`

social issues

Getting Beyond The Shrieking At SCOTUS Hearing

There were important exchanges between Kavanaugh and Senators on guns, abortion, administrative state, executive power in between the histrionics. Are vast right wing conspiracy groups influencing the Supreme Court? Is there a confusion of what judges are supposed to do and what the public thinks they do? Listen to Civics 101 by Ben Sasse. Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Tom Jipping joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

A Narrow Victory?

A big victory for Masterpiece Cakeshop's Jack Phillips. A small victory for religious liberty. Why should any American be forced to create anything that clashes against their conscience? Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett joins Dan and Amy to discuss SCOTUS' decision.

Related Content

Conservatives Concede The Culture War

Is Christianity in America in need of a 21st-century Great Awakening? The culture war is real but how will conservatives win when they lead with surrender? How do we have a discussion on culture when basic truths aren’t universally accepted? Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, George Weigel joins Dan and Amy to discuss his new book, "The Fragility of Order".

Related Content

Should IL Legalize Marijuana?

Do Illinois politicians care to hear the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana for recreational use or are they mostly concerned about the money they can get out of it? Has there been a decrease in opioid related deaths in places where marijuana is legalized? How much has the tax revenue from marijuana contributed to the Colorado state budget? Member of the Colorado Governor’s task force on marijuana, Jo Mcguire joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

The Brave DC Press Corps First Responders

Should we all be thanking the brave and heroic members of the DC Press Corps? Has the Broward County Sheriff become more intolerable as the days go on? Is the core purpose of self-defense in the Second Amendment fading away in the debate on gun control? Is the fact that 26 out of 27 of the deadliest shooters were fatherless part of the national discussion? Editor of National Review, Rich Lowry joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

Biology Is Not Bigotry

Are transgender activists ignoring realities and out of touch with the general American population? Is the mainstream media’s glamorization of the transition process out of line with the mental and physical struggles of trans people? Is the outrage mob influencing people across the political spectrum? Is there a way to compromise on gender issues in public policy?  Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow and author of “When Harry Became Sally,” Ryan Anderson joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

Is "Toxic Masculinity" The Problem?

How are boys supposed to know what it means to be a man when pop culture celebrates sexual harassment and disrespect? Can boys not be men when society is telling them gender doesn’t matter? In the case of mass shooters, is one of the common threads the lack of socialization of the shooter or their failure of instruction of what it means to be a man? Dr. Leonard Sax, author of “Why Gender Matters,” joins Dan and Amy to explain why gender matters.

Related Content

President of American College of Pediatrics: No One Is Born Transgender

District 211 in Northwest suburban Cook County bent over backward to accommodate a transgender student, but it was still not enough. Not only is the student and family suing the school district for full access to the girls' locker room, but also financial compensation for emotional damage and legal fees. Dan and Amy talk with Vicki Wilson, D211 Parents for Privacy, who is suing the school to ensure all children are protected equally.

