Watch the interview now.
Watch the interview now.
Watch the interview now.
Would-be President Reagan assassin John Hinckley, Jr., will be released from prison to live with his mother in Virginia. Should someone who tried to assassinate the President off the United States be released? Should those Hinckley shot and wounded (and ultimately killed in the case of James Brady) be at least informed if not solicited for their views prior to his release? Orland Park Police Chief Tim McCarthy who took a bullet for Ronald Reagan as a Secret Service officer in 1981 joined Dan & Amy to discuss these and other questions.
Dan Proft: March 30th, 1981. The day that John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate President Reagan and shot Secret Service agent at the time Tim McCarthy, took a bullet for the President of the United States in the line of duty as did the press secretary, Jim Brady. Amy Jacobson: Yeah, and another DC police officer was hit too. Dan Proft: And it was announced yesterday towards the end of our show that John Hinckley Jr. is going to be released from prison after 35 years in to live with his mother in Virginia and this has raised some obvious questions like should someone who attempted to assassinate the President of the United States and catastrophically injured a number of the President's aides including the a Secret Service agent and as you said a DC police officer, should that person ever be released from prison? Amy Jacobson: And he was released with several conditions. He has to continue his mental health treatment. He’s not allowed to talk to the media. Good luck with that. And he can try and contact the victims or their families or actress Jodie Foster. But that’s it. Dan Proft: Yeah, that doesn't quite clear the threshold I think should be said for someone who tried to assassinate the President of the United States but why don't we get the opinion of an American hero on this matter. He is former Secret Service agent and long time Orland Park Police Chief, happy to have him right here in the Chicago metropolitan area, Orland Park Police Chief Tim McCarthy. Chief McCarthy, thanks so much for joining us again. Appreciate it. Tim McCarthy: Good morning, Dan. Good morning, Amy. Dan Proft: So your reaction to the Hinckley announcement? Tim McCarthy: Well, it was not unexpected based upon what's been happening over the past 10, 20 years of being released under some supervision then less supervision so it did not surprise me that this happened. I can't say that I totally agree with it by the way for a person who almost assassinated a President of the United States, murdered Jim Brady who died from his injuries, from his wound to his head and then shot two law enforcement officers. So they better be right because the consequences could be catastrophic. Amy Jacobson: But you're not a vengeful person and you believe in redemption but do you really think that if somebody tries to assassinate the President and actually shoots them that they should ever see freedom? Tim McCarthy: You would think not. We did have Sara Jane Moore however who attempted to assassinate President Ford many years ago it and was released. The differences however, first of all she certainly intended to assassinate the President but didn't strike him right and she was found guilty. With Mr Hinckley, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity so we have a totally different standard here to determine if he's a danger to himself or others. And you know medicine is very, very good but it's not a totally exact science either. And I think one of the things that probably should have happened is it would have been a simple courtesy to notify victims that this was going to happen before it did happen. Now Sarah and Jim Brady are both dead but they have a son who's about 35 or 36 years old. The Reagans have children and I'm sure they would’ve liked to have been notified ahead of time or even allowed the opportunity to express their opinion of this and certainly they were the ones most affected by this. Amy Jacobson: And you weren't warned either that he was going to be released? Tim McCarthy: No. Now in 35 years, they have notified me it in the past of when they were going to release him but I asked them to stop that because it was happening so often that it was like a daily telephone but I've never been asked my opinion about whether he should be released or not and I don't know that the Bradys, while both of them were alive, had ever been asked or the Reagan's or the Delahantys, if they’d ever been asked. Dan Proft: Do you, I’m sorry, I didn’t meant to interrupt. Tim McCarthy: No, it would’ve been just a simple courtesy, you know, to do that if for no other reason than to get prepared for the onslaught of interviews. Dan Proft: Yeah, right. Well, so do you keep in touch with former colleagues and Secret Service? I just wonder what those who have the same job today that you had 35 years ago, what impact that has on the way they do their job or their thinking about the job or people that whether they're mentally ill or just consumed by evil would consider such an act as trying to assassinate the President or other people the Secret Service protects? Tim McCarthy: You know, law enforcement, you