`

amy jacobson

Chicago FOP President Dean Angelo on CPD Report Alleging "Systemic Racism"

This morning Dan Proft & Amy Jacobson spoke to Dean Angelo, Sr., President of FOP Lodge 7 in Chicago, to get his reaction to a scathing report on the Chicago Police Department that was issued by the panel convened by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, which included a conclusion that the more than 12,000 Chicago police officers on the force have no regard for the lives of minorities in the city.

Against the backdrop of a 65% increase in murders and 78% increase in shootings year-over-year, combined with a 90% drop in investigative stops, Angelo discussed the impact this report will have on police morale and, by extension, peace on the streets of Chicago or the lack thereof.

Angelo said critics of the police talk about police-involved shootings without the additional context of data points like 13,000 police officers who have been battered over the past 8 years and the more than 36,000 criminals police have put behind bars.

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Dan and Amy, so big story is that report on the Chicago Police Department that was commissioned by Tiny Dancer; he put together this star chamber of leftists, like Deval Patrick, former Massachussets governor, Lorie Lightfoot. Amy Jacobson: Yeah, his friends. Dan Proft: Yeah. Amy Jacobson: His buddies, so like come on, buddies, we’re going to investigate this. Dan Proft: And they’re not friends of the Chicago Police Department, not after the report that was issued yesterday that says – it doesn’t suggest, it says – “Chicago Police have no regard for the sanctity of life when it comes to people of color”. That’s pretty big statement about 12,000 Chicago police officers, almost half of whom are Black or Latino. Wonder how that is going to impact the job being done by Chicago Police. Amy Jacobson: It’s about a 200 page report that says that there’s racism, excessive force, a code of silence; when they do do things wrong, they cover up for each other. I mean, it’s a scathing report. Dan Proft: Let’s get reaction and not only in terms of the conclusions drawn by Tiny Dancer Star Chamber, but the impact this report will have on the safety in the streets of Chicago from Dean Angelo Sr., who is the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7 in Chicago. Dean, thanks again for joining us, always appreciated. Dean Angelo Sr.: You’re welcome, good morning. Dan Proft: Good morning, so your reaction to the conclusions offered in that report. Dean Angelo Sr.: It’s difficult to find a place to start, but specifically the issues that they’ve mentioned concerning our collective bargaining agreement, I think they completely missed their mark, unless that was their intention. They could have gotten clarifications from us phone and asked us questions instead of assuming that the language is whatever the perception turned out to be, because they missed the mark, like I’ve said… Dan Proft: What specifically are you referring to? Dean Angelo Sr.: Well, they mentioned that there’re no statements given by anybody involved in an incident that a police shooting for 24 hours. That’s just not true. Like I told you, if they had asked, we could have clarified. Officers are making statements to the OIC, the officers in charge, they make statements to the investigator’s units that are out it. If it doesn’t walk through with the police officers, then you know… they were here for… I think three of them took the time to come here to talk to us; I don’t know how many people on that total taskforce, but three of them found it important enough to come here, and we had some conversation, we had some discussion on issues, none of which made it to the report, it seems, and I don’t know why they didn’t take the time to get clarifications. Amy Jacobson: Dean, what were some of the issues that you wanted to be have expressed in the report? Dean Angelo Sr.: Well, we mentioned the need to reopen the detective division areas as they were before. We didn’t see that it made any sense to go from 6 detectives in these areas down to 3 when you have people transported to give statements or view lineups from Belmont-Western and you have to go on the Congress Park where you pick them up, in the far west side of the city, when they used to go to Grand and Central. So how do you get a victim or witness to take six hours out of their day – three of those hours could be travel time, depending on the time of day. So we just thought that was a one thing that they could look at, about improving not only the presence of the investigating units, but also having the convenience of people participating in the prosecution of the arrestee. So, you know, we look at a clearer break, and you want to get people to comply with the process, so you have to try to make it convenient for them. Dan Proft: So there are process issues and efficiency issues; those are legitimate points of discussion, but what about the overall conclusion? I mean, it seems to me the blaring headline is this report concluding that the Chicago police department is beset by a systematic racism. Dean Angelo Sr.: Yeah, and I don’t know where their data came from, who they got those statements from, but I can tell you that police officers in the city of Chicago are professional, they go after criminals, they go after areas that are inundated with crime; the aggressive units are assigned regularly. So when you look at contact with public, you look at areas where the crime is prevalent, and that’s where the gang teams and the saturation teams and the gun teams are deployed every day. A reasonable person would conclude that the contact in those areas would be occurring more often. And to view those kinds of numbers and to say that there’s got to be racism attacked to that, I say it again, they missed their mark, unless that was their intention. Amy Jacobson: Now one of the recommendations was to get rid of the independent police review authority. Are you in favor of that? Their solution is to replace it with a civilian board. Dean Angelo Sr.: We haven’t had much contact with the new administration that they brought. I had one conversation face to face. You know, IPRA is involved in doing investigations at police shootings, and it’s actually in violation of the law, but that’s a different issue, where you’re supposed to have a sworn independent organization come in and investigate incidents where deaths have occurred and police have been involved. This law was signed in August, I believe, last year, and the department that IPRA would be the best people to investigate those, even though they’re not qualified or certified to do so. So we have a back and forth going on right now with them concerning that. Whether it’s IPRA, whether it’s OPS, whether they give us different tag names, it’s sometimes on the professionalism, the knowledge; you don’t want people coming in with a bias. You want people to conduct a fair investigation and allegation and to make sure that everybody gets an opportunity to address the incident of the accusation, which kind of puts us on our heels a bit, because we certainly don’t want this taskforce to go out and pick people to be on that whatever the next IPRA is. Dan Proft: Yeah, no question about that. Dean Angelo Sr. who we’re speaking with; he’s the Chicago FOP Lodge 7 President. Dean, a report last week that investigative stops by Chicago police down 90% almost year-after-year. We’re talking about the difference of more than 100,000 investigative stops, and concurrent, we find ourselves year-after-year with a 65% increase in murders, and a 78% increase in shootings. Are those numbers correlated, do you think, and why such a significant decline in investigative stops? Dean Angelo Sr.: Well, a couple of variables have come into play with that, I believe it’s the investigative stop reports that the department turned over to the ACLU; they authored it. Some people are saying that it’s because of Senate Bill 1304, but it’s not. Senate Bill 1304 does not require an extensive report; it required said document in contact, so state police have something similar to our old contact chart, with a few check boxes, and that’s it, there’s no narrative. So anyone believes that 1304, which was passed last year in July, he has the direct relationship, because the length of that ISR, they don’t know of what they speak; because it’s just not true. So I think the extensiveness of that report has a contributing factor, and I also believe that there is an awareness on the officers’ part that they don’t want to be the next Youtube stars; because those are edited, and those are posted. I just saw a video this morning of an officer in one of the Southern States trying to affect an arrest, and he gets attached and he gets beaten. This is where we’re at right now. Dan Proft: And do you think there is a correlation between the spike and murders and shooting and the decline in investigative stops. Dean Angelo Sr.: Well, I don’t know if you can connect those dots at this point. You know, there is a prevalence in this city; people talk about 400 police involved shootings over an eight year period of time, and that’s their banner that they carry ; but they don’t mention that over that over those same 8 years Chicago Police Department took over 86,000 guns off the street. They locked up over 36,000 people with a firearm, and on that same period of time, over 13,000 police officers were battered. No one talks about that; they talk about the 400 police involved shootings, and that’s the message that’s being carried, but I think what you have to look at is the prevalence of the guns; 86,000 is a warehouse. Amy Jacobson: Yeah, it’s insane. Besides the scathing report that was released yesterday, also yesterday Eddie Johnson, your new superintendent sworn in by the City Council. Are rank and filed police with this decision? Dean Angelo Sr.: You know, I haven’t heard a lot of negatives about the new boss, and for somebody that’s gone up the ranks, in any job, in leadership, you have it personally to remove some people from position and transfer some people out, so to discipline other individuals, but you don’t really get a clean slate of support going up the ranks. You’re going to have your detractors. And to be honest, I haven’t heard a lot of negativity. No one’s called it up and said “Oh my Gosh, how could they’ve picked that guy?” IT’s been pretty positive. We have yet to sit down and say, to say hopefully it happens soon; we’re both a little bit busy at this time, but I’m sure that’ll happen shortly. Dan Proft: How is this report going to impact how police do their jobs? Dean Angelo Sr.: Well, I mentioned to somebody else yesterday that superintendent’s been out there non-stop since he got placed interim. He’s trying to build morale, he’s going to the units, he’s talking to the role calls, and he had some pretty good press coming out of those role calls from our officers, and I think that now he’s got to go back and address this, right? When he was getting some momentum, and trying to encourage the people that “Hey, I’m going to wear a camera”, or “I’m going to be there for you”, or “I worked in this district”, “I worked in that unit just like you are now”, so he’s built some bridges and he started a positive spin on his administration, and now this comes out. So, you know, the bias of this report is so obvious, when they introduced narratives and names and statements of individual officers and they put them out there, like this is the opening statement of your passport, it’s incredible that they would think that that’s a good idea. Dan Proft: He is Dean Angelo Sr., President of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7; Dean, thanks again for joining us, appreciate it. Dean Angelo Sr.: You’re welcome.

Related Content

Can this man defeat Cantor-ize House Speaker Paul Ryan?

This week Dan & Amy interviewed Paul Nehlen, a successful businessman who made a "six-figure commitment" to his campaign he said, seeking to defeat House Speaker Paul Ryan in his Kenosha, WI, district in the GOP primary. Nehlen said he was a big supporter of Ryan who sourced on Ryan after his votes for bailouts and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Dan and Amy, good morning. So the March jobs are out, unemployment rate ticks up a tenth of a point to five percent; 250,000 non-farm payrolls increased; 250,000 job increase average earnings up three tenths of a point; labor participation rate also ticked up a percentage point; I think it was at 62, now 63, which is why the unemployment rate ticked up a bit despite the 250,000 jobs being created. We’ll have Brian Battle on from Performance Trust Capital Partners at 747 to discuss, but now we’ve got something interesting happening just north of the cheese curtain, and that is this. A wealthy businessman who wants to spring a Dave Brat – Eric Cantor sized upset of one House Speaker Paul Ryan; his name is Paul Nehlen, and he’s running for Congress in a Republican Primary against Paul Ryan, and he joins us now. Paul, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Paul Nehlen: Hey, thanks for having me on, Dan. And you can call me Nehlen, by the way, just so we’re clear on who’s who here. Dan Proft: Okay, alright. Give us a little bit of your background, and the reason you decided to take up this candidacy, this challenge to Paul Ryan. Paul Nehlen: Great. I’m a manufacturing guy. I’ve been in business since right out of high school; started on the factory floor, worked my way up to running the business, and I’ve run businesses around the country. I was in charge of Europe, Middle East and Africa for a Fortune 500; I’ve got experience running businesses in Mexico and Asia and all over the United States, and the reason I’m running is, I was arguably Paul Ryan’s biggest supporter in this district. I punded signs, made some calls, I got people out to vote for what Paul Ryan said was his biggest priority, and that was getting people in Wisconsin working again, and that just wasn’t the case. He’s made promises to me and people here. He shook my hand, looked me in the eye and make promises on policies he would and would not support on behalf of this district. And we watched as he’s broken every single one of them. Amy Jacobson: Well, give me some examples. Paul Nehlen: I would say, first and foremost, the support of Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, and this Trans-Pacific partnership that’s an absolute abomination for this country, for this country’s workers and specifically for the First District of Wisconsin. We’ve got a long history of design, engineering, manufacturing in this district, and the TTP, as it’s commonly known, is going to be terrible for this country. Paul Ryan has been its biggest supporter, biggest fan. Dan Proft: And you think that the idea of trying to expand trade into other markets is bad for manufacturing? Paul Nehlen: No, I’m saying the way this trade deal’s constructed is bad. I think we should be trading with partners all around the globe. I think when you got somebody like India, who has a 100% tariff on American motorcycles; Harley Davidson can’t ship motorcycles into India without 100% tariff, but there’s a 2.4% tariff coming back. That’s a huge problem, and as TTP lowers the bar on Made in the US content, Mazda, if you recall, a 65%, TTP takes it down to 45%; only 45% of the product has the Made in the United States to be marked Made in the United States. Dan Proft: What are other points of departure between you and Paul Ryan? Perhaps the most recent budget deal? Paul Nehlen: Absolutely. I can’t believe that Paul Ryan would fund the unabated immigration policy that Obama’s put in place. He has absolutely blown out all of the spending caps that we had, hard negotiated spending caps. Paul Ryan said – and I’ve heard it said even by people that considered themselves as conservatives, or fiscal watchdogs, as they referred themselves – they say “We’ve got these good things in them”… no, we gave away the farm in this omnibus. And we haven’t had a budget, I might add, we haven’t had a budget in this country since 2007. Obama will be the first president to come into office without a budget, be in office the whole entire time and leave without a budget. And Paul Ryan was considered this budget guru; that’s a misnomer. Beside you got a pile of money in front of you and you’re going to figure out how to spend it; does not a budget guru to make. Amy Jacobson: Well he’s going around to get around this time around, but next time the budget comes up he says that he’s going to fight. Do you believe him? Paul Nehlen: No, I don’t. I’ve heard that before. Paul Ryan has never died on any hill. Paul Ryan hasn’t gotten bacten on his knee on any hill. Dan Proft: And so, just going back here to the Paul Ryan record, if you had been representing the First District, rather than Paul Ryan, would you have voted for the auto bailout as he did? Paul Nehlen: No, I would not have. Look at how this worked out. I would have worked to run that differently. Paul Ryan has never met a bailout he didn’t like. He bailed out the banks, he bailed out the insurance companies, he bailed out everybody, and it was with him that the Jamesville facility got shut down. That didn’t have to go down the way that it went down. Paul Ryan was fine to go down the way that it went down. He agreed with Obama on how that all worked out, he looked at all the car dealerships that were closed, how that was done; you remember Cash for Clunkers. I mean, Paul Ryan went along with all of this stuff. All the shovel ready jobs; I’ve got a shovel ready job for you; build a wall; Paul Ryan’s got a big fence around his house. That has been authorized since 2006. Paul Ryan has been in Congress since 98. He’s been there for 20 years; that’s too long, that’s too long for any member of Congress. Dan Proft: Do you – I presume you’re a term limit supporter based on what you’ve just said. Paul Nehlen: I am. Dan Proft: Do you give Paul Ryan any credit for being a leading voice on entitlement reform and outreach to nontraditional Republican constituents that we will like to be Republican constituents like the African American community? Paul Nehlen: You can go to my website, electnehlen.com, and there you’ll find policy on that, but I would say it’s disingenuous of Paul Ryan to fund other countries’ initiatives, other things and gut social security. Paul Ryan goes after social security… we’ve got an excess of 150 trillion dollars of natural resources under the ground, gas and oil, and Paul Ryan would continue on a path of buying oil from other countries. We bought oil from Saudi Arabia, I guess. Let’s throw some rough numbers out there; $40 a barrel. Saudi Arabia sells to China $85 dollars a barrel. Do you know why? Because they can; and it hurts American manufacturers; American oil companies barely make 10% on profit on that. Dan Proft: So we’re talking to Paul Nehlen, and he is running for Congress against Paul Ryan, up in Kenosha, Wisconsin’s First District, Republican Primary challenger, comes from a business background, and Paul, it’s one thing to present a contrast opportunity, it’s another thing to run a successful campaign, right? So how do you put together the resources and the support that is required to make a real challenge against Paul Ryan? Paul Nehlen: That’s a great question, and obviously I’m passionate about this. I’ve been betrayed by Paul Ryan, and I have a long business history of hiring excellent people. I’ve hired excellent people around the country for business; I’ve hired excellent people around the country to run my campaign and to work with me on doing this. I’m just one guy. I’m a catalyst for this to happen. There's people around this country that are begging for somebody to stand up; stand up for what’s going on in Washington. Dan Proft: And are you going to be a self-funder? Are you making a big personal commitment to your campaign? Paul Nehlen: I’m making a big commitment, yes, to my campaign. Dan Proft: Can you put a number on it, or a range? Paul Nehlen: I would say it’s six figures. Dan Proft: Okay. I’m sorry, go ahead, finish your thought, Paul. Paul Nehlen: No, I would just say that it all comes down to three priorities for me; and you can read all this on electnehlen.com; reclaim Wisconsin’s First District for we, the people; stop Paul Ryan’s cronyism and corruption; and secure our borders and enforce existing immigration laws. Dan Proft: Alright, he is Paul Nehlen. Electnehlen.com is his website. Paul, thanks so much for joining us. Good luck with the campaign. Paul Nehlen: Thank you very much, appreciate it.

related content

CPS Teacher at Lane Tech to CTU: I told them I'm resigning from their "socialist union"

Mike DeRoss, a social sciences teacher at Lane Tech High School, explained to Dan & Amy this morning why he is not participating in the Chicago Teachers' Union one-day walkout on April 1 and why he subsequently resigned from the union. 

