Bernie’s Q&A: Carlson, Cheney, Hawley, and more! (5/7) — 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, enjoyed your commentary “What Trump and Biden Have in Common.” This is exactly why I pay to listen to you and read your writings. We are all entangled in our personal biases and as a result interpret everything through this prism. Your commentary is, I believe, appropriately critical of the Media, but a little soft on Biden (at least out of the blocks). While Trump was/is brash, Biden is unengaged (not reserved) and Trump was/is impulsive, Biden is detached (not cautious). You are correct that Trump is mean (and I’d add unpresidential), but Biden is the opposite, not a “nice guy”, but rather a “vulnerable guy” (the type bullies pick on). The real question is why do people fight to the death for their bias. I think you’re correct, that this is not about Biden, but rather a disdain for Trump. The soft touch with Biden might be because, after Trump, the Press has lower expectations or it might be that our journalist have fallen so far down the hate-Trump rabbit hole, that they just can’t find a way out. I would like to hear why you think the Press is not introspective enough to notice that they wear blinders. Do they not see that the progressive path leads ultimately to their own destruction? — George A.

There’s long been bias in the news but what we have now goes way beyond bias. Ideology doesn’t sneak into news stories. It’s out in the open — and for a reason. Much of the news business these days is based on pandering to the news consumer. The audience wants its own biases, its own values and views, validated. So that’s what the viewer and reader get. And now the bias, the pandering is so ingrained in the business model that it has corrupted what used to be fairly (or at least relatively) honest journalism. The audience continues to get away with contributing to this problem. Cable news, the NY Times, and other are giving the audience what it wants — fearing if it doesn’t pander it will lose that audience. We hear complaints from news consumers about bias. But what they really mean, I think, is that they don’t always get the kind of bias they want.

Regarding Presidential lying; I’m still trying to get over not being able to keep my Doctor and not enjoying my reduced healthcare costs. How many lies or more importantly how significant will the lies need to be for the media and voters to begin turning on The Biden Administration? What’s it going to take? Maybe something as significant and outrageous as Watergate perhaps (sarc)? Or is it way too early yet and we have plenty of more lies to look forward to.  –ScottyG

I think, Scotty, it’s your last option: We have plenty more lies to look forward to. If the American people turn on Biden in a big way, then the media will follow. But if Biden’s approval numbers are over 50 percent, the media will continue to give him a relatively easy go of it. Sorry for the bad news, my friend.

Sir Bernie/—we have repeatedly seen the liberal media shills called out for their hypocrisy and dishonesty by you and other honest pundits. We all know they have a narrative to push. However if liberals truly want to solve the problems of Blacks and Asians being attacked and/or murdered, WHY in the world do they constantly push a fake narrative that white supremacy is the big Boogeyman trying to harm Blacks and Asians when the discomforting reality is that more often than not it is other Black thugs committing crimes against innocent Blacks and Asians? If doctors are fighting cancer, then it wouldn’t make much sense for them to treat cancer as if they’re treating a broken leg, but that’s what liberals are doing which leads me to ask you—-do liberals and Democrats truly want to help poor minority communities? Or is there something far more sinister or just plain idiotic about their solutions? –“Beware of the White Boogeyman” Regards From The Emperor

Two points, Emperor: One, you’re being rational. That’s why you’re confused.

Second, check out my next column that will go up Monday morning. It’s called “Why Liberal Journalists Don’t Cover Race Honestly.” And let me know, what Your Highness thinks.

Tucker Carlson has been trying to scare his audience to death again. This time it was by pointing out on his show this week that over 3000 Americans have died after getting a COVID-19 vaccine. The keyword here is “after”, not “from” (though Carlson was discreet about it). There’s no data in the database he cited suggesting those deaths had anything to do with the vaccines. It’s a straight death count that includes all causes. Thousands of people die every day in the United States, and because millions and millions of Americans have already been vaccinated, random probability decides that a large portion of those people will have been vaccinated.

What do you think Tucker gets in return for scaring people into not getting a life-saving vaccine? Is it all about the media buzz that craziness generates, and getting attention and publicity for his show? — Ben G.

Yes. Unfortunately.

I think Tucker Carlson is both mean-spirited and often dishonest. And let’s not pretend that that’s exactly what his audience wants.

I’m a big ‘free speech’ guy, but I also believe privately owned platforms should have the right to decide which content they do and don’t want on their platforms — even if they’re politically biased in their decision making. It seems that what politicians like Josh Hawley want is essentially a Fairness Doctrine for social media, and I’ve been a Republican long enough to remember how we on the right thought that was a terrible idea when liberals proposed it for talk radio. I’m more than happy to shame “Big Tech” over their biases, but I don’t like the idea of getting the government involved. I’m interested in your thoughts. — Sean S.

I’m with you Sean– except for one major point. Social media platforms have something called rule 230 protection. This means they can’t be sued for content placed on their platforms. If Congress takes that away, then they will have the same rights as newspapers and TV news operations have — they can be as biased as they want and while it’s unfair and detrimental to the democratic process, it would be legal. But as long as they have protection from libel suits, then they should not have the right to censor political views they don’t like.

