Bernie’s Q&A: Weiss, West, Wojnarowski, Trump TV, and more! (7/17) — 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):

What’s your take on Kanye West? He obviously has no chance of winning the election (for one thing, too many filing dates have passed), but if he got on the ballot in a few key battleground states, could he peel JUST enough votes away from Biden to give Trump the win? — Joel E.

I refuse to take Kanye West seriously, Joel. He’s not running for president no matter how many times he says it. He won’t get on any ballots. A Kanye endorsement might help one candidate or another — but that would require his fans to actually go out and vote. Something else I wouldn’t bet on.

Bernie, Senator Hawley (R-MO) sent out a press release today last Friday asking NBA Commissioner Adam Silver if he would allow players to wear slogans on their jerseys that said, “Free Hong Kong, God Bless America, Back the Blue, or Support Our Troops.” When Hawley’s staff e-mailed the release, members of the media were copied on the e-mail, one of whom was ESPN’s “Senior NBA Insider” Adrian Wojnarowski, who responded to Hawley’s e-mail with “#uck You”. His e-mail did not include the #.

How in the world is that acceptable from anyone, let alone a journalist? How in the world can ESPN still retain a journalist who responds in that manner? Should we just give up on our media and assume it is nothing more than a mouth piece for the radical left? At every level, the media is a total clown show. — Joe M.

Two points, Joe. First: Wojnarowski apologized just hours later with this public statement: “I was disrespectful and I made a regrettable mistake. I’m sorry for the way I handled myself and I am reaching out immediately to Senator Hawley to apologize directly. I also need to apologize to my ESPN colleagues because I know my actions were unacceptable and should not reflect on any of them.”

ESPN suspended him without pay.

Second, his firsts reaction tells me all I need to know. The apology is BS as far as I’m concerned. It’s not just CNN, MSNBC, and big newspapers that have become mouthpieces for the hard left. Sports “journalism” is guilty too.

So I see where the Governor of Minnesota requested funds from the Federal Government to assist in rebuilding the “war-torn” city of Minneapolis. Apparently he was turned down, as he should have been IMO. I have a suggestion, why doesn’t he reach out to the Hollywood types who had no problem donating a lot of money to a fund to be used to bail out those responsible for the burning and the looting? Maybe they’ll fire up a gofundme account. While he’s at it, reach out to the Biden campaign, it too donated money to a bail fund. The chutzpah of this guy. — John M.

John, I’m not adding a word to what you’ve written.  I totally agree!

This excerpt is from the July 9th NYT Coronavirus Briefing, regarding a ranking system for the hopefully soon potential release of a vaccine:

“But the most contentious debate has been over whether to put Black and Latino people — who have disproportionately fallen victim to Covid-19 — ahead of others in the population [to be first in line to receive the vaccine]. The idea was supported by many of the health experts, who viewed it as medically sound and an act of racial justice. But others worried it could create a negative impression of the vaccine for some Americans.”

So are we at the point now where The CDC & the media believes that the virus unfairly attacks minorities because of their skin color and not by their inability to remain virus diligent? — ScottyG

Everything these days is about race. To be fair, some would argue that people of color are not coming down with the virus in disproportionate numbers because they’re not “virus diligent” but rather because they suffer from underlying medical conditions that make them more vulnerable. But it would be a bad idea to put people in the front of the line because of their skin color. It would just add to the already existing tensions surrounding race in this country.

I disagree with your conclusion [in Monday’s column] that Donald Trump is in trouble. To quote the Bard “What’s past is prologue”. Since 1900, with only two exceptions, every incumbent running in a two person race has been re-elected. The exceptions were of course Herbert Hoover in 1932 to FDR and Jimmy Carter in 1980 to Ronald Reagan. In both cases, economic forces were the deciding factor in their loss. Even given the current plague, the one thing Donald Trump is good at is managing the economy. He will have a growing economy and increased jobs by October. He will be re-elected by a large margin. — James V.

You may be right, James … but unlike just about any president who came before him, Donald Trump is widely disliked by just about every demographic group. And even the ones who still support him, like white evangelical Christians, don’t back him to the extent they did in 2016. And his noxious personality might make the difference this time around. In any event, I’m amused by your absolute certainty. No doubts for you, James. But if he loses — again, I say “IF” he loses — his most passionate supporters, the ones who never held him accountable for his dishonesty and his nastiness, will have contributed to his defeat. Donald Trump needs his friends to say, “Enough.”  They never do. So if he loses, it won’t be the “fake news” media that’s to blame. It’ll be Donald J. Trump himself — and his friends who will tolerate just about anything.