know, it's a tough business. It always was and still is and of course it's under a little bit more focus now than it ever has been but I stay in contact with many of the former agents, many current agents here in the Chicago division of the Secret Service as well as in Washington and it will not change one thing as to how dedicated they are to do the job. So it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever. It might even, you know, cause them to, you know, even be more vigilant than they were before because we know that mental illnesses is a big problem in our society too to the point where my police department like many others, we now have a critical incident teams, crisis intervention teams to handle many of the problems with the mentally ill because funds have been cut so much. So mental illness is a thing we're going to be facing for a long, long time with far less resources than we had in the past. Amy Jacobson: And the assassination attempt, that video is used as a training tool, correct? For the current Secret Service agents? Tim McCarthy: Yeah, yeah. It is used and it is one of the principles that is used by the Secret Service to cover and evacuate the President in the event of an assassination attempt or what's referred to as the arms’ reach theory, if the threat is within arms' reach to go after the threat but, you know, if there's a perceived threat that's 20, 30 yards away, one of the agents on perimeter cannot respond to that or you're leaving an opening in and around the protectee. So those are two principles that are drilled into you, Amy, in lots and lots of training and guess what? It works. It works pretty well. Dan Proft: And then you also have to watch in the Line of Fire, you have to watch all these sorts of movies. Of course. Tim McCarthy: Yes, that’s where you really get your training. Dan Proft: It's kind of wild actual in Chicago to have a bit of the Alpha and the Omega. We have Tim McCarthy, the Secret Service agent took a bullet for the President, stopped an assassination attempt effectively, part of the group that did and then we have Bill Ayers, a retired university professor and a taxpayer-funded pension who dedicated one of his books to Sirhan Sirhan who assassinated Bobby Kennedy. It's an interesting mix of people we have in the Chicago metropolitan area, isn't it, Tim? Tim McCarthy: I guess so. It's pretty remarkable. Dan Proft: You mention of what it's like to be a police officer in these days and with the assassinations of police officers and the antagonism towards police officers, I wonder how you view the politicization of police in a way that maybe hasn't been seen since the late 60s? Tim McCarthy: It's really an unfortunate situation and police do make mistakes. This is a split second business that we’re in and mistakes are made. And those that are made, you know, have to be addressed and we have to be accountable. On the other hand, it's unfortunate when people use them simply for political purposes because in my own town, we have a 180,000 incidents per year which includes everything, traffic stops, and we got 25 or 30 complaints as a result of that. City of Chicago probably not a whole lot different and most of the time, 99.9% of the time, they're doing the job, a very difficult job, doing it extremely well in Chicago under very difficult circumstances and some of the things that have been done, you know, it's been politicized. We have to be accountable. We have to be accountable for what happens. Let's keep in mind the nature of this work. And then there's some actions that are so outrageous which include the assassination of the police officers that they're almost unspeakable and the same can be said and, you know, there's been a couple of occasions where police officer misconduct has also been outrageous. So it happens. It will continue to happen. We hope it never happens but it's a split second business what goes on in this profession and there is no training in the world that's ever going to prevent that and soldiers in combat from time to time make mistakes. Police officers make mistakes too. Amy Jacobson: Quickly wanted to go back to the release of John Hinckley Jr. I know that both Nancy and Ronald Reagan have transitioned into heaven and do you think what their reaction would be if they knew that he was going to be released? Tim McCarthy: Well, I can tell you that they - I don't know what they might think but they were very forgiving people too. Mrs Reagan a little bit less, I will tell you that. Amy Jacobson: Because you were close to her, didn’t you attend her funeral/ Tim McCarthy: Yes, my wife and I, we both attended the funeral in California and we've been out to visit, it was about a year before we fly out to visit with Mrs Reagan when her health was failing and none of us probably had a whole lot of good Christian thoughts about John Hinckley, let’s put it that way but certainly for myself and I know for the Reagans, there was not vengeful or anything like that. Just would like to see justice done. Dan Proft: See justice done, yes. Orland Park Police Chief, former Secret Service agent, Tim McCarthy. Chief McCarthy, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate your time. Tim McCarthy: You’re welcome.