View full transcript


Proft: Good morning, Dan and Amy. So...here we go again in District 211, this is northwest suburban Cook County High School district. We talked, what was it last year, about a...uh... Jacobson: Fremd High School student. Proft: Yes, in District 211. Jacobson: This time it's a Palatine High School student. Proft: It was a male...a male student at Palatine High School that was...that has been granted access to the girls' locker room just like the previous student at Fremd, and there's some suggestion that there's misreporting going on. Before we even get to that though, this op-ed at DailySignal.com, from Michelle Cretella, who is the president of the American College of Pediatrics. So umm, District 211 board members, you may want to listen to this, I mean I know you're...you're....you're...you're all STEEPED in the issue, but I don't know, maybe you want to listen to a scientific opinion from an actual pediatrician rather than just kowtow to the political zeitgeist of the left..."No one is born transgender," writes Dr. Cretella. "No one is born transgender. If gender identity were hardwired in the brain before birth, identical twins would have the same gender identity 100% of the time, but they don't. An identity is not biological, it is psychological. Biological sex is not assigned," Dr. Cretella writes. "I walk in to my doctor's office today and say 'Hi, I'm Margaret Thatcher!', my psychician will say I am delusional and give me an antipsychotic. Yet instead if I walked in and said 'I'm a man', he would say 'Congratulations, you're transgender.' If I were to walk in and say 'Doc, I'm suicidal because I'm an amputee trapped in a normal body, please cut off my leg!', I would be diagnosed with body identity integrity disorder, but if I walk into that doctor's office and say I'm a man, sign me up for a double mastectomy, my physician will...my physician will. See, if you want to cut off a leg or an arm, you're mentally ill. But if you want to cut off healthy breasts or a penis, you're transgender." ...yeah. Pretty good summary from the doctor, don't you think? And so this student at Palatine High School? Jacobson: Yeah, we told you they filed a lawsuit last week. He sat...SHE sat...I'm sorry, he's a HE, but has identified as a girl for 4 years at Palatine High School, he's a senior, and claims that...he's been treated fairly by the students, but he wants more, Dan. Mayday (from tape): In order to show people that I am no different from any other girl, you know, I have to put my face out there, I have to show them. And hopefully it brings a level of human understanding to it. Jacobson: She's trying to be a social justice warrior... Proft: Well that was interesting to hear from Ferris Bueller, but now I want to hear from that student at Palatine High... Jacobson: You think he sounds like Matthew Broderick? He does...so here's what's happening, because Channel 7 didn't push this issue, it's staring them right in the face. They have made...they have allowed this person into the girls locker room, but he has to change behind a...behind a screen. But that's...THAT'S discrimination! Mayday (from tape): I shouldn't be required to change in a private area, where no other girl is required to. Jacobson: So he's asking to be with the other girls. He just wants to be one of the girls! But they have bent over backwards, I have felt since reading up on this issue for it...to make accomodations for this person, but it's still "not enough". Because he wants the screen down. Proft: There you go, District 211! What do you think, District 211 parents? 312-642-5600 Turnkey Dot Pro Answer Line, 64636DA Turnkey Dot Pro Text Line. That School Board reflecting your values? For more on the topic, we're pleased to be joined by Vicki Wilson, who is the District...she's with District 211's Parents for Privacy. Vicki, thanks for joining us again, appreciate it. Wilson: Hi Dan and Amy, thanks for having me! Proft: So this case...it's being reported that we've got the same problem...*sarcastically* allegedly, from the perspective of the student and his family...that you had the other time at Fremd, where he just wants access to the girls locker room, and what's wrong with that? Wilson: Right, it's actually been an ann...we just celebrated the two-year anniversary where the District decided to cave to the Obama Administration and let the student at Fremd have access to the girls locker room. And District 211 let's EVERY student with gender dysphoria have access to the locker room they desire. This student wants, as Amy said, he wants more. He wants to change clothes right next to the girls in the locker room. It's not enough that he has access TO the locker room. And let's be clear, that is a HUGE violation of privacy. Privacy begins at the locker room door, for obvious reasons. The District sided with this extreme position two years ago, and they are STILL being sued by the only students they chose to protect two years ago. Their policy violates the privacy of 99.7% of the student population. Jacobson: So, what about the girls' privacy? Because he hasn't gone through the operation yet, so he doesn't have the same body parts as they do. So what about THEIR rights? Wilson: Exactly. So our position is kids with gender dysphoria who are struggling, they shouldn't be...you know, we separate these spaces by anatomy. And if a child with dysphoria is struggling we say "Okay, if you're a boy and you're not comfortable there, fine. You should get an accomodation." But the opposite sex locker room is COMPLETELY unreasonable. If he is uncomfortable in his locker room with other biological anatomical boys, how on Earth does he think the girls feel? So our solution is three very simple words: Accommodate, don't violate. Very simple! But again, the District is on the extreme side of this, and they are suing not just for full access this time, total unrestricted access, but for money. For money this time! The media is not reporting that. They want financial compensation, damages for emotional distress... Jacobson: *disgusted* Oh my God... Wilson: ...forget about all the girls in our lawsuit, who have emotional distress, plus they want interest, AND reimbursement of their attorney fees. Proft: So, let me understand the perspective of the school board and the school district administrative hierarchy. Are they surrendering because they're worried about the litigation costs and the financial implications for the district, or are they advocates for this kind of gender fluidity in the schools? Cause there's a difference. Wilson: Right. I believe there are people who do think children that are...that there's no difference between a boy with gender dysphoria and a biological girl. That's what this is about, they want to erase ALL lines between boys with gender dysphoria and biological girls. They honestly say "Well, this is a girl, this is a girl!" They have bought into this completely insane idea...I can't figure it out! And the other thing is...we are told...I mean...our school district, we were the first one that Obama came after and threatened our...taking away our funding. Supposedly other school districts are doing the same thing, but it's us who are saying "No, we're only going to do limited access, not full access." And other school districts are...supposedly, I don't know...doing the full access. But again, limited is a HUGE violation. Jacobson: What school districts are doing full access? Do you know? Wilson: Pardon me? Jacobson: Which school districts are giving full access? Wilson: I don't know exactly, but someone said...someone at the ACLU...because OF COURSE the ACLU is behind this...who has a friend there said "Well, everyone is doing it!" 211 is the only one that's not doing it, supposedly, correctly. But I find that extremely hard to believe. We are the largest high school district in the state, and I think that is why, you know, they are trying to make an example of us. Proft: What about the girls? What is the feedback from students about this dude in their locker room, and the way that he wants to be in their locker room? Wilson: So we have over families...we have over fifty families in our lawsuit that we filed in May of last year, and a lot of them say "Look, we understand, we...we care about these kids, we don't want them bullied, we DON'T bully them." If we treat these kids like heroes than the girls are the ones that are intimidated, ridiculed, harassed. If they DO use the private area in the locker room, they are ridiculed and harrassed. And what's weird is our Dr. Case, our superintendent, he issued a statement on this thing, that our community is not divided on this, and that everybody SUPPORTS giving locker room access to the opposite sex. Well, did he conveniently forget about our lawsuit? Proft: Yeah I guess the fifty families you're describing don't count. Let me ask you this about your lawsuit though. You said this student and his family's lawsuit seeks specific performance as well as financial damages. What is your lawsuit seeking? Wilson: So our lawsuit does not ask for a dime. We ask the District to please, you know, institute a policy that protects all children equally, like I said accommodate, don't violate. They refused to do that...had they done it they could have gotten support like we are, wonderful representation from the attorneys at Attorneys Defending Freedom, and they would have gotten them free, and the taxpayers would have paid zero dollars for legal work. Instead they chose the extreme. So our lawsuit...we did release the DoE and the DoJ when Trump was elected and rolled back Obama's guidance, wisely. So we are still just suing the district, and we are not seeking a dime. Jacobson: This kid, Nova Mayday, and his mom, they made the media rounds last week. Have you been in contact with any...or have you...have you been in the locker room or spoken to any girls to see what the setup is for Nova? Wilson: Well see what happened was...it wasn't good enough, the offer by the school district to say "you can be in the girls locker room, we just want you to have your own special place". Now remember, when that happens these students are walking past the girls in the open air while they are changing clothes. But what happened is Nova and his mom said "That's not good enough! I don't want in the locker room unless I can have it my way! My way or the highway!" Proft: Yep, absolutely. Erase the lines and you don't get to redraw them. Vicki...by the way, it's worth noting, for parents and families that care, there's a board meeting Thursday night, 7:30 p.m., 1750 South Roselle Road in Palatine, if interested parties want to come to that board meeting and express their views on this topic to board members, right Vicki? Wilson: Right, right. And if you...yes, PLEASE come, if at all possible. And if you cannot come, please email the Board of Education at BoardOfEducation@D211.org or SuperintendentDCase@D211.org. They need to hear from people. Proft: Okay. And Parents for Privacy, if you want to contact Vicki Wilson and her group, D211ParentsForPrivacy@Gmail...D211ParentsForPrivacy@Gmail is that organization's email. Vicki Wilson, thanks so much for joining us, appreciate it. Wilson: Thank you both for having me, appreciate it. Jacobson: And good luck Thursday night! And she joined us on our Turnkey Dot Pro Answer Line.

