create the evidence ourselves. One way to ensure you make millions, text from 847. One way to ensure you make millions. Calling out alleged extremist groups is to fund set extremist group. It's great for fundraising. Best business model ever devised. That's from our friend, the Amish texture. Exactly. Exactly. Don't leave anything to chance. This isn't on the up and up. You know, the hatred hunters. And think about the impact that just Charlottesville had.

I mean, it was the whole invented predicate for Joe Biden running in 2020. You remember how this was concocted. It was bootstrapped because Joe Biden denied he was going to run in 2020 three times in 2017. So this is Charlottesville happened in 2017. Here's Joe Biden in 2017 on the view with those manhating shrews. a demuring presidential run. I have no intention now. I've done nothing at all to put together any kind of operation to run. And as I said, as most of you guys know, no one ever doubts. I mean what I say. The problem is I sometimes say all that I mean. And if I were offered the nomination by the Lord Almighty right now today, I would say no, because we're not ready. The family's not ready to do this. Then in 2018, a year after Charlottesville. I'm not decided to run or not run. My focus is, for real, elected in the Democratic Congress. And the Lord Almighty came down and said, Joe, the nomination is yours right now. You've got to accept it right now. I'd say no. And then at 2019, two years after Charlottesville. I don't want to take people's time, effort, and commitment without there being a clear shot that I could be the nominee. No. Well, but I'm not there yet. I don't want to mislead you. I'm being more straightforward. Look, no one's ever doubted I mean what I say. The problem is I sometimes say all that I mean. Yeah, no one's ever doubted that I'm an empty vessel and a broken record either. So after all those contrivances for, you know, more than two years after Charlottesville, all of a sudden in 2020, when it's time to go, it was Charlottesville that got him in. I made the decision to run for president. After Charlottesville. At that moment, I knew I'd have to run. At that moment, it struck him. Yeah, and the good people on both sides smear against Trump. That's part of it, too. All organized. Joe Biden at the DNC in Chicago. Remember that? DNC in Chicago. 2024. Seven years after Charlottesville. I ran for president in 2020. Because of what I saw in Charlottesville in August of 2017, extremists coming out of the woods carrying torches, their veins bulging from their necks, carrying Nazi swastikas, and changing the same exact anti-Semitic bile that was heard in Germany in the early 30s.

White supremacist and the Ku Klux Klan so emboldened by a president then in the White House that they saw as an ally. Yeah, all brought to you by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the group that created a hate list of a bunch of conservative organizations, Moms for Liberty, Turning Point USA, all on the SPLC hate list. And they raised a lot of money from corporate America, too. And we're supposed to believe, oh, the SPLC donors got duped. No, they didn't. Pardon the, at best. They're just part of the mob. 2024 presidential race after the Biden crime family had to bow out. The hillbillies from Wilmington had to go back home. Enter Kamala Harris, presidential debate. Let's remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing anti-Semitic hate. And what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side. There it is. Four cycles, two presidential cycles, they got out of that lie. Brought to you by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They're people. This is the morning show. More Chicago radio listeners are choosing. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560. The answer. Business owners, now's the time for your business to make the move to a locally owned business bank. Hi, Mike Gallagher here to let you know that you don't have to look far. Signature Bank was founded in Chicago with a simple mission to help companies like yours grow, succeed, and thrive. Their decisions are made locally by a terrific team that knows your name, cares about your business, and invests in your success. That's why Signature Bank is my bank. I'm a customer. As business owners, they knew that local family-owned businesses we're not getting the help they needed or deserved. So, I invite you to reach out to my friends at Signature Bank today. Write the number down. Remember this phone number, Signature Bank, 773-467-5630. And learn all about this great bank, 773-467-5630, or visit them online at SignatureBank.Bank. That's SignatureBank.com. 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 talking about the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center. This is big. It really is big. It's big in and of itself, and it's an indicator of much larger things about... The neo-Marxist identity politics about the race hustle, about white guilt as our friend Eli Steele wrote about over at his substack. Really good piece. I'm going to get to in a moment. The Southern Poverty Law Center was used, funded by corporate America, funded by high net worth leftists, funded by useful idiot apparatchiks across the country. Morris Dees built quite a little empire for himself and his fellow travelers. And it was used to smear conservatives. It was used to blur the lines of distinction between identitarians like them. That's the greatest irony and misunderstanding and... missed opportunity for conservatives. You don't say, we're not the KKK, we're not hate organizations. You say, you're projecting. This is who you are. You're the people who are obsessed with somebody's skin color, not us. So it's you who are in liege with the people you pretend to decry, obviously, because you need to associate them with us for the purposes of boogemanning your political opponents. That's the racket. And because of white guilt, to borrow from Shelby Steel, Eli's pops, the left has been very good at getting away with this and frankly leveraging it for political power. Well, this should be the beginning of the end of that. The exposure of this fraud, multi-layered fraud. The whole thing. How many more race hoaxes do you have to endure before you see this as a grift industry that, again, will create the evidence to support their claim when it otherwise does not exist. And the evidence existing or not existing is really important culturally for America because it deals with whether or not we have systemic racism. institutional racism that is holding people back, and we don't, except as perpetrated by the left based on the intersectional scores, you know, the sort of the intersectional flavor of the day, whatever is most advantageous to them politically. That's why this is so important, exposing this to make sure everybody understands this. By the way, the Southern Property Law Center was also used to smear like groups at the local level, at the state level. It wasn't just, you know, groups that are national and orientation. Pro-life, pro-family groups at the state and local level got the moniker too. And like organizations like Mom's for Liberty, which is national, but has all sorts of state and local chapters smeared unfairly.

In addition to the legal reckoning here, there needs to be a cultural one. People who, I mean, before the break, Joe Biden used this for the duration of his time as president, running and as president. Kamala Harris picked it up when she ran. Despicable people. affronts to the practice of law like Jamie Raskin were lauding the southern poverty, and he's not the only one, lauding the Southern Poverty Law Center as recently as four months ago. This is Jamie Raskin back in December. They knew how powerful this was, that this had become a brand, the Southern Poverty Law Center. It sounds like a real advocacy group for the poor and the downtrodden, the marginalized. And if they say it's a hate group, they publish this hate group. They're funded by corporate America. We're stamping out hate, stand against hate, blah, blah, blah. If they say somebody's a hate group and they've got the resources to brand them as such, then they must be. Now, in other times, Democrats and Republicans alike would rely on the Southern Poverty Law Center to help us keep track of the movements of violent white supremacy in the country. Yeah. Easy to keep track when they're paying the bills. The Southern Poverty Law Center has been a vigilant voice. in civil society against radical white nationalist violence and extremism, neo-Nazism, and other forces across the political spectrum that spread organized hate from any quarter. The president, however, wants to undermine civil society organizations and to reduce our ability to defend ourselves against the virus of racial violence. Uh-huh. The Southern Poverty Law Center partnered with the FBI under Biden and Chris Wright. Partnered! Because as you heard Chris Wright say, the greatest domestic threat of violence is white supremacy. And that's why we're partnering with the Southern Poverty Law Center to stamp it out while they were financing it. Yeah, I'm sure Chris Wright, if you asked him today, he would have no idea how many Southern Poverty Laws that are operatives were at Charlottesville, just like he had no idea how many FBI agents were on the mall on Jan 6th. And the interesting part about this, and Eli Steele reminds us of this in this piece that I referenced, which I now will get to, and then we'll take your calls. It wasn't always this way. Like so many people and so many institutions, it started out with ostensibly a noble cause, and it got subsumed by greed and the pursuit of political power and one feeding the other. From Eli Steele's piece, White Guilt, Innocence Machine, which I'll post on Acts 2, really good piece as usual.

Eli is to chip off the old block when it comes to being the son of Shelby. These are two, you know, great thinkers, documentarians, authors. When Morris D.'s co-founded, when Morris D. is co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center came to speak at Claremont McKinnock College in the 90s, I was a student there. I don't remember what he said, but I remember the gun sticking out of his sports coat. It was a 357 or something Clint Eastwood would carry in Dirty Harry. We had heard this was the man who had taken on the KKK in the heart of Alabama and the gun made the legend real. The SBC will have its day in court. Its interim CEO is called the charges false and politically motivated. That's a hot one. But even as allegations, what strikes me most, writes Eli Steele, is not the fraud itself, but the why behind it? Why would an organization founded to fight racism need to pump up racism? Why manufacture the very evil you claim to oppose? The answer is white guilt. If the allegations are true, the SPLC may be one of its most corrupted and egregious manifestations. My father, Shelby Steele, has spent 40 years on this question. To paraphrase him, white guilt is the eternal drive by many whites, especially left of center, to prove their innocence of racism, to show over and over that they are not complicit in America's racial sins. If racism fades, the innocence business collapses. If the clan loses members or the charge of systemic racism loses its sting, the fundraising letters lose their power. If the emergency ends, the machine stops.

The SBLC did not begin as an institution now facing these charges. Founded in 1971 in Montgomery by D's and Joe Levin with civil rights legend Julian Bond as its first president, the SBLC took on genuine fights. I remember hearing stories from my parents about how they desegregated the YMCA, integrated state troopers, challenged unfair electoral districts, and sued the clan after violent attacks. That's why I was excited to meet these when I had the chance. For a long time, the SBLC used to make... You use the law to make the promises of equality real on the ground and in the heart of the deep south and elsewhere. That early chapter makes what followed all the more devastating. As my father argued, when the civil rights era destroyed the legal architecture of white supremacy, white America experienced the profound loss of moral authority. Rather than meet that reckoning honestly through colorblind standards, genuine accountability, the equal application of American principles to all, many whites chose the easier path. The performance of perpetual atonement. I love that, the easier path. It's exactly what it is. Rather than invest in the true uplift of blacks emerging from centers of oppression, they would become fighters against racism. Ironically, after the fall of white supremacy, because fighting racism was the only way to feel righteous innocence. From suing real clan violence, the SBLC institutionalized white guilt. It built a vast donor base by mapping extremists and labeling an ever-growing list of dissenters as hate that must be fought. The SBLC became the corruption, an organization whose survival depended on the emergency never ending. The Griff formula is simple, writes Eli Steele. You inflate the threat, sound the alarm. Position yourself as the brave slayer of hate and collect hundreds of millions from donors desperate to feel there on the right side of history. The donor gets innocence, the corporation gets its ESG credential, the foundation gets its social justice bona fides, and the SBLC gets paid. Yeah, that is the formula. The result? Right steel, real black communities bear the cost of this bargain. Real black families and real cities, especially those in the underclass, live with the consequences of institutions more interested in the performance of anti-racism than in the far more difficult and unglomerous work of developing individuals into productive members of society. The SPLC raised hundreds of millions in the name of protecting the vulnerable. The real product here was donor innocence. I encourage you to print this and stuff it. Well, I want to actually stuff it somewhere else, but I'm going to be civil. Stuff it in the door handle of your leftist neighbors. Read this, moron. You don't know. You can exclude the moron part, but I'm exercised by this. Chris and Rogers Park are on Chicago's Morning Answer. And it's just another in the endless line of grip here. It's no different than homelessness, immigration, the CTEU, all these causes. They need the problem to persist, keep the jobs program and to keep the people there at the top like Stacey Davis Gays, very well paid.

