The Jay Weber Podcast #0022 6-19-26

The Jay Weber podcast is presented by creative planning, helping clients simplify their journey to financial wellness, one personalized plan at a time. The Jay Weber podcast is a production of IHeart Radio Podcasts. Good day and welcome to the Jay Weber podcast. Oh, great stuff today, which is, by the way, the first day that visitors can get in to see the inside of Barack Obama's trash can. Yeah, the Obama Presidential Library is officially open to the public as of today and just try to hold me back. I mean, Chicago has the shed aquarium and a great natural history museum, but what's the real draw? The chance to see the pen Barack Obama used to destroy the health care system and Michelle Obama's jockstrap. It's a joke, of course. No, I don't think Michelle Obama is a man like all sorts of other internet cooks do. In fact, I think it's some of the dumbest nonsense related to the Obamas that's on the internet. But I do like how much it annoys the Democrats and the Obama fans on social media to hear that. They just take it so seriously and get so upset. So I tweak them again. But the Obama presidential library does open to the public today. I do love the part of the story where they insisted only minorities could have a hand in building this, and now they don't want to pay them. That sounds about right, doesn't it? So we'll talk about that in a moment. But first, how perfect or how perfectly terrible is it, that the man accused of coordinating this failed attack on Trump's UFC Freedom Night is an illegal alien who Obama gave dreamer status. Abraham Alvarez is being identified as the mastermind of this plot that could have involved over a dozen people. to use drones and automatic rifles to do as much damage as possible on an attack on that White House crowd. I mean, thank heaven it was foiled. And did you hear how it was? The mother of one of these 19-year-old punks who was involved in it called authorities and turned in her own son, so good for her. But gee. But gee, Alvarez was given dreamer status when Obama created his unconstitutional DACA program. He was one of those who got protected dreamer status. He is so grateful, apparently, that he decided to launch a major terrorism attack against the country. And this was a nasty and detailed plan that genuinely could have cost thousands of lives. The FBI says their plan was to hit nearby buildings with explosives drop from drones in order to create panic and send the crowds running toward hidden snipers just outside of the protected area. How is that for evil? Abraham Elvarez should be stripped of his DACA status and put in federal prison for life, but if some judge does decide that there is a future in which this animal is released, ICE should deport him back to his home country. Let him spend whatever is left of his miserable life and exile in misery in a crap hole far, far away from here. There's no way he should be allowed to enjoy the advantages of this country for one more moment. But you should, good listener, and a fruitful retirement is part of that. It's part of the great American dream, isn't it? So have you heard about Creative Planning, the chief sponsor of this podcast? They're one of the nation's largest independent wealth management firms offering fully integrated financial and retirement planning, investment management, estate planning, tax strategies, business services, and international wealth management, all in-house and coordinated through your wealth manager. Their fiduciary wealth managers are here to help you navigate every piece of your financial life. Visit creative planning.com to schedule your introductory meeting. That's creative planning.com. Your dream awaits. Paid for by Creative

planning, an SEC registered investment advisor. The speaker's statements are not an endorsement of the firm. Hey, the Michelle and Barack Obama library opens today. Hizah, hazah. People will finally get to see the inside of the trash can. That is a fugly building, just fugly. And they destroyed a beautiful stretch of federally protected land to build it as well. I don't know if you've seen the overhead shot of this concrete complex, but it is a massive concrete trash can-looking building that shoots up numerous stories and towers over the rest of the area, which was once beautiful, mature trees and a beautiful park. It's now mostly concrete with a few breaks of green areas. It really does look like something out of a dystopian future or a Star Wars movie to me. It looks like a building that Darth Vader and the Emperor's staff would hang out in. In fact, if you found an AI program and asked it to put stormtroopers around the building in the... the photos, I swear to you, everyone would think it's a movie set, Darth's Lair or whatever. And you can say, hey, every president gets a presidential library and they and their supporters get to choose what it's going to look like. That's true. Very true. But not every president gets to bulldoze parts of a federal park to build their presidential library as the Obama's insisted on doing. I'll even give them that, though. You know what? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Barack Obama was America's first black president. He should get a little special treatment, props for that, whatever. Build your library. But to choose a hideous design and force it onto that neighborhood as they did is unreasonable. And any other former president would have been blasted for it by the same media outlets that want to celebrate the Obama's doing it today. If this had been a Republican president trying to bulldoze or protected federal park and force himself into an angry neighborhood, the left would have tossed up so much flack and so many lawsuits that it never would have been built, never would have gotten done. But, hey, Barack had buddies in the state and federal courthouses there in Chicago. They cleared away the few lawsuits that were filed to stop this, and now he's got his library. This 225-foot-tall concrete nightmare that the leftists are only pretending to like. Moreover, have you heard this? The Obama Library Board is screwing over the black and minority contractors who built this, and in a big way. The lefties and the Obamas insisted that only black people can build this basically. They restricted any work to minority contractors, and they're now stiffing those contractors on payment. The Daily Mail is reporting that the African American Contractors Association has stepped in to try to get payment from these deadbeats. The Obama's. The president of the Contractors Association says most of these black contractors can't get paid and are getting jerked around. It's to the point that they wish they'd never done the project. He told the mail. Some subcontractors are missing as much as seven figures in payment, and many are feeling the pressure of keeping their businesses afloat. Well, sure. This monstrosity was supposed to cost $300 million when the planning started. It took $850 million to build it. Imagine that. On top of every other lie and mischaracterization, Obama's Library Board has told about this project. They claimed it would take $300 million to build. It has cost triple the estimate.