Related Content

What Happened To Social Conservatives In Politics?

Is culture everything? Are we losing sight of basic truths? Why has the left been effective in shutting down the conservative message? What are they doing that social conservatives are not? How has the Republican Party rendered themselves useless in the culture war? Senior fellow at the American Principles Project, Maggie Gallagher joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Pleased to be joined by Maggie Gallagher, who is a Senior Fellow for the American Principles Project. And she's written an excellent piece in "First Things" that we referenced earlier in the week, about politics and culture, essentially arguing that those who suggest politics is downstream from culture don't have it quite right. So let's explore that with Maggie Gallagher, who joins us now. Thank you so much for being with us, appreciate it. Maggie Gallagher: Well, it's great to be with you, thank you, good morning. Proft: My perspective on this is that culture is everything, and so I concede your point that politics is a part of culture, which is what you write in your piece. But does the nature of politics being a part of culture mean that we aren't ultimately...or shouldn't ultimately be focused on...kind of...the proverbial "culture war"? Gallagher: No. It means right now, we're living in an America where everything is being de-normed, so that people who kind of believe in some simple basic truths like "we're born male and female", "we have a need for men and women to come together so they can raise the next generation together, that idea is called marriage", these things are now being de-normed as hateful. And it's obvious that the Republican Party is increasingly useless in terms of doing anything about this. And so the question is...what do we conclude from that? I would agree absolutely with the people who say culture is really important, and those of us who are people of faith have to figure out how to build creative subculture communities that transmit our own values and our own face to the next generation. The only thing I don't agree about is that we should somehow get out of politics. We took a really serious look...what I really believe is the reason that social conservatives are easily betrayed and not very politically influential...the most important reason, there's a lot of reasons...the most important reason is we're not really in politics. We just...we TALK like we're in politics. And people would go on television and say political things, but if you follow the money, what you find out is that we, unlike the Left and particularly the gay Left, have not built political institutions. So we looked at every organization in America that says it has some public policy goals around marriage or religious liberty. And we asked "Okay, how much of your money do you spend in politics, affecting who wins an election?" That's what politics is. It's not pastor organizing, or 501c3 voter guides...fundamentally, these are all fine things to do, but fundamentally they circle around...are you actually going to go into politics and elect your heroes, and un-elect your enemies? And the answer is, 97 cents of every dollar we spend to affect public policy is a non-profit, 501c3 apolitical strategy. And the Left doesn't do this, by the way, they don't do it at all! You just take the top three socially liberal organizations, Emily's List, Planned Parenthood, and Human Rights Campaign. And in the last election cycle, they spent $70 million just in *inaudible* money, and social conservatives spent less than $10 million. So you know, every single organization in this country...so I would say we should give politics a chance, before we conclude that it's useless. Right now, it's a problem for everyone, the grassroots and the donors have nowhere to go, because the organizations that claim to be political or are standing there and trying to be political aren't actually in politics. So you know, that's just a fundamental hole that has to be filled if we're not going to be persecuted in America as the ideology that our ideas are like racism and hatred unfolds. Proft: Just to give a concrete example of this, you do in your piece, but I want you to connect the dots for us, about...if you want to fight for this culture, if you want to fight for your value system, then you necessarily have to be involved politics, because the other side is aggressively pursuing it, and they're happy to roll right over you as we see being done. But the example you give about how the Left does it versus how conservatives don't do it effectively is a former Colorado Congresswoman, Marilyn Musgrave. Give the Marilyn Musgrave case study to us. Gallagher: Well that's just so...at one point in my life I was probably the major spokesman fighting gay marriage. So I watched a lot of this unfold. So one of the things I've watched unfold and I learned from...everything I know about politics, I say, I learned from watching how the gay Left actually countered me. So, Marilyn Musgrave was a Colorado Congressman, she was one of the original sponsors of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have said marriage was one man and one woman, didn't say anything else, and would have prevented the Supreme Court from doing what it did to overturn our efforts in state. But, the Left targeted her for her opposition to gay marriage, but they didn't fight her on that in her district. They knew she was representing her voters. So instead they just raised a bunch of money, and they dumped it in negative ads on her, on all kinds of issues, including as she told me personally, she said "They even ran...they created fake pro-life organizations, to demonstrate, or to claim at least, that I wasn't pro-life enough." And they did it in one election cycle, and they knocked down her numbers so she barely hung on, and then they came back in the next election cycle and they defeated her. And everyone in Congress...although the voters even in her district probably don't know...they said the reason she lost is that she was a spokesman against gay marriage. And it's an extremely effective way of shutting down one party's issue. So the Democrats are all in, and they're pro-gay marriage, and equality and love wins all, and the Republican Party is kind of silent and shy. They can't quite be for gay marriage because they know their voters won't tolerate it, but they won't speak because they don't want to become targets for the Left. Jacobson: Well, how has the LGBT community tightened its hold on culture shaping? Gallagher: Well, they...one of the reasons why politics is more important for conservatives than it is for liberals is that liberals dominate most of the other means of culture creation. So one of the things I can tell you because I was there is that the problem wasn't really that our messages don't work, it's that they effectively shut down our ability to get our message out. So the more effective I was, or we were, we were working together in state, so once we won California and Prop 8 in the year 2008, suddenly I was unable to get on Fox News. Suddenly I was unable to get on conservative radio...you know, the major stations, the big boys with the big advertisers. And it took about another year before suddenly I wasn't able to get on CNN, and eventually I could only go on MSNBC, where they would openly treat me with contempt if I showed up. So, you know I'd like to give you the other examples of other people, but the capacity to control what you see through Hollywood or Madison Avenue...and the big new thing is corporations are now joining social liberal. So corporations that...the Chamber of Commerce is the most effective and most public component of conscience protection for traditional beliefs in the state. And people are afraid if they say things, that they'll lose their jobs. And that'll be the lesson. And of course I could talk about what's going on at colleges and the academies, if you look at it. So politics, so what I learned when I was very young and Ronald Reagan was elected president is that politics is the way that you can break through that messaging shut down, and learn that you're not alone, that other people have the same views and values as you do. And I think that is one reason why it's important to recognize this Ron Dreher, this Benedict Option, that we are facing new threats to Christianity, and to do a lot of things; build faithful communities who exemplify Christ, but one of the things we can't afford to do is retreat from politics. You have to learn how to do it better, how to do it real, how to do it as a subculture and a minority that really does need new protection, because the fact that President Trump is not aggressively pursuing the same strategies to use government to oppress us doesn't mean the next President won't do it if there's not legislative protection. And without a real political movement, the GOP is going to be useless, it's not going to act. Proft: She is Maggie Gallagher, she's a senior fellow at the American Principles Project. A piece that you should check out, that I tweeted, @DanProft, is "Culture is Downstream from politics", which you can also find at FirstThings.com. Maggie, thanks so much for joining us, appreciate your time. Gallagher: Thank you, buh bye.