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Good morning, Dan and Amy, so CPS Walkout tomorrow. The Red Shirts are supposed to be out in force, shutting down the city in protest of what Karen Lewis – Chicago Teachers’ Union boss – in protest of intolerable conditions. Amy Jacobson: But this isn’t going to change anything. All that it’s going to do is inconvenience. Hard working Chicagoans who want to go home on a Friday afternoon, and also the parents – a lot of the parents that I’ve spoken with, Dan, are against this one day walkout, for simply the fact it’s not going to change anything, and some teachers aren’t going to be walking, and some teachers aren’t going to be protesting. Dan Proft: Yeah, some teachers are not, I just want to work the logic on this, because the teachers that are protesting, as described by Karen Lewis, value teachers, and are doing it for the kids, therefore the teachers that do no participate do not value teachers and hate children. That’s the only logical conclusion! Amy Jacobson: And Rahm Emanuel yesterday, once again, he had tears in his eyes, Dan, and he was trying to convince teachers to do the right thing and not walk. Dan Proft: Oh, for Christ’s sake. Rahm Emanuel: Do not take it out on our students, for our students – the school is their safest place, the place where they’re going to learn. Amy Jacobson: And they’ve set up 250 safety sites for kids to go in, they’ll get free lunch, and free breakfast, and if they need transportation to those sites, they’ll provide it for them, but there’s going to be a lot of kids just out on the streets tomorrow; walking around, enjoying their day off. Dan Proft: Well let’s get CPS Teachers’ perspective on this; somebody that is daring to stand against the prevailing wind. He is Michael DeRoss, he’s a Social Science – used to be called Social Studies in my day – Social Science teacher at Lane Tech High School; Michael, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Mike DeRoss: Good morning. Dan Proft: So why don’t you respect teachers, and why do you hate children? Mike DeRoss: I don’t know if that’s the case at either level. Dan Proft: Well, so you’re not participating in the walkout protest tomorrow. Why not? Mike DeRoss: Well, there’s about 2 or 3 different levels that I find this wrong on. The first one is maybe the most important one, we’ll just do that; we have a process to go through when we believe we’re agreeing with an unfair labor practice. We should go through that process and let it wait, because if we don’t, then the strike’s probably illegal, additionally we sit in our classroom and tell our kids “Follow the law, obey the law, follow the rules of the classroom, and do what the law says”, and then we’re going to go out, and for the most part, say that the law didn’t act quick enough for us, and we’re just going to take it into our own hands and break it. I find that a very immoral way to interact or teach. I can’t support that, and finally, as Amy I think rightfully said, this thing’s not going to accomplish anything. This is a show strike for Karen, that’s all. Amy Jacobson: Now in 2012, 19 teachers crossed the picket line, then Jesse Sharky and Karen Lou said that you threaten to cross a picket line, you will lose a Union Membership; are you concerned about that, or maybe that you already lost it? Mike DeRoss: Well, I actually felt that when I decided that I wasn’t going to go, the only honorable thing to do would be to contact the Union and resign, which I did through e-mail, and told them that I wanted to resign from their bleeping socialist union. Dan Proft: How was that received? Mike DeRoss: And they sent me back an e-mail telling me how I’d have to pay fair share dues, which I already knew, and if that’s the law, that’s the law. I don’t like it, but it’s the law. And how they weren’t a socialist union. Dan Proft: They’re not a socialist union? Amy Jacobson: Oh really? Did they say anything else in that e-mail? Dan Proft: Socialist because they’re further left on that, or not socialist in a different way? Mike DeRoss: I don’t know, but there’s more to it. Why are we throwing in with other groups that are just going to dilute the message of the Chicago teachers? I’ll guarantee, if we got a bunch of kids that just called out of their mother’s basement in the march, scuffling with police everywhere, they we’re going to get the press, not the teachers. Amy Jacobson: Yeah, I know some Black Life Matters protesters are going to be there, some SEIU protesters I heard are going in, and they’ve even encouraged us parents to go and to bring our children, but I’m going to decide to opt out of that. Mike DeRoss: Well, when did we turn into France? Dan Proft: I think it was about 1996; 1995, in Chicago. No, it’s a fair point, what’s the response – you talked to other teachers, not just at Lane Tech, but I’m sure he’s got relationships outside of your school in the education space in Chicago, and what’s the reaction to your decision, as well as what this, as you described, show strike that Karen Lewis is doing? Mike DeRoss: Well, honestly, I don’t have a lot of relationships with teachers outside of Lane, but the ones inside Lane, for the most part – and this may be a selective, not a scientific pole, because often people that don’t agree with you won’t come and face you with it – but everybody that has come to talk to me, I don’t kick them out, necessarily, they said that “We kind of agree with what you said, we do agree with what you said, but I have to walk, because I got ten more years with this outfit”. Amy Jacobson: What about the students, though? Do they know what you’re doing and how you’re taking the stand? Mike DeRoss: Well, it would be pretty tough for them not to know what I’m doing, throughout most the media. And yes, most of them know, or a good part of them know; they have their own feelings, they’re pretty smart, mature kids here at Lane, so they’ll figure it out the way they want to. Dan Proft: And, as you said, it’s kind of a teachable moment, with respect with what you teach in class about respect for the law and substantive process and then abiding that, and you providing the example of abiding that. We’re talking to Michael DeRoss, he’s a social science teacher at the Lane Tech High School in Chicago. What about some of the underlying issues, I mean, because this show strike, as you’ve described it, and potentially a real strike next month, or in May, it’s over increasing the contribution that teachers pay into the pensions system on a go forward basis; where do you come down on reforming structurally pension system, CPS more generally? Mike DeRoss: Well, you don’t have enough time for all that, but let me throw a couple things out. Back in the day, Union was suckered, I think, by the Board and the mayors to say “We won’t give you a raise, we’ll just put some pension pick-up in here”, and we took it. We said “Okay, we won’t get a raise, but we’re going to pick up some more of a pension”. And we took, and then they’d go out and went and say “No no, pension holiday”, so they’re wrong, they’re dead wrong on that. You make a contract, you abide by the contract. That’s what we should do. Now if you want to negotiate a different one coming forward, then negotiate it, but to unilaterally say we’re going to start charging you when we’re still working under the terms of an old contract is dead wrong. Dan Proft: But you would be open to the idea of prospectively bargaining for the structure of the pensions that CPS teachers receive, and other material benefits. I mean, that’s part of a collective bargaining process who everybody knows what the deal is when it’s presented for ratification, and then what it would be going forward, if it’s ratified. You’d be open to that. Mike DeRoss: They can bargain for whatever they want, but you’re right, it’s part of negotiation. We can ask to be paid 1 million dollars a year, they can tell us they want to pay us 10 cents, and we’re going to meet somewhere in between. Dan Proft: Closer to a million, I think. Amy Jacobson: Are you worried that your pension won’t be there when you retire? Mike DeRoss: Anybody that’s not retired already needs to worry about that, between that and social security, and by the way, maybe if we would just go and say “Put us into the social security system”, then the Board would have to kick that money to social security and the federal government wouldn’t let them take a pension holiday. Dan Proft: Well, yeah, but you don’t want to change out your pension under CPS for social security, do you? And say drastically reduce benefit. Mike DeRoss: Well no, that’s not the question at hand. The question at hand would be the expense, as I thought where we’re going. Dan Proft: Yeah, okay. I see what you’re saying. Mike DeRoss: And if the Board is crying over paying the pension as it is now, well fine. Give us 401K or our own directed pension, 443B, and go put us all under social security, and pay your 7% and then tell Uncle Sam, “Hey, we don’t have it, we’re not paying it this month. See what they do. Dan Proft: Michael DeRoss, I am exercising my executive authority to install you as the President of Chicago Teachers’ Union. Amy Jacobson: Hey, Michael, what are you going to do… Mike DeRoss: I’ll be thin and good looking before that happens. Amy Jacobson: Hey, Michael DeRoss, what are you going to do tomorrow when your co-workers are out there at the picket lines? Mike DeRoss: Well, I’m going to go to work, to see what work there is to do, if there are any kids there at all to be dealt with, we’ll deal with them, if not, teachers never run out of work to do, trust me on that one. I got lessons I could plan, papers to grade, but even if it comes to the idea of just sitting there and reviewing new things to be taught, I can do that as well. There’ll be something to do. I’m not just going to sit there and drink coffee and listen to WYND. Dan Proft: Well, you can do that while you grade papers. There’s nothing wrong with that. Alright, Michael DeRoss, Social Science teacher at Lane Tech High School; Michael, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Mike DeRoss: Thank you, good day.

 

related content

Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Big Govt, Obamacare w/ Law Prof Helen Alvare

On Wednesday, Dan Proft & Amy Jacobson were joined by George Mason University Law Professor Helen Alvare to distill the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Obamacare's contraceptive mandate (Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell) in advance of oral arguments before SCOTUS that afternoon.

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Dan and Amy. So if we needed a reminder about how important the Supreme Court is, and thus the nomination and nominee to replace Justice Scalia and who should offer a nominee, what should the Senate do; would respect to any nominee, like Mayor Carlin, that President Obama advances, what will happen depending on the outcome of the November election? All of these questions turn out to have real impact on our life because of the power of the Court in areas like for example religious freedom. Today all arguments will be heard in the Little Sisters of the Poor – v. Burwell case; this is the case challenging The Department of Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate under Obama Care. Could there be a starker dichotomy than Little Sisters of the Poor vs. The Federal Government vis-à-vis Obama Care. Boy, oh boy. Let’s get a handle on what’s likely to happen in this case with a 4-4 High Court now, and joining us is our friend George Mason Law Professor Helen Alvare. Professor Alvare, thanks so much for joining us, appreciate it. Helen Alvare: Thanks for having me. Dan Proft: So, the Little Sisters of the Poor lost at the appellate level; why did they lose and what chance did they have for reversal by the High Court? Helen Alvare: Right, so at the appellate level, the Government claims that unless the Little Sisters have to swallow or implant contraception, then the Government can tell the Little Sisters that they are mistaken, that there is a religious burden to them to have to attach contraception and abortion to their healthcare policies, because the Government is going to force them to do so. So the government is basically claiming there’s no burden because we can tell you when you are and are not religiously burdened, and the Lower Court bought that. They should, by ALCON law, constitutional law, on this are, they should win, because here’s the deal: the Supreme Court has already held, years ago, a guy who was working in a factory making part of a weapon that he didn’t have to shoot it in order to have his conscience violated. Any facilitation, in order to his own religion, making the weapon even, was enough to be burdened. If the Little Sisters can – and I think they can, under Supreme Court Law, show a burden, we have to turn over to you all the information about our healthcare plan, we have to help you contact our health insurance companies so that you can attach contraception and early abortion to this. That has got to be a burden under that precedent. I mean, it’s like the Government’s saying “I know you don’t want soda in your schools, but don’t worry, we’re going to pay for the soda machine so it’s cool that you’re giving them to your kids”. It doesn’t make any sense. Amy Jacobson: Well, where’s their religious freedom? I mean, it just seems that it was squashed by even this and Obama Care could have put a stipulation in there to exempt certain groups such as Little Sisters of the Poor, maybe Catholic Charities, maybe University of Notre Dame? Helen Alvare: Right, what’s interesting is you’ve got Catholic University, you’ve got Catholic Charities, you’ve got Little Sisters, you’ve got Protestant colleges who are leaders in the underground railroad. None of them are exempted. All of them are before the Court today. The Government could have exempted them; in fact, what’s really amazing about this is that the requirement to provide contraception is not even in Healthcare Bill. It was designed by Health and Human Services under then Kathleen Sebelius. Obama could get rid of it with a flick of his wrist, but instead, I think they have spent probably two or three times what it would cost to contracept every woman in America to take 300 plaintiffs up and down the Supreme Court. Dan Proft: Also, this note, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty estimates that the Government has effectively exempted the health plans of 1/3 Americans from the same coercive rule; big corporations like Exxon, Pepsi, are exempt from the mandate, but Little Sisters of the Poor are not. How to reconcile that difference? Helen Alvare: Right, so Becket has detailed on his website, becketfund.org, not only in New York City, Exxon, Chevron, Pepsi Bottling, The US Military, and the tens of millions Americans with grandfather plans that are working in small businesses, none of them are required to do this. Here’s where that shifts to a legal argument; after the Little Sisters prove a burden, we have to cooperate to attack this stuff to our healthcare plan, and if we don’t, the Little Sisters, who take care of 13,000 elderly poor will have to pay the FEDs 70 million a year. So after they’ve proved their burden, the Government would have to come back and say “We can still win if we demonstrate we have a compelling State interest”; well, there’s a lot of Supreme Court precedent on the subject of this that says “If you leave lots of people uncovered by the law, then that demonstrates on its face you have no compelling state interest”. So this should be a slam dunk for the Little Sisters and the other plaintiffs, because 1/3 Americans is not pushed around to do this. Dan Proft: And Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and the Hobby Lobby case, the Court held that for-profit employers, such as the closely held family of craft store Hobby Lobby; they could not be forced to violate their religious beliefs by paying for life ending drugs and devices as part of their plan. Now distinguish Hobby Lobby from the Little Sisters of the Poor case. Helen Alvare: Right, here’s the deal. Hobby Lobby is for-profit corporation had to cover contraception and early abortion drugs. Hobby Lobby was Prtestant Evangelical and said “We don’t object to the contraception”, but the FDA – you know, Food and Drug Administration – and Health and Human Services admit that four of these drugs can destroy an embryo. It was not contested in the case we don’t want to cover that. Hobby Lobby had no provision at all, where they could tell the FEDs “We’re not going to put it in our policies, but we’ll cooperate with you to stick it in”. Hobby Lobby had to do it or else. They didn’t have even – they didn’t have an exemption, like a plain old church, and they didn’t have what the Government’s calling an accommodation, which is what the Little Sisters have. We attach it to your plan; they had none of the above. So in that case, the Court said, number 1, for-profit corporations have always been able to have religious freedom; after all, they’re collections of people. Number 2, you’re burdened because you have to provide decent healthcare or pay. I think it was like 200 million dollars a year fine. Just step back and think about how insanely interested the Government is in drugs and devices that are like 9-20 bucks a months. It’s a little odd and obsessive. Amy Jacobson: Yeah, they’re pushing their agenda, it’s so strange. But you sound pretty confident about what’s going to be happening today, but what do you know about Justice Scalia not being there in your corner? Helen Alvare: Yeah, excellent point. I’m confident on the law, because the constitutional law is clear. I am not confident in the Justices, for this reason. Justice Canovine, and we’ve seen this on other opinions; the particularly on them, the same-sex marriage opinion. Whatever side a person is on same-sex marriage, they had to admit that Justice Kennedy’s opinion was super sloppy and constitutionally embarrassing. I mean lots of supporters of same-sex marriage have acknowledged that. Justice Kennedy sees kind of politically correct issues and he gets very, very worried that he doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of certain words. He doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of what he things is what feminism on the Obama administration has often embraced as the centerpiece of women’s freedom, contraception, sexual expression, but no kids. We really worried that Kennedy, instead of applying the law, will apply his own worries. Dan Proft: Yeah. Helen Alvare: And if he does that, then we lost 5 to 3, and he is a precedent-setting loss. Dan Proft: He is, he’s really worried about being on the side of the words religious freedom, apparently. Let me go to that point, though, the presidential value of this case. If Little Sisters of the Poor lose, what is the presidential import and impact on religious freedom? Helen Alvare: Right, so today there are 7 consolidated cases at the court representing quest to 100 blankets. In fact, it’s going to start to be argued in 13 minutes. I’m teaching hundreds of my female friends down at the court, educating for religious freedom, a couple of miles away from me right now. So we think that it’s quite possible a couple of things can happen. We could get 4 to 4. At that point, the lower court opinion stands. Six of these blankets lost, one won, but it is not a precedent setting loss; it is merely a let the lower court stand, they could come back. What happens in between, we hope would be that the Obama administration, he flicks his wrist and says I’m not going to put the Little Sisters of the Poor out of business with these fines. We could lose 5 to 3 if Justice Kennedy decides that he’s a nervous person on the question of contraception and abortion, even though we have the Villages Freedom Law on our side. Then it’s precedent setting. The court could also decide to hold it over. You may or may not know, they held over the abortion case in 1973 for re-argument, because it was too important. That could happen too, so we are going to wait for the next couple of months, or it could be sooner. The court could decide to just issue in the next couple of weeks a statement that they’re going to hold the case however for re-argument with a nine-person court. Dan Proft: Alright, she is Professor Helen Alvare, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law. Professor, thanks so much for joining us, appreciate your time. Helen Alvare: Thank you for having me, bye bye. Dan Proft: Let’s go to Lisa, on the North Side, you’re on Chicago’s Morning Answer. Lisa: Hi, good morning, Dan and Ami. Thanks for taking my call. Dan Proft: Sure. Lisa: What you said initially about look at the opponents here, Little Sisters of the Poor versus the Government, I have worked for Little Sisters of the Poor at their Nursing Home and with the elder care that they provide, and it is worth looking at. I’m not a Catholic, I’m not a Christian, and I have never in my life have seen the unbelievable dedication and commitment and piety of people ever; it is so incredible and it would be so worthwhile for them to show who they are and what they do, and to deny these people that are so utterly compassionate to the most, people who are completely shun to the side of our community and of the world, and in our country they should be given whatever they want. They should be given a lot of help and they should be allowed to be given their decisions and have their beliefs respected. Dan Proft: Thanks for the call, Lisa.

 

related content

Pastor Rafael Cruz: In a One-on-One Race Ted Beats Trump

Pastor Rafael Cruz, father of Sen. Ted Cruz, chatted with Dan & Amy about the campaign in studio this morning and took calls from listeners.

