Genocide in America — and Other Idiotic Observations

The death of George Floyd in Minneapolis a few months ago touched off a cultural revolution in America, one replete with protests in the streets along with more than a little rioting and looting.

The narrow message was that there’s a wave of police brutality washing over the country and it’s got to stop.  The bigger message is that it’s not just bad cops who are the problem, but that America in its entirety is the problem. Not that there are racists in America, but that racism is “systemic,” meaning it permeates every facet of American life.

Naomi Osaka, the tennis superstar took to twitter to tell us that, “Watching the continued genocide of Black people at the hand of the police is honestly making me sick to my stomach.”

Genocide?  Here in the United States?  Really?  Perhaps Ms. Osaka doesn’t know the meaning of the word — that it refers to “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.”

But let’s not be too harsh on Ms. Osaka. After all she’s only 22 and spent a good deal of her life hitting a ball with a racquet over a net.

But what should we make of the scholars who keep telling us that “systemic racism” in our country is real and that it can’t be tolerated any longer?

There’s Ted Ruger, dean of the University of Pennsylvania law school who says, “We are again reminded that this country’s 400-year history of racism continues to produce clear and present danger to the bodies and lives of Black people in every part of the United States.”

And there’s Amherst College president Carolyn Martin who says that the “virulent anti-black racism in this country has never NOT been obvious, and yet there are those who continue to deny it,” before making a plea “to white people in particular, to acknowledge the reality of anti-black racism, its long history, and its current force; to recognize how embedded it is in our institutional structures, social systems, and cultural norms; and to assume our responsibility for ending it.”

And there’s UCLA chancellor Gene Block who believes that “racism permeates every sector of our society, from education to employment, from housing to health care, from board rooms to court rooms.”

There are many, many more scholars who say things just like that, but you get the idea.  What’s especially noteworthy is that it turns out that liberal elite college campuses are a hotbed of this horrible racism.

Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber, for example, says that, “Racism and the damage it does to people of color persist at Princeton … and racist assumptions . . . remain embedded in structures of the University itself.”

At Middlebury College in Vermont, the school’s president, Laurie Patton, tells us that racism “happens in our residence halls and in our classrooms, at the tables of our dining halls and in our locker rooms, on our sidewalks, within the offices where we work, and in our town.”

But as Heather MacDonald writes in the Manhattan Institute’s magazine, City Journal, “All such institutional self-accusations by college presidents leave out the specifics. Which faculty members do not treat black students fairly? If that unjust treatment is so obvious, why weren’t those professors already removed? What is wrong with an admissions process that lets in thousands of student bigots? In other moments, college presidents brag about the quality of their student body and faculty. Are they lying? Shouldn’t they have disclosed to black applicants that they will face ‘racist acts’ and ‘systems of inequality’ should they attend?”

But, despite the lectures we get from scholars, and despite what we hear from athletes like Naomi Osaka, systemic racism isn’t automatically a fact just because they say it is. “Other credible explanations exist for ongoing racial disparities, including family structure, cultural attitudes, and individual behavior. To declare from the highest reaches of the academy that racism is the defining and all-explaining feature of American society is to adopt a political position, not to state a scientific truth,” as Heather MacDonald nicely sums it up.

There is a reason, of course, that we hear so much about the evils of system racism from so many white liberals.  It’s because there are no limits to white liberal guilt, a condition that is, well, systemic among those on the left.

Many white liberals see racism everywhere – remember, that’s what “systemic racism” means, that it’s everywhere – because they have a desperate need to show off what the black conservative scholar Shelby Steele calls, their “good racial manners,” to show the world that they’re the “good ones.”

But, as Heather MacDonald, asks, “What if the racism explanation for ongoing disparities is wrong, however? What if racial economic and incarceration gaps cannot close without addressing personal responsibility and family culture—without a sea change in the attitudes that many inner-city black children bring with them to school regarding studying, paying attention in class, and respecting teachers, for example?”

Such a discussion is a dangerous one to have in places like liberal American universities or American newsrooms or chic Manhattan dinner parties.  Anyone who dares bring up such inconvenient alternatives to “systemic racism” runs the risk of being called a racist – if he or she is lucky.  If they’re not lucky, they’ll simply be cancelled.

And the very real problems plaguing too much of black America will persist.  But hey, all those white liberals will feel better – about themselves.  And that’s what’s really important.

Bernie’s Q&A: Trump, Ginsburg, Wallace, Ice Cube, and more! (9/25) — Premium Interactive ($4 members)

Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.

Editor’s note: If you enjoy these sessions (along with the weekly columns and audio commentaries), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you! 