Related Content

Is Conservative Reformer Jeanne Ives Challenging Left-Leaning Incumbent Bruce Rauner?

State Rep. Jeanne Ives announced she is ready to take on Rauner in the Republican primary for Governor. Ives says she believes GOP primary voters deserve a choice in the upcoming election. How would her campaign differ from Rauner’s failed “Turnaround Agenda?” State Representative and potential Republican candidate for Governor, Jeanne Ives joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Good morning, Dan and Amy. So over the weekend, a couple of announcements. One, obviously it's not an election cycle in Illinois, Pat Quinn is not on the ballot, so he is...he's announced he's running for Attorney General. Amy Jacobson: That's so sweet! Proft: Yeah. Jacobson: Do you think he and Erika Harold will have a debate? They should. Proft: If he IS the Democrat Party's nominee...that's an if. Jacobson: Well what other, lot of other...oh yes, there's other challengers. Proft: There's like ten candidates on their side for Attorney General, since they've all been pent up waiting for almost two decades for "Daddy's Little Girl" to step down, Lisa Maddigan. So, and I think Erika Harold has a very good shot to win that race. Jacobson: Oh, so do I! Proft: So that's Quinn, and the other development is... Jacobson: The BIGGER news, Dan. Proft: Well, there's a revolt going on within the Republican party, and a lot of people want to see Bruce Rauner challenged in the primary, so that the race doesn't come down to, well, two big government plutocrats. Not much of a choice. They want distinguishing brand, and a candidate who can provide a distinguishing brand. And so rumors, we've talked about it on this show for a while, that State Representative Jeanne Ives, Republican from Wheaton, who I supported in previous campaigns as a private citizen through my political activities, in the interest of full disclosure, that she is circulating petitions to challenge Governor Rauner in the Republican primary. She added her running mate over the weekend, which is required. He is Rich Morthland, who is a former state rep and county board member, and now a community college professor at Black Hawk College, down in the Quad Cities area. And so, let's find out more about this fledgeling campaign, Jeanne and her running mate's. State representative Jeanne Ives joins us now, Jeanne, thanks for being with us, appreciate it. Jeanne Ives: Dan, great to talk to you today! Proft: So, what was the decision to take this next step and circulate petitions to get on the ballot and be a candidate against Governor Rauner? Ives: Well, GOP Primary votes, they really deserve a choice, and you know, they can choose between big government run by wealthy class, or they can pick the conservative reform ticket. Families and businesses are getting lied to and hurt by the policies in Springfield, and I know that firsthand. So we're going to take on this challenge, and we're going to do it with integrity, and we're going to be honest with the people in Illinois. Jacobson: Well when you talk about politics, you also talk about money, and Governor Rauner, I mean...that is a juggernaut to go against, because he's going to use $50 million of his own money in his re-election campaign. Can you even get a fourth of that money raised? Ives: We're very confident that we can raise that level of money. You know, we've already had a really good positive response from people. Nobody is saying that I shouldn't win. Everybody is agreeing with my policy prescriptions, and what I stand for, and they're looking for somebody who's going to be honest with them, and I'll tell you what...Governor Rauner can spend most of his fortune, and it's unlikely that he can redeem his reputation with GOP Primary voters. Proft: Well that's the thing, isn't it? It's a challenge for you to get known, because you are one of 118 state reps, so people outside of your district probably don't know you as well, you don't get a lot of profile as a state rep around the state, generally speaking. But, Rauner is a known quantity. And that's a quantity that Republican primary voters are revolting against because of his policy decisions. The guy that said "I wasn't going to have a social agenda" has had nothing except a social agenda three years in. And so it seems to me that's the challenge, getting better known, so people understand the choice before them. So, in the interest of getting better known, give us a bit of the background on you, and your family, so people get a better handle on who you are, and what you're trying to do. Ives: Sure, that's great! I actually grew up in Vermillion, South Dakota, and went to West Point, and I received a Bachelor of Science in Economics from there, served six years in the Army, my last assignment was ROTC at Wheaton College. I left them to raise my family, five children with my husband Paul, here in Wheaton. And I've got to tell you, the best compliment I ever got in my life came from Mr. Catchton, who I know you know, Dan, as well. Proft: The longtime gym teacher at St. Michaels... Ives: Yeah, gym teacher, long time. And you know what he said to me? He said, "You know what, Mrs. Ives? You've raised a solid citizen there," when he saw my son Matt. And I thought, you know, that is the best thing that you can do, is to raise solid citizens, and make them a part of society, productive parts of society. And so I've spent my time raising my children, doing some volunteer work, tax and accounting work on the side, and then I ran for state rep after serving on the Wheaton City Council. So, that's kind of who I am and a little bit about my background... Proft: And your husband, Paul...also West Point? Ives: Yes, my husband Paul is a "West Pointer", and our son Nick graduated from West Point. But Nick's a contrarian, so he cross-commissioned to the Navy, and he's going to be a Navy pilot. Jacobson: And you still talk to him... Proft: So one of your sons, *laughs* yeah, right, you still talk to him... Jacobson: I'm so sorry... Ives: *laughing* Yes, we still talk to him, and he does still root for West Point in the Army-Navy game, so that's good too. Jacobson: See, that's all that matters. Proft: Yeah, that's really, the Army-Navy game. That's the dividing line. So one son is in the Navy, and the other is...don't you have another son that's an Army Ranger? Ives: So Matt is stationed up in Fort Wainright, Alaska, and he is an Army Infantry Officer. He graduated ROTC from University of Illinois with a degree in Electrical Engineering, and he also earned his Ranger tab. So we're really proud of Matt, he's moving into an executive officer position up there, in the Striker battalion. Jacobson: That's great. Now, have you heard from Governor Rauner or anyone in his camp? Have they tried to persuade you not to run? Because I know there's been rumblings for a while that you might challenge him. Ives: No, they have not reached out to me at all, and you know, we don't expect them to reach out to us at all. But, I tell you what, this isn't just one decision that he made on one vote or one particular bill. This is a series of really, I think, bad decisions, that feeds into the "crony capitalism" problem we already have in the state of Illinois. And, the other thing that I'm kind of concerned about is, you know...public corruption is literally an everyday occurance in the state of Illinois. And