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson, and Amy, you just heard at the top there, Carly Fiorina – big endorsement yesterday for Ted Cruz – she was at a rally with him, saying that it’s time for the party tonight around Cruz; also, Ted Cruz was in North Carolina, part of these Competing Town Halls Fox News Channel did in which he was interviewed by Megyn Kelly, a ruckus crowd, and he had some good news about tonight’s debate. Megyn Kelly: You said the campaign has gone to the gutter. What do you make of it? Ted Cruz: Well, listen, I think everyone is fed up with personal insults, with just ad hominem attacks; listen I have no views whatsoever on any part of Donald Trump’s anatomy. Amy Jacobson: So it’ll be anatomy free? Thursday night GOP debates Dan Proft: I think yes, because I can’t stomach any more discussion on Donald Trump’s anatomy either. We’re pleased now to be joined in studio by the man who taught Ted Cruz everything he knows. He’s Ted Cruz’s dad, Pastor Rafael Cruz. Pastor Cruz, thanks so much for joining us! Rafael Cruz: Dan, great to be with you, and Amy, I don’t if I taught him everything he knows, I don’t believe that. Dan Proft: Right, I guess that the story is that he memorized the Constitution when he was in the womb, right? Rafael Cruz: Well, he memorized the Constitution at 13 years old, but I didn’t have anything to do with that. We introduced him to an organization called the Free Enterprise Institute; first, he was reading all sorts like Adam Smith, and John Locke, and von Mises, and Hayek, and Bastiat, and Milton Friedman. Dan Proft: The kind of reading that every pre-adolescent does. Rafael Cruz: Every fourteen year old does. But then, this group created a group of five kids; they called them the Constitutional Corroborators; Ted was one of those five; they hired a memory expert and got those five kids to memorize the Constitution, and for the next four years, my son Ted gave approximately 80 speeches on free market economics and the Constitution. Amy Jacobson: At the age of thirteen? Rafael Cruz: From thirteen to seventeen. Dan Proft: Amy, he must have had a beat off the girls, because nothing gets girls into them faster than free market economics. Amy Jacobson: It’s hotter and sexy, yeah, I mean, it’s cool. Rafael Cruz: I met some of his high school buddies not too long ago, and they said, ‘You know, Ted was kind of weird; while we talked about football, he talked about Ronald Reagan’. Amy Jacobson: So what do you think of this large growing coalition behind your son? Obviously, Glenn Beck, Carly Fiorina; word is today that Jeb Bush might be supporting your son publicly for the first time. Rafael Cruz: I have not heard that; that’s news to me, but that’s welcomed news; sounds great; I think, what happens is, it quickly becomes a two man race. I think it is obvious now that it’s going to be Trump and Cruz, and the sooner we get to a two man race, the sooner we’re going to get somewhere. I think what happens is people of faith, conservatives, constitutionalists, are realizing that they have to coalesce about the one candidate that can just take America forward, and that candidate, I’m convinced, is my son, Ted Cruz. Dan Proft: You know, it’s interesting, there has been some pushback on Cruz saying ‘Well, he’s too focused on religion; he speaks too much about the Judeo-Christian values upon which this nation was founded, that it limits its appeal’; interesting tweet I just got from Rob Jewar: ‘I’m an atheist and I made over 300 calls yesterday for Ted Cruz; BS he doesn’t reach a range of voters’; and I wonder, since you speak a lot about this matter of Christians getting involved in the political process, how you respond to this idea that Ted Cruz has a limited reach because of his focus on traditional values and Constitutional principles? Rafael Cruz: Well, I think that this tweet that you received speaks volumes about it. Ted is a champion of religious freedom; now the first amendment of the Constitution gives us freedom of religion, and that means you also have the freedom not to believe, or the freedom to believe whatever you want to believe and the government needs to stay away from our spiritual life, actually from our lives, so together; like Ronald Reagan said it, ‘Government is not the solution; Government is the problem’; we don’t need more government, we need less government, and one of the things that my son wants to do in the White House is cut down the size, power and scope of the Federal Government, just restrict it to what the Constitution says; article 1, section 8 of the Constitution only enumerates 18 powers to the Federal Government. Anything that is not in article 1, section 8, the Federal Government has no business being involved in, and all those powers should go to the State. Dan Proft: See, you’re playing possum, you memorized the Constitution too. Rafael Cruz: A little bit. Amy Jacobson: I think he taught you the Constitution. So you said he wants to cut down the size of government. Oh, go back to the Constitution. Did he teach you about the Constitution? Rafael Cruz: Absolutely; I actually got involved in the Constitution from being inspired by him and going to all these speeches where he had memorized the Constitution, and actually prior to that; when Ted was nine I was very involved in the Reagan campaign, and I helped mobilize millions of people of faith to help elect Ronald Reagan, whom I considered the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln, and so when my son was nine, he got a dose of conservative politics from a Christian worldview, everyday for a year, at the dinner table. So that was his indoctrination into conservative politics, and of course, the Free Enterprise Institute - those four years immersed in the Constitution, and free markets, and limited government, and the rule of law – shaped his life. Dan Proft: And you’re getting a dose of indoctrination into Illinois politics; the last day you were in an African-American church in Dalton, in Bensenville yesterday, you’re leaving here and you’re going in Central and Southern Illinois, so you’re doing a lot of campaign stops on behalf of your son, Senator Cruz, and I wonder what you find most enjoyable about traveling the country being a surrogate for your son, and what you find least enjoyable about the process? Rafael Cruz: I think the most enjoyable thing is meeting people; America is such a wealth of different personalities, different people, different ideas, and I’m a people person, just like my son; I enjoy being with people and getting to know people; you know, life is all about relationships, and the more relationships we can have, the more people we get involved with, the more we understand one another. I would say the thing that is the least enjoyable is the grueling timetable. Sometimes we go 26 hours a day. Amy Jacobson: And from here you’re going to Missouri. Rafael Cruz: That’s correct, and then to North Carolina. Amy Jacobson: And sometimes you said you wake up and you don’t know what state you’re in, or what city? Traveling so much… Rafael Cruz: That’s right. Well, it’s a different hotel every night. Dan Proft: Keeps your spine on your toes. Rafael Cruz: Absolutely. Dan Proft: Where do you see the race in a Ted Cruz versus Donald Trump choice? What’s the value proposition of that choice? A vote for Ted Cruz, as compared to Donald Trump, is a vote for what? Rafael Cruz: I would say, first of all, if you look at Trump, you don’t know what you’re getting. You don’t know what you’re getting because nobody knows what he believes; I mean, he changes from day to day, he even says ‘Well, I can change, I change all the time, I can change to anything I want, I can change in a moment’. I think Jimmy Carter put it clear when he said ‘Well you know, if I had to chose between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, I would choose Trump, because Trump is malleable; that means you can mold him into whatever you want’, and he said then, ‘But you know that guy Ted Cruz? He really believes what he says’; so I think that’s the great difference; Ted is a constitutional conservative; with Ted you know exactly what you’re going to get; Ted has done 100% of what he said he was going to do before he got elected, so you can take his word to the bank. I think it boils down to one word, and that word is trust. You can trust Ted to do what he said he’s going to do. Dan Proft: We’re talking to Pastor Rafael Cruz, father of presidential candidate Ted Cruz, could we hold you over for one minute and take some calls? We got some callers I think that want to talk to you as well. Why don’t we do that and we’ll come back and take your calls with Pastor Rafael Cruz. Dan Proft: Dan and Amy, we’re talking to Pastor Rafael Cruz, father of Ted Cruz, and Pastor Cruz, I don’t know how to break it to you, but there’s a lot of people that think you may have a political career ahead of you; text ‘I like Ted Cruz, but I love his dad’; now text from 779, ‘Not a Cruz, supporter, but his dad sounds like a really good guy and with a cool accent; you should narrate Ted’s ads’; maybe a voiceover career, maybe a political career. Rafael Cruz: I’ll tell you, I’m having a lot of fun just traveling around the country, meeting people and making the case why Ted Cruz should be our next president. Amy Jacobson: And it’s – real quick – a great story how Ted met Heidi when they were both working for Bush. Rafael Cruz: Absolutely; Ted was domestic policy advisor for George W., and she was economic policy advisor, and Ted got stung the day she came to work, and he says it took him three days to get up the courage to ask her for a date. Five months later, they were married. Amy Jacobson: That’s great. And six marriages came out of that campaign? Rafael Cruz: Eight marriages came out of that. Dan Proft: The Ted Cruz joke, right? Rafael Cruz: Yeah, he said, ‘I don’t know whatever may say, for us W. will always be a uniter, and not a divider’. Dan Proft: Now, to that point, and because Ted Cruz, he shows humor, he’s kind of a dry sense of humor, which I kind of appreciate, but there’s so much been said about Cruz, that he isn’t liked in DC, and he’s not a likeable person, and all of that. How do you respond to those charges? Rafael Cruz: Well, let me tell you why he isn’t liked by some of the people in the Senate and the House, and it is this; unfortunately, there are too many corrupt politicians in both parties; they want the gravy train to continue, they want to preserve the status quo, and you probably heard my son say that he is running against the Washington Cartel – all these corrupt politicians in both parties; and they don’t want anything to change. You know, we got people in the Senate that have been there for 30 years, and they want to be there another 20; they don’t want to relinquish that power; we need to change; too many politicians think that we work for them, when in reality, they work for us; one of the things that I love about my son, he truly has a servant’s heart. He understands servant leadership; he wants to go to the White House to be a servant of we, the people, a servant of every American; he understands that that’s his role – to work for the American people, not the other way around. Dan Proft: That’s a little bit esoteric, but that’s how I view Trump versus Cruz – philosopher king vs. servant leader – and there’s a big difference; by the way, in terms of ballot appeal, Ted Cruz has the support of Caitlyn Jenner and me; that can’t get bigger tent than that. Let’s go to the lines, let’s go to Shaun, in Elmwood Park; you’re on Chicago’ Morning Answer. Rafael Cruz: Hello, Shaun! Shaun: Mr. Cruz, it’s really a privilege, it’s a privilege to speak to you, and I have to tell you, I’ve been appreciating your son for the fundamental capitalist and the originalist views he has, since he’d been Bush’s handpicked stooge for the Senate seat he now holds. Now it is in that problem that we have, that blind allegiance to a party that has allowed the bastardization of capitalism and the erosion of the citizen’s civil liberty. So with that being said, in the even he is not the nominee, I will not support Trump, under no circumstance, and I am goingto ask you to ask your son to run as an originalist, to run as a third party, because Mr. Cruz, it is through us compromising our fundamentals that has lead this to this path, where senators like Mitch McConnell are worth 40 million, or they collaborate with Harry Reid, or they go and become lobbies after their careers. Dan Proft: Alright, Shaun, thanks for the call and the questions; so the question about Reagan running as a third party if he’s not the nominee. Rafael Cruz: Let me say this, I do not like the idea of a third party, because having a third party is handling the presidency to Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton will destroy this country, and so I think the idea of a third party is really a bad idea, but I’ll tell you what; my son is not running to lose to Donald Trump. If it gets to a two man race, the polls show that Ted would beat Donald Trump by seventeen points. So we’re running to win; we’re not running to see Donald Trump in the White House, but to see Ted Cruz in the White House, and if it gets to be a two man race, Ted Cruz will be the next President of the United States of America. Dan Proft: Alright, Kent from Montgomery, you’re on Chicago’s Morning Answer. Kent: Pastor Cruz, your son has my vote… Rafael Cruz: Thank you, sir! Kent: But if we can see a Cruz cruise ticket as true Chicagoan, you will get two votes from me. Rafael Cruz: Well, I’ll tell you what, in the first place, that’s unconstitutional; you know you cannot have the President and the Vice-President from the same state; that is not constitutional, so… Amy Jacobson: And you know the Constitution. Dan Proft: Relocate to Oklahoma! Rafael Cruz: And actually, I’m having too much fun just supporting him and seeing him rise; I think that he would make a wonderful President, and I know he would abide by the Constitution, and the rule of law, and as I said a minute ago, he will be a servant to every American man, woman and child, and get the heavy boot of the Federal Government from off their necks, so that people can achieve their dreams – by cutting down taxes, cutting down regulations, and just allowing everyone to fulfill their dreams. Amy Jacobson: Don’t you think he would make a great US Supreme Court Justice? Just in the chance that Donald Trump wins, I would hope he would be that or Attorney General. Rafael Cruz: Well, obviously he’s a constitutionalist, like so is Mike Lee, and so is Ron Paul. They are the three strong constitutionalists in the Senate, but I’ll tell you what, my son is running to win. And if people of faith, if people of courage, if conservatives, constitutionalists, people that want to see their dreams fulfilled and see an environment in America where everyone can achieve their dreams and leave their children and grandchildren a better American, the man that can help provide the environment for that to occur is Senator Ted Cruz. Dan Proft: Let’s squeeze another caller, and we Pat in Midlothian. Hey, Pat. Pat: Hey, reverend Cruz, I just want to let you know I’m behind your son; it’s about time we get somebody who has the respect for the Constitution, and I plan on working the phones for him in Homer Glenn this weekend. Rafael Cruz: Well, thank you so very much, I’ll tell you what, we need to all unite. You know the Bible says in Acts 1:14 that those 120 that were in the operating room were together in one accord. We must be in one accord. I want to ask every person in the State of Illinois to coalesce around Senator Ted Cruz. If we unite, we will get America back to what America was destined to be – a land of opportunity for every American, without distinction that everyone will have the opportunity to see their dreams realize. There are so many young people that feel that when they finish college they’re going to have to go home, because they can’t find a job. How about if that changes by getting rid of taxes and regulations, and the interference from the Federal Government; someone leaves college with a half a dozen job offers, and they can receive entrepreneurship, again, create millions upon millions of new jobs by creating small businesses. I’ll tell you, that is the environment that Ted Cruz will provide for every American. Dan Proft: Alright, he is Pastor Rafael Cruz, father of Ted Cruz; Pastor Cruz, thanks so much for joining us today; safe travels as you make your way throughout Illinois, and then to the other states that primary on Tuesday. Rafael Cruz: Thank you, Dan and Amy; great to be with both of you, and God bless you, and God bless America, and God bless the great state of Illinois!

related content

Dan & Amy Remember Nancy Reagan w/ Tim McCarthy, Secret Service Agent Who Took a Bullet for Reagan

This morning, Dan & Amy interviewed American hero Tim McCarthy, a decorated Secret Service agent who took a bullet for President Reagan during the 1981 assassination attempt, who remembered fondly First Lady Nancy Reagan. Their families shared a special relationship after both Tim and President Reagan were shot in the line of duty. McCarthy will attend Mrs. Reagan's funeral service on Friday. McCarthy, a Leo High School grad, has served as the Police Chief of Orland Park, IL, since 1994. 