Yes, you have said numerous times you won’t write another book. But…you are faced with the biggest “Bias” story of this century on the reporting of COVID-19 (from both sides). How do you submit to this position from your loyal readers? — Tim H.

No more books. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. But thanks for asking, Tim.

In the wake of the Bari Weiss resignation this week (not to mention the scores of other similar events occurring weekly if not daily), it seems to me that the lines have been drawn as to the stakes presented for this year’s elections . There are millions of people who do not like Trump the man but who fear what will happen if the Democrats get complete power (their signals as to what they would do with such power seems very clear). Your faithful readers like me know exactly where you stand as to the character traits of Trump (or lack thereof). The question that is begged is whether Trump’s character failings are being trumped (pun intended) by the dangers posed by those who despise this country and wish to fundamentally change America forever. Put another way, is sitting on the sidelines come November a viable option this time around? One last thought: buy the beans (Goya) and sell the Times. — Michael F.

I’m with you, Michael, on “buy the beans (Goya) and sell the Times. Nicely put.

As for the rest:  I understand your point. My friends hit me with that every day. I do not want the Democrats to win. I don’t think Joe Biden will be a moderate for long if he wins. I believe he’ll continue to be pulled to the left. So, you’re probably saying, “Hold your nose, Bernie and vote for Trump.” I want Republicans to win. But Donald Trump will have to do it without me.

The University of Texas announced this week that it was renaming its field from that of a large benefactor (Joe Jamail) to two African-American players and Heisman Trophy winners (Earl Campbell and Ricky Williams). I’m a classic capitalist, but I always cringed whenever the rich guys could just come in and buy their way onto buildings and sports fields/arenas. I thought the baseball field in Atlanta should have been named after Hank Aaron rather than stroke the enormous ego of Ted Turner in calling it Turner Field. I also hate these generic corporate names attached to fields of play. This begat the ridiculous display of a few years ago when the NBA Finals rotated between American Airlines Arena (Dallas Mavericks) and American Airlines Center (Miami Heat). If there’s one good thing coming out of these social changes, maybe it’s a return to honoring individuals who are tied to fans and their communities. What are your thoughts? — Steve R.

I haven’t given it much thought, Steve, but you make sense. However … Boone Pickens, the late Texas oilman gave about $500 million to his alma mater, Oklahoma State University. Guess what the name of the football field is. Can you blame the folks at OSU?

We have been hearing about infrastructure spending by our politicians now since 2008 and the great recession. Now both Biden and Trump are beating this same drum. It seems to me that when we talk about infrastructure, the predominant ownership of the assets is either at the state and local level or in private hands in the case of the electrical grid. The federal highway system, the nation’s air control system, and selective dams and bridges being the exception. It seems to me that all of this talk about Federal intervention has just provided an excuse for the responsible parties to postpone necessary improvements waiting for the taxpayers to foot the bill for their crumbling assets. With the ridiculously low-interest rates evident over the past decade this seems malfeasant for those in charge. What is your take on this? — Douglas C.

Any time a local politician can lay off his expenses on the federal government … he or she will do just that. But the reason both parties love infrastructure is because they can claim credit for creating JOBS. The idea that it’s any president’s responsibility for a pothole on my street is ridiculous. But the reality is in an election year Dems and the GOP will talk a good game about infrastructure — even if it’s just talk.

The woke scolds now want to cancel the hit musical “Hamilton” because it glorifies a racist slave owner. The creator of this extravaganza has actually apologized to the woke crowd for not being “woke enough” and he wants to do better. I take great schadenfreude in the fact that during the curtain call, the entire cast and crew of the show felt the need to lecture the Pence family for being politically incorrect (that is, Conservative Christians), and now the creator and star Lin-Manuel Garcia and his cast now find THEMSELVES on the receiving end of the woke scolds. Nonetheless I fear that more people (whether I agree with their political positions or not) will be shut down, and the First Amendment will go by the wayside.