Hi. New member here. What are your thoughts on Liz Cheney losing her high-ranking GOP leadership spot next week? — Jerry P.

Welcome, Jerry.

I think it would be a big mistake for the GOP. She’s standing up for what she believes. If her own party cancels her, while that will go over well with Donald Trump and his allies, it won’t go over so well with less partisan swing voters in key districts the Republicans will need to win if they want to take back control of the House.

I had to get my passport renewed and was caused to rethink the ongoing paradox: ‘does my gov’t benefit me?’ I’m in El Salvador where the US Embassy is a palace, not the scrappy, old embassy facility. It has 25 acres in a upscale area and has: an Ambassador’s Mansion; separate buildings each for State and Consular Services; Marine Barracks; a large swimming pool; tennis courts; employee parking (not for US citizens) for about 500 cars; and who knows what else. It was built during the war and security is impressive (windows, walls, roof, etc.), a little odd that they didn’t add a moat. But how much does it cost to operate this? What does it do, does it slow illegal immigration? Is it helping to stop MS-13? What justifies the enormous expense? – ElSal is a country of 6 M people, a bit bigger in land than NJ, so take this and extrapolate it out to the rest of the world, and wow! A veritable paradox. We have to be the most wasteful country on the planet. And the current adm. is going even crazier with reckless spending that benefits who? We do many good things as a country, but we also do many highly questionable and not so good things. — DonEstif

Can I book a vacation at the embassy in El Salvador? Sounds pretty nice. Maybe our government can put the “Palace in El Salvador” on Airbnb. Might make a few bucks.

This summer, Jesse Watters will be releasing his first book entitled “How I Saved the World.” In it, whoever wrote it under his Watters’ name will detail the Fox News hosts’ winding, illustrious journey from a smug, overly-hairsprayed, know-nothing cable-news lackey to Bill O’Reilly… to a smug, overly-hairsprayed, know-nothing, cable-news lackey to Donald Trump.

My questions:

  1. Were you solicited to provide a blurb for this book, which will assuredly be a biographical masterpiece?
  2. If not, what is the blurb you would write if asked?
  3. How many copies have you personally pre-ordered?

Thanks. John D.

I see what you’re trying to do, Mr. Devious John D. You’re trying to get me to say something snarky about Jesse Watters. Something like why would he write a book in the first place? Who the F cares what Jesse Watters has to say — about anything? But I’m not going to play your game. I’m not going to say he’s a doofus or a lightweight or a pathetic Trump toady. That would be wrong. True, but wrong. Question: Do crayons come with Jesse’s book or do we have to buy our own?


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: Carlson, Haley, Coca-Cola, and more! (4/16) — 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):

We have long debated the proper role between sports and politics, but this latest move by MLB moving their all-star game and draft out of Georgia due to the new voting laws seems different in two respects. In the past, if a corporate head wanted to contribute his/her own money for a political cause, to me that was no reason to boycott the business. Jack Dorsey (Twitter) wants to give millions to BLM? Knock yourself out. The Cathy family (Chick-Fil-A) supports organizations favoring traditional marriage? That’s no reason to cancel Chick-Fil-A building permits. However when a business organization like MLB seeks to essentially punish voters for who they chose to elect and legislation they chose to pursue, that’s a new, brazen act of overreach. In another respect, conservatives especially have talked a good game but generally not followed through on calls of boycotts and withholding commerce from woke corporations. This feels different, though. Do you think there is some staying power among conservatives who feel lines were crossed by MLB, Delta, and Coca-Cola? — Steve R.

Smart analysis, Steve. But I’m afraid those woke corporations — the ones who are showing us how “virtuous” they are but are really sucking up to the progressive Democrats who currently control Congress and the Presidency — will get away with what they’re doing. If you want to fly someplace Delta goes, you’re going to fly Delta. Coca Cola is different, of course. I for one will not drink it. Nor will I watch any baseball game not involving the Yankees. I enjoy watching Yankee games and I won’t punish myself for what MLB did. That said, I hope MLB suffers … I hope Coke suffers … I hope all those companies pay a price for their wokeness. But I don’t think they will. I hope I’m wrong.

Sir Bernie, Joe Biden said that Georgia’s voting laws are “Jim Crow on steroids.” Explain something to me please— A valid photo I. D. is often required for numerous legal transactions, and this is not considered to be racist, so what exactly is “racist” about requiring a legal photo I.D. to vote, and why do the liberals and Democrats oppose this and believe (and PUSH) the notion that voter identification verification is somehow racist? –“IDENTIFY YOURSELF!” Regards From The Emperor

Your Emperor-ness, Holy of Holies … If you understand this, all else will fall into place: EVERYTHING is racist nowadays. Even math. EVERYTHING. You’re welcome.

I’m going to make a bold prediction… Who am I kidding? It’s not bold at all, it’s a fait accompli. No way Biden boycotts it. Carter boycotted the 80 Moscow Olympics but there were no American companies doing business in Russia which would have lost millions as a result. Not the case with China, many major corporations would lose their shirts if China was boycotted. You know their names, Coca Cola, the NBA, etc etc. I believe Coke and Biden agreed on a quid pro quo, we’ll publicly decry the Georgia Election law and agree with you’re calling for MLB to move the All Star game out of Atlanta, if you can guarantee that you will not boycott those Olympics. After all, it is all about politics and money. — John M.