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Dan and Amy; so Amy, interesting piece in New York Post by Peter Robinson. Peter Robinson was a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan; wrote an excellent book, actually; it’s maybe 10 or 12 years old, ‘How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life’; “Why Nancy Reagan was the indispensable woman”, writes Peter Robinson. He recounts two stories in his piece. This one I thought it was appropriate, in advance about our next guest. He recalls standing behind President Reagan in the Rose Garden one morning, as he delivered remarks that Robinson had drafted to an audience of young people, girl scouts, as he recalls; Robinson said his performance was a little bit off that day – his pacing was off, he seemed detached – and he writes, “for once, I think Ronald Reagan was having a bad day; then the movement on the second floor of the residence caught Reagan’s eye; he glanced up; Mrs. Reagan was standing at the window; she smiled, the president beamed, she waved, he waved back, and then he had everyone in the Rose Garden turn around and wave too; when he returned to his remarks, the president picked up the pace, appearing more involved and energetic, even more younger; a smile and a wave from Nancy – they were all Ronald Reagan needed”. Nice story; there’s a lot of nice stories, of course, flowing in; remembrances. We’re now pleased to be joined by another guest, another gentleman with a lot of memories of serving the Reagan's and serving this country honorably. He is Tim McCarthy – long time police chief of Orland Park, but before that he spent 22 years in the Secret Service, and of course most people who lived through the assassination attempt in 1981 remember that Tim McCarthy took a bullet for the President of the United States. We are honored to have Chief Tim McCarthy join us. Chief, thanks for joining us, appreciate it. Tim McCarthy: Good morning, Dan. Dan Proft: I noticed on your bio, on the Village of Orland Park website, it mentions your 22 years of service in the United States Secret Service before becoming the Police Chief in Orland Park, but it doesn’t mention the assassination attempt and your role. Is there any reason for that? Tim McCarthy: No, Dan, I don’t think so. It’s something I’m very proud of, but I did what I was trained to do on that particular day; but I also did other things in the Secret Service, and none equally as important, I’m sure; I’m very proud of it, and I’m not looking for a job at the moment, and if I do, I’ll let him know about that too. Dan Proft: Okay, fair enough. Amy Jacobson: Chief McCarthy, after you took the bullet for Ronald Reagan and you developed a closer relationship with First Lady Nancy Reagan; tell me about that. Tim McCarthy: Well, naturally, after something like that, first of all, the President – Mrs. Reagan had no idea who Tim McCarthy was prior to that; there’s an awful lot of agents assigned to protect the president and the line agents, like myself; work three shifts, rotate every three weeks – so he really didn’t know me at all, nor did Mrs. Reagan, but after that, you know, on the day of the shooting, my wife was in the chapel praying with Mrs. Brady and Mrs. Reagan for the recovery of everyone; and it’s just natural when you go through a critical incident like that, that you often draw closer than you might otherwise, and of course, the consequences of losing a President are catastrophic, not just for the family, but the country and the world also. I think Mrs. Reagan understood all of those things and the consequences of something if they had lost the President. Dan Proft: What was it like – just develop what happened in terms of the relationship as you and James Brady and President Reagan were recovering from the injuries you sustained. Tim McCarthy: The first time I’ve really met the President and Mrs. Reagan in person, on a personal basis, is the day I got out of the hospital; I got out of the hospital after 12 days, but received a message to come down to see the President, who was still in the hospital for another week or so after I left; and it sounded a bit like an order, so I complied, and two of my children, at that time, went down to visit with the President and Mrs. Reagan in his room; he was still connected to a lot of different devices and so forth; my wife asserted nervous that the kids at that time found those devices all too interesting. Amy Jacobson: Oh yeah, don’t touch that button. Tim McCarthy: Exactly, and my wife was afraid that my kids were going to finish off the President. Amy Jacobson: What did he say to you and what did Nancy Reagan say to you? Tim McCarthy: We had a wonderful visit, and Mrs. Reagan said ‘Tim, we’re going to get together after this, because we certainly want to show our appreciation and so on’. I didn’t really know how that was going to happen, but lo and behold, they did invite us to parties at the White House, and it’s this time of the year they invite us to the St. Patrick’s Day Luncheon, and I was sitting at a table with the President, Maureen O'hara and Chip O'neal, and my wife was at a table with Mrs. Reagan and other hollywood and political celebrities, and it was kind of hard to fit in the conversation, I got to tell you, it was a little bit above my pay grade, but everyone was more than gracious and over the years the president constantly singled out myself and Mrs. Reagan as well, at different events, and sometimes it was a bit embarrassing, because I was actually past on the shift working the president as I was before, and it sometimes got embarrassing to be singled out, but in private, many times they would go out of their way to send a gift on different holidays and things like that. So Mrs. Reagan – I supervised the men and women assigned to protect her, and often traveled with her when she went overseas, to protect her in places that might appear to be a high threat level. We had a lot of conversations about many different things, including her husband, because – as you know – she certainly was instrumental in his political career; going from a Hollywood actor to Governor of California and president of the United States. She certainly had a lot of input into his presidency. Dan Proft: And what were those conversations like, the personal time you spent with First Lady, traveling around the world, even after the story has been written in terms of he’s in the second term as President of the United States, so this is the sunset of his political career; I wonder if Nancy Reagan changed at all during the time while you were still in the political realm. Tim McCarthy: She was first and foremost concerned about his safety when we had our conversations. Every now and again she would talk about his image, and how she felt maybe someone was unfair in regards to their covering the President, and to those that were fair, and I had little comments about that; that was really none of my business, but it was really interesting, so I’d probably just nod my head most of the time, but she would talk about when the President’s going on a trip here, and a trip there, and you know, I saw the advance team was already out, everything they’ve done is speed time, you know, the fast and the foreign governments that worked with us, from what I’m hearing; so she was logically concerned about that when we had conversations. Amy Jacobson: What was your last conversation with Nancy Reagan and when was the last time you saw her; and I assume you were heading to the funeral on Friday, correct? Tim McCarthy: We’re looking at the – yeah, we received notifications Saturday morning, so the logistics are going to be pretty tough, but we were on March of '14, my wife and I, we flew out to visit Mrs. Reagan and go to the library, and we went to the home in Bel Air, which way back when, when Mrs. Reagan was looking for a house, I went out there with her along with her whole security detail and a couple of top secret flights to California, to go house hunting, which naturally they didn’t want to publicize what houses they were looking at, or that they were even there. But there’s March of '14, and we were out there and my wife and I went to visit her, and she was in a wheelchair at the time, but eventually she was totally sharp, and totally in touch with everything going on, and I think the one thing I’ll remember is when we were leaving – first, we were there for about 45 minutes, and I didn’t know if we were getting her overly tired, so I said ‘Mrs. Reagan, maybe we’ll get going’, she said ‘Absolutely not; don’t go anywhere’; so we stayed for another hour, just discussing old times and the President and different experiences we had together, but at the end, when we walked out, she got out of her wheelchair and physically walked us to the door; she held onto my arm pretty tightly and her nurse that was there said she hadn’t went out of the chair in some time. But what I will remember is that a couple of weeks ago, in February, it was the President’s birthday, and I sent out a dozen red roses to Mrs. Reagan, just in memory of her husband, and she sent – it was just a week after that, the last week in February – she sent a really nice note back, thanked me for remembering, and that type of thing. Amy Jacobson: You got to frame that note. Tim McCarthy: Yeah, I will, you can count on that. It was funny, my wife and I were coming home from Indiana on Sunday morning when we first heard about her passing, and my wife – saying to Carol ‘Carol, I think I have my folder here in the car; I think I have the note she just sent us’; and I did, so it was fond memories of two wonderful people that had one remarkable life story; going from Hollywood actor and actresses to the White House; a heck of a story, and of course all Presidents accomplished a lot of things, and president Reagan had some significant accomplishments as well. Amy Jacobson: You’re making me cry. Dan Proft: Alright, he is long time Orland Park police chief, Secret Service agent, and I think people… Amy Jacobson: All around good guy. Dan Proft: He’s a bit modest, which I think it’s okay, but I think it’s fair to call Tim McCarthy an American hero; I think most people would say that, deservedly so; and we certainly appreciate your time, Chief McCarthy, and your remembrances of Nancy Reagan. Thanks so much for joining us. Tim McCarthy: Thanks Dan, thanks Amy.

related content

Gov. Rauner on Democrat Legislative Leaders, "These guys don't want to do anything..."

Gov. Bruce Rauner joined Dan & Amy on Friday to discuss the reaction of legislative leaders to his State Budget Address including to his school funding proposal. Rauner also spoke about pending negotiations with AFSCME, the possibility of a state worker strike, merit pay for state workers and the elimination of unfunded mandates on local units of government.  

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Good morning, Dan and Amy. Amy, this is an important guest for you. Amy Jacobson: Yes, I know. Dan Proft: Not just as an Illinois resident, but as a Swede and as a finalist for your Swedish reality TV show. Amy Jacobson: Yeah. The TV show is called Allt för Sverige. Dan Proft: Of course. Amy Jacobson: You don't even say it right. Dan Proft: Yeah. Of course, of course. Everybody watches that. Amy Jacobson: And it's the #1 show in Sweden and it's all about–the premise of the show is bringing Americans and some Canadians to Sweden for the first time and then they have to go through challenges and obstacles and eat herring and lutfisk. And whoever survives then gets to meet their living relatives that they've never met before in Sweden. Dan Proft: Maybe, and maybe you could have a certain Illinois governor. The Swedish roots write you a little bit of a letter of recommendation to help put you ahead you ahead of the pack in the competition. Amy Jacobson: Yeah, it's a fierce competition. There's 2,000 people applied, they'd choose only 5. Dan Proft: Well, why don't we bring Gov. Bruce Rauner on to ask him the important questions–will you help Amy get on a Swedish reality TV show? Gov. Rauner, thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it. Gov. Bruce Rauner: Good morning, Dan, good morning, Amy. How are you doing? Dan Proft: Good. Gov. Bruce Rauner: I love the sound of that show, that sounds pretty cool. Amy, are you trying to get on it? Amy Jacobson: Oh, yeah. I've made it past the first round, but we're going to be filling out a questionnaire later. Dan's going to help me on the air. Dan Proft: Yeah. Gov. Bruce Rauner: Well, I tell you, if you get through it, it's fantastic. I took my Swedish grandfather back for his 90th birthday. I have never been to Sweden. He he been writing to his relatives his whole life from Wisconsin, and he'd never been. And since he was like two-years-old, and I took him over and we spent a week, I cried every day, he was hugging these people. The average age was like, 102. And we saw the cabin where his family came from. It was fantastic. It was really fun. Dan Proft: Maybe Rauner and Jacobson on that reality TV show. What do you think? Amy Jacobson: Who's going to finish first, though? Because it is a competition and I am just a tad bit aggressive. Dan Proft: I understand, I understand. Well, governor, you gave your budget address on Wednesday in Springfield and you made Democrat legislative leaders an offer. If you want to work with me in structural reform, then great, let's get to it. If you don't, then thus with me the authority to bring the state budget into balance, and I'll do the dirty work that you don't want to do. You have any takers on that yet? Gov. Bruce Rauner: We've had a lot of silence that was mixed with criticism. These guys don’t want to do anything. Basically what they want to do is authorize more spending than we have in revenue again just like they did for the last couple of years. Well, actually, frankly, for 20 years. And then they don't want to vote for tax hike unless Republicans support the tax hike. So it's a ridiculous position that they’re. Amy Jacobson: How do you stomach this job that you're doing, and working with the man who's just so stubborn and so power-hungry? How do you sleep at night? Gov. Bruce Rauner: You know what? This is a labor of love. I love Illinois and I'm a volunteer and it's a big deal. It's a privilege for me to do it. It’s hard. It's really hard. But any important change in direction is hard. I mean, I knew it's going to be difficult. People keep saying, "Oh, it's about the budget. Stop fighting about the budget just work it out." It's not about the budget, it's about the future direction of Illinois. Are we going to stay on the track we're on with massive tax hike, deficits, unfunded pensions, job losses, lower incomes, defunding schools, or are we going to go on a different, more positive direction? That's what this fight's about. Madigan has controlled the General Assembly for decades. He likes the status quo, he doesn't want to change anything, and that's what this battle's about. Dan Proft: It seems to me that one of the things that's happening concurrent with this budget impasse is that a lot of people who maybe thought that they were protected by the power structure in its current formation and its previous formation before you were elected, that they're insulated from the pain. And that everything can burn down but they're going to be okay, and they're finding out that nobody is insulated from the pain when you have state on the trajectory you were describing. Gov. Bruce Rauner: No, that's a very messy tragedy. The people of Illinois have been not served by our government under Speaker Madigan. We've been going down a bad road for decades and it's all coming home to roost now. We have fewer jobs and we have lower family incomes than we had 17 years ago in Illinois. We have been going the wrong way. Speaker Madigan has controlled it and we've got to change that direction. If I could just negotiate with Pres. Cullerton or the mayor in Chicago, we'd fight, but we'd have it worked out. But everything I work out some sort of compromise with either one of them, Speaker Madigan comes in and says, "Nope! Don't like it, no changes." Slaps them back and we're back to square one. Amy Jacobson: You know, a lot of my lefty lady friends say that you're trying to break the unions. I try to explain to them that you're really trying to make them take concessions. Is that correct? Gov. Bruce Rauner: That's correct. Look, the unions are not going away, they're part of culture. In fact, they’ve done many good things in our society over the last 100 years. But we've got to have a balance of power. And what other states have done is where it's needed inside government taken certain things out of collective bargaining in order to protect tax payers when it was necessary. And Chicago and the Democrats in Chicago have done that for years. I'm not proposing something that's some sort of radical new extreme idea. This has already happened. We just need to do a bit more of it to get our state going in the right direction. Dan Proft: Well, Chicago Democrats have tried to take something out of collective bargaining. You out of collective bargaining. Gov. Bruce Rauner: That's true. Dan Proft: And so what's the difference? Can you give us a sense of the dynamic? We've made this point on the show. So you've negotiated contract with other labor units like the teamsters that represent smaller group of state employees than does AFSCME the largest public sector union representing state workers. You've negotiated deals with them, what's the difference between negotiating with the teamsters and negotiating with AFSCME? Gov. Bruce Rauner: See, the teamsters have to deal with reality. I mean, they're a union that did works in a lot of different environments. So they work in business. And they know what it takes to be reasonable and to work out compromises when times are tough. They've done it before. AFSCME had the run of state government. They've basically dictated terms and set everything they wanted for decades and Republican governors and Democratic governors have basically given up everything they've ever wanted for 30, 40 years. I'm the first governor who said, "No, I'm sorry folks. We can't afford another $3B in compensation for you the next four years. You're already the highest paid state of police in America.” God bless you, that's fine. But we can't have another $3B more. We've got to have state salaries stay flat for a few years. And only give merit pay increases based on productivity or saving tax payer money. And they said, "Oh no. We always got what we wanted. You're going to give it to us, governor." I said, "No, I'm sorry. I'm not." And then they said, "Well, we might have to strike." And I said, "Well, I hope you don't. Please don't. I don't want you to. But if you do, we will still keep the government running because that's my job and I know how to do that." And they said, "Oh my goodness. No governor has ever said that to us. That's not fair." And I said, "That's totally fair. That's how the law works. I'm just doing my job." And they said, "Uh-oh. You're a little too tough. Most politicians run or screaming from the room when we threaten them. We're going to have to get you out." They went to Speaker Madigan and said, "We want the governor out of the negotiation. He's too tough. He's not giving into us like everybody else always has. We want him out. Bring in a labor-friendly arbitrator to give us what we want." Speaker Madigan passed that law, I vetoed it. And we were able to keep one Democratic legislator off of it, so my veto stood. And now I can stay in the negotiation. And that is going to protect taxpayers from billions of dollars. Dan Proft: Well, if AFSCME is intent on striking if they don't get everything they want when they wanted it has been the case historically, you just described, is there going to be a Reagan and the air traffic controller’s moments, potentially? Gov. Bruce Rauner: No, I don't think so. I certainly hope not. And we will keep the government running. But I'm not trying to replace everybody, that's not my goal. My goal is to protect taxpayers had the government run well, have our state employees paid well–maybe not necessarily the highest-paid in America for the next 20 years. But very well-paid–and I want them to make more based upon–what I've said is, "I'll give you raises. I'll give you 5% of every $1 you save for taxpayers. You can make a lot more money." A lot of the employees go– "Yeah, I love that." Because they've got good ideas. The union leaders say, "No, no, no. We want seniority only. We don't want merit pay or bonuses based upon savings." So we're going to have a philosophical difference. We're going to have to work it out. Amy Jacobson: C.E.O. of CPS Forrest Claypool basically is claiming that you're a hoarding money, that you're not giving the school district what it needs. Can you get on that, please, because we have some teachers who are worried about their future? Dan Proft: Hoarding money. Gov. Bruce Rauner: It's so– Amy Jacobson: Let it go. Gov. Bruce Rauner: You can't make this stuff up. It's so ludicrous. So far as Claypool is criticizing me, that was it. The governor's defending the indefensible. He's hurting low-income children. He is protecting the status quo. The school funding formula was created by Mike Madigan and the Democrats 20 years ago. I didn't make this stuff up. And I want to change it. But what Speaker Madigan said, "It's too hard to change, I don't want to change it." Forrest Claypool should be screaming at Mike Madigan every day. Well, what did he do? He protects Madigan and he criticizes me, and I'm not even–I mean, I just got here. I'd admit I didn't put this system in place, it's a terrible system. Dan Proft: Well, they need Boogeyman to push attention away from exactly what you said, who's been in charge for all those time, who's lorded over CPS, the city of Chicago, for 100 years. And we find ourselves where we find ourselves. Gov. Bruce Rauner: Exactly. That's exactly right. Dan Proft: So on the issue of school funding, though, another important piece of your budget address was $400M more in early education funding, but you made the point a couple of times but General Assembly, you got to send me a clean bill, no games, a clean bill. What did you mean by that? Gov. Bruce Rauner: Yeah. Well, see, here's what's going on. They're trying to place games–what Pres. Cullerton, the Democratic leader of the senate has said, he's Madigan's spokesman most of the time. He basically came out and said, "I won't support funding schools this year." So schools can't open in the fall unless Chicago gets a bail out, Chicago gets a lot more money. They need more money, and I'm going to demand, Chicago gets a lot more. Otherwise, no schools are going to get their funding. And I said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a minute, guys. That is baloney. That is not happening. No matter what, our kids come first across the state of Illinois. And we're going to have a clean education funding bill with more money from schools than we've ever had." Fully funding the foundation level more than ever in Illinois history. Schools are most important. And we're going to get them open and we're going to get their money no matter what. Dan Proft: All right. Gov. Rauner. He is going to be at Glenbard East High School. Gov. Bruce Rauner: Yup. Dan Proft: Today. Gov. Bruce Rauner: Yup. Dan Proft: This afternoon at Lombard at Glenbard East. The mascot, Amy? Amy Jacobson: Uh-huh. Dan Proft: The Rams. Amy Jacobson: Oh, excuse me. Dan Proft: The Glenbard East Rams. Come on. Amy Jacobson: The Glenbard West is The Hilltoppers. Dan Proft: That's correct. Amy Jacobson: I knew that. Dan Proft: That's very nice. So you're going to be at Glenbard East today along with State Senator Jason Barickman, State Representative Ron Sandack, to announce support for unfunded mandate legislations sponsored by those two legislators. This goes back to trying to help local units of government. Gov. Bruce Rauner: Yeah. I cut cost and school districts save money. Yeah, we're going to be at Glenbard East and Lombard this morning between 9:30 and 10:30. I'm heading out there just in a few minutes. And basically, what we're trying to do is get Springfield off of school districts' backs and let them teach the way they want to teach. We're doing a few things. One, we're getting rid of the restriction on outside contracting for non-instructional services like janitorial or maintenance or others, like transportation services. Chicago has already gotten that special exemption so that they can outside contract. Other school districts haven’t gotten that exception; we are getting that for all school districts in the state. The other thing we're doing is giving school districts more flexibility on how they teach Driver's Ed. and how they handle P.E. so that they can–athletes don't have to skip classes for P.E. they can take the classes as well as do their sports. And Driver's Ed. can be taught by outside commercial services they don't all just have to be taught strictly by the school district itself so we can save money. That's what these mandates are all about. Dan Proft: All right. Well, enjoy Bucolic DuPage County. Gov. Bruce Rauner, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Gov. Bruce Rauner: Thanks, Dan. Thanks, Amy. And [inaudible 00:12:52], go for it. Get over to Sweden. Have fun. Amy Jacobson: [inaudible 00:12:53]. That's for me to know and for you to find out. Dan Proft: Thank you, Gov. Rauner. Thanks. Gov. Bruce Rauner: Yeah.

Mining the brilliance of Prof. Richard Epstein: "Everything the progressive stands for is a repudiation of what the Constitution desires"

A colleague of Antonin Scalia when they were both at University of Chicago, renowned Law Professor Richard Epstein joined Dan & Amy this morning to reflect on Scalia's intellect, style and scholarship. Epstein also opined on President Obama's decision to skip Scalia's funeral mass saying, "This man (Obama) has bad taste beyond all limits on so many things," and added, "he's not a very good Constitutional lawyer."