What is your feelings about what is happening to Hamilton? Do ya think the woke scolds would approve of Lin-Manuel Garcia producing an all black cast in a musical inspired by the life of Jeffrey Dahmer? Your thoughts are always appreciated. — “Jeffrey Dahmer—The Musical!” Regards, From The Emperor

I don’t know if you know this, Emperor. But at Jeffrey Dahmer’s trial, there was an unexpected commotion involving some of the people watching the trial from the gallery. The judge banged his gavel and shouted, “Order.” Dahmer stood up and said, “I’ll have juror number 7.”

As for Hamilton:  This is what happens in revolutions.  The purists take over — and then nobody’s safe, not even liberal icons like Mr. Garcia.

I live in a relatively small town where the local newspaper is now nearly all just local news. Because of that I want to subscribe to a newspaper online that will give me relatively unbiased information. After reading your article about Bari Weiss today I read her resignation letter. And I canceled my New York Times online subscription. I knew they were biased but felt I could still get a fair amount of factual news from them. Now I don’t like what they did , I don’t trust them and don’t want to support them financially. Can you recommend another online news source? — Beth R.

First, good for you Beth. It’s the Times’ loss, not yours. I checked around and my good friend John Daly tells me he is very happy with The Dispatch (a subscription website, owned in part by Stephen Hayes and Jonah Goldberg). “Their daily reporting (sent to members every morning via email) is very strong, thorough, and fair. Great commentary too,” he says. Good luck!

There were times in 2015 and 2016 when I was convinced that Trump was trying to sabotage his own campaign to assure that, after generating the publicity he definitely wanted from running and staying in the race so long, he wouldn’t actually become president and have to do the job. I’m believing that again now, with the latest evidence being his commutation of the thoroughly corrupt and fairly convicted (even A.G. Barr said so) Roger Stone. What do you think the probability is that I’m right? — Ben G.

I’ve thought the same thing, Ben. I even thought about writing a column that begins: Sometimes I think Donald Trump wants to lose in November.

If that’s not it, he’s just the dumbest guy to ever set foot in the Oval Office. No one has ever put his foot in his mouth, has stepped on his own good news, more than this man.

Bernie, I have a different take on the upcoming election. President Trump, is doing (and has done) a lot of strange things if we assume he is trying to get reelected. I don’t really think he cares. It’s not fun anymore, with “Tell All” books, scores of former White House associates’ candidly dumping on him, on and on. He loves his base. Loves ’em. Binden is elected. Trump starts up cable “Trump TV”, and slashes and burns to the sea, every day, 24/7. Doesn’t get better than that, for ‘Disinfectant Donny”. I kinda agree with him. His highest, best, and fun use of his talents … many, people have said; many many people — Aloha, Mike S.

Hey Mike … I think “Trump TV” is what he had in mind from the jump. He’d run for president, lose, then start a network featuring the narcissist himself. And if he loses in November, there’s an excellent chance that he’ll do just that.  Here’s the question that lingers: What will become of Fox? Will he bring the bootlickers over to Trump TV? If he does, Fox is in big trouble. It might be smart for Fox to offer him almost anything he wants. Just when you think it can’t get any crazier, it gets crazier.  Aloha, Mike.


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.

My Take on Bari Weiss, the New York Times … and Wrongthink

Liberals in the media love to talk about diversity, about how we can’t have truly honest journalism without it. If you don’t worship with them at the altar of diversity then, they figure, you’re a bigot of one kind or another. But be assured they’re not talking about diversity of ideas in their newsrooms. That kind of diversity is not something they seek. It’s something they try to crush.

The same intolerant liberal mob that forced the opinion editor of the New York Times out of his job in June because he published a conservative op-ed they didn’t like, has now hounded Bari Weiss, a Times editor and opinion writer, out of her job.

Ms. Weiss wrote a letter to A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of the Times, telling him why she was resigning. Her message captures what’s wrong with American newsrooms these days – especially her own – but more broadly her letter is about a ‘cancel culture’ that punishes unacceptable opinions — and about a rigid orthodoxy that has no place in an American newsroom.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election [of Donald Trump in 2016] — lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society — have not been learned,” she wrote. “Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”

Weiss is onto something important. The problem for many years now has been liberal bias in the news, which came about mainly because of groupthink – having too many like-minded people reporting and editing the news. Now, Ms. Weiss tells us, not so much about something new that’s infecting newsroom thinking, but something she’s given a new name – “Wrongthink.”