One more note: A couple questions came in after this week’s deadline (Wednesday night at midnight), so I will answer them at the top of next week’s Q&A. Thank you.

Now, let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

Please share your thoughts as to the newest PC dictate that the word “black” must be capitalized. I have noticed that this is the case even in the WSJ (at least non-Op-Eds). This seems like an Orwellian power move to control the narrative. It also is completely contrary to, and inconsistent with, the messages of unity and equality we are force fed pretty much every day. Maybe a great topic for an upcoming Off The Cuff.  — Michael F.

Let’s just say, Michael, that PC has run amok. But if we’re going to capitalize Black why not the same with White? The PC police have an answer for that.  Here’s an explanation (of sorts) from the Columbia Journalism Review:

“AT THE COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW, we capitalize Black, and not white, when referring to groups in racial, ethnic, or cultural terms. For many people, Black reflects a shared sense of identity and community. White carries a different set of meanings; capitalizing the word in this context risks following the lead of white supremacists.”

This is beyond nonsense. As I say, the PC police have run amok and journalism has become another form of activism.

I think you give people like Stephanopoulos and Stelter too much credit for honest stupidity. They are in their positions because they have an ax to grind. There are few careers featuring such strong immunity to serious criticism. Seldom need they even bother to defend themselves from any criticism and never if it comes from a known conservative. Since the demise of objectivity in the 1960s New Left reporters feel entitled to let their personal beliefs and experiences add color and impact to their finished product. However they are careful to hide those beliefs from readers or viewers except as they might infer from the nature of specific reports or withering interviews. — John D.P.

First, John, I agree with you analysis (though the last sentence confuses me; no big deal). I think there are 3 main reasons this ax-grinding occurs: Bias. Corruption. Stupidity. Bias because they take sides. Corruption because it’s gone so far. Stupidity because in Stelter’s case anyway, he’s a dope.

Trump said this at a rally this week:

“Now we know [the coronavirus] affects elderly people. Elderly people with heart problems and other problems. If they have other problems, that’s what it really affects. That’s it. You know, in some states thousands of people— nobody young — below the age of 18, like nobody — they have a strong immune system — who knows? Take your hat off to the young, because they have a hell of an immune system. But it affects virtually nobody. It’s an amazing thing.”

Beyond the fact that the virus absolutely affects more than just old people with pre-existing conditions, I can’t think of a better political ad for Biden than Trump saying “it affects virtually nobody” at a time when over 200,000 Americans have already died from it, and many others have suffered long term and even permanent health damage. And how can anyone in the “pro-life” party defend this crap (though they all seem to be doing just that)? — Ben G.

For some, Donald J. Trump can do no wrong. He can say the stupidest thing and they’ll respond with, Biden is worse. That may be a reason to vote for Trump, but it’s not a reason to pretend he’s honest or knows what it means to act like the President of the United States. I’m with you, Ben.

I’m going to get off the front-page news of today (Trump/Biden/SCOTUS) to address an issue that drives me nuts. I want to rid this country of tax-exempt corporations; namely nonprofits. For rich entertainers and athletes forming a charity is sound tax advice as a method to avoid tax along with writing off their Bentley. To me, this was not the intent of nonprofits. I would like to see a Bernie Goldberg on HBO go after these “fake” charities by these filthy rich gifted people like he did camel jockeys. Let’s call the episode “Charity Jockeys”. Yes, I’m serious. Let me qualify. I do donate to good causes and I don’t because I can take the deduction. But I do take it. If the deduction was gone, I would still do it. — Tim H.

You’re right, Tim, there are some non profits that don’t give a lot of the money they take in to charity. They spend it on all sorts of other things and when they’re done, there’s not much left. That said, some non profits, as you know, are run well. Real Sports actually looked in to doing a story about athletes who set up charities that are, let’s say, questionable. For some reason we hit a snag. Maybe we’ll revisit, Tim.

Regarding this week’s Off The Cuff, about what the Dems are threatening to do if Trump and The Senate replace Ginsburg’s seat so close to the election — Making D.C. & Puerto Rico states, ending the filibuster (except when it benefits THEM), packing the Supreme Court, etc…

Let’s assume that Trump and McConnell honored the Dems’ requests and refrain from appointing a replacement. What exactly would stop the Dems from following through on their threats anyway if they were to win the Senate and the presidency? Why should Trump and McConnell trust them to keep their word? Also are the Republicans any more hypocritical than the Democrats in this matter regarding the Republicans’ behavior during the attempted appointment of Merrit Garland?