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Dan and Amy. Amy, Pres. Obama's making Republicans' job much easier in opposing any nominee that he would level up by deciding not to attend Justice Scalia's funeral on Saturday. Kind of a rather classless move, I think it's being perceived appropriately. And one that just fosters resentment and allows Republicans to dig in and–why should be accommodate this guy? Amy Jacobson: Well, it perpetuates the stereotype, too. Pres. Obama keeps saying we need unity, we need people to come together, and then he does this. And I want to know what is the pressing issue. What is so important that's happening on Saturday that he cannot attend his funeral? And the White House yesterday had no answer. They just said, "Well, he and Michelle will be attending–when he lies in repose on Friday, they'll attend the wake. And then Vice Pres. Joe Biden and Jill, his wife, will attend the services." Dan Proft: Yeah. Amy Jacobson: On Saturday. Like, "Everything's fine here, folks. Nothing to see here. Move on." Dan Proft: Well, to the mater of the politics of replacing a supreme court justice, filling that vacant seat–and it is, again, a political matter because politicians are involved. So the idea that one side or the other is playing politics and the other side is not is just silliness. Scalia actually wrote on this topic about the kind of person he would want as a successor. He wrote: "Avoid tall-building lawyers especially ones who work in skyscrapers in New York. Find someone who did not go to Law School at Harvard or Yale"–just a great thing for a Harvard grad to say. "Look for a candidate from the Southwest. Consider an evangelical Christian." Because, Scalia noted, there is not a single evangelical Christian on the court. That's coming from a Catholic. I don't think Scalia's bothered at all by the preening of politicians and the back-and-forth. He never was–as a supreme court justice, why would he be surprised that the politicians are behaving down to the level that he expected them to behave in his absence? But I love the fact that no Harvard or Yale grad. I think that's right. For more on this, we're joined by a colleague of Justice Scalia's when he was at the University of Chicago, and really, one of the most important legal thinkers in the country. I became familiar with Prof. Epstein like, right after I got out of school. Right before I went to law school. You remember his book, Simple Rules for a Complex World, of course, Amy. Amy Jacobson: Yes, of course. Dan Proft: Yeah. And Principles for a Free Society. He very much, like Scalia–deep, intellectual thinker, philosophical thinker, but also a practical thinker, too, in terms of Constitutional Law. We had him at the University of Chicago for nearly four decades before. Like everyone else from Illinois, he left. And now he is a professor– Amy Jacobson: Was it the high taxes? What was it? Dan Proft: No, no, no. We're going to ask him. Prof. Richard Epstein: All right. Dan Proft: Now he's a professor of law at NYU. Richard Epstein, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Prof. Richard Epstein: Well, I have not left Chicago. I still live there. Dan Proft: Oh. Prof. Richard Epstein: And I still teach every spring quarter at the law school. And I spend most of my summers in residence there. So. Dan Proft: Okay. Prof. Richard Epstein: I'm a man of divided loyalty. Maritis status at one place, basically to retire so as I like to joke about it, before I retired, I had two jobs. Now I have three. Dan Proft: Very good. Glad you're enjoying your golden years. Amy Jacobson: Yeah. Prof. Richard Epstein: Well, yes, I work hard. I'm–look. One of the things you'd discover is you get a little bit older and some of your friends aren’t so fortunate. They'd have illnesses and reversals of one kind or another that's just given up the ghost. Every morning I wake up, happy to go to work, and I say, "I just don't know how much longer this is going to continue so I have to take every possible advantage of it." Dan Proft: Absolutely. We need you around as long as possible with, providing your scholarship and your insights. So why don't we start with your relationship with Scalia, perhaps going back to the time you were–he was at University of Chicago during the –part of the time. You were there. Prof. Richard Epstein: Okay, sure. Well, I came to the University of Chicago before he did. I arrived in 1972 after teaching for four years at the University of Southern California. And Nino had a very different kind of career. He basically practiced for several years taught at the University of Virginia, then he worked in the Ford administration as the head of the Office of Legal Counsel which is an administrative job, the kind of thing I've never had. And then when the Ford administration was beaten by Jimmy Carter, he's looking for a job. And he's spent some time at the AEI and he comes through in grand style to the University of Chicago. They gave him job talk, and the first time I saw him was probably the spring of 1977, and he was still working in his own mind for the office of Legal Counsel because the talk he gave was on executive privilege and why is it important that the president preserves his prerogatives from everybody else. But it's actually a very interesting and very memorable talk. Anything that he did was memorable because he always worked on kind of a grand scaffold. He didn't paint little pointless drawings, he covered the entire sides of walls. And what he did is he simply said that you can't run the system in separation of powers. If the Congress could always reduce the president to some kind of an errand boy by forcing him to testify. And what he made so clear in his own mind was he said, "Every Republican president, every Democratic president has always taken this position. And the Congress or the Democratic or Republican tends to go the other way." And he became deeply convinced of the rightness of his position and defended it with the kind of a litigator's passion that you rarely see in job's talks. I mean, my profession at the academic level has no obligation to make decisions so many people say we're on the one hand or on the other hand and then decide which hand is stronger. But Justice Scalia did not come to the world that way. I mean, he was a man who had very strong visions. They were heavily influenced by the three years he had at the Harvard Law School. And they would basically make much more solid by working in the administration. As a matter of fact, I used to tease him. I still think it's, to some extent, true. Justice Scalia was too comfortable with the administrative state because he had been part of it. Folks like myself who've never worked in government tend to be even more suspicious of it. He sees some good guys and some bad guys, I tend to see a lot of very dubious characters on both sides. Amy Jacobson: But Justice Scalia was such a vivid writer in his opinions and his decents. Is there anything that he wrote that will stick with you that you remember? Prof. Richard Epstein: Oh, everybody remembers him. I mean, well, let me put it this way. I think the phrase that's the most famous is the one where he starts talking about cost benefit analysis and administrative law. And Breyer’s a very different kind of writer also. Harvard graduate, two years later than Scalia. And he is a jurist of happy endings. He knows what it is that he wants, he loves the administrative state, and he thinks cost benefit analysis are rational and they're always required under the statute. And Justice Scalia views this very complicated statutes on admissions and he makes a little remark. He says, "Nobody used secretes elephants in mouse holes." Meaning–it's such a great line. I mean, because it captures what he believed in our statutory interpretation. This was not a situation in which–when you're talking about this huge apparatus because to do a cost-benefit analysis requires eons of information. They don't use it expressly and somehow they want to do it. Now, one of the reasons why Justice Breyer wanted to do it is you start looking at these [inaudible] standard and you discover that there's no cost benefit analysis. Then when do you stop? I mean, because if you assume that various kinds of pollutions, like benzene, are bad, less is always better. But each time you go down another notch, oh, it turns out the cost of doing it is just huge. I mean, you want to go from 100 to 10, it's going to cost you, say 20. You want to go from 10 to 1, it's going to cost you another 40. You want to go from 1 to 0.1, it's going to cost you 60. But where do you quit? And it can't be when the firm is bankrupt because at that point, you couldn't regulate pollutant. You have a fundamentally irrational statute and Justice Scalia's attitude is–I'm not going to save these guys from their stupidity. Let them redraft it. But what was interesting about it is he and I are actually different on this: my own attitude would be I would strike many of these statutes down. On the grounds as their rationality rises and trying to make sense of it. Indeed, if you just simply had a rule which says, "We will set a schedule for the amount of pollutions that you admit or that people start to breathe and you figure out where on the schedule you want to be, you would get a vastly cheaper and a vastly more efficient system. But that's the difference between the two of us. I don't come to law as an inside man. I'm basically an institutional arrangements and structural guy. I'm much more influenced by law and economics than he was. As I like to say sometimes, he went to law school eight years before I did but there was an intellectual revolution in the middle and he was never really committed to the modern techniques of analysis. He was much more traditional. He did not like the new deals, he did not like the earlier, pre-new deal, judicial decisions. And so what happened is he was a much more of a traditionalist on his willingness to upset things than somebody like myself. We used to argue about that and debate it and the most famous of these debates took place by accident at the Cato Institute when he was still on the Court of Appeals in which he gave a speech–great speech it was, in fact on the merits of the Fine papers. Instead of big people like Richard Ebstein diving over the edge and getting themselves really burnt, he said–what was so good about this speech, the one he did on originalism in 1989 for the Taft lecture in Cincinnati . Is then he realized that there were weaknesses to his own intellectual position. But it just goes that they were weaker than those on the other side. Dan Proft: But the talk at Cato, the debate at Cato, the frying pan, I remember Scalia talking about the need to establish a constitutional ethos for economic liberty. And that differs a little bit from the law on economic school. Distinguish that. Prof. Richard Epstein: Well, what happened is that ethos means that you try to do is to get comedy and understanding but you don't have any judicial constraints which shuts everybody down. And if you'll take my view that private property receives explicit protection, that one of the elements of private property is the ability to dispose of it in voluntary transaction, all of a sudden, the state has to show good reasons to why it's going to shut this operation down. So it's not just a matter of ethos and preference, it's a matter of law. Now, in a decent society, the ethos should do 90% of the work and the law should do 10% of the work. One of the reasons why the constitutional issues have gotten larger today is the polarization inside Washington is enormous and essentially everything that progressive stands for is a repudiation of everything that the constitution desires. So you really have to turn cartwheels in order to get rid of this stuff. And the great rival of Justice Scalia although they only overlapped for four years was Justice William J. Brennan. He was so clever that he could always find a way to rule a statute constitutional. There was always some kind of an exception to it. And indeed, I agree with Scalia on this–on everytime I see Justice Brennan maim a constitutional provision, I say, "That's not the way it is." Scalia would never do that. I mean, his attitude, if Congress is going to send me down the road to perdition, my job is to judge–to accurately construe their intentions and to give their words their full effect whereas there was no statute that Bill Brennan by a little slide of hand. Dan Proft: On the politics of this, do you agree with Scalia? As he reflected on a possible successor, avoid the Harvard Law graduates and the Yale Law graduates. Avoid the tall building lawyers, especially in New York? Prof. Richard Epstein: Well, in New York, I'm on the 4th floor so I certainly agree with it. Dan Proft: Yes, exactly. Prof. Richard Epstein: But I mean, look. What's interesting, I think you're quoting from Obergefell. That was the gay rights case. Dan Proft: Yes. Prof. Richard Epstein: And he didn't quite say that. He said, "Look, if we were just looking at legal text and trying to solve it, essentially, political difference should melt away and it wouldn’t matter where you came from. But if you look at this particular world and you realize that everything is a matter of hard politics and balancing and trading, he says, "I don't want to overtrade to come out of New Haven and Cambridge." And on that fold, I think he's absolutely right. The one point I would differ with him is, he came out of Harvard. Dan Proft: Right. Amy Jacobson: Yeah. Dan Proft: So he knows what he speaks. Prof. Richard Epstein: Yes. What happens is it's not that he came out of Harvard, this is a class difference. If you want to figure out where he came from, he came from Elmhurst and he came from a Catholic school tradition. Dan Proft: Yeah. Prof. Richard Epstein: And so he goes to Harvard. The man when he's younger's an absolute whiz–I actually took a moment to reflect on a picture of a 1960 Harvard Law Review with 59 men and 1 woman and then you looked at their list of guys who are actually on that class–many of them went on extraordinary distinction and I think–they came from all sorts of backgrounds and different kinds of places and Scalia was one of them. He was, I think, extremely pugnacious and very strongly opinionated–and the word is passionate–one of the things that you knew about Nino that when you got into an argument with him is that sometimes, you were uncomfortable about what he said even though you agreed with him because your passions could never quite rise to the level of his and the sort of curious rate of verbal eloquence that came out of this man's mouth was really quite astonishing. But he want, at his best, a truly great kind of stylist. On the institutional issues, sometimes, they'd correct this decision on the special prosecutor case. The lone descent in Morrison v. Olson. And was one of the great opinions of all time–prophetic in his implications and passionate in its conclusion and he understood that there's lots of different things– Amy Jacobson: Professor Epstein? Prof. Richard Epstein: Yeah? Amy Jacobson: Real quick, before we have to go. Were you offended, or are you offended that Pres. Obama is not going to be attending his funeral? Prof. Richard Epstein: No. I mean, the Obamas also in Chicago. This man has bad taste beyond all limits on so many things. I mean, it's not just bad- everything he does has the following habit. I think he mentioned it in the lead into the show. "I will pat you with one hand," he says, "and then stab you in the back with another." It's inappropriate, this particular point to raise. What the Republicans should do what the president should do is not a very good constitutional lawyer, I have to say. He's a pretty effective politician. I wish you would understand the difference and stop constantly reminding us that he always speaks ex cathedras. Everything he says is a matter of anointed truth whether it'd be on economics or on law. It's pretty hard to take at this particular point in time. His skills do not wear well. Dan Proft: Prof. Richard Epstein, a real pleasure. You should get–your latest book, I think, is Classical Liberal Constitution. Prof. Richard Epstein: Yep! Dan Proft: That's worth reading. Principles for a Free Society, Simple Rules for a Complex World. Prof. Richard Epstein, New York University School of Law, University of Chicago for 40 years, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Prof. Richard Epstein: Oh, my pleasure, Dan.

 

related content

Scalia Law Clerk Discusses the Justice's Life & Legacy

Ed Whelan, the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, joined Dan & Amy to discuss his time as a law clerk for the recently departed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, what Scalia would say about the process to replace him, and the enduring importance of Scalia's three decades of jurisprudence on the high court.

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Dan and Amy. So still a lot of tributes pouring in for Justice Antonin Scalia, appropriately so. The most important constitutional scholar on the bench since John Jay, in my humble opinion. And coming from a lot of quarters and not just colleagues like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who came from a different ideological perspective. Piece in The Atlantic today why Scalia was so great. And so reflections on his importance in the history of our country and the history of jurisprudence in this country. That's number one, and then number two, of course, is importance going forward in terms of the seat that he held and the political fallout from it. Pres. Obama saying yesterday, according to an aid, that he is not going to try and force-feed a recess appointment while the Senate is in recess until February 22nd. So this sets up for whoever the president puts forward as his nominee to be a bit of a political football between now and November. For more on Scalia's life and legacy and impact as well as the dynamic going forward, we're now happy to be joined by Ed Whelan, who clerked for Justice Scalia, and now is the president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center. Ed, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Ed Whelan: And thank you, Dan. Dan Proft: Well, before we reflect on Scalia and your time with him, I wonder what you think Scalia would say about the back and forth between McConnell and Republican candidate for president and the incumbent president of the United States about his vacancy. Ed Whelan: Well, he would say a number of things. That some of them he did say in the past. He said that the less pollicization of the Constitutional Law has politicized the confirmation process. If justices aren't doing law but instead are doing politics, then people want them to just do politics. Then of course, the confirmation process becomes a huge spectacle. He would say more than that, though, that of course, the confirmation process is inherently political. It's the very means by which we put–the justice is on the court, and it will often involve grand clashes between the two branches. Justice Scalia was a great proponent on the separation of powers and of the clashes that were left to the political realm, and he would understand that of course, the president has the power to nominate and of course, the Senate has the power to confirm or reject a nominee and to do so by any means it should including just sitting on a nomination if it cares to. So none of these would surprise him. He would be–and was of course, saddened by the turn that the court has made into policy making over the last several decades and with this is, in many ways, the natural product of that. Amy Jacobson: What do you think was his biggest victory and possibly his most stinging defeat? Ed Whelan: Well, his biggest victory was the advance of the cause of originalism and texualism. That is the notion that law has an object of meaning that is to be discerned by judges. This is a notion that, believe it or not, had been largely abandoned in the Warren Court or the justices are pretty clear that they were just making it up. So there's always been a general re-embrace of that. Unfortunately, many folks abandoned that when it's inconvenient to adhere to it. And so he was seeing major cases including so-called substantive due process cases. The court's just making it up again rather than leaving matters to the political processes to the side. One great example of that, we can point to a number of loses, but would certainly be Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1993. I'm sorry, 1992. The Supreme Court had the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade. And Justices Kennedy, Suter, and O'Connor blinked and wrote a ridiculous opinion that said that they were going to resolve this issue once and for all, of course that didn't turn out that way. Let me be clear. Justice Scalia, whatever his own personal opinions on abortion were, his constitutional position–was is a matter that's left to the political process used to decide. He wasn't going to entrench his prolife views, assuming those were what they were, into the constitution. He would go, "Leave that where the constitution left it." And I think he sees a lot of the ugliness and divisiveness around the court resulting from the court's failure to abide by that general rule that contentious issues that are left by the Constitution to the Democratic processes should be left there, not seized by the court. Abortion is one example, obviously, there are plenty of others. Dan Proft: Yeah, the constitution clarity is really important. I remember a piece that he wrote for first things about 12 or 13 years ago where he made the point explicit–if there was a move to ban abortion at the federal level, I would also hold that to be unconstitutional because the constitution is silent on it so it's a matter for the states. So to your point about not imposing his personal view and kind of bootstrapping where he would like the country to be into the constitution. Ed Whelan: Right. You see, likewise on issues of same-sex marriage, the death penalty, and so on where his supposed arch conservative position was simply that this is a matter that's left to Democratic processes. Not one I in which he or other justice’s kind of pose their own moral or policy preferences. Dan Proft: In his epilogue in his book, Dissents, from about a decade ago, he writes about what Scalia's America would look like. And I thought this was an interesting few pages of Scalia's kind of vision for, if you could wave a wand and what this would be like. And even in that kind of hypothetical world of Scalia's America, he's still more to the constitution which is pretty interesting. He writes, “In Scalia's America, the expansions of freedom, democracy, and diversity would be ably protected by, among other institutions, courts, that respect the rule of law. Judges charge with interpreting laws would give words their ordinary meaning, they would moor their solutions of constitutional disputes of the text of the charter and the meaning of its framers. America would be reborn as a nation of loss and not of men.” It seems to me despite Scalia's best efforts, we're a bit unmoored and we look more today like a nation of men and not law than we did when he was confirmed in '86. Ed Whelan: Well, things will get far, far worse if Pres. Obama has the ability to entrench a liberal majority on the court for the next generation. At that point, any pretenses and moderation are part of the liberal justices will disappear. They'll be, "Anything goes." You'll see a severe restriction of First Amendment Free Speech Rights in the name of so-called hate speech which turns out out to be any speech the leftist disagrees with. You'll see a repeal of Second Amendment Rights, you'll see property rights severely diminished, and the constitution, as we know it, we will–it becomes something very, very different. So that's why this battle over the coming months is so important. And those who respect Scalia's legacy ought to do their best to fight, to make sure that his seat isn’t handed over to someone who rejects it. More importantly, I suppose, the American people can decide how things are crystalized, they can decide in November. If they want to take this anti-constitutional route, well, at least give them the opportunity to vote that in by selecting the president who'll do that in November with the issue clearly before them rather than claiming that somehow, this is a result of their votes in 2008 and 2012, ignoring of course the senate votes in 2014. So I hope very much that this seat remains vacant for the next president and that would be one way of honoring Justice Scalia's legacy. Amy Jacobson: Now, during your time when you were clerking for Justice Scalia, what value did he instill in you? Or bring out in you as a man? Ed Whelan: Well, he deeply saved my legal thinking and the need for rigor. Always trying to test one's own views against policy preferences. Lawyers should be trained to do this. But this was his way, if you advance a principle is change the fact and see if you still adhere to the principle. If not, you're just advancing your own policy position. So he loved vigorous and rigorous debate. He, of course, is a brilliant writer. It was just wonderful to see how he would take what we all thought were good clerk-written drafts and make them so much better and make them distinctively his own. So it was just a wonderful experience. Dan Proft: Some of the scuttlebutt on Scalia is that clerks, his secretaries, anybody that was under his employ or even colleagues, even if they disagreed with them, they really enjoyed being around him. He was an affable, entertaining, fun guy to be around. Was that your experience? Is that a fair characterization? Ed Whelan: Absolutely. Of course, work was work. So I'm not going to say he was the singing showtunes. Dan Proft: Right. [cross-talk] Ed Whelan: Though he would occasionally break into a Diddy. But no, he had a wonderful laugh, great story-teller, really enjoyed the company of people. Again, you could see how his friendships crossed ideological lines. He could see the good qualities in people with whom he disagreed vigorously on legal, moral issues. So he was a great man and someone he respects. Dan Proft: Did you ever get to go hunting with him? Ed Whelan: I never did go hunting with him. No, no, I missed out on that. Dan Proft: All right. All right. Ed Whelan, he was a former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, as we've been discussing. And he is the current president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center. Ed, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Ed Whelan: Thank you, Dan and Amy.