Triple. In fact, the budget has gotten so crazy that now the organizers can't pay the contractors, much less afford the continuing upkeep of the building and the grounds. This Daily Mail Story suggests that continuing costs also might end up on the backs of the Chicago or Illinois taxpayers. Fantastic. They keep electing these thieves and charlatans. Let them pay for it. The chairman of the Illinois Republican Party tells the mail, one of the core promises was that they, this is the Obama Library Board, was supposed to create an endowment as basically an insurance policy so the taxpayers wouldn't get stuck with the bill. They promised hundreds of millions of dollars for it. It's still sitting at the $1 million mark where it has stood since they opened it up. He says they've created this probably unsustainable edifice to an ego and that eventually, if it goes under, who's going to be caught with the bill time and time again? It's the taxpayers of the city, citizens of Chicago, and the state of Illinois. Yep. Meanwhile, the Obama Foundation won't comment other than to claim that they're in compliance with their agreement with the city. They claim the Obama Center is fully funded, even though minority contractors insist they are owed millions of dollars from the Obamas. A Chicago business publication says the Obama Center development was supposed to be a gift for local minority contractors. It's been a holy hell for them. But the contractors are muzzled by non-disclosure grievance, so they can't go public with their complaints. Folks, several of the same liars and grifters who ran the Obama campaigns in the Obama White House, like the Valerie Jarrett's of the world. Several of them are members of this Obama Center board. As one of their last acts of loyalty to these arrogant clowns of the Obamas, they were put to work fundraising and planning for this project. And so why is anyone surprised that they are still liars and bullies and pretenders? Instead of raising up Chicago's minority contractors, they lured them in, got them to sign nondisclosure agreements, and then F'd them. Who's surprised at that? Anyone? I'll also stick to my prediction that after today, Michelle Obama never sets foot in this presidential library again, not unless it's for some planned event in which she's the main focus, but it's just being held there. Barry and Michelle have been out in the media this week holding events and promoting the opening of this library today, but in truth, neither of them really want anything to do with it, it seems. It's a never-ending ego stroke for Barack, sure. He'll occasionally want to be featured there or hold events there, I assume. But neither he nor Michelle want to work anymore, and they certainly don't want to have anything to do with this foundation or its continued work to operate this complex. No, no. I assume that after today, Michelle's out. She won't even go back to visit that putrid portrait of the two of them that was revealed earlier this week. Did you see this piece of crap? They commissioned some Nigerian-born artist out in L.A. Had to be a black woman, of course, and her talent wasn't as important as her skin color.

So they commissioned this woman to paint a portrait of the two of them together to be hung in the entryway of Obama's evil lair here in Chicago, and it was unveiled this week. I swear to you, it is such a fantastic piece of crap. I initially thought that the post on social media was a joke. I assumed it was fake news that was meant to be funny because the painting is just awful enough that you can't take it seriously. The Obamas cannot really be gushing over this portrait, can they? They are, of course, publicly. You know, those on the left have a strong, strong desire to pretend that they are enlightened and creative and can see beauty in places that the rest of us can't. And so this portrait isn't as good as stuff I've seen at high school art exhibits and they're cooing over it. And I'm serious about that. You would be blown away by how talented and creative some of America's teenagers are artistically. I have genuinely been at high school art exhibits that included pieces that have just blown me away, and I've been to all sorts of them that have included better portraits than the one that the Obama's just paid for, and I assume massively so. So when I say we probably have thousands of high school kids who could paint a better portrait than this, including some black ones, I'm being honest. In fact, the Obamas could have turned this into a national art contest and gotten better submissions, I guarantee. But no, they went with this hack artist from L.A. because she's from Nigeria. And now this ridiculous painting is going to be hanging in the Obama Center lobby forever as a result. Good. Serves them right. And as a final kicker, if you haven't seen the portrait, Michelle Obama is in the foreground and is the main focal point of the portrait, not Barack. He's just sitting on a desk behind her. That's also fantastic. Even in his own presidential library, even for his official library portrait, Michelle neuters him and puts him in the background. Unbelievable. And the next topic I have is related, and it's some really good insight, not by me, but I'll add to it and expand on it. It's some really good insight by Matthew Contenetti, a journalist for the Wall Street Journal. He's taking the reemergence of the Obamas this week so they can celebrate themselves and celebrate Barack's wonderful presidency as an opportunity to say, hey, Obama's great legacy is the Trump presidencies. Man, I love this. Not only is continuity right about this, but you see how the headline alone would screw with the average lefties head. I don't think that was the columnist's intent, but it does it nonetheless. If you're a big Obama fan who's all jazzed to celebrate Obama the man and the presidency and your walk through a minefield that proves that in truth, the decisions Obama made are what led to the Trump presidencies, how are you supposed to take that? Do you still want to celebrate Barack? And, geez, I mean, it's led to the worst president ever. It was his handling of these various issues that had the American people demanding a dramatic change of course and gave us two terms of Donald Trump. Continentese contentions are hard to argue with here if you want to be at all intellectually honest. He starts out by admitting Barack has remained popular, and he has. I think most Americans acknowledge the importance of America's first black president, et cetera. We also do tend to remember our presidents more fondly than when they were in office.