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views,” she writes. “They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m ‘writing about the Jews again.’ Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly ‘inclusive’ one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.”

And then Ms. Weiss takes a well-deserved shot at her publisher and other leaders at the Times for never coming to her defense in the face of so much blatant cruelty.

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.”

Journalists are supposed to report about important trends in America, like the cancel culture. They’re not supposed to take part in it.

But the progressive mob – like the revolutionaries who ushered in a reign of terror after the French Revolution – has no tolerance for anyone who doesn’t see the world the way they do. During the reign of terror, people with “wrong” ideas lost their lives – now they “only” lose their livelihoods.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique,” Weiss writes. “But the truth is that intellectual curiosity — let alone risk-taking — is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.”

And she has noticed something else about the modern American newsroom. It has rules – the kind that should never exist inside a journalistic institution.

Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

At CBS News, where I worked for 28 years, I spoke out in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about liberal bias in the news. I did this only after years of quietly pointing out the bias to my colleagues, some of whom could have done something about the problem. No one did. My op-ed caused quite a stir, a media version of World War III.  That’s how big it was back in 1996.

No one forced me out of my job – I wasn’t cancelled — but I had become radioactive. People steered clear of me. They were afraid that the CBS Evening News anchor, Dan Rather, might see us chatting and that they would soon become radioactive too. My offense, like that of Ms. Weiss, was also wrongthink. We just didn’t have a name for it back then.

In my case, as I’ve said before, they were throwing spitballs at a battleship. I stayed at CBS for 4 and a half years after my op-ed, leaving to write my first book, Bias, about liberal bias at CBS and in America’s newsrooms generally.

Maybe Bari Weiss will also write a book about liberal intolerance in the newsroom. Her resignation letter is a good start.

Off the Cuff: Democratic Leaders Are Terrified of the Lunatic Left

If you need more proof that elected Democratic leaders are scared to death of the lunatic left, take a look at what Nancy Pelosi said recently.

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: Lemon, Crews, Vindman, Downs, and more! (7/10) — 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):

I know you worked at different networks, but I was wondering if you had any thoughts on Hugh Downs, who recently passed away. Did you know him at all? What did you think of his work as a journalist? Thanks. — Ben G.

I worked only at CBS… later as a contributor at Fox. Did not know Hugh Downs. But he certainly came across as a likable guy. Not sure I’d call him a journalist, not in any old school sense anyway. He was a TV personality who did his job well.

I recently re-watched the Spielberg film, Munich. The themes of the film…the endless revenge cycle, both sides claiming injustices, both sides fighting and killing… I couldn’t help but think about how we are today in this moment. With Trump or without him, we would despise one another. Even a worldwide pandemic can’t get us to be kind to each other, to listen to one another. I can’t think of anything that would bring us together. I believe Trump shouldn’t get a second term…but how would a President Biden be able to fix this? Fix a broken Congress? Fix a divided people? Heal all this anger? Care to give me some positive news for our future? Anything? — Joe B.

I’d love to give you some positive news for our future, Joe, but I can’t. I think we’re so divided, so broken, that I can’t think of what would fix it. I used to think an attack on the United States would bring us together. 9/11 did. For 10 minutes. I’ve been warning for a while now that the most serious problem facing this country is our polarization. I’m more convinced than ever that I was… and remain… right.

Mr G., Is the pathetically weak response from the GOP House & Senate to the unrest of the past few weeks crushing their chances at keeping the Senate & winning The House back? Or were they DOA before the Floyd murder? — ScottyG

The president has spoken out against the unrest and it hasn’t helped him in the polls. That shows you how far we’ve gone — voters hate Trump more than they hate the rioters and looters. Not sure it’s the GOP’s silence that might bring down their control of the Senate so much as a blue wave of discontent with how things are going generally. Donald Trump is at the helm. It’s happening on his watch. He may not be the only one to suffer the consequences.