Funny how BOTH political parties have switched and changed their tune when the circumstances are not convenient for them. Finally, whether or not Ginsburg’s dying wish was that a new president should appoint her successor: Sorry but why should THAT make a difference? I highly doubt that the Dems would have honored that same request for Scalia under a similar set of circumstances. Your thoughts? — “Notorious RBG” Regards From The Emperor

You’re right on all counts, Your Holiness. First, yes, the Dems could pack the court even if the president doesn’t put through a nominee before the election. They could hold packing the court over the head of Republicans and kill the filibuster anytime a decision comes down that they don’t agree with. Second, yes again, both parties are hypocritical as I point out in a recent column I wrote for the Hill.

Finally, whether Justice Ginsburg actually said what’s attributed to her doesn’t really matter. Dems accuse Mr. Trump of politics. Sounds like the Justice was doing a little politicking too by supposedly saying she wants a new president to name a possible replacement for her.

In the age of political hysteria I think we should all (if we were ever exposed to his writing) heed the writings of Thomas Paine who wrote in his pamphlet Common Sense the following: “Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.”

Is there any more pertinent advice for the American voters than those reflected above? Thank you and keep up the good work. We need more sane voices, even those from the past. — Douglas C.

That quote is why a lot of his critics say Tom was a Paine.


What do you think of the possibility of Trump “reaching across the aisle” and nominating Merrick Garland to replace Ginsburg? He wouldn’t lose any ground as the court already leans conservative and Garland is arguably to the right of Ginsburg. It could also allow him inroads to winning the moderate vote in his re-election bid. — Gus

I think the odds of President Trump nominating Garland are … ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personal question since I remember you writing about George Carlin a while back. Who are your all-time favorite comedians (maybe your top 3)? Thanks. — Floyd R.

Interesting question, Floyd.

Carlin … Rodney Dangerfield … and Nancy Pelosi.

One of my prized possessions is a book Carlin signed for me. It says, “To Bernie, Go F**K yourself.”


In apparent preparation for the first presidential debate, Trump just declared that moderator Chris Wallace is “controlled by the radical left.” It’s whiny nonsense, of course, but what always strikes me is how the shots Trump takes at the integrity of respected Fox News journalists almost never get mentioned and discussed on the Fox News commentary shows. Do you think the journalists ever get fed up with their Fox News colleagues on the commentary side almost never sticking up for them? — Jen R.

I’ve had discussions with Fox journalists about Fox commentators. Journalists get hassled when they’re covering stories because people hate Hannity and Ingraham. No one’s forcing the reporters to stay. They’ve apparently come to accept the situation they’re in. I’m not surprised, Jen, that generally speaking the commentators don’t stick up for the journalists at FNC. The prime time crew are Trump cronies, toadies, bootlickers. They’ll never criticize him. And as for Trump saying Chris Wallace is “controlled by the radical left” … he’s a fool … and I’m not talking about Chris. Note:  When Trump told Fox’s Brian Kilmeade that Wallace is “controlled by the radical left,” Kilmeade responded: “I will tell you for sure, [Chris Wallace] is not controlled by anyone.”

Bernie, years ago, when you confused rapper Ice Cube for rapper Ice-T on national television, did it do any permanent damage to your previously impeccable street cred? Also, did it cause any problems for your record label in 2012, as you were recording your own debut rap album entitled, “Straight Outta Rutgers”?  — John  D.

No, JD my Homey, the Cube and the Bern Man are still tight. No harm to my street cred, sucker. As for that Straight Outta Rutgers BS… You think you be funny. You not. I’m actually on the album in a cut called Quiet on the Set. I come in at around 2 minutes and 55 seconds. Think I’m fooling’.  Check it out (below). They don’t call me Notorious BRG for nothing.


Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.

Off the Cuff: Think It’s Bad Now? Wait Until After the Election

Think the country is angry and divided now? Just wait until after election night.

That’s the topic of my Off the Cuff audio commentary this week. You can listen to it by clicking on the play (arrow) button below.


Editor’s Note: If you enjoy these audio commentaries (along with the weekly columns and Q&A sessions), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you! 

Side note: If you’re a Premium Interactive member (the $4 tier), and have a question for this Friday’s Q&A, make sure to get it to me before Wednesday night at midnight. You can use this form on my website.

Bernie’s Q&A: Biden, Harris, Dole, Woodward, and more! (9/11) — Premium Interactive ($4 members)

Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.

Editor’s note: If you enjoy these sessions (along with the weekly columns and audio commentaries), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you! 

Now, let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

Bernie – Does Joe Biden’s candidacy remind you in any way of Bob Dole’s ‘honorary’ run in 96′? Is it his turn? — Peter E.