New York investor and Wall Street whistleblower Charles Ortel, who gained notoriety in 2008 for correcting assessing the problems with GE’s financials before it’s stock crashed in 2008, joined Dan & Amy this morning to discuss his findings after a 15-month deep dig on the Clinton Foundation. What he found and the conclusions he draws are startling and are sure to impact the POTUS campaign.
Dan Proft: Good morning, Dan and Amy. Donald Trump has tweeted his reaction to the crash of that Egypt airplane overnight that was travelling from Paris to Cairo. Amy Jacobson: I hope he was sensitive. Dan Proft: He tweeted, “Looks like yet another terrorist attack. Airplane departed from Paris. When will we get tough, smart and vigilant? Great hate and sickness!” We don’t know that yet, but certainly there are some indicators that something other than pilot error or mechanical error were at play with the crash because there was no distress call that has been reported to this point, and there was communication with the pilot, and then the pilots went dark and they went into the Mediterranean. Amy Jacobson: And 2 minutes after they last spoke with Greek Aviation Authorities, one of the pilots checked in 2 minutes after that, when they went into Egyptian airspace. The plane went 90 degrees right, then 360 degrees left, and then it just disappeared off of the radar screen. Dan Proft: So we don’t know for sure yet, we’re updating this as information becomes available, but we’re particularly thinking about the Egypt airplane crash that was bombed out of the sky with tourists that were vacationing in Sharm el Sheik last year, Russian tourists, and then Russia subsequently banning Egypt air from its airspace. You have to at least contemplate the possibility of a terrorist attack, so we’ll continue to update that as we know. But turning to the Clinton Foundation, and this is going to be an issue that reasserts itself in a general election. So all the talk last year into the fall in that book by Peter Schweizer, “Clinton Cash” came out, about the Clinton Foundation; it’s curious accounting, it’s curious relationships, the funding that it accepted; that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton had agreed as a predicate to Hillary being elevated to Secretary of State; they had agreed with the Obama administration that they would not accept; all kinds of questions, including, basically, the FBI investigation looking into her e-mail server. Also, a lot of reports suggesting that they are also looking into how she used the Secretary of State’s office in connection with the Clinton Foundation. Was she leveraging the office to do the bidding of the Clinton Foundation? A lot of questions here; Charles Ortel, who is an investor and a financial analyst, gained recognition back in 2008 for correctly identifying the problems with GE’s financial statements. He has now set his sights on the Clinton Foundation and he spent the last 15 months investigating the financial reporting of the Clinton Foundation. Let’s find out what he found out. We welcome to the show Charles Ortel, private investor based in New York, financial analyst. Charles, thanks for joining us, appreciate it. Charles Ortel: Thanks for having me on. Dan Proft: So what were some of the highlights from your year plus investigation into the Clinton Foundation? Charles Ortel: Well, it’s actually a pretty sad set of findings. You start with the fact that a presidential charity actually is the perfect vehicle for fraud, because who would suspect that anything operated by a former president, whatever your politics may be, would allow itself to be submitting documents to the federal government and then to all the states - including your own state of Illinois – that are false to materially misleading and then raising billions of dollars, choosing to declare only some of those as incoming receipts? So what I did, I actually am interested in setting up a new business, caring for people who believe this country is exceptional, who have wealth and want to keep it, and who want to find good charities in which they’ll send some money. I decided hearing about the Clinton Foundation; it was so complicated that I had to look at its papers, just understand what was really going on. And last year I reached the conclusion that it was a fraud. And I wrote an article for [inaudible] and I began then putting detailed reports up on my site, www.charlesortel.com. And then I started contacting state authorities, and nothing happened. And it finally reached the point where I said this is such a big fraud. People are sending money into this thing as we’re on the radio right now. They solicit using the internet, they haven’t corrected their false and materially misleading forms, and I’ll give an example of somebody that’s been defrauded, very famous person – I may not pronounce his name properly – is Fred Eychaner. Dan Proft: Sure, in Chicago, yeah. Charles Ortel: Starting in 2004, his very well run foundation called the Alphawood Foundation, all of these papers are publically available, shows that foundation gave money to an entity