Whether there was a formal agreement or not, American corporations certainly are figuring if they kiss up to the Democratic Party, the party will re-pay the favor. As for whether our woke president will call off the Olympics. No way. I agree with you, John.

Right after the 1/6 attack, Nikki Haley said of Donald Trump: “We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”

This week, Haley said that if Trump runs for president in 2024, she will choose not to run, and support him instead.

This is so pathetic that I have to believe her political career is over (and probably should be). What do you think? –Ben G.

She, like most politicians, is simply being practical. She knows she can’t win against Trump so why jeopardize her career by running against him — when she can wait 4 years and the run. Is her decision to support him if he runs, courageous? Of course not. But nothing is LESS courageous and MORE pathetic than Ted Cruz. Donald Trump made fun of his wife’s appearance and suggested his father may have been involved with the Kennedy assassination — and he still won’t bad mouth the former president. It’s really sad, Ben.

The US case fatality rate from Covid-19 as of 4/13 for all ages is approximately 1.8%. So for example, out of 6.8 million infected patients there will be 122,400 deaths as a result of a Covid-19 infection. So we just paused the roll out J&J vaccine for 6 cases of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after 6.8 million doses administered. The creation of this vaccine, in the time period it was created is nothing short of miraculous. Is the Press so committed to their hatred of WARP speed and Trump (J&J took $1B) that they cant put this in perspective. Is the press willing to sacrifice 100,000 Americans just to be right? Or are they just so lazy that they can’t do the math? — George A.

Probably all of the above, George, but certainly the last one you listed: Too lazy to do the math. And not smart enough to do it either.

You’re in FL where DeSantis & Dems have done a good job, but my part-time state is CA. Many CA counties are about to enter the lowest tier of lockdown & once there, restaurants can move from 25% occupancy to 50% . . . but there’s no ‘next tier’ to return to 100%(?). What “science” justifies this? “Science” is now a fluid term (like “racist” and “free speech”), and most times, true science is unsettled. Politicians’ appropriation of the term “science” has become an existential threat to the US. If CA restaurants and small business can only open at 50% capacity, they will die off. Nationally, Biden & Kerry & AOC are planning outrageous Climate expenditures that will limit many business activities and regulate others out of existence. Maybe insurrections like Jan. 6 will become more common like the “peaceful protests” we now accept. PS: Check out Steve Koonin’s (former Obama Adm official) new book ‘Unsettled’ — DonEstif

Despite all you say, Don, the governor of California may very well survive the recall move against him and I wouldn’t bet that a Republican would become governor if Gavin Newsom is ousted. As for Biden: His poll numbers are pretty good. Until enough people are directly affected by what you describe, Democrats will not pay a price for their policies.

Few people on cable news seem to enjoy scaring their viewers as much as Tucker Carlson. Lately he’s been inferring that the COVID-19 vaccines aren’t effective after all. First, I’m willing to bet money that Carlson himself has been fully vaccinated for some time. Second, the effectiveness these vaccines were sold on has proven true in the stats, and there’s been no instance of a fully vaccinated person dying or even having to be hospitalized with COVID-19. Israel, who’s been better at vaccinating their people than anyone, is now only getting about 200 new infections a day – which is fantastic. Yet, polls in America are showing the number of Republicans who say they’ll NEVER get vaccinated has been consistently above 40%. Fox seems to let their commentators get away with anything (other than criticize Donald Trump), but do you think the big wigs at the network have a moral obligation to pull Carlson aside, and say, “You’re someone they trust and listen to. We’re talking about a deadly virus. Can you please stop feeding them B.S. on at least this one thing?” — Jen R.

Carlson said this week that he believes in vaccines and supports vaccines … but wonders why if they effective, we still have to wear masks every time we leave our house. I try not to watch him too often, so I’m willing to accept that you’ve actually heard him say he doesn’t believe vaccines are effective — and are not simply relaying on what his left wing critics are saying about him. The bigger issue for me is how much all the prime time people on all the cable channels can get away with — as long as it brings in viewers.

Trump and now Biden want to pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan for what seems like a purely self-serving reason: to claim credit for ending the “endless war.” It’s hard to even say it’s for political reasons because few Americans seem to have strong feelings on the issue these days (most Americans don’t even think about Afghanistan anymore). For practical purposes, a full withdrawal doesn’t make a lot of sense and most military experts say it’s a mistake. The number of U.S. troops we have there is comparatively low, no U.S. solider has been killed on operations for over a year, and U.S. combat operations are very infrequent (practically non-existent). Our soldiers are basically just training and providing resources for the Afghan National army, supporting NATO troops, and serving as a regional deterrent against Islamic extremists organizing there, which are all important anti-terror roles to address a threat that hasn’t gone away. But the last two presidents have been fixated on removing the U.S. military entirely, even as a purely stabilizing force (as Obama did in Iraq which was a terrible mistake). And Biden wants to do it on the anniversary of 9/11 which is really bad optics. Do you see this as anything other than a vanity play for the history books at this point? We’ve kept troops in other countries for a lot longer. — Kirk V.