we have a culture of corruption in this state, and officials overlook it repeatedly, and we need to detect it and prevent it and we need to prosecute it. And as the executive of the state, I really think that he has failed to take on that critical issue. Proft: Tell us about your running mate, just kind of filling in the blanks here, Rich Morthland, who I know as well. Former state rep from the Quad Cities area, a little bit on him and why you chose him to run with you. Ives: Well I think, you know, the reason that I chose RIch is that he actually embodies exactly what Illinois is, in many ways. We are a farm state, and people forget that. Well first and foremost, Rich is a farmer. And I think it's important to have somebody like that, with that kind of background, in on policy decisions that are important to the entire state. And he comes from Rock Island County, which is a county that has been decimated in terms of jobs and economic opportunity, and they're getting out-competed by Iowa. And many citizens are moving across the border to Iowa. So we need his perspective state-wide on what's going on. You know, Illinois is more than just the suburbs and the city of Chicago. And Rich is a man of integrity, he served honorably in the State House, he's a community college professor, and he's in the union by the way, so we're real excited to have both Rich and his wife Betsy, who's just a fireball, on our team, and we think we're going to resonate with everybody. Jacobson: Now, besides big names, big name Republicans such as Dan Proft... Proft: *sarcastically* Oh, yeah... Jacobson: ...are others supporting you on your...well we had Congressman Peter Roskam on our program on Friday, and he seemed very open to the possibility that you would run for Governor. Ives: Peter is a close friend of mine, in fact I'm his state rep, so I'm thrilled to have the support of prominent Republicans like Peter. And actually, you know...GOP voters deserve a choice. It's going to be up to the GOP Primary voters to put a good team in like Rich and I vs the Plutocratic choices you have between Pritzker and Rauner. Proft: Well now, you're going to have people who heard the line before about pursuing a conservative reform agenda, that's what Rauner said, and it didn't happen. So, kind of the "once bitten", or in Illinois' case, "a hundred times bitten, a hundred and first time shy". So why is it going to be different with Jeanne Ives than it has been with Rauner and so many other Republicans? Ives: Well, we're going to take a different tactic when we put in policy. We're going to hyper-focus on what we need to do, and make sure Illinoisans understand how desperately we need job creation, and need to become business-friendly. Because I know firsthand that the taxpayers and businesses are the last consideration in any conversation down in Springfield. So, we elected Governor Rauner, literally, he was also elected to be the backstop for any bad policies coming out of the legislature. And he has failed that in many ways, from bailing out multibillion dollar companies, to bailing out CPS on the backs of taxpayers statewide. We elected him to do something differently. He could have turned the conversation, and put his voice in many of those critical meetings, and he failed to do so. So look, we have, both Rich and I, have a policy background, and we understand exactly the game that's going on, and we're going to insert ourselves in those conversations, and make sure that taxpayers are heard, and not just lobbyists and special interests. Proft: Well, I suppose also you have a voting record, as does Rich. So you can compare and contrast your voting record with the choices that Rauner made on so many of these issues that have angered Republican Primary voters, from HB-40, to Sanctuary State, to trans birth certificate, to the crony capitalist legislation that you were one of the few to reject. So those are opportunities for contrast to kind of establish credibility, I suppose. Ives: I'm happy to put my voting record out in the public for them to see, because in many cases most of the legislation that's run down from Springfield...you couldn't sell it to anybody if people understood what the bill did. You could only sell it to a group that's sitting in a bubble, like Springfield. Nobody else would agree that most of the policy that has passed is good at all. You know, there's very little thought going into much of the legislation, very little research and analysis. So not only am I proud of my voting record, I'm proud of the bills that I actually pushed, that I actually filed, that didn't come to fruition, because it tells you where I went and where I'm going. And it's ALL taxpayer protection. From limiting the debt that is accumulating in our municipalities, in our schools, on the backs of our children, in the future years, to pension reform that we have to have. So, my record is wide open and I'm happy to send it. Jacobson: So, are you going to start travelling around the state, getting to know some people, in the southern counties? Proft: Like Mount Prospect...the Jacobson Ancestral Home... Ives: I'm thrilled...my calendar is filling up quickly, and our team is ready to do all the work and meet all the people that we need to be successful. And I've already been invited to events around the state, so we have a broad base of support already, and that just excites our team. Proft: You said something at the outset that I just kind of wanted to pick up on. The people that you're talking to, nobody's saying that you shouldn't win. Because you're going to run up against conventional wisdom that says, "Oh, she can't win! Rauner's money, and nobody knows who she is." I mean, this is of course the easy analysis, this why people take it, because it's the easy analysis and we're content to be prognosticators so much of the time rather than work for what we WANT to see happen, it's easier just to predict what will happen. But how do you run into, or...how do you respond to that conventional wisdom that's tinged with a healthy dose of fatalism about the party and the state? Ives: Well I have a lot of trust in the majority of the voters in the state of Illinois. And I think overall, Illinoisans are still very much practical mid-westerners. And while this looks like a David vs. Goliath race, and maybe it is right now in terms of money, a better story really is "The Emperor's New Clothes". So we're going to expose the fact that they have literally no clothes on...on much of their policies. And I think that when you're confronted with the truth about what's going on in Springfield, the voters will turn away from that, and actually vote for somebody who they know has a backbone, who is going to stand up for them. So that's our challenge, we have to get the money and the resources to get that message out, but we're confident once people hear our message, it will resonate with them. Proft: I don't like thinking about the Rauners with no clothes on. Jacobson: *quietly* Oh dear... Proft: So I don't know if I like that metaphor. But otherwise, I of course like what Jeanne Ives has to say. State representative Jeanne Ives, Republican candidate for governor in the making, in the making, of course there's the caveat there, she's gotta file by December 4th, still a decision to make. Jeanne, thanks for joining us, appreciate it. Ives: Good day, thank you for having me!