I think most Americans would say Obama wasn't the worst president we've ever seen. I personally argued for eight years that he was a pretty terrible president, and I'm confident history will bear that out. But if we're talking about the average American or the average voter, I think most people don't think Barack Obama was a terrible president necessarily. They'd say, eh, he's okay, not all that better or worse than Bush or Clinton, etc. So he's guaranteed his place in history. But as Contennetti puts it, In 2008, Barack Obama likened himself to Ronald Reagan, who he said had changed the trajectory of the nation, and he had. But Contennetti says, if Obama altered the nation's direction, it was toward decline. He says, start with foreign policy. Throughout his presidency, Obama sought to retrench U.S. power. He reset with Russia, surged forces in Afghanistan, withdrew from Iraq, and failed to ensure red lines in Syria had lethal effects. In his first term, Obama canceled missile defenses and tolerated dictators like Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Nicholas Maduro, even taking in a soccer game alongside Cuba's Raul Castro. Yep, he did. This is all true. This was a global reset of U.S. foreign policy, a kindler and gentler one. Contonetti continues Obama's efforts in the Middle East, paired an increase in troop levels in Afghanistan with a timeline for withdrawal, thereby giving the Taliban reason to keep fighting. He alternated between apathy and encouragement as Islamist uprisings overthrew U.S. allies in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen. U.S. intervention in Libya's civil war contributed to the migrant crisis that overwhelmed Europe. America's retreat from Iraq in 2011 created space for the rise of ISIS in 2014. This is all true. Contenetti says even Obama's hundreds of drone strikes and the successful attack on Osama bin Laden didn't halt terrorism. On the contrary, Terrorism spread. Global disorder spiked. Then he moves to Russia and says Russia wasn't the only U.S. adversary that grew stronger. Obama in 2015 had a deal with Iran legitimizing the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. The regime's missile production and support for terrorist proxies went unaddressed. Money flowed to the regime. The mullahs poured these resources into their ring of fire targeting Israel and the West. Moreover, Contietti says the, quote, daylight that Obama fostered between the U.S. and Israel didn't go unnoticed. It illuminated a path to power for anti-Israel activists in the Democrat Party, a path that they have traveled. Yep, this is an anti-Semitic Democrat Party today. Meanwhile, North Korea improved its nuclear arsenal, and Obama's Ballyhooed pivot to Asia didn't slow China's rise. How could it? U.S. military budgets fell, eroding the defense industrial base and contributing to weapons shortages. Obama's environmental policies bolstered China's green energy advantage, Contennetti says. Foreign and domestic policy combined to undermine the U.S. position. Worse?

He continues. If Obama was a minimalist abroad, he was a maximalist at home. He used executive power whenever Congress and the public rebuffed him. The Paris Climate Accord, Clean Power Plan, Clean Water Rule, extended government's hand into the economy's nooks and crannies and suppressed growth. He says Obama's disregard for voters was also evident in health care and immigration. He jammed the unpopular Obamacare through Congress with the promise that Americans could keep their plans and their doctors and premiums would fall. Millions of individual health insurance plans were canceled and premiums doubled. Change beyond recognition now, Obamacare is a zombie policy and its costs continue to mount. Contennetti goes on to mention DACA, which Obama insisted was unconstitutional for 13 months. He couldn't do it. A president can't do this. Then he did it anyway. But Obama's presidency was so terrible, Contonetti even fails to mention the intentional and never-ending flood of illegals that Obama and his team orchestrated into this country. Obama and his minions would still argue, no, that's not our fault. We didn't create that. It was. It was Barack Obama and his team who decided that they were going to find and emphasize loopholes in our immigration policies and then have their activists encouraged foreigners crossing the border to say a few magic words and demand asylum. The flood of illegals was all Obama's doing, truth be told, because as the executive, he had the immediate powers to stop it, and instead he and his team expanded and encouraged it. Contonetti doesn't even mention Obama's role in the mass deportation craziness of the past decade, so I will. But you can see how nearly every important decision Barack Obama made led to a backfire because he was making such weak and foolish decisions. Obama's reset on foreign policy was literally to ignore the last 200 years of projecting strength abroad and instead trying to befriend the global tyrants and go weak on their demands, play to their interests. It led to several disasters that President Trump is still trying to fix to this day, including, by the way, What led to this Iran war. If Obama and John Kerry and that team wouldn't have been so weak on Iran and so desperate to sign a pretend deal that was never really going to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu wouldn't have been forced to do what they just did. Go in militarily and ensure Iran is in no position to cause mass casualty horrors in the West. Flat out. Historians are already starting to understand this. Obama's weakness with Iran and in the Middle East in general is what has led us to this war now and Donald Trump's more logical and defensible actions when it comes to dealing with dangerous Islamist zealots. The bottom line is the American people saw Obama as a weak and pathetic policy machine, and rather than elect Hillary Clinton in 2016 to continue that, they elected a man who most of them didn't even like to stop it. Donald Trump.