 

related content

TMA President: IL Legislators Pay Lip Service to Manufacturing But Only 20% Support the Sector with Their Votes

Former State Senator and current President of the Technology & Manufacturing Association (TMA), Steve Rauschenberger, joined Dan & Amy to discuss the state of manufacturing, particularly for small to mid-size manufacturers, in Illinois. Rauschenberger discussed the TMA's recently released scorecard which finds a majority of state legislators with anti-manufacturing voting records. Rauschenberger discussed where policy changes are required to improve the cost of doing business in Illinois. He also explained how apprentice programs and manufacturing-friendly curriculum in high schools and community colleges can prepare young people for the good-paying jobs that are available in manufacturing.

related content

Standing up and leading when it's right.

Dan Proft & Amy Jacobson interviewed Capt. Daniel Quinn re: this story.Help save the career of Sgt. Charles Martland, a decorated Green Beret, who along with Capt. Quinn stood up to a corrupt Afghani commander who repeatedly raped a young boy. March 1 is Martland's final appeal to salvage his Army career. CA Rep. Duncan Hunter has done a great job drawing attention to this grotesque miscarriage of justice. Call your congressman and Sens. Tell them to intervene.

View full transcript


Dan: Dan and Amy. Amy, you remember this story. We covered this story when it first became public. It's the story of Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland, Green Beret, who was punished while deployed in Afghanistan for intervening to stop an Afghani soldier from raping a minor boy. That's what he did. Got punished for that. Amy: Yeah. And a lot of Americans, a lot of our listeners were outraged. . . Dan: And we're two of them. Amy: Yes. Dan: Cong. Duncan Hunter, Republican from California, has been pushing back against the Army's decision to punish Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland. Hunter, writing recently a decision with the Army Human Resources Command recommended the Army uphold the judgment that Martland be removed from the service. Although a final decision has yet to be made about his future–this is interesting, too: "The Army argued that the black mark on his record, which states–" This is the Army's assessment of this. "–states he assaulted 'a corrupt Afghan commander,' is cause to expel him from duty, despite the fact that he has the full support of his command and immediate leadership." I mean, what the hell is going on in the armed services? Amy: You'd think he'd be commended for doing this. For, at the very least, being a man, and stepping up and helping a child who's being raped–who's being sexually abused and assaulted. Dan: Yeah. I mean, that seems to be consistent with our values in this country, I would say, what Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland did. But let's get a little bit more perspective on this. We're joined by one of Sgt. Martland's brothers in Arms, he is also Green Beret–Capt. Daniel Quinn joins us now. Capt. Quinn, thank you for joining us. Appreciate it. Capt. Daniel Quinn: Hey, guys. Thanks a lot for having me. Dan: So, I guess–you were there when the incident occurred. Correct? Capt. Daniel Quinn: Correct. Yes. Charles and I were the only American soldiers that were present. Dan: Tell us what happened on that day and what's happened to both of you since. Capt. Daniel Quinn: Sure. So Charles and I were approached by a local mother [with a?] child. The child was limping and showed obvious signs of physical abuse. They came to our camp saying that they had nowhere else to go. The boy had been raped by a local Afghan Police Commander and it was one of the guys that we have been training and we're financially supporting him and [inaudible] this 12-year-old boy or 14 years–12 to 14-year-old boy [inaudible] [chained the boy?] to his bed and raped him repeatedly over the course of 10 days to 2 weeks. Amy: So how was he able to get out and run to his mother and then try and get help? Capt. Daniel Quinn: The mother knew that he was there. The mother went to our Afghan commander's house to retrieve her son. And at that point, she was beaten by the commander's brother. She had black eye when she came to our camp as well. Amy: Oh my. Dan: So she comes to the camp beaten up with her son who had been violated, and then what happens? Capt. Daniel Quinn: Right. And this was the 3rd or 4th case of sexual assault by one of our local police commanders. Each time we [inaudible] through our [inaudible] commander, report the issue, and we're told, "Just go to the Afghan local judicial system and we're here to support the family if they kind of go–[go with their?]–with what their decision is." And we won the case of this 14-year-old girl that was raped while she was working in the field. And she was–the guy that was caught in the act, he was brought to the local judicial system and they gave him one day in jail and then the girl was then told that she was supposed to either marry this guy or she had to [inaudible] because she was no longer honorable because she was no longer a virgin. So she ended up marrying the guy that raped her. And she's going to spend the rest of her life now living with this man. So. That would be the result of [inaudible] what happened when we went to the local judicial system. We can't quite trust that system so we–[inaudible] camp and–before we came to the camp, we called [inaudible] in the area and said, "Hey, we got this report from this woman and her son. Is this true?" And they were all [inaudible] that yes, it was true. And he was bragging about it because the boy [inaudible]–it was like a status symbol for him. So we [inaudible] into the camp, I [inaudible] questioned him and [inaudible] said, "These are the allegation against you." He at first denied it and then [inaudible] the commanders–we've talked to the other commanders and the elders and the [inaudible] and they all said [inaudible] acknowledge that he did it and [inaudible]. We then instructed [inaudible] following the severity of the action then— It was [inaudible] because a lot of what we'd focused our training on was with human rights. It wasn't just on how to be a local police commander, it was also how do you interact with the people in your village and in your province and told them that you're working for the Americans, you [inaudible] our training, you're going to [inaudible]–you'll be held to a higher standard and even act in accordance with our value system [inaudible] disregard that and [inaudible] into this. At this point, I picked him up and threw him onto the ground and then [inaudible] threw him onto the ground as well. We [inaudible] for a few minutes. And so we got the point across that this action is not to be tolerated ever again, and if he ever went near that boy again, there would be a consequence. Amy: So then you ejected him from the base after that and then you two got in trouble for this instead of being held as heroes? Capt. Daniel Quinn: Yes. Yeah. So we threw him off our camp and then I got a call that evening from my [inaudible] saying [inaudible] allegations that you apparently assaulted one of the [inaudible] locals and I said [inaudible] true which is why I did it. And [inaudible] do what you have to do, that's fine. Charles and I both stand by what we did. And [inaudible] the next day, a helicopter showed up at our camp and escorted Charles and I away from our team. We were told that we were mission complete. No longer [inaudible] the rest of our team. And we haven't heard from [inaudible]–Afghanistan while we waited our punishment [inaudible] a few weeks after that, we're told never to return to Afghanistan. Dan: And so this all had happened in 2011. So fast forward–we know from Duncan Hunter and his [inaudible] Sgt. Martland [inaudible] kind of where he stands. So what ultimately was your resolution with the Army? Capt. Daniel Quinn: I only have about a year left on my enlistment contract and just finish that year and then depart on my own terms. I can't say that about Charles, [inaudible] a phenomenal, phenomenal soldier. Best soldier I ever worked with. Everyone that I have ever been led by, [inaudible] will tell you the same thing. [inaudible] letters of recommendation that you receive from anyone [inaudible] with nothing but full support [inaudible]. He fought to stay [inaudible] instructor at the [inaudible] divers course down in Florida. He immediately got there and was immediately held [as the #1 instructor?] [inaudible]. And then was–[inaudible] and was given me the 2nd best instructor in all of special operations [inaudible]. [inaudible] phenomenal, phenomenal soldier. And even [inaudible] he knew that even after the way that he was mistreated by the Army [inaudible], he'd do his job [inaudible] and I just cannot say enough good things about him. So he was [instructed down?] in Florida and then that was the–was all the cutback from the military [and the special force?]–what the military's doing is kind of reviewing anyone that has any kind of black mark on their record. So Charles and I had both received negative [inaudible] reports from this incident and [inaudible] report and immediately then moved to [inaudible] Charles out of the Army. So this has been going on for about two years now. He had gone through multiple appeals, the final appeal now is set for March 1st. We'll find out whether or not Charles [inaudible]. Dan: Were you honorably discharged? Capt. Daniel Quinn: I was honorably discharged, yes. Dan: And–I mean, is there anything–I mean on Charles's behalf, is there anything you would suggest that people hearing this story do on his behalf? I mean, I know Congressman Hunter in California has taken up the cause. Should people call their local members of Congress as well? Capt. Daniel Quinn: Yeah, absolutely. Call up the congressman, write letters, and just as much as support you can get would be very appreciated. [inaudible] of really champion [inaudible] cause and [inaudible] before [inaudible] of the media and just make sure that everyone knows the full story and–I mean, yes, write your congressman, write the [inaudible]. And whatever [inaudible] really appreciate it. Amy: As a mom of two boys, I can't thank you enough for what you did for that child. Does he know or does his mother know what happened to you, too, for trying to protect her son? And do you know where the boy is now? Is he doing okay? Capt. Daniel Quinn: We don't know–we cannot know where the boy [inaudible]. And yes, they do know what happened. [inaudible] just another example of the quality soldier of Charles Martland. Because when we were–so after we were sent, kind of have to get our stuff the day after the incident. [inaudible] came in and [inaudible] for Charles be reinstated because they really appreciate all the work he did. In area, [inaudible] he's a great soldier, he was a great trainor, all the other commanders loved him, all the other local police [inaudible] phenomenal, phenomenal soldier and [inaudible] commission officer. And the family was there as well. He deserves to be in this area. And we have not heard from them [inaudible]. Dan: How do you reconcile what happened to you and Charles for–I mean for doing something that we all applaud–for standing against a rapist, a child rapist, for goodness sakes, and these other barbarians, and the Army treats you effectively as the problem, as those people who acted outside the bounds? I mean, is there some kind of politically correct culture that is infecting even the Green Berets these days? How do you reconcile it? Capt. Daniel Quinn: I think it's an overall shift [inaudible] towards career [inaudible] people are more worried. High-level commanders don't want to be responsible for any kind of major incident, I think, after [inaudible] and other–all the negative [inaudible] kind of–anything outside of how the–kind of just doing what we've been told to do [inaudible] negative and don't want any part of it and [inaudible] it's easier [inaudible] getting rid of the problem rather than dealing with it. And [inaudible] were the best 10 years of my life. [inaudible] 99% of the time and that's why Charles [inaudible]. He loves what he does, and we both love our country and love the Army–I'm very, very appreciative of everything the Army has given me. [inaudible] get this [inaudible] right and [inaudible] of [inaudible] with the best soldiers in the process. So. Yeah, we're hoping that the full support [inaudible], that we are going to recognize [inaudible] and allow Charles to stay and continue to do the job that he loves and that [inaudible]. Dan: Word. We have been joined by Capt. Daniel Quinn, former Green Beret. We're appreciative of you joining us. We're appreciative of your service for those 10 years. And your colleague, Charles Martland's service, as well as what you did on that day in 2011. Thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Capt. Daniel Quinn: Thank you very much, guys. Appreciate it. Anytime. Amy: And he [inaudible].

Trump Won't Be Invited to Oklahoma Wesleyan University

Dr. Everett Piper, President of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, who made national news with his "A university is not a day care center" commentary last year in response to the totalitarian politically correct culture on college campuses put down another marker parting with Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr, telling Dan & Amy that Donald Trump is not on the side of Christians and would not be invited to speak at Oklahoma Wesleyan University.