Related Content

The Former "Reform Governor" Became "Benedict Rauner"

Governor Rauner signed a bill to force taxpayers to fund abortions: at any time in the pregnancy, for any reason. No Republican legislator supported it. Not a single one. Is it over for Governor Rauner? It should be. Pat Hughes explains in this week's Two Minute Warning.

RELATED CONTENT

David Daleiden: The Undercover Citizen Journalist Who Exposed Planned Parenthood

"Planned Parenthood has been lying to the American public for 10 months now. They’ve tried to assert that they have no financial benefit [from baby body parts] whatsoever but we know that's false...it's very clear that they were making up to five figure payments on the baby parts every month." 

David Daleiden and his Center for Medical Progress team changed the world’s understanding of Planned Parenthood and its business with 11 undercover videos that profiled Planned Parenthood personnel explaining what they do and how they do it in their own words. The results have been seismic. As Daleiden says, Planned Parenthood trafficks in baby body parts (illegally) because they have value and they have value precisely because they are something Planned Parenthood won’t admit they are: human. But Daleiden’s work has come at personal cost as political handmaidens to Planned Parenthood in CA and Houston, TX have raided Daleiden’s home in the former jurisdiction and indicted him on specious charges in the latter jurisdiction. Daleiden joined Dan & Amy for updates on all of the aforementioned matters and more.