And as Conti concludes, he makes the point that America might still have a fondness for Barack Obama, as we do for all of our past presidents, but those same Americans don't share the same interest in knowing his opinions or affording him any political clout just a few years since he's left office. He gets it right when he says, The 2024 election exposed the depth of Obama's estrangement from the country that still looks on him fondly, if distantly. His impassioned speech at the Democratic Convention didn't carry Kamala Harris over the finish line. His accusation that black men just aren't feeling the idea of having a woman as president dripped with condescension and false motives and turned people off. And so he says Obama's presidency casts a fading shadow. Most of his plans have been dashed. His achievements reversed. He promised to lay a new foundation. for the country, only to see his successor tear it up. He won't be known for lasting reform, but for symbolizing an era of rapid social change and preparing the way for Trump's rise, fall, and restoration. That's really good. That's a very good point. As someone who reads and studies history enough to know how it's treated by future historians, I think Matthew Contennetti's last point might be his best. I'll reframe it and expand on it for you. Consider which presidents. historians are most going to want to write about in the coming decades. I know Barack was our first black president, but do you really think it's going to be him? I'm sure there will be some books given his historical importance racially. But all sorts of historians are going to want to write about and examine and really hyper-examine Donald Trump in the Trump years. And as they go about explaining the situation Trump found himself in and lay out the conditions of the time to future readers, They're going to have to get into what America looked like in 2016 and 2024. They're going to have to describe what the economy was like, what domestic and foreign policies were being pushed, et cetera. In short, as Contennetti hints, Obama's presidency is only going to be seen as what set up the need for Trump, what set up the need or moment in time that led to a truly bold and historical president, Donald Trump. And I know some of you are rolling your eyes or calling me a Trump cultist. I'm telling you, the failures of the Obama and Biden administrations are going to be characterized over and over again by historians in the future as the terrible conditions that gave rise to the need for a bold fixer like Trump. Mock me if you wish. Check back with me in 30 years if I'm still around. But that is what's going to happen here. And so perhaps it's appropriate that Obama set out to build a monument to himself, and it turned out to be a 225-foot high trash can. News Talk 1130 WISN. He's proud to present the Jay Weber podcast. Jay Weber draws from his 35-year career in radio news and commentary to craft an insightful look at the major stories and impactful issues from around Wisconsin, the nation, and the world. And after you've enjoyed the Jay Weber podcast, we invite you to go to your radio or go online and listen to News Talk 1130 WISN, Wisconsin's most listened to.

Radio Station. So there are two blunt truths on Iran that I've been sharing with my followers that no other media outlet or pundit has so far as I know. Truth number one is the Iran deal is really just a way for President Trump and this country's military and diplomats to declare the war action with Iran over because he doesn't have the will from U.S. citizens or the support from the international community for regime change. The second is none of the hysteria or moaning related to the Iran deal is going to matter politically in about two weeks or so. Let's take each truth separately. First, as I've been explaining over the last few days, as no one else will, all Trump really needed was a way to say hostilities have ended for now. And that's what this Iran deal is. Whether Iran ever adheres to it or not, and they won't, all this needs to be is a way for Trump to pivot away from Iran and bring some normalcy back to the situation. The truth is, President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu did what they needed to do in order to keep the Western world safe. They went in with overwhelming force, and within a month had decimated the Iranian military and greatly lessened the overall Iranian threat. It's a country that still has some military capabilities intact, but has no Air Force or Navy anymore, and whose terror proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis are greatly diminished. greatly. They were hoping that the Iranian people would rise up during this time a weakness and bring about regime change, alas, that did not happen. But since the American people have made it clear they don't want American boots on the ground over there, fighting endless wars, President Trump only had one option when it came to how this ends, cut some sort of peace agreement, and try to get help from the international monitors to force Iran's mullahs to stick to it. So... That's what he's done. Regime change would have meant U.S. lives at stake over there and boots on the ground to first root out the mullahs and end the actual regime and then stay there for years and years in an effort to nation build and prop up some new Trump-appointed government. None of you wanted any of that. So you get this. A chance for Trump and Western allies to say this current crisis is over. Nothing to see here. Let's get back to normal. Let's get gas prices back down and get back to focusing more on our domestic problems. I told you all when this started, how it was going to end. Not in regime change. And yet another deal with the Iranian mullahs that they likely won't live up to. And that's why the details of it, as much as pundits on both sides are bloviating about them, Really don't matter. Iran won't live up to them anyway, and so Trump and the future presidential administrations won't have to release a lot of this money or frozen assets to them. Folks, among the alleged details of this settlement that I am the least worried about is the provisions related to we will unfreeze $300 billion in Iranian assets if Iran's government does this and this and this, et cetera. They won't. There will never be a reason to unfreeze the vast majority of that money.

JD Vance is getting blasted from all sides for being the point man in the media on defending this deal. But if you've been listening to him, he's basically been saying two things. The critics of this are greatly misrepresenting the deal or are angry because they want us to overthrow the mullahs. But you, the people, made it clear you wanted the threat to the West dealt with without American lives at risk. And so that's basically what this is, he said. First of all, why do they believe Iranian propaganda? only about one thing, the peace deal. They don't seem to believe Iranian propaganda, rightfully so, about anything else. So if you're in the position of endorsing Iranian propaganda only when it's related to this peace deal, then maybe you should check yourself a little bit and question your sources. The second thing that I'd say is, what is their alternative? If you look today, Brent crude is around $78 a barrel. West Texas crude is even lower, $75, $73 a barrel. I mean, the numbers float around a little bit. But what that means is lower gas prices for Americans, lower energy costs for Americans. That means that this little blip that we've had of an increase in energy costs, which has caused a lot of people some problems, we're now getting back to normal. And I think that fundamentally, if you look at what they're proposing, they're proposing an endless conflict. They want this to go on until every bomb has been dropped or until every Iranian is dead. That is not what the president of the United States wants. That's advanced saying basically what I've been saying all week. The only other analysts who are getting this right and being honest about what this deal is so far as I can see are the editors at issues and insights who say, Our own poll showed a 57% majority of Americans opposed to sending U.S. ground troops into Iran. They say those of us who have been around since the Vietnam remember quite well that even the most gung-ho supporters of military action often recant when troops get wounded or killed. It happened in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and it would have been no different in Iran. Meanwhile, they say, continuing the war and leaving Iran entirely bombed out and devastated would have perhaps set off a global recession of epic proportions as oil prices spiked. So Trump didn't lose a war, they say. There was never a real war to begin with. The president didn't have the public or congressional backing for that. But he did show Iran's rulers how easily the U.S. could make their lives living hell. Sure. They're talking tough right now because they survive, but they'll tread more softly in the future, especially with the U.S. President like Trump. They say Trump's moves also showed other countries in the region, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, that the best way to thrive was to stay on the good side of the U.S. That's a pretty good point. They say it will also help normalize the Abraham Accords, which through trade and revived diplomatic ties will help normalize Israel as a permanent country in the Middle East. Also true. So Trump has enlarged America's influence and strength in the vital Middle East, they say, removing the current Mullah-led dictatorship would have cost billions of dollars in perhaps thousands of American and Iranian lives. Would it have been worth it?