View full transcript


Dan: Good morning. Whaddup, Dan and Amy. This programming note the McHenry County Republican Party is holding its annual Lincoln Leadership Dinner on February 6th at the Crystal Lake Holiday Inn. Speakers include retired NFL star Jim "RoboCop" Thorton. Remember him, Amy? RoboCop? Amy: Yes, I do remember him. Dan: How do you remember him? Amy: Oh, don't Dan: Finally. Is this Amy: Oh, no. Dan: Do you have, like, another Edward James Olmos story here? Amy: Oh, no. Oh, no. Anywho, yes, where is it going to be? Dan: RoboCop Thorton who also was a leadership specialist with 20+ years in U.S. Special Forces, McHenry County Republican Party space is limited so purchase your tickets today. Visit [inaudible].com and search the keyword "Lincoln." Amy: I think you speak at more Lincoln Day Dinners than anybody I know. Dan: And I'm a better speaker. Amy: Well, how many have you done? Dan: Iñ Amy: 30? Now we're back on it again? Dan: I've lost count. Amy: Okay. Dan: I've done many, many and they're always a ton of fun. Amy: Good. Dan: But this would be much more funnier from Thorton than hear from me. So Amy, as we talk about what's happening in college campuses around the country, we eliminate the schools that Payton and Eli, your two sons, can potentially attend. I think we Amy: I have my list. Dan: I think we basically eliminated about 80% of the colleges, universities in the country at this point. Amy: There's 32 on the list. Dan: Yeah. One of those schools, they may still attend. Amy: Yes. Dan: Is Oklahoma Wesleyan University. Amy: M-hmm. Dan: That is an evangelical Christian university. The president of that university came to a bit of a national attention in the midst of the all of the nonsense, the totalitarianism on college campuses, the lack of respect for intellectual diversity, for differences of opinion. When you wrote a piece that essentially explained why a university is not a daycare center in part, Dr. Everett Piper, the president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University wrote, at his school: "We teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. We are more interested in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge. We want you to model interpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict." But: "Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a "safe place", it's a place to learn: to learn that life isn't about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent. This is a place where you will learn quickly that you need to grow up. This is not a day care. This is a university." Maybe you should audit some classes at Oklahoma Wesleyan University as well. Amy: There you go. Dan: You could go with Payton and Eli. All right, so Dr. Everett Piper, the president of the foresaid Oklahoma Wesleyan University joins us now. Dr. Piper, thanks for being with us. Dr. Everett Piper: Thank you, I'm pleased to join you. Dan: So Dr. Jerry Falwell, Jr. at Liberty University, also an evangelical Christian university, invited Donald Trump to speak there, and then did him one better by endorsing him. You have said Donald Trump will not be invited to speak at Oklahoma Wesleyan and thereby your have no plans to endorse him. Why the difference of opinion with Jerry Falwell, Jr. and what did you think about his decision? Dr. Everett Piper: Well, my explanation is really quite brief and quite simple. Anyone who has mocked a handicapped, anyone who has called women fat, ugly, "pigs," and worse but I won't quote on the radio station right now anyone who has endorsed the fiscal wisdom of the Obama administration, anybody who has praised [inaudible] leadership prowess, anybody who has been on the cover of Playboy magazine and proud of it I could go on and on is not somebody who represents the ideals of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, and therefore, barring a debate, I would welcome him if he wants to come and debate his ideas with somebody else that disagrees with him. But to put him at the podium as if he's representing us and who we are as an institution would be unacceptable because that would be to disregard our mission, to disregard those things we hold dear as a Christian community and there's a time where you say, "No, that's not who we are. No, you're not going to be at my podium and speak as if you represent Oklahoma Wesleyan University." Dan: And then what about Falwell and the decision he made to invite him to Liberty to do just what you said you wouldn't do at Oklahoma Wesleyan, and then the decision to endorse? Dr. Everett Piper: Well, obviously, I disagree with that. And obviously, I wouldn't endorse him, and I'm not endorsing him. Dr. Falwell has actually said that the reason he's endorsing is because of his business [side?]. He's ran a successful business. And I understand that when you elect a president or electing a commander-in-chief, we're not electing a priest or a pastor. I understand that debate. However, I do think character matters. And character is important leadership. And leadership does dictate the general tone and cadence, if you will, of the cultural conversation. So I disagree with that. The reason [that he has?] children is because he wants a successful business well, let me ask this rhetorical question: if running a successful business is the predicate for being the president of the United States, why don't you endorse Hugh Hefner? He has ran a successful business. Amy: Do you think a possibility that Dr. Jerry Falwell, Jr., was he done any donations or any promises of monetary donations in the future? Is that why he might've endorsed him? Dr. Everett Piper: You know, actually, I've seen no evidence of that. I know a lot of people that are angry with Dr. Falwell that suggested that. That's speculation and I'm not going to go there. I don't know if there's any quid pro quo, and I really would be disappointed to find out that there is one. And I'm not going to suggest that there is unless somebody had evidence supporting [me?]. Dan: In the piece that you wrote about Donald Trump, you wrote, said: "I refuse to let my desire to win "trump" nice little play on words there "my moral compass. I refuse to let my desire to win "trump" my moral compass." That's such an interesting statement because in our political culture, we love the horse race. You have the bandwagging the fact whoever wins, that's where we need to be because they're winning. And we don't often, maybe often enough, ask the question, "What do we win if we 'win?'" Right? Dr. Everett Piper: What do you win if you saw off the branch upon which you're sitting? What are you going to win? You're going to fall down, you're going to get hurt because you hit the ground, as a result with falling off the moral branch upon which you're sitting to make your argument. And if we believe in a constitutional republic, if we believe in the free people, if we believe in the values and virtues that have made this nation the most prosperous and the most free nation in human history which mostly anybody listening to me would have to admit that indeed, the United States has enjoyed those gifts of providence. If we believe in those things then we have to recognize we sit upon some branch that gives us that stability. And if victory is more important than that branch of virtue, you saw that branch off, you come tumbling down, and you're going to be in a very ugly place. It's very similar to my argument in my Not a Day Care piece. I don't care about your victimization card, what I care about is you landing virtue. And frankly, Republican Party, I don't care about victory if you're going to sell your soul and sell your virtue to have that power. Let me [inaudible] for saying this: I used to be very critical, and still, I am very critical of the feminist movement for selling its soul to the power of Bill Clinton. Of all the people the feminist should've been [inaudible] with, it should've been a president who is having sex in the oval office with one of his interns. And then being accused by other women of sexual advances that's not rape and not being held accountable for those actions. Why did the feminist let that happen? It was pure and simple: power. They wanted power. Conservatives can't make the same [inaudible] by selling their soul for power and victory. Amy: So you think we're selling our soul to the devil by supporting Donald Trump? Some of us? Dr. Everett Piper: I'm not saying you're selling your soul to the devil. I think that's hyperbolic language that somebody else could say. So that's not my quote. But I'm saying is, yes. Amy: But I agree with what you're saying, though. Yes. Dr. Everett Piper: What I'm saying is this: is your virtue more important than a victory? Veritas. Truth. Latin for "truth" is veritas. Truth more important than winning and more important than the power that comes with the bully pulpit. There are times when you stand for what's right, and if you lose waving that banner, so be it. You lost doing the right thing. [inaudible] not to speakers to speaking, not to actors to act. Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. God will not [inaudible]. What happened to Bonhoeffer? He was hanged in a Nazi prison camp just before the end of World War II. Did he lose? I would argue no. For eternity, he won, but he was willing to lose his life for the sake of what was right. Dan: Some by [vice?] to rise, and others by virtue fall. Dr. Everett Piper, we're talking to, he is the president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, an evangelical Christian university in Oklahoma, obviously. Dr. Piper, I got to get your take on college campuses. I mean, there's so many examples to discuss to underscore the intolerance on college campuses, the ignorance on college campuses. But one know that doubled up this week is perhaps really fascinating, because you see the politically correct totalitarians annihilating themselves. And this is at University of Oregon where "student leaders" are debating whether or not to remove a portion of Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream' speech because it didn't contemplate gender identity. Your reaction? Dr. Everett Piper: The ideological fascism that is running rampant on our campuses versus the intellectual freedom that the liberal arts academy has historically stood for. Let me answer your question this way: the liberal arts academy has established some 1,000 years ago, let's say Oxford at Cambridge, to do what? To liberate us. To give us an education in liberty and freedom. To educate a free man, a free woman, and a free society. That's the word 'liberal arts education' the classical liberal believed in freedom and justice. But it was grounded in what? The only word that's still on Oxford [inaudible], veritas. Truth. Jesus said, "The truth shall set you free." Not your personal opinion and not your politically correct agenda. Truth is the only context for freedom. What you see at the University of Oregon and Missouri and Yale and elsewhere, its ideological fashions and where you must submit, you must think like I do. My opinion will crush you. You will be silenced if you disagree. Rather than the robust exchange [inaudible] idea that is grounded in the truth of Christ and the truth of Scripture, the revelation of God rather than the personal opinion of [inaudible] or Hitler or students. Or faculty. Or me. I'm not going to give you a degree in opinions that [inaudible] Wesleyan University. I want you to learn something that's right and just and true when you graduate. Dan: Dr. Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University. Amy: I love you and I agree with everything that you said about Donald Trump. We pray for him in church, by the way. Dan: There's a couple of Jacobson boys that are going to be matriculating your university in a few short years so look for them, and watch over them, please. Dr. Everett Piper, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Dr. Everett Piper: Blessings, guys.

related content

Renegade Dem State Rep. Ken Dunkin Wants Off Madigan's "Plantation"

State Rep. Ken Dunkin, an African-American Democrat whose district goes from "the Gold Coast to the Soul Coast" in Chicago, is bucking House Speaker Mike Madigan and calling on his fellow House Democrats to exercise independent thought to foster a deal on the state budget. Dunkin discussed with Dan & Amy the press conference he had after Gov. Rauner's State of the State Address where he brought a backpack and a sleeping bag and suggested he was prepared to stay in Springfield and sleep outside of Madigan's office until the Speaker stopped his "shenanigans" and started negotiating with Gov. Rauner.

View full transcript


Dan: Dan and Amy show. Yesterday after Governor Rauner's State of the State Address, there was a lot of reaction from legislators including Madigan. But there was also a press conference yesterday afternoon by someone I describe as a renegade. Amy: He's [inaudible]. Dan: Democrat Illinois State Rep. His name is Ken Dunkin, from Chicago. Amy: You know, we spoke about him yesterday. Charles Thomas was on the air and you said that he was going to have a big press conference at 3 o'clock. Dan: And he did. And he showed up like he was preparing to climb Mt. Everest. Amy: I thought I'd seen 'Out of the Wild.' The movie? Dan: Yes. Right. 'Into the Wild.' A sleeping bag, backpack. . . Amy: Canned goods. Dan: Yeah. He's ready to camp out in Springfield until a budget's done saying, and I'm quoting from Natasha Korecki: "'We should not be held hostage to Michael Madigan's political shenanigans,' said Rep. Ken Dunkin" He also said this according to Scott Forek, it's over at the Sun-Times: "Waiting for Mike Madigan is plantation mentality." Amy: Oohh. Dan: I like them. Those are fighting words. All right, let's talk to the source. He is State Representative Ken Dunkin, from Illinois 5th District. Rep. Dunkin, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Rep. Ken Dunkin: Good morning, good morning. Thank you for having me. Dan: And so I don't understand where do you get off thinking that as a Democrat State Legislator, you're allowed to think independently from Mike Madigan. Rep. Ken Dunkin: You're right. What's a concept? And that's the part of the problem with us. The 71 of us here in the House of the Representatives. And there's no moving unless Mike Madigan greenlights it. There's no legislation that's moving, no negotiation, there's no plan unless one person tells us what the next steps are. So I just think he's a major part of the problem that we're having with the state in terms about pension debt, in terms of some of this [inaudible] economy. We should be [inaudible] in every state around us in terms of job growth. [inaudible] should be well-funded even if for 45 years. And here it is, we're in the 7th month with no budget merely because he doesn't want to talk to the governor. The senate president, [probably to the?] governor. If you're fighting in your house and someone leaves the toilet seat up or the cap off the toothpaste and you argue about it, but you resolve it. His say is and I've been here for almost 13 ? years. I'm telling you what I see, what I understand I've been on the plantation for quite some time. [And I sit?] there. It's just now I'm scratching my head and saying, "What the?" Amy: Okay. Rep. Ken Dunkin: You know what? Listen. Amy: So, I understand your passion and I hear it in your voice. So you're willing to sleep out in Madigan's office, and you slept there last night, too I mean, but this could go on for months. I mean, it's been 14 years, really, since we've had a complete [bounced/balanced?] budget. Rep. Ken Dunkin: You are absolutely correct. I'm willing to do whatever it takes. Now, me sleeping out in front of his office or inside his office does no one any good across the state unless other members are there. You know, are here with us, [the Springfield?]. The fact is we met for the first time in 28 days this year. Last year, after the regular session, special sessions, which were a joke, or a political [pardons?] [inaudible], we met maybe about 15, 16 times. Got nothing done. The speaker wants to go and maintain this teardown concept with the governor who multimillionaires tearing each other down, saying, "My way or the high way?" Dan: Well, let me ask you this, Rep. Dunkin. Mike Madigan was asked whether or not you should remain in the Democrat caucus in the house, and his response was: "That's a good question." Let me be the first to put down the Welcome carpet for you to come on over to the Republican side. We could use a few more legislators in Springfield. So what about that Madigan contemplating ex-communicating you? How do you respond? Rep. Ken Dunkin: See, that's a part of the problem. I'm a registered Democrat who happens to be able to seek independently of anyone [inaudible] of their political stride. And yes, I'm still 10 plus years into this. I've seen it all, I've seen enough. People will cross the state in my district, around the [inaudible] area, the [inaudible] bars, as well as the South Shore [inaudible] Community. From the Gold Coast to the [inaudible] Coast, they want to see solution. [inaudible] entertain anything else but that. Dan: Well, right. And so with super majorities and the general assembly of Democrats and with, as you say, Madigan being the speaker since the state was incorporated in the early 1,800s, and John Cullerton being there almost as long. I mean at some point, particularly your colleagues in the black caucus, and minority voters African-American, Latino voters in the city of Chicago. And the award, as you say, is from the Gold Coast and the Soul Coast I mean, the district from the Gold Coast to the [inaudible] Coast I mean the district from the Gold Coast to the [inaudible] Coast is you say that you represent. Is it time for them to consider stopping support for not only Madigan, but maybe for some of their own representatives who aren't willing to do what you're doing but just stand up to them? Rep. Ken Dunkin: You know, that [ultimate?] is going to be the deciding choice of the voter. Here's why members are [inaudible] and asleep: because the democratic part of Illinois, they [seem so comfortable?] for you, they [cuddle?] you in such a way that you don't have to think, you don't have to do anything because we would take care of your election [effort?], would've staved off any [challenges?]. When you're not forced to fight, you're trying to [inaudible] and you tend to neglect the citizens who's sitting you down there and negate them with various issues that you're saying that you're going to fight for. So with Mike Madigan being here for 45 years, he's creating a system that really speaks to a power that is [unpresent?] probably across the county. I mean, look at the red light [camera?]. [inaudible] with that situation and see who the players were in that. That speaks [inaudible]. Amy: Are you in the speaker's office right now? Dan: Yeah. Rep. Ken Dunkin: I'm next door. Amy: Okay. Look. But you spent the night there last night. How was it? Rep. Ken Dunkin: Well, we're in session right now, literally, as we speak. Dan: M-hmm? Rep. Ken Dunkin: And so tonight's going to be the night. I'm going to ask my members to spend the night on the house floor. Amy: Oh, like a sleepover. Okay. Dan: Oh, wow. All right, we'll send some canned goods. All right. That Rep. Ken Dunkin: No, we need something that's a little pressured than a can. Dan: How about S'mores? Rep. Ken Dunkin: When you send canned goods, send a can opener. Dan: Okay. Yeah, of course. Yes, right, yeah. Well, obviously, members of the General Assembly can't fund for themselves. They can't survive in the wild, we know that. You've got your housecats. I get it. You've got to be fed. Rep. Ken Dunkin: Right. Yeah. Dan: So Rep. Dunkin, now, one of the issues, and this has been pointed out by Democrats, is you're facing a primary challenge and you're getting independent expenditure support from Super PAC run by a Democrat, but somebody that's received funding from [inaudible] or allies. So are you just pretending to be an independent thinker because you've got a primary and you're being supported by allies of Rauner's or how do you respond to that charge? Rep. Ken Dunkin: I have the choice to do whatever Madigan wanted to have me do back in September, back in October, and November. I chose to put people before politics. Remember, all I had to do was to vote like Madigan wanted me to vote. Do what he told me to do. I picked the choice of [inaudible]. "Governor, release this money. This $2B for our disabled community, for our childcare assistance program, and our senior tour, homebound, and who are living in nursing homes." I chose those three categories over at the party. When a governor kept his word and released that, over $2BñI said, "I'm sitting with the people." And for some reason, that was so offensive to the Democratic Party and Mike Madigan. That, I guess [inaudible] preoccupied. Let me say this Amy: Well, you kicked the hornet's nest. Dan: Well, and he destroyed the narrative of Mike Madigan. Rep. Ken Dunkin: Exactly. No, he's overrated in a lot of categories. If members realize that it's okay to think, to fight, and to come up with new ideas and by the way, most of us [take?] money from any and everybody. We don't care if it's tobacco, liquor money, if it is from grandmother, or the guy on the street corner. We're having a fundraiser and we want support. I get that it shouldn't be a bad word compared to Mike Madigan's [inaudible]. Or [inaudible] or anyone else. [inaudible] we're on the same [inaudible] situation down here. Mike Madigan hosted a fundraiser for Dennis Hastert. Excuse me, for John Boehner. A few years ago. Dan: Yeah. And actually, he tried to get $500,000 in state funds to build a statue to Dennis Hastert. So that might Rep. Ken Dunkin: Isn't that something? Dan: Yeah. Rep. Ken Dunkin: So again, the [Parson politics?], it is really for the amateurs. The real deal for the elected officials I don't care what your [inaudible] is. Do right about the people in this state. If you know what's falling off [a pistol cliff?], let's come up with solutions together. Dan: Well Rep. Ken Dunkin: If you know when you can improve our public education across the state, do the right thing. Dan: Speaking Rep. Ken Dunkin: That's all about that. Dan: Speaking of public education particularly in Chicago, if I'm recalling correctly, you were a yes-vote for James Meeks's school choice bill back a few years ago. And so I wonder how you react to what's going on at CPS. The prospect of bankruptcy, they tried to do a $875M bond issue, they had to postpone it because they're junk-rated and the bond market basically spit it back out. What should be done about CPS in addition or something on the order of what the governor has proposed or something else? Rep. Ken Dunkin: I believe that every governor, every new-and-coming governor should have the right should have a honeymoon period. To see what it is that the majority of the people who elected this person can do. So we can [give on?] some things such as school funding reform, pension reform we know we have to address that. I don't have a problem with it. And part of the challenge is we have been sitting still at the same [inaudible], at the same rate, waiting on our leader, our so-called leader, Mike Madigan, to do XYZ and to tell us all the great ideas with very little or limited input and with worth the same level. Imagine was it Chase and Citibank, Citigroup rejecting the ability to buy our bonds. [inaudible] deal because if the bonds fail, our [inaudible], we're on the hook for all of his [debt?]. That is [unprecedented]. Unheard of in our city, in our state's history. So that speaks to a structural change that has to occur. [inaudible] and have that because the unions control most of the actions down here. And the speaker conveniently uses them when he wants to attack opponents who will [start?] different ideas, different you pay apple, I pay banana. That's the [inaudible]. [inaudible] this is his money and he's the smartest man in the room all the time. Dan: He is State Representative Ken Dunkin, Democrat, for Illinois 5th District. Democrat for now but my offer to come over to the Republican Party stands. So you think about that. State Representative Ken Dunkin, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate your time. Rep. Ken Dunkin: Thank you so much. Good morning. Amy: He joined us on our [inaudible].

related content

Dan & Amy Interview CTU VP Jesse Sharkey

Chicago Teachers' Union Vice President Jesse Sharkey says Chicago Public Schools (CPS) need 25% more than the $15,000+ it spends per pupil in order to improve the quality of education the system provides. Sharkey also discussed the continuing possibility of a teachers' strike and the GOP idea of a state takeover of CPS.