Haven’t thought about it that way, Peter. If there’s a comparison it might be to Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Humprhey wasn’t a radical. Neither is Biden. Humprhey had a progressive wing to worry about. Same with Biden.  Humprhey talked and talked and talked … but had little to say about the violence in the streets, fearing a backlash from the left that supported the protesters. Biden has given lip service to his opposition to riots, but he’s not convincing, also fearing a backlash from his left flank that supports the protesters.

My business has provided me the ability to see the world. My wife and I will seek street artists where we travel and purchase their art and note on the back where and why we were there. Street artists around the world are incredible talented and it makes for great memories in our home. Guests always inquire about the works and many now do the same thing.

I believe a community has the right to erect and remove statues to their choosing. But when I see them come down with rope hooks and sledge hammers by small mobs, that’s another story. Further, I would not support removing statues of Lenin in this country using the same methods, although they offend me. Or forbid the wearing of “Che” t-shirts which also offend me. Of course, I have boundaries.

Recently a bill was passed by the house to remove confederate statues from all national parks. It will never pass the current Senate. If you have toured Gettysburg, the statues of both union and confederate commanders and soldiers displays troop positions at key battle points. Yes, some were dedicated by states memorializing the service of the rebels. Are we now a country where one size fits all? Is the next step to eliminate hate speech that many European nations have adopted? And art, which is subject to interruption, now required to be neutral or to carry a message of context so we don’t need to interrupt? Was this bill from the house the start of a slippery slope? — Tim H.

You’ve documented a very real and very scary trend: Leftists who are against free expression when it offends their sensibilities. You ask if the next step is to eliminate hate speech. I think it could happen here. Hate speech — defined by illiberal liberals — may become a criminal offense. That’s the real danger: banning speech those in charge don’t like. It could happen. And it could happen sooner than you might think. All that said, I can understand the opposition to Confederate statues and monuments in the public square. If a town council votes to take them down, at least they acted in a democratic way. But removing statues of Confederate generals from places like Gettysburg is not a good idea. Those statues don’t honor the generals. They reflect history.  Authoritarian regimes wipe out history. That’s not what democratic republics do. At least, it’s not what they should do.

I’ve watched and read your commentary for several decades (damn I’m getting old!), and I, like many, feel I know you, but I don’t really. Can you provide us with a non-career bio, e.g., your schools, your interests, your family, etc. Some of the nuances of you – example: I adored Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Perry Mason (TV series), Have Gun Will Travel, Rawhide, Wagon Train, 60 Minutes (w/Kirkpatrick & Alexander), etc. Where did you go to school, what type of jobs did you have before journalism, what sports did you play, etc. Basically, the good stuff that helped develop/correct your character. Cheers — DonEstif

Well, Don, let’s start at the beginning: I was born in the Bronx … went to elementary school on a street what was written about as an example of one of the worst urban streets in America. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan campaigned on that street in 1980 and in one news shot you can see my elementary school, PS 61. I moved to New Jersey for high school … worked at the Grand Union for a while … then off to Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ. Four days after graduation I began working at the Associated Press in New York. I left after a few years to go into television, in Miami. After that, CBS in Atlanta, San Francisco, New York, and back to Miami (for family reasons).  My favorite all-time TV show was Homeland. Favorite movie, Casablanca. I’m a very big Sinatra fan. I keep family matters to myself to protect their privacy. But let’s just say one member of  my family — my beautiful wife — is beyond great and people constantly tell me, “She’s the nicest person I ever met.”

Can you comment on the ethical and/or legal obligations as a journalist when conducting an interview, such as the one Vice News had with Michael Forest Reinoehl last week, with someone credibly accused of a crime and who law enforcement is actively seeking? Is getting such a “scoop” considered a coup in the journalistic world or is it seen as unsavory? Can the media, by knowing the whereabouts of a fugitive and not revealing that information, be considered an accessory to a crime? — Pete S.

Very good question, Pete. There are no hard unbreakable rules, but if someone were wanted for a serious crime and was on the run, I’d pass, especially if the crime he’s accused of is murder. Here’s why: The police are going to ask me where I interviewed him. If I say, “I can’t tell you” and he goes out and kills someone else, that’s something I don’t want on my conscience. What if the subject of the interview is a pedophile? Is it okay to withhold his location? I’m sure I’d agree to interview someone who stole government documents that said the U.S. intentionally lied its way into a war that resulted in tens of thousands of American deaths — and was on the lamb. But violent crime? Crimes against children? No.