In the last few days I’ve heard a lot of compelling arguments — including from you — as to why Biden’s decision to leave Afghanistan is a mistake. That said, we defeated both the Japanese and the Germans in 4 years and we’ve been in Afghanistan now for 20 years. I’ve long believed that if we stay there for another year … another 10 years … or even another 100 years … 10 seconds after we leave it’ll be as if we were never there. My instinct is to say, Enough.  Time to go home. But as I say I’ve heard from many experts who take the other side. As for the 9/11 pullout date:  Bad optics is right!

Some Dems in Congress have just put forth a bill to pack the Supreme Court with more justices (non coincidentally under a Dem president). The bill VERY likely won’t go anywhere but it seems to me that this a political gift to Republicans. Polls show the SCOTUS to be one of our most highly respected government institutions, and also that the public opposes court packing. Do you think this will be a big GOP campaign point in the 2022 mid-terms? — Ralphie

It should be but I’m losing faith in the American people. Biden ran as a moderate … is governing as a far left wing progressive … and is getting away with it. Republicans need a good PR firm to get their message out. Because right now more Americans like the Democrats than like the Republicans. But let me add that this has happened before and the GOP still picked up seats in the off year election. So there’s hope.

I just saw where the Jen Psaki, the press secretary, said the administration wants to reach conservatives to convince them to get the Covid-19 vaccination. So, ads will be shown on Deadliest Catch, CMT (Country Music Television) and NASCAR races. Wondering where you fit in Bernie with those choices? I have nothing against them but I view none of them. Is that not stereotyping conservatives? Is that what liberals think of red state natives? Too bad there just isn’t a Hayseed network to reach. Imagine if they were targeting a minority group and narrow casting the ads that way. Would there be any uproar do you think about that? — Warren

I can’t add anything to what you said, Warren. You nailed it. Here’s what they think but are hesitant to say out loud (though some have): That conservatives are just plain stupid. They’re a bunch of rednecks. Most, but not all, are also bigots. The liberal elite don’t only think they’re smarter and more sophisticated than Red State conservatives; they think they’re better than those people. Better! And we wonder why we’re so divided in this country?

Earlier this year, the Dr. Seuss estate cancelled and handful of its own books. A number of people on the political right, not understanding that this was a self-cancellation instead of an example of the “cancel culture,” bought a ton of Dr. Seuss books (off Amazon and elsewhere) and made the estate a lot of extra money (effectively rewarding them for cancelling their own books). With that in mind, have you considered asking your publisher to pull one of your books (whichever one sold the fewest copies), sending out a press release announcing that the book has been pulled, and then sitting back and watching sales on your remaining books experience a huge surge so that you can go on some really nice vacations this year? — John D.

Usually Mr. John D I think you’re borderline CRAZY. But this is actually a brilliant idea. I can even go on Fox and cry about how mean “they” are to me, cancelling my book for no good reason. I’m sure I’d get a lot of support from the prime time crowd at FNC. The book that sold the fewest copies was titled “Is a Ham Sandwich Infrastructure?” Given all that’s going on at the moment I think I could hit the jackpot if my publisher yanks it off of Amazon and claims “they” cancelled it. Brilliant idea. I’m glad I thought of it.


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: Carlson, Biden, Gaetz, and more! (4/2) — 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’m really tired of the phrase, “Follow the Science”! One of the core principles of the scientific method is to always apply rigorous skepticism. Science works to learn about our world and in doing so, changes how we perceive/interact with that world. Today we seem to have our world view and try to fit the science into that view. Be damned if you question an ideological view and god help you if you offer new or even established facts that contradict this view (Gender identity, Climate Change or even Covid-19). Questioning previous scientific results or established ideology, is the exact mechanism of how science moves forward to make our world better. Richard Feynman once said, “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered, than answers that can’t be questioned”. — George A.

Nice analysis, George. Like too much in our current environment, “follow the science” is another way of saying “follow my politics.”

What are the odds that Joe can buck the pressure to eliminate the filibuster and turn Republican to shift them to the majority party. He would be a hero to the Republicans and most of West VA but he would be scorned by the Left. — Patrick M.

Let me be clear to those who don’t know who Joe is. It’s Joe Manchin, the Democratic Senator from West Virginia. He won’t switch parties. He was born a Democrat and plans someday to die a Democrat. As for bucking the pressure to eliminate the filibuster: He has repeatedly said he’ll stand strong. He better or he’s going to look like a world class liar. But I suspect he’ll go along with a tweak here or there.

It is clearly obvious that Joe Biden is not in charge. He can’t even hold a press conference without a pre-planned questioner list and answer cards to read from. The question remains. Who is really pulling the strings and how did that person or committee achieve the real power? You have implied it might be Bernie Sanders. I suspect Barack Obama with his inside woman, Susan Rice. What say you? — Robert V.

I’m with you, Robert, in that Biden is not in charge. I think Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer along with Bernie Sanders are in charge. Joe is going along for the ride. Obama may have some influence too. But the important point, as you state, is that the president is just the front man — he’s not calling the shots.