Now, what they're going to say here is that they were just running an infiltration operation, kind of like Brian Bosworth in some 80s movie, I vaguely recall, where he's chasing a biker gang. That's what they're going to say. But what I don't understand is this hatred front thing, like, I keep looking at this thing. And I'm like, how easy would it be to take those guys down? Just take the mask off. What the heck is that thing? Yeah, thanks for the call, Chris. Well, you know, if this cover story they have is they're running, you know, in informant operation, really, then why aren't you connected to law enforcement? If you're taking it upon yourself to pay informants to infiltrate organizations like the Klan for the purpose of obtaining... information as to criminal activity, then why didn't the law, why didn't federal law enforcement know anything about it? You are partnering with the FBI. This indictment spans a decade ending in 2023. So this is before Trump was in office the second time. So what when you're, you're formally, you have this formal partnership. I'd like Chris Wright to answer this question too. And James Comey. You have this formal partnership. SPLC is providing you their propaganda as quote-unquote training materials. So then why are you in communication about what you're discovering? And why are you setting up phony bank accounts and phony and phony names of organizations that don't actually exist? Why are you running it through so many traps? So all the sophisticates at the local clan chapter, wherever the hell that may be.

Don't find out that you got a guy in their circle who's getting paid from some outside group. They're going to run all those traps? No. That's not what was going on. That was not what was going on at all. Pathetic. 224. What are the consequences for the people involved in this fraud? It's a great question. Well, one of the consequences, because it's a fraud, if convicted, they have to... divest of all ill-gotten gains. So that would be in the millions of dollars that they frauded donors out of, whether the donors feel frauded or not. They misrepresented. And in addition to penalties for, you know, financial penalties for financial crimes. But, oh, by the way, the Department of Justice doesn't do civil investigations and civil prosecutions. This is criminal. So at some point. If there is a conviction for an organization committing fraud, this 11-count indictment, then some actual carbon-based life forms had to be the ones orchestrating it and breaking the law. You know, who that necessarily implicates? I mean, you know, I would start at the top, the founders, the board of directors, the people signing the checks. You had to know and go from there. By the way, I mean, this isn't the first foray in this kind of stuff, too. I mean, the SPLC, with that mob action that the left had in Atlanta over a new police headquarters, an SPLC lawyer was one of the two dozen professional agitators that was arrested. This is, you know, whatever it was, as per Eli Steele's piece, when it was founded. And whatever work it did, you know, in the 70s, that has long since ceased. All it is is another leftist syndicate. And I mean that in the, with the mob connotation. Paul in Oakland. Hey, Dan, good morning. Cell phones, the radio is not the best. I hope you can hear me. But I remember when Hillary Clinton and Trump were running for the same office president, and the rallies for Trump were really tremendous, and they were getting a lot of action. And I remember somebody saying, I think it might have been on your show, is they had an operation, the Democrats, called Ducks on the Pond. and they admitted to it, I think, if I'm right, and they would send people to these rallies to kind of hold up crazy racist signs and get arrested and really act out of control as if these are Trump people here. But I'll hang up and kind of listen to your show. I really enjoy it. But I remember that. It was called Ducks on the Pond. That's why I remembered it. It's just they even had a word for it, you know. Yeah, thanks for the call. I mean, they're false flag operations. That's right.

Chris, Dan Ryan. Hey, Dan, make real quick two points. One, everyone has a memory like a goldfish. We'll probably forget this about a month. Two, any time a Democrat or a leftist has a bill proposed or they're going to sign into a bill, the name is always the opposite of what it is. Inflation Reduction Act, right? You got that the Safety Act. So why can't we just put two and two together here, people, a state of Illinois, people in Chicago? and realize that this is not working. We need to elect someone that's going to be do better, whoever it may be. Thanks, Dan. Thanks, Chris. Bob Buffalo Grove. Good morning, Dan. Always good for you. You're off to a great start today. That's the guy. I listen to you to get educated on issues. Thank you. How will the mainstream fake news media report on this? Will they even cover it? And more importantly, how will they spend it? Because it shows the social media corruption in this, too. Oh, there's no question. Thanks for the call, Bob. There's no question. I mean, I assume that they'll, you know, go into full blackout as much as they possibly can on this. That's what I assume.

I mean, at the press conference yesterday with Todd Blanche and Kash Patel, after they got done delivering their remarks about the indictments against SPLC. The first question of Kash Patel was about the Atlantic article that accuses him of being drunk on the job and fearing that he's going to get fired and so on and so forth, the basis of a $250 million defamation suit he filed against the Atlantic as promised this week. So what does that tell you? They're all, they'll focus on the palace intrigue at the FBI after this hit piece, this unsubstantiated hit piece, thus the belief that, that's Kash Patel's belief that he can clear the actual malice standard and take the Atlantic to task and anybody else who would foment those allegations. But I think that's a pretty good indicator of what the DC Press Corps's first instinct will be. You don't want to have a discussion on the merits. What do you think they're going to go back and ask Chris Wright or James Comey? Any uncomfortable questions? They're going to ask the big guy or Mamala if they would like to revise and extend their incantations about Charlottesville. Of course they won't. George Naperville. Good morning, Dan. Do you think the Southern Policy Law Center got the idea to use these despicable groups from the movie Blazing Saddles? Yeah, they're southern poverty, not Law Center, not policy, but yeah, don't quite have the comedic timing of Mel Brooks, George, wouldn't you say? Craig and Mount Greenwood, quickly, Craig. Oh, hey, Dan. Thanks for taking my call. You had mentioned that this is still going to go through the court in that. And I think that that's part of the problem because a lot of our court system and judges are part of the conspiracy. You see where the recently... Well, this is going to be this case. Just FYI. This case is going to be before a Trump appointed federal judge. But anyway, go ahead. Yeah, because we've got people that hate us and don't like us other countries that are not our friends in that, and they've been ripping us off and Trump figured out away with the tariffs to get some of our money back, to get some restitution. Our Supreme Court ruled on it and told us. Okay, all right, Craig, a little off topic. I don't know how we jumped to terrorists, but. We'll get to that later in the program. 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.

Business owners, now is the time for your business to make the move to a locally owned business bank. Hi, Mike Gallagher here to let you know that you don't have to look far. Signature Bank was founded in Chicago with a simple mission to help companies like yours grow, succeed, and thrive. Their decisions are made locally by a terrific team that knows your name, cares about your business, and invests in your success. That's why Signature Bank is my bank. I'm a customer. As business owners, they knew that local family-owned businesses we're not getting the help they needed or deserved. So, I invite you to reach out to my friends at Signature Bank today. Write the number down. Remember this phone number, Signature Bank, 773-467-5630. And learn all about this great bank, 773-467-5630, or visit them online at SignatureBank.Bank. That's SignatureBank.com. Signature Bank makes commercial banking personal. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender.

This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560. The answer. President Trump talking to the CNBC desk yesterday. Had this to say to Joe Kiernan about the ceasefire deadline. So now we know we were sort of in the dark yesterday. Now we know that the mission did not happen. JD Vance. Jared Kushner. Steve Witkoff did not make their way to Islamabad because the Iranians weren't going to show up. So the question was, would Trump extend the ceasefire deadline if there was no deal forged? yesterday and he told CNBC he was not inclined to do that. Will you let it keep going if there's progress in the talks before taking? Well, I don't want to do that. We don't have that much time because by the time both parties get there, as you know, they just got the okay to go forward, which I do they were going to do anyway. I mean, I don't think that's choice. They have to negotiate. And, you know, the one thing I'll say is this, Iran can get themselves at a very good footing if they make a deal. They can make themselves into a strong nation again, a wonderful nation again. They have incredible people. But they seem to be, you know, bloodthirsty. They're led by some very, very unfortunately tough people. And I don't mean tough in a good way. I think it's very negative for the country because we're much tougher than they are. Like not even close. So he was disinclined to extend the ceasefire deadline, but later in the day he did it anyway. Posting on truth social, based on the fact that government of Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so. And upon the request of Pakistan, we have been asked to hold our attack on the country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal. I've therefore directed our military to continue the blockade and in other respects remain ready and able and will therefore extend the ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted and discussions are concluded one way or the other. 312-642-2-5600 is the AlphaWealthgroup.com answer line and text line. An open-ended ceasefire extension? Do you... agree with that move, you know, give diplomacy a chance? Hmm. Trump also had this to say about his open and notorious detractors in the neo-Marxist party, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries.

Chris Murphy is putting himself into a category all his own. But we can't let traders, like Chuck Schumer, put pressure on you where they say, we want out, think how bad that is. I'm negotiating with these people, and they're telling us, we have to get out now, we have to get out now, we have to get now. And they were in a war for 18 years. They were in a war for, think of that. Vietnam, 19 years, Iraq, eight years. So. Right. And I want to make a good deal. I'm not going to be rushed. I have all the time in the world. I want to make a good deal. I want to make a great deal. I don't want to do this, go through this. And, you know, we have, I mean, if you look at this, what we've suffered in terms of losses, we lost 13 men, and that's terrible. I wish we didn't lose one. But if somebody would have said, we've done this and obliterated that country, obliterated it, and we lost 13 men, people would have said, that's not possible. to have done that. It's not possible. So we've done a great job, and I don't want to be rushed by people that are really treasonous as far as I'm concerned. We're there. And it's just, you know, I watch this low- IQ guy, Hakeem Jeffries, he's a totally low- IQ person, and he's always ranting and raving, oh, this war is so terrible, terrible. They shouldn't be saying that when we're in the midst of a negotiation, because it does hurt us somewhat. It gives the other side some hope, and I don't want them to have hope. Yeah, it gives them some hope that they can wait out President Trump, that he is more sensitive to the looming midterm elections and the politics, the domestic politics of this going on for longer than originally advertised than he is on making Iran capitulate. That seems to be their calculation. We're taking some things as givens that I don't think are givens. I'd like to hear more color on this, and we will from an expert later in the program. All of this suggestion that the regime in Tehran is in chaos, that there's disagreement between the Gayayatola and the IRGC commander.

And evidence of that was the we accept your deal. No, we don't accept the deal that apparently that, well, reportedly happened over the weekend. Maybe. Maybe it is chaotic. Maybe it's synchronized. I'd like to hear a little bit more from people who know more than I do before we stipulate to that it's chaotic and that this is not just them, again, playing. the delay and divert game, believing that they can outlast Trump's political will to impose maximum consequences on the Iranians. Now, the flip side of that is, as I've been saying since last week and into this week, They have very limited capacity to retaliate both militarily and economically. You know, we had the discussion yesterday about the suggestion that the IRGC controls 30 to 50% of Iran's economy. What economy? There was a story out last week in the journal about Iran has another energy shortage. It's called food. In addition to... the lifeblood of their economy, the energy that's the lifeblood of their economy. So, but I'm not sure that I like this open-ended ceasefire either. I seems to me that if all this, the characterization I made, which is not really dissimilar to the characterization Trump is making, that we have our foot on the neck of our enemy. I believe you continue applying pressure. Now you don't have to press all the way down, but I think you continue applying pressure. And yes, that means sustaining the blockade, which he is doing, and sweeping the straight for mines, which is ongoing. And by the way, our Navy hasn't found any yet. That was the last report I saw, but they are using their underwater vehicles to sweep 500 square miles of water. straight. So that's a process that's happening. And the celebration of the left for any perception that this is going sideways, isn't going his plan, may go sideways. It really is seditious some of these comments, especially when you make them on foreign soil the way Tim Walz and Chris Murphy did, the unctuous detestable senator from Connecticut. And he did one better. Yesterday, he posted on X in response to a report, at least 26 Iranian shadow fleet vessels bypassed the U.S. blockade. His response to that was awesome. At least 26 Iranian shadow fleet vessels bypass U.S. blockade. That was the tweet. His response, awesome. He was asked about that response and said this. Twitter's become kind of a cesspool. I probably should give up on sarcasm on Twitter. Obviously, anybody that's seen anything that I have said about Trump's war knows that I think it's bungled, mismanaged as you should end it as quickly as possible. But sarcasm is not something I guess it's allowed on Twitter any longer. Do you regret the post? Are you planning on taking it down? I mean, I guess I just have to be more careful about sarcasm on Twitter. He's a funny guy.