called Clinton Foundation, HIV-AIDS initiative Inc, which was never formerly approved as a charity; and these grants are substantial. And the money then went supposedly into China to fight HIV-AIDS. Chinese charity fraud policies are severe; death is the penalty. And if you’re not registered properly in the United States, you cannot possibly be registered properly in China, and that’s just one small example. We’re talking there about less than 10 million cumuli into the Chinese example. Amy Jacobson: Well, Charles, before we dig any deeper, just remind us again, who benefits from the Clinton Foundation? Who has been helped by them? Charles Ortel: Well, it’s virtually impossible to say, because foundations of this size are required to provide an audit, a real audit, not a fake audit, and these audits generally are quite tough. You check and double check that the amount sent by the foundation was received by the foundation. This entity which started October 23rd 1997 has never gotten a real audit. So they like to claim that the biggest operation is fighting HIV-AIDS, but that operation was never lawfully authorized anywhere. And there are big holes in amounts that people claim they’ve sent; the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation is a group in Switzerland, which says it sent 600 million dollars to the Clintons for this operation, the HIV-AIDS. The entity that performs that group, that work, that initiative, is based in Boston, and had its license to operate involuntarily revoked on March 31st 2008. As the Clinton Foundation was receiving from the Swiss thing 700 million dollars of which about 100 million disappeared in the period 2007-2008. So nobody seems to have done a cross checking that you can do, that I’ve been doing for the last 15 months. UNITAID, which is that donor, publishes public financial statements which are online. And the Clintons are online and they don’t foot. The Gates Foundation has given money. Its disclosures do not foot. Governments have given money. Those disclosures do not foot, and actually, this is an Illinois issue. Bill Clinton is the honorary chairman of the American India Foundation, another fraud that has recently held a fundraiser in Illinois, even though it had its license to operate revoked twice. I happen to know Bruce Rauner, I’ve spent some time with him. He’s a great guy, and I think he may have the problem that many states have, that the apparatus, the regulatory apparatus of these charities is controlled by Clinton allies. Dan Proft: Right, like Lisa Maddigan, the attorney general here, in terms of any investigation, in terms of improper paperwork, or as you suggest, the dissolution – or never filing paperwork – of charities and so the oversight there. It’s interesting, so Fred Eychaner is a left-ist donor and philanthropist, and this American India Foundation in Illinois. Is this just the case like the Clintons have said in the past when they’ve had to refile tax returns, “A little sloppy book keeping”? Little sloppy book keeping, maybe we didn’t file the right papers, you know, blame the accountant game, but all the work is real and all of the money that’s been received has been put to good use; is that possible? Charles Ortel: It is absolutely impossible. Let me give you another piece of the puzzle. A central figure in these frauds is someone who’s spent time in your city, a man called Rajat Gupta, who is Chairman of McKinsey, and who’s spent some time in prison recently for insider trading. He began to get involved with the Clinton Foundation and the American Indian Foundation in January 2001, and the public record shows clearly that Rajat Gupta was working with Vinod Gupta – no relations – of InfoGroup, and that’s the case where InfoGroup, this Vinod Gupta guy looted money from a public trading company and sent it through an LLC corporation in Nevada called Mind Spirit into the hands of Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton and Hillary Clinton, before 2002-2008; and that is a matter of public record. So Rajat Gupta was also centrally involved as a co-chairman of the American India Foundation, and I’m trying to get people to put these links together. This is a matter of grave concern, to me personally, because I care about good charities; I hasten to add that I’m not interested in elected politics. I don’t like either party, I don’t like the Clintons, I don’t like the track record; I’m not a political operative, I’ve no interest in being in any government role whatsoever. I just feel it’s actually the poor people, bottom 80% of this country, gives the most to charity, and they expect a charity with the president’s name on it to be run properly. And so I want to make sure this thing is exposed, I want to make sure that people who are guilty of fraud are punished mercilessly, and I think this should be a good example to make sure people around President Obama, when he operates the charity that’s being set up in your city, that they are operated scrupulously; because the presidential charity do a lot of good work if it’s run properly. Dan Proft: Are you suggesting