These editors say, we would have vastly preferred getting rid of our current regime, but Americans don't support that. Trump's moves, destroying Iran's military, putting its foreign enablers on notice, decimating Iran's leadership ranks, and not allowing Iran to build or buy a nuclear weapon, are big steps forward. Trump would have liked to dislodge the mullis from power, but at what cost? Critics hate to answer such questions. They conclude all in all a pretty good outcome for three and a half months of work. I'd call it a very good outcome for three and a half months of work. That's truth number one. Truth number two, which doesn't seem to have dawned on any of these critics are talking heads yet, is that the American people in general, and American voters more specifically, don't care about Iran, and they aren't really following along so the East Coast insiders can argue and spit venom all they want, but none of this is going to matter politically within a few weeks. It's just the truth. And by that, I mean, none of the so-called negatives of this deal or arguing over how Trump should have, quote, finished it, are going to matter, especially if gas prices have dropped down closer to $3 a gallon. I've been watching this stuff for 40 years, and I can tell you with all sorts of credibility, voters don't care about foreign affairs or base their votes on it unless they're affected by it more personally. As in, if the Iran war was causing $4 a gallon gasoline, well, yeah, they'd care, but only because gas was $4 a gallon. They don't necessarily care what's causing it. And the vast, vast majority of voters certainly don't care about the specific ins and outs of any foreign affairs agreement. They care about gas and grocery prices and domestic affairs far more. And so truth number three, if there is one, is the American people won't care how Trump wrapped this up by July 15th or so. And I'm not exaggerating. And if gas prices are down around or under $3 a gallon by Labor Day, well, then most voters will see Trump's foray into Iran as a strong success. He dealt with a 50-year terror threat to this country and the Western world more decisively, and all we had to do was pay a little bit more for gasoline for about four or five months. All right, I'm good with that, and I think most voters would think so too. This is not nearly the election issue that Democrats and Trump haters think it is. Moreover, if gas is under $3 a gallon by Labor Day, one of the, quote, winning issues that the Democrats have been banking on will have largely fizzled out on them around the time that early voting starts to begin in some states. And as for the actual agreement Trump and his team came to, well, that can only be judged fairly over time. Eventually, they'll be judged on how effective they were and their overall impact on the Middle East and the globe was. If this military action really does knock Iran's terroristic activities down to near zero and really does neuter a country whose leaders were considered important allies to Russia and China, fantastic. If this military action and the ensuing agreement strengthens our position in the Middle East and leads to more Abraham Accords, etc., well, then that's a big win. But the war itself was turning unpopular. The American people didn't like the higher gas prices it caused them. Okay, now it's over, so they can feel better about things in the meantime.

The next wave of analysis and critique is bound to be related to whether and how Trump's peace deal now helps the Republican Party or changes the GOP's fate this fall. Well, as I've been saying all along, if the deal holds and means that gas prices fall significantly between now and about Labor Day and even more through November, the Republicans would be in a strong position to at least hold the Senate and maybe even cling to majority control in the House. History in the left's relentless punditry tells us that this is supposed to be a good election for Democrats, but the polls keep showing us that the Democrat Party and their extreme platform are still a big turnoff for the American people. And the Republicans now have the upper hand on redistricting with several new red seats that will have been created by the time people vote. And so if we see a tight fight for control of the House, those few new seats might just tip the GOP's way. Over the last week or so, Democrat leaders have gotten more optimistic about winning control of the Senate, but I still don't see what's changed. They have to keep all of their own competitive seats, so they would need to win all their own races, and then flip a number of red states in order to win control, and that's a tall order. And so if by October or so, the economy is still growing, inflation is lower because energy and gas prices have dipped down again, and the stock market is still doing well with a strengthening job market? I think the question, do Republicans have a chance to win the elections, is kind of a silly one? Well, of course they do. And we do for two reasons. We still have a situation in which the Democrat Party leaders and candidates refuse to pivot away from their extreme agenda and the America-hating rhetoric that they're using, and that's a big deal. And also because Donald Trump and the Republicans really have kept several important promises and have the country back on the right path after four years of Biden. The lefty pundits want to ignore the fact that the southern border is closed and controlled and that the mass deportation effort that the people wanted has been very impressive and continues. They want to ignore the fact that Trump's team has snuffed out the trans bullying and turned the tides on DEI and intentional racial discrimination within government and private business, etc. This genuinely has been a very impressive 15 months, and if the average American voter ignores the relentless bleeding and whining from the left and recognizes this, yeah, of course the Republicans could surprise the pundits and actually have a good election year. I've said all along, I don't think the Democrats can retake control of both chambers of Congress in fall. I've been saying that they probably tip the House, but are the Republicans' odds going to keep looking better and better as we move into the fall? If the economy keeps improving, and Iran is a fading memory, etc., yeah, how can they not? You just hope that people's perceptions of the economy aren't already locked in, which I don't think they are. I mean, just given how little most people seem to want to vote for the Democrats,