Joe Biden’s rambling, mumbling performance at his press conference was nothing new and, I guess, something we will have to get used to. That he has to use cue cards to articulate his own policy decisions and rambles off of his own thoughts and sentences incoherently should concern us all. But it doesn’t seem to bother the Left, who are obviously using a cognitively declining president to cram their extreme policies through a narrowly divided congress with no mandate for such extremism. Biden never advocated for any of these directives, including killing the filibuster, when he was in the senate for 26 years. Have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris granted themselves de facto power of attorney over the White House? I’m not being hyperbolic. –Steve R.

See my previous answer, to Robert’s question. But yes, Pelosi, Schumer and Sanders (maybe Harris too) are running the show.

(Regarding the press conference) Do you agree with the view that Biden is so befuddled that he does not know what is going on at the border, therefore he is not lying to the press and is controlled by other more sinister people such as Susan Rice. –Fred N.

I don’t know what role Susan Rice is playing, but as I’ve said in response to the last few questions … Joe is just the frontman. But I think conservatives are handing Biden and his team a gift when they portray him as completely out to lunch. People then expect him to spit on himself, and spout nonsense. Conservatives may think everything that comes out of his mouth proves that he has dementia, but I think he comes off as fairly normal to non partisans. If the right continues to lower the bar, to tell people he’s incapable of uttering a complete sentence, then Biden will pass the befuddled test.

I thought Biden’s press conference was kind of a mess, but it’s funny watching his political opponents on TV and online portray it as a disjointed, mentally aloof atrocity. They do remember Trump’s press conferences (or any time he was in front of a microphone), right? — Jen R.

Their memory is not the issue, as I suspect you know Jen. Their hypocrisy is. Neither side gives the other side an inch. I detest all of them.

No question the press was much kinder to Biden on his fall than to Trump’s slow walk. I still wonder if Biden is just getting a “honeymoon” period with the press or if this will last the whole four years. Trump did not get any honeymoon period, so that is hypocrisy I saw. Americans want to believe in their President, especially right after the election. Do you think Presidents should get a “honeymoon” with the press? — John R.

I think reporters should do their job from Day One. I don’t want them to be overly confrontational, but I’m not a big fan of honeymoons that involve people in power and journalists. As for whether the honeymoon will last: Let’s just say the road may get a bit rougher for President Biden, but it will never approach the relationship between the press and Donald Trump. And I want to emphasize that if the press gets tougher on Biden, it won’t be a lot.

Bernie, is there any time in history where one can point to those that restricted rights and censored speech and say that those people were the “good guys”? I am sure there are some limited technical exceptions, but generally, has this totalitarian approach now embraced by the Left and Big Tech ever prevailed? — Joe M.

No, it was never the good old days when government or other powerful institutions censored speech. But as to the question whether it ever prevailed: It prevails in dictatorships until the dictator gets thrown out. But restricted rights can prevail for quite some time. Russia and China are two examples.

Personal question: In your columns and Q&As, much has been made about how the mainstream media pushes the narrative that all of America’s problems have their roots in white supremacy. You’ve correctly pointed out that white liberal guilt knows no bounds and that white liberal Democrats (especially those in the media) will move Heaven and earth to demonstrate their “good racial manners” to prove to the country that THEY are the “good white people who are NOT like those other evil white (Christian) conservative racist Republicans” who want to oppress all minorities and people of color.

So please don’t take this the wrong way but I must ask: looking back on it, in your own younger liberal days before you brazenly left the liberal plantation, did you yourself ever feel white guilt so badly that you would sometimes catch yourself or your colleagues trying to rationalize bad behavior from minority groups so you could show your own good racial manners? If so, how did you manage to shake that white guilt off of yourself? If not, why do you think that you were immune from it when so many of your own colleagues were not?

I’m being respectful here but I’m also very curious. Your thoughts are always welcome. –“White Guilt Absolution” Regards From The Emperor

I never felt white guilt, liberal or otherwise. I thought our history on race was deplorable. I thought the racists of the 1960s were detestable (barely) human beings. But I took no responsibility for what they did simply because Bull Connor was white and so was I.

What’s your opinion of the Biden administration’s position to restrict the press into the immigrant facilities until they fix it? I personally can’t believe the MSM is accepting this! — Tim H.

Editor’s note: the question above came in before journalists were allowed in the facilities. A group has since been allowed inside the main facility in Texas. John Daly wrote about that topic this week.

“Accepting it” may be an overstatement, Tim. They don’t like it. They’ve complained and even asked President Biden about it at his one and only formal news conference. But here’s the part that “amuses” me: They don’t get crazy when powerful leftists cancel conservative Americans … but when THEY’RE the target of what they see as bad treatment … then they complain. If they had an ounce of introspection, they’d be embarrassed. But they don’t and so they’re not.

I want to put in a request for you and/or John D to consider an article or an off the cuff segment on critical race theory ( CRT). I would also value your thinking as to how this country moves forward when a large segment of our kids are being taught to be ashamed or feel guilty about their skin color and to have negative views of America and and if these trends are likely to be reversed anytime soon. — Michael F.

Thanks for the suggestion, Michael.  I’ll give some thought.