“Just sent a Twitter thanking you for Off the Cuff on “When Sports No Longer an Escape…” thinking it was one of your finest audio commentaries. Then I read “Shouldn’t ALL Black Lives Matter”. I spoke too soon, but I am Irish by heritage, we do that often.

I live in Chicagoland, and I am amazed at how easily the community ignores the tragedy of the carnage which is sadly daily life on the South Side.

I am not at all surprised sports ignores it; ruins the narrative if they acknowledge it.” — Gregg

Thanks for the kind words, Gregg. Sports journalism is in the tank for Black Lives Matter. It’s pathetic.

“Joe Biden will continue to say it’s happening [mayhem in various cities] in Donald Trump’s America. You’d think voters would see through this nonsense. But the polls tell us they don’t. That they’re still backing Biden. As the rioters move from downtown to the suburbs, reality will sink in. Those liberals who haven’t condemned the rioting will see what it’s like to have the mayhem on their street, in front of their house. “That’s when they may see the light and conclude that they need to vote for Trump. But I’m not (yet) betting on it.”

That’s what you said regarding the rioting, looting, etc. in various cities last week. I don’t understand your logic. I get it as far as you saying that it’s liberal Democratic local and state politicians who are allowing this stuff to happen. But I don’t understand why if national voters “see the light” they’ll vote for President Trump. If President Trump is NOW impotent to stop this mayhem or is NOW unwilling to stop it, why would reelecting him make this situation any better? In this case, the best the Trump campaign can logically say is that the presidential election will not make a difference as to the mayhem in various cities even if VP Biden is elected. I guess they can say that it would be even worse if Biden is elected, but probably that’d be unpersuasive to all but blind Trump supporters. And I know you’re not one of them, far from it. I understand that logic is on life support in national politics. But I think Bernie Goldberg is still governed by it. What am I missing? — Bob H.

Here’s my logic, Bob: Donald Trump clearly is against the violence. He hasn’t called in federal agents — or the U.S. army, navy and marines — to stop it because that’s not only a last resort but one that his critics would use to label him a Nazi, a Hitler, and an all-around dictator who has no respect for democracy –but I suspect he’d call in the troops if he wins in November when he won’t have to worry about voter reaction. Many of us who believe Joe Biden when he says he’s NOT a crazy radical, don’t think he’s strong enough to stand up to those on his left flank who support the protests — and blatantly or not, “understand” or even condone the violence. So even if Trump  — to use your word — is impotent NOW to stop the violence, he won’t be impotent if he wins. I just don’t get the impression that Bernie Sanders, AOC, and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is as troubled by the rioting and looting as Republicans are. So electing Trump increases the odds that action will finally be taken against the mob. There’s no guarantee I’m right, of course, but that’s how I see it.

I wonder, Bob, if you want the president to match his words with actions. Do you want him to send in the troops to put down the violence, to crush the rioters and looters? Do you think he’ll do that if he’s re-elected? If he does, what would your reaction be? Do you think Biden will do it if he’s elected? If he doesn’t and the mayhem continues, what would you suggest he do then?

You’re obviously under no obligation to humor me with a response. I was just thinking out loud (so to speak). Take care.

What is more dangerous to the American people; a dishonest President or a dishonest Media? Seems to me there are way more checks & balances to protect us from a roque President than there are to protect us from a subjective, inflammatory & subversive Press. Think of what a Press like this could do to sway a push over President, isn’t that even more dangerous? — ScottyG

You raise a very interesting question, Scotty. We can deal with a dishonest president by not supporting his policies and if he’s up for reelection, voting for the other candidate. But a democracy can’t survive without both a free AND a fair press. If we lose faith in the press, we won’t know what or who to believe. So if I had to weigh in on which is more harmful — a dishonest president or a dishonest press — I’d go along with your conclusion … a dishonest press can do more harm.

Kamala Harris toured Kenosha, Wisconsin a couple days back and took the time to meet with the the man shot by police, Jacob Blake,and his family. She referred to the family as fine people (the father is about a racist as one can be and is an ardent follower of Louis Farrakhan). She told Jacob, the man who has been charged with breaking into a woman’s house as she slept, sexually assaulting her, then returning later to harass her (why cops were called) that she is proud of him! This can’t be the same Kamala Harris who tore into Brett Kavanaugh like a pit bull on steroids over totally unsubstantiated 30 year old sexual assault charges during his SC confirmations hearings? Can it? BTW, she did not visit the woman the man she is so proud of reportedly raped, but “all women must be believed.” And of course the MSM totally overlooked it. Megyn Kelly who tweeted about it was excoriated for calling her out on it. — John M.