I think this gives Trump and the Republicans some additional wiggle room, some leeway, to make their case for continued control right through the fall. It would be a different story if the left had a popular platform and a reasonable sounding group of candidates who could sell it, but they don't. They literally have a bunch of loudmouthed socialists talking stupid and are defending America haters, Nazi lovers, women's abusers, Jew haters for Congress this fall. Oh, and to that point, another misconception that I wanted to highlight this week was this idea that patriotism among Democrats is low due to Donald Trump. It's really just all about Trump, the so-called analysts are saying. No, it's really not. Hatred toward him is part of it, but sadly there has been a significant and growing gap when it comes to American patriotism for decades now. Gallup and other pollsters have been asking this question at least once a year forever. And it's not new that we have fewer Democrats than Republicans who say they are proud or extremely proud to be an American. Nor should this be surprising to us, given how the American educational system has gone over the last 50 years, because we've had a left-wing takeover of our most important educational and governmental institutions. And that has led to not only a terrible new reinvention of American history that isn't at all positive or accurate. but also a much larger cultural and social wave of misinformation and re-indocrination of the same sort. It shouldn't surprise us that America's younger generations are less patriotic than the older ones. They haven't been taught about a lot of the lessons of American greatness or the free market. But as I was reading the results of the most recent surveys and the take on them that the media outlets on both sides of the aisle were putting on them, I was finding myself heartened by the overall level of patriotism in this country, not disappointed by it. For example, NBC News did a poll and claimed that our 250th anniversary celebration is, quote, riven with doubt and pessimism. Yeah, that sounds bad. Riven with doubt and pessimism. Not a very patriotic country anymore, they're claiming. But when you look at their findings, that's not true. They found that about 33% of Americans call themselves, quote, extremely proud. to be an American. Another 23% say they are, quote, very proud to be an American. Another 22% say they are moderately proud to be Americans. And only one in 10, only 11% of Americans, say they are not proud to be an American. This is what NBC pollsters are characterizing as a lack of patriotism. I don't know. They've got 80% of Americans saying they have national pride and are at least moderately proud to be an American, and they're showing nearly 60% saying they're very or extremely proud to be an American. How is that a population that is riven with doubt and pessimism about America? And those who say they aren't proud or are only somewhat proud to be an American are mostly young people, of course. People who aren't old enough or wise enough yet to know how truly unique and globally great this country is. The others are just Trump haters whose minds are so polluted they can't like anything about America until he's out of office.

But NBC's breakdown by age is about what you'd expect it to be. Young people aren't as patriotic, older people are. Also, which party is in the White House in this hyper-partisan age also does play a role. Of course it does, but it always has. This means that you can find a Trump factor in these results, but you also could have found a Jimmy Carter factor or a Ronald Reagan factor or a Richard Nixon factor back in their day. Rich Lowry looked back at the different eras of Gallup polling, and he agrees with me. Sure, a disdain for Trump is reflected in the percentage of Democrats who will say they are proud to be an American at this moment in time. But generationally, fewer Democrats have labeled themselves very patriotic than Republicans do, and I assume you could trace that right back to the Civil War. Honestly, when the Southern Democrats and their slave owners were forced to remain in the Union by conquering a Republican North. I'm assuming you can trace it back at least that far. But Lowry says even if you have contempt for the party in power, there's the country's founding, its constitutional system, its stupendous wealth, its great heroes, its victories in two world wars, its natural beauty, and it's endlessly interesting, fair-minded, and inventive people to feel proud of. He says many Democrats are unmoved by these things or consider them sources of embarrassment, the founding tainted by racism, the constitutional system, an adequate obstacle to progress, the economy rigged by and for billionaires, etc. Moreover, Rich Lowry points out, the left, especially in academics, has long advanced the view that America's role in the world is predatory and imperialistic, and over time this radical critique has gained more traction within the Democratic mainstream. But bottom line, he says nearly everyone who isn't particularly proud of America is still incredibly indebted to it benefiting from its liberty and prosperity. He concludes it's a profound act of ingratitude not to return the debt with a sense of reverence and obligation. It's not enough to say, in effect, you'll be proud of the country at some future point when it has met certain social or political benchmarks for you. Rich Lowry is right about that, of course. But am I the only one to look back at all of the relentless attempts to turn the American people against itself, its founding principles, its constitution? Consider what a relentless jihad the American left has engaged in over the last 40 or 50 years to try to convince Americans to hate their own country. Am I the only one that's heartened to hear that eight in ten Americans say they are patriotic and six in ten label themselves, quote, very or extremely patriotic? I think those are pretty great numbers, actually. You're listening to the Jay Weber podcast, a presentation of News Talk 1130 WISN, and I Heart Radio Podcasts. Jay Weber draws from his 35-year career in radio news and commentary with an irreverent wit that simply can't be matched. Right-minded alternative to media outlets that substitute self-serving narratives for candor and truth. Listen to the Jay Weber podcast published every Tuesday and Friday. Be sure to subscribe.