That dry wit that Senator Chris Murphy has. Oh, he's being facetious. Something else that somebody may question Chris Murphy about the United States Senator. Hey, funny guy. Before you post something like that in X, even facetiously, we'll take you at your word. Be more generous than you would ever be. Did you want to check to see if what that poster posted is actually accurate? Trey Yinks reporting for Fox News. There were some reports overnight indicating that 26 vessels from Iran's shadow fleet were able to make it past the U.S. blockade. There is no evidence of that. And despite what one Democratic senator talked about, there is a concerted effort by the United States to ensure that any vessels that are coming from Iranian ports are turned around or seized, as we saw with that one cargo ship over the weekend. So maybe, you know, the random guy on Twitter that you reflexively retweet so you can get your little quip in there. Maybe he doesn't have all the facts. You would think you would be interested in knowing what you're talking about if you want to be so openly critical of the Trump administration's management of this military campaign and geopolitical matter, frankly. You know, but that would. that would be creating unrealistic expectations for Senator Chris Murphy and just about every other member of that neo-Marxist party, wouldn't it now? Roger DeKalb. Hey, Dan. Yeah, I wish this were a joke. But so with the Obama nuke deal, they had the nuke in 2030. But I think they've got a clear path in 2028, work overtime this country, get a Democratic Congress, Senate, president. And I think they give them 11 of our nukes to make up for the only unjust war we've committed on this. I think they are that insane. It's pathetic. Thanks for the call, Roger. Greg in Schaumburg. Hey, Dan. Note to Pope Leo. Notice how President Trump is a negotiator. I'll look forward to your tweet. Make sure Axelrod knows about this too. Thank you. Thanks, Greg. Text from 262. What about the strategy of choking off the flow of Iranian oil for two weeks? Well. It may take longer, as the president said. And you're not surprised to hear him moving around his timeline, particularly if you believe that your opponent thinks that you're trying to expedite the timeline, that you're impatient and that you'll cut bait if you can't get down what you want done on some artificial timeline. So now he's creating it an open-ended time horizon, isn't he?

He's not talking to us. He's talking to them, right? You get that. Scott, Frankfurt. Hey, Dan, I got a question for you regarding whose interest is the ceasefire, sir. With Pakistan running the negotiations, weren't they the country that was harboring Osama bin Laden when we were looking for him? Why are we trusting them with this? Yeah. No, I think that's a fair question. It's not the same leadership, but it's kind of the same leadership. Thanks for the call, Scott. Yeah, I mean, it's fine if you want to have, you know, Pakistan be a mediator. And I haven't heard JD Vance or any Jared Kushner or Steve Witkoff complain about their facilitation to this point, such as it's been, not much. And it's pretty simple. deal. I mean, here are the things that are must-haves and sign the deal. That's essentially what Trump is laying out. And I assume the message JD Vance is delivering with maybe a few things on the margins that have not been made public to make it a little bit more palatable, to make capitulation a little bit more palatable. But. I agree, generally speaking, because the Pakistanis say, can you give us a little bit more time here to see if they can get their act together and come up with a deal? That's what we're supposed to believe. I, you know, I mean, again, I have imperfect knowledge like we all do, and none of us has anywhere near the knowledge and information that the president and the military brass have. But just. Taking that as a given, as a general, excuse me, just as a general approach, you don't have to, you know, end civilization. But I think more than just a continuation of where things are now would have been judicious when that ceasefire deadline expired yesterday. I would have looked at another strategic asset where you could all but ensure no civilian casualties to send the message that we're raring to go if you don't get serious in a hurry. You're not going to play four corners here with us. Ron, Southside. Yeah, I didn't want to ask you this. quite some time. I often hear people suggest that the people of Iran overthrow the regime. Then it's easy said than done. That's why you don't see it happening around the world in the press because I just want to get your opinion on. It can happen and it does happen, but I think people that live in those situations, they need allies or something. But just to say, well, they can overthrow them. So thanks then. You can maybe comment on that for me. Thanks for the call, Ron. No, it's no easy feed. Easy to say, difficult to do from the outside. I completely agree, which is why it's not one of the must-haves. You know, maybe you weaken the regime enough that over time,

when you leave after you get what you want, that the people do rise up and overthrow the government and install somebody that is more Western-oriented and freedom-oriented. Yeah. It's a challenge. There's no guarantees there. And it can go the other way, too, which it seems to be going right now, which is basically a military dictatorship. rather than an Islamist one, you know, formally, which is not going to be much better for the Iranian people. So, you know, you create the conditions for the possibility of counter-revolution to the Islamist revolutionaries that have been charged for the last 47 years. But you can't guarantee it, which is why you need the enriched uranium, which is why you need to decimate. their nuclear program and get some sort of commitment that will be pain it will be you know painstaking to actually enforce and which is why you need to as best to do as best as you can to cut off the flow of cash to their proxies cut off the flow of more even more importantly weapons to their proxies and decimating the ballistic missile program to a large extent their drone program the Navy, the Air Force. It certainly buys you time for those other developments, both inside of Iran and across the region, with your newfound, I would still say allies of convenience, those Gulf states, perhaps carrying more of the weight and figuring out the regional balance of power and regional stability upon America's withdrawal here. So, you know, you have to look at sort of all of the moving pieces. You can't just look at one in this conversation. But what is doable and critical are those things that Trump has demanded. And so that's where things still stand. And if that means a little bit more American money spent and a little bit more punishment felt by China. and by, frankly, Western Europe, then the calculation is that's a fair price to pay for what we're trying to get done. And I agree with them. Joe and Hoffman Estates. And you have to admit Trump's been a disaster. The high gas prices, the Ukrainian war that's still going on. This has turned out to the MS, the Minnesota didacle that happened up there. Like every step of the way, it's just been a mess. I would not have voted for Harris, but I'll tell you what, if I could do it over again, I wish someone else ran as a Republican. Just hit. All right, Joe. Yeah, I mean, you know, these are big deliverables and complicated to accomplish, even the matter of border security. And to suggest because of what happened in Minnesota. that he doesn't deserve a ton of credit for what he's done to restore security at our border and to improve public safety by removing people in this country illegally, starting with those who are established predators. Uh-huh. Um, no, I don't think so.

We have substantial tax relief, which is permanent, at least until it's undone by congressional action and presidential action. We have a temporary spike in gas prices. And yet, at present, I mean, how is your 401K doing? We, you know, the threshold for... enduring any difficulty has really declined in this country, even among conservatives. We want all the goods and despite letting things get terribly, go terribly awry on so many fronts. We expect those goods to be delivered without consequence, without trade-off, because we live in a fantasy world where you don't have to make trade-offs, where everything should just be easy, the wave of a wand. Your party is in power, and so it should just be smooth sailing. I mean, that is not really a realistic...

standard to hold any president to. And again, especially coming from people in Illinois, my backyard is on fire. My block is on fire. My community's on fire. My state's on fire. And I'm a little unhappy with gas prices and what Trump is doing. I mean, the plank in people's eyes in Illinois in particular, I mean, good grief. I don't want to do anything. I just want to be a passive commentator. And I want what I want from the guy that I wanted in that got in. And I wish the guys that did get in that I didn't want in would just go away. Well, it doesn't work that way on either side, does it? I don't like everything Trump does. And I don't like the way he does it all the time and the way he speaks about things all the time. He never have. And I've been, you know, more than willing to voice my views on things and where I'm critical, I'm critical. But I mean, on balance, on balance, look, the guy is who he was in his first term, which is he is doing or attempting to do exactly what he said he would do or he would do. or, you know, at least attempt to do, do everything he could to accomplish it. And he's done a lot. He's advanced the flag for conservatism on a number of fronts, not every front, but on a lot of fronts. So I would, you know, hold off before we go Tucker Carlson here and start apologizing for supporting Trump. A little bit of an overreaction. This is the morning show. More Chicago radio listeners are choosing. This is Chicago's morning answer. I'm AM 560. The answer. If you're looking for the latest news, insight into what it means, and the sharpest opinion, there's only one station in Chicago where you can turn, and it's this one. We're AM 560. The answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proctor, I forgot to mention, of course, today's Earth Day. President Trump is celebrating by blockading Iranian ships from leaving port with oil for China. So look at, he's an environmentalist, too, on top of it. How about that? And, of course, some of the fun DC Press Corps news stories, news, scare quotes. over the last few decades as they hyped the climate apocalypse are circulating again, all of the chicken littles and the press corps and on the left. A lot like this classic, scientists say Earth's warming could set off wide disruptions. New York Times, the Grey Lady, the paper of record. At the most likely rate of rise, some experts say most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States will be gone in 25 years. Well, It's time to check upon those beaches because that story was written in 1995. We still have beaches on the East Coast? I believe so. In the 60s, oil would be gone in 10 years, according to them. Another ice age in 10 years. That was the 70s. Acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years. That was the 80s. 90s, of course, was the ozone layer will be gone in 10 years. 2000 ice caps will be gone in 10 years. And as one informed observer on social media noted, none of those things happened, but we did get more taxes in each of those decades in advance of saving the planet. You can always count on that. On to more pragmatic, temporal things like a new Fed chairman. Kevin Warsh was before Senate committee yesterday and he had to endure the nonsense of people like Elizabeth Warren. Here's a question for the incoming Fed chairman. They just can't help themselves. It's always the same play. I'm surprised Elizabeth Warren didn't ask about Charlottesville. And your courage. We'll start easy. Mr. Kevin Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? We try to keep politics if I'm confirmed out of the Federal Reserve. I'm just asking a factual question. I need to know. I need to measure your independence and your courage. Senator, I believe that this body certified that election many years ago. That's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking, did Donald Trump lose in 2020? I'm suggesting you in 2020. You can't answer that. Your huge inflation problem and you certify the election. So let me ask you another question out of monetary policy. In our meeting, you said you would be independent. There you go. And Warren also insinuated that Kevin Warsh would be a sock puppet of Trump and so on and so forth. So Senator John Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had to intervene later in the Q&A and follow up on some of the characterizations that. crocogia made for clarity on the record um professor what's the sock puppet uh i heard the reference from senator warren yeah what is it i'm not sure i know i think it's that thing you stick your hand in yeah kind of like this yes what's a human sock puppet getting a human sock puppet