Georgia’s Gov. Kemp recently signed his states “Election Integrity Act of 2021”. As a result, the Media, Hollywood and many corporate leaders have spoken out that this bill restricts voter access. I want every Americans to vote, but wish it to be fair, secure and honest. Is the recent media coverage of this Georgia law just another “Straw Man”, or is there teeth to their complaint? — George

I think liberal media has been biased against the Georgia law, portraying it as a law designed to suppress black votes. This mirrors the position of partisan opponents of the law. Big surprise, right? That said, I’ve heard from a conservative friend who has a different take. He wrote to me to say: “The big irony, of course, is that there was nothing wrong with Georgia’s old voting laws, and that this whole thing was just a gimmick to try and pacify the Trump voters who bought into the ‘election fraud’ nonsense.” Still, the media should portray a more balanced view that it has been doing.

Earlier this week, before the real controversy started with Rep. Matt Gaetz, it was leaked (probably by his own team) that Gaetz was considering resigning from congress to take an on-air hosting job at Newsmax. It didn’t really surprise many people, since Gaetz seems far more interested in getting on camera than anything resembling legislating. Likewise, Rep. Madison Cawthorn stated shortly after taking office that he had “built [his] staff around comms rather than legislation.”

Do you think, in the future, holding high office will be treated more and more like a springboard into a probably more lucrative career as a political-media commentator? — Ben G.

Only for some. A lot of people go into politics and have no desire to ever leave. That said, if a pol loses … and has no desire to head home to “flyover country” … then he or she tries for a contributor’s spot (or more) on cable TV. That way they get both a paycheck and face time — both important to out-of-work politicians.

Enjoyed your discussion with Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being a voice of reason, especially in these ridiculous times. As you stated I might not always agree with you (or John Daly for that matter), however I very much appreciate you challenging my point of view. I voted for Trump twice, never did like his behavior, especially after he lost the election. Thank you for your website, keep up the great work! — Dave M.

Many, many thanks Dave for the very kind words. They are greatly appreciated!!!

Tucker Carlson made headlines the other day for viciously belittling Juan Williams (on a seemingly personal level) on Fox News’s The Five:

Co-hosts Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Watters are also often over-the-top rude and insulting to Williams. It seems to be a winning formula, however, because the show’s ratings are absolutely huge. In other words, yelling at Juan Williams = $$$.

Have you ever considered inviting Mr. Williams onto an “Off the Cuff” audio segment, in order to verbally assail and condescendingly laugh over him? It seems it would be good for new membership sign-ups, which could justify a clearly deserved raise for John Daly. — John D.

I don’t know whose cackle I detest more: the one from VP Harris (really annoying) or the one from Tucker Carlson (also really annoying). But then, I find so much about Carlson annoying — mostly his tendency to attribute the worst motives possible to anyone with an opinion different from his. Also he gets things wrong almost as often as our former president.

And yes, I am thinking of bringing Juan Williams on board — as a replacement for the increasingly unstable John Daly (who is no relation to you, John D). I’m told that guys in white suits and carrying butterfly nets are going after Daly. Long overdue.


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.



Liberal Bias? What Liberal Bias?

Sometimes, all it takes is a seemingly insignificant incident to show how biased journalists can be. Take Joe Biden’s recent stumble while walking up the steps to Air Force One.

President Biden was on his way to Atlanta when he tripped three times ascending the stairs of Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. The White House blamed it on “wind” and said he “left the plane with ease” when he arrived in Atlanta.

The Daily Mail reports that, “As of Friday afternoon, the homepages of MSNBC, CBS News, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and New York Times had no mention of Biden’s stumbling incident earlier in the day at Joint Base Andrews.”

According to various organizations that monitor the media, CNN devoted 15 seconds to the incident and MSNBC about a minute. NBC’s Chuck Todd on MSNBC said, “We’ve all run up stairs and had that moment ourselves. And if you haven’t, you aren’t a human being.”

Fair enough. The fall appeared to be no big deal and the coverage reflected the insignificance of what happened.

But compare how the media covered Biden’s fall with how they covered Donald Trump’s slow walk down a ramp after he delivered a graduation address at West Point in June of 2020: According to the Media Research Center, CNN devoted 22 minutes and 13 seconds to Trump’s walk down the ramp, and MSNBC devoted 28 minutes and 42 seconds to the story.

Why so much time? Because it provided liberal news outlets that were no fans of Trump with the opportunity to question his physical and even mental fitness for office.

When Biden, who is 78, fell, it was treated as simply a slip, something we’ve all done at one time or another. But with Trump, who is 74, it was treated as a sign of potential serious health questions.

The Times ran “Trump’s Halting Walk Down Ramp Raises New Health Questions” as its headline in 2020. Compare that to its headline when Biden fell last week: “Biden is ‘doing 100 percent fine’ after tripping while boarding Air Force One.”

The Washington Post’s headline in 2020 was: “Trump tries to explain his slow and unsteady walk down a ramp at West Point.” But when Biden fell three times in a matter of seconds, the Post headline simply said: “Biden stumbles climbing stairs on Air Force One.”

In 2020, MSNBC anchor Joy-Ann Reid tweeted: “Serious question: what is going on with [Trump]? His supporters have tried so hard to get the media to question Joe Biden’s mental and physical fitness but they so often engage in projection it seems worth inquiring.”