I love this little tidbit. How little race wars are breaking out in some Democrat congressional districts because as powerful congressmen are being pushed out of their districts, they're registering to run again in a different neighboring Democrat district. And if it's in a red state that already has very few blue districts, well, that means powerful white congressmen are trying to take over districts that are held by black and Hispanic Democrats. Fantastic. One wonderful glaring example is down in Florida. where the genuinely horrid Debbie Wasserman Schultz is trying to bully her way into taking control of the black district next door in the Fort Lauderdale area where she serves because Florida's recent redistricting eliminated her seat. She's had it for 20 years. This nasty, pushy broad has decided, by God, nothing's going to be taken away from me. And so she's registered to represent a nearby district that's majority black and has four African American Democrats running for it. You savvy listeners might have already guessed at the problem here. If the so-called black vote in that district is split between four black candidates in the primary, there's a very good chance that the Hague, Wasserman Schultz, can split the uprights and nab the party's nomination and remain in Congress in a neighboring district while pushing out a black congressman. According to the Wall Street Journal, other influential left-wing and African-American leaders in Florida are begging Wasserman Schultz to stand down. Stop her nonsense. Nope. This witch is by God not going to get pushed out of Congress by Trump and Ron DeSantis. F. Florida's black voters, Debbie is more important. She's apparently telling these black leaders, sorry, you know, it's not personal. I'm doing it, though. Only to have them say, well, it sure seems personal because you're destroying the party and taking away black representation. And of course, she's Jewish, so she is playing that minority card. Wasserman Haig was the first Jewish person to win a congressional seat out of Florida, actually, and so she's super Jew. She's a ceiling breaker. No one's going to push her around. And so you've got that fun twist in a party whose grassroots members are increasingly anti-Semitic Jew haters. Oh, this is good. I mean, come on. And so we'll have to keep monitoring that and other similar clashes as powerful white Democrat congressmen who've pretended to be champions of minority Americans and minority representation move in and shove them out of their congressional seats. Next item, how Democrat Party insiders have been holding meetings and brainstorming sessions on their party's future agenda and party wish list, and how these Democrat lawmakers and strategists and activists are increasingly serious about stealing back control of the Supreme Court via some sort of court packing scheme. Most of what I'll be referencing here comes from the Washington Times based on an article Wednesday about how, yeah. Democrats are more serious than ever about changing the Supreme Court in some way that, like magic, has them retaking control of it, so they don't have any constitutional or legal roadblock to implementing their increasingly socialist and anti-American agenda. We on the right have been warning the American people about this for years. This has been a critical part of their longtime goal to take over a permanent control of Washington, D.C., and therefore the country.

It's why they were all so furious when Donald Trump won in 2026 and then really furious when he had a chance to put Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch on the court. He, of course, later added Amy Coney Barrett, but the Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh fights were tough, and Brett Kavanaugh's fight was brutal. Trump and Mitch McConnell ensured a strong six-three conservative majority that could last a while. But I'd take you back to the pure rage and fury that the Democrats and their accomplices were in for months as they tried to stop, kill off the Brett Kavanaugh appointment any way they could. This was a particularly ugly and dishonest performance by the Democrats, even for Democrats. And this is why Trump and GOP control of the appointment process meant that the Supreme Court's nine members would become more conservative, not more liberal. Well, you can't have a rigged system that defeats the U.S. Constitution if you don't have control of all three branches of the federal government, right? Democrats can't really control this country until they control the Supreme Court. If you control Congress and the presidency, but you've got a Supreme Court ruling that your new laws or executive orders are unconstitutional and knocking them down, well, damn it, how can you ever really get that choke chain around the neck of the American people? Right? We can't control and micromanage every part of every American's life if the U.S. Constitution and the conservative Supreme Court stand in the way. And when I used to explain this, even as recently as a few years ago, many listeners would roll their eyes. It's some sort of overblown worry. This is a conspiracy theory. You're a nut. It's not. Not when top Democrats have been talking about court packing for years now and talking themselves into thinking, it's a good idea. Folks, one long-time strategy of the activist left and of the Democrat Party has been repeat something so often that at some point it starts to sound normal or reasonable or not as kooky. And in the midst of another Donald Trump presidency in which they view everything as terrible and extreme and have been convincing themselves that democracy is dying, the Democrat activists know that both their elected leaders and the grassroots voters on the left are more susceptible to extreme ideas and kooky things. And even though they've been banging this drum softly for years, the polysy academics and the socialist activists who have been pushing this idea to rig the game for years now have a willing audience. from the Washington Times piece. Democrats are more serious than ever about changing the Supreme Court. They say party leaders are watching poll numbers that now show the majority of Democrats are fed up with the Supreme Court and favor imposing term limits or adding justices. Quote, we have to do something with the Supreme Court. This is now a rogue Supreme Court, said Pete Buttigieg, a likely 28 Democrat presidential candidate, and he was talking to nominees at the Rainbow Push Coalition Convention in June. The perceived imbalance on the court has increasingly vexed the party in its base, says the Times. Democrats accuse the High Court of legislating from the bench because the decisions aren't going their way. And so activist leaders and Democrats are plotting a pair of remedies, the Washington Times says. Add a slate of new justices to the high court, presumably chosen by a Democrat president, or impose term limits that would force the retirement of the longest serving justices who just now happen to be the most conservative members on the bench.