Bernie……I spoiled my ballot in ’16 (voted MAD, for A E Neuman) because of Trump’s public –indeed, disgraceful– disregard for McCain even while being sympathetic to much of the Rep’s vision and agenda. Now, even with Covid19, I’m inclined to vote Rep but given Trump’s recent rubbishing of Jeff Sessions (a decent man over his head at DOJ who wanted to preside when the job called for an active manager) I may well, again, spoil my ballot at the top of the ticket. What, me worry? — Best regards, Andy M.

I think your vote for Alfred E Neuman was a good one — given the alternatives — Hilary and Donald.

To write about today’s street revolutionaries, without looking into the big money behind them that is funding them, what hope do we as average Americans have in stopping them (aka ultimately and successfully prosecuting the violent criminals who have destroyed many minority businesses and killed and assaulted our men in blue)?

Where is the progress in the prosecution of Hunter Biden and his co-conspirator-father Joe Biden?
Donations to BLM seem to be routed to the DNC but I don’t see the facts about that on the public table! — Gary H.

Not sure where you get your information, Gary, but if donations to BLM is routed to the DNC that’s news to me. Average Americans don’t have the authority to go out and arrest the criminals who are tearing down statues. That’s up to the authorities — local or federal, depending on where the statues stand. Democrats haven’t spoken out forcefully (if at all) against the chaos. But neither have a lot of Republicans, though as a group they’re better than the other side. I’m still wondering if a silent majority exists and will rise up on Election Day. As for Joe and Hunter Biden — not all sleazy business dealings are crimes. Let’s see if anything comes of it.

Bernie, what would it take for Trump to ignore these idiots and be the adult in the room? It appears that he has a terrible habit of wanting to fight everyone and not let controversies die a natural death. For instance today (7/6), he idiotically attacked NASCAR and Bubba Wallace even though the sport, and its fans, have mostly moved on from the incident in Talladega. His focus on Kapernick and those who kneel during the anthem keeps these people in the headlines. Why can Trump not let things go and focus on what unites us? He says he wants a united and patriotic country but why does he think he will achieve this with lowbrow tweets that seem more like school yard taunts and not honest attempts and showing all of the good that this nation has achieved in the past 244 years? I cannot imagine Reagan, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Washington, Grant, or Jefferson ever engaging in such childish antics. He needs to step up or else he will be stepping out. — Joe M.

Here’s your problem, Joe: You’re thinking rationally about an irrational man. Don’t waste your time. He’s incorrigible.

In many ways Trump has been his own worst enemy but I wonder, how would Obama have fared if 95% [or more] of the print and visual media had been on his case from day one? Flat out lied about much it reported about him? Not like he wasn’t thin skinned. — John M.

No question, John, that much of the media is out to get the president. The most recent evidence is how big news outlets covered the president’s speech at Mt. Rushmore. But this president is needlessly combative and chronically dishonest — and that would be true whether the media liked him or not. As for Obama:  He probably would have been a lot more prickly than he was if he had journalists on his rear end from Day One. So given the treatment he gets from the media, to some extent Mr. Trump’s behavior is understandable. But only to some extent.

I’m not sure how Trump is supposed to be taken seriously as a warrior against the “cancel culture” when he has called for the firing of a ton of media commentators, athletes, and CEOs (in most cases, just for criticizing him). It seems to me he’s contributed more to the cancel culture than most people. — Jen R.

Once again, Jen, you show us all how perceptive you are. I have nothing to add. You nailed it.

Regarding the coverage of Trump’s July 4th speech at Mt Rushmore, have we gone from media bias, to media advocacy (“A Slobbering Love Affair”), to the media telling blatant lies about a speech and a president? If so, has the mainstream media become Pravda, telling lies as a version of truth? — Steve R.

The coverage of the president’s speech at Mt. Rushmore was a new low for journalism. Some journalists did in fact, as you say, tell blatant lies about that speech. Whether it’s Pravda or not, I, personally, have not seen it this bad in my long journalistic career.

I saw that “interview” Don Lemon had with Terry Crews. It was stunning that Lemon CONSTANTLY INTERRUPTED Crews. Lemon essentially admitted that BLM really only cares about blacks being murdered when the death is from white cops or white civilians, as opposed to blacks dying at the hands of other black people. He then used the hypothetical argument of a group called “Cancer Matters,” and having people complain about that, and asking “what about HIV?”