that what the Clinton Foundation effectively is is like the charitable version of Bernie Madoff, that the money being sent is real, but all of the work is imaginary and it’s just being used for lavish lifestyles for Clinton Inc.? Charles Ortel: That’s exactly what I’m suggesting, and the scale is massive. It’s not simply the Clinton Foundation. In addition, Rajat Gupta and the Clintons have been involved with something called the Global Fund, which is gigantic fund that is a fraud; that is run with taxpayer money around the world. Rajat Gupta was chairman of that. There’s a 13 billion dollar fraud in Haiti. I’ve been on the phone recently with some aggrieved people in Haiti, and the record suggests that there the Clintons have been operating a massive scam and the people of Haiti are poorer than they’ve ever been. This is an area where I think people on the left and the right can agree that whatever the purpose of the charity, whether it’s progressive or conservative, a charity should be run as a charity, and not as a scheme to enrich insiders around the charity and government leaders who want to live high once they leave their government position. This is an awful track record, and the evidence is there, in the public domain, unlike Switzer stuff, you can find this just googling, as I have done. Amy Jacobson: It’s surprising that they’re not in jail. I mean, really. Dan Proft: Well… Charles Ortel, private investor based in New York; we’re going to be continuing to watch your work, because you do your one man investigation of the Clintons. Charlesortel.com is the website where you can get more details on everything that you’ve discovered through your research, and we look forward to speaking to you again. Thanks so much for your time. Charles Ortel: Anytime.
Dan Proft's exclusive interview with Presidential Candidate, Senator Ted Cruz.
Dan Proft: So we had the opportunity to have your father on the show last week, and what a woo he is, but one of the things that he said that I want to get your take on – by the way, actually, we have suggested to him after talking to him for a few minutes, that perhaps the ticket should be Cruz and Cruz in the general election, and he was concerned with the 12th Amendment, which of course you’re familiar with; I assured him that if it was a Cruz – Cruz ticket in the general, then you could dispense with Texas’ electoral votes because you’d win by such a big margin. Ted Cruz: I will say, my dad is someone who will speak from the heart, and when you’ve seen freedom taken away firsthand like my dad has seen, it’s very real and it’s very personal to him, and it’s one of the real blessing, being the son of an immigrant who fled oppression in Cuba, that it makes you realize that our freedom is fragile and it’s really precious. Dan Proft: Now, one of the things that he said about you is that Ted learned from his parents to be a servant-leader. It seems to me in the debate on Thursday night, you sort of made mention to that implicitly when you talked about Donald Trump asking for people to pledge allegiance to him, and he had it reversed that this is a job audition where the President of the United States is a servant to the people, and I wonder of you could expand upon what your dad said, and that moment in the debate where you suggested Donald Trump had it reversed. Ted Cruz: Our rights don’t come from government, they come from God almighty, and sovereignty doesn’t reside in the ruler, but rather sovereignty resides in ‘we, the people’, and the Constitutions serves, as Jefferson put it, ‘chain to bind the mischief of government’, and I think there had been far too many political leaders in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans, who lose sight of that; who believe that they are a ruling class; that’s much of the corruption we’ve seen that has resulted 19 trillion in debt, has resulted in the special interest getting fat at the people’s extent. And I believe we need a leader who recognizes that he works for the people. I approach this every day, asking for your support, working to earn your support, because we need a president who is fighting for the hard working tax payers each and every day rather than the entrenched interest in Washington. Dan Proft: One of the other in theory entertaining moments of the debate on Thursday night was your close, where you talked about the humble beginnings of a Ted Cruz and a Marco Rubio, and a John Kasich, and maybe not so much Donald Trump. It was a little bit of a Yakov Smirnoff what a country kind of close, but I wonder what you were trying to do there reminding the electorate about where you and Kasich and Rubio came from, as compared to Trump. Ted Cruz: Well, look, it is a remarkable thing that you’ve got three of the four people on the stage come from very humble beginnings; as I note it, there was the son of a bartender, the son of mailman, or in my case, the son of a dishwasher, and most of the countries on Earth, that would never be the case. Most of the countries on Earth, any potential leader of the country would have been born in the wealth and power