CNN couldn’t speculate enough about the Trump story in 2020:

— Anchor Alisyn Camerota asked medical expert Dr. Sanjay Gupta, “Do you see something, possibly neurological, that could be throwing off his balance?” Gupta responded that a lot of neurologists were talking about the situation.

— Anchor John King said Trump looked “a little shaky” on the ramp.

— Political correspondent Abby Phillip wondered if Trump was being “transparent” about his health based on the “latest incidents.”

— Political commentator Chris Cillizza said it was an important story because Trump was 74 at the time. “We know so little about Donald Trump’s past medical history,” Cillizza said. As he talked, the on-screen graphic read: “Trump’s unsteady walk, arm lift raise health questions.”

Then-presidential candidate Biden even got into the act, saying: “Look at how he steps and look at how I step. Watch how I run up ramps and he stumbles down ramps. Come on.” Pretty bold for a guy who less than a year later fell down three times in a matter of seconds while trying to walk up the steps to an airplane.

At the time, then-President Trump responded to speculation that he may have serious medical problems by noting that the ramp was slippery. But Maggie Haberman of the New York Times didn’t buy it. “There was no evidence that the ramp was slippery, and the skies were clear during the ceremony,” she wrote.

And, in its news story, the Times said: “Mr. Trump — who turned 74 on Sunday, the oldest a U.S. president has been in his first term — was recorded hesitantly descending the ramp one step at a time after he delivered an address to graduating cadets at the New York-based academy on Saturday.”

Compare that to how the Times began its March 19 story on President Biden’s stumble: “President Biden was ‘doing fine’ after falling off balance while boarding Air Force One before his Friday trip to Atlanta, according to a press secretary traveling with him.” That seemed to be enough for the Times; there was nothing in its March 19 story that raised questions about Joe Biden’s physical or mental ability because of his stumble.

Roger Mudd, my former colleague at CBS News, who recently died at age 93, told an interviewer on Nov. 18, 2011, that “A journalist’s job is not to march in the parade, but to stand on the curb and report what goes by. An awful lot of people think that we ought to be in the parade and not be a disinterested observer.”

Roger was onto something back then, but television news was more serious in his day and far less partisan than it is today. For too long now, especially after Trump was elected president, journalists have been marching in that parade without so much as a hint of embarrassment.

Roger Mudd was worried about a biased public trying to influence journalists. I’m worried about the opposite – biased journalists trying to influence the public.

Bernie’s Q&A: Mass Shootings, The Border Crisis, Powell in Court, and more! (3/26) — 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):

Congress can resolve the illegal immigration “challenge” but prefers border chaos instead. The Democrats seem to want illegal immigrants to come, so why don’t Democrats just expand legal entry quotas? The legal entry process is so cumbersome that the average wait time is around 15-17 years to be approved – quotas are so low that it discourages almost everyone from completing the lengthy application process. The quota for employment-based immigrants is 140,000/year established by Congress which equates to about 0.04% of the US population, and that includes the applicant plus spouse and any minor children. Four one-hundredths of a percent appears to say that the US does not want hardly any immigrants even when all politicians praise the contributions of the vast majority of immigrants. If Congress moved that quota up to about 0.5% annually, the border chaos would substantially go away and the government would more easily control bad actors trying to enter. Congress knows this (if they don’t, God help us) but continues to blame or shield each president regarding our borders when it is Congress putting children in cages. — DonEstif

Thanks, Don, for your take. Providing work visas would help too. That way migrants can enter the U.S. when there’s work and go home to Central America when there isn’t. The system now is a mess. I think everyone would agree with that — except maybe the president and his team that can’t even acknowledge that it’s a crisis.

Mr. G., I read this morning that since the election, some of the more left leaning cable news networks have lost almost 50% of their prime time audiences of young to middle aged adults. And that on-line news sites hits are also way down. Wouldn’t ratings numbers like these in the past have resulted in serious changes in anchors and producers? Wouldn’t advertisers begin walking away from these dwindling ratings? Has the news business model become over subsidized and now just solely agenda over profits? –ScottyG

It’s never “solely” political agenda over profits, Scotty, but you are on to something when you raise that question. I’ve long believed that politics is the only thing that might trump profits. But in the case of cable, profits are number 1 in terms of importance … and profits are intertwined with presenting a liberal or conservative political agenda. Pandering to the audience is how they make money. So don’t expect CNN to become less liberal … or for that matter, don’t expect Fox in prime time to become less conservative just because ratings have gone down.

But there’s really one reason ratings are down … and his name is Donald Trump. Bashing him got CNN and MSNBC ratings. They can still bash him but it’s not quite the same thing without him in the White House. The bashing is not resonating the way it used to. Hence, younger viewers are finding better things to do with their time. Watching CNN hosts bash Trump was … entertaining. It was news as entertainment. No Trump means it’s no longer entertaining. And in the United States of Entertainment, that translates into lower ratings.

Bernie, why do Democrats and the media only push for gun control when the perpetrators are white men? — Joe M.

Good question, Joe. Because if they made a big deal out of people in Chicago and Baltimore and other urban areas who use guns to kill people they don’t like … they’d have a certain kind of problem. And we both know what kind of problem that would be.