Somebody will do what somebody else tells them to do? I think that's what the senator was trying to suggest. Are you going to be the president's human sock puppet? Senator, absolutely not. Are you going to be anybody's human sock puppet? No, I'm honored the president nominee for the position, and I'll be an independent actor, if confirmed as chairman of the Federal Reserve. My friend, Senator Warren. And she has my friend suggested that, I wrote it down, you will use your power. You might use your power to bail out your friends if they get in trouble, kind of like President Biden did with Silicon Valley Bank and a signature bank. She didn't say the last part. I just did. Are you going to do that? No, Senator. Okay. Senator, I would also recommend you get better friends. That's Signature Bank of New York, by the way, separate and distinct from the signature bank you hear about on this program. For more on this and other matters of economic importance, Scott the Cow guy, Sheldee, joins us, market specialist for Market Day Report. There it is. 10.30 to 1 p.m. Central Time. He's also the host of the Cow guy closed 1 to 130 Central Time, both at RFD TV. Scott the Cow guy, thanks for joining us. First question, this is a test of your courage. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? Scott, the Cow guy. Well, yes, he did lose it, but I mean, they can say whatever they want, but they also do say whatever they want because why don't we attack them when they say that they didn't lose elections? That's been said by Hillary Clinton and the likes on the left all the time, but that we never attacked them when they say the election was rigged or stolen. It's only a one-way street when we talk about it, and it's because Donald Trump... You know what? He's got some good points that have been made, and there's things that have come to light since the election that would give one, you know, reason to wonder about the result. So I'll tell you, yeah. And more is coming. We got a Catherine Harrod's report about a Chinese influencing, Chinese influence campaign in 2020 that went unaddressed by CIA. So, yeah, just the evidence continues to mount. You're right about that. Exactly right. What about these people? For all these people to love the idea of these mail-in ballots, you know what I want them to do? I want them to take $10,000 cash out, put it in an envelope, and mail it to themselves if they've got that much confidence in the system. That's good. I like that. I like that. There's a courage test right there. Yeah, there's a confidence, system confidence test, yeah. Yeah, somebody where you're mouth, mail yourself $10,000 cash as you would have it.

What do you think about Kevin Warsh as fair chairman? And is it, will it have a significant impact on monetary policy and thus economic vitality? Yeah, I think, I mean, you know, I haven't been a fan of Jerome Powell. He's, you know, he's really a lawyer. He's really not even an economist or the like. So, I mean, he's kind of run it like that. And I think that I like Kevin Warsh. I think he'll bring some common sense back to the job. I think that what's going to hang over Jerome Powell's head for the entire, for his entirety of being around that later is going to be the word transitory. He screwed that up. We might actually get some transitory place him here. Let's watch him. screw it up again if he can before he leaves. But I think, I think Kevin Warsh has got a level head on his shoulders. He's got an incredibly impeccable resume. So it'll be good to get somebody in there that's actually about the numbers and not about the law. Yeah. Or about $4 billion renovations at the headquarters. Yeah. I mean, why aren't more people up in arms about that? I mean, you think about the money. I mean, what does it cost to build a stadium? What's this guy building? I don't know. I mean, how many? And by the way, if you need a $4 billion dig, you know, crib before the Fed, how many economists do we have? It's sort of like the Tel-Dar paper moment. How many vice presidents do we have? What do they do? Why do we have all these economists at the Fed? Yeah, so here's my argument, right? I've been saying this for probably six months now. If, you know, okay, if your job is to gather data, pull it together, and come up with a conclusion, I would say you're prime for being taken over by artificial intelligence because that's all it does. Why can't we get rid of all 400 of those economists, plug everything to AI and let AI tell us where rates should be? I mean, it seems simple to me. That whole division. could be easily run by artificial intelligence rather than somebody that's got an extra grind against the president. I'm nominating you for Fed Doge chairman. There you go. Yeah. All right. So let's talk one other sort of political policy matter, but that also has economic impact. Trump was on CNBC yesterday tackling a range of issues, including the tariff rebates, 160-odd billion owed to companies per the Supreme Court decision. And he was happy to hear that some of the big boys are reticent to ask for the rebates to which they are entitled because they don't want to draw Trump's ire. because he's also because he's looking at new and exciting ways to impose tariffs, but this is what he said. President, on that topic, there's a whole number of very large companies, including Apple and Amazon.

and others that have not sought reimbursements yet for the tariffs. They haven't tried to collect refunds. And from what I understand, part of the reason that they have waited is because there is a worry about, frankly, offending you. Would you find it offensive for them to try to collect a refund? I think it's brilliant if they don't do that. I actually think if they don't do that, they got to know me very well. I'm very honored by what you just said. If they don't do that, I'll remember them, I will tell you that, because I'm looking to make this country strong. Supreme Court could have helped us. Now they have birthright citizenship. They'll probably rule against us. No country in the world has it. It's horrible for our country. And I just see it, you know. I see some of these Republicans that are nominated by me asking real bad questions and looks like maybe we're going to lose that one, too. I sort of went off on that birthright citizenship tangent, but on the tariffs, Scott. Well, I tell you what, I mean, maybe there's some favoritism playing in there. You know, that's what they'd like you to think, especially from the interviewer, Andrew Russ Sorkin. But you know what? I look at it. I look at it. I mean, come on, Dan, think about the absolute nightmare to try to figure out how and when did we raise prices, how much of that went, you know, was because of tariffs. How come on what wasn't because of tariffs and how much we actually have to give back to it? They might have done a cost analysis on the whole thing and thought it's going to cost us more to rebate people off the tariffs than it would be just to eat it. Yeah, right. You mean that on the company side? Yeah, on the company side. I mean, what a nightmare. I mean, can you imagine the guy on the shoulder and say, Dan, I'd like you to figure out how much we owe each customer over the last, you know, 16 months. What? Right. I mean, an absolute nightmare. That'd be suicidal. I mean, I could see them doing a cost benefit exercise saying, you know what? It's a bit. It's a scratch. We're just going to move on. Yeah. And also. You know, then you get into wrangling with the government. You know, here's the number we came up with. Well, we think it's that that minus 20%. And you're, you know, and then you're, you know, you get in this interminable fight. And right, yeah, yeah, they hire lobbyists to get your money back and you end up losing money. Yeah, I mean, sometimes you have to look at things practically. And I think, you know, I mean, Tim, Tim Cook, even though he stepped down, he's a spark. You know what, you'd say, even if it's, give or take 5%, he might say, you know what, it's not worth our time. Yeah. So what's your outlook? I know the uncertainty here, but so the market seems to be indicating, you know, according to the investotainment experts, that they've built in like, we're going to be out of Iran by the end of May. And so if this persists in something approximating the stasis it is now for longer than that, do you start to see maybe the... GDP growth not being what it was anticipated to be this year. Maybe you start to see Western European nations faltering a little bit and entering the our territory and that impacting America as well, what's your sort of horizon, what's your outlook, I should say, for the next couple of quarters.

Well, I mean, Europe, they're on shaky ground, but deservedly so. They haven't planned very well when it comes to their energy. I think for us, we're going to have some price pressures because of the oil shock. The longer it goes on, it moves from an inflationary problem to a recessionary problem, like you just said. But I don't think the U.S. will go in a recessionary problem. We've got a very strong economy. The strongest probably in the world right now. predicated by looking at all the numbers that we're getting from the government, as well as what these companies are reporting. We're in the middle of earnings season now, and we're going to have earnings between, say, you know, 12, 13 to 19 percent. So there's a lot to celebrate when it comes to the U.S. economy. He can handle this shock. It's probably, you know, look, number one, It took about six months to normalize oil prices when Ukraine and Russia invaded Ukraine. Now, I know there's a lot of differences out there, but that's just an example so you can kind of put that for a little bit of reference. And number two, this is not going to be a binary outcome, Dan. It's not going to be like, oh, okay, regime change, we're all good, let's go. I mean, you have to take a look at history. I had a great piece of research that was given to me yesterday. When we were trying to end World War II in Asia. We dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. And after that bomb blew up, the Japanese were, they still wanted to fight. So we came back with another one three days later and bombed Nagasaki with another huge atomic bomb. And even after the second one, they still, the emperor's cabinet still wanted to fight. The emperor had enough, and he's the one that really ultimately conceded. But that's what it's going to be like. These guys are going to be lobbing bombs. There's going to be lobbed. You know, there's going to be more shots fired, even if we have a ceasefire forever. I mean, there's 90 million people there. We're going to risk, you know, radicalizing some of them. So it's not going to be a binary outcome where it's all okay, the water's warm, jump in. We're just going to have to deal with that going forward. But it will calm down, and we will have these oil prices get back to the 70s, the September. If you look at the futures market, it looks better. But that doesn't mean we're not going to see some price pressure. So we're going to probably see that CPI and PPI to be stubbornly high. And that's going to be a little bit of a tax on the bottom, say, 70% of our economy. But, I mean, the people have made the comparison to Kissinger having to negotiate an end to the OPEC oil embargo after the Yom Kipper War in the 70s, and that took four or five months. And so that's sort of supposed to be some analogy to the current situation. But the difference is where America stands in terms of energy independence, it seems to me, you know, we have most of the... petrochemicals in the world or or at least the greatest supply such that we're an exporter energy exporter so even if this persists and you as you talk about that oil shock i mean america is pretty well positioned to weather a short-term storm isn't it

Yeah, I mean, watch the press conferences. Every time you see Chris Wright, the energy secretary, they talk about higher oil prices for longer. He's got a wry smile on his face. He looks like a Cheshire cat. Yeah, right. He knows that his sector is going to be doing very well out of it. And actually, he was disclosed from the – I remember hearing it two days ago when he said he thinks oil prices are going to stay this high into the midterms. And I thought, well, he's going to get a slap on the wrist from the president, of which he did, of which he did. But, you know, that guy, he knows what's going on. He knows how great the oil sector is going to be doing it. If it's the case, what you have to do is look at a map of all the ships that are streaming towards the Gulf of America. Scott the Cow guy, Shelley, Market Specialist, Market Day Report, 1030 to 1. Also, the host of the Cow guy closed 1 to 130. Both are FD TV. Scott the Cow guy. Thanks, as always. All right. Have a good day, brother. You too. And he joined us on the AlphaWealthgroup.com answer line. Before you see it on TV, share it on Facebook or read about it in the paper. Hear it here first. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560. The answer. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Profft on AM 560. The answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. Back in August of last year, gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger said she had no plans to redistrict Virginia. And then she was elected governor, and it was the first bill she signed. I have no plans. So I mean, I said, I have no plans. You can almost bank a politician says that you can almost bank on that's exactly what they'll be doing, what they have no plans to do. Mm-hmm. And former Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin in advance of yesterday's vote said it was close and he was right. But it turns out that Virginia is for gerrymanderers now. 2016, when Eric Holder, right when he got out of the Obama administration, started the Democrat redistricting commission. And then in 2022 and again in 2024, they pressed to pick up seats in New York. But with all that said, it's about Virginia. And Virginia in 2020 held a constitutional referendum, amended our constitution to have nonpartisan independent redistricting. Two-thirds of Virginians said we want politics out, politicians out. And now we have Abigail Spanberger saying she's going to ignore the voice of Virginians, override them, and try to adopt the most gerrymandered map in America. Today we have what is assessed as the fairest map in America. I don't love it. It's six Democrats and five Republicans, but it's fair. And she wants to override it and turn it into the most gerrymandered map in America. It's wrong. Virginians should stand up and vote no tomorrow. Well, 48% did, and the majority did not. Listen to the language, too, of this constitutional amendment that was passed by Virginia voters yesterday. And by the way, it's not the final word. because the state Supreme Court is still taking up the matter as to whether this constitutional amendment is indeed constitutional. But listen to the questions wording. Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census? To ensure fairness, going from 6-5 to 10-1 is to ensure fairness. Yeah, well, you know, they have strange definitions, those leftists do. Speaking of the census, because, you know, all of this is the Virginia explanation. Well, Texas started this all. Well, actually, New York Dems did it before Texas. But that's neither here nor there, of course. The census, though, did want to make this point because the 2020 census probably stole, dare I say, six to ten seats from Republicans and from red states. Good piece over at Chronicles by Benjamin Netanyahu Osborne on the topic. This is from the Census Bureau itself. They employed this technique called differential privacy to do the counting. In 2020, they did something, the Census Bureau did something very different. For the first time since 1970, the federal government did not just count people. It altered the count. It engineered the data. It did so by applying an algorithm to the numbers under the sanitized academic label of differential privacy. What is differential privacy, you asked?