of the aristocracy, and that’s simply the way most of the world works, and didn’t mean that as a ding particularly on Donald Trump; I was more making a quip that I hoped to get a laugh, but was also making the point about the unbelievable opportunity America provides, that anyone starting with nothing can do anything, and that really is unique in the world. Dan Proft: On the political front, were you disappointed at all that Dr. Ben Carson decided to fall in with Donald Trump instead of with you, particularly given your similar faith traditions in terms of appeal to evangelical voters? Ted Cruz: Sure, of course I was disappointed, and then Ben Carson is a good man, but everyone’s got to make their own decisions and their own judgments, and I suppose everyone makes those decisions for different reasons. What my focus really is, is on energizing and mobilizing conservatives, and on unifying Republicans. You mentioned at the outset of the show that at this point become effectively a two man race. There are some 65-70% of Republicans who recognize Donald Trump as not the best candidate to go head to head with Hilary Clinton; that if we nominate Donald Trump, Hilary wins; that she just wallops him in a general election, and if Hilary wins, we lose the Supreme Court for a generation, we lost the Bill of Rights, our kids are buried in debt for yet four more years, and jobs and economic opportunity stays illusive and hard to achieve, and so for those 65-70% of Republicans who recognize Donald Trump is not the best nominee, what we’re seeing is more and more uniting behind our campaign, because our campaign is the only campaign that has beaten Donald repeatedly; we beat him now 8 separate times in 8 states all over the country, and we’re the only campaign that can beat him; the other candidates have no mathematical possibility of becoming the Republican nominee, and I’ll tell you, Illinois in particular is very much a battle ground. Right now, today, Illinois is neck in neck between Donald Trump and me, and so you don’t want to see Donald Trump as the nominee. If you don’t want to see Hillary Clinton win the general election then I ask you to stand with us – even if you have been supporting someone else – the only way now to beat Donald Trump is for us to stand united, so I ask you to stand with us, and that is happening more and more all over the country. Dan Proft: Now, with respect to Donald Trump, do you think it is important to make the distinction between Donald Trump the candidate, and Donald Trump’s supporters, kind of Donald Trump the movement, if you will? Because if you are the nominee, regardless what happens on Tuesday, if you are the nominee and you run the table after Tuesday, when it’s all mano y mano race ostensibly, that you’re going to need those Trump voters that have come out and really jumped the Republican Primary turnout to record levels. Ted Cruz: Absolutely, and I’ve said from the beginning that I’ve brought a lot of people into the process, and that is good and beneficial, and the people who are supporting Donald, I understand why they are; they’re ticked off, they’re ticked off at Washington, they’re ticked off at politicians who keep lying to them, who keep making promises and doing the exact opposite of what they say when they go to Washington. And they’re fed up with the corruption of Washington – the bipartisan corruption – I agree with every bit of that sediment, and you’d better believe that I want every one of those voters showing up in November so that we can finally change the direction of this country, and now what I think a lot of those Trump supporters are realizing when they look at his record more closely is that if you’re fed up with the corruption in Washington, the answer is not to support Donald Trump, someone who has been enmeshed in that bipartisan corruption for 40 years; that Donald Trump is the system, Donald Trump is Washington, and big business, and if you’re fed up with that, the answer I believe is to go with the candidate who has demonstrated over and over again that he will and he has stood up not just to Democrats but to leaders in our own party. That’s what it’s going to take to stop the corruption – is a president who recognizes he works for the American people, for the hardworking taxpayer, not the Washington’s special interest, that Donald has been part of for the last 40 years supporting liberal democrats, and supporting establishment republicans; instead, we need a president that doesn’t stand for Washington, but stands with the American people. Dan Proft: One of the things that seems to me makes you a little bit different than the candidates in this field, past and present, is your willingness to talk about values. It’s funny to me, in Chicago here, you think New York values are bad. We listen to Rahm Emanuel, as I call him, tiny dancer, talk about Chicago values all the time. It seems like the left is very willing to talk about values – whatever their values are – and sometimes we, as conservatives, are afraid to speak in the vernacular of values in the public arena. Your nod, is it a