What’s your opinion on The Patriot act? Is it time to end it or do you believe it’s still pertinent today. –Tim H.

Too complicated for a simple answer. The law has many facets, Tim.  But I do know that parts of it give government too much control over our lives.

What do you think of CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria and of CNN’s Smerconish? — Bob H.

I think they’re both smarter shows than what’s usually on CNN. Do they lean left like everything else on CNN? Yes, but they’re opinion shows not hard news and the ideology isn’t overwhelming.

It appears the high heels are about to drop as the WH announced this week that the current administration is now required to be referred to as the “Biden/Harris administration” (or is it Harris/Biden?). Oh wise one, that raises the issue of who will play the minor role in the Harris-? administration and what criteria will be invoked. What are the odds that a white cis-male might be be selected? Do you think Mrs Clinton is lobbying for the post? Will Vegas or other locales provide odds and the opportunity to be part of the process? — Michael F.

I don’t know who will be playing the minor role, but I do know who’s playing the major role. Bernie Sanders. He lost the nomination and won the presidency. Way to go Bern!

Hi Bernie – I enjoyed your interview w/ Matt Lewis today. As I listened to both of you struggle for a term to describe cable news commentators. Here’s my suggestion. Call them all “performers”. — Hank G.

They’re certainly not journalists. They’re entertainers. Performers also works.

Two horrific mass shootings have occurred. This is tragic and vile. And of course the mainstream media has jumped on the white supremacy band wagon, despite the fact that the scum bag that shot up the Asian massage parlor employees publicly stated that his sick twisted motivation was to resist a sex addiction he has, and the other scum bag that shot up a supermarket is a non-white Syrian immigrant and (cue the left wing pearl clutching)—-A Muslim! It appears to me that both shootings were carried out by deranged individuals without a religious or bigoted agenda. Here’s what I want to know—-how can the mainstream media and left wing politicians seriously blame white supremacy for these incidents, and how can so many Americans (including Asian Americans) actually take any stock in any of this obviously bogus narrative? — “White Supremacy isn’t to blame!? So what!? Push the narrative anyway!” Regards From The Emperor

First, please go back and listen to this week’s Off the Cuff on this subject.  How can they blame white supremacy? Easy. They blame white supremacy on all sorts of things that have nothing to do with white supremacy. It is obviously bogus, as yo say … to you and to me … and I hope to more and more reasonable Americans.

To try and escape the huge lawsuits being filed against her by Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems (for spreading lies and false conspiracies about their voting machines), Sydney Powell’s lawyers are now arguing that “no reasonable person would conclude that [Powell’s] statements were truly statements of fact.”

In other words, her lawyers are admitting that she lied her butt off, but are saying she shouldn’t be held liable for defaming those companies because her lies were so outrageous that only total morons could have believed what she was saying. Of course, millions of people DID believe her including some who attacked the Capitol.

Do you think this legal strategy has any prayer of working? And if it does, won’t that just encourage even more outrageous forms of defamation? — Ben G.

I almost spit out my lunch when I read that her lawyer said, “No reasonable person would conclude that [Powell’s] statements were truly statements of fact.” But … it might work. It’s worked before, as I understand it in cases involved Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow. Judges have ruled that people know what they’re getting when they watch certain cable show. They know they’re not getting hard news facts. It’s crazy, but Powell might actually succeed.

I read an article yesterday by Gabby Giffords promoting gun control and the revision of the 2nd Amendment. I feel sad that she was a victim of some madman, but gun control is not the answer to an issue of the mental health of a handful of people, or less, annually. A madman goes nuts and a 100+ million law-respecting American gun owners are supposed to yield to more oppressive government regulation when past actions of the same have done zero in resolving the mental health issue. Here in El Salvador, gun laws are as restrictive as the US and guns are as pervasive, especially leftovers from the civil war, but there is never a madman that kills a bunch of folks in a supermarket, or a theater, or a school (we do have deaths from the US-imported MS-13). It’s interesting that many people here do not want to send their kids to college in the US because of the frequent killing sprees. Why the US has this problem when almost all other western countries do not? Do you think it is U.S. gun laws, or is it something unrelated to guns? — D.E.

Whatever one thinks of guns and gun rights, mentally ill people should not have guns — or access to them. Everyone I hope agrees with that. The problem is … how do we determine who’s dangerous before it’s too late. That’s where the serious thinking should be. How do we keep guns out of the hands of people who simply shown signs of mental problems — but not more than that? It’s not an easy one to deal with.

Bernie, Sidney Powell achieved a tremendous amount of publicity and notoriety (and became a hero to many on the political right) for attacking the legitimacy of the U.S. election using completely insane (and easily debunked) conspiracy theories. If her lawyers manage to win the defamation lawsuits filed against her, on grounds that what she was saying was too idiotic to be taken seriously, don’t you think it would make sense (and be legally safe) for YOU to start spreading insane conspiracy theories about big corporations in order to bring more attention to yourself and your Premium Membership? I think it would be worth a try (as long as you leave John Daly out of it). — John D.

You make an important point, John D, and as I believe I’ve said before … if you wear a hat nobody will notice that point. If I may suggest, the hat should be made of tin foil.


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.