Then Lemon doesn’t really allow Crews to respond by interrupting Crews and refusing to listen to him. I would have pointed out the flaws of Lemon’s fatuous point by saying that if HIV were causing a much larger amount of deaths in a certain community (such as black on black crime is) as opposed to cancer causing deaths (such as blacks dying at the hands of white cops), then YES, I think the larger problem should be dealt with as well instead of ignoring it and STILL blaming cancer for the deaths instead of HIV. A better comparison would be if a group that wanted to fight leprosy decided on totally ignoring HIV or cancer.

Why do you think Don Lemon thought he would not look silly and ridiculous to the viewing audience by making an argument and then cutting off any possible response from Terry Crews? Your thoughts and comments are appreciated. — “Leprosy Matters” Regards From The Emperor

Do you watch Don Lemon to get angry or to have a few chuckles? Just wondering. No anchor thinks he or she will look silly no matter how silly they behave. Don Lemon and many others on both sides of the aisle have very high opinions of themselves. As for Leprosy Matters: I interviewed patients at the last leprosy hospital on the U.S. mainland — in Carville , Louisiana — just before they shut the place down. And if you’re wondering … Carville, Louisiana is named after James Carville’s family.

Bernie, I’m an Independent – socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Non-violent, constructive, protests – good. Burners and looters – bad. I try to keep political comments to myself. The speech that President Trump gave July 4th, however, in my humble opinion, truly had to be one of the most irresponsible, reckless, and dangerous, speeches of all time, because it contained this quote – “Now we have tested almost 40 million people. By so doing, we show cases – 99% of which are totally harmless … ” –> “Totally harmless.” “99%.” “Totally.” “Harmless.” President Trump, millions of folks absolutely believe what you tell them. You speak. They believe. How many people will you, Donald J. Trump, kill by this savage disregard for the truth. Maybe me? My wife? My son? Maybe even you, who is reading this post now …Truly unbelievable. Bernie, your feelings about this? — Aloha, Mike

When Donald Trump’s lips are moving there’s a very good chance he’s saying something that isn’t true. That’s bad enough. But the toadies who cover for him… they are truly pathetic. Yes, I know they’re on his team… that they’re soldiers… not generals. But it takes a certain kind of person to be on his team — and it’s obvious, Mike that neither your nor I are that kind of person.

Bernie, do you believe that there exists a cabal of elitist oligarchs that are thrilled that the focus of the people of America is centered on both the coronavirus and the supposed pillars of injustice; African Americans, the LBGT community and all other theoretically socially oppressed groups? While most folks are desperately trying to survive the financial implications of the virus and fathom the hysterical protesting (rioting) and looting, this group of self-serving corporate executives and their political lackeys from both the right and the left are systematically expanding their wealth and power, taking advantage of the Federal Reserves accommodating monetary policies and the hastily conceived fiscal policies enacted by Congress. — Douglas C.

I’m not into conspiracies, Douglas. So, no, I don’t believe they’re “thrilled” that we’re focused on chaos and not on how they’re getting even more rich.  I believe they’re really with BLM.  I also believe there are no profiles in courage among our corporate executives, because if there were they’d question the group’s motives and wouldn’t accept as a given that systemic racism exists in America.  I don’t think this answers your question the way you intended, but it’s the best I’ve got.  Thanks.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (who testified in Trump’s impeachment hearings, and who Trump repeatedly attacked the character of) just retired from the U.S. Army. This came after the White House delayed (multiple times over several weeks) a promotion Vindman was due. The delays included the White House calling for an investigation into Vindman, in which the Pentagon found no suggestion of misconduct on his part.

Vindman’s lawyer responded with this statement: “Through a campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation, the President of the United States attempted to force LTC Vindman to choose: Between adhering to the law or pleasing a President. Between honoring his oath or protecting his career. Between protecting his promotion or the promotion of his fellow soldiers.”

What are you thoughts on this, and what do you think it means for the future of public servants coming forward when they believe higher-ups have abused their power? Thank you. — Jeremy T.

Let me refer you, Jeremy, to Jen’s observation above. Beyond that, the president had the right to do what he did. But that didn’t make it right. Our president is not a gracious man. And that’s putting it mildly.


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: Trump’s Supposedly “Dark and Divisive” Speech

Liberal media outlets heard something in President Trump’s Mount Rushmore speech that a lot of regular folks simply didn’t.

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.