recognition that maybe people out there are looking for something transcendental, maybe the most important thing to them isn’t just your marginal tax rate, it’s about kind of what binds us together as a people. Ted Cruz: I think that’s exactly right. That’s who we are as Americans, and one of the greatest lies that the media tries to sell is they try to tell conservatives that America doesn’t share our values; that America has become this left wing progressive utopia; and that’s just fundamentally false. This country is and remains a federal country. We remain a country that was built on free market principles, on constitutional liberties, and on Judeo-Christian values; that is what built America into the greatest country in the history of the world. Now the media and Hollywood and the political left tries to do everything they can to convince the American people we should be afraid of our values. We should be afraid to stand and defend lives, we should be afraid to defend marriage or religious liberty, and I don’t think that’s right. I think we can recognize that every life is a precious gift from God, and that every human being has constitutional rights that the government should be protecting, rather than violating, and I think those are common sense values that resonate across the heartland. Resonate across the state of Illinois, and resonate all across the country. Dan Proft: I want to get your response to one of the critiques, what we hear from callers supporting Donald Trump and other candidates from this show is, ‘Well, one of the critiques of Ted Cruz is he doesn’t get along with his colleagues, so is he going to get anything done?’ I had the opportunity to speak with Jim DeMint, President of the Heritage Foundation and former US Senator, the other day, and he made the point that when he was in the Senate, he didn’t always get along with leadership very much either because he wanted the Republican Party to stand for conservative values and follow principles and policies that flow from those values, and sometimes the leadership didn’t want to chart that course. It seems to me there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of politics that a lot of people in our movement have, and I wonder if you’d comment, and that is about likeability all the time, rather than the hard work of aligning interests, of building coalitions around different issues, and the coalitions maybe different with respect to different parts of a policy agenda; one is trying to pursue, but it’s not being Mr. Congeniality, or Mr. Popularity, it’s about aligning interests. Ted Cruz: Well, that’s right, but it’s even stronger than that, and Jim DeMint is a good example. Jim is a very good friend of mine, and he was an extraordinary senator, but when he was serving in the senate, he was despised; especially by leadership, they despised him. And it’s not that Jim is an unpleasant man – in fact he’s a very soft-spoken principled individual – but you have to remember, Washington, the career politicians in both parties, they have been sticking it to the American people year after year after year. It’s why we’re so angry, because they don’t keep their word and they don’t intend to keep their word. And what makes you ‘unlikeable’ in Washington is if you actually keep your word to the men and women who elected you. What Jim DeMint did and what I have done was simply go there and say ‘I’m going to do exactly what I said I would do’. I told, in my case, the people of Texas, ‘I’m going to fight with every breath in my body to stop the disaster that is Obama Care; I’m going to fight with every breath in my body to stop amnesty, which is taking jobs from millions of Americans; I’m going to fight to stop the death that’s bankrupting our kids and grandkids and I’m going to fight to defend the bill of rights and the second amendment of religious liberty.’ Now that by in large is most of what the Republican members of congress promised, but when they get to Washington, they break those promises, and if you keep those promises, that’s being unlikeable, that’s what they get mad at. It’s not treating people with anything less than civility or decorum or respect. You know, you look at the debate, the last several debates we saw Donald Trump and Marco Rubio yelling and insulting each other and making fun of each other’s body parts. I think that has no place in politics, and I certainly don’t respond to those insults in kind. I keep focus on substance, but the thing to remember, if someone is well liked in Washington, it’s because they’re going along with Washington selling you out, and to change it – you know someone else who was despised in Washington was Ronald Reagan – if you look at the Reagan revolution – remember, in 1976, Reagan had primaried Gerald Ford. Now you want to make Republican leadership loathe you, come within an inch of beating the incumbent Republican President in the primaries. They hated him! Now Reagan, likewise, he wasn’t mean about it, he didn’t insult people, but he said ‘We have to stand for something’. This is not a fraternal order, we need to actually defend