View full transcript


Proft: Jesse thanks again for joining us. Sharkey: As always, thanks for having me on. Proft: Let’s start with the prospect of the strike. Where does that stand? Have there been further discussion with Claypool and the CPS honchos. Where does that stand? Sharkey: We’re negotiating with them. And frankly, negotiations have been serious and productive. One of the big problems is obviously the overall funding picture of the district. So it does tie back in to what you guys were doing earlier in the segment. And we’re very aware that Cullerton moved the school funding formula. But to be fair to Cullerton and also Senator Andy Manar, who’s the one whose bill this is, they’ve been moving that bill in the Senate for the last better part of a decade. This is not a new issue. Chicago gets about $600 million in a block grant. And you talk about Peter and Paul, and I’m no theological scholar, but I think even Jesus recognized that the least among us should get a helping hand. Proft: Woah. Channeling John Kasich this morning. Intreresting. Here’s the rub, Jesse. Let me just give you an example. I’ve got all the numbers statewide. I mentioned this earlier in the show but I’d like to get your reaction. I’ve got all the numbers statewide in terms of the per-pupil expenditure, plus the local versus state versus federal distribution, or composition of that funding. So, for example, Matteson. Its a smaller community in south Cook County. Blue collar. Working to middle income. A lot of children that qualify for the free or reduced lunch program, like in Chicago. Here are the numbers. District 159 in Matteson, $15,159 per student Chicago, $15,120 per student So, basically the same. District 159, 70 percent low income. CPS, 87 percent low income. But here’s the difference. District 159 is funded 80 percent from local property taxpayers. CPS, funded 49 percent from local property taxpayers, getting two times more from the state than does Matteson. So you have Matteson District 159, with 70 percent of the kids from low-income families that are subsidizing CPS, that’s the basic fact. Sharkey: The issue Dan and Amy is that in Chicago you have huge concentrations of poverty, English-language learners, Special Education students. And those concentrations add up and are difficult to deal with and produce conditions that produce real challenges for educators. I’m not saying that places like Matteson should get cut. But Manar and Cullerton are right when they point out that even if you look at the block grant, which is the way Chicago’s schools are funded, it doesn’t really take into account just how difficult it is to educate students in places like Chicago. Chicago, like I said, gets $600 million from the state on a budget of $4.5 billion. Chicago in fact gets a lot of its money from the state and the feds through special education money, Title 1 funding. And it produces a real challenge. CTU has often said that if you compare the tax rates of Chicago to the tax rates of the collar suburbs, our local property taxes are actually lower rates. But I don’t think you guys are arguing we should increase the rate for homeowners in Chicago. Proft: That already did happen. And it’s going to continue. Sharkey: Not for the schools so much. That last increase, only like a tenth of it went to the schools. Jacobson: It went to fire and police pensions. Proft: Well, right. Because everything in the city is bankrupt. The numbers are the numbers. But one thing on property taxes. Let’s just understand something here. Cook County does property tax classification differently than the other 101 counties. So they use commercial to subsidize residential, whereas in the collar counties it’s all assessed at the same rate. Sharkey: Chicago has the ability to do that because it has a commercial district in a way that the collars don’t. Jacobson: From what I’m hearing from the teachers that I know at our Chicago Public School, they don’t think there’s going to be a strike because Karen Lewis made a great concession saying they will end the process of requiring contributions to their pensions Sharkey: I see what Karen was saying is that in a situation where there’s a real difficulty with the district’s finances. We obviously have debates among a lot of people, the mayor and you guys included about what the source of that difficulty is. But we see that there’s a financial crisis and there’s difficulty there. I think what Karen was trying to say is that everything’s on the table. What she wasn’t saying is that we’re going to go in and slash what’s effectively seven percent of our compensation and give that back to help other people solve the crisis on our backs. Jacobson: But you’re willing to take a hit, right? It sounded to me like ending the practice of picking up the bulk of the teacher’s required contributions to the pensions but-- so you’re saying that’s not true? That that was misleading in the media? Sharkey: What I’m saying is that you’d never accused us of not being shrewd bargainers and not trying to drive a hard bargain. Proft: No- we would not accuse you of that. Sharkey: What we’re saying is that everything’s on the table. And we’re trying to figure out if the district is committed to making the system work. There would have to be something in return for people who work for the schools. We’d have to have some assurances that there’s not going to go gutting the district, handing it over to charter operators, closing schools, stuffing kids in classes like sardines. There’s a whole series of things that we would want before you could talk about the pension pick-up and what would happen to it and what teacher’s compensation would be like in the future. There’s a whole conversation that complicates the negotiations right now. Proft: Do you think that the trial balloon floated by Governor Rauner and Republicans in terms of providing a pathway for CPS to reorganize under bankruptcy protection. Do you think that’s mean-spirited? Do you think there are bad intentions? Sharkey: I just think it’s not wise in terms of the reputational and financial investment that’s been made in CPS over the past 20 years. If you just look back at how much school construction. And can point to how far we have left to go in terms of student achievement rates and things like that. And that’s fair. No one ever said it was easy to educate in schools that have a 100 percent poverty rate and 80 percent mobility rate and things like that. But there’s been a lot of progress in the school system. There are lots of schools that do very well. There are whole neighborhoods in swathes of the city where people move to those neighborhoods for the schools. There are a number of ways where, despite everything, teachers and people who work in the schools have found success. I think the prospect of saying “the whole thing is broken, we’re going to flush it,” that’s a bad idea. Proft: Well, they didn’t flush Detroit they’re reorganizing it. There’s not flushing it they’re reorganizing it to rethink it and frankly to get out from underneath of some of the bills that you cannot pay, at least not at full freight. Sharkey: Ok, but what happened to Detroit is that a number of the vendors and creditors didn’t get paid. They took a haircut. Workers in the schools didn’t get paid and took a haircut. Proft: Yeah Bondholders. That’s what happens in bankruptcy. Right. Sharkey: So-- and look at the result. Jacobson: Are you just scared that if that happens, if they declare bankruptcy and that state takes control that you would lose control? Is that your biggest fear? Sharkey: Everybody loses control right? Sure. Who wants to have a federal bankruptcy judge with an up or down vote on a plan which the governor makes? I think the schools should be more democratically run, not less democratically run. We should have some local control. Proft: I want to go back to the per-pupil spending. $15,120 for Chicago. And you talked about the difficulty that a big urban school system presents. Maybe it shouldn’t be so big. But that’s a separate conversation. Have you guys determined what you think the actual number needs to be? The kind of resources you need on a per-pupil basis to do a better job educating children? Sharkey: We made a series of proposals, all of which have costs attached to them. The district made a pretty big point of that. The things that we would need, that we think would produce a better educational result. Can you drill down to a single number for me, per-pupil? Sharkey: Yeah I think for a billion dollars extra for year, you could probably do a lot. Proft: And the budget this year for CPS was? Sharkey: It was $4.5. Proft: So a 25 percent increase. Ok, well that’s a number. I appreciate it. Sharkey: I mean, look. Realistically, what’s likely to happen politically is those numbers are likely to move in the other direction. I like to point out that in the foundation world alone, which is being funded by Gates money and Walton money and Broad Money has spent that billion dollars in the last few years trying to advocate for charter schools. They’ll spend more than that much money on the presidential cycle, on ads and what not. There’s a lot of money- soft money that’s pouring in to super PACS. It sounds outrageous until you realize you’re talking about 400,000 of kids growing up in the most challenging environments in the country.

related content

Dan & Amy Interview Rafael Cruz, Father of Presidential Candidate Sen. Ted Cruz

Pastor Rafael Cruz, father of Sen. Ted Cruz, discussed his new book "A Time for Action," talked about fleeing the oppressive government in Cuba, making his way in America and now supporting his son's candidacy for POTUS.

View full transcript


Dan: . . .Dan and Amy. So Amy, Ted Cruz offered a media avail in Iowa yesterday to respond to some of the shots he's taking from Trump. Here's what Ted Cruz had to say about Donald Trump falling out of love with Ted Cruz: "Now, those are meaningful differences, those are substantive differences. I will continue to saying Donald's [inaudible] personally. I think he's bold, I think he's brash, I think he's energized. A lot of people to focus on this election, and that's a wonderful thing. But policy distinctions are what we should be talking about, and it's what the voters deserve." Dan: So Cruz basically said, "I'm not taking the bait, I'm not going to go into the name-calling, I'm not going to respond to him saying I'm a nasty person and no one likes me." That kind of the the playground taunts. I'm going to focus on our policy differences." And yesterday, even though we're still a week away, six days away, from the conquest Amy: 167 hours [inaudible]. Dan: Thank you for watching the clock. Cruz essentially made what I think is his final argument to voters at this media avail. Listen. "There is a volcanic frustration that those majorities don't honor the promises we made to the voters. Well, in this presidential election, the people of Iowa have a chance to make an assessment. Who can you trust? And I'll tell you what I'm advising, people. Here, which is don't listen to what any of us say. Don't listen to what I say, don't listen to what Donald Trump says, or anybody else. Instead, look at our records. If you want someone who will stand up against ObamaCare, ask who has stood up against ObamaCare. If you want someone who will stand up against amnesty, don't ask who gives the loudest speeches on amnesty, ask who led the fight to defeat the Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight amnesty bill. If you want someone to defend life or marriage or religious liberty, ask who has a record of defending life and marriage and religious liberty. And the reason we're seeing Conservatives across the country, and especially here in Iowa, come together is that people are tired of Campaign Conservatives. Those candidates who discover Conservative [inaudible] when they announce their campaign for president. And they're looking for a consistent Conservative. Someone as the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. With me, you know what you're going to get. And I think that's why conservatives are coming together behind our candidate." Dan: I think that's why this Conservative is coming together behind Ted Cruz's candidate. The Consistent Conservative message that's Ted Cruz's final argument in Iowa. I think you're going to hear it the rest of the week. But let's get some more texture and insight into one Sen. Ted Cruz from the man who taught him everything he knows. That's his father, Ptr. Rafael Cruz, who's got a new book called 'A Time for Action: Empowering the Faithful to Reclaim America.' Ptr. Cruz, thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it. Ptr. Rafael Cruz: Dan, it's so great to be with you. Is it cold in Chicago this morning? Dan: No, it's not bad, actually. It's kind of temperate. Is it cold in Texas? Ptr. Rafael Cruz: No, no, no. I'm in Iowa. Dan: Oh, yeah. Amy: He's an outspoken surrogate campaigning with the son. Dan: I know. We have said that there was a little test just to make sure he's where he's supposed to be. Ptr. Rafael Cruz: I sure am. Dan: All right. So Ptr. Cruz, why don't we start with your story before we get to Ted's? And your story starts in Cuba where you fled the Batista Regime on the Advent of the Castro Revolution? Tell us your story and then how it relates to the message you're trying to deliver in the book. Ptr. Rafael Cruz: Well, that is the way my book starts. It's talking about how I grew up in a very oppressive military dictatorship. As a matter of fact, the revolution started in the high schools, from the universities. So it started with student protest, initially. And then this young, charismatic leader rose up talking about hope and change. His name was Fidel Castro. Dan: Oh, I thought you were talking about 2008. Yes. Okay. Ptr. Rafael Cruz: And we all followed him, not knowing any better. And there is hope with my involvement I was captured, I was in prison, I was tortured. But by the grace of God, I was able to leave Cuba and come to the United States legally on a student visa. And I started at the University of Texas. I paid my way through school working first as a dishwasher, then as a cook. And then when he took over in 1959, I went back to Cuba that summer. And I was shocked. Because the same man that had been talking about hope and change was now talking about how the rich were evil, how they oppressed the poor, about the need to redistribute the wealth, confiscating private property, [abducting?] freedom of [inaudible], freedom of religion. So I left Cuba, [the solution?] never to return again for [inaudible] to be in the greatest country in the [inaudible]. I am so proud to be an American. This is the greatest country on the face of the earth. So I saw firsthand what Communism does to a country. And so when my son was growing up, he was 9 years old when I started working with an organization called The Religious Roundtable. I was at Judeo-Christian organization, but together with moral majority, [inaudible] millions of Christians, people of faith who helped elect Ronald Reagan whom I consider the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln. So when my son, Ted, was 9 years old, he got a dose of conservative politics from a Christian worldview every day for a year when he was growing up. So that's when he started reading, looking at Conservatives [inaudible]. Dan: By 9 years old, I assume Ted Cruz was already briefing Supreme Court Cases. Ptr. Rafael Cruz: Not quite. But I'll tell you again, I explained in detail in my book a time fraction. When [inaudible] turned 14, just entering high school, we introduced him to an organization called The Free Enterprise Institute. So now, he just turned 13, and he's reading, [inaudible] freedom and the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers. [inaudible] organization creates a group of five kids, they call them the constitutional corroborators. Ted was one of those five. And they hired a [inaudible] expert, they taught them how to memorize the U.S. Constitution. For the next four years, my son, Ted, gave approximately 80 speeches across the state of Texas on free market economics and the constitution. Before my son, Ted, left high school, he was passionate about the constitution, he was passionate about the declaration, about free market, about limited government, about the rule of law and that passion became like fire in his bones. And I'll tell you, Dan, that reason I know my son, Ted Cruz, would not compromise his principles in Washington is that fire [inaudible] life today as it was over 30 years ago. Amy: Now, there's no doubt that your son is the smartest person running for president in the cycle. And how did your time in Cuba and what happened to you shape his political values and his ideology? Ptr. Rafael Cruz: Well, I saw Communism firsthand and Socialism, Communism, Marxism it's all the same, with different labels. It doesn't work. It doesn't work because it destroys individual responsibility. It just makes people lose the dream and just be conform with where the [inaudible] life. When Ted was growing up, I don't know how many times I told him, "You know, Ted, when I lost my freedom in Cuba, I had a place to come. If we lose our freedoms here, where are we going to go?" And you know, Amy, there's no place to go. Dan: And so I guess, with respect to Ted Cruz, how have you viewed the presidential campaign? Again, maybe even take a step back. I know you introduced Ted Cruz to all these great thinkers at an early age and then he chartered his course. Did you ever expect that he would be a senator from Texas and he would be a leading contender for the presidency of the United States? Ptr. Rafael Cruz: Well, Dan, that is the greatness of America. Where else can someone come in with practically no money, not even being able to speak the language, and within one generation, see his son as a U.S. senator and potentially, as the next president of the United States of America? Only in America that can happen. But let's not think about that. I'll tell you what: it's hard to contain the tears from my eyes. This is the greatness of America. America is worth saving. That's why we're all fighting to restore sanity, to restore the constitution, to restore the rule of law we cannot give up on America. And if I want [inaudible] around the one man that has the vision, that has the courage, that has the record, and has the backbone to fight against [inaudible] because of corruption in both parties, then I think if Iowans coalesce, Ted Cruz will be the next president of the United States of America and we will see America's greatest days ahead. Amy: Ptr. Rafael Cruz, how have you handled the mugslinging, the nasty comments sledded against your son? Ptr. Rafael Cruz: Well, that goes with the territory. Jesus even said, He said: "They'd persecuted me, they would persecute you." As a matter of fact, both Ted and I view that mugslinging as: "Well, we must be doing something right when they're coming after us." If you're not making an impact, nobody cares, nobody even responds. It is sad that people have come down to attacking the individual character or the integrity of an individual instead of looking at the policy issues. The substantive difference that there are. Who is best led to lead this country? We're about to engage in electing the next president of the United States the leader of this country. The leader of the free world. We'd better make sure we elect the man that is ruled not by emotions, but by looking at the facts that has the substantive background in the constitution, in the rule of law, in what it takes to govern, and that has a servant's spirit. Dan: We're talking to Ptr. Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz's father. He's also the author of the new book 'A Time for Action: Empowering the Faithful to Reclaim America.' And I want to get your take on that subtitle Empowering the Faithful to Reclaim America. You've got some specific recommendations for Christians including pastors as to what should be done so that religious freedom and some of the other policy proposals that Ted Cruz is advancing as a candidate are consummated. Ptr. Rafael Cruz: Yes. One of the challenges we've had is that too many people of faith have stayed home and not gotten involved with the political process. And there are few [inaudible] being, "Well, politics is a dirty business. I don't want any part of it." Well, how can we change politics being a dirty business if people of principle are not running for office, if people of principle don't vote? So in my book, A Time for Action, I outlined five action steps. Number 1, make sure that everyone understands that voting is our civic responsibility. So many Christians are not even registered to vote. I don't care if [inaudible] every pastor, every church make sure everyone in your congregation is registered to vote, and then make sure everyone caucus and they caucus for righteousness. They don't vote for addition, they vote conviction. Vote for candidate that stands on the principles that have made America great. And they are those Judeo-Christian principles, those principles that are embedded in our constitution. Number 2, we need to make sure that we share messages even from the Pope that are important to America and that [inaudible] the foundations are being destroyed I'm talking about what the biblical concepts are to restore those foundations. Number 3, we need to encourage Amy: Oh. Dan: Uh-oh. Donald Trump's jamming the signal. What happened to Ptr. Cruz? Amy: He knew. Dan: Number 3 was the key. That was the key one, it's number 3. Amy: I'm waiting! Dan: Oh, we lost Ptr. Rafael Cruz, obviously. Amy: But we could read his book. Dan: His book is 'A Time for Action: Empowering the Faithful to Reclaim America.' Even though Donald Trump cut our line, we appreciate Ptr. Rafael Cruz joining us.

related content

Dan & Amy Interview Mark Janus on his Chicago Tribune Article, "Why I Don't Want To Pay Union Dues"

Mark Janus likes working for the State of Illinois at the Department Healthcare and Family Services. But he doesn't like being forced to be a member of AFSCME. And he's talking his case to the U.S. Supreme Court which will hear oral arguments on the matter next week. He joined Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson on Chicago's Morning Answer for a conversation on topic.

related content

Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson Interview Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox News Strategic Analyst

Fox News Strategic Analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (ret.) who had the definitive quote of 2015 in describing President Obama's feline qualities, ahem, joined us this morning offering keen geopolitical insights on escalating tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the role of Russia and how all of this impacts are ability to combat ISIS "over there".

related content

Dan & Amy Interview Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton

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.

related content

Dan Proft & Amy Jacobson Interview Rev. Gregory Seal Livingston

Rev. Gregory Livingston, Coalition for a New Chicago, on effort to #RecallRahm with a message for POTUS: #BarackComeGetYourBoy

related content

Dan Proft & Amy Jacobson Interview CTU's Jesse Sharkey

Chicago Teachers Union VP Jesse Sharkey on the prospects of another strike in the new year and teacher pension contributions.

related content