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Good morning, Dan and Amy; well, as I’m one to say, history’s always changed by the committed few for good or for bad, and there is a committed few that have changed history for the good. David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress; citizen journalist who launched videos and weaved port over everyone who was launched from June 15 to present, launched videos of their undercover journalistic project to present what Planned Parenthood really is, who they really are at the top of it, from Cecile Richards on down, and what they really do; and the result of that work. Amy Jacobson: He faces up to 20 years in prison. Dan Proft: Well, that’s one result. The more important – I mean, that’s important for him – the more important result of their work – and this is thousands of hours of video, I’m sure – but all encapsulated in about 90 minutes of video spread over 11 installments; congress for the first time wanted to defund parenthood. Five congressional investigations, ten states have removed their state funding for Planned Parenthood; Planned Parenthood have agreed to stop accepting monetary payments for harvesting aborted baby body parts in a letter to NIH, and every presidential candidate has had to weigh in on this matter, Republican and Democrat. It is t he debate front and center, and a lot of scales have fallen from a lot of eyes around the globe, as tenths of millions of people have watched the work that David Daleiden and The Center for Medical Progress produced, and I was fortunate enough to MC a dinner at which he was the key note speaker for Illinois Right To Life committee last week, and we wanted to get him on the show to update people where this stands, and as you alluded to, Amy, where some of his personal legal challenges stand. So now we’re pleased to be joined by the aforesaid David Daleiden from The Center for Medical Progress. Dave, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. David Daleiden: Thank you for having me on. Dan Proft: So why don’t we start with – we’ll get to your legal situation – but why don’t we start with the genesis of this citizen journalistic project you undertook; the amount of time that went into it before you decided to approach representatives of Planned Parenthood and start having these undercover conversations that you had. There was a lot that went into it that I don’t think most people know. David Daleiden: Definitely. You know, we call it the Human Capital Project – was ultimately a 30 month long investigative journalistic study of Planned Parenthood and the entire baby parts trafficking phenomenon. That issue first came across my radar back in 2010 and it was something that I thought was so gripping and so compelling and so disturbing that it deserved to have a very sophisticated long term in-depth expose done on it; and the opportunity to start something like that came to me in early 2013. There was a lot of background research, A lot of preparation, a lot of very intense training of the various actors that we used to do the undercover work. A lot of hands on immersion training to get really familiar with the whole space of baby body parts experimentation and research, and also what late term abortion practice, so it’ll be ready like fish and water to enter into those spaces and have a lot of up close and personal quality time with Planned Parenthood senior level representatives. So the information that we would gather would be basically unimpeachable because of the senior level and the people who’d be coming front. Dan Proft: The way I’ve compared, it’s almost like Daniel Day Lewis, like a method actor preparing for a role. That was the kind of intense education – if you will – preparation that went into this. David Daleiden: Definitely, definitely. Some people compare undercover work to acting. I tend to think of it more like learning a language. When learning the language of the other side in terms of phrases, the idiosyncrasies even, and learning to emulate those and once you do that, they feel like you’re one of them; it’s like learning the secret handshake. Amy Jacobson: You weren’t in any of the videos yourself? David Daleiden: I was. I was one of the five or six undercover investigators that we used for everything. Dan Proft: Question that a lot of people ask. A lot of people asked at that dinner I mentioned at the outset, was there ever a moment where you thought, where your colleagues thought that they were on to you that you were going to be exposed? David Daleiden: To answer that question I think is one of those more humorous things that happened throughout the course of the project. There were a few Planned Parenthood abortion doctors that we met who did have a very ordinary personality. And so, when we met them for the very first time, it was easily the most skeptical of what kind of personal connection we actually had, and whether they were really on board or what if they were suspicious? What exactly is going on? So for a couple of those individuals it was a little tense, a little frightening; during the first conversation I wasn’t sure if they were suspicious or what was going on, but suddenly I realized it was just their personality. Amy Jacobson: Were you surprised that their cavalier attitude; how they could be sitting down, drinking a glass of wine, having a salad and talking about selling baby hearts and aborted tissues? David Daleiden: Definitely. Not only cavalier, but callous attitude that they all displayed, but I was also surprised of how honest most of them were about the really brutal nature of their own work, and how honest most of them were about the fact that they were killing unborn children; I just saw a headline on Google News today about the dismemberment abortion bands that are cropping out in a couple of different states now where they’re trying different and surpassing laws to outlaw the 2nd trimester abortion method that’s done by literally dismembering the baby in the womb, and a lot of the progressive pro-abortion websites are criticizing these bands, talking about the measurement’s completely inaccurate; they call it dismemberment, how outrageous. Every abortion doctor that I met at Planned Parenthood referred to that abortion method as a “dismemberment abortion band”. That’s their own nomenclature within the aborted industry. And that’s how jaded they are; they’ll use works like that amongst themselves. Amy Jacobson: Do you think the women knew that their body parts were being sold? Or do you know? David Daleiden: No, we have copies of the consent form based on the permission slip that Planned Parenthood uses to get pregnant women to give permission to “donate” the body parts. The patients are told that this is a donation of fetal tissue, when in reality Planned Parenthood is making money off of it, and the companies that they sell them to – like Stem Express – are making money off of it. But that’s nowhere disclosed to the patient on the form. Back in March, the Select Investigative Panel in Congress, which has been doing some very good work looking into this entire issue, they’ve heard testimonies under oath from a Planned Parenthood financial donor and baby body parts customer, a scientist from UC San Diego who testified under oath that the language of Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Consent Form was inappropriately written and completely unethical; and that was a Planned Parenthood supporter’s own words under oath. Dan Proft: Before we lose the institutional knowledge here, because when you started releasing those videos you clearly caught Planned Parenthood flatfoot, and I want you to recount how Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood, this billion dollar organization, how her explanations for what we saw on those videos changed as one explanation after another was proven erroneous. David Daleiden: Definitely. So Planned Parenthood, including Cecile Richards, from the top down, has been lying to the American public for 10 months now about the reality of what’s going on in those video tapes and about how Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Program has been run. They’ve consistently tried to assert to the public that Planned Parenthood has no financial benefit whatsoever from supplying the body parts of the babies that they abort. We now know that’s completely false because of the very good work of the Select Investigative Panel; they released a very comprehensive report just a couple of weeks ago that has many, many new exhibits, new documentation; they’ve gathered to their subpoena process that makes it very, very clear that Planned Parenthood had no costs whatsoever in supplying the aborted fetal tissue, which is basically