shared principles!’, and they hated him for it, but what gave Reagan his strength is he didn’t rely on Washington – he took the case to the people, and that is very much the basis of our campaign as well. If we’re going to break the Washington cartel, it’s going to be the grass roots, and so my strength are millions of men and women across this country that are fed up with a Washington that doesn’t listen to us, that doesn’t protect our jobs, that doesn’t protect our interests, and that is selling our rights down the river. And the way we turn it around is just like the Reagan revolution, with a grassroots army from the people. Dan Proft: Yes, and I think we can all unify as a party around the idea that we appreciate your lack of interest in Donald Trump’s body parts. Before we let you go – I know you have a busy schedule, and a lot of states to check out before tomorrow’s elections, just a closing thought for Illinois voters. What’s the value proposition for President Ted Cruz? What’s he going to do in the first 100 days, so people know what they’re getting when they go to the polls in Illinois tomorrow and pull the lever for Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz: I think this election is about three things: it’s about jobs, it’s about freedom and it’s about security. My number one priority is jobs and economic growth. We have the lowest percentage of Americans working right now than any year since 1977, and the people I’m fighting for are the single moms that are right now waiting tables and working 2-3 part-time jobs, and you’ve had your hours forcibly reduced to 28-29 hours a week, because Obama Care kicks in at 30 hours a week. The people I’m fighting for are the truck drivers and steel workers and plumbers and mechanics. You know, the men and women with calluses on your hands, the union members who are just getting hammered right now; your wages haven’t gone up, and yet the costs of living keeps going up and up and up. The people I’m fighting for are the students who are coming out of school with loans up your eyeballs, wondering, are you going to get a job? What does the future hold for you? And the media tells us this is a new normal, we have to accept that! That is simply not the truth! If I’m elected president, we will repeal Obama Care, we’ll pass a simple flat tax and abolish the IRF and we’ll lift back the regulations that are killing small businesses, and the effect of that, we’re going to see millions of high paying jobs, we’re going to see wages rising for everybody, and we’re going to see young people coming out of schools with 2-3-4-5 jobs opportunities. Secondly and critically, freedom; the Constitution and Bill of Rights hang in the balance. The Supreme Court hangs in the balance. Donald Trump has told you he will cut a deal with Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer to arrive upon Antonin Scalia’s replacement. I am not going to compromise away your religious liberty. I’m not going to compromise away your Second Amendment. Instead, every justice I’ve put on the court will defend the Bill of Rights ferociously for your children and for mine. And then finally, security; we need a president who will stand by our friends and allies, who will stand with the nation of Israel – not be neutral – like Donald Trump has promised to be, but stand un-apologetically with Israel, and who will stand up and defeat our enemies, as president, I will rebuild the military just like Ronald Reagan did; we will rebuild the military so that it remains the mightiest fighting force on the face of the planet, and we will utterly destroy ISIS, we will defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and we’ll have a president that doesn’t undermine our fighting men and women. That doesn’t undermine our police officers and firefighters and search responders, but instead a presidents who stands with our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines, who stands with our cops and our firefighters, and has their back. We can do all of that if we just go back to who we are, and that’s what this election is about. Illinois is a battleground. We are neck in neck with Donald Trump. I ask you to stand with us, and if we stand together, we’re going to win this nomination and we are going to win the general and bring back jobs and economic growth and prosperity to this nation once again.
Will ISIS fail on its own? To the extent POTUS strategy is discernible, is it equal to the task?What tools should the intelligence community have to combat radical Islamic terrorism?
Amb. Bolton addresses these and other issues.
Dan Proft sits down with The Sultan of Supply-Side Economics, Heritage Foundation Distinguished Fellow Stephen Moore. Can the GOP extricate itself from rent-seeking corporate interests? What should a GOP POTUS with a GOP-controlled Congress accomplish by 2020? What are the policy choices that make rich states rich and poor states poor? Proft and Moore discuss these and other questions. You can catch Moore with Proft every Wednesday morning at 7:35am on Chicago's Morning Answer, AM 560 (560TheAnswer.com).