A scientific framework for processing data to protect the identities and personal information of the people in the data. It works by adding statistical noise, small, random additions, or subtraction to every published statistic so that no one can re-identify specific person or household with any certainty using any combination of the published data. Well, as... Osborne notes, in practice, differential privacy deliberately falsifies real population data by anti-random errors, meaning the numbers used for political representation are not fully accurate. The algorithm scrambles local data in ways that shift political power, disproportionately benefiting urban, left-lating areas while diluting the influence of rural and conservative communities. In plain terms, the government took real communities and replaced them with statistical fiction, and then it told states to draw political maps based on that fiction. It's a system of deliberate data manipulation. It's not a safeguard for the purposes of privacy. That's what was done in 2020. And it in part precipitated the remapping effort in Texas and one that may be taken up in Florida as well. And of course, what California and now Virginia have done only encourage more of this. Because we can't just do anything on the level, not when the left is involved. And, I mean, you know, many on the left will tell you straight away. I mean, including famously New York Congresswoman Yvette Clark, who talking about illegals being counted in the census, by the census for the purpose of apportionment. She needs them. So she can protect her safe district. And from Brooklyn, New York, we have a diaspora that can absorb a significant number of these migrants. And, you know, when I hear colleagues talk about, you know, the doors of the end being closed, no room in the end. I'm saying, you know, I need more people in my district, but just for redistricting purposes. And those members could clearly fit here. Yeah. Hey, give me all the illegals you got. For more and all this, John Hendraker joins us, President of the Center of the American Experiment, PowerlineBlog.com. John, thanks for being with us. Always good to be with you, Dan. So a disappointing but not surprising outcome in Virginia and obviously more concern about GOP prospects in the midterms. I was surprised, honestly, that the Virginia vote was as close as it was. You know, Barack Obama's campaigning for this initiative. And Virginia, of course, has been trending blue, and they have the absurd description of it that you read. I mean, kind of remarkable that it only won by three points. But, you know, the Democrats have got their thumb on the scale in a variety of ways. You mentioned the census. Gerrymandering is a major one. We're seeing that all across the country. Now some of the Republican states are starting to gerrymander just out of self-defense, Texas in particular. And I see all of this, Dan, frankly, as part of the movement towards disunion that we have been seeing for quite a while now. If we can't play by honest rules, you have to ask yourself what basis there is for common citizenship.

between the left and the right here in the United States. And does it really work for us to try to collaborate on governing a single country? Well, I mean, when you have exchanges like this one we played earlier in the week, but it bears a replay between Wisconsin Congressman Brian Stile and your Secretary of State in Minnesota about the... voter reg process effectively in Minnesota. I mean, I just don't think that enough people realize how some of these states like yours, like my home state of Illinois, operate. But listen to this. Does Minnesota issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens? Mr. Chair, to non-citizens broadly, those who are documented and undocumented. So non-citizens broadly, including illegal aliens. And is it distinguish on the driver's license whether or not an individual is a citizen or not? Mr. Chair, no, it does not. No, it does not. Some states do, Minnesota does not. So if an individual comes to registered day of Minnesota, you allow same-day registration. Is that accurate? Correct. And if an individual comes in and registers, there's no photo ID requirement on same-day registration in Minnesota, accurate? Correct. And so an individual wouldn't have to show their ID, and if they did show their idea, it wouldn't say whether or not they're a United States citizen. Mr. Chair, I'm hesitating only because there are certain circumstances that might be different from that. But I take the meaning of your question. Yes, it's not required. Gee, I wonder if that opens up the possibility of voter fraud in Minnesota, John. huge number of same-day registrations here in Minnesota. And it's kind of ironic because Steve Simon made the correct point, which is, well, the driver's license, the fact that it doesn't show whether you're a citizen isn't really the main point, because you don't need anything. You can show up on the election day and say, hi, you know, I'm Dan Proff, and I live in this precinct. Oh, really? Okay, great. Here's a ballot. You know, I mean, it's really, you know, you don't even need a fake ID to vote illegally in Minnesota. Well, and then that same Secretary of State in another hearing also explain how you can vouch for up to eight people who live at your address, for example. So I can do what was just described, what you just described, and then I can bring eight of my friends and say, yeah, they all live at 1, 2, 3 Main Street with me, and they can same day register and vote, too. I mean, seriously, this is lunacy. Yeah, I don't think they have to live at your address. I think you just have to vouch for the claim that they live in the precinct. Yeah, okay, even more broad, yes. Right, right, exactly. I mean. And, you know, the Democrats have been known to station vouchers at precinct polling places. You know, it's a very corrupt system. Uh-huh. I mean, you know, just like taxpayers around the country, look at what happens in Minnesota, and they say, wait a minute, my federal tax dollars. Yeah, right. Through the layering center. Text written to criminals in Minnesota. And now you have the same kind of thing. People around the country, look at what's happening in Minnesota, what's happening now, what's going to happen in Virginia and other states, and say, well, wait a minute. You know, we're voting honestly for congressmen here in my state.

And we're losing out because of dishonesty that is being perpetrated in other states. It's a really toxic situation. Well, you do have some signs of life in the GOP in Minnesota, which is more than I can say in Illinois. I saw, and we talked a bit about articles of impeachment that have been moved against Tim Walz. I don't expect they're going to go very far, but at least it focuses more public attention on the benefits fraud that he has been allowed to. explode under walls. Articles of impeachment filed against Walls and also against our Attorney General Keith Ellison, and obviously they're not going to be impeached, but I think it's nevertheless a worthwhile effort. You know, Minnesota is a lot closer than many people realize. Currently, the Minnesota House is dead even, 67, 67. The Minnesota Senate is 3433, a one Democrat advantage. It literally could not be closer mathematically. I know. And frankly, given the sort of the ballot integrity regime that we were just discussing, it's remarkable that it is that close. It really is. It really is. So notwithstanding the negative negativity you sometimes hear from me, Dan, don't give up on Minnesota. No, but I mean, so, and I still think that this. issue of benefits fraud is a real wild card over the next seven months leading into the general and leading into the midterm election and I wonder where things at like your perspective because you know what Minnesota is the epicenter for a moment and may it's moved a little bit towards a Carol California for obvious reasons now but but with the whistleblowers the people that were suggesting that from inside these public agencies in Minnesota that There was fraud going on. They tried to alert people. They were walled off. They were silenced. And some apparently, at least anonymously, have accused Tim Walz of knowingly aiding and abetting the fraud. And I just wonder where things stand. Well, I think the most important thing, Dan, is that we're going to be seeing some new indictments and some new programs. You know, the big fraud in Minnesota was feeding our future, which was a food program, ostensibly, for poor children, added up to about $500 million in fraud. And that's where we've seen, you know, 90 indictments and 65 convictions and so on. That's been the big scandal. But there's fraud in all of our programs. And the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office here in Minnesota have been investigating fraud in 14 different Medicaid programs in Minnesota and have concluded that there is billions and billions of dollars in criminality in those programs. They're preparing indictments. And so a whole new wave of indictments bigger than the ones we've seen before in terms of dollars.

will begin, I'm told, sometime between now and the beginning of summer. So by the time the midterms roll around, there should be a whole major wave of publicity about new fraud that's been uncovered in Minnesota. We'll look forward to that. Just staying on Minnesota for a second. So much activity there. The Hennepin County District Attorney Moriarty issuing arrest warrants for ICE officers, she's going to be the one that tries to draw the line and have state prosecutions of federal law enforcement. Yeah, she, with all due respect, is a nut. And she ran for office on a soft on-crime platform, promising to go easy on criminals. And unlike most politicians, she's been true to her word. Her four years as Hennepin County had been such a disaster in terms of crime that she is not running for re-election. So this is kind of her swan song. One last outraged from the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. Interesting. Soft on criminals and tough on federal law enforcement. I'm glad at least that she is being sidelined effectively by the voters. She doesn't feel like she can run again. That's encouraging. That's an encouraging note, too, isn't it? Well, I think it is. I mean, my organization certainly has been, you know, part of the effort to inform people about the craziness that's been going on in Hennepin County for the last four years. John Hinderaker, president of the center of the American Experiment, his organization, he was just mentioning, and contributor to Powerline, powerline blog.com. John, thank you as always. Great to be with you, Dan. You too. Thanks for joining us. John Hinderaker did so 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 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. Time to declare war on the gerontocracy. Old fogies. You're in our way. You got our stuff. We want it. Boy, if you thought Zeke Emanuel was draconian in his proposals for seniors, you know, 75 and out. Meet Samuel Moyne. He's a law and history professor at Yale. He's not happy that older Americans are hoarding America's potential.

He writes in the New York Times, it's not ages to ask whether older people should be required to give more to younger Americans and national priorities. It is critical to the future of our democracy and society. America needs to confront gerontocracy before the system collapses under the weight of its inequality and injustice. In a little more than a century, the extension of life in America has transformed American and global politics. It turned older Americans who had been one of the most underprivileged groups in the country into some of the most overprivileged. Some of the excessive power that the aging have amassed harms society as they enjoy advantages to the detriment of others. Crucial priorities for the future like creativity and dynamism, environmental remediation. It is earthy. Immigration policies and tax fairness also suffer under gerontocracy. Older Americans favor restrictions on immigration most, even when they need immigrant caregivers most. Three-year extension for TPS for those Haitian health care workers, right? That's the argument. He goes on. Likewise, there's a correlation between age and resistance to policies to halt the overheating of the planet or raise funds for education and other civic purposes. 312-642-2-5600 is the AlphaWealthgroup.com call and text line. If you want to join the battle against the gerontocracy.

whether you're senior or not, you know, do the right thing. Give up your stuff. The professor, Moyne, goes on to argue. Our political class is too old. But the hidden depth of gerontocracy is the advanced age of voters and the people holding wealth in this country. Seniors dominate elections, especially local and off-cycle ones with their comparatively high rates of participation. Damn those civic-minded seniors. He cites the wealth picture. From 90 to 2010, the median net worth of households headed by adults over 65 grew by 42% in the same period in households headed by 18 to 34, median net worth fell by 68%. He's got some ideas. What needs to be done? The conversations we must have. Proposals range from making it easier to cast a ballot since current requirements returnly hurt younger voters who move around a lot. Yeah, right. It's really hard. You move from one place to the other. It's really hard to change your voter registration. To instituting mandatory voting. He also suggests lowering the voting age. Sure. Some, you know, 14-year-olds helping determine the trajectory of society. It's not a just either, he argues, to impose policies to transfer jobs, houses, and wealth down the generational change. Impose policies to transfer stuff down the generational chain.