Once there was something resembling an impartial media in this country, an impartial media that would have questioned her about all the legitimate points you made. That time is gone. The media is an appendage of the Democratic Party and it’s not about to ask “inconvenient” questions. But there’s another problem: Republicans can’t make an issue of all this either — without looking like they don’t care about Jacob Blake. Whatever he was, and whatever he did that day when he resisted arrest, shooting him 7 times in the back at close range looks like excessive force, an overreaction. That’s why it’s hard for Republicans to make the case against Blake or his father.

In a recent CNN segment, the network showed a very old and endearing picture of Joe Biden with his son… BUT they digitally removed the son’s Washington Redskins logo from his hat (see below), presumably because it’s just too controversial by today’s standards. In my view, this is not only completely stupid, but it lends credence to the theme that liberals are trying to destroy our history through political correctness. Your thoughts? — Ben G.

I’m with you, Ben. If I think about this anymore I’m going to get depressed. “Completely stupid” — as you describe it — may be an understatement.

Bernie, what are your thoughts on Clay Travis and the increasing role of politics in sports media. Mr. Travis (along with his team at Outkick the Cover, which includes Jason Whitlock), in my opinion, appear to be on the more conservative side of sports coverage, while ESPN, and a lot of other non-Fox Sports commentators, seem to be more liberal or even very far left (e.g. Jamel Hill, Peter King, Bomani Jones, etc.). Is cable sports coverage going the way of cable news coverage, where Fox and commentators like Travis, are more conservative, while the rest will fight over the liberal sports audience? If it is going down this path, is there any chance it can be stopped? — Joe M.

Sports, as I’ve said before, was the place we went to escape the daily barrage of partisan politics. Those days, apparently, are gone. I’m not at all sure that Fox sports will be any different from other sports news outlets. Except for folks like Whitlock, they all seem to have signed on to the Black Lives Matter campaign. I’d ask athletes and commissioners what they know — and what they don’t know — about BLM. That said, let me sum up simply with this:  Most news organizations have a liberal bias and sports is no different. Even if ratings don’t drop, sports won’t be a place anymore where we go to escape politics. It will be one more place where we’re exposed to politics and polarization.

Lately I’m hearing from liberal pundits that they fear right wing violence around election time, especially if Biden is declared the winner. I find that interesting considering the fact that all the current violence is coming from left wing anarchists. So that got me to wondering: how can they spout such nonsense with a straight face when all the evidence around them says otherwise, INCLUDING dunderhead Democrat mayors either ordering more police security (that they want to defund) around their homes or outright moving to a secret location? Next it got me thinking, why DON’T right wing conservatives protest & riot destructively in the streets like a bunch of spoiled brats having a tantrum when they don’t get their own way? Your thoughts are always appreciated. –“Beware Of Those Dangerous & Violent Conservatives Causing Havoc” Regards, From The Emperor

I have said that while I don’t know who’s going to win on November 3, I am sure of one thing: that November 4 is going to be the ugliest day of the year. I now have second thoughts: It’s going to be even uglier than I thought. If the race is close, both sides will claim victory — and there’s a good chance there’ll be protests and worse in the streets. Most of it will come from the left. But I’m not counting out the possibility that some right wing yahoos will be out there too. Even if the election ends in a landslide victory, it won’t be seen as legitimate. And if it’s close … lights out!

I have been trying to figure out what America is going to look like and be like after the elections this November and also a few years from now. I had always hoped we were moving towards a society where skin color would increasingly become less relevant. The society that MLK envisioned if you will. Today it seems that that world ( a so-called colorblind world where skin color did not matter that much) is now viewed as racist itself ( talk about irony). So Bernie, where do we go from here? How does one stay positive and optimistic with all that we see and hear every day? How good can a society be when children are being forced fed a diet of hate and vitriol by schools, media and social media? Will there be a meaningful conversation about these topics and a focus on exactly what those demanding change actually want and what they envision society should or will look like in a few years? — Michael F.

I’m not optimistic, Michael … at least not for the foreseeable future. Profiles in courage are always rare, but now we’re seeing an abundance of the opposite — of cowardice. The schools, the media, the sports establishment are all on the same page — that we’re a racist country, that it’s systemic, in our lifeblood. I’m not buying it and I know I’m not alone. Let’s see if there’s a silent majority that has enough of the lectures — and if there is, how that silent majority reacts.

I just read John Daly’s piece (on your website) on what Trump told Bob Woodward about COVID-19 back in February, versus how he grossly downplayed and spun the seriousness of the virus to the American people (and still does). I think Daly’s right, and I don’t buy the idea that Trump was just trying avoid panicking people. There’s a huge difference between working to avoid a panic and actively telling people not to take a real threat seriously. What do you think? — Brian C.