Moreover, and here's where it becomes dangerous and mainstream, left-wing organizations supporting altering the Supreme Court are using the issue as a litmus test for Democratic candidates in this year's midterms and in the 2028 elections. And so we're just starting to hear about this, but it's likely to become yet another purity test or litmus test for Democrat candidates in 2028. They're saying it means anyone who wants to be a Democrat in good standing pretty soon is going to need to agree that somehow their party needs to steal back control of the Supreme Court any way they can. So add this to the modern Democrats litmus test. For example, you can't be a pro-life Democrat in America anymore, period. Very soon you will not be allowed to be a Democrat who doesn't support cheating to take control of the Supreme Court. It's quickly becoming an article of faith on the left that the members of this court are evil and that ignoring the Constitution and 250 years of rules in order to rig the game so the left always wins their court cases is the only way to save America. If you don't believe that, don't even bother running as a Democrat in 2028 is what the activists on the left are telling the Washington Times. Quote, the group Demand Justice is among many left-wing groups pushing for adding justices to the Supreme Court and plans to pressure 2028 candidates to pledge to get it done. Demand Justice President Josh Orton said the court must be altered in the coming years to ensure justices do not hand down decisions that block, quote, everything that is accomplished and passed by the next Democratic president. See? Right there, he's admitting that today's left has no interest in getting the correct or constitutional legal decision from the Supreme Court. This is what Americans have wanted for 250 years now. No, no, no. He and the Democrats are interested in a court that validates and protects the laws and moves that they and the presidents on their side want. That's what this clown is saying. And as much as they smear today's court and its justices, this court has been making rulings that both support and oppose the conservative political agenda and Trump agenda. President Trump and we on the right have taken several important Supreme Court losses during this era of a six-three court. And we have because these justices are legal conservatives. They're judicial conservatives, as in they believe that the U.S. Constitution should be viewed and interpreted as the founders intended, not as some modern liberal wants to twist it. They're judicial conservatives because they believe judges at all levels should be enforcing the laws as written and passed by the other two branches and not looking for ways to overturn them or find new meaning in them. Being a judicial conservative is not the same as being a political conservative. And this court has been getting it right. It is not some sort of mega court or some group of people who are just pretending to see things in the law in the Constitution that aren't really there. That's what judicial liberals do. But this article goes on to name a few Democrats who are already out there promising to court pack and rig the game if they get power, including Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris. And the claim is, how you answer this question as a Democrat contender in 2028 is going to be quite important. Because, you know, unless you want to cheat for the left, they don't want you in office, I guess.

And for now, you're hearing them all talk about, quote, Supreme Court reform. But this is what they really mean, court packing and or rigging it to their advantage using new schemes. And quote, on Capitol Hill, Democrats expect to return to the majority next year and have prepped legislation to overhaul the court, but they're split over whether to expand the court or impose term limits. Demand justice, for example, said term limits would be impossible to implement and is pushing to expand the number of seats. Congress is authorized to do it under the Constitution, which gives it control over the size and structure of federal courts. Some Democrats have pivoted away from expansion, and they're focusing on the term limits. Senator Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, drafted legislation that would limit tenure to 18 years. Under his proposal, every president eventually would be able to appoint two justices with appointments staggered under a retirement schedule. Folks, Congress cannot term limit the federal courts or the Supreme Court, not without a constitutional amendment. The Constitution makes it clear. These are lifetime appointments. This cannot be done via legislation alone. But court packing could if Democrats could win the White House and get the right mix of congressmen to vote for it. And that would lead to never-ending game playing and escalations, wouldn't it? Our grandkids would be seeing a Supreme Court with dozens, if not hundreds of members on it. If the two sides decide to play this game in Congress, you know, when Democrats are in control, they add members and steal the court's control. Then when Republicans are in control, they add more members and steal the court. It's a terrible idea. But by God, Chuck Schumer in particular, seems to want to do this and has vowed to end the filibuster as one way to get the Senate votes. So don't call it a conspiracy theory or silliness. Today's Democrats are serious about creating an America in which they have permanent control of Washington, D.C. and a functional dictatorship in this country, even if they don't have a single permanent dictator. You young people, especially, you should take this stuff seriously. And as you heard, several Democrats already have legislation drawn up and planned out, and it's just sitting in their desks until the party gets control of D.C. again so they can pass it. The Democrats are basically promising to wreck the Supreme Court if they get the chance to. Bottom line. Fellow talk show host and columnist Guy Benson is a kindred spirit when it comes to this stuff. And he recently wrote, when leftists aren't able to achieve their desired political, policy, and ideological outcomes, they often target any institution perceived to be standing in their way. Nothing is safe or sacred. They prefer the euphemism, reform, as they burn down institutions and rig the rules. Guy Benson says they drone on about defending democracy and resisting authoritarianism, but much of this posturing is pure projection. They vowed to blow up the system to, quote, save it, but the goal is securing power and control, which they view is their birthright. Anything obstructing that power and control must be a flaw in our institutional structure, you see, so that structure must be eliminated or manipulated, sorry, reformed until they get their way.

And Guy Benson confirms the truly radical project of court packing is fast becoming a mainstream view, if not a litmus test on the left. Well, we just heard it's becoming a litmus test. He says lawmakers and presidential ambitions are demanding reforms to the Supreme Court, with several openly calling for an additional, an addition of four seats. Adding four seats, of course, would allow Democrats to turn a legitimate six-three conservative majority into an illegitimate 76 liberal majority. And overnight, just presto, it would happen. He says this Banana Republic madness would destroy the court's authority and would bring about a bona fide constitutional crisis. Its proponents don't care. They just want what they want, and they seem willing to do literally anything to get it. Yep. And they is all of them, by the way. I mean, pick a known Democrat, one of them that does regular interviews or speaks in front of left-wing crowds, and you're going to realize that all of them are advocating for court packing and cheating. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, sure, but also Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rokane and the screaming socialists, Baldwin and Pocan, Wisconsin's useless Democrat, Congressman, etc. Pick a Democrat, any Democrat, and chances are you are already going to be able to find evidence of them advocating for, quote, reforms to the Supreme Court. Why? Because it's standing in the way of their fantasy of having total dominance, total control of the United States of America. That's what. The Jay Weber podcast is a production of IHeart Radio Podcasts, produced and engineered by Gregory John. The Jay Weber podcast is presented by creative planning, helping clients simplify their journey to financial wellness, one personalized plan at a time. Listen to all of Jay Weber's podcasts, available on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.