There are also ways of recognizing that age affects opportunity and resources. The most obvious is to reinstitute mandatory retirement in employment sectors, especially white collar work, where generational renewal has been obstructed for years. The fogies are working too long. They're advanced age. Tap them out at 62. Well, I mean, if you're in the government, you can tap out at, you know, 52, 55. In housing, besides circumventing the disproportionately high elder population in town meetings where land use decisions are made, I advocate a progressive tax on older homeowners to incentivize them to downsize rather than retain. We're not going to take it. We're just going to incentivize. We want to incentivize you to downsize. It's a slow taking, you know, like confiscatory property taxes in Illinois. The longer you stay, argues the professor, the more you should have to pay. Sure, that seems fair, right? The longer you stay on your property, the more you should have to pay for your property that you paid for. Hmm, wait. Huh? What? The funds from this incentive could allow for new construction and other projects of intergenerational justice. There's a phrase.

especially educational projects that are prioritized unleashing our young people into the creative prime of their life. Improving the welfare state for all who need it could reduce the motivation for holding on to housing and jobs, not just bank accounts and stock portfolios. So we have to counter ageism by targeting the older. Okay. What do you think? Matt Taibi over at his substack racket news or outlet, whatever you call it, had a alternative headline for Professor Moyne's column. Old people suck and we should take their stuff. Yeah, that's basically what he's saying. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you work for stuff and, you know, you saved and you play by the rules. But, you know, you got more than I got and I got and I got more time than you got. So give me some of your stuff. And we'll call it social justice or intergenerational justice. Sure. Whatever you want to call it. I just want the stuff. He has written a book, too, the column, I guess, is to, you know, preview the book, Gerontocracy in America, how the old are hoarding wealth and power in America. And he is not happy about it. In the book, I guess, according to Taibi's recitation. The professor cites examples of apes and chimpanzees who establish hierarchies based on brute strength and therefore physical vitality and can marginalize faltering alpha males who then sometimes go into exile, which means death. Humans, by unpleasant contrast, Taibi writes, traditionally value the wisdom of elders, so achieving intergenerational equity may require a good old-fashioned dinosaur call. Yeah. That sounds compassionate. As Taibi writes, the professor's work doesn't just seet with collective as bloodlust. It's also incorrect. Moyne confuses a handful of old politicians and billionaires with the wider category of old people who are far from, who far from being antisocial hoarders, have been repeatedly victimized by public and private interests over the last 20 plus years, always for the same offense, being good citizens.

And, you know, the number of seniors that get ripped off scams. And, you know, by professional scam artists, both in public office and in the public sector as well as private thieves. Tybee writes about people he reported on during the... Financial crisis. I met elderly people victimized three times over. First, they lost their home equity to refis or prime to subprime switcherooze. Next, their pension funds were wiped out by overinvestment in junk mortgages. The next insult was paying taxes to bail out the company's responsible. Yeah, I remember talking about that and writing about that too. We were supposed to be... All hands on deck, all used for spare parts for the one in ten individuals who face foreclosure. But the nine and ten, maybe it's a little bit more than one in ten, but between one and two and ten. But the eight to nine and ten who played by the rules and had a cushion for a downturn. were just so to be seen as spare parts for the people that took on more risk than they should have. See this all the time. And then the people who play by the rules get excoriated for being able to survive challenging times, which is essentially what this professor, this Yale professor, is arguing in his piece and apparently in his book. Mary Palatine, you're on Chicago's morning answer. Hi, Dan. I think that that professor really needs a good spanking. This is coming from a boomer. I mean, my goodness, him and Ben Dominic, is that his name, who wrote the most ridiculous article this week about grandparents should babysit their grandchildren, which I've done. But, I mean, where do they get off with this mentality? But you give me dad. That's a give me dad stuff. Give me that. That's right. That's exactly where it is. I didn't see the Dominique piece. What did he say? What did he say about that? Well, he's got three kids now, I guess. And I guess he needs more. They need more help so they can maybe go pick out a steak at the store. You got to read it. It was really insulting coming from a boomer. Yeah, well, not to mention, where did all have been and Megan McCain's cash go? No kidding. Right? I mean, please. Yeah, yeah. Thanks for the call, Mary. All right. Yeah, yeah. Sad story. Lee and Hammond. You know, this guy just demonstrates to me that you could reach the most advanced stages places in academia and be a complete moron. I mean, is this guy ever heard of the concept of birthdays? What is he going to do when he becomes a senior citizen, jump off a bridge? Is that his plan? Thanks for the call, Lee. Yeah, I'm waiting for Zeke to hit 75 and see what he thinks about being 75 when he is 75. Uh-huh. Text from 219, bring it whippersnapper. Okay. Throw down. Marvin Burlington.

Yeah, I really, this guy's a spoiled little bitch. And does he not understand that we earned everything we have earned it? We didn't get given to us by some social program that the government stole other people's money to fund. We didn't cheat our way through school to get it. And, you know, they want to talk about Social Security. If we'd have invested the money ourselves in the private sector, we'd have done a lot better than if we left it into Social Security fund. So, you know, I mean, he's a spoiled little brat. who has no concept of the real world or how money is actually made. And quite frankly, we'd all be doing a lot better if the government wouldn't stay out, would just stay out of everything. Yeah, thanks for the call, Marvin. Well, yeah, the only thing I would, you know, in terms of the intergenerational compact, you know, forget all this justice and equity business, all that this is just fancy words for takings, theft, if we're being real honest about it. But there is an intergenerational, the intergenerational compact has been broken. But it's in a couple of different directions. One of them certainly, you know, the greatest generation World War II gave us the boomers. And the boomers gave us this Leviathan we have now at every level. And so I would say, you know, the profligacy and government growth would be. should be the conversation about where the intergenerational compact is broken down, not like you made money and you, you know, own your home free and clear. So now you should be, you know, tax incentivized to downsize so we can, I don't know, reduce the costs of homeownership so I can essentially conspire with the government to get your home. for less than the market would otherwise bear. I mean, it's all that's it's it's it's it's like the sickness of the collectivist, the sickness of the central planner the sickness of the neo-Marxist. This is what you have here with this Yale professor. But I mean, I would love to have the conversation, the intergenerational conversation about platforming profligacy. And, you know, that that's that's the real conversation. As we were talking about a bit earlier, too, where we have this increasingly we either possess or we indulge this spoiled bratism, this, you know, I can gain without any pain. I can let things run wild. I can participate in this profligacy, but I don't want to bear the brunt of any cost to rein it in. That doesn't work either. You know, this is back to, you know, the great Roman historian Livy, you have mentioned before, which is the, you know, the end of successful civilization comes when people can no longer tolerate their ills nor the cures for their ills. And that's where we're tracking right now, I'm afraid. Robert, Lyle.

Hey, thanks for having me on. I really appreciate it. Well, let's see. We had the Ten Commandments, now shall not steal, but, you know, those went by the wayside. We had white privilege. Now we have old privilege. We want to take your stuff. Yeah, well, our young privilege, because, yeah, you're not the privileged in this formulation. You're the unprivileged. Thanks for the call. Robert. Yeah. Well, just... I mean, it's identity in politics, categorizing people by non-behavioral characteristics. We pick winners and losers. Your stuff goes over here. This person's stuff goes over there based on age, race, sex, whatever. Neo-Marxist policies. Roy and Glenn Allen. Yes, good morning, Dan. I actually agree with this guy on the aspect of. getting our federal politicians out at, oh, I don't know, age 60 instead of a Dick Durbin and Nadler and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and even Republicans who sit there until they're 85. But then again, they are stealing. So I guess it's, I don't know how to explain it, I guess. Thanks for the call, Roy. People get the representation they deserve. Jack, Northwest Indiana. Good morning, Dan. So earlier in the week, you had a segment on universities, colleges, and how they likely transition into something that's much different than what it has been. And this is Exhibit A as to why that should happen. It really should morph into more of a technical trade school. You know, become a lawyer accountant, what have you, because this guy's unserious. This is unsurious, scholarly work, and anybody who pays attention to him, to say you'll spend $100,000, send your son or daughter to Yale so that... this man pollutes them with this type of nonsense. This is a joke. I would walk right out of the class. There's no room for this. You want to become a doctor. Go to college. If not, become a plumber. Thanks for the call, Jack. Yeah, rather than having us de-evolve into being, into behaving like chimpanzees, an interesting comparison. It's really something what comes out of the minds of the deep thinkers at the prestige schools, isn't it? Corey Woodlawn. Hey, thanks for taking a call, Dan. You know, unfortunately, some of this guy's rhetoric has made his way into politics because that's exactly what the current legislation in Chicago is doing. As they continue to raise our property taxes, we will have to lose the equity on our own. Some of these neighbors aren't even desirable to live in to begin with. So we're going to lose equity based on the high property taxes anyway. So they're thinking along the same lines, they're going to steal our property and do high taxation of these gimmicks like this. You know, thanks, Corey. Dan Proff, Chicago's morning answer. It's news, opinion, insight. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560, the answer. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560, the answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. The historian Neil Ferguson describes the situation America is in now vis-a-vis Iran in part this way. The Iranians have survived regime change and discovered that closing the strait is just as powerful a lever in economic warfare as they had always hoped. It's not despite the Russian quip an economic nuke because unlike a nuclear weapon, you can use it. Where we go from here is fairly predictable. I would be surprised if Trump now deploys ground forces. There will be more negotiation, so Islamabad here we come. There may have to be more bombing if the Iranians dust down the North Vietnamese playbook of stringing U.S. negotiators along. And the final compromise will take longer to be agreed upon than Mr. Market currently believes. Talking about the prediction markets. Maybe I'm not sure I accept, I mean, as much respect as I have for Ferguson. I'm not sure I would characterize, accept this characterization of discovering that closing the strait is just a powerful of lever and economic warfare as that I always hoped. Did they anticipate a blockade where they would be the ones suffering on the end of this? powerful lever that they thought they had. Again, I'm just trying to get somebody to explain to me how Iran is in a position where they have particular leverage here, where time is on their side here, with no ability to retaliate really other than acts of piracy effectively. a faltering economy to say the least and again facing the prospect of losing 400 you know estimated 400 million dollars a day by not being able to apply their trade in natural resources uh maybe our next guest can explain those to me Kelly Vlahos is editor-in-chief at Responsible Statecraft and a senior advisor at the Quincy Institute. Previously, she was the executive director of the American conservative. Kelly, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Well, thanks for having me. Thank you. So, yeah, great to have you. So, I mean, do you see Iran in a particularly advantageous position vis-a-vis Trump and America's desires at present? Well, I think you make some good points. You talked about the time, the time being of essence. Iran is running out of time. You talked about capacity. You know, Iran very much degraded in the war since the initial February 28th attack and money, revenue. They're losing a lot of it because of the blockade. But point for point, so are we. And Iran knows that. We don't have much time because the global economy is in turmoil right now. And prospects are that we could be losing $2.2 trillion in global GDP, the longer this goes on. Capacity? Our arsenal is depleted. It was depleted after Ukraine, sending all those weapons to Ukraine, defending Israel since October 7th, the fight with the Houthis.