I think if Donald Trump’s lips are moving, he’s probably NOT telling the truth.


Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.

Bernie’s Q&A: Pelosi, Loeffler, Wheeler, Blake, and more! (9/4) — Premium Interactive ($4 members)

Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.

Editor’s note: If you enjoy these sessions (along with the weekly columns and audio commentaries), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you! 

Now, let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

Trump offered Ted Wheeler aid to quash the Portland riots, and the offer was refused in a rather snarky letter from Wheeler. Then, Chad Wolf of DHS sent a letter rebuking Wheeler’s response, and stopped just short of threatening to send in the unwanted aid in the form of DHS forces.

Portland (and the other areas under siege) are located in blue states filled with liberal Democrat voters, many of whom suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. However, now that the anarchists have begun taking their fight to the suburbs, these liberals are starting to get a firsthand taste of what they have been supporting all this time.

So here’s a thought: What if Trump and DHS simply declared to these people that “You say you don’t want any of our repeated offers for help? Okay…. you made your bed, now you sleep in it.” Do you think this would be a good strategy for Trump to use to demonstrate not only the ineffectiveness of the Dems but also the consequences of continuing to vote these dunderheads in office over and over again? Do you think the Democrat voters might finally see the light? Apparently several Democrat mayors in Minnesota recently have. — “You get what you vote for Regards, from The Emperor

Welcome back Your Emperorness. I’ve said that I’m of two minds on the issue of rioting in the streets. One mind says send in the armed forces to shut it down. But the other mind says what you’ve said: You elected these idiots who have repeatedly said they don’t need help. This is your problem not ours.

Is it a good political strategy: Joe Biden will continue to say it’s happening in Donald Trump’s America. You’d think voters would see through this nonsense. But the polls tell us they don’t. That they’re still backing Biden.

As the rioters move from downtown to the suburbs, reality will sink in. Those liberals who haven’t condemned the rioting will see what it’s like to have the mayhem on their street, in front of their house.

That’s when they may see the light and conclude that they need to vote for Trump. But I’m not (yet) betting on it.

U.S. Senator Kelly Loeffler, who also owns the WNBA’s Atlanta Dream, recently wrote a letter to the league office. An excerpt: “I adamantly oppose the Black Lives Matter political movement, which has advocated for the defunding of police, called for the removal of Jesus from churches and the disruption of the nuclear family structure, harbored anti-Semitic views, and promoted violence and destruction across the country. I believe it is totally misaligned with the values and goals of the WNBA and the Atlanta Dream, where we support tolerance and inclusion.”

Of course, she is being crucified in the press and by her team and the league. But what about her statement is factually incorrect according to BLM’s own web site? And why, as a team owner, isn’t she allowed a voice like everyone else in this conversation about justice and equality? — Steve R.

She is allowed to voice her opinion, Steve. And she has. But she’s a lone voice out there. Sports has become one more liberal institution that doesn’t appreciate a contrary point of view. I’m glad she wrote that letter. But the response was predictable.

Would it break any laws if during the next session of the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy were to present the Speaker with a bottle of shampoo and a brand new hair blower? I have wondered if the Speaker should be given some slack on this subject since it seems obvious thst all she was trying to do was wash that Trump right out of her hair. — Michael F.

Actually, Michael, McCarthy would be breaking a law: The Shampoo Act of 1913 which forbids the introduction of any kind of shampoo on the floor of the House of Representatives. I’m surprised you didn’t know that. Nice nod to Oscar and Hammerstein and South Pacific.

I am 55 years old, and I’ve never seen the press either lie to the public by commission and (even more prevalent) omission. In the case of Jacob Blake, he is accused by a woman of a heinous sexual assault who called the police to her house (I remember during the Kavanaugh hearings that all women should be believed — I guess that changed and no one informed me); then on video-tape, Blake resists arrest, gets tased twice with no effect, goes to his vehicle where there was a knife (DOJ stated that Blake admitted that there was a knife either on him or in the vicinity (car floorboard) – unclear) before he was shot by the police.

The press has made Blake out to be an innocent black man who was taking a stroll and the police just decided to shoot him. That Blake is some sort of hero. Not even close. In most of these cases, the black person committed a crime and resisted arrest. Yet, that’s not mentioned by the MSM.

Can you explain to any press members that you still associate with, that the public would just like the facts (all of them – no matter how distasteful they may be) so we have the information to make our own decisions? — Thanks, Frank T.