just medical waste to Planned Parenthood; and yet they were still making up to 5 figure payments on the Baby Parts every month in exchange for supplying them. Planned Parenthood has variously claimed for the past 10 months, first of all, that there was reimbursement and it went to the patients; they’re basically saying, “We don’t sell body parts, we buy them from our patients”. That would be just as illegal and just as wrong, so they changed that explanation after about 24 hours, and they said, “Oh no, it’s actually payments for the cost of shipping the body parts”; except Planned Parenthood doesn’t do any of the shipping; the shipping is done by the companies that they work with. And then they said, “Well, it’s for costs of storage”, but they’re not being stored, they’re being harvested fresh and then taken to wherever they’re going; so there’s no storage. So it’s just been one false justification after another after another. In reality they’ve been lying to the American public for 10 months about what’s going on with this issue. Dan Proft: To talk about exposing them, in their own words, in one of the videos the woman who wanted the Lamborghini, famously, if it’s just for reimbursement, then why are you haggling over price? Why is the price moving if it’s just reimbursement? David Daleiden: Exactly. Amy Jacobson: Or did that get kickbacks? I mean if they sold more body parts, did help lie in their pockets? David Daleiden: Absolutely. They were being paid on a per specimen volume basis, so based on the volume of body that they could supply, but only if they were high enough quality failable body parts. Dan Proft: We’re talking to Dave Daleiden; Center for Medical Progress; David, can we hold you over? We want to get some listeners call in with questions as well. We’ll be back with more David Daleiden right after this. David Daleiden: Great. Dan Proft: Dan and Amy; we’re talking to David Daleiden from the Center for Medical Progress; the group that did that undercover citizen journalistic project that exposed Planned Parenthood for the bloody business operators that they are, and we’ll get to your calls in just a minute. David, thanks for being with us, appreciate it. David Daleiden: No problem, thanks for having me on, you guys. Dan Proft: So just picking off where we left off. I want to go to the legal issues. There was a report out a couple of weeks ago that your home in California has been raided by authorities and you’re also under indictment in Houston, Texas. Could you just update our listeners into where your legal challenges stand? David Daleiden: Definitely. There’s a couple or there’s some things going on. In the state of California, which is where I’m located, there’s 3 civil law suits, first of all, from Planned Parenthood and their allies. There’s a lawsuit from Stem Express, which is the major baby parts company that’s been partnered with many Planned Parenthood clinics for the past 5 years; there’s a lawsuit from the National Abortion Federation, which is the major trade association in abortion right in North America, and there’s a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood themselves. Those second two lawsuits are moving very slowly and they’re just going through the process; the Stem Express case is supposed to be moving forward to trial, but Stem Express is being very, very hesitant about producing any information in discovery right now, which is kind of what we anticipated, because most of these entities have a lot more to lose than to gain by bringing the details of their baby parts trafficking into the light of the law, into the courtroom. Then Planned Parenthood’s political allies and cronies have bought some very politically motivated legal actions and harassments that bear on me and some of the other investigators in Texas. There are these two indictments from a complete sham runaway grand jury process in Houston, Texas. We have some very good motions to dismiss their on-file right now and waiting to be heard; there’s a lot of issues with the process out there and the charges certainly don’t fit the law as written or the facts that actually happened out there. And then, as you just mentioned, a couple of weeks ago, the California Attorney General’s office, the California Attorney General Kamala Harris – she was a bought and paid for politician by Planned Parenthood; they’ve donated tens of thousands of dollars to her political campaigns, and she’s currently running for senate in the state of California; has a petition on her website for people to support Planned Parenthood and give their e-mail and all that, so she is raising money off of their cause. She ordered eleven of her Department of Justice agents to raid my home just a couple of weeks ago. They seized 4 laptops, multiple external hard drives, lots of personal information and attorney-client protected information, all kinds of stuff in this incredibly heavy-handed KGB style overreach. And it’s especially outrageous, considering that California is really the hub of a lot of the baby parts trafficking; the companies like Stem Express are based out of here, the biggest Planned Parenthood affiliates in the country that have been doing this for the longest are based out here in California, and the California Attorney General’s office has refused to even open an investigations of those entities, even while they’re being investigated by the US Congress and very serious information is coming out through the congressional panel. The Attorney General bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood is refusing to even open an investigation of those entities, and instead is coming down like a thug, basically, on investigative journalists instead of on journalists. So it’s really concerning for every freedom loving American; it might sound a little cliché, but that’s the truth. We have a very competent legal team across the board on all these different cases, that including the Thomas More Society in Chicago, which is really, really great. So all that moves forward. Dan Proft: Let’s get a listener calling here real quick; Mary in River Forest, you’re on Chicago’s Morning Answer. Mary: Hi, good morning. David, I wanted to ask just in terms of your own emotional equilibrium, how you managed to look at the things that were in those pans when you were negotiating the purported fail of the body parts. I remember one video where the technician holds up a little baby arm and I can just tell you, as a mom to a premature kid, my eyes just filled with tears. How did you manage not to lose it when you saw those things? Dan Proft: Thanks, Mary. David Daleiden: It’s a really good question. Those were definitely the hardest moments of the entire project. I think all of undercover work certainly requires a lot of dissociation and no moment more than those moments, but those were certainly the most troubling sad moments of the entire project. It was very disturbing and there was a lot to process afterwards. Whatever you felt looking at those, we both felt it as well. We had to wait until afterwards to really express it. Dan Proft: And Dave Daleiden, one of the things you said that’s really powerful to me in terms of connecting the dots at this dinner that we both attended last week; there’s value in the body parts – that’s why Planned Parenthood sells them – and the value is that they’re human. Just a reminder of what we’re talking about. David Daleiden: Exactly, and the body parts are only valuable to sell precisely because they’re human. Even though the aborts in the street doesn’t consider their humanity to be equal enough to our own in order to not kill the children, it’s precisely that humanity that is equal to and identical to our own that makes them hunt after the body parts like buried treasure. There’s really nothing like it, being in that room and seeing the body parts and having the dialog up close and personal with the little person who’s just been killed. Our resolution as undercover investigators is that if we were going to go into those place, we were at least going to be a welcoming presence to those kids for the short moments that they would still be alive, and even if no one else would, we would be in there to welcome them and to appreciate their lives, even if they’re passed on to the other side. I was kind of inspired by the pastoral teaching of the Holy Father Pope Francis to try and bring the light of the gospel even into the darkest places, and even into the existential margins of society, which no margin is more existential than the front door of an abortion clinic. Dan Proft: He is David Daleiden from the Center for Medical Progress; David, thanks for joining us, and good luck with your legal challenges. David Daleiden: Thank you.

Related Content