the June bombing of Iran and now the current war. So our capacity is low. And if our capacity is low, Israel is even lower. We've seen their missile defense is not even working in some cases because they've had to save some of their capacity. We do not know how much Iran has left. It's degraded, but they have stores of weapons and they've been building drones like Matt. So I see this more as a game of chicken where both sides hold leverage, but it is not clear who holds more at this point. I'm thinking Iran does because we have a global economy that's on a nice edge, and Trump has to watch for that. And he's got to watch for the political impact of his decisions at home. Well, yeah, I mean, although he suggested yesterday knowing that, you know, Iran is playing this stalling game, I guess. or at least that's the, what seems to be what the IRGC wants to do, that, you know, he's got all the time in the world. That's what he said on CNBC. And, of course, he wants to communicate that to the Iranian. So he doesn't communicate that he feels up against the wall to make a decision he doesn't want to make. But in terms of, you know, $2.2 trillion of global GDP, even if there is economic shock, as there has been some. America is obviously the best position to weather any such shock and still marshal on as we have been doing over the last six weeks. So I don't know. You know, what happens in Western Europe? Yes, it has an impact on America, Western Europe, for example. But I don't know that that puts us in the American economy on that knife's edge. Well, I mean, I go back to the 2024 election. The Republicans under... Trump and MAGA had been really pushing for the re-industrialization of America. Globalization had been issued by both parties. And there's this sense that, particularly during COVID, that we were so vulnerable to globalize supply change, this highly networked economy. Now, I agree with that, and I'm sure you do too. But it's only been two years. We have not even made a dent in trying to reshore all of these supply lines. So what's happening in the Gulf does affect the American economy, in so many ways, whether it be the energy, whether it be the helium that cools semiconductors that we want to build here but are still importing, the fertilizer that...

We import, but also we import components so we can make fertilizer here. So our farmers are being disrupted. Truckers, fuel. I mean, it goes across the gambit. Even the U.S. military buys components on the global market for its drones and for its weapon systems. So that's going to be disrupted. I don't think we are really appreciating what a shock. this will have to the American system because we think it's happening over there. And a lot of those ships are going to European and Asian countries. But those European and Asian countries supply stuff to the United States that we need to make here. Well, I mean, yeah, and this may be why Trump has invoked the Defense Production Act again for enhanced domestic production of some of the items you're talking about. But in addition to that, you know, we also see the...

Basically, the leverage that Tehran has being competed away in the energy sector as ships are making their way to the Gulf of America. That's also happening. So, I mean, there's a lot of variables in play, and that's one of them. And Holman Jenkins made this point in the Wall Street Journal the other day, too. And now you have this drilling in the North Sea. You have Germany being more... jealous in protecting their coal and nuclear energy sources. So you have market reactions happening all over the place, including away from these natural resource extortionists like the Mullahs in Tehran. Yeah, no, I mean, I'm not saying that there won't be a real shift here after this war is over towards. more independent on the part of some of these countries to either move away from fossil fuels or industrialized on their part so they're not dependent. And I hope this gives us more impetus to be more independent in our energy supplies. I'm just saying that the initial shock, which I was listening to Bloomberg surveillance this morning, and they're saying that gas prices could be higher than $4 through the summer. And that's if the war ends at some point, which nobody can predict. So if we look at this at a purely political perspective, Donald Trump is... very vulnerable right now because what you're talking about, it may be long-term fixes, but immediately we're going to see prices escalate. We're going to see shocks to the system. Economically, we're going to see higher fuel prices, higher consumer prices, and there's going to be a backlash politically against Trump and the Republicans going into the midterms. And my question, taking more 30,000 for you is... What is it for? Because we literally took the country to war, but we have no long-term solution because Iran is not going to give up until it gets some concessions. So we might be looking at a situation where we're at the status quo in terms of our relationship with Iran, but also facing super higher prices at the gas pump and elsewhere. and more vulnerabilities economically. And I'm thinking the American people are going to be like, what just happened here? And so then you would have suggested, based on that logic, that he'd not extend the ceasefire yesterday, and he should have pressed down and started to re-inflict punishment on the Iranians as promised.

I mean, you or your viewers might not want to hear this, but I would have recommended not going to war in the first place. Okay, but we're here now, so what would, so how do you get out then? I mean, how do you get out is you got to make a deal with the Iranian? And what does that look like? You're going to have to give them. Well, I mean, again, you're not going to want to hear this. They're probably looks similar to, like, the deals that we've had in the past where we put restrictions on their nuclear program and exchange for lifting the sanctions. So they can rebuild their economy. That is exactly what they want. They're going to dig in deeper until they get it. So get those restrictions on the nuclear program in exchange for some concessions that we can give them. And ultimately. There has to be some sort of agreement that the U.S. and Israel is not going to bomb Iran again because we can't keep going back to the well every few years and get into another war and send the global economy into a tailspin for nothing. And so I do think there needs to be some serious security assurances given in exchange for restrictions on the nuclear program. Well, how could, well, restrictions on nuclear program. The restriction is you don't have a nuclear program, not one that is to develop weapons-grade uranium for the purpose of having a nuclear weapon. Right, right. Nuclear power, that's a different thing, as we've said all along. But, of course, the Obama program provided the cash to position themselves. for weapons development and stockpiling ballistic missiles and drones and everything else combined with giving them cover to cheat, which is what they were doing. So, I mean, so, so what do we, how can we, how can we bind ourselves to say we're not going to bomb Iran when, you know, it's more likely than not if this same element is in charge, they will return to what they were doing at Pickax Mountain or under some other cover of darkness and pursue nuclear weapons again because that's their long term fail safe. So they would never have to effectively never have to worry about consequences from being a state sponsor of terror. Yeah, I mean, unfortunately, the sad reality is you're probably going to get something similar to what Obama had agreed to in 2008, 2009, because what he agreed to were restrictions on the nuclear enrichment, which was working according to the United Nations. Well, how is it working? They have 100 pounds of...

of enriched uranium, that's a 60%, that's a stone's throw. I mean, how is that? We know they were cheating. I can answer that. We know they were cheating. Okay. They weren't cheating. And the United Nations said they weren't cheating. Then the Trump administration got out of the deal in 2018. And. They cooled their heels for a little, and then they said, okay, well, we're just going to start enriching more then. And that's where all those increases in the enrichment came after Trump got out of the deal in 2018. And so, like, the deal was actually keeping guardrails on that program, and so Trump got out. If you don't believe me, I mean, there's plenty of documentation on this. But the point is, you'll hand them money. The agreement was that they would get the frozen funds, their own assets frozen in exchange for these restrictions. That's where the money that you talk about, the palace of cash, had gone to Iran. What do you think is going to happen now? We are going to make an agreement eventually. for restrictions in exchange for sanctions to be lifted, which means money to Iran. And unfortunately, Trump is going to have to explain that to the American people. But Iran is proving that it can dig in. So fast forward to today, we have an Iran that is not going to let up. It is digging in for the long haul. It's being what is going on as an existential fight for its own survival. And they are not going to give anything until we list sanctions. And so we're back to square run. And that's why I believe that the war was folly to begin with, because we should have just stayed at the negotiating table and negotiated a deal that Trump could say was a better deal than Obama. And he didn't. He bombed them instead twice in the middle of a negotiation. And Israel has killed negotiators. So we're in kind of a less certain place now. dealing with new negotiators where everybody says are more hardline than the first one. So I don't know what kind of deal we can get or we could just be in stasis. And I don't think the American people appreciate that either. Well, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out because I think there are a lot more options than particularly with where Iran is now as compared to where it was when we led with surrender under Obama. They're obviously much more debilitated economically and militarily. That's unquestionable. And I think there are other options on the table besides just resuscitating some facsimile of that previous deal.

given where Iran is right now. They're going to keep doing what they're doing. Well, what is it they're doing? Just not capitulating formally. But as we said at the open, they are pretty limited in their options and also limited in time. And with more time comes fewer options for them other than they just are committed to martyrdom. Okay, well, that could be arranged. Yeah. Well, the news today is that they just captured two vessels and are sailing them back to the coast of Iran. So they and one of them is supposedly an Israeli-linked vessel, shipping vessel. Yes, they have the, they have the, we stipulate. They have the capacity for piracy. I mean, it is pretty. clear that we have we're capturing vessels too so is it piracy for them and not piracy for us no no no no you're doing a mirror image of the of the blockade that we we've put on this is right these are this is this is war yes no i i know i'm disputing your characterization on a capacity basis we have naval superiority they have the ability to essentially behave like pirates those are very different positions to be in And at the end of the day, does it matter? Because if we have the superiority that you speak of, which we do with hardware and with the military firepower, but we're still at the same place, playing chicken with a lesser power, playing chicken with a country that we thought we could just blow right out of the water within days. February 28th, and now we're looking across a table with them, eyeball to eyeball, and there seems to be no progress. So I think at the end of the day, our military superiority doesn't mean as much as we thought it did. And I think that actually puts the onus on us for finding another way out of this. Do we go back and we try to hammer out a deal? Or do we escalate? And what does escalation mean? Are we prepared as a country to invade with American men and women on the ground? Are we prepared to use nuclear weapons? I think we're running out of military options. Not military and combined with economic options. I don't think we're running out of them at all. I think as we said at the outset, they're on the clock. Much more so than, much more so than this administration is even if there is some additional short-term political water that is taken on in advance of this larger. I think, laudable goal of eliminating Iran as the lead state sponsor of terror in this world and certainly preventing them from pursuing a nuclear program, at least for another generation. That buys more time for Western Sib, which is a good thing too.