I could explain to my journalistic colleagues that they have a great big liberal bias but I’d be wasting my time and breath. What you say about Jacob Blake is correct. But it seems to me that even given all that, shooting him 7 times in the back at close range amounts to excessive force. But unlike Joe Biden, I’m willing to wait for the investigation to conclude.

For the presidential debates, I think both sides should JOINTLY select a real time fact-checking group, and have them fact-check as the debate goes on. Flash any false statements across the bottom of the screen, or provide the info to the moderators to confront the candidate who is lying. If they can’t reach an agreement on a fact checking organization, then cancel the debates.

As far as drug testing, and the search for the truth, how about Biden and Trump both agree to:

  1. drug testing
  2. release their tax returns
  3. release their school records that Trump has continually bragged about (although he had his attorney send letters threatening his schools with lawsuits if they released them)

Let the debates begin! Am I wrong? — Mike S.

If there were real time fact checking Michael … with false statements flashed across the bottom of the screen … no one would listen to what the candidates were saying. They’d be too distracted by the non-stop info regarding false statements. We have two candidates running for president and I’m not sure who the bigger liar is. As for the rest of your idea … about drug testing, etc: That could happen. WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!

If you were starting the Goldberg News Network, and were in a position to hire ANYONE from today’s pool of news people, can you name maybe 2 or 3 reporters AND 2 or 3 political commentators who would be at the top of your list? (Keep in mind that you cannot, under these rules, clone Jesse Watters, HA!) — Ben G.

I like Mike Emmanuel and Doug McKelway both from Fox News. I think John Roberts and Bret Baier are fair. In fact I like most of FNC’s hard news reporters. As for commentators, I like Brit Hume and Guy Benson. I also think Judge Anthony Napolitano explains complex issues very clearly.

Bernie, do you think that Trump is right, in that Joe Biden is being controlled by people “in the dark shadows” who load up airplanes with “thugs wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms with gear and this and that” who fly across the country to riot and loot? If so, don’t you think it would be smarter for these rioters to at least wait until they land and get to their hotel rooms before changing into their Antifa attire? (Sorry but I couldn’t resist) — Jen R.

Jen, just between you and me, I think Donald Trump is nuts. Enough said?

What are your thoughts about Nancy Pelosi violating her state’s COVID-19 restrictions to sneak into a salon (without a mask) to get her hair done, and then… after she was caught… blaming the hair salon for what happened? While Trump has been really bad on virus messaging, it’s wild that his hardest critics on the matter are apparently no better. — Joseph P.

Let me start with your closing comment that Trump’s harshest critics are no better. Bingo! You’re right. That’s why after declaring I would not vote for Trump … I just might. As for Pelosi: I’m willing to believe that the salon owner (or a representative of the owner) said it was okay to come in — so she did. What bothers me about the episode is that she knows that salons are supposed to be closed in San Francisco. Yet she got her hair done anyway. More hypocrisy from the powerful who want to tell YOU what you can do but don’t think the rules apply to them.

Right now — if Real Sports asked you to do air-travel for an assignment — would you be comfortable doing it? I’m guessing they wouldn’t even ask, but I’m just curious. — Louis

They wouldn’t ask … and wouldn’t allow it … and I wouldn’t do it if they did.

I can recall a time not that long ago when the terms white nationalists and white supremacists had very clear meanings and reference points: KKK members, skin heads , neo nazis etc. Today we are told (scolded?) the US is a white supremacist country and was founded as such. And now we have millions of white Americans (including corporate America) mindlessly parroting these words and phrases. Obviously this is mother’s milk for those on the far left. Have we crossed the Rubicon? Can you foresee a NY, LA, Chicago or other major city dominated by the Democrat party ever readopting classic liberal principles that they seemingly adhered to not that many months ago? Will we essentially become two nations where people migrate away from the blue into the red or vice versa? — Michael

Great question, Michael … and you make great points. I’m with you in that white supremacy used to mean something clear cut. Now, as you say, we’re told we’re a white supremacist country. I recently said I covered stories in South Africa. That was a white supremacist country. The USA is nothing like what South Africa was. Nothing! As for major cities that are dominated by progressives going back to classic liberal principles: Only if the electorate has had enough of the progressive mentality. If voters in NY or LA or Chicago are happy with what they’ve got then they can live with the consequences. One of which is that a lot of people who pay taxes in those cities are moving out. There’s such a thing as a tipping point. And given the despicable jobs a lot of these progressives are doing — Portland is a pretty good example — voters may said we’ve had enough. But who knows when that might happen.


Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.