All right, we'll leave it there, but I appreciate this spirited discussion. Kelly Vlajos is the editor-in-chief at Responsible Statecraft. She's also senior advisor at the Quincy Institute, and she previously was the executive editor of the American Conservative. Kelly, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Thanks for having me. And she joined us on the alphawealthgroup.com answer line. The stories you need to know to start your day. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560, The Answer. If you're looking for the latest news, insight into what it means, and the sharpest opinion. There's only one station in Chicago where you can turn, and it's this one. We're AM 560. The answer. Stop of the morning, Dan Prop here. It is Earth Day, as I mentioned before. So we want to check in on the polar ice caps, the polar bears, the acid rain, the ozone layer. Are we still not supposed to use aerosol spray, aerosol hairspray, and so on and so forth? I can't keep track of all of the things that we're supposed to do. I know we're supposed to... Well, it depends on which eco-sprimicist group you're working off of, but I know obviously we want to reduce our carbon footprint and possibly eliminate ourselves. That's the goal of extinction rebellion, right? One of these eco-supremicist groups that wants to depopulate the world so we can save the planet. For whom? They don't have a great answer. Plants and animals, I suppose. For more on where we stand. as a people as inhabitants of this mortal coil. Pleased to be joined again by Jason Isaac, CEO and founder of American Energy Institute and former Texas State Rep. Jason, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. It's great to be on. I'm happy to be living a high-carbon lifestyle. Yeah, all right. Wow. Okay, so things are going good. You've checked in on all the constituent groups that are important mascots for the environmental movement, and everybody seems to be doing okay. The polar bears are probably the biggest recipients. You know, in the 1970s, there was less than 10,000 polar bears. And according to Al Gore, no seriously, though, there are today. There's only 40,000 polar bears. So that's what the alarmist wants you to believe that that's a bad thing. But if that's the barometric measurement of climate change, then hang up the ban, our mission accomplished, we've succeeded. I'm happy to report Miami has not become Atlantis, as Obama predicted, not so long ago. And, yeah, other things seem to be going well. Again, point of fact, it's interesting because it seems to me that the movement, such as it is.

as a political force, has sort of gone underground. It just doesn't have the appeal that it used to have. It doesn't mean it's not present and it's not, they're not attempts to be disruptive, but less so, you know, pasting your hands to the hardwood floor of an NBA game. And more so in the courts, it seems to me, where this movement, this. You know, movement, political movement, the NGOs have decided to focus their attention, actual courts of law rather than the courts of public opinion as much. Is that fair? Yeah, and what's happened is they've lost a lot of their funding because they were receiving funding from the federal government through nonprofits that were contracted to do certain grants, and that has been exposed during this administration, and a lot of that has been cut off. And so we are no longer using tax dollars to a certain extent to fund these leftist climate alarmist organizations that are scaring children and just driving up the cost of energy. They're not doing anything to improve the environment. We've done that. on our own here in the United States, world leaders in clean air, we're number one when it comes to access to clean safe drinking water, something that 7 billion people on the planet would love to get to take for granted like we do here in this country. Yeah, and Kerry Severino wrote about this Chevron decision last week, an important decision by the Supreme Court, 8-0 ruling. holding that Chevron properly invoked the federal officer removal statute to transfer an environmental suit from Louisiana state court to federal court. Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, Kerry Severino notes that... This is a technical procedure case, but it has significant consequences for the relationship between federal and state courts and for the climate lobbies ongoing litigation warfare against energy companies. And she goes on to develop that. But this is sort of an example of what I'm talking about, what they're attempting to do through the courts, and we see this all the time with the left, attempt to do through the courts what they can't get through popular support or through legislative bodies. That's correct. They're trying to use a judiciary and manipulate it as much as possible. You're three cases that were thrown out in Maryland just a couple of weeks ago. In big news out of California, they're pausing all of their climate nuisance lawsuits targeted energy companies in light of some of the recent rulings. And I guess they're tired of wasting other people's money, especially taxpayer dollar monies, with these nuisance lawsuits. And that's really all there are. You have states that are trying to pass. climate slush funds to charge energy companies to sell their products, charge them even more. And you look at California. I mean, California takes more out of a gallon of gasoline does than these companies are making them profit.

And how does California respond? They're trying to ban fossil fuels by 2045. I mean, that's less than 20 years away. No more coal or natural gas for electricity. No more gasoline or diesel to move the people and the products that are dependent on those fuels to have freedom and economic prosperity. It's really absurd. It's just driving up the cost of energy. Even Katie Porter running for government in California said that one of the reasons their gas costs more is because of... a regulation called the low-carbon fuel standard, which Illinois is trying to implement the American Energy Institute. We're trying to stop that. We've petitioned the EPA to get rid of those taxes on refined goods because that's all they are, and they're not doing it through the Constitution. They don't have the statutory authority to implement them. And so we're trying to get them gone to save consumers' money. Yeah, I mean, and then the layers of taxation, too, like in Illinois, as I'm sure, you know, we have a sales tax on the gas tax, so we have a tax on a tax, which is, you know, a novel approach. And the fact they're trying to add one more with this low carbon fuel standard, which will add 15 to 25 cents per gallon. And they just don't have the authority to do it. We petition the EPA to get rid of that. California is the only state that has the authority. They have a carve out in the Clean Air Act. So we're trying to keep your costs from going up even more. And it seems like this is a particularly bad look in these times when we're talking about energy independent. We're talking energy independence. We're talking about the price of the pump. We're dealing with oil extortionists like the Iranians. It seems like this is not exactly fertile field for that opinion at this moment. Yeah, you would think it's like the left is waking up. I know Hawaii Senator Hirono was complaining about the cost of gasoline, the pump in Hawaii, the most expensive state and in the union. Right. And again, they have all these taxes. And she's one of these that has supported the Green New Deal wants to get rid of the use of gasoline altogether. You think she would be celebrating. I mean, President Obama was the one that said that prices would necessarily skyrocket under his plan for electricity. That's the plan. They want the cost to go up to reduce consumption. But what it does is it increases poverty significantly. What is, and we were just talking about this from a geopolitical perspective, but from an energy sector perspective, what is the impact of the hostilities in the Middle East in terms of reshaping the... competitive energy market across the globe. You know, for example, those ships that, the ships that, you know, are coming to the Gulf of America because they can't, you know, go through the Strait of Hormuz to get, to get the oil where they used to get it.

Yeah, it's going to be detrimental for the Chinese economy. About 80 to 90% of the oil coming out of Iran was going to China. They were buying it on the cheap and probably trading some weapons and other things on the low end to get the oil and that energy. And China's done a great job of expanding their refining capacity, powered by cheap coal electricity. And what's that meant, they've actually been exporting diesel, jet fuel, home heating oil onto the global market. So there'll be a price check for the Chinese Communist Party, but what's happening is people are sending ships to a stable, predictable market, and they're getting oil from the United States. Just in the last couple of weeks we've increased our exports from 4 million barrels a day to 5 million barrels of oil a day. I mean, that's a significant increase in just a matter of weeks, and that's great for the global market. And does this sort of reordering of the market, does it stay or does it continue to move in the direction of the West and more stable suppliers like America and away from less stable suppliers like Iran even after there is a cessation of hostilities? Yeah, I think it really does. Again, they're going to go after this predictable instability first and foremost. And with what's happening in Venezuela and their neighboring country, Guyana, the amount of increased production that's happening there, that's a good heavy crude that the world needs. And so why not buy it from a stable market? And what is your perspective on alternative sources of energy? I mean, you know, the left tries to get us into this false dichotomy where, you know, it has to be all or it has to be sort of all one or all the other. And, you know, everybody's for energy innovation and alternative sources of energy if they're, you know, viable from a market perspective, if they're reliable and a reliability perspective and so forth. So where does that stand in an era of Tesla's and discussion about and incentives for solar panels and discussions about batteries and so forth? What's your take on the energy sector and the dynamism of it and the distribution of different energy sources? Yeah, I think gone are the days of the policy of people that supported all of the above energy policy. And now the energy policy is about affordability and reliability. So we're not going to depend on heavily subsidized things that are dependent on Chinese supply chain that are intermittent in nature that our Secretary of Energy calls parasitic to our grid. That's wind and solar and batteries. They're extremely expensive. They take up a ton of land. I mean, solar takes up 25 times the amount of land. to produce an equivalent amount of electricity, natural gas, and coal. You'd think the left would be up in arms screaming about that. Actually, Michael Moore did a few years ago with a movie he put out Planet of the Humans. He says, we're no longer protesting mountaintop removal for coal. We're protesting mountain tops from being removed for installation of wind turbines. Yeah. It's just not dense energy. It's intermittent. We need affordable and reliable, and what's affordable and reliable is natural gas.

coal and nuclear. And if people want to drive EVs and put solar panels on their roofs, I'm fine with that. I just don't want to pay for it. I don't want to make the least among us pay for it either. And what about nuclear? And, you know, there's talk now that's subsided a little bit, but talk of sort of modular nuclear. you know, basically power plants, not, so it doesn't, you know, call to mind the old, you know, nimbie problems of major nuclear power plants in backyards. We know something about that in Illinois with the number of nuclear power plants we have. But the innovations there, something that's modular, less obtrusive, more efficient. Where's that? Yeah, and that is progressing rapidly. There will be three nuclear reactors that reach criticality this year before July 4th, our 250th anniversary. That criticality is an important step in starting to mass produce those. You're looking probably seven to 10 years before they really reach scale, but a lot of data centers that are being proposed now that, interestingly enough, it's the same funding that's fighting the... Affordable, reliable energy are the people that are opposing data centers. We have hundreds of them in Texas, but now all of a sudden it's become the talk of the town, and people are rising up in arms literally against them with a city council member in Indianapolis having his home shot by people opposing data centers. Yeah, right. Those are going to be powered initially by natural gas and then ultimately with small modular reactors that sit on site produce a steady flow of electricity. And then the small modular reactors are also great for producing medical isotopes used in the treatment of cancer. Those are things that we import that have a short shelf life. I'm happy to report that one in Texas will reach criticality. just in a matter of months. And that'll be great for our health in fighting cancer in this country. So I'm really excited about that aspect of it as well. Really interesting. Jason Isaac, CEO and founder of American Energy Institute. He's also a former Texas State Representative. Jason, thanks for joining us again. Appreciate it. It's great to be on. And he joined us on the alphawealth group.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. Dan Broft here, you know, I said something nice about Illinois comptroller Susanna Mendoza yesterday, and then she goes and does this. Just in the sense of handicapping the mayor's race in 27, I thought Susanna Mendoza might have the inside track, depending on how crowded the field is. And I still think that. And she's got more than a million bucks on hand. She's got a long way to go. But, yeah, I mean, just demographically and with the identitarian obsessed nature of this electorate. But, and she takes some sensible positions on things like school choice and police. But still, you know, she has to do this identitarian chick thing at this chick restaurant.

is one of the only restaurants in Chicago downtown that is owned by women and celebrating Women's History Month with drinks named after bad-ass women. I'm having an honor of Dolores Fuerta, the si-se-puebeye. I'm Holly Kim, and I'm having the Punch Boom named after Tian Shang-Wu, the first lady of physics. I'm Amy Lawless, and I own the Deer Warren, and I'm having a Mother Mary's Crusade. If you're visiting the theater, hop across the street and go celebrate Women's History Month at the deer. boring women own business i think i'm going to have a hard time listening to that voice too in a mayor all race uh yeah yeah i think that's restaurant's going to last about as long as that uh sports bar in logan square that plays only women's sports televises only women's sports how's that going this is the morning show more chicago radio listeners are choosing this is chicago's morning answer on a m 560 the answer Thanks for listening to Chicago's Morning Answer podcast sponsored by Signature Bank. Signature Bank takes pride in helping customers grow their business and provide unmatched banking expertise, custom financial solutions, and the industry's best technology. So whether your business looking for a deposit relationship or needs a ready source of financing, Signature Bank is the right bank for you. Call today at 773-467. five, six hundred to hear how signature bank can help your business grow and thrive. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender.